National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Wadeable Stream Habitat Monitoring at Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park

2019 Change Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2020/2199 
The production of this document cost $11,452.55, including costs associated with data collection, processing, analysis, 

and subsequent authoring, editing, and publication 

ON THE COVER 

Picture looking downstream from Transect 11 at the stream habitat monitoring site on Noses Creek (KEMO001) at 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park. Photograph taken by SECN staff on May 1, 2019. 
Wadeable Stream Habitat Monitoring at Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park

2019 Change Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2020/2199 

Jacob M. Bateman McDonald

University of North Georgia

Lewis F. Rogers Institute for Environmental and Spatial Analysis

Watkins Building, Room 176

3820 Mundy Mill Road

Oakwood, GA 30566

November 2020

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of 

reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, 

and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and 

related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed 

decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting more 

lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, 

technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed 

and interpreted within the guidelines of the protocols.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies 

of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available from the Southeast Coast Network website and the Natural Resource Publications Management website. If 

you have difficulty accessing information in this publication, particularly if using assistive technology, please email irma@nps.gov. 

Please cite this publication as:

Bateman McDonald, J.M. 2020. Wadeable stream habitat monitoring at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park: 2019 

change report. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2020/2199. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://doi.

org/10.36967/nrr-2280026.

NPS 352/173866 November 2020

ii
Contents

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Summary and Key Findings . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Previous Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Basin Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Reach-Scale Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Detailed Transect Cross-Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Weather Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Basin Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

KEMO001—Noses Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Reach Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Habitat Characteristics . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Channel Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Detailed Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

KEMO002—Ward Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Reach Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Habitat Characteristics . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Channel Morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Detailed Transects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Differences between Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Implications and Synthesis of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

KEMO001—Noses Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

KEMO002—Ward Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Literature Cited . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

iii
iv

Figures

Figure 1. Generalized channel evolution model (modified from Schumm et al. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. Map showing Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park and its wadeable stream 

sites (KEMO001 and KEMO002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 3. Spatial hierarchy of stream systems and scales of data collection (modified from Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 4. Example layout of stream reach with benchmarks, tie-in points, and transects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 5. Hypothetical detailed transect cross-sectional survey showing the diagnostic geomorphic 

surfaces that should be surveyed and the descriptive characteristics that will be derived 

from the data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 6. Reach-scale map of KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 7. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 8. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 2 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 9. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 3 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 10. Longitudinal profile for KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 11. Reach-scale map of KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 12. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 13. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 14. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 3 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 15. Longitudinal profile for KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 16. Hypothesized development of the bankfull ‘floodplain’ surfaces observed at KEMO001

on river right between T4 and T6 (a) and on river left between T1 and T4 (b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure B-1. Map showing the watershed draining to KEMO001 at Kennesaw Mountain National

Battlefield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure B-2. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream from T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure B-3. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure B-4. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure B-5. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure B-6. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure B-7. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure B-8. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure B-9. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure B-10. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure B-11. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure B-12. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure B-13. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . 55

Figure B-14. Detailed transect 1 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
v

Figure B-15. Detailed transect 2 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure B-16. Detailed transect 3 at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure C-1. Map showing the watershed draining to KEMO002 at Kennesaw Mountain National

Battlefield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure C-2. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure C-3. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure C-4. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure C-5. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T1 (detailed transect 1). . . . . . . . . 65

Figure C-6. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure C-7. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure C-8. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure C-9. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T6 (detailed transect 2). . . . . . . . . 67

Figure C-10. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure C-11. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure C-12. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . 69

Figure C-13. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T11 (detailed transect 3). . . . . . . . . 69

Figure C-14. Detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure C-15. Detailed transect 2 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure C-16. Detailed transect 3 at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Tables

Table 1. Bank Stability Index (BSi) from Fitzpatrick et al. (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 2. Amount of precipitation and number of precipitation events greater than 1 inch (2.5 cm) in 

the week and month(s) prior to the 2017 and 2019 wadeable stream surveys at Kennesaw 

Mountain NBP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 3. Watershed characteristics for KEMO001 and KEMO002 are calculated using the National 

Elevation Dataset (NED) 10-meter (32.8-ft) digital elevation model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 4. Land use and land cover characteristics in 2011 and 2016 for KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 5. Geomorphic channel units (GCUs) observed in the area between transects during the 2017 

and 2019 surveys at KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 6. Particle size distributions of bed sediment (in millimeters [mm]) from the pebble counts conducted during 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 7. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2017 and 2019 surveys of KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 8. Summary statistics for the large woody debris measured in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and 

KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for reach-scale canopy cover in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . 16

Table 10. Reach-scale averaged thalweg conditions in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002 

[m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 11. Reach-scale width characteristics in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 12. Reach-scale averaged bank characteristics in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002 

[m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 13. Comparison of 2017 and 2019 reach scale and average detailed transect characteristics at 

KEMO001 and KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 14. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 1 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 22

Table 15. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 2 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 23

Table 16. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 3 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 24

Table 17. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2017 and 2019 surveys of KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 18. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 1 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 29

Table 19. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 2 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 30

Table 20. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 3 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . 31

Table 21. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2019 surveys of KEMO001 and KEMO002. . . . . . . . . 33

Table A-1. Explanation of Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table B-1. Land use and land cover characteristics for 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 for KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table B-2. Geomorphic channel units (GCU) observed in the area between transects at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table B-3. Characteristics of the large woody debris (LWD) observed at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table B-4. Variability of canopy cover observed at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table B-5. Average reach-scale bank characteristics at KEMO001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table B-6. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 1 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

vi
vii

Table B-7. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 2 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table B-8. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 3 at KEMO001 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Table C-1. Land use/land cover characteristics for 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 for KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table C-2. Geomorphic channel units (GCU) observed in the area between transects at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table C-3. Characteristics of the large woody debris (LWD) observed at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table C-4. Variability of canopy cover observed at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Table C-5. Average reach-scale bank characteristics at KEMO002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table C-6. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 1 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table C-7. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 2 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table C-8. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 3 at KEMO002 [m—meters]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Appendices

Appendix A. Explanation of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix B. Survey Results for KEMO001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix C. Survey Results for KEMO002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
viii

List of Acronyms

ANOVA—Analysis of variance

B—Sand/gravel bar

Be—Bench

Bf—Bankfull

BM—Benchmark

BSi—Bank stability index

CHAT—Chattahoochee National Recreation Area

CONG—Congaree National Park

CV—Coefficient of variance

DEM—Digital elevation model

FP—Floodplain

FPM—Floodplain margin

GCU—Geomorphic channel unit

GIS—Geographic information system

Gl—Glide

HOBE—Horseshoe Bend National Military Park

KEMO—Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park

LWD—Large woody debris

NED—National Elevation Dataset

NL—Natural levee

NLCD—National Land Cover Dataset

NPS—National Park Service

OCMU—Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park

P—Pool

Ru—Run

SECN—Southeast Coast Network

SOP—Standard operating procedure

T#—Standard transect
ix

Summary and Key Findings 

The Southeast Coast Network (SECN) stream habitat 

monitoring protocol collects data to give park resource 

managers insight into the status of and trends in stream and 

near-channel habitat conditions (McDonald et al. 2018a). 

Wadeable stream assessments are currently implemented 

at the five SECN inland parks with wadeable streams. 

These parks include Horseshoe Bend National Military 

Park, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield, Ocmulgee 

Mounds National Historical Park, Chattahoochee River 

National Recreation Area, and Congaree National Park. 

Streams chosen for assessment were specifically targeted for 

management interest (e.g., trail erosion issues and upstream 

urban development) or to provide a context for similarsized stream(s) within the park or network (McDonald and 

Starkey 2018a). 

The objectives of the SECN stream habitat monitoring 

protocol are to:

• Determine status of upstream watershed characteristics 

(basin morphology) and trends in land cover that may 

affect stream habitat, 

• Determine the status of and trends in benthic and nearchannel habitat in selected wadeable stream reaches 

(e.g., bed sediment, geomorphic channel units [GCUs], 

and large woody debris [LWD]),

• Determine the status of and trends in cross-sectional 

morphology, longitudinal gradient, and sinuosity of 

selected wadeable stream reaches. 

On May 17, 2017, data were collected at Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park (KEMO) to characterize 

the in-channel and near-stream habitat on Noses Creek 

(KEMO001) and John Ward Creek (KEMO002). These 

data, along with the analysis of remotely-sensed geographic 

information system (GIS) data, are presented in a baseline 

report that describes and compares the watershed-, reach-, 

and transect-scale characteristics of these two stream 

reaches to each other and to similar-sized streams at 

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area (McDonald and 

Starkey 2019a). On May 1, 2019, KEMO001 and KEMO002 

were resurveyed to determine the amount of change that has 

occurred on each reach. This report compares the results of 

the 2019 resurveys to the initial 2017 baseline surveys. 

Noses Creek’s watershed (KEMO001) is steep and forested 

and Ward Creek’s watershed (KEMO002) has low slope 

and relief and is covered mostly by urban and or suburban 

development. Based on the geomorphic and land cover 

characteristics of the two watersheds, Noses Creek is 

interpreted to be flashier than Ward Creek; though stream 

gages are needed to determine each stream’s flow regime. 

Based on the results of the pebble counts, the type and 

distribution of GCUs within each reach, and the presence 

or absence of LWD, in-stream habitat within both of 

the surveyed streams were classified the same as in 2017 

(‘poor to fair’ on KEMO001 and ‘poor’ on KEMO002). 

The processes that have a potential impact on these habitat 

classifications have not changed since the previous survey. 

If the bed material at KEMO001 becomes finer and if the 

GCUs within the reach become more homogenous, the 

habitat classification may degrade to ‘poor.’ Alternatively, 

addition of LWD to KEMO001 may increase habitat 

diversity and provide more stability to the reach that could 

upgrade the classification to ‘fair.’ The addition of LWD to 

KEMO001 seems likely, as a large LWD dam has developed 

just upstream of the reach that may fail prior to the next 

scheduled survey in 2022. Habitat at KEMO002 will 

continue to be ‘poor’ until stable (non-mobile) in-channel 

(non-bridging) LWD increases the diversity of habitat and 

upstream conditions reduce the amount of fine sediment 

delivered to the reach (Allan and Castillo 2007). Currently, 

much of the existing LWD bridges the channel (does not 

contact the bed) and has minimal influence on GCUs.

Both of the stream reaches are recovering from a legacy 

of poor land use practices and are influenced by varying 

amounts of impervious surface cover and urban and or 

suburban development in their watersheds. Both reaches are 

affected by episodic and progressive slumping of their banks. 

These slump surfaces (from here on elevated entrenched 

surfaces) had been interpreted as relatively stable bankfull 

‘floodplain’ surfaces. The changes in the heights and sizes 

of these features have shown that these surfaces are not 

stable and represent the process by which these streams 

will continue to widen as they equilibrate to their modern 

flow and sediment regimes. The loss and movement of bar 

surfaces along both reaches is evidence agreeing with the 

interpretation of highly mobile beds within these stream 
x

reaches. The small knickpoint identified in the downstream 

portion of Noses Creek (KEMO001) in 2017 has not 

migrated further into the reach. The riffle immediately 

upstream of the knickpoint continues to provide enough 

resistance to prevent headward migration of the knickpoint. 

Similar to 2017, no immediate management concerns were 

identified along either reach. The biggest concern for visitors 

is navigating the high banks to access the streams.
1

Introduction 

The Southeast Coast Network (SECN) Wadeable Stream 

Habitat Monitoring Protocol collects data to provide park 

resource managers insight into the status of and trends in 

stream and near-channel habitat conditions (McDonald et 

al. 2018a). The data collected through this monitoring effort 

provides park staff with information regarding the physical 

linkage between streams and park resources. Additionally, 

this monitoring program provides early warnings of changing 

conditions that may negatively affect visitor experience and 

or park infrastructure. 

Wadeable stream monitoring is currently implemented at the 

five SECN inland parks with wadeable streams. These parks 

include Horseshoe Bend National Military Park (HOBE) 

in Alabama; Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park 

(KEMO), Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park 

(OCMU), and Chattahoochee River National Recreation 

Area (CHAT) in Georgia, and Congaree National Park 

(CONG) in South Carolina. The streams at Horseshoe 

Bend NMP, Kennesaw Mountain NBP, and Chattahoochee 

River NRA are typical Appalachian Piedmont streams 

beginning to re-equilibrate to their modern flow and 

sediment regimes following the poor land use practices 

of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (McDonald and 

Starkey 2018a; McDonald and Starkey 2018b; McDonald 

2019). The streams at Congaree NP are typical low gradient, 

blackwater, Coastal Plain streams (McDonald and Starkey 

2018c) while the streams at Ocmulgee Mounds NHP are a 

mixture of Appalachian Piedmont and Coastal Plain type 

streams (McDonald and Starkey 2019b). Streams chosen for 

monitoring were specifically targeted due to management 

interest (e.g., trail erosion issues and upstream urban 

development) or to provide a context for similar-sized 

streams in the park (see suitability reports for each park 

[cited in this paragraph] for more information).

The objectives of SECN stream habitat monitoring protocol 

are to: 

• Determine status of upstream watershed characteristics, 

including basin area, basin slope, and drainage density, 

and trends in land cover that may affect stream habitat, 

• Determine the status of and trends in the geomorphic 

dimensions of selected wadeable stream reaches, 

including cross-sectional morphology, bank 

characteristics (e.g., heights, angles, and vegetative 

cover), and reach slope and sinuosity, and 

• Determine the status of and trends in physical measures 

of benthic and riparian habitat features present in 

selected wadeable stream reaches, including the size, 

type, and distribution of bed sediment and large woody 

debris, the distribution of geomorphic channel units, 

and canopy cover. 

For the purposes of this report, wadeable streams are 

narrowly defined as small- to medium-sized, perennially 

flowing waterbodies, with easily identifiable channel banks, 

that can be accessed and traversed without the use of a 

watercraft. The wadeable streams referred to herein do not 

include non-perennial channel-like features (e.g., gullies) 

typical of highly disturbed landscapes like the Appalachian 

Piedmont.

The objectives of this report are to:

• Present the wadeable stream surveys completed at 

Kennesaw Mountain NBP during late spring 2019, 

• Provide a comparison of the 2019 results to the 2017 

baseline surveys, 

• Describe the processes that are responsible for the 

differences between the two surveyed stream reaches 

(KEMO001 and KEMO002), and 

• Explain why these streams are changing and their 

potential trajectories of change. 

3

Study Area

The hydro-climatic conditions of the study area are 

characterized as humid subtropical with average annual 

rainfall around 50 inches (127 centimeters [cm]) per year 

(Wright et al. 2011). Snowfall is negligible and winters 

are mild; summers are hot and humid. Average monthly 

temperature ranges from approximately 27°F (-3°C) in 

December to 92°F (33°C) in August (Wright et al. 2011). 

Monthly rainfall totals are distributed rather evenly from 

October through May due to the influence of frontal systems 

that sweep through the region (Lecce 2000). Convective 

thunderstorms influence the region from late spring through 

early fall. While monthly precipitation tends to be high in 

the summer, the high levels of evapotranspiration attenuate 

streamflow during this part of the year (Lins 1997). 

