20011743 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 4_20080414

County Line Creek (High Vista)
Final Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5 (2007)
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina
USGS HUC: 06010105
Project ID No. 00044
Prepared for:
r?
Losystcni
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
February 2008

sr?
¦s.r.ffi:?C ,asE

D ?v
APR 1 4 2008
DENk.\ STORMWATERB?H
WVODS AND
?91
•
•
•
•
• Executive Summary
• The County Line Stream Restoration project falls within the USGS hydrologic unit 06010105.
• The project stream (County Line Creek) lies within a golf course and the watershed includes low
• to medium density residential areas and forested areas. Prior to restoration work, landowners
• efforts to modify the channel through channelization and clearing riparian areas had impaired the
ecological functions of the creek.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) developed the plans for restoration using natural
• channel design methods. The original contractor implemented the plans and completed
construction of the restored channel in 2002. During the winter of 2007, stream restoration
• contractors performed maintenance work on the lower 2,100 feet of the stream.
• KHA performed vegetative monitoring during the late growing season of 2007. KHA assessed
. eight (8) vegetation quads. Combined stem counts for these plots equaled over 1,600 stems per
• acre. Year 4 success criteria requires 288 stems per acre. Over the history of the project,
landowners adjacent to the riparian buffer have disturbed or destroyed sections the vegetation.
KHA observed the sections of cleared areas in 2006, but did not observe evidence of additional
• clearings during site visits in 2007. Several sections of the riparian buffer lack any woody
• vegetation. Existing vegetation is dominated by live staking and early colonizers such as Eastern
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Sycamore
• (Plantanus occidentalis). The high stem count is attributed to the abundance of colonizing
• species. Bare root plantings do not appear to have survived in large numbers. Exotic and
invasive vegetation do not appear to be a significant problem.
• KHA performed geomorphic assessments and surveys during the spring and fall of 2007. The
• geomorphic topographic survey included the section between stations 15+00 and 35+00. This
section included the two primary longitudinal profiles and their cross sections and sections
• modified during the repair. Overall, the channel appeared to be stable with isolated areas of
• instability (e.g. head cuts and bank scour).
• Due to the spatial extent of repairs to the channel in 2007, the survey data collected after the
i repair cannot be directly compared to the pre-repair data through meaningful overlays or
. trending. However, any post-repair data set will permit meaningful post-repair comparisons and
data can be extracted from each of the pre-repair monitoring years individually, which will
• contribute to various performance/condition statistics for comparison to the pre-construction
• condition.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Yea 4 of 5 i
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx

i
•
•
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives ........................................ 3
1.3 Project History and Background ...................................................................................... 6
1.4 Monitoring Plan View ...................................................................................................... 9
2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ....................................................................... 14
2.1 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................. 14
2.2 Stream Assessment ......................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 18
Tables
Table I: Project Restoration Components ....................................................................................... 4
Table 11: Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................................................... 6
Table III: Project Contact Table ..................................................................................................... 7
Table IV: Project Background Table .............................................................................................. 8
Table V: Verification of Bankf ill Events ..................................................................................... 15
Table VI: Categorical Stream Features Visual Stability Assessment ........................................... 15
Table VII: Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .......................................................... 16
Table VIII: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary .................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 1 ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 2 ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 4: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 3 ...................................................................................... 13
Appendices
Appendix A: Vegetation Monitoring Data
Appendix B: Stream Monitoring Data
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 ii
TApn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Fligh Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx
C=F1 rWJ1*A 0 W_
1.0 Project Background
•
The background information for this report references previous monitoring reports submitted by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at
North Carolina State University, and Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA.
1.1 Location and Setting
The County Line Creek stream restoration site lies within the USGS HUC 06010105. The site
lies approximately nine miles south of Asheville and nine miles northwest of Hendersonville,
NC. The site is immediately west of NC Highway 191 within the High Vista Estates and Golf
Course. Portions of the stream serve as the Henderson/Buncombe county line (See Figure 1.)
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Prior to restoration, the project reach exhibited severe bank erosion, channel widening, and the
loss of aquatic habitat resulting from stream channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, and
watershed development. The mitigation plan (County Line Creek Mitigation Plan 2002) stated
the following goals for the project:
• Transform pre-existing altered stream corridor to a more stable and biologically active
form
• Create stable stream dimension, profile, and pattern
• Establish adjacent riparian ecological community
As stated in Kimley-Horn's 2001 County Line Creek High Vista Estates and Golf Course Stream
Restoration: Executive Summary of Design the objectives of this project are "to design
adjustments to the stream reach that will increase its long-term stability and create a more
functional riparian ecological community. The design for the existing stream will adjust
geomorphic dimensions, patterns, and profiles. The proposed changes reflect stable conditions of
reference reaches and their current geomorphic conditions. Additionally, vegetated buffers will
be created that match proximal natural ecological communities found in similar physiographic
and climatic regions. The reach will be redesigned to maximize natural design in light of the
needs of the golf course and physical constraints within the project area"
Table I provides project mitigation structure and objectives:
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 3
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.doex
CoI , = Mt
Table I: Proiect Restoration C amnanents
Table I. Project Restoration Components
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Project c y c 0 0
Segment
c tia ?
°'
nu
ou
Stationing Comment
or Reach d E? c v 04
ID W w d

Main 3,500 R F P2 3,500 if 1:1 3,500 0+00.0 - 35+00.0
Mitigation Unit Summaries
Stream Of) Riparian Non-Riparian Total Wetland
Buffer (Ac.) Comment
Wetland (Ac.) Wetland Ac. (Ac.
3,500 -- -- -- --
R =Restoration
El = Enhancement
Ell = Fnhancement
S = Stabilization
PI =Priority I
P2 =Priority H
P3 =Priority III
SS =Stream Banks tab flization
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 4 !• R1ti",4-
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx aWAUO*lW W.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 5
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx ??? glen, Are,
1.3 Project History and Background
Construction of the project was completed in July 2002. Maintenance construction was
completed in 2007. KHA completed monitoring activities for the As-Built and year 1. North
Carolina State University completed monitoring for year 2 and Soil and Environmental
Consultant, Inc. complete monitoring for year 3. Year 4 monitoring was performed by KHA in
2007. Table II provides additional details regarding the timeline of the project. Table III
provides additional information regarding contractors.
Tahlp IT- Prnipet Activity and Rpnnrtinu Hictnrv
Table 17. Project Activity and Reporting History
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Data Actual
Scheduled
Activity or Report Collection Completion or Comments
Completion
Complete Deliver
Restoration Plan 2002 11/2001
Final Design - 90% 2002
Construction 2002 8/2002
Maintenance / Repairs 2007
Temporary S&E mix
applied to entire project
area
Permanent seed mix
applied
Containerized and
B&B plantings for 2002
reach/se ments 1&2
Mitigation Plan / As-
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
0
built (Year 2002 10/2002
Associates
Monitoring - baseline)
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
Year 1 monitoring 2003 Oct-OS 12/2003
Associates
Year 2 Monitoring 2004 Oct-06 12/2004 Performed by N.C. State University
Performed by Soil and Environmental
Year 3 Monitoring 2005 12/2005
Consultants
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
Year 4 Monitoring 2007 Nov-07 12/2007
Associates
Year 5 Monitoring 2008
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 6 C=FJ K,-Hnles.
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYL1N MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx ekx.
I
Table iii- PrniPrt C'nntaet Tahla
Table IM Project Contact Table
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Designer 3001 Weston Parkway
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Cary, NC 27513
Primary Designer POC Will Wilhelm, P.E.
Construction Contractor 6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental Corp. Brown Summit, NC 27214
Primary Contractor POC Greg Kiser
Construction Contractor

