20030299 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20030304

fl
Mr. Ron Ferrell
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
March 24, 2003
Subject: Stream Restoration/Enhancement
Third Fork Creek
Durham County, NC
DWQ# 030299
This Office is in receipt of the plans for the stream restoration projects of approximately 2900 feet of Third Fork
Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin submitted to this Office on March 4, 2003. DWQ Staff reviewed the plans
and determined that stream restoration. and/or enhancement would be achieved.
The stream impacts associated with the project may proceed without written approval from the Division. Please
be advised that seven copies of a complete, formal application and a $475.00 fee is required for projects
intended for compensatory mitigation credit (see General Certification No. 3353, issued March 18, 2002). Any
request for mitigation credit shall be addressed under separate cover.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Todd St. John at [phone].
cc: Mr. Todd St. John, Wetland
Cherri Smith, WRP
Raleigh Regional Office
File
S'
J o ey
et ands Unit Sup rvis r
s
VNAT,?
Michael F. Easley
pG Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C Alan Klimek, PE
Division of Water Quality
14011111111111011 North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 4, 2003
MEMORANDUM
To: Todd St. John
From:
Subject:
Cherri Smith L?S
e??
NCDENR-

Permit Application for Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration, Durham
County
Please find the enclosed permit application and design for a stream restoration project
on approximately 2,900 linear feet of Third Fork Creek in Durham County. In addition, a
copy of the permit application and restoration plan have been sent to the attention of Steve
Mitchell in the DENR- Raleigh Regional Office.
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has negotiated a
conservation easement that is 50 feet wide on either side of the stream. The project is
located entirely on property owned by the City of Durham and managed by the city's parks
department. Landowners downstream of the park were contacted to determine their
interest in continuing the stream restoration project, but none of these landowners was
interested in conveying a conservation easement.
If you would like to discuss this project or need additional information, please feel free
to call me at 715-3466. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
!L 0
cc: Steve Mitchell
c
? I 1 10
CROUP
MAR 0 4 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

Office Use Only: IA- Form Version October 2001
J0 ?-J "
USACE Action ID No. DWO No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
Mailing Address. 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-3466 Fax Number: 919-733-5321
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 west to 15-501 north.
Take 15-501 business to where it ends on University Drive. Oo left onto University Drive.
Go approximately 1 mile and take right into parking lot at Forest Hills Park.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct water body.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The project site is an urban park dominated by maintained lawn. The project reach is incised
with active bed degradation and channel widening characterized by severe bank erosion.
7. Property size (acres): Conservation easement is approximately 7 acres.
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): New Hope Creek
9. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httR://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mVs/.)
Page 6 of 12
a
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stabilize Third Fork Creek by restoring the
proper geometry of this creek to improve water quality and reduce sediment load generated
by eroding banks. Improve aesthetics of urban stream as it flows through a city park.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track-hoe and loader.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The surrounding area is highly
urbanized with residential and commercial development and secondary roads comprising the
majority of the land use.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
No future permit requests are anticipated.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http//www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 10 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secify)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Page 8 of 12
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The temporarv impacts are unavoidable due the nature of stream restoration work. The
construction will be staged and performed in such a manner that the disturbance to the aquatic
system is minimal.
Page 9 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order,
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration;
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmizide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at hLtp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/?LvM/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
3. Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Page 10 of 12
6
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No X If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Gone 1 extends out 3U teet perpendicular from near bank of channel; "Lone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
4
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No ?
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No ?
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
e
Applican`Jt/Agent's Signature Aate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Variables Proposed Reach Check Results Reference Reach Check Results Ran a SGS Staticstin Channel
1. stream type
2. drainage area 1.76 _ 3.04 1.76
3. bankfull width v 30 17.8 19.32635
4. bankfull mean deoth 2.5 2.50 1.5 1.47 1.628625
75
7. bankfuli mean velocity 9. bankfull max depth 4.25 1.70 ok 3 2.00 ok 3.257249
-- -- - -
10. width of floodprone area 200 600 651.4499
11. entrenchment ratio 6.67 C or E 33.71 C or E
12. meander length 200 120 130.29
13. ratio of meander length to bankfull width 6.67 too small? 6.74 too small?
14. Radius of curvature 60 37 40.17274
15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width 2.00 ok 2.08
16. Belt width 90 158 171.5485
18 Sinuosity (sirearri lengthlvauey length) 1.1 1.50 1.28 0.96
19. Valle sloe 0.003 0.0023
20. Average slope 0.002 _ 0.0024
21. Pool slope
22. Ratio of of slope to average sio a 0.00 0.00
24. Ratio of pool depth to average bankfull depth 2.70 ok 2.47 ok
25. Pool width 0
26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width 0.00 39.943221 0.00
27. Pool to pool spacing 105 n/a 62 67.31649
28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to bankfull width 3.50 A or B 3.48 A or B
mean
Urban Peidmont 124.5967087 642.035563 35.611486 3.511192611 avg bed
Rural Piedmont 45.64321294 198.2686874 19.178626 2.140971104
Reference Reach
26.2
59.99752368
17.8
185.212511 16.970642
20.88793
Sediment Transport Analysis ala Rosgen for D50 >2mm
d50 mm mm active channel 050 only
ds50 mm mm subsurface D50
Tci #VALUE! dimensionless
Tci #VALUEI
Di (largest) f #VALUE!
S ft/ft 0.002 average bed slope for reach not just riffle
Dbkf propose 2.5
Dbkf needed #VALUE!
1.5 Di mm rnm
BKF A 75 ft2
wetted perirr 37.07107 ft
gRS=Tc 0.252488 lb/ft2
diagram Shields pred mm
diagram Shields pred Ibs/ft2
22.04264
0.178006
38.66025
Regional Curve Predictions for Design Reach Predicted X-Sec Pred Discharge Bkfw Bkfd
Urban Peidmont 87.82043504 470.1791459 29.897481 2.94780778
Rural Piedmont 31.47536573 133.7686278 15.161854 1.797443769
Rural Mountain 31.73974118 154.653679 23.481977 1.322610316

