20020027 Ver 1_Complete File_20070413

I

1. Office Review Information:
Project Name:
DWQ Project Number: ()l.- a1l'l
~tion Project Type (Circle One)
~ Private Mit. Bank
Project mitigation was constructed for (if
~pplicable ):

Location of project (narrative)'
Nearest named stream ,(WQ classification):
County: ff/AAlKL)!J
River basin: /AR- PA/IIILlCl)

Approved Mitigation plan available? Yes
Goal of Mitigation (stream length): NI'-IOC>
Stream length required for mitigation: -
Mitigated stream length present on site: J ii6 () ?
Type of Mitigation I (circle all applicable)
Restoration (priority level1!J.) Creation
Enhancement Preservation

Monitoring reports available?
Problem areas identified in reports? No
Problem areas addressed on site? Yes No
Date(s) of monitoring reports: fi8 Of:,

Buffer Mitigation?

Yes@

Zone 1 Acreage
Zone 2 Acreage

Success Criteria:
1.Physical:
2. Vegetation: 37(),~E~~ V~ 5
3. Aquatic biota: I

Dates of Activities(monthlvear):
Start of Construction:
Construction Completed: JUb{ ;l001-
Corrective Measures Taken: (j
,~ Date
(/AJyPO~N h) NZAJ ?(Afi~-
/t.7J>ftJ/l~'" bJA)N~
, C) VI A {]?AS l1Ay {E~

Monitoring requirements and frequency:

5 YJZ3 VE6 t ?Hf5/~L

The space below may be used to provide any additional, important information that was found
during the office review of information, or to list any additional information tbat needs to be
obtained during the site visit:

~r' j} ~ ~b Sf V pOOLS) 'E}(_eN1
f),e vlj)t;) - 1~ Draft page I of~fDr-H P
AJ() R6lJlL~ oR- PtAJ'/S ~VJ111fif3(f,

I:zPoR;r - tfii:> MlPlZ; sum//-'" i II N ~ /I I/l&~ - /II UI C () [/Illj P)N 'f..

1M JVLL lL?IA41JO~ !fJ/iL1'IIf.JIJ lJMT UJQJ fJ /lfS IbtJM
1~!3
)f';E

II. Data reported from Site Visit
Streambank Stability:
Are Streambanks Stable? . Yes No
If no, provide descrip.tion and notes regarding stability issues:
{PWN0}R1AAI\ ~~ -S1R~

f I
,
l \
t

I
Structures: I I , :
List all Types of structures present on site: ~OeK: I/Ajplf I j'! e
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? I I: 'res No

Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures: ! I '
4(1::. T'b (j?!i:,A?fi - .z <{ (lA/IllS - ID AJaT PU~(""I..g +lPINb I SlJjIr1,.iT

rM.p-^aJ VA);J ,.BfLo~eut{}W ,lfJO ~16lJ 1/
(' fA)t0~ 1 fltL7JJ ))JJ I

. ~
;;~
.
"

Stream Features:[
Are riffles and pools appropriately spaced?;
'Ie
Is the final sinuosity and gr . proXIma e ~
'.
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in tlie ~lJlaIweg?
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Plowing water' / UCJr Ponded, lias

Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stI;~am reaches
bars, downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.):
,~

~

, ~fi

No

~
, -.

~':;
,

Vegetation:
Approved Success Criteria:

Dominant plant species
1.(JIN9__ 7
2. '
@ No -; 3.
~ No, 4.
~No 5.

.. I "TP N% cover
r ; " ~
!' Ii
r f
! 'f'
~
; ,-'"
,

Vegetation planted on site?:
According to the approved plan?
Vegetation growing successfully?
Date of Latest planting:

. ~r.
:! .
i: ~(

Ave trees ej acre (buffer))' ::,
General observations on condition of riparianlbuffer areas (e.g. buffer width, m" raIl health of

vegetatiWS<L t51Jff~--Cfiob t'AN~ ~/U7ll/. ~

Draft page 2 of 3

1

Specific vegetation plots or site lOCUS with little to no woody vegetation:

Specific vegetation plots or site Oions with large areas of hare ground:

Site total % or estimated acreage of unvegetated areas:

,;

o

Observations on invasive species (type, % cover, etc.)

General co~ ~.:!:.:es( e.g. plant survival, major concerns, ete):
l/OlJ.JJJ!tz/S fJ/lfftrlllN~T -PltJ~

Aquatic Biota:
Is aquatic life present in the channel'!

QNO

Description of taxa observed, inc!. qu~tities of individuals and general distribution ofllMota.

