19960470 Ver 1_Draft 2003 Monitoring Report_20081201

I3]hGr
DRAFT
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003
Little Ivy Creek Stream Mitigation Site (Barnhill Site)
Madison County
WBS Element 32573.4.1
TIP No. A-10WM
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2003
Summary
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2003 at the Barnhill Site in Madison County. This site was designed and
constructed during 2000 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
This report provides the monitoring results for the first documented year of monitoring
(Year 2003). The Barnhill Site will be monitored again in 2004. The actual timeline for
formal monitoring will be decided by the Mitigation Review Team.
Based on the overall conclusions of monitoring along Little Ivy Creek, the Barnhill Site has
met the required monitoring protocols for the first year of monitoring. Localized areas of
active bank scour and erosion exist; however, immediate stabilization is not required at this
time. These areas and all other areas will continue to be monitored during 2004.
Based on information obtained from the USGS, the Barnhill Site has met the required
hydrologic monitoring protocols. The vegetative success criteria have also been met for the
first year of monitoring. No biological sampling has been conducted to-date. It is unknown
whether or not this sampling will be conducted as part of overall monitoring activities.
NCDOT will continue stream and vegetation monitoring at the site for 2004.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The following report summarizes the stream monitoring activities that have occurred during
the Year 2003 at the Barnhill Site. The site is situated immediately south and adjacent to
Beech Glen Road (SR 1540) in the southeastern portion of Madison County (Figure 1). It is
approximately 2.0 miles (3.2 kilometers) southeast of Mars Hill and nearly 12 miles (19.2
kilometers) north of Asheville. The Barnhill Site was constructed as one of four projects to
provide mitigation for stream impacts associated with Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) number A-10 in Madison County.
The mitigation project covers approximately 1,200 linear feet of Little Ivy Creek. Design
and construction was implemented during 2000 by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). Stream restoration involved the installation of j-hook vanes and
sloping the adjacent streambanks to reduce overall erosion.
1.2 Purpose
According to the as-built report (NCWRC, 2000), the objectives at this mitigation site were
to improve water quality, fisheries habitat, riparian quality, and the overall stability of Little
Ivy Creek. The following specific objectives were proposed:
? Protection of Little Ivy Creek's channel and riparian zone via a conservation easement;
? Install j-hook vanes along the large meander bend to reduce erosion and increase
available fisheries habitat;
? Stabilize the eroding, vertical streambanks on the site by constructing floodplain benches
along the toes of the slopes;
? Planting of native trees, shrubs, and ground cover that will help to stabilize the stream
banks, establish shade, and provide wildlife cover and food.
Successful stream mitigation is demonstrated by a stable channel that does not aggrade or
degrade over time. It is also demonstrated by reduced erosion rates, the permanent
establishment of native vegetation, and bed features consistent with the design stream type.
Vegetation survival is based on federal guidelines denoting success criteria for wetland
mitigation. Results of stream monitoring conducted during the 2003 growing season at the
Barnhill Site are included in this report.
Activities in 2003 reflect the first formal year of monitoring following the restoration efforts;
however, this is the third year following construction at the site. Included in this report are
analyses on stability (primarily the longitudinal profile and cross sections), vegetative
monitoring results, and site photographs.
1.3 Project History
The effort to provide stream mitigation for TIP No. A-10 began in 1996 with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) with the NCWRC. The MCA was to provide 25,000 feet of
mitigation for 9,990 feet of jurisdictional stream impacts. Subsequent amendments to the
MCA were made to provide mitigation for additional stream impacts from TIP No. A-10.
These amendments resulted in a total mitigation of over 26,000 feet.
The NCDOT worked with representatives from the NCWRC, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and
Madison County Soil and Water Conservation District on a Mitigation Review Team. The
purpose of the team was to develop criteria and policies for selecting stream reaches for
