20041511 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20100506

2004151/
recd 51LO110
Open Springs Mitigation Project
Randolph County, North Carolina
FINAL Year 5 Monitoring Report
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
September 2009

Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... .. 2
2.2 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Project History & Schedule .......................................................................................... 6
3.0 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................... .. 6
3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................................... .. 6
3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................... .. 6
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................. .. 8
3.4 Vegetation Observations & Conclusions ................................................................... 10
4.0 STR EAM MONITORING ................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 10
4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................................ 10
4.2.1 Cross Sections ................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile .......................................................................................... 11
4.2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Cross Sections ................................................................................................... 15
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile .......................................................................................... 15
4.3.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 15
4.4 Stream Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 17
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 17
i
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. USGS Map ....................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Site Overview ................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Stream Problem Areas ....................................................................................................12
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation for Open Springs .............................................................................. 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ...................................................................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................................................... .. 6
Table 3. Project Contacts ............................................................................................................... ..6
Table 4. Planted Tree Species ........................................................................................................ .. 7
Table 5. Results of Vegetation Monitoring - Year 5 ..................................................................... .. 8
Table 6. Summary of Results - Year 5 ............................................................................................ 9
Table 7. Volunteer Tree Species .................................................................................................... 10
Table 8a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters - UT1 ............................................. 14
Table 8b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters - UT4 ............................................ 14
Table 9. Stream Areas Requiring Observation .............................................................................. 14
Table 10. Crest Gauge Data ........................................................................................................... 15
Table 11. Randolph County and On-site Rainfall Data ................................................................. 16
Table 12. Summary of Stream Crest Gauge Data 2005-2009 ........................................................ 17
Table 13a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2005-2009 for UTI ...................... 17
Table 13b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2005-2009 for UT4 ...................... 18
Table 14. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2005-2009 ................................................... 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2008 Site Photos
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring data collected during the 2009 growing season on the
Open Springs Mitigation Site. Construction of the site, including planting of trees, was completed
in April 2005. The 2009 data represent results from Year 5 of morphologic and vegetation
monitoring.
The Open Springs Stream Mitigation Project site is located in Randolph County, North Carolina,
northeast of Ramseur within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin. The NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) contracted with EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX) to perform
mitigation work at the site under Full Delivery Project S-1. A total of 4,835 stream mitigation
units (SMU) were generated from this project through restoration and enhancement of stream and
riparian habitats.
The project has been monitored for five years to determine the success of the restoration and
enhancement efforts. Baseline data on stream morphology and vegetation were collected
immediately after construction and planting were complete. This information is documented in
the As-Built Report dated July 25, 2005 (Appendix A). Information on stream morphology and
vegetation was collected each year and compared to the baseline data and data from previous
monitoring years in order to determine whether the site is meeting success criteria.
Monitoring of the vegetation plots in 2009 recorded an average of 570 planted stems per acre at
the site. All of the plots exceeded the five year success criteria of 260 stems per acre.
The stream morphology is stable with the site experiencing multiple bankfull events in 2009.
Very little fluvial erosion was observed, and many of the riffle features are collecting small
gravel, as expected. The longitudinal profile and all monitored cross-sections show very little
adjustment of stream dimension.
Habitat has been improved significantly throughout the project. Vegetation is successful across
the site, and provides riparian habitat, water quality benefits, and cover for the stream system.
Based on the results of the vegetative and morphological monitoring over years one through five,
it was concluded that the site has achieved the vegetative and stream success criteria specified in
the Mitigation Plan.
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in Randolph County, North Carolina, northeast of the town of Ramseur
(Figure 1 & Figure 2) within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
project site is bound to the north and east by Ferguson Road and Low Bridge Road, respectively.
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
The objective of this project is to provide at least 4,520 stream mitigation units (SMU) to the
NCDOT through the full delivery process. The mitigation units are to be accomplished through
the restoration and enhancement of stream and riparian habitats as defined in the inter-agency
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003).
Four unnamed tributaries to the Deep River flow across the project site. The streams are referred
to in this report as UT-l, UT-2, UT-3, and UT-4. Prior to implementation of the mitigation plan,
the streams were disturbed due to the impacts of unrestricted cattle access, dredging, and other
anthropic channel manipulations. UT-1 was the most degraded resource and was the focus of
restoration efforts. A total of 3,202 mitigation units were achieved by restoring plan form, cross
section, and profile features on UT-l. In addition, a small tributary enters UT-1 near station
14+50, referred to herein as UT-4. The bed of this tributary was raised to maintain a stable
confluence with UT-1. An existing slope discontinuity approximately 175 feet upstream of the
confluence was deemed the natural location to tie in grades. The sinuosity designed for this small
tributary yielded an additional 307 linear feet of stream. Therefore, a total of 3,509 SMU were
generated from stream restoration on UT-1 and UT-4.
UT-2 is the master stream and, although it has been locally disturbed by cattle, it was in relatively
good physical condition. Enhancements to UT-2 include cattle exclusion, localized bank
stabilization and debris removal, riparian buffer planting, and control of invasive/exotic
vegetation. UT-2 has a total length of 2,397 feet on the subject property. An existing farm
crossing was maintained, and 53 feet are being held near the east property line to accommodate a
future crossing, leaving 2,329 linear feet for stream enhancement. Using the 2.5:1 ratio for Level
II stream enhancement (USACE, 2003), 931 SMU were generated from UT-2. UT-3 flows
through a regenerated pine plantation and is also in good physical condition. However, the
riparian habitat along UT-3 is in poor condition and enhancement efforts included riparian buffer
planting to increase diversity and control invasive/exotic vegetation. At the 2.5:1 enhancement
ratio, 395 linear feet of UT-3 were enhanced to deliver the total 4,835 SMU.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives

UT -1 3,202 Restoration
UT-2 931 Enhancement
UT-3 395 Enhancement
UT-4 307 Restoration
Total 4,835

0
c?
Open Springs Project Site

F
Lf,

Figure 1.
Open Springs Stream Mititgation Site
Project Location Map
Randolph County, NC
1 inch equals 5,280 feet
I*
4011

Ix
m
N
m

10
`.A/ �,._/ ' • \ 1 i .� � 4/)� - (///
Open Springs Project Site
IV
- ,�'1�� �.I �; �I II I _ 1r } II .'�� • .-'7 .... J i' r:J/J\��% + L� )
�x 4*1
_ �` �y� /�\ (�+`' ` • `1 %J; _� r / /''J� I it r ✓�/ �{^�^
�
�4 ` t� r�
a, 600 r' 1,ham=%- 'V1
NJ
1 I •� u -�; /�/ i' i�..i C�\J 11) .'J t�`��� ���'\ \ `\ ` - i� \• _ � ' ,�)il lJ ��/l.�'/��%'ls✓)lr
r'/. ` ` � �\`.inl r�� � / .'•'�. ` { . /� i%: oma./% _"4 `y `�. , r \� �. r � �' i /
\�: ( _'-. r ��\�, ' , ! � � ` , `� YAP• � t �, yi'/ �-� % � �:
', �`�' Iii - � /�' • -) ) r. C'" _ \'� �- �, r-�,",;�.` j,` � ` -'`�� ''' '� '� 1) ��.''.� • / j i �� I ' �),? \ �.
`—!'l`..;ti.� \�-•1 !ice 1.-�•L"ii Lam. � l�,)- J,=-�� ���-./•` rl � � t /� �•� ��J
x i. 1� (t o ,\t1 (j p •rl �� � ) nlJ r t` . ^ r! J`
f '
i
Figure
Open Springs Stream Mititgation Site
USGS Topographic Map
Randolph County,
1 inch equals 2,000 --

