20061521 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20130212

i y_t
OAKLEY CROSSROADS
STREAM & BUFFER RESTORATION
MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 2 OF 5)
Pitt County, North Carolina
SCO Project Number 050659701
EEP Project Number 273
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
FIF- 7'
J
1 ' / L 0 t3
- WiJER
A i'K
r~
Ecosystem
111 CIA
Status of Plan: Final
Construction Completed: 2011
Data Collected: 2012
Submission Date: November 2012
A
WQ 1
66 -/ 5� (
RECEIVED
�aN k 1 2013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

'k --
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided pnntmg)

-7
Prepared by:
1.
I
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606

I-
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided pnntmg)

J
Table of Contents
10 Executive Summary / Project Abstract 1
20 Methodology 3
21 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability 3
211 Dimension 3
21 1 Pattern and Profile 3
212 Substrate 3
21 1 Sediment Transport 3
22
23
231
232
30
40
Vegetation
Hydrology
Wetland
Stream
References
Appendices
Appendix A
— Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Appendix B —
Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C —
Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D
— Stream Survey Data
Appendix E —
Hydrologic Data
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5)
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273)
3
4
4
4
5
7
Page i
November 2012

L-
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page n
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

__7
1.0 Executive Summary / Project Abstract
The overall goal of the Oakley restoration project was to improve water quality and wildlife habitat by
restoring a stable stream and riparian buffer system to the project site The objectives of the project were
to restore stream stability and improve aquatic habitat, restore riparian buffer along the stream channel,
preserve riverme wetlands, establish a wildlife corridor, divert an unbuffered agricultural ditch system
from the stream channel to an irrigation pond, and establish native vegetation within the permanent
conservation easement The project included 3,789 linear feet of stream restoration and 329 linear feet of
stream enhancement Priority II stream restoration involved restoring raffle /pool sequences, the
installation of structures, and floodplam grading to improve floodplam connectivity and provide diverse
instream habitat Enhancement II stream restoration involved the planting of native hardwood trees and
shrubs Also, native riparian buffer planting took place on over 18 acres of the site, and an additional 137
acres of wetland was preserved The project will result in 3,931 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 16 9
acres of buffer mitigation units (BMUs), and 0 27 acres of wetland mitigation units (WMUs)
The Monitoring Year 2 [MY2] stem counts within each of the nine (9) vegetative monitoring plots are
included in Tables 7 and 9 in Appendix C Located within the Tar - Pamlico River basin, this project was
instituted prior to October 11, 2007 and is therefore eligible for riparian buffer restoration credit up to 200
feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the conservation easement
area As such, the vegetative monitoring plots have been assessed for the vegetation success criteria for
both buffer (320 planted trees /acre) and streams (MY3 interim criteria of 320 woody stems /acre) All nine
vegetative monitoring plots met the vegetation success criteria for riparian buffers Of the five plots
within the 50 -foot stream buffer, all are currently meeting the vegetation success criteria for streams
Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc planted an additional 5,000 bare roots and livestakes at the Oakley
site on January 31, 2012
Several large areas of Murdannaa keasak (marsh dayflower), observed in 2011, have expanded in and
along the banks of stream throughout Section 1 in 2012 Areas where Murdannaa keasak was most
abundant include between Station 0 +50 and 1 +50, between Station 3 +50 and 7 +00, near Station 21 +50,
and near Station 28 +50 Currently, these areas of Murdannaa keasak do not pose a threat to native
vegetation establishment or stream stability, but they will continue to be monitored during future field
visits to document any changes In addition, the streambanks on both left and right bank were observed to
be bare below the Braley culvert, between Station 38 +25 and 39+00 The rest of the site appears to have
benefitted tremendously from the supplemental planting in 2012, as there were no additional bare areas
observed on the project site Overall the planted woody vegetation has become established and has
excellent vigor
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Oakley restoration project were observed to be in generally stable condition
The channel's profile and cross - section adjusted only minimally from baseline conditions The channel
has good connection to its floodplain Evidence of bankfull overflow was observed during the stream and
vegetation monitoring on October 4th and 10th, 2012 Evidence included the presence of wrack Imes and
cork above the bankfull line on the crest gauge The dimension, pattern, and profile survey for MY2
conditions for Section 1 and Section 2 were analyzed, and the current shear stress and stream power are
consistent with the design intent to reduce sediment transport
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page I
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

An area of aggradation, noted in 2011, was again observed below the upstream culvert between Station
0 +00 and 0 +60 Additionally, one area of minor bed downcutting was observed between Station 35 +00
and 37 +00 The structures in this area are still providing grade control and will help the area reach an
equilibrium The areas of aggradation and bed downcutting do not currently threaten the stability of the
stream These areas will continue to be monitored during future field visits to document any changes A
few relict nutria burrows were also observed between Station 4 +40 and 10 +00, but the livestakes are
maintaining bank stability and these areas do not threaten the stability of the stream Callatrache
heterophylla (water starwort), a non - invasive species, was again observed in several areas along all three
sections of the stream This aquatic plant was also noted to be present in monitoring year 1 and prior to
the construction of the restoration project Neither the nutria nor the water starwort currently threatens the
stability of the restored stream These issues will continue to be monitored during future field visits to
document any changes
As per NCEEP's request the vegetative cover of brush mattresses along the entire stream length was also
visually assessed Several areas were observed where brush mattresses had less than the required 80%
vegetative cover These areas include brush mattresses located along the left bank on the meander bend
near Station 28 +00 and between Stations 36 +00 and 36 +50, a drastic improvement from 2011 Refer to
Figure 2 in Appendix A for the location of these brush mattresses
The wetland preservation areas were also visually assessed during the vegetation monitoring No issues
were observed in these areas and existing vegetation appears to be in good condition These areas will
continue to be monitored during future field visits
Summary information, data, and statistics related to the performance of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan
documents available on EEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is
available from EEP upon request
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 2
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012
4
I-

2.0 Methodology
Channel stability and vegetation survival were monitored on the project site Post - restoration monitoring
will be conducted for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria are met following the
completion of construction to document project success The Monitoring Year 2 survey was completed
using survey grade GPS on October 10, 2012
2.1 MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS AND CHANNEL STABILITY
2.1.1 Dimension
Dimensional characteristics were monitored at 7 permanent cross - sections (4 raffles, 3 pools) along
Section 1 and Section 2 Survey data included points measured at all breaks in slope including top of
bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg Dimensional characteristics were compared to
baseline conditions All monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined
for channels of the design stream type Stream channel stability and geomorphic monitoring for Section 3
was documented visually Natural variability is expected, however the system should not experience
trends toward excessive increasing bank erosion, channel degradation, or channel aggradation
2.1.1 Pattern and Profile
The entire longitudinal profile of Section 1 and Section 2 was surveyed Stationing from the as -built
survey was used The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable
The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and
shallower than the pools
2.1.2 Substrate
Since the streams throughout the project site are dominated by sand -size particles, pebble count
procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring
period, therefore, as per NCEEP, bed material analyses were not undertaken for this project
2.1.1 Sediment Transport
As mentioned previously, additional sediment transport evaluations will not be undertaken during the
five -year monitoring period However, the dimension, pattern, and profile survey for MY2 conditions for
Section 1 and Section 2 were analyzed to determine whether the current sediment competency and
capacity is consistent with the design
2.2 VEGETATION
The Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 methodology was utilized to sample vegetation on
October 4, 2012 Nine 100- square meter CVS plots have been established within the project area In each
plot, four plot corners have been permanently located with rebar Volunteer plant species (Level 2) were
recorded this year and will only be considered in vegetative success determinations for the stream portion
of this project As such, volunteer plant species will be recorded for subsequent monitoring years in
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 3
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

