20011743 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20090710

0i -
County Line Creek (High Vista)
Monitoring Report
Year 5 of 5 (2008)
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina
USGS HUC: 06010105
Project ID No. 00044
Prepared for:
r?
L?coS;?stem
l?? ?ri?crtu?rrt
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program t b 7-io'o?3
1652 Mail Service Center J*
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
SOrYIe +abt6 WUQ--
May 2009 bLe - S- -
e4p 6- C.bY%iS -14
Executive Summary
The County Line Stream Restoration project falls within the USGS hydrologic unit 06010105.
The project stream (County Line Creek) lies within a golf course and the watershed includes low
to medium density residential areas and forested areas. Prior to restoration work, landowners
efforts to modify the channel through channelization and clearing riparian areas had impaired the
ecological functions of the creek.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) developed the plans for restoration using natural
channel design methods. The original contractor implemented the plans and completed
construction of the restored channel in 2002. During the winter of 2007, stream restoration
contractors performed maintenance work on the lower 2,100 feet of the stream.
KHA performed vegetative monitoring during the late growing season of 2008. KHA assessed
eight (8) vegetation quads. Combined stem counts for these plots equaled over 1,000 stems per
acre. Year 5 success criteria require 260 stems per acre. Over the history of the project,
landowners adjacent to the riparian buffer have disturbed or destroyed sections of the vegetation.
KHA observed the sections of cleared areas in 2006, but did not observe evidence of additional
clearings during site visits in 2007 or 2008. KHA was informed that EEP staff engaged the new
management of the golf course and certain land owners to restate the easement requirements.
Bollards with signage marking the boundary were installed and supplemental containerized
plantings were added to any cleared areas in winter 2008 after the vegetation data was collected.
Several sections of the riparian buffer lack any woody vegetation. Existing vegetation is
dominated by live staking and early colonizers such as Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides),
Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis). The high stem
count is attributed to the abundance of colonizing species. Bare root plantings do not appear to
have survived in large numbers. Exotic and invasive vegetation do not appear to be a significant
problem.
KHA performed geomorphic assessments and surveys during the fall and winter of 2008. The
geomorphic topographic survey included the section between stations 15+00 and 35+00. This
section included the three primary longitudinal profiles and their cross sections and sections
modified during the repair. Overall, the channel appeared to be stable with isolated areas of bank
scour.
Due to the spatial extent of repairs to the channel in 2007, the survey data collected after the
repair cannot be directly compared to the pre-repair data through meaningful overlays or
trending. However, any post-repair data set will permit meaningful post-repair comparisons and
data can be extracted from each of the pre-repair monitoring years individually, which will
contribute to various performance/condition statistics for comparison to the pre-construction
condition.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009- Year 5 of 5 r:E , =ft
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Background ..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Location and Setting .....................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives .......................................1
1.3 Project History and Background ....................................................................................3
1.4 Monitoring Plan View ...................................................................................................4
2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results .......................................................................8
2.1 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................8
2.2 Stream Assessment .......................................................................................................8
3.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................................9
Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 1 ......................................................................................5
Figure 3: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 2 ......................................................................................6
Figure 4: Monitoring Plan View Sheet 3 ......................................................................................7
Project Tables
Table I: Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
Table II: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table III: Project Contact Table
Table IV: Project Background Table
Table V: Categorical Stream Features Visual Stability Assessment
Table VI: Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Table VII: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Appendices
Appendix A: Vegetation Monitoring Data
Appendix B: Stream Monitoring Data
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 - Year 5 of 5 ii Mn =bit
1.0 Project Background
The background information for this report references previous monitoring reports submitted by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department at
North Carolina State University, and Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA.
1.1 Location and Setting
The County Line Creek stream restoration site lies within the USGS HUC 06010105. The site
lies approximately nine miles south of Asheville and nine miles northwest of Hendersonville,
NC. The site is immediately west of NC Highway 191 within the High Vista Estates and Golf
Course. Portions of the stream serve as the Henderson/Buncombe county line (See Figure 1).
1.2 Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Prior to restoration, the project reach exhibited severe bank erosion, channel widening, and the
loss of aquatic habitat resulting from stream channelization, lack of riparian vegetation, and
watershed development. The mitigation plan (County Line Creek Mitigation Plan 2002) stated
the following goals for the project:
¦ Transform pre-existing altered stream corridor to a more stable and biologically active
form
¦ Create stable stream dimension, profile, and pattern
¦ Establish adjacent riparian ecological community
As stated in Kimley-Horn's 2001 County Line Creek High Vista Estates and Golf Course Stream
Restoration: Executive Summary of Design the objectives of this project are "to design
adjustments to the stream reach that will increase its long-term stability and create a more
functional riparian ecological community. The design for the existing stream will adjust
geomorphic dimensions, patterns, and profiles. The proposed changes reflect stable conditions of
reference reaches and their current geomorphic conditions. Additionally, vegetated buffers will
be created that match proximal natural ecological communities found in similar physiographic
and climatic regions. The reach will be redesigned to maximize natural design in light of the
needs of the golf course and physical constraints within the project area". Project Table I
provides project mitigation structure and objectives.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 - Year 5 of 5 1
C. ild AlloCirM.Ye
Fieure 1: Proiect Site Settine
?._
- tNP
O N

