20060043 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20130212

1
1
1
1
FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2012)
BRILES STREAM RESTORTION SITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 047, Contract No. 004809)
Construction Completed November 2007
66 0013
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
0 LS��l1 V LS
DP
Q
F,r--R > � 2013
NR - vvATffH 6—UAZ TY
WoUandr I Sicg„nswate• Branch
r "s-
-�J
05'ySteIi
E',11 111111C't'll 1Cl It
1'HI1l:HAM
January 2013
IFC 'Ew KZD
JAN 282013
AIC
Vq)4 * CMONT P ?pCpAV

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2012)
BRILES STREAM RESTORTION SITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 047, Contract No. 004809)
Construction Completed November 2007
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
it
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
January 2013
r4d~
Ffemein
PROGRAM

1
1
iJ
1 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20 METHODOLOGY
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
2 2 Stream Assessment
3 0 REFERENCES
Table of Contents
Appendices
APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure I Site Location Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attributes Table
APPENDIX B VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View
Tables 5A -5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table I Oa -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a -b Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
1
2
2
3
Bnles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Briles Stream Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site) is situated within the US Geological
Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03040103 and NC Division of Water Quality (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 Site stream, Unnamed Tributary to Jackson Creek (UTJC), became impaired
due to poor grazing management and human impacts This report (compiled based on NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports Version 1 4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 4 (2012) monitoring
The project goals are to
• Restore stable channel morphology capable of moving flows and sediment provided by its
watershed
• Restore riparian habitat and functions
• Improve water quality and reduce land and riparian vegetation loss resulting from lateral erosion
and bed degredation
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat
The above project goals were achieved through the following project objectives
• Build appropriate C4 and 134c channels with stable channel dimensions
• Plant a functional Bottomland Hardwood Forest community to create an effective riparian buffer
• Exclude livestock from riparian areas
• Preserve portions of the Site that currently function as a stable riverme system
During Year 4 (2012) monitoring eight vegetation plots were sampled Overall, the Site met or exceeded
vegetation success criteria, with an average of 385 steins- per -acre Six of the eight plots met or exceeded
the success criteria of 290 stems - per -acre (minimum stem count after 4 years) Vegetation Plots 2 and 7
were each one stem shy of meeting success criteria When counting natural recruits of silky dogwood
(Corpus anionaum), vegetation plot 2 exceeds success criteria Decreasing planted stem counts may be
attributed to competition from an increasing density of blackberry (Rubus sp ), particularly along reaches
UTJCI and UTJC3, in and adjacent to Vegetation Plots 3, 4, 7, and 8 Additionally, several stems of
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) were observed throughout the Site and will continue to be monitored
into monitoring year 5
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 No significant bank
erosion was recorded, and the geomorphic measurements are within the range of design parameters The
forded crossing on reach UTJC Reach 1 was observed to be stable and performing as constructed No
indicators of bankfull events were observed during the 2012 monitoring period, however, two bankful
events have previously been documented during the 2010 and 2011 monitoring seasions
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
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County North Carolina page 1
f
F
L

71
In
LJ
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 the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables and
figures within this report's appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found
in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCEEP website All raw
data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCEEP upon request
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Eight vegetation plots were established and marked after construction with one half -inch metal conduit
and pin flags The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site These plots were
surveyed in October for the Year 4 (2012) monitoring season using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 2 (Lee et al 2008) (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm), results are included in
Appendix C The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern
and Mid- Atlantic States (Weakley 2012)
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in October 2012 Five permanent cross - sections, three riffle
and two pool, were established and will be used to evaluate stream dimension, locations are depicted on
Figure 2 (Appendix B) Cross - sections are permanently monumented with one half -mch by 4 -foot PVC
posts at each end point Cross - sections were surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the stream
and banks including points on the adjacent floodplam, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of
water, and thalweg Data will be used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank
height ratios for each cross - section In addition, photographs and pebble counts will be conducted at each
permanent cross - section location annually
Two monitoring reaches totaling approximately 1700 - linear feet were established and will be used to
' evaluate stream pattern and longitudinal profile, locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B)
Longitudinal profile measurements include average water surface slopes, facet slopes, and pool -to -pool
spacing Twenty -three permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach,
' locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) In addition, visual stream morphology stability
assessments were completed in each of the monitoring reaches to assess the channel bed, banks, and in-
stream structures
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County North Carolina page 2

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 2 (online) Available http //cvs bio unc edu /methods htm
Weakley, Alan S 2012 Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States Available online at
http //www herbarium unc edu /WeakleysFlora pdf [September 28, 2012] University of North
Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc.
EEP Project Number 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012) '
January 2013
page 3

11
r�
u
APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attributes Table
Bnles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
BRILES CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2012
Project:
12- 004.12

