20081441 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Monitoring Report — Year 3 of 5
Final
Contract # 004391
EEP Project # 92573
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Construction 2010
Collected October 28, 2014
Report December 30, 2014
Revised February 19, 2014
Submitted to:
NCDENR -EEP
1601 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
O
tem
PROGRAM

Prepared By:
WITHERS 03� RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
Withers & Ravenel
115 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager: Daniel Wiebke
Email: dwiebke @withersravenel.com

Executive Summary/ Project Abstract
The site is located roughly 10 miles northeast of Charlotte, NC. Figure 1 includes a map and
directions to the site. The restoration was designed by Withers & Ravenel and construction
completed by River Works Inc. in June 2010. This report summarizes the monitoring efforts for
Monitoring Year -3 (MY -3) 2014.
McKee Creek is divided into two reaches within the project site; McKee Creek — Reach 1 is
upstream of Peach Orchard Road and McKee Creek — Reach 2 is downstream of the road
crossing. The pre - project stream lengths of McKee Creek — Reach 1 and Reach 2 were 3,733
linear feet (If) and 847 If, respectively. The pre - project reach length of Clear Creek; was 1,513
If. The total pre - project stream length within the project limits was 6,093 If.
The stream design resulted in 1,641 if of stream restoration on Clear Creek, and 1,0961f of Level
I stream enhancement and 3,240 if of Level II stream enhancement on McKee Creek. The total
of stream design is 5,9771£
The project goals and objectives stated in the McKee Creek Restoration Plan (NCEEP 2008) are
as follows:
Project Goals:
• Restore through stream enhancement (Level I and Level II) McKee Creek;
• Restore Clear Creek (Priority I restoration);
• Restore the physical and biological processes of McKee and Clear Creeks;
• Restore riparian vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.
Project Objectives:
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, restricting livestock access to the
creeks, and re- establishing the riparian buffer;
• Stabilize McKee Creek through the use of in- stream structures and pattern re- alignment
in selected areas;
• Restore the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek;
• Improve the floodplain functionality of Clear Creek by matching floodplain elevation
with bank full stage;
• Improve the wildlife habitat functions of the site through riparian buffer establishment,
improved stream bed form diversity, and improved floodplain functionality to reduce
stream incision;
• Protect the site through a permanent conservation easement along the project reaches.
Prior to project completion, the streams suffered from excess sedimentation, channel incision,
bank degradation, and limited riparian vegetation. The Lower Yadkin River Basin Local
Watershed Plan states both McKee Creek (from source to Reedy Creek) and Clear Creek (from
source to McKee Creek) 303(d) listed streams; McKee Creek for fecal coliform and sediment
and Clear Creek for fecal coliform. NCDENR indicates the potential sources of impairment for
McKee Creek and Clear Creek include agriculture, land development, and urban runoff/ storm
sewers. Additionally, McKee Creek has non - municipal discharges from two minor NPDES
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No. 92573 December 2014
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 Revised February 2015

permitted discharges from private wastewater treatment plants located upstream of the project
site. It is stated in the LWP; DWQ studies of fecal coliform bacterial sources for McKee and
Clear Creeks indicated that livestock grazing was one of the contributing factors.
Monitoring of the project began with a visual site assessment in the spring of 2012 to identify
potential problems. Cross - sections, crest gages, vegetation plots, and photo points were also
established at that time. Base line information is not available since no monitoring was
performed from the completion of construction in June 2010 till the spring 2012.
Proiect Complications
In addition to the delayed initiation of monitoring, several other factors have been detrimental to
the goals of this mitigation. Approximately a month prior to the initial visual site assessment, a
tornado caused damage in the area off the confluence of Clear Creek and McKee Creek, see
Figure 2. The tornado downed large diameter trees with many spanning McKee and Clear Creek.
Evidence of this can be seen in Photo Point 3. The downed trees have been cleared across Clear
Creek, but remain a hindrance along the south bank. Many of the fallen trees on McKee Creek
remain from the edge of the project limits down to Clear Creek.
The downed trees on the south bank of Clear Creek have impeded the monitoring effort. These
downed trees have either attracted beavers or been exacerbated by a beaver population in the
past. This assessment showed no current evidence of a beaver population, though observations
will still be made to identify them.
Since completion of the stream restoration project, a sewer line was constructed along McKee
Creek. The sewer serves a development west of McKee Creek and north of Peach Orchard Road.
The sewer parallels the McKee Creek west bank from Peach Orchard Road to roughly stream
station 40 +00 where it traverses the stream and follows the east bank to a wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) upstream of the project area. This gravity sewer bucks grade to reach the WWTP
from Peach Orchard Road. The construction of the sewer stream crossing required armoring
both sides of the stream bank with rip rap for roughly 30 feet. The sewer has an easement along
the alignment for access and maintenance that will be cleared. The easement clearing impact to
the riparian buffer is limited to the stream crossing. Additionally, it appears that the majority of
survey control set during the stream restoration construction was destroyed by the sewer line
construction. New survey control had to be established along McKee Creek south of Peach
Orchard Road in the fall of 2012.
It was noted in the Spring 2013 Assessment that Vegetation Plot 1 had been mowed over and
most, if not all planted live stems had been cut to the ground. It was evident that the
regeneration of 6 planted stems in the plot identified a reduction in stems as compared to data
collected in the Fall of 2012 (refer to the Vegetation Results section below for a more detailed
description of the effects of this complication).
The Fall 2014 site visit illustrated the increase in sedimentation problems. Specifics for each
structure along Mckee Creek follow in the Stream Results section. Most of the problems that are
stressing the structures along Mckee Creek are sediment related. Numerous golf balls have been
seen along the Mckee Creek Reaches and in the downstream sections of Clear Creek. The likely
source of these balls is a golf course roughly 4.5 miles upstream of Mckee Creek. This indicates
that any loose sediments smaller than this will be transported downstream through the project
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No. 92573 December 2014
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 Revised February 2015
2

site. Of the distance upstream to the golf course, approximately 0.8 miles of the stream is located
in undeveloped Cabarrus County, while the remaining 3.7 miles is located in outer Mecklenburg
County. This means that sediment to this section of the stream is not temporary and will continue
as development sprawls outward.
Vegetation Results
Success of the riparian buffer plantings will be based on vegetation success criteria established in
the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). Four (4) permanent monitoring plots were
established along the restored buffer in Spring of 2012. In order to be considered a successful
restoration, the site must contain a minimum of 320 live stems per acre at Year 3 and 260 live
stems per acre at Year 5. Year 3 shows an average of 486 live planted stems per acre with a
minimum count of 243. These estimates are based on Level 2 of the CVS -EEP monitoring
protocol and include only planted woody stems. The stem count is based on the average stem
counts within the vegetation plots. Reference pictures of each monitoring plot were taken and
attached to this report. The fact that all restored vegetation areas (on average) are performing
above the requirement is good however Plot 1 is still deficient in Year 3 due to the mowing
activity in 2012. It should be noted, the combination of 6 planted live stems (regenerated after
mowing) and the additional natural woody stems in Vegetation Plot 1, should yield at least the
minimum of planted and natural stems in Year 5. This gives the site, when accounting for
volunteer stems, an average stems per acre within plots of 1,164, which is well over the
requirement of 320 stems per acre in MY3.
Re- vegetation and elimination of invasives along McKee Creek Reach 2 was an important aspect
of project success. The invasive species Multiflora Rose (Rosa multijlora) plagued the project
site before and during construction. Construction logs indicate the Multiflora Rose was found to
be three times greater than specified on the original plan, and though denied, the contractor
requested on -site burning multiple times. As a result, several rounds of spray treatment were
applied followed by bush hogging the invasive species.
During the Fall 2014, assessment of Multiflora Rose was still evident on both sides of the stream
adjacent to Plot 1 and Autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and the Multiflora Rose were prominent in and around the vicinity of Plot 2. These
plants are considered non - native invasive species and should be removed from the restoration
areas to further limit the overtaking the native vegetation. Invasives were last treated in
November 2013 and Spring of 2014, and treatment shall be repeated in Spring 2015 (early
growing season), to eradicate remaining problem areas.
Stream Results
A visual qualitative assessment was performed to inspect channel facets, meanders, beds, banks,
and installed structures. This visual assessment was confirmed and enhanced with a quantitative
assessment of a physical stream survey for approximately 1600 feet. In general, Clear Creek
appeared to preforming decently. A quick and dense development of vegetation proved to hold
the stream together, along with the exclusion of bank damaging livestock. The downstream vane
of the double cross -vanes is performing well, while the upstream vane has soil slumped onto the
right arm and center of the structure from the bank with vegetation growing on it. The vegetation
and soil on the right arm and center of the structure has caused flow to shift toward the left bank,
which is becoming eroded, and flow is start to fall over the left side, beginning to detach the
McKee Creek
EEP Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 3 of 5
c
Withers & Ravenel
December 2014
Revised February 2015

