20010849 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20080311

Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration
EEP Project No: 180
2007 Draft Annual Monitoring Report
6th Year of Monitoring
J
k- 0
R
7
.mot
}
Submitted to: NCDENR/Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
014
r" .6 ... F.
M

February 2008
RECEIVED
MO7-2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENTPROGRAM
..7*A
NCDENR
?J

TABLE OF CONTENTS
F7MRuniniel,
W &-. Klepper
KA fl.
Prepared by: Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP
Consulting Engineers
900 Ridgefield Dr., Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
Design Firm: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
1.0 Executive Summary/Project Abstract
2.0 Project Background
2.1 Location and Setting
2.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives
2.3 Project History and Background .
2.4 Monitoring Plan View . .
3.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
3.1 Vegetation Assessment .
3.1.1 Soil Data.
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Areas
3.1.3 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View
3.1.4 Stem Counts
3.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos .
3.2 Stream Assessment.
3.2.1 Procedural Items
3.2. La Morphometric Criteria
3.2. Lb Hydrologic Criteria
3.2. Lc Bank Stability Assessment
3.2.2 Problem Areas Plan View (Stream)
3.2.3 Problem Areas Table
3.2.4 Numbered Issue Photos Section
3.2.5 Fixed Station Photos
3.2.6 Stability Assessment Table
3.2.7 Quantitative Measures Tables
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
1
1
1
1
2
3
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
1
TABLES
Table I. Project Structure and Objectives Table.
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History.
Table III. Project Contact Table
Table IV. Project Background Table
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates .
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .
Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Site Map.
Figure 2 Aerial Watershed Photo.
Figure 3 Monitoring Plan View
APPENDIX A - VEGETATION RAW DATA
A.1 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View
A.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Photos
A.3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX B - GEOMORPHOLOGIC RAW DATA
B.1 Problem Areas Plan View (Stream)
B.2 Stream Problem Area Photos
B.3 Stream Cross Section Photos
B.4 Cross section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Exhibit cross section
B.5 Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
Exhibit Longitudinal Profile
Exhibit Raw Data Tables for Slope
B.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
B.7 Table B.1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
1
2
2
3
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
4
5
6
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180 11
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
1.0 Executive Summary/Project Abstract
Hominy Swamp Creek was restored through the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). The objectives of the project are to:
1.) Establish a stable dimension, pattern and profile on 2,232 feet of Hominy Swamp Creek
2.) Improve habitat within Hominy Swamp Creek
3.) Establish a riparian buffer along Hominy Swamp Creek
4.) Incorporate this project into a watershed wide management plan
The year 2007 is Monitoring Year 6 (MY6); an extension of the 5-year monitoring plan
for Hominy Swamp Creek.
Overall, while the majority of the stream is functioning well and holding grade, the
stream has areas of concern and areas of immediate need. Table X shows a summary of identified
problem areas within the project reach. Channel dimension and pattern are similar to as-built
conditions with the exceptions of the noted areas of bank slumping. Placed structures are holding
grade and functioning well.
2.0 Project Background
2.1 Location and Setting
The project is located within the city limits of Wilson, North Carolina. From Raleigh,
take US 64 BYP East to US 64 then US 264 (Wilson exit). Proceed east on US 264 to Exit 3613,
US 264 ALT East (Raleigh Road). Continue into Wilson on Raleigh Road until you reach Ripley
Road. Turn left (north) on Ripley Road and the site is immediately on the east/right side of the
road. Refer to Figure 1 for project location.
2.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives
The restoration of Hominy Swamp Creek, located within the Wilson City Recreational
Park, was conducted to correct identified system deficiencies. These deficiencies include: severe
bank erosion, channel widening, the loss of aquatic habitat resulting from stream channelization,
loss of riparian vegetation, and watershed development. The goal of the project is to develop a
stable stream channel with reduced bank erosion, efficient sediment transport, enhanced warm
water fisheries, and improved overall stream habitat and site aesthetics. Construction of the
project was completed in September 2001.
Table I. Project Structure and Objectives Table
Project No. 180 (Hominy Swamp Creek)
Segment Reach ID Mitigation Type Approach Linear Feet/Acreage
Hominy Swam Creek Restoration Priori 1 2,232 feet
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
2.3 Project History and Background
data.
Tables II, III, and IV provide the project history, contact information and background
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project No. 180 (Hominy Swam Creek)
Activity or Report Calendar Year of Completion or Planned
Completion Actual Completion
Date
Restoration Plan 2001
Mitigation Plan January 2003
Construction September 2001
As-Built Report June 2002
Initial - Year 1
Monitoring January 2003
Year 2 monitoring December 2003
Year 3 Monitoring December 2004
Year 4 Monitoring December 2005 draft March 2006 final
Year 5 Monitoring December 2006 (draft) January 2007 (final)
Year 6 Monitoring December 2007 (draft)
Table III. Project Contact Table
Project No. 180 Homin Swam Creek)
Designer KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 11, Suite 200
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Construction Contractor Not rovided
Planting Contractor Not provided
Seeding Contractor Not provided
Seed Mix Sources Not provided
Nurse Stock Suppliers Not provided
Monitoring Performers (Years 4, 5 & 6) Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
900 Ridgefield Drive, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27609
Stream Monitoring POC Howard Woodall, P.E.
919-878-9560
Vegetation Monitoring POC Howard Woodall, P.E.
919-878-9560
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
Table IV. Project Background Table
Project No. 180 (Homin Swam Creek)
Project County Wilson County, North Carolina
Drainage Area 5.4 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) 30%
Stream Order 3
Ph sio ra hic Region Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Rollin Coastal Plain
Ros en Classification of As-Built E5
Cowardin Classification PSS 1 Ad
Dominant soil types Bibb Loam (Bb)
Reference site ID Hominy Swamp Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 3020203020040
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and
Reference 03-04-07 Neuse River Basin
NCDWQ Classification for Project and
Reference C; Sw, NSW
Any portion of any project segment 303d
listed? Yes - From its source to Conentnea Creek
Any portion of any project segment
upstream of a 303d listed segment?
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Impaired biological integrity; Stressors not
identified (Potential sources: Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers)
% of project easement fenced 0
2.4 Monitoring Plan View
See Figure 3 for Monitoring Plan View.
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
I inch equals 2,000 feet Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Wilson & Winstead Crossroads, NC
t,�...., �,.a.. � try- �.�... • �-.j.F" ,i
r^+ N
i�,
W VV
y++ • {yj b
Watershed Boundar
4144 +
1
r XK
'`' '" _ " a►°' Digital Elevation'Model , .,
• ,a
"
u
40
9:r
IP-
44
V 1�!
> i �•
t + t
z A
� y vp
-y�s•P�`—
�
'
i #
IIS. ` ✓. i • i,. � � _ �r �" .; ��
e 4 1
$ z
[Project Location a
t
+ ~t
r,
��ii" ' 4 ?'�' • � 1
�'•� " - */' �" .� NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Produced by: RUK Engineers '
w
06
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration
EEP Project No: 180
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 x Aerial Watershed Photo
J
Feet
lgMiles { " ' ° __�� Monitoring Year 6 of 6
-.
0 1 - December 2007 Figure 2