c-
vegetation plots located within the 50 foot buffer of the restored stream Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A
In all vegetation plots species composition, density, and survival of the planted vegetation was monitored
This project is generating both stream and riparian buffer mitigation assets Vegetation success for these
assets is measured in two ways Stream mitigation units (SMUs) require 260 planted and volunteer native
hardwood stems (trees and shrubs) per acre for a minimum of 5 years Buffer mitigation units (BMUs)
require 320 planted native hardwood stems (trees only) per acre for a minimum of 5 years In accordance
with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B 0260 (TAR -
PAMLICO RIVER BASIN, Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers) `[planted vegetation] shall include a minimum of at least two native hardwood tree species
planted at a density to provide 320 trees per acre at maturity " Also, for SMUs and BMUs, the buffer must
be at least 50 -feet wide on both sides of the channel
The interim measure of vegetative success for SMUs for the site will be the survival of at least 320 3 -year
old stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period and 280 4 -year old stems per acre at
the end of year four monitoring period There are no interim measures of vegetative success for BMUs
2.3 HYDROLOGY
2.3.1 Wetland
Neither wetland restoration or enhancement credit is being sought for this project Existing jurisdictional
wetlands as depicted in Figure 2 in Appendix A are being preserved The wetland preservation areas are
visually assessed during each monitoring year
2.3.2 Stream
One crest gauge has been installed onsite and is located near Cross - section 3 Each visit to the site
included documentation of the highest stage for the monitoring interval and a reset of the device Other
indications of bankfull flow including the presence of wrack lines, sediment, or flooding were also
monitored, and their presence was recorded and documented photographically Refer to Figure 2 in
Appendix A for the location of the crest gauge
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 4
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

W
3AReferences
Lee, Michael T, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 2 (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm)
NCDWQ 2004 Tar - Pamlico River Basmwide Water Quality Plan North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality Raleigh, NC
NCEEP 2010 Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh,
NC Version 13, January 15, 2010
NCEEP 2008 Mitigation Plan Document — Format Data Requirements, and Content Guidelines North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh,
NC Version 2 0, March 27, 2008
Rosgen, D 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
6
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley, 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
United States Environmental Protection Agency — Region N, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 5
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

(This page intentionally left blank for two sided printing)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 6
Stantec - 2012 Momtonng Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

.
4.OAppendices
Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5)
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273)
Page 7
November 2012

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 2 of 5) Page 8
Stantec - 2012 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2012

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1
— Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 a b
— Project Restoration Components
Table 2
— Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
— Project Contacts
Table 4
— Project Attribute

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided pnntmg)

l �
I`
/ I
I
E1D6ECOMBE ;
I COUNTY J
\ MARTIN C
ti rin e Creek 0
y�y30 p ✓ es Ra ^ ^P
PITT
w Oakley Crossroads
Project Site
Ra
s
F ��s
-per sa
C --ef
'The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
r�
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
BEA
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
COL
/
along the easement boundary and therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel
of state and federal agencies or their designees /contractors
involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of
their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
i
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Legend Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Local Roads
Oakley Crossroads
Major Roads Stream & Buffer Restoration
Railroads Pitt County, North Carolina
- Conservation Easement 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Streams
Municipality�r r�
I County Boundary St antec Lco`a' toll
- - -- --

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Table la. Project Compone nts and Mitigation Credits
Oakley Crossroads Stream and
Buffer Restoration (EEP#
273)
Project
Existing
Restoration
Footage or
Stationing/
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
Component
Feet/Acres
Level
Approach
Acreage
Location
Ratio
Units
Elements'
Comment
or Reach ID
Ten foot width of ford crossing removed
00+00 to
from total length 152 LF of restored stream
Section 1
2,950
R
PII
3,637
37+98.64
1 1
3,637
with <50' buffer separated into line item
below Total restoration footage 3,637 LF
152 LF of restored stream has <59 buffer
Section 1,
33+00 to
on right bank Mitigation ratio is likely to
<50 ft buffer
152
R
PH
152
—37+00
1 1
152
change once DWQ publishes reduced SMU
calculation for areas with <50 ft of buffer
—38 +39 to
Enhancement - log structures, brush
Section 2
40
E
Ell
40
—38 +79
1 51
267
mattresses and planting
Section 3
289
E
EII
289
downstream
2 5 1
1156
Enhancement - planting only
.of Section 2
786,258 sq ft planted, 735,728 sq ft of which
Riparian
are eligible for mitigation credit Area
Buffer
n/a
R
735,728 sq ft
n/a
1 1
735,728
removed for areas with undiffuse flow,
buffer width >200', or buffer width <59
Wetlands
1 37
P
1 37
n/a
1 51
1 027

Table lb. Component Summations
Oakle Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration
(EEP #273
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Non -Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
(if)
Wetland (Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
BMP
Riverine
Non -
Riverme
Restoration
3789
16.9
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
329
Creation
Preservation
1.37
HQ Preservation
Totals Feet /Acres
4118
1.37
16.9
MU Totals
3,931.3
0.27
16.9
Non - Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration EEP# 273
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete:
18 months
Elapsed Time Since Original Planting Complete:
18 months
Number of Reporting Years 1:2
Data Collection
Completion or
Activity or Deliverable
Complete
De live ry
Mitigation Plan
n/a
August 2006
Final Design — Construction Plans
n/a
June 2010
Construction (Grading complete)
n/a
May 2011
Seedmg
n/a
May 2011
P lantmg
n/a
May 2011
As -budt (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
June 2011
July 2011
Year 1 Monrtormg
September 2011
November 2011
Replanting (bareroots)
n/a
January 2012
Year 2 Monrtormg
October 2012
November 2012
Year 3 Monrtormg
n/a
n/a
Year 4 Monrtormg
n/a
n/a
Year 5 Monrtormg
n/a
n/a
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273)
Designer
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
801 Jones Franklin Rd, Ste 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
Primary project design POC
Nathan Jean (970) 449 -8615
Construction Contractor
Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc
6642 Roper Hollow Rd, Morganton, NC 28655
Construction contractor POC
Bobby Koone (828) 584 -3018
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying
3201 Glenridge Dr , Raleigh, NC 27604
Survey contractor POC
Elizabeth and David Turner (919) 875 -1378
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P O Box 1197, Remont, NC 27830
Planting contractor POC
Charlie Bruton (919) 242 -6555
Seeding Contractor
Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc
6642 Roper Hollow Rd, Morganton, NC 28655
Contractor point of contact
Bobby Koone (828) 584 -3018
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Southeastern Native Plant Nursery
South Carolina Super Tree Nursery
Natives
Monitoring Performers
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
801 Jones Franklin Rd, Ste 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
Stream Monitoring POC
Tim Taylor (980) 297 -7669
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919)865 -7399
Wetland Monitoring POC
n/a

