20031001 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080414

-,,?°

2007
EEP Project # 36
Franklin County, North Carolina , ??
`? ZppB
Original Design Firm: 1
QR
URS Corporation-North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Road, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Submitted to:
d ? 0.3?.7111??? ?
NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
A ?EK`?? SERg?N
?OSP pg't?MwP
Y?
Monitoring Firm:
SeSEPI
ENGINEERING GROUP
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone]
Project Manager:
Phillip Todd
[e-mail]
UT to BILLY'S CREEK
FINAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 OF 5
Executive Summary
SERI Engineering Group was retained by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
to conduct year two monitoring at the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Billy's Creek Stream
Restoration Project, located northeast of Franklinton in Franklin County, North Carolina. The
project reach is located in a sparsely developed agricultural watershed. The majority of the
agricultural lands are used for cattle pasture.
Pre-construction conditions of the UT to Billy's Creek included a 1,878 linear foot section of
degraded, perennial channel and several ditch-like tributaries. The upstream portions of the
project reach retained an active floodplain area, whereas the downstream portions were severely
incised (4 to 6 feet). The restoration of the UT to Billy's Creek was conducted as a Priority Level
I restoration by returning the channel to an elevation such that the historic floodplain is utilized
for above bankfull flows. The proposed stream classification for the project reach was a
meandering E5 channel, with a total length of 2,101 linear feet.
Current monitoring for the site consists of evaluating both stream morphology and riparian
vegetation. The stream monitoring included a longitudinal survey, cross section surveys, pebble
counts, problem area identification, and photo documentation. A plan view featuring bankfull,
edge of water, and thalweg lines as well as problem area locations was developed from the
longitudinal survey. The vegetation assessment included a tally of planted vegetation in
permanent vegetation plots, vegetation-specific problem area identification (i.e. bare areas and
invasive species), and photo documentation. A vegetation problem area plan view was developed
from the problem area identification. All morphological data, vegetation plot and pebble counts,
cross section surveys, the longitudinal profile, and the plan view features were compared between
monitoring years to assess project performance.
It appears that the project remained geomorphically stable between Monitoring Years 1 and 2,
with the exception of several large sections of sand deposition, including one covering nearly the
entire upper quarter of the reach. This deposition has led to extensive riffle aggradation and the
filling of several pools, changing the dimension of several of the cross sections rather
dramatically. In fact, the stream bed at cross section 1 rose nearly six inches between Monitoring
Years 1 and 2 due to pool filling. Although bank erosion does not appear to be a major problem
in the reach, there were two areas of severe concern where major slumping of both banks has
occurred. All structures appeared to be in good physical condition, except for one stone grade
control structure that had water piping around the right side causing some bank scour. Overall,
there appears to be good vegetation along the stream channel. There were some areas of bare
floodplain and bare bank where the vegetation has not rooted as vigorously as elsewhere in the
project. Based on the stem counts, survival was good for all the Vegetation Plots (VP) at UT to
Billy's Creek. All of the plots fell well above the final stem density goal of 260 stems/acre. The
overall Monitoring Year 2 survival rate was 85% which is good considering the region is in a
drought.
UT Billy's Creek SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BILLY'S CREEK STREAM RESTORATION
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
CONDUCTED FOR:
NCDENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Objectives ................................................. ....................................... 1
1.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ...... ....................................... 1
1.3 Project Location and Setting ......................................... ....................................... 1
1.4 History and Background ............................................... ....................................... 3
2.0 PROJ ECT MONITORING METHODOLOGY ......................... ....................................... 5
2.1 Vegetation Methodology .............................................. ....................................... 5
2.2 Stream Methodology ..................................................... ....................................... 5
2.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View ............... ....................................... 5
2.2.2 Permanent Cross-Sections .............................. ....................................... 5
2.2.3 Pebble Counts ................................................. ....................................... 6
2.3 Photo Documentation .................................................... ....................................... 6
3.0 PROJ ECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS .... ....................................... 6
3.1 Vegetation Assessment ................................................. ....................................... 6
3.1.1 Soils Data ........................................................ ....................................... 6
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View .............. ....................................... 6
3.1.3 Stem Counts .................................................... ....................................... 7
3.2 Stream Assessment ....................................................... ....................................... 7
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View ............... ....................................... 8
3.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections ............................... ....................................... 8
3.2.3 Pebble Counts ................................................. ....................................... 9
3.2.4 Stream Problem Areas .................................... ....................................... 9
3.3 Photo Documentation .................................................... ..................................... 10
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................... ..................................... 10
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................10
TABLES
Table I Project Restoration Components ................................................................... ...................... 1
Table II Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................................ ...................... 3
Table III Project Contact Table ................................................................................. ...................... 4
Table IV Project Background Table .......................................................................... ...................... 4
Table V Preliminary Soil Data .................................................................................. ...................... 6
Table VI Vegetative Problem Areas ........................................................................... ... Appendix A3
Table VII Stem counts for each species arranged by plot .......................................... ... Appendix A3
Table VIII Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................................... ...................... 8
Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates (not included in this year's data)
Table X Stream Problem Areas .................................................................................. ... Appendix B3
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ........................... .................... 10
Table XII Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ........................................ ... Appendix B3
Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ................................. ... Appendix B3
FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map .....................................................................................................................2
UT Billy's Creek SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix A 1: Photolog - Vegetation Problem Areas ................................................................. Al
Appendix A2: Photolog - Vegetation Plots .................................................................................. A2
Appendix A3: Vegetation Data Tables ......................................................................................... A3
Appendix B
Appendix B1: Photolog - Stream Problem Areas .........................................................................BI
Appendix 132: Photolog - Cross Sections and Photo Points ...........................................................B2
Appendix B3: Stream Data Tables .................................................................................................B3
Appendix B4: Stream Cross Sections ...........................................................................................B4
Appendix B5: Stream Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................B5
Appendix B6: Stream Pebble Counts ............................................................................................B6
Appendix C: Plan View Sheets
UT Billy's Creek SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Project Objectives
The goals and objectives of the UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration Project were listed in the
2006 Final Mitigation As-Built Report (URS 2006) as:
¦ Restore the project reach to a more natural dimension, pattern, and profile so that the
stream will be able to efficiently transport water and sediment loads provided by the
watershed;
¦ Reconnect the project reach's channel to its historic floodplain where feasible;
¦ Eliminate the excessive sediment contribution to the system by the mass wasting and
erosion of the stream banks along the project reach;
¦ Repair and restore the riparian corridor along the project reach in order to improve
habitat and protect the stream from further erosion.
1.2 Proiect Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The restoration of the UT to Billy's Creek was conducted as a Priority Level I restoration by
returning the channel to an elevation such that the historic floodplain is utilized for above-
bankf ill flows. Rock cross vanes, step pools, rootwads, and plantings were installed to establish
and stabilize a profile with riffle and pool sequences and to provide habitat and stable
streambanks. Plantings included live stakes on the floodplain as well as bare root throughout the
conservation easement. Table I provides the project restoration components of the UT to Billy's
Creek stream restoration project.
Table I. Project Restoration Components
UT to Bill's Creek/EEP Project Number 36
Project Segment
or Reach ID Mitigation
Type
Approach Linear Footage or
Acreage Stationing
Comment

UT to Billy's Creek
R
PI 1,678 linear feet Pre-
restoration Includes 2,101 linear feet per
As-Built

UT to Billy's Creek
El
PII 200 linear feet Pre-
restoration The first 100 ft and the last
100 ft of project reach is El.
R = Restoration El = Enhancement Level I PI = Priority Level I PH = Priority Level II
1.3 Proiect Location and Setting
The UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration Project is located northeast of Franklinton in an
agricultural and low density residential watershed (Figure 1). A ridge approximately 800 feet
north of Montgomery Road forms the northern boundary of the project watershed. Montgomery
Road runs east-west through the northern third of the watershed. The watershed is roughly
divided in half by the unpaved farm road that crosses east-west at the northern end of the project
reach. Ridges from the northern most point form the watershed's western and eastern edges as
they slope down towards Billy's Creek. The southern end of the project watershed is at the point
where an unpaved farm road crosses the project reach approximately 300 feet upstream of the
confluence with Billy's Creek. To travel to the site from the Raleigh-area, take US-1 North
towards Franklinton. Turn right on SR 1210 (Montgomery Road). The project reach is located
south of Montgomery Road, approximately three miles east of US 1 to the northeast of
Franklinton on property privately held by the Grove family.
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
N lgure 1. U to Billy's Ureek N
-;ke US? no,th :r rc ugh Frack in! on
an - ;urn r -.ght on Errc Me dl n Rd
=ssng the railroad traoks.Turn
•?n Montgomery Rd and proceed
n les. Pass through a gate on the
ie_.ht -de of the road Once inside
1- property, pass the sma I pond
n the right and proceed up a uery
-ep hi •1. The reach begins at the
?.Ivert a! the bottom of the hill.
10
I
1
'W R ? II
k
a s It
r ., y.
4,500 2.250 0 4,51DC 9,000 - r h a m L I
Feet a .
FIGURE I
r-?J PROJECT LOCATION MAP ?eSFPI
I'k'( 1'A q(1 I I U T ! o B i i i y s C r e e
Fr,_In-? liI I t. clul,tN :
Y/
I I
1
t
PROJECT REACH
.I\-,
l?
MISTY yi
W ?
O ?.
'a
o
F R A N K L I N T 0 N
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
2 SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
1.4 History and Background
The UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration was completed in the summer of 2005 and planted in
the winter of 2005. The site was originally secured by the NC Wetlands Restoration Program.
The Stream Restoration Plan was submitted by URS in 2003. The project reach is located on a
cattle farm. The project reach is framed by 30-inch diameter culverts under unpaved farm roads at
the north and south ends and pastured slopes to the east and west. There is at least one
intermittent and four or more ephemeral tributary channels that flow into the project reach.
Historically, the ephemeral channels were created to provide drainage within the floodplain.
Approximately 600 feet south of the northern end of the project, the stream ran through an area of
fairly active floodplain. Here, wetlands developed in the relict channels and floodplain adjacent to
the main channel. Downstream of the wetland areas, severe incision (4 to 6 feet) and erosion was
occurring following a major grade control point. Downstream of the grade control, the floodplain
and stream system had been modified by the landowner. Tables II, III, and IV provide the project
history, contact information for the contractors on the project, and the project background/setting,
respectively.
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bill's Creek/EEP Project No. 36

Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Com lete Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan 4/15/2003 NA August 2003
Final Design - 90% 5/31/2003 NA 8/11/2004
Construction 7/31/2003 NA June 2005
Planting Fall 2004 NA December 2005
Mitigation Plan/ As-built Fall 2005 Winter 2006 Aril 2006
Year 1 monitoring September 2006 September 2006 November 2006
Year 2 monitoring Fall 2007 October 2007 December 2007
Year 3 monitoring Fall 2008
Year 4 monitoring Fall 2009
Year 5 monitoring Fall 2010
Year 5+ monitoring Not scheduled
UT Billys Creek 3 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table III. Project Contact Table
UT to Bill's Creek/EEP Project No. 36
Designer URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Construction Contractor McQueen Construction Inc.
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Planting Contractor Carolina Environmental
PO Box 1905
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Seeding and Matting Contractor Erosion Control Solutions
5508 Peakton Road
Raleigh, NC 27604
Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring URS Corporation - North Carolina
Performers 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring SEPI Engineering Group
Performers 1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phillip Todd 919 789-9977
Stream Monitoring POC Ira Poplar-Jeffers 919 573-9914
Vegetation Monitoring POC Phil Beach 919 573-9936
Wetland Monitoring POC N/A
Table IV. Project Background Table
UT to Bill's Creek/EEP Project No. 36
Project County Franklin County, NC
Drainage Area 0.22 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate % < 10%
Stream Order 1
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Northern Outer Piedmont 45
Ros en Classification of As-built E5
Dominant soil types Chewcala, Altavista
Reference site ID N/A
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03020101
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
% of ro'ect easement fenced 100
% of project easement demarcated with
bollards if fencing absent N/A
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Methodologv
The following methodology was used for the stem count. The configuration of the vegetation
plots was marked out with tape to measure 10 meters by 10 meters (or equivalent to 100 square
meters) depending on buffer width. The planted material in the plot was marked with flagging.
Plot inventories were conducted per the 2006 CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (EEP
2006).
2.2 Stream Methodolo
The project monitoring for the stream channel included a longitudinal survey, cross-sectional
surveys, pebble counts, problem area identification, and photo documentation. The specific
methodology for each portion of the stream monitoring is described in detail below.
2.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View
A longitudinal profile was surveyed with a Nikon DTM-520 Total Station, prism, and a TDS
Recon Pocket PC. The heads of features (i.e., riffles, runs, pools, and glides) were surveyed, as
well as the point of maximum depth of each pool, boundaries of problem areas, and any other
significant slope-breaks or points of interest. At the head of each feature and at the maximum
pool depth, thalweg, water surface, edge of water, left and right bankf ill, and left and right top of
bank (if different than bankfull) were surveyed. All profile measurements were calculated from
this survey, including channel and valley length and length of each feature, water surface slope
for each reach and feature, bankfull slope for the reach, and pool spacing. This survey also was
used to draw plan view figures with Microstation v8 (Bentley Systems, Inc., Exton, PA). All
pattern measurements (i.e. meander length, radius of curvature, belt width, meander width ratio,
and sinuosity) were measured from the plan view. Stationing was calculated along the thalweg.
2.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections
Four permanent cross sections (two riffles and two pools) were surveyed. The beginning and end
of each permanent cross section were originally marked with a long PVC tube. Cross sections
were installed perpendicular to the stream flow. Each cross section survey noted all changes in
slopes, tops of both banks (if different from bankfull), left and right bankfull, edges of water,
thalweg and water surface. Before each cross section was surveyed, bankfull level was identified,
and a quick bankfull area was calculated by measuring a bankfull depth at 1-foot intervals
between the left and right bankfull locations and adding the area of each interval block across the
channel. This rough area was then compared to the North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve-calculated bankf ill area to ensure that bankfull was accurately located prior to the survey.
The cross sections were then plotted, and Monitoring Year 2 monitoring data was overlain on
Monitoring Year 1 for comparison. All dimension measurements (i.e. bankfull width, floodprone
width, bankfull mean depth, cross sectional area, width-to-depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, bank
height ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic radius) were calculated from these plots and
compared to the Monitoring Year 1 data.
UT Billys Creek 5 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
2.2.3 Pebble Counts
A modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen 1994), consisting of 50 samples, was conducted at
each permanent cross section. The cumulative percentages were graphed, and the D50 and D84
particle sizes were calculated and compared to Monitoring Year 1 data.
2.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo points were established during Monitoring Year 1. A set of three photographs
(facing upstream, facing downstream, and facing the channel) were taken at each photo point with
a digital camera. Two photographs were taken at each cross-section (facing upstream and
downstream). A representative photograph of each vegetation plot was taken at the designated
corner of the vegetation plot and in the same direction as the Monitoring Year 1 photograph. An
arrow was placed on the designated corner of each vegetation plot on the plan view sheets to
document the corner and direction of each photograph. Photos were also taken of all significant
stream and vegetation problem areas.
3.0 PROJECT CONDITIONS AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
3.1.1 Soils Data
The UT to Billy's Creek watershed is in the Northern Outer Piedmont Ecoregion of North
Carolina in the Felsic Crystalline System of the Piedmont Soil Region. The bedrock in the region
is granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, and mica schist. Soils around the UT to Billy's Creek are
primarily Chewacla and Altavista. Chewacla soils are Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts consisting of
nearly level (0-3 percent slopes), somewhat poorly drained soils found on floodplains that form in
recent alluvium. Chewacla soils are hydric and frequently flooded. Altavista soils are Aquic
Hapludults consisting of typically sandy or loamy sediment. The soils are moderately well
drained, nearly level and gently sloping (0-3 percent slopes), and are found on stream terraces.
Altavista soils are not hydric and are rarely flooded. Preliminary soil data for the series' are listed
in Table V.
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
Series Max
Depth (in.) % Clay on
Surface K T OM %
Chewacla 62 10 - 35 0.28-0.32 5 1-4
Altavista 62 10 - 24 0.24 5 0.5-3
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Area Plan View
Overall, there appears to be good vegetation along the stream channel. There were some areas of
bare floodplain where the vegetation has not rooted as vigorously as elsewhere in the project. In
addition, there were several areas bare bank where vegetation is still sparse along the streambank.
However, these areas have recovered notably since Monitoring Year 1. The bare floodplain and
bare bank areas are noted on the vegetation problem area plan view and problem area list.
UT Billys Creek 6 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
3.1.3 Stem Counts
Based on the stem counts, survival was good for all the Vegetation Plots (VP) for UT to Billy's
Creek. All of the plots are well above the Monitoring Year 5 stem density goal of 260 stems/acre.
The plot densities ranged from 440 stems/acre for VP #1 to 1120 stems/acre in VP #3. The
overall Monitoring Year 2 survival rate was 85% which is good considering the region is in a
drought.
It should be noted that the Monitoring Year 1 performers had apparently mis-identified two
Viburnum dentatum individuals as Viburnum nudum as well as an individual Alnus serrulata as
Betula nigra in VP #4; and an individual Quercus phellos as Quercus falcata in VP #5. This
mistake has been corrected in all stem count documentation.
3.2 Stream Assessment
Considering the 5 year timeframe of standard mitigation monitoring, restored streams should
demonstrate morphologic stability in order to be considered successful. Stability does not equate
to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of variation.
Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several months that
follow construction and some change/variation subsequent to that is to also be expected.
However, the observed change should not indicate a high rate or be unidirectional over time such
that a robust trend is evident. If some trend is evident, it should be very modest or indicate
migration to another stable form. Examples of the latter include depositional processes resulting
in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain, such as an inner berm,
slight channel narrowing, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition. Annual
variation is to be expected, but over time this should demonstrate maintenance around some
acceptable central tendency while also demonstrating consistency or a reduction in the amplitude
of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to which the
system is exposed over the monitoring period.
For channel dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross-sectional area
and the channel's width to depth ratio should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation that are in keeping with above. For the channels' profile, the reach under assessment
should not demonstrate any consistent trends in thalweg aggradation or degradation over any
significant continuous portion of its length. Over the monitoring period, the profile should also
demonstrate the maintenance or development of bedform (facets) more in keeping with reference
level diversity and distributions for the stream type in question. It should also provide a
meaningful contrast in terms of bedform diversity against the pre-existing condition. Bedform
distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do so with maintenance around
design/As-built distributions. This requires that the majority of pools are maintained at greater
depths with lower water surface slopes and riffles are shallow with greater water surface slopes.
Substrate measurements should indicate the progression towards, or the maintenance of, the
known distributions from the design phase.
In addition to these geomorphic criteria, a minimum of two bankf ill events must be documented
during separate monitoring years within the five year monitoring period for the monitoring to be
considered complete. Table VIII documents all bankfull events recorded since the start of
Monitoring Year 1.
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events - UT to Billy's Creek
Date of Date of Method Photo # (if
Data Occurrence available)
Collection
Per NOAA staff member, Jonathan Blaes, Tropical Storm Alberto produced
2006 6/14/2006 a 50-year storm event in the Franklinton/Louisburg area. The
storm produced approximately 5.55 inches of rain on 6/14.
According to NOAA National Weather Service daily climate data, approximately

