20021681 Ver 1_Complete File_20070101

,1 .0 .
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek)
Final Monitoring Report
Year 2 of 5 (2006)
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
USGS HUC: 03050103
Prepared for:
r-.?j
l??.Y?s?stcm
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
January 2007

1 ;
i

w.
Executive Summary
The Freedom Park Stream Restoration project falls within USGS hydrologic unit 03050103. The
project stream lies within an urban setting of the City of Charlotte that is comprised of
predominantly residential and commercial uses. Prior to restoration work, the project stream
(Little Sugar Creek) had been destabilized through historic channelization and dredging. Also,
prior to restoration work, the channel consisted of a concrete lining.
HDR Engineering designed the restoration plans and restoration was completed in 2003.
Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) performed stream and riparian monitoring during 2006 for
this Year 2 Monitoring Report. During the late growing season, KHA assessed six (6) vegetation
quads including two (2) newly installed quads. Combined stem count density for all the quads
equaled approximately 587 stems per acre for planted stems; exceeding year 3 success criteria.
Kudzu has invaded most of the channel reach and may interfere with vegetation goals if not
managed.
A stream assessment including a visual assessment and geomorphic survey indicated that the
project reaches were performing mostly within established success criteria ranges. Several
isolated sections showed bank erosion and a few structures were stressed or failing. Most of the
project reach continues to be stable. The geomorphic measurements are within the range of the
design parameters.
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Year 2 of 5 i q =1111L
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Freedom ParkW Y2 ReponTinal\Freedom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doc I \
' t
I y
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Location and Setting ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives ....................................... 3
1.3 Monitoring Plan View ..................................................................................................... 8
2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ...................................................................... 12
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................. 12
2.2 Stream Assessment ....................................................................................................... 13
3.0 Methodology .....................................................................................................................19
Tables
Table I: Project Restoration Components ....................................................................................... 3
Table II: Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................................................... 5
Table III: Project Contact Table ..................................................................................................... 6
Table IV: Project Background Table .............................................................................................. 7
Table V: Verification of Bankfull Events ..................................................................................... 13
Table VI: BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates ......................................................................... 14
Table VII: Categorical Stream Features Visual Stability Assessment .......................................... 15
Table VIII: Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ........................................................ 16
Table IX: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ....................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Setting ..........................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 1 ........................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 2 ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 3 ...................................................................................... 11
Appendices
Appendix A: Vegetation Monitoring Data
Appendix B: Stream Monitoring Data
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 -Year 2 of 5 it yMa
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Frecdom Park\MY2 Rcpon\FinaPFrecdom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Rcport.doc rlmn a14Mn0/N1*0W_ ft
,
r
1.0 Project Background
The background information for this report references previous monitoring reports submitted by
the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at North Carolina State University and
Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA.
1.1 Location and Setting
The Little Sugar Creek stream restoration site lies within in the Catawba River Basin (HU No.
03050103) in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. East Boulevard and Princeton Avenue
bound the upper and lower endpoints of the stream reach and the site lies entirely within
Freedom Park and the City of Charlotte. Freedom Park is part of the Mecklenburg County Park
and Recreation Department public park system. (See Figure 1)
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Little Sugar Creek was dredged in 1917 to a minimum width of approximately 20 feet and a
depth of 8 feet. Overall, the current alignment has existed since the early part of the 1900s. In the
mid-1960s and early 1970s, the City initiated an erosion control system along the banks of Little
Sugar Creek, as it flows through Freedom Park, using a combination of grouted riprap and
concrete bank covering. In July 2002, the County removed the grouted riprap and concrete
banking and temporarily stabilized the banks with erosion control matting. Additionally, the
large flood control weir structure located approximately 450 feet upstream of Princeton Avenue
was removed.
The restoration plan proposed to increase aquatic habitat diversity, improve on-site water quality,
stabilize the stream banks, provide flood storage, and aesthetically enhance the stream setting.
Table I provides project mitigation structure and objectives:
Table I: Pro.iect Restoration Components
Table I. Project Restoration Components
Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #141)
Project 4 c v o 0
Segment L °' c
o wo
c °
a
Stationing Comment
or Reach .
ID d w
W
2 1
Main 4,200 R P 4,450 if 1:1 4,450 0+00.0 - 44+50.0

Mitigation nit S ummaries
Stream (if) Riparian Non-Riparian Total Wetland Buffer (Ac.) Comment
Wetland Ac. Wetland Ac. Ac.

R = Restoration
El = Enhancement
Ell = Enhancement
S = Stabilization
P1 = Priority I
P2 =Priority 11
P3 = Priority 111
SS = Stream Bank stabilization
Freedom Perk (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Year 2 o(5 3
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monnoring\Frcedom Perk\MY2 Rcport\FinalTrccdom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Rcport.doc Con Ytl AUOdtIM.k,e,
r
Figure 1: Project Site Setting

? fir- i rt r.?•,?,??rls+,? ? i 1
r
Prepared For Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) Stream Restoration Monitoring Year Prepared By
Project 2- 2006
r-`?J Mecklenburg, North Carolina Ci F1
1111
14CO WStelll Date Project Number romleyHom
HL1 (!';r 1/25/07 141 and Associates, Inc.
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Year 2 of S 4 gnirylbm
T:tpnW11795022 06-07 MonitoringtFraedom Park\MY2 ReportTinalWreedom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doc u
I I ? I I I ? ? I III
Project History and Background
Construction of the Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration project began in mid-
in September 2003. The As-built survey was completed in June 2004. Year 2 me
occurred during 2006. Table II provides additional details regarding the timeline
Table Il: Prniert Artivitv anal Rnnartina Weinrv
4
)03 and ended
itoring
f the project.
a e II. - rglect ctivity an Reporting story
Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration Site EEP Project #141

Activity or Report Scheduled Data
Collection Actual
Completion
Comments
Completion m lete or Delivery
Restoration Plan
Final Design - 90%
Construction 2003 Sept-03
Temporary S&E mix
applied to entire
roiect area 2003 Sept-03
Permanent seed mix
applied 2003 Sept-03
Containerized and
B&B plantings for 2004 June-04
reach/se ments 1&2
Mitigation Plan / As-
built (Year 0 2004 Spring 04
Monitorin - baseline
Year 1 monitoring 2005 Oct-05 Nov-05
Year 2 Monitoring 2006 Oct-06 Jan-07
Year 3 Monitoring 2007
Year 4 Monitoring 2008
Year 5 Monitoring 2009

The project was designed by HDR Engineering, Inc of the Carolinas. Construction was
performed by SEI Environmental. Monitoring activities for Year 1 were performed by S&EC
Kimley-Horn and Associates performed monitoring for Year 2. Table III provides additional
information regarding contractors.
Table III: Project Contact Table
Table 111. Project Contact Table
Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #141)
Designer 128 South Tryon St., Suite 1400
HDR Engineering, Inc. o the
Carolinas Charlotte, NC 28202
Primary Designer POC
Construction Contractor 5100 North I-85, Suite 7
SEI Environmental Charlotte, NC 28206
Primary Contractor POC
Planting Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers PO Box 33068
Kimley-Horn and Associates Raleigh, NC 27636
Stream Monitoring POC Andrew Kiley [phone]
IN (""claliun Mollilurili NA, Andrew Kiley [phone]

Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Ycar 2 of 5 6
T:7011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Freedom Perk\MY2 ReportWinalTreedom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doc
I I I

?I
f
? I
i
! f
4
,t
( 1
'i
;I
The project is located within Mecklenburg County, portions of which are located within the
Charlotte Belt of the Piedmont of North Carolina. The site is located within a highly urbanized
area. Table IV provides additional information regarding this stream.
,rahle IV: Project Rackormrnd Tahle
Table IV. Project Background Table
Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #141)
Project Count Mecklenburg
Drainage Area 13.6 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate % 75%
Stream Order 3
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Charlotte Belt
Ros en Classification of As-built C4
Cowardin Classification N/A
Dominant soil types Cecil, Monacan
Reference site ID N/A
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03050103
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and
Reference 03-08-34
NCDWQ classification for Project and
Reference C
Any portion of any project segment 303d
listed? No
Any portion of any project segment
upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor No
% of project easement fenced 0%
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 -Year 2 of S 7
i:;n\011795022 06-07 MonitoringTrcedom Park\MY2 Report\FinalTreedom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doc
Min
°e

1
y r

I
1.3 Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan assesses the project stream's geomorphology using a set of nine (9) cross
sections located throughout the project reach. The longitudinal profile and pattern assessment
covered the entire reach. Twenty-three (23) permanent photo points provide for a visual
comparison of key site features through time. The monitoring plan uses six (6) randomly placed
vegetation quads to assess riparian buffer restoration. Monitoring Plan View Sheets 1 to 3 show
the locations of the monitoring features.
i
i i
1 ? i I ' f!
i I
j
I F?
1
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 -Year 2 of 5 8 ?? \ f0
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Freedom Park\MY2 Repon\Final\Freedom Park MY2 Fins] Monitoring Repon.doc I ,
? I
I

y
C
11
?I
I
a
P
e
i
?B
1 ? }

N
.C
H
O
0.
P
.C
0
C
0
S
M
L
4

i
Al ^Y x?' ....,i Y
N
All
J 4*
I g
s,?, oo''F ` ?
dry` 1? ? y
t a F ,+" o
r T ? a
?,. r 1 to ?y t? ,
fj
1=k11 AF'x itiM.I i?,A ?R?i '?? :M ^4Yt ?+
rt! r Y r'r { rR,
Vi ` f. }} `.
?` 1 1 Yi`, ?IT

2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted zones related to the stream restoration consisted of the riparian buffer zone and the
stream banks. The riparian buffer zone begins at the top of the bank and continues out
perpendicular from the stream. The planted stream bank begins at the normal base flow elevation
and extends to the top of bank or interface with the flood plain.
KHA reassessed four (4) existing vegetation plots and established two (2) additional plots as
directed by NC-EEP.
KHA assessed site vegetation in September and October, 2006. Kudzu has invaded much of the
site. An interview with a park user suggests that a local community group within Charlotte has a
program to combat invasives. Many sections of the reach exhibit bare banks. As noted in
previous monitoring reports, the cause of the bare banks may be due to a lack of root
development capable of withstanding stresses to during flood flows and/or compacted soils
inhibiting vegetation growth. One section of floodplain appears to have been cleared and now
exhibits early successional growth including invasives from areas surrounding the riparian
buffer. Appendix A provides a summary of vegetative problem areas. Figures 2-4 show the
problem areas.
KHA conducted a vegetation assessment during the early fall of 2006. The stem count table in
appendix A summarizes the results of the vegetation sample. Each of the original four (4) plots
and two (2) new plots meet success criteria for planted stem counts. The plot summary also
shows that in several plots, species such as Betula nigra, Acer negundo, Populus deltoids,
Fraxinus pennsylvanicum, and Liquidambar styraciflua are rapidly colonizing.
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) Final Dcccmhcr 2006 - Ycar 2 of S 12 =/?
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\Frecdom Park\MY2 Report\Finaki-recdom Park MY2 Final Monitonng Report.doc CEP I
2.2 Stream Assessment
KHA assessed the stream channel during the spring and fall of 2006. Several isolated sections
exhibited bank scour. Causes of scour may include lack of vegetative establishments; frequent
flooding flows; unstable soils; and failed short-term protection such as coir fiber matting. Two
areas utilizing boulder toe protection had pools developing behind them. Most structures seemed
to remain in place and functional. Several structures previously mapped as J-Hooks appeared as
rock vanes in the field. The headers were either missing or difficult to view because they may
have been buried by sediment. One structure appeared to be missing completely; one structure
appeared to be missing a header rock; and one structure had a collapse of boulders making up the
arm. Several root wads were located in the field but were not previously mapped. A set of root
wads near the bottom of the reach showed severe scour behind the root balls. Monitoring Plan
View Sheets 1 through 3 show the location of the stream problem areas and table B 1 in appendix
B summarizes the stream problem areas.
KHA performed a database search and document review to locate information concerning
measurement of bankfull events. The research found a functional gauge approximately 2,600
feet upstream of the project reach. The gage has a twelve (12) year period of record. This period
is too short to estimate bankfull discharge based on peak discharges. A visit to the gage location
is required to estimate bankfull hydraulic geometry relative to gage height or discharge. Table V
provides a listing of probable bankfull events based on site observations and limited gage data.
Table V: Verification of Bankfull Events
Table V. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Su ar Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Pro ect #141)
Collection "n WKILIZ IV! rtffg
10/1/2006 Before 10/1/2006 Photographed On-Stie BE1
KHA did not find documentation of bank erosion estimates from previous site assessments. NC-
EEP has scheduled a bank erosion assessment for a later date. Table V1 that is intended to
summarize sediment export estimates has no values but has been included in this section as a
placeholder for future completion.
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) Final December 2006 -Year 2 of 5 13 rMFJ 19rrpM.
1':\pn\011795022 0607 Monitoring\Frecdom Park\MY2 Rcpon\Finnl\Frccdom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Repotl.doc = W ANOMI .inc.

3

0
3
.a°

r-. y
rl d
W
d ?