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273)
Pro ect Information
Project County
Pitt
Project Area (acres)
266
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35 76692,-77 269077
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph siogra hic Region
Coastal Plam
River Basin
Tar - Pamhco
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
0302010309002
NCDWQ Sub -basm for Project
03 -03 -06
Project Dramage Area (sq mi)
1 71
Project Drama a Area % Impervious
<l%
CGIA Landuse Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Reach Summary Information
Reach name
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Length of reach (linear feet)
3,799
40
289
Valley classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage area acres
1,0145
1,0147
1,0923
NCDWQ stream identification score
41
405
405
NCDWQ classification
n/a
n/a
n/a
Morphobgical description stream
E5
F5
F5
Evolutionary trend
E5
C5
C5
Underlying mapped sods
Bladen
Pante o
Pante o
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Very r dramed
Very r drained
Soil h dnc status
Yes
Yes
I Yes
Slope
0 -2%
0-1%
0-1%
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Native vegetation community
Riverme bottomland hardwood and mesio mixed hardwood forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
1 00/0 1 00/0 ]0%
Wetland Summary Information
n/a - wetland preservation only
Rego to Considerations
Regulation
Apphcabie9
Resolved9
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE 404 permit
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
NCDWQ 401 permit
Endangered Species Act
No
n/a
n/a
Historic Preservation Act
No
n/a
n/a
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) /Coastal
Aream Management Act (CAMA)
No
n/a
n/a
FEMA Flood him Compliance
No
n/a
n/a

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Appendix B. Visual Assessment
Figure 2 — Current Condition Plan Yiew (3 Sheets)
Table 5 — Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 — Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos — Stream Stations (S1 -S9)
Photos — Vegetation Plots (V 1 -V 19)

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided pnntmg)

A
t !
J'
� r
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View MY2
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
EEP #: 273
Pitt County, North Carolina
November 2012
I ;cr?,
Stantec
Q Crest gage
Q Vegetation monitoring plots (VP 1 -9)
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Conservation easement
2' contours
XS -5
XS-6
'\. Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline MY1
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
Other on -site hydrography
Non - buffered waterways
® Ponds
0 Ford crossing
Wetland preservation
�t.
Planting Zones
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Cross - section Pins
Latitude
Longitude
XS1 Left
35.763932
- 77.273188
XS1 Right
35.763715
- 77.273168
a.
rays
0
r�P
1
Veg Plot Origin Latitude Longitude
XS2 Left
35.764464
- 77.271851
XS2 Right
35.764192
- 77.271913
XS3 Left
35.764990
- 77.270211
XS3 Right
35.764655
- 77.270179
VP1
35.763800
- 77.272727
XS4 Left
35.764086
- 77.266309
VP2
35.764217
- 77.272054
XS4 Right
35.764104
- 77.266513
VP3
35.764550
- 77.272106
XS5 Left
35.763775
- 77.265646
VP4
35.764898
- 77.270463
XS5 Right
35.763637
- 77.265766
VP5
35.764071
- 77.266808
XS6 Left
35.763569
- 77.265016
VP6
IVP9
- 77.267194
35.764591
XS6 Right
35.763546
- 77.265224
VP7
35.764370
- 77.266611
-
XS7 Left
35.763388
- 77.264134
VP8
35.763290
- 77.264121
35.762979
Aerial photo: NAIP 2012
XS7 Right
35.763208
- 77.264251
- 77.262949
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View MY2
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
EEP #: 273
Pitt County, North Carolina
November 2012
I ;cr?,
Stantec
Q Crest gage
Q Vegetation monitoring plots (VP 1 -9)
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Conservation easement
2' contours
XS -5
XS-6
'\. Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline MY1
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
Other on -site hydrography
Non - buffered waterways
® Ponds
0 Ford crossing
Wetland preservation
�t.
Planting Zones
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

)k
000� 000� -
VP4
w.V8 Z
VP3 0 10.00 11 +00
VS .V6
8 +00 9 00
•
7 +00
6 +00 S2
•
V3 V4
5+00
aroo . __ _ VP2
(V1
$1 vP1
•
0
Xs -1
XS-2
1s +00
16+00
S3
13 +00 ��.(`�J1
r +00 - 22 +00 e-•
23+-00
::..
XS -3
This map represents field conditions as of October 10, 2012
STREAM STRUCTURES
Photo points (Veg =V, Stream =S)
Count Type
Station Condition
Failing
1
Log Vane
00 +07.20 Intact, stable, functioning
N
2
Log Sill
22 +68.02 Intact, stable, functioning
N
3
Log Sill
23 +27.75 Intact, stable, functioning
N
4
Log Sill
25 +93.49 Intact, stable, functioning
N
5
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
28 +61.89 Intact, stable, functioning
N
6
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
31 +53.02 Intact, stable, functioning
N
7
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
33 +97.82 Intact, stable, functioning
N
8
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
35 +34.81 Intact, stable, losing grade control
N
9
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
36 +01.21 Intact, stable, functioning
N
10
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
36 +70.73 Intact, stable, losing grade control
N
11
Log Vane
37 +66.50 Intact, stable, functioning
N
This map represents field conditions as of October 10, 2012
•
Photo points (Veg =V, Stream =S)
1-\-,
Section 1 Stream Restoration Thalweg MY1
Planting Zones
Figure 2a. Current Condition Plan View MY2
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
2' contours
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
Farm paths
Other on -site hydrography
Livestakes
EEP #: 273
0
Ford crossing
Non- buffered waterways
Problem Areas
Pitt County, North Carolina
0
Conservation easement
®
Ponds
Brush Mattress <80% vegetative cover
November 2012
Vegetation
Plot Success (VP 1 -9)
Wetland Preservation
T Beaver Dam
Q
Buffer =Yes, Stream =Yes or n/a
0
Crest gage
AW Dead Livestakes
r7
Buffer =No, Stream =n /a
�
Log Vane
Murdannia keisak
lrrny�tem
Q
Buffer =No, Stream =No
Log Sill
Feet
Stantec
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
0 50 100 200

