20041512 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20090925

l
6-y- �siz
Stonebridge Mitigation Project
Moore County, North Carolina
FINAL Year 4 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
(919) 782 -0495
September 2009
J� y��

' Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
Table of Contents
1.0
SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ............................... 1
,- 2.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ...............................
1
'
2.1
Project Description ....................................................................... ...............................
1
2.2
Project Purpose ............................................................................. ...............................
2
2.3
Project History & Schedule .......................................................... ...............................
3
3.0
VEGETATION ........................................................................................ ..............................8
3.1
Vegetation Success Criteria .......................................................... ...............................
8
3.2
Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ...................... ...............................
8
3.3
Results of Vegetation Monitoring ................................................. ...............................
9
3.4
Vegetation Observations & Conclusions .................................... ...............................
11
4.0
STREAM
MONITORING ................................................................... ...............................
12
-
4.1
Stream Success Criteria .............................................................. ...............................
12
4.2
Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ......................................... ...............................
13
4.2.1 Cross Sections .................................................................... ...............................
13
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profil e ........................................................... ...............................
13
\
4.2.3 Hydrology .......................................................................... ...............................
13
4.2.4 Stream Photo Reference Stations ....................................... ...............................
13
4.3
Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................... ...............................
13
4.3.1 Cross Sections .................................................................... ...............................
14
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................... ...............................
14
4.3.3 Hydrology .......................................................................... ...............................
20
4.4
Stream Conclusions .................................................................... ...............................
22
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... ...............................
22
0

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
List of Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... ............................... 4
Figure2. USGS Map ........................................................................................ ............................... 5
Figure 3. Monitoring Overview Map ............................................................... ............................... 6
Figure4. Stream Problem Areas Map ............................................................ ............................... 16
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation Data for Stonebridge ......................................... ............................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ...................................... ............................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .............................................. ...............................
3
Table3. Project Contacts .................................................................................. ...............................
3
Table4. Planted Tree Species .......................................................................... ...............................
9
Table 5a. Results of Vegetation Monitoring .................................................. ...............................
10
Table 5b. Summary of Results ....................................................................... ...............................
10
Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species .................................................................... ...............................
11
Table 7. Stream Areas Requiring Observation ............................................... ...............................
15
Table8. Crest Gauge Data .............................................................................. ...............................
20
Table 9. Summary Precipitation Data ............................................................ ...............................
20
Table 10a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT 1 ......... ...............................
22
Table 10b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT2 ........ ...............................
22
APPENDICES
Appendix A As -Built Survey
Appendix B 2009 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2009 Site Photos
tE

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
1.0 SUMMARY
The Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project site is located north of the town of Carthage in Moore
County, North Carolina. It lies within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin.
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).
NCDOT contracted with EBX to perform the mitigation work under Full Delivery Project S -1.
Two unnamed tributaries (UT -1 and UT -2) to Crawley Creek were restored to create a total of
6,120 stream mitigation units (SMU). All restoration is being monitored for five years to
document success. 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 April 27, 2006. The As -Built survey is included as Appendix A of this
report. Information on stream morphology and vegetation will be collected each year and
compared to the baseline data and data from previous monitoring years.
This Annual Monitoring Report presents the monitoring data collected during Monitoring Year 4
at the Stonebridge Stream Restoration Site. Data collected for 2009 include: monthly crest gauge
readings, monthly observations of current conditions, vegetation monitoring, cross section survey,
digital images, and observations of potential problems with stream stability.
Fourteen 100 - square -meter monitoring plots were used to measure survival of the planted woody
vegetation. The 2009 vegetation monitoring documents a range of survival between 324 and 850
stems per acre. With an average of 526 stems per acre, the site is on track to achieve the final
vegetation success criteria of 260 stems per acre after the fifth growing season. Areas surrounding
vegetation plots 4 and 5 were replanted with 2- year -old trees prior to the start of the 2007
growing season to address high mortality in these plots. These areas were also replanted with 3
year -old trees during the spring of 2008 due to continued high mortality rates. In 2009 vegetation
plots 4 and 5 did not exhibit high mortality compared to 2008 mortality rates.
At least two occurrences out -of -bank or bankfull events occurred between the months of February
and August 2009. The stream morphology remains stable and little fluvial erosion was observed
during the 2009 monitoring season.
Overall, the project is on track to achieve the stream and vegetative success criteria specified in
the Mitigation Plan.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in Moore County, North Carolina, north of the town of Carthage
(Figure 1 & Figure 2) within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
project site is accessed from the west via Glendon - Carthage Road. The 1,196 -acre parcel has been
used for agricultural purposes as a livestock operation. The surrounding area is rural, with a mix
of farms, woodlands and home sites. Dominant soil types on this project site include Congaree,
Mooshaunee, Pinkston, and Tetotum.
Two unnamed tributaries to Crawley Creek flow across the project site. The streams are referred
to in this Annual Report as UT -1 and UT -2. UT -1 has a drainage area of 688 acres and UT -2 of
182 acres. Prior to implementation of the mitigation plan, the streams were in a disturbed

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
condition 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 5,556
stream mitigation units (SMU) were achieved by restoring plan form, cross section, and profile
features on UT -1. This number is derived from the as -built survey of 5,676 linear feet of restored
stream length minus 70 feet for a crossing reservation near the middle of the project and minus
another 50 feet adjacent to the culvert at the downstream end of the project. UT -1 was restored to
a Rosgen Classification of C4 /E4.
UT -2 was similarly degraded and flows east - southeast from a small dam, entering UT -1 near the
center of the project area. The design for this small tributary yielded an additional 564 linear feet
of restored stream. The total SMUs generated from stream restoration on UT -1 and UT -2 are
6,120. The entire easement, including UT -1 and UT -2, is completely fenced in.
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
This project was identified by EBX -Neuse 1, LLC as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the NC Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) as
solicited through the NCDOT Full Delivery Project S -1. The objective of this project is to provide
at least 5,556 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).
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Reach Name
Stream Mitigation Units
SMU
Mitigation Approach
UT 1
5,556
Restoration
UT2
564
Restoration
Total
6,120
2

