20041178 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 2_20101222

CLearWaLer
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
December 14, 2010
Ms. Tasha McCormick
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2638
Mr. Ian McMillan
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
RE: The Ramble cwaiovg?
r3 EC 2 2d zoo
o
DEHR-Winn QUALM
? AND S7or'VI TERN N a
V.+W
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Corps Action ID 200431348; DWQ Project # 04-1178
Ms. McCormick and Mr. McMillan,
The attached Year 3 monitoring report is being submitted on behalf of The Ramble
represented by Mr. Chad Lloyd. The Ramble is currently developing a residential
subdivision near Asheville in Buncombe County, North Carolina and has completed the
require mitigation at the site. Monitoring reports will be submitted annually for an
additional 2 years as stated in permit conditions.
Should you have any questions regarding the attached information please do not hesitate
to contact me at 828-698-9800.
Respectfully,
v
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S
Principal
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel
828-698-9003 Fax
Monitoring Year 3 Report for
Compensatory Mitigation
Performed at
THE
M,MBLE
tin imor,,i F, )KrI I
December 2010
Prepared By:
CLear\Nater
Clearwater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
1.0 PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Ramble Biltmore Forest, LLC (Ramble) received a US Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Nationwide Permit No. 39 on August 16, 2004 (revised June 22, 2005; Action ID
200431348) and a NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Water Quality Certification
(DWQ Project No. 04-1178) on August 5, 2004 authorizing impacts to 266 linear feet of
Dingle Creek, unnamed tributaries to Dingle Creek, and Four Mile Creek. A permit
application was submitted to the Corps and DWQ on April 17, 2009 to reissue the
expired permit and modify mitigation plan. Authorization was received from the DWQ
on April 30, 2010 and the Corps on August 30, 2010. The modification included a
request for 214 linear feet of impact and proposed 214 linear feet of mitigation credit.
The original mitigation plan included seven restoration sites. Stream restoration is
complete at Crossings 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17. In the modified plan, Crossings 14 and 15
are not proposed for mitigation at this time. This report includes monitoring Year 3
results for Crossings 11, 12, 16, and 17 and monitoring Year 2 results for Crossing 13.
2.0 PROJECT DISCRIPTION
The Ramble removed five existing culverts on site and restored the stream bed and bank
within this area. These mitigation activities restored approximately 199 linear feet of
stream (an additional 15 linear feet was purchased through EEP). Restoration of the
culvert sites involved the removal of the culvert structures and adjacent road
embankments; and excavation of a new channel which connected the upstream and
downstream reaches.
The restoration approach involved some site specific design during construction. The
culverts and road embankments were removed and the new banks seeded, matted, and
planted with native vegetation. The cross-sectional area and slope for the new channel
sections were matched to the cross-sectional area and slope of stable adjacent sections.
Log step-pool structures were utilized to establish grade control and protect new banks.
2.1. Project Location
The project site is in Buncombe County, North Carolina and is located in the French
Broad River Basin (HUC 06010105). The project site is approximately 5.6 miles south
of the Asheville, North Carolina. The latitude and longitude for the project site are
35.500234°N and 82.547352°W. From Asheville, take Highway 25 south towards
Hendersonville. Turn right onto Valley Springs Road. Valley Springs Road will end at
the entrance to the Ramble.
2.2. Project Goals and Objectives
The objectives of the project were to:
1. Remove existing culverts;
2. Re-connect aquatic habitats;
3. Establish native vegetation through a forested riparian buffer; and
4. Improve the natural aesthetics of the stream corridors.
The culvert removals and stream restorations involved the following steps:
1. Remove culverts and excavate new channels through the road embankments
with disposal of roadbed gravel (if any) outside the limits of the restoration
areas;
2. Construct grade control structures;
3. Apply temporary seed and erosion control matting to the banks; and,
4. Plant native herbaceous and woody vegetation on the banks and at the top of
both banks to establish a vegetative buffer.
2.3. Restoration Approach
2.3.1. Design
The restoration approach was similar for all of the culverts. The culverts and road
embankments were to be removed, new channel sections excavated, and the new banks
seeded, matted, and planted with native vegetation. The cross-sectional areas for the new
