The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20040977 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20070129? C- V-\ O 3 c o A CC City Pond Stream Mitigation Project a D Anson County, North Carolina z Year 2 Monitoring Report N C:D Prepared for Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100 Raleigh, NC 27606 Prepared by WK Dickson and Co., Inc. 3101 John Humphries Wynd Raleigh, NC 27612 (919) 782-0495 And Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring Sparta, NC January 2007 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. .. 1 2.1 Project Description ................................................................................... .. 1 2.2 Project Purpose ........................................................................................ .. 4 2.3 Project History and Schedule .................................................................... ..4 2.4 Monitoring Plan View ............................................................................... .. 5 3.0 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................... .. 5 3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................... .. 5 3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring .................................... .. 7 3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................. .. 7 3.4 General Vegetation Observations ............................................................. .. 8 3.5 Vegetation Conclusions ............................................................................ .. 8 4.0 STREAM MORPHOLOGY ASSESSMENT .............................................................. .. 9 4.1 Stream Success Criteria ............................................................................. .. 9 4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................ .. 9 4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results-Year 2 ......................................... 10 4.4 Stream Benthic Macro invertebrates ........................................................... 17 5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. USGS Quadrangle ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View ................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. Stream Problem Area Plan View .......................................................... 12-16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ................................................ 4 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ...................................................... ..4 Table 3. Project Contacts ........................................................................................ .. 5 Table 4. Project Background Table ......................................................................... .. 5 Table 5. Planted Tree Species ................................................................................. .. 7 Table 6. 2006 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition ............................. .. 8 Table 7. Crest Gauge Data ..................................................................................... 11 Table 8. Summary of Precipitation Data - Year 2 ................................................... 11 Table 9. Stream Problem Areas ............................................................................... 17 Table 10. Reach R2 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 .............................. 18 Table 11. Reach R3 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 .............................. 19 Table 12. Reach S4 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 ............................... 20 Table 13. Reach S5 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 ............................... 20 APPENDICES Appendix A As-Built Survey Appendix B Cross Section Data Appendix C 2006 Site Photos City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) 1.0 SUMMARY This report details the monitoring data collected during Monitoring Year 2 at the City Pond Stream Restoration Site. WK Dickson (WKD) staff collected stream monitoring data from the City Pond monitoring site throughout 2006. Collected data included: monthly crest gauge readings, monthly on-site rain gauge readings, and monthly observations of current conditions, benthic macroinvertebrate survey, cross sections, digital images, and observations of potential problems with stream stability. The design for the City Pond property involved the restoration of channel dimension, • pattern, and profile on eight separate reaches and the enhancement of dimension and profile on one reach. After construction, it was determined that 9,869 linear feet of stream was restored and 705 linear feet of stream was enhanced. The data presented in this report is from 12 photo points, 3 crest gauges, and 20 cross- sections on 8 reaches as required in the approved Restoration Plan for this site. Digital images were recorded at cross sections and at all in-stream structures. Stream monitoring data show that compared to Year 1, little change has occurred in channel dimension. Most in-stream structures continue to function as designed. Due to lack of rainfall, approximately two to four inches below normal levels, several of the stream reaches experienced dry conditions for portions of the growing season. Recorded rainfall on-site indicates below normal conditions existed on the site early in the year which confirms the weather station data in Wadesboro. This Annual Report documents vegetation survival, based on five 1/10th acre vegetation monitoring plots, as specified in the approved mitigation plan. The vegetation monitoring indicated a range of average survival between 500 and 660 stems per acre. The site is on track for meeting the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third growing season. The newly replanted area of approximately 3.5 acres, in the vicinity of Plot 5, which was replanted with two year old trees in early 2006, looks healthy • and consistent with the remainder of the site. 