20081441 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140121

-'P�q cop,
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Monitoring Report — Year 1 I @gg�%�
FINAL WALITY
Contract # 004391 JA N � ' 2714�
EEP Project # 92573 w "d, &��
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Collected October 2012
Completed 2012
Report December 4, 2012
April 12, 2013 Revisions
Submitted to:
NCDENR -EEP
1601 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
1—
A r-1
PRti[,RAM
OX Iu�
Rti �q`
F '�
.off c'

Prepared By:
WITHERS RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Withers & Ravenel
115 McKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager- William E Lee
Email: Blee @withersravenel com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary / Project Abstract ..... .... .... ...... ..... ........ ........... 1
Methodology................ . .. .......... .............................. ... .......
References ......... . ..... ........... .. .. . ... . .......................... 5
Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Table 1. - Project Components and Mitigation Credit
Table lb-Component Summations
Table 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 - Project Contacts Table
Table 4 - Project Attribute Table
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2 through 12 - Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 - Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 - Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photos - Vegetation Station Photos (1 -4)
Photos - Stream Plot Photos (5 -17)
Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 — Veg. Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8 - CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 — Planted Stem Counts
Appendix D - Stream Survey Data
Exhibits- Cross - section Plots 1 through 6
Exhibits- Pebble Count
Exhibits — Longitudinal Profile Plot 1 through 3
Table 10a. - Baseline - Stream Data Summary
Table lob- Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Table 11 a. - Monitoring Data- Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 11 b. — Monitoring Data
Appendix E - Hydrology Data
Table 12 - Crest Gauge Readings and Monthly Rainfall Data

Executive Summary/ Proiect Abstract
The site is located roughly 10 miles northeast of Charlotte, NC Figure 1 includes a map and directions to
the site The restoration was designed by Withers & Ravenel and construction completed by River Works
Inc in June 2010 This report summarizes the monitoring efforts for Monitoring Year -1 (MY -1) 2012
McKee Creek was divided into two reaches within the project site, McKee Creek — Reach 1 is upstream
of Peach Orchard Road and McKee Creek — Reach 2 is downstream of the road crossing The pre - project
stream lengths of McKee Creek — Reach 1 and Reach 2 were 3,733 linear feet (if) and 8471f, respectively
The pre - project reach length of Clear Creek, was 1,513 if The total pre - project stream length within the
project limits was 6,093 If
The stream design resulted in 1,641 If of stream restoration on Clear Creek, and 1,096 if of Level I stream
enhancement and 3,2401f of Level II stream enhancement on McKee Creek The total of stream design is
5,977 if
The project goals and objectives stated in the McKee Creek Restoration Plan (NCEEP 2008) are as
follows
Protect Goals•
• Restore through stream enhancement (Level I and Level II) McKee Creek;
• Restore Clear Creek (Priority I restoration),
• Restore the physical and biological processes of McKee and Clear Creeks;
• Restore riparian vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.
Project Objectives
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, restricting livestock access to the creeks, and
re- establishing the riparian buffer,
• Stabilize McKee Creek through the use of in- stream structures and pattern re- alignment in
selected areas,
• Restore the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek,
• Improve the floodplam functionality of Clear Creek by matching floodplam elevation with bank
full stage,
• Improve the wildlife habitat functions of the site through riparian buffer establishment, improved
stream bed form diversity, and improved floodplam functionality to reduce stream incision,
• Protect the site through a permanent conservation easement along the project reaches
Prior to project completion the streams suffered from excess sedimentation, channel incision, bank
degradation, and limited riparian vegetation The Lower Yadkin River Basin Local Watershed Plan states
both McKee Creek (from source to Reedy Creek) and Clear Creek (from source to McKee Creek) 303(d)
listed streams, McKee Creek for fecal coliform and sediment and Clear Creek for fecal coliform
NCDENR indicates the potential sources of impairment for McKee Creek and Clear Creek include
agriculture, land development, and urban runoff/ storm sewers Additionally McKee Creek has non -
municipal discharges from two minor NPDES permitted discharges from private wastewater treatment
plants located upstream of the project site It is stated in the LWP that DWQ studies of fecal coliform
bacterial sources for McKee and Clear Creeks indicated that livestock grazing was one of the contributing
factors
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No 92573 April 2013
Monitoring Year 1 of 5

Monitoring of the project began with a visual site assessment in the spring of 2012 to identify potential
problems Cross - sections, crest gages, vegetation plots, and photo points were also established at that
time Base line information is not available since no monitoring was performed from the completion of
construction in June 2010 till the spring 2012
Project Complications
In addition to the delayed initiation of monitoring, several other factors have been detrimental to the goals
of this mitigation Approximately a month prior to the initial visual site assessment, a tornado caused
damage in the area off the confluence of Clear Creek and McKee Creek See Figure 2 The tornado
downed large diameter trees with many spanning McKee and Clear Creek These downed trees have
been cleared across Clear Creek but remain an obstacle to access on the south bank. All the fallen trees
on McKee Creek remain and are preventing this area from being surveyed
The downed trees on the south bank of Clear Creek as well as three logjams unrelated to the tornado have
impeded the monitoring effort These downed trees have either attracted beavers or been exacerbated by a
beaver population
Since completion of the stream restoration project a sewer line was constructed along McKee Creek The
sewer serves a development west of McKee Creek and north of Peach Orchard Road The sewer parallels
the McKee Creek west bank from Peach Orchard Road to roughly stream station 40 +00 where it traverses
the stream and follows the east bank to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) upstream of the project
area This gravity sewer bucks grade to reach the WWTP from Peach Orchard Road The construction of
the sewer stream crossing required armoring both sides of the stream bank with rip rap for roughly 30
feet The sewer has an easement along the alignment for access and maintenance that will be cleared The
easement clearing impact to the riparian buffer is limited to the stream crossing Additionally it appears
that the majority of survey control set during the stream restoration construction was destroyed by the
sewer line construction New survey control had to be established along McKee Creek south of Peach
Orchard Road
Vegetation Results
Success of the riparian buffer plantings will be based on plant survival, as per the buffer restoration
guidelines, administered by the NC Division of Water Quality Four (4) permanent monitoring plots were
established along the restored buffer in spring of 2012 In order to be considered a successful restoration,
the site must contain a minimum of 320 live stems per acre at year 3 and 260 live stems per acre at year 5
Year 1 shows an average of 567 live planted stems per acre with a minimum count of 405 These
estimates are based on Level 2 of the CVS -EEP monitoring protocol and include only planted woody
stems The stem count is based on the average stem counts within the vegetation plots Reference pictures
of each monitoring plot were taken and attached to this report The fact that all of the vegetation plots are
performing above the requirement is good considering the 10 inch deficit of rain fall in the monitoring
period
Re- vegetation and elimination of invasives along McKee Creek Reach 2 was an important part of the
success this project The invasive species Rosa multiora plagued the project site before and during
construction Construction logs indicate the Rosa multiflora was found to be three times greater than
specified on the original plan and though denied, the contractor requested onsite burning multiple times
As a result, several rounds of spray treatment were applied followed by bush hogging the invasive
species During the fall assessment Eleagnus umbellata, Rosa multiflora, and Lonicera japonica were
noted in Vegetation Plots 1 and 2 These plants are considered non - native invasive species and should be
removed from the plots before overtaking the native vegetation
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No 92573 April 2013
Monitoring Year 1 of 5

IC
Stream Results
A visual qualitative assessment was performed to inspect channel facets, meanders, beds, banks, and
installed structures This visual assessment was confirmed and enhanced with a quantitative assessment of
` a physical stream survey. This data will be used for comparison in the absence of initial baseline data In
general, Clear Creek appeared to be meeting expectation A quick and dense development of vegetation
proved to hold the stream together, along with the exclusion of bank damaging livestock A majority of
the Clear Creek is consistent from upstream to downstream of the ford
A full restoration was not performed on McKee Creek Reach 1, so failure of structures was not assessed
due to lack of structures Over - widening and formation of mid- channel bars is present in a couple regions
where the stream enters wooded areas and restoration was not completed These bars are naturally formed
and presumably present before the restoration of the stream and most likely stabilized, but will continue
to be monitored for further aggradations On McKee Creek, fine particle buildup in the streambed made
bedform determination difficult This occurred on Reach 2 from station 12 +00 to the beginning of the
tornado damage and again on Reach 1 from about 27 +00 to 34 +00 In addition, logjams were noted along
both streams, all three log dams and mid- channel bars were placed in the CCPV The log dams are
important because of the potential for impeding flow and sediment transport capability of the stream, as
well as creating the potential for additional mid channel bars
McKee Creek Reach 2 appears to be stable despite the tornado damage Cattle exclusion has allowed the
banks to re- vegetate and stabilize Effective floodplain connection remains from downstream of Peach
Orchard Road for approximately 600 feet where the stream enters the tornado impacted area The
expected removal of additional debris over the next year will allow for a more thorough assessment of
this portion of the stream be completed in Monitoring Year 2
Hydrology Results
f During the fall assessment, crest gages were checked for bankfull occurrences The crest gages indicated
water levels at or above bankfull for crest gages 1 and 3 crest gage 2 reads 0 2 -0 3 feet below bankfull
On Reach 2 of McKee Creek, flattened and sparse vegetation, due to prolonged inundation and very soft
soils at the edge of the banks, validate the bankfull or greater events at crest gage 1 The reading of crest
gage 2 indicates events near bankfull, the presence of vegetation and small trees on the bank and at the
very fringe of the floodplain leaned in the direction of flow are indicators of flow at or dust above
bankfull Whether flow rates greatly exceeded the channel capacity or not is unknown but it demonstrates
that this portion of the stream shows good floodplain connection and energy dissipation crest gage 3 read
roughly bankfull, the bank just downstream of list location is higher than bankfull so visual indicators are
minimal but small terraces collecting falling leaves seem to be forming at approximately this same
elevation between the gage and the confluence
The rainfall data provided in the appendix as Table 12 was for Cabarrus County per the NC Climate
website through NCSU, during the period between Dec 2011 and Dec 2012 which totaled 33 21 inches
This is compared to the Harrisburg Town website, which quotes an average annual rainfall of 43 8 inches
"consistent with the average rainfall for Cabarrus County " This means that the site has experienced about
a 10 inch rainfall deficit over the previous year
Wetlands
No formal wetland assessment of this site was preformed The site does have two small documented
wetlands of 1,050 sf and 3,840 sf, which were discovered after the fall data collection Both of these
wetlands contain Chewacla type soils, according to the soils maps In addition, there appears to be a small
wetland dust north of Peach Orchard Road approximately 150 ft west of the stream The soil of this
wetland appears to be moderately wet upon inspection and the surrounding ground and vegetation rather
dry Though not identified by a biologist, the plants that inhabited this small wetland looked to be wetland
species Further inspection and detail will follow in the MY -2 documents
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No 92573 April 2013
Monitoring Year 1 of 5
c