channel sections were matched to the cross-sectional area of a stable adjacent section.
Slope was to be controlled by constructing step-pool structures to establish grade control
and protect new banks within the culvert removal areas.
Step-pool structures were designed based upon data gathered in the existing conditions
survey. At that time, the exact length and slope of the restored channel was determined.
The number of structures required at each location was calculated using these factors and
so that the fall across each structure was as close to 1 foot as possible.
Due to the small size of the stream channels and the existing topography and vegetative
conditions, the most appropriate bank stabilization and planting methods were chosen.
Erosion control matting, seeding, live staking, and containerized tree-shrub planting were
all designed for both rapid and long-term bank stabilization and vegetation survival.
2.3.2. Implementation:
Culvert removal and construction of the new channel at Crossings 11, 12, 16, and 17 was
preformed in 2007 by Streamline Restoration, Inc.; Crossing 13 was restored in March of
2009. The restoration reaches were constructed to match upstream and downstream
conditions. Crossings 11, 12, and 16 involved rock steps to create step-pool morphology.
Restoration at Crossing 17 used a combination of rock and log steps. Crossing 13
included log steps to create the step-pool morphology.
Erosion control matting was placed to the top of bank. Outside of the erosion control
matting, riparian trees and shrubs were planted on at least 10 to 12-foot centers in
accordance with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's "Guidelines for Riparian
Buffer Restoration". Existing vegetation limited the number of woody plantings
necessary as the entire riparian corridor had not been eliminated throughout the
restoration length. The heights of bare root trees varied from 8 inches to 2 feet. Live
stake installation also occurred at the sites. Containerized trees were utilized when
necessary (i.e. bare roots were unavailable).
2.4. Project History and Background
Table I : Prnieet Activity nnrd Histnrv
Activity Planned or Actual Date
Corps 404/DWQ 401 Approval June/August 2004
Construction (Crossings 11, 12, 16, and 17) July 2007
As-built Survey and Report Submittal October 2007
Live Stake Installation January 2008
Year 1 Monitoring and Report Submittal September 2008
Construction (Crossing 13) March 2009
As-built Survey and Report Submittal April 2009
Year 2 Monitoring and Report Submittal September/December 2009
Year 3 Monitoring and Report Submittal September/December 2010
Year 4 Monitoring and Report Submittal Planned for September 2011
Year 5 Monitoring and Report Submittal Planned for September 2012
Year 5 Monitoring and Report Submittal
(Crossing 13 only) Planned for September 2013
Table 2: Proiect Contacts
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Designer Hendersonville, NC 28792
[phone]
Attn: Clement Riddle
Streamline Restoration, Inc.
250 Thompson Rd
Construction and Planting Contractor Saluda, NC 28773
[phone]
Attn: Grant Fulbri ht
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
224 South Grove Street, Suite F
Monitoring Hendersonville, NC 28792
[phone]
Attn: Clement Riddle
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
The success of woody vegetation plantings will be evaluated for a total of 5 years. Table
3 contains a list of species planted at the mitigation sites.
Table 3' TrPP and Qhr..h QnPripe d-mmnncitinn
Scientific Name Common Name Planted Stems in
2007 Planted Stems in 2009
(Crossing 13) F Planted Stems in 2010
(Crossin 13 and 17)
Fraxinus enns lvanicum Green ash 40
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 50
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 40
Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 40
Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 40
Oxydendrum arboreum Sourwood 10
Calycanthus floridus Sweetshrub 10
Cornus florida Dogwood 10
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood 10 10
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 10
Salix nigra Black willow 10
Total 210 40 30
3.1. Vegetation Monitoring Protocol
Survival of planted vegetation will be evaluated using survival counts. Due to the small
size of the restoration segments, all planted trees and live stakes will be counted.
Evaluations of live stake and planted tree survival will continue for 5 years. If plant
density is less than the targeted 320 stems per acre, a determination will be made as the
need for replacement. Replacement will occur unless it is determined that significant
volunteer species are established at the site. The tables below summarize the plantings at
the site.
3.2. Vegetation Success Criteria
The total number of surviving stems within the project boundary is used to determine a
density in trees/acre. Success is defined as a density of 320 trees/acre after 5 years; or
