The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20061521 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20160224OAKLEY CROSSROADS (G) STREAM & BUFFER RESTORATION MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 5 OF 5) Pitt County, North Carolina SCO Project Number 050659701 DMS Project Number 273 Prepared for: Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Environmental Quality Status of Plan: Final Construction Completed: 2011 Data Collected: 2015 Submission Date: December 2015 Prepared by: ( 0 St ntec Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary...............................................................................................................................3 2.0 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability..................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Dimension................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Pattern and Profile..................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Sediment Transport................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Hydrology................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3.1 Wetland.....................................................................................................................................7 2.3.2 Stream....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.0 References.........................................................................................................................................9 4.0 Appendices......................................................................................................................................11 Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data Appendix D — Stream Survey Data Appendix E — Hydrologic Data Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page i Stantec - 2014 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page ii Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 1.0 Project Summary The Oakley Crossroads Restoration Site is located approximately four miles south of Robersonville, North Carolina in northern Pitt County. This project is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic region in the 03090020 Cataloging Unit of the Tar -Pamlico River basin. A 24.8 -acre conservation easement was recorded on land historically farmed up to the ditch bank. This channelized third order perennial stream flows from west to east through the easement before discharging into Tranters Creek and further downstream, to the Tar River. This project stream, Tranters Creek, and Tar River are all nutrient sensitive waters (NCDWQ, 2004). The overall goal of the Oakley restoration project is to improve water quality and wildlife habitat by restoring a stable stream and riparian buffer system to the project site. Specific project goals from the 2006 Restoration Plan include: • Provide a stable stream channel • Restore riparian buffers along stream channel • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along a tributary to Tranters Creek • Establish a wildlife corridor between the Tranters Creek and Briery Swamp to the south • Preserve site riverine wetlands • Improve water quality by diverting an existing agricultural ditch from the stream channel into the Taylor pond This project includes 3,789 linear feet of stream restoration and 329 linear feet of stream enhancement. Priority II stream restoration involves restoring riffle/pool sequences, the installation of structures, and floodplain grading to improve floodplain connectivity and provide diverse instream habitat. Enhancement 11 stream restoration includes native hardwood tree and shrub planting. Also, native riparian buffer planting occurred on over 18 acres of the site; and an additional 1.37 acres of wetland was preserved. Because this project was instituted prior to October 11, 2007 riparian buffer restoration credit up to 200 feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the conservation easement area is applicable using the grandfathered buffer rules. The project will result in 3,920.60 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 17.77 of buffer mitigation units (BMUs), and 0.27 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). STREAMS: Success criteria developed in the Restoration Plan for stream includes photo documentation, ecological function, and channel stability measurements. The channel will be considered stable if there are little or insignificant changes from the as -built dimensions and longitudinal profile. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Oakley restoration project were observed generally to be in stable condition despite the three beaver dams observed in MY5. The beaver dams were dismantled as much as possible during the monitoring event to allow collection of usable survey data to assess the geomorphology of the stream. The largest beaver dam located at Station 14+00 could only be partially removed which distorted the water surface survey data collected upstream. As a whole, the channel's profile and cross-section adjusted only minimally from baseline conditions. In addition and as described in the Restoration Plan, pool/riffle spacing remained constant, pools did not aggrade nor did riffles degrade, indicating stream success. The channel has good connection to its floodplain. Evidence of bankfull overflow was observed during the initial assessment in the spring of 2015 and again in November 2015. The dimension, pattern, and profile survey of Sections 1 and 2 for MY5 conditions are consistent with the design intent to reduce stream power and erosion potential. Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 3 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 VEGETATION: The Restoration Plan for this project defines success if at least 260 trees/acre are surviving at the end of five years for each planting zone. This project is generating both stream and riparian buffer mitigation assets. For riparian buffer success and in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (Mitigation Program for Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers) planted vegetation shall include a minimum of at least four native hardwood tree species or four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50% of established stems at a density to provide 260 trees per acre at maturity. Native volunteer species may be included to meet performance standards. The Monitoring Year 5 [MY5] stem counts within each of the nine (9) vegetation monitoring plots are included in Tables 7 and 9 in Appendix C. All of the nine vegetation plots met MY5 success criteria, with an average of 3,728 stems/acre (planted and volunteers). The average number of plot planted trees was 621 stems/acre. All plots besides one (VP7) met success criteria when considering planted stems alone, which was one stem short (243 stem/acre). It should also be noted a supplemental planting of over 4,800 plants took place throughout the project area in November/December 2013. The downstream end of the project was replanted again in December 2014. Overall, the planted woody vegetation continues to have excellent vigor and exhibit little to no issues, becoming established among the common successional herbaceous species. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: Evidence, mostly minor, of beavers and nutria continues within the project limits from 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The project stream has remained stable and functional despite beaver activity throughout the monitoring period. During the MY5 stream survey, three beaver dams were observed at Stations 18+80, 19+45, and 24+20. These dams were not observed two months earlier during the vegetation monitoring, and have not been in place long enough to affect the stability or functionality of the stream. Beaver control measures (i.e., traps) were in place, indicating that APHIS is working to control beaver on site. Livestakes affected by previous beaver activity are showing evidence of resprouting and should continue with excellent vigor. Areas throughout the stream have approximately 6-8 inches of fine sediment accumulation, as observed since MY3. A few relict nutria burrows were also observed from Station 4+40 to 10+00 and 21+50, but the livestakes are maintaining bank stability and these areas do not threaten the stability of the stream. Of note, from approximately Station 0+00 to 5+00 the top of bank and thalweg have aggraded relative to previous years. This is evident in the top of bank point and thalweg data in the longitudinal profile and XS -1 graphs in Appendix D. The deposition is likely a result of floodplain hydraulics and beaver dam influence. High flow events from the surrounding watershed transport sediment through an entrenched channel and culvert upstream of the restoration. As the sediment laden water enters the project, the valley immediately widens and provides ample floodplain. This sharp transition between confined flows and unconfined flows is conducive to deposition on the floodplain. This transition to a lower energy system is further amplified by the frequent beaver activity at this location. The thalweg and top of bank data downstream from Station 5+00 begin to align with data from previous years and the only erosion noted is limited to small areas associated with beaver impacts. The lack of significant bed and pattern changes indicate