The natural condition of rivers draining the southeastern 

U.S. are generally characterized by meandering channels with 

densely vegetated banks (Leigh 2008). Contemporary river 

systems in the southeastern U.S. are in variously altered states 

that reflect multiple legacies of anthropogenic disturbance 

(James 2018). Beginning in the late 1800s, deforestation, 

increased row crop agriculture, and a general lack of soil 

conservation measures caused widespread erosion of 

topsoil from steeply sloped upland areas in the Appalachian 

Piedmont (Trimble 1969). Sediment was transported to 

streams and floodplains, burying productive shoal and riffle 

habitats. Streams in the region were transformed, from the 

hard-bottomed, clear-flowing streams described by early 

land surveyors, into conduits of turbid water and sand. As 

row-crop agriculture became less dominant and forest cover 

increased, sediment delivery to streams was reduced and 

streambeds began to degrade (Schumm et al. 1984). Today, 

streambed elevations in many of the region’s small streams 

have returned to historic or near historic levels though their 

geomorphic characteristics (width, depth, entrenchment) are 

quite different from early settlement conditions (Schoonover 

et al 2007; Mukudan et al 2011). 

In addition to the legacy effects of agriculture, many 

Appalachian Piedmont streams (including those draining to 

and through Kennesaw Mountain NBP) have been further 

subjected to hydrologic alterations caused by urban and or 

suburban development. Increases in impervious surface area 

associated with development creates conditions that increase 

the frequency and magnitude of peak discharges (Paul and 

Meyer 2001). Impervious surface area is also associated 

with lower-than-normal base flow during dry periods due 

to impaired groundwater recharge (Rose and Peters 2001). 

These flow alterations greatly influence available in- and 

near-stream habitats and can have a large impact on the 

biota found within a stream (Wenger et al. 2008).

As each stream recovers from its unique history of land use 

and equilibrates to its current flow and sediment regime, 

it will pass through a series of semi-predictable stages of 

evolution (James 2018). These stages include aggradation 

(receiving sediment more sediment than flow regime can 

transport), degradation and narrowing (from a reduction in 

sediment and or increased runoff), further degradation and 

widening from unstable banks, and finally stabilization and 

more natural reworking of in-channel alluvium (Figure 1). 

The exact stage that a particular stream occupies, at a given 

moment in time, is dependent on the location of the stream 

within its network and the unique history and current land 

use and land cover conditions of the stream’s watershed. 

In general, streams in the Appalachian Piedmont are at the 

third stage of channel development (further degradation and 

widening) and their banks are quite unstable and subject to 

undercutting and slumping (Ruhlman and Nutter 1999). 

3
4

Figure 1. Generalized channel evolution model (modified from Schumm et al. 1984). 
5

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (KEMO) 

consists of approximately 3,000 acres (1,214 hectares 

[ha]) of mixed hardwood pine forest and open fields. The 

park is located within the Atlanta metropolitan area in the 

Allatoona Mountain range (Figure 2). Kennesaw Mountain 

is located in the northern portion of the park and receives 

approximately 2.6 million visitors per year. Water resources 

include some small bog wetlands and mountain seeps (less 

than 10% of the area) and two perennial streams. These 

relatively small Strahler third-order streams (Strahler 1957), 

Noses Creek and John Ward Creek, originate outside the 

park boundaries and drain mostly urban and suburban areas 

prior to flowing through the park. Due to intense urban and 

suburban development outside the park, the hydrology of 

these streams has been substantially altered, and they exhibit 

flashy flows typical of streams in an urban setting (Gregory 

and Calhoun 2007; Gregory et al. 2012; Starkey 2015). The 

heavy visitor loads and popularity of horseback riding on 

trails throughout this park have created areas where stream 

bank erosion is a potential management concern (Stan Bond, 

former Park Superintendent, verbal communication).

Figure 2. Map showing Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park and its wadeable stream sites (KEMO001 and 

KEMO002). The watersheds draining to each study reach are shown to provide a context for the data presented in this 

report. The land use and land cover (NLCD 2016, Homer et al. 2020) and perennial streams (derived from a 10-meter 

[32.8-foot {ft}] digital elevation model; data available from the U.S. Geological Survey) in the vicinity of the park are 

also shown.
6

Previous Survey

On May 17, 2017, data were collected at Kennesaw 

Mountain National Battlefield Park to characterize the 

in-channel and near-stream habitat on Noses Creek 

(KEMO001) and John Ward Creek (KEMO002; Figure 

2). These data, along with analysis of remotely-sensed 

geographic information system (GIS) data, are presented in a 

baseline report that describes and compares the watershed-, 

reach-, and transect-scale characteristics of these two stream 

reaches and compares them to two similar-sized streams at 

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (Haw Creek 

[CHAT001] and Long Island Creek [CHAT013]; McDonald et 

al. 2019). 

The analysis of the GIS data found that Noses Creek’s 

watershed (KEMO001) is steep and forested and Ward 

Creek’s watershed (KEMO002) has low slope and relief and 

is covered mostly by urban and or suburban development. 

Based on the pebble counts, the type and distribution of 

GCUs within each reach, and the presence or absence of 

LWD, in-stream habitat in the surveyed stream reaches 

were classified as ‘poor to fair’ at KEMO001 and ‘poor’ 

at KEMO002. Note, these classifications are generalized 

interpretations of in-stream habitat and additional work is 

needed to determine how flow (e.g., flashiness of flow and 

baseflow conditions), water quality, and in-stream physical 

characteristics affect biodiversity and stream health at 

Kennesaw Mountain NBP. 

Both streams are recovering from a legacy of poor land 

use practices, and their flow and sedimentation regimes 

are influenced by differing amounts of impervious surface 

cover and urban and or suburban development within 

their respective watersheds. In addition to urban and or 

suburban development, Ward Creek is also influenced by a 

history of upstream disturbance caused by a highly active 

beaver population and the installation of a sewer line within 

the past decade. These disturbances have created a multichannel system upstream with a highly mobile bed and 

unstable banks. 

The surveyed reaches were interpreted as beginning 

to develop a meandering planform inset within the 

entrenched channel-full surface. Additionally, Noses Creek 

is experiencing possible headward migration of a small 

knickpoint (large increase in slope) that may cause further 

bed degradation in the middle and upstream portions of 

the survey reach. The rate at which this knickpoint migrates 

upstream is dependent on the sediment composition of the 

boundary layer (bed sediment), the amount of LWD available 

to increase bed and bank resistance, and the flow regime that 

shapes the stream. As a result of changes in bed elevation 

(from bed degradation or through the process of complex 

response), bank undercutting and slumping is a common 

process occurring in the park. Neither of these streams had 

immediate management concerns. The biggest concern for 

visitors is high banks that need to be navigated to access the 

streams.
7

Methods

The habitat characteristics and geomorphic parameters 

selected for monitoring are based on those collected by 

other federal organizations (USFS, Harrelson et al. 1994; 

USGS, Fitzpatrick et al. 1998; EPA, Hughes 2000). The 

physical structure of in- and near-stream habitat has a 

strong influence on the biological communities and overall 

ecological integrity of lotic ecosystems (Newson and Newson 

2000). Monitoring stream habitat not only provides an 

understanding of the physical suitability for aquatic species 

but also identifies stressors that could degrade other park 

resources and negatively affect visitor experiences. 

The data collected as part of the SECN wadeable stream 

monitoring protocol are divided into three scales of analysis 

(Figure 3): (1) basin-scale characteristics; (2) reach-scale 

measurements, along and between 11 standard transects 

per reach, and; (3) detailed cross-sectional measurements, 

at three of the 11 transects per reach. A table containing 

a list and definitions of each variable collected under the 

protocol can be found in Appendix A. While summarized in 

this document, a list of standard operating procedures and 

an overview of the methods used to collect and process the 

survey data are available in McDonald et al. (2018a). 

Figure 3. Spatial hierarchy of stream systems and scales of data collection (modified from Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). View 

in transect diagram is in the downstream direction.

Basin Characteristics

Understanding the physical characteristics of a drainage 

basin, as well as the land use and land cover upstream of a 

reach, is critical to understanding changes to and differences 

between streams. The parameters collected for this protocol 

describe how dissected the watershed is (drainage density; 

Knighton 1998); the magnitude and duration of floods 

(basin shape; Gregory and Walling 1973); the rainfall-runoff 

potential of a watershed (average watershed slope; Hewlett 

and Hibbert 1967); potential sediment yield (basin relief 

ratio; Strahler 1957); and the amount of energy available 

to move sediment through a stream network (entire stream 

gradient; Craig and Rankl 1978; Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). A 

description of these basin characteristics can be found in 

McDonald et al. (2018a).

Basin-scale measures are calculated after permanent sites 

have been determined. These measurements and analyses 

are conducted within a GIS using digital elevation models 

(DEMs) from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) and 

land cover data from the National Land Cover Database 

(NLCD). Procedures for the GIS basin analysis can be found 

in SECN SOP 1.2.15 Wadeable Stream Basin- and Segmentscale Data Summary—Version 1.0 (McDonald et al. 2018b).

Reach-Scale Measurements

The reach-scale characteristics of each monitored reach 

are measured at and between 11 equidistant transects 

(distance between transects is two times average wetted 

width; Figure 4). Reach length is 20 times average wetted 

width (as determined during the initial survey of the reach). 
8

Data collected at each of these transects include vegetative 

bank cover, presence of eroding banks, bed and bank 

material, channel widths (e.g., wetted, active, bankfull, 

and channel-full widths), water depth, and bank heights 

and angles. In addition to bankfull and channel-full bank 

heights, minimum bank height is also reported. Minimum 

bank height is the minimum bank height measured on each 

transect. A quantitative measure of bed sediment is obtained 

by conducting a Wolman pebble count on a representative 

riffle within the reach (Wolman 1954).

These data provide an understanding of the geomorphic 

and physical characteristics of the survey reach and are 

used to derive a bank stability score for the reach (Table 1). 

Many stream banks in the Appalachian Piedmont have bank 

stability scores of ‘at-risk’ or ‘unstable.’ This condition is 

Figure 4. Example layout of stream reach with benchmarks, tie-in points, and transects.
9

consistent with expectations, given that many comparable 

streams in the region are currently reestablishing functional 

floodplains within their highly entrenched channel systems.

To understand in-stream and near-channel habitats, 

measurements are also taken between each transect. These 

between transect measurements include: canopy cover, the 

amount and type of geomorphic channel units (GCUs) or 

in-stream habitat (e.g., high-energy riffles vs. low-energy 

pools), an inventory of large woody debris (LWD; defined as 

greater than 1 meter [3.28 ft] in length and greater than 10 

centimeters [3.9 in] in diameter, as defined in McDonald et 

al. 2018a) within the reach, and a description of in-channel 

features (e.g., sand or cobble bars). Using these measures 

of in-stream habitat, each stream’s habitat is classified as 

‘poor,’ ‘poor-to-fair,’ fair,’ ‘fair-to-good,’ or ‘good.’ These 

classifications are a generalized interpretation of in-stream 

habitat and additional work is needed to determine how 

flow (e.g., flashiness of flow and baseflow conditions), 

water quality, and in-stream physical characteristics affect 

biodiversity and stream health on each reach. In addition 

to classifying each stream’s habitat, processes or events are 

identified that may influence future classification and lead to 

habitat improvement or degradation.

Table 1. Bank Stability Index (BSi) from Fitzpatrick et al. (1998). A BSi score is determined by adding up the bank angle, 

vegetative cover, bank height, and bank sediment scores for each bank (separate score for left and right banks at each 

transect)a.

Bank Stability Factor Classification Score

Angle (°) 0–30 1

31–60 2

> 60 3

Vegetative cover (%) > 80 1

50–80 2

20–49 3

< 20 4

Bank Height (meters) < 1 1

1–2 2

2–3 3

3–4 4

> 4 5

Type of Bank Sediment Bedrock, artificial 1

Boulder, cobble 3

Clay 4

Silt 5

Sand 8

Gravel/Sand 10

a Park and site water-quality index ratings are adapted from ratings established by the EPA (2012).
10

Detailed Transect Cross-Sections

Three of the 11 standard transects (optimally T1, T6, and 

T11) are surveyed using a survey grade (sub-centimeter 

accuracy) total station. These surveys allow lateral variability 

along each transect to be quantified and in- and out-ofchannel changes to be monitored through time (Figure 5). 

Additionally, repeated surveying of channel cross-sections 

allows changes in streambed elevation and bank profiles 

to be quantitatively assessed in relation to a known point 

(benchmark). These data are used to calculate bankfull 

and channel-full areas. They are also employed, along with 

the bank stability index values, to assess the condition and 

stability of the reach. 

Statistical Analysis

The statistical significance of the difference of means 

between surveys (2017 and 2019) and between the stream 

reaches (KEMO001 and KEMO002) for nine variables was 

tested using two-sample t-tests. 

1. pebble count data (millimeters [mm]); 

2. thalweg depth (meters [m]);

3. thalweg position (% distance from left bank);

4. wetted width (m);

5. active channel width (m);

6. channel-full width (m);

7. channel-full height (m);

8. bank angle (°); and

9. vegetative cover of the banks (%). 

Bankfull width and height are not included in the statistical 

analysis because bankfull was not measured on each transect 

(due to lack of floodplain) and the number of bankfull 

measurements at each reach and between surveys was not 

always equal.

Figure 5. Hypothetical detailed transect cross-sectional survey showing the diagnostic geomorphic surfaces that should 

be surveyed and the descriptive characteristics that will be derived from the data. Bankfull area includes light blue 

(baseflow) and orange portions of the cross-section. Channel-full area includes baseflow, bankfull, and channel-full 

(red) areas.
11

Results

On May 1, 2019, two streams (Noses Creek [KEMO001] and 

John Ward Creek [KEMO002]) were surveyed following the 

methods outlined in SECN SOP 1.2.16 Wadeable Stream 

Reach-Scale Field Data Collection—Version 1.0 (McDonald 

et al. 2018c) and SECN SOP 1.2.18 Using a Total Station to 

Conduct a Stream Survey—Version 1.0 (McDonald et al. 

2018d). Both surveyed reaches are on a third-order segment 

within their respective stream networks. Field surveys, 

in-office analyses, and statistical comparisons between 

monitoring years (2017 and 2019) between the monitored 

reaches are presented in the following sections. Results 

and data summary tables for each reach are provided in 

Appendices B (KEMO001) and C (KEMO002). 

Weather Conditions

Wadeable stream surveys are done as close to baseflow conditions as possible given the time frame available to do the 

stream surveys each year (McDonald et al. 2018a). Slightly 

more rain fell in the months prior to the 2019 survey compared to 2017 (Table 2), though a small storm did affect the 

area around Kennesaw Mountain NBP the week before the 

2017 survey. Another difference between the survey periods 

was that there were a few more large events (greater than 1 

inch [2.5 cm]) in the months leading up to the 2019 survey.

Basin Characteristics

The section provides a brief summary of the basin 

characteristics of the study watersheds. For a more in-depth 

look at the basin characteristics and how they compare to 

the third-order watersheds at Chattahoochee River NRA, 

see McDonald and Starkey (2019a). The watersheds drain 

8.30 square kilometers (3.2 square miles [mi2

]; KEMO001) 

and 12.66 square kilometers (4.89 mi2

; KEMO002; Table 

3). Kennesaw Mountain NBP manages 34% of KEMO001’s 

watershed and 8% of KEMO002’s watershed. The main 

geomorphic difference between the two watersheds is their 

relief and slope. KEMO001’s watershed, which drains the 

southeastern side of Kennesaw Mountain, has more relief 

and higher slope than KEMO002’s watershed. KEMO002 

has a high drainage density but a low segment slope. The 

land use and land cover for the watersheds draining to the 

two sites is also quite different. While both watersheds have 

similar amounts of medium- and high-intensity development, 

KEMO002 has much more suburban land cover (Open 

and low-intensity development) than KEMO001 (Table 

4). KEMO001 has more forest cover than KEMO002. The 

higher percent forest cover for KEMO001 is attributable to 

the higher percent of the watershed managed by the NPS, 

which includes forested hillslopes along the southeastern 

side of Kennesaw Mountain (Figure 2). The other main 

distinguishing characteristic between the two KEMO 

watersheds is that on-site observations indicate Ward Creek 

is heavily influenced by beavers just upstream of the park.