�i
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX -Neuse I, LLC in the spring of 2003. Table 2 outlines the
project history and milestones. Table 3 lists the project contacts.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Month
Activity
June 2005
Mitigation Plan
December 2005
Final Design
February 2006
Construction
March 2006
Vegetation Planting
April 2006
As -built (Baseline) Report
November 2006
Year --2- Monitoring
March 2007
Supplemental Vegetation Planting
November 2007
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2008
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2009 (Scheduled)
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2010 (Scheduled)
Year 5 Monitoring
Table 3. Project Contacts
Contact
Firm Information
Project Manager
EBX -Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster
(919 ) 608 -9688
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Michael Ellison
(919 ) 782 -0495
Monitoring Contractor
WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram
(919 ) 782 -0495
3

a
tree\ P162gR
�
�a
a�a�R�62
c
c
16
Gay°
Deep River
�a
�`O
e�
o P
o
o,
en Rd
Ra
Petty
d
ails Rd
A
� R a
Q
S 78
y�
o.
Q�
F
G
�e
X00
h
CO
0
o
m
r
r
M
U
CO
C O
0
°4nt C: Stonebridge Project Site
s Mill R n
0
6
c
c
6 a anor Rd
G)
a o
�
0
Ra
('v3
�e d
�otcr�
�
m
Nc2g2j
Z
m
m
o
4'
�
3
y
p
y
o a
Figure 1.
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site
Project Location Map
Moore County, NC
1 inch equals 1 mile

C. m
t %
nJflC Imon Rd
IV
•� � `' � y = 1 , � /� f/ /i Est
Stonebridge Project Site
ol
`�' � � `._ _ _ �. � � , /. \ � ti . fit\ _ •r ; � -
c�li�jf,)
� ray �•, 'i 1 ,� , � ' ,��i ..�J -�/�
!
Figure
44 Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site
USGS Topographic Map
Moore County, NC
1 inch equals 2,000 feet

0 \
o
El- O
Q
Q
CN
> /
>
O
/
J
N
\i
n/
LL
O
1
O O
•
LL-
O
Cj� 4-
oi
1'•_�
I
� \\
'`1111
O>
�-
Q0
- - =.�
Cf)
00
X
U
X
U/
X
Q \
1
LO
1�
cn
-�-
x
x
x
El-
N
Un U)
X X
N �.

N
0
• > M� N
W
Li
U N o N
� � o
_ cn , ~ o
- ---- ' LD
:_
li
yy,
o i >
Un
-
i
I
J

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site are
based on the recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and correspondence from
review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu -Con Mitigation Banking
Instrument. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Stonebridge Mitigation Site —at
least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the Year 3 monitoring period —was met in 2008.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 - planted trees per acre at the end of
Year 5 of the monitoring period (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et. al. 2003).
Success of riparian vegetation will be evaluated annually through monitoring 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 species
composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action may be required should these
volunteers (i.e. loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), etc.) exceed 20 percent composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
All vegetation was planted in March 2006 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 vertical habitat structure and a
diverse 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),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). The second is a drier
zone predominantly consisting of more mesic species such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and Northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Black locust (Robinia pseudo- acacia) was
planted as a nurse tree in the upland zone. The initial stocking of riparian plantings across the site
was approximately 758 stems per acre. In addition to the riparian plantings, black willow (Salix
nigra) cuttings bundles were installed on the outside of bends.

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
Table 4. Planted Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
FAC Status
Shrubs
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
FACW -
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
FACW+
Trees
Black Locust
Robiinia pseudocacia
FACU-
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
FACW
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
Red Oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
Red Bud
Cercis canadensis
FACU
River Birch
Betula nigra
FACW
Sweet Bay
Magnolia virginiana
FACW+
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW -
Tulip Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
FAC
Fourteen 100- square -meter vegetation- sampling plots were established at the restoration site to
monitor the success of riparian buffer vegetation. The locations of these plots were randomly
distributed across the planted portions of the site. The plots cover approximately 2% of the site.
The center of each plot is located with a ten -foot section of metal fence post with a white PVC
cover. Each planted woody stem was located with a three -foot section of white PVC and
identified with an aluminum tag. Planted woody species will be monitored twice per year for the
first three years. Herbaceous plant cover will be monitored annually using the notched -boot
method. The total number of each species planted is listed in Table 5b.
Because of high mortality and the low stems per acre documented in 2006 for Plots 4 and 5, these
portions of the site were planted with approximately 600 2- year -old trees in the spring of 2007 to
supplement the surviving stems per acre. This area was also supplementally planted in Spring
2008 with 3 -year old trees due to mortality resulting from 2007 drought conditions. The stem
counts reflect both the surviving original live stems and the supplemental stems planted.
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Stem counts were conducted at each monitoring plot during June 2009. All 14 vegetation -
monitoring plots were evaluated for success, and the overall condition of vegetation at the site
was assessed. Tables 5a and 5b show the number of each species of woody stems recorded for
each plot, and the success rate of each plot. Early above - average mortality necessitated that some
areas be replanted to maintain adequate density. The surviving planted stems per acre after the
fourth year ranged from 324 to 850, with an average of 526- planted trees per acre surviving at the
site. 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.
All vegetation plots are on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 planted trees per acre
after 5 years. Slight changes in survival percentage have also occurred because of the resprouting
ability of some species. In a number of plots, individual stems previously recorded as dead had
resprouted from the root crown. This pattern was observed in several plots with redbud in 2009,
and, in previous years, with green ash and elderberry.
0

