20031001 Ver 1_Complete File_20070413

'6?
206100 )
Draft Stream Mitigation Site Evaluations: Information Table
NC Division of Water Quality
Felsi'C Draft Version 2
Evaluator's name(s): Z Evaluator's Agency: -?W
Date of Office Review: N Date of Field Review:
Other individuals/agencies resent:
1. Office Review Information:
Project Name: LIT"no 614L-1'5 Monitoring reports available? eP No
DWQ Project Number: _ - 10 O 1 Problem areas identified in reports?(VD No
hon Project Type (Circle One) Problem areas addressed on site? Yes _
?? Private Mit. Bank Date(s) f monitoring reports:
Project mitigation was constructed for (if U
applicable): Years of monitoring: R
P UAJ 6VO7Y Djv mv ea-46
Location of project (narrative):-AJE 1
,
Nearest n stream (WQ classification):
,Ad
County: -74,82kU,J
River basin: AIEVS 2 _

Approved Mitigation plan available? Yes
Goal of Mitigation (stream length): 9 /4 / Buffer Mitigation? Yes No
Stream length required for mitigation: AM
Mitigated stream length present on site: 20 ZS Zone 1 Acreage
Type of Mitigationt (circle all applicable) Zone 2 Acreage
Restoration (priority level 1-) Creation
Enhancement Preservation
Dates of Activities(month/War):
Monitoring requirements and frequency:
_ Start of Construction:
y925
STABILE - ? Construction Completed: A14 &S
Corrective Measures Taken:
Type Date
Success Criteria:
>?
?
?
l .Physical:
/
/M 5TA181F
/
2. Vegetation: X60 SNA3 eV ROE
3. Aquatic biota: AM
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 that needs to be
obtained during the site visit:
Iq?? M4,106al?

Draft page I of 3
14111-
H. Data reported from Site Visit
Streambank Stability:
Are Streambanks Stable? o
If no, provide description and notes ng stability issues:
Structures:
List all Types of structures present on site:e ?ll !' ). 5fi' ?bL
Are the structures stable (e.g. erosion, deposition, etc.)? Yes No
Provide description and notes regarding problematic structures:
oS5 vA).?j AT 1-vp 0p 19A2 FC?
UAW P//-'W 6 .A R4M)) A QAA
. - - - v _ 2 Clot
Stream Features: F3 0?
Are riffles and pools appropriately spaced? N Of 0_/j LOIJ Yes No
Is the final sinuosity and gradient designed approximately to plan specifications? Yes , No
Any evidence of vegetation growing on the stream bed or in the Thalweg? Pe C
Percentage of the restoration reach that has: Flowing water. I 100/, Ponded areas
Describe any stream features that provide evidence of unstable stream reaches (e.g. mid-channel
bars, downstream meander migration, chute cutoff formation, etc.):
ss
1t1WCfYPW)
Vegetation:
Approved Success Criteria: Dominant plant species TPA/% cover
1.
2.
Vegetation planted on site?: No 3.
According to the approved plan? 6es
No 4.
Vegetation growing successfully? Yes ?0 5.
Date of Latest planting:
Ave trees per acre (buffer)
General observations on condition of riparian/buffer areas (e.g. buffer width, overall health of
vegetation, etc.)
1m J1JT ?An-
sp-
5tPl?
12c e.H
Draft page 2 of 3
A

