20030732 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20030616

Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
MEMO From:1 Date: ?O O
To: -nlnrr? Subject: _/ar c 40v
4` UT -}-? Tom--
e-s 4b
U
r ems;
Tt-? w o?S
VVETLMD51401 GROUP
JUL T 0 2003
P' a
=A
- ?TERQUAUTYSECTION
RCDENR
NaRTI Cuto.- DEPMT - OF
ENViaoMr+[rrr.wo NAnmAL ResouRe[s
PO BOX 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 / Phone [phone]
o??? WAr?Rpc
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
July 21, 2003
To: John
From: Todd
Re: UT to Tar i r Stream "Restoration"
DW Q# 0307
Franklin County
We have received several urban stream projects that we have not considered to meet the definition of stream restoration.
Typically, we have approved these projects as either enhancement or stabilization and let it go at that. However, this one
is problematic for several reasons:
1) The stream will be slightly relocated to provide some pattern, etc., but the meander width ratio is lower than the 3 to 5
range for the most part.
2) The designer cannot provide benches that are at least one bankfull width wide due to site constraints consistent with
urban situations. Also, the numbers seem to suggest that the design stream will tend towards degradation as opposed
to equilibrium. Erosion will be prevented by toe armoring on outside meander bends and by grade control structures. I
do not prefer to see this approach, especially for potential mitigation projects since the design is not based upon
achieving dynamic equilibrium, but hardening in place instead.
3) The buffer widths are less than 15 feet in many spots (the minimum for stability), and less than 50 feet for possibly
more than half of the stream.
I seriously do not think that we can approve this as a restoration project and certainly not for mitigation "restoration"
credit. However, if we approve this as stabilization or enhancement we need a $475.00 fee because they are relocating
the stream without meeting the definition of stream restoration since the riparian area and dynamic equilibrium will not be
restored. However, I did not want to request a fee from WRP w/o your approval...
ieBeAz s
TV
+ 6?0?? 4
%V-
A-1;11?1 -Y '21aC,l?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Certified Mail _Return _Receiot Requested
Ms. Cherri Smith
WRP
1619 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Dear Ms. Smith:
Subject:
July 22, 2003
UT to Tar River
DWQ Project No. 030732
Franklin County
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a stream restoration for the subject project. This Office has
reviewed the project and has decided that the project would be defined as enhancement and/or stabilization. However,
since the project involves some relocation of the stream, written concurrence is required to use GC 3399. The project
does not meet the definition of restoration because it is not anticipated stream stability will be achieved by the stream
transporting its sediment in. dynamic equilibrium, but instead will be held in place by bank hardening and grade control
structures. Additionally, insufficient riparian buffers are proposed in some locations necessary to ensure stability (i.e. less
than 15 feet). Because the project requires written concurrence to proceed you must send $475.00 and four additional
copies of the application in order to receive approval for the project.
Also, please be aware that the project would not be considered as restoration for compensatory mitigation purposes.
Additionally, much of the project does not have sufficient buffers to be considered enhancement for compensatory
mitigation purposes due to the lack of adequate buffers.
Please call Todd St. John at 919-733-9584 if you have any questions. Until this information is received, I will place this
project on hold due to incomplete information (15A NCAC 2H .0507(a)).
Sincerely,
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Raleigh Regional USACE Office
Jeff Jurek, WRP
Todd St. John
File
Central Files
John R. Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
73
MEMORANDUM
To: Todd St. John
1t • ?
NCDENR
June 12, 2003 JUN 1 6 2003
From: Cherri Smith
Subject: Permit Application for UT to Tar River Stream Restoration, Franklin
County
Please find the enclosed permit application and design for a stream restoration project
on approximately 1,700 linear feet of UT to Tar River within the Town of Louisburg. In
addition, a copy of the permit application and restoration plan have been sent to the
attention of Steve Mitchell in the DENR- Raleigh Regional Office.
The NCWRP and the Town of Louisburg have been working on the logistics of this
project for two and a half years. In order to make this project possible, the town allocated
$250,000 to move a sewer line that was located adjacent to the creek. This sewer line has
recently been relocated. The town donated all of their property at this site, and the
NCWRP negotiated with Green Hill Country Club to purchase additional property to
provide a larger riparian buffer.
The riparian buffer ranges from 15-90 feet wide with the goal of at least 30 feet wide
for the majority of the project. Where the width is the most narrow, vegetated geogrids are
proposed for bank stabilization.
If you would like to discuss this project or need additional information, please feel free
to call me at 715-3466 or Jeff Jurek at 733-5316. Thank you for your assistance with this
project.
cc: Steve Mitchell
lids Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone] Fax: [phone]
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
Re: UT to Tar River
DWQ# 030732
Hi everybody,
Here are some question i came up with for this project:
W. Reference Stream
UL 1 0 2003
MTERQUALITYSECTION
The proposed reference reach (UT to Lake Lynn) was reported to have a bank height ratio
as high as 1.8 raising concerns of stability. Also, the length surveyed was less than 20
bankfull widths (i.e. 250 feet divided by 15.9 foot average width). These two issues raise
concerns about the appropriateness of the reference stream. The designer indicated that two
full meanders were measured; however, no plan view survey of the stream was provided.
Response:
The first cross-section measured was used to determine the length of reference reach to be meZ Surad
This width NA, as 12.6 feet and the surveyed length was 250 feet or approximately twenty bankfull widths.
An extensive search was performed. while looking for a rc
used to select a reference reach included, but were not lira
sand bed; soils and geologic region; Be. C or E (within up]
than lac slope: and containing similar constraints. As is l
are illusive, if they exist at all. The Unnamed Tributary t,
contacting other professionals in the stream restoration fie
at every accessible stream within the above-mentioned cri
best fit the criteria. There was clear evidence of the refer
of the site visit:
-rence reach specific for this project.
,ria. 'ne'refe
nce reach ace
fi.kiwol
¥¥. Plan Detail
i/depth ratio) stream
ference reaches in ur
rence reach was sell,
s and looking for a s,
ree reach is a stable i
sin, the floodplain a
Please provide a longitudinal plan profile of the design stream that shows the elevations of
the top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg. The total bench width is less than the bankfull width.
This raises concerns about the long term stability of the stream when exposed to larger flood
events. Please explain how stability was assessed for larger flood events.
Response:
See attached
Y¥. In Stream Structures and/or Channel Blocks (Plugs)
Please provide complete typical plans for each type of structure proposed.
Response:
¥¥. Bank Stabilization
Please provide typical plans for all bank stab 11 izati on/revetment structures.
Response:
IlNe:illl, During the design phase of this p.
"RCS details.
gwmmwlk?
¥¥. Riparian Buffers and Planting Plan
The buffers provided appear to be less than 15 feet in some areas. If this project is proposed
for mitigation, it is not clear if full credit can be provided.
Response:
This project is currently proposed as a restoration project. Therefore, mitigation credits are not currently
being sought after for this project. A limited easement was obtained from the Town of Louisburg and
Green Hill Country Club. Therefore, the stream and the floodplain will need to be built within this
limited consezvation easement. The 50-foot buffer will not be attained throughout the length of the'
project.
Currently, a floodplain does not exist for the upper portions of this stream (please see photo #
log as a reference.). It is the designers' intent to maximize the floodplain,' since it is kno,
floodplain serves a key role in the long-term stability of a project. As is typical in urban r
infrastructure and easerent restrictions severely limit the designer's ability to create the ideal
that is possible 'in most rural applications. On this project, the easement restrictions wit
floodplain widths= in a few locations since the Town already moved most of the utilities.
stability measures (structures, vegetation, bank protection, etc.) will be incorporated during
phase to help provide a framework for long,-term stability on this project with special attent:
area.
¥¥. Morphological Measurements
The slope information for both the proposed and reference streams do not seem to match the
sinuosity information. Please clarify. The riffle slope range for the design stream appears to be
very steep compared to the average stream slope. Please explain.
Response:
Sinuosity as calculated by the ratio of channel length/valley length was not used in calc
sinuosity of UT to Tar River. An estimation of sinuosity off of available aerials was used foi
Tar River. At the Lake Lynn reference site, sinuosity was calculated by dividing the valley le
thalweg 1--ni-th. It is unknown, how the sinuosity at Brookhaven was calculated. The slope
Lynn reference site was calculated from the difference between the beginning and ending
which was then divided by the distance between the two points. Sinuosity was not used to c<
slope -ir vice versa. _--
rat ton
Ad
the
)n tc
by
From the preliminary profile that was set, the riffle slopes are set at 1%. which falls within the lower
range of the reference reach data. The pool slopes are set at 0.25c/c, which is average for the reference-
reach data. The average slope, as calculated by the centerline length, is `0.5510 or approximately half o
the riffle slope according to the preliminary profile. The slopes will be adjusted, within reference rep ch
ranges, as. needed after the design is completed and HEC-Ras run are conducted to determine potential
problem areas with regards to bed profile. If necessary at this stake, cross vanes utilized as &&<
structures (<0.5 ft per stricture), will be added to the design to flatten slopes in the riffles and pools.
¥Y. Sediment Transport Analysis
Please provide the data used for the sediment transport analysis. Also, the current problem in the
stream appears to be degradation so that competence is not an issue. The sediment transport analysis
conducted appears to suggest that the stream will degrade. Please explain why the design stream
would not degrade.
Response:
problem with the stream is t
of the channel. Therefore, the degradation is due to lateral constraints placed on the stream fro
infrastrr,ture including, placement of mline culverts, sewer lines, Burnette Road, and water lines. At t
beginning of the project, the stream has begun to meander in an effort to drop slope and create
,odplain,'` urnette Road has been closed down to o' M"'J zestilt of undercutting;.
,al dimensionless shear stress can be calculated for gravel and cobble bed streams using sedii
inment calculations however, they cannot be used on a sand bed channel. A standard sedii
port analysis does not apply to this strearn since is a sand bed channel. 'Therefore, the majority o
vill mobilize durinr bankfull events. There is no amount of stricture, outside of concrete, that
ant this. From Shield's Curve, the proposed stream has the ability to move its bedload since
cted that a 23 mm (coarse. gravel) could be moved and the Ds.4 of the channel is 3 mm (fine gra
s vanes are integrated into the bed profile to control grade and prevent degradation.
u-'r Tc..r ?Zti.e. r
10. &SAC,
--------------------------------- - ------------------------------------ -------------------------------- -_
9?@
FLOW tt
r
PLAN
TRUNK OF
RODTw'AD
10'-1W
7
CROSS-SECTION

(3'.2'x2' win(
BURIED IN BANK,
ON FOOTER LOG
L PIACEO ON TOP)
2")
OF FOOTER LOG
'OOL INVERT ELEVATION)
ROOT WAD SCALE: NTS
C-8
INSTALLATION
A TRENCH SHALL BE DUG ALONG THE TOE OF THE BANK TO A
DEPTH EQUAL TO THE DIAMETER OF THE FOOTER LOG. A PRUNED
FOOTER LOG (DIA 10"-24') SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOE OF THE
CHANNEL AND THE ROOT WAD (MIN. BASAL DIAMETER 12") SHALL BE
PLACED DIRECTLY ABOVE IT. THE FOOTER LOG MUST EXTEND 2
BEYOND THE TRUNKS OF THE FIRST AND LAST ROOT WADS. IF
NECESSARY TWO FOOTER LOGS MAY BE USED WITH THE UPSTREAM
LOG PLACED IN TOP OF THE DOWNSTREAM LOG WITH A 2' OVERLAP.
THE ROOT MASS SHALL BE ORIENTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE
VELOCITY VECTORS OF THE WATER ARE ALIGNED WITH THE TRUNKS
LONGITUDINAL AXIS AND WILL INTERSECT THE ROOT MASS AT A
GO-DEGREE ANGLE. THERE SHALL BE NO VOID BETWEEN THE SOOT
MASS AND THE BANK ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE CHANNEL.
A BOULDER On WOODY TRANSPLANT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE
DOWNSTREAM SIDE BETWEEN THE ROOT MASS AND THE BANK TO
PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL. BOULDERS FOR ROOT WAD STRUCTURES
SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 3'X3'%2' AND APPROVED BY THE
ENGINEER.
THE PREFERRED METHOD FOR INSTALLATION OF A HOOT WAD IS
TO DRIVE THE SHARPENED TRUNK OF THE ROOT WAD INTO THE
STREAMBANK USING A BACKHOE. IF IT IS DEEMED NOT
POSSIBLE TO DRIVE THE TRUNK INTO THE BANK, A TRENCH
SHALL BE DUG IN THE BANK AND THE TRUNK SHALL BE PLACED
IN THE TRENCH. THE TRENCH SMALL BE BACK FILLED AND
COMPACTED.
ALL DISTURBED OR FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A
DENSITY COMPARABLE TO THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED
MATERIAL UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
COIR MATTING SHALL BE PLACED AROUND THE ROOT WAD. THE
CONTRACTOR MAY PREFER TO PLACE THE COIR MATTING PRIOR
TO ROOT WAD INSTALLATION. IF THIS IS THE CASE, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL CUT A HOLE IN THE MATTING AND DRIVE
THE ROOT WAD TRUNK THROUGH THE MATTING.
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
'??``WING CROSS WTNC
A
ROCK arue EKRIL mx - P'-,"JFj7
?,',urN EADER
-1 ION
FOOTER RDd( tR`•:.+hki clLl..?. ). .- 4n J: ??.?•,? i??
t:?i.{:;G?'S;Ly?r?!? r?-??•-L•-?C--Ii'."? FWNDATIW STWE
' ?°"°'""° (CLASS B STONE!
CROSS SECTION
PLAN VIEW
Y eNnaTR.L
?? r ? SCOUR FOOL
l )
TO BEDROCK