I
i
r-
c"
c
C
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 to
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 EEP's website All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
McKee Creek
EEP Project No 92573
Monitoring Year 1 of 5
4
Withers & Ravenel
April 2013

Methodolou
All survey was preformed utilized either total station tradition survey methods or a survey grade
GPS unit to capture points with high horizontal and vertical accuracy. The longitudinal stationing
was formatted as close as possible to the original restoration plan stationing. The particle size
distribution was collected using the standard Wolman pebble count procedure as taught by Dr.
Gregory Jennings, North Carolina State University. The methodology used in this monitoring
assessment followed the prescribed recommendation of the CVS -EEP Vegetation Monitoring
Protocol Level -2.
References
Town of Harrisburg North Carolina, Visitors Page, Geography and Climate
http://www.harrisburgnc.orgfVisitors/GeogrgphyClimate.Wx
Lower Yadkin LWP— PFR, 2003 and WMP &R — Lower Yadkin LWP, 2004
http:/ /www.nceep.net/services /lwps /Clarke Creek/F R Rocky Yadkin.pdf
Wolman Pebble Count,
http: //Iimnology.wisc. edu/ courses/ zoo548 /Wolman%2OPebble %2OCount.pdf
Rainfall Data for Cabarrus County,
http: / /www.nc - climate.ncsu.edu /cronos
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No. 92573 April 2013
Monitoring Year 1 of 5

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
t
r

l
1 -40
-77 ,
RALEIGH
1-85 US-64
I �1 /
CHARLOTTE
PROJECT AREA ~ /
r �l
Miles �` t
0 12.5 25 50 75 100
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.
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, monitoring and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted
within the terms and timeframes of their defined,
pre- approved roles. Any intended site visitation
or activity by any person outside of these
previously sanctioned activities /roles requires
prior coordination with EEP
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
EEP # 92573
Cabarrus County, NC
December 3, 2012
Take US -64 West from the Raleigh area to 1 -85
(approximatley 85 miles). Take 1 -85 south toward Charlotte
(approximately 48 miles). Take exit 48 onto 1 -485 toward
Rock Hill (approximately 8 miles) Take exit 39 onto
Harrisburg Road north stay on Robinson Church for
approximately 1 mile and then turn right onto
NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road.
Peach Orchard Road intersects the project site.
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
N
WITHERS C` RAVENEL
ENGINEERS � PLANNERS 1511RVEVORS
rb,
0 }''r >�l'11I

0
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Project
Existing
Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation
BMP
Component or
Approach
Stationing
Comment
Feet/Acres
Level
Acreage
Ratio
Elements'
Reach ID
10+00-
25 +00
This is a mix of P2 and P4
McKee Reach 1
3240
E2
P4
3240
29+00-
2.5:1 MAX
as designated by the
46 +40
stationing.
25 +00
McKee Reach 1
493
E1
P2
400
29 +00
1.5:1 MAX
The reach is a mix of P2 an
10+00-
P3, but is mostly dominated
McKee Reach 2
847
E1
P2
696
17 +23.67
1.5:1 MAX
by P2. Includes 200 If of
channel relocation
11+03.05-
Includes 1,351 If of channel
Clear Creek
1513
R
P1
1641
27 +59.18
1 to 1
relocation
1 = BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond;
FS = Filter Strip; Grassed Swale = S; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other
CF = Cattle Fencing, WS = Watering System; CH = Livestock Housing

Table 1 b. Component Summations
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Restoration
Level
Stream
(If)
Riparian
Wetland Ac
Non -Ripar
(Ac)
Upland
(Ac)
Buffer
(Ac)
BMp
Non-
Rivenne Riverme
- F
Restoration
1641
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
1096
Enhancement II
3240
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals Feet/Acres 5977
0
0 0 0
Non - Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
Aug -08
Final Design — Construction Plans
Apr -09
Construction
May -10
Cgntainerized, bare root and B &B plantings for reach /segments 1 &2
May -10
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Spring Year 1 Monitoring
Apr -12
May -12
Fall Year 1 Monitoring
Oct -12
Nov -12
Spring Year 2 Monitoring
Fall Year 2 Monitoring
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are dust provided as example as part of this exhibit.

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Designer
Withers & Ravenel, Inc.
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, NC 27511
Prima project design POC
Al Mn Smith, P E. 919 467 -6008
Construction Contractor
River Works Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607
Construction contractor POC
Edward Haynes
Survey Contractor
Tumer Land Surveying
Survey contractor POC
Elisabeth Turner
nting Contractor
River Works Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607
contract or POC
Edward Ha nes
eding Contractor
Green Resources
5204 Highgreen Ct Colfax, NC 27235
Contractor point of contact
Rodney Montqomery
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Not Known
Monitoring Performers
Withers & Ravenel, Inc
111 MacKenan Drive Cary, NC 27511
Stream Monitoring POC
Billy Lee, P.E. (919) 467 -6008
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Billy Lee, P E (919) 467 -6008
Wetland Monitoring POC

0
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Project County
Cabarrus
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Southern Outer Piedmont
Project River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
Clear- 03 -07- 11/03 -08 -34
Within extent of atershe Ian
Name the plan document
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, old)
Cool
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
McKee - 100% Clear -100%
Beaver activity observed during design
phase?
I Yes
Restoration Component Attribute Table
McKee Reach 1
McKee Reach 2
Clear Creek
Drainage area (acres)
Stream order
4131
2
4214
2
635
1
Restored length (feet)
3640
696
1641
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban. Developing
etc.)
Developing
Developing
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.) acres
Single Family
Woods
Commercial
Govt -I nst
Warehouse
Pasture
2150
1154
114
73
76
565
2147
1166
113
73
76
640
106
469
60
Watershed impervious cover (%)
16
16
4
NCDWQ AU /Index number
NCDWQ classification
C
C
C/C
303d listed?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
Fecal Coliform,
Sediment
Fecal Coliform,
Sediment
Fecal Coliform
Total acreage of easement
10.63
2.03
4.75
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
2.57
0.11
1.76
Total planted acreage as part of the
restoration
2.57
0.11
1.76
Rosgen classification of pre-existing
E4
E4
E /C5
Rosgen classification of As -built
E4
E4
E /C5
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
Valley slope
0.005
0.005
0.014
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2 -3. %)
1 -2%
1 -2%
1 -2%
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2 -3.%)
1 -2%
1 -2%
1 -2%
Cowardin classification
PFO1A
PFO1A
PFO1A
Trout waters designation
No
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (YIN)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Depth
6 to 24 inches
6 to 24 inches
6 to 24 inches
Clay%
20.5
20.5
20.5
K
0.275
0.275
1 0.275
T
4.584
4.584
4.584
Use for items that may not apply. Use " for items that are unavaflabie and 'U ror items that are unKnown

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

A
J3
.. rx
4.
JIL
S
Figure 2
Overall Map
#D07063S
00
Rft.-A—N&
-fo
'j'
7,"
�A
. .1 4o
ik•
—nA
-Y...
4N
w
fl
*00,
0
t
I
ir
Ilk i"
L
r -�
Legend
Photo Points Pre Channel
Treel-ine Centerline
AIL Conservation Wetlands
0 155 310 620 ....... Easement
Tornado
Study.Area
. WITHERS RAVENEL Planted Vegetation
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS 1 SURVEYORS

