ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UT to CANE CREEK ...
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (EEP Project No. 395)
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009)
Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina
November 2009
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (EEP Project No. 395)
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009)
Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina Prepared by: Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise Street Suite 7 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Design Firm: URS Corporation 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, NC 27560
November 2009
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT The UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (Site) is located in southwest Alamance County approximately 5 miles east of Liberty, North Carolina in United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03-06-04) of the Cape Fear River Basin. This Hydrologic Unit has been identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP’s Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in meeting stream and wetland restoration goals. Primary activities at the Site included stream restoration and wetland enhancement/preservation by excluding livestock from the Site, stabilizing stream banks, installing in-stream structures, adjusting stream plan form, removing invasive species, and replanting riparian areas with native vegetation. Project restoration efforts provided 6783 Stream Mitigation Units and 1.1 riparian riverine Wetland Mitigation Units. This report summarizes data for year 1 (2009) monitoring. The goals and objectives of this project focused on improving local water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat. These goals were accomplished by the following. 1. Reestablished stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment load by restoring stable channel morphology supported by natural instream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures. 2. Reduced nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs into the Site by eliminating the acceleration of bank erosion as a result of land use activities, excluding livestock, and reestablishing a native riparian buffer greater than 50 feet in width. 3. Enhanced the capacity of the Site to mitigate flood flows by reconnecting the stream to the historic floodplain. Success criteria dictate an average density of 320 stems per acre must be surviving after three monitoring years, 290 stems per acre after four monitoring years, and 260 stems per acre after five monitoring years. Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 451 planted stems per acre surviving in year 1 (2009). The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Ten of the individual plots met success criteria with planted stems alone, four additional plots (Plots 4, 6, 11, and 12) met success criteria when including appropriate natural recruit species, and one plot (Plot 1) was one stem shy of success criteria based on planted stems with no natural recruit development having occurred yet. Several areas within the Site, noted on Figure 3 (Appendix A), had poor herbaceous vegetation development, most likely due to soil infertility following construction. Success criteria for stream restoration reaches should show little to no change from the as-built channel over the five-year monitoring period. Year 1 (2009) monitoring measurements indicate that there have been minimal changes in both the longitudinal profile and cross-sections as compared to as-built data. In addition, one bankfull event was documented to occur on November 11, 2009 during the year 1 (2009) monitoring period during Tropical Storm Ida. A few areas of minor bank erosion and channel aggradation were documented within the Site and are depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A). These are not considered to be a problem at this time but should continue to be monitored closely in subsequent monitoring years. In summary, the Site achieved success criteria for vegetation and stream attributes in the First Monitoring Year (2009). Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page i
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in table and figures within this report’s appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on EEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page ii
Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT.......................................................................... i 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Stream Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Figures Figure 1. Site Location .......................................................................................................... Appendix A Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View ............................................................................................ Appendix A Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View......................................................................................... Appendix A List of Tables Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives ............................................................... Appendix B Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ..................................................................... Appendix B Table 3. Project Contacts Table ............................................................................................. Appendix B Table 4. Project Attribute Table ............................................................................................. Appendix B Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table ................................................. Appendix C Table 6. Vegetation Metadata Table....................................................................................... Appendix C Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species ............................................................ Appendix C Table 8. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment .................................................................... Appendix D Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events ................................................................................ Appendix D Appendices APPENDIX A. FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View APPENDIX B. GENERAL PROJECT TABLES Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table APPENDIX C. VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos CVS Summary Data Tables Table 6. Vegetation Metadata Table Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species APPENDIX D. STREAM ASSESSMENT DATA Tables 8A-8E. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events Cross-section Plots and Tables Longitudinal Profile Plots Pebble Count Plots UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page iii
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Following Site construction, fifteen plots (10-meters square) were established and monumented with metal fence posts at all plot corners and PVC at each plot origin. Plots were surveyed in September 2009 for the year 1 (2009) monitoring season. Sampling was conducted as outlined in the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006) (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C. The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (Weakley 2007). The locations of vegetation monitoring plots are depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 2.2 Stream Assessment Twelve permanent cross-sections and five approximately 600 linear foot long monitoring reaches were established after construction was completed. Measurements of each cross-section include points at all breaks in slope including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Applied Fluvial Morphology (Rosgen 1996) stream classification system. Longitudinal profile measurements include thalweg and water surface; with each measurement taken at the head of facets (i.e. riffle, run, pool, and glide) in addition to the maximum pool depth. Visual assessment of in-stream structures was conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. Stream assessment data are included in Appendix D with the locations of cross-sections and monitoring reaches depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 3.0 REFERENCES Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online). Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFlora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (USACE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page 1
APPENDIX A FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
ch
d
−
0
650
1,300
2,600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
Ro
lva n
Da m
Sy
Ol d
Ro a
d
Pl ea
sa
nt
Hi ll
ur Ch
a Ro
o d o r oa sb l R en Hil re G pel a Ch
Directions to the Site: From Raleigh, take US-64 West to exit 381 for NC-87 towards Spring Lake and Fayetteville Turn right on NC-87/Graham Road Take a slight left onto Silk Hope Gum Springs Road/Silk Hope Road Turn right on Snow Camp Road Turn left on Old Dam Road The Site is located at the stream crossing between Wild Rose Road and Cocoa Road Latitude, Longitude of Site: 35.8644°N, 79.4800°W (NAD83/WGS84)
ad
3,900
5,200 Feet
SITE LOCATION UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
1
Cross Section XS 1 XS 1 XS 2 XS 2 XS 3 XS 3 XS 4 XS 4 XS 5* XS 5* XS 6 XS 6 XS 7 XS 7 XS 8 XS 8 XS 9 XS 9 XS 10 XS 10 XS 11 XS 11 XS 12 XS 12
Latitude -79.46231125280 -79.46224334430 -79.46291475650 -79.46302231990 -79.46530725110 -79.46526070740 -79.46643260370 -79.46647493230 -79.463936 -79.463875 -79.46372879620 -79.46362506590 -79.46283123450 -79.46285414140 -79.46212539700 -79.46217373980 -79.46209588240 -79.46200190240 -79.46160158640 -79.46149803240 -79.46127581910 -79.46140636960 -79.46064310510 -79.46078244370
Longitude 35.86357848520 35.86364281960 35.86418007320 35.86416991240 35.86550320910 35.86542379120 35.86509047200 35.86515800210 35.865319 35.865384 35.86656128990 35.86650426440 35.86682218920 35.86689897400 35.86772749340 35.86780348540 35.86902251620 35.86899246280 35.87010655060 35.87011035350 35.87110850340 35.87114812000 35.87173551710 35.87175495800
15 XS 12
Monitoring Reach 5
14
XS 11
XS 10 13
* Locations are approximate
12 XS 9
Vegetation Plot plot 1 origin plot 2 origin plot 3 origin plot 4 origin plot 5 origin plot 6 origin plot 7 origin plot 8 origin plot 9 origin plot 10 origin plot 11 origin plot 12 origin plot 13 origin plot 14 origin plot 15 origin
Latitude -79.46221505100 -79.46271264430 -79.466299 -79.46448443860 -79.46399365180 -79.46357095240 -79.46344201540 -79.46267301560 -79.46261109950 -79.46215083880 -79.46204497230 -79.46182655010 -79.46166371170 -79.46107250310 -79.46062551010
Longitude 35.86321150230 35.86399560110 35.865173 35.86584506480 35.86571252330 35.86620590610 35.86664098490 35.86685520690 35.86750457640 35.86763646240 35.86830888870 35.86915604160 35.87004828190 35.87113937100 35.87207557390
Monitoring Reach 4 11 XS 8
10 9
XS 7
8 XS 6
7
Monitoring Reach 3
6
4 XS 3
5
XS 4 XS 5
Monitoring Reach 2
3
Legend a am Ro Old D
d
Conservation Easement XS 2
Channel Monitoring Reach
2
−
Cross Sections Vegetation Plots Structures XS 1
Monitoring Reach 1
Wetlands 1
100
200
Wetland Mitigation Enhancement
2005 Aerial Photography 0
Fords
Preservation 400
600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
800 Feet
MONITORING PLANVIEW UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
2
15 XS 12
14
XS 11
XS 10
Poor Vegetation Growth 13 Bank Erosion Both Banks 12 ft
12 XS 9 Poor Vegetation Growth
Bank Erosion Left Bank 12 ft Affecting Vane Arm 11 XS 8
10 9
XS 7
Bank Erosion Left Bank 10 ft
Bank Erosion Left Bank 10 ft 8 XS 6
7
Bank Erosion Left Bank 15 ft
Poor Vegetation Growth 6
Stream Aggradation 4
Poor Vegetation Growth
XS 3
5
XS 4 XS 5 3
Poor Vegetation Growth
Poor Vegetation Growth
Legend Bank Failure 2
Structures
XS 2
−
0
100
200
Conservation Easement Cross Sections XS 1
Wetlands Stream Aggradation
Vegetation Plots 1
Stream Aggradation Poor Vegetation Growth 400
600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
800 Feet
PROBLEM AREA PLANVIEW UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Fords
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
3
APPENDIX B GENERAL PROJECT TABLES Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Restoration Segment/ Reach ID*
Station Range
Mitigation Type
Priority Approach
Linear Footage/ Acreage
Comment
Reach A Reach B Reach C Reach D Reach E
10+00-28+10.76 28+10.76-49+29.45 49+29.45-61+24.03 100+00-113.57.31 200+00-203+73.25
Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration
Priority 1 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 1 Priority 1
1738.76** 2118.69 1194.58 1357.31 373.25
Restoration of dimension and profile through a combination of on new location and in place restoration.
Wetlands
--
Enhancement
--
1.3
Wetlands
--
Preservation
--
2.0
Invasive species removal and planting. Invasive species removal.
Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (linear footage) Riverine Riparian Wetland (acreage) Planted Riparian Buffer (acreage) Restoration 6782.59 --Enhancement -1.3 -Preservation 2.0 -Totals 6782.59 linear feet 3.3 acres 41 acres Mitigation Units 6783 SMUs 1.1 WMUs -* Locations of each reach are depicted on the As-built Drawings in Appendix A ** Constructed linear footage excludes the 72-foot corrugated metal pipe at Old Dam Road; therefore, the linear footage is shorter than stationing depicts.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Activity or Report Restoration Plan Construction Completion Site Planting As-built Drawings Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete ---July-October 2008 --
Completion or Delivery February 2006 March 2009 March 2009 July 2009 October 2009
Table 3. Project Contacts Table UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Designer
Construction Contractor
Conservation Easement Contractor
As-built Surveying Contractor
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
URS Corporation 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 Kathleen McKeithan (919) 461-1597 River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511 Will Pederson (919) 459-9001 Landmark Surveying, Inc. 109 E. Harden Street Graham, North Carolina 27253 (336) 229-6275 Level Cross Surveying, PLLC 668 Marsh County Lane Randleman, North Carolina 23717 Sherri Willard (336) 495-1713 Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Table 4. Project Attribute Table UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030002050050
NCDWQ Subbasin
03-06-04
Within EEP Watershed Plan Extent?
Yes-Targeted Local Watershed
WRC Class
Warm
% of project easement fenced
100 %
Beaver activity observed during design phase
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table Reach A
Reach B
Reach C
Reach D
Reach E
Drainage area (acres)
390
1333
1640
892
282
Stream order
first
third
third
third
second
Restored length (linear feet)
1738.76
2118.69
1194.58
1357.31
373.25
Perennial or Intermittent
perennial
perennial
perennial
perennial
perennial
NCDWQ Index Number
16-28
16-28
16-28
16-28
16-28
NCDWQ Classification
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
303d list?
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
No
No
No
50.75
50.75
50.75
50.75
50.75
41
41
41
41
41
Total acreage of easement Total planted acreage of easement Rosgen classification of preexisting
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Rosgen classification of asbuilt
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Valley slope
0.0083
0.0041
0.0045
0.0046
0.0156
Cowardin classification
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
Trout waters designation?
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, T&E, etc?
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Tirzah silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Starr loam, Colfax silt loam, Herndon silt loam, and mixed alluvial land
Watershed Land Use (%) Managed Herbaceous Coverage
49.8
Mixed Upland Hardwoods
31.4
Cultivated
9.9
Southern Yellow Pine
4.6
Deciduous Shrubland
2.0
Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers
0.9
Unmanaged Herbaceous Upland
0.6
Evergreen Shrubland
0.4
Water Bodies
0.4
Impervious Surfaces
2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 1 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8A. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 113
100
100
100
91.5
100
100
82
96.4
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 82 100 73 73 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 83
N/A 4 4 4 4 2 2
N/A
N/A N/A 4 4 4 4 2 2
Total Number per As-built 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 2 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8B. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
N/A 5 5 5 5 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 0 0
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 3 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8C. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
96
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
98 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
1100 100 100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100
N/A 3 3 3 3 3 3
N/A
N/A N/A 2 3 3 3 3 3
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 0 4 4 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 4 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8D. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
91.5
97
100
91
100
100
100
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
97 66 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100
N/A 3 3 3 3 1 1
N/A
N/A N/A 3 3 3 3 1 1
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 5 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8E. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
96
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395) Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if available)
November 16, 2009
November 11, 2009
Visual observation of wrack adjacent to the stream channel and within the floodplain as the result of Tropical Storm Ida
1-2
Bankfull Event Photos 1-2 showing evidence of overbank through wrack lines on banks and debris deposition from overland flow within the floodplain.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Station 0.0 3.4 5.9 9.0 10.3 12.5 13.2 14.2 15.2 15.9 16.4 17.3 17.9 19.0 19.7 20.7 22.3 25.1 28.8 32.0
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 99.20 99.15 98.93 98.45 98.16 98.22 97.87 97.52 96.86 96.70 96.61 96.51 96.55 96.52 97.53 98.24 98.7 99.2 99.2 99.2
96
97
98
99
100
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 1, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
E
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 1, Pool
98.2 9.0 8.1 NA NA 1.7 1.1 NA NA NA
30
MY-02 9/7/010
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.00 3.05 7.05 9.65 10.79 11.84 12.26 13.42 15.13 16.05 16.80 17.20 17.50 19.82 21.72 27.6 32.1
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 95.57 95.68 95.72 95.72 95.52 95.21 94.97 94.27 94.27 94.06 94.22 94.40 94.83 95.49 95.68 95.9 95.9
94
95
96
97
98
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 2, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 2, Riffle
95.7 9.3 12.4 97.3 150.0 1.6 0.8 16.5 12.1 1.0
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.00 3.95 6.55 8.64 10.35 10.87 11.73 12.64 14.91 16.56 17.64 18.63 19.68 20.64 23.1 26.5 31.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 78.76 78.55 78.27 78.12 77.90 77.92 77.15 76.86 76.93 76.88 77.54 78.03 78.53 78.83 79.0 79.1 79.1
76
77
78
79
80
0
77.9 6.1 8.2 NA NA 1.1 0.7 NA NA NA Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 3, Pool
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 3, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
30
E/C
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 4.7 7.0 7.8 8.5 9.2 9.5 10.0 10.2 10.6 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.3 14.2 14.8 15.3 16.1 17.1 17.5 18.3 18.9 20.2 21.3 22.1 24.4 25.8 28.0 31.0
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 81.3 81.2 81.2 81.0 80.8 80.5 80.3 80.1 79.9 79.5 79.4 79.1 79.0 79.0 78.95 79.00 79.34 79.53 80.16 80.20 79.96 80.13 80.43 80.60 80.83 80.93 80.91 81.19 81.13
78
79
80
81
82
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 4, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
C/E
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 4, Riffle
80.2 6.1 8.6 81.4 150.0 1.2 0.7 12.1 17.4 1.0
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/08
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 3.1 4.2 5.5 6.0 6.8 7.6 8.0 9.2 10.0 11.1 11.7 12.4 13.1 13.7 14.2 16.2 17.8 19.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 85.0 84.7 84.3 84.3 84.0 83.2 83.0 82.9 82.8 83.0 83.2 83.8 84.0 84.4 84.6 84.8 84.6 84.3 84.5
82
83
84
85
86
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 5, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
E/C
10 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 5, Pool
84.7 11.1 10.8 NA NA 1.9 1.0 NA NA NA
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
20
Station 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 6.3 6.7 8.2 10.2 10.9 11.3 12.2 13.2 13.7 14.2 14.8 15.9 17.0 17.8 18.6 19.5 20.7 22.0 22.8 23.7 25.1 26.5 28.7 33.4
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 84.0 84.0 83.4 83.2 82.6 82.6 81.6 80.7 80.7 80.4 80.2 79.7 79.7 79.8 79.5 79.7 79.4 79.4 79.5 79.5 79.6 80.1 80.3 80.6 81.0 81.4 81.8 82.3
Elevation (feet) 79
80
81
82
83
84
0
81.4 22.2 17.8 83.4 150.0 2.0 1.2 14.3 8.4 1.0 Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
30
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 6, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 6, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Bankfull Flood Prone Area MY-01 9/24/09 MY-02 9/7/10
E/C
40
Station 0.0 3.1 5.3 5.8 7.0 8.2 8.5 8.9 10.1 11.7 13.0 13.9 15.7 16.8 17.3 18.0 18.7 19.6 20.3 21.2 22.2 24.2 26.4 28.6
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 75.2 75.2 75.1 74.8 74.1 73.5 73.2 72.7 72.6 72.7 72.6 72.8 72.7 72.8 73.2 73.5 73.9 74.5 74.9 75.4 75.4 75.2 75.1 75.1
Elevation (feet) 72
73
74
75
76
77
78
0
75.1 26.3 15.2 77.6 150.0 2.5 1.7 8.8 9.9 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 7, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 7, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
20
E
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
30
Station 0.0 4.0 6.2 7.0 7.9 9.0 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.6 12.3 13.0 13.8 14.2 15.7 16.9 17.9 18.7 19.9 20.6 21.1 21.7 22.2 23.0 23.9 24.7 25.6 26.8 28.5 29.7 31.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 87.7 87.8 87.7 87.6 87.4 87.0 86.8 86.6 86.3 85.9 85.5 85.2 85.4 85.0 84.9 85.0 85.1 85.2 85.3 85.5 85.6 86.0 86.2 86.3 86.5 86.7 87.0 87.2 87.6 87.5 87.6
Elevation (feet) 84
85
86
87
88
89
90
0
87.2 24.4 18.3 89.5 150.0 2.3 1.3 13.7 8.2 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
20
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 8, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 8, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
E/C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
Station 0.0 3.4 5.4 6.1 7.2 8.0 8.5 9.8 10.6 11.6 12.4 13.1 13.8 14.6 15.0 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.7 18.4 19.5 20.7 21.6 23.1 25.6 28.4 33.2
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 85.4 85.3 85.2 84.9 84.6 84.4 84.2 83.7 83.2 82.9 82.6 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.3 82.2 82.0 82.4 82.8 83.5 84.0 84.6 85.1 85.3 85.5 85.4 85.2
Elevation (feet) 81
82
83
84
85
86
87
0
84.7 28.4 16.8 NA NA 3.2 1.7 NA NA NA Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 9, Pool
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 9, Pool Pool 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