ro WING CROSS
WING
A .r, a w?paa,n n A M
^^'
?
STREAM STATION n
T
? xEARER RWR

CxB
e _
10Nn-
xDi x
( / ETwE
PDLT<s) 3'..'1 g1PPy
IBaReE
STREW RED
6
u
FOOTER ,

w
O? ? ? ? ROCK y ,

(
, ROC!( SI LI ?. '
FOOTER ROCK
e0
OEP 3'
3'
2'
r/ \ \ BN11( .
1A
.
1
I
FOIMDATION STONE

' ICLA$S B STONE)
- - )
SO UR
1 ( - - PROFILE VIEW
A.K TIED IB TOTO r .
8 ROCK CROSS VANE SCALE: NTS
C-8
INSTALLATION
A TRENCH SHALL BE DUG TO THE DEPTHS SPECIFIED ON
THE DRAWINGS. AN EXCAVATOR, WITH A BUCKET THAT
CONTAINS A HYDRAULIC THUMB, SHALL BE USED TO PLACE
ROCKS WITH THE SUPERVISION OF THE ENGINEER.
FOUNDATION ROCKS CONSIST! ND OF CLASS B STONE SHALL
BE PLACED INTO THE TRENCH. THIS WILL PROVIDE
FOUNDATION FOR THE LARGER BOULDERS. FOOTER ROCKS
SHALL BE PLACED ON TOP OF THE FOUNDATION ROCKS FIRST
WITH HEADER ROCKS PLACED ON TOP PRIOR TO BACK FILLING
OF THE TRENCH. IN THE CENTER OR CROSS PORTION OF THE
CHANNEL THE HEADER ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT
THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK IS AT AN ELEVATION EQUAL
TO THE PROPOSED BED ELEVATION. THE HEADER ROCKS ON
THE SIDE OR WING PORTION SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A
MANNER AS THEY SLOPE UP FROM THE BED ELEVATION AT
THE CROSS PORTION, INTO THE STREAM BANK AT APPROX.
10% SLOPE. HEADER AND FOOTER ROCKS AT BOTH BANKS
SHALL BE TIED IN SECURELY TO THE BANK IN SUCH A WAY
THAT ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF WATER DIVERTING
AROUND THEM. A ROCK SILL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TIED
INTO THE STREAMBANK FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 6 FEET.
THE SILL TRENCH SHALL BE DUG SUCH THAT THE TOP OF THE
ROCKS ARE JUST BELOW THE BANKFULL ELEVATION. THE
TRENCH WILL THEN BE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL. THE SILL
HOCKS MAY BE SMALLER THEN THE BOULDERS THAT ARE
REQUIRED FOR THE MAIN STRUCTURE AS APPROVED BY
THE ENGINEER.
ALL DISTURBED OR FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED
TO A DENSITY COMPARABLE TO THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED
MATERIAL UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
Chapter 16
Streambank and Shoreline Protection Part 650
Engineering FYeld Handbook
(iv) Vegetated geogrids Vegetated geogrids are
similar to branchpacking except that natural or syn-
thetic geotextile materials are wrapped around each
soil lift between the layers of live branch cuttings
(figs. 16-12, 16-13a, 16-13b, and 16-13c).
Applications and effectiveness
• Used above and below stream-forming flow
conditions.
• Drainage areas should be relatively small
(generally less than 2,000 acres) with stable
streambeds.
• The system must be built during low flow
conditions.
• Can be complex and expensive.
• Produce a newly constructed, well-reinforced
streambank.
• Useful in restoring outside bends where erosion
is a problem.
• Capture sediment, which rapidly rebuilds to
further stabilize the toe of the streambank.
• Function immediately after high water to
rebuild the bank.
• Produce rapid vegetative growth.
• Enhance conditions for colonization of native
vegetation.
• Benefits are similar to those of branchpacking,
but a vegetated geogrid can be placed on a 1:1 or
steeper slope.
Construction guidelines
Live materials-Live branch cuttings that are brushy
and root readily are required. They should be 4 to 6
feet long.
Inert materials-Natural or synthetic geotextile
material is required.
Installation
• Excavate a trench that is 2 to 3 feet below
streambed elevation and 3 to 4 feet wide. Place
the geotextile in the trench, leaving a foot or two
overhanging on the streamside face. Fill this area
with rocks 2 to 3 inches in diameter.
• Beginning at the stream-forming flow level, place
a 6- to 8-inch layer of live branch cuttings on top
of the rock-filled geogrid with the growing tips at
right angles to the streamflow. The basal ends of
branch cuttings should touch the back of the
excavated slope.
• Cover this layer of cuttings with geotextile leav-
ing an overhang. Place a 12-inch layer of soil
suitable for plant growth on top of the geotextile
before compacting it to ensure good soil contact
with the branches. Wrap the overhanging portion
of the geotextile over the compacted soil to form
the completed geotextile wrap.
• Continue this process of excavated trenches with
alternating layers of cuttings and geotextile
wraps until the bank is restored to its original
height.
• This system should be limited to a maximum of 8
feet in total height, including the 2 to 3 feet
below the bed. The length should not exceed 20
feet for any one unit along the stream. An engi-
neering analysis should determine appropriate
dimensions of the system.
• The final installation should match the existing
slope. Branch cuttings should protrude only
slightly from the geotextile wraps.
1 r 99 (210-vi-EFH, December 1996)
Chapter 16 Streambank and Shoreline Protection Part 650
Engineering Field Handbook
Figure 16-12 Vegetated geogrid details
Cross section Dead stout stake used to secure geotextle fabric
Not to scale /- Install additional vegetation such as live stakes, rooted seedlings, etc.
Eroded streambank
.o
Q
Height varies '
8 foot maxim un o
0
Rock fill<
Compacted soil approximately 1-foot thick
o
o
0
od o °? Live cuttings
0
o
o
? o
c
F? 0 Geotextile fabric
o Stream-forming flow
? o-0 8
?. Baseflow
` r
J .? srY,pAp9NFi'e4?r?'+'X9? w
-A k'
b
o.
-2 to 3 feet
p, o .'.
Note: Rooted/leafed condition of the living
plant material is not representative
of the time of installation. 3 to 4 feet
(210-vi-EFH, December 1996) 16-23
imap://todd. st.john%40dwq.denr.ncmail.net@nplex l.ncmail.net:143/f...
Subject: UT to Tar River
From: "Todd St. John" <[e-mail]> 94
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:46:29 -0400
To: Cherri Smith <[e-mail]>, Jeff Jurek <jeff [e-mail]>
Re: UT to Tar River
DWQ# 030732
Hi everybody,
Here are some question i came up with for this project:
Reference Stream
The proposed reference reach (UT to Lake Lynn) was reported to have a bank height
ratio as high as 1.8 raising concerns of stability. Also, the length surveyed was
less than 20 bankfull widths (i.e. 250 feet divided.by 15.9 foot average width).
These two issues raise concerns about the appropriateness of the reference stream.
The designer indicated that two full meanders were measured; however, no plan view
survey of the stream was provided.
¥¥. Plan Detail
Please provide a longitudinal plan profile of the design stream that shows the
elevations of the top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg. The total bench width is less
than the bankfull width. This raises concerns about the long term stability of the
stream when exposed to larger flood events. Please explain how stability was assessed
for larger flood events.
¥V. In Stream Structures and/or Channel Blocks (Plugs)
Please provide complete typical plans for each type of structure proposed.
¥¥. Bank Stabilization
Please provide typical plans for all bank stabilization/revetment structures.
YY. Riparian Buffers and Planting Plan
The buffers provided appear to be less than 15 feet in some areas. If this project
is proposed for mitigation, it is not clear if full credit can be provided.
¥-4. Morphological measurements
The slope information for both the proposed and reference streams do not seem to
match the sinuosity information. Please clarify. The riffle slope range for the
design stream appears to be very steep compared to the average stream slope. Please
explain.
Y-4. Sediment Transport Analysis
Please provide the data used for the sediment transport analysis. Also, the
current problem in the stream appears to be degradation so that competence is not an
issue. The sediment transport analysis conducted appears to suggest that the stream
will degrade. Please explain why the design stream would not degrade.
1 of 1 6/18/03 10:46 AM
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing 7
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
Mailing Address: 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-3466 Fax Number: 919-733-5321
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: UT to Tar River Stream Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Franklin Nearest Town: Louisburg
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take 401 north to Town of
Louisburg. Take a right onto lE hway 39. Take immediate left onto Burnette Road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct water body.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The project site is within the Town of Louisburg and is subject to heavy storm water flows.
The lack of vegetation on the banks is one of the main causes of degradation along with past
alterations of the channel.
7. Property size (acres): Conservation easement is approximately 4 acres.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Tar River
9. River Basin:-Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mUs/.)
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stabilize UT to Tar River by restoring the
proper eg_ometrv of this creek to improve water quality and reduce sediment load generated
by eroding banks. Establish floodplain along the stream channel as well as vegetate banks
and riparian area.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track-hoe and loader.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The surrounding area is highly
urbanized with more commercial development planned for the future. Burnette Road is on
one side of the creek and Green Hill Country Club is on the other side.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future.permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
No future permit requests are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) . Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. .
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secify)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mMuest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Page 8 of 12
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond
local stormwater requirement, etc.)
(e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
: N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The temporarv impacts are unavoidable due the nature of stream restoration work. The
construction will be staged and performed in such a manner that the disturbance to the aquatic
system is minimal.
Page 9 of 12
210
J(Ij-
205

c
0
c?
>
_0
w 200
UT to Tar River Preliminary Profile
195
10+00
f Proposed Bankfull
--Proposed Thalweg
? Proposed Centerline
15+00 20+00 25+00
Station (ft)
2?0
ly61
30+00
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration`
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
h!Ltp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnn.gide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htip:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
3. Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use.of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not - sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes X (exempt) No If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 teet perpendicular trom near bank of Ctlannel; Gone L extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

Applicant/Agent's SignWture Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

7 '
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River
Franklin County, North Carolina
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR_DWQ
June 2003
E A R T H@ T E C H
A hICO INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. .2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ . 4
1.2
1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................
STREAM SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................... . 4
. 4
1.3.1 Stream Delineation Criteria - Classification .................................. . 5
' 1.3.2 Bankfull Verification ...................................................................... . 5
2.0 EXIS TING CONDITIONS .................................................................................... . 8
' 2.1 WATERSHED ...........................................................................................
2. 1.1 General Description of the Watershed ........................................... . 8
. 8
2.1.2 Surface Waters Classification ........................................................ . 8
' 2.1.3 Soils of the Watershed ...........................................
2.1.4 Land Use of the Watershed ........................................................... . 8
10
2.2 RESTORATION SITE .............................................................................. 11
2.2.1 Site Description ............................................................................. 11
' 2.2.2 Existing Stream Characteristics .................................................... 12
2.2.3 Soils of the Restoration Site .......................................................... 14
' 2.2.4 Terrestrial Plant Communities .................................................
. 16
2.2.4.1 Disturbed Community . .
:::: 16
2.2.4.2 Floodplain Forest Community .......................................... 16
' 2.2.5 Wildlife Observations and Protected Species ............................... 17
3.0 REFERENCE REACHES ..................................................................................... 18
3.1 Unnamed Tributary to Lake Lynn ............................................................. 18
' 3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Hare Snipe Creek .................................................. 18
' 4.0 STREAM CHANNEL DESIGN.. ..............................................................
4.1 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES ............................................................. 22
24
4. 1.1 Dimension ..................................................................................... 24
' 4.1.2 Pattern 26
4.1.3 Bedform .........................................................................................
26
4.1.5 Riparian Areas ............................................................................... 26
' 4.2
4.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ............................................................
FLOODING ANALYSIS .............. . 27
28
4.4 STRUCTURES ......................................................................................... 29
' 4.4.1 Cross Vane .................................................................................... 29
4.4.2 Root Wads ..................................................................................... 29
4.4.3 Vegetated Geogrids ....................................................................... 29
5.0 HAB I'T'AT RESTORATION ................................................................................. 30
5.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 30
' 5.2 Site Preparation .......................................... 31
5.3 Streambank Vegetation ............................................................... ............ 32
5.2 Riparian Buffers ........................................................................................ 32

' ii

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
5.3 Temporary Seeding ................................................................................... 33
6.0 MONITORING .....................................................................................................33
6.1 STREAM CHANNEL ............................................................................... 33
6.2 VEGETATION ......................................................................................... 34
7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Franklin County ................................................ 17
Table 2. Morphological Characteristics ...........................................................................20
Table 3. Urban Recurrence Interval Discharges ..............................................................29
Table 4. Proposed Plant Species List .............................................................................. 32
Table 5. Stream Monitoring Practices ..............................................................................34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map ..........................................................................................3
Figure 2. North Carolina Regional Curve ..........................................................................7
Figure 3. UT Tar River Watershed Map ............................................................................ 9
Figure 4. Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................13
Figure 5. Soils ..................................................................................................................15
Figure 6. UT to Lake Lynn-Reference Reach Watershed Map ........................................19
Figure 7. UT to Hare Snipe Creek-Reference Reach Watershed Map .............................21
Figure 8. Proposed Stream Restoration Design ...............................................................23
Figure 9. Typical Cross-Sections ....................................................................................25
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Photo Log
Appendix B UT Tar River Existing Conditions Data
Appendix C UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach Data
Appendix D UT Hare Snipe Creek Reference Reach Data
(Brookhaven Nature Park)
iii

n

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has identified an Unnamed
Tributary to the Tar River (UT Tar River) as a potential stream restoration site. The
Unnamed Tributary to the Tar River is located in the southeastern section of the town of
Louisburg in Franklin County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site begins at NC
Highway 39 and flows for approximately 1,700 ft. towards the northeast between
Bumette Road and the Green Hill Country Club, Inc. The North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) has not classified this stream; therefore, it has not been
assigned a NCDWQ Stream Index Number.
The town manager of Louisburg, C. L. Gobble, first identified the UT Tar River as a
potential restoration site. His main concern is the streambank erosion that is undercutting
Bumette Road. The lack of vegetation on the banks is one of the main causes of
degradation along with past alterations of the stream course. Recent utility work by the
town has caused additional channel instability. Typical of many urban streams, the UT
Tar River channel is an oversized gully. The town has placed riprap in the channel in
some areas to prevent undercutting. There is one tributary and one small drainage that
enter the UT Tar River on the right bank from the golf course. Appendix A contains a
photo log for the site depicting existing conditions of the stream.
Vegetation throughout the majority of the site is minimal due to channel degradation and
' other disturbances. Since there is a road adjacent to the left bank, there is no vegetation
on this bank and very little on the right bank. There is a treed buffer between the stream
and the golf course that members of the golf course have expressed interest in saving.
' The combination of extreme streambank erosion, lack of vegetation, and a signed
conservation easement make this an excellent potential restoration site.
' Restoration requires determining how far the stream has departed from its natural
stability and then establishing the stable form of the stream under the current hydrologic
conditions within the drainage area. The proposed restoration will construct a stable
' meander geometry, modify channel cross-sections, and establish a floodplain at the
existing stream elevation, thus, restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile. This
restoration is based on analysis of current watershed hydrologic conditions, field
' evaluation of the project site, and the assessment of a stable reference reach. The
following recommendations are included in this restoration plan:
• Form a stable channel with the proper dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Establish a floodplain along the stream channel.
• Place natural material structures in the stream to improve stability and enhance
' aquatic habitat.
• Stabilize streambanks with herbaceous and woody vegetation.
• Restore/enhance the streams riparian zone.
2
ri VLCULVu
Water Supply
Watershed
WS-IV NSW
r-Pamlico Basi

I
D
z 561
to --
Critical
Water Supply
Watershed
WS-IV NSW
Tar-Pamlico Basin
Tar River
56
1-1
\\ A
av
56
10
Q a
o?
4rl? ?0 8J?
PROJECT
COVNTRy LOCATION
CLUB DR.
v?
REX PL.
a GQ???QO• U7 o?
? gigAoq ?? ?
T q0
39
Y IIVAN'CE. WARREN
GR NNVVIILLE7-
,J 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
-
FRANKLIN/
NLks Feet
W rKE N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ
r. -
-- FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
Louisburg, North Carolina
?11

LI

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 NC Highway 401. WRP previously obtained a conservation easement on the
project from the Town of Louisburg and the Green Hill Country Club, Inc. UT Tar River
flows from the southwest to the northeast. The project reach is bound on the west by NC
Highway 39, Bumette Road along the left bank, and the country club along the right
bank. The project ends at the northeastern extent of the conservation easement where the
stream will tie into the old channel located on property owned by Raymond E. Burnette,
et al. One small tributary 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.
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
This project has the following goals and objectives:
1. 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.
2. Improve water quality and reduce further property loss by stabilizing eroding
streambanks.
3. Reconnect the stream to its floodplain and/or establish a new floodplain at a lower
elevation.
4. Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilization structures such
as root wads, cross-vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer.
5. Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through the creation of a
riparian zone.
6. Stabilize and enhance the tributary and small drainage that enters the site.
1.3 STREAM SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The US Forest Service General Technical Report RM-245, Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique is used as a guide when taking field
measurements. Accurate field measurements are critical to determine the present
condition of the existing channel, conditions of the floodplain, and watershed drainage
patterns.
Earth Tech contracted with 4D Site Solutions, Inc. to conduct a topographic survey of the
restoration site in February 2003. This mapping was used to evaluate present conditions,
new channel alignment, and grading volumes. Mapping also provided locations of
property pins, large trees, vegetation lines, culverts, roads, and elevation contours.
4

