20031064 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080414

UT to TAR RIVER (Louisburg)
FINAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 OF 5
2007
APR 1 4 2008, EEP Project # 234
yyF(I} ,,EN, A,O,Q A R?,,vL,,?ranklin County, North Carolina
RECEIVED
FEB i , ?0oa
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Original Design Firm:
Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Submitted to:
,,r.
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Monitoring Firm:
S-e SEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone]
Project Manager:
Phillip Todd
[e-mail]
Executive Summary
The Unnamed Tributary to Tar River Restoration Site is located within the Town of Louisburg,
Franklin County, North Carolina. The site was constructed between January 2005 and June 2005.
The following report provides the stream restoration monitoring information for Monitoring Year
2 after construction.
The Priority Level II restoration involved the conversion of 1,792 linear feet of impaired channel
into 1,937 linear feet with improved pattern, dimension, and profile. Rock grade control vanes
and rootwads were incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank stability. A
variable width riparian buffer was planted on either side of the stream with native vegetation in
December 2005.
Current monitoring for the site consists of evaluating both stream morphology and riparian
vegetation. The stream monitoring included a longitudinal survey, cross section surveys, pebble
counts, problem area identification, and photo documentation. A plan view featuring bankfull,
edge of water, and thalweg lines as well as problem area locations was developed from the
longitudinal survey. The vegetation assessment included a tally of planted vegetation in
permanent vegetation plots, vegetation-specific problem area identification (i.e. bare areas and
invasive species), and photo documentation. A vegetation problem area plan view was developed
from the problem area identification. All morphological data, vegetation plot and pebble counts,
cross section surveys, the longitudinal profile, and the plan view features were compared between
monitoring years to assess project performance.
The UT to Tar River project reach appears to have remained geomorphically stable between
Monitoring Years 1 and 2, with the exception of some severe bank erosion and several long
sections of sand/gravel aggradation that were probably at least partially influenced by the bank
erosion observed in the reach. The most severe section of erosion is located at the head of the
reach, on the right bank, where the bank has experienced mass wasting just downstream of the
culvert outlet. Overall, there appears to be good vegetation along the stream channel. Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) and wartremoving herb (Murdannia keisak) are two
invasives noted in areas along stream corridor. There were two sections of bare floodplain where
the terrace is failing (i.e. actively eroding), a section where linear scour of the floodplain formed a
chute, and several areas where bare soil was visible. These problem areas will be observed
closely during future monitoring. The planted bare root stem densities for all the Vegetation Plots
(VP), except VP # 1 and 2, are below the Year 5 goal of 260 stems/acre. In VP # 6, 7, 8 and 9,
green ash volunteers were very prevalent, too numerous to count; if counted, the number of
stems/acre would exceed the stem/acre for each plot above the 260 stems/acre goal at Year 5.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO TAR RIVER STREAM RESTORATION
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
CONDUCTED FOR:
NCDENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................1
1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................... .....1
1.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ........................................ .....1
1.3 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................ ..... l
1.4 History and Background .................................................................................. .....3
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING METHODOLOGY ............................................................ .....5
2.1 Vegetation Methodology ................................................................................. .....5
2.2 Stream Methodology ....................................................................................... .....5
2.2.1 Longitudinal Profile .......................................................................... .....5
2.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections ................................................................. .....5
2.2.3 Pebble Counts .................................................................................... .....6
2.3 Photo Documentation ...................................................................................... .....6
3.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS ....................................... .....6
3.1 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................... .....6
3.1.1 Soils Data .......................................................................................... .....6
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View ................................................. .....6
3.1.3 Stem Counts ...................................................................................... .....7
3.2 Stream Assessment .......................................................................................... .....7
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View .................................................. .....8
3.2.2 Permanent Cross-Sections ................................................................. .....8
3.2.3 Pebble Counts .................................................................................... .....9
3.2.4 Stream Problem Areas ....................................................................... .....9
3.3 Photo Documentation ...................................................................................... ...10
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... ...10
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................10
TABLES
Table I Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table ..............................................................I
Table II Project Activity and Reporting History ...............................................................................3
Table III Project Contact Table ........................................................................................................4
Table IV Project Background Table .................................................................................................4
Table V Preliminary Soil Data .........................................................................................................6
Table VI Vegetative Problem Areas .............................................................................. Appendix A3
Table VII Stem counts for each species arranged by plot ............................................. Appendix A3
Table VIII Verification of Bankfull Events ......................................................................................8
Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates (not included in this year's data)
Table X Stream Problem Areas ..................................................................................... Appendix B3
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ...............................................10
Table XII Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ........................................... Appendix B3
Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary .................................... Appendix B3
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................2
UT Tar River Monitoring Report SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix A1: Photolog- Vegetation Problem Areas ..................................................................A1
Appendix A2: Photolog- Vegetation Plots ..................................................................................A2
Appendix A3: Vegetation Data Tables ..........................................................................................A3
Appendix B
Appendix B 1: Photolog - Stream Problem Areas ......................................................................... B 1
Appendix B2: Photolog - Cross Sections and Photo Points ..132 ................................................... B2
Appendix 133: Stream Data Tables .................................................................................................B3
Appendix B4: Stream Cross Sections ........................................................................................... B4
Appendix 135: Stream Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................B5
Appendix 136: Stream Pebble Counts ............................................................................................ B6
Appendix C: Plan View Sheets
UT Tar River Monitoring Report SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Proiect Objectives
This UT Tar River Stream Restoration Project has the following goals and objectives:
• Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining its
dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water and
sediment load;
• Improve water quality and reduce further property loss by stabilizing eroding streambanks;
• Reconnect the stream to its floodplain and/or establish a new floodplain at a lower elevation;
• Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures such as root
wads, cross-vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer;
• Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation of a riparian
zone; and,
• Stabilize and enhance the tributary and small drainage that enters the site.
1.2 Proiect Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The UT Tar River project is a Priority II restoration involving converting the 1,792 linear foot
impaired channel into a sinuous channel that meanders for a total of 1,937 linear feet. Rock grade
control vanes and rootwads were incorporated for aquatic habitat enhancement and bed and bank
stability. A variable width riparian buffer was planted on either side of the stream with native
vegetation. Table I provides the project restoration components of the UT to Tar River stream
restoration project.
Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
UT Tar River Stream Mitigation Site/Project No. 234
Project Segment/Reach ID Mitigation Approach Linear Stationing Comment
Type Footage
Ut to Tar River, 1,792 linear R P 11 1,937 10+00 to 1:1 Ratio
feet Pre-Restoration (CL) 29+37.13
R = Restoration P I1= Priority Level II
1.3 Project Location and Setting
The UT Tar River project site is located in the town of Louisburg in Franklin County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). Louisburg is located approximately 25 miles north of Raleigh along US 401.
The project site begins at NC 39 and continues towards the northeast between Burnette Road and
the Green Hill Country Club. To reach the site from Raleigh, take US 401 north to Louisburg.
Turn right (south) at NC 39 and take the first left onto Burnette Road. The site is on the right
running parallel with the road. The watershed area for this project is 0.61 square miles. The
project is fully contained on publicly owned lands. UT Tar River flows from the southwest to the
northeast. The project reach is bound on the west by NC 39, and a small drainage flows off of the
country club property and into the conservation easement before entering the UT Tar River from
the right bank.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report 1 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
rigure 1. U 1 to Tar K1ver Vic!
a%e US 11401 n0rtr .o ne r4C1 6p!il
ano Dort n J e or US 4aI Pass '.nrougn
Ralesvllle ana Into Louisburg. 'urn rl
onto YC 33 soLCn dnd df aTRleoldie N
RIVER C'
LOUISBURG, NC
N
,v
PROJECT LOCATION

a
REX

arre'c rreq
Grarv III !' ;raIIfa•:
2,0&0 1,000 0 2,CM 4,000 J r h a n1 K, a
flesh
Feet VV ake y; Ison
FIGURE 1
I,?Y}??,?rJ? PROJECT LOCATION MAP SeSEPI
tv.nnn...t:cr
UT to Tar River Louisburg, NC
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
2 SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
1.4 History and Background
A concern at the UT Tar River site prior to restoration was that the combined effects of
urbanizing hydrology and lack of vegetative protection was putting Burnette Road at risk of
undercutting from stream bank failure at the head of the project. Recent utility work by the town
caused additional channel instability. Typical of many urban streams, the UT Tar River channel
was an oversized gully. The town had placed riprap in the channel in some areas to prevent
undercutting. Vegetation across the site was minimal due to channel degradation and other
disturbances. Tables Il, III, and IV provide the project history, contact information for the
contractors on the project, and the project background/setting, respectively.
Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Tar River/EEP Project No. 234

Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
Date
Restoration Plan * NA June 2003
Final Design - 90% * NA Unknown
Construction * NA 7/26/2005

