The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20041512 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20090925by -1512 Stonebridge Mitigation Project Moore 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 (919) 782 -0495 September 2010 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 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 ................................................................... ............................... 11 4.1 Stream Success Criteria .............................................................. ............................... 11 4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ......................................... ............................... 12 4.2.1 Cross Sections .................................................................... ............................... 12 4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................... ............................... 12 4.2.3 Hydrology .....................................................:.................... ............................... 12 4.2.4 Stream Photo Reference Stations ....................................... ............................... 13 4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................... ............................... 13 4.3.1 Cross Sections .................................................................... ............................... 13 4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................... ............................... 13 4.3.3 Hydrology .......................................................................... ............................... 20 4.4 Stream Conclusions .................................................................... ............................... 21 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... ............................... 21 H FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) List of Figures Figure1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... ............................... 4 Figure2. USGS Map ........................................................................................ ............................... 5 Figure 3. Monitoring Overview Map ............................................................... ............................... 6 Figure 4. Stream Observation Areas Map ...................................................... ............................... 16 Figure 5. 2010 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 Table 4. Planted Tree Species ......................................................................... ............................... 9 Table 5. Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Results ................................... ............................... 10 Table 6. Volunteer Tree Species ................................................................... ............................... 11 Table 7a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT1 .......... ............................... 14 Table 7b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT2 ......... ............................... 14 Table 8. Stream Observation Areas ............................................................... ............................... 15 Table9. Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................. ............................... 20 Table 10. Summary Precipitation Data ......................................................... ............................... 20 Table 11. Summary of Stream Crest Gauge Data 2006 -2010 ....................... ............................... 22 Table 12a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2006 -2010 for UT .................... 22 Table 12b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2006 -2010 for UT2 .................... 22 Table 13. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2006 - 2010 ................... ............................... 