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Project Description The City Pond Stream Restoration Project is located near the town of Wadesboro in Anson County, North Carolina (Figure 1 & Figure 2). The stream systems that historically flowed • through the site were channelized and, as a result, were highly incised prior to restoration. The design for the restored streams involved the construction of new meandering channels across the low slope valleys and restored step pool channels in the higher slope valleys. The site has a history of pasture and hay production, preceded by row crop production. Ditches were used to increase land use and improve drainage when the land was under crop production. The streams on the project site were channelized, and riparian vegetation • was cleared in most locations. Stream and riparian functions on the site had been severely impacted as a result of agricultural conversion. • The project involved the restoration and enhancement of 10, 574 linear feet (LF) of channelized stream on several unnamed tributaries to City Pond. The project restored 9,869 linear feet of channel dimension, pattern, and profile and enhanced 705 linear feet of 1 0 L 0 r City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) channel dimension and/or profile. Table 1 shows the as-built lengths and restoration type per reach. The 2006 monitoring season represents the second year of monitoring for this site. Table 1. Proiect Mitiaation Structure and Obiectives Reach Name As-Built Length (ft) Restoration Approach R1 705 Enhancement I R2 2,611 Restoration R3 777 Restoration S1 734 Restoration S2 1,150 Restoration S3 710 Restoration S4 1,711 Restoration S5 1,744 Restoration S6 432 Restoration Total 10,574 2.2 Project Purpose Monitoring of the City Pond Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation based on the criteria described in the City Pond Mitigation Plan. Both stream and vegetation monitoring are conducted throughout the growing season. Success criteria must be met for five consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the stream monitoring for 2006 at the City Pond Stream Mitigation Site. 2.3 Project History and Schedule This project was identified by EBX in the spring of 2004. The following three tables outline project history and milestones (Table 2), contacts (Table 3), and background information (Table 4). Table 2. Proiect Activity and RPnnrtinn Hictnni Unknown Pre-restoration Monitoring Gauges Installed Unknown Approved Mitigation Plan November 2004 Construction Began May 2005 Construction Completed May 2005 Planting Completed June 2005 Post Construction Monitoring Gauges Installed August 2005 As-Built Report Submitted November 2005 1" Annual Monitoring Report February 2006 Replanted 3.5 acres with two year old trees November 2006 2nd Annual Monitoring Report November 2007 3`d Annual Monitoring Report November 2008 4`h Annual Monitoring Report November 2009 5th Annual Monitoring Report 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Table 3. Proiect Contacts Full Service Delivery Firm Information Contractor EBX-Neuse 1, LLC Norton Webster (919) 608-9688 Designer Buck Engineering PC Kevin Tweedy, PE (919) 463-5488 Monitoring Contractor WK Dickson and Co., Inc. Daniel Ingram (919) 782-0495 Table 4. Project Background Table Project County Anson County Drainage Area 984 ac. Drainage Imperious Cover Estimate <10% Stream Order First Physiographic Region Piedmont Rosgen Classification of As-Built C4/E4 Dominant Soil Types Chewacla, Creedmoor, Iredell, Mayodan, Pacolet Reference Site ID NA USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03040201 Any portion of project 303(d) listed? No Percent of project easement fenced 0% 2.4 Monitoring Plan View Plan view drawings of the project site are provided in Figure 3. The drawings include the appropriate information pertaining to monitoring of the project. These drawings show the locations of the following features: • Cross Section Survey Locations • Crest Gauge Locations • Vegetative Plots • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Locations 3.0 VEGETATION 3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria The interim measure of vegetative success for the City Pond Mitigation Plan is the survival of at least 320 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period. 5 W O Z O F- LU CLIO V) r) Z O I..L F- U ?L f •L J + r x X F ?• .f •? I r•• L- •1 LL I L?? r rl r ? L ?J ?" LI f F. .• •• r •? L 7 • Al f Yk . 1,1 •r ? ti L ; W • ••,k f? f +• ?? U •L• ?'rl L r 1? Q 3k ? ? r? ? '?? • } • ' J T 'L r L. W 1 ,••' J• . L r. L. L V W 1• .. . 1 . L ' ? yC L W •r .? r r r k \>/ y r1. L A6 w N L r{ . • L r L X ? •• Orr .? LL Z ? Q ?}?•, • f,• ',Y?ti oae ? r. ? f X J L a 1 v V • L 1 L -'.J .r r N Q y1L 1 , at V) aC Z yy..L•y1? y H U C CL Lr) F- u SL•5 ?? U X W f ILL ..+L •, Iy : ti +I > ?° ,{ ~ O M .,? r z W X L ti, r co } a ,y- . Z M W J O (n LU LI O D CL U L.T. V O LL 1 _ X Z f' •'''' k X Q: 0 •1 _-1JN -r.. •: LL• F• CL -r -r - M ? L ' •41r r . r ? LL r, L?.{ t 1 .rL '.?k: ? r1l L L ry•:',1. Irx'1{}.,•' L r?• r n X 16 'ti• r ter,. •? •'L• r • ' r ' '. • ti ?.r r • S •?1 ??rti •?.,' N '? p ?.fff IIL.,t • '•' M a X y ? r W 1 ? 1.' W 1• { J W L ?? W L L• ? d U r > r G N 1 •r. L ¢ ^ ' N V U X L u ~ 2 ?^ Z • • • .r Z U W L W r• ?y r 1 0] X tiL. ??? ? rs ?, rr'• ? • .L I . -• r, • L .Y L . 1 ' JTY4•L?V% +'F•Ff • L . r L fV 7 ?1.• 1 • 'L a City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action may be required should these (i.e. sweetgum, red maple, etc.) present a problem and exceed 20 percent composition. 3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring The following tree species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area: Table 5. Planted Tree Species ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status 1 Ca rya ovata Shagbark Hickory FACU 2 Quercus phellos Willow Oak FACW- 3 Diospyrus virginiana Persimmon FAC 4 Fraxinus pennsylvan. Green Ash FACW 5 Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow poplar FAC 6 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW- 7 Quercus ni ra Water Oak FAC 8 Ulmus americana American Elm FACW 9 Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak FACW The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Five plots were established on the City Pond Mitigation Site, to monitor approximately 2 percent of the site. The vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1/10th of an acre in size, or 50' x 87' dimensionally. The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area. Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes were hung connecting all four corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot. Trees right on the boundary and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50 percent of their canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of site throughout the five-year monitoring period. i All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with • a 3 foot tall piece of half inch PVC to mark them as the planted stems (vs. any colonizers) and to help in locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum tag. 3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring Table 6 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring stations. Each planted tree species is identified across the top row, and each plot is identified down the left column. The • numbers on the top row correlate to the ID column of the above table. Trees are flagged in the field on a quarterly basis before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized because they will not interfere with the growth of the tree. Volunteers are also flagged during this process. At the beginning of 2006 growing season, two year old trees were replanted in proximity to and including Plot 5 to offset mortality of the previous year. The mortality is attributed to dry conditions shortly after planting occurred and to the receipt for planting of lower quality trees (the problem trees were part of a separate delivery and were dry at planting . 