20071394 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20130212

-'RU 0 cor�
-�3
UT BEAR CREEK (Weaver /McLeod) EEP #92347 -- Chatham County
2012 Stream Restoration Monitoring Report -- Year 3 of 5
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR -EEP)
Monitoring Data Collected in 2012 - -- Project Constructed in 2009
ITY
nd
i!! S �„
MY -3 Final Report submitted February 13, 2013
North Carolina Department of
Ad rl Environment and Natural Resourcess� 'A
Ecosystem Enhancement Program ,.k " 19
[�Ov`Stelll 1652 Mail Service Center
_ Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 tij S�
„ A�OOlt,
4t

UT BEAR CREEK (Weaver/McLeod) EEP #92347 — Chatham County
2012 Stream Restoration Monitoring Report -- Year 3 of 5
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCDENR -EEP)
Monitoring Data Collected in 2012 - -- Project Constructed in 2009
MY -3 Final Report submitted February 13, 2013
Prepared by:
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
RJG &A Environmental Consultants
1221 Corporation Parkway, suite 100
Raleigh NC 27610 - -- 919 - 872 -1174
Gerald Pottern gpottern @RJGAcarolina.com
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................... ............................... 1
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................ ..............................3
2 1 Stream Methodology 3
22 Vegetation Methodology 3
23 Hydrology 3
3.0 References ................................................................................ ..............................4
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 0 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 0 -1 1 Project Restoration Components
Table 2 0 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0 Project Attributes Table
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 MY -3 Final Report, February 2013
2012 Monitoring Report, Year 3 of 5 RJG &A Environmental Consultants

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2.0 -2.2 Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5.0 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6.0 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
e -Table Stream & Vegetation Problem Area Inventory Table
Figures 3.0 -3.8 Stream Station Photos
e- Photos Stream & Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Figures 4.0 -4.5 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7.0
Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8.0
CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9.0
CVS Stem Counts Total and Planted by Plot and Species
e- Tables
Raw CVS vegetation data sheets
Appendix D.
Stream Survey Data
Figures 5.0 -5.8
Cross sections with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets
Figures 6.0 -6.4
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw longitudinal profile survey data spreadsheets
Figures 7.0 -7.8
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw pebble count data spreadsheets
Tables 10.0 -10.1
Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Table 11.0
Monitoring — Cross- Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11.1 -11.2
Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12.0 Verification of Bankf ill Events
Table 13.0 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Figure 8.0 Monthly Rainfall Graph and Data from SILR gauge
Figure 8.1 -8.2 Daily Precipitation and Monitoring Well Graphs
e- Tables Raw Data: Daily Precipitation and Monitoring Wells
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 MY -3 Final Report, February 2013
2012 Monitoring Report, Year 3 of 5 RJG &A Environmental Consultants

1.0 Executive Summary
Goals & Objectives: The goals of the UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 Stream
Restoration Project are to improve water quality, reduce excess sedimentation input from
channel banks, attenuate floodwater flows, and restore aquatic and riparian habitat To
achieve these goals, the project has the following objectives
• Reduce nutrient loading from the on -site cattle operation by fencing out cattle and
re- vegetating the riparian buffer,
• Restore stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile so that on -site streams will
transport watershed flows and sediment loads without aggradation or erosion,
• Improve aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability, providing shaded
areas within the channel, and introducing woody debris in the form of rootwads,
log vanes, and log sills,
• Enhance wildlife habitat by re- vegetating the riparian buffers with native plants,
helping to create a wildlife corridor through existing agricultural lands
Project Setting: The project is located on private farmland in southwestern Chatham
County in the Bear Creek community, on the southeast side of NC -902 across the road
from Chatham Central High School It is in the Carolina Slate Belt region of the
Piedmont province, in Cape Fear River HUC 03030003 - 070050 (NC -DWQ sub -basin 03-
06-12) It includes stream channel and riparian restoration work on two parallel
tributaries of Bear Creek the Northern UT restored channel length is 3,132 feet, and the
Southern UT restored channel length is 1,745 feet The protected easement along each
stream extends from the NC -902 right -of -way downstream (southeastward) to their
respective confluences with Bear Creek The adjacent land is pasture on both sides of the
two restored tributaries
Vegetation Condition: Vegetation monitoring plot data were collected in September to
October 2012 Eight of the 12 plots had at least 320 surviving planted trees per acre,
and the average density of surviving planted trees among the 12 plots is 371 trees
per acre (Table 7). The four plots that did not meet the 320 trees /acre buffer
success threshold (plots 1, 2, 4 and 9) had 202, 162, 243, and 162 surviving planted
trees per acre, respectively However, native volunteer tree seedlings (mostly green
ash) are abundant in all plots, and the total density of native trees and shrubs
(planted plus volunteers) ranges from 769 to 4452 per acre Chinese privet, the
only non - native woody plant recorded in the plots, was present in three plots It
comprised 7 to 8% of total woody stems in plots 2 and 4, and 25% of woody stems
in plot 3, all in the upper portion of the northern tributary where it has apparently
spread from the roadside
Tree growth appears stunted in several vegetation plots and in some areas outside of the
plots, especially in the upper segments along both tributaries, apparently due to dense
clayey subsoil and lack of topsoil in these areas Outside of the monitoring plots, more
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 2012 Monitoring Year 3 of 5, Final Report
NCEEP Stream Restoration RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 1

than half of the problem areas mapped as "low planted stem density" in 2011 now have
adequate total woody stem density (volunteer trees plus surviving planted trees) and were
thus removed from "problem areas" on the CCPV maps The currently mapped problem
areas (Dec 2012) where planted and volunteer stems combined are below the target
density (five areas along the Northern UT and two along the Southern UT) have been re-
labeled as "low woody stem density "
Several large trees in the riparian forest near Bear Creek south of the Northern UT have
fallen on the easement fence and broken the wires and connectors There are currently no
livestock held on the adjacent pasture, and no livestock damage was observed, but fence
repair should be completed prior to releasing any livestock in the adjacent pasture
Stream Channel Condition: RJG &A staff collected cross - section, longitudinal, and
pebble data in September and October 2012 Overall the project appears to have met its
morphological goals, and its profile parameters closely mirror the design criteria Four
segments of stream -bank erosion along the Northern UT noted in 2010 and 2011 appear
stable, with no further erosion damage noted One of these segments now has sufficient
perennial vegetation including Salix and Juncus that it is no longer a "problem area "
The other three segments have mostly annual vegetation , and are still identified as
problem areas (total 150 lin ft) The Southern UT has no channel problem areas
Wetland Hydrology: In Chatham County wetland hydrologic success requires that soils
be saturated for at least 27 days (12 5% of the growing season, April through October)
Data downloaded from gauge 138BDBD7 (western well, near easement fence) indicates
that soils were saturated within 12 inches of the surface for 30 days, gauge 9BEA457
(eastern well, near stream) indicates that soils were saturated within 12 inches of the
surface for 28 days Both gauges meet the hydrologic success criteria The crest gauge
installed along the Northern UT was checked during spring annual assessment and the
fall data collection Based on the cork levels in the crest gauge, field examination for
evidence of over -bank flow, and precipitation records at the Siler City Airport (SILR)
precipitation gage, there does not appears to have been any flow event exceeding bankfull
in the past year Hydrologic data are summarized in Appendix E
Supporting Data Availability: Summary information/data related to the occurrence of
items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics related to performance of various
project and monitoring elements can be found in 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 the Restoration Plan) documents available on ESP's
website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from EEP upon request
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 2012 Monitoring Year 3 of 5, Final Report
NCEEP Stream Restoration RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 2

2.0 Methodology
Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP- provided templates and guidelines
(Lee et al 2008, NC -EEP 2011) Photographs were taken with an Olympus digital
camera A Trimble Geo XT handheld mapping -grade GPS unit was used to collect cross
section endpoints, vegetation corners, stream photo points, and problem area locations
All problem areas identified in the fall 2011 and spring 2012 versions of the CCPV were
re- evaluated in October 2012
2.1 Stream Methodology
Longitudinal stationing along each UT was assigned in ArcMap using the as -built
centerline data collected in May 2009, beginning with 10 +00 at the upper end of each
restored stream Nine permanent cross sections (six along the Northern UT and three
along the Southern UT) were selected and staked during April 2010 Geomorphology
data for monitoring year 3 were collected during September to October 2012 using a
South Total Station for the longitudinal profiles and a Nikon automatic level for the cross
sections Data collection methods employed were a combination of those specified in the
project Mitigation Plan and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents
including the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream
Channel Reference Sates, and Applied Raver Morphology (USACE, 2003, Harrelson et al ,
1994, Rosgen, 1996) Photographs facing downstream were taken at each cross section
Stream bed particle distribution was assessed using the Wolman pebble count method
2.2 Vegetation Methodology
Twelve representative vegetation survey plots (seven along the Northern UT and five
along the Southern UT) were selected and installed in April 2010 The four corners of
each 10 x 10 meter plot are marked with metal conduit pipe Vegetation data for
monitoring year 3 were collected between September 12 and October 26, 2012
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS /EEP protocol (Lee et al 2008)
Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height
and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem location All planted stems were
identified with pink flagging Vegetation was identified using Weakley (2010) Photos
were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner
2.3 Hydrology
Wetlands: Daily groundwater level data were collected from two Remote Data Systems
automated groundwater monitoring gauges installed in the enhanced riparian wetland
adjacent to the Northern UT in April 2010 in accordance with USACE guidance (USACE
2000) These gauge data were plotted against precipitation data from the Siler City
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 2012 Monitoring Year 3 of 5, Final Report
NCEEP Stream Restoration RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 3