the stream is adequately transporting sediment and functioning hydraulically. Areas of aggradation were observed throughout the thalweg longitudinal profile during the MY4 survey. These areas of aggradation were not observed in the MY5 survey. This difference is attributed to a fine layer of organic material in the stream bed; this layer allows water to flow through and does not represent the actual thalweg elevation of the stream. During the MY5 survey the survey data was collected by Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 4 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 pushing through this organic material to the actual streambed, unlike the MY4 survey which allowed the tip of the survey pole to rest on the organic material which did not represent the true thalweg, giving the illusion of aggradation when looking at the longitudinal profile data in MY4. Four structures (two log sills at Station 22+68 and 23+27, and two log vanes with rock j -hooks at Station 35+34 and 36+01) appear to be losing grade control when looking at the longitudinal profile. When visually assessed in the field during the survey, these areas were still holding grade and no instabilities were noted. The water surface data was collected from the downstream end of the project to the beaver dam located at 18+80. Despite removing a large section of the dam and letting the water level drop for 45 minutes, the water surface was still significantly affected by the beaver dam as seen in the longitudinal profile. As a result, stream reach summary data in Table l lb could not be calculated from the partial water surface data collected. Areas of Murdannia keisak (marsh dayflower), observed since 2011, are still present in and along the banks of stream throughout Section 1 but has reduced in size and extent. Murdannia keisak is now below the mapping threshold as it was only observed in small isolated areas between Station 0+50 and 1+50, between Station 3+50 and 7+00, near Station 21+50, and near Station 28+50. These areas of Murdannia keisak have likely been reduced as a result of the shading provided by livestakes and consistent bankfull events over the past year. Callitriche heterophylla (water starwort), a non-invasive species, was again observed in several areas along all three sections of the stream. This aquatic plant was also noted to be present in monitoring years 1, 2, and 3 as well as prior to the construction of the restoration project. Neither the marsh dayflower nor the water starwort currently threaten the stability of the restored stream. Areas of Mikania scandens (Climbing hempweed) were observed on planted stems in and around vegetation plots 6 and 7 and some isolated sections of livestakes along the stream banks. Persicaria perfoliata (Tearthumb) was also observed in dense colonies throughout the riparian area and on some sections of livestakes. These areas have been monitored since they were first observed in 2013 and the planted stems as a whole are maintaining vigor without a need for supplemental planting. Additionally, the streambanks on both left and right bank below the Briley culvert, between Station 38+25 and 39+00, exhibited dense herbaceous vegetation and livestakes were observed to be resprouting. A visual assessment of the vegetative cover of brush mattresses along the entire stream exhibited greater than 80% vegetative cover and were thriving for MY5. Figure 2 in Appendix A has been updated to remove, the areas where brush mattresses had less than the required 80% vegetative cover that were observed in 2012. The wetland preservation areas were also visually assessed during the 2015 annual monitoring events. No issues were observed in these areas and existing vegetation appears to be in good condition. The conservation easement has prevented encroachment from adjacent agricultural operations and these wetland preservation areas should continue to be adequately protected moving forward without the need for additional demarcations. Summary information, data, and statistics related to the 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 mitigation and restoration plan documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request. Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 5 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 6 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 2.0 Methodology Channel stability and vegetation survival were monitored on the project site. Post -restoration monitoring was conducted for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria are met following the completion of construction to document project success. The Monitoring Year 5 survey was completed using survey grade GPS on November 17, 2015. 2.1 MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS AND CHANNEL STABILITY 2.1.1 Dimension Dimensional characteristics were monitored at 7 permanent cross-sections (4 riffles, 3 pools) along Section 1 and Section 2. Survey data included points measured at all breaks in slope including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Dimensional characteristics were compared to baseline conditions. All monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Stream channel stability and geomorphic monitoring for Section 3 was documented visually. Natural variability is expected, however the system should not experience trends toward excessive increasing bank erosion, channel degradation, or channel aggradation. 2.1.2 Pattern and Profile The entire longitudinal profile of Section 1 and Section 2 was surveyed. Stationing from the as -built survey was used. The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable. The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. 2.1.3 Sediment Transport As discussed in prior project documentation, additional sediment transport evaluations will not be undertaken during the five-year monitoring period. However, the dimension, pattern, and profile survey for MY5 conditions for Section 1 and Section 2 were analyzed to determine whether the current sediment competency and capacity is consistent with the design. 2.2 VEGETATION The Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 methodology was utilized to sample vegetation on September 16, 2015. Nine 100 -square meter CVS plots have been established within the project area. In each plot, four plot corners have been permanently located with rebar. Volunteer plant species (Level 2) were recorded this year (Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A). Species composition, density, and survival of the planted vegetation was monitored in all plots. 2.3 HYDROLOGY 2.3.1 Wetland Neither wetland restoration nor enhancement credit is being sought for this project. Existing jurisdictional wetlands as depicted in Figure 2 in Appendix A are being preserved. The wetland preservation areas are visually assessed during each monitoring year. Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 7 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 2.3.2 Stream One crest gauge has been installed onsite and is located near Cross-section 3. Each visit to the site included documentation of the highest stage for the monitoring interval and a reset of the device. Other indications of bankfull flow including the presence of debris lines, sediment, or flooding were also monitored, and their presence was recorded and documented photographically. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the location of the crest gauge. Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 8 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 3.0 References Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) NCDWQ. 2004. Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. NCDMS. 2010. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. Version 1.3, January 15, 2010. NCDMS. 2008. Mitigation Plan Document — Format Data Requirements, and Content Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. Version 2.0, March 27, 2008. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, United States Environmental Protection Agency — Region IV, Natural Resources Conservation Service, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 9 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 10 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 4.0 Appendices Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data Appendix D — Stream Survey Data Appendix E — Hydrologic Data Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 11 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Oakley Crossroads (G) Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 5 of 5) Page 12 Stantec - 2015 Monitoring Report (DMS# 273) December 2015 Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 — Vicinity Map and Directions Table la.b. —Project Restoration Components Table 2 —Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 — Project Contacts Table 4 — Project Attribute (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) N COUNTY, G N w MARTIN \ate. t ,eek oa PITT C U i Oakley Crossroads Project Site sQ,ss0 Legend Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map Local Roads Oakley Crossroads Major Roads Stream & Buffer Restoration / Railroads Pitt County, North Carolina - Conservation Easement 0 0.5 1 Miles �i Streams Municipality Stantec I County Boundary r.=<<. ;,.,. •,; r (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Table la. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273 Project Existing Restoration Footage or Stationing/ Mitigation Mitigation BMP Component Approach 1 Comment Feet/Acres Level Acreage Location Ratio Units Elements or Reach ID 00+00 to Ten foot width of ford crossing removed from Section 1 2,950 R PH 3,789 37+98.64 1:1 3,789 total length. Total restoration footage 3,789 LF. ~38+39 to Enhancement - log structures, brush mattresses Section 2 329 E EII 329 2.5:1 131.6 —41+68 and planting. 808,525 sq ft planted, 774,084.2 sq ft of which are eligible for mitigation credit0.2 acres (8712 Riparian sq ft) were removed from credit for non -diffuse n/a R 774,084.2 sq ft n/a 1:1 774,084.2 Buffer flow from 2 ditches flowing into the project. Credit not counted for areas outside of the 200' buffer width. Wetlands 1.37 P 1.37 n/a 5:1 0.27 Table lb. Component Summations Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP #273) Restoration Stream Riparian Non-Ri ar Upland Buffer Level Wetland Ac Ac Ac Ac BMP Non- Riverine Riverine Restoration 3789 17.77 Enhancement Enhancement I Enhancement II 329 Creation Preservation 1.37 HQ Preservation Totals (Feet/Acres) 4118 1.37 17.77 MU Totals 3,920.6 0.27 17.77 Non -Applicable Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273) Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 66 months Elapsed Time Since Original Planting Complete: 66 months Number of Reporting Years': 5 Data Collection Completion or Activity or Deliverable Complete Defivery Mitigation Plan n/a August 2006 Final Desi Construction Plans n/a June 2010 Construction (Grading complete) n/a May 2011 Seeding n/a May 2011 Planting n/a May 2011 As-built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline) June 2011 July 2011 Year 1 Monitoring September 2011 November 2011 Replanting (bareroots) n/a January 2012 Year 2 Monitoring October 2012 November 2012 Year 3 Monitoring November 2013 Februrary 2014 Year 4 Monitoring October 2014 November 2014 Year 5 Monitoring November 2015 December 2015 1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline Table 3. Project Contacts Table Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273) Designer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Rd, Ste 300, Raleigh, NC 27606 Primary project design POC Nathan Jean (970) 449-8615 Construction Contractor Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc. 6642 Roper Hollow Rd., Morganton, NC 28655 Construction contractor POC Bobby Koone (828) 584-3018 Survey Contractor Turner Land Surveying 3201 Glenridge Dr., Raleigh, NC 27604 Survey contractor POC Elizabeth and David Turner (919) 875-1378 Planting Contractor Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 1197, Remont, NC 27830 Planting contractor POC Charlie Bruton (919) 242-6555 Seeding Contractor Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc. 6642 Roper Hollow Rd., Morganton, NC 28655 Contractor point of contact Bobby Koone (828) 584-3018 Seed Mix Sources Green Resources Nursery Stock Suppliers Southeastern Native Plant Nursery South Carolina Super Tree Nursery Natives Monitoring Performers Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 801 Jones Franklin Rd, Ste 300, Raleigh, NC 27606 Stream Monitoring POC Tim Taylor (980) 297-7669 Vegetation Monitoring POC jAmber Coleman (919)865-7399 Wetland Monitoring POC n/a Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273) Project Information Project County Pitt Project Area (acres) 26.6 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.76692, -77.269077 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Region Coastal Plain River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS HUC for Project (14 digit) 0302010309002 NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-03-06 Project Drainage Area (sq rm) 1.71 Project Drainage Area % Impervious <1% CGIA Landuse Classification Cropland and Pasture Reach Summary Information Reach name Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Length of reach (linear feet) 3,799 40 289 Valley classification VIII VIII VIII Drainage area (acres) 1,014.5 1,014.7 1,092.3 NCDWQ stream identification score 41 40.5 40.5 NCDWQ classification n/a n/a n/a Morphological description (stream e) E5 F5 F5 Evolutionary trend E5 C5 C5 Underlying mapped soils Bladen Pantego Pantego Drainage class Poorly drained Very poorly drained Very poorly drained Soil hydric status Yes Yes Yes Slope 0-2% 0-1% 0-1% FEMA classification Zone X Zone X Zone X Native vegetation community Riverine bottomland hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood forest Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0% 1 0% 10% Wetland Summary Information n/a - wetland preservation only Re u atory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE 404 permit Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes NCDWQ 401 permit Endangered Species Act No n/a n/a Historic Preservation Act No n/a n/a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Aream Management Act (LAMA) No n/a n/a FEMA Floodplain Compliance No I n/a n/a (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Appendix B. Visual Assessment Figure 2 — Asset Map (1 Sheet) Figure 2a and b — Current Condition Plan View (2 Sheets) Table 5 — Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6 — Vegetation Condition Assessment Photos — Stream Stations (S1 -S9) Photos — Vegetation Plots (V 1-V 18) (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) VP3 rj I i' • • - VP4 • • • • • r- c • • XS -3 r r Cross-section Pins LatitudeLongitude XS1 Left 1 35.763932 -77.273188 i ef Figure 2. Project Status Map MY5 Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project EEP #: 273 Pitt County, North Carolina December 2015 Stantec A Crest gage Existing Trees Vegetation monitoring plots (VP 1-9) ® Ponds Stream cross-section surveys (XS 1-7) Other on-site hydrography Ford crossing Non -buffered waterways 0 Conservation easement (Buffer credit area reduced by 0.1 ac for each waterway) sa�aa,�fi 'aC.ti.�. .r:'.c.+.;wales%i'► _.e�a,::�«r.- . �,-..., .. .0 130 260 Mitigation Components Riparian Buffer Restoration (774,084.2 sqft) Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline (3,789 ft) Section 2 Stream Enhacement II (329 ft) Wetland Preservation (1.37 ac) 520 XS1 Right 35.763715 -77.273168 i Tay/or 1%, XS2 Left XS2 Right XS3 Left 35.764464 35.764192 35.764990 -77.271851 -77.271913 -77.270211 Veg Plot Origin Latitude Longitude XS3 Right 35.764655 -77.270179 VP1 35.763800 -77.272727 XS4 Left 35.764086 -77.266309 VP2 35.764217 -77.272054 XS4 Right 35.764104 -77.266513 VP3 35.764550 -77.272106 XS5 Left 35.763775 -77.265646 VP4 35.7648981-77.270463 XS5 Right 35.763637 -77.265766 ; VP5 35.7640711-77.266808 XS6 Left 35.763569 -77.265016,, VP6 35.764591 -77.267194 XS6 Right 35.763546 -77.265224 ,. VP7 35.764370 -77.266611 XS7 Left 35.763388 -77.264134. VP8 35.763290 -77.264121 XS7 Right 1 35.763208 -77.264251 VP9 35.762979 -77.262949 Aerial photo: NAIP 2014 ` ` Figure 2. Project Status Map MY5 Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project EEP #: 273 Pitt County, North Carolina December 2015 Stantec A Crest gage Existing Trees Vegetation monitoring plots (VP 1-9) ® Ponds Stream cross-section surveys (XS 1-7) Other on-site hydrography Ford crossing Non -buffered waterways 0 Conservation easement (Buffer credit area reduced by 0.1 ac for each waterway) sa�aa,�fi 'aC.ti.�. .r:'.c.+.;wales%i'► _.e�a,::�«r.- . �,-..., .. .0 130 260 Mitigation Components Riparian Buffer Restoration (774,084.2 sqft) Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline (3,789 ft) Section 2 Stream Enhacement II (329 ft) Wetland Preservation (1.37 ac) 520 N Riley Pond �..•• ::__ , _ :: a.� -- r�p0. 'SUS � - e r 17AClZ I. w=' L: L VP4 L: L: L - L•"• L•"- ``0 114+ V7 VS S3 i ,00 - _P, -, -, .. L:.. L:.. L:.. 1,00 VP3 � pL,y' � �..�� p +oo �P P- KV5' _ '• - 7+ p-�-�P� "��p',, P0. �P-��`"� sa "'--`�v-'` "Ar "` =_'`mow "'- •n ..�'� ;-A k A°Z ZR' :, A k :It °' �R�,.`.4 V3;V4 .. o m . w VP2 4+0 2-00 IN -�,-. p0. p0. �0. p0.w tea'-^wa �p A••;t .S7 0 XS•1 Figure 2a. Current Condition Plan View MY5 Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project EEP #: 273 Pitt County, North Carolina December 2015 Q�i Stantec XS -2 Photo points (Veg=V, Stream=S) Stream cross-section surveys (XS 1-7) Farm paths 0 Ford crossing ® Conservation easement Vegetation Plot Success (VP 1-9) Buffer=Yes, Stream=Yes or n/a; Y Buffer=No, Stream=n/a Buffer=No, Stream=No; N Count Type STREAM STRUCTURES Station Condition +00 a k Failing 1 Log Vane 00+07.20 Intact, stable, functioning N 2 Log Sill 22+68.02 Intact, stable, functioning N 3 Log Sill 23+27.75 Intact, stable, losing grade control N 4 Log Sill 25+93.49 Intact, stable, functioning N 5 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 28+61.89 Intact, stable, functioning N 6 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 31+53.02 Intact, stable, functioning N 7 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 33+97.82 Intact, stable, functioning N 8 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 35+34.81 Intact, stable, functioning N 9 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 36+01.21 Intact, stable, functioning N 10 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 36+70.73 Intact, stable, functioning N 11 Log Vane 37+66.50 Intact, stable, functioning N ® Existing Trees ® Ponds Other on-site hydrography Non -buffered waterways (Buffer credit area reduced by 0.1 ac for each waterway) 0 Crest gage Log Vane Log Sill Rock J -Hook with Log Vane This map represents field conditions as of November 17, 2015 Mitigation Components Riparian Buffer Restoration (774,084.2 sqft) Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline (3,789 ft) Section 2 Stream Enhacement II (329 ft) Wetland Preservation (1.37 ac) Problem Areas T - Beaver Dam Dead livestakes Feet 0 50 100 200 -.L may.