HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061521 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20120109yo- I ja I
OAKLEY CROSSROADS
STREAM & BUFFER RESTORATION
MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 1 OF 5)
Pitt County, North Carolina
SCO Project Number 050659701
EEP Project Number 273
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Y
A nstem
et
PROGRAM
Status of Plan: Final
Construction Completed: 2011
Data Collected: 2011
Submission Date: November 2011
RECEIVED
JAN 9 - 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
(`1
4i
Prepared by:
Startec
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
�I
Table of Contents
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of S) Page i
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
1.0
Executive Summary / Project Abstract ............................................................... ..............................1
-
2.0
Methodology ...................................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.1
2.1.1
Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability ....................................... ..............................3
Dimension ................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1.1
Pattern and Profil e ....................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1.2
Substrate ...................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1.1
Sediment Transport ..................................................................................... ..............................3
i
2.2
-
Vegetation ................................................................................................... ..............................3
-
2.3
Hydrology .................................................................................................. ............................... 4
2.3.1
2.3.2
Wetland ....................................................................................................... ..............................4
Stream ..................................................... ..............................4
-�
3.0
References ........................................................................................................... ..............................5
4.0
Appendices .......................................................................................................... ..............................7
Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
_ ±
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D - Stream Survey Data
Appendix E - Hydrologic Data
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of S) Page i
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of S) Page ii
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
r j
i
I�
�J
1.0 Executive Summary / Project Abstract
-� The overall goal of the Oakley restoration project was to improve water quality and wildlife habitat by
restoring a stable stream and riparian buffer system to the project site. The objectives of the project were
to restore stream stability and improve aquatic habitat, restore riparian buffer along the stream channel,
preserve riverine wetlands, establish a wildlife corridor, divert an unbuffered agricultural ditch system
f! from the stream channel to an irrigation pond, and establish native vegetation within the permanent
- conservation easement. The project included 3,789 linear feet of stream restoration and 329 linear feet of
stream enhancement. Priority II stream restoration involved restoring riffle /pool sequences, the
{ installation of structures, and floodplain grading to improve floodplain connectivity and provide diverse
i - -' instream habitat. Enhancement lI stream restoration involved the planting of native hardwood trees and
— shrubs. Also, native riparian buffer planting took place on over 18 acres of the site, and an additional 1.37
acres of wetland was preserved. The project will result in 3,931 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 16.9
acres of buffer mitigation units (BMUs), and 0.27 acres of wetland mitigation units (WMUs).
r--,
I, The Monitoring Year 1 [MY I] stem counts within each of the nine (9) vegetative monitoring plots are
included in Tables 7 and 9 in Appendix C. Located within the Tar- Pamlico River basin, this project was
instituted prior to October 11, 2007 and is therefore eligible for riparian buffer restoration credit up to 200
feet from the top of bank of all perennial and intermittent waterways within the conservation easement
- -� area. As such, the vegetative monitoring plots have been assessed for the vegetation success criteria for
_ both buffer (320 planted trees /acre) and streams (MY3 interim criteria of 320 woody stems /acre). Seven
f of the nine vegetative monitoring plots met the vegetation success criteria for riparian buffers. Of the five
plots within the 50 -foot stream buffer, four are currently meeting the vegetation success criteria for
_ streams. Ecosystems Grading Solutions, Inc. will be planting an additional 5,000 bare roots and livestakes
at the Oakley site on January 31, 2012.
Several large areas of Murdannia keisak (marsh dayflower), an aquatic invasive plant, were observed to
be either in or along the banks of stream Section 1, between Station 3 +50 and 7 +00. Minor areas of
LJ Murdannia keisak were also observed in the stream near Station 21 +50. Murdannia keisak has the
_ potential to out - compete native vegetation and overcrowd stream beds, disrupting flow and potentially
causing ponding and sediment deposition upstream. Currently, these areas of Murdannia keisak do not
�. _1 pose a threat to native vegetation establishment or stream stability, but they will continue to be monitored
during future field visits to document any changes. In addition, several areas of bare vegetation were
observed. The streambanks on both left and right bank were observed to be bare below the Briley culvert,
between Station 38 +25 and 39+00. Additionally, two areas of bare vegetation were observed on the north
and south side of the Briley pond. The bare area on the south side is due to a precipitation event in which
the pond overflowed and washed away seeding. The bare area on the north side is due to poor vegetation
_! establishment and seed being washed away during a precipitation event.
�j Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Oakley restoration project were observed to be in generally stable condition.
The channel's profile and cross - section adjusted only minimally from baseline conditions. The channel
has good connection to its floodplain. Evidence of bankfull overflow was observed during the stream and
vegetation monitoring on September 13th and 23rd, 2011. Evidence included the presence of wrack lines
and sediment deposits on riparian vegetation. Hurricane Irene occurred in late August 2011. Additional
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 1
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
ti
sediment transport evaluations were not undertaken. However, the dimension, pattern, and profile survey
for MY 1 conditions for Section 1 and Section 2 were analyzed, and the current shear stress and stream
Y � am
power are consistent with the design intent to reduce sediment transport.
One area of aggradation was observed below the upstream culvert between Station 0 +00 and 0+60.
Additionally, one area of minor bed downcutting was observed below the ford crossing. The areas of
aggradation and bed downcutting do not currently threaten the stability of the stream. These areas will
continue to be monitored during future field visits to document any changes. Several nutria burrows were
also observed between Station 4 +40 and 10+00. Callitriche heterophylla (water starwort), a non - invasive
species, was observed in several areas along all three sections of the stream. This aquatic plant was also
noted to be present prior to the construction of the restoration project. Neither the nutria nor the water
starwort currently threatens the stability of the restored stream. These issues will continue to be monitored
during future field visits to document any changes.
As per NCEEP's request the vegetative cover of brush mattresses along the entire stream length was also
visually assessed. Several areas were observed where brush mattresses had less than the required 80%
vegetative cover. These areas include brush mattresses located along the left bank on the meander bend
near Stations 4 +50, 8 +50, 12 +50, 17 +00, and 25+00. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the location of ;
these brush mattresses.
The wetland preservation areas were also visually assessed during the vegetation monitoring. No issues
were observed in these areas and existing vegetation appears to be in good condition. These areas will -
continue to be monitored during future field visits.
Summary information, data, and statistics related to the performance of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan
documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is
available from EEP upon request.
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 2 f`
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
2.0 Methodology
r- Channel stability and vegetation survival were monitored on the project site. Post - restoration monitoring
Uwill be conducted for a minimum of five years or until the success criteria are met following the
completion of construction to document project success. The Monitoring Year 1 survey was completed
r using survey grade GPS on September 23, 2011.
