20020027 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20080201

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BEAR SWAMP CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION SITE
2007 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 5)
Franklin County
EEP Project No. 27
Design Firm: Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
February 2008
Prepared for: NCDENR/ ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
r?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................... ..............................................................................................3
2.1 Location and Setting ......................... ..............................................................................................3
2.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives . ..............................................................................................3
2.3 Project History and Background ....... ..............................................................................................4
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS ..............................................................................................6
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ....... ..............................................................................................6
3.1.1 Soil Data ............................ ..............................................................................................6
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas . ..............................................................................................6
3.1.3 Stem Counts ...................... ..............................................................................................7
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ................ ..............................................................................................9
3.2.1 Bankfull Events ................. ..............................................................................................9
3.2.2 Bank Stability Assessment ..............................................................................................9
3.2.3 Stream Problem Areas ....... ............................................................................................10
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................... ............................................................................................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ................................................................................4
Table II Project Activity and Reporting History ....................................................................................... .4
Table III Project Contacts ........................................................................................................................... .5
Table IV Project Background ..................................................................................................................... .6
Table V Preliminary Soil Data .................................................................................................................. .6
Table VI Vegetation Problem Areas ........................................................................................................... .6
Table VIIa Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot ........................................................................ .7
Table VIIb Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot ............................................................... .8
Table VIII Verification of Bankfull Events ................................................................................................. .9
Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates ....................................................................................... .9
Table X Stream Problem Areas ................................................................................................................ 10
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ........................................................... 11
Table XII Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ......................................................................... 12
Table XIII Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ..................................................................... 13
EEP Project No. 27 ii UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan View
APPENDIX B: VEGETATION DATA
Vegetation Problem Area (Plan View)
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Vegetation Plot Photos
APPENDIX C: STREAM GEOMORPHOLGY DATA
Stream Current Condition Plan View
Verification of Bankfull Event
Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
Permanent Station Photos
Exhibit Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Cross-Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Exhibit Cross-Sections
Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
Exhibit Longitudinal Profile
Exhibit Raw Data Table
Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Exhibit Reachwide Count Plot
Exhibit Cross-Section Count Plots
EEP Project No. 27 iii UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the
"Site") was constructed for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to provide
compensatory stream mitigation in the Tar/Pamlico River Basin. This stream restoration project is
located on an unnamed tributary to Bear Swamp Creek at the Murphy Hay Farm just north of the Town of
Louisburg. This project involves the permanent exclusion of cattle from the stream, stabilization of
eroding stream banks, installation of cross-vane structures for habitat, and the planting of a forested
riparian buffer.
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in the past year (the fifth
year of project monitoring) at the Site. Site construction began and was completed in July 2002. As-built
surveys for the Site were performed in August 2002. First year monitoring was conducted in September
2003, and has continued through the current fifth year of monitoring. The Site must demonstrate
vegetative criteria success and a stable restored stream channel for a minimum of five years or until the
Site is deemed successful. The following paragraphs summarize the results of the 2007 year monitoring.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring for Year 5 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Levels
1 and 2 (Lee et al. 2006). CVS methodology determines density and survival of planted species, and
individuals resulting from natural regeneration. Plot locations are consistent with previous years and plot
size consists of 5m x 20m. Based on recommendations by EEP, Plot 4 was not surveyed in the current
monitoring Year 5. The taxonomic standard for vegetation follows Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Georgia, and surrounding areas (Weakley, 2007).
Vegetation success criteria for the forested riparian restoration areas are based on a minimum survival of
260 stems per acre of planted species at the end of Year 5. Volunteer woody vegetation will also be
included in the survivability calculations. Based on the fifth year surveys, the average count of the
surviving planted species is 293 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total number of
stems increases to 8690 stems per acre. The Site meets and exceeds the established success criteria for
vegetation based on the survival of the planted species.
The apparent cause of mortality for some planted species is competition from fast-growing woody
species, principally Pinus taeda, and from large herbs such as Sorghum halapense, Solidago sp., and
Eupatorium capillifolium. Other early successional species in abundance on the site include red maple
(Acer rubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The heavy loblolly pine colonization is a
continuing nuisance as pines compete with the more desirable species for light and nutrients. Drought
conditions ranging from moderate to extreme have afflicted Franklin County for the duration of the
growing season and may be responsible for some species mortality.
Stream Enhancement Monitoring
Success criteria for the restored stream reach has been established to confirm that no significant changes
have occurred to the dimension, pattern, profile, and bed material over the 5-year monitoring period.
Location surveys of the constructed features were conducted to verify the performance of the stream. A
total station survey was performed to describe the stream longitudinal profile and five permanent stream
EEP Project No. 27 1 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
cross-sections (3 riffles and 2 pools). A modified Wolman pebble count and assessment of the
constructed features was also undertaken.
Overall, the stream channel bed form is stable. However, many of the grade control structures (rock
vanes) in the stream have failed which has led to low to moderate bed degradation immediately behind
these structures. Of the twenty-four rock vanes that were installed, sixteen are not performing their
intended function. Three vanes have water piping through or behind the structure, six have filled in with
sediment and have become obsolete, and the remaining seven are flooded from beaver dams throughout
the lower portion of the Site. A total of eight beaver dams were observed within the UT to Bear Swamp
Creek and significant impoundments have formed behind them. One beaver dam, constructed at the
upstream culvert invert, posed a potential flood hazard to the Murphy Hay Farm driveway. In late 2007,
beaver trapping and removal was carried out at the Site to prevent offsite flooding, continued negative
impacts to the stream, and potential nuisance impacts to the adjacent landowners.
Based on the cross-sections and visual observations, the channel dimensions have not changed
significantly. The stream was designed as a 135c (step-pool) stream (Rosgen 1996), which provides a
sand bed channel with moderate entrenchment and a moderate width-depth ratio. During the current
survey, bankfull indicators continue to be found at a significantly lower elevation than those described by
the designer. The current classification measurements also exhibit a very low width-depth ratio and
entrenchment consistent with an E-channel. Pebble counts show no significant change to the channel
substrate which is composed primarily of sand and fine gravel.
EEP Project No. 27 2 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The Site is located north of Louisburg in Franklin County, NC, immediately south of West Dyking Road
(SR 1235) at the Murphy Hay Farm (Figure 1, Appendix A). From Raleigh follow Highway 401 north to
Louisburg. Approximately one mile past the Highway 561 split in Louisburg take a left onto West
Dyking Road. The Murphy Hay Farm will be approximately one mile on your left. The entrance to the
stream restoration area is accessed by several cattle gates located along an electrified fence. The stream
restoration reach begins approximately 460 feet upstream of the driveway crossing and ends
approximately 775 feet downstream.
2.2 RESTORATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
Approximately 1400 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Bear Swamp Creek were identified on
the 32-acre Murphy Hay Farm. The stream had severely degraded and eroded significantly due to past
vegetation removal and the unrestricted access of cattle. The torrential rain events associated with
Hurricanes Fran and Floyd provided the final impetus for restoration work. The stream originates at a
pond approximately 500 feet east of West Dyking Road and 1000 feet east of the project. Land use in the
watershed consists of agriculture, pasture, forest, and single-family residential.
The design of the new stream included both Priority II and III stream restoration. The degraded F5 and
G5c stream types were restored to a 135c (Rosgen 1996). Approximately 664 linear feet of new channel
was constructed; and 771 linear feet of stream was stabilized in-place. Approximately 800 tons of rock
was used to construct 24 rock vanes throughout the reach (Figure 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, Appendix A). The vanes
were designed to improve hydraulic flow and reduce shear stress. The vanes were to provide bed
stabilization and improved stream habitat by creating pools. The steep, eroded banks were graded back
and expanded to increase the entrenchment ratio. Root wads were also installed to provide bank
protecting and additional habitat diversity. Approximately 2.4 acres of riparian vegetation was also
established along the restored channel in Zone 1 (inner 30 feet) of the Tar/Pamlico Riparian Buffer. This
riparian buffer zone has been fenced to exclude cattle. Site construction began and was completed in July
2002. Project monitoring began the next year in September 2003.
The objective of this project is to restore habitat and water quality to the restored reach and the Tar-
Pamlico River Basin as a whole. By stabilizing the streambed and banks, the restoration will improve
water quality by reducing the amount of sediment contributed to the watershed. Exclusion of cattle and
establishment of a permanent riparian buffer should further help reduce sediment and nutrient input. The
newly established riparian buffer will provide shade, thereby reducing water temperatures, and increase
habitat and food for wildlife.
EEP Project No. 27 3 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Project Segment or Restoration Linear Footage or
Approach Stationing Comments
Reach ID Type Acreage*
Exact locations
R P2/P3 780 linear feet --
h 1 unknown
Reac
Exact locations
Ell SSS 600 linear feet --
unknown
Riparian Vegetation
R -- 2.4 acres N/A --
Re-establishment
*Linear footage values in the table are from the current year's survey. Linear footage values provided in the project's Mitigation
Plan are 780 linear feet of restoration and 680 linear feet of stabilization - reaches are not distinguished on figures or in text
narrative
R = Restoration P2 =Priority II P3 =Priority III
SSS = Stream Bank Stabilization Ell = Enhancement II
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27

Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan NA* NA* NA*
Final Design (90%) NA* NA* NA*
Construction NA* NA* July 2002
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area NA* NA* NA*
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments NA* NA* NA*
Bare Root Seedling Installation NA* NA* NA*
Mitigation Plan NA* NA* April 2003
Minor repairs made filling small washed out areas May 2003
Final Report NA* NA July 2003
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring NA* Fall 2003

Year 1 Stream Monitoring
NA*
Sept 2003 Jan 2004
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring NA* NA*
*
Year 2 Stream Monitoring NA* NA* NA
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Year 3 Stream Monitoring Dec 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2005
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006
Year 4 Stream Monitoring Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006
Year 5 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2007 Sep 2007 Dec 2007
Year 5 Stream Monitoring Dec 2007 Sep 2007 Dec 2007
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 27 4 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table III. Project Contacts
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Designer Mr. Robert Lepsic
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (ARCADIS) Raleigh, NC 27607
919 854-1282
Construction Contractor 130 Penmarc Drive, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27603-2434
SO Environmental, Inc.
Planting Contractor 2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
North State Environmental, Inc. [phone]
Seeding Contactor NA*
NA*
Seed Mix Sources NA*
Nursery Stock Suppliers NA*
Monitoring Performers EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
919 828-3433
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC Elizabeth Scherrer
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 27 5 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Project County Franklin
Drainage Area 0.26 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <1 percent
Stream Order 1 st order
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omemik) Northern Outer Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-built B5c
Cowardin Classification Stream (R3UB2)
Dominant soil types Wake-Saw-Wedowee Complex (WaB)
Wedowee (WeB, WeC)
Wake-Wateree-Wedowee Complex (WbD)
Reference Site ID 000543201A
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03020101040010
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-03-01
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WS-IV, NSW
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
Percent of project easement fenced 30-foot buffer fenced around entire reach
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Soil Data
Exhibit Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27

Series Max Depth

(in.) % Clay on

Surface
K
T
OM /o
Wake-Saw-Wedowee Complex (WaB) 32 3-20 0.15-0.28 1-4 0.5-3
Wedowee (WeB, WeC) 32 5-20 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-
1 Complex (WbD) 54 2-20 0.15-0.28 1-4 0.5-3
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Feature / Issue Station Range Probable Cause Photo #
Invasive Populations Throughout, but especially at loblolly pine (Pinus taeda): seeding 1 and 2
Vegetation Plot 1 from adjacent stands (Appendix B)
EEP Project No. 27 6 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
3.1.3 Stem Counts
Vegetation monitoring for Year 5 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Levels
1 and 2 (Lee et al. 2006). Plot locations are consistent with previous years and plot size remained 5m x
20m. Based on recommendations by EEP, Plot 4 was not surveyed in the current monitoring year. Stem
counts were conducted for all woody species, including volunteer species. The taxonomic standard for
vegetation follows Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas (Weakley, 2007).
An inventory of planted species is given in Table VIIa, while volunteer species are listed in Table VIIb.
Photos of vegetation problem areas and vegetation plots can be found in Appendix B.
Exhibit Table VIIa: Stem Counts for Each Planted Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Plots Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Survival
Species Totals' Totals Totals Totals %
1 2 3 5
Shrubs
Tag alder
(Alnus serrulata) 0 0 0 0 --
Silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum) 1 13 12 1 1 8
W interberry
(Ilex verticillata) 0 0 0 0 --
Black willow2
(Salix nigra) 7 1 19 29 7 8 42
Elderberry
(Sambucus Canadensis) 0 0 0 0 --
Trees
River birch
(Betula nigra) 9 0 6 13 9 N/A
Ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana) 1 0 0 0 0
Green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 6 8 8 7 6 75
Black walnut
(Juglans nigra) 2 3 3 2 2 66
Red mulberry
(Morus rubra) 1 0 0 0 0
Hophornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana) 1 5 0 2 1 20
Swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii) 1 1 3 5 3 2 66
Cherrybark oak
(Quercus pagoda) 1 0 2 0 0
'Initial Totals for planted species within vegetation plots are not available.
2 Species not found on initial survey. Current individuals are volunteers.
EEP Project No. 27 7 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
A total of 29 stems of planted species were counted in the four plots. Stem density per acre for Plots 1, 2,
3, and 5 are 728, 364, 40, and 40 stems per acre. The average density for planted species in all plots is
293 stems per acre, which exceeds the established success criteria of 260 stems per acre for vegetation at
year 5.
Silky dogwood and elderberry have survived and grown on moister and more exposed sites on the stream
banks, but have largely been out-competed in the drier upland sites where the vegetation plots are located.
Survival of tag alder, winterberry, ironwood, red mulberry, and cherrybark oak appears to have been very
poor. The apparent cause of mortality for these species is competition from fast-growing woody species,
principally loblolly pine, and from large herbs such as Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Drought conditions may have also contributed
to poor survival throughout the Site.
Exhibit Table VIIb. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Plots Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Species 1 2 3 5 Totals Totals Totals Totals
Boxelder (Acer negundo) 1 2 1 0 3 3 4
Red maple (Acer rubrum) 44 3 51 73 23 47
Eastern baccharis
(Baccharis halimifolia)
4
0
2
8
4
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) 0 2 0 0
Persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana)
0
1
1
0
Easter red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana)
1
0
0
1
1
Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraci,/lua)
15
50
20
26
39
65
Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera)
1
1
7
2
3
2
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) 395 107 54 57 250 547 654 613
Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis)
0
1
0
0
Black cherry (Prunus serotina) 1 8 0 5 12 9
Winged sumac (Rhus copallina) 1 0 0 0
Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) 44 2 43 0 44
Winged elm (Ulmus alata) 23 0 41 11 23
Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) 0 3 1 0
Chinese privet
Li ustrum sinense
1
0
0
1
1
A total of 813 stems of volunteer species were counted in the four plots. Density per acre for Plots 1
through 5 is 21,165, 4,654, 2,185, and 4,897 respectively, with an average of 8,225 volunteer woody
stems per acre. Density for Plots 1 through 5, including planted and volunteer species, is 21,894, 5,018,
2,226, and 4,937 respectively, with an average of 8519 stems per acre.
EEP Project No. 27 8 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Aggressive recruitment of Pinus taeda continues at the Site, especially at the northeastern end
(Appendix B). A mixed pine-hardwood woodlot near this area provides a nearby source of pine
propagules. The northeastern end of the Site, near Plot 1, also features abundant Rhus shrubs, principally
Rhus glabra. While these are abundant, they do not generate the dense shade found under pine saplings.
The unbranched stems and weak vegetative growth result in an open understory where grasses and herbs
flourish.
An informal inventory of herbaceous species on the site was also taken. Dominant herbaceous species
over the Site as a whole are listed below:
long-stalked aster (Symphyotrichum dumosum) pokeweed (Phytolacca americana)
beggar ticks (Bidens frondosa) smartweed (Persicaria sp.)
Indian strawberry (Potentilla indica) curly dock (Rumex crispus)
purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea) horse nettle (Solanum carolinense)
bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix) goldenrod (Solidago sp.)
dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) Johnson grass (Sorghum halapense)
Joe Pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum) poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
narrowleaf sunflower (Helianthus angustifolius) ironweed (Vernonia sp.)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
3.2.1 Bankfull Events
Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurrence Method Number
7
08/28/2007 July 2007 Crest Gauge (Water level was 6-8 inches above bankfull)
(Appendix C)
3.2.2 Bank Stability Assessment
Exhibit Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Time Segment/ Linear Very Sediment
Point Reach Feet Extreme High High Moderate Low Very Low Export
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ft % Tons/year
Year 5 Reach 1
Above 463.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 4 -- -- 443.3 96 3.4
Road
Year 5 Reach 2
Below 916.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- 20 2 -- -- 896.7 98 6.2
Road
EEP Project No. 27 9 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
3.2.3 Stream Problem Areas
Exhibit Table X. Stream Problem Areas
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27

