20071890 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20140918

Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project
Polk County, North Carolina
2014 Closeout Report
Lat: 35.19904, Long: - 82.174988
CONTRACT NUMBER: D06027 -A; PROJECT TYPE: Stream, NCEEP IMS #92516
USACE ACTION ID #: SAW- 2007 - 03874; NCDWQ Project: 401 #07 -1890
Project Setting and Classifications
County
Polk
General Location
Tryon, NC
Basin
Broad
Physiographic Region
Piedmont Province - Borders Blue
Ridge Escarpment
Ecoregion
Southern Inner Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit
03050105- 150020
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -08 -06
Wetland Classification
Aug -10
Thermal Regime
Cool
Trout Water
Trout County, Not Trout Water
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -12
Project Performers
Jun -12
Source Agency
EEP
Provider
Michael Baker Corporation
Designer
Michael Baker Corporation
Monitoring Firm
Michael Baker Corporation
Channel Remediation
River Works
Plant Remediation
River Works
Property Interest Holder
State of NC
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
Jun -06
Permitted
Dec -07/ Jan -08
Construction
May-08
As -built (Year 0
Monitoring — baseline)
Dec -08
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -09
Repairs /Beaver Dam
Removal
Jun -10
Year 2 Monitoring
Aug -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -11
Repairs/Invasives
Treatment
Apr -12
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -12
Invasives Treatment
Jun -12
Year 5 Monitoring
Jun -13
Beaver Dam Removal
Jul -13
Invasives Treatment
Jul -13
Closeout Submission
Aug -13
Repair at last meander
Feb -14

PROJECT SETTING AND BACKGROUND
The Blockhouse Creek project site is located within the Foothills Equestrian Nature Center (FENCE),
approximately three miles east of Tryon, in Polk County, North Carolina. Since the late 1980s, the
project area has been used as an equestrian/recreational complex. Surrounding lands are currently used
for pasture land, hay production and residential use. Prior to the establishment of an equestrian and
nature center, the FENCE property was used for agriculture activities and timber production. At that
time, riparian buffers were removed and streams were channelized. More recent development in the
watershed has resulted in additional changes to Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries. Construction of the
equestrian facility, nature trails and Interstate 26 has required the installation of bridged and culverted
stream crossings that have been detrimental to stream stability. These structures have impacted the flow
pattern and velocity of the project streams, resulting in changes to the cross - sectional area, and often
facilitating the deepening of the channel. This deepening of the channel resulted in the streams becoming
incised and losing their connection to the adjacent floodplain.
This project involved restoration, enhancement or preservation of 6,305 linear feet (LF) of four on -site
streams: Blockhouse Creek and three smaller unnamed tributaries (UTs) identified in the project as UT 1,
UT2, and UT3. In accordance with the approved restoration plan for the site, construction activities
began in January 2008 and ended in June 2008. Project activity on Blockhouse Creek and UT1 and UT2
consisted of making adjustments to channel dimension, pattern, and profile. A primary design
consideration for this project was to allow stream flows larger than bankfull events to spread onto a
floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing streambank stress. The design for most of the
restoration reaches involved a priority II approach with the construction of new, meandering channels
across a floodplain that was excavated to the elevation of the creek. The lower part of Blockhouse Creek
Reach 4 was not incised and did not require this approach. Along this section the overly sinuous channel
was realigned in a more stable pattern at the existing elevation. Native vegetation was planted across the
site and the entire mitigation site is protected through a permanent conservation easement.
Project Goals and Objectives
The goals for the Blockhouse Creek mitigation project are as follows:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries.
• Restore hydrologic connections between creek and floodplain.
• Improve the water quality of Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
To achieve these goals, design objectives of the project included:
• Restoration or enhancement of channel dimension, pattern and profile;
• Improvements to water quality in the Blockhouse Creek watershed through nutrient removal, sediment
removal, improved recreational opportunities, streambank stability, and erosion control;
• Improved water quantity/flood attenuation through water storage and flood control, reduction in
downstream flooding due to the reconnection of stream and floodplain, improved ground water
recharge, and improved and restored hydrologic connections; and
• Enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats through improved substrate and instream cover, addition
of woody debris, reduction in water temperature due to shading, restoration of terrestrial habitat,
increase of spatial extent of natural area, and improved aesthetics.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Success Criteria
Parameter
Quantit
Frequency
Performance Standards
Cross - section measurements should indicate
little change from the as -built cross - sections. If
As per April 2003 USACE
changes do occur, they will be evaluated to
Annual for 5 years
Dimension
Wilmington District Stream
determine whether the adjustments are
Mitigation Guidelines
post construction
associated with increased stability or whether
they indicate movement towards an unstable
condition.
Measurements and calculated values should
indicate stability with little deviation from as-
built conditions and established morphological
ranges for the restored stream type. Pool
As per April 2003 USACE
Annual for 5 years
depths may vary from year to year, but the
Pattern and Profile
Wilmington District Stream
post construction
majority should maintain depths sufficient to be
Mitigation Guidelines
observed as distinct features in the profile. .
The pools should maintain their depth with
flatter water surface slopes, while the riffles
should remain shallower and steeper.
Calculated Dso and D84 values should indicate
coarser size class distribution of bed materials in
As per April 2003 USACE
riffles and finer size class distribution in pools.
Annual for 5 years
Substrate
Wilmington District Stream
The majority of riffle pebble counts should
Mitigation Guidelines
post construction
indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate
distributions. Generally, it is anticipated that
the bed material will coarsen overtime.
A Crest Gauge will be installed on site; the
device will be inspected on a semi - annual basis
As per April 2003 USACE
to document the occurrence of bankfull events
Surface Water
Annual for 5 years
Wilmington District Stream
on the project. The project should demonstrate
Hydrology
post construction
Mitigation Guidelines
at least two (2) bankfull events over the five
year monitoring term in separate calendar
years.
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be
conducted for a minimum of five years to
ensure that success criteria are met per USACE
guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will
Quantity and location of
consist of a minimum survival of 320 stems per
vegetation plots
Annual for 5 years
acre by the end of the Year 3 monitoring period
Vegetation
determined in consultation
post construction
and a minimum of 260 stems per acre at the
p
with EEP
end of Year 5. If monitoring indicates either
that the specified survival rate is not being met
or the development of detrimental conditions
(i.e., invasive species, diseased vegetation),
appropriate corrective actions will be developed
and implemented.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Exotic and nuisance
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP ID #92516
Project
Units
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation and
MY1
2009
MY2
2010
Annual for 5 years
MY4
2012
vegetation and
Criteria
Met
Bankfull Events
Recorded
the occurrence of beaver dams will be noted
Beaver
2
post construction
and removed to the extent possible.
1
1
Yes
Locations of vegetation damage, boundary
16
✓
Semi - Annual for 5
✓
Project Boundary
✓
✓
encroachments, etc. will be noted and
Longitudinal Profile
5,131 LF
years post connt.
remediated to the extent possible.
Blockhouse Creek Miti ation Project: Success Criteria
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP ID #92516
Project
Units
MYO
2008
MY1
2009
MY2
2010
MY3
2011
MY4
2012
MY5
2013
Criteria
Met
Bankfull Events
Recorded
A bankfull
event
Wetland
2
1
2
1
1
Yes
Cross - Sections
16
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Yes
Longitudinal Profile
5,131 LF
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Yes
Bed Material Analysis
Mean
Particle
Size (mm)
Yes
Blockhouse Cr. Reach 1
Existing
d50
2
10
28
21
19
12
Footage
d84
26
32
152
82
60
21
Blockhouse Cr. Reach 4
d50
2
9
23
21
32
88
1,070 LF
d84
26
101
191
113
135
137
UT1
d50
- --
21
47
16
16
- --
R
d84
- --
59
154
96
76
- --
Vegetation Assessment
Mean Stem
Count/Acre
764
620
680
647
639
599
Yes
* Bankfull measurements in MY5 likely influenced by presence of numerous beaver dams on mainstem; measurements not
recorded. Pebble count on UT1 not recorded in MY5 due to riffle being inundated by sand from backwater of beaver dam.
* Totals do not include live stakes.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP ID #92516
Mitigation Credit Summation
Stream
Riparian
Non - riparian
Buffer
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Wetland
Wetland
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Overall
Credit
5,644
0
0
0
0
0
Project Components
Restoration
Reach ID
Stationing
Existing
Footage
Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Footage
Level
Ratio
Credits
Blockhouse
0 +00 to
Cr. Reach 1
10 +70
887 LF
1,070 LF
R
R
1:1
1,070
Blockhouse
10 +70 to
Cr. Reach 2
14 +14
340 LF
340 LF
R
R
1:1
340
Blockhouse
14 +34 to
Cr. Reach 3
25 +29
1,077 LF
950 LF
E
EI
1.5:1
633
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Blockhouse
Cr. Reach 4
28 +37 to
45 +50
1,821 LF
1,780 LF
R
R
1:1
1,780
UT 1
0 to 11 +84
540 LF
580 LF
R
R
1:1
580
UT 2
0 to 5 +88
1,224 LF
1,155 LF
R
R
1:1
1,155
UT 3
0 to 4 +30
430 LF
1 430 LF
P
P
5:1
86
Length and Area Summations
Restoration
Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer
Upland
(acres)
Restoration
4,925
0
0
0
Enhancement
0
0
0
0
Enhancement
I
950
0
0
0
Enhancement
II
0
0
0
0
0
Creation
0
0
0
0
0
Preservation
430
0
0
0
* Watershed Size at downstream end of reach.
* All CE cut out crossings have been removed from the asset totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