X
00
X
J
C
I
O
n
? C
? X
00
C
I
N -
O `< <
? ? n J
I ?
X N
X (,o
(n C',
<0
U
o <
G
CA
`e
0 C G
-3 O 7)
o ( N X x
cn n
u2
M
M O
CD Q G
< l
m'
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX) as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as
solicited through the NCDOT's Full Delivery Project S-1. This project was identified by EBX in
the spring of 2003. Table 2 outlines the project history and milestones.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Month ' i
Mitigation Plan Aril-04
Final Design November-04
Construction Aril-05
Vegetation Planting Aril-05
As-built (Baseline) Report July-05
Year I Monitoring November-05
Year 2 Monitoring November-06
Year 3 Monitoring November-07
Year 4 Monitoring November-08
Year 5 Monitoring November-09
Table 3. Project Contacts
Contact Firm Information
Project Manager
Norton Webster F.BX-Neuse 1. I.LC
[phone]
Designer
David Kiker, PE WK Dickson and Co., Inc
[phone]
Monitoring Contractor
Daniel Ingram WK Dickson and Co., Inc
[phone]
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Open Springs Mitigation Site was survival of at
least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the year three monitoring period. The final
vegetative success criteria is the survival of 260 planted trees per acre at the end of year five of
the monitoring period (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et. al. 2003). Success of riparian vegetation
will be evaluated annually through monitoring of planted stem survival and photo documentation
of vegetation plots. An assessment of the natural regeneration of woody stems and herbaceous
cover will also be performed. Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised
of volunteers. Remedial action may be required should these volunteers (i.e. loblolly pine, red
maple, sweet gum, etc.) present a problem and exceed 20 percent composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
All vegetation was planted in April 2005 after construction was complete. Bare root native tree
and shrub species were planted to establish forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both
sides of the restored stream. The plants were selected to establish multiple strata and a diverse
6
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
mix of species (Table 4). The planted area consists of two zones. The first is a wetter zone
predominantly consisting of moist soil species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica) and
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). The second is a drier zone predominantly consisting of mesic
species such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). The plots
were planted at an average density of 693 stems per acre.
Table 4. Planted Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name FAC Status
Shrubs
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis FACW-
Paw Paw Asimina triloba FAC
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+
Tag alder Alnus serrulata FACW+
Trees
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica FAC
Black Locust Robiinia pseudocacia FACU-
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana FAC
Red Oak Quercus rubra FACU
River Birch Betula nigra FACW
Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra FAC
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW-
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FAC
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica FAC
To monitor the success of riparian buffer vegetation, twelve plots were established on the Open
Springs Mitigation Site. The plots cover approximately 2 percent of the site and are 1/40th of an
acre in size. The locations of these plots were randomly distributed across the planted portions of
the site. The center of each plot is marked with a ten-foot section of metal fence post with a white
PVC cover. Within each established plot, the planted woody stems were identified with a
numbered aluminum tag, and marked with a three-foot section of white PVC pipe. The initial and
total numbers of trees planted in each plot are listed in Table 6. Table 5 shows the number of
trees in c; ch 1°!ot by species. Plantcd xoody specie, %vd! be monitored 'v"icc per year for '!'c first
three years. Herbaceous plant cover was monitored during the 2009 annual monitoring visit using
the notched-boot method.
In the years immediately following construction, abnormally dry to drought conditions caused
higher than normal mortality in some areas and slowed overall growth of both planted trees and
herbaceous vegetation. To compensate for the mortality observed in 2006, portions of the site
were replanted in March 2007 with 2-year-old trees, and the site was treated with herbicide to
control fescue. Approximately 1,600 trees were replanted around vegetation plots VP 1, VP 2, VP
4, VP 7, VP 9, and VP 12. Tree species planted include those shown in Table 4, except for
slippery elm, tag alder, and black gum. Eastern redbud was an additional species planted. Due to
low stem counts, a replanting around plotsVP9 and VP 10 was conducted in spring 2008 with 3-
year old stems.
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Stem counts were conducted at each monitoring plot during July 2009. All 12 vegetation
monitoring plots were evaluated for success, and the overall condition of vegetation at the site
was assessed. Table 5 and Table 6 show the number of each species of woody plants recorded
for each plot and the success rate of each plot. The range of surviving planted stems after the fifth
year range from 324 to 810 stems per acre, with an average of 570 planted trees per acre. Plots 9
and 10 were identified as problem areas in 2007 due to low stem counts. In 2009, plots 9 and 10
had 445 and 324 stems per acre, respectively. All of the plots met the five year success criteria of
260 stems per acre. In previous years, plots 6 and 9 had high numbers of black willow, which
appeared to be affecting the survival of the planted trees. In 2009, black willow was no longer a
dominant species in either of these plots, and it was noted that the planted trees in plot 9 appear to
be healthier than in previous years.
Changes in survival have also occurred because of re-sprouting of some species. In previous
years, elderberry, iron wood, green ash, sycamore, and red oak in several plots resprouted from
the root crown of stems that were previously recorded as dead. Resprouts were observed in plots
2, 3, and 7 in 2009. Two photos of each vegetation plot were taken at the time of the stem counts,
one facing upstream and the other facing downstream (Appendix Q.
Table 5. Results of Vegetation Monitoring - Year 5
Plots
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Shrubs
Elderberry I
Paw Paw 3 1 6
Silk Dogwood 1 3 2 1
Trees
Black Locust 4 1
Black um 1 1 1
Green Ash 10 1 2 14 2 6 9 8 3 4 1 3
Iron Wood 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 12 4
Red Oak 1 2 7 3 1
River Birch 2 1 5 1 1 4 1
Sycamore 1 2 3 3 1 2
Tali 1 u lai
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 6. Summary of Results - Year 5

Plots Initial
Stems
Planted Additional
Stems
Planted Total
Stems
Planted Stems
Year 5 Stems per
Acre
Year 5
l 18 3 21 13 526
2 18 1 19 12 486
3 21 21 14 567
4 21 21 20 810
5 17 17 15 607
6 21 21 17 688
7 19 2 21 17 688
8 16 16 16 648
9 21 16 37 11 445
10 10 7 17 8 324
11 15 15 14 567
12 26 4 30 11 445