O
w
w dQ
?
O y w
W rA
? ? \
E
? O
1
C6
4
ar
? E
?
d
cu

C
w rA
Qa
Y LI
Yy
u
L
R

aw

ca

cl
(ICI
°
i N
h nMp7??

a
o o

a1 N Q

F 0

d
a
E
z
w
w
C
d
a
a

Q
C
W

9
B

LL
a

N
'
yJ
}
C
? '''??Nyyy(((
?
F

? ? a
k
LL T
W oL
<

T
a 4

09
A ?
Table VII provides a categorical view of the stream visual stability assessment. The visual
assessment shows an apparent decrease in stability related to meanders; in-stream stabilization
(e.g. vanes, j-hooks); and bank stabilization (e.g. wads and boulders). Meander instability relates
to floodplain relief and erosion of outer bends. Five (5) of the eleven (11) meander bends appear
to have point bars that do not provide sufficient floodplain access. This may improve as the
channel continues to adjust. KHA observed recent sediment deposition downstream of eroding
outer banks that is likely a sign of adjustment. Table B2 in appendix B provides a breakdown of
the visual assessment.
Table VII: Categorical Stream Features Visual Stability Assessment
Table VII. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Little Sugar Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project #141)
Reac h 1
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles -- 100% 100% -- -- -
B. Pools -- 95% 98% -- - -
C. Thalwc -- 100% 100% -- -- --
D. Meanders -- 85% 72% -- -- -
E. Bed General -- 94% 100% -- --
F. Bank Condition -- 92% 82%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. -- 100% 80% -- -- -
H. Wads and Boulders -- 100% 35% -- -- --
Tables VII and IX summarize the site geomorphic assessment. KHA determined bankfull using
a combination of upstream gage data, urban piedmont regional curves, and site indicators. Site
indicators were not universally prominent throughout the reach likely due to the young age of the
channel. KHA used gage data and regional curve data to verify the site indicators. This analysis
led to new bankfull elevations that differed from previous elevations. All data from the previous
surveys (i.e. the as-built and year 1 survey) was adjusted to match the year 2 bankfull elevations.
The field investigators had difficulty identifying cross section benchmarks in the field; therefore
some of the cross sections had a slightly different alignment than previous year's cross sections.
The difference in alignment negates a very fine comparison between years for a cross section but
does allow for the identification of significant changes in cross section. The cross sections did
not show a significant change in the shape or area compared to earlier years. Appendix B
provides raw data, photographs, and graphing for geomorphic data.
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) Final December 2006 - Year 2 of 5 15 r? IOgNyJlan
T:\pn\011795022 06-07 Monitoring\preedom Park\MY2 Report\Final\Freedom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doe `? Did AUl"o-WK trre.

N
r O.
N M
Q
v1 M
N ?
.. P
? M
?` ^
M M
? r
Q M
v?
`0
O
O
..
N

?
?
S
?
p
?:
o0
P
N
V
Q
P
b
P
?
b
?
N
N
O
r
M
Q
?
N
rNn
N pp
d
aa00
M
Q
O
N
^
O
O
vNi
N
W
v?
?
?
r
Q
8
C
O
O M
?
Q p Np
.O ?
P
? vt
r+i 00
Q 00
U M
? h
? '?
? O
M
O N
r p
Q ?: ,? p
8
O ? r 0 0

O

5

b
u

x V

N O
$
a °
0
V
?a a f
L

G y ? e
OC U
r m
d
V
L
L
A
~
U

O
O
a
a
F

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
f

9
D
Y

V

3 ? a 'm ? c c c c m c ? a ¢ ? ? 8 c a ? ?

LL 3 a y 6 $ „ _e
u m
e ? m m 3 m 5 $ 5
y ,°? u ? a ? E e 3 o°e
1 m e
d ?
P
?
a
o
C
11
II
F

!

z
d
d?
O pp
d?

E

O
O
aye

•

w

w

«

w

«

«

«

w O
O

• • .

«

.

«

«

»

• ,

•
( V
R

L
U
Mpp
R
M
A
M
N
O
V
v?
?p
O
^
M
M
_:
r'
7
M
?
r
?
a
a ,
T
,
V
U N

r

M M
a}
N
?O
M
h
r
~
N
h
-
O?
-
M
ONO
?n
M
r
O

._
^ M M b M O M b N M N '? ? M N ? h 0
M
a p N
? N
N p
7 h
b o0
T M
- v?
•--? '??
V M
a ?`
O
? M
? O
^ n
N V
M
? ""
N
'? -
N
W M
M g
O
.
a «

N VI

O L
O ? eo C b b ao h o0 '^ vi h b ` b b MNi d; d' r - O h ^
w C
r

M (?

O fA
y Vi
o ?
N b
M H
?O h b
.-+ O?
.-. ? d'
M
Q M
N M
N M
o ry?
N M
a O?
?O M
N b
.^ h
..-? M
O1 00
M N
O L p fV
V
^L
e
h
w ?

O R
O
k
y ? yyy A.

b
r
a
V1
4
00
,
b
C
h
^
w
^
c?
N
t
W
?
W
M y
`
4
b
a
b
M1
V?
?O
b
n
b
00
^
?`
?
N
V 7 V ?:,? N { V N M d.
b
V M
h r
N M
V ?D
v? ..
^ h
- O. ?
N ^
V h
?
? ? vt
M
?O ?
? h
^
N P
? N
M
N
M t? M M v? O: v? O. - .. a0 h 1\ O M O '-: ?n O ? - V

a G C ?C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? C C a C C a; C '
L

u

'? f10 8 tl G1

a
k
?Y
5
u
E
%
b?
F?

? w

a r
0
Q
-
p

P
b P N M r - - O M
8

P
P
N
? N
O
N

O
N
P
M
?
•O
-
h
-
M
^
M v
??
a
,

N ?D T M
w

00 O h P `O ? 1? 0

P
•G

N

M

P

N
-
- 0

O

p

?
• • • ? ? Y • ? ? •
r 1 ? • ? ? ? ? ? ? ? • w I ? ?
8
v

s
?
•
•
•
w
•
?
!
?
Y r•1
p
l

A
M
?
?
?
•
?
w
w
}
00
?
O
•?

Y
w
p M
L
(? r
O
?•DD -
W ';
N b
ri P
V N
?_ d
- N
._ M
? ?
M ?
V
N O
- h
O
N p
V1
O
O ?O
N
? O
N N
?

? M
.-. NN
O
O p
O
O
m
w
b
8

1?
O`
b
b
C
-
r

N
N
V
M
N
N
O
?
?p
M r

NN

N
N
M
N
00
-
?t
N
O•
r

O
??Opp?
N
pQ
•O

!
P
`?

?
l H
w O O
}
F
N
?' 1?
r r
P
rn
O
?
-
.?
N
?O
V
O
-
?
P
O
N
N pO
O
M
?. 8 ?
N 9 0 0
p
00
v0•i
._.
n
?O
M
M

? M
pp
O
O
b
-
r
N
O`
N
?
M
.-. M
p N
O
O n
p N
O
O

m

w

O? r
M N NN
O M -
`NO
M V

r
O
O b
N
??
P N
8 M
m

(?
O
r

P 00
M
N

M M

O O,
ry
N M

- M

N N

r

M
?
r
- ?'
?
N
V
-
M
N
OC
N
? _N
?
O
O
M
.?
P
N
yQ
N
: y
0000 ? N C O M
? •_ N _ N •G
N N ? M
' O ?^ N W
O N M N N N ? M ? ? N 00 R N O N vl
a
O
00 P