2.1 MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS AND CHANNEL STABILITY
2.1.1 Dimension
Dimensional characteristics were monitored at 7 permanent cross - sections (4 riffles, 3 pools) along
Section 1 and Section 2. Survey data included points measured at all breaks in slope including top of
Ll bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Dimensional characteristics were compared to
baseline conditions. All monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined
n for channels of the design stream type. Stream channel stability and geomorphic monitoring for Section 3
�J was documented visually. Natural variability is expected, however the system should not experience
trends toward excessive increasing bank erosion, channel degradation, or channel aggradation.
2.1.1 Pattern and Profile
The entire longitudinal profile of Section 1 and Section 2 was surveyed. Stationing from the as-built
survey was used. The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable.
The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and
shallower than the pools.
2.1.2 Substrate
f Since the streams throughout the project site are dominated by sand -size particles, pebble count
procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring
period; therefore, as per NCEEP, bed material analyses were not undertaken for this project.
2.1.1 Sediment Transport
As mentioned previously, additional sediment transport evaluations will not be undertaken during the
five -year monitoring period. However, the dimension, pattern, and profile survey for MY1 conditions for
Section 1 and Section 2 were analyzed to determine whether the current sediment competency and
capacity is consistent with the design.
2.2 VEGETATION
The Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 1 methodology was utilized to sample vegetation in
September of 2011. Nine join x join (100M) CVS plots have been established within the project area. In
each plot, four plot comers have been permanently located with rebar. Volunteer plant species (Level 2)
will begin to be recorded in MY2 and will only be considered in vegetative success determinations for the
stream portion of this project. As such, volunteer plant species will be recorded for subsequent monitoring
i Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 3
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
years in vegetation plots located within the 50 foot buffer of the restored stream. Refer to Figure 2 in
Appendix A. In all vegetation plots species composition, density, and survival of the planted vegetation
was monitored.
This project is generating both stream and riparian buffer mitigation assets. Vegetation success for these
assets is measured in two ways. Stream mitigation units (SMUs) require 260 planted and volunteer native
hardwood stems (trees and shrubs) per acre for a minimum of 5 years. Buffer mitigation units (BMUs)
require 320 planted native hardwood stems (trees only) per acre for a minimum of 5 years. In accordance
with North Carolina Division of Water Quality Administrative Code 15A NCAC 0213.0260 (TAR- +
PAMLICO RIVER BASIN, Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers) `[planted vegetation] shall include a minimum of at least two native hardwood tree species -
planted at a density to provide 320 trees per acre at maturity." Also, for SMUs and BMUs, the buffer must {
be at least 50 -feet wide on both sides of the channel.
The interim measure of vegetative success for SMUs for the site will be the survival of at least 320 3 -year
old stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period and 280 4 -year old stems per acre at
the end of year four monitoring period. There are no interim measures of vegetative success for BMUs. -
i
2.3 HYDROLOGY
2.3.1 Wetland
Neither wetland restoration or enhancement credit is being sought for this project. Existing jurisdictional
wetlands as depicted in Figure 2 in Appendix A are being preserved. The wetland preservation areas are
visually assessed during each monitoring year.
2.3.2 Stream
One crest gauge has been installed onsite and is located near Cross - section 3. Each visit to the site
included documentation of the highest stage for the monitoring interval and a reset of the device. Other
indications of bankfull flow including the presence of wrack lines, sediment, or flooding were also
monitored, and their presence was recorded and documented photographically. Refer to Figure 2 in
Appendix A for the location of the crest gauge.
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 4_�
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
IOReferences
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 ( http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm)
NCDWQ. 2004. Tar- Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
NCEEP. 2010. Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh,
NC. Version 1.3, January 15, 2010.
NCEEP. 2008. Mitigation Plan Document — Format Data Requirements, and Content Guidelines. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh,
NC. Version 2.0, March 27, 2008.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
United States Environmental Protection Agency — Region IV, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 5
Stantee - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
(This page intentionally left blank for two sided printing)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 1 of 5) Page 6
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
4.OAppendices
Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (Year 0 of 5) Page 7
Stantec - 2011 Monitoring Report (EEP# 273) November 2011
(This.page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing),
Oakley�Crossroads'Stieam and Buffer Restoration (Year 0 of 5)
Stantec ,- '261 1;Mooitoring'Report (EEP# 273)
- U
F-I
Page 8
November 2011
U
LI
Appendix A., Project Vicinity Map and- Background Tables =
Figure 1
— Vicinity Map,and'Directions
Table la.b.,
- Projed Restoration Components, ,
0
Table 2
Table 3
— Project Activity and Reporting, History
= Project' Contacts
Table 4
— Project - Attribute
O
(This-page intentionally left,blank, fortwo=sided printihg)
I �—j f
TI
LJ
LJ,
II
LJ
'I Li
FJ
M
COUNTY
i
i�
PITT
Oakley Crossroads
Project Site
.1%;
ON
a
'The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation
easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel
of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors
involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of
their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
�a
MARTIN
Legend
/\/ Local Roads
/N/ Major Roads
Railroads
- Conservation Easement
Streams
Municipality
_ I County Boundary
cli",
BEA
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Oakley Crossroads
Stream & Buffer Restoration
Pitt County, North Carolina
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Is— r-
yuNpK 1 ?n a ment
Table Ia. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Oakley
Crossroads Stream and
Buffer Restoration
(EEP#
273)
Project
Component
Existing
Restoration
Approach
Footage or
Stationing/
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
Comment
or Reach ID
Feet/Acres
Level
Acreage
Location
Ratio
Units
Elements'
Ten foot width of ford crossing removed from
Section 1
2,950
R
PH
3,637
00+00 to
1:1
3,637
total length. 152 LF of restored stream with
37 +98.64
<50' buffer separated into line item below.
Total restoration footage 3,637 LF.
152 LF of restored stream has <50' buffer on
Section 1, <50
—33+00 to
right bank. Mitigation ratio is likely to change
ft buffer
152
R
PH
152
37+00
1:1
152
once DWQ publishes reduced SMU
calculation for areas with <50 ft of buffer.
Section 2
40
E
EII
40
—38 +39 to
1.5:1
26.7
Enhancement - log structures, brush
—38 +79
mattresses and planting.
Section 3
289
E
EII
289
downstream
2.5:1
115.6
Enhancement - planting only.
of Section 2
786,258 sq ft planted, 735,728 sq ft of which
Riparian
n/a
R
735,728 sq ft
n/a
1:1
735,728
are eligible for mitigation credit. Area
Buffer
removed for areas with undiffuse flow, buffer
width >200', or buffer width <50'.