J

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Como% NC
A stream survey of the property was conducted to better evaluate the drainage properties
of the area surrounding the restoration site on February 19, 2003. County Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Staff provided historic aerial photographs of the
site to help assess the watershed's history. A windshield survey was also conducted to
determine the existing conditions within the watershed.
During the site visit, three cross-sections were taken using standard differential leveling
techniques. These cross-sections were used to gather detail on the present dimension and
condition of the channel. Due to recent channel disturbances, a bankfull feature was not
reliably identified in the field. Cross-sectional area was calculated using the best estimate
of the bankfull feature identified in the field. See Appendix B for a copy of the existing
condition survey for the UT Tar River.
1.3.1 Stream Delineation Criteria - Classification
Dave Rosgen developed his stream classification system in order to accomplish the
following:
1) Predict a river's behavior;
2) Develop specific hydraulic and sediment relationships for a given stream type and its
state;
3) Provide a mechanism to extrapolate site-specific data to stream reaches having
similar characteristics; and
4) Provide a consistent frame of reference for communicating stream morphology and
condition among a variety of disciplines and interested parties.
The Rosgen Stream Classification System is based on five criteria: width/depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, slope, sinuosity, and channel materials. The cross-sections were
classified using this system based on the few bankfull features present in the existing
channel.
1.3.2 Bankfull Verification
The foundation of Dave Rosgen's classification system is the concept of bankfull stage,
which is the point of incipient flooding. The classification depends on the correct
assessment of bankfull. If bankfull is incorrectly determined in the field, the entire
restoration effort will be based on faulty data. It is important to verify the physical
indicators observed in the field with either gage data or a regional curve to ensure the
correct assessment of the bankfull stage.
The bankfull stage is determined in the field using physical indicators. The following is a
list of commonly used indicators that define bankfull (Rosgen, 1996):
• The presence of a floodplain at the elevation of incipient flooding;
• The elevation associated with the top of the highest depositional feature (e.g. point
bars, central bars within the active channel). These depositional features are
5
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County. NC
' especially good stage indicators for channels in the presence of terrace or adjacent
colluvial slopes;
' • A break in slope of the bank and/or a change in the particle size distribution, since
finer material is associated with deposition by overflow, rather than deposition of
coarser material within the active channel;
' Evidence of an inundation feature such as small benches below bankfull; and
• Staining of rocks.
' The most dominant bankfull indicators along the UT to Tar were breaks in slope on the
channel banks in the upper section and the top of bank in the lower section.
' The most common method of verifying bankfull stage is to compare the field determined
bankfull stage with.measured stages at a stream gaging station. This calibration can be
performed if there is a stream gage within the study area's hydrophysiographic region.
' In ungaged areas, Dave Rosgen recommends verifying bankfull with the development of
regional curves. The regional curves normally plot bankfull discharge (Qbkf), cross-
sectional area, width, and depth as a function of drainage area. The cross-sectional areas
of UT Tar River and the reference reach site used for this report are plotted on the Rural
and Urban, Piedmont Regional Curve of North Carolina developed by the North Carolina
' State University (NCSU) Water Quality Group, 2000 (Figure 2).
' Data obtained from field surveys described in Section 2.2.2 was used to compute the
morphological characteristics shown on the graph. The cross-sectional area for UT to Tar
River plots between the urban and rural trend lines on the NC Piedmont Regional Curve
' at 24.5 square feet. Arcadis G & M, Inc. conducted the Feasibility Study on this stream
and concluded that the bankfull cross-sectional area was 17.7 square feet on average,
which falls on the rural trend line. The bankfull cross-sectional area for the design
' channel was determined from evaluating the North Carolina regional curve relationships
and comparing them to the existing cross-sectional area. There are 39 acres in the
headwaters of the stream that have planned development within the next year, which also
' played into the final cross-sectional area. HEC-RAS will be used to verify the design
cross-sectional area for the project and estimate in-channel shear stress. This assessment
will not be conducted until the design phase of the project.

1 6
t
U`
>I
7I
n
g
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve
DRAFT
1000
N
W
100
R
is
O
Ir
U 10
c?
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (mi z )
• Urban Data • Rural Data • UT Tar • UT Lake Lynn • UT Hare Snipe - Rural Regression - Urban Regression
FIGURE 2
- - _ , NORTH CAROLINA REGIONAL CURVE
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program Louisburg, North Carolina
NCDENR DWQ-
' UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 WATERSHED
2.1.1 General Description of the Watershed
UT Tar River, an intermittent stream, is located within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province of the Tar River Basin (USGS Cataloging Unit 03020101). The watershed is
located to the southeastern section of the Town of Louisburg in Franklin County, North
Carolina. The headwaters of the project originate approximately 1.2 miles to the
southwest of the restoration site at the dam of a small pond. From the headwaters, the UT
Tar River flows for approximately 2 miles before entering the Tar River. Several small
drainages enter UT Tar River along its extent, most via culverts under Hwy. 401.
The watershed for UT Tar River is approximately 0.61 square miles (394 Acres)(Figure
3). The watershed is oriented southwest to northeast. The topography of the watershed is
' gently sloping with relatively flat, narrow floodplains. Land surface elevations range
from approximately 210 to 300 feet above mean sea level. There is a 38.7-acre site in the
headwaters that is currently planned for development into outparcels. Areas of hydric
soils are common along the flat, narrow drainageways of this watershed. Intact wetland
communities are present within the watershed; however, many of them have been
' disturbed through development activities, and/or invaded by exotic species.
2.1.2 Surface Waters Classification
' Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. The UT Tar
River has not been indexed by DWQ, so it can be assigned the same rating as its
receiving stream (the Tar River). Therefore, the UT is classified as a Class WS-V NSW
water body (NCDENR, 2003). Class WS-V waters are waters protected as water supplies
that are generally upstream of and draining to Class WS-IV waters. No categorical
' restrictions on watershed development or treated wastewater discharges shall be required;
suitable for all Class C uses. (Class C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, and aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife.) The
NSW classification is for waters that need additional nutrient management strategies for
both point and non-point source pollution.
2.1.3 Soils of the Watershed
The soils found in the watershed and adjacent to the stream can help determine the bed
and bank materials occurring in the stream. The Rosgen stream classification system
uses average particle size within. the bankfull channel to help classify the stream.
Knowing the composition of the soils in the watershed assists in understanding the
' anticipated bedload and sediment transport capacity of the stream.
i
8
-o
3
O
Y
FF ` ?.. r 'Hi it 561
Fairgrounds' Svt?sta w 1. f p 1•. ¢#? _
ry ,`?,OLllti}Jll]'?,' 'I?•'- '• ` ..'r': •--?c= -
l 4., sca 56
?.w _ - 1111 f t• 423 \ ,'0 xt `' i' :1•?\BM R1'.0
401
IT I
WATERSHED
_ f AREA =.61 sq. mi.
.r rvmo,, PROJECT
LOCATION
401
39
Taik
?.
ze,
USGS Quadrangle
Louisburg, N.C.,©19786Photoinspected 1984
©2001 by Maptech?yright 2001 Maptech.
VANCE WARREN
GR NVILLE?
i 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
-?
FRANKLIN/
NAS Feet
IN KE N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ
---------- ----
- FIGURE 3
WATERSHED MAP
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
Louisburg, North Carolina
' UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
Soils in most areas within the watershed consist primarily of sandy loam soils listed
' below. Soils information was obtained from draft maps and descriptions provided by the
Franklin County NRCS office. The provisional map units are Chewacla and Wehadkee
soils with 0 to 3% slopes, Wedowee sandy loam with 2 to 15% slopes, Wedowee-Urban
' land-Udorthents complex with 2 to 10% slopes, and Helena sandy loam soils with 2 to
6% slopes.
' Chewacla and Wehadkee soils occur primarily on the floodplains within the watershed.
Soils in upland areas within the watershed consist of all the other soil types listed above.
' Urban land composes about 20% of the total soils in the watershed.
Wedowee sandy loam soils are mapped in upland areas mainly in the southeastern
' portion of the watershed. These soils are typically found on side slopes in the Piedmont,
and their thickness, drainage class, and permeability vary according to their slope.
Surface runoff is moderate to rapid. These soils formed in residuum weathered from
' felsic crystalline rock. The seasonal high water table remains below 6 feet.
Helena sandy loam soils with 2 to 6% slopes are typically found in depressions, broad
' ridges, and heads of drainageways in the Piedmont. These soils are very deep,
moderately well drained, and have slow permeability. Runoff is medium to rapid. These
soils are formed in residuum weathered from a mixture of felsic, intermediate, or mafic
' igneous or high-grade metamorphic rock. The seasonal high water table remains at 1.5 to
2.5 feet below the ground surface.
' Wedowee-Urban land-Udorthents complex, and Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are
discussed in Section 2.2.3.
' 2.1.4 Land Use of the Watershed
Land use within the watershed is predominately commercial, forested, and residential.
Evaluation of a USGS topographic map reveals that approximately 23% of the watershed
' is residential, roadways, and businesses, and 77% is forested, undeveloped areas.
' Analysis of historic aerials dating as far back as 1938 reveal that the watershed has
changed. In 1938, land use within the watershed was primarily agricultural, but by 1973,
land used was almost entirely urban. It is difficult to discern the historical changes to the
UT, although it appears that in 1938, the stream took a more direct path to the Tar River,
' flowing almost due east from the project site.
' Based on conversations with town officials, the UT has been recently re-routed away
from its original stream channel at the downstream end of the project area. This channel
modification was conducted to avoid crossing a sewer service road while sewer and water
' utility upgrades were completed this year. Additional modifications to the stream are
evident at the upstream end of the UT where road fill for both NC Highway 39 and
Burnette Road has artificially narrowed the available floodplain and entrenched the
' stream channel.
10

n

I I

r
r_
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
According to a personal communication (Gobble, March 5, 2003), there are several
parcels of land in the headwaters of the watershed that have planned development. The
land, owned by Robert and Diane G. Schaaf, consists of approximately 7 parcels with
about 38.7 acres of land. With the exception of about 1.2 acres that is zoned as
Office/Institutional (O/I), the parcels are zoned as Highway Business (132). The majority
of this land is currently in the planning process to be developed into commercial
outparcels due to its proximity to US Highway 401 (Bickett Boulevard). These parcels
constitute approximately 10% of the watershed area. If this land is completely built out
with impervious surfaces without on-site stormwater controls, then the storm flows
delivered to the project site will be increased with a shorter time of concentration.
There is also an undeveloped 36.6-acre parcel with road frontage on Fox Park Road (SR
1700) in the headwaters of the watershed. Currently, there are no plans for development
of this parcel, but it is zoned Agricultural-Residential (AR).
2.2 RESTORATION SITE
The following sections provide a description of existing site conditions. This includes the
current stream conditions, soils, and surrounding plant communities.
2.2.1 Site Description
The project site begins at NC Highway 39 and flows for approximately 1,700 ft. before
exiting the conservation easement and an additional 2,600-2,800 ft. before terminating at
the Tar River. The project is located on Town of Louisburg and Green Hill Country
Club, Inc. properties. It flows northeast through a narrow floodplain while alongside
Burnette Road and then through a larger floodplain (>120 ft. wide) after Burnette Road
terminates. The majority of the floodplain in the lower portion of the conservation
easement contains hydric soils, but no jurisdictional wetlands. Channel sinuosity for the
entire reach is 1.07, with long straight stretches. High banks and areas of severe bank
erosion can be found throughout the project reach due to high in-stream shear stress and
lack of streambank vegetation. The treed buffer, within the conservation easement (along
the right bank), ranges from about 15-90 ft. wide, but does not lie adjacent to the
streambank due to a former sewer line that ran between the stream and the buffer.
The causes of impairment throughout the restoration site are:
• Road embankments adjacent to the streambanks;
• Previous channelization along the reach;
• Removal of riparian vegetation;
• Sedimentation; and
• Recent channel modifications due to utility work.
Dense rooting vegetation along the streambanks is extremely sparse for large lengths of
stream. Additional degradation has resulted from historic channelization of the stream to
11
' UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
' allow for roads, utilities, and other development. The upstream portion of the UT Tar
River is deeply incised partly due to the road embankments. The small tributary that
' enters the stream has headcut up approximately 100 ft. from the UT Tar River.
2.2.2 Existing Stream Characteristics
Field surveys of the existing stream channels and surrounding floodplains were
conducted on February 19, 2003 to determine the potential for stream restoration on-site.
The stream measurements are critical to the classification and assessment of the existing
' stream type. These measurements provide data to classify the stream using the Rosgen
classification method, Levels I and II (Rosgen 1996). Appendix B contains the existing
' conditions data.
Photographs of the site were taken and are provided in Appendix A. The channel can be
' typically described as a channel being held in place with riprap to prevent it from
undercutting Burnette Road (Figure 4). Although the channel is deeply incised, it is
currently attempting to meander to establish a stable dimension, pattern, and profile with
a floodplain. Streambank erosion dominates the site resulting from the combination of
pattern modifications and lack of streambank vegetation. An erosion assessment was not
conducted but banks were actively eroding during the site visit without human impact.
' Recent rains, sandy soils, and the lack of vegetation have left unprotected soil on the
streambanks vulnerable to erosion.
' A tributary enters the UT Tar River about 350 ft. downstream of NC Highway 39. This
stream flows from of the adjacent golf course and has a 0.11 square mile (69-acre)
drainage area. Within the conservation easement, this stream flows for approximately
' 250 ft. before entering the UT Tar River. There are several spoil piles along the right
bank of the tributary, possibly from the construction of the golf course. The channel does
not show signs of having been dredged in the past. The last 100 ft. of this channel is
' severely incised due to the current bed elevation of the UT Tar River.
A small drainage swale also enters the UT Tar River about 120 ft. downstream of the
tributary from the golf course. It appears to flow only during storm events. The drainage
swale is not currently vegetated due to recent disturbances from utility relocation.
Therefore, it is transporting sediment into the UT Tar River during storms.
' Riffle bankfull widths for UT Tar River range from 10.2 to 13.8 ft. with a mean depth of
2.0 ft. The cross-sectional areas for these riffles range from 20.8 to 28.1 ft'. The
' predominant stream type is a degraded E5. Since the first pebble count was taken so
close to the completion of the sewer construction, a second one was taken about one
month later. Both pebble counts showed that the D50 is coarse sand; however, the bed
' had coarsened up slightly in the second pebble count. These pebble counts along with all
of the data for the existing channel are included in Appendix B. The UT Tar River has the
following average characteristics based on the two riffles surveyed:

12
e?
RNE?
E
LEGEND
C STREAM CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
i EXISTING 30' UTILITY EASEMENT
STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
POWER POLE
STORM DRAINAGE
SANITARY SEWER
OVERHEAD POWER
FLOODPLAIN FOREST COMMUNITY
0 60 120 240 360
Feet