Temporary S&E and Permanent seed mix applied *
NA Throughout
Construction
Containerized, B&B, livestake planting * * 12/22/2005
Mitigation Plan / As-built (Year 0 Monitoring -
baseline)
A ri12006
Aril 2006
May 2006
Year 1 Monitoring Fall 2006 January 2007 January 2007
Year 2 Monitoring Fall 2007 September 2007 December 2007
Year 3 Monitoring Fall 2008
Year 4 Monitoring Fall 2009
Year 5 Monitoring Fall 2010
*Absent from both mitigation report (as-built) and Year 1 Monitoring Report.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table 111. Project Contact Table
UT to Tar River/EEP Project No. 234
Designer Earth Tech
701 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Construction Contractor McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
Planting Contractor P.O. Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Erosion Control Solutions
Seeding Contractor 5508 Peakton Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27614
Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Earth Tech
Performers 701 Corporation Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
SEPI Engineering Group
Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring 1025 Wade Avenue
Performer Raleigh, NC 27605
Phillip Todd 919) 789-9977
Stream Monitoring POC Ira Poplar-Jeffers 919 573-9914
Vegetation Monitoring POC Phil Beach 919 573-9936
Wetland Monitoring POC N/A
Table IV. Project Background Table
UT to Tar River /EEP Project No. 234
Project County Franklin County, NC
Drainage Area 0.61 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) >30%
Stream Order l st order
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Northern Outer Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-Built C
Cowardin Classification NA
Dominant Soil Types Chewacla and Wehadkee loam;
Wedowee-Urbanland_Udorthents complex
Reference site ID C5 UT Lake Lynn (Wake), C4 UT Hare Snipe Creek
(Wake)
USGS HUC for Project 03020101
USGS HUC for References 03020201
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project 03-03-01
NCDWQ Sub-basin for References 03-04-02
NCDWQ Classification for Project Not Assigned
NCDW Classification for Reference UT Lake Lynn: B-NSW; UT Hare Snipe Creek: C-NSW
Any portion of any project segment 303D listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of
a 303D listed segment? No
Reasons for 303D listing or stressor N/A
% of project easement fenced <5
% of project easement demarcated with bollards
if fencing absent 0
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Methodology
The following methodology was used for the stem count. The configuration of the vegetation
plots was marked out with tape to measure 10 meters by 10 meters (or equivalent to 100 square
meters) depending on buffer width. The planted material in the plot was marked with flagging.
The targeted vegetation was then identified by species and a tally of each species was kept and
recorded in a field book.
2.2 Stream Methodology
The project monitoring for the stream channel included a longitudinal survey, cross-sectional
surveys, pebble counts, problem area identification, and photo documentation. The specific
methodology for each portion of the stream monitoring is described in detail below.
2.2.1 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed with a Nikon DTM-520 Total Station, prism, and a TDS
Recon Pocket PC. The heads of features (i.e. riffles, runs, pools, and glides) were surveyed, as
well as the point of maximum depth of each pool, boundaries of problem areas, and any other
significant slope-breaks or points of interest. At the head of each feature and at the maximum
pool depth, thalweg, water surface, edge of water, left and right bankfull, and left and right top of
bank (if different than bankfull) were surveyed. All profile measurements were calculated from
this survey, including channel and valley length and length of each feature, water surface slope
for each reach and feature, bankfull slope for the reach, and pool spacing. This survey also was
used to draw plan view figures with Microstation v8 (Bentley Systems, Inc., Exton, PA).
Stationing was calculated along the thalweg. All pattern measurements (i.e., meander length,
radius of curvature, belt width, meander width ratio, and sinuosity) were measured from the plan
view.
2.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections
Five permanent cross sections (three riffles, one pool, and one run) were surveyed. The
beginning and end of each permanent cross section were originally marked with a wooden stake
and conduit. Cross sections were installed perpendicular to the stream flow. Each cross section
survey noted all changes in slopes, tops of both banks (if different from bankfull), left and right
bankfull, edges of water, thalweg and water surface. Before each cross section was surveyed,
bankfull level was identified, and a quick bankfull area was calculated by measuring a bankfull
depth at 1-foot intervals between the left and right bankfull locations and adding the area of each
interval block across the channel. This rough area was then compared to the North Carolina
Rural Piedmont Regional Curve-calculated bankfull area to ensure that bankfull was accurately
located prior to the survey. The cross sections were then plotted and Monitoring Year 2
monitoring data was overlain on Monitoring Year 1 for comparison. All dimension
measurements (i.e., bankfull width, floodprone width, bankfull mean depth, cross sectional area,
width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, bank height ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic
radius) were calculated from these plots and compared to the Monitoring Year 1 data.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report 5 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
2.2.3 Pebble Counts
A modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen 1994), consisting of 50 samples, was conducted at
each permanent cross section. The cumulative percentages were graphed, and the D50 and D84
particle sizes were calculated and compared to Monitoring Year 1 data.
2.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo points were established during Monitoring Year 1. Two photographs (facing
upstream and facing downstream) were taken at each photo point with a digital camera. A set of
three photographs were taken at each cross-section (facing upstream, facing downstream, and
facing the channel). A representative photograph of each vegetation plot was taken at the
designated corner of the vegetation plot and in the same direction as the Monitoring Year 1
photograph. Photos were also taken of all significant stream and vegetation problem areas.
1.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
3.1.1 Soils Data
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
UT to Tar River/ EEP Project No. 234
Series Max
Depth
in. % Clay on
Surface K T OM%
Chewacla and Wehadkee Loam 62 6-35 0.28-0.32 5 1-5
Wedowee Sand Loam 62 5-45 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-3
Wedowee-Urbanland-Udorthents Complex 62 5-20 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-3
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View
Overall, there appears to be good vegetation along the stream channel. There are some bank
erosion areas, and these areas are described in the stream problem area section of the report (See
Section 3.2.4). In addition, there are several areas of bare floodplain along the channel. Two of
these, located at Station 16+25 and Station 18+25 along the thalweg, are areas where the terrace
above the floodplain on the right side is actively eroding. A third area is where it appears that the
floodplain was scoured out during a high flow event at two adjacent spots (Station 12+50)
forming a chute on the floodplain. The other areas of bare floodplain are spots where bare soil is
visible (i.e. low density of vegetation). All of these problem areas will be observed closely
during future monitoring.
The vegetation problem noted were isolated to invasive species and bare flood plain. Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum) and wartremoving herb (Murdannia keisak) are two
invasives noted in areas along stream corridor. Japanese stilt grass was noted in the lower portion
of the stream reach (Station 26+00 and downstream). Wartremoving herb was noted in clumps
along the stream reach. There were two sections of bare floodplain where the terrace is failing
(i.e. actively eroding), a section where linear scour of the floodplain formed a chute, and several
bare soil spots. These problem areas will be observed closely during future monitoring.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report 6 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
The corners of VP #9 could not be located during the stem count. These corners need to be re-
surveyed for Monitoring Year 3.
3.1.3 Stem Counts
The planted bare root stem densities for all the Vegetation Plots (VP), except VP # 1 and 2, are
below the Year 5 goal of 260 stems/acre. There was volunteer species, those not originally
planted, noted in many of the vegetation plot. In VP # 6, 7, 8 and 9, green ash volunteers were
very prevalent, too numerous to count. These stems were not included in the counts; however,
for VP # 6, 7, 8 and 9, the inclusion of green ash volunteers would push the stem/acre for each
plot above 260 stems/acre.
The corners of VP #9 could not be located during the stem count. Several stems in the area for
VP #9 were 'flagged', and these stems were counted and included as the stems matched the
species of Monitoring Year 1. These corners will be located using traditional survey during
Monitoring Year 3.
It should be noted that there were several species for which several-to-many additional stems
were counted within a given plot relative to the Monitoring Year 1 count. These additional stems
were assumed to be volunteers and were not included in the survival calculations. The species
were Myrica cerifera (VP #1 through 6, 8, and 9), Sambucus Canadensis (VP #9), Fraxinus
pennsylvanica (VP #2, 4, and 6 though 9), Betula nigra (VP #6), Quercus pagoda (VP #2 and 6),
and Celtis laevigata (VP #5). The Fraxinus pennsylvanica volunteers in VP #6 through 9 were
too numerous to count and were not tallied. In addition, the following species were found in plots
but were assumed to be volunteers because they were apparently not found during Monitoring
Year l: Liquidambar styraciua (VP #1), Cephalanthus occidentalis (VP #5), Liriodendron
tulipifera (VP #6), Viburnum dentatum (VP #7), and Salix nigra (VP #9).
3.2 Stream Assessment
Considering the 5 year timeframe of standard mitigation monitoring, restored streams should
demonstrate morphologic stability in order to be considered successful. Stability does not equate
to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of variation.
Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several months that
follow construction and some change/variation subsequent to that is to also be expected.
However, the observed change should not indicate a high rate or be unidirectional over time such
that a robust trend is evident. If some trend is evident, it should be very modest or indicate
migration to another stable form. Examples of the latter include depositional processes resulting
in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain, such as an inner berm,
slight channel narrowing, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition. Annual
variation is to be expected, but over time this should demonstrate maintenance around some
acceptable central tendency while also demonstrating consistency or a reduction in the amplitude
of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to which the
system is exposed over the monitoring period.
For channel dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross-sectional area
and the channel's width to depth ratio should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation that are in keeping with above. For the channels' profile, the reach under assessment
should not demonstrate any consistent trends in thalweg aggradation or degradation over any
significant continuous portion of its length. Over the monitoring period, the profile should also
demonstrate the maintenance or development of bedform (facets) more in keeping with reference
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
level diversity and distributions for the stream type in question. It should also provide a
meaningful contrast in terms of bedform diversity against the pre-existing condition. Bedform
distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do so with maintenance around
design/As-built distributions. This requires that the majority of pools are maintained at greater
depths with lower water surface slopes and riffles are shallow with greater water surface slopes.
Substrate measurements should indicate the progression towards, or the maintenance of, the
known distributions from the design phase.
In addition to these geomorphic criteria, a minimum of two bankfull events must be documented
during separate monitoring years within the five year monitoring period for the monitoring to be
considered complete. Table VIII documents all bankfull events recorded since the start of
Monitoring Year 1.
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Tar River/ EEP Project No. 234
Date of Data Date of Method Photo # (if
Collection Occurrence available)
1/3/2007 2006 Photographic - Near BankfulI See Monitoring
Year 1 Report
According to NOAA National Weather Service daily climate data,
6/4/2007 6/3/2007- approximately 1.45" of precipitation fell over the listed two day period. No Photo