E/C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 2.3 3.5 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.0 8.0 9.2 10.6 11.5 12.5 13.9 15.6 16.8 17.9 19.5 22.5 24.4 25.1 26.1 29.3 33.4
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 84.0 83.8 83.5 83.5 83.3 83.1 82.9 82.7 82.4 82.3 82.1 81.8 81.7 81.6 81.4 81.7 82.0 82.4 83.0 83.4 83.9 84.2 84.5
Elevation (feet) 81
82
83
84
85
86
0
83.5 24.5 20.6 85.5 150.0 2.0 1.2 17.3 7.3 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
20
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 10, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 10, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
Station 0.0 7.0 7.8 9.5 11.7 12.1 12.6 13.5 15.7 18.3 19.7 21.2 22.7 23.6 25.0 26.2 27.9 31.3 33.6
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 94.88 94.66 94.54 94.11 92.97 92.57 92.04 91.70 91.66 91.88 92.22 92.42 92.76 93.29 93.91 94.47 94.80 94.84 94.83
Elevation (feet) 91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0
94.1 25.7 15.9 96.5 150.0 2.4 1.6 9.8 9.4 1.0 Stream Type
E/C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 11, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 11, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 5.5 9.4 12.3 12.6 13.0 13.8 14.3 15.2 15.9 16.7 17.6 18.8 20.4 22.1 23.7 24.6 25.2 26.1 27.4 28.5 29.7 31.4 32.8 35.8 38.2 40.8
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 93.88 93.89 94.14 94.15 94.05 93.74 93.29 92.94 92.38 92.06 91.62 91.45 91.44 91.17 91.17 91.17 91.31 91.67 92.06 92.5 93.0 93.4 93.7 93.9 93.9 93.9 93.9
Elevation (feet) 91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0
93.7 22.9 14.5 96.3 150.0 2.6 1.6 9.2 10.3 1.0 Stream Type
E/C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 12, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 12, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 677.8 673.5 668.5 666.7 665.3 663.3 661.8 658.1 655.1 653.4 651.2 649.4 647.0 644.8 641.1 638.5 636.4 633.4 631.1 628.1 626.0 622.7 620.6 618.1 614.2 611.2 608.9 606.3 604.0 601.3 598.4 596.2 593.8 100 591.3 588.6 585.6 99 582.0 579.3 576.9 574.4 98 571.6 568.7 566.1 563.5 97 560.9 558.2 555.5 552.8 96 550.2 547.4 544.1 541.3 95 538.5 535.6 532.4 530.0 94 527.7 525.2 522.9 517.5 93 517.1 514.4 512.2 509.7 507.0 504.3
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
99.2 99.6 99.2 99.0 98.3 97.9 98.0 98.1 98.2 99.1 99.0 98.9 98.9 98.6 98.5 98.5 98.7 98.9 99.2 99.1 99.0 98.9 99.0 98.8 98.7 98.1 98.2 98.4 98.5 98.5 98.9 98.8 98.7 98.5 98.0 99.0 98.9 99.2 99.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.9 98.7 98.3 98.2 98.2 98.1 98.8 98.7 98.7 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.9 98.7 98.6 98.6 99.1 98.6 98.5 98.5 98.8 98.9 98.8
2008 As-built Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station 0.0 9.6 29.4 33.8 38.2 41.3 44.3 49.0 51.5 56.9 60.9 68.3 83.6 97.9 118.7 125.6 131.0 141.0 149.2 155.6 163.2 171.8 172.0 179.5 183.8 193.0 207.5 215.2 221.7 235.2 254.1 259.4 267.7 278.4 279.0 283.8 291.8 299.1 307.8 317.0 330.3 334.8 343.5 356.4 370.1 383.5 403.1 409.6 412.6 416.0 425.8 437.0 455.4 467.8 477.1 490.4 505.1 513.1 522.6 538.5 550.9 564.5 584.9 611.4 617.4 635.0
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 1 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 94.9 94.7 95.0 94.6 95.1 94.5 95.1 94.2 95.1 94.4 95.1 94.9 95.1 94.6 95.1 94.4 95.1 94.5 95.1 94.7 95.1 94.8 95.1 95.3 95.5 95.5 95.8 95.2 95.8 94.6 95.8 95.0 95.8 95.6 95.8 95.6 96.0 95.5 95.9 95.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.7 96.1 96.7 96.6 96.7 96.7 96.3 96.9 96.4 96.9 96.8 96.9 96.9 97.2 96.7 97.2 95.9 97.2 96.4 97.2 97.6 97.2 97.7 96.5 97.8 96.3 97.7 96.1 97.7 97.2 97.7 97.5 97.8 96.8 97.8 97.5 97.7 97.3 97.8 97.4 97.7 97.7 97.8 97.6 97.9 98.1 98.1 98.3 98.3 97.6 98.3 97.4 98.3 98.1 98.3 98.6 98.7 97.9 98.6 98.3 98.7 99.0 99.5 98.5 99.4 98.9 99.4 99.3 99.3 99.0 99.4 99.3 100 99.2 99.4 99.4 99.1 99.4 99.1 99.4 99.0 99.4 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Year 1 (2009) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
As-built (2008) Bed
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 1
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0068 17 0.0066 20 0.0015
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 601.5 598.9 597.3 595.1 594.3 592.4 590.1 588.2 583.9 583.4 581.0 577.4 575.2 572.2 572.1 567.7 565.9 563.4 561.7 559.6 556.2 554.3 553.1 550.7 549.3 546.5 544.3 543.3 540.5 538.7 537.1 535.1 533.0 531.2 529.5 527.7 525.9 523.7 79 522.2 519.8 517.7 78 516.1 513.4 511.8 78 509.6 508.2 505.8 77 504.3 502.2 500.5 77 498.8 496.9 496.6 76 493.6 490.9 488.6 76 486.3 484.9 482.4 75 480.9 478.0 476.0 75 474.7 472.1 470.9 74 467.9
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
2008 As-built Bed Elevation 75.0 75.5 75.1 75.3 75.6 75.6 75.2 75.6 75.6 75.7 75.5 75.3 75.4 75.6 75.5 75.7 75.7 75.6 75.9 75.9 75.4 75.4 76.2 75.2 76.0 75.1 75.8 75.8 75.4 75.7 75.7 75.9 75.7 75.4 75.6 75.7 75.6 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.9 75.4 75.7 75.3 75.7 75.4 75.3 75.3 75.8 75.9 75.5 75.5 75.9 75.6 75.2 75.4 75.7 75.9 76.1 75.5 75.7 75.8 75.6 75.8 75.4
Water Elevation
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 2 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
422.0 425.5 432.2 433.5 435.1 438.2 443.2 449.5 454.4 457.5 463.2 469.3 473.6 486.8 493.4 497.7 501.5
Station 0.0 5.4 13.3 20.3 31.5 41.3 50.2 57.1 65.9 72.1 77.5 82.2 83.8 86.9 98.7 121.1 135.4 137.8 148.4 153.7 165.5 172.9 188.3 200.1 212.1 222.5 232.0 250.0 260.4 282.5 288.1 295.9 304.0 312.1 325.8 341.1 353.5 363.5 367.7 372.1 377.3 379.4 387.3 394.3 406.7 417.0 419.4 422.0
100
76.2 75.7 75.4 75.1 75.0 75.0 75.5 75.4 75.2 75.1 75.5 75.6 75.5 75.3 75.2 75.0 74.8
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 77.1 77.5 77.4 77.8 78.2 77.5 77.3 77.7 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 76.3 76.9 77.0 76.9 77.4 76.2 76.1 76.9 77.1 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.8 76.9 76.6 76.3 76.9 76.1 76.1 76.5 77.0 76.4 76.2 76.2 76.4 76.3 76.0 75.9 76.0 76.3 76.4 76.1 75.8 75.7 75.8 76.1 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
300
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 2
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope No Water In Channel
2009 -----13.0 -----22.0 ------
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 15.2 16.3 18.5 20.7 20.9 23.8 26.6 27.0 28.8 30.9 33.8 35.6 37.2 39.4 41.6 45.9 47.5 49.9 51.7 53.4 55.0 57.8 59.3 61.0 63.8 65.6 67.8 69.9 71.6 73.6 75.3 77.4 78.7 88 80.4 83.3 85.2 87.2 87 88.9 89.3 92.4 94.3 87 96.7 98.6 100.6 101.9 86 102.7 105.1 107.0 108.2 86 109.8 111.3 112.4 114.7 85 116.9 117.4 120.1 121.6 85 123.7 125.2 127.3 128.7 84 130.5 131.5 132.9 135.3 137.1
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
87.1 86.7 86.7 86.6 86.9 87.0 86.9 86.3 86.0 86.4 86.2 86.5 86.1 86.1 86.0 86.2 85.9 86.0 85.8 85.9 86.0 85.9 85.7 85.8 86.4 86.6 86.3 86.3 86.4 86.4 85.8 86.6 86.2 86.5 86.5 86.4 87.0 86.6 86.9 87.1 87.0 86.8 86.7 87.1 86.7 86.7 86.6 87.0 86.7 87.0 86.8 87.0 86.5 86.8 86.5 86.5 86.5 86.3 86.4 86.4 86.3 86.9 87.0 86.4 86.4
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station 0.0 6.5 11.8 16.6 20.6 22.7 29.5 34.5 35.9 40.6 46.4 50.8 53.3 59.6 71.1 75.0 82.1 87.2 92.4 102.0 108.5 115.0 121.7 130.4 140.2 149.0 167.0 175.0 189.1 193.7 200.3 204.6 207.4 212.1 219.8 227.4 230.8 236.2 245.2 256.7 265.6 275.7 280.9 286.7 290.9 295.9 301.9 303.3 305.9 317.8 327.6 336.0 342.5 348.3 360.1 369.4 376.8 384.0 388.6 395.5 399.2 406.9 421.5 434.8 444.8 450.8
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 3 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.7 87.1 86.7 87.1 86.7 87.0 86.5 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.4 87.1 86.4 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.1 87.1 86.3 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.9 87.1 86.9 87.1 86.9 87.0 86.8 86.9 86.5 86.7 86.3 86.7 86.5 86.7 86.5 86.5 86.1 86.3 86.0 86.4 85.5 86.4 85.2 86.4 85.4 86.3 85.4 86.4 85.9 86.4 86.0 86.3 86.1 86.3 86.2 86.3 86.0 86.3 86.1 86.3 86.0 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.9 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.4 86.3 85.8 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.3 86.3 85.7 86.3 85.8 86.3 85.8 86.3 85.7 86.3 86.1 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.5 86.3 85.7 86.3 85.2 86.3 85.0 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.6 86.3 86.0 86.3 86.3 100 86.1 85.8 86.1 85.7 86.0 85.3 85.9 85.5 86.0 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Bed
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 3
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0025 96 0.0036 37 0.0001
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 0.1 1.8 3.2 4.7 6.3 7.6 9.0 10.8 12.2 13.8 15.5 16.8 18.7 20.1 21.2 22.3 23.2 24.0 25.2 26.4 27.7 28.7 29.8 30.9 32.4 33.6 35.1 36.2 37.3 38.5 39.9 41.3 42.4 43.5 44.1 45.2 46.3 47.3 48.6 49.4 50.6 51.7 52.9 53.8 54.9 56.1 57.3 58.6 59.5 60.5 61.5 62.6 63.7 64.8 66.0 66.9 68.1 69.3 70.2 71.7 72.9 74.3 75.4 76.2 77.3 78.3
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.7 83.9 83.6 83.7 83.5 83.5 83.7 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 83.9 83.9 83.8 83.9 84.0 83.9 83.9 84.0 84.2 84.1 84.1 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.2 84.1 84.0 83.7 84.0 83.9 83.7 83.9 83.8 83.8 83.6 83.7 83.5 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.9 83.7 0 83.7 83.8 83.9 83.9 84.0
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 84.0 84.4 83.7 84.4 83.2 84.4 83.6 84.4 83.7 84.3 84.0 84.4 84.1 84.1 84.0 84.0 83.0 83.5 83.1 83.5 83.0 83.5 82.3 83.4 82.7 83.5 83.0 83.5 83.1 83.4 83.0 82.5 82.9 82.0 82.9 82.4 82.9 81.6 82.8 82.5 82.9 82.7 82.9 82.4 82.8 82.4 82.7 82.5 82.7 82.0 82.7 81.9 82.7 82.1 82.7 82.2 82.7 82.4 82.7 82.5 82.7 82.2 82.6 82.3 82.6 82.5 82.6 81.4 82.5 82.2 82.5 81.6 82.5 81.9 82.5 82.1 82.4 82.1 82.3 81.9
100
Station 0.0 11.2 13.2 21.1 43.4 55.1 96.7 118.3 140.7 149.9 172.5 183.2 200.3 208.3 226.4 246.1 250.6 259.7 267.9 275.6 283.1 291.4 304.0 322.8 338.0 345.5 357.5 368.0 375.6 392.1 406.3 424.1 439.2 449.4 469.5 477.1 493.7 499.4 523.1 547.9 570.6
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 4 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
200
Station
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
300
Year 1 (2009) Bed
Distance (feet)
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
400
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 4
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
500
2009 0.0037 23 0.0029 31 0.0018
2010
2011
600
2012
700
Station 0.5 3.0 5.3 6.3 8.7 12.7 15.5 18.3 20.8 22.8 26.9 27.5 29.8 31.7 34.8 38.1 39.3 42.7 45.9 46.5 48.9 49.1 52.2 53.9 55.1 58.8 63.8 66.5 67.8 69.8 71.7 73.9 76.8 94 79.2 81.9 83.9 93 85.4 89.3 91.1 93 92.7 95.2 99.1 92 101.1 104.1 105.1 92 108.9 110.6 113.3 115.791 117.9 119.4 91 122.8 124.3 126.0 90 128.3 130.0 133.3 90 134.9 138.0 141.0 144.089 145.4 147.5 151.3 153.4 156.7
