20030247 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20080414

• CROSS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 2 OF 5)
Cumberland County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number 105

Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
FkoIQTJQtem
PROGRAM
Status of Plan: Final
Submission Date: March 2008
0

ECEIVED
MAR 1 4 2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
FILE
•
Monitoring Firm:

• ntec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
0
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Background
The North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program (EEP) restored 2,090 linear feet of the Cross
Creek stream channel located within the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. The site was constructed
between the dates of March of 2004 to January 2005. The following report provides the monitoring
information for Year 2 of the stream restoration project. The project consists of portions of two tributaries
of the Cape Fear River, Little Cross Creek and Cross Creek. Both are located within the city limits of
Fayetteville on City property southwest of Fayetteville State University's Campus in Cumberland County,
North Carolina. Both creeks have been impacted from development and had lost ecological functions
related to water quality and biological habitat.
The Priority 2 restoration involved re-establishing the floodplain at a lower elevation so that the
floodplain can be accessed during storm events above bankfull. The natural meander patterns were
restored based on reference reach data. Rock grade control vane structures and rootwads were
incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank stability.
Vegetation Assessment
On September 20, 2007 and October 1, 2007 the Year 2 vegetation monitoring was completed using the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) - EEP protocol (version 4.1) on eight monitoring plots previously
established by Earth Tech. The Level 2 survey (planted and natural stems) methodology was utilized.
While five plots met the 3-year success criteria of 320 trees/acre, three plots (103, 107, and 108) did not.
• If planted shrubs are used in calculating success then all plots would be successful. Plots 107 and 108 met
success criteria last year but are in an area now dense with kudzu. Plots 101 and 105 did not meet success
criteria last year but do this year; possibly due to discrepancies in past data collection. Kudzu is a major
problem along the majority of the site, primarily along Little Cross Creek. It should be removed as soon
as possible with either mechanical and/or chemical treatment to ensure future vegetative success. A few
small areas of Chinese privet are also present onsite.
Stream Assessment
On June 28, 2007 and July 4, 2007 Stantec completed the Year 2 monitoring surveys for the two restored
reaches. The locations of the cross sections for the riffles and pools set by Earth Tech were unable to be
located in the field. With several searches for the cross sections, and with the lack of data, six new cross
sections for riffles and pools were placed; 2 for Little Cross Creek and 4 for Cross Creek.
The assessment found Little Cross Creek Tributary to be stable and performing as intended with only
small minor problem areas, while the Cross Creek stream reach was found to have major problem areas
and is considered at this point to be unstable and currently does not meet the success requirements.
The Cross Creek stream reach major problem areas include a failure of the stormwater channel plunge
pool as well as a failure of an adjacent wetland pond located on the right bank near station 21+60. The
stormwater channel is undergoing massive erosion and bank migration. Failure has occurred at the outlet
entering into the main reach of the stream in the form of a scour hole, depositing sediment directly into
the main reach from erosion of the stormwater channel. The construction plans call the channel width of
the storm water channel to be 20 feet, however the surveyed measurement was found to be 40 feet. It is
• clear that the channel cannot currently hold the velocities and flow capacity of the discharge outflowing
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page i
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
from the stormwater pipe. The failure of the wetland pond is directly influenced and caused by the failure •
of the stormwater channel. A failure from the wetland pond's outlet to the main reach along with
overbank flow has occurred producing massive erosion.
It is strongly recommended that this area of the restoration project be re-resigned. The flow exiting the
stormdrain (and the energy associated with that flow) is too great for the current design. A flow splitter is
recommended to divert large storms around the facility and into a bypass channel. The bypass channel
should be designed to convey large flows and should utilize grade control structures for stabilization and
for the benefit of the receiving stream reach. Redesigning this area will decrease downstream velocities
and restore habitat in the wetland area.
Minor problem areas (SP 1-8, 11-18) were also found across the project and they can be defined into four
subcategories: structure failure, root wad failure, toe scour, and bank erosion. These problem areas can be
remediated by additional plantings and/or minor hand grading of the banks.
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page ii
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
• Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................i
1.0 Project Background ........................................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project objectives .................................................................................................................... ..1
1.2 Project structure ...................................................................................................................... ..1
1.3 Location and Setting ............................................................................................................... .. 2
1.4 Project History and Background ............................................................................................. ..4
1.5 Monitoring Plan View ............................................................................................................. ..6
2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results ...................................................................................... ..9
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ........................................................................................................... .. 9
2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas .................................................................................................. ..9
2.1.2 Vegetation Current Condition Plan View ........................................................................... .. 9
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Bank Stability ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Stream Problem Areas ........................................................................................................ 10
2.2.4 Stream Current Condition Plan View ................................................................................. 11
2.2.5 Stability Assessment ........................................................................................................... 11
2.2.6 Quantitative Measures Summary ........................................................................................ 12
3.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data
• Appendix B. Geomorphologic Raw Data
Appendix C. Wetland Data (N/A)
Appendix D. Integrated Current Condition Plan Views
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page iii
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
1.0 Project Background
The project consists of portions of two tributaries to the Cape Fear River, Little Cross Creek and Cross
Creek. Both are located within the city limits of Fayetteville on public lands southwest of Fayetteville
State University's Campus in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project goals and objectives for the Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek Stream Restoration:
• Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining its
dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water and sediment
load;
• Provide the stream with a floodplain at the stream's current elevation:
• Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures such as root wads,
rock vanes, woody debris and a riparian buffer.
• Provide wildlife habitat and bank stability though the creation of a riparian zone.
1.2 PROJECT STRUCTURE
• The project consists of portions of two tributaries of the Cape Fear River, Little Cross Creek and Cross
Creek. Both are located within the City Limits of Fayetteville on City-owned property southwest of
Fayetteville States University's Campus in Cumberland County, North Carolina. The watershed area for
this project is 25.5 square miles.
The restoration site is located entirely within a highly developed area of Fayetteville. Land immediately
adjacent to the restoration site is undeveloped, grass coved land included in the Martin Luther King Jr.
Park expansion. There are both water and sewer utilities within the project limits.
Prior to construction, both Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek had been impacted from development and
had lost ecological functions related to water quality and biological habitat. The main factors in the
degradation and impairment of the streams were the historical straightening of the channels and the filling
of their floodplains. Both reaches within the project limits were classified as G5 type channels.
The Priority 2 restoration involved converting the 2,000 8 impaired channel into a sinuous channel that
meanders for a total of 2,090 linear feet of stream (Exhibit Table I). The project also involved re-
establishing the floodplain at a lower elevation to provide access to high stream flows. Rock grade control
vane structures and rootwads were incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank
stability. A riparian buffer that varies in width from 10 feet to 280 feet was planted with native vegetation
and protected by a Conservation Easement.
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 1
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Exhibit Table I. Project Restoration Components
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105

? v
u
? °r 0
? 0
?

Q e
e .
2p .2 .
,!p?

Reach ID YE a?i
W T f3. p v .
? R
a ? C
p
Stationing
Comment
Cross Creek 1295 R P2 1376.0 1.0 1376.0 11+4.00 to 25+16.58 Instream structures and vegetated
buffers
Little Cross Creek 705 R P2 714.0 1.0 714.0 10+00 to 17.13.687 Instream structures and vegetated
buffers
Mitigation Unit Summations
Riparian Nonriparian Total Wetland
Stream (1fl Wetland (ac) Wetland (ac) (ac) Buffer (ac) Comment
2090.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 -1
R = Restoration
P2 = Priority 2
1.3 LOCATION AND SETTING
•
The restoration site is located within the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina on public land. The
restoration site is located entirely within a highly developed area of Fayetteville. The property is located
off of the Martin Luther King Freeway (formerly the C.B.D. Loop), between Murchison Road and Bragg •
Boulevard. Washington Drive and Blue Street, both off of Murchison Road, surround the project site.
The site can be accessed from either Washington Drive or Blue Street (Figure 1).
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
S
Take 1-40 East to 1-95 South. Take 1-95 South to NC 24 (Exit 52). `
Take NC 24 West to Business US-401. Take 401 North to -
Murchison Rd. Project is located at intersection of Murchison Rd.
and Business US-401. 401 w 1. F
?/ ( 1 1 \y M.
L
Via'

0
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 3
March 2008
1.4 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND 0
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105