Maintenance
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Willow Springs, NC 27592
Primary Contractor POC
Planting Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers PO Box 33068
Kimley-Horn and Associates Raleigh, NC 27636
Stream Monitoring POC Andrew Kiley [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Andrew Kiley (919)678-4
150
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 7 R
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx Curl qtd ryp,
The project is located along the Henderson/Buncombe county line, portions of which are located
within the Blue Ridge Belt of the Mountains of North Carolina. The site is located within a
moderately rural area. Table IV provides additional information regarding this stream.
Table IV: Project Rackornund Tahle
Table IV. Project Background Table
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Project County Henderson/Buncombe
Drainage Area 0.35 sq. miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) 0.1
Stream Order 1st /2nd
Physiographic Region Mountain
Ecoregion Blue Ridge Belt
Rosgen Classification of As-built B4/C4
Cowardin Classification N/A
Dominant soil types Codorus, Hayesville, Delanco
Reference site ID N/A
US GS HUC for Project and Reference 6010105
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 04-3-2002
NCDWQ classification for Project and
Reference N/A
Any portion of any project segment 303d
listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream o
a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303dlisting or stressor N/A
of project easement fenced 0%
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 8 1•n
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLfN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docz CE, ` &IGiNt/4bm. W_

1.4 Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan assesses the project stream's geomorphology using a set of five (5) cross
sections. The original As-Built included four (4) cross sections. An additional cross section was
added after the maintenance work. The 2007 longitudinal profile covers the section between
stations 15+00 and 35+00. This section includes the two (2) subsections that have been
monitored since the As-Built. Eleven (11) permanent photo points provide for a visual
comparison of key site features through time. The monitoring plan uses eight (8) randomly
placed vegetation quads to assess riparian buffer restoration. Monitoring Plan View Sheets 1 to
3 show the locations of the monitoring features.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 9
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx ??/ ' and ' , W_
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 1
Legend

ite Observations (Points) (KHA 2007) In-Stream Structures (Rock Vanes etc.) In-Stream Structure Function Rootwads (Function) County Line Stream Centerline w;
A Headcut A Boulder Step •? Failed w Failed Vegeation Quads
ite Observations (Linear) (KHA 2007) • Bank Toe Protection Poor Poor Cross Sections i
Dry Channel Log Vane Fair Fair Photo Monitoring
Bank Scour
-11CT Rock AVane
Good
t Good
Conservation Easement(Design)
, Site Observations KHA 2007
(Areas) ( )
V Rock Cross Vane
• Excellent
• Excellent
_
_- = Bare Floodplain 0 50 1
200
I
Invasive Population
Feet
Prepared For County Line Creek (H igh Vista) Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 4 2007 Prepared By
Project
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina PP- = F1
LC01?St0111 Date Project Number IGmleyHom
3/4/08 044 and lssodates, Inc.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008- Year 4 of 5
?.? Kmeys ¢n
:\pn1011795022 06-07 MonitoringlHigh Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLM MY42007 Final Monitoring Report.docz I1 ?r 1 antMSOCaas,'rc
r
k ieure 3: Monitorine Plan View Sheet 2
LSO •. _ N. . .+ T ,+ '' - p ` f --. ?'{ a ? r4
Y
-
y
r,
7
y ?1
` 1?
j
•
m
,
y
T 21, it -of
I
v,
1 ? 3
' . ? •p `Yw,... f a'F^F4' ;? t ?14?.. 111 ?Sr rv
i « RJR `. +yt? vtj? ,.fr _ H f'
Legend
Site Observations (Points) (KHA 2007) In-Stream Structures (Rock Vanes etc.) In-Stream Structure Function Rootwads (Function) County Line Stream Centerline
Headcut A Boulder Step 0 Failed w Failed Vegeation Quads
Site Observations (Linear) (KHA 2007) • Bank Toe Protection Poor t Poor Cross Sections
Dry Channel Log Vane Fair Fair Photo Monitoring
11 t 1 Bank Scour RockA Vane . t Good Good Conservation Easement (Design
ite Observations (Areas) (KHA 2007) Rock Cross Vane • Excellent • Excellent

Bare Floodplain 0 50 100 200

yr n I .....-_1
Invasive Population Feet
Prepared For County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 4 - 2007 Prepared By
Project
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina r 1 r
MM

1`('O5?'StClll Date
Project Number ,
Kmley+bm
3/4/08 044 and Assodates, Inc.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008- Year 4 of 5
T:tpn1011 795022 06-07 MonitoringlHigh Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLM MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx
Kmeprkxn
? aM ksocar,'rc .
Figure 4: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 3
?-
-
,_.?....
z e
t..
New
,
4r g?
Alt
,,. 0 ** ar r ??
ns-
8.5
- f b/:
Re,
a 1 s
A"W
x. tae'
14
t
?A ,?? mot, ?Jt ry .. ?°
S sf+ ?.
4fr
7
"a
pry' pp '(ffy? ?...
i
--- t
it-A
/ R r k
«j
A 2W 'z "'4
' Legend
~ ite Observations (Points) (KHA 2007) In-Stream Structures (Rock Vanes etc.) In-Stream Structure Function Rootwads (Function) County Line Stream Centerline
r Headcut A Boulder Step 0 Failed Failed Vegeation Quads
ite Observations (Linear) (KHA 2007) 0 Bank Toe Protection Poor I, Poor Cross Sections
Dry Channel Log Vane Fair Fair Photo Monitoring
Bank Scour Rock AVane C: Good Good Conservation Easement (Design
ite Observations (Areas) (KHA 2007) Rock cross vane • Excellent 0 Excellent
0 50 100 200
Bare Floodplain l___ ...._
Feet
Invasive Population 4
Prepared For County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 4 - 2007 Prepared By
Project Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina r?
L(OSyStelll Date Project Number 16mhy-Hom
3/4/08 044 and kmodates, Inc.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008-Year 4 of S
1pni01179502206-07 Monitoringlnigh Vista-County LineMY2007tCYLIN MY42007 Final Monitoring Report.docx 13 ?n ?A't ASSDC8tK VC ,Iorn
2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted zones related to the stream restoration consisted of the riparian buffer zone and the
stream banks. The riparian buffer zone begins at the top of the bank and continues out
• perpendicular from the stream. The planted stream bank begins at the normal base flow elevation
and extends to the top of bank or interface with the flood plain.
- The riparian buffer zone was planted with bare root trees and containerized shrubs. As described
and depicted in the approved restoration plan, shrub species were planted in play over zones and
the bare-root stock was planted on the remaining acreage where future tree height would not
affect the field of vision for players.
KHA assessed the site vegetation in October and November 2007. Throughout the reach, stream
• bank vegetation regions, primarily consisting of planted live stakes and successional volunteers
• such as Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), were performing well with the exception of a few isolated
stretches. The riparian zone was not performing as well. In several areas, especially below
station 31+50, the riparian regions had been cleared. Invasive and nuisance species were not
- observed in populations that presented an immediate threat to the existing communities.
. Appendix A provides a summary of vegetative problem areas. Figures 2-4 show the problem
areas.
KHA assessed eight (8) vegetation quads. Combined stem counts for these plots equaled over
1,600 stems per acre. Year 4 success criteria require 288 stems per acre. The high stem count is
attributed to the abundance of colonizing species. Bare root plantings do not appear to have
• survived in large numbers. Among the plots, one (1) plot showed a slight decrease in numbers,
. three (3) plots showed a strong decrease in numbers, two (2) plots had no significant change in
numbers, and two (2) plots showed an increase. Three (3) plots were shifting to a species
composition featuring succesional species. Two (2) plots were completely devoid of woody
• vegetation.
2.2 Stream Assessment
KHA assessed the stream channel during the spring and fall of 2007. During the winter of 2007,
stream restoration contractors performed maintenance work on the lower 2,100 feet of the
- stream. The maintenance included reshaping the channel and repairing and installing
stabilization structures. Overall, the channel appeared stable with isolated section of instability.
Two (2) headcuts were located in the upper reach between stations 8+75 and 12+50. A couple of
regions of bank scour were also observed in this area. Most of the riffles appeared to be stable
- with a few shorter and steeper than design criteria. In the upper reach, some of the pools
. appeared to be steeper than design criteria and may be becoming unstable. Most of the in-stream
structures such as rock vanes were functional. Some were difficult to identify due to the age of
the reach. Monitoring Plan View Sheets 1 through 3 show the location of the stream problem
areas and table B 1 in appendix B summarizes the stream problem areas.