0 N
P
N
M
? N
P
M
-- -

N 00
G
?
t M
N

-
O
r
o
? O,

-
? N
g
?
r
-
?D 0 N - r O 9 O
n
p
?
?
C
C
C
?
?
?
?
?
?C
C
?
a
C
?
C
C
y
2

.9 g0O ? C ? O ? $ ? ? C O

3

?
i'• ? 3
w ''? 3 z ,, ?
v ?
E d 5 E
°o u m r uC ? 7 3
° p ?
a M e
w. i
e?y
9
y3
LL
7
s
?9
3.0 Methodology
KHA adjusted some of the methodologies for data collection for monitoring year 2. Per NC-
EEP's request, KHA added two additional vegetation plots and performed the vegetation survey
using the EEP - Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol. During the geomorphic survey,
KHA added additional benchmarks and captured the location and elevation of new existing
benchmarks. The new existing benchmarks are maintained by the City of Charlotte. Previous
year's spatial data did not provide an indication of established benchmarks.
Freedom Pork (Little Sugar Creek) (141) Final December 2006 -Year 2 of 5 19 NYtl?Y?10m
T:\pn\01179502206-07 Mon itoring\Frecdom Park\MY2 Report\Fina1\Frecdom Park MY2 Final Monitoring Report.doc erdl.6 Ytt
Appendix A
(Click here)
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION MONITORING DATA
N ? V
' M --
p W p
. p
.
a
q O O
?
ti ?
p
w y
? >
N , .
h >
y ,

? I
'^ny
v y
bA ; t
y
? v
? y
b
4 ; u
j qq

a
? rte- ? b
?'
U U

x o V z a a a a
at
G
? o
r o
? t ?
o ?
O ?
ao ?
o o
? ,c
O ?
?n
U
r
O
'? M
N
V?1^ M
O
"
?
N
N
M ;
M
M
O
?. ?p
o p in
M p
Vi Obi
r 'o
M
'' c`1 N N . N
N N N

O C
'L
?
7
y
Q R

..
E
m ?
z
044
{r, m a
m [x
W
y
W
>
Q
C
A
0.
V G'
d?
6«
=u
o ?
Y
d
'L7 «
a ?
?a
>a
= v
s
F a
a
E
t
?(

F
f I
i
VQ2: Vegetation Quad 2 (2005)
i
} u?4 1
3
RM*
Apr: ? ? ^3,
q d 1, e?l a6r. 4h b• 4.'
ry ?,pr
Ik
*' "r
VQ2: Vegetation Quad 2 (2006)

'
I

? ?
? I f ? ,
i
? ? i
? ?
' i
I I
I i +
I
.{ ? I
I

VQ4: Vegetation Quad 4 (2005)
VQ4: Vegetation Quad 4 (2006)

} I
I f

II
I'
k

,? ,
? ? ? I I i

„ 3o x

?
r
I1
?
b
R 1
r

Y K
1 {
Y 1 >?t

VP 1: Kudzu

Jig C 3.4 i
71? 1 ?

1

?r 1f 1I?` I'y'.
1*A
{ aP
9
M?py ,5 1
7 t` <k+

VP 2: Bare Bank
? , ? 1

i
I 1
' ?
'
'
j I ? `

1 '
? ? ?
.
f '

i I !
'
?? i

? Y,
F 4' .4y1.M:vX,::.'A?? j
? i
f? I
E` ? ?.
t

r
r
k
i
p
I
i
i
I'
f
F
I

TA
I:
E ?
T I
c ? I
! it
}
t
i i
11 I
i
i
I
s?
I
,t
t
I
i
I
?? E
i
A
d
a
e
0
'O
0. _

a
?
V
°'
ti
?
a.
CA
N
a
0
?
°'
v,
r
a
fA
M
a
ti
V
rye
b
G
?L°

y N
N
N

y N N y

5

b y

b N

b

b

y N
N;
b
u .a
VI
? .a
to a
UI .c
Vi a
h .c
to ,a
Vi y .q ,c
N y .a
VI .a
VI .a
N .a
Vi ?
N

a V
yy
U
U
W

?
N V
r/y?
V
U V
.yy
U
U
W N
.yy
N
U
W 71
.y
V
U
W N
.y
N
U
W U
.yN
V
V
W N
.y
4J
U
W V
.N
0J
V
W V

V
V
W V
ty?
N
U
? V
.y
u
U
? V
yy
N
U L
yy
L
.Uyi v
.yN
4l
U V

U

e
1.
4 ( { W W W
N Ow
w
3
_
? a a m m
a C w oa oo a ;?
' p
(/? O ''? N ,
OD u ?
a ?
a v
a v
t7? u
a ? T
? ? ?
ti u
? O
b

y di
A o ° °
cn o
? 0
n 0
? 0 ?
m o
rn o
rA
? pd, ' g 7$
F V
? PO GO gq
'"
Oq gq
'"
W PG m
.P3 an g
d
y
D
G4 VI
a
h
V ?

V
N
C ?
? M O?
M O
? N
?O ?
O V ?
1? Vim'
I V?
M O
C h
d' am..
M ?^
M
M O
V O N
?D
N M M
O N kA

a
h
? N. l
N
N
N
M
?t ?
M
i
qV
N
a

vOi
„?^y to
O
O
C 4 p W
w
? ?
??
? ?
? ? f
,
I i
?? ? ?? ?
?I
f1 ? ,
? - {i
l ? ? °?
;,
d ? ?

? i

?'
•_ :' ? t
} + !
.,

11
. l" �`� .e. a.�
. � R
' �:5 /�
�. �{ '
R'L `� �.*
�, ;
uta �si '!�"`��dF� a �.. `�1� � �, •�.r
� �+. � � �!� � � < �. �� Ic"'
.*Pim' t 1 .�1 J d �
_..

8
N
a
I
• ' ? ql 7 I
r
Via. C:l
_ i?ajl ti•. j
•? t Z i Y
W? aY•-
7ff
I I '
I?
8
N
0.
i K '. 6 1
i
yr

'
"S y1M ?
r
N 1 ! yi?>??
?
j
ti l b
h??a .Ise 4 t+{ '
l y
,j

45 rYti h, t ?'

14,

w
i

,1
IE I
I
?? I
t
'r {
i
? ,?
r;•
I
1 v
p 6z t � • , _ _—� fib'• rry
t �i
+ _fir .F.' • •..

S
a
v
? '
?r
#%
f` ,r4 i?-????`jd 4
5" ?
E??*. ?
i ,,
b ? ? ?? ? ? c ? `?
r
a? i???',
?/ }
r
? ?
:; ,
T ? ,L?
1„
t'
? ?ti
,i? ?. ?,
s

A

ydµ ry

t
?
r.
ll

v
.•
j '} V.
r
1 +
F r

s
0
a
i 'r ? lr
4
~4 N
?. F
I Al"
?r,

8

?1 ? I
'•
?C ?
.
,?
M

r
? f
I'
s
0.
i'

qi.

?• f
'
?
,y,,. `? fy.. ?iF. 5 _-'?'1??'?:? ?1}tip. 4 # ,`,'tl
` ?,
`? ?y 6

• tt
}

%
y yy ?

r ?,
'!
i
:?
.I
i!
'?
':i

8
a
y
a
.??.Z?,-
C {? .3'
{ *C
1:.
?
+ .
?
?
?? "' ^'?- '
e1y

I r
4 ?i,
r

? M

i
? ?..? ; :_ ?X P
r . .ar° a
' ?
,
Y
- ?, ,
?
?
`
??
1
? r? ? ,. a
j
+ i
?? ? av? liLy

:..

r
A?15.M ?
.,. ?,1 i. ??....u .. f+P ;.Fb '1Fd."1????t?i,
.