Activity or Report Data
Collection
Complete Actual Completion

or Delivery
Restoration Plan 2002 Oct 2002
Final Design - 90% NA 2004
Construction 2004 Jan 2005
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 2004 2004
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area 2004 2004
Containerized and B&B plantings Jan 2005 Jan 2005
Mitigation Plan / As-built Year 0 Monitoring - baseline A r 2006 Ju12006
Year 1 Monitoring Nov 2006 Dec 2006
Year 2 Monitoring Oct 2007 Dec 2007
Year 3 Monitoring NA NA
Year 4 Monitoring NA NA
Year 5 Monitoring NA NA
•
0
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 4
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
•
•
Exhibit Table III. Project Component Table
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Designer Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Prima project design POC Bill Jenkins, PE 919 854-6200
Construction Contractor Backwater Environmental
2312 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27610
Construction contractor POC Wes Newell [phone]
Planting Contractor Carolina Silvics, Inc.
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Planting Contractor POC Ma -Mar aret McKinney [phone]
Seeding Contractor Backwater Environmental
2312 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27610
Seeding Contractor POC Wes Newell [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Ernst Conservation Seeds
9006 Mercer Pike
Meadville, PA 16335
Stacy Charles [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery (container plants)
3067 Conners Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
Ellen Colodney [phone]
Cure Nursery (container plants)
880 Buteo Road
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Jennifer Cure [phone]
Taylor's Nursery
3705 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27610
Richard Taylor [phone]
International Paper
55594 Hwy38 S
Blenheim, SC 29516
Gary Nelson 1-800-222-1290
Monitoring Performers (Year 0-1) Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh. NC 27607
Monitoring POC Ron Johnson [phone]
Monitoring Performers (Year 2) Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
Stream Monitoring POC David Bidelspach [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Amber Coleman [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC NA
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project- EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 5
March 2008
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Project County Cumberland
Drainage Area
Little Cross Creek/Cross Creek 10.5/25.5 s mi
Drainage impervious cover estimate % 71%
Stream Order
Cross Creek/Little Cross Creek 2nd/Ist
Ph sio ra hic Region Sandhills/Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Atlantic Southern Loam Plains
Ros en Classification of As-built C
Cowardin Classification Riverine
Dominant soil types Chewacla loam
Rion fine sand loam
Reference site ID Country Club Branch and Little Rockfish Creek
USGS HUC for Project 03030004
USGS HUC for Reference 03030004
NCDW Subbasin for Project 03-06-15
NCDW Subbasin for Reference 03-07-01
NCDW Classification for Project Cross Creek (C), Little Cross Creek C
NCDW Classification for Reference UT Cross Creek (Country Club Branch, Q, Little Rockfish Creek C
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? Yes
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment?
Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Im aried Biological Activity, fecal coliform
% of project easement fenced 0%
1.5 MONITORING PLAN VIEW
See Figure 2 for the Monitoring Plan View.
•
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 6
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
is
a
?I
g

?v f J J -._ r
??.? XSNS VP104 PT 13 14 - S---i i i
PT
p; , `® PT S 16 PT 17 18
VP107 VP100 STA eD-5e ® i
1 I VPIO VP102
PTS
t PT1
'' , p rr I t ?? . "` ay. l?s... _ ?-"t?bW4A7 = ?'?`'? : •.,?' •"J ' PT6 N PT 21 22 r
LEGEND VP1
. -•. •? ?A T 19 20 f
YEAR 02 BANK
YEAR 02 THALWEG
-EA
YEAR 02 CROSS-SECTIONS T k S -? ace
r ?
H YEAR 02 PHOTO POINTS " ?`` - wr = °-
.?? u?-1
x "'A'" A164
YEAR 02 VEG PLOTS:; 5 ?4 w? r?
®
_. `. _ ra,........ SCALE
50 0 50 104
bvr
t. fr:'A'R WWnVS AS SMavN AY W-NVS ,+itE fOR INFdRdUGM4'AL FlllfiiPXS
avy.EN<7NFER WN( 9FrFR1avF p3rc.I CF ttiaurs by FIEU4
3
W
2>
oz
?Q
J
za
Y
W-U
W<Z
a, Q_
OU
ncnz
0W0
rah
U
Q Cv
W
?W
?:D
U
z
Q
av
0
o?
UU?
Lu :o
?W
Y ?
W =?Q
W Of Zo
U wOa
I
v? n
0
F
UQd
C)? oN
:D 0\
O;N
?w
Q U
DATE
0810a/0r
PROJECT NO,
FILENAME
CROSSCREENAwg
SHEET NO,
DRAMNG NO.

2.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
2.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
Vegetative sample plots were quantitatively monitored during the first growing season. Eight 100m2 plots
were established throughout the project. In each plot, all four plot corners were permanently located with
conduit. Species composition, density, and survival were monitored during Year 0 and Year 1. On
September 20, 2007 and October 1, 2007 the Year 2 vegetation monitoring was completed using the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) - EEP protocol (version 4.1). The Level 2 survey (planted and natural
stems) methodology was utilized.
As per the mitigation plan, the vegetative success criteria are based on the US Army Corps of Engineers
Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003). The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of
260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of the year 5 monitoring period. An interim measure of
vegetation planting success will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end
of year 3 of the monitoring period.
The Year 2 stem counts within each of the vegetative monitoring plots are included in Exhibit Tables A 1
through A5 in Appendix A.
0 2.1.1 Vegetation Problem Areas
Kudzu is a major problem along the majority of the site, particularly along Little Cross Creek. It should
be removed as soon as possibly with either mechanical and/or chemical treatment to ensure future
vegetative success. A few small areas of Chinese privet, mimosa and Johnson grass are also present
onsite. For more details see Exhibit Table A6 as well as accompanying photos provided in Appendix A.
Plots 103, 107 and 108 do not meet the success criteria of 320 trees per acre. This is a change from last
year when plots 101, 103, and 105 did not meet success criteria. This may possibly be due to
discrepancies in past data collection. In at least a few occurrences, plants were found during year 2 that
were obviously planted but were not in the table for year 1. Vegetation plots 107 and 108 are suffering the
consequences of a heavy kudzu invasion. If both planted shrubs and trees were to be counted in the
vegetative success criteria then all of the plots would be well above the required 320 stems per acre.
2.1.2 Vegetation Current Condition Plan View
Vegetative problem areas are shown on the Integrated Current Condition Plan View in Appendix D.

Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 9
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
2.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
2.2.1 Hydrology
The region has been in an extreme drought for much of 2007. No evidence of bankfull flows was
observed onsite and flows were not measured with peak stage recorders. According to the Year 1
monitoring report, evidence of at least one bankfull event was observed during last year's monitoring.
However, it is unclear if this has been verified. In order to verify bankfull events, a crest gauge should be
installed onsite.
Exhibit Table V. Verification of Bankfull Events
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Date of Data Date of

Collection
Occurrence Method Photo #
2007 None NA NA
2.2.2 Bank Stability
According to the NCEEP guidelines for monitoring, bank stability assessments will be performed during
year 5 monitoring. Bank stability will be assessed using the near bank stress (NBS) assessment and bank
erodibility hazard index (BEHI).
Exhibit Table VI. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Bank stability will be assessed in monitoring Year 5
2.2.3 Stream Problem Areas
The major problem areas for this project are a failure of a stormwater channel plunge pool [Stream
Problem Area (SP) 9] and a failure of a wetland pond (SP 10). This pond lies adjacent to the stormwater
channel in the lower reach of Cross Creek (Photo 1 in Appendix B3 of Appendix B and Appendix D.
Integrated Problem Areas Plan View). The stormwater channel has produced massive erosion and bank
migration (Appendix B3. Photo 2). Failure has occurred at the confluence of the stormwater channel and
Cross Creek in the form of a blow hole. Sediment is being deposited directly into the main reach from
erosion of the stormwater channel (Appendix B3. Photo 3). The original design for this feature called for
a plunge basin, field observation indicates that this was either improperly designed or not constructed
properly. The channel cannot currently hold the velocities and flow capacity of the discharge from the
stormwater pipe. The grade that the stormwater channel approaches the stream channel is too steep. The
failure of the stormwater channel has in turn caused failure to the wetland pond (Appendix B3. Photos 4
and 5). Currently, the wetland is receiving overflow from the stormwater channel and the increased flow
has caused erosion and channel migration in the wetland much like that in the stormwater channel. A
failure at the wetland pond's outlet to the main reach and overbank flow has also occurred.
•
0
It is strongly recommended that this area of the restoration project be re-resigned. The flow exiting the
stormdrain (and the energy associated with that flow) is too great for the current design. A flow splitter is
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 10
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
• recommended to divert large storms around the facility and into a bypass channel. The bypass channel
should be designed to convey large flows and should utilize grade control structures for stabilization and
for the benefit of the receiving stream reach. Redesigning this area will decrease downstream velocities
and restore habitat in the wetland area. See Exhibit Table B 1 as well as accompanying photos provided in
Appendix B.
•
Minor problem areas (SP 1-8, 11-18) were also found across the project and they can be defined into four
subcategories: structure failure, root wad failure, toe scour, and bank erosion. These problem areas can be
remediated by additional plantings and/or minor hand grading. See Exhibit Table B 1 and representative
photos in Appendix B as well as the map in Appendix D for more information.
2.2.4 Stream Current Condition Plan View
Stream problem areas are shown on the Integrated Current Condition Plan View in Appendix D.
2.2.5 Stability Assessment
Exhibit Table VII-A. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Cross Creek
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 95% 60% 83%
B. Pools 100% 100% 79%
C. Thalwe 100% 90% 94%
D. Meanders 100% NA 81%
E. Bed General 95% 95% 86%
F. Bank Condition NA NA 82%
G. Vanes / J Hooks, etc. 95% 100% 70%
H. Wads and Boulders 100% 90% 25%
Exhibit Table VII-B. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Little Cross Creek
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 95% 60% 92%
B. Pools 100% 100% 92%
C. Thalwe 100% 90% 100%
D. Meanders 100% NA 100%
E. Bed General 95% 95% 94%
F. Bank Condition NA NA 73%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 95% 100% 71%
H. Wads and Boulders 100% 90% 67%
*Initial and MY] data are for the entire project. MY2 data is broken out by reach.
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 11
March 2008
2.2.6 Quantitative Measures Summary •
Exhibit Table VIII-A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulics Summary
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Reach: Cross Creek (1376 feet