7J
LI
1
J
11

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Briles Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 047)
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Buffer
Totals
1787
594
--
--
--
Pro ects Com onents
Project
Component/
Reach ID
Station Range
Existing
Linear
Footage/
Acreage
Priority
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Linear
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Comment
UTJC1
10 +00 -24 +25
1358
P2
Restoration
1425
11
UTJC2
24 +47— 28 +09
355
P3
Restoration
362
1 1
UTJC3
50+00-58+17
784
P3
Enhancement 1
817
15 1
UTJC4
28+88-33+96
508
--
Preservation
508
5 1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
1787
--
--
Enhancement I
817
--
Preservation
508
Totals
3112
--
Mitigation Units
2381 SMUs
--
--
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Briles Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 047)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 5 years 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 5 years 1 month
Number of Renortmg Years: 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
2003/2004
December 2005
Final Design — Construction Plans
Adam S iller (919) 783 -9214
September 2006
Construction
November 2007
Containerized, bare root and B &B plantings
Richard Goodwin (803) 929 -1181
November 2007
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
December 2007
January 2008
Year 1 Monitoring (2009)
March 2009
November 2009
Year 2 Monitoring 2010
October 2010
January 2011
Year 3 Monitoring 2011
August 2011
November 2011
Year 4 Monitoring (2012)
November 2012
December 2012
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Briles Stream Restoration Site (REP Project Number 0471
Designer
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center I1, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd Raleigh, NC 27609
Adam S iller (919) 783 -9214
Construction Contractor
L -J, Inc
220 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 405, Columbia, SC 29210
Richard Goodwin (803) 929 -1181
Survey Contractor
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd, Raleigh, NC 27609
Adam S iller 919 783 -9214
Planting Contractor
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program, Inc
9305 -D Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28270
Alan Peoples (704 ) 945 -0881
Seed Mix Source
Evergreen Seed Company
919 567 -1333
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery
(919) 524 -5304
Baseline Data Collection and Years 1 -3
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc
Monitoring Performers
3001 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513
Daren Pait (919) 677 -2000
Year 4 - 5 Monitoring Performer
Axiom Environmental, Inc
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 -215 -1693
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013 ,
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1
1
I
LJ
1
Table 4. Protect Attribute Table
Rrilee Ctream Reetnratinn Cite (FFP Prniert Nnmher 047)
Project Information
Project Name
Brtles Stream Restoration Site
Project County
Randolph
Project Area
13 4 acres
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ton
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin
USGS 8-digit HUC
03040103
USGS 14-digit HUC
03040103050030
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -07 -09
Project Drainage Area
0 6 square miles
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<I%
Watershed Type
Rural
Reach Summary
Information
Parameters
Reach UTJC1
Reach UTJC22
Restored /Enhanced Length linear feet
1425
362
Drainage Area(square miles
04
06
NCDWQ Index Number
13 -2 -2
13 -2 -2
NCDWQ Classification
C
C
Valle Type/Morpho logical Description
VIII /C4
VIII /B4c
Dominant Soil Series
Geor eville Silt Loam
Drainage Class
Well Drained
Soil H dric Status
Nonh dric
Sloe
00090
FEMA Classification
Zone C
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
<5
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U S — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
CZMA /CAMA
No
FEMA Flood lam Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Bnles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
' EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Ll
APPENDIX B '
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA '
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View
Tables 5A -5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ,
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs '
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
i
1
Bnles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013 '
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

i
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
/ Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
BRILES CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Date:
October 2012
Project:
12- 004.12
= = = = = M = = = r = = = = r = = =

w= m m == m= m m == m= m= m

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC1
Assessed Length 1425
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
6
Adjusted %
100%
Number
Number with Footage with
for
Major
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
6
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etabon
1 Berl
I Vertical Stability
1 Agaradation Bar formabon/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
_
9
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to Include point bars)
i
2 Deoradabon - Evidence of downcubing
-
2
3
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
12
12
100%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
12
12
-
100%
2 Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
12
12
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
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%
`."f�r'✓v ` 1�- i�Ye'�
�"
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
!�
2
60
98%
0
0
98%
scour and erosion
t
Banks undercutfoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
'
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
' -
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
+yin^' ?��
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
�'!4lf
2
60
98%
0
0
98%
-V'> 4. y
!L
�
c °Engineered
11 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
6
6
E7
r
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
6
6
100%
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
6
6
100%
a
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
6
6
'
i
100%
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio Rootwads / logs some cover at base flow
6
6h
°
100 /o
116 providing
Bnles (047) D=meber 2012 Y-4 of S

r = = = = = M = = = = = = = = M M
Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC2
Assessed Length 362
Bnin(047)Dc nbcr2012 Yav4 of
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with for
Mayor
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aaaradation 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%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth? 1 6)
2
2
100%
2 Lenoth appropnate ( >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%
6y
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
2
2
100%
r: I- - - 'd ..-"1T S.w' c -
ell �i�'} '.Z ��
_ 4"
i1' Lt�
-
iZf
rY
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 undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT Include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat
A
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
{6�� ,_.`���'�,i' +;yr�
"ex's }��t �',it y'�lrr`ToEas
�'. �' ��. �
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
-
-
v
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
� I
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)
-
-
N/A
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio? 16 RootwadsAogs providing some cover at base flow
-
_
N/A
t
Bnin(047)Dc nbcr2012 Yav4 of