I Q3-1
r--,,, A
X V
2707 --- - --- 61-T
wht-
(
<
j
74
h
UT3
IJ
Reach 1 5
U
A
to
"'Z •
UT1
Reach 4
Reach 2 C)
LAW
tP— No4t"'CAR0Ln'— 3 4
so
Q
J, V.
J
mar
ud'a;
C3
Source: Raster Image of USGS 1:24,000 Topographic Quad Map
Projected Coordinate System: NAD_1983 StatePlane North Carolina_FIPS-3200
Projection: Lambert_ Conformal-Conic
Project Reach Map 2. USGS Topographic Map
Polk Conservation Easement Blockhouse Creek
County Project Watershed
74 Restoration Project
7
0
2,000 4,000
North rolina Feet
Project Site South Carolina
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING. INC. PAGE 6
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE r
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

w V
1t�i • f" , r � ,
j
10 +00
.sat Orr *.*'JL4
A "ruAAF'
F9
Data Type: ArcGIS Map Service
Connection: Internet
Server: http: // services .arcgisonline.com /arcgis /services
Name: World_lmagery
Legend N 0 100 200 400 Map 4A. Repairs and Maintenance above 1 -26.
W E
�-
- Conservation Easement Boundary - YR3 Feet
Top of Bank s See Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project: Post-
- YR4 Construction Repairs, Maintenance, and Beaver
F,Cosystem YR1 - YR5 Dam Removal Table for repair and maintenance
YR2 information.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Data Type: ArcGIS Map Service
Connection: Internet
Server: http: // services .arcgisonline.com /arcgis /services
Name: World_Imagery
w
Legend N 0 100 200 400 Map 4B. Repairs and Maintenance below 1 -26.
�-E
- Conservation Easement Boundary YR3 Feet
s See Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project: Post -
Top of Bank - YR4 Construction Repairs, Maintenance, and Beaver
Flos stem - YR1 - YR5 Dam Removal Table for repair and maintenance
q.ti1 �(A YR2 information.
.'W I 'AM
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE £
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project: Post- Construction Repairs, Maintenance, and Beaver Dam Removal
MYl
Station
Issue: Suspected Cause
Repairs/Maintenance Performed
14 +31
Sandbag Weir
Structure within easement break has potential to affect
channel and bank stabilization efforts if it fails. Requested
FENCE remove it.
42 +38
Soil Subsidence
Minor repair behind rootwad. To remedy the problem, 10
to 14 inch rock was placed at the base of the hole and this
was covered with a geotextile, backfilled, re- seeded and the
area was matted.
M Y2
Station
Issue: Suspected Cause
Repairs/Maintenance Performed
2 +15
Scour -Flood events
Minor hole on flood lain filled.
3 +80
Scour- Flood events
Bank reshaped and livestaked.
5 +22
Scour- Flood events
Minor repair of bank at end of geolift.
6 +40
Scour- Flood events
Large hole on floodplain filled.
11 +10
Scour- Flood events
Geolift installed to address bank failure.
12 +65
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal.
14 +31
Sandbag Weir
While no structures have been adversely impacted by the
dam, much of Reach 2 is now a pool.
16 +10
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal.
16 +90
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal.
19 +65
Bank erosion- Flood events
Additional livestakes added.
20 +72
Fallen tree
Removal of fallen tree.
22 +75
Flood events
Reset boulders under tree and in grade control structure.
23 +45
Flood events
Install grade control structure.
25 +26
Scour- Flood events
Reset boulders under tree and re- install grade control
structure.
33 +33
Scour- Flood events
Extend geolift to address bank failure.
35 +35
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal.
37 +90
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal.
41 +00
Bank erosion- Flood events
Sloping, matting and livestakin .
41 +20
Bank erosion- Flood events
Install geolift to address small bank failure.
42 +17
Overland flow and bank erosion
Repair area behind rootwad, matting, install more
livestakes.
42 +70
Minor bank erosion- Flood events
Sloping, matting and livestakin .
44 +40
Minor bank erosion- Flood
events
Sloping, matting and livestakin .
MY3
Station
Issue: Suspected Cause
Repairs/Maintenance Performed
44 +25
Bank seepage
Minor re- grading to repair area behind rootwad, matting,
install more livestakes.
MY4
Station
Issue: Suspected Cause
Repairs/Maintenance Performed
44 +25
Bank seepage /flooding
Minor re- grading to repair area below rootwad, installation
of pipe in bank to carry seepage through structure, matting,
install more livestakes. Bankfull flood within 5 days
destroyed repair work.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project: Post - Construction Repairs, Maintenance, and Beaver Dam Removal
MY5
Station
Issue: Suspected Cause
Repairs/Maintenance Performed
9 +00
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal in April
11+00
Beaver habitation in p ro'ect site
Beaver dam removal in April
15 +00
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal in April
16 +50
Beaver habitation in p ro'ect site
Beaver dam removal in April
17 +50
Beaver habitation in project site
Beaver dam removal in April
36 +10
Beaver habitation in p ro'ect site
Beaver dam removal in April
44 +25
Bank seepage /flooding
Re- grading to repair area below rootwad, installation of pipe
in bank to carry seepage through structure, Geolift installed
to stabilize bank.
Upstream of
0 +00 & at
18 +50-
19 +10(Outside
of Easement)
Extreme flood conditions,
deteriorated culverts and beaver
blockages within culverts
IMPACT NOT WITHIN EASEMENT: Major flooding
caused the collapse of large culverts under steeplechase
track. Only impact to project was from downstream
sedimentation. Sediment transport moved most through
with some deposition on floodplain. See Flood photos
below.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

�E -CE
—
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
❑
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
_
=
XS
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
SECTION
CROSS SE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION
Joao
yid
�]
PHOTO ID POINT
■
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
z�aaLL
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
n
E CE CE SCE SCE CE ����, z'
D� \
E CE CE —� so — �, F
E
� xD�zD m s.aa BxPo � W o
VEGETATION
PLOT 1 W 10 O W m Q
x 5 ss Bx� CL
V y o s +oo 9 +�0 of Z= N
vEGETAna+ _ v O W
�.
ONEYSUCN / \ 4 +50 5 ��� ^ 3C� 3C LL
xst \i 3�1- Y w LL
o +so , +oD oo s s 3�- W o 2 0
.Mu F-- O
3C— 3C-��30 3C 3C 3C I
3C� 30—
rJ
E
�z
a�loz
a�m��a
Q�LL
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW w
YEAR 5 MONITORING 92516
109276
STA. 0 +00 -10 +00 Dam-
6/13/2013
DESIGNED:
DRAWN. MDR
N
a ,P , Page 12

CE �E
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
❑
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR/EROSION
o�N
�N
—
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
i
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
_
O O
z
n
XS
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
..
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
._,... _
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEG RADATION�AGGRADATION
UO=
wouoo
dam',
;, mo=-
o
w��
ZD
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
OO }Z}
U w Z
o
0
PHOTO ID POINT
©
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)wi
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
=`m
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PLOT
■
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING/CALVING/COLLAPSE
%S4 ryx� \ IxSp HONEYSUCKLE ti'CE -CE - %SS �E -CE -CE
k lJ � iOrSo
�CRESi CE 4 +50 17 +00 I6 00 BB Op
77�CE 16 +50
5 +50
11 00 YEC{TATON �_ 1 50
!� PLOT 3
3J 3C— 30 GET
VEAN
PLOT TO 4
\3C 30 3030 30 30
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -19 +00
Q�LL
. �—z�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC Page 13
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
D
n
S
U Z
D
y
i
_
O O
z
n
Lu I
Wa¢
m
..
._,... _
UO=
D
o
w��
ZD
ID
OO }Z}
U w Z
o
CD SCE SCE
m a
%S4 ryx� \ IxSp HONEYSUCKLE ti'CE -CE - %SS �E -CE -CE
k lJ � iOrSo
�CRESi CE 4 +50 17 +00 I6 00 BB Op
77�CE 16 +50
5 +50
11 00 YEC{TATON �_ 1 50
!� PLOT 3
3J 3C— 30 GET
VEAN
PLOT TO 4
\3C 30 3030 30 30
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -19 +00
Q�LL
. �—z�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC Page 13
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT

CE -CE
—
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
❑
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
XS
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION
tJ
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PLOT
■
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
P =�
-CE -CE -C
-
�CE CE _
M1X
p ,gt50 ZO +pO y0 jT
'� ry0k\
300-- 330--- 3C J
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
im
FCE SCE SCE SCE
19
o I e
23 +op xyo
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 19 +0028 +00
D
n
� �oVao
f i°�aLL
1
H Q
U Z
W J
y 0
K
K _ U
O
w�0
OO }Z}
U W Z
O Of =1
BE
� O
rn a
y�.
111
a`Z m
� 6
UQ�LL
Cni
611 312 01 3
DESIGNED
DRAWN MDR
3 of 7
Page 14

CE -CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT © VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ❑ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
ASBUILT CENTERLINE INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION - m�
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK `- im2
XS ■ VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) `$dupe
CROSS SECTION BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION
F0 PHOTO ID POINT d Is
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) �r
® (ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA) ■ STRUCTURE PROBLEM x
VEGETATION PLOT ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
n
50 C
>
� - - - - - -- q \\(( PLOTS 0 „
> 1
O
+f
KUON r 2
cn 00
Z
U Z
D W Q
a
0
N x° UO=
+ 6 � O
O
O0z
CE CIE r_3 /// 0 W
v M
U
m20
*Op CE /CE fs 7 . X Y
v� E
\
�P OT 7 l
2, °0 22
3C \ 3°
32 +50 / 13 `' • IJW � F..
3p *ao xs1 V
PLOT XS6
JV gF
m
sw
G Q�LL
92516
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK ef,o92,6
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW o8 e6/13/2013
YEAR 5 MONITORING DESIGNED
DPP Q
APPRO ROVED'.
30 30 60 STA. 28- 00 -37 +00 M °” 59of e5 M
Shee[
SCALE FT 4 of 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC Page 15
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT

CE CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ❑ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) �o�m
ASBUILT CENTERLINE INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR EROSION
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
XS ■VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
CROSS mzog
OSS SECTION BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION d
�0 PHOTO ID POINT =smm
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) ,= w
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA) STRUCTURE PROBLEM
VEGETATION PLOT ■ ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA UNDERCUT BANKS
■STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
D —
SE —
S
r
Z - --
___________
fn
W J
w Y O X
XsN W a
° CE �,E E CE CE CE CE 0 o
E CE E CE CE
W H 0
o
BANK SLUMPING /COLIAPBE O Z
�0 G9 O>
qD +oD � a2+ X O o y � F
U W Z
KUDZU 32 O
8 x m
20
S
NSB / REBT �% o Y
39 +00 y9� P WT \ yp CgpE F- d
O
�, Sp ON
NECETA
m 11 4)xp0 X59 �� T
KUDN 2I �[ 29 PLOT T v *$
Zfi •.`
W 31
30
30�
33—�
� amts
3
cni
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK 92516
CURRENT CON DTION PLAN VIEW a 19276
YEAR 5 MONITORING e 013
DESIGNED: GNED:
STA. 37+00-46+15 APP-ON mm
30 0 30 fi0 N Y.-
�5 of 5
SCALE FT �L5 of 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC Page 16
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORI

�E —CE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
—
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
■STREAM
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
XS
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■STREAM
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
CROSS SECTION
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
[�]0
PHOTO ID POINT
❑
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PLOT
El
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
M
x5,o CE CE
a CE
x
❑STREAM
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION
■STREAM
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■STREAM
UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
v
30' 30-- 30— 30--30—/ 30-- �_ 3� 30�
UT1
CURRENT CONDTION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 0 +005 +88
d
ON
U Z
W J
0 o
K
a
Uo� M }}
Y � Z
oLUM
m¢o
co a
IL
E
gz
LL�o�
Q�LL
o;Zw U NDR
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT Page 17
CLOSEOUT REPORT