greater tree-shrub density due to the establishment of native volunteer species.
3.3. Vegetation Monitoring Results
Table 4_ Vegetation Mnnitnrina Rnc..1tc
Target Stem Count Current
Crossing
Number Stem
Count MY -1
(2008) MY-2
(2009) MY-3
(2010) MY-4 MY-5
(2011) (2012) Density
(trees/ac.)
11 6 19 25 18 947
12 31 38 44 33 343
16 12 22 42 33 804
17 21 27 27 9,.? 140
Total 106 138 93 " "'
Table 5: Vegetation Monitoring Results
Target Stem Count Current
Crossing
Number Stem
Count MY-1
(2009) MY-2
(2010) MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
(2011) (2012) (2013) Density
(trees/ac.)
13 18 27 11 ?kt3` 200
Total 27 11.., r
*vegetation counts include planted stems, volunteers, and live stakes.
As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, crossings 11, 12, and 16 meet the success criteria.
Crossings 13 and 17 do not meet the success criteria.
STREAM MONITORING
Environmental components monitored in this project are those that allow an evaluation of
channel and bank stability. Specifically, the success of channel modification and bank
stabilization will be evaluated for a total of 5 years.
3.4. Stream Monitoring Protocol
3.4.1. Cross-Sections
Permanent cross-sections were established at every crossing. The cross-sections were
marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transects used. The
annual cross-section surveys will include points measured at breaks in slope and any
identifiable features (bankfull, inner berm, etc.).
3.4.2. Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed annually at each crossing for a total of 5 years.
Survey points will include thalweg and water surface. Each of these points will be taken
at the head of each feature, e.g. riffle, run, pool, and glide where possible, and the max
pool depth. Average water surface will be used to calculate slope for the project reach.
3.4.3. Reference Photos
Photographs used to evaluate restored sites will be made with a digital camera.
Reference sites will be photographed once per year for a total of 5 years following
construction. The stream will be photographed longitudinally at the upstream end of the
restoration site looking downstream and at the downstream end of the site looking
upstream. Photographs will be taken of both banks at the cross-sections. The water's
edge or channel's edge will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the
bank as possible included in each photo.
3.5. Stream Success Criteria
3.5.1. Cross-Sections
There should be little or no change in the as-built cross-sections. If changes in the cross-
sections occur, then they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement
toward a more unstable condition (down-cutting, erosion) or are minor changes that
represent an increase in stability (settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks,
decrease in width/depth ratio).
3.5.2. Longitudinal Profile
The as-built longitudinal profile should show that the bedform features are remaining
stable, e.g. they are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep with flat
water surface slopes and the steps/riffles should remain steeper and shallower. The
overall slope of the reach, based on average water surface slope, should remain stable.
3.5.3. Reference Photos
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation,
bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absences of developing bars within
the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the bank over time. A series of photos
over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. Vegetative
succession should include initial herbaceous growth, followed by increasing densities of
woody vegetation and then ultimately a mature overstory with herbaceous understory.
3.6 Stream Monitoring Results
3.6.1. Cross-Sections
Cross-sections taken for Monitoring Year 3 for crossings 12, 13 (Monitoring Year 2), 16
and 17 show little to no change in dimension since the as-built survey was performed.
Cross-section 1 of crossing 17 indicates slight aggradation of bed material in the pool
below the rock step. The cross-section for crossing 11 indicates a channel that is
downcutting due to the upstream migration of a headcut in the channel. Comparisons of
as-built cross-sections, and Monitoring Year 1, 2, and 3 cross-sections are provided in
Appendix A.
3.6.2. Longitudinal Profiles
All longitudinal profile surveys indicate general stability in the stream slope as well as
features. Table 5 below contains slope data from each crossing as well as the percent
difference from the as-built condition. Crossing 11 contained no surface flow and slope
calculations were based on the stream bed.
Tahln (i• filnnPc of Racfnrafinn 12-hnc
Slope
% Change from
Crossing No. As-built MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5 As-built
H* 0.210 0
203 0
160 160 5 `> t
0 -24%
. . .
12 0.047 0.050 0.050 0
055 +17%
.
16 0.055 0.053 0.047 0.061 +11%
17 0.044 0.045 0.049 0.038 -14%