Parameter
USGS Gage Data Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing
Condition Project Stream
Reference
Design
As-Built
Dimension Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width ft 16.0 52.0 29.4 26.0 30.0 27.4 14.5 27.4 34.2 34.2 49.6 38.6
Flood Pron
Width ft
BF Cros
Sectional Are
SF

11.6

115.0

88.6

68.8

77.1

73.2

21.1

49.1

73

67.8

113.6

70.8
BF Mea
Depth ft
1.3
6.3
2.9
2.5
3.0
2.65
0.8
2.3
2.14
1.8
2.3
2.0
BF Max Dept
ft
3.3
4.1
3.7
2.1
3.5
3.2
3.2
4.3
3.4
Width/Dep
Rati
8.8
10.3
10.0
8.4
34
16
17.3
21.7
21.0
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.25
1.9
1.6
10.5
14.9
2.7
Bank Heigh
Ratio
Wetted
Perimeter ft
Hydraulic
Radius ft
Pattern
Channel
Beltwidth ft
27.4
20
36
70
170
28
87
70
Radius o
Curvature ft
0
7
36
70
120
75
120
93.5
Meander
Wavelength
ft

0

32

325

240

479

283

377

354
Meander
Width ratio
1.0
0.67
1.8
2.0
5.0
0.82
1.75
1.81
Profile
Riffle Length 38 177 92 10.99 60.86 27.84
Riffle Sloe 0.004 0.004 0 0.0019 0.0285 0.0045
Pool Length 11.0 42.7 30.5 4.34 43.35 16.43
Pool Spacing 77 167 132 19 123 152 228 187 12.65 340.56 80.28
Substrate
d50 mm <0.62 .5-1.0
d84 mm .25-.5 2.0-4.0
Additional Rea ch Pa ramete rs
Valle Lent 1215.3
Channel
Length ft
1442
Sinuosity 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.19
Water Surface
Slope
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0030
BF Slope 0.0021
Rosge
Classification
G5,135
C5,E
C5
C
*Habitat Index
*Macro
bentho
*Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As-built monitoring plan/success criteria
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page 12
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0
•
•
Exhibit Table VIII-B. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulics Summary
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Reach: Little Cross Creek 714 feet

Parameter
USGS Gage Data Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing
Condition Project Stream
Reference
Desi n
As-Built
Dimension Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width ft 14.0 49.0 25.1 17.3 23.0 20.2 14.5 27.4 24.7 23.3 36.4 29.9
Flood Pron
Width ft
BF Cros
Sectional Are
SF

11.5

200.0

66.4

33.5

43.6

21.1

49.1

38

35.5

50.1

42.8
BF Me
Depth ft
1.2
5.9
2.6
1.9
0.8
2.3
1.54
1.4
1.5
1.5
BF Max Depth
ft
2.5
2.9
2.1
3.5
N/A
2.3
3.0
2.65
Width/Dep
Rati
8.9
12.1
8.4
34
16
15.3
26.5
20.9
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.6
10.5
14.9
3.3
Bank Heigh
Ratio
Wetted
Perimeter ft
Hydraulic
Rad
Patt
J
Be 20.2 20 36 50 124 32 90 61
Cu 0 7 36 50 86 71 134 91.5
Meander
Wavelength
ft

0

32

325

173

346

210

380

295
Meander
Width ratio
1.0
0.67
1.8
2.0
5.0
1.37
2.47
2.04
Profile
Riffle Length 58 81 76 12.9 45.4 26.4
Riffle Sloe 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.0016 0.0202 0.0029
Pool Length 24.3 37.3 27.7 20.3 128.5 52.2
Pool Spacing 36 131 83 19 123 90 172 118 8.0 43.3 14.2
Substrate
d50 mm .5-1.0 1.0-2.0

d84 mm
1.0-2.0 16.0-
22.6
Additional Re ach Parameters
Valle Length 661
Channel
Length (
714
Sinuosity 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.12 1.08
Water Surface
Slope
0
0 0
0.003
0.0030
BF Slope 0.0099
Rosge
Classification
G5
CS E
C5
C
*Habitat Index
*Macro
bentho
*Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As-built monitoring plan/success criteria
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 13
March 2008
Exhibit Table IXA. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cross Creak Stream Mitigation Site/Project No. 105
Cross Creek
Parameter ET-Cross Section 1 ET-Cross Section 2 ET-Cross Section 3
Cross Section 1
Stantec - MY2 Cross Section 2
Stantec - MY2 Cross Section 3
Stantec - MY2 Cross Section 4
Stantec - MY2
1+66.3 Riffle 1+80.3 Pool 10+04.3 Riffle 10+71.0 Pool
Dimension MYO MY1 MY2* MYO MY1 MY2* MYO MY1 MY2* MYO MY1 MY2*
BF Width ft 34.2 33.6 21.6 33.4 38.6 19.37 33.47 49.6 37.8 35.82
Floodpron
Width (ft)
a rox

>100

91.8

>100

n/a

>100

78.37

128

101.4

n/a
BF Cross
Sectional Are
ft2

67.8

62.7

39.92

92.18

70.8

34.6

71.91

113.6

78.6

111.5
BF Mean Depth
ft
2.0
1.87
1.4
2.76
1.8
1.78
2.15
2.3
2.08
3.11
BF Max Depth
ft
3.2
3.26
2.58
5.29
3.4
2.25
3.86
4.3
4.59
5.93
Width/Depth
Ratio
17.3
17.95
15.4
12.1
21.0
10.9
15.6
21.7
18.2
11.5
En 2.73 >4.6 n/a >1.8 4.04 3.82 2.68 n/a
Wette 34.6 n/a 20.9 42.4 n/a
Hydr
Jradiu 1.81 n/a 1.65 1.85 a
Substr
0.25 0 n/a 1.0-2. 0.37 0.32 .5-1.0 0.04 n/a
0.61 6.8 n/a 6.0-22. 0.83 3.90 1.0-2. 18.84 n/a