23 APPENDICES Appendix A As -Built Survey Appendix B 2009 Profile and Cross Section Data Appendix C 2009 Site Photos M FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 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 5 at the Stonebridge Stream Restoration Site. Data collected for 2010 include: monthly crest gauge readings, monthly observations of current conditions, vegetation monitoring, cross section survey, digital images, and observations of stream stability. Fourteen 100 - square -meter monitoring plots were used to measure survival of the planted woody vegetation. The 2010 vegetation monitoring documents a range of survival is from 364 to 769 stems per acre. With an average of 526 stems per acre, the site is has achieved 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 and 2010 vegetation plots 4 and 5 did not exhibit high mortality compared to 2008 mortality rates. At least three occurrences of out -of -bank or bankfull events occurred between the months of February and August 2010. The stream morphology remains stable and little fluvial erosion was observed during the 2010 monitoring season. Based on the results presented in this Year 5 Monitoring Report, the project has achieved 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 -I 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 �J FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 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 I, 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 (SW) 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 e• < React►,Nam. d �' not Sire i � aMtigatbn'Units � n MU Mitgxaha�. oa��' pproa UT 1 5,556 Restoration UT2 564 Restoration Total 6,120 2 7 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 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 F-8 "_ 64 r -x x..a�,.yt 'acv June 2005 EBX -Neuse 1, LLC Mitigation Plan 919 608 -9688 December 2005 WK Dickson and Co., Inc Final Design 919 782 -0495 February 2006 WK Dickson and Co., Inc Construction 919 782 -0495 March 2006 Vegetation Planting Aril 2006 As -built Baseline Report November 2006 Year 2 Monitoring Report March 2007 Supplemental Vegetation Planting November 2007 Year 2 Monitoring Report November 2008 Year 3 Monitoring Report November 2009 Year 4 Monitoring Report November 2010 Year 5 Monitoring Report Table 3. Project Contacts Contact° @9 @a29Wg k4 �'�G , -•r�Pl ^.dk5•�•r•• ,; ,fig � "'� - '((� Firm =Infarinat ion G 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 as °'� �tee�P1g29 N °a �4�amR162 c °c 16 Deep River Gay �a 5e �t` 62 ^`O o P5� o o, 4 en Rd Pe «y RQ a ails Rd S 78 �a Q� G �e X00 v, 6 O m m r r U c O Co OUnr o 40 Stonebridge Project Site s Mill R 6 c a a 0taa 6 G) anor Rd Q o D Q N to d o � a �Otch`�° °g0 t m Oda 1 61 a NC Z m � s 2q 2l N o I" p y CD o a - , , J Figure 1. Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site Project Location Map C589W Moore County, NC 1 inch equals 1 mile °o acc Q h I( i f Rd J� t 1� to SQ Gi6e�e r I LUI - it Stonebridge Project Site 5 1 f 1 G v Off et Figure 2. Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site USGS Topographic Map Moore County, NC 1 inch equals 2,000 feet CU CD 00 1 LO cn C) o-(D 1 1 -700, N m > L ( ) M C C: w 1 L O O LL. O l OO• 11 L 1 co C-1 1 1 N X I 1 1 I 1 ii 11 \ > %r X O O 1 1 ILLI O 11 > 1 / n C // V / X x � O FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year S) 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 criterion for the survival of 260 - planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period was met in 2010 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et. al. 2003). Success of riparian vegetation was 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 was also performed. Up to 20 percent of the species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action would have been 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. 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 were be monitored twice per year for the first three years and herbaceous plant cover was monitored annually using the notched -boot method. The total number of each species planted is listed in Table 5. 8 r" FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Table 4. Planted Tree Species Commo n N e= �centificaName �FACe.Status Shrubs Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Silky Dogwood 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 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 also received a supplemental planting 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 July 2010. All 14 vegetation - monitoring plots were evaluated for success, and the overall condition of vegetation at the site was assessed. Table 5 shows the number of woody stems recorded for each plot and the success rate of each plot. Early above - average mortality in 2006 and 2007 necessitated that some areas be replanted to maintain adequate density. The surviving planted stems per acre after the fifth year ranged_ from 324 to 769, with an average of 520- 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 met the final success criteria of 260 planted trees per acre after 5 years. Slight positive changes in survival 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, green ash and elderberry. All of the plots met the five -year success criteria of 260 stems per acre. In 2008 and again in 2010, livestock entered a portion of the easement and temporarily damaged the herbaceous vegetation. This problem was corrected, and no reduction in planted stem survival was observed. The earlier impact resulted in an increase in the dominance of grasses in plot 2. The incursion in 2010 resulted in only minor damage to the herbaceous vegetation and no impacts to woody vegetation were observed. Plot 4 has the lowest density, but with 324 stems per acre, it still meets 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. 