.?
t
I
?+

. r ?'
s
a
' ? ? ?a:a'i'
1?_
?..
.
? 9 ,r
r? 4? YM•?
'M1
?
nfe
????
J ,
' Y
I ?
? .
,
' C. rL
y
{r{ 1? '

'
?
y ? ?l
?
$ ?
r# 7'
' a ,,? u
i
?
MI ? ? M1 n ??
ti4'n? ?:Y 4 h :'. '?.
?? ?
°Y ?}
?
S A;?: 'i'?
?
1 ?
`
y r•' re
? y
' ,{
?? '??
'
?
Pr»
. .'1?
}?
yy ;.
A?
S
?4 r ??
? ?,
1?. q; ;
?
'? `?. 4 ? ?
'? , ? ? ?
`?.'
'4,w,, ,
n
! a
w
a
,, ??
??I T4 ?,?
i
" ?1 A' ?
7? ?
q ?.? ,? ?+ ?' ,y
j' o a, A
AY
ti'' ? ? y ' _ a r Lk`ti ??? ?
i
.,
i
1 ?+
'
? ?,7'
f
!' a ? r
"
t fi
` ?l'??'
? .? ? t
c
?
b,
?r
?M "4?
?t? ,
aY a ? -
17? f Y j, ? ?
+
]
^? N 1
er r Fl `?
r?
1
,,b?,
??? Y I ??k??.
?,.,,?{y?,

r >
,i ?
f
'3
i
II ?
,
?
39 ..-?
gfjy?
' ?i
F?

t 1

r ?

,?
8
N
a
?
.:
? I? l.,
F?
r
'' ?' ,
k' ''
?
`' r? "??
? ? 7t
R?.. t .
?
i
?
t 1 AJ ?
'
,
.
?
?y
$q f? JS,'
?
? + ? r,
"

to +
x ,
t
(?
L? y -. C V?? ? ??
` ?
?
?
.:q
..
'??'? •
`
?
P i ". '? A

?.
? '?
« ?r ty'? ?'?h .
'
+r
ro
+
, +
.? ? ?
?
$
d
?
?

? , ? M;,
?

25 { h
n+w; a?? . ,?

+;
vy? ??
?
f
?
{ ? ? ? ?
}.. at
?_
'
I
? N
ry ?
,
3
F ? N
,fit

'
N __ qy
.?,,
?
?
't
?
?
. ,,, a F rn i
'? ;
?' ? ! .
' ?.k
l

??
. A t
f
4
?M?
? ?, _ _

?} : a';'
J Y
?a
°
a !^°

°a
\
A
a
?
o
00
?
o
C
CN
\°
°
o
0
0

00
0
0

a
c
0
0
0

M
?E

e °e
Y V
4 .Y
?
O
?
O
O
O
O o
?
O
? e
pNp ?\'
y?j qp
O e
Vy?i
?
? o
ONO 03 a3 03 y\
000 e
M e
f??t
i .?
y
II O O ?
6 a
A x
Z a
z a
z a
z a
z a
z a
z a
z a
z a
z s
z a
z a
z a
z. a
z a
z a
z a
z. a
z a
z s
X
A
a A
O
O
O
M_
F

A V1 VI V1 ? V't V1 V1 V1 .:- N .?-. ? ' f ' h h N vl M M
V /1
?
F

L- 4
W Y A p
? Y n?
4 vi v1 ? ? ? h v1 V O` V ? ? ? N N N N
S v
e
u
o ?°
?a

era
a
0 8

h ? 9
U

? ? a
0

d A

?•
C• aE
F a ? C ? a C

gA A
u
93
? ? ? C° 'pg A Y m 9Y A
p

..nnpp,,
s
C N
a

F 'O
?
B
Y

C r0

?j Q
W
y
A S
?

? v0
?
9
A ?
'a
3
Y 9
?
?
u
c•

? M
?
ri
11 .a
?
o
'p
?
a
y1
0
E
N

C 1h0.1
8
tSL
M

1.
Y

1Y

a °
Y
° i+
a

a M
e a
ffi
7 y
T
a bS

0

8
? a

.5 ob
°

u

d
a
?' L
Tep
11

'Q
j e'o
q
?
A/ .?

6 LY
p
So r
°
•a

o
?•
?'
°
Zy w
A
•?
?
?
?
a pp
i
O 3
? ?
?
?
0. u
•S
? T
?
A
d
`o
,?
ii
0-6
?
?
•?p
p p 0
v,
u
a
x
w
w O
N M ? Vl N M N N M 7 N N N M O N
Z•
V
4
g
v
L
V
eA
W
?
? C
?'$A+
?
u
u? s

r
N
Q

8
s
9
b
R
0
I.

~ f,

I I `?
ti
i
{1
S
i
N
Y
I
Q
?X
F a

(1 II ??
I
I
(u) uoi?ene13

b
N
x
N $
m a
? b
YX?
K
g ?
R
C)
8 8
X11) -RB/G13
R
9
8
o?
Za
N_
S
R
0
0
N
a
a
r?
LL

aa N
yyX
4
P
N ?
a ?
Y
MC $ b
V
e
R
0
g 8 S & ? Xt SS ? ? ? ?
0)) -AB-13
a

i
i
i
i
t

y
N
O
*?
0
(3l) -IWAGl3
0
g
i?
W
8 ?
?a
S k
R
0
0
la
N
N
gr
R

{
? ? {

h I i
I

r, ? 1

R "
CO
N
n
8 1
R
8
S
8
z
8
f0
H
9 ?
4
R
0
(u) -IIL'Ae13

R
aN'
P
y
P
1)
e
h
m
9
R
0
g
0

S
R
ry
O
O
(3!) ?p??el3
f ?

A

N
r a
C
O
U
? u
3
nN?
X
4:
m
m W
??? uoRene?3
0
8
g

y
S
19
N
m ??pp I ? 1 NN? I_ ? o
W W ? m
a
m
I ' }
1
00
N<1
Q
O
k
n

ONI
oW
W
r
O
N?
oN
N
x
m
S N
b
R
0
,,I 0
B 3S b m 9 $
X31) ?Ile/?e13

R
t
N
VJ
c,
8
8
0

8 §
m
w
9 .?

8
R
0
(4) -Ilenel3

r•
i0
IY
K

r
M
rt
w
p
x

t
I .
I

Y
fc ( 1
i' If
r I
_ P9
w
d
a
F

a
'a
I
i
I
? I
# i I
it
as
u
wyy
.]
?' ? 1i i I
?' -
F
? '? 1

11
W
d
a
w
11
A
'rn
a
r j ? t
1

I I
oa
t
a.
a

ha
fI

I ?

m
a
a.
a
f?
1
'i
I
w
I n
x
T
9002 csx I

9002 ZSX I
i ?
X

v,
?- v

V!

N

'L
? T

C 9002 L9x X+
0

P, P.