Feature Issue Station
Numbers
Suspected Cause Photo
Number
Vane 2, filled in Low slope, excess sediment 8**
Vane 3, structure failure Piping, steep vane arms
Vane 4, filled in Low slope, excess sediment
Vane 5, filled in Low slope, excess sediment
Vane 6, structure failure Piping, steep vane arms
Vane 8, structure failure Piping, steep vane arms
Vane 11, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure* 9**
Vane 14, filled in Low slope, excess sediment
Vane 15, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 16, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 17, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 18, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 19, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 20, flooded Beaver dam downstream of structure*
Vane 22, filled in Low slope, excess sediment
Vane 24, filled in Low slope, excess sediment
* Beaver trapping and removal was carried out at the Site in late 2007.
**Photos are representative of similar stream problem areas at other vanes
A stream problem area plan view and photos of problem areas are provided in Appendix C
Exhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Segment/Reach: 1,380 feet
Feature Initial MY-01* MY-02* MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 100% NA NA 80% 80% 84%
B. Pools 100% NA NA 91% 91% 100%
C. Thalweg 100% NA NA 88% 88% 100%
D. Meanders 100% NA NA 77% 77% 100%
E. Bed General 100% NA NA 95% 95% 99%
F. Rock Vanes 100% NA NA 82% 71% 77%
G. Root Wads 100% NA NA 86% 86% 88%
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 27 10 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
O
O M M
O\ O b O 00 ? 00
O ? ?
n _M
N M
M d
z _O
O ?
M 7
O D
/-, M y
j

¦ C
'?

?r [?

O O

O l?

O O n d' 00 [?

?'`? 00

O Vl
O
N
?
M ?

00
¢
Z 00
M
O
?
?
.?-.
?
O
?
O
M
M
?'
h
~
Vl
~
U

N
N
p O
O O
O
C ^" ? .-r ? h N
06 n .-r 00 V1 ? ? p Q rq

O

y
"
C

00
oe
00
O
N
oo
l?
O
r, O

Q1
0
l?
M
Q
z (?
C
0
O
00
C
n

N
O
O?
N
M It O M
0D k? O
O O p o0 00 N ?'`? ? r` 0 N ? O Q M ? ? N Q\ O M ? ? U
N N 00 O N O
00
7

M
r-

00

z ,
-

0

p

O

N

'?

O

O
Q O O
Fes'
" O
0 O `p
ao DD
O 7 N 7 ? [?
O O
N O
W O
00 O d N
O O O
O N O
N z O N
O

N
N
N
O
N
M
O
h 0
O
z ?
O\ O
M l?
h
N
C <,
N p 7

p
Z N iF
y
i?
oo
O
0
O
N
DD
?t
C
O
O
0
l?
¢
O
O
f`
d
d
U
L " 0
0 N N 00 D\
M O z p M

( M V z

z

C
•
?
L

a O

~

a

Q

?r

O
O

O

0

N

M

00

O

V

Q

00

p

O

M
r-:
R W /• N O N O p ? cV O z
o ? N er
L W

?? °o ? ¢ d d ¢ d ¢ ¢ d d d d d ¢ d d d d ¢ d
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
R C ?
.
r+
L W U '? d d ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢ d ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ d d d d d d d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
c +o+ R z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
d x
a
.

i M z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
C a

? a?i '° ? d v, o d ? d ? o d d ¢ d d ¢ ¢ d ¢ ¢
V ; " z oo ,-; z z 00 •: z z z z z z z z z z
,
a o
d
¢
d
d
¢
d
Q
d
¢
d
¢
d
d
Q
¢
d
Q
d
Q
Q
d
d
Q
H c
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
L O
b0
r
i
?
T;
t

x 2 z z Z z z Z Z z z z z z z z z z Z z
W F
Q d Q ¢ Q Q d Q d d Q d d Q d d
a z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

Q
d d d d d d Q d d Q d d d Q Q d d d d d d d d
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 'z z 'z z z z z z

c Q ? d d Q ? d Q Q d ¢ Q ? ¢ ¢ Q Q d

z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z H-Z

.. ..
o b a o

[ b a ?w

b ?o tb . Ei
o
v
1;n
o
?n
o
o
a
a?
Q (? .° ° o a b b a
i cn o o

'
p
o w
c? 3 a
w v
a °,
x N
b >
u g w
c
L ii o u
w o u y is v
3
E y w

r
a

=
R
41
a: A w w` 12
N
M
a.
O
z
¢
zz
EEP Project No. 27 11 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
b

? N
C? 00 ? .
-i .-. N V1 N ? --? ,-•

?.
?
? .--i O M O\
N M C?
?+ r N vl N O C C
U O
O O
00
NO 7 M O\ N M l? N O O c

U
? d d d d d d d a d d d ,,,
,,,
z z ?-. z z z z z z z z N
M O
? N DD --?
f` r O ? N
a N o
?, d Q a d ¢ Q Q a rn
z z z z z z z z z M N O 7 ..
00 O O\ O O .? -T OO
o ?"' ?O O '•' ? ? O M ? ? ? --? O O W
? ?
~ O O
?

h
'„i

b

,??

N

7

?

?O

N

Vii 00

00

?

M

O

O?