Table 2. Amount of precipitation and number of precipitation events greater than 1 inch (2.5 cm) in the week and month(s) 

prior to the 2017 and 2019 wadeable stream surveys at Kennesaw Mountain NBP. Data from weather co-op station 

Marietta 3.3 NNE [in—inches].

Time Frame Length of Period Total Precipitation (Inches) Number of Events Greater than 1 Inch

5/10/2017–5/17/2017 One Week 0.45 0

4/17/2017–5/17/2017 One Month 3.91 2

2/17/2017–5/17/2017 Three Months 13.44 3

4/24/2019–5/1/2019 One week 0.01 0

4/1/2019–5/1/2019 One Month 5.28 2

2/1/2019–5/1/2019 Three Months 14.30 5
12

Table 3. Watershed characteristics for KEMO001 and KEMO002 are calculated using the National Elevation Dataset (NED) 

10-meter (32.8-ft) digital elevation model. Please refer to McDonald et al. (2018a) for definitions of the variables [km—

kilometers; m—meters].

Basin Charactieristic KEMO001 KEMO002

Drainage Area (km2

) 8.30 12.66

NPS Managed Area (km2

) 2.80 1.00

NPS Managed Area (%) 34% 8%

Total Stream Length (km) 12.68 20.82

Drainage Density 1.53 1.94

Strahler Order 3 3

Bifurcation Ratio 1.60 1.77

Entire Stream Gradienta 0.011 0.008

Segment Gradientb 0.005 0.001

Slope—Average 6.69 4.50

Slope—Standard deviation 5.75 3.06

Slope—Coefficient of variation (CV) 0.86 0.68

Basin Length (km) 6.35 7.14

Basin Shapec 0.21 0.25

Basin Relief (m) 261 88

Basin Relief Ratio 0.041 0.012

Elevation —Standard deviation (m) 33 15

a

 Entire stream gradient calculated by dividing the difference between the elevations at 10% and 85% stream length by the length of stream 

between.

b

 Segment gradient is calculated by dividing the difference in elevations at the top of the stream segment and the bottom of the stream segment by 

the stream length between.

c

 Basin Shape is calculated by dividing drainage area by squared basin length.

Table 4. Land use and land cover characteristics in 2011 and 2016 for KEMO001 and KEMO002. The data included in this 

table are from the National Land Cover Dataset (Homer et al. 2015; Homer et al. 2020).

Variable KEMO001 in 2011 KEMO001 in 2016 KEMO002 in 2011 KEMO002 in 2016

Developed Open & Low (%) 34 33 60 58

Developed Med. & High (%) 12 12 9 10

Forested (%) 50 53 29 29

Grassland (%) 3 1 1 1

Wetland (%) 0 0 0 0
13

Figure 6. Reach-scale map of KEMO001. Important geomorphic surfaces and in-channel features are labeled to provide 

a context for the standard and detailed transect information provided in this report. The canopy cover circles are varying 

shades of grey which indicate the amount of canopy cover at each transect (high and low coverages are labeled). Only 

the dominant GCUs are labeled on the map. Differences in planform are due to artistic differences and not actual 

changes (unless noted in the text).

KEMO001—Noses Creek

Reach Description

KEMO001 is located on Noses Creek approximately 450 

meters (1,476 ft) downstream of the pedestrian bridge on 

Noses Creek Trail (Figure B-1). A social trail passes within 2 

meters (6.6 ft) of KEMO001’s most upstream transect (T11), 

and an ephemeral drainage enters Noses Creek on river 

left just downstream from the most downstream transect 

(T1). A very large LWD dam has developed (since 2017) just 

upstream of the reach. This LWD dam had a large impact on 

the area immediately downstream (just upstream of T11), 

causing a deep (greater than 1.5 meters [4.9 ft]) pool to 

form (through excavation of the bed). A groundwater seep 

enters the channel on river left between T8 and T9 (Figure 

6). KEMO001’s channel continues to be fairly entrenched. A 

few areas interpreted as floodplain in 2017 have developed in 

the reach (e.g., on river left between T2 and T4 and on river 

right between T4 and T6; Figure 6). In 2019, these bankfull 

‘floodplain’ surfaces were reclassified as ‘elevated entrenched 

surfaces’ because of their apparent instability (e.g., reduction 

in heights and areas). These elevated entrenched surfaces 

are likely slump-cored surfaces due to their morphology 

(arcuate shape cut into banks) and their locations within 

the reach (found on both the inside and outside of meander 

bends). The surveyed reach was 80 meters (262 ft) long, with 

8 meters (26.2 ft) between transects. The following sections 

describe the differences in the 2017 and 2019 reach-scale 

habitat characteristics and channel morphology along 

KEMO001, as well as the changes observed on the detailed 

transects. Transect-scale survey results for KEMO001 can be 

found in Appendix B.
14

Habitat Characteristics

The frequency and distribution of geomorphic channel units 

(GCUs) observed at KEMO001 during the 2017 and 2019 

surveys were quite different (Table 5). During 2017, the GCUs 

covering Noses Creek were a mixture of riffle (49%) and pool 

(33%) with some run (13%) and glide (5%) habitats mixed 

in. During 2019, the majority of the habitat was run (69%) 

followed by riffle (23%), glide (7%), and then pool (2%). The 

results of the pebble counts from the 2017 and 2019 surveys 

were similar (Table 6). Though the minimum pebble size was 

coarser in 2019 (3 millimeters [0.1 in] versus less than 0.06 

millimeters [.002 in]), the difference in the means (17.77 

millimeters [0.70 in; 2017] and 20.57 millimeters [0.81 in; 

2019]) was not statistically significant (Table 7). Six pieces 

of LWD were observed within KEMO001’s channel during 

the 2019 survey (Table 8). This decrease in the number of 

pieces of LWD led to a reduction of total volume of LWD per 

channel area (from 0.0005 m3

/m2 to 0.0002 m3/m2). Canopy 

cover in 2019 (83%) was slightly lower than 2017 (87%; Table 

9). Mean thalweg depth (0.22 meters and 0.25 meters [0.72 

ft and 0.82 ft]) and mean thalweg position (41% and 44%) 

were very similar from 2017 to 2019 (Table 10) and these 

slight differences were not statistically significant (Table 7). 

In 2019, thalweg depths were slightly less variable (CV = 0.42 

versus 0.52 in 2017) and thalweg position was slightly more 

variable (CV = 0.81 versus 0.68 in 2017).

Table 5. Geomorphic channel units (GCUs) observed in the area between transects during the 2017 and 2019 surveys at 

KEMO001 and KEMO002. 

GCU Type Site Year Frequency Maximum (%) Mean (%) Standard Deviation (%)

Rifle KEMO001 2017 8 90 49 33

KEMO001 2019 7 75 23 26

KEMO002 2017 2 25 5 11

KEMO002 2019 4 20 4 7

Run KEMO001 2017 6 40 13 14

KEMO001 2019 10 100 69 32

KEMO002 2017 5 80 26 33

KEMO002 2019 10 100 63 32

Glide KEMO001 2017 1 50 5 16

KEMO001 2019 1 70 7 22

KEMO002 2017 1 20 2 6

KEMO002 2019 0 0 0 0

Pool KEMO001 2017 9 80 33 27

KEMO001 2019 2 10 2 4

KEMO002 2017 10 100 65 32

KEMO002 2019 7 80 31 31

Step KEMO001 2017 0 0 0 0

KEMO001 2019 0 0 0 0

KEMO002 2017 1 25 3 8

KEMO002 2019 1 20 2 6
15

Table 7. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2017 and 2019 surveys of KEMO001. The significance of the 

differences is indicated by: “–” not significant; “*” p-value <0.05, “**” p-value <0.01, and “***” p-value <0.001 [mm—

millimeters; m—meters]. 

Statistic KEMO001 (n=100) in 2017 KEMO001 (n=100) in 2019 KEMO002 (n=100) in 2017 KEMO002 (n=100) in 2019

Min < 0.06 3.00 < 0.06 < 0.06

D5 3.00 5.00 1.00 < 0.06

D16 7.00 8.16 1.00 2.00

D50 16.00 20.00 12.00 7.00

Mean 17.77 20.57 12.56 9.28

D84 27.00 32.00 20.84 17.00

D95 37.90 41.00 29.95 22.00

Max 50.00 49.00 57.00 34.00

Measurement na KEMO001 in 2017 KEMO001 in 2019 P-value Significance

Pebble Count (mm) 100 17.76 20.57 0.068 –

Thalweg Depth (m) 11 0.22 0.25 0.509 –

Thalweg Position (%) 11 41 44 0.818 –

Wetted Width (m) 11 3.04 4.59 0.013 *

Active Channel Width (m) 11 5.61 5.08 0.307 –

Channel-full Width (m) 11 8.51 9.79 0.005 **

Minimum Bank Height (m) 22 1.31 1.36 0.447 –

Channel-full Height (m) 22 1.44 1.53 0.035 *

Bank Angle (°) 22 40.14 46.37 0.311 –

Vegetative Cover (%) 22 40.45 44.32 0.628 –

Table 6. Particle size distributions of bed sediment (in millimeters [mm]) from the pebble counts conducted in 2017 and 

in 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002. The subscripts indicate the percent of the sample that is smaller than the reported 

diameter [Min—Minimum; Max—Maximum; n—Number of measurements taken].

a Number of measurements taken
16

Table 8. Summary statistics for the large woody debris measured in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002 [m—meters].

Statistic Site Year na Length (m) Diameter (m) Volume (m3)

Minimum KEMO001 2017 11 0.56 0.10 0.01

KEMO001 2019 6 1.00 0.10 0.01

KEMO002 2017 25 0.94 0.10 0.01

KEMO002 2019 38 1.02 0.10 0.02

Mean KEMO001 2017 11 2.91 0.12 0.03

KEMO001 2019 6 2.14 0.13 0.03

KEMO002 2017 25 3.89 0.19 0.13

KEMO002 2019 38 3.73 0.18 0.14

Maximum KEMO001 2017 11 10.00 0.16 0.10

KEMO001 2019 6 6.28 0.19 0.08

KEMO002 2017 25 9.59 0.47 0.48

KEMO002 2019 38 13.27 0.41 1.23

Standard Deviation KEMO001 2017 11 3.02 0.02 0.03

KEMO001 2019 6 2.06 0.03 0.03

KEMO002 2017 25 2.66 0.10 0.13

KEMO002 2019 38 3.14 0.08 0.25

Sum KEMO001 2017 11 – – 0.34

KEMO001 2019 6 – – 0.19

KEMO002 2017 25 – – 3.31

KEMO002 2019 38 – – 5.31

Per Channel Area (m3

/m2) KEMO001 2017 – – – 0.0005

KEMO001 2019 – – – 0.0002

KEMO002 2017 – – – 0.0054

KEMO002 2019 – – – 0.0060

Table 9. Descriptive statistics for reach-scale canopy cover in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002.

a Number of measurements taken

Site Year na Minimum (%) Mean (%) Maximum (%) Standard Deviation (%) Coefficient of Variance (%)

KEMO001 2017 11 81 87 96 5 0.05

KEMO001 2019 11 72 83 100 8 0.10

KEMO002 2017 11 76 89 96 6 0.07

KEMO002 2019 11 62 84 99 14 0.16

a Number of measurements taken
17

Table 10. Reach-scale averaged thalweg conditions in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002 [m—meters].

Thalweg Site Year na Minimum Mean Maximum Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance

Depth (m) KEMO001 2017 11 0.09 0.22 0.44 0.12 0.52

KEMO001 2019 11 0.12 0.25 0.44 0.11 0.42

KEMO002 2017 11 0.09 0.32 0.49 0.13 0.42

KEMO002 2019 11 0.17 0.40 0.68 0.14 0.35

Positionb

 (%) KEMO001 2017 11 10 41 90 28 0.68

KEMO001 2019 11 5 44 95 36 0.81

KEMO002 2017 11 5 43 90 36 0.84

KEMO002 2019 11 10 61 90 33 0.54

a

 Number of measurements taken for depth and position 

b Percent distance from left active channel bank

Channel Morphology

Wetted widths were wider on average during the 2019 survey. 

Mean wetted width increased to 4.59 meters (15.06 ft) from 

3.04 meters (9.97 ft) in 2017 (Table 11). This difference in 

mean wetted width between survey years was statistically 

significant (Table 7). Additionally, the maximum (7.86 meters 

[25.79 ft]) and minimum (2.27 meters [7.45 ft]) wetted 

widths in 2019 were also wider than in 2017 (4.44 meters 

and 1.71 meters [14.57 ft and 5.61 ft], respectively). Mean 

active channel widths, on the other hand, were narrower 

in 2019 (5.08 meters [16.67 ft]) than in 2017 (5.61 meters 

[18.41 ft]; Table 11), but this difference was not significant 

(Table 7). A relatively large difference between survey years 

was that variability in active channel width was more than 

two times more variable in 2019 (CV = 0.29) than in 2017 

(CV = 0.13; Table 11). The same number of bankfull widths 

were measured in 2019 as 2017 (n = 5; Table 11). Bankfull 

widths were slightly wider in 2019 (6.90 meters [22.64 ft] 

versus 6.37 meters [20.90 ft]). Differences in mean bankfull 

width were not statistically tested because of the relatively 

small number of bankfull widths available to measure. 

Channel-full widths were on average wider in 2019 (9.79 

meters [32.12 ft]) compared to 2017 (8.51 meters [27.92 ft]; 

Table 11), and this difference was statistically significant 

(Table 7). 

Mean minimum bank height (lowest bank height on a 

transect) in 2019 (1.36 meters [4.46 ft]) was similar to the 

mean in 2017 (1.31 meters [4.30 ft]; Table 12). Bankfull 

heights were slightly higher in 2019 (0.88 meters [2.89 ft]) 

and less variable (CV = 0.17) than in 2017 (0.73 meters [2.40 

ft]; CV = 0.26). Additionally, the minimum bankfull height in 

2019 (0.73 meters [2.40 ft]) was approximately 0.20 meters 

[0.66 ft] higher than in 2017 (0.51 meters [1.67]). Channelfull heights were also higher in 2019 (1.53 meters [5.02 ft] 

compared to 1.44 meters [4.72 ft]; Table 12). The difference 

in mean channel-full height between the survey years was 

statistically significant (P-value = 0.005; Table 7). Similar to 

2017, variability in channel-full heights was low (CV = 0.10 

[2017] and 0.08 [2019]; Table 12). The banks have become 

more undercut from 2017 to 2019 (n = 1 to n = 4; Table 

12). The mean depth of undercut during 2017 (0.14 meters 

[0.46 ft]) was slightly less than the minimum undercut depth 

measured in 2019 (0.15 meters [0.49 ft]). Bank angles were 

on average slightly steeper during 2019 (46°) compared to 

2017 (40°; Table 12). The slight difference in mean bank 

angle between survey years was not statistically significant 

(Table 7). Bank vegetation cover was similar in 2019 (44%) 

compared to 2017 (40%; Table 12), and the difference was 

not statistically significant (Table 7). Bank stability scores 

were lower (more stable) in 2019 compared to 2017 (Table 

12). 
18

Table 11. Reach-scale width characteristics in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002.

