20041511 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20081029

DPI. 6 i Z
Stonebridge Mitigation Project
Moore County, North Carolina
Year 3 Monitoring Report
,Np'iE.C? t111P??g?p,IiGt1
A?1DSS??
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
October 2008
S ? 1 b
RECEIVED
OCT o a Zoos
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENTPROGRAM
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year-?)
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INT RODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... .. 1
2.2 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................... .. 6
2.3 Project History & Schedule ........................................................................................ .. 7
3.0 VEGETATION .................................................................................................................... .. 8
3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................................... .. 8
3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................... .. 8
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................. ..9
3.4 Vegetation Observations & Conclusions ................................................................... 11
4.0 STR EAM MONITORING ................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 11
4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................................ 12
4.2.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................. 12
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... 13
4.2.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 13
4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations ................................................................................. 13
4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results .................................................................... 13
4.3.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................. 13
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... 13
4.3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 19
4.4 Benthic Macroi n vertebrate Survey Results ................................................................ 20
4.5 Stream Conclusions .................................................................................................... 20
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 20
•
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
List of Figures •
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 3 •
Figure 2. USGS Map ...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Monitoring Overview Map ............................................................................................... 5
Figure 4 Stream Problem Areas Map ........................................................................................... 15 •

List of Tables •
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ................................................................... .. 7
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .......................................................................... .. 7 •
Table 3. Project Contacts .............................................................................................................. .. 7
Table 4. Planted Tree Species ....................................................................................................... .. 8
Table 5a. Results of Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................. 10 •
Table 5b Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 6 Volunteer Tree Species .................................................................................................... 11
Table 7. Stream Areas Requiring Observation ............................................................................. 14 •
Table 8. Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................................................ 19
Table 9. Summary Precipitation Data ........................................................................................... 19
Table 10. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters ....................................................... 20 •
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2008 Site Photos
ii

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)

1.0 SUMMARY
The Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project site is located north of the town of Carthage in Moore
County, North Carolina. It lies within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Thi
s project was identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC (EBX) as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT contracted with EBX to perform the mitigation work under Full Delivery Project S-1.
Two unnamed tributaries (UT-1 and UT-2) to Crawley Creek were restored to create a total of
6,120 stream mitigation units (SMU). All restoration is being monitored for five years to
document success. Baseline data on stream morphology and vegetation were collected
i
mmediately after construction and planting were complete. This information is documented in
the As-Built Report dated April 27, 2006. The As-Built survey is included as Appendix A of this
• report. Information on stream morphology and vegetation will be collected each year and
compared to the baseline data and data from previous monitoring years.
•
This Annual Monitoring Report presents the monitoring data collected during Monitoring Year 3
at the Stonebridge Stream Restoration Site. Data collected for 2008 include: monthly crest gauge
readings, monthly observations of current conditions, vegetation monitoring, benthic
macroi n vertebrate survey, cross section survey, digital images, and observations of potential
problems with stream stability.

• Fourteen 100-square-meter monitoring plots were used to measure survival of the planted woody
vegetation. The 2008 vegetation monitoring documents a range of survival between 324 and 891
stems per acre. With an average of 526 stems per acre, the site has achieved the interim
vegetation success criteria of 320 stems per acre after the third growing season. Areas
surrounding vegetation plots 4 and 5 were replanted with 2-year-old trees prior to the start of the
• 2007 growing season to address high mortality in these plots. These plots were also replanted
with 3-year-old trees during the spring of 2008 due to continued high mortality rates.
At least three occasions out-of-bank or bankfull events occurred between the months of February
• and August 2008. The stream morphology remains stable and very little fluvial erosion was
observed during the 2008 monitoring season.

Overall, the project is on track to achieve the stream and vegetative success criteria specified in
the Mitigation Plan. Due to the severe drought throughout North Carolina, little water was
observed in the channel during site visits.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in Moore County, North Carolina, north of the town of Carthage
(Figure 1 & Figure 2) within hydrologic unit 03030003 in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
project site is accessed from the west via Glendon-Carthage Road. The 1,196 acre parcel has
b
een used for agricultural purposes as a cow/calf operation. The surrounding area is rural, with a
mix of farms, woodlands and home sites. Dominant soil types on this project site include
Congaree, Mooshaunee, Pinkston, and Tetotum.
• Two unnamed tributaries to Crawley Creek flow across the project site. The streams are referred
to in this Annual Report as UT-1 and UT-2. UT-1 has a drainage area of 688 acres and UT-2 of
182 acres. Prior to implementation of the mitigation plan, the streams were in a disturbed

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
condition due to the impacts of unrestricted cattle access, dredging, and other anthropic channel
manipulations.
UT-1 was the most degraded resource and was the focus of restoration efforts. A total of 5,556
stream mitigation units (SMU) were achieved by restoring plan form, cross section, and profile
features on UT-1. This number is derived from the as-built survey of 5,676 linear feet of restored
stream length minus 70 feet for a crossing reservation near the middle of the project and minus
another 50 feet adjacent to the culvert at the downstream end of the project. UT-1 was restored to
a Rosgen Classification of C4/E4.
UT-2 was similarly degraded and flows east-southeast from a small dam, entering UT-I near the
center of the project area. The design for this small tributary yielded an additional 564 linear feet
of restored stream. The total SMUs generated from stream restoration on UT-1 and UT-2 are
6,120. The entire easement, including UT-1 and UT-2, is entirely fenced in.
2

?a
Deep River
Rd
12a
;Qa
q-'

Mill
Stonebridge Project Site
Rd
CL
0
0
4a
v
3
1
X
CL
Figure 1.
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site
Project Location Map
Moore County, NC
1 inch equals 1 mile

AW
•

Mon Rd
r..?
11
h

0-7
j'??
//
i
Z \ ?/ Stonebridge Project Site
VII
o \
NCO `'? - -• - /?
0
7 p
/ l

\\
J, X

11 /?1 jt ? } C
/ a

Figure 2.
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site
USGS Topographic Map
Moore County, NC
1 inch equals 2,000 feet

N
\ • > N
W
> 3 Q
N -?
? j L O ..
? J
C)
C: C7) o
O
a_ O o
\ \ _ %--
O>
l
_ Qo
C/?
00 X
cn X
X Ln U \
U)
X Qo
1.
1
? O
I
l ?
I)
j;
r,q
Cf) ;
cn x
X O
cv 'l1
cn V) .
X X
> O .
1.i
I'l O >

N
o
M

>
O 0

U N
.? C3) °

O M

/
)

C; O

z z ?:

00
W

1 ?
f
`

i?
.
1 ( j
?\

cn ? 1,
X
j,

j?

