HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060288 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20120823�� - (), 1�
MONITORING YEAR 5 REPORT
PLEMMONS /KIRKPATRICK MITIGATION SITE
SPRING CREEK
Madison County, North Carolina
FINAL
EEP Project Number: 92607
Contract Number: D06082; Task Order: 06FB05 -1
Period Covered: January 2011 — December 2011
Submitted: 1 May 2012
Prepared by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
in Partnership with the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
AUG 232012
DEHR . WATER QUALITY
y&TIIWDS AND STWOIM TER 81 FA"
- rlA�;J
stem
�' I 1111 'E,'l l ent
PROGRAM
i�
� -�,
�_
�,
l��
(1
,- ���� � �
�. ' ,} '
k�
rfi
� �' r
� V , t� ��
i i ` _ `'�
��
'i
��
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary
2 Project Background
2
21 Project Objectives
2
22 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
2
23 Location and Setting
3
24 Project History and Background
3
25 Monitoring Plan View
6
3 Methods
6
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
6
4 1 Vegetation Assessment
6
4 1 1 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary
8
4 12 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
8
4 13 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs
8
4 14 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs
8
4 2 Stream Assessment
9
4 2 1 Procedural Items
9
4 2 1 1 Morphometnc Criteria
9
4 2 12 Hydrologic Criteria
9
4 2 13 Bank Stability Assessment
9
422 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
10
4 2 3 Numbered Issue Photographs
10
424 Fixed Station Photographs
10
4 2 5 Stability Assessment
10
426 Quantitative Measures Summary
10
4 2 7 Summary of Results
13
5 Acknowledgements
19
6 References
19
Appendix A — Vegetation Data
24
A 1 Vegetation Data Tables
24
Table A 1 1 — Vegetation Metadata
24
Table A 1 2 — Vegetation Vigor by Species
25
Table A 13 — Vegetation Damage by Species
28
Table A 1 4 — Vegetation Damage by Plot
31
Table A 1 5 — Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
33
Table A 16 —All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
36
A 2 Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
40
A 3 Vegetation Problem Areas Table
40
Table A 3 1 — Vegetation Problem Areas
40
A 4 Vegetation Problem Areas Photographs
41
A 5 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
42
Table A 5 1 — Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
42
Spmi CrLLk Pknnnons /KAPlhick Min_mon Site
I LP PtOJ Lt 92607
Monitoring N w -) Report - I IN AL Nla� 201'_
Appendix B — Stream Data
B 1 Stream Problem Areas Table
Table B 1 1 — Stream Problem Areas
B 2 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
B 3 Representative Stream Problem Area Photographs
B 4 Stream Photographic Stations
B 5 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table
B 6 Annual Overlays of Cross - Section Plots
B 7 Annual Overlays of Longitudinal Profile Plots
B 8 Pebble Count Cumulative Frequency Plots
B 9 Bankfull Event Verification Photographs
Spun,- CrLLk NLmmonti /Ku6pmtLkMtngm °n Site II
LEP PtojLLt 9?007
Monitoring t Lv 5 RLport - I INAL May 2012
49
49
49
-
49
49
j �f
50
64
65
l
75
J
76
80
'J
1
I
IJ
I Executive Summary
This report summarizes the monitoring year 5 (MY5) conditions of the Spnng Creek stream
mitigation project, Madison County, North Carolina A 50 ft wide permanent conservation easement
was acquired on both sides of the stream channel, total project area consists of 2 10 acres, including
the stream channel The npanan buffer as measured from the bankfull elevation to the conservation
easement boundary encompasses 143 acres A total of 680 ft of stream channel is contained within
the easement The right bank riparian area was protected by fencing installed along the entire
easement boundary The left bank riparian area was demarcated by a low berm extending the entire
( length of the easement boundary Project objectives to establish a conservation easement, remove all
foreign materials from the easement area, and re- vegetate the area with native herbaceous and woody
plants were accomplished Project objectives to reduce bank erosion by reshaping both channel
banks to a stable slope and restoring one large meander bend to a stable radius of curvature were
achieved
Following construction in August 2006, the project site was revegetated with native plants
Herbaceous plants were established using a perennial seed mixture, whereas, woody vegetation was
established by installing 1>vestakes and containerized shrubs and trees Three vegetation survey plots
— were established and surveyed utilizing the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol to identify
and enumerate planted stems The average density of planted woody stems for all plots combined
was found to be 648 stems per acre in the as -built (MYO) survey, 364 stems per acre in the MY 1
survey, 297 stems per acre in the MY2 survey, 270 stems per acre in the MY3 survey, 256 stems per
^I acre in the MY4 survey, and 216 stems per acre in the MY5 survey Planted woody stem density in
— MY5 is slightly below the year -5 success cntena of 260 stems per acre However, natural
recruitment of woody stems was observed in all three vegetation monitoring plots During the MY5
survey, the addition of the recruited stems resulted in an average stem density of 621 stems per acre
Invasive vegetation treatments following MY4 and MY5 have been effective in lowering the
densities of the undesirable vegetation within the project reach
Channel geomorphology data were collected at the same established locations during the as -built
and monitoring surveys Riffle bankfull widths ranged from 43 to 59 ft during the MY1 -MY5
surveys These values closely approximate the 46 to 55 ft range found in the as -built survey Riffle
cross - sectional areas ranged from 152 to 183 ft2 during the MYO survey, riffle cross - sectional areas
approximated this same range during the MY 1 -MY5 (151 to 174 ft2) surveys Riffle mean and
maximum depths at bankfull ranged from 2 8 to 3 8 ft and 4 5 to 5 4 ft during the MYO survey
j Riffle mean and maximum depths ranged from 2 6 to 3 6 ft and 4 6 to 5 8 ft during the MY1 -MY5
surveys The bank height ratio continues to be 10 The water surface slope of 0 O 1 ft/ft has
remained unchanged since MYO Over the course of monitoring, the D50 particle size of the reach-
wide pebble count ranged from 19 3 mm to 77 0 mm The D50 for the riffle pebble counts ranged
from 16 0 mm to 90 0 mm, medium gravel to small cobble, over the course of monitoring
The MY5 geomorphic, vegetative, and visual assessment surveys of the mitigation site were
found to be within the design criteria for this C4 stream channel With little to no apparent
aggradation or degradation of the channel bed or channel bank instability observed, the Spring Creek
i mitigation site is meeting all morphometric success criteria five years after project construction
_ However, planted stem density for all plots combined is below the established year -5 success criteria
Sprnn g Crc,k Plennnons'Knkp trick NItn mom Suc
LEP PtoJtct 92607
Momtonq t c u ) Rcport — I INAL MdN 2012
r
i
1 �
1
1
2 Project Background
2 1 Project Objectives
Project objectives for the Spring Creek mitigation site, as stated in the restoration design plan
document (NCWRC 2005), were as follows
• Establish a conservation easement on both stream banks for the entire length of the
restoration project,
• Remove the existing invasive exotic vegetation, _J
• Remove an abandoned barn, automobile bodies, school bus, and other foreign materials
from the stream banks and riparian area,
• Remove the berm from the top of the left bank,
• Remove the channel constrictions at stations 3 +50 and 4 +75,
• Reduce stream bank erosion on the right bank of the meander bend by establishing a
stable radius of curvature and installing in- stream structures and bank protection,
• Install two additional in- stream structures to enhance aquatic habitat,
• Shape banks to a stable slope, create a bankfull bench, and inner berm features,
• Re- establish native vegetation within the riparian zone, and
• Design and construct a livestock corral and feed/waste structure, watering system, and
install fencing (Plemmons property only, right bank) to exclude livestock from the
conservation easement and stream
2 2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
Channel morphology was modified by implementing restoration component activities
(USACE 2003, Table 1) Restoration involved removing nonnative invasive vegetation and
lowering the existing stream banks to create a bench that will allow bankfull or greater flows to
access the floodplain Using a Priority III approach (NSCRI 2003), restoration activities to
repair bank sloughing and lateral channel migration involved constructing a meander bend to the
desired channel dimension, pattern, and profile J -hook structures were installed at the point -of-
curvature and point -of- tangency of the constructed meander Root -wad structures were placed
along the near bank of the restored meander bend to provide added bank protection and aquatic
habitat diversity Also, two single arm rock vanes and a J -hook log vane were installed Overall,
the project included 680 ft of stream channel restoration (Table 1)
2
Spunk Creak Plcnunon5'Knkp-tntck Nvltnginon Site
EEP Ptoject 92607
Monitoring Yc 11 -) Rcport — I INAL Nlay2012
Table 1 — Project Restoration Components
1 2 3 Location and Setting
The Spring Creek stream mitigation project is a 2 1 acre site in the west - central portion of
` Madison County, N C (Figure 1) The site is located dust off of NC 209, beginning at the
1 downstream side of the Baltimore Branch Road bridge (SR 1151), approximately 3 5 miles north
of Trust and 115 miles south of Hot Springs, N C The Spring Creek protect site is located in
s the U S Geological Survey 14 digit hydrologic unit 06010105120010, has a 29 3 mil drainage
area, is a fourth order stream at the project location, and is on a tributary to the French Broad
River The project site is in a rural setting of pasture, farmland, and low density dwellings
2 4 Project History and Background
Prior to the project, the stream had been destabilized through channelizing, berming (left
bank), and livestock hoof -shear (right bank) Landowners had tried to stabilize sloughing
vertical banks using buses and automobile bodies, but this approach was unsightly and in most
areas created additional problems The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
( NCWRC) performed the initial site assessment, designed the restoration plans, and provided
construction oversight ( NCWRC 2005) The North Carolina Department of Transportation
{ acquired the site from two landowners (Von and Linda G Plemmons and Hazel Kirkpatrick)
under a previous agreement with the NCWRC Responsibility for the project was transferred to
the N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in 2005 Construction of the Spring Creek
project took place between 1 August and 25 August 2006 Stream and riparian impacts were
addressed using natural channel design techniques, eliminating livestock access to the creek, and
removing all foreign materials (automobile bodies, storage shed, etc ) from within the project
footprint The as -built survey was completed in September 2006 Vegetation planting was
completed in December 2006, the baseline vegetation survey was completed in January 2007
Additional project details regarding project history, timeline, background, contact information,
and general physical and water quality characteristics can be found in Tables 2 -4
Spung Crl,Lk Plomnons /KAp imc k NI iti mon Site
EEP PtoJELt 92607
Monitoring YL 11 -) R,port — FIN \L Nlay2012
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
e
0
S Q
o` =
L
o Q
Riparian
Project Segment or
U
a
Buffer
Reach iD
w rT-
:4
Q
w
Stationing
Acres
Comment
Reach I
680
R
P3
680
0+00 to 6 +80
14
R = Restoration
Ell = Enhancement II
C = Creation P
1 = Priority I
EI = Enhancement i
S = Stabilization
P = Preservation P2 = Priority ii
'Source USACE 2003
bSource NCSRI 2003
P3 = Priority iIi
1 2 3 Location and Setting
The Spring Creek stream mitigation project is a 2 1 acre site in the west - central portion of
` Madison County, N C (Figure 1) The site is located dust off of NC 209, beginning at the
1 downstream side of the Baltimore Branch Road bridge (SR 1151), approximately 3 5 miles north
of Trust and 115 miles south of Hot Springs, N C The Spring Creek protect site is located in
s the U S Geological Survey 14 digit hydrologic unit 06010105120010, has a 29 3 mil drainage
area, is a fourth order stream at the project location, and is on a tributary to the French Broad
River The project site is in a rural setting of pasture, farmland, and low density dwellings
2 4 Project History and Background
Prior to the project, the stream had been destabilized through channelizing, berming (left
bank), and livestock hoof -shear (right bank) Landowners had tried to stabilize sloughing
vertical banks using buses and automobile bodies, but this approach was unsightly and in most
areas created additional problems The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
( NCWRC) performed the initial site assessment, designed the restoration plans, and provided
construction oversight ( NCWRC 2005) The North Carolina Department of Transportation
{ acquired the site from two landowners (Von and Linda G Plemmons and Hazel Kirkpatrick)
under a previous agreement with the NCWRC Responsibility for the project was transferred to
the N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in 2005 Construction of the Spring Creek
project took place between 1 August and 25 August 2006 Stream and riparian impacts were
addressed using natural channel design techniques, eliminating livestock access to the creek, and
removing all foreign materials (automobile bodies, storage shed, etc ) from within the project
footprint The as -built survey was completed in September 2006 Vegetation planting was
completed in December 2006, the baseline vegetation survey was completed in January 2007
Additional project details regarding project history, timeline, background, contact information,
and general physical and water quality characteristics can be found in Tables 2 -4
Spung Crl,Lk Plomnons /KAp imc k NI iti mon Site
EEP PtoJELt 92607
Monitoring YL 11 -) R,port — FIN \L Nlay2012
Table 2 — Project Activity and Reporting History
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Conservation easement acquired (by N C Department of Transportation)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
October 2005
Restoration Plan
July 2005
December 2005
Final Design - 90%
NA
December 2005
Construction
Todd Hodges
August 2006
Temporary S &E seed mix applied to entire project area
P O Box 537
August 2006
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Planting Contractor
August 2006
As -built physical survey
September 2006
September 2008
Containerized plantings installed over entire project area
December 2006
As -built vegetation survey
March 2007
July 2007
Mitigation Plan/As -built Year 0 Monitoring - baseline
September 2006
February 2009
Year I Monitoring
December 2007
June 2009
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2008
June 2009
Year 3 Monitoring
December 2009
February 2011
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2010
February 2011
Year 5+ Monitoring
December 2011
A nl 2012
tsotaea items represent [nose events or aenverautes mat are vanabte [von ootaea items represent events that are standard components
over the course of a typical project
Table 3 — Project Contact Table
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Spring Creek EEP project number 92607
Designer(s)
Firm Information /Address
Jeff Ferguson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Scott Loftis
1751 Varsity Dnve
NCSU Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27695
Construction Contractor
Firm Information /Address
Todd Hodges
Constructioneenng, LLC
P O Box 537
Patterson, NC 28661
Planting Contractor
Company Information /Address
Chad Bradley
Construction and Landscape Services, Inc
77 Paradise Ridge
Marshall, NC 28753
Seeding Contractor
Company Information /Address
Todd Hodges and NCWRC
Same as above
Seed Mix Sources
Company and Contact Phone
Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP
1- 800 - 873 -3321
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Company and Contact Phone
Carolina Native Nurse
828 - 682 -1471
Monitoring Performers
Firm Information /Address
Stream Momtonng POC
Scott Loftis, NCWRC, same as above
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Scott Loftis, NCWRC, same as above
Wetland Momtormg POC
4
5pnng CrLek Plemmons /l(Ap itrtck Miti iron Site
EEP Ptojt.,.t 92607
MomtorinL Yw D RLport — I IN \L NI w2012
it
I'
L
Table 4 — Project Background Table
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Project County
Madison
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge Mountains
Ecoregion (Reference USACE 2003)
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad River
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
06010105120010
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project
Lower French Broad 04 -03-04
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan9
No
NCWRC Fish Classification (Warm, Cool Cold)
Cold
Percent of project easement fenced or demarcated
100% (left bank = berm, right bank = fence)
Beaver activity observed during design phase9
No
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Tract 5
Drainage Area (nu')
293
Stream Order
4
Restored length (ft)
680
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed type (Rural Urban Developing, etc)
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g ) (percent)
Residential
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Etc
10
5
10
75
Watershed impervious cover (percent)
<5
NCDWQ AU /Index number
61218—(1)
NCDWQ Stream Classification
C, Tr
303d listed?