Parameter -01(2006) MY-02 2007 " MY-03 2008 MY-04 2009 MY-05(2010) MY+ 2011
Pattern Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Channel
Beltwidth ft
32
90
61
52
97
72
Radius o
Curvature ft
71
134
91.5
78
126
96
Meander
Wavelength ft
210
380
295
275
366
339
Meander Width
Ratio
1.37
2.47
2.04
1.88
35.00
2.70
Profile
Riffle Length ft 8 78 30 47.1 79.6 65.1
Riffle Slone ft 0.0009 0.0067 0.0035 0.0550 0.0910 0.110
Pool Length ft 9 106 46 47.3 79.6 65.0
Pool Spacing ft 27 203 73 36 147 86
Additional
Reach
Parameters
1215.3 1215.3
AChannelLen
1442
1442
1.19 1.19
0.00194 0.0024
BF Slope ft/ft 0.0021 0.0031
Rosge
Classificatio
C
C
Habitat Inde n/a n/a
Macrobentho n/a n/a
•
•
* EarthTech (ET) MY1 Cross Section I is near Stantec MY2 Cross Section 1, Stantec Cross Section 2 is new
ET MYl Cross Section 2 is near Stantec MY2 Cross Section 3, and ET MYl Cross Section 3 is near Stantec MY2 Cross Section 4
u Even though the Cross Sections are not in identical spots, ranges for the reach may be compared.
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project- EEP No. 105 Page 14
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0
9
Exhibit Table IXB. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cross Creak Stream Mitigation Site/Project No. 105
Little Cross Creek
Parameter ET-Cross Section 4 ET-Cross Section 5
Cross Section 6
Stantec - MY2 Cross Section 5
Stantec - MY2
1+94 Rime 2+91 Pool
Dimension MYO MYl MY2* MYO MY1 MY2* MYO MY1 MY2 MYO MY1 MY2 MYO MY1 MY2 MYO MY1 MY2
BF Width ft 36.4 67 35.78 23.3 17.5 24.1
Floodpron
Width (1
a rox

100.5

108

90.0

89.4

n/a
BF Cross
Sectional Are
112

50.1

69

58.99

35.5

23.4

35.91
BF Mean Dept
(1 1)
1.03
1.65
1.5
1.36
1.49
BF Max Depth
(1 1)
3.16
3.8
2.3
2.61
3.0
Width/Depth
Ratio
26.5
65.1
21.7
15.3
12.9
16.2
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.5
3.02
3.9
5.01
n/a
Wetted Perimeter
ft
69.2
n/a
22.5
n/a
Hydraulic radiu
ft
1.0
n/a
1.06
n/a
Substrate
d50 mm
62
-
.
12 0.42 0 .5-1.0 0.35 n/a
d84 (mm 2
.0
-
4
.0 1 10.97 11 2.0-4.0 0.97 n/a

Parameter MY-01 2006 MY-02 2007 * MY-03 2008 MY-04 2009 MY-05 2010 MY+(2011)
Pattern Min Max Mod Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Mod Min Max Med Min Max Med
Channel
Beltwidth ft
32
90
61
59
92
71
Radius o
Curvature ft
71
134
91.5
67
90
79
Meander
Wavelength ft
210
380
295
272
329
300
Meander Width
Ratio
1.37
2.47
2.04
1.52
2.36
1.90
Profile
Riffle Length ft 10 64 23
Riffle Slope (1 1' 0.0145 0.0056 0.0540 0.1090 0.089
Pool Length ft 12 67 42.8 29 66 45
Pool Spacing ft 10 46 30 23 85 55
Additional
Reach
Parameters
Valley Length
(ft)
661
661
Channel Length
ft
714
714
Sinousi 1.08 1
Water Surface
Sloe 11/11
0.002879
0.0026
BF Sloe 11/11 0.0099 0.0026
Rosge
Classiicatio
C
C
Habitat Inde n/a n/a
Macrobentho n/a n/a
* EarthTech (ET) MYI Cross Section 4 is near Stantec MY2 Cross Section 6
and ET MY1 Cross Section 5 is near Stantec MY2 Cross Section 5
# Even though the Cross Sections are not in identical spots, ranges for the reach may be compared.
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project- EEP No. 105 Page 15
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008

0
0
•
•
Appendix A. Vegetation Raw Data
A.1 VEGETATION DATA TABLES
EXHIBIT TABLE Al. VEGETATION METADATA
Report Prepared B Amber Coleman
Date Prepared 11/19/2007 19:32

database name CrossCreek CVS EEP Ent Tool v220.mdb
database location U:\171300168
computer name COLEMANA
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT

Metadata This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project
data.

Pro', planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems, for each year. This
excludes live stakes and lists stems per acre.

Pro', total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems, for each year. This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
stems. Listed in stems per acre.
Plots List of lots surveyed.
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes.
Vigor bS Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed b species.

Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
and percent of total stems impacted b each.
Damage b S Damage values tallied b type for each species.
Damage b Plot Damage values tallied b type for each lot.

ALL Stems b Plot ands Count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 105
project Name Cross Creek
Description Stream Restoration in Fayetteville
River Basin Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width ft
areas r
Required Plots calculated
,Sampled Plots 8
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A 1
March 2008
EXHIBIT TABLE A2. VEGETATION VIGOR BY SPECIES
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Alnus serrulata 12 4
Aronia arbutifolia 4
Callica a americana 5 4 1
Ca inus caroliniana var caroliniana 2 2 2
Cercis canadensis var. canadensis 2
Clethra alnifolia 1 1 1
Fother ills ardenii 1 1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 3 1 1 1
Ilex decidua var decidua 6 1 2
Ilex labra 2 1
N ssa s /vatica 3 3 1 1
Po ulus hetero h lla 3 1
Quercus I rata 4
Quercus hellos 2 2 1
Sambucus canadensis 1
Taxodium distichum 11 3 1
Ulmus americana var. americana 2 3 1
Viburnum nudum 2 3
Morella cerifera 6 2 1
Quercus shumardii var shumardii 2
Quercus 4 1 2 1
Unknown 1 5
TOT: 22 1 621 45 15 7 5
EXHIBIT TABLE A3. VEGETATION DAM
my
y
Alnus senrulata
Aronia arbutifolia
Callica a americana
Ca inus caroliniana var. carohnian
Cercis canadensis var canadensis
Clethra alnifolia
Fothe ardenii
Fraxinus enns Ivanica
flex decidua var decidua
flex labra
Morella cerifera
N ssa s (vatica
Po ulus hetero h lla
Quercus
Quercus I rata
Quercus hellos
Quercus shumardii var. shumardii
Sambucus canadensis
Taxodium distichum
Ulmus americana var americana
Unknown
Vibumum nudum
TOT: 22
BY SPECIES
0y
i`
A
w°
v?
o?F am
/ a
?F
c°
°? co y
0
O`c Jc ?`c?
•
0
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A2
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
•
EXHIBIT TABLE A4. VEGETATION DAMAGE BY PLOT
C1
d
C
` c0
? w
?F?? a???? Jc C c
Q? Q a0`oJ Ow JCC;?C/
0105-01-0101- ear:2 17 17
0105-01-0102- ear:2 31 31
0105-01-0103- ear:2 14 11 2 1
0105-01-0104- ear:2 12 7 5
0105-01-0105- ear:2 24 11 9 4
0105-01-0106- ear:2 11 10 1
0105-01-0107- ear:2 11 2 1 8
0105-01-0108- ear:2 14 4 1 9
TOT: 8 134 93 15 3 6 17
•
EXHIBIT TABLE A5-A. STEM COUNT BY PLOT AND SPECIES
/ 0y
d`
yQ
Alnus serrulata
Aroma arbutifolia
Callicama americana
Fother illa ardenii
flex decidua var. decidua
flex alabra
Fy
a
w?' y
`,?C mF
Q wy
w? w0 ?
16 5 3.2
1
7
/?mm? o??mW `
? Ow O^ C
*Oyo. ^OyO. ^OyO.
0 0 0/
I Cercis canadensis var. canadensis 1 21 21 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1
a?
a?
H
1
cwuercus snumardu var. snumardii z z 1 1 1
Taxodium distichum 15 4 3.75 3 5 2 5
Ulmus americana var americana 6 4 1.5 2 1 2 1
otal Planted
r
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A3
March 2008
•
Exhibit Table A6. Vegetation Problem Areas
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
MAJOR PROBLEM AREAS
Feature/Issue Stream Reach Station Range Probable Cause ID Photo #
Little Cross Creek Right bank - top of
bank to edge of 1
easement P
i
i
re-ex
st
ng or neighboring populations
Kudzu Cross Creek Throughout - but VP I
invaded
primarily near
2
middle to end of
rah
MINOR PROBLEM AREAS
Feature/Issue Stream Reach Station # / Range Probable Cause ID Photo #
Little Cross Creek Upper end of Pre-existing or neighboring populations
Chinese Privet roect
i
d
d VP2 NA
Cross Creek -16+00 nva
e
Pre-existing or neighboring populations
Mimosa Both Throughout
invaded NA NA
Lower end of Seed source either already present or
Johnson Grass Cross Creek
'
I NA NA
ro
ect likely washed in from stream
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A4
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 A.2 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
0 Photo 1: Kudzu invasion near Veg Plot 107 (10/1/07)
0 Photo 2: Kudzu on either side of the channel near Veg Plot 102 (10/2/07)
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A5
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
A.3 VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
ES .? Y
?s
4 "? ?4A {
0
0
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A6
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 7 - Veg plot 107 looking west (10/1/07)
Photo Station 8 - Veg plot 107 looking southwest (10/1/07)