1?\

/fin
f)

i
t O

i
is
O O?

Un y ' X
X
l?
? I
;O

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o • o • • • • • • • • • • •
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
This project was identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC as having potential to help meet the
compensatory mitigation requirements of the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as
solicited through the NCDOT Full Delivery Project S-1. The objective of this project is to provide
at least 5,556 stream mitigation units (SMU) to the NCDOT through the full delivery process.
The mitigation units are to be accomplished through the restoration and enhancement of stream
and riparian habitats as defined in the inter-agency Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE,
2003).
Table 1. Proiect Mitigation Structure and Obiectives
Reach Name
UT1 As-Built Length _(_f0____
5,556 Mitigation Approach
Restoration
UT2 564 Restoration
Total 6,120
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC in the spring of 2003. Table 2 outlines the
project history and milestones.
Table 2. Proiect Activitv and Renortine Historv
Month Activi
June 2005 Mitigation Plan
December 2005 Final Design
February 2006 Construction
March 2006 Vegetation Planting
Aril 2006 As-built Baseline Report
November 2006 Year 2 Monitoring
March 2007 Supplemental Vegetation Planting
November 2007 Year 2 Monitoring
November 2008 Scheduled Year 3 Monitoring
November 2009 Scheduled Year 4 Monitoring
November 2010 Scheduled Year 5 Monitoring
Because of high mortality recorded in some monitoring plots, a supplemental planting with 2-
year-old trees was performed on a portion of the site near Plots 4 and 5 in 2007. These plots were
also replanted with 3-year-old trees during the spring of 2008 due to continued high mortality
rates. Shallow bedrock was noted around Plot 5 during the 2007 supplemental planting.
Table 3. Proiect Contacts
Contact Firm Information
Project Manager EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster 919 608-9688
Designer WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Michael Ellison 919 782-0495
Monitoring Contractor WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram 919 782-0495
7
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site are
based on the recommendations found in the VW Technical Note and correspondence from
review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking
Instrument. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Stonebridge Mitigation Site will
be survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the Year 3 monitoring period. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted trees per acre at the end of
Year 5 of the monitoring period (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et. al. 2003).
Success of riparian vegetation will be evaluated annually through monitoring planted stem
survival and photo documentation of vegetation plots. An assessment of the natural regeneration
of woody stems and herbaceous cover will also be performed. Up to 20 % of the site species
composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action may be required should these
volunteers (i.e. loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciua), etc.) exceed 20 % composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
All vegetation was planted in March 2006 after construction was complete. Bare root native tree
and shrub species were planted to establish forested riparian buffers of at least fifty feet on both
sides of the restored stream. The plants were selected to establish vertical habitat structure and a
diverse mix of species (Table 4). The planted area consists of two zones. The first is a wetter
zone predominantly consisting of moist soil species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennslyvanica),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). The second is a drier
zone predominantly consisting of more mesic species such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and Northern red oak (Quercus rubra). Black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) was
planted as a nurse tree in the upland zone. The initial stocking of riparian plantings across the site
was approximately 758 stems per acre. In addition to the riparian plantings, black willow (Salix
nigra) cuttings bundles were installed on the outside of bends.
Table 4. Planted Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name FAC Status
Shrubs
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis FACW-
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+
Trees
Black Locust Robiinia pseudocacia FACU-
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana FAC
Red Oak Quercus rubra FACU
Red Bud Cercis canadensis FACU
River Birch Betula nigra FACW
Sweet Bay Magnolia virginiana FACW+
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW-
Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera FAC
0

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
• Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
• Fourteen 100-square-meter vegetation sampling plots were established at the restoration site to
• monitor the success of riparian buffer vegetation. The locations of these plots were randomly
distributed across the planted portions of the site. The plots cover approximately 2% of the site.
The center of each plot is located with a ten-foot section of metal fence post with a white PVC
• cover. Each planted woody stem was located with a three-foot section of white PVC and
identified with an aluminum tag. Planted woody species will be monitored twice per year for the
first three years. Herbaceous plant cover will be monitored annually using the notched-boot
• method. The total number of each species planted are listed in Table 5b.
Because of high mortality and the low stems per acre documented in 2006 for Plots 4 and 5, these
• portions of the site were planted with 2-year-old trees in the spring of 2007 to supplement the
surviving stems per acre. Approximately 600 stems were planted in and around these plots. The
stem counts for 2007 reflect both the surviving original live stems and the supplemental stems
• planted.
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Stem counts were conducted at each monitoring plot during August 2008. All 14 vegetation
• monitoring plots were evaluated for success, and the overall condition of vegetation at the site
was assessed. Tables 5a and 5b show the number of each species of woody plants recorded for
each plot, and the success rate of each plot. Above-average mortality in 2007 necessitated that
• some areas be replanted with three-year-old stems to maintain adequate density. The range of
surviving planted stems per acre after the third year was 324 to 891, with an average of 526
planted trees per acre surviving at the site. Two photos of each vegetation plot were taken at the
• time of the stem counts, one facing upstream and the other facing downstream (Appendix Q.
Areas identified in 2007 as requiring further observation with respect to vegetation are currently
• meeting success criteria after 3 years. Slight changes in survival percentage have also occurred
• because of the resprouting ability of some species. In a number of plots, individual stems
previously recorded as dead had resprouted from the root crown. This pattern was observed
• throughout the site with green ash, silky dogwood, and elderberry.
There has been one observed instance where livestock entered a portion of the easement and
• temporarily damaged the herbaceous vegetation around Plots 1 and 2. This problem was corrected
• and no significant reduction in planted stem survival was observed, although the herbaceous
vegetation in this area is now primarily grass species. Plot 4 has the lowest density, but still meets
• the success criteria of 320 stems per acre after 3 years. The higher mortality experienced in this
• plot appears to be due to locally shallow bedrock around this plot.