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC3
Assessed Length 817
t
Bnle (047) D=mber2012 Y­4 of 5
M M = = = = == M r = == M M M M= M
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-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aaaradation Bar formation growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow lateraly (not to include point bars)
�^ P1��i
-�;r
� pp �
-v�r —yap y
1 1r
-p
� gyy�
0
0
100%
u"
2 Degradation Evidence of downcutting
i-=f`,.� ^k 4
0
0
100%
J r'
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
7
7
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
7
7
100%
Condition
—
2 Lencith appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
7
7
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
F.1weg Position
1 ThaWeg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
7
7
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
7
7
100%
. 'R1x Y
mom�Mn'�xirL°iJO:
±� _fya4er`
-'F♦ y it
r�'Y^r'
_p
'^
M4�.: 1 Y3..':
�;:._. on;. ®
"'<'r ®c �i
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Erodmg
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
®9'2
n *"
'` M1
0
0
0
100%
0 0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
�' „? =1+i_ r <' i-
0
0
100%
0 0
100%
and are providing habitat
.
; '�
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
,�r,Yt`' ..i
0
0
100%
0 0
100%
O
0
100%
O 0
100%
�Hf}°tals
3
3 Eniineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
'' sF
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion w5thin the structures extent of influence does not exceed
4
v
t
100%
16% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
)
,i
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth Rootwads logs base Flow
4
4
, t ,tea v` >rn;v;i'; fi r - -
r' ?'
100%
1
ratio > 16 / providing some cover at
t
Bnle (047) D=mber2012 Y­4 of 5
M M = = = = == M r = == M M M M= M

= M = M = = = = = = r = = = = = M r =
Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC4
Assessed Length 508
Bnle (047) Dcccinbcr21112 YrirJ of
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-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aopradabon- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2 Degradation Evidence of downcutbng
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)
—
—
N/A
2 Bank
t 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 sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrally
Structures physically intact wrath 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
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)
—
—
N/A
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base flow
_
—
N/A
Bnle (047) Dcccinbcr21112 YrirJ of

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
rtantea
B
Mapping I CCPV I Number of I Combined I Planted I
1 Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0 1 acres See Figure 2 3 004 1 05%
2 Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria 0 1 acres See Figure 2 S 012 14%
1113 11
Total 11 1 1 9%
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year 1 0 25 acres See Figure 2 0 000 00%
Easement Acreage` 14
% of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold I Depiction I Polygons I Acrea a I Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1 1000 SF I See Fgure 2 1 0 1 000 1 00%
I5 Easement Encroachment Areas' IAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) I none I See Figure 2 I 5 I 011 I 13% I
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 stem (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 concernfinterest are listed below The list of high concern
spores 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 Microstegwm in the herb layer will not Iikley 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
B.I. (047) December 2012 Yeah or 5
M M = = M = M M = = M M = M M

= = = = m = = = = = = = = = = = = w =

1
u
1
Briles Creek
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2012
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
' EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Briles Creek
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2012
(continued)
1
u
1
1
1
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013 '
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1
1
1
Briles Creek
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2012
(continued)
g �
ty Photo
Point 7a
Briles Stream Site (final)
EEP Project Number 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

Briles Creek
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2012
(continued)
C
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013 '
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1
Briles Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2012
Tl7 A
Wiles Stream Site (final)
' EEP Project Number 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

Briles Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2012
(continued)
1
1
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013 '
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1 APPENDIX C
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
' EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
'
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
' EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Briles Stream Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Numher 047)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
75%
2
No*
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
No
8
Yes
*tsased on planted stems alone, this plot doesn't meet success criteria, however, when including naturally recruited stems of silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum) this plot was well -above 290 stems per acre
Bnles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

== M M M= M M = == M M =! W
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Briles Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 047)
Report Prepared By
Cora Fa um
Date Prepared
11/20/2012 12 42
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2012 -A mdb
database location
C \Documents and Settm s\ erkmson \Deskto
computer name
PHILLIP -LT
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Pro j, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted
stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data live stems, dead stems, missing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by e for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are
excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------------
Project Code
47
project Name
Briles
Description
Stream Restoration in Randolph county, North Carolina
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
2628
stream-to-edge width ft
50
area (sq m
2441245
Required Plots calculated
8
Sampled Plots
8
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

1
l
l �
T�kl. D T..-I -A DI-- Cf- 1- D1^f -A Cnarine
Briles Stream Restoration Site EEP Project Code 47
Current Plot Data (MY4 2012)
Annual Means
047 -01 -0 001
047 -01 0002
047 -01 -0003
047 -01 - 0004
047 -01 - 0005
047 -01 - 0006
047 -01 -0007
047 -01 -0008
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (20 0) 1
MY2 (2009)
MY1 (2008)
MYO (2007)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol -S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all IT
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P ll
7
PnoLS
P -all
7
PnoLS
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
15
15
15
15
15
15
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
3
3
2
4
4
51
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
10
18
18
5
16
16
17
351
35
19
45
45
19
44
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Fraxinus nigra
black ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
21
15
15
15
13
13
13
16
16
16
27
27
27
26
26
26
uglans
walnut
Tree
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
11
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
71
7
3
31
3
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
211
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
31
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
3
31
3
8
8
8
11
11
it
11
11
11
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
11
1
5
5
5
5
7
7
5
7
7
3
3
4
4
3
3
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
1
2
6
6
9
9
12
12
10
10
11
11
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
3
3
$88
1
1
1
11
1
1
2
5
5
1
1
1
9
9
10
10
11
11
Sambucus nigra
JEuropean black elderb
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
Stem count
14
15
15
6
14
14
8
9
12
12
81
13
13
12
121
12
6
6
6
141
14
14
77
941
94
401
631
63
55
961
85
135
135
85
135
135
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
8
8
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
r74
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
6
6
6
7
7
5
5
5
8
10
10
5
6
6
6
6
6
4 4
4
6
6
6
20 20
20
9 11
it
8 10
10
7 10
1
8
11
11
'SCE .
607
607
566.6
566.6
313.7
323.7
323.7
$
485.6
485.6
323.7
526.1
526.1
485.6
485.
242.8
242.8
566.6
566.6
470
470
318.7
318.
485.6
485.
682.9
682.
682.91
682.9
Color for Density
y less than 10%
Fab to meetm#WrOh*rits, by less than 10%
by more than 10%