Average 19 14 570
Average Stems per Acre: 570
Range of Stems per Acre: 324-810
A plan view drawing of the vegetation plots is provided in Figures 3. The drawing includes the
appropriate information pertaining to vegetation monitoring of the project. The drawing also
shows the locations of the following features:
• Vegetation monitoring plots,
• Vegetation plot photo points,
• Locations of any vegetation problem areas, and
• Symbology to represent vegetative problem types (if appropriate).
The herbaceous vegetation at the site is variable in composition, as would be expected in a natural
riparian system. Areas previously observed to have bare soil have filled in with herbaceous cover.
Except for a few small linear areas. found just above top of bank in the section between vegetation
plots VP3 and VP4 herbaceous coverage is nearly 100 percent. These areas have filled in with
herbaccc,,!. vegetation and no remedial action ie reccmn:ended at fh:- time.
The locally dominant herbaceous species are dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Canadian
horseweed (Conyza canadensis), panic grass (Panicum anceps), Carolina horsenettle (Solanum
carolinense), and annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). The herbaceous vegetation across
the site is becoming diverse, and some of the other species found include: American pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), blackberry (Rubus argutus), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis),
common boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), foxtaiI (Setaria sp.), New York ironweed (vernonia
noveboracensis), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), shallow sedge (Carex
lurida), and strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus).
The most commonly found woody volunteer species were identified and monitored throughout
the five-year monitoring period (Table 7). Volunteer species were less visible, most likely
because of decreased germination, vigor, and survival due to the 2007 drought. The herbaceous
cover also obscures the smaller volunteer individuals. Natural recruitment across most of the site
9
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
is limited, mostly due to limited seed sources. The volunteer woody vegetation is less than 5
percent and does not present a problem.
Table 7. Volunteer Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name FAC Status
Black Willm Salix ni«ra OBI.
Persimmon Dios ,ros vir iniana FAC
Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC
Sli er Elm Ulmus rubra FAC
Sweet um Li uidambar s raci ua FAC+
Winged Elm Ulmus alata FACU+
3.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Both herbaceous early successional vegetation and planted stems have become well established
across the site. Natural recruitment of species is also beginning to develop, but does not threaten
to compete with the planted stems at this time. Despite the drought year in 2007, the vegetation at
this site is healthy and thriving. The area around plot VP10 has experienced a slightly higher
mortality than desired, but the stem counts have remained steady since 2008. No volunteer tree
species threaten the success of the planted trees. Each of the vegetation plots and the site as a
whole meets the year five vegetative success criteria.
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site include the
following:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period.
• 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 "E" or "C" type
channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
• Photos: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion
control measures.
• Benthic Macroin vertebrate and Fish Sampling: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish within the restored stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of
post-restoration monitoring.
4.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
Along UT-1 and UT-4 a natural channel design approach was applied to develop stable hydraulic
geometry parameters. Construction began in February 2005 and was completed in April 2005.
The rebuilding of the channel established stable cross-sectional geometry, increased plan form
10
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
sinuosity, and restored riffle-pool sequences and other streambed diversity to improve benthic
habitat. Approximately 3,510 linear feet of stream restoration has been constructed.
4.2.1 Cross Sections
The mitigation plan for the Open Springs project requires eight permanent cross sections to be
monitored along the restored tributaries UT-1 and UT-4. The cross sections were established after
construction in evenly distributed pairs of one riffle and one pool per 1,000 linear feet of restored
stream. Locations of cross sections are specified in Figure 3a. Each cross section will be
surveyed annually, including measurements of floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge
of water, and thalweg. In addition, any fluvial features present will be documented.
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles will be surveyed in all five years of the monitoring period. UT-4 will be
surveyed for its entire length. Profiles along UT-1 will be measured at three representative
sections, each comprising approximately 900 linear feet. The cumulative length of the measured
profiles will be at least 3,000 linear feet. Features measured will include thalweg, inverts of in-
stream structures, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank.
4.2.3 Hydrology
Two crest gauges were installed at the site; one on UT-1 near the downstream end of the project
and one on UT-4 near the UT-1 confluence (see locations in Figure 3a). Crest gauges will be
checked at least quarterly. During each visit, a determination of whether an out-of-bank event has
occurred since the prior visit will be made. During the gauge inspections, any high water marks or
debris lines will be documented and photographed.
4.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
Photographs were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (see Appendix Q. Herbaceous vegetation is moderately dense along the
restored stream. Pools have maintained a variety of depths and habitat qualities, depending on the
location and type of scour features (logs, root wads, transplants, etc.). Throughout the monitoring
season, both reaches had a steady flow. Few problems with stream morphology were observed
during the monitoring field visit. Throughout the project, many riffle structures were covered
with vegetation. Many of the riffle features are collecting small gravel, as expected. Some minor
siltation was observed, especially in the pool features, along UT-1. A summary of morphologic
So
ILI / 0°
% °
00
`Y
°
°ya
-00
/ o 550
-? O
D
61
50
o?
I °•B`
°o
K%a-c-. v a
T-: r•
? D
O i
C \
C)
J S
o Cil O
3 r
>
T Z _
n ? ? ? D 7
Z
? ? cra
D ? JL
CD ? Z
w D -
, e
MATCH LINE B
MATCH LINE C SEE FIGURE 4A
gC
!
'00
C %Jo
A J
4gj O?
9 J?µO0 JJ
fIn/ .tt
o
.5.2200
CA,
t ?
?? OS+4Z
?LT HRANCH \ N
v
nag ? ???
? oso ?a?
C +SZ v
? P
v \ #/92
0
SO
C A1i
? ? Otn
r \
Jx JY
00 O>9
S
1
/ o I
W._.
l a
¦
MATCH LINE C
= l
m
Q < m
r?r C ?
3 ? pm
m o >z
=z
A =
?p D
L
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report.for 2009 (Year 5)
monitoring parameters is provided in Tables 8a and 8b. Table 9 lists stream areas requiring
further observation, as well as the station and description of the noted areas. Photographs of each
area requiring observation can be found in Appendix C. A plan view drawing of the stream
problem areas is provided in Figure 4. The drawings show the locations of the following features:
• As-built stream centerline and bankfull limits
• All in-stream structures (e.g. root wads and log vanes)
• Locations of any stream channel problem areas
Table 8a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters - UT1 As- Parameter Built Year 5