• 9

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
Table 5a. Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Plots
Species t. l 2 3 ; '4 5 7 g g d 11 12` 13 L14
Shrubs
Elderberry 2
Silky Dogwood, 3 4 1 3 7 2 3 3 1 5 3 5 2
Trees
Black Locust 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Green Ash 11 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 1
Ironwood 2 1 4 2 2 4 1
Red Oak 4 1 1 1 1 1
Redbud 1 1 2 3
River Birch 1 6 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
Sweet Bay 1 1 1
Sycamore 1 1 4 2 3 1 5 1 2 5 3 1
Tulip Tree 2 3 1 1 2 3 2
Table 5b Summarv of Results

Plots

Stems
Planted Additional

Stems

Planted Total

-Stems

Planted

Stems: {,
Year.. .
Stems per,
Acre

Year 3
1 16 14 30 15 607
2 20 6 26 15 607
3 21 21 17 688
4 16 5 21 8 324
5 24 1 25 11 445
6 29 1 30 22 891
7 14 14 10 405
8 16 16 9 364
9 17 17 15 607
10 19 1 20 12 486
11 20 20 17 688
12 17 17 11 445
13 14 14 9 364
14 19 19 11 445

Average 18.7 13 526
Average Stems/Acre: 526 Range of Stems/Acre: 324-891
Replanted in Spring 2007 and Spring 2008
A plan view drawing of the vegetation plots is provided in Figures 3a and 3b. The drawing
includes the appropriate information pertaining to vegetation monitoring of the project. The
drawing also shows the locations of the following features:
• Vegetation monitoring plots
• Vegetation plot photo points
• Locations of any vegetation problem areas
• Symbology to represent vegetative problem types (if appropriate)
10

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
• Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)

• The vegetation at the site is mostly dense with good herbaceous cover that is variable in
composition, as would be expected in a natural riparian system. Areas previously observed to
have bare soil now have good herbaceous cover. Only a few limited areas around Plot 4 have
• exposed bedrock. The locally dominant species are panic grass (Panicum anceps), dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and Canada goldenrod
(Solidago canadensis). Other prominent species include white thoroughwort (Eupatorium album),
• devil's darning needles (Clematis virginiana), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), Carolina horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), American pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), common rush
• (Juncus effusus), sedges (Cares sp.), and grape (Vitis sp.).
Volunteer species are also monitored throughout the five year monitoring period. Table 6 shows
the most commonly found woody volunteer species. Volunteer species were less obvious. This is
most likely because of decreased germination, vigor, and survival due to the earlier drought. The
herbaceous cover also obscures the smaller volunteer individuals.

Table 6 Volunteer Tree Species
Common Name Scientific Name FAC Status
Sweetgurn Li uidambar s raci ua FAC+
Red Maple Acer rubrum FAC
Persimmon Dios ros vir iniana FAC
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra FAC
3.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Vegetation across the site has become well established, both herbaceous early successional and
planted stems. Natural recruitment of species is also beginning to develop but does not threaten to
compete with the planted stems at this time. Despite the previous drought year in 2007 and below
to normal rainfall in 2008, the vegetation at this site is mostly healthy and appears to be thriving.
A few areas, such as around plot 4, have experienced a slightly higher mortality than desired, but
the stem counts indicate the site is meeting the 3-year success criteria for the vegetation plots. No
remedial actions are necessary at this time.
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the Mitigation Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site include 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 should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "E" or "C" type
channels.
Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed in "E" and "C" type channels.
11
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
• 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.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate: Sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates within the restored
stream channel shall be conducted for the first three years of post-restoration monitoring.
Plan view drawings of the project site are provided in Figures 4a- 4d. The drawings- include the
appropriate information pertaining to monitoring of the project. These drawings show the
locations of the following features (if applicable):
• Bankfull channel limits
• Centerline of channel
• Easement boundary/Fencing
• Road crossings
• Root wads
• Log vanes
• Cuttings bundles
• Channel plugs
• Log toe protection
• Riffle grade control
• Cross weir structures
• Step pool structures
• Tributaries
The drawings also show locations of monitoring activities. These include:
• Cross section survey locations
• Crest gauge locations
• Vegetation plots
• Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations
4.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
Along UT-1 and UT-2 a natural channel design approach was applied to develop stable hydraulic
geometry parameters. Construction began in October 2005 and was completed in February 2006.
The rebuilding of the channel established stable cross-sectional geometry, increased plan form
sinuosity, and restored streambed diversity to improve benthic habitat. Approximately 6,120
linear feet of stream restoration has been constructed.
4.2.1 Cross Sections
The mitigation plan for the Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project requires twelve permanent
cross sections to be monitored along the restored tributaries UT-1 and UT-2. The cross sections
were established during monitoring set-up in evenly distributed pairs of one riffle and one pool
per 1,000 linear feet of restored stream. Locations of cross sections are specified in Figures 3a
and 3b. The cross section surveys and photographs are shown in Appendix B. Each cross section
will be surveyed annually including measurements of floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition, any fluvial features present will be documented.
12

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles will be surveyed annually during the monitoring period. The cumulative
length of the measured profiles will be at least 3,000 linear feet. Features measured will include
thalweg, inverts of in-stream structures, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank.
4.2.3 Hydrology
• Three crest gauges were installed at the site: one on UT-1 (CG3) near the downstream end of the
project and one each on UT-2 (CG2) and UT-1 (CG 1) immediately above the confluence (see
locations in Figures 3a and 3b). Crest gauges will be checked monthly to document high flows.
• During each visit, a determination will be made if an out-of-bank event has occurred since the
prior visit. During the gauge inspections, any high water marks or debris lines will be
documented and photographed.

4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations

There are no designated photo reference stations on the Stonebridge Mitigation site. Photos are
collected showing general conditions of the site (within the restoration easement), at all
• structures, cross sections, as well as specific areas of concern along the stream corridor
(Appendix Q.

• 4.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
• Photographs were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution of the
restored stream channel (Appendix Q. Herbaceous vegetation is moderately dense along the
restored stream. The channel was dry during the latter part of the growing season, making it
• difficult to document the effectiveness of the stream channel structures. Pools have maintained a
variety of depths and habitat qualities, depending on the location and type of scour features (logs,
root wads, transplants, etc.). During the early portion of the growing season, a consistent stream
• flow was present during the monthly site visits.
Very few problems with stream morphology were observed during the monitoring field visits.
• Photos of each located structure taken in July 2008 are included in Appendix C. The plan view
drawings in Figures 4a-4d show the locations of the following features:
• • As-built stream centerline and bankfull limits
• In-stream structures (e.g. root wads and log vanes)
• Locations of any stream channel problem areas requiring observation

• Table 7 gives a description of each stream area requiring further observation, the station where
the problem occurs, and the photo number for the problem area.

