Annual report for ... Unnamed Tributary to Lumber River mitigation site, Robeson County, TIP no. R-0513WM |
Previous | 1 of 4 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2012 Unnamed Tributary to Lumber River Mitigation Site Robeson County TIP No. R-0513WM COE Action ID: 2003-00999 Prepared By: Natural Environment Section & Roadside Environmental Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION: ...................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project Description ......................................................................... 2 1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................ 2 1.3 Project History ............................................................................... 2 1.4 Debit Ledger ................................................................................... 2 2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT: ......................................................................... 4 2.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................. 4 2.2 Stream Description ......................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Stream Description .................................................... 4 2.2.2 Stream Description .................................................... 4 2.3 Results of Stream Assessment ....................................................... 6 2.3.1 Site Data .................................................................... 6 2.4 Results of Stream and Buffer Vegetation ........................................ 8 2.4.1 Description of Species ............................................... 8 2.4.2 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ............................... 9 2.4.3 Conclusions ............................................................. 10 3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 10 4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ........................................................................................ 3 TABLES Table 1 – Abbreviated Morphological Summary .................................................. 5 Table 2 – Vegetation Monitoring Results ............................................................. 9 APPENDICES Appendix A – Cross Section Comparisons & Longitudinal Profile Appendix B – Site Photographs, Cross Section, Vegetation Plot & Photo Point Locations 1 SUMMARY The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during 2012 at the Unnamed Tributaries to Lumber River (UT to Lumber River) Mitigation Site in Robeson County. The site was constructed during 2007 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). This report provides the monitoring results for the fifth formal year of monitoring (Year 2012). The Year 2012 monitoring period is the fifth of five scheduled years for monitoring on UT to Lumber River (See Success Criteria Section 2.1). Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along UT to Lumber River, the site has met the required monitoring protocols for channel stability and vegetative success criteria for the fifth formal year of monitoring. Based on comparing the monitoring data to the as-built data, the channel is stable throughout the stream at this time. The buffer upstream of Daystorm Road was supplementally planted in February 2012 due to a brush fire that occurred onsite. The longitudinal profile survey was not conducted along the stream at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site in 2012 due to extensive vegetation growth along the channel. The heavy vegetation growth made it impossible to survey the channel without cutting down many of the desired species along the channel. NCDOT emailed the regulatory agencies on September 28, 2011 to propose to discontinue profile monitoring. It was determined through email responses that in lieu of doing the longitudinal profile, visual inspection of the channel stability throughout the reach and photo documentation at the permanent photo point locations would be completed. All other monitoring activities will continue to be completed throughout the five year monitoring period. NCDOT proposes to discontinue stream and vegetation monitoring at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during 2012 at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. The site is located adjacent to the US 74 westbound lanes and split by SR 1362 Daystorm Road near Maxton (Figure 1). The UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site was constructed to provide mitigation for stream impacts associated with Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) number R-0513 in Robeson County. The mitigation project covers approximately 3,260 linear feet of Priority II stream restoration. Construction was completed in December 2007 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Stream restoration involved the installation of rock cross vanes, log cross vanes, log sills and rootwads, construction of a new stream channel and construction of the floodplain to allow for overbank flooding. It also included the installation of coir fiber matting and live stakes along the streambank and bareroot seedlings in the buffer area. 1.2 Purpose In order for a mitigation site to be considered successful, the site must meet the success criteria. This report details the monitoring in 2012 at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. Hydrologic monitoring was not required for the site. 1.3 Project History December 2007 Construction Completed March 2008 Planted Live Stakes and Bareroot Seedlings August 2008 Kudzu Treated August 2008 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.) October 2008 Stream Channel Monitoring (1 yr.) June 2009 Kudzu Treated July 2009 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.) November 2009 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 September 2011 Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.) Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.) Kudzu Treated Stream Channel Monitoring (3 yr.) Kudzu Treated September 2011 Vegetation and Stream Channel Monitoring (4 yr.) August 2012 Kudzu Treated August 2012 December 2012 Veg. and Stream Channel Mon. (XS 1 to 9) (5 yr.) Stream Channel Monitoring (XS 10 & 11) (5 yr.) 1.4 Debit Ledger The entire UT to Lumber River stream mitigation site was used for the R-0513 project to compensate for unavoidable stream impacts. 3 Figure 1. Vicinity Map 4 2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT 2.1 Success Criteria In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, NCDOT will evaluate the success of the stream restoration project based on guidance provided by the Stream Mitigation Guidelines disseminated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District. The survey of channel dimension will consist of permanent cross sections placed at approximately two cross sections (one riffle and one pool) per unique stream segment. The cross sections will represent approximately 50% riffles and 50% pools. Annual photographs showing both banks and upstream and downstream views will be taken from permanent, mapped photo points. The survey of the longitudinal profile will represent distinct areas of restoration and will cover a cumulative total of 3,000 linear feet of channel. Newly-constructed meanders will be surveyed to provide pattern measurements. The entire restored length of stream will be investigated for channel stability and in-stream structure functionality. Any evidence of channel instability will be identified, mapped and photographed. Vegetation Success The success of vegetation plantings will be measured through stem counts. Permanent quadrants will be used to sample the riparian buffer and restoration wetlands. Survival of the live stakes will be determined by visual observation throughout the 5 year monitoring period. Bare root vegetation will be evaluated using 5 staked survival plots. Plots will be 25 ft. by 25 ft. and all flagged stems will be counted in those plots. Success will be defined as 320 stems per acre after 3 years and 260 stems per acre after 5 years. All vegetation monitoring will be conducted during the growing season. 2.2 Stream Description 2.2.1 Post-Construction Conditions The mitigation project covers approximately 3,260 linear feet of Priority II stream restoration. Construction was completed in December 2007 by NCDOT. Stream restoration involved the installation of rock cross vanes, log cross vanes, log sills and rootwads, construction of a new stream channel and construction of the floodplain to allow for overbank flooding. It also included the installation of coir fiber matting and live stakes along the streambank and bareroot seedlings in the buffer area. 2.2.2 Monitoring Conditions The objective of the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site restoration was to build a C5 stream type as identified in the Rosgen’s Applied River Morphology. A total of eleven cross sections (five in a riffle, six in a pool) were surveyed. For this report, all cross sections were included in Table 1 but only cross sections containing riffles were used in the comparison of channel morphology. 5 Table 1. Abbreviated Morphological Summary (UT Lumber River Cross Sections #1, #3, #5, #7 & #11) Variable Proposed Cross Section #1 (Riffle) Cross Section #3 (Riffle) Cross Section #5 (Riffle) Cross Section #7 (Riffle) Cross Section #11 (Riffle) Min. - Max Values (Riffle Sections Only) 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Drainage Area (sq. mi) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Bankfull Width (ft) 13.0 11.04 11.69 13.82 13 14 11.04 – 14 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.70 0.47 0.55 0.47 0.8 0.82 0.47 – 0.82 Width/Depth Ratio 18.5 23.49 21.25 29.4 16.25 17.07 16.25 – 29.4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 9.30 5.13 6.45 6.54 10.36 11.44 5.13 – 11.44 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.90 0.82 0.94 0.88 1.29 1.35 0.82 – 1.35 Floodprone Area (ft) 60 54.61 58 63 69 44 44 – 69 Entrenchment Ratio 4.60 4.95 4.96 4.56 5.31 3.14 3.14 – 5.31 *Drainage Area, Floodprone Width, and Slope are averaged values only. *Riffle values are used for classification purposes. 6 2.3 Results of the Stream Assessment 2.3.1 Site Data The assessment included the survey of eleven cross sections and the longitudinal profile of UT to Lumber River established by the NCDOT after construction. The length of the profile along UT to Lumber River was approximately 3,160 linear feet. Eleven cross sections were established during the 2008 monitoring year. Cross section locations were subsequently based on the stationing of the longitudinal profile and are presented below. The locations of the cross sections and longitudinal profiles are shown in Appendix A. ¨ Cross Section #1. UT to Lumber River, Station 279+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #2. UT to Lumber River, Station 479+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #3. UT to Lumber River, Station 849+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #4. UT