Specific vegetation plots or site locations with little to no woody vegetation:
Specific vegetation plots or site locations with large areas of bare ground:
Site total % or estimated acreage of unvegetated areas:
Observations on invasive species (type, % cover, etc.)
General comments on vegetation issues(e.g. plant survival, major concerns, etc):
Aquatic Biota:
Is aquatic life present in the channel?
Yes No
Description of taxa observed, incl. quantities of individuals and general distribution of biota.
&ZLJ
?l
Mitigation Success:
Compared to the mitigation plan, the site is: (circle one)
successful partially successful not muccessful
List specific reasons for any lack of success for this site:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Notes: Attach site maps showing problem areas and/or important stream features.
Attach digital photographs of representative sites with photo locations shown oo. 4site map.
1 Use the definitions in the joint state/federal stream mitigation guidelines to determine: tthe
correct type of mitigation used for this project.
Draft page 3 of 3
April 13 Site Visits
Subject: April 13 Site Visits
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:40:54 -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
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
1 of 2 4/30/2007 11:32 AM
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]
9 of? A/2ni,Inns 1 7
Z)oooj
UT to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration
Final 2006 Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year One
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Project Number 36
Submitted to: NCDENR-Eco system Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by: URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Project Designed by: URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Submitted: January 19, 2007
os?stem
E,I?
VIt U(:ItAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT ....................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 2
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ................................................................................................... 2
2.2 MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................4
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 4
2.4 MONITORING PLAN VIEW ......................... :........................................................................ 6
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................ 9
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Soil Data ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Vegetative Problem Areas ............................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View ........................................................................ 10
3.1.4 Stem Counts ............................................................................................................... 10
3.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos ............................................................................................... 10
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Procedural Items ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1.1 Morphometric Criteria ........................................................................................ 11
3.2.1.2 Hydrologic Criteria ............................................................................................. 11
3.2.1.3 Bank Stability Assessments ................................................................................ 11
3.2.2 Problem Areas Plan View .......................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Problem Areas Table Summary .................................................................................. 11
3.2.4 Numbered Issues Photo Section ................................................................................. 11
3.2.5 Fixed Photo Station Photos ........................................................................................ 12
3.2.6 Stability Assessment ................................................................................................... 12
3.2.7 Quantitative Measures Tables (Morphology and Hydrology) .................................... 12
4.0 METHODOLOGY SECTION .......................................................................................................17
4.1 STREAM METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 17
4.2 VEGETATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................17
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ............................................................3
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View ..................................................................................7
Figure 3. Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View ..............................................Appendix A-II
Figure 4. Stream Problem Areas Plan View ...................................................Appendix B-I
TABLES
Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table ................................................4
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History ..................... ........................................5
Table III. Project Contact Table .......................................... ........................................5
Table IV. Project Background Table .................................... ........................................6
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data .......................................... .......................................9
Table VI. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates ...................... ......................................1 l
Table VII. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment . .....................................12
i
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
Table VIII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary .................................................13
Table IXa. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ..............................................15
Table IXb. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary .................. ............................16
Table Al. Vegetative Problem Areas ............................................... .............Appendix A-1
Table All. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot ..................... .............Appendix A-1
Table B1. Stream Problem Areas ................................................... .............Appendix B-II
Table B1I. Qualitative Visual Morphological Stability Assessment ............ ............Appendix B-V
APPENDICES
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Data Tables
11. Vegetation Problem Areas Plan View
III. Vegetation Problem Area Photos
IV. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix B Geomorphic Raw Data
1. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
II. Stream Problem Areas Table
III. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
IV. Stream Photo Station Photos
V. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
Vl. Annual Overlays of Cross Section Plots
VII. Annual Overlay of Longitudinal Plots
VIII. Pebble Count Frequency Distribution Plots
U
36 -UT to Billy's Creek- MYl Final Report URS 1/07
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT
URS Corporation - North Carolina (URS) was retained by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) to conduct Year One Monitoring at the Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Billy's Creek Stream
Restoration Project, located northeast of Franklinton in Franklin County, North Carolina. The UT to
Billy's Creek Stream Restoration Project (hereafter referred to as `site') was designed by URS and
constructed by McQueen Construction, Inc. Construction began on March 16, 2005 and ended on June 8,
2005. Planting began December 6, 2005 and ended on December 19, 2005. Year One Monitoring was
conducted on September 6, 2006.
The project reach is located northeast of Franklinton 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 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. Approximately 2.6 acres of buffer were planted along the restored stream channel. A
6.2 acre conservation easement was established on the site.
Overall, the site was observed to be functioning well. Instream structures appeared to be stable, and the
stream has maintained a defined channel. The most notable problem observed was the accumulation of
sediment within the first 100 feet of the project reach. The sediment accumulation is most likely the
result of a 50-year storm event associated with Tropical Storm Alberto that occurred during June of this
year (2006). The Year One Monitoring channel length is 2,025 linear feet.
Storm flows also affected much of the vegetation along the project reach. The strength of the flow had
negative effects on many of the smaller stems planted along the streambank and floodplain. Moreover, the
presence of cattle within the conservation easement after the storm exacerbated vegetation problems along
the project reach. Vegetation weakened by the storm was then trampled and grazed by cattle that entered the
easement through a disabled fence. Cattle trails are present along the entire project reach, on both sides of the
channel. Bare banks and floodplains exist throughout the site, but are concentrated in the downstream
portion.
The planted woody vegetation is doing fair. The strong storm event coupled with the presence of cattle
shortly after planting has negatively impacted the planted individuals. Conditions are expected to improve in
the coming years, assuming cattle remain outside the easement.
Several small Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) plants were noted within the conservation easement.
Eradication methods were used to remove privet from the site prior to planting, but seed sources still exist
outside the conservation easement boundary. While these individuals do not constitute a problem area at this
time, the presence and abundance of the species should be monitored.
Recommendations for UT to Billy's Creek include the following: 1) work with land owner and NRCS to
ensure cattle exclusion (e.g. existing wires tightened, additional strands added, bring fence on-line or "live"),
2) treat exotic stems (e.g. privet), and 3) allow time for vegetation to mature and bankfull events to work
sediment through system. Overall, the site is functioning well as above bankfull events are accessing the
floodplain, pools are maintaining, and the pattern is maintaining. Vegetation has been stressed; however,
planted species are present and should continue to mature.
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - W I Final Report URS 1/07
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 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 northernmost 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.
2
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - W 1 Final Report URS 1/07
1 2?l ??Jy
fY, I, ? ? y Gory •_,
n i1 r l
?• r r ? ? -? ? +? '• ? ? Gated Farm Road , r
7 ?? L?r?{? )1 ,.y. ?. ? k? ,+ i'}((???•?, i
Project Reach
Swan St '
TrudYS
t F?? `! tf " 2 r ?' 1
^Up •? SR#12%r?'y 5, t, a 8 ?i36
_ ' ' <r.1ai e5 of s fi 11 ra; } F
J4
7 2
I
FTI WI-11
Oak Pond P7,
- /T, ??? ` -?_ ( ?? ?? ?_ l /r' , N ?????,i-, ?? -,??,\ t ??? _?,??"?fr?. ?F? Il ? 1 r ? 1"? .. ? fii f ?1 ? ,j?? t'? • \.N ? ?,
`., O?i?. ` l,y ?\ 3 .? ?+" ? .?t )? 1 1, ? J(?/ I ? ` \f' ! it .,i` i 1 •?_ !) ! _ ^-?
-^'?. ? ,i? ' fir' ,'.?.?'{ - n??Q ? 4 ,,?? ?? -_j'1?' .p •: !, #,; ` ri• +?` r Yi 1
???` ??? l ?" ? ? (, !/ `? 1 ? l?r? /?' ?J' ' i-?? x Y •? ?? l? '?! ? .?'?? Ire, ?, ?? ? 11
B u h.:ood Dr r i',?/? ?4!l - 1249 ! 1E?il "?`µ. 1 ??';r'_.
C??{,k + ?(j ?'r ? 'i?4?? ??? ? 4-?:? 11 r ?1?/1 \ti ???•^'. •.?! ,rr„( .?: ? ?.. +`Cr? ?
,. „? ? t?-Mann St 'd .; i p'?`1/,??'?fr?? i- r l? ? '',• ? 1 ??,? ?:. _ \ '?G'((?.>r ?/ ?1, -
1-r ?- Ch ken Farm i`iL / 1f ji! r ??`;(fir^' 1 `ll1 ` f ?S ?a % ?? ?? 1 `
??? ?\ ?`* ?,?, e ?_,, ?)i?)rl ? ? ???r^ '? ??-_ ; E° (`• r?Q. Y_ e IN y__ N ? ? ?
I MO
-? V t • T i/?'? ?? r ' _ d? \ ASR 1211 ( r j
r- ?
Q fee o\?ns - (? 2 ?Y '? r, ` t
,Yt
- ? -•. y ?1'i/?? f • 7 . , ? 5\ hr,?.'a 1 i y, ? ti,r ?? l •, e?lair??n `S r ? , ?? ' r? ? ? f •? \ ?? -
..ss,.FKANKLINTON ~;
r
/
wr `+?:f •. `std >< P.?=? `?' ? ??.? .? CSR v
Prepared By: Prepared For. Project: Monitoring Year. Legend
URSCorporaton - North Carolina NC Ecosytem
1600 Perimeter Park Drive Enhancement Program UT to Blllys Creek 1 (2006) ° Project Reach
suite 400 Stream Restoration _ strewn Figure 1
Morrisville, NC 27560 Franklin County, NC Project Vcinifi7
,
Fax: [phone] ? NC Highway
L..l Road
?1 em Project Number: Date: c
ry Boundary 0 0.25 0.5
Hrlt ?4 ..11?C11{. It 36 January 2007 county Boundary
Miles
2.2 MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
The project reach is located northeast of Franklinton 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 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:
1. 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;
2. Reconnect the project reach's channel to its historic floodplain where feasible;
3. Eliminate the excessive sediment contribution to the system by the mass wasting and erosion of
the stream banks along the project reach; and
4. Repair and restore the riparian corridor along the project reach in order to improve habitat and
protect the stream from further erosion.
The restoration of the UT to Billy's Creek was conducted as a Priority I restoration by returning the
channel to an elevation such that the historic floodplain is utilized for above-bankfull 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 roots throughout the conservation easement.
Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36
L
c v brio ?°", °
a c c
'" Comment
p.
?a } E"
? "
d °
aw e
?

