HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040977 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 5_20100212l
\ 1
1
� J
J
�i
City Pond Mitigation Project
Anson County, North Carolina
Year 5 Monitoring Report
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
1iJ
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
And
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675 P
February 2010 ��
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table of Contents
! _ 1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ...............................
i February 2010
2.0
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................
............................... I
2.1
Project Description .......................................................................
............................... 1
2.2
Project Purpose .............................................................................
............................... 2
2.3
Project History & Schedule ..........................................................
............................... 5
3.0
VEGETATION ........................................................................................
..............................5
- ;
3.1
Vegetation Success Criteria ..........................................................
............................... 5
3.2
Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ......................
............................... 5
3.3
Results of Vegetation Monitoring .................................................
............................... 6
3.4
Vegetation Observations & Conclusions ......................................
............................... 7
4.0
STREAM
MONITORING .....................................................................
............................... 7
4.1
Stream Success Criteria ................................................................
............................... 7
4.2
Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ...........................................
............................... 8
`=
4.2.1 Cross Sections .....................................................................
............................... 8
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ............................................................
............................... 8
-�
4.2.3 Hydrology ............................................................................
..............................8
4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations ....................................................
............................... 8
_
4.3
Stream Morphology Monitoring Results ......................................
............................... 9
4.3.1 Cross Sections .....................................................................
............................... 9
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ............................................................
............................... 9
4.3.3 Hydrology .........................................................................
............................... 17
4.3.4 Climate Data .....................................................................
............................... 17
4.4
Stream Conclusions ................................:...................................
............................... 19
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................
............................... 20
i February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report.1br 2009 (Year 5)
List of Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................... ............................... 3
Figure2. USGS Map ....................................................................................... ............................... 4
Figure3. Monitoring Plan View .................................................................... ............................... 10
Figure 4a -e. Stream Problem Areas ............................................................... ............................... 12
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation for City Pond ................................................... ............................... 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ..................................... ............................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ............................................. ............................... 5
Table3. Project Contacts ................................................................................. ............................... 5
Table4. Planted Tree Species ......................................................................... ............................... 6
Table 5. Results of 2009 Vegetation Monitoring ............................................ ............................... 6
Table 6. Stream Areas Requiring Observation in 2009 ................................. ............................... 11
Table 7. Crest Gauge Summary Data for Years 1 - 5 .................................... ............................... 17
Table 8. County and On -site Rainfall Data ................................................... ............................... 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A As -Built Survey
Appendix B 2009 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2009 Site Photos
Appendix D Morphological Parameters Comparison Table
ii February 2010
�J
�i
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
1.0 SUMMARY
The City Pond Stream Mitigation Project site is located near the town of Wadesboro in Anson
\ ` County, North Carolina. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of 10,574 linear
feet of channelized stream on several unnamed tributaries to City Pond. 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 completed in 2005. 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 Year 5 at the City
Pond Stream Restoration Site. Data collected for 2009 include crest gauge readings, on -site rain
gauge readings, monthly observations of current conditions, cross sections survey, profile survey,
digital images, observations of potential stream stability problems and vegetation survival.
The design for the City Pond project involved the restoration of channel dimension, pattern, and
profile on eight separate reaches, and the enhancement of dimension and profile on one reach.
After construction, it was documented that 9,869 linear feet of stream had been restored, and 705
linear feet of stream had been enhanced.
The data presented in this Annual Monitoring Report is from 3 crest gauges, 20 cross sections,
and 3,400 linear feet of longitudinal profile on 8 reaches, as required in the approved Restoration
Plan for this site. Digital images were recorded at all 20 cross sections and all in- stream structures
that could be located. Planted tree density from five 1 /10th acre plots randomly located within the
riparian buffer estimate trees per acre.
The 2009 stream monitoring data documents that little has changed in the stream channel pattern
and cross - sectional dimensions since last year's monitoring efforts. Most in- stream structures are
stable and continue to function as designed. There were minor cases of bed erosion in reaches R1
and S1. During 2009, the stream channel experienced multiple bankfull events. It was concluded
that the site has achieved the stream success criteria as specified in the Restoration Plan.
Vegetation monitoring indicated a range of tree density between 490 and 670 stems per acre. The
site met the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third
growing season and has met the final vegetation survival criteria of 260 stems per acre surviving
after the fifth growing season. The vegetation looks healthy and consistent throughout.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Pond Stream Restoration Project is located near the town of Wadesboro in Anson
County, North Carolina (Figure 1 & Figure 2). The stream systems that historically flowed
through the site were channelized and highly incised prior to restoration. The design for the
restored streams involved the construction of new meandering channels across the low slope
valleys, and restored step pool channels in the higher slope valleys.
The site has a history of pasture and hay production, preceded by row crop production. Ditches
were used to increase land use and improve drainage when the land was under crop production.