r

c

r

t

,030299
Stream Restoration Plan
Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
Durham, North Carolina
c

February 2003
4601 Six Forks Road I MAR s 2003
KCIRaleigh, North Carolina 27609
{ NC,Et?mS
MSTORATION
a

KCI Associates of North Carolina, ?;A
'(C??El1/E?
Landmark Center I, Suite 200
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR
I Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) intends to restore a degraded section of Third
Fork Creek located within Forest Hills Park in Durham, North Carolina. The project reach is approximately
2,900 linear feet. It is located in the headwaters of the Third Fork Creek watershed (US Geological Survey
14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002060120) within the New Hope Creek Sub-basin of the Upper Cape
Fear River (NC Division of Water Quality Sub-basin 03-06-05).
' The project site is an urban park dominated by open space, with structures and facilities located in close
proximity to the stream. The surrounding area is highly urbanized, with residential and commercial
development and secondary roads comprising the majority of the land use. The project reach is incised with
active bed degradation and channel widening characterized by severe bank erosion.
The goals and objectives of the Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project are to:
¦ Restore stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment provided by its
watershed;
¦ Reduce sediment-related water quality impacts resulting from lateral bank erosion and bed degradation;
¦ Improve aquatic habitat diversity through the reestablishment of riffle-pool bed variability and the use of
in-stream structures;
¦ Restore vegetative riparian buffers utilizing native plant species; and,
¦ Improve natural aesthetics in an urban park setting.
j The proposed stream dimension, pattern, and profile will be based on the detailed morphological criteria and
hydraulic geometry relationships developed from a reference reach - a stable portion of North Prong Creek, a
second order urban stream also located in Durham. The reference reach is located in the same
hydrophysiographic province and a similar watershed position as the project stream. The reference also has
similar land use, valley slope, and sediment distribution as the project site.
The restoration design is based on a Priority Level 2 approach that will reestablish approximately 3,025
linear feet of meandering, bankfull channel and a new floodplain at the stream's existing level to provide
stable flow maintenance and sediment transport. The design bankfull stage will equal the new floodplain
elevation. The design stream profile will restore stable bed morphology including appropriate riffle-pool
sequencing. Cross-Vane and J-Hook Vane (J-Vane) instream structures have been integrated in the design to
provide grade control, assist in stabilizing the banks and reduce the burden of energy dissipation on the
channel geometry. Coir fiber matting will be used to provide temporary stabilization on the newly graded
streambanks. The confluence of a tributary within the project reach will be incorporated and stabilized with
a grade control structure to match the proposed grade of the restored main channel. Excavated materials
' from the design channel will be used to backfill the abandoned portions of the existing channel.
Native woody and herbaceous species will be used to establish fifty (50) foot wide riparian buffers on both
sides of the restored reach. Park utilization space requirements dictate that the riparian buffers consist of a
thirty (30) foot wide fully forested buffer adjacent to the stream bordered by a twenty (20) foot wide strip of
managed native grasses. Live staking with appropriate native species will also be used along the
streambanks to provide natural stabilization.
Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian/stream bank vegetation
survivability data to assist in the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration objectives.
Specifically, the success of channel modification, erosion control and re-vegetation parameters will be
assessed using measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and profile, site photographs, and vegetation
sampling.
IJ

Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... l
2.0 Project Site Location .........................................................................................................................1
2.1 General Description ...................................................................................................................1
2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ......................................................................... l
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification .....................................................................................1
3.0 Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................................3
3.1 General Description ................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Drainage Area ............................................................................................................................3
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential .......................................................................................3
3.4 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources ...............................................................................3
3.4.1 Historical Resources .....................................................................................................3
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................3
3.4.3 Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitats ........................................8
4.0 Project Site Existing Conditions Survey ..........................................................................................8
4.1 General Description ................................................................................................................. .. 8
4.2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... ..8
4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities ................................................................ 11
4.4 Existing Stream Characteristics ...............................................................................................
4.4.1 Morphological Description ......................................................................................... 11
11
4.4.2 Channel Evolution Stage ............................................................................................ 11
4.4.3 Stability Assessment ...................................................................................................
4.4.4 Bankfull Verification .................................................................................................. 12
12
4.5 Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 14
5.0 Reference Reach Analysis ...............................................................................................................14
6.0 Restoration Design ...........................................................................................................................18
6.1 Stream ......................................................................................................................................18
6.2 Riparian Buffers .......................................................................................................................18
7.0 Sediment Transport Analysis .....................................................................................................
7.1 Competency . .. . . 28
28
7.2 Capacity ................................................................................................................................... 29
8.0 Flooding Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 29
9.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................................
..
9.1 Duration ... 29
30
..............................................................................................................................
9.2 Reporting . .. 30
9.3 Stream Stability ....................................................................................................................... 30
9.3.1 Dimension ................................................................................................................... 30
9.3.2 Pattern ......................................................................................................................... 30
9.3.3 Profile ......................................................................................................................... 30
9.3.4 Bed Materials .............................................................................................................. 31
1 11
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
9.4 Photograph Reference Points .................................... ...............................................................31
9.4.1 Cross-section Photograph Reference Points ...............................................................31
9.4.2 Longitudinal Photograph Reference Points . ............................................................... 31
9.4.3 Additional Photograph Locations ................ ...............................................................31
9.5 Bank and Riparian Vegetation Monitoring ............... ...............................................................31
I References ..................................................................................................................................................32
I FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9A.
Figure 9B.
Figure 10.
Figure 11A.
Figure 11B.
Figure 12A.
Figure 12B.
Figure 12C.
Figure 12D.
Figure 13.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
1
Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................2
Location Map .................................................................................................................... .. 3
Watershed .......................................................................................................................... .. 5
Land Use/Land Cover ....................................................................................................... .. 6
Proposed Forest Hills Historic District ............................................................................. ..7
Site Aerial Photo ............................................................................................................... ..9
Soils ................................................................................................................................... 10
B ankful l Indicators ............................................................................................................ 13
NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curve (Discharge) ............................................................ 15
NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curve (Cross-sectional Area) ........................................... 16
Reference Reach Location Map ........................................................................................ 17
Typical Cross-sections - Upper Section ........................................................................... 21
Typical Cross-section - Lower Section ............................................................................. 22
Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet .................................................................................... 23
Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet .................................................................................... 24
Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet .................................................................................... 25
Restoration Plan and Profile Sheet .................................................................................... 26
Details: Typical Instream Structures ................................................................................. 27
TABLES
Existing Channel Morphology by Sub-Reach .............................
Priority Levels of Incised River Restoration ...............................
Morphological Design Criteria ....................................................
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Site Existing Conditions Data
Appendix B. Reference Reach Data
Appendix C. Sediment Transport Data
1
1