0
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page A7
March 2008
Photo Station 9 - Veg plot 108 looking northwest (10/2/07)
Photo Station 10 - Veg plot 108 looking west (10/2/07)
•
R t•x • y
s
'ilk
it t ? .- fig` ? _s r
,? i ? .y.c fr' e y
c a,.
e G
tu r ?
ixt'
V;'
Photo Station 12 Veg plot 105 looking north (9/20/07)
0
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A8
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 11 - Veg plot 105 looking northeast (9/20/07)
•
•
0
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
1? Y re
pn
tiro k
a xA,
s `
Page A9
March 2008
Photo Station 13- Veg plot 104 looking north (10/1/07)
Photo Station 14 - Veg plot 104 looking northwest (10/1/07)

4

•
?R ^l
a a +s' i Q '.
A s,.
•

Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A 10
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 15 - Veg plot 103 looking northwest (10/1/07)
Photo Station 16 - Veg plot 103 looking west (10/1/07)
•
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
r io
Page Al i
March 2008
Photo Station 17 - Veg plot 102 looking northwest (10/1/07)
Photo Station 18 - Veg plot 102 looking west (10/1/07)
0
•
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page A12
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 19 - Veg plot 101 looking north (10/1/07)
Photo Station 20 - Veg plot 101 looking northwest (10/1/07)
0
0
•
(( h

Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of S - Final
w a?
Page A 13
March 2008
Photo Station 21 - Veg plot 106 looking west (10/1/07)
Photo Station 22 - Veg plot 106 looking southwest (10/1/07)

Appendix B. Geomorphologic Raw Data
B.1 CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (STREAM)
Please see the Integrated Current Condition Plan View in Appendix D for stream problem areas.
B.2 STREAM PROBLEM AREA TABLE
Exhibit Table B1. Stream Problem Areas
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
MAJOR PROBLEM AREAS
Feature/Issue Stream Reach Station # / Range Probable Cause ID Photo #
Stormwater Channel Failure Cross Creek -22+00 Channel is too small to handle flow SP 9 1-3
Wetland Pond Failure Cross Creek -23+00 Failure of adjacent stormwater channel SP to 4-5
MINOR PROBLEM AREAS
Feature/Issue Stream Reach Station # / Range Probable Cause ID Photo #
Structure Failure Little Cross Creek 10+50 - 11+80 improper design or installation SP 2-4

Cross Creek
19+25
improper design or installation
SP 16 6
Rootwad Failure Little Cross Creek 14+75 erosion around rootwad SP 7

Cross Creek
15+50 erosion around vane structure due to
poor fill material at the former channel
intersect
SP 11
7
Cross Creek 21+05 erosion around rootwad SP 19
Toe Scour Little Cross Creek 10+20 scour from culvert outlet SP 1
Cross Creek 18+00;21+00 confluence;
scour upstream from -hook SP 13, 18 8
Bank Erosion Little Cross Creek 13+50. 16+75 SP 5-6 8

Cross Creek 16+10;18+00-
18+75,20+30 SP 12, 14
15,17 9
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page BI
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
• B.3 REPRESENTATIVE STREAM PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page 132
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo 2. (SP 9) Bank erosion and migration of the design trapezoidal plunge basin (7/4/07)
•

Photo 3. (SP 9) Outlet failure of the stormwater channel into the main reach (7/4/07)
s ,.
'1te't1? ail rli
Ft p t er . . 2< ?, '
`•?:.. A
r y
:
Photo 4. (SP 10) Outlet failure of the wetland pond into the main reach (7/4/07)
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page B3
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
s

{ice K.
1.
a
1 x-I
Photo 6. (SP 2-4, 16) Example of poorly built structure leading to structural failure and causing erosion
on the banks (7/4/07)
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project -- EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page B4
March 2008
Photo 5. (SP 10) Bank erosion, migration, and failure of the wetland pond (7/4/07)
•
Photo 7. (SPA 7, 11, 19) Example of root wad failure - scouring around a root wad structure (7/4/07)
•

Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project -- JEEP No. 105 Page B5
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo 8. (SPA 1, 13, 18) Example of toe scouring around meandering bends (7/4/07)

a _. w .
Photo 9. (SPA 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17) Example of bank erosion (7/4/07)
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
a:
Page B6
March 2008
BA STREAM PHOTO STATION PHOTOS
•
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project -- GFP No 105 Page B7
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 1. Cross-section #5 looking downstream (7/4/07)
Photo Station 2. Cross-section #6 looking upstream (7/4/07)
•
0
•

Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final

Page B8
March 2008
Photo Station 3. Cross-section #1 looking downstream (6/28/07)
Photo Station 4. Cross-section #2 looking downstream (6/28/07)

rt
p k t,
r i'lt?+c• s
Photo Station 5. Cross-section #3 looking downstream (6/28/07)
•
is
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No 105 Page B9
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Photo Station 6. Cross-section #4 looking downstream (6/28/07)
0 B.5 QUALITATIVE VISUAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
•
•
Exhibit Table B.2.1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Cross Creek
(# Stable) Total Total Feature
Metric (per As-built and reference Number Number Number/Feet % Perform Perform.
Feature Category baselines) Performing per As- in Unstable in Stable Mean or
Condition
as Intended built State Total
A. Riffles 1. Present? 6 8 75%
2. Armor stable (eg no N/A N/A
displacement?)
3. Facet grade appears stable? 7 8 88%
4. Minimal evidence of N/A N/A
embedding/fining?
5. Length a ro iate? 7 8 88% 83%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe
B. Pools aggrad. or migrat.?) 7 8 88%
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean
Bkf> 1.6?) 6 8 75%
3. Length appropriate? 6 8 75% 79%
1. Upstream of meander bend
C. Thalweg (run/inflection) centering? 8 8 100%
2. Downstream of meander
Tide/inflection centering? 7 8 88% 94%
1. Outer bend in state of
D. Meanders limited/controlled erosion? 6 8 75%
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant 1 2
point bar formation? 50%
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 8 8 100%
4. Sufficient floodplain access and
relief? 8 8 100% 81%
1. General channel bed aggradation
E. Bed General areas (bar formation) 1400 50 96%
2. Channel bed degradation - areas o
increasing down-cutting or head-
cutting? 1400 150 89% 86%
1. Actively eroding, wasting, or
F. Bank slumping bank? 1400 250 82% 82%
G. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 7 11 64%
2. Height appropriate? 8 11 73%
3. Angle and geometry appear
appropriate? 7 11 64%
4. Free of piping or other structural
failures? 9 11 82% 70%
H. Wads/Boulders 1. Free of scour?
1 1 4 25%
2. Footing stable? N/A N/A 25%
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page 1310
March 2008
Exhibit Table B.2.2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cross Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project No. 105
Little Cross Creek
(# Stable) Total Total Feature
Feature Category Metric (per As-built and reference Number Number Number/Feet % Perform
i
S
l Perform.
baselines) Performing per As- in Unstable n
tab
e Mean or
as Intended built State Condition Total
A. Riffles 1. Present? 4 4 100%
2. Armor stable (eg no

displacement?) N/A N/A
3. Facet grade appears stable? 4 4 100%
4. Minimal evidence of

embedding/fining? N/A N/A
5. Length a ro iate? 3 4 75% 92%
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe
B. Pools aggrad. or migrat.?) 4 4 100%
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean
Bkf> 1.6?) 4 4 100%
3. Length appropriate? 3 4 75% 92%
1. Upstream of meander bend
C. Thalweg (run/inflection) centering? 4 4 100%
2. Downstream of meander
tide/inflection centering? 4 4 100% 100%
1. Outer bend in state of
D. Meanders limited/controlled erosion? 4 4 100%
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant N/A N/A
point bar formation?
3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4 4 100%
4. Sufficient floodplain access and
relief? 4 4 100% 100%
1. General channel bed aggradation
E. Bed General areas (bar formation) 650 40 94%
2. Channel bed degradation - areas o
increasing down-cutting or head-
cuttin ? 650 0 100% 94%
1. Actively eroding, wasting, or
F. Bank slum in bank? 4400 1200 73% 73%
G. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 4 6 67%
2. Height appropriate? 4 6 67%
3. Angle and geometry appear
appropriate? 4 6 67%
4. Free of piping or other structural
failures? 5 6 83% 71%
H. Wads/Boulders
1 1. Free of scour? 2 3 67% 1
2. Footing stable? N/A N/A 1 67%
•
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page B 11
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 B.6 CROSS SECTION PLOTS
See following pages for the Cross Section Plots.
•
•
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page B 12
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Project Name: Cross Creek Featare: Pawl Date: Year 02-7/4/2007
Cross Section: C,." Section I Cre Bidds ach, lean, Gee
Year 5. 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Year 2 - 2007 Year I - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
2010 Survey 2009 Survey 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 2006 Survey AS-BUILT Survey
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
6.81 91.92
12.07 91.98 Left No
14.46 91.98
19.37 92.03
22.78 91.21 LBK
26.58 90.38
28.22 89.23
28.85 88.7
30.82 88.28
33.14 88.36
36.67 88.15
39.99 88.02
42.93 88.18
43.95 88.44
44.95 90.22
47.31 90.6 RBK
50.36 90.5
54.08 91.59
56.51 91.78
57.59 91.79
57.6 91.79 Right Pin
68.06 91.9
80.39 93.94
93.12 96.23
104.81 97.17
Photo of Cross-Section 1 - Reach 1 - Looking Downstream @ STA 12+54