mitigation.
The Barnhill Site was one of the sites selected by the Mitigation Review Team to provide
compensatory mitigation for TIP No. A-10. The mitigation plan for this mitigation site was
developed during 1998 and approved by the team. The NCWRC implemented the project in
1999.
June 2000
June 2000
December 2001
March - July 2003
March -July 2003
1.4 Debit Ledger
Construction Completed.
Site Planted with Native Perennial Seed Mix
NCWRC Planted Additional Live Stakes and Bare
Rooted Trees
Stream Channel Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
The entire Barnhill Site was used for TIP No. A-10 to compensate for unavoidable stream
impacts related with roadway construction. This project generated 1,200 linear feet of
stream credits.
2.0 STREAM ASSESSMENT
2.1 Success Criteria
The success criterion, as defined by the Mitigation Site Monitoring Protocol for the
NCWRC/NCDOT Mitigation Program (2003), evaluates channel stability and
improvements to fish habitat. Specifically, this evaluation includes all or a combination of
the following parameters: channel stability, erosion control, seeding, woody vegetation, and
overall response of fish and invertebrate populations for stream mitigation projects. This is
to be accomplished using photo reference sites, stream dimension and profile, survival of
planted vegetation, and direct sampling of important populations. The chart provided below
further details the criteria used to evaluate success or failure at these mitigation sites.
NCWRC/ NCDOT Mitigation Monitoring Criteria
Measurement Success (requires no action) Failure Action
Photo Reference Sites
Longitudinal No significant* aggradation, Significant* aggradation, When significant*
Photos degradation, or erosion degradation, or erosion aggradation, degradation or
Lateral Photos erosion occurs, remedial
actions will be undertaken.
Channel Stability
Cross-Sections Minimal evidence of instability Significant* evidence of When significant* evidence
Longitudinal (down-cutting, deposition, instability of instability occurs,
Profiles erosion, decrease in particle size) remedial actions will be
Pebble Counts undertaken.
Plant Survival
Survival Plots >75% coverage in Photo Plots <75% coverage in Photo Plots Areas of less than 75%
Stake Counts >80% survival of stakes, 4/m2 <80% survival of stakes, 4/m2
coverage will be re-seeded
and/or fertilized, five stakes
>80% survival of bare-rooted <80% survival of bare-rooted and bare-rooted trees will
Tree Counts trees trees
be replanted to achieve
>80% survival.
Biological Indicators (only used for projects with potential to make watershed level changes)
Invertebrate Pop. Population measures remain to Population measures indicate a Reasons for failure will be
Fish Populations same or improve negative trend evaluted and remedial
action plans developed and
implemented.
Overall success or failure will be based on success of 3 of the 4 criteria.
*Significance or subjective determinations of success will be determined by a majority decision of the Mitigation Review Team
Federal guidelines for stream mitigation are relatively consistent with those protocols
established by the NCWRC and NCDOT. These guidelines include the following main
parameters: no less than two bankfull events for the five-year monitoring period, reference
photos, plant survivability analyses, channel stability analyses, and biological data if
specifically required by permit conditions (USACE, 2003). This report addresses all of the
above mentioned parameters for both the NCWRC/NCDOT protocols and federal
guidelines aside from shading and biological data, which was not required at this site.
Natural streams are dynamic systems that are in a constant state of change. Longitudinal
profile and cross section surveys will differ from year to year based on changes in the
watershed. Natural channel stability is achieved by allowing the stream to develop a proper
dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the
stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. A stable stream consistently transports its
sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition and scour. Channel
instability occurs when the scouring process leads to degradation, or excessive sediment
deposition results in aggradation (Rosgen, 1996). The following surveys were conducted in
support of the monitoring assessment:
? Longitudinal Profile Survey. This survey addressed the overall slope of the reach, as well
as slopes between bed features. The bed features are secondary delineative criteria
describing channel configuration in terms of riffle/pools, rapids, step/pools, cascades
and convergence/ divergence features which are inferred from channel plan form and