1,878 10+00 to Includes 2,101 linear feet
UT to Bill 's Creek R PI Pre-resotration 31+30 per As-Built
R= Restoration PI= Priority I
El= Enhancement I PII= Priority II
Ell= Enhancement II PIII= Priority III
S= Stabilization SS= Stream Bank Stabilization
2.3 PROJECT 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
4
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY I Final Report URS 1/07
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.
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36

Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion Data Collection
Complete Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Aril 15, 2003 NA August 2003
Final Design May 31, 2003 NA August 11, 2004
Construction Jul 31, 2003 NA June 2005
Planting Fall 2004 NA December 2005
As-Built Report Fall 2005 January 2006 Aril 2006
Year 1 Monitoring September 2006 September 2006 January 2007
Year 2 Monitoring Fall 2007 -- --
Year 3 Monitoring Fall 2008 --
Year 4 Monitoring Fall 2009 --
Year 5 Monitoring Fall 2010 --
Year + Monitoring Not scheduled -- Not scheduled
Table III. Project Contact Table
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36
Designer URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Primary project design POC Kathleen McKeithan 919-461-1597
Construction Contractor McQueen Construction Inc.
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Construction contractor POC Harvey McQueen 919-479-4766
Planting Contractor Carolina Environmental
PO Box 1905
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Planting contractor POC Joanne Chetham 336-320-3849
Seeding and Matting Contractor Erosion Control Solutions
5508 Peakton Road
Raleigh, NC 27604
Seeding contractor POC N/A - Contact Construction Contractor
Monitoring Performers URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Stream Monitoring POC -Kathleen McKeithan 919-461-1597
Vegetation Monitoring POC - Susan Shelin oski 919-461-1311
36 - UT to Billy's Creek- MYl Final Report URS 1/07
Table IV. Project Background Table
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36
Project County Franklin County
Drainage Area 0.22 s uare miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate % Estimated at < 10%
Stream Order 1 St
Ph sio a hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Northern Outer Piedmont 45
Ros en Classification of As-Built E5
Dominant soil types Chewacla, Altavista
Reference site ID Unknown
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03020101
NCDW Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-03-01
NCDW classification for Project and Reference WS-IV; NSW
An portion of any ro'ect 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 project easement fenced 100
2.4 MONITORING PLAN VIEW
See Monitoring Plan View Sheets (2).
-UT to Billy's Creek- MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
?I !®A
,, -4
l ? ? r i 1c
1 / E0r - _
Atr°bo
\ \ \ \ I \ ENO
\ \ \a?v
\ \\\IV \\ 1 1 \ Iii I 1 ?U?? I` 3
\ \ 11111 11\l 1 I i 1 \\\ \ \ ?I?':??C72?"z'f $IB??i ?t'SR ?:??'???` gp...
\ \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ I \ 1 1 1 1\\ \ \ ? R
\\\ \ 111 I I E""I I I 1 \ 11 \ 1 \`\ _ \\ _ --
, 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?1 I I I \ 1\ l? I
\ 1111 1j1 ?1 I I ! \ \ \ \ . I I
`I 111 / I I !-(, I 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ ?\ yy?'.??? Y7Yu ?? ?? ¢ i
M
ggg m 1 1 I I '' I' r 1 1 1 ` $$ R sQ$
Y g 5 '
Q$F R '? ? l? ///1/ 1` I 1 1/ I I 1 I ? ? ?.?"IY??'b' 8 B 8i-L7 BSIoa ?!
?/ III ///// \ ? I I I "I I l I I I ?'
R / r l I l l \\ r _. ?.?
/ I I I I I S I \ 1 I / I I V I I I> i
1 I\ I I I I \\ \ 1 II \ 1 / 1 ? 1 ? I I
I I l l I I l l l l/? /' / r/, •
\ r 1 /? I' 1 X 1 1 1 ' I I I I ? ? ? \
1 ? I I I 1 ?\
1/ ?I '/III I I ?_ I I IZ ?_}I I I I' I \
/III 1 / 1 1 \\?\\ \ , \
\\\Jii Iil ill /I ? \\ \1 \\ \\
`\ \ \/ I /?I 1111 "\ ? \ \ \\\\?\ \ \
I I
\\\\1\ Ilr
l R I I \ \\\\\ \ \l1
\ \\\\?\ \\ \\ \\ \ ' I I \\\\\\ \\ \\ \ \\
\ \I 1 \I III / \I \I\?\\\\???/\'\\
I 1/ I 1 I I L F i \\ 1 ? 1 ?\ ) I\\
I ? ?[ 111 \ I iI1 \ \ 1 11 1'// 1 1 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1 \ IIII \ I I 1\11 /I 11; 11
1 1
1 \ 1 1 II Y\
I ? 1 I I f// ? _ \\\ll '\ \ \ \ 1
/it j / 1 1 I / I ,/ \ V I I I \ \\ 1 y
I l? 1 \
/ / / I '/mar/ \ ? \\i \\ \ \
/ I I I I ? ! \L II \ \ \ \ \
i \
// /// /' // // / 111111 ? \ \ 1i,\k\\ /?I \I II ? \\ ?\? 11 \\
/r/ /'/ / / / I I I!I'1 \ \ C \I'I 1 \\ \I \\\1\ \1
/ 11 1 I\ \ 1 1 1 1 111 \
/' i / ill i?t, \ \\\\ 11 11ii11\\ 8
a / / / / ?\ / 11 \ 1 I I I \ \ b
o ? / / / / / / \ I 1 I 1 I I \ \ ?
//// ? / // / _, '1111 \ 1' 111 I II \\ \\ \\
MATCH LINE 22+00.00
- SEE SHEET 2
gg?
o E
e nu+r• eaaECn Prepared M REVISIONS
?. NORTH CAROLINA OEPARTLIENT UT TO BILLY'S CREEK
OF ENVIRONMENT AND H0. WTE
N s ? NATURAL RESOURCES STREAM RESTORATION
w ms FRANKLIN COUNTY
a°a 9 € i r? nTLF, UR5 Caporotfm - North Cdroffm
m o• °u ?s ` g /600 Pxwer Park 0r7ve
MONITORING PLAN VIEW NvrI&III. North CcroNro 9560
I?Iii n cmcnt

I` / I

\ II
1
I I I
\

9 Q
/ ' I I 1
_ / / I I I

'c 'r SEE SHEET I

?. ----------
22t,t2'
Q
t:'a a a'
c "NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
F
NT AN
R
M UT TO BILLY'S CREEK
x0.
WTE ntvlZlurva
6 0 ` O
ENVI
ON
E
D
NATURAL TURAL RESOURCES STREAM RESTORATION
mo m FRANKLIN COUNTY
m
s TILE URS Ca(70//M - Norm Caroft
m. w i / 1600 Porl.W Pork o".
` g
? MONITORING PLAN VIEW Narl&llle Nwth Cordrm 27560
Q F.n
nent
UPSTREAM
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Soil 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 (Daniels et al. 1999). 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 (Kunickis 1998). Preliminary soil data for the series' are listed in Table V.
Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36