' lR i1 LL\ 1Y• lU V1YlUVW11Y Vll O W1111U J• I
0996-949-616 :auogd E auf10I3
60942 ON 'g8!alea o
096 a1!nS - m
an!-I0 Pla!JaBP!H 006 KVZI00?Id E
5jaau!8ua 8u!lInsuoa INHWHONdHNH WHISAS003 °w
dTl LiuE?I V iaddal)l `IaLutung 'O'N `AiNf100 Nosli'm ww a°
oo/oo/z 08( 1: , :Sq 8upol!uoW )IH32I0 dWVAS ANIWOH a
d33 Ol a3l155i 4 o
0
0
\N

L# 10ld\?C-
uOi}Oas
U
of
W
w
w Ln
J
a
u
U_ O
S
d
Q
7
U

O
Z
w
U
W
J
C7
?
Is Z
O
O Q? O

Z w
Z
J Z
N O > Z
W w H
Q Q? K
O O
U
O O
O
Q
M Ow
UV) O¢
UW w
J
w
>d O
O
?U 2U
z Iva
Z
t.l
U
W
J
W
W V/
V7 V)
O W V) O O

H J Q
U U 3
> U c
W Y W
d
ut 0 0 O
> 0> o
3.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
EEP replanted the Hominy Swamp Stream restoration site for 2006 (monitoring year 5).
Based upon the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation 4.0 monitoring guidelines, six
vegetation monitoring plots were monitored for vegetation success. The plots were installed as 10
meter X 10 meter plots on or near the previous vegetation monitoring plots. The results of the
2007 stem counts yielded a site average of 391 stems per acre which exceeds the minimum
success requirement of 260 stems per acre after vegetation monitoring year 5. The taxonomic
standard used was "Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas" by: Alan S.
Weakley.
3.1.1 Soil Data
The Bibb series consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils that
formed in stratified loamy and sandy alluvium. These soils are on flood plains of streams in the
Coastal Plain. They are commonly flooded and water runs off the surface very slowly. Slopes
range from 0 to 2 percent. The vegetation found on Bibb series is usually dominated by native
woodland species consisting of sweetgum, loblolly pine, red maple, water oak, willow oak, green
ash, baldcypress, swamp tupelo, and black willow.
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
Project No. 180 Homin Swam Creek)
Max

Series
Depth ova Clay on
K
T
OM %
Surface
in.
Bibb Loam Bb 80 2-18 .28-.37 5 .5-2
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Project No. 180 (Homin Swam Creek)
Feature/Issue Station #/Ran a Probable Cause Photo #
Plot 2 15+OOL Dead stems Appendix A.2 PI
Plot 6 17+OOL Dead stems/beaver Appendix A.2 P2
3.1.3 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View
Refer to Appendix A.1 for Vegetative Problem Area Plan View.
Homin>> Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
3.1.4 Stem Counts
The results of the stem counts yielded an average of 391 trees per acre which exceeds the
minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre after year 5 monitoring. Data for the number and
type of species initially planted in each vegetation plot to acquire initial totals is not available for
the new plots. To determine if the surviving stems met the minimum success criteria, the density
of the surviving stem counts in the plots was converted to stems per acre.
Table VII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot
Project No. 180 (Homin Swam Creek)
Species Plots Year 6 Totals Initial Totals Survival %
1 2 3 4 5 6
Trees
Quercus nigra 0 N/A N/A
Quercus lyrata $ 2 N/A N/A
Quercus laurifolia 2 5 2 11 N/A N/A
Quercus phellos 1 2 2 2 7 N/A N/A
Quercus pagoda 2 1 3 2 3 11 N/A N/A
Quercus michauxii 0 N/A N/A
Quercus alba 0 N/A N/A
Taxodium distichum 0 N/A N/A
Carya ovata 0 N/A N/A
Ilex verticillata 0 N/A N/A
Nyssa sylvatica 2 1 3 6 N/A N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 1 2 N/A N/A
Cornus florida 2 1 3 N/A N/A
Viburnum dentatum 0 N/A N/A
Amelanchier
canadensis 0 N/A N/A
Cercis canadensis 2 2 4 N/A N/A
Clethra alnifolia 2 2 1 5 N/A N/A
Itea virginica 2 1 2 5 N/A N/A
Caphlanthus occidentalis 1 1 N/A N/A
Salix nigra N/A N/A
3.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Photos are located in Appendix A.
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
3.2 Stream Assessment
3.2.1 Procedural Items
3.2.1.a Morphometric Criteria
Dimension - Previously established cross-sections were surveyed for comparison to past
measurements.
Profile - The longitudinal profile of the restored stream was also surveyed for comparison to the
previous monitoring survey. Since the total restored length is less than 3000 feet, the entire reach
was surveyed.
3.2. Lb Hydrologic Criteria
Two bankfull events must be recorded during the 5 year monitoring period in order to
meet hydrologic criteria.
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
Project No. 180 (Hominy Swam Creek)
Date of Data Date of