6/4/2007
1" of this fell on 6/3. An additional 0.4" fell on 6/5/2007. It was assumed, .
but not confirmed, that this event resulted in a bankfull flow.
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View
The overall water surface slope is assumed to have remained the same between Monitoring Years
1 and 2, although there was difficulty comparing the actual slope values because the previous
year stream monitors rounded the calculated slope value up to 0.01 (1.0%). However, based on
the annual overlay of the longitudinal profile, it can be assumed that the overall water surface
slope remained consistent. All other profile parameters have remained stable between monitoring
years, except for median pool length. Median pool length appears to have increased notably
between the as-built and Monitoring Year 1, but remained similar between Monitoring Years 1
and 2. It is unclear how to explain this observation by anything other than the possibility that the
stream went through an adjustment period post-construction. However, a more likely scenario
would be differences in survey calls by different monitoring performers in different years. For
example, the as-built surveyor may have called out long run features upstream of pools that were
lumped in with the pool features during the Monitoring Year 1 and 2 surveys. The effect would
be an apparent increase in pool length when little change to the stream actually happened. All
pattern metrics appear to have remained stable since the as-built survey. The Monitoring Year 1
and 2 thalweg lines overlay fairly consistently on the problem area plan view.
3.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections
Cross sections #1 through #5 all show very little change between Monitoring Years 1 and 2 based
upon the cross section annual overlays. This is surprising considering cross sections #1 through
#3 are associated with aggradation problem areas, and cross section #3 crosses bank erosion on
both banks. The aggradation and erosion areas must have stabilized sometime prior to
Monitoring Year 1. The stationing on cross section #2 appears to be "off' for either Monitoring
Year 1 or 2, but the overall geometry of the two plots is very similar. In addition, although cross
section #4 appears stable since Monitoring Year 1, it does appear that the channel may have
widened a small amount in the left bank toe area of the cross section. This trend should be re-
UT Tar River Monitoring Report 8 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
evaluated in the next monitoring year. In Monitoring Year 1 cross section #5 was listed as
crossing a run feature, however this cross section is located across a meander bend pool. This
notation has been changed on all Monitoring Year 2 documentation.
3.2.3 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts at all cross sections show that size class proportions have either remained the same
or have coarsened over the second monitoring year. A trend observed at all cross sections was
the disappearance of silt/clay. In addition, the counts at cross sections #3 and #5 included the
addition of several large gravel particles, and the cross section #5 count included a notable
reduction in medium and coarse sand particles.
3.2.4 Stream Problem Areas
Several sections of sand/small gravel bar formation were observed during problem area
identification. There were also two small areas identified as "cattail aggradation" (see problem
area plan view, Appendix C) where cattails were growing in the active stream channel (stations
18+84 and 28+96 along the thalweg).
There also is bank erosion and undercutting at many points along the reach. Although the bank
condition was rated moderately high (88%) in the morphological visual stability assessment, there
are several sections of severe slumping that may require attention. There is one large section of
severe erosion, approximately 33 feet long, located on stream-left at the start of the reach (Station
10+00) that appears to be the result of high velocity flows "shotgunning" onto the bank through
the culvert located there. The combined steep slope and lack of protection on the bank have
caused mass slumping of the bank into the large outlet pool, causing the formation of a large bar
on the left side of the channel (see problem area plan view, Appendix C). The "shotgun" effect of
the culverts has also caused a long section of erosion, approximately 41 feet long, located on the
right bank adjacent to and downstream of the above-mentioned severe erosion area (station
10+16). This erosion is not as severe, but should also be monitored closely in the next several
years. These erosional areas have probably contributed most of the sediment to the long sections
of aggradation found in the upper half of the project reach although, presumably, some of the
sediment could have been entrained from upstream of the reach. There are also two sections of
severe erosion (Station 24+02 and Station 25+24) along with several other areas of less severe
erosion and undercutting that are located just downstream of the confluence of the drainage, on
stream left, at approximately Station 23+80. This drainage probably is very "flashy" during
stormflow events since it drains a shopping center and other urban areas. It is probable that the
combination of these "flashy" flows, along with the lack of protective measures at this
confluence, has caused the increased rate of bank erosion in this section of the project reach. It is
not surprising that this section is where the sand/small gravel aggradation reappears, because the
sediment source is probably mainly consists of all of the adjacent erosion along with other
sediments entrained from upstream.
All problems associated with in-stream structures included situations where the structure was
placed at the improper location or angle, or the structure was providing inadequate protection to
an eroding bank. No serious structural integrity problems were found for any of the structures.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report 9 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 234 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
UT to Tar River/ EEP Pro'ect No. 234
Feature Initial MY-01* MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 100% 10% 72%
B. Pools 100% 30% 81%
C. Thalwe 100% 60% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 77%
E. Bed General 100% 20% 88%
F. Bank Condition 100% UNK 88%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 60% 90%
H. Wads and Boulders 100% 70% 97%
*There are several discrepances between table B2 and Table XI from the Year 1 report. This
might explain the discrepancies between Year 1 and Year 2 stability percentages in this table.
3.3 Photo Documentation
Photos taken of the vegetation problem areas are found in Appendix Al and photos of the
vegetation plots are in Appendix A2. Stream problem area photographs are provided in
Appendix B 1. The photographs taken at the marked photo point locations and at the cross-
sections are provided in Appendix B2.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The UT to Tar River project reach appears to have remained geomorphically stable between
Monitoring Years 1 and 2, with the exception of some severe bank erosion and several areas of
sand/gravel bar formation that were probably at least partially influenced by the bank erosion
observed in the reach. The most severe section of erosion is located at the head of the reach, on
the right bank, where the bank has experienced mass wasting just downstream of the culvert
outlet. It is recommended that this section of channel be reviewed to determine if repair work is
necessary. Otherwise, the stream pattern and profile remained consistent between the monitoring
years. The overall dimension of the stream appears to have remained stable. The only cross
section that displayed dimensional change was cross section #5 which appears to have had some
downcutting at the thalweg and point bar deposition on the inside of the meander. The structures
appear to be in good physical condition; however, several structures were cited with problems of
placement angle and/or location that caused adjacent bank erosion.
The planted bare root stems for all the Vegetation Plots (VP), except VP # 1 and 2, are under
below the Year 5 goal of 260 stems/acre. In VP # 6, 7, 8 and 9, green ash volunteers were very
prevalent, too numerous to count; if counted, the number of stems/acre would exceed the
stem/acre for each plot above the 260 stems/acre goal at Year 5. The corners of VP #9 could not
be located during the stem count. These corners need to be re-surveyed for Monitoring Year 3.
REFERENCES
Earth Tech. January 2007. Unnamed Tributary to Tar River Stream Restoration Louisburg,
Franklin County, North Carolina Year I Monitoring Report.
DeLorme. 1997. The North Carolina Atlas and Gazateer.
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
10
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S. Olson
and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Synposium. Bozeman, MT.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. September 2005. Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural River. Catena, Volume 22: 166-169, Elsevier
Science, B.V. Amsterdam.
U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/stream mitigation.html
UT Tar River Monitoring Report
EEP Project Number 234
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Appendix Al
Photolog - Vegetation Problem Areas
APPENDIX Al
PHOTOLOG - UT to Tar River
PROBLEM AREAS (Vegetation)
27+25; appears to have been re-graded post-
restoration. There is a patch of disturbed
floodplain where the riparian plant
community has been impacted with some
erosion of the right stream bank.
24+50.
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix Al
Photolog - Vegetation Problem Areas Page 1 of 1
Photo 1: Ditch entering stream at Station
Photo 3. Representative bare floodplain
(Station 16+00 along plan view)
Photo 2: Representative terrace failure,
listed as bare floodplain, problem area
(Station 16+25 along plan view).
Photo 4: Bank Erosion (left) at Station
Appendix A2
Photolog - Vegetation Plots
APPENDIX A2
PHOTOLOG - UT to TAR RIVER
VEGETATION PLOTS

Monitoring Year 2 Appendix A2
Photolog - Vegetation Plots Page I of 2
Photo 1: Vegetation Plot 1
Photo 2: Vegetation Plot 2
Photo 3: Vegetation Plot 3
Photo 4: Vegetation Plot 4
Photo 5: Vegetation Plot 5
Photo 6: Vegetation Plot 6
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix A2
Photolog - Vegetation Plots Page 2 of 2
Photo 8: Vegetation Plot 8
Photo 7: Vegetation Plot 7
Photo 9: Vegetation Plot 9
Appendix A3
Vegetation Data Tables
Table VI. Ve etative Problem Areas UT Tar River
Feature/Issue Station Range Probable Cause Photo #
Bare Bank

Bare Bench

Bare Flood Plain 12+50 to 13+00 (LEFT) Chute cutoff; linear scour of floodplain.
13+75 to 14+00 (RIGHT) Low vegetative density; bare soil visible.
16+00 to 16+60 (LEFT) Low vegetative density; bare soil visible. 3
16+25 to 16+74 (RIGHT) Terrace failure; weak soil characteristics. 2
18+25 to 18+50 (RIGHT) Terrace failure; weak soil characteristics.
25+00 to 25+25 (RIGHT) Low vegetative density; bare soil visible.
27+25 to 27+50 (RIGHT) Patch of disturbed floodplain where the ditch was apparently

re-graded.
1
Invasive/Exotic Populations 26+00 to 29+60 Microstegium viminum invasion of entire width of floodplain at
the end of the project reach.