No
Upstream 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
NA
NCDWQ 404 Water Quality Certification Number
06 -0288 Mad Co
USACE 401 Action ID Number
200630639
Total acreage ofconservation easement (including
stream channel
2 1
Total (undisturbed) vegetated acreage within
easement
<0 I
Total riparian buffer acreage as part of the restoration
14
Rosgen stream classification of pre - existing
C4
Rosgen stream classification of as -built
C4
Valley Type
VIII, alluvial
Valley Slope
0 01 15
Valley side slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
<10 %
Valley toe slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
<5 %
Cowardin classification (Reference Cowardin 1979)
Trout waters designation ( NCWRC)
Yes
Species of concern, endangered, etc 9 (Y/N)
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Reddies
Depth (in)
30 -40
Clay ( %)
25
K
T
Spring Creak Plemmons /Kiikp-tntc k Mitt,, Inon Site 5
s LF P PioJu t 92607
Monitoring YL u 7 RLPort — FINAL Ma%?013
Ir ,
I
2 5 Monitoring Plan View
The as -built survey data revealed the baseline condition of the project reach's j
geomorphology, stability, and vegetation following construction (Figure 2) The eight original
cross - sections (3 raffles, 1 run, 2 pools, and 2 glides) were not all resurveyed per the NCEEP
written comments following the MY2 report review Only the riffle (XS2, XS3, and XS8) and ! j
pool (XS4 and XS6) cross sections were repeated in MY3 -MY5 to compare channel morphology
over time The longitudinal profile of the entire project reach has been resurveyed each year
The MY5 plan view drawing shows the current condition of the channel and adjacent topography
within the project reach (Figure 3)
3 Methods
Post - construction conditions for the Sprang Creek mitigation site were determined during
December 2007 (MY 1), October 2008 (MY2), December 2009 (MY3), December 2010 (MY4), t
and December 2011 (MY5) Representative cross - sectional dimensions and longitudinal profile
data were collected using standard stream channel survey techniques (Harrelson et al 1994,
NCSR12003) The geomorphology of the stream was classified using the Rosgen (1996) stream
classification system Project site, reference reach, and as -built conditions were analyzed and the
project design developed using RIVERMorph stream assessment and restoration software,
Version 4 3 (RSARS 2010) and AutoCAD (2004) Version 2004 0 0 U S Geological Survey
1 24,000 topographical maps were used to determine stream drainage area Mountain and
piedmont regional hydraulic geometry curve data were used as a field guide and in the design
plan (Harman et al 1999, 2000, Doll et al 2002) Bed material composition and mobility was
assessed by doing one reach -wide and one nffle cross - section pebble count during MYO and —
MY1 and one reach -wide and three raffle counts during MY2 -MY5 (NCSRI 2003) Vegetation
surveys and data reduction were completed following established protocols (Lee et al 2006) i
References to the left and right channel banks in this document are oriented when viewing the
channel in the downstream direction
�1
t
4 Protect Conditions and Monitoring Results
4 1 Vegetation Assessment
The Spring Creek mitigation site was revegetated during December 2006 with a variety of
plant types including annual and perennial native seed mixes, livestakes, and contamenzed
woody species For additional information regarding the revegetation of the project site
following construction and location of vegetation monitoring plots refer to the as -built report and
Figure 2 (NCWRC 2008) A number of mature trees representing a variety of species were not
disturbed during construction Most of these trees were located along the nm of the floodplain at
the bankfull elevation (Figure 2) They were retained because they were contributing to bank
stability, providing shade to the stream, and would be a seed source that would contribute to
natural revegetation of the project area
The woody plants installed in December 2006 appeared to be performing well following
installation and were beginning to bud by late March 2007 Subsequently, a severe freeze
G
Spine OLLk Plemmons /KntipitnLk NIuaL trton Sitc
CLP PtoJcLt 92607
Nlomtortq, \ w D Report — I IN \L i\la� 2013
occurred in early April 2007, damaging many of the tender stems Baseline vegetation
- monitoring had taken place dust prior to the late freeze, therefore, the MY vegetation
assessment provides insight into to the extent of damage the late freeze had on the planted stems
The three established 10 m x 10 m vegetation assessment plots have been resurveyed in each
of the five consecutive monitoring years (Figure 2) Stem counts, plant vigor, and plant damage
was assessed for each plot (Appendix A, Tables A 1 1 -A 16 )
Vegetation Plot I —Six planted stems (243 stems per acre) were documented in vegetation
plot 1 during the MYO survey The same six woody stems were found in MY I, suggesting that
the planted stems were not affected by the April 2007 freeze Four planted stems were recorded
i during the MY2 -MY5 surveys (162 stems per acre, Appendix Table A 1 5 ) During the five-
- year monitoring period, one planted red maple Acer rubrum and one planted witch hazel
- Hamamehs virginiana were determined to be dead However, six previously undocumented
non- planted woody stems were present in MY2, nine in MY4, and eleven in MY5, indicating
natural regeneration was occurring Recruited stems included dogwood Cornus florida, staghorn
sumac Rhus typhina, and black cherry Prunus serotma The woody stem density increased from
162 to 648 stems per acre when the eleven non - planted stems were included (Appendix Table
A16)
Vegetation Plot 2 —Nine planted stems were found in vegetation plot 2 (364 stems per acre)
in MYO Of the nine planted stems counted in MYO, only 8 were recounted in MY A possum
haw Ilex decidua was apparently overlooked during the MY 1 survey, as it was again present and
counted in the MY2 survey However, during MY2 two planted Alleghany serviceberry
- Amelanchier laevis were determined to be dead or missing, resulting in a planted stem density of
_ 283 stems per acre Five planted stems were counted in MY3 and MY4, one spicebush Lindera
benzoin and one sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum were dead (202 stems per acre, Appendix
Table A 1 5 ) Planted stem density was the same during MY5 (202 stems per acre) with five
stems counted Twelve non - planted woody stems representing two species were present in the
MY5 survey, increasing the total woody stem density from 202 to 688 stems per acre (Appendix
Table A 1 6 )
Vegetation Plot 3 —In vegetation plot 3, 33 planted stems were recorded (1,336 stems per
acre) in MYO Approximately 40% (13) of the woody stems counted in vegetation plot 3 were
planted as live stakes Live stakes in vegetation plot 3 consisted of silky dogwood Cornus
amomum, ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius, and silky willow Salix sericea Twenty fewer
stems were counted in MY I, and 22 fewer stems were counted in MY2 when compared to the
MYO data Twelve of the 22 dead or missing stems were installed as livestakes The MY2
density of the 11 remaining stems in vegetation plot 3 was 445 stems per acre In MY3, eleven
planted stems were again counted, ten stems were present in MY4 representing a density of 405
stems per acre Seven planted stems were counted in MY5 representing a density of 283 stems
per acre (Appendix Table A 15 ) Five non - planted woody stems were found in MY5 increasing
the total woody stem density from 283 to 526 stems per acre (Appendix Table A 1 6 )
The average woody stem density of the three plots combined in MY5 was 216 stems per acre
for planted stems and 621 stems per acre when naturally recruited stems were included
7
Spun_ CrcLk PlunmonsfKAp III tLk MItI 111011 SIIL
I_LP PtOJELt 92007
Monitoring. You 5 Report— I IN \L NIay2012
f
1
,I
(Appendix Tables A 1 5 and A 16 ) Two of the three monitored plots have not met the year -5
success criteria for planted woody stem density, vegetation plot 3 exceeded the success criteria
for MY1 -MY5 Twelve of the 32 total dead or missing stems were planted as livestakes The
late freeze in 2007 likely resulted in some mortality of the planted stems, but several growing
seasons of severe drought following plant installation also is a likely contributor to planted stem
mortality Natural regeneration (28 stems) has helped to offset the loss of the 32 planted stems }
Natural regeneration was first documented during MY2 and new stems were encountered in each
monitoring year through MY5 Species found to be naturally regenerating within the monitored —
plots include dogwood, Juglans mgra black walnut, black cherry, Rhus typhina staghom sumac
and Sambucus canadensis elderberry Natural regeneration was also noted outside the monitored
plots and includes Robima pseudoacacia black locust and Pinus strobus white pine
4 1 1 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary
Small isolated areas of multiflora rose Rosa multiora and Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
observed during the MY3 and MY4 site assessments were chemically treated in the spring of
2011 following the submission of the MY4 monitoring report A follow up treatment of invasive
exotic vegetation occurred in the spring of 2012 following the MY5 site assessment (Appendix r f
Table A 3 1 ) The presence of any invasive exotic vegetation should be minimal during the —
closeout visits scheduled for the fall of 2012
4 12 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
A vegetation problem areas plan view was not generated for MY5 because herbaceous E�
vegetation and planted stems have performed satisfactorily following construction, there were no
areas of the conservation easement that were devoid of vegetation
4 1 3 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs
Vegetative problem area photographs were not taken in WO and MY because of the
isolated occurrence of very few invasive plant stems However, pictures were taken during the U
MY2 -MY5 surveys to provide visual record of the occurrence, size, and dispersal of non - native
vegetation (Appendix A 4) All of non - native vegetation was chemically treated in April of 2011 71
and March of 2012 jI
4 14 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetative monitoring plot photographs were taken during each of the vegetation monitoring
surveys to record the performance of the vegetation plots over time (Appendix A 5) Location,
orientation, and dimension information for each of the vegetation monitoring plots is located in _,
Appendix Table A 5 1
E
Spring Creck PIcmmons /Kirkpitiitk Miti Batton Site g
EFP Ptojta 92607
Nlomtonn� \ w D Rcport - I IN \L Nlay2012
a'
i
I
4 2 Stream Assessment
4 2 1 Procedural Items
4 2 1 1 Morphometric Criteria
Channel cross - sectional dimensions, pattern, and longitudinal profile were surveyed in
December 2011 to document morphological characteristics of the active channel for MY5
(Figure 3) In addition, the locations of all constructed stream features (i e , rock vanes, log
`- vane, and J -hook vanes) were assessed for stability and structural integrity Moreover, no
deviation has occurred between established survey stations nor has any channel instability been
observed between MY and MY
4 2 12 Hydrologic Criteria
One bankfull event was documented between the end of construction and completion of the
as -built survey (Table 5) A wrack line above the bankfull elevation was observed and
photographed for verification on 5 September 2006 (Appendix B 9) To monitor additional
- bankfull events, a simple crest gauge was installed on the left bank (sta. 2 +30) downstream of
cross - section 2 and adjacent to a large sycamore tree The crest gage was dislodged in July 2008
f during a flow event that approached three- quarters of the bankfull elevation The crest gage was
relocated adjacent to the root wad structures in the large meander bend (Sta 4 +00) With the
_
widespread drought conditions experienced during the 2007 and 2008 monitoring years, no
bankfull events were documented A second bankfull event was observed on 9 December 2009
and verified by the waters crest elevation on the gage Photograph documentation of the 9
December 2009 bankfull event is provided in Appendix B 9
- Table 5 — Verification of Bankfull Events
Spring Creek (EEP
project number 92607
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
if available
5 Sep 2006
1 Sep 2006
Wrack line observation
Appendm B 9
9 Dec 2009
9 Dec 2009
Crest gage and wrack line
Appendix B 9
4 2 1 3 Bank Stability Assessment
Bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) and near bank stress (NBS) assessments were not
conducted during any of the monitoring surveys Stream Problem Areas Table Summary
No stream problem areas were observed during the MYI -MY5 surveys (Appendix Table
B 1 ) Appendix Table B 1 1, Stream Problem Areas, is used as a place holder for future
monitoring reports
9
Spring Cretk Plemmons /Knkp mtek Mmpnon Site
F P Piojeet 92607
Monitoring Ye 11 -) Report— I IN \L May2012
4 2 2 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
No problem areas with regards to channel morphology or stability were observed during the
MY 1 -MY5 surveys (Appendix B 2) As such, a problem area plan view was not generated
4 2 3 Numbered Issue Photographs