Collection
Occurrence Method Photo #
1/5/2002,
1/22/2002, Unknown Manual Crest Gauge N/A
1/3/2002
11/2004 Unknown Visual and Manual Crest Gauge N/A
4/2006 4/2006

10/2006
Unknown Visual and Manual Crest Gauge N/A
3/2007 3/2007

10/2007
Unknown Visual and Manual Crest Gauge N/A
3.2.1.c Bank Stability Assessment
Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
Project No. 180 (Hominy Swam Creek)
C
.O
Q ?
v U L o a,
y OD a+
E
?bA
i'
'3
^ a ?,
O
E
'
W E?
? ? aY;;
a O u y
YC
?
?+ o
O °
a a
W
?
?. W W ? ?
H
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton

Post Con. Reach I 2,232 If 17 0.8 31 1.3 35 1.5 80 3.5 2069 92.8 57
Project

Total 2,232 If 17 0.8 31 1.3 35 1.5 80 3.5 2069 92.8 57
3.2.2 Current Conditions Plan View (Stream) - Refer to B.1 for Current
Conditions Plan View.
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180 9
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
3.2.3 Problem Areas Table - Table X below provides categorical feature issues
by station, the suspected cause, and denotes the number of a representative photo of the condition
(Appendix B).
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Project No. 180 (Hominy Swamp Creek)
Feature/Issue Station Suspected Cause Photo
Numbers number
Aggradation/ Bar 04+90 - 05+50 Upstream bank scour and watershed disturbance P33, P34
Formation 06+60 - 06+90 Upstream bank scour and watershed disturbance P30, P31
Bank Scour 14+80 - 15+20 Upstream bank scour and watershed disturbance P14
02+70 -02+80 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack P42
bank vegetation root mass
02+75 -02+85 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack P41
bank vegetation root mass
07+90 -08+05 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack P27, P28
bank vegetation root mass
08+85- 09+15 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack P24
bank vegetation root mass
13+50 - 13+70 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack P17
bank vegetation root mass
16+45- 16+55 Lack of Riparian Buffer, overland flow, lack PH
Harvested Trees bank vegetation root mass
03+30- 03+40 Trees removed from stream bank via human P38
intervention
03+70 -03+80 Trees removed from stream bank via human P37
intervention
08+80 -08+90 Trees removed from stream bank via human P25
intervention
3.2.4 Numbered issue photos section - Refer to B.2 for photos.
3.2.5 Fixed station photos - Refer to B.3 for photos.
3.2.6 Stability Assessment Table
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Project No. 180 (H min Swamp Creek)
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06
A. Riffles 100% NA NA NA 33% 33% 33%
B. Pools NA NA NA NA 88% 88% 80%
C. Thalwe 100% NA NA NA 60% 60% 60%
D. Meanders 100% NA NA NA 67% 67% 67%
E. Bed
General 100% NA NA NA 96% 96% 96%
F. Vanes/J
Hooks etc. 100% NA NA NA 90% 90% 90%
G. Wads and
Boulders 100% NA NA NA 93% 93% 93%
3.2.7 Quantitative Measures Tables - Refer to the following pages for Table
XII (Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary) and Table XIII (Morphology and Hydraulic
Monitoring Summary).
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration, Project no: 180 to
RK&K Engineers, December 2007
Final Monitoring Report, Year 6
M Op l? M ai cC N cz O O m N m
N MA (V M Q? ao C C O C Q F."
O
.O ? ? ? M ? DD O ? ? ? ? c\d O ? ? r RS Cd ? M RS cd ? ? c\3 c\3
N L," N C O F

?. "0 00 C,4 cC cC cC ~ m O
N O v7 N M 00 N C .-. L." L." C M D\ O ?"
N O v'i
'n M V Vl
n vl
00 cd \d N a5 O O N cV
A N C C O C C
O
C
\
m
cO
cC
cd
cO
c\O
\
v'i
cC
cd
cd
cd
cC
M
N
cC
'n
cz
A 'Z"i C C C C Q ?' G' C N C C C N C C oo N .? O C W ?
~ N O
c
C m c
d a3 c
C ccz N ca cO cC kn cd cC
?" \
? Q C \
C C C \
Q Q ? O° C C C M 4\ C C
CU ca r-?
00
?
'b
ca al

O ?
U
C
61
L
C
w G
as ca
?
L
?

\a

a

ro

a

a

s

o

\a

a

ca

C13

ca

a

E
N

a
" ?' C G C C C C C ? M ? C ?' ? N ? ? C C C
~ O C W C
u r/? o
0
?
L L
r4
cC
?,.:,' c\O c\C c\C cC c? cd cO cC M c\d
\
co
cd
cci
cd
O

? ^ N
u ?

