20041635 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20130212

poqG(,
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) M-1635
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Alamance County, North Carolina
EEP Project #405
Contract #D09079s
2 2013
MY -05 Monitoring Report
Data Collected: March 2012
Submitted: February 2013
r 1-
l "Co.systel11
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones St, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
FtECE`VED
MAR 0 1 913
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

UT to South Fork Creek
Stream and Wetland Restoration
EEP Project #405
Liberty, North Carolina
Alamance County
MY -05 Monitoring Report
Prepared By:
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Firm License Number C -2619
Project Manager: Becky Ward, P.E.
8368 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Ph: 919 -870 -0526
Fax: [phone]
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Executive Summary 1
II Methodology 3
III References 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure la Vicinity Map
Table la Project Components
Table lb Component Summations
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Protect Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photos 1 -6 Stream Station Photos
Photos 7 -13 Vegetation Momtormg Plots Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 -8 Cross - Sections
Figure 9 Longitudinal Profile
Figure 10 -15 Pebble Count Plots
Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table l lb Stream Reach Data Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13 Wetland Criteria Attainment
Appendix F Miscellaneous Data
Supplemental Plantmg Report - Feb 2012
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtormg Report -Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engmeers, P C February 2013
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
17
22
24
29
32
33
34
35
36
37
46
47
56
59
62
63
68
69
59
76
77

I. Executive Summary
The UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) ( UTSFC) stream and wetland restoration project
comprises 3943 linear feet of stream restoration with approximately 0 77 acre of wetland
restoration and 014 acre of wetland enhancement Site construction was completed June 2007
and plantings were completed in December 2007 This report represents the 4's consecutive year
monitoring data collection An integrated Baseline /Monitoring Year 1 Report year was
combined as one report and submitted in May 2010 which contains only stream and vegetation
baseline data. The monitoring year two report was submitted separately in May 2010 but
contains monitoring year 1 stream and vegetation data The monitoring year three report
contains monitoring year two data, and this year's monitoring year five report contains
monitoring year four data The report title year only represents the post construction year as
opposed to the post construction data collection year The project is within USGS Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit (RUC) 03030002050050 (NCDWQ sub basm 03- 06 -04) of the Cape Fear River
Basin This HUC has been identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) by EEP's Cape
Fear River Basin Priorities Plan 2009 The project is in Alamance County approximately eight
miles north of Siler City and one mile west of Snow Camp Road (SR 1004) The goals and
objectives for UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) stream restoration are
Project Goals
• Improving water quality to the receiving watershed though
• Cattle exclusion from the easement
• Planting a native riparian buffer
• Reduction of bank derived sediment losses through stabilization via
■ Construction of a channel with a stable dimension, pattern and profile
Protection of banks from hoof shear
■ Integration of a stabilizing root mass as part of planting a native riparian
buffer
• Providing wildlife habitat through the creation of a riparian zone
• Improving aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures and a
riparian buffer
• Increasing stream access to the floodplain
• Reducing erosion and sedimentation
Priority I and U stream restoration was performed along 4181 if of UTSFC, including 2 cattle
crossings exclusions and a 1481f road crossing exclusion Stream preservation of 27641f of a
perennial unnamed tributary (UT) to UTSFC was obtained by establishing cattle fencing along
the existing stream buffer In the floodplain of UTSFC, 0 77 acre of riparian wetlands was
restored An additional 014 acre of riparian wetlands was enhanced The stream is divided into
three reaches A (Sta 6+00 — 18 +75), B (Sta 18 +75 — 25+00), and C (Sta 29+00 — 40 +00 for
monitoring purposes (Figure 2)
Currently the vegetation success criteria for the project site are being met Seven vegetation
plots were monitored using the Version 4 2 of the CVS -EEP vegetation monitoring protocol
The average stem density for the project site is 2474 stems /acre including live stakes, planted
stems, and natural stems Counting only planted stems and excluding hvestakes, the average
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration 1 Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

stem density for the project site is 393 stems /acre The success criterion for planted woody
species is 320 stems /acre after MY -03 A mortality rate of ten percent will be allowed after MY-
04 (288 stems/acre), with another ten percent allowed after MY -05 (260 stems /acre) Plots 4
and 5 stem densities were below the 260 planted stems /acre threshold but the total stems /acre
with desirable species far exceeded the stems /acre threshold Since these same vegetation plots
met the success criteria for total stems, this is a reflection of high recruitment of natural
volunteer species Supplemental plantings were conducted during the 2012 monitoring period to
address areas of low stem densities identified in 2011
The vegetation problem areas consist of some areas with low planted stem densities and some
areas of invasive exotic plants Currently the invasives are in a manageable state and will be
monitored to determine if control measures will be necessary Invasive exotic species observed
throughout the conservation easement include, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), tall fescue (Schedonurus
arundinaceus), and Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense) Treatment and removal of targeted
invasive exotic plants within the project area was conducted in 2010 and 2011 with the last
treatments conducted in October 2011 Multiflora rose, Chinese privet, and tree of heaven were
successfully treated and are currently under control Some living individuals of multiflora rose
and Chinese privet were observed scattered mostly within Reach A, B, and C Many dead
individuals as a result of invasive treatment were observed Some young individuals of tree of
heaven were observed in the vicinity to the large dead stands that were treated within Reach C
Japanese honeysuckle was observed scattered throughout Reaches A and B Japanese stiltgrass
is ubiquitous throughout Reach A and B Tall fescue is located throughout the easement in areas
directly adjacent to the pastureland, which histoncally was pastureland Johnson grass is
dominant along the conservation easement boundary next to the cattle crossing at station 29 +00
Although these species have been given different ranks of seventy, the functionality of the
project is not expected to be impaired significantly It is likely that all of these species were
present in and adjacent to the conservation easement prior to construction Supplemental
planting of the conservation easement was completed on February 2, 2012 Specific areas of the
conservation easement were planted with 8501 gallon containerized trees (Appendix C)
Six riparian wetlands occur within the conservation easement totaling 0 91 acre Wetland 2 -6,
totaling 0 77 acre, are restored wetlands residing in the pre- construction channel alignment with
each containing a groundwater monitoring gauge Wetland 1, totaling 0 14 acre, is an enhanced
wetland with one reference groundwater monitoring gauge Groundwater levels are monitored to
determine if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the growing
season These areas will be considered wetlands if the groundwater is within 12 inches for at
least 12% of the growing season, and the area supports hydrophytic vegetation, and meets the
hydnc soil requirements. According to the wetland groundwater gauges on site for MY -05,
gauges 3, 5, and the reference gauge met wetland hydrology requirements (Appendix E)
Wetland soils were observed within wetlands meeting the wetland hydrology success criteria
based on the F3 hydric soil indicator Wetland plants such as common rush (Juncus effusus),
smartweed (Polygonum sp ), and various wetland sedges (Carex sp ) were also observed within
these wetland areas
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
2
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report -Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engmeets, P C February 2013

Overall, the stream is stable and funchonnig as designed There has been little change in the
stream pattern, profile or dimension between MY -04 and the present monitoring year MY -05
Vegetation within the channel bottom continues to be present in all of Reach A and the upper
portions of Reach B & C The vegetation in the channel is trapping fines and is creating finer
pebble count trends in cross sections 1 and 7 The other pebble counts remain consistent with
previous pebble counts
The bedforin features of the entire stream appear to remain consistent as compared to the
previous year's monitoring data with little change to pattern, profile or dimension Comparison
of the cross sections in Reaches A and B show little changes in geometry between MY -04 and
MY -05 and are overall stable A narrow low flow channel had previously developed within the
bankfull channel in Reaches A & B None of the cross sections are showing significant changes
in geometry as compared to the MY -04 data
Only one structure throughout the entire stream has been reported as an issue on the Current
Condition Plan The cause of the issue is minor piping at rock cross vane at station 20 +80, in
monitoring Reach B This cross vane, although not maintaining its intended water surface
elevation, is otherwise functioning Bank erosion problems are only evident in 1% of Reach A
Previously reported bank erosion areas have apparently stabilized as woody stem vegetation is
developing on these banks No further erosion was observed in these previous bank erosion
areas The current bank erosion contributing to the 1% exists sporadically throughout Reaches A
and B, particularly in the vicinity of cross sections 1 and 4, and is attributed to cattle that have
entered into the conservation easement This cattle access issue is considered limited and should
continue to be monitored for further signs of encroachment
Summary mformatnon/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the
tables and figures in the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on
EEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available
from EEP upon request
H. Methodology
Methodologies follow EEP monitoring report template Version 13 (1/15/2010) and guidelines
(Lee et al 2008) Photos were taken with a digital camera A Trimble Geo XT handheld unit
with sub -meter accuracy was used to collect groundwater gauge locations, vegetation monitoring
plot origins, and problem area locations Cross sectional and longitudinal surveys were
conducted using total station survey equipment Data was entered into AutoCAD Civi13D to
obtain dimensions of the cross sections and parameters applicable to the longitudinal profile
Reports were then generated to display summaries of the stream survey
A. Vegetation Methodologies
Level H of the EEP /CVS protocol Version 4 2 was used to collect data for MY -04, which
includes natural stems Data collection for these plots was conducted on August 31, 2011
(Appendix C)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
3
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtonng Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers. P C February 2013

B. Wetland Methodologies
Five RDS groundwater monitoring gauges (1 -5) were downloaded bi- monthly to ensure proper
function throughout the growing season Data is provided in an Excel spreadsheet along with
incorporation of local rainfall data provided by the State Climate Office
C. Stream Methodologies
Stream profile and cross - sections were surveyed using total station equipment and methods The
survey data was plotted using AutoCAD Civd3D The longitudinal profile was generated using
the MY -00 alignment Cross sectional data was extracted based on a linear alignment between
the end pins Cross section bankfull elevations for yearly comparisons are based on the baseline
bankfull elevation established for each cross section Data collection for the stream data was
conducted on March 27, 2012
III. References
Lee, Michael T Peet, Robert K Roberts, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R (2008) CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 2
Weakley, Alan (2007) Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
htta / /www herbarium unc edu/flora htm
Wolman, M G, 1954 A Method of Sampling Coarse River -Bed Material, Transactions of
American Geophysical Union 35 951 -956
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
4
Stream and Wettand Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration 5 Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

v
r
s ^G
r
A 17
�/, N � -� � U • ��?`�j��,., � '\ 1 — !,— _ _ —_ � , 1 �J 1. y'•' ��,
J, � !rte \
Lkk
The
UT to South Fork Creek
(EEP#405)
.
Date February 2012
Figure
Catena
Scale
Vicinity Map
0 1 600 3.200 Feet
I I
G roup
USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map
Job No.:
4133
Alamance County. NC

Table 1a Project Components
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405
Project
Restoret
Non -
Footag
Restoration
BMP
Riparian
Compone
Existing
Ion
Approac
a or
Statlonin
Mitigatio
Mitigation
Ele
Comment
nt or
Fest/Acres
vel
h
Acreag
g
n Ratio
Units
men
HQ Preservation
Reach ID
Totals
6677
0.91
a
0
tsl
UT to
MU Totals
4490
0.84
0
0
735
R
P2
6901f
11
890
FFoorrkh
Creek
7+50
Instream
UT to
South
1430
R
P1
14201f
7+50—
1 1
1420
Structure and
Fork
21 +70
Vegetated
Creek
Buffers
UT to
South
1917
R
P2
1833 It
�+81
11
1833
Credo
UT to
2784
P
cattle
27341f
0+00—
51
547
Cattle Fence
UTSFC
Fencin
27+64
Installed
Water
Pro-
Wetlands
Wetlands
077
R
table
0+00—
1 1
077
construction
restored
Ac
15+50
channel
location
Hardwo
Pre -
Wetlands
014
E
Planting
0 14
13+00
2 1
007
construction
wetland
s
1 = BR = Bioretention Cell, SF = Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond FS = Filter
Strip, Gassed Swale = S, IS = Level Spreader NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other, CF = Cattle Fencing, WS = Watering System CH =
livestock Housing
Cattle Crossings at Sta 0+00 to 0+30 Sta 6+00 to 6+30, Sta 28+85 to 29 +15 30 LF stream crossing on Preservation Reach of UT to UTSFC
Road Crossing at Sta 21 +70 to 23+18
Stream crossing lengths are not included in Mitigation Unit calculated values
Table 1 b. Component Summations
UT to South Fork Creek Ste hens No. 405
Non -
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
If
Wetland Ac
Ac
Ac
Ac
BMP
Non -
Rivenne Rivenne
Restoration 3943 077
Enhancement 014
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation 2734
HQ Preservation
091
Totals
6677
0.91
0
0
Feet/Acres
MU Totals
4490
0.84
0
0
Non - Applicable
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
%
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report -Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 5 yrs 5 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 5 yrs 0 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
N/A
Sep-04
Final Design - 90%
N/A
N/A
Construction
N/A
June -07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
June -07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
June -07
Containerized, B &B, and livestake planting
N/A
Dec -07
Monitoring Baseline Year 0/1
Apr -09
June -09
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -09
Dec -09
Invasives treatment #1
N/A
May -10
Invasives treatment #2
N/A
Oct -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Sep -10
Dec -10
Invasives treatment #3
N/A
Apr -11
Invasives treatment #4
N/A
Oct -11
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -11
Feb -12
Supplemental Planting
N/A
Feb -12
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct -12
Nov -12
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
g
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtonng Report -Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405
Designer
Dewberry & Dais, Inc
2301 Rexwoods Dr, Ste 200
Raleigh, NC, 27607 -3366
Primary project design POC
Ph 919 -881 -9939
Construction Contractor
N/A
Construction contractor POC
Survey Contractor
N/A
Survey contractor POC
Planting Contractor
N/A
Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor
N/A
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
N/A
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery, Inc
Ph 252 -482 -5707
Monitoring Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
8368 Six Forks Road Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Stream Monitoring POC
Becky Ward 919 - 870 -0526
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - 919 -732 -1300
Wetland Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - 919 - 732 -1300
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
9
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Table 4 Project Attribute Table
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405
Project County
Alamance
Physiouraphic Reaion
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear River Basin
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3030002050050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -04
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plans
Cape Fear River Basin Priorities Plan 2009
WRC Hab Class Warm, Cool, Cold
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activo observed during design phase9
U
Restoration Com onent Attribute Table
Drainage area
1 33 sq mi
Stream order
2nd
Restored length feet
4003
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed Rural, Urban, Developing etc
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g )
Urban
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Water/Wetlands
51%
29%
10%
70/6
3%
Watershed impervious cover %
<5%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
NCDWQ classification
No classification Haw River C, NSW
303d listed?
Yes
Upstream of a 303d listed segment9
Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
High pH
Total acreage of easement
2258
Total vegetated acroaae within the easement
21 86
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
1529
Rosgen classification of pro-existing
F4, 134c
Ros en classification of As -built
E4
Valley type
-
Valley slope
-
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %)
-
Valley toe slope ranee q 2 -3 %)
-
Cowardin classification
Riverine
Trout waters desi nation
Species of concern endangered etc (YIN)
Yes
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Series
Hemdon Orange, Im , and Colifax silty loams
Depth
-
Cla o
-
K
-
T
-
Use N/A for items that may not apply Use"-" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project number 405
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
10
Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
Year 5 of 5
February 2013

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project number 405
Ward Consulting Engmeers, P C
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
11
Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
Year 5 of 5
February 2013

r
r
i
. " Legend
�. • VeQ F'oI,y;n
SPA:1 Groundwater Gauges (Criteria Met?)
• Yes
ND
Siruckres
S1reem ReaCP- A. 0 - 8 C
�'_,• '�; .� ..."' Cror's semons 1-g
y � v CUIVerts
2011 Sl,* eod Tnalweg
Stream Pfxswvu*n 27'64 If
Sirawnbanks
�► -
Conseryaian EeeerrxM
sheet index
WKI'4 Vegetation Monitoring Plots 1 -7
Planted Stem Criteria Met
Yes
- No
s - Jurisdic[ianal Wetlands
Mitigation Type
hJew plantings composed of Shumard Oak, Scarlet Oak. Yellow Eirarc-9rrer -s 14 at
Poplar, Sugarberry, and River Birch were observed along the gtrez =ra *nn n rI x:
restored reaches throughout the conservation easement. 400 804
Feet
Date*
May 2"012
Scale:
As Shen
JO No,* EEP #405
Title
UT to
South Fork
Creek
Current
Conditions
Plan View
MY -05
2010 Aerial
OrihWha"rsphF
Source NC One Iilap-,z
Clienl
Figure