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.0 90.9 90.5 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.3 90.4 90.6 90.6 90.7 91.2 91.2 91.4 91.4 91.3 91.4 91.3 91.6 91.2 91.4 91.2 91.7 91.4 91.6 91.4 91.4 91.2 91.5 91.6 91.5 91.4 91.3 91.6 91.4 91.1 91.4 90.8 90.6 90.7 90.5 90.6 91.0 91.5 91.8 91.8 91.3 91.7 91.8 91.8 91.9 91.6 91.9 91.7 91.8 91.6 91.6 91.4 0 91.4 91.3 90.8 90.5
Station 0.0 7.4 12.0 21.5 35.7 49.6 96.1 101.4 107.4 115.7 131.4 144.7 151.4 164.3 172.7 196.3 217.0 231.0 250.1 275.2 302.6 317.5 333.8 360.8 393.2 411.8 418.8 431.4 443.7 446.6 452.5 458.9 473.8 492.4 504.3 523.8 565.3
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 5 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
100
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 91.4 91.5 91.2 91.5 90.9 91.5 90.8 91.5 91.2 91.5 91.4 91.6 91.4 91.7 90.4 91.8 91.0 91.7 91.6 91.7 91.7 91.9 91.6 91.9 90.8 92.0 91.0 91.9 91.4 92.0 91.7 91.9 91.3 92.0 91.0 92.0 91.6 91.9 91.9 92.1 91.7 92.1 91.5 92.1 91.8 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.1 92.3 91.7 92.3 92.3 92.4 92.4 92.7 91.9 92.7 92.0 92.6 92.5 92.7 92.6 92.7 92.5 92.8 92.3 92.8 92.6 92.8 92.8 92.8 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Bed
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 5
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0023 33 0.0036 28 0.0001
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 3.4 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 0.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 8.9 ## 0.5 1 1.9 ## coarse sand 1 2 1.9 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 1.7 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 1.9 ## medium gravel 11 16 5.6 ## medium gravel 16 22 28.6 ## coarse gravel 22 32 20.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 5.4 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 3.4 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 10.5 ## large cobble 128 180 1.7 ## very large cobble 180 256 1.7 ## small boulder 256 362 1.7 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 1.7 100 Weighted Count: 56 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 17.73 20.9 63
D95 135
silt/clay 3%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 2%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 13% 67% 14%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 1
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 1.785
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 2%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 10.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 26.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 22.0 ## 0.5 1 18.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 4.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 2.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 2.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 0.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 2.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 6.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 2.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 4.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.24 0.4 11
D95 54
silt/clay 10%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 70% 16% 4%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 2
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.147
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 15.4 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 15.5 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 25.1 ## 0.5 1 10.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 0.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 8.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 12.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 0.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 12.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 0.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 51 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.28 0.4 15
D95 29
silt/clay 15%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 51% 34% 0%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 3
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.128
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 0.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 6.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 36.0 ## 0.5 1 8.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 8.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 2.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 10.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 8.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 14.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 0.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 0.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 4.0 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 4.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.43 0.8 17
D95 22
silt/clay 0%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 58% 38% 0%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 4
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.299
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 4%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 10.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 24.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 4.0 ## 0.5 1 2.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 0.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 6.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 4.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 20.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 14.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 8.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 2.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 4.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.30 16.0 32
D95 76
silt/clay 10%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 30% 54% 6%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 5
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.149
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009)
Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina
November 2009
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (EEP Project No. 395)
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009)
Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina Prepared by: Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise Street Suite 7 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Design Firm: URS Corporation 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, NC 27560
November 2009
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT The UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (Site) is located in southwest Alamance County approximately 5 miles east of Liberty, North Carolina in United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03-06-04) of the Cape Fear River Basin. This Hydrologic Unit has been identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP’s Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program in meeting stream and wetland restoration goals. Primary activities at the Site included stream restoration and wetland enhancement/preservation by excluding livestock from the Site, stabilizing stream banks, installing in-stream structures, adjusting stream plan form, removing invasive species, and replanting riparian areas with native vegetation. Project restoration efforts provided 6783 Stream Mitigation Units and 1.1 riparian riverine Wetland Mitigation Units. This report summarizes data for year 1 (2009) monitoring. The goals and objectives of this project focused on improving local water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat. These goals were accomplished by the following. 1. Reestablished stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment load by restoring stable channel morphology supported by natural instream habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures. 2. Reduced nonpoint source sedimentation and nutrient inputs into the Site by eliminating the acceleration of bank erosion as a result of land use activities, excluding livestock, and reestablishing a native riparian buffer greater than 50 feet in width. 3. Enhanced the capacity of the Site to mitigate flood flows by reconnecting the stream to the historic floodplain. Success criteria dictate an average density of 320 stems per acre must be surviving after three monitoring years, 290 stems per acre after four monitoring years, and 260 stems per acre after five monitoring years. Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 451 planted stems per acre surviving in year 1 (2009). The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii). Ten of the individual plots met success criteria with planted stems alone, four additional plots (Plots 4, 6, 11, and 12) met success criteria when including appropriate natural recruit species, and one plot (Plot 1) was one stem shy of success criteria based on planted stems with no natural recruit development having occurred yet. Several areas within the Site, noted on Figure 3 (Appendix A), had poor herbaceous vegetation development, most likely due to soil infertility following construction. Success criteria for stream restoration reaches should show little to no change from the as-built channel over the five-year monitoring period. Year 1 (2009) monitoring measurements indicate that there have been minimal changes in both the longitudinal profile and cross-sections as compared to as-built data. In addition, one bankfull event was documented to occur on November 11, 2009 during the year 1 (2009) monitoring period during Tropical Storm Ida. A few areas of minor bank erosion and channel aggradation were documented within the Site and are depicted on Figure 3 (Appendix A). These are not considered to be a problem at this time but should continue to be monitored closely in subsequent monitoring years. In summary, the Site achieved success criteria for vegetation and stream attributes in the First Monitoring Year (2009). Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page i
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in table and figures within this report’s appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on EEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page ii
Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT.......................................................................... i 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Stream Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 1 List of Figures Figure 1. Site Location .......................................................................................................... Appendix A Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View ............................................................................................ Appendix A Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View......................................................................................... Appendix A List of Tables Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives ............................................................... Appendix B Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ..................................................................... Appendix B Table 3. Project Contacts Table ............................................................................................. Appendix B Table 4. Project Attribute Table ............................................................................................. Appendix B Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table ................................................. Appendix C Table 6. Vegetation Metadata Table....................................................................................... Appendix C Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species ............................................................ Appendix C Table 8. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment .................................................................... Appendix D Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events ................................................................................ Appendix D Appendices APPENDIX A. FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View APPENDIX B. GENERAL PROJECT TABLES Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table APPENDIX C. VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos CVS Summary Data Tables Table 6. Vegetation Metadata Table Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species APPENDIX D. STREAM ASSESSMENT DATA Tables 8A-8E. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events Cross-section Plots and Tables Longitudinal Profile Plots Pebble Count Plots UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page iii
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Following Site construction, fifteen plots (10-meters square) were established and monumented with metal fence posts at all plot corners and PVC at each plot origin. Plots were surveyed in September 2009 for the year 1 (2009) monitoring season. Sampling was conducted as outlined in the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006) (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C. The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (Weakley 2007). The locations of vegetation monitoring plots are depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 2.2 Stream Assessment Twelve permanent cross-sections and five approximately 600 linear foot long monitoring reaches were established after construction was completed. Measurements of each cross-section include points at all breaks in slope including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Applied Fluvial Morphology (Rosgen 1996) stream classification system. Longitudinal profile measurements include thalweg and water surface; with each measurement taken at the head of facets (i.e. riffle, run, pool, and glide) in addition to the maximum pool depth. Visual assessment of in-stream structures was conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. Stream assessment data are included in Appendix D with the locations of cross-sections and monitoring reaches depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 3.0 REFERENCES Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online). Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFlora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (USACE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 page 1
APPENDIX A FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS Figure 1. Site Location Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Figure 3. Problem Area Plan View
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
ch
d
−
0
650
1,300
2,600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
Ro
lva n
Da m
Sy
Ol d
Ro a
d
Pl ea
sa
nt
Hi ll
ur Ch
a Ro
o d o r oa sb l R en Hil re G pel a Ch
Directions to the Site: From Raleigh, take US-64 West to exit 381 for NC-87 towards Spring Lake and Fayetteville Turn right on NC-87/Graham Road Take a slight left onto Silk Hope Gum Springs Road/Silk Hope Road Turn right on Snow Camp Road Turn left on Old Dam Road The Site is located at the stream crossing between Wild Rose Road and Cocoa Road Latitude, Longitude of Site: 35.8644°N, 79.4800°W (NAD83/WGS84)
ad
3,900
5,200 Feet
SITE LOCATION UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
1
Cross Section XS 1 XS 1 XS 2 XS 2 XS 3 XS 3 XS 4 XS 4 XS 5* XS 5* XS 6 XS 6 XS 7 XS 7 XS 8 XS 8 XS 9 XS 9 XS 10 XS 10 XS 11 XS 11 XS 12 XS 12
Latitude -79.46231125280 -79.46224334430 -79.46291475650 -79.46302231990 -79.46530725110 -79.46526070740 -79.46643260370 -79.46647493230 -79.463936 -79.463875 -79.46372879620 -79.46362506590 -79.46283123450 -79.46285414140 -79.46212539700 -79.46217373980 -79.46209588240 -79.46200190240 -79.46160158640 -79.46149803240 -79.46127581910 -79.46140636960 -79.46064310510 -79.46078244370
Longitude 35.86357848520 35.86364281960 35.86418007320 35.86416991240 35.86550320910 35.86542379120 35.86509047200 35.86515800210 35.865319 35.865384 35.86656128990 35.86650426440 35.86682218920 35.86689897400 35.86772749340 35.86780348540 35.86902251620 35.86899246280 35.87010655060 35.87011035350 35.87110850340 35.87114812000 35.87173551710 35.87175495800
15 XS 12
Monitoring Reach 5
14
XS 11
XS 10 13
* Locations are approximate
12 XS 9
Vegetation Plot plot 1 origin plot 2 origin plot 3 origin plot 4 origin plot 5 origin plot 6 origin plot 7 origin plot 8 origin plot 9 origin plot 10 origin plot 11 origin plot 12 origin plot 13 origin plot 14 origin plot 15 origin
Latitude -79.46221505100 -79.46271264430 -79.466299 -79.46448443860 -79.46399365180 -79.46357095240 -79.46344201540 -79.46267301560 -79.46261109950 -79.46215083880 -79.46204497230 -79.46182655010 -79.46166371170 -79.46107250310 -79.46062551010
Longitude 35.86321150230 35.86399560110 35.865173 35.86584506480 35.86571252330 35.86620590610 35.86664098490 35.86685520690 35.86750457640 35.86763646240 35.86830888870 35.86915604160 35.87004828190 35.87113937100 35.87207557390
Monitoring Reach 4 11 XS 8
10 9
XS 7
8 XS 6
7
Monitoring Reach 3
6
4 XS 3
5
XS 4 XS 5
Monitoring Reach 2
3
Legend a am Ro Old D
d
Conservation Easement XS 2
Channel Monitoring Reach
2
−
Cross Sections Vegetation Plots Structures XS 1
Monitoring Reach 1
Wetlands 1
100
200
Wetland Mitigation Enhancement
2005 Aerial Photography 0
Fords
Preservation 400
600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
800 Feet
MONITORING PLANVIEW UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
2
15 XS 12
14
XS 11
XS 10
Poor Vegetation Growth 13 Bank Erosion Both Banks 12 ft
12 XS 9 Poor Vegetation Growth
Bank Erosion Left Bank 12 ft Affecting Vane Arm 11 XS 8
10 9
XS 7
Bank Erosion Left Bank 10 ft
Bank Erosion Left Bank 10 ft 8 XS 6
7
Bank Erosion Left Bank 15 ft
Poor Vegetation Growth 6
Stream Aggradation 4
Poor Vegetation Growth
XS 3
5
XS 4 XS 5 3
Poor Vegetation Growth
Poor Vegetation Growth
Legend Bank Failure 2
Structures
XS 2
−
0
100
200
Conservation Easement Cross Sections XS 1
Wetlands Stream Aggradation
Vegetation Plots 1
Stream Aggradation Poor Vegetation Growth 400
600
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 20 Enterprise St. # 7 Raleigh, NC 27607 (919) 215-1693
800 Feet
PROBLEM AREA PLANVIEW UT to CANE CREEK RESTORATION SITE EEP Project # 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Fords
Dwn. By:
WGL
FIGURE
Date:
Nov 2009 Project:
08-001
3
APPENDIX B GENERAL PROJECT TABLES Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Attributes Table
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Restoration Segment/ Reach ID*
Station Range
Mitigation Type
Priority Approach
Linear Footage/ Acreage
Comment
Reach A Reach B Reach C Reach D Reach E
10+00-28+10.76 28+10.76-49+29.45 49+29.45-61+24.03 100+00-113.57.31 200+00-203+73.25
Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration Restoration
Priority 1 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 1 Priority 1
1738.76** 2118.69 1194.58 1357.31 373.25
Restoration of dimension and profile through a combination of on new location and in place restoration.
Wetlands
--
Enhancement
--
1.3
Wetlands
--
Preservation
--
2.0
Invasive species removal and planting. Invasive species removal.
Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (linear footage) Riverine Riparian Wetland (acreage) Planted Riparian Buffer (acreage) Restoration 6782.59 --Enhancement -1.3 -Preservation 2.0 -Totals 6782.59 linear feet 3.3 acres 41 acres Mitigation Units 6783 SMUs 1.1 WMUs -* Locations of each reach are depicted on the As-built Drawings in Appendix A ** Constructed linear footage excludes the 72-foot corrugated metal pipe at Old Dam Road; therefore, the linear footage is shorter than stationing depicts.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Activity or Report Restoration Plan Construction Completion Site Planting As-built Drawings Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete ---July-October 2008 --
Completion or Delivery February 2006 March 2009 March 2009 July 2009 October 2009
Table 3. Project Contacts Table UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Designer
Construction Contractor
Conservation Easement Contractor
As-built Surveying Contractor
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
URS Corporation 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400 Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 Kathleen McKeithan (919) 461-1597 River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511 Will Pederson (919) 459-9001 Landmark Surveying, Inc. 109 E. Harden Street Graham, North Carolina 27253 (336) 229-6275 Level Cross Surveying, PLLC 668 Marsh County Lane Randleman, North Carolina 23717 Sherri Willard (336) 495-1713 Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Table 4. Project Attribute Table UT to Cane Creek (EEP Project Number 395) Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030002050050
NCDWQ Subbasin
03-06-04
Within EEP Watershed Plan Extent?
Yes-Targeted Local Watershed
WRC Class
Warm
% of project easement fenced
100 %
Beaver activity observed during design phase
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table Reach A
Reach B
Reach C
Reach D
Reach E
Drainage area (acres)
390
1333
1640
892
282
Stream order
first
third
third
third
second
Restored length (linear feet)
1738.76
2118.69
1194.58
1357.31
373.25
Perennial or Intermittent
perennial
perennial
perennial
perennial
perennial
NCDWQ Index Number
16-28
16-28
16-28
16-28
16-28
NCDWQ Classification
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
303d list?