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
In 2008 livestock entered a portion of the easement and temporarily damaged the herbaceous
vegetation around Plots 1 and 2. This problem was corrected, and no reduction in planted stem
survival was observed between 2008 and 2009. However, the herbaceous vegetation in this area is
now primarily grass species, and is relatively sparse. Plot 4 has the lowest density, but with 324
stems per acre it is still on track to meet the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre after 5
years. The higher mortality experienced in this plot over the three previous monitoring years
appears to be due to locally shallow bedrock around this plot. No mortality occurred in Plot 4
between the 2008 and 2009 monitoring periods.
Table 5a. Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Table 5b. Summary of Results
Plots
F,
Species, e' -l:
Total
Stem`s'
�: �Plant4l
2
3
.`4
.54��
<<6:
78v
15
9�
-10
i.�12
6
13
14
Shrubs
Elderberry
21
21
17
688
I
I
5
1
1 2
324
5
24
1
Silky Dogwood,
10
2
4
1
3
1 7
2
3
1 3
1 1
4
3
5
2
Trees
Black Locust
1
1
1
1
2
17
1
648
10
1
1
1
Green Ash
12
1
20
2
2
2
607
1
17
3
1
11
2
1
Ironwood
1
2
4
2
14
19
2
4
526
1
Red Oak
Average
19
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Redbud
1
1
2
3
River Birch
1
6
2
2
3
l
2
4
1
2
Sweet Bay
1
1
1
Sycamore
1
1
4
2
2
1
5
1
2
5
3
1
Tulip Tree
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
Table 5b. Summary of Results
Plots
"
'Steims.'�
a`
Planted-,-"-
Additional$'
Steins, ..
;, .."
Planted
Total
Stem`s'
�: �Plant4l
° Steins
Tear 4
S_ teins'per-
Acre -
1
16
14
30
15
607
2
20
6
26
15
607
3
21
21
17
688
4
16
5
21
8
324
5
24
1
25
10
405
6
29
1
30
21
850
7
14
14
10
405
8
16
16
10
405
9
17
17
16
648
10
19
1
20
12
486
11
20
20
15
607
12
17
17
11
445
13
14
14
9
364
14
19
19
13
526
Average
19
13
526
Average Stems per Acre: 526

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Reportfor 2009 (Year 4)
Range of Stems per Acre: 324 -850
Replanted in Spring 2007 and Spring 2008
A plan view drawing of the vegetation plots is provided in Figures 3a and 3b. 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 vegetation at the site is mostly dense, with an average of 95.5 percent herbaceous cover that
is variable in composition, as would be expected in a natural riparian system. Areas previously
observed to have bare soil, particularly around Plot 4, now have good herbaceous cover. The
locally dominant species are panic grass (Panicum anceps), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Canada goldenrod (Solidago
canadensis). Other prominent species include white thoroughwort (Eupatorium album), devil's
darning needles (Clematis virginiana), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Carolina horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), American pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), common rush
(Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex sp.), and grape (Vitis sp.).
Volunteer species are also monitored throughout the five -year monitoring period. Table 6 shows
the most commonly found woody volunteer species. The volunteer stems do not compromise
more than five percent of species surveyed at the site.
Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific'Name
FAC Status
Sweet um
Li uidambar styraciflua
FAC+
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
FAC
Persimmon
Diospyros vir iniana
FAC
Slippery elm
Ulmus rubra
FAC
Ironwood
Car inus caroliniana
FAC
Green Ash
Fraxinus Penns lvanica
FACW
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tuli i era
FAC
Black Locust
Robinia seudoacacia
UPL
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 and below to
normal rainfall in 2008, the vegetation at this site is generally healthy and appears to be thriving.
A few areas, such as around plot 4, have experienced a slightly higher mortality than desired in
the past, but the stem counts for 2009 indicate that this trend may be abating. The site is on track
to meet the 5 -year success criteria for the vegetation plots. No remedial actions are necessary at
this time.

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report.for 2009 (Year 4)
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the Mitigation Plan, success criteria for the stream restoration 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.
• 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.
• Benthic Macro invertebrate: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates within the restored
stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of post- restoration monitoring.
Plan view drawings of the project site are provided in Figures 4a- 4d. The drawings include the
appropriate information pertaining to monitoring of the project. These drawings show the
locations of the following features (if applicable):
• Bankfull channel limits
• Centerline of channel
• Easement boundary/Fencing
• Road crossings
• Root wads
• Log vanes
• Cuttings bundles
• Channel plugs
• Log toe protection
• Riffle grade control
• Cross weir structures
• Step pool structures
• Tributaries
The drawings also show locations of monitoring activities. These include:
• Cross section survey locations,
• Crest gauge locations,
• Vegetation plots, and
• Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations.
12

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
4.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
Along UT -1 and UT -2 a natural channel design approach was applied to develop stable hydraulic
geometry parameters. Construction began in October 2005 and was completed in February 2006.
The rebuilding of the channel established stable cross - sectional geometry, increased plan form
sinuosity, and restored streambed diversity to improve benthic habitat. Approximately 6,120
linear feet of stream restoration has been constructed.
4.2.1 Cross Sections
The mitigation plan for the Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project requires twelve permanent
cross sections to be monitored along the restored tributaries UT -I and UT -2. The cross sections
were established during monitoring set -up 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 Figures 3a
and 3b. The cross section surveys and photographs are shown in Appendix B. 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 annually during the monitoring period. 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
Three crest gauges were installed at the site: one on UT -1 (CG3) near the downstream end of the
project and one each on UT -2 (CG2) and UT -1 (CG 1) immediately above the confluence (see
locations in Figures 3a and 3b). Crest gauges will be checked monthly to document high flows.
During each visit, a determination will be made if an out -of -bank event has occurred since the
prior visit. During the gauge inspections, any high water marks or debris lines will be
documented and photographed.
4.2.4 Stream Photo Reference Stations
There are no designated photo reference stations on the Stonebridge Mitigation site. Photos are
collected showing general conditions of the site (within the restoration easement), at all
structures, cross - sections, as well as specific areas of concern along the stream corridor
(Appendix Q.
4.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
Photographs were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (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.). During the early portion of
the growing season, a consistent stream flow was present during the monthly site visits.
Very few problems with stream morphology were observed during the monitoring field visits.
Photos of each located structure taken in July 2009 are included in Appendix C. The plan view
drawings in Figures 4a -4d show the locations of the following features:
• As -built stream centerline and bankfull limits
• In- stream structures (e.g. root wads and log vanes)
Locations of any stream channel problem areas requiring observation
1191

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
Table 7 gives a description of each stream area requiring further observation, the station where
the problem occurs, and the photo number for the problem area.
4.3.1 Cross Sections
The cross sections were surveyed during the Year 4 monitoring activities in July 2009. The As-
Built cross - section surveys are shown with the Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 monitoring
cross section surveys in Appendix B. The Year 4 cross sections do not differ significantly from
the As- Built, Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 cross sections.
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted during the Year 4 monitoring activities in July 2009.
The previous profile and cross sections indicate that there has been very little adjustment to the
stream profile or dimension since construction. Using the surveyed dimensions of the cross
sections, morphological parameters were calculated for each reach and are included in Tables
10a and 10b below.
14
i,