7 i City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) time). The two year old saplings are overall healthy and their mortality rate consistent with what is found through out the site. Table 6. Baseline and 2006 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition Baseline Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Stems/ Stemst Stems/ plot acre acre CP1 0 20 9 1 4 11 6 12 1 62 620 620 CP2 0 23 0 1 2 4 0 28 0 58 580 610 CP3 2 3 27 2 2 6 0 8 0 50 500 580 CP4 0 8 10 20 0 1 14 13 0 66 660 630 CP5 0 7 4 5 9 9 9 4 4 51 510 620 Average Stems/Acre: 574 Range of Stems per Acre: 500-660 Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Volunteer woody species were observed in most all of the vegetation plots, but were deemed to small to tally. If these trees persist into next growing season and exceed 12 inches tall they will be flagged and added to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the most common volunteer, though privet (Ligustrum sp.) was also observed. 3.4 General Vegetation Observations After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild-rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are dominant on the site, though they pose no threat to the survival or health of the planted or naturally occurring hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation is also occurring on site. Cattails (Typha sp.), rush (Juncus effusus), spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), knotweed (Polygonum persicaria), iris (Iris sp.), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and sedge (Carex sp.), all hydrophytic herbaceous plants, are frequently observed across the site, particularly in areas of inundation. Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), an obligate wetland plant, is dominant in the central wetter zone of the site. There are zones of weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing • any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the weedy species are annuals and pose little threat to survival of planted trees. Commonly weeds include hay, dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and buttercup (Ranunculus sp.). Any threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be documented and discussed. 3.5 Vegetation Conclusions This site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March 2005. There were five 1/1 0th acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The 2006 vegetation monitoring revealed that most of the site has an average tree density • greater than 574 stems per acre. This site is on trajectory for meeting the minimum success • 8 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of year three and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of year five. 4.0 STREAM MORPHOLOGY ASSESSMENT 4.1 Success Criteria • As stated in the approved Restoration Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site includes the following: Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year . monitoring period. Cross sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross sections " " " " or type channels. Cross E C should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for section data will be collected annually. Longitudinal Profile: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable, i.e. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed in "E" or "C" type channels. Profile data will be collected in • monitoring Years 1, 3, and 5. Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Photos will be taken annually at permanent cross-sections and grade control structures. . Benthic Macroi nverteb rate Sampling: Benthic mac roi nve rteb rates will be sampled annually in monitoring years 1, 2, and 3. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be identified and a tolerance value will be calculated. 4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan Along R2, R3, S3, S4, S5, and S6 a natural channel design approach was applied to • develop stable hydraulic geometry parameters. Construction began in November 2004 and was completed in May 2005. The channel design and construction established stable cross-sectional geometry, increased plan form sinuosity, and restored riffle-pool sequences and other streambed diversity to improve benthic habitat. Approximately 9,869 linear feet of stream restoration has been constructed. Cross Sections • According to the as-built document written in August 2005, twenty cross sections are to be monitored along the restored tributaries R2, R3, S3, S4, S5, and S6. The cross sections were established during monitoring set-up in evenly distributed pairs of one riffle and one pool cross section per 1,000 linear feet of restored stream. Locations of cross sections are specified on Figure 3. Each cross section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent cross section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. • The annual cross section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition, any 9 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) fluvial features present will be documented. Permanent cross sections for 2006 (Year 2) were surveyed in September 2006. Longitudinal Profile Longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years one, three, five of the five year monitoring period. The profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel at least 3,000 feet in • length. Features measured will include thalweg, inverts of stream structures, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. The longitudinal survey was not conducted for 2006 because it is Year 2 of monitoring and is not required per the monitoring plan. Hydrology Three crest gauges were installed on the site to document bankfull events. The gauges record the highest out-of-bank flow events that occurred and are checked periodically • through the year. The gauges are located on the lower part of R1, R2, and S4 (Figures 3). i? 4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results-Year 2 Cross