DaW
Movent er 2012
Scale:
As Shown
Job No' EEP X445
T1*
UT to
South Fork
Creek
Current
Conditions
Plan View
MY-05
2010 Aera1
onhwhoeography
Source NC One Maps
Chem
s
Figure
0

The
C at
Group
Date:
November 2012
Scale:
As Shown
Job No.:
EEP #405
Title:
UT to
South Fork
Creek
Current
Conditions
Plan View
MY -05
2010 Aerial
Orthophotography
Source: NC One Maps
Client:
r�
���C��SteYil
��oarwm
Figure
—�J

The
Coteno
Group
Date:
November 2012
Scale:
As Shown
Job No.:EEP #405
Title:
UT to
South Fork
Creek
Current
Conditions
Plan View
MY -05
2010 Aerial
Orthophotog ra phy
Source. NC One Maps
Client:
r�
fften i
11mel
FlMit�M
Figure
C

The
Catena
r
Goup
Date:
November 2012
Scale:
As Shown
Job No.:EEP #405
Title:
UT to
South Fork
Creek
Current
Conditions
Plan View
MY -05
2010 Aerial
Orthophotography
Source. NC One Maps
Client:
r�-
f os tern 1,1'.11 'C111 M
Figure
-9

Table 5 Visual Stream Momholoav Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach A [Sta 6+00 - 18 +75]
Assessed Length 1275
CI � �
-
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
y _ _
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number In
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
ments
Foote a
as Intended
Veaetation
V station
Vecletation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Agoradatlon - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
a
100%
-
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
4
_ —
J ' ` X
-
- Dearadathon - Evidence of downcuthrg
- 100%
e
L Riffle Condition
_
1 Texture/Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate_- _ _ _
30
-32
—940/a
`
'
S. Meander Pool
1 Depth Sutflcient (Maz Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
28
32
88%
Condition
2 Lerath appropriate ( >30% of centedlne distance between tall of
28
32
88%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
{
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
28
32
88%
r w
Thalweg centering at downstream of mearxter (Glide)
28
31
900/0
b
"
a
'k
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resuflug simply from poor growth and/or
s
1
20'
-99%
1 V
20
100%
scour and erosion
r g
-
*�
Banks undercut/overhangmg to the extent that mass wasbrg appears
2 Undercut
likely Does iM include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
-
100%
100%
and are providing habitat-- -
- -
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving orcollapse
100%
--
_
100%
r
a f _
Totals
1
20
99%
1
20
1000/0
Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact vnth no dislodged boulders or logs
3'
3
^ L
100%
_.
'
v
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
^ "
1000/0
14
f
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any 'substantial flow underneath sdis or arms
1
1
1000/0
Oar
Bank erosion within te struchues extent of Influence does mf exceed
, i r"
3 Bank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
is
El
-
100%
Depth ratio L 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow
d
c
CI � �

Table 5 Dual Stream Mornholoav Stab_ ility Assessment
Reach ID Reach B (Ste 18+75 - 25+001
Assessed Length 625
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-Catenonf
Metric-
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
oot
V etatlon
tatlon
Vegetation
I Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aaaradation - Bar formationtgrowth sufficient to significantly deflect
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
s
J
- -
2 Dearadation - Evidence of downcultrng
2. Riffle Condition
1 TextundSubstrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate _
9
10
900/0 -
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Suflicfeni (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth 2:16)
10
11
91%
r
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerilne distance between tall of
11
11
1009!0
!'
upstream riffle and head of downWem nffle) _
4 Thalweg Position
1 Ttiatweg centering at upstream of meander bard (Run)
9
10
90%
{ J
'Thalweg centering at downstream of'meander (Glide)
9
10
90%
4
Bank
1 ScouredlErod l ~
rig _
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
_
"
- _ ,.•
�
100%
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercutloverhangmg to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
100%
100%
and are providing habJ at
3 Blass Wastlng
Bank slumping calving or collapse r
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
tructures
r
1 Overall integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
m 2
2
,100%
Z Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill -
2 -'
2
100%
4a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
1
2
50%,
y '
3�6ank Protection'
Bank erosion within the` structures extent of influence does rW exceed'
2
2
100u
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
h
r r '
Habitat
Pool,fonning structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Banktull
�x2'r
2
h
100%
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwadsllogs providing some cover at base -flow 1
s
h 3

Table 5 Visual Stream Mornholony Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach C [Sta 29+00 - 40 +00]
Assessed Length 1100
Adjusted %
1
_
_
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
Ca o
Sub -Cat o
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se insnts
Footaue
as Intended
Ve station
Vaustation
Xtrtation
1 Bed r
1 Vertical Stability
1 Acaradation - Bar formatioNgrowth sufficient to significantly deflect w
- n
100%
A r L
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to Include point bars)
2 Degradation Evidence of downcufting i
100%
2 RIHIe Condltbn
1 Texture /Substrate_Rrffle mamtams coarser substrata _ -
23
X25 _ _
_ _' t
92 %_ _
w
I
Mead
3' Meander Pool'
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
24
26
j
92%
Y M1 v ¢
Leith appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tall of
24
26
92%-,--
"
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
-
T
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thaiweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
25
26
96%
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)`- -1—
25
- 26
96%'
-
- -
-
Bank
1 'Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
100%
100
L
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does = Include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
_ _ _
_100%
100%
and are providing habitat
a
3 Mass Wasting
Bank stumping, calving or collapse
100%
100%
R �
t
A e Totals
0
, 0
1000/0
0
0
100%
Engineered
t Overall lnie N
Structures physically Intact with no dislodged boulders or lo-
gs
_ 1
- 100 %
"
Structures
%
1 o-
2.Arade Control
1
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across tits sill
1
1
a
1006/0
} 5
1
ur
C
2a Piping`
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath sills or arms
100 %'
Bank erosion within the structures extent of Influence does EM exceed
3 tiBank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table In EEP monitoring gurdarrce document)
1
�..
1
,,., , r �
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Sankfull
1
1
100% -
Depth ratio a 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow

Criteria, Detinitions and Thresholds for Visual Stream Morphology Assessments
LUl-
Mnnal
Channel Sub-
I o
GDe
Metric
fln rq
GWp 1 Thlbehp
PV ps bal-
Iv
j— epn
amr vcon u
efi
o rrgalo ; aeneracryrn.
IHillb ana RUr v'M:cl
inkgal,XeM al ponlr sl vl hHU,a Dae•Ibw e�rneona.M DI'+
> Yrq yprdrq macn b dYm rMreeruee
11) or 1-1
o IK blt rcel El I brd e M baH 15 bel b m
prayslbrmrmYbn'ffowtnwM aafwY•d 14r:ry of r• aM SUlamar ane arrmmrq vl Xrs Waco brq PrPDla.ro
arllVnm briyn. rnk'wvs•la leas
L•ppr•rla7 ar••af M•norgnblNbct lbwapYru: eanafbdeb cYYOpmY ReportdYnM
Ivpnnn en a YaY fool n mea "q leuan e(ywlalnrt Inee prolu Below mr rarpv of eamWe t W
pmanVapprffiInn�
.11p11,hll- NbnpereWlivs el NYlMleowncvU wmn RHlw'RUn arils.
w•Pvpcla Wes rkaprae enDl ^wetl hem [snn,ageWavrelwncMll'ryheycbev karrert.
nhWUn rba nplHmlcwat •muca rYeprberl
eel Yalp!ha. 'InW:slwe iTi ale pnclled eY elrucNna, cnnMDe1'eleP'in clry+Wfi perenlmYarld,
omv MllM Etil rl�u HbnI 151eelbbnpin.x 1pt cl
N1erCe o• Dbl ryIr•el H ma eyr IW ID•Mw m.bry m y W nDoaaMl: mabb�lbn W vvarae rlma auMXlm n
nll►'wr bryD. wnrcMro b leaa.
r
h eewnabe•m, aro hemp[ rNeea wen rvn merplgmpv. Lora- ProlNS wrveyf awa] R�ppor, an ea•aafm[M 01
rbpndtnn wwe tlly vnrbl aeNYmw'r •rY euwey vm. I•p.
X -f. LoMtlon
m damMm. 5as• tart ryv
rokabe rona0anmeN tora�n•�PX B.aR1MY PeeY¢Ceun6 —wd Hpw. ema.x el Mlb NmnpwnWa
ffiP aclm ( 1.
3. MN•rlJer Po
1. bnl
meMC • an1 a ebnp a vcNrn
Gowllon
bD000 r•atrye er pwb.Y e. wYwsa aro altse[we a,e arow uN aNen,l swcmpory I .bw. m.crr..
GenYn efod•ptl 1.6 tlmea IM mnn N.41u1 dpin IMru Pod Optn Nea ^. Janahi Celih, 1.61.
—kw M lvW
•n wnk'u1 dn ulYred m .make Mw AYbmn•llon.
avAls reebrl podepttb larrq w Ib mWpee• Ior a larp of nba+ many riles tlpl'e mat NeM
em�Ykn prWepn.
apbopruN°
Lora mYrc r b b b mawb•r 11b msertY Jog la•pm a M ,9M: IM Mow
— -
wMw 6flapa DHWMn bfa W o111V uhlb•Yn nllb eM Iti trM al Mo eowralrwn I M.
�1TWwp Pwltbn
t. Ln Acw.Wnq at upaVNnrHmWrabr e•ntl (NUn)
LIMA YuaMbcnr•cmlDe wpHM iq bywabns, Tna lnYapheglecYMbW
nal Hire vrnm fiber n Iha Dntl upea. Dut veabn orienMl bwwb Me euM JanY bo Is love'M h•rdps+
meY l^eivatn Ina palmmnl Inr invrree4 DW woarm. SrmYrM1e, er I>mad�rNYa aanclrbn s Yw b•s:YE m
erYa ecw p•m <ar.;wnp;Yaln: e.? Delvwl. I na curranlyw uuMasp r.bal.. m Me CCPV Npun can
.m r ma .aaeea+bnl.
. Tn p pMrnp al awmbwn of nrrrpr llbq l 1T
"Ic a.' etgve
2. Bard
I. xoar.b'E.odlnp 8.nk
Brea wlm e+'.e•nl aaour ranabn
u.n
R•IpM LargM
n crW b rblbr aaeea[ eanfalrwe yart a+vawn rick Neae brrY rymenb sn Yau Maraelbtrae wen rwaac:
woumb arMngabe weerrlHHlYugvpaWen. LeMlrarae bean r•a rora Dla'ea'IUW W1a0iN Wrec
amaey,�a.ml
d— te uM
doae I—ly (.4 10 fw1 or Ira) o• oWbua InlepHnn d rwl maa .&I M• E•ra 1W an MbacMb
A 6
e
3.$ D Ip
x.Iaqurcla
a wa lnH
m p b Me vrnY mme wp gee W
"wmvery n H..
rte'
TIJa IYl6 prwNm a pukb for waralrq theanpl� Ivr
nal woub Pnmpl In! 141'^4 H • paver Defer oDfecl mb IN ab611a+Y avDC•a1peM ral•IW b ,Va el rvnn
r� m a OCHO =-11 l0Y dta utdU DaM In. wpYwNa Yer,. -u m raowq anam >'e m
DWC erosion eateglMp'Ilaapplq Dasee an Denk hegM.
Por Ina Dena fNplhl ranpea YJw s Me rlanmwm krlpM M
De�k b M mpp•d erd talbtl b •pepiNbi Fer evar.lpb.
a. waa wa.eap
alurwly'
-
•Ingle brae re O feel hq, . oriv map r urV fe4b
eepMnl 114 s t 10 IM.
. aVlenre[
1. Ober "fty
Tie weaamereH enpneered WUClure lbrfvrmwaa etb Hructurn MY Prmiee prbb -1 W4
3A c nrlcbn cMY lnebtr kh,,
oq maenab D M a-ev:bla
p�eNe!wn bhaD4Y furclkns. Tbaa lrcLe•Venaa. JJwka. Bed �polwab.. •k.
rtifurewT red " "il amuNXY hIWenY Oecurtr
.Grasp CDnII
o
prrla.o mbnWryn anosa s [VVCIUn Inn lmm Yn pslnem
aq ubbaarrwo a eenb po wrwW
utura'+ Som• YINry YHr rY rbl conHUN a b• bl rffi cpnlreL
ltrinure wMh n4" 'Matt Trrt nr MI prb rontrcl
b. Plpnp
alnaeuna iry ryauhaenh a
hboy amoYls
IrlMUra w,M ne -r'X agnrunlpoWhrcc w
1 P2NCtlon
.re mp [IrvtUr WMYme Dbrl Yh mD•
Yraoms pmM nNrrab 1•n b wnW
sly eabgrq r� W r. eb Hrrelurm apwe vl bIYNm;e eacsebe I5s4 el me mtte horn louupr wtlhn Xr
:rlMrn wen n0 "'' N Hrvolun n•f lace m DrD+IW hank
TnxYbaa epnan vl InlMbrrrn. Ihen IM atru tun anoutl ba dsaXlbl r gQprcwdrq arb�e ►hrir pmMbn m
vW1M
ne alb teak.
14.
DWn', W.I. 8rn0.14 DWI 11? Fmmbl p merb
np lar male Hnaa rrbNnb bvnWe
nmreClry wYr lutYmw Bed pMYrpcvvar.
bucbn wN rM ". r' N SYUC1n u rot IxoNYnp n.D:W

g4
E
5
M
'o
I
E
u
a
41
0
S mE� ^�'� °b
�a���'°g�fisffi
v� o J•
71
a
D
a°
m
3
9
gE
/EE£
��Efi• '�.Sn
�$gE:
yb��8
s
Y
= ESRop•_ :��
OYPSi
ci��s*
�
A a
3 c
E
iE cEzL.
-�.,
-2 9
yy
!
a�5
;
o
o
i
C
'e
n
t
�a
°oF
so -
a° c
'Rm'I
q
o
71
a
D
a°
m
3
9
gE
/EE£
S
s
A a
3 c
a
a�5
;
C
LL
t
�a
°oF
so -
a° c
'Rm'I
q
,.o
BY,OYN
p�iE
ci<O
YNO
30 �
a
s
�g
a
8a �
5Q
add
4� ��C
v,o
ui
v?o
r��m0
�40
^o
VYh
�sHG
LEA
o°Em ..mac, 70

Table 6 ;r
Planted Acreage' '
Vegetation Condition Assessment
10
Easement Acreaae2 '15
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
station Cate o
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Po ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
1., Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and
0 1 acres
Pattern and
0
000
00%
Vlnvasl've
herbaceous material
Color
Woody stem densities clearly below target
. Low Stem Density Areas —}
levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
0 1 acres
Yellow simple
2
005
05%
hatch
ncroachment Are
Areas or'points (if too small to render as
none,
-
criteria
000
00%
polygons at map scale) f
- Tota
0
000
180%
;Areas of_P_oor,Giowth.Rates or Vigor _
that are obviously small given the
0 25 acres
Pattern and
0
000
000/0
_ _
Color
-� Cumulative TbtaQ
0
000
18 0%
Easement Acreaae2 '15
3 L _ 'L
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Co mbined
Easement
ate o
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Po ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
as of Concern4
Microstegwm omineum
1000 SF
Green cross
0
0 00
0 0%
Vlnvasl've
hatch
ncroachment Are
Areas or'points (if too small to render as
none,
Pattemland
" �^ 01
000
00%
polygons at map scale) f
Color ,
3 L _ 'L