Airport ECONet station (SIL.R) Wetland gauge and precipitation data and graphs are
provided in Appendix E of this monitoring report
Streams: The UT to Bear Creek restoration includes One PVC crest gauge was installed
in 2010 at Station 3280 along the Northern UT to venfy the on -site occurrence of
bankfull events The crest gauge was evaluated during the spring and fall data collection
visits, and the site was assessed for evidence of bankfull events Dates of potential
bankfull events were inferred using precipitation data from the Siler City Airport ECONet
station (SILR) (NC CRONOS, 2010) Results are provided in Appendix E
3.0 References
Harrelson, Cheryl, C L Rawlins, and John Potpondy (1994) Stream Channel
Reference Sates An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique USDA, Forest Service
General Technical Report RM -245
Lee, Michael T , Peet, Robert K , Roberts, Steven D , Wentworth, Thomas R (200 8)
CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation version 4 2, October 2008 Retrieved
September 2011, from http //cvs bio unc edu/methods htm
NC -DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (2011) Monitoring Report Template and
Guidance version 14, November 2011 Retneved September 2011, from
http / /portal ncdenr org/web /eep /fd- forms- templates
Radford, A E , H E Ahles, and C R Bell (1968) Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill, NC
Robert J Goldstein & Associates, Inc (20 10) Baseline Monitoring Document and As-
built Baseline Report UT to Bear Creek( #92347) August 13, 2010
Rosgen, D L (1996) Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO
Rosgen, D L (1997) "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers
In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision, ed S S Y Wang, E J Langendoen and F B Shields, Jr University of
Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS
USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC,
NCDENR -DWQ
Weakley, Alan (20 10) Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding
Areas Retrieved March 2011 from http / /www herbarium unc edu/flora htm
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) #92347 2012 Monitoring Year 3 of 5, Final Report
NCEEP Stream Restoration RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 4

Responses to EEP Review Comments on Draft 2012 Monitoring Report
Comments from Perry Sugg, 30 Jan 2013: EEP has conducted our review of the
referenced MY03 (2012) monitoring report and has the following comments.
Executive Summary
• Veg: since the buffer area is generating buffer restoration credits (for the
Randleman Reservoir), vegetation success criteria should be tied to those
success criteria. Buffer restoration success in the strictest sense is defined as
320 planted trees /ac at the end of 5 years. Report planted trees /ac as basis for
success, but also report total trees /ac to reflect actual conditions.
• Veg: note small stand of privet. No need to note Asian spiderwort in text.
RIGA Response: We revised the Vegetation Condition paragraph in the
Executive Summary to address density of surviving planted trees (rather than
all planted woody stems) relative to the 320 planted trees per acre criterion
for buffer restoration. We also addressed total woody stem density (planted
plus volunteers) to demonstrate that the four plots not meeting the criterion
have abundant volunteer tree seedlings to adequately mitigate the lower
survival rate of planted trees in these plots. We also discussed the relative
density of exotic Chinese privet in the three plots where it was recorded.
Tables CVS Data Table
• Revise /replace Table 7 (Veg Plot Attribute Table) and Table 9 (Planted /Total
Stem Counts) with appropriate CVS tables once you upload data to CVS using
new tool.
RIGA Response: Tables 7 and 9 are revised using the data entry tool v. 2.3.1
Please make revisions to the 2012 Final Monitoring Report - Year 3 as described
above and submit 2 hardcopies of the revised Final report along with e- files.
Include a response to comment letter as well.
If you have any questions about the CVS tool please contact Melonie Allen at (919)
707 -8540 or melonie.allenOncdenr.org. Feel free to call me as well.
Thank you.
J '
Pcrry Sugg
EEP Project Manager
(919) 707 -8937
Ix rn.su�r�s�u nccicnr.�n��
t2-t-
UT Bear Creek ( Weaver /McLeod) #92347 2012 Monitoring Year 3 of 5, Final Report
NCEEP Stream Restoration RJG &A Environmental Consultants
Page 5

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1.0.
Table 1.0 -1.1
Table 2.0
Table 3.0
Table 4.0
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Project Restoration Components
Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Contacts Table
Project Attributes Table

Directions to the Site:
From US -64 just west of Pittsboro, take NC -902 West (southwest) for `� = } !i 1 421
15 miles toward Bear Creek. Cross US -421 and then Old US -421 and
a railroad track. Access to the Northern UT is via a gravel road on your
left, 0.3 mile past Old 421, across from Chatham Central High School. 7
Access to the Southern UT is via another gravel road 0.8 mile farther z ` • , ;/ �e
west along NC -902, also on your left. The property owner keeps the
gates locked at both access roads.��`
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore��,-
access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized '
personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees /contractors
involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the jr �,�-i �~ J � � •Y` _—
restoration site is permitted within the terms and time frames of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person
outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities
requires prior coordination with EEP.
• 902
dRk
ri Northern UT
Southern UT
`�'- -;, Il -j•�`f ` \�,� %t� �I`� S J!
Bear Creek
457
� -..i� �\ \\ `j.J �J 1• l� / --� III \- 4: \�i
C. D'. y3pp}1 i r` r
s6 Figure 1.0. General Vicinity Map and Directions. UT to Bear
Creek ( #92347). Chatham County, NC.
Project Conservation -
�-�, f Easement
• ��` `/�� r..-. USGS Streams 1'�C'()5�'1tClll
Feet
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 � • �
j �..,�•.` 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Quad: Bear Creek
1 /

Table 1.0. Project Restoration Components
UT Bear Creek (Weaver/McLeod) Stream Restoration - Pro ect #92347
Project
Component
p
or Reach ID
w
j
Q
�°, Q
Stationing
ono
o
a
on
Comment
Vegetative Plantings to
pasture areas within 50 feet
of creek where density of
existing vegetation is less
4 66
IR
14 66 ac
--
1 1
1
466
than 100 stems /acre
Vegetative Plantings to
pasture areas within 50 feet
of creek where density of
Northern UT
existing vegetation is greater
to Bear Creek
than 100 stems /acre, but less
Buffer
1 078
E
--
10 78 ac
--
2 1
1 05
039
than 200 stems /acre
Vegetative Plantings to
pasture areas within 50 feet
of creek where density of
existing vegetation is less
2 32
IR
--
12 32 ac
--
1 1
1
232
than 100 stems /acre
Vegetative Plantings to
pasture areas within 50 feet
of creek where density of
Southern UT
existing vegetation is greater
to Bear Creek
than 100 stems /acre, but less
Buffer
1 042
E
--
10 42 ac
--
2 1
05
021
than 200 stems /acre
10+00 -
PI
550 ft
15 +50
1 1
1
550
15+50-
PH
125 ft
16 +75
1 1
1
125
16+75 -
PI
225 ft
19 +00
1 1
1
225
19+50-
PH
350 ft
23 +00
1 1
1
350
23+00 -
PI
1,675 ft
39 +75
1 1
1
1,675
Northern UT
Restore channel on new
39 +75-
to Bear Creek
2,832
R
PII
157 ft
41 +32
1 1
1
157
location
10 +00-
16+67
17+19 -
PI
1,298 ft
23 +50
1 1
1
1,298
23 +50-
Southern UT
Restore channel on new
to Bear Creek
1,635
R
PII
395 ft
27 +45
1 1
1
395
location
Riparian
Wetland
along
Supplemental plantings to
Northern UT
049
E
--
0 39 ac
--
2 1
05
02
existing wetlands

Table 1.1. Component Summations
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) Stream Restoration - Project #92347
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Non -Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
(lm ft)
Wetland (acre)
(acre)
(acre)
(acre)
BMP
Non-
Riverme
Riverme
6 98 '
Restoration
4,775
Enhancement
- ` +
039
1 2
;;'}4s
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
�; ; Y j�,,;
t "��', .., ,,.' =,a`
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
'Tim
AA
Totals
(Feet /Acres)
4,775
0.39
0
1
0
8.18
0
MU Totals
4,775
0.2
0
0
7.58
0
Non - Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) Stream Restoration - Project #92347
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 3 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 3 yrs 6 Months
Number of Reporting Years 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
U
Jul -07
Final Design — Construction Plans
U
Jan -08
Construction
NA
Apr -09
Containerized, bare root and B &B
plantings for entire project
NA
Apr -09
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0
Monitoring — baseline)
Apr -10
Aug -10
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -10
Dec -10
Year 2 Monitoring
Aug -Sep 2011
Sep -11
Year 3 Monitoring
Sep -Oct 2012
Dec -12

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT of Bear Creek Stream Restoration - Project #92347
Designer
Ko & Associates, P C
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
R Kevin Williams, PE, (919) 851 -6066
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592 -9671
(919) 639 -6132
Survey Contractor
Stewart Proctor
319 Chapanoke Road, Suite 106
Raleigh NC 27603
(919) 779 -1855
Planting Contractor
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program
301 McCullough Drive, 4th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28262
(704) 841 -2841
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592 -9671
(919) 639 -6132
Seed Mix Sources
Unknown
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen aka South Carolina Super Tree Nursery
Cure Nursery
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Virginia Department of Forestry
Monitoring Performers
Robert J Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway, Ste 100
Raleigh NC 27610
Gerald Pottern, (919) 872 -1174

Table 4. Project Attribute Table: UT Bear Creek Weaver- McLeod (NCEEP #92347)
Project County
Chatham
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03030003 070050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -12
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan9
Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (2009) and Upper and Middle
Rocky River Watershed Plan (2005)
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or
demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design
phases
No
Restoration Component
Attribute Table
Bear Creek
Northern UT
to Bear Cr
Southern UT
to Bear Cr
Northern UT Wetland
Drainage area
25 0 sq mi
2 36 sq mi
0 34 sq mi
NA
Stream order
4th
2nd
1 st
NA
Restored length (feet)
--
3132
1,745
0 4 acres
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NA
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing
etc )
Rural
Rural
Rural
NA
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g )
Residential
3%
7%
6%
NA
Commercial
1 %
1 %
0%
NA
Ag -Row Crop
3%
1%
2%
NA
Ag- Livestock
30%
28%
51%
NA
Forested
52%
54%
35%
NA
Shrub /Scrub/Early Successional
11%
9%
6%
NA
Watershed impervious cover ( %)
2%
3%
2%
NA
NCDWQ AU /Index number
17 -43 -16
17 -43 -16
17 -43 -16
NA
NCDWQ classification
C
C
C
NA
303d listed?
No
No
No
NA
Upstream of a 303d listed segment9
No
No
No
NA
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total acreage of easement
1548
11 75
465
NA
Total vegetated acreage within the
easement
12 15
1 58
0 55
NA
Total planted acreage as part of the
restoration
3 23
11 75
456
04
Rosgen classification of pre - existing
channel
NA
E4/F4
E4 /F4
NA