boulders from the left side. While this slumping from the right side is stressing the structure, it is
also causing areas of slower moving water for habitat creation. The fabric is beginning to fall off
of the log vane at station 25 +00, but the vane is still functioning, similarly the log vanes at 24 +50
and 24 +00 have lost their fabric, but are being undercut allowing water to flow under them as
reported in MY -2 fall report. The constructed riffle at cross - section 23 +00 looks good and a
variety of pebble sizes are present and seems to be holding grade well. The pool at cross - section
22 +75 is very wide and deep compared to the other pools in the stream. The stream stretch from
the ford at 22 +00 to 22 +75 has a number of small trees that are "crisscrossing" the channel
making certain parts impassable by wading. The outside bend at station 18 +25 near Photo Point
6, has been eroded and an area of interest since MY -1 but well established trees along the bank
appear to be greatly slowing the erosion rate. The inside of the bend is very flat and level with
little vegetation, inferring shortcutting overtop of the "floodplain" during high flow instances and
providing a nice bench for larger animals outside of high flow situations. The right bank bar that
has been forming over the past 3 years at station 14 +00 is lush, with short vegetation and is still
growing slowly as sediment deposits, this bar has raccoon prints and seems to be an optimal
"fishing" location. The most upstream cross -vane at station 11 +25 is beginning to become
overgrown as the banks, move in and some vegetation has begun to grow on top of the center
stone, providing good macro - invertebrate type habitat.
A full restoration was not performed on McKee Creek Reach 1; a majority of this reach was only
re- vegetated. Stream survey of this reach was performed for roughly 218 feet. The re- alignment
work that was done where the sharp bend used to be is holding well. The cross -vane at station
27 +00 that occupies this same area is filled in with fines and the center boulder dislodged, most
likely due to development in the area as discussed in the complications section. There does not
seem to be any other outside factors.
The structures on McKee Creek Reach 2 appear to be fairly stable, despite silting in presumably
caused by slowed velocities approaching the tornado damaged section. Cattle exclusion has
allowed the banks to re- vegetate and stabilize in the project area, while the banks are presumably
unstable upstream of the project site as described in the complications section. Effective
floodplain connection remains from downstream of Peach Orchard Road for approximately 650
feet, where the stream enters the tornado impacted area, approximately 635 feet of this was
surveyed. Due to the high level of silt coming from the headwaters at the time of survey, a bar
had formed just upstream of the cross -vane at station 16 +50, additionally the J -hook at station
15 +75 was silted in severely with 1.21 feet of loose silt filling the pool. The J -hook at station
14 +50 is also slightly eroded exposing the J- hook's boulders as opposed to the other structures
that appear to be naturally protected by the bank(s). There is a point bar that has formed between
the J -hook at station 13 +25 and the cross -vane at station 12 +50, which has raccoon prints
evidence of mammal populations being present. The left arm of the cross -vane at station 12 +50
has been aggraded, such the flow now comes over the right arm of the cross -vane. The fabric and
boulders still seem to be intact and the cross -vane appears to still be holding grade despite the
misalignment of flow. The bank in the area just upstream of cross -vane at station 12 +00 is falling
into the stream along with a fallen tree. Both of which are very near the structure and may begin
to fill it in as well. This fallen tree area has also caught some debris which has created a dam
causing a water surface differential of 1.03 feet. Though debris and fallen trees should remain at
the sides of the bank for lower velocity areas producing habitat diversity, the resulting water
surface differential makes partial breaching an effective recommendation.
McKee Creek
EEP Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 3 of 5
4
Withers & Ravenel
December 2014
Revised February 2015

Hydrology Results
During the fall assessment, crest gages were checked for bankfull occurrences. On Reach 2 of
McKee Creek, flattened vegetation, validates the bankfull or greater events at crest gage 1. The
reading of crest gage 2 indicates events near bankfull, the presence of vegetation and small trees
on the bank and at the very fringe of the floodplain leaned in the direction of flow are indicators
of flow above bankfull. Whether flow rates greatly exceeded the channel capacity or not is
unknown, but it demonstrates that this portion of the stream shows good floodplain connection
and energy dissipation. Crest gage 3 had been toppled over again, most likely by a combination
of inundated soils making it the post foundation soft and a large storm event. Visual signs
indicate that the water surface did not overtopped the gage completely. The presence of golf balls
at the downstream end of Clear Creek, presumably from the same source as those found in
Mckee Creek, may provide evidence that Mckee flows backed into Clear Creek. This is
understandable from a hydrologic standpoint, as Mckee Creek has a large drainage area and thus
a greater time of concentration as compared to Clear Creeks considerable smaller drainage area
and time of concentration.
The rainfall data provided in the appendix as Table 12 was for Cabarrus County per the NC
Climate website through NCSU, during the period between Nov 2013 and Nov 2014 which
totaled 39.62 inches. This is compared to the Harrisburg Town website, which quotes an average
annual rainfall of 43.8 inches "consistent with the average rainfall for Cabarrus County." This
means that the site has experienced about a 4 inch rainfall deficit over the average year.
Wetlands
No formal wetland assessment of this site was preformed. The site does have two small
documented wetlands, 1,050 sf and 3,840 sf, which were discovered after the fall data collection.
Both of these wetlands contain Chewacla type soils, according to the soils maps. In addition,
there appears to be a small wetland just north of Peach Orchard Road, approximately 150 ft west
of the stream. The soil of this wetland appears to be moderately wet upon inspection, and the
surrounding ground and vegetation rather dry. No project mitigation credits are calculated, as
these wetlands are incidental and not part of the project, though in the area.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items, such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements, can be found in
the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available
on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from EEP upon request
McKee Creek
EEP Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 3 of 5
G
Withers & Ravenel
December 2014
Revised February 2015

Methodology
All survey was preformed utilizing either total station tradition survey methods or a survey grade
GPS unit to capture points with high horizontal and vertical accuracy. The longitudinal stationing
was formatted as close as possible to the original restoration plan stationing. The particle size
distribution was collected using the standard Wolman pebble count procedure as taught by Dr.
Gregory Jennings, North Carolina State University. The methodology used in this monitoring
assessment followed the prescribed recommendation of the CVS -EEP Vegetation Monitoring
Protocol Level -2.
References
Town of Harrisburg North Carolina, Visitors Page, Geography and Climate
http: / /www.harrisbur ng c.org /Visitors /Geog_rUhyClimate.aWx
Lower Yadkin LWP— PFR, 2003 and WMP &R — Lower Yadkin LWP, 2004
http: / /www.nceep. net /services /lwps /ClarkeeCreek/FeR Rocky Yadkin.pdf
Wolman Pebble Count,
http: / /Iimnology.wisc. edu/ courses/ zoo548 /Wolman %2OPebble %2OCount.pdf
Rainfall Data for Cabarrus County,
httt)://www.ne-climate.ncsu.edu/cronos
McKee Creek Withers & Ravenel
EEP Project No. 92573 December 2014
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 Revised February 2015

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

1 -77 1 -40
RALEIGH
1 -85 US -64
CHARLOTTE
PROJECT AREA
Miles
0 12.5 25 50 75 100
The subject project site is an environmental
restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership.
Therefore access by the general public is not permitted.
Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees /contractors
involved in the development, monitoring and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted
within the terms and timeframes of their defined,
pre- approved roles. Any intended site visitation
or activity by any person outside of these
previously sanctioned activities /roles requires
prior coordination with EEP
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
EEP # 92573
Cabarrus County, NC
December 3, 2012
Take US -64 West from the Raleigh area to 1 -85
(approximatley 85 miles). Take 1 -85 south toward Charlotte
(approximately 48 miles). Take exit 48 onto 1 -485 toward
Rock Hill (approximately 8 miles) Take exit 39 onto
Harrisburg Road north stay on Robinson Church for
approximately 1 mile and then turn right onto
NCSR 1169 Peach Orchard Road.
Peach Orchard Road intersects the project site.
Miles
0 0.25 0.5
N
I�rIK:P�hYJ

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
McKee Creek Project #: 92573
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
3668
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage /Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII, etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
McKee Reach 1
10 +00 - 25 +00, 29 +00 - 46 +40
3240
P4
E2
3240
2.5:1 MAX
McKee Reach 1
25 +00 - 29 +00
400
P2
E1
400
1.5:1 MAX
McKee Reach 2
10 +00 - 17 +23.67
696
P2
E1
696
1.5:1 MAX
Clear Creek
11 +03.05 - 27 +59.18
1641
P1
R
1641
1 to 1
Component Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland
Restoration Level (linear feet) (acres)
Non - riparian Wetlands
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Restoration 1641
Non - Riverine
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 1096
Enhancement II 3240
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Pur ose /Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = BioretentionCell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS =
Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 yrs 7 months
Number of Reporting Years: 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
Aug -08
Final Design — Construction Plans
Apr -09
Construction
May -10
Containerized, bare root and B &B plantings for reach /segments 1 &2
May -10
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Spring Year 1 Monitoring
Apr -12
May -12
Fall Year 1 Monitoring
Oct -12
Nov -12
Spring Year 2 Monitoring
Apr -13
May -13
Beaver Removal
Summer -13
Invasives Treatment
Fall -13
Fall Year 2 Monitoring
Oct -13
Nov -13
Spring Year 3 Monitoring
Apr-14
Apr-14
Invasives Treatment
Summer -14
Fall Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -14
Dec -14
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Designer
Withers & Ravenel, Inc.
115 MacKenan Drive Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC
Daniel Wiebke, E.I. 919 469 -3340
Construction Contractor
River Works Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607
Construction contractor POC
Edward Haynes
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying
Survey contractor POC
Elisabeth Turner
Planting Contractor
River Works Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, NC 27607
Planting contractor POC
Edward Haynes
Seeding Contractor
Green Resources
5204 Highgreen Ct Colfax, NC 27235
Contractor point of contact
Rodney Montgomery
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Not Known
Monitoring Performers
Withers & Ravenel, Inc.
115 MacKenan Drive Cary, NC 27511
Stream Monitoring POC
Daniel Wiebke, E.I. (919) 535 -5172
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Daniel Wiebke, E.I. (919) 535 -5173
Wetland Monitoring POC