- -. may. -: _ a V13 V14 ..L L• 28+00 - • l V9,V10 - 27+00 • s4 _ VO VP529+00 • • 31+00 XS -4 •.�. • 32+00 / •/0 • 00 M • 34+00 35+00 • 36 36+00 • Briley Culvert STREAM STRUCTURES Count Type Station Condition 1 Log Vane 00+07.20 Intact, stable, functioning Failing N 2 Log Sill 22+68.02 Intact, stable, functioning N 3 Log Sill 23+27.75 Intact, stable, losing grade control N 4 Log Sill 25+93.49 Intact, stable, functioning N 5 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 28+61.89 Intact, stable, functioning N 6 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 31+53.02 Intact, stable, functioning N 7 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 33+97.82 Intact, stable, functioning N 8 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 35+34.81 Intact, stable, functioning N 9 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 36+01.21 Intact, stable, functioning N 10 Rock J -Hook with Log Vane 36+70.73 Intact, stable, functioning N 11 Log Vane 37+66.50 Intact, stable, functioning N XS -5 / • 38+0 V15,V16 37+00 S7 • VP8 XS -6 39+00 XS -7 Figure 2b. Current Condition Plan View MY5 Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project EEP #: 273 Pitt County, North Carolina December 2015 Stantec Photo points (Veg=V, Stream=S) Stream cross-section surveys (XS 1-7) Farm paths 0 Ford crossing ® Conservation easement Vegetation Plot Success (VP 1-9) Buffer=Yes, Stream=Yes or n/a; Y Buffer=No, Stream=n/a Q Buffer=No, Stream=No; N Existing Trees =y. Ponds Other on-site hydrography Non -buffered waterways (Buffer credit area reduced by 0.1 ac for each waterway) 0 Crest gage Log Vane Log Sill Rock J -Hook with Log Vane This map represents field conditions as of November 17, 2015 Mitigation Components Riparian Buffer Restoration (774,084.2 sqft) Section 1 Stream Restoration Centerline (3,789 ft) Section 2 Stream Enhacement II (329 ft) Wetland Preservation (1.37 ac) Problem Areas T - Beaver Dam ,6W Dead livestakes 0 50 100 I Feet 200 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID Reach 1 Assessed Length 3800 Adjusted % Number Number with Footage with for Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of % Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody Category Sub-Cateciory Metric as Intended As -built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability 1. Awradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars) 0 0 100% 2. Degradation -Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100% (Riffle and Run units) 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A 56 100% 3. Meander Pool 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6) 56 56 100% Condition 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle) 56 56 100% 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 56 56100% 4.Thalweg Position 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide) 56 56 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 2. Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100% and are providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 11 11 ° 100/o 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 11 11 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 11 11 100% Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 3. Bank Protection 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance 11 1 1 100% document) 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 11 11 100% *Total planted acreage Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration EEP# 273 Planted acreage* 18 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygon Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of woody material 0.1 acres none 0 0 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Woody stem densities below target levels for stem count success criteria 0.1 acres none 0 0 0.0% Total 0 0 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year 0.25 acres None 0 0 0.0% Total 0 0 0.0`Yo Easement acreage 26.6 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygon Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage 4. Invasive areas of concern None 1000 SF n/a 0 0 0.0% 5. Encroachment areas None none n/a 0 0 0.0% *Total planted acreage Stream Station Photos Photo Station S1— Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 1 Station 00+72 - Priority 2 (11/17/15 Year 5) Photo Station S2 —Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 2 Station 06+17 — Priority 2 (11/17/15 Year 5) Photo Station S3 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 3 Station 12+59 — Priority 2 (11/17/2015 Year 5) Photo Station S4 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 4 Station 28+46 — Priority 2 (11/17/2015 Year 5) Photo Station S5 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 5 Station 32+71 — Priority 2 (11/17/2015 Year 5) Photo Station S6 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 6 Station 35+24 — Priority 2 (11/17/2015 Year 5) Photo Station S7 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross-section 7 Station 38+71 — Enhancement 2 (11/17/2015 Year 5) Photo Station S8 — Crest gauge indicating a bankfull event (09/16/2015 Year 5) Jnn- 1 1 N'i� Sediment on Veizetation � 1, Vegetation Plot Photos Photo Station V1 - Veg Plot 1 looking southeast (09/16/2015 Year 5) Photo Station V2 - Veg Plot 1 looking east (09/16/2015 Year 5) Photo Station V3 - Veg Plot 2 looking south (09/16/2015 Year 5) Photo Station V4 - Veg Plot 2 looking southeast (09/16/2015 Year 5) i 'ZI 1.' � - � �-` � � 'mt�gie�;., • "`' fes. _-.;+�f Sui. tea,.. 6t aG 0 _ Vf- d w kq- Ai • • H '�4,�7; 3 stir ��,��: ..�; �- ., �' z �� ,N , s��. �_ -.: 1 Photo Station VII - Veg plot 6 looking east (09/16/2015 Year 5) Photo Station V12 - Veg plot 6 looking northeast (09/16/2015 Year 5) #Akj�. r lot r �•',:t �'FT 4 6 ` nl+ ,A i wW`1'�' T �L.. ;P�' ••S'ite's r i , " tr",r ,wig l� M1 4 , �.k-_ y{ y� �# •fie 4 � *" �,+, a �,, Y �— �M•+ �' a } i 1 .'iE � f Y *• � "' � ter' .� . t� � �' /`� 4 � "{' � ♦ .'fie �r y y r'i iii t�� ` 3�4#, e per. +z ' i31 + (y� +. Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7a,b. — Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 8 — CVS Vegetation Metadata Table 9 — CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Oakley Crossroads (G) (#273) Year 5 (16 -Sep -2015) Vegetation Plot Summary Information Riparian Stream/ Unknown Buffer Wetland Growth Plot # Stems' Stems2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers; Total° Form 0001 20 22 0 0 17 39 0 0002 8 8 0 0 30 38 0 0003 21 21 0 0 7 28 0 0004 19 20 0 0 9 29 0 0005 11 11 0 0 6 17 0 0006 20 20 0 0 581 601 0 0007 6 6 0 0 12 18 0 0008 12 12 0 0 5 17 0 0009 18 18 0 0 24 42 0 Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre) Stream/ Success Wetland Criteria Plot # StemS2 Volunteers3 Tota 14 Met? 0001 890 688 1578 Yes 0002 324 1214 1538 Yes 0003 850 283 1133 Yes 0004 809 364 1174 Yes 0005 445 243 688 Yes 0006 809 23512 24322 Yes 0007 243 486 728 Yes 0008 486 202 688 Yes 0009 728 971 1700 Yes Project Avg 621 3107 3728 Yes Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals (per acre) Riparian Success Buffer Criteria Plot # Stems° Met? 0001 1578 Yes 0002 1538 Yes 0003 1133 Yes 0004 1174 Yes 0005 688 Yes 0006 24322 Yes 0007 728 Yes 0008 688 Yes 0009 1700 Yes Project Avg 3728 Yes Stem Class characteristics 'Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines. 2Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines 3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines. °Total Planted +volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines. Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% equirements by more than 10% Table 8 - CVS Metadata Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration - EEP #273 Report Prepared By Alex Baldwin Date Prepared 10/12/2015 16:59 database name STantec Oakley_2015cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb database location U:\175613016\project\site_data\vegetation computer name BALDWINA-LT file size 62853120 DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------ Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data. Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes. Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems. Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.). Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots. Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species. Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each. Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species. Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot. Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. PROJECT SUMMARY ------------------------------------- Project Code 273 project Name Oakley Crossroads (G) Description Stream and Wetland Restoration River Basin Tar -Pamlico length(ft) stream -to -edge width (ft) area (sq m) Required Plots (calculated) Sampled Plots 9 Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and EEP Proiect Code 273. Proiect Name: Oakley Crossroads Current Plot Data (MY5 2015) Annual Means Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements.by more than 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P -all = All planted stems including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruit stems including livestakes Total includes natural recruit stems E273-01-0001 E273-01-0002 E273-01-0003 E273-01-0004 E273-01-0005 E273-01-0006 E273-01-0007 E273-01-0008 E273-01-0009 MYS(2015) MY4(2014) MY3(2013) MY2(2012) MY1(2011) MY0(2011) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7 15 3 4 580 1 1 9 7 1 1 625 596 124 Acer rubrum var. rubrum red maple Tree 147 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 9 9 7 6 4 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 Eubotrys racemosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 41 41 4 41 4 41 41 4 41 71 7 71 1 51 5 51 241 24 241 251 25 25 221 22 221 221 22 221 131 13 131 131 13 13 Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 5 1 5 3 1 14 27 40 41 33 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 Magnolia virginiana sweetbay Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 6 6 6 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 31 3 3 31 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 17 13 13 13 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pinustaeda loblolly pine Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 41 4 4 1 7 7 S 6 6 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 25 25 28 26 26 28 27 27 33 28 28 28 14 14 14 14 14 14 Quercus oak Tree 2 2 2 7 7 7 Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree 8 8 8 6 6 8 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 10 31 31 36 34 34 36 32 32 36 30 30 30 10 10 10 12 12 12 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6 7 7 7 9 9 9 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 11 1 1 9 9 9 1 1 1 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 13 13 13 7 7 7 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 11 1 1 11 11 11 1 21 2 2 21 2 2 31 3 3 21 2 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 6 6 6 5 5 5 10 101 10 10 101 10 12 121 12 16 16 16 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 Rhus copallinum Iflameleaf sumac Ishrub 4 4 8 8 6 Salix nigra blackwillow Tree 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 6 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 1 6 7 7 1 3 Toxicodendron radicans eastern poison ivy Vine 1 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 'I 1 Stem count 22 22 39 8 8 38 21 21 28 20 20 29 11 11 17 20 20 601 6 6 18 12 12 17 18 18 42 138 138 829 142 142 813 147L 147 340 148 148 339 90 90 90 93 93 93 size (ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Species count 6 6 10 2 2 6 5 5 7 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 6 8 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 7 14 14 20 13 13 20 12 12 19 12 12 19 14 14 14 14 14 14 Stems per ACRE 890.3 890.3 1578 323.7 323.7 1538 849;:4 849.8 1133 809.4 809.4 1174 445.2 445.2 688 809.4 809.4 24322 242.8 242.8F728 4 485.6 485.6 688 728.4 1700 620.5 3728 � 638.5 3656 661 1529 665.5 665.5 1524 404.7 404.7 404.7 418.2 418.2 418.2 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements.by more than 10% Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes P -all = All planted stems including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruit stems including livestakes Total includes natural recruit stems (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Appendix D. Stream Survey Data Figures 3a -g — Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays Figure 4 — Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays Table 10a,b. — Baseline — Stream Data Summary Table 11 a. — Monitoring — Cross-section Morphology Data Table l lb. — Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Tranters Creek XS -1, Riffle, STA 0+72 1.59 Watershed XS ID Drainage Area(sq. mi.) Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew 1T. Taylor, A. Baldwin MY 00 MY 01 MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 MY 05 Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation 12.21 49.05 12.21 49.05 150.82 41.25 150.84 41.28 150.9 41.263 150.4 41.28 19.33 48.29 19.33 48.29 153.07 41.20 156.31 41.09 153.97 41.063 156.65 40.84 28.16 46.74 28.16 46.74 155.79 41.11 165.33 40.99 158.08 40.773 168.6 40.94 35.77 46.38 35.77 46.38 158.62 41.01 170.30 40.91 162.84 40.923 178.33 41.27 47.80 45.82 47.80 45.82 162.14 40.79 177.18 41.03 166.57 40.933 186.3 41.26 59.77 45.48 59.77 45.48 166.15 41.00 181.76 40.77 170.79 41.133 190.95 41.89 74.68 45.23 74.68 45.23 168.77 40.84 186.24 40.74 173.05 41.433 193.09 41.62 81.30 45.02 81.30 45.02 172.16 40.98 188.48 40.90 177.14 41.063 194.05 41.41 87.17 45.62 87.17 45.62 175.62 41.08 190.46 40.37 180.46 40.913 194.88 40.65 93.57 44.59 93.57 44.59 178.75 41.06 191.75 40.25 183.59 41.013 195.37 39.84 98.13 44.87 98.13 44.87 182.20 40.91 192.82 40.14 186.85 41.393 195.81 39.19 104.75 45.09 104.75 45.09 184.20 40.71 193.66 39.99 189.32 41.443 196.64 39.21 125.09 44.10 125.09 44.10 186.59 40.76 193.73 39.58 192.91 40.833 197.06 39.47 137.30 43.93 137.30 43.93 188.93 40.84 194.91 39.44 194.07 40.983 197.59 39.64 148.71 41.64 148.71 41.64 191.29 40.57 195.40 39.26 195.21 40.243 198.07 40.15 150.62 42.20 150.62 42.20 192.64 40.26 196.46 39.26 195.98 39.063 199.08 40.1 160.31 41.00 160.25 41.02 193.29 40.17 196.71 39.13 196.94 39.053 201.11 40.7 173.90 40.96 165.47 40.95 194.00 40.00 197.55 39.24 197.95 39.153 202.96 41.32 186.83 40.62 172.19 41.05 194.43 39.82 198.10 39.67 198.98 39.273 206.3 41.13 190.89 40.641 179.931 41.07 194.80 39.73 199.56 39.71 199.8 39.513 215.87 40.68 191.77 40.271 183.191 40.94 195.51 39.64 200.82 39.76 201.19 39.823 218.19 40.65 192.56 39.631 187.401 40.70 195.74 38.90 201.92 39.47 202.44 40.183 221.59 41.87 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 0+72 46.00 45.00 44.00 43.00 w c 42.00 M v w 41.00 40.00 39.00 38.00 100.00 Sta. 0+75 Looking Downstream SUMARY DATA MY00 MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 40.63 40.72 40.57 40.37 40.86 41.30 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 18.33 8.37 9.77 9.15 11.21 9.42 Bankfull Width 20.80 12.39 15.49 15.73 11.65 8.81 Flood Prone Area Elevation 42.78 41.63 42.41 41.61 42.67 43.45 Flood Prone Width 80.66 65.65 78.50 70.36 80.93 86.30 Max Depth at Bankfull 2.15 1.14 1.84 1.24 1.81 2.13 Mean Depth at Bankfull 0.88 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.96 1.07 W/D Ratio 23.64 18.22 24.59 27.12 12.14 8.23 Entrenchment Ratio 3.88 5.30 5.07 4.47 6.95 9.80 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream Type C C C C C E 120.00 140.00 160.00 As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation - • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 180.00 Station (ft) MY 01 MY 05 200.00 220.00 240.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Tranters Creek XS -2, Riffle, STA 6+17 1.59 Watershed XS ID Drainage Area(sq. mi.) Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin Station 12.76 33.99 54.24 72.47 92.77 110.6 136.3 153.53 168.4 169.1 175.71 193.21 210.45 219.41 223.60 226.57 226.69 227.04 228.42 229.95 231.78 232.29 MY 00 Elevation 46.91 44.63 44.37 43.91 43.54 8 43.14 2 43.27 42.83 2 42.08 0 42.69 40.52 40.43 40.32 40.35 40.33 40.37 40.30 39.64 38.99 38.21 38.09 MY 01 ration Elevation 12.76 46.91 33.99 44.63 54.24 44.37 72.47 43.91 92.77 43.54 110.68 43.14 136.32 43.27 153.53 42.83 168.42 42.08 169.10 42.69 174.60 41.30 183.93 40.80 193.68 40.52 208.61 40.41 217.46 40.30 226.67 40.33 229.04 39.32 230.82 38.62 231.63 38.04 232.76 37.70 233.53 37.92 235.12 38.52 MY 02 Station Elevation 169.00 42.10 169.98 41.79 172.32 41.46 175.26 41.16 178.46 40.99 181.16 40.77 184.02 40.67 187.28 40.50 190.92 40.49 193.78 40.41 196.48 40.49 199.93 40.52 205.00 40.50 208.82 40.45 213.63 40.35 217.51 40.31 221.63 40.32 224.41 40.38 226.25 40.26 227.67 39.77 228.58 39.49 229.56 39.23 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 2, Riffle, Station 6+17 47.00 46.00 45.00 44.00 43.00 c 42.00 v LU 41.00 40.00 39.00 38.00 37.00 100.00 MY 03 Station Elevation 169.04 42.10 169.40 42.07 172.25 41.54 177.69 41.02 183.24 40.78 186.21 40.49 193.91 40.42 199.31 40.50 206.79 40.49 212.08 40.29 216.27 40.31 219.32 40.35 222.74 40.37 226.20 40.33 229.24 39.41 230.85 38.74 231.55 38.21 232.36 37.92 233.06 37.77 233.87 37.73 234.81 38.26 236.06 38.51 MY 04 Station Elevation 169.24 42.05 170.96 41.66 173.68 41.24 176.7 41.07 180.43 40.92 184.5 40.63 188.53 40.41 192.63 40.48 195.45 40.5 198.12 40.5 202.29 40.46 205.68 40.46 209.82 40.37 212.6 40.26 216.16 40.28 219.12 40.34 222.26 40.45 225.58 40.34 227.21 40.33 228.32 39.68 229.55 39.23 230.61 38.57 MY 05 Station Elevation 169.81 42.09 169.83 42.72 172.62 41.52 178.06 40.99 182.47 40.71 188.11 40.47 196.32 40.5 202.01 40.44 209.16 40.41 218.23 40.67 227.53 40.32 229.84 39.18 231.38 38.62 232.5 38.12 232.93 38.08 234.15 37.92 235.64 38.2 236.71 38.63 238.01 38.84 238.55 39.07 238.56 1 39.85 Sta. 6+17 Looking Downstream SUMARY DATA MY00 MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 40.35 40.38 40.38 40.33 40.33 40.42 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 18.16 17.88 18.17 18.06 20.68 19.23 Bankfull Width 16.60 13.16 15.09 13.85 17.67 14.11 Flood Prone Area Elevation 42.89 43.06 42.99 42.93 42.90 42.92 Flood Prone Width 124.27 124.27 124.27 125.00 124.68 122.