Bear Creek
Northern UT
to Bear Cr
Southern UT
to Bear Cr
Northern UT Wetland
Rosgen Classification of As -Built
NA
C4 /C5
C4 /C5
NA
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
NA
Valley slope
01%
0 4%
1 %
NA
Valley side slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
3 -15%
34%
3 -11%
NA
Valley toe slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
1 -20%
7 -8%
3 -5%
NA
Cowardm classification
R3UBH
R3UBH
R3UBH
PSSIB
Trout waters designation
NA
NA
NA
NA
Species of concern, endangered etc 9
(YIN)
No
No
No
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Georgeville
Chewacla
Cid- Lignum
Chewacla
Depth
0 -80
0 -80
0 -80
0 -80
Clay %
5 -40
5 -40
10 -50
5 -40
K
0 17-037
0 24 -0 37
0 24- 043
0 24 -0 37
T
5
1 5
2
5
Use N/A for items that may not apply Use"-" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown

Appendix B.
Figure 2.0 -2.2
Table 5.0
Table 6.0
e -Table
e -Table
Figures 3.0 -3.8
e- Photos
Figures 4.0 -4.5
e- Photos
Visual Assessment Data
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Problem Areas Inventory Table
Vegetation Problem Areas Inventory Table
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos

Figure 2.0. Current Conditions Plan View. UT of Bear
Creek (Northern Reach) - 2012. Chatham County.
NCEEP Project #92347
Photopoints
�' -i—i— Cross-Sections X02' 4.�.- y t .
c '' Vegetation monitoring plot
t r'f
Thalweg MY3 (1112 -4112)
O� r �•'s4 �* �i i As -Built Thalweg (May 2009)
in -Stream Structures
R i Conservation Easement
Top of Bank
Stream Problem Areas
Bank washed out Scour /Slump
Gullyfieadcut
a i7 _ _ •
Vegetation Problem Areas
Y� r ° `' Y `�F .L J I � ' ° � �. I F ii"✓z<7'rl
Low woody stem density
,,' - y' jt� L = =4 .7 '• ' Invasive vegetation
,,. J �;rc iti ra' „y t jai 0 50 100 200 300
t+ n i� _ I Feet
LF
ch
1 in = 100 ft-et
•
4.
1
~r' �5 i Z J`l. i4- '\ l - y�Y F.- +:.\ x- ♦ � -' 1 4iL' � ,' ', � '` '',1
` tip' \, .!r-..i,. • i _L' � `` -
f to r, .a � _„�+" , ��,, .`� i. 1• ,,, ,� �•� :�, 8 _ .'► ,
r J,
, TrI
4
liosmifl
_ �t

UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) - EEP Project #92347 - 2012 (MY -3)
Table 5 0 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Northern UT
Assessed Length 2,975
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted -%/. for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cate o
Sub -Cate o
Metric
Performing as
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
Intended
Wood
Wood
Wood
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation -Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
r
0
0
o
100%
- - ,' - -- - -- -- - -' -
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
-
1
2 Degradation -Evidence of downculting
0
0
100%
y�l ;a _' _ _ _
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate - Rifle maintains coarser substrate
25
25
r - =
100%
,-
, • -
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
30
31
97%
Condition
-, _ r
�~
r iir ±
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tad of
31
31
y3`�
P c' , , ,f -„ y
°
100 ° /
upstream nffie and head of downslrem riffle
- - F-
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
31
31
00%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
31
31
"y.y>r "Y'
100%
...
a 'fA" yxa�'",?r+e4a
r�±sa.�->�
�dm�la�er"e'�.�7Y�'•'sr..z7iss>
�.,�:..A
�. - o�u�re�ti+.�!
".>o-�_�� �_Y' ___�i =_- _
r rte_ _ - _� °y_ "-' - _
2 Bank
1 SeouredlEroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor gromth and /or
scour and erosion
- �• '
�,;' �!'',''^�.Y
4
150
95%
0
0
95%
�q
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
- '
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
ti _
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
;; - _ - '4 y
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
g;,;�;'. -
0
0
100%
0
100%
- - i
�L -,, °' - n _y s =u : "_Total`s
- ��---- - - - ---`
4
150
95 /0
0
0
95 /0
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
22
22
100%
100 /o
., � � - -• *, •r, s'{i ^�+�3 -.. •,�
Structures
Structures
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
10
10
> ayf:,jLtyI�FJ
/1` "•t =+^!w� ��:�
6e .& _,
"i`?KIN,
100%
y b '= �,t, - -_
��
3 Bank Protection
15% See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
( 9 s 9
22
22
n
100%
document)
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
22
22
o
100%
f 3.:. ('� ��+! _n
)� - e_•=1 - _?a n 7 �- -� -l� (�r: _'
Depth ratio > 1 6 RootwadsAogs providing some cover at base -Flow
t;,._U°� i.�c
, -

UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) - EEP Project #92347 - 2012 (MY -3)
Table 5 1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Southern UT
Assessed Length 1,700
Number
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Ad/usted % for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
Performing as
in As -built
Se Lents
Footage
Intended
Wood
Woody
Wood
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
rte` -�r = ^= -�`�'j
ur
0
0
100%
'_0 '�'W- _. pri
ya ��r� . _.7+t_. '
,fit- ��11 -•J i �� {�1� _ Tl' 1
2 Degradation -Evidence of downcuftmg
0 0
100%
fµ27
ti f n
2 Riffle Condition
1 TeMUre /Substrate - Rifle maintains coarser substrate
27
r �,
m'�- �'•
100%
100%
'r 'J 4 -'^y�'n' .
i r,r . f 11, "
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
48
48
Condition
2 Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tall of
- ,
j'
48
48
o
100%
•,f
upstream riffle and head of downslrem rrffle )
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
48
48
'' r3J�'►;.1� =
100%
2 Thalwe centering at downstream of meander Ghda
9 9 (Glide)
48
48
= '� W a '
100%
—+- -
_
C �..- - _ -
��I ��'1 - __ _ _-
1 Scoured /Eroding t
r! �• \_YPIQ,�yi79�j1y6iA14141i^ti-
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
-_ _ - _ -
_ _.�P- :..LE'3_Z- Y.t•>.Tr1t-
0 0
_ -
- T`��— y^��3H.- "T - `�`_�Gr3- � T`+.- -
2 Bank
100%
0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0 0
100%
0 100%
I _' °'- - - �_"
t5`r
_ — =`ci rr�s_' -• i r - ' -e�
—
Tlo`t°al's
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
3 En g sneered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
32 32
r �_ }
100%
Yr
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
28 28
'"� "'
100%
'iiV '-` " _
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus
28 28
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (See for this table EEP
��'�
guidance m monitoring guidance
document)
32 32
100%
C�ii''i
4 Habitat
Pool forming tructures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
9 9 Pk
Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwadshogs some cover at base flow
32
32
_ 9 --,tie ?' P „r,;�}'J�
t n., 1
�j P-` c
o
100 /o
'�� r ' `�tyr a kCi� `l• x 1
providing
_ qn �

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment. UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) EEP# 92347- 2012 (MY -3)
Planted Acreage' 18.2
Easement Acreage2 30.35
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0 °4
Color
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
orange
7
0.85
4.7
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale).
NA
stipules
0
0.00
0.0
Total
7
0.85
4.7%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0
Color
Cumulative Total
7
0.85
4.7/0
Easement Acreage2 30.35
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1. 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concemAnterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly oulcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established treelshrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by
EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk /threat
level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that
was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Mapping
CCPv
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Cate o
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern°
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern
3
035
1.2%
nand
Cr
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale).
NA
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1. 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concemAnterest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly oulcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established treelshrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by
EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk /threat
level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that
was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Problem Areas Inventory Tables UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347 - MY3 (2012)
Stream Problem Areas - Northern UT
Problem
North UT Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Bank erosion, RB lateral widening inside
bend
2250 -2320
Coir gone, lack of woody vegetation
7
Bank scour, slumping, and gully at swale
outlet, LB
3435 -3490
Coir gone, lack of woody vegetation
8
Bank scour, LB
3680 -3705
Coir gone, lack of woody vegetation
9
and run /pool edges
throughout
NC -902
10
Stream Problem Areas - Southern UT
Problem
South UT Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
No Problem along Southern UT
NA
NA
11
(RB +LB)
1170 LB
NC -902
12
Vegetation Problem Areas - Northern UT
Problem
North UT Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Ligustrum sinense invading upper reach
1000 -1100 RB 1000
Ligustrum abundant in roadside scrub along
11
(RB +LB)
1170 LB
NC -902
12
Murdannia keisak dense in many riffles
1200 & scattererd
Murdannia abundant in channel upstream of
13
and run /pool edges
throughout
NC -902
10
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(RB)
1180 -1310
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
1
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(LB)
1350 -1550
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
2
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(LB)
1820 -1900
Sod dense /clayey, Fescue dominant
3
Abundant Ligustrum sinense invading
(RB)
1830 -1900
Stump /root sprouts and new seedlings
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(LB)
1950 -2100
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
4
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(RB)
2020 -2150
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
5
Broken fence wires (RB) in forest near
Large trees fallen on fence in Bear Creek
Bear Creek confluence
3100 -4000
riparian buffer
Vegetation Problem Areas - Southern UT
Problem
South UT Station
Suspected Cause
Photo #
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(RB)
1190 -1290 RB
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
11
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(RB)
1160 -1340 LB
Sod dense /clayey, poor root growth
12
Low woody stem density and /or poor vigor
(RB)
1540 -1650 RB
ISoil dense /clayey, poor root growth
13

