I-51_Root Dendrogeomorphology Analysis and Results_Final_Reduced

A=COM / rn?.K.OLS
Root Dendrogeomorphology
Analysis and Results
FINAL
City of Durham
Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Public Works Department
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF
DURHAM Durham, North Carolina 27701

AECOM / Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................................................................1-1
2 Root Dendrogeomorphology Methodology and Field Data Collection ................................................... 2-1
2.1 Methodology...............................................................................................................................................................................2-1
3 Data Collection.................................................................................................................................................
3-1
3.1 Field Data Collection.................................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Bank Site #2 — UT to Ellerbe Creek......................................................................................................................3-2
3.1.2 Bank Site #10 —Third Fork Creek.........................................................................................................................3-4
3.1.3 Bank Site #12 — UT to Little Lick Creek..............................................................................................................3-5
3.1.4 Bank Site #13 — UT to Sandy Creek.....................................................................................................................3-7
3.2 Sample Preparation for Analysis...........................................................................................................................................3-9
4 Data Analysis and Interpretation...................................................................................................................
4-1
4.1 Analysis..........................................................................................................................................................................................4-1
5 Discussion.........................................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Interpretation of Results..........................................................................................................................................................5-1
6 Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................
6-1
7 References........................................................................................................................................................
7-1
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report

AECOM / Freese and Nichols, Inc.
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Illustration of Annual Erosion Measurement (Dick et al. 2013)................................................................................2-3
Figure3-1 Bank Site #2: UT to EC..............................................................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2 Locations of Roots 02-A and 02-B prior to sampling from Bank Site #2: UT to EC . .......................................
3-3
Figure 3-3 Locations of existing bank pins for Bank Site #2: UT to EC.......................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-4 Roots 10-A, 10-B, and 10-C located along Bank #10: TFC.........................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-5 Root 10-D located three feet down the bank from the previously installed bank pins . ................................
3-5
Figure 3-6 Locations of roots 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C located along the bank site #12: UT to LLC. ..................................
3-6
Figure 3-7 Locations of existing bank pins located along the bank site #12: UT to LLC.....................................................
3-7
Figure 3-8 Location of Roots 13-A and 13-B along Bank Site #13: UT to SC...........................................................................3-8
Figure 3-9 Location of existing bank pins along Bank Site #13: UT to SC.................................................................................3-8
Figure 6-1 Incomplete relationship of BEHI score to estimated root -derived erosion rate . ..............................................
6-2
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Root Dendrogeomorphology Stream Bank Erosion Long -Term Monitoring Site..............................................2-2
Table 3-1 Summary of Collected Root Samples & Nomenclature...............................................................................................3-1
Table 3-2 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #2: UT to EC (n = 3).............................................................................3-2
Table 3-3 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #10 TFC (n = 4).......................................................................................3-5
Table 3-4 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #12 UT to LLC (n = 3)...........................................................................3-6
Table 3-5 Root Locations at Bank Site #13 UT to SC (n = 2)...........................................................................................................3-7
Table 4-1 Results of Root Analysis for Estimated Years of Exposure and the Calculated Erosion Rate .........................4-2
Table 5-1 Summary of Results from Collected Root Samples compared to BEHI Erosion Rate Estimates..................5-1
Table 5-2 Summary of Results from Collected Root Samples compared to Bank Pin Data...............................................5-2
List of Appendices
A-1 Full -Size Overview Map of Root Dendrogeomorphology Sample Locations
A-2 BEHI Forms
A-3 Prepared Root Samples and Sample Location Information
A-4 Root Dendrogeomorphology Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
A-5 Root Sample Photos (Electronic Submission)
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report

AECOM / Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BEHI............... Bank Erosion Hazard Index
City ..................
City of Durham
EC ..................
Ellerbe Creek
FNI.................
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
GIS...................
Geographic Information Systems
GPS.................
Global Position System
LLC ...............
Little Lick Creek
NBS................
Near Bank Stress
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report
PDF.................
Portable Document Format
QA...................
Quality Assurance
QAPP..............
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC ...................
Quality Control
SC ..................
Sandy Creek
TFC ................
Third Fork Creek
UT .................
Unnamed Tributary
WIP.................
Watershed Improvement Plan

1 Introduction
City of Durham has retained AECOM and Freese and Nichols to assist with applying root dendrogeomorphology
methods for estimating erosion rates within selected watersheds at sites previously studied by erosion pins. The
scope of work consists of the following tasks:
Task 1 Project Management and Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) — December 2020
Task 2 Root Dendrogeomorphology Field Data Collection — June 2020
Task 3 Root Dendrogeomorphology Training Session for City Staff — February 2020
Task 4 Final Report — January 2021
The purpose of this document is to present the associated analysis and results of the root samples collected during
Task 2, under Task 9.2 (Root Dendrogeomorphology) of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed
Improvement Plan (WIP) contract in accordance with the Root Dendrogeomorphology Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP) developed during Task 1 and finalized in December 2020 (Appendix A-4). Under this task, a
dendrogeomorphic study was conducted to determine site -specific annual erosion rates through root -derived
methods. This document outlines the project introduction, methods, analysis, results, discussion, and conclusion
associated with the Task. The project team consists of Freese and Nichols, Inc (FNI) staff with support from AECOM
and the City of Durham (City). This document may be used by the project team as a reference when planning site
selection, collecting, preparing, and analyzing field samples of roots for future projects.
1.1 Background
Root dendrogeomorphology is a method to determine annual erosion within a fluvial environment using exposed
tree roots along eroding stream banks. Tree ring anatomy of the exposed roots change in response to the duration
of exposure and these changes can be identified within cross -sectional samples of the root. The annual growth rings
of the cross-section are then counted back to the exposure indicator to determine the number of years since the
root was exposed. Using the date since exposure and a horizontally measured distance from the bank to the root
sample, an average yearly rate of erosion can be determined. This rate can then be used for a variety of applications,
although the method is predominantly used to determine the severity of erosion within a system or the urgency for
stabilizing the banks to protect nearby infrastructure. Secondary purposes of determining erosion rates include long
term planning for Total Maximum Daily Load implementation, evaluation of measurable benefits for stream
restoration projects, time -trend analysis of land use change, channel process response to land use change, and
forecasting the stability of systems facing land use change (Dick et al., 2017).
The primary objective of the Root Dendrogeomorphology Task was to provide the City of Durham with root -derived,
site -specific annual erosion rates based on the analysis of data collected from four selected sites (Table 2-1). These
rates were estimated by collecting and analyzing exposed root samples at banks representing differing levels of
erosion risk, as characterized by Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) ratings. A digital compound microscope
(Celestron Handheld Digital Microscope Pro) was used to identify indicators within a prepared cross -sectional
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 1-1

sample of each collected root that provide insight to the initial date of root exposure or most recent exposure, in
the case of roots that have been buried and re -exposed over time.
This project collected dendrogeomorphological data along bank locations where bank pins were previously installed
with the intent to monitor stream bank erosion. The City of Durham can then compare the dendrogeomorphological
annual erosion rate data to the bank pin erosion rates to determine if the observed erosion rates can be validated
using the dendrogeomorphological data. This comparison will be completed by Kimley Horn under Task 9.1 of the
New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP) contract. The data may be combined with
erosion rates from additional locations to provide the City of Durham with a more comprehensive watershed -scale
erosion rate curve for use in future site evaluations. This study additionally validates the use of root
dendrogeomorphology as an accepted method to determine annual erosion rates.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 1-2

2 Root Dendrogeomorphology
Methodology and Field Data Collection
2.1 Methodology
The root dendrogeomorphology methodology was conducted in accordance with the Root Dendrogeomorphology
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed during Task 1 and finalized in December 2020 (Appendix A-4).
Typically, erosion rates can be obtained from erosion pins installed within the stream bank, toe pins, annual surveys
of the bank, or a time -trend aerial photograph analysis (Lawler, 1993). However, each of these methods has
limitations. A time -trend aerial photograph analysis is limited in the level of detail of erosion rates that can be
detected between photographs, which is typically crude on forested sites in the Eastern United States. Erosion pins
and bank surveys, while considered the most accurate methods, require multiple years of measurements to obtain
meaningful results. Erosion pins can undermine (Lawler, 1993), and under some contexts, when soils are
predominantly cohesive sediments, they can act as stabilizers (Thorne, 1979, 1981). Direct impacts by survey crews
during scheduled bank pin assessment can also impact and skew the data. An exposed root study is an alternative
method that allows quick erosion rate estimation for a relatively large number of sample points using exposed tree
roots (Dick et al., 2014; Lopez-Saez et al., 2018; Malik and Matyja, 2008). This method is predicated on the fact that
the wood structure of a tree root changes when soil loss results in root exposure, resulting in the accumulation of
growth features that are commonly found in the trunk and branches. Trees in temperate regions typically manifest
growth rings which represent the annual growth. Thus, by identifying the specific growth ring associated with a
change in morphology due to the root tissue response to exposure, the number of rings beyond the exposure year
can be counted to estimate the duration of exposure. An average annual erosion rate can then be estimated by
dividing the distance of exposed roots from the existing streambank by the estimated years of exposure. Collection
and analysis of multiple root samples in a given area can yield a large amount of accurate and detailed bank erosion
rate data in a relatively short period of time.
The City of Durham established 16 stream bank pin monitoring sites across the city in 2014. Sites were chosen that
represented higher levels of erosion as determined by BEHI and NBS ratings with a minimum of a 'Moderate'
classification. These sites have been monitored regularly since installation (City of Durham, 2018). Four of these sites
were selected for inclusion in the current study with the intent of comparing results of erosion rate analysis from
these different methodologies; bank pins and dendrogeomorphology (Table 2-1). A site map illustrating the sample
locations is included in Appendix A-1.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 2-1

Table 2-1 Root Dendrogeomorphology Site and Corresponding City of Durham
Stream Bank Erosion Long -Term Monitoring Site
UT to Ellerbe
#2
36.0307
-78.9032
High
Very High
High
Very High
Creek (EC)
Third Fork
#10
35.9664
-78.9130
Extreme
Very High
High
Very High
Creek (TFC)
UT to Little Lick
#12
Creek (LLC)
35.9836
-78.8521
High
High
Moderate
High
UT to Sandy
#13
Creek (SC)
35.9770
-78.9521
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
2018 BEHI
and NBS Rating values were collected as part of the City of Durham
Bank Pin Monitoring Report (City of Durham,
2018)
In accordance with the December 2020 QAPP (Appendix A-4), root samples shall be collected within 90 feet (30
meters) of the established bank pins where possible, with the stipulation that the sampled bank exhibits the same
bank erodibility conditions. A photo was taken of the entire streambank at each root sample location, with a grade
rod shown in the image for scale to capture the flagged roots and their relative position to one another. The
horizontal distance between the exposed tree root and the bank location was measured in the same manner that
an erosion pin would be measured to the current bank slope surface. The location of each root sample was also
recorded using a Trimble R1 Global Position System (GPS) with an accuracy of less than one meter.
Prior to root collection, a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) streambank stability assessment was conducted on the
bank being sampled using methodology developed by Rosgen (2006) and included all necessary photo
documentation and measurements. BEHI assessments should be conducted every time field work is conducted at a
site, as BEHI scores and ratings are subject to change as channel conditions change. Banks may improve if sediment
deposition collected along the toe of slope is able to form a floodplain bench, if vegetation increases, or if bank
angle decreases. Likewise, bank conditions can worsen if the bank angle steepens, vegetation and protective cover
is reduced, or mass failure occurs. Bank height, bankfull height, root density, surface protection, and bank angle
were all measured and recorded, using the form included in Appendix A-2. The bank (either right or left looking
downstream) and the relative location that the sample was collected on the bank (i.e. height from toe of slope,
distance from the bank, etc.) was recorded with the notes. Root samples were labeled in the field using flagging
tape.
Paper bags for each sample were prepared with the corresponding label written on the bag with a permanent
marker. Paper bags reduce the occurrence of mold development, which can destroy the wood tissue and render it
difficult or impossible to determine the first year of root exposure. Each label included:
• a unique identifier corresponding to the stream where the sample was collected,
• the date which it was sampled, and
• the sample number for that specific bank.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 2-2

For example, a sample from the UT to Ellerbe Creek was labelled "060320-UT-EC-01 ", where "060320" indicates the
date of sample collect, "UT -EC" is the stream reach identifier, and "-01" signifies the sample location. If more than
one sample was collected at a location, the sample was further identified with a letter. Prior to cutting the root, two
measurements were taken, as illustrated in Figure 2-1. One measurement was taken from the toe of bank slope to
the centroid location of the root to be cut (y- or vertical measurement), and the other from the centroid of the root
horizontally to the face of the bank slope (x- or horizontal measurement). These measurements were documented
and recorded under the same nomenclature as the flagging for the sample. A photo of each root measurement
was taken with a grade rod (Keson 6 ft. pocket rod) indicating the distance to the bank. The locations of the bank
pins in this area were also measured and recorded. Using a permanent marker, an arrow was drawn on the root,
indicating gravity up. Once all measurements and documentation were completed, a minimum six-inch long root
specimen (including the flagging) was cut with a hand saw and placed into the paper bag for transport and storage.
As a note, Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually
collected on the main stem of TFC and all references to UT-TFC are referring to TFC.
c
r�
C rZ
a
Lateral
Measurement ''
Annual Growth ring
/ /Exposed
Riverbank
Vertical
Measurement
Distance of
exposed root -
from riverbank
ANATOMICAL
:',
O
c
CHANGE
INDICATES
YEAR
m
ROOT EXPOSED
o
O
Annual
Years of
=
Erosion
Exposure
Rate
Figure 2-1 Illustration of Annual Erosion Measurement (Dick et al. 2013)
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 2-3