Banktull Cross Section Area,

Abkf (s ft) 7'9 7.9
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 10.0 9.1
Bankfull W/D 13.6 12.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.4 1.4
Table 8b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters - UT4 As- Parameter Built Year 5

Bankfull Cross Section Area,
3'7
Abkf (s ft)
5.6
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.8 7.8
Bankfull W/D 17.2 11.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.1 1.2
Table 9. Stream Areas Requiring Observation
Photo
Feature Issue STA Suspected Cause/Suggestion Number

Vegetation in channel Ul I11uouhout Siltation, no action is required SPA I
Channel
Rocks have been displaced and minor
Cross Weir UTl 8+65 erosion has occurred; vegetation has SPA2
stabilized banks, no action is required
Header rock has been displaced; banks
Riffle Grade UT 128+00 and upstream grade control are stable, no SPA3
Control/Cross Weir action is required

Cross Weir
UTl 32+02 Rock has been displaced; banks are
SPA4
stable, no action is required
Vegetation in channel UT4 Throughout Siltation, no action is required SPAS
Channel
14
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
4.3.1 Cross Sections
The cross sections were surveyed during Year 5 monitoring activities in July 2009. Year 5
monitoring cross sections are shown with baseline cross sections, and Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and
Year 4 monitoring cross sections in Appendix B. There was very little difference between the
Year 5 monitoring cross sections and the As-built, Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 monitoring
cross sections.
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
The baseline longitudinal profiles were derived from the As-Built survey data. Profiles were
resurveyed during Year 5 monitoring activities in July 2009. The Year 5 monitoring profile is
shown with the baseline profile in Appendix B. Very little difference between the baseline
profile and the monitoring Year 5 profile was observed.
4.3.3 Hydrology
During each visit to the site, the crest gauges were read. This was done February-August of 2009.
At least three out-of-bank or bankfull events occurred during this period on UT-1, and five on
UT-2. Crest gauge data are included in Table 10. Weather data were collected from a nearby
weather station - Asheboro 2 W (310286). These data are summarized in Table 11 and Figure 5,
and indicate that a rainfall deficit is accumulating throughout the year.
Table 10. Crest Gauge Data
Month
Recorded Crest Gauge - UT1 Crest Gauge - UT2
Januar --- ---
February 1.45 0.50
March 0.60 1.60
April 1.00 1.60
May 0.00 0.00
June 0.00 1.60
Jul 0.00 0.00
August 0.00 0.90
September --- ---
October --- ---
November --- ---

15
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 11. Randolph Countv and On-site Rainfall Data
Norma l Limits
Month Average 30

Percent 70

Percent Asheboro
Precipitation On-Site
Precipitation
January 4.44 3.17 5.6 1.09 ---
February 3.71 2.51 4.63 1.21 ---
March 4.27 3.06 5.01 3.13 3.75
April 3.49 2.31 4.42 1.84 4.32
May 4.25 2.8 5.46 1.82 2.10
June 3.97 2.39 4.67 3.87 5.60
July 4.12 2.52 4.61 4.02 1.73
August 4.26 2.95 5.14 1.14 1.83
September 4.31 2.39 6.13 --- ---
October 3.59 1.82 4.07 --- ---
November 3.16 2.11 3.8 --- ---
December 3.26 2.32 3.93 --- ---
Annual --- 42.62 50.34 ---
Total 46.82 --- --- 18.12 19.33
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation for Open Springs
2009 Precipitation for Open Springs Site
10