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 2.54 2.68 2.61 2.60 2.57 2.50 Mean Depth at Bankfull 1.09 1.37 1.20 1.30 1.17 1.36 W/D Ratio 15.23 9.61 12.58 10.65 15.10 10.38 Entrenchment Ratio 7.49 9.44 8.24 9.03 7.06 8.65 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream TVpe C C C C C E 120.00 -As Built MY00 140.00 160.00 180.00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 200.00 Station (ft) MY 01 MY 05 220.00 240.00 260.00 280.00 300.00 -------------------------------------------- IV, 120.00 -As Built MY00 140.00 160.00 180.00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 200.00 Station (ft) MY 01 MY 05 220.00 240.00 260.00 280.00 300.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Watershed Tranters Creek XS ID XS -3, Pool, STA 12+59 Drainage Area(sq. mi.) 1.59 Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin MY 00 Station Elevation 20.32 44.49 50.25 42.52 78.82 41.98 97.11 42.25 113.72 42.15 131.64 41.90 145.91 41.47 153.13 42.09 159.54 41.19 171.94 41.02 187.04 39.94 197.51 39.98 200.36 39.97 205.21 39.84 205.63 39.82 205.93 39.76 207.79 38.83 209.56 37.40 210.71 36.78 211.70 36.25 214.13 36.40 MY 01 ration Elevation 20.32 44.49 50.25 42.52 78.82 41.98 97.11 42.25 113.72 42.15 131.64 41.90 145.91 41.47 153.13 42.09 158.28 41.16 166.00 40.94 170.52 40.88 179.13 40.57 184.61 40.28 190.41 39.96 194.41 39.92 200.59 39.97 205.91 39.83 208.18 38.48 209.36 37.63 209.67 37.18 210.78 36.66 214.84 36.29 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 3, Pool, Station 12+59 51.00 49.00 47.00 45.00 w c 43.00 v LU 41.00 39.00 37.00 35.00 0.00 MY 02 Station Elevation 153.13 41.38 155.51 41.19 159.37 41.29 163.57 41.11 167.64 40.72 173.09 40.94 177.54 40.78 182.58 40.30 185.77 40.12 188.89 39.94 194.18 39.97 200.51 39.92 202.61 39.85 204.72 39.85 206.71 39.17 207.89 38.84 208.23 38.73 209.46 37.19 210.59 36.70 211.02 36.53 212.13 36.75 213.04 36.98 MY 03 Station Elevation 153.13 41.39 153.61 41.35 156.40 41.00 164.69 41.15 167.39 40.72 171.43 40.88 177.86 40.70 182.06 40.32 186.87 39.99 191.07 39.94 195.94 39.95 200.44 39.96 202.76 39.86 205.35 39.83 206.48 39.54 208.05 38.73 208.65 38.40 208.82 38.03 209.67 37.40 210.70 36.68 211.91 36.56 213.77 36.95 MY 04 MY 05 Station 154.78 Elevation 41.28 Station 153.64 Elevation 42.23 158.74 41.22 161.72 40.95 163.33 40.9 174.45 40.72 167.41 40.71 181.53 40.21 168.93 40.6 186.98 40.04 174.28 40.8 193.83 39.93 180.59 40.39 197.19 39.91 185.53 40.21 201.37 40.01 190.46 39.89 204.51 39.94 195.18 39.91 207.49 39.33 199.32 39.92 208.22 39.15 202.19 39.96 208.84 38.76 205.16 39.89 209.47 37.8 207.2 39.28 209.72 36.35 208.7 38.84 210.89 36.68 209.52 37.42 212.18 36.59 211.12 36.64 213.44 36.64 212.51 36.4 216.2 36.98 213.65 36.57 217.89 37.06 214.7 36.87 219.41 37.57 215.67 36.71 220.39 37.93 216.98 36.8 221.31 38.67 Sta.12+59 Looking Downstream SU MARY DATA MY00 MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 39.68 39.70 39.70 39.61 39.87 39.74 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 36.86 37.87 34.50 32.69 40.27 37.31 Bankfull Width 20.58 24.45 20.80 19.56 22.77 22.93 Flood Prone Area Elevation 43.11 43.11 42.87 42.66 43.34 43.13 Flood Prone Width 248.46 248.07 244.10 245.00 252.64 249.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 3.43 3.41 3.17 3.05 3.47 3.39 Mean Depth at Bankfull 1.79 1.55 1.66 1.67 1.77 1.63 W/D Ratio 11.50 15.77 12.53 11.71 12.86 14.07 Entrenchment Ratio 12.07 10.15 11.74 12.53 11.10 10.86 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream TVpe C C C C C C 50.00 -As Built MY00 'MY01 MY 04 100.00 Flood Prone Area Elevation MY 02 MY 05 150.00 200.00 Station (ft) . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 03 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Watershed Tranters Creek XS ID XS -4, Riffle, STA 28+46 Drainage Area(sq. mi.) 1.59 Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin Station 32.58 47.64 65.92 81.03 88.43 108.82 125.0 133.82 157.24 191.12 MY 00 Elevation 42.97 42.20 41.12 40.82 40.61 40.02 6 39.54 255.76 266.56 278.21 282.75 293.74 305.40 305.58 306.89 308.24 310.07 310.71 39.25 38.83 38.17 37.85 38.60 37.86 37.97 38.11 38.28 38.25 37.65 36.93 36.67 35.71 MY 01 ration Elevation 32.58 42.97 47.64 42.20 65.92 41.12 81.03 40.82 88.43 40.61 108.82 40.02 125.06 39.54 133.82 39.79 157.24 39.25 191.12 38.83 230.32 38.17 255.76 37.85 266.56 38.60 278.21 37.86 281.24 37.759 290.68 37.881 300.11 37.906 305.26 37.848 307.23 37.095 308.54 36.55 308.85 36.062 309.92 35.422 MY 02 Station Elevation 278.00 37.97 280.52 38.00 284.26 38.00 289.18 38.06 293.86 38.01 296.90 38.08 300.54 38.10 302.64 38.15 304.70 38.27 306.16 37.79 307.54 37.21 308.62 36.83 309.70 36.33 309.97 35.76 310.39 35.64 311.02 35.24 312.16 34.85 312.3 35.04 312.89 35.48 314.04 35.74 314.17 36.4 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 4, Riffle, Station 28+46 46.00 44.00 42.00 a 0 ca v !9EKAiIXIII: 38.00 36.00 34.00 0.00 MY 03 Station Elevation 281.19 37.82 286.99 37.89 290.83 38.06 295.88 38.06 298.80 38.17 304.41 38.22 305.66 38.03 309.07 36.68 309.58 36.30 309.72 36.15 310.35 35.59 311.02 35.33 311.95 34.93 312.92 35.37 313.7 35.56 314.1 35.99 314.87 36.67 316.62 37.12 318.28 38.04 321.01 38.27 325.68 38.1 330.21 38.13 MY 04 Station 277.51 Elevation 38.07 281.36 38.03 285.67 38.14 289.16 38.14 292.29 38.06 295.68 38.18 298.8 38.24 301.5 38.28 303.97 38.25 305.4 38.06 306.85 37.46 308.04 36.82 309.06 36.31 309.7 34.98 310.31 35.01 311.11 34.89 311.88 34.99 312.78 35.51 313.53 36.99 314.65 37.04 316.63 37.54 319.74 38.26 Sta. 28+46 Looking Downstream MY 05 Station 277.39 Elevation 38.63 283.92 37.94 293.63 38.07 297.65 38.14 301.06 38.14 303.79 38.24 306.02 37.85 306.64 37.22 308.18 1 36.85 308.29 1 36.5 309.39 35.78 309.99 35.2 310.99 34.88 311.28 35.3 312.65 36.45 312.85 36.76 314.85 37.24 316.12 37.76 317.86 38.33 322.23 38.24 327.45 38.21 SU MARY DATA MY00 MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 38.24 37.85 38.13 38.22 38.25 38.24 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 20.90 18.22 19.85 21.57 21.30 18.08 Bankfull Width 14.64 13.70 14.70 16.10 15.73 13.80 Flood Prone Area Elevation 41.23 40.54 41.41 41.51 41.61 41.60 Flood Prone Width 367.14 332.68 367.00 367.00 378.73 377.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 2.99 2.69 3.28 3.29 3.36 3.36 Mean Depth at Bankfull 1.43 1.33 1.35 1.34 1.35 1.31 W/D Ratio 10.24 10.30 10.89 12.01 11.65 10.53 Entrenchment Ratio 25.08 24.28 24.97 22.80 24.08 27.32 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream Type C I C I E I C E E 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation - • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 01 MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 MY 05 250.00 Station (ft) 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00 500.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Watershed Tranters Creek XS ID XS -5, Pool, STA 32+71 Drainage Area(sq. mi.) 1.59 Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin MY 00 Station Elevation 26.15 42.13 36.87 42.19 68.22 41.81 85.37 36.59 90.80 34.92 176.23 35.02 177.81 35.70 185.44 38.11 195.27 40.20 205.06 39.95 229.47 38.00 245.21 37.39 262.60 37.51 281.47 38.01 288.37 37.49 288.85 37.44 299.46 37.54 304.38 37.33 306.65 37.44 307.72 37.34 MY 01 ration Elevation 26.15 42.13 36.87 42.19 68.22 41.81 85.37 36.59 90.80 34.92 176.23 35.02 177.81 35.70 185.44 38.11 195.27 40.20 205.06 39.95 214.85 39.11 229.47 38.00 245.21 37.39 262.60 37.51 281.47 38.01 289.99 37.262 300.08 37.334 308.08 37.1 313.02 36.025 317.31 35.866 317.44 34.823 319.38 33.992 MY 02 Station Elevation 281.30 37.19 285.24 37.29 289.79 37.33 294.67 37.29 299.78 37.32 303.71 37.27 306.55 37.23 307.36 37.17 308.48 37.03 309.01 36.82 310.26 36.76 311.69 36.37 312.62 36.04 314.52 35.78 315.69 35.60 316.15 35.54 316.61 35.68 317.26 34.62 317.96 34.15 318.95 33.71 320.06 33.763 320.8 33.461 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 5 Pool, Station 32+71 43.00 42.00 41.00 40.00 39.00 w C 38.00 m v w 37.00 36.00 35.00 34.00 33.00 200.00 MY 03 Station Elevation 281.17 37.23 285.36 37.31 292.98 37.30 300.40 37.36 306.17 37.26 310.85 36.51 316.32 36.01 317.26 34.63 319.20 34.04 320.31 33.82 321.31 34.00 322.05 34.43 322.85 34.97 323.56 35.24 327.45 37.13 331.31 37.4 334.08 37.75 336.39 38.41 338.86 39.1 340.26 39.27 342.43 39.27 Sta. 32+71 Looking Downstream *Floodprone width adjusted to not include adjacent farm pond. MY 04 Station 281.2 Elevation 37.23 284.25 37.28 288.5 37.33 293.25 37.3 298.92 37.36 303.13 37.32 306.54 37.21 309.29 36.77 311.78 36.26 314.51 36.18 316.83 36.11 317.52 34.17 318.16 33.88 319.05 33.81 319.98 33.5 320.67 33.49 321.3 33.78 321.98 34.23 323.05 35.03 323.88 35.08 324.53 35.51 325.21 35.95 MY 05 Station 281.05 Elevation 37.63 281.05 37.18 284.33 37.18 288.8 37.2 293.55 37.25 297.93 37.23 301.95 37.27 304.73 37.28 306.68 1 37.05 308.86 1 36.78 314.28 35.96 316.47 35.95 317.01 35.82 317.37 34.09 318.04 34.23 318.85 33.99 320.16 33.59 320.81 33.75 321.55 33.89 322.64 34.52 323.71 35.02 SUMARY DATA MY00 MY01* MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 37.26 37.33 37.23 37.19 37.31 37.21 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 29.47 35.63 34.74 30.33 35.00 33.84 Bankfull Width 19.06 29.71 23.49 21.70 24.97 22.97 Flood Prone Area Elevation 40.07 40.98 41.00 40.56 41.13 40.83 Flood Prone Width 289.16 315.10 301.17 300.00 300.00 300.