3 Data Collection
3.1 Field Data Collection
Sample collection occurred on June 03, 2020, and a total of 12 samples were collected from the four sites. Several
root samples were collected at each bank location from different bank elevations to provide an average annual bank
erosion rate for that location. The labels on the root samples included a number (which corresponds to the City of
Durham's bank pin monitoring nomenclature e.g., 02, 10, etc.) to signify the bank site from which the samples were
collected, and were assigned an additional unique identifier (A, B, C, or D) to differentiate the samples taken at the
same bank site. The term lateral is used to describe the distance out from the bank (x-axis), the term vertical is used
to describe the distance up from the bottom of the channel (y-axis), and the term longitudinal is used to describe
the distance between the previously installed bank pins and the sampled roots.
The longitudinal distances between the bank pins, installed by the previous study performed by the City in 2018,
and the collected root samples were measured and recorded; photographs of the bank pins were also taken. General
observations were recorded through notes or photographs. The roots are herein referred to by the final number
and letter combination of their unique labels, as illustrated in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Summary of Collected Root Samples & Nomenclature
Black walnut
UT-EC-02-A
UT to Ellerbe
#2
3
Black walnut
Right
High
UT-EC-02-B
Creek (EC)
Red maple
UT-EC-02-C
Boxelder
UT-TFC-10-A
Third Fork
Ironwood
UT-TFC-10-B
#10
Creek TFC 1
( )
4
Ironwood
Left
High
UT-TFC-10-C
Ironwood
UT-TFC-10-D
UT to Little
Sweetgum
UT-LLC-12-A
#12
Lick Creek
3
Yellow poplar
Left
Moderate
UT-LLC-12-B
(LLC)
Beech
UT-LLC-12-C
UT to Sandy
Sweetgum
UT-SC-13-A
#13
2
Right
Moderate
Creek (SC)
Blackgum
UT-SC-13-B
Total 12
Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem
of TFC.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-1

3.1.1 Bank Site #2 - UT to Ellerbe Creek
The three roots collected at Bank Site #2, along the UT to Ellerbe Creek, were cut from the right bank, looking
downstream, as shown in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2 shows the locations from which samples 02-A and 02-B were taken
(indicated with flagging). A summary of measurements representing lateral distance of the root sample from the
face of the bank (x), and the vertical height of the root from the streambed (y) are shown below in . The upper,
middle, and lower bank pins in this area were measured at lateral depths into the bank of 0.45, 1.48, and 1.05 feet,
respectively (Figure 3-3). The middle bank pin was located near an area of local scour, measured at 1.96 feet laterally
from the bank to the center of the root sample. The BEHI score was calculated, using measurements taken in the
field. Using the standard BEHI form, the BEHI score was found to be 39. This yields a rating in the upper end of the
adjective range "High". It should be noted that adjective rating is not as useful as using the raw score for
development of lateral erosion curves. Future studies should use the numerical score when developing regression
relationships of erosion to BEHI or other erosion indices.
Table 3-2 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #2: UT to EC (n = 3)
02-A UT-EC-02-A Black walnut 2.45 2.68
02-B UT-EC-02-B Right Black walnut High 0.3 4.2
02-C UT-EC-02-C Red maple 0.89 1.85
Figure 3-1 Bank Site #2: UT to EC
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-2

Middle
Bank Pin
'I
OBottom
Bank Pin

3.1.2 Bank Site #10 -Third Fork Creek
The four root samples collected along the left bank (looking downstream) of Third Fork Creek, Bank Site #10, are
shown in the photographs below (Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5). As a note, Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-
TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem of TFC. The lateral and vertical
locations of the roots along the bank as measured in the field are included in the Table 3-3. The fourth root, 10-D,
was taken 3.0 feet from the bank pins. The bank pins along Bank Site #10 were measured to have lateral depths into
the bank of 0.74, 1.62, and 2.35 feet (upper, middle, lower; respectively). Seepage along the bank was observed in
this bank location. The BEHI score was calculated, using measurements taken in the field evaluated using the
standard BEHI form, and was found to be 38. This yields a rating in the upper end of the adjective range "High". The
previous BEHI rating for Bank Site #10, collected in 2018, was in the adjective range of "Extreme". Without the
previous BEHI scoring details, it is difficult to determine what influenced the change BEHI score between 2018 and
2020. Generally speaking, BEHI score may improve for a bank if sediment deposition collected along the toe of slope
is able to form a floodplain bench, if vegetation increases, or if bank angle lessens. Increases in vegetation influence
half of the scoring parameters evaluated when assessing bank erodibility.
Figure 3-4 Roots 10-A, 10-B, and 10-C located along Bank #10: TFC.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-4

Figure 3-5 Root 10-D located three feet down the bank from the previously installed bank pins.
Table 3-3 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #10 TFC (n = 4)
10-A UT-TFC-10-A Boxelder 2.18 4.4
10-B UT-TFC-10-B Ironwood 0.71 3.15
10-C UT-TFC-10-C Left Ironwood High 2.34 1.75
10-D UT-TFC-10-D Ironwood 0.68 6.1
Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem
of TFC.
3.1.3 Bank Site #12 - UT to Little Lick Creek
The roots collected along Bank Site #12, in the UT to Little Lick Creek, were collected along the left bank in the outer
meander. The locations of the roots can be seen in Figure 3-6. The bank pins in Figure 3-7 were measured at lateral
depths into the bank of 0.11, 1.10, and 0.57 feet (upper, middle, lower; respectively). The lateral and vertical
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-5

measurements are included in . The BEHI score was calculated using measurements taken in the field evaluated
using the standard BEHI form and was found to be 28. This yields a rating at the high end of the adjective range
"Moderate". The previous BEHI rating for Bank Site #12, collected in 2018, was in the adjective range of "High".
Without the previous BEHI scoring details, it is difficult to determine what influenced the change BEHI score between
2018 and 2020.Generally speaking, BEHI score may improve for a bank if sediment deposition collected along the
toe of slope is able to form a floodplain bench, if vegetation increases, or if bank angle lessens. Increases in
vegetation influence half of the scoring parameters evaluated when assessing bank erodibility.
Table 3-4 Root Location Measurements at Bank Site #12 UT to LLC (n = 3)
12-A UT-LLC-12-A Sweetgum 0.38 1.15
12-B UT-LLC-12-B Left Yellow poplar Moderate 0.46 3.12
12-C UT-LLC-12-C Beech 0.03 2.55
Figure 3-6 Locations of roots 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C located along the bank site #12: UT to LLC.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-6

Figure 3-7 Locations of existing bank pins located along the bank site #12: UT to LLC.
3.1.4 Bank Site #13 - UT to Sandy Creek
The two roots collected along the right bank (looking downstream) of UT to Sandy Creek, at Bank Site #13 are
shown in below in Figure 3-8. The bank pins in this area, shown in Figure 3-9, were measured at lateral depths into
the bank of 0.62, 0.88, and 0.82 feet (upper, middle, lower; respectively). The measurements of the locations of the
root samples are included in . The BEHI score was calculated, using measurements taken in the field evaluated using
the standard BEHI form, and was found to be 23. This yields a rating at the low end of the adjective range "Moderate".
Table 3-5 Root Locations at Bank Site #13 UT to SC (n = 2)
13 A UT-SC-13-A Sweetgum 0.15 2.40
Right Moderate
13 B UT-SC-13-B Blackgum 0.23 3.35
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-7

Figure 3-8 Location of Roots 13-A and 13-B along Bank Site #13: UT to SC. Photograph taken during
measurement of vertical position of root sample on the bank using a pocket rod.
Figure 3-9 Location of existing bank pins along Bank Site #13: UT to SC.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-8

3.2 Sample Preparation for Analysis
Root samples were initially cleaned with a sharpened wood chisel to remove debris and provide a uniform outer
surface. A one -centimeter width disk was cut from the sample, using a Havalon toothless Piranah Knife, for
observation under a Celestron handheld digital stereoscope (Schweingruber, 2007). Root samples needing more
detailed analysis were prepared for microscopic analysis by cutting a one -centimeter disk with a band saw and then
dividing the disk into smaller sections along two perpendicular axes in order to provide a complete cross-section of
the root. Prepared root samples for the study locations are included in Appendix A-3.
Prepared microscopic sections were permanently mounted on slides for archiving and then photographed. Digital
images of each microscopic section were taken using the Celestron handheld digital microscope, and are included
in Appendix A-5. The cellular structure was determined by comparing the photo to the Inside Wood Database for
Stem -Wood Anatomy developed by the College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University (Inside
Wood, 2020).
The total years of exposure was determined by counting the number of growth rings from the first growth ring
demarcating exposure to the bark. From this, the average annual erosion was calculated by dividing the recorded
distance from the root to the bank by the total years of exposure for each root (Figure 2-1).
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 3-9

4 Data Analysis and Interpretation
4.1 Analysis
The roots were prepared for analysis following the methodology included in the December 2020 Root
Dendrogeomorphology Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and established in previous research studies. The
samples were analyzed in the laboratory to estimate the years since exposure of the root to the elements and
associated mechanical stresses due to a lack of soil covering. The year of exposure was determined by examining a
well -prepared cut -root section, evaluating the growth anatomy of the root through a microscope looking for several
well -documented indicators of exposure, as described in Dick (2019). Indicators of exposure used for this analysis
included:
Decrease in cell and vessel size
• Changes in the structure of the root to resemble stem -like growth
• Eccentricity in the annual growth rings
• Occurrence of scars and pith flecks
• Bending of ray cells that coincide with the first year of exposure
The results of the analysis are shown below in Table 4-1, including estimated annual erosion rate for each sample
as well as the average estimated annual erosion rate at each bank site. Note that the erosion rates provided by this
study are assumed to be constant and do not account for slope failure, mass wasting, or rapid erosion induced by
specific storm events as that is not possible to capture without having samples that bound the years on either side
of a specific event or events.
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 4-1

Table 4-1 Results of Root Analysis for Estimated Years of Exposure and the Calculated Erosion Rate
UT-EC-02-A
2.45
16
0.15
#2
39
High
UT-EC-02-B
0.30
13
0.02
0.16
UT-EC-02-C
0.89
3
0.30
UT-TFC-10-A'
2.18
6
0.36
UT-TFC-10-B'
0.71
7
0.10
#10
38
0.21
High
UT-TFC-10-Cl
2.34
8
0.29
UT-TFC-10-D'
0.68
7
0.10
UT-LLC-12-A
0.38
9
0.04
#12
29
Moderate
UT-LLC-12-B
0.46
9
0.05
0.03
UT-LLC-12-C
0.03
3
0.01
UT-SC-13-A
0.15
11
0.01
#13
23
0.02
Moderate
UT-SC-13-B
0.23
10
0.02
' Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC)
during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem
of TFC.
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 4-2

5 Discussion
5.1 Interpretation of Results
The average annual erosion rate values for each site, as determined through dendrogeomorphology, provided a
range from 0.02 ft/yr at Bank Site #13, located along the UT to Sandy Creek, to 0.21 ft/yr for Bank Site #10, along
Third Fork Creek. The spatial distribution of the individual rates at each bank site indicates higher annual rates of
erosion typically occurring in the mid to upper portions of the bank slope, while the lower portion of the bank
typically has lower annual erosion rates. Additionally, the banks with higher BEHI scores had higher annual erosion
rates as compared to the locations with lower BEHI scores. Results validated the relationship, showing that higher
erosion rates correlated with higher scores for bank erodibility (BEHI) and likewise, the banks with lower erosion
rates were found to have lower BEHI scores.
Table 5-1 Summary of Results from Collected Root Samples compared to BEHI Erosion Rate Estimates
UT to
#2 Ellerbe Right High 0.16 High 0.16 0.16
Creek (EC)
Third Fork
#10 Creek Left Extreme 0.20 High 0.16 0.21
(TFC)'
UT to
#12 Little Lick Left High 0.16 Moderate 0.06 0.03
Creek
(LLC)
UT to
#13 Sandy Right Moderate 0.06 Moderate 0.06 0.02
Creek (SC)
Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem
of TFC.
z BEHI rating and BEHI derived erosion rates were determined as part of the bank pin monitoring effort conducted by the City of
Durham (City of Durham, 2018).
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 5-1

Table 5-2 Summary of Results from Collected Root Samples compared to Bank Pin Data
UT to
#2
Ellerbe
Right
High
0.12
High
0.16
Creek (EC)
Third Fork
#10
Creek
Left
Extreme
0.99
High
0.21
(TFC)'
UT to Little
#12
Lick Creek
Left
High
0.14
Moderate
0.03
(LLC)
UT to
#13
Sandy
Right
Moderate
0.08
Moderate
0.02
Creek (SC)
Site 10 was mislabeled as UT to TFC (UT-TFC) during sample collection. The samples were actually collected on the main stem
of TFC.
z Bank pin derived rates were determined as part of the bank pin monitoring effort conducted by the City of Durham (City of
Durham, 2018).
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 5-2

6 Conclusions
The goal of this study was to carry out a dendrogeomorphic study to develop root -derived annual erosion rates for
the selected bank sites in the City of Durham to augment data gaps for missing or lost bank pin data and to provide
an additional methodology for determined erosion rates. The information provides site specific annual erosion rates
that can then be compared to existing erosion rate data to serve as data validation for future projects tasks carried
out by the City.
Erosion rates determined using dendrogeomorphology ranged from 0.02 ft/yr to 0.21 ft/yr, with an average erosion
rate of 0.16 ± 0.05 ft/yr, with more erosion occurring on banks with higher BEHI scores, as would be expected. With
the inclusion of additional data not collected as part of this Task, this information has the potential to be used to
develop an erosion curve. The curve would need associated data sets that encompass the full range of BEHI scores
in order to serve as a predictive tool. An incomplete curve was developed to show how future annual erosion rate
data collection can be utilized. It should be noted that the example curve shown in Figure 6-1 is not valid until an
expanded data set has been incorporated to represent the full range of BEHI values.
Once the data set has been expanded, a regression equation and an R2 ("R-squared") value can be determined. An
R2 value is one that describes the goodness of fit of a regression equation, or how closely the predictive data points
match the observed data points. These values range between 0 and 1, where 1 is an exact match between predictive
and observed data points. A p-value can be defined as the probability indictor that the observed relationship
between the variables is not due to random chance, and in the context of this study, a p-value of less than 0.05 is
considered to have statistical significance. Dick, et al. (2014) demonstrated that roots with less than 10 years of
exposure have better correlation with bank erosion rates. The more recent the root is exposed, the more reasonable
that a BEHI score collected this year will relate to that of the first year of exposure. An erosion rate curve was created
by plotting BEHI score versus root -derived erosion rates for all samples with less than 10 years post -exposure (Dick,
et al., 2014). The erosion rates for UT-EC-2A, UT-EC-213, UT-SC-13A, and UT-SC-13B were excluded from the data
set because the identified years of exposure were greater than or equal to 10 years. Results indicate that high BEHI
scores have a range of erosion rate values which may be influenced by soil variability within the sample locations.
However, as BEHI scores increased, erosion rates generally increased linearly. Near bank stress values were not
included in the incomplete erosion rate model, as results from Dick (2019) found low correlation between NBS-BEHI
comparisons and erosion rate statistical significance.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 6-1