M
7

?O
M
vl
00

O
d'
iF
M ,?„' 7 a\ O O vi O O O ? O
M N O C N
r

el •?, N vi O .-• V? ?N+ M 00
l?
fV

..?
00
Cq
O
d'
C
' a 0 O er ?O M O 00 M W) M O
?
, O 0 \ M en -n u
?. Z O Vl O\ O O N O O O 7
4 T [? r O
cn O Q1 pVm
'o U d d d d a a d d d Q a o ° ° C
.. N D O N 00
A a ?.
" z z z z z z z z z z z

M O\ N '?
W z z z z z z z z z N , O

" 0 M 00 0
p q t
.
/
M
n r-
V) N 0
N O ?t
?O
' ' ••? N ?O 00 'O 00 et V1 O
C R
1 ?,? M . M
O O 0 N O i O M V
. *
. 0 'r
.r W .
N..
? O
0
O O
M O O\ i
{v?
? y N
lO
09
O?
r
00
7
?O
N M
O N
?O 0
,? ? M
N N
?O N
N O
O O ? O
O O
O \
W

/
y
C L ?i 7 M O\ ?O DD .•. .-. 7 m wl M O O\ N O
G O M r` O O N O O 7 p
? ? " ?. Q d d d ¢ a a d d Q ¢
b
V z z z z z z z z z z z
z z z z z z z z
E ? d a Q Q Q d d o
>
. d d d d
z z z z z z z z z z z o
d 3 ? ? Q Q a d ¢ Q Q Q ¢ a Q Q ¢ d
3 L + N , z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
O

+
• M wl r
a
?
ye E,y
v
M
O
O
W
O
Vi z z z z z z z z
W r.

•
•i to -n w N
N r- O -O o0 T b N O
d O b b
y
? w `
/-• ?D M O O .•-i ?O O •• M
iF N M
M t?
h
M
z O
C N

ti M O, N O O a, ?O O O N O
c:, d'
q Q\ M O ?' U
U ' d d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O r
/. ?
c
?_' O z" N a,
O
-•
O
O
? z z z z z z z z z

O Q M
M O N M
.--i <
z O [?
M
?
z z z z z z z z z C M

w
?i
?+
Q+.q
?
'O
•O
Q+
?
?
?
?
?
?
O
?-+
? w
.+
? w.
...+
W
ryl
?'..i
Q'..i ?l
,^
Q''..i
Q?-n
Q
?"' cd ^ 7 ' 7 Cli PC vi v', F
es,
Xs
i"
'r
3-'
b0
w
S.'
f:
O
cd
v b a
a .
.
s o oo b t;n y «
bi0
r °'
i r d r
0. oo . g
ll . .
° ° a b U 3 °o o a: a U
o w 3 b cc > ; bbo
O cn cq W „
3 x „ U O
L q w L , .'
U b 04
R w
N
v y u R w q * O r3

a A v'? a a a` d
EEP Project No. 27 12 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

z ?
u
o
y
?
p _
o W
W ?"
?
u +
L
? O
,0 L
O a0+ d'
a
O E M
o

L
w
?+
o U
r~r R
YC +

u
?
M
N
M
00
l-

00

?O

N

?'
W a N o
U

PC
ti c
r
r`
?n
--i
O
.--?
?
M
M
vl
00
0,
r`
00
O
V1

?
O
w iG
U ? d d d d d d d d d d d
z z z z z z z z z z z
z z z z z z z z z o M

-M 12
ti

3
3
Q
Q
$
°
p
'n
00
00
2 2
s rn

O y
O
U .°:
C+, A 12
EEP Project No. 27 13 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
4.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006 CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working draft of
January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina. 1015pp.
EEP Project No. 27 14 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
EEP Project No. 27 Appendix A UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
? /lr + ? :? _ _i ,,, ?r---. ter--• ••1 l f __ .
j
_ JJ
' J
i
. r
r
•Y t
?,? 1 JR21f ? _ ? t,
SITE
LOCATION j i W. DYKING RD.
.,M.A
r Sri" ?- V - . ¦ .. ?' ty ? t l
ii. •?
MURPHY -¢f
NAY FARM + ( t t t"_ -
\. `I ENTRANCE_ f j :?, c 1'•
Gem
t?p.
t
r
G
i? i? ??----'. ? ?`? -
. J? I 1 ---Y { • : Hosp
, t
J, - ir, - d - 3 a
.rte > - +.?? l• `` .,
"
` \ I i(L/ ? ,,. llhglt. 1 ? ?'?.r. ••? j pig
` n t e t
0 2000 4000` }
Y/?O
SCAM iN_EEET LO I 1,t, 1tttn 'ar7 s• , :• j }
Client: Project: • •Dwn By Ckd By
Unnamed Tributary to cwN DWG FIGURE
Bear Swamp Creek Dote:
?j ,r•®ScbencStream Restoration Site Scale: SEP 2006
e
1Lsl?
Corporation AM' stem ? , °-2000 ement EEP Project No. 27 ESC Project No.:
Raleigh, North Carolina PROGRAM FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 06-282.04
L ?
a ,6..N ' Ali
?w .
., N
s
? O
O
O O
N N
'
U
• LJ .

$
O
N
$ n 00
'

3

.jr N
g
c
? .? o

d

C
O
a+
c0
A.
O
4.0
H
W cc
D
? E Q
LU O
Lu y
= U
i ~
LU p

C. Z
E
3 }
yF? g O
y
d U
Z
Z m Y
M
00
0-

jam`
?. f.?4 f ,? 5 7
,

e
F "Yi I _ C
0
a_
z
W Z N
W
+ Q Z U
.?j W Z O
o Z O w ll? zO ?
w O z z? Q cn F- v ? o I o
C3 Q O J V) m Q W w m 04
LLJ
N
J w ~ Z w W ch 0 - Z 8 w
? O Of J
z
L'i F- 3: 0 N a Q cn v W 3 0= o
z
_ u
\ O Z ? J Of LLJ w k
O W _ X O S
X L, u > d W F H L, W H m
D U w
ra
I Ln Q
O
W (n v
i > ?N
rn z G) S
?I
> ° C) z 0
??1 \ f ?G v? w a Q C z
\ \ \ / 3 .O z
z EE D
w ?(L O
LnQ W
\ > f z
Lon V' O ca LLI
?l o Q
a
> ?
as c
+ 5
O °
N }_ L
M a
0
Z
All,
° N
N
N
l
I ? f
0
z
W
O
W
J
0
z
w z w
Q ? Z U
w Z 0 D
z O Q Oz O LLJ
W
O > O ? V)
Y Z
~ Z O ? Q w ?
O
m
_ Q W
> F- w O w w w U z
w <? z 0 o Fh =j
z W H J cn U w
z c? v N d Q I O w w 0 1--
> w z w
U ? I X
jl
Ln C3

U-)
off, x
a
,I x
W '` `w° I ! ? ? C7
\ \
U \ .\ f'l
N 1
cue
O
0
0
Ln
M
1
N
00 O
O Lo
O
N II
m O
W (y
c° W Si 00
N
? ? o I
= cD
O .Yz O
m a
a ? w
W
z
a
O
z
HE
O
H
z
O
2
ih
c
O
O
N
E
?
(n
-Y N
a?
U Z
Q U
3i
(a
mw
O
4+
r
z
D
0
0
?\ \
,SOdM
m
c
X V 0 2
Q ?•? U
3/0
L
u A
APPENDIX B
VEGETATION DATA
EEP Project No. 27 Appendix B UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
0
0 '$
a 0 0
d T
Ing
3
m
a
a
r+
m
z 0 O
x
F- M CD
2 ME) W
C-) '0 -% ?
O -u (/) O
Z
z C
z
m3
z 0-0
O
ZCD M
D ?7 3
;oa N >
O
z
D 3
3
(D
N
r+
0
r+
O
f?D