gradient. The surveys are compared on a yearly basis to note and/or compare
aegradation, degradation, head cuts, and areas of mass wasting. The longitudinal profile
is expected to change from year to year. Significant changes may require additional
monitoring.
? Cross Section Surveys. These surveys addressed the following characteristics at various
locations along the reach: entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, and dominant channel
materials. The entrenchment ratio is a computed index value used to describe the degree
of vertical containment. The width/depth ratio is an index value which indicates the
shape of the channel cross section. The dominant channel materials refer to a selected
size index value, the D5(), representing the most prevalent of one of six channel material
types or size categories, as determined from a channel material size distribution index.
2.2 Stream Description
2.2.1 Pre-Construction Conditions
Little Ivy Creek was classified as a B3c stream type according to the Rosgen Classification of
Natural Rivers. The channel at the Barnhill Site is confined by a narrow valley which
descends approximately eight feet over the 1,200-foot reach. The entrenchment ratio was
approximately 2.0 and the width/depth ratio was around 18.1. Small cobble (72 mm) was
the D;() of the bed material throughout the project reach. The water surface slope along the
reach averaged 0.0085 (NCWRC, 2000).
Pool habitat at this site was limited, with only one large pool present in the upper third of
the reach. The remaining pools were small scour pools of limited length and depth. The DS,,
of the bed material remained small cobble; however, the distribution of the bed material
sampled during pebble counts indicated a bimodal distribution (NCWRC, 2000).
2.2.2. Post-Construction Conditions
Three j-hook vanes were installed along the right bank and through the upper bend at this
site. Floodplain benches were created along the right bank of the main channel at the lower
end of the project and along the left bank of the cutoff channel. Large boulders were used
to construct the benches. The adjacent streambanks were also extensively re-graded at the
site (NCWRC, 2000).
2.2.3 Monitoring Conditions
Little Ivy Creek was initially classified as a Cab stream type according to the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers. A total of three cross sections were surveyed in addition to
the longitudinal profile. A comparison of channel morphology is presented in Table 1.
Channel stationing is provided on Figure 2.
Table 1. Abbreviated Morphological Summary (Barnhill Site)
Variable Little Ivy Creek (Cross Section #3)
Pre-Const.* As-Built* Year 1 Year 2 Year 3** Year 4** Year 5**
Drainage Area miz 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5 46.5
Bankfull Width (ft) Mean - - 42.0
Bankfull Mean
Depth ft Mean
-
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio Mean 18.1 19.0
Bankfull Cross
Sectional Area ft2 Mean
-
94.5
Maximum Bankfull
Depth ft Mean
3.5
Width of Floodprone
Area ft Mean
-
200
Entrenchment Ratio Mean 2.0 4.8
Slope 0.0085 0.009
Particle Sizes
D16 mm - 0.5
D35 mm - 16.0
Dso mm 72.0 45.0
D8a MM - 10.1
Dys mm 2048.0
' According to the NC;WRC, comparisons of pre-construction, as-built, and monitoring data are not valid due
to intangible factors. Monitoring data for subsequent years should be used as the basis of comparison.
** Year 3 through Year 5 Formal Monitoring has not been defined and may not be required.
2.3 Results of the Stream Assessment
2.3.1 Site Data
The assessment included the re-survey of three cross sections and the longitudinal profile of
Little Ivy Creek established by the NCWRC after construction. The length of the profile
along Little Ivy Creek was approximately 700 linear feet. Cross section locations were
subsequently based on the stationing of the longitudinal profile and are presented below.
The locations of the cross sections and longitudinal profiles are shown in Appendix A.
? Cross Section #1. Little Ivy Creek, Station 1+56, midpoint of glide
? Cross Section #2. Little Ivy Creek, Station 3+00, midpoint of pool
? Cross Section #3. Little Ivy Creek, Station 5+04, midpoint of riffle
All three of the cross sections have remained intact based on comparisons with the as-built
data and visual observations. Several benchmarks associated with the as-built surveys were
not found; therefore exact data comparisons were not feasible. The Year 2003 data will be
used for future comparisons. Based on the comparison of cross section survey results with
the as-built sections, all three of the cross sections remain stable. These cross sections will