Wetlands
1.37
P
1.37
n/a
5:1
0.27
Table lb. Component Summations
UT Jum ping Run Creek Restoration Pro ' ect /EEP Project No. 92345
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Non -Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
(1f)
Wetland (Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
BMP
Riverine
Non -
Riverine
Restoration
3789
16.9
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
329
Creation
Preservation
1.37
HQ Preservation
Totals Feet/Acres
4118
1.37
16.9
MU Totalsi
3,931
1 0.27
16.9
Non - Applicable
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration EEP# 273
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete:
4 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete:
4 months
Number of Reporting Years':1
Data Collection
Completion or
Activity or Deliverable
Complete
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
n/a
August 2006
Final Des' — Construction Plans
n/a
June 2010
Construction
n/a
May 2011
Seeding
n/a
May 2011
Planting
n/a
May 2011
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
June 2011
July 2011
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2011
November 2011
Year 2 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
Year 3 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
Year 4 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
Year 5 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
n
0
FU
Table 3. , Project -Contacts Table
:Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP# 273), • '
Designer
Stantec, Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Rd, Ste 300 Raleigh; NC 27606
Prima o' ct design POC
Nathan Jean 970 449 -8615 _
Construction Contractor
Ecosystems Grading Solutions Inc.
6642 Roper Hollow Rd., Morganton, NC 28655
Construction contractor POC
Bobby Koone 828 5843018
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying
3201 Glenrid a Dr., RaleW NC 27604
Survey contractor POC
Elizabeth and David Turner 919 875 -1378'
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1197 Remont, NC 27830
Planting - confractor POC
Charlie, Bruton (919) 242 -6555 _ _
Contractor
Grading Solutions Inc.
.Seeding —Ecosystems
6642 Roper Hollow Rd. Morganton, NC 28655-
Contractor point,of contact
Bobby Koone 828 5843018
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Southeastern Native Plant Nursery
_
South Carolina Super Tree Nursery
Natives
Monitoring Performers
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones'Franklin Rd, Ste 300 RaleW NC 27606
Stream.Monhoring POC
Brian Mazzochi (919) 865 =7580
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919)865-7399
Wetland Monitoring POC
n/a
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration (EEP## 273)
Pro'ect Information
Project County
Pitt
Project Area acres
26.6
Project Coordinates latitude and bngitu&
35.76692,-77.269077
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Coastal Plait
River Basin
Tar- Pamfico
USGS RUC for Project 14
0302010309002
NCDW Sub -basin for Project
03 -03 -06
Project Drainage Area (sq nu
1.59
Project Drama Area % Impervious
<l%
CGIA Landuse Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Reach Summary Information
Reach name
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Lermth of reach linear feet
3,799
40
289
Valley classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage area acres
10 178.6
10 178.8
10,2M. 1
NCDWQ stream identification score
41
40.5
40.5
NCDWQ classification
n/a
n/a
n/a
Morphololgical description stream
E5
F5
F5
Evolutionary trend
E5
C5
C5
Under mapped sow
Bladen
Pannte o
Pan to o
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Very drained
Very drained
Soil hydric status
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slope
0-2%
0-1%
0-1%
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Native vegetation community
Rivenine bottomland hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
00/0 1 0% 100/0
Wetland Summa Information
n/a - wetland preservation only
Re u
atory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE 404 pennit
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
NCDWQ 401 permit
Endangered Species Act
No
n/a
n/a
Historic Preservation Act
No
n/a
n/a
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA )/Coastal
Aream Management Act (CAMA)
No
n/a
n/a
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
nda
n/a
D
Appendix B. Visual Assessment _
DFigure'2 -=Current Condition Plan View (3 Sheets)
Table 5' Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
O Table 6 - Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos — Stream Stations (S1 -S9)
Photos Vegetation -Plots (V 1-V 19)
Of
D
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Taylor Pond
.:-
Np 1 w »a Y lea• � •. .••• ° •n..
, -- ':.,•
J ..'•JI'
-� ,.•. •• •hµ a''r� � a R -. a, A. .h rA�y aM�.r, ay. ...a •a•�,.,r, .v." _,1'_ - -,1, -�,•�� x..•..
- -nL a� e • �..o/o ..,r� b •� a no .tom y •� - M]il4f .. f -..
% .``.•�;y.I1 wy:' \� .:\ J\ Y\ja \�` n'\ r` �\ , ,±_ Jti�,_ ti�_Yl'~.•�j� 1i .M1. Ybi,.. -.. ` .•.•`-`��1 -,,•�� ..... •. •'I _
r r ••1i �t �'.... �J }'. - 1 I � A�. - .i.Aa r ♦,� �. lVic -�- . \lii •�..... •.fie:
- '.S` + -. r.. Y .. a.. ' :� '^' a Y e" a� •- _ �': • A•J♦- ��\�a��. �, +i - -fh+4 - -`
..._._........- +•. .r .n "r.+ `� •+^�°<� r- .'�ul. u:a r-,•+S •�'c+ n.•t+av,'� •`*•.•. '- 'P'�+"i�.d� ��'a ate.. r`•. -. r. a....
r ar.. t + +�•.,i�y. aw ` L tw +y. ;.. � �- ..� . • ' .r. ♦ti. �'w °-iy "` a'�i... ♦r. ,�"" si►." a aY.'�'.L�Y;,....� 4 � sv�v �,�y: ;,.,, + . �wi" -- �w"` .
r- .•.4 ,�.w •+.. ';'� ..: . '4� 'ti y. .•, �..�s � .qty. >S 83�' �1 a+s•y .ar+.� •f-+y .e, `1 .� .;c•..: ". y -�:..y . -�� a�� o•,�1ti
'+fa .!' s.� R o... .� A. ?a. -v R R _ r'yR a+.. '"'=' A.-= o"a„ o ! .mot+ d♦"' ^P P "r Y' R
-. _ - <'w�..a i.....a, <: .N: yiA .. w i. ♦ a +v:` - ».y <�.. •v..�,'i�iv."`y<M "'�• _ v' y.v, .`••v- y <w...., -..
- � "^ .Y� � "��„ 't-,R " -•�+ ti W "�� �'x;"r � 4. yr. +r �:"'a e' � . y �; ;w,, y.V,a "" .,. y!.. ,ti. � ��'_• '., J- =.•`r . , s _r. � y+.
.. A..�.v rAA w yiA", +" +"`K ,.,•A, 4i�... as, °ti... • 'a•
a'a. d a .Y•. .tra a'i .rq ":4 -.fie o a..yo` �1ry'•a' .R•i :•A -h -a. r.;: �• `
. Ile by :. , y „;•� ..;� .�.+•. .-•'A` •,; f" "'��• r. i°.- .•. ;•ti y -J�- �J► y +n"- ,..
- - - n . �L S•n .+ :h x. .a`.. ,�. ♦i.w wrL iti - ., ��rt�p� ��;�� tir.�j„yc_ -- ._ - - � ., .a L- vy h¢+Y� as
� .��� h'...•.`�' _ y y. • A tJ .••• � ray\ �:`•�•� �-*.. �..