6/4/2007 6/3/2007- 1.45" of precipitation fell over the listed two day period. 1" of this fell on 6/3.
No Photo.
6/4/2007 An additional 0.4" fell on 6/5/2007. It was assumed, but not confirmed, that this
event resulted in a bankfull flow.
3.2.1 Longitudinal Profile and Plan View
The overall water surface slope and all other profile parameters were consistent between
monitoring years. However, upon observation of the longitudinal profile overlay between
Monitoring Years 1 and 2 (Appendix 135), it is apparent that the stream bed has aggraded
between two and six inches along riffles and up to one foot two inches where pools have
filled in along the entire upper quarter of the reach (Station 10+00 to approximately Station
16+00 along the thalweg). The result has been a homogenization of the streambed profile
throughout all channel features (including pools) along this section into one long run feature. It
appears as if a "blanket" of fine sediment has covered the entire section and, as a result, the
vertical variation of this section has become more uniform. This inundation of sediment is easily
observed on-site as the bed appears to be overloaded with sand and has high densities of soft rush
(Juncus effuses) growing directly in the channel. In fact, it can be difficult to even find the
channel in this area. There are several other problem areas very similar to this located
downstream. These problems are noted on the problem area plan view as aggradation.
According to the data table comparisons of the pattern parameters, sinuosity, median beltwidth,
meander wavelength, and meander width ratio have all increased to some degree since
Monitoring Year 1, and median radius of curvature has decreased. These trends are best
explained by differences in data collectors because there was very little channel shifting or bank
erosion to note. However, upon observation of the monitoring plan view overlay, it is apparent
that there is one section stream between Stations 18+82 and 19+15 where the active channel has
shifted toward the inside of the meander bend, essentially having the effect of "cutting off' the
meander. There is severe bank erosion associated with both banks of this section, indicating
recent shifting of the channel (i.e., between Monitoring Years 1 and 2). However, it is very
doubtful that the shifting of this small section could have caused the noted changes observed in
the pattern parameters. This is appears to be an isolated problem area, and the noted changes in
pattern are best explained by human error or differences in calculation techniques.
3.2.2 Permanent Cross Sections
The widespread deposition along the upper end of the project has definitely impacted cross
section #1. Upon observation of the cross section #1 overlay between Monitoring Years 1 and 2,
it is apparent that the stream bed rose by almost six inches. This observation is further supported
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
by a notable decrease in cross sectional area and wetted perimeter. Cross section #2 lies
downstream of the above-mentioned deposition. Accordingly, very little change in dimension
was observed between monitoring years, with the exception of a slight amount of deposition at
the bank toe on either side of the channel. However, the small amount of change observed was
probably just normal year-to-year channel adjustment. Cross section #3 is associated with an area
of fine sediment deposition (see stream problem area plan view, Appendix C), and as a result, the
channel dimension has changed notably since Monitoring Year 1. It is apparent through the
annual cross section overlay that the channel bed rose a significant amount across the entire
channel between monitoring years. This observation is evident in large decreases since
Monitoring Year 1 in cross sectional area, bankfull width, mean depth, wetted perimeter, and
hydraulic radius at this cross section. The stream bed at cross section #4 has experienced
approximately five inches of downcutting since Monitoring Year 1 as observed in the annual
overlay. This may be a section of stream to observe closely during future monitoring. However,
it is apparent upon observation of the longitudinal profile annual overlay, that the downcutting is
limited to just this riffle (station 28+60 to approximately station 28+75 along the thalweg). In
addition, it is apparent that downcutting in riffles is not a trend observed throughout the project
and, in fact, is isolated to just the small section of stream crossed by cross section #4.
3.2.3 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts at all of the cross sections remained consistent or even show evidence of a small
coarsening effect between Monitoring Years 1 and 2. This result is not intuitive considering the
large sections of sediment deposition identified along the project reach, however it is likely that
this deposition started prior to Monitoring Year 1. In addition, this stream is a sand bed stream,
and all of the noted deposition is of sand particles, making it impossible for pebble counts to
detect a "fining" effect from the deposition. The cross section #2 pebble count did show a small
increase in silt size class proportion; however, all other size classes were similar between
monitoring years. This increase in silt was probably due to the small amount of silt deposition
noted in section 3.2.2 at the toe points of this cross section.
3.2.4 Stream Problem Areas
Sand deposition (noted as aggradation on the problem area plan view) has "blanketed" the entire
upper quarter of the project reach and has impacted several large sections of the rest of the reach,
essentially having the effect of homogenizing channel units into long run sections. Soft rush has
"choked" the entire channel in these areas, making it very difficult to even locate channel
features. In fact, these areas now look much more like linear wetland than stream channel. The
sediment source is presumably upstream of the project. This conclusion is based on the fact that
the sediment deposition starts at the culvert outlet at the head of the reach (station 10+00). There
are several bank erosion areas as noted on the problem area plan views (Appendix C) and,
although bank erosion does not appear to be a major problem of concern in the reach (bank
condition of 97% in the Visual Morphological Stability Estimate), there are two specific erosion
areas rated severe that should be watched closely in the future. These two areas, located at
Station 18+82 and at Station 20+18 along the thalweg, have major slumping of both banks and
are probably in need of repair as soon as possible. The most common causes for bank erosion
along the reach were inadequate bank protection or soil instability. All structures appeared to be
in good physical condition, except for one stone grade control structure, located at Station 15+90
along the thalweg, that had water piping around the right side causing some bank scour.
UT Billys Creek 9 SEPI Engineering Group
EEP Project Number 36 Final Report
February 2008 Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
UT to Billy's Creek
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 100% 97% 50%
B. Pools 100% 99% 52%
C. Thalwe 100% 97% 90%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 77%
E. Bed General 100% 97% 81%
F. Bank Condition Unkown Unknown 97%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 98%
H. Wads and Boulders 100% 100% 100%
3.3
Photo Documentation
Photos taken of the vegetation problem areas are found in Appendix Al and photos of the
vegetation plots are in Appendix A2. Stream problem area photographs are provided in
Appendix B l. The photographs taken at the marked photo point locations and at the cross-
sections are provided in Appendix B2.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
It appears that the project has remained geomorphically stable between Monitoring Years 1 and 2,
with the exception of several large sections of sand deposition, including one covering nearly the
entire upper quarter of the reach. This deposition has changed the dimension of several of the
cross sections. In fact, the stream bed at cross section 1 rose nearly six inches. In addition, the
stream channel at cross section #4 experienced approximately five inches of downcutting since
the completion of Monitoring Year 1. However, it was concluded, through observation of the
longitudinal profile annual overlay, that this downcutting is isolated to just this riffle section and
does not represent a trend found anywhere else along the project. Other than aggradation, other
problem areas found were associated with bank erosion. Even though bank erosion does not
appear to be a major problem in the reach because it has impacted a low percentage of the total
banks, there were two areas of severe concern where major slumping of both banks has occurred.
These two areas are located at Station 18+82 and at Station 20+18 along the thalweg. All
structures appeared to be in good physical condition, except for one stone grade control structure,
located at Station 15+90 along the thalweg, that had water piping around the right side causing
some bank scour.
The stems counts are good for all the Vegetation Plots for UT to Billy's Creek and above the
stems/acre goal for Monitoring Year 5. The overall survival from the establishment of vegetation
to Monitoring Year 2 is 85%, which is good considering the region is in a drought.
REFERENCES
DeLorme. 1997. The North Carolina Atlas and Gazateer.
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
10
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Level 1-
2 Plot Sampling Only. Version 4.0.2006. Michael T. Lee, Robert K. Peet, Steven D.
Roberts, Thomas R. Wentworth.
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by D.S. Olson
and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Synposium. Bozeman, MT.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. November 2006. Content, Format and Data
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 166-169.
URS Corporation-North Carolina (URS). January 2006. UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration
Draft Mitigation Plan.
URS Corporation-North Carolina (URS). January 19, 2007. UT to Billy's Creek Stream
Restoration Final 2006 Monitoring Report, Monitoring Year 1.
U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
http://www.saw.usace.armv.miUwetlands/Mitip-ation/stream mitigation.html
UT Billys Creek
EEP Project Number 36
February 2008
SEPI Engineering Group
Final Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Appendix At
Photolog - Vegetation Problem Areas
APPENDIX Al
PHOTOLOG - UT to Billy's Creek
PROBLEM AREAS (Vegetation)
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix Al
Photolog - Vegetation Problem Area Page 1 of 1
Photo 1. Representative bare floodplain
problem area (Station 10+50 along plan
view).
Photo 2. Representative bare bank problem
area (Station 29+25 along plan view).
Appendix A2
Photolog - Vegetation Plots
APPENDIX A2
PHOTOLOG UT to Billy's Creek
VEGETATION PLOTS
0
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix A2
Photolog - Vegetation Plots Page 1 of 1
Photo 1: Vegetation Plot 1.
Photo 2: Vegetation Plot 2.
Photo 3: Vegetation Plot 3.
Photo 4: Vegetation Plot 4.
Photo 5: Vegetation Plot 5.
Appendix A3
Vegetation Data Tables

C N

a
N N N N N 0 N O N N
O
a O
a ro C m m
0 o aw ?w >w >w cts
>w >w > C*
?w >w >
?
.
.
y td
to td
to _
>
O _ O
.? _ O
> _
O >
O
O
O
O> _
O > _
O >
op b m bU b
m O 0 OO O
C 0
cl Q C O O
C Q O 0 O O
V
61 ??++ COJ
G '? ai U
?" '? cE rn
cd y ?»»
F
cd N C
ti F,
lC N ?+
?
G
cO N +
N G
M
N C
N 0
cd N C
N F
cd N N
cCo d m u
f0 N C
M G
l0 N
?.'
E iw
'b H cE b ti CC .--i 0 --? lC ?` c0 ..: c0 .=-: cO .=-. tO ^' cd •--? cO ?-i ; r c0
+ +
i +
J +
J i+ L+ 1
+
?
d ,in
a CO `? ?
? ? (? ..y ?
? ?- ? U
?
? ? N
? ? U
-
? U U
-
? U U
-
? U U
? U N
? U -
U
? U• N
? U N
? U
' .
v
LIO
? o

b o N

o ?

