20081441 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20160628

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Monitoring Report — Year 4 of 5
FINAL
Contract #004391
DMS Project #92573
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Construction 2010
Collected October/November 2015
Report January 2016
Submitted to:
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1601 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Prepared By:
—4
0 WithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
WithersRavenel
115 MacKenan Drive
Cary, NC 27511
t: 919.469.3340
f: 919.238.2099
Project Manager: Lars Hagen
Email: [e-mail]

WithersRavenel
Our People. Your Success.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PROJECT ABSTRACT
The project goals and objectives stated in the McKee Creek Restoration Plan (NCDMS 2008) are as follows:
Project Goals:
Restore through stream enhancement (Level I and Level 11) 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;
l► Stabilize McKee Creek through the use of in -stream structures and pattern re -alignment in selected
areas;
1 Restore the dimension, pattern, and profile of Clear Creek;
® Improve the floodplain functionality of Clear Creek by matching floodplain elevation with bank full
stage;
1 Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, restricting livestock access to the creeks, and re-
establishing the riparian buffer;
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.
The subject site is located approximately 10 miles northeast of Charlotte, NC in the Lower Yadkin River Basin.
Land use in the area consists of agricultural use and suburban residential development.
VEGETATION RESULTS
Success Criteria
Success of the riparian buffer plantings is based on vegetation success criteria established in the USACE
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). Four (4) permanent monitoring plots were established in the Spring of
2012. Successful restoration must contain a minimum of 288 live stems per acre at Year 4 and 260 live stems
per acre at Year 5.
Year 4 shows an average of 415 live stems per acre, with a minimum count of 243. These estimates are based
on Level 2 of the CVS -DMS monitoring protocol and include only planted woody stems. The stem count is
based on the average of the stem counts within the four vegetation plots. Reference pictures of each
monitoring plot were taken and attached to this report.
Total stem count was 6 planted live stems (243/acre) and 11 volunteer stems, yielding a total count of 17
stems (688/acre). The planted live stem count is below the success criteria, possibly due to mowing activity
in 2012. The 6 live stem count is consistent with the live stem count in Year 3 monitoring (6 live stems), and
the volunteer stem count of 11 is an increase from Year 3 monitoring (5 volunteer stems).
Total stem count was 11 planted live stems (445/acre) and 36 volunteer stems, yielding a total count of 47
stems (1,903/acre). Thetotal planted live stem count is well above the success criteria. The 11 live stem count
McKee Creek WithersRavenel
DMS Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 January 2016

WithersRavenel
Our People. Your Success.
is reduced from the live stem count in Year 3 monitoring (12 live stems), and the volunteer stem count of 36
is reduced from Year 3 monitoring (38 volunteer stems).
Total stem count was 7 planted live stems (283/acre) and 3 volunteer stems, yielding a total count of 10 stems
(405/acre). The total planted live stem count is below the success criteria. The 7 live stem count is reduced
from the live stem count in Year 3 monitoring (9 live stems), and the volunteer stem count of 3 is reduced from
Year 3 monitoring (4 volunteer stems).
Total stem count was 17 planted live stems (688/acre) and 44 volunteer stems, yielding a total count of 61
stems (2,470/acre). The total planted live stem count is well above the success criteria. The 17 live stem count
is reduced from the live stem count in Year 3 monitoring (22 live stems), and the volunteer stem count of 44
is increased from Year 3 monitoring (17 volunteer stems).
Non-native invasive vegetation was noted within Vegetation Plots 1, 2 and 3. Observed species include
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). Vegetation plot 2 contained the highest percentage invasive species with an approximate
vegetative cover of 50%. Most notable was the honeysuckle, which has intertwined with a majority most of
the woody species along the eastern edge of the plot.
Overall Performance
Overall vegetation within the project easement appears to meet or exceed the defined success criteria.
Although planted species are below the criteria in Plots 1 and 3, the total stem counts for these plots are
above criteria when combined with volunteer stems (688/acre and 405/acre, respectively). Areas of invasive
species remain present within the McKee Creek reaches; however, eradication efforts appear to have
controlled this presence to existing areas.
STREAM RESULTS
NOTE: Qualitative and quantitative stream assessment data was limited during the Fall 2015 monitoring
event due to excessive rainfall totals in the months leading up to and during the field monitoring. This area
experienced approximately 8.15 inches of rain in October 2015, and 8.37 inches of rain in November 2015.
As part of the monitoring, each reach was visually inspected, and survey data was collected where possible.
During the survey and assessment events (Oct 28 and November 11, 2015) both streams were at or
exceeding bankfull conditions, obscuring a majority of the in -channel structures, both natural and
constructed.
The constructed J -hook within McKee Creek Reach 1 near Station 27+00 was not observed due to high flow
conditions during both the October survey event and the November assessment event. Survey data was
collected within the realigned section of McKee Creek Reach 1 between Stations 25+00 and 27+00. Based
on the qualitative and quantitative data, the following is noted:
This section of stream was at bankfull, with a surface water depth exceeding 3.5 feet; however, flow
was confined within the constructed channel and the banks appeared stable.
Elevation data shows the channel to be approximately in the same profile as prior surveys, with
possible evidence of aggradation in the upper reach near Station 25+50. This noted aggradation is
likely the result of sediment transport occurring during high flow events prior to and during the
surveying event.
A fallen tree located near Station 45+00 has resulted in minor bank wasting.
McKee Creek
DMS Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
2
WithersRavenel
January 2016

:1 WithersRavenel
Our People. Your Success.
None of the constructed features within McKee Creek Reach 2 were observed due to high flow conditions
during both the October survey event and the November assessment event. Survey data was collected within
McKee Creek Reach 2 between Stations 10+00 and 14+00 (the survey was halted in the area of Station
14+00 due to high water). Based on the qualitative and quantitative data, the following is noted:
This section of stream was at bankfull, with a surface water depths varying from 2.5 feet to >4 feet;
however, flow was confined within the channel, and the banks appeared stable.
Heavy siltation was noted throughout the reach, particularly in the upstream area near Peach
Orchard Road, where a flow -deflecting silt bar has formed in the left portion of the channel near
Station 11+00.
A fallen tree was noted on the right bank near the cross -vane at Station 12+00, forming a strainer
which has trapped a significant amount of woody debris and formed a log dam. This debris blockage
has caused flow diversion to the right side of the channel (near the fallen tree), resulting in wasting of
the right bank.
Elevation data shows the profile to be approximately matched to prior surveys; however, the data
also indicates aggradation throughout the surveyed portion of the reach, likely the result of high flow
events prior to and during the survey event.
Bare bank areas were noted on the right bank between Stations 14+00 and 17+00, likely the result
of heavy sedimentation and sparse, dormant vegetation. All other areas appeared to be well -
stabilized with vegetation.
A majority of the constructed features within the Clear Creek reach were visible during the assessment event
(November 11, 2015), and appeared to be functional, providing stabilization and/or flow direction during high
flow conditions. Survey data was collected throughout the entire reach. Based on the qualitative and
quantitative data, the following is noted:
The CCPV for Clear Creek has been updated to show the surveyed location of the channel, which
varies slightly from the prior survey.
Elevation data shows the general stream profile to be approximately matched to prior surveys. The
survey indicates siltation in a majority of the glide/pools, likely the effect of high flow and sediment
transport prior to and during the survey.
Elevation data from the two cross-sections within the Clear Creek reach (Cross-sections RXS-3 and
PXS-3) show variations from previous surveys. A review of raw survey data confirmed the elevations
collected during the survey. The variations noted may be the result of stabilization and changes
within the channel; however, it should be noted the survey was conducted during high flow, and the
data may reflect abnormalities in the in -stream positioning of the equipment. It is anticipated that
the variations in data will either be confirmed as changes in the channel or possible data collection
abnormalities during the MY5 survey.
Heavy sediment deposition was noted outside the channel in several locations, burying streamside
vegetative cover and resulting in loose embankments. This condition will likely improve as
vegetation emerges in the Spring.
® A small beaver dam has been constructed near the Station 11+00, near the upstream origin.
Loose fabric was noted on two of the three log vanes downstream from the ford; however, these
structures were intact and functioning under high flow conditions.
McKee Creek
DMS Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
3
WithersRavenel
January 2016