be monitored during the next several years to determine the actual extent of aggradation or
degradation. All of the cross sections appeared stable with little or no active bank erosion.
Survey data will also vary depending on actual location of rod placement and alignment;
however, this information should remain similar in overall appearance. The cross section
comparison is presented in Appendix B.
Pebble counts were taken at each cross section as a means to determine the extent of change
in bed material during the monitoring period. Existing data was available Little Ivy Creek.
A comparison of pre-construction, as-built surveys, and first year monitoring was not
feasible based on the fact that pre-construction and as-built pebble counts were taken
throughout the reach rather than at the intended cross sections. Pebble counts taken during
the monitoring assessment were restricted to Cross Sections #1 through #3. These pebble
counts are skewed due to the presence of boulders associated with the j-hook vanes. The
boulders were treated as bedrock. A chart depicting the particle size distributions for Little
Ivy Creek is presented below. Comparisons will be made between 2003 data and future
monitoring efforts.
Little Ivy Creek Particle Size Distribution (March 25, 2003)
Longitudinal profile surveys were conducted along a 700 linear foot segment of this reach.
Bank stability was assessed during the longitudinal profile survey. One area of active
scouring was observed. Descriptions relating to this area as well as several other notables are
listed below:
Little Ivy Creek
? A large amount of debris was noted along the project during the survey. This debris had
been deposited during the abnormally wet spring months of 2003.
? Stations 0+00 to 1+50. The high bank associated with the cut-off channel continues to
erode. Boulders were installed along the toe of this bank for added protection; however
active erosion is still occurring above the elevation of these rocks. This area should be
assessed during the next monitoring period to determine remedial actions, if necessary.
? Station 1+10. One boulder associated with the third )-hook vane has fallen into the pool
immediately downstream of the structure. The structure remains intact and should be
assessed during the next monitoring period to determine remedial actions, if necessary.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Monitoring requirements state that at least two bankfull events must be documented
through the five-year monitoring period. No surface water gages exist on Little Ivy Creek or
its tributaries. A review of known U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surface water gages
identified two gages within 8 miles (12.8 kilometers) of the mitigation site: one along the
French Broad River approximately one mile downstream of Marshall and one along Ivy
Creek (referred to as "Ivy River" by the USGS) at the US 25/70 crossing between Marshall
and Weaverville, immediately northwest of the Madison and Buncombe County boundary.
The Ivy River gage was utilized for this report since it is downstream of Barnhill Site and the
smaller of the two gages (158 square-mile drainage area as compared to the 1,332 square-
mile drainage area associated with the French Broad). It more accurately reflects hydrology
and precipitation in the project area. The Ivy River gage is situated in USGS Hydrologic
Unit 06010105. Datum of the gage is 1,700.41 feet above sea level NGVD29. Based on the
drainage area associated with the gage, the correlated bankfull discharge according to the NC
Rural Mountain Regional Curves (USACE, 2003) is between 450 and 500 cubic feet per
second (cfs). A review of peak flows was conducted for the period between August 2001
and August 2003. According to the graph, there were 14 bankfull events occurring during
this period, with seven of the events happening in 2003. Approximately five of these events
over the two year period exceeded 1,000 cfs, well above the bankfull discharge. The USGS
graph depicting these peak flows is presented below.
c
0 3000.0
o 2000.0
L.
1000.0
100.0
41
AO
L
+0
t
V
10.0
0
J 5.0
N
S
0
USGS 03453000 IVY RIVER HERR MRRSHRLL, HC
-4
1
Oct Jan Rpr Jul Oct Jan Rpr Jul
2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003
DATES: 08/08/2001 to 08/08/2003 23:59
EXPLRHRTIOH
- DRILY MEAN DISCHARGE
- MEDIAN DAILY STRERMFLON BASED ON 47 YEARS OF RECORD
MEASURED Discharge
2.4 Conclusions
Little Ivy Creek remains stable. The left bank associated with the cut-off channel and the
third j-hook vane should be closely monitored to determine if remedial actions are necessary.
In addition, the sediment load should also be closely monitored to determine the overall
change in bed particle size. Monitoring associated with the three cross sections and
