20041482 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 4_20090709

0 ')Lp-
South Fork Mitigation Project
Catawba County, North Carolina
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
oENK ?No%lti uUVAUrr [phone]
VOLANDS AND S' ORMA14R BRANCK
and
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675

RE&%pfVjED
A F,P
NC Fc( YSTE? O
December 2008 CNHANCEi Eh7 PiiT6;RAM

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table of Contents
• 1.0 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................
• 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................
• 2.1 Project Description ......................................................................................
2.2 Project Purpose ............................................................................................
2.3 Project History & Schedule .........................................................................

3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ..........................................................................
3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................
3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ....................................
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ...............................................................
• 3.4 General Vegetation Observations ................................................................
• 3.5 Vegetation Conclusions ...............................................................................
• 4.0 STR EAM MONITORING ....................................................................................
• 3.1 Stream Success Criteria ...............................................................................
3.2 Stream Monitoring Plan ..............................................................................
3.2.1 Cross Sections ...................................................................................
• 3.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ..........................................................................
• 3.2.3 Hydrology .........................................................................................
3.2.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ..............................................................
3.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .....................................................
3.3.1 Cross Sections ...................................................................................
• 3.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ..........................................................................
5.3.3 Hydrology .........................................................................................
3.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results .................................................
3.5 Stream Conclusions .....................................................................................
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................

I
................. 1
.................1
................. 4
................. 4
................. 7
................. 7
................. 7
................. 8
................. 8
................. 9
................. 9
................. 9
................. 9
............... 10
............... 10
............... 10
............... 10
............... 10
............... 17
............... 17
............... 17
............... 18
............... 20
............... 21
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. USGS Map ...................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. South Fork Plan View ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. South Fork Detailed Plan View ..................................................................................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives .....................................................................4
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .......................................................................... ..4
Table 3. Project Contacts .............................................................................................................. .. 4
Table 4. Planted Tree Species ....................................................................................................... ..7
Table 5. 2008 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition ................................................ .. 8
Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species ................................................................................................... .. 8
Table 8. Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 9. Summary Precipitation Data ........................................................................................... 18
Table 10. Reach M 1 Macroi n vertebrate Data ............................................................................... 19
Table 11. Reach M2 Macroinvertebrate Data ............................................................................... 20
Table 12 . Stream Areas Requiring Observation ........................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2008 Cross Section and Profile Data
Appendix C 2008 Site Photos
ii
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
1.0 SUMMARY
In May 2005, all construction and vegetation planting was completed at the South Fork
Mitigation Site to re-establish natural channel dimension, pattern, and/or profile on nine unnamed
tributaries to the South Fork Catawba River. Appendix A contains the As-Built Survey.
Monitoring of this restoration project is to take place during the five growing seasons subsequent
to construction completion. This annual report summarizes the vegetative and stream monitoring
activities performed on the South Fork Mitigation Site during 2008, the fourth year after
construction completion.
This Annual Report presents stream flow data from two crest gauges, stream geometry data from
25 cross sections, and 4,600 linear feet of profile survey. In addition, photographs are presented
that document the conditions of the restored and enhanced stream reaches. Additional collected
data includes benthic macroin vertebrate survey, on-site rain gauge readings, and observations of
potential problems with stream stability. This information is used to determine the overall
condition of the reconstructed stream during 2008 monitoring.
• Stream monitoring data in Years 1 through 4 documented multiple bankfull events and little
• change in channel dimension and profile. Minor adjustments in channel dimension have occurred
at several cross section locations, mostly due to slight aggradation in pools as a result of
vegetation in the channel. Most in-stream structures continue to function as designed. Several
• structures on the downstream end of Reach M2 were repaired in 2008 as specified in the South
Fork Adaptive Management Report. The South Fork Mitigation Site is on track to meet the
stream success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan.
This Annual Report documents vegetation survival based on seven 1/10`h acre vegetation
monitoring plots, as specified in the Restoration Plan. Vegetation monitoring documented a
range of vegetation density between 470 and 650 trees per acre. The site is on track to achieve
the final vegetation success criteria of 260 stems per acre surviving at the end of the fifth growing
season.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The South Fork Mitigation Site is located in Catawba County, North Carolina approximately five
miles southwest of Newton (Figure 1 & Figure 2). The site has a history of pasture and general
agricultural usage. The streams on the project were channelized and riparian vegetation was
cleared in most locations. Cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and access the channels
causing significant erosion of the banks. Stream and riparian functions on the site were severely
impacted as a result of agricultural conversion.
The project restored or enhanced 14,294 linear feet of channelized stream on several unnamed
tributaries to the South Fork of the Catawba River. The project restored 9,590 linear feet of
channel dimension, pattern, and profile and enhanced 4,704 linear feet of channel dimension
and/or profile. Table 1 shows the as-built lengths and restoration type per reach. 2008 monitoring
represents the fourth year of monitoring for this site.
0
0
❑1
E
l VONSH�r; RpCK`(F
BRUSHWO D
0
,m-
South Fork North Project Site -
r' B r
3.33
GS GRANT
i )9 ITE
South Fork South Project Site
r Its % �- ' - .� ` � / •,� �,
floc EVERLY
1 IO
ELBOW
O
21
EBXFigure 2.South Fork Stream Mitigation Site
USGS Topographic Map
Catawba County, t
1 inch equals 2,000 feet

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
Monitoring of the South Fork Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the
criteria described in the South Fork Restoration Plan. Both stream and vegetation monitoring are
conducted throughout the growing season. Success criteria must be met for five years. This
Annual Report details the results of the stream monitoring for 2008 (Year 4) at the South Fork
Stream Mitigation Site. Figure 3 presents a plan view of the South Fork site.
Table 1. Proiect Mitigation Structure and Ohiectives
Reach Name As-Built Length (ft) Restoration Approach
UT I 1,681 Restoration
UT I 3,431 Enhancement Level II
UT2 2,975 Restoration
UT2 271 Enhancement Level I
UT3 526 Restoration
M 1 726 Restoration
UT4 1,226 Restoration
UT5 896 Restoration
UT5 1,002 Enhancement Level I
M2 1,560 Restoration
Total 14,294
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX in the spring of 2004. The following tables outline project
history and milestones (Table 2) and contacts (Table 3).
Table 2. Proiect Activitv and Renorting Historv
Month Activity
January 2005 Construction Began
May 2005 Construction Completed
April 2005 Planting Completed
June 2005 Post Construction Monitoring Gauges Installed
Jul 2005 As-Built Report Submitted
November 2005 1 s` Annual Monitoring Report
November 2006 2°d Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 3r" Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 4"' Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009 5°i Annual Monitoring Report (Scheduled)
i ame J. rro_iect contacts
Project Manager EBX-Neuse 1,?LLC
Norton Webster [phone]
Designer Buck Engineering PC
Kevin Tweedy, PE [phone]
Monitoring Contractor WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel In ram [phone]
4
1b 133HS 3NIIHOIVVNI

m
~+? ° N_6
O Vl
LL
O
s°
t
'' o w
}i w
T? ? r
? e`. cnaK ?
? • '.
W '•, cnon a
r
4
i
f
0
J
a
WU'
7 '
?a
Sf a f?
o
E
r ?