The streams on the project site were channelized, and riparian vegetation was cleared in most
February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
locations. Stream and riparian functions on the site had been severely impacted as a result of
agricultural conversion.
The project involved the restoration and enhancement of 10,574 linear feet of channelized stream
on several unnamed tributaries to City Pond. The project restored 9,869 linear feet of channel
dimension, pattern, and profile, and enhanced 705 linear feet of channel dimension and /or profile.
Table 1 shows the as -built lengths and restoration type for each reach. The 2009 monitoring
season represents the fifth and final year of monitoring for this site.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Reach Name
As -Built Length
(feet
Stream Mitigation
Units
Restoration Approach
R1
705
470
Enhancement I
R2
2,611
2,611
Restoration
R3
777
777
Restoration
S1
734
734
Restoration
S2
1,150
1,150
Restoration
S3
710
710
Restoration
S4
1,711
1,711
Restoration
S5
1,744
1,744
Restoration
S6
432
432
Restoration
Total
10,574
10,339
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
Monitoring of the City Pond Mitigation Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation
based on the criteria described in the City Pond Mitigation Plan. Both stream and vegetation
monitoring are conducted throughout the growing season. Success criteria must be met for five
consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the stream monitoring for 2009 at the
City Pond Stream Mitigation Site.
2 February 2010
a
0
1
x
c
x
N
�I
�• S Y
gShe PVT N
�O HARGRAVE
�•� •.. <�ticT Wadesboro .,,,
00 �• ; O,y Ng� \L�
%ASP .. \\, ➢ �, . +. P O-
t RlNGF�ECO �'YS�O Z N� •! `• � �.. i
%1.
IANSFORD `
Vat <q�e RFFMgN ,q�b �
T�F Q i i 1
w
4'
1 Q
O .y
�L
Q�
PVT
Q
I
City Pond Project Site
Figure
City Pond Stream Mitigation Site
Project Location Map
Anson County, NC
1 inch IMF
equals 2,000 feet
Y
�.. so .1�•�,Q� G� °.1y °e� °�y pry �o�? gSyF 5 N
`" Q� � ccy�
it
`� ,i '�, a• y� O HARGRAVE
'.`� %r Wadesboro °`i9
.G'� , �•� P� •�.. oaf 00-5 3 f ' gUR PE`
��' ••:\• • ^ �� SPRY F �tiS N �1_ �•rPP
` 3 i oP? �GP`�. 4 / • 9 t NG rElp �pRO = O� �.•��
I der
park ',` tUOO. R LANSFORD
F
l\ W'�. 7 '640 �1 ! / R�'f( Q •` T
OVVNSEND
1�11UUUU�ijj l/ {Y 1'
\ A O Hanna 9 --
5
F _ _ •'ate] • • �• _ ,
J m ° 40 = ��
'� V�'�� °:;p � � .. �� �j,��-. Gam.• � C a �c
( -- i i ' f G�- �' lL • 450 _
O PVT • V?'
v '4d
,ate. • � � �
City Pond Project Site l '�
• � 1. -
1,
�,`�`�
•�((�
/
` A'
-:O• •�j
,'�
4i �
I r
i•
i �
Ch+ ?
J 1
000
s
—.
.4.._
-
Figure
A. Anson •
1 inch equals 2,000 feet
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX in the spring of 2004. The following table outlines project
history and milestones, as well as background information (Table 2).
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Date
Action Performed
November 2004
Construction Be an
May 2005
Construction Completed
May 2005
Planting Completed
June 2005
Post Construction Monitoring Gauges Installed
August 2005
As -Built Report Submitted
November 2005
1 st Annual Monitoring Report
February 2006
Replanted 3.5 acres with two year old trees
November 2006
2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007
3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008
4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009
5th Annual Monitoring Report
Table 3. Project Contacts
Contact
Firm Information
Project Manager
EBX -Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster
(919 ) 608 -9688
Designer
Buck Engineering PC
Kevin Tweedy, PE
919 463 -5488
Monitoring Contractor
WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram
919 782 -0495
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The final measure of vegetative success for the City Pond Mitigation Plan is the survival of 260
5- year -old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. Up to 20 percent
of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action may be required
should volunteers (i.e., sweetgum, red maple, etc.) exceed 20 percent composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tree species were planted in the riparian buffer:
5 February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Table 4. Planted Tree Species
-No.
'Common Name
Scientific Name ,
FAC Status
1
Shagbark Hickory
Carya ovata
FACU
2
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
FACW-
3
Persimmon
Diospyrus virginiana
FAC
4
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvan.
FACW
5
Yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
FAC
6
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW-
7
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
FAC
8
American Elm
Ulmus americana
FACW
9
Laurel Oak
Quercus lauri olia
FACW
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Five plots
were established on the City Pond Mitigation Site that covers approximately 2 percent of the site.
The vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1 /10th of an acre in size or 50 feet x 87 feet
dimensionally. The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the riparian buffer.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and
permanently establish the area to be sampled. Ropes were then hung connecting all four corners
to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot. Trees
right on the boundary and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50
percent of their canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A ten -foot piece of
white PVC pipe was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of the
site throughout the five -year monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were marked with orange flagging and a 3- foot -tall piece
of half -inch PVC to distinguish them from any colonizers, and to help in locating them in the
future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent, numbered aluminum tag.
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Table 5 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring plots. The species ID numbers across the
top row correspond to the numbered species listed in Table 4. Each plot is identified down the
left column.
Table 5. Results of 2009 Vegetation Monitoring
Average Stems per Acre: 558
Range of Stems per Acre: 490 -670
February 2010
Species,ID_Number (from -Table 4)
Plot
1'
2 „
3
.4
' 5`
6
7
-8
9
Total,,
Sterns per",
:
acre
CPI
0
19
6
1
4
9
5
10
0
55
550
CP2
0
23
0
1
1
4
0
28
0
57
570
CP3
2
4
27
1
2
8
0
7
0
51
510
CP4
0
9
11
20
0
1
13
13
0
67
670
CPS
0
10
3
5
9
9
5
4
4
49
490
Average Stems per Acre: 558
Range of Stems per Acre: 490 -670
February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Volunteer woody species were observed in most of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally. Volunteer species have been monitored throughout the five year monitoring period.
Sweetgum (Liguidambar styrac�flua) is the most common volunteer, though privet (Ligustrum
spp.), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Ater rubrum) was also observed.
3.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
This site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March 2005. The 2009 vegetation
monitoring documented that the site has an average tree density of 558 stems per acre with a
range of 490 to 670 stems per acre. This site met the minimum success interim criteria of 320
trees per acre at the end of the third growing season and met the final success criteria of 260 trees
per acre at the end of the fifth growing season.
At the beginning of the 2006 growing season, two year old trees were replanted in proximity to
and including Plot 5 due to high mortality the previous year. The five year old saplings are
healthy and growing and the mortality rate is consistent with what is found throughout the site.
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are found on the site.
Naturally occurring hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is also occurring on site. Cattails (Typha
spp.), rush (Juncus effitsus), spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), knotweed (Polygonum persicaria),
iris (Iris spp.), arrow -leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatztm), and sedge (Carex spp.), all
hydrophytic herbaceous plants, are frequently observed across the site, particularly in areas of
inundation. Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), an obligate wetland plant, is dominant in the central
wetter zone of the site. The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the
presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are zones of weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the weedy
species are annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability onsite. Commonly seen
weedy vegetation includes hay, dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.) and blackberry
(Rubus spp.).
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Restoration Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
includes the following:
Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year
monitoring period.
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. Cross section data will be collected annually.
Longitudinal Profile: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, i.e. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
consistent with those observed in "E" or "C" type channels. Profile data will be collected
in monitoring Years 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness
of erosion control measures. Photos will be taken annually at permanent cross sections
and grade control structures.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling: Benthic macroinvertebrates will be sampled
annually in monitoring years 1, 2, and 3. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be
identified and a tolerance value will be calculated.
4.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following completion of construction on the City Pond Site:
4.2.1 Cross Sections
According to the As -Built Report written in August 2005, 20 cross sections are to be monitored
along the restored tributaries R2, R3, S3, S4, S5, and S6. Locations of these cross sections are
specified in Figure 3. Each cross section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used. Permanent cross section pins were surveyed and located relative
to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data. The annual cross
section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including floodplain, top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition, any fluvial features present will be
documented. Permanent cross sections for 2009 (Year 5) were surveyed in July 2009. Data and
photos of each cross section are included as Appendix B.
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years one, three, four, and five of the five -year
monitoring period. The profile survey will be conducted for a length of restored channel of at
least 30 percent of the total restoration length or 3,000 feet, whichever is greater. Features
measured will include thalweg, inverts of stream structures, water surface, and top of bank on
either side of the channel. The longitudinal survey of 3,400 linear feet of stream channel was
conducted for 2009 (Year 5) in July of 2009.
4.2.3 Hydrology
Three crest gauges were installed on the site to document bankfull events. These gauges record
the highest out -of -bank flow event that occurs each month and are checked in the last week of
every month during the growing season. The gauges are located on the downstream portions of
R1, R2, and S4 (Figure 3).
4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Although specific photo points
are not set up across the City Pond site, photos were taken at every located structure. Reference
photos are taken at each permanent cross section from both stream banks, as well as facing
upstream and downstream. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank, and the
water line is located in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible included
in each photo. Problem area photos and general photos of the site are located in Appendix D.