9 -
8

7,
6

c
C L
Z 4 -
L
0.
3 -- -

2
1
0
J F M A M J J A S O N 1)
Months
---o- On-site Raingaue - - - - - - 30th/70th Percentile
6 Asheboro NionthW Rainfall
16
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
4.4 STREAM CONCLUSION
The stream morphology is stable, with the site experiencing multiple bankfull events in 2009.
Little fluvial erosion was observed, and many of the riffle features are collecting small gravel, as
expected. All potential problem areas are minor, and no repairs are recommended. It appears that
the site is moving toward stability.
The Open Springs site has recorded many bankfull events over the five year monitoring period.
The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. In-stream structures are stable and functioning as designed. Monitored
cross-sections have exhibited little adjustment in stream dimension. There are no stream problem
areas requiring repair. All erosion areas are moving toward stability or are normal in a dynamic
stream channel. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that the site has achieved the success
criteria for streams as specified in the Mitigation Plan for the site.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The stream, hydrologic, and vegetation monitoring data for all five monitoring years at the site
are summarized in Tables 12-14. Based on this data and the other data and comments provided
above in Sections 3 and 4, it can be concluded that the site has achieved the stream, hydrologic,
and vegetative success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
Table 12. Summary of Stream Crest Gauge Data 2005-2009
,
NEW
Number of Bankfull
Events
5
6 7
6
8 2009
5'
Maximum Height
Above Bankfull (feet) 1.40 2.45 2.30 2.40 1.6
'January - August
Table 13a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2005-2009 for UT1 As- Parameter Built Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Bankfull Cross Section Area,

Abkf (s ft) 7.9 8.6 7.9 8.1 7.5 7.9
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 10.0 13.4 11.7 9.3 8.9 9.1
Bankfull W/D 13.6 25.6 20.1 11.9 12.2 12.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4
17
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 13b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2005-2009 for UT4
Parameter As-
Built Year 1
I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Bankfull Cross Section Area,

Abkf s ft
5.7
6.0
5.2
4.>
5.5
5.6
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.8 13.3 7.7 7.9 9.9 7.8
Bankfull W/D 17.2 31.6 11.4 14.0 17.7 11.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2
Table 14. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2005-2009
Pl P lanted Stems Per Acre
ot Base 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1 729 729 486 607 567 526
2 688 688 486 526 445 486*
3 729 729 364 526 526 567*
4 810 810 648 810 810 810
5 688 688 607 607 607 607
6 850 850 729 729 688 688
7 769 769 324 607 688 688*
8 648 648 648 648 648 648
9 769 769 162 202 486 445
10 405 405 283 283 324 324
11 567 567 567 607 567 567
12 769 769 162 405 486 445
Average 702 702 455 547 570 567
* Resprouts observed in 2009.
18
APPENDIX A
As-Built Survey
t1
1
r
LAU
y
will
X111
?1 1
t
1 ?
i ,k 1 ;11
(Z7)
i.. ?.
L
1 <<
F4
i
?i
li
Al PEP
oo

y
R 'M
z
n
C.
a
J F
OJ ?
N F
Q U
z O
CL d
z
W
a
0
'NN

z
a
J W
d U
Z
Z Q
O I
_ V
x
V W
F
V
Q w Q
W C m
O
1? yy J
N 1 ?
N Z
V W
z 2
w S
z Z
W
at?
Y
i
a
A% A. ®, 0 in Y w ?, a•

i ?
o« 3v ?.?
auo °
ajiC CmL u°'
_ N 9 Y
oD E
a
EE
v no ? ? ° ; ° T
g,E`O urov c?
«?mCN ?°?p
OO.L. Op.^?V SjN
.L, a« O 9y 0? ?1 N r
T N G E y a 0 U}
?$o««?-V10?T
?EiJCOG O?.S O°
a
N ? b N ? y
o am
c?EN 33y a?5
4o4 LLOO ??dE??c°,
O N C O ppL ? N
3EoEo 5??$?
i$?o?°Q?naE
d p
..S eNLBZt7ZC
N

y r
>
cr
N 7
Z V)

O
T a ?
H
co
5
a
tl? O
Z

Z
a
O K
w
N
a
Z
a
?
x
a W
L ? ? V
° 7 Z
co
Y N

3
s
? V) z

z Z
m o

W =

z
_U
of

1
I
i 1
,? 1 ®®® II m {cN(
1 "
t
1
Z 1
•? a
Y .Y. Y ? f
1 I I
I 1 ^'}

l ! N O
? a o

? 7
© o

, a
I 4? i .f j. ? ? 7
R
- _I F I
I u
-I
I
I u

y
k x I I I ,
_ I- I ' i
z
a? ? ?_ I I I 1
s
r1
J ?

R o
x
W

a o W
O
f`
• V R Q
Q
?
,I ,

l W
m
6
V) z
ti 8 Z_ 3
N ?