Series Max Depth % Clay on
K
T
OM /o
(in.) Surface
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 Areas
Sixteen vegetative problem areas were identified (Table Al). These vegetative problem areas were
present throughout the site, but were primarily concentrated in the downstream portion of the project
reach. The majority of the vegetative problem areas along UT to Billy's Creek appear to be the result of
cattle grazing and trampling. Although the site is fenced in its entirety, a portion of the lower wire along
one of the unnamed tributaries was loose in the spring of 2006. The electricity to the fence was not active
at this time, allowing cattle to enter the restored channel and trample and/or eat the newly planted
vegetation.
The site also endured a 50-year storm event from Tropical Storm Alberto during June of 2006. Per
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) staff member, Jonathan Blaes, Alberto
produced a 50-year storm event in the Franklinton/Louisburg area. The storm produced approximately
5.55 inches of rain on June 14, 2006, making for a total monthly rainfall of 12.17 inches. This greatly
exceeds the 2.46 inch total rainfall amount for June 2004 and the 2.95 inch total rainfall amount for June
of 2005 (NexRad 2006). This storm event likely weakened and/or washed away much of the streamside
vegetation protecting the banks.
Despite fencing, cattle paths were present along both sides of the banks throughout the project reach, and
these paths no longer support vegetation. Planted vegetation was sparse along the project reach,
especially on the banks. However, the site appeared to be stabilizing. Since the June storm event and the
exclusion of cattle, site conditions have improved. The site was observed on July 21, 2006, August 18,
2006, and again during the monitoring effort on September 6, 2006. Site conditions appeared to improve
with each subsequent visit. Grazed seedlings are re-leafing and rushes (Juncus spp.) are populating the
streambanks.
Several small Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) plants were noted within the conservation easement.
Eradication methods were used to remove privet from the site prior to planting, but seed sources still exist
outside the conservation easement boundary. While these individuals do not constitute a problem area at
9
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY 1 Final Report URS 1/07
this time, the presence and abundance of the species should be monitored. All vegetative problem area
data are located in Appendix A-I.
3.1.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
The Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View (Figure 3) is located in Appendix A-lI.
3.1.4 Stem Counts
Vegetation plots were established per EEP's September 2005 Monitoring Guidelines (EEP 2005). Five
100-square meter plots (10 meters by 10 meters) were randomly established within the 2.6-acre planted
area. Rebar was used to mark all four corners of the vegetation plots and the southwest corner was
marked with a 10-foot PVC pipe flagged with orange. The remaining three corners were marked with
blue flagging. Planted stems were marked with blue flagging. GPS coordinates were taken for all four
corners. A reference photograph was taken from the southwest corner towards the northeast corner for
each plot.
The new CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Levels 1-II) was used to inventory the plots for
the Year One stem counts. All planted stems were marked with white flagging. Stems found with blue
flagging from the previous year were re-flagged with white, and the blue flagging was removed. Natural
regeneration stems were marked with red flagging and recorded. The results of the stem counts are
summarized in Table All in Appendix A-I.
3.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos are located in Appendix A-IV.
10
36 -UT to Billy's Creek -MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
3.2.1 Procedural Items
3.2.1.1 Morphometric Criteria
Dimension and profile were sampled at a rate as per the 2003 USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines
(USACE 2003) as follows:
Dimension: Four permanent cross sections at intervals no greater than 500 feet. Two cross sections are
located in pools and two are located in riffles. The survey includes points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg.
Profile: A longitudinal profile survey of the entire project reach will be surveyed each year. The survey
points include measurements taken beginning at the head of stream features such as riffle, run, glide, and
at the maximum pool depth.
3.2.1.2 Hydrologic Criteria
No flow monitoring devices have been installed at the site. The closest US Geologic Survey (USGS)
gage is located on the Tar River in Louisburg, approximately 10 miles from the site. However, this gage
does not provide comparable data for the project reach. The drainage area for the gage is 427 square
miles. The drainage area for the project reach is 0.22 square miles.
It has been confirmed by NOAA that at least one bankfull event has occurred within the last year
(Tropical Storm Alberto). Per NOAA staff member, Jonathan Blaes, Alberto produced a 50-year storm
event in the Franklinton/Louisburg area. The storm produced approximately 5.55 inches of rain on June
14, 2006, making for a total monthly rainfall of 12.17 inches. This greatly exceeds the 2.46 inch total
rainfall amount for June 2004 and the 2.95 inch total rainfall amount for June of 2005 (NexRad 2006).
3.2.1.3 Bank Stability Assessments
Table VI. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36

x y
? 3
a ..
L

Time
Segment/
Linear y
X a,

? s •?

a a, E
c
w
Point Reach Footage
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/
MYl Hoof shear XS4 20 20 100 0.16
MYl Remainin channel 4,030 4,030 100 3.3
3.2.2 Problem Areas Plan View
The Stream Problem Areas Plan View is located in Appendix B-I (Figure 4).
3.2.3 Problem Areas Table Summary
Table B 1 in Appendix B-II presents Stream Problem Area data.
3.2.4 Numbered Issues Photo Section
Representative Stream Problem Area Photos are located in Appendix B-III.
11
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
3.2.5 Fixed Photo Station Photos
Stream Photo Station Photos are located in Appendix B-IV.
3.2.6 Stability Assessment
Table VII. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment (% Functioning)
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Pro'ect Number 36
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffle 100 97
Pool 100 99
Thalwe 100 97
Meanders 100 100
Bed General 100 97
Vanes / J Hooks 100 100
Wads and Boulders 100 100
3.2.7 Quantitative Measures Tables (Morphology and Hydrology)
12
36 -UT to Billy's Creek -MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
p l? c, r4 ,o r- 0o O d' O O p O

•? O V'1 C1 M l- N 00
C)
00 ?O
(D N
C) C)
Q
p O? Do N O '? I:T 00 O ,? O O

? O
PC O
00
M
O

O V
?O

1
o0

O

N

N
?p

V1

V
00
C)

N
O .-? \ 0 c M
C
O
00
O
p
00

M

M

N

O
Z p en O
A
p 1 p 41 M '? Nip ?D 00
00
O
?p
I
e
I I N 00 O N C? C?
F
.
V M V 00 kn
R O
y

w
M
p?
r
?--:
M
N n
I
I
1
I
Q1
?;
I
I
I
1
I
1
a w ?O M d O '-' Oi (V N M
t! U

'C O

Q

6
en
N

i

i
w M q o 06 kl? M O N N
M
.0
X
?y 1
l 1
l I
I 1
I 1
? I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
I

y V y
5

a
•

R

6
m
;
00

O 4:b

M

N

M
O
i W Ly 00 N 0 __ - en
F-4 A" o
a i
a
W V'? M M o0 N N C,
I
I
I
I
00
v)
N
I
I
i
I
1
1
y
y \O o0 r O vi .- M N
R

~ w = 1 q ? I t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1
ICI Q 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

R R
U i?r
R
?
I
?
Q
1
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
I
I
F ?? ? 1 ? .--i I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I
0.0
?
kn I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
M I M
O I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I

?
?y 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1
R !.
Q
bq Y!
R R I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I
I 1 I 1 i 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I

1 I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I i
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
cc 4 w
!s 3
?
ad r.
" ? v
w
IT ?w ?w 4
3 w? :
3 x d ,u U 3 CC w °
A w3 ?
Q 4 a i 4 : a
M
i.
0
d
C
W
Piz M 00 M
O
O
M
ell 00
O
W)

i i i
?
w Fi ? O O
e

00 N
/

PC
- 000

k O
tn
N
?