0 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Table 5. Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Results gg^ ;, ,�;, f'an's ^ -i; �.,:-P +uo,u �{. >�;",,*�•g�dr�� 9 I'd A'� d dYho�.4n�ka#. l° trkl :;�h �'„ lii- °f" "�;�� y, s�..�i, tal! : y 0: "9�.; i �, u'� ?'S�� i� �., 9'��e '�k, ��:ui '• `i 'a �.'� �i'�ii , 1 16 14 30 15 607 2 20 6 26 14 567 3 21 21 19 769 4 16 5 21 8 324 5 24 1 25 10 405 6 29 1 30 19 769 7 14 14 11 405 8 16 16 10 405 9 17 17 13 526 10 19 1 20 12 486 11 20 20 17 688 12 17 17 11 445 13 14 14 9 364 14 19 19 13 1 526 Avera a 19 12.9 1 520 Average Stems per Acre: 520 Range of Stems per Acre: 324 -769 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 dense, with greater than 95 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 1 and Plot 4, now have good herbaceous cover. Plot 1 has the least coverage, likely due to the surrounding trees. Small- localized rocky areas also have sparse herbaceous coverage. The locally dominant and commonly dense species are panic grass (Panicum anceps) and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis). Other prominent species include dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), 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.). 10 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 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 .✓�``�M;Pyi"�i., :Scien iic°Name.;. - ranu4 ;w,_,; „ - `,i i {ilhii� +fig *CommonxName ,;.e.,,, ,;c � �4"�'�'„ia`y,. !;FAC Status Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC Car inus caroliniana Ironwood FAC Ce halanthus occidentalis Common Buttonbush OBL Diospyros vir iniana Persimmon FAC Fraxinus Penns lvanica Green Ash FACW Li uidambar slyraciflua Sweet um FAC+ Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip Poplar FAC Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine FAC Rhus co allinum Winged Sumac NI Robinia pseudbacacia Black Locust UPL Ulm us alata Winged Elm FACU+ Ulmus rubra Slippery elm FAC 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 through 2010 indicate that this trend may be abating. The site meets the 5 -year success criteria for the vegetation plots. 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. 11 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) • Benthic Macroinvertebrate: 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): Cross section survey locations and Crest gauge locations are shown on Figures 3A and 3B • 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 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 -1 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 was surveyed annually including measurements of floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition, any fluvial features present were documented. 4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile Longitudinal profiles were surveyed annually during the monitoring period. The cumulative length of the measured profiles was at least 3,664 linear feet. Features measured 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 were checked monthly to document high flows. During each visit, a determination was made if an out -of -bank event had occurred since the prior 12 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) visit. During the gauge inspections, any high water marks or debris lines were 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.). A consistent stream flow was present during the early monthly site visits, but the channel has been dry since May, except for a few of the larger pools. At the time of the annual monitoring survey, the channel was dry. Vegetation within and along the stream banks was observed to be often lush and provide stable conditions. A number of log control structures were not visible due to dense vegetation. No problems with stream morphology were observed during the monitoring field visits. Photos of each located structure taken in July 2010 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 stream channel observation areas 4.3.1 Cross Sections The cross sections were surveyed during the Year 5 monitoring activities in July 2010. The As- Built cross - section surveys are shown with the Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Year 4, and Year 5 monitoring cross section surveys in Appendix B. The Year 5 cross sections do not differ significantly from the As- Built, Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 cross sections. All monitored cross sections for 2010 show very little adjustment in stream dimension. 