.
u
u
? s
.
ce ?
L
^? a C o 00

C V
] O
Rf ?
O JC C C 'O
L
C p l+ O

C. ?..?
w ^C3 cC
\ cd cd cC m
\ cO
\ ca O
M O
[? O
\ O 00 cu C13
\ cC
\ cC
\
O cd
\ b ca

00
.?
L
U o

O r1r ?
W
?
z
W C ? c\C \O ? ? c\d ? c\d \ M ? \d \ cd ?p cd cC cd
L C C G' G C Q ? C ? ,-. C ? C N C G'
W a

67

O

b
N

L
7
U ?

? L
U
O FC ?
Q

ai

'O
N
CC 'c?
Q
U
7
ea
k
?asr

C

c? CC \ `i `i • y ?" L
0 0 a a y u b o do ao ?n o I ?t aq aq v u " W
? 3 ¢ Q A 3 ? b o b b ? ? o o
L w ° x e c . ? > 3 a s
`" ?' ° v
E o w b y y b ° 3 ? ca
w
0.
0
x U v w
a; C w o ,
3 U ca ?
a s ,
a
o

A ? d a
A. w r

r
F.
e =
y
u } F.
S ? g
an 62 _
a
S

r
r
S
2
i
S

- i
F
c e S _
n, 6A,
U
Y
F.

t.
fi ?
S
2
a
E
ti

- r
F.
?U -
S E }

2A -f
s °
c }
y S F
y
O L ?'
x
x

? ? r r
S
k U
r
_ F
i
S n

}
S T 7 67-
r
S
f
5 33. A
-
S

r
y _ - }
S
x
F.

x
h
e
v
}
S
?0 1 c Q G
} p
S ?
z ? z E E - - s

i J z = U c c ?
.
E
c ? ?
N m
a a
a c
i E
a m
d c
i
APPENDIX A - VEGETATION RAW DATA
A.1 VEGETATIVE PROBLEM AREA PLAN VIEW
I .dxipuaddd LOOZ.?aqwaaa(j
?-
S 3o 9 lua'k 5uiaoliuo"
uoi a
+r ,: •1 akA
t? .7
M V ?: rt :o 133fo?
?j x s +?, - » 081 N d dFF1
uou uoisara weaajs dwiams XUIWOH
saamh3 A78A21 :6q paanpoad ALI*
` ;? w0old, auawaauuqu3 wals.fsoag )N
e »' ` ; ?.. ..s,'Y 'r r?'. 09Z > junoo wa}g Q.
i .
-< unoo uaajs
iGe uno uol a a6a
401d' jr (lllnq-sy) 6aMlegi
ELI
(1Ilnq-sy) aaleM 10 a6p3
air
WeA&
p 111 w;. a pueBe
` F "
IF PF
Sold , y
Ayr,
Z Sold. s
1 \ X M# Y 4" "' t +?? fk
IVA
two ,O;Oo*
ohpi
i ,1 ?A i ?r RZ?n .r
£ fold;
71
`fir j,? f ! Rte..
sr # . {?lH•
1 4 4 5.,. 4.1 1 4i ,.v '•" l? .) a _Ay, k .l ? pt A,
ik,
'' ? ,?`?' ? . ??iv.? ? -r ?t i, •,1: It ? r a r:?^.jR' ? ? r???,~? rK?.
46, do
41
• ^4 t` r v?ti lY 1, / f 1r + "t.? `'4 `la
41
+ ?« ,fir' y 4? ! _
j? .. ? ?t, ??}?,??, ?? • , ' Mfr-,t, ? -? .N? ? •? ,t - '?' t. f'N
44' of
*lie
??"??: i ! `?? 4 "? r y, S fold.
rIf' v
• 1
r. r
?All? 4A
of t
b fold t v Y r '" «
JY 0?-
r'. ° X15 5 ', ` l° `.•
I, Lo
t4ir',
i 4
? ? ` _ y;+ ad`s ? • ?' ?a ? -.;
• ?« ? ??.? ? ? ?? ? ?'` ?`?` fl '? ...4..?'' •. t ?? ter ?'
?: l -+ ? p?,. ' 3..?? ?. ? *+ ? •?. _ ,fir ? ?:
140
?1 fi
?. f? t'?t..{? ??XS.y ni,• a'f ? .?,?• ??` ? .-s11; t0' lip v; i A' °I
?G
A.2 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS PHOTOS
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2

r

a :
t
*kel j.,
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6
A.3 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1
?? ?LkM
! ..
81
Nkk
fvs
f :.
Y
j:,l?.a ? ?? gWb? •, u p' ?? 4?t.
. i^ 7^ ,. % + 1 ? 3.f ti' 4 ? tR%y fir: y .Xt
r'4µ' ? ??w ,'4?.. $`i? ?<. ,?'•.'?A?r wi'?
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2