No stream channel problem areas were observed during the MY1 -MY5 surveys, therefore,
issue or problem area photos are not included in this monitoring report (Appendix B 3)
4 2 4 Fixed Station Photographs
Fixed station photographs document pre- and post - construction channel conditions and
provide a time series view of the mitigation site floodplam and channel through MY5 (Appendix
B 4)
4 2 5 Stability Assessment
A visual assessment of the project reach was performed to inspect the morphological stability
of the channel and to serve as a basis for comparison with future channel stability monitoring
(Appendix B 5) Channel features, including meanders, stream bed, stream banks, and in- stream
structures were examined and enumerated (Appendix Table B 5 1 ) Based on the morphological - -'
data, all stream features were found to be stable (Table 7)
Table 6 — Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Entire
Reach sta 0+00 to 6 +80
Features
As -built
2006
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
A Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
C Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G Vanes /J Hooks etc
1 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Wads and Boulders
1 100%
100%
100%
1 100%
100%
100%
4 2 6 Quantitative Measures Summary
Monitoring year -5 morphological data obtained from established survey stations were
compared with pre - existing, reference, design, as- built, and past monitoring years data (Tables 8
and 9) Morphology and hydraulic data presented in Table 8 are from riffle cross - sections 2, 3,
and 8 Morphological data presented in Table 9 reflect past and current dimensions for each of
the eight individual cross - sections initially monitored along the project reach These data are
included in this report because they were collected before NCEEP requested that the NCWRC
10
Spnne CrL. k Plemmons /Kukptni(,k Mitigation Snc
ELP PtoJc" 92607
Monitoring t Llf .� RLport - I IN \L Nlay3013
f�
f��
reduce the number of cross - sections monitored as a cost savings measure As such, cross -
sections 1 (run), 5 (glide), and 7 (glide) were excluded from the MY3 -MY5 surveys Cross -
sectional dimension, longitudinal profile, and pebble count survey data plots were used to
evaluate the degree of departure of the channel from the as -built condition (Appendices B 6 -B 8)
Dimension — Channel dimensions data from five of the eight original cross - sections were
collected along the project reach and plotted for visual comparison (Appendix B 6) Channel
dimensions from riffle cross - sections (n = 3) resurveyed during MY5 were compared with a
range of values based on the design, as -built survey, and each successive monitoring year for
each parameter (Table 8) Design values for riffle bankfull width ranged from 49 to 53 ft, values
- from the as -built survey ranged from 46 to 55 ft Bankfull widths for MY5 ranged from 43 to 57
ft (Table 8) Riffle cross - section 2 has had the most variation in bankfull width ( >5 ft, MY2) and
has been slightly wider than the design bankfull width each of the five monitoring years (Table
9) Although this deviation has been noted in the cross - sectional survey data, cross - section 2
' appears to be stable The increase in bankfull width is likely a result of a small elevation change
in the floodplain near the bankfull elevation on the right bank that developed following
construction Bankfull width at cross - section 3 (43 to 46 ft) has been slightly narrower than the
design width, but shows no sign of instability through MY5
Design values for riffle cross - sectional area ranged from 173 to 200 ft2 Bankfull cross-
sectional area ranged from 152 to 184 ft2 for the as -built channel Each of the three riffle cross-
- sections surveyed during MY5 (152 to 166 ft2) were similar to the as -built values and
approximated the range of design values for cross - sectional area (Table 8)
-- Mean depth at bankfull for as -built riffle cross - sections ranged from 2 8 to 3 8 ft (Table 8)
Mean depth at bankfull for MY 1 -MY5 for all riffle cross - sections ranged from 2 6 to 3 8 ft
Cross - section 2 mean depth (2 6 to 2 8 ft) has been slightly lower than the design mean depth
(3 3 to 3 8 ft) in each monitoring year, whereas, cross - sections 3 has been within the design
range for mean depth during MYO -MY5 Cross - section 8 was within the design mean depth
range during MYO -MY2 (3 3 to 3 4 ft) but fell dust short of the design mean depth in MY3 -MY5
(3 1 to 3 2 ft) (Table 9)
1 Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 4 6 to 5 4 ft (Table 8) Bankfull
maximum depths for the three surveyed riffle cross - sections ranged from 4 5 to 5 8 ft during
MYO -MY5 Cross - section 2 had a maximum bankfull depth of 4 5 ft in MYO, slightly below the
range of design values Cross - section 2 fell within the design range for riffle maximums depths
from MY 1 to MY5 (Table 9) The maximum bankfull depths at cross - section 3 (4 9 to 5 2 ft)
have been within the design values range each of the monitoring years The maximum depth at
bankfull for cross - section 8 was 5 4 ft during MYO and MY The maximum depth at cross -
section 8 increased in MY2 to 5 8 ft, likely from a misread high rod during the survey Cross -
section 8 was within the design range again for riffle maximum depth during MY3 -MY5
Bank height ratio (BHR), a measure of channel bank vertical stability improved from a
moderately unstable and unstable condition (BHR = 12-1 5) before construction to a stable
- , condition (BHR = 1 0) post - construction (Tables 8 and 9) Bank height ratios for MYO -MY5
11
Spunk CrLLk Plunmons /Knkp in iLk Ming it ion Site
LL P PioJLLt 92607
Monitoring Yw � RLPort — I IN \L May2012
1
remained unchanged, indicating continued channel bank stability and maintenance of the desired
elevation at which flows are accessing the floodplain
The channel's entrenchment condition was improved by removing a three to four foot high
berm from the top of the left bank As a result, the entrenchment ratio, a measure of vertical
containment, increased from the pre - construction value of 3 2 Mean entrenchment ratios taken
from measurements at three raffle cross - sections were found to be between 14 9 and 15 1 for
MY 1 -MY5 (Table 8) Table 9 provides entrenchment ratios for each individual cross - section
Pattern — Minimal to no observed change in pattern geometry has occurred at the project site
-'
over the five years post - construction Channel sinuosity (1 13) is low due to only a single
-)
meander bend located within the project reach The channel belt width, radius of curvature, and
meander wavelength has remained close to the values obtained from the MYO baseline survey
-J
(Table 8) Pattern geometry data for MY was not generated nor included in Table 8
Profile —The entire length (680 ft) of the longitudinal profile was surveyed during MYO-
II
-
MY5 (Figure 3, Appendix B 7) Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated
following each monitoring survey (Table 8) From post - construction through MY5, riffle lengths
have ranged from 14 to 77 ft, which approximate the design values (25 to 75 ft) for riffle length
v
Riffle slopes have ranged from 0 002 ft/ft to 0 024 ft/ft over the course of all monitoring surveys
With the exception of three riffle slope calculations (MYO = 0 002 ft, MY = 0 005 ft, MY2 =
0 024 ft), all riffle slopes have been maintained within the design range of values (0 008 to 0 023
-'
ft/ft) Pool lengths have closely approximated design values across in each of the monitoring
years, ranging from 16 to 68 ft Pool -to -pool spacing decreased following construction and has
ranged from 61 to 195 ft over all monitoring years Construction of five in- stream structures (J-
-I
hooks, rock vanes, log vane) increased the number pool features within the project reach and is
the reason pool -to -pool spacing is lower than pre - existing, reference, or design values The
thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active channel
—
indicate only minimal changes (thalweg movement) over the 5 years post - construction
Substrate Data — Reach -wide substrate particle analysis revealed that the D50 and D84 for
the existing channel were 43 4 mm and 128 0 mm (Table 8) These values fall within the very
coarse gravel and small cobble particle size categories Slight changes were noted in the reach -
wide analysis for the as -built channel where the D50 was 31 2 mm, coarse gravel, and the D84
was 115 7 mm, small cobble The D50 particles sizes ranged from 19 3 to 77 0 mm and the D84
particles sizes ranged from 82 9 to 175 9 mm during MY1 -MY5 Overall, the D50 substrate
particle size has been within the coarse to very coarse gravel categories each monitoring year
except MY2 (65 6 mm) and MY4 (77 0 mm) when the D50 fell within the small coble category
Plots of the MYO -MY5 cumulative percent of particles finer than a specific particle size for the
_
reach -wide pebble counts are summarized in Appendix B 8
U
Riffle substrate particle analyses at cross - section 8 revealed that the D50 has ranged from f�
27 3 to 90 0 mm during MYO -MY5 (Table 9) The D50 at cross - section 8 decreased in particle ! �i
size each of the first three surveys following construction but remained in the small cobble range
(65 7 -90 0 mm) The D50 at riffle cross - section 8 during MY3 -MY5 was within the coarse to
very coarse gravel categories Beginning in MY2, riffle pebble data have been collected from
12
Sprang CrL,k Plemmons /KiikpIhick Mm ition Site
EEP Pioje(,r 92607
Monitoring Y w -) Report — I INAL May2012
4
two additional nffles (cross - sections 2 and 3) to obtain statistical values for this parameter (Table
7 8) The D50 particle sizes for cross - sections 2 and 3 ranged from 16 0 to 40 9 mm, coarse to
very coarse gravel particle size categories Riffle substrate data along with field observations
suggests the project site stream channel is made up of a gravel and cobble matrix Plots of the
—� cumulative percent of particles finer than a specific particle size for the three riffle pebble counts
are summarized in Appendix B 8
4 2 7 Summary of Results
Monitoring surveys in each of the five years post - construction reveal that the Spring Creek
mitigation site is performing as designed with minimal to no change in any of the major
[4 morphological components Dimension, pattern, and profile parameters suggest the stream
channel has remained stable since construction and after experiencing two documented bankfull
— events Although substrate particle size has fluctuated since construction, the bed material has
I remained in the gravel and cobble categories with no observed aggradation, degradation, or
- accumulation of fine particle sizes Constructed stream structures remain stable and performing
as desired Planted vegetation performance has been marginal with just one of three vegetation
monitoring plots meeting the success criteria The average density for all three plots combined is
just under the year -5 minimum success criteria With the addition of natural stem contributions,
the three vegetation plots exceed the minimum success criteria Although present at the site,
I I invasive vegetation is sparse Invasive vegetation treatments following MY4 and MY5 have
—' been effective in lowering the densities of the undesirable vegetation within the project reach
Overall, the project reach continues to perform as desired with little to no change observed in
form or function
r�
Spnn.Cru,k P1Lnimons /Knkpnh4ckM4tt_monSite 13
LLP P40JeL1 92607
Monitoring YL It ) Rtport — FIN \L NIay2012
�I
Table 7 — Baseline and Monitoring Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
14
Spmig CrL.k Plunmons /Kiikp.touk Mmgtnon SltL
LLP ProjeLt 92607
MOnItOJ mg Yldr s Rt.poit— I INAL M iy2012
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Entire Project Reach - 680 feet
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Regional Curve
Interval
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream"
Design b
As -built
n =2
n =2
n =3
n =3
Dimension Riffles only)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Med
BF Width ft
580
51 1
526
51 8
295
372
333
492
529
51 6
463
545
543
Flood prone Width ft
1588
1686
1637
1500
3290
2395
2365
5186
3775
7173
8270
7480
BF Cross - Sectional Area 112
2000
1704
1732
171 8
649
75 5
702
1732
2000
182 1
1522
1838
1750
BF Mean Depth ft
37
33
33
33
20
22
21
33
38
35
28
38
34
BF Max Depth ft
54
54
54
30
33
32
46
54
50
45
54
50
Width/Depth Ratio
157
153
159
156
134
183
159
140
140
140
123
194
163
Entrenchment Ratio
30
3 3
32
40
112
76
94
102
98
13 8
15 5
152
Bank Height Ratio
1 2
1 5
14
12
1 3
12
10
10
1 0
10
10
10
Wetted Perimeter ft
540
554
547
316
382
1 349
489
59 1
559
Hydraulic Radius ft
3 1
3 2
3 1
20
2 1
20
3 1
32
3 2
27
36
3 1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
210
250
230
59
75
65
93
118
104
134
134
134
Radius of Curvature ft
29
402
156
40
69
51
63
109
85
193
193
193
Meander Wavelength ft
860
1518
1 1188
350
350
350
1 552
660
1 589
564
1 564
564
Meander Width Ratio
40
48
44
1 8
2 3
19
1 3 7
—57
T-47
24
24
24
Profde
Riffle Length ft
17 1
427
278
289
1200
636
250
750
500
18 3
69 1
254
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0 007
0 024
0 016
0 011
0 032
0 022
0 008
0 023
0 016
0 002
0 019
0 010
Pool Length ft
50 1
1002
75 1
163
427
329
1 257
672
1 468
20 9
45 1
279
Pool Spacing ft
302 6
349 5
326 5
285 8
343 9
307 9
450 5
542 0