0.4
0.35
p C).25
0
O
W
i 0.2
d
0
0 0.15
0.1
0.05
U
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4D 45
BEHI Score
Figure 6-1 Incomplete relationship illustrating the potential correlation of BEHI score to estimated root -
derived erosion rate using the selected City of Durham stream reaches chosen as part of this Task. Roots
identified as having been exposed for 10 years or more were excluded from the graph (Dick et al., 2014).
The incomplete erosion rate curve derived from the root dendrogeomorphology analysis is incomplete
until additional data sets have been incorporated to reflect the full range of BEHI values.
As shown in Figure 6-1, the incomplete erosion rate curve, is limited by the lack of data at the lower end of the BEHI
spectrum of scores. The specific BEHI score was used along the x-axis, rather than the BEHI rating, to provide
granularity. This curve can be used as a foundation for future site investigations and provides site -specific, ground
validated data as opposed to relying on regional trends. The use of root derived erosion rates with BEHI allows an
assessor to collect BEHI and quickly estimate bank erodibility from previously developed erosion rate curves have
been developed for a watershed. Additional data collection should be undertaken to improve the accuracy and
robustness of the curve; as additional watershed analyses are conducted and additional streams are studied, more
data can be added to the dataset. By including data from additional local streams, the erosion curve can be further
refined and expanded to include the range of BEHI ratings. Fundamentally, this study serves to augment data gaps
for missing or lost bank pin data and can be used for data validation to determine if similar erosion rates are
determined from root derived approaches vs. measured values. A more complete data set with a range of BEHI
scores would be required for the development and use of a strongly correlated erosion curve.
This information has the potential to be used to develop an erosion curve. The curve would need associated data
sets that encompass the full range of BEHI scores in order to serve as a predictive tool. An incomplete curve was
developed to show how future annual erosion rate data collection can be utilized. It should be noted that the
example curve shown in is not valid until an expanded data set has been incorporated to represent the full range
of BEHI values. Once additional data sets have been incorporated, the expanded erosion curve could serve as a
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 6-2

useful tool to increase the confidence in the estimate of sediment loading and empower City staff to develop
management plans that are more accurate with respect to loading rates. This analysis can be used as an example
project and as guidance for similar projects in the City.
FNI recommends that the City expand the data set and add to the incomplete erosion curve by collecting and
analyzing additional root samples on banks that fall within the Low, Moderate, Very High, and Extreme BEHI ranges
to strengthen the correlation between BEHI and erosion rate, providing a more accurate predictive tool. Additional
study of bank soils is warranted to provide a better understanding of the role bulk density, soil type and other soil
variability characteristics have on bank erodibility. Finding ways to further develop watershed erosion prediction
models will allow the City to validate sediment production rates more comprehensively and provide a foundation
for future erosion reduction action plans.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 6-3

7 References
City of Durham. (2018, July 12). Summary of 3-Year Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring Results and Development of
Bank Erosion Rate Curves. Durham, NC: US.
Dick, B.M., Hey, R., Peralta, P., Jewell, I., Simon, P. and Peszlen, I., 2014. Estimating annual riverbank erosion rates —
a dendrogeomorphic method. River research and applications, 30(7), pp.845-856.
Dick, B. M., Peszlen I., & Peralta, P. (2014). Changes in the Anatomy of Exposed Roots of Some Hardwood
Species [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://www.swst.org/wp/meetings/AM14/pdfs/presentations/dick%20pdf.pdf
Dick, B. M., & Jewell I. (2017). Living Erosion Pins — Streambank and Hillslope Erosion Rate Assessments using
Exposed Tree Roots [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://northcarolina.apwa.net/Content/Chapters/northcarolina.apwa.net/Documents/3%20Living%20Erosi
on%20Pins Bryan%20Dick.pdf
Dick, B. (2019). Getting to the Root of Erosion: Dendrogeomorphology as a Streambank Erosion Assessment
Tool [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.freese.com/sites/default/files/OCLWA-
2019 Getting%20to%20the%20Root%20of%20Erosion.pdf
Dick, B.M. (2019). Diagnostic Testing in the Natural and Built Environment. North Carolina State University.
Lawler, D. M. (1993). The Measurement of River Bank Erosion and Lateral Channel Change: A Review. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 18, 777-821.
Lopez-Saez, J., Corona, C., Morel, P., Rovera, G., Dewez, T. J., Stoffel, M., & Berger, F. (2018). Quantification of Cliff
Retreat in Coastal Quaternary Sediments using Anatomical Changes in Exposed Tree Roots. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 43, 2983-2997.
Malik, I. and Matyja, M., 2008. Bank erosion history of a mountain stream determined by means of anatomical
changes in exposed tree roots over the last 100 years (Bila Opava River —Czech Republic).
Geomorphology, 98(1-2), pp.126-142.
The Inside Wood Database. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:Hinsidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search?l1
Thorne, C. R. and Lewin, J. 1979. 'Bank processes, bed material movement and planform development in a
meandering river', in Rhodes, D. D. and Williams, G. P. (Eds), Adjustments of the Ffuvial System,
Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 117-137.
Thorne, C. R. and Tovey, N. K. 1981. 'Stability of composite river banks', Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 6,
469-484. Rosgen, D. L. (2006). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS).
Wildland Hydrology Books, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 7-1

Schweingruber, F. H. (2007). Preparation of Wood and Herb Samples for Microscopic Analysis. In Wood Structure
and Environment (3-5). Springer Series in Wood Science.
Root Dendrogeomorphology Report 7-2