Year 5 - 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 .2008 Year 2 - 2007 Year 1 - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
Area 39.92 n/a n/a
Width 21.76 n/a o/a
Mean Depth 1 84 1/1 n/e
Max Depth 2.5R n/a n/a
W/D 11-86 n/e n/a
.-,Vote: 1 ne pins for the original cross-Sections conic not De locatea, maKing comparlsons
with Years 0 and I data invalid.
Cross Creek
Cross Section #1 - Riffle
e.,
98
96
94 Floodprone Area (approx.)-------------------------------------------------
.2 92
t
?a
w 90 - ---
Bankfull Elev. (approx.)
88
86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
7- - Year 2 - 2007
80 90 100

W
Project Name: Cross Creek Feature: Pool Dale: Year 02-7/4/2007
Cross Section: Cross Section 2 Crew: Bidets ach, lean. Gecnen
Year 5 - 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Year 2 - 2007 Year 1 - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
2010 Survey 2009 Survey 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 200,6 Survey AS-BUILT Survey
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
7.4 91.69
18.02 91.61
23.27 91.74 Left Pin
23.36 91.74 LBK
25.59 91.48
30.61 90.81
34.66 90.65
37.18 89.67
38.57 88.59
42.41 87.43
45.33 86.89
48.04 86.45
50.41 86.59
53.27 87.2
55.14 87.9
55.81 91.26
57.39 91.97 RBK
60.01 91.92
64.95 91.8
68.63 91.59
72.63 91.74
72.66 91.74
72.68 91.75 Right Pin
73.73 91.79
83.64 95.84
88.38 97.01
Year 5 - 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Year 2 - 2007 Year I - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
Area 92.18 n/e n/a
Width 33,44 n/a n/a
Mean Depth 2.76 n/a n/a
Mas Depth 5.29 n/a n/a
W/D 11.13 n/a n/a
Cross Creek
Cross Section #2 - Pool
98 -
Floodprone Area (approx.)
-----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------

96

^ 94
a
w
0
92
?
t
a?
W
90
\Bankfull Elev. (approx.)
88 - - - -

86
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (feet)
1 __Year 2 - 2007
Photo of Cross-Section 2 - Reach 1 - Looking Downstream @ STA 13+60
eject name: Cross Creek Feature: Ri61c Date: Year 02-7/4/2007
oss Section: Cross S.- 3 Cr- Bidd, arh, jean, G.-
Year 5-2010 Year 4-2009 Year 3-2008 V... 2.2007 Year l-2006 AS-BUILT 2005
2010 Survey 2009 Survey 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 2006 Survey AS-BU ILT Survey
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Nolen Station Elevation Note, Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
11.59 94.67
16.48 94.08
26.63 87,96
41.9 8780
47.89 88.47
52.21 89.51
55.38 89.53
60.19 89.62
63.66 89.54
66.65 89.65 left P.
67.78 89.54 LBK
68.75 89.19
71.89 8907
74.7 88.43
75.89 88.27
76.84 87.65
77.13 87.08
77.79 86.79
77.85 86.16
79.33 8-1 1
80.84 85.88
82.54 85.84
83.74 85.73
85.11 85 68
86.44 85.82
87.83 85.93
88.83 85.86
90.26 85.88
- 91.02 86.14
9'_.37 866'
92.74 8673
93.06 87.00
93.59 87.58
93.76 8809
94.74 88.29
96.49 88.30
97.56 88.54
99.9 89.15
100.98 895-
105 34 .0 RBK
105.39 89.88 Right Pin
112.85 89.93
123.32 89.58
11,11 89.67
137.32 91.05
145.54 94.01
154.14 95.26
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
0
Floodprone Area (approx.)
----------_. - ---------------------------------------------------------------
Bankfull Elev. (approx.)
20 40 60 80
•
Cross Creek
Cross Section #3 - Riffle
100 120 140 160 180
Distance (feet) Year 2 - 2007
i
200
Photo of Cross-Section 3 - Reach 1- Looking Downstream @ STA 20+58
Year5-2010 Year4-2009 Year3.2008 Year 2-2007 Year 1-2006 AS-BUILT 2005
Area 71.91 Na n/a
Width 33.47 Na Na
Mean Depth 2,15 Na Na
Max Depth 3.86 Nu Na
WN 15.58 Na Na
CO
Tj
T
0
•
Project Name: Cron Crcek Feature: Pwl Date: Year 02-7/4/2007
Cross Sertlon: Cross Section 4 Crew: Bidets ach. Jean Geenen
Year 5 -2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Year 2 .2007 Year 1 - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
2010 Surrey 2009 Surrey 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 2006 Survey AS-BUILT Surrey
Station Elevation Now Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elev-tion Notes Station Elevation Notes
8.48 95.28
14.96 94.99
18.21 94.89
18.22 94.69
23.15 93.70
25.85 92.41
26.48 92.08 L ft Pin
30.09 90.50
31.45 89.88 IBK
33.77 88.85
36.04 88.05
37.01 86.53
38.12 84.86
38.81 84.86
40.1 84.51
40.89 83.95
42.07 83.86
44.07 84.04
45.7 84.32
46.97 84.39
48.48 84.54
50.36 84.73
51.02 84.69
52.42 84.98
53.07 85.78
54.02 86.07
54.73 87.25
56 87.69
_ 57.48 87.88
60.21 BB.bO
62.73 86.99
67.41 89.73 RBK
67.45 89.79 Right Pin
79.77 89.73
89.23 89.59
101.37 89.74
105.08 89.57
108.9 89.28
116.37 89.59
121.53 90.33
133.74 94.06
•
Ye-5-2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 1"2"01 Year 2 - 2007 Y-,1- 2006 AS-BUI
1111
Area 11150
Wdth 3582 Na ]
Mean Depth . Na
Max Depth 5.93 Na
W/D 1151 Na Cross Creek
Cross Section #4 - Pool
98 -
96 --------------------------------------------- Floodprane-Area(apip
-
92
090 ----
--
w
m 88
d -
W 86 Bankfull Elev. (approx.)
84 - --
82
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Distance (feet)
Year 2 - 2007
Photo of Cross-Section 4 - Reach 1 - Looking Downstream Cd STA 2J+OS
v
Project Name: Cross Creck Feature: Pool Date: Year 02-7/4/2007
Cross S"tion: Cross Secoon 5 Crew: Bidets ach, k- Gccncn
Year 5 - 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 -200H Year 2 - 2007 Year l - 2006 AS-B UILT 2005
2010 Survey 2009 Survey 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 2006 Survey AS-BUILTSurvey
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Note.. Station Elevation Note. Station Elevation N,'-
3 .32 96.29
12.32 94.53
21.31 94.59
31.13 94.78
39.66 94.5
47.84 93.71
53.27 93.15
60.33 9'_.41
65.6 91.53
69.32 90.67
72.1 90.43 Left Pin
77.69 90.38
89.43 90.55 LBK
9216 90.31
94.42 90.21
95.9 69.84
96.71 8921
96.92 88.59
97.21 88.07
98.5 87.67
100.51 87.56
102.1 87.6
10728 87.73
104, 87,94
106.14 88.38
107.4 88 4
108.39 89.11
109.77 89.72
- 111.8 90.15
113.45 90.55 RBK
117.21 90.79
121.63 90.79
12885 90.51
132.26 90.57 Right Pin
133.19 90.52
35.14 91
140.57 9_'.62
148.17 9399
15683 93 82
Year5-2010 Year4-2009 Year3-2008 Year2-20117 Year1-2006 AS-BOIL 2005
Area 35.91 Na Na
Width 24.10 Na Na
Mean Depth 1 49 Na Na
Max Depth 299 Na Nu
W/D 16.18 Na Na
99
97 -
95
w
0 93 -
w
w 91
89 -
87
0
Cross Creek
Cross Section #5 - Pool
---FlooslpzQne Area-(approx.)- -------------------------------------
20 40 60 80
Distance (feet)
• Year 2 - 2007 ?
?'Bankfull Elev. (approx.)
100 120 140 160
0 0 0
Photo of Crass-Section 5 - Reach 2 - Looking Downstream C4 STA 3+11
00
00
•
•
Photo o(Cross-Section 6 -Reach 2 -Looking Downstre-m - STA ii-
Year 5 - 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Ye-r 2 - 2007 Ywr I - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
Area 59.50 Na Na
Width 38.92 n/ Na
Mean Depth 1.53 Na Na
Max Depth 3.88 Na Na
W/D 25.46 Na da
-Note: 1 ne pins IOC the original cross-sections coulu nut DC luuQluu, ulnruug, ?.u,Nal".-
with Years 0 and I data invalid.
•
Project Name: Cross Creek Feature: Ri01e Date: Year 02-7/4/2007
Cross Seetion: Cross Secuon6 Crew: Bidels ac h. lean. Geenen
Yen, 5 . 2010 Year 4 - 2009 Year 3 - 2008 Year 2 - 2007 Year I - 2006 AS-BUILT 2005
2010 Survey 2009 So"" 2008 Survey 2007 Survey 2006 Survey AS-BUILTSurvey
Station Elev-tion Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation N-tn Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
5.13 94.65
21.18 94.52
40.81 93.83
48.79 93.05
63.28 91.09
67.86 91.06
73.84 90.94 left Pin
79.97 90.77
87.96 90.82 LBK
95.23 90.17
99.35 89.51
101.9 89.79
103.08 90.27
1049 1 89.67
105.45 89.18
105,8 88.78
106,12 8847
107.08 87.94
109.38 88.02
111.28 87.67
112.6 87.42
114.04 87.13
115,73 86.93
117.39 87.81
118.87 it .1
119.37 88.47
119.49 88.6
119.78 89.33
_ 120.37 89.94
121.88 90.29
123.79 90.61
126 13 90.66 Right Pin
128.9 9131 RBK
131.44 9405
133.61 95.05
139.88 96.72
147.69 9732
Cross Creek
Cross Section #6 - Riffle
98
96
Floodprone Area (approx.) ....
94 - v
0 92
w
a
.'?. 90
w
88
86
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Distance (feet)
A Year 2 - 2007
B.7 LONGITUDINAL PLOTS
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
Q 91
F
> 90
W
W 89
88
87
86
85
84
83
Cross Creek- Long Profile Bankfull = -0.0031*STA + 92.25
Water Surface =-0.0024*STA + 89.33
Reach 1
E STA: 0+00 - 14+00
0 2007 MONITORING - Year 02
p u
u
H • °o
V
U a
• rt Q.
?
•
V + p O
x x
Q
* y
i