U N

v N

U N

U N

U N

U y

U N

U N

U
y a fy ,b ,d ,? ,d ,o ,d b ,b ,b ,b

c0 cd > ti Q> N q> ti Q> y Q> y > w > m q> y
Q> ti
0> ti
. y '? O O U y U y O y 0 V y U y U y U

a° to
ao ° w U
x 2 m U
x 2 m U
x ? m U
x 2 a v U
? U
a °: m ?
U
P4 °: m U
a ? m U
a m a U
x cls

d ?
Q
?
o H F F H H H E F H H

j+ o
O 0
? 0 o
? v, o
N ?n
? o
O 0
V 0
V o
?O v,
N
y + ±
-- .?-i
N M
N M
N Vl
N 'IT
N oo
N ON
N O
M

y O O O O O O O O O O O O
? O en O O M ON O O N O
± ± +
O \O l-
N M
N M
N M
N of
N o
o
N 01
N O
M

A

7 d
N ? C

L ?7y
? L ?
7
n
w as oa
N
L
m
N
m
F-
m
V
as
2
O
O
6
O
O
N
M
N
U
Q
w
m
IL
_J
2
J
O
O
F-
F-
Z
W
N
O
Z
Q
r
U)
J
W
>
W
J
W
VJ
U
a)
y
cA
rn
c
LO
c
O
2
IL
w
o W
E
O ?
N O
O
>I O
0 W
c c
W m
Ic
W
w >
Ic 00
> W O
Uc93:

m
o
0v E
C O C
0
L. Q L

t IL c

0 ?? .

m m
? O v
co
Mn
c
m
N
a)
Y
cc
a)
Cl)
N
a
D
X
N
O
U t
a) ?
O
CL Co
L
m N
U
N ?O
O co
a E
w N
O w
W
m ZQ
E J
E a
7
? N Y
i m
co
v
3
L
i O 0
? L m
w 3 n
m (D
V 0 U
co a)
G o a a
w 3 cn
L m a)
Z F- W can
F-
w
w
2
rn
Y
O
U.
O
Z
O_ a
~ c
m
•a 0.
0
a 2 aL
:+"
O
? d
w
y ?

m
E ?
CL y
cn L
4O
f6
U)

a) o
N

O c
m C E
> O U
_ L
CL UI
a?
N -O N
O cc 7
C cn O
>
L 0
L c cc
L
L Q. L
0
c
O c
L N O O
a) m
CU L
(D
L cn
C
m
o a) . a
0 (D 0
cn
E :D n w
_ CL
w a
?
m N N a`) <n .
U 0 0 O

Q N
co fmn m m 0 a)
m a) y "0
N (0 (U fn
U U m L L L :3
O O
0 L ?
CU X
U) c )rnrn o
_0 > > m O CU
O
3> 0 0 Q E O
IDE
-0 Co
r 0 0 C N N n a)
O m
.
,?
w
C >> 7 7 N
m?? ms
' cC (p
s.... C:_ 0)
O
c
0 C% 0 W to .?
CU
(n
m
0 cn
m 0 0 w a) 4) (D
7 7 cp .
>, 75 75
E
m
c
. 0 0 0 0 -0>>

m
C
Q c4
Q C C E
, a) 7 `~
o N m 0 C
U N C +. m

o E
0
O 0.0 °
a CU 10
QE E:3m
m
W t0 O
O
-1 LLll J m m O m
.-0DU a
C.
C.
0

C
m
0
E Qca
C. U) a a
U) a N m
M
E
.
O ? m
CM m m a
0) s
?
'' to L" 0 m m N
0 0 E E E J
L »

a G
a G G Q
rl- co
00
O
00.2
>, E
M m m d
O F- F- c`o
0D0F-
Q
?asd
rn?Ecc
O w 0.-
0 ZW. R
Lu CL 'r- Z
0 m
?o'O o0 d0
>
a s C a R
to
•O
m
•? V
3 v
O N N
V 0 0
?Eaa
i' ty
t E -01!
c m a
? d cEo
d u Lm?cn
Vigor by Species - UT Billy's (Monitoring Year 2)
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Alnus serrulata 1
Aronia arbutifolia 6
Betula ni ra 1 3 1 2
Celtis laevi ata 1 1
Cornus amomum 14 4 41 1
Cornus florida 1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 1 1
N ssa s Ivatica 2
Quercus falcata 2 3
Quercus hellos 4 9 1 1
Salix ni ra 3 2 1
Sambucus canadensis 1 1 1
Viburnum nudum 1
Viburnum dentatum 1 2
Rhus co allinum 2 2 1
Car inus caroliniana 2
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1
TOT: 17 11 40 21 8 5
Damage by Species - UT Billy's (Year 2)
?y Fes, Fes, 3c
°
Coq Q J?
Alnus serrulata 1 1
Aronia arbutifolia 6 5 1
Betula ni ra 7 7
Car inus caroliniana 2 2
Celtis laevi ata 2 2
Cornus amomum 23 20 3
Cornus florida 1 1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 1
Quercus faicata 5 5
Quercus hellos 15 14 1
Rhus co allinum 5 5
Salix ni ra 6 6
Sambucus canadensis 3 2 1
Viburnum dentatum 3 3
Viburnum nudum 1 1
TOT: 17 85 79 6
Damage by Plot - UT Billy's (Year 2)
co
c
J
UTBILLY07-01-0001- ear:2 10 8 2
UTBILLY07-01-0002- ear:2 18 14 4
UTBILLY07-01-0003- ear:2 25 25
UTBILLY07-01-0004- ear:2 17 17
UTBILLY07-01-0005- ear:2 15 15
TOT: 5 85 79 6
Stem Count by Plot and Species - UT Billy's (Year 2)
a
w?' y
CPC ??'
?``?y Q? `owy ?y
yQ
Alnus serrulata 1 1 1
Aronia arbutifolia 6 3 2
Betula ni ra 5 2 2.5
Car inus caroliniana 2 1 2
Celtis laevi ata 1 1 1
Cornus amomum 22 5 4.4 5
Cornus florida 1 1 1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 2 2 1
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1 1 1 1
N ssa s ivatica 2 1 2
Quercus falcata 5 4 1.25 1
Quercus hellos 15 5 3 2
Rhus co allinum 5 3 1.67
Salix ni ra 6 2 3
Sambucus canadensis 2 2 1
Viburnum dentatum 3 2 1.5
Viburnum nudum 1 1 1
TOT: 17 80 17 9
v v v v v
v v v v v
J J J J J
e

O?
en
M
00
-
0 O
0
00
0 O
0
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 O
0
0 O
0 O
C. O
0
0
In O
0 O
0
0000
L
.
a

N
cm
O
F
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
M
O
?D
?O
O
?D
N

L

d
19

h
0
? N N N O ? M ? N O --? V vi O? ? V N h ? ? 0

rr
v
L
U
a,

? o
? Vl M 7 v? N --? N 00
F

L
W
O

J?
d --? N N V N N N N Cl
bD
c
L
L
O
h
i
'u
CL o
i, M N 00 N --+ N N Wn en N
u

u
w
w°
c
a
0
u
c N -- In N ?O M N
?
F
d
?N
H
d
A

F

V1 N N .~

y
O
a

•
Q so ? 'o Q o ? Q ? w ? o o yo ? Q a a ?
^
.
.O Q U 's ? ? Q p Q s Q Ci U ? 'Z! cV

Q Q ... Q k 3 ? '? U U U U fi ? ? ? ? y m
y w . Q ?
d v 3. N Q Q ? N O O ? ? 3 `.t ? yV . .p .p ate. ate.

w
Appendix B1
Photolog - Stream Problem Areas
APPENDIX B1
PHOTOLOG UT to Billy's Creek
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS
hA.
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B1
Stream Problem Area Page 1 of 1
Photo 1: Representative sand/gravel
aggradation and bar formation problem area
(Station 14+43 along plan view).
Photo 2: Representative sand and rush
aggradation problem area (Station 27+05
along plan view).
Photo 4: Representative problem rock step
structure (Station 15+90 along plan view).
Photo 3: Representative bank erosion
problem area (Station 18+82 along plan
view).
Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & Photo Points
APPENDIX B2
PHOTOLOG UT Billy's Creek
Cross Sections/Photo Points
c w 'l v
r x

Cross-Section/Photo Point 1: Facing Upstream
-rv, VIP WNW.', 1 7"
i? qr?{i ' v R p' '',' ?1r ??1,i •,. :1 . ?t ??Scn.??T!?X5??3?!rSS:4
f ?.
`M x#, At
Appendix 132
Pagel of 2
Cross-Section/Photo Point 1: Facing
Downstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 2: Facing Upstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 2: Facing Upstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 1: Facing Channel
Monitoring Year 2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints
Cross-Section/Photo Point 2: Facing Channel