to Lumber River, Station 964+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #5. UT to Lumber River, Station 1258+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #6. UT to Lumber River, Station 1456+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #7. UT to Lumber River, Station 1874+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #8. UT to Lumber River, Station 1913+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #9. UT to Lumber River, Station 2565+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #10. UT to Lumber River, Station 2852+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #11. UT to Lumber River, Station 3047+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle Based on comparisons of the monitoring data, all eleven cross sections appear stable with little or no active bank erosion. Graphs of the cross sections are presented in Appendix A. 7 The longitudinal profile survey was not conducted along the stream at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site in 2012 due to extensive vegetation growth along the channel. The heavy vegetation growth made it impossible to survey the channel without cutting down many of the desired species along the channel. NCDOT emailed the regulatory agencies on September 28, 2011 to propose to discontinue profile monitoring. It was determined through email responses that in lieu of doing the longitudinal profile, visual inspection of the channel stability throughout the reach and photo documentation at the permanent photo point locations would be completed. All other monitoring activities will continue to be completed throughout the five year monitoring period. Photo points 1 through 11 showed an extensive growth of herbaceous and woody vegetation. The channel is stable throughout the stream restoration project at this time. A beaver dam was noted downstream of the stream restoration project in August 2012. USDA has been contacted to trap the beavers and remove the dam. 8 2.4 Results of Stream and Buffer Vegetation 2.4.1 Description of Species The following live stake species were planted on the streambank: Cephalanthus occidentalis, Buttonbush Cornus amomum, Silky Dogwood The following tree species were planted in the buffer area: Quercus falcate var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak Quercus laurifolia, Laurel Oak Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus nigra, Water Oak Myrica cerifera, Wax Myrtle Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora, Swamp Blackgum Nyssa aquatica, Water Tupelo Taxodium distichum, Baldcypress Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash 9 2.4.2 Results of Vegetation Monitoring Table 2. Vegetation Monitoring Results: Five 25 ft. x 25 ft. vegetation plots were set to determine the trees per acre in the buffer area. Plot # Cherrybark Oak Laurel Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Water Oak Wax Myrtle Swamp Blackgum Water Tupelo Baldcypress Green Ash Total (Year 5) Total (at planting) Density (Trees/Acre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 6 8 0 2 2 1 1 4 1 8 1 5 1 3 1 2 2 5 4 1 4 2 2 4 3 3 4 1 1 8 1 0 2 2 3 0 9 5 3 1 1 1 4 2 5 3 8 1 3 9 1 A v e ra g e D e n s ity (T re e s /A c re ) 10 Site Notes: The buttonbush and silky dogwood live stakes are surviving along the streambank. Other vegetation noted included black willow, woolgrass, red maple, soft rush, baccharis, briars, sweetgum, kudzu, wax myrtle, fennel, lespedeza, pine, cattail, stinkweed, and various grasses. Kudzu that was noted downstream of Daystorm Road was treated prior to construction and has been continually treated throughout the monitoring period. These herbicide applications have contained the kudzu and kept it from spreading across the mitigation site. There was a brush fire upstream of Daystorm Road that caused the planted vegetation within buffer area to not meet vegetative success criteria for the site in 2011. This area was supplementally planted in February 2012 and the site is now meeting vegetative success criteria. 2.4.3 Conclusions There were five vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the buffer area. The 2012 vegetation monitoring of the site revealed an average tree density of 391 trees per acre. This average is above the minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre after year five monitoring. 3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site has met the required monitoring protocols for channel stability and vegetative success criteria for the fifth formal year of monitoring. The channel and structures throughout the stream are stable at this time. NCDOT proposes to discontinue stream and vegetation monitoring at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. 