W
n O?
M

A
C -•

y y 00 i 00
O
N
DD
kn
L
t? L.
y

W?
as
?
V ? N
U ,
C
R O

?? ? M

i. PC 00 m
oc?
z CC
?
N ?

F
a
y,

re -- O
CC

Fi
i.

a C r
U

ee
A
on k

?
r

iy fr

?
V
? i
Q
?
?
?
w
?
U
J ? yCy?
y ?i G? / ? ,y Ln 4
•• O

p.
E
o
o
R
w y

A
a°O`~
ri
b
c a
i
daa m ^
> .A
v ~
m04
zn
3v?
m o
44 U

0
a
c
w
+AN
SAN

a
VAN
?w
o a
CAN

U
ZAN
00 N r- 00 M r ? N r-
7 ??7
IAN
01
?
(?
O
M
?
O
O
+AN
SAN
M
C
VAN
C

CAN

a U
ZAIAt
0
y
•O
M
IAIAt
?
?
O
O
-•?
N
N
?
?o
v
00

?

j +AN
y
z
SAN
N
? y L C
F- a w VAN

a o CAN

U
ZAN
4

y
?

TAL?t C?

N O

?
I?
?
DO
O
V O

?
00
V1 M

M
?
O
h

00

F
+AN
SAW

,. VAN
y o
a
y
o CAN
L
U
ZAN
TAN ? O v1 O M ? N ? O '. ?

N .y
r?+ is N s W
•y ? O ?, O ? ? k n V ? •? y? ?
3 .O
U Y Y O yy (%

a
A
w
cg p
o?
w3
$?
w
mv?`°-
?
w
wA
w
w
?
d
3A
Y
wx
Y
3a
x °
v
-
s
v
? c

0
'w
I
.?C
N
U
PC

? k

c

P
d
0

o
N k
?

C

O
N R
C
O

O ?p
M

L
?
y
z
„ /
'CW N

' ?
n D W
°b
-
w a
?
or
0
I
V
r
? o

F N ?
a

O
N

N
O
kn
00
?p 00
M
•--?
.-?
M
00
V?
N
O
O 00

N

O

U
N O O

O
O
N
O
\,c
o
00
ti M N \O nj ?O M M ?o

00 O ?`? N p N O i

y
_
_ ti)
p
.C
Op
N
u
'i
R i ?b m ? •?
? -o a? ?l-1 41,
v?o a?i a, a
o a??i `? a?i ? .? ri `? o ?w
++ ,
e? > cC _*" yr.. +r'r V CE ,?? O ,:l O
O O N N M bq

a
uw
xu
3
x
a
c4w
xw O
a p
w 'C CSC
Qxa Rf '?
>
Uw c
d cYC
mx
v? O
3v?
Gai-?

O
xO u
.
0
z

4.0 METHODOLOGY SECTION
All monitoring methodologies follow the most current templates and guidelines provided by EEP.
Photographs were taken at high resolution using an Olympus Stylus 4.0 megapixel digital camera. GPS
location information was collected using a Trimble Geo XT handheld mapping grade GPS unit. GPS
locations were collected on both banks of each cross section and on all four corners of each vegetation
plot. Stream and vegetation problem areas were noted in the field on As-Built Plan Sheets.
4.1 STREAM METHODOLOGY
The methods used to generate the data in this report are standard fluvial geomorphology techniques as
described in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996) and related publications from US Forest Service
and the interagency Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003). URS' field morphology survey was
conducted using a Zeiss Level Ni 2 and the data were analyzed and displayed using the Reference Reach
Spreadsheet, Version 4.21, (Mecklenburg 2006). Modified Wolman weighted pebble counts were
conducted in the vicinity of each cross section. Four photographs were taken at all four cross section
locations. A photo was taken from the left bank towards the right bank, one from the right bank towards
the left bank, one facing upstream, and one facing downstream.
4.2 VEGETATION METHODOLOGY
The vegetation problem areas and structural problem areas were noted in the field on the As-bulit plan
sheets. Vegetation monitoring plots were marked in the field by placing rebar at each corner. In addition,
the southwest corner was marked with a ten-foot length of PVC pipe tied with orange flagging. The rebar
at the three other corners was marked with blue flagging. Individual plants in the monitoring plots were
tied with white flagging. Volunteer/natural regeneration stems were marked with red flagging. Plot
inventories were conducted per the 2006 CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (EEP 2006).
Planted woody vegetation and volunteer stems were counted. A photograph of each plot was taken from
the southwest corner, facing the northeast corner.
17
36 - UT to Billy's Creek- W I Final Report URS 1/07
5.0 REFERENCES
Daniels, R.B., Buol, S.W., Kleiss, H.J., and C.A Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina. North
Carolina State University, Soil Science Department. Technical Bulletin 314. January, 1999.
Kunickis, S.H. 1998. Soil Survey of Franklin County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Mecklenburg, Dan. 2006. The Reference Reach Spreadsheet for Channel Survey Data Management.
Version 4.2L. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
EEP. 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.
EEP. 2005. Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports. Version
1.1 (9/16/05). NCDENR, NCEEP. 17pp.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
URS Corporation - North Carolina. 2006. Unnamed Tributary to Billy's Creek Stream Restoration
Mitigation As-Built Report. April, 2006.
USACE, Wilmington District, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, and NC Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April
2003.26 pp.
Nexrad. 2006. Franklinton History and Almanac Data. http://www.wunderground.com/radar/map.asp.
18
36 -UT to Billy's Creek- MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
Appendix A
(Click here)
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION RAW DATA
36 -UT to Billy's Creek - W l Final Report URS 1/07
APPENDIX A-I. VEGETATION DATA TABLES
Table Al. Vegetative Problem Areas
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36
Feature/Issue Station #/Range Probable Cause Photo #
Bare Bank 31+10 Storm damage VPA1
Bare Bank 30+65 Cattle damage VPA2
Bare Flood lain 30+65 Cattle damage VPA3
Bare Flood lain 29+40 Cattle damage VPA4
Bare Flood lain 28+90 Cattle damage VPA5
Bare Bank 23+85 Cattle crossing VPA6
Bare Bank 24+25 Cattle damage VPA7
Bare Bank 22+45 Cattle crossing VPA8
Bare Bank 22+27 Cattle crossing VPA9
Bare Bank 22+12 Cattle crossing VPAl0
Bare Bank 21+35 Cattle crossing VPA11
Bare Bank 21+35 Cattle crossing VPA12
Bare Bank 19+00 Cattle crossing VPA13
Bare Bank 18+75 Cattle crossing VPA14
Bare Bank 17+45 Cattle damage VPA15
Bare Flood lain 13+00 Cattle damage -V'PA 16
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MYl Final Report URS 1/07
APPENDIX A-I. VEGETATION DATA TABLES
Table All. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
UT to Billy's Creek
EEP Project Number 36
Species Plots
y
ti
y
N
M
7
v,
i
1 2 3 4 5 .
r
F .
.
?+ F
?+ F+
?+ F y
F
?+ F
e
Alnus serrulata 11 0 0
Aronia arbutifolia 1 1 4 2 6 100*
Betula ni a 7 1 3 3 2 14 100*
Calicar a americana 2 0 0
Celtis laevi ata 1 2 11 3 27
Ce halanthus occidentalis 3 0 0
Cornus amomum 5 6 8 2 4 15 25 100*
Cornus orida 1 2 1 50
Fraxinus enns lvanica 1 1 0 2 100*
Liriodendron tuli i era 1 1 1 100
N ssa s lvatica 2 4 2 50
Quercus falcata 1 1 1 1 5 4 80
uercus lauri olia 1 9 1 10
uercus hellos 2 3 1 4 4 14 14 100
Rhus co alina 2 2 2 4 6 100*
Salix ni ra 5 1 2 6 100*
Salix sericea 5 0 0
Sambucus canadensis 2 1 3 16 6 38
Viburnum nudum 3 2 5 5 100
* Instances where Year 1 count exceeds initial count. Many of these individuals were small and suspected to be re-growth from planted stems that appeared dead
during the initial count.
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - W 1 Final Report URS 1/07
APPENDIX A-II. VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS PLAN VIEW
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MYl Final Report URS 1/07
FEATURE# FEATUREISSUE STATION# SUSPECTED CAUSE
VPAI Bare Bank 31+10 Storm damage
VPA2 Bare Bank 30+65 Cattle damage
VPA3 Bare Floodplain 30+65 Cattle damage
VPA4 Bare Floodplain 29+40 Cattle damage
VPA5 Bare Floodplain 28+90 Cattle damage
VPA6 Bare Bank 23+85 Cattle crossing
VPA7 Bare Bank 24+25 Cattle damage
VPA8 Bare Bank 22+45 Cattle crossing
VPA9 Bare Bank 22+27 Cattle crossing
VPA10 Bare Bank 22+12 Cattle crossing
VPAI1 Bare Bank 21+35 Cattle crossing
VPA12 Bare Bank 21+35 Cattle crossing
VPA13 Bare Bank 19*00 Cattle crossing
VPA14 Bare Bank 18+75 Cattle crossing
VPA15 Bare Bank 17+45 Cattle damage
VPA16 Bare Floodplain 13+00 Cattle damage
VPA16
10+00
N
W E
I?r
S
Legend
Problem Area Concern
Problem Area High Concern
Top of Bank
Thalweg
Cross Section
_ Vegetation Plot
Conservation Easement
CIE Stations
*SA
4VPA3 00
VPA2
VP A11
VPA15
xS?
VPA13 VPA14
20+00
VPA12 VPA11
FIoW
VPA16
VPA6 VPA9
XS•3
VPA6 .
Prepared By: Prepared For.,
NC Ecosystem
Project:
Project Number:
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 Perimeter Park Drive Enhancement Program
UT to Billy's Creek
36
Figure 3
Suite 400
Morrisville, NC 27560
Stream Restoration
Vegetative Problem Areas
Phone: [phone] F
kli
NC
C
t Pl
Vi