Orf1:,'fS~f6 0 Sf 1

Mitigation Success:
Compared to the mitigation plan, the site is: (circle one)
successful partially successful
List specific reasons for any lack of success for this site:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

not SiUccessful

Notes: Attach site maps showing problem areas and/or important stream features.
Attach digital photographs of representative sites with photo locations shown OR 'Site map.

I Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine rthe
correct type of mitigation used for this project.

Draft page 3 of 3

April 13 Site Visits

addition, one failed rock structure was observed approx. 100 feet downstream of the
tributary/stormwater pipe.

Vegetation diversity appeared pretty good, although the tree density was lower in a section of stream
upstream from the tributary/stormwater pipe.

Despite the fact that this is only year 1, two species of caddisflies were found in the riffles in the upper
portion of the stream.

Being that this is year 1, my only recommendation would be to try rto do something with the area
below the road culvert, as there is a high level of erosion occurring here.

UT to Bear Swamp Creek - Franklin County. According to the report 10 rock structures are not
performing as intended. However, no instability problems were observed because of this. The stream
appeared stable, with good riffle-pool pattern. Some sediment was observed, apparently from
upstream.

Vegetation was very dense, and although pines were abundant, the riparian zone was densely vegetated,
and I don't think it it worth trying to control the pines.

1 species of caddisfly (several individuals) was found in two riffles on the stream.

I would not recommend any work on this stream at this time, and. this project looks like it would go in
the "Successful" category.

Hope the comments are helpful.

Eric

Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

? of ?

41~()1?()()7 11 ,,:n 11M

April 13 Site Visits

Subject: April 13 Site Visits
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 200708:40:54 -0400
To: [e-mail]

Kathy:

My notes/comments on the sites we looked at Friday.

Smith & Austin Creeks - Wake County Stability problems were noted in a number of locations on both
creeks. Erosion around root wads was observed at several locations on Austin Creek. An area on the
r.r'
north/west side of Austin Creek had fescue lawn to the stream bank and appeared to be maintained, "
possibly by a homeowner. A possible buffer violation was observed on the south/east side of the creek,
where fill material for a residential lot was within Zone 1 of the riparian buffer, and the deck of the
house was within Zone 2 of the buffer. On Smith Creek, areas of scour and bank erosion were
observed, and mid-channel bars were noted.

In the lower portion of the stream, in the golf course, a cross vain appears to have failed, as fabric was
dislodged and one or more rocks appeared to be missing.

Overall, I am concerned about the stability of the streams, particularly upstream from the road (Smith
and Austin Creeks, on either side of the soccer fields).

UT to Billy's Creek - Franklin County. The biggest issue here was the considerable amouts of sediment
in the stream, presumably from the upstream farm field. I am concerned that this will be an annual
event. As a result of the sediment, the channel dimension is obscured. From what I could tell, the
banks appear fairly stable, although a portion of the channel circumvented a vain in the middle portion
of the project, and the stream has become somewhat overwidened with mid-channel bars. The lower
reach of the stream did not have a good riffle-pool pattern, and consisted mostly of pools.

There are some vegetation issues, even though this is only year one. Bare areas are present from when
cattle got into the conservation easement area. Juncus is abundant, and in places, is growing within the
channel, sometimes filling the entire channel. The sediment in the channel is also exacerbating this
situation. I am concerned that during a dry summer, the channel may be completely filled with Juncus
in places, which could result in the channel relocating following periods of heavy rain.

Despite the sediment in the channel and the fact that this is only year 1, three species of caddisflies
were found in the riffles in the upper and middle portions of the stream.

Hopefully, the sediment will flush out and the channel will stabilize. I don't think any remedial actions
are warranted at this time, but some additional planting may be warranted int he sparse areas in the
future, a the Juncus may need to be controlled at some point.

UT to Tar River - Franklin County The stream channel appeared to generally be stable, except for
some erosion/scour in the lower portion of the stream, and a large problem area at the road culvert at
the upstream end of the project. In this area, considerable erosion has occurred, and a large vertical
bank has been carved, which is continually releasing sediment to the stream (mass wasting). In

10f2

4/30/2007 11 :32 AM

02 ~O()l7

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BEAR SWAMP CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION SITE
2005 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3)

Franklin County
EEP Project No. 27
Design Firm: Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc.