4

+
i
t
+
_ Q * x Yq ?- ..
?. J
t. 5 v s
'41, 47.
/ ?'A. cbJY 7 '
e e:•
k
V
Cross-Section/Photo Point 4:Facing
Downstream
{ l?tAj,.kr.
y'yy'. ,? r t{? x;a
(+Y
Monitoring Year 2 Appendix B2
Photolog - Cross-Sections & PhotoPoints Page 2 of 2
Cross-Section/Photo Point 3:Facing Upstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 4:Facing Upstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 3: Facing
Downstream
Cross-Section/Photo Point 4:Facing Channel
Cross-Section/Photo point 3: Facing Channel
Appendix B3
Stream Data Tables
Table B2. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
UT Bill s Creek

Feature Category
Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (#Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
per As-built Total Number /
feet in unstable
state % Performing
in Stable
Condition Feature
Performance Mean
or Total
A. Riffles 1. Present 41 72 NA 57%
2. Armor stable 41 72 NA 57%
3. Facet grade appears stable 29 72 NA 40%
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining 34 72 NA 47%
5. Length appropriate 35 72 NA 49% 50%
B. Pools 1. Present 49 70 NA 70%
2. Sufficiently deep 49 70 NA 70%
3. Length appropriate 12 70 NA 17% 52%
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 25 29 NA 86%
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 26 28 NA 93% 90%

D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 45 56 NA 80%
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 5 11 NA 45%
3. Apparent Rc within specifications 47 56 NA 84%
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 56 56 NA 100% 77%
E. Bed General 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) NA NA 5/781 63%
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cutting NA NA 0/0 100% 81%
F. Bank Condition 1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank NA NA 12/144 97% 97%
G. Vanes / J Hooks 1. Free of back or arm scour 25 26 NA 96%
2. Height appropriate 26 26 NA 100%
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 26 26 NA 100%
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 25 26 NA 96% 98%
H. Wads and Boulders 1. Free of scour 11 11 NA 100%
2. Footing stable 11 11 NA 100% 100%

?'. -- 7 M N
7 O O O O
r^ O O O O
a a a a
0
P.
0

ai L
o
L
?
ai
ti
ai
" o " "
a
p d
ni o o
O a
d a
O a
o
'd 0 O O b b b
0 N
q ti
G q X ro c
C
q 0
p O ?
NC O? G N? G
0 ? cd . 0 0 O
w ? y O
3 w
0 0 w
y G w
00
>
O U
O U
O U
?Oti d
b ? ?
y ? ? O>. Q b O ti

? O y O m

? a
?
•--
--
V?
a
o?
O
(c
G
G to
p to
? a M
c° G
?
C
C O L N y p O .
+ N O O p
O p p O O
G m w 'fl b 4.
A. p p w :j m i C
c v a v a
°?
C ?za w ? w ? o •y on oo ?`" oo ?"" on ?"' ao o
o
a.) on
0
O U ?+ U ?+ y U y y y

b y
y
y
L
L
U N
'""' U
Sri N
>+ U
>+
'd h
b N
b y N
> U
>

y L
'7
N
O
O L
YO b
O L
O b
Q y .
N .
N
ti L
h L
m L
U
U
b ck'
i w C ? O '? IL) 0
G
O
O
O a?.
O .`3
O .`3
O
O
O. C ai y r
O ? ? L ? .
N N N N N aRi N
y b > ? O ' O ' O Q" N ? O CL tL G. G.
ow y U
cd 0

w 'V Y

N •V aro+

O p ti O p y U O O
y U
y N
y U
O
V
Y
d A G C
' O
O a0+ m O U ti O q? U V .q 30 .r 30 O U U
v
L
[ N d
c >
a OL >
a O
a a?

L
a v

y
°
s on
o o x > x > o o o O 0 0 a
ou o a ?o0 0 0
A .
y y v L • • y > 0
y G ti p p

w
Y ed
U
t
y c
e
L ?
a ?
a .q
a d y
' A
a d O
C : ' v
i v
i

0.

U

b o

a o

p

o

°? o

o

o
w

d A
=

.-

a
oo

'd
a o
'
ao
a o

'

oa n
o

p

n
y y
?" a> G ...
ld
w v
y ca ''
7 ?a ''
'? o
y .
=i ye
h ? ?'
y . °q
7 :r Y Ci ..+
INI...
Y ir ..r
yN
i+ v C
Y Q a`?+ :d
^y
"`
d
A
ro
y r
y o .
o -
`
C -y
g
` .
Q
° y y
p
b
O
G y
G y
d
Y
PO
a .
'O 'C L
? p
.?
b x y
v x ' p
.p ? •
.? " .
.p ? i
a
b o G
.? •G
... ,
O b L .
O b L .
7 b L • •G
F d b0 k> . o
o ° a y o o a ° °

p
y e
d
W a?
P
c
n n
d d y ti ? W
DC
q d O M M oo O ? Wl ? 00 N N M M 00 ?O vl r- V1 V N n U N kn W) Vl O M vl

A
O
+
n
+
V
+
W)
+
D\
+

+
vl
+

+
r
+
oo
+ _

+
M
+

+

+
N
+
vi
+
n
+
n
+
oo
+

+

+
M
+
O
+
00
a
O
00
oo
?D

F
y
O
m
V
V
vl
00
00
00
00
0o
T
D\
D\
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
-- + + + + + + + +

7
--
--
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N m
N
N
N ?
N n
N r
N 00
N 00
N O
M O
M
Uj
C
d
d v
?
y
y^ y
^ ? q
O
y Q

°J A A ,C ?'' eqd Y EC ee
?
.
' .n
w ?
b0 as
? ?
bD ?
C ao
C ?
y , a °
? r.
W ?
?

o ?
+
7
?
?
v
A
v
?

Q 4
i
C ?
.Yi
O
?
C 4
n
C
d
Q
o

?'

CA Q

O a

O q

O Q

O a

O

o Q

O Q

O

Q

Q

Q q

O Q

O
v
i
H c
?
40

?
'y
O
'y
O
'y
O
'y
O
'y
O w
w
hY
++ ?
y
O
•y
O
O
r+
O
F1
O
r. ?
'y
O r
'y
O

i°' q
fl
e a
+ Y
W Y
W Y
W Y
W Y
W ^? Y
W Y
W ?
LS Cd
b A
'o L
W L
W
.a, co FT" d
Q .1 Y ? 1 Y aLi
' SC Y ? L ro. Y ?'
bL
am Y
v q C q C C b q q b0
om 00 b0
am a q
w d
' 00 ? PG ? ? ra Oq ? P4 Oq Q
' d d
' PA Pq

O
V1
l?
O?
N
O
?O
l? 0o
O
H
O
'? o
0 0 0 7
.?. VMi O 0
00 O M p h
d "" [? [? O .-• O V1 Oi O N N vl p r. p M M ? ? vl p W
?

p
Q1
M
N
'? 00
O
b

00 O

O N O O h
O
O

p

O?

m

N

R h

R

ao

O

vii O

.-. O O oo N ?D
b
O O
q 'n ,,6 O .-. O a O ^' O O N • O
f ?r
G O

M
Cn
M
'?
CT
?p o0
yl
..
p N ^: O
W N
Vl
O .-. O O? O N N V1 ?.j M M Vl Q\ W

rC
b0

X
?y

h
O

D

O
O

M

p

-r 00

10
O? O

M

V'1
M

h

M

N 01
N

? O V
A
O
p O? M '? N ?R 00
F N O .-. O N Q? O ... N
O
O

? 00 w

d
d
t ,It 119

? w
+
E V cn M R 0 --? a b (V N M N
p O
V1
A. N
N
"o

~
"D
M
a ? M V 0 00 Vl M O N N
7

L

x

?'

N
00 00 'T 00
.?+ MM
Vl 00
In
,? --i p
c ? W
U

m
to
p

X

r

N

M

00

Q\

O

-

.-.

?

O?
C4 W?
N M ?

d X
L W '.? ?p
C a q Vl M M 00 N N M M 0p N O
10 00 r- C) en
40
O
In
00 t"

o
w
U
ri ri
o
?

? ? ? ? ?..? ° •° •p?? ? ? Cam. •° ?... ?..? ? ? ? ?. ?. ? p aXi o
r Y ? y
! ? M ? y ?""
b0 ? ? G O ? ? i0
b b 4 7'
' :? 4
i i A
i r
b '?
? „
?
y •? ,?
a .Y .
q
w q
Q ai a> '?. G 'q ?
' y q
b v q •? O v q q r
' p
o

w
a
A
A
X CU'
a
x ?x
3
'
°:
3
o d y
v, a vii
v v
o o
8 '' a En En
L qp G U
y a„ ..V.
q b o
oa U
3 N o
G °? .-?i N N W U x
+
t q Gq
?
w o ? w
C1 o
iL q
N *
E c 3 LO O ? A N
' N rr ,
u
? o W W >• ? d U rn c
P. U U PG a

a
0
a
co
C
O
C
O
?'
O
O
N
G
b
N
.b
.'
O
P.
O
C
y
3
A
q
Appendix B4
Stream Cross-Sections
? N
L L
N N
N
06
m °o
a
>- as
N
0
Om
a 0 Cl)
0
.u?w) 0
I
N
O
L
V
I I
I I
III III
I I
I I
--
---- ----- - - - - - -
II II
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I -
I
I I
-lid
r_
I I '
I I I
I I 1
I I I
1_ LO `D YJ LO YJ qCT m m
N LO N LO N LO N LO N
N N N N
(1001) U014BA013
OL
09
09
I
II I
I
II II
II II
0--\
a.+
uv
T
OE B
OZ
01
0
? N
L L
cu cu
N N
J
?\
N
06
r
N ?
L
L ?
i to
C
O
Om
0 cco
N
O
CO L.
N U
O
L
U
i
I
I I

I
i

m LO 00 LO
N N
N N
(4001)
I` m Cfl m
6 N
N
N N
0
00
0
ti
O
O
LO
o
? v
.N
o D
co
0
N
O
C)
N
L L
co co
N N

i O
LO
ooom.
N

------ --------------------

m
.Ile
O
(1) CL
0 i M OM 0
i
G>
> >+ O
'?:+ - as
v
O CO
?
r i
Ili
V
N
N
I I
O o
0

DLO ° ° °
C) LO C) DLO CD °
LO C)
Oo
co co ti ti c6 co
M co co m m L6 L6
co co
N N N N N N N N
(1001) U014BA013
r- N
L
L
^
,
W N

N
06
r
C)
LO

m V
i to - - - - p
9
0

V 5 V

?