High Concern:
Low /Moderate Concern:
Vines
Genus/Species
Shrubs /Herbs
Genus/Species
Shrubs/Herbs
Genus/Species
Pueraria lobata
Japanese Knotweed
Polygonum cus idatum
Japanese Privet
Li ustrum Ja onicum
Am elo sis brevi eduncu
Oriental Bittersweet
Celastrus orbiculatus
Glossy Privet
Li ustrum lucidum
Lonicera japonica
Multiflora Rose
Rosa multiflora
Fescue
Festuca spp.
Humulus 'a onicus
Russian olive
Elaea nus an ustifolia
English Ivy
Hedera helix
Wisterias
Wisteria spp.
Chinese Privet
Li ustrum sinense
Microste ium
Microste ium vimineum
Winter Creeper
Euon mus fortunei
Chinese Silver grass
Miscanthus sinensis
Burning Bush
Euon mus alatus
Bush Killer Watch List
Ca ratia japonica
Phra mites
Phra mites australis
Johnson Grass
Sorghum hale ense
Bamboos
Ph Ilostach s s
Bush Honeysuckles
Lonicera. s .
Trees
Sericea Les edeza
Sericea Les edeza
Periwinkles
Vinca minor
Ailanthus altissima
Garlic Mustard Watch List
Alliaria petiolata
Morning Glories
Morning Glories
Mimosa
Albizia julibrissin
Co on Grass Watch List
Im erata c lindrica
Bicolor Les edeza Watch List
Les edeza bicolor
Princess Tree
Paulownia tomentosa
Giant Reed Watch List
Arundo donax
Chinese Yams Watch List
Dioscorea oppositifolia
China Berry
Melia azedarach
Tropical Soda Apple Watch List
Solanum viarum
it Potato Watch List
Dioscorea bulbifera
Callery Pear
P rus calleryana
Japanese S irea Watch List
S iraea japonica
a anese Climbing Fern Watch List
Lygodium japonicum
White Mulberry
Morus alba
Japanese Barberry Watch List
Berberis thunber ii
Tallow Tree Watch List
Triadica sebifera

Stream Station Photos
Photo 1. Looking downstream at XS -1
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project number: 405
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Photo 2. Looking downstream at XS -2
24
Year 5 Monitoring Report -Final
Year 5 of 5
February 2013

Photo 3. Looking downstream at XS -3
Photo 4. Looking downstream at XS -4
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration 25 Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

Photo 5. Looking downstream at XS -5
Photo 6. Looking downstream at XS -6
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
6
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report -Final
NCEEP Project number. 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

v
IJ
Photo 7. Looking downstream at XS -7
Photo 8. Looking downstream at XS -8
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) 27
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report -Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project number: 405
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Photo 9. Looking downstream at XS -9
28
Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
Year 5 of 5
February 2013

2010 (MY -03) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 2, 2010
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
2012 (MY -05) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 5, 2012
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot
Vegetation Plot 3
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
29
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

2010 (MY -03) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 2, 2010
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
2012 (MY -05) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 5, 2012
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) 30
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

2010 (MY -03) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 2, 2010
Vegetation Plot 7
2012 (MY -05) Vegetation
Monitoring Plots Photos
September 5, 2012
Vegetation Plot 7
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
31
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number: 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. February 2013

Appendix C. vegetation Plot Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
32
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 ,Momtonng Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to South Fork CreeLEEP # 405 Monitoring Year 5 2012
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met 260
Wanted stems/acre9
Monitoring Year 5
Planted Stem Density
stems/acre
Monitoring Year 5
Total Stem Density
stems/acre
VP 1
Yes
688
1416
VP 2
Yes
566
1862
VP 3
Yes
566
2388
_ VP 4
No
162
1052
VP 5
No
202
2266
VP 6
Yes
283
4816
VP 7
Yes
283
3521
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) 33 1 '
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtormg Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5 a
Ward Consultmg Engmeers, PC February 2013

z�
Report Prepared By Chris Sheats
Date Prepared 11/15/201216 04
database name UTtoSouthForkCreek.mdb
database location P \Oilice & Information\EEP\2012 2.3.1 CVS Entry Tool
computer name HARNETT
file size 65146880
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------- -- ---
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data
Proj, planted
Each projecCis 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
mcludeshve 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 Slip
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Slip
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.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code 405
project Name UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Description South Fork of Cane Creek in Alamance County EEP Project # 405
River Basin Cape Fear
length t)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 7
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
34
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Monitoring Report-Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

Mii'
II�IINI11111111
IN
�����
■�
■IWI
■�I�IN11111
■1
11�
�IIYI��gINw11N11�1�1��N
1�I��I
INS
N111
IN
i
��i�i
=��llri�
n�iinu�ai�wi�ue
���
IN
IN
IN
IvIMIYIIuIIIIAIN�IIIIINN9INI

UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetland Restoration
NCEEP Project number 405
Ward Consulting Engineers P C
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
36
Year 5 Monitoring Report Final
Year 5 of 5
February 2013

Elevation
(Feet)
_
' f0 �O V V V V V V
o v
cfomrnv
° d m
v
job }��o
V+
.....................
m N A P P W N N N W A A A A In A lti V m m m
a O
O V N tp V m f0 [T m+ N OI N -� tp OI m N V
b N
D m
D >0
o
m�mDnc
8
T - m
N
N N
m N� N GOO O m 401 N N N W m 0 (ll Ol q V Om1 m� p�
I
I
m
m
�'
mm m mm manmm mme
8 B .
'f
�
q�qbL'L tppb.LnL...
.vpR
W NAG W W000�GmN0N W GVI W W w
l
(II
OD
F '�
Z
V
�
N
m
D a a TJ
s
p ..........
V f A W+ OG A V
W
W O� in V P A O O N ID A - m S
(JI I N V N
6'
•• p O A. C
9� m W -� m N 0 N DD W T O V W W
a
rn m m m m m m m a+ rn m m m a m m ... m a
M
c
N O p p O Q p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O p O
fn P W N N W 41 W A to 6) V V GO
N�1 W Af A
N N V� 3
aAA
ppW ♦ ( p O VAV
� +W W O+O O W O W SmN mV P[.�NN�aDN +W V
±
j �Ol
O
a W NfJN�
D m
(
I
I
I
y 0p tp m N m V V V V N y O
Vi Q1 U♦ W N O J N �O N N m
�+ V O
O'
b� N
Vm
O� m N N m LNI O O m fal O f�.l V N O Omf m m O m A m 0 V IOOI N� t�Jl D Omf m L 001 Y (VJ _
Vpp1NpOO
N 0
I
pV
po pp pp pppp pp pp�p p p pppp
N fT N A R P R Q R t0.� t0.1 (J fJ N NNN N N tJ N tOJ f0.1 f0.1 A A R R A P N N N m m J OD GON
D N O N
'
O tT O p V I N W O+ O N OI T (T + A m CII t0 O� l0 0 A O� T N V m O� V O� V O•
j
v m m C $ v
m
I
n
Z D n D r r r
r
m
S
a
N
W
}
0
44
m ODD y A (VJ N N N O f0 O l0)1 p O m V N A V+ A V V N V m tJ O W 2J m N O
�P W m W
b
]q7 m
'�'�oo�occee�a�cee�ue000�'�
.ii
I
i "�
oeee�eeecoocog
O� m m
N tli N A A A P A W W W NNN N W f.� fJ W A A A A A A t/i T m N O� V V
. .......
m �O P O A N m m N - m N A
j 0
D CD
N
l
`
T o
�_ 90
Ii
I
I
m
PKIu,
0
s
m
X
I
y
S
a
x
m
O A
8
�

Section: Gross Section 2 MY011 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
e Riffle A (BKF) 13.3 12.3 11.5 12.7 11.6
1: 11 +51 W (BKF) 13.5 12.5 145 16.6 12.2
W22/12 Max d 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1
SV. ZP Mean d 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0
0.05 60 4.85 0.21 604.87 6.51 604.97 0.35 604.84 0.11 604.82
13.66 604.88 TOBL 7.96 604.92 1226 604.95 4.60 604.87 5.40 604.89
20.51 604.23 Banklul lot 14.00 604.85 16.10 604.58 12.14 604.84 11.81 604.78
2454 603.44 19.46 604.16 3ankfull Le 19.00 604.38 16.71 604.58 15.70 604.74
2833 602.33 22.26 604.20 TOBL 21.15 604.33 20.98 604.37 19.59 604.28
29.41 602.04 TW 23.88 603.81 22.00 604.23 3L 6ankful 22.82 604.15 TOBL 22.00 60426
3031 602.09 26.29 603.13 22.97 604.03 24.02 603.76 NKFULILLE 23.11 603.99 3L Banklul
30.99 602.30 27.13 602.56 24.44 603.66 25.47 603.31 24.62 603.49
32.97 603.33 27.94 602.41 26.33 603.13 26.66 603.00 26.06 60321
3529 603.98 tankful Rip 28.30 602.31 27.27 602.57 27.72 602.56 27.61 602.54
3754 603.77 29.75 601.99 TW 28.78 602.14 TOE 28.28 602.37 2855 602.41
40.80 604.06 TOBR 30.34 60¢.11 29 -38 601.87 28.76 602.10 TOE L 28.99 601.96
47.60 605.06 31.64 60¢.55 29.55 601.87 TW 29.22 601.98 29.48 601.85 TW
50.85 605.12 3224 602.98 30.64 602.24 TOE 29.71 601.92 TW 30.36 601.97 TOE R
56.81 604.77 35.95 604.00 R Bankfull 31.43 602.85 30.19 601.98 31.OT 602.58
67.62 604.90 39.66 603.84 33.19 603.55 30.72 602.05 TOE R 32.30 603.11
82.07 605.93 44.46 604.50 34.78 603.94 tankful rigt 31.31 602.52 33.60 603.53
82.24 606.18 RP 50.05 605.19 35.55 603.91 TOBR 32.28 603.05 34.70 603.96 R Bankfull I '
55.72 604.77 39.77 604.05 33.49 603.39 WFULL RN 36.01 604.00
64.98 604.69 46.94 605.04 35.06 603.87 TOBR 40.19 604.04
72.90 605.02 55.70 604.77 37.21 603.89 44.61 604.61
81.78 605.77 63.64 604.72 39.23 603.84 49.34 605.18
82.63 606.01 RP 63.94 604.72 42.16 604.43 5723 604.68
72.96 605.05 47.57 604.98 64.14 604.69
82.09 606.16 RP 53.69 605.00 70.43 604.83
63.22 604.68 7721 605.42
71.21 604.90 8220 605.86
77.80 605.45 82AO 606.14 RPIN
82.33 605.92
82.39 606.17 RPIN
Cross Section 2
606.50 7- -
606.0,
- --
w
604.50
604.00
~N
603.50
W
603.00
602.30
602.00
0.00 10.00 20.00
30.00 40.00 50..00 60.00
Station (Feet)
As Bu1ltlYear 1 Year. 2 Year 3 r4- Year 4 f Year 5 BKF
�F
of
the downstream direction
MOD MOD 90M

Cross Section:
Feature
Station:
Date:
Crew:
Cross Section 3
Rltf e
14 +05
3/22112
Sv. ZP
A (BKF)
W (BKF)
Max d
Mean d
W r0
MOM
17.0
205
2.5
0.8
24.7
MY2
17.0
19.8
2.4
0.9
23.1
kM
16.6
22.7
2.6
0.7
31.1
MY4
16.0
15.7
2.7
1.0
15.5
MY5
15.9
18,7
2.6
0.8
22.1
MYOO/01.2D70
LTY02 -7010
YIY03 -2010
MY04 -2011
W05,2012
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
0,00
604,06
LP
0.00
604.06
LP
0.00
604.06
LP
0.00
604.06
LPIJ
O.OD
604,06
LPIJ
0.82
603.63
0.48
603.63
5.34
603.46
0.20
603.66
0.32
503.68
6.32
603.45
5.70
603.43
12.68
603.45
5.75
603.49
2.92
603.62
1437
603.20
13.63
603.32
15.84
603.08
12.73
603.46
8.00
603.47
1920
603.13
BL Banktul
19.10
603.13 BL Bankh/
19.76
603.11
BL tankful
15.99
603.30
13.46
603.51
20.13
602.98
20.54
602.89
22.91
602.14
19.63
603.16
BANKFULL
18.00
603.25
24.32
601.84
21.81
602.50
2186
602.06
21.71
602.89
19.55
603.19 3L Bankful
25.9E
601.60
23.49
602.06
24.84
601.73
23.16
60220
2127
602.72
26.72
600.63
25.15
601.66
25.74
601.64
24.52
602.20
23.68
602.12
2629
600.78
TW
25.81
601.63
26.29
600.02
TOE L
25.22
601.58
24.82
601.98
2797
601.09
27.34
600.78
TW
27.01
600.56
TW
26.D4
601,44
26.04
601.63
29.03
601.46
27.81
600.99
27.72
600.97
TOE R
26.42
600.71
TOE L
26.53
600.74
TOE L
29.02
601.46
27.94
601.05
28.65
601.56
26.72
600.70
2735
600.57
TW
2927
601.64
28.27
601.31
29.99
601.86
27.25
600.48
TW
27.61
600.66
3153
602.25
28.92
601.56
32.45
602.51
27.83
600.88
TOE R
28.49
601,09
TOER
33.03
602.64
30.41
601.92
34.87
603.11
R Bankfull
28.80
601,26
28.96
601.64
35.19
603.13
R BanMul
32.96
602.67
37.38
603.11
29.24
601,69
29.68
601.77
37.34
603.04
34.43
602.96
TOBR
40.92
60327
30.65
602.11
3125
602.31
4D.85
603.25
36.75
603.00
42.57
6D3.52
32.74
602.65
32.79
602,68
43.73
603.58
38.98
603.27
tankful Rig
46.32
603.83
34.87
603.09 BANKFULL
34.63
603.13
R Bankfull 1
50.31
604.05
RP
41.77
603.34
50.30
604.07
RP
39.23
603.42
35.99
602,97
44.76
603.75
43.54
603.54
38.10
603.12
50.46
600.88
47.15
603.88
40.80
603.27
50.54
604.04
RP
50.08
603.74
46.00
603.84
50.13
604.06
RPIN
49.93
603.76
5029
604,10
RPM
604.50 ; ..
604.00 ..
603.50
603.00
pE 60250 -
.7
� 602.00
601.58
601.00
60050
600.00
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
St1 kin (Feet)
�- -As Buitt/Year 1 Year 2 h Year 3 - m-Year 4 - ♦-Year 5 -*- BKF i
Photo of XS -3 lookina In the downstream direction
50.00
60.00

Project UT to South Fork Care Creek Sumrrr bankful
Cross Section: Cross Section 4 MY0l1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Feature Riffle A (BKF) 17.6 15.4 18.,1 18.9 17.3
Station: 17 +04 W (BKF) 173 14.8 16.6 16.0 15.3
Date: 3l22r12 Max d 22 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6
Crew: Sv. ZP Mean d 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1
W!D 171 14.3 15.3 13.5 13.5
MYOD101.2010 W02 -2010 YP700-2010 LIY04 -2011 MY05.2012
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
0.00 602.99 LP 0.00 602.99 LP 0.00 602.99 LP 0.00 602,99 LPIN 0.00 602,99 LPIN
12.04 602.45 0.01 602.96 8.41 602.61 0.18 602.77 0.09 602.74
21.44 602.33 9.64 602.69 15.57 602.38 7.03 602.62 5.80 602.64
3135 602.45 19.22 602.41 22.85 602.36 14.12 602.26 13.94 602.38
34.34 602.03 26.07 602.55 29.78 602.52 21.92 602.34 20.67 602.38
35.36 602.11 Bankful let 32.96 602.36 34.33 602.00 29.47 602.48 27A0 602.46
36.73 602.03 TOOL 36.09 602.18 3L Banktul 35.81 602.13 BL banklul 33.73 602.04 3126 602.59 -�
3832 6DI -49 38.29 601.55 37.37 601.80 35.39 602.12 BANKFULL 33.51 602.10
39.39 601.03 39.16 601.13 39.89 601.05 37.95 601.56 36.14 602.14 3L Bankful,'
4024 600.90 40.48 600.75 41.19 600.17 TOE L 38.98 600.98 37A9 601.78
4086 600.09 41.31 600.04 43.04 599.81 TW 40.07 600.62 39.16 60123 i
42.03 599.90 TW 42.62 599.94 TW 45.43 600.06 TOE R 40.96 599.92 TOE L 40.13 600.87
4352 600.01 43.63 600.08 46 -OS 600.66 41.17 599.76 41.06 600.15 TOE L
44.40 600.11 44.34 600.27 47.82 601.15 41.69 599.76 TW 41.92 599.94
44.34 600.11 45.37 600.64 51.90 602.07 R banklul 42.29 599,63 42.38 599.75
48.89 601.56 48.03 601.41 58.46 602.25 42.82 599.95 42.88 599.53 TW
51.78 602.06 R Banklul 50.39 601,98 64.53 602.78 43.74 600.06 4324 599.75
58.32 602.22 52.65 602.14 R Bankfull 71.34 602.98 44.46 599.96 TOE R 43.57 600.18
6201 602.59 60.05 602.47 7920 603.11 RP 45.28 600.43 44.17 600.00
69.04 602.92 65.12 602.94 45.98 600.67 45.19 600.06 TOE R
7857 602.91 76.07 602.90 47.30 601.08 45.75 600.77
78.88 603.12 RP 78.88 603.23 RP 49.43 601.68 47.53 601.14
51.48 602.05 BANKFULL 50.06 601.80
54.51 601.98 52.14 602.18 R Banktull
58.18 602.22 56.68 602.08
64.98 602.79 59.51 602,42
72.01 602.91 6527 602,84
78.45 602.92 72.60' 602.95
78.67 603.11 RPIN 78.77 602,90
78.90 603.15 RPIN
C.rOS3 Section 4
603.50
602-00
a401.00 } -- - - - - -- -- - -
DOOSD
_-
599.50
D.00 10.DD
20.00
rs
HAD 40.00 50,00 00.00
Stistlon (Feet)
CAs Buinear 1 Year 2 Year 3 -*- -Year 4 --*-Year 5 -4- BKF
+r 1
t . �
r �
of XS -4, lookin0 In the
direction
70.00- - ---_- -so" -- -- 90.00