1

' UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
1
Bankfull Width: 12.0 feet
' Cross-sectional Area: 24.5 square feet
Mean Depth: 2.0 feet
Maximum Depth: 3.1 feet
' Average Water Surface Slope: 0.0068 feet/feet
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.2
Sinuosity: 1.07
' Bank Height Ratio (longitudinal profile) 1.0-2.9
Bank Erosion Potential Extreme
' 2.2.3 Soils of the Restoration Site
According to the draft maps and descriptions provided by the Franklin County NRCS
office, soils adjacent to the UT Tar River within the restoration site are mapped as
' Chewacla and Wehadkee soils with 0 to 3% slopes, Wedowee sandy loam with 6 to 10%
slopes, and Wedowee-Urban land-Udorthents complex with 2 to 10% slopes (Figure 5).
' Investigation of the soils adjacent to the stream indicates that all three soils appear to be
present, although Chewacla soils dominate the site.
' Chewacla and Wehadkee soils with 0 to 3% slopes are nearly level, very deep and
somewhat poorly drained soils found on floodplains on the Piedmont. This soil has
moderate permeability and surface runoff is slow in bare and unprotected areas. These
soils formed in recent alluvium derived from metamorphic and igneous rocks. This map
' unit may also contain some (up to 30%) inclusions of Wehadkee soils. From November
through April, the water table in Chewacla soils may remain 0.5 to 1.5 feet below the
ground surface. In Wehadkee soils, the water table may remain within 1 foot of the
ground surface from November through May. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are both
listed as hydric soils by the NRCS.
' Wedowee-Urban land-Udorthents soils with 2 to 10% slopes are mapped along the
northwest side of the project area. Thirty percent of this map unit is composed of Urban
' soils, which are the main soil types of this complex encountered on the project site.
These soils are typically found in areas of urban development and have been significantly
altered. Permeability of these soils is generally low, due to compaction or paving, and
' runoff is generally rapid. The depth to the seasonal high water table is highly variable.
Soil textures encountered include sandy loams and sandy clay loams. Significant
' amounts of gravel were noted in some horizons at some locations. Gravel was more
common in the portion of the project nearest Burnette Road. In this area, the stream is
eroding into the roadbed, exposing compacted fill material, including clay and gravel.
' Along the entire southeast side of the stream, and along the lower third of the project area
along each side of the UT Tar River, hydric soils were encountered near the outer limits
of the easement, however, no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by this project.
' 14

LEGEND
Ch = Chewacla and Loam Wehadkee, 0-3% Slopes t
WeC = Wedowee Sandy Loam, 6-10% Slopes
WuC = Wedowee - Urbanland - Udorthents Complex,
2-10% Slopes
VANCE, ARREN
I.
GR NVILLE-
FRANKLIN/ 0 500 1,000 2,000
/ NAS Feet
W KE N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ-
FIGURE 5
SOILS
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
Louisburg, North Carolina

n

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
2.2.4 Terrestrial Plant Communities
The following sections describe the existing plant communities on and adjacent to the
restoration site (Figure 4). For purposes of this project, two plant communities are
described: a Disturbed Community and a Floodplain Community. Nomenclature follows
Radford, et al. (1968). Maintenance of the road, sewer easement, and golf course has
severely impacted the vegetation of the project site.
' 2.2.4.1 Disturbed Community
This community has recently been impacted by human disturbance and includes
maintained roadside shoulders and a city sewer right-of-way. It is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. Along the majority of the northwest side of the stream, little to
no vegetation exists due to the severely eroded streambanks adjacent to Burnette Road
and a gravel road. Maintenance of the gravel road near the downstream segment of the
project site has caused the most recent disturbance to the community.
' A sewer right-of-way is present along the southeast side of the stream, and is maintained
by regular mowing. This area is dominated by herbaceous vegetation including: fescue
grass (Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria media), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea),
English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), common plantain (Plantago major), and
pokeweed (Phytolaca americana). A few plants are present at the base of the
' streambanks including: soft rush (Juncus effuses), various sedges (Carex spp.), and
scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
' Along the periphery of this community, many invasive species common to waste places
can be found. These include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), poison ivy
' (Toxicodendron radicans), blackberry (Rubus sp.), bindweed (Convulvus sp.), and
Chinese privet
' 2.2.4.2 Floodplain Forest Community
A floodplain forest community is present along the southeast side of the project site. This
' community has also been impacted by maintenance activities, but not as severely as other
areas within the project site. Mature trees present here include: box elder (Acer
negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river
birch (Betula nigra), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). The understory
varies in density, due to maintenance activities, but is dominated by red cedar (Juniperus
' virginiana), Chinese privet, sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), poison ivy, Japanese
honeysuckle, and grapevine (Vitis sp.).
' Hydric soils are scattered throughout this community, however no jurisdictional wetlands
were noted. In these areas, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) is present, in addition to
sweetgum, river birch, and red maple.
' 16

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
2.2.5 Wildlife Observations and Protected Species
Wildlife and signs of wildlife were noted during on-site visits; however, a formal wildlife
survey was not performed. Tracks of white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were
observed along the streambanks, and in the adjacent areas. A variety of birds were seen
in the trees and shrubs surrounding the stream channel including: blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), American goldfinch (Carcluelis tristis), tufted
titmouse (Pares bicolor), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), house sparrow
(Passer domesticus), white-throated sparrow (Zonotricha albicollis), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee
(Parus caolinensis), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), American robin (Turdus fnigratorius), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia).
The USFWS lists three species under federal protection and five federal species of
' concern (FSC) for Franklin County as of March 2002 (USFWS 2002). These species are
listed in Table 1.

P

n

Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Franklin County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Present
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus FSC No
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmodonta heterodon Endangered No
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata FSC No
Tar Rivers in mussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered No
Atlantic igtoe Fusconaia masom FSC No
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC No
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered No
No Threatened, Endangered or Species of Federal Concern were observed; although,
several are recorded at the NC National Heritage Program (NHP) as occurring within 2
miles (3.2 km) of the project area. There is no habitat present in the project area for any
of the listed species.
The yellow lance, and the Atlantic pigtoe have each been recorded in the Tar River near
the US Highway 401 bridge. Tim Savidge last observed the yellow lance on June 2,
1999, when fourteen live animals were found. John Alderman last observed the Atlantic
pigtoe on June 5, 1990. Twelve live individuals were found on this date.
The confluence of Fox Creek and the Tar River lies 2,500 feet downstream from the
confluence of the UT Tar River and the Tar River. Several federally listed species have
been observed in Fox Creek where NC 56 bridges it. Atlantic pigtoe, yellow lance, and
dwarf wedgemussel are all recorded by NHP as occurring at this site. No observation
dates exist for the dwarf wedgemussel. John Alderman observed the yellow lance on
April 11, 1996. Four live animals were found. John Alderman observed the Atlantic
pigtoe on April 12, 1996, when one live animal was found.
17
' UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
3.0 REFERENCE REACHES
'
3.1 Unnamed Tributary to Lake Lynn
' The Unnamed Tributary to Lake Lynn (UT Lake Lynn) is a first order stream flowing
into Lake Lynn in North Raleigh (Figure 6). The stream is located adjacent to a trail in
Lake Lynn Park off of Ray Road. The stream actually is an Unnamed Tributary to Hare
' Snipe Creek, but will be called UT Lake Lynn since the second reference reach is also an
UT to Hare Snipe further downstream. The watershed area is approximately 489 acres
(0.76 square miles) and encompasses several residential neighborhoods.
' The watershed boundary to the east is NC 50 (Creedmoor Road), to the north Strickland
Road, and then follows the ridgelines to the reference reach site. The watershed is
' predominately comprised of single-family residences with a few businesses along NC 50.
Approximately 250 ft. of this stream were surveyed on March 25, 2003 to obtain the
' morphological data. This length of channel was determined from the first cross-section
that was taken (12.6 ft. wide) and falls at the lower range of the 20 to 30 bankfull width
recommendation (Rosgen) for the length of a reference reach. The reference reach was
stable below this location, however the 2 full wavelength rule was met and the survey
was ended.
' The streambed is composed of sand with small gravel in the riffle cross-sections. While
the streambanks do not have an extensive buffer due to development and the adjacent
trail, the streambanks are stable. Signs of recent overbank storm flows are evident by the
' amount of debris on the upstream side of trees in the floodplain. This reference classifies
as a C5 stream type with a mean width-to-depth ratio of 13.0 and 1.25 sinuosity. The
complete data set for this reference reach can be found in Appendix C or a summary can
' be found in Table 2.
' 3.2 Unnamed Tributary to Hare Snipe Creek
The Unnamed Tributary to Hare Snipe Creek (UT Hare Snipe) is a first order stream
flowing through the Brookhaven Subdivision in North Raleigh (Figure 7). The site is
' located in Brookhaven Nature Park near the intersection of US 70 (Glenwood Avenue)
and NC Highway 50 (Creedmoor Road) adjacent to York School. The stream begins at a
' small pond and flows southwest for approximately 3,000 ft. before emptying into Hare
Snipe Creek. The data for this reference reach can be found in Appendix D.
' The section measured for reference was 155 ft. in length and classifies as a C4 stream
type. This length of channel falls below the recommended 20 to 30 bankfull width
recommendation (Rosgen) since the channel width ranged from 10.0 to 15.6 ft. wide.
' However, stable reference reaches in highly urbanized areas are difficult to locate and
lengthy stable reference reaches are even more rare. This section of stream was the most
stable reach located.
18
c
s

I

I

`Stricklan
??,,1 i'N

41
?. •iY a.. '.. 1 i ti__?-• J • -? 1 •- ? r-I.111 \?_ ?
WATERSHED

AREA - .76 sq. mi.
L or

• ? J;:
` ~ ' /
'
•' ^ ?
•
/ 1 •r
' 2
r C
'
6/
?
,?
,?
?f
/, f ??
,
fi
`

•
? -? •?`
?y, i, Jl ? .?,1lay ___.1 S?• ? ??J ? `.' J?
50
7
I ,
7

i ii r.c ? ? ., _ \\ ? o ? ? `'T`?,,`??? • ? ? t- -- - '? 44 ?.'? '• _ .; y ( .r.. -^? :'.
A

Ake
•?
l ?
fs
'` •
t
?-?- 39! /_ i
i
?
~ - 1
pi
',
. ?.
i +
, a • ._.
,,
Raleigh.West, N.C\1968, Photorevised•1987, t
Fhotoinspected-j%9
Bayle'af, N C',.1967 Photorevised.1987 ;? y
©2001-by Maptechk6ppynght2001 Mapte;h " '; e r - as r - s
,•
-S" yV
?
OR`-AN E!
F3 NKLIN
DURHA

M _MOW
NASH 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 - ~ ,
WAKE
0 ArTHiQNI
Feet -
JOHNSTON N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR_---DWQ-

FIGURE 6
UT TO LAKE LYNN - REFERENCE REACH
WAT ERSHED MAP
- Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
I
Louisburg, North Carolina

E

C

Table 2. Morphological Characteristics

Variables Unnamed
Tributary
to Tar
River Reference
Reach-UT
Lake Lynn Reference
Reach-
Brookhaven
Proposed UT
Tar River
Stream Type (Rosgen) degraded E5 C5 C4 C5
Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.61 0.74 0.14 0.61
Bankfull Width (Wbkf, ft) 10.2-13.8 12.6-19.1 10-15.6 18.0
MEAN 12.0 15.9 12.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkt, ft) 2.0 1.22 0.55-0.76 1.38
MEAN 2.0 1.22 0.66
Width/depth Ratio (Wbkfldbkf) 5.0-6.8 10.3-15.6 18.2-20.6 13.2
MEAN 5.9 13.0 19.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (Abkf sq. ft.) 20.8-28.1 15.4-23.4 5.5-11.8 24.5
MEAN 24.5 19.4 8.7
Bankfull Maximum Depth (dmax ft) 2.8-3.3 2.00-2.26 1.0-1.2 2.2
MEAN 3.1 2.13 1.1
Ratio Bankfull Maximum Depth to Mean
Bankfull Depth (dmaxldbkf)
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.6
Lowest Bank Height to Bankfull Maximum
Depth Ratio
0.33-0.97
.0-1.8
1.0-2.8
1.0
Width of Flood Prone Area (Wfpa ft) 40-55 68-126 29-33 40
MEAN 47.5 97 31
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpalWbkf 3.9-4.0 5.4-6.6 1.9-3.3 2.2
Meander Length (Lm ft) 265-470 42-59 47 59-84
MEAN 368 50 47 72
Ratio of Meander Length to Bankfull Width 22.1-39.2 3.3-4.7 3.7 3.3-4.7
(Lm/Wbkf)
MEAN
30.6
4.0
3.7
4.0
Radius of Curvature (Rc ft) 10-60 19-81 12-35 36-72
MEAN 27 36 24 54
Ratio of Radius of Curvature to Bankfull Width 0.8-5.0 1.2-5.1 0.9-2.7 2.0-4.0
(RclWbkf)
MEAN
2.2
2.3
1.9
3
Belt Width (Wbrt ft) 8-30 17 3 28-41 23-58
MEAN 16 35 40
Meander Width Ratio (WbrtlWbkf) 0.7-2.5 1. -2.6 2.2-3.2 1.3-3.2
MEAN 1.4 1. 2.7 2.3
Sinuosity (Stream Length/Valley Length, k -
ft/ft)
1.07
1.25
1.70
1.25
Valley Slope (Svauey) ft/ft 0.0179 0.0215 0.052 0. 9
Average Water Surface Slope (Savg) 0.0068 ' 0.0050 0.0161 0. 04
Pool Slope (Spoor) 0.000-0.0120 0.0000-0.0048 0-0.0031 0.0000 0.0048
MEAK 0.0047 0.0019 0.0010
Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
(SpoollSavg)
0.69 0.0-1.8
0.39 0.0-0.95
0.06 0.0-0.19
0.0-0.95
Riffle Slope Sriff ft/ft) 0.0018-0.0171 0.0085-0.0213 0.0304-0.075 0.0085-0.0333
MEAN 0.0115 0.0144 0.0462
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope
(SnfflSavg)
0.26-2.5
1.7-4.3
1.9-4.7
.7-4.7
MEAN 1.7 2.9 2.9
Maximum Pool Depth (dpoor ft) 1.75-3.10 2.3-2.6 1.9-2.2 2.9
Ratio of pool depth to mean bankfull depth
(dpoorldw)
2.7
2.0
3.1
2.1
Pool Width (Wpoor ft 18.5 12.9 8.4-11.3 18.0
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(WpoorlWbkf)
1.5
0.8
0.8
Pool to Pool Spacing P-P ft 33-379 32-75 38-48 32-75
MEAN 226 47 43
Ratio of P-P to Bankfull Width P-P/Wbkf 2.8-31.6 2.0-4.7 3.0-3.8 2.0-4.
MEAN 18.8 3.0 3.4
'Rosgen recommends keeping the Rc/Wbkf >2.0 for stability.
y•z??
?r
17
Glib
A-V
Gam /o w,? ??_?,>