"Based on stream bed due to lack of surface water
Slope
% Change from
Crossing No. As-built MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5 As-built
13 0.063 0.049 0.070 +11%
3.6.3. Reference Photos
Photos from each of the crossings are contained in Appendix A.
3.6.4. Qualitative Observations
Qualitative observations were noted at each site to document conditions which may not
have appeared in the cross-section data, profile data, or reference photos. The following
qualitative observations were made at the site.
Crossing 11 - The stream channel shows signs of downcutting caused by the upstream
migration of a headcut. However, the headcut appears to have stopped migrating because
of a tree root that crosses the channel. No water was present in the channel.
Crossing 12 - The stream channel appears to be stable in pattern, dimension, and profile.
Crossing 13 - The stream channel appears to be stable in pattern, dimension, and profile.
However, it was observed that the road has not been abandoned. Car tire tracks were
present in the channel and bicyclists were observed riding through the channel.
Crossing 16 - The stream channel appears to be stable in pattern, dimension, and profile.
Crossing 17 - Cross-sections for this crossing appear to be stable. Water flow has cut
around the upstream rock step and water is no longer flowing over the rock. Banks on
each side of the rock are slightly eroded.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Biltmore Farms, Inc received a USACE Nationwide Permit No. 39 (Action ID
200431347) on August 16, 2004 and revised June 22, 2005 and a NCDWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification (Project No. 04-1178) on August 5, 2004 authorizing impacts to 266
linear feet of unnamed tributaries to Dingle Creek. The Ramble removed four (4)
existing culverts on-site and restored stream beds and banks within these areas. This
mitigation activity restored approximately 199 linear feet of stream. Restoration of the
culvert sites involved the removal of the culvert structures and adjacent road
embankments and excavation of new channels that connected the upstream and
downstream reaches.
4.1. Vegetation Monitoring
In Monitoring Year 3, crossings 11, 12, and 16 met the target density of 320 trees per
acre. Crossings 13 and 17 had a mortality of over half the trees at each site. Car and bike
tire tracks were observed at crossing 13; it is likely that use of the road has contributed to
tree mortality at this crossing. In December of 2010, Biltmore Farms, Inc. blocked
vehicular/bike access to #13 via logs pulled across road and placed a sign indicating that
prohibits vehicular and bike traffic and defines the foot trail across the stream with use of
designated stepping stones (See Appendix A, Crossing 13 Photos). In addition, fifteen
live stakes were planted along the stream banks at crossing 13 and at crossing 17.
4.2 Stream Monitoring
CEC recommends continuing observation of crossing 11 to determine if the headcut in
the channel has stopped upstream migration. If the channel stabilizes, no further action is
recommended. If down cutting continues, the addition of grade control structures may be
necessary. At crossing 17, Biltmore Farms, Inc. repaired the upstream rock structure so
that the thalweg of the channel flows over the rock (See Appendix A, Crossing 17
Photos). This repair work was done by hand labor.
I MAPOWEST.