CE CE
XS
Et
11
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
©
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
❑
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEGRADATION / AGGRADATION
PHOTO ID POINT
■
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
u
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
Lu
U
a
AGGRADAWN "rS3
o
o
U--------------- — --------------------------------------------
�J E SCE — CE —CE — c
Z SD CE SCE SCE SCE —CE — CE
z
6 +�
A y 4 A A 9 CRESTp Ills -N_
+00 A A T +50 GAGE
UT2
CURRENT COND^TION PLANS VIEW .30 60 YEAR MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC EAR 5 O N TO R I N G
BLOCKHOUSE GREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT STA. 0+00-9+50
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
— 30 30 3C 3C
c ?oVao
- m vm
f zM-1
o@
U Z
w J
o�
K
a
UO�
w 0
� O
Z
00}
O K
m¢O
U) a
w l
t�
$l H T
vy2
w
6/13/2013
DESlcnlco
Dw,wN MoR
7 of
Page 18

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C4
14.1
12.34
1.14
2.5
10.79
0.9
4.4
876.59
876.28
Pool
C4
46.4
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 1 - Riffle
1.27
3.78
28.77
1.2
1.6
877.31
Sta. 3 +27
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 2 - Pool
879
Sta. 3 +82
884
878.5 -
882
878
$880-
0
.-.
877.5
MY5 (2013)
' 878
MY4 (2012)
_
>
d
_ ------------------------------- ---------- - - - - -- r
oft
'" •..�
r
MY5 (2013)
— • — MY2 (2010)
876.5
.
'�•.�.` ;••-'�
------------- - - - - -- i
MY4 (2012)
874 -
876
— — — Asbuilt 2008
�j
X.
— MY3 (2011)
- - -e- -- Bankfull
ul
875.5
��
.4
— — MY2 (2010)
1
875
120 130 140 150 160
170 180
i
......••• MY1 (2009)
— — — Asbuilt 2008
874.5
- -- - -- Bankfull
874
100
110
120
130 140
150 160
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 19
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Ari
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C4
46.4
36.54
1.27
3.78
28.77
1.2
1.6
877.31
878.2
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 2 - Pool
Sta. 3 +82
884
882
$880-
0
MY5 (2013)
' 878
MY4 (2012)
>
d
_ ------------------------------- ---------- - - - - -- r
MY3 (2011)
W 876
" •�'� `
*+.
— • — MY2 (2010)
.
'�•.�.` ;••-'�
••••••••• MY1 (2009)
874 -
:c 1
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -e- -- Bankfull
872
-
1
100 110
120 130 140 150 160
170 180
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 19

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool Be 36.5 1 22.61 1.61 2.64 1 14.01 1 1.1 1.9 872.55 872.79
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 3 - Pool
Sta. 12 +19
877
876
875
$ 874
c 873
872
m 871
W
870
869
868
867
100
110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft)
5 (2013)
4 (2012)
3 (2011)
2 (2010)
1 (2009)
guilt 2008
ikfull
11
30
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Riffle C4 1 25.3 1 20.15 1.25 1 2.62 16.06 1.3 2.8 1 872.53 1 873.44
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 4 - Riffle
04— �
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
-----------------------------
MY3 (2011)
— —
f — — — Asbuilt 2008
MY2 (2010)
�'• f�. ••••••••• MY1 (2009)
�•.
- --e- -- Bankfull
120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
170
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE20
877
876
875
$
874
c
873
- ___........
>
872
- -
W
871
870
869
100 110
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
-----------------------------
MY3 (2011)
— —
f — — — Asbuilt 2008
MY2 (2010)
�'• f�. ••••••••• MY1 (2009)
�•.
- --e- -- Bankfull
120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
170
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE20

Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Be 27.2 13.13 2.08 2.74 6.33 1 0.8 2.2 870.02 869.56
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 5 - Riffle
Sta. 17 +88
876
875
874
873
0 872
871
W 870
869
868
867
866
/
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
...... MY1 (2009)
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Ar
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C4
17.3
1 12.02
1.44
1 2.33
1 8.35
1.5
2.8
860.48
1 861.61
870
868
866
o 864
t4
862
W
860
858
856
100
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 6 - Pool
Sta. 32 +73
110 120
Station (ft)
130
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
140 150
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 21

Stream BKF I BKF I Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Pool E4 30.8 1 14.53 1 2.12 4.02 1 6.85 1 1 1 4.2 856.51 1 856.51
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 8 - Pool
Sta. 42 +38
859
858
857
856
0 855
> 854
0
M 853
852
851
850
i _-
,-
r........ ; -
i
i
I �
I �
I
100 110 120
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
130 140
Station (ft)
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
150 160 170
PAGE 22
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF An
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E4
26
14
1.86
3.12
7.54
1.4
3.8
861.03
862.13
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 7 - Riffle
Sta. 33 +23
870
^
868
866
p
864
r '' ✓
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
d
862
-
MY3 (2011)
W
860
--------------
- - - - -- f
MY2 (2010)
w•,
%
......••• MY1 (2009)
858
"`
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
856
100
110 120
130 140 150
160 170
Station (ft)
Stream BKF I BKF I Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Pool E4 30.8 1 14.53 1 2.12 4.02 1 6.85 1 1 1 4.2 856.51 1 856.51
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 8 - Pool
Sta. 42 +38
859
858
857
856
0 855
> 854
0
M 853
852
851
850
i _-
,-
r........ ; -
i
i
I �
I �
I
100 110 120
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
130 140
Station (ft)
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
— — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
150 160 170
PAGE 22

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C4 8.9 1 11.49 0.78 1.65 14.76 1.6 3.4 880.72 881.66
UT1 Cross - Section 10 - Riffle
Sta. 0 +74
882.5
882
881.5
881
880.5
d
w 880
879.5
879
878.5
-------------------- - - - - --
, ................. MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
- - - Asbuilt 2008
- --o- -- 108.97 120.46
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 23
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E4
40.7
23.02
1.77
3.15
13.01
1.1
2.6
857.27
857.55
Blockhouse Creek Cross - Section 9 - Riffle
Sta. 42 +90
858.5
858
857.5
-
_ _ ..
- -
r_
857
--------------------------------------
"�.
c
856.5
��:
�
MY5 (2013)
856
`.
%
MY4 (2012)
4'
855.5
'•
/'
MY3 (2011)
W
855
�
�i�
M Y2 (2010)
854.5
......••• MY1 (2009)
... •. .....
- - - Asbuilt 2008
854
- - -o- -- Bankfull
853.5
100
110 120
130 140
150 160
Station (ft)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C4 8.9 1 11.49 0.78 1.65 14.76 1.6 3.4 880.72 881.66
UT1 Cross - Section 10 - Riffle
Sta. 0 +74
882.5
882
881.5
881
880.5
d
w 880
879.5
879
878.5
-------------------- - - - - --
, ................. MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
- - - Asbuilt 2008
- --o- -- 108.97 120.46
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 23

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 24
Stream
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF An
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
FR
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C4
8.5
11.04
0.77
1.81
14.3
0.7
3.7
874.75
874.29
5.3
874.04
UT1 Cross - Section 11 - Riffle
Sta. 4 +68
877
Sta. 4 +99
876.5
877
876
"
" "
"
876
875.5
'
$
0 875
♦
875
MY5 (2013)
---------------- - - -
..
- -- -°
MY4 (2012)
874.5
a�
MY3 (2011)
W 874
.2
MY2 (2010)
--------------
873.5
-
MY4 (2012)
......... MY1 (2009)
_d
— — — Asbuilt 2008
MY3 (2011)
873
w
�
•
'''
,.•�''
e . MY2 (2010)
- -- - -- Bankfull
'
872.5
i
••••••••• MY1 (2009)
872
\ —
' �
- - — Asbuilt 2008
100
110
120 130
140 150
- - -o- -- Bankfull
Station (ft)
871
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 24
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Ari
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E4
5.1
7.11
0.72
1.39
9.83
1
5.3
874.04
874.04
UT1 Cross - Section 12 - Pool
Sta. 4 +99
877
876
875
MY5 (2013)
.2
874
--------------
MY4 (2012)
_d
" .:• ``'
MY3 (2011)
w
873
•
'''
,.•�''
e . MY2 (2010)
'
i
••••••••• MY1 (2009)
872
\ —
' �
- - — Asbuilt 2008
- - -o- -- Bankfull
871
100
110
120 130
140 150
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 24

Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Be 2.9 7.69 0.38 0.75 20.17 2.1 2.9 879.01 879.83
UT2 Cross - Section 13 - Riffle
Sta. 1+46
881
880.5
880
c 879.5
w
> 879
_d
w 878.5
878
877.5
877
MY5 (2013)
--------------------- - - - - -- — MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
.� MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
Asbuilt 2008
- -- - -- Bankfull
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER I BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Pool E5 4 5.56 1 0.72 1 1.17 7.68 1.4 3.6 876.44 1 876.95
UT2 Cross - Section 14 - Pool
Sta. 3 +58
878.5
878
877.5
c 877
M
> 876.5
W
876
875.5
875
874.5
�C
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
......••• MY1 (2009)
— Asbuilt 2008
- - -e -- Bankfull
100 105 110 115 120 125
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 25

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Ar Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cb5 2.4 5.49 0.44 1 0.97 12.5 1 2.3 3.3 864.56 865.83
UT2 Cross - Section 15 - Riffle
Sta. 10 +60
867
866.5
866 •�' `� •�
0 865.5 "• v .....
> 865 '
d ''•� / MY5 (2013)
W 864.5 • =------ - - - - -- MY4 (2012)
N MY3 (2011)
864 MY2 (2010)
• ••••••• MY1 (2009)
863.5 — — Asbuilt 2008
- - -e- -- Bankfull
863
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Station (ft)
864
863
862
o 861
c�
m 860
W
859
858
857
UT2 Cross - Section 16 - Pool
Sta. 12 +61
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
••••••• MY1 (2009)
— Asbuilt 2008
- -- - -- Bankfull
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 26
T
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Ari
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
Cb5
3.8
6.84
0.55
1.1
12.44
1.5
4.3
860.39
860.93
864
863
862
o 861
c�
m 860
W
859
858
857
UT2 Cross - Section 16 - Pool
Sta. 12 +61
MY5 (2013)
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
••••••• MY1 (2009)
— Asbuilt 2008
- -- - -- Bankfull
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 26

Longitudinal Profile- Blockhouse Creek (Above I -26)
880 Sta. 0 +00 -8 +00
878
876
e874 '.�_1 _:!• -5 i .1 i�. i is 1--'•_ - __ __ _.
872
870
868
866
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Station (ft)
—Top of Bank WSF - - - -- TWG - Asbuilt 2008 ....... TWG 2009 — — TWG2010 TWO 2011 —TWG 2012 — TWG 2013
Longitudinal Profile - Blockhouse Creek (Above I -26)
Sta. 8 +00 -16 +00
880
878
876
S874
0
a
i
1j 872
870
868
866
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Station (it)
—Top of Bank —WSF - - -- TWG - Asbuilt 2008 ••••••. TWG 2009 -- TWG 2010 —TWG 2011 —TWG 2012 TWG 2013
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 27