Project:
UT to South Fork Cane Greek
Summa
bankfu0
Cross Section:
Cross Section 5
MYOl1
MY2
tAV3
IIY4
"Y5
Feature
RffBe
A (BKF)
222
23.5
22.2
23.9
20.1
Station:
19 +73
W (BKF)
18.1
20.6
18.3
19.0
18.2
Date:
3!22112
Max d
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.4
J 7
Crew:
SV. ZP
Mean d
12
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
t
WID
143
118.0
15.1
15.1
16.5
,
MY00101.201D
LTY02 -2010
WRO -2010
MY04 -2011
19YOS -2012
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
;
500.74
LP
600.73
LP
0.00
600.74
LP
0.00
600.76
LPIN
0.00
600.76
LPIN t
0.13 600.47
7.92
SODAS
4.76
6DO.46
0.21
600.44
0.12
600.56
8.36 600.44
15.22
600.25
11.41
600.40
1.42
600.44
6.83
600.61
16.68 600.23
21.34
599.88
3ankfull Lei
17.55
600.32
6.73
600.53
12.70
600.49
j -
2224 599.93
3L Bankfull
22.68
599.84
TOM
22.57
599.94
3L bankful
12.02
600.46
13.78
600.47
_
yT..yq
23.61 599.47
25.13
598.99
25.00
599.09
18.02
600.25
21.56
600.14
3L Bankful -. -- _'Y • % "� ~�
.S,
2528 599.05
26.75
596.12
26.91
597.92
21.87
600.07
BANKFULL
23.90
599.51
-
26.16 598.48
28.97
596.06
29.53
598.22
23.75
599.46
2627
598.73
2625 598.34
30.35
597.64
31.02
597.42
TOE L
25.68
598.87
26.61
598.19
TOE L
27.15 597.92
3125
597.57
TW
31.10
597.41
TW
26.89
597.88
27.85
597.92
28.32 587.84
32.37
597.98
31.62
597.56
TOE R
27.94
597.86
28.47
598.24
3029 597.51
TW
33.41
598.09
32.67
598.03
28.98
59735
29.31
598.16
30.40 597.51
35.06
598.36
34.21
598.10
29.92
597.32
TOE L
30.14
597.72
34.18 598.19
3724
596.97
35.80
598.44
30.77
597.21
TW
31.13
597.35
TW
35.76 598.54
38.27
599.19
37.82
598.98
31.55
597.20
TOE R
31.72
597.42
TOE R
38.44 599.08
40.24
599.56
TOBR
39.39
599.37
32.30
597.97
32.19
598.15
40.96 599.73
R Bankful
43.27
599.83
Bankful Rig
41.14
599.68
lanklull Rig
33.97
597.95
33.69
598.24
42.62 599.71
49.71
600.70
44.48
600.16
TOBR
36 -01
598.44
3551
598.60
46.76 600.26
56.44
601.67
RP
47.66
600.31
38.05
599.02
37.40
598.98
50.53 600.98
50.60
601.02
40.38
599.47
BANKFULL
3924
599.39
R Bank'ul!
5628 601.40
56.27
601.66
RP
43.01
599.92
40.42
599.67
56.33 601.61
RP
47.14
600.22
42.31
599.80
51.76
601.13
44.82
600.23
56.21
601.28
47.50
600.42
Fib
56.26
601.62
RPIN
50.01
601.06
52.06
601.30
5615
601.42
56 -34
601.74
RPIN
Cross Section 5
60200
601.50
601.00- ..__ -_._..
.-. 600.00
59950
O
598.00 ; --- � - - - - --
597.501.. - -.
596.50
0.D0 10.00
20.00 30.00 40.00
Stetl0rl (Feet)
F---A Built/Year 1 Year 2 - Year 3 -*- Year 4 t Year 5 BKF
50.00
• r
t /
9
60.00

Project:
UT to South Fork Cane Greek
Summa,
ban
Cross Section:
Gross Section 6
1AY0 1 1
41Y2
MY3
kAY4 MY5
Feature
Mine
A (BKF)
282
31.4
255
26.0 25.1
Station:
22 +78
W (SKF)
18.3
34.2
16.1
18.0 17.4
Date:
3/22/12
Maxd
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8 2.9
I
r
Crew:
SV. ZP
Mean
1.5
0.9
1.4
1.4 1.4
yl +� •"
W ID
11.9
37.2
12.E
12 -5 12.1
-
•5
k1Y00/01.2010
MY02 -2010
MY03 -2010
MY04 -2011
WYOS -2012
•
/
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station Elevation Notes
Station Elevation Notes <- V,.
599.75
LP
599.63
LP
0.00
599.73
LP
0.00 599.72 LPIN
0.00 599.69 LPN
0.06 599.47
2.46
599.27
5.42
598.94
0.25 599.54
0.25 599.52 -
i `
7.10 599.02
8.87
596.56
11.34
598.19
3.95 599.23
2.91 59946 I•,
,2
1119 597.96
13.67
597.90
16.86
597.91
6.86 $99.17
6.39 599.04
2727 597.79
31. Bankfull
19.91
596.03
23.03
598.08
10.07 598.44
12.14 598.05
>�
�,�..
35.14 595.75
26.33
596.07
3L Bankful
24.67
598.12
TOBL
12.84 597.92
17.87 598.11
}•
37.96 595.76
2625
597.79
27.83
597.84
trankfull lef
18.60 598.00
25.33 598.08
38-50 595.39
30.70
WAS
30.64
597.34
23.78 598.11
2025 597.81 qr,
39.44 594.98
TIN
32.68
596.72
32.96
596.81
26.58 598.07
30A1 59721) '
40.68 595.14
35.68
595.81
35.15
596.12
28.62 597.69 BANKFULL
32.07 597AO 3L Bankful
41,36 595.50
38.60
595.80
36.77
595.85
30.38 597.35
34.13 596.38
42.88 595.93
38.80
595.32
38.52
595116
32.91 596.00
36AO 595.90
46.26 598.23
R Bankful
39.98
595.11
TIN
39.03
595.28
TOE L
34.71 596.26
38.09 595.90
55.99 597.69
40.53
595.18
40.58
595.02
TW
35.88 595.89
38.74 59523 TOE L
6192 598.14
41.09
595.39
41.81
595.43
TOE R
37.39 595.83
39.95 594.88 TW
67.18 600.82
RP
41.45
595.66
4257
595.90
38.30 595.78
40.75 595.20 TOE R
43.06
596.95
44.13
596.42
38.86 595.12 TOE L
41.85 595.76
44.75
597.36
46.87
598.23
TOBR
39.38 595.05
43.31 596.05
46.70
596.19
R Bankfull
51.42
597.98
39.87 594.95 TIM
44.70 597.03
50.44
596.06
57.06
597.90
40.66 594.95
45.81 597.85
55.37
597.76
62.17
598.18
41.34 595.39 TOE R
46.38 598.22 R Bankfull
61.55
596.13
64.80
599.30
42.38 595.78
50.76 598.12
64.33
599.15
67 -14
600.78
RP
43.53 596.10
53.90 597.81
66.16
600.01
45.12 597.18 WFULL RN
57.91 597.90
Photo of XS-6, baking In the downstream direction
66.86
600.36
46.71 598.15 TOBR
61.86 597.98
66.87
600.80
RP
50.31 598.16
64.78 599.31
54.06 597.82
66.99 600.39
58.38 597.91
67.03 600.80 RPN
61.90 598.01
64.75 599.28
66.96 600.41
67.17 600.80 RPIN
Cross Section 6
602.00
-- - -�.�-
--
- -
--
-
- --
-- - -
- - --
--
- - -- - - - - -- - --
601.00
600.00
599.00
LL
S9e.00
------
-
- ---'
-
-'- - - - ---
-- --
_.. - - -- - --
W
594.00
-
0.00
10A0
20.00
30.00
4040 50.00
60M 70.00 80.00
Station (Feet)
As BuiltlYear t Year 2
- Year 3 -*- Year 4 -e- Year 5 t BKF

Project:
UT to South Fork Cane Greek
Su
bonkfu0
Cross Section:
Cross Section
7
MY4
MY5
MY011
MY2
MY3
Feature
Riffle
p (BKF
283
28.4
28.8
27.9
27.1
Station:
27 +22
W II
17.1
17.9
17.2
17.6
17.4
Date:
3122112
Max d
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
Crew:
Sv. ZP
Mean d
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
a
W/D
10.9
11.3
10.3
11.1
11.2
L
r
`
;'�'; •1,. �. k r '
•Et,-
MY00f01.2010
Station Elevation Notes
MIY02 -2010
Station Elevation Notes
WD0 -2010
Station Elevation Notes
MY04 -2011
Station Elevation Notes
MYOS -2012
Station Elevation Notes
597.11 LP
0.03 597.14 LP
0.00 597 -11 LP
0.00 597,10 LPIN
0.00 597.11 LPIV
9.70 596.90
0.44
596.69
7.27
596.99
0.23
596.70
0.29
596.71
,�Lj•.
23.63 596.68
8.75
596.91
15.87
596.74
3.12
596.87
6.77
596.96
27.93 596.66
BL Bankfull
15.84
596.71
23.43
596.65
6.48
596.96
14.74
596,90
-
30.17 595.52
27.71
596.65
3L Bankful
28.73
596.66
31. Bankfull
11.91
596.93
20.87
596.81
1 r
rj ^') Asa
32.12 594.48
29.60
595.73
31.12
595.28
18.75
596.79
24.58
596.76
32,81 594.18
31.70
594.73
32.34
594.27
TOE L
24.51
596.62
27.94
596.69
3L Bankfull
34.34 593.97
32.90
594.11
34.51
593.90
TIN
27.92
596.72
BANKFULL
29.77
596.00
3552 593.95
TW
35.01
594.07
36.62
593.95
29.34
596.20
30.89'
595.27
38.44 593.95
36.60
593.90
TW
38.52
594.05
TOE R
30.58
595.27
31.86
594.89
38,89 594.39
36.01
594.12
40.01
594.90
31.77
594,87
32.75
594.26
TOE L
3924 594.73
39.48
594.77
43.64
595.98
32.59
594,16
TOE L
34.15
593.96
41,82 595.64
41.83
596.65
47 -06
597 -00
R Bankfull
33.45
593.94
35.66
594.00
4628 596.93
R Bankful
46.13
596.78
R Bankfull
52.40
596.69
34.87
593.86
Tw
36.72
593.93
TYY
50.86 596.76
50.28
596.63
59.88
596.50
35.21
593.98
38.22.
594.25
TOE R
5097 596.79
59.64
596.46
65.61
597.24
35.83
594.01
39.35
594.95
59.13 596.45
65.71
597.15
75.17
59738
RP
36.35
593.96
41,47
595.59
1
61.86 597.05
74.79
597.89
RP
37.03
593.90
44.12
596.30
74.85 597.89
RP
37.30
594.13
46.49
596.94
R Bankfull
37.86
594.15
TOE R
50.10
596.75
38.71
594.63
54.81
596.15
-4
39.67
594.94
59.95
596.51
p
40.80
595.35
65.16
597.39
"• }..
42.00
595.75
70.90
597.54
Photo of XS -7, looking In the downstream direction
43.96
596.26
74.65
597,66
45.93
596.72 BANKFULL
74.65
597.99
WIN
47.84
596.70
50.80
596.69
55.82
596.65
59.55
596.41
62.D0
596.92
67.48
597.16
72.11
597.48
74.60
597.58
74.85
597.90
RPIN
Imo-
Cross Section 7
59650
jI. - -. _._
- ..__ -___-
__._. -._.
_ _. -.
.____.
- _ - ._.-
----- - - -_
-- _.--
--------
--- -..
___. - -' -
- -_ -- -
- - -- -
- - -- -----
- - -
- - -- -- ------- ---
- - - - --
-
599D 0}---------
'- ------
_-
.----- --
_.- __ -_ -_
- .- ___-
..-----
_-- .._.__-
.---
-- _--
_----------
._._._
_. _.
- - -_ -- ----
------
--- -' -' --
-
597501-
59700
__._ -__
-_
59600
4
`
58450
.1
$94,00
59350
+-- ____
- -. -_
000
10.00
20.00
30.00
4000
5D.00
6000
70.00 9000
Station (Feet)
.+ Its Bt3iWYear 1
- Year 2 .� Year 3 -m- Year 4 --*-Year 5 t BKF

EMw/0l1
IPMU
m m V Ut W N O O N OI (J }fOD.� m m N L W}� � O jtN•V•� mj� VJ W [PJ n 0 V�
d
C7 O N T 0 T
� ~ C
T
E
3
E
3
3 i ! S Z 2
(Op
U Oo ip ID 70 V N IJ N A O N IV Q b fD V O> V O O
S
�. O Co
e
I
o o . mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
O (D V V V 01 Ut !r T N A A P W W W W A A V• m OI Of T Of V m J
.
d o
it
I
I
I I
i I
O V O R� N V
t o m V N O W O O V O I N N m V I A N O O s O W A I O W
a N
7 O
i
N r
T
N fit O
6
P m J ro N m 40i tN.I N N m N (mA a W N+ V W A t0 w A��
i9
m�
�
•4Wi
�m V NAP W CO •N {ll Vr C�HI+01 OlQ V�YNN � >ONEOa
N N O N P� O m J W 41 A N O V O� m m m t0
T VI VI ut N VI N VI N V1 Vl N N VI N VI VI N N ut N VI VI VI N
m To
n
b. V W V A W ON JJ NA�P/l fPT1�AA }ON W ANP� N
S
I
i
I
l
I I
O
O m
D a r
— c
o
m m V T A WA N' O N L T U fVJ o ONO V N lm) N O (NO V fAO P A V1 A O
W O+ O N A N N
y
u+ N+ N
V N
I
4�1� W N90 V �94000T W ��NO NOm+Omm G�iI P W m PtO.I OWe ASE
NOO V 5�
+
ON Oi tNtpp N In N N U N N to N N t Np N fn VI N U UI N UI VI N VI N VI UI N VI lh N
m m Qlpi
O tD m U OOi Gin 00+ OI (wl1 (OII Aaa W W W W (O.1 A O V V V
m
0
Oi C
Nm
N ON D�T
N O N T V 10 m p1 m O A N gq
T N k+ N OWI N O> A
d
V
g
I
Im
D O� 0 I i
T t[Dbb m � � v
o
o
w_.N'�S
.i v io b
�
%
p�
JvvJJ +//�� J J
�fNJJW OON =NN�N� V W VImT � NO m VNP W IJNN �IOmUN VfJ fop 51.
V WmJ p .p m m� V
Wpp O m � O Y a�
1
I
i
mN N Am m N A W m mcn u tN.l q N Ino c� q?
m N NWp W W N m A N IG O m N to
�p N IO + V
I
S�
�
Ij
�Pp ��VppI � ��pp t(mpp c�Jpp (Vp�
F. � N� N fNO � {gy{pp ID y� N� CryOQ
O S Oe 00 V V V V OI OOi OOi COIN PIT sn T N N A A W W W P P. t51 P N T OOI OI O� V V V V1 T V. V + V N,
_N w; Ut m
G V O O O O O V V V O V O V C O V N OI > T A W -� N A A+ N N ip 4i N P O N VI
V T N �i .0. V+ A N
IIII
I I I I
D
z
z a o z
Z C zP
I
I I I I d�
•
y C
I I I
I �
VrI
P W � O P.P. Ol N W r m �O m tVi O h m V m tPil a� N+ m m N tAn N N
•A m o m.
�I � y I
I
I I �
((�� yA yy y�.I N )V O � W A Cq.J N O )\: +'ppff (�(��� Ip
3dt
I
I I p
OI OI T VI VI Gn cn V� fn vI �Ipn Sumpt In �t�ppo to (n �c{pAp N (T VIN N V+ N N �N�pp Cn �Nmp N OI .cyn (n m
O O ID J J V m aI VI
I^
I
I
p V N+ V C1 N� GE lO O IV W fVl f0 bl fJ m A A GI Yo FJ C1 V m AA N N W o m m� ��
OI O N N V N O N A C V O V N P O N QI Of VI O m QI OI A O O
N
D
N i �
me
ICI
I
I
III
I
I
y
e
�
ma 11�
I
�..-
I
a
I
e