C O

O ?,
.- G)

Cl) C

f

m

---- - -------- -

o

M +
+
_

N
?
?
U = N
to
V - ----------------- C)
tq
N
L
V O
r
0
O
O O O
O O o o
o 0 O
0
L
c 6
o 4 M
co M N r
M co O
co
N N N N N N
(1001) u01jen813
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ aid PDB
Sb am Reach: UT to BWS Crook
Drainage Ara: 0.22
Date: Jun-07
M on tort Yaw 2
NOTES BankfulllTop of Bank
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
BKF 0.5 0.1 0.0
0.3 0.1 0.0
1.3 0.8 0.5
LEW 0.0 1.0 0.0
1.3 0.8 1.2
LEW C-BAR 0.9 0.7 0.7
Top C-BAR 0.3 0.7 0.2
REW C-BAR 0.5 0.9 0.4
1.0 1.0 1.0
TW 0.7 1.0 0.7
0.5 1.0 0.5
0.1 0.8 0.1
REW 0.4 0.6 0.2
1.0 0.4 0.5
1.5 0.2 0.5
3.3 0.3 0.8
1.2 0.3 0.4
0.4 0.2 0.1
1.5 0.0 0.1
TOB TOTALS 16.6 7.9
SUMMARY DATA
A(BKF) 7.9
W(BKF) 16.6
Max d 1.0
Mean d 0.5
Cross Section #1
Pool
256
255
..... .:........ -------- ............................................... ........ ......------ -- -I-----

a Bankful I
R
2 254 ---------------------------------------- - `---------------•---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W

253
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Distance (feet)
STATION ELEVATION
Appendix B4
Field Crew. IN and POS
Stream Reach: UT to BIWS Creek
Dralnepa Area: 0.22
Dab: Jun-07
hbnltorl Year 2
STATION ELEVATION NOTES
Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.0 0.0
0.8 0.4 0.2
1.3 1.1 0.9
1.1 1.1 1.2
0.5 1.3 0.6
LEW 0.6 1.3 0.7
0.5 1.4 0.6
0.5 1.4 0.7
TW 0.4 1.1 0.5
1.3 0.9 1.3
REW 0.6 0.9 0.5
1.3 0.4 0.8
1.5 0.0 0.3
TOTALS 11.1 8.4
BKF
SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULLI
A(BKF) 8.4 W(FPA) 72+
W(BKF) 11.1 Slope 0.012
Max d 1.4
Mean d 0.8 Area= A
W/D 14.6 Width= W
Entrenchment 6.6+ Depth= D
Stream T e C Bankfull= BKF
Area from Rural Re ional Curve 15.8

4 Cross Section #2
Riffle
2
8
Bankfull
u 247 ---- ---------------- .,........}-.-....;....-..;----•--=- ------------------------------------------

246 W --- - ---- --- ---- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
245
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
Field Crew: IPJ and PDB
Stream Reach: UT to Billy's Creek
Drainage Area: 0.22
Date: Jun-07
Monitoring Year 2

STATION HI NOTES
(Feetl (Faatl
1 236.64
236.49
236.56
:.. 236.79
1 236.83
236.93
236.57
236.57
• 1 ' 236.25
236.67
236.21
236.10
236.10
. • 236.08
235.75
235.88
236.26
+ 236.54
• 236.72
236.70
236.83
• 237.53
TOB
LEW
TW
REW
BKF
TOTALS
Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Feet) (Feet) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.1 0.1
1.4 0.1 0.2
1.8 0.5 0.6
2.0 0.0 0.5
2.8 0.5 0.8
1.0 0.6 0.6
1.0 0.6 0.6
1.1 0.6 0.7
0.9 1.0 0.7
0.2 0.8 0.2
0.0 0.5 0.0
0.7 0.2 0.2
0.6 0.0 0.1
SUMMARY DATA
A(BKF) 5.1
W(BKF) 14.3
Max d 1.0
Mean d 0.4
Cross Section #3
Pool
238
237
e
0
w 236
235
0
BankfuU__--
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (feet)
Appendix B4
flaw Crew. IPJ en POO
Str n Reach: UT Us 81" Croak.
Dralnape Area: M22
OaOK A"7
M Yaw 2
NOTES Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Ana
(Feet) (Feat) (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0 0.7 0.3
2.3 1.0 2.0
TOB 0.5 1.3 0.6
0.2 1.8 0.2
0.2 2.2 0.3
0.4 2.1 0.9
LEW 0.4 1.4 0.6
0.3 1.0 0.4
TW 0.9 1.0 0.9
1.2 0.6 0.9
REW 1.3 0.0 0.4
TOTALS
BKF SUMMARY DATA (BANKFULL
TOE A(BKF) 7.5 W(FPA) 72+
W(BKF) 8.6 Slope 0.012
Max d 2.2
Mean d 0.9 Area= A
WID 10.0 idth= W
F
Entrenchment 6.0+ epth= D
Stream Type C BKF
.,nkfull=
Area from Rural Re gional Curve 8.7
Top of Bank
Hydraulic Geometry
Width Depth Area
(Fot) (Fee() (Sq. Ft.)
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.6 0.1 0.0
1.0 0.8 0.5
2.3 1.2 2.3
0.5 1.5 0.7
0.2 2.0 0.3
0.2 2.3 0.3
0.4 2.3 0.9
0.4 1.5 0.7
0.3 1.2 0.4
0.9 1.2 1.1
1.2 0.7 1.1
1.3 0.2 0.6
2.8 0.0 0.2
12.0 9.2
SUMMARY DATA ITOBI
A 9.2
W 12.0
Max d 2.3
Mean d 0.8
Cross Section #4
Riffle
234
233
............................
Bankfull ..... ..... ....
3 232 ........ -------- ........ -------- -------- ...... ... ' ... :...................... ..... ..._. _._._._ _._. .
w
.
231 ................:'--.-.--I -----.-.:.-.--.-...----- .....
--?---- --.J.-?-?--- ........ .................. .------- ........ ?........

230
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Distance (feet)
STATION ELEVATION
Appendix B5
Stream Longitudinal Profile
m
x
?o
C
N
d
a
Q
0
0
0
0
rn

0
0
rn
0
LO
OD

Q
O

O
LO

N
O L
0
M
N
L

N `? N

O >- (U
(? - m
4-
?
0 1
0
a
N O O
m

Y

L
(O
Q? Q?
F- J J

U
L
w

c
_
L m R
N
?

O ..r _
O d
H N N
U
a
o O O c
r- }- co
c L W - m
(6 U-?
O ? O

O
J M O)(nco0
m
L
o ?co0)0)
0
LL LL
•
0
Lo
N
O
0
N

O

O
O
O
LO

(O
LO
N
?
(n
N
'c -
In
N
M
(n
N
N
(n LO
N N
O
(n
N
0)
V
N
a0

N
P-
V
N
(D
?
N
?
V
N
V*
?
N
M
?
N
N
?
N

N
O
V'
N O
(10 81) uO l;eA81 3
--
--- --
---- --
---- ---
--- ---
---- --
---- --
---- --
--- --
----- --
---- --
--- -- --
--------- -
- --
---- --
----
a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . lid . _

V

?G
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- --- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----

- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
--- ---- ----
= - ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
--- ---- --
- - ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----

--- ---- --- - ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ----

O
O

N
---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- - --- --- - -- -
O
N

---
---
----
-----
----
----
----
---
---
---
---
---
-----
----
-- O

N
--- ---
--- ----
---- ----
----- ----
---- ----
---- ----
---- ----
---- ---
--- ---
-- ---- --- ---- ---- - ----
--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- --- ----- ---- - -- --- ----
O
O
---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ----- - -- -- -- --- ----
O
N
-
---
--- ----
---- -- -
---- ----
---- ----
---- ---
----
----
---
---
---
-----
----
--

t
----
- ----
---- ---
--- -
-
--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --- --- --- ----- ---- -- i - ----
O
--- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- -- O

---
---
-----
----
----
---- --
---- ----
--- ---
--- ---
--- ----
----- -----
---- --
----
- --
---- ----
---- ---
---
--- ---

- -----

---- ----

---- ----

-- - ----

- ----

---- ---

--- ---

--- --

----

-- -
---
----

----
---
--
----
---
-

0
O

---
----
----
----
--- O

---
----
----
---- -
---- ----
---- ----
---- ----
---- ---
--- ---
---- -----
---- ---- -
--
----
---
--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---
O
LAI)
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
----
- - - -
----
- - -
----
- - - -
----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
--- -
- - - - -
---- - - - -
---- - - - -
---- - - - -
-----

O
O
--- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- -----
O
N

----
----
----
---
---
---
---
--
----
----
----
----
---

0 L

cu

---

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

---

----

----

-

----

----

----

----

--- N
L
--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- - -
N
0
(6
N
---

---
----

----
----

----
----

----
---

----
----

----
---

---

---

---

--

--
--

-
----
----
----
-----

--
---

(6 -
4) a)

a --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- - ---- ---- ----
??
O

N 0) c Q

oj? ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ----- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
3: co
0
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- -
?JJ
4)
d V

w
N 0
--- --- ---- --

_
Q? m -- ---- ---- ---- --- -- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
c
H
0 o c
0
4)

D

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--

----

----

----

--

----

----

---
c
?p

N

a - ---- ---- ---- -- --- - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
cU

0 N
0
=
_

- -

--

----

----

--- L N
m
CO
CU
o
4- 0
de?
J
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
--- ? m 0) U) co 0
0 Ln` 4-0 4-1

r L.L
0 1
--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- - -- ---- - -
--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---

---
---
----
----
----
---
--
---

-

---

----

----

----

----

----

----

--- 0
N
---- ---- ---- -- -- - -- ---- --- ---
----
---

----
----
----
--- -
----
----
---
---
----
----
-
----
---
----
----
-----
-----
----
----
---
---

----

----

----

----

----

-

-
----

----

---

---

----

----

----

----

-----

----

---- O
O
N
.
---
--- ----
---- ----
---- ---
-- ---
---- ----
---- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---- ----
---- ----
---- ----
---- -----
----- ---
--- ---
----
O

-- - ---- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- ---
--- ---- - - ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ----- --- ----
O
O

..