K

s
r5
fi
ffi
K
E
pN?
C
? s
?o
? o
a
?I?I?I?I?I?I?I?I IIIIIII?I ?I.?I..L I.?I I?I?I?I?I?I?I?II ?I?I p
° ffi 8 6 8 8 8 0 8 si s o^ 8'R 1 8 91 Y, 8 8 8 in $ 2$ Fd ?j m$ p nrz n n
W) UOIIBA913
N
L
U)
N
E
?i
LL

E
pN?
C
s

• o
9ooz 9sx
M
t
L
U)
9ooz zsx
N
'L
f0
a
E
I
9002 9SX
9002 9sX

111_LL1Lt -i-L -11 11_I _1 _11. i.j-1J.
°aasaaasssa?
8
M
E
y
N_
N
N

L
(U)
O
O
N
ca
IL
O
LL

a
g
v
S
g ?
pN?
C
O
U(0
C
Q ?
K y
M
C7

Prof ile Features
Pro ID STA BEG STA END Feat Type Sloe Length Dmax
2 268 416 Pool 0.0001 148 4.8
4 866 956 Pool 0.0001 90 4.5
6 1034 1072 Pool 0.0001 38 4.7
8 1250 1307 Pool 0.0001 57 5.2
10 1427 1599 Pool 0.0001 172 5.9
12 1828 2017 Pool 0.0001 189 6.3
14 2105 2231 Pool 0.0001 126 5.0
16 2331 2365 Pool 0.0001 34 5.2
18 2490 2786 Pool 0.0001 296 5.9
20 2997 3145 Pool 0.0001 148 5.6
22 3251 3314 Pool 0.0020 63 5.6
24 3411 3473 Pool 0.0001 62 5.6
26 3692 3895 Pool 0.0001 203 6.7
28 3977 4152 Pool 0.0001 175 9.2
30 4250 4326 Pool 0.0001 76 6.8
1 180 207 Riffle 0.0230 27 3.3
3 498 528 Riffle 0.0230 30 3.4
5 971 1014 Riffle 0.0240 43 3.4
7 1103 1133 Riffle 0.0080 30 4.2
9 1314 1403 Riffle 0.0010 89 3.9
11 1612 1666 Riffle 0.0160 54 4.4
13 2027 2103 Riffle 0.0040 76 4.5
15 2231 2307 Riffle 0.0040 76 4.1
17 2381 2407 Riffle 0.0050 26 4.6
19 2896 2952 Riffle 0.0059 56 3.8
21 3150 3238 Riffle 0.0050 88 4.3
23 3327 3403 Riffle 0.0100 76 4.9
25 3490 3682 Riffle 0.0120 192 4.8
27 3910 3958 Riffle 0.0194 48 5.1
29-4 4205 4241 Riffle 0.0010 36 5.3
Summa
Riffle Pool
Sloe Length Dmax Sloe Length Dmax
min 0.0010 26 3.3 0.0001 34 4.5
max 0.0240 192 5.3 0.0020 296 9.2
med 0.0080 54 4.3 0.0001 126 5.6
n 15 15 15.0 15 15 15
As Built Riffle Pool
min 0.0027 15 76
max 0.0175 207 252
med 0.0115 66 132
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Year 2 of 5
1
Profile Spacing and Water Surface Slo es
Se ID Pro ID Be Pro ID End Spacing Sws Note
1 1 3 318 0.0014
2 2 4 600 0.0016 Spacing includes Bridge
3 3 5 474 0.0019
4 4 6 140 0.0070
5 5 7 131 0.0095
6 6 8 222 0.0010
7 7 9 209
8 8 10 299 0.0016
9 9 11 287 0.0014
10 10 12 424 0.0017
I1 11 13 417 0.0013
12 12 14 175 0.0010
13 13 15 203 0.0020
14 14 16 201 0.0024
15 15 17 153 0.0029
16 16 18 293 0.0006
17 17 19 516 0.0010
18 18 20 499 0.0018
19 19 21 256 0.0028
20 20 22 155 0.0026
21 21 23 176 0.0036
22 22 24 162 0.0047
23 23 25 165 0.0040
24 24 26 405 0.0062
25 25 27 421 0.0058
26 26 28 244 0.0058
27 27 29 300 0.0048
28 28 30 210 0.0021
Freedom Park (Little Sugar Creek) (141) December 2006 - Year 2 of 5

? ? ? 00
CV -t M

"t
00
O O
.-.
N O
8

E

3

b b b

O (? .-+ --? 00 O l? vi O N It N
M M N M N (7,
? M V1

r. L
O O ?D 00 1-- O N N N r 6 ?o W) -• 00 M M ?n o0 y ?
N
k N
?o k
v 00
00 d' t 00 00 V 1? M M N CR vi
y

cl n i b
C
cd
?+
7 u
a, U

d a ?+ a ar e e ?

'd
?o
00
O
N
oo
--?
O
N

N

N

y

p
0o
O
oo
-^
N
N
V'
N
'O
eC
N
O?
Vl
00
V1
00
V1
?n
M _

l?
kn
vi
Vi
?o
O
O?
O
V1
00
O

5
A
? 3 a
I a
ar •+
a ;, a
N V- 10 w O N d* 1.0 00 O N V ?O m N ?o O N N V ?o 00 O N ?o 00 N N N

OG Gq A
A A ,..I

?I ?I a

a a
N M 't In \0 n 00 O, O --? N M It In ?o 1- M
A A

U
Ir 1? 4+ Ir 1+ I-i 4r 1-i Lr 4 _ F+ {r

A
z
W
d?

F"
O
? o
O 0
O o
O kn
r Y1
N 0
O 0
In o
In In
N 0
M 0
O
' 0
In
? 0
In 0
In
? In
r- o
W" o
O 'n
N
? Vl
r-
? o
O Wn
N V)
N 0
O 0
O

V1 n
1? O
^ -- M M vi oo O?
- O
N --
N M
N d
N n
N ?O
N l
N 00
N O
M N
M o
M l
M O _
'? N
?t M
'?t ?t
?t

W

d

F
O pp
O o
O
S v,
h kn
N o
0 0
W1 0
Qn In
N o
Qn
S 0
In 0
In o
n
. v,
1- o
kn
S -n
N In
r-
- o
O In
N -n
N o
O

V7

O kn

[? C

-- _ M_
_M Vl O_0 O?

1? O

N --

N M

N

N Vl

N 'o

N -
l
N 00

N O

M N

M 'o

M 1

rn O

V _

V'
N
V
M
eh
^- N M tf In 110 r- 00 CT O kn ?o r 00 01 0
N --
N N
N M
N t
N kn
N
A
?
I
a+

0
R
v
0
V
d
CL
W
O
C
0
ca
a
0
0
N
N
N
}
I
cfl
0
0
N
N
.a
E
N
Y
N
Q2
U
m
O)
7
N
YL
m
C.
E
O
'D
N
O
LL
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 4 4.00 4.00
0.062 - 0.125 3 3.00 7.00
0.125 - 0.25 1 1.00 8.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 8.00
0.50 - 1.0 0 0.00 8.00
1.0 - 2.0 4 4.00 12.00
2.0 - 4.0 5 5.00 17.00
4.0 - 5.7 2 2.00 19.00
5.7 - 8.0 6 6.00 25.00
8.0 - 11.3 6 6.00 31.00
11.3 - 16.0 20 20.00 51.00
16.0 - 22.6 4 4.00 55.00
22.6 - 32.0 10 10.00 65.00
32 - 45 6 6.00 71.00
45 - 64 6 6.00 77.00
64 - 90 6 6.00 83.00
90 - 128 10 10.00 93.00
128 - 180 7 7.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 3.6
D35 (mm) 12.24
D50 (mm) 15.77
D84 (mm) 93.8
D95 (mm) 142.86
D100 (mm) 180
Silt/Clay (%) 4
sand (%) 8
Gravel (%) 65
Cobble (%) 23
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XSl 2006
11/28/06
W* Total Particles = 100.