4.0 REFERENCES Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan for UT to Lumber River; Robeson County, NC, February, 2006 Rosgen, D.L, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from the US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality. APPENDIX A CROSS SECTION COMPARISONS & LONGTITUDINAL PROFILE Cross-Section #1 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 11.0 11.20 10.90 10.93 11.04 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.45 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.47 Width/Depth Ratio 24.44 20.74 19.73 20.24 23.49 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.98 6.03 5.92 5.86 5.13 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.75 0.88 0.94 0.84 0.82 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 53 56 56.83 55.25 54.61 Entrenchment Ratio 4.83 5.05 5.24 5.06 4.95 Cross-Section #2 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 15.31 15.05 15.12 16.89 17.45 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.92 2.06 1.97 2.17 2.16 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.09 0.84 1.06 1.09 1.15 Bankfull Width (ft) 14.0 17.92 14.25 15.44 15.2 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchement ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #3 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 9.4 11.40 13.71 11.4 11.69 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.55 Width/Depth Ratio 19.18 21.51 24.05 18.69 21.25 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.64 6.06 7.87 6.91 6.45 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.77 0.91 1.00 1 0.94 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 58 58 58 58 58 Entrenchment Ratio 6.17 5.09 4.23 5.09 4.96 Cross-Section #4 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 16.42 17.90 17.16 17.16 16.23 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.17 2.29 2.21 2.17 2.15 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.17 1.28 1.08 1.07 1.01 Bankfull Width (ft) 14.0 14.0 15.92 15.98 16.08 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #5 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 10.45 9.31 11.00 11.00 11.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.66 0.66 Width/Depth Ratio 21.33 19.0 18.64 16.67 16.67 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 5.11 4.52 6.51 7.3 7.3 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.85 0.73 0.93 0.97 0.97 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 63 63 63 63 63 Entrenchment Ratio 6.03 6.77 5.73 5.73 5.73 Cross-Section #6 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 22.71 19.06 19.54 20.06 23.32 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.15 1.99 2.03 2.1 2.31 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.23 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.3 Bankfull Width (ft) 18.50 18.50 18.45 18 18 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #7 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 13.0 13.0 12.8 13 13 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.79 0.75 0.82 0.8 Width/Depth Ratio 16.25 16.46 17.07 15.85 16.25 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.4 10.26 9.66 10.63 10.36 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.28 1.30 1.19 1.34 1.29 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 69 69 69 69 69 Entrenchment Ratio 5.31 5.31 5.39 5.31 5.31 Cross-Section #8 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 16.5 16.01 14.56 14.43 16.95 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.81 1.90 1.54 1.61 1.74 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.03 1.0 0.92 0.92 1.06 Bankfull Width (ft) 16 16 15.9 15.69 16.04 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #9 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.89 11.15 11.74 10.01 11.81 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.51 1.36 1.40 1.51 1.63 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.9 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.61 12.88 13.10 12.86 13.06 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #10 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 23.31 21.96 23.56 24.81 24.42 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.37 2.34 2.35 2.39 2.31 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.26 Bankfull Width (ft) 21.23 19.3 20.27 21.3 19.44 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #11 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.76 12.57 12.56 12.69 14 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.86 0.76 0.83 0.87 0.82 Width/Depth Ratio 14.84 16.54 15.13 14.59 17.07 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.93 9.54 10.38 11.09 11.44 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.3 1.16 1.23 1.27 1.35 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 44 44 44 44 44 Entrenchment Ratio 3.45 3.50 3.50 3.47 3.14 APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS, CROSS SECTION, VEGETATION PLOT & PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS Cross Section #3 at Station 4+95.6 Cross Section #7 at Station 17+75.6 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #1 (Upstream) Photo Point #1 (Downstream) Photo Point #2 (Upstream) Photo Point #2 (Downstream) Photo Point #3 (Upstream) Photo Point #3 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #4 (Upstream) Photo Point #4 (Downstream) Photo Point #5 (Upstream) Photo Point #5 (Downstream) Photo Point #6 (Upstream) Photo Point #6 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #7 (Upstream) Photo Point #7 (Downstream) Photo Point #8 (Upstream) Photo Point #8 (Downstream) Photo Point #9 (Upstream) Photo Point #9 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #10 (Upstream) Photo Point #10 (Downstream) Photo Point #11 (Upstream) Photo Point #11 (Downstream) Looking Upstream from Daystorm Rd. Looking Downstream from Daystorm Rd. December 2012 UT to Lumber River Looking Upstream from lower end of project Looking Downstream from lower end of project December 2012
Object Description
Description
Title | Annual report for... Unnamed Tributary to Lumber River mitigation site, Robeson County, TIP no. R-0513WM |
Other Title | Unnamed Tributary to Lumber River mitigation site, Robeson County |
Date | 2012-12 |
Description | 2012 |
Digital Characteristics-A | 2.64 MB; 33 p. |
Digital Format |