I l
1
`
I S
I
ii
i
I ;
I I ' I 8
JI
? '?1
I
I
I
I
l
F
h
I
(
f l

\ I
1 e
I
I I

it I I ? ' ? a !l?
! 1
?
J {
s
I ? I ??c
c?
i
,
,
?.
I

R 0
3
?1
I I I
I r
I n
:
I
7
I

h
!?I,I I
Il?
I

I I I L
l P
;i
jI C I I
I I a

w•aac& a,ccccce®co®®c®c®b®o coIV c&Iccc®adp l&rW 00 AA m a

! ? t ! ! 4 $ A s
- , OO+OZ l5 3N?1 4DJIVYI ? \
11 M G I I ;? i r
K#IC I _i it^
,?pJ I l i I I I 1 1_ I I ? y
I , I 1
I
c'A : ? t t ?- ? I 1 1
i I I di i ?, o
I o
3§ a s oo+oz Yls I.-1 y A N oo
/+ T f I l l t 1? ?., N a
t, •?: t, I ?- I 1? ? A
J,r ? xax. ?r J I ? ? } I Y'ti I I i
f!Ik ;I 1, A T Fi U
• ' ; / '• e - i - ? jib A ? ff v
?-}k it a.. 1 I I, I v, z
I + C ..{ i11 2 I
I I
I? I I I I4 ?? Z Z
, W7,
+ ?.L .'?i ! !yR
I I r I 11 A 3?t
poi A
1,?$. ? I I i l l l I V Y
r I
Z x Ll,t
I- I4 I ' ? I I?
kt? r1 l? I 1 1 i? I y
I, l ! ?, lS1 ? l l, ? I I 1. I I 1 e
?ryu? I I I I I? I
// ,••,1?•/• I I E ? I I I r I I
/ '?• )/ r _? f ?' I I . ? 111
oA- N 1. 1 j
00+01 YLS a I I +dL :Yl$ 3 y
3Nn NaLvn 1 £ £ ! s

i
i
i 11
KcPq(
n
?e?39 ? 3$ x "s?x 3 :a? 9?
s ! Y ? ? i
NJS 3W1 Fp1MP6
a
o

I I
r N S

a o
A
U +
T

Y ?' d U
/ R

1 I
8 V
?°a
I

w s

r?

`
I ? =1 111

i) x E. ?
i
x l
ja
R

%U

?' § et

i
'+OZ 'Y25 3NL1 g

„
b
e gig is
6xa II; o
ION
os+r? ris
3Nn wMvw
w
r

s
R
3 J
i. I ?+ i I I I .! i
I ,
?` ?' i 1 Ili j y ?? I!
i
I I I. ;
.?. ?. I I t i j\fi I I
?I '!1
r,
Y
J$
{I
L I i ?1A , ?
n o
Zoe
a+o
a?M
= N N
Qoo
Z8
a
N Q
t;
W N
a
?l
ZG
IL b
z
G U
Q X
U W
Z S u
W UZ
0 6
mmJ
~ ? 4
N
N z
a i
z
z z
W
€l p
Y?
it1
Y
at

APPENDIX B
2009 Profile and Cross Section Data
0
M
O
O
M

N
O
N

m
?
M
.
co
J
? O
O
N
00
} C
M
y ?
N_
R. O M ?
? o m
?
? c
c
L
` o
n 1
? ?
j ?
r .
?
v I

a?
tt-
O
0
o
m'
a ?
•

i
r
i 0

W
a)
(O V N O W (O C N O
(3) a) (D a) oo OD co OD oo 0

(3;) uogena13

0

l 0

d ?

m s
O
J
^

+ N
I
I ?

?
N
• U
v } I ?0
O I «
•

Ll .+J
M O
O
CO
f
J ?
?
• h C
L
^ y } U

.? m
Y i
O
0

a)
N
0 ..
m '
N
..
• 1 O
V

«

i f •

4

J
1
O
O
N

O

L o
rn
O in o rn o i
W 00 r- r-
?n In in Ln
(u) U011ena13 n
O

N

? 00
N
M
O
rJ

ll I
M
?

O
O
2
(0
3

N
°o
m
N
m
~1

m
J ?

? O
?
N
M
M
O
N N
M }
?? O v
CU ' I
? C N H
+

G N N
p
a
+
C.n O

N
1 (6

V O
?
N ? N

M

Q
I
I
??
N

O

N
?
O
N
O
N
N
O
O
O N O N O N p N_
0
N
0
m
(
O O p (
0 (
0
N
(4)uogenel3

F? i h

. v . ,?,. ?.?? ?;,, ... .,.. .. ... . .. ,?... - -.
kn)a 606
605
i? Mfr'
1 ?
t? 1
Open Springs, Cross Section 1, Riffle
c
0
R
m
604
603 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
-BankfullElevation -Flood Prone Area As-Built Year I -Year2 -Year 3 Year4 ?Year5
40
Open Springs, Cross Section 2, Pool
lgnt pan
606
605
604
c
0
603
W
602
601
0 5 10
-uankfull Elevation
15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
As-Built - Year I - Year 2 - Year 3 - - Year 4 Year 5
40
591
590
589
c
5
v 588
uJ
587
586
Open Springs, Cross Section 3, Pool
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (ft)
ankfull Elevation - As-Built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 -- Year 4 -Year 5

c2.
II A
1
Open Springs, Cross Section 4, Riffle
590
589
2
ro
W 588
587 !
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
-BankfullElevation -Flood Prone Area „ As-Built -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 --Year 4 -Year s
35