---
...

--

-----

---

---

---

----
-
--
--
----
----
----
---- ----
---- -----
----- ---
--- ---
----
--- ---
.
.
.
- -----
----- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ----
---- ---
--- ----
---- ----
-- - -----
- - ----
---- ----
---- ---
---

O
C)

--
----
----
-----
----
---
---
---
---
---
-
----
----
---- 0
- -- ---- ----
- ----
----- -----
---- ----
---- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
----
----
----
----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
---
--- ----
--
-----
----
----
--- --
- --- --- ---- ---- ----- ---- --- ----

0
0

,It
'R

N
M
?

N
N
N
141-

N _

N
O

V
N
O

M
N
OD

M
N

M

N
O

co
N
In

co
N
t{

M
N
CO

M
N
N

M
N

M

N
O

M
N
rn

N
N
00

N
N

N

N o
(1001) u01jen a13

<
O

<

---
---
----
----
----
----
----
-
-
- a
---
-- -
---
----
----
----
---

--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- -- -- --- -- - - - - - - -

--- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---
-
----
----
-- - -
- - - -
- - -

--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--- - - ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - --- - - ---

---
---
----
----
----
----
---- - --
--- - -
---- - - - -
--- ----
---- ----
---- - - - -
---- - - - -
---- - - -
----
---

B

a

L? c N0 NN0)
Appendix B6
Stream Pebble Counts
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Billy's
SeSEPI
Party: IN and PDB ENGINFERIN6 G140UP
Date: 10/23/2007
Cross-Section 1
Inches Particle Millimeters (Pool) TOT# ITEM % % CUM
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 10 10 17% 17%
Very Fine .062-.125 1 1 2% 19%
Fine .125-.25 S 0 0% 19%
Medium .25-.50 N 5 5 9% 28%
Coarse 50-1.0 0 18 18 31% 59%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2 24 24 41% 100%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 0 0% 100%
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 0 0% 100%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8 0 0% 100%
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3 0 0% 100%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 ( M 0 0% 100%
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 0 0% 100%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 0 0% 100%
1.26-1.77 Ve Coarse 32-5 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Ve Coarse 45-64 i 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180-256 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362 0 0% 100%
14.3-20 Small 362-512 0 0% 100%
20-40 Medium 512-1024 BOULDER 0 0% 100%
40-80 Large 1024-2048 0 0% 100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
58 100% 100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Pool Pebble Count, Cross Section #1
58
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) -Cumulative Percent (Year 1)
? Percent Item (Year 1)
-A Cumulative Percent (Year 2)
Percent Item (Year 2)

Riffle Pebble Count, Cross Section #2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) -21-- Cumulative Percent (Year 1)
? Percent Item (Year 1)
-A Cumulative Percent (Year 2)
Percent Item (Year 2)
100%
90%
80%
t 70%
60%
ii 50%
y 40%
U
30%
IL
20%
10%
0%
R
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3 0 0% 98%
44-.63 Medium 11.3-16 A 1 1 2% E[E
%
_63-:89 Coarse 16-22.6 E 0 0% %
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Billy's
PDB
Date: 11/7/2007
1 Inches Particle Millimeters
Medium
Coarse
.08-.16 Very Fini
.16-.22 Fine
.22-.31 Fine
.31-.44 Medium
.44-.63 Medium
.63-.89 Coarse
.89-1.26 Coarse
1.26-1.77 Very Coar
1.77-2.5 Ve Coar
2.5-3.5 Small
3.5-5.0 Small
5.0-7.1 Large
7.1-10.1 Large
10.1-14.3 Small
14.3-20 Small
20-40 Medium
40-80 Large
Bedrock
.125-.25 5
.25-.50 NN
.50-1.0 D
1.0-2
2.0-4.0
4-5.7

5.7-8 G
8-11.3 R
11.3-16 A
16-22.6 V
22.6-32 E
32-45 L
45-64
64-90
90-128 COBBLE
128-180
S
SEPI
ENGINEERING GRO H'
Cross-Section 3
(Pool) TOT# ITEM % % CUM
4 4 8% 8%
0 0% 8%
0 0% 8%
7 7 14% 22%
5 5 10% 32%
30 30 60% 92%
2 2 4% 96%
1 1 2% 98%
n no/ QSto/
1 1 2% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
362-512
;,7 .,,, BOULDER
U U% 1 UU%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 0% 100%
0 100% 100%

Pool Pebble Count, Cross Section #3
100%
90%
80%
C
t 70%
F
60%
c
ii 50%
a!) 40%
am 30%
13-
20%
10%
0%
111 1111 111 1111
I I I
I I I I III I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I
I I I I III I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I
I I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I
III III III I I I I
I I I III I III 1 1 1 I I I III I I I I I
I I I I I III I III I I I 1 I I III I I I I I
I I I I! I I I I I III I I I
III III
------------
I I I I I III I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I
1 I 1111 I I I I I I 111 I 1111
I ? III I I III I I I I I I III I I I
I I I I I I I V I I I I I I III I 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 p
Particle Size (mm) --*-Cumulative Percent (Year 1)
? Percent Item (Year 1)
A Cumulative Percent (Year 2)
k, Percent Item (Year 2)
PEBBLE COUNT
Site: UT Billy's
SeSEPI
Party: IPJ and PDB ENGINEERIN(. GRUt P
Date: 11/7/2007
Cross-Section 4
Inches Particle Millimeters (Riffle) TOT# ITEM % /.CUM
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 0 0% 0%
Very Fine .062-.125 0 0% 0%
Fine .125-.25 S 0 0% 0%
Medium .25-.50 N 1 1 2% 2%
Coarse .50-1.0 D 9 9 16% 18%
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2 43 43 77% 95%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 3 3 6% 100%
.16-.22 Fine 4-5.7 0 0% 100%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8 R 0 0% 100%
.31-.44 Medium 8-11.3

.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16 A
0
0%
100%
.63-.89 Coarse 16-22.6 V
0
0%
100%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32 E 0 0% 100%
1.26-1.77 Very Coarse 32-45 L 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45-64 0 0% 100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64-90 0 0% 100%
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 COBBLE 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180-256 0 0% 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256-362 100%
14.3-20 Small 362-512 100%
20-40 Medium 512-1024 BOULDER 1
-
/
- 100%

40-80
Large
1024-2048 0 0
-
/
-
100%
Bedrock BDRK 0 0% 100%
56 100% 100%
Riffle Pebble
100%
90%
80%
c
M 70%
~ 60%
C
LL 50%
40%
d 30%
IL
20%
10%
0%
C
I I I I I ?
I I I I I
1
I I I I I I
I
I I I I I
I I I I 1 1
I I I I I
I I I I I I

I I I I I
I I
.01 0.1 1
Particle Size (mm)
0 0% 100%

Appendix C
Plan View Sheets
d
z N
z
Y W y Y c
Nq T 11J >- W z °
_ eH LLJ a
l/NF U Q ?LL
S7' '4
T/ON Z w z
z 20*00 N O
/ SF oC co
F SyFFT J o? 0
in CL
Z
\
\\\ \\ O O
\` \ \ ¢ ~ S7? W
m N LL,
L7 O 6
}a. co I/??/ O = W fn co a O
co ?.7 m S / r Ln n o Cl) mr ?a
F- y W N O)
m / / 1 # y N N H .. m
W
N N Z
LU O <~y ¢ w w
b \ \\ 1 6
N
w W 7°m? C7 N
co N p
z Y ? m
_?,. co ~O H W O 3
(? < V m J = EO Of
cc I , U) LO CC,, -
V) 79w9
0 It 't Cl) m Zm
O ZAP, co mW.. / H W ^y ..
°? .4 NN `I h ¢ r? g
1 \\ Q 1?1 •-- `
ZZ \ W W
00 ?t 0
rd \
W
z: a-
oa
/ > 1,
« o
U
r
!% ?/ ^ w
o
w 8
w mo Z)
ct IX
UO dO mU LLJ -j \ 41t1\' w J a J N O
V) M ~J
in, 'J J
1 wI j UZj
p07 00~ cr JH
ucr OQ L-OQ aaU
0 Ln CL L,
?? \\\ m N
J
O 1
\ ~j \? 00
r / U LL
i '
S? `` \ \ w ?
?z
I.-
(L ?u
I., D
oo? ?: cr ¢N 3
CID
W VCD u z O
rl W)
F^'N U
m`DNJ 1\ V En ¢?
Y- Z W W ?Il O
v z
\\ O m
\\ N F ~
o z
co \ w U Y w
W \? ) ZO Y z a O
Z O Z CO w
o 0 m a a U O
w w w p O U w
\f co m a a m UI
W z > 0 C) o a
\? -J m (1) a a D w
a
r?
(0 m
patSZ
S U')
U N I? W m z
O
-
ud mm z m F3 N u
J W
/ m
r / W 3 m w J N
V) u r/ 0 3 p N
cr U' \\ a d a o a
F r0 F- W m u
I I I
I I ? I
I ? I
1 1 I ? I
I I I
\ A I I
/ I I
01 ' ? I
2 '
o I ? I
??$ I I I
: Q
z
0
?
ODD
m
a n in m rn
? a v
J u
i
N Lo
N
N
N
W

Z
O co CO f O D
Y Z D) n W N

N a N N L7 N
'" n n ? n
Z
O N N N N
N
U

W V. n U) a n

cn ? ao ai m v
z
v CD m m ?