4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile A longitudinal profile survey was conducted during the Year 5 monitoring activities in July 2010. The previous surveys of 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 7a and 7b below. 13 r FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year S) Table 7a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT1 • �`} ..ate a - ...,, . >;e "`° ° `�;.. "r;,�. }•.', :; ^ +' ;�.G' ,'�`-- 4;:+`';° y'^e4, ±r,.°;'-;' ' ° ,+•-i `� : _ -, �,y'r. •ti'' 'x.' '' .,,; `,v_" •: S a,2• °x,' i£`,=: BAs =Buit t x � °5` -" � �' aR; ,i .:Y!& Year 5re.x �?.r:�'� 'M`.� .b•' t. - Ek�n,. :n..� ^3 ��u:"��"" ;- �j .r;! i:k*:.: '�.�` i'�f _ :�`• �M• �r . °:. _ .� arty Avg. Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft) 31.0 31.4 Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 15.6 18.6 Avg. Bankfull W/D 8.1 11.1 Avg. Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 2.0 1.7 Avg. Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 2.9 3.1 Table 7b. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters for UT2 b..�, 'p�f.,�,u,,I�a;°F,us, y4'�°�N m. ;� "':�" •'.$'4k 1;� "�",.Yrt:ff.. 4' $ �''_L, " -' ,� ": �;T'ajjl�'"S�,C, ""- ' -- �'9.'1`ki• �i ri�Y Parameter ,,�y+,iy�}Y' r."nx^�!��.M:I�.g��F'P "�';.LnW.VW,C� °�.''4 X " "1Cpk3 y T'h'i �e,� t �6 "3 c'As= Built _i 'T�yi aa� ^'1�..G.'t Year'S`t,i_'t +. ._:'fiaJ'�'' i.«..y, x.p�r: ".,'� a1,Y ,3-:+a, . "'�;tr .b•' t. - Ek�n,. :n..� ^3 ��u:"��"" ;- 'j i'��. ?•? i-� -., Avg. Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft) 10.1 13.1 Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.2 10.7 Avg. Bankfull W/D 5.1 8.7 Avg. Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.4 1.2 Avg. Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.7 2.3 Overall, the restored stream channel has remained stable with very little adjustment to the profile. Diverse habitat is present including pools, grade control structures, vanes, various types of vegetation along the banks, and the immediate buffer along the banks is providing shade to the channel. A number of minor issues were observed, but no remedial action is recommended (Table 8). ' Most previous issues have stabilized or are becoming stable. Minor erosion present along some of the banks is due to the cattle intrusion described earlier, and in the buffer area, trampled herbaceous vegetation is localized. No impacts to stream stability were observed and the cattle have been removed. Water is flowing around a log grade control structure and a log vane, causing minor erosion (SOA4, SOA5, and SOA6). A minor headcut has stabilized due to vegetation. 14 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Table 8. Stream Observation Areas 15 " �14 :�De$eHF HIP UT Bank Erosion and 48+50, Minor damage due to cattle incursion and Buffer Vegetation 33+50 to 30+90 bank remains stable. No action SOA I Trampled UT 2 recommended. throughout Right Bank UTI Minor erosion on right bank. Area has Erosion 47+50 to 47+80 nearly stabilized since previous monitoring SOA 2 survey observation in 2009. Right Bank UTI Erosion 40+15 to 40+60 Minor erosion on right bank. SOA 3 Bank undercut along right bank at log Log Grade Control UT2 grade control. Channel is stable and no Right Bank 2+50 headcut was observed. No action SOA 4 recommended. Log vane undercut with minor headcut Log Vane UTI upstream. Channel upstream and SOA 5 16+00 downstream stable. No action recommended. Log'vane undercut. Channel upstream and Van Log Ve UTI downstream are stable and unaffected. No SOA 6 11+00 action recommended. Headcut UTI Minor headcut. Vegetation has stabilized SOA 7 2+15 the channel. 15 3N11 H01VW 0 < (3) 10 10 0 IWO) ig C) O 15+50 ----------- - ------ -- x 14+50 00 00 SO X(61 one 0 0 O i'�OO Q) O 00+0 O __\ - -------------------------- 00 - -- ---------------- --- 09+0 kol) c� L Q O O O O L , O E M w Z L M 0 Ln i __- cy 30*00 3N:2 �O 2a +00 0 1� �r N i i i1 kb'S O 0 J X �p 1� o' 1 c 23+ 0 CO °s 01 sk o 0 N ^k `1 -�kg0 00 k O� c r 0 oX ; 1p- 0 o w z _ 4- H a 3MI HDIVN L + Q ° O U �N O O L L J 0 L N O O W oo �L6£ ` �/ J CD h G N N O oM u I X I 00 9c 10 N1 T O O O � 01 +1 I sf 32'00 O ------ �o I N - -- -- -- x J x + +p + O O o O� sx N T a I .O G' ' O c9 OS O`N Q O Z O 0 + t+ + ---- -- i Q M r) N F — QZF—. w Q + U t~ LU 2 0 -- O +Q ce LU LL M LL LL \, DZ�D 0 p m V) 0 �0 == 8�is -1�UU xs CL w D Z) W Y 0 0 O�Q == z�MF -►- I V) six (6 -� m (3) 00 ` ,Q (3) i N a v o bA N ss I, 0 LL In o E OP, s� CU t/ 0 0 o ! 