r• A
r l ' Tw L
va"

BUCk

i •' ; I ry 1 ! 65
-
I
I
A. h 1 7
ue1nrl r
I ?'?' J?IR 119 8""g.
?

S • ?P ?! i
? ??`
i IIIIIIIIIIIIIII, f ? I
I
•
I
•. 1
1 ? ¦?.?p1?r,:rlQ l.hilLi:l- ^ ?. __. lf--?
t
,
1
? Urri '? {. _Fr •.. r` 1. i
tJ Jf.
t' .4aftr
M sYvS MII t t? Sl\.
paw- --?-.? ^,? .l?lt?,t•,?!r r , ?? ?
1?
?
lifl& Knob
J to
r 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Prepared For County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 5 Prepared By
Project -2008
Buncombe and Henderson Counties, North Carolina n
E
1'?'(l?}'1tt'ill Date Project Number m
WeyHom
6/l/
09 044 and Associates, Inc.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 - Year 5 of 5 2 -
1.3 Project History and Background
Construction of the project was completed in July 2002. Maintenance construction was
completed in 2007. KHA completed monitoring activities for the As-Built and year 1. North
Carolina State University completed monitoring for year 2 and Soil and Environmental
Consultant, Inc. completed monitoring for year 3. Year 4 monitoring was performed by KHA in
2007. Project Table II provides additional details regarding the timeline of the project. Project
Table III provides additional information regarding contractors.
The project is located along the Henderson/Buncombe county line, portions of which are located
within the Blue Ridge Belt of the Mountains of North Carolina. The site is located within a
moderately rural area. Project Table IV provides additional information regarding this stream.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009- Year 5 of 5 3 G a " anwdd.%+?wm
? wooata. Nt.
1.4 Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan assesses the project stream's geomorphology using a set of five (5) cross
sections. The original As-Built included four (4) cross sections. An additional cross section was
added after the maintenance work. The 2008 longitudinal profile covers the section between
stations 19+00 and 35+00. This section includes the two (2) subsections that have been
monitored since the As-Built. Eleven (11) permanent photo points provide for a visual
comparison of key site features through time. The monitoring plan uses eight (8) randomly
placed vegetation quads to assess riparian buffer restoration. Monitoring Plan View Sheets 1 to
3 show the locations of the monitoring features.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 - Year 5 of 5 4
Gam/ on andtiMCtM6YC.
j? Its
?s 1
Jul
IF
i ?? Nf v 3•{?? f?
I,
? ?t
:.F - ..dam
• t ?:w ' f
IL
Ea
j
lYrr!gg
i
C
n
u
4 ? ? ai! G
! U
u]
}
ti
S 1^
s
? r
s?
2.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted zones related to the stream restoration consisted of the riparian buffer zone and
the stream banks. The riparian buffer zone begins at the top of the bank and continues out
perpendicular from the stream. The planted stream bank begins at the normal base flow
elevation and extends to the top of bank or interface with the flood plain.
The riparian buffer zone was planted with bare root trees and containerized shrubs. As
described and depicted in the approved restoration plan, shrub species were planted in
play over zones and the bare-root stock was planted on the remaining acreage where
future tree height would not affect the field of vision for players.
KHA assessed the site vegetation in October 2008. Throughout the reach, stream bank
vegetation regions, primarily consisting of planted live stakes and successional volunteers
such as Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
and Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), were performing well with the exception of a
few isolated stretches. The riparian zone was not performing as well. In several areas,
especially below station 31+50, the riparian regions had been cleared. Vegetation plots
VP1, VP2, and VP4 were observed as lacking woody vegetation, most likely a result of
clearing and maintenance by landowners. Invasive and nuisance species were not
observed in populations that presented an immediate threat to the existing communities.
Appendix A provides a summary of vegetative problem areas. Figures 2-4 show the
problem areas.
KHA assessed eight (8) vegetation quads,. Combined stem counts for these plots equaled
over 1,000 stems per acre. Year 5 success criteria require 260 stems per acre. The high
stem count is attributed to the abundance of colonizing species. Bare root plantings do
not appear to have survived in large numbers.
2.2 Stream Assessment
KHA assessed the stream channel during the spring and fall of 2008. During the winter
of 2006, stream restoration contractors performed maintenance work on the lower 2,100
feet of the stream. The maintenance included reshaping the channel and repairing and
installing stabilization structures. Overall, the channel appeared stable with isolated
sections of instability. A couple of regions of bank scour were observed between stations
14+10 to 33+00. Most of the riffles appeared to be stable with a few shorter and steeper
than design criteria. In the upper reach, some of the pools appeared to be steeper than
design criteria and may be becoming unstable. Most of the in-stream structures such as
rock vanes were functional. Some were difficult to identify due to the age of the reach.
Monitoring Plan View Sheets 1 through 3 show the location of the stream problem areas
and table B 1 in appendix B summarizes the stream problem areas.
Due to the spatial extent of repairs to the channel in 2007, the survey data collected after
the repair cannot be directly compared to the pre-repair data through meaningful overlays
or trending. However, any post-repair data set will permit meaningful post-repair
comparisons and data can be extracted, from each of the pre-repair monitoring years
rr.
4bm KVA
C
oonty Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009- Year 5 of 5 9 ?? ,Int.
individually, which will contribute to various performance/condition statistics for
comparison to the pre-construction condition.
EEP installed a crest gage near permanent cross section XS-3. During the November field
visit, the gage did not indicate that bankf ill events had occurred since the last reading.
Project Table V shows an empty record for bankfull events. Bankfull events have likely
occurred on-site, but documentation does not currently exist within the monitoring
record.
Project Table VI provides a categorical view of the stream visual stability assessment.
The visual assessment shows an apparent increase in stability related to all metrics. This
improvement reflects the maintenance work performed in 2007. Table B2 in appendix B
provides a breakdown of the visual assessment.
Project Table VII and Project Table VIII summarize the site geomorphic assessment.
KHA used bankfull elevations consistent with the first three (3) years of measurements
(As-Built to MY 2). The older cross sections (XSI, XS2, XS3, and XS4) were
significantly modified during maintenance. Consequently, the shape and hydraulic
dimensions differed from previous years. Cross section XS I had similar hydraulic
dimensions compared to previous years. Appendix B provides photographs and graphing
for geomorphic data.
3.0 Methodology
The monitoring methodology used during 2008 is consistent with the methods used in
2007.
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009- Year 5 of 5 9 E: Uri :• m.
PROJECT TABLES
Table I. Project Restoration Components
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
,
Project
Segment