• 4.3.1 Cross Sections
• The cross sections were surveyed during the Year 3 monitoring activities in July 2008. The As-
Built cross-section surveys are shown with the Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 monitoring cross
section surveys in Appendix B. The Year 3 cross sections do not differ significantly from the
• As-Built, Year 1, and Year 2 cross sections.
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted during the Year 3 monitoring activities in July 2008.
• The previous profile and cross sections indicate that there has been very little adjustment to the

• 13

Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
stream profile or dimension since construction. Using the surveyed dimensions of the cross
sections, morphological parameters were calculated for each reach and are included in Table 10
below.
Table 7_ Ctream Areas Reauirinu Observation
SPA Reach Station Description Recommended Action
1 UT1 32+50 Debris jam Remove debris jam
2 UT1 34+00 Minor erosion on left bank Continue to monitor
3 UT1 40+25 Minor erosion on right bank Continue to monitor
4 UT1 46+50 Debris jam caused by fallen Remove debris jam
tree blocking water flow
5 UT1 46+65 Minor erosion on right bank Continue to monitor
6 UT1 47+50 Erosion on right bank Continue to monitor
7 UT1 48+50 Fence knocked over by Repair fence
displaced to toe structure
Severe damage to vegetation
8 UT1 48+50 to and bank erosion caused by None
56+75 cattle within easement
9 UT 1 48+60 Erosion on left bank due to None
hoof shear from cattle
Cattle gate off hinges Repair gate; remove cattle
10 UT1 49+00 allowing cattle to access the
from easement
easement
11 UT1 49+50 Erosion on left bank from Continue to monitor
cattle
12 UT1 53+00 Erosion on right bank due to None
cattle hoof shear
13 UT1 56+25 Log toe structure missing None
14

C)

/ L-
Q 0-

' Q

x0? M

I I
? J
?
I W O ?

,t C/-) n

15+50
- ! °
-- - 0

----- R18 p4
----- h 2x 14+50

X 0 _
0 X
i SO

?O

l
k
!?1
kp0
o?

0`

OsXyk `
i
i
OO
O B
era

,yX
OO-q, O

N
XOO

.2
i
S

I
------- ------
-
-------
------
00+ ------
----------
---
- ------- - 0
-
\)c
0S+0
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

0
N

. Q °
m

V Q)
Q)
M
Q W
U
V/ O 7--c\ O V)
O IL LL
4F
E O
M

2$: Z
J N
? m

O
--_-_------ - _
U
+?
/
V
/
Z Z +
Q7 Q
30 m
N 301'0
0
)
?O
?x
2g+00
0
Ln
N
i

;X50
o '

,
01
o`
cr
_-_ I
` 23+ 0

+y?
OS,

01
sk
°
o
N
N

.?kg0
00
x
Oc-1

/'g+ 0
OS
xS!
o
z
J ?
?
U
H
Q
'

0 • • • • 0 00 0 0 00 0000 00 00000 0 0 0000 • • 0 00 0 0 0 00 000 0 0
n

o s? ?
z X
J ss Q
w r-O a %x
LLJ<+ ;o d
L,j (n (n Ln ~ ~ w
cnoQQw N p``` Q D C)
U o p? o
LLJ
O?Omcn IQs LL
Q
F- 0 W o
0 0 0 LLJ Z
W WQLn cn Q pX
CD + (D
Ow<00<
Z>Od- u
' o
0
Y.
QQ ry ? h
4jQX , --------
0 0.9* a Q
00X.. --
h ?s
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i ,
O i
? '
i
i
r
r
i
CO
OS
OS
Q 0
i
s
Q A-
0
--------------
0X8
o
k
i
i
i
Ax n O
CL
C) N
}
cO a
CL
Q ; I
Lr)
to V/
.?S ? yyy
}y O?xvY `1,'1
Y IL
o
K)
3NIl HOiVV4
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
4.3.3 Hydrology
The crest gauges were read on monthly sites visits from February through August 2008. Data
collected from the on-site gauge in February is a composite sample for December 2007 through
February 2008. At least five out-of-bank or bankfull events occurred during this period on UT-2,
and seven out-of-bank events occurred on UT-1. Crest gauge data are included in Table 8.
Weather data were collected from a nearby weather station-Carthage Water Treatment Plant and
the Moore County Airport. The data are summarized in Table 9, and indicate that conditions
were very dry during the months of January through August.
Table 8. Crest Gauge Data
Month
Recorded Crest
Gauge 1 Crest
Gauge 2 Crest
Gauge 3
January --- --- ---
February 1.10 2.80 0.00
March 1.90 1.05 1.35
April 1.55 0.55 2.25
May 0.00 0.00 0.00
June 0.40 0.00 0.00
July 0.55 1.00 2.20
August 0.00 0.00 0.00
September 0.60 1.20 0.00
October --- --- ---
November --- --- ---
December --- --- ---
Table 9. Summarv Precipitation Data
_ Norma l Limits
Month Average 30

Percent 70

Percent Carthage
Precipitation On-Site
Precipitation
January 4.51 3.44 5.43 1.63 ---
February 3.54 2.39 4.24 3.33 6.43
March 4.65 3.52 5.64 3.38 3.93
April 3.08 1.93 4.17 5.64 2.90
May 4.06 2.65 4.86 2.29 2.87
June 4.18 2.36 5.16 2.20 1.72
July 5.37 3.06 6.7 4.37 7.00
August 4.65 3.22 5.57 5.54 1.41
September 4.45 3.23 6.24 12.37 9.73
October 3.54 1.86 4.73 --- ---
November 3.47 2.2 4.52 --- ---
December 3.38 2.28 4.04 --- ---
Total 48.88 32.14 = 61.30 40.75 35.99
19
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year3)
Table 10. Summarv of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters
Parameter
' Year 3 Year 3
Reach UT-1 Reach UT-2
Drainage Area Ac 688.00 182.00
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf

f 22.80 7.0
s
t)
Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft 14.96 7.2
Bankfull W/D 10.08 7.4
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf

ft 1.52 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax

(ft) 2.70 1.5
4.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
Benthic monitoring will be conducted in October 2008.
4.5 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
The restored stream channel has remained stable and is providing the intended habitat and
hydrologic functions. All monitored cross sections for 2008 show very little adjustment in stream
dimension. Several bankfull events were recorded during the 2008 monitoring season, exceeding
the requirement of two bankfull events within five years.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Observations of conditions at the Stonebridge Mitigation Site and data collected during Year 3
monitoring indicate that the project is currently successful and on track to achieve the vegetative
and stream success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan.
The stream morphology is stable. Very little fluvial erosion was observed. Sedimentation that has
occurred in the stream channel is minor and does not need to be addressed at this time. Removal
of the debris jams at stations 32+50 and 46+50 are recommended to help reduce channel
blockage, which could cause bank erosion. The fence near station 48+50 should be repaired to
prevent further bank damage from cattle entering the channel. The vegetation is generally
surviving well.
Overall, the project is performing well. Habitat has been improved significantly through this
project. Fluvial erosion has been greatly reduced so that the project site no longer contributes
excessive amounts of sediment to the receiving stream. Based on 2008 observations, site
vegetation is expected to succeed and provide riparian habitat, water quality benefits, and cover
for the stream system.
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX A
As-Built Survey