485 3
82 3
189 1
1430
Substrate reach -wide
Values determined from
led reach -wide
pE bble counts based on the ro rtions of the number of nftles and
is
D50 mm
434
545
312
D84 mm
1280
180
1157
Additional Reach Parameters
"
Valley Length ft
600
900
600
600
Channel Length ft
680
953
680
680
Sinuosity
1 13
106
1 13
1 13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0 010
0 014
0 010
0 010
BFSlope ft/ft
0010
0014
0010
0010
Ros en Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Habitat Index'
Macrobenthos'
'Inclusion will be project specific and determined by as -built monitoring plan success criteria
bMedian values were not generated for existing, reference, or design parameters based on low sample sizes and Rivermorph outputs only provide mean values
14
Spmig CrL.k Plunmons /Kiikp.touk Mmgtnon SltL
LLP ProjeLt 92607
MOnItOJ mg Yldr s Rt.poit— I INAL M iy2012
Table 8 Continued
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Entire Project Reach - 680 feet
Parameter
MY]
MV2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate —
Riflles Only Cross - section 2 8
Mtn
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
459
56 1
523
51 4
52
3
447
592
51 3
51 7
73
3
450
55 6
529
51 2
5 5
3
Flood prone Width ft
7173
8270
7480
764 1
566
3
717 3
8270
7480
764 1
566
3
7173
8270
7480
7641
566
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
1554
174 1
1643
1646
94
3
155 7
1695 1
161 0
162 1
70
3
151 4
171 7
1586
1606
103
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
28
36
33
32
04
3
26
36
33
32
05
3
27
35
32
32
04
3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
46
54
51
51
04
3
47
58
49
52
06
3
46
53
52
50
04
3
Width/Depth Ratio
128
203
157
163
38
3
124
225
156
168
52
3
128
204
163
165
38
3
Entrenchment Ratio
13 3
158
156
149
14
3
126
161
16 1
149
20
3
13 5
159
156
150
14
3
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
10
1 0
00
3
1 10
1 0
10
10
00
3
10
10
10
1 0
00
3
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter ft
483
580
55 1 1
538
50
3
473
61 1
539
541
69
3
479
57 1
55 1
534
49
3
Hydraulic Radius ft
27
34
32
31
04
3
26
34
32
30
04
3
27
33
31
30
03
3
D50 mm
784
1
184
657
250
363
257
3
23 8
385
273
299
77
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
146
766
396
402
229
5
140
709
30 1
372
21 8
5
254
722
289
386
195
5
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0 005
0 019
0 016
0 014
0 005
5
1 0 009
0 024
0 017
1 0 016
0 006
5
0 009
0 020
0 015
0 014
0 004
5
Pool Length (ft
193
630
38 1
404
15 8
5
16 1
670
334
377
186
5
242
678
502
480
182
5
Pool Max depth ft
50
65
56
57
07
5
50
64
57
57
06
5
55
71
59
61
07
5
Pool to Pool Spacing ft
745
1932
1438
1388
49 1
5
823
1859
1434
1389
428
5
893
191 5
1369
1386
41 8
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
1438
1
1
1684
Radius of Curvature ft
1920
1
1
1792
Rc Bankfull width ft/ft
37
1
35
Meander Wavelength (fi
5838
1
5436
Meander Width Ratio
2 8
1
33
Substrate reach -wide
Values determined from pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of nffles and is
D50 mm
656
562
19 3
D84 mm
1759
1150
829
15
Spans CrLLk PlLmmuns /KiikpatttLk Mni.in0n SitL
I I P 1'mµu 92607
Mannuung )'Lai ", RLpoit I INAL M iy2012
Table 8 Continued
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Entire Project Reach - 680 feet
Parameter
MY4
MY5
Dimension and Substrate –
Riffles Only Cross - section 2 8
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
434
567
528
51 0
69
3
434
570
532
512
70
3
Flood prone Width ft
7173
8270
7480
764 1
566
3
7173
8270
7480
764 1
566
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft'
151 4
1705
155 7
1592
100
3
1523
1662
1573
1586
70
3
Bankfill Mean Depth ft
27
35
32
32
04
3
28
35
31
31
04
3
Bankfull Max Depth ft
47
53
49
50
03
3
47
52
50
50
03
3
Width/Depth Ratio
124
207
164
165
4 1
3
124
207
171
167
42
3
Entrenchment Ratio
132
165
15 7
15 1
1 7
3
13 1
165
156
15 1
1 8
3
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
10
1 0
00
3
10
10
1 0
10
00
3
Bankfull Wetted Penmeter ft
462
582
55 1
53 2
62
3
458
587
553
53 3
67
3
Hydraulic Radius ft
27
33
31
30
03
3
27
33
30
30
03
3
D50 mm
160
526
409
36 5
18 7
3
326
407
359
364
—41-
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
232
505
240
296
11 7
5
166
71 1
461
466
203
5
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0010
0019
0013
0014
0004
5
0011
0017
0013
0014
0003
5
Pool Length ft
157
567
284
31 3
1 167
5
1 173
605
323
367
1 163
5
Pool Max depth ft
53
68
59
60
07
5
53
65
54
58
06
5
Pool to Pool Spacing ft
61 2
1940
1542
1409
566
4
73 5
1947
1346
1344
502
4
Pattern
Channel Belt-width ft
1650
1748
Radius of Curvature ft
1826
1730
Rc Bankfull width ft/ft
36
1
1
1
1
1
3 3
Meander Wavelength ft
5395
5937
Meander Width Ratio
3 2
34
Substrate reach -wide
Values determined from pooled reach wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and
Mls
D50 mm
770
43 1
D84 mm
1190
1165
16
Sprig ULLk Plunmons /KiikpauiLk Mingulon SuL
I l P 1'1(i1LU 92607
Moniunui,} YLar� Rcpoit I INAL, Miy2012
Table 8 — Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross - sections)
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Entire Pro ect each - 680 feet
Cross -Section 1 Run
Cross -Section 2 Riffle
Cross - Section 3 Riffle
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base_1 MYI MY2 I MY3 I MY4 MY5
Base I MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
548
52 1
51 7
543
561
592
556
567
570
463
459
447
450
434
434
Flood prone Width ft
7524
7524
7524
7480
7480
7480
7480
7480
7480
7173
7173
7173
7173
7173
7173
Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft )
1660
1728
1719
1522
1554
1557
151 4
1557
1573
1750
1643
1610
1586
1514
1523
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
30
33
33
28
28
26
27
27
28
38
36
36
35
35
35
Bankfull Max Depth (ft )
57
54
58
45
46
47
46
47
47
50
51
49
52
49
50
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
181
157
156
194
203
22 5
204
207
20 7
123
128
124
128
124
124
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
137
145
14 6
138
13 3
126
13 5
132
13 1
15 5
15 6
16 1
15 9
165
165
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
1 0
10
10
1 0
10
10
10
10
1 0
10
10
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
Bankfull Width ft
Flood prone Width ft
Bankfull Cross sectional Area ft'
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
Bankfull Max Depth ft
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Heiizht Ratio
Cross - sectional Area between end pins (ft)
D50 mm
184
38 5
160
359
250
238
409
407
Cross - Section 4 Pool
Cross-section 5 Glide
Cross - Section 6 Pool
Dimension and Substrate
Base MYI I MY2 I MY3 MY4 F MY5
Base MY] I MY2 I MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
'
Bankfull Width ft
56 1
573
578
579
574
570
53 1
508
508
58 1
575
550
588
575
540
Flood prone Width Uft
7288
7288
7288
7288
7288
7288
7125
7125
7125
7146
7146
7146
7146
7146
7146
Bankfull Cross sectional Area )
2072
1956
2006
1892
183 8
1879
166 1
1537
1490
1962
1894
1823
1775
1713
1722
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
37
34
35
33
32
33
31
30
29
34
33
33
30
30
32
Bankfull Max Depth ft
66
66
66
65
63
64
58
50
49
64
60
59
62
59
63
Bankf ill Width/Depth Ratio
152
168
166
177
179
1 173
167
1 168
173
173
174
166
195
193
169
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
13 0
12 7
12 6
126
127
128
134
140
140
123
124
130
12 1
124
132
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1 0
10
1 0
1 0
10
10
1 0
1 1 0
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
Bankfull Width ft
Flood prone Width ft
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area ft
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
Bankfull Max Depth ft
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Cross - sectional Area between end pins ft
D50 (mm)
17
Spi utg ULLk Plcnunons /Ku kpati iLk Mnt, iron SttL
I 1 1' Proj(.Lt 92607
Monaming )'Ldr � RLputt— I INAL M iy2012
Table 9 Contmued
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607)
Entire Pro ect each - 680 feet
Cross-Section 7 Glide
Cross - Section 8 Riffle
Cross- Section
Dimension and Substrate
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 I MY5
Base MY MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankf ill Width ft
51 8
495
51 4
545
523
51 3
529
528
532
Flood prone Width ft
6783
6783
6783
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
8270
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area ft
1650
1570
161 5
1827
1741
1695
171 7
1705
1662
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
32
3 2
3 1
34
3 3
3 3
32
32
3 1
Bankfull Max Depth ft)
50
47
48
54
54
5 8
53
5 3
5 2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
162
156
164
163
157
156
163
164
171
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
131
1 137
13 2
152
15 8
161
156
157
156
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
1 0
10
10
1 0
10
10
10
Based on current/developing current/developing bankfull feature
_
Bankfull Width ft
Flood prone Width ft
Bankfull Cross - sectional Area
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
Bankfull Max Depth ft
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Hei ht Ratio
Cross sectional Area between end pins
D50 (mm)
90 0
1 78 4
657
27 3
526
326
18
Slit in,Cru.k Plunmons /KnkpatnLk Mnt &mon Site
I I P ProlcU 92607
MonnoiinS Yeat , Ropoii— I INAL M iy2012
5 Acknowledgements
Scott Loftis, Jeff Ferguson, and Brent Burgess with the NCWRC watershed enhancement
group collected and analyzed the field data. Scott Loftis and Jeff Ferguson prepared this report.
Staff with the NCWRC and the NCEEP provided comments for improving this report.
6 References
AutoCAD. 2004. Version 2004.0.0. Copyright 2004, AutoDesk, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, R. E. Smith, and J.
Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the
piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 38(3):641-
651.
Harman, W. A., G. D. Jennings, J. M. Patterson, D. R. Clinton, L. O. Slate, A G. Jessup, J. R.
Everhart, and R. E. Smith. 1999. Bankf ill hydraulic geometry relationships for North
Carolina streams. Pages 401 -408 in D. S. Olsen and J. P. Potyondy, editors. American
Water Resources Association, Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. American
Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Harman, W. A, D. E. Wise, M. A. Walker, R. Morris, M. A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G. D.
Jennings, D. Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull regional curves for North Carolina
mountain streams. Pages 185 -190 in D. L. Kane, editor. Proceedings of the American Water
Resources Association Conference: Water Resources in Extreme Environments. American
Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia.
Harrelson, C. C., J. P. Potyondy, and C. L. Rawlins. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM -245, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, R. D. Steven, T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS/EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Available: www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm
(October 2006).
NCSRI (North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute). 2003. Stream restoration: a natural
channel design handbook. North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina
Sea Grant, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Available:
www. bae .ncsu.edu/QroUgms /extension/wg /g/sri/. (July 2007).
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2005. Stream and riparian
restoration plan, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick mitigation site, Spring Creek, Madison County,
North Carolina. Watershed Enhancement Group. Raleigh.
19
Spring Creek, Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2008. As -built report for the
Plemmons/Kirkpatrick mitigation site, Spring Creek, Madison County. North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement project number 92607. Watershed Enhancement Group. Raleigh
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
RSARS (RIVERMorph Stream Assessment and Restoration Software). 2010. Version 4.3
Professional edition. Copyright 2002 -2006, RIVERMorph LLC, Louisville, Kentucky.
Available: www.rivermgMh.com. (July 2007).
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Prepared with cooperation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina. Available:
www.sw.usace. army .mil /wetlands /mitigation/stream mitigation.html (June 2009).
20
Spring Creek. Plemmons 'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
t3 ..r ,�
_ � � t ,� ... `� _
_ NC 209
. � V
Baltimore Branch Road (SRI 151) ! `�
'7. Leund
)�,, - _ �* • ,' ` fJ I - Restoration
f` 1
l d ' �• _ f 1 � ! �•
���� '+ � �((/ `yam •t'
xap In in�, r-
:,
J, r
Name: SPRING CREEK Location: 035° 4T 31.13' N 082° 51' 37.45"W r�
Date: 1/102008
Scale: 1 inch equals 800 feet 1'• "le it
Figure 1.— Spring Creek mitigation site, French Broad River basin, Madison County, N.C.
EEP project number 92607.
21
Spring Creek. Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
1' contour lines shown
within the conservation
easment boundary are
derived from field survey.
4' contour lines shown
outside the easement
boundary are from NCDOT
LIDAR. There is some
elevation discrepancy
between the different sets
of contours. The LIDAR
contours are only shown to
provide a general sense of
the upland topography.