'C-0
re
0 2008 RlapQuest Inc.
r
The Ramble
Buncombe County, NC
* Site Location
224 South Grove Street, Suite 1'
Ilendersonville. NC' 28792
300 m I
2400 ft
?I
? . ??!/f,? dap
I I ??
land
Royal Pines
ALT
Map Data ?i 2008 N)?Y.YEO or TeleAny
Site Location Map
Figure 1

1 'd
.

Ilk
y
-`

??

?'

j

!
??$la*,?• 3? e.\) I ='
? '?
I 'N 44 I ll I \.'1k :
l ?l? I ? SM r
39 p /

! f
I
?{u
55
t C4
'..
?N35 1 0 T '
?''0 4l• ?., ? ?.Y? ? ? l R I ., I ? ? ? I'.°?R??.. ? J I hF :. ? ?? ? r dt ?
?i

J v \? 1 fs, y'r A rr i `. s f RV 3

II I s"°
I °.
11 141
I}?? $w
= 11 f; ?
1'?J -
df l?
N 11 li
? w ?y` S 6
? +/ II fl??yl
l
4?Ih?gl'u
r
J
I ': 1 qj"!

? lip
?
i
A
I
^ /
•
?
I _!
\ ??'/
F L ? i'I
?°'3 iit ???5? 1 ? ? ? j?I .^
F 1 sr }y `'?'17/""'
•` , yy` y?
__
ylf

'IProject Site " ady Mtn rb :: If

•C3t,tck ?, r+.
?, p
ail. r?
Gale z?r at ?'
?p

N35'28 30
y _ i
? J `??
? ?.+?h I Y: I
II ? /.w '
? ? ?rt?-? ? _
IIYy P1 ?•
? ???.'?

XX sl

t6o

?

? 1

n A

'
?; 5'7anci
n
trr. _ ? 4.
??, L I p
r /
heMl'

r RIO
nG
r

tfua.r
0

-aN35 28 0 ---li
'-
- °f
'
" ? ` _
..? :. \? ''. 14
' i4
••`.
?
bere.??? .
,
f T
Fe - ?
/^ _ f ?
+ f
..
-
1 -
' - ?,
t ?
- ?R
i y ?
,-, F' t?\.?A1 11C.-?ijlr'u ?}
` x{'^Iq`r r
I I ? ? ` ) ! IF"r- i
I
,,,...{{{

: 9r%-
,i
/ VNI708V0 H12ION '3TIIAN}ISV VNnOM H1NON
S2I3NNV [d ONV I �9 StI33NI0N3 ONIZ If1SN00 'x.LNf100 aMOONRO
V'd S3LVIOOSS�1 �8 L3ISdV'j `J N[VITIIfy 87Hm mu ONiAivzi(i d.2I3Amo Q3SOd0Hd o
�r
o ma
e) m
0 p
00
--lr
,
C
� `
M POP �pn�U
�00 a
wQ el;>
w
D
1 Li
_ Lr -
1
\�
0 CrGO
GO
.O W 1
z fr
a Itl
o$
W9s
Y
it
a
iL
w
it
O
Fn
z
�a
0
.. ra
MRN
9
W
�
a
3
GQ
d
w
s
w�
w
g
j
Hi
F
<SmYi<<>s�
a <�Q��$
Wz
Q wR'?<
a
&QQ
N
E
a z
MRN
9