Longitudinal Profile - Blockhouse Creek (Above I -26)
Sta. 16 +00 -38 +00
866
864
862 _ ---------------------------- ________ _.
. c
860 - f .•_, _ __.
856 ___ - _______... _____ - - _ _____ — •_
854
852
2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800
Station (ft)
—Top of Bank — WSF ---- TWG- Asbuilt 2008 - ••••TWG 2009 — — TWG2010 —TWG 2011 —TWG 2012 —TWG 2013
Longitudinal Profile - Blockhouse Creek (Below I -26)
Sta. 28 +00 -38 +00
866
864
- -__
862
`- �-
e860
858
856
854
852
2800
2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800
Station (ft)
—Top of Bank —WSF - - -- TWG - Asbuilt 2008 ..... TWG 2009 ---- TWG2010 —TWG 2011 —TWG 2012 —TWG 2013
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 28

Longitudinal Profile- Blockhouse Creek Downstream I -26
Sta. 38 +00 -47 +00
862
860
858 — -
°0 856 --------------------------- -
u .
W
854 _. t•
852 ____. ____. ____. __... '_`___. ____. _______. _________ .,_•_. _ _ -__ _- _- _ _- ____. ____-
850
848
3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700
Station (ft)
—Top of Bank WSF - - -- TWG- Asbuilt 2008 ..... TWG 2009 — -- TWG2010 TWG 2011 TWG 2012 —TWG 2013
Longitudinal Profile - UT1
882
880
878
V876 ........ .____ ......... .___.. .____ ...... -
e •
Z
> `
874 __
W
872 ............
i
870 -- ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _______
1
868
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
—Top of Bank WSF - - -- TWG 2008 - ••• -TWG 2009 —— TWG2010 TWG 2011 TWG 2012 TWG 2013
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PAGE 29

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 30

Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 5 Monitoring
Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project #92516
Blockhouse Creek Reach 1 (1,070 ft)
Blockhouse Creek Reach 2 (340 ft)
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Pool
Cross Section 3
Pool
Cross Section 4
Riffle
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
21.7
21.2
20.6
14.3
14.8
12.3
23.5
23.7
27.7
30.9
32.4
36.5
23.0
22.1
22.0
22.0
20.6
22.6
22.6
19.7
19.8
19.4
20.8
20.2
Flood prone Width ft
>54
53.9
53.9
53.9
53.9
53.9
>54
55.2
56.6
57.6
57.3
57.4
>48
47.5
45.7
45.5
41.1
43.8
>57
57.1
57.1
57.6
57.6
56.3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
29.0
27.4
26.6
17.2
16.2
14.1
30.8
31.2
41.3
40.9
40.1
46.4
34.2
35.0
38.4
30.8
23.5
36.5
34.9
32.2
28.5
26.8
28.5
25.3
BF Mean Depth ft
1.34
1.29
1.29
1.20
1.10
1.14
1.31
1.32
1.49
1.32
1.24
1.27
1.49
1.59
1.75
1.40
1.14
1.61
1.54
1.64
1.44
1.38
1.37
1.25
BF Max Depth ft
2.29
2.33
2.97
2.57
2.35
2.50
2.81
3.16
3.35
3.84
3.42
3.78
3.45
3.66
3.18
3.10
2.43
2.64
2.92
2.85
2.87
2.96
2.95
2.62
Width /Depth Ratio
16.2
16.5
16.0
12.0
13.5
10.8
17.9
18.0
18.6
23.4
26.2
28.8
15.5
13.9
12.6
15.7
18.0
14.0
14.6
12.0
13.7
14.1
15.2
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.8
3.6
4.4
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.5
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.8
Wetted Perimeter ft
24.4
23.8
23.2
16.7
17.0
14.6
26.1
26.4
30.7
33.6
34.9
39.1
26.0
25.2
25.5
24.8
22.9
25.8
25.7
23.0
22.7
22.2
23.6
22.7
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
Substrate
d50 mm
L26
10
28
21
19
12
c184 (mm)
32
152
82
60
21
Blockhouse Creek Reach
3 (950 ft)
Blockhouse
Creek
Reach 4 (1,780
ft)
Parameter
Cross Section 5
Riffle
Cross Section 6
Pool
Cross Section 7
Riffle
Cross Section 8
Pool
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
21.5
18.2
16.0
13.4
13.7
13.1
24.4
19.8
19.4
18.1
16.2
12.0
19.6
20.4
23.3
116
14.2
14.0
18.4
24.4
25.5
20.4
21.4
14.5
Flood prone Width ft
>44
30.6
30.7
28.9
28.4
28.7
>36
35.3
34.5
35.5
34.2
33.8
>53
53.5
56.2
54.0
54.5
53.8
>61
61.2
61.2
61.3
61.1
61.2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
33.0
31.7
33.1
27.4
28.6
27.2
35.4
28.1
23.9
25.0
16.2
17.3
34.8
37.2
38.0
25.1
26.3
26.0
35.8
35.3
31.7
27.4
36.5
30.8
BF Mean Depth ft
1.54
1.75
2.07
2.05
2.09
2.08
1.45
1.42
1.23
1.38
1.00
1.44
1.77
1.83
1.63
1.85
1.85
1.86
1.95
1.45
1.24
1.34
1.71
2.12
BF Max Depth ft
3.20
3.13
3.42
2.95
2.87
2.74
2.88
2.72
2.29
2.95
2.43
2.33
3.15
3.55
3.52
3.25
3.59
3.12
4.50
3.06
3.24
3.45
3.95
4.02
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
10.4
7.7
6.5
6.5
6.3
16.8
14.0
15.8
13.1
16.1
8.4
11.1
11.1
14.3
7.3
7.7
7.5
9.4
16.9
20.6
15.2
12.5
6.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.4
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.3
2.5
2.4
3.0
2.9
4.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
24.6
21.7
20.1
17.5
17.8
17.3
27.3
22.7
21.9
20.9
18.2
14.9
23.2
24.0
26.6
17.3
17.9
17.7
22.3
27.3
28.0
23.1
24.8
18.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 31

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 32
Blockhouse Creek Reach 4 (1,780 ft)
Parameter
Cross Section 9
Riffle
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
19.0
21.7
22.9
22.2
22.8
23.0
Floodprone Width ft
>59
59.2
59.2
59.3
59.2
59.4
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
35.1
42.1
47.2
41.2
41.2
40.7
BF Mean Depth ft
1.84
1.94
2.06
1.85
1.81
1.77
BF Max Depth ft
2.98
3.28
3.11
1 2.97
2.97
3.15
Width /Depth Ratio
10.3
11.2
11.1
12.0
12.6
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
22.7
25.6
27.0
25.9
26.4
1 26.6
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
T 1.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
2
9
23
21
32
88
c184 (mm)
26
101
191
1 113
135
137
Parameter
AB (2008)
MY
-1 (2009)
MY
-2 (2010)
MY
-3 (2011)
MY
-4 (2012)
MY
-5 (2013)
Min
I Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
I Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
55
102
63
55
102
63
55
102
63
55
102
63
55
102
63
55
102
63
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
42
31
16
42
31
16
42
31
16
42
31
16
42
31
16
42
31
Meander Wavelength (ft)
81
195
138
81
195
138
81
195
138
81
195
138
81
195
138
81
195
138
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
4.2
3.6
3.0
4.2
3.6
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
15
80
48
15
138
48
17
152
54
11
150
42
19
99
29
19
94
43
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
Pool Length (ft)
10
25
18
6
56
28
11
58
24
6
54
23
15
36
23
17
36
32
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
122
76
45
136
84
50
141
93
53
124
87
59
114
91
56
118
90
Substrate
d50 (mm)
2
9
23
21
32
12
d84 mm
26
101
191
113
135
21
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
2939
2939
2939
2939
2939
2939
Channel Length ft
4140
4140
4140
4140
4140
4140
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1 1.3
1.2
1.3
1 1.3
1.2
1 1.3
1.2
1.2
1 1.3
1 1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.005
1 0.005
0.001
1 0.009
1 0.005
0.0051
0.005
1 0.005
0.0051
0.005
1 0.005
0.005
1 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
BF Slope (ft /ft)
0.000
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.020
0.010
0.000
0.020
0.010
0.003
0.008
0.006
0.003
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.008
0.005
Rosgen Classification
C4 /Bc4 /E4
C4 /Bc /E4
C4 /Bc /E4
C4 /Bc /E4
C4 /Bc /E4
C4 /Bc /E4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 32

UT1 Reach (580 ft)
Parameter
Cross Section 10
Riffle
Cross Section
Riffle
11
Cross Section 12
Pool
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
12.4
11.7
13.0
12.6
14.0
11.5
11.4
11.8
9.9
11.4
10.3
11.0
13.0
13.3
8.1
8.1
7.7
7.1
Flood prone Width ft
>39
38.9
38.9
39.0
38.9
38.9
>41
40.6
40.7
40.6
40.7
40.7
>30
30.2
40.4
38.8
35.1
37.8
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
10.7
10.9
10.5
8.6
9.2
8.9
10.3
11.0
9.2
10.2
7.8
8.5
10.4
8.3
11.0
7.8
6.8
5.1
BF Mean Depth ft
0.86
0.93
0.81
0.69
0.66
0.78
0.90
0.94
0.93
0.89
0.76
0.77
0.80
0.63
1.36
0.97
0.88
0.72
BF Max Depth ft
1.76
1.76
1.85
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.81
1.93
1.97
1.76
1.81
1.58
1.72
2.42
1.78
1.50
1.39
Width/Depth Ratio
14.5
12.6
16.0
18.3
21.4
14.8
12.7
12.5
10.6
12.8
13.5
14.3
16.2
21.2
6.0
8.3
8.8
9.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.1
2.8
3.4
3.6
3.4
4.1
3.6
4.0
3.7
2.3
2.3
5.0
4.8
4.6
5.3
Wetted Perimeter ft
14.2
13.6
14.6
14.0
15.4
13.1
13.2
13.6
11.8
13.2
11.8
12.6
14.6
14.6
10.8
10.0
9.5
8.6
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
Substrate
d50 mm
21
47
16
16
d84 (mm)
- - --
59
154
96
76
Parameter
AB 2008
MY -1 2009
MY -2 2010
MY -3 2011
MY -4 2012
MY -5 2013
Min
I Max
Mad
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
33
45
43
33
45
43
33
45
43
33
45
43
33
45
43
33
45
43
Radius of Curvature ft
11
20
18
11
20
18
11
20
18
11
20
18
11
20
18
11
20
18
Meander Wavelength ft
33
117
45
33
117
45
33
117
45
33
117
45
33
117
45
33
117
45
Meander Width Ratio
2.9
3.5
12
2.8
3.4
3.1
4.1
3.4
3.8
4.1
3.6
3.8
2.3
5.8
4.1
3.3
6.3
4.8
Profile
Riffle length ft
19
74
47
33
75
40
32
83
36
30
84
41
22
71
39
29
40
35
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
Pool Length ft
7
15
11
9
28
11
7
19
11
5
17
9
4
18
9
15
47
20
Pool Spacing ft
13
60
37
13
66
49
40
68
54
38
74
61
49
94
53
27
65
50
Substrate
d50 mm
- - --
21
47
16
16
- - --
d84 mm
59
154
96
76
- - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
525
525
525
525
525
525
Channel Length ft
580
580
580
580
580
580
Sinuosit
1.12
1.13
1.12
1.12
1.13
1.12
- - --
- - --
1.14
- --
1.14
- - --
1.13
- - --
1.13
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
- - --
0.017
- - --
0.017
- - --
- - --
0.016
FIC-4-
0.016
- - --
0.016
- - --
0.016
BF Slope ft/ft
- - --
0.020
- - --
0.020
- - --
- - --
0.016
- --
0.017
- - --
0.017
- - --
- - --
0.018
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT PAGE 33