APPENDIX A-1
Sample Location Mapping

ia y Crutchfield p+ ` t ; s n
Neri aod5 n Location Overview Map
sir+•yiry �I I t3bhrar. ty Wt�taia Ave . Shari CI Dearborn Dr y NICNOLS
r�
5°pit All, n Rd j' crcedm❑❑r �,re ayr4� 't i Z ,.:..I ; Piper SrT on Raven S! /k1��rrO/II
a 0 r "` ° ' Balvi E Sundial Cir
Q n Ava w
a gip`+q j m a B gtown
m o`� 4 CITY OF DURHAM
is6i. Ern � d da �.,i. � (n t3erW yn Ave
n3J a DEN DROGEOMORPHOLOGY
HNlabamyh R.reark i I j - I r aPlew❑°tt STUDY
Park r`st• `� -----� -
e '' [�-----/-.; ��.� Rock 1�i1
4 r /�_ '-� ❑°dry Quarry ••f. r
_ lr-' Park H
_ _c Pecan PI Site Locations
r �\ y
'�_ � S Dear Run _
9-6C d \ Q
_ Z Jo Durham City Limits
lu
�_ Fbck
cM's �a u d \ yen•+, d = Quarry d Ave Op %S a rq �c o r n
■ $G -� b F A� ri�r„r a ❑ Park Yy Dclatsd sT p,Ve +/�� r £ a = n z»
rrr� I ❑ub:•''l.rn� ,, tt ? ,A fps..,
P Mrsrn;Rd ll A .r Cie ryas r� w Wdey Aveo y Watersheds
n rvs=r=ny o
;� Durham r� a 501 E Mu„ �v C h Ra e06..
r >Z F
$ k a Ave print r n
e►. NX
c n �,rn Rivers
N Pointe r ° 501kQ ❑
a �.d Rd •. _.:�". 4 titer - /98 y .p E yn all `aQ m
o ,,kr,k _ g c µaynardAve Ponds and Lakes
� i
rd Rd "� 4� M •� �% Site N o • nerd Ave y O Parks
4 I N
µcc P Jr pd �' NL „cnd Ad x 4 ye 15 otesrrPG a Leon se o` Hu9p Si N
s 1 e° ti, s �� k a o-s❑ N Im Ave County Boundary
r_ a 2: UT to
CarrbaoCH� t r R a yrr Ave Hammon t °3r 0 2,000
u
4
r �vicMla a> Lavender Ave 'a FI Lavender Ave *, tv 8 c
E I I e rb e Creek r n a Feet
? rx A: Sunset Ave °p 7 to e t c G t P
i # rr �, ne a a
I CO� l `•r v n e qp F` DS. ; ! c y ' EFttet ,tsson G7 `
I F� Lyon tiZn Y e a' Sprun` 4 ❑ ,tya quhY st yn thq]he ` I m U p� �Da ° Occ4 a.Syro
- - -
�.
__ _ � yr
______-__-__-__-_— f • F 7 9 �7� ti
"s PershingSt Q v a � I a °, cat e
E m r" b .501 o n c E J S. a Gt Il
�r•�•R o- ,� Wrlsan SF CA n 1 ti a
f ST Spring Cta&
nc+ksMrr.ri¢e Morrisville �� a4 '�,, Woodrow Sr Oavid an Ave GJa St
k.9a� , - Llnlieidps -�., I yi:, 4.
z�
W Club Blvd n Bt�d. St Paul St
�te� yY pat a a time W club Blvd yy Glut r
t+ U Pill
9 'Pr
¢ y Hrgbee S, a
» v — 1J7 rewSt hIr all Englewood Ave H rn
�_
m y hR a d e v in o m r c
d Englewood Ave ' 0 pp rr= E U a _ �
❑ n 5 - Lawndala Ave `. H Q
70 v L) r - o ° _ 3 En Inwood Ave t5 pr °
a e 4 Duke Mnr Flpy' �i a ' o N - H 2 ° i n y g t ?nd
v 06 Q Q W Knox St n a ° ~ _ - - D_1t1L tt a
o n f r o J3 r in n u _� c 4 Z Everett P - RuYa Faek ! r -- - - L t pve f MEl °`+e
d a H N I O� Irtdmon r
pt' roll Y `.1 d v v _V rr r a u o ° .s i - us•7p E y al Ave
° D f`� 9 c x O n a '> a b `y W N n x S t Q R i. t"
n' t7 Crest St ra 2 ii e m p a v n t_ y;nox t de t* a R
WrttQ \, r Faye ❑ Grecn St Demerrus sl Clark Sr ¢ 1;+ h t G$tt+ Winburn Ave E d
�Or m �dQtShirie t , • , 6�as Green $t }� TJanL1 ~'
L ii ' r Q] N Gre?n S[ i5c,l Cynthia., ❑
U q pr att SS l LSt { ryf U N H O
Car rn Elder St ' r E cn W Markham c 14 V'J 1Na[k am Ave
Pus Walk Ave i 'o r �a n n e am Ave ' ❑ o r-_-r i °p f a Alf flt W
o ° Elba S ° _
�rtner� nuis r Macon St
ti `4
� 3 z ; ;' ; fiotlyvr 4J y eo a ry +ff+s
et Frytin Rd IL a °tyre IT rC Urban Ave i I AveV 4 rp _o TryD Rr r
^ \ z _ r
Newell Sr Sr`t 7 U U rR °rJCr ��r
Perry Sr rOn Ds Dacran Ave
❑ y W Lynch s1 L Lynch St
ShPill, Monmouth Ave HatQ
seer m` fr �c L SccrnSn 51 tryti P Sr ya o u e Chee
°rV+ln O W Trinity Ave c t a + ..
SRGp Yea+by Ave t` ut N tdS Ct„ y ❑
�~ rLaty Ot L esearc Gqt y Envm h 0errr&r Mrnerva Ave rn z d St :+any a ^ Q4 s
rl N10,
8 Dr } Lewis SI c Fork y� DG ens DurMm C W Geer Il c
a I& rh r Gloria Ava 2 E Geer St ° ysbriar Naples e
t, m y 8 Al e 7 +� j l ..e Rd i N
N
h+rrrA �j• +;� all?yn Lamond Ave f jl y Cr Co
'a ✓e �i ry r ro N W Corporalion St Lee St y< St a Snip
1 a r4 i1 n Lyric St� r °
C ' 3 4e ! - Durham a k� o ° 4ay t
0 Deaver °� Q° ❑ 10 c o a` Cerdral Wake PI x
b- ben aro ``' Aa erh k Piuk Broadway S ° a P ° rtiz ron
m` Sr �G Eo ka r al; Dowd St .' ❑ L y ❑ y (utz to
c / Ot 7 ° Ch Carrll),r a Ave qy 4, rq`c Hunt St - q # o - arn� ¢ 'a E
G,, J -S / • .. °Wer�rc Jfi �, - u Mlkers❑n Ave °i vy W Se I: 4 Gray Avey u . • Gt p t �'� adson St --
m
C% i y` W +ra trp rn Roney rna� Etc y V 0 0 . Ns. juniper S[ y S9,
m
p v Sr G� 4 Canal St n � a
A. 4 5t anSlield Ave
❑uhe I v .. .: y �' ''�I W Morgan St � r
Gtrrch Aye a _ x e Y-e
�UnNvrut'rho CGk Exurn S ,n � �1 /� d L7 Eaa 2 on Evargrcen Si r olF s a
r❑t; a Un'var tY Rd 1hr Chapel I Sr ey ly Chapel Hill S! �y h4trsr p y vs Cr,d rki-owry Ave o a roe'[ �, paurR
y G P �larrr �s r llawa St N N rn Fern S!3 Q E pets fat a St [ndepende,
b y = 'rGwr� Sr flurha w 0. GdbenSt v' " Q 2 _`n a PommelLn a
Fra c� J t � r- n JdCkSon gr a Carlton Ave n a pr$ Dr z knnb Cr o
Faw1T nk Bassett❑ n i o� I.faFJ_.a• rd aCAsonS y` 7 E C Sr prr�se err 2 V = a l
501 Y Crrtb Dr Da n y ga :enter•, ti r rn a r; h r 4rsr sr ,.,1_ !!WI rrt ��� :a t-- - ---- -- ' 40
°°n Palo �btt°
_ .. - � foll Ave a
YanceySt �_ s p . h e1
or <a Grace ❑ N nA-��___ m
ySrtt> o ti Eva St E L dow fi
@f+7 "item a Parker St �' Y roe �� ° m w k
7 F ' - z u Liberty S[ yt_ [-WWII Ross Rd
� FFF z
o lAaraF4eadAVe 1,t, Pa Tv s c fn
� Mat Nita dAve r` try• mH❑pklnsSt-4 i;.. ��, Cr°Trv'rarc o a ° =� .Icyland
�tl a House Avetio° „ v, lI m
a 3 x0114" s r e
� s
Gt tn5 oPikasi e a t proctor St ,ry4s"e a ,^t ardSI l = southgateSt erly r Z `--- _ Rorhellesr
c '- -- _
x b iy n µha 5 or, war+ 0 W H Y i T 3r y
p °Halley S[ " esr � R,an y W ankle Si rS a rs T @r� �_-� -- U
�f� M Lyon ark v Cobb Sit H,rr 07 q tipµ E� �arrySfnSr r n n s rS all v �� ` t`n �lrrct c ru tan Rq
a od AYE r G+rryrer g[ " The tU �� n r'a a try zr m Taylor St ❑ a a' a Salvo
❑, V46w tt3W 7E '. m
q a �trp+y V T 8 n Or[ h,n,r a _ _ee ,. n n p Sr Ag N p C r p r 4 bybw
d Parfi. ,�lr- le•� 9rp 4. v, n pate Gr gY rr,� r Z Z 141Parkuf e t ° ly ay S
o P a '> a Ay�.�
E:rfBhr a fmar Sr ` u t _ �vpd a F{ Jc e y �7 Mvzalle St Lr v q 1
�aQdAve� - a Pys a 7. W t 8 HSUs;d tgt°O rrite4 A I, a LongSt
�' a
�, a W Lak and t eyvtu y` 4A' = o 1 �; a
en m Cn e 1 n E Main St a ea
n H p tit °' } .r 6 Eaa u 9adale Ave
❑,xh m s ° ° x• t, Welts S I �tii m R to V
Sr prince St v D 6
t$ y a rr 5t - C v. b Y q p a
} IP
a Bivrns S na .�° o �° if } 4 �Sr w < a va ar ° + V G N A
o a J in E Piedmont Ave [aid o d Hari s[ atb rr @r+ 3
�J� o { w .9t► t3 Enterprise St ❑ z k '•� y rw yr [tar' H p t v
Qi �e m H❑mer StE a "r ti � a a serer St S5 a e
�Cop44r qYe R w High St O Dicers in V Car° AsheSr 1 N o tie 9 71
Ra rn f all a rn y E Umstead St `Jre cq fr a a
to ° c `: ;' ea p y Sr y ii An m D� n n
SrW�raccS1 m �f m� �Oa a Simmons Sr �- e� Ole, Alm b i
peS °+ , . ! r a a' u e v As" St Carr . rn
e h d7+ 1tty�tvd HJleirla rh Pak J rri h-! r7 E rr'r
u ` F� T N Ward St t� @pr,as y L+nWOn ar❑tj Sr �-. ea6 i L1wen St
IF
Rd p. N G S �Wa W Y E furl .ik 0 L? Will r D4 ero asSey qve .4 b ❑yy 17 "Z� CIO Wddan T4�
rry9 - C" and aAYe S1 r'' Oakti` ti Cir os priraAs.�. a Mathis�Sr FAe Karegr rb c a d
Site No. 12:
' o watts Ro°° a 4r BOG Ave v 8 refer c m o vet Gt a
Q ob 7 Nation AI, Sycamore St v Eric St °Sr a°nbar S a ¢ fiery' S, x ❑ at° s y
�i or d ❑ r e t m � Bur n S� •"'`— G
c c a❑ G y j,srF.
+rrerysr 6 H ¢ Starlight Cl Drier" Dupree 5t�a �: -__ UT to Little
4 °FpreslWoodt3< _ Lick Creek
r �c St a r D ❑ Bell 5 t
o-p �Q� Sssd � � � y ! Ir[ton Aye• � - �y
ire Qt e' R1 v a•un
m Son daIt A, e Crnn - _ rz
� 3 n U tin,,. -'_err �aW
NFki B1 d ❑ 3 r7t ¢ s Sf E End Ave G es
rA 's 1 r_ Gn P Q 0 rn L aryrr tP
Smarr DT Q �� tg°} Ae V £ rIl t fn h C a'j/i
f P cDr . 3t $ +OC Ave E a 2 E rt c
06 1= a e a Yto a
y dote Jg� �Y ptnevlew Rd oD'y s B �y Y George St v n Sf� w ° Hayes
q k,° @
r m A Site No. �$ Cam' �a , Fork Me' g b o-
.I rr g Nelson St p Cooper St n
5•tS�� Walrra � e Ln W °•s � o � C 7rur+ran .
13: UT to �� > a qa 5t �P Cecil St Sf
75I of c ❑ S+°`� c Martha St
Sandy Creek �' _ all ,.°� r Y� yq =
m Gts34el Hill V� pig Stuart si�rrcp ynoce c% ]aC6t rqa Burlington Ave cot -
aytau gt nlJetbtty to Ct rrnQ �}�� A yi eyt'
A❑ R t] tk a Brookwood W iA W 0 5 p m Hopp A• ,� J s°
►� �° Ccl attcs t if, .ti n Cin w q 5t a� CarferAvc
r y ')Gr S r ` h
°err �ejr, fearer y� Ali R ash Sr w °t,
Bexley Av . t, a a a u �� 9r s S l c 11}rd '
SitY pT Uewey St rn d pill f d� +Pa oast lea ��� rP,e G P e pafiq a e 9e ° y a way A e J
vn a u v c en ss 9e ax'0 S a tt ra4 Fr T �k,tty a .
post Ave
� a o
haslerQr At rye Zt� sr 5t Park �i` a
o a 3 NrrOr v
' i a a a Wolford Rdtr°s t n St par4rre Gaa� to°c m n
Q iX ❑ r Sr 1
❑ h - u w = Old Sugarrp n 2 � q~ FIMC;r Park C, °° �.s a44
3 Sod toway a c 0 ❑ �arnhrtf Tr;: d Fall. �a Sr �se11 St c
t x 5h rban Dr ° t ,n Site N o s P ° +' rka Park Cr a ❑
r Winton Rd Z _ F!°n St ter a 0111 , Z t o H s R
Y Tu F u b an k s Rd Q O 34 ay i o ri-d'atl°e p'
`yd n arr� Ran Q O egt a 1 0 : Third Ind Ave c 9e c' �.otesq` sn G
Dn py t Alpine Rcl 111. rr7 v
s44ant Pl o C A°e �o Brooks I
LFork Creek � = hr�y
Dove L Martin Luther king Jr Ak
= Archdale Dt
t; ,tl,rrri Spi In gda le Of Medina st p
rc 6=•nr•t.: r,
u The Si E, I dv>:- q 0 e
S S tar, G B�,und.:v,es n o O �,�.ry[hy Ave [C a Kris - $IIf-1Pd
to
y ADr O D 0 # ° o 'rgr CanaSl R4ddleRd o tyP1
r M ._
C� +n ssr u Gsc4 re 4 as9 'cu n le U ❑` Grs a to r
Wrnary e n °� o y N e 00 !n Will pas°nS ,: Edgerton or F -
�� a nr ❑ x ti Cf Jrp1)r 4r O4raysr cetny Ave c
dl ''b T
ajz
Reynolds 4 4 Ancroil Ay., Leonard Or u
6 r°nehe a1}•' o Ave p[ % v,
g 4 Brighton Rd 4r c Q Qt c Southern
O B ,rkingharn Rn r r- Caok Rd h`' Y 0 ' Dr
�h ❑ d r v` ¢ A ccu Rada Or 5t°stL i'ark Ct
❑ Gr '�G G U µ s q a l, a _
� re Buxton St Sulin
Or a ee a Q � � X
rn � Hickory Hu[ Dr t =
A� on Rd + w all Rd at tee " $• �D x H
C w 8tn p 1d7, a
G , I • air a �° m o°D s ° a Y °
Sr nvi,: t �pQ t°�� L Gy Etgr >r 'ae°� ap 1. pli ci 1` ChawalRva L RusttGa Or r4 Tafbot
s :;7 ~ Dr i+ M + eC park n, 3 i
rp Dr r6 c Larciiw❑❑d Or = a 'r Tammy
{ -p po-pagpe U` and Oriole Ln C
a a a c
c1
g a Wynne Rd all Tree L o
n�+n Cir 7+ F $ett a m of a
c o r❑p Rd a N [toed Lks ' Lansing ? �, o
� r � : .�SrLs a 9ry c � Dakmortr -
az '� ❑ at �'r n A St''".
TOmer set Dr a n `p rr es C e] n` J � a
0 Z Cherry $r .0 °n[ Zak td Lak b ,ln9Pp `tn rpk n n
Darwr v a Ov '" J17 wossa Brown Si n0, 5trattO aCt°S pakStLa wy c
ctsiury ° u a
r vi Han 'on +u c
Rd N G ^ Gastlarock Or �, G y `o a
r Ruga"I - a s 7 c r a
r t r a Albert S1 (verily Dr J°Y 5rdeLn v F+
c Lecd n a �4 L) Y Dr e,
t� ° C7 55 nws
o ai' C �4 \+E Oral Dr
S �Lo ° x y a c•' a
4
r c Z Oriole Or t��� �`O n Jf� Tst "Ing Meadoi, S I �c D, a i �rvd p Q
A a r v 0.
'py �` ells c ❑ tt' L❑op R Fv �4tis Ra
£ U ufrette Arer+c i n erne b t v w s d
rw att W ay^ Turm 'lr Q
Qc Cardinal Or M c
e� y o 4
0 7c �r� Set 'a„ P Unslyd Or �Gr ria enN IS
Langt❑i d a do T
an D r_ r ie n
,4e N d Dr ratd gty Aadrs°� Set,i 1r1
°'9 A m
1 Or Gt� J� . r'ari Dr o r2
q allay Ri dge Sps era Dr pallylei e' fly c M1 s
SM'arrhrnurE r,': Q Oay. yL01
o ooaAve. ape r 7 ei
Lr't ,o°OT t❑t°ac °d a 9file D z 9 Rd Oyy C yreH S
f+ i l ❑r �'
Wy^iaid❑r t° @ ❑t Han .� 1rpyDr o ❑` Few
,,nfhll Ct a r 1 _
°o d�F c tr cgslde Dr t�' tarn 47
tun r o� 5pt Oa 1 co
�'` 7
c 4 ShaA ks D
Brixton Ln Ni 9t ° o' F salrn - Wr Dr
p e Ln y ` ..S � �
xs data na Ave a to pt ¢ C, C. a r v r ❑ L M Ja
iar a C� Ball !o w n❑ °� a r D, O 6?' titre tK ac, q z c
�. r m °� ❑ n ary lelentil Blvd 14
�\0 aa're n 5Q Lat`$�o 1. }ttrr4esq� tbx Ehon d Orindo Or �Sr�Cr6.�e691 Sarla 'Pe ~ 1
Way o 7a�6 �r•aakst Ae 'L a Br SSflEid
s
m a r°a4 C7r lb Gttat'pnp Or Denton St „ oRd mlip ssey Dr 4u v d
dry Vr N aUxxiaSt u x E it�o
ZY' m x 9�9 x Qr w
C Ce �d/.�
rp ❑P �4t n s Q �4 P'•7
then ds Dr ❑` e5 �p t nrr a ¢ ❑ t',
W es he rrrmingwood d Ct C x c s p� 7W A►axaner1y dr
O egrpr a
to a o
A
"Po
c
4ucrofl Pkwy �� � � c o � a
OtD w do ro r t�tvd C
d woodo Qr/a tt � F'°r ._.. S
re a �atcps tNr+rr� E" R+y a _v atptr r4 t� f1 + Loop Rd
rtrersy¢ tCt9n � � gnb
Westn OditF a
d G e c
b0 Cerr9 j yks Y�» t co a as eadhall
rQ7a Wary " 1 ?]
C, es `trl eiy 4 eC ❑ v @ Q Aawap L y a Vanguard p,
r�p o f r`e e d
u LansgareGt a c Glen Eder ror,ey Ai a4e tn� Chi put Au sea a Rd 14
f
o b
� 3 n •- ❑❑, � E Wn lcroit Pkwy E
pS ❑ trOtt Pkwy
+br ��}ltet c M°nresreY reerr Dr FNnoy Wand Carprnt Fletcher Rd
O
G a o qL tPt ds Park is ttptOt trot `C ' ersdranpAvi
'h91), a n Auburn vyta",or I
t ti e6 a y a Windcrest Rd o �
q +r
a - n - F
Crooked Creek kwy tea �❑ 4•. a. bbra Creek k+rtgs�
1`' v yt6
a U 3 In v cy `. 7 I�f1'I
0 c
m� d❑ ; Highgate, W Nia Forge Rd
I i �xLtt�D 3 Lwarrdias; ,T �'
bJ�nr` L e V pl x❑plblitanp ia
d
4
7 otieY }Aorenea
g Lei aerie[ CNN. 3❑hn a tT. 5
Westpir+, G, i n
r° po. tie arnytct err ldarlcy 1Vlprehead Ifl :�r!�
to Pas ❑rnt Blvd
1, Q 5 tt n m
Cer�6 Aar 3 �J�e ry go-
0. Q° n E eror °110, 0 n G' a ' • �r
.c
¢ w c E ee Ra ryC Se d n
ON
�' Q tn Catt:n E ly i n Y r.
anL pkwy x' Y o ,.
_a. S
Ren at5s z Lr o
y rG
Loves Gry r�
a i v s cr ANC.. 4M �C
r= ifot�l ❑ c 4+
_ _ o a 1 �d � S'o-at � rpi•
Morrell Ln e m
G,naP
_ 0 v
F agtc Vtew Dr b n t�a�5 tstc' Lattirrtor t�Gri o.
}(entington Dr x D ur r
e 7�.
0. d t4 %% ro
U
e a ° 0 Cir
c rr5 ' °Nt ❑
rndanL n 9Dr Q at Li+•rierlck L cUi °' a' b�❑ �r'aa * ry 4
4P ❑ a o r el parA pt ,

