HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031064 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20070101tc)O m2 +
200316 6`
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River
Stream Restoration
Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina
Year 1 Monitoring Report
ter.
rEcosystem
El. z t?
PROGRAM
Monitoring Year: 2006
Measurement Year 1
As-Built Date 2005
NCEEP Project Number 234
January 2007
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO TAR RIVER STREAM RESTORATION
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary/Project Abstract .................................................................................................1
II. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... .. 1
A. Location and Setting ................................................................................................................ .. l
B. Mitigation Structures and Objectives ....................................................................................... .. 3
C. Project History and Background .............................................................................................. .. 9
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results ................................................................................... 12
A. Vegetation Assessment ........................................................................................................... 12
1. Soil Data .......................................................................................................................... 12
2. Vegetative Problem Areas ............................................................................................... 12
3. Stem Counts ..................................................................................................................... 12
4. Vegetation Plot Photos ..................................................................................................... 14
B. Stream Assessment ................................................................................................................. 14
1. Morphometric Criteria ..................................................................................................... 14
2. Hydrologic Criteria .......................................................................................................... 14
C. Wetland Assessment ............................................................................................................... 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View ..............................................................................................................4
TABLES
Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table ...................................................................3
Table Il. Project Activity and Reporting History ................................................................................... 9
Table III. Project Contact Table ...........................................................................................................10
Table IV. Project Background Table ....................................................................................................11
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data ............................................................................................................12
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas ...................................................................................................12
Table VII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot ................................................................13
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events .........................................................................................15
Table X. Stream Problem Areas ..........................................................................................................16
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ....................................................17
Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .................................................................18
Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ............................................................19
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 1 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
APPENDICIES
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
A-1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
A-2 Vegetation Problem Area Photos
A-3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
B-1 Problem Areas Plan View
B-2 Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
B-3 Stream Photo-station Photos
B4 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
B-5 Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
B-6 Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
B-7 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration ii 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Unnamed Tributary to Tar River Restoration Site encompasses 1,937 linear feet of stream
restoration located within the Town of Louisburg, Franklin County, North Carolina. The site was
constructed between January 2005 and June 2005. The following report provides the stream
restoration monitoring information for Year 1 after construction.
The Priority 2 restoration involved converting the 1,792 linear foot impaired channel into a sinuous
channel that meanders for a total of 1,937 linear feet. Rock grade control vanes and rootwads were
incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank stability. A variable width riparian
buffer (16'min/150'max) was planted on either side of the stream with native vegetation in December
2005.
Monitoring for the site consisted of evaluating both morphology and vegetation. A few vegetation
problem areas were noted on the project. Survival was low during the first year after planting. Only
50 of the original 82 trees and 7 of the original 19 shrubs planted survived providing a density to 225
stems per acre for trees and 256 stems per acre for all woody planted stems (trees and shrubs). This
density is below the success criteria threshold for trees at both the 3 and 5 year monitoring period.
Replanting will need to occur to increase the stem density so that it may meet the criteria for success
at the end of the monitoring period.
Most of the cross sections appeared stable with little or no active bank erosion. Chute formation and a
large degree of scour was present at Cross Section 2 and will need to be monitored in the future.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The UT Tar River project site is located in the town of Louisburg in Franklin County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). Louisburg is located approximately 25 miles north of Raleigh along NC Highway 401.
The project site begins at NC Highway 39 and continues towards the northeast between Burnette
Road and the Green Hill Country Club. The watershed area for this project is 0.61 square miles. The
project is fully contained on publicly owned lands. UT Tar River flows from the southwest to the
northeast. The project reach is bound on the west by NC Highway 39, and a small drainage flows off
of the country club property and into the conservation easement before entering the UT Tar River
from the right bank.
Directions to the site: From Raleigh take US 401 north to Louisburg. Turn right (south) at NC 39
and take the first left onto Burnette Road. The site is on the right running parallel with the road.
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 1 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 2 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
B. Mitigation Structures and Objectives
The project is a Priority 2 restoration involving converting the 1,792 linear foot impaired channel into
a sinuous channel that meanders for a total of 1,937 linear feet. Rock grade control vanes and
rootwads were incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank stability. A variable
width riparian buffer (16'min/150'max) was planted on either side of the stream with native
vegetation (Figure 2).
This project has the following goals and objectives:
• Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining its
dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water and
sediment load.
• Improve water quality and reduce further property loss by stabilizing eroding streambanks.
• Reconnect the stream to its floodplain and/or establish a new floodplain at a lower elevation.
• Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures such as root
wads, cross-vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer.
• Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation of a riparian
zone.
• Stabilize and enhance the tributary and small drainage that enters the site.
Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
UT Tar River Stream Mitigation Site/Project o.234
Project Segment/Reach ID Mitigation Approach Linear Stationing Comment
T e Footage
Ut Tar River, 1,792 ft Restoration Priority 2 1,937
(CL) 10+00 to
29+37.13 1:1 Ratio
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 3 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
M
x
E
a
m
o?
r
0
a
}
0
Lo
Y
wf•
Take US1/401 north to the 1/401 split and continue on US 401. 4 "
Pass through Rolesville and into Louisburg. Turn right onto NC 39 Z
South and an immediate left onto Burnett Rd. adjacent to project.t .