�G
Monitoring Pin Coordinates: Spring Creek - Project# 92607
Location Latitude(N) Longitude(" Location Latitude(N)
Vag. Plots: Longitudinal Profile:
92607 -VP1 35.79224769' 82.86277965° begin survey 35.79175928°
92607 -VP2 35.79173579' 82.86333665° end survey 35.79297343'
92607 -VP3 35.79226422' 82.86224898°
Photo Stations:
Cross Sectons: PS -1 35.79189434°
SC- XS1-LB 35.79198122° 82.86340352' PS -2 35.79214463°
SC- XS1-BKF 35.79192339° 82.86336330° PS -3 35.79239349'
SC- XS1-RB 35.79166882° 82.86318676° PS-4 35.79259546°
SC- XS2 -LB 35.79209454° 82.86311191° PS -5 35.79221658'
SC- XS2 -BKF 35.79202130° 82.86307621° PS -6 35.79192007'
SC- XS2 -RB 35.79176080° 82.86293918'
SC- XS3 -LB 35.79228939° 82.86268101 °
SC- XS3 -BKF 35.79216390° 82.86261542°
SC- XS3 -RB 35.79192985° 82.86249045'
SC- XS4 -LB 35.79233717° 82.86257278'
SC- XS4 -BKF 35.79225724° 82.86248017°
SC- XS4 -RB 35.79207738° 82.86227036°
SC- XS5 -LP 35.79237208° 82.86250554°
SC- XS5 -BKF 35.79231252° 82.86241283'
SC- XS5 -RB 35.79215518° 82.86216656'
SC- XS6 -LB 35.79239413° 82.86249859'
SC- XS6 -BKF 35.79236643° 82.86239303°
SC- XS6 -RB 35.79227502° 82.86205657°
SC- XS7 -LB 35.79243932° 82.86248580°
SC- XS7 -BKF 35.79241091 ° 82.86215819'
SC- XS7 -RB 35.79232943° 82.86203835'
SC- XS8 -LB 35.79292581' 82.86236634'
SC- XS8 -BKF 35.79290274' 82.86213354°
SC- XS8 -RB 35.79286915° 82.86197097°
Longitude(W)
82.86357607'
82.86205123'
82.86371563°
82.86309031*
82.86254031°
82.86248726'
82.86208135°
82.86250584°
EC-
PS-
LB
end survey
rer,q
B BKF
LB
VP1 BKF
Veg# Plot', �`\
J' EC -2 K: -�/
f'
�Tr 4Lg
/
BKF{
ALB
6
EC-1 BK%r
C PS- /' $00 , - ; EC- B
t S -6 XS3 -Sta. 3 +24
begin survey �X �
�► =ice
\ \ "00'
VP2
Veg #Plot, XS2 -Sto. 1+77
Y
r C__9
PS -7
h 1�1 'Cllellilt
Ro�R NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT GROUP
REeouRCES 20830 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAIN EXPRESSWAY 828.452.6191 Ext.26 OFFICE
WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28786 828.452.7772 FAX
XS 1 -Sta. 0 +85
' '
k, S `
j
r I
&R-8 XS8
Sta. 6 +72
0
--XS7 -Sta. 4 +77
Veg
P3 1F3 B
XS6 -Sta. 4 +59
EC -7
PS -5
B
XS5 -Sta. 4 +26
113
"'- XS4 -Sta. 3 +91
Legend
Thalweg
Edge of Water
Top of Bank
- - - -
Bankfull
(when not ® TB)
��-
Existing
Fence Line
Easement
Boundary
- - -- -- --
Permanent
Cross Section
F-1
Veg. Plot
*EC-#
Easement Cap
Photo Station
PS -#
Location
Q
Rebor Pin Set
Root Wad
Rock J -hook
Rock Vane
Log Vane
•
Deciduous Tree
Coniferous Tree
Large Tree Legend
1. 12" White Pine
10. 32" Sycamore
2. 18" White Pine
11. 24" Sycamore
3. 14" Black Locust 12. 20" Basswood
4. 24" Sycamore
13. 22" Black Walnut
S. 18" Sycamore
14. 28" Basswood
6. 16" Sycamore
15. Triple Sycamore
7. 24" Sycamore
16. 20" Forked Cherry
8. 24" Sycamore
17. 10" Black Willow
9. 22" Sycamore
18. 10" Black Walnut
Spring Creek Project #92607 DRAWN BY: JCF DATE: 01 -08
Madison County Plemmons- Kirkpatrick Site APPROVED: DATE:
SURVEY BY: CSL, JCF DATE: 09 -06
As -Built Survey CAD FILE ID: pkasblt.dwg
SHEET
1
OF 1
FIGuRE 2. - Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site, Spring Creek, French Broad River Drainage, Madison County, NC. EEP Project #92607, As -Built Plan View. 22
1' contour lines shown
within the conservation
easment boundary are
derived from field survey.
4' contour lines shown
outside the easement
boundary are from NCDOT
LIDAR. There is some
elevation discrepancy
between the different sets
of contours. The LIDAR
contours are only shown to
provide a general sense of
the upland topography.
�G
% ' SC- XS5 -RB
SC- XS6 -LB
SC- XS6 -BKF
SC- XS6 -RB
SC- XS7 -LB
SC- XS7 -BKF
SC- XS7 -RB
SC- XS8 -LB
SC -XS8 -BKF
SC- XS8 -RB
35.79215518°
35.79239413°
35.79236643°
35.79227502°
35.79243932°
35.79241091°
35.79232943°
35.79292581°
35.79290274°
35.79286915°
82.86216656° Total Area within Conservation Easement Boundary: 2.093 Ac. PS -4
82.86249859° Total Riparian Buffer Area: 1.430 Ac.
82.86239303° (from bank-full to conservation easement boundary)
82.86205657°
82.86248580°
82.86215819°
82.86203835°
82.86236634°
82.86213354°
82.86197097° EC -3 B BI
Ps-
LB
BK
LB
i
BK
LB
VP7 BKF'fQ\\
Veg# Plot
EC -5_ r- end survey
N]
FA
XS8
Sta. 6 +72
EC -6
/ t
i I
Monitoring Pin
Coordinates: Spring
Creek - Project#
92607
PS -2
BI
.Tr
Location
Latitude(N)
Longitude(W)
Location
Latitude(N)
Longitude(W)
Bearing
Vag. Plots:
Longitudinal Profile:
BK
d
92607 -VP1
35.79224769°
82.86277965°
begin survey
35.79175928°
82.86357607°
92607 -VP2
35.79173579°
82.86333665°
end survey
35.79297343°
82.86205123°
EC-
S-
92607 -VP3
35.79226422°
82.86224898°
S -6
XS3 -Sta. 3 +24
Photo Stations:
Cross Sectons:
PS -1
35.79189434°
82.86371563°
66°
begin survey PS-8
SC- XS1-LB
35.79198122°
82.86340352°
PS -2
35.79214463°
82.86309031°
66°
SC- XS1-BKF
35.79192339°
82.86336330°
152°
XSC-XS3-RB
SC- XS1-RB
35.79166882°
82.86318676°
PS -3
35.79239349°
82.86254031°
15°
XX
SC- XS2 -LB
35.79209454°
82.86311191°
129°
SC- XS2 -BKF
35.79202130°
82.86307621°
PS-4
35.79259546°
82.86248726°
24°
SC- XS2 -RB
35.79176080°
82.86293918°
110°
SC- XS3 -LB
35.79228939°
82.86268101°
PS -5
35.79221658°
82.86208135°
20°
SC- XS3 -BKF
35.79216390°
82.86261542°
295°
35.79192985°
82.86249045°
PS -6
35.79192007°
82.86250584°
52°
SC- XS4 -LB
35.79233717°
82.86257278°
339°
SC- XS4 -BKF
35.79225724°
82.86248017°
PS -7
35.79159575°
82.86340711°
68°
SC- XS4 -RB
35.79207738°
82.86227036°
PS -8
35.79175721 °
82.86361700°
59°
SC- XS5 -LP
35.79237208°
82.86250554°
SC- XS5 -BKF
35.79231252°
82.86241283°
% ' SC- XS5 -RB
SC- XS6 -LB
SC- XS6 -BKF
SC- XS6 -RB
SC- XS7 -LB
SC- XS7 -BKF
SC- XS7 -RB
SC- XS8 -LB
SC -XS8 -BKF
SC- XS8 -RB
35.79215518°
35.79239413°
35.79236643°
35.79227502°
35.79243932°
35.79241091°
35.79232943°
35.79292581°
35.79290274°
35.79286915°
82.86216656° Total Area within Conservation Easement Boundary: 2.093 Ac. PS -4
82.86249859° Total Riparian Buffer Area: 1.430 Ac.
82.86239303° (from bank-full to conservation easement boundary)
82.86205657°
82.86248580°
82.86215819°
82.86203835°
82.86236634°
82.86213354°
82.86197097° EC -3 B BI
Ps-
LB
BK
LB
i
BK
LB
VP7 BKF'fQ\\
Veg# Plot
EC -5_ r- end survey
N]
FA
XS8
Sta. 6 +72
EC -6
/ t
i I
rY
c=9
PS -7
Eq11 al e ileI A
..A30&AM
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
�- WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT GROUP
"�01N0E8 20830 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAIN EXPRESSWAY 828.452.6191 Ext.26 OFFICE
WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28786 828.452.7772 FAX
XS 1 -Sta. 0 +85
XS7 -Sta. 4 +77
✓eg �3 iot
3 AB XS6 -Sta. 4 +59
'--XS5 -Sta. 4 +26
XS4 -Sta. 3 +91
Legend
Thalweg
Edge of Water
- -- - Top of Bank
- - - - - Bankfull
(when not ® TB)
�--�- Existing
Fence Line
Easement
Boundary
- - - - -- - -- Permanent
Cross Section
❑ Veg. Plot
*EC-# Easement Cap
Photo Station
PS -# Location
Q Rebar Pin Found
Root Wad
Rock J -hook
Rock Vane
Log Vane
Deciduous Tree
Coniferous Tree
60 0 60 120 180
Scale: 1 " = 60'
Spring Creek Project #92607 1 1 DRAWN BY: JCF DATE: 09- MAR -12 SHEET
Madison County Plemmons- Kirkpatrick Site APPROVED: DATE:
SURVEY BY: CSL, JCF DATE: 12 -12
MY5 Survey - Plan View CAD FILE ID: PK- MY5.dwg OF 1
FIGURE 3. - Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site, Spring Creek, French Broad River Drainage, Madison County, NC. EEP Project #92607, MY5 Plan View. 23
EC -2 Y
.�
PS -2
BI
.Tr
ALB
BK
d
LB
BIK
t
-
EC-
S-
RB
S -6
XS3 -Sta. 3 +24
VP2
begin survey PS-8
Veg Plot.
#2
XS2 -Sta. 1+77
rY
c=9
PS -7
Eq11 al e ileI A
..A30&AM
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
�- WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT GROUP
"�01N0E8 20830 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAIN EXPRESSWAY 828.452.6191 Ext.26 OFFICE
WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28786 828.452.7772 FAX
XS 1 -Sta. 0 +85
XS7 -Sta. 4 +77
✓eg �3 iot
3 AB XS6 -Sta. 4 +59
'--XS5 -Sta. 4 +26
XS4 -Sta. 3 +91
Legend
Thalweg
Edge of Water
- -- - Top of Bank
- - - - - Bankfull
(when not ® TB)
�--�- Existing
Fence Line
Easement
Boundary
- - - - -- - -- Permanent
Cross Section
❑ Veg. Plot
*EC-# Easement Cap
Photo Station
PS -# Location
Q Rebar Pin Found
Root Wad
Rock J -hook
Rock Vane
Log Vane
Deciduous Tree
Coniferous Tree
60 0 60 120 180
Scale: 1 " = 60'
Spring Creek Project #92607 1 1 DRAWN BY: JCF DATE: 09- MAR -12 SHEET
Madison County Plemmons- Kirkpatrick Site APPROVED: DATE:
SURVEY BY: CSL, JCF DATE: 12 -12
MY5 Survey - Plan View CAD FILE ID: PK- MY5.dwg OF 1
FIGURE 3. - Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site, Spring Creek, French Broad River Drainage, Madison County, NC. EEP Project #92607, MY5 Plan View. 23
Appendur A.— Vegetation Data
A 1 Vegetation Data Tables
- I Table A 1 1 — Vegetation Metadata
MY5 Vegetation Metadata
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Report Prepared By
C Scott Loftis, A Brent Burgess
Date Prepared
March 2012
Database Name
NCWRCBalsam -07 -A mdb
Database Location
C \Documents and Settings\Micky Clemmons\My Documents\
My Data\Restoration Pro ects \CVS -EEP veg data
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data
Plots
List of plots surveyed
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes
Vigor b Slip
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
and perce nt of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Slip
Damage values tallied by e for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e for each plot
Stem Count by Plot and Slip
Count of living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are
excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code/Number
92607
Project Name
Spring Creek
Desenlition
Von and Linda G Plemmons/Hazel Kirkpatrick properties, Madison County, N C
Length ft
680
Stream -to-Ed a Width ft
50
Area (m '/acres)
8,498 4/2 1 acres
Re cared Plots calculated
3
Sampled Plots
3
}
24
Spine CrL k Pknunons /Knkpmt�k Miti tuon Site
1-1 P P1oJc1_1 92607
Monitoring N L 11 � Rtport — I IN \L May2012
Table A 1 2 — Vegetation Vigor by Species
MYO Vegetation Vigor by Species
Spring Creek (EEP project number
92607
Species
4
3
2
l
0
Missing
Acer rubrum
1
Aesculus ava
Aesculus ava
1
Alnus serrulata
Alnus serrulata
1
1
I
Amelanchrer laevts
Amelanchrer laevis
5
1
Aroma arbutr oha
Aroma arbutr olta
1
Ce halanthus occrdentalts
Ce halanthus occtdentalts
4
2
Cornus amomum Live stake
Cornus amomum Live stake
6
6
Halesta carohna
Halesta carohna
1
N ssa a uatrca
N ssa a uattca
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
1
1
ercus coccmea
ercus coccmea
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
I
Saltx sertcea Live stake
Salix sericea Live stake
3
2
Sambucus canadensrs
Sambucus canadensis
2
1
Sorbus amertcana
Sorbus americana
2
Viburnum dentatum
Viburnum dentatum
2
I
Ilex dectdua
Ilex dectdua
2
1
Hamamehs vrr tntana
Hamamehs vtr mtana
3
Ltndera benzorn
Ltndera benzorn
3
1
Physocarpus o ult oltus Live stake
Physocarpus o ulr olrus Live stake
4
2
TOT 20
TOT 20
47
1
1
20
MYl Vegetation Vigor by Species
Spring Creek (EEP pro. lect number 92607
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Acer rubrum
1
Aesculus ava
1
Alnus serrulata
1
I
Amelanchrer laevts
4
1
Aroma arbutr oha
1
Ce halanthus occrdentalts
2
2
Cornus amomum Live stake
6
Halesta carohna
1
N ssa a uatrca
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
1
1
ercus coccmea
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
I
Saltx sertcea Live stake
1
2
Sambucus canadensrs
1
1
Sorbus amertcana
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
1
I
Ilex dectdua
I
1
Hamamehs vrr tntana
2
1
Ltndera benzorn
2
1
Physocarpus o ult oltus Live stake
2
2
TOT 20
14
13
1
20
25
Spnne Creok Plemmons /Kiikptntck Nittt -trton Snc
ELP Ptojw 92607
Nlomtonne 1 cv �) Report — I INAL May2012
i
Table A 1 2 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Vigor by Species
S r ng Creek (EEP pr o ect number 92607
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer rubrum
1
1
Aesculus ava
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
Amelanchter laevts
1
1
1
2
Aronta arbutt olta
1
1
Ce halanthus occtdentalts
2
1
1
2
Cornus amomum
6
Halesta caroltna
1
1
N ssa a uattca
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
1
1
ercus cocctnea
2
1
1
1
Rhododendron catawbtense
1
1
Sahx sertcea
3
1
Sambucus canadensts
1
1
1
Sorbus amertcana
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
Ilex dectdua
1
1
Hamamehs vtr tntana
1
1
1
Ltndera benzotn
2
1
Physocarpus o ult opus
1
3
TOT 20
2
18
1
1
24
2
MY3 Vegetation Vigor by Species
S r ng Creek EEP pr o ect number 9260
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer rubrum
1
Aesculus ava
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
Amelanchter laevts
2
1
2
Aronta arbutt olta
1
Ce halanthus occtdentalts