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success for the South Fork Catawba Mitigation Plan is the
survival of at least 320 3 year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring
period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of 260 5 year-old planted trees per acre
at the end of year five of the monitoring period. Up to 20 percent of the site species composition
may be comprised of invaders. Remedial action may be required should these (i.e. loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), etc.) present a
problem and exceed 20 percent composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
The vegetation monitoring protocol was designed to determine planted tree density and
vegetation trends across the restoration area. Seven plots were established on the South Fork
Catawba Mitigation Site to monitor approximately 2 percent of the site. The vegetation
monitoring plots are 1'/1 0th of an acre (50 feet x 87 feet dimensionally). The plots are randomly
located and randomly oriented within the restoration area.
Plot construction includes metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and permanently
establish the area to be sampled. Ropes are hung connecting all four corners to help in
determining if trees close to the plot boundary are inside or outside of the plot. Trees right on and
just outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50 percent of their canopy inside the
plot are included in the stem counts. A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall is placed over the
metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of each plot throughout the five-year
monitoring period. All of the planted stems inside the plot are flagged with orange flagging. A 3
foot-tall piece of half inch PVC is placed in the ground beside each stem to mark them as the
planted stems (vs. colonizers) and to help in locating them in the future. Each stem is then tagged
with a permanent numbered aluminum tag. The following tree species were planted in the
Wetland Restoration Area:
Table 4. Planted Tree Suecies
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
2 Betula ni ra River Birch FACW
3 Tilia hetero h lla White Basswood N/1
4 Dios rus vir iniana Persimmon FAC
5 Asimina triloba Pawpaw FAC
6 Hamamelis vir iniana Witch-hazel FACU
7 Ce halanthus occiden. Buttonbush OBL
8 Alnus serrulata Tag Alder FACW+
9 Lindera benzoin S icebush FACW
10 Viburnum dentatum Southern Arrow-wood FAC
11 Fraxinus enns Ivan. Green Ash FACW
12 Quercus hellos Willow Oak FACW-
13 Sambucus Canadensis Elderberry FACW-
7
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Table 5 presents stem counts for each monitoring plot. Each planted tree species is identified
across the top row, and each plot is identified down the left column. The numbers on the top row
correlate to the ID column of Table 4.
i apie ? . Su va v e et atnon ivionit rin g rio t. a ecie s v,o mpus iiion
Plot 1 L2 i 4 5 61' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Trees per Acre
SFC1 8 0 0 12 12 0 0 3 0 0 4 26 0 65 650
SFC2 4 16 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 13 0 55 550
SFC3 31 1 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 57 570
SFC4 24 1 0 25 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 540
SFCS 23 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 47 470
SFC6 2 14 0 5 1 1 0 10 0 0 11 1 4 49 490
SFC7 8 3 0 17 1 0 0 2 0 0 18 2 0 51 510
Average Trees per Acre: 540
Range of Trees per Acre: 470-650
Volunteer species are also monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Table 6
identifies the most commonly found woody volunteer species.
Table 6. Volunteer Tree SDeeies
11) Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
A Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum FAC+
B Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
C Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar FACU-
D Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood FAC+
E Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
F Dios rus vir iniana Persimmon FAC
Volunteer woody species were observed in most of the vegetation plots, but were too small to
record. If these trees persist into next growing season and exceed 12 inches tall, they will be
flagged and added to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) is the most common volunteer observed.
3.4 GENERAL VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of switch grass
(Panicum virgatum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis),
joe pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), and deertongue (Panicum clandestinum) was broadcast on
the site. These species are dominant on the site, though they pose no threat to the survival or
health of the planted or naturally occurring hydrophytic vegetation. Volunteer hydrophytic
herbaceous vegetation is also occurring on site. Rush (Juncus effusus), bulrush (Scirpus sp.),
knotweed (Polygonum persicaria), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and sedge (Carex sp.), all
8

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
hydrophytic herbaceous plants, are frequently observed across the site particularly in areas of
inundation. Arrow-head (Sagitarria spp.), another wetland species, is found in some of the wetter
areas of the site.

• There are zones of less desirable weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be
• posing any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the
weedy species are annuals and pose little threat to planted tree survival. Commonly seen weedy
vegetation includes hay, dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium)
and buttercup (Ranunculus sp.). Any threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be
documented and discussed.

• 3.5 VEGETATION CONCLUSIONS
• This site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March 2005. There were seven
l /loth acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The 2008
vegetation monitoring revealed an average tree density of 540 stems per acre. The site met the
• minimum interim success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of year three and is on
track to achieve the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre at the end of year five.
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
3.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Restoration Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
includes the following:

• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period.
a Cross sections: There should be little change in as-built cross sections. Cross sections
shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross
"
"
"
"
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for
B
or
C
type
channels. Cross-section data will be collected annually.
• Longitudinal Profile: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, i.e. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "E" or "C" type channels. Profile data will be collected
• in monitoring Years 1, 3, and 5.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness
of erosion control measures. Photos will be taken annually at permanent cross-sections
and grade control structures.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling: Benthic macroinvertebrates will be sampled
annually in monitoring years 1, 2, and 3. Benthic macroinvertebrates will be identified
and a tolerance value will be calculated.
3.2 STREAM MONITORING PLAN
Along UT1B, UT2A, UT213, UT3, UT4, UT5, M1 and M2 a natural channel design approach was
applied to develop stable hydraulic geometry parameters. Construction began in January 2005
and was completed in May 2005. The rebuilding of the channel established stable cross-sectional
geometry, increased plan form sinuosity, and restored riffle-pool sequences and other streambed
diversity to improve benthic habitat. Approximately 9,590 linear feet of stream restoration has
• been constructed.

9

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)

• 3.2.1 Cross Sections
According to the as-built document written in July 2005, twenty-five cross sections are to be
monitored along the restored tributaries UTIB, UT2A, UT2B, UT3, UT4, UT5, M1 and M2. The
cross sections were established during monitoring set-up in evenly distributed pairs of one riffle
• and one pool cross section per 1,000 linear feet of restored stream. Each cross section was marked
• on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent cross-section
pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of
year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope,
• including floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition,
any fluvial features present will be documented. Permanent cross sections for 2008 (Year 4) were
surveyed in July 2008 and are shown in Figure 4.
3.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles will be surveyed annually during the five-year monitoring period. The
profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel at least 3,000 feet in length. Features
measured will include thalweg, inverts of stream structures, water surface, bankfull, and top of
low bank. Approximately 4,600 linear feet of longitudinal profile was surveyed for Year 4 in July
2008.
3.2.3 Hydrology
Two crest gauges were installed on the site to document bankfull events. The gauges record the
highest out-of-bank flow events that occurred and are checked monthly through the year. The
gauges are located on reaches M1 and M2 (See Figures 3A and 3B). The gauge on reach M1 is
located near stream station 61+25 (cross section 11). The gauge on reach M2 is located near
stream station 28+50 (between cross section 4 and cross section 5).
3.2.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling data will be collected from two locations within the project
limits. Pre-restoration data were collected on November 1, 2004, prior to initiation of stream
restoration. Post-restoration sampling began in November 2005 and annually thereafter for a total
of three years. Year 3 data will appear in this report. Sampling will be conducted each year
between September and November to be consistent with pre-restoration samples. Sample
collection will follow protocols described in the standard operating procedures of the Biological
Assessment Unit of the NCDWQ. The Qual-4 collection method will be used for the collection of
macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics to be calculated will include total and ephemeroptera,
plecoptera, and trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness, EPT abundance, and biotic index values.
3.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
In-stream structures installed within the channel included constructed riffles, cross vanes, log
vanes, log weirs, root wads, and step-pool structures. Visual observations of structures throughout
the past growing season indicated that nearly all structures are functioning as designed. Detailed
plan view drawings of the stream reaches are provided in Figure 4.
10

Q c
a ?
0
i w
? r
LT c
}
'S
t'?` 5''S ? it "{ ? ?{,, 7 '' ''?? •5
I F
x r ? I't
? S
i
X X f '
?I t
II f
f
'V
r
1
x
1. \
X
I
00'91+ Z HIS Ol A3 HS 9NIIHOIHW
............................................
00*54tGZ d1S LL 133HS 3NIIHOIVVI °

LL ?

J
f
I
I ? r ? V r . r i ?7
i it
r i

lbl

I
N.

s k PJ
[ Y ?
fg. N ?` r f t. r LJ O+W k
J _y
? y
IL,
- I1 1
x
7
i
x

rr
I/
k ?w
s?
k
} r
-N
1"
/
i
i
I
?y
?k
-w
?

LTL.
J, I
`r
GS w
i
+ ? hh

?
1 ` lip III
f
I its l I
11?
,I
I
?
I I Ilj
IF
II
(' ? 1

' 1
>
f 1
1
i II ICI
IIi';a
4 + ?' k

.•>: I
41.
17

;6WS
F,

w A -
00'£Z+yg vis 8 1234S 3Nll"OlVIN
9 il? I?? I
i I ? III
i Ik'I
s? I 1
i
I I I ?;
I I I ! -.
Gi l ilL,
R,II it{,
' j i (,I I I I'1,
'' ?I II u
1,1 , t
? y

Qa EZ+Vg VIS 5 133HS 3NIIHOIVH
J

0

I

J Ir

f
I ?1(I
?
J ' I I ?
? Y
-
-
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

f 'li,l I
+ .I

? - , ,•
,1
1
1
1

f 4-:
.. _
r l i i i l

1 .I Ilhl
t
!, II I I?
?I1?,.`y
l '

'; r i
'llk?
l
I
?