XS 1 2006
LL
U
a)
n-
Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % cum %
0 - 0.062 10 9.90 9.90
0.062 - 0.125 4 3.96 13.86
0.125 - 0.25 2 1.98 15.84
0.25 - 0.50 12 11.88 27.72
0.50 - 1.0 9 8.91 36.63
1.0 - 2.0 30 29.70 66.34
2.0 - 4.0 4 3.96 70.30
4.0 - 5.7 4 3.96 74.26
5.7 - 8.0 1 0.99 75.25
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 75.25
11.3 - 16.0 2 1.98 77.23
16.0 - 22.6 2 1.98 79.21
22.6 - 32.0 2 1.98 81.19
32 - 45 8 7.92 89.11
45 - 64 4 3.96 93.07
64 - 90 3 2.97 96.04
90 - 128 1 0.99 97.03
128 - 180 1 0.99 98.02
180 - 256 0 0.00 98.02
256 - 362 0 0.00 98.02
362 - 512 0 0.00 98.02
512 - 1024 0 0.00 98.02
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 98.02
Bedrock 2 1.98 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.25
D35 (mm) 0.91
D50 (mm) 1.45
D84 (mm) 36.61
D95 (mm) 80.9
D100 (mm) Bedrock
silt/clay (%) 9.9
Sand (%) 56.44
Gravel (%) 26.73
Cobble (%) 4.95
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 1.98
FreedomPark
Main
XS2 2006
11/28/06
4
Total Particles = 101.
XS2 2006
U-
U
N
IL
Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 9 8.49 8.49
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 8.49
0.125 - 0.25 4 3.77 12.26
0.25 - 0.50 12 11.32 23.58
0.50 - 1.0 11 10.38 33.96
1.0 - 2.0 24 22.64 56.60
2.0 - 4.0 7 6.60 63.21
4.0 - 5.7 2 1.89 65.09
5.7 - 8.0 7 6.60 71.70
8.0 - 11.3 2 1.89 73.58
11.3 - 16.0 0 0.00 73.58
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 73.58
22.6 - 32.0 3 2.83 76.42
32 - 45 7 6.60 83.02
45 - 64 8 7.55 90.57
64 - 90 2 1.89 92.45
90 - 128 7 6.60 99.06
128 - 180 0 0.00 99.06
180 - 256 1 0.94 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.33
D35 (mm) 1.05
D50 (mm) 1.71
D84 (mm) 47.47
D95 (mm) 104.66
D100 (mm) 255.99
Silt/Clay (%) 8.49
sand (%) 48.11
Gravel (%) 33.97
Cobble (%) 9.43
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS3 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 106.
XS3 2006
ii
Y
W
U
N
CL
Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 6 5.56 5.56
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 5.56
0.125 - 0.25 4 3.70 9.26
0.25 - 0.50 3 2.78 12.04
0.50 - 1.0 6 5.56 17.59
1.0 - 2.0 15 13.89 31.48
2.0 - 4.0 16 14.81 46.30
4.0 - 5.7 13 12.04 58.33
5.7 - 8.0 10 9.26 67.59
8.0 - 11.3 6 5.56 73.15
11.3 - 16.0 2 1.85 75.00
16.0 - 22.6 5 4.63 79.63
22.6 - 32.0 6 5.56 85.19
32 - 45 4 3.70 88.89
45 - 64 2 1.85 90.74
64 - 90 2 1.85 92.59
90 - 128 8 7.41 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.86
D35 (mm) 2.48
D50 (mm) 4.52
D84 (mm) 29.99
D95 (mm) 102.36
D100 (mm) 128
silt/Clay (%) 5.56
sand (%) 25.92
Gravel (%) 59.26
Cobble (%) 9.26
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS4 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 108.
XS4 2006
C
U-
C
U
N

Particle Size (mm)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 11 10.89 10.89
1.0 - 2.0 15 14.85 25.74
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 25.74
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 25.74
5.7 - 8.0 14 13.86 39.60
8.0 - 11.3 11 10.89 50.50
11.3 - 16.0 2 1.98 52.48
16.0 - 22.6 6 5.94 58.42
22.6 - 32.0 5 4.95 63.37
32 - 45 9 8.91 72.28
45 - 64 0 0.00 72.28
64 - 90 0 0.00 72.28
90 - 128 10 9.90 82.18
128 - 180 4 3.96 86.14
180 - 256 7 6.93 93.07
256 - 362 0 0.00 93.07
362 - 512 4 3.96 97.03
512 - 1024 3 2.97 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 1.34
D35 (mm) 7.24
D50 (mm) 11.15
D84 (mm) 151.9
D95 (mm) 435.11
D100 (mm) 1023.98
silt/Clay (%) 0
sand (%) 25.74
Gravel (%) 46.54
Cobble (%) 20.79
Boulder (%) 6.93
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS5 2006
11/28/06