February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
4.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
4.3.1 Cross Sections
The cross sections were surveyed during the monitoring set -up, Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Year 4,
and in July 2009 for Year 5. The baseline data has been compared with the Year 1 through Year 5
monitoring data in Appendix B. Also included in Appendix B are the surveyed cross sections for
Year 4 and Year 5. Compared to the documented data from the Year 4 survey, the Year 5 channel
cross sections showed that overall stream dimensions remained stable during this fifth growing
season. Some localized areas of bed scour and /or aggradation were noted; however, these
adjustments are common and indicate a movement toward greater stability. There is very little
difference between the baseline cross sections, and Years 1 through 5 cross sections.
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted along four separate reaches of the restoration
project, totaling approximately 3,400 linear feet. Survey was conducted in reach R2 from STA
27 +50 (XS 4) to STA 39 +50 (XS 6), in reach R3 from STA 44 +00 (XS 7) to STA 49 +00 (XS 8),
in reach S4 from STA 15 +50 (XS 13) to STA 23 +50 (XS 15), and in reach S5 from STA 14 +00
(XS 10) to STA 23 +00 (XS 12). The longitudinal profile information documents the elevations
and locations of streambed features and in- stream grade control structures. The profile and cross
sections show there has been little adjustment to stream profile or dimension since construction.
Table 6 summarizes stream areas requiring observation. Figures 4a -4e shows the locations of the
stream problem areas observed. All of the problem areas observed are minor and localized. SPA2
and SPA3 are localized and are expected to stabilize and become vegetated. Problem area SPAS,
SPA6, and SPAT are not affecting channel stability and have good vegetative cover on the
adjacent banks and floodplain. SPA 10 is a small head -cut that is expected to stabilize. Upstream
of this are a number of stable grade control structures that will halt progression if necessary.
Vegetation along the banks at this area is still filling in and is expected to provide additional
stabilization. No remedial actions are necessary.
9 February 2010
>
Cl)
O
Co CIVN 00
Z3
a
0)
c:
LI:
O V)
0
o"
%Z--!
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 6. Stream Areas Requiring Observation in 2009
I I February 2010
Recommended
ID
Station
Feature
Problem
Severity
Action
SPA1
R1 11 +50
Channel
Small headcut
Minor
None
R1 13 +80
Lack of vegetation and
SPA2
to
Left Bank
Minor
None
R1 14 +10
erosion
SPA3
R1 16 +30
Left Bank
Lack of vegetation
Minor
None
Aggradation of sand in
SPA4
R1 16 +75
Channel
Minor
None
channel
Beaver dam across
SPAS
R2 33 +00
Channel
Minor
None
channel
Beaver dam across
SPA6
R2 34 +50
Channel
Minor
None
channel
Beaver dam across
SPAT
R2 38 +20
Channel
Minor
None
channel
SPA8
R2 43 +15
Channel
ATV Crossing
Minor
None
SPA9
S l 12 +00
Log Weir
Erosion behind structure
Minor
None
SPA10
Sl 15 +85
Rock Vane
Erosion behind structure
Minor
No
I I February 2010
tip
!
lj
z
5
0"�
LU
LU
z
_3
+:
c4 �
0
RR
CW
lax
lu
LLI
I
U)
cz
-0 E
C:
>1 L 0
4—
E
cz
a)
H A
D 0
CRI
+ +
Z
2
LLL
c Lli
—VI
COD
LU
Z
C-4
04
411
X
N,
bT.
+
z
egv�
tu
z
v,
0
ui
a
uj
LU
Lij
z
-.1
2
A
A
N
Q
F-
Q
j
I1u
.T-
H
J
V
Q
N
OF
1
V'
ad
U)
�
N
-
i
Q
1
V'
ad
NR,
.Is
Q
I
S-
H
o
Q
0
LM
4— CL
La
Lqq Z2717+ZZ NOUVIS 9 J.32HS BMINDIM -SS"
S
zz
00
Ilk
EF
u Z
zoo
R, 5o
rn
ILI w
Ay LO
CD
I'l . :ilpa
D,
La 161
0
Ai
M
'17
ua
Ph
r T11
uj rF 7
All-
C:!
LJ'
LU
SM14
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
4.3.3 Hydrology
During the 2009 monitoring season, three crest gauges were monitored to determine if there were
any out -of -bank flow events in the City Pond stream channel. Between the months of February
and July, three bankfull events have been documented during the monthly onsite visits. Crest
Gauge 1 (Reach R1) and Crest Gauge 3 (in Reach S4) did not register any out -of -bank flows.