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Name
McKee Creek, Project #92573
County
Cabarrus
Project Area (acres)
17.41
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 1 3040105010050
DWQ Sub -basin
Clear- 03- 07- 11/03 -08 -34
Thermal Regime
Warm Thermal Regime
Project Drainage Area (acres)
8980
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
36
CGIA Land Use Classification
Single Family and Wooded
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
McKee Reach 1
McKee Reach 2
Clear Creek
Length of Reach
3640
696
1641
Valley Classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage Area(acres)
3640
696
1641
NCDWQ stream identification score
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C/C
Morphological Description (stream type)
E4
E4
E /C5
Evolutionary trend
C4
C4
C5
Underlying mapped soils
CHEWACLA
CHEWACLA
CHEWACLA
Drainage class
Soil Hydric status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope
0.005
0.005
0.014
FEMA classification
AE
AE
Mckee (Backwater)
Native vegetation community]
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegitation
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3
Size of Wetland (acres)
Wetland Type(non- riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non - riverine)
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Hydrologic Impairment
Native vegetation community
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Dcumentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
SAW- 2008 -2808
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Land Quality
Yes
CABAR- 2009 -0024
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) /Costal Area Management Act(CAMA)
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No

U 1' 1 i
Visual Assessment Data

t
•G32 00 -24Q0 ,
•r- 22 .00
.: .. r
y- C Yr;a ,. < -`�. -_ • ...............................
18.100
16 ±00 t
1400
12-�A0
. �44 +A�•
•1 • • X42 +W*
-46 +00-
38 +00-
2:
y
36 -00
X34 +00
1
2+00 '
fr.0-k00 --
&8 00
•. el?Cw00
j 24.00
i a
2+,00
�,20 +6.0
\ 18+00
%16#•b0
•14 +00
•-t 11200 `
0 150 300
WITHERS RAVENEL
ENGINEERS PIA NNERS SURVEYORS
115 MacKenan give, Cary, North Carolina
Td 'j9 469.334O
www.vmhersravend-
0
z
m Feet
600
I'rP ".
41 t, �•
u t
s
,j*40 "
T
'i lk
f V
to T
Legend
........ Conservation Easement
-- -- Pre Channel
►- — Centerline
X XS–Lines
Photo Points
VegetationPlot
® Tornado Damage April 2012
0 Viewports

a
F
7
Clear Creek
Figure 1.2
I Y
r
r •
t
1
A I
A
Legend
........ Conservation Easement Tornado Damage April 2012
Pre Channel
►- — Centerline
-� -� SewerLine
Approx. Sewer Easement
X—X XS—Lines
�J Photo Points
A Crest Gauge
Invasives
Structures
Failing
C Stable
0 Stressed
0
w
Ve etationPlot Feet
g 0 25 50 100
Criteria Unmet 'WITHERS c3: RAVEN EL
Criteria Met i ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
'`, ///- 115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, North Carolina
Tel.:[phone]
v ww.withevsravenel.com
u
F 0Imm" &M

McKee Creek Reach 2
End McKee Reach 2
s
1�'t00
+ A
}
F
Stream Not Visible from Bank
Overgrown and Storm Damage
16u600
%ad
1
�r
i
15 +Qd
A
_r
14+00 ' Ti
i
-
1 T0
_ __ Yr ,
1+00 .
Figure 1.4
�• s
Legend
........ Conservation Easement Tornado Damage April 2012
Pre Channel
►- —
Centerline
- --�
SewerLine
s
Approx. Sewer Easement
X—X
XS—Lines
�J
Photo Points
�• s
Legend
........ Conservation Easement Tornado Damage April 2012
Structures
Failing
C Stable
0 Stressed
VegetationPlot
Criteria Unmet
Criteria Met
Bank Slumping;
Wood Debris Dam
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS 23: RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
N 1I S MacKenan Drive, Cary, North Carolina
Tel.:[phone]
www.withers rave nel.com
F l BCA&M
Pre Channel
►- —
Centerline
- --�
SewerLine
Approx. Sewer Easement
X—X
XS—Lines
�J
Photo Points
A
Crest Gauge
Invasives
Structures
Failing
C Stable
0 Stressed
VegetationPlot
Criteria Unmet
Criteria Met
Bank Slumping;
Wood Debris Dam
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS 23: RAVEN EL
ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I SURVEYORS
N 1I S MacKenan Drive, Cary, North Carolina
Tel.:[phone]
www.withers rave nel.com
F l BCA&M

14 +00 12 +00 ,
13 +00� -� -
it "
- L --ter
p 3
I
Begin McKee
Reach 2
. s
1% ,
r
A
Y
- � J
!0
m,
A
n
1
.._
Legend
......•. Conservation Easement
Pre Channel
►- — Centerline
EMINE7 SewerLine
Approx. Sewer Easement
X—X XS_Lines
�J Photo Points
A Crest Gauge
Invasives
�11+00
,
=a
i
m
/
•
•
1
1
/
1
1
! .r
/
I
McKee Creek Reach 1
Figure 1.5
End McKee
Reach 1
46 +00
1-
Q�
Vol
t
4110
r
L-j
I
T
t
1
44+00
t
R.�
�II
may.
I
43 *00
lr
T
42 r00
r ,
r
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS - RAVENEL
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, North Carolina
%1.:919.459.3340
www.withersravenel.com
� ®cw wei
Tornado Damage April 2012
Structures
Failing
C
Stable
0
Stressed
VegetationPlot
Criteria Unmet
Criteria Met
�11+00
,
=a
i
m
/
•
•
1
1
/
1
1
! .r
/
I
McKee Creek Reach 1
Figure 1.5
End McKee
Reach 1
46 +00
1-
Q�
Vol
t
4110
r
L-j
I
T
t
1
44+00
t
R.�
�II
may.
I
43 *00
lr
T
42 r00
r ,
r
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS - RAVENEL
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, North Carolina
%1.:919.459.3340
www.withersravenel.com
� ®cw wei

'3
PF
r t
.,' .,, +w:� -ter• .. .n
�'- I.
r
;Ir*
1
s r
1
Legend
'4s +00
C
..- M-M
a� \
1
r
El
e
R••
1
1 T
■ I
1 •� f
1 '
1
■
1
1
1„�..
1
1
■ t
1
■ 1 .
I
......•. Conservation Easement Tornado Damage April 2012
Pre Channel Structures
►- —
Centerline
Failing
--I-®=
SewerLine
Stable
Approx. Sewer Easement
Stressed
X—X
XS—Lines
VegetationPlot
�j
Photo Points
Criteria Unmet
A
Crest Gauge
Invasives
Criteria Met
McKee Creek Reach 1
Figure 1.6
IV1051 mole ueaa;
Some Honeysuckle
Feet
0 25 50 100
WITHERS " R,AVENEL
_ ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
t11 s MacKenan r)rive,Cary, North Carolina
%1.:919.459.3340
www.withersravenel.com
k
1W
J I it jC 111c t
� ®cw wer

1�
..........................
1
I
r
I
1
R
.z
Legend
T
11110� N11
� � s
McKee Creek Reach
Figure 1.11
MC, Yee
-------- Conservation Easement F. Tornado Damage April 2012
Pre Channel Structures
►- — Centerline Failing +�
EMINE7 SewerLine
Stable
Approx. Sewer Easement
Stressed
X--X XS–Lines VegetationPlot Feet
�J Photo Points
o 25 50 goo
A Crest Gauge Criteria Unmet WITHERS -'L R,AVENEL
Criteria Met ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS aem
Invasives 115MacKenanr)rive , Cary, North Carolina II CIA
%1.:419.459.3380 I � H )c 11 I
E ®ce wei
www.withersravenel.com

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID McKee Creek Reach 1
Assessed Length 3301
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number of Stable
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
%Stable Performing as
Intended
Number with Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Vertical Stability
Aggradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow latereally (not to include point bars)
1
20
95%
Degradation-Evidence of downcuttin
0
0
100%
Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
Bed
Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
1.6
0
0
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate( >30% of centerline distance between tail
of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle
0
0
100%
Thalweg Position
Thalweq centering at upstream of meander bend Run
0
0
100%
Thalweg centering at dowsntream of meadner bend (glide)
0
0
100%
Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
growth and or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extednt that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Bank
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse Totals 0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
1
0%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
across the sill
0
0
100%
Piping
Structures lacking any substation flow underneath sills or
arms
0
0
100%
Engineered
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuctures extednt of influence does
Bank Protection
not exceed 15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP
0
0
100%
monitoring guidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining – Max Pool Depth: Mean
Habitat
Bankfull Depth — 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
base -flow

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID McKee Creek Reach 2
Assessed Length 723
Major Channel
Category ry
Channel Sub-
Cate o ry
Metric
Number of Stable
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
%Stable Performing as
Intended
Number with Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Vertical Stability
Aggradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow latereally (not to include point bars)
1
20
97%
Degradation-Evidence of downcuttin
0
0
100%
Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
Bed
Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
1.6
3
4
75%
Condition
Length Appropriate( >30% of centerline distance between tail
of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle
3
4
75%
Thalweg Position
Thalweq centering at upstream of meander bend Run
3
4
75%
Thalweg centering at dowsntream of meadner bend (glide)
3
4
75%
Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
growth and or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extednt that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Bank
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
1
20
97%
0
0
100.00%
100%
0
0
100.00%
Totals
0
0
100%
Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 5 5
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
across the sill
4
5
80%
100%
Piping Structures lacking any substation flow underneath sills or 5 5
Engineered arms
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuctures extednt of influence does
Bank Protection
not exceed 15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP
5
5
100%
monitoring guidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining – Max Pool Depth: Mean
Habitat
Bankfull Depth — 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
base -flow