application/pdf |
Related Items | http://worldcat.org/oclc/862962375/viewonline |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_unnamedtributarylumber201212.pdf |
Full Text | ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2012 Unnamed Tributary to Lumber River Mitigation Site Robeson County TIP No. R-0513WM COE Action ID: 2003-00999 Prepared By: Natural Environment Section & Roadside Environmental Unit North Carolina Department of Transportation December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION: ...................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project Description ......................................................................... 2 1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................ 2 1.3 Project History ............................................................................... 2 1.4 Debit Ledger ................................................................................... 2 2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT: ......................................................................... 4 2.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................. 4 2.2 Stream Description ......................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Stream Description .................................................... 4 2.2.2 Stream Description .................................................... 4 2.3 Results of Stream Assessment ....................................................... 6 2.3.1 Site Data .................................................................... 6 2.4 Results of Stream and Buffer Vegetation ........................................ 8 2.4.1 Description of Species ............................................... 8 2.4.2 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ............................... 9 2.4.3 Conclusions ............................................................. 10 3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 10 4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ........................................................................................ 3 TABLES Table 1 – Abbreviated Morphological Summary .................................................. 5 Table 2 – Vegetation Monitoring Results ............................................................. 9 APPENDICES Appendix A – Cross Section Comparisons & Longitudinal Profile Appendix B – Site Photographs, Cross Section, Vegetation Plot & Photo Point Locations 1 SUMMARY The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during 2012 at the Unnamed Tributaries to Lumber River (UT to Lumber River) Mitigation Site in Robeson County. The site was constructed during 2007 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). This report provides the monitoring results for the fifth formal year of monitoring (Year 2012). The Year 2012 monitoring period is the fifth of five scheduled years for monitoring on UT to Lumber River (See Success Criteria Section 2.1). Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along UT to Lumber River, the site has met the required monitoring protocols for channel stability and vegetative success criteria for the fifth formal year of monitoring. Based on comparing the monitoring data to the as-built data, the channel is stable throughout the stream at this time. The buffer upstream of Daystorm Road was supplementally planted in February 2012 due to a brush fire that occurred onsite. The longitudinal profile survey was not conducted along the stream at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site in 2012 due to extensive vegetation growth along the channel. The heavy vegetation growth made it impossible to survey the channel without cutting down many of the desired species along the channel. NCDOT emailed the regulatory agencies on September 28, 2011 to propose to discontinue profile monitoring. It was determined through email responses that in lieu of doing the longitudinal profile, visual inspection of the channel stability throughout the reach and photo documentation at the permanent photo point locations would be completed. All other monitoring activities will continue to be completed throughout the five year monitoring period. NCDOT proposes to discontinue stream and vegetation monitoring at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during 2012 at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. The site is located adjacent to the US 74 westbound lanes and split by SR 1362 Daystorm Road near Maxton (Figure 1). The UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site was constructed to provide mitigation for stream impacts associated with Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) number R-0513 in Robeson County. The mitigation project covers approximately 3,260 linear feet of Priority II stream restoration. Construction was completed in December 2007 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Stream restoration involved the installation of rock cross vanes, log cross vanes, log sills and rootwads, construction of a new stream channel and construction of the floodplain to allow for overbank flooding. It also included the installation of coir fiber matting and live stakes along the streambank and bareroot seedlings in the buffer area. 1.2 Purpose In order for a mitigation site to be considered successful, the site must meet the success criteria. This report details the monitoring in 2012 at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. Hydrologic monitoring was not required for the site. 1.3 Project History December 2007 Construction Completed March 2008 Planted Live Stakes and Bareroot Seedlings August 2008 Kudzu Treated August 2008 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.) October 2008 Stream Channel Monitoring (1 yr.) June 2009 Kudzu Treated July 2009 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.) November 2009 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 September 2011 Stream Channel Monitoring (2 yr.) Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.) Kudzu Treated Stream Channel Monitoring (3 yr.) Kudzu Treated September 2011 Vegetation and Stream Channel Monitoring (4 yr.) August 2012 Kudzu Treated August 2012 December 2012 Veg. and Stream Channel Mon. (XS 1 to 9) (5 yr.) Stream Channel Monitoring (XS 10 & 11) (5 yr.) 1.4 Debit Ledger The entire UT to Lumber River stream mitigation site was used for the R-0513 project to compensate for unavoidable stream impacts. 3 Figure 1. Vicinity Map 4 2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT 2.1 Success Criteria In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, NCDOT will evaluate the success of the stream restoration project based on guidance provided by the Stream Mitigation Guidelines disseminated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District. The survey of channel dimension will consist of permanent cross sections placed at approximately two cross sections (one riffle and one pool) per unique stream segment. The cross sections will represent approximately 50% riffles and 50% pools. Annual photographs showing both banks and upstream and downstream views will be taken from permanent, mapped photo points. The survey of the longitudinal profile will represent distinct areas of restoration and will cover a cumulative total of 3,000 linear feet of channel. Newly-constructed meanders will be surveyed to provide pattern measurements. The entire restored length of stream will be investigated for channel stability and in-stream structure functionality. Any evidence of channel instability will be identified, mapped and photographed. Vegetation Success The success of vegetation plantings will be measured through stem counts. Permanent quadrants will be used to sample the riparian buffer and restoration wetlands. Survival of the live stakes will be determined by visual observation throughout the 5 year monitoring period. Bare root vegetation will be evaluated using 5 staked survival plots. Plots will be 25 ft. by 25 ft. and all flagged stems will be counted in those plots. Success will be defined as 320 stems per acre after 3 years and 260 stems per acre after 5 years. All vegetation monitoring will be conducted during the growing season. 2.2 Stream Description 2.2.1 Post-Construction Conditions The mitigation project covers approximately 3,260 linear feet of Priority II stream restoration. Construction was completed in December 2007 by NCDOT. Stream restoration involved the installation of rock cross vanes, log cross vanes, log sills and rootwads, construction of a new stream channel and construction of the floodplain to allow for overbank flooding. It also included the installation of coir fiber matting and live stakes along the streambank and bareroot seedlings in the buffer area. 2.2.2 Monitoring Conditions The objective of the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site restoration was to build a C5 stream type as identified in the Rosgen’s Applied River Morphology. A total of eleven cross sections (five in a riffle, six in a pool) were surveyed. For this report, all cross sections were included in Table 1 but only cross sections containing riffles were used in the comparison of channel morphology. 5 Table 1. Abbreviated Morphological Summary (UT Lumber River Cross Sections #1, #3, #5, #7 & #11) Variable Proposed Cross Section #1 (Riffle) Cross Section #3 (Riffle) Cross Section #5 (Riffle) Cross Section #7 (Riffle) Cross Section #11 (Riffle) Min. - Max Values (Riffle Sections Only) 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Drainage Area (sq. mi) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Bankfull Width (ft) 13.0 11.04 11.69 13.82 13 14 11.04 – 14 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.70 0.47 0.55 0.47 0.8 0.82 0.47 – 0.82 Width/Depth Ratio 18.5 23.49 21.25 29.4 16.25 17.07 16.25 – 29.4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 9.30 5.13 6.45 6.54 10.36 11.44 5.13 – 11.44 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.90 0.82 0.94 0.88 1.29 1.35 0.82 – 1.35 Floodprone Area (ft) 60 54.61 58 63 69 44 44 – 69 Entrenchment Ratio 4.60 4.95 4.96 4.56 5.31 3.14 3.14 – 5.31 *Drainage Area, Floodprone Width, and Slope are averaged values only. *Riffle values are used for classification purposes. 