?1(?
X Ad
??Y -?,, 3 ? ?1, ? > tit ? r-?; _• .? r ?? '
f y T 11
Millb
Ok,
WATERSHED
AREA= .14 sq. mi.
,; .N `•?,:..?a. - l / _ s - Lam; ;
*. . 1 ?, . I , 4•i 143
!? ire `, rte. , ma=y ,
44 ,? ` ??\ ? •\ • ? ?? (? ^ 1 -'? 1 • ii ` 1? 'i '? ?? /T Y • i\ •1 ? yh1+ • C1 j,?}p? •? _..?
• /` t , \ ` 't. ji i 91,, v ?9? , (jam '? Ir-, f r `jl? • 1 \ (, f ??+?-1?.
50
t IT!'!?.. w. `,?fi????\ ?: r-. ? % ?f ? i ? • ? ?t • )? ? it • ? R , F ? `` ? ??? % / Yr
•`__ / ? ? •Y i ;.tits. . ? i,, \` . ?: 7 "L? ? ?? • t 4 ? 1 ?' ?? /J/ +,' ? . ?• ? ??
z _ 4s ., _v ? i'_'?? ? ? ? 11 •? ?w 7"s`? '? f 1p
70 ?t-•? t
r} ??,'" r t i , v\ YJ1,I ' \?? . \ , I ?? ?1\^a(j, i , ? 4k:
USGS Qua yr gle
t r ?' • 1 + 1
Raleig1iWest N:;C 1968=Photo\6ised198 _ L?!?•; ,? (,h i '' t? -r? I
PhofOsP@Ct@1988;..,
©200.1 by-Maptech&(aopyri h't-2601 W1 ch
GRAN E' -? FR NKLIN
+DUR AM?
7- NasH 0 600 1,200 2,400 ,
waKE -
@FFIIkTHAM / Feet
JOHNSTON N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR DWQ
FIGURE 7
UT TO HARE SNIPE - REFERENCE REACH
WATERSHED MAP
Unnamed Tributary to Tar River - Mitigation Plan
Louisburg, North Carolina

r
C

n
L
G

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
This urban watershed is approximately 90 acres (0.14 square mile) and encompasses the
Brookhaven Subdivision as well as York School, several industrial buildings, and large
tracts of undeveloped land. The watershed is oval in shape and includes the small
tributary and pond. It is bounded to the east by NC Highway 50 and generally follows
the topographic ridgelines to complete the watershed boundary.
The majority of the development within this watershed has been established for over 20
years and only in the extreme northern part of the watershed is there evidence of recent
development. Portions of the stream and surrounding woods have been incorporated into
Brookhaven Nature Park. Both the park and the neighborhood lend stability to the stream
and watershed, as no new impervious surfaces have recently been built adjacent to the
stream.
4.0 STREAM CHANNEL DESIGN
This restoration will classify as a Priority 2 restoration (Rosgen, 1997). A more sinuous
channel will be cut at the existing bed elevation and a floodplain will be excavated to
handle large storm events. The floodplain will be re-established to fit within the
conservation easement that was determined prior to the design. The proposed stream
restoration will restore a stable meander pattern, modify channel cross-section, restore
bedform, improve sediment transport capacity, enhance habitat, and re-establish a
floodplain for the stream.
The design was based upon Dave Rosgen's natural channel design methodology. As
described in Section 3.0, UT Lake Lynn and UT Hare Snipe Creek were utilized as
reference reaches on which the morphological characteristics were measured to determine
a range of values for the stable dimension, pattern, and profile of the proposed channel.
The existing, reference, and proposed morphological characteristics are shown in Table 2.
Two tributaries/drainages enter the UT Tar River within the project limits. The design
' will incorporate these features and will allow for a stable tie-in with the UT Tar River.
There will be no formal design of these two features other than structures at the tie-in
with the main channel.
' Burnette Road will not be impacted by the construction of this project. It is Earth Tech's
understanding that the Town will be paving the road after construction is complete on the
stream restoration. However, the dirt path that the Town uses to access the sewer lift
station may be relocated slightly from its current alignment. A culvert will be designed
and installed as a part of this restoration to allow the Town to continue to access the lift
I station.
A conceptual design was developed from the range of values listed in Table 2. This
' stream restoration project will restore approximately 2,040 linear feet of UT Tar River, as
measured along the proposed thalweg. The plan view of the proposed restoration design
can be seen in Figure 8.
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
E
c
0
U
Q
oo
O
r
N
m
Y
LEGEND
VEGETATED GEOGRID
CROSS-VANE
ROOT WAD
PROPOSED CULVERT
PROPOSED STREAM ALIGNMENT
EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE
EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE
® EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
s EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
° EXISTING POWER POLE
r..+ STREAM CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
..: EXISTING 30' UTILITY EASEMENT
0 A0 120 240 360
Feet

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Count}, NC
4.1 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
Stream dimension, pattern, and profile will be adjusted so the new stream channel can
maintain stability while transporting its water and sediment load. The Priority 2
restoration will involve modifying the existing channel at its existing elevation to create a
stable channel (Figure 8).
Vegetation will be used to provide stability and provide habitat along tile streambanks
and in the riparian area. The greatest advantage of this Priority 2 restoration will be to
create a floodplain that the active channel can actively access. Other advantages of a
t Priority 2 restoration include improving aesthetics, improving habitat, reduction of bank
height and streambank erosion, and lowering of the in-channel shear stress.
1 A culvert will be designed towards the end of the project (Figure 8). This culvert will
allow the Town of Louisburg to access the lift station immediately below the restoration
site. This culvert will be designed to best fit the proposed channel.
4.1.1 Dimension
' The present bankfull channel width for UT Tar River ranges from 10.2 to 13.8 ft. with a
cross-sectional area ranging from 20.8 to 28.1 ft2. The design channel will be constructed
to bankfull target dimensions that are based on a combination of existing conditions,
HEC RAS modeling, and regional curve information. Typical cross-sections can be seen
in Figure 9.
' A design width of 18.0 ft. for the UT Tar River will be applied to the proposed reach.
This width was back calculated from the cross-sectional area taken from the existing
conditions and a width-to-depth ratio of 13.2 from the reference reaches. These
' characteristics will provide a stream channel that classifies as a C-type channel for the
UT Tar River according to the Rosgen classification system.
The existing channel, with bank height ratio's ranges from 1.0 to 2.9, will have benches
cut at the bankfull elevation so that the entrenchment ratio for the channel is a 2.2 at a
minimum, where the conservation easement allows. With the proposed channel cross-
section, a total of 13.2 feet of benches (minimum) are necessary to obtain an
entrenchment ratio appropriated for a C-type channel. The bench width on the outside of
the meanders will be 5 feet wide with the remainder of the floodplain benches being cut
' along the inside meanders. Benches in excess of 13.2 feet (combined left and right bank)
will be obtained where the conservation easement and utility constraints allow to increase
the entrenchment ratio beyond a minimum of 2.2. Unlike the existing channel, the
proposed channel will be able to access a floodplain and effectively transport the
sediment load.
' The proposed channel will be sized to accommodate the existing watershed
characteristics. A floodplain will be built adjacent to the proposed channel to
' accommodate additional stormwater input from future development in the headwaters.
' 24
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
4.1.2 Pattern
' The existing pattern of the UT Tar River can be described as long straight reaches
followed by sparse meanders. The current sinuosity in the UT Tar River is 1.07. Design
sinuosity for the UT Tar River is 1.25. Existing pattern measurements were taken from
' the topographic mapping. The proposed pattern is limited in a few places due to a narrow
conservation easement and utility crossings. Minor modifications to the pattern may be
necessary during the design process to ensure that the bankfull channel, floodplain
benches, and slope to existing ground are contained within the conservation easement.
Therefore, the sinuosity may be decreased to some extent.
' A stable pattern will be achieved by introducing meanders into the stream with
appropriate radius of curvatures and lengths based on reference reach data and existing
constraints. Introduction of these meanders will improve habitat while lowering slope and
' shear stress.
' 4.1.3 Bedform
The existing bedform along the UT Tar River is in poor condition. Long, straight sections
of the channel consist of predominantly run bedform features. Many of the riffles in the
' upper 800 feet of stream have been formed through riprap installed in the channel by the
Town of Louisburg. The design channel will incorporate riffles and pools to provide
bedform common to C5 stream types with sand substrate. Pools will be located in the
' outside of meander bends with riffles in the inflection points between meanders. Riffles
in the UT Tar River will have a mean depth of 1.38 ft. and a thalweg depth of 2.2 ft.
while the pools will be deeper with a maximum depth of 2.9 ft. The profile will be set
' during the design phase of the project, once all parties involved agree upon a final
alignment.
' The existing pool-to-pool spacing is impaired in areas due to past channelization and
recent additions of riprap to the channel. Existing pool-to-pool spacing on the UT Tar
River is 33 to 379. The proposed spacing is 36 to 90 ft. for the UT Tar River, which is
' within the range of 2 and 5 bankfull widths as determined from the reference reach data.
To accomplish this, pools will be realigned or constructed such that they will be located
in the outside of the meander bends. Bedform will also be addressed through the strategic
' placement. of natural material structures such as cross vanes, root wads, and large woody
debris. Modifications to the bedform will provide stability and habitat to the channel.
t 4.1.5 Riparian Areas
A riparian zone will be created around the new proposed stream channel to enhance both
' aquatic and terrestrial habitat as well as stabilize the stream channel. The riparian zone
will extend from the top of bank to the conservation easement boundaries (Figure 8).
These areas will be planted with appropriate riparian vegetation as described in Section
' 5.0 Habitat Restoration.

1 26
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
4.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
' A stable stream has the capacity to move its sediment load without aggrading or
degrading. The total load of sediment can be divided into bedload and wash load. Wash
load is normally composed of fine sands, silts and clay and transported in suspension at a
' rate that is determined by availability and not hydraulically controlled. Bedload is
transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the bed. At higher discharges,
some portion of the bedload can be suspended, especially if there is a sand component in
' the bedload. Bed material transport rates are essentially controlled by the size and nature
of the bed material and hydraulic conditions (Hey 1997).
' Critical dimensionless shear stress can be calculated for gravel and cobble bed streams
using sediment entrainment calculations. However, the bed material of UT Tar River
classifies as sand. All particles in a sand bed channel have the potential to become
' mobilized during bankfull events.
Shear stress at the riffle was also checked using Shield's Curve. The shear stress placed
' on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves the particles, given by:
2 = 7Rs
where, ti=shear stress (lb/ft2)
y=specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
' R=hydraulic radius (ft)
s=average bankfull slope (ft/ft)
' Hydraulic radius is calculated by:
R P
' where, R=hydraulic radius
A=cross-sectional area (ft)
P=wetted perimeter (ft)
' Thus,
24.92 ft z
' R= =1.32 ft
18.90 ft
' Wetted perimeter and cross-sectional area were measured off of a CADD file of the
typical riffle cross-section drawn to scale.
' Therefore,
Z = (62.4 lb )(1.32 ft)(0.0042 ft) = 0.351b / ft 2
f ft
u
27

n

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County. NC
The critical shear stress for the proposed channel has to be sufficient to move the D84 of
the riffle bed material, which is 8 mm (fine gravel) for UT Tar River. Based on a shear
stress of 0.35 lb/ft2, Shield's Curve predicts that this stream can move a particle that is,
on average, greater than 28 mm (coarse gravel). Since the D84 was 8 mm for UT Tar
River and Shield's Curve predicts, on average, a 28 mm, the proposed stream has the
competency to move its bedload. Rosgen has also generated a curve that piggybacks
Shields Curve (Appendix B). Rosgen recommends using this curve when the critical
shear stress falls below 1.0 lb/ft2 and Shield's Curve above 1.0 lb/ft2. This curve predicts
that an 80 mm particle will be moved based on the critical shear stress of 0.35 lb/ft'`. The
largest particle measured during the pebble count was between 23 to 32 mm, which
corresponds with the largest particle found in the subsurface of the streambed in a riffle
(28 mm). These particles would be moved as predicted by either curve as shown in the
figure in Appendix A.
4.3 FLOODING ANALYSIS
Approximately the lower 650 feet of this restoration site are located in the 100-year
floodplain of the Tar River and is, therefore, mapped in FEMA zone AE. This zone is
defined as an area of 100-year floodplains determined by detailed methods. This
designation is for the Tar River and not the Unnamed Tributary to the Tar River since the
drainage area of the UT is only 0.61 square miles to the end of the project and the
drainage area of the Tar River is 427 square miles. In addition, modifications are allowed
within a floodplain (Zone AE) but are not permitted in a floodway (Zone AEFW). The
floodway of the Tar River will not be affected by this project.
The Priority 2 restoration of the stream will leave the stream's existing profile elevations
essentially the same. A new floodplain will be established so that the active stream (UT
Tar River) will be able to access it during larger storm events. Considering the type of
restoration it is assumed that for smaller events the water surface elevations along the
stream shall remain the same or decrease slightly. During storms where the stream
accesses the newly established floodplain, the new water surface elevations are expected
to be lower than the existing water surface elevations for storms of the same magnitude.
The restoration will create neither positive nor negative water surface elevation changes
during the larger storm events (greater than 10-year). During these events, portions of the
UT Tar River are drowned out due to the backwater effects of the Tar River. HEC-RAS
will be used to analyze both existing and proposed conditions once the design is
completed. Shear stress and flood stages will be compared between the two conditions to
evaluate the design.
The USGS Method for estimating the magnitude and frequency of flood frequency in
small urban basins was used to estimate the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year peak
discharges (Table 3) for the project site on UT Tar River. The storm flows for each event
are as follows:
28

L

7

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
Table 3. Urban Recurrence Interval Discharges
UT Tar
(Drainage Area=0.61 mil)
Q2 = 200 cfs Q5 = 340 cfs Qro= 445 cfs
Q25 = 660 cfs Q50 = 760 cfs Qrao = 855 cfs
HEC-RAS, version 3.0, will be used to compute a flooding analysis for the existing and
proposed conditions during the design phase of the project. This analysis will ensure that
the project will not raise existing floodwater- limits and will determine whether personal
or public property is at risk of damage.
4.4 STRUCTURES
Several different structures made of natural materials will be installed along the UT Tar
River. These structures include cross vanes, root wads, and vegetated geogrids. Natural
materials such as boulders, logs, root wads, and vegetation cuttings will be used to create
these structures from both off-site and on-site sources.
4.4.1 Cross Vane
A cross vane structure serves to maintain the grade of the stream. The design shape is
roughly that of the letter "U" with the apex located on the upstream side at the foot of the
ripple. Footer rocks are placed in the channel bottom for stability. Rocks are then placed
on these footer rocks in the middle of the channel at approximately the same elevation as
the ripple. On either side of the channel, rocks are placed at an angle to the streambank,
gradually inclining in elevation until they are located above the bankfull surface directly
adjacent to the streambank. Water flowing downstream is directed over the vane towards
the middle of the channel. Rocks placed at the apex determine the bed elevation
upstream. A cross vane is primarily used for grade control and to protect the streambanks.
4.4.2 Root Wads
The objectives of these structure placements are as follows: (1) protect the streambank
from erosion; (2) provide in-stream and overhead cover for fish; (3) provide shade,
detritus, and terrestrial insect habitat; (4) look natural, and (5) provide diversity of
habitats (Rosgen 1996). A footer log and boulder are placed on the channel bottom
abutting the streambank along an outside meander that will provide support for the root
wad and additional stability to the bank. A large tree root wad is then placed on the
streambank with additional boulders and rocks on either side for stability. Flowing water
is deflected away from the bank and towards the center of the channel. Specific location
of these structures and types of structures will be determined during final design.
4.4.3 Vegetated Geogrids
Vegetated geogrids may be used in some outside meanders to protect public
infrastructure such as utilities or Burnette Road where root wads are not deemed suitable
29