Table VII. Stem counts for each species arranged b plot for UT Tar River
Species Plots Initial Totals Year 1 Year 2 Survival %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g g Totals Totals
Shrubs
Myrica cerifera 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 40.0%
Alnus serrulata 1 3 3 1 33.3%
Sambucus canadensis 0 2 1 0 0.0%
Clematis virginiana 4 0 0 0.0%
Viburnum nudum 1 5 1 1 20.0%

Trees
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 7 8 8 100.0%
Betula nigra 1 5 1 1 17 11 8 47.1%
Quercus phellos 1 1 8 4 2 25.0%
Quercus pagoda 1 1 1 2 10 6 5 50.0%
Quercus nigra 1 1 8 6 2 25.0%
Nyssa sylvatica 1 13 5 1 7.7%
Platanus occidentalis 2 1 2 9 9 5 55.6%
Celtis laevigata
0
10
1
0 o
0.0 /o

Total per lot 8 10 3 1 1 6 2 0 4 101 57 35 34.706
Stems per acre 320 400 120 40 40 240 80 0 160 466 263 157 1 -1
Appendix B1
Photolog - Stream Problem Areas
APPENDIX B1
PHOTOLOG - UT to Tar River
PROBLEM AREAS (Stream)
aggradation & bar formation problem area
(photo location at Station 27+00 along plan
view).
view). Chute cutoff is located along middle
right-hand side of picture.
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B 1
Photolog - Stream Problem Areas Page 1 of l
Photo 1: Representative fine sediment
Photo 3: Severe bank failure, aggradation,
and bar formation just downstream of
culvert at head of restoration reach (Station
10+05 along plan view).
Photo 2: Chute cutoff and bar formation
problem area (Station 18+93 along plan
Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & Photo Points
APPENDIX B2
PHOTOLOG - UT Tar River
Cross Sections/Photo Points
Cross-Section I /Photo Point 2:
Cross-Section 2/Photo Point 3:
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 1 of 6
Photo Point 1: Downstream
Cross-Section l: Facing stream
Cross-Section 2/Photo Point 3: Downstream
Cross-Section 1 /Photo Point 2: Downstream
Photo Point 5: Downstream
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 2 of 6
Cross-Section 2: Facing stream
Photo Point 5: Upstream
Photo Point 4: Upstream
Cross-Section 3/Photo Point 6: Upstream
Photo point 4: Downstream
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 3 of 6
Cross Section 3/Photo Point 6. Downstream
Photo Point 7: Downstream
Cross Section 3: Facing Channel
Photo Point 8: Upstream
Photo Point 7: Upstream
Photo Point 8: Downstream
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 4 of 6
Photo Point 10: Downstream
Photo Point 9: Upstream
Photo Point 11: Upstream
Photo Point 9: Downstream
Photo Point 10: Upstream
Photo Point 11: Downstream
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 5 of 6
Photo Point 12: Upstream
Cross-Section 4: Downstream
Photo Point 12: Downstream
Cross-Section 4: Facing stream
Cross-Section 4: Upstream
Photo Point 13: Upstream
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 6 of 6
Photo Point 13: Downstream
Cross-Section 5: Facing stream
Cross-Section 5: Upstream
Photo Point 14: Upstream
Cross-Section 5: Downstream
Photo Point 14: Downstream
Appendix B3
Stream Data Tables
Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
UT Tar River
S ment/Reach: LIT Tar Rive r (1,960 feet

Feature Category
Metric
(per As-built and reference baselines) (#Stable)
Number
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As-built' Total Number

J feet in
unstable state % Performing

in Stable
Condition Feature

Performance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles 1. Present 15 18 NA 83%
2. Armor stable 15 18 NA 83%
3. Facet grade appears stable 13 18 NA 72%
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining 10 18 NA 56%
5. Length appropriate 12 18 NA 67% 72%
B. Pools 1. Present 26 32 NA 81%
2. Sufficiently deep 26 32 NA 81 %
3. Length appropriate 26 32 NA 81% 81%
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 13 13 NA 100%
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 14 14 NA 100% 100%
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 17 26 NA 65%
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 6 9 NA 67
3. Apparent Rc within specifications 20 26 NA 77%
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 26 26 NA 100% 77%
E. Bed General 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) NA NA 17/456 77%
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down cutting
or head cutting NA NA 0/0 100% 88%
F. Bank Condition 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank NA NA 25/490 88% 88%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 1. Free of back or arm scour 21 24 NA 88%
2. Height appropriate 24 24 NA 100%
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 17 24 NA 71%
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 24 24 NA 1001 90%
H. Wads and Boulders 1. Free of scour 54 57 NA 95%
2. Footing stable 57 57 NA 100% 97%

Table X. Stream Problem Areas
UT Tar
Feature Issue Station

numbers Suspected Cause
Photo number
Bank Erosion (left bank, severe) 10+00
rt and/or unstable soil charactheristics and lack of vegetation
f
l
B
k
dd

10+33 .
rom cu
ve
ac
e
y
Aggradation/Bar Formation 10+11 Excess fine sediment deposit from adjacent severe bank erosion and/or other
10+51 upstream sources.
Bank Erosion (right bank) 10+16 Probably caused by high shear stress along the unprotected bank due to increased
10+57 flow velocities leaving the culvert during peak flows.
Central Bar 11+32 Small central bar; probably deposition resulting from upstream bank erosion and/or
11+34 other upstream sources.
Bank Erosion (left bank) 11+61
and/or lack of vegetation.
unstable soil characteristics
Bank an
le
11+75 ,
g
,
Side Bar 12+49 Small side bar; probably deposition resulting from upstream bank erosion and/or
12+55 other upstream sources.
Bank Erosion (left bank) 13+03
etation
and/or lack of ve
acteristics
t
bl
il
h
k
l
B

13+12 .
g
c
ar
,
ang
e, uns
a
e so
an
Bank Erosion (right bank) 14+15 Inadequate bank protection, possibly due to misplacement of bank protection
14+26 measures, and or lack of vegetation/soil instability.
Rock Structure 14+30 be cause of adjacent bank erosion
t
Pl
.
acemen
may
Aggradation/Bar Formation 14+39 osit has formed a side and central bar
di
nt de
E
f

14+76 .
me
p
xcess
ine se
Rock Structure 14+78 be cause of adjacent bank erosion
Placement ma
Va
e
Sh
ld b
C
.
y
ross
n
.
ou
e a
Bank Erosion (right bank) 14+78 Improper stucture angle/placement directly upstream and or unstable soil
14+87 characteristics/lack of vegetation.
Rock Structure 5+71 Placed too far upstream of the start of the meander to adequately protect the outside
of the meander.
Central Bar W Small central bar; probably deposition resulting from upstream bank erosion and/or
other upstream sources.
Bank Erosion (right bank) Inadequate bank protection, possibly due to misplacement of bank protection
16+08 measures, and or lack of vegetation/soil instability.
Rock Structure 16+66 Should be a Cross Vane. Unadequate bank protection directly downstream causing
erosion of both banks due to back eddy.
Bank Erosion (both banks) 16+68 t
b
16+88 ove commen
see a
Side Bars (2) 16+68 B
terial from adjacent erosion
ith b
k
f
d

16+88 .
an
ma
ars
orme
w
Aggradation 18+66 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
18+84 upstream sources.
Aggradation (cattails) 18+84 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
18+90 upstream sources facilitating cattail growth.
Aggradation/Side Bar Formation 18+90 Excess fine sediment deposit from upstream bank erosion and/or other upstream Photo 2
19+15 sources.
Chute Cutoff and Point Bar Formation 18+93 s or bankfull dimensions incorrect
l
ibl
-si
o
Ch
.
anne
poss
y over
nu
u
Aggradation 19+61 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
19+78 upstream sources.
Rootwad 21+76 adjacent bank erosion
rootwads causin
t
t
o fe
I
l
/
l
d
.
g
acemen
an
or
o
w
mproper ang
e
p
Bank Erosion (right bank) 21+76 ad and rock structure
ti
t
t
L
k
f b
k
t
b

21+85 .
ween roo
w
an
pro
ec
on
e
ac
o
Undercut Bank (left bank) 22+19 Matting undercutting due to lack of bank protection early in meander and lack of
22+39 vegetation.
Side Bar 22+83
h
l
d
i
k
i
h
t h
R
l
f
b
22+89 e
over.
t o
pr
or
an
eros
on t
a
as
ea
esu
Bank Erosion (left bank) & Central Bar Formation 23+31 Bank erosion due to soil stability characteristics and/or lack of protective vegetation.
23+40 Bar resulting directly from adjacent erosion.
Bank Erosion (left bank) 23+60 Lack of bank protection along outside of meander bend. Structure directly upstream
23+80 should be a cross vane.
Rock Structure 23+99 Inadequate structure to protect banks directly downstream from increased discharge
from tributary. Should be cross vane.
Bank Erosion (left bank, severe) 24+02 Back eddy downstream of rock structure and/or lack of protective vegetation/soil Photo 3
24+38 stability characteristics.
Bank Erosion (right bank) 24+03 Back eddy downstream of rock structure and/or lack of protective vegetation/soil
24+22 stability characteristics.
Aggradation/Bar Formation 24+13 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
25+46 upstream sources.
Undercut Bank (right bank) 24+26 t
ti
L
k
f b
k

24+38 on.
ac
o
an
pro
ec
Bank Erosion (right bank) 24+54
f b
k
i
L
k

24+59 an
protect
on.
ac
o
Undercut Bank (right bank) 24+59 Rootwads possibly placed too high causing undercutting where bank is exposed
25+03 and/or lack of protective vegetation.
Undercut Bank (left bank) 24+96
L
k
f b
k
t
ti

25+10 ac
o
an
pro
ec
on.
Bank Erosion (left bank, severe) 25+24 Lack of bank protection in area of high shear stress, misplacement of downstream
25+45 structure, and/or soil stability/lack of protective vegetation.
Rock Structure 25+52 osion directl
stream
k
u
A
l
/
l
t
ibl
i
b
.
ng severe
an
er
y
p
ng
e
p
acemen
poss
y caus
Rock Structure 25+95
ld be located
ht
ti
h
iffl
h
St
[
f
i
l
l
t
i
on w
ere a r
e s
ou
.
ure
orm
ng a poo
a
ong a s
ra
g
sec
uc
Aggradation 26+05 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
26+14 upstream sources.
Aggradation/Side Bar Formation 27+19 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
Photo 1
27+85 upstream sources.
Rootwad 26+89 ibl
i
d
t b
k
i
A
l
/
l
t
y caus
ng a
jacen
an
eros
on.
ng
e
p
acemen
poss
Bank Erosion (right bank) 26+93 t
ti
/
il
t
bilit
h
t
i
tics
I
t
k
t
ti
d/
l
k
f
d
b

27+03 on
y c
arac
er
s
.
na
an
pro
ec
on an
or
ac
o
vege
a
so
s
a
equa
e
Rootwad 27+06 t b
k
i
A
l
l
t
ibl
i
d
/
jacen
an
eros
on.
ng
acemen
poss
y caus
ng a
e
p
Bank Erosion (left bank) 27+43 t
ti
B
t
il
h
t
i
ti
d/
l
k
f
k
l
bl