WithersRavenel
Our People. Your Success.
w Short-circuiting was noted on both the downstream cross -vanes, possibly due to high flow. In the
upper vane, siltation on the right arm has caused erosion of the left bank. In the lower vane, flow is
being directed towards the left bank resulting in minor erosion. Both structures appear to be well
stabilized.
Riparian vegetation is well established, and providing excellent stabilization for the channel.
HYDROLOGY RESULTS
During both monitoring events, obvious signs of floodplain interaction were noted within all three reaches of
the project.
Flattened vegetation, wrack/debris lines, heavy sediment deposits, and standing water were noted
throughout the easement in all three reaches.
On Clear Creek, drainage patterns were noted both towards the channel and away from the channel.
On both reaches of McKee Creek, water was observed flowing into the channel from the riparian
area.
Three crest gages at the site could not be accessed or were not properly working. Crest gage 1,
located upstream of Peach Orchard Rd, is situated at the base of a very steep portion of the channel
bank. During the monitoring events, this bank was too wet to safely descend, and the water level in
the channel was overtopping chest waders. When the crest gage was accessed, under difficult
conditions, the cap could not be removed. Crest gage 2, located upstream of the Clear Creek ford,
also had a top cap which could not be removed. Crest gage 3, located at the end of the Clear Creek
reach, had been dislodged and was not vertical.
Rainfall data for Cabarrus County during the period between Nov 2014 and Nov 2015 totaled 48.06
inches of rain, including 8.15 inches in Oct 2015 and 8.37 inches in Nov 2015.
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 formerlyfound 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 the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
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 methodology used in this monitoring assessment
followed the prescribed recommendation of the CVS -DMS Vegetation Monitoring Protocol Level -2.
REFERENCES
Town of Harrisburg North Carolina, Visitors Page, Geography and Climate
http://www.harrisburgnc.org/Visitors/GeographyClimate.aspx
Lower Yadkin LWP- PFR, 2003 and WMP&R - Lower Yadkin LWP, 2004
http://www.ncdms.net/services/lwps/Clarke Creek/F R Rocky Yadkin.pdf
Wolman Pebble Count,
http://Iimnology.wisc.edu/courses/zoo548/Wolman%2OPebble%2OCount.pdf
Rainfall Data for Cabarrus County,
McKee Creek
DMS Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
a]
WithersRavenel
January 2016

http://www.nc-cIimate.ncsu.edu/cronos
McKee Creek
DMS Project No. 92573
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
:1 WithersRavenel
Our People. Your Success.
WithersRavenel
January 2016

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

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 involve.
in the development, monitoring and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted
within the terms and timeframes of their defines;
pre -approved roles. Any intended site visitation
or activity by any person outside of these
previously sanctioned activities/roles requires
prior coordination with EEP.
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 s .�_.
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
■ Miles
0 0.25 0.5
Vicinity Map McKee Creek Stream
Restoration EEP # 92573
Cabarrus County, NC December 2015
N010
Engineers I Planners 1 Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #:C-0832
www.witherTavenel.com
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 s .�_.
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
■ Miles
0 0.25 0.5
Vicinity Map McKee Creek Stream
Restoration EEP # 92573
Cabarrus County, NC December 2015

Note: Italicized values have been revised for MY4, and are subject to verification in MY5
Component Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetlands Buffer Upland
Restoration Level (linear feet) acres acres square feet (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine IL
Restoration 1505
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 1078
Enhancement II 2988
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
BR = BioretentionCell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; W DP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS =
Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Table 1. ProjectComponents and Mitigation re I s -
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 3419
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing Approach
Footage/Acreage (PI, PH, etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
McKee Reach 1
10+00 - 25+00, 29+00 - 46+40 2988 P4
E2
2988
2.5:1
McKee Reach 1
25+00 - 29+00 400 P2
E1
400
1.5:1
McKee Reach 2
10+00 - 17+23.67 678 P2
E1
678
1.5:1
Clear Creek
11+03.05 - 27+59.18 1505 P1
R
1505
1 to 1
Note: Italicized values have been revised for MY4, and are subject to verification in MY5
Component Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetlands Buffer Upland
Restoration Level (linear feet) acres acres square feet (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine IL
Restoration 1505
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 1078
Enhancement II 2988
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
BR = BioretentionCell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; W DP = 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 - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 5 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 5 yrs 7 months
Number of Reporting Years: 4
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
Spring Year 4 Monitoring
Apr -15
May -15
Fall Year 4 Monitoring
Oct/Nov-15
Jan -16

Table 3. Project Contacts Table - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Designer
Withers & Ravenel, Inc.
115 MacKenan Drive Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC
Martin Richmond 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
Martin Richmond [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Martin Richmond [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
Martin Richmond 919 469-3340

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes - 2015 (MY4)
Project Name
McKee Creek, Project #92573
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
Cabarrus
17.41
35.265562°N; -80.639582°W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province:
River Basin:
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 3040105
DWQ Sub -basin
Thermal Regime
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Piedmont
Yadkin Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 3040105010050
Clear- 03-07-11/03-08-34
Warm Thermal Regime
8980
36
Single Family and Wooded
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
McKee Reach 1
McKee Reach 2
Clear Creek
Length of Reach
2988
678
1505
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 ve itation
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 Im airment
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
DWQ#2008-1441
Land Quality
Yes
CABAR-2009-0024
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Costal Area Management Act(CAMA)l
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

01ithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 150 300 600
Feet
1 inch = 300 feet
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\ReportMap_Overall.mxd
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Structures
Failing Vegetation Plot
1 NA- High Water ` Criteria Unmet Figure
r Stable Criteria Met 2
Stressed ? Tornado Damage April 2012
vuuuul'
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 4/8/2016 Created By: GLP
► — — Centerline
.;k
Stationing
► — — Centerline Fall 2015
Conservation
Excluded
Easement
®
Photo Points
Sewer Easement
-
Crest Gauge
0-0 Cross Section
ROW
® Invasives
Structures
Failing Vegetation Plot
1 NA- High Water ` Criteria Unmet Figure
r Stable Criteria Met 2
Stressed ? Tornado Damage April 2012
vuuuul'
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 4/8/2016 Created By: GLP

INOithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 50 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
LegendNo-
Centerline
Structures
Stationing
I- Centerline Fall 2015
Falling
Vegetation Piot
..
Conservation
Easement
Excluded
NA- High Water
,} T ' v
,
Critereia Unmet
Photo Points
Sewer Easement
Stable
�
Criteria Met
-
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
�
Row
Invasives
Stressed
Fuuuuq
:
Tornado Damage April 2012
110111111mr
Figure
2A
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 3/21/2016 Created By: GLP

41ithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 50 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
LegendNo-
Centerline
Structures
Stationing
I- Centerline Fall 2015
Falling
Vegetation Piot
..
Conservation
Easement
Excluded
NA- High Water
,} T ' v
,
Critereia Unmet
Photo Points
Sewer Easement
Stable
�
Criteria Met
-
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
�
Row
Invasives
Stressed
Fuuuuq
:
Tornado Damage April 2012
110111111mr
Figure
2B
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 3/21/2016 Created By: GLP

INOithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 30 60 120
Feet
1 inch = 60 feet
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Legend
► Centedine
► - — Centerline Fall 2015
.,,
Stationing
Conservation
t Excluded
....
Easement
■
Photo Points
m m i m e Sewer Easement
-
Crest Gauge
0-0 Cross Section
ROW
® Invasives
Structures
Failing
NA- High Water
Stable
Stressed
Vegetation Plot
Critereia Unmet Figure
Criteria Met 2C
Tornado Damage April 2012
vuuuur
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 3/21/2016 Created By: GLP

N'
Q0+00
Nt'pz A4'
19+00
wa�_
nr_p"
17+00
INOithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 25 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 50 feet
16+00
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
I
f
. ,•. .`fin
to _.
4..--- •.a".
LegendNo-
Centerline
Structures
11+00
t- 12+00 - e
f
.......................................
...............................
,.rte e
Falling
Vegetation Piot
Q0+00
Nt'pz A4'
19+00
wa�_
nr_p"
17+00
INOithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 25 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 50 feet
16+00
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
I
f
. ,•. .`fin
to _.
4..--- •.a".
LegendNo-
Centerline
Structures
Stationing
I- Centerline Fall 2015
Falling
Vegetation Piot
......
Conservation
Easement
Excluded
NA - High Water
,} T ' v
,
Critereia Unmet
Photo Points
Sewer Easement
Stable
�
Criteria Met
-
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
�
Row
Invasives
Stressed
Fuuuuq
:
Tornado Damage April 2012
110111111mr
Figure
2D
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 3/21/2016 Created By: GLP

zs+0- - O
27+00 - 25+00 ��
'CG3
23+00
............................. O
O_
4d",
L�
71
2�+°°
J
� tG2
N / 20+00,
04 �.
a X�
aa .
n 1s+00
INOithersRavenel
Engineers I Planners I Surveyors
115 MacKenan Dr I Cary NC, 27511
t: 919.469.3340
license #: C-0832
www.withe rs ravenel.com
0 25 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 50 feet
McKee Creek Clear Creek Restoration
Stream Current Condition Plan iew
Path: K:\07\07-0560\070568.01-EEP-McKee Creek Monitoring\GIS\2015\Re port Map_Figures.mxd
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
LegendNo-
Centerline
Centerline Fall 2015
Stationing
Conservation
Excluded
......
Easement
Sewer Easement
Photo Points
-
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
ROW
Invasives
Structures
Failing
NA - High Water
Stable
Stressed
Vegetation Plot
Critereia Unmet
F777Criteria Met
Tornado Damage April 2012
7umIud
Aerial Date: 2010 Printed Date: 3/21/2016
Figure
2E
Created By: GLP

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment - 2015 (MY4)
Reach ID McKee Creek Reach 1
Assessed Length 3301
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number of Stable
Total Number in
Number of Unstable
Amount of Unstable
% Stable Performing as
Number with Stabilizing
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Adjusted %for Stabilizing
Category
Cate
Cate gory
Metric
Performing as
As -Built
Segments
g
Footage
g
Intended
Wood Vegetation
y g
Vegetation
g
Wood Vegetation
y g
Intended
Acaradation- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
0
0
100%
Vertical Stability
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Degradation -Evidence of downcuttin
0
0 100%
Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
Bed
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
0
0
100%
Meander Pool
1.6
Condition
Length Appropriate(>30 % of centerline distance between tail
of u stream riffle and head of downstream riffle
0
0
100 %
Thalweg Position
Thalwe centerin at upstream of meander bend Run
0
0
100
Thalwe centerin at downstream of meander bend (glide)0
0
100%
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
0
0
100 %
0
0
100.00
rowth and or scour and erosion
Bank
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting
Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100.00%
appear sustainable and are mvidin habitat
Mass WastingBank
slum in , Cavin or colla se
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
N/E
N/E
0
0
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
100%
across the sill
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or
0
0
100%
Engineered
arms
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuclums extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
100%
guidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth: Mean
Habitat
Bankfull Depth >= 1.6 Rootwads/lags providing some cover at
N/E
NE
base -Flow

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment - 2015 (MY4)
Reach ID McKee Creek Reach 2
Assessed Length 723
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number of Stable
Total Number in
Number of Unstable
Amount of Unstable
% Stable Performing as
Number with Stabilizing
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Adjusted %for Stabilizing
Category
g ry
Cate gory
Metric
Performing as
As -Built
Segments
9m
Footage
ge
Intended
Wood Vegetation
y g
Ve tation
ge
Wood Vegetation
y ge
Intended
Aggradation- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
1
20
97%
Vertical Stability
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Degradation -Evidence of downcuttin
0
0 100%
Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
Bed
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
N/E
N/E
Meander Pool
1.6
Condition
Length Appropnate(>30 % of centerline distance between tail
of u stream raffle and head of downstream raffle
N/E
N/E
Thalweg Position
Thalwe centerin at upstream of meander bend Run
N/E
N/E
Thalwe centerin at dowsntream of meander bend tide
NIE
N/E
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
i_ 0
100%
0
0
100.00%
rowth and or scour and erosion
Bank
Banks andercul/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
.. 0
100%
0
0
100.00%
a ear sustainable and are rovidin habitat
Mass Wasw
Bank slumping, caving, or colla se1
20
97%
0
0
100.00%
TOtal5
11 0
100%
0
1 0
100.00%
Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
N/E
N/E
N/E
NIE
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
across the sill
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or
N/E
NIE
Engineered
arms
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuctures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
N/E
N/E
guidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max PoolDepth: Mean
Hahka[
Bankfull Depth >=1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover
N/E
N/E
at base -flow

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment - 2015 (MY4)
Reach ID Clear Creek
Assessed Length 1566
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number of Stable
Total Number in
Number of Unstable
Amount of Unstable
% Stable Performing as
Number with Stabilizing
Footage with Stabilizing Woody
Adjusted % for Stabilizing
Category
g ry
Cate gory
Metric
Performing as
As -Built
Section
FootageIntended
Wood Vegetation
y g
Ve tation
ge
Wood Vegetation
y ge
Intended
Aggradation- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
1
25
98%
Vertical Stability
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
Degradation -Evidence of downcuttin
0
0 100%
Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
Bed
Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth=
16
16
100%
Meander Pool
1.6
Condition
Length Appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail
of u stream riffle and head of downstream riffle
16
16
100%
Thalweg Position
Thalw"'
e centerin at upstream of meander bend Run
16
16
100
wcenterin at downstream of meander bend(glide)
16
16
100
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
1
20
96 %
0
0
100.00
rowth and or scour and erosion
Bank
Banks underculloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting
Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
1
15
99%
0
0
99.00%
appear sustainable and are providinghabitat
Mass Wastingm
Bank slumping, in , cavin , 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
13
13
100
100
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
7
7
across the sill
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or
19
20
95
Engineered
arms
Structures
Bank erosion within the stuctures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this fable in EEP monitoring
19
20
95%
uidance document
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth: Mean
Habitat
Bankfull Depth >= 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover
5
5
100%
at base -flow

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment - 2015 (MY4)
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 woody and herbaceous material
.1 acres
Pattern and
1
0.1
98%
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
I .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

4:WithersRavenet
Our People. Your Success.
Frame No.1
Description: Photo Station 1.
Frame No. 2
Description: Photo Station 4.
McKee Creek Stream Restoration DMS Project# 92573
Photographic Record January 2016