6 2.3 Results of the Stream Assessment 2.3.1 Site Data The assessment included the survey of eleven cross sections and the longitudinal profile of UT to Lumber River established by the NCDOT after construction. The length of the profile along UT to Lumber River was approximately 3,160 linear feet. Eleven cross sections were established during the 2008 monitoring year. Cross section locations were subsequently based on the stationing of the longitudinal profile and are presented below. The locations of the cross sections and longitudinal profiles are shown in Appendix A. ¨ Cross Section #1. UT to Lumber River, Station 279+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #2. UT to Lumber River, Station 479+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #3. UT to Lumber River, Station 849+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #4. UT to Lumber River, Station 964+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #5. UT to Lumber River, Station 1258+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #6. UT to Lumber River, Station 1456+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #7. UT to Lumber River, Station 1874+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle ¨ Cross Section #8. UT to Lumber River, Station 1913+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #9. UT to Lumber River, Station 2565+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #10. UT to Lumber River, Station 2852+00 linear feet, midpoint of pool ¨ Cross Section #11. UT to Lumber River, Station 3047+00 linear feet, midpoint of riffle Based on comparisons of the monitoring data, all eleven cross sections appear stable with little or no active bank erosion. Graphs of the cross sections are presented in Appendix A. 7 The longitudinal profile survey was not conducted along the stream at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site in 2012 due to extensive vegetation growth along the channel. The heavy vegetation growth made it impossible to survey the channel without cutting down many of the desired species along the channel. NCDOT emailed the regulatory agencies on September 28, 2011 to propose to discontinue profile monitoring. It was determined through email responses that in lieu of doing the longitudinal profile, visual inspection of the channel stability throughout the reach and photo documentation at the permanent photo point locations would be completed. All other monitoring activities will continue to be completed throughout the five year monitoring period. Photo points 1 through 11 showed an extensive growth of herbaceous and woody vegetation. The channel is stable throughout the stream restoration project at this time. A beaver dam was noted downstream of the stream restoration project in August 2012. USDA has been contacted to trap the beavers and remove the dam. 8 2.4 Results of Stream and Buffer Vegetation 2.4.1 Description of Species The following live stake species were planted on the streambank: Cephalanthus occidentalis, Buttonbush Cornus amomum, Silky Dogwood The following tree species were planted in the buffer area: Quercus falcate var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak Quercus laurifolia, Laurel Oak Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus nigra, Water Oak Myrica cerifera, Wax Myrtle Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora, Swamp Blackgum Nyssa aquatica, Water Tupelo Taxodium distichum, Baldcypress Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash 9 2.4.2 Results of Vegetation Monitoring Table 2. Vegetation Monitoring Results: Five 25 ft. x 25 ft. vegetation plots were set to determine the trees per acre in the buffer area. Plot # Cherrybark Oak Laurel Oak Swamp Chestnut Oak Water Oak Wax Myrtle Swamp Blackgum Water Tupelo Baldcypress Green Ash Total (Year 5) Total (at planting) Density (Trees/Acre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 5 6 8 0 2 2 1 1 4 1 8 1 5 1 3 1 2 2 5 4 1 4 2 2 4 3 3 4 1 1 8 1 0 2 2 3 0 9 5 3 1 1 1 4 2 5 3 8 1 3 9 1 A v e ra g e D e n s ity (T re e s /A c re ) 10 Site Notes: The buttonbush and silky dogwood live stakes are surviving along the streambank. Other vegetation noted included black willow, woolgrass, red maple, soft rush, baccharis, briars, sweetgum, kudzu, wax myrtle, fennel, lespedeza, pine, cattail, stinkweed, and various grasses. Kudzu that was noted downstream of Daystorm Road was treated prior to construction and has been continually treated throughout the monitoring period. These herbicide applications have contained the kudzu and kept it from spreading across the mitigation site. There was a brush fire upstream of Daystorm Road that caused the planted vegetation within buffer area to not meet vegetative success criteria for the site in 2011. This area was supplementally planted in February 2012 and the site is now meeting vegetative success criteria. 2.4.3 Conclusions There were five vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the buffer area. The 2012 vegetation monitoring of the site revealed an average tree density of 391 trees per acre. This average is above the minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre after year five monitoring. 3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site has met the required monitoring protocols for channel stability and vegetative success criteria for the fifth formal year of monitoring. The channel and structures throughout the stream are stable at this time. NCDOT proposes to discontinue stream and vegetation monitoring at the UT to Lumber River Mitigation Site. 4.0 REFERENCES Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan for UT to Lumber River; Robeson County, NC, February, 2006 Rosgen, D.L, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with cooperation from the US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality. APPENDIX A CROSS SECTION COMPARISONS & LONGTITUDINAL PROFILE Cross-Section #1 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 11.0 11.20 10.90 10.93 11.04 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.45 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.47 Width/Depth Ratio 24.44 20.74 19.73 20.24 23.49 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.98 6.03 5.92 5.86 5.13 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.75 0.88 0.94 