Open Springs, Cross Section 5, Pool
591
c
°- 590
v
rz
589 1
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
-Bankfull Elevation As-Built - Year I - Year 2 - Year 3 - - - Year 4 Year 5
1 u i ,,, 3'. -
° r a 4
l
-

d?' X
t
?
t s,g

a " h"5[Fd'
1?
-
Y U S
y w to
M6
?
y ?
V

? ? rr ? $ a ya
? t °
a? t a
.? e r .
6Y ? ,v
o
a ?
.

cow
11?

gnt ban
Open Springs, Cross Section 6, Riffle
593
c
°- 592 -- -
> --
a?
W
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
- Bankfull Elevation -Flood Prone Area As-Built - Year I - Year 2 - Year 3 Year 4 - Year 5
576
575
0
Open Springs, Cross Section 7, Riffle
574
573 4 r
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (tt)
-BankfulI Elevation -Flood Prone Area As-Built - Year 1 - Year 2 - Year 3 - -° Year 4 Year 5
L ? ry Y l
a w 3"A
av?, aryy f r .` ` :., s,r?7 4

v
-:
a
.macJ
1 >t t
'f s "}tea
« ' ?
f
g
l
4I,. y+4f, 114. .(? 4 /11iF}
v. ?' fit. I '
?

en Dan
576
575
574
c
0
573
W
572
571
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
- Bankfull Elevation As-Built - Year I - Year 2 - Year 3 -- Year 4 -Year 5
35
ignt Dan
Open Springs, Cross Section S, Pool
APPENDIX C
2009 Site Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
SPA 1 - Vegetation in channel, throughout UT1.
SPA 2 - Rocks displaced at cross weir, UT1 Sta. 8+65.

SPA 3 - Header rock on cross weir displaced, UT1 Sta. 28+00.
SPA 4 - Rock on cross weir displaced, UT1 Sta. 32+02.

ZT,
?? ?y ?,? y i i,p .. rs ... ?2 ? ? j F
,. ?? fir..( ra i `d r
{ - a vf42 ?y?sr ? °??
u
,.
. .._ .?. - _...i3. °?.S ayy. L,. ? ?. Vii,. a;:". ?1 -.dir. . ?`?.?`'?".?'3$'?•'.. e,
34,
F.,
SPA 5 - Vegetation in channel, throughout UT4.

Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot #1- upstream
Vegetation Plot #1- downstream

Vegetation Plot #2 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #2 - downstream

't fN
* i ?I li I ? !e _
? L???'? ?' -?! CIF y '? -f 4 ? _'
y/ v 1
,p t l
L k ?' i f l 1, I f
1
x L k tixl y !«d K r} JS ° !! k xy?,q?sh- ?,\ f`"s°F x „R r
C.,r.
?E
Vegetation Plot #3 - upstream
r?Ay
7,4 .1
t t? ,x4? 8 I y ? 8? 1f '%fz? P L ? ?? .
-M

Vegetation Plot #3 - downstream

Vegetation Plot #4 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #4 - downstream
f 0
Vegetation Plot #5 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #5 - downstream
a .r
Vegetation Plot #6 - upstream

4
-
t

60

'A
Vegetation Plot #6 - downstream
4, +
Vegetation Plot #7 - downstream
Vegetation Plot #7 - upstream
{ +. I
Vegetation Plot #8 - downstream
Vegetation Plot #8 - upstream
1
Vegetation Plot #9 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #9 - downstream
4 •. ,
F46i
r F m
"S1 I
-r T 2 31 • ??L f i, i G..? +LsyJ?+? +!
IV dtr?Ri ,ir ?+' t,?? ft l7
{ .` A
??? jai X19 v ?„•,3!1?3?}??. ,3s ir?'? ! . ?$?fi'?ir . e f .7, ?tP ?` i?{t? F?'{° ?'
?W tJ?
++?? ??{ ?r rr `
?' : ? ?3q??`$„ ? s}j k ? z tr ' a h f v S?•? .' '? : ,yf?rr ?' M " .?.:».ri
Vegetation Plot #10 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #10 -downstream
e 1
Vegetation Plot #11- upstream
Vegetation Plot #11- downstream

Vegetation Plot #12 - upstream
Vegetation Plot #12 - downstream