- ~1 r•��.H ..._ ��1 rya ti � �1' N.pi ^.. •a r.•d� r��•.� - mph �Npti.
a
�- !�. •1 Vty .i w,h �4^' �. Jt� ...rv'1 Jiy�:. J1.�� i -_ 1 ..... __. _.. _.. _......
ALL.. ♦a Y_ :p 'a..r� y yo` .N.. .. J!•h .,ro a y a.
4 J4 fJ -•. �Jt rJ4.1 U \. .�14y,�y. \���)4 t�J� ��4�AJ4� J - - �• 1
- h'�T . �,y raj., �•' n.a. � ` +� `�� ri� •.
RPM-
Szerr� `r-r, .•`"'r`• ...
_.._. � .y.i ,. i'•. ui. ty,. -1 -1�. uL�y` �..< .a �Ja1_ih�.. ��J•v 1... -ALL _
- • a .Y... 1AM1 . riu.
rte.. r R :•. d.� a-. - - ...... ......... .. _ ..... . .. ............. . ........
4 t
AV•i
ti P1'A ♦'Aµ ,'A .�
6 M'a /4 � .moo a y.14 4 .}•4�y -d4 y
.;.:s° -r".+, .�R .•� :a ,•• ,.rte: Nom r -
ayr
I�
Xs -1
Vegetation
Plot ID
Trees
per Acre
Buffer Criteria
Met?
Stems
per Acre
Stream Criteria
Met?
VP1
243
N
364
N/A
VP2
364
Y
445
Y
VP3
324
Y
324
N/A
VP4
405
Y
486
N/A
VP5
364
Y
364
Y
VP6
445
Y
486
N/A
VP7
405
Y
405
Y
VP8
688
Y
728
Y
VP9
40
N
40
N
Q
Crest gage
Section 1 Stream Restoration Thalweg MY1
Vegetation Problem Areas
•
Photo points (Veg =V, Stream =S)
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Murdannia keisak
Figure 2a. Current Condition Plan View
Vegetation Plot Success (VP 1 -9)
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
� Bare - no vegetation
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
--
Buffer =Yes, Stream =Yes or n/a
_
Other on -site hydrography
Stream Problem Areas
EEP #: 273
11 I
=°
Buffer=
Buffer -No, Stream =n /a
No,
®
Ponds
m Nutria burrow
County, North Carolina
Buffer =No, Stream =No
Wetland preservation
=! Aggradation
November 2011
N
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Planting
Zones
Bed downcutting
2' contours
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Brush mattress <80% vegetative cover
r'
Farm paths
_ ;r =
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Ford crossing
Livestakes
0 100 200
°��' stamtac
Conservation easement
Feet
___ ..._.
M.- 27.00
Ve,V10,
7.
VP
XS-4
r°
• . a°
- 31.00
ss 33+00
XS -5
36.00
37-00
Briley Culvert
-W VP8 11t
XS -6 3a.00
v 3Qi66 - _
XS-7
00� 1 -3
4000�
VP9
hi
Vegetation
Plot ID
Trees
per Acre
Buffer Criteria
Met?
Stems
per Acre
Stream Criteria
Met?
VP1
243
N
364
N/A
VP2
364
Y
`�.�
Y
•
..QTY .....", b•r• - ti+a�„�,•�•.•
Y
324
N/A
VP4
405
Y
486
N/A
VP5
364
Y
364
Y
VP6
445
Y
486
N/A
VP7
405
Y
405
.ir-.
VP8
688
Y
728
Y
VP9
40
a ".
VP7
N
r' :
RcDO
P�}�tem
x.00
Ford crossing
___ ..._.
M.- 27.00
Ve,V10,
7.
VP
XS-4
r°
• . a°
- 31.00
ss 33+00
XS -5
36.00
37-00
Briley Culvert
-W VP8 11t
XS -6 3a.00
v 3Qi66 - _
XS-7
00� 1 -3
4000�
VP9
hi
Vegetation
Plot ID
Trees
per Acre
Buffer Criteria
Met?
Stems
per Acre
Stream Criteria
Met?
VP1
243
N
364
N/A
VP2
364
Y
445
Y
VP3
324
Y
324
N/A
VP4
405
Y
486
N/A
VP5
364
Y
364
Y
VP6
445
Y
486
N/A
VP7
405
Y
405
Y
VP8
688
Y
728
Y
VP9
40
N
40
N
Q
Crest gage
ti
Section 1 Stream Restoration Thalweg MY1
Vegetation Problem Areas
•
Photo points (Veg =V, Stream =S)
Section 2 Stream Enhacement II
Murdannia keisak
Figure 2b. Current Condition Plan View
Vegetation Plot Success (VP 1 -9)
Section 3 Stream Enhacement II (planting only)
L____' Bare - no vegetation
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Project
0
°
Buffer —Yes, Stream =Yes or n/a
_
Other on -site hydrography
Stream Problem Areas
EEP #:
+
Buffer —No, Stream =n /a
Non- buffered waterways
m Nutria burrow
Pitt County, North Carolina
North
Q
Buffer —No, Stream =No
®
Ponds
� - Aggradation
November 2011
/N/
Stream cross - section surveys (XS 1 -7)
Wetland preservation
Bed downcutting
2' contours
Planting
Zones
Brush mattress <80% vegetative cover
r7
Farm paths
Riverine Bottomland Hardwood Forest
P�}�tem
Ford crossing
_ „
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
0 100 200
Stantec
Conservation easement
Livestakes
Feet
Table b Visual Stream Moroholoav Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 3800
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number In
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -bulk
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 VerticalStsb�lty
1 mdabon - Barfonnation/growth sumcientto significantly
deflect flow laterally (not to include porntbara)
2
80
98%
(Rdfle and Run units)
2 Degradation- Ewdenoeofdowrioutbng
1
20
99%
2.IMeecondition
1 Texturet Substrata - Rifflemaintans coarser substrate
NIA
58
1000/0
3. Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
58
56
100%
2 Length appropriate ( >30 %of oentedine distance between tad of
upstream nfre and head of downstrem rifle)
58
56
100%
C1ondloon
1 Thahvegoentanngat upstream of meander bend (Run)
58
56
100%
4 Thahveg Pestilent
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
58
5g
100%
Bank
�
Bankladgngvegetabneooverresultngsrmplyfrompoorgrowth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutlowimangrng to the extent that mesa wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely Does NOT rndude undercuts that are modest
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
appear sustainable and are proAdlrq habitat
3. Mass Was"
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Tote
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Engineered
tinctures
t OventiYdsgrlty
Structures physicallyintactwdh no dislodged boulders or logs
11
11
1000/0
L Grade control
Grade control structures extubdting maintenance of grade across
t he sill
7
11
84%
28. P4*V
Structures lacking any aubstanbal flow underneath arils or arm a
11
11
100%
Bank erosion wnhn the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
11
11
100%
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 16 RoohvadsAogs providing some cower at
11
11
10D%
base-flow
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration 273
Planted acreage*
18.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Dashed
yellow/black
1. Bare Areas
Very lirnited cover of woody material
0.1 acres
outline
4
0.11
0.6%
Woody stem densities below target levels for
2. Low Stem Density
stem count success criteria
0.1 acres
none
0
0
0.00/0
Total
0.6%
Areas with woody stems of size class that
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
are obviously small given the monitoring year
I 0.25 acres
INone
1 01
0
0.00/0
- "
Total
_ 4
--0.1
_ _ 0.6%
Easement acreage
26.6
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Magenta line
2 line
with cross-
segments
4. Invasive areas of concern
IMurdannia keisak
1 1000 SF
I hatches
j
—3' wide
0.0251
0.1%
5. Encroachment areas
none
INone
0
01
0.00/0
*Total planted acreage
Stream Station Photos
Photo Station S1— Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 1
Station 00 +72 - Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S2 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 2