Crest Gauge 2 (Reach R2) registered three out -of -bank flows. The largest stream flow
documented for Year 5 by the onsite crest gauges was a flow that occurred during February and
was 0.95 feet above the bankfull stage. The hydrology success criteria have also been satisfied by
bankfull events in previous monitoring years.
Table 7. Crest Gauge Summary Data for Years 1 - 5
Month
Recorded
Crest Gauge 1
Crest Gau e 2
Crest Gau e 3
YR
1
YR
2
YR
3
YR
4
YR
5
YR
1
YR
2
YR
3
YR
4
YR
5
YR
1
YR
2
YR
3
YR
4
YR
5
January
NA
- --
- --
- --
- --
NA
- --
- --
- --
- --
NA
- --
- --
- --
February
NA NA
- --
- --
0.00
0.00
NA
- --
- --
0.60
0.95
NA
- --
- --
0.00
0.00
March
NA
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
1.75
1.00
0.65
0.80
NA
1.50
1.20
0.00
0.00
April
NA
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.70
1.05
0.35
NA
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.00
May
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
2.10
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
June
NA
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
1.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
July
NA
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
2.10
0.00
3.50
0.00
NA
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
August
NA
0.12
0.00
0.40
0.00
NA
1.60
0.00
1.50
0.00
NA
0.05
0.00
0.70
0.00
September
NA
0.75
0.00
0.70
0.00
NA
0.15
0.00
2.30
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
October
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
0.15
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
0.00
0.00
November
NA
0.15
- --
- --
NA
0.55
- --
- --
NA
1.45
- --
- --
December
NA
- --
- --
- --
NA
- --
- --
- --
NA
- --
- --
- --
NA - Data not available.
4.3.4 Climate Data
Precipitation levels at the Wadesboro monitoring station near the City Pond site fell below the
normal range for much of the spring and summer. In May, the precipitation level fell within the
normal range (Figure 5 and Table 8).
17 February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report, for 2009 (Year 5)
Table 8. County and On -site Rainfall Data
Month
Average
Normal
Limits
Wadesboro
Precipitation
On -Site
Precipitation
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.66
3.31
5.78
2.13
- --
February
3.56
2.18
4.37
1.57
- --
March
4.61
3.28
5.58
1.96
3.98
April
2.94
1.54
3.78
1.51
3.78
May
3.44
2.18
3.93
2.82
4.60
June
4.56
2.74
5.84
1.93
3.43
July
5.26
3.26
6.06
1.45
1.63
August
4.41
2.67
5.36
1.98
3.85
September
4.25
2.15
5.87
0.40
0.62
October
3.66
1.85
4.87
- --
- --
November
3.1
2.14
3.86
- --
- --
December
3.28
2.16
3.83
- --
- --
Average
- --
43.21
50.80
- --
- --
Total
47.72
- --
- --
1 15.80
21.89
Figure 5. 2009 Precipitation for City Pond
18 February 2010
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
The on -site rain gauge recorded normal to above normal rainfall for most of the spring and
summer. In May, the precipitation was above normal. In July, the precipitation was below
normal. By July, the Wadesboro rainfall total was 6.44 inches below the monthly averages.
4.4 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
All potential problem areas are minor and localized, and no corrective actions are recommended
at this time. All monitored cross sections fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or
"C" type channels. Three bankfull events in 2009 were documented on Reach 2 during site visits
with the on site crest gauge and visual evidence of out -of -bank flow. The hydrology success
criteria have been satisfied by bankfull events in previous monitoring years and 2009.
In- stream structures installed within the channel include constructed riffles, cross vanes, log
vanes, log weirs, root wads, and step - pools. Visual observations of structures throughout the 2009
growing season indicated the structures are stable and that most structures are functioning as
designed. Localized bank erosion is occurring in several spots along R1. No remedial action is
recommended. One log weir on reach S1 was undercutting but is still functioning properly. A
small head cut has formed in S 1 at a rock grade - control structure, but does not appear to pose any
problem because of multiple grade control structures upstream and increasing vegetative
stabilization in the channel. Except for localized minor erosion, the banks appear stable
throughout the site and no action is required. This site meets the success criteria and no remedial
actions are necessary. Appendix D summarizes the morphologic parameter.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream stability data collected during monitoring Year 5 and observations of conditions
at the site indicate that the project continues to be successful. The stream morphology is
stable. Several in- stream structures are experiencing slight scour, but appear to still be
functioning properly. Vegetative growth along the channel banks has increased channel
stability. Some siltation is occurring throughout the various reaches, resulting in
vegetation growth in the channel. It was concluded that the site has achieved the stream
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan.
• Vegetation monitoring efforts documented that the average number of stems per acre on
site to be 558, which is a survival rate of 88 percent based on the initial planting count of
632 stems per acre. The range of surviving planted stem density is 490 to 670 stems per
acre. The vegetation success criteria have been met for the fifth growing season.