February, 2006

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

~~
E~~nt

I'ROGltAM

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 ....................................................................................... 7
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT.......... ................ ................ ............... ................ ..................... 7

3.1.1 Soil Data............................... ............................................................... ..................... 7

3 .1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas............. ............. .......... .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... 7

3.1.3 Stem Counts .......... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ............ ..................... 7

3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Bank Stability Assessment .................... .................. ........ .......... .......... ..................... 9
3.1.2 Stream Problem Areas ........ ....... ........... .......... ......... .......... .......... ............................. 9

Table 1
Table 2

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12

LIST OF FIGURES

Site Location ....... ........... .............................. .......... ............. ....... ............. ............. Appendix A

Monitoring Plan View....... ............. ......... ............ ........... ........... ........... ................ Appendix A

LIST OF TABLES

Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives .............................................................. Page 4
Project Activity and Reporting History ...................................................................... Page 4

Project Contacts.. .......... ............. ,....... ....... ... .......... .............. ...... ............... ...... ....... ..... Page 5

Project Background ........... ........... .......... ........................................ ............................ Page 6

Preliminary Soil Data ... ................... ........... ............. ............ ...... ... ........................... ... Page 7

Vegetation Problem Areas......... .................... ............ ..................... ............................ Page 7
Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged in PloL...................................................... Page 7

BEHI Estimates ........ ........... ................... ............ .................... .................. ........... ....... Page 9

Stream Problem Areas....... ............... ..... ........... .............. ........ ...................... ...... ........ Page 9
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment...........................................Page 10
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ......................................................... Page 11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary..................................................... Page 12

EEP Project No. 27

ii

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

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 Problem Area (Plan View)
Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
Permanent Station Photos
Exhibit Cl 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 Tables for Slope
Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables

EEP Project No, 27

iii

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Unnamed Tributary 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 third
year ofproject 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 second year monitoring was performed in 2004. 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 summarizes the results of the current year monitoring.

Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation success criteria for the forested riparian restoration areas is based on a minimum survival of
320 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 third year surveys, the average count of the
surviving planted species is 620 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total number of
stems increases to 8,120 stems per acre.

The Site is meeting the established success criteria for vegetation based on the survival of the planted
species. When volunteer species are included in the calculation, the densities are very high. This is
typical of the early forest successional development process when open fields and pastures go fallow.
Early successional species in abundance on the site include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer
[rubrum), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The heavy loblolly pine colonization, in particular, is
becoming a nusisance as they compete with the more desireable species for light and nutrients. Measures
may need to be undertaken in the near future to cull their numbers.

Stream Enhancement Monitoring
Success criteria for the restored stream reach has been established to confirm 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 used to describe the stream longitudinal profile and five permanent stream cross-
section (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. Water surface and bed slopes have changed little from the
as-built conditions. 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, ten are not performing their intended function. Six vanes have water
piping through or behind the structure. The remaining four have filled-in with sediment and have become
obsolete.

EEP Project No. 27

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

Based on the cross-sections and visual observations, the channel dimensions have not changed
significantly. However, observed features and surveyed cross-section indicate that the channel has
narrowed slightly and is developing a bankfull bench at many locations. The stream was designed as a
B5c (step-pool) stream (Rosgen 1996), which provides a sand bed channel with moderate entrenchment
and a moderate width-depth ratio. The current classification measurements are split, with the current
channel exhibiting the moderate entrenchment characteristic of a B-channel, yet exhibiting a very low
width-depth ratio of an E-channel. During the current survey, bankfull indicators were also found at a
significantly lower elevation than those described by the designer. Caution is advised in interpreting and
comparing past years data. This years morphological data is based on the newly identified bankfull
elevation. Pebble counts show no significant change to the channel substrate.

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 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 the Highway 561 split in Louisburg take a left onto 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 gates through the electric fence. The stream restoration reach
begins approximately 460 feet upstream of the road crossing and ends approximately 775 feet
downstream.

2.2 RESTORATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

Approximately 1,400 linear feet of an Unnamed Tributary 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 approxiamely 500 feet east of Dyking Road and 1,000 feet east of the project. Land use in the
watershed consists of agriculture, pature, 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 B5c (Rosgen 1996). Approxiamtely 664 linear feet of new channel
was constructed; and 771 linear feet of stream was stabilized in-place. Approximaley 800 tons of rock
were used to construct 24 rock vanes throughout the reach (Figure 2, Appendix A). The vanes were
designed to improve hyraulic flow and reduce shear stress. The vanes also provided 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 stablizing 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 imput. 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

Table 1. Project Structure
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site I EEP Project No. 27
= -=
.s ~
- ~ <=
<= =- =
.. Linear
= ~ ..
- E-o =-
Project Segment '" ~ Footage or
~
or Reach ID Acreage Stationing Comments
R P2/P3 780 linear Exact locations
--
Reach 1 feet* unknown
680 linear Exact locations
S SSS --
feet* unknown
Riparian
Vegetation Re- R -- 2.4 acres N/A --
establishment