Station 06 +17 — Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S3 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 3
Station 12 +59 — Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S4 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 4
Station 28 +46 — Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S5 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 5
Station 32 +71 — Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S6 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 6
Station 35 +24 — Priority 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station S7 — Stream channel looking downstream at cross - section 7
Station 38 +71 — Enhancement 2 (9/23/2011 Year 1)
Photo S8 — Evidence of bankfull overflow — wrack lines near Veg Plot 1 (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo S9 — Evidence of bankfull overflow — wrack lines near Veg Plot 5 (9/13/2011)
Vegetation Plot Photos
Photo Station VI - Veg Plot 1 looking southeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V2 - Veg Plot 1 looking east (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V3 - Veg Plot 2 looking south (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V4 - Veg Plot 2 looking southeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V5 - Veg Plot 3 looking east (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V6 - Veg Plot 3 looking northeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
9
Photo Station V9 - Veg plot 5 looking south (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V10 - Veg plot 5 looking southeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V11- Veg plot 6 looking east (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V12 - Veg plot 6 looking northeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
A F rk777-74M
ll
Photo Station V15 - Veg plot 8 looking east (9/13/2011 Year 1)
F-
Photo Station V16 - Veg plot 8 looking northeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V17 - Veg plot 9 looking northeast (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Photo Station V18 - Veg plot 9 looking north (9/13/2011 Year 1)
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a,b. — Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8 — CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 — CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Stream Criteria
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Section 1
VP1
N/A
800/0
Section 1
VP2
Y
Section 1
VP3
N/A
Section 1
VP4
N/A
Section 1
VP5
Y
Section 1
VP6
N/A
Section 1
VP7
Y
Section 2
VP8
Y
Section 3
VP9
N
Table 71L Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Buffer Criteria
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Section 1
VP1
N
78%
Section 1
VP2
Y
Section 1
VP3
Y
Section 1
VP4
Y
Section 1
VP5
Y
Section 1
VP6
Y
Section 1
VP7
Y
Section 2
VP8
Y
Section 3
VP9
N
Table 8 - CVS Metdata
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration - EEP #273
Report Prepared By
Alex Baldwin
Date Prepared
9/20/201116:08
Database name
Stantec Oakle - 2011 -A.mdb
Database location
U:\175613016\project\sitejata\vegetation-
Computer name
BALDWINA
File size
136032512
DESCRIPTION OF.WORKSHEETS',IN
THIS,DOCUMENT------ - - - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a
summary of project (s) and project data.
Pro, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro j, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each
year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live
stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of
occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage bV Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Dama a values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species
for each lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT ,SUMMARY --------------------------------------- - '
Project Code
273
Project Name
Oakley Crossroads G)
Description
Stream and Wetland Restoration
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
Length(ft)
Stream-to-edge width ft
Areas m
,Required Plots calculated
Sam led Plots
9
vegeiduun aucce» upend ror xredrns: 3cu prdnieu uees ur xuuw per acre W -year unenrn rnedsure)
Vegetation success criteria for buffers: 320 planted trees per acre
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 273. Project Name: Oakley Crossroads
Current Plot Data (MY12011)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E273 -01 -0001
E273 -01 -0002
E273 -01 -0003
E273 -01 -0004
E273 -01 -0005
E273 -01 -0006
E273 -01 -0007
E273 -01 -0008
E273 -01 -0009
MY1(2011)
MYO(2011)
PnoLS
FP-all
T
Pnol-S
P -all IT
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
Pnol-S
P -all
IT
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Eubotrys racemosa
swamp doghobble
Shrub
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
13
13
13
13
13
13
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
21
2
2
3
31
3
S1
5
5
1
1
1
21
2
2
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
7
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
10
10
10
12
12
12
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
7
7
9
91
9
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
5
5
51
1
1
1
7
71
7
13
13
13
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
JTree
1
1
11
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
12
12
121
16
16
16
Unknown
lunknown
1
1
1
Stem count
Tree count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Trees per ACRE
Stems per ACREJ
9
9
9
11
11
11
8
8
8
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
12
12
10
10
10
18
18
18
1
1
1
90
90
90
93
93
93
7
71
7
10
10
10
8
8
8
11
11
11
9
9
9
12
12
12
10
10
10
18
18
18
11
1
1
86
86
86
891
891
89
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.22
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
283.3
283.3
283.3
404.7
404.7
404.7
�;
323.7
323.7
445.2
445.2
445.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
485.6
485.6
485.6
404:7
404.7
404.7
728.4
728.4
728.4
40.47
40.47
40.47
3$6:7
386.7
386.7
400.2
400.2
400.2
364.2
364.2
364.2
445.2
445.21
445,21MI,
323.7
323.7
485.6
485.6
485.6
364.2
364.2
364.2
485.6
485.6
485.6
404:7
404.7
404.7
728.4
728.4
728.4
40.47
40.47
40.47
'4O4':Z
404.7
404.7
418.2
418.2
418.2
vegeiduun aucce» upend ror xredrns: 3cu prdnieu uees ur xuuw per acre W -year unenrn rnedsure)
Vegetation success criteria for buffers: 320 planted trees per acre
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
a
Appendiz'D.
Stream Survey Data
a
Figures 3a='
� J
— Cross- Sections with Annual Overlays
_ y
Figure 4
— Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Table l0a b.
- Baseline — Stream Data Summary _
a
Table 1 la.