-1--J
a ?
?a`ra w
y `
cn Cn
0
D
F-
m
z
m
m
O
cn
0
a 3
0 O
)
I G7 Z
N
00 -M s
rQ m
O W ..
41 II N
cr 00
co
T
m

f

r O x p Nm ?m p

m O

o N n

C C C
O
o n-i n? Z

O
D m
<
z
m O m G7 m
r (n
C ?O ?O D
-9 C7 D
Z ? O TI n Z n Z zi

m zz D zi M mp m0
p m
z D D0 Do V)
Z zA <a? K:
pz mZ m
Z G7 v G? z
O ?? m ?
mr r
?O O
?4 1

r
m
O
m
Z
v
m O 5Z<
z
n o m
D
m D ° ?N
m = C 0 <
= m :2
Z m O-0
m
c n
-4 m m
vi
m
2
n 0

"
W
%
1-1
U
i f
/ f

G?
n
_°?
0 91
Z '$
d
e-t-
y
7
a
a
C
h
C
M. m
D O
zmCD
D
zm0)
O -u
N
c -, z
Z ?• T
?M3
z? O
W
°? m m
=NC :z
C) -4
> N
0
r- CD
D 3 cn
m
m
r•r
O
.-r
O
K
0 C- G7
Z C z
N
Oo N m o
N - m
O W
O
O
O OD
m
N c
n
2
C
m
W
O O
D
m
z
m
m
m
O
Cn
O
k
_ n? CAF
\ 41
f
f v
J

x w
? I
m m m < <
?m
N p
T7
m r
m r
O O
m x
u m
p
p nm n O
z
m 0 c m
o p? C)? m
r
_O m z
O) ?u
m mD mD
cn i N ? M
<
z

m O T7 cc)

D

0
W N N
0
-9
O
m n -j 0
z p

n T7
m (7
D
m ?K ??
O
m Oz D =j :;u m0 -0
z
z
m
p
z ?
?
D0
D D0 U)
0
zZl K: ?:u
M
Z
oz m2 m
z AO =?O z
0 K: _0 -0 ?
M0 0
?- {

D X r
W ?-
0<
z
m
y O
r D
-:? N
m m
r
rT O<
;;a m
=
o
m z
OU)
m
M

? m m

U)
m
S
O

a ? o
-
a

r
m
0
m
z
v

G7
Z
0
d on
O CD
d
n
v _y
3
c?
a
a
+ m
O
rmM y
z 0-
o?? Z
z ?•
cD 3 m
z 0'a
0
o z n W
? .0 <D m
= N C 3
DAN D?
o cD
D
CD
O
O
N
m
K
0 c-
G7
p z

N
O
N

-
m
m
0 W
1 I
O
c
i
w m
C/E
Y?
X ?
ADS'
J_
k \ _
cn
(/) 0
D
mm
Z
m
m
m
O
cn
0
D
D m
o O
m ?Z
O<
m
y ° D
?cn
m
=
z m OT
m
c Mm
M cn
z
m =
a
c

a a 0
a z

W '
U
x
R?
F`
?f
m
i
i
0
I ?

(/? cn m
0
O
M

m m

O 0

* U FA

:j

c

n
O n0i r
i
r
p (n
U?
r X C) O
m z .J
l MD
MD
m
J
m O co M
W ?O oO D
m O D N r
p m OZ OZ _i
- m
m
Z
m C)
D 9
m Loi?:: ?oK O
Z
O

m
O
Z
D
=i
-40 m0
mz
z m
O
z ?
D DD D0 ?
z z-x KA K
OZ mZ m
Z --A 0 v 0 z
K-0 T
vr0 0

a
n
0
m
CD
N
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site
Representative Vegetation Problem Areas
1

1? u? .gyp

4 R
?A<I
F
x r ITI,

;tt
?S ?R b'. ? tl6, t K° T

r • I rf '?" w` IP' 1
J

A

?
I ?
c V
X

ply; ?, _ ? ° ? ? t r
J
S' .
,ter; .,

Photo 1. Heavy loblolly pine colonization near Station 1+00.
EEP Project No. 27 B-4 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 2. Heavy loblolly pine colonization near Station 10+00.
Unnamed Tributary to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Year-5 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Stem Counts for Each Species Arran ed b Plot
Plots Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Survival
Totals Totals Totals Totals %
Species 1 2 3 5
Shrubs
Tag alder
(Alnus serrulata 0 0 0 0 --
Silky dogwood
(Cornum amomum) 1 13 12 1 1 8
W interberry
Ilex verticillata) 0 0 0 0 --
Black willow
Salix ni ra 7 1 19 29 7 8 42
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis) 0 0 0 0 --
Trees
River birch
(Betula ni ra) 9 0 6 13 9 N/A
Ironwood
(Car inus caroliniana) 1 0 0 0 0
Green ash
(Fraxinus ennsylvanica 6 8 8 7 6 75
Black walnut
Ju lans ni ra 2 3 3 2 2 66
Red mulberry
Morus rubra 1 0 0 0 0
Hophombeam
(Ost a vir iniana) 1 5 0 2 1 20
Swamp chestnut oak
uercus michauxii) 1 1 3 5 3 2 66
Cherrybark oak
( uercus pagoda) 1 0 2 0 0
Total 18 9 1 1
Density (trees/acre) 728 364 40 40
Average Density 293
EEP Project No. 27 B-5 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Unnamed Tributary to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Year-5 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Stem Counts for Volunteer Spec' s Arrange d b Plot
Plots Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Species 1 2 3 5 Totals Totals Totals Totals
Boxelder
Acer ne undo) 1 2 1 0 3 3 4
Red maple
(Acer rubrum) 44 3 51 73 23 47
Eastern baccharis
Baccharis halimi olia 4 0 2 8 4
Sugarberry
Celtis laevi ata 0 2 0 0
Persimmon
(Dios ros vir iniana) 0 1 1 0
Easter red cedar
(Juni erus vir iniana) 1 0 0 1 1
Sweetgum
(Li uidambar s raciua) 15 50 20 26 39 65
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tuli i era) 1 1 7 2 3 2
Loblolly pine
Pinustaeda 395 107 54 57 250 547 654 613
Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis 0 1 0 0
Black cherry
(Prunus serotina) 1 8 0 5 12 9
Winged sumac
(Rhus co allina) 1 0 0 0
Smooth sumac
(Rhus labra) 44 2 43 0 44
Winged elm
(Ulmus alata) 23 0 41 11 23
Possumhaw
Viburnum nudum 0 3 1 0
Chinese privet
Li ustrum sinense 1 0 0 1 1
Total 523 115 54 121
Density (trees/acre) 21165 4654 2185 4897
Average Density 8225
Combined Stem Counts for Planted and Volunteer Spec es Arranged b Plot
Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 5
Total 541 124 55 122
Density trees/acre 21894 5018 2226 4937
Average Density 8519
EEP Project No. 27 B-6 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Vegetation Plot Photos
Photo 4. Plot 2 taken July 31, 2007 from the northwest corner looking southeast.
EEP Project No. 27 B-7 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 3. Plot 1 taken July 31, 2007 from the northwest corner looking southeast.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Vegetation Plot Photos
EEP Project No. 27 B-8 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 5. Plot 3 taken July 31, 2007 from the northeast corner looking southwest.
Photo 6. Plot 5 taken July 31, 2007 from the southwest corner looking northeast.
W
12
0
r \ / `>
STA. +00
/ - v>
0
Z
LU
O
W
J
LO
z
w