Due to the spatial extent of repairs to the channel in 2007, the survey data collected after the
repair cannot be directly compared to the pre-repair data through meaningful overlays or
trending. However, any post-repair data set will permit meaningful post-repair comparisons and
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 14
TApn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx
CZn
data can be extracted from each of the pre-repair monitoring years individually, which will .
contribute to various performance/condition statistics for comparison to the pre-construction -
condition.
EEP installed a crest gage near permanent cross section XS-3. During the November field visit, -
the gage did not indicate that bankfull events had occurred since the last reading. Table V shows
an empty record for bankfull events. Bankf ill events have likely occurred on-site, but
documentation does not currently exist within the monitoring record. -
Table V: Verification of Bankfull Events
Table V. Verification of Bankfull Events
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo #
Table VI provides a categorical view of the stream visual stability assessment. The visual
assessment shows an apparent increase in stability related all metrics. This improvement reflects
the maintenance work performed in 2007. Table B2 in appendix B provides a breakdown of the
visual assessment.
Table Vi: Categorical Stream Featnres Visnal Stability Assessment
Table VI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Reac h 1
Feature Initial MY-01 MY 02 MY-03 MY 04 MY-05
A. Riffles -- -- -- 87% 94%
B. Pools -- -- -- 95% 93%
C. Thalwe -- -- -- 100% 1000/0
D. Meanders -- -- -- 78% 96%
E. Bed General -- -- -- 82% 1000/0
F. Bank Condition -- -- -- 92% 100%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. -- -- -- 88% 93%
P. Wads and Boulders -- -- -- 52% 78% --
Table VII and Table VIII summarize the site geomorphic assessment. KHA used bankfull
elevations consistent with the first three (3) years of measurements (As-Built to MY 2). The
field investigators had difficulty identifying one (1) set of cross section benchmarks in the field;
therefore this cross section (XS2) lacks data for 2007. KHA added a new riffle cross section
(XS5) in the section between the older cross sections. The cross sections in the lower section
(XS3 and XS4) were significantly modified during maintenance. Consequently, the shape and
hydraulic dimensions differed from previous years. Cross section XS 1 had similar hydraulic
dimensions compared to previous years. Appendix B provides photographs and graphing for
geomorphic data.
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 -Year 4 of 5 15 CC" ? ?
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Llne\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx I
Tahle VII: Baseline Mornhnlnpv and Hvdranlic Commnrv
Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Reach

Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition Project Reference
Stream (Onsite) Project Reference
Stream (Raccoon
Design
As-built
Units Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Dimension
BF Width ft * * * * * 12.9 3 8 6 6.1 8.6 * 15.4 15.9 15.7 6 9 * * * 8.9
Floodprone Width ft * * * * * * 19 73 40 9 18 * * * 100 * * >20.0 * * 19.0
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2 * * * * * 10.6 8 11 10 3.3 5.1 * 23.8 23.8 23.8 3.3 5.1 * * * 4.3
BF Mean Depth ft * * * * * 0.8 1 3.3 2 0.5 0.6 * 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.6 * * * 0.5
BF Max Depth ft * * * * * * * * * 0.8 1.2 * 2.4 2.7 2.6 0.8 1.2 * * * 1.1
Width/Depth Ratio * * * * * * 1 8 2.7 11.3 14.4 * 10 10.7 10.3 12 15 * * * 18.5
Entrenchment Ratio * * * * * * 3 12 6.7 1.5 2.1 * * * 6.4 * * >2.2 * * 2.1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.3
Wetted Perimeter ft * * * * * * * *
Hydraulic radius ft * * * * * * * *
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft * * * * * * 15 60 30 * * * * * 52 * * 18+
Radius of Curvature ft * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.5 15.8 12.2 * * 18
Meander Wavelength ft * * * * * * 60 135 90 32 48 41 30 84 49.4 18 98
Meander Width ratio * * * * * * 3 10 5 * * * 3.3 3.4 3.3 * * 2+
Profile
Riffle length ft * * * * * * * *
Riffle slope ft/ft * * * * * * 0.01 0.1 0.04 0.01 0.023 0.02 0.063 0.115 0.085 0.04 0.1 * * * 0.045
Pool length ft * * * * * * * *
Pool spacing ft * * * * * * * * * 8.5 36 * 42 163 102 9 48 30 50.3
Substrates
d50 mm * * * * * * * * 11.6 31.4 34.8 * * * 0.8
d84 mm * * * * * * * * 63 62 86 * * * 64
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity * * 1.1 * 1 * 1.3 1.1-1.2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
BF slope ft/ft * * 0.039 0.007 0.07 0.01 0.039
Rosgen Classification * * Incised E,F,G B4 E5c B4 B4/GI
*Habitat Index
*Macrobenthos
'Substrate collected at each cross section
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008 -Year 4 of 5 16 n
T:tpn101179502206-07Monitoring\High Vista-County Llne1MY20071CYLINMY42007Final Monitoring Report.docx CZ/ 1 Ka*H-
Table VIII: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
I

Parameter

Dimension

nits xauec v
Coup Line
Cross Section 1
Rime
AB MYI MY2 xu.triuxtmo4ugyanunyurauttciviom[ormgJummary
Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Cross Section 2
Pool

Cross Section 3
Riffle

BF Width
Flood prone Width
BF Cross Sectional Area
ft
ft
ft
8.8
16
2
3
6.9
14
2
9
3.7
*
2
1 MY3
16.3
32.3 MY4
9.1
38.2 MY5 AB
13.4 MYI
11 MY2
6
* MY3
14.4
25.5 MY4 MY5 AB
9
22 MYl
9.3
25 MY2
18
* MY3
9.9
23.7 MY4
5
20.8 MY5

BF Mean Depth
BF MaxDepth
ft
ft .
0.4
0
9 .
0.4
1
2 .
0.6
1 9.6
0.6
1
5 3.1
0.3 15.3
1.1 16
1.4 2
0.3 11.8
0.8 5.4
0.6 8.3
0.9 18.4
1 9.6
1.0 3.0
0.6