19 February 2010
i�
APPENDIX A
As -Built Survey
p 4
7
in
" M,
® I
{� ..
s ,j" .i.
yf
Aj
in
" M,
® I
a
w
W
1
Z
U
w
a m�
G _wo
V m w a-
Oa JimF
aN
iz 0`n
LO
G
ti
Z
O
H
H
y
h
w
w
tD
w
Z
J
S
I
� v
�o
1 3
:gas
fill
61:66
uK
q
s
ti!
_
- �J
Is Ii
N•.e
�o$
S
w �N �.
9•
r - — y;;�• -,� � s; ,�� _ �.•LV - roc
�"� „ • r ! I � �st q)
'o
�'' � -:- 'FUG \ iV •��+'°,,. � � � �
-� _
Lu
LLI
+ r -9£ � _ "� ._ •9f.` '� � � � ` � \ \ ,hid
w
a8 / r%v
za
M�
rn
N
Z
O
-35 �
— ¢
— w
moo— _
!l�
\ _ w
� - Z
O
J
Q
0
0
Lu
►7 U
O N
in
N
I.-
w
w
w
Z
E
I
ci
co
CN
Z
La
LLI
ul
i �/ R/ / — / / �l // r ^mom ny ✓ /.� /i
CE
V � r1• CE I 1 � —y¢,
�ZPX-
LLJ
..,
Go� Lo
H
/ 'n
u
�•,oizf
N
i {N
tp
f. N m
CD CV N 1 y
I
N CD 0 zN N I
w = Z Z
s
LU
W =NtA \ \
z
= WNW
,
I
\ \ 1
O \ `
5�
ks
0
(
g;
a
0
at�tl
gu
$
Q
d
�
m
O
� N
yT
y m
O� 1OL
y
=ASS f6
zOy
a o
oz �<
I
ci
co
CN
Z
La
LLI
ul
i �/ R/ / — / / �l // r ^mom ny ✓ /.� /i
CE
V � r1• CE I 1 � —y¢,
�ZPX-
LLJ
..,
Go� Lo
H
/ 'n
u
�•,oizf
N
i {N
tp
f. N m
CD CV N 1 y
I
N CD 0 zN N I
w = Z Z
s
LU
W =NtA \ \
z
= WNW
,
I
\ \ 1
O \ `
5�
ks
0
(
0
s
o m�
x�
Ut
7YZ m
8
V
19:�NS
a
NOUV1S 8 133HS 3NI-IHDIVW'SS-
0
0
r~
uj
{y1 V
I N
C05 "
*4
h
7 STATION 20+'92.46
5v—v
1
Al
Z8'Zb+ZZ NOLLVIS Z 133HS 3NnHOIVW -SS-
H
o uj
£8 GVN
Ix
'o a 1:
z
go -1
92 & ips eE2w
c!) U=l
z
of ID lc'o
0
cc
ZW 0
C LU Z% LL,
0
z
Lu
�wl
r 0 99 2,05
<
Lu
Lu LLI
z
uj ZO
fL F-
< n ILI
50 w z
C,
A :
N
V�.
lx�
z
J.
Lu
< -CO rD w Z W is Cc
co
z w 00 F-
8
a,
lu
(4 x
uj LLI
LLJ
LU
z
Ul U)
z uj
LLJ >
LLJ
cr in
Lli z 00) <
< 9L 0
z 2 z
0 2 0 LLI Lu
z 7 -j C9 C U) z
0 he LU Z < (9 0 c!)
< .'d W C30DE= 2
oocrwzwo o LU LU Of 0
3:W<06<2 0 rn M �- 5 f,- 0p oujmmrz� CL LL w 0
-, (5< c w CA 800 — 0
Uj w U. = U) > 03,
co co < C) CL
-6P*Cl-'J3A.38-X83-U99t0 \ru*1l\u6ts o \w
WADOI
APPENDIX B
2009 Profile and Cross Section Data
J
m
O
H
O
O
O
N
m
O
Of
O
O
N
m
O
J
O
O
O
N
O x
LO
a m
M O
O J
O
Cn Cl
O
O N N
CL c
0
c
N
� O
L O
U O
O N
cr-
N
N
O
N
I�
O
O
O
N
N
O
a-
04
O
O
N
I
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
r
-1
I
O
O
O
U
C
OJ
D
O
O 0
O C
CD cD
L
U
O
O
L(7
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
N
O
O
r
+ -- - ✓ -- O
O O 00 � CO U') It M N O
OD O � tl- r- ti r- ti � r- � I-
(4) UOgena13
u
X
ti
m
O
F-
-j
O
O
O
N
X
m
O
H
J
O
O O
+ O
O N
O
O fn
"c >
O O
EL C O
-O N
U � ■
U)
M
L
U
m f�
O O
O
N
CU
m
N
C
C
f6
L
U
rn
O
O
N
O
m
C
C
N
L
U
�I
O
O
N
+ •
+ •
+ •
X ■
•
x X
• +
• + ■
•
x X
+•
+•
I
+ ■
x
•+
i
-I•
• +
O
O
0
O
O
O
Ict
O
LO
M
I
i
O
O
M
CU
U'
C
cu
O U)
LO 0
N
N
C I
C
c6
L
U
O
O
N
O
LO
i
O
O
r
i
O
LO
O
co d' N O 00 CO 'IT N O
I� f- Il- ti Cfl CD CD C0 C0
(4) U01J2n813
m
O
F-
w
O
O
O
N
m
O
F-
O!