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 2.81 3.65 3.77 2.82 3.82 3.62 Mean Depth at Bankfull 1.55 1.20 1.48 1.40 1.40 1.47 W/D Ratio 12.30 24.76 15.87 15.50 17.84 15.63 Entrenchment Ratio 15.17 10.61 12.82 13.82 12.01 13.06 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream TVpe C C C C C C ---------------------------------------- ------ ------------ -led 220.00 240.00 260.00 As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation MY 01 MY 02 MY 04 MY 05 280.00 300.00 Station (ft) - • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 03 320.00 340.00 360.00 380.00 400.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Watershed Tranters Creek XS ID XS -6 Riffle STA 35+24 Drainage Area(sq. mi.) 1.59 Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin Sta. 35+24 Looking Downstream MY 00 MY 01 MY 02 MY 03 MY 04 MY 05 Station 212.76 Elevation 35.87 Station 212.76 Elevation 35.87 Station 286.34 Elevation 36.79 Station 286.10 Elevation 36.80 Station Elevation Station 286.55 Elevation 36.88 220.80 38.40 220.80 38.40 298.82 36.79 286.16 36.79 288.79 36.78 237.17 39.75 237.17 39.75 306.18 36.84 292.51 36.78 290.81 36.77 250.63 39.12 250.63 39.12 310.11 36.79 297.54 36.75 291.86 36.78 261.67 38.24 261.67 38.24 314.68 36.85 303.55 36.72 297.28 36.78 275.95 37.08 275.95 37.08 316.91 36.83 308.55 36.90 302.56 36.73 285.28 36.80 285.28 36.80 319.06 35.85 312.98 36.77 307.05 36.75 286.84 37.50 286.84 37.50 320.59 35.53 316.25 36.75 310.56 36.75 287.26 36.85 287.26 36.85 320.98 35.25 318.78 35.66 313.65 36.77 290.35 36.85 287.43 36.82 321.44 34.10 320.27 35.30 315.06 36.78 301.91 36.75 288.9 36.88 322.57 33.28 321.36 34.78 316.2 36.74 310.76 36.83 296.65 36.69 323.02 33.22 321.92 33.59 316.94 36.67 316.51 36.84 316.45 36.87 323.87 33.28 322.42 33.55 317.83 36.43 316.76 36.88 319.93 35.55 324.13 34.34 322.92 33.24 319.29 35.79 318.89 35.81 320.76 35.34 324.78 34.72 324.11 33.83 319.35 35.57 320.87 34.87 321.54 34.79 325.06 35.20 324.44 34.94 319.71 34.75 321.98 34.60 322.35 34.49 325.33 35.24 324.79 35.13 320.12 33.76 322.30 34.33 322.78 34.18 326.57 35.65 325.31 35.45 320.68 33.69 323.55 34.36 324.04 34.17 328.9 36.67 327.21 35.87 321.06 33.81 324.04 34.43 324.79 34.60 330.01 37.14 329.71 36.99 321.83 32.96 324.63 34.76 325.66 35.52 334.1 37.14 331.66 37.09 322.48 33.09 327.11 35.78 327.28 35.89 342.78 36.93 334.82 37.00 323.07 32.64 330.86 37.13 329.96 37.15 348.93 36.94 338.31 36.98 324.21 33.08 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 6, Riffle, Station 35+24 42.00 41.00 40.00 39.00 38.00 c 37.00 v LU 36.00 35.00 34.00 33.00 32.00 200.00 SUMARY DATA MY00 MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 36.88 36.87 36.83 36.75 36.78 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 18.91 17.43 19.10 18.74 25.51 Bankfull Width 17.17 12.92 12.37 12.92 14.51 Flood Prone Area Elevation 39.43 39.57 40.44 40.26 40.92 Flood Prone Width 158.46 166.08 160.00 160.00 200.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 2.55 2.70 3.61 3.51 4.14 Mean Depth at Bankfull 1.10 1.35 1.54 1.45 1.76 W/D Ratio 15.61 9.59 8.03 8.91 8.24 Entrenchment Ratio 9.23 12.82 12.93 12.38 13.78 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream Type C I C I E I E I I E 250.00 As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation MY 01 MY 02 MY 04 - Not surveyed this year MY 05 300.00 . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 03 Station (ft) 350.00 400.00 450.00 River Basin Tar -Pamlico River Watershed Tranters Creek XS ID XS -7 Riffle STA 38+71 Drainage Area(sq. mi.) 1.59 Date 11/17/2015 Field Crew IT. Taylor, A. Baldwin Sta. 38+71 Looking Downstream MY 00 MY 01 MY01 MY 02 MY03 MY 03 MY05 MY 04 MY 05 Station 19.24 Elevation 37.99 Station 19.24 Elevation 37.99 Station 36.80 Elevation 38.77 Station 42.64 Elevation 38.99 Station 36.9 Elevation 38.87 Station 36.17 Elevation 38.7 26.11 38.20 26.11 38.20 43.00 38.91 50.02 38.86 40.3 38.82 36.19 38.64 34.24 38.52 34.24 38.52 51.58 38.82 55.25 38.61 45.08 38.88 43.69 38.67 36.95 39.29 36.95 39.29 60.15 38.41 64.77 38.25 49.96 39.11 49.44 38.62 37.14 38.72 37.14 38.72 64.02 38.28 68.82 38.22 53.09 38.9 54.61 38.53 39.57 38.72 39.21 38.544 66.96 38.15 70.21 38.27 57.14 38.77 57.86 38.37 46.18 38.72 49.19 38.823 69.41 38.11 71.74 37.97 61.3 38.45 68.03 38 57.09 38.53 58.73 38.308 71.14 37.99 74.54 36.57 66.33 38.4 70.68 37.91 63.06 38.20 66.87 37.967 72.73 37.43 77.9 35.04 70.75 38.27 71.77 37.49 66.76 38.14 71.32 37.96 77.16 35.34 79.48 34.52 73.91 37.09 73.79 36.49 69.33 38.10 75.06 36.251 79.17 34.57 79.92 33.85 75.24 36.34 75.01 35.9 72.02 37.67 79.92 34.376 79.57 34.2 81.46 33.51 76.73 35.73 76.27 35.44 74.83 36.67 81.32 33.533 79.89 33.73 82.62 32.95 77.81 35.37 77.74 35 77.89 35.25 82.9 32.353 80.99 33.24 83.77 32.65 79.61 34.57 78.73 34.63 79.27 34.35 84.95 31.993 82.14 32.93 85.27 32.46 80.13 33.52 79.15 34.39 80.79 33.16 87.42 32.686 83.07 32.58 86.26 32.87 81.12 33.12 79.24 33.67 82.34 32.21 88.42 34.553 84.53 32.68 86.76 34.07 82.03 32.63 80.17 33.4 84.27 31.82 92.45 36.186 85.93 32.58 86.84 34.47 82.91 32.64 81.28 32.85 86.46 31.91 95.74 37.49 86.64 33.08 87.31 34.64 84.26 32.53 81.88 32.74 87.16 33.28 98.99 37.375 86.87 34.26 88.27 34.72 85.25 32.61 82.67 32.49 87.65 34.47 102.57 37.996 86.98 34.41 89.28 35.13 86.45 32.69 83.38 32.2 89.37 35.16 107.75 37.837 87.78 34.43 93.79 37.51 86.86 33.24 84.64 32.3 92.14 36.27 110.16 38.02 89.78 35.23 1 95.27 1 37.80 1 87.08 1 34.57 85.41 32.81 Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek X -Section 7 Riffle, Station 38+71 46.00 44.00 42.00 40.00 c 38.00 �a v LU 36.00 34.00 32.00 * REVISED X -SEC DATA SUMARY DATA MY00* MY01 MY02 MY03 MY04 MY05 Bankfull Elevation 38.05 38.00 38.00 37.85 37.97 37.91 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area 75.91 77.93 71.24 62.90 65.91 70.71 Bankfull Width 31.46 36.52 34.07 25.52 26.26 29.66 Flood Prone Area Elevation 44.28 44.01 43.42 43.24 43.41 43.62 Flood Prone Width 132.69 132.69 >200 200.00 200.00 200.00 Max Depth at Bankfull 6.23 6.01 5.42 5.39 5.44 5.71 Mean Depth at Bankfull 2.41 2.13 2.09 2.46 2.51 2.38 W D Ratio 13.05 17.15 16.30 10.37 10.46 12.46 Entrenchment Ratio 4.22 3.63 5.87 7.84 7.62 6.74 Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Stream TVpe C C C E E C 20.00 As Built MY00 MY 01 MY 04 40.00 Flood Prone Area Elevation MY 02 MY 05 . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 03 80.00 Station (ft) 100.00 120.00 ------------------------------------------------------- 11104 20.00 As Built MY00 MY 01 MY 04 40.00 Flood Prone Area Elevation MY 02 MY 05 . • • • Bankfull Elevation MY 03 80.00 Station (ft) 100.00 120.00 42 41 40 EM] 38 37 M v LU 36 35 34 33 32 0 Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration - Longitudinal Profile Station 0+00 to 38+79 2015 Monitoring - Year 0, Year 01, Year 02, Year 03, Year 04, Year 05 500 1000 1500 ------- Year 0 Thalweg Year 0 RTOB Year 1 Thawleg Year 3 Thalweg — Year 3 RTOB Year 4 Thalweg Year 5 Water • Log Sill 11 Log Vane 2000 Station (ft) Year 1 RTOB Year 4 RTOB Rock J -Hook w/ Log Vane 2500 Year 2 Thalweg s Year 5 RTOB Year 2 RTOB Year 5 Thalweg 3500 4000 Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in I -I he distributions tot these parameters can include information from both the cross-sectio n surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal ge oxial USGS gaum-line with the project each (added hanra kfull verification - re). 3. Utilizing survey data produce an ucestimate of the bankroll 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 erodingbased on the visual survey for comparison to mon itoringdata; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3; 6. Units changed from W/m' to reflect those provided in original design. Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary Oakle Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Pro�ect No. 273 - Segment/Reach: Mainstem 3,950 feet Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) - 10.40 - - - 4 7.80 11.20 - 14.60 - 2 - 12.3 - 14.64 17.31 - 20.82 - 4 Floodprone Width (ft) - 15.00 - - - 4 120.00 126.50 - 133.00 - 2 - 240.0 - 80.66 182.63 - 367.14 - 4 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) - 1.80 - - - 4 0.70 1.15 - 1.60 - 2 - 1.5 - 0.88 1.13 - 1.43 - 4 'Bankfull Max Depth ft 2.70 4 1.60 1.85 2.10 2 2.4 2.15 2.56 2.99 4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 19.00 4 9.50 11.05 12.60 1 2 1 19.0 1 1 18.161 19.081 1 20.901 4 Width/Depth Ratio 5.70 4 4.80 13.60 22.40 2 1 8.0 1 1 10.241 16.191 1366 4 Entrenchment Ratio - 1.40 - - - 4 8.20 12.65 - 17.10 - 2 - 19.5 - 4.66 10.55 - 21 - 4 'Bank Height Ratio Profile Riffle Length (ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24.83 35.98 - 53.02 4 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.002 0.003 - 0.006 4 Pool Length (ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20.47 33.67 - 44.45 2 Pool Max depth (ft) 1.7 2.3 2.9 2 4 2.81 3.12 3.43 2 Pool Spacing (ft) 5 27 35 67 4 43 52.5 62 43.4 64.26 94.03 2 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 45 72.5 - 100 2 62 74.0 86 38.56 55.94 86.18 48.00 Radius of Curvature (ft) - - - - - - 8 12.8 14 21 4 22 27.0 31 19.24 27.81 - 36.28 - 56.00 Rc:Bankfull width (fUft) 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.8 4 1.8 2.2 2.5 1.11 1.61 2.10 56.00 Meander Wavelength (ft) - - - - - - 17 75 100 156 4 86 111 135 85.46 103.92 - 118.61 - 48.00 Meander Width Ratio - - - - - - 5.8 6.3 - 6.8 2 5 6.0 7 2.23 3.23 - 4.98 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2 0.2 0.14 0.093 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull - 25 Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft/s per unit widths 0.25 0.17 0.16 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification G5c C5, E5 E5 C4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) 1.9 1.7 1.65 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 30 Valley length (ft) Channel Thalweg length (ft) 3950 Sinuosity (ft) 1.01 1.18 1.28 1.4 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft) 0.0018 0.002 0.0014 0.00146 BF slope (ft/ft) - 0.00144 3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other - - Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in I -I he distributions tot these parameters can include information from both the cross-sectio n surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal ge oxial USGS gaum-line with the project each (added hanra kfull verification - re). 