-^ x-„ - - - - - - - - - -
McKee Clear
Confluence
,- AIL4
:?¢ lac ✓'� ; �' � •:
4
.1r •�I IT}
M�
L! Y.
r
n'
l •_
r
K •
J.0
CREST GAGEI
NORTHING
EASTING
CG 1
555675
1510750
1511650
CG2
556327
CG3
556758
1511312
1510863
VP 4 Origin
e
1511658
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
n'
l •_
r
K •
J.0
CREST GAGEI
NORTHING
EASTING
CG 1
555675
1510750
1511650
CG2
556327
CG3
556758
1511312
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
EASTING
VP 1 Origin
555636
1510413
VP 2 Origin
555493
1510107
VP 3 Origin
555918
1510863
VP 4 Origin
556238
1511658
CROSS
SECTION
NORTHING
EASTING
RXS1
555698
1510790
RXS1
555632
1510831
RXS2
556296
1511680
RXS2
556262
1511660
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
556524
1511598
PXS 1
555722
1510812
PXS1
555686
1510899
PXS2
556304
1511672
PXS2
556274
1511636
PXS3
556581
1511577
r
- - - -
r
s
Figure 3
Clear Creek
22+50 -27+00-1
#D07063S
T VVII
i�
rt)
L,-
4
-,,7�
Mw
~l 1
3 L _
•• - . .. ,mss 9
e
Aver �`
ry`
• f r
• y
N
1 4-
\ g r r
A
it Jl
e i -
h1
•� a9�Ir
4
•
:r
Y-
"
A
Legend
' Crest Gauge --•--•• Easement
Riffle Sample -- -- Pre Channel
t U Photo Points — ' — Centerline
Wetlands
Feet'"-
0 25 50 100
WITHERS k- RAVENEL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Structure Condition
* Good Structure Tornado
VegetationPlot Study_Area
GOOD Planted Vegetation
�I�I Treel-ine Cross- Section

y�
Undercutting
of Bank
=. t
Figure 4
Clear Creek
17 +50 -22 +50
#D07063S
b •.
Ford
..iii - S A i7r
- t A'` _
Cattails
:! a �, . •:: � i �yrv_ i � . � .r
CREST GAGE NORTHING EASTING
MATCHLINE BB
x
CG2 556327 1511650 V " r
CG3 556758 1511312 i 16 +00
,_
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
EASTING
1510413
1510107
1510863
1511658
VP 1 Origin
555636
VP 2 Origin
555493
VP 3 Origin
555918
VP 4 Origin
1 556238
CROSS
SECTION
NORTHING
EASTING
RXS1
555698
1510790
RXS1
555632
1510831
RXS2
556296
1511680
RXS2
556262
1511660
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
556524
1511598
PXS1
555722
1510812
PXS1
555686
1510899
PXS2
556304
1511672
PXS2
556274
1511636
PXS3
556581
1511577
_
Legend
Crest ....... Gauge Conservation
�
® Easement Riffle Sample -- -
—Pre Channel
i
Photo Points
►- Centerline
Structure Condition Wetlands
+`
� Feet Good Structure Q Tornado
0 25 50 100 FALL-12 Study_Area
_ GOOD
Planted Vegetation
IW I T H E RS 0',\` RAVEN EL -- Treel-ine )� Cross - Section
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS

i
Figure 5
Clear Creek
10 50 -17+50
c
7 #D07063S
MW r
' u ` ° `r f i
r -
YL
T MA tL�N
• alt` - �'' �
l - .. '�'.F
n �4
r
�4 p=
l { k r
IQ
1
- \\
)T �•S
in{ `
1
r
Y r
♦
y
3 •l i
• _' R. •. fit' . '6'+` •.
�" •/
3
t,. AIM z -
Yf
CREST GAGE NORTHING EASTING 4
CG 1 555675 1510750 1
CG2 556327 1511650
CG3 556758 1 1511312
i
i
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
FASTING
VP 1 Origin
555636
555493
1510413
1510107
VP 2 Origin
VP 3 Origin
555918
1510863
VP 4 Origin
556238
1511658
CROSS
SECTION
NORTHING
EASTING
RXS1
555698
1510790
RXS1
555632
1510831
RXS2
556296
1511680
RXS2
556262
1511660
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
556524
1511598
PXS1
555722
1510812
PXS1
555686
1510899
PXS2
556304
1511672
PXS2
556274
1511636
PXS3
556581
1511577
1 yy €4
-
) -
i ♦ t ✓_
1
. ­A r
i
{
_ p
of
jr
Alrp I
- ; h
k>
• .................
r—I
llil.li
0 25 50 100
,WITHER:� �`'� RAVENEL
ENGINEERS 1 PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Legend
0
Crest Gauge
Conservation
Riffle Sample
....... Easement
-- -- Pre Channel
Photo Points
D. _ Centerline
Structure Condition _� Wetlands
Good Structure
Tornado
VegetationPlot
Study_Area
GOOD
Planted Vegetation
—• —•
TreeLine
Cross - Section

Ah
Figure 6
McKee Creek
r
J'
#D07063S 111pli
_ J
1 1
y I _
} McKee Clear
Confluence
Iwo
Ail
Jw
ir
S ♦ ��
iiii
Ns
Aop
:
-r
F- r_1.
t M. f�,
c"
� s
COs E 4 7,
'•• CG -
? 6W
VA
y k
CREST GAGE NORTHING FASTING :1 y _
CG 1 555675 1510750 -
CG2 556327 1511650``. T��r�,
k r w •
CG3 556758 1511312 ��'- °'n `'� y:
a„
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
EASTING
VP 1 Origin
555636
1510413
VP 2 Origin
555493
1510107
VP 3 Origin
555918
1510863
VP 4 Origin
556238
1 1511658
CROSS Legend
SECTION NORTHING EASTING _ _
-, � � � Crest Gauge Conservation
RXS 1 555698 1510790 " Easement
•, '`'� Riffle Sample
RXS1 555632 1510831 r� -- -- Pre Channel
RXS2 556296 1511680 Photo Points
RXS2 556262 1511660 � ,}'�Ct'lll ►' Centerline
—
RXS3 556532 1511565 J Structure Condition Wetlands
RXS3 556524 1511598 Feet Good Structure Tornado
PXS 1 555722 1510812 VegetationPlot
PXS1 555686 1510899 0 25 50 100 Study _Area
PXS2 556304 1511672 GOOD
- � Planted Vegetation
PXS2 556274 1511636 WITHERS 0,\ RAV E N E L - — Treel-ine
�►( Cross - Section
PXS3 556581 1511577 ENGINEERS i PLANNERS I SURVEYORS � ">y

Figure 7
r Y McKee Creek
12+50-17+00
i a #D07063S 3 "�
�.. �,• •`\, T �y��i. tied' .:S :' .. ;
JNIATCkINE CC .
1 X •., .•
N
Log Jam 1
"w r'xFPfPw_wXF7.
r ..�. 1y. '_ _� N♦ .. _
r
It �
_J c
` ._� -
_
3
,a o� MATCHLINE DD
1YE
l - 5 t
Yl
CREST GAGE NORTHING FASTING
1 10750'
CG 1 555675 5 •` '
CG2 556327 1511650 ' P,€y'. °. T
A .• `; r` G
CG3 556758 1511312 `. 4
VEG PLOT NORTHING EASTING ,rr�� �. .• k ii �p
VP 1 Origin 555636 1510413 f i -.
VP 2 Origin 555493 1510107 ..................... .. M �'
VP 3 Origin 555918 1510863 _
VP 4 Origin 556238 1511658 _
CROSS Legend
SECTION NORTHING EASTING Q Crest Gauge Conservation
RXS1 555698 1510790 ....... Easement
RXS 1 555632 1510831 Riffle Sample _ _
–Pre Channel
RXS2 556296 1511680 O Photo Points
111110— Centerline
RXS2 556262 1511660 ,(.•( }ti1'�tf'lll
RXS3 556532 1511565 Structure Condition 0 Wetlands
RXS3 556524 1511598 Feet * Good Structure Q Tornado
PXS 1 555722 1510812 VegetationPlot
PXS1 555686 1510899 0 25 50 100 Study–Area
PXS2 556304 1511672 _ GOOD
Planted Vegetation
PXS2 556274 1511636 N WITHERS L�� RAV E N E L - — TreeLine
Cross - Section
PXS3 556581 1511577 ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS

' Figure 8 00 ,
�r
McKee Creek,-
.. -. - ''�• y
Reach 1 37 +50-
y
Reach 2 12 +50 ,
R #D07063S
41i N',I:
G t }
• ;1:_• 4. Y Ifl�Pl_ ly _ ,fin �.�� • y�'.+.:-
4.
t..T YS'i
l _ F `1,�Y ri` �j;'r.ia. a ryr. •_ .fit
r.: � _ yam•- .
CREST GAGE
NORTHING
EASTING
CG 1
555675
1510750
CG2
556327
1511650
CG3
556758
1511312
='y' _ _ � ",', � - � - ••• t .+�rf•3 �.,.;_ '.t -;<. a; ,?'."rte -
t-
VEG PLOT NORTHING EASTING ��'' sr� •� } tyL k '�E
VP 1 Origin 555636 1510413
-: VP 2 Origin 555493 1510107
VP 3 Origin 555918 1510863
VP 4 Origin 556238 1511658'
CROSS to+ •�-
t
SECTION NORTHING EASTINGa
RXS1 555698 1510790
RXS1 555632 1510831
RXS2 556296 1511680
- � •' - -*tea+ �`'
RXS2 556262 1511660
RXS3 556532 1511565 ";1 -= � "`" '
RXS3 556524 1511598 2+ Mid- Channel'
PXS 1 555722 1510812 •; Bar
PXS 1 555686 1510899
PXS2 556304 1511672 ,, •
PXS2 556274 1511636
PXS3 556581 1511577
ra
i.1
1
Legend
4 <I J
�" � � 4 a,r• Q Crest Gauge Conservation
1AT0H
...... Easement
Riffle Sample -- -
—Pre Channel
• Oq„ Photo Points NO _ Centerline
R 4,t Structure Condition Q Wetlands
} Good Structure
Feet ®Tornado
•0 37.5 75 150 r, VegetationPlot Study_Area
GOOD
Planted Vegetation
WITHERS Czz�7 RAV E N E L - — Treel-ine
Cross - Section
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
e.t
�
•, s
•t
n
•
L 4
. _
A/
f
s 3 +-0
4
��� It' Iq•
r
ra
i.1
1
Legend
4 <I J
�" � � 4 a,r• Q Crest Gauge Conservation
1AT0H
...... Easement
Riffle Sample -- -
—Pre Channel
• Oq„ Photo Points NO _ Centerline
R 4,t Structure Condition Q Wetlands
} Good Structure
Feet ®Tornado
•0 37.5 75 150 r, VegetationPlot Study_Area
GOOD
Planted Vegetation
WITHERS Czz�7 RAV E N E L - — Treel-ine
Cross - Section
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS

Figure 9
McKee Creek
30 +50 -37 +50
#D07063S
,. r-
CREST GAGE NORTHING
CG 1 555675
CG2 556327
CG3 556758
$ VEG PLOT NORTHING
r " VP 1 Origin 555636
VP 2 Origin 555493
' VP 3 Origin 555918
' VP 4 Origin 556238
■ ii`
2
t�
:. .. +00
I
g Y ::
Y' T
•v _ ` t c
` << +
y ! Nt
. _
SECTION I NORTHING
Legend
EASTING
1510750
1511650
1511312
EASTING
1510413
1510107
1510863
1511658
EASTING
1510790
1510831
1511680
1511660
1511565
1511598
1510812
1510899
1511672
1511636
1511577
zL\,
RXS1
555698
RXS1
555632
i r
t � '
RXS2
556296
OPhoto
RXS2
556262
Structure Condition
RXS3
556532
Good Structure
RXS3
556524
Study_Area
PXS1
555722
Planted Vegetation
PXS1
555686
<'#. _
PXS2
556304
`.: -'
PXS2
556274
07
PXS3
556581
S= -
Legend
EASTING
1510750
1511650
1511312
EASTING
1510413
1510107
1510863
1511658
EASTING
1510790
1510831
1511680
1511660
1511565
1511598
1510812
1510899
1511672
1511636
1511577
zL\,
Crest Gauge
Conservation
Riffle Sample
.......
Easement
i r
t � '
-- -- Pre Channel
OPhoto
Points
10- _ Centerline
Structure Condition
Wetlands
Good Structure
Q Tornado
VegetationPlot
Study_Area
GOOD
Planted Vegetation
— —
TreeLine
Gross - Section
r
L`v `
id
.2
+ w1k
y .L
�,,, oia-k,
Yu `
A 1
S1t .
*,
Feet
0 25 50 100` <
= WITHERS RAVEN EL"
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
�W
Log Jam 2
1
• 7 ' '
P: 1
yn
•,A f< 4 �
MAXC- > �I
i r
t � '
I f
y � A13W
1 ri .Fr_ T , 1 � •
r
yn
•,A f< 4 �
MAXC- > �I

1
1
Pi u re 10
_ McKee Creek �,.
24 +50 -30 +50
#D07063S
iL
HUME
CREST GAGE NORTHING EASTING
CG1 555675 1510750 '
CG2 556327 1511650 k e b f 1
CG3 556758 1511312
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
EASTING
VP 1 Origin
555636
1510413
VP 2 Origin
555493
1510107
VP 3 Origin
555918
1510863
VP 4 Origin
556238
1511658
IL
.........
CROSS
SECTION NORTHING EASTING o
RXS1 555698 1510790 4
RXS 1 555632 1510831
RXS 2 556296 1 51 1680
J.,
1
RXS2 556262 1511660
RXS3 556532 1511565
r
RXS3 556524 1511598
PXS1 555722 1510812
PXS1 555686 1510899 '
PXS2 556304 1511672 �" {
PXS2 556274 1511636 4
PXS3 556581 1511577
l! t t F
Legend ,
Z� Crest Gauge Conservation t 1
Easement
Riffle Sample. 1
– Pre Channel ♦ 3
Photo Points ,
►- — Centerline
Structure Condition - Wetlands
Good Structure ® # ;'
Tornado
VegetationPlot - s 1
Study_Area
GOOD Planted Vegetation
– — TreeLine
�{ Cross - Section
44
oil
�• ,�`�" a ���OAk.'c �R :� • i � � � j,..._+ :F •.
`a
MATdHLIIWE GO i.
y
...F 1 - - mil. � • � •- -. :
f �
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS RAVENEL
ka� 4 ENGINEERS ! PLANNERS I SURVEYORS - -

I ��
Log Jam 3
saw
f
w•
16
CREST GAGE
NORTHING
EASTING
CG1
555675
1510750
CG2
556327
1511650
CG3
556758
1511312
y jf
f"
VEG PLOT
NORTHING
EASTING
VP 1 Origin
555636
1510413
VP 2 Origin
555493
1510107
VP 3 Origin
555918
1510863
VP 4 Origin
556238
1511658
CROSS
SECTION
NORTHING
EASTING
RXS1
f.
f
RXS1
555632
4 •� r ! � k
RXS2
556296
1511680
RXS2
556262
1511660
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
556524
1511598
PXS1
555722
1510812
6
555686
1510899
PXS2
556304
1511672
PXS2
556274
1511636
PXS3
556581
1511577
CROSS
SECTION
NORTHING
EASTING
RXS1
555698
1510790
RXS1
555632
1510831
RXS2
556296
1511680
RXS2
556262
1511660
RXS3
556532
1511565
RXS3
556524
1511598
PXS1
555722
1510812
PXS1
555686
1510899
PXS2
556304
1511672
PXS2
556274
1511636
PXS3
556581
1511577
It
r� r
Fee
0 25 50 100
ITHERS RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Legend
0
Crest Gauge
Conservation
.......
Easement
Riffle Sample
�
- -• -- Pre Channel -
O
Photo Points
11110- _ Centerline
Structure Condition
Wetlands
Good Structure
Q Tornado
VegetationPlot
Study_Area
GOOD
Planted Vegetation
— —
Treel-ine
Cross - Section � y.

r
C
l
l
(l
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID McKee Creek Reach 1
A__w ww w.{ 1 w....{{. '212flll

zN
too: m
-77
s 41 si � .» ��'. �'
Ing;

i
� 11�
�i
C
O
C
l;
C
C
l '-1
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Clear Creek
Assessed Lenath 1566

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Planted Acreage 444
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Area
Very limited cover of both woddy and herbaceous material
1 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0
0
500 SF
Why stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,
1
Pattern and
0
0
0
Low Stem Density Areas
4, or 5 stem count criteria
acres
Color
Color
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
25 Acres
Pattern and
I
0
0
0
even
Color
Easment Acreage 17.41
Mapping
CCPV
Number of Combined
96 of
Vegetation Category
Definitrons
Threshold
De fiction
Polvoons Acreaue
Easement
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
500 SF
Pattem and
Color
1 0011478421
007%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
None
Pattern and
0 0
0
Color

Photo 1- Veg Plot 1- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 2- Veg Plot 2- Year 1 (2012)

Photo 3- Veg Plot 3- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 4- Veg Plot 4- Year 1 (2012)

Photo 5 - Riffle XS 1 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 6- Pool XS 1 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 7- Riffle XS 2- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 8- Pool XS 2 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 9 - Riffle XS 3 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 10 - Pool XS 3 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 11- Photo Point 1- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 12 - Photo Point 2 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 13 - Photo Point 3 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 14 - Photo Point 4 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 15- Photo Point 5 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 16 - Photo Point 6 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 17 - Photo Point 7 - Year 1 (2012)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Veg Plot Criteria Attainment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
1
Yes
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
Report Prepared By
Daniel Wiebke
Date Prepared
41260 64791
database name
WithersRavenel- 2012 -A mdb
database location
C \Users \Darnel \Desktop
computer name
DANIEL -PC
file size
60686336
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- ---
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
project(s) and project data
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year
Prol, planted
This excludes live stakes
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This
Prod, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage
percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
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.
PROJECT SUMMARY---------------
---- -- - ---- --
Prolect Code
92573
project Name
McKee Creek
McKee Creek Upstream and Downstream of Peach Orchard and Clear
Description
Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
4