*Linear footage values provided in the project's Mitigation Plan-reaches are not distinguished on figures or in text narrative
R = Restoration PI = Priority I
EI = Enhancement I P2 = Priority II
Ell = Enhancement II P3 = Priority III
S = Stabilization SSS = Stream Bank Stabilization

2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site I EEP Proiect No. 27
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity Report Completion Complete or Delivery
Restoration Plan NA* NA* NA*
Pinal 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
Pinal Report NA* NA July 2003
Year I Vegetation Monitoring NA* Pa112003 Jan 2004
Year I Stream Monitoring NA* Sept 2003
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring NA* NA* NA*
Year 2 Stream Monitoring NA* NA*
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Year 3 Stream Monitoring Dec 2005 Nov 2005

Bolded Items represent those events or deliverables that are variable. Non-bolded items represent events that are standard over
the course of a typical project.
*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

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Designer Mr. Robert Lepsic
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607
Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (ARCADIS) [phone]
Construction Contractor 130 Penmarc Drive, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27603-2434
SEI 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
110 1 Haynes Street, Suite 10 1
Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
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

Table 4. 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 Omernik) Northern Outer Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-built B5c
Cowardin Classification Stream (R3UB2)
Dominant soil types Wake-Saw-Wedowee Complex (WaB)
Wedowee (WeB, Wee)
Wake-Wateree-Wedowee Complex (WbD)
Reference Site ill 000543201A
USGS HUC for Proiect and Reference 03020101040010
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-03-01
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference NA*
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a No
303d listed segment?
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
Percent of project easement fenced 30-foot buffer fenced around entire reach

*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.

EEP Project No. 27

6

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS

3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT

3.1.1 Soil Data

Table 5. Preliminary Soil Data
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Series Max Depth % Clay on K T OM%
(in.) Surface
Wake-Saw-Wedowee Complex (WaB) 32 3-20 0.15-0.28 1-4 0.5-3
Wedowee (WeB, Wee) 32 5-20 0.24-0.28 4 0.5-3
Wake-Wateree-Wedowee Complex (WbD) 54 2-20 0.15-0.28 1-4 0.5-3

3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas

Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Feature / Issue Station # / Range Probable Cause Photo #
Throughout, but especially at Pinus taeda: seeding from adjacent stands I and 2
Invasive Vegetation Plot I
Populations Near Vegetation Plots I and 4 Acer rubrum: outside seed source --
Mainly at upstream end of site Lonicerajaponica: outside seed source --
Bare Ground 0+50 to I +00 and I +50 to 2+00 Steep dry cut slope 3

A vegetation problem area plan view and photos are provided in Appendix B.

3.1.3 Stem Counts

The existing five 20-foot by 45-foot plots were located and the comers marked with steel fence posts
painted orange. Stem counts were conducted for all woody species, including volunteer species. An
inventory of planted species is given in Table 7. A tally of volunteer woody species is listed in Table 7a.

Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Plots Year I Year 2 Survival
Species I 2 3 4 5 Totals * Totals %
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata 0 0 --
Comus amomum 3 6 3 13 12 92
flex verticillata 0 0 --
Salix nigra 4 21 3 19 29 153
Sambucus canadensis 0 0 --
Trees
Betula nigra 4 1 I 0 6 --

EEP Project No. 27

7

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Carpinus caroliniana 1 0 0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6 1 1 8 8 100
Juglans nigra 1 2 3 3 100
Morus rubra 1 0 0
Ostrya virginiana 5 0 0
Quercus michauxii 1 2 2 3 5 167
Quercus pagoda 1 0 0

* Initial Totals for planted species within vegetation plots are not available.

Table 7a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Plots Year 1 Totals Year 2 Totals
Species 1 2 3 4 5
Acer negundo 2 1 0 3
Acer rubrum 43 27 3 51 73
Baccharis halimifolia 2 0 2
Celtis laevigata 2 0 2
Diospyros virginiana 1 0 1
Liquidambar styraciflua 13 13 20 26
Liriodendron tulipifera 2 1 7 2
Pinus taeda 200 161 36 72 78 250 547
Platanus occidentalis 1 0 1
Prunus serotina 2 1 2 0 5
Rhus copallina 1 0
Rhus glabra 43 2 43
Ulmus alata 37 1 2 1 0 41
Viburnum nudum 3 0 3

An inventory of herbaceous species on the site was also taken. Dominant herbaceous species over the
Site as a whole are listed below:

Aster dumosus (frost aster)
Bidens frondosa (beggar ticks)
Duchesnea indica (Indian strawberry)
Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel)
Eupatoriumfistulosum (Joe Pye weed)
Helianthus angustifolius (swamp sunflower)
Lonicerajaponica (Japanese honeysuckle)