Total Particles = 101.
XS5 2006
U
N
d
00
Particle Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 30 30.00 30.00
0.50 - 1.0 34 34.00 64.00
1.0 - 2.0 36 36.00 100.00
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 100.00
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 100.00
5.7 - 8.0 0 0.00 100.00
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 100.00
11.3 - 16.0 0 0.00 100.00
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 100.00
22.6 - 32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.38
D35 (mm) 0.57
D50 (mm) 0.79
D84 (mm) 1.56
D95 (mm) 1.86
D100 (mm) 2
silt/Clay (%) 0
sand (%) 100
Gravel (%) 0
cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS6 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 100.
XS6 2006
U
N
d
Particle Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 6 6.45 6.45
0.50 - 1.0 5 5.38 11.83
1.0 - 2.0 12 12.90 24.73
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 24.73
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 24.73
5.7 - 8.0 9 9.68 34.41
8.0 - 11.3 4 4.30 38.71
11.3 - 16.0 9 9.68 48.39
16.0 - 22.6 6 6.45 54.84
22.6 - 32.0 12 12.90 67.74
32 - 45 8 8.60 76.34
45 - 64 13 13.98 90.32
64 - 90 4 4.30 94.62
90 - 128 2 2.15 96.77
128 - 180 1 1.08 97.85
180 - 256 0 0.00 97.85
256 - 362 0 0.00 97.85
362 - 512 0 0.00 97.85
512 - 1024 0 0.00 97.85
1024 - 2048 2 2.15 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 1.32
D35 (mm) 8.45
D50 (mm) 17.65
D84 (mm) 55.41
D95 (mm) 96.72
D100 (mm) 2047.95
Silt/Clay (%) 0
sand (%) 24.73
Gravel (%) 65.59
cobble (%) 7.53
Boulder (%) 2.15
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS7 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 93.
XS7 2006
U
U
a
)00
Particle Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 11 11.00 11.00
0.50 - 1.0 7 7.00 18.00
1.0 - 2.0 12 12.00 30.00
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 30.00
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 30.00
5.7 - 8.0 0 0.00 30.00
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 30.00
11.3 - 16.0 5 5.00 35.00
16.0 - 22.6 3 3.00 38.00
22.6 - 32.0 3 3.00 41.00
32 - 45 11 11.00 52.00
45 - 64 9 9.00 61.00
64 - 90 3 3.00 64.00
90 - 128 7 7.00 71.00
128 - 180 9 9.00 80.00
180 - 256 12 12.00 92.00
256 - 362 4 4.00 96.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 96.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 96.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 96.00
Bedrock 4 4.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.86
D35 (mm) 16
D50 (mm) 42.64
D84 (mm) 205.33
D95 (mm) 335.5
D100 (mm) Bedrock
silt/Clay (%) 0
sand (%) 30
Gravel (%) 31
cobble (%) 31
Boulder (%) 4
Bedrock (%) 4
FreedomPark
main
xS8 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 100.
XS8 2006
LL
C
a
Particle Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 - 0.062 0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 13 12.87 12.87
0.25 - 0.50 11 10.89 23.76
0.50 - 1.0 20 19.80 43.56
1.0 - 2.0 27 26.73 70.30
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 70.30
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 70.30
5.7 - 8.0 7 6.93 77.23
8.0 - 11.3 3 2.97 80.20
11.3 - 16.0 4 3.96 84.16
16.0 - 22.6 2 1.98 86.14
22.6 - 32.0 2 1.98 88.12
32 - 45 1 0.99 89.11
45 - 64 7 6.93 96.04
64 - 90 4 3.96 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.32
D35 (mm) 0.78
D50 (mm) 1.24
D84 (mm) 15.81
D95 (mm) 61.15
D100 (mm) 90
Silt/Clay (%) 0
Sand (%) 70.3
Gravel (%) 25.74
Cobble (%) 3.96
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
FreedomPark
Main
XS9 2006
11/28/06
Total Particles = 101.
XS9 2006
U
N
a
Particle Size (mm)
i
y
d
d
m
e
'C
0
e
0
4

r I
'
'l
.
?

? _
?? ,?
? ?; 1
!!

? i ii
i

!I i i i?
i
I

?_ ?

i
?
II
?I
, I
? i
+;

!f

!, ?4

??

;,
,?

?,j

?? ? ?
I I
? ?
r

t
?_ f. r.
j

t?
1 '?

r
? ?
' j

aa? II
j
•;

a i
P
?
?
_
N
s?
i
I
i ? I
I ? t i
E

r
e
6
m
C
e
S
Y
A

a
6
[P
?I
li
ii
i ?
??I;`
T i
a ? ? €? ? ? ?
?.??? ???? ? ?U?
? s ? ?g 8 v ? ? ? ? v??
?° tE ? N A ®' ?. 5
e
Y
? 8 ?I
8 gg o
E ? ? ? ? " ? tl ? ? ? ? 33 ? ° ?
y
??
I+
F?
?,
t
j ? '
i
i I
?!
??
I?
?t

.
? 1
' ; t

i ?
? j

i !?
I?
i'
?

? t?
I?
, 1

7 t
..
i .

%? 1 ?
b?
??
? '? I
? i

?E
? ! f
f.
??
?4 ?
I

8
1

N?N
0 X
N
ALL Y
1_ ? J
O?
w S
U?
N
U H
O
L)
R
:' r w w a
E
i
c
o _ c?m?,nmo °m nc4,Nno??? n
a r? ?o vim ?m? ?
mmw mo, m
x
c
0
Ul
? a o n
F,

7

m

C
?
a
s
0

N w
1 02
O
N
U n T
E R Y
M A
O
rt?
U?
U
U
N
3
of
U?
3
(31) UOIIE-13

m
S
0
N
i0
N
o v
N
V O
NN
C7 C
n
N
N N N N ? `a, g o g
1 4 , %.j
m?
X
O
N
02
O n Q) X
O
w
00.
m
U)
og
U?
A
Q
W Y
fd
E
i
Z
o r ? m? ? m`reM iONm?e ncrn+`n
o •
o. ^?m `Omm?°mm
N '
x "
0
N
" V S m V Y m
V o cq ?
Maa un'i vii .o°
a
O

g ?
N_
(0
°y C
S
a
0
m m m m i4 w m m n n n
(4) UOII-913
a
"t /*

- E E
90oz ESX z ttQQ ?i
o:

•
9002 zsx
i•

8

N ?, 1

co
a
ii
- +- ?
-
E 90oz tsx : i t co

O 1
? a?

?
R 8 N
,
V e Q
I

8
i
?
t
.
j e
??
8
-

r. _
r •
1__1_ 1. L-1. I__ . I -1... : L.-L_ I .1_ I. I. I L L L.1_ L a
g o '8 `a - `a o o g rn m a..? w. m °m m w m m m ? m ro m °m n n ^n n n
(4) u011en013

Q
9002 8SX ? ?. `m
a

r ? E LL
m ------- --- -. -.--- -m- c

a
1• ?

ry Y
` a. a

8

c
` 1, N O
?•1
• O
{? g N
N ''..• ry o
O t. ; .

L -
-------
-----
- ? a
(n r+
-
900zt5X -- - --

N ? .?.
Co

co IL

O • ?
f? S9

- r

• ? d
`- r S
9ooz zsx }

E
O N O, of h O N O N O m n O N n N .- O m O f` (O i(1 O

C
M uoilen913 o
E
0
0
N
N
O
O)
O
C
_a
1-'
r- I.
?r? J •

JI•
lye ?zyJ 3 .. r
:•
i
?
LL l
m ?
m J

OD
c
•
?
r?
- *
sooz 9sz - - - - - -- -- -

M y•
r%
0
=

'^
VJ
CD sooz csx - - - -- - - - ?-- - - s
O
N t• I N
l
L + Ii\I/
co
co
Q. O
O / • z- N
T
V C
^
^

-
9ooz 9sx
r
r y?

} N
I
P
90oz m ^
?I • N
J•
• •

A? • ppq
N
1

?
I I I I I I I
! $
N

r
(u) uoilena13 • r

s
U-
O
n
d
}
Y
a.
E
a
lL
C
0
0
2
t`
C?
0
N
N
O
Ol
n
O
C
a
H

? a

E E
2 @c? ?y?y 2
F S 3 ? m n
b.
-
u"I
a

a

r R
a
? ?
j
s ? ? 8
l

N aooz6sz ---- --.j j , 8

n
Q
.
'..{
co
(D

Il
;.?•
i
n
D
q

tj •
1t Ir"?

? ? cS
t ?
t J ?

t
?? -
aoaz esx-' - -F Fj - -1-1-T- T --i -
?' ? o? o?? o o g rn rn m mm ?i m m m °m W m m m fw ?,m m m °m n n? n n
1
(1]) UOIJEA@13

t •