27+62 on.
arac
er
cs, an
or
ac
o
vege
a
an
ang
e, uns
a
e so
c
s
Rock Structure 27+09 Should have been placed @ start of meander, would possibly perform better as a
crossvane, causing bank erosion directly downstream.
Bank Erosion (right bank) 28+17 Angle/placement of structure directly upstream, soil stability characteristics, and/or
28+26 lack of vegetation.
Bank Erosion (left bank) 28+12 Angle/placement of structure directly upstream, soil stability characteristics, and/or
28+58 lack of vegetation.
Aggradation/Side Bar Formation 28+18 Excess fine sediment deposits from adjacent/upstream bank erosion and/or other
28+59 upstream sources.
Aggradation (cattails) 28+96 Excess fine sediment deposits fromupstream bank erosion and/or other upstream
29+13 sources facilitating cattail growth.
Table XII Baseline Morphologyand Hydraulic Summary
UT Tar River/EEP Number 234

Parameter
USGS Gage Data Regional Curve
Interval Pre
-Existing Condition Project Reference
Stream
Design (SR#1)
As-built (SR#1)

Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max lived Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Mad
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 5.5 21.0 11.30 10.20 13.80 10.00 19.10 18.00 17.60 25.20 20.50
Floodprone Width (ft)
BFCross Sectional Area (ft) 6.2 28.0 15.30 20.80 28.10 5.50 23.40 24.50 19.80 35.10 23.30
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 2.1 1.40 2.00 0.55 1.22 1.38 1.00 1.40 1.25
Max Depth (ft) 2.80 3.30 1.00 2.26 2.20 2.00 2.70 2.35
Width/Depth Ratio 5.00 6.80 10.30 20.60 13.20 13.00 20.20 18.70
Entrenchment Ratio 3.90 4.00 1.90 6.60 2.20 2.40 5.00 3.40
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 20.30 28.00 22.60
Hydraulic radius (ft) 0.90 1.30 1.08
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 8.00 30.00 17.00 41.00 23.00 58.00 29.00 66.00 43.00
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10.00 60.00 12.00 81.00 36.00 72.00 28.00 58.00 34.50
Meander Wavelenght (ft) 265.00 470.00 42.00 59.00 59.00 84.00 80.00 165.00 121.00
Meander Width Ratio 0.70 2.50 1.30 3.20 1.30 3.20 1.64 2.61 2.20
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 14.00 316.00 83.00 1.50 51.70 13.10
Riffle slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.075- 1 0.009 0.033 0.000 0.040 0.010
Pool length (ft) 10.00 102.00 42.00 3.30 20.70 9.80
Pool spacing (ft) 33.00 379.00 226.00 32.00 75.00 32.00 75.00 13.60 158.30 57.93
substrate
d50 (mm) 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.06 0.25
d84 (mm) 5.70 8.00 11.30 16.00 0.25 0.50
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 1662.00 1662.00
Channel Length (ft) 1792.00 1937.00
Sinuosity 1.07 1.25 1.70 1.17
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01 0.02 H 0.01
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01

Rosgen Classification
E5
C4
C5 C4
*Habitat
Index
Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
UT Tar River
Segment/Reach: 1
Parameter Cross Section 1 Pool Cross Section 2 Riffle Cross Section 3 Riffle Cross Section 4 Riffle Cross Section 5 Pool

Dimension MYO MYt MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYO MYt MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft) 22.9 13.0 14.8 25.2 31.3 26.6 17.6 17.7 14.9 21.0 11.5 14.2 20.0 15.7 16.2
Floodporne Width (ft) N/A 7746 N/A 91.0 83.1 87.0 100+ 128.1 103+ 90.0 85.9 85+ >100 112.8 110+
BFCross Sectional Area (ft) 21.7 11.8 16.0 35.1 23.9 23.7 23.7 20.5 18.7 22.9 10.9 15.6 19.8 10.8 13.2
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.90 0.90 1.10 1.40 0.76 0.89 1.40 1.16 1.26 1.10 0.95 1.10 1.00 0.69 0.81
Width/Depth Ratio N/A 14.4 13.7 18.0 41.2 30.0 13.0 15.2 11.8 19.3 12.1 12.9 20.2 22.7 20.0
Entrenchment Ratio N/A 6.0 N/A 3.6 2.7 3.3 5.6 7.3 7.0+ 4.3 7.5 6.0+ 5.0 7.2 6.8+
Bank Height Ratio N/A N/A 1.1 N/A N/A 1.3 N/A N/A 1.2 N/A N/A 1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft) N/A 13.7 16.3 28.0 33.2 27.9 23.2 12.2 15.1 22.0 16.7 17.2
Hydraulic radious (ft) N/A 0.86 0.98 1.30 0.72 0.84 = g 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.64 0.77
Substrate
d50 (mm) .125-.2 1.13 1.3 .125-.25 1.05 2.9 .125.251 125-.25 0.33 0.7 .062-.12 0.44 4.3

d84 (mm)
.25-5
8.41
5.4
.25-.5
6.27
79 7o
.25-.5
1.46
3.7

25-.5
.

0.96

15.0

Parameter MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Pattern Min Max Mad Min Max Mad Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Mad
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 29 66 43 8.9 46.2 26.9 26.4 64.9 43.2
Radius of Curvature (ft) 28 58 35 13.5 68.9 29.7 20.3 50.6 34.6
Meander W avelenght (ft) 80 165 121 77.2 160.9 121.0 77.5 156.3 117.8
Meander Width Ratio 1.64 2.61 2.20 1.40 3.45 2.30
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 1.5 51.7 13.1 21.1 60.0 33.0 2.0 57.4 15.4
Riffle slope (ff/ft) 0.000 0.040 0.010 0.005 0.043 0.010 0.000 0.050 0.013
Pool length (ft) 3.3
1 20.7
9.8
7.3
90.1
25.7
7.0
1008
T194
Pool spacing (ft) 13.6 158.3 57.9 6.0 69.0 30.8 10.8 146.9 45.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 1662 1662.0 1653.7
Channel Length (ft) 1937 1937.0 1960.5
Sinuosity 1.17 1.17 1.19
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01 0.0059
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01 0.0059
Rosgen Classification C5' C5' C5
*Habitat Index NA NA NA
'Macrobenthos NA NA NA
-1350 in As-built year and in Monitoring Year 1 both indicate a Ub type stream, Yet G4 Was listen in bom years aesplte the comiming Bata. i nis nas peen cnangeu in me iviunitunny tea[ c [Upon.
Appendix B4
Stream Cross-Sections
Cross Section Overlay (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
Cross Section #1 (Pool)
213
212
211
CD
210
6 209
m
208
w 207
206
205
----- ----
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I ---- =---- =---------
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I -----------------
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I

I -------- -------------
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
J
I I I I -----------
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I
Bankfull
---- I I
I __ I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I r I I I I I I I I I I
? I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
--------------- --------- --------- ---------
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N M 'ZI- LO (0 1` M M O N M d- LO (0
-Year 0
-*-Year 1
- A Year 2
Distance (feet)
Cross Section Overlay (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
Cross Section #2 (Riffle)
212
211
210
209
0 208
207
w
206
205
204
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I ? I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
----- -- I I---- 1 I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
Bankfull
I ? I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I i
I I I I I I I I I I
I I - -
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I i I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
---- ------------------
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I 1
I I I I I I I - I I I I
- I I I I I I I I i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r- N M ;I- LO (0 f` 00 m O N m
Distance (feet)
-? Year 0
-Year 1
Year 2
Cross Section Overlay (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
Cross Section #3 (Riffle)
a?
o_
a?
w
212
211
210
209
208
207
206
205
204
203
202
I I I 1 I I I 1
I I I 1 I I I I
I 1 I I I 1 I 1
---- ---- -----I-- -----------
I I I I I I I I -
I - ---- ?-
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I 1 I I I 1
- - _ - J__
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I i
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
-- --- --- --- --- --- Bank
I I
I
I
--------
I
I
I
- - - - L - - - -
I
I
I 1
-----I-
I 1
I I
I 1
J - - - - J -
I I
I t
I
- -----
I
I
I
- - - -I- -
I -
I
I
-- I-
I
1
I
-1- - - - -
- 1
I
I