Figure 3.0 Stream Photo -Point Stations 1 and 2 - Northern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 1: Northern UT facing Downstream from NC 902 (Sta. 10 +00)
3/25/2010 10/29/2012
Photo -Point 2: Northern UT facing Downstream (Sta. 13 +60)
3/24/2010
10/27/2012

Figure 3.1. Stream Photo -Point Stations 3 and 4 - Northern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 3: Northern UT facing Upstream from easement fence corner (Sta. 15 +30)
3/24/2010
9/213/2012
Photo -Point 4: Northern UT facing South across stream toward floodplain swale outlet (Sta. 17 +55)
3/24/2010
9/13/2012

Figure 3.2. Stream Photo -Point Stations 5 and 6 - Northern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 5: Northern UT facinq Dowr
3/24/2010
Photo -Point 6: Northern UT fe
10/27/2012
3/24/2010
10/27/2012

Figure 3.3. Stream Photo -Point Stations 7 and 8 - Northern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 7: Northern UT facing Downstream (Sta. 28 +95)
3/24/2010
Photo -Point 8: Northern UT facing Upstream (Sta. 33 +30)
10/29/2012
3/24/2010
10/29/2012

Figure 3.4 Stream Photo -Point Stations 9 and 10 - Northern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 9: Northern UT f,
3/24/2010
10/29/2012
i just above Bear Creek confluence (Sta. 39 +75)
3/24/2010
9/27/2012

Figure 3.5 Stream Photo -Point Stations 11 and 12 - Southern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 11: Southern UT facing Downstream from NC 902 (Sta. 10 +00)
3/25/2010
Photo -Point 12: Southern UT fe
10/13/2012
3/25/2010
10/13/2012

Figure 3.6 Stream Photo -Point Stations 13 and 14 - Southern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 13: Southern UT
3/25/2010
Photo -Point 14: Southern UT fa
10/13/2012
3/25/2010
10/13/2012

Figure 3.7 Stream Photo -Point Stations 15 and 16 - Southern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
Photo -Point 15: Southern UT facinq Downstream (Sta. 20 +80)
3/25/2010
Photo -Point 16: Southern UT fe
10/29/2012
3/25/2010
9/12/2012

Figure 3.8 Stream Photo -Point Stations 17 and 18 - Southern UT Bear Creek Project #92347- MY3 (2012)
3/25/2010 9/12/2012
Photo -Point 18: Southern UT facing Upstrea
3/25/2010
9/12/2012

Figure 4.0 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
VP 1 (Northern UT Sta. 12 +20)
4/14/2010
VP 2 (Northern UT Sta. 18 +15)
10/27/2012
4/14/2010
10/27/2012

Figure 4.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
VP 3 (Northern UT Sta. 24 +35)
4/14/2010
-n UT Sta. 27 +75)
10/27/2012
4/14/2010
10/27/2012

Figure 4.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
VP 5 (Northern UT Sta. 29 +50)
4/14/2010
VP 6 (Northern UT Sta. 31 +10)
10/27/2012
4/14/2010
10/27/2012

Figure 4.3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
VP 7 (Northern UT Sta. 33 +75)
4/14/2010
VP 8 (Southern UT Sta. 12 +00)
10/29/2012
4/15/2010
9/15/2012

Figure 4.4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
4/15/2010
VP 10 (Southern UT Sta. 19 +35)
10/13/2012
4/15/2010
10/29/2012

Figure 4.5 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos - UT Bear Creek Stream Restoration - MY3 (2012) - Project #92347
UT Sta. 23 +25)
4/15/2010
VP 12 (Southern UT Sta. 24 +55)
10/29/2012
4/15/2010
9/12/2012

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7.0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8.0 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9.0 CVS Stem Counts Total and Planted by Plot
e -Table Raw CVS vegetation data sheets

Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
UT to Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) #92347
Year 3 (12- Sep -2012 to 27- Dec -2012) -- Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer Stems'
Stream/
Wetland
Ste M52
Live Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers;
Total°
Unknown
Growth Form
1
5
5
1
0
60
66
0
2
4
4
0
4
48
52
0
3
11
11
0
15
49
60
0
4
6
6
0
4
47
53
0
5
21
32
0
0
78
110
0
6
10
10
0
0
53
63
0
7
8
8
0
0
44
52
0
8
9
9
0
0
10
19
0
9
1 4
4
0
0
28
32
0
10
8
9
0
0
25
34
0
11
10
12
0
0
38
50
0
12
14
15
1 0
0
1 73
1 88
1 0
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Plot #
Stream/
Wetland
StemsZ
Volunteers3
Total°
Success
Criteria Met?
1
202
2428
2671
No
2
1 162
1942
2104
No
3
445
1983
2428
Yes
4
243
1902
2145
No
5
1295
3157
4452
Yes
6
405
2145
2550
Yes
7
324
1781
2104
Yes, barely
8
364
405
769
Yes
9
162
1133
1295
No
10
364
1012
1376
Yes
11
486
1538
2023
Yes
12
607
2954
3561
Yes
Project Avg
1 422
1865
2212
Yes

Table 7b. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Riparian
Buffer Success
Plot # Stems' Criteria Met?
1
202
No
2
162
No
3
445
Yes
4
243
No
5
850
Yes
6
405
Yes
7
324
Yes, barely
S
364
Yes
9
162
No
10
324
Yes, barely
11
405
Yes
12
567
Yes
Project Avg
371
Yes
Stem Class characteristics
1Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. NOT including shrubs, pines, vines, live- stakes.
2Stream /Wetland Stems Native planted hardwood trees + shrubs. NOT including live- stakes or vines
3Volunteer Stems Volunteer native woody trees + shrubs, not planted. NOT including vines or exotics.
°Total Stems Planted + Volunteer native woody trees + shrubs + live stakes. NOT vines or exotics.
Color for Density success criteria
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 8 Vegetation Metadata
UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) EEP #92347
Report Prepared By
Sean Doi
Date Prepared
11/25/2012 22 02
Description
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This
Pro j, planted
excludes live stakes
database name
UTBear 2012 mdb
database location
D \Sean \EEP \Bear Creek \MY2 2012
computer name
UNC- L3AM972
file size
36683776
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT - --
PRn-]FCT SUMMARY - --
Project Code
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
project (s) and project data
Description
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This
Pro j, planted
excludes live stakes
length ft
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This
Pro j, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
area sq m
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
stems, missing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage
percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot,
SPP
dead and missing stems are excluded
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
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
excluded
PRn-]FCT SUMMARY - --
Project Code
92347
project Name
UT to Bear Creek
Description
Northern and Southern Uts to Bear Creek dust east of NC 902
River Basin
Cape Fear
length ft
4877
stream -to -edge width ft
50 (average)
area sq m
4530423
Required Plots calculated
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 9. CVS Stem Counts, Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 92347. Project Name: UT to Bear Creek
Color for Density success criteria
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Current Plot Data (MY3 2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E92347 -01 -0001
E92347 -01 -0002
E92347 -01 -0003
E92347 -01 -0004
E92347 -01 -0005
E92347 -01 -0006
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
Aesculus sylvatica
painted buckeye
Shrub
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
301
3
1
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
11
2
2
2
11
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
11
11
11
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
23
2
2
42
3
3
35
1
1
41
18
18
48
2
2
48
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
4
15
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
14
3
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
11
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus velutina
black oak
Tree
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
4
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
2
2
1
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
coralberry
Shrub
3
1
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
Tree
6
2
Ulmus americans
JAmerican elm
Tree
26
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE&
51
6
66
4
4
52
11
11
60
6
6
53
32
32
110
101
101
63
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
1 0.02
5
51
1
31
3
6
71
7
101
61
61
41
41
91
41
41
7
2023
242.81
2671
161.91
161.91
2104
445.21
44S.21
24281242.81
242.81
214SI
12951
12951
44521
404.71
404.71
2550
Color for Density success criteria
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Color for Density success criteria
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
F&IlStO meet requirements by more than 10%
Current Plot Data 2012)
Annual Means
Color for Density success criteria
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
F&IlStO meet requirements by more than 10%

Appendix D. Stream Morphology Survey Data
Figures 5.0 -5.8 Cross sections with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Figures 6.0 -6.4
e- Tables
Figures 7.0 -7.8
e- Tables
Tables 10.0 -10.1
Table 11.0
Table 11.1 -11.2
Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Raw longitudinal profile survey spreadsheet
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Raw pebble count data spreadsheets
Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table

Figure 5.0 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
Notes
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.1 -Y;}
XS ID
XS 1 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0'
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
Date:
9/15/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1 !
Field Crew:
G.P. and J.B.
Bankfull Area (ft)
23.3, y
12.4
6.18
Width /Depth Ratio
17.4
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
5.12
100.00
on
0
5.2
99.92
off
3.5
5.86
99.26
6.5
6.02
99.10
50 60
10
6.07
99.05
12.4
6.18
98.94
14.3
6.83
98.29
16
7.31
97.81
16.6
7.88
97.24
181
8.16
96.96
19
8.04
97.08
20.5
7.83
97.29
22.3
7.93
97.19
24
7.82
97.30
25.5
7.61
97.51
26.61
7.14
97.98
28.5
6.6
98.52
30.2
6.04
99.08
33
6.05
99.07
35.5
6.24
98.88
38.5
6.06
99.06
42.31
6.21
98.91
45.4
6.22
98.90
48.5
6.17
98.95
52
5.99
99.13
55.5
5.88
99.24
58.9
5.361
99.76
off
58.91
5.241
99.88
on
Entrenchment Ratio
5.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
71.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.84
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.12
Stream Type:
C
View of cross - section XS -1 looking downstream
XS1, Riffle, Sta. 16 +15
101
100 - i- - - - --
99 �.
o
is
W
96
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
- Baseline (04/20/10)
-o-- Bankfull (8 115/11)
MY1 (11/22/10)
MY2(8/15/11)
MY3 (9/15/12)
50 60
40