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
No
No
No
50.75
50.75
50.75
50.75
50.75
41
41
41
41
41
Total acreage of easement Total planted acreage of easement Rosgen classification of preexisting
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Degraded E4
Rosgen classification of asbuilt
E4
E4
E4
E4
E4
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Valley slope
0.0083
0.0041
0.0045
0.0046
0.0156
Cowardin classification
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
R3UB1
Trout waters designation?
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, T&E, etc?
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Tirzah silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Starr loam, Colfax silt loam, Herndon silt loam, and mixed alluvial land
Watershed Land Use (%) Managed Herbaceous Coverage
49.8
Mixed Upland Hardwoods
31.4
Cultivated
9.9
Southern Yellow Pine
4.6
Deciduous Shrubland
2.0
Mixed Hardwoods/Conifers
0.9
Unmanaged Herbaceous Upland
0.6
Evergreen Shrubland
0.4
Water Bodies
0.4
Impervious Surfaces
2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 1 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8A. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 113
100
100
100
91.5
100
100
82
96.4
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 82 100 73 73 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 83
N/A 4 4 4 4 2 2
N/A
N/A N/A 4 4 4 4 2 2
Total Number per As-built 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 7 7 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 2 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8B. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
N/A 5 5 5 5 0 0
N/A
N/A N/A 5 5 5 5 0 0
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 3 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8C. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
96
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
98 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
1100 100 100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100
N/A 3 3 3 3 3 3
N/A
N/A N/A 2 3 3 3 3 3
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 0 4 4 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 0 4 4 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 4 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8D. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
91.5
97
100
91
100
100
100
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
97 66 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100
N/A 3 3 3 3 1 1
N/A
N/A N/A 3 3 3 3 1 1
Total Number per As-built 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 N/A
(# Stable) Number Performing as Intended 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 N/A
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) 1. Present? 2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)? 3. Facet grade appears stable? 4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 5. Length appropriate? 1. Present? (e.g. no severe aggradation) 2. Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool:Mean Bkf > 2.2?) 3. Length appropriate? 1. Upstream of meander bend centering? 2. Downstream of meander centering? 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 2. Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation? 3. Apparent Rc within spec? 4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief? 1.General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting or head cutting? 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank 1. Free of back or arm scour? 2. Height appropriate? 3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 1. Free of scour? 2. Footing stable?
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
H. Wads / Boulders
F. Bank G. Vanes
E. Bed General
D. Meanders
C. Thalweg
B. Pools
Feature Category A. Riffles
Reach 5 UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395)
Table 8E. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0
Total Number / feet in unstable state N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
96
Feature Perform. Mean or Total
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
% Perform. in Stable Condition 100 100 100 100 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events UT to Cane Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 395) Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if available)
November 16, 2009
November 11, 2009
Visual observation of wrack adjacent to the stream channel and within the floodplain as the result of Tropical Storm Ida
1-2
Bankfull Event Photos 1-2 showing evidence of overbank through wrack lines on banks and debris deposition from overland flow within the floodplain.
UT to Cane Creek (final) EEP Project Number 395 Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2009) November 2009 Appendices
Station 0.0 3.4 5.9 9.0 10.3 12.5 13.2 14.2 15.2 15.9 16.4 17.3 17.9 19.0 19.7 20.7 22.3 25.1 28.8 32.0
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 99.20 99.15 98.93 98.45 98.16 98.22 97.87 97.52 96.86 96.70 96.61 96.51 96.55 96.52 97.53 98.24 98.7 99.2 99.2 99.2
96
97
98
99
100
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 1, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
E
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 1, Pool
98.2 9.0 8.1 NA NA 1.7 1.1 NA NA NA
30
MY-02 9/7/010
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.00 3.05 7.05 9.65 10.79 11.84 12.26 13.42 15.13 16.05 16.80 17.20 17.50 19.82 21.72 27.6 32.1
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 95.57 95.68 95.72 95.72 95.52 95.21 94.97 94.27 94.27 94.06 94.22 94.40 94.83 95.49 95.68 95.9 95.9
94
95
96
97
98
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 2, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 2, Riffle
95.7 9.3 12.4 97.3 150.0 1.6 0.8 16.5 12.1 1.0
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.00 3.95 6.55 8.64 10.35 10.87 11.73 12.64 14.91 16.56 17.64 18.63 19.68 20.64 23.1 26.5 31.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 78.76 78.55 78.27 78.12 77.90 77.92 77.15 76.86 76.93 76.88 77.54 78.03 78.53 78.83 79.0 79.1 79.1
76
77
78
79
80
0
77.9 6.1 8.2 NA NA 1.1 0.7 NA NA NA Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 3, Pool
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 3, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
30
E/C
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 4.7 7.0 7.8 8.5 9.2 9.5 10.0 10.2 10.6 11.1 12.1 13.1 13.3 14.2 14.8 15.3 16.1 17.1 17.5 18.3 18.9 20.2 21.3 22.1 24.4 25.8 28.0 31.0
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 81.3 81.2 81.2 81.0 80.8 80.5 80.3 80.1 79.9 79.5 79.4 79.1 79.0 79.0 78.95 79.00 79.34 79.53 80.16 80.20 79.96 80.13 80.43 80.60 80.83 80.93 80.91 81.19 81.13
78
79
80
81
82
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 4, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
C/E
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 4, Riffle
80.2 6.1 8.6 81.4 150.0 1.2 0.7 12.1 17.4 1.0
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/08
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 3.1 4.2 5.5 6.0 6.8 7.6 8.0 9.2 10.0 11.1 11.7 12.4 13.1 13.7 14.2 16.2 17.8 19.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 85.0 84.7 84.3 84.3 84.0 83.2 83.0 82.9 82.8 83.0 83.2 83.8 84.0 84.4 84.6 84.8 84.6 84.3 84.5
82
83
84
85
86
0
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 5, Pool Pool 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Elevation (feet)
Stream Type
E/C
10 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 5, Pool
84.7 11.1 10.8 NA NA 1.9 1.0 NA NA NA
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
20
Station 0.0 1.0 2.7 4.0 6.3 6.7 8.2 10.2 10.9 11.3 12.2 13.2 13.7 14.2 14.8 15.9 17.0 17.8 18.6 19.5 20.7 22.0 22.8 23.7 25.1 26.5 28.7 33.4
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 84.0 84.0 83.4 83.2 82.6 82.6 81.6 80.7 80.7 80.4 80.2 79.7 79.7 79.8 79.5 79.7 79.4 79.4 79.5 79.5 79.6 80.1 80.3 80.6 81.0 81.4 81.8 82.3
Elevation (feet) 79
80
81
82
83
84
0
81.4 22.2 17.8 83.4 150.0 2.0 1.2 14.3 8.4 1.0 Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
30
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 6, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 6, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
Bankfull Flood Prone Area MY-01 9/24/09 MY-02 9/7/10
E/C
40
Station 0.0 3.1 5.3 5.8 7.0 8.2 8.5 8.9 10.1 11.7 13.0 13.9 15.7 16.8 17.3 18.0 18.7 19.6 20.3 21.2 22.2 24.2 26.4 28.6
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 75.2 75.2 75.1 74.8 74.1 73.5 73.2 72.7 72.6 72.7 72.6 72.8 72.7 72.8 73.2 73.5 73.9 74.5 74.9 75.4 75.4 75.2 75.1 75.1
Elevation (feet) 72
73
74
75
76
77
78
0
75.1 26.3 15.2 77.6 150.0 2.5 1.7 8.8 9.9 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 7, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 7, Riffle Riffle 9/24/2009 Dean, Perkinson
20
E
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
30
Station 0.0 4.0 6.2 7.0 7.9 9.0 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.6 12.3 13.0 13.8 14.2 15.7 16.9 17.9 18.7 19.9 20.6 21.1 21.7 22.2 23.0 23.9 24.7 25.6 26.8 28.5 29.7 31.9
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 87.7 87.8 87.7 87.6 87.4 87.0 86.8 86.6 86.3 85.9 85.5 85.2 85.4 85.0 84.9 85.0 85.1 85.2 85.3 85.5 85.6 86.0 86.2 86.3 86.5 86.7 87.0 87.2 87.6 87.5 87.6
Elevation (feet) 84
85
86
87
88
89
90
0
87.2 24.4 18.3 89.5 150.0 2.3 1.3 13.7 8.2 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
20