APPENDIX A
Morphological Data and Representative Photographs
Crossing II
Cross Section
25 20 15 10 5
Station (ft)
-As-Built (2007) * MY1 (2008) MY2 (2009) -MY3 (2010)
98
97
96
95 C
.2
94 >
_m
93 w
92
91
0
l N
_ O
N
_ -f
O
a`
0
U
y }?
I°
LO
T
0
00 00 00 00 00
(u) uol;enal3
w
a?
ap
0
0
0
en
0
U
U
N
O
U
Gq
O
U

bA
O
O
a
0
U
a?
0
U
bn
0
U
U
O
bA ap
O 00
U ?
O y
?~ o
U ?
Crossing 12
Crossing 12
Cross Section 1
99
98
0
m
m
w 97
i I I _as' ?l ''
96
0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Station (ft)
a - As-Built(2007) -s MY1 (2008) MY2 (2009) - MY3 (2010)
Cross Section 2
99
98
98
97
0 97
> 96
m
w 96
95
95
94
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Station (ft)
--a As-built(2007) s MY1 (2008) MY2 (2009) - -- MY3 (2010)
C)
M
0
N_
bf1 ?
o d
U
0
i.

_ i
o

F
?
O

1- 1 0
U
7
L
rn
r? o
M N o m
m CY) C 0) co
(4) u01;ena13
a?
on
0
0
ap
O
U
U
C/]
O
U
N_
bA
O
U
ap
0
0
O
U
U
O
U
N_
O
U
a?
ap
0
0
bn
N
O
U
N
O
a.
U
N
b4
O
U
on
x
0
0
w
N
O
U
U
O
U
N_
bA
O
U
a?
o ?
a ?
N ?'
,-? ?,
bA b4
? ?
? O
U ?
o
?, y
a,
N p
.-? •.?
bA by
? ?
? O
U ?
Crossing 13
Crossing 13
Cross Section 1
Station (ft)
-* As-Built -mMY1 (2009) MY2 (2010)
Cross Section 2
101
101
C
100
ca
?' 100
w
99
Station (ft)
*-As-Built m MY1 (2009) MY2 (2010)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
T" C)
C)

O
-i- - M
U
?
N
L
M

0 w
co
C) a)
O a - N 3

U !
i ? I
?

I LO
O
I
----t---- -------__.. _.9 In
I? i O
0) m 0) m rn
(4) u011enal3

a?
tin
0
0
an

O
U
N
O
U
cn
b4
O
U
?n
bn
x
0
0
0
.y
U
N
O
a.
U
M
O
U
a?
an
x
0
0
bn

N
O
U
N
O
U
M
by
O
U
a?
o ?
a ?
M ?
bA by
? O
O O
U ?
M O
bA by
U ?
3
O
'.d
bA
O
0
C3
0
I
i M
to ?:i
0 3
U ?'
Crossing 16
Crossing 16
Cross Section
99
98
c
70, 97
m
w
96
?- As-Built (2007) - s MY1 (2008) MY2 (2009) ' MY3 (2010)
95
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Station (ft)
0
M

I
N

(0
7

N
i
i >

, 17

IL
O 3
z co
U

? III
I
I F-
I
on
0
0
0
U
U
O
U
bA
0
U
bn
0
0
a?
0
.y
U
U
O
U
bA
O
U
U
O ?
bn ?
0 O
U ?
a
? o
rp ?
O O
U ?
Crossing 17
Crossing 17
Cross Section 1
Cross Section 2
95
94
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Station (ft)
As-Built (2007) t MY1 (2008) MY2 (2009) MY3 (2010)
Cq 0
0') 01)
an
x
0
0
N
O
U
U
O
U
bA
O
U
O
••??O
?i--I
Q?
O
U
U
O
U
i
bA
O
w
(1)
en
0
0
bn

N
O
O
U
U
O
U
bA
O
U
O
O
aj
0-4
N
O
U
U
O
a.
U
bA
O
s-.
U -? U
a)
o
a ?
bA dq
? O
U ?
O N
? O
r+ •.d
bA r1p
? O
U ?
4 ? yYJ ? ? f'3 F ? ? ? .
t ?
A-z
! t i/
J?kit? J Y ? a
ilP ? k. ?I ?is
cn
a?
O
cn
7?
a?
/a--?
l
bA
cn
O
U