?R G ?. 561
co
WaterSupply ? °? ? ?'
<?Watershed ? 4riticavx g
4 '* e ?, ' Water-Su°pplY
WS-MNS_W? ?. gWatershed
ar Pamlico Basm`? M °
WS.IV?,N$W-
Tar'Pamlic,`o?Bas
Tar Rived r
IN -N \ .
F?
401 .a
,A
56
?J PROJECT
CoUIVTRy LOCATION
CLUB DR.
REX PL.
401 oip?R ?00
® ® Q
® 39
56
.A I
C. Project History and Background
The town manager of Louisburg, C. L. Gobble, first identified the UT Tar River as a potential
restoration site. His main concern was that streambank erosion would undercut Burnette Road. The
lack of vegetation on the banks was one of the main causes of degradation along with past alterations
to the stream course. Recent utility work by the town also caused additional channel instability.
Typical of many urban streams, the UT Tar River channel was an oversized gully. The town had
placed riprap in the channel in some areas to prevent undercutting. Vegetation across the site was
minimal due to channel degradation and other disturbances. The combination of extreme streambank
erosion, lack of vegetation, and a signed conservation easement made this an excellent potential
restoration site.
Table Il. Project Activity and Reporting History
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River Stream Mitigation Sit Project No. 234
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
Date
Restoration Plan June 2003
Final Design - 90% Unknown
Construction July 26, 2005
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Throughout
Construction
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Throughout
Construction
Containerized, B&B, and livestake plantings December 22,
2005
Mitigation Plan / As-built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline April 2006 April 2006 May 2006
Year 1 Monitoring Fall 2006 January 2007 January 2007
Year 2 Monitoring Fall 2007
Year 3 Monitoring Fall 2008
Year 4 Monitoring Fall 2009
Year 5 Monitoring Fall 2010
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 9 2006 Monitoring Report
WEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
Table III. Project Contact Table
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site/Project No. 234
Designer POC Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Bill Jenkins PE
(919 854-6200
Construction Contractor POC McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Harvey McQueen
919 479-4766
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P.O. Box 1905
Planting Contractor POC Mount Airy, NC 27030
Joanne Cheatham
336 320-3849
Erosion Solutions
5508 Peakton Dr.
Seeding Contractor POC Raleigh, NC 27614
Ross Rebne
919 845-5550
Seed Mix Sources Not provided by contractor
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery (container plants)
Ellen Colodney
3067 Conners Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
252-482-5707
Cure Nursery (container plants)
Jennifer Cure
880 Buteo Road
Pittsboro NC 27312
919-542-6186
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Gilmore Plant and Bulb Co. Inc. (ball and burlap)
Tom Gilmore
PO Box 8
Julian, NC 27283
336-685-4451
Foggy Mountain Nursery (live stakes)
Glen Sullivan
13213A Hwy 88 W
Creston, North Carolina 28615
336-385-2222
Monitoring Performers Earth Tech
701 Corporation Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Mr. Ron Johnson 919 854-6210
Stream Monitoring Ron Johnson
Vegetation Monitoring Ron Johnson
Wetland Monitoring No wetlands monitoring required.
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 10 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
Table IV. Project Background Table
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River Stream Mitigation Site/Project No. 234
Project County Franklin
Drainage Area
UT Tar River 0.61 sq mi
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) >30%
Stream Order
UT Tar River 1 st order
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Northern Outer Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-Built C
Cowardin Classification NA
Dominant Soil Types Chewacla and Wehadkee loam
Wedowee-Urbanland_Udorthents complex
Reference site ID C5 UT Lake Lynn (Wake), C4 UT Hare Snipe
Creek Wake
USGS HUC for Project 03020101
USGS HUC for Reference Ut Lake Lynn 03020201, UT Hare Snipe Creek
03020201
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 030301
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Reference Ut Lake Lynn 030402, UT Hare Snipe Creek
030402
NCDWQ Classification for Project Not Assigned
NCDWQ Classification for Reference UT Lake Lynn B-NSW, UT Hare Snipe Creek
C-NS W
Any portion of any project segment 303D listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303D listed segment? No
Reasons for 303D listing or stressor NA
% of project easement fenced <5%
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 11 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
The final vegetative success measure will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at
the end of year 5 of the monitoring period. An interim measure of vegetation planting success will be
the survival of at least 320 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring
period.