Fax: [phone] ran
n
oun
y, an
ew
m
t
k
ff! Monitoring Year: Date:
Januar
2007 0 50 100 200
EIllen
a y Feet
1 (2006)
APPENDIX A-III. VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
VPA 1

?{'vT

t
F, k r.
a!f f
VPA2

R #?
S
ay aaL f. #'L> J
VPA3

VPA4

ice' }.... ?.. qyy
?t ! A t f+.W
? t
dAF
VPAJ

VPA6
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY 1 Final Report URS
APPENDIX A-III. VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
VPA/
VPA9
VPA 11
7 r ?'
rte, ? wt - y
VPAO
VPA 10
L}a
1? N X
r:?y y F 'yCt,
4? --a- _-_1
sY
VPA 12

36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY 1 Final Report URS 1/07
APPENDIX A-III. VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA PHOTOS
VPA 13
VPA15

r ?.

. b
`, ?3
J 1 A }{

.t _
z
d _
Y? Y 1 ? Jl q ?' y.

VPA 14
VPA16

r,
_L. S d.;t
S4` , ?? -.. ? ?:??? tip
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
Cow path in upland zone
Cow path along streambank
APPENDIX A-IV. VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS (06/SEP/06

f
?r p
?
R
T..

Xf?
eR. Y h ? io,?
'? rt T Z _
Vegetation Plot 3
V, :b
?G .
Vegetation Plot
y V i .Ly?Z. f?8
1

T .hr a.'l 3c
a

r
u ' rr/t 3

J

? `- t
, 44
I

e??tati?n NOL 2
Vegetation Plot 4
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY 1 Final Report URS 1/07
Vegetation Plot 1
Appendix B
(Click here)
F"
w
w
a
Q
COO
W
F-+
F
W
a
W
a
a
d
113101
do unaw
•tu.io;.gad z
ainaEaa
uoplpuoa
algE;s ul

1.10pad
°o
°o
°o
°

O

°
o
°

o

a?E?S
algE;sun
ul;a N N N N N ,--. ,--. ,--. N N O z 0 0 O r O O O O O O
a;/aagmnu
IEjo.L
jllnq
-sV iad
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
N
N
t-
Q
r-
r-
Q
Q
?O
1.0
?o
?o
Q
Q
iagtunu z z z N N N N z z
a IE1o.L
r
n
d
Papua;uI
SUN
,a uiu[ao3aad o O O O O o, o, o, o o r- Q r- r- r, 11C 110
iagmnNI
?o (alquls #)
M
•O W y C.

?
Cw
?

a
O
? C c, a
a,, R C. ° o
.?
? C• t
6?
W v S" ?' O O ?

y, .r
N
w
W b
i U U C
yy f.

° O N N N
^O C
O y v
O O
•.. U
'C
.

d
y
+-
r Y
0
C
O
w
C E i z O O

M
N
GJ
Q
"
"?
?a
O
? ti
c?
Q C N y
,
U O "d .--. U Vi c
C C c?
U O U U N D U m
eta Cd ? ? .0 t& O O
Z
" w cd °' s.
°
o ° .0 3 ° ° o

Cd
°
-d
>
o
+-
c
-
o
o
El
c
o
°
o
b L
o
y U c? C
g y y =
l •'" I=L
C• I
d

L
C?
7-r
'?
N
°
"?
N
i-I
•?
it
Yr 0
O
a Q w a a va a ? Ca O O Q rn C) w x Q w w w
O
y
? .r ^O
i ea ? ? pa°
? ? W ? Fy h y y
?" a" w h a > 3
c
APPENDIX B-VI. ANNUAL OVERLAYS OF CROSS SECTION PLOTS
36-UT to Billy's Creek- MYl Final Report URS 1/07
UT to Billy's Creek XS 1 (Pool) Overlay
258
,A 257
4)
9,256
0 255
?Al)UJ
> 254
0
w 253
252
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
-+-As-Built - (12/22/05) --a-Year 1 (9/6/06)
UT to Billy's Creek XS 2 (Riffle) Overlay
249
248.5
.r
248
247.5
0 247
m 246.5
246
w 245.5
245
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
?-As-Built - (12/22/05) Year 1 (9/6/06)
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
UT to Billy's Creek XS 3 (Pool) Overlay
238.5
238
237.5
d
237
o 236.5
m 236
W 235.5
235
234.5
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
-+-As-Built - (12/22/05) --w- Year 1 (9/6/06)
50
UT to Billy's Creek XS 4 (Riffle) Overlay
235
^ 234.5
234
233.5
c 233
232.5
> 232
w 231.5
231
230.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
-+-As-Built - (12/22/05) -*-Year 1 (9/6/06)
80
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MY1 Final Report URS 1/07
APPENDIX B-VII. ANNUAL OVERLAY OF LONGITUDINAL PLOTS
36 - UT to Billy's Creek - MYl Final Report URS 1/07
n
0
L
W
i0
r
L
'I
? m
Q
i
to
I m
O
H
O
O
I II