.J
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
Table 7. Stream Areas Requiring Observation
Feature
STA
Description
Photo
Number
Sediment in channel allowing
Mid Channel Bar
Throughout UT
vegetation to root in the channel, no
SPA 1
action recommended
Fallen trees and debris have damaged
Damaged Fence
UT1 48 +00
fence, repair is needed in order to
SPA2
prevent cattle from entering easement
Right Bank Erosion
UT 47 +50 to
Minor erosion on right bank, will
SPA3
47 +80
continue to monitor
Left Bank Erosion
UT1 44 +60 to
Minor erosion on left bank will
SPA4
45 +10
continue to monitor
Right Bank Erosion
UT1 40 +10 to
Minor erosion on right bank, will
SPAS
40 +50
continue to monitor
Water flowing under and around log
Log Grade Control
UT2 2 +50
grade control causing erosion, repair is
SPA6
recommended to prevent headcut and
additional structure failures
Water flowing under and around log
Log Vane
UT1 29 +50
vane causing erosion, repair is
SPAT
recommended to prevent headcut and
additional structure failures
Root Wad
UT1 29 +30
Erosion behind root wad will continue
SPA8
to monitor
Log Vane
UT 29 +20
Erosion along arm of log vane, will
SPA9
continue to monitor
Sediment in channel allowing
Mid Channel Bar
UT1 24 +00
vegetation to root in the channel, no
SPA10
action recommended
15

3NIl HO1VW
�
o
0
L
'
L
W
a
N
k '1
LO
U-
E
111
�
O
W
+
.6--d
15 +50
% --'- -_ N
R18 S �1
h Rx
RIB
14 +50
I
00
I 0
2XSO
I
S
- --
- -9kpp
--
6 - - -- - -- -
.I
0
k \\ 1
� I i
kp0
on
�/
Z Z
0`
X
I I
Osx�
j
X
i
00 +f O
'2
I
O
W
a
Z
(n
-i
(,
-----------------------------
00+ - `---
Z =
- --
Os +O
lkpp
Z Q
O
_w
H
~
Q
w
Q
U=
jU
F—
Z 7 i-

i
o
m
btu
d-
w
O
o V)
a-
u' LO
,O
v I
E
c�3
O
M
N
2
z
'-
(n
va
O
N
30 +00 30
�O
�x
i
2a +00
0
LO
i
N
i
i
i
---
O
N
11 1\
0
`1 �tK x
0 11
0 1\
I\
11
23+ 0
.
OS,
�C.
01
0
N
00 \\
s;l
O
k
OC,
In
+ \II \II
___
-_�
w
Z N CL
Z
o`\
sk
I—
U
Z =
U
LLJ
w
F-
z
Q
T
LLJ
v0
-;
a
wU
D
> 0
Ow=
Z I t-
i

]Nil H01HW
0
Q
U
o
o
+
w
a
o
N
O
bA
o
o
a-
U'
E
+
o
(!i
00
c1n)=
�n
O
OX``
�m
o
i,
I /
1
!1 x
I
OOX
li
+
(O
00 +9c`
i
O �
+
M
,
OgX`
Cot
+i / 1
p
'1
1 �X�
1
OO)(r
l
3-
a
- r? _% / , ho
- --- x
fn
- N
w
�
7+ O
--
0
< Sk 1 i N
OS
w Q
o
z n.
U
0 ' X`',
Z
OQ
Opk� +I po,
ry
--
D
H
w O
=
xS
w
> C7
> O
F_"_'
OW=
z =�

sue.
X9
0
to
`
w
U
00
cu
�_ o V)
Os
I L
�
� o
O;p '`
N
k
Ste`
L
i
i
XOO-
,�5
zm
Z
; ASS
-- - --- - -- hb'
O
LO
00"(
i
1SS'
ii
i
O
k
i
I,
osos, '
CNM
CL
i
A-
a
0 1
+ 1
i/
_ - - - -- - - - - --
'OXV�
X�O
k
r�
i
i
O
IL
o
+'
LO
o 'l,
°+
W
LO
Z E nQ.
� N,
Z
+5
Z
U
^
h�
V
Z
Q
O w
,
Q
i
V R
Q
W O
w
> U
;'
W >O
o
+
Ow_
z1:
1W HDiVVq

r
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
4.3.3 Hydrology
The crest gauges were read on monthly sites visits from February through August 2009. Crest
gauges 1 and 2 recorded at least two out -of -bank or bankfull events occurred during this period,
crest gauge 3 recorded one out -of -bank event. Crest gauge data are included in Table 8. Weather
data were collected from a nearby weather station - Carthage Water Treatment Plant and the
Moore County Airport. The data are summarized in Table 9 and Figure 5, and indicate that
conditions were normal early in the year and became drier in July. Data collected from the on -site
gauge in February is a composite sample for December 2008 through February 2009.
Table 8. Crest Gauge Data
Month
Recorded
Crest
Gauge 1
Crest
Gauge 2
Crest
Gauge 3
January
- --
- --
- --
February
0.43
0.30
0.00
March
3.05
2.80
3.70
April
0.00
0.00
0.00
May
0.00
0.00
0.00
June
0.00
0.00
0.00
July
0.00
0.00
0.00
August
0.00
0.00
0.00
September
- --
- --
- --
October
- --
- --
- --
November
- --
- --
- --
December
- --
- --
- --
Table 9. Summary Precipitation Data
Month
Average
Normal
Limits
Carthage
Precipitation
On -Site
Precipitation
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.51
3.44
5.43
2.09
- --
February
3.54
2.39
4.24
1.33
- --
March
4.65
3.52
5.64
5.36
4.67
April
3.08
1.93
4.17
1.20
2.72
May
4.06
2.65
4.86
2.80
4.60
June
4.18
2.36
5.16
1.50
2.58
July
5.37
3.06
6.7
1.62
2.05
August
4.65
3.22
5.57
3.60
5.17
September
4.45
3.23
6.24
- --
- --
October
3.54
1.86
4.73
- --
- --
November
3.47
2.2
4.52
- --
- --
December
3.38
2.28
4.04
- --
- --
Annual
32.14
61.30
Total
48.88
19.50
21.79
20

Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation Data for Stonebridge
10.0
90
80
70
s
60
e
°– 5.0
'c
4.0
a
3.0
2.0
1.0
00
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
2009 Precipitation for Stonebridge Site
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
--O —On -site Ramgauge ....... 30th/70th Percentile 6 Carthage Monthly Rainfall
21