Widths Site Year na Minimum Mean Maximum Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance

Wetted KEMO001 2017 11 1.71 3.04 4.44 0.96 0.31

KEMO001 2019 11 2.27 4.59 7.86 1.58 0.34

KEMO002 2017 11 2.48 4.37 6.11 1.20 0.27

KEMO002 2019 11 2.11 5.13 7.10 1.69 0.33

Active Channel KEMO001 2017 11 4.65 5.61 7.16 0.70 0.13

KEMO001 2019 11 2.78 5.08 7.75 1.48 0.29

KEMO002 2017 11 3.33 5.40 7.36 1.52 0.28

KEMO002 2019 11 3.28 5.55 7.18 1.36 0.24

Bankfull KEMO001 2017 5 4.80 6.37 7.70 1.06 0.17

KEMO001 2019 5 5.48 6.90 8.30 1.14 0.16

KEMO002 2017 7 4.86 6.00 7.49 0.97 0.16

KEMO002 2019 6 7.94 8.71 10.60 1.06 0.12

Channel-Full KEMO001 2017 11 7.55 8.51 9.65 0.76 0.09

KEMO001 2019 11 8.39 9.79 12.20 1.08 0.11

KEMO002 2017 11 7.36 8.75 9.55 0.81 0.09

KEMO002 2019 11 8.36 12.54 15.94 2.67 0.21

a Number of measurements taken
19

Bank Characteristics Site Year na Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variance

Minimum Bank 

Heightb,c (m)

KEMO001 2017 22 0.51 1.31 1.74 0.32 0.24

KEMO001 2019 22 0.73 1.36 1.75 0.33 0.24

KEMO002 2017 22 0.34 1.49 2.20 0.54 0.36

KEMO002 2019 22 1.11 1.86 2.30 0.36 0.19

Bankfull Heightb,d (m) KEMO001 2017 5 0.51 0.73 1.01 0.19 0.26

KEMO001 2019 6 0.73 0.88 1.06 0.15 0.17

KEMO002 2017 7 0.34 0.75 1.02 0.23 0.31

KEMO002 2019 6 1.11 1.36 1.63 0.23 0.17

Channel-full Heightb

(m)

KEMO001 2017 22 1.18 1.44 1.74 0.14 0.10

KEMO001 2019 22 1.37 1.53 1.75 0.12 0.08

KEMO002 2017 22 0.96 1.72 2.20 0.36 0.21

KEMO002 2019 22 1.81 2.06 2.35 0.15 0.07

Bank Undercutd

 (m) KEMO001 2017 1 – 0.14 – – –

KEMO001 2019 4 0.15 0.45 0.80 0.31 0.69

KEMO002 2017 2 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.10 0.22

KEMO002 2019 4 0.12 0.27 0.40 0.12 0.43

Bank Angle (°) KEMO001 2017 22 3 40 72 20 0.50

KEMO001 2019 22 11 46 83 20 0.43

KEMO002 2017 22 9 56 90 27 0.48

KEMO002 2019 22 3 47 91 24 0.50

Vegetation Cover (%) KEMO001 2017 22 0 40 85 28 0.69

KEMO001 2019 22 10 44 90 24 0.55

KEMO002 2017 22 0 18 50 18 0.99

KEMO002 2019 22 10 38 70 21 0.57

Bank Stabilitye KEMO001 2017 22 11.50 13.50 16.00 1.28 0.09

KEMO001 2019 22 9.50 12.02 14.50 1.22 0.10

KEMO002 2017 22 11.50 14.43 15.75 1.30 0.09

KEMO002 2019 22 10.50 12.95 14.50 1.06 0.08

Table 12. Reach-scale averaged bank characteristics in 2017 and 2019 at KEMO001 and KEMO002 [m—meters].

a

 Number of measurements taken

b

 Above thalweg

c

 This height refers to the lowest bank height on either side (bankfull or channel-full) 

d

 Statistics are based on the transects where feature is present (# in parentheses)

e

 Bank stability score rankings: 4–7 stable; 8–10 at-risk; 11–15 unstable; and 16–22 very unstable
20

Detailed Transects

The detailed transects on KEMO001 were surveyed on 

T1 (BM1; Figure 7), T6 (BM2; Figure 8), and T11 (BM3; 

Figure 9). On the detailed transects, bankfull cross-sectional 

area was on average 0.44 square meters [4.74 square feet 

{ft2

}] larger in 2019 (3.74 square meters [40.26 ft2]) than in 

2017 (3.31 square meters [35.63 ft2

]; Table 13). On average, 

channel-full area was also larger (increase of 0.43 square 

meters [4.63 ft2

]) in 2019 (9.10 square meters [97.95 ft2]) 

compared to 2017 (8.67 square meters [93.32 ft2

]; Table 13). 

Water surface slope (longitudinal profile) for this section 

of Noses Creek was 0.0042 m/m in 2019 and 0.0015 m/m 

in 2017 (Figure 10; Table 13). In 2017, channel gradient 

was relatively consistent except for a large increase in 

slope between T1 and T2. During 2019, two relatively large 

increases in slope were identified (between T1 and T2 as 

well as between T9 and T10) relating to the well-developed 

riffles in these areas. The reach is straight and has very low 

sinuosity (1.03; Table 13).

Bankfull cross-sectional area on detailed transect 1 (T1) 

increased by 0.70 square meters [7.53 ft2

] (Table 14). 

Bankfull width increased by 1.00 meter [3.28 ft], and 

bankfull height decreased by 0.08 meters [0.26 ft]. The 2017 

interpreted point bar and floodplain sequence along river 

right on detailed transect 1 (T1) has eroded back towards 

the right bank. The flat elevated entrenched surface (2017 

floodplain) was much smaller during the 2019 survey (Figure 

7). Detailed transect 1 (T1) continues to erode into a clayey 

deposit along river left and an ephemeral channel is still 

affecting the creek just downstream of T1. Channel-full area 

on detailed transect 1 also increased (by 0.93 square meters 

[10.01 ft2

]) from 2017 (7.48 square meters [80.51 ft2]) to 2019 

(8.41 square meters [90.52 ft2

]; Table 14). There was a slight 

increase in channel-full width (0.32 meters [1.05 ft) and a 

slight decrease in channel-full height (-0.08 meters [-0.26 ft]) 

on detailed transect 1. 

Detailed transect 2 (T6) is entrenched and no elevated 

entrenched surfaces (bankfull) were present. In order for 

changes in the bed and bank to be quantified, bankfull 

cross-sectional area and width were estimated using the 

reach-scale average bankfull height from the 2017 survey 

(0.73 meters [2.40 ft]; Table 12). Bankfull cross-sectional area 

on detailed transect 2 (T6) increased by 0.36 square meters 

[3.88 ft2

], while bankfull width decreased by 0.15 meters 

(0.49 ft; Table 15). The sand and gravel bar that was observed 

on river right on detailed transect 2 (T6) was not observed 

during the 2019 survey (Figure 8). Though bankfull width 

decreased in 2019, the loss of the bar along river right led to 

a net increase in bankfull area between 2017 and 2019. There 

was a slight increase in channel-full area on detailed transect 

2 (0.20 square meters [2.15 ft2

]) from 2017 (8.38 square 

meters [90.20 ft2

]) to 2019 (8.58 square meters [92.35 ft2]; 

Table 15). Channel-full width increased by 0.49 meters (1.61 

ft), and there was a slight decrease in channel-full height 

(-0.01 meters [-0.03 ft]) on detailed transect 2.

Detailed transect 3 (T11) is entrenched and no elevated 

entrenched surfaces (bankfull) were present. Similar to 

detailed transect 2, in order for changes in the bed and 

bank to be quantified, bankfull cross-sectional area and 

width were estimated using the reach-scale average bankfull 

height from the 2017 survey (0.73 meters [2.40 ft]; Table 

12). Bankfull cross-sectional area on detailed transect 

3 (T11) increased by 0.24 square meters (2.58 ft2

) and 

bankfull width increased by 0.22 meters (0.72 ft; Table 16). 

Similar to detailed transect 2, the sand and gravel bar that 

was observed along river right on detailed transect 3 (T11) 

in 2017 was not observed during the 2019 survey (Figure 

9). Instead, a shallowly submerged incipient mid-channel 

bar was observed on detailed transect 3. There was a slight 

increase in channel-full area on detailed transect 3 (0.15 

square meters [1.61 ft2

]) from 2017 (10.15 square meters 

[109.25 ft2

]) to 2019 (10.30 square meters [110.87 ft2]; Table 

16). Channel-full width increased by 0.71 meters (2.33 ft) 

and channel-full height decreased by 0.02 meters (0.07 ft). 

The main difference in the cross-sections from 2017 to 2019 

is the restructuring of the bed and the migration of the 

thalweg from the middle of the channel to river left (Figure 

9). 
21

Site Year na Slope Sinuosity nb Bankfull Area 

(m2

)

Bankfull Width 

(m)

Bankfull Height 

(m)

Channel-full 

Area (m2)

Channel-full 

Width (m)

Channel-full 

Height (m)

KEMO001 2017 14 0.0015 1.02 3 3.31 6.34 0.74 8.67 8.76 1.45

2019 16 0.0042 1.03 3 3.74 6.70 0.71 9.10 9.27 1.41

Difference 2017–2019 – 0.0027 0.01 – 0.44 0.36 -0.03 0.43 0.51 -0.04

KEMO002 2017 11 0.0019 1.09 3 3.15 6.68 0.70 7.53 8.67 1.28

2019 12 0.0020 1.06 3 4.09 6.92 0.84 11.90 9.94 1.77

Difference 2017–2019 – 0.0001 -0.03 – 0.94 0.23 0.14 4.37 1.27 0.49

Table 13. Comparison of 2017 and 2019 reach scale and average detailed transect characteristics at KEMO001 and KEMO002 [m—meters].

a Number of slope measurements taken

b

 Number of bankfull and channel-full measurements taken
22

Figure 7. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO001. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).

Table 14. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 1 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 1.47 4.77 0.68

2019 2.17 5.77 0.60

Change 2017–2019 0.70 1.00 -0.08

Channel-Full 2017 7.48 7.91 1.54

2019 8.41 8.23 1.46

Change 2017–2019 0.93 0.32 -0.08
23

Figure 8. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 2 at KEMO001. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).

Table 15. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 2 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 3.79 6.59 0.77

2019 4.15 6.43 0.77

Change 2017–2019 0.36 -0.15 0.00

Channel-Full 2017 8.38 9.07 1.38

2019 8.58 9.56 1.37

Change 2017–2019 0.20 0.49 -0.01
24

Figure 9. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 3 at KEMO001. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).

Table 16. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 3 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 4.66 7.66 0.77

2019 4.90 7.88 0.77

Change 2017–2019 0.24 0.22 0.00

Channel-Full 2017 10.15 9.30 1.43

2019 10.30 10.00 1.41

Change 2017–2019 0.15 0.71 -0.02
25

Figure 10. Longitudinal profile for KEMO001. The red line on the graph corresponds to the interpreted slope of the 

reach (0.0042 m/m). The r2 value describes the strength of the 2019 trend line (interpreted slope). The ‘T#’ in parentheses indicates the standard transect number on which the detailed transects were surveyed.

KEMO002—Ward Creek

Reach Description

KEMO002 is located on John Ward Creek approximately 

300 meters (984 ft) downstream of the pedestrian bridge and 

horse trail crossing on Kolb Farm Trail (Figure C-1). A small 

ephemeral drainage enters KEMO002 between T10 and T11 

on river right (Figure 11). A sewer right-of-way runs parallel 

to the stream on river right and is approximately 20 meters 

(65.6 ft) from the surveyed reach. KEMO002’s channel 

is fairly entrenched, though three areas have developed 

elevated entrenched surfaces (on river left on T3, between 

T6 and T9, and between T10 and T11; Figure 11). A low 

terrace, initially observed in 2017, is still present within 

the reach between T6 and T9. The reach that was surveyed 

was 70 meters (229.7 ft) long, with 7 meters (23 ft) between 

transects. The following sections describe the differences in 

the 2017 and 2019 reach-scale habitat characteristics and 

channel morphology along KEMO002, as well as the changes 

that were observed along the detailed transects. Transectscale survey results for KEMO002 are in Appendix C.
26

Figure 11. Reach-scale map of KEMO002. Important geomorphic surfaces and in-channel features are labeled to provide a context for the standard and 

detailed transect information provided in this report. The canopy cover circles are varying shades of grey which indicate the amount of canopy cover 

at each transect (high and low coverages are labeled). Only the dominant GCUs are labeled on the map. Differences in planform are due to artistic 

differences and not due to actual changes (unless noted in the text).
27

Habitat Characteristics

The frequency and distribution of geomorphic channel 

units (GCUs) at KEMO002 changed substantially between 

2017 and 2019 (Table 5). During 2017, the GCUs covering 

Ward Creek were mostly pool habitat (65%) with some run 

(26%), riffle (5%), and step (3%) habitat mixed in. During 

2019, the majority of the habitat that was observed was run 

(63%) followed by pool (31%), riffle (4%), and then step (2%). 

Bed sediment in the representative riffle (near T9) was finer 

in 2019 compared to 2017 (Table 6), and the difference in 

the means (12.56 millimeters and 9.28 millimeters [0.49 in 

and 0.37 in]) was statistically significant (p-value = 0.016; 

Table 17). Thirteen more pieces of LWD (n = 38) were 

observed within KEMO002’s channel during 2019 (Table 

8). This increase in the number of pieces of LWD led to 

a concomitant increase in the total volume of LWD per 

channel area (from 0.0054 m3

/m2 to 0.0060 m3/m2). Mean 

canopy cover was slightly lower in 2019 (84%) compared to 

2017 (89%; Table 8). Mean thalweg depth (0.32 meters and 

0.40 meters [1.05 ft and 1.31 ft]) and mean thalweg position 

(43% and 68%) were slightly different from 2017 to 2019 

(Table 10), though these differences were not statistically 

significant (Table 17). Thalweg depth was less variable 

in 2019 (CV = 0.35 compared to 0.42 in 2017; Table 10). 

Thalweg position was also less variable in 2019 (CV = 0.54 

versus 0.84 in 2017). 

Table 17. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2017 and 2019 surveys of KEMO002. The significance of the 

differences is indicated by: “–” not significant; “*” p-value <0.05, “**” p-value <0.01, and “***” p-value <0.001 [mm—

millimeters; m—meters]. 

Measurement na KEMO002 in 2017 KEMO002 in 2019 P-value Significance

Pebble Count (mm) 100 12.39 9.28 0.016 *

Thalweg Depth (m) 11 0.32 0.40 0.156 –

Thalweg Position (%) 11 43 61 0.228 –

Wetted Width (m) 11 4.37 5.13 0.238 –

Active Channel Width (m) 11 5.40 5.55 0.817 –

Channel-full Width (m) 11 8.75 12.54 < 0.001 ***

Minimum Bank Height (m) 22 1.44 1.86 0.006 **

Channel-full Height (m) 22 1.72 2.06 < 0.001 ***

Bank Angle (°) 22 55.98 47.47 0.274 –

Vegetative Cover (%) 22 18.18 37.50 0.002 **

a Number of measurements taken

Channel Morphology

Wetted widths were on average wider during 2019 (5.13 

meters [16.83 ft]) compared to 2017 (4.37 meters [14.34 ft]; 

Table 11). This difference in mean wetted width between 

survey years was not statistically significant (Table 17). 

Active channel widths were similar in 2019 (5.55 meters 

[18.21 ft]) and 2017 (5.40 meters [17.72 ft]) at KEMO002 

(Table 11). Similar to wetted width, the difference in mean 

active channel width from 2017 to 2019 was not statistically 

significant (Table 17). One less bankfull width (n = 6) was 

measured in 2019 (Table 11). Bankfull widths were much 

wider (8.71 meters [28.58 ft] versus 6.00 meters [19.69 

ft]) in 2019. Differences in mean bankfull width were not 

statistically tested because of the relatively small number of 

bankfull widths available to measure. Channel-full widths 

were on average much wider during 2019 (12.54 meters 

[41.14 ft]) than in 2017 (8.75 meters [28.71 ft]; Table 11), and 

this difference in mean channel-full width between survey 

years was significant at a p-value of less than 0.001 (Table 

17). 