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

V„ V12 7/
25 +00
V13, V14
4� VP7
s +oo
_ 2b +o0
27 +00
_ = Vs,v10
VP5
XS-4
Count Type
STREAM STRUCTURES
Station Condition
Failing
1
Log Vane
00 +07.20 Intact, stable, functioning
N
2
Log Sill
22 +68.02 Intact, stable, functioning
N
3
Log Sill
23 +27.75 Intact, stable, functioning
N
4
Log Sill
25 +93.49 Intact, stable, functioning
N
5
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
28 +61.89 Intact, stable, functioning
N
6
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
31 +53.02 Intact, stable, functioning
N
7
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
33 +97.82 Intact, stable, functioning
N
8
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
35 +34.81 Intact, stable, losing grade control
N
9
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
36 +01.21 Intact, stable, functioning
N
10
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
36 +70.73 Intact, stable, losing grade control
N
11
Log Vane
37 +66.50 Intact, stable, functioning
N
0.00
Brile' yr' Pond
0o f
32 +00
31 +00
...' kl S5 33 +00
34 +00 35 +00
ss Briley Culvert
/Jo
36 +00
XS -5
38+0 V15 V16
37 +00 S7
VP8
XS -6 3s +•6
o .
0 39 +66
VP9
XS -7 it
v,a<w 6
q15MWM'8W8'MM Waft /
���
This map represents field conditions as of October 10, 2012
•
Photo points (Veg =V, Stream =S)
IN—,
Section 1 Stream Restoration Thalweg MY1
Planting Zones
Figure 2b. Current Condition Plan View MY2
N
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
2' contours
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
Farm paths
Other on -site hydrography
Livestakes
EEP #: 273
0
Ford crossing
Non- buffered waterways
Problem Areas
Pitt County, North Carolina
Q
Conservation easement
®
Ponds
Brush Mattress <80% vegetative cover
November 2012
Vegetation
Plot Success (VP 1 -9)
gj]
Wetland Preservation
a Beaver Dam
Buffer =Yes, Stream =Yes or n/a
0
Crest gage
,ZW Dead livestakes
r'
Buffer =No, Stream =n /a
mw
am
Log Vane
. i Murdannia keisak
i 2rnvstcln
Q
Buffer =No, Stream =No
Log Sill
Feet
-
Stantec
c -7
Rock J -Hook with Log Vane
0 50 100 200

(Tlus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 3800
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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Ve station
Ve etatlon
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradahon -Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2 Degradation - Evidence of downculbng
0
0
100%
(Rife and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
56
100%
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
56
56
100%
3 Meander Pool
2 Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tad of
upstream rife and head of downstrem rife)
56
56
o
100 /o
Condition
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
56
56
100%
4 Thalweg Position
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
56
56
100%
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
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
11
11
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
9
11
82%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
11
11
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does Doi exceed
3 Bank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
11
11
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
11
11
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration E P# 273
Planted acreage*
18
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mappng
Threshold
CCPV
De ction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1 Bare Areas
Very lumted cover of woody material
0 1 acres
none
01
0
000/0
2 LowStemDensity
Woody stem densities below target levels for
stem count success criteria
0 1 acres
none
0
0
000/0
Total
0
0
000/0
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of see class that
are obviously small given the monitoring year
1 0 25 acres
INone
1 01
0
000/0
Total
01
01
000/0
Easement acreage
266
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De chon
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
4 Invasive areas of concern
Murdannia keisak
1000 SF
Magenta line
with cross-
Ihatches
41me
segments
—3' wide
1 0 039
01%
5 Encroachment areas
none
INone
1 01
01
000/0
*Total planted acreage

Stream Station Photos
Photo Station Sl — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 1
Station 00 +72 - Priority 2 (10/10/12 Year 2)
Photo Station S2 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 2
Station 06 +17 — Priority 2 (10/10/12 Year 2)

Photo Station S3 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 3
Station 12 +59 — Priority 2 (10/10/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station S4 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 4
Station 28 +46 — Priority 2 (10/10/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station S5 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 5
Station 32 +71— Priority 2 (10/10/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station S6 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 6
Station 35 +24 — Priority 2 (10/10/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station S7 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 7
Station 38 +71— Enhancement 2 (10/10/2012 Year 2)
Photo S8 — Evidence of bankfull overflow — wrackline (10/10/2012 Year 2)

Photo S9 -
112 Year 2)

Vegetation Plot Photos
Photo Station V1 - Veg Plot 1 looking southeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V2 - Veg Plot 1 looking east (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V3 - Veg Plot 2 looking south (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V4 - Veg Plot 2 looking southeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V5 - Veg Plot 3 looking east (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V6 - Veg Plot 3 looking northeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V7 - Veg Plot 4 looking south (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V8 - Veg Plot 4 looking southeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V9 - Veg plot 5 looking south (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V10 - Veg plot 5 looking southeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V1 - Veg plot 6 looking east (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V12 - Veg plot 6 looking northeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V13 - Veg plot 7 looking south (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V14 - Veg plot 7 looking southeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V15 - Veg plot 8 looking east (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V16 - Veg plot 8 looking northeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Photo Station V17 - Veg plot 9 looking northeast (10/4/2012 Year 2)
Photo Station V18 - Veg plot 9 looking north (10/4/2012 Year 2)

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a,b — Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8 — CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 — CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Stem Class characteristics
'Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/
Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4 Total Planted +volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines
Table 7. Oakley Crossroads (G) ( #273)
Year 2 (04- Oct -2012)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian
Stream/
Unknown
Buffer
Wetland
Growth
Plot #
Stems'
Stems2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3
Total°
Form
0001
19
21 0 0 2
23
0
0002
16
16 0 0 124
140
0
0003
21
21 0 0 7
28
0
0004
19
20 0 0 5
25
0
0005
10
10 0 0 4
14
0
0006
18
18 0 0 21
39
0
0007
11
11 0 0 1
12
0
0008
17
17 0 0 0
17
0
0009
14
n/a 0 0 26
40
0
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Success
Wetland Criteria
Plot #
StemsZ Volunteers3 Total° Met?
0001
850 81 931 Yes
0002
647 5018 5666 Yes
0003
850 283 1133 Yes
0004
809 202 1012 Yes
0005
405 162 567 Yes
0006
728 850 1578 Yes
0007
445 40 486 Yes
0008
688 0 688 Yes
0009
n/a 1052 1619
Project Avg
678 854 1520 Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Success
Buffer Criteria
Plot # Stems' Met?
0001 769 Yes
0002 647 Yes
0003 850 Yes
0004 769 Yes
0005 405 Yes
0006 728 Yes
0007 445 Yes
0008 688 Yes
'
0009 567 Yes
Project Avg 652 Yes
Stem Class characteristics
'Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/
Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4 Total Planted +volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines

Table 8 - CVS Metadata
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration - EEP #273
Report Prepared By
Amber Coleman
Date Prepared
10/10/2012 15 00
database name
STantec _Oakley_2012cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 1 mdb
database location
U \175613016 \project \site data \vegetation
computer name
COLEMANA -LT
file size
59727872
UESCRIION OF WORKSHEE�T�S IN
THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a
summary of project(s) and project data
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
year This excludes live stakes
Prod, 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 by 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 type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type 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
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species
(planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot, dead
and missing stems are excluded
PROM E CT SU M MARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
273
project Name
Oakley Crossroads (G)
Description
Stream and Wetland Restoration
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
•'
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
9