I
I
I
L -
I
i
I
_ -
I
I
I
- - - 1 - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
1
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
O O O O O O O O O O O O
N M ,:t M CO I` M O O r-
O O
CO O co
m U')
T_ ?
--- Year 0
-Year 1
-Year 2
Distance (feet)
Cross Section Overlay (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
Cross Section #4 (Riffle)
y?\
T
0
a?
w
201
200
199
198
197
196
I I 1 1 I I I 1
1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I t I I I I I
Bankfull
-------- ------- -------- -------- --------
I I I I I I I
I I I I ? I I I
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I
I I 1 I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I
I 1 I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I ,
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I 1 I
I I I I
I I 1 I
I 1 1 I
1 I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I I I
II I
I I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I 1 I
I 1 I
I I I
I I 1
1 I
I I I
I I I
I I
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80 90
-Year 0
-*,-Year 1
-Year 2
Distance (feet)
Cross Section Overlay (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
Cross Section #5 (Pool)
199
198
a
0
°-' 197
w
196
II I I I I 1 1 I I I I
I I I I I i I 1 i 1 I
I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I I 1 1 I I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I ? I 1 I I I
Bankfull
I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I I i I I I I I I I
I I I I T??? I I I I
I I I 1 I
I I I 1 I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I
I 1 I
I I I
I 1 I
I i I
- - - - 1
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I ? I
I I
I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Year 0
-+- Year 1
-Year 2
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Tar River
Drainage Area: 0.61
Date: Jun-07
Monitorina Year 2
STATION ELEVATION NOTES
Feet Feet
213.01
212.97
208.38
207.85
207.98
207.97
207.71 BKF
207.34
207.29
207.08
206.39
206.12
205.72 LEW
205.27
205.24 TW
205.29
205.53
205.60
205.51
205.51
205.76 REV1
206.32
206.41
206.37
206.54
207.74 TOB
208.17
208.20
208.16
208.29
209.02
209.06
208.16
207.43
207.19
207.33
208.35
208.34
209.45
209.92
211.15
210.48
210.70
TOTAL
Bankfull/Top of Bank
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.3 0.4 0.2
1.8 0.4 0.7
0.9 0.6 0.5
0.8 1.3 0.7
0.3 1.6 0.4
0.1 2.0 0.2
0.0 2.4 0.1
0.3 2.5 0.8
0.7 2.4 1.8
0.7 2.2 1.7
0.7 2.1 1.4
0.5 2.2 1.1
0.5 2.2 1.0
0.2 2.0 0.4
0.0 1.4 0.1
0.4 1.3 0.5
1.1 1.3 1.4
1.1 1.2 1.3
2.9 0.0 1.6
14.2 16.0
S
SUMMARY DATA
A(BKF) 16.0
W(BKF) 14.2
Max d 2.5
Mean d 1.1
Cross Section #l
Pool
213
212 .... ........... ........................
211 ...... :.------- ....... }.............
d 210 ........ ...... ?------- ? .......:...............:.
209 ...........
0
208 .......:....... ,
207 •------:......; ................ ..... ....
206 ................. ..
205
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80
Distance (feet)
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Tar River
Drainage Area: 0.61
Dale: Jun-07
Monitoring Year 2
STATION ELEVATION NOTES
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.5 0.5 0.3
1.9 0.6 1.0
1.4 0.4 0.7
0.9 0.3 0.3
1.4 1.1 1.0
0.7 1.3 0.8
0.3 1.3 0.3
1.1 0.9 1.2
1.4 1.5 1.7
1.0 1.7 1.6
0.4 1.8 0.7
0.3 1.8 0.5
1.4 1.6 2.4
2.0 0.4 2.1
3.6 0.2 1.2
1.3 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.9 0.1
1.3 1.4 1.5
1.1 1.9 1.8
1.2 1.9 2.2
0.6 1.9 1.2
0.5 0.5 0.6
SUMMARY DATA(BANKFULL)
A(BKF) 23.7 W(FPA) 87.0
W(BKF) 26.6 Slope 0.006
Maxd 1.9
Mean d 0.9 Area= A
W/D 30.0
F Width= W
Entrenchment 3.3 Depth= D
Stream T e C Bankfull= BKF
Area from Rural Regional Curve 15.8
Cross Section #2
Riffle
212

211

'- •-
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
"'°'-'-.-""-'--°"'^"-'•'-"•'-"---"'-•"'-'^'•-•"-'•................. ..'-"."'-^"-'•'-":"" '
210 --.-:.. ------------ .....^....:...-:'-'. ;.... -.... ^" --
.° 209 ...... ..... .........:---------- :....:................. ........... ..................... ............... -- ----------------------
208 ...... .......: .... ---------- :....:................. ----------------- - --
--
v 207 ---- ... ............... ............ :....:....:.....:....._ ....:. . -- '
m
206 "'••'• "^"'.:..-.^'-"°"""'-""-'•-•'°-"--^" '-
205 ....... ..................................................... _ - -- - - - -

204
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Tar River
Drainage Area: 0.61
Date: Jun-07
Monitoring Year 2
STATION HI
NOTES
Feet Feet
207.91
207.85
207.63
205.98
205.68
205.63
205.61
205.51
205.40
205.39
205.28 BKF
204.67
204.44
203.32
203.32
203.02
202.92 LEW
202.64
202.45 TW
202.54
202.78
202.95 REVN
203.72
205.16
205.43 TOB
205.45
205.48
208.77
210.21
211.23
211.41
211.33
210.72
210.76
210.71
210.04
210.30
,.. 210.18
TOT
Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 0.6 0.7
0.6 0.8 0.5
1.8 2.0 2.5
0.3 2.0 0.6
0.4 2.3 0.8
0.5 2.4 1.0
0.7 2.6 1.8
0.9 2.8 2.5
0.6 2.7 1.7
0.6 2.5 1.5
0.0 2.3 0.1
0.5 1.6 1.0
4.8 0.1 4.1
0.9 0.1
ALS 14.9 18.7
SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULL)
A(BKF) 18.7 W(FPA) 103+
W(BKF) 14.9 Slope 0.006
Max d 2.8
Mean d 1.3 Area= A
W/D 11.8 F Width= W
Entrenchment 7.0+ Depth= D
Stream Type C Bankfull= BKF
Area from Rural Regional Curve 8.7
TOTALS
op or .-
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
2.4 0.0 0.0
8.0 0.0 0.2
3.2 0.1 0.3
2.2 0.8 1.0
0.6 1.0 0.6
1.8 2.1 2.8
0.3 2.1 0.6
0.4 2.4 0.9
0.5 2.5 1.1
0.7 2.8 1.9
0.9 3.0 2.6
0.6 2.9 1.8
0.6 2.6 1.5
0.0 2.5 0.1
0.5 1.7 1.1
4.8 0.3 4.8
1.7'
0 0.0 0.2
71 n
SUMMARY DATA ITOB)
A 21.6
W 29.4
Max d 3.0
Mean d 0.7
Cross Section #3
Riffle
212
211
.............................. - '---'---'---
210 ---`•--`---....•---`--•'••-'---:...:--
d 209 ...;......-'----'----:--•-`--'--•'---
208 i ;.... ...
x° 207 ..... ' .....................__..- -
d 206 ......... .............. ^-- ...........- . -
-
rw 205 --- ---------------
----
---t---`--...-`--•'---'---'---'---'-•-'......... -
203 ---+--•'------•-----•- :... ...;...

202
o ? o .?. o N o ? v+ o ? o o ? rn ? 0 0 o v: o v, o rn
r7+ .Qi ^ .h+ ?
N H1 ? Y V: h ? b f` l? W DD O? O? O O
Mn
N
N+
.
..-. .ti .
.
n .
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Tar River
Drainage Area: 0.61
Dale: Jun-07
Monitoring Year 2
STATION ELEVATION NOTES
TOTALS
SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULLI
A(BKF) 15.6 W(FPA) 85+
W(BKF) 14.2 Slope 0.006
Max d 2.2
Mean d 1.1 Area= A
W/D 12.9 Width= W
F
Entrenchment 6.0+ epth= D
Stream Type C BKF
.ankfull=
Area from Rural Regional Curve 8.7
Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
2.0 0.7 0.7
1.9 1.4 2.0
0.6 1.9 1.0
0.1 2.0 0.2
1.3 2.1 2.6
0.4 2.2 0.9
1.0 2.1 2.2
0.6 2.0 1.2
0.4 1.9 0.8
2.0 0.6 2.6
1.9 0.5 1.1
1.1 0.2 0.4
0.9 0.0 0.1
14.2 15.6
TOTALS
Top of Bank
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
2.4 0.1 0.1
2.0 0.2 0.3
1.0 0.4 0.3
0.7 0.5 0.3
2.0 1.1 1.6
1.9 1.8 2.8
0.6 2.3 1.3
0.1 2.5 0.2
1.3 2.5 3.1
0.4 2.6 1.1
1.0 2.6 2.7
0.6 2.5 1.4
0.4 2.3 1.0
2.0 1.1 3.5
1.9 1.0 1.9
1.1 0.6 0.9
1.0 0.4 0.5
1.4 0.3 0.5
0.5 0.2 0.1
0.9 0.2 0.2
0.7 0.0 0.1
0.3 0.0
24.2 24.0
SUMMARY DATA(TOB)
A 24.0
W 24.2
Max d 2.6
Mean d 1.0
Cross Section #4
Pool
200
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
199 -------I ------- '------- •------------------------------- '-----••4------- --- ---- ................ --...
L 198 .......:................. :-------------------------------------------------- •-- - ----- -- ---- --- .... ....

197 ...............L •---•-•------- '-------- `------- '........ ----------------- ----- ---- ---•• ---- ---- --•- ---- -----
196
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Tar River
Drainage Area: 0.61
Date: Jun-07
Monitoring Year 2
STATION ELEVATION NOTES
TOTALS
BankfulllTop of Bank
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.1 0.0
1.2 0.0 0.1
2.0 0.4 0.4
0.7 0.1 0.2
0.9 0.5 0.3
0.3 1.0 0.3
4.7 1.1 4.8
1.7 1.5 2.1
1.0 1.8 1.6
0.5 1.7 0.9
0.9 1.6 1.5
0.6 1.3 0.8
0.1 0.3 0.1
1.0 0.2
16.2 13.2
SUMMARY DATA
A(BKF) 13.2
W(BKF) 16.2
Max d 1.8
Mean d 0.8
Cross Section #5
Pool
200
199
d
198
c
0
197
W
196
195
.. ..1... ...1... ;. __ ..i__ .._; ...J... _..1.. .. ..J... ............_ ..;_..
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Distance (feet)
Appendix B5
Stream Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile Overlay Page 1 of 2 (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
211
210
209
208
207
= 206
R
205
w
204
203
202
201
200
O
I I I
I I I I
I I I i
I I I I
I I I I ? ? I ?
I I I I
I I I I
I 1 I I
1 1 I I I
I I I I
1 I I
? I
I I I I ? I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I I I ? I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I ? I ? ?
I I I I
I I
?
I I I I ? I ? I
I I I I
i I
I
I I I I ? ?
I I I
i 1 I I
I I I I
I I I t ? ? I ?
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I ? I
I I ? I
I I I
I I I I
I I ]
I I I 1 I I ? ?
I I I I , ?
I ] I 1 ? t ?
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I , ? ? ? ? I I I ? I

I I I I
. j I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I 1
I I I ]
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I 1 I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1 7 I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I
I 1 I 1
I 1 I 1 I I I 1
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
A! A
1 ,IA .M ; ]
1 I ] I

I 7 , I
. ? I A I I
I ] .
] I I I
] I I I I
I I I I I 1
I I I I
1
I I I I
I I I I 1
I I I I
1
I I I I
1
i I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I :A „ I. .I
I I I. I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
?