Mean minimum bank height (lowest bank height on a 

transect) in 2019 (1.86 meters [6.10 ft]) was higher and less 

variable (CV = 0.19) than the mean minimum bank height 

in 2017 (1.49 meters [4.89 ft] and CV = 0.36; Table 12). The 

difference in mean minimum bank heights was statistically 

significant (p-value = 0.006; Table 17). Bankfull heights in 

2019 (1.36 meters [4.46 ft]) were also higher and less variable 

(CV = 0.17) than in 2017 (0.75 meters [2.46 ft] and CV = 

0.31; Table 12). Additionally, the minimum bankfull height in 

2019 (1.11 meters [3.64 ft]) was approximately 0.77 meters 

(2.53 ft) higher than in 2017 (0.34 meters [1.12 ft]). Similar 

to the other bank heights, channel-full heights in 2019 (1.53 

meters [5.20 ft]) were higher and less variable (CV = 0.07) 
28

than in 2017 (1.72 meters [5.64 ft] and CV = 0.21; Table 12). 

The difference in mean channel-full height between the 

survey years was significant at a p-value of < 0.001 (Table 17). 

Two more undercuts were measured in 2019 (n = 4) than in 

2017 (Table 12). Though more undercuts were measured, 

the depths of the undercuts in 2019 were much smaller, and 

the minimum depth of undercut during 2017 (0.37 meters 

[1.21 ft]) was nearly as deep as the maximum undercut depth 

measured in 2019 (0.40 meters [1.31 ft]). Bank angles were 

on average less steep during 2019 (47°) compared to 2017 

(56°; Table 12). The slight difference in mean bank angle 

between survey years was not statistically significant (Table 

17). Bank vegetation cover was on average greater in 2019 

(38%) compared to 2017 (18%; Table 12), and this difference 

was statistically significant (p-value of 0.002; Table 17). Bank 

stability scores were lower (more stable) in 2019 compared 

to 2017 (Table 12). Though bank stability scores were lower 

in 2019, similar to 2017, all of the banks were classified as 

‘unstable.’ 

Detailed Transects

The detailed transects on KEMO002 were surveyed on T1 

(BM1; Figure 12), T6 (BM2; Figure 13), and T11 (BM3; 

Figure 14). On the detailed transects, bankfull crosssectional area was on average 0.94 square meters (10.12 

ft2

) larger in 2019 (4.09 square meters [44.02 ft2]) than in 

2017 (3.15 square meters [33.91 ft2

]; Table 13). On average, 

channel-full area on the detailed transects was also larger 

(increase of 4.37 square meters [47.04 ft2

]) in 2019 (11.90 

square meters [128.10 ft2

]) compared to 2017 (7.53 square 

meters [81.05 ft2

]; Table 13). Water surface slope for this 

section of Ward Creek was 0.0019 m/m in 2017 and 0.0020 

m/m in 2019 (Figure 15; Table 13). The longitudinal profile 

highlights the relatively flat downstream and middle portions 

of the stream and the influence of the step (increase in slope) 

between T9 and T10. The reach is fairly straight but is slightly 

more sinuous than KEMO001 (1.06 vs. 1.03; Table 13). 

Detailed transect 1 (T1) is entrenched and no elevated 

entrenched surfaces (bankfull) were present (Figure 12). 

In order for changes in the bed and bank to be quantified, 

bankfull cross-sectional area and width were estimated using 

the reach-average bankfull height from the 2017 survey (0.75 

meters [2.46 ft]; Table 12). Bankfull cross-sectional area on 

detailed transect 1 (T1) increased by 0.29 square meters 

(3.12 ft2

), while bankfull width increased by 0.72 meters 

(2.36 ft; Table 18). Channel-full area on detailed transect 

1 increased (by 4.00 square meters [43.06 ft2

]) from 2017 

(8.78 square meters [94.51 ft2

]) to 2019 (12.79 square meters 

[137.67 ft2

]). Both channel-full width (9.90 meters [32.48 ft]) 

and height (1.82 meters [5.97 ft]) increased from 2017 (8.17 

meters [26.80 ft] and 1.43 meters [4.69 ft]) to 2019. The main 

difference along detailed transect 1 from 2017 to 2019 is that 

the bed of the stream has incised along rivers left and right 

and a mid-channel bar has begun to form (Figure 12). 

Detailed transect 2 (T6) has changed substantially since the 

2017 survey (Figure 13). In 2017, no elevated entrenched 

surface (bankfull surface) was identified and bankfull crosssectional area was estimated using the reach-scale average 

bankfull height (McDonald and Starkey 2019a). The 2017 

channel-full surface on river left slumped down into the 

channel and is now an inset bankfull elevated entrenched 

surface (Figure 13). On river right, the channel-full surface 

has also slumped lower. Bankfull cross-sectional area on 

detailed transect 2 (T6) increased by 1.63 square meters 

(17.55 ft2

; Table 19). Bankfull width was 0.54 meters (1.77 

ft) narrower (8.08 meters [26.51 ft] and 7.53 meters [24.70 

ft]), while bankfull depth increased by 0.41 meters (1.35 ft; 

from 0.70 meters [2.30 ft] to 1.11 meters [3.64 ft]). The bed 

has incised, and a relatively deep pool has formed along the 

transect. Though bankfull width decreased in 2019, the large 

increase in bankfull height led to the large net increase in 

bankfull area between 2017 and 2019 (Figure 13). Channelfull area also increased substantially from 2017 (5.76 square 

meters [62.00 ft2

]) to 2019 (11.68 square meters [125.72 ft2]) 

on detailed transect 2 (Table 19). Increases in both channelfull width (from 8.96 meters [29.40 ft] to 10.50 meters [34.45 

ft]) and height (from 0.90 meters [2.95 ft] to 1.75 meters 

[5.74 ft]) contributed to this increase in channel-full area. 

Detailed transect 3 (T11) is entrenched and no elevated 

entrenched surfaces (bankfull) were present (Figure 14). 

Similar to detailed transect 1, in order for changes in the bed 

and bank to be quantified, bankfull cross-sectional area and 

width were estimated using the average bankfull height from 

the 2017 survey (0.75 meters [2.46 ft]; Table 12). Bankfull 

cross-sectional area on detailed transect 3 (T11) increased 

by 0.92 square meters (9.90 ft2

), and there was no change 

in bankfull width (Table 20). Channel-full area on detailed 

transect 3 increased (by 3.19 square meters [34.34 ft2

]) from 

2017 (8.05 square meters [86.65 ft2

]) to 2019 (11.24 square 

meters [120.99 ft2

]; Table 20). Channel-full width and height 

increased by 0.53 meters (1.74 ft) and 0.23 meters (0.75 ft), 

respectively. The main difference in the cross-sections from 

2017 to 2019 was the loss of a large portion of the sand and 

gravel bar running along river right (Figure 14).
29

Table 18. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 1 at KEMO002 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 3.58 6.32 0.70

2019 3.86 7.04 0.70

Change 2017–2019 0.29 0.72 0.00

Channel-Full 2017 8.78 8.17 1.43

2019 12.79 9.90 1.82

Change 2017–2019 4.00 1.73 0.39

Figure 12. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).
30

Figure 13. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).

Table 19. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 2 at KEMO002 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 4.06 8.08 0.70

2019 5.68 7.53 1.11

Change 2017–2019 1.63 -0.54 0.41

Channel-Full 2017 5.76 8.96 0.90

2019 11.68 10.50 1.75

Change 2017–2019 5.92 1.54 0.85
31

Figure 14. Differences between 2017 and 2019 surveys of detailed transect 3 at KEMO002. View is in the downstream 

direction (river left is on the left).

Table 20. Changes to cross-sectional characteristics on detailed transect 3 at KEMO002 [m—meters].

Type Year Area (m2) Width (m) Height (m)

Bankfull 2017 1.81 5.65 0.69

2019 2.72 5.65 0.69

Change 2017–2019 0.92 0.00 0.00

Channel-Full 2017 8.05 8.89 1.51

2019 11.24 9.42 1.74

Change 2017–2019 3.19 0.53 0.23
32

Figure 15. Longitudinal profile for KEMO002. The red line on the graph corresponds to the interpreted slope of the 

reach (0.0020 m/m). The r2 value describes the strength of the trend line. The ‘T#’ in parentheses indicates the standard 

transect number on which the detailed transects were surveyed.

Differences between Sites

The results of the t-tests comparing the bed sediment, 

thalweg, width, and bank characteristics at KEMO001 and 

KEMO002 are presented in Table 20. Mean bed sediment 

size continues to be finer at KEMO002 (9.28 millimeters 

[0.37 in]) compared to KEMO001 (20.57 millimeters [0.81 

in]; p-value < 0.001; Table 21). The development of pools at 

KEMO002 and a concomitant increase in thalweg depth has 

made the difference in mean thalweg depth between the sites 

statistically significant (p-value = 0.012; Table 21). While the 

difference in mean wetted width between the sites was statistically significantly different in 2017 (p-value = 0.010), the 

increases in reach-scale wetted width at KEMO001 between 

2017 and 2019 has made the difference between the sites no 

longer significant (p-value = 0.445). Channel-full width and 

height, as well as minimum bank height, were statistically 

significantly different in 2019 (p-values = 0.007, <0.001, and 

<0.001; Table 21). The reason for the rather large increase 

in channel-full width and height and minimum bank height 

at KEMO002 during 2019 are related to misinterpretations 

of the diagnostic surfaces on the reach during 2017 and not 

to significant geomorphic changes at the reach-scale. The 

new interpretations are explained in the Implications and 

Synthesis of Results section. 
33

Table 21. Difference in means t-test results comparing the 2019 surveys of KEMO001 and KEMO002. The significance of the differences is indicated by: “–” not 

significant; “*” p-value <0.05, “**” p-value <0.01, and “***” p-value <0.001 [m—meters; mm—millimeters]. 

Measurement na KEMO001 in 2019 KEMO002 in 2019 P-value Significance KEMO001 in 2017 KEMO002 in 2017 P-value Significance

Pebble Count (mm) 100 20.57 9.28 < 0.001 *** 17.77 12.56 < 0.001 ***

Thalweg Depth (m) 11 0.25 0.40 0.012 * 0.22 0.32 0.087 –

Thalweg Position (%) 11 44 61 0.261 – 41 43 0.896 –

Wetted Width (m) 11 4.59 5.13 0.445 – 3.04 4.37 0.010 **

Active Channel Width (m) 11 5.08 5.55 0.455 – 5.61 5.4 0.689 –

Channel-full Width (m) 11 9.79 12.54 0.007 ** 8.51 8.75 0.485 –

Minimum Bank Height (m) 22 1.36 1.86 < 0.001 *** 1.31 1.49 0.290 –

Channel-full Height (m) 22 1.53 2.06 < 0.001 *** 1.44 1.72 0.002 **

Bank Angle (°) 22 46 47 0.868 – 40 56 0.034 *

Vegetative Cover (%) 22 44 38 0.328 – 40 18 0.003 **

a Number of measurements taken

35

Implications and Synthesis of Results

This section describes the processes that were observed 

at each reach and the potential changes that may occur 

between surveys (next field surveys are tentatively scheduled 

for spring or summer 2022). The processes that are described 

will be explained within the context of the objectives of 

the protocol (i.e., basin characteristics that affect channel 

morphology and habitat, and the status of channel 

morphology and habitat characteristics). The descriptors 

of watershed-scale variables (e.g., low, average, high) are 

in comparison to the other watershed in the report (i.e., 

KEMO001 compared to KEMO002). 

KEMO001—Noses Creek

KEMO001’s watershed is steep and is covered by forested 

areas as well as residential and suburban development. 

Approximately 45% of Noses Creek’s watershed is developed 

and 53% is forested (Table 4). KEMO001’s watershed has a 

high entire stream gradient, a lower segment gradient, and in 

2019 developed a relatively high channel gradient (increase 

in channel gradient from 0.0015 m/m to 0.0042 m/m; Tables 

3 and 13). This large increase in channel gradient could 

be due to the movement of a large slug of sediment into 

the upper portions of the reach. The hypothesized natural 

process that produced this large influx of sediment is the 

excavation of the large pool behind the upstream LWD dam 

and the deposition of this excavated sediment within the 

reach. An alternative hypothesis is that surveying errors in 

2017 (first official wadeable stream habitat survey conducted 

by the Southeast Coast Network) could have contributed to 

this large difference in channel gradient. Although surveying 

errors may have contributed to the observed differences, 

this is very unlikely, and the data have been triple-checked 

and benchmark elevations were consistent between surveys. 

Additionally, the development of the riffle in the segment 

between T8 and T9 (which was occupied by a run in 2017; 

McDonald et al 2019) supports the hypothesis that a large 

slug of sediment was introduced to the upstream portions 

of the stream. KEMO001’s watershed has average slope, 

low drainage density, high basin shape, and the highest 

basin relief ratio. Though the high forest cover and relatively 

low drainage density likely attenuate flood flows, the high 

relief (due to Kennesaw Mountain) and more circular 

basin (relatively high basin shape) suggest Noses Creek has 

a flashy flow regime, but gage data are needed to confirm 

this interpretation. Additionally, the development of a 

much steeper channel gradient has increased the amount 

of energy available to erode the bed and banks, within and 

downstream of the reach. 

The reach that was surveyed on Noses Creek (KEMO001) 

is close to a walking trail and visitors were seen using the 

stream where the banks were lower (upstream near the 

bridge). In-stream habitat changed substantially from 2017 

to 2019 (Table 5). While habitat was evenly distributed 

throughout the reach in 2017, with riffle areas separating 

the large pools, the habitat in 2019 was mostly run with 

small areas of riffle, pool, and glide mixed in (Figure 6). This 

substantial change in geomorphic channel units (GCUs) 

is interpreted to being directly related to the hypothesized 

addition of a large slug of sediment into the reach and the 

large increase in channel gradient in the upstream portion 

of the reach (Figure 10). KEMO001’s bed material was 

slightly coarser in 2019 compared to 2017 and remained 

coarser than KEMO002’s bed material (Tables 6 and 21). 

Slight coarsening of the bed material at KEMO001 and the 

continued difference from KEMO002 is likely due to the 

increase in channel gradient (Walters et al. 2001), along with 

the differences in watershed relief and entire stream and 

segment gradients. Additionally, the slight increase in bank 

stability at KEMO001 may indicate that a lower quantity of 

fine sediment is being contributed to the bed from the banks 

compared to KEMO002 (McDonald et al. 2019).

KEMO001 continues to have a low volume of LWD per 

channel area (0.0002 m3

/m2 vs 0.0060 m3/m2 at KEMO002; 

Table 8). The reduction in the already low volume of LWD 

per channel area (from 0.0005 m3

/m2) is likely due to the 

large LWD dam just upstream of the reach capturing all 

of the LWD that could potentially be added to the reach. 

When this LWD dam fails, some of the pieces of LWD 

trapped in the dam may become established in the surveyed 

reach. Similar to what was identified in the baseline report 

(McDonald and Starkey 2019a), the lack of LWD coupled 

with the interpreted influx of sediment into the upper 

portion of the reach, provides evidence that bed sediment in 

this reach is highly mobile. This highly mobile bed may put 

the stream at greater risk of habitat degradation for benthic 

dwelling invertebrates (Allan and Castillo 2007). Based 

on the GCUs, bed sediment, and LWD within the reach, 

KEMO001’s in-stream habitat continues to be classified as 

‘poor to fair.’ Though the GCUs within the reach were mostly 

run habitat, there were smaller areas of other types of habitat 

interspersed within the reach. As identified in the baseline 

report, if the bed material at KEMO001 becomes finer and if 

the GCUs within the reach become even more homogenous, 

the habitat classification may degrade to ‘poor.’ Alternatively, 

addition of LWD to the reach may increase habitat diversity 
36

and provide more stability to the reach that could upgrade 

the classification to ‘fair’ (Allan and Castillo 2007). As 

mentioned in the Methods section, this classification 

is a generalized interpretation of in-stream habitat and 

additional work is needed to determine how flow (e.g., 

flashiness of flow and baseflow conditions), water quality, 

and in-stream physical characteristics affect biodiversity and 

stream health at KEMO001.