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 8, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 8, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
E/C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
Station 0.0 3.4 5.4 6.1 7.2 8.0 8.5 9.8 10.6 11.6 12.4 13.1 13.8 14.6 15.0 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.7 18.4 19.5 20.7 21.6 23.1 25.6 28.4 33.2
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 85.4 85.3 85.2 84.9 84.6 84.4 84.2 83.7 83.2 82.9 82.6 82.4 82.4 82.4 82.3 82.2 82.0 82.4 82.8 83.5 84.0 84.6 85.1 85.3 85.5 85.4 85.2
Elevation (feet) 81
82
83
84
85
86
87
0
84.7 28.4 16.8 NA NA 3.2 1.7 NA NA NA Stream Type
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 9, Pool
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 9, Pool Pool 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
E/C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 2.3 3.5 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.0 8.0 9.2 10.6 11.5 12.5 13.9 15.6 16.8 17.9 19.5 22.5 24.4 25.1 26.1 29.3 33.4
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 84.0 83.8 83.5 83.5 83.3 83.1 82.9 82.7 82.4 82.3 82.1 81.8 81.7 81.6 81.4 81.7 82.0 82.4 83.0 83.4 83.9 84.2 84.5
Elevation (feet) 81
82
83
84
85
86
0
83.5 24.5 20.6 85.5 150.0 2.0 1.2 17.3 7.3 1.0 Stream Type
10 Station (feet)
20
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 10, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 10, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
C
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
Station 0.0 7.0 7.8 9.5 11.7 12.1 12.6 13.5 15.7 18.3 19.7 21.2 22.7 23.6 25.0 26.2 27.9 31.3 33.6
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 94.88 94.66 94.54 94.11 92.97 92.57 92.04 91.70 91.66 91.88 92.22 92.42 92.76 93.29 93.91 94.47 94.80 94.84 94.83
Elevation (feet) 91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0
94.1 25.7 15.9 96.5 150.0 2.4 1.6 9.8 9.4 1.0 Stream Type
E/C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 11, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 11, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 0.0 5.5 9.4 12.3 12.6 13.0 13.8 14.3 15.2 15.9 16.7 17.6 18.8 20.4 22.1 23.7 24.6 25.2 26.1 27.4 28.5 29.7 31.4 32.8 35.8 38.2 40.8
River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Feature Date: Field Crew:
Elevation 93.88 93.89 94.14 94.15 94.05 93.74 93.29 92.94 92.38 92.06 91.62 91.45 91.44 91.17 91.17 91.17 91.31 91.67 92.06 92.5 93.0 93.4 93.7 93.9 93.9 93.9 93.9
Elevation (feet) 91
92
93
94
95
96
97
0
93.7 22.9 14.5 96.3 150.0 2.6 1.6 9.2 10.3 1.0 Stream Type
E/C
10
20 Station (feet)
Cape Fear River Basin, UT to Cane Cr., XS - 12, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: Bankfull Width: Flood Prone Area Elevation: Flood Prone Width: Max Depth at Bankfull: Mean Depth at Bankfull: W / D Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio: Bank Height Ratio:
Cape Fear UT to Cane Cr. XS - 12, Riffle Riffle 10/8/2009 Dean, Perkinson
30
MY-02 9/7/10
MY-01 9/24/09
Flood Prone Area
Bankfull
40
Station 677.8 673.5 668.5 666.7 665.3 663.3 661.8 658.1 655.1 653.4 651.2 649.4 647.0 644.8 641.1 638.5 636.4 633.4 631.1 628.1 626.0 622.7 620.6 618.1 614.2 611.2 608.9 606.3 604.0 601.3 598.4 596.2 593.8 100 591.3 588.6 585.6 99 582.0 579.3 576.9 574.4 98 571.6 568.7 566.1 563.5 97 560.9 558.2 555.5 552.8 96 550.2 547.4 544.1 541.3 95 538.5 535.6 532.4 530.0 94 527.7 525.2 522.9 517.5 93 517.1 514.4 512.2 509.7 507.0 504.3
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
99.2 99.6 99.2 99.0 98.3 97.9 98.0 98.1 98.2 99.1 99.0 98.9 98.9 98.6 98.5 98.5 98.7 98.9 99.2 99.1 99.0 98.9 99.0 98.8 98.7 98.1 98.2 98.4 98.5 98.5 98.9 98.8 98.7 98.5 98.0 99.0 98.9 99.2 99.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.9 98.7 98.3 98.2 98.2 98.1 98.8 98.7 98.7 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.9 98.7 98.6 98.6 99.1 98.6 98.5 98.5 98.8 98.9 98.8
2008 As-built Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station 0.0 9.6 29.4 33.8 38.2 41.3 44.3 49.0 51.5 56.9 60.9 68.3 83.6 97.9 118.7 125.6 131.0 141.0 149.2 155.6 163.2 171.8 172.0 179.5 183.8 193.0 207.5 215.2 221.7 235.2 254.1 259.4 267.7 278.4 279.0 283.8 291.8 299.1 307.8 317.0 330.3 334.8 343.5 356.4 370.1 383.5 403.1 409.6 412.6 416.0 425.8 437.0 455.4 467.8 477.1 490.4 505.1 513.1 522.6 538.5 550.9 564.5 584.9 611.4 617.4 635.0
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 1 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 94.9 94.7 95.0 94.6 95.1 94.5 95.1 94.2 95.1 94.4 95.1 94.9 95.1 94.6 95.1 94.4 95.1 94.5 95.1 94.7 95.1 94.8 95.1 95.3 95.5 95.5 95.8 95.2 95.8 94.6 95.8 95.0 95.8 95.6 95.8 95.6 96.0 95.5 95.9 95.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.7 96.1 96.7 96.6 96.7 96.7 96.3 96.9 96.4 96.9 96.8 96.9 96.9 97.2 96.7 97.2 95.9 97.2 96.4 97.2 97.6 97.2 97.7 96.5 97.8 96.3 97.7 96.1 97.7 97.2 97.7 97.5 97.8 96.8 97.8 97.5 97.7 97.3 97.8 97.4 97.7 97.7 97.8 97.6 97.9 98.1 98.1 98.3 98.3 97.6 98.3 97.4 98.3 98.1 98.3 98.6 98.7 97.9 98.6 98.3 98.7 99.0 99.5 98.5 99.4 98.9 99.4 99.3 99.3 99.0 99.4 99.3 100 99.2 99.4 99.4 99.1 99.4 99.1 99.4 99.0 99.4 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Year 1 (2009) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
As-built (2008) Bed
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 1
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0068 17 0.0066 20 0.0015
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 601.5 598.9 597.3 595.1 594.3 592.4 590.1 588.2 583.9 583.4 581.0 577.4 575.2 572.2 572.1 567.7 565.9 563.4 561.7 559.6 556.2 554.3 553.1 550.7 549.3 546.5 544.3 543.3 540.5 538.7 537.1 535.1 533.0 531.2 529.5 527.7 525.9 523.7 79 522.2 519.8 517.7 78 516.1 513.4 511.8 78 509.6 508.2 505.8 77 504.3 502.2 500.5 77 498.8 496.9 496.6 76 493.6 490.9 488.6 76 486.3 484.9 482.4 75 480.9 478.0 476.0 75 474.7 472.1 470.9 74 467.9
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
2008 As-built Bed Elevation 75.0 75.5 75.1 75.3 75.6 75.6 75.2 75.6 75.6 75.7 75.5 75.3 75.4 75.6 75.5 75.7 75.7 75.6 75.9 75.9 75.4 75.4 76.2 75.2 76.0 75.1 75.8 75.8 75.4 75.7 75.7 75.9 75.7 75.4 75.6 75.7 75.6 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.8 75.9 75.4 75.7 75.3 75.7 75.4 75.3 75.3 75.8 75.9 75.5 75.5 75.9 75.6 75.2 75.4 75.7 75.9 76.1 75.5 75.7 75.8 75.6 75.8 75.4
Water Elevation
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 2 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
422.0 425.5 432.2 433.5 435.1 438.2 443.2 449.5 454.4 457.5 463.2 469.3 473.6 486.8 493.4 497.7 501.5
Station 0.0 5.4 13.3 20.3 31.5 41.3 50.2 57.1 65.9 72.1 77.5 82.2 83.8 86.9 98.7 121.1 135.4 137.8 148.4 153.7 165.5 172.9 188.3 200.1 212.1 222.5 232.0 250.0 260.4 282.5 288.1 295.9 304.0 312.1 325.8 341.1 353.5 363.5 367.7 372.1 377.3 379.4 387.3 394.3 406.7 417.0 419.4 422.0
100
76.2 75.7 75.4 75.1 75.0 75.0 75.5 75.4 75.2 75.1 75.5 75.6 75.5 75.3 75.2 75.0 74.8
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 77.1 77.5 77.4 77.8 78.2 77.5 77.3 77.7 77.0 76.8 76.6 76.3 76.3 76.9 77.0 76.9 77.4 76.2 76.1 76.9 77.1 76.9 76.9 76.6 76.8 76.9 76.6 76.3 76.9 76.1 76.1 76.5 77.0 76.4 76.2 76.2 76.4 76.3 76.0 75.9 76.0 76.3 76.4 76.1 75.8 75.7 75.8 76.1 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
300
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 2
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope No Water In Channel
2009 -----13.0 -----22.0 ------
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 15.2 16.3 18.5 20.7 20.9 23.8 26.6 27.0 28.8 30.9 33.8 35.6 37.2 39.4 41.6 45.9 47.5 49.9 51.7 53.4 55.0 57.8 59.3 61.0 63.8 65.6 67.8 69.9 71.6 73.6 75.3 77.4 78.7 88 80.4 83.3 85.2 87.2 87 88.9 89.3 92.4 94.3 87 96.7 98.6 100.6 101.9 86 102.7 105.1 107.0 108.2 86 109.8 111.3 112.4 114.7 85 116.9 117.4 120.1 121.6 85 123.7 125.2 127.3 128.7 84 130.5 131.5 132.9 135.3 137.1
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
0
87.1 86.7 86.7 86.6 86.9 87.0 86.9 86.3 86.0 86.4 86.2 86.5 86.1 86.1 86.0 86.2 85.9 86.0 85.8 85.9 86.0 85.9 85.7 85.8 86.4 86.6 86.3 86.3 86.4 86.4 85.8 86.6 86.2 86.5 86.5 86.4 87.0 86.6 86.9 87.1 87.0 86.8 86.7 87.1 86.7 86.7 86.6 87.0 86.7 87.0 86.8 87.0 86.5 86.8 86.5 86.5 86.5 86.3 86.4 86.4 86.3 86.9 87.0 86.4 86.4
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station 0.0 6.5 11.8 16.6 20.6 22.7 29.5 34.5 35.9 40.6 46.4 50.8 53.3 59.6 71.1 75.0 82.1 87.2 92.4 102.0 108.5 115.0 121.7 130.4 140.2 149.0 167.0 175.0 189.1 193.7 200.3 204.6 207.4 212.1 219.8 227.4 230.8 236.2 245.2 256.7 265.6 275.7 280.9 286.7 290.9 295.9 301.9 303.3 305.9 317.8 327.6 336.0 342.5 348.3 360.1 369.4 376.8 384.0 388.6 395.5 399.2 406.9 421.5 434.8 444.8 450.8
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 3 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.7 87.1 86.7 87.1 86.7 87.0 86.5 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.4 87.1 86.4 87.1 86.6 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.1 87.1 86.3 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.2 87.1 86.5 87.1 86.9 87.1 86.9 87.1 86.9 87.0 86.8 86.9 86.5 86.7 86.3 86.7 86.5 86.7 86.5 86.5 86.1 86.3 86.0 86.4 85.5 86.4 85.2 86.4 85.4 86.3 85.4 86.4 85.9 86.4 86.0 86.3 86.1 86.3 86.2 86.3 86.0 86.3 86.1 86.3 86.0 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.9 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.4 86.3 85.8 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.3 86.3 85.7 86.3 85.8 86.3 85.8 86.3 85.7 86.3 86.1 86.4 85.9 86.3 85.5 86.3 85.7 86.3 85.2 86.3 85.0 86.3 85.6 86.3 85.6 86.3 86.0 86.3 86.3 100 86.1 85.8 86.1 85.7 86.0 85.3 85.9 85.5 86.0 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Bed