?lll j?
',, II? ?Il

<!ti
I,?flll,

• ?
' !14'I?l ?I ?
? ?I III !
li I I III
44 trd+Ztr b1S 9 133HS 3NI-1HOIHW

40'4+0£ d1S CL 133HS ?NIIH31dW
x w
7 + I a?
I x i
X I { ? J w
f ! , X Li
I ? 't
x
I r } Ot
' I x
x ti , t
I ?` -? I C I x
X
y li
' r.. X
4
X XS-6 ,
4 I I ,t''i 44
I ? I ? Y x
a ? 'yI ( x
ti. x
k? - - X- - - -X - X- - X k- -X- -I
y ? r r 1 ..x--? "
' -
v
_ ;? r

Offi
4
w y
> W
W p
<" o W ow
_21
z z W ?' W
00
Qw/ G CL O oho J °wLL
M W Q yc?? Z"eSs mw
f- w 0.ou1vS? ra
O s z0
m?
F? w a
cp O?
r? z
C U V n«?$ W
C ??3I
R wa
0
:? LWW? mZ?y z4 p4
goa
P ? 5„EEr w
A ~
?.. L 13•TMS ? ? ? ? O
<i3 0.1 m i G1 G
L) Ilk
iy
F 1 It ............. ........... U
LU CO
lI T?7 y W >N
w- K
w
o
h ?? Uo Vw
?; ? ? •? ? ?; ww Qo ZQ
wxo? U?w
\ ME aO o
Z = Z ^? Q a
W.; 10
W N?
C? ?a 00 a o
W v a .... .........
w
® w
U
at It ?L LL- LL. U-
COZ
Z J
W
LL L,
W?
1. Q y
W ? WZ
U w?
z L,
00
W m ZaO
0
-7 Lei
w
^ W
cl:
L.L ~
3 , z
a ! G
U
Qz
?- 1-0
w
G° N ?S>
_Z
wZ a
-? Wu
U w F (L
roo o O ZO U
_ U .n
LL w
Qa > m V z 0
N S =
d -- J
J
D O O O O
r C7
IT U-
rA N N CL z LL
V O O
Tmod HLLf]ON 69T,9,Lq--&YfO c

? N ?o
Q- co
N ?
N ?o
N
O? O

?o 4

4A?
cO
O ?1
V-
? J
? J
? J
?
C1

?O ?
J
J
J
?
J
?
? ?
a
be* ...............................:.........

o w
a °zg
w I ?`h4 ?
O 4 ? CF tl I ?y
HON YO Rr Q I ?'
II ,
r, ? I ?Ijl?r'!I ' t(N ul3
Z I Ili.. 1 ,•?
?I ! I ?? - ? ? +y?4
- ? l
Ins; o I?
Id,
All
w?
_
f?+W H
y? .. z
' Y
QgW
5y
fe
4W L
M
I i

I k
4
P1 u
'

;1

ON
LL?
z0
?W
N

- ; ?? 111
- PO( IA is
.? I ? I (g NO4}

N

A?
NA
U
"YO
F} d W
F?'{71a o J ?
IU
Id
`;\ my jM v z
Z2 z u
00 o
\ f-'y moo' U ???
LL U z U,
LLj _ J D:a Z
t:U.ti, w a r z
i ? \ e? \ at S',..
? S N01103SX t
' ri 3 I //`y •j ` 3?f5' \,',, ??
:tir f rel "? \ Ny \
v Nt ?`,\\`?l1 \?\4\;; \,
0
0
3
W
a O F
LLI
O <
W O N
0
a
!J, I
1jl J f \ \

SIfft J /

1
C I
`I?'ii
`
(

LL 133HS 3NIIHDiVW

8
HR?x
w
o

o
??mm
x°
?
ati

n

y
~? U
w
mr
i2

W
Y $8 z
g

4

V m Yi

r

i!o. z
i Hw
Y
df
It"r
? ?cd
`are
\\ N
O
a
F
ti
W
W
W

ti
2
W
U
o?
Q
tr.+,
if 1 I I ? III,
aw J?
?II I?? I
\N
,o
{tee

ff ?°
pb t, OJ
ijae ?• j\,c
off'
jf e
yy
f 4??
?d?ea
Y
w
U'
t7
r
h
U
I
_---_.__.._-_----_-__31'
2 rr
LLJ
Lai'
W
3
E`
2
W
U

South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
3.3.1 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections for 2008 (Year 4) were surveyed in July 2008. The cross sections were
surveyed during the monitoring set-up and annually in the late growing season. Year 4 cross
sections were surveyed in July 2008. The baseline data have been compared with the Year 1, 2, 3,
and 4 data in Appendix B. The Year 4 channel cross sections showed that overall stream
dimension remained stable during the fourth growing season. Some localized areas of bed scour
and/or aggradation were noted; however, these adjustments are common and indicate a movement
toward greater stability. There is very little difference between the baseline cross sections, and
Years 1, 2, 3, and 4 cross sections. Changes in cross section measurements such as Bankfull Area
and width/Depth ratio are primarily due to minor deviations in the assumed bankfull elevation.
3.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
The longitudinal profile was surveyed for Year 4 in July 2008. A longitudinal profile was
surveyed at six representative reaches during July 2008. Profile lengths were as follows: 1,000
feet in Reach UT2A, 1,825 combined feet of Reaches UT1B and M1, 660 feet of Reach UT5, 525
feet of Reach UT4, and 600 feet of Reach M2 for a total of 4,610 linear feet. These profiles were
compared to as-built profiles conducted in October 2005. Based on comparisons, there has been
very little adjustment to the stream profile or dimension since construction. Minor aggradation
has occurred in the pools as the channel has adjusted to an equilibrium condition. The riffles
have remained stable. As-built and 2008 profiles can be viewed in Appendix B.
5.3.3 Hydrology
The crest gauges were read and reset on monthly sites visits from March through November
2008. Data collected from the gauge in March is a composite sample for December 2007 through
March 2008. Three bankfull events occurred during the March to November time period on
Reach UT2B in South Fork North. Three bankfull events were observed at the crest gauge on
Reach M2 in South Fork South. The crest gauge data is included in Table 8.
Documented bankfull events and observed stream flows were compared with monthly rainfall
totals to assess stream response to precipitation events. Daily precipitation data were collected
from the Conover Oxford Shoals weather station in Conover, NC. An on-site rain gauge was also
monitored throughout 2008. The precipitation data are summarized in Table 9.
Table S. Crest Gauue Data
Month
Recorded UT211 Crest
-Gauge N12 Crest
--""e
Janua --- ---
February
March --- ---
April --- ---
Ma 0.20 ---
June ---
July 0.05
August --- ---
September 0.15 1.25
October --- 3.80
November ---
F ---
December --- _--
17
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 9. Summarv Precipitation Data
Norma l Limits

Month
Average
30
Percent
70
Percent Conover
Precipitation On-Site
Precipitation
January 3.90 2.64 5.04 0.98 ---
February 3.42 2.33 4.41 2.79 ---
March 4.27 3.12 5.17 1.68 ---
April 3.37 2.06 4.57 4.31 3.25
May 3.77 2.50 4.68 1.95 4.16
June 4.27 2.73 5.41 2.64 ---
July 3.92 2.43 4.45 4.28 7.54
August 4.00 2.73 4.71 12.7 3.88
September 3.75 2.39 5.20 3.31 8.95
October 3.70 1.88 4.90 1.32 ---
November 3.67 2.61 4.47 0.76 1.75
December 3.32 2.13 4.26 --- ---
3.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
Composite Benthic macroin vertebrate samples were taken at the northern and southern South
Fork sites in October 2008. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Qual-4
collection method was utilized. In addition to benthic sampling, NCDWQ habitat assessment
forms were completed at each monitoring site. Benthos samples were preserved in alcohol and
later identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level by an aquatic ecologist. Table 10 and
Table 11 list the taxa encountered, relative abundance, and tolerance values. The NCDWQ
Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006) assigns tolerance values
for common macro invertebrates in North Carolina. Tolerance values range from 0 to 10 with low
scores indicating species that are intolerant to pollution, excess sediment, or other disturbances.
Overall, taxa collected at both sites were moderately to very tolerant species.
The northern reach (M 1) received a habitat score of 75 out of 100 possible points. Eight EPT
species were collected and 25 total taxa were collected. Taxa collected were moderately tolerant.
18
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 10. Reach Ml Macroinvertehrate Data
Order Species Tolerance Value No.
E hemero tera Mcca ertium modestum 5.5 23
E hemero tera Stenacron inter unctatum 6.9 45
E hemero tera Baetis intercalaris 7.0 9
E hemero tera Baetis avistri a 7.0 3
E hemero tera Parale to hlebia s 0.9 2
E hemero tera Caenis s 7.4 2
Trieho tera Cheumato s the s 6.2 12
Tricho etera H dro s the betteni 7.8 17
Coleo tera Helichus s 4.6 1
Odonata Ar is s 8.2 1
Odonata Calo to x s 7.8 10
Odonata Libellula s 9.6 1
Odonata Com hus s 5.8 1
Hemi tera Corixidae 9.0 1
Di tera Simulium s 6.0 4
Di tera Simulium venustrum r 7.1 5
Di tera Ablabesm is mallochi 7.2 1
Di tera Chironomus s 9.6 1
Di tera Cry totendi es s 6.2 2
Di tera Rheotan tarsus s 5.9 1
Di tera Tan tarsus s 6.8 1
Di tera Rheocricoto us robacki 7.3 l
Oli ochaeta St laria lacustris 9.4 1
Crustacea Caecidotea s 9.1 1
Crustacea H allela azteca 7.8 13
Mollusca Corbicula uminea 6.1 1
Total Number of Organisms 160
Total Number of Taxa 25
Total Number of EPT 8
NC Biotic Index 6.8
The southern reach (M2) received a habitat score of 66 out of 100 possible points. Four EPT taxa
were collected and 10 total taxa were collected. Taxa collected were moderately to very tolerant
species.
19
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table IL Reach M2 Macrainvertehrate Data
Order Species Tolerance Value No.
E hemero tera Mcca ertium modestum 5.5 11
E hemero tera Stenacron inter unctatum 6.9 1
Tricho tera Cheumato s the s 6.2 5
Tricho etera H dro s the betteni 7.8 26
Odonata Ar is s 8.2 2
Odonata Calo to x s 7.8 l
Di tera Simulium venustrum r 7.1 12
Di tera Ti ula s 7.3 4
Di tera Rheocricoto us robacki 7.3 2
Crustacea Caecidotea s 9.1 1
Total Number of Organisms 65
Total Number of Taxa 10
Total Number of EPT 4
NC Biotic Index 7.1
3.5 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
Very few problems with stream stability were observed during the 2008 monitoring field visits.
Based on cross-sectional survey, longitudinal profile survey, and streamwalk observations, it was
concluded that the site continues to be on track to achieve stream success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan. Throughout the project localized areas of siltation are present and vegetation is
beginning to grow in the channel. There was some slight erosion around some of the root wads
and in-stream structures. The step-pool at the downstream end of Reach M2 was repaired in 2008
and is stable and functioning as designed. A persistent problem has been cattle in the easement.
Recent landowner coordination and fence repairs appear to have corrected this problem. Table 12
outlines areas requiring further observation with station and description of each area. Photos of
potential areas of instability are included in Appendix C.
20
South Fork Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 12. Stream Areas Requiring Observation
Station Feature Problem
UT1 A 13+00 Channel Small debris 'am, no repair necessary
UT1A 14+80 Right bank Minor slump, no repair necessary
UT1A 19+00 Right bank Minor erosion, no repair necessary