1. Soil Data
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
UT Tar Stream Mitigation Site/ Project No. 234
Series Max
Depth
in. % Clay on
Surface K T OM%
Chewacla and Wehadkee Loam 62 6-35 0.28-0.32 5 1-5
Wedowee Sand Loam 62 5-45 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-3
Wedowee-Urbanland-Udorthents Complex 62 5-20 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-3
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
UT Tar Stream Miti ation Site/ Project No. 234
Feature/Issue Station#/Ran a Probable Cause Photo #
Disturbance 27+08.2 Golf course maintenance intrusion VPA1
Bank Erosion/Piping 18+83.669 Banks too steep VPA3
Failure 13+85.856 Banks too steep VPA4
12+88.907 Banks too steep VPA5
Bare Bench 18+83.669 Chute formation VPA2
11+46.112 Vegetation scoured away b storm VPA6
A few vegetation problem areas were noted on the project. One of the problems areas was caused by
golf course personnel coming onto the easement to construct/maintain ditches that drain a wetland
that occurs between the golf course and the stream. Movement associated with this work caused
mortality and ground disturbance in and around vegetation plot 9. The most common vegetation
problem area that was encountered on the project was erosion/piping failure that was occurring on the
steep banks adjacent to the golf course that remained following the lowering of the grade to create the
floodplain. The combination of sandy soils and heavy recent precipitation are causing some of the
bank edges to slough off. Flooding and chute formation associated with bankfull events is causing
vegetation removal to occur in two areas. Stream repairs to these locations will be necessary before
any replanting occurs to ensure future success.
A vegetative problem area plan view is located in Appendix A.
3. Stem Counts
Baseline vegetation plots were established on January 31, 2006 after vegetative planting was
completed in December 2005. Nine (9) vegetation survival plots were staked out in the floodplain of
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 12 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
UT Tar River. Eight (8) of these plots measured 10m X 10m and the remaining plot measured 5m X
20m to enable placement within the easement area. Survival of rooted vegetation will be evaluated
using the nine plots and will continue for at least 5 years to determine survival. Stems were flagged
and counted to establish baseline stem counts in 2006 and a Year 1 monitoring stem count was
performed on October 4, 2006.
Tree species planted include hackberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodafolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). Live
stakes and shrubs were also planted in this project. Live stake species including silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), silky willow (Salix sericea), black
willow (Salix nigra), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) were planted along the channel and tops
of the bank. Shrub species were planted in the floodplain and concentrated along the tops of the bank
and include elderberry, spicebush (Lindera benzoin), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), clematis (Clematis virginiana), and possumhaw (Viburnum nudum).
Table VII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT Tar River/ Project No. 234
Species Plots MY1 Totals
Trees
N ssa lvatica 1 2 3
1 4
2 S
0 6
0 7
0 8
0 9
0
5
uercus a oa lia V 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 6
Fraxinus enns lvanica 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 8
Betula ni ra 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 11
Celtis laevi ata 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Platanus occidentalis 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 9
uercus ni ra 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
uercus hellos 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4
Totals
Shrubs
Sambucus canadensis 11
0 13
O Y 6
' 0 4
0 1
0 7
0 3
1 2
0 3
0 50
1
Viburnum nudum 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lindera benzoin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alnus serrulata 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
rica ceri era 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Clematis vir iniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 1 0
yrw 0
?xY di. 0 0 2 1 0 3 7
d,
The baseline vegetation assessment revealed an average of 369 trees per acre across the restoration
easement area. Survival was low during the first year after planting. Only 50 of the original 82 trees
and 7 of the original 19 shrubs planted survived. This ratio represents a ratio of 61% survival of the
trees and 37% survival of the shrubs. This brings the density to 225 stems per acre for trees only and
256 stems per acre for all woody planted stems. This density is below the success criteria threshold
for trees at both the 3 and 5 year monitoring period. Replanting will need to occur to increase the
stem density so that it may meet the criteria for success at the three-year monitoring period. Mortality
likely occurred due to stress-related factors. Soil compaction and droughty conditions were likely
contributors to mortality.
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 13 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
A small portion of the reduced survival may be attributed to the disturbance that occurred in VP-09
when the golf course maintenance crew dug out the drainage ditches that are currently connecting the
golf course and the stream. One new ditch crosses VP-09 and disturbance occurred to the vegetation
plot as a result of vehicle movement associated with constructing/maintaining these ditches.
Many of the flags placed on planted stems were no longer in place during the MY1 stem counts
causing differences in stems counts not attributed to low survivability.
A table showing the changes in stems counts from the baseline count to MY1 is shown in Appendix
A.
4. Vegetation Plot Photos
Photos of the vegetation plots are located in Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
The restored reach should remain stable or if changes occur the movement should be in the direction
of increased stability. There should be insignificant changes in channel cross-section and longitudinal
profile from the as-built condition. The pool/riffle spacing should remain constant. Pools should not
be filling in or riffles starting to change to pools. Pebble counts should show a coarsening of the bed
material.
1. Morphometric Criteria
Cross section and longitudinal surveys were performed on January 17 - 18, 2007. Five cross sections
and approximately 1,937 linear feet of stream were surveyed. Photographs were taken at all
permanent photo points and a bed material analysis was performed on January 19, 2007.
Cross sections are located at the following locations.