E f i tilY� r
t' t
}
y,: � '.v. ..fir .._ / � _ - ! ��. Ss ✓ aL M'`,. .?..10
i

4:WithersRavenet
Our People. Your Success.
Frame No. 5
Description: Photo Station 7.
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Photographic Record
DMS Project# 92573
January 2016

Y R� kX-� i'ae rY !`y �Y � r ��4t ✓n h�£'-4�' ♦�'�`yr �{i .
_ a ����i�i *! ��. �'j �7"'" ` d"'#3 `/i• ��,�
3
9 h'� sy. '-=er I �"�� .: T+ ..
izOt ✓ I !
• 1 � ! 41
'
� T � y
� �. di
� � •. �R�' •'fir
� i•t, '�, � !
4W,
Y.
- i
1 �
' t' ! .�- _`�� , i��"--"'`flay_. 4.. '.•�.
- �1.s w „ - i F�- .F �- f •

r
- � _ . �{ �;��''"'1. `[ �t?rF 5c- ^G' +"J'.�rs�tie><i �•"1��� P_'� � -�F�
f-- WT

Appendix C
Vegetation Not Data

Table 7. Veg Plot Criteria Attainment - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Mean
1
No
2
Yes
3
No
33%
4
Yes
100%
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Report Prepared By
Martin Richmond
Date Prepared
12/4/2015 10:38
database name
Withers&Ravenel-McKee Yr4.mdb
database location
C:\Users\lwelch\Downloads
computer name
WR1398
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) - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 1
Current Data - 2015 (MY4)
Plot 2 Plot 3
Plot 4
Current Mean
MY 1 (2012)
Annual Means
MY 2 (2013)
MY 3 (2014)
MY 4 (2015)
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acerne undo
Box Elder
Tree
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
5
0
1.25
0
1.75
0
2.25
0
5
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
2
4
1
3
0
0
1
2
0.75
1.25
0.75
1.25
0.75
2
1
2
Carya aquatica
Water Hickory
Tree
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
Diospyrus virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
1
0
1.25
0
1
0
0.5
Eleagnus umbellata
Autumn Olive
Shrub
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
Fraxinus penns Ivanica
Green Ash
Tree
0
0
1 2
2
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
Ju fans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
3
7
0
1
0
0
0
2
0.75
2.5
1.75
1.75
1.25
1.75
1.5
3
0.75 1
2.5
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
0
2
0
30
0
1
0
5
0
9.5
0
9.5
0.25
9.5
0
9.75
0
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
1
1.25
1
1.25
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
5
2
2
7
24
4
8.25
4.5
4.25
4.75
5.5
4.5
4.75
4
8.25
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quercus laurifolia
Laurel Oak
Tree
0
0
1 0
2
0
0
1 0
0
0
0.5
0 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
Quercus falcata
Oak
Tree
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
9
1.5
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
3
2
2.5
1.5
2.25
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Plot Area (acres)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems Per Acre
3
6
243
6
17
688
4
11
445
8
47
1903
5
7
283
6
10
405
4
17
688
8
61
2470
4
10.25
415
7
33.75
1366
14
567
30
1204
12
486
29
1164
12
486
29
1164
10
415
34
1366

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -04
XS -ID
RXS-1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
5.832
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
4.93
W/D Ratio:
4.26
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.45
Bank Height Ratio:
1.22
2.00
583.37
2.60
583.01
1.36
583.50
2.22
583.78
4.00
582.17
4.22
582.09
3.32
582.95
3.20
583.13
6.00
580.67
6.35
579.97
4.29
582.27
6.17
580.59
aw
578.38
7.42
578.13
5.05
581.53
6.47
577.98
10.00
578.43
10.27
577.78
5.92
580.62
8.67
577.84
12.00
578.49
12.16
577.75
7.15
580.08
10.17
577.73
Left Bank to Right Bank
14.00
578.26
14.35
577.90
8.38
579.64
12.27
577.55
16.00
578.08
16.32
577.89
• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii
579.35
13.77
577.80
18.00
577.99
18.21
577.66
12.84
579.05
15.07
577.85
I����Ci
iiiiii
578.06
20.23
577.65
16.05
578.31
17.17
iiiiii i==i=== ilii
iii=iM iiiiiii iii
22.00
577.97
22.24
577.93
18.47
iii=iM iiiiiiii iii
'Aii=i0 iiiiiiiiPEMMM
i
18.67
577.86
24.00
577.91
24.74
===M iiiiiii
21.38
578.03
20.17
577.78
26.00
=iMiiiaiiiiiiii=
26.70
579.06
23.51
578.04
20.97
577.94
.ia iiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiii
28.00
578.76
28.39
579.30
26.12
579.10
i�\'iiiii==ii= iiiiiiiii���,'7iii iiit .iiiiiiiii iii
iiiiiiiiiiii
ii&\\iiiiiiiiiL.M
578.09
30.00
580.33
30.23
580.93
iii\'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ii�`.�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
579.93
23.97
578.37
30.27
580.67
ii�raiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii
iii►.\iiiiii==iiiiiiiiiii.. i=
ilii==�===i=i=iii�e i=
583.44
30.14
580.92
25.57
579.35
iii iiiiiiiii=i==iii/I iii
iii iiiiiiiii===iii� %�a=ii=
582.86
34.42
584.90
31.23
581.86
26.37
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiii►� IL moi===
34.00
583.99
31.86
iii iiiiii=i=i===lei I/I=li==
iii iiiiiiiiiiii=iii=IIN %I=====
27.77
580.43
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �/I"iiiii
iii i= i===ii===Al r/.==ilii
iiiiil� �. .iiiiii
33.14
584.75
28.77
580.91
� �
iii
iii =i ===iii
30.57
581.54
iii = ,/.iiiiiiiii
iii / viii=iiiii
� � iiiiiiii
i=ii 7� iiiiiiiiii
iiiiii _= iiiiiiiii
582.51
iiiiii i ===iiiii
33.47
583.39
all
36.07
583.92
37.27
584.16
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -04
XS -ID
RXS-1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
Summary Data
MY2-2013
Bankfull Elevation
583.378
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
91.05
Bankfull Width
21
Flood Prone Area Elevation
589.009
Flood Prone Width
30.5
Max Depth at Bankfull
5.832
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
4.93
W/D Ratio:
4.26
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.45
Bank Height Ratio:
1.22
MY1-2012
MY2-2013
MY3-2014
MY4-2015
MY5-2016
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station Elevation
0.00
584.08
0.00
584.02
0.00
584.03
0.00
584.66
2.00
583.37
2.60
583.01
1.36
583.50
2.22
583.78
4.00
582.17
4.22
582.09
3.32
582.95
3.20
583.13
6.00
580.67
6.35
579.97
4.29
582.27
6.17
580.59
8.00
578.38
7.42
578.13
5.05
581.53
6.47
577.98
10.00
578.43
10.27
577.78
5.92
580.62
8.67
577.84
12.00
578.49
12.16
577.75
7.15
580.08
10.17
577.73
14.00
578.26
14.35
577.90
8.38
579.64
12.27
577.55
16.00
578.08
16.32
577.89
9.71
579.35
13.77
577.80
18.00
577.99
18.21
577.66
12.84
579.05
15.07
577.85
20.00
578.06
20.23
577.65
16.05
578.31
17.17
577.75
22.00
577.97
22.24
577.93
18.47
578.16
18.67
577.86
24.00
577.91
24.74
578.02
21.38
578.03
20.17
577.78
26.00
578.88
26.70
579.06
23.51
578.04
20.97
577.94
28.00
578.76
28.39
579.30
26.12
579.10
22.27
578.09
30.00
580.33
30.23
580.93
27.76
579.93
23.97
578.37
30.27
580.67
32.20
583.44
30.14
580.92
25.57
579.35
32.00
582.86
34.42
584.90
31.23
581.86
26.37
580.03
34.00
583.99
31.86
583.47
27.77
580.43
33.14
584.75
28.77
580.91
30.57
581.54
32.27
582.51
33.47
583.39
36.07
583.92
37.27
584.16

Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee MY -04
XS -ID
PXS-1
Drainage Area
6.42 sq. mi
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Summary Data
MY2-2013
Bankfull Elevation
582.715
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
69.69584
Bankfull Width
15.61
Flood Prone Area Elevation
588.327
Flood Prone Width
50
Max Depth at Bankfull
6.258
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.95
W/D Ratio:
3.95
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.20
Bank Height Ratio:
1.21
MY1-2012
MY2-2013
MY3-2014
MY4-2015 MY5-2016
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
0.00
582.92
0.00
582.99
0.00
582.70
0.00
583.16
1.90
582.23
1.55
582.50
1.17
582.18
2.02
582.53
3.80
580.98
4.01
581.08
2.65
581.63
3.83
581.06
4.75
579.63
4.92
577.93
3.95
579.00
4.83
580.58
5.70
577.78
7.52
578.01
4.73
578.07
6.33
578.67
7.60
577.57
10.52
577.39
5.93
577.62
8.19
578.31
9.50
577.11
12.78
576.31
7.80
577.35
9.42
577.85
11.40
576.25
16.82
576.71
9.93
577.05
12.00
577.13
13.30
576.02
19.44
576.72
12.06
576.96
13.95
576.80
15.20
575.73
22.42
576.88
15.39
577.32
15.70
576.63
17.10
575.79
24.34
578.77
18.59
577.31
17.79
576.46
19.00
575.97
26.94
579.92
22.61
577.10
20.38
576.56
20.90
576.18
28.88
581.26
24.80
579.30
21.55
576.70
22.80
577.07
31.25
582.90
26.69
580.74
22.96
576.88
24.70
578.62
28.02
581.78
24.81
578.30
26.60
579.63
29.78
582.67
26.75
578.83
28.50
580.53
31.66
583.34
28.12
580.30
30.40
581.98
28.76
581.24
32.30
582.92
30.03
581.87
31.31
582.64
Left Bank to Right Bank

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
RXS-2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/2015
1
Richmond/Burley
2.289
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.39
W/D Ratio:
9.45
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.15
Bank Height Ratio:
1.25
1.50
580.54
1.32
580.79
1.00
580.54
1.27
580.90
2.50
579.95
4.14
580.09
2.00
579.95
2.91
580.50
3.50
579.78
5.59
578.89
3.00
t
4.29
579.80
4.50
579.31
7.49
578.75
4.00
579.31
5.82
578.76
5.50
578.86
9.94
578.95
5.00
578.86
6.72
578.60
6.50
578.88
12.33
579.74
6.00
578.88
:.
578.55
7.50
578.86
14.35
580.27
7.00
578.86
8.91
578.56
8.50
579.03
17.40
580.92
8.00
579.03
10.33
578.67
9.50
579.13
9.00
579.13
Left Bank to Right Bank�__________
579.02
10.50
579.24
10.00
579.24
13.11
579.82
11.50
579.43
11.00
579.43
15.00
580.41
12.50
579.94
12.00
579.94
17.11
580.69
13.50
580.27
13.00
iiiiiii
i _____
14.50
580.39
11 iiiiiiiiiiii iii
14.00
580.39
15.50
580.58
15.00
580.58
:1 1 iii
iiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiii
NO
i
580.80
16.00
580.80
MONSOON
iiiiiiiiii
iiiii
i _____i iii
_
_ i
17.50
581.09
ii i_____M____
Ci
18.50
581.29
ii iiiiiiiiii
__
1 ii iii iiiii
iiiiiii I ii7_
18.00
581.29
i_ iiiii �Iil/iii
__ iiiiiii_ siiiai
_
__ iiii i ✓I__Ii___i
• 11 __-i..i__ -___
Il�i�! .__•.iiii
i
_
i
�_i .li-�-i__.._iiii
ii �iii_ilp..iiiiiii
__ i
i
i
����i�-i______
1 ��
M
==-- M=�-
11=============M========
1
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
RXS-2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
Summary Data
MY2-2013
Bankfull Elevation
580.836
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
20.36755
Bankfull Width
13.11
Flood Prone Area Elevation
582.666
Flood Prone Width
120
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.289
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.39
W/D Ratio:
9.45
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.15
Bank Height Ratio:
1.25
MY1-2013
MY2-2013
MY3-2014
MY4-2015
MY5-2016
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station Elevation
0.50
581.29
0.00
581.11
0.00
581.29
0.00
581.36
1.50
580.54
1.32
580.79
1.00
580.54
1.27
580.90
2.50
579.95
4.14
580.09
2.00
579.95
2.91
580.50
3.50
579.78
5.59
578.89
3.00
579.78
4.29
579.80
4.50
579.31
7.49
578.75
4.00
579.31
5.82
578.76
5.50
578.86
9.94
578.95
5.00
578.86
6.72
578.60
6.50
578.88
12.33
579.74
6.00
578.88
7.77
578.55
7.50
578.86
14.35
580.27
7.00
578.86
8.91
578.56
8.50
579.03
17.40
580.92
8.00
579.03
10.33
578.67
9.50
579.13
9.00
579.13
11.66
579.02
10.50
579.24
10.00
579.24
13.11
579.82
11.50
579.43
11.00
579.43
15.00
580.41
12.50
579.94
12.00
579.94
17.11
580.69
13.50
580.27
13.00
580.27
14.50
580.39
14.00
580.39
15.50
580.58
15.00
580.58
16.50
580.80
16.00
580.80
17.50
581.09
17.00
581.09
18.50
581.29
18.00
581.29

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
PXS-2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/15
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
3.634
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.102111
W/D Ratio:
5.38982
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.23919
Bank Height Ratio:
1.321959
1.00
581.66
0.00
581.26
2.00
580.44
1.46
581.00
2.00
580.89
1.28
zy
4.00
576.57
4.13
576.57
4.00
576.97
2.30
579.67
5.00
576.61
5.97
576.57
5.00
576.96
3.58
577.34
6.00
576.47
7.76
576.85
' -
576.77
4.53
576.89
7.00
576.58
9.76
577.36
7.00
576.83
7.22
r.
8.00
577.37
10.45
577.56
Left Bank to Right Bank
577.57
9.04
576.75
9.00
577.56
11.66
579.47
9.00
577.71
10.44
577.26
10.00
577.96
14.39
580.05
10.00
578.06
11.33
577.74
11.00
..............� ............................
.............. ...................... ....
16.35
580.39
11.00
578.72
13.01
...........mom ..................... ....
12.00
579.39
............M .......... ...MM i:rmmoMMmm
579.89
14.76
580.09
13.00
mmmmmmmmmmmm ......... .W7"Vo �.....
.ommummommomm ......... . M!:�Mirimm mmmmm
13.00
580.53
16.23
.. ............ .......��r _---��.....i.....
mmmmmmmmmmm mGm
0immmmmmmmmmEIMIEMMIEMMMMM
14.00
580.07
Emmmrmli�ii
ME
.. ........... mmr�;%sMr.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�.
580.47
19.17
580.74
15.00
MOM MIE
Win
15.00
580.64
CMMMMM
.. ................. ;...,MMIEMMMMMMMMMMMEIMM .....
.. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm rimm� . .....
16.00
580.47
MM ................ %II.Iim . mmmom IS WINUMMMIMMIMMIMMIMMENOMil
580.77
17.00
580.81
17.00
581.06
�� C.......�.., ........ A..P-' W!A ... . .....
iiiiii� ,gym mmmm im��m��nmmomm . mmmmmIMME
18.00
581.16
M MEIN 111111111MM
581.36
Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
PXS-2
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/15
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
Summary Data
MY1
Bankfull Elevation
580.155
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
25.35077
Bankfull Width
11.33
Flood Prone Area Elevation
583.545
Flood Prone Width
150
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.634
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.102111
W/D Ratio:
5.38982
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.23919
Bank Height Ratio:
1.321959
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station Elevation
1.00
581.16
0.00
581.28
1.00
581.66
0.00
581.26
2.00
580.44
1.46
581.00
2.00
580.89
1.28
580.86
4.00
576.57
4.13
576.57
4.00
576.97
2.30
579.67
5.00
576.61
5.97
576.57
5.00
576.96
3.58
577.34
6.00
576.47
7.76
576.85
6.00
576.77
4.53
576.89
7.00
576.58
9.76
577.36
7.00
576.83
7.22
576.52
8.00
577.37
10.45
577.56
8.00
577.57
9.04
576.75
9.00
577.56
11.66
579.47
9.00
577.71
10.44
577.26
10.00
577.96
14.39
580.05
10.00
578.06
11.33
577.74
11.00
578.67
16.35
580.39
11.00
578.72
13.01
579.47
12.00
579.39
12.00
579.89
14.76
580.09
13.00
580.08
13.00
580.53
16.23
580.37
14.00
580.07
14.00
580.47
19.17
580.74
15.00
580.29
15.00
580.64
16.00
580.47
16.00
580.77
17.00
580.81
17.00
581.06
18.00
581.16
18.00
581.36

Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
RXS-3
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Summary Data
MY2-2013
Bankfull Elevation
579.868
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
27.52
Bankfull Width
14.08
Flood Prone Area Elevation
582.156
Flood Prone Width
250
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.31
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.67
W/D Ratio:
8.44
Entrenchment Ratio:
17.76
Bank Height Ratio:
1.04
MY1-2012
MY2-2013
MY3-2014
MY4-2015
MY5-2016
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station Elevation
0.00
579.87
1.00
579.63
0.00
579.99
0.00
579.96
1.00
579.67
2.91
579.08
2.47
579.20
1.48
579.58
2.00
579.28
4.33
578.64
4.31
578.55
3.43
578.98
3.00
578.91
6.15
577.78
6.20
577.91
5.26
578.57
4.00
578.71
8.29
577.76
7.83
577.58
6.06
577.77
5.00
578.47
10.68
578.02
8.89
577.74
7.06
577.56
6.00
577.96
12.44
578.46
9.35
577.82
9.01
577.59
7.00
578.04
14.88
579.10
10.72
577.76
10.18
577.62
8.00
577.91
16.22
579.50
12.04
578.65
12.32
577.65
9.00
577.93
13.99
579.03
14.61
578.49
10.00
578.01
16.54
579.54
15.56
578.65
11.00
577.97
17.25
579.39
12.00
578.17
19.14
579.43
13.00
578.50
21.63
579.47
14.00
578.71
15.00
579.21
16.00
579.59
17.00
579.73
18.00
579.87
T'Left Bank to Right Bank
580.50
/ / 1 �����
579.50
579.00
1 578.00
II
LU
577.50
0.00 11 10.00 11 20-00 11
Station (ft)

Cross-section Plot Exhibit
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
Clear MY -04
XS -ID
PXS-3
Drainage Area
0.95
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Summary Data
MY2 - 2013
Bankfull Elevation
579.138
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
45.25133
Bankfull Width
14.99
Flood Prone Area Elevation
583.458
Flood Prone Width
200
Max Depth at Bankfull
4.488
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.406556
W/D Ratio:
6.228819
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.67779
Bank Height Ratio:
1.045455
MY1 - 2012
MY2 - 2013
MY3 - 2014
MY4 - 2015 MY5 - 2016
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation Station Elevation
0.00
578.64
1.00
578.29
0.00
578.29
0.00
578.42
1.00
578.18
2.32
577.97
1.00
578.23
1.12
578.23
2.00
578.37
4.43
577.44
2.75
577.98
4.37
577.97
3.00
577.40
6.06
576.07
4.60
577.46
5.45
577.80
4.00
577.39
7.57
575.12
5.01
576.47
5.64
577.03
5.00
576.13
9.64
575.34
8.73
574.82
7.84
575.43
6.00
576.15
11.16
576.03
10.34
575.01
8.20
574.65
7.00
575.47
12.74
576.70
10.54
575.89
13.04
574.95
8.00
575.79
14.16
578.23
11.12
576.52
14.01
575.62
9.00
575.18
15.45
579.53
12.52
577.46
15.08
577.21
10.00
575.23
17.60
579.17
18.60
579.17
16.52
578.06
11.00
576.11
17.03
578.49
12.00
576.66
20.63
579.34
13.00
577.72
22.45
579.30
14.00
578.28
15.00
578.64
Left Bank to Right Bank

Longitudinal Profile Plot
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee Reach 1
Station
24+00 - 28+00
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
MY4-2015
�—Thalweg MY -1
—. Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3
Thalweg MY -4
Station
Elevation
2566.29
587.05
2582.59
586.82
2596.45
586.97
2616.21
586.69
2630.38
585.62
2640.90
585.80
2659.41
585.87
2675.47
586.08
2689.65
585.16
2701.28
585
586.00
2709.10
586.16
2712.40
586.02
584
McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
590
589
588
�—Thalweg MY -1
—. Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3
Thalweg MY -4
587
c
0
586
a�
W
585
584
583
582
2400
2500 2600 2700 2800
Station (ft)

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
Longitudinal Profile Plot
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee Reach 2
Station
10+00 - 17+00
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
580
579
578
$ 577
tThalweg MY -1
Thalweg MY -4
0
576
w
575
574
573
1000 1200
1400 1600
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile Plot
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed
McKee Reach 2
Station
10+00 - 17+00
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
MY4-2015
Station
Elevation
1027.41
578.41
1044.54
578.25
1077.68 578.64
--V- Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -3

McKee Creek Stream Restoration
Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project# 92573
584
582
Thalweg MY -3
580
578
E 576
574
572
570
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
Longitudinal Profile Plot
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed Clear Creek
Station 11+00
MY4-2015
MY4-2015
Station
Elevation
- 28+00
Date
10/25/2015
Field Crew
Richmond/Burley
584
582
Thalweg MY -3
580
578
E 576
574
572
570
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800
Longitudinal Profile Plot
River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee
Watershed Clear Creek
Station 11+00
MY4-2015
MY4-2015
Station
Elevation
Station
Elevation
1100.00
581.43
1855.47
579.01
1129.25 580.69 1905.70 579.02
1148.79 580.96 1942.11 578.24
1180.00 580.73 1960.53 579.18
--o-Thalweg MY -1
-1-Thalweg MY -2
Thalweg MY -4