UT1 A 33+00
Channel/Right bank Debris jam and right bank erosion, possible
repair to prevent further erosion

UT1B 37+60
Right bank End cut at grade control structure, no head cut is
forming, no repair necessary

UT1B 58+40
Root wad Structure is unstable, bank vegetation is dense,
no repair necessary

UT1B 60+00
Root wad Structure is unstable, bank vegetation is dense,
no repair necessary
UT2A 17+60 Left bank Minor erosion, no repair necessary

UT2A 18+90
Grade control structure Header rock is perched, bed is stable, no repair
necessary

M2 38+20
Right bank Minor erosion at recent structure repair, no
repair necessary
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• Vegetation monitoring documented the average planted stems per acre on site is 540.
Invasive and volunteer species do not pose significant risks to vegetation success. The
site is on track to achieve the final vegetation success criteria of 260 stems per acre
surviving at the end of the fifth growing season.
• Data collected during monitoring Year 4 and observations of conditions at the site
indicate that the stream restoration project continues to be successful and is on track to
achieve the stream success criteria as specified in the Restoration Plan. The stream
morphology is stable. Repairs to structures specified in the South Fork Adaptive
Management Report successfully corrected the only major problem areas. Several in-
stream structures have some scour, but are functioning correctly. Very little fluvial
erosion was observed overall, though there are areas of concern that will continue to be
observed. Some slight siltation in pools is occurring, resulting in vegetation growth in the
channel. Several aquatic organisms and fish were observed along the reaches. Habitat has
been improved significantly throughout the project site.
• Monitoring of vegetation and stream stability will continue through the 2009 growing
season.
21
APPENDIX A
As-Built Survey
i
L

- ?
W
w
0

w Z
o
Z w
U 0 m ~
w

G
o ~Ow
Z?
?

[
O W
F?
Wtq >
W ?
O
Np
k o ??> g ¢w

e O¢O
Z Ww
YE¢ >nD NU
O V
= Yom ti¢
e 1
-
1

?qa
m Im,
IC wL i:it

t 1
\
?
t
?
t
l \

?l

I
X / f ? k t
,t
? W? m k
c ,f
c v "'Y YYv` ? ? vV'v' v v Y'v?
r
t g? _
,._......_.
i
i
t ?-
` y}
Z.
? C3
c?
j

O
R
0
0
10
LL
O N
Ln
O
M
EO/ / u6p•y0-qsd-qse aoygpnos 6910\sue1d\u6-0\216910\ I
SOOZ/81/0!

90•£L+9? `d1S 9 133HS 3NI-IHOiVIN
r -
r
?
w ?o
C N
`
z z
Z UU m ? o
?AaLL
? w

Z
m
w ?

m

?
[ F
z
a ow
G ? Z?
_ W 0

5
r
L

` U Wy W 20
N
?> o ao
?
U Z

V
wr
oa? Y

r SU
X00 ?a
?Y
k
00.0£+5Z ViS 9 133HS 3NI?HOiVIN
w p
U ? x
f `` X
W j k
IU M1
t
°. Op k t?
U k / f > l
/

ti
1
j
li
0
10
M LL
W
J
O {n
r
0
M

X /

w

--
x
t
r
Sr 00
X N
a, X

I
w
U ? X

`
I I
x X

X x

Q
IU
I
?
X N x
i
X
w
U e ( ?
I ,
X
I X
? f

w t cc) r`
r
N t
X x 1

t
X ?
v

?

U
x ? X

' O
w + m
O
X N
X

'
X ? X
? m
w ?
x?
X
I lk

x
i X
G
O m

U i

x X
m

x !

V? t Q? x
C O
X r

x
t x
i I

x
i
? ,
?
7 S.m?

X i
pp
X
I : ^x I i I
i
x x
?
m
00•£L+96 ViS b 133HS 3NI?HOiVVY

/ / u6p•90-ysd-qse-?ao?y3nos-6910\sue?d\u6csa0\216910\'
500Z/HI/0!

c

w
0
N
o?

Z
W ° m~ m
¢ zw M
w

O

r1
wn

wN

w
7,5

m C)
<0
" ? in
rv V

r oao

° of Y

Y
r ?¢
H0. jnJ
Yo-= OW
H¢ ?
i 0
Y
i
I
{
\ 'I
I
i
{
j
{
i
i
,y
i ?
I
5 g? P 25+30 00
CN_\NE SNEET
mp,
O
k4
O
O
M LL
W
V
O In
O
M
£ /9Z/Z u6p•9e-ysd-gse-??o?43nos-X69[0\SUe[dW6rsa(]\F16
5ooMi9Iee\°-' I
/oi

00.81.+££ b1S L 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN
- c

? p
w
W ?`m4a

N
w Z
? v
rim
??om
?z
LL
i a

C W m
Q Z2
G p W
z W? W =S
a
W ?o
z
_
W LL
<m
0 r'
V
u p _
0
p?w Zn? ?¢
? _
=00 w Y
r ?
morn Yom ?a
?Y
i 1-

?.i
00
VyN
1tt I '
k AyW1
;
,?, iI !I
W ?;r ul?I
/ + F
F.
61
W +/ r X
Y .K V

k
E
e
k Q
k ; o
k ?
k /
W
00.81+cc y1S g k
133HS 3NIlH?1bW

ti\\
11\\? `F
f?
1.
\
III -'//

III!+!'k' ,
.a
I k?
m /
?1k

a ?
II rf9 ?, -
l ? t
I I
7i
'I I?It; I
10
M
???V11 W
O O N
_J N
O
M
7 1W 1 CldJ.t:
]::UM ONt?
j/N
I CO/9F/l,
u6p•/?-ysd-qso-??o?y'ynos X691(?\s"r'Iri\u6tsa[I\NE?9lee\:'
Sood/81/oi

>

m O?
00'£Z+179 b'1S 6 133HS 3NIIHD1`dW
a 52+00 I ! l I`
•. I
y ? ,. ?' ? I ? VIII
\ ?.- .lIII
l xZ ?I
I III
/ `R II I {
o I Il?lli{`'!
/
?,5ti ? I I
at"`! J 1 I l l ??
\ I I ,N wll{
'? I s I??l1
I
? ?'t I ? I??III{
? ? ? III
a ° ? I I ? ? ll l'?
Q p" ?
I
,I
/
I
m '
I; I
I I
IIII I W
Q fI V?W
I l l _ iz
?I hicQ
I .I i I ? W?
I I W2
p J \ I ill W?Z
2 w !I
2 ?WC
m I
0
y ? ? \
2
/ ? I I
I \ .ti? III 43
4
o z? i /. \? m , VIII li
I y
l
o° ?r
n.
r,
I,
n I
fV
\ '?t ? ' ? ?I I I I l lo.'II
i
w
00*t O+Zb V1S 8 133HS 3NI IHO1dW
qsd-qsv-, .j,jjno-6gl0\-