?. a
1 ,L
I 1 I (H i
MAIIPRE
.,.... ? mil
1 ys f., d?' • {?•? ` ? ? 9t x'11 a
t r ?
7 / +
"? two
MA
*441
®r 0"1
Fla
OR
f I?
Oil
F
.`
r1
? ONN
Z O ?n0
3Ni
C L z ;n'
K
?? 7Jv
= C
V Z CY
?cV
-? o
M
C
E

I _
\` \ J
Jw >m 0-
j
LL, Z
\ F (n ° to
\ pl;i K Na U<F >N
W MM
Z
.`I `111 i it zO <¢I,..OO LLI UYQ
1 I aa¢W 0< LLI fW/
aw°O Nw a ?0
m?N?
w a
¢?" C)°LI rn ZLUZ°
UofJZW-IVNO=
m w< d X m x~ H
?• ,I an- Zm w D 0 01
I ,'II ¢:D FS JON W
aN¢ U0- Q
O)-p w Z° m z w 2 O
Om
2 Z_ F
U WF Un<F ? JJ
of P a 0 Z¢ En z0 w
=ZF2°NN?O.?N
Z? io Q
H OM W <
0
O F- N O
f` I 2¢Z0 Uw
FaONJ2 rn
a¢w
ngi O aF000Z? rn
•,` `, `,`` hQ fyN ¢¢00 O
U M
(If Z
a O a U F 00
mm)- 0 LLJ F-
w ° (if z af
F
Jy\s- .` x u) z w 4 O O F
SOZO Fa¢`V¢tr
?`. ,\I II 0 ON Fpm>F m
O?°wn O? N m 0 p - 0f
a(nO?WF-F 0W 3rZ m
F- 0-
Z Ir 0 -J M V) _j
W ¢
x :m LLJ LLJ
¢I> FccF LLJ fY
1`, 1', II 1i 1, ?wOW O>WK(Y ¢
Z a1m UO> dO
.
1
11 ; i h ; I1\`.
1
' ?i ? \ x a
I
I \
,
i ?
r ,
I ' -
1,1, 11
I
.If,1?\
xlaD> iYt '0n:x y W =m y „Ytc g c lI4rNOL
1• NY IuM OyW? c0u A ?•Nam 3nl M,a slam /.110 1x9pp M'oN b0 i NOpgq
- aw ko0l M'IWe M m n0,M M'I pIIOO(I CW W Gmllllp m
aX-.,
fo uNxWa ]ILL m n m 1pu.'xla0r01 mNCSy c'LK1Y rn 7M '100 a 40cma 'fa.® iloWAa
El
w
rY
U)
Z U)
Q F-
J J
fl _
J m
m Un
I Q
Un
Q Z
w O
U F--
? Q
U
m
z
O
U Q
W
ct?
F-
(n
U
U LLJ
J 0
J D?
W
CD Z
QO
__ a
X Q
w_Uo
? a
U
Q < z
M W U
J F-
Q F- 2
F
~ a
W L J
U'
Z p
O
M
> W
W Z0
F-
1 1-1
0
o yf
F c
ly'1 J y
?ryS ?s
¢Zm
ioa a
_ 98
SZA
O g
Yy
?9
k_
18 k? 1?_
3
b
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
i
i
W A
z o
z
U K O U
y, F
Q O C d' U
U P Or , u o
b
$ ?.. 0 o w u o a << rc N
0
i
N N N N N •1 N ry N ?N N N N H N N N N
.:..:. :.:.
. ... .:..:. :.: .
.... . ;. ;.;?..
.... . ;. ;. ;..;. .
.... . ;.;.:..:. .
.... .:.; .:..:.
.... .;.; .....
...
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....

o ..: . ...:.:... .:....... .:....... .:......... :...... ........ .
_ g

T: p 7*:

:.:: .... ...: ...: :... .... .

......... ......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .....
s
....

.....:.:. ....
....
........ ....
....
.;.:.:..1 ....
....
.:.:.;.:. ....
....
.:,; :, :, ....
....
.... ....
....
... .

....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
.... R
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
8

8

....
.... i
....
....
....
....
.... s
.... .... .... .... .... .... .

....
.
. .... .... .... ....
.....
: . ........:. ........... . _..,.... ...,.:..
t:
........
....

.... .........
....

.... ..........
....

.... ..........
....

.... .........
....

.... .........

. ..........

g

., ... .... .... ..... ...... .. .
: . .. ... .. . ...... ... . ... .. ... ...... ..

.... .... ....
t.:.:.:.

....
.... ....
. .. ....
... .... ....

......

....

.... ....

.... ....

.... ....

....
....

....
....

....
....

ONOw w nouf aaco ?w mleram sa'?'m • homon
a a ugu?wK'?`n s ximuoi e% u? rv '.vi ?"?am v'?0°i? °t? iiro
a
O
O
U) +
Z pp
Q
J
d Q
H ~
O
m
I
N O
Q O
L) O
0
of Q
m
w
Z
O _
N I
r
U
W
U ?
JO
J ?
wa-
z Z
QO
_?<
X Q ?
LJ o
? a
_ U
48
2
U ¢
Q < z
M W
J 2
H L
Z U
:2 CD
Z 0
O
> m
Z LiJ
w Z
O
H
U)
of
h
oN? a?
ttO? €
Y'
?Q e
k

111k. II
R 2
R
J ? to
Z JJ
W U O O U
Z
U in 8 U Op (7 R
o
O Jr U O O Z 6 a w
V < KK
C w C € > U r ti ?jj
U 4 W 3 m ¢ U IWII
sW? ay?/ppp -V sml mp x a amoa a nIM was mroa
?? W ?Mm MINI 1nbuM ?? N ?G? WM?N 1? c3G) ADD vLYOw v'?Nn'm v MOao
uwuw+ w a sn a wu- uioe?in r1 'm ?nNOOUOiM "® ma