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Couno-, NC
due to space limitations. Vegetated geogrids are built off of a hardened structure, such as
a gabion basket or rock toe. The lifts are created by wrapping soil fill material in a
geotextile fabric with live cuttings placed in-between individual lifts. They will be used
to create a vegetative stabilization once roots are established and are very useful fore very
steep sites where space is limited. They provide soil reinforcement and aquatic habitat.
Unlike a typical retaining wall, the wall effect of this structure disappears once the
overhanging vegetation is established.
5.0 HABITAT RESTORATION
The restoration plan requires the establishment of riparian vegetation at the site. The
proposed vegetation is described in the following sections.
1 5.1 Vegetation
' Vegetation that develops a quick canopy has extensive root system, and a substantial
aboveground plant structure is needed to help stabilize the banks of a restored stream
channel in order to reduce near-bank shear stress and erosion. In natural riparian
t environments, pioneer plants that often provide these functions include alder, river birch,
silky dogwood, and willow. Once established, these trees and shrubs create an
environment that allows for the succession of other riparian species including ashes,
' black walnuts, red maples, sycamores, oaks, and other riparian species.
In the newly restored stream channel, the establishment of vegetation is vital to
' stabilizing the stream banks and the riparian zone around the restored channel.
Revegetation efforts on this project will emulate natural vegetation communities found
along relatively undisturbed stream corridors. To quickly establish a dense root mass
' along the channel bank, a native grass mixture will be planted on the streambanks.
Shrubs, vines, and live stakes will be planted on the stream bank and along the floodplain
to provide additional root mass. Extra care will be given to the outside of the meander
' bends to ensure a dense root mass in those areas of high stress. Coir matting will be used
to provide erosion protection until vegetation becomes established. Trees, shrubs and a
native grass mixture will be planted along the tops of the channel banks out to the extents
' of the conservation easement.
In addition to planting to stabilize the newly excavated stream banks, a characteristic
floodplain forest community will be reestablished in the riparian buffer zone along each
stream bank. In areas where some forest canopy exists, trees and shrubs of desirable
species will be left undisturbed as much as possible. These restoration techniques will
' improve the ability of the floodplain ecosystem to provide the characteristic functions of
flood storage, biogeochemical cycling, runoff attenuation, and maintenance of plant and
animal habitat, and species diversity.
' All plant material should be native species collected or propagated from material within
the Piedmont physiographic province and within 200 miles north or south latitude. The
t
30

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Counh•, NC
use of material that is genetically adapted to specific site conditions enhances long-term
growth and survival. Using native materials also helps to avoid contaminating the gene
pool of the surrounding vegetation with non-adapted ecotypes. Appropriate plant
material is usually available upon request and can be obtained with planning and
foresight.
Woody vegetation will be planted between November and March to allow plants to
stabilize during the dormant period and set roots during the spring season. A non-
aggressive, rapidly germinating grass will be used for immediate temporary erosion
control on all newly excavated surfaces. A seed mix consisting of native graminoids and
forbs will be applied during the appropriate season to ensure optimal germination and
survival. Removal or control of nuisance vegetation will be implemented as necessary to
promote survival of target plants.
The floodplain community recommended for this project is modeled after the
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Recommended plantings are listed in the following sections.
5.2 Site Preparation
The potential for infestation and competition by exotic and non-target species presents a
strong challenge to the restoration process. Exotic species including Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and fescue
(Festuca sp.) are abundant in the proposed stream restoration areas. Careful site
preparation is critical to providing conditions favorable to the establishment of target
species.
All planting areas should be ripped on contour to 12 inches where current construction
has caused compaction. A 2-inch layer of organic matter and other soil amendments
should be incorporated into the soil surface by disking. Addition of organic matter is a
fast, easy way to shorten the time it will take for the soil to revert to a characteristic, pre-
disturbance structure and chemistry supportive of these communities. Well-seasoned
hardwood chips or leaf compost may be used as a source of organic matter. Other
planting areas should also be disked to incorporate soil amendments, but including
organic matter may not be practical on the entire site.
Lime and fertilizer may be necessary due to the amount of cut that will be required to
create a floodplain at a lower elevation. Addition of nitrogen fertilizers and a pH greater
than 6.0 will favor the growth of ruderal opportunists over the desired native species.
However, a soil analysis should be performed to confirm nutrient status on the site. Any
required soil amendments will need to be incorporated into the soil for the greatest
benefit.

31
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Countx, NC
5.3 Streambank Vegetation
' There are no suitable salvageable plants along the stream banks. As a result, a mixture of
seeds, lives takes, bare root nursery stock, and containerized shrubs will be utilized to
stabilize the banks. Proposed species to be planted are included in Table 4.
5.2 Riparian Buffers
A riparian buffer will be established in the floodplain of the proposed stream channel. A
combination of balled and bur.lapped (B&B) and bare-root seedlings of canopy and
subcanopy tree species will be planted on 9-foot centers for a planting density of 440
trees/acre of the finest quality 1/0 seedlins. It is recommended that the bare-root
seedlings be at least 12 to 18 inches in' height. Understory plantings may be a
combination of salvaged plants, container stock, and seeds. Proposed species to be
planted in these areas are included in Table 4.
' Table 4. Proposed Plant Species List
Trees
Black walnut Juglans nigra FACU
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica FAC
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana FAC
Water Oak Quercus nigra FAC
Willow Oak Quercus phellos FACW-
Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagodaefolia FAC+
River birch Betula nigra FACW
Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea FACWU
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW-
Shrubs
'
Elder berry Sambucus canadensis FACW-
Spice bush Lindera benzoin FACW
' Tag alder Alnus serrulata FACW+
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera FAC+
' Possumhaw Viburnum nudum FACW+
Herbs- Permanent seed mixture
Graminoids
Bluestem Andropogon glomeratus FACW+
Deertongue Panicum clandestinum FACW
Little blue stem Schizachyrium scoparium FACU
Longleaf spikegrass Chasmanthium sessiliflorum FAC+

1 32
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin CounA% NC
River oats Chasmanthium latifolium FAC-
Sedges Carex crinata FACW+
Sedges Carex ho-ida OBL
Tussock sedge Carex stricta OBL
Virginia wildrye Elyrnus virginicus FAC
Other herbaceous vegetation
Coral honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens
Cut-leaved coneflower Rudbecki.a laciniata FACW
New York Ironweed Vernonia noveboracensis FACW+
Wrinkle leaved goldenrod Solidago rugosa FAC
' Live stakes
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+
Silky willow Salix sericea OBL
t 5.3 Temporary Seeding
A temporary seed mixture will be applied to all disturbed areas immediately after
construction activities have completed. This temporary seed mixture will provide erosion
control until permanent seed can become established. Multiple applications of the
temporary seed mixtures may be required. The composition of this temporary seeding
mixture will vary depending on the timing of construction and may include the following:
Winter Mix
Winter Rye (Secale cereale)
Barley (Horedum sp.)
Summer Mix
Japanese Millet (Echinochloa esculenta)
' Browntop Millet (Panicum ramosum)
Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glacum)
' 6.0 MONITORING
6.1 STREAM CHANNEL
Monitoring of the stability of the channel is recommended to occur after the first growing
season and should continue annually for a period of 5 years. Monitoring practices may
include, but are not limited to the practices listed in Table 5. The purpose of monitoring
is to determine bank stability, bed stability, morphological stability, and overall channel
stability. Table 5, below, can be used for selecting monitoring practices.

33
i1
L

1

0
u
P

Table 5. Stream Monitoring Practices
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin Counn•. NC
PRACTICE ;
.......... TABIL.ITY ASSESSIVIENT'
Bank Erosion Pins with Toe Pin -Lateral or bank stability
Monumented Cross-Section -Vertical or bed stability
-Lateral or bank stability
Scour Chains -Vertical or bed stability
-Scour depth for a particular storm
Scour Chain w/ Monumented
Cross-Section -Vertical or bed stability
-Sediment transport relations
-Biological interpretations
Longitudinal Profile` -Channel profile stability
Bank Erosion Hazard Guide -Bank erosion potential
Photo Reference Points -Overall channel stability
Macroinvertebrate Studies -Biological indication of water
quality
6.2 VEGETATION
Prior to planting, the site will be inspected and checked for proper elevation and
suitability of soils. Availability of acceptable, good quality plant species will be
determined. The site will be inspected at completion of planting to determine proper
planting methods, including proper plant spacing, density, and species composition.
Competition control will be implemented if determined to be necessary during the early
stages of growth and development of the tree species. Quantitative sampling of the
vegetation will be performed between August 1 and November 30 at the end of the first
year and after each growing season until the vegetation criteria is met.
In preparation for the quantitative sampling, belt transects will be established
perpendicular to the channel to encompass both the stream channel and riparian buffer.
Plots will be evenly distributed throughout the site. For each plot, species composition
and density will be reported. Photo points will be taken within each zone. Monitoring will
take place once each year for five years.
' Success will be determined by survival of target species within the sample plots. At least
six different representative tree species should be present on the entire site. If the
vegetative success criteria are not met, the cause of failure will be determined and
' appropriate corrective action will be taken.

. 34

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
7.0 REFERENCES
I

u

n
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlaluls
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Doll, B. A., et al. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams
throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. American Water Resources Association.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern
United States. Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Godfrey, R.K.,.and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern
United States. Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.
Harrelson, Cheryl, C.L. Rawlins and John Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. United States Department of Agriculture,
' Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-245.
Hey, Richard and Dave Rosgen. 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
' Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (12 March 2002).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
' Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, Dave. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
' Wildland Hydrology. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes
Disturbed by Channel Incision.
' Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, North Carolina
C
35

Field Crew: Heather Renninger, Jan Patterson
River Basin: Tar River Basin
Stream Reach: UT Tar
Date: 2/19/2003
Feature: Riffle, Station 8+12
BANKFULL
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0+00.0 99.16 3.57 95.59
0+02.0 99.16 3.98 95.18 LTOB
0+04.1 99.16 4.83 94.33
0+06.8 99.16 6.82 92.34 LBKF
0+07.4 99.16 7.37 91.79
0+08.6 99.16 8.55 90.61
0+09.0 99.16 8.41 90.75
0+10.4 99.16 9.68 89.48 LEW/WS
0+13.0 99.16 10.07 89.09 TW
0+14.7 99.16 9.76 89.40 R edge bank
0+15.0 99.16 8.41 90.75
0+17.0 99.16 6.82 92.34 RBKF
0+20.0 99.16 5.44 93.72 RTOB
0+26.0 99.16 4.39 94.77
0+36.0 99.16 3.70 95.46
0+47.0 99.16 3.31 95.85
98
96
c 94
w0
> 92
m
w 90
88
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.
0 0 0
0.6 0.6 0.2
1.2 1.7 1.4
0.4 1.6 0.7
1.4 2.9 3.1
2.6 3.3 7.9
1.7 2.9 5.3
0.3 1.6 0.7
2.0 0.0 1.6
TOTALS 10.2 20.8
SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULL)
A(BKF) 20.8
W(BKF) 10.2
Max d 3.3
Mean d 2.0 Area= A
W/D 5.0 Width= W
Entrenchment Ratio 3.9 Depth= D
Stream Type degraded E Bankfull= BKF
UT Tar River
Cross Section 8+12, Riffle
0 10 20 30
Station (ft)
40 50
Riffle Cross-Section 8+12
BEHI:
CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Bank/BKF Ht 1.5 5.9
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.12 8.2
Root Density <5 10
Bank Angle 75 5.4
Surface Protection <10 10.0
Bank Materials Sand 10
49.5 Extreme

Field Crew: Heather Renninger, Jan Patterson
River Basin: Tar River Basin
Stream Reach: UT Tar
Date: 2/19/2003
Feature: Riffle, Station 1 3+09
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
0+00.0 95.75 5.00 90.75 edge dirt road
0+08.0 95.75 5.03 90.72
0+16.0 95.75 4.87 90.88 edge dirt road
0+20.2 95.75 6.02 89.73 LBKF
0+21.4 95.75 8.47 87.28
0+23.2 95.75 8.43 87.32 LEW/WS
0+27.5 95.75 8.79 86.96 TW
0+30.3 95.75 8.43 87.32 REW/WS
0+31.6 95.75 7.22 88.53
0+33.9 95.75 6.15 89.60
0+34.0 95.75 6.02 89.73 RBKF
0+36.0 95.75 4.24 91.51 RTOB
0+38.0 95.75 4.09 91.66
0+46.0 95.75 4.33 91.42
0+55.0 95.75 4.46 91.29 Woodline
95
93
r 91
0
M
0) 89
W
87
85
BANKFULL Riffle Cross-Section 13+09
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area N jY 1,p
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
rt
1.2 2.5 1.5 J
1
1.8 2.4 4.4 S
4.3 2.8 11.1 nu
° r
2.8 2.4 7.3 ,
<2
'•.
{
1.3 1.2 2.3 ..
?r,T s:,
2.3 0.1 1.5 ^?r ' Rit rt
0.1 0.0 0.0 4
±
TOTALS 13.8 28.1
+
SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULL) y? " y .
A(BKF) 28.1 ,?
fi? .
W(BKF) 13.8 w
Max d 2.8
Mean d 2.0 Area= A
W/D 6.8 Width= W BEHI:
Entrenchment Ratio 4.0 Depth= D CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
Stream Type degraded E Bankfull= BKF Bank/BKF Ht 1.0 1
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.21 7.1
Root Density <5 10
UT Tar River Bank Angle 110 8.7
Cross Section 13+09, Riffle Surface Protection <10 10.0
Bank Materials Sand 10

46.8 Extreme
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (feet)
50 60

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Unnamed Tributary to Tar River 3/19/2003
Pa : Jan Patterson Reach: NC 39 to 1700'
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Pool Riffle Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 3 4 7 7% 7%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 6 6 12 12% 19%
Fine .125-.25 A 4 6 10 10% 29%
Medium .25-.50 N 2 7 9 9% 38%
Coarse .50-1.0 b 2 11 13 13% 51%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 S 2 10 12 12% 63%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 1 8 9 9% 72%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 5 5 5% 77%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R, 9 9 9% 86%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A> 2 2 2% 88%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V, 7 7 7% 95%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 3 3 3% 98%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 2 2 2% 100%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 S 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 -128 0 ? 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 -180 B 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
Totals 20 80 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
UT Tar River - Franklin County, NC
100%
90%