— Monitoring — Cross - section Morphology Data
Table Llb: -
— Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data
a
�
FJ
River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -2, Riffle STA 6 +17
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
9/1/2011
Field Crew
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
33.991
44.63
33.99
44.63
54.24
44.37
54.24
44.37
72.47
43.91
72.47
43.91
92.77
43.54
92.77
43.54
110.68
43.14
110.68
43.14
136.32
43.27
136.32
43.27
153.53
42.83
153.531
42.83
168.42
42.08
168.42
42.08
169.10
42.69
169.10
42.69
175.71
41.04
174.60
41.30
193.21
40.52
183.93
40.80
210.45
40.43
193.68
40.52
219.41
40.32
208.61
40.41
223.60
40.35
217.46
40.30
226.57
40.33
226.67
40.33
226.69
40.37
229.04
39.32
227.04
40.30
230.82
38.62
228.42
39.64
231.63
38.04
229.95
38.99
232.76
37.70
231.78
38.21
233.53
37.92
232.29
38.09
235.12T
38.52
7U 51 .17 39.711
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 2, Riffle, Station 6 +17
SUMARY DATA
I MY00
MY01
Bankfull Elevation
140.35
40.38
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
118.16
17.88
Bankfull Width
16.60
13.16
Flood Prone A5Bankfull Elevation
42.89
43.06
Flood Prone Wh
124.27
124.27
Max De th at
Mean Depth ankfull
W D Ratio
2.54
1.09
15.23
2.68
1.37
9.61
Entrenchment io
7.49
9.44
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
C
C
Sta. 6 +17 Looking Downstream
.00
River Basin
_. Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -3 Pool STA 12 +59
Draina a Area s . mi.
1.59
Date
9/1/2011
Field Crew
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
50.251
42.52
50.25
42.52
78.82
41.98
78.82
41.98
97.11
42.25
97.11
42.25
113.72
42.15
113.72
42.15
131.64
41.90
131.64
41.90
145.91
41.47
145.91
41.47
153.13
42.09
153.13
42.09
159.54
41.19
158.28
41.16
171.94
41.02
166.00
40.94
180.95
40.38
170.52
40.88
187.04
39.94
179.13
40.57
197.51
39.98
184.61
40.28
200.36
39.971
190.41
39.96
205.21
39.84
194.41
39.92
205.63
39.82
200.59
39.97
209.561 37.40 209.36 37.6:
210.711 36.78 209.67 37.1E
211.701 36.25 210.78 36.6E
214.131 36.40 214.84 36.2!
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 3, Pool, Station 12 +59
51.00 ,
49.00
47.00
45.00
S-
c
43.00
�o
at
W
41.00
91:XIIIIIIIIIII
011111m
35.00 L
0.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
ginkfulfTWation
39.68
39.70
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
36.86
37.87
Bankfull Width
Flood Prone Area Elevation
20.58
43.11
24.45
43.11
Flood Prone Width
248.46
248.07
Max Depth at Bankfull
3.43
3.41
Mean Depth at Bankfull
W D Ratio AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlli.50
1.79
1.55
15.77
Entrenchment Ratio
1207 .
10.15
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
Stream Type
C
C
Sta. 12 +59 Looking Downstream
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00
Station (ft)
As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation ...... Bankfull Elevation MY 01
River Basin :
Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed '
XS ID
Tranters Creek
XS -4 Riffle STA 28 +46
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
9 1 2011
Field Crew
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
32.581
38.83
42.971
32.581
230.32
42.97
47.641
38.17
42.201
47.641
255.76
42.20
65.921
38.60
41.121
65.921
278.21
41.12
81.031
37.86
40.821
81.031
281.24
40.82
191.12
38.83
191.121
38.83
230.32
38.17
230.32
38.17
255.76
37.85
255.76
37.85
266.56
38.60
266.56
38.60
278.21
37.86
278.21
37.86
282.75
37.97
281.24
37.759
293.74
38.11
290.68
37.881
305.40
38.28
300.11
37.906
305.58
38.25
305.26
37.848
306.89
37.65
307.23
37.095
308.24
36.93
308.54
36.55
310.07
36.67
308.85
36.062
310.711
35.71
309.92
35.422
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 4, Riffle, Station 28 +46
46.00
44.00
42.00
c
0
�o
d
M 40.00
38.00
36.00
34.00 L--
0.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
38.24
37.85
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
20.90
18.22
Bankfull Width
14.64
13.70
Flood Prone Area Elevation
41.23
40.54
Flood Prone Width
367.14
332.68
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.99
2.69
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.43
1.33
W D Ratio
10.24
10.30
Entrenchment Ratio
25.08
24.28
1.00
Bank Hei ht Ratio 1.00
Stream Type
C
C
50.00 100.00
As Built MY00
150.00 200.00 250.00
Station (ft)
Flood Prone Area Elevation
Sta. 28 +46 Looking Downstream
300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00
•••••. Bankfull Elevation -MY01
River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -6, Riffle, STA 35 +24
Drainage Areas . mi.
1.59
Date
9/1/2011
Field Crew
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
212.76
35.87
212.761
35.87
36.88
220.80
38.40
220.80
38.40
Bankfull Width
237.17
39.75
237.17
39.75
39.57
250.63
39.12
250.63
39.12
2.55
261.67
38.24
261.67
38.24
W D Ratio
275.95
37.08
275.95
37.08
12.82
285.28
36.80
285.28
36.80
C
286.84
37.50
286.841
37.50
287.26
36.85
287.26
36.85
290.35
36.85
287.43
36.82
301.91
36.75
288.9
36.88
310.76
36.83
296.65
36.69
316.51
36.84
316.45
36.87
316.76
36.88
319.93
35.55
318.89
35.81
320.76
35.34
320.87
34.87
321.54
34.79
321.98
34.60
322.35
34.49
322.30
34.33
322.78
34.18
323.55
34.36
324.04
34.17
324.04
34.43
324.79
34.60
324.63
34.76
F 325.66
35.52
327.11
35.781
327.28
1 35.89
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section 6, Riffle, Station 35 +24
42.00 1 -
41.00
40.00
39.00
c
38.00
m
v
W
37.00
MKIIII
C391I11
34.00 i -- - . --- -
200.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00
MY01
Bankfull Elevation
36.88
36.87
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
18.91
17.43
Bankfull Width
17.17
12.92
Flood Prone Area Elevation
39.43
39.57
Flood Prone Width
158.46
166.08
Max Depth at Bankfull
2.55
2.70
Mean Depth at Bankfull
1.10
1.35
W D Ratio
15.61
9.59
Entrenchment Ratio
9.23
12.82
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.95
Stream Type
C
C
As Built MY00
I!
Flood Prone Area Elevation •••••• Bankfull Elevation
Sta. 35 +24 Looking Downstream
MY 01
River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River
Watershed
Tranters Creek
XS ID
XS -7 Riffle, STA 38 +71
Draina a Areas . mi.