The major morphologic changes that occurred on KEMO001 

were the loss of many of the sand and gravel bars, the higher 

variability in thalweg position, and the development of the 

elevated entrenched surface surfaces. Two processes are 

hypothesized to have contributed to the loss of the sand 

and gravel bars within the reach, and both are related to the 

interpreted movement of sediment into the reach. The large 

increase in channel gradient has substantially increased 

the amount of energy available to erode the bed and banks 

within the reach. It is this increase in slope that could have 

contributed to the loss (erosion) of the sand and gravel 

bars (McDonald and Starkey 2019a). Alternatively, some of 

the sand and gravel bars may not have been eroded from 

the reach. The addition of extra sediment from upstream 

(either from below the LWD dam or derived from eroding 

bars) could have caused aggradation of the bed along some 

transects. As the stream bed aggraded, water levels would 

rise causing the previously exposed bar surfaces to become 

inundated or buried (resulting in a ‘loss’ of the bar surface; 

McDonald and Starkey 2019a). Regardless of the process(es) 

that caused the observed changes, these changes are further 

evidence that the bed sediment is highly mobile and not 

optimal habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. 

Though the reach has low sinuosity (1.03) and has lost 

many of the alternating (side) sand and gravel bars observed 

in 2017, the increasingly high variability of thalweg 

position indicates that the interpreted reestablishment of 

a meandering planform, identified in the baseline report, 

continues to progress (Simon and Darby 1999; McDonald 

and Starkey 2019a). Such spatial patterns in thalweg 

position, coupled with the presence of elevated entrenched 

surfaces throughout the reach, indicate that the stream 

is beginning to reestablish a more ‘natural’ system inset 

within the higher terrace surface. This reestablishment of a 

meandering planform is being achieved via lateral erosion, 

bank undercutting, and episodic yet persistent slumping of 

the banks. 

In 2017, bankfull or floodplain surfaces were identified in 

the downstream portions of the stream (between T1 and 

T2 on river right and between T2 and T5 on river left), as 

well as in the upstream portions of the stream (between 

T8 and T10; Figure 6; McDonald and Starkey 2019a). In 

2019, the downstream surfaces were smaller and appeared 

to have slumped into the channel, a new set of surfaces 

have developed between T4 and T6 on river right, and the 

upstream surface has been reduced and is now low enough 

to be classified as a bar (Figure 6). The arcuate shape of 

these surfaces coupled with their continued slumping 

and development are evidence that these surfaces were 

misidentified in 2017 and are not actually geomorphic 

floodplain surfaces (formed through lateral migration of 

the meander bends). Instead, these elevated entrenched 

surfaces are likely slump-cored blocks of sediment that have 

the appearance of being stable, due to their high vegetative 

cover and the relative uniformity of the heights of these 

surfaces above the thalweg. These elevated entrenched 

surfaces appear to be slowly but progressively eroded at 

their base and slumping lower as their toes are eroded away. 

The hypothesized development of the inset surfaces in the 

downstream portion of KEMO001 is presented in Figure 16. 

The 2017 survey is represented by row 2 in Figure 16. The 

downstream elevated entrenched surface was misinterpreted 

as a floodplain surface due to the consistent height of this 

surface throughout the reach and its apparent stability due 

to high vegetative cover. Between the 2017 and 2019 surveys 

(Figure 16, row 3), the inner portion of the downstream 

slump is hypothesized to have broken off from the main 

slump and dropped to the level of the bar. During this time, 

the upstream slump is also hypothesized to have started 

slumping. The sediment in the bars along both sections of 

the stream are hypothesized as being supplied from both 

upstream and from the banks themselves. These slumps are 

interpreted to have continued to degrade until the 2019 

survey (Figure 16, row 4) and will continue to degrade 

until the toes of these slump blocks become stabilized or 

the blocks are completely eroded. If this interpretation is 

correct, the rate at which this and similar streams widen can 

be determined by identifying where these slumps are likely to 

occur and the rate at which they develop.

Due to the highly entrenched nature of the stream, the 

cohesive banks, and the relatively high frequency of 

slumping, lateral migration is not appreciably affecting the 

reach. As the stream begins to reestablish a meandering 

planform, lateral migration will become a more important 

contributor to the amount of sediment produced by 

the reach. No headward migration was detected for the 

knickpoint (i.e., substantial increase in channel slope) 
37

that exists between T1 and T2 because the riffle that is 

immediately upstream of it continues to provide enough 

resistance to prevent its movement. Immediately downstream 

of KEMO001, visual observations indicate that the large 

increase in stream power (related to the additional discharge 

provided by the ephemeral channel just downstream from 

the reach on river left) continues to cause the stream bed to 

degrade and its banks to erode. 

Figure 16. Hypothesized development of the bankfull ‘floodplain’ surfaces observed at KEMO001 on river right 

between T4 and T6 (a) and on river left between T1 and T4 (b). Row 1 represents a time before the 2017 survey, 

row 2 is the 2017 survey, row 3 represents the time between the 2017 and 2019 surveys, and row 4 is a depiction 

of conditions during the 2019 survey.
38

KEMO002—Ward Creek

KEMO002’s watershed has low slope and relief and has low 

forest cover. Approximately 68% of Ward Creek’s watershed 

is developed and 29% is forested (Table 4). KEMO002’s 

watershed has a low entire stream gradient, the lowest 

segment gradient (one-fifth of KEMO001), and a low 

channel gradient (Tables 3 and 13). KEMO002’s watershed 

has the lowest slope, the highest drainage density, a high 

basin shape, and a low basin relief ratio (nearly four times 

smaller than KEMO001). Though the watershed has high 

developed land cover, the low slope and relief coupled with 

the low network, segment, and channel gradients suggest 

Ward Creek does not have a flashy flow regime, though gage 

data are needed to confirm this interpretation.

The reach that was surveyed on Ward Creek (KEMO002) 

is within 20 meters (65.6 ft) of a sewer right-of-way (that 

is used as a walking trail). Visitors and their dogs were 

observed using the stream where the banks were lower 

(upstream near the horse trail crossing and walking bridge). 

In-stream habitat changed substantially from 2017 to 2019 

(Table 5). In 2017, in-stream habitat was mostly low energy 

pools with some runs separating the pools (McDonald and 

Starkey 2019a). In 2019, GCUs were primarily run habitat 

with a few pools separating the runs (Figure 11). The GCU 

change appears to be due to the infilling of many of the 

pools in the lower portion of the reach. The substantial 

increase in thalweg depth near T6 and the large pool that 

has developed there may have provided the sediment that 

contributed to this infilling of pool habitat. Bed material 

was significantly finer in 2019 compared to 2017 (Table 

6 and 17). The fining of the bed material at KEMO002 

likely reflects the continuing influence of Ward Creek’s low 

watershed slope and relief; its low entire stream, segment, 

and channel gradients; and the legacy of disturbance 

from sewer line installation upstream of the survey reach 

(McDonald and Starkey 2019a). Additionally, the less stable 

banks at KEMO002 compared to KEMO001 may indicate 

that fine sediment inputs from these unstable banks are 

continuing to contribute to the fining of the bed along this 

reach.

KEMO002 again had by far the highest volume of LWD per 

channel area (an order of magnitude more than KEMO001; 

Table 8). The high volume of LWD in the reach is likely 

related to a highly active beaver population upstream 

supplying LWD to the system as well as the highly entrenched 

and straight stream channel upstream of the reach funneling 

LWD into the reach. Beaver activity, along with the legacy 

of the upstream disturbance due to the sewer lines, could 

also be influencing the sediment supplied to the reach, as 

well as the characteristics of the discharge that influences 

the stream. Additional work is needed to determine how the 

upstream multi-channel system affects sediment yield and 

discharge in the downstream single thread portion of Ward 

Creek. 

Similar to 2017, the majority of the LWD within the reach 

was located just upstream of the relatively sharp meander 

bend between T5 and T7 (Figure 11). This flow constriction 

is likely one factor contributing to the large volume of LWD 

trapped within the reach. LWD can positively contribute 

to benthic macroinvertebrate communities by creating a 

diversity of habitat (Allan and Castillo 2007). However, 

at KEMO002 the large amount of LWD has continued to 

contribute to the low energy GCUs that are present and 

to the fining of the bed, as fines are trapped behind jams 

and steps. Based on the GCUs, bed sediment, and LWD 

within the reach, KEMO002’s in-stream habitat was again 

classified as ‘poor.’ As mentioned in the 2017 baseline report 

(McDonald and Starkey 2019a), habitat at KEMO002 will 

continue to be ‘poor’ until stable (non-mobile) in-channel 

(non-bridging) LWD increases the diversity of habitat and 

upstream conditions reduce the amount of fine sediment 

that is delivered to the reach (Allan and Castillo 2007). 

Currently, much of the existing LWD bridges the channel and 

has minimal influence on GCUs. 

The major morphologic changes that occurred on KEMO002 

were the large increases in bankfull and channel-full areas 

on all of the detailed transects, the continued development 

of the inset surfaces throughout the reach, and the large 

‘increases’ to bankfull and channel-full widths and bank 

heights. The bar surfaces on all the detailed transects 

were substantially reduced or completely eroded between 

2017 and 2019. Additionally, a deep pool has developed 

on detailed transect 2 (T6; Figure 18). The changes to the 

bed and erosion of the bar surfaces may be the natural 

progression of the bedforms in this stream. Similar to 

KEMO001, it is hypothesized that Ward Creek is evolving 

through the episodic and progressive slumping of its banks 

(e.g., Figure 16). The bars that were observed in 2017 

(between T4 and T6 on river right; Figure 11) may have been 

the last remnants of former slump surfaces. The degradation 

of the inset surface between T2 and T4 on river left (which 

is similar to the downstream inset surface at KEMO001; 

Figure 16-4b) suggests that this surface may not be as stable 

as was initially thought, and may be completely eroded by 
39

the next survey (tentatively scheduled for 2022). Additionally, 

the multi-tier inset surface and ‘low terrace’ between T6 and 

T9 (Figure 11) is also changing in shape as the toe of the 

hypothesized slump block continues to be reworked by the 

stream. 

Mean channel-full width was wider and mean channelfull and mean minimum bank heights were higher in 2019 

compared to 2017 (Table 17). Additionally, mean bankfull 

widths and heights also apparently increased from 2017 to 

2019 (Tables 11 and 12). These width and height ‘changes’ 

were not due to geomorphic processes. These ‘changes’ were 

due to different interpretations of the surfaces that define 

these diagnostic features within the stream. In 2017, the 

‘low terrace’ feature between T6 and T9 was misidentified as 

the channel-full surface. While in 2019, the highest surface 

(the surface above the ‘low terrace’) was correctly identified 

as the channel-full surface. Future surveys should measure 

the highest surface, because this surface is the channel-full 

surface for all of the other transects. 

Similar to channel-full, the apparent ‘changes’ to 

bankfull width and height were also the result of different 

interpretations of what constitutes ‘bankfull’ between T6 

and T9. In 2017, bankfull was defined as the top of the point 

bar surface (the highest inset surface with vegetative cover), 

whereas, in 2019, the ‘low terrace’ (the highest inset surface 

below channel-full) was identified as the bankfull surface. 

Future surveys should measure bankfull as the top of the 

lowest inset surface that has vegetative cover and is not an 

in-channel bar surface. A point bar surface is an acceptable 

surface (Ritter et al. 2002) as long as it has vegetative cover. 

At KEMO002, this surface should continue to be monitored 

because it was used as bankfull during the 2017 baseline 

survey. Additionally, if there are multiple inset surfaces, on 

any reach, future surveys should measure channel widths and 

bank heights associated with each surface to understand the 

development of these sets of features. 

41

Conclusion

Noses Creek’s watershed (KEMO001) is steep and forested, 

while Ward Creek’s watershed (KEMO002) has low slope 

and relief and is covered mostly by urban and or suburban 

development. Based on the geomorphic and land cover 

characteristics of the two watersheds, Noses Creek is 

interpreted to be flashier than Ward Creek, though stream 

gages are needed to determine each stream’s flow regime. 

Based on the results of the pebble counts, the type and 

distribution of GCUs within each reach, and the presence or 

absence of LWD, the 2019 in-stream habitat classification 

for each surveyed stream is the same as in 2017 (‘poor to 

fair’ on KEMO001 and ‘poor’ on KEMO002). The processes 

that have a potential impact on these habitat classifications 

have not changed since the previous survey, though the 

interpretation of geomorphic features and surfaces within 

the reach has changed substantially.

If the bed material at KEMO001 becomes finer, and if the 

GCUs within the reach become more homogenous, the 

habitat classification may degrade to ‘poor.’ Alternatively, 

addition of LWD to KEMO001 may increase habitat diversity 

and provide more stability to the reach that could upgrade 

the classification to ‘fair.’ The addition of LWD to KEMO001 

seems likely, as a large LWD dam has developed, since 2017, 

just upstream of the reach that may fail prior to the next 

survey. Habitat at KEMO002 will continue to be ‘poor’ 

until stable (non-mobile) in-channel (non-bridging) LWD 

increases the diversity of habitat, and upstream conditions 

reduce the amount of fine sediment that is delivered to the 

reach (Allan and Castillo 2007). Currently, much of the 

existing LWD bridges the channel and has minimal influence 

on GCUs.

Both of the stream reaches are recovering from a legacy of 

poor land use practices, and they are influenced by varying 

amounts of impervious surface cover and urban and or 

suburban development in their watersheds. Both of the 

stream reaches are affected by episodic and progressive 

slumping of their banks. These elevated entrenched (likely 

slump-cored) surfaces were interpreted as relatively stable 

bankfull ‘floodplain’ surfaces in 2017. The changes in the 

heights and sizes of these features have shown that these 

surfaces are not stable and represent the process by which 

these streams will continue to widen as they equilibrate 

to their modern flow and sediment regimes. The loss and 

movement of bar surfaces along both reaches is evidence 

agreeing with the interpretation of highly mobile beds 

within these stream reaches. The small knickpoint that 

was identified in the downstream portion of Noses Creek 

(KEMO001) in 2017 has not migrated further headward 

into the reach. The riffle that is immediately upstream of the 

knickpoint appears to provide enough resistance to prevent 

headward migration of the knickpoint. Similar to 2017, no 

immediate management concerns were identified along 

either reach. The biggest concern for visitors is the high 

banks that need to be navigated to access the streams.

43

Literature Cited 

Allan, J. D. and M. M. Castillo. 2007. Stream ecology- structure and function of running waters. Springer, Dordrecht, 

Netherlands.

Craig, G. S., and J. G. Rankl. 1978. Analysis of runoff from small drainage basins in Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2056.

Fitzpatrick, F. A., I. R. Waite, P. J. D’Arconte, M. R., Meador, M. A. Maupin, and M. E. Gurtz. 1998. Revised methods for 

characterizing stream habitat in the National Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations Report 98-4052. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984052/index.html (last accessed June 2020). 

Gregory, K. J. and D. E. Walling. 1973. Drainage basins form and processes: A geomorphological approach. Huddersfield, West 

Yorkshire, United Kingdom.