1
1
2
Cornus amomum
6
Halesta caroltna
1
Hamamelts vtr tntana
1
1
1
flex dectdua
1
1
Ltndera benzotn
1
1
1
N ssa a uattca
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
1
1
Ph socar us o ult opus
1
3
ercus cocctnea
2
Rhododendron catawbtense
1
Saltx sertcea
3
Sambucus canadensts
I
1
Sorbus amertcana
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
TOT 20
13
6
1
22
7
26
Spnn. CrLLk PlLmmons'Knkp unLk Mih_ tuon SILL
UP PtojcLt 92607
Monitoring l L 1 � RLport— I INAL May2012
Table A 12 Continued
MY4 Vegetation Vigor by Species
SP nn Creek EEP pr o ect number 9260
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer rubrum
I
Aesculus ava
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
Amelanchrer laevis
2
3
Aroma arbutr olra
1
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
1
3
Cornus amomum
6
Halesra carohna
1
Hamamehs vrr rntana
2
1
Ilex decrdua
1
1
Lrndera benzorn
1
2
N ssa a uatrca
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
Physocarpus o ulr olius
1
1
3
ercus coccrnea
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
Sa1rx serrcea
3
Sambucus canadensrs
2
Sorbus amerrcana
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
1
I
TOT 20
2
4
11
32
MY5 Vegetation Vigor by Species
S r ng Creek EEP p ro ect number 9260
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer rubrum
1
Aesculus ava
2
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
Amelanchrer laevrs
4
3
Aroma arbutr oha
2
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
2
3
Cornus amomum
6
Halesra carolma
2
Hamamehs vrr rnrana
4
1
Ilex decrdua
2
1
Lrndera benzorn
1
3
N ssa a uatrca
2
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
Ph socar us o ulr opus
1
1
3
ercus coccrnea
4
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
Salrx serrcea
3
Sambucus canadensrs
2
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
Viburnum dentatum
2
1
TOT 20
4
8
21
33
27
Sprang CrL,k Plemmons Kirkpltm A Mtnglnon Site
1 LP PioJLtt 92607
Monitoring 1 L 11 -) RLport— I INAL Mdy2012
't
Table A 1 3 — Vegetation Damage by Species
MYO Vegetation Damage by Species
Spring Creek EEP project number 9260
Species
All Damage Categories
No Damage
Acer rubrum
1
l
Aesculus ava
1
1
Alnus serrulata
2
2
Amelanchier laevrs
5
5
Aroma arbutt olra
1
1
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
4
4
Cornus amomum
6
6
Halesra carohna
1
1
Hamamelts vrr tnrana
3
3
Ilex decidua
2
2
Lrndera benzorn
3
3
N ssa a uatrca
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
2
Physocarpus o ult onus
4
4
uercus cocctnea
2
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
1
Salrx sericea
3
3
Sambucus canadensrs
2
2
Sorbus amerrcana
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
2
TOT 20
48
48
MYl Vegetation Damage by Species
S pnng Creek EEP projec t number 92607
Species
All Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Enter
other
damage
Human
Trampled
Storm
Unknown
Acer rubrum
1
1
Aesculus ava
1
I
Alnus serrulata
2
1
l
Amelanchter laevrs
5
4
1
Aroma arbutt olra
1
1
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
4
2
2
Cornus amomum
6
6
Halesra caroltna
I
1
Hamamelis vir tntana
3
3
11ex decrdua
2
1
1
Ltndera benzom
3
1
l
1
N ssa a uattca
1
l
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
1
1
Ph socar us o ult olrus
4
2
2
ercus cocctnea
2
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
1
Salrx serrcea
3
1
2
Sambucus canadensrs
2
1
1
Sorbus amerrcana
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
1
1
TOT 20
48
27
1
1
1
18
28
i
5ptm_C%Lk Plemmons /Knkpinu,k Ming, monSaL
t I l P PtoJcLr 92607
Monitoring l cu � Report— I IN AL bla�?012
Table A 13 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Species
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Species
All Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Enter
other
damage
Human
Trampled
Storm
Unknown
Acer rubrum
1
2
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
Aesculus ava
1
Amelanchter laevts
5
2
3
1
Alnus serrulata
2
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
4
2
1
Amelanchter laevts
5
2
1
Halesia carohna
1
2
Aroma arbutt oha
1
1
1
2
flex decidua
2
Ce halanthus occidentalts
4
2
3
2
1
2
Cornus amomum
6
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
1
6
Halesta carohna
I
1
1
uercus cocctnea
2
2
Hamamelis vtr iniana
3
1
1
1
Salix sericea
1
Ilex decidua
2
1
2
l
1
1
Ltndera benzoin
3
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
N ssa a uattca
1
1
26
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
l
1
l
Physocarpus o uli olius
4
3
l
ercus cocctnea
2
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
1
Salix sericea
3
3
Sambucus canadensts
2
1
1
Sorbus americana
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
1
1
TOT 20
48
22
2
1
23
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Species
Spring Creek (EEP proj ect number 9260
Species
All Damage Categories
No Damage
Unknown
Acer rubrum
l
1
Aesculus ava
2
1
1
Alnus serrulata
2
1
1
Amelanchter laevts
5
2
3
Aronia arbutt olia
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
4
2
2
Cornus amomum
6
6
Halesia carohna
1
1
Hamamelis vtr iniana
3
1
2
flex decidua
2
l
1
Ltndera benzoin
3
2
1
N ssa a uattca
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
1
1
Physocarpus o uli olius
4
3
1
uercus cocctnea
2
2
Rhododendron catawbiense
1
1
Salix sericea
3
3
Sambucus canadensts
2
l
1
Sorbus americans
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
1
1
TOT 20
49
23
26
29
SpimsCre�k Plunmons /KnkpmtLk Nltn;itton Site
ELP Piojc" 92607
Monitoring } t. u ) Roport - I IN kL NIay2012
r
I
Table A 1 3 Continued
MY4 Vegetation Damage by Species
Spring Creek (EEP proje ct number 92607
Species
All Damage Categories
No Damage
Unknown
Vine
Acer rubrum
1
1
I
Aesculus ava
2
1
1
2
Alnus serrulata
2
1
1
Amelanchier laevrs
5
1
3
1
Aroma arbuti oha
1
I
3
Ce halanthus occidenta/ts
4
2
2
Cornus amomum
6
6
Halesia carolma
I
1
6
Hamamelrs wr iniana
3
1
2
Ilex decidua
2
1
1
Hamamehs vtr imam
Lmdera benzoin
3
2
1
1
N ssa a uatica
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
1
1
Ph socar us o uli opus
4
3
1
2
uercus coccrnea
2
2
Oxydendrum arboreum
Rhododendron catawbiense
1
1
Physocarpus o ulr olrus
Salix sericea
3
3
Sambucus canadensrs
2
1
1
Sorbus americana
2
2
1
Viburnum dentatum
2
1
1
3
TOT 20
49
1 22
1 27
1
MY5 Vegetation Damage by Species
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607
Species
Count of Damage
Categories
No Damage
Beaver
Unknown
Vine
Acer rubrum
1
1
Aesculus ava
1
2
1
Alnus serrulata
3
Amelanchrer laevrs
3
4
3
Aronia arbutr oha
2
Ce halanthus occidentalrs
5
Cornus amomum
6
Halesea carohna
2
Hamamehs vtr imam
2
3
1
1
Ilex decidua
1
2
1
Lmdera benzorn
1
3
1
N ssa a uateca
2
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
Physocarpus o ulr olrus
5
uercus coccrnea
4
Rhododendron catawbrense
1
Sahx sericea
3
Sambucus canadensis
2
Sorbus americans
3
Viburnum dentatum
3
TOT 20
9
57
1
4
4
30
SP1111L. Cruk Plunmons /Knkpurnk Min,ihon Srce
j Ll P PioJLO 92607
Nlonnonn- N L 11 � R,port - I IN \L Ma} 2012
Table A 14 — Vegetation Damage by Plot
MYO Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek EEP project number 9260
Plot
All Damage Categories
No Damage
92607 - SLBB -VP 1
6
6
92607 - SLBB -VP2
9
9
92607- SLBB -VP3
33
33
TOT 3
48
48
MYl Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Plot
All Damage
Categories
No Damage
Other
Damage
Human
Trampled
Storm
Unknown
92607- SLBB -VP 1
6
6
92607 - Balsam -VP2- year 3
9
5
2
92607 -SL/BB -VP2
9
8
11
22
1
92607- SLBB -VP3
33
13
1
19
TOT 3
48
27
1
20
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Plot
All Damage
Categories
No Damage
Other
Damage
Human
Trampled
Storm
Unknown
92607- SLBB -VP1
6
4
92607 - Balsam -VP2- year 3
9
5
2
92607 -SUBB -VP2
9
7
11
22
2
92607- SLBB -VP3
33
11
1
22
TOT 3
48
22
26
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek EEP projevct number 9260
Plot
All Damage
Categories
No Damage
Unknown
Vine
92607 - Balsam -VPI-year 3
7
4
3
92607 - Balsam -VP2- year 3
9
5
4
1
92607- Balsam -VP3- year 3
33
11
22
TOT 3
49
20
29
1
MY4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Plot
All Damage
Categories
No Damage
Unknown
Vine
92607 -SL /ABB -VPI-year 4
7
4
3
92607 -SL /ABB- VP2 - ear 4
9
3
5
1
92607 -SL /ABB -VP3- year 4
1 33
10
23
TOT 3
1 49
17
31
1
31
Spun. CrLLk Pkinmons /KAP thiLk Mine coon Site
LEP Piojw 92607
Monitoring 1 ev 3 RLPort - FIN \L May2012
r
f�l
'f
J
f
FJ
n
I
Table A 14 Continued
MY5 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607
Plot
All Damage
Categories
No Damage
Beaver
Unknown
Vine
92607- ABB,S -VP I- ear 5
0
4
92607- ABB,S -VP2- year 5
3
2
3
92607- ABB,S -VP3- year 5
2
6
1
1
TOT 3
5
12
1
1
3
32
SpnnL CrLLk PlLmmons /Kukp it] tLk Ming tttonSite
Lf P PIOJLLt 92607
Monitoring YL If D Report — I IN AL Mav2012
Table A 15 — Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Spring Creek EP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
I
I
I
1
Aesculus ava
1
I
I
1
Alnus serrulata
2
1
2
2
Amelanchter laevrs
5
2
25
4
1
Aroma arbutt oha
I
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occtdentalrs
4
1
4
4
Cornus amomum
6
1
6
6
Halesia carohna
l
1
1
1
Hamamelts vrr tnrana
3
3
1
I
1
1
Ilex decidua
2
2
1
1
1
Ltndera benzorn
3
2
1 5
1
2
N ssa a uatrca
I
1
I
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
2
2
1
1
1
Ph socar us o ulr opus
4
1
4
4
ercus coccrnea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbtense
1
1
1
I
Salta sertcea
3
1
3
3
Sambucus canadensts
2
1
2
2
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
2
1
l
1
TOT 20
48
6
1 9
33
Dense stems /acre
648
1 243
1 364
1,336
MYl Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Spring Creek EP project number 92607
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
1
1
I
1
Aesculus ava
1
I
I
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
I
Amelanchter laevu
4
1
4
4
Aroma arbutt olta
I
I
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentals
2
1
2
2
Cornus amomum
Halesta carohna
I
I
I
1
Hamamelrs vrr rntana
3
3
1
1
1
1
Hew dectdua
Lmdera benzotn
2
2
1
l
1
N ssa a uatrca
I
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
I
I
1
1
Ph socar us o ult ohus
2
1
2
2
uereus coccrnea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbtense
Salrx sertcea
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensts
1
1
1
1
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 20
27
6
8
13
Dense stems/acre
364
243
1 323
1 526
33
Sprang Cretk Plcmmons /KukpttnLk Nlit[L -lnon Site
ELP Protect 92607
NlonitonnL t e n 3 Report - I IvAL NIaV201 2
� I
f,
I
I
Table A 1 5 Continued
MY2 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
1
1
1
1
Aesculus ava
1
1
1
l
1
Alnus serrulata
1
I
1
2
1
Amelanchrer laevrs
2
1
2
2
1
Aronra arbutr oha
I
I
1
I
Ce halanthus occrdentalrs
2
1
2
1
1 2
Cornus amomum
2
2
1
1
1
Halesra carohna
1
1
I
1
Hamamelrs vrr mrana
2
1 2
1
1
1
Ilex decrdua
1
1
1
I
l
Lmdera benzorn
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa a uatrca
1
1
I
2
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
1
1
1
I
1
Physocarpus o ulr olrus
l
1
1
1
uercus coccrnea
2
1 1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbiense
20
4
5
11
Sahx serrcea
270
162
202
445
Sambucus canadensrs
1
1
1
l
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 20
2
2
4
7
11
Dense stems /acre
297
162
283
445
MY3 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Sprmg Creek (EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VP1
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Aesculus ava
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
I
1
I
1
Amelanchrer laevrs
2
1
2
2
Aroma arbutr oha
1
I
1
1
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
2
l
2
2
Halesra carohna
1
1
1
1
Hamamehs vrr mrana
2
2
1
1
1
Ilex decrdua
1
1
1
I
Lmdera benzorn
1
1
1
I
N ssa a uatrca
1
1
I
l
Physocarpus o ulr opus
1
1
1
l
uercus coccrnea
2
1
2
2
Sambucus canadensrs
1
I
1
1
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
I
1
1
I
TOT 15
20
4
5
11
Dense stems /acre
270
162
202
445
34
Spim_CrLck Pk. nmons /KukpuitckMttiptionSite
j FLP PioJect 92607
Nlomtonng N LT -) R,port — I INAL May2012
Table A 1 5 Continued
MY4 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Spring Creek EP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Aesculus ava
I
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
1
Amelanchier laevis
2
1
2
2
Aroma arbutt oha
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occtdentahs
2
1
1
2
Halesta carohna
1
1
1
I
Hamamelts vir rntana
2
2
1
1
1
Ilex dectdua
1
I
1
1
Lrndera benzorn
1
1
1
1
N ssa a uatrca
I
I
I
1
Physocarpus o uh ohus
1
1
1
1
ercus coccmea
2
1
2
2
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 14
19
4
5
10
Density stems /acre
256
162