Lu Q
w

cn w
?
z
-

w :2i z w
U o
z

O w
Y O
Z w J
J C5

N Z w >
Q
>

O m

C7 Lh O U
o
w
Z
d
\
p
w
Z

L'i
m
Z
o
?
0
O?
Z
J
N H
Ln J 3? U
J
Z m Q O Li Z O Q w
O X O = J J ?i O Q w (L'
U w ? P- w w Q L, Cn w m H
LLJ
I I ?
I
X C" c
I l i l Z
/ t ' \ \ `A
I ?I
?
? S A. 2400
I
x
00
-I. X .
?A,
O
L
O
w
w
Z
w
J
Q
O O
In

1
U
00 0
O° n
N II It
m is O
w - N
Ll M 00
N
z c?
° 3 °
m
m a
`s H
o v w
w
Z
CL
Z
O
0
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
I=
4U
W
f?
W
r4
C'3 F
cn
c
0
0
0
E
c6 Z
J
4-1 af
Yti U
oN =
a) o
VZ O
a j
a?
O
Na o
a
z
Cc LLI
CD W Y
z
0 Q
w
ca
m
m
c
Z3
U
t0
C I
U O c
?+U I
? d t
U ? o
(? O z
C-) O m
wU -a
Ln
N
P LD
r,A G
00 0
0 U')
d
Vv?? ° N II O
w m u
G? o L 00
C7 e
CrP? z N
w
O
J C7
i-dr `U m m
5X - O (n c u"i
S,? °C?, un
1 N
f o
w v,
s P 6 N`'` g c Z
\ \ J
i O
4-1
k Z N a
? O Y C)
N
V ,j z
I \? - ----- _ U
o m p z
cnao
Q 1 M W Z
k
co _------ V m w Y
z
?ObO - p <
k
00
N
z
Z W E
w } z ST ?W c
c
w z w
w
a cn C7
Z W O O W J CD
Q Y z J ?L
Z w
C) _j
LU O N m C) Z O d O W
W w (J W w o D o V) L\ j Z F? ??
Z Of (n (? J N
J Z F- O v ((n C~1 W z O W C ) +?
X O w Z F O Q W O O= C
U W F- W W Q lOi N Lai LJi m
w
1 1 1 X w
vi I
z
U O o
U
L
o
i
OY
QZ
L Nl
u O -y
wU
C3
W
i
r
900 f
I
tx
I +
o?
co /I
A. 11+
0
Z
W
0
W
J

Z
Li
bi Q
w
w z

w
Q Z w
U I o
-1

z
0
w
of

Z O

w W 0

z
_
m 0 U U Z
0 N 0
? D
1
o!
LLJ Z w D 0_ ( w
(D D' 0'
cn O -1 ? 0 N U W Z m0 > >
z C o Q O w Z J O Q Q
o w w < L m m ry.
Q L- Cn L,
w

I z
Ilff-,'SOd?`
I
%
x I o
>, ( I w
\ Z
LLJ
\ J
U
O
\? •,`\ N ,`•\ cn
Lo cn
f
Sl A• 12?
\ k \
` OVM loo
X
0
A
Q? ? C
O O O
C:;--
t
(D
? C I
v 0 0
V) cLZ
O L- c
U O y
WU ?
M
V
00 O
o LO
0
N II
m 0
w N
c° Y 00
N
Z U ? ?
U O
m r o
m a
o ? N
w
z
a
z
0
O
Z
O
U
H
Z
W
U
W
N

Q
0
?a
0
a?
E z
cc
J
0
(D N =
,_O
oz o
sZ?
U
?O Z
V) a o
IZ
03W z
m Y
Z
Q
M
m
c
a`
rya
U
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Verification of Bankfull Event
EEP Project No. 27 C-4 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 7. Crest gauge showing particulate deposited 6-8 inches
above bankfull during a storm event in July 2007.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Stream Problem Areas
Photo 8. Rock vane 14 has filled in with sediment but stream remains stable.
EEP Project No. 27 C-5 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
EEP Project No. 27 C-6 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 10. Photo Station 1 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
Photo 11. Photo Station 2 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
,_A
Photo 12. Photo Station 3 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.

¦

..S^_J
Photo 13. Photo Station 3 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
EEP Project No. 27 C-7 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
EEP Project No. 27 C-8 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 14. Photo Station 4 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.
Photo 15. Photo Station 4 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
EEP Project No. 27 C-9 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 16. Photo Station 5 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.
Photo 17. Photo Station 5 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
Photo 19. Photo Station 6 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
EEP Project No. 27 C-10 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 18. Photo Station 6 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site (Year 5)
Permanent Station Photos
EEP Project No. 27 C-11 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
Photo 20. Photo Station 7 taken August 28, 2007 looking upstream.
Photo 21. Photo Station 7 taken August 28, 2007 looking downstream.
Table Bl. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
1,380 linear feet
Feature
Category Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable)
Number
Performing
as
Intended` Total
number
per
As-
buile Total
Number
/ feet in
unstable
state %
Perform
in Stable
Condition Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles 1. Present? 21 25 N/A 84
2. Armor stable (e.. no displacement)? 21 25 N/A 84
3. Facet grade appears stable? 21 25 N/A 84
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining? 21 25 N/A 84
5. Length appropriate? 21 25 N/A 84 84%

B. Pools 1. Present? (e.g not subject to severe aggrad. or
mi rat.?) 34 24 N/A 100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf
->1.6?) 34 24 N/A 100
3. Length appropriate? 34 24 N/A 100 100%

C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection)
centering? N/A N/A N/A 100
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection)
-centering? N/A N/A N/A 100 100%

D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled
erosion? N/A N/A N/A 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar
formation? N/A N/A N/A 100
3. Apparent Rc within spec? N/A N/A N/A 100
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief? N/A N/A N/A 100 100%

E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar
formation N/A N/A N/A 100
General 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing
down-cutting or head cutting? N/A N/A 1/22 98 99%

F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour? 16 24 N/A 67
2. Height appropriate? 18 24 N/A 75
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate? 22 24 N/A 92
4. Free of piping or other structural failures? 18 24 N/A 75 77%

G. Wads/ 1. Free of scour? 7 8 N/A 88
Boulders 2. Footing stable? 7 8 N/A 88 88%

Includes constructed riffles and pools that are functioning as intended, as well as any others observed in the field.
Based on Rosgen type B stream with every structure having an associated riffle and pool.
Flooding from beaver dams within UT to Bear Swamp Creek prohibited an evaluation of some vanes. Any vanes observed to
be piping or failing during Year 4 Monitoring, but are currently flooded, are still considered failing in Year 5.
EEP Project No. 27 C-12 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

4'_ 9
I ffll? a

f4 ;
' «3
t

a i
?.
*?
? ? 1 Fem.
?

?
E
u V
U d

u
T
y

m
U

? E
? N
3

2

i o c
I
i ? C z
m m m
?one??i ?
a a?;ie m m
wa m m m E• a`
E z z _ -

'
I T
T T
I
T T

N N m .:
Q S c

EEP Project No. 27 C13 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
c
d .! 1
/?
ary. 't,4
y
s E .
M E

y5
?

a`

E ?

Q Z ci
U
V1
G

g ?
O
L o

a
°1 E
E
t U ?

n E
3
Z

F

Q
Z
> A c
Lo??o
f .- m m m ` 8i m ?i m m m Si o F 4
uolle nal3 an llelatl
Z
e
g
z_
_
_ v
- ¢
z

o
a i
i
z a < l
y ? e A
?