Cross Section #1, Station 11+93.802, midpoint of pool
Cross Section #2, Station 12+93.065, midpoint of riffle
Cross Section #3, Station 16+59.371, midpoint of riffle
Cross Section #4, Station 26+13.491, midpoint of riffle
Cross Section #5, Station 28+15.918, midpoint of run
Most of the cross sections appeared stable with little or no active bank erosion. Only one cross section
had a problem area at its location. Chute formation and a large degree of scour was present at Cross
Section 2 and will need to be monitored in the future. Survey data collected during future monitoring
periods may vary depending on actual rod placement and alignment; however, from this point
forward this information should remain similar in overall appearance.
2. Hydrologic Criteria
Monitoring requirements state that at least two bankfull events must be documented through the five-
year monitoring period. No surface water gauges exist on UT Tar River or its tributaries. A review of
known U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface water gauges identified three surface water gauges
within 20 miles of the mitigation site: one on the Tar River at Louisburg (427.0 square miles), one on
Swift Creek at Hilliardston (166.0 square miles), and one on Little Fishing Creek west of White Oak
(177.0 square miles). None of the three sites have a comparable drainage area to the UT Tar River
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 14 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
(0.61 square miles) and do not appear to be suitable for use in determining occurrence of bankfull
events. Evidence of bankfull deposits from previous events were observed on January 3, 2007. In
order to determine future bankfull events for the site it may be necessary to install a stream gauge
onsite since comparison to nearby gauges will not be possible given the large difference in watershed
area between existing stream gauges and the project stream.
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Tar River Stream Mitigation Site/Project No. 234
Date of Data Date of Occurrence Method Photo #
Collection if available
2007 Unknown 2006 Photographic - Near Bankfull Shown below
Table IX is not applicable to the MY1 Monitoring Report.
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 15 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
on January 3, 2007.
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
UT Tar Stream Mitigation Site/ Project No. 234
Feature/Issue Station#/Ran a Probable Cause Photo #
Aggradation/Bar 28+23.087 Aggradation in stream - Incorrect grade or SPA 1
Formation dimension
27+29.703 Point bar formation above sill-sill in wrong SPA 4
location
26+20.516 Buried structure-Incorrect dimension and SPA 7
structure in wrong location
20+62.578 Aggradation on point bar-Incorrect grade or SPA 12
dimension
18+83.669 Chute cutoff and point bar formation-channel SPA 14
possibly over-sinuous, or bankfull dimensions
incorrect.
14+57.725 Transverse bar formation-Incorrect grade or SPA 17
dimension
11+46.112 Bar formation/undercut matting-Incorrect SPA 20
grade or dimension
Bank Scour 28+10.430 Undercut matting-bank revetment SPA 2
insufficient) resistant to flow.
26+90.480 Matting exposed/bar formation/ ditch dug SPA 5
into stream - incorrect dimensions and bank
revetment insufficient) resistant
26+43.917 Undercut matting and point bar formation - SPA 6
Incorrect dimensions and bank revetment
insufficient) resistant
24+53.274 Bank erosion on right bank - bank revetment SPA 10
insufficiently resistant
19+61.645 Undercutting on left bank-bank revetment SPA 13
insufficient) resistant
17+26.805 Undercut matting-bank revetment SPA 15
insufficient) resistant
16+06.585 Piping failurelhillside erosion-slope grade too SPA 16
steep and insufficient vegetation stabilization
14+03.108 Excessive piping failure/ bank erosion and SPA 18
sediment deposition - slope grade too steep
and insufficient vegetation stabilization
12+97.150 Chute formation and scour - channel possibly SPA 19
too sinuous
10+27.461 Heavily eroded bank/ bar formation - high- SPA 21
velocity, constricted flow from culvert
Engineered Structures 25+44.777 Riffle formed into a pool - Incorrect location SPA 8
of structure and incorrect dimension
24+89.569 Erosion behind cross-vane SPA 9
23+89.110 Backwater pool formation - insufficient SPA 11
dimension
Other Disturbance 26+83.995 Runoff ditch dug deeper by golf course SPA 3
maintenance
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 16 2006 Monitoring Report
WEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
UT Tar River Stream Mitigation Si e/Prqiect No. 234
Feature Initial M - MY-02 MY-03 MY-04
A. Riffles 100% 00
B. Pools 100% °
C. Thalwe 100% NA
D. Meanders 100% 75%
E. Bed General 100% °
F. Vanes/J Hooks etc. 100% °
G. Wads and Boulders 100% 100%
*Riffle locations on stream greatly deviate from the designed locations, probably due to the presence of structures at the head of most riffles
which have caused pool formation below the structures.
Tables XI and XII provide baseline morphology and hydraulic information for the restored stream
reach.
C. Wetland Assessment
There is no wetland restoration associated with this site therefore this table is not applicable to this
project.
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration 17 2006 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number: 234 Year 1 of 5
Earth Tech
V7
Cl
N
M
0
d.
.R
00
O
M
.--i
N CD -
O C)
00 I ?
? C14
M
.?.
O
O
N .-. N M N r+ m N M C kn
""
h
O
O
0
M
? O O O
M
N
?'
y
N kn
M
'..,
N
N
V') 0
0
N r
', \
O h
,_,
tV
v~'
0
0
o
0
O
d ?
r.,
" \O
l?
o0
O?