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 4)
Table 10a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT1
.. Y..:: ¢ :.....
: - -e� Y.s,a° g¢E z ¢ r l
L.
j�•�rei,C;;yiJ � !',* reLL,:cr,s�i.:«
gli tle I y %i
n
a °2S
-3�`':�
n
u, Parametef , `t
s- Built €�`�®
ear 4 , !
�7':'ry,':�'jl't, d %u %q !'.",il ?i�.,,awjE.i
?s,y sac:?3a? »M.,E;? Ku r!;!Y!:is.:::::::!3.a..: : �� .� .. a a .Y Id`V�
,,:�,J:'."?%r {B.;
S. c:ud!k�aaa,1.�6Ya� -"
'i�;aB
s.d,�,,.,.9
Avg. Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft)
31.0
29.9
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
15.6
15.1
Avg. Bankfull W/D
8.1
7.9
Avg. Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
2.0
2.0
Avg. Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft)
2.9
3.12
Table 10b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT2
�'f��<�a ?,^tUffidr .r„ : .„ 'i '+ �?1'�,": - 3: -a: <- C ° s=�i<:° : �°� %_ °i" ? �5 -" K. aaa _s °-°- -�-¢. - _; ' ":. ,- 3 �iw� t 5:w :a••'.a ° � r:� a iSI', a:,ii�i?�,. tc F�P`®ppC- !`�.'l9r.{53i � j {a" aM%i'. l" ,9 '"9 trt:i "I h ,�Gay;i !�' lrr�:u,: ir°mVi� „: q �:'. 4;it . i # i�ie5ti.� .:l'.”: � � .F t a`? "Se?r6 ' �•;c,t' Sr'<:'ia,- .s. ^. E^.'d� �^C�as ,A . ' :� ;s a m . . ;- e ;-- SL
4n, m `°.�.°r- :.iz.��nxi;�Tt ^'.n t�. aa�.nt?r5u =zz«s�k� -i£Y' ". .- ��svS��'ia"aiY.�Yaaid
s?.c:l�;'��'3 c�t`F:i?.s�sxe%:t
7H 't i {
®HI,
` Y� -S e t "i.ar, Jr„nl_YI.'.e. If :,: ,4Aw;" i'i l� ;5 y„, ,1. ,Gai;,t
�. i;, ; •'tCatia»�r'.a`�.t'ra �:�i ?zi
Avg. Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft)
10.1
10.6
Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
7.2
8.3
Avg. Bankfull W/D
5.1
6.5
Avg. Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.4
1.3
Avg. Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft)
1.7
2.0
4.4 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. Water is flowing around a log grade control structure and a log vane,
causing erosion (Table 7, SPA6 and SPAT). It is recommended that these structures be repaired
to prevent further erosion and headcuts. All monitored cross sections for 2009 show very little
adjustment in stream dimension. Several bankfull events were recorded during the 2009
monitoring season, exceeding the requirement of two bankfull events within five years.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Observations of conditions at the Stonebridge Mitigation Site and data collected during Year 4
monitoring indicate that the project is currently successful and on track to achieve the vegetative
and stream success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
The stream morphology is stable, and little fluvial erosion was observed. Sedimentation that has
occurred in the stream channel is minor and does not need to be addressed at this time. The fences
along the crossing near station 48 +00 should be repaired to prevent bank damage from cattle
entering the channel. The vegetation is surviving well.
Overall, the project is performing as designed. Habitat has been improved significantly through
this project. Fluvial erosion has been greatly reduced so that the project site no longer contributes
excessive amounts of sediment to the receiving stream. Based on 2009 observations, site
vegetation is expected to succeed and provide riparian habitat, water quality benefits, and cover
for the stream system.
22

i \
APPENDIX A
As -Built Survey

'1
?7Ak
rl 1 .
AW� a,
z�, Ei
�1 a�
or
L L
F 11
EFAM
UZ
E�
Nl
ti
U
141,
ir
fy�
41, s
I
IA4
j- IQ
a DLIIJ
F-
z
j '�4T
All
I Alt
Z�
Rw
once
�l �
L
rL�
N
ON .0
0 1 wo
off} �
op
its
Mai
OAS
AN
All
00

`A
<n1 II
N
\ r W w
\ ml-L O V)
Jw ZH� d w
maQwoao��a
u CL
LLJ -cf � � � �
/ r'�Jjjll <N�z >;U>m
Q Q W
00 W a Q
aly aIr O°QwNw
I — , d ° o N w J m w p
o o w> Q Q a Z r
`ty a�w Z
1�c� °m�OO° LJ
U�JZU NJ ~=
L�� 2 Q a x ' N In
d p Z a W O J O N W
UrOw O °=ZZM °
1� ~
r w° Q°p2 z—j
H a~ N H O N U)
Moln az
SaZOUWa Q�
HQ�Na1 °Ra m cD
N o a m 0 rn
�Q�NaQco Z�
w w J W H° O Z M
Q �zO J
m� }aoWZU °1--
1
W SQ
r
Z° O °> (n N z W
1 = O Z O wry a a
U ON r2mg F'- S
N`'\ s `i \`.�'ii1 Oz° C) 0 M w U
i�� p w l� d LLJ �O
C, 2 =u�� °aa
amO�ww�w�z ly
~aZ O�pJ M (f) -t
w 3 pr°CC ' U H p wQ �w
a> 0 w Z
Y
U
Ucy i- ZWm 0' 0- cr
�WDW O >W W Of CY a
111 l \„ _ZOMUO > do
I "1111 �
/ 1
V, -
.
_ N
.r
T'35 ONV 3etluvrD6
NNNOWD Nv ruM 03NwM 'AN3p000 5� A N4[N10 3x M)tla 53JOJ AroA OLI®OtlJ L'7M 'tA i NOSNJ9
M A 1N6NW N311MN tfOxlM NI b7 )lOM1 N IN3IItl�00 S4LL Dl SNDIl3lA lO SNUIw� tN3NrtA0
SW A SI4llNW lNl A 35f1 Ib NONYg0U1b QNLL353tl S1NJM TI DIY '4! A NOSIPO M {y 111>W EVJ
w
U
z
Q
J J
d _
H �
J m
m (n
I Q
(n
Q z
w O
Q
m F-
O :2
I-- :E
cn Q
W
U
U L.Li
J O
J �
W
Z z
Q O
_ I-- a
X Q
Li O °
� a
_ U
U K
z � o
Q z
m W w
J
_
Q I—
H (n
z
Ww
Z p
O
� m
W
W O
(n
to
�NS �LL
Wiw
iam vo
O Z N
0
Y
M
ileRtl��<