80%
70%

60%

eo%
> D50=Coarse Sand
°%
3 ao
o D84=Fine Gravel
E 30%

v
20% ?- March '03
0
10% -February'03

0%

0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Unnamed Tributary to Tar River 2/19/2003
Pa : Heather Rennin er, Jan Patterson Reach: NC 39 to 1700'
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Pool Riffle Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 SIC 3 13 16 16% 16%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 6 7 13 13% 29%
Fine .125-.25 A 4 9 13 13% 42%
Medium .25-.50 N 2 3 5 5% 47%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 2 14 16 16% 63%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 S 2 15 17 17% 80%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 1 1 2 2% 82%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 1 1 1% 83%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 2 2 2% 85%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 3 3 3% 88%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 6 6 6% 94%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 3 3 3% 97%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 1 1 1% 98%
1.26 - 1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 S 2 2 2% 100%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1 - 14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L. 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Ve Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK> 0 0% 100%
Totals 20 80 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
UT Tar River - Franklin County, NC
100%
90%
80%
r 70%
60%
> 50%
40%
30%
D50=Coarse Sad
a 20%
o D84=Fine Gravel'
1o°%
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
r r = M = = = r
Field Crew: Heather Renninger, Jan Patterson
River Basin: Tar River Basin STA BS HI FS ELEV NOTE
Strearn Reach: UT Tar belo w NC 39 TBM#1 3.94 103.94 100.00 Tree Stump
Draiange Area: 0.75 sq. mi. TP#1 2.74 99.16 7.52 96.42 riprap
Date: Z1 9/2003 TP#2 3.00 95.75 6.41 92.75 fire hydrant
Description: LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
Max Pool
Station 7W IFS? M WS i wS BKF IFS) BKF Tog IFSI TOB Notes HI Bk HUBkf Ht. P=P Pool Length Death Pool Slope Riffle Length Riffle Slope
0+00.0 7.03 96.91 Culvert @ 1 39 103.94
0+12.0 7.11 96.83 6.61 97.33 5.36 98.58 2.00 101.94 Top Pool 103.94 2.92 102 1.75 0.0000
1+14.0 7.05 96.89 6.56 97.38 1.72 102.22 Top Riffle 103.94 15 0.0093
1+29.0 7.64 96.30 6.70 97.24 2.30 101.64 Top Pool 103.94 117 10 U120
1+39.0 7.14 96.80 6.82 97.12 2.71 101.23 Top Riffle-riprap 103.94 14 0.0171
1+53.0 7.50 96.44 7.01 96.93 3.16 100.78 Top Run 103.94
1+86.0 7.67 96.27 7.06 96.88 2.66 101.28 Top Riffle-riprap 103.94 316 0.0131
3+55.0 11.23 92.71 11.21 92.73 Tributary-Run 103.94
5+02.0 12.59 91.35 12.23 91.71 9.50 94.44 7.70 96.24 Top Pool 103.94 1.58 373 17 3.09 0.0029
5+19.0 12.57 91.37 12.28 91.66 7.02 96.92 Top Riffle 103.94 16 0.0137
5+35.0 13.00 90.94 12.50 91.44 7.35 96.59 Top Pool 103.94 33 67 0.0084
6+02.0 13.57 90.37 13.06 90.88 10.05 93.89 7.65 96.29 Top Run 103.94 1.68
7+00.0 14.13 89.81 13.79 90.15 9.18 94.76 Run 103.94
7+51.0 9.68 89.48 9.34 89.82 6.29 92.87 4.18 94.98 Run 99.16 1.62
9+14.0 10.77 88.39 10.14 89.02 7.67 91.49 5.96 93.20 Top Pool 99.16 1.55 379 15 3.10 0.0000
9+29.0 10.60 88.56 10.14 89.02 7.92 91.24 6.34 92.82 Top Riffle 99.16 1.59 48 0.0135
9+77.0 11.23 87.93 10.79 88.37 8.75 90.41 6.88 92.28 Top Run 99.16 1.75
10+30.0 11.63 87.53 11.11 88.05 9.79 89.37 7.29 91.87 Run 99.16 2.36
11+77.0 11.91 87.25 11.44 87.72 9.00 90.16 7.08 92.08 Run 99.16 1.66
12+12.0 9.43 87.01 Culvert @ Plaza Entrance 95.75
14+51.0 8.98 86.77 8.59 87.16 7.81 87.94 6.41 89.34 Run 95.75 2.20
15+46.0 9.04 86.71 8.86 86.89 6.81 88.94 Run 95.75
16+12.0 9.31 86.44 9.00 86.75 7.91 87.84 7.91 87.84 Top Riffle 95.75 1.00 88 0.0018
16+63.0 9.44 86.31 9.10 86.65 7.26 88.49 Riffle 95.75
17+00.0 9.42 86.33 9.16 86.59 7.59 88.16 7.59 88.16 Riffle 95.75 1.00
95.75
7.54 88.21 Manhole @ tie-in 95.75
11.67 84.08 9.39 86.36 Old Channel ds 15' 95.75
9.73 86.02 9.39 86.36 Old Channel ds 15' 95.75
4+67.0 drainage Max Pool
Bk HUBkf Ht. PP=P Pool Length Depth Pool Slope Riffle Length Riffle Slope
tw slope 0.0067 ws slope 0.0068 min 1.00 33 10 1.75 0.0000 14 0.0018
max 2.92 379 102 3.10 0.0120 316 0.0171
BKF W (ft)= 12.0 avg 1.74 226 42 2.65 0.0047 83 0.0115
BKF D (ft)= 2.0 Min ratio 0.33 2.8 0.86 0.0000 0.2673
BKF Max D (ft)= 3.0 Max ratio 0.97 31.6 1.52 1.7639 2.5198
avg ratio 0.58 18.8 1.30 0.6849 1.6835
M i M M M r r M M M M M M r r M M M M
Longitudinal Profile
UT to Tar River Stream Restoration

102.00

X
X

100.00

98.00
¦ ?
¦ XX

96.00

c
0
X
m

w 94.00

w ? X
a X
92.00

90.00 ¦
? X
? X
¦ X

88.00
¦
¦

86.00
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
Station (ft)
TW ¦ WS ? BKF X TOB

PATTERN MEASUREMENTS

t average
min
max
Radius of
Curvature
Ratio Meander
Length
Ratio Belt
Width
Ratio
40 3.33 470 39.2 30 2.5
15 1.25
10 0.83 265 22.1 11 0.9
25 2.08
10 0.83
10 0.83 8 0.7
15 1.25
60 5.00
55 4.58
27 2.2 368 30.6 16 1.4
10 0.8 265 22.1 8 0.7
60 5.0 470 39.2 30 2.5
Radius of Curvature, Meander Length, and Belt Width measured from topographic mapping.
I BKF W (ft) 12.0

F

104.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
c
0
_d
u! 100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
Longitudinal Profile
Reference Reach--UT to Lake Lynn

Ni l

Station (ft)
TW - - - - WS ? BKF ¦ TOB
M M = = = M M = M M = M = M
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
River Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Lake Lynn
Stream Reach: Reference Reach-UT Lake Lynn
DA (sq mi): 0.74
Date: 3125/2003
REF PT BS HI FS ELEV NOTES
BM 6.78 10638 100.00
BM 6.78 100.00
Station REF PT HI TW(FS) TW WS (FS WS BKF(FSI BKF TOB(FSl TOB Notes
0+00.0 BM 106.78 7.32 99.46 7.19 99.59 3.82 102.96 Head of Riffle
0+08.0 BM 106.78 7.79 98.99 7.36 99.42 5.60 101.18 3.82 102.96 Head of Pool
0+16.0 BM 106.78 8.02 98.76 7.36 99.42 Max Pool
0+28.0 BM 106.78 7.64 99.14 7.40 99.38 5.74 101.04 4.43 102.35 Head of Riffle
0+45.0 BM 106.78 7.86 98.92 7.60 99.18 5.74 101.04 5.30 101.48 Head of Pool
0+52.0 BM 106.78 8.50 98.28 7.65 99.13 Max Pool
0+70.0 BM 106.78 7.89 98.89 7.66 99.12 5.74 101.04 4.40 102.38 Head of Riffle
0+77.0 BM 106.78 8.18 98.60 7.75 99.03 5.74 101.04 4.47 102.31 Head of Pool
0+80.0 BM 106.78 8.29 98.49 7.79 98.99 5.74 101.04 4.47 102.31 Max Pool
0+97.0 BM 106.78 7.99 98.79 7.76 99.02 6.25 100.53 4.86 101.92 Head of Riffle
1+10.0 BM 106.78 8.26 98.52 7.93 96.86 Head of Pool
1+14.0 BM 106.78 8.66 98.12 7.92 98.86 Max Pool
1+20.0 BM 106.78 8.18 98.60 7.92 98.86 6.25 100.53 4.69 102.09 Head of Run
1+38.0 BM 106.78 8.30 98.48 7.95 98.83 6.48 100.30 5.23 101.55 Intermediate
1+54.0 BM 106.78 8.23 98.55 8.03 98.75 5.98 100.80 5.78 101.00 Head of Riffle
1+67.0 BM 106.78 8.39 98.39 8.14 98.64 6.51 100.27 6.43 100.35 Head of Pool
1+82.0 BM 106.78 8.70 98.08 8.24 98.54 6.44 100.34 5.30 101.48 Max Pool
1+88.0 BM 106.78 8.42 98.36 8.24 98.54 6.01 100.77 Head of Run
2+12.0 BM 106.78 8.67 98.11 8.25 98.53 6.34 100.44 5.85 100.93 Head of Riffle
2+21.0 BM 106.78 8.83 97.95 8.43 98.35 Head of Run
2+42.0 BM 106.78 8.70 98.08 8.40 98.38 6.62 100.16 6.62 100.16 Head of Pool
2+49.0 Aerial Sewer Xing
Average WS Slope 0.0050 Max
Min
Avg
Max ratio
Min ratio
Avg ratio
Max Pool
Bk HUBkf Ht. PP=P Pool Lenath Depth Pool Sloce Riffle Lenoth Riffle Sloce
8.0 0.0213
2.19 1.8 37.0 20.0 0.0020
1.90 1.7 17.0 0.0118
2.12 1.2 32.0 25.0 0.0024
2.15 1.6 7.0 0.0129
2.44 1.5 33.0 20.0 0.0005
2.55 1.5 2.55
1.74 1.8 13.0 0.0123
57.0 10.0 0.0000
1.93 1.8
1.82 1.7
2.25 1.1 13.0 0.0085
1.88 1.0 75.0 21.0 0.0048
2.26 1.5 2.26
2.33 1.2 9.0 0.0200
2.08 1.0
1.8 75.0 25.0 2.6 0.0048 17.0 0.0213 Max
1.0 32.0 10.0 2.3 0.0000 7.0 0.0085 Min
1.5 46.8 19.2 2.4 0.0019 11.2 0.0144 Avg
4.7 0.95 4.3 Max ratio
2.0 0.00 1.7 Min ratio
3.0 0.39 2.9 Avg ratio

Crew: Jan Patterson, Heather Renninger, Amanda Todd
River Basin: Nauss
Watershed: Lake Lynn
Stream Reach: UT Lake Lynn
DA (sq mi): 0.74
Date: 3/25/2003
SWSon: 0+30
Feature: Riffle
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 106.78 4.66 102.12 0.0 0.00 0.0
7.0 106.78 4.29 102.49 edge path 1.0 0.24 0.1
20.0 106.78 4.41 102.37 edge path 1.0 0.68 0.5
30.5 106.78 4.40 102.38 LTOB 0.2 0.91 0.2
32.0 106.78 5.74 101.04 LBKF 0.5 1.52 0.6
33.0 106.78 5.98 100.80 0.6 1.69 1.0
34.0 106.78 6.42 100.36 1.2 2.00 2.2
34.2 106.78 6.65 100.13 0.5 1.89 1.0
34.7 106.78 7.26 99.52 1.5 1.82 2.8
35.3 106.78 7.43 99.35 LEWIWS 1.0 1.68 1.8
36.5 106.78 7.74 99.04 TW 1.5 1.45 2.3
37.0 106.78 7.63 99.15 1.0 1.08 1.3
38.5 106.78 7.56 99.22 1.7 0.68 1.5
39.5 106.78 7.42 99.36 REW 0.9 0.00 0.3
41.0 106.78 7.19 99.59 12.6 15.4
42.0 106.78 6.82 99.96
43.7 106.78 6.42 100.36 Summary Data
44.6 106.78 5.74 101.04 RBKF Area 15.4
45.2 106.78 5.26 101.52 Width 12.6
46.4 106.78 4.90 101.88 Max d 2.00
47.0 106.78 4.63 102.15 Mean d 1.23
48.0 106.78 4.45 102.33 RTOB W/D 10.3
53.5 106.78 4.44 102.34 FPA Width 68
61.0 106.78 4.25 102.53 ER 5.4
68.0 106.78 4.68 102.10 Stream Type C5
BEHI:
CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
BankIBKF Ht 1.6 1.9
Root DepthIBKF Ht 1.0 1
Root Density 55 3.9
Bank Angle 34 2.6
Surface Protection 55 3.9
Bank Materials sand 5
TOTAL 18.3 Low
Riffle Cross Section
Station 0+30
UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach
103
m 102
w
c
101 -- --
m
m
Z 100
m
99
98
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
= M M = M M M
Crew: Jan Patterson, Heather Renninger, Amanda Todd
River Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Lake Lynn
Stream Reach: UT Lake Lynn
DA (sq mi): 0.74
Date: 3/25/2003
Station: 1+57
Feature: Riffle
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 106.78 3.50 103.28 Old Road Bed/Berm 0.0 0.00 0.0
42.0 106.78 5.07 101.71 edge path 2.0 0.71 0.7
42.0 106.78 4.60 102.18 edge path 1.5 1.73 1.8
58.0 106.78 4.68 102.10 2.3 2.04 4.3
64.0 106.78 5.06 101.72 1.0 2.24 2.1
70.0 106.78 5.16 101.62 0.7 2.26 1.6
77.0 106.78 5.19 101.59 0.8 2.25 1.8
83.0 106.78 5.19 101.59 0.7 2.04 1.5
88.0 106.78 5.52 101.26 3.1 1.46 5.4
93.5 106.78 5.98 100.80 LBKF 1.4 1.07 1.8
95.5 106.78 6.69 100.09 2.1 0.47 1.6
97.0 106.78 7.71 99.07 1.1 0.22 0.4
99.3 106.78 8.02 98.76 LEW/WS 2.4 0.00 0.3
100.3 106.78 8.22 98.56 19.1 23.4
101.0 106.78 8.24 98.54 TW
101.8 106.78 8.23 98.55
102.5 106.78 8.02 98.76 REW Summary Data BEHI:
105.6 106.78 7.44 99.34 Area 23.4 CRITERIA VALUE INDEX
107.0 106.78 7.05 99.73 Width 19.1 Bank/BKF Ht 1.09 1.8
109.1 106.78 6.45 100.33 Max d 2.26 Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.0 1
110.2 106.78 6.20 100.58 Mean d 1.22 Root Density 29 6
112.6 106.78 5.98 100.80 RBKF W/D 15.6 Bank Angle 32 2.5
118.0 106.78 5.78 101.00 RTOB FPA Width 126 Surface Protection 30 5.9
126.0 106.78 5.70 101.08 ER 6.6 Bank Materials sand 5
Stream Type C5 TOTAL 22.2 Moderate
Riffle Cross Section
Station 1+57
UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach
104
m 103
0 102
n<
101
LU
m 100
b
99
98
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Distance (feet)