L

L] uYm
s N Z
Z o
V
w oU
z
O m r m
G a ow
z2
°
j w 2
o wN w io
r Z
r ?> N aW
a 5m o
U
E WI
,
w
O .
?
?
w Z?? ow
mow w
_
t°?7a ,rJ NU Y
..
e =
ryer
rocn xo-, ra Wr
1?4?

k
k
k/

O
?O
a? z
/
/f
?11 40',
j t
1
r 7 ,1'
`' /
i

OPk?'0

w
't O
r'(

fl
-s
t

K?
;i

' 7+

D

'
41", i4
r

m ?)

iJ
00
Qo /

CO
i
i I Iil
/

6x00 d

H t?3
i

a a ??
u ?
I
W 2 I
?
?
ti
O `lil ?t
W ,3 1 ? i
x`:
F
d
xx V
=2
2
'Ug
WW Y
Rti
Ewa i
y
\°a . w '.?.
.. /

}A

00 "'
? Mks

7

s m . I

i
t'
j 1

00'£Z+179 `d1S 8 133HS 3NIIHO1dW
eei i
u6p•60-ysd-qse-??o}4ynos-69[0\SUeId\u6csa0\Fi69I0\?-'
SooUH V o'

men
aVmm
00'91+�Z `d1S L L 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN
m
F
LL
W
U
i ¢ w Z + N
N
r �a,m o� ur N
z 1 O
❑ _ w z g r 23+00 \tLn
e HON Yo-� HQ � •�
m°
`•
0
r 11 o
W IN
/ ,a
IN
y,
00
IN
N ��' v ,ii i �� IN
IN
PIP Y
Jill
IN
*p
N\
i
IN
IN
Ox /. PP
� ,t WEA
/
�y
/ Ar l ;,
♦���Jd• Ate- t % �/f } //
/ }
COOS
� --- 1 ��, � ♦ � ' `, / ! ' y ,
t
id /'? / V y m
W
-2, t
LL�U \:
/ A �\ ♦♦
/ t
;t
t
' rJ
30
y Nq r,3 z�, p
,
iNI.'PLr'
< 1 =+�
.0 52.
00
/ t
Wo
IV
k
/ k
v
n
,
r �
m
. --
/ i / i IN/
k
NN
Ar
• - j X/}///� W
l 2
k
Wu:
W
i ,\ ... � a Q
O�
00+
\\
k X l \
k . r
ri A
W
CQ 6
00 -SL
s l��Hs o mNI
m X 1 ��
3 �
X �
CO/90/2
u6p•01-ysd-qsv-��o}ylnos-�69I0\sueld\u6�sa❑\!119\-
SOOZ/HI/01
L
u
❑
C
w
❑
z
Z
O
2
O
w
m
W
¢
Ow
G
❑
z
O
L
ZN
W
20
men
aVmm
00'91+�Z `d1S L L 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN
m
F
LL
W
U
i ¢ w Z + N
N
r �a,m o� ur N
z 1 O
❑ _ w z g r 23+00 \tLn
e HON Yo-� HQ � •�
m°
`•
0
r 11 o
W IN
/ ,a
IN
y,
00
IN
N ��' v ,ii i �� IN
IN
PIP Y
Jill
IN
*p
N\
i
IN
IN
Ox /. PP
� ,t WEA
/
�y
/ Ar l ;,
♦���Jd• Ate- t % �/f } //
/ }
COOS
� --- 1 ��, � ♦ � ' `, / ! ' y ,
t
id /'? / V y m
W
-2, t
LL�U \:
/ A �\ ♦♦
/ t
;t
t
' rJ
30
y Nq r,3 z�, p
,
iNI.'PLr'
< 1 =+�
.0 52.
00
/ t
Wo
IV
k
/ k
v
n
,
r �
m
. --
/ i / i IN/
k
NN
Ar
• - j X/}///� W
l 2
k
Wu:
W
i ,\ ... � a Q
O�
00+
\\
k X l \
k . r
ri A
W
CQ 6
00 -SL
s l��Hs o mNI
m X 1 ��
3 �
X �
CO/90/2
u6p•01-ysd-qsv-��o}ylnos-�69I0\sueld\u6�sa❑\!119\-
SOOZ/HI/01

? w
O doHAT
a`mV o?

Z 0U

K Zu
?
W

1 w

m~

m
S G a

a w
o
J2

z
° W
WN
w ?
=o
?o
z
¢ ?
O
0
ow
M
o
ZN
,
>?? w-
.2x
?w
<

Y
?Z
HOn
x wN?
Yom x
F¢
Y
i
K
x
x
-0
O CE 'y h?Cti, 2

2
i

?
m W

o
m

q
,'
f
a r ?
4+r f °
t?f? % U I
j k

N
l "1
t i
or
l `\ 1
't
1

If
O
O
r

S
\\ 1 1 if ?
m
?X?L
v ? j: i J
f
i
? l?r I
b./ m
?.i
r ?
f r
N
\ ( 'r 3
\? m
I \
I 111 x
xk
I
qjr c..
m x
-F ,

l ? 'H
00'96+6Z ViS 06 133HS 3NIIHOiVVY
f\
0-
10
M
W
J
O N
j Ln
O
LO
O
M
22
h
W
? U
Eo/9Z/Z
u6p•li-ysd-qsa-? ?034??os--'6910\ suaid\u6 ? sa0\2169[0\?-'
SOOZ/81/0

c o
w
?
w
0
z
Z
O
Z U
? w
Z O

J
C Iz
W ¢ 0W
r
z 2
j p
W $o
° w
N
O¢o J wLL
? o?w z,r.??" ?¢
NOQ 5;,

r m

irw
mo
w Yoh
1
Y2
V
h
W
4
W2
U
0-
10
O F
C) )L
W
Q
O N
LO
O
co
?X
E0/9Z/Z
u6p•Z1-ysd-qse-?ao?y1 nos-?69I0 \sueld \u6?sa?\F169 W\?-
SOOZ/8I/01

L
-
hc?N
Y o
O
N oa
w
z z
? ?`o
?;aLL
z ? m

L
G z
¢ I z
Zf
J

u O^ HO
N >

o U

=o

a
W

r »m ? <w VC
O¢? of Y
r low Y. -? F¢
i Y
i
`Y
00.0E+6? `d1S Z6 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN
1 i i t

j t

X\
7
?y
? JtJi
1 y,
ff ; .
L ( /
v X
/k
/ l
?, rv
f
- fr
i?
/
! ft ! /
t
E
k
k
w
j

X
W
J
2W
r
N
t
CIA 29+
j:
r /
?O.
tis
4 \ 1

k v

H
W

O
10
r7 LL.
W
J
O N
a
C)
LO
O
IO
O
x2
V
£0/9Z/Z
u6p•£?-ysd-qse->t?o}yanos--+69[0\sueld\u61sa0\FJ69[el\:/O-'
SOOZ/ Ii

r
C o
W ?om
w
0
o ??o
Z °
U
? W
Z 0 mF o
m
J
=
G o ZE

J

L W ?

O Y 0
Q
W Z O
N W =

O

oZ<o w
J
Z?> Y
Y

e Q
(n W
QWW >?? O
YOB H
r0 ?O
(n
Q
Y

v'
s,.

•1'\??v
i^.
O
a
O
i
i
i
v
19 1
>t
0-
10
o t=
M LL
W
a
O N
Lr)
M
£0/9Z/Z
?6p•gj-ysd-gsa-??o}ylnos-69[0 \sueld\u6?sa?\x6910\??
SOOZ/81/01
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
001L +O£ `d1S £6 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN

L
u
?
T`m
h
?
W aU?a+
O
z N
w Z
O vic
m o
?
LL
Z
U
tJ W ?
u
°o U
w ? mF m
J

L
F
G ? ZE
i
it p > > U

wN ?w =o
?

??
Z
r U?m ? ?IL
V

r Ozo wF
w w',= ', mu Y
Fow Y

O
O
C' M LL
^1 LU
J
O N
0
N
O
co
W2
Q
uV
2
1~if
W 22
? a
XX4
CO/92/0
u6pgi-ysd-qse-?1oyy?nos ?69I0 \sueld\u6?sa0\2169[8\??
SOOZ/BI/0

OUOZ+96 V1S 96 133HS 3NIIHOiVVY
L

? tom
w
0
N
?o
za

w
? W
mr oe
m

G
? r
Z2 w
.0
W J8,
°
r

a

W
N
W

?
0
0

z
u >
» S sw
J 0?0W ZM?

r M?