I
I I I I
I I I I I,
, AI . I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I
T. At I I
I I I
I I 1 I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I 1 I I . .A I, I I
I , I I I
I ?I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I 1
I 1 I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I 1 I I I I I 1 I I
1
] I 1 I I - I I 1
,
ALI I . I I I

I
A I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I I
I I

I I I I

I I I I I , I I I I

I I I I I I I I I
W I I I I I I I I I I ] I
] I I I I

I
I I I I I

I
' I I I I , I I I I I I

, I I I .
IA
IA , I I I

I •I I I I I I I I

I

I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ? I I I I I
I

I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I

I I I
o-Ei I
I I I I I
I I I I , I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I ? I I I
,,. I I I I I I I
I I I I

I I 1

I I I I

I I I I

I II II

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I
I
I I I I I ] I I I I, I
. I, .
? I 1 I I

I I
I I
I
I
I I I I I I I I I I , I , I I
I I I I
I I , I I I I I
I I I I I ? I I
I I I I I I , I I ? I ? II ? I ? I I I ? ?' ;' • I ;

1
I
I I I I
1 1
1 I I I
1 I I I

I I I I
I I I I I I I I

I I
I I I I I I

I I

' I

I I

I I 1 I I
IQ I I I I

I
I
I I I I I I I

I

I ] I I I I I I •
1
I 1
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I ,
I I I ,
I I I l
I , I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I , I I I I
I , I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I , I I 'I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I I

?
I I I
I I I I I
I I I
II

? II ?I I I I I
I I
I I
I I I
0 I ?
I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I ? I

I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I ? I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
, I I I I ,
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
, I I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I ? I
I I I I I I I
I I ,
I I I ,
I I I I
I I I I I I ?
7
I I I ,
I I I I
I I I , I ?
I
I I' I ,
I I I I
I I I

I
I I I I
I ? I I
i I
I 1 I
I I I I I
I ? I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I ? I
i I
I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I 1
I I f I I I I
I I I
I I I
f I t I I I I I
1
1 I I I
I I I , I I 'I I II

I i I j
I I I I I I
O O
C) o o C
N L-0 O O CD O O O
O O O O W O co VI
Channel Distance (feet)
-i- Thalweg Year 1 + Thalweg Year 2 Water Surface Year 2
Left Bankfull Year 2 . Right Bankfull Year 2 ?-Thalweg Year 0
O
O
O
r
Longitudinal Profile Overlay Page 2 of 2 (Years 1 & 2)
UT to Tar River
205
204
203
202
201
W
? 200
0
d 199
W
198
197
196
195
194

I I I I I
I I I ? I I I

I , I 1 I I I
i I I i I I I
I I I I
I I I
? I ?
I I I I ,
I I I I
? , I ,
? I I 1
I , I , I
I I
' ? I I
? I I
I I I I I I I
I I , I
? I , I
? , I I
, I I I I I
I I
I ,
I ?
I I , '
I I I I
i. , I I
I ] , I
I ] , , , I , I
I I I I
, I I
, I 1 II
, I , , , ,
, ,
, 1
, 1
, , , I

?? I ? ,
, I I I
I I I I
, I I I
I , I )
, , 7

I?
?I
I ? I 1
1
?
I I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I I

I , , ,
, I I ? I

I?

1

I
l I I I I I I I

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1
? ? 1
??
I I ? I i
] , , I
I , , I
I I , ,
I I , I
I I I ,
I I I I 1
I I I ]
I I , , I , , I , ,
? f I I , , 1 I I I I I , , I I , I I I I , I I I 7
] , I I 1
,

? ? ??I ?

? ] ] ]
1

> > ?
?,? I?
I?

I
I ? I
, I , , I ??,
I I ,
I , , ,
I I I ?
I I I ,
, I I I
I I I I
I , I I
? ?I ,
? ? ??I
?
AA 1
?

I I I I
I I
I
, I I ? ?
I I , I ?I 1 ?
?I I I
, I I I 1
I I I ,
,
?
A
A , , I I , I I
-A
?

I I I I
I I I I
I I ? 7

I I I I

I 1 I I

I I I I I

I I I 1 1 I
]
I 1 I I I I

I I I I I 7 I
.? ?I ? I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I
1

I ,
1

?
1 I I I I I
? ? ? I I I I
? I I I I 1 I I I

1 I I , I

1 I I I I , I I , , I I , I ?
i ?i I ? I I
? ? ?I
?r I? I ? , ,

? , , , I
,

1
t

!
1

IWO

A?
- L

1

1 ?

?I
I 1

?

I I I I
I I I
' I I I

1 I I
I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I

I I I i
I I I I
I I I I
I t I I

I i I I
I I
I I I
I I I

1 I I I
I I
I

I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I

I I I
I I
I I

I I
I I I I
I I I I

I I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
I I I I

I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I

I I I I
I I I

i I I
I
I
I I I
I I I I
? I I
I I I I
I I I I
I , ,
I I I I
I I ?
I , ?I I
I I
I I I I
I I I
I I
I I
, , ? I

I
,
I I
I I I I
D I I I
I I
I ] I I
I I I I

i I I I

I I I I
I I I I
I , I 1
I I I I

I , , I
, I I ,
, I , I

, I I ,
I I I ?
I , I I

I ] I ?
i I I
I :
,
I
, ?
I

I I I I

I I I ?
,
I .
I , I I

I I I I , I
I

?

I I I I , I I

?

I I I ] , ?

, ,

I I I
I I I ,
, I , I
, I I I
I
I I I
? , I I I
, , I I
I , I I
I I I I
I I I 1 , I I ,
I I I ,
I I , ,
I I I I
I I I I I I , ,
I I I I
I I I ,
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I , ?
I I , ,
I I I I
I I I I ] I I I
, I I I
] I I I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I , I ,
I I I ,
1 I I I
I I I I , I , ,
, I , ,
, I I ,
I I I I
I I ? I I I ?
, ? I
I I
1 I I I
1 I I I I , ,
I , ,
I , ,
I I

I I I
I I I
I I I

I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
'. I I
I I I I
I I I I
, I ,
I I I
I I I I
I I I 1
I I I I
i I I ,
I I I I
I I I I
I , I I
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I
I ?
I :
I :
I I I I
I ] I ,
I I I
I I I ?
I ,
I I I I
I I I I
I I 1 ,
I I I ,
I I I ?

I I
I I I I
I 1 ,
I I I
I 1 I ,
I 1 I I
t I I
I I I I
I I ,
I I I ,
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I
I I ,
,
? I
'' ' ,
I I
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 CD C) 0 0 0 00 00 °o 0 0 00
N M In CO r o0 0) o
r r ? r ?- ? r. ? ? N
Channel Distance (feet)
t Thalweg Year 1 -? Thalweg Year 2 Water Surface Year 2
Left Bankfull Year 2 i Right Bankfull Year 2 ?- Thalweg Year 0
Appendix B6
Stream Pebble Counts
PEBBLE COUNT
_'
Site: UT Tar (\
SEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
Party: PT & PDB
Date: 9/25/07 PA RTICLE COUNT
CS 1
Inches Particle Millimeters TOT# ITEM % % CUM
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 0 0% 0%
Ve Fine .062-.125 0 0% 0%
Fine .125-.25 S 0 0% 0%
Medium .25-.50 N 11 11 22% 22%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 11 11 22% 45%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2 9 9 18% 63%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 6 6 12% 76%
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 6 6 12% 88%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8 G 2 2 4% 92%
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3 R 2 2 4% 96%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 A 1 1 2% 98%
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 V 0 0% 98%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 E 1 1 2% 100%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32-45 L 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Ve Coarse 45-64 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180-256 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362 0 0% 100%
14.3-20 Small 362-512 0 0% 100%
20-40 Medium 512-1024 BOULDER 0 0% 100%
40-80 Large 1024-2048 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
TOTALS 49 100% 100%
Pebble Count, Cross Section 1
100%

m 80%

ab 60%

40%
a?
LLL
a 20% -

0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-Cumulative Percent (Year 2) • Percent Item (Year 2)
- Cumulative Percent (Year 1) • Percent Item (Year 1)

I V I I I III
l l i l l l l
I IIII I I I I
I I I l l i l I I I?
I I I I I III
I I I I I III
'. I I I I III
I I I I I III ; ,
I I I I I III
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
i t i I I
I II II I I'. I1 ? i I I ?i l i l; ?I ?I I l ?I ?
I ( I I I I III I I I II I I I I I I
I I I I I I it I I I I I I I I
I I I I I II I I I I I I I I
I I I I1111
?
1
? .. I I I I I I
? ? I 1111 I ! l i i 1 i I ? 1 1 1 1 ?I I
I I I I 111 I I I I I111 I I I I i I I
I I l l s 1'; ? I I I I I l i
I ( I I I I I' 1 I I I 1
I I I
I I I I111
I ? I, I I I I
I ; I I i I I, I I II i I I. II ? II ? III
i I? I 11 ? ? ? I ? 1 11
I II ? I l l l l i
I '. I? II ? I I 11 II 11 ?
I I
I '.. I I I I II
',
I II I I 1 1 1 1 I j I I I I
I I li I l l l i I I? I I
I I I I -?I? I 1 •1 11 I I I ( I I I I
I I I I I
I I I ? I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I 1 1 I'.li I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I II
G:\Environmental\EN06.004 - EEP Monitoring 5 sites\2007 -Louisburg (UT to Tar River)\Data\UT_Tar Pebbles_2007
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Tar
Inches Particle Millimeters
-? Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C
Very Fine .062-.125
Fine .125-.25 S
Medium .25-.50 NN
Coarse .50-1.0 D
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 G
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8
R
R
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 V
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 E
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 L
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32-45
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45-64
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180
7.1-10.1 Lar e 180-256
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362
14.3-20 Small 362-512