Table 9. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Common Name
Type
Current Data Annual Means
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Current Mean
MY 2 (2013)
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer ne undo
Box Elder
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1.25
Betula ni ra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
0
0.75
1.25
Ca rya s uatica
Water Hickory
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
Diospyrus vir iniana
Persimmon
1 0
11
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
1
Elea gnus umbellata
Autumn Olive
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
0
0
3
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
Ju lans ni ra
Black Walnut
Tree
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1.75
1.75
Li uidambar st raciflua
Sweet um
0
3
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
9.5
Liriodenron tuli ifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
0.75
0.75
Plantanus
Sycamore
Tree
1 0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
1
0
0.25
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Tree
I 1
1
5
5
1
1
11
101
4.5
4.25
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
0.5
Quercus ni ra
Water Oak
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
Quercus s.
Oak
ee
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0.5
0.5
Rhus co allinum
Win ed Sumac
NShrub
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
Salix ni ra
Black Willow
2
2
0
0
0
0
7
7
2.25
2.25
Ulmus alata
Win ed Elm
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
2.25
Unknown
Unknown
n
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
31
1
1
Plot Area (acres)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems Per Acre
4
8
3
8
7
9
5
8
4.75
8.25
10
16
10
54
12
20
24
301
14
30
4051
6481
4051
21861
4861
810
972
12151
567
1215

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -01
S -ID
RXS -1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
11/1/2012
Field C;;w'-1
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
stiffia4l
Elevation
16.2
583.38
18.2
582.17
20.2
580.67
22.2
579.17
24.2
576.88
26.2
576.93
28.2
576.99
30.2
576.76
32.2
576.58
34.2
576.49
36.2
576.56
38.2
576.47
40.2
576.41
42.2
577.38
44.2
577.26
46.2
578.83
46.5
579.17
48.2
581.36
50.2
582.49
51.5
583.38
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
579.248
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
53
Bankfull Width
24.27
Flood Prone Area Elevation
581.928
Flood Prone Width
32
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.76
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.89
WID Ratio:
12.82
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.32
Bank Height Ratio:
2.53
584.00
583.00
582.00
581.00
580.00
.d
= 579.00
578.00
577.00
576.00
10.0
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 1
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Distance (ft)

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
12
582.72
14
582.03
16
580.78
17.0
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
20
577.37
22
576.91
24
576.05
26
575.82
28
575.53
30
575.59
32
River Basin
34
Yadkin Pee -Dee
36
576.87
38
578.42
40
579.43
42
580.33
44
581.78
46
a
XS-11)
PXS -1
*`
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
11/1/2012
i
r�R
At
{ R
Left Bank to Right Bank
Pool Cross Section 1
584.00
_
..
583.00 - --
-,
582.00 - --
- -,
581.-00
580.00
r
579.00 - - - --
..-
-
_
-MY -1
578.00
577.00
576.00 - -- -- - - --
--
575.00
10 15 20
25
30
35 40 45
50
Distance (ft)
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 63.68
Bankfull Width 22.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.33
Flood Prone Width 110
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.9 ;
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.45
W/D Ratio: 9.2
Entrenchment enchment Ratio: 4.88
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.84
12
582.72
14
582.03
16
580.78
17.0
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 63.68
Bankfull Width 22.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.33
Flood Prone Width 110
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.9 ;
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.45
W/D Ratio: 9.2
Entrenchment enchment Ratio: 4.88
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.84
12
582.72
14
582.03
16
580.78
17.0
579.43
18
577.58
20
577.37
22
576.91
24
576.05
26
575.82
28
575.53
30
575.59
32
575.77
34
575.98
36
576.87
38
578.42
40
579.43
42
580.33
44
581.78
46
582.72
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 63.68
Bankfull Width 22.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.33
Flood Prone Width 110
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.9 ;
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.45
W/D Ratio: 9.2
Entrenchment enchment Ratio: 4.88
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.84

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -01
XS -ID
PXS -1
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
11/1/2012
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Station
Elsjtl"
2
580.16
3
579.44
4
575.47
5
575.57
6
575.61
7
575.47
8
576.08
9
576.37
10
576.56
11
576.96
12
577.67
13
578.39
14
579.08
15
579.07
16
579.29
17
579.47
18
579.81
19
580.16
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
579.44
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
30.61
Bankfull Width
17
Flood Prone Area Elevation
583.41
Flood Prone Width
150
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.97
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.55
W/D Ratio:
6.66
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.82
Bank Height Ratio:
1.18
581.00
580.00
579.00
t 578.00
M
Z
x
577.00
576.00
575.00
Left Bank to Right Bank
Pool Cross Section 2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance (ft)
16 18 20

Cross - section Plot
n
3 5
580.84
4 5
580.09
5 5
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
6 5
}
=o
8 5
578.41
9 5
578.43
10 5
578.41
11 5
578.58
12 5
578.68
XS -ID
RXS -2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
11/1/2012
r
`, �
r
t
}
wzr
;.�`i1�r.7�}
y
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle
Cross Section
2
581.00
-
I
580.50
580 - --- --
�1
r- - - --
1
579.50 -nnv -i • -- -- - --
- --
-
-�
x°
579.00 - - - -- -
- -
--
578.50
--
-
I
578.00
1
0 5
i
10
15 20
25
Distance (ft)
Station n
n
3 5
580.84
4 5
580.09
5 5
579.50
6 5
7 5
578.86
Station n
n
3 5
580.84
4 5
580.09
5 5
579.50
6 5
579.33
7 5
578.86
8 5
578.41
9 5
578.43
10 5
578.41
11 5
578.58
12 5
578.68
13 5
578.79 5
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 580.84
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 25.85
Bankfull Width 18
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.27
Field Crew D Wiebke, D. Byrd
Flood Prone Width 150
Max Depth at Bankfull 2.43
Mean Depth at Bankfull, 1.36
W/D Ratio: 13.23
Entrenchment Ratio: 8.33
Bank Height Ratio: 1

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
n
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
yy�
0 1
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
578.71
5
578.47
6
Watershed Clear MY -01
7
578.04
8
577.91
XS -ID RXS -3
577.93
10
578.01
11
577.97
12
578.17
13
578.50
Date 11/1/2012
578.71
15
579.21
16
579.59
17
579.73
18
579.87
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 3
580.00 -
579.50 -
579.00
=
578.50
578.00 - - - - --
577.50
0 5
10 15
20
ft
Distance ()
Station
n
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
4
578.71
Station
n
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
578.91
4
578.71
5
578.47
6
577.96
7
578.04
8
577.91
9
577.93
10
578.01
11
577.97
12
578.17
13
578.50
14
578.71
15
579.21
16
579.59
17
579.73
18
579.87
Summary Data
Ban I Elevation 5
579.87
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 2
21.02

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
�Iwlitgon
1
579.14
2
578.68
3
578.87
4
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
6
r
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
8
575.97
9
Watershed
Clear MY -01
575.68
11
�' ..
12
576.61
13
577.16
a
XS -ID
PXS -3
578.78
16
579.14
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
11/1/2012
Left Bank to Right Bank
Pool Cross Section 3
579.50
_.
i
579.00
-
- -
578.50
- - --
578.00
r 577.50 ._.._ _ - ---
rn
--
m -y- MY -�
x 577.00 - --
- - - --
-- - - --
576.50 - - - --
--
576.00 --
- - - --
575.50
0 2 4
6 8 10
12 14 16 18
Distance (ft)
St�lon
�Iwlitgon
1
579.14
2
578.68
3
578.87
4
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
St�lon
�Iwlitgon
1
579.14
2
578.68
3
578.87
4
577.53
5
577.89
6
576.63
7
576.65
8
575.97
9
576.29
10
575.68
11
575.73
12
576.61
13
577.16
14
578.22
15
578.78
16
579.14
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
27 27
Bankfull Width
15
Flood Prone Area Elevation
582.89
Flood Prone Width
250
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.46
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.46
W/D Ratio:
8.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.67
Bank Height Ratio:
1