O
O
O
M
M
O
O
N
N
0
?
-
O
O
O
O
M
O
N
? .-. ••-• N ,_, N N C N N 00 .-- •-- O M M O O
O 'n M N N N N O ?.
?" oo N ,^, N M N ,_, O U
O
00 N N M k
y 00 M O
A ?
W)
S^. M 00
O
'CS
O
V
CC ?1 tr
?
N r- tn
?"
? ? N .? cV ? 'ct 00 h M C ? O ' .-- O U
V] Z L
Cd
V v `
CO O
.O
O
O
M
r-
N
N V)
00
N
W)
N
M
Vy O
W)
'+
O O d O M
O O U
b Pr
? ? O O
Ln 00
O -? N DD N r. O
o O
0 W
?? pp
CL y
i!
cn
M
0
M
DD
O
O
M
O
N
O
r
O
O
0
C
O G W r N M ?p It M O ,_„ M .- 0
O y a 00
Cn N
0 00
0 00 O GT - O kf)
O
O
M
h
y y
y
?
N N W, M N O O M
O N
S i
e C
cn fn
R ~ L -: 00
F ? ? N N N
C
d N N
?y
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
A k
i i y ?
... d d N
to
E
?'
C3
•
-•
C 0. 0 •? °
00 e C C
C a o. `• :? a
O
a N m m d N n y
W y C P. N W O O N U
a
C
=
B ?'
oa a a
w ;,
x c ti y
?? .c to
a
C c C U
U w y R
Pte. A o: a r da
V)
O. O
d4 ?
O ?
0
O
O
N
00
0
M
O ?y
m
°z
a?+
? U
a ?
azw
N ?
C
O a ? x
m
? C
L
U
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
DA N .
,
fV V) N O 0
N
O
O ?
w
a ?, a rn ? : c
VJ 'c+ 00
O
^;
N
N
O
M
7
O ?O
?
U
O
O
dA
r,
M
M
M
N
O cv
'n
?
(ZN N .? N ? ? N ? N ? ? /-•
? .
-. O
E er ?
xxr
bU `?, M
•p
a?
Qi
?O
'^ en
?f1 C4
N
O
L: it V1
b
0 O N
r a ?
M M
?v1
• U ry °°
i .-. N
t
? O
R ? .•. o N '. N .-r ? ? ? N ?
C c
O ? N
U ? vl O+ ?p ? n V'1 ? N ?
O C%? a
i FL N O 00 l? OA ": AO .
.r l? V1 l? ?"
00 cq
?
N 'D
N
.
O . i h x \O
N
? a, rq C:)
G ?
+ N N N M
r- 17? 00 M
f"4 r-
w + 4 00 (V b p ?O ?O a\ U
?. ? j.
U o rn r-
CD ry
O
b
in
N
--?
vi
M
N
N cq O N
00
...
O
(V
O
l?
?R N Q-.. Q. •? •? 1R G C. C GR Z ;FR 'i G e O k v
w .ai I.n w ?. ?.+ «+ a U O
4) 0
(D
O
s
w
0.1
U
` uo
°
°
a
"?
Wi
u
o
a ?n b ° 0 3 a
i
a
oG w a °
?` °'
o
O .?
o
°
w w 3
q _
°' ?
T
' c
c
N ?.
° c a a
i
y
> ?
U
a
o U 0.1 W T ar ' a? e v? p
a A v? w w w da.
o w
¢, o
eq ?
O
O
O
N
O*?
O
M
O ?y
c?
?z
? y
U
N •N
PL Q. v
?aH
?D zw
Appendix A
(Click here)
Appendix A
Vegetation Raw Data
A-1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
A-2 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
A-3 Vegetation Problem Area Photos
A4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
c
O
Y
V 'a'
O
N N C
??a o
b d = O
A w Z2
O.? « r
Q'W>-
W
H
«° ° o o o o o ao m d r. o M ° ° o o o 0
y ?L CS 0 O 7 (°n N M ? ? ? (`O•l ? tM. t°0 4°9 (!O
W
a
.= C a
CL
M
7
O
h
N
h
G d
?
?
?
?
O1
0
0
O
co
r
!
?
O O
N
M
O
O
N
?
e?
I?
N
G 0
'
r
0
h
0
0
(0
7
h O
fhn O O
N O
N0 O M
In Co
N(O
O GL C4 Cc
> to
Q Q M
0
0 N [OO N CO) N COD
IL N M a N O
a > >
O
Ln
H co N O O O
O O
co
O O4. O CL N o
O 0
O N N
> >
a
M
M
°a 0 o
(?0
CIJ CD
c
CD
4
" 4
v 0
( 0 2
•
C a
> a
> n
N (n
m e0
47 ^ OO
N W O
N E (000
( o m
y a N 0. N N O N
(J
CL > > N (-
L N Ln
Q LO
Q 0 0 OO RO
CD CD
CO
O
a
°
a a--
0 O
0
a > >
C
V
Q
0
° O O N C.
co o? N O
(O Ov
C R j O N V O O
3 t ;
O (?
cc
coo
co 0
V eo (n m 0 0 N 0 N(OO
E A a O a N ?- (p 0 0
N > >
N
C? N
Q M
!