r
11

11
LJ
APPENDIX D
' STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
' Tables IOa -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b Monitoring Data
Briles Stream Site (final)
EEP Project Number 047
Randolph County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

r,
n

643
-
t Bankfull Elevation XS1 -2012 --w— Bed Elevation XS1 -2012
Bed Elevation
XS1 -2011
Bed Elevation XS3 -2010
w.
642
Bed Elevation
XS1 -2009
- -
Bed Elevation
XS3 -2007 (AB)
±
641
- - - ..... ... _-- - --- - - -- -- -- - + -- - -- -- --
I
I i
640
-
—
639
- - - -- - ... . ...... .._ ..- _....-
c
0
d
638
-
100
90
1 -- --
--
—
- -
80
�l mo
90
--
�
C
70
��
80
637
-
_.__.
60
j
70
u 50
i
60
a
i
0
m
d
40
i
- - - -_
50
636
r
a
30
,
/•
40
E
u
.. -
�•
30
63S
-
zo
zo
10 10
o
,� -
o
634
p N N O N
pp
v 00 T D N eV �0 O N ro l D N N 0° O
O
20
40
60
O N N N Ill ~
O N 00 .� l0 N m a la0 O w O IO N O N N
Station (ft)
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
XSl
2009
MYl
Riffle
14.6
16 1.1
XS1
2009
MY1 11.73 31
XSl
2010
MY2
Riffle
14.5
16.5 1.1
X51
2010
MY2 8 22.3
XS1
2011
MY3
Riffle
14.3
16.2 1.1
XS1
2011
MY3 7.84 29.15
XS1
2012
MY4
Riffle
13.5
16.4 1.2
XS1
2012
MY4 34.8 104

643
t Bankfull
Elevation XS2 -2012
Bed Elevation XS2 -2012
--ft— Bed Elevation
XS2 -2011
Bed Elevation XS2 -2010
642
- - - - -. Bed Elevation
XS2 -2009
— — Bed Elevation XS2 -2007
(AB)
641
640
639
—
c
0
35
— _
_ - .
100
W
638
i
/ • � � � ux xov
�
90
30
-
_ ux xoxo
i�
u+xoza
80
7ti
637
25
169 2009
xsz xon
70
c
G20
�
rsx xozo
60
�
d
— • — lax zoxo
SO
636
_.._
a 2s
40
�
30
v
20
� �
4A
i
- �
20
635
s
—
10
0
N Vt O O N d n 00 M 4D 4p N N 7 O w O tD N V w 00
O •• '� O N In 1� N "� N R O m. w N to vl O O O
N M N I N V V
V N N N 4011 ~ 4D N 6 N m a t0 01 N O
0
634
N T ti N^
In o
0
20
40
60
Station (ft)
Particle Size (mm)
ID Year
Phase
Facet Type Wbkf Abkf
Dbkf
ID
Year
Phase d50(mm) d84(mm)
XS2 2007
AB
Pool
15.9 18.9
1.2
XS2
2007
AB 0.14 3.6
XS2 2009
MY1
Pool
17.6 22.5
1.3
XS2
2009
MY1 28.2 62.7
XS2 2010
MY2
Pool
16.6 19.4
1.2
XS2
2010
MY2 38.5 89.6
XS2 2011
MY3
Pool
16.3 19.8
1.2
XS2
2011
MY3 3.2 57.7
XS2 2012
MY4
Pool
19.4 23.2
1.2 1
XS2
2012
MY4 -- --

639
I
t� Bankfull Elevation XS3 -2012 Bed Elevation XS3 -2012
fi
I
f Bed Elevation XS3 -2011
Bed Elevation XS3 -2010
638
- - - - -- Bed Elevation XS3 -2009
— — Bed Elevation XS3 -2007 (AB)
y
637
-
—
r'
636
635
—— -- —
c
0
634
— -
U
W
� —__,
—__._
90
100
633
8o
_,_�_�' i
90
70
7
80
Y - -•
16 01
—
60L
xs3mu
70
632
50
60
so
A
40
-- - - -3m
631
a
40
30
u
30
20
20
630
10
10
o
0
N Ill N O O N
o ti N N N O N N
1� OD W N Ul ? O W O W N a pp W
N m v p O W V D N 00 C
ry m v o 0 0
m
629
0 20
40
60
V N N N N
t0 e-I
O
a W N m V O W O Ip N N^
N ° NO�rvm °ry
an O
Station (ft)
Particle Size (mm) ~
ID Year
Phase
Facet Type Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
ID
Year
Phase d50(mm) d84(mm)
XS3 2007
AB
Pool
14.2
16.2
1.1
XS3
2007
AB -- 1.05
XS3 2009
MY1
Pool
14.1
17.9
1.3
XS3
2009
MY1 -- 11.2
XS3 2010
MY2
Pool
13.6
16
1.2
XS3
2010
MY2 0.04 1.4
XS3 2011
MY3
Pool
18.9
19.7
1
XS3
2011
MY3 0.3 36.6
XS3 2012
MY4
Pool
12.9
16.1
1.3
XS3
2012
MY4 -- --