•x xF `
1 •
vj U

* Y

Z?
x~
x
•
x
• X

+
Jt x x
x
• • • * X X
x
x
• • X X * x
•
..
• •
X.
• XX * F x
x • • X X X X
4 • x 1 X
4 « x • • X A AA • • X X 1 • xx
r _ _ 4 4 xx4 x x x x • •
x •XX
4 - -

4 _

-
-
X

x xx x

•
x
- • x
x

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
STATION (ft)
As-Built Thalweg As-Built LBF • As-Built RBF - - As-Built Water A Structures Year02 Thalweg Year02 Water X Year02 RBF
X Year02 LBF XS4 - Pool - XS 3 - Riffle XS2 - Pool - XSl - Riffle
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page B19
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
0 0 0
•
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
O 91
H
90
w
W 89
88
87
86
85
84
83
•
•

X
X
Little Cross Creek- Long Profile
Reach 2
STA: 0+00 - 7+00
2007 MONITORING - Year 02
E o
a°
x ? c
`X. `X. ? X X X X? x x Q
X x x x X x Xo
x ? X 4 " )K%
4
4
ftftft
Bankfull = -0.0026*STA + 91.51
Water Surface = -0.0026*STA + 89.20
X )K
x?
xv x? ? X x
x x
• ?? 4
4
_. - As-Built Water As-Built Thalweg As-Built LBF ? As-Built RBF
Year02 Water Year02 Thalweg X Year02 LBF X Year02 RBF
A Structures 0 XS5 - Riffle • XS6 - Pool
0
100
200 300 400
STATION (ft)
500
600
700
Cross Creek Stream RestorationProject -- EEP No. 105 Page B20
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
B.8 PEBBLE COUNT DISTRIBUTION
Cross Creek Cross Section 1 Pebble Count
Material Size Ranee (mm) Count
silt/clay 0 - 0.062 10
very fine sand 0.062 - 0.125 3
fine sand 0.125 - 0.25 2
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 25
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 0
very coarse sand 1 - 2 0
very fine gravel 2 - 4 0
fine gravel 4 - 6 1
fine gravel 6 - 8 4
medium gravel 8 - 11 2
medium gravel 11 - 16 2
coarse gravel 16 - 22 2
coarse gravel 22 - 32 0
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 0
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 0
small cobble 64 - 90 0
medium cobble 90 - 128 0
large cobble 128 - 180 0
very large cobble 180 - 256 0
small boulder 256 - 362 0
small boulder 362 - 512 0
medium boulder 512 - 1024 0
large boulder 1024 - 2048 0
very large boulder 2048 - 4096 0
total particle count: 51

bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count:
Note: XS 1 - Cross Creek 51
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
•
-cumulative % -# of particles
silt/clav sand rave
100%
90% L

co 80%
70%
w 60%
50% - -
2
a
40%

30% -
20% -
10%

% 9 u?i
f
r -
r -
?-
-
I I
I

0.01 0.1 1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size (mm) Size Distribution
D16 0.062 mean 0.6
D35 0.27 dispersion 13.0
D50 0.33 skewness 0.21
D65 0.41
D84 6.8
D95 14
•
Page B21
March 2008
30
25
20
3
15 m
0
10
CD
5 ti
0
1000 10000
Tvne
silt/clay 20%
sand 59%
gravel 22%
cobble 0%
boulder 0%
0
0 0 0
Material Sipe Ranee (mm) Cmint
silt/clay 0 -0.062 15
very fine sand 0.062 -0.125 6
fine sand 0.125 -0.25 0
medium sand 0.25 -0.5 22
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 0
very coarse sand 1 -2 2
very fine gravel 2 -4 3
fine gravel 4 -6 1
fine gravel 6 -8 1
medium gravel 8 - 11 3
medium gravel 11 - 16 3
coarse gravel 16 - 22 1
coarse gravel 22 - 32 0
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 0
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 0
small cobble 64 - 90 0
medium cobble 90 - 128 0
large cobble 128 - 180 0
very large cobble 180 -256 0
small boulder 256 -362 0
small boulder 362 -512 0
medium boulder 512 - 1024 0
large boulder 1024 -2048 0
very large boulder 2048 -4096 0
total particle count: 57

bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count:
Note: XS3 - Cross Creek 57
Cross Creek Cross Section 3 Pebble Count
100%
90%
80%
c
w 70%
60%
w
E 50%
v
uD 40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
?-cumulative % -# of particles
sana
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16 0.062
D35 0.11
D50 0.32
D65 0.41
D84 3.9
D95 13
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution
mean 0.5
dispersion 8.7
skewness 0.14
25
20
15 3
c
m
10
v
5 y
0
1000 10000
Tvne
silt/clay 26%
sand 53%
gravel 21%
cobble 0%
boulder 0%
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105 Page B22
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final March 2008
Cross Creek Cross Section 6 Pebble Count
Material Size Ranee (mm) Cnunt
silt/clay 0 - 0.062 0
very fine sand 0.062 -0.125 4
fine sand 0.125 -0.25 3
medium sand 0.25 - 0.5 20
coarse sand 0.5 - 1 2
very coarse sand 1 - 2 0
very fine gravel 2 -4 2
fine gravel 4 - 6 5
fine gravel 6 - 8 5
medium gravel 8 - 11 1
medium gravel 11 - 16 1
coarse gravel 16 - 22 5
coarse gravel 22 - 32 0
very coarse gravel 32 - 45 1
very coarse gravel 45 - 64 0
small cobble 64 - 90 1
medium cobble 90 - 128 0
large cobble 128 - 180 0
very large cobble 180 -256 0
small boulder 256 -362 0
small boulder 362 -512 0
medium boulder 512 - 1024 0
large boulder 1024 -2048 0
very large boulder 2048 -4096 0
total particle count: 50