Phytolacca americana (pokeweed)
Polygonum sp. (smartweed)
Rumex crispus (curly dock)
Solanum carolinianum (horse nettle)
Solidago sp. (goldenrod)
Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy)
Vernonia sp. (ironweed)

{/

EEP Project No. 27

8

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT

3.1.1 Bank Stability Assessment

Table 8. BEHI Estimate
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Time Segment/ Linear Very Very Sediment
Point Reach Footage Extreme High High Moderate Low Low Export
ft 0/0 ft % ft % ft % ft 0/0 Ft 0/0 Tons/year
3rd year Reach 1
460 -- -- -- -- -- -- 100 22 -- -- 360 78 1.3
monitoring Above Road
3rd year Reach 2
975 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 50 5 925 95 0.4
monitoring Below Road
3 rd year Project Total 1435 100 7 50 3 1225 90 6.0
-- -- -- -- -- --
monitoring

3.1.2 Stream Problem Areas

Table 9. Stream Problem Areas
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Station Photo
Feature Issue Numbers Suspected Cause Number
Vane 2, filled in low slope, excess sediment 1
Vane 3, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane anus 2
Vane 6, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane anus 3
Vane 8, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane anus 4
Vane 10, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane arms 5
Vane 11, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane arms 6
Vane 14, filled in low slope, excess sediment 7
Vane 17, filled in low slope, excess sediment 8
Vane 19, structure failure Piping, inadequate use of filter fabric, steep vane anus 9
Vane 24, filled in low slope, excess sediment Not available
Incoming 4-inch pipe No energy dissipater 10
Slight Bank Erosion Floodplain restriction 11

A stream problem area plan view and photos of problem areas are provided in Appendix C

EEP Project No. 27

9

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

Table 10. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
UT to Bear Swamp Creek Stream Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 27
Segment/Reach: 1,439 feet
Feature Initial MY-Ol MY -02 MY -03 MY -04 MY -05
A. Riffles 100% NA* NA* 80%
B. Pools 100% NA* NA* 91%
C. Thalweg 100% NA* NA* 88%
D. Meanders 100% NA* NA* 77%
E. Bed General 100% NA* NA* 95%
F. Rock Vanes 100% NA* NA* 82%
G. Root Wads 100% NA* NA* 86%

*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time ofthis report submission,

EEP Project No. 27

10

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

to-
N
d
Z
t''tS
~ .~
= Q
==::
=~
rLJ.~
.~ ~
-
=---
~ ~
-;::
"ClrLJ.
$8
"Cl:::l'ti
= ~ .~
~loo-
~~ ;
Q ~ ~
'Q""":=
-==~
=-~~
loo~~
Q loo ~
::?Joo"";
~~
~ t
~u
==-
. =
,...; ~
,...; ~
~rJ:J.
~ loo
~ ~
E-;=
Q
....
Eo-
~

Q)
u
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
.....
C/.l

.....
u
Q)
'0'
l-<
~

bl)
~ ~
...::: 0
00.....
.~ .t::
p.:j]
I 0
~u
~

Q)
~-
U I:':l
- i::
I:':l Q)
~.....
.9 ..s
bl)
Q)
~

'"
~
....
~
e
~
'"
~
~

'"O~"'<'l0~~00~00
~~:Jo\ ....;0,....;:::0

.=:
'5
-9
00
<

~ci;;ci~l':~~::i~
:E .........'- -_0

~OC!:~
~~NC't'"i

l/')~~~
N"""'" \0 .
aoNMOO
N N

l/')~"":~
'.- N .
V)......r'o::j-O

0~0t-
r-:O\o .
("fj~~M

O~OO
ONr-: .
oo;;!;t-oo

~~~O
o l/') 00 '
Nl/') N

O~~IQ
,0 ~ .
t-;::!;'<1'0

O~~t-
.000 '
oo~ooo

O~~l/')
. ("fj..-; .
IQIQNO

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

::::::::::::::::
zzzz

<<<<
zzzz

<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
~~~~

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

<2 <8 <2.9
'-'''-''-'1;i
..c <Ll..c ....
..... ;..; 't"".,.e:
:g E E'.:o
~ clj a> o1""l
':::~a;~
~U~~
a;'t:~]
a ~ t ~
~~]::;E
U~<Ll
::;E

=
'"
.,
...
...
=
j:l.;

00
* 0 l/')
..(-......rM
Z~-l/')
o

* ~\Ov:
< N 'l/')
Zoo-
OM-

*~_t-
< o~, '
z~""""
o

*t;oC!
< 0 . t-
Zooo""

* NO 0
< "" . .
Zd-G

*~oo
< 0 ,0\
z~~
o

~3<')~
ZoO\~

*'<1'00
< - . ,
Zo::::l$

~g~;j
ZOt-N

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

<<<<
zzzz

<<<<
zzzz

<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

* * * *
<<<<
zzzz

<8<8<8<2
;::'4:;:'-''-'
~ ';; ~ .~
=e.=U
~..9~~
(1)00_00
E <Ll g'O
,- E Il. 0
~i:l2 Il.