rs

? ..*eA4
s'
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3
?,IC
777

K

a
t ? ?4

k
r;.
r

Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4

Vegetation Monitoring Plot 5

¢w * # t µ ti 114* s v t
cry ?^ «. •?.? L'? .+' ?a ; ?.. sj
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6
APPENDIX B - GEOMORPHOLOGIC RAW DATA
B.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
P42 - Right Bank Erosion
Y'
P38 - Right Bank Harvested:Trees .4
`1507,-
.r
+ Pilot 4'
P37 - Right Bank 4arnve,stecleTrees I.
P41 - Left Bank Erosion
P28 - Right Bank Erosion f `r
.. Plot 5 w l
+ y y•
P27 -JRi ht Bank Erosion
.Air
*" r
♦-
4 r,
J N
W C`��E
4 , r
I
S �
P34 - Aggradation
Q .*.
P33(A'ggradation
Z1 - A'aradat o'n'
P30 - Aggradation
.4
s-'
Legend
Feature Issues ,
Aggradation - Concern P24 - Left Bank Erosion
Aggradation - High Concern
Erosion - Concern P25 - Right Bank Harvested Tree
Erosion - High Concern "
Harvested Trees - Concern �. t y �' - " �4` ti ,„,
Edge of Water (As -built)
Thalweg (As -built) ''«''w _
Easement Boundary �' .y, J *•
Vegetation Monitoring
Q Stem Count >= 260
0 Stem Count < 260 ,t
r
EFystem Enhancement Programarjtia.,%0ced by: RK&K Engineers .l. : ,,h �'��Gr, Sregti
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration �• Sree
EEP Project No: 180 Plot 3 �` r
Current Condition
Plan View . '• ,,,,� `�
r.0. 75 150'
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6)
Fe;et P17 - Le
.,.
December 2007 Appendix
BA -
December

_Mew
01A E
00
y7`? # i
a i f
It-
`.?•
care .?
Plot 3 k
a ?
' P17 - Left BarilrEros
' yq1- y ? ? ? S r *' Y a ( ? e
• •Ti
014 -,Aggradation
71 Plot 2
14
P11 - Left BankErosion
;,!, VWAZ
6?
... Plot'
q• P y _
41 wil
Ti-, it
p?ad
w
a
,
t x., a
y ,
Plot 1
Legend -??`'` t
Feature Issues
Aggradation - Concern
y i
A radation High Concern
iniuuiu $ wr `l,, i ,
Erosion - Concern h?
144. 41
Erosion - High Concern
Harvested Trees - Concern
w ?. ?..
Edge of Water (As-built) - r
Thalweg (As-built);'` w s ~•
Easement Boundary
a
Vegetation Monitoring
C 4r
f
Stem Count >= 260 i, C
• ,
FmW Stem Count < 260 x. •x„ l
4
" - NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program ? 1 I r ?" , " ? f ;t it ; ? •' 'F ,?* 1
s . d.
Produced by: RK&K Engineers ' 'f C r I ,
ilk Ift
? y
Hominy Swamp Stream Restoration ? '?`' •' ' •
EEP Project No: 180 f n ?? ?`.f ; " •;, ,?. - t
t
AA,
Current Condition L
Plan View f 4x
?
.? 0
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) .. 75 5()?.t».
December 2007 Appendix B. ] y;Feet " ' ?rt.
B.2 STREAM PROBLEM AREAS PHOTOS
P11 -Sta 16+75, right bank erosion, 10/22/07

P14 - Sta. 15+25, aggradation, 10/22/07

Y?

!

ti

&µ
P17 - Sta. 13+75, bank erosion/tree harvest, 10/22/07
yR '
w
1
t d .. M1 ' :d 4 i• §'3 s. ' a
S?x
17 ik
4-7
4'.
P24 - Sta. 9+10, right bank erosion, 10/22/07
'ji
- 4 y ) i, . E e
'N' LA

Ache
P25 - Sta. 8+90, tree harvest, 10/22/07

P27 - Sta. 8+00, left bank erosion, 10/22/07
',fit

P28 - Sta. 7+90, left bank erosion, 10/22/07
X-t
r ?
P30 - Sta. 7+20, aggradation, 10/22/07 ? TI,
41
iYn+ N .
Y _10

P31 - Sta. 5+95, aggradation, 10/22/07

JYi•5!
P33 - Sta. 5+30, aggradation, 10/22/07

P34 - Sta. 5+00, aggradation, 10/22/07

P37 Sta. 3+75, tree harvest, 10/22/07
Y m:r .
? y
y?rr Lam'. q..' S A?. ,..RY..? ? ?. •/r A, ? ? a' _ ({ ? ,? _ y •?
TyZ
J` 3
P38 - Sta. 3+40, tree harvest, 10/22/07

P41 - Sta. 2+75, tree harvest, 10/22/07

!, 7A
44
v
vow
Asi . L d ?'Lr ?lw
P42 - Sta. 2+65, left bank erosion, 10/22/07
Ile

a
?

c
x
iw
e x
B.3 STREAM CROSS SECTION PHOTOS
Hominy Swamp Cross-Section Photos
Cross-Section 1 at Station 6+30
Upstream View, 11/28/2007
F
*t i
r s.

Cross-Section 2 at Station 13+40
Upstream View, 11/28/2007

f rNN
fa
Cross-Section 3 at Station 14+1(
Upstream View, 11/28/2007

k==may

L A'iy
r

1
Y
?#
? yd !

Cross-Section 4 at Station 19+90
Upstream View, 11/28/2007
BA CROSS SECTION PLOTS AND RAW DATA TABLES
FP?
9
h
E
z
G'
d

G
'A
?
Y
Z m

` Y Y
Z m
m

3" 3
z° s s

- z° s m

?I
V
a
O
U
Q
O Q
V
Y
GO
O
.•r
0
- N
O
O
0 =
oc U)
1`
O
O
N
v
7
CA
O
?O N
Z
L
u ?
N o
0
A N
O
7
0
0
N
O ?
N ?
N
O
O
N
7
O
O O
N
O
(hL'.I;!gae - iaa;) uogUn31:j
?q

- Y
L

?-

_ . - .. - - - - - _ _

Y

? $ 4
- Y Y
G 9 ..