*Bolded hardwood trees are counted toward riparian buffer success criteria.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
� y less than 10% P -all = All planted stems including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T = All planted and natural recruit stems including livestakes
FWS Ne t, WW by more than 10% Total includes natural recruit stems
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 273. Project Name: Oakley Crossroads
Current Plot Data (MY2 2012)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E273 -01 -0001
E273 -01 -0002
E273 -01 -0003
E273 -01 -0004
E273 -01 -0005 1
E273 -03 -0006
E273 -01 -0007
E273 -01 -0008 1
E273 -01 -0009
MY2 (2012)
MY1 (2011)
MYO (2011)
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all IT
Pnol-S
P -all IT
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
cer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
108
7
2
21
1
7
147
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
Eubotrys racemosa
swamp doghobble
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
S
5
22
22
22
13
13
13
13
13
13
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
11
5
16
33
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
31
3
3
3
3
3
3
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
31
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
9
9
91
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
13
13
13
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
28
28
28
14
141
14
14
14
14
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
2
2
2
7
7
7
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
30
30
30
10
10
10
12
12
12
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
71
7
7
7
7
7
4
41
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
7
7
7
9
9
9
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
11
11
11
141
14
14
13
13
13
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
10
10
10
12
12
12
16
16
16
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
ambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
3
oxicodendron radicans
eastern poison ivy
Vine
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Totals Stems per ACRE
21
21
23
16
16
140
21
21
28
201
201
25
10
10
14
181
111
111
12
17
17
17
14
141
41
148
1481
339
90
90
90
93
93
93
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.22
0.22
61
61
8
5
5
9
5
5
6
6
61
7
5
5
7
7
7
8
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
8
12
12
19
14
14
14
14
14
14
849.8
849.8
930.8
647.5
647.5
5666
849.8
849.8
1133
809.4
809.4
1012
404.7
404.7
566.6
728.4
728.4
1578
445.2
445.2
485.6
688
688
688
566.6
566.6
1659
665.5
665.5
1524
404.7
404.7
404.7
418.2
418.2
418.2
Stem count
size (a es,
size (ACRES)
Riparian Buffer Success Species count
Criteria Stems per ACREJ
19
19
21
16
16
135
21
21
28
19
19
24
10
10
12
18
18
39
11
11
12
17
17
17
14
14
38
145
145
326
86
86
86
88
88
88
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.22
0.22
S1
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
6
5
5
6
S
5
6
7
7
8
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
6
11
11
14
12
12
12
11
it
11
768.9
768.9
849.8
647.5
647.5
54631849.81
849.81
11331768.91
768.91
971.21404.71
404.71
485.61728.41
728.41
15781445.21
445.21
485.61
6881
6881
6881566.61
S66.61
15381
6521
6521
14661386.-17'
386.7
386.7
395.7
395.7
395.7
*Bolded hardwood trees are counted toward riparian buffer success criteria.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
� y less than 10% P -all = All planted stems including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T = All planted and natural recruit stems including livestakes
FWS Ne t, WW by more than 10% Total includes natural recruit stems

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Appendix A Stream Survey Data
Figures 3a-j
— Cross - Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 4
— Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Table 10a,b
— Baseline — Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a
— Monitoring — Cross - section Morphology Data
Table l lb
— Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided pnntmg)

River Basin
MY O1
Tar - Pamlico River
Watershed
Elevation
Tranters Creek
XS ID
Station
XS -1, Riffle, STA 0 +72
Drainage Areas . mi.
49.05
1.59
Date
150.82
10/10/2012
Field Crew
48.29
T. Taylor, A. Baldwin
MY 00
MY O1
MY 02
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
12.21
49.05
12.21
49.05
150.82
41.25
19.33
48.29
19.33
48.29
153.07
41.20
28.16
46.74
28.16
46.74
155.79
41.11
35.77
46.38
35.77
46.38
158.62
41.01
47.80
45.82
47.80
45.82
162.14
40.79
59.77
45.48
59.77
45.48
166.15
41.00
74.68
45.23
74.68
45.23
168.77
40.84
81.30
45.02
81.30
45.02
172.16
40.98
87.17
45.62
87.17
45.62
175.62
41.08
93.57
44.59
93.57
44.59
178.75
41.06
98.13
44.87
98.13
44.87
182.20
40.91
104.75
45.09
104.75
45.09
184.20
40.71
125.09
44.10
125.09
44.10
186.59
40.76
137.30
43.93
137.30
43.93
188.93
40.84
148.71
41.64
148.71
41.64
191.29
40.57
150.62
42.20
150.62
42.20
192.64
40.26
160.31
41.00
160.25
41.02
193.29
40.17
173.90
40.96
165.47
40.95
194.00
40.00
186.83
40.62
172.19
41.05
194.43
1 39.82
190.89
40.64
179.93
41.07
194.801
39.73
191.771
40.271
183.19
40.94
195.511
39.64
9756
- 39b3
__1RT40
- 40_Z
_ _ 795_74
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 1, Riffle, Station 0 +72
46.00
45.00
44.00
43.00
c
.2 42.00
M
v
W
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
100.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
40.63
40.72
40.57
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
18.33
8.37
9.77
Bankfull Width
20.80
12.39
15.49
Flood Prone Area Elevation
42.78
41.63
42.41
Flood Prone Width
80.66
1 65.65
78.50
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.15
1.14
1.84
Mean Depth at Bankfull
0.88
0.68
0.63
W D Ratio
23.64
18.22
24.59
Entrenchment Ratio
3.88
5.30
5.07
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
C
C
I C
,fir
Sta. 0 +75 Looking Downstream
120.00
As Built MY00
140.00
160.00 180.00 200.00
Station (ft)
Flood Prone Area Elevation •••••• Bankfull Elevation MY 01
220.00
MY 02
240.00

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

s
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 2, Riffle, Station 6 +17
47.00
46.00
45.00
44.00
43.00
c
42.00
M
w
W
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
37.00
100.00
SUMARY DATA
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico River
Tranters Creek
XS -2, Riffle, STA 6 +17
1.59
10/10/2012
T. Taylor, A. Baldwin
Watershed
XS ID
Drainage Areas . mi.)
Date
Field Crew
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
18.16
17.88
MY 00
MY 01
MY 02
13.16
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
124.27
12.76
46.91
12.76
46.91
169.00
42.10
Mean Depth at Bankfull
33.99
44.63
33.99
44.63
169.98
41.79
54.24
44.37
54.24
44.37
172.32
41.46
1.00
72.47
43.91
72.47
43.91
175.26
41.16
92.77
43.54
92.77
43.54
178.46
40.99
110.68
43.14
110.68
43.14
181.16
40.77
136.32
43.27
136.32
43.27
184.02
40.67
153.53
42.83
153.53
42.83
187.28
40.50
168.42
42.08
168.42
42.08
190.92
40.49
169.10
42.69
169.10
42.69
193.78
40.41
175.71
41.04
174.60
41.30
196.48
40.49
193.21
40.52
183.93
40.80
199.93
40.52
210.45
40.43
193.68
40.52
205.00
40.50
219.41
40.32
208.61
40.41
208.82
40.45
223.60
40.35
217.46
40.30
213.63
40.35
226.57
40.33
226.67
40.33
217.51
40.31
226.69
40.37
229.04
39.32
221.63
40.32
227.04
40.30
230.82
38.62
224.41
40.38
228.42
1 39.64
231.63
38.04
226.25
40.26
229.95
1 38.99
1 232.76
1 37.70
227.67
1 39.77
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 2, Riffle, Station 6 +17
47.00
46.00
45.00
44.00
43.00
c
42.00
M
w
W
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
37.00
100.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
40.35
40.38
40.38
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
18.16
17.88
18.17
Bankfull Width
16.60
13.16
15.09
Flood Prone Area Elevation
42.89
43.06
42.99
Flood Prone Width
124.27
124.27
124.27
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.54
2.68
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.09
1.37
W D Ratio
15.23
9.61
Entrenchment Ratio
7.49
9.44
A61
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.00
1.00
Stream T e
C
C
e
Sta. 6 +17 Looking Downstream
120.00 140.00
As Built MY00
160.00 180.00
- - Flood Prone Area Elevation
200.00 220.00
Station (ft)
•••••• Bankfull Elevation
240.00 260.00 280.00
MY 01 MY 02
300.00
i