Pebble Count Exhibit
Mckee Creek Stream Resotration
McKee Creek
100.00 % - - - -
90.00 °i°
Mckee Creek
Riffle
Particle
Size
Count
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
°r°
- -,- --
80.00
70.00 °r°
'
Silt Clay
0.062
0.00%
0.00%
Sand
0.0935
0.00%
0.00%
so.00 °i°
0.1875
6
5.45%
5.45%
LL
0.375
0.00%
5.45%
u 50.00%
20 40.00%
30.00%
AMY -1
- - -- -
0.75
2
1.82%
7.27%
1.5
0.00%
7.27%
Gravel
3
0.00%
7.27%
20.00 °ro
-- - - - - --
_
4.85
0.00%
7.27%
- --
6.85
2
1.82%
9.09%
10.00%
- -- - - -- - - - - - - - --
9.65
2
1.82%
10.91%
0.00%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
13.65
2
1.82%
12.73%
19.3
12
10.91%
23.64%
27.3
12
10.91%
34.55%
38.5
12
10.91%
45.45%
54.5
18
16.36%
61.82%
- - -- - -- --
Individual Class Percent
18.00%
16.00°r° - - - -- --
Cobble
77
12
10.91%
72.73%
109
14
12.73%
85.45%
154
2
1.82%
87.27%
218
8
7.27%
94.55%
Boulder
309
6
5.45%
100.00%
c 14.00%
- --
437
0.00%
100.00%
a" 12.00 °r°
w 10.00 °r°
e.00 r° °
o s.00 °r°
_ 4.00 °i°
2.00 °% °
0.00%
- - -- --
--
- - --
-
-
--
768
0.00%
100.00%
■MY -1
-
-- --
-- --
1536
0.00%
100.00%
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
Total
110
100.00%
1
-- -
Summa Data
D50 38.5
D84 109
D95 309
-
--
o rn ro r�i n m ro m m r n o vii N M o o
0 0 o o v rn N r� u� N
° ° Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count Exhibit
ckee Creek Stream Resotration
- - - - - -
Cumulative Percent
90.00%
Clear Creek Upstream
Riffle
Particle
Size
Count
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
--
Silt Clay
0.062
12
12.00%
12.00%
70.00%
Sand
0.0935
0.00%
12.00%
m
-
0.1875
5
5.00%
17.00%
60.00%
LL
50.00%
0.375
0.00%
17.00%
m
20 40.00%
a 30.00%
- -- -MY-1
0.75
0.00%
17.00%
1.5
0.00%
17.00%
3
0.00%
17.00%
4.85
0.00%
17.00%
zo.00�% o
6.85
0.00%
17.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Gravel
9.65
0.00%
17.00%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
13.65
0.00%
17.00%
19.3
0.00%
17.00%
27.3
5
5.00%
22.00%
38.5
5
5.00%
27.00%
54.5
9
9.00%
36.00%
- -- -
Individual Class Percent
26.00% _ -- - -- - - - --
Cobble
77
20
20.00%
56.00%
109
23
23.00%
79.00%
154
16
16.00%
95.00%
218
5
5.00%
100.00%
Boulder
309
0.00%
100.00%
24.00%
-
437
0.00%
100.00%
22.00%
m 20.00%
--
768
0.00%
100.00%
d 18.00%
16.00%
--
1536
0.00%
100.00%
14.00%
12.o0�% o
10.00 °ro
8.00%
a 6.00%
_
■MY -1 -
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
T
Total
100
100.00%
1
--
--
Summary Data
D50 77
D84 154
D95 154
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
-
-
oo6ry o ^��h ooh 60h <b bb ry�� tea`'
Grain Size (mm)

Pebble Count Exhibit
Mckee Creek Stream Restoration
Cumulative Percent
0.9
Clear Creek Downstream
Riffle
Cumulative
Particle Size Count Percent
i
Percent
Silt Clay
0.062
8
0.08
0.08
0.8
0.0935
0.00%
8.00%
0.7
-
0.1875
3
3.00%
11.00%
0.6
a
t 0.5
2 0.4
__-- . - - -__ - AMY -1 _
Sand
0.375
2
2.00%
13.00%
0.75
1
1.00%
14.00%
1.5
3
3.00%
17.00%
a
-
3
1
1.00%
18.00%
0.3
- -
4.85
8
8.00%
26.00%
0.2
- - --
01
- - - -
6.85
1
1.00%
27.00%
-- -
i
9.65
5
5.00%
32.00%
o
13.65
6
6.00%
38.00%
0.01 0.1 , 10 100 1000 10000
Gravel
19.3
13
13.00%
51.00%
Grain Size (mm)
27.3
3
3.00%
54.00%
38.5
11
11.00%
65.00%
-
54-5
3
3.00%
68.00%
- - - -
Individaul Class Percent
0.16 - -- - - - -._ ,.. - - - -- - -- - - - -i
77
5
5.00%
73.00%
Cobble
109
7
7.00%
80.00%
154
15
15.00%
95.00%
0.14
218
3
3.00%
98.00%
c
-- ------ - - - - --
309
2
2.00%
100.00%
v 0.12
- - - - - - --
Boulder
437
0.00%
100.00%
m
N 0.1
--
768
0.00%
100.00%
"
0.08 -- - - - -- - - -.- ____
v ■MV -,
2
a 0.06 -- - - - - - -- -- -- - --
0.04 - -- -
- 0.02 - --
i
1536
0.00%
100.00%
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
Total
100
100.00%
Summary
Summa Data
0
ooh 5 o-�h 96h ^off �h ^oe rya �e 4,1 a55A A�
D50 19.3
o°oti o9�y ���h o��h Ooh �b6y ��� ��h ^`, �oa�
0 0
D84 154
D95 154
Particle Size (mm)

Planted Acreage
4 44
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Easment Acreage
17.41
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Area
Very limited cover of both woddy and herbaceous material
1 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0
0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,
Pattern and
0
0
0
Low Stem Density Areas
4, or 5 stem count criteria
1 acres
Color
1 0
0
0
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
25 Acres
Pattern and
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
even the morntornn ear
Color
Easment Acreage
17.41
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De action
Number of Combined
Polvqons Acrea a
% of
Easement
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
500 SF
Pattern and
Color
1 0011478421
007%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
None
Pattern and
Color
0 0
0

Photo 1- Veg Plot 1- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 2- Veg Plot 2- Year 1 (2012)

Photo 3- Veg Plot 3- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 4- Veg Plot 4- Year 1 (2012)

0
Photo 5 - Riffle XS 1 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 6- Pool XS 1 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 7- Riffle XS 2- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 8- Pool XS 2 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 9 - Riffle XS 3 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 10 - Pool XS 3 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 11- Photo Point 1- Year 1 (2012)
Photo 12 - Photo Point 2 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 13 - Photo Point 3 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 14 - Photo Point 4 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 15- Photo Point 5 - Year 1 (2012)
Photo 16 - Photo Point 6 - Year 1 (2012)

Photo 17 - Photo Point 7 - Year 1 (2012)

I
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
J

Table 7. Veg Plot Criteria Attainment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
1
Yes
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
Report Prepared By
Daniel Wiebke
Date Prepared
41260 64791
database name
WithersRavenel- 2012 -A mdb
database location
C \Users \Darnel \Desktop
computer name
DANIEL -PC
file size
60686336
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
project(s) and project data
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year
Prod, planted
This excludes live stakes
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This
Prol, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage
percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
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
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------------
Project Code
92573
project Name
McKee Creek
McKee Creek Upstream and Downstream of Peach Orchard and Clear
Description
Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
4

Table 9. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Common Name
Type
Current Data Annual Means
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Current Mean
MY 2 (2013)
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer ne undo
Box Elder
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
125
Betula n► ra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
0
075
1 25
Ca rya s uabca
Water Hickory
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
05
05
Diospyrus virginiana
Persimmon
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
Ol
0
1
Elea gnus umbellate
Autumn Olive
0
0
0
3
0
1 0
0
0
0
075
Frax►nus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
0
0
3
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
Ju lans n► ra
Black Walnut
Tree
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1 75
1 75
L► u►dambar st rac►flua
Sweet um
0
3
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
95
briodenron tul► ►fera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1 0
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
075
075
Plantanus
Sycamore
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
01
0
11
0
025
Platanus occ►dental►s
American Sycamore
Tree
1
1
5
51
1
1
11
10
45
425
Quercus michaux►►
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
1
05
Quercus n► ra
Water Oak
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
Quercus sp
Oak
Shrub Tree
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
05
05
Rhus co allmum
Winged Sumac
1 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
025
Sal►x n► ra
Black Willow
Tree
2
21
0
0
0
0
7
7
225
225
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
0
0
0
01
0
71
0
2
0
225
®-
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0
0
0
0
1
11
3
31
1
1
Plot Area acres
00247
00247
00247
00247
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems Per Acre
4
8
3
8
7
9
5
81
475
825
10
16
10
54
12
20
24
301
14
30
405
648
405
2186
486
810
9721
12151
567
1 1215

Appendix D
Stream Survev Data

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -01
XS -ID
RXS -1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
11/1/2012
Field Crew
I D. Wiebke, D Byrd
Station
Elevation
16.2
58338
18.2
582.17
20.2
580.67
22.2
579.17
24.2
576.88
26.2
576.93
28.2
576.99
30.2
576.76
32.2
576.58
34.2
576.49
36.2
576.56
38.2
576.47
40.2
576.41
42.2
577.38
44.2
577.26
46.2
578.83
46.5
579.17
48.2
581.36
50.2
582.49
51.5
583.38
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
579.248
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
53
Bankfull Width
24.27
Flood Prone Area Elevation
581.928
Flood Prone Width
32
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.76
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.89
W/D Ratio:
12.82
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.32
Bank Height Ratio:
2.53
584.00
583.00
582.00
581.00
L 580.00
= 579.00
578.00
577.00
576.00
10.0
�y,Tfi
Ilk
N _ �a cad �• �'�" sot
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 1
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0
Distance (ft)