20-40
Medium
512-1024 BOULDER
40-80 Large 1024-2048
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
13% 13%
13% 26%
15% 42%
H 15% 57%
17% 74%
11% 85%
9% 94%
6% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
100% 100%
Pebble Count, Cross Section 2
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
C 50%
i?
40%
'LD) 30%
°`3 20%
d 10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-+- Cumulative Percent (Year 2) • Percent Item (Year 2)
-Cumulative Percent (Year 1) • Percent Item (Year 1)
SeSEPI ENGINEERING GROUP
PARTICLE COUNT
0
7 7
7 7
8 8
8 8
9 9
F ?
5 5
3 3
0
PEBBLE COUNT
PT & PDB
Inches
.08-.16
.16-.22
.22-.31
.31-.44
.44-.63
.63-.89
.89-1.26
1.26-1.77
1.77-2.5
2.5-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-7.1
7.1-10.1
10.1-14.3
14.3-20
20-40
40-80
Particle Millimeters
Silt/Clay < 0.062
Je Fine .062-.125
Fine .125-.25
Medium .25-.50
Coarse .50-1.0
ery Coarse 1.0-2
?e Fine 2.0-4.0
Fine 4-5.7
Fine 5.7-8
Medium 8-11.3
Medium 11.3-16
Coarse 16-22.6
Coarse 22.6-32
e Coarse 32-45
e Coarse 45-64
Small 64-90
Small 90-128
Larae 128-180
S
A
N
D
G
R
A
V
E
L
COBBLE
S-e SEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
PARTICLE COUNT
CS 3
M
TOT# ITEM % .CU
0 0% 0%
4 4 8% 8%
10 10 20% 28%
7 7 14% 42%
4 4 8% 50%
9 9 18% 68%
7 7 14% 82%
2 2 4% 86%
7 7 14%
0 0%
0 0%
Small 362-512 BOULDER
Medium 512-1024
Large 1024-2048
ledrock BTOTALS No

100%
100%
100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
50 100% 100%
Pebble Count, Cross Section 3
100%
80%
L
? 60%
ILL
40%
d 20%
0%
1. 1 1 1 1 11
: I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?. I.I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 'Ili I III
I I I I I I I 111
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : - 1 1 I I I
I I ( I I I I
'
I ? ? 'I 'I I I ''.
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 '? ? ? ? 'I 'I I i I ? I I 'I I
I 1 1 I I I I V I I I I ? I I I I III
I I I I I I III I I 1 1 1 III
I I I I I III I I l i
I i
I I I I I

I V I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 .1
1I I I III I I I I I
V I I I I I I I I IIII
f
111 ;I
I i l l l li
?
I I I I I III
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I1?
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I
1 1 1 i:l:
l
'
1 l I ?? 11 I I III
1 I
1 I I I ICI', 1 I I I III
'
1
1
1 I I I I III
I I I I I I III
'
' I I I I III
I I I I I111
I
'
1
? I I I I 11
I 111111
:
'
?
1
1
i ? 1
1
1 I
I I
1 I I l l i l + ?
? ?
1 , I
I I i
I I I ?: T ? 1 11 I 1 I :? I i.
I ?
I I ?. ?
? 1 I_ I_I ??I 11
? I 1 ? I I
I
1
?
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1
i
1 ?
I
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
I I 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-Cumulative Percent (Year 2) + Percent Item (Year 2)
-•-- Cumulative Percent (Year 1) • Percent Item (Year 1)
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Tar
& PDB
Inches Particle Millimeters
Silt/Clay < 0.062 SIC
Very Fine .062-.125
Fine .125-.25 S
Medium .25-.50 NN
Coarse .50-1.0 D
.04-.08 Ve Coarse 1.0-2
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 G
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8 R
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3 A
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 V
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 E
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 L
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32-45
1.77-2.5 Ve Coarse 45-64
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180
7.1-10.1 Large 180-256
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362
14.3-20 Small 362-512

20-40
Medium
512-1024 BOULDER
40-80 Large 1024-2048
Bedrock BDRK
SeSEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
PARTICLE COUNT
CS 4- 1
% CUM
0 0% 0%
12 12 24% 24%
10 10 20% 44%
6 6 12% 56%
6 6 12% 68%
9 9 18% 86%
6 6 12% 98%
0 0% 98%
0 0%
0 0%
1 1 2%
98%
98%
100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
-? 50 100% 100%
Pebble Count, Cross Section 4
100%
co 80%
F-
8 60%
LL
c 40%
a 20%
0%
I I I I I
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I VIII i Ii II
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I V I I I I I I I IIII
I I I I I III I I I I;.. ', I I I I IIII
I I I I I I ?I l i ? I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I I V I I I
? I I I I I I I I I I I I I
? I I I I I III
? I I I I I 1 1 I I V I I I
'I I 'i.
I I ?I I
I I I I I I
? I V I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I Z111
?
'
I I ? . I I 'i
I I I I I I I
'
I ? I I I I I I I I l i l l l 'I
I I I I . l i l ? i I I I I
'
'
?
'
'
'
I I ? t I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I i I I I I
I I I
I I I ? I I
i ?
I I I I I I I?. I I I I I I I I
?
?
? I
?
I ? ? I
I III
I I ? III
?
I
? I I I
I
I ?
I
I I
I l i l ?. ? I
I I I I I III I I I I I I I I
?
?
?
??
I
I

i V I I
I I I I I i i I
I ? I
I ? ? I
I 1
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I ? I I
I I ? ?
I
I i. . III
I I I I I ? ? i
I I ? I ?
I
I
I I
I
?
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I V I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-+-Cumulative Percent (Year 2) Percent Item (Year 2)
-+-Cumulative Percent (Year 1) ? Percent Item (Year 1)
I -
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Tar SEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
Party: PT & PDB
Date: 9/25/07 PA RTICLE COUNT
CS 5
Inches Particle Millimeters TOT# ITEM % % CUM
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 0 0% 0%
Very Fine .062-.125 0 0% 0%
Fine .125-.25 S 1 1 2% 2%
Medium .25-.50 N 7 7 13% 15%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 4 4 7% 22%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2 1 1 2% 24%
.08-.16 Ve Fine 2.0-4.0 13 13 24% 47%
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 7 7 13% 60%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8 G 4 4 7% 67%
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3 N 4 4 7% 75%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 A 6 6 11% 85%
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 v 5 5 9% 95%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 3 3 5% 100%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32-45 L 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Ve Coarse 45-64 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180-256 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362 0 0% 1000
14.3-20 Small 362-512 0 0% 1000
20-40 Medium 512-1024 DER
E 0 0% 1000
40-80 Large 1024-2048 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
TOTALS -? 55 100% 100%
Pebble Count, Cross Section 5
100%
C 80%
F
till
v 60%
c
LL
c 40%
N
a 20%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-+- Cumulative Percent (Year 2) • Percent Item (Year 2)
-Cumulative Percent (Year 1) • Percent Item (Year 1)

Appendix C
Plan View Sheets
T PROJECT REFERENCE N0 SHEET N0.
234 1
PHOTO POINT z F
/ I PROJECT ENGINEER
? ? P
LLULIVU
THALWEG 2006
-----------------------• THALWEG 2007
- - - - - - EDGE OF WATER 2007
---------------- BANKFULL 2007
- - - - - - - CROSS-SECTIONS
BANK EROSION
SEVERE BANK EROSION
UNDERCUT BANKS
AGGRADATION
AGGRADATON (CATTAILS)
® EXPOSED SEDIMENT BAR
STRUCTURE TYPES
ROCK
STRUCTURE
f
ROOTWAD
COLOR CODE
FOR STRUCTURES
. GOOD STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
STRUCTURE WITH
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
FAILING STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
r1l,
IAl
?r
LOCATION:
UT TO TAR RIVER
STREAM MONITORING - YEAR 2
PRDJ R: COUNTY:
234 FRANKLIN
PREPARED BY:
IPJ
CHECKED BY: DATE:
PDB 2/14/08
CROSS SECTION STAKING
NORTHING EASTIN0 ELEVATION
XSC 4 LEFT 851692.877 2207161.570 200.049
XSC 4 RIGHT B51607.981 2207158.859 199.643

XSC 5 LEFT 851795.694 2207271.987 198.864
XSC 5 RIGHT 851703.066 2207333.548 197.400
THALWEG 2006
---------- ---------- THALWEG 2007
- - - - EDGE OF WATER 2007
---------------- BANKFULL 2007
-- - - - - - - - CROSS-SECTIONS
BANK EROSION
SEVERE BANK EROSION
UNDERCUT BANKS
AGGRAOATION
AGGRADATON (CATTAILS)
?l1111 Z,A EXPOSED SEDIMENT BAR
STRUCTURE TYPES
9.
ROCK
STRUCTURE
ROOTWAD
COLOR CODE
FOR STRUCTURES
. GOOD STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
STRUCTURE WITH
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
FAILING STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
r S Eil P I
V ENGINEERING GROUP
1025 WADE AVENUE
RALEIGH, NC 27605
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
20 0 60
EASEMENT
BOUNDARY
LOCATION:
?- UT TO TAR RIVER
STREAM MONITORING YEAR 2
PRO) #: COUNTY;
\( 234 FRANKLIN
i llj cystj} III PREPARED 8Y:
j fli VI IPJ
CHECKED BY: GATE:
c1,1,?nm PDB 2/14/08
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
234 2
S E P I PROJECT 234 REFERENCE N0 SHEET N0.
r PROJECT ENGINEER 2
V ENGINEERING GROUP
1025 WADE AVENUE
RALEIGH, NC 27605
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
20 0 60
w
VJ
w
w
w
vl
?co
aE
THALWEG 2006
-----------------------• THALWEG 2007
- - -- - - - - - EDGE OF WATER 2007
---------------- BANKFULL 2007
TOP OF BANK 2007
- - - - - - - CROSS-SECTIONS
LEGEND
STRUCTURE TYPES
BARE BANK
SEVERE BARE BANK
ROCK
STRUCTURE
® BARE FLOODPLA]N
® INVASIVE/EXOTIC f
(MICROSTEGIUM) ROOTWAD
COLOR CODE
FOR STRUCTURES
GOOD STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
STRUCTURE WITH
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
- FAILING STRUCTURE
(ACTUAL LOCATION)
1
l teni
I'R(?[.RAM
JOGWORING
! Tur wee
LOCATION:
UT TO TAR RIVER
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT - YEAR 2
PRD,J #:
234 COUNTY:
FRANKLIN
PREPARED BY:
IPJ
CHECKED BY: DATE:
PDB 7/18/07