Sections The cross sections were surveyed during the monitoring set-up, Year 1 in October 2005, and for Year 2, September 2006. The baseline data has been compared with the Year 1 • monitoring and Year 2 monitoring data in Appendix B. The surveyed cross sections for Year 2 are also included in Appendix B. The Year 2 channel cross sections showed that overall stream dimension remained stable during the second growing season. Some • localized areas of bed scour and/or aggradation were noted, however, these adjustments are common and indicate a movement toward greater stability. There is very little difference between the baseline cross sections, Year 1 cross sections and Year 2 cross sections. Any differences seen between Year 1 and Year 2 are to be expected. • In-stream structures installed within the channel included constructed riffles, cross vanes, log vanes, log weirs, root wads, and step-pool structures. Visual observations of structures throughout the past growing season indicated that nearly all structures are functioning as • designed. Longitudinal Profile The longitudinal survey was not conducted for 2006 because it is Year 2 of monitoring and • is not required per the monitoring plan. 0 Hydrology • During each visit to the site, the crest gauges were read and reset. This was done in July- October 2006. At least one out-of-bank or bankfull event occurred during this time on R1, 0 R2, and S4. Crest gauge data is included in Table 7. Weather data were collected from a 0 weather station in Wadesboro. An on-site rain gauge was also monitored throughout 2006. The on-site rainfall is generally higher than the readings taken in Wadesboro. Rainfall data • are summarized in Table 8 and indicates that conditions were wet during the months of 0 April through June and starts to dry out in July. 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Table 7. Crest Gauge Data Date of Data Collection Crest Gauge 1 Reading Crest Gauge 2 Reading Crest Gauge 3 ReaLdin March-06 1.5 1.75 1.5 April-06 1.5 0 0 May-06 0 0 0 June-06 1.35 2.1 1.35 July-06 0.5 2.1 0.75 August-06 0.12 1.6 0.05 September-06 0.75 0.15 0 October-06 0 0.15 0 November-06 0.15 0.55 1.45 Table 8. Anson Countv Normal Rainfall and 2006 Observed Rainfall th M Historic Normal Limits Wadesboro On-Site on Average 30 Percent 70 Percent Precipitation 2006 January 4.66 3.31 5.78 2.99 --- February 3.56 2.18 4.37 1.57 --- March 4.61 3.28 5.58 1.04 6.64 April 2.94 1.54 3.78 2.96 1.17 May 3.44 2.18 3.93 3.49 3.35 June 4.56 2.74 5.84 4.81 6.32 Jul 5.26 3.26 6.06 5.20 3.43 August 4.41 2.67 5.36 3.29 5.06 September 4.25 2.15 5.87 2.99 3.21 October 3.66 1.85 4.87 2.99 2.19 November 3.1 2.14 3.86 9.68 12.97 December 3.28 2.16 3.83 --- --- Very few problems with stream morphology were observed during the monitoring field visits. Throughout the project, some siltation is occurring and vegetation is beginning to grow in the channel. There was some slight erosion around some of the root wads and in- stream structures. One meander bend on R3 had experienced noticeable erosion on the outside of the bend in Year 1. A repair was completed before Year 2 monitoring occurred and was documented. Photos of each structure taken during September 2006 are included in Appendix C. A plan view drawing of the stream problem areas is provided in Figures 4a-4e. The drawings show the locations of the following features: • As-built stream centerline and bankfull limits • All in-stream structures (e.g. root wads and log vanes) • Locations of any stream channel problem areas Table 9 below gives a description of each stream problem area, the station where the problem occurs and the photo number for the problem area. 11 _0? ?i 4 1. - It Q _? a) id by S I L i z j 7L! r LL _ L2 L. - 1 I ?•?L•C T Tr. ••?L ? - W % O JJ J -_ - ''_• _ r LV ? /? ? r 1 .? L _ ' L I _ rr { ?L r _ _ lL % JJJ ' f O W r Y {Y' ••, ti•, • -r • J + • ' 1 ,'? - • %. 'L L C% J % V ? rI J . ?' 'L ? r r r ?, _ .p y - • • yL - ? r r? - • • .?l •• - % ,}' 1 Imo. W ti .1. -f°r- { "•, 1 i - .. I J, 16 LP op % I 1 1 '?L• r r• • •'• ' r %I ' rL %% r k 11 _ r r r' O ?„ Y' r f -? • ••6 if • . r •r• l r . LZ r r ?,y1 ? L f . yI- % r ?? • L ?i,,.' r r N '• d ' •' L • - ' Y ' rv Q r ' - % W 1 • L 1 Le) I r I } ` • r O 4 I Jr - r r • _Ltir v _A: -6 ' S= •r ? rA, r '• r ??,'; % ' 1 i r 1rr ••} • ? • r f J r r• t ?•r r' L? ?SI r - f {i rr r- '4 gel r r ,. '• r ' r 1% I r • r -_ _ L • J ' ?? j- ••r ti•C 1-- ' • L?? S? ' ,S.' f i1 •L'•1'?L , • L ? r 1 ,r ?r + • r - - - 1 , f} 1 - _ , •L v- dir ? _ ~ • • i, • _ _ Lam, R N• • r•? - -r • - r ' • J ., J. S . y 2 r ?R,I + ti ure rr ? • K n I I •' ? r f r r 1 1 J O (J) W V) O cl- U V O LL F- U w ml? O ; rv Z < ar O ry f I 1 v w I I r r .• T 11 ,• A r L ? 'L '•tr ? 1 •1 Z I W L .y{i 1 T L L. L L % Y Q v I - 1 '1 Cie 1{I ' L •• F-? Z ? r?IL fL•I?S• L, ' L L 1 O' 1 L _ • • • y', i r L 'L. ' ,JAS ?.' 'L• '' .L 1• 1 ''? ' ' ''ter--?? {Y.'' L.? , ¦ ~ S'. I '- =¢?-r - ?ar•? ?r ' ' r f - ?,4ti.'+b ? ??TM. Z IL %16? 16 ' r 1• ?1 • _ ' rr r1 _• • r' •• . ?• . .r.. ..? • ,?yyy',, r' r ?? LI r r' ?'' ? ? L r• •'?• •' '}4r, ?' •,.•,?i1L? ?iti' _ , 'r' r'r' I •' ' r' %% • V • ?A . L 0. r L J r "? rf??: e16- 4, -? -•r - L -?- •L ' ' J }• r' '? JRfrrrf {?'• IF,r ~--? ti~AvL-_?+Y}:., ?•~ 16- 1 '_ ,y•• ?L r r• fylr .r' L '•ti -.1 '' 1 L •L % I,t,- 49 rm Q --s -?_ li fr. 1 _. rs ' Lr r I'•--'?? rl?Ye+y.=;k 'JL•r ••?'' ` I 1? ZS• ???~ J ti? 1? dl. .? ? 11 I ?• IY ¦ ' J 1 _ _'I. '?{rte •+S S L- I fr' J 1 • i ,?' rr R 1 7 r 7 7 7 z r? a -u -ll r r L %I L ' k % LL k -1 ••• I k - - _ _- •.V 1 % L LL L • % L 1 L r .Y'•? rlj..3'rr? i?ti '.¦. z_ ; L .% Ly 1 ?y ' + L L f r ti 11? =it- %I N _ ,r I ter, 'A' 171. _ IJ r - 7yr LLry •? ' f 1 aj 'r??•• ?. J. r 'r ' L:? • ?':i~ ' r r 11 4? • r - M. L 'r•'I ,rr?• f r i 1 I I I I 1 ti W- J. I 99 ^ 1 Z ¦1 t % 11 A 1 6 J O cn LU (n O 1..V U 1. L V O ' U- I r I-- W O r1l I) LI) Z Q 0 rv f-- Q V_w O mooo \ I) r U n rv 0F- Z O I) I-- U •r 1 }F F _ J,.Lf Y r. r' r ?' r' ti 7., f r. r r' r r' r .r rr - r' ? •ti? '.? ? _ r_•' _ r'• •r •L' , ti - - •.• ••? . F'• r ' r,. •.r,. ?I _.4 -. '?ILJ}.T??a?•{ 1"{r '• Le CNm Sill r7j if .i? _.•r sir a • ,?cl ?'r -}•'?~' `~ ' ?' JJ4V?rr?1 rr r, 1 ? ' ? L??'' ?S ?.?? c{71 'i f++•7r?{ it= 7, r 7 ?? I I ??ti .,ice r •. r 7 1r ?¦. • 1 - +• ? -LY.. ,.,L 'r ?. ?'•''?: :fir= L ? ?1'; ' ? • _ T Y. N f 1 •r? '•1 1. ?+ ryye 1 L 1 _ , 1 '1 •L ' % r •, %% . JI :. ,. •,r . % cr T' •% •% • •ti• 1 % i S L• L 7r % ' L , Y S %% I? 1 I ' I 1 T , S, %6 1 i ti r I L 1 tit . ?r '{ r J O UV) ,LU V / O U V C) LL I I I ? 1 ' ' I FI• ? r 1 1 ?I 11'ti I rya 'ti: 1 1 , ? ti L L 1 1 ti 1 '' ?• r 1 ?' •? r r• , r . rte. L 1 .S' , P.L f• • r r .r •• ' 1 1r?y r r ? r tir:. r , ?? 