APPENDIX A-2
BEHI Forms

BEHI Variable Worksheet
Stream: UT- EC - 2 Reach: UT TO ELLERBE CREEK Cross Section: XS # 2
Observers: BMD, EMD Photos: Date: 06.03.2020
A Bank Ht D Root Depth
eanik Helghrdeartktuir Height 6.7 Rooting QepthlE�mnk Height 3.0
3.5
2 __ _ B Bankfull Ht A Bank Ht
x a.3
1
1.8 m U.$
2.5
C (A/B) o.s _— E (D/A)
1.6 — .. — . — 0.2
3.7 t 0 0.44
° 1 ; 8 s 6,q T 10 ° s a a� ass ,a
BM
10 4.5
Roat Dwks ty slope Slaepn �
100 — 42Q
e ISO
F Root Density 100 — G Slope
35
o a
S n 4 qZq IS aR 5.5 # ry 2 4 8 6 s �} �1 10
T
BEHI $Eiil
Surface Pratedon. Bank Material Adjustment
i H Surface Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI) N/A
_— Protection Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
10 Cobble (-10 pts; No adjustment if sand /
40 _ gravel matrix > 50% of bank)
Gravel (+5-10 pts depending on % sand)
b 9 Sand (+10 points)
0 Silt/Clay (No adjustment)
F Stratification Adjustment
BeNi Add 5-10 points, depending on position of N/A
unstable lavers in relation to bankfull staae
VERY LOW1 LOW IMODERAT HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME ADJECTIVE RATING
and 39
5 - 9.5 10 -19.5 20 - 29.5 0 - 39.5 40 - 45 46 - 50 TOTAL SCORE
Bank Sketch
m
v
C
<C
<.i
Horizontal Distance (ft)
i
1,140
�Fh���*�✓� l ��ras�
r rGI�
5

BEHI Variable Worksheet
Stream: UT- TFC - 10 Reach: UT TO THIRD FORK CREEK Cross Section: XS # 10
Observers: BMD, EMD Photos: Date: 06.03.2020
A Bank Ht D Root Depth
Bank HeighkEanktulr Kei4qht 7.5 Rooting OepttVE�mnk Height 3.0
3.5
8 Bankfull Ht A Bank Ht
x a.6
125
2.4 m U.$
s --- - — C (A/B) p.s E (D/A)
3.1 I 0 0.4
Jq
IBM
9.5
Rnat GannJty Sioprg Slaepnra�s
e ISO
F Root Density i+k7 - G Slope
+40 - - -
x
20
o a 4.5
b 9 a ry 2 4 K 6= 8<sr 1.1
Q s' 2 4 $ 6 X al 9 -to P h
T BENI
@EHI
Surface P vted# on.
1Q¢ '
40
44 c
20
0
a 2 5 4 9 6 6 9 14
BENI o'
y
H Surface
Protection
b 10
Bank Material Adjustment
N/A
Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (-10 pts; No adjustment if sand /
gravel matrix > 50% of bank)
Gravel (+5-10 pts depending on % sand)
Sand (+10 points)
Silt/Clay (No adjustment)
Stratification Adjustment
N/A
Add 5-10 points, depending on position of
unstable lavers in relation to bankfull staae
VERY LOW1 LOW IMODERAT HIGH VERY HIGH1 EXTREME I ADJECTIVE RATING[ -----
and
5 - 9.5 1 10 -19.5 1 20 - 29.5 KO - 39.5 40 - 45 1 46 - 50 TOTAL SCORE
Bank Sketch
m
c
cv
<.i
Horizontal Distance (ft)
IN
I
`0fry7 Y,
5

BEHI Variable Worksheet
Stream: UT- LLC - 12 Reach: UT TO LITTLE LICK CREEK Cross Section: XS # 12
Observers: BMD, EMD Photos: Date: 06.03.2020
A Bank Ht D Root Depth
Bank HerghuBanktulr Kei4qht 6.2 Rooting OepttVE�mnk Height 6.2
3.5
B Bankfull Ht A Bank Ht
x 013
2.5
a.$ - -- 6.2
s --- - C (A/B) U.E (D/A)
0.2 "38 10
BL�iI & $F�111. b
10
Rnat DannJty slope Sbn1}pn�s
101)e ISO -
F Root Density 100 — - - G Slope
go
eo — - � 30
40
2d
a
b 6 11 � _ *
r
@EHI BENT
Surface Pratoc#�on Bank Material Adjustment
i H Surface Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI) N/A
_— Protection Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (-10 pts; No adjustment if sand /
20
40 — gravel matrix > 50% of bank)
Gravel (+5-10 pts depending on % sand)
20 b Sand (+10 points)
0 Silt/Clay (No adjustment)
a 9J z 4 9 6� 6 0W10
F - Stratification Adjustment
e+l Add 5-10 points, depending on position of N/A
unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
VERY LOW1 LOW ODERAT HIGH IVERY HIGH1 EXTREME I ADJECTIVE RATING
----29 -----
and
5 - 9.5 1 10 -19.5 20 - 29.V 30 - 39.5 1 40 - 45 1 46 - 50 TOTAL SCORE
Bank Sketch
m
v
C
<C
<.i
Horizontal Distance (ft)
�n�J, r�fiM
i
1,140
�Fh���*�✓� l ��ras�
r rGI�
5

BEHI Variable Worksheet
Stream: UT- SC - 12 Reach: UT TO SANDY CREEK Cross Section: XS # 13
Observers: BMD, EMD Photos: Date: 06.03.2020
A Bank Ht D Root Depth
3.5
Bank HalghlMank#ull HNght 4.8 Rooting OepttVE3ank Height 4.8
--
—_ B Bankfull Ht A Bank Ht
x 0.6
2.5 .
1.7 m U.$
s --- C (A/B) o.s E (D/A)
0.2q) 2 E� 4 6 10 0 2 4 a 10 E-1
_...-
2.8 o
Root DwItafty slope Steepness
101)e ISO —
F Root Density 100 — — — - G Slope
60 — 55
2[a
o a
b b
�n 4 8 6x a �0 4 2 S' a a a sh ,I 5
T r
@EHI BENT
Surface Pratedon. Bank Material Adjustment
i H Surface Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI) N/A
_-- Protection Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (-10 pts; No adjustment if sand /
40
40 _ gravel matrix > 50% of bank)
Gravel (+5-10 pts depending on % sand)
70 b Sand (+10 points)
0 Silt/Clay (No adjustment)
a 2 4 s 6 ;F 0 a 10
f Stratification Adjustment
BEHI Add 5-10 points, depending on position of N/A
unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
VERY LOW1 LOW /MODERATK HIGH IVERY HIGH1 EXTREME I ADJECTIVE RATING
----23 -----
and
5 - 9.5 1 10 -19.5 20 - 29.V 30 - 39.5 1 40 - 45 1 46 - 50 TOTAL SCORE
Bank Sketch
m
v
C
<C
<.i
Horizontal Distance (ft)
IN
u
i
140
�Fh���*�✓� l ��ras�
r rGI�
5

APPENDIX A-3
Prepared Root Samples and Location
Information

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 4U0370 — V7 - CC — 07- —A
Date: COLLECTED' 0U-0B.20Z0
Location: UT Ta EZLERgEE rpEEic BANK CITE #fix
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: Z3 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
DZ
G
au °3
41
fffl�illl 1f� fiClj�ii�fff(Il>if�fIilIi111jiial�iffi�f�il�ll111iiiljliil�ilTf�iiil�ill1jN11P
cm !!2 ll3 4 5 IB 7 !!8 II9 j II llll lilt
4� oL s J s
�I�I�Irld�lifililjldi��I�I�i�I ! I! 11 I I l I l I i I I I l I l

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
01,0$20 -- V7 - ,EC - p2-- A
OU-0S.20za
UT ro 6UCIZ66C Cj2EEJt 8ANK 61TE #Z
Bank geometry or buried depth;
Diameter: 25 mm
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: Q{►0370 - Vr- EC-e2-$
Date: COCLUTCD: OL. 43 . ZDZo
Location: UT To f LLF R8FE aerie SA n IC ME # 2.
5pp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter; qZ MM
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections: 0 (,u3 jo — UT, EC V 7- —8
Ill 111 Ill11{iilfJif Iljilf I`i111111111111fITHT11111HIIJfmIR111117f71mill
-MUL,00—
V
I-11000a*
ZII L
lilllEf���f�llllll�III�I`dIIi�I��ll�l111lll�lllklIlillEllll�ill�ll��!Illlll�111�lII�IIEN111�11lllli�lllll�Ijlllllli�fl�il�I�I�if�li�lli�fll�
, I I
11
I Ol

D5SCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: oI! o3 ZO - Vr- EC - 02 - $
Date: C01A. C'l frb: 011. d$ .20i❑
Location- VT Trp C1,(-FP-8FC C ,e Y BAN9 SITE # Z.
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: y2 Vh►►7
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
0 "
f� zB
z
• - �i

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0UCS20 - UT - EC -02-C
Date-. C0CLECTFD ft46" 0[►• 0$. 2020
Location: VT io .GL Ie$6E creer eANe crm # Z
spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 50 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observatians:
_,w
Sketch of grc 0 too 320 - V T- E G- P 2-
0
..Hoamw
ZG
L1
Ol
6
8
L

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name. 0U0370 - LJ7-FC -OZ-C
Date: C6L-tFCTCD' *44W* 0U, pg, 2pzp
Location: VT To Ett ep gge CFf�fr- BRNe CITE # Z.
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 50 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0110? 7 0 - (I T - T F C - 10 _ A
Date: COUEGTED ' CG• d3 . ZOZO
Location: IJT To rMIZO F09-Tii CA"Ia BAND SITE V 10
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth
Diameter: 35 TM„rr,
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
5
f frf fl�l III III II�� lfit lIli [1{i ��i lflf ilil fli �1111�f1 I1fi I{Il f
7 8 9 1 o 11 12 13 14 1t
19

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 611p? Z p . UT - 7F C _ 10 - A
Date: COL-LECTED, DU. 03 .20U)
Location: Ur To 'rMIZD FGRTH CR-EE-IG 8ANk- SITE V 10
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 35 mrn
Age. -
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
10A i
10A4 ,

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: OUG$20-UT-TFC - l�'8
Date: COLLECIrcO: 0(/.03.Z0ZG
Location: Vf TO TMr_V FbW'H GkIGEE RNr SME # 14
Spp:
Bank geometry or burred depth:
Diameter; 20 mm
Age:
General Notes/observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsar": )r�:
wW.0 W �T- IVC - 10-
��iflijl�iljfllf�r'�ff�Ifl��filf�fllf�rll1�11fI�f1fI�1111f11ll�IIIIjIIII�lllljllll��lllf IIlI�III��IIfI�fIIfIf11I�f11i�lllf+lllljl"";"""'"'!
1cm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S 10 11 12 13 14
[I�I�IEI�IfIIdI�dl�ill�Illilil����lll��Il�f�lilll�lll�lil�Ill�lil�l�f�lil�Illllll�i�llltlf fllllflll�l+ll

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: OU0SZQ' VT- '(Fe - 10-8
Date: C4LLFCrco: OU-05.2o2G
Location: VT 7G 7MpV Frp-rH CP-E7Ej� BANr SITE # !4
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth
Diameter: 20 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
106
� 1°B�

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 4(103ZG- Ur-TFC- jG-C
Date: eatECTEd . ou.03. Z0Z0
Location: Mlep FdaTN CXFPV- BANK SITE IT!0
5pp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 21 mm
Age:
General Notes/0bservations
:
r
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
v
c
v
r
0
� iRf�llif lifljff�lff 111IT111111117
l11�i1filllil�I �,i1i111111
Q ll cm J2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17,. 18 19 2
Zk Mu GE W 6 +9 1 s
I�If1IlIIIIIIIhIIlIIdIIIl,I�IIIIlIlllllllllllllll�lll�llllllllll>lIIIlIlll�llllllll}IIIIfIIIl�IIIIIlI111�lIl�lllllll � �111�.11l�!�.