UT2 Reach (1,155 ft)
Parameter
Cross Section 13
Riffle
Cross Section 14
Pool
Cross Section 15
Riffle
Cross Section 16
Riffle
AB
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
6.7
5.3
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.7
6.2
5.0
8.9
4.7
3.9
5.6
8.6
8.2
8.4
5.8
5.1
5.5
6.9
5.0
5.9
8.4
7.80
6.84
Flood prone Width ft
19.1
23.2
24.2
23.9
23.5
22.1
>21
20.1
21.0
21.8
21.5
20.2
>29
34.3
33.0
16.9
12.0
17.9
>27
27.1
27.0
39.0
34.02
29.26
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
2.6
3.5
5.4
4.6
4.6
2.9
4.5
2.8
3.7
3.7
3.9
4.0
5.2
5.4
5.1
2.8
1.6
2.4
4.9
4.3
7.0
9.1
7.70
3.80
BF Mean Depth ft
0.38
0.65
0.79
0.66
0.61
0.38
0.72
0.56
0.42
0.79
0.72
0.72
0.61
0.65
0.60
0.48
0.31
0.44
0.71
0.86
1.19
1.08
0.99
0.55
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.81
1.21
1.30
1 1.13
1.11
0.75
1.24
0.93
1 0.77
1.33
1.18
1.17
1.00
1.36
1.20
0.99
0.86
0.97
1.05
1.30
1.74
2.50
2.10
1.10
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
1 8.3
8.8
10.5
12.2
20.2
8.6
8.9
21.4
6.0
7.4
7.7
14.0
12.6
14.0
12.2
16.3
12.5
9.6
5.9
5.0
7.8
7.86
12.44
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
1 4.3
3.5
3.5
3.2
2.9
3.4
4.0
2.4
4.6
4.0
3.6
3.4
4.2
3.9
2.9
2.4
3.3
3.9
2.8
5.2
4.6
4.40
4.30
Wetted Perimeter ft
7.5
6.6
8.5
8.2
8.7
8.5
7.7
6.2
9.7
6.3
5.3
7.0
9.8
9.5
9.6
6.8
5.7
6.4
8.3
6.7
8.3
10.6
9.8
7.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
Substrate
d50 mm
- - --
- - --
d84 (mm)
- - --
- - --
- - --
Parameter
AB (2008)
1
MY -1 (2009)
MY -2 (2010)
MY -3 (20 1)
MY -4 2012)
MY -5 (2013)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
53
35
20
53
35
20
53
35
20
53
35
20
53
35
20
53
35
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
33
19
12
33
19
12
33
19
12
33
19
12
33
19
12
33
19
Meander Wavelength (ft)
47
120
81
47
120
81
47
120
81
47
120
81
47
120
81
47
120
81
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
5
4
6
5
3
6
5
4
6
5
Profile
Riffle length ft
5
41
23
7
51
11
26
59
24
8
46
20
5
42
9
49
24
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.07
F224
0.01
0.07
0.01
Pool Length (ft)
3
15
9
4
17
7
6
17
7
3
23
9
3
23
5
26
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
12
38
25
15
42
22
17
42
28
14
56
21
14
45
17
45
24
Substrate
d50 mm
----
- - --
- - --
- - --
d84 (mm)
- - --
- - --
----
- - --
- - --
- - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
946
946
946
946
946
946
Channel Length (ft)
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
Sinuosity
1.14
1.28
1.21
1.14
1.28
0.84
1.23
1.04
1.10
1.27
1.19
1.07
1.26
1.17
1.07
1.26
1.17
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.013
0.041
K1.21
0.010
0.020
0.020
0.018
0.014
0.017
BF Slope (ft /ft
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.022
0.022
Rosgen Classification
Bc5 /Cb
Bc /Cb5 /E5
Bc /Cb5 /E5
Bc /Cb5
Bc /Cb5
Bc /Cb5
Notes: Any discrepancy between As -built data presented in this report in Tables B2 and 133 and the original report are based on corrections for calculating median instead of mean in some locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT Page 34

Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Pro'ect: Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
The species composition for two different areas is shown; with one area being upstream of I -26 and the
second area being downstream of I -26.
Scientific name
TCommon name
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Event
Method of Data Collection.
Blockhouse Cr.
Blockhouse Cr.
UT2
88
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Reach 2
Reach 4
Juglans nigra
Black walnut
13%
Gauge measurement. Visual
Liriodendron tuli fera
Tulip o lar
1%
7
Platanus occidentalis
inspection of wrack lines and
1%
1 7
U erstoKy Trees /Shrubs- Planted 10'x10'
April 2010
Mid Nov.
sediment deposition around
4.75
2.25
2.81
10%
2009
gauge.
Flowering dogwood
12%
82
Gauge measurement. Visual
7.38
4.81
6.75
Car inus caroliniana
Ironwood
9%
61
ins ection of wrack lines.
Paw paw
9%
61
March -April
Gauge measurement. Visual
9.69
10.69
8.94
2010
inspection of wrack lines.
Between
Gauge measurement. Visual
6.7
8.81
7.75
May 2011
May 2010
inspection of wrack lines.
Gauge measurement.
-
2 75
-
and May
2011
July 2012
April -May
Gauge measurement. Visual
14.19
4.73
-*
2012
inspection of wrack lines.
Visual inspection of wrack
> 2' above bankfull based on
July 2013
July 2013
lines and valley width flood
wrack lines throughout project.
deposition. Walking bridges
See Flood photos below.
carried downstream.
*Not measured due to ant colonization of gauge. Wrack lines and matted vegetation observed in project area in
MY5. However, due to the potential influence of beaver dams, gauge measurements not recorded.
Vegetation Data:
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project: Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
The species composition for two different areas is shown; with one area being upstream of I -26 and the
second area being downstream of I -26.
Scientific name
TCommon name
Percent Planted
I by Species
Total Number of
I Stems
Blockhouse Creek upstream of I -26 and UT1 (40% trees/ 60% shrubs) planted at 680 stems /A
Trees - Planted 13'x13'
Acer rubrum
Red maple
13%
88
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
13%
88
Juglans nigra
Black walnut
13%
88
Liriodendron tuli fera
Tulip o lar
1%
7
Platanus occidentalis
I Sycamore
1%
1 7
U erstoKy Trees /Shrubs- Planted 10'x10'
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
9%
61
Calicanthus floridus
Sweet Shrub
10%
68
Cornus orida
Flowering dogwood
12%
82
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
10%
68
Car inus caroliniana
Ironwood
9%
61
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
9%
61
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 35
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Blockhouse Creek downstream of I -26 and UT2 (60% Trees/ 40% shrubs) planted at 680 stems /A
Trees - Planted 10'x10'
Acer rubrum
Red maple
4%
26
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
6%
61
Jujz1ans nijzra
Black walnut
12%
82
Liriodendron tuli fera
Tulip o lar
10%
68
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
10%
68
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
6%
41
uercus phellos
Willow oak
6%
41
Quercus rubra
Red oak
6%
41
Understo Trees /Shrubs- Planted 13'x13'
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
6%
41
Calicanthus floridus
Sweet Shrub
6%
61
Cornus orida
Flowering dogwood
9%
61
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
8%
54
Car inus caroliniana
Ironwood
6%
41
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
5%
34
Woody Ve etation for Live Stakes - Planted 3' x 3' on center
Salix sericea
Silky willow
30%
204
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
25%
170
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
15%
102
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
30%
204
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE36
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Density Per Plot -Year 5
Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project #92516
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Current Plot Data (MY5 2013)
Annual Means
92516 -01 -0001
92516 -01 -0002
92516 -01 -0003
92516 -01 -0004
92516 -01 -0005
92516 -01 -0006
92516 -01 -0007
92516 -01 -0008
92516 -01 -0009
92516 -01 -0010
MYS(2013)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
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
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
7
7
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
10
10
10
Calycanthusfloridus
eastern sweetshrub
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
7
7
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corpus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
2
18
18
18
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
8
8
8
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
26
26
26
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
9
9
9
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
38
38
38
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
7
7
7
Quercus rubs
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
9
9
9
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
12
12
12
16
16
16
15
15
15
23
23
23
15
15
15
20
20
20
11
11
11
13
13
13
11
11
11
12
12
12
148
148
148
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.25
6
6
6
8
8
8
5
5
5
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
15
15
15
486
486
486
647
647
647
607
607
607
931
931
931
607
607
607
809
809
809
445
1 445
1445
51
486
1 48614861
599
1 599
1599
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT Page 37