1.59
Date, :.. .- , .
9/1/2011
38.52
N. Jean B.Mazzochi A. Baldwin
26.11
MY00*
38.20
26.111
38.20
38.00
34.24
75.91
38.52
34.24
38.52
36.52
36.95
44.28
39.29
36.95
39.29
132.69
37.14
6.23
38.72
37.14
38.72
2.13
39.57
13.05
38.72
39.21
38.544
3.63
46.18
1.00
38.72
49.19
38.823
C
57.09
38.53
58.73
38.308
63.06
38.20
66.87
37.967
66.76
38.14
71.32
37.96
69.33
38.10
75.06
36.251
72.02
37.67
79.92
34.376
74.83
36.67
81.32
33.533
77.89
35.25
82.9
32.353
79.27
34.35
84.95
31.993
80.79
33.16
87.42
32.686
82.34
32.21
88.42
34.553
84.27
31.82
92.45
36.186
86.46
31.91
95.74
37.49
87.161
33.28
98.99
37.375
87.651
34.47
1,0 2.57
37.996
991
- -
Oakley Crossroads - UT to Tranters Creek
X- Section
7 Riffle, Station 38 +71
46.00
44.00
-
42.00
40.00
- - - --
--
c
•2
38.00
M
a
w
36.00
34.00
32.00
30.00
- --
0.00
SUMARY DATA
MY00*
MY01
Bankfull Elevation
38.05
38.00
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
75.91
77.93
Bankfull Width
31.46
36.52
Flood Prone Area Elevation
44.28
44.01
Flood Prone Width
132.69
132.69
Max Depth at Bankfull
6.23
6.01
Mean Depth at Bankfull
2.41
2.13
W D Ratio
13.05
17.15
Entrenchment Ratio
4.22
3.63
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
Stream TyDe
C
C
* REVISED X -SEC DATA
20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
Station (ft)
As Built MY00 - - Flood Prone Area Elevation
100.00
•••••• Bankfull Elevation
Sta. 38 +71 Looking Downstream
120.00
MY 01
140.00
160.00
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration - Longitudinal Profile
Station 0 +00 to 38 +79
2011 Monitoring - Year 0, Year 01
42
41
+
>�
x +x
e + *x�x
xx4w
40
+ + +
� + x x x
+ " >d
++ ++ + +
+
x
+ ++ x X x f �+X+
Xx xx x
x
+
+ +
+
+
++ x
+ + + +
+ >I�x
39
+
+ +
+x
+ +
+
+ + +
x
*+
+ +fix
+ �c
x'
>�
38
$
+
x
++ ,+
+ x
x
0
x x x
+ +
+
>
w 37
A 11
+ + x x
x
+ ++
x
36
+
35
34
33
32
0 S00 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station (ft)
AS- BUILTTHALWEG - 05/11 x AS -BUILT TOB ■ Log Vane • Log Sill a Rock 1 -Hook w/ Log Vane YR 01 THALWEG 09/11 * YR 01 RTTOB
Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No 273 Segment/Reach Mainstem 3 950 feet
Parameter
lGaU0621
ReglonalCurve
Pro-Existing
Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Desl n
Monitoring Baseline
hmrislon and Substrate RHft Only
LL
UL
Eq
Mn
Maas
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Mln
Mean
MEd
Mac
SD6
n
Mln
Mad
Mmc
Min
Moms
Mad
MEx
SD'
n
Batdtfull Width (ft)
1040
4
780
1120
1460
2
123
1464
1731
2082
4
Floodprme WM (ft)
1500
4
120 00
12650
1133 00
2
2400
8088
182 63
36714
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
180
4
070
115
160
2
15
088
113
143
4
' Bankfldl Mmc De (ft).
270
4
160
185
210
2
24
215
256
299
4
Bankfull Cross Secbonel Area ON
1 1900
1
1
4
950
1105
1260
1 2
1
1 190
1
118181
19081
12090
4
WidthlDepth 524
1 570
1
1
4
480
1360
2240
2
80
10 24
1819
23 66
4
Entrenchment R
140
4
820
1265
1710
2
195
466
1055
21 21
4
'Bank
Profile
Rd6a Length (ft)
3598
5302
4
Rdfle Slope (t1At)
0 003
0 008
4
Pod Length (ft)
E281
3367
44 45
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
17
23
29
2
4
312
343
2
Pod Spacng (ft)
5
27
35
67
4
43
52 5
62
6426
9403
2
attem
Channel Beftwidlh (ft) 45 725 100 2 62
740
86
3856
5594
8618
4800
Radws of Curvehue (ft) 8 128 14 21 4 22
270
31
1924
2781
3628
5600
Rc Bankfull width (tuft) 05 12 14 18 4 18
22
25
1 11
161
210
5600
MEarxler We relengttl (ft 17 75 100 156 4 88
111
135
8546
10392
11861
4800
Maarxler Wktth 58 63 68 2 5
60
7
223
323
498
4800
port am
Reach Sheaf Stress cm eno The
02
014
0 093
Mmc pmt sme (mm) mobbed at bankfu
25
Und Strewn Power (transport capacity)
IbsM/s per tend width°
025
017
018
dMonal Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classftabon
G5c
C5 E5
E5
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
19
17
165
Bank Ull Discharge (cfs)
30
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
3g5p
Snlxlsdy (ft)
101
"s
128
14
Water Surface Slope (Charnel) (ftRt)
00018
0 002
0 0014
000146
BF slope (ItAt)
000144
'Bankfull Floodptam Area acres
a% of Reach with EroftV Banks
Channel StWx* or Habdat Metric
Biological or CMw
Shadod odb mdrmto that thee wdl typictilly not ba filed m
1 - The dumbulloro for tboe paremrdea caa rddrrde mf rmrta form bah tba mo -maton Drug ®d the lonV uduLd pwfrb 2-F r pw)W wdh pmmrmal USGS gnW m4me "h the pmpn ream (addd bsakfh0 enfrmn rma)
Uuhmtasmrey dra prod sa estmtd of the badrfull fbodplm rau m aao which should be the ram from the top of bertk to tha tae f the totaoe rdd by
4 - Proponeo of roach effi3dwsbmks for em crodruSbaed o the —W mmtty f r mrrp-rood t mom nog d" 5 Gf vamNnmded only if the o emmeds 3 6 Ums d=@,d rwwW/ro t relied tho a provded m nptd dengo
Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate Bed Bank and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Oakley Crof aroads Stream and Buffer Rc 3toratlon / EEP Prolect No. 273 Sam nent/Reach. Mal stem (3,960 feet)
Parameter
Pre Existing Conditn
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As built/Baseline
'Rf% /Ru% /P % /G % /S%
0
1 0
1 0
1
1
52
Q
'SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be
o
33
671
0
1 0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
1d18 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /dP /di'p (mm)
014
o26
05
44
73
30
03
04
05
09
12
Entrenchment Class <1 5 / 1 5-1 99 / 2 0.4 9 / 5 0-9 9 / >10
'Incision Class <1 2 / 12 14911 5-1 991 >2 0
linbdcsilelndctathtthra Wltyplcry tbenrl
I F le,R- Po 1 Glr Bbp ti rAw Br,do.vsi Cobble U.Mr Bodo It op —per dep mw Wpw
7 Fiwwch dCtw A. WUhn therroh footp Ho ft I.— edictr mid pr vrrthapercrtpeofth btai.achfootpl each in th tebi T1rvAl— lh mtwr— eedoro e- b rewwl— lauele mdn
3 AmVdWth rmhf tpe MotheclWrlMeRrrdproNtl fMpwcwtp Metateireadrf top] ech truth trbl ThsWOrrJtfomth —red eeaecd —mlwth 1 dbgrdpon
Footnote,il Theesel rel tybBtro rdtheR pncimsWalbo rdlrmd ft brwbbLLawae¢sbdellyrteyto meta/ easiw wwly —tl nwAW rerbkrbwedu nrieebrrobw Bsfeld l <htlrtmeen —ard f very eVrwd fo ERw Idmilberwcrery
Thektrthwalet pro dltntlrhorm r fdwlprrdmurt &gird mho Wthapa d,,pmw l ere lthecdrd ffrydobaccortemwd tempo- autYprd Ur ehraftbtl trrrwlr rrprborrtoth —ferrc drrbbM m
ERrd BHRhw bee tldwwd.p. WmbrormreuMarrpl (. e-eecb rrwpn fth dwiM w.'Ah wvrthr ubernpleahr ftnf cutdrtktly twil ip tlr prWtfpdpro ding 1Mrouyipr— rstM datraWo fthaeeprrrsteretewinittareadd m m Wth wpl &adw;w gIdedfrrnly the t b! e.d rs IF