634
y
,
(' I''
+ Bankfull Elevation XS4 -2012 --w— Bed Elevation X54 -2012
'���
11111
t Bed Elevation X54 -2011
Bed Elevation X54 -2010
633
------ Bed Elevation X54 -2009
— — Bed Elevation XS4 -2007 (AB)
632
•��
`
I
w
-.
631
40
100
,
W
630
- — - - -- _._.._
-.. --
i�
35
- 90
80
i
- 70
c 25 -
60
=
629
0
d 20
50
a
!
_
u
E
- 4o
�
E
SO
30
628
�
20
5 .
- 10
---;—
o
o
NO VI an O O O N N,w v laO 001 N•0rN,M tN~f1 O p p
0 N 1
.i f(1 N tp N VI V
627
N N
v N N O tl1 00 .-+ .bi N H1 V tp 01 N 00 1I1 l0 ti a
0 20
40 60
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 3.5
XS4 2009
MY1
Riffle
15 20.2
1.4
XS4
2009
MY1 12.7 42.2
XS4 2010
MY2
Riffle
14.5 19.1
1.3
XS4
2010
MY2 20.4 69.2
XS4 2011
MY3
Riffle
18.6 22.6
1.2
XS4
2011
MY3 30.9 68.2
XS4 2012
MY4
Riffle
15.4 21.8
1.4
XS4
2012
MY4 42.5 84
'���
11111

633
Bankfull
Elevation
X55
-2012
--w— Bed
Elevation X55 -2012
l
t Bed Elevation
X55
-2011
Bed
Elevation X55 -2010
1-
632 " "'— Bed Elevation
XSS
-2009
— — Bed
Elevation X55 -2007 (AB)
631
I
I
_
' I
630 — --
Y
W
C
O
629
°—'
w I
so
100
70
�
90
628
so
60
Kssmo
assmm
_
c 50
60 e
627
0
/
'
�m
v 40
50
r
a 30
qp
�
626
30
�
20
—
�
—
zo
20
i
10
625
0
0
A
4O
60 HO
tND N N 1011 O N T n ti .�-1 AN1 v b 001 N O�0 N e01 11 O O O
O N p N rl T N tD N 111 �
O •"�
O 20
�� O N N
V N N N 1I1 m tp eV III V 10 001 N W N INO N O
Station
(ft)
c
Particle Size (mm)
ID Year Phase Facet Type Wbkf Abkf Dbkf
ID Year Phase d50(mm) d84(mm)
XS5 2007 AB Riffle 14 21.4 1.5
XS5 2007 AB -- 0.37
XS5 2009 MY1 Riffle 12.7 18.2 1.4
XS5 2009 MY1 5.9 15.3
XS5 2010 MY2 Riffle 13.6 19.1 1.4
XS5 2010 MY2 15 38.6
XS5 2011 MY3 Riffle 16.9 23 1.4
XS5 2011 MY3 7.1 54.6
XS5 2012 MY4 Riffle 15.3 22.2 1.5
XS5 2012 MY4 41.3 79

644
642
640
638
c
0
W 636
634
632
630 '1- 1000
BRILES REACH 1 STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012
XS -I- X
Water Surface Slope
0.0062
Bankfull Slope
0.0062
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station (ft)
■ In- Stream Structures — — — Water Surface Elevation o Bankfull Elevation Bed Elevation -2012 (MY4
Bed Elevation -2011 (MY3) Bed Elevation -2010 (MY2) Bed Flevation -2009 (MY 1) — — - Bed Elevation -2007 (AB)
1700
M M M M M M M = = = == M = = = == i

BRI LES REACH 1 STREAM THALWEG PROFILE 2012 (CONT.)
Water Surface Slope 1
0.0062
1
0.0062
1
WWI
i��i� _!•ii�ii�iii�iii�ii�iii�iii�ii� iii
LW MR NF 'No P
i�ii�ii►t��� Iam7t /I 7" i? qu I Ow, W �3��il�iii�iii�ii� iii
i�ii�iii� ► \� %��ak -- �� - ,6", -W., Qt..
i��i�iii�ii�il �i�iii�ii�li��`' \ \� = �•', �����711t�� iii
i��i�iii�ii�il �i�iii�ii�iii.� " /is1 •. �.... ��lr�'���.�Z1�i
1 r S y
�I� f
'll'