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

River Basin Tar -Pam ico River

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS-4, Riffle, STA 28 +46
Drainage Areas . mi.)
1.59
Date
10/10/2012
Field Crew
T. Taylor, A. Baldwin
MY 00
MY 01
MY 02
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
32.58
42.97
32.58
42.97
278.00
37.97
47.64
42.20
47.64
42.20
280.52
38.00
65.92
41.12
65.92
41.12
284.26
38.00
81.03
40.82
81.03
40.82
289.18
38.06
88.43
40.61
88.43
40.61
293.86
38.01
108.82
40.02
108.82
40.02
296.90
38.08
125.06
39.54
125.06
39.54
300.54
38.10
133.82
39.79
133.82
39.79
302.64
38.15
157.24
39.25
157.24
39.25
304.70
38.27
191.12
38.83
191.12
38.83
306.16
37.79
230.32
38.17
230.32
38.17
307.54
37.21
255.76
37.85
255.76
37.85
308.62
36.83
266.56
38.60
266.56
38.60
309.70
36.33
278.21
37.86
278.21
37.86
309.97
35.76
282.75
37.97
281.24
37.759
310.39
35.64
293.74
38.11
290.68
37.881
311.02
35.24
305.40
38.28
300.11
37.906
312.16
34.85
305.58
38.25
305.26
37.848
312.3
35.04
306.89
37.65
307.23
37.095
312.89
35.48
308.24
36.93
1
308.54
36.55
314.04
35.74
310.07
36.67
308.85
36.062
1 314.17
36.4
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 4, Riffle, Station 28 +46
46 00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
38.24
37.85
38.13
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
20.90
18.22
19.85
Bankfull Width
14.64
13.70
14.70
Flood Prone Area Elevation
41.23
40.54
41.41
Flood Prone Width
367.14
332.68
367.00
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.99
2.69
3.28
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.43
1.33
1.35
W D Ratio
10.24
10.30
10.89
Entrenchment Ratio
25.08
24.28
24.97
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
I C
C
E
Sta. 28 +46 Looking Downstream
44.00
42.00 - - -
c
d
M 40.00
38.00 .... ............. ....... .....
36.00 - _ -- - - -- -- - --
i
34.00 - - --
0.00 50.00 100.00
As Built MY00
i
150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00
Station (ft)
Flood Prone Area Elevation •••••• Bankfull Elevation

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

River Basin
Tar - Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -5, Pool, STA 32 +71
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
9/1/2011
Field Crew
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
anon
tievauon
xauun I
uevauon
xauon
tievation
37.33
26.15
42.13
26.15 1
42.13
281.30
37.19
36.87
42.19
36.87
42.19
285.24
37.29
68.22
41.81
68.22
41.81
289.79
37.33
85.37
36.59
85.37
36.59
294.67
37.29
90.80
34.92
90.80
34.92
299.78
37.32
176.23
35.02
176.23
35.02
303.71
37.27
177.81
35.70
177.81
35.70
306.55
37.23
185.44
38.11
185.44
1 38.11
307.36
37.17
195.27
40.20
195.27
40.20
308.48
37.03
205.06
39.95
205.06
39.95
309.01
36.82
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01*
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
37.26
37.33
37.23
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
29.47
35.63
34.74
Bankfull Width
19.06
29.71
23.49
Flood Prone Area Elevation
40.07
40.98
41.00
Flood Prone Width
289.16
315.10
301.17
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.81
3.65
3.77
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.55
1.20
1.48
W D Ratio
12.30
24.76
15.87
Entrenchment Ratio
15.17
10.61
12.82
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
C
C
C
214.85 3
39.11 2
214.85 3
39.11 3
310.26 3
36.76 �
�;;�'w;;�l;f' s'
229.47 3
38.00 2
229.47 3
38.00 3
311.69 3
36.37 *
245.21 3
37.39 2
245.21 3
37.39 3
312.62 3
36.04��
262.60 3
37.51 2
262.60 3
37.51 3
314.52 3
35.78 >
281.47 3
38.01 2
281.47 1
1 38.01 3
315.69 3
35.60
288.37 3
37.49 2
289.99 3
37.262 3
316.15 3
35.54'
288.85 3
37.44 3
300.08 3
37.334 3
316.61 3
35.68 •
299.46 3
37.54 3
308.08 3
37.1 3
317.26 3
34.62
304.38 3
37.33 3
313.02 3
36.025 3
317.96 3
34.15
306.65 3
37.44 3
317.31 3
35.866 3
318.95 3
33.71
307.72 3
37.34 3
317.44 3
34.823 3
320.06 3
33.763 1
308.44 3
37.26 3
319.38 3
33.992 3
320.8 3
33.461
IIQ14 -
- - -12 f
fi70. __.._.32.1...42 -
- - -_- 3
3_t41-
380.00 400.00

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

River Basin
Tar - Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -6 Riffle STA 35 +24
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
10/10/2012
Field Crew
T. Taylor, A. Baldwin
212.76 1
35.87
212.76
35.87
286.34
1 36.79
220.80
38.40
220.80
38.40
298.82
36.79
237.17
39.75
237.17
39.75
306.18
36.84
250.63
39.12
250.63
39.12
310.11
36.79
261.67
38.24
261.67
38.24
314.68
36.85
275.95
37.08
275.95
37.08
316.91
36.83
285.28
36.80
285.28
36.80
319.06
35.85
286.84
37.50
286.84
37.50
320.59
35.53
287.26
36.85
287.26
36.85
320.98
35.25
290.35
36.85
287.43
36.82
321.44
34.10
301.91
36.75
288.9
36.88
322.57
33.28
310.76
36.83
296.65
36.69
323.02
33.22
316.51
36.84
316.45
36.87
323.87
33.28
316.76
36.88
319.93
35.55
324.13
34.34
318.89
35.81
320.76
35.34
324.78
34.72
320.87
34.87
321.54
34.79
325.06
35.20
321.98
34.60
322.35
34.49
325.33
35.24
322.30
34.33
322.78
34.18
326.57
35.65
323.55
34.36
324.04
34.17
328.9
36.67
324.04
34.43
324.79
34.60
330.01
37.14
324.63 34.76 325.66 35.52
327.11 35.78 327.28 35.89
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 6, Riffle, Station 35 +24
42.00
41.00
40.00
39.00
38.00
c
m
37.00
w
W
36.00
35.00
34.00
33.00
32.00
200.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
36.88
36.87
36.83
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
18.91
17.43
19.10
Bankfull Width
17.17
12.92
12.37
Flood Prone Area Elevation
39.43
39.57
40.44
Flood Prone Width
158.46
166.08
160.00
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.55
2.70
3.61
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.10
1.35
1.54
W D Ratio
15.61
9.59
8.03
Entrenchment Ratio
9.23
12.82
12.93
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.95
1.00
Stream Type
C
C
E
Sta. 35 +24 Looking Downstream
250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00
As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation
Station (ft)
•••••• Bankfull Elevation
MY 01 MY 02