F
W ?
n?
Yoi N
U
1
Or
iI ¢ °
Y
t Iqo, `
I
/
t ,
O
j
rrOw
-J
W
2x
ti
J
W ix
? U
ref/' t
l1
? C[
\ ?1
XI \ ` '.
O
10
o F
M LL
W
a
o N
N
O
c7
ea/9z/Z
u6p•g?-ysd-gse-?ao?y7nos-a69l0\sueld\u6?sap\x69[0\?-
SOOZ/81/Oi
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
00'OZ+96 `d1S 9? 133HS 3NI?HOiVIM
0
L N
?
[ ? ?omn
y A
l
?
.
W u U m i
Y
mi [
'
`
W
z
U
Z Q c
rczuW O F
z w
w z m oo

m LL

.?

L z z
HZ
0.
rj p 2

?'
LLI

a
az
o
Z Q

`

? v
i
> ¢
? ?
??>
LL
W
I O N

r m
o
a uC r

_
N0Q
>?o mU
?Z Lr)
r W
K W N
mom Yom ?a
mY
O
96 133HS 3NIIHOiVVY
Cl)
co
Q
Z
/ /z
u6p•??-ysd-gse-??o}ylnos-?65I0\sue3?{\u6csa0\!36910\:-
SOOZ/91/0''

0
z CN
° 2 ,r 44
z
O
Z 0 z o ti?: ,+? ?V O LL
w ° m ?I
j ¢ 0 w LU
c G ° z ?t
w ? Q V
C? w No ?Zv
»> aw O N
?
01 W
10
oQm _ a, Vy AZ ?.
0 ° J w?
e FOVwi Yom ¢
?O 0
O
MZ / O
MI
QP
?- w
I ? O ? U
C a a
> w
z
x zJ
*^ r< aw
i` ?x Qz
?Q
ZM
ZOO W
J 2? N I x `. =z wZ? z
Cl) z0 w ° o
00 e? - zo ?wz 0
0 ? w> w?3 z
k
?W?
wg wa
0 w
Q ° x ¢2 °
t :
Z ?? z
z
j
U
?
Mll w ?
`1
y
w
-'` < Y.
IN
O ? U
- J
p
j
W
F \ i
M?
w?
to
W o NOLL03S J(
ka
zw
?cc \
l
am
w..??
O za
Y S w z3
w
i,,
ti co
off' - A4
? 2 ? ? yi`ti y U
i ?T €. : g N01103S'k ?,°" Fo ? ,
2 w 5 e.
0
b za
Mw
x
\ti
B00NDARY
.` z CATION EASEMENT
?ONSER
.
yo?C
y-P
? o
w
w
a
w
z w
w
¢°
z
\ °0
s
=Z°? /j
ww
ww
x
°m
w?
w?
zw
w0
Ow
3ww
w
LL 133HS 3NIIHO1HW
/sz/z
u6p-8?-ysd-gse-??o}ylnos-..6910\sueid\u6ksa?\b6910\?-
S0OZ/81/0

APPENDIX B
2008 Cross Section Data and Profile Data
Cross Section Parameter As-Built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
XS1-UT2A-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 6.5 5.3 5.45 5.5 4.8
Bankfull Width 9.45 7.53 9.65 7.9 11.6
Bankfull Depth 0.69 0.71 0.56 0.7 0.4
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.22 1.26 1.4 1.4 1.2
Width/De th Ratio 13.78 10.61 17.08 11.2 28
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 6 7.6 6.2 7.2 --

XS2-UT2A-POOL Bankfull Area 35.8 29.7 30.46 16.5 25.3
Bankfull Width 19.57 19 18.6 9.2 21.3
Bankfull Depth 1.83 1.56 1.63 1.8 1.2
Max. Bankfull Depth 4.38 3.51 3.4 2.9 2.7
Width/De th Ratio 10.68 12.17 11.36 5.1 18
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1 1 0.8 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 3 --- 6.1

XS3-UT2A-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 11.1 10.3 12.94 11.0 9.6
Bankfull Width 16.22 16.51 12.16 15.9 14.5
Bankfull Depth 0.68 0.62 0.98 0.7 0.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.39 1.35 1.92 1.4 1.5
Width/De th Ratio 23.72 26.52 13.37 22.9 21.7
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4 3.9 4.6 3.8 ---

XS4-UT2A-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 10.2 8.7 8.9 10.0 9.6
Bankfull Width 13.83 14.06 13.88 13.9 16.7
Bankfull Depth 0.74 0.62 0.64 0.7 0.6
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.27 1.13 1.21 1.2 1.2
Width/De th Ratio 18.75 22.71 21.63 19.5 29
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.1 4 4.3 4.3 ---

XS5-UT2A-POOL Bankfull Area 37.9 35 31.08 23.2 29
Bankfull Width 20.1 20.63 20.95 17.2 22.5
Bankfull Depth 1.88 1.7 1.48 1.3 1.3
Max. Bankfull Depth 3.07 2.6 2.26 1.8 2.3
Width/De th Ratio 10.67 12.15 14.12 12.8 17.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4 3.9 --- 4.6 ---

XS6-UTIB-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 16.9 10.2 12.92 12.6 11.7
Bankfull Width 16.07 13.95 16.45 11.7 16.3
Bankfull Depth 1.05 0.73 0.79 1.1 0.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.97 1.41 1.88 1.9 2.1
Width/De th Ratio 15.3 19.04 20.94 10.3 22.7
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.8 4.4 3.6 5.6

XS7-UTIB-POOL Bankfull Area 37 41 34.17 34.0 30
Bankfull Width 19.35 22.08 18.66 19.9 17.5
Bankfull Depth 1.91 1.86 1.83 1.7 1.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 3.4 3.57 3.27 3.1 3.1
Width/Depth Ratio 10.11 11.87 10.19 11.7 10.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.8 3.3 3.5

XS8-UTIB-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 14 13.9 11.25 11.9 13.8
Bankfull Width 15.83 16.16 16.31 15.2 18.6
Bankfull Depth 0.89 0.86 0.69 0.8 0.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.53 1.54 1.51 1.5 1.5
Width/De th Ratio 17.84 18.78 23.65 19.3 25.2
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.6 3.5 37 4.0

XS9-UT2B-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 17.5 17.3 16.47 16.3 13
Bankfull Width 17.72 19.31 17.95 17.4 15.3
Bankfull Depth 0.99 0.89 0.92 0.9 0.9
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.8 1.78 1.71 1.7 1.5
Width/De th Ratio 17.89 21.59 19.56 18.7 18
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0

XS10-UT2B-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 17 20.9 21.68 18.7 15.7
Bankfull Width 15.74 21.67 20.25 16.1 15.7
Bankfull Depth 1.08 0.96 1.07 1.2 1
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.97 1.91 2.02 2.0 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio 14.61 22.51 18.91 13.8 15.8
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 2.5 2.5 3.3 ---
Cross Section Parameter As-Built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
XS11-M1-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 28.1 25.4 29.52 26.3 15.5
Bankfull Width 22.83 23.98 22.42 24.4 17.7
Bankfull Depth 1.23 1.06 1.32 1.1 0.9
Max. Bankfull Depth 2.21 2.04 2.33 2.0 1.4
Width/De th Ratio 18.54 22.69 17.02 22.6 20.2
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.1 1 1.1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.9 ---

XS12-M1-POOL Bankfull Area 70.8 66.2 58.15 26.3 28
Bankfull Width 34.76 36.94 37.53 24.4 21.6
Bankfull Depth 2.04 1.79 1.55 1.1 1.3
Max. Bankfull Depth 4.04 4.18 3.75 2.0 2.5
Width/De th Ratio 17.07 20.63 24.22 22.6 16.6
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 2.3 --- 2.9 ---

XS13-UT3-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 9.2 7.9 6.99 4.8 9.8
Bankfull Width 12.85 12.18 12.92 10.0 14.6
Bankfull Depth 0.72 0.65 0.54 0.5 0.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.38 1.18 1.1 1.1 1.4
Width/De th Ratio 17.9 18.76 23.87 21.1 21.8
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 4.9 4.6 6.0

XS14-UT3-POOL Bankfull Area 28.4 28.9 22.4 19.6 23.1
Bankfull Width 21.01 22.97 22.17 20.6 26.3
Bankfull Depth 1.35 1.26 1.01 0.9 0.9
Max. Bankfull Depth 3.07 2.81 2.51 2.2 2.1
Width/De th Ratio 15.53 18.29 21.94 21.7 30
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.3 3 --- 3.4 ---

XS1-UT4-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 35.8 29.7 30.46 16.54292 7.7
Bankfull Width 19.57 19 18.6 9.203541 9.3
Bankfull Depth 1.83 1.56 1.63 1.797452 0.8
Max. Bankfull Depth 4.38 3.51 3.4 2.9179 1.7
Width/De th Ratio 10.68 12.17 11.36 5.120327 11.2
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1 1 0.772782 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 3 6.128076 ---