ftmwh TNsmvsthttlsdatdbub rsfo tlwaprrrrtra sitodtl e,ce,a.tlm ham bothb cro"4-11 — yeardth b ytu3rlproH rdl th w fER vbuleebmtaa Fo mmpl fMtyp silo Otx"pr R permlb erroril BHRIIrfr -brfo dthoea rE}ttto .eaywb --diff ref .tribe Will WV dntlpavlb
m .complt rrple dhWbutb f Brea onrrrrera breb pro tdrrlttrdebhlll rd rp ecweryb provide arwygh wnVwb m
Table 11a Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —Cross Sections)
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration /EEP Project No 273 - Segment/Reach Malnstem (3,950 feet
Cross Section 1 (STA 0+72, Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (STA 6+17, Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (STA 12+59, Pool)
Cross Section 4 (STA 28+46, Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (STA 32+71,
Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY7
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY+
Base
I MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
2082
1239
1660
1316
2058
2438
1464
1370
1906
2971
Floodprone Width (ft)
8066
6565
12427
131 28
248 08
120 86
36714
33268
28916
31510
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
088
068
1 09
1 37
179
1 55
143
1 33
1 55
120
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
215
1 1 14
254
268
343
341
1
1
1
299
269
1
281 1
365
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
1833
837
1816
1788
3686
3787
20 90
1822
2947
3563
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
2366
1822
1523
961
1150
1573
10 24
1030
1230
2476
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
388
530
749
751
1205
496
25 08
2428
1517
1061
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 00
095
100
1 00
100
095
100
090
100
098
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ftZ)
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 6 (STA 35+24,
Riffle)
Cross Section
7 (STA 38+71, Other)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section
9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10
(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
1717
1292
3148
3652
Floodprone Width (ft)
15846
16808
13269
13269
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 10
1 35
241
213
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
255
270
623
601
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fit)
1891
1743
7591
7793
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
1561
959
1305
1715
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
923
1282
422
363
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 00
095
1 00
100
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ftZ)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for monitoring resurreywill be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dim enaional/deposibonal development. Input the elevation used as the datum which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established It the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for pnor years this must be discussed with EEP If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states it is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history which may influence calculated values
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to prowrde confirmation Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary
Table 11 b Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration / EEP Project No 273 - Se ment/Reach Mainstem (3,9 0 feet
Parameter
r Baseline
I MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY 4
MY- b
Dlrrienslon and Substrate - Riffle only
Mn
Mean
Msd
Max
SD
n
Mn
Mean
Mad
I Max
SD
n
Mn
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Mn
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Mn
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Mn
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
146
1731
2082
4
124
128
129
1316
039
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
807
18263
36714
4
657
1187
124
1661
504
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
09
113
143
4
07
1 1
135
137
039
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
22
256
299
4
1 1
22
268
2 703
09
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
182
1908
209
4
84
84
17 4
17 88
537
4
Width/Depth Ratio
102
16 19
2366
4
96
125
196111822
498
4
Entrenchment Rab
4 7
10 55
2121
4_L53
9 2
944
12 82
377
4
'Bank Height Rat w
-
1
1
1
1
1
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
248
3598
5302
4
242
352
-
531
4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 002
0 003
0 006
4
0 002
0 003
0 006
4
Pool Length (ft)
2047
3367
4445
2
21
3254
-
4521
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
281
312
343
2
341
353
365
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
434
6426
9403
2
421
652
952
2
Pattern
Channel Bellwidth (ft) 386 55941 8618 48
Radius of Curvature (ft) 192 2781 3628 56
Pattern datavNll not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
Indicate significant shifts from baseline
RC BenkfUll Width ft/ft 1 1 1 61 2 1 56
( )
Meander Wavelength (ft) 855 103921 11861 48
Meander Width Ratio. 22 323 498 48
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificabon
C4 E5
C4 E5
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
165
164
Sinuosity (ft)
14
14
Water Surface Slope (Channeq (ft/ft)
000146
000145
BF slope (M)
000144
000139
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
tit
-
48
-
52
48
-
3SC % / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
I
El
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
El
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
-EjEj
-
Channel Stability or Habitat Metnc
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells Indicate that these will typically not be filled In
1 = The distributions for these parameters can Include information from both the cross section surreys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of mach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the usual surrey from Wsual assessment table
3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pa%e disp = max subpaxe
4 - Of %,elustneeded only If the n exceeds 3
Appendix E Hydrology Data
Table 12 — Venfication of Bankfull Events
L _�
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Ij
Table 12 - Verification of Bankfull Events
Oakley Crossroads Stream and Buffer Restoration Protect (1gP #273)
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
Visual observation of
September 13 2011
unknown
S8 S9
wrack Imes