(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

River Basin
Tar - Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -7 Riffle STA 38 +71
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
10/10/2012
Field Crew
T. Taylor, A. Baldwin
MY
00
MY
01
MY
02
38.00
ition
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
19.24
37.99
19.24
37.99
36.80
38.77
26.11
38.20
26.11
38.20
43.00
38.91
34.24
38.52
34.24
38.52
51.58
38.82
36.95
39.29
36.95
39.29
60.15
38.41
37.14
38.72
37.14 1
38.72
64.02
38.28
39.57
38.72
39.21
38.544
66.96
38.15
46.18
38.72
49.19
38.823
69.41
38.11
57.09
38.53
58.73
38.308
71.14
37.99
63.06
38.20
66.87
37.967
72.73
37.43
66.76
38.14
71.32
37.96
77.16
35.34
SUMARY DATA
MY00*
MY01
MY02
Bankfull Elevation
38.05
38.00
38.00
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
75.91
77.93
71.24
Bankfull Width
31.46
36.52
34.07
Flood Prone Area Elevation
44.28
44.01
43.42
Flood Prone Width
132.69
132.69
>200
Max Depth at Bankfull
6.23
6.01
5.42
Mean Depth at Bankfull
2.41
2.13
2.09
W D Ratio
13.05
17.15
16.30
Entrenchment Ratio
4.22
3.63
5.87
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
I C
I C
I C
69.33
38.10
75.06
36.251
79.17
34.57
72.02
37.67
79.92
34.376
79.57
34.2
* REVISED X -SEC DATA
74.83
36.67
81.32
33.533
79.89
33.73
77.89
35.25
82.9
32.353
80.99
33.24
79.27
34.35
84.95
31.993
82.14
32.93
80.79
33.16
87.42
32.686
83.07
32.58
82.34
32.21
88.42
34.553
84.53
32.68
84.27
31.82
92.45
36.186
85.93
32.58
86.46
31.91
95.74
37.49
86.64
33.08
`; !'� Y ?;�•
87.16
33.28
98.99
37.375
86.87
34.26
'
87.65
34.47
102.57
37.996
86.98
34.41
Sta. 38 +71 Looking Downstream
- 8937.
--
_-.77-1-A
.._.70=27 _
_. 37��7
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 7 Riffle, Station 38 +71
46.00
-
-- - -- -
44.00
-
- - _ -
42.00 -
- - - -- --
40.00
- -- _-
- -
c
38.00 --
- -
............. R. .�.�.�............ .........�..
m
U,
I
Station (ft)
As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation •••••• Bankfull Elevation MY 01 MY 02

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

36
35
34
33
32
0
-earn and Buffer Restoration - Longitudinal Profile
Station 0 +00 to 38 +79
lonitoring - Year 0, Year 01, Year 02
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
- - - - - -- Year 0 Thalweg Year 0 RTOB Year 1 Thawleg Year 1 RTOB Year 2 Thalweg Year 2 RTOB
2500
• Log Sill ■ Log Vane
I
.�'•
"aft. .
•
.r
ell
•
�
I. h
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
- - - - - -- Year 0 Thalweg Year 0 RTOB Year 1 Thawleg Year 1 RTOB Year 2 Thalweg Year 2 RTOB
2500
• Log Sill ■ Log Vane

(Thus page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No 273 - Segment/Reach Malnstem 3,950 feet
Parameter
lGauge"I
Re tonal Curve
I Pro-Existing Condition I
Reference Reach es Data
I Design I
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq
Mn
I Mean
Mad
Max
SD5
n
Mn
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Mn
Mod
Max
Mn
Mean
Med
I Max
S05
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
1040
4
780
1120
1460
2
123
1464
1731
2082
4
Fl odprone Width (ft)
1500
4
12000
126 50
13300
2
2400
8066
18263
36714
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft )
1 80
4
070
115
160
2
15
088
113
143
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
270
4
160
185
210
2
24
215
256
299
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2
1900
1
1 4
1 950
11051
12601
1 2
1 190
1
1181611908
2090
4
Width/Depth Ratio
570
4
480
1360
2240
2
80
1024
1619
2366
4
Entrenchment Ratio
140
1
4
1 820
112651
117101
2
1 195
1 466
110551
12121
4
'Bank Height Ratty
Profile
Riffle Length (it)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 83
35 98
-
5302
4
Rdfie Slope (Rift)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 002
0 003
-
0 006
4
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20 47
33 67
-
4445
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
17
2 3
29
2
4
281
312
343
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
5
27
35
67
4
43
525
62
434
6426
9403
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 45 725 100 2
62
740
86
3856
5594
8618
14800
Radius of Curvature (ft) 8 128 14 21 4
22
270
31
1924
2781
3628
15600
Re Bankfull width (ft/ft) 05 12 14 18 4
18
22
25
1 11
161
210
5600
Meander Wavelength (ft) 17 75 100 156 4
86
111
135
8546
10392
11861
48 00
Meander Width Rata 58 63 68 2
5
60
7
223
323
498
48 00
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress coin enc IWf
02
014
0 093
Max part size (mm) mobilized at banldull
-
-
25
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity)
Ibs/ft/s per unit width°
0 25
017
016
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5c
C5 E5
E5
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
19
17
165
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
30
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
3950
Sinuosity (ft)
101
118
128
14
Water Surface Slope (Channeli (ft/ft)
00018
0 002
00014
000
BF slope (ft/ft)
000144
38ankfull Flood am Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded mils mdaate thin these wdl q pr lly not be filled in
t =Tie dsstrbutrona fm these parameters onn include information from both the cross swain suneys and the longitudinal pmfde 2 =For projects with o pmwral USGS Long: mWe%dh the pm3eul much (added bankfll scrtfirstron tine)
3 Utdamg sun m data produce sn atur de of the bankfull noodplam area in acres which should be the ores from the top of bnnk to the toe of the temaee reedslope
4 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that am etodmgbased on the visual suney for eomparoon to momtonng data 5 Of.oludneeded onh if then emoods 3 6 Units chmnged from Win' to mood those pm uled in original design.