longitudinal profile will continue through 2004.
Based on information obtained from the USGS, the Barnhill Site has met the required
monitoring protocols for hydrology. No supplemental work is proposed at this time.
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
The NCDOT will monitor the Little Ivy Creek Site for five years or until success criteria is
met. A 320 stems per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to determine
success for the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by 10 percent
per year after the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290 stems per acre
for year 4, and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one species will not
exceed 20 percent of the total number of plants of all species planted.
3.2 Description of Species
According to the As-Built Report for the Barnhill Mitigation Site, Little Ivy Creek, Madison
County (2000), the following species were planted along the streambanks:
Live Stakes
Black willow (Salix nigra) Silky dogwood (Cornur amomum)
Silky willow (Salix sericea)
Bare Rooted Trees
Black willow (Salix nigra) Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stonoifera) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Persimmon (Diorpyros virginiana) Green ash (Fraxinus pennylvanica)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Permanent Seeding Mix
Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis)
Joe pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosa)
Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata)
Eastern gamagrass (Tripascum dacdyloides)
Creeping spikerush (Eleocbaris palustris)
Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens)
Hop sedge (Carex lupilina)
Rice cut grass (Leersia ory?Zoides)
Soft rush (Juncus ffusus)
Softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus)
Three square spikerush (Scirpus americanus)
Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus)
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus)
3.3 Plot Descriptions
Deertongue (Panicum clandestinum)
Button bush (Cephalanthus oc(identalis)
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Red chokeberry (Aroma arbutifolia)
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
Winterberry (Ilex verticillata)
Blackgum (Nyssa ylvatica)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennylvanica)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Pin oak (Quercus palustris)
Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Silver maple (Acer saccharium)
Several vegetation plots were installed by the NCWRC during and immediately after
construction. Since these plots were not staked and information regarding species was not
available, eight new plots were randomly established along both streambanks within the
project area. These eight plots included two large 1,000 square-foot areas along the right
bank of Little Ivy Creek; Tree Plot A near Station 0+00 and Tree Plot B immediately
upstream of Mr. Barnhill's driveway crossing. The remaining six plots were one-meter
square plots (12.1 square feet). Stakes were placed at all four edges of the 1,000 square-foot
plots and at the two opposing edges of the 12.1 square-foot plots. These stakes were flagged
and labeled for future identification. Vegetation (trees) within the two 1,000 square-foot
plots were flagged, tagged, and numbered. The vegetation associated with the 12.1 square-
foot plots were only flagged. Due to the narrow riparian area and ease of access, the
locations of these plots were not surveyed. As per conversations with Mr. Barnhill after the
surveys, he had removed all representative flagging associated with the vegetation plots and
cross section stakes.
Tree Plot A is situated on the right streambank facing downstream near Station 5+00. It is
oriented in a general north-south direction. The dominant woody species observed were
willow oak, river birch, green ash, and red maple. Section 3.4 provides numerical counts for
species found within Tree Plots A and B, as well as the six small plots.
Tree Plot B is located on the right streambank immediately upstream of the driveway
crossing to Mr. Barnhill's residence over Little Ivy Creek. Dominant woody species were
silky dogwood and green ash.
3.4 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, b Plot
ro u
0
Plot No. (Type) o °O a v
p a
a° bu A .k
p 'v °; ° a o 0 0 0 o a
°
u
? ti a V
? eFtl m
L v
w b ey
O s
O is
O R
O R
O 0
O q
.
. v
x ?,
a
0 L L
Plot A 50'x20' 2 3 3 2 10 10 435
Plot B 50'x20' 1 7 8 8 348
AVERAGE DENSITY 391
Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, b Plot
? ?i N M ? N ^Cf1
Plot No. (Type) B °o o 4
? a A 4 u ° m p 0 0 0 0 o a'
,y?
r
rn
O
Pa
°
?' ,
N
N
N
N
N
it