H N H [?i N N [bV ?i ry ry ry ry ry ry ry H ry ry m
IE
N
Z LO
J O
m O
I O
Q -?
00
Li
c?
p Q
M U)
w
Z
o I
U
w
J JO
W
Z Z
¢O
2 H a
X Q ?
W CD 00
a
U
Q z
M w U
J ry _
¢ I- r
1- L Q
Z ?
W W
CD
Z p
CY
M
Z LIJ
w Z
O

k
12
I6-
bA
Z6
'o]? a
i
?s s? 37!
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
i
R ?
z ?+
F U - L
J ?
JJ O
U O O U
Z -
IY
2 LL JJ U H
U O U p Z
wo 7?` o o < a R
rc z u s? ai w
U 4 W K O O O h
N N N IC !`1 R? PV ? ?l N i3 R tV N N N M g
00± Z: 3 ITHO VYV : .. :
A
N
8
N

+
I:
N

...
...
.
......... ..
.......
.
.....
..
.....
. .
: : : ...
r
.:. ;.;.:. .; . i. .. .
8 I

....
.... I.
....
....
....
...
.
.... +
I...

o.a F ?

?...

I.:
A

N

I ..... .. ...... ,.
8
7 F

.... .. ........

+
.!!I_.. .... . .... . . ....
... .. ..
.
..... ... .
....
..
..:

.

....
n

s

.. .... .... .... ... . .
8

....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... .. ...
....
...
.

8

...

....

...

....

..

....

...

....

...

....

...

....

...

.... +
m
-
....
.... ....
....
05+ ....
...
.3 ....
....
HO:1 ....
....
:V+4. ....
.... .
.:::

5t
N rv trV N N? rv? ry ry N N iN N N N N N O n
1YNO?p MI wM OifYY^W?1LgdypWpMp 1?NOm 3Y I?'1d+ Glm Alp ffioawn O '?M??'o?o' ??MCri?
i - -Ida 11?L ill 1p M?Y?IIYDYdII 'm IDT3Y l1?' 111 "CI 0 MOppplY?j?1 CV ??! m
a
O
N p
Z +
J CD
Cl CN
H O
M p
I ?
< +
Q r
W f
0
Q .
m
W
Z
O
F
D
U
U LLJ
JU
J ?
W ?
Z Z
Q O
= f- Q
X
W U O
Q
U
U
Q z
M W cw?
J ? Q
< ma
H U) (r
W W U
Z p
[Y ?
J m
Z LiJ
W Z0
H
V)
k'
0
ff
Zip 9 e
SUO
OZN
QZ6
?Q j
e
?a ? fro
6?° a
@ ? eye

I ,
I
R ?
Z ?
U p G
UI N
Z O
U O O U
Z
U ? ? O U O Z
a 3 R
1J 2 y?
F (wj? 0¢ 0?' O o N a
w Z O
< Z S O O O w ?
U Ww ? 3 K 0 0 0 U Ul
?w
O4
40
°f a
H ?
W Z
N Q
Z
wa
?a
N N N ?1 m N? ?! ? b N ?`! ? N N N N N g
E.:.:. o s€. . 3Ni.. w iv ....... .: .:....
.: .: .. :. .:. :.:. ....:.:. ....: .: . ...:.::. ...: .. .. .: .
S
....

.... ....
....
.... ....
....
.... ....
....
.... ....
....
.... ....
....
.... .
.
. ...
...
...

8

+
.... .... . ...
.... .. . .... .... . ...
;.;.:. .:.;.E.;. ;.;.;.;. . .:

.... .... .... .
...:.....
....
.... ......
...
....

.... ..

....
....
.... .........
....
.... ..
.
. ......
...
...
....
.... ...
.. .
. ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... .
. ...
...
8
....

.... ....

....
- ....

....
- ....

....
- ....

.... ....

.... .

. ...

...
+
8
7-'Y- 7777 7777

.... .. . .... .... .... .... . ...
.... ....
is .... .... .... .... . ...
8
n
....
.... ....
.. .
f: ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... .
. ...
...

8
.... ....
4 .... .... .... .... . ..
.... .. . .... .... .... ...
8

.... .... .... ...: .... .... . ..
s

gi
.; ... .... ...... ... ... ... :.:. ...:..... . ...:.:; ....
8

7

E +
. ... :.....
s
I
?I +
.... .... .... .... .... .... . ...

©©# Z: 3 I T HO VAN
?
YI Y? ss +
N N SV ?1 N N ie1 ? ? YI iQ tV i? N H ry
H ry N
Yn?pNµuy?Y W OppYp7 a TfIK
L gMK3?aWy?Y 3NYWL
1?1 LL aaN4NµLl M K13 mmI l1NeYD 4 Kk 1N >i?'W Kedo y'M 'p 4
?j1') 3111 a bllp ?linl 'mY y y
0
O
N C]
z +
a LO
a- t)
O
J
m O
N O
+
a
w N
C)
o Q
M N
w
z
O
H ?
u
U LLJ
JO
J Of
W 0
C'
QO
2 ? ¢
X Q ?
W ?
a
U
48 => S
O
Q < Z
M w
J a
Q
F- ? Q
Z L)
W W
:2 CD
zo
OE?
?m
?w
w Z
O
(n
II
5
N h .40$
wzu
A A
_ ?88
Ze
0-11
?Q
E€5
?u
k?

A
o ? ? S
J JJ 1/i
W U O O U
o ? z z
U ? ? O ? Z R
O ?
z "i ?"< a rc? `?' a
cwi ? a ? ? o Y. x ? v ?n
-----------------
----------- /-'

0
N p
Z +
Q
d
H O
_J
D
m p
1 O
N +
Q LO
w
CD
o ?
M N
z
O
H 7
N
U
w
v -?
JO
J ?
W a
Z Z
Q O
2 ? a
X Q ?
W CD
a
.d ? F
U fr
Q< z
M w U
J [)? a
H N a
Z
W W
CD
--0
O
>m
z w
w Z
O
N

? use
=ad
Z6
?Q
INC
M
!Ry? iii!`
?? ¦ ?pyp? amva, a .,rye wa wn mvrws
YN? ? 1WCYm??MLLM1 iMwM ?i N?'iio? wM M i?Mgy?m a u? bunb io ei0 u?? ?M
trY P 4NRMW ]e P>N P IPII?'YDIIdiY ' rtl6#I &IOW lry 'JM 'O] a NM%MO 'M11 "? LOW.P:1

i
?
? I
I
I
i
I i
p ? O
W
U

J
t?
Z ?