00X�S uNi /1 I 1 11 I CJ a� x �o X-A - oc �o os'\ 0 0 0 X8� �X 0 k r� i x q/! o t LO d O O i II Ln II T O G� p O O tl i p�x Yom/ O + 3NIl H 1VN I FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) 4.3.3 Hydrology The crest gauges were read on monthly sites visits from February through July 2010 (Table 9). All crest gauges recorded at least three out -of -bank or bankfull events that occurred during this period. Weather data were collected from a nearby weather station - Carthage Water Treatment Plant and the Moore County Airport. The precipitation data are summarized in Table 10 and Figure 5 and indicate that conditions were below normal through July. Data collected from the on -site gauge has only two monthly recordings, with one above normal and one below normal. The June reading includes May and June. The July data was lost due to disturbance of the on -site gauge from the cattle. Table 9. Crest Gauge Data Month Recorded Crest Gauge 1 Crest Gau e 2 Crest Gnu e 3 January - -- - -- - -- February 3.10 2.90 3.00 March 0.75 0.30 0.50 April 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 0.10 0.60 0.20 June 0.00 0.00 0.00 July 0.00 0.00 0.00 August - -- - -- - -- September - -- - -- - -- October - -- - -- - -- November - -- - -- - -- December - -- - -- I - -- Table 10. Summary Precipitation Data Month Average Normal Limits Carthage Precipitation On -Site Precipitation 30 Percent 70 Percent, January 4.51 3.44 5.43 3.33 - -- February 3.54 2.39 4.24 1.75 - -- March 4.65 3.52 5.64 2.37 - -- April 3.08 1.93 4.17 0.00 1.71 May 4.06 2.65 4.86 0.17 - -- June 4.18 2.36 5.16 1.58 5.85 July * 5.37 3.06 6.7 0.82 - -- August 4.65 3.22 5.57 - -- - -- 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 10.02 7.56 20 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) *Raingauge data at site not recorded due to gauge dislodged Data collected through July Figure 5. 2010 Precipitation Data for Stonebridge 2010 Precipitation for Stonebridge Site 10.0 — 9.0 80 70 — v • 6.0 c _ R 50 — 4.0 — a` 3.0 .... 2.0 1.0 J F M A M J J A S O N D Months --0 -On -site RainpLige - ------ 30th/701h Percentile 6 Carthage Monthly Rainfall 4.4 STREAM CONCLUSIONS Overall, the restored stream channel is stable and providing the intended habitat and hydrologic functions. Water is flowing around a log grade control structure and a log vane, causing minor erosion (Table 7, SOA4 and SOA5). A minor head cut is present upstream of the log vane. Vegetation has stabilized the banks and channel at these structures. All monitored cross sections for 2010 show very little adjustment in stream dimension. Three bankfull events were recorded during the 2010 monitoring season, exceeding the requirement of two bankfull events within five years. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The stream, hydrologic, and vegetation monitoring data for all five monitoring years at the site are summarized in Tables 11 -13. 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. 21 FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Table 11. Summary of Stream Crest Gauge Data 2006 -2010 fitl�iki X2006" _ Year 2001 NMI Years y ".K a i7i 3`� 2o�08�u rear' °P 2 09�i010p, ear �4d ears ' n = sk ,I, pips , M11" s I; d :..... ', iij =fix"'. `�m5��r;ai ;',c.,';, ^�ar.�'k''::ii 7i.�ikq�:-.'raaat.�`a: Number of Bankfull 4 3 6 2 3 Events 23.5 29.9 31.4 s ft Maximum Height >4 3.7 2.8 3.7 3.1 Above Bankfull (feet) 14.2 14.5 15.3 15.1 18.6 I January - July Table 12a. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters 2006 -2010 for UTl �aa KK" i rA •�� P fi- �'�'�_ = h(N. " � P b.�..,, J eq `� n iii '�� i: ? (mk' �' d u it Fear '""Rd5 p 2009 '0 � 9II eat ' '�� V�V A d � �F n, is Year. „� d 3 S Bankfull Cross Section Area, Abkf 31.0 27.0 28.4 23.5 29.9 31.4 s ft Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 15.6 14.2 14.5 15.3 15.1 18.6 Bankfull W/D 8.1 7.9 7.7 10.4 7.9 11.1 Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) j 2.0 j 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.7 Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1 2.9 1 2.7 3.0 2.7 3.12 3.1 Table 12b. Summary of Morphologic, Monitoring Parameters 2006 -2010 for UT2 1 W°�+ r '''. Yea � Vp Dpa; Urg - OW" � ii, „� d 3 S Bankfull Cross Section Area, Abkf 10.1 11.5 11.5 9.8 10.6 13.1 (sq ft Avg. Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.2 8.7 8.5 7.9 8.3 10.7 Bankfull W/D 5.1 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.5 8.7 Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.7 2.0 2.1 1 1.9 2.0 2.3 22 III FINAL Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Table 13. Summary of Vegetative Monitoring Data 2006 -2010 �,:,�;," ' ''� " a `a." R55 .fi.,..., �,��m�wr Plin ted1,Stems, 4,100K : !ts !,2'OU6 1007 ,: ,:; i, .;;: u ,.,,Year Year ase:,.,.,,:,,,,; (gin ,��, .. £F. 30080, x;20:09 .,> > :n r:...;.:., Year . .Year :k' o 4i.ii'.x it 4 } 1`:2010.; =,r s ar;,P ..:. 1 648 526 364 607 607 607 2 810 526 526 607 607 567 3 850 769 769 769 688 769 4 648 283 283 324 324 364 5 972 567 567 445 405 405 6 1174 972 972 891 850 769 7 567 486 445 405 405 445 8 648 526 486 364 405 405 9 688 648 607 607 648 526 10 769 567 526 486 486 486 11 810 607 688 688 607 688 12 688 526 486 445 445 445 13 567 526 526 364 364 364 14 769 607 526 445 526. 526 Average 758 581 555 532 526 526 The stream morphology is stable, and little fluvial erosion was observed. Sedimentation that has occurred in the stream channel is minor. The vegetation is surviving well throughout the restoration project. 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 2010 observations, the planted vegetation on site is providing the intended riparian habitat, water quality benefits, and shade for the stream system. 23 APPENDIX A As -Built Survey ill ®r 0, Rpm � �1 -1 f�-�i �i Arl 16SIl 041 . or) 'o" L 1 'WIMP 411, , FRI rX 04, 4111 ,A ,-- `-� `` V `�. ` We'll, e U0 t z UL 1 a z� XA LLI 0 , ulkull m, IL h1i A a r4q, ,.N•f 'pol L i1 r4 NO J Do OP 640 Z2�- ? G- -,- .2 0 S 0 �u z a: 0 E 1 1 I `/ `\♦i; Imo. I W W N N _J _ LLA m JZ r o ZQ r Q I QQz OQp V) D F_ p 0 UQO,V°�c Z j LAJ N Ld ZOIQ - Q L, 0oLJw d Q 1 LI OO N W Q m OO '- I1 QOLtl 0mZOZO _ 2wQn- xM� \ —r QOZ4 F-II J ON W rl mInU�rQ a r �W r v) Q D Z w' I Wrr J r ) or¢ Oz<rn Ow W Zr 2 °NH CvN If i 1 r3ro _j 0 M a- < z Ir'�jl� 1 a:QZO UwQ V) ON �I N w p— drpaQm 3 w J W I pp U I Z M L) O 0f } ww IQ `i�� L V) � z M Q O Z) r cr - - -- -% IrLLJ�Iw °w OZ �� ZOOM >Ln N?LJ I \ I°ZOrKQ Qw :) 04 m f F- D 2 Z o ° V) O° w U 3w r. � � Ir O m °� I (n r p Q Q i. `y`syl�lllf } W W F W 3 Z F- pQzN > r r a Z O m N J YQ} W D m < O NQ 3 :Ill %J Mm L, Y 1`il 1 `' �0Cr Zww Cr �.l 0� w III 1111 I,i ; ��`` —?Nm°U O >Wd0 : 00 1 , I \ 1, Ii 11i H 1 1 ._ ` - II I _ 1 `1% It zz / 41 �` \ yI I i 1 1♦`I ``I \ J `•I11 `r. \ \` \I m vmA s w m�wo fe rwlc ns a1n mllrws YNORO IM w4 ®IW1I,, 1�11pp11ffgqpppp Nu fn 1'MOFU ]LL (P sY0.1 AIID VLllran oP^JpIMLI0m� ayNyo�mp1�0100 NM D INIfN001ULLtl111GNA11 'lWG M tlD 3EM1 M I1011lf TM6Ml� 'W � IPLI q 111` � ilOplA� Yn o uM11w ra >D »lfifn m wuxmulal mA16n u \w / L.L N Z C/) Q � J J J m m cn a rn Q Z O Q U m 1= LLJ O cn Q W (n U LLJ J � J0 W a- < O x Q o W U 0 jE UC m Q L z M W U J Ct 2 Q L a W W U :2 CD Z.0 O m > W Z z w0 In k vim sg ,a P �D ^ OZ� O u U E �ga�p�Ik6 R a\ I R I I I 1 i R � � s a � u 7 r cOi U G � < �i LTj � > u o aW � a m m S J u N s o QQ+ 3NI-1 HOiVIN \ N , / + \ i 1 + 1 \ � IaaGll(1YY , u . I, ♦� "Ot \I OSXa I , I I \ 1 l \ I \ + I � 1 \ I � , `�I 1 L -- �• 1 1 g S a I N N rv� N N N ry ry ry N N N N ry N N N � � saw aeu � a a aaam� x nna ra on aYUwa w�n uu �au�" Wn° �n�ii° m�u�n��i�l�u�lOOin `��li"�m�`iniw u x�+ � •w�i� 0 I• In + Z pp a J a H ~ _J V% D O m I N O Q O w + O O M Q m w Z O _ N I I— r U J J 0 W Z Z a0 S � a X Q w 0 0 F a _ U U K Z:2 Z Q M w U J E' Q F— as H U) LLJ LLJ U Z Q 0— >m z W W O F— In �o gg +fib I .!, fr$ Cgs p4 _�a yyYY S� w1 OZ� zi O if 3Q s b 9 I 1 I � I 1 Q 3N11 1'0 ILL W 6 Iq v o u R L < R ° JI 8 z � / o5+z1 41 3Nl) NOl g , b 1 ' I 8 I, 1 I 1 M \ � I i i I IIii1� `\ } \ /iii /1,, ' // \\ T ..,. .. .. R �e- x 1 8 8 m I I ' Gp ♦ .. 0 +B• i`fll Old. ... N H le'IO N N H iav H C� ii � N N N R M ry r OMry� l'� W lWlb IIWW 9wW M s ryIa0bY M ip�OO�LU YWT]0 9 cr N i Ylpulm )1t D En IO MOY }QVfp 0 JM �I I IpCGY •M V I !Rl IE Ln O LO J J 0 m 0 I 0 Ln Q co CD W C Q K ~ m U) W O I _ N U v� J0 W O Z Q0 U F-- x Q W00 � a _ U F Z Z a m W U J Q N a W W U � C7 Z p O �m % w w0 I— in u IC IHl�lm �I� �jv yy a �98 � 655 Z6 O$ YCU� 3Q 6 V�2 i 1 9 � W � ¢1J I�IIf J YI VI JJ O UO O u F 40 ♦ n e o 3 g o i 00+ Z 3 13 HO VYV < a U w o g U U U g U W. W R 8 I 00 +9Z 3NI3 HOIVM i ... .. .. .. `x1 9. I I I 1 I / I ' ,�• ,III I 1 "`�, I s.