Table 10b- Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Oakley Cro sroads Stream an toration I EEP Promect No. 273 - Selai lenVReach: Mainstem (3,950 feet)
Parameter
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As- buift/Baseline
'Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
o
0
1 0
-
-
-
--
'SC % /Sa % /G % /C% 6 % /Be%
0
33
67
0
1 0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
'dl 6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / di' / dig' (mm)
0.14
0.26
0.5
4.4
7.3
-
30
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
'2
`Entrenchment Class <1.5/1.5-t99/2.0-49/5.0-9.9/>10
'Incision Class <1.2/ 1.2-1A9/1.5-1.99,1>2,0
Shaded. ells lndkelethat these Wll lypipally-t be filled in.
1= Riffie,Run,Pool, Glide, Step. SIIVCIsy ..Sand.Graval,CObbl..BOUlder, Bedrock, dip= m- lui —disp =mss subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - AssigNbln 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,sill 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 inthe lade. This Will result from the measured cross - sections as wall as the bngitudinal profile
Ia st —Isrs 2,3 - These classes are loosbybullt around line Rosgan classification and hand ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somei coamer one based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER Mould not be necessary.
The intent here Is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring IrAormalion W Ih a good general sense of IN sAwt of hydro to gb containment In the pre- eMSling and the rehalAilated states as Mall as comparisons to the reference dlsldbutio ns.
ER and B HR have been addressed in prior submisslo ns as a subsample (cross-sectlo ns as part of the desgn survey). hoeever, these subsmnples have often focused enanely on facilitating design Wtho ul providing a )hero ugh la— sbutiun distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /co nsumer With a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the teach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should Include data from both the cross- sectron surveys and the longitudinal profile and In the case of ER, visual estimates. For saample. the typical longitudinal pro file permits sampling of the BHR at rifles beyond lho se subject to cro sssectlo he and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these pvamelers thereby pro iding the disldbulio nlc overage necessary to pmvlde meaningful comparisons.

Table 11 a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters— Cross Sections)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No. 273 - Segment/Reach: Mainstem 3,950 feet
Cross Section 1 (STA 0+72, Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (STA 6+17, Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (STA 12 +59, Pool)
Cross Section 4 (STA 28 +46, Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (STA 32 +71,
Pool)
Based on flxe_d baseline bankfull ele�atlon�
Base
I MY1
MY21
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
I MY1
MY2
I MY3
MY4 I
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base I
MY1
MY2 I
MY3
MY4
MY5 I
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
1 4049
40571
4038
40381
3970
3970
1
3785
38131
3733
3723
Bankfull Width ft
2082
1 1239
15491
1660
1 1316
15091
2058 1
2438
2080
1464
1370
14701
1906
2971
2349
Flood prone Width ft
8066
1 6565
78501
124 27
131 28
128501
248 08
120 86
24410
36714
33268
367001
28916
31510
301 17
Bankfull Mean Depth (it
088
1 068
063
109
1 1 37
1 20
1 79
1 55
166
1 43
1 33
135 1
155
1 20
148
Bankfull Max Depth ft
215
1 1 14
184
254
1 268
261
343
341
317
299
269
328
281
365
377
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area Lft)
1833
8 37
977
1816
1 1788
1817
3686
3787
3450
2090
1822
1985
2947
3563
3474
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
2366
1822
2459
1523
961
1258
11 50
1573
1253
1024
1030
1089
1230
2476
1587
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
388
530
507
749
751
852
1205
496
11 74
2508
2428
2497
1517
1061
1282
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
100
095
1 00
1
100
1 00
100
1 00
095
1 00
1 00
090
1 00
1 00
0 98
100
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftZ
d50 mm
Cross Section 6 (STA 35 +24,
Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (STA 38 +71, Other)
Cross Section 8
(Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10
(Pool)
Based on O i x"edl baseline ON Mil elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
I MY1
I MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
I MY1
I MY2
I MY3
MY4
I MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
3687
3683
3800
3800
®®
11111111111111111M
Bankfull Width ft
1717
1292
1237
3146
3652
3407
-
111111110
_-
1111111MIll
11MI
Mill
_-
IIIIIIIII01
1111M
Flood prone Width 21
15846
16608
16000
13269
13269
>200
11MI
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
110
135
154
241
213
209
®��-
-���
-�
Bankfull Max Depth ft
255
270
361
623
601
542
11111110
11111011111
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1743
1910
7591
7793
71 24
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9 59
8 03
13 05
17 15
16 30
®O
llllllllt
l�
lll�
i
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
r1561
12 82
12 93
4 22
3 63
5 87
-
®
®�
1
®��®
BankfullBankHei ht Ratio
095
100
100
100
100
_�����-
®�
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
d50 mm
®
����_®
Illlllll�llllllllellllllll��lli�
s���l��lll0�
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurveymil be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development Input the elevaton used as the datum, which should be consistentand based on the baseline datum established If the performer has mhented the proiectand cannotacquire the datum used
for pnor 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 "ft is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated glues
Additional data from a pnor performer is being acquired to proude confirmation Values wdl be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

r
Table 11 b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No. 273 - Se ment/Reach: Mainstem 3,950 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD a
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD a
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD a
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
a
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
a
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD a
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.6
17.31
20.82
4
12.4
12.8
12.9
13.16
0.39
4
12.4
14.4
14.9
15.49
1.399
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
80.7
182.63
367.141
4
65.7
118.7
124
166.1
50.4
4
78.5
183.5
144.3
367
126.9
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.13
1.43
4
0.7
1.1
1.35
1.37
0.39
4
0.6
1.2
1.2751
1.54
0.392
4
"Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.2
2.56
2.99
4
1.1
2.2
2.68
2.703
0.9
4
1.8
2.8
2.945
3.61
0.783
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
18.2
19.08
20.9
4
8.4
8.4
17.4
17.88
5.37
4
9.8
16.7
18.64
19.85
14.686
4
Width /Depth Ratio
10.2
16.19
23.66
4
9.6
12.5
9.61
18.22
4.98
4
8.0
14.0
11.73
24.587
7.289
4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
10.55
21.21
4
5.3
9.2
9.44
12.82
3.77
4
5.1
12.9
10.73
24.966
8.682
4
Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
24.8
35.98
53.02
4
24.2
35.2
-
531
-
4
20.28
30.8
-
55.2
4
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.002
0.003
0.006
4
0.002
0.003
0.006
4
0.002
10.004
0.006
4
Pool Length (ft)
20.47
33.67
44.45
2
21
32.54
45.21
2
26.76
38.88
51
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.81
3.12
3.43
2
3.41
3.53
3.65
2
3.17
3.47
3.77
2
Pool Spacing (ft)l
43.4
1 64.26
94.03
2
42.1
65.2
95.2
2
28.72
64
106
33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38.6
55.94
86.18
48
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19.2
27.81
36.28
56
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)
1.1
1.61
2.1
56
Meander Wavelength (ft)
85.5
103.92
118.61
48
Meander Width Ratiol
2.2
1 3.23
4.98
48
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4,E5
C4,E5
C4,E5
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
4064
Sinuosity (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
0.00146
0.00145
0.00145
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.00144
0.00139
0.00137
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
52
48
52
48
-
-
52
48
-
-
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
z% of Reach with Erodinq 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 suneys 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

-, •
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 12 — Venfication of Bankfull Events

• 'r •
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)

i -, 0
Table 12 - Verification of Bankfull E rants
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project - UP Protect No. 273
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
September 13, 2011
unknown
Visual observation of
n/a
wrack lines
October 4, 2012
unknown
Crest gauge
S9
Visual observation of
October 10, 2012
unknown
S8
wrack Ines