w�wwwwwwwww� �wwwwww� - - - -�.
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwww.
wwwwwwwwwwww . � . � � . �wwwwww. ■
wwwwwwwwwwww • �wwwwww■ Water Surface Slope ■
wwwwwwwwwwww_ -�_ �Jww ww ww. ■
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
0.0057
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ■
wwwwwr •wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ■
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ■
wwww�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww� .wwww. o p • ■
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
005 1
wwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ■
wwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ■
wwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�������
www`■., Rya _r�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwww
wwwwi���w��wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwv. -- ��r' w��. u�• wawa��wwwwwwawwwwwwwwwawwwwwwwaw
'A m ANN.. : -mow ="9b-A .r��wwwwwwwawwwwawwwwwwwwwawwaw
w�I���.iY__w`iaL7w��iwiww www�wwwwww wwwww wwwww
wwi�1'`� ��� -_mow ��ws7w�rlt a'�wwwwwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww
wwww r � L7wwwl�wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwww����w����� ���L7�w�swwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwww -v.�r� = �1•i�w� . �w`:• �\f• �71 r7TT11••��•r7r�7wwwwwwwiwi��iw
wwwwwww��i a � � �►�w��w��wwawwww�� wwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwww ����ww►�wwwaw _ ���awwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �.\ \w w��I� . ter. sir, ���� ._AIL\ www wwww iw�iw
wwwwwwwwwwww WA�� ��•�� ���,�. �w;�wwwwwwwwwwr�w
wwwwwwwwwwww �w \�w�J� i�►��-wwl��w� \��601"�J��I���J ■iww wwwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �w \\ �.I�w..��_�� /w��.i���.��ww wwwww ww�lww
wwwwwwwwwwww �w�� �iw._��w;� �iww�����_�www:ww■.�ww9�ww
wwwwwwwwwwww �w�.��_•/www��wwww� �� ��wwwww /wwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �ww��wuwwwwwwwww� ��! �•- -.�— �wwww�i� www
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwww�wwwww�: ����_ w.�ww�i� www
wwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwwwwwwwwww ���► �,�wwwr�r� www
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwwwwwwwwww ��� w��wwwi� wwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwwwwwwwwww �� �►�wwww�.•wwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwwwwwwwwww �w� w������� wwww
wwwwwwwwwwww �wwwwwwwwwwwwwww �ww����wi��� wwww
wwwwwwww�wwwwwwwwwwwiwwwwwwwwww�w �w��wwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww����wr� wwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww��� wwwww
wwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwww��� wwwww
wwwwwwwwwww■�i, wwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww wwwww

= 1 IM m m = = m = = = = = = m m
Briles Creek
�. ■■ 1111111■■ 1111111■■ Illlllli ■IIIIIIIr���1�1111��1111111
. ;
■■1111111
■■1111111■■
1111111■
■1111111
■1111111
■■1111111
■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■
■111!;��■
■1111111■
■1111111
,. ,
■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■11�IIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
.,. ,
■■
1111111■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■1111111
■■1111111
,. ,
■■
1111111■■
1111111■■
1111111
■��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111��!�i
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,.,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■11��III
■
■IIIIIIIA
■1111111■
■1111111
,..
■■
1111�����11�
!!!���1�11�!I
■!�Ill�ll�r
■1111111■
■1111111
,. ,
. , ■■ 11l �.. �.. ad1l �IIII��IIi�III���Glll� ,�,'�1111111��1111111
„� 1111
MF
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

m = = = = Ml = = = = = = r = r m
Briles Creek
, . ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■ ■1111111���1lIIII� ■111111
, .
■
■1111111■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■11111��■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
, ,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■1111�II■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
, ..
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■111�III■
■1111111■
■1111111
.
,.,
■
■1111111■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ,
■
■1111111■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
, ,
■■
1111111
■
■1111111��1111111��1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
,..
■
■1111111��1l�iii�i�1������Il�il
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,,
■
■11l�!!!��IIIIIII■
■1111111
■
■1!!i�ill■
■1111111■
■1111111
,., ■■ 1111111 ■!lli�lll!!■ 1111111 ■ ■�111111i�l�1111111■ ■1111111
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
WIN
MET-
m = = = = Ml = = = = = = r = r m

m m ' = = = = m = = = = = = = = m m
Briles Creek
. , ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■ ■11111�!���lillll���111111
, .
.
■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111©
■1111111
, ,
.
■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■111!111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ,
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
.,..
■
■1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■1��11111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,. ,
■
■1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■■/111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,..
■■
1111111
■
■1111111��1111111��l111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,,
.
■■
1111111��������������������1�11111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,. ,
■
■Ili����v�lllllll■
■1111111
■
■Ili�ill■
■1111111■
■1111111
,, ,
,., ■■ IIIIIIIAQIi�1111��1111111���111111l r!!�IIIIIII��1111111
„f �„
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled to
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 to -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare)
3 Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplam area to 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 the n exceeds 3
IBnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5
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
T
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7617
8419
8018
85
152
117
288
893
4
90
131
126
180
37
6
154
134
138
142
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
06
1 4
1 4
22
0 653
4
09
1 2
1 2
1 5
02449
6
1 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1 5
20
1 8
28
0 556
4
1 3
1 6
1 6
2
02872
6
1 5
1 9
20
20
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
1092
1207
11 49
15 1
176
182
188
1 626
4
104
15 3
13 5
223
50408
6
170
159
16 1
16 2
2
Width /Depth Ratio
3 8
163
82
449
1847
4
76
11 5
97
18
44922
6
140
11 3
11 9
124
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1 8
3 5
3 7
47
1 204
4
1 3
75
84
144
5 361
6
>2 2
27
3 1
>3 5
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 7
1 9
1 8
0 408
4
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
00
6
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
46
44
115
14091
19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 004
0 008
0 012
0 003
004
0 076
0 005
0 009
0 012
0 001
001
001
0 016
10006
19
Pool Length (ft)
28
108
15
30
7
12
10
27
89069
17
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1 23
1
412
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
1287
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
57
145
268
20
50
28
41
42 55
11 03
14
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.9
67
1
16
1.5
32
2
3
3 4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
100
70
148
105
170
78
92
1 91 110
1 13 15
6
6w= Meander Width Ratio
1 7
59
36
13
5
22
3 7
4 1 4 3
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f2
069888
058344
071136
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
1
53 6750893
44 47063129
54 67420176
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
1
1205568
128 0916
1431612
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c /E4/C4/5
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3 805
4 206
4 005
1 8-36
3-38
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
12
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0 004 -0 012
0 007 -0 012
0 005
00063
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.005
00057
313ankfull 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 to
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 to -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare)
3 Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplam area to 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 the n exceeds 3
IBnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
I = 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 floodplam area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace nser /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 the n exceeds 3
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5
1
s
1
1
1
1
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
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)
9 068
10 02
9 545
229
1
90
95
100
2
143
15 8
I
Floodprone Width (ft)
37
1
13
17
21
2
19
32
>60
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
121
1 337
1 274
08
1
1 1
12
1 2
2
1 2
1 3
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
22
1
1 3
1 4
1 5
2
25
23
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1438
159
1514
188
1
104
106
107
2
170
19 8
1
Width /Depth Ratio
279
1
80
100
120
2
120
126
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1 6
1
1 3
1 8
23
2
2 3
>3
I
'Bank Height Ratio
2
1
10
1-0
1 0
2
10
10
I
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
150
232
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 004
0 008
0 012
001
0 015
002
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)
05
094
1 38
2
Pool Spacing (ft)i
1
30
1
59
1
1
28
1
86
1
256
1
1
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
67
1.3
44
2
7
28
3.4
3 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
100
96
136
72
215
45
63
81
2
Meander Width Ratiol
6mmmm�-
Transport parameters
I
I
I
1 1 7
1
1 1 59 1
1 45
5 1
1
5
1
1
17
1 1 8
1 1 9
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
039936
063648
0454272
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
29 9589873
48 6910315
34 26324512
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /mz
1205568
1280916
8438976
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c /E4/C4/5
134c
64c
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3 867
4 274
4 071
21
3-38
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
5856
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
006
00047
BF slope (ft/ft)
006
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
I = 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 floodplam area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace nser /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 the n exceeds 3
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5
1
s
1
1
1
1