1 r W } 1 . '. Ir? ti tir' ;- { r• ti -r r r r ,?.r.ti•,j•? - r f f I ti' I Z Q r ! +' V • r 1• ?rr ' -f Is '? ?r O NLU . ••. • 1 ' 1 4f . rr 1 ' f I rIr- ` Q r T. 1 ti ti 4 ?` 1 Tr r 1 r. 44 L r -• ^ 'r •• ? f rr ? f1 •,ti 'tit ;' r v I I I I Iti ?• ~r 1 ? r • W 1 rt• ?? N 1 r{ .? ??yl } titi f r 11 I1.? r• ?? r Y ? •. 1 1 w tiJ r •• {'' r ?' r ?? 1 . rx I r ^ fr + r ' rff rti •' ? ? 4?ti •?• • , " ??.? r r• • •'r rr'r r• Z VH, k r ? .'•yl ? ? ?, r . fr JT ?•?r ? •tr, i , r r ? 1 ' ly. f '? r T 1 ?aJ ' ti ?' 1 r ?• ,' F v I 1 % '}'ttr ? C T' 1 • r r 1 1I....ILL r,. ti- Friel I •k ?• I ,' . .oh ti L¦6 yU 1 } F r•• - , L, r117J' r LL r r' IF ,. ti' •' IL DL I k 1 '. ,f r ?•r+i4? y d Lrr}?. AlJLA1J0• =:r& ar.: H.n1'il •iA cLT 7 rilr?'r •Y•? Db- . ¦ Cn LU D a- u CL L.L V O LL r r 1A rr 11 w r Al Ir J ' 1 C?•? va??l7 41:x:1 _11 • ti Ivr Al'P' Z Yrr ti' _O LU 1 ti ' 1i' 'i TrZ= ._ f 'r- - - • T r- _r_ {rf 1 r?L.1' r S - + 1?1'• ?'? 7 rte,. ._r 1 y, r. 11 1 y •.1tiL {•r 1 ;r''J• } %'6 U j r kk •. '?`f 'L? W •' ' ' 1 . 1 7 '• ••?' x r • ?, ' 1 a. 1 1 L r•• 1• tia { L• • 1 ''ti •I', U A CL r 14 ? titi r? r • S j , . •? . ?11 ??' ? L.L { ? .y,y• 1 :k O W ?• 11 _ ti r?f• r ,? NN 1 1 1 1 ? • I ti:? 1 Iti 1? 1 II 1 I r ?1 ti, •r •r_ S O V w?• y r 1 1 1 ti f r d? i ?? 1 Ir .'? 1 I ti _ y .• • ? "' ' ?:k ?. _ J? .1 f r ' M 1 5 1 r 1 r ` f O CI . ,1r 1 f 1 , ? ,• xr ••' , , • r y • • ~4 ' ~. y' r. k r rA':' r k Q li 1 I 1 ti r y . 'T r 1 1 W y ti. I 1, , 1• •r' • r 'r i .ti• k 1 ?. •r• I { ,,' ' '? 1 .0 W a ? ?'ti ? y' 1 ,? •: 1• . •.'f•'' ? :Iti. y ? ? ti. ? ? ry?1r, 1 1 ' ,If?'• 1V I f I_ %% ?I 1 ti r ti 1 {, r •rr .1 ti. ?• •S, r 1 I_L tiY ,ti ?1 F 1 'r • ti ti % % ti Q ! , ti. ti 1 ti Ti r .`• , ti ..? Or6 % Z ~ti I . r 1 r I ti I ti• ? ? ? _' + ' ? '?' • ??. ?. %% •. Iti r ' O 4. '' _ Ir r• •% ti . 1 ?' I• ti 11 T r• r! f rr Y { % I - .1 , • ' r • , • ti titi %% '• • %% ti aeAi 9 r .0 • %ti % k ire. ?_ I r r k 1 1 t•.; , ' 1 r' r Iti ti 1. J I 1 r _ r 1 . . r? '? ? • • •5'. L' S J tr ? '•r I '- ti r ; ti ?+: ? . 'f ?? r ? fr r • ? '. '1 • . ?r . • ? ti r . r • r r , •r ? ; r .' r . r 1= r rc r f f h_.J4.r? •?? ? qu L ? • • •• - k. y ti ¢ ? ' '•ti 1 • ti . + ' ti _ ' -6 •y ? ? ? ? . ,? ? r . ti7' ,-r"l• r . r ti t }. • _ 11 L {• 5? L, ' ? '• 1 - ?? ti ti • 1 ' L . . . 1• • ?• r ' • • ' • ti ' tii rIL ~ 1 •. r 'ti {?L •'• ti rL?l? •'1 , , f ~ ?_ ~ ~ k r, . I % s r r 4 - - _ rly - -L - 1 1 C y? City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Table 9. Stream Problem Areas Feature Issue Station Numbers Suspected Cause Photo Number Bank erosion (right bank) 11+25 Sparse vegetation on bank SPA1 (R1) Coir matting failure 12+63 Improper installation; lack of vegetation to SPA2 (R1) hold it in place Siltation behind log vane 15+00 Installed at incorrect elevation SPA3 (R1) Coir matting failure 15+50 Improper installation; lack of vegetation to SPA4 (R2) hold it in place Coir matting failure 17+25 Improper installation; lack of vegetation to SPA5 (R2) hold it in place Vegetation in channel 27+50 Siltation SPA6 (R2) Coir matting failure 27+50 Improper installation; lack of vegetation to SPA7 (R2) hold it in place Incised channel 32+25 Bank erosion; vegetation in channel SPA8 (R2) Rock vane arm coming 45+75 Improper installation; scour behind arm SPA9 away from bank (R3)-not on plans Siltation behind log vane 49+50 Improper installation at higher elevation SPA10 (R3) Erosion behind root wad 23+75 Improper elevation at higher elevation SPA11 (S4) Coir matting failure 15+25 Improper installation; lack of vegetation to SPA12 (S4) hold it in place No corrective action is required at this time although it is recommended that the problem areas be watched and repaired as needed. 4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results Four reaches were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates along the restoration site in April 2006. Reaches sampled include R2, S4, S5, and R3. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Qual-4 collection method was utilized. In addition to benthic sampling, NCDWQ habitat assessment forms were completed at each monitoring site. Benthos samples were preserved in alcohol and later identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level by an aquatic ecologist. Tables 10-13 list the taxa encountered, relative abundance, and tolerance values. The NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macro invertebrates (2006) assigns tolerance values for common macro invertebrates in North Carolina. Tolerance values range from 0 to 10 with low scores indicating species that are pollution intolerant. Overall, the macro invertebrate assemblage at City Pond is moderately to very pollution tolerant and characteristic of perennial flow. Low habitat scores at all sites were primarily due to little riparian vegetation. 17 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Reach R2 The R2 reach received a habitat score of 58 out of 90 possible points. Five ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and trichoptera (EPT) taxa were collected (Table 10). Plecopterans represent one of the most pollution intolerant species in stream systems however, the genus Perlesta spp of the perlidid plecopterans is comparatively pollution tolerant (Table 10). Both mayfly taxa captured are moderately pollution tolerant compared with most other mayfly taxa (Table 10). Taxa collected at R2 are characteristic of moderate to fast flowing waters. Reach R3 The R3 reach received a habitat score of 55 out of 90 possible points. Reach 3 had the greatest diversity of macroinvertebrates collected at the City Pond Stream Mitigation Site (Table 11). Taxa assemblage R3 was similar to R2 with respect to EPT taxa and the overall taxa assemblage is characteristic of moderate to fast flowing waters (Tables 10 and 12). Reach S4 The S4 site received a habitat score of 40 out of 90 possible points. Taxa assemblage at S4, was similar to R2 with respect to EPT taxa (Tables 10 and 12). These sites also contained several coleopteran, hemipteran, and chironomid species (Table 12). Reach S5 The S5 reach received a habitat score of 39 out of 90 possible points. Caenis spp represented the only EPT taxa collected at this reach and were considerably less abundant than in other reaches (Table 13). Table 10. Reach R2 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 Order Family Species Tolerance Value N& Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta spp 4.7 3 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema femoratum 7.2 7 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis spp 7.4 46 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis spp - - - 1 Trichoptera Hydropsyche Cheumatopsyche spp 6.2 2 Odonata Libellulidae Erythemis simplicicollis 9.7 6 Odonata Coanagrionidae Ishnura spp 9.5 1 Diptera Chironimidae Larsia spp 9.3 1 Coleoptera Dityscidae Hydroporus spp 8.6 1 Coleo tera Haliplidae Peltodytes spp 8.7 1 Total Number of Organisms 69 Total Number of Taxa 10 Total Number of EPT 59 18 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Table 11. Reach R3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data ADri12006 Order Family Species Tolerance Value No. Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis spp 7.4 144 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema femoratum 7.2 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Psuedocloeon spp 4 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis spp --- 1 Odonata Libellulidae Erythemis simplicicollis 9.7 1 Odonata Coenagrionidae Enallagma civile 8.9 1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp 6.2 5 Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta spp 4.7 1 Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes spp 8.7 3 Coleoptera Dyticidae Coptotomus spp 9.3 3 Coleoptera Chrysomel idae --- --- 3 Coleoptera Noteridae Hydrocanthus iricolor 7.1 2 Hemiptera Corixidae Palmacorixa buenoi 9 3 Hemiptera Corixidae --- 9 27 Diptera Simulidae Prosimulium mixtum 4 2 Diptera Chironomidae Procladius bellus 9.1 3 Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia spp 7.2 4 Diptera Chironomidae Labrundinia spp 5.9 1 Diptera Chironomidae U. Guttipelopai spp --- 4 Total Number of Organisms 210 Total Number of Taxa 19 Total Number of EPT 153 19 City Pond Stream Mitigation Site Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) Table 12. Reach S4 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 Order Family Species Tolerance Value No. Odonata Coanagrionidae Ishnura spp 9.5 1 Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta spp 4.7 1 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis spp 7.4 116 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis spp --- 2 Hemiptera Corixidae --- 9 32 Hemiptera Belastomatidae Belastoma spp 9.8 1 Diptera Culcidae Anopheles spp 8.6 1 Diptera Chironimidae Procladius spp 9.1 2 Diptera Chironimidae Tanyous spp 9.2 4 Diptera Chironimidae Parachironomous spp 9.4 1 Diptera Chironimidae Larsia spp 9.3 6 Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes spp 8.7 1 Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes oppositus 8.7 1 Coleoptera Dityscidae Hydroporus spp 8.6 3 Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 2 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae --- - - - 1 Total Number of Organisms 175 Total Number of Taxa 16 Total Number of EPT 119 Table 13. Reach S5 Benthic Macro invertebrate Data April 2006 Order Famil S ecies Tolerance Value No. Odonata Coanagrionidae Enalagma spp 8.9 2 Odonata Coanagrionidae Ishnura spp 9.5 2 Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta spp 4.7 5 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis spp 7.4 17 Diptera Chironimidae Prosimulium spp 6 1 Diptera Chironimidae Procladius spp 9.1 1 Diptera Chironimidae Thienemannimyia grp spp --- 1 Diptera Chironimidae Ablabesmyia peleensis 9.7 1 Diptera Chironimidae Larsia spp 9.3 4 Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes spp 8.7 5 Coleoptera Dityscidae Hydroporus spp 8.6 2 Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 2 Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrochara occulta - - - 1 Total Number of Organisms 43 Total Number of Taxa 11 Total Number of EPT 22 20 # • City Pond Stream Mitigation Site # Annual Monitoring Report for 2006 (Year 2) • 5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • Data collected during monitoring Year 2 and observations of conditions at the site indicate that the project is currently successful. The stream morphology is generally • stable. Several in-stream structures have some scour but appear to be functioning • correctly. Very little fluvial erosion was observed. • Some siltation is occurring resulting in vegetation growth in the channel. • • No corrective actions are recommended at this time. • Vegetation monitoring efforts have calculated the average number of stems per acre # on site to be 574, which is a survival rate of 91 percent based on the initial planting # of 632 stems per acre. • The vegetation survivability should remain acceptable on site, and vegetative success criteria will be met for the end of the third growing season. • Overall, the project objectives are being met. Several organisms and fish were observed along the reaches. Habitat has been improved significantly through this • project. # • Monitoring of stream stability and vegetation will continue through the 2009 • growing season. # • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • 21 • Appendix A As-Built Survey a w w a 0 U ul p mF zw W ? JU Wo W n a m m 03333W ;c M wo? Sk'i' wV row si 1a 0 ti M Z O H h N w 1L z w Z z IL) Q N i j ?0 v ; 4 ? c O 1 0 s WK?s gU o ? V? ?Y Y {tr2 ?tea NNc laps o \\ O 1 N ??Y \ o?? y \ \ \? -- --45-' CC -39-? 39- - + 40- 4N 14 N' 6-1 -34 / ?OWIL / -31-- - - V _ O 0 , e a ch 0 + N 34-- z --53 1 0 Q az-- - -- W x w ? ? ?? z -? N r ' 9„r. .. - ? -•fi. . ?,? i / , ` t•A' ? .may ? ? tr1G , Z \ ?x x Ct) r r ID' / ?'' • ???/ALL ,-- v LLI -j 3k;E X -.1 Q sae /%f v f' D < ~ O N N N al 0 N co O O J ? a a ui > I - w w x w ul z 04` Q M 8 mfi'8 S 0 e? W dVao W ° ei e? z z zed W W m ? i Wy > o U [NryV C W N ? ? 7J> Z` O_W _ ? W ? Wl= ZA??~K y?J axow ?? NU ?oi ?< M /' /?. i N- -? U 1?? m 0 CID z 0 N W W x co W z A 19 0 LU a: C-4 ?J O Ln R I ,yam _ -sz ry ??y0i lr / t n s CID / ? .?w{M1 z W O O 8 a? l t r I E ?' t J ? U P\ \a ; I ? \? \ ? t • F t I t\ \t I{'?ys ? \ \ 1 \ il,?u \ e^ \ 1 ` I 1 t c\ ' i ? ? J ? 4 I co ? I , ? ? II , 4 i I M .r y r ,f 1 ? i ?I h S s=? o i w«?8 O w 6u°e rc Lz - r o axe In- W y &;a 4 0 z z a x I~ W U a y 41 . W d ° mw z G ? e? `' ? Q z .?c uD 0 V W5 ~m 'o o x o m m n ° w I V V?m tp Wk ? ? u1 obi ?< o ' ~ f o ZS'ZV+ZZ NOUViS 8 133HS 3NIIHJ1VW - SS-1 N°k3N a f!I ? q, , ,d Jill 'a 19+00 ? ?I i? i Y= I 't / ' r/ /, ? `?) l1 \ ti n >? , ? ? ?? ? ?•r/i • \ ' F o w l }f1 '4 ' / o \? ' " m O / f? 11 ul, t ? ? j1 I,?,? f r 1 / ?°r\ \ \ '?`?, \ r` ? IflnM1l'1? ? ,?C • - i ? 11.1 Z CO LL1 H IIY ?4l U / ?? i ) / s"\ ko \ tSl?fR \d4 ?/ Jl/ /?? \s \g Y?, 8 JT 1 1 ?l \ x!111 m / / / / ± 1 / \ \ \\ ?' ` \ IN, \ \ \ \ I / \ 77 n w / i Io / ???f? /9v \ I \ \ \ \ 1 t¢w \ j+ \ST + y ? FF r N ¢ Z N Q O ??`?•..... + r aQ ? ZTO Z h- ^ti U Z - rn Q W ... . CA W m ?P L0`HSd"9k!'X93"Fl99T0\lttng ctl\cuo[d\u6mo S\OOd/8101 • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • o z G 0 d' 0 0 U W p 0? z? »> ? ? Sw Ujm m wig 2l SW W Z^T ?? S PC s= o C ?6y E m If C%f llf'11,?? l 1 w l f, ?f I f? 4 1 M? I, / ,, \ \ w l l ,w STATION 24+92.46 S1iEES 7 Z8'Zb+ZZ NOUViS L 133HS 3NnHOIVW -SS- 8 O O o s "mot r W c cw ? ? ? ? i W ?