0
0 00 (O o
(n
o co CD
(Nn
o a m () N O o c
o
> >
R
4 ?.
cq
0
o Oo
C O in0
O? (Oo
OV N
a a V N N O N
> > Q7
O
O N N
N
l0
m 7
L d
co
a
o°
o
d N
U N
d
to d
m a)
a
y
O d
N
C
N
N O
U
`
f0 L
Z
to p
m
m t
? m
? 3
t
t ?.
p
E L
E
w
E
?
ty6 Y
m
0 N
? d 0
tn°
? to L
na' L
d? N N
EE
a, a)
£ m
(0 m E a h E a L C
0
E
c
a
3
~
C
j
a s
m
N N
a E E o
._ x d y £ a> ; °' y
U ? ?3 y o ? 22 n
00 mm
CL O
w v R
F- y
C
)
rn O
3 a
w O
a O
r- O
V >
ik O
m 2
CD .0
co
0)
(6
L
O
L L
O O
o
co to
e E
2 U
m
m
.°
>
L
Z ? c m E aci m y LIQ
I'D I. cm
U
N
2
'G
U
U
U
G
N ,
y
y
(?
y
tq
h
h
a y co u U E a y G (
O G V U U
_ 0 ? 7 G
? Q ? ? Z ? ? m U ?L Z a o o COY
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix A-3
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix A3-1
VPA 1. Area disturbed by drainage
maintenance. (Sta. 27+08.200)
VPA 2. Large chute cutoff causing
vegetation scouring. (Sta. 18+83.669)
VPA 3. Piping failure/erosion on
hillside. (Sta. 18+24.387)
VPA 4. Piping failure/erosion on
hillside. (Sta. 13+85.856)
VPA 5. Erosion and heavy sediment
deposition area (Sta. 12+88.907).
VPA 6. Exposed matting with sparse
vegetative cover. (Sta. 11+46.112).
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix A-4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
r It s
k- L ??1
4
fyF
g
t.
y
Vegetation Plot #04 from Western Stake
(Bearing 110°)
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix A4-1
Vegetation Plot #01 from Western Stake
(Bearing 90°)
Vegetation Plot #02 from Western Stake
(Bearing 110°)
Vegetation Plot #03 from Western Stake
(Bearing 90°)
Vegetation Plot #06 from Western Stake
(Bearing 100°)
Vegetation Plot #05 from Western Stake
(Bearing 100°)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix A-4
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot #07 from Western Stake
(Bearing 100°)
fF Lj if Y ' ,
Vegetation Plot #08 from Western
(Bearing 110°)
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix A4-2
Vegetation Plot #09 from Western Stake
(Bearing 100°)
Appendix B
(Click here)
Appendix B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
B-1 Problem Areas Plan View
B-2 Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
B-3 Stream Photo Station Points
B4 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
B-5 Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
B-6 Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
B-7 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
Cross Section 1 Pebble Count
PC1
L
LL.
U
L
N
a
Particle Size (mm)
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
CROSS SECTION 1 PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Tar River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: PC1
Survey Date: 01/19/07
--------------------
Size (mm) ----------------------------------------
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
--------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------------
9 9.00 --------------------
9.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 9.00
0.125-0.25 0 0.00 9.00
0.25-0.50 20 20.00 29.00
0.50-1.0 19 19.00 48.00
1.0-2.0 16 16.00 64.00
2.0-4.0 6 6.00 70.00
4.0-5.7 10 10.00 80.00
5.7-8.0 3 3.00 83.00
8.0-11.3 8 8.00 91.00
11.3-16.0 4 4.00 95.00
16.0-22.6 4 4.00 99.00
22.6-32.0 0 0.00 99.00
32 - 45 1 1.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.34
D35 (mm) 0.66
D50 (mm) 1.13
D84 (mm) 8.41
D95 (mm) 16
D100 (mm) 45
Silt/Clay (%) 9
Sand (%) 55
Gravel (%) 36
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-2
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
Cross Section 2 Pebble Count
PC2
L
V
L
a
00
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-3
Particle Size (mm)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
CROSS SECTION 2 PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Tar River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: PC2
Survey Date: 01/19/07
--------------------
Size (mm) -----------------------------------------
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
--------------------
0 - 0.062 -------------------
14 14.00 ---------------------•
14.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 14.00
0.125-0.25 0 0.00 14.00
0.25-0.50 18 18.00 32.00
0.50-1.0 17 17.00 49.00
1.0-2.0 22 22.00 71.00
2.0-4.0 8 8.00 79.00
4.0-5.7 4 4.00 83.00
5.7-8.0 4 4.00 87.00
8.0-11.3 3 3.00 90.00
11.3-16.0 4 4.00 94.00
16.0-22.6 3 3.00 97.00
22.6-32.0 0 0.00 97.00
32 - 45 1 1.00 98.00
45 - 64 1 1.00 99.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 99.00