W
e?
1•?
1 U
i.•I
V
1 •?
? Q
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
v
L
p
o r
c O
r O
N
0
Y
W
O y
h
0
O
O
R
O
O
M
0
O
N
>
L
O
O
N
L
O
M
O
O
N
L
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
0
O
0 O
N
O
^ I
0
O O C O O O O C O O
? d' M N r+ O O? 00 r ?O
O O O O O O Q? O? O? Q?
(tae ?alq ?e - pa3) UOIIUA313
+ce E ?. !
1 ' ?J
•F
C
S = '
V
O 'x
' U
? a
a E
0 3
U rA
i
v? E.
;-A O
U x
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
0
0 O
O N
r
0 c
0 O
? N
4
0
? N
A
o ?
o ?
0
0
N
O ?
O y
M >
M
O
O
N
O
O
N ?
N
O
O O
O N
+ O
O
O O O O O O O O O O O
?O ? ? M N .? O O? 00 r ?D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O? O+ O? O?
('uycA;!q, - 3aaj) noi;?8nal3

Z. Cl

Z Y

Z

Y
Z s
7, 7?
r
z' s

'4 ;T 41
z z
----- --.'
=
-
--
-- -
-
--
?_?

O
0 ?t O
W
O
V
0
0
x
0 0
0
O N
0
O
N
?Fn LI
O ? VI
O
i+ O
? N
A
O L
Q
M
O
O
N
O
O
M
N
O
O
N
O
O
N ?
L
7
O
O
O N
O ?
O
O
O O O C O O O
?O 7 N O 00 ?O ?
O O O O O? O? O?
P'H rl rl rl
(Sie.i;!giu -;aaj) U01JEA313
0
0
0
0
0
B.5 LONGITUDINAL PLOTS AND RAW DATA TABLES
ti
O
N
r
d
L
a
c
C
0
J
O
O
N
CL
E
m
3
Cl)
0
2
1

1

I
1
1
1
ti
1
1
1
t I
11
1
t
1
1
i

1
1
1
I
1
t
1
1

1

1
t ?
11
1
ti -
1 ?

11
1
1
t
?
1 -
1
t

t

t
1
1
1
1
I

1
I

1 -
'
1
It
It
1
11
I

1
1

N;t co N ? O O 00
O O O O O 07 O
100 U 014BA813
ti O LO
O O O
O
0
O
N
0
0
LO
V-
4-
4-
C
m
(D O
N
U) \
O
\ L
N ? I
(3)
r
? J
(3)
C
0
ca
CO
O
O
O
0
O
LO
O
d'
O
4 -
Co
c >
co
CO n
ti o
o U
\
N ?
U
O
0
a)
U
co
n
L
(L) c
cu
> N
` o
L
U
- O
J
I <i
U)
U)
O
L-
C)
L
U)
\
m
? C
Q cn
of
2007 Survey
Hominy Swamp - EEP Project No. 180
TWG WS BKF
Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation
0 100.125 0.7 100.541 87.3 102.67
23.71 99.524 23.3 100.466 213.9 103.29
32.86 97.905 31.4 100.374 617.2 103.09
43.36 98.121 42.7 100.183 1175.4 101.41
53.87' 99.111 53.2 100.247 1779.9 100.34
-63.1' 98.318 58.3 100.114 1931.3 100.53
72.23 98.989 84.4 100.429 1933.7 100.99
84.38 99.437 97.2 100.432 2001.8 100.28
97.73 99.418 103.9 100.415
104.08 98.331 135.6 102.795
135.34 100.283 160.1 100.458
135.71 99.349
160.23 99.81 172.4
201.4 100.371
100.355
171.85 98.873 205.4 100.436
201.07 98.535 223.4 100.446
207.01 98.868
223.55 99.754 244.6
254.6 100.464
100.437
236.25 99.094 265.5 100.431
244.6 99.329 289.0 100.411
253.54' 97.994 306.6 100.403
266.4998.044 317.0 100.445
281.27 99.519 354.4 100.452
293.43 99.014 368.5 100.487
306.52 98.771 387.7 100.257
317.06 99.324 407.0 100.363
340.04 97.896 423.6 100.407
353.31 99.533 442.1 100.484
367.93 99.739
389.33 99.363 459.8
483.1 100.455
100.428
407.15 98.3 501.4 100.491
422.95 98.531
441.01 98.919 530.4
542.3 100.486
100.479
459.36 99.058 548.5 100.442
483.16: 99.797 570.8 100.517
501.28 99.178 586.7 100.477
512.9 97.996 597.7 100.415
513.44 97.954 618.2 100.474
531.71 99.349 628.4 100.505
541.82 99.337 647.0 100.444
551.78 97.821
566.821
98.856 667.1

691.5 100.449

100.429
- --
586.75 99.774
597.4 98.835 716.2
728.2 100.481
100.469
618.3 98.978 737.4 100.396
628.36 99.585
646.94
98.466 751.5