Width/De th Ratio .
24
2 .
16
6
6
4 .
27
7 0.9 2.7 2.9 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 3 1.8 1

Entrenchment Ratio

Bank Height Ratio .
1.8

1
0 .
2

1
0 .
* .
2.0 26.8
4.2 7.6 18.2 17.4

1.8 14.9

2.4 10.4

2.7 17.7

* 10.3

2.4 8.3

4.2
. . 1 1
0 LO

Wetted Perimeter
ft
4
9
8
1
*
17
4 . 1
. . . 9.4 14.9 14 * 15.0 9
7 10
7 *

Hydraulic radius
ft
0
3
0
4
*
0
6 . . 11.9 5.5
. . . 0.3 1 1.1 * 0
8 0
6 0
8 *

Substrate . . . 0.8 0.5

d50
d84 mm
mm 1.0
30.1 22.0
47
9 1.6
16
0 *
* 2.3
25
6 2 * 4.9 8.2 0.32 * 3.3

Parameter . .
Cr
S
ti
4 . 22.6 * 25.3 36.6 7.2 * 36.1
oss
ec
on Cross S ection 5
Pool Ri me
Dimension
BF Width Units
ft AB
14
6 MYI
9
7 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 AB MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5

Flood
rone Width
ft . . 11.4 11.6 11.1 71
p
BF Cross Sectional Area
ft
17
7
15
4 17.9 13.8 16.8

BF Mean De
th
ft .
1
2 .
1
6 25.1 11.3 4.9 2.8
p
BF Max De
th
ft .
2
3 .
1
8 2.2
3 1.0 0.4 0.4
p
Width/De th Ratio .
12
1 .
1
6 .3 1.6 0.8 0.9

Entrenchment Ratio . . 5.2
* 12.0 27.8 17.8

Bank Height Ratio 1.5 1.2 2.4

Wetted Perimeter
ft
15
7
12
* I I

H
draulic radius
ft .
1
1
1
3
* 13.0 11.3 5
y
Substrate . . 0.9 0.4 0.4

d50 mm *
3.5 2.8
d84 mm 29
8 *
. 21.3
Parameter AB 2002

Pattern
NEn
Max
Med
NEn MY-01(2003
M ) MY 02 (2004 -03(2005) MY 04 2007 NIY-05 (2008

Channel Beltwidth
ft
*
*
*
* ax
* Med NEn Max Med NLn Max Med Min Max Med Nliin Max Med

Radius of Curvature
ft
*
*
*
*
* *
* 15 79 26 38 110 68 9.4 38.5 21.8

Meander Wavelength
ft
*
*
*
*
* 13 96 41 23 57 33 7.3 70.7 21.1

Meander Width ratio
*
*
*
*
* * 50 378 124 83 464 173 72 193 108

Profile * 2.9 8.3 5.2 1.2 4.8 2.7

Riffle length ft * * * * *
* 14 71 29 * * * 4
2 52
3

Riffle sloe
ft/ft
*
*
0
045
*
* . . 19.7

Pool length
Poolspacing
ft
ft
*
*
*
* .
0
*
30
*
*
*
* 0.0500
* 0.0120
6 0.0433
40 0.0181
14 0.0187
9 0.0274
32 0.0243
18 0.007
6.8 0.082
44.6 0.042
25.1

Additional Parameters 55 29 246 100 12 77 49 25 117 56
Valle Length ft
Channel Lcn th
Sinuosity ft 2977
3513 3426
3623
Water Surface Sloe

BF sloe
Ros en Classification ft/ft

ft/ft

0.02

0.05

0.0212

0.0415

0.025

0.061

0.04 1.18
*
0.02431

0.008

0.03 1.06

0.02

Habitat Index*
Macrobenthos* B4 B4
AB and MYI Materials for sections - XS1 Rime values represent the unner section and XS 3 Riff1P vnh 1Pa ,•P-- t r1 P 1--
County Line Creek Final Monitoring Report (044) February 2008- Year 4 of 5 17
T:1pn101 1795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx ?- ?W4 Assocawi. ft.
l
3.0 Methodology
KEA performed a full geomorphic survey for the lower 2,000 feet of stream that had been
repaired. KHA also surveyed an additional cross section, but missed the proper location for the
XS2 cross section.
County Line Creek Final Monitonng Report (044) February 2008 - Year 4 of 5 18 _^ "%H4-
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line\MY2007\CYLIN MY4 2007 Final Monitoring Report.docx C_? and WWWK f

y
oy
O?
d
H ?
d
y
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Series Max Depth in. % Clay on Surface K T OM %
Bradson BaB BaC 75 7-27 0.24 5 1.0-4.0
Brevard BrC BrE BrF 90 10-25 0.24 5 1.0-5.0
Codorus Co 60 15-25 0.37 5 2.0-4.0
Elsinboro EnB 60 8-18 0.37 5 1.0-2.0
10-25 0.24 4
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Coun Line Creek High Vista Stream Restoratin EEP No. 00044
Feature/Issue Station # / Range Side Probable Cause Photo #
Bare Bank
Bare Bench
Area mostly cleared with widely scattered
Bare Flood Plain 1,525 1,760 Left mature woody vegetation - likley cleared by
human activity VPl
Area mostly clear with moderatly scattered
1,525 1,760 Right mature woody vegeation - likely cleared by
human activity VP2

1,760
-
2,290
Left Area mostly cleared with dense vegeation along
VP3
bank - likle cleared human activity
3,150 3,450 Right Area mostly cleared - likely cleared by human VP4
activity
Invasive/Exotic Populations 2,500 2,550 Left Small population of Chinese Privet VP5
'•iii•i•i•••ii••i••••i•••••••i•i••••••••i••i•

Table VII: Stem counts for each species arranged by plot.
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Plots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Year 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007 2003 2005 2007
Species
Alnus serrulata 10 3
Betula nigra 2
Corpus amomum 19 19 1 9 8 13 16 15 6 12 12 20 17 11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2 1 1 3 3 2 2
Hamamelis virginiana I
Ligustrum sinese 2
Lilodentron tulipera 11 4
Plantanus occidentalis 12 1 1 11
Populus deltoides 1 1 5 5 1 8 0 0 0 0
Prunus serotina 2
Robinia pseudoacacia 3 1
Salix nigra 15 13 2 9 6 7 7 7 2 0 0 1
Sambucus canadensis 1 1 2 1 0 0 6 0 1 5 4 0
Viburnum dentatum 5 3 4 4 0 0 0 0
Total Stems 41 37 42 1 1 18 27 23 6 3 3 37 29 22 11 0 0 0 17 16 0 20 17 12
Plot Size acres 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0210 0.0210 0.0210 000069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0210 0.0210 0.0210 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069 0.0210 0.0210 0.0210 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069- 0.0069 0.0069 0.0069
Stems Per Acre 5942 5362 6087 48 48 857 3913 3333 870 143 143 1762 4203 3188 1594 0 0 0 2464 2319 0 2899 2464 1739
Stems Per acre Requirements 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 160 260 260 260
as
y ' * x
? s af. s '
mlYY _ r
?E - i ? A 1. ? ? < ?R>w? ? A , ? ".:
.?atda { , r i74?. r d. , 2
4i
Y
i
z,
-4 rt>
fit; `?.rN?a
F ? h
t u f ,n
err ? r ? y ? k,.F 'rc? a '.
Y
i
M
••i•!••!