90 - 128 1 1.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.28
D35 (mm) 0.59
D50 (mm) 1.05
D84 (mm) 6.27
D95 (mm) 18.2
D100 (mm) 128
Silt/Clay (%) 14
Sand (%) 57
Gravel (%) 28
Cobble (%) 1
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-4
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
Cross Section 3 Pebble Count
PC3
L
V
L
a-
Particle Size (mm)
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
CROSS SECTION 3 PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Tar River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: PC3
Survey Date: 01/19/07
--------------------
Size (mm) -----------------------------------------
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
--------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------------
35 35.00 --------------------•
35.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 35.00
0.125-0.25 7 7.00 42.00
0.25-0.50 19 19.00 61.00
0.50-1.0 13 13.00 74.00
1.0-2.0 8 8.00 82.00
2.0-4.0 3 3.00 85.00
4.0-5.7 0 0.00 85.00
5.7-8.0 1 1.00 86.00
8.0-11.3 2 2.00 88.00
11.3-16.0 1 1.00 89.00
16.0-22.6 2 2.00 91.00
22.6-32.0 2 2.00 93.00
32 - 45 1 1.00 94.00
45 - 64 6 6.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.03
D35 (mm) 0.06
D50 (mm) 0.36
D84 (mm) 3.33
D95 (mm) 48.17
D100 (mm) 64
Silt/Clay (%) 35
Sand (%) 47
Gravel (%) 18
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-6
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
Cross Section 4 Pebble Count
PC4
L
V
L
loo
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-7
Particle Size (mm)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
CROSS SECTION 4 PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Tar River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: PC4
Survey Date: 01/19/07
--------------------
Size (mm) ----------------------------------------•
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
--------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------------
16 16.00 --------------------•
16.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 16.00
0.125-0.25 27 27.00 43.00
0.25-0.50 21 21.00 64.00
0.50-1.0 14 14.00 78.00
1.0-2.0 13 13.00 91.00
2.0-4.0 4 4.00 95.00
4.0-5.7 1 1.00 96.00
5.7-8.0 3 3.00 99.00
8.0-11.3 1 1.00 100.00
11.3-16.0 0 0.00 100.00
16.0-22.6 0 0.00 100.00
22.6-32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.06
D35 (mm) 0.21
D50 (mm) 0.33
D84 (mm) 1.46
D95 (mm) 4
D 100 (mm) 11.3
Silt/Clay (%) 16
Sand (%) 75
Gravel (%) 9
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles= 100.
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-8
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
Cross Section 5 Pebble Count
PC5
L
M
N
V
L
a
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-9
Particle Size (mm)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-7
Pebble Counts
CROSS SECTION 5 PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: UT to Tar River
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: PC5
Survey Date: 01/19/07
--------------------
Size (mm) ----------------------------------------
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
--------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------------
13 13.00 --------------------•
13.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 13.00
0.125-0.25 5 5.00 18.00
0.25-0.50 43 43.00 61.00
0.50-1.0 25 25.00 86.00
1.0-2.0 9 9.00 95.00
2.0-4.0 2 2.00 97.00
4.0-5.7 2 2.00 99.00
5.7-8.0 0 0.00 99.00
8.0-11.3 1 1.00 100.00
11.3-16.0 0 0.00 100.00
16.0-22.6 0 0.00 100.00
22.6-32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.2
D35 (mm) 0.35
D50 (mm) 0.44
D84 (mm) 0.96
D95 (mm) 2
D100 (mm) 11.3
Silt/Clay (%) 13
Sand (%) 82
Gravel (%) 5
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
UT Tar Stream Restoration
Appendix B7-10
MO
Z
U
w
rn
N
w
U
O
0
Z
o A ? O
o I ?
L n A
a,?mx
H ? G y J
LL
x} ? C
? = II a
z
J Z
0
a
f
F
I
2
O
I F-
w
N
O
U
O
Q
y
U
I
L
a
a N ?' I
I I I
!N
S
I
i
LLI I a I
W
I IN I I
F-I
? dk
I J
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
0
0
0o Ln
LA
G
,O
Ii
O
w
C i}
+ N j
u)I
M:
S:
Imi
I y
Q
0
o •
0
+ Y
? CO
C
.C
0
c
00 = m
N
+
}
F
I u
r y
0
0
°o
F
0
0
d
0
r
F
0
0
O I
o L
R
0
I i
I O
O
CA oD n t0 10 V M N O O+ i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N? ',
(8) NOI1VA313
N
Z
O
U
w
Ln
Ln
co
0
U
a
O
w
C7 co
2 to
LA
O LC
U
2
O
W
Y
W
LL
OC'
a
(7
Z
a
H
i G M
I
I
y
_C
I
I I ?
e I
I U i
a I •
li •
.'I
I ?
'
. 1.
•
U
i I a
• j N
I
• q
b
I
I 4 I I
?
?O•
'
a•
a
I I
` I I
i I I i I I
I i
a 6.