o53 Section:
ature
ation:
de:
9w:
Cross Section 9
Riffle
37 +55
31M12
Sv. ZP
A (BKF)
W (BKF)
Maud
Mean d
Win
MY0/1
259
15.7
2.7
1.7
9.4
MY2
24.7
15.4
2.6
1.5
9.6
1AY3
27.0
32.6
2.7
0.8
39.3
11Y4
28.7
15.3
2.8
1.9
8.2
LAYS
26.3
15.3
2.7
1.7
8.9
MY00101.2010
W02.2010
MY03-2010
MY04 -2011
YY054612
3ation
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
0.00
598.59
LP
0.0D
598.59
LP
0.00
598.42
LP
0100
598.52
LPIN
598.59
LPIN
0.24
598.34
6.68
596.12
2.38
597.83
0.26
598.31
0.28
598.39
9.66
594.63
8.22
596.31
9.57
594.73
1.26
598.18
2.53
597.82
1622
594.12
10.34
594.69
16.23
59424
3.22
597.46
7.12
596.11
23M
594.42
TOBL
18.06
594.33
23.60
594.35
TOBL
6.90
596.00
9.70
594.70
23.60
594.20
3ank1ul Le
21.44
594.20
3ankfull Le
24.00
594.20
bankiul lot
9.96
594.63
12.89
594.62
27.01
592.13
23.13
594.36
TOBL
25.77
592.93
13.03
594.39
18.79
594.35
27$6
591.52
25.04
590.40
27.79
591.55
TOE L
17.93
594.22
23.15
594.41
31. Bankful
2926
591.49
TW
27.78
591.54
30.17
591.51
TW
21.14
594.20
24.30
593.96
3025
591.51
30.69
591.52
TW
31.55
591.67
TOE R
23.43
594.30
BANKFUL1.
27.13
591.66
TOE L
31.80
591.57
32.74
591.83
34.46
592.57
24.60
593.62
28.09
591.50
32.62
592.10
35.06
592.69
37.56
593.44
25.91
592.84
29.55
591.54
TW
3425
592.41
36.80
590.28
3922
594.14
TOBR
26.94
592.12
31.02.
591.54
36.70
593.23
3921
594.14
TOBR
50.37
594.06
27.47
591.66
TOE L
32.15
591.77
TOE R
3925
594.20
R Bankful
45.54
594.24
;ankful Rig
57.91
594.23 anklull Rig
28.77
591.45
TW
33.05
592.17
45.66
594.25
5629
593.89
61.89
595.01
29.52
591.44
34.64
592.60
47.94
594.03
6124
594.82
692D
595.23
30.36
591.44
37.03
593.32
47.90
594.03
69.41
595.20
78.95
594.85
31.43
591.50
3920
594.32
R Bankfull
57.14
593.88
86.07
594.77
89.06
594.88
32.70
591.71
TOE R
43.53
594.16
61.93
594.87
93.78
594.92
98.41
595.15
RP
33.94
592.28
49.54
594.18
72.07
595.16
98.29
595.15
RP
36.71
592.92
56.56
593.94
84.92
594.70
37.62
593.36
62.07
594.94
98.33
594.89
38.91
584.14
BANKFULL
68.09
595.10
98.34
585.15
RP
42.51
594.13
7820
594.82
48.83
594.14
90.31
594.88
54.03
594.01
97.92
594.99
5822
594.09
98.13
595.19
SPIN
62.69
594.95
67.32
595.10
74.45
594.84
81.52
594.76
88.89
594.76
98.36
594.89
599.90
590.90
$97.00
m 596.00
p 595.90
7
W
m>
-{ 596.00
W 593.90
59289
591DO
I O.00
Cross Section 9
of XS-9, looking In the
vc
20.00 40.00 50.00 89.09
Station (Feet)
a As Built(Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 4 -Year 4- +-Yew 5'-e- BKF,

Priority 2 Restoration
610 - - - - - -- - -
150' Priority 2
Restoration
608 - - --
UT to South Fork Creek Longitudinal Profile MY -05
Priority 1 Restoration Priority 2 Restoration
1125' Priority 1 Restoration 305' Priority 1 320' Priority 2
Restoration Restoration
Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2
606
Sta, 8 +39 Sta. 11 +51
—' - � _
Cross Section 3 Cross Section 4
604 - - — -
X 2(x. Sta. 14 +05 Sta, 17 +04
xxx R�--
x" C oss Section 5
Sta, 19 +73
602 - -
_
O x _
CO -
-
X
o -� x - "
> 600 _ —_ - - -
Z 4 .n ,Ids x
C
O
a 598
W
596
594
592
0
0
co
590 Cattle Crossing ^^ m
AL
588
0 500
O u+'�
cu m
Cn U)
0
0
rn
Co
U)
0
0
a
CO
Cn
Cross Section 6 Reach C: 1100 Feet
Sta, 22 +78
XX ° Cross Section 7 Cross Section 8
FF Sta, 27 +22 Sta, 30 +12 -
� x
Cross s Section 9
Sta, 37 +55
.rte x x
_ -x -'_ -
x �V( -
Reach A: 1275 Feet Reach B: 625 Feet o -
+ o+
°2 Culvert Crossing Ul -
-- -
u si a asemen LIMITS - --- -- — -- -
Cattle Crossing
Outside Easement Limits t
Conservation Easement Limits - 2141' Stream Length Conservation Easement Limits - 1864' Stream Length
+— - - -;-- -- -+ - + - -- +
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station (feet) C, o
N+ + + + O
N N N N N
co CU m co cc w
MY -00 /01 TW - MY -00/01 BKF MY -02 TW MY -02 BKF MY -03 TW MY -03 BKF MY -04 TW MY -04 BKF MY-05 TW - MY -05 WS X MY -05 BKF

PEBBLE COUNT
Project UT to South Fork Creek- _ Date _ 8/22/2012 '
Location Cross Section #1 c
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
01
Riffles
Pools
Total No
Item %
% Cumulative
i
Silt/Clay
< 0 062
89
0
89
89% a ,
890/6
,Very Fine
062 125
S
0'
0
,0
0% ��
89%
Fine,
125- 25
A
0 }
0
0
00/" -
89%
Medium
25- 50
x
0
0
i0
0%l
89%
Coarse-
50-10
O
0
0
' 0
00/0
89%
04 08
1 Very Coarse
10-20
S
01
0
0
00/0
89%
08- 16
Very Fine
20-40
0
0
0
00/0
89%,
1 167 22
Fine, ,
40 57
10
0,
0"
0
, 0%,'
89%
22 -- 31
Fine
57-80
n
0
0
0
0 %4-
890/6`
31 -,44
Medium
80 113
A
J.
0
1
1% .°
900/0
44- 63
Medium
113-160
V
4
0
4
4% =
94 0/6,
63- 89
Coarse,
160-226
Er
21
0_
y 2
20/6
96%
89 126
Coarse
226-320
L
11
0
1
1%,
97%
1 26 - 1 77
Very Coarse
320-450
$
0
i 0_
0
, 00/6,
-97%
177-25
Very Coarse
450-640
20%
0
0
,0
0° /a ;
97 %
25 -35
Small
64 -90
C
1
0
1
1%
980/0
35-50
Small
90-128
Q
2"
0
2
' 2%
100%
5 0- 71
Large
128-180
1
S
r 0
0
0
0%
1000/0
7 1- 10 1
0%
180-256
L
0
01
e0
00/0 s
1000/0
101 ,14`3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
-0
0% _
100%
143-20
Small
362-512
1
L
0
0-
0
0%
100%
20 40
Medium`
512 - 1024
D
or
0
0'
00% r
1000/0
40 80
Lrg Very Lrg
1024-20481
H
i
0
0
t S 0
00/0
100%
-
Bedrock
8DRK
0
i0
+ 0
0%—, 1
100%
Totals 100, 0 + 100 100% 100%
d16%,
d35
d50
d84
d95 `
01-
01„
01
1 01
190
t
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 1 Riffle
100%
I
90%
80" /6
7 �
70%-
R
3 MY 00 /01
60%
0 MY 02
ET
V
50%
6 MY 03
, m
—X MY 04{
40% -
MY 05
C
LL
30%
w
—
20%
s
10%
"
0%
c
01 1
10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle stze M1111meter -A r
t

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #2
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
1.8
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/G :.:
20
0
20
20%
20%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S ::
0
0
0
0%
20%
Fine
.125-.25
A:::
4
0
4
4%
24%
Medium
.25-.50
N
4
0
4
4%
28%
Coarse
.50-1.0
D
2
0
2
2%
30%
.04 -.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S
26
0
26
1 26%
56%
.08 - .16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
56%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
G :.:
18
0
18
18%
74%
.22 - .31
Fine
5.7-8.0
R :
8
0
8
8%
82%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
A:
8
0
8
8%
90%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
::::. V
0
0
0
0%
90%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
8
0
8
8%
98%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
L :
0
0
0
0%
98%
1.26-1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
5
2
0
2
2%
100%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
:.
0
0
0
0%
100%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
G :
0
0
0
0%
100%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
O .
0
0
0
0%
100%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
$ :
0
0
0
0%
100%
7.1 -10.1
Lar e
180-256
L .
0
0
0
0%
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R:
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
SpR±E:
0
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 1000/0 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
0.1
1.2
1.8
8.8
1 9.8
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 2: Riffle
100%
90%
80%
d
70%
- MY -00/01
3
3 60% a MY -02
�? 6 MY -03
50% MY -04
t
►- 40% - 0 MY -05
m
ii 30%
a
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
1

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #3
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
0.1
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Cross Section 3: Riffle
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C,
56
0
56
56%
56%
Very Fine
.062-.125
90%
10
0
10
10%
66%
Fine
.125-.25
A
2
0
2
2%
68%
Medium
.25-.50
N
0
0
0
0%
68%
Coarse
.50-1.0
D
0
0
0
00%
68%
.04-.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
6
0
6
1 6%
74%
08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
74%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
4
0
4
4%
78%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
�..R
4
0
4
4%
82%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0-11.3
:A
2
0
2
2%
84%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
V
6
0
6
6%
90%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
E.�.:
0
0
0
0%
90%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
L,
10
0
10
10%
100%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
0
0
0
0%
100%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
0
0
0
0%
100%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C
0
0
0
0%
100%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
(j
0
0
0
0%
100%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
: B:
0
0
0
0%
100%
7.1 -10.1
Larqe
180-256
L
0
0
0
0%
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L:
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D:,:.
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr g- Ve ry rq
1024-2048
0
0
0
0%
1000/0
Bedrock
EM.RK.
0::=
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
0.1
0.1
0.1
11.0
27.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 3: Riffle
100%
M
90%
X x
80%
>
70%
MY-00/01
E
60%
MY 02
50%
MY-03
MY-04
40%
--0-- MY-05
LL
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.1
1
10
100 1000
10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #4
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
1 9.9
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
90%
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/G :
16
0
16
14%
14%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S :::
0
0
0
0%
14%
-B- MY -00101
Fine
.125-.25
: A : ::
4
0
4
4%
18%
Medium
.25-.50
N :
0
0
0
0%
18%
Coarse
.50-1.0
D.
0
0
0
0%
18%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S :
17
0
17
15%
33%
.08 - .16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
40%-a
0
0
0
0%
33%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
(3:: :
0
0
0
0%
33%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
R :
9
0
9
8%
41%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0-11.3
A :. ;::
17
0
17
15%
56%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
::: : V: :
9
0
9
8%
64%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
E
3
0
3
3%
66%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
L ..
11
0
11
10%
76%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
5 :::
2
0
2
2%
78%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
13
0
13
12%
89%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C : :
8
0
8
7%
96%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
0
2
0
2
2%
98%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
B
0
0
0
0%
980/0
7.1 - 10.1
Large
180-256
L:
2
0
2
2%
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B::
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L:::::
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D :
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
SARK:
0
0
0
00/0
100%
Totals 113 0 113 1000/0 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
0.2
6.6
1 9.9
1 55.1
84.6
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 4: Riffle
100% -
90%
-
-
70%
rA
-B- MY -00101
60%
Q
e - MY -02
E
�?
50%
0
6 MY -03
- - --
- -X- MY -04
L
40%-a
MY
D Z.
6- A
-05
c
X
�
30%
iI
°
20%--
- -X -
10%
-- —
- --
-
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #5
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
4.6
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
G
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
:::$/C :
32
0
32
30%
30%
Very Fine
.062- .125
S ':
0
0
0
0%
30%
Fine
.125-.25
A
2
0
2
2%
32%
Medium
.25-.50
N
10
0
10
9%
42%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
D
4
0
4
4%
45%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
S.:.
2
0
1 2
21.
47%
.08 - .16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
47%
.16 - .22
Fine
4.0-5.7
G
10
0
10
9%
57%
.22 - .31
Fine
5.7-8.0
R : ::
16
0
16
15%
72%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
A :. = :
6
0
6
6%
77%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
V
12
0
12
11%
89%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
E=
4
0
4
4%
92%
.89 - 1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
L
0
0
0
0%
92%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
S
0
0
0
0%
92%
1.77 - 2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
6
0
6
6%
98%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C'•
0
0
0
0%
98%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
G
0
0
0
0%
98%
5.0 - 7.1
Large
128-180
B
0
0
0
0%
98%
7.1 -10.1
Large
180-256
L
0
0
0
0%
98%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
0
0%
98%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L
0
0
0
0%
98%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D :
0
0
0
0%
98%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
:::::
0
0
0
0%
98%
Bedrock
BDRK .
2
0
2
29/.
100%
Totals 106 0 106 100% 100%
100%
90%
80%
A 70%
E 60%
U
C 50%
A
40%
i
C
u 30%
0
20%
10%
0%
0.1
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
0.1
0.3
4.6
13.9
53.6
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 5: Riffle
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
-E3 MY -00/01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
-� - MY -05
G
/
x
x-
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
-E3 MY -00/01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
-� - MY -05