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0 (j (I G " ur - -rFc - I G - C
Date: COL cc(rED= btU.03• 7070
Location: U7 r0 rftep R9,TH CKEE1it- BANK SITE 1110
5pp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 21 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observations7
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:

DESCRIPTION AND OJESERVAQIONS
Sample Name. 0Vo3 ZLI- Ur- TFD - 10-
60 Date: COCCCZTiE D : ec, , D . Zola
Location: VT To TW tE D t+o izr C e 155-
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 25 Mrrl
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
Q 1cm 2 3 4 5 B
J „I.1OWSI&
zE !L N
EFL i�i��
BA N+c 5 c rEJ it 10
7 8 9 10 11 12
s
r
vJ
1 11111it 1111117
18 19 2

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: QG 03 Z - vT . TFC - 10 - D
Date: CU . 03. 20Za
Location: V-r To 'rKIIzp FcfzTW [12- FIFjt BANV SITE # IO
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: Zy Mry)
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
loot
10D�
�" 1GD3

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0 (103 ZG - V7 - ZLC - 1Z -A
Date: ca('t"FCTED: 0(Y-03• Z070 i*(km
Location: Vr TO LIT -ME 1,1C K C B0,-V r P ANrc S116 -11r 1
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth.
Diameter. 315 rhm
Age:
General Notes/Observations: oft
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
.. rr.
,ri rrr`rirr�rrri;rri'rr,rIf rrl
lcm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
:� i 0L 6 s L
16 17 18 19

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0 Li03 ZG - Vr- L L C - 12 -A
Date: coLf,rcTEp: ❑u-oz- Zp40
Location: VT -ra (AT -Me LICIC GBH1C F311"K SiTr_ 017-
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 35 mm
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
12A,
12R�
i
12A$

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name. Gt► 03 70 - UT - L.1. C - 17 - 8
Date: C 0Gt FCT E v: ou .0,3 . zozo
Location: VT TC LITTGE [.ICiC Ci- IGEiI_ $ANIG
5pp.
Bank geometry or buried depth.
Diameter: 35 mrn
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
�I114111 Y`I II Y�I Yll�l II I� I li I}I Y I I �I II I kl li I{ I II I� I I I
1tm 2 3 4 5
.LL0 s y Irr r i 3,gQl
L au L L Q. L
6 7 8 9
0
4 15 16 17 18 19

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: GU0370 - UT- Lt C - 1Z $
Date: C0[.GEC7Ep: 0to. 03. ZOZo
Location: VT TC LITTLE LA C iC C2 elE:C 13AN K Sf'I-E # ! Z
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth-
Diameter: 35 chrh
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: dG4370 - V T - LL C - jZ - C
Date: COU15CTED = 0Le-03•207,0
Location: v"i -re, l l TTt E L l C k- C R-E-F- iG b hN IC S r7E #
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: 3 d mro
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
IIIIfIInI I HylaI i yllfjfllf+flffjf!
lI) 1cm 2 3 4 5
l Jr II !+ l+ I 10
+i1,f.�,li.I���1.�,Lf•1.1.1•+ r I I I I f i� i 1 � f,1 , f. i
MUL

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: 0 U 03 2 0 - l/T - S C - I-3 -A
Date: Ca Lt r c-r rp = a U • 03 . 7020
Location: UT ro SANDY G9,F-PX 6ANK SITE 013
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter: ZGj MM.
Age. -
General Notes/Observations.-
Sketch of growth rings from microsections: .+
►7rL
1�m
2 3
4
5
' LLoauv*
0L
8 7 8 r 1'0 1r1
15 16 17 18 119

DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name: a U O 3 2 p- V7 — S C 13 -- 13
Date: COLL EC-r E Ia : 00 • CS • 2a-Z G
Location: LIT 'rO SANDY CRIFEIC BAN le srTIF � 13
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth
Diameter: lavv1 'Y1
Age:
General Notes/observations: 1
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:
I;i
1382
L 1353
1cm 2 3 4 5 6 7 S
..1,I.oais3�*
zL i ! 0L 6
4 15 16 17 18 19
S

APPENDIX A-4
Root Dendrogeomorphology Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

,ram - r�.� � x�•- -+ r
T � • : '� �, .,yam .'+�.'` �!. �`� �. r 'ti >{� � � ' l�F
At
OP
1
✓r I� � ... F `••'� `+ice

A=COM / rnAlICHOLS
Root Dendrogeomorphology
Quality Assurance Project Plan
City of Durham
Stormwater & GIS Services Division
Public Works Department
101 City Hall Plaza, Third Floor
CITY OF
DURHAM Durham, North Carolina 27701

AECOM / Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Description and Objectives.....................................................................................................................................1-1
2 Project Management and Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control(QC)................................................2-1
2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan(QAPP)..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Documents and Records..........................................................................................................................................................2-1
3 Root Dendrogeomorphology Field Data Collection.................................................................................3-1
3.1 Sampling Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 BEHI Methodology....................................................................................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Sampling Method Requirements.........................................................................................................................................3-3
3.4 Sample Handling Requirements...........................................................................................................................................3-5
3.5 Quality Control Requirements...............................................................................................................................................3-6
4 Sample Analysis and Data Interpretation...................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Preparation of Sample for Analysis.....................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Data Interpretation.....................................................................................................................................................................4-2
5 Root Dendrogeomorphology Training Session for City............................................................................
5-1
5.1 Training...........................................................................................................................................................................................5-1
6 Final Report...................................................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Technical Memorandum..........................................................................................................................................................6-1
7 References.....................................................................................................................................................7-1
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

List of Figure
Figure 3-1 Roots marked gravity up before cutting...........................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2 BEHI variables illustrated on a section of stream bank (adapted from Rosgen, 2006)...................................3-3
Figure 3-3 Root sample distribution along bank.................................................................................................................................3-4
Figure 3-4 Roots marked for sampling with flagging tape..............................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-5 Vented Dish with Example Label..........................................................................................................................................3-6
Figure4-1 Example of Root Dissection....................................................................................................................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 Slide sandwiched between PVC and magnets for drying (Schweingruber, 2007)............................................4-2
Figure 4-3 Illustration of Annual Erosion Measurement (Dick et al. 2014)................................................................................4-3
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Root Dendrogeomorphology Sample Collection Site List, City of Durham..........................................................1-2
Table 3-1 Proposed Root Dendrogeomorphology Site and Corresponding City of Durham Stream Bank
Erosion Long -Term Monitoring Site...................................................................................................................................3-1
Table 3-2 BEHI Scores associated with the Qualitative Rating, as determined by the bank assessment
procedure detailed in the BEHI forms located in Appendix B.................................................................................3-3
List of Appendices
A-1 BEHI Form
A-2 Sample Observation and Description Form
A-3 Sample Envelop Label Template
A-4 Sample ID Template
A-5 Full -Size Overview Map of Root Dendrogeomorphology Sample Locations
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

AECOM / Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BEHI...............Bank Erosion Hazard Index
City ..................
City of Durham
GIS...................
Geographic Information Systems
FNI................
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
NBS................
Near Bank Stress
PDF .................
Portable Document Format
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP
QA................... Quality Assurance
QAPP.............. Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC ................... Quality Control
WIP................. Watershed Improvement Plan

1 Introduction
City of Durham has contracted with AECOM and Freese and Nichols to assist with applying root
dendrogeomorphology methods for estimating erosion rates. The scope of work consists of the following tasks:
Task 1 Project Management and Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) — December 2020
Task 2 Root Dendrogeomorphology Field Data Collection — June 2020
Task 3 Root Dendrogeomorphology Training Session for City Staff — February 2020
Task 4 Final Report — December 2020
The purpose of this document is to present the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for managing the collection
and use of data under Task 9.2 (Root Dendrogeomorphology) of the New Hope Creek and Little Creek Watershed
Improvement (WIP) Plan contract. It is anticipated that the QAPP will continue to evolve throughout the duration of
the project as additional information and data are collected. Under this task, root dendrogeomorphology methods
will be used in conjunction with bank pin data to develop erosion rate curves. This document outlines the project
description, objectives, quality assurance project plan, documents and records, sampling methodology, sampling
handling requirements, quality control requirements, preparation of sampling for analysis, data interpretation,
training, and the technical memorandum requirements specific to Task 9.2. The project team consists of Freese and
Nichols, Inc (FNI) staff with support from AECOM and the City of Durham (City). This document will be used by the
project team when planning site selection, collecting, preparing, and analyzing field samples of roots.
1.1 Project Description and Objectives
Root dendrogeomorphology is a method implemented to determine erosion within a fluvial environment using
exposed tree roots along eroding stream banks. Tree ring anatomy of the exposed roots change in response to the
duration of exposure and these changes are identified within cross -sectional samples of the root. The growth rings
of the cross-section are then counted back to the exposure indicator to determine the number of years since the
root was exposed. Using the date since exposure and a horizontally measured distance from the bank to the root
sample, an average yearly rate of erosion is determined. This rate can then be used for several applications, the most
prevalent being to determine the severity of erosion within a system or the urgency for stabilizing the banks to
protect nearby infrastructure. Secondary purposes of determining erosion rates include long term planning such as
TMDLs analysis, evaluation of measurable benefits for restoration projects, time -trend analysis of land use change
and channel process responses and forecasting stability of systems facing land use change (Dick & Jewell, 2017).
The primary objective of the Root Dendrogeomorphology task is to provide the City of Durham with erosion rate
curves based on analysis from data collected from the four sites listed in Table 1-1, which the City can then use to
quantify nutrient loading and sediment loss throughout the various watersheds. Erosion rates measured through
root dendrogeomorphology methods will be collected from four locations within select City watersheds and will be
compared to the erosion rates provided from established bank pins from a study conducted by City of Durham
(2018). Additional information about previous root dendrogeomorphology studies and research are included in the
references section of this QAPP. This project will also provide an opportunity for hands-on training and
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 1-1

collaboration with the FNI field team for development of Durham staff capability with root derived erosion rates.
Ultimately, this project will establish a baseline of erosion information on which the City can build, by using root
dendrogeomorphology or other methods for additional data collection at any site within the City.
Bank Site
#2
Bank Site
#10
Bank Site
#12
Bank Site
#13
Table 1-1 Root Dendrogeomorphology Sample Collection Site List, City of Durham.
Unnamed
UT-EC-2
Ellerbe Creek
36.0307
-78.9032
Museum of Life and Science
tributary (UT) to
Ellerbe Creek
Third Fork Creek
UT-TFC-10
Third Fork
35.9664
-78.9130
Weaver St.
Creek
UT to Little Lick
UT-LLC-12
Little Lick
35.9836
-78.8521
West of S. Woodcrest St.
Creek
Creek
Downstream
UT to Sandy Creek
UT-SC-13
Sandy Creek
35.9770
-78.9521
West of Wade Rd. Upstream
1-2 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

2 Project Management and Quality
Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC)
2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
As part of Task 9.2, a QAPP on the procedure to conduct root dendrogeomorphology methods is developed to
assist in future efforts. The QAPP will be adjusted throughout the project as needed to provide City staff the needed
guidance to conduct root dendrogeomorphology methods for future reference.
2.2 Documents and Records
The following documents have been included in the appendix of this QAPP to aid in the collection, storage, and
organization of data samples:
BEHI Form
The BEHI Form is to be used during the field data collection to document existing bank conditions.
Streambank height, bankfull height, vegetative root depth within the bank profile, vegetative root
density of the observed bank area, streambank slope, bank surface protection, and any bank material
observations should be noted and scored in accordance with the form. A BEHI form should be
completed for every bank location, and photo documentation should be captured and noted on the
form as well. Individuals completing the BEHI assessment should have prior experience with BEHI
measures or be trained in the field with someone who is knowledgeable on the subject. Once
documented in the field, BEHI forms should be scanned and saved electronically within the project
folder. Hard copies should be kept with the appropriate collected samples.
ii. Sample Envelope Labels Template
The Sample Envelope Labels Template is included to be used as a template for envelop labels. These
labels are to be placed on large manila folders for sample storage after processing.
iii. Sample ID Template
The Sample ID Template is to be used as a template and printed on adhesive labels and applied to the
brown paper sample collection bags prior to going to the field. Project name can be populated at the
time of printing. Specific information relating to the root should be noted at the time of sample
collection, such as sample id, species, buried or exposed, sample location, distance from bank, type of
sample collections, and any notes or observations. These labels are included to maintain consistency
and organization with the collected samples.
iv. Sample Observations and Description Form
The final form included in the appendix is the Sample Observation and Description Form to be populated
and stored electronically and documents specific information about the root sample itself. Sample
name, collection date, sample location, species, bank geometry, buried depth (as applicable), root
diameter, and age of the sample are to be recorded. General notes and observations made during pre -
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 2-1

processing and analysis should also be noted. A rough sketch of the sample or microsection should be
included for documentation purposes. All information should be stored in an organized manner which
clearly indicates the stream name, site location, collection date and sample ID.
Results from sample analysis should be documented and stored electronically in a similarly organized manner. It is
recommended that results be stored within a program such as Microsoft Excel or equivalent. Measurements with
appropriate units should be recorded and organized by project. Stream name, site location, collection date, and
sample ID should be included with each data entry. Any unique or identifying notes should be included with the
corresponding data. Titles and appropriate texts should be included to indicate specific steps taken during data
analysis. Final results should be indicated in a manner that makes them stand out and the overall spreadsheet should
be organized in a clear, concise manner to avoid future confusion.
2-2 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