C.0
O
II
O
I
?%
LO
r
r
CU

G
Lo
O _
2 I O
O ; N
N?

co
i
O Q

_/ O _/ O Ln O _/ O _/
CO (D LO M NI, Nt m M N
N N N N N N N N N
(1001) UOIIBA013
co
x
7
r
C
a
LL
}
d
Y
I U
I N
co
0
s
APPENDIX B-VIII. PEBBLE COUNT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
36 -UT to Billy's Creek- MYl Final Report URS 1/07
CO
O
O
N
O
(n
0 0
c F
0
0 0
N
d
t
V
w i
D M
C C ? ?
m
0
m d ? 8I
a •-
d
G7
c a
O 10 LL
Gl
U) _M
O
U N
weighted percent of particles in
range
h
0
Ni
0
(DD
LLOO ? M N °
O o

L)

? 0

O
O

o o
O aN ^NO O
O
O
?
N
L) Ca
ca -0 75
60 0

I 0
I
}
I O
O

7
?i E
E
Y
O
U U)
ochco
?

o o
o rn

m O
a
° n
O m o
O
¢ E
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
?mY

N
a
U)
7
Cu

O
1
CL T N

H1
o
?+
0
O N (0 CO I- M
O
O r
C Eo
o CD
C O E
.
_
o 0 G) O LO O U
) .0- LO
0 0 0 0 0 0
0

Q ? p
i 3
j'
0
0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
0 0
0
O 0 0 o O LO 0 0 0 0
O W I.- 0 to V M N 0

ueyt jaw tuawad
Z q 00 q O 0. 00000000 O O O 0 0 00 O O O O 0 0 00 0
? N ?-O JCL) LO ?0?00000 0 00 O O OO 000 0 0 00 0
3
N
F

W COOC

0 04O

N Ln

CD C-4 NLO V

ON 000 LOO V CO D

CNON 000
7 i

U
3

U
0
O Cj C7 C.
0- N N CO V 00??? 0 0 N
?
CO LO ? N a i
Gal m
'
a W N LO LO M ?- N r (D 00 0 N N LO I?r O M 0 0 N N
V 0
G) 0 ON ND NM V OCA N OD _
LOO N- O i Cm
a N O -6 a- NM LOON •? ; 1 N
CD 0
3
v m C C C C C N N N d G) N N N N
>>>>>>>> > N N N N
a a.0 a N N N N N
v a a a (Yj m p CO

mmmmm
6E2E222TT
-0a-0 m o v v
o ao.
o
d'
d '?
•?' N d O N N
3 0)0)0) 0) 0) 0) Cm al U U U 0 0 0 0 O O O
a a a s
D m 3:
CO a)
m ?•
a m c c
` N
w L? N G) G) E E 0 0 G) (0
C c N N" N N
m E .
-a U G) -a E Q a L>
CL Z' O V V V- 0 0 0 0
?` E a f6 CO E E 2 01
a m m ?p Z

V G) E N (O U U U U
E E (D
Q W N O U •O
"
o
> 1 Z
> E G
) E Z
m >
>
> >
>
Z
3
a?
O
N
.a
a?
N
i 1
I 1
? I 1
J I
I I
I I
1 I
? L l
v i 1
? I 1
0
U
CO
O
L1
C
LL
Y
m
m
U
0
H
M
CD
O
O
N
O
N
c
O
U
a)
CO
O
r?
0 0
c a)
? v
!Y ?
o
0
a)
a°
L
v
m
? I
o III
C
3 V 3
V ? ? I
? a
a 3 I
a LL
w
L
a)
N
weighted percent of particles in °

range
o 0 0 0 o a
Cn COO L M N O 0

V 0
O
C
m O
n
?
O
I
I ?
o C 0
I O N? (-
D O O
D
O
O .
?
>' a N O N
U > O

( U D) U O O

L
U)

O
O

i
c
E
(Y E
N - N
U 75

O U)

O
o?D?o
M O
N
W U
_
m ° Q O
C
N
O a m
O
a)
I
l N E
m
3

T N
Y
a rn

76

a
C
o ? j
u
? CL
o
LO
'
CO CD
N

_
5 O
r
E°
o
U E

7
3 OmLOLO T M
N - M LO CO o m
o O ? ? ? ? ? ?
LO U1
I
O
I
CL

"
3 p
O I o
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0?
O 000
a
r 0 GOO LO '.4, M
C) N O
O

uey; caul;;uawad
L O G O O O X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O ? 0 0 0 0 0
m O 066 N M 4 M N r- X 6 66 O O O O O O O O O O O O
?
3
E
wE
w c
O gLO
N LD
Ln
? O NNLO d'
00
ON CO 0LOj ?CO to
(NDN OOO
U i i
0
a)
m
0
00 O ? N
? (D M ?- ? N CI) 't (D
o)- N
CI) ? N?
' I G
,)
d m L L L L L L L L L L L L L L N' 1 d
MOf NLO LO LO •- N?(DOO?CONN LO "t O 00 O (ON N -q- CO
C I I
t
T a)
L O (D N N C
O -: N M W O) N CO
?- LO (D N 'cY
NM LOO ,
I {
'
.
N

o
o N

`- FD

3 !
O

3
3
p T
m 'O v 'O 'O 'O
c c c c c > N N 0 N N N N N
>> > >>>>> > N N N d
n M N N N N
v a o a a U ? m
O '
(a
? f9
v m m m m m
E m m m m m m m m E2 a s c v o a
(
0 0
d N N
a) a) mmmmmrna)m $ $$ 0 0 0 0 0
caM
Da CO m
m
w w
m m a)mmEEa)a)a) d
E 2 E E2
w w m ) m
m?
) _
.
E N N a ?L
T
a? a
aa)) U 0 m
Z m 0 o 0 0 cc 0 0 0 a
a
;5 m m m a
E E m m
O o
m > E Z > EEUUvv Z, nm -_ a a)

r
m
> 0
d
> >
> E Z

N
7
O
.n
O
O
U
N
O)
1
I
{ ' I
m
I I
i I
T 1 I
? I {
I {
y
0
CO
O
a
a)
R'
c
LL
}
Y
N
d
U
O
H
O
M
0 0
0 0
W
ao
d'
r q
V
R
C C7
c ?I
V d
CD a
CD ?' $
3 ?
L sk
a LL
9
O
L
rn
3
N
(D
O
O
N
0
0)
CO
C
O
U
a,
U
CO
O
U
weighted percent of particles in
range
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
to l O
D r- C
O Lm It CO N O O
i
(U CD

? U
I 0
O
O
L1
j O

o 0 0 0 0
I O O N rM 0 O

O ?