H
U
? I
I
• • I
K1 ? a I
F
U --i
? E I I ? I I
1 ? i I
°o
0
04 r
I.
O
C
O ?
N
I
L
O
0
0
? l
N
o ?
0
o ?
o s I;
N h '
0
O
N F
°o
0
o j
N f
00
°o
N
0
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
O O O O N N N N
N N N N
(4) NOI1VA313
am
4
e
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-5
Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Bankfull Width (ft) 15.69 15.21 0.48
Entrenchment Ratio 7.19 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.69 0.7 0.11
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.37 1.37 0.21
Width/Depth Ratio 22.74 21.73 4.36
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 10.75 10.7 0.05
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 16.73 16.42 0.74
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.64 0.65 0.07
Begin BKF Station 55.92 55.92 71.13
End BKF Station 71.61 71.13 71.61
XSEC5
C Ground Points ? 8anftll V Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 15.7 Dbkf = .7 Abkf = 18.8
C
O
lei
N
n'
Horizontal Distance (ft)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B5-10
0 50 100 150
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-5
Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
XSEC4
c (around Points ? Bankfull T Water Surface
Indicators Points
Ybkf - 11.5 Dbkf = .9 Abkf - 10.9
C
O
N
Ii
Horizontal Distance (ft)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B5-8
0 30 40 60 80 100
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-5
Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Floodprone Width (ft) 128.11
Bankfull Width (ft) 17.66 9.01 8.65
Entrenchment Ratio 7.25 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.16 1.48 0.84
Maximum Depth (ft) 2.59 2.59 2.19
Width/Depth Ratio 15.22 6.09 10.3
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 20.53 13.3 7.23
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 19.03 12.15 11.26
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.08 1.09 0.64
Begin BKF Station 103.9 103.9 112.91
End BKF Station 121.56 112.91 121.56
XSEC3
c Ground Points ? Bankfull T Water Surface
Indicators Points
Vbkf - 17.7 Dbkf - 1.2 Abkf = 20.5
C
O
N
R
Horizontal Distance (ft)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B5-6
0 50 100 150 200
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-5
Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Cross Sectional Geometry
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation ( ft) 209.9 209.9 209.9
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 207.96 207.96 207.96
Floodprone Width (ft) 83.05 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 31.29 7.01 24.29
Entrenchment Ratio 2.65 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.76 0.4 0. 87
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.94 0.65 1.94
Width/Depth Ratio 41.17 17.52 27.92
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 23.89 2.78 21.11
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 33.17 7.47 26.42
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.72 0.37 0.8
Begin BKF Station 52.91 52.91 59.92
End BKF Station 84.21 59.92 84.21
XSEC2
O (around Points ? Bankfull T Water Surface
Indicators Points
Vbkf - 31.3 Dbkf - .8 Abkf - 23.9
C
O
O
Horizontal Distance (ft)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B5-4
0 50 100 150
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-5
Cross Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 210.15 210.15 210.15
Bankfiill Elevation (ft) 208.37 208.37 208.37
Floodprone Width (ft) 77.64 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 13 7.02 5.97
Entrenchment Ratio 5.97 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.86 0.96
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.78 1.78 1.73
Width/Depth Ratio 14.44 8.16 6.22
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 11.75 6.01 5.74
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.71 9.13 8.05
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.86 0.66 0.71
Begin BKF Station 39.65 39.65 46.67
End BKF Station 52.64 46.67 52.64
XSEC1
C Ground Points ? Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf - 13 Dbkf - .4 Abkf - 11.7
C
O
t?
N
W
0
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B5-2
Horizontal Distance (ft)
UT Tar River Stream Restoration Site
Year 1 Monitoring Report
Appendix B-4
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table B4. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Feature
Category Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable)
Number
Performing
as
Intended Total
number
Per
As-built Total
Number
/feet in
unstable
state %
Performing
Stable
Condition Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles 1. Present? 3 27 24 10
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? NA 27 NA NA
3. Facet grade appears stable? 3 27 24 10
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 3 27 24 10
5. Length appropriate? 3 27 24 10 10%
B. Pools 1. Present? (e.g not subject to severe aggrad. or
mi at.? 15 25 10 60
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?) 5 25 20 20
3. Length appropriate? 5 25 20 20 33%
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection)
centering? NA NA NA NA
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering? NA NA NA NA NA
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 20 25 NA 83
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar
formation? 4 25 NA 16
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 20 25 NA 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 24 25 NA 100 75%
E. Bed General 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar
formation 8 NA 1500 50 50%
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting? NA NA NA NA
F. Bank 6 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 4 NA NA NA NA
G. Vanes * 1. Free of back or arm scour? NA 23 NA NA
2. Height appropriate? 12 23 11 50
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? NA 23 NA NA
4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 23 23 0 100 60%
H. Wads/ 1. Free of scour? 43 43 0 100
Boulders 2. Footing stable? 43 43 0 100 100%
*Few vanes, mostly sills used on project. Many sills are "buried" by aggradation.
UT Tar River Stream Restoration
Appendix B4-1