�
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
1111111M
—
-®
RI % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
®®
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
14
27
47
7
5®
®
®
® ® ®__-®®®®S-�
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 /dip /dlsp(mm)
03
12
61
106
619
®®-----®
M®--®
2Entrenchment Class <1 5/ 1 5 -1 99 / 2 0-4 9/ 5 0 -9 9/ >10
®
®
®®-
M
M
M
M
-H=MIM
Incision Class <1 2 / 1 2 -1 49 / 1 5 -1 99 / >2 0
®
MMM
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
1 = Riffle Run, Pool, Glide, Step Sift/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 compansons 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 nffles 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
IBnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5

Table 10b.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Briles Stream Restoration Site /047 - UTJC2 (362 feet)
Parameter I Pre - Existing Condition I Reference Reach(es) Data I Design I As- built/Baseline
. � .: . • . ' �' ®� ' • ��� ���---� 0�0�000 � � 00000
.. • •
MINFIMMIRIMINI..
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
1 = Riffle Run Pool Glide, Step Sift/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 compansons
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5

ri
L�
n
Ld
ril
11
Table l l a Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —Cross Sections)
Brlles Stream Restoration Site /047
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool) I
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull ele_v_atwn'
Base
MY1
I MY2
MY3 I
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
6372
637216372
6372 16372
637
637
637
637
6373
16328-
6328
6328 16328
6328
6299
6299
6299
6299
6299
6289
628916289
6289
629
Bankfull Width (ft)
134
1647
142
1428
135
1536
1704
1612
1625
194
142
1385
1669
1891
129
158
1962
2134
186
154
140
1612
1554
1689
153
Floodprone Width (ft)
>48
4905
5028
4904
55
6.0271,
57 95
5951
5749
NA
38
4242
4354
14614
42
>60
6803
6795
6789
70
7865
787
7845
7837
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 2
1 06
1 14
1 13
1 2
1 2
1 22
1 18
1 22
1 2
1 1
1 25
1 16
1 04
1 3
23
121
1 12
1 22
14
1 5
1 4
1 42
1 36
1 5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
19
208
237
223
22
22
236
233
236
25
20
251
25
277
26
13
278
28
272
3
35
28
279
285
29
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fl?)
159
1 1746
1616
1621
164
189
2086
1901
1984
232
162
173
1933
1972
161
198
2365
239
2261
21 8
214
2261
2202
2297
222
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
11 3
1 1554
1246
12641
11 1
1249
1397
1366
1332
NA
124
11 08
14391
1818
103
126
1621
1905
1525
108
883
11 51
1 1094
1242
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>3 5
2 96
3 54
3 43
4 1
3 92
3 4
3 69
3 54
NA
2 7
3 O6
261
244
33
>3 0
347
318
365
46
571
488
505
464
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1
1
1 0
1 0
1 1
1
1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1
1
10
10
1 0
1
1
ft
Cross Sectional Area between end ins 5
67
67
67
67
84
84
84
84
--
146
146
146
146
1 --
86
86
86
86
82
82
1 82
82
-
d50 (mm)
0 14
1 31
8
784
348
027
627
3871
317
--
10062
11 17
004
03
1 --
017
4224
20 4
30 92
42 5
0 062
1525
1 1499
708
41 3
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 protect 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 "
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5