EEP Project No. 27 C15 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

p
y ?'J
?y
i M \
E rwv,,yyaa
f E
,r.,. Y X r
w

y ? /
' ?
?
7 ?y? _ /
;` C
? - ' it

??
rC, p #?l?b y; a
wt? p

4' a
_ U
g
V - O k.

a e
q

t

?
?
$ e
G

a
w E
5

? U w!

3
C

g
?
.
Y it:

I h
D
u I ? a r
9

3
z` t T

. - m m W m
ooarlri3 rwa m
rioa m m o , F a:
a z ? ? z

8
a
?
o

3

e A

U ?
z
°
o

o - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C
€ u 3 ? f ? s _m

m s . = 3 y u
EEP Project No. 27 C16 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
•
_ Y ??? (err lXd?',
t c.
°
5; . 5 I
lMi ¢

,', ?
s f A N? '? .
E

+'
A
`
l
,•' t•
A
t* IlTr+ ?
? v? °' ? m

??:> ryw.. ?. ? R frt.
4 j
? s.
Y
4s

fi
S+ E

U
?g
V

I
1
T

h
F N
?
? E
E

3 Z U ?
y
v

s
? ? ? U 3
_ 3 C

? F
J I 7
t
I Z rn
I
m m a rn m m m m F o`.
?oae ?ai3 a?i? Yiaa
g C N C

a . . . . - .

a
? o
? ? TT T
a
s
,X B A

II ? u 3 ? ? ? e q =
?
s = 3 . -
EEP Project No. 27 C17 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
O

rl- O O
N
V

O

O
j
m .4 O
N . N N
j
U)
-14
E
S
o
,

N
'
• N
I I (D
LO
L !/1
x
O
0
0
chi
x 00
E
Y ?
>
d
y
V d 0)
m
E
Oo ^
0

CL

L 00
_

O
N o
L
0

,

O

C O ti g
N
N
N O
O
p
ppp
O
U)
x
O
O

fN O
N
x
U)
x
O
O

O
O
O O
O O
O
0) 0) W 00 r
(?}) uOl;ena13 anPI ION
0
0
v
C4
v
U
a
3
CIO
c?
0
H
U
r
N
0
z
U
N
O
a
a
w
w
UT to Bear Swamp Creek
Longitudinal Profile Data (Year-5)

Station TW
Elevation WS
Elevation BKF
Elevation
Station TW
Elevation
EleWvatSion BKF
Elevation
0.00 92.99 93.23 367.90 88.51 89.27
6.47 92.91 93.23 369.68 89.14 89.42 90.12
12.25 92.80 93.16 373.29 88.84 88.96
14.96 92.71 93.08 94.00 374.30 86.22 88.43
46.58 92.55 93.16 93.91 379.56 87.60 88.25
48.67 92.79 93.14 383.52 87.97 88.39
53.08 93.10 93.11 390.81 87.75 88.34
54.32 91.23 92.84 395.07 87.91 88.34
59.18 91.66 92.84 403.72 87.78 88.34 89.01
66.90 92.25 92.65 421.74 87.34 88.14
68.97 92.24 92.81 423.72 88.16 88.26
97.36 92.42 92.62 425.78 84.61 87.98
98.51 91.54 92.30 437.22 86.19 87.98
100.34 91.33 92.24 93.25 453.69 86.09 87.86
106.07 91.74 92.24 460.46 87.68 87.86
115.57 91.41 92.24 463.27 87.09 87.86
119.61 91.48 92.24 534.34 86.17 87.11
123.34 91.83 92.24 538.50 86.80 87.11
130.52 91.81 92.10 543.18 82.65 87.11
133.95 91.58 92.04 556.36 85.72 86.18 87.20
142.15 91.55 91.98 92.90 560.26 85.12 85.66
146.40 91.51 92.02 571.38 85.04 85.29
159.58 91.57 91.73 574.94 82.55 84.87
162.23 90.68 91.33 578.31 82.93 84.87
175.28 90.86 91.33 585.16 83.91 84.83
181.14 90.85 91.33 586.90 83.43 84.91
192.61 90.70 91.33 599.84 83.71 84.91
201.25 90.77 91.22 610.79 84.67 84.91 85.24
206.11 90.79 91.23 612.70 81.61 84.86
214.13 91.10 91.05 91.88 620.59 81.80 84.86
217.31 90.38 91.00 637.15 84.56 84.91
225.93 90.65 91.00 639.30 83.37 84.91
228.55 90.74 90.99 644.04 83.47 84.91
250.05 90.64 90.99 645.80 81.06 82.39
269.73 90.08 90.67 653.03 81.20 82.41
273.91 89.95 90.76 657.06 82.03 82.45 83.50
275.61 90.12 90.68 666.48 81.88 82.39
278.28 90.38 90.73 669.68 80.74 82.40
289.58 90.07 90.73 90.75 674.62 81.88 82.37
311.94 89.68 90.73 676.49 82.51 82.37
324.37 89.23 89.51 680.03 79.74 81.96
330.54 87.14 89.24 688.28 79.86 82.03
337.95 88.24 89.24 692.44 81.14 81.99
346.19 88.24 89.24 700.07 81.78 82.04
355.93 88.40 89.30 712.03 81.43 81.79 82.61
EEP Project No. 27 C-19 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

Station TW
Elevation WS
Elevation BKF
Elevation
Station TW
Elevation WS
Elevation BKF
Elevation
721.16 81.06 81.72 1077.77 76.27 76.27
732.58 80.49 81.79 1082.84 75.67 76.27
743.62 80.65 81.72 1086.05 74.02 74.70
747.69 80.99 81.81 1093.62 73.70 74.55
754.07 80.46 81.83 82.33 1099.62 74.15 74.68 75.40
777.40 80.00 81.93 1112.46 74.62 74.60
787.04 80.43 81.83 1122.69 74.39 74.60
793.13 81.48 81.77 1128.24 74.02 74.28
797.19 80.70 80.95 1131.24 73.35 74.30
797.40 78.16 80.90 1143.02 73.54 74.31
804.99 79.13 80.98 1156.27 73.57 74.25 74.95
813.34 79.27 80.96 1177.19 73.93 74.08
824.66 79.42 80.98 1180.36 70.74 73.36
835.92 79.03 80.92 1187.18 71.23 73.36
848.50 79.51 81.00 1192.01 72.28 73.35
856.20 78.56 81.00 1199.59 72.67 73.36 74.34
877.08 79.05 80.99 1215.76 72.80 73.36
882.78 77.99 80.99 1222.22 72.47 73.39
897.31 78.34 80.98 1234.85 73.07 73.27
910.01 78.81 80.98 1242.11 72.91 73.36
913.10 80.64 80.98 1249.71 72.31 73.36
919.32 78.94 80.10 1261.01 72.46 73.34
924.42 77.90 80.10 1269.17 71.40 73.36
927.34 76.79 80.10 80.38 1274.60 71.91 73.35
937.45 76.98 80.13 1286.33 71.88 73.36
943.46 77.15 80.13 1292.35 72.27 73.36
947.32 78.11 80.13 1295.62 73.00 73.33 73.96
955.00 76.94 80.14 1301.05 72.28 72.68
962.13 76.90 80.08 1310.04 72.44 72.46
967.01 79.85 80.08 1312.12 70.68 72.41
972.55 77.26 77.69 1317.61 70.70 72.43
979.80 76.77 77.46 78.07 1321.81 71.63 72.41
984.54 76.13 77.45 1326.99 72.01 72.42
992.67 76.51 77.41 1342.26 71.79 72.11
999.23 77.48 77.41 1345.01 71.44 72.09
999.55 74.19 77.27 1348.93 71.28 72.04
1003.59 74.46 77.27 1353.14 71.35 72.09
1009.47 75.83 77.20 1359.26 71.99 72.01 72.70
1016.12 76.03 77.21 1387.92 71.47 71.66
1029.60 76.23 77.20 1392.68 70.80 71.52
1033.56 76.91 77.20 1398.96 70.73 71.52
1036.61 76.68 76.81 1403.30 71.05 71.44
1038.74 73.93 76.84 77.76 1412.22 71.24 71.43
1048.46 75.01 76.80 1427.53 70.95 71.27
1053.59 75.88 76.75 1451.49 70.41 70.84
1067.76 75.34 76.84
1074.01 76.17 76.84
EEP Project No. 27 C-20 UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site
number of particles
_U
r
CO O
It LO
M O if) O O
M N N ? ?- ? O
O