ti
O
O
N
+
m
O
F-
J
O
O
O
N
X
m
O
F-
J
ti
O
O O
LO N
t
M •
N
O
U>
LO
C LO O
O O
d C N
_O
"o ■
U �
"t C/)
U
U p
O
O N
O
m
O
C
C
m
L
U
rn
O
O
N
70
N
m
N
C
C
cu
L
U
ti
O
O
N
• + •
+ •
+•
+
• +
+
• +
+ •
+
• +
• + -
•
+
t
+ •
t -
•
+
•
• +
+ •
+•
t
t
+
• +
•
•
+
•
+
+ •
+ •
+ •
t
•+
• + •
•+
• +
O
O
O
O
O
ti
O
O
LO
N
U
C
N
C:) En
� i5
7
C
C
ca
t
O
O
M
O
O
N
O
O
T-
O
ti LO O In (n (n Ict LO co LO N LO
P- (O 1- Vj ~ ~ cM rl- N r r
ti rl- ti I- r-
(14) UOIJeA913
A
co
O
o�
O
N
iE
Im
0
I-
O
O
N
m
0
J
Ip
O
N
X
m
00 O
M J
N �
O iO
O N
O
-0 + I •
0
o_
o U)
U
� o
L o
co N
U �
U
N
in
5
C
c
m
t
U
rn
0
0
N
i
'a
N
im
�N
c
c
co
U
O
O
N
co co 00 00 0
(14) UOIJenaj�j
0
C)
00
0
0
ti
I
LO
N
U
C
cB
0
c
c
c�
o U
0
It
0
0
O
O
N
O
0
0
ti
•+
•
+•
Xx
•+
xX
•
+
X•
•
• +
•
W+
•
AN
Me
x
OF X
X
•
+
I
•+
•
+
•
x
X
+
+
I
VEX
•
•
+
+ •
X
•
i
;
•
+
•
OF
X
•
+ •
co co 00 00 0
(14) UOIJenaj�j
0
C)
00
0
0
ti
I
LO
N
U
C
cB
0
c
c
c�
o U
0
It
0
0
O
O
N
O
0
0
ti
Y
C
f0
t
Y
O
O
J
Y
C
R
d
J
C
Y
O
O
J
I�
v
M I
M
d
u
IE
M
N
IO N
J
:J
f
i
U
3
d
c
0
4
U
y
y
x
CC
I
O
d
c
I
(g) uOIJBAOlg
Y
i
f0
Z
f0
C
Y
O
O
J
i
V
�
}
I
o
,M.
}
u
�
v
I
G
N
C
�
IO
y
0
L
�
M
3
y
U
o
IQ
OC.
U
°
N
�
N
Gcl
w
O
N
cd
cp
m
N
Q
GJ
�
O
O
a`
0
0
LL
0
N
O °" 00 r- �0 h M N
°S 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
(g) u011RA31g
1
1
0
0
A
o
�
v
�
A
d
}
I
M
A
�
N
L
M
I
O
_
Qn
0
3
a
U
d
N
O
a
g
U
�
o
N
w
Y�
m
O
�
0.
�
LL
I
O
0
0 00 r-
(1j) uoraen01g
Y
C
t9
L
Y
O
O
J
r
T
=r
r
o
0
a
a+
T
v 3
d
U
c
v
Y
G
_ R
m
O� 00 N
r n n n n n n r (U) UOI;EAO[g
•
Y
C
f0
rr
t
f�6
Q1
C
Y
0
J
n
7
ro
lu
I
O M
7 I
61
G
M
I N
C
}
C
O
M _
lu
3N
L
N I'O
C
a°
U
v
m
w
x
_ m
c
8
n.
0
°
(ij) uoilenalg
`
(7j) UOIIRAOlg
i
u
}
I
o
M
Y
:J
p7 N
a
o
rr.
u
r
r
— CYa
i
L
_ n
Q
�.i
O
+.