EEP Recommendations and Conclusions
In order to document project success, sixteen permanent cross - sections, three longitudinal profile surveys,
three pebble counts, three crest gauges, and ten vegetation monitoring plots were installed and assessed
over the last five monitoring periods following the as -built survey.
To better define changes in channel dimension, measurements of bankfull cross - section geometry were
evaluated. These measurements include average depth, width, area, maximum depth, and width/depth
ratio. From the baseline survey through Year 5, most riffle cross - sections narrowed as bank vegetation
and overbank flow deposition occurred while a few maintained the same dimensions as was constructed.
Pool cross - section trends were more varied with many either maintaining the same dimension over time
or becoming deeper. A few pools also became slightly wider and less deep. As was the case with some
riffles, some of the pools were affected by the habitation of the project site by beavers and the transport of
fines from nearby sources including a triple box culvert under I -26, and a gravel road near UT2. Where
cross - sectional dimensions changed over the course of the monitoring period it did not change
appreciably and did not fluctuate widely from year to year. Survey data indicates that the channel
dimension for each project reach has not deviated dramatically from the constructed dimension; changes
that have occurred are largely due to the establishment of riparian vegetation, transport of fines through
the site, and the deposition of sediments during flood events.
Longitudinal profile data was collected after construction was completed (as -built condition) and have
been collected each subsequent year. A longitudinal profile was conducted for the entire project length of
UT1 and UT2. An additional 3,396 linear feet of stream channel was surveyed on Blockhouse Creek,
including 1,500 linear feet above I -26 and the entire project reach below I -26. Measurements taken
during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and top of bank. Each of these measurements
was taken at the head of features (e.g., riffle, or pool) and the maximum pool depth.
The longitudinal profiles show that the bedform features have remained stable (the channels are not
aggrading or degrading). The profile comparison indicates that overall, Blockhouse Creek and UT1 have
maintained their respective as -built slopes and channel depths. Although it has been impacted by road
runoff, the profile for UT2 (which has a sandier bedform than Blockhouse Creek or UT I), has also
remained stable. In recent monitoring years, beaver habitation has become more pronounced on -site;
however the project area does not appear to have suffered significant damage at this time. When
comparisons of the plotted profiles from the baseline survey through Monitoring Year 5 are made, it does
not appear that the overall thalweg elevation has increased or decreased significantly.
Bed material analyses included pebble counts taken during each geomorphic survey. Pebble counts have
provided data on the particle size distribution of the stream bed. Prior to Monitoring Year 5, pebble
counts taken on Blockhouse Creek and UT confirmed the improved transport of fines through the
system, if not a general coarsening of substrate located in the project reaches, particularly on Reach 4 of
Blockhouse Creek. Pebble count results on the mainstem for Year 5 appear to have been influenced by
the presence of nearby beaver dams. A pebble count was not conducted on UT1 as the riffle normally
sampled was impacted by sand deposited during backwatering from a beaver dam located nearby on the
mainstem. The dam was removed, but deposition made the pebble count data useless for comparison
purposes.
The occurrence of bankfull events at the Site were documented by the use of crest gauges that were
installed on the floodplain of the restored channels. The hydrologic monitoring criteria for this project
requires the documentation of two bankfull flow events within the 5 -year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring may have to be continued
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. As observed in the bankfull
verification table provided earlier, the success criteria for bankfull monitoring has been met. Evidence of
overbank flows was present on each project stream at the time of Year 5 monitoring. However, no
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE38
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

measurements were collected due to the potential influence of the beaver dams on surface water
elevations on Blockhouse Creek and UT 1. Gauge measurements on UT2 were not recorded due to an ant
infestation of the gauge.
The National Weather Service supported weather station #318744, located in Tryon (Latitude 35.20583 °,
Longitude - 82.25167° (NC Climate Office - CRONOS Database), reported 86.73 inches of precipitation
from January 2013 through December 2013. This data indicates that over the 2013 year, total rainfall was
21.33 inches more than the average annual rainfall of 65.4 inches. This increased precipitation caused a
major flooding event in July 2013. High water caused blockages within the Steeplechase Track culverts
to occur and already deteriorated culverts to fail, however these impacts were outside of the conservation
easement. The impact to the stream within the project reaches was caused from downstream
sedimentation. The sediment has since been transported through the system with some deposition on the
floodplain. The impact of the high flood waters had a visual impact due to trees and herbaceous
vegetation being pushed down (but not uprooted), numerous wrack lines and debris piles. The vegetation
was not harmed and the site has recovered from the flood event.
In order to determine if the vegetation success criteria was met, 10 vegetation monitoring quadrants were
installed across the mitigation site to predict the survival rate of bare - rooted trees and potted shrubs.
Earlier vegetative monitoring data documented that this site met the minimum interim success criteria at
the end of Year 3 monitoring. Year 5 sampling documented that the Site has easily met the final success
criteria of 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5. In several plots, planted stem counts increased slightly
in later monitoring years due to trees being found or re- sprouting that were once identified as dead or
missing.
Over the course of the Project monitoring period, exotic, invasive vegetation has re- appeared in the
easement area. Although there are no dense patches currently threatening the riparian buffer, kudzu
(Pueraria montana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
have been identified in the past. The project area was treated for invasive vegetation during the year 4
monitoring period in April 2012 and June 2012. Another invasive vegetation treatment was completed in
July 2013 during the year 5 monitoring period. Baker will likely have at least one more treatment in the
spring of 2014 and if needed again at the end of summer.
In summary, Monitoring Year 5 data evaluated against success criteria established for this project indicate
the site has a stable channel geometry and has a riparian buffer that is healthy throughout the project
reach. No further monitoring should be required since monitoring to date indicates that this project,
which has experienced numerous flood events and other natural disturbances, meets the success criteria
specified in the Mitigation Plan. No repair work is needed at this time and the Site has been treated for
exotic, invasive vegetation (most recently during Monitoring Year 5). It is therefore recommended that
this project be closed, and mitigation credits be granted accordingly.
Conservation Easement Issues: As occurs with all EEP Full Delivery projects, a conservation deed of
easement and a plat of the easement area were established and recorded at the beginning of this project.
Copies of these documents were provided to the NC State Property Office as required. It was pointed out
when this project was proposed and as we have progressed the project that there are significant constraints
to fully implementing a 30 feet buffer from the top of bank at all points along the channel. This is
particularly true for the area upstream of I -26 which is managed as an equestrian center. Constraints
include horse show rings, barns, roads and culverts. At the time this easement was established, agencies
were not holding to a standard of the easement being 30 feet from the top of bank. A firm policy was not
established and various scenarios where considered acceptable, depending on who was asked. Generally,
the thought at that time was that the width of the easement should provide an average 30 foot buffer.
Since that time the agencies have decided that they will require 30 feet at all points along the channel.
This approach has resulted in segments along the Blockhouse Easement that will not comply because they
are less than 30 feet from the top of bank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE39
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

When this easement was established it was recognized that constraints could impact the buffer. In
recognition of this, we attempted to increase the easement width in other areas. When you look at those
segments that are less than 30 feet and measure the width on the other side of the channel, the average
width of that side is 57 feet. Since the common thought at the time the easement was established was that
an average width would be used, we attempted to make up for narrow buffers by increasing the width
across the stream or on those reaches without constraints. This approach makes a significant difference in
the total area included in the easement, which is what makes a quality buffer.
In summary, while we recognize stream mitigation crediting is based on stream footage, it ultimately
results in an area. It also has to be recognized that buffer quality is dependent on the total area of the
buffer. Baker, EEP, and the regulatory agencies recognized the limitations on buffer width at this site
from the beginning and still agreed that the project should be implemented. We have shown that where
our easement was impacted by constraints we mitigated these impacts by increasing easement width and
area in other locations.
Contingencies
Due to flooding since the completion of the final monitoring report there are a couple of minor repairs
that are planned. We will be replacing small areas of soil loss over the top of the rootwads located at
41 +00 and a small area of soil sinking around rootwads at 42 +00. We will also be removing beaver dams
at least once before closeout. Lastly, we will also be doing one more treatment of invasive plant species.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE40
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

1.1 Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Photos: Pre -and Post - Construction Photos
Blockhouse Creek -Reach l: Pre - construction, As- Built, and Monitoring Year 5 Photos
Blockhouse Creek -Reach 4: Pre - construction, As- Built, and Monitoring Year 5 Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 41
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Blockhouse Creek -Reach 4: Pre - construction, As- Built, and Monitoring Year 5 Photos
UT 1: As- Built, Monitoring Year 1, and Monitoring Year 5 Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 42
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Flood Impact Photos from July 2013
Photo 1. Culverts under the Steeplechase track at
two locations clogged or collapsed, causing
downstream sedimentation.
Photo 2. The July flood was at least 2 feet above
bankfull based on wrack lines. In many places the
entire floodplain /valley was inundated.
Photos 3 & 4. Show the impact of high flood waters on the floodplain vegetation as
trees and herbaceous vegetation was pushed over, but not permanently harmed.
Photo 5. This is a constricted location because of a
bridged walkway; however, waters appeared to be
3 -4 feet above bankfull.
Photo 6. Lower end of Reach 4 showing flood impacts
to vegetation. Walking bridge in photo washed
downstream at least 300 feet.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 43
BLOCKHOUSE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
CLOSEOUT REPORT

Appendix A: Watershed Planning Summary
92516 — Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project
Watershed Characteristics Overview
The Blockhouse Creek stream restoration project is located in Polk County, approximately three
miles east of the town of Tryon in the Broad River Basin. It is located within HUC
03050105150020, the lower North Pacolet River watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in the 2009 Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan.
Blockhouse Creek flows into Wolfe Creek approximately 3,000 feet downstream of the project
site. Wolfe Creek then enters the lower North Pacolet River, just upstream of the South Carolina
state line. The lower North Pacolet River includes 7.4 miles on the 2012 303(d) list -- impaired
for aquatic life based on fair bioclassifications (fish community sampling). There are no High
Quality Waters (HQWs) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) in
this TLW, nor are there any Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) or protected
Conservation Areas. The 2009 RBRP identified five Natural Heritage Element Occurrences or
NHEOs (occurrences of rare plants and animals or unique natural communities) within the TLW.
The 30- square mile TLW is 36% agricultural, 54% forested (including wetland areas) and seven
percent developed.
Major problems noted within this TLW (2009 RBRP) include agricultural stressors (row crops
and horse pasture in bottomlands), areas of stream bank erosion, degraded in- stream habitat and
limited riparian vegetation. According to the DWQ Basinwide Water Quality Plan for the Broad
River Basin (July 2008), the water quality in streams flowing to the North Pacolet River could be
improved through the use of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) focusing on the
reduction of erosion/sedimentation and nutrient inputs. These BMPs include the re-
establishment (restoration /enhancement) of riparian buffers and stream bank stabilization
practices, which have been incorporated into the Blockhouse Creek project (Blockhouse Creek
Restoration Plan, Baker Engineering, October 2007).
Links to Watershed Goals and Objectives
The Blockhouse Creek project includes involved stream and buffer restoration and enhancement
along Blockhouse Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries (UTs), along with a short section of
stream preservation on a third UT. The project contributes to the following goals and objectives:
- creation of geomorphically stable conditions on Blockhouse Creek and its tributaries;
- restoration of hydrologic connections between stream reaches and their floodplain;
- establishment of native stream bank and floodplain vegetation across the project;
- improvements to aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
The establishment of a riparian buffer, the stabilization of stream channels and stream banks, and
the re- connection of the stream to its floodplain all serve to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs,
thereby reducing the volume of pollutants flowing downstream into the 303(d)- listed (impaired)
waters of the lower North Pacolet River, approximately one mile downstream of the project site.