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #6
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
15.6
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
90% - - -
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
::: S/C :
4
0
4
4%
4%
Very Fine
.062-.125
: : ::
0
0
0
0%
4%
Fine
.125-.25
A::
6
0
6
5%
9%
Medium
.25-.50
N . :
0
0
0
0%
9%
r '
Coarse
.50-1.0
:::.D,::
4
0
4
4%
13%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
: _ .13 .
12
0
12
11%
23%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
23%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
::
9
0
9
8%
320/6
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
.... R :.:
2
0
2
2%
33%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
A
13
0
13
12%
45%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
V
6
0
6
5%
50%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
11:
9
0
9
8%
59%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
13
0
13
12%
70%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
S ..
13
0
13
12%
82%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0 - 64.0
10
0
10
9%
91
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
:C:
8
0
8
7%
98%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
: O .
2
0
2
2%
100%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
B :
0
0
0
0%
100%
7.1 -10.1
Large
180-256
L
0
0
0
0%
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B: :
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
:: L:
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
:::: R ::::
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
LBDRK.
0
0
0
0%
E 100%
Totals 111 0 111 1000/0 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
1.3
8.4
15.6
49.3
78.5
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 6: Riffle
100% -
I
- �. —
90% - - -
-i -
i
.�
80% -
-
m
70%
7
-._- MY -00/01
60%
r '
MY -02
�
�?
Q
MY -03
MY -04
E
40%
- - - --
--
-
-9- MY-05
-
m
LL
30%
—
—
I
°
20%
—
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000
10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #7
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
1 54.5
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
54
0
54
54%
54%
Very Fine
.062-,125
0
0
0
0%
54%
Fine
.125-.25
: A: :: =:
0
0
0
0%
54%
Medium
.25-.50
:: =:
4
0
4
4%
58%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
d::::::
2
0
2
2%
60%
.04-.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
S
0
0
0
0%
60%
.08 - .16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
w
0
0
0
0%
60%
.16 - .22
Fine
4.0-5.7
:::::::::::::
10
0
10
10%
70%
.22 - .31
Fine
5.7-8.0
:::R ::::
10
0
10
10%
80%
.31 -.44
Medium
8,0- 11.3
Rk: :::
2
0
2
2%
82%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3- 16.0
:::V. :: ::.
12
0
12
12%
94%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
0
0
0
0%
94%
.89 - 1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
0
0
0
0%
94%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
:::S :':: =::
0
0
0
0%
94%
1.77 - 2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
2
0
2
2%
96%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C
0
0
0
0%
96%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
0.:.:::
0
0
0
0%
96%
5.0 - 7.1
Large
128-180
::: :: ::
0
0
0
0%
96%
7.1 -10.1
Large
180-256
L
0
0
0
0%
96%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
0
0%
96%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
_ _ :L::_
0
0
0
0%
96%
20-40
Medium
512- 1024:
::: D :::
0
0
0
0%
96%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048[:
;:::: R :
0
0
0
0%
96%
Bedrock
a3RR C::
4
0
4
4%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
100%
90%
m
a0%
70%
E 60%
U
c 50%
m
r
t' 40%
m
LL 30%
0
20%
10%
0%
0.1
d16 d35
d50
d8-4---7-d95
0.1 0.1
1 0.1
11.8
1 54.5
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 7: Riffle
1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
10000
100000
- E- MY -00/01
-- 0 MY -02
o MY -03
X- MY -04
--*- MY -05

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: U T to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #8
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
1 1.2
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Cross Section 8: Riffle
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
:S /C :::
12
0
12
12%
12%
I
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
0
0
0
0%
12%
Fine
.125-.25
A
2
0
2
2%
14%
m
a
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
19
0
19
19%
33%
Coarse
.50-1.0
0,:. :
16
0
16
16%
49%
.04-.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S::
6
0
6
1 6%
55%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
55%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
fa::::
12
0
12
12%
67%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
R:.:.
14
0
14
14%
81%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
A :::
19
0
19
19%
100%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
-V:.::_,
0
0
0
0%
100%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
E:
0
0
0
0%
100%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
G::
0
0
0
0%
100%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
S ::
0
0
0
0%
100%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
0
0
0
0%
100%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C:
0
0
0
0%
100%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
O :
0
0
0
0%
100%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
$ :
0
0
0
0%
100%
7.1 -10.1
Lar e
180-256
L
0
0
0
0%
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L ..
0
0
0
0.0
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D:
0
0
0
0%
100%
40 - 80
Lr - Ve Lrg
1024-2048
: R ::::
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
BRRK:
0
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 1009'0 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
Silt/Clay
0.6
1 1.2
1 8.5
10.2
Bed Particle Size Distribution
X
Cross Section 8: Riffle
,
100%
I
90%
i�
80%
m
a
A
70%
MY -00/01
60%
a
MY -02
E
�
50%-
t MY -03
t
40%
MY -04
♦— MY -05
LL
30%
0
20%
10%
0%
0.1
1
10
100 1000
10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
X
,
I
i�

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to South Fork Creek Date: 8/22/2012
Location: Cross Section #9
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
9.0
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
: S/C :::
24
0
24
24%
24%
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
0
0
0
0%
24%
70%
Fine
.125-.25
A:,
0
0
0
0%
24%
V
Medium
.25-.50
N
0
0
0
0%
24%
Coarse
.50-1.0
D . .
4
0
4
4%
28%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S
12
0
12
12%
40%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0
0%
40%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
G ::...
6
0
6
6%
46%
.22 - .31
Fine
5.7-8.0
R :.::
0
0
0
0%
46%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
: A, :...
12
0
12
12%
58%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
V
12
0
12
12%
70%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
E ::::..
6
0
6
6%
76%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
6
0
6
6%
82%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
�� ;:, ::
4
0
4
4%
86%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
6
0
6
6%
92%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C
2
0
2
2%
94%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
0.
0
0
0
0%
94%
5.0 - 7.1
Large
128-180
8 :
2
0
2
2%
96%
7.1 -10.1
Lar e
180-256
L :.
0
0
0
0%
96%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
0
0
0
0%
96%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
l:
0
0
0
0%
96%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D
0
0
0
0%
96%
40-80
Lr - Ve Lrg
1024-2048
0
0
0
0%
96%
Bedrock
E3QR K:11
4
0
1 4
4%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 1000/0 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
0.1
1.6
9.0
38.5
154.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 9: Riffle
100%
—
80% --
X
.2
.2
70%
�/
E
60%
-- -
/
MY 02
V
a x
A MY -03
c
50%
- - - - -- -
— -
t
MY -04
40%
—
—
—0 MY 05
d
w
LL
30% --
- - -
0
20%
0% E3
B
0.1
1 10 100 1000
10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
_ UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach A Sta 6+00 18 +7 1275 feet
Parameter_ ,
13augV2
R
kraal Curve
Pre-
Exlstl Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
n
Monitoring
Baseline
DlrrienslonandtSubsfrate RI�IIe'Only __
_
LL
UL
Eq
MI'n
mean
Mad
Max
SDs
n
Mm
Mean
Mad
Max
SDs
n
Min
Mad
Max
Mm
Mean
Mod
Max
SD'
n
Bardduil Width (ft
114
116
12
19.37
1576
1576
1815
2.75
4
Floodprone Width (ft
°
149
413
236
7821
1065
11364
120 5
1927
4
Bankfu0 Mean Depth (ft)
1.3 r
1
12
207
2.54
267
277
0.32
4
'Bankfu0 Max De ft
16
14
,1.9
2.07
2.57
27
2.81
0.34
4
BankU Cross Sectlorrel Area
148
116
147
1535
23.67
25.01
2931
592
4
W WOepth Rat4
I
1
8 7
116
as
476
617
655
679
095
4
Entrenchment Pistil
-1
1
1.3
38
x 3 0
585
6.8
6.53
829
105
4
'Bank Height Rat4
I
I
I
I
1
1 27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
102
1.02
103
001
4
rof0e I ° I V x
t
Riffle Length (ftA
Ili
372
4
38.9
10
10
1159
34.45
2417
95.87
2714
10
Riffle Slope (ft/it
0.006
0 011
0 011
0 021
0.004
10
Pool Length (4
262
148
428
20
20
12 1
36.82
346
669
1398
14
L, Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (
1
509
17
159
30
55
24
7079
5879
1541
3979
18
Pa118mr1 x z
Channel Beffwrdth (11 _ , 2 36 191 412 4 r* 25 65 32967 46 967 45 467 68 967 88377 20
Radius of Curvature (11 37 694 94 812 40 60 28 98 40139 38 895 64.66 7 7822 20
Rc Bankfu0 width (Wfti 1 1 03 1 1 1 a' I I 1 09 1 1 1 7 33 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 1
Meander W evelenglh (ft) 30 247 433 462 65 150 90 10863 105 140 13 639 19
Meander Width Ratiol 1 1 2.6 21 7 3 7 1 4 71 125 16511 2.3523 2.2771 3 3539 04426 20
rensport parameters w
Reach Shear Stress com to
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bard(hd
t
`
Stream Power (transport ac W/mj
I f
g
Additional Reach Parameters r
Rosgen Classificatiori
_
_
G4c
E4b
r E4
E4
BankfuO Velocity (fps)
31
_ 43
31
Bankfu0 Discharge (cfs )
45 t
50
Valley length (
, 4244 1
`
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
4515
' 1275
51—dy (ft)
117
108
009
119
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00031
0.022
0.0039
00044
BF slope (fVft)l
t
00043
0 023 °
r 0 0043
1 10.0041
"Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
(
r a
40/ of Reach with Eroding as
f r
r
Channel Stability or Habitat Metrl
Blological w Othe
sheamewYermew .�ihom.wYwmmweew,an.
__^
— —
x �
—
Ions r woo we.mne+. —im k rW— "h. ha. e kYmNd1,Wmdji� 9 F r x4+ A wood rlcas now Faux am ue pnik, —.h (• "emimu a
i Uq&b`anrydusD�� ona�ImeteofthbwYfWllwdyldewh�mrt' ohlcher�wWlew mahomwe�WO/hnkmMa�rcu/�Aeemw �ahNpel � YV iw �� 7 •o
e Yropenl ®Ors 11 Wbllhlg MnY�welYOCedb{hYMdWYIIKdMI nvv rH eampmhm bmoNlmloB dYY 7Oi —•_.�. •.•aCb lrwe eteatd�] Y i 7 4 �

Table 1Oa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No. 405 Reach: B Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00 625 feet
Parameter
lGauge2i
RegionalCurve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-
LL
A
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'`'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SOS
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD's
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
11.6
12
14.6
18.56
14.9
29.84
7.53
4
Fioodprone Width (ft)
14.9
41.3
2:36
49.52
78.82
76.33
113.09
29.43
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.2
2.01
2.65
2.69
3.19
0.5
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
1.4
1.9
2.04
2.74
2.8
3.32
0.54
4
BaWull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
11.6
14.7
21.85
30.41
27.39
45.01
10.15
4
Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
11.6
9.8
4.4
6.87
6.48
10.12
2.49
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
3.6
2:3.0
3.12
4.55
3.67
7.75
2.17
4
'Bank Height Ratio
2.7
1
1
1.03
1.07
1.08
1.09
0.03
4
Profile
Riffle Length (it
1.1
37.2
4
38.9
10
10
Riffle Slope (fV/ft
Pool Length (ft
5
26.2
14.5
42.8
20
20
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (ff
19
509
17
154
30
55
Pattern
Channel Bellwidth (ft4 1 2 1 36 1 1 19.1 1 41.2 1 25 1 40 33.2 53.95 1 4
Radius of Curvature (ft 3.7 69.4 9.4 81.2 40 100 34.58 37.078 3 6
Rc:Bankfutl width (fl!ft 0.3 6.1 0.8 7 3.3 8.3
L40.52
Meander Wavelength(ft 30 247 43.3 46.2 90 130 120 136.25 9 4
Meander Width Rati 2.6 21.7 3.7 4 7.5 10.8 1.82 2.96 1 4
Transport parametens
Reach Shear Stress (competency) th'
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
Stream Power (transport capacity) W,m
Addltlonal Reach Parameters
Rosgen Ckdssificafio
I
G4c
E4b
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps
3.1
4.3
3.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
45
50
Valley length (ft)
424.4
Channel Thaiweg length (ftJ
459.5
625
Sinuosity (it)
1.17
1.08
0.09
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.022
0.0039
0.0057
pe (tttft
0.0043
0.023
0.0043
0.0049
'Bankfull (ac4%
of ReBank
EorHabitat
Channel St M etri
r Othe
SMdcd r.11. ind- Not N- =dl iypicnlh na he AIIA u.
I =The ill.vmuinro. f•n Ih:.c prtnnrV nun I.& inr- rnun h.N N.: tx- pnp. Mac +�h 1!c pmn�i rrnh 1r��11.ukfW1 wnlnw:.n • evt•i.
!. UI�IVSnp curvy dm r•udvee' nn euimYS or the lnnkh0 fl-dp14b wee m Hera. afiieh shwN bn Iha nm fisn.lhe mp nl Irnl ro Me l.r ul Ih Inrnt� n <•hbpe.
4 -ho -or-h crhihllln8 be ka iw mu,dnrE do d -I ..,- Iw-"kn b plonx ft dbu. 3 or'. Amy if -d.!

A1.O.0 mW mtllom LW Ihom will Irpica, m by 113w In
I— Tbndhudmlom.F . pmddwkmSh WMwaNe 7 rwp q— lb P�iIAGQC pNWin.lme �Lh i6e pm4ei �hfe84d bmtlWl�o�f �)
1.10-1al my dm pro&=a WqM Nw benkla 0,*Wn w inmm R4eb .hopld Oodr mwfiam Oe Nl fbabma uafftt- n mhbpp
a =empo map p, babmsbowduluoppdbgbmtlaeae .buW.WKTrprcomD®hm b®ibmedm
5 or..h.*.ww.)yxae oomd.r
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach C Sta 29 +00 40 +00 1100 feet
Parameter
Gau 2
Regional
Curve
Pre-Existing
Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monlitorina Baseline
Imenslon and Substrate Riffle Onty
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SDs
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SDs
n
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (tt
114
116
12
1898
1844
1819
2019
139
7
Floodprone W idth (ft
14.9
413
236
80
10311
1009
13445
229
7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
13
1
12
284
327
318
377
036
7
'Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
14
19
286
3.36
318
4
042
7
Bankfull Cross Sections] Area fe
14 8
116
147
2816
3851
3744
4925
724
7
Width/Depth Ratl
87
i's
1
98
4.8
555
546
683
08
7
Entrenchment Rali
t
1.3
36
t 3 0
396
587
551
792
137
7
'Bank Height Ratki
I
1
27
1
1
1
105
105
113
005
7
Profile 4
r
e
-
w
Wile Length (it
4
372
4
389
12
_
_ 12
RIf b Slope (fit
1
21
93
Pool Length (it
262
J48
428
24
24
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool Spacing (11
1
509
17
159
31
50
item �
_j
43r
_ T
�
b
Channel Beftwidth (III
2
1 36
191
1 1 1 41.2 1
25 1
10
Radius of Curvature (ftA
1
37
1 1 1 694
9A
812
40
_
100
35 75 47 407 49 56 5812 6(5519
11
" Re Birrditll width (tuft
0.3
1 1 1 61- -
1 -r 1 09
7 1
33
`8.3
Meander Wavelai@th (ft
30
247
433
462
90
130
105
1475
160 170
24.286
_ 10
Mearder Width Rali
26
217
37
4
75
-10.8
2.3022 3414129533 5 7579 1 1998
10
rensport parameters
--
--
Reach Shear Stress com ete I
- Max part size (mm) mobl6zed at banktU ,�
Stream Power (transport e W/m
- r
-
AdditlOnel Reach Parameters
a
Rosgen Classiticatio ,
s u? w
t r141§ j G4c
s
11 E4b 'i 1 r
r 1
_E4-" r
E4
_ Sankhr0 Velocity (fps
31
„ '43 1
27
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
45
150,'
" 1
Valley length (it
4244
r
Channel Thalweg length (it
4595
1100
Sinuosity (ft
117
108
148
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0A031
0 022
00023
BF slope (ft/ftA
00043
0 023
00025
3Bankfu0 Floodplain Area acres
4Y of Reach with ErocUra Be
-
Channel Stability or Habitat WIN
Biological or Othe
A1.O.0 mW mtllom LW Ihom will Irpica, m by 113w In
I— Tbndhudmlom.F . pmddwkmSh WMwaNe 7 rwp q— lb P�iIAGQC pNWin.lme �Lh i6e pm4ei �hfe84d bmtlWl�o�f �)
1.10-1al my dm pro&=a WqM Nw benkla 0,*Wn w inmm R4eb .hopld Oodr mwfiam Oe Nl fbabma uafftt- n mhbpp
a =empo map p, babmsbowduluoppdbgbmtlaeae .buW.WKTrprcomD®hm b®ibmedm
5 or..h.*.ww.)yxae oomd.r

f t
i
i { 1
1 I �
1
J
' w c
_ 1 • E _
1 � 1
r i
m i
} iM
5
Y
t =
y E ,
A
99 I }
i
R
5 7 » 1 1
pg yaq tI E1
6 B I
6 c 5
E t c i I
p 1j pg � 1
E 1 P
ul t t 1
r
$$, t
F�
,
' F
+ d
i
S t
t
1
r
r
1 t Y J
1
r
l
t t
,
4
'
r
r
' t
t
}
t
}
`
�
t
,
= I ,
r
St
C
_D
a
m
�
o
rt
1
1 i
r
I
C r
-
3
�'m
'
1 y
�
V
Y
�
s
1
'
L Y
t
e
V 5
t2 r
air
I
IC
}
m
L
+
`
CL
C
_
v
LY
i
1
s
1
1
I '
'
S U 1
i
t
t
5
® LL
t
E'o
I
r
5
m
}
to
r
to
�
H 1
t
F� I
r
N
_
t
a
2
t
1
r
, ,
r
1 =
i { 1
1 I �
1
J
' w c
_ 1 • E _
1 � 1
r i
m i
} iM
5
Y
t =
y E ,
A
99 I }
i
R
5 7 » 1 1
pg yaq tI E1
6 B I
6 c 5
E t c i I
p 1j pg � 1
E 1 P
ul t t 1
r
$$, t
F�
4
�
a
1 yi
}
�
r
r
..1
t
m
�
I
i
-
�
�
s
1
S
I
IC
i
r
+
`
o
1
i
1
i
1
J
I
to
t
N
i
�
m
LD,
r
r
1 =
f
t
J
U
c
t
C
f
U
sA
J
rn
�
E
1
�
V
pNff
m
pip
Go
N
S
O
c
v
N
�tt
m
1A
_
�
v
U
m
q
c
�
W
d
i { 1
1 I �
1
J
' w c
_ 1 • E _
1 � 1
r i
m i
} iM
5
Y
t =
y E ,
A
99 I }
i
R
5 7 » 1 1
pg yaq tI E1
6 B I
6 c 5
E t c i I
p 1j pg � 1
E 1 P
ul t t 1
r
$$, t
F�

Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to South Fork,Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach B [Ste 18 +75 25 +00) (625 feet)
Parameter Pre­ExistingCondidon
Reference Reac es Data
Design -
As- bullt/Basellne
�P
RW.6 / RU% I ft. G% / Se
_
J
_
_
25%
39%
_ SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B %/8
-
y,
fi i
1
4
K}
cyu.a
iYl
716 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dl° / dP° (mm SBVCIay
4
-11
SIIUCIay
4
128
2Entrerichment Class <1.511 5-199 / 2 0-4.915 0.9 9 / >1
-
Imislon Class e 12 / 1 2 149115-1991>2.4
,I
_ _ ( A
�fpreded cab.dtmelhei tl+eeewB b'Dbmb nm bet3d N.� .- •_ I _ ,
-1 RIIB. Rm Pod. 01ds, b'mp Maw Send Grind, Cmhb Bmdtr Bo*mY db awt pm asp rres crbphe -
! 2 ErmenoMenl Cba AmbnNn pia ma.h _
mdpe hm tie almm hdeeled edpaft Be pncmbpa of Me bbl much In Mh daa btte%ft This were.*ham de memued wmrsathe aswd m vbwl after
�B Aayy.bn Um re.nh[aly. him tlrs da.a Mfilaaold prwds pis penanlaO.d Be wel rash maoops hMhd=in ItlIL 7M eA ml *bom pe rmau.d vmai ®aw�Bm tlsbryEAdpmm !
Fwmm®2.7 Thaadbss Mbebyb8loud db Rmpen CbMM *nwdhMdn.bVbealu biweroa*WW.Wy ftlbr —brm wamwmewaetu bkwbaadanvbudaI as nlhs Potl.whtlmtmeaunmmt.I9wy.[p_ fa ERwifmtbemcsary — - ..� ,• �--.�
Th. Yhnt two b bteal*. d dalpo and monbft sMnwsbn Mh a good pmwdserseNthe e0wtl Algtlmlopb cmmrmm0 npe pmmislYg vd Ihs Idmtdbbd bbsawdm mnperbuumhie mdnanca dbtrpWim a -t l
"'ER andBFlR lwro 6aan addiaserlNprbreWmfesbnme. lEaemOb lcrosa+eelbe ee CdtddedmipnaunNl howaw 9eeeMSen4b hsa eBen famed amisaM an MCWmsO Aa4nwAhoul WOVtlnpedwolgh Dre.ept.sn+Bm dbu6�WbnMdima Da<smsw. l�Np tlw rmderlwsmer wthassoWbfidbrelp�letl hesA/m de.mbb sctlsrnd y ,•°
de rmdt 7lio nrmm tlleltlrdistrbull° N br tlmepmemebrs.hmdtlNAlds deAe tmnbolh Vemmaiatan suvye �d Bm bramaPotd pM�ard ndr rased EA Neu*e.IYrwee Farsmogb ,twtVPbdbrpndmnlladbrdrm�Sa 8wOrQotthe BHRrrwLbrymddlm slblat mamatedm wd BrMoremn bensd/ntearabd Wprwdf
amde em+rpMeaempb dbvbutbnMBe.e peramdan Bweby prwWnp ltedOWbN.ovegp necm.arymP mariNpid asrpmban 1 11 t "� -

Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach C [Sta 20+00 40+00) (1100 feet)
Pro-Existing Condition
Reference t:
.:
shaded tale udcele dwl lh®e wB dPkeki'rnol6s lded trl •••T ••...•. � � � t i� •« L_ _� _'^ _ f _ � �I _ t _ _ _ -•._ � -_ - _
1 : tldde RuM1 Pool Gkde t:`teo sa�Gq� surd. Gnk i6 Bodnar eedmok d'n `rim Pave dbv - me..Pae j I t _ P €
2 Eararohment Olen Asv%n1binOw reach boape hrb the thecae Indbebd and prone Ow permnage of Ow btdromh footW Inemh ch® In the able This wk meek horn the meesumd croacoalbno as wen m turfed oleo
9 Aeslpobin the rah foobwe Into Ow dames lydbehd ard pmvkb the pacentWofthe toW mach fooape In each dm in Ore table. This will meek bom do mmwaed araa•maeare a war m the bnpbdardpmge
Foobrotr2.7 ThMediommbozIybuEmouMdw Rmpan cbuMcWbnerdha =WmMrOaedubNwerea*aatl do* to mWoloraealefeMpmlema mmateW coanwbin bmsdon Nnalesemdes In Ole Potleuch dud meeammMlt of&wy.9prrrar EA wend not be rwoMwy i L
The abN here bmpnoWethe reatledmreumar of desfpnam modarhq iremnmtlpnvlOtapmdperwrd warm of ft ederoelhyAObpc mnalnnlsro adwpra.mdatlrp and the rehebOeatl earn as wek as comparboremtlw relemmet8eebrrlbrs
ERaMBHRhmboenaddraewd In prbr submhebne m a subsample (cresaeed m ss part of the deslpn survey) howaver two subemrbae hafeallenfocused
daekteft dmonwnwwprei Nlnp athorough pm-mabwbndobutbnol Oweapanmetor badrg wrederlooro mwbhae empetwbwahWhea *onwsabbawtbmof
foauh.Thbmeare NSwd butiomfc Owsepwmeaemsnountrwbdeddahum boatlwaoatedbneefmpand hbnpadMPmbedlntlw meat eaftat
Formemplo Uwbrytedb%WdbdpmHe par'bsemp$T,.f Vw BHRatrllbebeyom NOSeaub(slaroroesbmb MWWU -a Mcanbera*btepratl and prwAdD
ammmn9bfosmpbdhtrbulbo farthmperenwOns OrmOY DroM9rB tl+a dbbbulbNCOampe rwceawrYm PmrMe mmdnpMmuWallons I + r r y �-f� a,�

_ f
— r
f
i
t
� 1N
t u
M �
s
� T {
' t 4
r
f
i
- L
1
s
J �
A
h
'I
— t a
a r !
— — 7
6
t
i !
e
I I,! ,e)
s
r
9 r
r �
x
B>
6
r,
�m
IE
Lo
7
12,
1
9; 1
� a
� E
i
Q !
9
12 ® S
sSS3L {`
4
4
S
a6
s '
a�
2�m
1, c
r
�
All
i
ra
§ I
m
NE13
,
W
u
m
'
)
� �m�al
�ooQo
=9gof�
Qa��y
�
G
v
rN
=
~
i
y
r
((f
tn
N
C
m
o N
m o
o
1
O
1
w
k�
f
'
N
1
m
m
1
5 55
9 9
3 3
._.
0 0
¢
F 5
¢ ¢
E
E
9
p
r
'
1 P
a
1 I
`
I
m
I
r
1
(�
s
r
9 r
r �
x
B>
6
r,
�m
IE
Lo
7
12,
1
9; 1
� a
� E
i
Q !
9
12 ® S
sSS3L {`
4
4
S
a6
s '
a�
2�m
1, c

Table 11 a Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —Cross Sections)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach B Sta 18 +75 - 25 +00 625 feet)
Cross Section
5,(Riffie)
Cross Section
6 (Riffle)
Based on fixed basellne bankfull elevation'
Base /MY1
MY2
=MY3 _
_ MY4_
_ MY5
_ MY+
Base/MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5_
MY+
- Record elevation (datum) use
" 599 73- Y
599 83
599 73
599'73
599 73
-
597 79 �'
59809
59779
59779
59779
- - - -- Bankfull Width (ft
' 18 12
2056
2038-
1898--1821
1834
20 09'
-18 45
-,1804
17 40'
-
_ Floodprone Width (ft
- ,.e.170
170
170
170
170_..
- 835
- 83 5
835
835
835
- Bankfull Mean Depth ft
—123 --.r
-1 14
127
1.26
'1 10
1 54 -
-1-53
143-
144
144
- -- v - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft
- 222 -- -
226
253
253
2381,---
2 81 -
296-
-282-
- 284
291-
-
- Bankfull Cross Sectional Area fh
22123 _2
2345
2581
2167
20 06
2817-
3076-
2631
2597
25 059
Bankfull Width/Depth Rat
L 14 78—
1803
16'09
1509
16 53"
"`
1195 -
1312
1294
L12 53
12 076
J Bankfull Entrenchment Ratiol
938
827
834
896_
_934
_4 55 +
428
453
463
--4-8-
Bankfull Bank Height Rab
1
_ 1
1
0 8933
0 8571'
1
1
10993
0 9648
0 7285
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftZ
7821
792
75 615
16388
163-49
16215
-
d50 (mmA
2
1 1 1
11
4 27
4 6
213
76
2888
15 166115
583
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensionalldepositional development Input the elevation used as the datum which shy
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 momto
Additional data from a pnor 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

M l 1 I lI
A
01
r
"- Table 11a Monitoring Data= Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -'Cross Sections) '
- r - UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405 Reach C to 29+00 - 40+00 1100 feet
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)—
-
° " Cross Section B (Riffle) "
°` Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Bawd on fixed paselins bankfun elevation' Base/MY1 _
MY2
MY3_
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base/MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY+
Base/MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
- Record elevatbn (datum) 59666
59666
596.66
5%.66
5966611
59610
59601
59610
59610
59810
594201 -'
59409
59420
59420
59420
" Bankfull Width n -r17 71 -
1793
1719
1759
1743
- 1797
1774
1605
1768
1697
1578
1564
3258
15.31
15.25
- - rune Width ( 190
r 190'
190-
190 Y
190
200
200
200
200
200
135
135
-135
135
135
- -
i Baxddull Mean D 163 b
1 S9'
1.66
211
IM
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP n this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote In this should be included that states k is uncertain If the monitoring datum has been conslsteid overythe monitoring history whi,
1 S7
1.62
166
1.51
149
,
168
163
0.83
1.87
172
a Bankfull Max D n 1271
275
2.76
280
273
277
277
P-88
297
2.90
a
271
2.62
2.69
278
270
Banidull Cross Sectional Area If 2879
2842
2882
3717
2710
1 2821 _
2868
26.67
2663
2524
1 2659
2553
2703
2069
2628
'
" - Bankfull W Idth/D th R 10.90
1131
1025
8.32,
1122
1144
10.97
' 9 66
1174
11401
9.37
9S8
3927
817
8.85
- Bankhr8 Entrenchment Ra 10 73
10 60
'11 O5
,10 BOr
1090
`_w
11 13
1128
1246
711 31
11 79
BS5 ���
8 t>'3
414
8.02_
8 65
Bankfu8 Bank Height Ratl 100
100
700
102
° 1 01
098 �
1.00
103
089'"
1 O6
100 -^ '
1 00
0 98
� 0 97"
103
_ Goss Zonal Area between end�i� ftY
� E
79.83
78.85
78 45
-
424 41
41966
439 75
�
237 44
24625
24412
d60 mm 0.83
1 67
070
0 88
012
,
1 27
0.62
020
Ole
1 17
T
17 O6
30 20
1900
9S0
9 00
�
�1
i
--
-1
v
rr
1 - Widths and depths for monflodrg resurvey will tie based on the bawk a banklu9 d�aAUtr regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevatlon used as the datum which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum esfablishm
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP n this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote In this should be included that states k is uncertain If the monitoring datum has been conslsteid overythe monitoring history whi,
_
Addmonal data from a prior performer Is being acquhed to provide confirmation, Values will be recalculated In a future submission based on a consistent datum d determined to be necessary
S 7
,
i
1 i

gsp sw u Wl 74W PaPaaWWn10`Y
amdgm xaw ` dgP smd mw a 4P F=POB 1qPPm8 gggO0 "0 "S fRIOM 1IRS OM lood uNl RUU E
ggst AlewsmMPM. wwl Aem RMA as u0 P—g E4P03ee XV S*MQ 64Ag4M 4M4M lO ugYOdmd`Z
SUmd P4PNbjq d41 Pw stews ugI>em and all 1poq wwl ugjomop4 app4 uvo 2mpu and esa411ol m WcptgP mu ` l

Exhibit Table 11 b MoNtoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek Ste hens No 405 Reach B Ste 18 [phone] feet
areMffmf Basellne/MY-01
201
-2
(2010)
MY-3 2010
MY-0
2011
MY-6
201
MY-G+
DlrnwolDn and Substrete_Riffle only i Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SW
n
Minn
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
'n^°
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
- _ - - BwMu0 W 1814 18 12118M
1823
1834
0155
-2-
2DA9
2032
2032
2058
0 335
2
1845
1941
1941
20.38
1 364
2
1804
1851
18 51
18.98
OSM
-2
174
178
17.8
1821
0375
-2
" Fbodprone Wrdlh if 83S4
1268
128.8
170
6113
2
83.5
1263
7263
170
6116
2
83.5
1268
1268
170
6116
"2"
835
126.8
1288
170
6116
2-
83S
1268
126E
170
6116
2
-
-'
' B&MA Mean Depth ( 1226
1381
1381
1 536
0.219
2
1 141
1336
1 336
1331
0 276
2
1267
1346
1 346
1A26
0 113
2
1 258
1349
1349
1 A4
0129
2
1 102
1.271
1271
1 A41
024
2
1BanklullM6D tu 222
2515
2515
281
0417
2
228
261
261
296
0495
2
253
2.675
2675
282
0205
2
233
2685
2685
284
0219
2
238
2695
2845
291
0375
2
Bankfu0 Cross Seed0onal Area 2223
252
252
2B 17
4201
2-
2345
271
271
3076
5166
2
25.81
26.06
26.06
2637
0351
2
23.87
24.92
2492
2597
1 483
2
2006
2256
2256
2508
3535
2
- W idth/Depth Rad 1195
1336
1336
1478
2003
-2
1312
1557
15.57
1803
3A7
2
1294
1451
74 51
10.68
2228
2
1253
1391
13.81
1509
1 814
2
1208
14,3
143
1653
315
2
'
- Entrenchment Rag 4554
6 967
6867
938
3412
° 2
4282
6275
6275
8268
2819
2
4 528
SAN
6 434
8342
2698
2
14629.6793
6 793
&0613.0591-2
4E
7 06817.06819
336
3207
2
- 'Bank He M Red 1 -
1027
1027
1954
13.11
- 2
1-1112611125
21.53
14 51
2
1
1.05
7 OS
1299100
-2-
08933109N2910
0.965
0 051
2
0
0.793
0 793
0 857
OA91
2
Riffle 12.2119.311
U321
_
1
114 47
28 71
12&24
5615
1456
7
1905
4237
3325
7953
2571
8
2
3198
2783
8871
323
9
1277
284S
21.84
8024
21.89
8
Rilfla Slo 090 O D21
][0
0431
0.001
OE11
001
OE25
0009
6
0E01
0.007
0 005
0E74
0 005
8
0 004
0 012
0 009
DAM
0 009
9
OE03
0 011
OE08
0 033
001
7
` Pool Length f 10 2737
539
1403
33.98
3215
5174
1209
8
1479
3534
3234
8397
2217
8
14.38
393
3812
7821
2289
8
133
2365
211
48.6
71A9
8,
i
y
Pod Max depth (It
178
3 15
3.01
61
133
8
278
422
4
655
112
8
284
4.117
39M
BA
1 052
B
261
372
3 715
4.25
0549
8
_ Pod Spacing (I 7729
118
33.6
70.07
59 031
1325
3198
7
1 3498
71119
77 4
114.7
2912
7
2897
6662
6229
1221
3586
7
27M
5129
4197
119
3179
7
Pattern
-
Channel BelbAdlh 332 1 54 702
`
1
Radius of Curvature 1 34E 371 405
data wa rot typ1mily be coaroled unlase visual dada. dimensional data or profile data YtlbFSe
significant sh9le from bate0re
Rcgankfu0 width (
-
Meander Wavelength ( 120 136 150 v
Meander Width Ra 182 288 386
R�4
onel Reach Paramatere t
RoegenClassithado Ed
E4 a s
E4 s i r ^! E4
Channel ThW 625
625
i 6r25 825
Sinuosity 108 -
"' 1 i 108 -
109 - ""
11.68 - -`f 1 1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( - D.OD57
{ V 0 007 ^
WA
OM55 -^ 00051
- BF slope (fVq 0.0049
i
0005-
0 0025
0.0045 - 0.0053
_
-
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G %/ 25%
39%
1
3046
1
_
54%
45% -
""'
46% -150%
"' 35%
30%
-
' / Sa %/ G% / C%/ B% /
143%1
6S% 22°,6
56S 43%
0 0%
0596
0 15 0° 48%
0 0%
OA% 16.9%
i6A
4S%
0 0%
OE%
-' d16 / d351 d50 / d841 d95
I A
1
0162 19.9891
14.5 133J3148
101
0 1531&7ael 9 72 1 3238
5055
0 70414JUI
10.09
3159
68 01
_
'-' a% of ReaNi w8h Eodl Ba ^
_ 1% 1
1%
0% Y 0%
Cliannd Sfabi or Habitat tAetd
- Brologmal or Otha
1 Tha di Irbutbre for anew parametere can kmhda Momadbn from both the cross-section surveys and the brgtudhd polls. a "
12. Prepkian of reach exhibiting banks that are erodkg based on the visual survey fmm vbud assessment table _ _ _ _ a M ^4�
3 . RRIe Run Pool, Me Stop SO/Claf Said, Gravel, Cobble Boulder Bedrock do- max pans dbp . mar subpave ✓ 7 � 7 a r
4. of vataehoeded ordy 1 the n emeads 3 r a