XS2-UT4-POOL Bankfull Area 16.3 13.4 16.47 9.6 12.8
Bankfull Width 13.04 13.49 15.84 12.7 20.3
Bankfull Depth 1.25 0.99 1.04 0.8 0.6
Max. Bankfull Depth 2.12 1.85 2.15 1.5 2.2
Width/De th Ratio 10.45 13.59 15.23 16.8 32.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.7 4.3 --- 4.7

XS3-UT4-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 5.1 6.7 4 5.7 3.9
Bankfull Width 7.71 12.07 6.43 8.1 11.9
Bankfull Depth 0.67 0.56 0.62 0.7 0.3
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.07 1.24 1.12 1.3 1.5
Width/De th Ratio 11.57 21.66 10.37 11.4 36.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 7.6 4.8 9.3 7.4 ---

XS4-M2-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 12.9 13.9 11.54 12.4 16.8
Bankfull Width 15.07 16.74 15.01 15.8 18.4
Bankfull Depth 0.85 0.83 0.77 0.8 0.9
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.57 1.66 1.69 1.8 1.8
Width/De th Ratio 17.65 20.22 19.53 20.2 20.1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.1 1 0.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3 2.7 3 2.9 ---

XS5-M2-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 16.3 31.6 32.48 30.3 33.4
Bankfull Width 14.59 17.76 17.05 16.8 15.4
Bankfull Depth 1.12 1.78 1.91 1.8 2.2
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.84 3.38 3.44 3.2 3.1
Width/De th Ratio 13.07 9.97 8.95 9.4 7.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.2 1 0.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.4 3.6 3.5 3.9 -

XS6-M2-POOL Bankfull Area 26 27.5 27.82 29.2 29.8
Bankfull Width 15.99 14.5 13.24 13.2 12.9
Bankfull Depth 1.63 1.89 2.1 2.2 2.3
Max. Bankfull Depth 2.76 2.98 3.21 3.3 3.2
Width/De th Ratio 9.83 7.66 5.3 5.9 5.6
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.7 4.1 --- 4.6 ---
Cross Section Parameter As-Built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
XS7-M2-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 19.9 20 17.39 15.3 23.2
Bankfull Width 15.56 18.72 15.44 14.2 19.4
Bankfull Depth 1.28 1.07 1.13 1.1 1.2
Max. Bankfull Depth 2.44 2.36 2.22 2.2 2.1
Width/De th Ratio 12.15 17.49 13.71 13.1 16.2
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.1 3.1 3.9 4.4 ---

XS8-UT5-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 12.3 10.1 7.9 8.9 11.7
Bankfull Width 15.34 14.08 12.22 13.1 17.5
Bankfull Depth 0.8 0.72 0.65 0.7 0.7
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.76 1.45 1.19 1.3 1.6
Width/De th Ratio 19.21 19.56 18.9 19.4 26.2
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.6 4.1 3.8

XS9-UT5-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 11.1 12.4 8.85 10.7 4.6
Bankfull Width 14.91 16.99 14.86 14.9 9
Bankfull Depth 0.75 0.73 0.6 0.7 0.5
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.34 1.28 1.09 1.3 1.1
Width/De th Ratio 19.94 23.27 24.95 20.8 17.5
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.4 3.4 3.1

XS10-UT5-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 6 4.9 4.44 4.2 4.2
Bankfull Width 8.04 7.83 8.47 7.5 9.7
Bankfull Depth 0.75 0.62 0.52 0.6 0.4
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.02 0.98 0.82 0.9 0.7
Width/De th Ratio 10.76 12.6 16.17 13.7 22.7
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.1 1.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 4.1 4.2 3.5 4.5

XS11-UT5-POOL Bankfull Area 8.4 9 5.52 4.7 3.2
Bankfull Width 11.47 16.42 10.88 9.4 7.6
Bankfull Depth 0.73 0.55 0.51 0.5 0.4
Max. Bankfull Depth 1.78 1.25 1.15 1.1 0.8
Width/De th Ratio 15.66 29.85 21.43 18.7 18.1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3 2.1 -- 3.7 ---
k ll
South Fork, Cross Section 1-UT2A, Riffle
99
'..
98
97
v
J.7
96
95
0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (Ii)
- ___As-Built -4 Year 2 -*---Year 3 ?-'Year 4 - Bankfull Elcvatiun -- Floodpronc Arca
South Fork, Cross Section 2-UT2A, Pool
96
95
94
w
0
.? 93
u:
9'
91
9o
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
-°-As-Built -4- Ycai tYcar3 --+- Year4 - Bankfull Elevation

South Fork, Cross Section 3-UT2A, Riffle
9S
??-
94
93
0 e
v 92

A
90
,
0 5 10 15 20 2S 30 35 40 45 50 SS 60 65 70
Width (ft)
-°As-Built -4-N iN"'lm,l --4- a_ iN-Riglllpinl ""?'Y r4 -6anklidl Flwalion -Fl-dprnneAreal
92
91
w_
c
° 90
v
W
89
88
South Fork, Cross Section 4-UT2A, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
As-Built -0 Year2 4 Year3 ?t?Year4 -BankfiillElevation -Floodprone Area
South Fork, Cross Section 5-UT2A, Pool
92
91
90
w_
o 99
w
HK
87
96
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
As-Built -*-- Year 2 -?- Year 3 Year 4 Bankfull Elevation
90
??>R 1
R?Y1 .
94
93
92
c
91
a?
90
89
88
0

Ai_

Yam„ ?
p
't^ 'g ?` @?*
?
; e

SA' i d* ?? i

g
R" i

Looking a t he rig bank.
South Fork, Cross Section 6-UTIB, Riffle
r
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
_ Width (ft)
- As-Built -0 Year 2 (New RPin) _-?-Year 3 (New Right Pin) ^---4--? Year 4 Bankfull I{levation -Floodprone Area

41

,
x r ? T. ?
? 'i r4
-
?y

? # d S?
'? R
t
?
t s
4 tt
??

Looking a th e rig bank.
South Fork, Cross Section 7-UTlB, Pool
94
93

9, A

? 91
90
w
89
ss

87

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 x0
Width (ft)
- A,-Built -1 Year2 0 Year3 7 -°Year4 -Bankfull Elevation)
92
91
90
c
0
° 89
W
88
87
South Fork, Cross Section 8-UT1B, Riffle

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
As-Built Year 2 Year 3 "?- Year 4 Bankfull Elevation - Floodprone Area

92
91
90
0
89
88
87
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
°As-Built_---Yem 4 Year3 Yew 4 -Bank(ull Elevation -Floodprone Area
South Fork, Cross Section 9-UT2B, Riffle
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I?

•
•
•
•
•
•
South Fork, Cross Section 10-UT2B, Riffle
92
91
90
89
'
v
88
87
86
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width (ft)
'As-Built -Year2 Year4 -BankfillElevation Floodpione Area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

y41
South Fork, Cross Section 11-M1, Riffle
92
• 91
90
• ° R9
88
• 87 `tea.
86?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Width (ft)
A03uilt f-Year2 4 Year3 ?-Year4 -BankfullElevation -FloodproneArea
75
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

90
89
88
87
0
86
CL1
85
84
83

t y

a 00 s
{`
l i
y I
•
.

Looking a the rig bank.
South Fork, Cross Section 12-M 1, Pool

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Width (ft)
- -- As-Built 0 Year 2 -?-Year 3 (New Right Pin) --*- Year 4 - BankfulI Elevation
S
S
44
c
e

P

J
'
4 ? 3Y .t ?
„? ??y
y ?

;i F
tk - g , ?°w? "? J?J..r{ • ''fit
-k t
?
00 1ng a e rlg an .
93
9'
c
91
90
9
11
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width (ft)
=As-Built-*--Year2-0 Ycar3_°°+1-Year4- 6anklr II Elevation - Flocdprone Area
60 65
South Fork, Cross Section 13-UT3, Riffle

i,
$ IL a a 4b

A
t !
0o Ing a e e an .
South Fork, Cross Section 14-OT3, Pool
94
93
92
w
91
o
90

89
88
87

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Width (ft)
as. ° As-Built -* Year 2 -* Year 3 ^?" °_Yew 4 Bankfull Elevation

South Fork, Cross Section 1-UT4, Riffle
108
r1?
107
106
v
105 -
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Width (ft)
As-Built - -- Year 2 - 4 Year 3 --,*,-Year 4 - Bankfull Elevation - Eloodprone Area
. t.
p" ?e?Ilk-

South Fork, Cross Section 2-UT4, Pool
106
105
104

ro
° 103
w 102

101
100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Width (ft)
-As-Built_ 4 Year2 0Year 3 --1--Year4 -Bankfiill Elevation
#'i r

c

%

r 4,
?