Shzded tens indicate that Nese win typically net be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both Ne cross.section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Forprojmts with a proximal USGS gauge ill -line with the project teach (added bankfull verification -rare).
3. Utilizing amvey data produce an estimate fthe bankfirll floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top fbank to Ne toe fthe terrace riserlslope.
4 = Propomon ofreacb exhibiting baNrs that ere eroding based on Ne visual survey for comparison to monitoring date; 5. Ofvalue/needed only ifthe 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 UL Eq. I 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
113ankfull Max Depth (fi
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 Ratio
3.8
11.3
5.2
11
3.1
8.9
1Bank Height Reete
1.4
2.3
1
1.1
1.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0059
0.0084
0.0061
0.0106
0.012
0.018
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.8
3.3
5.3
8
2.1
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
57.5
116.9
127.7
223.6
10
45
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
35
47
52
78
29
50
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
35
52
6
22
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
16.7
17.3
7.9
13.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
75
Z34
132
196
48
85
Meander Width Ratio
Transport parameters
5.6
3
4.5
4.3
7.6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/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 A..( .... a
4%ef Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
'
Shzded tens indicate that Nese win typically net be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both Ne cross.section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = Forprojmts with a proximal USGS gauge ill -line with the project teach (added bankfull verification -rare).
3. Utilizing amvey data produce an estimate fthe bankfirll floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top fbank to Ne toe fthe terrace riserlslope.
4 = Propomon ofreacb exhibiting baNrs that ere eroding based on Ne visual survey for comparison to monitoring date; 5. Ofvalue/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

-- cells indicate Wet Wese will typically vm be filled iv.
I- The disvibufivns Por these pamm-can inelvde.inf-iov fiom Wh the crosssemiov surveys and the longiNdinal prone. _-Forpro I, wirh aproximal USGB gauge i,, me pro,j- reach (addcd bankfill verificetiov-rare).
3. -g survey dau produce m asNmam of We bavlddll fi.dplaly area Iv acres, which should be the arae from the top of bank o the toe of the erraee nsWelopw
4=Moponivn ofreach exhibitwgbmks Wal are eroding bas�ov the visual survey for compariaon tomwilorivg dam; 5.0fvaluelneed IyifNevexceeds3
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McKee Creek Project # 92573 - Mckee-Reach 1
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve
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
1Bankfnk Max DepW (n)
3.5
4.4
3.4
4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.2
77.6
80
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
12
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
5.5
2.4
5.2
1 Bank Height Ratio
1
2.1 1 11
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
1.9
4.5
1.9
3.3
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.1
6.4
5.2
7.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
205
123.9
216.9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
65
145
93
139
Radius of Curvature (ft)
48
195
62
108
Rc:Bankfull width (fVft)
27.5
31.8
31
Meander Wavelength (ft)
101
305
235
350
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
5
2
4.5
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2j
0.49
0.52
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
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 (fUft)
0.0029
0.0032
3Bank(ull Floodplain Area (acres)
4%of Reach - Ending Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
-- cells indicate Wet Wese will typically vm be filled iv.
I- The disvibufivns Por these pamm-can inelvde.inf-iov fiom Wh the crosssemiov surveys and the longiNdinal prone. _-Forpro I, wirh aproximal USGB gauge i,, me pro,j- reach (addcd bankfill verificetiov-rare).
3. -g survey dau produce m asNmam of We bavlddll fi.dplaly area Iv acres, which should be the arae from the top of bank o the toe of the erraee nsWelopw
4=Moponivn ofreach exhibitwgbmks Wal are eroding bas�ov the visual survey for compariaon tomwilorivg dam; 5.0fvaluelneed IyifNevexceeds3

b.am nala inaic re Na. Ne.e mm 1. dN.
e p�ona r rs eao �nea emora�a oa eern.y.��oa samaI'll
s g g we wab p 5 r<aeb (�aaea b,nkrng veBeeaao"-1.
3. Niliztl rvoy tla apraduw ear waflha bankfall fluodplmna m rm .whidi should be tho mea re Rom ha lop ofbnnik to lho coa of Na lU en rlelopo.
4-Nop ofm<he b g elvera2 -.g azed on the vuual survey eompenson ro moon ng gym; S. Mvelae/necded ony be n exee 3
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary -112
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 MinF80
Max Min Mean Med Max
SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.5
26.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
75
160
75160
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.1
2.8
an a, ep'h (a
3.5
4.4
3.44.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.2
77.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio26
5.5
2452
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)l I
1
101 1
305
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00551
1 0.0131 1
1 1 0.0061
1
1 0.0106
Pool Length (ft)
1
Pool Max depth (ft)
6.5
6.5
5.3
8
Pool Spacing (ft)l 1
45 1
1 180 1
127.7
1
1 223.6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
135
240
96
287
Radius of Curvature (ft)
95
240
64
141
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
25.5
26.8
31 9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
208
377
2 �3
477
Meander Width Ratio
5
9.2
3y
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2i 1
0.33
0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli 1
45
46
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 _^ 7
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0027
0 0027
BE slope (ft/ft)
0.0018
0.0018
an ootlplaln Nea (acres
4%of ReecM1 xiN Erotling Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat t
Biological Me
or Othrici ILEe
b.am nala inaic re Na. Ne.e mm 1. dN.
e p�ona r rs eao �nea emora�a oa eern.y.��oa samaI'll
s g g we wab p 5 r<aeb (�aaea b,nkrng veBeeaao"-1.
3. Niliztl rvoy tla apraduw ear waflha bankfall fluodplmna m rm .whidi should be tho mea re Rom ha lop ofbnnik to lho coa of Na lU en rlelopo.
4-Nop ofm<he b g elvera2 -.g azed on the vuual survey eompenson ro moon ng gym; S. Mvelae/necded ony be n exee 3

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%
1SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%I Be%
ldl6/d35/d5g/d84I d95 dip/ disp(mm)
0.35 0.7 1.2 3.2 6 0.4 1.3 3 14 18
2Emmnchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 /2.0-4.!) / 5.9-9.9 />1
31ncision Class <1.2 / 1,2-1,49 / 1.5-1.99 />2.
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Sik/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 o/ the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as wall 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 thereadenconsumer of design and monilonng 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 subeamples 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- Reach 1
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline
iRih/Ruh/P%/G%/S%
iSC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
1,11611351 d50 /,1841 d95/ dip/ diap (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 /1.5-1.9912.04.9 / 5.0-9.9 />1
31ncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 >2.00
Shaded cells indicate that these vNl 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 Gass 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 vnll 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 Wth a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated stales as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsemple (cross-sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design vnthout providing a thorough pre-oonsbulion 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 Proiect # 92573- Reach 2
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline
1R1%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
1SC%ISa%IG%IC%IB%I Be%
1d151435I d501 d84 l d95 dip/ clap (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 11.5-1.9912.04.9 /5.0-9.91>1
31ncision Class <1.2 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99/>2.
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIIVClay, 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 geld 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 pad 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) - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573
Cross Section 1 (Riffle -1)
Cross Section 2 (Pool -1)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle -2)
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 I MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
583.4 581.0 583.40 583.38
582.7
580.0
580.74 582.72
580.8
580.5
580.70 580.841 1
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.27 22.00
24.44
21.00
22.5
23.00
22.74
15.60
18.00
13.00
10.00
13.11
Floodprone Width (ft)
160.0 33.00
30.50
30.50
160.0
36.0
50.00
50.00
150.0
150.0
120.00 120.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.89 1.98
1.18
4.93
2.45
2.37
2.75
3.95
1.36
1.05
1.02
1.39
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.76 2.85
2.59
5.83
3.90
3.69
3.78
6.26
2.43
1.75
1.61
2.29
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
00 51.40
32.06
91.05
63.68
58.50
71.95
69.69
30.61
13.40
11.26
20.36
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
82 11.11
20.72
4.26
9.20
9.70
8.26
3.95
13.23
12.33
16.87
9.45
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
r6.591.50
1.25
1.45
7.10
1.57
2.20
3.20
8.82
11.54
12.00
9.15
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
53 2.23
2.32
1.22
1.84
1.81
1.69
1.21
1.00
1.20
1.73
1.25
Based 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)
Cross Section 4 (Pool -2)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle -3)
Cross Section 6 (Pool -3)
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+
Record elevation (datum) used
580.2 580.4 580.53 580.16
579.87 579.60 579.54 579.87
579.14 578.29 578.29 579.14
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.00 14.30
8.00
11.33
17.00
13.88
14.07
14.08
15.00
13.20
11.52
14.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
150.0 150.0 150.00 150.00
250.00 200.00 250.00 250.00
250.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.55 2.62
2.81
2.10
1.11
0.96
1.29
1.67
1.70
1.68
1.64
2.41
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.97 3.82
3.76
3.63
1.96
1.84
1.96
2.31
3.46
3.17
3.47
4.49
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
30.61 31.60
25.53
25.35
21.02
14.73
12.27
27.52
27.27
21.35
17.81
45.25
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.66 5.46
2.85
5.39
15.37
14.51
10.87
8.44
8.80
7.87
7.01
6.23
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
8.82 10.49
18.75
13.24
14.71
14.41
17.77
17.76
16.67
15.15
21.70
16.68
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.18 1.00 1
1.30
1.32
1.00
1.01
1.23
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.25
1.05
Based 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)
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 establis
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 tl
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.