.,
is
=
'"
j:l.;

..'
'<1'IQ
0-

" '

d~
"":~
0-

'..

rc! ~ "
ON,

NO\
ON"

rc! ~ .
ON

,
t-
<'l~

,

<'l~
'<1'

t-
<'l ~ "

* * ',~
<<
zz.

* * "
~~ '

"

* *
~~,

:::::::: .
zz,

~~ ,.
. '
<<
zz; ...

* * '
<<
zz

* * ,
< <",
z z,

.,
...
=
.::
'"
,Q
=
00

o l/') '<1' '<1' * *
o",,_l/')~~<<
:<:^-~~&IlZZ
00

Ol.n t"-t'- * *
O<'l_l/')~~<<
:<:.-~~&IlZZ
00

** \0\00**
<<---l/')<<
ZZ-~~&IlZZ

* * * * * * * *
<<<<<<<<
zzzzzzzz

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
zzzzzzzz

* * * * * * * *
<<<<<<<<
zzzzzzzz

=
o
';;;
'"
's
.0 o:l
~'E
t::.-:::
o ....
""U
<Ll '"
.... '"
<Ll <Ll
..c U
~ ~
0__
<Ll =
e,g
._ 0.
..... 0(
<Ll =
..c ._
..... ....
..... 0
clj .-=
<Ll =
- 0
~ e
.- .....
~::::
~ =
=-9
= '"
<Ll<
~E
::: >-
s::::
o:l a
~ e
,- '1:
-50.
<Ll'"O
"0 <Ll
,- =
> .-
8 E
""<Ll
0.....
..... <Ll
c"O
~]
'" o:l
<Ll U
ut+::
<Ll._
= U
'" <Ll
..... 0.
= '"
<Ll.....
e ~
=.-
u 0
o ....
"00.
..... <Ll
u..c
<Ll_
'8'~
""
- =
o:l 0
U ,-
.- '"
... =
0-
..... u
.:!a =
=:-
* *