or Reach Stationing Comment
ID
Main 3,500 R P2 3,500 If 1:1 1 3,5001 0+00.0 - 35+00.0
Mitigation Unit Summaries
Stream (If) Riparian Non-Riparian Total Wetland Buffer (Ac.) Comment
Wetland Ac. Wetland Ac. Ac.
3,500 -- -- -- --
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 Year 5 of 5 KimleyHorn
and Associates, Inc.
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Scheduled Data Collection Actual Completion or
Activity or Report Comments
Completion Complete Delivery
Restoration Plan 2002 11/2001
Final Design - 90% 2002
Construction 2002 8/2002
Maintenance / 2007
Temporary S&E mix
applied to entire
roiect area
Permanent seed mix
applied
Containerized and
B&B plantings for 2002
reach/se ments 1&2
Mitigation Plan / As-
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
0
built (Year 2002 10/2002
Associates
Monitoring -
Year 1 monitoring 2003 Oct-05 12/2003 Performed by Kimley-Horn and
Associates
Year 2 Monitoring 2004 Oct-06 12/2004 Performed b N.C. State University
Year 3 Monitoring 2005 12/2005 Performed by Soil and Environmental
Consultants
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
Year 4 Monitoring 2007 Nov-07 12/2007
Associates
Performed by Kimley-Horn and
Year 5 Monitoring 2008 Dec-08
Associates
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 Year 5 of 5 ? KimieyHom
C? and Associates, inc.
Table III. Project Contact Table
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Designer 3001 Weston Parkway
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Cary, NC 27513
Primary Designer POC Will Wilhelm, P.E.
Construction Contractor 6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental Corp. Brown Summit, NC 27214
Primary Contractor POC Greg Kiser
Construction Contractor