anaaeo ceiis maicace mac mese wn0 ryplcany not De nnea in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = RrfFle, Run, Pool, Glide Step Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4 = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5
C
1
t
IF
LJI
I
I
I
t
t
Exhibit Table 11 b.1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Briles Stream Restoration Site /047 - UTJC1 1,425 feet
Parameter
I Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Min
Mean
Med I Max
SD 1 n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n
Min
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad I Max
SD' n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Dimenswn and Substrate - Rtffle onty
Mean
Mad
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
134
139
® j 142
2
139
152
® 165
® 2
142
154
167
2
143
166
189
®
2
129
132
135
® 2
Floodprone Width (ft)
38
43
® -48
2
424
457
® 491
2
435
469
503
®
2
461
476
490
®
2
42
485
® 55
® 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
12
® 1 2
2
1 06
1 16
1 25
® 2
11 14
1 15
116
®
2
1 0
1 1
1 1
®
2
12
1 3
® 13
® 2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1 9
20
20
® 2
208
23
251
2
237
244
25
®
2
22
2.5
28
2
22
24
® 26
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
15 9
16 1
162
® 2
173
174
175
® 2
162
177
193
®
2
162
180
197
2
161
163
® 164
2
Width /Depth Ratio
113
119
124
® 2
1 1 1
133
155
2
125
134
144
2
126
154
182
2
99
1 106
11 3
® j 2
Entrenchment Ratio
27
3 1
-3 5
® 2
298
302
306
2
261
308
354
®
2
24
29
34
2
33
37
41
® 2
'Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
1 0
® 2
1 0
1 0
1 0
2
1 0
1 1
0
1 1
2
1 0
1 0
1 0
2
1 0
1 0
® 1 0
2
Riffle Length (ft)
20
46
44 115
409095 19
191
384
789
_
_
44
186
128 697
165 34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00014
00095
0.0102 00163
00061 19
000535
001012
003324
®_
00000
00106
00090 00532
00103 34
Pool Length (ft)
7
12
10 27
8906926 17
140
428
861
_
_
79
205
185 424
95 37
Pool Max depth (ft)
®
®
®_
®®
01
08
®
16
__
22
24
24 26
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
82
78 157
457703 17
140
765
1787
-
_
89
37
319 95 1
205 39
Pattern
ChannelBeltwidth(ft)
31
51
56 60
128712 5
7Pattem data w ll not typically be collected unless
visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate signficant
shrfts from baseline
Radius of Curvature (ft)
28
41
42 55
11 0303 14
-
_
- _
_ _
Rc Bankfull wndth ft/ft
( )
2
3
3 4
� _
-
_
- _ _
Meander Wavelength (ft)
78
92
91 110
13 1498 6
Meander Width Ratiol
22
37
41 43
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
E /C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1432
1432
1432
1432
1432
Sinuosity (ft)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
_00063
00062
BF slope (ft/ft)
00057
----
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be %
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
anaaeo ceiis maicace mac mese wn0 ryplcany not De nnea in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = RrfFle, Run, Pool, Glide Step Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4 = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Bnles (047) December 2012 Year 4 of 5
C
1
t
IF
LJI
I
I
I
t
t

Ll
r--1
I�
n
t
w
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
1 Bnles (047) Nc ber 2012 Year 4 of 5
Exhibit Table 11 b 2 Monitoring
Briles Stream Restoration
Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Site /047 - UTJC2 362 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 6
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean I
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
1 5 8
1
1961
1
21 3
1
186
1
154
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>60
1
68
1
68
1
679
1
70
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 3
1
121
1
1 12
1
12
1
14
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2 3
1
278
1
28
1
27
1
3
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
198
1
237
1
239
1
226
1
218
1
Width /Depth Ratio
126
1
162
1
191
1
153
1
108
1
Entrenchment Ratio
>3
1
347
1
318
1
37
1
46
1
'Bank Height Ratio
l 0
1
1 0
1
10
1
1 0
1
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
150
232
2
160
319
564
368
426
41 8
499
57
4
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
001
001
001
2
10 0109
0 0123 1
1001471
0 0104
0 0110
0 0108
0 0118
0 0007
3
Pool Length (ft)
8
11
14
2
1 505
81 3
1
1 1121
1
196
301
273
493
128
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless casual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
1
Pool Spacing ft
P g ()
256
1
9
99 2
29 4
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 28 29 30 2
Radius of Curvature (ft) 44 53 48 66 3
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft) 28 34 3 42
Meander Wavelength (ft) 45 63 81 2
Meander Width Ratio 17 1 8 19
6m
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
E/C4
Channel Thaiweg length (ft)
353
353
353
353
353
Sinuosity (ft)
105
1 05
1 05
1 05
105
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00047
00057
BF slope ( ft/ft)
00043
----
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% I Sa% I G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / 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
1 Bnles (047) Nc ber 2012 Year 4 of 5

Fil
t
1
1
w

t
Ll
1
1
APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12 Verification of Bankf ill Events
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1
r
P-�

1 Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
JJ
I
FJ
t
Rrilac Qtream Reetnratinn Cite (FF.P Prniect Number 0471
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo if
available)
)
July 6, 2010
NA
Rack lines observed along channel bank
NA
April 19, 2011
NA
Rack lines observed along channel bank
SP3 /SP4
2012 Monitoring
NA
No bankfull events were documented for 2012 monitorin .
NA
Briles Stream Site (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 047 January 2013
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

1
'il
�7
1
1
i
I I
1�
1
I[]