1 I I i � III
i
A
Z
p O
Z 0
,z
m
w w
w w '
�
J Z Z O
w F
ij O O U
"1
Q O Z W y Z
z
?� o z
N
° 10
II
8
d a
�
N
-
I
00+ 3NIF H� DiVh
i �' l ��r ii•� Cl",
1
Z � /
x I
u
I
- - _ -- o
1 .
1
g
1
�
5
3
rroywo o y x. i r3�waM � a� xwwlin ol a�n n nroo \oNra io u s�� i mems� u °aYu3s ry ns«ua'iu w .n ' w . " 1w11 .ns I." :nI.Z "'e0-. ' OS°7 n m awo a 3 .wnrsl�oos u
'ww�eo00i
El
O
O
In +
Z pp
Q
J
d Q
F— ~
_J Lo
5 O
m f-
I
� O
Q O
w +
O O
m Q
m
w
Z U)
O
7 � I
u
U �
J Q
J �
W �
QO
= F-- Z
U Q
X
W U 0
� a
_ U
U �
Z.4
a Z
mww
J E' Q
Q
H Un
Q
U
z
O-
c m
W
w
ZZ
0
f—
iii
I¢I'< eIV k
0
U
�0 T
e%RnY "a`
6 8
` e
d�a��7s

g
'
1 11P
=�
n
0
+LININII
X1V
l
I R
�
II
I
,
0
z ° v
Z � -
a
vl u rj a R
c '-
ZZ
p Vii. 0 0 w R Q w
-
-
¢
o
w
v � �
g
,
I
,
1.
31vo
I
I ' 1
{ I
i li 1 lit• '
-
X
� U I
-�o
�H a
'
n m
I_
i,
yF
r
a Al i
I' 11
I h X11 ; �CCC�
II
1111
' 11 'Y 11+41}
111, 11Y'
��,
-
11
4r-
_,
I
I
II
I
O +B
bN,11 ilLiV
I
0
Cn 0
Q
J r
CL
_J O
m O
I
Q
DO
W
C)
p Q
m In
W _
O
V)
vL-J
JO
J �
w �
O Z
Z O
=tea
U Q z
X
W 0
�a
V
U
Z:2 0
Q
m LLB U
J � _
Q U a
W W U
O
Z p
O
M
>w
w ZO
In
to
n oz
O g
U�
aRao
SS�f °fr ^t'=
g
6
f�8 3

i
�8111�� 8
A
�
p O
Z F
F
W
W yl
J
O
i 0 o
x
x
s
00+
)Z 3
Il HO�VYV�
u N o u o i
Z i R 7 Z A
O .-. U 00
s
00 �9Z 3NIH HOiVA
I O
I
a
I I 1 Ai,
I i I i •� ` 1
� i I
1 Cil1 '
1 ulll li p 1
'r�
O
�/ I
ez111'11
1 I ,
J
bo
III
O
0�� \
'
s
psi y
�3'
C
a
I
1
,
I
09+ ]A3NIll
I
HO1
W
S3aa, 31RU 0 OL QW306NDJ 3B TII6 TS NI. 31nLYNM
nxxM > m1�N xwur uMrowM �a w w ipw M w 5 oa suu01 sx�ou]'bxua�uo'Sx�ouu�' �i Qil�lmoa
bo xoualxlwwb mn w,n r'• � xM VY
a
O
z �
Q
+
d N
O
J �
M O
1 LO
U� +
Q r
W
3
Q
0] (n
W
Z
O �
V)
W
O --D
J
J Elf
W
C z
QO
S � a
O Q z
X
W
a
88 F
U
Z
o
Q z
CD ww
c�
J _
H c
Q
W W U
Z (]
O
I
% m
wW
Z
N .
to
o `_1
�o
�9
e8
€RERg�2o
gga
w 6 & 33
Rs RE s�6

I I lilk-I
R
Z
F N
N IN/1
J a
O
N
ry
N
I CO+q£
3NIl
HXIV
O
o I
is W
a
U Iwi W i O O O W U N
N
�
I
I
,
�
n
hXoo
1
-
1
k "
S71
4
wQ
oz
�•i 1'I
IN
.
x :• '
f
,all, 4 I FiO
� )/
1 f
/ ' t ml \ r8
I
c, \
\ ff a 4m
\ ✓ I
I
\ u I
\ I 1 \
V \
\ 4`
�p+9Z N\
°o
I
1
g
00+)Z
3
I� HO
VW
sum xw ❑mw �e of mn3asxro 3e n.w ra mn >uurros
TMmU M' WM mntllll YN3MJIX1 SNL 9 TWeO ]u IpMf 53NOJ alp SI q'OgJ 1 HDS�o
M iOroIIL� Du O�En ro IwOLL� NUEM Iy3Vt'pTM �i ��WD°mp MM V iro
0
V) O
z +
O
J �
m O
I O
l
Q
w (V
c,
Q
Of
M
w
z
O 7
U
U -
JO
J �
w �
O Z
Q O
_ � a
O Q z
x
LLJ 0
� a
cc_ U
L H
U
Q o
m W �
J
Q (/)
Q
w w
:2 O
Z Q
O
�m
� w
Z
w Z
O
U)
w
� o �
�ry$ E6
0.1
U
= h