Figure 5.1 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
"
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.7 ` t
0
XS ID
XS 2 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0 4 i
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Date:
9/16/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft)
21.7
5.73
98.51
Width /Depth Ratio
19.8
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
4.24
100
on
0
4.32
99.92
off
2
4.78
99.46
5
5.17
99.07
91
5.64
98.6
13
5.73
98.51
14.5
5.36
98.88
16.6
5.33
98.91
19
6.22
98.02
21
6.82
97.42
22.51
7.12
97.12
25
7.25
96.99
26.5
7.25
96.99
28.5
7.36
96.88
30.2
7.15
97.09
32
6.34
97.9
34.51
5.62
98.62
38
5.48
98.76
42
5.59
98.65
46
5.4
98.84
49
4.81
99.43
53.1
3.94
100.3
off
53.11
3.891
100.35
on
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
76.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.51
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.01
Stream Type:
U
101
100
99
0 98
CU
Q)
W 97
96
View of cross - section XS -2 looking downstream
XS2, Riffle, Sta. 21 +30

Figure 5.2 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
R`
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.1 :S,
XS ID
XS 3 (pool)
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0 " f _ xr�
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
D ate:
9 /16/2012
Bankfull Max Dept h (ft)
4.0
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft�)
45.9 +.
18.9
6.51
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
5.84
100
on
0
5.94
99.9
off
6.9
6.31
99.53
10.7
6.54
99.3
15.4
6.5
99.34
18.9
6.51
99.33
20.8
6.48
99.36
22.2
7.08
98.76
24.6
7.73
98.11
25.1
9.66
96.18
28.1
10.24
95.6
30
10.44
95.4
32.5
10.28
95.56
34.2
9.88
95.96
36.21
9.45
96.39
36.8
7.26
98.58
39.5
6.5
99.34
41.8
6.42
99.42
47.9
6.36
99.48
53.7
6.34
99.5
58.2
6.28
99.56
61.8
6.45
99.39
70.7
6.12
99.72
78.8
5.36
100.48
on
78.8
5.24
100.6
off
Entrenchment Ratio
5.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
84.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)II
23.73
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.93
Stream Type: E
101
100
99
2 98
j
w 97
96
95
View of cross - section XS -3 looking downstream
XS3, Pool, Sta. 26 +32
I
i I I
Baseline (04/20/10)
Bankfull (9/16/12)
MY1 (11/23/10)
- MY2 (9/21 /11)
MY3 (9/16/12) -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)

Figure 5.3 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
r'
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.6 = ^ }y f
y
XS ID
XS 4 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0 y 1'
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
r-
Date:
9/16/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ftz)
26.0 -
16
5.71
Width /Depth Ratio
14.3
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
5.19
100
on
0
5.3
99.89
off
2.5
5.44
99.75
7
5.4
99.79
12
5.43
99.76
16
5.71
99.48
20
5.82
99.37
22.5
5.64
99.55
24
5.55
99.64
25.5
6.08
99.11
27.4
6.91
98.28
28.5
7.49
97.7
30.1
7.67
97.52
31.8
7.74
97.45
33.31
7.68
97.51
35
7.49
97.7
36.8
7.6
97.59
38
7.01
98.18
40
6.4
98.79
42.5
5.64
99.55
45
5.44
99.75
49
5.41
99.78
53
5.6
99.59
57
5.42
99.77
61
5.43
99.76
691
5.06
100.13
off
691
51
100.19
on
Entrenchment Ratio
5.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
50.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.32
Stream Type: C
101
100
Q)
99
c
0
W 98
97
View of cross - section XS -4 looking downstream
XS4, Riffle, Sta. 27 +13
Baseline (04/20/10)
--a- Bankfull (8/15/11)
MY (11122110)
MY 2 (8/15/11)
MY3 (9/16/2012)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
I

Figure 5.4 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
Notes
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.3 ; y s, '
XS ID
XS 5 (pool)
Floodprone Width (ft)
220.0 '', �' .a
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4 R„
Date:
9/16/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.7
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft)
34.0
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
4.99
100
on
0
5.01
99.98
off
2.7
5.47
99.52
7.9
5.36
99.63
12.51
5.52
99.47
17.1
5.99
99
19.6
6.2
98.79
21.5
7.05
97.94
23.2
7.43
97.56
23.5
8.8
96.19
26.11
9.27
95.72
27.3
9.5
95.49
29.9
8.9
96.09
31.1
7.01
97.98
34.2
6.39
98.6
37.2
5.98
99.01
40.5
5.8
99.19
46.6
5.61
99.38
53
5.19
99.8
off
53
5.08
99.91
on
Width /Depth Ratio
18.8
Entrenchment Ratio
8.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
61.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.87
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.22
Stream Type:
C
101
100 , \
99 r
° 98
i>S
W 97
I
96 -
95
0
View of cross - section XS -5 looking downstream
XS 5, Pool, Sta. 36 +63
I
Baseline (04/20/10)
tBankfull(9 /21/11)
MY1 (11/22/10)
- - „ - MY2 (9/21/11)
+� MY3 (9/16/2012)
10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Figure 5.5 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
Notes
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.6 N -
XS ID
XS 6 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
220.0
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Date:
9/16/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9 r� J'7
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft)
22.9
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
5.43
100
on
0
5.56
99.87
off
5
5.35
100.08
10
5.65
99.78
15
5.7
99.73
20
5.76
99.67
23
6.1
99.33
24.7
6.79
98.64
26
7.2
98.23
27.7
7.5
97.93
28.6
7.65
97.78
30.4
7.34
98.09
32.5
7.39
98.04
33.8
7.28
98.15
35
7.08
98.35
36.3
7.21
98.22
37.5
6.95
98.48
39.2
6.14
99.29
41.6
5.5
99.93
44.5
5.39
100.04
48
5.48
99.95
52
5.54
99.89
60.4
5.01
100.42
off
60.4
4.89
100.54
on
Width /Depth Ratio 18.6
Entrenchment Ratio 10.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 r t i WI_ y
Cross Sectional Area 33.2 r
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 21.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.08
Stream Type: C
101
`[III
a�
99
c
0
m
W 98
97
0
View of cross - section XS -6 looking downstream
1
XS 6, Riffle, Sta. 37 +19
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

Figure 5.6 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA'afiip?r^
-
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.4.
XS ID
XS 7 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0 1
Reach:
Southern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Date:
9/15/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft)
6.2
16.7
6.96
Width /Depth Ratio
17.7 F mow=
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
6.75
100.00
on
0
6.88
99.87
off
4
6.85
99.90
11
7.01
99.74
141
6.93
99.82
16.7
6.96
99.79
17.7
6.94
99.81
18.85
7.27
99.48
19.85
7.66
99.09
20.8
8.34
98.41
21.6
8.41
98.34
22.4
8.37
98.38
23.1
7.75
99.00
24.7
7.36
99.39
26.2
6.98
99.77
29
6.89
99.86
34
7.02
99.73
38
7.01
99.74
41
6.76
99.99
45.5
6.51
100.24
off
45.51
6.4
100.35
on
Entrenchment Ratio
9.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
13.5
Wetted Perimeter (fO
11.13
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.55
Stream Type:
C
101
100
w
a�
c
0
> 99
W
M
View of cross - section XS -7 looking downstream
YS 7, Riffle, Sta. 15 +77
Baseline (04/20/10 ) �I
--o- Bankfull(9 /21/11)
MY1 (11/23/10)
MY2 (9/21 /11)
i MY3 (9/15/12)
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

Figure 5.7 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
,�t4�f :jsra"'`•
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.5
XS ID
XS 8 (riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
Reach:
Southern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
Date:
9/15/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Field Crew:
GP and JB
2
Bankfull Area (ft )
7.0 &77
13
5.81
Width /Depth Ratio
10.3
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
4.12
100.00
on
0
4.25
99.87
off
4.1
4.74
99.38
7.5
5.42
98.70
11.6
5.75
98.37
13
5.81
98.31
15.1
6.63
97.49
15.9
7.22
96.90
17
7.23
96.89
18.4
7.04
97.08
19.6
6.55
97.57
21.5
5.82
98.30
23
5.78
98.34
28.9
5.58
98.54
31
5.62
98.50
34
5.38
98.74
37
5.35
98.77
41.6
5.281
98.84
off
41.6
5.091
99.03
on
Entrenchment Ratio
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
26.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.07
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.77
Stream Type: E
101
I
100
a 99
c
o gg
cu
W 97
96
0
5 10
View of cross - section XS -8 looking downstream
XS 8, Riffle, Sta. 25 +01
Baseline (04/26/ 10)
j-f- Bankfull (9/15/2012)
- -MY1 (11/23/10)
- -I -MY 2 (8/24/11)
- MY3 (9/15/2012)
15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)

Figure 5.8 Cross Section Plots and Photos - Monitoring Year Two - 2011 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration ( #92347)
River Basin:
Cape Fear
SUMMARY DATA
r
Watershed:
UT to Bear Creek
Bankfull Width (ft)
227
XS ID
XS 9 (pool)
Flood prone Width ft
50.0
Reach:
Northern
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
Date:
9/15/2012
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.0
Field Crew:
GP and JB
Bankfull Area (ft)
23.8
11
5.73
Width /Depth Ratio
21.8
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
Notes
0
4.11
100.00
on
0
4.23
99.88
off
2.5
4.75
99.36
5.5
5.28
98.83
81
5.43
98.68
11
5.73
98.38
14
6.01
98.10
16
6.52
97.59
17
7.36
96.75
17.9
8.72
95.39
19.31
9.2
94.91
21.3
8.81
95.30
23.2
8.33
95.78
27
6.78
97.33
30
6.55
97.56
33.8
6.36
97.75
37.61
6.23
97.88
43.6
6.05
98.06
48.8
5.76
98.35
53.1
5.81
98.3
59.2
5.65
98.46
63.3
5.41
98.7
off
63.31
5.351
98.76
on
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross Sectional Area
59.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
24.31
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
Stream Type: B
101
100
99
a 98
0
97
CO
a 96
w
95
94
View of cross - section XS -9 looking downstream
XS 9, Pool, Sta. 25 +62
I
- - - Baseline (04/20/10)
--E�- Bankfull (9/15/2012)
----- - -_ - - - -- - -- MY1 (11/23/10)
MY 2 (8/24/11)
-- - MY3 (9/15/2012)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