sees
m

s e e
FF
m e s a
1••
•
•
:-.r

••s•
e
r

VO 7 (2005)

• • 9?
r
FRI
7
•
•
•

7755 ,+
I?,lq, !n,`e•? 4 - ? .w?,..ir?^. 'f ?1{XY._?P4 + - ?P?1? ??
IM P
yr' ?v4' 9 < x '• ? 3r? ? x?,,Yb ? ? ty?i .> x,??l>,+?''t ._t> R,.
? +??4?' f =+ l?ri•? Y- `?' °? ?.' 'Y "fit gS. '>? q y t V?:???,? T ,?b?,?,a,-.. ' • ? y ..'.
4ryj1'i5r, { w :? ? ?t •? o- +w y ?.1 ? ? ??•" t?dG ?q .tR ? ?r ..s?? '."?'? ?.s., _ ? `' ?"??? Ft
+ .•f Lf 3 '?'+.Itvt 4is, ..ti t? ?,a?- y? :..;?,. .}plat ?:t?i•?ia , yi p. ?.'. ,.°1
>??t+71 +? c+ t
S m + ! x41Tg 'f+ #??1y`{$ ?tjp`?r -a sa 8?.nsA'??• ? +$T x> ? r + '? vw • ?}:r•f ,.
tra r
f q~?. _Y r;"t 'b ,by to -fr? t"•p:;?'?g/ lar.?'t+? '_ '????Qi 113 ?e?V't ". ?• ?t
q 1/If1.7+ _s y+ ?,?Yr ,_w<4'i,?:`. i' !{' ~, 1•.?.?
,y Y s:y.iP' 1 :-mss ?1 r ° S +'tY r ?'?in ° r t0' ?+,. t-T
r. .r., fir,; V w'4 9b. ? ?6 P-'a?'•.:.w;a.?.._•wi? «'.. 1.J?. R a
.. . ?V$ %
f •? t v??s f ?++'i p?
VP 3:
buffer lacks
M
?. .. to ,?'' • , .1.1 "-tppar+ j.:,,t, _ p . . ?
- ,!k f ++c ?`? ,irM'?.-:r?vipr ,.'S w ,,k.?" ..sl?+?t .' ??? i'• ,A
.d1# r Y tr. #ii NVMV"yf` .'Y'l?.r... KY ,kip
7+•
A, V 2i
04
'+ J+ ?.°'r ?°i.:r, ..4 d. +., y _ ???.?!7.117r'1 y fl i?"? J'??Y?''.. i '4?j?!
VP 4: Looking upstream, buffer lacks we
b r

3 A
} 2-y',vi 's;..'"° f,?e ?i t "??t? '!ate ? 1 ? $? .'f.'?"S lV ?.
?.• ' .,? ?"??'+`? _ ,,? N`';'c "-.x+1}7 F 9? ? -- T
AWN,
~
VP 5: Looking downstream, population of Chinese Privet
a
r

Y
O
z
0
d
v
y
a
?d
d
W
••i••••••?••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Table Bi. Stream Problem Areas
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Feature Issue Reach Station # / Range Side Description Suspected Cause Photo number
2007 Assessment

Degradation 8+75 Center Headcut - Localized Excessive shear stress SP I
12+50 Center Headcut - Localized Excessive shear stress SP2
Bank scour 10+50 - 10+55 Left Outer bend scour Excessive shear stress SP3
11+50 - 11+70 Right Bank scour Excessive shear stress SP4
Engineered structures
-back or arm scour
Etc,
22+91
Center Arm scour and missing header rock -Located on

adjacent tributary
Excessive shear stress
SPS
2005
Assessment
Degradation
31+59 to 31+72 High velocity/excess shear
29+68 Structure scour
Bank scour 27+50 to 26+92 High velocity/excess shear
27+28 Scour at rootwad
15' up UT 23+78 High velocity/excess shear
13+12 Scour at structure
34+75 Rock shift at apex of vane
34+00 Large drop over structure

Engineered structures

-
back or arm scour 29+68

28+94 Rootwad scour (span channel)

Large drop over structure
Etc. 27+28 Scour at rootwad
13+12 Scour at structure
4+27 Large drop over structure -scour at structure
1+80 Water flowing under vane
2004 Assessment
360
1,310
2,040
Strucute Failure 2 790
2,810
2,860
3 360
3,470
Bank Erosion 1,145
3.300
Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Reach 1

Feature Category
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable) Number
Performing as
Intended Total number per
As-built, Total Number / feet in
unstable state % Perform in
Stable Condition Feature Perform.
Mean or Total
1 Present? 36 36 NA 100%
2 Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 36 36 NA 100%
A. Riffles 3 Facet grade appears stable? 31 36 NA 86% 94%
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 36 36 NA 100%
5 Length appropriate? 30 36 NA 83%

1 Present? (e.g not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat.?) 35 35 NA 100%
B. Pools 2 Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?) 32 35 NA 91% 93%
3 Length appropriate? 31 35 NA 89%

1 Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering? 30 30 NA 1
00%__]
o
00/
C. Thalweg

2

Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering? .

30

30

NA 00
%

1 o

I Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 29 30 NA 97%
2 Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation? 1 I NA 100% o
96 /
D. Meanders
3
Apparent Re within spec. 26 30 NA 87% o
4 Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 30 30 NA 100 %

1 General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 0 / 0 00%
o
00/
E. Bed General
2
Channel bed degradation s areas of increasing down-cutting or head cutting?
2 / 0 u
100 a

F. Bank 2 Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 2 / 25 100% 100%

1 Free of back or arm scour? 44 45 NA 98%
2 Height appropriate? 39
] 45 NA 87% o
93 /
G. Vanes 3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 41 45 NA 91% o
4 Free of piping or other structural failures? 43 45 NA 96%

1 Free of scour? 5 9 NA 56
78%
H. Wads/ Boulders 2 Footing stable? 9 9 NA I00%

lit
? . r ???> kall

tom,
PS 1 (2003)

Mit
f
n
mom
d r I
k (Y ?
y
f: . ?F6^r , J? ; ?
lh*
T v >. 4
Yi l i'Y ??r ?Q "SF" r 5 .i/-s ?''• ?r
Ad.r
t
t:
.
^e4a!
1 " t y s r 1 ?' `i
i`
rs ` f r.?.• a? d s
y? x . _ t r A ? w _ ?? "I
4A, ti
r?So `s.? ?: pq??, iyt t? f t t a s.
f•.IllYs .'.. .S V ? .?_ ,'i tb a? ai

Y
PS 1
r
I.

3 Ail •.
f rts.,. t t { •r,
? C ti? ? Ir` ?pv? ,y>?"g«{, k rte'

??' d•SA ? Y? ?? tii 4F r P, {r d ( v ? # 6'1 i ,r. 5 r
,r} a ,
t
?rt,?,.„t s. Gt •'?s^..i ° f41 x. ? ? P ' k 4 r- A4"
f t
.