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -01
XS -ID
PXS -1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
11/1/2012
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Station
Elevation
12
582.72
14
582.03
16
580.78
17.0
579.43
18
577.58
20
577.37
22
576.91
24
576.05
26
575.82
28
575.53
30
575.59
32
575.77
34
575.98
36
576.87
38
578.42
40
579.43
42
580.33
441
581.78
461
582.72
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
63.68
Bankfull Width
22.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation
583.33
Flood Prone Width
110
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.45
W/D Ratio:
9.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.88
Bank Height Ratio:
1.84
584.00
583.00
582.00
581.00
580.00
L
579.00
x
578.00
577.00
576.00
575.00
10
m
::� � six.:;.,• ,�,,,�� : ��
Ir
Pool Cross Section 1
Left Bank to Ri ht Bank
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
Area
0.95
5
11/1/2012
6
1
Drainage
575.47
8
576.08
9
576.37
10
576.56
12
577.67
14
579.08
15
579.07
16
579.29
18
579.81
Left Bank to Right Bank
5 575.57
Pool Cross Section 2
581.00 - --
580.00 -
-- - - - -- - - --
11 576.96
579.00 - -
-- - - -- - -- - - -- -
13 578.39
x
r 578.00 -
-- - - --- --
577.00
- - -- - --
17 579.47
576.00
- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- -..
19 580.16
575.00
0 2 4
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance (ft)
2 580.16
3 579.44
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.44
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 30.61
Bankfull Width 17
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.41
Field Crew D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Flood Prone Width 150
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.97
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.55
W/D Ratio: 6.66
Entrenchment Ratio: 8.82
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.18
Area
0.95
Date
11/1/2012
6
575.61
2 580.16
3 579.44
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.44
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 30.61
Bankfull Width 17
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.41
Field Crew D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Flood Prone Width 150
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.97
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.55
W/D Ratio: 6.66
Entrenchment Ratio: 8.82
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.18
4
575.47
6
575.61
7
575.47
8
576.08
9
576.37
10
576.56
12
577.67
14
579.08
15
579.07
16
579.29
18
579.81
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.44
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 30.61
Bankfull Width 17
Flood Prone Area Elevation 583.41
Field Crew D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Flood Prone Width 150
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.97
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.55
W/D Ratio: 6.66
Entrenchment Ratio: 8.82
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.18

Cross- section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -01
XS -ID
RXS -2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
11/1/2012
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Station
Bankfull Elevation
3
580.84
4
580.09
5
579.50
6
579.33
7
578.86
8
578.41
9
578.43
10
578.41
11
578.58
12
578.68
13
578.79
14
578.98
15
579.49
16
579.82
17
579.94
18
580.13
19
580.35
20
580.64
21
580.84
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
580.84
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
25.85
Bankfull Width
18
Flood Prone Area Elevation
583.27
Flood Prone Width
150
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.43
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.36
W/D Ratio:
13.23
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.33
Bank Height Ratio:
1
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 2
581.00 --
580.50 _ - --
580.00
x
579.50
.a
X
579.00 - -
578.50
578.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
r1

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
5
578.47
6
577.96
7
578.04
8
577.91
9
577.93
10
578.01
11
577.97
12
578.17
13
578.50
14
578.71
15
579.21
16
579.59
17
579.73
18
579.87
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 3
580.00 --
579.50 - - - -
-
$ 579.00
Os t MY -I
= 578.50
578.00
577.50
0 5
10
15 20
Distance (ft)
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.87
XS -ID RXS -3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 21.02
Drainage Area 0.95
Bankfull Width 17
Date 11/1/2012
Flood Prone Area Elevation 581.83
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 1.96
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.11
W/D Ratio: 15.37
Entrenchment Ratio: 14.71
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
578.91
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.87
XS -ID RXS -3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 21.02
Drainage Area 0.95
Bankfull Width 17
Date 11/1/2012
Flood Prone Area Elevation 581.83
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 1.96
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.11
W/D Ratio: 15.37
Entrenchment Ratio: 14.71
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1
0
579.87
1
579.67
2
579.28
3
578.91
4
578.71
5
578.47
6
577.96
7
578.04
8
577.91
9
577.93
10
578.01
11
577.97
12
578.17
13
578.50
14
578.71
15
579.21
16
579.59
17
579.73
18
579.87
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -01
Bankfull Elevation 579.87
XS -ID RXS -3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 21.02
Drainage Area 0.95
Bankfull Width 17
Date 11/1/2012
Flood Prone Area Elevation 581.83
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 1.96
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.11
W/D Ratio: 15.37
Entrenchment Ratio: 14.71
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
Elevation
1 5
579.14
2 5
578.68
3 5
578.87 f
}�
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Watershed
Clear MY -01
XS -ID
PXS -3
Drainage Area
0.95
Data
11/1/2012
Le Bank to Right Bank
Pool Cross Section 3
579.50 -
-
--
579.00
578.00
x
577.50
•d t MY -1
= 577.00
16
579.14
576.50
s7s.00
575.50
0 2 4
6 8 10 12
14 16 18
Distance (ft)
Station E
Elevation
1 5
579.14
2 5
578.68
3 5
578.87 f
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, D. Byrd
Station E
Elevation
1 5
579.14
2 5
578.68
3 5
578.87 f
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation 579.43
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 27 27
Bankfull Width 15
Flood Prone Area Elevation 582.89
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.46
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 3.46
W/D Ratio: 8.8
Entrenchment Ratio: 16.67
Bank Height Ratio: 1
0
0

Pebble Count Exhibit
Mckee Creek Stream Resotration
McKee Creek
10000%
Mckee Creek
Riffle
9000%
Particle
Size
Count
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
8000%
7000%
Silt Clay
0 062
000%
000%
Sand
00935
000%
000%
4) 60 00%
01875
6
545%
545%
5
a
°i°
0 375
000%
545%
0 so oo
20 4000%
3000%
AMY -1
075
2
182%
727%
1 5
000%
727%
Gravel
3
000%
727%
2000%
485
000%
727%
685
2
182%
9 09%
1000%
965
2
182%
10 91 %
000%
001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
1365
2
182%
1273%
193
12
10 91 %
2364%
273
12
10 91 %
3455%
385
12
10 91 %
4545%
545
18
1636%
6182%
Individual Class Percent
Cobble
77
12
1091%
7273%
109
14
1273%
8545%
154
2
182%
87270
1800%
1600%
218
8
727%
9455%
Boulder
309
6
545%
10000%
c 1400%
437
000%
10000%
a °i°
768
000%
10000%
12 oo
a
1000
1536
000%
10000%
to
800%
—
- --
■MY 11
Bedrock
2048
000%
10000%
Total
110
10000%
v 600%
Summa Data
D50 38 5
D84 109
D95 309
— — — - --
400%
200%
000%
LO LO to LO
o rn m rni CO CO " m m CO n ro v n o u� 00 o ani ro M v
0 0 V 0 o v rn N M N M d r r N
0 o Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count Exhibit
Mckee Creek Stream Resotratlon
Clear Creek Upstream
Riffle
Particle Size Count Percent Cumulative
Percent
Sand
0 1875
5
500%
1700%
0 375
154
000%
1700%
075
000%
1700%
1 5
2400%
000%
1700%
Gravel
3
000%
1700%
485
000%
1700%
685
u
000%
17000
965
000%
1700%
1365
m
a
000%
1700%
193
000%
1700%
273
5
500%
2200%
385
5
500%
2700%
545
9
900%
3600%
Cobble
77
20
2000%
5600%
109
23
2300%
7900%
154
16
1600%
9500%
218
5
500%
10000%
Boulder
309
000%
10000%
437
000%
10000%
768
000%
10000%
1536
000%
100000,10
Bedrock
2048
LE
000%
100 00%
Total
1
100
10000%
Summary Data
D50
77
D84
154
D95
154
Cumulative Percent
10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
d
6000%
LL
E 5000%
d AMY -1
m 4000%
IL
3000%
2000%
1000%
000%
001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
2600%
_
2400%
c
2200%
u
2000%
m
a
1800%
U)
1600%
1400%
■MY -1
U
1200%
1000%
m
800%
v
c
600%
LE
400%
200%
0 00 %°
6L 1� `5
3 0h 6h
Grain Size (mm)

Pebble Count Exhibit
cee Creek Stream Reston
Clear Creek Downstream
Particle Size Count Percent Cumulative
Percent
Silt Clay
0 062
8
008
008
Sand
00935
000%
800%
01875
3
300%
1100%
0 375
2
200%
1300%
075
1
100%
1400%
1 5
3
300%
1700%
Gravel
3
1
100%
1800%
485
8
800%
2600%
685
1
100%
2705%
965
5
500%
3200%
1365
6
600%
3800%
193
13
1300%
5100%
273
3
300%
5400%
385
11
1100%
6500%
545
3
300%
6800%
Cobble
77
5
500%
7300%
109
7
700%
8000%
154
15
1500%
9500%
218
3
300%
9800%
Boulder
309
2
200%
10000%
437
000%
10000%
768
000%
10000%
1536
1
000%
10000%
Bedrock
2048
000%
10000%
Total
100
1 10000%
I Summary Data I
� � J
Cumulative Percent
� - �$�"v,+,s���y4a;.. •i d „, rr; y �s ,4R ^q t} „e, �,r t-,,.�o-'',� ,. . w ��' �lZ�j3gy,- v���,'q',F-- 'a�"�",`` "�
09 Y
08 - s�f�' 4' Lekw'” i�ldi:, �erv1�'. �iie' ��*.. i'>.., ,..1.;?i^SFp.:,i�— '_'�°4'�i�,�t fdi �iYd�1R '��- au?:X�.v�a:�..lr " "f7i "6u Je
07 %M" <k +m M is
d05 ' tr b_ ro� AMY -1
wv +-err '},
04 r�uS�ixx.iY,ruratmtt, s v�p��F:'��aac r"ri Fri
03
02
001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
Individaul Class Percent

Longitudinal Profile Plot
McKee Reach 1
592
590
588
586
584
o i —s Thalweg MY -1
582 - WS MY -1
CO 580
578
576
574
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000
Elevation (ft)

Longitudinal Profile Plot
McKee Reach 2
579
578
577
576
0
> 575
m
w
574
573
572
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400
Station (ft)
1
i
--♦— Thalweg MY -1
�- WS MY -1
w �..

Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile Plot
Clear Creek
582
580
Y� .`
lvx
578
- -- - —
�
G
576
y
a
- � r
>
-�— Thalweg MY -1 F.
-
-
d
574
w
—s— WS MY -1
r
�``°>SF+/!�- ",M�`6F
- -- - - - - --
572
—
- -- - -- - --
570
. _ .. ... �,' • _
'n
�T' �
568 -
1000 1200 1400
1600 1800 2000 2200
2400 2600 2800 3000
Station (ft)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Mckee -Reach 1
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Des i n
Monitorin
Baseline
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
27.5
31.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
75
160
75
160
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
fled
1 Bankfull Max Depth (fl)
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.2
77.6
Width /Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
5.5
2.4
5.2
1Bank Height Rati
1
2.1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 1.9 4.5 1.9 3.3
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft) 3.1 6.4 5.2 7.7
Pool Spacing (ft) 50 205 123.9 216.9
Pattern
65 145 93
139
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
48 195 62
1
108
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
27.5 31.8 31
Meander Wavelength (ft)
101 305 235 350
Meander Width Ratio
2.2 5 2 4.5
Transport parameters
0.52
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
4 5 45
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 45
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E4 C4
4.4 -5.0 4.1
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
350
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.28
1.16
0.0029
0.0032
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft
)
0.0029
0.0032
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
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 the n exceeds 3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary -KZ
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Mckee -Reach 2
Parameter
Gauge2 Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
Monitoring
Baseline
Dimension and Substrata - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.5
26.8
31 -9
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
75
2.1
160
2.8
75
2.6
160
i Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.2
77.6
80
Width /Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
12
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
5.5
2.4
5.2
I Bank Height Rab
1
2.1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
101
305
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0055
0.0131
0.0061
00106
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
6.5
45
6.5
180
5.3
127.7
8
223.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
135 240 96 287
Radius of Curvature (ft)
95 240 64 144
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
25.5 26.8 31.9
208 377 243 477
Meander Width Ratiol
5 9.2 3 9
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.33 0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 45 45
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
4.0 -4.5
350
C4
41
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.5
0.0027
1.17
0.0027
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope ( ft/ft)
0.0018
0.0018
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
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- secmon surveys and the longttudmal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line wvh the project reach (added bankfull venfication - rare)
3 Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull Floodplam area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace nser /slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for compansoo to monitoring data. 5 . Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary -R2
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Clear Creek
Parameter JGauge21 Regional Curve Pre - Existing Condition Design Dixon Branch
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
18ankfull Max Depth (ft)
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
11.5
50
1.3
3.7
Med
Max
16.7
150
2
6.1
SD5
n
Min
90
2.2
Med
17.3
1.4
Max
190
2.5
Min
7.9
35
0.8
2
Med
Max
13.9
100
1.4
2.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width /Depth Ration
Entrenchment Ratiol
21.8
5.8
3.8
24.8
12.8
11.3
5.2
25
12
11
11.3
5.4
3.1
13.2
10.8
8.9
1Bank Height Rati
1.4
2.3
1
1.1
1.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0059
0.0084
0.0061
0.0106
0.012
0.018
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
2.8
57.5
3.3
116.9
5.3
127.7
8
223.6
2.1
10
2.5
45
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
35 47 52 78 29 50
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
15 25 35 52 6 22
11.5 16.7 17.3 7.9 13.9
Meander Wavelength (ft) 45 75 132 196 48 85
Meander Width Ratiot 3.4 5.6 3 4.5 4.3 7.6
Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E /C5
C4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-
3.3 -3.9
3.6
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
89
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
1.21
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0042
0.0042
0.0071
0.0032
0.0055
0.0055
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
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 fioodplain 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 the n exceeds 3

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
rameter Distributions)
Parameter Pre Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As- built/Baseline
nero.s�wwra9u,s[9Y' S c%€"'^'sR"\
071 2781 4941 8321109
071 2781 4941 83 21109 5
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step, Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the Gasses indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each Gass in the table This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 1,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates In the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre - existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- constrution distnbubon of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at nffles beyond those subject to cross - sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, BanK, ana Myaroiogic contalnment rarameter v15Lrluuttv111sy
McKee Creek Pro'ect # 92573
Parameter Pre- Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As- built/Baseline
1Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /So/
I
1 SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% I Be'
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
110
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
110
]
2Entrenchment Class <1,5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.04 9 15.0-9.9 / >1
I
1
1,
1
31nclsion Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 11.5-1.99 / >2.
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the Gasses indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of e
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- constrution distribution of the
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

r "1
Parameter
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Pre - Existing Condition
0 351 071 121 321 6
Reference Reach(es) Data I Design
041 1 31 31 141 18
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step, Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, dip = max pave disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the Gasses indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual esbmates in the field such that measurement of e
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre - existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions
ER and BHR have been addressed in pnor submissions as a subsample (cross - sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirety on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- constrution distribution of the
the reach This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons
As- built/Baseline

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —Cross Sections)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Cross Section 1 (Riffle -1)
Cross Section 2 (Pool
-1)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle -2)
Base MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Ineybankfullelevatlonl
Record elevation (datum) used
15834
15827
15808
Bankfull Width (ft)
12427
12253
18
Floodprone Width (ft)
160
160
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
189
245
1136
Bankfull Max Depth (ft )
27
3 9
2 43
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
53
63 68
30 61
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
1282
9 2
13 23
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
659
71
8 82
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
253
184
1
Record elevation (datum) ut
Bankfull Width
Floodorone Width
Bankfull Mean Dept'
Bankfull Max Dept
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Bankfull Width /Depth F
Bankfull Entrenchment F
Bankfull Bank Height I
Cross Sectional Area between end pins
d50 (
Cross Section 6 -..
Cross Section 4 (Pool-2) Cross Section 6 (Riffle-3)
Record elevation (datum) u:
Bankfull Width
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Bankfull Width /Depth R
Bankfull Entrenchment R
Bankfull Bank Height R
Record elevation (datum) ue
Bankfull Width
Floodorone Width
Bankfull Mean Dept
Bankfull Max Dept
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Bankfull Width /Depth F
Bankfull Entrenchment I
Bankfull Bank Height I
Cross Sectional Area between end pins
d50 (
b 1 d�
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 snouia oe consistent ano oaseu U11 Lite ase ine
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 cor
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 "
2 = Based on the elevation of any dominant depositional feature that develops and is observed at the time of survey If the baseline datum remains the only significant depositional feature
then these two sets of dimensional parameters will be equal, however, if another depositional feature of significance develops above or below the baseline bankfull datum then this should be tracked and quantified in these cells

McKee Creek Pro.'&qL4 92573 McKee Creek- Reach I
Parameter
Baseline
BankfullW i—d-
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)l
lBankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (U)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio:
®®
=
-
_
-
_
_
_
=
=
®_
_
=
=
=
_
=
_
Riffle Slope ftft)�
Pool Max depth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Additional R*ach Parameters
'• •- •
slope
BF •
Channel 2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
.• or • _ Metric
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not oe miea in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
Parameter
Baseline
&IM—Ons-Ion and Substrate - Riffle only
•••• • ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
-'-• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
�'•
Bankfull • Sectional . '_ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
_ iiii
Width/Depth •
Ratio
•
-Length
- '••'
-•• -•
- ••_•'•
iiiiiiii
©p00iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
-•••_
iiiiii
®
®m
®m0iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Chann :- iiiiii
R_ width
.
Meander Ratio
Rosgen Classification,
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Water Slope (Channel)
Surface
,
:..-
=-
i
iiiii
iiii_
=
=iiiiiiiiiiiiiii��iiiiii�
... .:..•
of Reach Eroding Banks
Channel ..
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not oe miea in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave

Exhibit Table 11 b. ... Data
Project McKee Creek
Baseline
Dimension and Substrate iffleonly
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
1 Banmll Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (U)
Width/Depth Ratio
113�nk Height Rata
Riffle -Length (ft)
RiffleSlope
Pool Max depth (ft)
Channel Beltm
Meander Wavelength (ft)
'Additional Reach
.-
..
HIM
NIM
HIM
11M
11M
Sinuosity (ft)
IM
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
..
NINE=-
—
EMIMIM
HIM
11M
IM-
ME
HIM
— 11M
Biol gical or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

I
Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 12 Crest Gauge Readings
Gauge
Year WSE Bankfull
CG1
MY1 -2012 581.2 Over Bf
CG2
MY1 -2012 580.8 Slightly below Bf
CG3
MY1 -2012 576.8 -Bf
Harrisburg Rainfall Data
■ Harrisburg Rainfall Data
8
7
- -- _
-
6
c
--
5
_
0
a
4
a
2
0
Dec -11 Jan -12 Feb -12 Mar -12 Apr -12 May- Jun -12 Jul -12 Aug -12 Sep -12 Oct -12 Nov -12 Dec -12
12
Month