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Clear Creek
Assessed Length 1566
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number of Stable
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -Built
Number of Unstable
Sections
Amount of Unstable
Footage
%Stable Performing as
Intended
Number with Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for Stabilizing
Woody Vegetation
Vertical Stability
Aggradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly
deflect flow latereally (not to include point bars)
1
25
98%
Degradation-Evidence of downcuttin
0
0
100%
Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
Bed
Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
1.6
15
16
94%
Condition
Length Appropriate( >30% of centerline distance between tail
of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle
16
16
100%
Thalweg Position
Thalweq centering at upstream of meander bend Run
14
16
88%
Thalweg centering at downstream of meadner bend (glide)
14
16
88%
Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
growth and or scour and erosion
1
25
98%
0
0
100.00%
Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extednt that mass wasting
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
1
15
99%
0
0
99.00%
Bank
appear sustainable and are providing habitat
Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 1
20
98%
0
0
100.00%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
10
13
77%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
across the sill
5
7
71%
Piping
Structures lacking any substation flow underneath sills or
arms
18
20
90%
Engineered
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuctures extednt of influence does
Bank Protection
not exceed 15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP
19
20
95%
monitoring guidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining – Max Pool Depth: Mean
Habitat
Bankfull Depth — 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at
4
5
80%
base -flow

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Planted Acreage 4.44
Easment Acreage 17.41
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
500 SF
Pattern and
Color
7
0.624
3.58%
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Area
Very limited cover of both woddy and herbaceous material
.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0
0
Color
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
1 acres
Pattern and
0
0
0
or 5 stem count criteria
Color
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
25 Acres
Pattern and
0
0
0
given the monitoring ear
Color
Easment Acreage 17.41
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
500 SF
Pattern and
Color
7
0.624
3.58%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
None
Pattern and
Color
0
0
0

Photo l: Vegetation Plot 1 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 2: Vegetation Plot 2 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 3: Vegetation Plot 3 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 4: Vegetation Plot 4 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 5: Riffle XS 1 — Year 3 (2014
Photo 6: Riffle XS 2 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 7: Riffle XS 3 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 8: Pool XS 1 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 9: Pool XS 2 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 10: Pool XS 3 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 11: Photo Point 1 — Year 3 (2014
Photo 12: Photo Point 2 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 13: Photo Point 3 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 14: Photo Point 4 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 15: Photo Point 5 — Year 3 (2014)
Photo 16: Photo Point 6 — Year 3 (2014)

Photo 17: Photo Point 7 — Year 3 (2014)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Veg Plot Criteria Attainment
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Mean
1
No
2
Yes
3
Yes
66%
4
Yes
100%
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Report Prepared By
Daniel Wiebke
Date Prepared
2/4/2015 15:21
database name
Withers &Ravenel -McKee Yr3 (2).mdb
database location
C: \Users \lwelch \Downloads
computer name
WR1386
file size
179175680
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
Metadata
project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes
Proj, planted
live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live
Proj, total stems
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
Plots
missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
Damage
stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
92573
project Name
McKee Creek
Description
McKee Creek Upstream and Downstream of Peach Orchard and Clear Creek
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
8

Table 9. Planted Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Common Name
Type
Current Data
Annual Means
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Current Mean
MY 1 (2012)
MY 2 (2013)
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
2.25
0
1.25
0
1.75
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
0
2
2
5
0
0
0.75
2
0.75
1.25
0.75
1.25
Carya aquatica
Water Hickory
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
Diospyrus virginiana
Persimmon
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1.25
Eleagnus umbellata
Autumn Olive
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
0.5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0.75
0.75
1
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
3
6
0
1
0
0
3
5
1.5
3
1.75
1.75
1.25
1.75
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet um
0
2
0
34
0
1
0
2
0
9.75
0
9.5
0.25
9.5
Liriodenron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
1
1.25
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
Plantanus
Sycamore
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
5
3
3
8
9
4.5
4.75
4.5
4.25
4.75
5.5
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0.75
0.75
1
0.5
0.75
0.75
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Quercus sp.
Oak
Shrub Tree
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
10
2
2.5
2.25
2.25
2.25
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.25
0
0
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Plot Area (acres)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.02471
0.02471
0.0247
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems Per Acre
3
6
3
7
5
6
4
7
3.75
6.5
6
13
10
49
10
14
22
39
12
1 28.75
14
301
121
29
243
526
405
1984
405
567
891
15791
486
1 1164
567
12151
4861
1164

1 1 ' 1 1
Stream Survey Data

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -03
XS -ID
RXS -1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
10/16/2014
18.47
578.161
3.32
582.954
21.38
578.034
4.29
582.27
23.51
578.038
5.05
581.529
26.12
579.098
5.92
580.621
27.76
579.932
7.15
580.082
30.14
580.921
8.38
579.643
31.23
581.86
9.71
579.352
31.86
583.469
q.
Left Bank to Right Bank
Riffle Cross Section 1
586.00
w
585.00
584.00.
t MY -1
:::MY
583.00
-2
MY -3
582.00
t
A
a
581.00
y
580.00
579.00
e,
578.00
577.00
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0 20.0
25.0 30.0
35.0
Distance (k)
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -03
XS -ID
RXS -1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
10/16/2014
18.47
578.161
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0
584.027
16.05
578.306
1.36
583.502
18.47
578.161
3.32
582.954
21.38
578.034
4.29
582.27
23.51
578.038
5.05
581.529
26.12
579.098
5.92
580.621
27.76
579.932
7.15
580.082
30.14
580.921
8.38
579.643
31.23
581.86
9.71
579.352
31.86
583.469
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation 5
580.621
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 3
32.06
Bankfull Width 2
24.44
Flood Prone Area Elevation 5
583.495
Flood Prone Width 3
30.5
Max Depth at Bankfull

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
0 5
582.703
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
582.176
2.65 5
581.626 f
Date �
10/16/2014
Field Crew i
D. Wiebke, J. Burley
�.
Le Bank to Right Bank
Pool Cross Section 1
584.00
583.00
582.00
t MY -1
581.00
t MY -2
580.00
MY -3
r
26.69
580.738
d 579.00
x
578.00
577.00
576.00
575.00
0
5 10
15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
ft
3.95 579.002
4.73 578.072
5.93 577.618
7.8 577.354
9.93 577.045
12.06 576.955
15.39 577.32
18.59 577.308
22.61 577.103
24.8 579.302
28.02 581.78
29.78 582.674
31.66 583.339
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -03
Bankfull Elevation 580.738
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 71.953845
Drainage Area 6.42 sq. mi
Bankfull Width 22.74
Flood Prone Area Elevation 584.373
Flood Prone Width 50
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.783
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.75
W/D Ratio: 8.26
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.20
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.69
0 5
582.703
1.17 5
582.176
2.65 5
581.626 f
Date �
10/16/2014
Field Crew i
D. Wiebke, J. Burley
ft
3.95 579.002
4.73 578.072
5.93 577.618
7.8 577.354
9.93 577.045
12.06 576.955
15.39 577.32
18.59 577.308
22.61 577.103
24.8 579.302
28.02 581.78
29.78 582.674
31.66 583.339
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -03
Bankfull Elevation 580.738
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 71.953845
Drainage Area 6.42 sq. mi
Bankfull Width 22.74
Flood Prone Area Elevation 584.373
Flood Prone Width 50
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.783
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.75
W/D Ratio: 8.26
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.20
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.69
0 5
582.703
1.17 5
582.176
2.65 5
581.626 f
Summary Data
Watershed McKee MY -03
Bankfull Elevation 580.738
XS -ID PXS -1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 71.953845
Drainage Area 6.42 sq. mi
Bankfull Width 22.74
Flood Prone Area Elevation 584.373
Flood Prone Width 50
Max Depth at Bankfull 3.783
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.75
W/D Ratio: 8.26
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.20
Station Elevation
Bank Height Ratio: 1.69

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -03
XS -ID
RXS -2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/16/2014
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, J. Burley
Station
Elevation
0
581.786
11.26
1
580.986
Flood Prone Area Elevation
2
580.346
120
3
580.126
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
4
579.606
9.77
5
579.106
Bank Height Ratio:
6
579.076
7
579.006
8
579.126
9
579.176
10
579.736
11
579.876
12
580.336
13
580.616
14
580.686
15
580.826
16
580.996
17
581.236
18
581.386
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
580.616
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
11.26
Bankfull Width
10
Flood Prone Area Elevation
582.226
Flood Prone Width
120
Max Depth at Bankfull
1.61
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.02
W/D Ratio:
9.77
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.00
Bank Height Ratio:
1.73
Left Bank to Right Bank

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -03
XS -ID
PXS -1
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/16/2014
Field Crew
D. Wiebke, J. Burley
Station
Elevation
1
581.655
2
580.885
4
576.965
5
576.955
6
576.765
7
576.825
8
577.565
9
577.705
10
578.055
11
578.715
12
579.885
13
580.525
14
580.465
15
580.635
16
580.765
17
581.055
18
581.355
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
580.525
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
25.525
Bankfull Width
8
Flood Prone Area Elevation
584.285
Flood Prone Width
150
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.76
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.81
W/D Ratio:
2.85
Entrenchment Ratio:
18.75
Bank Height Ratio:
1.30
Left Bank to Right Bank