Watershed Summa
There are no other EEP mitigation projects within this HU. There are nine non -EEP projects
documented within this watershed, including three NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
( CWMTF) projects and six agricultural BMPs. The CWMTF projects include a sequence of
stream restoration/enhancement efforts implemented by the Polk County Soil & Water
Conservation District along the North Pacolet River (from 2007 to 2008). The six agricultural
BMPs (as documented by the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation through February
2014) include upgraded waste management structures (e.g., dry stack storage for poultry litter),
stabilization/protection of animal heavy use areas, pasture renovation projects (for
erosion/sediment control and nutrient reduction) and alternate watering sources for livestock
(e.g., wells, troughs, tanks).
E
\\ r W He Oak Creek
C
1 Sgt
E El El El
. ^1
L. I E
� Caee°
Blockhouse Creek ' C
s
North Care is $-
South Carolina
Legend
Q EEP Projects (Tier 1) 2014 Closeouts �&
0 EEP Projects (Tier I}$�'
C Agricultural BM Ps
+ CWMTF Projects
i 319 Projects
Catalog Units
EEP Local Watershed Plans " EEP 2014 Project Closeout a o -F 1 2
JEEP Targeted Local Watersheds W E MjI S
Blockhouse Creek {Broad 03050105}
County Boundaries
S I?i ii1t

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
the following parcel:
Grantor
County
Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book &
Page Number
Acreage
protected
Foothills Equestrian Nature
Polk
Conservation
357/2186
Center
13.18
Easement
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the NC DENR Stewardship
Program will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld.
PDF property documents including the recorded deeds and plats associated with this site are
located on the EEP portal at:
http: // portal. ncdenr .org /c /document e library /get file ?P 1 id= 60409 &folderld = 11706724 &name=
DLFE- 64787.]2d f

APPENDIX C - Jurisdictional Determination & Permits
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
November 27, 2007
Ms. Liz Hair
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Mr. Ian McMillan
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401Unit
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1628
SUBJECT: NC EEP, Mr. Guy Pearce Nationwide 27 ,Permit Application
Blockhouse Creek Restoration Project
Polk County
DWQ No. 07 -1890
Dear Ms. Hair and Mr. McMillan:
Mr. Mickey Clemmons of Baker Engineering NY, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Guy Pearce of NC EEP requested
a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) for a 404
Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Comments from the Commission are provided under
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661- 667d).
The project involves enhancing and restoring about 6,000 feet of Blockhouse Creek and tributaries near
Tryon using natural channel design techniques. Riparian vegetation will be established along the project
reaches.
The project should not harm trout, so adherence to Final Regional Condition 1.2 is not necessary.
The Commission has no major concerns with the project approach. However, as stated in the application, we
strongly encourage saving large mature trees as much as possible. Preserving this vegetation promotes the
stability of the channel work and provides seed sources for natural regeneration, organic material to the
stream, and riparian habitat complexity until planted vegetation matures. Where trees are removed, their use
in vanes or other structures should be considered because woody debris is a common physical component of
piedmont streams. Log vanes are proposed with this project. However, during construction we encourage
evaluation of more -vanes and root wads instead of the rock toe design that may be used in outside meanders.
The Commission can concur with a permit for the project if the following recommended conditions are
attached and used to help conserve fish and wildlife resources:
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

NC EEP Page 2 November 27, 2007
Polk County
1. Only clean, large, angular rock, root wads, logs, or other natural stream design materials and
techniques are used for bank stabilization. Materials are not placed in the stream channels in a
manner that overly constricts stream flow or that impedes aquatic life movements during low flow
conditions.
2. Rock, sand, or other materials are not excavated from the stream channels except where necessary to
construct structures or to reestablish a natural channel according to reference information. These
materials are unstable in flowing -water situations and are unsuitable for bank stabilization
3. Only existing and actively eroding areas are stabilized. Grading and backfilling is minimized and tree
and shrub cover retained where possible to ensure long term availability of stream bank cover for
aquatic life and wildlife. Backfill materials are obtained from upland sites.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures are used and maintained until all disturbed soils are
permanently stabilized. All bare soil is seeded as soon as possible after ground disturbance and
erosion control matting is used with seeding on disturbed stream banks. Matting is secured with
staples, stakes, or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. Tall fescue is not used along streams.
5. In -water excavation is conducted in dry work areas whenever practical. Sandbags or other diversion
structures are used where needed to minimize any excavation in flowing water.
6. All heavy equipment operated near streams is inspected and maintained regularly to prevent
contamination by fuels, lubricants, or hydraulic fluids.
7. Hydroseed mixtures and wash- waters do not reach streams.
8. Disturbance of riparian vegetation is kept to a minimum. Where disturbance for temporary access is
necessary, trees and shrubs are cut and the stumps and roots left to resprout. Disturbed stream banks
and the widest possible zone outward from the restored stream channel are planted with native trees
and shrubs (e.g., silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, red maple, silky willow, tag alder, black
willow, sycamore). This will help provide long -term bank stability and stream shading. Note, silky
dogwood, silky willow and black willow can be planted as live stakes collected during the dormant
season. Cuttings should be randomly planted on four (4) foot centers from the waters edge to the top
of the bank. Trees should be planted on ten (10) to twelve (12) foot centers. Stream banks in these
areas are also seeded with a native seed mix with a temporary nursery crop of wheat, millet or other
grain.
9. If pasture along the stream is to be used for grazing, a fence is constructed on the field side of the
stabilization zone /s to prevent livestock from entering the replanted area and the stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending availability of field staff,
the Commission may inspect the work site during or after construction. If there are any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452 -2546 extension 24.
Sincerely,
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. Guy Pearce, NC EEP
Mr, Mickey Clemmons, Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
Mr. Kevin Barnett, NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW- 2007 -03874 County: Polk USGS Quad: Landrum
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: NC EEP Attn: Mr. Guy Pearce
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone No.: 828 - 715 -1656
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): The proposed project site is
369 acres located along Blockhouse Creek and its unnamed tributaries, approximately three miles
east of Tryon, in Polk County, North Carolina on the Foothills Equestrian Nature Center (FENCE)
property.
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes impacts associated with stream
restoration activity on Blockhouse Creek and its unnamed tributaries. Impacts total 0.10 acres of
wetland impacts for floodplain alteration and 5,988 linear feet of impact to stream channels onsite.
Authorized activities include (but are not limited to) grading floodplain benches installation of in-
stream boulder and log structures, vegetated geolifts, bed and bank grading in existing channel
offline new channel construction, bank matting and planting, and floodplain planting.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance
with the attached conditions conditions 1 -6 outlined in the enclosed NCWRC letter dated November 27, 2007
and your submitted plans Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans
may subiect the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and /or appropriate legal action.
While not a condition of this verification, it is recommended that you follow all conditions outlined in the
NCWRC letter including conditions 7, 8, and 9.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals /permits.

If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Liz Hair at 828 -271 -7980.
Corps Regulatory Official Liz Hair Date: December 18, 2007
Expiration Date of Verification: December 18, 2009
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.
To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the attached Customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
hM:/ /regulatory usacesurvff com/ to complete the survey online.

Micky Clemmons
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
1447 South Tryon, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Guy C. Pearce
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699- 1652
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
January 10, 2008
Subject Property:
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 07 -1890
Polk County
Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Clemmons and Mr. Pearce:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed
below, to place fill within or otherwise impact 5,988 feet of streams for the purpose of
stream enhancement at the subject properties, as described within your application
received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on November 8, 2007. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3689 (GC 3689). The Certification (s) allows you
to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required
federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not
limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, Non - discharge, and stormwater regulations.
Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts
to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404
or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose stated in your application. If you change your project,
you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval
letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 1-5-0 linear feet of stream,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h).
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and
any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919 - 733 -1786 / FAX 919 - 733 -68931 Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled /10% Post Consumer Paper
No thCarolina
Naturally;

Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Page 2 of 6
January 10, 2008
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific
and general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met.
No other impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the
reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre - Construction
Notification. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes,
or rules occur.
Amount Approved
(Units)
Plan Location or Reference
Stream
4,156 (linear feet)
Blockhouse Creek
Stream
550 (linear feet)
Trib 1
Stream
1,282 linear feet)
Trib 2
Wetland
.049 acres
Wetland 1
Wetland
.051 acres
Wetland 2
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the
reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre - Construction
Notification. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes,
or rules occur.

Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Page 3 of 6
January 10, 2008
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
5. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification
or applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is
required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401 /Wetlands Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699 -1650.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to construction
and maintained on the sites to minimize sediment in downstream areas. Seeding for
a temporary cover of wheat, millet, or similar annual grain or permanent herbaceous
cover should occur on all bare soil within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities
to provide long -term erosion control. The projects should be accomplished in stages
instead of leaving large tracts exposed to further storm events. Erosion control
matting should be used in conjunction with appropriate seeding on disturbed soils in
steep slope and riparian areas. Matting should be secured in place with staples,
stakes, or, wherever possible, live stakes of native trees. Straw mulch and tall
fescue should not be used in riparian areas. In addition, because of an anticipated
difficulty in establishing ground cover during the winter, reseeding should be
conducted, as necessary, in the spring -time with a native annual and perennial seed
mix with a temporary nursery crop of wheat, millet or other grain.
7. Only clean, large, angular rock, large woody material, or other natural stream design
materials and techniques should be used for bank stabilization. Rock should not be
placed in the stream channel in a manner that constricts stream flow or that will
impede aquatic life movements during low flow conditions. Filter cloth should be
placed behind large rock that is used for bank stabilization. Properly designed rock
vanes should be constructed wherever appropriate on bank stabilization and
channel realignment stream reaches to improve channel stability and to improve
aquatic habitat. Root wads should be installed low enough in the bank so that a
significant portion (at least one - third) the root wad is inundated during normal flows.
8. The channel should be restored to a more stable condition. However, under no
circumstances should river rock, sand or other materials be dredged from the stream
channel under authorization of this permit except, if necessary, in the immediate
vicinity of the eroding banks for the explicit purpose of anchoring stabilizing or
flow /grade control structures or for reestablishing the natural and more stable stream
channel dimensions. Stream bed materials are unstable in flowing -water situations
and are unsuitable for bank stabilization. In stream dredging has catastrophic effects
on aquatic life and disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel can cause
downstream erosion problems. The natural dimension, pattern, and profile of the
stream upstream and downstream of the permitted area should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or changing its depth.

Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Page 4 of 6
January 10, 2008
9. Stabilization measures should only be applied on or near existing erosion sites,
leaving other stable stream bank areas in a natural condition. Grading and
backfilling should be minimized and tree and shrub growth should be retained where
possible to ensure long term availability of stream bank cover for aquatic life and
wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites except in cases
where excess stream bed materials are available. Berms should not be permitted
because they block the floodplain, constrict and accelerate flood flows, and often fail
and sometimes impede drainage during large flood events.
10. Repairs to eroded banks should be conducted in a dry work area where possible.
Sandbags or other clean diversion structures should be used where possible to
minimize excavation in flowing water. Channel realignments should be constructed
by excavating the new channel from downstream to upstream before connecting it to
the old channel.
11. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank whenever possible. All
mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and
maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials. Equipment used in stream
channel must be clean, new or low hour equipment.
12. Disturbed stream banks and a 30 -foot vegetated zone must be restored along the
construction sites to natural riparian conditions with native trees and shrubs (e.g.,
silky dogwood, rhododendron, dog hobble, red maple, silky willow, tag alder, black
willow, sycamore) to provide long -term bank stability and stream shading. Note,
silky dogwood, silky willow and black willow can be planted as live stakes collected
during the dormant growing season. Cuttings should be randomly planted on four
(4) foot centers from the waters edge to the top of the bank. Trees should be planted
on ten (10) to twelve (12) foot centers. Stream banks in these areas should also be
seeded with a native annual and perennial seed mix with a temporary nursery crop
of wheat, millet or other grain.
13. If pasture along the stream is to be used for grazing, a fence must be constructed
outside of the riparian zone and the stream to prevent livestock from entering these
areas.
14. Diffuse Flow
All constructed stormwater conveyance outlets shall be directed and maintained
as diffuse flow at non - erosive velocities through the protected riparian zones
such that it will not re- concentrate before discharging into a stream. If this is not
possible, it may be necessary to provide stormwater facilities that are considered
to remove nitrogen. This may require additional approval from this Office.
15. Riparian Zone Replanting
A 25 foot vegetated zone must be established along streams through the entire
property. Planting of vegetation within 25 feet of the streambank must be done in
a manner consistant with the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration
immediately following construction. (Please see attached.)

Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Page 5 of 6
January 10, 2008
16. Deed Notifications
Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained
jurisdictional wetlands, waters and protective buffers in order to assure
compliance for future wetland, water and buffer impact. These mechanisms shall
be put in place prior to impacting any wetlands, waters and /or buffers approved
for impact under this Certification Approval and Authorization Certificate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the 401/Wetlands Unit web
site at http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /ncwetlands. The text of the sample deed
notification may be modified as appropriate to suit to this project.
17. Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 50 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 213. .0200. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control practices must be used to meet this standard.
18. No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources or locally delegated program has released the project.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and
as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the
approved wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699 -6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you
ask for a hearing.

Blockhouse Creek Stream Restoration
Page 6 of 6
January 10, 2008
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the
Central Office in Raleigh at 919 - 733 -9721 or Mr. Kevin Barnett in the DWQ Asheville
Regional Office at 828 - 296 -4657.
Sincerely,
U
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
CHS /khb
Enclosures: GC 3689
Certificate of Completion
Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration
cc: USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWQ 401 Central Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
David McHenry, Wildlife Resources Commission
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 07- 1890. BlockhouseCreekRestorationProject .Approval

Mitigation Project Name Blockhouse Creek
EEP IMS ID 92516
River Basin BROAD
Cataloging Unit 03050105
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 51 1:1 3:1 2:1 51
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014
E A
U)
a
w
m E
w`
°'
m E
c
w
m 10
a
c
c
2
U
a
c
m u
- v
W
c
°
- t°
a
c
A o
`m m
O N
z
c
m e
`m 2
O U
z
c c
m m
`m E
O L
z W
m o
`m m
O
za
w e
q o
N
cis
w
c
U
v
w e
q w
L
u W
w o
m
ua
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
4,925.00
950.00
430.00
Beginning Balance (mitigation credits)
4,925.00
633.33
86.00
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits (feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
4,925.00
950.00
430.00
Remaining Balance (mitigation credits)
4,925.00
633.30
1 86.00
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/13/2014

APPENDIX E
ADDITIONAL RAW DATA

Cross - Section Pebble Count (Blockhouse Creek -Reach 1)
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP# 92516
SITE OR PROJECT: Blockhouse Creek
REACH /LOCATION: Reach 1, Riffle near Veg Plot I
FEATURE: Riffle
Summary Data
Channel materials
D50 = 12
D84 ° 21
D95 = 30
2013
MATERI
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
I Class %
I % Cum
Silt /Clay
Silt /Clay
1 <.063
1 2
1 4%1
12%
Very Fine
.063 - .125
0%
0%
Fine
.125 -.25
2
0%
0%
Sand
Medium
.25 - .50
2%
6%
Coarse
.50 -1.0
2
4%
10%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
0%
0%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
4
0%
0%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
0%
0%
Fine
4.0-5.6—
2
0%
0%
Fine
5.6 -8.0
2
0%
0%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
22
6%
16%
Gracel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
22
13%
29%
Coarse
16-22.6
22
10%
39%
Coarse
22.6-32
6
10%
49%
Very Coarse
32-45
2
10%
59%
Very Coarse
45-64
13%
72
Small
64-90
2
4%
76%
Small
90- 128
8%
84%
Cobble
Large
128 -I80
IO%
94%
Large
180-256
6%
100%
Small
256-362
2%
102%
Small
362-512
0%
0
Boulder
Medium
512-10241
0%
0%
Large -Very Large
1024 -2048
0%
0%
Bedrock
Bedrock
>2048
1
0%
0%
Total % of whole count
1 100
100%
102%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D50 = 12
D84 ° 21
D95 = 30
Blockhouse Creek -Reach 1
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
.g 50%
w
A
u
40
a:
30%
20
000
10%
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000
10000
Particle Size (mm)
—As Built
—MYl _MY2 _MY3 —MY4 _MYS
Blockhouse Creek
Reach 1, Near Veg Plot 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
80
70
60
a
$ 50%
Y
— —
40%
U 30%
20%
10%
lit
IJ'l
It-,
0%
o�b'S o, ,ti5 oy5 05 ♦ 'L
„°. a 1�b 4 11" ♦b rytib „�'L p5 hb ep 41 141 �5b �y'L
�,♦�r ♦oyP ��4 9,,O
Particle Size Class (mm)
■As -Built
❑myl ■MY2 0 MY3 0 MY4
■MY5

Cross - Section Pebble Count (Blockhouse Creek -Reach 4)
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP# 92516
SITE OR PROJECT: Blockhouse Creek
REACH/LOCATION: Reach 4, Riffle near Veg Plot 10
FEATURE: Riffle
Summary Data
Channel materials
D5o = 88
D,— 137
Dvs = 170
Blockhouse Creek -Reach 4
2013
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt /Clay
Silt /Clay
<.063
4
4%
4%
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
07/.
Fine
.125-.25
0%
0%
Sand
Medium
.25 -.50
2%
6%
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
2
4%
10%
Very Coarse
1.0 -2.0
1 0%
0%
Very Fine
2.0 -2.8
0%
0%
Very Fine
2.8 -4.0
0%
0%
Fine
4.0-5.6
4
0%
0%
Fine
5.6-8.0
4
0%
0%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
6%
16%
Gravel
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
6
13%
29
Coarse
16-22.6
4
10%
39%
Coarse
22.6-32
4
10%
49%
Very Coarse
32-45
2
10%
59%
Very Coarse
45-64
4
13%
72%
Small
64-90
16
4%
76%
Small
90 -128
30
8%
84%
Cobble
Large
128-180
L
10%
94%
Large
180 - 256
2
6%
100
Small
256 -362
2%
102%
Boulder
Small
362-512
0%
0%
Medium
512 - 1024
0%
0%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
0%
0%
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
0%
0%
Total % of whole count
102
100%_
102%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D5o = 88
D,— 137
Dvs = 170
Blockhouse Creek -Reach 4
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60
50%
Ls.
e
40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
—As Built —MYI +MY2 _MY3 _MY4 _MY5
Blockhouse Creek
Reach 4, Near Veg Plot 10
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
90%
70%
60%
`o
50%
a
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
lb L �m LCIL L. di NJA'
k,
0%
o�b'7 o�,y5 oy5 Z'? \ 'L ,ti4 b !0 4 41 14,0 ti5b ,�bti 111 ,�ryb ��P �00
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ As Built. ■ MY 1 ■ MY2 ■ MY3 ■ MY4 ■ MY5

Cross - Section Pebble Count (Blockhouse Creek -UTI)
Blockhouse Creek Mitigation Project, EEP# 92516
SITE OR PROJECT: Blockhouse Creek
REACH/LOCATIOM UTI, riffle new confluence
FEATURE: Riffle
Summary Data
Channel materials
D5o ° 16
Ds4 — 76
D95= 113
*Pebble counts only collected on mainstem during the As -built Survey
2012
MATERIA
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cam
Silt/Clay
Silt /Cla
<.063
12
4%
120/,
Very Fine
.063 -.125
0%
0%
.125 -.25
12
0%
0%
Sand
edium
.25 -.50
4
2%
6%
jCFinc
oarse
.50 - 1.0
2
4%
10%
Coarse
1.0 -2.0
0%
0%
VeryFine
2.0 -2.8
0%
0%
V I' Fine
2.8 -4.0
0%
0%
Fine
4.0-5.6
0%
0%
Fine
5.6-8.0
2
01/.
0%
Medium
8.0 -11.0
6%
16%
Gravel
Medium
11.0 -16.0
4
13%
29%
Coarse
16 -22.6
18
10%
39%
Coarse
22.6 - 32
I4
10%
49%
Very Coarse
32 -45
10
10%
59%
Very Coarse
45-64
81
13%
72
Small
64-90
6
4%
76%
Small
90 -128
4
8%
84%
Cobble
Large
128-180
4
10%
94%
Large
180 -256
6%
100%
Small
256-362
2%
102%
Small
362-512
0%
0%
Boulder
Medium
512- 1024
0%
0%
Large-Very Laze
1024 -2048
p
0%
0%
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
1 0%
0%
Total% ofwhole count
100
1 100%
1 102%
Summary Data
Channel materials
D5o ° 16
Ds4 — 76
D95= 113
*Pebble counts only collected on mainstem during the As -built Survey
UT1
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90
80%
a 70%
p
60%
50%
E
U 40%
30%
oo
20
10%
L
0% -
_L
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
�MYI _MY2 +MY3
+MY4
UTl
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
e 60%
c
50%
a
40%
U
30
20%
10%
0%
OOb'S O,`�5 Oti5 05 1 'L ry4 0. 5 4 11^5 1b ryry6 ,5'L 0.5 bP q0 1ry4
140 ry5b , b`L ��'L `O,tiP �OP4 X000
Particle Size Class (mm)
■MY1 ■MY2 0 MY3
■MY4