� °off JV -" I ��\qv`1 111 1 I 1 f 1, T' I 1 8 1 � i O i In 0 11 OSX�1.F 1 1 1`1 I , r'" 1 I— 1 8 m a, s 8 05+ I L 3NI I HOl M II�� N N tV �1OO RI �'1 N IP1 iC aapp YY11 N �`1 �Y�aj�. y�lYV1 yGO��I •\ lY {V 1p`1 N M N N ^ �yy� ��pp Slat 7til OTA B S lm S TI16 TS SILL M{ T� IN 4�MV� MLLW, ltCw4 L�i�a N uo' � M lw�a�ilp®�io L�qu �� n 4ip11W M n Sn b 1pLMpp� 1a]x 41Ctl TI ]N m � 110000 rM� N 0 O N Z O Q + J (D d N O J F- CD p 1 LC) N + Q w o Q CY F- m Cf) w z o jV D U U LLJ J0 W a QO 2 F- a x Q o w CD _ U H 0 zg Q m W cWa a�i-E �- CO U W W Z p g� (If >m wW Z H I� IWIll$IIs JO sus s 9�s F 855 Zs �Qs l lv� -162 I I , I I R z o 0 2 � � F U � < Iii 4 H U O O y{� p ?._ o w o a < R � Y F f y.. a - O� �yx � \�F, It `. / ---- - - -- -- : 111 I `r ip�a -------------- e wz N d � 8 1 1 x - - - -- PO �\ 11 \ 1 i Ue� I ' 1 I 1 - I I , 1 .. , I 8 1 ON 1 --- - -- --- _ r r' r , \ 8 1 \ \ 8 I 8 004z 3 13 H� V41 momlm iva ax vuvwc >ru s u"r�ilram n'in' 'm° mva�' �v' Ir' �nv • aa01 °�' °Y. r�amw xr i i i El 0 Z 0 0 J F- m 0 1 o + Q (D w N C� p Q M N W Z o I vi F- D U LLJ Jp J � L �z a0 2 � a X Q W � a V _ U 'V c U G K Z� z Q m W cwa Q F- ~ (n a W W :2 0 Z p 0� M w. LJ Lj 0 F- V) 0 to b nh Qua -wp dR kk988 „ Sill Zfi a fi 5 U� u lag R I I � +trb Np 31VYV R p O - At F F U W 1 O U V iS F i In v O bl R 3 i , 3 3 Yi leg R , 1 ' 1 1 \ I s ----------- %''i'' --- z - ---- / '; I 1 \ \ 1 // 1' 111'1 I;lir;l - I III I 1 1�1 1y 1 1 1 I / r I I III 00 x� 1 + i 11,`1 x `,4 ; '1) - - -- ; 1 \ \ I , I i 00+91' p +S 3'NI FI31 V4 r I 8 1py tt� m mm n a awosm��TMln y/,a m �,1� In w�a I�alii4 ll1�xO0I�, W�1'�nia b�°mw M a�InRIa0�0 Yu � �wuTn to uu , wN� wl O ulylpO w D En a IPUxmItlA all®I LIGn in TI 'm � Mora° NR� llowdo 0 cn O Z + J O 5 m O 1 O to + Q LO w 1'� c� o Q M <n w z O � I V) U J JO wa CD aO S H a X < w C) a _ U x U Z:2 z Q m LLJ U J c a Fa—V1 a Z U :2 U z p of Of > m w W O F-- u IG ��sa! Ma_ �Qa �s3 R X655 OZ� Z �V �Q 6 I1R I I ' � � III � • 9 I i q z 2 $ o W F ni N d s o U og +�s ti-t :)Iv V4 U m u O < , ZZ p W A 1 I ] .. ... .. ... .. LO LLJ --------- Q - - ;�Ili��1;;l;lii;l �; lii;il IIi III ' ; � $ ii'lilill;; .. .. .. . III IIIIjI \ k `11A' \ \ /11'11111 ;;;111111j11,'11111 \�`` I 1,lOil 1(i bilv 11/n `\1' i �i�l `I �\ �``\ It kkk ' III I{ ¢ it / ul ,I I MK 8 III I� a x1 It I Ilk I Ii\ \ I R 1 W N c 00 +ti 3NI I Hot Vil Miry oo"ilmim Ippaune4 i ni 'x° 1i �uWiN w I'�o'pOmw�a�lr��s:u w ��'munn to m�a � ��ina ulylco w s an m murmnol o +w �r 'm � mnm , »°� + i O N o z + a Ln H p J D m p 1 O N + Q w 0 p M U) w z o V) F- rn U LLJ J 0 J 0 it w O Z QO =I= a X Q ? w 0 a _ U 2 U Z:2 z Q M L LI U J � G f— U) Q jz w W U z p O - � z m W W O V) m la IN PIP{ 26� � Q55 Z6 �Q r �8 Z � O F W s � U > rc J JJ O GI 00, � H Z pp 4w Q� 3 K v i U V a"p 111 �111i TWA M 1M" uu a sMUT�mn l0 4O ug�W Mm�wM�n�Man m Ipu]Imlm mn 4me TM1 �M 'm t No4ou 7tM ' I g N N N N N R R R N h R R r s N R N2 0 LO U) r, Z + Q Ln 0 J F- m 0 I Ln V) + Q n W LO M (n W Z O H � D U W U � J0 J � W n- < 0 S F- a x Q W o 00 F7 a -d: U ¢ Q < z M W U Q jE F V) < W W U ::E 0 Z p O 6� of 5; m w W 0 F- V) n a 5 6 °57 Op �u �Q G NBC F p� �1 �ppp cnem �uu lgu a of aaam�� nrre wa ury zrvroa Ny MlM ODw11 l ♦M4M 'tWe M U ri �) D J 0 0 U 0 0 J ) 0 'D "�� '�� I � S 9 i � 1 x A A g N N N N N R R R N h R R r s N R N2 0 LO U) r, Z + Q Ln 0 J F- m 0 I Ln V) + Q n W LO M (n W Z O H � D U W U � J0 J � W n- < 0 S F- a x Q W o 00 F7 a -d: U ¢ Q < z M W U Q jE F V) < W W U ::E 0 Z p O 6� of 5; m w W 0 F- V) n a 5 6 °57 Op �u �Q G NBC F p� �1 �ppp cnem �uu lgu a of aaam�� nrre wa ury zrvroa Ny MlM ODw11 l ♦M4M 'tWe M U ri �) D J 0 0 U 0 0 J ) 0 'D "�� '�� I �I v ��IIII�•j 3 � d N O 00 10 O' N O 0 (O d N O LA 1� n n tG IO IO t0 IG h N IA N N 0 °+ SECT \ ! 0 -:?�, p \ 32+ \ o O r, i /d a _ o I Lo o / F- W i Si - -- X ! - I 1 It I /I + 1I I' i 1 I + k I 1 + ; ; • � N I , I \ � � � 'III � =t�•i • -/ - � [ y/ \00 +5 I11 � r 1 � cA yh 1. �I o 0 ° ° N N N N N N N N N N N N N IOUiMI Nb°0•° •ulre N n 1nW�M U� W n YgIMOJ au n En n Mou7<mll�l tlT Ioe TI �N 'm t Mourn M4 "� crow 0 1 I / � w 1 g s 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q O J + d LO F- O J � m O I O N + Q O w cD Q o F- m w N z � O � N :D L-LI wa U Z QO =tea X Q O W CD � � a U U � Z:2 O Q = M W v J � a F- (n Q W W U Z p o— � CD U J � W W O a N� �101 ��v y 3 Pyy8€ 6 5�� y 6ss� e= z 6 �cUs 30 1 ' Q O J + d LO F- O J � m O I O N + Q O w cD Q o F- m w N z � O � N :D L-LI wa U Z QO =tea X Q O W CD � � a U U � Z:2 O Q = M W v J � a F- (n Q W W U Z p o— � CD U J � W W O a N� �101 ��v y 3 Pyy8€ 6 5�� y 6ss� e= z 6 �cUs 30 1 ' APPENDIX B 2010 Profile and Cross Section Data ; J C)O •� ° O O co M N O O M th • O X M 1 lima •� •t O O (N m J w � ♦� O O O Lo M cu O 00 N (0 } � + p N C Ili (0 M N in M' 0 CU b + -d y �♦ c m O L I C U � N _II Cd M 47 O it O N } • 00 VIII ♦ N O O N 00 r 1 J O O H � • O O O O N H O O r 00 LO CO f— N LO cn co LO O In co M N N 00 O (0 N N N (4) UOIIEn913 0 0 m 0 0 ♦ LO U) m Co o 0 v m H, m H J LO + ca N � � c o p +O CO .sy � c • � O } U CJ� ♦ N c,� } I � � ♦ N r f0 } I , O O ♦ O I� N O 00 CO ti O O V O N O N N N N N N N (}}) uol}ena13 a 0 a v W 282 280 278 276 