v b o 0 0 0 0 o v
w
cn rn cn C7
Plot 1 1 meter grid) 0 0 0
Plot 2 1 meter grid) 0 0 0
Plot 3 1 meter grid) 0 0 0
Plot 4 1 meter grid) 0 0 0
Plot S 1 meter id 1 1 1 3,600
Plot 6 1 meter id 1 1 1 3,600
AVERAGE DENSITY 1,200
Site Notes:
Vegetation plots were established during the first year of monitoring. Several plots were
installed during construction; however, these plots could not be located. Specific notes
regarding each plot are presented below.
Tree Plot A. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), fescue (Festuca sp.), plantain (Plantago
sp.), onion (Allium sp.), and henbit (Lamium sp.) were also observed in the plot.
Tree Plot B. Woody volunteers including blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) were also observed in the plot. Herbaceous species
included Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), aster (Aster sp.), onion, muscadine
(Vitis sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and fescue.
Plot 1. Fescue was observed in and immediately adjacent to the vegetation plot. One stem
of green ash was noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 2. Japanese honeysuckle, rye grass (Lolium sp.), and several blueberry stems were
observed in and immediately adjacent to the vegetation plot. One green ash was noted
within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 3. Rye grass was observed in and immediately adjacent to the vegetation plot. In
addition, one green ash, one red maple, one sycamore, one willow oak, and one river birch
were noted within five feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 4. Rye grass, river oats (Uniola sp.), and chickweed (Stellaria sp.) were observed in and
immediately adjacent to the plot. One river birch and one green ash were noted within five
feet of the vegetation plot.
Plot 5. Fescue was observed in and immediately adjacent to the plot. In addition, six silky
dogwoods, one green ash, and one sycamore were noted within five feet of the vegetation
plot.
Plot 6. Japanese honeysuckle, goldenrod, and vetch (Vicia sp.) were observed in and
immediately adjacent to the plot. In addition, one black cherry was noted within five feet of
the vegetation plot.
3.5 Conclusions
The 2003 vegetation monitoring of the site represents an average density of more than 600
trees per acre, well above the minimum required by the success criteria.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Personnel with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) were to conduct biological sampling
along Little Ivy Creek. It is unknown at this time whether or not the sampling has been
conducted at the mitigation site. If this information becomes available, it will be inserted
into the report at a later time.
5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The Barnhill Site has met the required monitoring protocols for the first year of monitoring.
Localized areas of active bank scour and erosion exist; however, immediate stabilization is
not required at this time. These areas and all other areas will continue to be monitored
during 2004. If significant problems are noted during the next monitoring period, NCDOT
may conduct supplemental corrective-action work. This work would primarily include
structure rehabilitation, bank stabilization, and additional riparian vegetation planting.
Based on information obtained from the USGS, the Barnhill Site has met the required
hydrologic monitoring protocols. The vegetative success criteria have also been met for the
first year of monitoring. No biological sampling has been conducted to-date. It is unknown
whether or not this sampling will be conducted as part of overall monitoring activities.
NCDOT will continue stream and vegetation monitoring at the site for 2004.
6.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), 2000. As-built Report for the
Barnhill Mitigation Site, Little Ivy Creek, Madison County.
Rosgen, D.L, 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared with
cooperation from the US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the NC Division of Water Quality.
US Geological Survey (USGS), 2003. Real-time Data for USGS 03453000 Ivy River near
Marshall, NC. http://-,v-aterdata.Lisgs.Vo\,/nc/nwis.
1
%
r ?.' h:,{ ~ ??oC ?F t•lfq? 1 /J _ 'cal ?? '"?'.._.
Ar#f •ir 'F.(ECO
#M q 34
r
Add + if ` ?? A ?. Y 5p nom.- 1 bY? + NF .?•. ? r d,?o}yO?cy )?ti
S ,? - ???111 WH)tr oEM
i
X30
?"? • •.. ^(7 l l C ' l? v`6 V MC EC 1 ` la. I _. ,. ... ..
f
x., a ?g 21 b. a Ivy y
7 `'n. ` ! * • / I, ` j J x t ` 4800
611
)etc l? C pl ?Ii ?' `? l 73 U
\0.4 ? ??' ? A?,.r? ?? ? { it? 1 j r' /" -.. -.? • ? - v -..
pp ^ f •V/
?? ?r t71 Q / ' ,
f?Tong*id a' ?? ? ?i ? 8 H`Q?• ??
-r. ?.-'- \,? { `, 1+• .,; ?? l?'?? ? • ? '; 2059 - - ? ???' l
At
07
s
po ? r?..i t ? II` ._/ •! '??:. /1 IIf ?? y? .. ... ? F?f?? ? j?r?, 1 f V7?,.
l ? /p
• Y r 0 Iii
777 ? ? u
Project Vicinity P!
as ?,
fix.
Hilf
WK I 1
?vr HiLS-FED
R
its
C7? c-
f
RO r -
GD ,
Legend
Monitored Stream
N, V
? s
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
M U LK EY Feet 1;24,0-Min Figure No.
0 200 400 600 600 1,000 TopopUsap ic5il a r
U L i`,a I .+- Meters M.r. HiIIlION7nplc
Mars , NC
Prepared For: PROJECT VICINITY 1
k Barnhill Stream Mitigation Site
Little Ivy Creek
=? Madison County, North Carolina
c
`o
m
i
m
u
41
J