3. Utilizing survey data produce an ucestimate of the bankroll 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 erodingbased on the visual survey for comparison to mon itoringdata; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3; 6. Units changed from W/m' to reflect those provided in original design. Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions) Oaklev Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration EEP Pro'ect No. 273 - Sean ient/Reach: Mainstem (3,950 feet Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline 'Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S% - 0 - 0 0 - - - - - 52 48 'SC% /Sa% /G% /C% /B% /Be% 0 33 67 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm) 0.14 0.26 0.5 4.4 7.3 - 30 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.2 L:2E:nt:,en.hrnent Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9/ 5.0-9.9 />10 - - - - - - - - - - - 3Incision Class <1.2 11.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 / >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 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 re a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons. 1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary." Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No. 273 - Segment/Reach: Mainstem 3,950 feet Cross Section 1 (STA 0+72, Riffle) Cross Section 2 (STA 6+17, Riffle) Cross Section 3 (STA 12+59, Pool) Cross Section 4 (STA 28+46, Riffle) Cross Section 5 (STA 32+71, Pool) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 40.49 40.57 40.37 40.86 41.30 40.38 40.38 40.33 40.33 40.42 39.70 39.70 39.61 39.87 39.74 37.85 37.93 38.22 38.25 38.24 37.33 37.23 37.19 37.31 37.21 Bankfull Width (ft) 20.82 12.39 15.49 15.73 11.65 8.81 16.60 13.16 15.09 13.85 17.67 14.11 20.58 24.38 20.80 19.56 22.77 22.93 14.64 13.70 14.70 16.10 15.73 13.80 19.06 29.71 23.49 21.70 24.97 22.97 Floodprone Width ft 80.66 65.65 78.50 78.50 80.93 86.30 124.27 131.28 128.50 125.00 124.68 122.00 248.08 120.86 244.10 245.00 252.64 249.00 367.14 332.68 367.00 367.00 378.73 377.00 289.16 315.10 301.17 300.00 300.00 300.00 Bankfull Mean Depth ft 0.88 0.68 0.63 0.88 0.96 1.07 1.09 1.37 1.20 1.30 1.17 1.36 1.79 1.55 1.66 1.67 1.77 1.63 1.43 1.33 1.35 1.34 1.35 1.31 1.55 1.20 1.48 1.40 1.40 1.47 Bankfull Max Depth ft 2.15 1.14 1.84 2.15 1.81 2.13 2.54 2.68 2.61 2.60 2.57 2.50 3.43 3.41 3.17 3.05 3.47 3.39 2.99 2.69 3.28 3.29 3.36 3.36 2.81 3.65 3.77 2.82 3.82 3.62 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) 18.33 8.37 9.77 9.15 11.21 9.42 18.16 17.88 18.17 18.06 20.68 19.23 36.86 37.87 34.50 32.69 40.27 37.31 20.90 18.22 19.85 21.57 21.30 18.08 29.47 35.63 34.74 30.33 35.00 33.84 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 23.66 18.22 24.59 27.12 12.14 8.23 15.23 9.61 12.58 10.65 15.10 10.38 11.50 15.73 12.53 11.71 12.86 14.07 10.24 10.30 10.89 12.01 11.65 10.53 12.30 24.76 15.87 15.50 17.84 15.63 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.88 5.30 5.07 4.99 6.95 9.80 7.49 7.51 8.52 9.03 7.06 8.65 12.05 4.96 11.74 12.53 11.10 10.86 25.08 24.28 24.97 22.80 24.08 27.32 15.17 10.61 12.82 13.82 12.01 13.06 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft) d50 mm Cross Section 6 (STA 35+24, Riffle) Cross Section 7 (STA 38+71, Other) Cross Section 8 (Riffle) Cross Section 9 (Pool) Cross Section 10 (Pool) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 36.87 36.83 36.75 36.78 38.00 38.00 37.85 37.97 37.91 Bankfull Width ft 17.17 12.92 12.37 12.92 14.51 31.46 36.52 34.07 25.52 26.26 29.66 Floodprone Width ft 158.46 166.08 160.00 160.00 300.00 132.69 132.69 >200 200.00 200.00 200.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.10 1.35 1.54 1.45 1.76 2.41 2.13 2.09 2.46 2.51 2.38 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.55 2.70 3.61 3.51 4.14 6.23 6.01 5.42 5.39 5.44 5.71 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) 18.91 17.43 19.10 18.74 25.51 75.91 77.93 71.24 62.90 65.91 70.71 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.61 9.59 8.03 8.91 8.24 13.05 17.15 16.30 10.37 10.46 12.46 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 9.23 12.82 12.93 12.38 13.78 4.22 3.63 5.87 7.84 7.62 6.74 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft) d50 (mm) 1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary." Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in. 1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table 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 Oakley Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration/ EEP Project No. 273 - Se ment/Reach: Mainstem 3,950 feet Parameter Baseline MY -1 MY -2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5 Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean a Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max a SD n Min Mean Med Max a SD n Min Mean Med Max a SD n Min Mean Med Max a SD n Min Mean Med Max a SD n Bankfull Width (ft) 14.6 17.31 20.82 4 12.4 12.8 12.92 13.16 0.394 4 12.4 14.4 14.9 15.49 1.399 4 12.9 14.7 14.8 16.1 1.5 4 11.7 15.02 15.73 17.67 3.073 3 8.8 12.8 14.0 14.5 2.7 4 Floodprone Width (ft) 80.7 182.63 367.14 4 65.7 118.7 124.3 166.1 50.45 4 78.5 183.5 144.3 367 126.9 4 78.5 182.6 142.5 367 127.4 4 80.9 194.78 124.7 379 160.8 3 86.3 221.3 211.0 377.0 139.7 4 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.13 1.43 4 0.7 1.1 1.35 1.37 0.393 4 0.6 1.2 1.275 1.54 0.392 4 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.2 4 1.0 1.16 1.17 1.35 0.195 3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.8 0.3 4 'Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.2 2.56 2.99 4 1.1 2.2 2.683 2.703 0.897 4 1.8 2.8 2.945 3.61 0.783 4 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.5 0.6 4 1.8 2.58 2.57 3.36 0.775 3 2.1 3.0 2.9 4.1 0.9 4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 18.2 19.08 20.9 4 8.4 8.4 17.43 17.88 5.365 4 9.8 16.7 18.64 19.85 4.686 4 9.2 16.9 18.4 21.6 5.4 4 11.2 17.73 20.7 21.30 5.655 3 9.4 18.1 18.7 25.5 6.6 4 Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 16.19 23.66 4 9.6 12.5 9.606 18.22 4.978 4 8.0 14.0 11.73 24.59 7.289 4 8.9 14.7 11.3 27.1 8.4 4 11.7 12.96 12.14 15.10 1.867 3 8.2 9.3 9.3 10.5 1.3 4 Entrenchment Ratio 4.7 10.55 21.21 4 5.3 9.2 9.443 12.82 3.767 4 5.1 12.9 10.73 24.97 8.682 4 5.0 12.3 10.7 22.8 7.6 4 7.0 12.70 7.06 24.1 9.858 3 8.7 14.9 11.8 27.3 8.6 4 'Bank Height Ratio - 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 1.0 1 1 1 0 4 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 24.8 35.98 53.02 4 24.2 35.2 - 53.1 - 4 20.28 30.8 - 55.2 4 19.4 33.1 52.1 4 15.05 24.8 33.53 4 23.9 31.5 41.751 4 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.003 0.006 4 0.002 0.003 0.006 4 0.002 0.004 0.006 4 0.00 0.004 0.01 4 0.00 0.0034 0.01 4 0.003 0.004 0.006 2 Pool Length (ft) 20.47 33.67 44.45 2 21 32.54 45.21 2 26.76 38.88 51 2 22.02 33 44.04 2 24.76 32.2 39.64 2 23.9 33.5 41.8 2 Pool Max depth (ft) 2.81 3.12 3.43 2 3.41 3.53 3.65 2 3.17 3.47 3.77 2 3.02 1 3.4 3.77 1 2 2.27 2.73 3.18 2 3.2 3.4 3.7 2 Pool Spacing (ft) 43.4 1 64.26 94.03 2 42.1 65.2 95.2 2 28.72 64 106 33 27.48 64.31 113 33 25.52 63.62 116.8 52 25.7 62.7 110.9 32 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 38.6 55.94 86.18 48 Radius of Curvature (ft) 19.2 27.81 36.28 56 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from baseline Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.1 1.61 2.1 56 Meander Wavelength (ft) 85.5 103.92 118.61 48 Meander Width Ratio 2.2 1 3.23 1 4.98 - 48 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification C4,E5 C4,E5 C4,E5 C4,E5 C4,E5 C4,E5 Channel Thalweg length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.00146 0.00145 0.00145 0.00152 0.0015 n/a BF slope (ft/ft) 0.00144 0.00139 0.00137 0.00135 0.00132 0.0013 3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% 52 48 52 - 48 52 - 48 - 52 48 - 52 48 - 52 - 48 3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/ 2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 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 (This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing) Table 12 - Verification of Bankfull Events Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project - EEP Project No. 273 Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo Visual observation of September 13, 2011 unknown n/a debris lines October 4, 2012 unknown Crest gauge S9 (MY2) Visual observation of October 10, 2012 unknown S8 (MY2) debris lines March 28, 2013 unknown Crest gauge S8 (MY3) April 2, 2014 unknown Crest gauge S8 (MY4) Sediment on October 7, 2014 unknown S9 (MY4) vegetation Crest gauge and debris September 16, 2015 unknown S9 (MY5) Iles observed