274 27_2 270 Stonebridge, Cross Section 1, Riffle 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Station (ft) — bankfull elevation —flood prone area BAs- built —Year I —Ym 2 —Y.3 —Y=4 —Year5 Stonebridge, Cross Section 2, Pool 279 275 277 c 276 c ° 275 .W 274 273 272 271 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 U Station (ft) — bankfullelevation—As- built —Year I —Ycar2 —Year3 —Year4 —YcarS 276 275 274 a 273 0 v 272 u 271 270 269 Stonebridge, Cross Section 3, Pool u 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Station (ft) — bankfullelevation —As- b Wit —Year I —Year2 —Year3 —Year4 —YearS Stonebridge, Cross Section 4, Riffle 279 278 — -- 277 276 275 °o — 274 v 273 � 272 271 270 269 0 5 10 15 20 25 w Station (ft) — bankfull elevation —Hood prone area — Asbuilt —YearI —Ymr2 —Year3 ----Year4 —Ycar:5] 273 272 271 c c 270 0 W v 269 W 268 267 266 Stonebridge, Cross Secdon 5, Riffle 10 15 0 Station (ft) - bankfull elevation -Flood prone area -As -built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 -Year 3 -) car 9 272 271 270 269 268 267 266 Stonebridge, Cross Section 6, Pool Station (fl) — bankfull elevation BAs- built —Year I —Year 2 —Year 3 —Year 4 —Year 5 273 272 271 270 269 268 Stonebridge, Cross Section 7, Riffle 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Station (ft) - bankfullelmtion - floodproncarea -As- built -Year I -Ycar2 -Year3 -Year 4 �YearS 272 271 270 i; 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 -Year 5 270 269 268 4= a 267 0 y 266 LLJ 265 264 263 Stonebridge, Cross Section 9, Riffle 10 15 20 25 Station (ft) — bankfull elevation —flood prone area —As -built —Year I —Year 2 —Year 3 —Year 4 —Year 5 C c 0 W 269 268 267 266 265 264 263 Stonebridge, Cross Section 10, Pool 0 5 IU Is 20 25 in Station (ft) — bankUl elevation —As- built — Year I —Year 2 —Year 3 —Year 4 —Year 5 269 268 267 266 265 264 263 262 Stonebridge, Cross Section 11, Riffle Station (ft) - bankfull elevation -Flood prone area -As -Built -Year I -Year 2 -Year 3 Year4 -Year 5-1 267 266 265 G C 0 264 a W 263 262 261 Stonebridge, Cross Section 12, Pool 0 5 10 15 20 -_ Station (ft) - bankfull elevation-As- built -YearI -Year 2 -Year 3 _Ycar4 -Year5 APPENDIX C 2010 Site Photos Appendix C 2010 Site Photos Stream Observation Area Photos SOA 1 — Minor bank damage due to cattle incursion, upper reaches of UTI. SOA 1 — Minor vegetation damage due to cattle incursion, upper reaches of UT1. Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos Stream Observation Area Photos �l l A L * 474 10 SOA 2 — Minor right bank erosion, UT1 Sta. 47 +50 to 47 +80. SOA 3 — Minor right bank erosion, UTl Sta. 40 +15 to 45 +10. Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos Stream Observation Area Photos SOA 4 — Bank undercut along right bank at log grade control, UT2 Sta. 2 +50. SOA 5 — Log vane undercut, UT1, Sta. 16 +00. Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos Stream Observation Area Photos �- \. r a1 r s. �, ,ter•, ,�h • / -�� 1 J SOA 6— Log Vane undercut., UT1, Sta. 11 +00. SOA 7 — Minor headcut. Vegetation has stabilized the channel., UT1 Sta. 2 +15. Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #1 - upstream Vegetation Plot #1 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #2 — upstream Vegetation Plot #2 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #3 — upstream Vegetation Plot #3 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #4 — upstream Vegetation Plot #4 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #5 — upstream Vegetation Plot #5 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #6 — upstream Vegetation Plot #6 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #7 — upstream Vegetation Plot #7 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #8 — upstream Vegetation Plot #8 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) s' •pIr`" �� S •`t C �_ •k ��;. a • �E � r r . W"u " :- LL z }� . �•,r •`t C �_ � r . W"u " :- LL z }� . �•,r � r t 1� • -46- ,• ,l, . W"u " :- LL z }� . �•,r Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #10 — upstream Vegetation Plot #10 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos VP II Vegetation Plot #11 — upstream Vegetation Plot #11 —downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #12 — upstream Vegetation Plot #12 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #13 — upstream Vegetation Plot #13 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5) Appendix C 2010 Site Photos - Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot #14 — upstream Vegetation Plot #14 — downstream Stonebridge Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2010 (Year 5)