0.84 0.82 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 53 56 56.83 55.25 54.61 Entrenchment Ratio 4.83 5.05 5.24 5.06 4.95 Cross-Section #2 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 15.31 15.05 15.12 16.89 17.45 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.92 2.06 1.97 2.17 2.16 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.09 0.84 1.06 1.09 1.15 Bankfull Width (ft) 14.0 17.92 14.25 15.44 15.2 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchement ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #3 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 9.4 11.40 13.71 11.4 11.69 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.55 Width/Depth Ratio 19.18 21.51 24.05 18.69 21.25 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.64 6.06 7.87 6.91 6.45 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.77 0.91 1.00 1 0.94 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 58 58 58 58 58 Entrenchment Ratio 6.17 5.09 4.23 5.09 4.96 Cross-Section #4 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 16.42 17.90 17.16 17.16 16.23 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.17 2.29 2.21 2.17 2.15 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.17 1.28 1.08 1.07 1.01 Bankfull Width (ft) 14.0 14.0 15.92 15.98 16.08 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #5 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 10.45 9.31 11.00 11.00 11.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.66 0.66 Width/Depth Ratio 21.33 19.0 18.64 16.67 16.67 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 5.11 4.52 6.51 7.3 7.3 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.85 0.73 0.93 0.97 0.97 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 63 63 63 63 63 Entrenchment Ratio 6.03 6.77 5.73 5.73 5.73 Cross-Section #6 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 22.71 19.06 19.54 20.06 23.32 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.15 1.99 2.03 2.1 2.31 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.23 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.3 Bankfull Width (ft) 18.50 18.50 18.45 18 18 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #7 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 13.0 13.0 12.8 13 13 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.79 0.75 0.82 0.8 Width/Depth Ratio 16.25 16.46 17.07 15.85 16.25 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.4 10.26 9.66 10.63 10.36 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.28 1.30 1.19 1.34 1.29 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 69 69 69 69 69 Entrenchment Ratio 5.31 5.31 5.39 5.31 5.31 Cross-Section #8 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 16.5 16.01 14.56 14.43 16.95 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.81 1.90 1.54 1.61 1.74 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.03 1.0 0.92 0.92 1.06 Bankfull Width (ft) 16 16 15.9 15.69 16.04 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #9 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.89 11.15 11.74 10.01 11.81 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.51 1.36 1.40 1.51 1.63 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.9 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.61 12.88 13.10 12.86 13.06 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #10 (Pool) Abbreviated Morphological Summary* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 23.31 21.96 23.56 24.81 24.42 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 2.37 2.34 2.35 2.39 2.31 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.14 1.16 1.16 1.26 Bankfull Width (ft) 21.23 19.3 20.27 21.3 19.44 * According to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers floodprone width, entrenchment ratio, and width depth ratio are not measured in pool, glide, or run features. Cross-Section #11 (Riffle) Abbreviated Morphological Summary 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.76 12.57 12.56 12.69 14 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.86 0.76 0.83 0.87 0.82 Width/Depth Ratio 14.84 16.54 15.13 14.59 17.07 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.93 9.54 10.38 11.09 11.44 Maximum Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.3 1.16 1.23 1.27 1.35 Width of the Floodprone Area (ft) 44 44 44 44 44 Entrenchment Ratio 3.45 3.50 3.50 3.47 3.14 APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS, CROSS SECTION, VEGETATION PLOT & PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS Cross Section #3 at Station 4+95.6 Cross Section #7 at Station 17+75.6 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #1 (Upstream) Photo Point #1 (Downstream) Photo Point #2 (Upstream) Photo Point #2 (Downstream) Photo Point #3 (Upstream) Photo Point #3 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #4 (Upstream) Photo Point #4 (Downstream) Photo Point #5 (Upstream) Photo Point #5 (Downstream) Photo Point #6 (Upstream) Photo Point #6 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #7 (Upstream) Photo Point #7 (Downstream) Photo Point #8 (Upstream) Photo Point #8 (Downstream) Photo Point #9 (Upstream) Photo Point #9 (Downstream) August 2012 UT to Lumber River Photo Point #10 (Upstream) Photo Point #10 (Downstream) Photo Point #11 (Upstream) Photo Point #11 (Downstream) Looking Upstream from Daystorm Rd. Looking Downstream from Daystorm Rd. December 2012 UT to Lumber River Looking Upstream from lower end of project Looking Downstream from lower end of project December 2012 |
OCLC number | 862962375 |