O
4k
O
O U
O
v
a
I
0
o o 0
10, C)
O 0) O 0 N O O
j O
E F-
U T 'O y N ?
N O
O] U O
.N ?
O
O
E
E
0)
'y

M
p 00 Co
N _
=
M
O

C
O
O N C C w
O
0)
0)
N E
n
N ti ?

i
i
C
7
O
U
a?
M
M o
O M r O

d
O CO .--
E O
E
't N Co M LO 0 to to
LO CO 0000 O
7
0
CO
U)
a O

m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O
O
O O
W O O O O O O O O
00 1- CO LO "t M N .- O
uey; lain;;uawad

0
)
c
l
v
m
U
N
0)
CL
M
M
c
O
O
N
N
Y
N
N
U
E
(0
N
O
CI4
U
n
N
O
Z
U
0)
O
d
a
w
w
number of particles
U_

(0
C.

M LO

v C)

v LO C) LO C, LO CD,

CO M N N

U) O CO
O O

I O
?
0

N O N O LO N 0 0
j O

N O
O
O) U O
.N ?
O
O
E
E
o N a o rn m
y N N O

(O
O_ D; c C N
5 O
N N
f`
N E
N Y
i
i
a

C
7 c
(0
t/)
O
U
(D

(D 0

^ vr- ono
r a-
0 0)
U m
U E

) (
p LO 0 LO 0
N CO M N CO CVO O
U) v1
D D
0) Li Li Li 0
N
N N _
O
V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O) CO I- (O LO V' M N O O
uey; jaw) juaouad
N
U)
C
O
O
N
Y
N
N
U
O_
E
(o
N
M
(D
CO
O
F-
Z)
N
N
U
r -
CA
O
Z
U
N
O
a`
a
w
w
number of particles
U

la
O'
O LO
M O LO O O
M N N N
O Oo
O
?k
I O
?
0
(U
o ° ° 0 0
O
0 C
0 ? N O O
0 1
E
7 r ?
CU
C
>
CA U O
O
O

E
0 O O
O 'T
O .
7 C7

C
?
CL N C C N
CO
O U)

lU
0)
'`
N E 3
? H Y
i
i

c
7 c
m
N
O
U
m

N
?
0
N _
o

^ ?f0 MCO
a E ° o Ln •-
o
N CO
U
O
(n 3 N O M In CO Go 0)
'y ( to fA 0 ? 0 ? D D
N
2 CU _
O
O
U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O rn 000 r COO N a M N O O
ueyj jawj 3uawed
:V
N
.O
a`
a
w
w
N
O
Z
number of particles
U

(0
Q

.

C)
to

LO
v

C. LO C) LO C)
M M N N UO O
O O
? O
0

?
O 0
o O o 0 0
f0 O a) 0 0 0 0 0
j O
E I-
U T a N N
a N ?

1 O 0
O V O

O
O

E
N
O N C
O 00 O
N
N O
O O

cc
O
O_ N C C y
O N
N
N E 3
N Y

i
C
C N
?
7
O
U
a)
C)
N M (O OD
M M v LO r` O
C d 6 6 0 6 O
O N c0 E
LO CD, LO V LO
N CO

U)
to (D 00 O)
M
7 v1 ?? 0 0000
(n O
U a) c o 0 0 0 0 o c c c o 0
m o o O O O O o
0
0 0
M
CI4
ueyj jau; 3uaaad

7 N O (O
C)
O
C)
O
O
U V r
`-

E

0) N
CO
O (O
04 Ln
- N 0

00 CDO CO

N
N
V 00 (O
( O C
> C
>

?

O
C) 0 O ?-- N r O N N (O V'
It CO 00 N OM It (O
00 (O
O N
O) N
(
O
(M (O
O
e- N
U
U
m
V
M
w '
N (O (O (O -
N V• CO CO e- CO N N (O
V O 00 O
(O N
N v CO v T
M

?

O
N
(O N O N
M V'
CO O N 00
(O CO
N It

N
N O? O ? N M (O O O CL
U) O O - N - a
>+
(0 a a a a a
C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a) N
a) (D a) O
? Y C a
U
m
O

vf°i uoi u?i u?i u?i > > > > > > > > >
m m m m (`o m m m M 1] .0 .0
a v -v
> > v -a -a
> > > O
- (C O •
° -o o
d 0) c" rn (m 0) 0) 0) 01 0
U U U 0
0 0 0 10
If

N
N a) (D E N a)
C C `
m
N N N N N N N 0
_ E
0 .
0
20 0)) m
.0 t w (0
M
?` +C m C C C 7 7 e ? E2 E2 (0 _
=
cc w E a) a) >. .` (/?
x
U
0 U
O
Z` N N
N
EE
- N n) L
-
E
> U U U U
E E (> a a)

N
> E
>
E N o
Z
a N N
> > >
CS I I I I L
O_
E
(a
3
r`
N
6
Z
a)
'o
d
d
w
w
number of particles
v

m

O_
C,
n
a Co C) C,
(o N v M N O

O O
O O

I O
0
o Q Q o 0
O O
O 0 0
O O
7 O CO N
E
7 H
U >, -O y
? N N 0 7
O) O
N U .0
O
O
E
E
O v 10 1 O
N 7 O

C
M N c C N
Q (o O fA
N
N E 3
N
? N
Y

i
C l0
y
7
O
U
N
?

N o
N to n M V
N M

U E
(O 0 C> LO ?
(n N M lf) (O 00 O)

U m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O 0 C) C) C) 0 C) 0
0) 00 P- (0 N V M N O
O
uey; jaug fuawed
N
N
C
O
O
N
(D
w
Y
N
N
U
CL
E
(0
U)
f0
N
m
O
F"
O
N
U
n
N
O
Z
U
N
.o
a
w
w
number of particles
U LO
_
r
M
CL
M
M N N
O D

O
?
O
O U
O

"
r- O
N
I
0

l4 O w o M M O O
j O
E

Z V) J
O
O)
U O
O
O
E
E

0 0)
N
C M O .-
O
N
0) U) M O

C
O
O 0) C C N
d (a O N
N E C
3
a
? N Y

i
C
c
c m
N
O
U
N

In C;
IT M O O O (O

C - (V (O - N 'T
.ts 0-
V m
U E
(
p Co
CO O V M
) f.? .- LO W (O CO O
CO
0 0 0 0 0
to W
N O
U o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
0
O O
O
0
N
M
r- O
0
0
(
p
IT CO N
ueyj jaug juawad
N
C
O
M
O
y
N
Y
N
d
U
a
E
m
3
0]
N
m
O
H
Co
N
U
n
N
O
Z
t)
N
o
d
D_
W
W