Gregory, M. B., and D. L. Calhoun. 2007, Physical, chemical, and biological responses of streams to increasing watershed 

urbanization in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia and Alabama, Chapter B of Effects of urbanization on stream 

ecosystems in six metropolitan areas of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5101-B.

Gregory, M. B., C. Wright, C. D. Jones, J. F. Dowd, and J. C. DeVivo. 2012. Summary of stream flow conditions at five riverine 

parks in the Southeast Coast Network, 2010. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRDS—2012/313. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2184569 (last accessed June 

2020). 

Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Potyondy. 1994. U. S. Forest Service’s (USFS) stream channel reference site: an illustrated 

guide to field techniques. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Hewlett, J. D. and A. R. Hibbert. 1967. Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to precipitation in humid areas: Forest 

Hydrology 1:275–290.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. 

Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land 

cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 81:345–354. 

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, S. Jin, G. Xian, C. Costello, P. Danielson, L. Gass, M. Funk, J. Wickham, S. Stehman, R. F. Auch, and 

K. H. Riitters. 2020. Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 National Land 

Cover Database: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 162, p. 184–199. Available at: https://www.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924271620300587?via%3Dihub (last accessed June 2020). 

Hughes, R. M., S. G. Paulsen, and J. L. Stoddard. 2000. EMAP-Surface waters: a multiassemblage, probability survey of ecological 

integrity in the USA: Hydrobiologia. 422/423: 429–443. 

James, L. A. 2018. Ten conceptual models of large-scale legacy sedimentation – a review: Geomorphology, v. 317, p. 199–217.

Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms and processes. Edward Arnold, London.

Lecce, S. A. 2000. Spatial variations in the timing of annual floods in the southeastern United States. Journal of Hydrology 

235:151–169.

Leigh, D. S. 2008. Late Quaternary climates and river channels of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Southeastern USA. Geomorphology 

101:90–108.

Lins, H. F. 1997. Regional streamflow regimes and hydroclimatology of the United States. Water Resources Research 

33(7):1665–1667.
44

McDonald, J. M. 2019. Wadeable stream suitability assessment for long-term monitoring: Horseshoe Bend National Military Park. 

Natural Resource Data Series. NPS/SECN/NRDS—2019/1234. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: 

https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2265988 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M., M. B. Gregory, J. W. Riley, and E. N. Starkey. 2018a. Monitoring wadeable stream habitat conditions in Southeast 

Coast Network Parks: Protocol narrative. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2018/1715. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2254874 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M., M. B. Gregory, and J. Riley. 2018b. Stream habitat assessment basin and segment scale data summary—Version 

1.0: Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP—1.2.15. Southeast Coast Network, Athens, 

Georgia. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2254012 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M., E. N. Starkey, M. B. Gregory, and J. Riley. 2018c. Wadeable stream reach-scale field data collection—Version 

1.0. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP—1.2.16. Southeast Coast Network, Athens, 

Georgia. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2254013 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M., E. N. Starkey, M. B. Gregory, and J. Riley. 2018d. Using a total station to conduct a stream survey—Version 

1.0. Southeast Coast Network Standard Operating Procedure NPS/SECN/SOP—1.2.18. Southeast Coast Network, Athens, 

Georgia. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2254016 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M. and E. N. Starkey. 2018a. Wadeable stream suitability assessment for long-term monitoring: Kennesaw Mountain 

National Battlefield Park. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2018/1185. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2256953 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M. and E. N. Starkey. 2018b. Wadeable stream suitability assessment for long-term monitoring: Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation Area. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2018/1186. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2256954 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M. and E. N. Starkey. 2018c. Wadeable stream suitability assessment for long-term monitoring: Congaree National 

Park. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2018/1184. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available 

at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2256949 (last accessed June 2020).

McDonald, J. M., E. N. Starkey and C. S. Cooper. 2019. Wadeable stream habitat monitoring at Chattahoochee River National 

Recreation Area: 2017 baseline report. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2019/2036. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2267301 (last accessed June 2020). 

McDonald, J. M., and E. N. Starkey. 2019a. Wadeable stream habitat monitoring at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield 

Park: 2017 baseline report. Natural Resource Report NPS/SECN/NRR—2019/2030. National Park Service, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2267298 (last accessed June 2020). 

McDonald, J. M. and E. N. Starkey. 2019b. Wadeable stream suitability assessment for long-term monitoring: Ocmulgee National 

Monument. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2019/1221. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2259872 (last accessed June 2020).

Mukundan, R., D. E. Radcliffe, and J. C. Ritchie. 2011. Channel stability and sediment source assessment in streams draining a 

Piedmont watershed in Georgia, USA. Hydrological Processes 25:1243–1253.

Newson, M. D., and C. L. Newson. 2000. Geomorphology, ecology and river channel habitat: Mesoscale approaches to basinscale challenges. Progress in Physical Geography 24(2): 1195–217. 

Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual review of Ecology and Systematics, 32(1):333–365.
45

Ritter, D. F., R. C. Kochel, and J. R. Miller. 2002. Process Geomorphology. Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois. 559p.

Rose, S., and N. E. Peters. 2001. Effects of urbanization on streamflow in the Atlanta area (Georgia, USA): A comparative 

hydrological approach. Hydrological Processes 15:1441–1445.

Ruhlman M. B. and W. L. Nutter. 1999. Channel morphology evolution and overbank flow in the Georgia Piedmont. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association 35(2):277–290.

Schoonover, J. E., B. G. Lockaby, J. N. Shaw. 2007. Channel morphology and sediment origin in streams draining the Georgia 

Piedmont. Journal of Hydrology 342:110–123.

Schumm, S.A., M. D. Harvey, and C. C. Watson. 1984. Incised channels: morphology, dynamics and control. Water Resources 

Publications, Littleton, Colorado.

Simon, A. and S. Darby. 1999. The nature and significance of incised river channels: in Darby, S.E. and A. Simon (eds.), Incised 

river channels: processes, forms, engineering, and management, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England: 3–18.

Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 

38(6):913–920.

Starkey, E. N. 2015. Summary of stream flow conditions at five riverine parks in the Southeast Coast Network, 2014. Natural 

Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2015/979. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://

irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2224535 (last accessed June 2020). 

Trimble, S. W. 1969. Culturally Accelerated Sedimentation on the Middle Georgia Piedmont: US Soil Conservation Service, Fort 

Worth, Texas.

Walters, D. M., M. C. Freeman, D. S. Leigh, B. J. Freeman, M. J. Paul, and C. M. Pringle. 2001. Bed texture and turbidity as 

indicators of fish biotic integrity in the Etowah River system. in Hatcher, K. J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water 

Resources Conference, held March 26–27, Institute of Ecology, the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Wenger, S. J., J. T. Peterson, M. C. Freeman, B. J. Freeman, and D. D. Homans. 2008. Stream fish occurrence in response to 

impervious cover, historic land use, and hydrogeomorphic factors. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

65:1250–1264.

Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions, American Geophysical Union 35(6): 

951–956.

Wright, C. J., E. Thompson, B. A. Blankley, M. W. Byrne, T. Curtis, and M. B. Gregory. 2011. Summary of weather and climate 

monitoring in Southeast Coast Network parks, 2010. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/SECN/NRDS—2011/309. National 

Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2176354 (last accessed 

June 2020).

47

Appendix A. Explanation of Variables 

Table A-1. Explanation of Variables.

Variable Variable Scale Description

Drainage Area Basin The topographical area to which precipitation, sediment, and dissolved constituents are 

funneled to a common outlet point along a given stream channel (Dunne and Leopold 

1978).

Total Stream Length Basin The sum of the length of perennial streams within a watershed.

Drainage Density Basin The ratio of total stream length to drainage area.

Basin Length Basin The length of the line that bisects a watershed running from outlet to drainage divide.

Basin Shape Basin Drainage area divided by basin length squared (Horton 1932)

Average Watershed 

Slope

Basin Within watershed, average of the slope values of each pixel of a digital elevation model.

Standard Deviation 

of Slope

Basin Within watershed, standard deviation of the slope values of each pixel of a digital 

elevation model.

Basin Relief Basin Within watershed, maximum elevation minus minimum elevation

Standard Deviation 

of Elevation

Basin The standard deviation of elevation within a watershed.

Basin Relief Ratio Basin A ratio calculated by dividing basin relief by basin length.

Entire Stream Gradient Basin The difference in elevation at 85% and 10% of the main stem stream length divided by 

the stream length between the two points (Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). 

Segment Gradient Basin The difference in elevation between the upstream extent of the stream segment and the 

downstream extent of the stream segment, divided by the length of the stream segment.

Strahler Stream Order Basin A stream ordering system where order increases when two orders of the same magnitude 

join.

Bifurcation Ratio Basin The ratio of streams in a given Strahler order to streams in the next highest order (e.g., 

number of first order streams/number of second order streams).

Land Use/Land Cover Basin Land use/land cover is derived from the NLCD dataset.

Geomorphic Channel 

Units

Reach Geomorphic channel units are a way to classify in-channel habitat (e.g., riffles and pools)

Large Woody Debris Reach Pieces of woody material that have a diameter greater than 0.1 m and are 1 m or longer.

Pebble Count Reach The size and distribution of 100 particles (pebble count) from a representative riffle 

(Wolman 1954).

Canopy Closure Reacha The average of four measurements (looking upstream, downstream, and at each bank) 

taken using a spherical densiometer.

Reach Sinuosity Reach Sinuosity is calculated by dividing reach length by valley length.

Longitudinal Profile Reach The gradient of the line that connects the tops of the steps and riffles within a reach 

(channel slope)

Wetted Width Transecta Wetted channel width is measured where water is flowing (including undercuts)

Active Channel Width Transecta Active channel width is measured to the beginning of vegetation within the stream 

channel

Bankfull Width Transecta,b Bankfull widths should only be measured if there is a floodplain (or incipient floodplain) 

present

Bankfull Height Transecta,b The height of the channel bank where a floodplain is present

Bankfull Area Transectb The cross-sectional area of a stream channel at bankfull stage (height) measured 

perpendicular to flow

a

 Collected at each standard transect (11 measurements)

b

 Calculated at each detailed transect (3 per reach) using survey data collected using a total station
48

Variable Variable Scale Description

Bankfull Perimeter Transectb The length of the contact between the stream of flowing water and its containing 

channel, measured at a section perpendicular to streamflow at bankfull discharge

Bankfull Hydraulic 

Radius

Transectb A measure of hydraulic efficiency defined by the ratio between bankfull area and bankfull 

perimeter

Channel-full Width Transecta,b Channel full widths are measured from the top of the lowest bank that is not a floodplain.

Channel-full Height Transecta,b The height of the channel bank where a floodplain is not present (channel-full height is 

also measured where a floodplain is inset within an entrenched channel)

Channel-full Area Transectb The cross-sectional area of a stream channel at bankfull stage measured perpendicular to 

flow

Channel-full Perimeter Transectb The length of the contact between the stream of flowing water and its containing 

channel, measured at a section perpendicular to streamflow at channel full discharge

Channel-full Hydraulic 

Radius

Transectb A measure of hydraulic efficiency defined by the ratio between channel full area and 

channel full perimeter

Thalweg Position Transecta The position of the thalweg as a percent distance of the wetted width from left water's 

edge

Thalweg Depth Transecta The greatest depth of water along a transect

Dominant Particle Size Transecta A visual estimate of the dominant sediment size along a transect

Dominant Habitat Transecta A visual estimate of the dominant geomorphic channel unit along a transect

In-channel features Transecta A description of the in-channel features (e.g., bars or islands) that are present along a 

transect

Floodplain width Transecta The width(s) of floodplain(s) present along rivers left and/or right

Bank Undercut Transecta Where the bank overhangs the channel due to lateral erosion at the base of the bank

Bank Angle Transecta The dominant bank angle from active channel boundary to the top of the bank

Bank Sediment Transecta The dominant sediment composition of the channel banks

Bank Erosion Transecta The presence of and type erosion (e.g., lateral or slump) that is observed on the channel 

banks

Bank Cover Transecta A visual estimate of the percent of the channel banks that has vegetative cover

a

 Collected at each standard transect (11 measurements)

b

 Calculated at each detailed transect (3 per reach) using survey data collected using a total station

Literature Cited 

Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, California.

Fitzpatrick, F. A., I. R. Waite, P. J. D’Arconte, M. R. Meador, M. A. Maupin, and M. E. Gurtz. 1998. Revised methods for 

characterizing stream habitat in the National Water Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigations Report 98-4052. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/WRI98-4052/index.html (last accessed 

July 2020).

Horton, R. E. 1932 Drainage basin characteristics: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 13:350–361.

Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions, American Geophysical Union 35(6): 

951–956.

Table A-1 (continued). Explanation of Variables.
49

Appendix B. Survey Results for KEMO001

The following appendix provides transect-scale figures, 

results, and data summary tables of the 2019 survey of 

KEMO001. Figures include a watershed map (Figure B-1); 

photographs taken in the upstream, downstream, left bank, 

and right bank directions at each detailed transect (T1, T6, 

and T11; Figures B-2 through B-13); and cross-sectional 

channel characteristics at each detailed transect (Figures 

B-14 through B-16). Tables describe watershed land use 

characteristics (Table B-1), observed geomorphic channel 

units (Table B-2), characteristics of large woody debris (Table 

B-3), canopy cover percentages (Table B-4), channel and 

bank characteristics (Table B-5), and cross-sectional channel 

characteristics at each detailed transect (Tables B-6 through 

B-8).

Figure B-1. Map showing the watershed draining to KEMO001 at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield. The land 

use and land cover (NLCD 2016, Homer et al. 2020), road network (Georgia Department of Transportation 2004), 

and perennial streams (derived from a 10-meter (32.8-foot [ft]) digital elevation model; data available from the U.S. 

Geological Survey) in the vicinity of the park are also shown.
50

Figure B-2. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream from T1 (detailed transect 1).

Figure B-3. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T1 (detailed transect 1).
51

Figure B-4. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T1 (detailed transect 1).

Figure B-5. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T1 (detailed transect 1).
52

Figure B-6. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream on T6 (detailed transect 2).

Figure B-7. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T6 (detailed transect 2).
53

Figure B-8. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T6 (detailed transect 2).

Figure B-9. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T6 (detailed transect 2).
54

Figure B-10. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking upstream on T11 (detailed transect 3).

Figure B-11. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking downstream on T11 (detailed transect 3).
55

Figure B-12. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the left bank on T11 (detailed transect 3).

Figure B-13. Photograph taken on KEMO001 looking at the right bank on T11 (detailed transect 3).
56

Table B-1. Land use and land cover characteristics for 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 for KEMO001. The data included in this 

table are from the National Land Cover Dataset (Homer et al. 2001; Fry et al. 2006; Homer et al. 2015; Homer et al. 2020).

NLCD Class 2001 percent of 

watershed

2006 percent of 

watershed

2011 percent of 

watershed

2016 percent of 

watershed

Open Water 0 0 0 0

Developed—Opena 18 20 19 18

Developed—Lowa 14 16 15 15

Developed—Mediuma 6 7 8 8

Developed—Higha 3 3 4 4

Barren 0 0 0 0

Deciduous 33 31 31 34

Evergreen 21 19 19 12

Mixed Forest 1 1 1 7

Shrub 0 0 0 0

Grassland 2 1 1 0

Pasture 2 2 2 1

Cultivated 0 0 0 0

Woody Wetland 0 0 0 0

Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 0 0

a

 Refers to the intensity or type of development

Table B-2. Geomorphic channel units (GCU) observed in the area between transects at KEMO001. The data describe the 

percent coverage of each type of GCU.