768.5 100.479

100.430
667.07 99.279
691.52 ''. 99.366 804.1
810.4 100.143
100.049
716.15 99.07 815.7 99.668
727.48 98.962 824.8 98.849
2007 Survey
Hominy Swamp - EEP Project No. 180
TWG WS BKF
Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation
737.07 99.115 827.4 98.782
751.59 98.195 843.7 98.717
768.6298.878 847.4 98.940
804.09 98.422 877.8 98.700
810.4 99.513 884.6 98.730
814, 98.985 903.3 98.851
823.87 98.256 915.9 98.930
828.6396.524 925.3 98.862
841.93' 97.427 942.1 99.011
847.91 98.255 960.3 98.791
860.88 97.404 968.4 98.864
873.77 98.277 988.1 99.012
884.04 97.68 1001.8 99.061
902.05
915.66 98.508
98.137 1008.0
1019.6 99.030
98.974
925.2 97.651 1026.6 99.061
942.9 98.237 1039.3 99.044
960.21 97.751 1046.1 99.029
971.22 97.586 1058.8 98.959
987.56 98.141 1075.3 98.917
1000.83 98.586 1079.1 98.928
1007.02 97.698 1095.8 98.941
1019.15 98.236 1115.6 98.937
1026.73', 97.291 1122.4 98.933
1038.51 97.643
1044.47 98.022 1133.2
1151.5 98.821
98.843
1060.41 98.338 1170.6 98.854
1075.211 98.642
1078.16 98.148 1189.1
1218.5 98.913
98.954
1094.76 97.75 1232.8 98.853
1115.57 97.44 1258.0 98.987
1122.53 98.487
1137.13 97.767 1306.2
1327.4 98.960
99.066
1151.45 97.895 1345.0 99.091
1159.57 98.476
1170.98 97.601 1347.4
1350.6 99.094
98.913
1187.84 97.614 1365.8 98.352
1216.79: 97.763 1379.4 98.338
1233.76'. 97.661
1257.63 97.875 1397.3
1413.3 98.432
98.444
1271.41 97.816 1432.3 98.747
1306.6' 97.506
1327.08 98.091 1457.7
1478.0 98.437
98.423
1345.7 98.53
1347.36; 98.945 1494.9
1501.3 98.433
98.034
1351.08 98.222 1512.3 98.379
1365.1897.094
1379.6
96.287 1521.1

1528.7 98.383

98.434
1397.67 96.583 1542.3 98.375
1413.08 97.452
1432.38 98.386
1458.05 98.117
1478.61 98.104

1495.52' 98.043 1575.0
1587.1
1602.0
1606.2
-
1616.7 98.385
98.421
98.392
98.507
- --
98.320

2007 Survey
Hominy Swamp - EEP Project No. 180
TWG WS BKF
Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation
1501.3' 95.965 1627.4 98.433
1512.37 96.459 1638.7 98.420
1521.54 96.76 1651.8 98.298
1528.14 97.125 1656.3 98.061
1542.59 97.099 1665.4 98.189
1557.421, 97.961 1678.8 98.317
1574.73 97.076 1697.0 98.305
1587.11 97.407 1710.8 98.335
1601.66 96.993 1735.5 98.327
1606.24 97.785 1746.4 98.154
1616.92 97.264 1763.8 98.253
1627.1 97.936 1779.1 98.159
1638.15 97.439 1785.7 98.257
1641.08
1652.26 98.29
96.18 1804.9
1817.4 98.119
98.254
1657.57 94.702 1831.4 98.338
1666.25 95.724 1841.1 98.284
1678.86 96.943 1844.5 98.213
1696.63 96.562 1854.9 97.081
1712.05 97.409 1873.7 97.575
1735.83 97.122 1882.3 97.478
1747.89 96.265 1894.3 97.333
1762.49 97.22 1901.5 97.538
1779.18 95.729 1922.8 97.197
1787.39
1804.12 96.179
97.076 1945.7
1960.7 97.366
97.299
1818.39 96.812 1975.0 97.253
1831.68 97.277
1841.38 97.27 1989.2
2008.4 97.323
97.547
1844.25 97.844 2032.9 97.498
1855.66 97.645 2062.4 97.348
1874.19 97.077
1881.261 95.961 2078.7
2081.5 97.536
97.509
1894.73 95.497 2098.3 97.367
1902.28
1918.43 96.022
94.202 2130.5 97.422
1921.8911 94.243
1944.89 95.067

1960.54 95.068
1975.49 95.602 _
1989.8 96.436
2007.96 96.107
2033.38 96.778
2057.88 96.713
2071.26 96.663
2080.26 96.517
2086.431 95.443
2090.95 95.51
2101.95 96.33
2117.55' 95.677
2124.43 95.653
2133.44 96.408
B.6 PEBBLE COUNT PLOTS AND RAW DATA TABLES

.r
O
L
U)
(0
CO
Q T
C C)
a o
0 Lr
N C
Z o
o CO
? U cn
U
O
O
(0
N
Y LO
O ?
CD
U O
ap
(0 0
3 O
o O
Z 04
C U M
T
O ^? T
_ ^
i
C
7
0
U
N
W
4.
U
't
U)

W
U_
(D
CU
a-
16
I
0
N
E
U

number of particles
O N O O LO O O
0
C.
0
3
3
3
)
a
U

V
6
----------------
I I
o
I I
I I
I I
r I I
0
I

)
I I
U
0
0
0
O
O
E
N
N
O N
a?
U
r
m
CL
N O ? O O O
O O O O
ti
H
T? O O ?
C > Q p
CU n
0
U O
C
O
7
L
N
(n
M O N
O Lri p
C C tp
? O N
?_ L C
N
Q N
L Y
-0 U)
O
0 CO
00 O N
0 M LO
^

E 0
0606 T CO
C
4) O LO O LO It LO
N r M LO (0 00 M
O 0 0000 cc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 M 00 O (0 O OV O O O O
uey; aaug fueojad
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O C) CD O
U T r T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
0
N
m 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
? o ? 0 0 0 0 ?? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r•
T
0
73 0 O
O O
O