W

J
H
G
W
J
M
Q
? r N N
X K

X Z ~ ?l
X
o W
N
z
: < Y W U) Y O
Z W} W Z N
cc . a L
U €w ? r
z ' y CO Z W o
? I J CC m
1 \
ED to n w e7
\?\\ rJy Q
? a
`\ \\ m z
0
\\ ? + w F- ¢
N Of Cl) Z
0 n W N Z w 0) Q
pp4y 1 A cg = W co a p
.7 m $ \ \? \?` it C', M H W m M an d
co m \\rj a Z n nn o o ;? w
n I \ > Z Y N N N a g V
j W W
p?7t9 Ik ?? \ Q W d d v
F
W Ws wow (Ij II !\ \\ f/? CO
W
w O 3
f. WNW \? ,Ii \\ ••\\\ F z w O
\ 1 \ p N O
i NO m ! ??? ??.•\ I OD LO M CC J C Y Z
a c
?w (14 i \ \ 0 o n n
j= = f0 w N N
sa f \ \ Z znnn L++
OD D ro m
p mww
NJJ / i / ? ' ?? H d
? a4c H / i a J % H Q ?1
LL ? LL O LLI
jr W F,.
W - LU r
as n!// w NF
co M ? V
vv \t\..`?? > M
IL CL V'1n QQ OJ
co A CO) co
oz X X X X
\\ > > > 0 LL
Ud \\\ \\? t O -
V)o v, V)o
O a
/ H
u co
/' co P.
r
O O
N
? \ n
`\ \\\\ aNwrM
\\ \\ Hn-N
?? \\ mwN J
\ H2WW
wZ crZ
u wo_ =mo 'o
/ r ?a 3cr a ?a
/ II uu ao cro
LO
n 1 crJ craJ NJ
n, 'e ? NJ F- f9J
Wu Oj pW= ??
07 Oa f-Oa U
O rn
UW
00 1 1
4
.90
\??? aw
w¢
1p \\\ w Lo
t\ xD
o= o
? ¢N 3
rr ~
w O
( /C j z ¢
\? Y >
Z N crN
J /, v U
1
( \ cn x
\\ Mr'1 ^ O J m
ZH
\ oz r
o_ CA)
r Z
L'i Z Z
J
NO U
j' voo z p Z m w
V12 N a o U1
\1 \?\ Win' Z m m a a 7 O
\1 \\ U w W cr a a cr N
co(m U \ W z > LD C) 0 a
NC) \` \/ J a W C7 CJ Z X
•O?? co N a a J W
COD
1
Nr / w
a,a w ?v { w
mwN J W
F-ZWW
1 /J V
IL
\ v .+civ
\ ¢ u? NWO
?` \\ ? Yaws
\ \\ to It 00
\ "- CY
91 n
11
wwNJ m
FZww LO
¢ N
r Y m n to
/ f N n w m Z
/ /( m z m m O
a N r
\\ N a N 3 J w
\\
3 LL -i N
\\` \1 W W W O M
o 3
\ W
\) , J J Y N
= a0 = o a mo
w m u
/ I I
>
// ?1 I I
// /1 I I I
13,?y$ \\ I i I
?3S \ I ? I
00, I I
02 N0j1 I I
1$ I I
y?! bW
z
N
1q
n
o

>
V)
co
J

w N
N

N N

Z W) co N

H
Y
()
z
?
N
N
ODD
Q ~
w N
l9 M

p N N N N
M

Z n O r-. m
„
y
x
O o

U n n
a a
H F

J Q J Q

'T U) -T LLI
g N
& Y W LU Y c
Z O LLJ MAT ?y 4/NF ? >- > ? n
S TA V LL ~_ W
z ?J T/Oy p Z m o
20x0 N O
!T ?/ 0 n (D m
SEF SyFet o a
LnN Z
I
\ \ Z O
\` \\ ¢ ~ Q
\ \\ O N W
pp?. \I S' // z l? o ¢o p W
u
c) Q mi n W IL
N N H `
m / _ _ r / W m
= ¢ o
Z n f? O w CO
n / \ N N N
x \ Z Q R Z
Y W cc 0
11
WW \\ O CO mao LmL
F-
z n
Z ,/ d
V) 1 0 Cl) 0
w2im // // 2 z Z znn w
N W •• / I O m m ¢a P-14
1-4
F NN 1\ \\ Q 0114
z ,g LL CD LL H W (?? r
00 W w W
\ > +
0 no
1) )
wo =mo j0
SOH
\\ \\) V7) cr
U 3aU Cr U
W QO J ca O J (O
¢ Na FAQ za
7
I\ 00Z) 00~ cc Jr
OU ? 0 U U
U? LDS cnaa ma
O
L ?\
OO
I / U LL
J/ _
r/
(L LLJ
\ \\
a CD N D
V > U cr 0
o r a
o m 3
°o? m f/ w O
m
N / ' Z x
roll
Fc71nN? U>
\ \ r ON
\\t mo
m° N _'i N
w
F-2WW VA ?n
m
z
D
v n
a
00
W O
z 00
1 p
Z C.
LJi
W
11 F L' cr cr LLI a
co m
m
a
> /
/I
.6 .
1ilr??\` m
N m
2z-- f? \ \? t\ N z
L)a° m m m y
NO N N 3 N Q U
NO O' O V J m w
OCL / w w
o ? w N
U Wl` \\ 3 J w y O En
Ix <E LO z a- 0
0 co O cr
\?P )
r/r I
1) 1
01 Y i ; I ?
aN i I
s?
O m
m m v
°rn

W
N N N N
w
C7
Z O N ? i co 0
Y 2 m I? O N
Q w ~ O _
O
f
N N
N 1
M m
N
"' n n n n_
0 N

W

m
z P
a b
° O,
? P.
a
,
.,
N ? m ri m a
O o 0 0 ? u
mi
U ? n m m
co co
H H
J jr J Q
N N
U U U U

K

X

X

D -i
cc C4 Z
m
W m >a
cc
H m O 3
O F=- ?.Wj Z
¢ m in W
X
dl
z
O
z
z e I

m \I

m \? Ln
a
\
U
Ej
LL } I ,
\
P
4
W ? w$r, ?
? ,
(I I ?\\
z wN
1 W
z Win
i \\

O \11 \
+ \ \
t
?I
V
F
r ?

U
zF \
Oz / \ \ \
\
ua D
?
NO ?,
LAO
Lnx
Oa.
U /
mr
c I 10
.on

rmi
\\ \\\\ a
CAI
\\ \\ mrN.?N
?? \\ 0DN II
\
\ HZWW

/ II
A 1

(

`
EGG/ /
97
-
11"\
J
\
11

\ MM
Q

a
z?-
Oz
> ?-o
Wa
00
00

Y
? V) M
\ 1 \(
\ \ oOa
U
\
\ \
0)
W) 0)
N-?0 \\

\\ \)
7
co a0o? ,q `4)
/ 11
(L v A / w
N
Fn?
, F
'a f /( W
FZWW // /( z
a

\
H z m
.+mv
OWO
\ \ u
\\ iL

\\ w
m??v
I N
? i
J
FZWW
\ V\
A) ,
> II
1 ?3yS ? \ \\
'?3S
00,
ol? Nk dl S
3N/7
Ho1 d`y
Z
O
M N 10

N n

co O

>
W CD N m m

J Cl) (7 m m
W N N N N

Z U) M b
~ N
N O (0
Q .
co r 0
0
)
C%j
co
Z n n
O N Al N N
H

LLI
N
z (D
n C)
o P.
m
N (D
I
O o 0 0 N t

w z m co
N
N
U r,
CD 1,
aoo m m

U I-
.
LL ?

?
W
J
¢ W
J M
G
m co v v

X
X
x
w
1 i I
Z
D
v
W
N
O
2 Q N N
Y Q W Y o
LU CC
LU >- Q N
W
U W ?a A
v? z co
" O
J O a
m t-1 Z
O
Q
W
Q ~
W
c? = W 0 (o a G
'cr W Cl) m ?i m a
O V/ > i! W O
~ a a w
LU O a a U
F J
0
W
N
W
W
Ch .4
?I s
im0 V• ..1?
8
O
IL
+ U.
_
z
WO f _
W z
x m0
cc
02
_
j- I-OH
3 U-

(n VU
O
Z) aU
O

m
J CCU

O
w
x cr
I--
l a
r (n -j

W,
OU via
7
0~ ya
Uz: COQ
?Z)

O=
U
0 OQ

cD Z)F,-
spa

cna Jr
Qa
?
cr In
O .. ... w...
O
0
U
aW
ui cc
co NH
W U

> Ucc Q
O?

wLn ?
u
cc
D
w r
1 z
U Y >
0 (n

N
~ m
O
cc
u
z
a
J
a
O
Y O
z O
a J
m W
m m
O
Z
W
c_D
LLJ
J
1 0

m
m n
N m

Cr N
CO n
m z
z
m m H m y O

B 'a
N z
N 3 a U
M w
0 f.7 W J
O U-
3 3 O N
J J W Y Lo
a a 0 z Q. O
x x O a o m
r

I
I

? w

?
?

I co
I
I
I
I
I

I u