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
t
13.99
579.029
r
d
Le Bank to Right Bank
4.31 578.552
6.2 577.913
7.83 577.58
Riffle Cross Section 3
8.89 577.744
580.50
9.35 577.815
10.72 577.756
580.00
12.04 578.645
579.50
16.54 579.543
579.00
2 t MY -2
578.50
= MY3
578.00
_T
577.50
577.00
0 2 4
6 8 10 12
14 16 18 20
ft
Distance ()
0 579.992
2.47 579.201
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -03
Bankfull Elevation 579.543
XS -ID RXS -3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 12.27
Drainage Area 0.95
Bankfull Width 14.07
Date 10/16/2014
Flood Prone Area Elevation 581.506
Field Crew D. Wiebke, J. Burley
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 1.963
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.29
W/D Ratio: 10.87
Entrenchment Ratio: 17.77
Station Elevation o:
Bank Height Rati 1.23
ft
13.99
579.029
Summary Data
Watershed Clear MY -03
Bankfull Elevation 579.543
XS -ID RXS -3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area 12.27
Drainage Area 0.95
Bankfull Width 14.07
Date 10/16/2014
Flood Prone Area Elevation 581.506
Field Crew D. Wiebke, J. Burley
Flood Prone Width 250
Max Depth at Bankfull 1.963
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.29
W/D Ratio: 10.87
Entrenchment Ratio: 17.77
Station Elevation o:
Bank Height Rati 1.23
ft

Cross - section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -03
XS -1 D
PXS -3
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/16/2014
Field Crew
I D. Wiebke, J. Burley
Station
Elevation
0
578.29
1
578.232
2.75
577.976
4.6
577.457
5.01
576.468
8.73
574.818
10.34
575.013
10.54
575.885
11.12
576.522
12.52
577.458
18.6
579.167
Summary Data
Bankfull Elevation
578.29
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
17.81
Bankfull Width
11.52
Flood Prone Area Elevation
581.762
Flood Prone Width
200
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.472
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.64
W/D Ratio:
7.01
Entrenchment Ratio:
21.70
Bank Height Ratio:
1.25
Left Bank to Right Bank

Longitudinal Profile Plot
592
590
McKee Reach 1
588
586
584
o
4-
U)
582
580
578
Thalweg MY -1
Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3
576
574
2000
2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
Elevation (ft)

Longitudinal Profile Plot
McKee Reach 2
578
577.5
577
576.5
$
576
0
F
._
—
7>-**\
575.5
—
-
w
575
—
574.5
+Thalweg MY -1
574
Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3
573.5
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile Plot
Clear Creek
584
582
�J ML —
.,
580
_
`0 578
Thalweg MY -1
w 576
Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3
,
w
�
—
574
s
572
�
i
570
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Station (ft)

Pebble Count Exhibit
Mckee Creek
Riffle
5
Particle
Size
Count
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Silt Clay
0.062
0.00%
0.00%
0.0935
5
0.00%
0.00%
Sand
0.1875
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.375
1
1 1.12%
1.12%
0.75
1
1.12%
2.25%
1.5
3
3.37%
5.62%
0.00%
3
7
7.87%
13.48%
4.85
3
3.37%
16.85%
Gravel
6.85
2
2.25%
19.10%
9.65
3
3.37%
22.47%
13.65
6
6.74%
29.21%
19.3
10
11.24%
40.45%
27.3
12
13.48%
53.93%
38.5
13
14.61%
68.54%
54.5
9
10.11%
78.65%
Cobble
109
5
1 5.62%
91.01%
154
3
3.37%
94.38%
218
0.00%
94.38%
309
5
5.62%
100.00%
437
0.00%
100.00%
Boulder
768
0.00%
100.00%
1536
0.00%
100.00%
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
Total
89
100.00%
Summary Data
D50
27.3
D84
77
D95
309
McKee Creek
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
S 60.00%
LL
50.00%
U
`y 40.00%
a
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain Size (mm)
16.00%
14.00%
c
v 12.00%
d
CL 10.00%
w
U 8.00%
6.00%
a_
4.00%
c
2.00%
0.00%
O m M N W c0 c0 O I� W 4 2
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY -3
100 1000 10000

Pebble Count Exhibit
Clear Creek Upstream
Riffle
54.5
Particle
Size
Count
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Silt Clay
0.062
5
5.88%
5.88%
0.0935
0.00%
5.88%
Sand
0.1875
0.00%
5.88%
0.375
5
1 5.88%
11.76%
0.75
4
4.71%
16.47%
1.5
4
4.71%
21.18%
3
0.00%
21.18%
4.85
0.00%
21.18%
Gravel
6.85
1
1.18%
22.35%
9.65
1
1.18%
23.53%
13.65
3
3.53%
27.06%
19.3
4
4.71%
31.76%
27.3
5
5.88%
37.65%
38.5
5
5.88%
43.53%
54.5
7
8.24%
51.76%
77
12
14.12%
65.88%
Cobble
109
14
16.47%
82.35%
154
11
12.94%
95.29%
218
4
4.71%
100.00%
309
0.00%
100.00%
437
0.00%
100.00%
Boulder
768
0.00%
100.00%
1536
0.00%
100.00%
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
Total
85
1 100.00%
Summary Data
D50
54.5
D84
154
D95
154
Cumulative Percent
100.00°x°
90.00%
80.00°x°
70.00%
d
� 60.00%
LL
c 50.00%
y 40.00% -MY -3I
a
30.00%
20.00
10.00%
0.00%
0.01 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
18.00%
16.00%
I
14.00%
i 12.00%
y 10.00%
■ MY -3
v 8.00% -
m
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00% -"1 1 0
006`1
6,
Grain Size (mm)

Pebble Count Exhibit
ckee Creek Stream Restoration
Clear Creek Downstream
Particle Size Count Percent Cumulative
Percent
Silt Clay
0.062
6
0.067416
6.74%
Sand
0.0935
6
6.74%
13.48%
0.1875
c
0.00%
13.48%
0.375
4
4.49%
17.98%
0.75
2
2.25%
20.22%
1.5
1
1.12%
21.35%
Gravel
3
3
3.37%
24.72%
4.85
2
2.25%
26.97%
6.85
3
3.37%
30.34%
9.65
0.00%
30.34%
13.65
0.00%
30.34%
19.3
5
5.62%
35.96%
27.3
2
2.25%
38.20%
38.5
2
2.25%
40.45%
54.5
10
11.24%
51.69%
Cobble
77
12
13.48%
65.17%
109
10
11.24%
76.40%
154
12
13.48%
89.89%
218
4
4.49%
94.38%
Boulder
309
5
5.62%
100.00%
437
0.00%
100.00%
768
0.00%
100.00%
1536
0.00%
100.00%
Bedrock
2048
0.00%
100.00%
Total
89
100.00%
Summary Data
D5O 54.5
Cumulative Percent
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
U.
MY -3
50.00%
m
m 40.00%
IL
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Grain Size (mm)
Individaul Class Percent
0.16
0.14
c
v
0.12
a,
a
0.1
N
m
0.08
U
7
0.06
■MV -3
0.04
C
0.02
0
�`� '� (b0 .�'� X00 ^00. re X00 �,,'1 X04
OO6 0�.A0 0,�0
��0 0
060 X360 ^93 �,�`3 ��`� 0�0
^000 `100
OOOI�hAll
Particle Size (mm)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Mckee -Reach 1
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
I Pre - Existing Condition
I Design
I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.5
31.8
31
Floodprone Width (ft)
75
160
75
160
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
2.6
l Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.2
77.6
80
Width /Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
12
Entrenchment Ratiol
2.6
5.5
2.4
5.2
1 Bank Height Ratio
1
2.1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
1.9
4.5
1.9
3.3
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.1
6.4
5.2
7.7
Pool Spacing (ft)l
50
1
205
1
1
123.9
1 216.9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
65 145
93
139
Radius of Curvature (ft)
48 195
62
108
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
27.5 31.8
31
Meander Wavelength (ft)
101 305
235 350
Meander Width Ratiol
2.2 5 1
2 4.5
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
0.49
0.52
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
45
45
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.4 -5.0
4.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
350
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.28
1.16
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0029
0.0032
BF slope ( ft/ft)
0.0029
0.0032
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfult verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary -R2
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Mckee -Reach 2
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
I Pre - Existing Condition
I Design
I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.5
26.8
31.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
75
160
75
160
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
2.6
1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
I
68.2
77.6
80
Width /Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
12
Entrenchment Ratiol
1
2.6
5.5
2.4
5.2
1 Bank Height Rati
1
2.1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)l
I
1
101
0.0055
6.5
45
305
0.0131
6.5
180
1
0.0061 0.0106
5.3 8
127.7 223.6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
135
240
96
287
Radius of Curvature (ft)
95
240
64
144
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
25.5
26.8
31.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
208
377
243
477
Meander Width Ratiol
1
5
1 1 9.2
1
1
3
1
1 9
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
0.33
0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
45
45
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.0 -4.5
4.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
350
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.5
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0027
0.0027
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0018
0.0018
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross -section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary -R2
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Clear Creek
Parameter
Gauge2
Regional Curve
I Pre - Existing Condition I Design
I Dixon Branch
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
LIL
Eq.
Min
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Med
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
16.7
17.3
7.9
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
150
90
190
35
100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
2
1.4
0.8
1.4
16ankfull Max Depth (ft
3.7
6.1
2.2
2.5
2
2.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
21.8
24.8
25
11.3
13.2
Width /Depth Ratio
5.8
12.8
12
5.4
10.8
Entrenchment Ratiol
3.8
11.3
1
5.2
1
11
3.1
8.9
1 Bank Height Rati
1.4
2.3
1
1
1.1
1
1 1.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0059
0.0084
0.0061
0.0106
0.012
0.018
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.8
3.3
5.3
8
2.1
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)l
1 57.51
1 116.9
1
1
127.7
1
223.6
1 10
1
1 45
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 35 47 52 78 29 50
Radius of Curvature (ft) 15 25 35 52 6 22
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 11.5 16.7 17.3 7.9 13.9
Meander Wavelength (ft) 45 75 132 196 48 85
Meander Width Ratiol I I 1 1 3.4 5.6 1 3 4.5 1 4.3 1 7.6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E /C5
C4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 -3.9
3.6
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
89
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
1.21
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0042
0.0071
0.0055
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0042
0.0032
0.0055
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull tloodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
McKee Creek Proiect # 92573- Reach 1
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
1Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
1 SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 /d95/ dip / disp (mm)
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
109.5
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
109.5
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
31ncision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross- sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
McKee Creek Pro'ect # 92573- Reach 2
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
1 Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
1 SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
109.5
0.7
27.8
49.4
83.2
109.5
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
31ncision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.49 /1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of e
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of the
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
McKee Creek Pro'ect #92573- Clear Creek
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
1Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S°/
1 SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B°% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 /d95/ dip / disp (mm)
0.35
0.7
1.2
3.2
6
0.4
1.3
3
14
18
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
31ncision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of e
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of the
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
on current /developing bankfull feature2
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
on current /developing bankfull feature2
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Cross Section 1 (Riffle -1) I Cross Section 2 (Pool -1) Cross Section 3 (Riffle -2)
Cross Section 4 (Poo 2)
3)
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
580.2
580.4
580.53
579.54
15.00
13.20
17.00
14.30
8.00
14.07
250.00
200.00
200.00
150.0
150.0
150.00
250.00
1.68
1.64
2.55
2.62
2.81
1.29
3.47
3.97
3.82
3.76
1.96
30.61
31.60
25.53
12.27
16.67
6.66
5.46
2.85
10.87
1.00
1.00
8.82
10.491
1
•1 1
11
1 1
___-
1.18
1.00
•I 1
• 1
1 11
____
1 1
1 1
1 11
___
Cross Section 4 (Poo 2)
3)
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
580.2
580.4
580.53
579.54
15.00
13.20
17.00
14.30
8.00
14.07
250.00
200.00
200.00
150.0
150.0
150.00
250.00
1.68
1.64
2.55
2.62
2.81
1.29
3.47
3.97
3.82
3.76
1.96
30.61
31.60
25.53
12.27
16.67
6.66
5.46
2.85
10.87
1.00
1.00
8.82
10.491
1
18.75
17.77
1.18
1.00
1 1.30
1.23
Cross Section 5 (Riffle
3)
MY1
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
579.87
579.60
579.54
15.00
13.20
11.52
17.00
13.88
14.07
250.00
200.00
200.00
250.00
200.00
250.00
1.68
1.64
1.11
0.96
1.29
3.47
1.96
1.84
1.96
8.80
21.02
14.73
12.27
16.67
15.15
1
15.37
1 14.51
10.87
1.00
1.00
1.25
14.71
14.41
17.77
1.00
1.01
1.23
Cross Section 6
(Pool -3)
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
579.14
578.29
578.29
15.00
13.20
11.52
250.00
200.00
200.00
1.70
1.68
1.64
3.46
3.17
3.47
27.27
21.35
17.81
8.80
7.87
7.01
16.67
15.15
1
21.70
1
1.00
1.00
1.25
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum establisl
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent ove
performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
2 = Based on the elevation of any dominant depositional feature that develops and is observed at the time of survey. If the baseline datum remains the only significant depositional feature
then these two sets of dimensional parameters will be equal, however, if another depositional feature of significance develops above or below the baseline bankfull datum then this should be tracked and quantified in these cells.

Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Creek- Reach 1
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
1 Bank Height Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15
24
20
38
8
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0
0
0
0
0
18
Pool Length (ft)
10
43
32
132
33
15
17.47
1
20
1
Pool Max depth (ft)
2
3
3
4
1
6
0.7
1
1.24
1
Pool Spacing (ft)l
59
84
86
103
19
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
42
91 64 170 56 5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
49 46 80 19 7
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
138
437 290 1070 387 5
Meander Width Ratiol
1.615
13.515 12.462 16.538 2.149 1 5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4 /C4
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
3274
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0019
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0019
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
Not enough stream data to calculate
Not enough stream data to calculate
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave

Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Creek- Reach 2
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.7
1
22.00
1
24.44
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
160
1
33.00
1
30.5
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.89
1
1.98
1
1.179
1
1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.76
1
2.85
1
2.587
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
53
1
51.40
1
32.06
1
Width /Depth Ratio
12.82
1
11.11
1
20.72
1
Entrenchment Ratiol
6.59
1
1.50
1
1.248
1
1 Bank Height Ratiol
2.53
1
2.23
1
2.316
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
32.2
34
44
13.54
5
45
53.5
53.5
62
2
40
2
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
-0.049
-0.003
0.012
0.028
0.035
5
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.008
2
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.007
2
Pool Length (ft)
24
36.6
39
55
12.74
5
15
27.8
30
40
12.32
5
20
32.8
29
39
12.1
5
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.242
2.386
2.187
3.287
0.423
5
0.442
1.498
1.683
2.46
0.88
5
0.5
1.5
1.6
2.2
0.78
5
Pool Spacing (ft)l
I
I
1
45
178.8
206
1 267
87.81
1 5
0
141
162.5
239
101.2
4
1 50
185
1 200
260
80.23
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
97 101 101 105 5.657 2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65 128.3 120 200 67.88 3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
282 322 322 362 56.57 2
Meander Width Ratiol
I
I
I
1
1 14.042 14.20814.208 14.375 10.236 2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4 /C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1422
464 (survey reduction)
464 (survey reduction)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.39
1.15
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0026
0.0026
0.003
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0026
0.0026
0.003
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
0
7.27
54.55
21.82
5.45
0
0
6
1 73
16
5
0
0
5.62
73.03
15.73
5.62
0
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
19.3
38.5
54.5
109
309
3
19.3
1 27.3
77
154
4.85
19.3
27.3
77
309
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
10%
2%
4%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 Clear Creek
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
21.02
17.5
25.85
2
13.2
13.5
13.9
2
10
12.04
14.07
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
200
250
2
200.0
200.0
200.0
2
120
185
250
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.11
1.23
1.36
2
1.0
1.3
1.7
2
1.02
1.16
1.29
2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.96
2.19
2.43
2
1.8
2.5
3.2
2
1.61
1.79
1.96
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
21.02
23.44
25.85
2
1 14.7
18.01
21.4
2
11.26
1 11.77
1 12.27
2
Width /Depth Ratio
13.23
14.29
15.37
2
7.9
11.2
14.5
2
9.77
10.32
10.87
2
Entrenchment Ratiol
8.333
11.52
14.71
2
14.4
14.8
15.2
2
12.00
14.89
17.77
2
1 Bank Height Rati
1
1
1
2
1.0
1.0
1.01
2
1.23
1.48
1.73
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
16.5
18
22
4
6
10
29.36
30
45
10.71
11
11
1 27.14
35
1 50
10.6
6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0
0.021
0
0
0
6
0.019
0.034
0.034
0.049
0.02
6
0.012
0.032
0.034
0.045
0.018
6
Pool Length (ft)
15
35.09
33
66
17
13
10
29.361
30
45
10.7
11
15
29.14
32
45
10.4
11
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.502
2.297
2
6
1
16
0.78
1.33
1.219
1.408
0.492
11
1.2
2.1
2.1
5
1.2
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
26
105
98
189
55
8
20
94.18
86
158
51.12
11
25
98
100
200
57
11
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 42 64.17 65 85 16 6
Radius of Curvature (ft) 20 44.82 40 84 23 11
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft) 153 171.5 168 195 16 6
Meander Width Ratiol I 1 2.333 1 3.565 1 3.611 1 4.722 1 0.867 1 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1660
1658
1587
Sinuosity (ft)
1.19
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0033
0.004
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.0033
0.0034
0.004
io uo 0 0
o a o o 1 U b b e o
10
7
35
47
1
0
7.5
9
30
51
2.5
1 0
6.32
14.94
30.46
45.41
2.87
0
1.5
27.3
38.5
109
154
0.75
54.5
77
154
218
0.75
27.3
54.5
154
218
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
5%
5%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occur ance
Method
Photo #
(if available)
Crest Gage 1
Oct -12
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Oct -13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Oct -28 -2014
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Crest Gage 2
Oct -13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Fall 2014
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Crest Gage 3
Oct -12
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Oct -13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Oct -28 -2014
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage

Harrisburg Rainfall Data
■ Data
Harrisburg Rainfall
6
5
4
C
0
a
3
CL
i
2
a
1
0
Nov -13 Dec -13 Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14
Month

Stream Problem Area Inventory Table
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Reach 1
Feature Name
Station
Numbers
Suspected Cause Photo
number
Aggradation /Bar Formation
27 +80
Upstream bank instability
1 &5
28 +00
Cross Vane- Buried and Dislodged, Flow over
Right Arm
26 +95
Sediment Deposition wedging out center stone
1 1 2
27 +05
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Reach 2
Feature Name
Station
Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo
number
Dam
11+40
Falling Trees, Bank Slumping, Debris getting caught
3
11 +50
Cross Vane- Alignment shift
11 +78
Stream shifting outward away from center
4
11 +68
Cross Vane
15 +75
Cross Vane silted in; loose sediment at bottom of pool
exceeds 1 ft thick
6
15 +85
Aggradation /Bar Formation
16 +05
Sediment laden water; Dam and Debris resulting from
tornado damage downstream
7
16 +25
McKee Creek Project # 92573 Clear Creek
Feature Name
Station
Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo
number
Upper Cross -Vane- Alignment Shift, Flow over Left
Arm
26 +45
Right bank getting soggy and trees falling into
structure
8
26 +55
Log -Vane
24 +55
Erosive velocities
9
24 +45
Log -Vane
24 +10
Sill too high
10
24 +00
Stream Impassable
22 +75
Banks Over Grown, Will likely cause a dam if debris
occurs
11
22 +00
Eroded Bank
18 +30
Bank Eroded early but Woody Roots seem to be
holding now
12
18 +55
Aggradation /Bar Formation
13 +90
Over Widening causing bar to form and vegetation to
now take hold
13
14 +10
Cross -Vane Overgrowing
11 +40
Vegetation over growing cross -vane, not enough low
flow to keep alluvium from building on boulders
14
11 +50