0
a

H •

'
'-
i
, i

L
U
CJ

a.?

•
? o

? 0
•r
co
cis

co Q
4 N M
. a C
O

CJ ? N
.
N X

c
0
V
. ?p O
+
O
O?
cn ?'
• X
-<i
0 8
«S
v /
C)
?-°a
? o
? s
a
a?
H
O
cd
A
b pN
or0 +
A ?
w?
O
Z
CV

_N
? C
•L" . L
m..
O O
E
.0
N
C. O
O
U ?
N CU
? U
c
O .o
U U
?.. :3
O
C ?
O O
C -V
O O
J CL
APPENDIX A
AS-BUILT DATA

L
? V
? u E
N Gave„
yyu = G
V •? V ?
?o¢
Co :t-'
U
ML
.Q W
Q
o
L
4- ?
L
L co
E
c
0 CD
-0 E
a)
cn
c co
m a)
> r-
4- 0
c?
o
a?
cn
U ?
0 0
_I 0

03
m
u
Q)

W

O c'?

O

CA

X
N

U
c
O
N
x
i
y

0)
C -C
•L" L •
Om
O O
E ,C
O C6
C6 C6
O C:
U c:
O ?
C/) U
cn
p O
L -f-+
U U
4- =3
O 4"
-a
c
O
O
O O
a

Cross-section 1, 3rd vane
9
94
Vane -'"
a
92
R 90
> 88
d
W
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft.)
I
% J

Cross-section 2, vane at ford
w
?95
c 93
vane
89
M 87
> 85
4). 83 .
W 0 1'0 20 3.0 40 50 60 7.0
Distance (ft.)
Cross-section 3, bench on vertical bank
100
98
?. 96
v
94
0 82
++ 90
88
G7 86 •f
W 84 ?- ?..?+'
82 .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 86
Distance (ft.)
i
Post-construction • - - - Pre-construction
0
1 N ?
/ 1 VO' Gl C
' O
W
co
cm - _ 1
c > ? ? ? I
m I in
m 1
! Y Y 1
m R Q m 1
,I CCU c
I m $ G i O C
W
.
C i ea ?*; o I
oo
C
C v c
'Q f •? N V
O > ! Q eCi Q
O I
1 .•J
m v Id
I "
I '
e 1
i ?
i R
e '
1
? o s ? g I
a2 ? co 8
1
(:U) UO!Ienel3 3
E _L_.r
0 4
IL• ?

c ,c .c .tic ? c o .o .c c ,;a
O• n- rim n? ? ?.. ?.. n.. ,, _
G7 O ?} ?? J G Q? G"+ 4
r?