° a C z G ? £8 (3VN F v ?Q2 LU W O p 2f 0 (bw7 ? W K + W FR 0 {n M < Sp W r? y? jJY ? K ?w ? F ? V U m W G_ a Zl W ?? 1,. MWyj.? n 8-'? ' r+3 . i HOw Oz M< N i-IJ a ` O z ? C? "I co J J 11 c? O U' CA d' ar 0 ;?\'Y!• w z a Q Y". ztt t 3z H zd ?¢ JZ r?/ ?' LUX Z?,¢z¢ LLI On <z z0 CL a w n;v 2 / .. U v x? a v z Za??? < OV \` a w z ??O ¢ u] U?V zJ? \ w ? w Paz>z ? kzm •;.' ?, 7 VVVQ??V u Ucii (?.i \r. LLJ w Y / \, \ ® lu Z i. , . 0-4 1-- LU Q w w \.. M K Q 1 2 w z o E z U a z waw z 30 w = ?0 O 0OWW uwWz? 0" a 3:Q:¢00U -? O Ya M7 ZM m X U O?0<LU?iU) LL. (0 w v?wo $?cncnQOa mv?w ?6p•si-II3n3a-xaa'as9re\???td\?s="?o???d?eio? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix B Cross Section Data • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cross Section Data Comparisons Cross Section Parameter As-Built Year 1 Year 2 XS1-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 3.9 3 3.7 Bankfull Width 6.8 5.97 9.5 Bankfull Depth 0.6 0.5 0.4 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.3 1.06 0.9 Width/Depth Ratio 11.7 11.89 24.3 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 6.6 17.6 4.7 XS2-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 15 16.6 14.1 Bankfull Width 9.2 10.15 8.99 Bankfull Depth 1.6 1.64 1.57 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.5 2.73 2.5 Width/Depth Ratio 5.6 6.2 5.7 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 5.3 5.1 2.5 XS3-POOL Bankfull Area 21.2 17.6 16.8 Bankfull Width 17.7 13.84 19.14 Bankfull Depth 1.2 1.27 0.9 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.7 2.25 2.29 Width/Depth Ratio 14.8 10.87 21.84 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.8 4 9 --- XS4-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 9.2 8.5 6.5 Bankfull Width 10.4 9.85 8.92 Bankfull Depth 0.9 0.86 0.73 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.7 1.63 1.44 Width/Depth Ratio 11.7 11.44 12.22 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 5.5 5.8 6.3 XS5-POOL Bankfull Area 54.3 35.5 39 Bankfull Width 25.6 19.09 19.44 Bankfull Depth 2.1 1.86 2 Max. Bankfull Depth 4.5 3.4 3.7 Width/Depth Ratio 12 10.27 9.69 Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 2.4 3.5 --- XS6-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 31.9 12.3 10 Bankfull Width 19.5 12.61 11.7 Bankfull Depth 1.6 0.98 0.9 Max. Bankfull Depth 3.6 1.6 1.4 Width/Depth Ratio 11.9 12.94 13.7 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 4.1 4.3 XS7-POOL Bankfull Area 12.8 45 31.75 Bankfull Width 12.3 25.71 19.13 Bankfull Depth 1 1.75 1.66 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.8 3.6 2.85 Width/Depth Ratio 11.9 14.69 11.53 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.4 Entrenchment Ratio 4.2 2.4 --- XS8-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 40.6 40.3 47.7 Bankfull Width 19.5 18.89 35.54 Bankfull Depth 2.1 2.13 1.34 Max. Bankfull Depth 3.3 3.37 2.78 Width/Depth Ratio 9.3 8.86 26.49 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 0.6 Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 3 1.4 XS9-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 12.9 12.1 12 Bankfull Width 11 10.58 11.24 Bankfull Depth 1.2 1.14 1.1 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.7 1.66 1.54 Width/Depth Ratio 9.3 9.26 10.55 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 4.5 47 4.4 XS10-POOL Bankfull Area 21 16.9 13.3 Bankfull Width 16.7 12.17 12.78 Bankfull Depth 1.3 1.39 1.04 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.9 2.36 1.73 Width/Depth Ratio 13.4 8.76 12.3 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 4.4 6 X511-KIFFL6 banktull Area 17 17.4 14 Bankfull Width 12.7 12.65 12.89 Bankfull Depth 1.3 1.38 1.09 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.9 2.12 2.1 Width/Depth Ratio 9.4 918 11.86 Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.2 1.2 Entrenchment Ratio 4.7 4.7 4.7 XS12-POOL Bankfull Area 29.3 28.6 24.59 Bankfull Width 17 16.4 14.49 Bankfull Depth 1.7 1.74 1.7 Max. Bankfull Depth 3.7 3.38 3.12 Width/Depth Ratio 9.8 9.42 8.53 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.3 3.4 --- XS13-POOL Bankfull Area 21.4 19.8 19.04 Bankfull Width 16.1 15.86 15.24 Bankfull Depth 1.3 1.25 1.25 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.7 2.78 2.57 Width/Depth Ratio 12 12.65 12.2 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1.1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.8 3.9 --- XS14-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 13.1 11.2 11.4 Bankfull Width 11.9 10.97 11.04 Bankfull Depth 1.1 1.02 1.03 Max. Bankfull Depth 2 1.74 1.8 Width/Depth Ratio 10.9 10.74 10.67 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 5.1 5.5 5.4 XS15-POOL Bankfull Area 21.3 19.3 20.51 Bankfull Width 14.2 13.5 1191 Bankfull Depth 1.5 1.43 1.47 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.8 2.65 2.62 Width/Depth Ratio 9.5 9.45 9.43 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.5 3.6 --- XS16-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 15.9 11.7 5.33 Bankfull Width 14.5 13.31 10.78 Bankfull Depth 1.1 0.88 0.49 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.9 1.54 1.06 Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 15.19 21.83 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.8 4.1 5.6 XS17-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 7.3 6.2 6.81 Bankfull Width 9.8 8.7 10,43 Bankfull Depth 0.8 0.72 0.65 Max. Bankfull Depth 1.2 1.12 1.04 Width/Depth Ratio 13.1 12.13 15.96 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 7 5.8 XS18-POOL Bankfull Area 15.9 15.4 15.23 Bankfull Width 12 11.73 11.76 Bankfull Depth 1.3 1.32 1.3 Max. Bankfull Depth 2.5 2.69 2.64 Width/Depth Ratio 9.1 8.92 9.05 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.5 --- XS19-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 3.5 3.7 3.62 Bankfull Width 7.8 7.45 6.83 Bankfull Depth 0.5 0.5 0.53 Max. Bankfull Depth 1 1.07 1.01 Width/Depth Ratio 17.3 14.95 12.87 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 5.7 6 6.6 XS20-RIFFLE Bankfull Area 2.3 2.4 2.3 Bankfull Width 5.9 5.86 6.78 Bankfull Depth 0.4 0.4 0.34 Max. Bankfull Depth 0.9 0.91 0.79 Width/Depth Ratio 15.4 14.47 19.95 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 7.6 7.7 6.6 C s a? ca O O J Y .Q Y O O J 0 LO LO v 0 v m a ce) 0 a? m 0 ? Cl) Y 0 (n N t t3 -O ? N U 0 a Q c 70 0 0 0 d N O U N N r ? Ili} I O LO 0 LO in o Un rn U? O OT 0 OT rn 0) 00 rn (1j) uoilena13 r a t+ ?L a b - 1 y ` t ? ? S • 'fa ?' ? 'fi 1p,, nr? it s., 1w ?'? KK a t •*b?