Transect (%) Riffle (%) Run (%) Glide (%) Pool (%) Step

1–2 10 80 0 10 0

2–3 25 75 0 0 0

3–4 0 90 0 10 0

4–5 25 75 0 0 0

5–6 10 90 0 0 0

6–7 60 40 0 0 0

7–8 0 100 0 0 0

8–9 20 10 70 0 0

9–10 75 25 0 0 0

10–11 0 100 0 0 0

Frequency 7 10 1 2 0

Maximum (%) 75 100 70 10 0

Mean (%) 23 69 7 2 0

Median (%) 15 78 0 0 0

Standard Deviation (%) 26 32 22 4 0
57

Table B-3. Characteristics of the large woody debris (LWD) observed at KEMO001 [m—meters]. 

LWD ID Length (m) Diameter (m) Volume (m3) Transect Interval Function Position

1 6.28 0.13 0.08 10 Bank Protection Free

2 2.04 0.19 0.06 10 Bank Protection Buried

3 1.29 0.10 0.01 9 Bank Protection Buried

4 1.16 0.15 0.02 9 Sediment Trap Buried

5 1.06 0.12 0.01 8 Sediment Trap Buried

6 1.00 0.10 0.01 8 Bank Protection Buried

Table B-4. Variability of canopy cover observed at KEMO001.

Transect Canopy Cover (%)

1 84

2 72

3 75

4 79

5 82

6 87

7 88

8 88

9 100

10 74

11 84

Minimum (%) 72

Maximum (%) 100

Mean (%) 83

Median (%) 84

Standard Deviation (%) 8

Coefficient of Variance 0.10
58

Bank Characteristics n (L) n (R) Min (L) Min (R) Max (L) Max (R) Mean (L) Mean (R) Median (L) Median (R) SD (L) SD (L) CV (L) CV (R)

Bank Heighta

 (m) 11 11 0.75 0.73 1.75 1.71 1.37 1.35 1.42 1.47 0.32 0.34 0.24 0.25

Bankfull Heighta,b (m) 3 3 0.75 0.73 1.05 1.06 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.77 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.21

Channel-full Heighta,b (m) 11 11 1.40 1.37 1.75 1.71 1.54 1.52 1.53 1.50 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.07

Water Depth at Basec

 (m) 11 11 -0.09 -0.11 -0.05 0.09 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 0.02 0.06 – –

Bank Undercutb

 (m) 2 2 0.15 0.23 0.63 0.80 0.39 0.52 0.39 0.52 0.34 0.40 0.87 0.78

Bank Angle (°) 11 11 15 11 83 71 48 45 46 53 21 20 0.44 0.44

Vegetation Cover (%) 11 11 15 10 50 90 32 56 30 70 10 29 0.30 0.51

Bank Stabilityd 11 11 At-Risk Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable 1.13 1.36 0.09 0.11

Table B-5. Average reach-scale bank characteristics at KEMO001. 'n' is number of measurements taken, ‘L’ indicates left bank, ‘R’ indicates right bank, 'Min' is 

minimum,'Max' is maximum, ‘SD’ is standard deviation, ‘CV’ is coefficient of variation [m—meters;].

a

 Above thalweg

b Statistics are based on the transects where feature is present 

c

 A negative number indicates base of bank is above the water surface

d

 See Table 1 for explanation of scores
59

Table B-6. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 1 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 2.17 6.02 0.36 5.77 0.60 9.67

Channel-full 8.41 9.22 0.91 8.23 1.46 5.66

Ratio 3.87 1.53 2.52 1.43 2.44 0.58

Figure B-14. Detailed transect 1 at KEMO001. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and interpreted bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark 

blue) cross-sectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is 

in the downstream direction.
60

Table B-7. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 2 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 4.15 7.12 0.58 6.43 0.77 8.41

Channel-full 8.58 10.68 0.80 9.56 1.37 6.97

Ratio 2.07 1.50 1.38 1.49 1.79 0.83

Figure B-15. Detailed transect 2 at KEMO001. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark blue) crosssectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is in the 

downstream direction.
61

Table B-8. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 3 at KEMO001 [m—meters].

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 4.90 8.66 0.57 7.88 0.77 10.30

Channel-full 10.30 11.38 0.90 10.00 1.41 7.11

Ratio 2.10 1.31 1.60 1.27 1.84 0.69

Figure B-16. Detailed transect 3 at KEMO001. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and interpreted bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark 

blue) cross-sectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is 

in the downstream direction.
62

Literature Cited 

Fry, J. A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. A. Dewitz, C. G. Homer, L. Yang, C. A. Barnes, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham. 2006. Completion of 

the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing, v. 77, no. 9, p. 858–864.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, J. A. Fry, M. J. Coan, S. M. Hossain, L. Nazmul, R. Charles, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J. N Van Driel, 

and J. Wickham. 2001. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States: 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 73, no. 4, p. 337–341.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. 

Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land 

cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 81:345–354.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, S. Jin, G. Xian, C. Costello, P. Danielson, L. Gass, M. Funk, J. Wickham, S. Stehman, R. F. Auch, and 

K. H. Riitters. 2020. Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 National Land 

Cover Database: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 162, p. 184–199. Available at: https://www.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924271620300587?via%3Dihub (last accessed June 2020). 
63

Appendix C. Survey Results for KEMO002

The following appendix provides transect-scale figures, 

results, and data summary tables of the 2019 survey of 

KEMO002. Figures include a watershed map (Figure C-1); 

photographs taken in the upstream, downstream, left bank, 

and right bank directions at each detailed transect (T1, T6, 

and T11; Figures C-2 through C-13); and cross-sectional 

channel characteristics at each detailed transect (Figures 

C-14 through C-16). Tables describe watershed land use 

characteristics (Table C-1), observed geomorphic channel 

units (Table C-2), characteristics of large woody debris (Table 

C-3), canopy cover percentages (Table C-4), channel and 

bank characteristics (Table C-5), and cross-sectional channel 

characteristics at each detailed transect (Tables C-6 through 

C-8).

Figure C-1. Map showing the watershed draining to KEMO002 at Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield. The land 

use and land cover (NLCD 2016, Homer et al. 2020), road network (Georgia Department of Transportation 2004), 

and perennial streams (derived from a 10-meter (32.8-foot [ft]) digital elevation model; data available from the U.S. 

Geological Survey) in the vicinity of the park are also shown.
64

Figure C-2. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T1 (detailed transect 1).

Figure C-3. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T1 (detailed transect 1).
65

Figure C-4. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T1 (detailed transect 1).

Figure C-5. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T1 (detailed transect 1).
66

Figure C-6. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T6 (detailed transect 2).

Figure C-7. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T6 (detailed transect 2).
67

Figure C-8. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T6 (detailed transect 2).

Figure C-9. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T6 (detailed transect 2).
68

Figure C-10. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking upstream on T11 (detailed transect 3).

Figure C-11. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking downstream on T11 (detailed transect 3).
69

Figure C-12. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the left bank on T11 (detailed transect 3).

Figure C-13. Photograph taken on KEMO002, looking at the right bank on T11 (detailed transect 3).
70

Table C-1. Land use/land cover characteristics for 2001, 2006, 2011, and 2016 for KEMO002. The data included in this 

table are from the National Land Cover Dataset (Homer et al. 2001; Fry et al. 2006; Homer et al. 2015; Homer et al. 2020).

NLCD Class 2001 percent of 

watershed

2006 percent of 

watershed

2011 percent of 

watershed

2016 percent of 

watershed

Open Water 1 1 1 1

Developed—Opena 37 38 38 36

Developed—Lowa 22 22 22 23

Developed—Mediuma 5 5 6 7

Developed—Higha 3 3 3 3

Barren 0 0 0 0

Deciduous 12 12 12 11

Evergreen 17 17 17 10

Mixed Forest 1 1 1 7

Shrub 0 0 0 0

Grassland 0 0 0 0

Pasture 2 1 1 1

Cultivated 0 0 0 0

Woody Wetland 0 0 0 0

Herbaceous Wetland 0 0 0 0

a

 Refers to the intensity or type of development
71

Table C-2. Geomorphic channel units (GCU) observed in the area between transects at KEMO002. The data describe the 

percent coverage of each type of GCU.

Transect (%) Riffle (%) Run (%) Glide (%) Pool (%) Step

1–2 0 70 0 30 0

2–3 0 20 0 80 0

3–4 0 100 0 0 0

4–5 5 80 0 15 0

5–6 0 30 0 70 0

6–7 0 40 0 60 0

7–8 0 100 0 0 0

8–9 2 90 0 8 0

9–10 10 20 0 50 20

10–11 20 80 0 0 0

Frequency 4 10 0 7 1

Max (%) 20 100 0 80 20

Mean (%) 4 63 0 31 2

Median (%) 0 75 0 23 0

Standard Deviation (%) 7 32 0 31 6
72

Table C-3. Characteristics of the large woody debris (LWD) observed at KEMO002 [m—meters]. 

LWD ID Length (m) Diameter (m) Volume (m3) Transect Interval Function Position

1 1.02 0.14 0.02 10 Bank Protection Buried

2 1.24 0.14 0.02 10 Bank Protection Buried

3 3.10 0.11 0.03 10 Bank Protection Free

4 1.89 0.14 0.03 10 Sediment Trap Buried

5 9.65 0.17 0.22 10 None Bridge

6 5.59 0.12 0.06 10 None Bridge

7 3.61 0.13 0.05 9 Organic Trap Ramp

8 1.44 0.14 0.02 9 Bank Protection Buried

9 5.56 0.15 0.10 9 Jam Jam

10 2.89 0.13 0.04 9 None Jam

11 2.39 0.38 0.27 9 Sediment and Organic Trap Jam

12 1.45 0.15 0.03 9 Sediment and Organic Trap Jam

13 1.67 0.14 0.03 9 Sediment and Organic Trap Jam

14 3.73 0.41 0.49 9 Sediment Trap Buried

15 3.38 0.40 0.42 9 Bank Protection Ramp

16 2.08 0.13 0.03 9 Sediment Trap Buried

17 2.64 0.17 0.06 8 None Ramp

18 9.58 0.13 0.13 6 None Jam

19 2.30 0.11 0.02 6 None Jam

20 1.94 0.12 0.02 6 None Jam

21 9.56 0.21 0.33 6 None Ramp

22 13.27 0.29 0.88 6 Jam Bridge

23 3.71 0.12 0.04 6 Bank Protection Buried

24 3.12 0.12 0.04 6 Bank Protection Buried

25 3.89 0.19 0.11 6 Bank Protection Buried

26 1.23 0.15 0.02 6 Bank Protection Buried

27 5.23 0.20 0.16 6 Jam Bridge

28 2.11 0.11 0.02 6 Organic Trap Jam

29 2.48 0.14 0.04 6 None Jam

30 1.11 0.17 0.03 6 Organic Trap Jam

31 1.45 0.28 0.09 5 None Free

32 2.05 0.11 0.02 3 None Free

33 1.87 0.23 0.08 3 Organic Trap Free

34 2.27 0.17 0.05 3 Organic Trap Jam

35 3.49 0.14 0.05 3 Jam Jam

36 12.79 0.35 1.23 2 None Bridge

37 2.24 0.10 0.02 2 None Free

38 2.71 0.11 0.03 1 None Free
73

Table C-4. Variability of canopy cover observed at KEMO002.

Transect Canopy Cover (%)

1 84

2 68

3 62

4 97

5 99

6 93

7 90

8 90

9 79

10 99

11 65

Min (%) 62

Max (%) 99

Mean (%) 84

Median (%) 90

Standard Deviation (%) 14

Coefficient of Variance 0.16
74

Bank Characteristics n (L) n (R) Min (L) Min (R) Max (L) Max (R) Mean (L) Mean (R) Median (L) Median (R) SD (L) SD (L) CV (L) CV (R)

Bank Heighta

 (m) 11 11 1.11 1.17 2.27 2.30 1.76 1.96 1.93 1.99 0.39 0.30 0.22 0.15

Bankfull Heighta,b (m) 5 1 1.11 1.17 1.63 1.17 1.39 1.17 1.49 1.17 0.23 - 0.17 -

Channel-full Heighta,b (m) 11 11 1.93 1.81 2.35 2.30 2.11 2.02 2.12 1.99 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.08

Water Depth at Basec

 (m) 11 11 -0.13 -0.13 -0.06 -0.06 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 -0.09 0.02 0.02 - -

Bank Undercutb

 (m) 1 3 0.12 0.26 0.12 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.12 0.30 - 0.07 - 0.23

Bank Angle (°) 11 11 3 33 78 91 34 61 33 63 22 17 0.65 0.28

Vegetation Cover (%) 11 11 10 10 65 70 37 38 40 30 19 24 0.52 0.63

Bank Stabilityd 11 11 Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable Unstable 0.65 1.36 0.05 0.10

Table C-5. Average reach-scale bank characteristics at KEMO002. 'n' is number of measurements taken, ‘L’ indicates left bank, ‘R’ indicates right bank, 'Min' is 

minimum,'Max' is maximum, ‘SD’ is standard deviation, ‘CV’ is coefficient of variation [m—meters;].

a

 Above thalweg

b

 Statistics are based on the transects where feature is present 

c

 A negative number indicates base of bank is above the water surface

d

 See Table 1 for explanation of scores
75

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 3.86 7.57 0.51 7.04 0.70 10.06

Channel-full 12.79 11.47 1.11 9.90 1.82 5.43

Ratio 3.31 1.52 2.18 1.41 2.60 0.54

Figure C-14. Detailed transect 1 at KEMO002. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and interpreted bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark 

blue) cross-sectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is 

in the downstream direction.

Table C-6. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 1 at KEMO002 [m—meters].
76

Table C-7. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 2 at KEMO002 [m—meters].

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 5.68 8.24 0.69 7.53 1.11 6.77

Channel-full 11.68 11.66 1.00 10.50 1.75 6.00

Ratio 2.06 1.41 1.45 1.39 1.57 0.89

Figure C-15. Detailed transect 2 at KEMO002. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark blue) crosssectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is in the 

downstream direction.
77

Table C-8. Cross-sectional characteristics for detailed transect 3 at KEMO002 [m—meters].

Type Area (m2) Perimeter (m) Hydraulic Radius (m) Width (m) Depth (m) Width/Depth

Bankfull 2.72 6.68 0.41 6.17 0.70 8.81

Channel-full 11.24 10.82 1.04 9.42 1.74 5.42

Ratio 4.13 1.62 2.55 1.53 2.48 0.62

Figure C-16. Detailed transect 3 at KEMO002. The surveyed locations of the left and right benchmarks, channel-full 

bank-tops, and interpreted bankfull bank height are shown on the figure. Channel-full (light blue) and bankfull (dark 

blue) cross-sectional areas are also included (channel-full cross-sectional area equals light blue plus dark blue). View is 

in the downstream direction.
78

Literature Cited 

Fry, J. A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. A. Dewitz, C. G. Homer, L. Yang, C. A. Barnes, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham. 2006. Completion of 

the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing, v. 77, no. 9, p. 858–864.

Georgia Department of Transportation & Information Technology Outreach Services - University of Georgia. 2004. Georgia 

County Roads- vector digital data. At http://gis1.state.ga.us/download.asp?dataID=4021 (last accessed December 2006)

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, J. A. Fry, M. J. Coan, S. M. Hossain, L. Nazmul, R. Charles, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J. N Van Driel, 

and J. Wickham. 2001. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States: 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 73, no. 4, p. 337–341.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. 

Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land 

cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 81:345–354.

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, S. Jin, G. Xian, C. Costello, P. Danielson, L. Gass, M. Funk, J. Wickham, S. Stehman, R. F. Auch, and 

K. H. Riitters. 2020. Conterminous United States land cover change patterns 2001–2016 from the 2016 National Land 

Cover Database: ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 162, p. 184–199. Available at: https://www.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924271620300587?via%3Dihub (last accessed June 2020). 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities.

NPS 352/173866, November 2020
EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525