Raw Longitudinal Survey data
Elevation Station /Distance
Shot #
MY7
Survey Date
Northing
Eastin
(Feet) (Feet)
Shot ID
Notes
100
3
10/28 - 29/2014
556751.875
1511315.554
572.033
BP
Bottom Pool
101
3
10/28- 29/2015
556752.145
1511318.64
574.921
CV
Cross Vane
102
3
10/28- 29/2016
556743.706
1511356.571
572.314
BP
103
3
10/28- 29/2017
556732.883
1511369.489
575.216
CV
104
3
10/28- 29/2018
556707.34
1511398.068
574.424
TW
Thalweg
105
3
10/28- 29/2019
556690.307
1511424.403
576.115
BAR
Bar
106
3
10/28 - 29/2020
556691.017
1511424.456
574.277
TW
107
3
10/28- 29/2021
556689.074
1511434.901
574.05
EP
End of Pool
108
3
10/28 - 29/2022
556682.494
1511445.364
572.023
BP
109
3
10/28- 29/2023
556667.109
1511465.315
575.516
LV
Log Vane
110
3
10/28- 29/2024
556636.553
1511493.068
574.275
TW
111
3
10/28- 29/2025
556616.647
1511513.048
578.711
TW
112
3
10/28- 29/2026
556612.942
1511515.058
576.258
BP
113
3
10/28- 29/2027
556609.369
1511533.656
576.111
LV
114
3
10/28 - 29/2028
556601.131
1511549.795
576.131
LV
115
3
10/28- 29/2029
556601.284
1511549.892
575.05
WSE
Water Surface
116
3
10/28 - 29/2030
556603.67
1511558.506
573.165
BP
117
3
10/28- 29/2031
556604.23
1511574.631
574.884
TW
128
3
10/28- 29/2042
556579.049
1511602.804
576.998
LV
129
3
10/28- 29/2043
556561.46
1511599.065
577.09
ER
End Riffle
140
3
10/28 - 29/2054
556504.817
1511572.722
578.084
TR
Top Rifffle
141
3
10/28- 29/2055
556482.741
1511569.398
575.219
BP
142
3
10/28 - 29/2056
556467.718
1511576.223
576.003
BP
143
3
10/28- 29/2057
556455.644
1511591.294
576.391
TW
144
3
10/28 - 29/2058
556447.623
1511603.736
576.567
TW
145
3
10/28- 29/2059
556427.455
1511632.56
577.429
TW
146
3
10/28- 29/2060
556411.937
1511652.638
577.282
TW
147
3
10/28 - 29/2061
556363.551
1511650.937
578.15
FORD
Ford
148
3
10/28- 29/2062
556314.295
1511646.043
577.288
EP
149
3
10/28- 29/2063
556298.048
1511650.89
574.913
BP
150
3
10/28 - 29/2064
556285.935
1511664.898
578.235
ER
151
3
10/28- 29/2065
556271.971
1511698.133
579.073
TR
152
3
10/28 - 29/2066
556260.811
1511714.934
577.831
BP
153
3
10/28- 29/2067
556251.864
1511718.794
578.236
TW
154
3
10/28- 29/2068
556229.585
1511715.318
578.781
TW
155
3
10/28- 29/2069
556183.128
1511701.53
578.168
TW
156
3
10/28 - 29/2070
556160.974
1511703.832
578.674
TW
157
3
10/28- 29/2071
556145.221
1511718.512
577.469
BP
158
3
10/28 - 29/2072
556140.251
1511762.55
578.911
TW
159
3
10/28- 29/2073
556138.429
1511800.256
579.548
TR
160
3
10/28 - 29/2074
556121.198
1511821.837
579.566
LV
161
3
10/28- 29/2075
556090.066
1511822.82
579.451
TW
162
3
10/28- 29/2076
556046.558
1511831.993
578.883
BP
163
3
10/28- 29/2077
556041.398
1511844.403
580.315
LV
164
3
10/28- 29/2078
556041.941
1511846.011
579.817
TW
165
3
10/28- 29/2079
556041.858
1511891.91
579.617
TW
166
3
10/28 - 29/2080
556040.238
1511922.555
579.752
TW
167
3
10/28- 29/2081
556036.957
1511938.839
579.887
TW
168
3
10/28 - 29/2082
556007.256
1511937.315
578.549
BP
169
3
10/28- 29/2083
555999.155
1511935.666
579.939
ER
170
3
10/28- 29/2084
555982.419
1511933.026
579.894
TR
171
3
10/28- 29/2085
555966.723
1511935.003
580.061
ER
172
3
10/28 - 29/2086
555954.846
1511947.66
580.748
TR
173
3
10/28 - 29/2087
555943.255
1511973.515
580.514
TW
174
3
10/28 - 29/2088
555930.142
1511990.219
580.287
TW
175
3
10/28- 29/2089
555914.132
1511997.694
580.37
TW
176
3
10/28 - 29/2090
555905.767
1512009.018
580.779
TW
177
3
10/28- 29/2091
555899.168
1512029.234
580.73
TW
178
3
10/28- 29/2092
555884.645
1512051.786
580.714
TW
179
3
10/28- 29/2093
555880.834
1512051.068
581.53
LV
180
3
10/28 - 29/2094
555870.214
1512063.348
581.041
TW
181
3
10/28- 29/2095
555856.62
1512071.965
580.519
EP
182
3
10/28 - 29/2096
555846.932
1512077.846
583.331
BP
183
3
10/28- 29/2097
555836.788
1512083.208
580.975
CV
184
3
10/28 - 29/2098
555826.399
1512087.704
580.18
TW
185
3
10/28- 29/2099
555810.854
1512099.313
580.43
TW
186
3
10/28- 29/2100
555794.1
1512109.053
580.571
TW
187
3
10/28- 29/2101
555775.202
1512124.493
580.677
TW
188
3
10/28- 29/2102
555758.891
1512143.769
581.029
TW
189
3
10/28- 29/2103
555738.142
1512154.137
581.219
CV
190
3
10/28 - 29/2104
555725.164
1512159.076
580.563
TW
191
3
10/28- 29/2105
555715.766
1512166.661
580.543
TW
192
3
10/28 - 29/2106
555706.25
1512171.737
581.219
TW
193
3
10/28- 29/2107
555708.756
1512169.976
581.235
ER
194
3
10/28- 29/2108
555694.273
1512180.14
581.601
TR
195
3
10/28- 29/2109
555927.498
1510770.559
587.728
WR130
Survey Nail
196
3
10/28- 29/2110
556310.364
1511025.234
575.402
TW
197
3
10/28- 29/2111
556279.971
1511033.117
575.591
TW

198
3
10/28 - 29/2112
556252.008
1511041.453
575.845
CV
199
3
10/28- 29/2113
556247.293
1511045.35
575.252
TW
200
3
10/28 - 29/2114
556233.07
1511041.535
577.281
SIB
201
3
10/28 - 29/2115
556218.458
1511042.885
574.229
SILT BOTTOI
Bottom of Sediment
202
3
10/28- 29/2116
556218.448
1511041.607
575.461
TOP SILT
Top of Sediment
203
3
10/28 - 29/2117
556187.158
1511024.004
575.662
JH
J -Hook
204
3
10/28 - 29/2118
556176.097
1511010.028
576.145
TW
205
3
10/28- 29/2119
556139.501
1510964.807
576.003
TW
206
3
10/28 - 29/2120
556125.098
1510949.348
575.863
TW
207
3
10/28 - 29/2121
556099.282
1510941.84
574.579
BBP
Bottom of pool without loose sediment
208
3
10/28 - 29/2122
556099.751
1510941.851
575.138
BP
209
3
10/28 - 29/2123
556091.581
1510935.257
576.208
JH
210
3
10/28- 29/2124
556069.377
1510928.095
575.927
TW
211
3
10/28 - 29/2125
556041.274
1510923.987
575.886
TW
212
3
10/28 - 29/2126
555993.497
1510921.559
576.368
TW
213
3
10/28 - 29/2127
555985.769
1510921.53
576.754
JH
214
3
10/28 - 29/2128
555934.334
1510933.791
576.441
TW
215
3
10/28 - 29/2129
555906.899
1510947.336
576.345
EP
216
3
10/28 - 29/2130
555892.216
1510953.858
574.026
BP
217
3
10/28 - 29/2131
555887.951
1510959.434
576.228
CV
218
3
10/28- 29/2132
555880.417
1510969.755
575.825
TW
219
3
10/28 - 29/2133
555856.288
1510974.516
576.357
TW
220
3
10/28 - 29/2134
555821.066
1510952.5
577.254
TW
221
3
10/28 - 29/2135
555833.848
1510966.415
576.838
WSE
Water Surface
222
3
10/28 - 29/2136
555828.793
1510964.712
577.876
WSE
223
3
10/28 - 29/2137
555798.854
1510912.415
576.958
TW
224
3
10/28 - 29/2138
555798.024
1510889.668
577.512
TW
263
3
10/28 - 29/2177
554732.208
1509736.966
585.439
TW
264
3
10/28- 29/2178
554715.504
1509713.499
585.603
TW
265
3
10/28 - 29/2179
554714.09
1509707.739
585.918
EP
266
3
10/28 - 29/2180
554711.261
1509701.538
584.677
BP
267
3
10/28 - 29/2181
554703.879
1509690.176
585.698
TW
268
3
10/28 - 29/2182
554702.611
1509689.769
587.046
CV
269
3
10/28- 29/2183
554693.052
1509660.042
586.188
TW
270
3
10/28 - 29/2184
554685.332
1509627.48
585.901
TW
271
3
10/28 - 29/2185
554677.21
1509600.476
585.576
TW
272
3
10/28- 29/2186
554663.344
1509572.81
586.132
TW
273
3
10/28- 29/2187
554636.452
1509546.376
586.273
TW
1094
N/A
556262.169
1511584.223
581.836
WR200
Survey
Nail
1095
N/A
556353.203
1511393.071
600.147
WR129
Survey
Nail
4075
N/A
553841.667
1509240.001
596.443
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
4166
N/A
553668.685
1509220.314
597.118
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
10051
N/A
555697.693
1512083.437
586.216
NAIL 51
Survey
Nail
10559
N/A
556236.989
1511602.84
581.474
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
11223
N/A
555909.085
1511461.441
608.756
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
12221
N/A
556096.7
1510873.9
581.318
NAIL
Survey
Nail
12590
N/A
555765.123
1510773.72
588.752
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
13052
N/A
555333.666
1510066.433
589.182
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
13242
N/A
555075.661
1510002.761
592.089
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
13326
N/A
554660.706
1509766.878
592.999
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
13763
N/A
554341.325
1509360.17
595.572
NAIL SET
Survey
Nail
40008
N/A
555696.532
1510425.986
585.827
WR100
Survey
Nail
40009
N/A
555708.295
1510782.053
583.441
WR101
Survey
Nail
40021
N/A
555448.325
1510139.771
588.614
WR102
Survey
Nail
100067
N/A
555456.258
1510181.209
589.59
WR120
Survey
Nail
100068
N/A
555086.515
1509869.921
590.908
WR121
Survey
Nail
100070
N/A
554777.913
1509640.009
592.714
WR122
Survey
Nail
100088
N/A
554380.297
1509462.586
597.254
WR123
Survey
Nail
100105
N/A
554121.268
1509479.7
606.01
WR124
Survey
Nail
100112
N/A
553865.056
1509412.596
595.985
WR125
Survey
Nail
100147
N/A
555954.313
1511778.485
593.31
WR126
Survey
Nail
100167
N/A
555850.239
1511945.289
593.896
WR127
Survey
Nail
100179
N/A
555709.936
1512017.724
586.354
WR128
Survey
Nail
400038
N/A
556615.685
1511560.026
578.721
WR103
Survey
Nail