NT INF M, a
T ?
Sk-
t
- -!-i
I oo .
_
j jr

rT, r
k?
I
A&=

1

J
- -
H
L,

61,

fl _

..

i° lITfli' , c('1-1.I;1 .'IcI'OT1 111th tto -I i5 r+LI'4.
Site cat tote sccord 4one. Ts".tken' fror1 t},e TC? " a Ilv`
.i,0* PhOlk) Sht.'+VIS d:C L ` s".?'t' k ?}fLS{Ct+: 'El" 1, Cbdd!"„- 7«C? 1 hC

fic'mir )'O e Et
Site 0-?,`-,ecnn }a-e. °a ke "!o-r t-_ 0'_ifd v-1--. i'.?yt!4::[3. Fop 4?:J=11 sil-ows .:ll' eit': fl
bUl"OI"t ;.7" b? ,,(7, '. }^.lt-i-} ?lc-,. s ..1e `"?11. _-ea .? 1 »;?t' fTl' ?10'?t, t?'T[
I'ppeT phOtO - lllt third V' IT-,e after constru nion up.,°tref-r
0 i'the van-, And ,fMig Lowurd ruJ-uharritd- d.3o*,(.. ,.-n 6,ioto " "'loss`v 'he sarr VCI.m we.t:b
,ed- t?c'11 L ?tl"ilt?fd ~'°`wv i T" vn-w :: N%zter fi41144:4 znd ?f$'a Stt1p;,: l 'w L'i -cd 1' Yl;C.
Lonslnjr.jr:r M t;-)c } CJ-?j (,-,ft c rcz,:i:, Top p1;mc'':hows . e cundAW)
lZma\
•? ?yt _?_ ?'?li?t:a y:t?%'-•v? •_"? t?"?'_:. 1.'ti':I..'tS .?'Z?!' t_i_.'i;??.t(?-=tt,`rl.
APPENDIX B
CROSS SECTIONS AND THE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON
Cross Section-1, Station 1+56 (Little Ivy Creek)
96.0 -
95.0
94.0
93.0
LL 92 0
F 91,0
W 90.0
i
89.0 i
x 3t1 w, ?L; ii
88.0
87.0
86.0 ?-
0.0 5.0 10.0 15 0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0
Station (Ft)

Cross Section-2, Station 3+00 (Little Ivy Creek)

96.0
.,.E

94.0

92.0
a+
LL
C
0 90.0

W
?
88.0 .,,,.,. - ..:...............
t? 3t.:eP;rii
- `
-
;
86.0 r-
-

84.0
0.0 5.0 110 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0
Station (Ft)
March 25, 2003 ------- WRC As-Built
Cross Section-3, Station 5+04 (Little Ivy Creek)
100.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
LL
= 92.0
O
.
> 90.0
_d
uJ
88.0
...........................
... ?. , s?I
86.0
84.0
82.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15 0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45 0 50.0 55 0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0
Station (Ft)
March 25, 2003 .... • •. WRC As-Built
'i y,

e
,

$ r

92
90
88
86
84
82
80
Longitudinal Profile of Little Ivy Creek Monitoring Site on March 25, 2003
- bed water srf ---9.-- BKF p x-section
•
f... 40
- y.. .._..f ., - ?..
0
100 200
300 400
Channel DistancelStalion (ft)
500 600
700
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Plots Continued

S
?
?Ula 'J
+\
a '

y 5 i $ e +a n w F.,
Little Ivy Creek
As-Built Comparisons
Facing downstream at third j -hook vane `
r
y
r , rl,
M,,.
r
F acing
downstream at bench..., A
on right side of`Clia met � �,