3 Root Dendrogeomorphology Field Data
Collection
3.1 Sampling Methodology
Erosion rates measured through root dendrogeomorphology methods will be used to analyze four of the City's
Long -Term Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring sites (Table 3-1). A site map illustrating the proposed sites is included
in the Appendix (A-5). Annual erosion rates obtained from root dendrogeomorphology methods will be compared
to the annual erosion rates provided from the established bank pins as noted in a previous study (City of Durham,
2018), and expected to be updated in 2020. These bank pins were established by the City in 2014 and provide a
means for comparison.
Table 3-1 Proposed Root Dendrogeomorphology Site and Corresponding City of Durham Stream Bank
Erosion Long -Term Monitoring Site
Bank Site
UT to Ellerbe
Ellerbe Creek
Museum of Life
36.0307
-78.9032
High
Very High
#2
Creek
and Science
Bank Site
Third Fork
Third Fork
Weaver St.
35.9664
-78.9130
Extreme
Very High
#10
Creek
Creek
Bank Site
UT to Little
Little Lick
West of S.
35.9836
-78.8521
High
High
#12
Lick Creek
Creek
Woodcrest St.
Downstream
Bank Site
UT to Sandy
Sandy Creek
West of Wade Rd.
35.9770
-78.9521
Moderate
Moderate
#13
Creek
Upstream
Root samples shall be collected within 90 feet (-30 meters) of the established bank pins where possible, with the
stipulation that the sampled bank exhibits the same bank erodibility conditions. Once a bank location is identified
for root collection, the root samples intended to be cut are to be flagged with a labeled piece of high -visibility
flagging tape approximately three feet long.
An additional photo will be taken of the entire streambank, with a grade rod shown in the image for scale and will
capture the flagged roots and their relative position to one another. A bank erosion hazard index (BEHI) streambank
stability assessment shall be conducted on the bank being sampled and will include all necessary photo
documentation and measurements associated with method, as discussed below. Bank height, bankfull height, root
density, surface protection, and bank angle will all be measured and recorded. Sample forms for the BEHI assessment
and the sample data collection are included in the Appendix. Paper bags for each sample are to be prepared with
the corresponding label written on the bag with a permanent marker. The cut, flagged, root samples will be stored
in these paper bags until they arrive in the lab. Once the bags are prepped, the first root sample is ready to be
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 3-1

measured and collected. Prior to cutting the root, measurements will be taken from the toe of bank slope to the
centroid location of the root to be cut (y-measurement), and from the centroid of the root horizontally to the face
of the bank slope (x-measurement). These measurements will be labeled to match the flagging for the sample and
will include a photo of root with a pocket rod indicating the distance to the bank. Using the permanent marker, an
arrow will be drawn on the root, indicating gravity up (Figure 3-1). Once all measurements and documentation are
completed, a minimum six-inch sample (including the flagging) will be cut with a hand saw or equivalent and stored
in the paper bag. The location of each root sample shall be recorded using a Global Position System with an accuracy
of less than one meter.
Figure 3-1 Roots marked gravity up before cutting
3.2 BEHI Methodology
The BEHI method is a process that evaluates a stream bank's susceptibility to erosion from erosional processes. This
method integrates multiple variables that relate to combined erosional processes leading to annual erosion rates.
For an assessed bank on a given stream, each variable is evaluated and recorded. The first five variables (bank height
divided by bankfull height, root density, surface protection, rooting depth ratio, and slope steepness) are converted
to a BEHI score using previously developed relationships (Rosgen, 2006). BEHI relationships are shown in the forms
included in Appendix A-1. A visual representation of the variables constituting a BEHI score are shown in Figure 3-
2.
3-2 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

"
Root
Depth
_
(D)
a
a�
Bank
m
Angle
(
'
Bankfull
Ln
=1
�)�
❑
J m
LL 5
N o
Y �
z—
a`
Start
of
Bank
Figure 3-2 BEHI variables illustrated on a section of stream bank (adapted from Rosgen, 2006)
The BEHI scores for each variable have values ranging between 0 and 10. The scores for each variable are totaled
and the total score is adjusted based on the type of bank material (i.e., sand, gravel, cobble) and stratification of the
bank materials to obtain an overall BEHI risk score (Total Score) that could potentially vary from 5 to 50. The BEHI
Total Score is converted to a qualitative rating which is descriptive of the bank erosion risk. Table 3-2 provides a
summary of the BEHI scores and ratings. For more information on BEHI procedure, please reference 'A Practical
Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate' by Rosgen, 2001.
Table 3-2 BEHI Scores associated with the Qualitative Rating, as determined by the bank assessment
procedure detailed in the BEHI forms located in Appendix B
BEHI Total
5 —
Score
9.5
BEHI Rating
Very Low
10 —
19.5
Low
20 —
29.5
Moderate
30 —
39.5
High
40
— 45
Very High
46 - 50
Extreme
3.3 Sampling Method Requirements
The BEHI rating of the streambank and the bank characteristics at the location of the root samples should match
the BEHI rating of the streambank and the bank characteristics where the bank pins are located and should have
similar near bank stress (NBS) ratings (Table 3-1). A minimum of two roots with a minimum size of one -inch diameter
will be cut for any one bank location at least one meter from the tree trunk, with no more than four root samples
needed per bank (Dick, 2019). The distance from the bank should be noted, understanding that these samples may
need additional analysis to determine the rate if the root has been exposed less than two years. Samples that are
still in contact with the bank are acceptable but may have only one or two years of exposure in locations of higher
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 3-3

erosion rate. Some of these samples could have been exposed for over a decade, thus obtaining samples that are
close to the bank and exposed for several years is ideal. Root bark that is well developed is an indicator of several
years of exposure or more and should be used as a determining criterion when selecting roots. Typically, the roots
used for comparison to erosion pins will be 0.5 m or less from the existing streambank surface, but this must be
determined using judgment and experience. If multiple roots are available, uncertainty in the best samples can be
resolved by collecting additional samples at varying distance from the bank and data filtered by years of exposure
during the post -processing analysis. The ideal root will have been exposed for a period of time similar to the duration
of erosion pin studies, in this case, 6 years of exposure or more is ideal. Thus, data may be filtered for 10 years or
less of exposure, and even further refined to 7 years if data is sufficient in sample size at that exposure.
Collected root samples should be vertically distributed along the same portion of bank to capture the variability of
erosion that is typical from the toe of slope to the top of bank, as illustrated in (Dick, 2019). If multiple roots are
not readily available, samples should capture an upper and lower bank location. It is recognized that when
comparing to erosion pin data, the scientist must work with what is available in that near vicinity to the erosion pin
location. Roots should be collected on the same side of the stream where the bank pins are located and that has a
similar BEHI to the erosion pin bank.
Figure 3-3 Root sample distribution along bank
When determining where to cut the root, avoid cutting near branches or nodes and field verify the root is usable
prior to leaving the field. Slower growing hardwood, ring porous tree species such as slippery elm, American elm,
hackberry, oak species, hickory species and slower growing softwood species such as red maple, boxelder, and birch
with known responses are ideal for collection (Dick, Peszlen, & Peralta, 2014). Likewise, fast growing species such as
willow and cottonwood have less obvious responses and should be avoided if possible. Shrub species such as
ironwood and privet can be difficult to use, and the response of many species is still being established. American
beech has proven to be problematic due to rapid development of fungal growth that renders samples indeterminate
and many samples are missing the pith of the root. If intact samples of beech are obtained, they must be samples
within a day or two and kept in a freezer anytime they are not being analyzed. Any species can be used and may be
cut if there are no other samples available yet prepare to conduct a detailed analysis of those samples (using a
3-4 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

microtome and prepared slides) If the tree species is known, the species name will be noted on the paper bag where
the root is to be stored and recorded on field notes. The sampled root will be wrapped with flagging multiple times
to a tight fit prior to cutting, as the root may experience shrinkage while in the bag and lose the label.
3.4 Sample Handling Requirements
During sample collection, it is important to appropriately document, label and store all collected samples. The label
shall correspond with the associated bank pins, the stream where the sample was collected, the date which it was
sampled, and a unique identifier for that specific bank. The unique identifier should include an abbreviation of the
stream name (i.e. Ellerbe Creek would be EC), the date of collection, and the sample number. If more than one
sample is collected at a location, the sample should be further identified with a letter. An example of a unique
identifier for the first sample collected on January 8th, 2020 along Ellerbe Creek would like the following: EC-
01082020-01-A and the second sample collected in the same bank area will be EC-01082020-01-B. Figure 3-4
illustrates a root sample with the described flagging.
Figure 3-4 Roots marked for sampling with flagging tape
The bank (right or left looking downstream) and the relative location the sample was collected on the bank (height
from toe of slope, distance from the bank, etc.) should be recorded with the notes. Once a bank location is identified
for root collection, the roots intended to be cut are to be flagged with a labeled piece of high -visibility flagging
tape. When flagging the root, the label shall correspond with the associated bank pins, the stream where the sample
was collected, the date which it was sampled, and a unique identifier for that specific bank. Paper bags for each
sample are to be prepared with the corresponding label written on the bag in a permanent marker. Paper bags are
important for short term storage of samples to avoid fungal development. If analysis of the sample is scheduled 10
or more days after field collection, the sample will be placed in Ziplock bags and stored in a freezer. Once collection
is finished at a specific site, all equipment will be cleaned with soap and distilled water to avoid any water quality
contamination.
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 3-5

3.5 Quality Control Requirements
Once returned to the lab, all samples will be stored in labeled bags or boxes corresponding to the sample bank
location and section of the root. During analysis, only one sample will be removed from the bag/box at a time to
avoid mixing up samples. Wood shavings or microtome samples shall be stored in ventilated, labeled Petri dishes.
All notes, observations, and measurements for a sample will include the appropriate label.
Figure 3-5 Vented Dish with Example Label
3-6 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

4 Sample Analysis and Data Interpretation
4.1 Preparation of Sample for Analysis
Root samples will initially be cleaned with a sharpened, wood chisel. The end of the root will be made flush using
the chisel, and then a knife with a fine blade (such as a Havalon-brand Piranta® knife) will be used to clean the root
of cut marks. A one -centimeter width disk will be cut from the sample, using a toothless hand saw, for observation
under a digital stereoscope (Schweingruber, 2007). If the sample is indiscernible under the stereoscope, a microtome
sample (thin slice of material) will be cut using a sliding microtome and mounted on a slide to be viewed under a
compound microscope. Root samples needing more detailed analysis will be prepared for microscopic analysis by
cutting a one -centimeter disk with a band saw and then dividing the disk into smaller sections along two
perpendicular axes in order to provide a complete cross-section of the root (Figure 4-1). This division is
accomplished with a chisel to obtain —1cm by —1cm sections. Very thin slices of 10-60 µm width are recommended
by Schweingruber (2007) to be cut using the sliding microtome, stained with safranin, grouped together to
reconstruct the root section and then permanently mounted on slides. The best procedure for permanent mounting
is to place a drop of Canada balsam turpentine on the center of the section, press a cover slip on the top, sandwich
the slide between PVC and magnets to prevent buckling, and finally dry in a 60' C oven for 12 hours (Schweingruber,
2007) as seen in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-1 Example of Root Dissection
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 4-1

ANA
Figure 4-2 Slide sandwiched between PVC and magnets for drying (Schweingruber, 2007)
4.2 Data Interpretation
Prepared microscopic sections cut using a sliding microtome, stained with safranin, grouped together to reconstruct
the root section, and permanently mounted on slides for archiving are then photographed. Digital images of each
microscopic section should be taken using a Nikon SMZ800 stereo microscope, a Nikon Eclipse E200 light
microscope, and a Sony DXC-390 CCD camera or equivalent. Using the Inside Wood Database for Stem -Wood
Anatomy developed by the College of Natural Resources at North Carolina State University (Inside Wood), a
comparison can be made between the documented known cellular structure of an unexposed sample available in
the database to that of the exposed sample collected in the field Descriptive wood anatomy identified reliable
indicators of exposure including; increases in growth ring width, changes to more pronounced growth ring
boundary, ray widening, ray bending, vessel arrangement and frequency, and the occurrence of tension wood in
hardwoods. Quantitative wood anatomy results demonstrate that exposed roots presented significant changes in
the size and frequency of vessel, fiber lumen area, fiber lumen diameter and double cell wall thickness.
The total years of exposure is determined by counting the number of growth rings from the first growth ring
demarcating exposure to the bark. From this, the average annual erosion is calculated by dividing the recorded
distance from the root to the bank by the total years of exposure for each root (Figure 4-3).
4-2 Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP

CO
C
in.
C
-C
Annual Growth ring
,--�Exposed
Figure 4-3 Illustration of Annual Erosion Measurement (Dick et al. 2014)
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 4-3

5 Root Dendrogeomorphology Training
Session for City
5.1 Training
FNI will provide a short training session for City staff on root dendrogeomorphology field and lab analysis method.
The training will include a workshop session/presentation to provide an overview of the methodology, in -field
training during sample collection, and lab training during sample analysis. Images of known species responses will
be provided and methods for analyzing new species will be discussed. Field methods/ sample selection, handling,
preparation, and analysis will be covered.
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 5-1

6 Final Report
6.1 Technical Memorandum
FNI will provide a final technical memorandum for City staff describing the methodology and findings. The
memorandum is anticipated to include a photo log from the field collection, photo documentation of the analyzed
root samples, and the analysis and associated finds observed throughout Task 9.2.
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 6-1

7 References
City of Durham, 2018. Summary of 3-Year Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring Results and Development of Bank
Erosion Rate Curves. Durham, NO US.
Dick, B.M., Hey, R., Peralta, P., Jewell, I., Simon, P. and Peszlen, I., 2014. Estimating annual riverbank erosion rates —
a dendrogeomorphic method. River research and applications, 30(7), pp.845-856.
Dick, B. M., Peszlen I., and Peralta, P., 2014. Changes in the Anatomy of Exposed Roots of Some Hardwood
Species [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://www.swst.org/wp/meetings/AM 14/pdfs/presentations/dick%20pdf.pdf
Dick, B. M., and Jewell I., 2017. Living Erosion Pins — Streambank and Hillslope Erosion Rate Assessments using
Exposed Tree Roots [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://northcarolina.apwa.net/Content/Chapters/northcarolina.apwa.net/Documents/3%20Living%20Erosi
on%20Pins Bryan%20Dick.pdf
Dick, B.M., 2019. Getting to the Root of Erosion: Dendrogeomorphology as a Streambank Erosion Assessment
Tool [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.freese.com/sites/default/files/OCLWA-
2019 Getting%20to%20the%20Root%20of%20Erosion. pdf
Rosgen, D.L., 2001. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. In Proceedings of the Seventh
Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (Vol. 1).
Rosgen, D.L., 2006. Watershed assessment of river stability and sediment supply (WARSSS). Wildland Hydrology.
Schweingruber, F.H., 2007. Preparation of wood and herb samples for microscopic analysis. Wood Structure and
Environment, pp.3-5.
The Inside Wood Database n.d.,. Retrieved from https://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search?l1
Root Dendrogeomorphology QAPP 7-1