E N LO
C
C

O O N N Ln 00 O (0 N N N It 00 (D
;I- O M
O =3
O

M
O O O O T
N"T O 00 T (0 N N M
T T N CO d' 't O N 00 LO (0 - 0 0 0
(0 0) r T N M M T N - U U
a) -70
N LO LO U) T N t (0 CO T (0 N N LO It O CO O (0 N N ? 00 0
O O (0 N N
O T T N CO It (D O N CO Ln (0 T N T
(0
N H O ?- T N CO L() O O
(n O O T N
> 'a p D a
(0 C C C C N N
C Q) N O N N 4) O N 4 _O N N N O N Y C O
>
> > > > > > > > > Q -O -0 'a -0 -0 U M O U
i0 N (La (L0 (Lo (L0 -0? ? ? -D -0 -D 75 5
0 o - y=
0 m ai
M m 0) a) CD 0) 0) (M 0)0) 0) o 0
o O o O o o 0 ? ?
C C
7 in
4 L N N N 0) Q) N 4) _ N /?, .Q Q

W
L (0
w N (6 w O 7 L L i i (0
O) M (0 E 0 O .? N
- C
(0 o
O
(D > i i O
> a)
> m > >
>

f0
M
Q M
+? C T
O ,t
O U
U m
N U) c
o
o CO
L
U
O
C
0
c?
0
N
E
CO
P
U)
Y LO
O LO
C)
U O
CO
E ti
(n O N
C U OM
T
? O T
U_
CO
CO
a
O
0
CD
7
E
3
U
i
number of particles
O LO O O
M N N ?
0 °o
0
0
O
O
O
CO N N o 0
O°
O T O O
H
>, 70
O O N
CO C: > U CO _0
fn O al U O
-0
0
0
O O
.
E O M p
E
a)
O U) fn
a) 0 CO 0 cn
U N C
a (T ca-
In Y

0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O) of ? O Ln V M N
uey; jauy;uawad
U
3
J

u
D
D

0
6

o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I ---------
I I
I I
I I
i I
?, I I
6
J I I

_
I I
U7 ti It
T CO CO T 00 It
O O O `- M
E
O Cfl LO O LO Kt LO
N T M M Cfl CO O
O O O O 0 0
E ?0?0 0 e ? 0 ? e 0 ? ?0e
0? 0 e 0 0 0 0 0? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O CD O O CD O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O o
O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O
U T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
0
m
G
?'
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
T .

O O
O O
O
E
E N LO C C

a) Q0 C\j U') T
O N LO N M O CO CN N E Co (.0
d) M
O
O

O O O O T
N q CO T O N N M V O N 00 LO O T 0 0 0
T T N M O O T T N M Ln T N U U

O c
)
) )
) ) _
(0
N LO U-) LO T N T CO M T O N N M ?t O M O CO N N 0
`
O O Cfl N N
O T T T N M O O N M M (0 T N T
N p T T N M LO O O
fl
O O T N

(0
L
>` a -O
(0
N N N N L L L L
N
N
O rt
e
,`??,
Y
C "O
O
C C C C
O `
O O C>>>
O >>>>>>-0 Q-0 -0
-0 70 N 6 N
6 O U
.
LO C
U

LO (n (n
UI (n
)
_? (0
(0 (0
(n L L L
O> p) O
(0 (6 L0 t0 (0 L0 .Q ? ? ?
L L L L L L
0 0 0 0 3 O 3

O

?

'0- O
N N N
U N O O) 0 07 ??
0 0 0 0 0 L\ -?
C C _0 i
Lr-
CO 0 4) O
(D E E O N N O 0 0 Q
O
O 7 L L L L 0) 0) L 7
L
L) LH L?
L) (0 3
0 O O O O U) 'E3 -T cu E E =3
(0 L N
0
> E
m
N
E E
U
Z
> L
L L E
> O O > O
> > >
qw%

B.7 Table B.1 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
•r

Table 131. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Project No. 180 (Homin Swam Creek)
Feature Metric (per As-built and reference (# Stable) Total Total % Feature
Category baselines) Number number Number Perform Perform.
Performing per /feet in in Stable Mean or
as As- unstable Condition Total
Intended built state
A. Riffles 1. Present? 2 6 NA 33
2. Armor stable(e. . no displacement)? 2 6 NA 33
3. Facet grade appears stable? 2 6 NA 33
4. Minimal evidence of 2 6 NA 33
embedding/fining?
5. Length appropriate? 2 6 NA 33 33%
B. Pools 1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe 16* 20* NA* 16*
ag adation or migration?
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool 3* 20* NA* NA*
D:Mean Bkfl1.6)
3. Length Appropriate? 16* 20* NA* 80* 80%
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend 12 20 NA 60
(run/inflection) centering?
2. Downstream of meander 12 20 NA 60 60%
(glide/inflection) centering?
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of 11 20 NA 55
limited/controlled erosion?
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant 2 9 NA 22
point bar formation?
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 20 20 NA 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and 18 20 NA 90 67%
relief?
E. Bed General 1. General channel bed aggradation NA NA 5/85 NA 96%
areas (bar formation)
2. Channel bed degradation-areas of NA NA 0 NA NA
increasing downcutting or head
cutting?
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 25 31 NA 81
2. Height appropriate? 28 31 NA 90
3. Angle and geometry appear 28 31 NA 90
appropriate?
4. Free of piping or other structural 31 31 NA 100 90%
failures?
G. 1. Free of scour? 11 13 NA 85
Wads/Boulders 2. Footing stable? 13 13 NA 100 93%
*It is not clear in the as-builtplans the total number of constructed pools. The channel is comprised mostly
of pool sections, holding grade, and performing adequately.