N O
O
d
O
N
u
A
� d
G
a
0
(U) UOTIVAOIg
Y
C
W
L
w
L
C1
Q:
W
Cf
C
Y
O
O
J
v
v'
a I
M
d
O
a
vi
r.
C o
O M
� � N
C
p .F
a
N
r%
Q
C
O
O >
O
d
p
O
O, 00 1- �o 7 M N
f- r- n r- n r r t- F-
(U) UOgEA2[g
1
0
r
`m
}
u
w
h
v
i
w
�i
N i
�
a
u
CA
'd
�
�
app
�
y
¢
U
C
O
a
u
w
C
L
`n
O
e
h I
0o
o a, oo r
m r r r
o v v
(g) U09RA319
s
o �
r
° I
M
�
C N
Wu
C
M ^
0
x =
�
3 m
Vi
y
tC+l Q
U
c
v,
�
Qy
N G
O
U
u
0
N 4:
C
v
A
� C
O
o.
0
0
(13) UOIJUA31g
Y
C
f0
t
I.L
Y
O
O
J
Y
C
f6
J
a1
C
Y
O
O
J
rt
Y
7
A
M
N I
1
M
I
O
C
N
�
y
�
v�
I
C
O
a+
N
_
u
u
L
N
o
L
(,
O
N
'O
C
O
6.
C
V
� d
O I
a
0
�Oa
�� 00
0
({j) U011EA2(g
=r
I
l
Y
}
I
M
3„ �.S • -mac+ ' .
a..
r
U
C
3
N
:fit
=r
I
,I
r
M
A
}
I
M
r
U
C
N
H
� 3
'n
L
d
e
0
U
U
!J
Y
G
� U
A
C
O
d
O
v�
x
O
x x x
( 13) UOIIEA31g
Y
C
t4
L
C7
Q'
0
0
J
o �
M �
M �
NW'
Y!
N
O
N
C
O
�
�
m
y
0
L
U
0
O
0.
C
C.J
1
_ w
it
0
n,
0
0
o
i
0
a oo r-
(1j) UOI)UA31g
0
APPENDIX C
2009 Site Photos
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
SPA 1 -Small head cut in channel @ station 11+50 (R 1)
SPA2 - Left bank erosion and lack of vegetation from station 13 +80 to 14 +10 (RI)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
SPA3 - Left bank erosion and loss of vegetation @ station 16 +30 (R1)
SPA4 - Sand aggradation in channel @ station 16 +75 (R 1)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
SPA5 - Beaver dam across channel @ station 33 +00 (R2)
SPA6 - Beaver dam across channel @ station 34 +50 (R2)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report,for 2009 (Year 5)
SPAT - Beaver dam across channel @ station 38 +20 (R2)
SPA8 - Right bank ATV trail crossing channel @ station 43 +15 (R2)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
SPA8 - Left bank ATV trail crossing channel @ station 43 +15 (R2)
SPA9 - Erosion behind log weir structure @ station 12 +00 (S 1)
0
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
SPA 10 - Erosion behind rock vane structure @ station 15 +85 (S 1)
Constructed Riffle (typical)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Pool (typical)
Riffle (typical)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Log grade control (typical)
Root wad (typical)
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
Log vane (typical)
City Pond Vegetation Plot 1
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2009 (Year S)
City Pond Vegetation Plot 2
City Pond Vegetation Plot 3
� t
a
i
Appendix D
Morphological Parameters
CL
1
�_i
aA
DA
N
M
N
O
O\
N�c
O�
O\
O
M
O�
9
M
vi
00
00
O
O\
O
(+�
"D
M
O
M
00
Cd
4)
N
t
�O
01
O
N
N
DD
M
N
00
O
O
M
C\
,I:
O\
M
l-
vi
C-j
�p
00
V'1
h
N
O
-
0
6
M
N
O
N
N
0d
c
N
M
M
00
�h
N
O
00
O\
N
.--i
N
00
I
00
F.r
l�
h
M
O\
O
O
00
In
M
00
CQ
N
fi
O\
O
00
Vl
00
�O
O�
00
"O
O
in
O
'�
M
O�
O,
�O
[�
M
o0
N
vn
O
wi
Cd
N
.--�
M
Q�
M
v'�
N
O
Ol
O
j
06
O
00
O
7
,-•
tq
N
O
N
�O
�O
kn
*
Q�
to
CV
M
�O
O
M
fV
N
9
R
r
i
cd
Qom.
^
cam
^
;
ca
a�i
�
.�
a�
Q
a
�
a�i
C
.�
aai
Q
i .
�
Ca
a.
o
a�
Q
o
aQi
Q
o
Q
.0
D
y
x
cd
h
� C
h
O
W
N
cd
# C
-2
�
x
A
u3b�°'�3b°'�3b
A
g
a
3
a
a
I A
1
�_i