202
405
MV5 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Spring Creek EP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPI
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Aesculus ava
1
1
1
I
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
1
Amelanchrer laevis
2
1
2
2
Aroma arbuti oha
1
1
I
1
Ce halanthus occrdentahs
1
1
1
1
Halesia carohna
I
1
1
1
Hamamelrs vrr rmana
2
2
2
1
1
Ilex decrdua
1
1
1
I
Lindera benzoln
N ssa a uatica
1
I
1
1
Physocarpus o ulr opus
1
I
1
1
ercus coccmea
2
2
2
2
Sorbus amertcana
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 14
16
4
5
7
Density stems /acre
216
162
202
283
35
Spiiiig CrLLk Plemmons /KnkpitiiLk Mitigation Site
EEP PtoJtu 92607
Monitoring tt-ii ) Report— I INAL Nla}2012
r
r �
1�
Table A 1 6 —All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
MY2 All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
S rm g Creek EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
Aesculus ava
1
I
1
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
1
Amelanchrer laevrs
2
2
1
2
Aronra arbutr oha
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occrdentalrs
2
1
2
2
Cornus amomum
Cornus orrda (non-planted)
1
1
1
1
Halesra carohna
1
1
1
1
Hamamelrs vrr rnrana
2
1
1
1
1
Ilex decrdua
I
1
1
1
Ju lans nr ra (non-planted)
2
2
1
1
1 1
Lrndera benzorn
2
2
1
1
1
N ssa a uatrca
1
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
1
1
1
l
Ph socar us o ulr olrus
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotrna (non-planted)
4
1
4
4
ercus coccrnea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbrense
Salrx serrcea
Sambucus canadensrs
1
1
1
1
Sorbus amerrcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 23
29
10
8
11
Density (stems /acre) (including
non-planted stems
391
405 (6)
324(l)
445 (0)
F 36
Spim,Cr"k 1'hmmons /KAptn1LkNtttg-111011 Suc
_ I 1 P Pioj"L 92607
Monitoring l L 11 ) Report — I INAL Mdv2013
Table A 16 Continued
MY3 All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of
Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Aesculus flava
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
I
1
2
1
Amelanchier laevis
2
1
1 5
2
Aroma arbuti oha
I
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentahs
2
1
2
2
Cormrs amomum
1
1
I
1
Cornus orida (non-planted)
1
1
1
1
Halesia carohna
1
1
1
1
Hamamelis vrr mtana
2
2
1
1
1
flex decidua
1
1
1
I
Lrndera benzoin
1
1
I
1
N ssa a uateca
1
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
Physocarpus opulifohus
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotina (non-planted)
7
1
7
7
ercus coccmea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbiense
Rhus typhina (non-planted)
2
2
1
1
1
Sahx sericea
Sambucus canadensrs (non-planted)
8
2
45
7
1
Sorbus americana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
2
1
1
TOT 22
38
14
13
11
Density (stems /acre) (including non-
planted stems
513
567 (10)
526 (8)
445 (0)
37
Spi uw_ CrLLk Plemmons /Kn kp ttt u.k Ntng ttton Sitt.
LLP Ptojet,t 92607
Monitoring 1 w o Ripon- I IN \L J'Vlw?012
I
Table A 16 Continued
v �l
MY4 All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
Spnng Creek (EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of
Stems
Plot
92607
VPl
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
Aesculus ava
1
]
2
1
Alnus serrulata
1
1
1
1
Amelanchter laevts
2
1
2
2
Aroma arbutt olta
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occtdentahs
2
1
2
2
Corpus amomum (non-planted)
1
1
1
l
Corpus orida (non-planted)
2
1
2
2
Halesta carohna
1
1
1
1
Hamamelis vtr tntana
2
2
1
1
1
Ilex dectdua
1
2
1
1
Ltndera benzotn
1
1
1
1
N ssa a uatica
I
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
Ph socar us o ult opus
1
1
I
1
Prunus serouna (non-planted)
8
2
3 5
6
2
ercus coccinea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbtense
Rhus typhina (non-planted)
2
2
1
1
1
Salx sertcea
Sambucus canadensts (non-planted)
8
1
8
8
Sorbus amertcana
2
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
l
2
1
1
TOT 23
40
13
14
13
Density (stems /acre) (including non-
planted stems
540
526 (9)
567 (9)
526 (3)
38
SpiinsCreok Plunmons /KnkptniLkMm_uionSite
` r F P Piojeet 92607
Monitoring YL 11 5 Report — I INAL Mav2012
Table A 16 Continued
MY5 All Stems Counted by Plot and Species
S nn Creek EEP project number 9260
Species
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
Plot
92607
VP1
Plot
92607
VP2
Plot
92607
VP3
Acer rubrum
Aesculus ava
I
I
Alnus serrulata
l
1
1
1
Amelanchier laews
2
1
2
2
Aroma arbuti oha
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentahs
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum (non-planted)
1
I
1
I
Cornus orida (non-planted)
1
1
1
1
Halesia carohna
1
1
1
1
Hamamelis vir tntana
2
2
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
1
1
1
I
*Ju lans nt ra (non-planted)
1
1
1
1
Lmdera benzoin
1
I
1
1
Liriodendron tuli t era
1
1
1
1
N ssa a uatica
1
l
I
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
Ph socar us o uli opus
1
1
1
I
Pinus strobus (non-planted)
2
1
2
2
Prunus serotina (non-planted)
11
2
6
9
2
ercus cocctnea
2
1
2
2
Rhododendron catawbiense
Rhus typhina (non-planted)
1
1
1
1
Salrx sericea
Sambucus canadensrs (non-planted)
11
1
11
11
Sorbus americana
1
1
I
1
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
1
1
TOT 23
46
16
17
13
Density (stems /acre) (including
non-planted stems
621
648 (11)
688 (12)
526 (5)
*Ju lans ni ra to MY5 was counted as a Rhus typhina during MY4
39
Sp ing Cre.-k III, nunons /Knkp tit ck Miti� -iuon Site
EEP Piojca 92607
Monitoring 1 ev D R,port - I INAL MaN 2012
A 2 Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
The non - native vegetation observed at the site remains at a relatively low density overall
with the most concentrated portion of invasive vegetation located on the right bank at the lower
end of the project site Non - native vegetation was chemically treated following the MY4 and
MY5 monitoring surveys and any remaining plants are small and sparsely distributed Because
of the sparse nature of the invasive species, occurrence locations were not noted on the MY5
plan view
A 3 Vegetation Problem Areas Table
Table A 3 1 — Vegetation Problem Areas
MYO Vegetation Problem Areas
S nn g Creek EP project number 92607
Feature/issue
Station Number/Ran a
Probable Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet present — sprouting
3 +00, left bank
Root stock
NA
Multi -flora rose present - sprouting
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
1
Multi -flora rose, Chinese pnvet,
honeysuckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
MY1 Vegetation Problem Areas
S ri g Creek (EEP project number 9260
Feature/Issue
Station Number/Range
Probable Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet present — sprouting
3 +00, left bank
Root stock
NA
Multi -flora rose, Privet present -
sprouting
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
1
Multi -flora rose, Chinese pnvet,
honeysuckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
MY2 Vegetation Problem Areas
S nn g Creek (EEP project number 92607
Feature/issue
Station Number/Range
Probable Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet - sparse
3 +00, left bank
Root stock
NA
Multi -flora rose - clump
4 +75, left bank
Root stock
1
Multi -flora rose, Chinese pnvet,
honeysuckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
MY3 Vegetation Problem Areas
S rm g Creek (EEP project number 9260
Featuretissue
Station Number/Range
Probable Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet - sparse
3 +00, left bank
Root stock
NA
Multi -flora rose - clump
4 +75, left bank
Root stock
1
Multi -flora rose, Chinese privet,
honeys ckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
Chinese privet — single stem
3 +25, right bank
Seed
3
MY4 Vegetation Problem Areas
S ri g Creek (EEP project number 92607
Featurelissue
Station Number/Range
Probable Cause
Photo Number
Chinese privet - sparse
3 +00, left bank
Root stock
NA
Multi -flora rose - clump
4 +75, left bank
Root stock
1
Multi -flora rose, Chinese privet,
hone suckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
Chinese privet — single stem
3 +25, right bank
Seed
3
40
SpnneCrcck Pic mmons /KnkpunckNltti_utonSnc
LLP PioJcct 92607
Nlonrtonng YL 11 � Roporl — FIN \L NId) 2012
MY5 Vegetation Problem Areas
S rin g Creek EP project number 9260
Feature/Issue
Station Number/Ran a
Probable Cause
Photo Number
*Chinese privet - sparse
3+00, left bank
Root stock
NA
*Multi -flora rose - clump
4 +75, left bank
Root stock
I
*Multi -flora rose, Chinese privet,
honeysuckle - clumps
5 +75, right bank
Parent Stock
2
*Chinese privet — single stem
3 +25, right bank
Seed
3
*Chinese privet
3 +50, right bank
Seed
4
*Invasive exotic vegetation was chemically treated in March 2012 prior to the submission of the MY5 report.
A.4 Vegetation Problem Areas Photographs
Vegetation problem area photo 1, 13 Feb 2009.
Vegetation problem area photo 2, 13 Feb 2009.
Vegetation problem area photo 3, 9 Dec 2009.
Vegetation problem area photo 4, 2 Nov 2011.
41
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
A.5 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
Table A.5.1.— Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photographs
Spring Creek (EEP project number 92607
Stream
Location
Bearing (Degrees from North
Plot Dimensions m
Spring Creek
Plot 1 left bank sta. 3 +00
Plot origin (x,y) 1800
Plot origin (x,y) 190°
Plot origin (x, 200°
10 X 10
10 X 10
10 X 10
Spring Creek
Plot 2 right bank sta. 0 +50
Spring Creek
Plot 3 right bank sta. 4 +50
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream (0,0),
19 Jun 2007.
Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream (10,10),
19 Jun 2007.
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream, (0,0) 16 Jan 2008. Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream, (10,0) 16 Jan 2008.
42
Spring Creek, Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
A.S. Continued.
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream, (0,0) 19 Aug 2008.
Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream, (0,10) 19 Aug 2008.
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream, (0,0) 18 Nov 2009. Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream, (10,10) 18 Nov 2009.
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream, (0,0) 10 Oct 2010.
Spring Creek, Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream, (0,10) 10 Oct 2010.
43
A.5. Continued.
Vegetation plot 1, facing downstream, (0,0) 2 Nov 2011. Vegetation plot 1, facing upstream, (0,10) 2 Nov 2011.
Spring Creek, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
A.5. Continued.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream (0,0) 19 Jun 2007.
No photo available for vegetation plot 2, January 2007.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream, (0,0) 16 Jan 2008.
Vegetation plot 2, facing upstream, (10,0) 16 Jan 2008.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream, (0,0) 19 Aug 2008.
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
Vegetation plot 2, face downstream, (10,0) 19 Aug 2008.
45
A.S. Continued.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream (0,0) 18 Nov 2009.
Vegetation plot 2, facing upstream, (10,10) 18 Nov 2009.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream (0,0) 10 Oct 2010.
Vegetation plot 2, facing upstream, (10,10) 10 Oct 2010.
Vegetation plot 2, facing downstream (0,0) 2 Nov 2011.
Spring Creek, Plemmons %Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
Vegetation plot 2, facing upstream, (10,10) 2 Nov 2011.
W
A.5. Continued.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream (0,0) 19 Jun 2007.
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream (10,10) 19 Jun 2007.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream, (0,0) 16 Jan 2008.
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream, (10,0) 16 Jan 2008.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream, (0,0) 19 Aug 2008.
Spring Creek, Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EFP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report FINAL, May2012
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream, (10,0) 19 Aug 2008.
EVA
A.S. Continued.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream, (0,0) 18 Nov 2009.
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream (10,10) 18 Nov 2009.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream, (0,0) 10 Oct 2010.
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream (10,10) 10 Oct 2010.
Vegetation plot 3, facing downstream, (0,0) 2 Nov 2011.
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
Vegetation plot 3, facing upstream (10,10) 2 Nov 2011.
:.