YO0 —L 'UTe A 01 0b3D61N B IZ1 T05 On 3tlN�Kl6
T� 4i111LLEWJ Nllt�rowM We M Y0 IOW W M Sw01 SlpLLllYllp SMUO�$ 1113M�]00
MO0 hr D N W MOU]Imbntl 0 T 74 m MM 4y IM
O
CD
Ln CD
Z +
d
H p
J �
D
m p
1 O
(n +
Q LO
W
p Q
M CO
W
z
o
`-
m
U
W
J O
J
W �
c�
QO
Q
U Q z
X
W CD_ �
_ U
ti
U o
Z � O
Q
W
M w
c�
J _
Q N a
W W U
�CD
zo
oDf
5wm
z W
wO
J
0
� Gn � 3
x e,8
o��
Z6
0--
u22
's��RgoPo
z F
I .
NO
�N11N
+trb
oiyn
Z
w a
CD
`
%
J N
2 � w
U 4 W 3 tt J U N
1
r
/ /
--- -;1 a'
-- --
-- - --
,'I
;'ll
-
I i Jl l �1°i \4
\r
OS,X�
I r` -— '
ry
I
'
I m
1' tae
f�r
I
f, of \
y
0 t,
9£/
60
%
I
,
%
I
,
00 +S
3N1
I HO l
W
YO0 —L 'UTe A 01 0b3D61N B IZ1 T05 On 3tlN�Kl6
T� 4i111LLEWJ Nllt�rowM We M Y0 IOW W M Sw01 SlpLLllYllp SMUO�$ 1113M�]00
MO0 hr D N W MOU]Imbntl 0 T 74 m MM 4y IM
O
CD
Ln CD
Z +
d
H p
J �
D
m p
1 O
(n +
Q LO
W
p Q
M CO
W
z
o
`-
m
U
W
J O
J
W �
c�
QO
Q
U Q z
X
W CD_ �
_ U
ti
U o
Z � O
Q
W
M w
c�
J _
Q N a
W W U
�CD
zo
oDf
5wm
z W
wO
J
0
� Gn � 3
x e,8
o��
Z6
0--
u22
's��RgoPo
z F

53MJ llltll 9M11.\ 3B 01 03N3051W 3B Thxs 1135 OMI 3tlN�b6
xlMO07�M1'aM13M1lOW s� A lwNttap 3xa�M1W3 slA� a>ro Mm L x'
N3aMWtl3xa A bn tl0 MOU]/ItPtlmtl 4 � a �/awtl sw�1a Ltli3pat�]1m5�sN � �' �I�XnJW
El
to O Ln
z +
d �
H p
J �
m O
1 O
n +
Q
w
CD
p
M Lo
w
z
O
I—
U
W
U �
Jp
J cy-
w�
QO
Q
x <
x
w U °
� a
_ U
U
Z :�i O
Q
M W U
CY a
f _
Q
z
w w
� U
z p
O (if
M
>w
w z0
F-
L
aa V o
m
�Wa
X33
oi�
Z
YV
09
1s-
I�Slael���o
R
O o
1
W
U '^
O
ryOS+�G
N
Nil
DIVA
°U o s
a ° W
o � o
\
o 0
F > U rU
Z LL W Q z O U U
U � Z
1 1 1
/
(
I
I
I'
II
II li
U
In
Ti
U
1
II
II; II III I�I 11'11`1 LI �1 LL�.I jl _-
,
1
ii llii;�liill; liifl \c, \` I
i /
j1/ /l11 11j \ 1111' ' 1I'I 1
lb
-
111 I
I
Do
/. /
I IX
111 II !,;
/ I'll
I I I II li 71/ /II I \
II I linl
I I I /'
1 I II \
\
'k
W
V
W \
I
VI
/
/
/
(
00 +b
3NI
HOl
W
53MJ llltll 9M11.\ 3B 01 03N3051W 3B Thxs 1135 OMI 3tlN�b6
xlMO07�M1'aM13M1lOW s� A lwNttap 3xa�M1W3 slA� a>ro Mm L x'
N3aMWtl3xa A bn tl0 MOU]/ItPtlmtl 4 � a �/awtl sw�1a Ltli3pat�]1m5�sN � �' �I�XnJW
El
to O Ln
z +
d �
H p
J �
m O
1 O
n +
Q
w
CD
p
M Lo
w
z
O
I—
U
W
U �
Jp
J cy-
w�
QO
Q
x <
x
w U °
� a
_ U
U
Z :�i O
Q
M W U
CY a
f _
Q
z
w w
� U
z p
O (if
M
>w
w z0
F-
L
aa V o
m
�Wa
X33
oi�
Z
YV
09
1s-
I�Slael���o

R J
gJ
O
z O F yy
W F v .tl
W �
J
O
°u o 0
i
ry w n `aD ry N ie ry ry n ry ry ry °n n
11
sama anw 'arn Ns T15 mT awurrns
IuM DbTx YxTV000 Lu aD TNpwD bu xCw S�IdO i�i0� rt'�31
1 YM � HLNWa3x llD E bD`NDLL nWdeDb yoW w ixlKlw'�iT MhNII cNOU'l�in.�xD SxHH �rlg �p na00
0
LO
In I`
Z +
Q LO
Ln
O
J �
m O
I LO
+
Q rl-)
w Ln
CD
0 Q
rr
m CO
w
z
O
u I—
w
U �
JO
J ry
W n
Z Z
QO
= 1— a
O Q z
X
W C
a
~_ U
U �
Z :2 O
Q Q z
m W U
J � Q
< � a
W W u
Z p
O �
IY
z m
W
w ZO
cn
�I¢lal�l�
of m a y
jWw
�p °emu
O g
Y=
1
�
co
� c
J S
�
^h
(0 am
1
—
I
1111
S +�S
3NI!
HD1V
a I I
_ - - --
I
`1
n n
c1 n ry
N ry
N ry ry
ry n
ry n ry
ry n n
11
sama anw 'arn Ns T15 mT awurrns
IuM DbTx YxTV000 Lu aD TNpwD bu xCw S�IdO i�i0� rt'�31
1 YM � HLNWa3x llD E bD`NDLL nWdeDb yoW w ixlKlw'�iT MhNII cNOU'l�in.�xD SxHH �rlg �p na00
0
LO
In I`
Z +
Q LO
Ln
O
J �
m O
I LO
+
Q rl-)
w Ln
CD
0 Q
rr
m CO
w
z
O
u I—
w
U �
JO
J ry
W n
Z Z
QO
= 1— a
O Q z
X
W C
a
~_ U
U �
Z :2 O
Q Q z
m W U
J � Q
< � a
W W u
Z p
O �
IY
z m
W
w ZO
cn
�I¢lal�l�
of m a y
jWw
�p °emu
O g
Y=