.5 - ~ ......... 0\ V) Nt-'"""": 00
~oO-oOo"";oci,....;oo

"O~~~OOIQNoo~t-
~~~oOo,....;--:::o

So
'r;;
Q)
o

~~~~OOOONN~t-
:;O~oOO"";-N:::O

,5 ~ ~ ~ 00 '<1' N '<1' ~ t-
::;Eo..qocio""';-""';-d

"g"":~. _l':<'l~0\
:E ~~-M~N:::::d

~~~~N'<1'~'<1'~O
~_~""",....;N-N~.....;

.S ~ v: ~ 0\ 0\ ~ N ~ 00
~ -V) 0 . "- . r"") .
~_N_O- N_O

~ * * * * * * * * *
~<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

~*********
~<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

c*********
;.;;<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

"gt-<l/')O<t-<t-O
::E'l:izoO"";z'l:iz00"";

~<<<<<<<<<
~zzzzzzzzz

.5 < < < < < < < < <
::;Ezzzzzzzzz

I:':l
~
o
Q)
~
c:J
tZl
c:J
C/.l
::J

~ * * * * * * * * *
~<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

~*********
~<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

=*******;c*
;.;;<<<<<<<<<
...zzzzzzzzz

::
.S
'"
=
.,
s
is

...-..- 0 o.-::-~
~~q::S~'il'il$~
-:S ..sl~ oS -5 ~" B =s
"0 "0 <Ll -::: -::: ..c ..... <Ll ,-
,_.- .., OJ OJ ~ = e "0
~ ~ :: Cl Cl OJ 13'c f::!
~<Llo:l=~,",_<Llu
",,==o:lo:l!:::;-Il.;.:::
-00 <Ll'<::'"",=U_=
..e.'+::::;E...':O <Ll O:S o:l
"o~~~:;:.b=11.
..9~&II&II;>Ji~:B
~ '"
8
U
~
&II

EEP Project No. 27

11

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

r--
M
=
~Z
......
= c.;
e .~
e f
=~
oo~
bJili;lil
.s: Ii;lil
""--
.s ~
... ....
goo
~ g
.~ :;:l li
=E~N
E .s "" ~
"Cl '" ~ ,Q
~~ = - Q)
=::....:= ~E
"Cl e ~ 00 ...
= = ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0
~.....,..; ul-<
bJiOO
=.::c
= ~
-= ""
!:'u
= l:l.o
~ e
=
N ~
"";00
~ ..
;Q =
= ~
E-=
=
....
Eo-
~

'<:t
~
o
'...
Uo
Q) 0
OOp..
'"
'"
o
l-<
U

M
;:::
.Q
bO
Q) 0
OOp..
'"
'"
o
l-<
U

-

~
,Q
.... Q)
~S
~2
'"
o
l-<
U

""
~
....
Q)
e
=
""
=
~

+
><
~

trl
><
~

'<t
><
~

>:-:~"1"!"!~oq~l':
~~("f')O\N("fj-r-_O

~ * * * * *' * * * *
::;;-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
"",ZZZZZZZZZ

~ * * * * * * * * *
::;;-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
"",ZZZZZZZZZ

+
><
~

trl
><
::;;

'<t
><
::;;

>:0000\'<t1,O"1000",
::;;ono\,....;OO~NonO

M~********
>< Z.....-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
::;; zzzzzzzz

E<<<<<<<<<
""'zzzzzzzzz
+
><
::;;

trl
><
~

'<t
><
~

("f')~MO\\Oao__\OV
~Mr-:""';OO-DN<io

N * * * * *' * * * *
~-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
"",ZZZZZZZZZ

....... * * * * * * * * *
~-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
"",ZZZZZZZZZ
+
><
~

trl
><
~

'<t
><
~

'"
><Otrll,Otr)I:'-I,OO\Ooo
::;;ono\NOOo\""';-DO

N * * * * * *' * * *
~-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
"",ZZZZZZZZZ

....... * * * * * * * * *
><-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<
::;;ZZZZZZZZZ

--. 0 0 <:::'IQ
~I~ q:: e ~ '~ '~ ~Ie
;s..s';;S;S~~Brg
-.::l -.::l ., r; r; ,.Q ..... .,._
,- ,- !oj or 0;..... I': E "0
~ ~ <t; CI Cl fr]" 'C ~
'T""I':~~ .,u
-1':1':<:l<:l t:l..;.:
~oo.,..,. g ~
~'.;:l::;;""'.;o.,15 <:l
..!: 0 rT. _ Lot _ lr-o
"O.,~-~.....-12.
.9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Jl ~ ::j::'
~ '"
o
....
U
~
~

I':
.51
'"
I':
.,
E!
is

~
os
..
...
'"
,Q
=
rLJ

1:'-1,0
00 .
0-

"0
.,
00 ~
0
0
~ ~
~ ::;E
:::E I':
~
-.::l
;:- .,
::;E
0
0
~ ~
tr) ::;E
0
I
>-
:::E I':
~
"0
G .,
::;E
0
0
~ ~
'<:t ::;E
0
I
>-
:::E I':
~
"0 "! trl 0 - ~ '<t ~
., 00 r-: N - N
~ ::;E '" trl 00 0 on '<t