Crew: Jan Patterson, Heather Renninger, Amanda Todd
River Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Lake Lynn
Stream Reach: UT Lake Lynn
DA (sq mi): 0.74
Date: 3/25/2003
Station: 1+82
Feature: Pool
Hydraulic Geometry
STATION HI FS ELEVATION NOTES Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 106.78 5.76 101.02
3.4 106.78 5.30 101.48 LTOB 0.0 0.00 0.0
5.1 106.78 6.00 100.78 0.1 0.92 0.0
5.6 106.78 6.43 100.35 LBKF 0.3 2.16 0.5
5.7 106.78 7.35 99.43 1.2 2.27 2.7
6.0 106.78 8.59 98.19 LEW 1.3 2.12 2.9
7.2 106.78 8.70 98.08 TW 1.8 1.97 3.7
8.5 106.78 8.55 98.23 1.7 2.07 3.4
10.3 106.78 8.40 98.38 1.2 1.81 2.3
12.0 106.78 8.50 98.28 1.0 1.49 1.6
13.2 106.78 8.24 98.54 REW 1.0 1.02 1.3
14.2 106.78 7.92 98.86 0.8 0.91 0.8
15.2 106.78 7.45 99.33 2.5 0.00 1.1
16.0 106.78 7.34 99.44 12.9 20.3
18.5 106.78 6.43 100.35 RBKF/RTOB
23.0 106.78 6.28 100.50 Summary Data
31.0 106.78 5.16 101.62 Area 20.3
Width 12.9
Max d 2.27
Mean d 1.57
102
101
C
100
m
m
w 99
r
a 98
a
97
Pool Cross Section
Station 1+82
UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach
BEHI:
Bank/BKF Ht 1.0 1
Root Depth/BKF Ht 1.0 1
Root Density 55 3.9
Bank Angle 55 3.7
Surface Protection 65 3.1
Bank Materials sand 5
TOTAL 17.7 Low
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (feet)

PATTERN MEASUREMENTS
UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach

Chord Length
Mid Ordinate Radius of
Curvature
Rc/Bkf W
18 1.9 22.3 1.4
30 1.4 81.1 5.1
26 4.5 21.0 1.3
23 3.9 18.9 1.2
ave 35.8 2.3
min 18.9 1.2
max 81.1 5.1
Meander Wavelen gth
Meander
Wavelength ft Lm/Bkf W
42 3.3
44 3.5
59 4.7
56 4.4
ave 50.3 4.0
min 42.0 3.3
max 59.0 4.7
Bankfull Width=
US 12.6
DS 19.1
AVE 15.9
Meander Width Ratio
Meander
Belt Width ft Width Ratio
33 2.6
23 1.8
22 1.7
17 1.3
23 1.8
ave 23.6 1.9
min 17.0 1.3
max 33.0 2.6
Sinuosity
Sinuosity = Stream Length 212 1.25
Valley Length 170

i

u

p

PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Lake Lynn, Raleigh, NC Date: 3/25703
Part: J. Patterson, A. Todd, H. Rennin er Reach: UT Lake Lynn
Notes: Sand channel wit h gravel riffles
Inches Particle Millimeter Particle Count Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 2 2 4 4% 4%
Very Fine .062-.125 S 5 7 12 12% 16%
Fine .125-.25 A 12 15 27 27% 43%
Medium .25-.50 N 4 7 11 11% 54%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 3 8 11 11% 65%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 5 4 9 9% 74%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 1 3 4 4% 78%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 0 0% 78%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 3 1 4 4% 82%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A 4 1 5 5% 87%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 4 1 5 5% 92%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 3 1 4 4% 96%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 3 3 3% 99%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 1 1 1 % 100%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 C 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 - 128 O 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 - 180 B 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0% 100%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 - 1024 D 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr - Very Lr 1024 - 2048 R 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
Totals 50 50 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution
UT Lake Lynn Reference Reach
100%
90% ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------ - --------------------------------- ----------------- ---------------- --------
80% - -- ---------- --------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------
r
60% ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -------
U
50% --------------- d50=Medium Sand ------ ---- ----------------- --------
40% ---------------- --- d84=Medium Gravel -----------
I ----------------- -------
Z
30% ------ ---------------- ----------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------
20% -------------- ---- ----------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------- --------------- --------
10% ------------------ ---- ----------------------- ----------------- ----------
0

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Millimeter

1
Longitudinal Profile
' Brookhaven Reference Reach
Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
' Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
ose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Pur
p
Longitudinal Profile
'
Station Elevation-thalweg Elevation-water surface
0 88.4 88.7
30 87.1 87.7
49 86.6 87.8
62 87.4 87.8
t 85 86.9 87.1
98 86.3 87.1
121 86.9 87.1
' 133 85.6 86.2
138 85.3 86.2
155 86.0 86.2
' l
f
S 016
0
ope
ace S
ur
Water .
Stream Length 155
Valley Length 91
Sinuosity 1.7
' Channel Pattern:
Meander Length 47 feet
' Belt Width 28 - 41 feet
Radius of Curvature 12 - 35 feet

95
90
d
a?
v
C
d
LU
85
80
0.0
25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0
Station (feet)
Longitudinal Profile
Brookhaven Reference Reach
Cross Section -Station 0+12.5 (Riffle)
Brookhaven Reference Reach

Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
' Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
' Purpose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Permanent Cross Section 0+12.5

Station HI FS El evation NOTES
Feet Feet Feet

0.0 93.99 1.5 92.5
0.1 2.0 92.0
1.5 2.5 91.5
' 2.1 3.2 90.8
2.2 4.3 89.7
' 2.3
2.8 4.5
4.9 89.5
89.1
LBKF
3.5 5.2 88.8
4.1 5.3 88.7
' 4.5 5.5 88.6
5.5 5.6 88.4
5.6 5.6 88.4
' 6.0 5.7 88.3
6.7 5:7 88.3
7.6 5.7 88.3
8.4 5.6 88A
' 8.7 5.8 88.2
9.1 5.9 88.1 TW
9.5 5.7 88.3
' 9.9 5.5 88.5 REW
10.6 5.4 88.6
11.5. 5.1 88.9
' 12.0 5.0 89.0
12.8 4.9 89.1 RBKF
14
3 4.6 89.4
.
15.8 4.3 89.7
18.0 4.1 89.9
'. Regional Curve (Rural)
Watershed Size (sq mi) 0.14
' Bkf A (Regional Curve) 4.5
Bkf W (Regional Curve) 6.5
Bkf D (Regional Curve) 0.7

BKF Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
Feet Feet Sq. Ft.
0 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.3 0.1
0.6 0.4 0.2
0.4 0.6 0.2
1 0.7 0.6
0.1 0.7 0.1
0.4 0.8 0.3
0.7 0.8 0.6
0.9 0.8 0.7
0.8 0.7 0.6
0.3 0.9 0.2
0.4 1.0 0.4
0.4 0.8 0.4
0.4 0.6 0.3
0.7 0.5 0.4
0.9 0.2 0.3
0.5 0.1 0.1
0.8 0.0 0.0
10 5.5
Summary Data
BKF A 5.5
BKF W 10
Max d 1.0
Mean d 0.55
W/D Ratio 18.2
FP W 33
ER 3.3
Str Type C4

Cross Section - Station 0+12.5 (Riffle)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
95

a?
u?
v
0 90
F ood ?= 7 are
w Ban full

85
-
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Distance (Feet)
Cross Section - Station 0+49 (Pool)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
'
Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
' Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
' Purpose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Permanent Cross Section 0+49

Station HI FS Elevation NOTES
Feet Feet Feet

0 93.99 2 92.0 LTOP
0.65 5.1 88.9 LBKF
1.3 7.3 86.7 Undercut bank .
2.3 7.3 86.7 TW
3 7.2 86.8
4.8 6.5 87.5
5.7 6.2 87.8 REW
7.6 5.5 88.5
8 5.4 88.6
' 9 5.1 88.9 RBKF
10.8 4.9 89.1
13.4
15 4.7 89.3
4.4 89.6
16.8 4.1 89.9
' Regional Curve (Rural)
Watershed Size (sq mi) 0.14
' Bkf A (Regional Curve) 4.5
Bkf W (Regional Curve) 6.5
Bkf D (Regional Curve) 0.7

BKF Hydraulic Geometry
Width
Feet Depth
Feet Area
Sq. Ft.
0 0 0
0.65 2.2 0.7
1 2.2 2.2
0.7 2.1 1.5
1.8 1.4 3.2
0.9 1.1 1.1
1.9 0.4 1.4
0.4 0.3 0.1
1 0 0.2
8.35 10.4
Summary Data
BKF A 10.4
BKF W 8.35
Max d 2.2
Mean d 1.2
W/D Ratio 6.7
FP W
ER >2.2
m = m = = m = m m = = = m r m
Cross Section 0+49 (Pool)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
95

r
LL
o 90
Floo
d pr,
ne a
rea
d
w
ankf ill

i
85
-
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (Feet)

Cross Section - Station 0+97 (Pool)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
Purpose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Permanent Cross Section 0+97
Station HI FS Elevation NOTES
Feet Feet Feet
0 91.94 1.9 90.0
4.5 3.5 88.4
6.8 3.8 88.1 LBKF
10 4.3 87.6
11.4 4.9 87.0
12.6 5.4 86.5
14.4 5.7 86.2
17.2 4.9 87.0 REW
17.9 4.3 87.6
18.1 3.8 88.1 RBKF
18.9 1.3 90.6 RTOB
Regional Curve (Rural)
Watershed Size (sq mi)
Bkf A (Regional Curve)
Bkf W (Regional Curve)
Bkf D (Regional Curve)
BKF Hydraulic Geometry
Width
Feet Depth
Feet Area
Sq. Ft.
0 0 0.0
3.2 0.5 0.8
1.4 1.1 1.1
1.2 1.6 1.6
1.8 1.9 3.2
2.8 1.1 4.2
0.7 0.5 0.6
0.2 0 0.1
11.3 11.5
Summary Data
0.14 BKF A 11.5
4.5 BKF W 11.3
6.5 Max d 1.9
0.7 Mean d 1.0
W/D Ratio 11.1
FP W
ER >2.2
Cross Section - Station 0+97 (Pool)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
'
Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
' Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
' Purpose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Permanent Cross Section 0+97

Station HI FS Elevation NOTES
Feet Feet Feet

0 91.94 1.9 90.0
4.5 3.5 88.4
6.8 3.8 88.1 LBKF
' 10 4.3 87.6
11.4 4.9 87.0
12.6 5.4 86.5
' 14.4 5.7 86.2 TW
17.2 4.9 87.0 REW
' 17.9
18.1 4.3 87.6
3.8 88.1 RBKF
18.9 1.3 90.6 RTOB
' Regional Curve (Rural)
Watershed Size (sq mi)
' Bkf A (Regional Curve)
Bkf W (Regional Curve)
Bkf D (Regional Curve)

1

BKF Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
Feet Feet Sq. Ft.
0 0 0.0
3.2 0.5 0.8
1.4 1.1 1.1
1.2 1.6 1.6
1.8 1.9 3.2
2.8 1.1 4.2
0.7 0.5 0.6
0.2 0 0.1
11.3 11.5
Summary D ata
0.14 BKF A 11.5
4.5 BKF W 11.3
6.5 Max d 1.9
0.7 Mean d 1.0
W/D Ratio 11.1
FP W 19
ER 1.7

Cross Section - Station 0+97 (Pool)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
95

LL
0 90
>
0
w Flo d ron are a

an full

85
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (Feet)
Cross Section - Station 1+24 (Riffle)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
'
Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Crabtree
' Reach: Brookhaven
Date: 8/15/98
Crew: Will, Greg, Jim, Karen, Ron, and Lynn
' Purpose: Site Characterization - reference reach
Permanent Cross Section 1+24

Station Hl FS Elevation NOTES
Feet Feet Feet
'
0 95.47 4.8 90.7 LTOB
3.3 6.6 88.9
9.4 7 88.5
12.9 7.4 88.1 LBKF
16.8 7.8 87.7
17.1 8.3 87.2
' 19.8 8.2 87.3
21.8 8.5 87.0 LEW
23.6
26.6 8.6 86.9 TW
8.5 87.0 REW
28 7.8 87.7
28.5 7.4 88.1 RBKF
' 29.8 5.3 90.2 RTOB
Regional Curve (Rural)

Watershed Size (sq mi)
Bkf A (Regional Curve)
' Bkf W (Regional Curve)
Bkf D (Regional Curve)

BKF Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
Feet Feet Sq. Ft.
0 0 0.0
3.9 0.4 0.8
0.3 0.9 0.2
2.7 0.8 2.3
2 1.1 1.9
1.8 1.2 2.1
3 1.1 3.5
1.4 0.4 1.1
0.5 0 0.1
15.6 11.8
Summary Data
0.14 BKF A 11.8
4.5 BKF W 15.6
6.5 Max d 1.2
0.7 Mean d 0.8
W/D Ratio 20.6
FP W 29
ER 1.9
Str Type C4

Cross Section - Station 1+24 (Riffle)
Brookhaven Reference Reach
95

d
.r
90
c
w
Flo od pro ne ar ea
B n{ ful l
T il I I
85
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (Feet)
i
1
Pebble Count
Brookhaven Reference Reach
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: Brookhaven Nature Park Date: 8/15/98
Party: Jim Buck, Karen Hall, Gregg Jennings, Will Harman Reach: Trib - Hare Snipe Creek
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Riffles Pools Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0
062
. S/G 0 4 4 4% 4%
Very Fine .062-.1 25 S 1 0 1 1 % 5%
Fine .125-.25 A 2 1 3 3% 81%
Medium .25-.50 N 0 4 4 4% 12%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 0 7 7 7% 19%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 5 2 7' 7% 26%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2
0-4
0
.
. 2 6 8 8% 34%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 G 0 5 5 5% 39%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 R 2 2 4 4% 43%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 A, 1 2 3 3% 46%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 V 2 .2 4 4% 50%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 E 4 4 8 8% 58%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 L 4 3 7 7% 65%
1.26 -1.77 Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 S . ' 2 8 10 10% 75%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 4 2 6 6% 81%
2.5-3
5 Small 64 - 90 C
. 7 5 12 12% 93%
3.5-5.0 Small 90 -128 :.0 4 1 5 5% 98%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 -180 B 0 1 1 1 % 99%-
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 L11 0 0 0 0% 99%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 B 0 0 0 0% gg%
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 L' 0 0 0 0% 99%
20 - 40 Medium 512 -1024 D p 0 p 0% 99%
40 - 80 Lrg- Very Lrg 1024 - 2048 R 0 0 0 0%

Bedrock
BDRK,
0
1
1
1% 99%
100%
Totals 40 60 100 100% 100%
Photo Log
Unnamed Tributary to the Tar River
Franklin County, North Carolina
1. Beginning of project looking upstream at culvert under NC 39.
2. Looking downstream from NC 39 at first 100 ft of existing channel.
Notice high vertical banks on right bank and bar on left bank.
,e
3. Looking downstream. Burnette Road lies adjacent to the left bank.
White building in distance is the Food Lion/Wal Mart complex.
4. View of stream where Burnette Road and town maintained dirt access
path to sewer lift station intersect.
•, r
. f:
F.
F /
D.T
5. Riffle Cross Section. Town dirt access path lies between the treeline on
the left and the left streambank.
i
1 ?
ff t '
r Y 1 t ?? 'S ?
Alh
6. Raw streambanks about 100 ft upstream of end of project.

7. Former location of channel where proposed restoration will tie in.
'Apt-
g?: Q6T? t r r t
"h-

i
8. a1" , ? 6 ?'? f ?
Hydric soils outside of consen-ation easement on Burnette, et. al
property behind Food Lion/`N'al Mart complex.

UT to Tar River Stream Restoration Plan
Franklin County, NC
United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
September 1998. "Soil Survey of Franklin County, North Carolina."
http://www.mo] 4.nc.nres.usda.gov/Publishd%2OSoil%2OSurveys/frank-cd.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. (22 March 2001)
USDA, NRCS. 2001. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.1 (http://plants.usda.gov).
National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Marnnzals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
36