APPENDIX

A-1 BEHI FORM
BEHI Variable Worksheet
Stream: Reach: Cross Section:
Observers: Photos: Date:
A Bank Ht D Root Depth
Bank HalghuSank#ull Height Rooting OeptWEWnk Height
— B Bankfull Ht A Bank Ht
x a.s
1 2.5 — — Y
� op m 0.6 - --
y 2.I
-- C (A/B) E (D/A)
1.5 1 0.2
1 T3
D
5 6,2 9A 10 ° 2 4 a B 9 10
S
BEHI & BE HI
Root Dona ty srope-Stselpnes&
100
F Root Density 10d G Slope
8
a
b b
2 4 $ 6 al 9 to a '; 2 r 4 X 6 S 9W 1Q
9Ew1 BENI
Surface Pratectlan Bank Material Adjustment
100 H Surface Bedrock (Overall Very Low BEHI)
pi
Protection Boulders (Overall Low BEHI)
Cobble (-10 pts; No adjustment if sand __ _ gravel matrix > 50% of bank)
Gravel (+5-10 pts depending on % sand)
zb Sand (+10 points)
0 - Silt/Clay (No adjustment)
0 2, 4 9 6 T. 6 0W10
: 8 T. Stratification Adjustment
BENT Add 5-10 points, depending on position of
unstable lavers in relation to bankfull staae
VERY LOW1 LOW IMODERATO HIGH IVERY HIGH1 EXTREME I ADJECTIVE RATING
and
5 - 9.5 1 10 -19.5 1 20 - 29.5 1 30 - 39.5 1 40 - 45 1 46 - 50 TOTAL SCORE

A-2 SAMPLE OBSERVATION AND DESCRIPTION FORM
DESCRIPTION AND OBSERVATIONS
Sample Name:
Date:
Location:
Spp:
Bank geometry or buried depth:
Diameter:
Age:
General Notes/Observations:
Sketch of growth rings from microsections:

A-3 SAMPLE ENVELOPE LABEL TEMPLATE
Sample ID:
Project:
Species:
Buried/Exposed:
Sample Location:
Distance from Bank:
Root Sample Inside: ❑ Root Sample ❑ Disk
If Neither, Location:
Notes:
Sample ID:
Project:
Species:
Buried/Exposed:
Sample Location:
Distance from Bank:
Root Sample Inside: ❑ Root Sample ❑ Disk
If Neither, Location:
Sample ID:
Project:
Species:
Buried/Exposed:
Sample Location:
Distance from Bank:
Root Sample Inside: ❑ Root Sample ❑ Disk
If Neither, Location:
Notes:
Sample ID:
Project:
Species:
Buried/Exposed:
Sample Location:
Distance from Bank:
Root Sample Inside: ❑ Root Sample ❑ Disk
If Neither, Location:
Notes: Notes:

A-4 SAMPLE ID TEMPLATE
Sample ID:
Species:
Buried/Exposed:
Partial/Both
Sample Location:
Distance from Bank: nccu
Root Sample Inside: ❑ Yes ❑ No
If No, Location:
Notes:

A-5 Full -Size Overview Map of Root Dendrogeomorphology Sample Locations
Lf s�r� Ra I
I
I
I Butner
,,to cR '
tR are
Mva
y
Creednoor
rr
Eo L
Hillshororl9h RP.*rState I
v�
,
r ark �T
------
--- -�
-�''
i
pF
d
o
Ps Q�rnelr
k,
A"R prSlr�R,r
T S Dwham
/
r
u
s.
nurna„ R 41
R0
4� o
15
9Jr A4
Rd
Nurri
Chapel
E
Hi"
CarrhaG
I
�
tTl ��
o-
❑Lra+r
n f1
6
C fiGNlgryy
.LPL a Rn
qa
ir
j
d
r
o-
to
- i
F
Lynq An 1; rr pty
--------
r3 «!
" � o
-
-9•
a
E rn
u
t
Lytcn•+4v
/
a v t�i
4
9
V
.21
4
W Cult] Blvd n
r`l7r
C
th
_
0,11
4'
yrr a
a
❑,rr.
a
En gi ct4 God Ayc
Rry
_
d
g'L
Lawndale Ave
-
`a n
.,
tivlia IIAnT
Fri�JJ6r
a
a
T
W K n ux St
r.
8-
❑ CreslSt^
I
dq ,ty
°
G o
r
v
-
n
r /
�
Green St
t
J Location Overview Map
AcOM
CITY OF DURHAM
DENDROGEOMORPHOLOGY
STUDY
LEGEND
Site Locations
Durham City Limits
WATERSHED
= Crooked Creek
Ellerbe Creek
= Eno River
- Flat River
' Lick Creek
= Little Creek
= Little Lick Creek
Little River
Mud Creek
New Hope Creek
iNortheast Creek
' Panther Creek
Sandy Creek
Stirrup Iron Creek
Third Fork Creek
3 bt 4ry u Green St ,m
Or in ��a Sltirle aSr " a _ a } .-•i
m C
a � plats St a St Ponds and Lakes
t-a pus Waik Ave X c der St a to � rn W Markham Ave rcr �� C '�
p _ z:---. I f r = Parks
tner ouis Eltl� �r r
p� Erwin. Rd w c m c 07ic m m urb a i ry avw L
�.
x � i— — -� County Boundary N
:? nlewetF SI 6 zt a Perry St 3 r❑,1 PF Oauan Avr - 0 2,000
D ❑
i? Shelwo fo c M Monw,i 'I ^ . Feet
or
L6 4 lfifuiy Ave yl
RG Yearuy Ave l� x
l s A r-
R`;v. iQti N f:•r.vlrl Minerva Ave �
,rl:h
.� !1r LewiySl c �''fl.s. O - rn W Geer
o ` c•` `rira ✓'t. Gloria Ave
&-iratt F' e` f''rlr Y r^'a• v'?s Lamond Ave
OuFa II r r W Corporation $t _
N a (311OLtln Lyric $t
� v k0
Cerdral Broadw,2 Wake Pi
P7rk St '�' 3 - i L,,
Li (' - v„r• A:e a4, Jy .y h} Oowd St u J rlt
hr ,',', o ti ys 'IV C Huntst q _ o ncp� ¢
r �.`° ter n iJ•.4r.c-r`.::•r A:.• r �i` m W $ Gray Ave h Gt pn SI
arJ-
yu Fa r Roney narY t4� 4 . m v Junrprr St 11
G Canal [
H 4WMor }
f3 ur ttt f`ve r gin $t �7 C «. x 0-c R1 an :lr el rJ Ave
& [? in C. X n Evergreen Sl o
rrfr 2 nr; -- Chapel hull S: q3 r5 C G Vi Erd -,wry Ave fi .
a IIl !i;! ':J I:haatrl F' �i+ :• I Z 0 .. D m - �hOur"e
4r 0 2 - 7 _ ;lip _ t4• SI Inaepenrl.•
�i a''r ltowaSS N Fern St,z ¢ E t
L = a t Jr h 'Sr a Gilbert Si - Y d - !'Vmnlel
k vf, 7t N Jacksan�r nr 9. Jos a QUri1.7 z _� Ln 3
c apt+l' BJS� ti 4a Ir f .ar _ Carl Ave
rn s °err ,.. ....._ 6k Or
-
�� C a
,tee}. Yancey St -� 5 4crrys a` Grace Ev. Sty yprrnlIAv:
Parker :: .y. 4� w s
v hlurrllead Avr�..,il, �ri� ` 2 rl Lrperty S! `- rlarlpwdi' R455 Rd
M.-.,.. ..,., .. F , '.I.... rnktopkrns $s4 j st n
Joyland
S¢tt MVu7.0 Avrrinv• W 41 Gci�'rner° r a
o �{� t ..I c S v n .I "
t, ` # , ,AhDaa- _ _ + r'� ar sr r -i[ 2 r. ,6e, y is r
GS s y plkc sr � F _ v51 �podst - D ' W rsGuingat�c S1 y i¢ � N r Rachell,lS U
G to Ll F n
I c� BiUrvn o Ne'`� °rlry
� Q GpttAVe�
�ry R.w - - 4 o n r Sr rrya Cr
4 Et V �: n. 4 ds nrJ ti' ; y m a 011oy1
Aye Ava z Mozelfe :'. L D
w❑vd 4va� l } trle tyt aRa +• r •aV A - o Long Si x rn c
8rvrrrs I,tts`•,SriLt y A"Ir .Y O n E Main St r 7 rri'
7edale Ave
L a r
c V
r pr+nccSf e• � rtim °plsr ❑ _ Ng
'� Hart SS w c
r,- F!Irdrnon{ Avu 61d •¢ - p V �yt" �' 'bra
Cr
esso" A r `araeh ~ a Sr C ❑ } LS O
w tl wr v y y arc3 qrP� �„ m U - n
P 1 n n
obr' m 5 `:rl3uns Sr v - �a Arcr�rr m 'm
pr v .' �'
4 y
� r_
11 3 4 � ubGr
R d i a C L „�(t S
pr' i C W a 1'Ira
arq ,� :i d Rd Ar Ka1e ${ a F . Site N o . 1 2 .
°"are, u o° � o 'r r� a
00 dRtl a as SWIM A osyPrr r er S x o tvhy ui
_"16
� S q c r ' UT to Little Ga
•.s r 6 m
a v'f ynrl R a r
Lick Creek
� sb a z
Orr i7r
A56R a L' n
Site N o. Pineview Rd �at'd4 r t S -
S C1* �e J Hayes
13 : UT to
dp
Sandy Creek a�
• • � 7s act Dt ,� P"d ty
NrJv
Brookwood ❑r iP
Bexley At
-
ace ` Prerrr, rd° ndto ° $ LlRay
o chester br pr o �R❑� rV l ..,.G'� �+
ewottord Rd Cisco St par9+rersr �i
J S a�* Yun
r Site No.
e �
10 : Third
00 RUr '� ?
swrrari • ��Ld
s D ❑va
Fork Creek f Brooks
SprIngdrle L•,
v The O o p` �,pihy AveAvc _ _ Bllttlt.l
fl
s6Ur a
°R a° n
--
r�
WlhOfO&� C _ y �p WIII p{yad! rasofrs
ay a CSr .4 r
or
d q
Buxt❑n 5 t A Buxton Or a h. � • r, :
�. 4 N -I � r �, •
0 ❑
-
ILI
e
c Larchwvvd Or -
''
tyard Lks =
ra H a y t7akrrtc --
� O L c
/ C0 wab .13
o sts att0sd �akg. ,.. t • •rPktwy T I:
flu Brown GenturY Os' T °s
U n I., icrock Ur
a ° e
�C 't
o Allie t a: �v 1 c 55 nway ❑r m
Leed4ri a' 4A,
� V N p Q � $ n oral Dr
2 ` 6q psi •or a a1, c Qi 4d
a a U
o L~ �41rclle Ai CXk Way o ��r R t u` H
76 t�cLo
<4
a Langford tL a IJrlrted ❑r 114
"Oa ❑r td 9ty� pc�7r �,.r? rp❑ � �
'l a11e R
i d ` 7 °� pP m ypy c'1
�M'drfhrnur•. y �0❑ ❑ `� wi/ ac -fi
`7Avr _ on W' 7
yor4s lei a� r04 J h R(! k'Y� . r
;Jyntrssddr r ti 4�+� S`4 r�r, a�s�� c 4 a O Few
oati er�4 m c c c9slde Dr Tarr 1 11) # } o
t❑0 ' a c C 't]` C't ;-'.ne-aline I_ e s a,
gtlxtdn Ln a 0 p� y} o Sh-a a sQ ❑ �c i a Far Df i n
t ¢ V p� r U ❑ a ¢ E
n❑to d� r h. .Q x R a
.. �o* �pn ,`y 'rhd .. .
4 ., G
' 4op c`' J fSan
o „ r4 c Q Qs Y q
'•' �. r ~� Br ss}3eld
%r f ssey [tl
_ n 4d
Z pr yu
G A Q b G
n s q
A yl�
O r Q TWAlckarrder,'
If
n U
0
7
m
U)
--i
/ V
501
/ 501
•,,+.,1Vn and A: e
Site No.
a •
2 : UT to x
I, �
EI lerbe Creek
t ,
o -
3
to Englewood Ave
Everett pl [Julaa Psrh .i l
� R Y ❑ [1 l t~J
a - g Knax � cedar
u Ga
1s, N!r nao Array��
IS
G L
LT�'a9
Pt� "Sin�
S �
v
r
OSph tR
Ort6"
c
1
�,. ,.,•..
gyp❑ �3 Q �'
'
;,.
7
ern p
�esdhall � •
9]
a....•.
�,tr ...
��
�'`
.;
r❑
a Re0 Werivewoo
.i
L0 1% R Vol nyu7r[lpl
b
cir
r/p
am
A
rV 71 e,.
SI`
�l•
n
cat A +rrS
c Rd
�
a°n
rkfr''
r-
E Wo crott Pkwy
Men rc' -
"
Rnay Y4Y�
QQ
n Carpent
Flcicher Rd
F'arlrHath�p
1
�pssdlary akvey
n A440fn V1Arig°�
2
Wlndcrest Rd
a A r
Ab rj
F '
fi
Lis°
C
It
°
a trrpCrechking' 1
y .ram,
,kwy
quo
yL ?
b
-
o
Forge Rd 1-�
Excha7�
�c9
E*`t
Mtrrldlan pkv r
a
�±
pt
^vplollian \
.
John RfpNc
•' ...
y Morehe an 1!1
,s
3
v-
a
-
Lowes Gr
1
t _
-
L
ti +
fl
a
n
a
i
_ r
v
- x
a
M❑�i
pl• �_

APPENDIX A-5
Root Sample Photos
(Electronic Submission)