Maintenance
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Willow Springs, NC 27592
Primary Contractor POC
Planting Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seeding Contractor

Planting contractor POC
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers PO Box 33068
Kimley-Horn and Associates Raleigh, NC 27636
Stream Monitoring POC
i Daren Pait, P.E. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Daren Pait, P.E. [phone]
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 Year 5 of 5 Ki nley-Horn
I• _._ and Associates, Inc.
Table IV. Project Background Table
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Project County Henderson/Buncombe
Drainage Area 0.35 sq. miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) 0.1
Stream Order 1 st /2nd
Ph sio ra hic Region Mountain
Ecore 'on Blue Ridge Belt
Rosgen Classification of As-built 134/C4
Cowardin Classification N/A
Dominant soil types Codorus, Ha esville, Delanco
Reference site ID N/A
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 6010105
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and
Reference 04-3-2002
NCDWQ classification for Project and
Reference N/A
Any portion of any project segment 303d
listed? No
Any portion of any project segment

upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
of project easement fenced 0%
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 Year 5 of 5 ?- Kinney-Horn
?M . and Associates, Inc.
Table V. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
County Line Creek (High Vista) Stream Restoratin (EEP No. 00044)
Reac h 1
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles -- -- -- 87% 94% 94%
B. Pools -- -- -- 95% 93% 93%
C. Thalweg -- -- -- 100% 100% 100%
D. Meanders -- -- -- 78% 96% 96%
E. Bed General -- -- -- 82% 100% 99%
F. Bank Condition -- -- -- 92% 100% 100%
G. Vanes / J Hooks etc. -- -- -- 88% 93% 93%
H. Wads and Boulders -- -- -- 52% 78% 78%
County Line Creek Monitoring Report (044) May 2009 Year 5 of 5 KunleyHom
;m and Associates, Inc.
APPENDIX A
VEGETATION MONITORING DATA

2
0
E?
Y ?u
?i

??
4

R 7
?
L \ f 1?P $?q Y. ? Y k

5
6
I
.yllKrt� �� �
j � r+�. �)�'.t•, � k�,5 a"Sl�nlf�{ w,•
� - ... ,
..
,JA
�-,1
�' r
f M��
as � '�x y •`'.
'. � .�' ..
r ♦ �. .1 k, � �>.P �y� t /S
r � S 3'� i..{{]7 '�"�'� 1 1 } yfR,
i
1 i.

?qA

i
W y., Y
.:
Rf 'k•` ,? fl
?f
VP 1: Cleared buffer. no wooded
VP 2: Lawn clippings in easement
i
?
r
,.y J t P f;,

.
hr`?WM? '7S tT'SS 5 }'?' A Y?y M1-dSt h '9f Q 1
'w ? e i4 ? r 7e ? a ,? moo,
?? ?:1?? ? .T ? ....rye •.. .?+M: y? -ry.' „y..a,`?9,". '? 5? r ?, ,? , ??? R f 1"? ??^,. ?v„r?.. y..a: ,,???'?A$'"? per... e i
? , ? .y ? "?Re ? ? ?' A ?5. '?'Y? W, ??1 i% r? ?Y1.1?? :7??Y7'1 t1 i? ? j T'
i ??! ? vr• 4? xt r4 tilt !?+' .?w .^; '. _
r
• ?. _. a ^.» stiSa . .. . , r ,?... ..yc tw _
PS 2 (2008)

7 7

I ?
F
?
j
rph? ? r
'
?
['?
I
Y[ }'. 11.1 J?.
0,0
'r __•;
I
PS 3 (2(
?i b S ? r tg:, j' ?y
f y;•. ? ? g ? . ? ? .. i ? r .yam. ? s
Jr,
s??.. w? , tx eMs?,:
41
-" ! :y ya k a , ?y r X? .5 9 ?" 4 , s
? f • , jT y •? !d r??i ? y??u ? hY
tt ey.
J?n
PS 5
I

'�. �� ,� t, z "4`." � yF 'fir � .7� x :+�.•; -y`r� ,� ;' y
j •' +� -

Y
=6 l e
Pfii
f
yy 9
y4

Y. Cµ
4T ?•
.eww

4. _
r.