anaaea ceps ince mar mese wni typicany not oe niiea 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; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary - 2015 (MY4)
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
in 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
13.11 13.59
114.08
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
150 200
250
2 200.0 200.0 200.0
2
120
185
250
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
1.39 1.53
1.67
2
Bankfull Max Depth ft'
1.96 2.19
2.43
2 1.8 2.5 3.2
2
1.61
1.79
1.96
2
2.289 2.3
2.31
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
21.02 23.44
25.85
2 14.7 18.0 21.4
2
11.26 11.77
12.27
2
20.37 23.95
27.52
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
8.44 8.95
9.45
2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.333 11.52
14.71
2 14.4 14.8 15.2
2
12.00 14.89
17.77
2
2
9.15 13.46
17.76
2
Bank Height Ratio'
1 1
1
2 1.0 1.0 1.0
2
1.23
1.48
1.73
2
1.04 1.15
1.25
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12 16.5
18 22
4
6 10 29.36 30 45 10.7
11
11
27.14
35 50
10.66
9.13 28.53 23.59 57.83 23
4
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
0.004 0.020 0.021 0.033 0.012
4
Pool Length (ft)
15 35.09
33 66
17
13 10 29.36 30 45 10.7
11
15
29.14
32 45
10.4
11
15.35 27.78 22.01 50.23 11.28
11
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.502 2.297
2 6
1
16 0.78 1.33 1.219 1.408 0.492
11
L2
2.1
2.1 5
1.2
0.191 0.859
0.8 1,722 0.504
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
26 105
98 189
55
8 20 94.18 86 158 51.12
11
25
98
100 200
57
11
26.45 132.2 147.8 219.9 73.36
7
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 Ratio
2.333 3.565 3.611 4.722 0.867
6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1660
1658
1587
1638
Sinuosity (ft)
1.19
1.17
1.17
1.18
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
0.0033
0.0033
0.004
0.00496
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0033
0.0034
0.004
0.004
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
10 7
35 47
1
0 7.5 9 30 51 2.5
0
6.32
14.94 30.46 45.41
2.87
0
d16 / d35 / d5o / d84 / d95 /
1.5 27.3
38.5 109
154
0.75 54.5 77 154 218
0.75
27.3
54.5 1 154
218
% of Reach with Eroding Banks'
1%
5%
5%
-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
anaaea ceps ince mar mese wni typicany not oe niiea 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; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

anaaeo ceps maicate mar mese ww typicauy not oe nueo 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 11b. Monitoring D. D.. t
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Creek- Reach I
Bankfull Width (ft)
oodprone Width (ft)
lBankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Riffle Slope
Pool Length
• ������OO©000
�����0�����0
�����0 ������
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
err
anaaeo ceps maicate mar mese ww typicauy not oe nueo 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

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; SiltlClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary - 2015 (MY4)
McKee Creek Project # 92573 McKee Creek- Reach 2
Parameter Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - 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 SN n
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.7
1
22.00
1
24.44
1 N/A(survey limitations)
Floodprone Width (ft)
160
1
33.00
1
30.5
1 N/A (survey limitations)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.89
1
1.98
1
1.179
1 N/A (survey limitations)
1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.76
1
2.85
1
2.587
1 N/A(survey limitations
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (112)
53
1
51.40
1
3206.
1 N/A(survey limitations
Width/Depth Ratio
112.82
1
11.11
1
20.72
1 N/A (survey limitations)
Entrenchment Ratio
6.59
1
1 1.50
1
11.2481
1 N/A (survey limitations)
1 Bank Height Ratiol
2.53 1
1
2.23
1
2.316
1 N/A (survey limitations)
Profile
Rif0e Length (ft)l I I I I 1
10
32.2 1
34 1 44 13.54
5
45 53.5 53.5 62
2
40
2 N/A(survey limitations
Riffle 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 N/A (surveylimitations)
Pool 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 N/A (survey limitations
�depth
Pool Maft)
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 N/A (survey limitations)
Pool Sft)
45
178.8
206 267 87.81
5
0 141 162.5 239 101.2
4
50
185 200 260 80.23
4 N/A (survey limitations)
Pattern
Channel Bellwidth (ft)
97
101
101 105 5.657
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65
129.3
120 200 67.88
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
6.57
2
Meander Width Ratio
"4.0420.236
2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4/C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1422
464 (survey reduction)
464 (survey reduction)
377 (survey reduction)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.39
1.15
1.2
1.19
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0026
0.0026
0.003
N/A
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0026
0.0026
0.003
N/A
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P% 1 G%/ S%
33C% / Sa % / G% / C% / B% / Be %
0
7.27 54.55 21.82 5.45
0
0 6 73 16 5
0
0
5.62 73.M4%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
19.3
38.5
54.5 109 309
3 19.3 27.3 77 154
4.85
19.3 27
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
10%
2%
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; SiltlClay, 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 - 2015 (MY4)
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurance
Method
Photo #
(if available)
Crest Gage 1
10/01/12
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/01/13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/28/14
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/25/15
10/25/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation
11/11/15
11/11/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation
Crest Gage 2
10/01/13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
Fall 2014
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/25/15
10/25/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation; Floodplain interaction
11/11/15
11/11/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation; Floodplain interaction
Crest Gage 3
10/01/12
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/01/13
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/28/14
Unknown
Crest Gauge, Wrack of Flow Stage
10/25/15
10/25/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation
11/11/15
11/11/2015
Visual observation; Debris lines; Flattened vegetation

Month Days Recorded
9.00
Monthly Total
Nov -14C
8
2.73
Dec -14
31
3.10
Jan -15
31
2.78
Feb -15
24
2.11
Mar -15
31
2.12
Apr -15
30
3.47
May -15
31
1.42
Jun -15
30
3.29
Jul -15
31
4.66
_
Aug -15
31
2.80
Sep -15
30
3.06
Oct -15
31,
8.15
Nov -15
231
8.37
Harrisburg Rainfall Data
■Harrisburg Rainfall Data
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
c
c 5.00
R
Q 4.00
3.00
CL
2.00
1.00
0.00
Nov -14 Dec -14 Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15 Nov -15
Month

Crest Gauge Readings
Gauge
Year
WSE
Year
WSE
Year
WSE
Year
WSE
CG1
MY1-2012
581.2
MY2-2013
581.5
MY3-2014
582.0
MY4-2015
N/A
CG2
MY1-2012
580.8
MY2-2013
580.4
MY3-2014
580.2
MY4-2015
N/A
CG3
MY1-2012
577.1
MY2-2013
578.2
MY3-2014
577.3
MY4-2015
N/A