O
V J
O O
U
Z _
le
t-

U
r WW
O F
Z
? U O
?
=
O ? 1^ U U O Z < ? (<a w
°
k 5 N
o i c
? z
Ww z?xx?UN
B
R of
W
R
i /
i /
li
/ i
LO
0,??`f w
a
R
0
O
O
(n LC)
Z +
Q
a LO
H O
m p
1 O
N +
Q
W
U
p Q
M U)
W
Z
O
V
U
W
U ?
JO
J ?
W d
Z Z
QO
2 F- a
U Q
W C) C)
H a
U
Z Z
Q Q
M W U
J of
¢
F -- ¢
Z
w W
Z p
O Fy
Df m
> W
w Z
O
F-
v)
m
ff
8=?
o
7 bA
?" c h d
Z6
MUZE e
c f
mm s a aamwm4?rnre vn an xu?we

?'N110?Y NV 1aM d i?u l?ip?p r IPM G li.?P oMl L'?N'9?G ?r OB
16rtO 4 Noo lY L 111 YD 1p1]ItlUYOII '0 MIApYtLL ?N '?N?W9, M ? IM?CI
O
V
z ?
a +
LO
O
_J
m O
1 O
U) +
Q O
w
u Q
o ?
m
w N
z ?
o
V
U
w
U
JO
J
W ?
C7
Z z
QO
2 a
x Q O
W 0
U
Q z
M W
Q Cie
U) a
Z ?
W W
:2 C.D
z p
0
M
Z Iw
w Z
O
H
cn
Di
Io

3?a
-+ YYC
ZR.... Y c ?
?uU
5
F o i uai
Z6
?Q r
r w',wo Yv w oaw? ??ppp cw n rxo?o wmM a u a>?w a nrn va on an?+cs
l as i? M?IaM iMiuY, 'WV M ?o TdM N ?YIY? 0 u? own?rn ?o u?ou ?0 irq
uniNn w s an n NN]ItrpYYi ' rim uNw in aN 'm ? MDa to 'My °? .
i-lM?ll-°

APPENDIX B
2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
O
O 0
(14 O

O
??. •? O

X
??
• N
:..
« O
0
•
0
M
.
_y
?i
N

O
M O0

`t

• O
O
co
H
CO .

L •
0
L 0
M M

..
4
0 M

? M
M
.
O
n
I J ?.
0

r.: 0
O
CY)

N

III,
i.? L
?
??4i >
0 N

l
? .•
•? X N
?
1
Im
l
If-I « ?
O IJI ?? v m «
+ • N
o
b?A
+
o

p
O
m i a>
c i. O
O
m' c
O « U ? O IJ! U
o O ? N

cz « •
« N cy.) N
4- w ? jE
• .
??
0 }
N
O ? ( 0
N I
.• N
W
0
N
0
.?
?. O
N
• ,
41 I
.
, 0
O
. ? 00
N
N

J
s O
0
.
:• ..
0
. . 0

••
.. 0

1

t, ! 0
.

N •
O
O 0

1- O COO CD

LO LO O

N
N O 00 O
N N N N N
It N
N N
N N N N N
(74) Uol;enal3 N N (11) U01l2Aa13

Stonebridge, Cross Section 1, Riffle
282
280
278
276
v
w 274
272
270
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (t)
bankfull elevation - flood prone area - Asbuilt -bar I -bar 2 char 3

s

Left Ban
279
278
277
276
275
-w 274
273
272
271
Stonebridge, Cross Section 2, Pool
0 5 10 IS 20 25 30
Station (t)
-bankfull elevation -Asbuilt -War 1 -bar 2 -qtr 3
35 40
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
F:? rl
? nt
441? { 440 9 !. ?`
r

Stonebridge, Cross Section 3, Pool
276
275
274
" 273
c
0
.q
272
uU
271
270
269
I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station ft1
bankfullelevation -Asbuilt -rtinrI -nr2 -3ar3
35 40
.?c
279
279
277
376
275
c
°- 374
I
y 273
tL
272
271
270
269
Stonebridge, Cross Section 4, Riffle
0 5 10 IS 20 25 30
Station (t)
1. bankfull elevation -flood prone area -- Asbuilt -&5r I -6ar_ -bar 3 J

14

,R y?
1 ft . y?li'? y? ?' d•
p +l
Tt
t M ?
r_
I kkP{?, 7 '?)?h
,c

Left Bank
273
272
271
I c
0
270
v
w
269
269
267
S 'r ? :_Jhr R ``?,
c? •?F °,??,. ti R
71
err r4? ?d X
Stonebridge, Cross Section 5, Riffle
0 5 10 IS 20 35
Station Of
-bankfullelevation-flood prone area "^°`° °Asbuilt -furl -Yfu2 -Nar3
LIP,t Y 14,
?9
Left Bank
272
271
370
C
c
369
m 268
267
266
Stonebridge, Cross Section 6^ Pool
(1 10 IS 20 25 30 35
Station W
-bankfullclc%ation- Asbuilt -aarI -,far 2 -35r3
is
d ^?ti
??n Y
?r a?M n
f
kYr? 2 1

S

wf

Yt?t t 1? a? ri7„ 4

Right Bank
Stonebridge, Cross Section 7, Riffle
273
372
271
0
270
ty
269
268
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Station (t)
-bankfull elevation -flood prone area Asbuilt -qtr I -Mr 2 -b`ar 3
ight Ban
Stonebridge, Cross Section 8, Pool
273
272
271
C
270
u
y
269
268
267

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Station (1)
bankfull elevation - flood prone area "^ ^ Asbuilt -bar l -bar 2 -bar 3J
G '. Y?? ?•?'? ,?, 41-6 ? ?.
14
Left Ban
270
269
268
267
c
0
'Ri
266
W
265
264
263

* f•

9t R.
V 6
?y?'
?+ .
?
ye,
.
m ?
x x
4

iaht Ban
Stonebridge, Cross Section 9, Riffle
0 5 10 IS 20 25 30
Station (t)
-hankfull elevation -flood prone area Ashuih -Nar l -fir 2 ?6'ar 3

4. r
inht Rank
Stonebridge, Cross Section 10, Pool
269
269
267
4..
c
°- 266
.t7 265
_64 { '.?
'_6±
0 10 20
Station (t)
bankfull elevation Asbuilt -abr 1 -Mr 2 -Yar 3
25, 30
269
268
267
266
0
v 265
w
264
263
262
Stonebridgc, Cross Section 11, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (t)
-bankfull elevation - flood prone area '°,- Astklt -Mr I -fir 2 ?3ar 31
267
266
265
264
:l
:U
263
362
261
Stonebridge, Cross Section 12, Pool
0 5 10 1 s 20 25 30
Station (t)
bankfull clevauon -, AsbuiIt -Yar I -fir 2 -Yar 3
APPENDIX C
2008 Site Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
SPA 1. Debris jam at Station 32+50.
.a
W ?
?" a xy
k a

f
ryy}`
YY A ryi ti.+
(Y.
tt ry ?
'
c?
t

J,l s

44
f
Al

-44

SPA 2. Minor erosion on left bank at Station 34+00.
SPA 3. Minor erosion on right bank at Station 40+25.
SPA 4. Debris jam caused by fallen tree blocking water flow at Station 46+50.