Figure 6.0 UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 1000 -2000)
419
Thalweg (As -Built 05/09)
Thalweg (MY1 12/3 & 12/6/10)
Thalweg (MY2 8/16- 18/11)
418
--
--*---Thalweg (MY3 11/2 -4/12)
m
• Grade Control Structures
417
■ ■ ■
® Rootwads
L'
--*—Cattle Crossing
")
Q>
0
O
■ Bankfull (MY3 11/2 -4/12)
416
0
—Water Surface (11/2 -4/12)
cis
o
■ � ■
W
415
— „
414
- -'
413
-
;L
1
412
- - -
-
411
1000
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
1800 1900 2000
Station (feet)

416
415
414
w I
413
0
W 412
�t r m
au
N
411 L Ln
O
410
409
Figure 6.1 UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 2000 -3000)
Thalweg (As -Built 05/09)
Thalweg (MY 1 12/3 & 12/6/10)
Thalweg (MY2 8/16- 18/11)
• Grade Control Structures
cv 0 Rootwads
■ ■ n�i ---&— Thalweg (MY3 11/2 -4/12)
■ N N ■ Bankfull (MY3 11/2 -4/12)
ro
■ ■ ■ ■ n -Water Surface (MY3 11/2 -4/12)
sl ■ �
0
v
■
408
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
Station (feet)

412
411
410
Q)
409
c
0
c�
408
W
407
E
405
404
3000
Figure 6.2 UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Northern UT (Sta. 3000 -4000)
3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600
Station (feet)
3700 3800 3900 4000

427
426
425
424
a�
a�
423
0
c�
Q) 422
W
421
420
419
418
417
1000
Figure 6.3 UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Southern UT (Sta. 1000 -1900)
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Station (feet)

Figure 6.4 UT Bear Creek Longitudinal Profile - Southern UT (Sta. 1900 -2800)
420
Thalweg (As -Built 05/2009)
■
■
Thalweg (MY1 12/10/10)
419
■ ■
■
Thalweg (MY2 8/25/11)
418
■
■
Thalweg (MY3 9/16 and 10/13- 14/12)
■
■
• Grade Control Structures
417
uon
■■ N
`~
0 Rootwads
■ Ik ,�,
N
ui
N
I ■ �..
ro
–,N—Cattle Crossing
416
*'
_
--
■ Bankfull (MY3 2012)
`� 415
■ o
o
Water Surface (MY3 2012)
o
`?
414
Q))
-
< L
Abandoned
°
W 413
Beaverdams
■
412
■
■
■
411
410
409
-
-
-
408
407
1900
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500
2600 2700 2800
Station (feet)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section One - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
SilUClay
Silt/Clay
.062
99
99
99
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
99
Fine Sand
.25
0
99
Medium Sand
0.5
0
99
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
99
Very Course Sand
2
0
99
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
99
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
99
Fine Gravel
8
0
99
Medium Gravel
13
0
99
Medium Gravel
16
0
99
Coarse Gravel
22.6
0
99
Coarse Gravel
32
1
1
100
Very Course Gravel
45
0
100
Very Course Gravel
64
0
100
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
0
100
Small Cobble
128
0
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 100
Individual Class Percent
80 _ _ --
c
70 —
m
d
a 50
m 40
U
30 -
a
> 20 — -
'v
c 10 -
0 _J16
•0 0 c3 v 0' 0
p 0p is
'p •S •0 .0 -> & � a S S � d 1O S0 � � 0c � Q 0Q 0
Q (Q li%
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/22/10) ■ MY 2 (8/15/11) MY 3 (9/15/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Two - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
89
89
89
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
89
Fine Sand
.25
0
89
Medium Sand
0.5
0
89
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
89
Very Course Sand
2
0
89
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
89
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
89
Fine Gravel
8
0
89
Medium Gravel
13
1
1
90
Medium Gravel
16
0
90
Coarse Gravel
22.6
0
90
Coarse Gravel
32
2
2
92
Very Course Gravel
45
0
92
Very Course Gravel
64
2
2
94
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
5
5
99
Small Cobble
128
1
1
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 100
Cumulative Percent
100 - -
90
80
m
70 - -
a 60 -}-
d
� 50 +
3 40
E
U 30
20
10 +
0
• p rn a er s _ rn o � 0 o > > J 0 r tS` s � •s -o •o � 0 � 0 p o Q s� 006,
,
Particle Size Class (mm)
MY 1 (11/22/10) MY 2 (8/15/11) MY 3 (9/15/12)
Individual Class Percent
70 -
60 -
m
50
(- _
a
y 40
N
R
U 30 -
m
a
20
10
0 o
s d s o o >0 � 14 15, ov 0o S
do, 6, r c� v
or 0 0
cr 06,
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/22/10) ■ MY 2 (8/15/11) MY (9/15/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Three - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
35
35
35
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
15
15
50
Fine Sand
.25
8
8
58
Medium Sand
0.5
6
6
64
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
64
Very Course Sand
2
1
1
65
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
2
2
67
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
67
Fine Gravel
8
1
1
68
Medium Gravel
13
3
3
71
Medium Gravel
16
2
2
73
Coarse Gravel
22.6
5
5
78
Coarse Gravel
32
6
6
84
Very Course Gravel
45
5
5
89
Very Course Gravel
64
2
2
91
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
5
5
96
Small Cobble
128
3
3
99
Medium Cobble
180
0
99
Large Cobble
256
0
99
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
99
Small Boulders
512
1
1
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 1 UU
Individual Class Percent
60
c 50
d
a 40 - - -
N
U
Tv 20 - - - --
2 10 - --
c 0
•0 O
6 c�� r i5 S O
.S .0 .0 > > p O > ! 00 iSa � c � 7 0 a Q D 0
a p s, 006,
,
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/23/10) ■ MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Four - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
67
67
67
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
24
24
91
Fine Sand
.25
0
91
Medium Sand
0.5
0
91
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
91
Very Course Sand
2
0
91
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
91
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
92
Fine Gravel
8
1
1
93
Medium Gravel
13
0
93
Medium Gravel
16
0
93
Coarse Gravel
22.6
1
1
94
Coarse Gravel
32
0
94
Very Course Gravel
45
1
1
95
Very Course Gravel
64
2
2
97
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
1
1
98
Small Cobble
128
2
2
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 100
Individual Class Percent
40 - -
c
35
30
d
a- 25
y
U 15
R
'a 10
a 5
c
0 _ 16 �.
�6, a� t� vS `QO �0 �0 �a
Particle Size Class (mm) Y 19 9ppo
■ Baseline (04/29/10) � MY1 (11/22/10) ■ MY 2 (8/15/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Five - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
17
17
17
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
0
17
Fine Sand
.25
0
0
17
Medium Sand
0.5
0
0
17
Coarse Sand
1.0
1
1
18
Very Course Sand
2
3
3
21
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
4
4
25
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
26
Fine Gravel
8
0
0
26
Medium Gravel
13
5
5
31
Gravel
Medium Gravel
16
5
5
36
Coarse Gravel
22.6
7
7
43
Coarse Gravel
32
8
8
51
Very Course Gravel
45
9
9
60
Very Course Gravel
64
5
5
65
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
3
3
68
Small Cobble
128
5
5
73
Medium Cobble
180
11
11
84
Large Cobble
256
16
16
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
JBedrock
40096
1
0
100
I otal 100
c
m
U
d
a
y
y
IC
U
m
a
c
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Individual Class Percent
•O •� •� O r3 Q S O 0
T. � ,
O
'S .0 O 0 0SO Oc� � 0 � v a 0
� D 0
d%
Particle Size Class (mm)
MY1 (11/22/10) ■ MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Six - Northern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt /Clay
.062
67
66
66
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
66
Fine Sand
.25
0
66
Medium Sand
0.5
0
66
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
66
Very Course Sand
2
0
66
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
1
1
67
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
68
Fine Gravel
8
3
3
71
Medium Gravel
13
1
1
72
Medium Gravel
16
1
1
73
Coarse Gravel
22.6
4
4
77
Coarse Gravel
32
4
4
81
Very Course Gravel
45
4
4
85
Very Course Gravel
64
3
3
88
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
2
2
90
Small Cobble
128
3
3
93
Medium Cobble
180
6
6
99
Large Cobble
256
1
1
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
i otai 1 ui
Cumulative Percent
100
90
80
poe
70
01 OeOF
d
a 60
50
7 40
E
V 30
20
10
0
•0 a O ! c3 A S CP 7 I tJ U4 3 t9 I I� li S 7 a Q
Oa as i3 S O O > c? 61 S O cO 6'O 06" Oi� ' O1 Orr 00
fr 0 06,
Particle Size Class (mm)
MY 1 (11/22/10) MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)
Individual Class Percent
70
s
c 60 -
m
d 50 _
a
a 40 _
y
�v
U 30
i
m
3 20 -- -
v 10
-O O 7 Q S
> C c c 9 c� 0 S � Y 1
S 'O O S 6iOOr r Y 0 0 c6 O 0
0
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/22/10) ■ MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Seven - Southern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
44
44
44
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
1
1
45
Fine Sand
.25
1
1
46
Medium Sand
0.5
0
46
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
46
Very Course Sand
2
0
46
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
7
7
53
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
54
Fine Gravel
8
7
7
61
Gravel
Medium Gravel
13
9
9
70
Medium Gravel
16
5
5
75
Coarse Gravel
22.6
9
9
84
Coarse Gravel
32
7
7
91
Very Course Gravel
45
4
4
95
Very Course Gravel
64
4
4
99
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
0
99
Small Cobble
128
1
1
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
1 512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 100
c
m
d
a
m
R
E
U
M
c
(D
a)
a
N
N
t9
U
Ta
a
c
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
•0 0 .� a v S ! .- u� v 9 ! ! ea u� ii` a Q
da �S S s 0 0 > u� 6� tJ cS O ed d0 sd dc� jc' 0c� A 00
Y d t90
Particle Size Class (mm)
—MY 1 (11/23/10) MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)
Individual Class Percent
d c� 0, -L,- -0 -0 > u� d c� c� tf O ad d0 i36 6'� 0� 0 00
Particle Size Class (mm)
w MY1 (11/23/10) ■ MY 2 (9/21/11) MY 3 (9/16/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Eight- Southern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Sift/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
18
20
20
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
20
Fine Sand
.25
1
1
21
Medium Sand
0.5
0
21
Coarse Sand
1.0
1
1
22
Very Course Sand
2
3
3
26
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
3
3
29
Fine Gravel
5.7
7
8
37
Fine Gravel
8
5
6
42
Medium Gravel
13
6
7
49
Medium Gravel
16
5
6
54
Coarse Gravel
22.6
2
2
57
Coarse Gravel
32
6
7
63
Very Course Gravel
45
1
1
64
Very Course Gravel
64
4
4
69
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
10
11
80
Small Cobble
128
7
8
88
Medium Cobble
180
7
8
96
Large Cobble
256
2
2
98
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
2
2
100
Small Boulders
512
0 1
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 90
100 Cumulative Percent
90
80
m
Oorw
70
Oef '01
a 60
> 50
40
E
v 30
20
10 TT�
0
° •� •� o v 6� , rs c3 � u 6> 7 9 O 6 6a a � v
•s .o .o 0 (po Lr, °
v po
Y d� 066,
Particle Size Class (mm)
MY 1 (11/23/10) MY 2 (8/24/11) MY 3 (9/15/12)
Individual Class Percent
40
35 _
v 30 - -
m
a 25 --
y
20 - -
U 15 —
To
3
10 - - -.._
f . �_ 41 ,
o •a O
6a i �S 'p v T O i9 O > 0 > P Ta
T .S •O •° O
S6, O� c� °c•� v °O
Y .96
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/23/10) ■ MY 2 (8/24/11) MY 3 (9/15/12)

Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Monitoring Year Three - 2012 - UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #92347)
Cross Section Nine- Southern UT
2012
Descript.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
88
79
79
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
79
Fine Sand
.25
0
79
Medium Sand
0.5
0
79
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
79
Very Course Sand
2
0
79
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
79
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
79
Fine Gravel
8
4
4
83
Medium Gravel
13
7
6
89
Medium Gravel
16
7
6
95
Coarse Gravel
22.6
2
2
97
Coarse Gravel
32
0
97
Very Course Gravel
45
0
97
Very Course Gravel
64
0
97
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
1
1
98
Small Cobble
128
0
98
Medium Cobble
180
0
98
Large Cobble
256
1
1
99
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
1
1
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
Total
111
90
80
c
70
a 60
y 50
40
U
m 30
20
10
0
Individual Class Percent
o S o > > e c� • rn a Q c0 o > w > o .� srn uPr , s r, o10'
r, '.0; p � v °c Q
•s -o o
Q o 00
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/23/10) ■ MY 2 (8/24/11) MY 3 (9/15/12)

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope. 4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
• Mean, not median, provided for design numbers.
Table 10.0 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Northern UT 2,975 feet
Parameter Gauge
Regional
Curve
Pre-
Existing Condition
Reference Reaches Data
Desi n
Monitorin Baseline
DlmenSion and Substrate -;Fide Only
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med"
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (f
WA
--
15.2
--
--
--
--
--
20.2
--
--
--
--
--
19.0
--
18.3
19.0
18.7
20.3
0.9
4
Floodprone Width (ft
--
40.0
--
--
-
--
--
140.0
-
--
--
-
--
100.0
100.0
130.0
100.0
220.0
60.0
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (f
--
1.4
-
--
-
--
--
1.4
-
--
--
-
--
1.4
-
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.1
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
NA
-
1.7
--
-
-
--
--
1.9
--
--
-
--
--
1.9
--
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
0.2
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
-
20.8
--
--
-
--
--
28.2
-
--
-
-
--
25.8
--
23.0
25.7
25.2
29.5
2.9
4
Width /Depth Ratio
NA
--
11.0
-
--
-
-
--
14.5
--
--
-
-
--
14.0
-
13.0
14.1
13.9
15.6
1.1
4
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
1
--
2.6
-
--
-
-
--
6.9
-
--
-
-
--
5.3
--
4.9
6.9
5.4
11.6
3.2
4
'Bank Height Rati
NA
1.4
--
--
-
-
--
1.0
--
-
-
--
--
1.0
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--
--
-
--
--
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
--
13.9
33.8
35.7
67.0
12.0
21
Riffle Slope (f /ft)
-
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
-
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.024
0.006
21
Pool Length (ft)
-
--
-
--
-
--
-
--
-
--
--
--
-
28.7
58.2
58.7
112.8
18.9
23
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.0
-
-
--
-
2.7
-
-
--
-
--
2.7
-
1.8
2.6
2.6
3.7
0.5
23
Pool Spacing (ft)
25.5
-
--
127.0
25.0
--
-
104.0
-
-
22.8
114.0
42.6
131.1
103.2
309.1
75.8
22
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
41.0
--
-- 116.0
-- -
20.0
- - 77.0 -
- 38.0
-
114.0
28.9
62.5
61.4
112.3
19.4
20
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21.0
--
- 75.0
--
--
10.2
-- -- 13.3 -
-- 38.0
--
76.0
31.6
57.5
53.6
98.2
17.5
22
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
1.4
-
-- 4.9
-
--
0.5
- -- 0.7 --
-- 2.0
-
4.0
1.6
2.9
2.7
5.0
0.9
22
Meander Wavelength (ft)
125.0
-
-- 250.0
-
--
94.0
- -- 100.0 -
- 95.0
-
228.0
166.0
227.1
225.8
310.3
34.6
21
Meander Width Ratio
=
2.7
-
- 7.7
-
--
1.0
- - 3.8 -
-- 2.0
-
6.0
1.5
3.2
3.1
5.7
1.0
20
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
0.53
0.22
0.28
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
145
50
80
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
3.8
1.15
1.23
each ParameteP1;
Rosgen Classification
NA
Degraded E4 /F4
C4
C4
C4
Mean Bankfull Velocity (fps)
NA
4.8
6.2
3.5
10
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
NA
100
173.7
100
77.0
Valley length (ft)
2697
- -;
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2832
--
3132
2975
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
1.12
1.13
1.10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
NA
0.0062
0.0077
0.0028
--
BF slope (ft/ft)
NA
--
--
-
0.003
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
--
--
-
8.19
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
•-
--
--
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
--
Biological or Other--
--
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope. 4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
• Mean, not median, provided for design numbers.

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope. 4 = proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; S. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
• Mean, not median, provided for design numbers.
T1Ne c I
Table 10.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Southern UT 1,700 feet
Parameter Gauge
Regional
Curve
Pre -
Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Desi n
Monitorin Baseline
Dimension in 'Substrate - Riffla,Onlly,
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med"
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
--
5.0
-
--
--
-
--
20.2
--
--
--
--
--
8.5
-
7.9
10.7
10.7
13.5
NA
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
;,
--
14.3
-
--
--
--
140.0
-
--
--
--
--
50.0
-
50.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
NA
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
--
1.1
-
--
--
-
--
1.4
--
--
--
-
-
0.7
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
NA
2
th
'Bankfull Max De ft
-
1.3
-
--
-
-
--
1.9
-
--
-
-
--
1.1
-
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
NA
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2
--
5.2
-
--
--
-
--
28.2
-
--
--
-
--
6.0
-
5.3
6.5
6.5
7.8
NA
2
Width /Depth Ratio
--
4.7
-
--
--
-
--
14.5
-
--
--
-
-
12.0
-
12.0
17.7
17.7
23.3
NA
2
Entrenchment Ratiol
2.9
-
--
--
-
--
6.9
-
--
--
-
--
5.9
-
3.7
8.1
8.1
12.6
NA
2
'Bank Hei ht Rati
--
1.4
-
--
-
--
1.0
-
--
--
1.0
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
2
Profile., .
Riffle Length (ft)
--
-
-
--
-
-
--
--
-
--
-
-
9.0
20.9
17.6
40.2
8.9
13
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
--
--
-
-
--
-
-
--
--
-
--
-
-
0.004
0.021
0.019
0.046
0.011
13
Pool Length (ft),;,
--
--
-
-
--
--
-
--
--
-
--
-
-
--
7.7
30.9
29.5
53.0
12.8
30
Pool Max depth (ft)
,,9,,:
1.7
-
-
--
-
-
2.7
--
-
--
--
--
1.4
--
0.5
1.7
1.7
3.0
0.5
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
' � : _ , ;
6.8
--
-
21.5
--
25.0
--
--
104.0
-
--
10.2
51.0
1 15.9
49.1
41.8
169.3
34.3
29
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25.0
--
- 36.0 --
20.0
Y
-- -- 77.0 --
34.0
-
51.0
16.1
31.1
28.4
96.7
16.0
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
5.0
--
- 30.0 -- -
10.2
-- - 13.3 - -
17.0
--
34.0
15.4
24.7
23.8
35.6
5.5
28
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
.,.'
1.0
-
- 6.1 -- -
0.5
-- 0.7 - --
2.0
--
4.0
1.4
2.3
2.2
3.3
0.5
28
Meander Wavelength (ft)
.
40.0
-
- 53.0 - -
94.0
-- - 100.0 -- -
42.5
--
102.0
58.2
99.5
98.9
176.5
22.2
27
Meander Width Ratiolt,
1
5.0
-
- 7.3 1 -
1.0 1
1 - 3.8 - -
4.0
-
6.0
1.5
2.9
2.6
9.0
1.5
26
Reach Shear Stress com etenc lb/f2
0.76
0.161
0.39
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
185
36
100
Stream Power (transport capacity) W1m
4.75
0.94
2.07
Rosgen Classification
Degraded E4 /F4
C4
C4
C4
Mean Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
6.2
3.9
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
22
173.7
23.4
23.4
Valley length (ft)
a
1542
-
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1635
-
1.745
1,700
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.12
1.14
1.10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0145
0.0077
0.0041
--
BF slope (ft/ft)
-
-
--
0.01
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
-
--
--
3.33
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
90
-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biological or Cithe
`; ,• .
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope. 4 = proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; S. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3
• Mean, not median, provided for design numbers.
T1Ne c I