PS 9 (2008)

Y
..r Yfti

y

k
PS 10 (2008)
T?
¦
i 1
I r
1
1
I ?
I
r
r r
II
1
? I
1 ? 1
? r1
i s
rI '
ti
r?
GJ
ill
r
.r
C: I
y ?I
V r l
II
r s?
? I
O f
1 ?
I
i
i
i
f
r
I
1
o .n
A O?
N N
0
P? (q
W!
0'.+
o ?1
a +
ty ? l
O
?O
H
y ?
°> rv
iY m
ffi
0
a° °o
p ? H
O C
tea' pmp ? ?
o ? o
o J U m
cv
¦ C
eD 8
8 N
N d'
O
O
? CO
a
cu ?d
v?7 v
z m
I
? ? I
I
I
0
?5

?..

'WI

41
1
tAl
tl-

O

I

I 1
1 I
r- 00
O O
__
p

V ca C?
.._. __.-. _---- _.
I 40
O N

1 -- - ----- -

W -- i
LL
6L
' I
C-1
00
0
I?
N N N N
N
IN N
Y ? 1
?/
/\ O
W) U01lea13

y
J
4
G
a
tA
x
00 00 00 00 00
4 r l .,
N N N N N
(u) uoi;eal3
O

r-4 r,4 r4
O
v.
O
C
x
L
O
r
O
h
O
N

O

o.
°
00 oo
r4 1
N N N N
4
E lil
b
N
'. b
~ ~
%
%
I
1
1
1
1
3 `r
ju nod alrNed
??a} aniae?num?
$? s? a sc R a R s o
1

I
2 r
o?
0 .

I
I Y
i
?
1 s
`
t
1
FO

O C
O
•.
. V

'
I 09000"

N ?
41 ?I
+

? I
i I

I
1 1
I r
?r
1
I
I
I

o

0

O
N

h
N

O
N

h
N

N h
N

N
(g) llopeaai g

"
r

shy

¦ - ,: ;y? i

i v 1?#

?,-

f:
r?
Y
W
J
LL
LL
.4 o 0%
M1 6m e{
.4 14 .r
N N N
(4) U01le013
(%I aAjlejnwn)
8 R ° 8 .°, A R A $ o
t ? b ? po
I 1
1
1
1
1
I
!Q Sj IR R q A ., ? a
yuno) OMPed
00
Q R
N N N
O
6M
O
Q
O
M
x
C
O
A
N
O
N
0
0
e
N
e
.. h
I M
t
a`
0 {
?! N. M
4t4
` o
e ?
v I m
J r°. C e A
I I
?JG I ¦ S
v • AL
`y
? o S T
N ^ V VI ?
® CC
? I
I
? I
.y I
.. , •1 o w
e !
o ? M c-
t d cwp a =, ?F
r
?
•?, Sa p4
wwa;
Ir ? G
I8
0
° ? II
M -
p t 000000
?I Y
to
° y
..
r ? N o V.. e ?
a
N N N N N N
(g) troryenal? ? ' I
1
f
Ile
q F

????pp ?
( i`t 4
-YV ?
y ? ? ? IIR !?• 1 ??y 1
3'_?,A,? .? ?' ? ??nN'? far L ? ? ?? •? m
??.` .. ? S^ ? ??.?? Ira ` t \ ?\\ ?? f ' ?
}i

114 .. ?
,y7tN ` -
F ? ?ji - 1 1
?
?`
?
r,
r R p R
o
,?.y .
1? ?•_
I
y Ala
! T ' l b ?!y qy 1y :
wnO3sivyaleW

- 4

O
r,
Q
00
O
N O
N
V
- ?
f
K X
CD ca
O

A

,
0
O

X ,? y
O
.°n e e a
.. rl ri .a e e Q Q e
rl e
N N N N N N N N N N
Cu) uolleaa

LIM
; ? -
a
, ,.laA!Ieinwn)
(
-

4 S ._
41
-
..

R S ° S A S S

R A e
:?
?

yk _ ? "i6¢? q I W

¢ . '.'+,
.
I
?
f Y .
t ?
y
?
y,„
K5 O
h
d
!Sim

4

1uno)0j)!Wd

i O

10,

W o o

LL - ? .
--t-
- --- -
`A

-- - -- -- 70

m co
Ln
N
X
o
u, Q M
IN
N N N N N N
(4) U01leS13