Looking at the left bank.
Looking at the right bank.
South Fork, Cross Section 3-UT4, Riffle
100
99
K
O
N
98
97 f
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Width (ft)
As-Built -?-Year2 -+-Year3 0 Year4 -BankfullLlevation -FloodproneAre.

• -
•
•
•
•
•
South Fork, Cross Section 4-M2, Riffle
89

sa

0 87 m

86
85

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
°As-Built - -*--Year2 4 Year3 --,+-Year4 --Bankfiilll`.levation --IIuudproneArea?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• South Fork, Cross Section 5-M2, Riffle
HS
• 84
• 83
• v 82
• ? 81 _
o _
80 p?
• w 79
• 78
• 77
• 76
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
• Width (ft)
As-Built -+- Year 2 -*- Year 3 - Year 4 - Bankful I Elevation - Floodprone Area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• t i r " tF
R e `
a
0o Ing a e e
•
7s
•
77
76
•
• °- 75
co 74
73
•
72
0 5 10
•
•
South Fork, Cross Section 6-M2, Pool
60
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width (ft)
- ^N-As-Built -+-Year2 -0 Year3 --$-Year 4 BankfullElevation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
'
m
,

A^?t,4'S 1 : i i k

.
•k : jam
{ ?"? '{ -A'
78
77
76
w
c
p 75
74
73
72
South Fork, Cross Section 7-M2, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Width (ft)
- ^- -"As-Built Year 2 -? Year 3 5'--Year 4 -Bankfull Elevation -Floodprone Area
•
•
•
•
•
•
South Fork, Cross Section 8-UT5, Riffle
95
94 ?..
c
? 93
Wes`
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
As-Built 0 Year2 4 Year3 Year4 BankfiillElevation -Floodpl, Area
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

9s.o
97.5
97.0
w
96.5
ro
v
96.0
95.5
95.0
South Fork, Cross Section 9-UT5, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
Le As-Built +Year 2 +Year 3 --4-Yea, 4 - Bankfull Flo ation Floodprone Area

R ? p

a .f ,
t! ? ?_
Jt,
#-

a1 E ? • '? 1 A
-0
I?iw'W
?
[_c9c? .Irlc? ?i t
e e t an
]()().S
100
w 99.5
c
0
ro
u 99
95.5
95
(l
South Fork, Cross Section I O-UT5, Riffle
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
L As-Bttilt Year 2 (New LPin) Year 3 -'*-Year .4 -Bankfilll Elevation -Floodprone Area

„ S1
s? 4 ? ', t ft t''? r 9

?
? ?I??1'!f,1Wa? n' l> 4`\ Cis t

¦
na

y a ?`? c i 4yn J

r? a ?F IINN
1 !Ir ?,

I_?® 11"1 LJ at t T' fIJ t ?§t1
South Fork, Cross Section 11-UT5, Pool
102
101,5
101
w
1005
ro
v
100
99,5
99
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
?. Ituih. ... lc.r 1'-.ar; lrar-l Ranl:liill llevnii?ai '
O
O
It
O

CE ?

i
N

(L$

c
J '
i
I

i

aV

N

CD
O HI
?I
? O

? J

I
?
I

H ?

I
?
d'

N
Cf)

0

? I
co
i

Q II
?
M
1?
?
?M
?t
1
N II?
? ?i
M
N
N
1
1 3E

«)
4 * 4
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O U
G° c
C15
T
r)
a)
c
c
cv
U
O
O
It
LO
O
O
N
LO
O
O
O
O
O
00
It
MI \ I o
r-, (o0 q m N 0mmN0L!),I-
LO LO Lr) LO LO LC) m ? It It It ? Iq
(11) uOlIenal3

M }?
N
O
? ?
Cfl
+i
t N
M
M
•I-
i

?

H

« O

cn

i
r N

cz
N
C N

•

co

:?. •
O ? N
N
m
N ? •

Q ?
m • • C

? + U
Q •
?
N I + •
?•
cz
N
} ?
u X

0
a+ O
l N
d,

+J
co
??
a ??
M

s ?
? ? O
00
• ? r
w
i

M

I
N

+
? s j

?

? ? j

?• o
O
0
f co T
LO U-) LO
LO 0)
T T
(11) UOIIEA
813

Mj
f
? O
LO

.?
f N
N
I
I
w
? j

O
T
N

i
O
J «I

ctY
3
C)
Lf)
*
r O
N

N
N ' fff ?
0 O
O J « C
• w z

H ?

'I «
0
LO
rn

m

10

im
.
Q

4+ o
« In
OD

.e

t
e.
w

? e
.?
O
LO
r
O
r-
T 00 CO cr
O O O
T T T N O 00 CO
O O O O
T T ?' N O
O O O T
(11) UOIIBA913

0
0
0
C'')

.it

0
0
rn
N
i

i i
? 1 O
O
3 ?. N

m

'IJ . •
. e

R
L

0
O
I`
•.
N N
. ,
N
f . ? c
? ,
LL ? C

N ? ••
? z
U
CJ? ? w
k

? I
.
?
N f
? w

w?
?i
m
?
O
Q O
N

w
w
M

O
O
N
.
•
w!
w.+

O
O
M
O I? M M M f\ LO M
O O O O O M M M M O N
M
(11) UOIJBAa13

LO
CC)
N
H

i
i
LO
r
N
i
i
of
w
t
N

ai
c .?s LO
r-
J
r O
N

i

i
T
i
N t
!r

in i

N i
+ e• U

N

t
L cz

?
0 0 m f fO
N LO

? (±
N i ? e .3 U
?

}
N?
+j

S
i N

I ?

Q
i
N

1
a F!f
?
co
N
s.
e .?
?f
s
f
t

N
i
i
i

LO

O
O
00 CO ?t N O 00 O
m m m 00 m N r-
? N O
I\ N r- N
N
(14) u011Pn813

APPENDIX C
2008 Site Photos
Stream Photos

UT1A station 10+00. Wrack in fence.
1
U TI A station 13+00. Small debris jam.

UTIA station 14+80. Slump on right bank.

` .
lh?
?.

ge ar. i

Y
Ul'IA station 19+00. Typical bank erosion.

UT1A station 33+00. Debris jam and right bank erosion.
may," `yaa' 4r r, .
e e a s..
s,
r
u
Ut I B station 37+60. End cut on right bank at grade control structure.

UTl B station 58+40. Unstable root wad.
UTIB station 60+00. Unstable root wad.
•
•
• ?1. t •?
Ilk
.?•t??.?i• y..°?. per v??l
• a "? ? A,? 1 aq..f ?.j t.????+ Ak'Vi,
, 117 ilk
• 'i~ '?
117
• i ?. t ! ° ,g
t ? ?• ? ? ,: iii
k ilk
Y1. F
RAI
,' '°ti
AM ?.
-off

?f ,uf ( f1

, NW4`
b

h4?Ww

UT2A station 21+60. Constructed riffle header perched.

MeA

? ?? ? ?. .j .: ? ?' t
" .' +?r !M?'` , b '?'S.• ?`- r ?'''?s s . G g .mac-,
!
y, (41
a r s a r Y f
s iT

.aens "r arwM-. 17
-..? - ?
Z
•-°'
x»44 '? a,:
, ?"..
{

dj
'6
?i?F r
•
I 4 o
r
+?l
`'
•
_
0
Y
.

1.a .
i
?
1
( ri '?y a
r.Q
xx
'?a3 , yY, '.
,?,

:
!
??
yy
a." ?a
;?
10
4
,
?y
L•.
P .?

M2 station 38+20. Erosion/settling on right bank.
Vegetation Photos
•
•
M ? z. A
i?
Ale
P ? Sa. F ? f ?4
• -? t ` ^ ?.3 g?? of ? <, yi J 2x R??" ;
Vegetation Plot I.
t a?qs'
',
frYi ? ?'
fix.. ? •?_ ???. , .??
,. ^ e
as ..xi ? .? ?i? ?' ??y •t vi:,??c `.
Vegetation Plot 2.
Vegetation Plot 3

? +P n.
y R 7"
L j
?? 7:R ? f YhY 2? 1,,t ?.4 ti L yy ?R'?
ri r ?1 } ? ?Lrl ?.i i
,.rr 1 sus` rl ?yF?'1" ( '11?t § "4
4 F Z? I f a u ?F a,l; ''L?fii?` 1 e W
Vegetation Plot 4
( 4
• z F Y
s
• +? ram f Y. ? r' A? ? "'?1
Vegetation Plot 5.
i
F ?. i, t ?{ I ' o r
1
4"A
?t ? ai d4p. ?, cif ? ?t •.:?y rr ? i?
kk
Vcuct Dion Plot 6
•
•
•
J// j, tt
• w
•y X y
? y
3 i Y`47 5{ u, r tips ,? H
1J Ao
• ?"B.°7,? ? ??????yy,, }mot ? J?? 1A ,?ss t? F? ,.t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•