ID C N O N
> -0

i
N
0
? O O 0
N
t

O
C j
E
Y O
?
U N
N O M N
v

N ,
O 5 ' O 0

m CL a 7 CL o m o
o
N E
.
T U (aY
a ?
O
N
w
_

Cu
-a O
o
Q
P
? ai
0
C) (NO r? LO 00 N
O

C C ?
E O
o 2
U E
o
7
j
5 0
N (o LO O LO v m
CI) LO to CO 0)
? ? O ? O D
(D
? CO
(D
•
i o
?
?
3 a o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
o o 0 0
+ O CD 00 r- CD U) ? C07 N O O
I
? d
I
?
uey; jauy l.uaaa
a
L
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O O O O
O O O O O
O 0 0 0 0
.? N LtiO 00 ? O(V-00000 0 00 O O 00 000 O 000 0
3
W

`
E
O£

D
w CND
O N LO
N lt7
?(DN NLO V
O N CO 0LOO 14, 00 (D
O N 00 0

O
U

O

) O 00 Or- N 'ct OOO?i-NMI CD O? N MLO a--N V i I

i
V
mO
.0 it
r
N LO LOM
It (D OOH (O N N LO
N
'tO CO O
CON NBC()
j
1
t
TO O (ON N 0 NM [t (DM N CO Lnm Na 1
zT Mm
O `- ?- N CO LOO N
C O O
3 T
(o 'O 'O 'O 'O "O

C c c C c O N N CU CO CO N N N

>>>>>>>> O O O O

»a
a-0 O N N (U 0

-o-a-o-o-o
0 Y„ C 0
(
3
1 f6 C
CO

'
0
m m m m (a
(o 2 m 2 m m R T m .
a a a
-5-5 'S 75 75 0
u
C-)
o
fl -
L
o

ro

d
y
(u a) E a? m
a) a? rn o? rn rn rn a,
(°? (°? (°? (°?
?° ?° ° ?° ?° E

C
m a) CO
CO

•.
d f0 C C O"
? M CO Qr) Q) N E E N N Q) N
? C 7 3 y in O O
(0 7 0 0 __
N m E N N ?- d L 7
'`
C O D U ?+ N N 0 0 0 0 to 'O m (4 E E
OO (6 0
O U
y

L,
> E E E O D U U

L,
N N __
-O 4i
> E E
L
m >
m O
> > >
( u
> z
L
3
N
3
O 0 CL
N
U
N O
1 i
9
? I !
I 1
I 1
1
I
I 1
I 1
C6T
1 1
_ I 1
(n I I
0
U
Y
d
U
m
0
H
(O
M
(0
O
O
N
O
It
C
O
U)
y
O
ri
0 0
C N
tY
0 0
0 0
1- M
d
a
v
l6
w
4 -o
c y
U 0)
a
CD
L V
CD
U.
d
r
2M
N
weighted percent of particles in °
range
o
N ti COO LO d0' M N O

(U ?
U O

CQ O
r
O.
O

0 0 0 0 0
I N ENO O
O
O fl .
O
? H

(D T 'O N
° c > a
a
y ma
E
0
li N O O L

O
O
' 3 I E
E
Y
N
U U
M CD
O

0
0 O
'? O CA
? r
_
U
L i

m 0
li ',, cc
O
? C6 O rn
O (D 1 c
N E
F- °) 3
N y
a w
CO
3 Il

4 N i
-
CL
0
PO')
CNO CO Ar CO h 0)

3
U p O
O
O E

(D

o

d

L

) C LO zt LO

CD
N M l0 CD O CA
? 0 0? 0?
0

? O

Y 3 0
O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Oo Oa O e
O O o 0
O
1- N 000
COO tLO ? M N O
e O
u
u
yj caul;uawed
L CA U.) O OO M 000010000 0 00 O O 00 000 O O 000 0
.? N O O CO
O 0 0 0 0
O O 0 00 O O O O O O CD O O O CD O
3
N
O E

I c" L O C
CD CD V OD CO
I
1
3
0 0 N U0 N N 10 S O
O N CO CD N 0
CD00 I
O
I i
U ! °

U
r o) C, CDO C??- N V'COO?•'?-N M CD M- ?- N Mtn r It {
a?i m (D i I I I a)
LR' NLO U) U) r Net CDW?-ONN 10 V* C. M O CDN NO i
M N O ON C) ?-NM 'IT (D CA O
`- NM 1000 I i
i p)
oCS ?N iD
1
3
3

v T
co '6 "O 'O L '6
c c c c c N N N N N N N N
> > > > > > > > (O N N (O N N N N (D
-0-0 'o -o -0 O U C -° O

1° °
0 f6
m m m m m 2 12 2 2 m 2 `` to m a a a
0
o- ° o
d

L m aNi E m a
yi 0)0) 0) 00) 0) 0) Cm v v v v o 0 0 0 3 0 a L

d L
0
0
0
C °
v 3 r
CO a) Ca
••
C 7 12 T

r..
m m
o N O)
E E o o° N
c: 3 7 y
2
w N 0)

m=
) °)
-
.
-
E N N
j
d
Q' O
O C°) L) O
=
i
Z. O :a :5 ca
O O O O O 2
E
N "O f6 16 E E .2 EP 21 CO N 49 l6 0
w > E a) E E v ° o a) 2
E w CD
> o
> > > > > Z
3
N
3 O
L
O
L
L
U
N
m
O
i I
a 1 1
N
1
I
1
I
T I I
1- 1 I
I
rn 1 I
0
U
CO
O
a
d
(6
c
LL
Y
m
U
0
H
O
M
Feature N

to
a
o
o.
s

XS-1

15+00
5
'rs?
Legend 94
P
Problem Area Concern
20+00
Problem Area Concern
e Problem Area High Concern
Problem Area High Concern
Cross Section
Top of Bank
Flow
Thalweg
Conservation Easement
Stations
+00
X
PA1
30+00

Prepares By: Prepared For:

NC Ecosystem
Project:
Project Number:
URS Corporation - North Carolina
1600 P
i
P
t
k D
i Enhancement Program
'
36 Figure 4.
er
me
er
ar
r
ve
Suite 400 UT to Billy
s Creek Stream Problem Areas
Morrisville, NC 27560
Phone: [phone] Stream Restoration
F
kli
t
NC
C
Plan View
Fax: [phone] ran
n
oun
y,

t em el
i?
t Monitoring Year: Date:
January 2007 0 50 100 200
Mn I
l
1 (2006) Feet

Issue Station Suspected Cause Photo #
Bank scour 28+80 Hoof shear PAl
Bank scour 21+35 Matting issues PA2
Bank scour/ Hoof shear and PA3-1 and
aggradation 19+50 sedimentation PA3-2
Abandoned 19+15 to PA4-1 and
channel 19+35 Matting issues PA4-2
Engineered Scour behind
structure 16+08 structure PAS
10+00 to PA6-1 and

Sedimentation

12+00

50-year storm event 10+00
W E
PA6-2