{
..
j
1? _ F f{u1?i Y al
Si,
- t IV
S z x „ •.y? 4?g.: {
;
t
'
-
'fit 1?? V ?4??
???'??str ?. ?. nt
k?• i?y?_}, ? '1'' . . _g i ?.°?',.?k f?i ? ? . _ .l
v.a J:..f ? k .7e. '? ?h
r^ Y
MI J , 4S ? ? ? i
#1
?
t
E'
?
?
-
IL
1
r £
Z
? } ?L1f
??
?`
{ Fe???
y
,

T ?
47,
?<d i ? Tom: ¢ea? tiL ?/ f - n ?'Ip'ii?pl ? ..a '? a ?•f6` ?F 1 ? n, ?d? K!'+? rTyiy;
1
-
?
h f
f
f
x
f p\
w t F4 TT ??"F va 4 3? :¢ y,°r/"
I ?y'
ill i S
14

u
,
?.
?A
#?
+.;'33 '?74r,??
-? .
? ?? ?
?
?
?
• ?
`
?
`4
?
5.
?a b?•? •{ s
.?'s 3
P
IL
? ?
_ ?
. .e "`,r r` .__ ? k ?
1?.7 ?. t?'Il`l)J)

--
d s. _ 4
S *-c
F a''§
:?s
:k
. a
f
r{
J
/

1++Y. f a
f•:. tip,
:i All
4 A41

r ? d'<*. ? k r f 1 !n ^' f} r 4r' atw i s
i?i-• -: '4r+? iz «7' > ; ? .,. x v ? R t C ' '1 LNG ,Y- v r t ? ?
? ?. ... 7-' ? JAS'' ? w •2Z"¢ .'w ? ?? t ?+it h , f i. $??',??. t jit

:h_4

•:i Y ? -?L, s i .l; ?' IA LRf •,rk s . ,r, a. 'F?S - :?-f:. ?, t i _ ?. iA` •?. a
PS - (2004 ?-

3' ??? y+
+ r.
-{

,?b ,p ., ? ley ? • (???? ? : ;?i,,411? ?' ,?i- i,
PS 3 (2004)
q ?y/a 1?pp??
f ???Y'F
z-Ai ?. 'tYK?
4F,?r y >
-Xfflmr _ s ..
;x

} wF

PS 3
a
a

•
•
r

- I

•
•
. 14
31
i
.Y?'¢ 3'fl ?'?7,?.fKa i ?-? ?• + !a'
7 S ,tily,t
ryay y ,1R +? M6 X17 ? f:? ?Y§
v ? :` erg; ,?? t •
a? .t4 a
4ett. Ij?r? x.'61
%: •yY S ? y1? ••??f?t 4
., L ??? I b` ? ?'GO 'tit ??S aah t f ak ? S' ?y!r '. ?I?'".-• -
PS 6 (2002)
l 4
SOW,
CIS n ?r? ? .•aF ?S?a 16'm.s ?."?.A rt:;..
fit
{ "?ryry ? r t 1 ?c'. ?? r
WA .tiy? '{+e ; ??n ?yy?: 'r "SSS ?-}Rfyy .`'
4`:?v?L (i a q Y?rE r ?i r r r j' v 3r t? {, y .:°fi
PS 6

(MZ) 9 Sd
? A U
? - 4, • S«4« ?'? :?
,
a
? € 9t ? #?.y ? q.. ` ? t ;?F y `?_ r,'R.
y
?
,
?Y! ? .;r? sF x? ? ?,(? at•'1'? '?J
? F +'? • ? y?
i . ? a+`+? .?? ? a $?
?

W?1
1 +} f.l

•

*r H-

may
r'?'-
?f. ! ''??•t.°'!?
• ?
r .ys;e,,.. ,
,#3.,? ?
"??
: Aft ? !
.
':.. 'r'.. 'a '?txyt "--.
C' ?` '
'
i
,
?..?
.-
.:
? rGk M J]y?z, Y pt a;: ? < 7 1 ?S" ?' ,p ?M c °.t4+?` .» .
yn R
.JL`'.1.1 a Ll•? {{ ;• ; y?lfgwi - k d ?,,
F .:# hi
1!
`
?
?
jj
1 r
?? `-
?ip ,
_
Y y
y?(/
J
• Y. ?T- y
?, pia
AIX

- ky<S• i `? J''Y
•? s7/ }8th I; .{
K y1 . l•Y x 4?
` ty l yl.. :K
_ r+

` L
t j t
,^
rill
tes?`-

_lL

(fOOZ) 9 Sd
• "'{??,? `.. ?€ ? ?. •a' e1 4b .'x1M f ?'• 4 '.. ?? E'??Lt li tiy..;
Y tax

4xi -dJ• ` 7iS

. ?' __?b'?? ? r ? ?: .?,sw.?.- - "fie ;;.?-•
$ `? ? Y nl?`lk

O L

f - ` 4 44
m
ra r.
.vPrn '{ 'f wS ?'-uF- 441
a ;?. .Y n}:, Yr jY der .
21
k >
?•"
,
cv SAp
o *?
P5 A #Sy? ^J''P
S _ Al r ,n
'_
f
y Y
l Y?
i}'L ?S2i ?yy{{
IPI a ?
.

Y

im
'?
.
! r {
All,
??e
..? Yee ^'?
`v
k
irr ?!

w _ PS 6 (2007)
- kf , a Rio- fix- y ? i
Obvt"J. fit.
- s ' Yea i/, zsi%;v„`v?`2' 7?:` Y r NVr "%
3
:.s'}? `fir ?a ? *. p.}.:.:.. ? tE.. -+? ? it f? E ti ??• ''??.%- -C ?. 4 ,,? t F k. n 3 4i s
1 s
4 ? k ?o-? r. ,,..,s w? ? 1? •.. rr ??y 1 L
PS 7 (2002)

?Y? 4I

PS 8

• ? vf' -' sn ? 3} s:

P5 9 (?UU?)
•
•
•
•
r
69-

Y
PS 9

it.

s
, 4t
t
}
fix..
ti
? h Yk ?? ? -. s u? ', r'-t ? s•_ ^?' t 1_ .n?,vr,Y?ru.???.: ?. r?.' t ?; ` . ??. `
PS 9 (2007)

my ? '`r ?r.?.r
? ? d '?' Y rtaY'ai ?
WWI'
...
s 4, *#r . y y? i? 4s is .sT x r.S
oaf. Y> 1 ?•n.? S { a?R." :y
PS 10 (2002)
u
a 6R• .
PS 10 (2003
i
i,

i K,,s ;+ir"; w
PS 10
?J
71? ri
C
F: ??d' „4 k F
xxw
r
f r
i u? ,? p _F?? ?, a s:• ?? sE??'?7 ?Myi'?'?!, ':
PS 11 (?00?)