s
I
Z
a
g o g
N N N
CO t0
N N
R N O
N N N
D] cD
N N
a N O
N N N
a
0
I
I
J
w
6'
II
Qa \�I`I \ i (._J`�,� �� .1 A / it
.L, ,
ks -CT
32+ d
jfy 6
\ TI , \
O
p
off'.
I
I
I ` I
W
W 1 X
i11
0
1••{ii
M
! 'lll
\ I ' X
.\ 1 1
i i
1 I
1 --- ---
_
IIII
,•;\
TO
1 I i ��
I\
1,o �O
/ is �1 f /•, `ell
IN
• r I
( ,\ \elf^ _.....
f-\ 'ICI" •JO ; �; -rrc .,-'�- -� —
a
\
111
/
\ 't 00+9
1
�
o
+
°
I
0
°
N
I
N N
N N N
N N
N N N
N N
S3m� anxI 'M 01 0313O5MD B IT'x5 T'35uW$M1 3tlfYM.
irr� wM�a�io�� rDUVUi1NA t'�iqu�M u�imm3e��W r� xrisn>� sa�li c�wui���ivM 4V vro aro
Cn
Z
Q +
J LCD
d
O
m O
1 O
n +
Q O
W
(� Q
1)
m
W N
z 1
o �
V) D
r
U
w
JO
J �
W �
z
QO
_F-- <
U Q z
X
W U ¢
cc_ CJ
G S
U
Z z
mwu
Ee
J _
Q � Q
W W U
z p
O�
M
>w
W Z
O
m
� Q I o
_o H
Z5
Da
�U�
Q D
u

APPENDIX B
2009 Profile and Cross Section Data

O
O
N
O
O
O
1
O
H
000
M
N
•
•�
O
O
(0
♦
M
L
M
>co
r
O
L
It
(•7
f0
�
�
M
•
�♦
O
O
�•
M
L
�
N
>(u
♦t
O
X
N
♦
O
M
m
i
♦�
O
O
O
00
N
+
m
V
J
M
H
U
�
•
C
O
)
"d +
♦«
♦
N
0
i-� O
^y
L
co
� •
Q>
r
~
co
O
♦�
U
I
O
^
N
N
i
It
«s .
O
♦�
•S
N
L
cu
♦�
I
N
O
M
NO
H
M
�♦
O
O
O
N
�
M
�•
O
♦
O
�
M
• �
O
♦�
O
•
N
O
♦
O
N
M
�
t
MI
OO
O
00
It O c0 N
N
00 I LO LO
N
04 N N
N N
(4) UOIIEA913

0
O
t
0
0
LO
U)
W
m
O
m
W
J
U)
�
�
s
m
+
kr)
cc
U
Ocy')
to
0
N
m
L
p
U
cz
N
H
�
m
N
I
oO
N
N
O
«
m
N
O
O
44
O
O�
r—
ti ti (C)
N
N N N N N
N N
(1j) UOIJenOJ:�

a
C
0
v
W
282
280
278
276
274
272
270
Stonebridge, Cross Section 1, Riffle
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation -flood prone area -As -built -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4

279
Stonebridge, Cross Section 2, Pool
278
277
276
0
275
- —
274
273
-
272
271
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
— bankfull elevation —As -built —Year 1 —Year 2 —Year 3 —Year 4]

276
275
274
a 273
0
W
� 272
u�
271
270
269
Stonebridge, Cross Section 3, Pool
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (ft)
- b.&&[lelevation-As- built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 -Y 4]

Stonebridge, Cross Section 4, Riffle
279
278
277
276
a 275 - -- - - -- _
a
274
cu
273
272 -
271 - --
270
269
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation -flood pmne area BAs -built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4

273
272
271
a
a 270
0
•a
m
269
W
268
267
266
Stonebridge, Cross Section 5, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25
Station (ft)
— bankfull elevation —flood prone area BAs built —Year 1 —Year 2 —Year 3 —Y.- 4]

272
271
270
x
c
° 269
m
v
W 268
267
266
0
Stonebridge, Cross Section 6, Pool
5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
- bankfullelevation-As- built -YearI -Year2 -Year3 -Year4

273
272
271
0
0
.W
W 270
269
268
Stonebridge, Cross Section 7, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation -flood prone area BAs -built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 Year 4

272
271
270
269
268
267
Stonebridge, Cross Section 8, Pool
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation BAs -built -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4

270
269
268
C
� 267
0
v 266
'w
265
264
263
Stonebridgc, Cross Section 9, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 u
Station (fl)
- bankfull elevation -flood prone area BAs -built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 Year 4

269
268
267
c
.W
266
v
u�
265
264
263
Stonebridge, Cross Section 10, Pool
10 15 20 25 30
Station (ft)
- bankfullelevation-As- built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4

269
268
267
266
265
264
263
262
Stonebridge, Cross Section 11, Riffle
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation -flood prone area BAs -Built -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 4

267
266
265
c
0 264
W
263
'hl
Stonebridge, Cross Section 12, Pool
i 10 15 20
Station (ft)
- bankfull elevation BAs -built -Year 1 -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year a

APPENDIX C
2009 Site Photos

Stream Problem Area Photos
SPA 1 — Typical vegetation in channel throughout UT1.
SPA 2 — Damaged fence, UT1 Sta. 48 +00.

SPA 3 — Minor right bank erosion, UT1 Sta. 47 +50 to 47 +80.
SPA 4 — Minor left bank erosion, UT1 Sta. 44 +60 to 45 +10.

SPA 5 — Minor right bank erosion, UT1 Sta. 40 +10 to 40 +50.
SPA 6 — Log grade control erosion, UT2, Sta. 2 +50.

SPA 7 — Log vane erosion, UT1, Sta. 29 +50.
SPA 8 — Erosion behind root wad, UT1 Sta. 29 +30.

SPA 9 — Erosion behind log vane arm, UT1 Sta. 29 +20.
SPA 10 — Mid - channel bar, vegetation in channel, UT1 Sta. 24 +00.

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

Vegetation Plot #2 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #2 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #3 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #3 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #4 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #4 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #5 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #5 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #6 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #6 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #7 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #7 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #8 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #8 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #9 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #9 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #10 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #10 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #11— upstream
Vegetation Plot #11 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #12 —upstream
Vegetation Plot #12 — downstream

!Q;,
Ih
A
Vegetation Plot #13 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #13 — downstream

Vegetation Plot #14 — upstream
Vegetation Plot #14 — downstream