1 3
10/28- 29/2014
0
581.79
RXS -2
Raw Cross
Sectional Survey data
1
580.99
RXS -2
3 3
10/28- 29/2014
2
580.35
RXS -2
4 3
10/28- 29/2014
Elevation
Station /Distance
RXS -2
5 3
10/28- 29/2014
Shot #
MY7
Survey Date
Northing
10/28- 29/2014
Eastin
579.11
(Feet)
Feet
Shot ID
Notes
579.08
118
3
10/28 - 29/2032
556589.678
579.01
1511591.349
9 3
578.232
8
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
119
3
10/28- 29/2033
556590.476
11 3
1511592.902
10
577.976
RXS -2
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
120
3
10/28 - 29/2034
556590.797
12
1511594.726
RXS -2
577.457
10/28 - 29/2014
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
121
3
10/28- 29/2035
556590.782
RXS -2
1511595.136
10/28- 29/2014
576.468
580.83
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
122
3
10/28- 29/2036
556591.435
1511595.018
575.691
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
123
3
10/28- 29/2037
556593.146
1511598.004
574.818
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
124
3
10/28 - 29/2038
556593.429
1511599.599
575.013
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
125
3
10/28- 29/2039
556593.52
1511599.775
575.885
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
126
3
10/28 - 29/2040
556593.925
1511600.182
576.522
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
127
3
10/28- 29/2041
556594.969
1511601.121
577.458
PXS3
Pool XS -3
Shot
130
3
10/28- 29/2044
556523.818
1511589.578
579.543
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
131
3
10/28- 29/2045
556524.074
1511587.048
579.029
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
132
3
10/28- 29/2046
556524.004
1511585.096
578.645
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
133
3
10/28- 29/2047
556524.46
1511583.854
577.756
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
134
3
10/28 - 29/2048
556524.846
1511582.54
577.815
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
135
3
10/28- 29/2049
556525.307
1511581.094
577.58
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
136
3
10/28 - 29/2050
556525.249
1511579.464
577.913
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
137
3
10/28- 29/2051
556524.613
1511577.682
578.552
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
138
3
10/28- 29/2052
556525.451
1511576.052
579.201
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
139
3
10/28- 29/2053
556526.224
1511573.703
579.992
RXS3
Riffle XS -3
Shot
225
3
10/28 - 29/2139
555698.04
1510870.849
583.339
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
226
3
10/28 - 29/2140
555699.131
1510869.32
582.674
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
227
3
10/28 - 29/2141
555699.669
1510867.641
581.78
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
228
3
10/28- 29/2142
555700.001
1510866.355
580.738
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
229
3
10/28 - 29/2143
555701.083
1510864.803
579.302
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
230
3
10/28- 29/2144
555701.697
1510862.711
577.103
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
231
3
10/28- 29/2145
555704.896
1510860.27
577.308
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
232
3
10/28 - 29/2146
555705.802
1510857.203
577.32
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
233
3
10/28- 29/2147
555706.803
1510854.019
576.955
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
234
3
10/28- 29/2148
555708.011
1510852.276
577.045
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
235
3
10/28 - 29/2149
555708.669
1510850.243
577.354
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
236
3
10/28- 29/2150
555709.485
1510848.559
577.618
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
237
3
10/28 - 29/2151
555709.473
1510847.367
578.072
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
238
3
10/28- 29/2152
555709.913
1510846.723
579.002
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
239
3
10/28- 29/2153
555710.728
1510845.702
581.626
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
240
3
10/28- 29/2154
555710.967
1510844.241
582.176
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
241
3
10/28 - 29/2155
555711.261
1510843.111
582.703
PXS1
Pool XS -1
Shot
242
3
10/28- 29/2156
555654.259
1510811.873
584.754
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
243
3
10/28 - 29/2157
555653.727
1510812.896
584.291
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
244
3
10/28- 29/2158
555655.538
1510811.775
583.469
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
245
3
10/28 - 29/2159
555656.09
1510811.464
581.86
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
246
3
10/28- 29/2160
555657.132
1510811.14
580.921
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
247
3
10/28- 29/2161
555659.424
1510810.498
579.932
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
248
3
10/28- 29/2162
555660.985
1510810.005
579.098
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
249
3
10/28- 29/2163
555663.421
1510809.06
578.038
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
250
3
10/28- 29/2164
555665.507
1510808.657
578.034
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
251
3
10/28 - 29/2165
555668.23
1510807.612
578.161
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
252
3
10/28- 29/2166
555670.305
1510806.369
578.306
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
253
3
10/28 - 29/2167
555673.212
1510805.006
579.053
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
254
3
10/28- 29/2168
555675.877
1510803.371
579.352
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
255
3
10/28- 29/2169
555677.122
1510802.899
579.643
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
256
3
10/28- 29/2170
555678.149
1510802.229
580.082
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
257
3
10/28 - 29/2171
555679.216
1510801.623
580.621
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
258
3
10/28- 29/2172
555679.967
1510801.165
581.529
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
259
3
10/28 - 29/2173
555680.65
1510800.854
582.27
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
260
3
10/28- 29/2174
555681.284
1510800.11
582.954
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
261
3
10/28 - 29/2175
555682.954
1510799.097
583.502
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
262
3
10/28- 29/2176
555684.136
1510798.416
584.027
RXS1
Riffle XS -1
Shot
1 3
10/28- 29/2014
0
581.79
RXS -2
2 3
10/28- 29/2014
1
580.99
RXS -2
3 3
10/28- 29/2014
2
580.35
RXS -2
4 3
10/28- 29/2014
3
580.13
RXS -2
5 3
10/28- 29/2014
4
579.61
RXS -2
6 3
10/28- 29/2014
5
579.11
RXS -2
7 3
10/28- 29/2014
6
579.08
RXS -2
8 3
10/28- 29/2014
7
579.01
RXS -2
9 3
10/28- 29/2014
8
579.13
RXS -2
10 3
10/28- 29/2014
9
579.18
RXS -2
11 3
10/28- 29/2014
10
579.74
RXS -2
12 3
10/28- 29/2014
11
579.88
RXS -2
13 3
10/28 - 29/2014
12
580.34
RXS -2
14 3
10/28 - 29/2014
13
580.62
RXS -2
15 3
10/28- 29/2014
14
580.69
RXS -2
16 3
10/28- 29/2014
15
580.83
RXS -2
17 3
10/28- 29/2014
16
581
RXS -2

monthly SUM of
Date /Time of ob Number of
Daily Precipitation
Records Compiled
at 2m (in)
Nov -13 12(40%)
3.09
Dec -13 13(41.9%)
1.11
Jan -14 22(71%
2.79
Feb -14 15(53.6%
1.5002
Mar -14 23 (74.2%
4.0301
Apr -14 24(so %)
5.4601
May -14 22(71%)
3.8902
Jun -14 161533%1
1.7302
Jul -14 22(71 %)
4.5102
Aug -14 22 (71 %)
3.4301
Sep -14 22(73.3 %)
4.2803
Oct -14 25(90.6%)
0.9302
Nov -14 21 (70 %)
2.8703
■Harrisburg Rainfall Data Harrisburg Rainfall Data
6
5
- 4
c
0
m 3
'a
2
L
1
0
Nov -13 Dec -13 Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14
Month