Arl
s
'. ?4` a1F' 3 r
` ,? ,2, 'sa: ,• {k' r4 a f*. ? ? t . y r+? - .. Ji a A? ?` r ? _ -
& v
-Av
fig. i y f ?
?t? r x , sC.t-. * ydP ?x
Alf,
r d ' ?s? 4";,?r+ y \? k % /' '" ?R-'?. ?4 !h 1y,.. ' t'?'p, i {, ,• 4 "s .}5 •'`
44
?x?' t ? ,,7 Pt's • + - , ? -
04
a? ?,",? yy .} ?} "`R h '.w n'iR` `'?4 "y" ?. ; a• r }'j ?y..b k yS ..
AA:
fVW
- 1 ?bL #i4 rtf , #-.>,?`L?,..i. 86.1'?, wi.? ?•'.. Ft ? x ••a _Mai ?+?r -
PS 11 (2003)
i?
w r
l k
•,< :?` ? _ +?v. ti? b? ?,?fa , ? ; ? . ?+.- ^t1 :??? k ??t1R i 1S `"'? H??y.'T>? r
} . or..A.. Ora ¢..ty
tr jj,'k r .sue r:k + I:SLd '. s\r1rSrTl; ,!? x
?f - t ^ 'y s?' i ._ -? t' l? .#? ' ? ? 4 It t 7FI? r 1 r •?? w
?#1 ? *+? t ? 4r: '+r-rr a ) r?;t . r i '?? ? . c 3'r- F ? •@ ? `t
i ??fY'•YY ? r? ? ? '. jiL ,t. ?'x t i r ?Y. ??'? ? ? s ? ?,' tr?t?.r.,tk ° 3?i?,,,.? n -_ ?. ?.l y,?'v,r'?
4?d w,. X111' 'r1r 5.?... 0 y :t,'? . !r?! f,? •i""..¢:!_ rit - s: "? w
PS 11
S 7` E 1 FI
?A f
rf h?. k Ft•' 1 ?'l
Jhi
?4?!• .<?,'N?C ?j? ? •?$ K,'w +! Jy ? 1? y`'i`a. Y { "?} 4'?'•i Tn
-»f
1 4n y r ?'? yr' ?' _„ ! 4' .•..
'y? Y7r t'? ?? fll?E?7 ?4„.._ ter}. ?.? ?` ?.
'a T i ` ,.}'.. ` '_ +1T41 r` , Ay,/hZ .y •'? d aH a'rlT i Ir
vhf` !-^ 9. 11Ca•CVi. SY.#R?$t T. 1
.Ta ,%A ?.. w`e.h?r;• t1_`:` t '?? ...?. ?. Vii. ?4i1 .>?t ..-
•
•

A
•
i
•
•
•
w
r
s
2190
2188
2186
2184
2182
2180
2178
2176
2174
2172
2170
N N N w
O O O O O
p p O O O
2165
2160
2155
2150
2145
2140
County Line Creek Stream Profile 2007 U
S
-
_
pper
ection y
-0.0147x + 2198.1

-
Lower Section Middle Section Y = -0.0289x + 2246.7

i _
Lower Section ? Y --? -0.0082x + 2172.2

i -0 Bed Elevation
Water Surface Elevation A Bankfull Elevation

I 0 Left Top of Bank Elevation 0
Ri Bht ToP of Bank Elevation Cross Sections
11 0

A Bankfull 2007 Section I t] Bankfull 2007 Section 2 Bankfull 2007 Section 3
f
0
- Bankfull Trendline (Upper Section) Bankfull Trendline (Middle) Section - Banfkull Trendline (Lower Section)
0

© I ?

0
F

{

t t
f
i i

_ 1 ,_5. {
i
c
O
_w w w
w
O p w A
O O 00 O
O
U
C
O

Cross Section XS1 - Riffle - Station 19+68
Ff
t
'
XS12007 , I+ 3F
X512007 ? Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points L X512004 XS12005
Wbkf = 9.11 Dbkf - .34 Abkf = 3.09 A F a (,,? f*„
s?'rak't ?+ f x t i_• t •tr,
2195
2194 ' ?1 f vp ?? *?y p? r r
y?,?
2193
?? r x
y r,
lYk
2192
S? '? t t .urt+ ` f + i 'fie.
.? 2191
/ Looking Downstream
2190
lAr
?# 9p tlN{ ,y /,? e' iy
W y
2189
_ A
'A kg?ins; Y 001
21881 + *
vi p #a ` -1
? ? ?J ? i >. + ?,F t., ? 4 " Mfr ?s ? ,"1
2187 I ?+ 4L , d y f rtt'i1fi_a s} i
?I t>
epi,
*i* 4 'r fi' t
2186
'Aw
4
W
2185rt,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NX-
Horizontal Distance (ft) Looking Upstream
County Line Creek Monitoring 2007 T:Ipn1011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLIN ARK 20071127 Geomorphic Assessment.xlsXS1]
- rnni -
2
2

C
0
N 2'
UJ
21
21
2007 cross section located u
County Line Creek Monitoring 2007
Horizontal Distance (ft)
of earlier cross sections
Looking Upstream
T:1pn1011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLIN ARK 20071127 Geomorphic Assessment.xlsXS2]
XS2 2007
X022007 ? Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points /1, XS22004 XS22005
Wbkf = 5.16 Obkf = 1.75 Abkf = 9.02
W
Cross Section XS3 - Riffle - Station 33+80
XS3 2007 ??1r
XS3 2007 ? Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points G XS3 2004 ? XS3 2005
. Wbkf 7.3 Dbkf = .45 Abkf = 3.26'.
2152.0 } a4l
ry y ,, e
2150.3
R? r {
r !
2148.6
s • _'S k
4 A4
i• fit; y"'.. ?? a?;`;ri`? ? ?.,; t
.. gp
1yyy?..Is .c ,?? ea
v -A .bY?b ? ,{y,,Yyy,,N 4• `ly ? ?1 yy i€pt•9
0 2146.9
. _N Looking Downstream
LLI
2145.1
2143.4
• ''.E
2141.7"' } (y? A
2140.0 ? r? ,• ?h f Cu '.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45?'
i' 1
Horizontal Distance (ft)
Looking Upstream
2007 cross section surveyed after repairs
49
. County Line Creek Monitoring 2007 T:1pn1011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY2007\CYLIN ARK 20071127 Geomorphic Assessment.xlsXS3]
•
•
•
•
Cross Section XS4 - Pool - Station 34+92
XS4 2007 4Often
>S4 2007 ? Bankfull Indicators V WaterSurface Points )G4 2004 A X042005 -
r
Wbkf = 11.1 Dbkf = .44 Ab}:f = 4.91 CY'° ' ,:« ly.
2150`' 1 ° ?? * }
l' lf?
2149
F ` i,"? a * ?°t you''
'thy"
i +
2148
r i41 -w,° r t? R y i 'R'.
\J ///r '?F y //??'6+.Cy lllS` N77??'"AC' b ?i4y N'
2147
Yt wir?• ?`.
Ve,
/ Sr P
i ? "` +lD?r s:? ? r? .? 4?4 k t aro+ ?; r }
$ 2146 ,? t a s 3? Fi ?r?r
u w
0 AZ
L
? Looking Downstream
_N 2145 r;
.r ? , r}y rm, ; 4
W ",:i?%I* + ri 4 i X d ?%"
PO
MikiE ' sr -!
2144 I y' . t 1'?k . ' f d' t,?° ,?` `??+? I ??$• '?i
2143
2142
i y
2141 yvi c ' 1:1','?ktf + «r
+.1?7 f"r t 3k Kf t ?,? rfi++ r7
-.ewr ?+c y?{? i /,?7 ?'?r?'+7?ra,€ `4'd' 3 ?' '?q ?`A?`.wr +?? ??z•E°'?'? +t,ke+a ii,¢,?4+-kt y ?d???? 4 I ?i??plx?
2140+? ebd4?* s R
Y4j
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 x if ?? s }} ?y i f * f ?y
lrt + + ,N,
Horizontal Distance (ft) }?
Looking Upstream
2007 cross section surveyed after repairs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
County Line Creek Monitoring 2007 T:1pn1011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLIN ARK 20071127 Geomorphic Assessment.xlsXS4] •
•
•
- rtu i ie -
XS5 2007
)(S42007 ? Bankfull Indicators
Wbkf = 7.1 Dbkf = .4
2168
V Water Surface Points
Abkf = 2.82
a