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 3
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0025 96 0.0036 37 0.0001
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Station 0.1 1.8 3.2 4.7 6.3 7.6 9.0 10.8 12.2 13.8 15.5 16.8 18.7 20.1 21.2 22.3 23.2 24.0 25.2 26.4 27.7 28.7 29.8 30.9 32.4 33.6 35.1 36.2 37.3 38.5 39.9 41.3 42.4 43.5 44.1 45.2 46.3 47.3 48.6 49.4 50.6 51.7 52.9 53.8 54.9 56.1 57.3 58.6 59.5 60.5 61.5 62.6 63.7 64.8 66.0 66.9 68.1 69.3 70.2 71.7 72.9 74.3 75.4 76.2 77.3 78.3
81
82
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation 83.5 83.6 83.7 83.7 83.9 83.6 83.7 83.5 83.5 83.7 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.8 83.9 83.9 83.9 83.8 83.9 84.0 83.9 83.9 84.0 84.2 84.1 84.1 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.0 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.2 84.1 84.0 83.7 84.0 83.9 83.7 83.9 83.8 83.8 83.6 83.7 83.5 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.7 83.8 83.9 83.7 0 83.7 83.8 83.9 83.9 84.0
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 84.0 84.4 83.7 84.4 83.2 84.4 83.6 84.4 83.7 84.3 84.0 84.4 84.1 84.1 84.0 84.0 83.0 83.5 83.1 83.5 83.0 83.5 82.3 83.4 82.7 83.5 83.0 83.5 83.1 83.4 83.0 82.5 82.9 82.0 82.9 82.4 82.9 81.6 82.8 82.5 82.9 82.7 82.9 82.4 82.8 82.4 82.7 82.5 82.7 82.0 82.7 81.9 82.7 82.1 82.7 82.2 82.7 82.4 82.7 82.5 82.7 82.2 82.6 82.3 82.6 82.5 82.6 81.4 82.5 82.2 82.5 81.6 82.5 81.9 82.5 82.1 82.4 82.1 82.3 81.9
100
Station 0.0 11.2 13.2 21.1 43.4 55.1 96.7 118.3 140.7 149.9 172.5 183.2 200.3 208.3 226.4 246.1 250.6 259.7 267.9 275.6 283.1 291.4 304.0 322.8 338.0 345.5 357.5 368.0 375.6 392.1 406.3 424.1 439.2 449.4 469.5 477.1 493.7 499.4 523.1 547.9 570.6
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 4 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
200
Station
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
300
Year 1 (2009) Bed
Distance (feet)
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
400
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 4
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
500
2009 0.0037 23 0.0029 31 0.0018
2010
2011
600
2012
700
Station 0.5 3.0 5.3 6.3 8.7 12.7 15.5 18.3 20.8 22.8 26.9 27.5 29.8 31.7 34.8 38.1 39.3 42.7 45.9 46.5 48.9 49.1 52.2 53.9 55.1 58.8 63.8 66.5 67.8 69.8 71.7 73.9 76.8 94 79.2 81.9 83.9 93 85.4 89.3 91.1 93 92.7 95.2 99.1 92 101.1 104.1 105.1 92 108.9 110.6 113.3 115.791 117.9 119.4 91 122.8 124.3 126.0 90 128.3 130.0 133.3 90 134.9 138.0 141.0 144.089 145.4 147.5 151.3 153.4 156.7
Project Name Reach Feature Date Crew
Elevation (feet - arbitrary)
2008 As-built Bed Elevation Water Elevation 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.0 90.9 90.5 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.6 90.3 90.4 90.6 90.6 90.7 91.2 91.2 91.4 91.4 91.3 91.4 91.3 91.6 91.2 91.4 91.2 91.7 91.4 91.6 91.4 91.4 91.2 91.5 91.6 91.5 91.4 91.3 91.6 91.4 91.1 91.4 90.8 90.6 90.7 90.5 90.6 91.0 91.5 91.8 91.8 91.3 91.7 91.8 91.8 91.9 91.6 91.9 91.7 91.8 91.6 91.6 91.4 0 91.4 91.3 90.8 90.5
Station 0.0 7.4 12.0 21.5 35.7 49.6 96.1 101.4 107.4 115.7 131.4 144.7 151.4 164.3 172.7 196.3 217.0 231.0 250.1 275.2 302.6 317.5 333.8 360.8 393.2 411.8 418.8 431.4 443.7 446.6 452.5 458.9 473.8 492.4 504.3 523.8 565.3
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile 5 Profile 9/24/09 Dean, Perkinson
100
2009 Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation 91.4 91.5 91.2 91.5 90.9 91.5 90.8 91.5 91.2 91.5 91.4 91.6 91.4 91.7 90.4 91.8 91.0 91.7 91.6 91.7 91.7 91.9 91.6 91.9 90.8 92.0 91.0 91.9 91.4 92.0 91.7 91.9 91.3 92.0 91.0 92.0 91.6 91.9 91.9 92.1 91.7 92.1 91.5 92.1 91.8 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.2 92.3 92.1 92.3 91.7 92.3 92.3 92.4 92.4 92.7 91.9 92.7 92.0 92.6 92.5 92.7 92.6 92.7 92.5 92.8 92.3 92.8 92.6 92.8 92.8 92.8 Station
200
Station
2011 Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
As-built (2008) Bed
Year 1 (2009) Bed
300 Distance (feet)
400
Avg. Water Surface Slope Riffle Length Avg. Riffle Slope Pool Length Avg. Pool Slope
Year 1 (2009) Water Surface
UT to Cane Creek - Year 1 (2009) Profile - Reach 5
2010 Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2009 0.0023 33 0.0036 28 0.0001
2010
2011
500
2012
600
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 3.4 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 0.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 8.9 ## 0.5 1 1.9 ## coarse sand 1 2 1.9 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 1.7 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 1.9 ## medium gravel 11 16 5.6 ## medium gravel 16 22 28.6 ## coarse gravel 22 32 20.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 5.4 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 3.4 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 10.5 ## large cobble 128 180 1.7 ## very large cobble 180 256 1.7 ## small boulder 256 362 1.7 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 1.7 100 Weighted Count: 56 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 17.73 20.9 63
D95 135
silt/clay 3%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 2%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 13% 67% 14%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 1
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 1.785
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 2%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 10.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 26.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 22.0 ## 0.5 1 18.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 4.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 2.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 2.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 0.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 2.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 6.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 2.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 4.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.24 0.4 11
D95 54
silt/clay 10%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 70% 16% 4%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 2
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.147
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 15.4 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 15.5 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 25.1 ## 0.5 1 10.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 0.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 8.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 12.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 0.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 12.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 0.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 51 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.28 0.4 15
D95 29
silt/clay 15%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 51% 34% 0%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 3
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.128
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 0.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 6.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 36.0 ## 0.5 1 8.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 8.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 2.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 10.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 8.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 14.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 0.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 0.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 4.0 ## small cobble 64 90 0.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 0.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 4.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.43 0.8 17
D95 22
silt/clay 0%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 58% 38% 0%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 4
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.299
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 4%
Glide
10000
Weighted Pebble Count Percent Riffle: 50 Percent Run: Percent Pool: 50 Percent Glide: Material Size Range (mm) Total # silt/clay 0 0.062 10.0 ## very fine sand 0.062 0.13 0.0 ## 0.13 0.25 24.0 ## fine sand medium sand 0.25 0.5 4.0 ## 0.5 1 2.0 ## coarse sand 1 2 0.0 ## very coarse sand 2 4 0.0 ## very fine gravel 4 6 0.0 ## fine gravel 6 8 0.0 ## fine gravel 8 11 6.0 ## medium gravel 11 16 4.0 ## medium gravel 16 22 20.0 ## coarse gravel 22 32 14.0 ## coarse gravel very coarse gravel 32 45 8.0 ## very coarse gravel 45 64 2.0 ## small cobble 64 90 2.0 ## medium cobble 90 128 4.0 ## large cobble 128 180 0.0 ## very large cobble 180 256 0.0 ## small boulder 256 362 0.0 ## small boulder 362 512 0.0 ## medium boulder 512 1024 0.0 ## large boulder 1024 2048 0.0 ## very large boulder 2048 4096 0.0 ## bedrock # 0.0 100 Weighted Count: 50 True Total Particle Count: 0.1
Size percent less than (mm) D35 D50 D84 0.30 16.0 32
D95 76
silt/clay 10%
Riffle
100
Pool
Run
boulder 0%
1000
Percent by substrate type sand gravel cobble 30% 54% 6%
Percent Item
10
Pebble Count, ---
Cumulative Percent
1
Pebble Count, ------Note: Ut to Cane Creek - Reach 5
Particle Size (mm)
0.01
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
D16 0.149
Percent Finer Than
bedrock 0%
Glide
10000