'" - trl - N 0 1,0
0
0 trl
~ 0 '<t 0 0 0\ '" trl
~ I:'- ~ I:'- I:'- trl 1,0 U -< -<
0 N 1,0 ....; 0 '" - ~
M ::;; N 0 '" N 0 N 00 "'. '<t. - :::; 0 -- Z Z
0 1,0 tr) N 1,0 0 N - - - 0 0 trl
I >Il
>-
:::E I': "1 ~ "! 00 00 :::; 00 ~
~ ~ 0 0\ N M 0 ,....; ::!
'<t - 0
"0 " " " " " " " "
~ ., -< -< -< -< -< -< ~ -<
::;E Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
0
0
.~ ~ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
-< -< -< -< ~ -< ~ -< -< -< ~ -< -< -< -< ~
N ::;E Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
0
I
>-
:::E c: " " " " " " " "
~ -< -< -< -< -< -< -< ~
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
-.::l trl " I:'-
"! 0 0\ 1,0 ~
I~ ., '" 00 r-: "<l: -< ON ~
::;E '" tr) trl '" Z 0-
0
0 I:'-~ '"
I~ 0 '<t 0 tr) G -
~ I:'- " 00", 0\ 1,0 u " "
N 0 N '" -< gN 1,0 0 '" - - - trl -< -<
- ::;E 1,0 0 - -D Z "'- '<to - 0 0 ~ Z Z
0 trl - 0 - - 0 0
>- '<t
:::E c: "1 0 N "1 " NI:'- I:'-
~ '" 0 0\ ~ o , r-:
'<t - - o '" -
0
~ q:: ~ 0 g q:: Ie 'E ",I~ 15 ,f: q:: 14': c: " "
.~ ,$: ~ '"
ig '" ig 15 ., 0
45 ., ~ ,.Q ,.Q gf ",.Q ,.Q 0 (;i -.::l ..s
.... ,.Q ; '@l ~~ ; g u .5 I':
::l ~ ~ ~
.~ ~ I': .;0 c: I': '6 ., I': I': iZi l.;:l 19 .,
., ~ .2 0 .2 g E! ., ., 0 0 '(jj ,Q
~ '"iiJ os>-< >-< U5 '"iiJ '" 8
Qi .... ., 0 o:l ~
~ ; ~ 1 0 u
~ U .... S ., 0 0 ., ~ o:l
~ ., S i:l.- u ~ ::I: ::;;
Qi ""' "0 iiZ t:l.. 0 I':
0 c: iiZ t:l.. ,.Q" ..s ~
I': '" .... o:l :;> ,.Q ....
a ., ., ~
~ "0 U '"
::;; U:l 0
"" ,.Q :a c: ~ .... ~
U <:l o:l
~ ., .,
.... ~ ::;E 'i (;i
~ ~
e =
= =>
.. ., ;l
= ., e :a
"" ...
= ... => ~
os ..
~ i:l. i:l. <

'"
.~
's
~
1::
o
""
~
...
o
,~
"
.,s
1il
"
~
';;
>
"
'"
=
~
"
~
~
"0
~
~
"
"0
';:
2
""
B
~
~
"
"
1j
~
c
~
=
"
.g
"
"
.~
""
';;j
.8
~
~

" "
-<-<
zz

~g)
1,0-
'"

trltrl
1,0 .
0-

" "
-<-<
zz

O\~
""';0\
N

"'trl
I:'- ,
o'<t

" "
-<-<
zz

" "
-<-<
zz

'" trl
'" 1,0
00

" "
-<-<
zz

'<to
OM

SS
55
o '<t
tr) 00
"0 "0

EEP Project No, 27

12

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

r--
N
~Q
=Z
5't
5 .~
~e
I;J)=--
.5 =--
..~
.s~
.. --
= ~
=....
~oo
.S:! =
-=.S ....
=.... ~
..E~
~ = ..
>..... =
== fIj ~
~ =
~ ~..
a5;
>.=~
I;J)~-.:t
=-=..;
-00
~..:.=
E't
= ..
~u
c.
...: 5
= =
= ~
~oo
N ..
..... =
~ ~
-=
,C=
=....
E-E-
~

+
><
::;E
V'l
><
::;E
"'"
><
::;E
<"l
><
::;E
N
><
::;E
>:
::;E
+
><
::;E
V'l
><
::;E
>:
::;E
<"l
><
::;E
N
><
::;E
-
><
::;E
+
><
::;E
V'l
><
::;E
>:
::;E
<"l
><
::;E
N
><
::;E
>:
::;E
+
><
::;E
V'l
><
::;E
>:
::;E
<"l t'~"""'-("f')("')OO~OO
><
::;E v)~~~~v)-:r...:d
~ * * * * * * * * *
::;E<<<<<<<<<
zzzzzzzzz
- * * * * * * * * *
>< ~<<<<<<<~
::;E ZZZZZZZ
4:: 4:: ~ 4:: 4:: ,8 ,8 818
1;l1;l;;::'IC
; .s.s~.s.s~~B~
"Q"Q II.l R- ~..<: ...... 1I.l'-
.- .- -< II.l II.l ...... s:: E"Q
~ ~ 0 0 fr II.l 'I: f
-s::~~lill.lt)
~g~olol ~;.::
OOIl.l::;E g"Q;:l
.E.'..:::;E ;Oll.lll.lf
"Qgr.r..~~~~::g
~~~ ~~::I:
r.r.. '"
= r3
> .~
'" r.r..
=
Q> ~
if .5
~

lr)
:::
o
".c (l)
gs
CZl ._
1Zl~
1Zl
o
l-<
U

..
~
....
~
5
=
..
=
=--

0:
.~
'8
~
t::
0
0.
e
.....
0
'"
,g
'"
;S
'i<i
'"
~
.~
0:
;:l
'"
...
~
V'lC! "
......::! ~
'"
* * ~
<< ~
zz '>
8
","0 0.
ci<'i B
51'S ~
'"
55 '"
il
0"'" 0:
V'l 00 '"
"Q"Q 15
'"
a
13
.g
-
u
'"
.~
0.
Q> Oi
......
oj .~
..
...... ~
'"
J:l
= iE
00 *

EEP Project No. 27

13

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

EEP Project No. 27

UT to Bear Swamp Creek Restoration Site