Shaded Cre' ndcate that ina,e We typically MI he IWO n
1 Th
= e dslrbutbns'or Ihase parameter, can mWde ntormatbn from both the cm-then surveys and the brgludind profile.
2 . Proportion of reach ex1,11,41ing banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from vbud as,es,mani table
3 - A #%' Run. Pool. Glide. Step'. SIVCIsy, Send, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder. Bedrock; dip - max pave. dbp . max subpave
4, - 01 vakn /noodad only 1 the n exceed, 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to South Fork Creek Ste hens No. 405 Reach: C Sta 29 +00 - 40 +00 1100 feet
Parameter
Baseline /MY -01 (2 10)
MY -2
2010
MY-0
2010
MY-4 2011
MY -5
(2012)
MY -5+
Dkinenslon and Substrate-
Min
Mean
Mad
I Max
I SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD`
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD`
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft
15.78
17.07
17.71
17.71
1.114
3
15.64
17.16
17.93
17.93
1.318
3
16.05
21.94
17.19
32.58
9.233
3
15.31
16.86
17.59
11.68
1.345
3
15.25
16.55
18.97
17.43
1.148
3
Floodprone Width (ft
135
171.7
190
190
31.75
3
135
171.7
190
190
31.75
3
135
17S
190
200
35
3
135
175
190
200
35
3
135
175
190
200
35
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (n
1.625
1.645
1.625
1.685
0.034
3
1.5135
1.601
1.585
1.632
0.027
3
0.83
1.389
1.662
1.677
0.485
3
1.506
1.831
1.874
2113
0.306
3
1.488
1.588
1.554
1.723
0.121
3
'Bankfull Max Depth f1
2.71
2.71
271
2.71
7E -14
3
262
2.707
2.75
275
0.075
3
2.69
2.777
2.76
2.88
0.096
3
2.76
2.843
2.8
2.97
0.112
3
2.7
2777
'!.73
2.9
0.108
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Araa tir
26.59
28.05
28.79
28.79
1268
3
25.53
27.46
28 -42
28.42
1.666
3
26.67
27.51
27.03
28.82
1.152
3
26.63
30.83
28.69
37.17
5.586
3
25.24
26.21
26.28
27.1
0.93
3
WIdIh/Depth Pali
9.369
10.39
10.9
10.9
0.884
3
9.583
10.73
11.31
11,31
0.995
3
9.655
19.73
10.25
39.27
16.93
3
8.169
9.411
8.324
11.74
2.02
3
8.852
10.49
11.22
11.4
1.423
3
Entrenchment Ral
8553
11
10.73
10.73
1255
3
8.63
9.943
10.6
10.6
1.137
3
4,144
9.22
11.05
12.46
4.452
3
8.619
10.31
10.8
11.31
1.316
3
8.851
10.51
10.9
11.79
1.506
3
'Bank Height Rali
1
1
t
1
-
3
t
1
1
1
-
3
0.978
1.004
1
1.035
0.029
3
0.975
0.994
0.987
1.021
0.024
3
11.011
1.034
1.03
1.062
0.026
3
Pto11N
Riffle h (ft 8.
25.69
51.8
7.6
26.18
19.42
52.74
15.97
10
9.D4
39.51
27.04
132.6
37.78
11
7.58
37.33
15.04
140.6
40.6
12
7.96
45.89
25.46
162
51.52
B
Riffle Slope (1011
0.014
0.053
0.003
0.019
0.013
0.06
0.016
10
0.001
0.013
0.012
0.026
0.010
9
0.003
0.D13
0.010
0.025
0.008
12
0.001
0.007
10.006
0.013
0.005
7
Pool length (It 2149.821
92
27.44
70.05
73.88
27.52
11
252
fi2.73
61.13
108.8
28.05
12
11.79
57.03
5121
1122
29.76
11
28.22
72.38
72.68
119.6
32.78
B
Pool Max depth (ft
238
2.69
2.63
�2�022
0.25
10
329
3.74
3.65
4.2
0.34
12
3.12
3.45
3.365
4.015
0.259
11
3.32
3.571
3.475
3.9
0256
8
Pod Spacing (It 2
78
148
30.64
90
82.31
49.72
10
32 .24
9724
95.73
201.3
51.14
12
29.51
90.95
89.47
161.4
44.85
10
77.94
116.9
9523
196.4
42.66
7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft 46 68.2 115
Radius of Curvature (ft 35.8 47.4 58.1
Pattern data we not typeaay be crolaeted unby visual date. dmonnnal data or pmfle data iMCale
sgnleaot Shbs from baseline
Rc Bankfull width (It 'ft
Meander Wavelength (It 1(15 148 170
Meander Width Rab 2.3 3.41 5.76
ddRtonal Reach Paramaters
Rosgen Classifloatio
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Channei Thalweg length (ft
1100
1100
1111
1100
1100
Sinuosity (It
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.48
1.48
Water Surface Slope (Channel( (IUft
0.0023
0.003
N/A
OM26
0.0030
BF slope (1191
0.0025
0.0031
0.0026
0.0032
0.0027
Ri% I Rt%/ P% / G% 155
2811.
50
24 ^.
70.L
El::_:
68.1.
41%
57°7,
33%
53%
SCY i Sa% I G% I C% I B% I Bat
1
0.9`�
22%
34.61
6.7%
0.0%
0.7-/
4.9^l
26.0%
46.71 2.4 °,
0.0"r;
D.0°/
30.0%121.
44.3.0
1.3%
0A1.
2.756
d 16 ! d35 i d50 / d84 / d95
0.09411.55616.556131.07171.981
0.286
1.902
3.51 B 21.14
40.05
0.062
0.75
13.429119.6
1 72.9
' %of Roach with Erodi Bank
1%
2%
1%
0%
Channel Steblliry or Habrte[ Metn
Biological or Othe
Shaded Cre' ndcate that ina,e We typically MI he IWO n
1 Th
= e dslrbutbns'or Ihase parameter, can mWde ntormatbn from both the cm-then surveys and the brgludind profile.
2 . Proportion of reach ex1,11,41ing banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from vbud as,es,mani table
3 - A #%' Run. Pool. Glide. Step'. SIVCIsy, Send, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder. Bedrock; dip - max pave. dbp . max subpave
4, - 01 vakn /noodad only 1 the n exceed, 3

Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
68
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtonng Report Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engmeers PC February 2013

S
a
' - Reported at USGS 355637079122545 Rain gauge at Berry Andrews Rd near White Cross
y
Table 13 Wetland Cntena Attainment 2009 -2012
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
(MY -02)
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens) No 405
Y -0
Date of Data
Date of
Y-04
Collection
Occurrence Method
Photo #
23- Jun -10
15- May -10
Visual Observation of Wrack Lines
N/A
12- Apr -11
31- Mar -11
Visual Observation of Wrack Lines
17
A 2 1 -mch* rainfall event within 4 hours occurred less
18- Jan -13
18- Jan -13
than 24 hours after a 13 inch rainfall within 6 hours
N/A
A 1 6- inch* rainfall event within 1 hour occurred less
18- Jan -13
18- Jan -13
than 15 hours after a 13 inch rainfall withm?4 hours
N/A
a
' - Reported at USGS 355637079122545 Rain gauge at Berry Andrews Rd near White Cross
y
Table 13 Wetland Cntena Attainment 2009 -2012
3
a - Gauge installed 9128/2009 - groundwater level monitored for 42 days of the growing season ,-
b - Gauge installed 8/12/2010 - groundwater level monitored for 89 days of the growing season
c - Gauge malfunction - groundwater level monitored for 148 days of the growing season '
d - Monitoring ended before end of growing season - groundwater level monitored for 228 days of the growing season
3
Wetland hydrology success criteria is met if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the
growing season -
Growing Season March 24 to November 9 (source
http //www -wcc arcs usda gov/ ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001 txt) =�
.3
L
r
k
i
y I
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
+ 69
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtonng Report Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013
2009
(MY -02)
2010
Y -0
2011
Y-04
2012
MY-0
eo
no
rn
u
Al
'6��
d
O G
lu
1R
GD
^l
r%
G7
G�Q7
W U �i
/�
U A
t/i
l
U
/`1�
U A
i� t/]
m U
U /-I
v' &M
Ref
-
-
3 b
1%
No
59
269kr
Yes
370
16%
Yes
2
8 a
3%
No
20
9%
No
10C
4%
-No
18
8%
No ;I
3
0 a
0°%
_ No
79
34%
Yes
72
31%
,-Yes
73
32%
Yes
4
0 a
0%
No
24
10°%
No
34
15%
Yes
15 d
7%
No
5
0 a
0%
No
43
19%
1 Yes
62
27%
Yes
28 a
12%
Yes
3
a - Gauge installed 9128/2009 - groundwater level monitored for 42 days of the growing season ,-
b - Gauge installed 8/12/2010 - groundwater level monitored for 89 days of the growing season
c - Gauge malfunction - groundwater level monitored for 148 days of the growing season '
d - Monitoring ended before end of growing season - groundwater level monitored for 228 days of the growing season
3
Wetland hydrology success criteria is met if levels are within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 12% of the
growing season -
Growing Season March 24 to November 9 (source
http //www -wcc arcs usda gov/ ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001 txt) =�
.3
L
r
k
i
y I
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
+ 69
Stream and Wetland Restoration Year 5 Momtonng Report Final
NCEEP Project number 405 Year 5 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C February 2013

7.00
6.00
5.00
r
c 4.00
0
.L3-
9Ld
a`
d
m
3.00
a
►W1I1
1.00
0.00
UT to South Fork Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2012
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
2012
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days) 2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
(http: / /www.wcc. n res. usda.gov /ftpref /s upporti climate /wetlands /nc /37001.txt) (hftp://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

UT to South Fork Creek Reference Gauge
10.00
0.00 - - --
11/ /11 12/21/11 2/9/12
-10.00 - --
E
as
J - 20.00 _ .___. - - --
12 inches Below
Soil Surface
-30.00
-40.00
-50.00
3/30/12
Growing
Season
5/19/12
7/8/12
5
8/27/12 10/16/12 4
Date
Ground Water Level (in)
Rainfall (in)
1
I
0
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days) 2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
( http: / /wvwv.vxc. nres. usda.gov /ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001.txt) (http:ltwww.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)
-- - - 3
E
7i
r..
c
2
Date
Ground Water Level (in)
Rainfall (in)
1
I
0
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days) 2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
( http: / /wvwv.vxc. nres. usda.gov /ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001.txt) (http:ltwww.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

UT to South Fork Creek Gauge 2
10.00 5
0.00
11/1/11 12/21/11 2/9/12 3/30/12 5/19/12 7/8/12 8/27/12 10/16/12 4
- 10.00 - - - -
c
d -20.00 — - - - - -
12 inches Below C
Soil Surface Growing
Season
2
-30.00
1
-40.00 -- -- - -- - -
L-50.00 _ i 0
I
Date
Ground Water Level (in) — - Rainfall (in)
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days) 2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
( http: / /~.wcc. n res. usda.gov /ftpref /support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001.txt) (http://~.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

UT to South Fork Creek Gauge 3
10.00 5
I
I
0.00 - --
11/ /11 12/21/11 2/9/12 3/30/12 5/19/12 7/8/12 8/27/12 10/16/12 4
-10.00 --
3
m
-20.00 - - -- - - - - -- -- - - — - - tv
12 inches Below Grooving
Soil Surface Season
2
-30.00 - - -- - -- --
-40.00 11 f4— - t -- A - - -
-50.00
Date
Ground Water Level (in) ----Rainfall (in)
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days)
(http: / /wvwv.wcc. n res. usda.gov /ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /3700l .txt)
1
2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
(hftp://wvAv.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

UT to South Fork Creek Gauge 4
10.00
0.00
11/1/11 12/21/11 2/9/12 3/30/12 5/19/12
- 10.00 _ -- - - --
m
-20.00 — - -- - - --
12 inches Below Growing
Soil Surface Season
-30.00 - - - - - -- - -
Ki
-50.00
5
7/8/12 8/27/12 10/16/12 4
Date
Ground Water Level (in) Rainfall (in)
3
c
t►i
�1
0
c
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days) 2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
( http: //w vvw.wcc. nres. usda.gov /ftpref/ support /climate /wetlands /nc /37001.txt) (http:llwww.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

UT to South Fork Creek Gauge 5
10.00 5
0.00
11/11/11 12/21/11 219/12 3/30/12 5/19/12 7/8/12 8/27/12 10/16/12 4
-10.00 — -- -- - -
c
m
-20.00 -- -
12 inches Below Growing
Soil Surface Season
-30.00 - - - -- -- - - - - - --
-40.00
-50.00
Date
Ground Water Level (in)
Growing Season: March 24 to November 9 (230 days)
(http: //W wr.wcc.nres.usda.gov /ftpref/ support!climate /wetlands /nc /370Ol.txt)
1
A
Rainfall (in)
2012 Rain Data: Station SILR
(hftp://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/services/request.php)

_1
9
_J F
Appendix F. Miscellaneous Data
L, y
n
I 1
r
- 1
_ I
f r
1
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
Stream and Wetlaud Restoration
NCEEP Project number 405
Ward Consulting Engineers P C
r Y
r
s `
1 _
i
t
f r
76 _ Year 5 Monitoring Report Final _ - Year 5 of 5
February 2013

1 Supplemental Planting
Feb 2012
1 `
y I
IN fill,y
.F M
6
''Si fi:r
f 7
- -
2
7
a
1 r
a
y.
'tl
0 200 400 600
'' Feet
a
�r
K.
AREA
QUANTITY
1
30
2
70
3
50
4
4
35
5
30
6
35
7
50
Legend
8
290
9
260
Supplemental Planting
-- new_channel
- cattle_xx
Full CE
A
UT to South Fork Creek (Stephens)
E E P #405
Alamance County NC