?
S 1

•- A r 4y

, " S
? _
'ra SS '',NKa
r
?'
g
tly
'q ?
w ? rim
.
y
?

SPA 5. Minor erosion on right bank at Station 46+65.
?rA 6. Lrosion on right bank at Station 47+50.
x
i

r .?_ ` x M1
A;.
SPA 8. Severe damage to vegetation and bank erosion caused by cattle within easement from
Station 48+50 to 56+75.
SPA 7. Fence knocked over by displaced log toe structure at Station 4S+5U.

SPA 9. Erosion on left bank due to hoof shear from cattle at Station 48+60.
SPA 8. Damage to vegetation and bank erosion caused by
cattle within easement from Station 48+50 to 56+75.

} YM ,

r
X
d ?
r

SPA 10. Cattle gate oft hinges at Station 4V+uo.
a
jit
4 /(
4, Wi.41.
?'+i?•'' =`?.. mod!`-"""? ?.'i a?' -??i?.• -
SPA 11. Erosion on lest bank clue to came at Nation ?yT??.
SPA 12. Erosion on right bank due to cattle hoof shear at Station 53+00.
SPA 13. Log toe structure missing at Station 56+25.

R ?, Kr is a t? C
d`t
S
$N
Vegetation Plot # 1 facing downstream
c - .e? p-
?" - ,ca
i
'r
? y
T {
44
t . , k*.' x k
-io'. it
?v r!
Vegetation Plot #1 facing upstream
r YyY?
? b df ??l ? a
Wes` Y

? s Y
F ^SS
'AM FN

41M"" 1 'CP y 1
•?t ? a 5 ? ???, pm, q 39 q ? Y ? ?1 ? ?
Vegetation Plot #2 facing upstream
=t , ,
k.
? p
e4
-, fir, 7 *
i 'mkt?
41, 4 4",
Ay P1 `k ?K Z bS '
i? "Aim '41"
?n -
Vegetation Plot #2 facing downstream

Vegetation Plot #3 facing downstream
'K . ? Fhg
Sd r' ,y944 {
- ?•? 3 hey i? e 4F:^'{i i 5 `-•? 'tv-?..
XTL?
d? ? t ? r,K ? S T''91 ? ? M1 .3 a TAbt • s - 0?
16
Vegetation Plot #3 facing upstream
y A
44,
t
; IF41,1` '5 4 ',1
t
Vegetation Plot #4 facing upstream
s

i
I
d d h 1 K ,
* 1*,,
? tR l ? 4? Ali'
a Y ,;a ,?, aid
N
Nol?
t S Y

M

vegetation Plot 44 tacmg downstream

'r`a }
'1? ? t C F
S LF 6r,? yyi? i ?. t ?i T
%?ac ?'r may.: e .•a?.r { -? s ? 3 . ii s'a
?°s? ?1Y?
? q 1r T 7 ? `f ? y ?
Vegetation Plot #5 facing upstream
, 00.
`< t
,.? . J ear w1: sp.
t ? = N S d
? k ? . ? r :i } ,?? ? •? r , t `? a V
Vegetation Plot #5 facing downstream

Vegetation Plot #6 facing upstream

W
m

a ?
.t INS*
r1

k
H M '

I
I T
l

AM

v cgetation riot go racing downstream
'Ph
r `
+f S
„1

S?
At"Al
22 F
J?.

Vegetation Plot #7 facing upstream
}
F+ F
.411

«+ r
x = -

r

?
5
Y V
.
•? .4
Vegetation Plot #7 facing downstream

^ ?q r
Ilk

it ?a r

V 4
1 4 `?- milk s,_,;a.
eq .? '?? r r'' ?A /b"crE'?? ,+
Sf 11
Vegetation Plot #8 facing upstream

pY
q,

?W

?
. Ya1F
r4 "o-"
y. ?"A FiM" A s
p Y` , A ?M a ', 1T" ?'i f 4 a..

p¢
y
..
}M,;w
lip
&
+.,&% ^ .', I$k. lAlLru.4a ?
.
„`y gqfcyihyq, A+ x
v y4 ,,

r .
' ;?,y+, $
e a '. r? M .a l e AwYt
vegetation Plot 48 tacmg downstream
x r'
gob,
•t?aJ ?y4 ?? ? ?a?Cit1 '.
Vegetation Plot #9 facing upstream
Vegetation Plot 49 facing downstream
?' .
' 24 a
4 y,
y,
• ? A
• x " a'
Ai?
k "4q?
?7.; '
t ???latti)li I?;lt; - 1'1 ?YCf11i,? UI)SLi Cell l] "?
•
•°
IA-
• A
jok
W 1 K n
14
• ? sx ?. IE ',. - j 4 .,"_? t? T?.,1?>; ??., ?.',?. f A KF,y yx, ? is, t„.. ?,?' ? '???, ,M"fi. "
egctatlon Plot 10 facing downstream
+ ?1
Vegetation Plot #11 facing upstream
Vegetation Plot #11 facing downstream

Vegetation Plot #12 facing upstream
Vegetation Plot #12 facing downstream
4
J' i N
f
Y
t y
Ilk

Vegetation Plot #13 facing downstream
Lj ' AZ •?
l?
y3 ?T.
f ?L, 's .?:?dci 1r
Vegetation Plot #13 facing upstream
t
x g ' 14
y4
14
i4l
Vegetation Plot #14 facing upstream
y 11
P a `, h C
c
4-
41
'rysaW?.l?t°''+J?S?t'k+ ?/ '"'•s?
y #y f
mow
c-ctation Not ,, 14 i?acinw, dove strcam