*F. .1 a x ' r ti K d Y C R .C m C O O J Y C l9 a7 a+ C Y O O J O O O O O 00 OJ Q O 1 C T cu N ? O Y N co co c O U v N O L Cn _ LO 0 M ? M > O ? U o a ? O O O O U N O 0) Il} 1 O N O O V M N O m 00 f- O In 7 M N O O O O M W m 00 N M N co 00 0 0 (11) UOIIBA OI] c co s L ?C O O J .?G C R d C O O J O OD O r` o m (.0 0 O > LO m O CD IL _ Y c`? C ? O N O t U) a N N > co O m U 0 0- C: a O o CL O o r? _a U N t0 N } O N T O O LO r Lq O LO M LO W LD r- M r O 01 OJ I? O 00 co r- r` ? r- (11) UOIIPAG13 ^ 4 ? jjAA s p SY w arv ,,yam •,d,?. ?, 'y E L Via. ^ , 'i O t Y O O J cu w d L C O O J O co 0 LO CO Q 0 0 v ? N CD cc ? Y ? (6 ? fl O U U) CD co cB O U $ 0 o 0 0 U 0 N N m N } O 0 Lq rn U? m LI) r- Ln (n U') m r, r? N C6 N L6 (u) UOilenal3 C to t r+ R 01 C Y O O J x'R ? + r p `? y 1 x s • aRA ++ y 1 r r y ( L' 0 r 0 .j m N Q O ? T+ of m O ? O - Y Ln C ro C o _ U ? L CO O ro U) ° m U of 0 C O a O ?I N co o } O O LIB l(7 ? U w m n m LO M 0 4 6 ? f` f` r r n (u) u011enal3 f 6 an ,z Y La r `16 i "u a ' Y C R r t (?0 Y O O J O O O a 0 > a? I ? Y C Q U N Cf) Q CI) L a ? U 0 c Q o ? o a o. U O N N W } O O L V LO co LO N to 0 (u) UOIJEA813 : ti { S ?n c• F ,C C L 0 0 J C .93 d 0 0 J O n Cl) N L Q 0 O co > O a) o ? Y C O ? ? L > Q N a o ? co 0 c L O Y U N N co (D I1} I 0 0 LO CO U') C\j L LO o LO 0) Ln M 11) r- LO ? In 00 O O C O c o w O C (u) UOIIEA813 Y 5F 'Rr ,+F. s t b T ?:Y M w' n+. A e Y 4 .l x ' ' "rya a ?, K,sTry' ??yxw 4 s ?g fir. n R rn c Y O O J Y C t0 N c*o C O O J O co O ? c cD l o I ? I a? a? Y C ro o a `n co ro 0 ro 2 Cl) O a V a O O - U a c 0 co S w co EL U Z co U) x O N 0 O U? N L7 LO O LO Q) U') CO LO I,- LO CO N r? 0? 6 0 O6 (O f, O O m co co cD (u) uoalen813 tt? 1 '+ "x5! y t ? '.i w 5 .14 . . R d „? -c??rd ya t4 ^ Y C s a? t c Y O O J Y C N t lG C Y O O J O O O m ja I O 0 cu N C) 0 ? Y c C cz O N ? O L ED co -p ? L U ? 0 ? _ C o a 0 0 0 U O N N O 0 LO LLB It LO n Cl) LIB ? C\j Lo (11) U01)LA013 t. •vs ?C C t d t w R C O O J Y C cc d d t t0 C Y O O J O co O 7 m Q 0 O O > O ? r Y C ? O ? N (n ? N O cu U a> c o C ?- O a d o O 2 _A a> U N (SS N } O N I? O O LO (O LO LO LO LO M (n (O ^ t!7 4 M r" N (11) U01jena13 x'?r w } + i't' -; L Y C +r t i31 •L O t M C Y O O J C d N t w a1 Y O O J 0 0 m Q 0 1 0 N Y r C O O ? 0 U Cl) m U 0 c co -0 0 0 I _ U N m N O } N 0 O ^ ? co L NO Ln r N co LO 0 00 u1 P, U N N oo (4) U0112A813 0 (D 0 LO m Q o +? v c 0 0 O 6 d aa) N c Y O co O ?_ co co ro a c c c o ° CL > o U 0 C\j N N } 0 0 LO LO G LO M M N LO rLr? O Ln M QO 4 w, m N m 00 0 CO m r, 00 co 00 co co r- (If) UOIJUA91] x 4 ? t T e ... f. , 't ? ? c i y ? , •? + ab ^P i? J 1+ AL ! ?, ,?`r r R rs '? . r f r `, e .?'s rF;. Y C tC Q t t C O O J N t r R C Y O O J 0 0 0 m o Q LO O O co O > M O r ? Y 0 C O cli N ? O ? U o ? c -o ce) o O a O U l N O C\j } O 0 LO co LO ^ LO ^ O (Ni r- C6 ^ o (14) UOijenaj3 y 1 i zu'b ., N? y , cry ?.;?F E ? 16 r ;r ?* ? L ?. J y?yy ( xa4?i??n ;?€ ?T39*`1 ? • J "e L ?j i l ?jf 3 . < k JX, ° 4 sn ar ?C C t t rr t6 O O J Y C W d t Y O O J O O O CO Q O C ? O _N N C O c O fn ? cp U c° a? O _C O Cl) O n a 0 U N O ?I N } O O (n (D LO (O L() tt (n M (n N (n (11) UOljLlnel3 .. 1p 1 L N f w4 A ? • lt - y ? r M rr ?v, iq? .' i d._T N? 7f ? C .r t L C1 C Y O O J ?C C N L l4 a1 C Y O O J 0 0 0 5) D] Q O ? c O O > C m T C O c t5 N O ch a p co U m -6 c ° c O a a o N 0I N co m O O M LO ^ U7 r, tn ( ^ O LO ^ m? In M in N m n (4) u01jenal3 Ao, .4q?? ++}?t ?SPa• f.? 1 ? `,fl i 3 Y C t0 t t R 01 C Y 0 J P? ?C C t lC 0 J O co O r COO m ? O I O LO > C Y C O U (3) U O U) L -p O ? C O a a a C) 0 M 0 U N O } O N O O LO LO O LO M Pn M Pn I- Pn 0 LO in Ln v Pn (1}) uoileAe l] R ? 5 y-" 4 r s a ?. ?A c a? m e? AV I, k , - " w C c0 L L R a1 C Y J ?C C t0 _N N t w R a1 C Y O O J 0 0 m m Q O I LO Tl C O N ? T ? c O U O Cn a N 0 cn N O ? U o 0 co O_ C a 00 O ?_ I I U N a? o } 0 N Ln LC) In M to W U? ? LO W 00 0 00 00 ?- r, co 00 (11) uOilIBna13 Y C tC t d t C Y O O J Y C w v- d d L CY C Y O O J LO 0 v LO c`') - t]7 Q c Cl) 0 O a) O - Y GO LO c N Zwl cn j N co o N C Q U ° a a _° O o U r II N Q) I11} O I LO 0 In o rn LO m LO r- LO p m 6 co o I,- co r" r? ? cD rl- o m rl- r- r- r- (};) u01lenal3 E? Y 9 11'z. y v ( M 'v} ?A11 Y? _ IT A + p Pk? d pu A l ? A * # - a ,? r y ' ' .' _ :f:,.? ta'r •:: ,.. '/t: ": F ? ? 3 - . ?Ylrw n A $ +Y Y C L a1 s ca c O O J Aw W Y O O J O LO LO O V m a Lr) Cl) ? •H C O O O co O C O C CO a U) LO j-- N U a? a C C ?O Q o ? ° o U T N c6 N } • 1 I O LO O W 00 4 c (6 co 6 6 4 00 o 00 O (11) uOilenaJ?j t? - Y R .Q t d t Y O O J Y C _d d t c'-a 0 0 J O In LO v O - V CO Q LO Cl) O . O rE > a> O ? O N Cl) Y ? C ? O N n vl U) U) Lo s N p ` O U o a c n a O a_ O O C\j m2 U N r m N ?IT} I O Ln O LD o rn f rn LO 00 LO f ai rn r-? rn rn rn m (11) UOilenel3 Appendix C Site Photos City Pond-General Stream Photographs 4 ? i r mow, .,, ; i r.n. Y z + S J n ? r ak. ? n. Photo 1. Looking downstream at bend and crest gauge. 5?}?t i ? MTr'7?s.E.?'Y, ;? ? f kf--z -?Pw?.€ ?"? . - 14.11 Photo z. Looking downstream along right bank with crest gauge. .04 +'AY x ?{ro'??, t?^i°n°r? e ? Y??r .? • ? r y:y?a r ,?+ 7 ? ?k? ?* r? y ?4 4 4 'VC Photo 3. Vegetation along the right bank and crest gauge. Al "?' ate' S.' ? ?? y "' , y P f , ?? ? . ? ':? , Derr' ?* r¢?t ?`^? ? ? + rk a• - ?. C,{i }T/ Sry-frt ?i ih i l ? :sY -A y,' t.? ?1?I'•-. ' ? ? '?? ?=gyp rt ?11 ? f ,, . ? rig •_? .Y??`.. y ?' s ? ? = i? ,? >. - `s Fey Photo 4. Rootwad in a bend with channel bar forming. s ? I'Sk Photo 5. Rootwads in a bend with good stand of vegetation. rnoto 6. Hootwads with a good stand of vegetation in a bend. Stream Problem Area Photographs SPA 1. Bank erosion occurring on the right bank at STA 11+25. SPA 3. Log vane set at incorrect elevation at STA 15+00. SPA 4. Coir fiber matting failure; lack of vegetation to hold it in place at STA 15+50. SPA 5. Coir fiber matting failure along left bank; lack of vegetation to hold it in place at STA 17+25. SPA 6 & 7. Vegetation in channel; siltation at STA 27+50. V' ii }[ ' ff We wry f "t a Nit p '. "?.,p ? t f ? , ?4+; ? ' •. ??,,; ? f ' :?_ a <?, t ? ' ? 5F'A 8. Incised channel; vegetation in channel at STA 32+25. Srm y. airucture tanure-rocK vane arm coming away from bank at STA 45+75. SPA 10. Log vane elevation set too high at STA 49+50. Not shown in plans. SPA 11. Bank erosion occurring behind root wads; rocks exposed at STA 23+75. S 1, '? 3[ t ! kk 7 ],skt e4 y F } ',t4t .r ? ?"µf iS a 4' -n d1. ?' ff 1 1 Y 3 i ? f y ? +?' 1 ?. tI' Y 'iv sf. Y q? # C {}' ,?. p ,?dr t `fl,?Cr? tt' G? ':y ;.;Krw i R rpa3 ?iY-?^r ?' ,31i1?ar t '? k ?r.. ? S a3lff ?t ?? 1?° Lf PPI arA 1L. Voir ricer matting rolled away; lacks vegetation to hold it in place. City Pond Veg Plot #1 A L.-P M 3 R ? 1 ?? k 1 4 - .. !c. aKa a M : b4alL .W."' City Pond Veg Plot #3 City Pond Veg Plot #5 City Pond Veg Plot #2 City Pond Veg Plot #4