Appendix B — Stream Data
B 1 Stream Problem Areas Table
No problem areas were observed during the MY5 survey Appendix Table B 1 1, Stream
Problem Areas, is used as a place holder for future monitoring reports
Table B 1 1 — Stream Problem Areas
Stream Problem Areas
Spring Creek (EEP project number 9260
Feature/Issue
Station
numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo
number
Aggradation/Bar Formation
Bank Scow
Engineered structures - back or arm scour, Etc
B 2 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
No stream problem areas were observed during the MY5 survey, therefore no problem area
plan view was prepared
B 3 Representative Stream Problem Area Photographs
No problem areas were observed during MY5 survey, therefore, issue or problem photos are
not provided
49
SpnngCreLk Plemmons /Knkpt(itLkMtttgttton Site
ELP Ptojeu 92607
Monitoring t ov � Report — I IN XL Ma) 2012
BA Stream Photographic Stations
Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 1, left bank facing downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
50
Spring Creek, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 2, left bank facing downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
51
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
B,4, Continued.
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 13 Oct 2010.
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
Photo Station 2, left to right bank, 3 Nov 2011.
52
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 3, left bank facing downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
53
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 13 Oct 2010.
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
Photo station 3, left to right bank, 3 Nov 2011.
54
B.4, Continued.
Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 4, left bank facing downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
55
Spring Creek, Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 13 Oct 2010.
Spring Cieck. Plemmons'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Sitc
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL. May2012
Photo station 4, left to right bank, 3 Nov 2011.
56
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 5, right bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006. No photo available for station 5, right bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 5, right bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008. Photo station 5, right bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 5, right bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 5, right bank face downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
57
Spring Creek, III enunonl'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 13 Oct 2010.
Spring Creek, Plemmons. Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
Photo station 5, right to left bank, 3 Nov 2011.
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 6, right bank facing downstream, 5 Sep 2006. No photo available for station 6, right bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 6, right bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008. Photo station 6, right bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 6, right bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 6, right bank face downstream, 3 Nov 2011
59
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 13 Oct 2010.
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
Photo station 6, right to left bank, 3 Nov 2011.
•1
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 6 Jan 2004.
Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 5 Jan 2007.
Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007. Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009. Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010.
61
Spring Creek, Plemnions Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL. May2012
BA Continued.
Photo station 7, right bank facing downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
RJAR
Spring Creek, Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
B.4. Continued.
Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 5 Sep 2006.
Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 3 Oct 2008.
Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 9 Dec 2009.
Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 13 Oct 2010. Photo station 8, SR 1151 bridge downstream, 3 Nov 2011.
63
Spring Creek, PlemmonsrKirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Years Report — FINAL. May2012
B 5 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -bull
A Riffles
I Present)
2 Armor stable (e g no di
3 Facet grade appears stab
4 Minimal evidence of e
5 Length appropriate?
5
B Pools
1 Present9 (e g not subje
2 Sufficiently deep (Max
3 Length appropriate'?
C Thalweg
I Upstream of meander b
2 Downstream of meande
D Meanders 1 Outer bend in state of h
2 Of those eroding, number
3 Apparent Rc within spec
4 Sufficient floodplam ac
E Bed 1 General channel bed ag
General 2 Channel bed degradatio
MY5 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Spring Creek (EEP protect number 92607)
Sta 0+00 to 6 +80 (680 feet)
t and reference baselines) I
(Number
Stable)
Number
Performing
as
5
splacement)9 5
5
le9 5
5
Total Total % Feature
Number Number Perform Perform
per /feet in in Stable Mean or
As -built unstable Condition Total
state
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
5 NA 100 5
1 NA 100 1
1 NA 100 1
I NA 100 1
1 NA 100 1
1 NA 100 1
1 NA 100 1
NA 0/0 100 NA
NA 1 0/0 100 NA
cutting or he cuttmg9
F Bank i Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank9 NA NA 0/0 100 NA
G Vanes 1 Free of back or arm scour9 5 5 NA 100 5
2 Height appropnate9 5 5 NA 100 5
3 Angle and geometry appear appropnate9 5 5 NA 100 5
4 Free of piping or other structural failures? 5 5 NA 100 5
H Wads/ I Free of scour9 6 6 NA 100 6
Boulders 2 Footing stable9 6 6 NA 100 6
64
Spmq.CrL,k Pluiimom Klikp- itiick Ntuii ition Sitc
I 1 -P PioJLLt 92607
Nlonnormg \ w � RLport 1 IN \L Nla�2012
cutting or he cuttmg9
F Bank i Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank9 NA NA 0/0 100 NA
G Vanes 1 Free of back or arm scour9 5 5 NA 100 5
2 Height appropnate9 5 5 NA 100 5
3 Angle and geometry appear appropnate9 5 5 NA 100 5
4 Free of piping or other structural failures? 5 5 NA 100 5
H Wads/ I Free of scour9 6 6 NA 100 6
Boulders 2 Footing stable9 6 6 NA 100 6
64
Spmq.CrL,k Pluiimom Klikp- itiick Ntuii ition Sitc
I 1 -P PioJLLt 92607
Nlonnormg \ w � RLport 1 IN \L Nla�2012
64
Spmq.CrL,k Pluiimom Klikp- itiick Ntuii ition Sitc
I 1 -P PioJLLt 92607
Nlonnormg \ w � RLport 1 IN \L Nla�2012
a
d
W
B.6 Annual Overlays of Cross - Section Plots. Solid red line in photograph represents location
where surveyed transect crossed the stream channel.
2120
2115
2110
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Site
Cross- section 2, Riffle
2105
30
40 50 60 70 30 90 100 110 120
Distance (feet)
— As- builtMYO —MY1 —tin "? —Nn', —Nn'4 •e—MY5 —watersurface — Banldull
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MY0. Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007, MY 1.
65
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
2105
30
40 50 60 70 30 90 100 110 120
Distance (feet)
— As- builtMYO —MY1 —tin "? —Nn', —Nn'4 •e—MY5 —watersurface — Banldull
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MY0. Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007, MY 1.
65
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
B.6. Continued.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008, MY2.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 11 Oct 2010, MY4.
No Picture.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009, MY3
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 2 Dec 2011, MY5.
66
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
y
0
a
u
i
B.6. Continued.
2120
2115
2110
2105 4—
40
Spring Creek, Plemmons[Kirkpa trick Site
Cross - section 3, Riffle
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance (feet)
BAs- builtMYO —MYI —MY2 DMZ-3 —NTY4 –w--i`fY5 —water surface —Bankfull
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MYO. Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007, MYL
67
Spring Creek. Plemmons Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, 14ay2012
B.6. Continued.
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008, MY2. Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009, MY3.
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010, MY4. Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 2 Dec 2011, MY5.
Spring Creek, Plemmons,'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
B.6. Continued.
F.
c
0
w
W
Spring Creek, Plemmons/KirkpatrickSite
Cross - section 4, Pool
2120
2115
2110
2105 1 i i I I I 1
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance (feet)
—As -built MYO —MY1 —MY2 —MY3 —MY4 —e—MYS —Water surface — Banldull
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MYO. Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007, MY1.
69
Spring Creek, Plemmons %Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
B.6. Continued.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008, MY2.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009, MY3.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010, MY4.
Spring Creek, Plemmons. /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 2 Dec 2011, MY5.
70
BA Continued.
2120
2115
ac�
G
2110
a
W
2105
2100 4-
20
Spring Creek, Plemmo ns/Kirkpatrick Site
Cross - section 6, Pool
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Distance (feet)
—As-built MYO AMY 1 —MY2 —Nn-3 —.\ Y4 t` -11 5 —water surface —Banktul l
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MYO. Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007, MY1.
71
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May2012
B.6. Continued.
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008, MY2. Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009, MY3.
Cross- section 6, facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010, MY4.
Spring Creek, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 2 Dec 2011, MY5.
72
B.6. Continued.
Spring Creek, Plemmons/KirkpatrickSite
Cross - section 8, Riffle
2120
2115
C
0
i
2110
2105
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance (feet)
BAs- bui1tMY0 —MY1 ---MY2 —MY3 —MY4 tMYS —Watersurface —Bankfidl
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 19 Oct 2006, MYO.
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 5 Dec 2007.
73
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May2012
B.6. Continued.
Cross - section -8, facing downstream, 3 Oct 2008, MY2. Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 9 Dec 2009, MY3.
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 13 Oct 2010, MY4. Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 2 Dec 2011, MY5.
74
Spring Creek, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May2012
B.7 Annual Overlays of Longitudinal Profile Plots.
2100
pring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Site, MYO -MYS
•
•
• •
2
U
C
V
U
V
U
O
V
O
U
O
U
O
[
`
U
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775 300
Channel Distance (ft)
—MY0 Thalweg ---W1 Thalweg ---MY2 Thatweg —MY3 Thalweg - MY4 Thalseg —MY5 Thalweg —MYS Water Surface ♦ MY5 Bankfull
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 75
EEP Project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
u
a
0
u
a
Z
ee
0
U
13.8 Pebble Count Cumulative Frequency Plots.
Spring Creek, Plemmons /Kirkpa trick Site
Reach Wide Pebble Count
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
-0-As-built %n-1 Nil "2 tNfY3 t\fY4 -*-'vfY5
Spring Creek. Plemmons, Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 76
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
10000
Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Reach -Wide Pebble Data
Particle Size by Category
Category
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
5.8
12.0
0.3
0.1
39.7
1.5
D35 (mm)
18.1
35.7
15.6
1.7
63.3
19.9
D50 (mm)
31.2
65.6
56.2
19.3
77.0
43.1
D84 (mm)
115.7
175.9
115.0
82.9
119.0
116.5
D95 (mm)
172.2
275.0
162.2
115.8
153.7
216.1
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
3.0%
0.0%
11.0%
14.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Sand
6.0%
11.0%
11.0%
24.0%
5.0%
16.0%
Gravel
58.0%
38.0%
32.0%
34.0%
31.0%
44.0%
Cobble
31.0%
45.0%
44.0%
28.0%
64.0%
33.0%
Boulder
2.0%
6.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
Bedrock
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Spring Creek. Plemmons, Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 76
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
10000
B.8. Continued.
Spring Creek, Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Site
Cross Section 2 Pebble Count
O.Wtll.._.
100%
90%
80%
lv 70%
60%
50%
40%
V 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10
Particle Size (mm)
tM7 "? t�1� "; ttifl'4
100
t \n' _
1000 10000
Spring Creek, Plemmons' Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 77
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May 2012
Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Cross Section 2 Pebble Data
Particle Size by Category
Category
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
No Data
No Data 0.7
1.7
5.9
1.4
D35 (mm)
7.8
15.7
9.9
10.5
D50 (mm)
18.4
38.5
16.0
35.9
D84 (mm)
117.7
112.4
102.7
115.5
D95 (mm)
244.7
228.1
212.6
231.3
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
No Data
No Data 4.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Sand
18.0%
13.0%
14.0%
20.0%
Gravel
50.0%
46.0%
57.0%
49.0%
Cobble
24.0%
33.0%
28.0%
27.0%
Boulder
5.0%
4.0%
1.0%
4.0%
Bedrock
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Spring Creek, Plemmons' Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 77
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL, May 2012
B.8. Continued.
100%
90%
80%
70%
5
m
> 50%
s
40%
7
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
Spring Creek, Plemmons/KirkpatrickSite
Cross Section 3 Pebble Count
Silt/Clay Sands Gravels Cobbles ulde s Bedrock
0.01
0.1 1 to 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
--w-MY2 tO--N1Y3 tMY4 tMY5
Spring Creek. Plemmons,'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 78
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
10000
Plemmons/Kirkpatrick Cross Section 3 Pebble Data
Particle Size by Category
Category
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
No Data
No Data 0.8
1.2
8.5
1.7
D35 (mm)
9.6
9.6
19.9
14.5
D50 (mm)
25.0
23.8
40.9
40.7
D84 (mm)
156.3
151.8
140.0
143.4
D95 (mm)
341.0
427.8
221.8
270.2
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
No Data
No Data 2.0%
3.0%
0.0%
2.0%
Sand
15.0%
16.0%
14.0%
15.0%
Gravel
52.0%
47.0%
48.0%
44.0%
Cobble
25.0%
27.0%
38.0%
33.0%
Boulder
6.0%
8.0%
1.0%
6.0%
Bedrock
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Spring Creek. Plemmons,'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 78
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
10000
B.8. Continued.
100%
90%
80%
70%
C
�. 60%
e
> 50%
Z
R
40%
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Spring Creek, Plemmo ns/Kirkpatrick Site
Cross Section 8 Pebble Count
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-0-As-built -o--MY1 -4.-W2 -4--MY3 -e.-MY4 -e--MY5
Spring Creek. Plemmons.'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 79
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
Plemmons /Kirkpatrick Cross Section 8 Pebble Data
Particle Size by Category
Category
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
D16 (mm)
27.1
14.6
1.3
6.3
5.7
6.7
D35 (mm)
62.4
55.4
13.7
11.4
22.6
17.3
D50 (mm)
90.0
78.4
65.7
27.3
52.6
32.6
D84 (mm)
154.6
127.3
193.1
113.9
154.0
116.0
D95 (mm)
253.4
201.6
408.3
446.8
234.3
254.1
Percent Bed Material by Category
Category
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Sand
10.0%
1.0%
20.0%
12.0%
12.0%
9.0%
Gravel
26.0%
39.0%
28.0%
59.0%
44.0%
62.0%
Cobble
59.0%
57.0%
38.0%
18.0%
41.0%
24.0%
Boulder
5.0%
3.0%
14.0%
10.0%
3.0%
5.0%
Bedrock
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Spring Creek. Plemmons.'Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 79
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report - FINAL. May 2012
B.9 Bankfull Event Verification Photographs
Wrack line following bankf ill event on 1 Sep 2006.
Bankfull verification on crest gage, 9 Dec 2009.
Spring Creek, Plemmons %Kirkpatrick Mitigation Site 80
EEP project 92607
Monitoring Year 5 Report — FINAL, May 2012
Wrack line following bankfull event, 9 Dec 2009.