bedrock -------------
clay hardpan -------------
detritus/wood -------------
artificial -------------
total count:
Note: XS6 - Cross Creek 50
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
s
100%
90%
80%
c
w 70%
60%
c 50%
U
CD 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-cumulative % -# of particles
sana
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16 0.26
D35 0.36
D50 0.47
D65 4.5
D84 11
D95 21
•
1 10 100
particle size (mm)
Size Distribution
mean 1.7
dispersion 12.6
skewness 0.44
Page B23
March 2008
25
20
15 c
3
Cr
10 °
v
d
0
5 a,
0
1000 10000
Tvnc
silt/clay 0%
sand 58%
gravel 40%
cobble 2%
boulder 0%
0
0
•
•
Appendix C. Wetland Raw Data (N/A)
Wetlands were not restored at the Cross Creek Stream Restoration Site.
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page C1
March 2008
•
•
•
Appendix D. Current Condition Plan View
See following page for Current Condition Plan View Map.
Cross Creek Stream Restoration Project - EEP No. 105
Stantec - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 - Final
Page D1
March 2008
-- 5f r c-i SL Y c-2 SRFV C-J Sn-V C-+
L_6- SF?-'V CN SPEV (.
- - CROSS
PI 7a 6 K576 HSro (++1319 R SYS 1j+iJ90 m 5"d l5+Sx 7+' 737 A' 4e 0+`..Zh4 P73Ys 21t6?fi? PSto 2.'
I? A„5' TG 4FJ764 /M6 R+53Ji (CSie, k+9.'Tl f?.f'S fF?Y. ' i+99l5 P 1"1 -16 PCSta ffif?,a7 FC;it¢ 21 pin
.yr?? er•1 nNr26 PIS'se 1"V111 mad. 13#X.13 Prrz r•+n .s1oJ.a .rY;7c, l9lesro Fl'sa zzfil.L?s /^Sr.."
.?" I ?? ' a.orrsa'r,1uJ n-??-gy(PT) v•ercvuzrul n - sssr r; -a° ccrru, ?•,? asrR1 a ss arrvi a xs1lpin
a - =,rab. n - 52'1449 o , 762.3'39r D - 555x5w o • 65.0" va' +? N,Y FF,• C, - 762_rMr D xs1rpin
T- --"?+' L • 3362 L - 539' L - a 6, L - YrES' . 04-16• •,
„2'N 1 : DbY T 3S2R' r . -
c v Y 45,0-" F6or r - sua r -59? xs21pin
P»rar R•aV_ W R•eem R.t; xs2rpin
rp+auraa'r f TP14JTNWr-P rPJ8VrA r-3 "{fir xs3lpin
I
6EC1N tDN s - :=
Pabrttfs ini Slur3vain wsrorFf+yav PrS
sRE11 srnrr '
..... t 6. "215724 rCSic ki&"'.71
e.klST74C MAdF.RNET
fMh]k Sl fi t?rURE a "'115/24 P?'Str. i4ix7J45 p PrS,a
P"S7a u wtH M"
?,?? ??rsazfsrarl ny xs3rpin
'¢r x841 pln
eort, 1efr??rv? c-5sxrrran r • xai'rrrn't dt?l-°C xs4rpin
EXri77M; WATER RETEM'M STafhM1 RC 0 • 4. 45 - 0 • Wa'539' 9 • 14'24'3&4 J • SFR" w..f Tm?
+ f 1• r 'r' AafA DfT' r0 F3;A'P STRWIV 4W SE L - N8.5J' : - 9.VY c • 7f.Yf t •68.'7 i Trpa of Llnn . ?r RtNVa*
-? '' r 4 ura, 2'o ww,4? a6srR5c nv 104 r • szsr r - 5SG' r - 4078 r - Jf ? Mnrro- xs5lpin
I?; Y PGJWP AlMIX LFFRA[M..
1T j R - i3fm r - r1rxY R - 71ar P. - rcruxr xs5rpin
xs6lpin
•°4 v ;r ?? xs6rpin
-- %s41
T ! PT3 STA 12-54 - 2)- hAy I
R ,L . ?.. !s Q[
_. _. ? NOrC JG4 aY llmr •M?M,r'FJ ^.. Nl
1.00 W2' USr Un'@ EbSTIa vLYtI'0.W Sf,Wf.3t I e • r ._?
.... ??_ e. t r `?.. ?y: Ci; /? CCI S•.REWPA eGlA 7lF-T0. .f, F _._.
2 to M7r (tl,Tgfw R_ £X?7ra; RMGR ,-,At£.9 ? ?-. ? ? p f f t N11j? 7
l ur4r a2' : usP.;4? _.. \x? t9 ?' _,'' •? 4 ?? - ` ' !?.
VP105 PT 11, 12 sT13.60
r Q ? •>
SEAL
i i ` SEE PT4 ws..-? J
.„ I„a - Ur1L?Y tJNE S1LWE PlXIT r'-^ ? -a
\\ -tom. 5EF OErXt
/ .SEE.
%SIS
STR 3 11
4
"A; APEA
%St6
1 3.81
5
6
LEGEND
S
STREAM RESTORATION AREAS
© STRUCTURE FAILURE
D BANK SCOUR
TOE SCOUR
ROOT WAD FAILURE
STORMWATER CHANNEL
FAILURE
Q WETLAND POND FAILURE
?- YEAR 02 BANK
YEAR 02 THALWEG
YEAR 02 CROSS-SECTIONS
N YEAR 02 PHOTO POINTS
® YEAR 02 VEG PLOTS
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
PRIVET
KUDZU
VP104
?i
PT 9, 10
ItYt,X1Ah7 1 )•:
?G;U57RJf.n7R'I.
E47F.i,4'..;P
.xE CF+'I!L
LIVE E.i'fv7
? , u`fA44£L <.

[ y
U/ •
b
e r
W
>
0
z
,. Q
z
YO
0
w2' 7
cr Qxz
UD?O
OZ
Ln u C-1
c
Owaz
C,- 0? QO
U U
F
w z
Li
F- cr
cn Lr
U
U
Q
J
d V
n
z ,
O v
UU
w-) o
F-
Y F r
W =U Q
w Z
C) <O ?
U GU 1
w
Cn
V? I C)
0 0
Or w ~ \
U U<QV
c N
?o\
0?N
?w
r;
SI
w
DATE
08/03/87
PROJECT NO.
PLENAME
CROSSCR_EK.dwq
SHEET NO.
DRAWING NO

T13,1?
8
ENO CG451
SPEV 57A

. ??rr +tl?
1 `t I _
wed '`- i-
ExtSl'f4L (WNN Uxx PENCE"
'v?y N[[??? P" I(YPJ
SECTION PIN COORDINATES
Long Lat
78.891863 35.067308
-78.891863 35.06738
-78.891903 35.067097
-78.892061 35.067059
-78.891713 35.065326
-78.891837 35.065356
-78.891283 35.064961
-78.891351 35.064861
-78.892872 35.066592
-78.89273 35.066675
-78.892642 35.066454
-78.892593 35.066617
VEG PLO T PIN COORDINATES
Plot Long Lat
V101-1 -78.891839 35.065273
V101-2 -78.891942 35.065352
V102-1 -78.891842 35.06573
V102-2 -78.89199 35.065747
V103-1 -78.891908 35.0658
V103-2 -78.892049 35.065808
V104-1 -78.892009 35.066207
V104-2 -78.892083 35.06632
V105-1 -78.891999 35.067242
V105-2 -78.892013 35.067371
V106-1 -78.891299 35.064845
V106-2 -78.891447 35.064824
V107-1 -78.89257 35.066475
V107-2 -78.892703 35.066407
V108-1 -78.892383 35.066258
V108-2 -78.892525 35.066291
I13 15 i.(e!LYNG C.
°?\6 erttW 'Y
15, 16 PT 17, 18
14
?c
%SM3 %S#4
'.: `.. STR 20-58 STp 23.03
VP103?VP102?- l7 :.
PTS
PT6 PT 21, 22
Q VP106 <-ate
PT 19, 20<
?£a / •.•? 'X-k. SO
VP101??? `4s /{ ??fil'n5'S
19
H