C
0
N
LU
2166
2164
2162
2160
New cross section for
Horizontal Distance (ft)
t
46
s4+ v ar Ae? ? r ,
?r }4 yy y x.
I?t !` b •'n 4? Z ?
eta' i ,?} p'' to •`k?'#iy ??'? -$?"' ? qg? . e#'?> ?: .?,??,
--
i
aEf k, ii i,
1'f
Looking Downstream

}} t i ,r 1
%
d ? s \ ? Iir3 } }4,
4 Y P
A !` Wy
t ' 4.: S?R t • x1 ??'?.+ 'tt1r
Looking Upstream
County Line Creek Monitoring 2007 T:1pn1011795022 06-07 Monitoring\High Vista-County Line1MY20071CYLIN ARK 20071127 Geomorphic Assessment.XISXS5]
0 10 20 30 40
I???i??????????????s?????????????????????????
a
a ----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: county Line creek
Reach Name: Main
Sample Name: x51 2007
r Survey Date: 1210712007
------------------ -------------- ---------- ---------------------------
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % cum
- - ----------
0 - 0.062 --------------
6 ----------
5.94 ---------------------------
5.94
• 0.062 - 0.125 5 4.95 10.89
410.125 - 0.25 3 2.97 13.86
0.25 - 0.50 4 3.96 17.82
00.50 - 1.0 12 11.88 29.70
0 1.0 - 2.0 19 18.81 48.51
2.0 - 4.0 9 8.91 57.43
04.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 57.43
0 5.7 - 8.0 1 0.99 58.42
8.0 - 11.3 13 12.87 71.29
011.3 - 16.0 9 8.91 80.20
0 16.0 - 22.6 3 2.97 83.17
22.6 - 32.0 4 3.96 87.13
032 - 45 2 1.98 89.11
045 - 64 6 5.94 95.05
64 - 90 2 1.98 97.03
090 - 128 2 1.98 99.01
0 128 - 180 1 0.99 100.00
180 - 256
0 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
0362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024
01024 - 2048 0
0 0.00
0.00 100.00
100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
OD16 (mm) 0.39
OD35 (mm) 1.28
D50 (mm)
0D84 (mm) 2.33
24.57
0D95 (mm) 63.84
D100 (mm)
* 179.99
Silt/Clay (%) 5.94
eSand (%) 42.57
Gravel (%)
40cobble (%) 46.54
4.95
OBoulder (%) 0
.Bedrock (%) 0
4DTotal Particles = 101.
•
0
Percent Finer

v
0
CD
Cn
N
CD
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
-,
NO
O
O
4

a
• ----------------------------------------------------------------------
i
ver Name:
R County Line Creek
Reach Name: Main
sample Name: XS2 2007
Survey Date: 1210712007
•
40
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM
---------- ------------- ----------- ---------------------------
0 - 0.062
00.062 - 0.125 5
15 4.55
13.64 4.55
18.18
00.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 18.18
0.25 - 0.50
0 7 6.36 24.55
0.50 - 1.0 21 19.09 43.64
01.0 - 2.0 20 18.18 61.82
2.0 - 4.0
0 7 6.36 68.18
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 68.18
e5.7 - 8.0 2 1.82 70.00
8.0 - 11.3
0 6 5.45 75.45
11.3 - 16.0 2 1.82 77.27
016.0 - 22.6 6 5.45 82.73
22.6 - 32.0
0 11 10.00 92.73
32 - 45 3 2.73 95.45
045 - 64 0 0.00 95.45
64 - 90
090
128 4 3.64 99.09
- 1 0.91 100.00
0128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256
0256
62 0 0.00 100.00
- 3 0 0.00 100.00
0362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024
01024
2 0 0.00 100.00
-
048 0 0.00 100.00
fffiBedrock 0 0.00 100.00
OD16 (mm) 0.11
fjD35 (mm) 0.77
D50 (mm)
O
8 1.35
D
4 (mm) 23.79
OD95 (mm) 42.85
D100 (mm) 128
Silt/Clay (%) 4.55
Sand (%) 57.27
Gravel (%) 33.63
Cobble (%) 4.55
SBoulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
*Total Particles = 110.
Percent Finer
t J•
CD
N
CD
N .A O Oo

O

O

0

0

o

o
0

i =_ -
-

CD -
r-,
O
O
X
N
O
O

0
0

a
0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
County Line creek
main
xs3 2007
03/04/2008
! ----------------------------------------------------------------------
a Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062 16 16.00 16.00
00.062 - 0.125 6 6.00 22.00
0.125 - 0.25 5 5.00 27.00
00.25 - 0.50 3 3.00 30.00
00.50 - 1.0 2 2.00 32.00
1.0 - 2.0
X 16 16.00 48.00
2.0 - 4.0 3 3.00 51.00
04.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 51.00
- 5.7 - 8.0 12 12.00 63.00
8.0 - 11.3 7 7.00 70.00
011.3 - 16.0 3 3.00 73.00
e 16.0 - 22.6 2 2.00 75.00
22.6 - 32.0 4 4.00 79.00
032 - 45 16 16.00 95.00
e 45 - 64 0 0.00 95.00
64 - 90 2 2.00 97.00
• 90 - 128 3 3.00 100.00
e 128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
0256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
0362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
01024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
OD16 (mm) 0.06
OD35 (mm) 1.19
D50 (mm) 3.33
OD84 (mm) 36.06
OD95 (mm) 45
D100 (mm)
w 128
ilt/clay (%) 16
wand (%) 32
Gravel (%) 47
Cobble (%) 5
OBoulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
*Total Particles = 100.
a
Percent Finer
0
0
v
0
CD
Cn
N
CD
3 o
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
U)
W
N
O
O
4

•
a ----------------------------------------------------------------------
• River Name:
• Reach Name:
Sample Name:
• Survey Date:
County Line Creek
Mai n
XS4 2007
03/04/2008
•
----------------------------------------------------------------------
•
esize (mm)
•0 - 0.062
00.062 - 0.125
0.125 - 0.25
00.25 - 0.50
ff0.50 - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
02.0 - 4.0
•4.0 - 5.7
5.7 -
•8.0 - 8.0
11.3
•11.3 - 16.0
16.0
• - 22.6
22.6 - 32.0
•32 - 45
45 -
• 64
64 - 90
•90- 128
•128 - 180
180 -
•256 - 256
362
•362 - 512
512 -
•1024 1024
- 2048
•Bedrock
W16 (mm)
•p35 (mm)
D50 (mm)
W84 (mm)
4BP9 5 (mm)
D100 (mm)
Wilt/Clay (%)
Sand (%)
Gravel (%)
Wobble (%)
Woulder (%)
Bedrock (%)
TOT #
---- ITEM % CUM
----
10 -----------
10.53 --------
10.53
4 4.21 14.74
2 2.11 16.84
13 13.68 30.53
5 5.26 35.79
11 11.58 47.37
6 6.32 53.68
5 5.26 58.95
1 1.05 60.00
12 12.63 72.63
10 10.53 83.16
1 1.05 84.21
4 4.21 88.42
5 5.26 93.68
4 4.21 97.89
0 0.00 97.89
1 1.05 98.95
1 1.05 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0 0.00 100.00
0.2
0.92
2.83
21.28
50.96
180
10.53
36.84
50.52
2.11
0
•Total Particles = 95.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percent Finer
0
0
p
v
0
CD
N
CD
3 0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
U)
-01
IV
O
Cl
4