Table 11.0 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to Bear Creek NCEEP# 92347 - Northern UT (2,975 feet & Southern UT 1,700 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
I MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation a um use
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.5
18.4
18.5
20.1
18.3
18.6
17.9
20.7
20.0
21.01
19.0
20.1
20.3
19.1
20.9
19.6
22.9
22.2
24.7
25.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.01
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
2.2
2.11
2.2
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.11
1
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.8
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
26.3
25.8
25.5
23.3
24.0
23.9
23.3
21.7
44.2
44.8
42.0
45.9
29.5
28.0
29.6
26.9
33.3
34.9
35.6
34.0
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
13.4
17.4
13.9
14.4
13.8
19.8
9.1
9.9
8.6
8.8
14.0
13.1
14.8
14.3
15.7
14.1
17.1
18.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.0
5.5
5.4
5.6
4.8
5.0
4.8
5.3
5.0
4.9
5.2
4.8
5.1
9.6
9.9
8.9
8.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2
75.3
76.9
75.7
71.1
96.91
96.51
91.4
76.9
119.51
115.91
105.0
84.21
119.5
115.9
105.0
84.21
50.41
66.5
59.5
66.6
61.9
d50 (mm)
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.04
3.45
0.05
0.13
0.44
0.37
0.37
0.05
7.42
6.27
30.831
1
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section
8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.9
19.1
22.8
20.6
13.7
12.2
11.1
10.4
13.5
17.0
16.3
4.0
18.5
21.0
23.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
119.5
115.9
105.0
84.2
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
1
1.3
1.51
1.5
1.51
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
23.0
21.4
26.2
22.9
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.2
7.8
8.2
8.9
7.0
20.7
22.9
23.2
23.8
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
15.6
17.0
19.9
18.6
31.1
24.9
19.9
17.7
23.3
35.5
30.2
10.3
16.6
19.3
24.0
21.8
Bankfuli Entrenchment Ratio
11.6
11.6
9.6
10.7
7.3
8.2
9.0
9.6
3.7
2.9
3.1
5.9
2.7
2.4
2.1
2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ftZ
55.9
56.5
51.6
33.2
23.7
24.2
23.1
13.5
42.6
44.2
46.4
26.2
95.8
93.9
97.2
59.3
d50 (mm)
0.22
0.06
0.05
2.83
1.24
3.14
4.85
16.67
12.24
0.05
0.04
0.04
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has Inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1~ The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
a ~ Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; nnmola» Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip ~ max pave, o/an~ max ouuva,o
*.~ov value/needed only n the n exceeds x
-r� |
/a} | �/2
Table 11 .1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bear Creek (NCEEP# 92347) - Northern UT (2,975 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
ffi-_,,,_i3ubstrate - Riffle only
Dlmens*j',*O)
Min
Mean
Mad
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
4
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
in
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
in
Min
mean
Med
max
SD 4
n
min
mean
Med
Max
SD 4
in
Pool Spacing (ft)l
42.6
1131.11103.21309.11
75.81
22
T-52 1
92.3
85.5
172 41.7
30
52
91.4
82.8
174
40.7
31
4
99
87.5
179
47.,
28
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.9 62.5
61.4
112
19.4
20
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31.6 57.5
53.6
98.2
17.5
22
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.6 2.9
2.7
4.96
0.88
22
Meander Wavelength (ft)
166 227
226
310
1 34.6
21
Additional Reach Paramete
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C5
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2975
3041
3036
3064
17
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.13
1.13
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
-
0.003
0.004
0.004
3SC% Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
-
F56
9
28
6
62.2
9.67
17.3
10.6 10.17
0
+,
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
I
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1~ The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
a ~ Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; nnmola» Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip ~ max pave, o/an~ max ouuva,o
*.~ov value/needed only n the n exceeds x
-r� |
/a} | �/2

oriauevceiis inwcatvmatriesewiii typicav not ue nueum
1~ The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
T�/L |/ 0
|L8�/�
Table 11.2 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bear Creek (NCEEP# 92347) - Southern UT (1,700 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
I Mean
Mad
Max
I SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
n
Min
mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD 4
n Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Profile
lwl
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00410.021
0.019
0.046
0.011
13
0.010
0.033
0.037
0.078
0.014
27
0.002
0.03
0.02
0.13
0.018
28
0.004
r7
0.077
0.022
1.006
0.091
23
Pool Length (ft)
7.7
30.9
29.5
53.0
12.8
30
7.0
14.7
14.5
25.0
6.9
48
4
14.73
113
347.5
7.3198
479
19.54
19
40
10.29
39
mom
data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data Indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15.4
24.7
23.8
35.6
5.5
28
JEJJPattern
Meander Wavelength (ft)
582
99.51
98.9 .176.5,
22.2 ,
27
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
2.9
2.6
9.0
1.5
26
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1700
1741
1737
1724
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
1.13
1.13
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.01 1
0.01
0.01
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
40
23
28
1
0
47.76
2.52
N138.12
10.561
1.04
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metn
I
Biological or Othel
oriauevceiis inwcatvmatriesewiii typicav not ue nueum
1~ The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
T�/L |/ 0
|L8�/�

Table 13 0 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
UT Bear Creek Weaver /McLeod EEP# 92347 - 2012 MY -3
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days during Growing Season
(Percentage of 216-day Gro ing Season
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
Year 2013
Year 2014
09BEA457
No /21 days
(97%)
Yes /37 days
(171%)
Yes /28 days
(130%)
138BDBD7
No /20 days
1 (92%)
Yes /43 days
(199%)
Yes /30 days
(138%)

Figure 8.1. UT Bear Creek (Weaver /McLeod) EEP #92347) -- 2011 (MY3)
Groundwater Monitoring Gauge 138BDBD7
5
0 -A f U - W v V111
-5 y
�I
1
-10
a
a
O c
-15
Y M
m
3 U)
� m
oa c
0 -20 0
0
0
C
-25 U)
i
-30 - - -- -
.I , ,.,
-35 - 1
Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
Month 2012
C—� Precipitation Water Depth — 12" to Grnd Surf
C
0
U)
m
a�
U
m
c
0
0
0
c
W
11 1
Nov. Dec.
3.50
3.00
oc
J_
M
O
2.50.0-
U
v
1111m
m
r-
0
.Y
.Q
1.50 0
a)
a
T
m
O
1.00
0.50
KIM

10
5
0
-5
-10
L
O.
0/
-15
M
m
3
a
-20
-25
30
35
40
Figure 8.1 UT Bear Creek (EWeaver /McLeod) EEP #92347 -- 2012 (MY3)
Groundwater Monitoring Gauge 9BEA457
Jan.
C
°0
N
(0
O
0
C
w
--T
Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
Month
O Precipitation Water Depth — — 12" to Grnd Surf
3.50
c
3.00
oc
J_
N
O
CL
2.50 Q
'u
L
2.00 0
r-
0
i+
m
'a
1.50
a
0
1.00
0.50
--+ 0.00 �
Nov. Dec.

Monthly Precipitation Totals at Siler City Airport (SILR)
Month -Yr
# Days
Precip Total
Cumulative Precipitation at Siler City Airport, NC
2011 -12 TO so Far this month
inches
Dec -11
31
1.84
Jan -12
31
1.60
Feb-121
29
2.18
Mar -12
31
3.10
Apr -12
30
1.97
May -12
31
4.08
Jun -12
30
1.47
Jul -12
31
4.50
Aug -12
31
2.17
Sep -12
30
3.77
Oct -12
311
0.54
Nov-121
301
0.29
12 -mo Total 27.51
Figure 8.0 Monthly Precipitation Data Graph at Siler City Airport (SILR), Chatham County NC
Cumulative Precipitation at Siler City Airport, NC
2011 -12 TO so Far this month
4.5
4.5
a.i
4.0
3.5
3.1
3.0
N 2.5
2.0
1.8
-
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
..1
0.0
a-1
r1
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O O O O
N N N N
N N N N
O O H
N N N
N N N
cl a-I
N N
N N
Date & Tine
State Climate Office of North Carolina
(0.144s)
NC CRONOS Database
Figure 8.0 Monthly Precipitation Data Graph at Siler City Airport (SILR), Chatham County NC

Table 12 0 Bankfull Verification
UT Bear Creek Weaver /McLeod - EEP# 92347 - 2012 MY -3
Date of Data
SILR Precip Gage
Photo #
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Evaluation Method
(if available)
25- Mar -10
Nov 11, 2009 (2 34 "), Dec 2,
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
2009 (1 73 ") and Feb 5, 2010
presence of wrack and drift
(1 94 ")
lines, evaluation of NC
CRONOS data
24- Nov -10
May 17, 2010 (1 52 "), May 23,
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
2010 (1 6 "), Jun 15, 2010
presence of wrack and drift
(1 25 "), Jul 9, 2010 (1 25 "),
lines, evaluation of NC
Sep26, 2010 (1 28 "), and Sep
CRONOS data
30, 2010 (2 87 ")
11- Mar -11
Unknown No substantial
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
rainfall events recorded at
presence of wrack and drift
SILR precipitation gage
lines
26- Sep - I 1
Crest gauge does not indicate
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
any bankfull event during Apr
presence of wrack and drift
to Sep 2011, and no recent
lines
wrack/dnft lines were
observed, despite 2 13" rainfall
at SILR on Sep 21, 2011
10- May -12
May 14 +15, 2012 (1 80 ") Ant
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
colony in crest gage carried
presence of wrack and drift
cork to top of stake, flood stage
lines, NC CRONOS data
record is unclear
26- Oct -12
Jul 9 -11, 2012 (2 2 "), Sep 17-
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
19 (1 0 "), Sep 28 -30 (14")
presence of wrack and drift
Crest gage does not indicate
lines, NC CRONOS data
any recent bankfull event