.................................11
.................................19
................................. 20
iii
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) intends to restore a degraded section of Third
Fork Creek located within Forest Hills Park in Durham, North Carolina. This Plan presents detailed
information regarding the existing site and watershed conditions, the morphological design criteria developed
from a selected reference reach, and the project design parameters based upon natural channel restoration
methodologies.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project are to:
¦ Restore stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment provided by its
watershed;
¦ Reduce sediment-related water quality impacts resulting from lateral bank erosion and bed degradation;
¦ Improve aquatic habitat diversity through the reestablishment of riffle-pool bed variability and the use of
in-stream structures;
¦ Restore vegetative riparian buffers utilizing native plant species; and,
¦ Improve natural aesthetics in an urban park setting.
2.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION
2.1 General Description
Third Fork Creek is located within the City of Durham, North Carolina (Durham County) (Figure 1: Vicinity
Map). Third Fork Creek is a second-order stream that flows in a southerly direction joining New Hope
Creek, which eventually drains into the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (Jordan Lake), a major area water supply
and recreational resource.
The entire restoration site is contained within Forest Hills Park on property owned by the City of Durham.
The project reach totals approximately 2,900 linear feet and extends in a north-south orientation from East
Forest Hills Boulevard (near the intersection with University Drive) downstream to the Park property
boundary, located upstream of South Roxboro Street (Figure 2: Location Map).
2.2 USGS and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The project reach is located in the headwaters of the Third Fork Creek watershed (US Geological Survey 14-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002060120) within the New Hope Creek Sub-basin of the Upper Cape
Fear River (NC Division of Water Quality Sub-basin 03-06-05).
2.3 NCDWQ Surface Water Classification
The NCDWQ assigns surface waters a classification in order to help protect, maintain, and preserve water
quality. The section of Third Fork Creek containing the project reach (NCDWQ Stream Index Number 16-
41-1-12-(1)) is designated as a Class C water body (NCDENR, 2002). Class C is a baseline water quality
classification, intended to protect water resources for fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture, and secondary recreation. There are no restrictions associated with Class C waters
regarding watershed development or types of discharges. However, the subject section of Third Fork Creek

s

11
Durham County, NC ? / J
Figure 1. Vicinity lMap
Project Reach ;N
T -00 0 700 Feet
N.G I cdundi Rcrloratw>n KCI
n yu a
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PA Source: uscs zs'sourh-r .,;....:; ; ,

1

L9
t

I
u

t
1

A
ra?
Figure 2. Location Map
Streams
Roads AN
KCI Railroads A -_t--
Drainage Area
2000 0 2000 Feet
ASSOCIATES OF Project Reach
NORTH CAROLINA, Pd Forest Hills Park
I Stream Restoration Plan
Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
also carries the supplemental classification as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), which requires limitations
on nutrient inputs. Third Fork Creek has a designated use support rating of NR (Not Rated) due to
inappropriate or incomplete data.
Further, the NCDWQ includes this section of Third Fork Creek as an impaired stream on the North Carolina
Draft 2002 Impaired Waters List (303(d) list). This section of Third Fork Creek is assigned a Low Priority
within Category 6 (biologically impaired waters). Results from future pollution/pollutant monitoring may
place Category 6 waters within either Category 4c (waters impaired by pollution, not by a pollutant, and
therefore don't require TMDLs) or Category 5 (waters impaired by a pollutant, for which TMDLs are
required).
3.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
3.1 General Description
The project site is located in an urban setting within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is
characterized by gently rolling hills with elevations in the contributing drainage area ranging from 410 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) to 290 feet AMSL with a relative relief of 120 feet. The historic dendritic
drainage patterns of the watershed have been substantially replaced by curb and gutter stormwater drainage
systems. Likewise, the normally broad alluvial valleys have been narrowed due to the encroachment of
residential and commercial development and associated transportation systems.
3.2 Drainage Area
The total drainage area for the project reach is 1.76 mil (Figure 3: Watershed). The contributing area at the
upstream project limits is 0.8 mil. Two intermittent tributaries add an additional 0.12 and 0.56 mil,
respectively, of drainage area to the project reach. Prior to reaching the downstream limits, an additional
0.28 mil of area drains to the project reach.
3.3 Land Use and Development Potential
An Anderson Level I (Modified) classification indicates that the contributing watershed is dominated by
urban-high (56%), urban-low (29%), and forest (10%) land use/land cover; with the remaining 5% divided
between open space/park, scrub/shrub, and water (Figure 4: Land Use/Land Cover). Approximately 44% of
the watershed is impervious. Historical trends and current observations indicate that the watershed is fully
developed and the potential for further build-out is low.
3.4 Significant Cultural and Natural Resources
3.4.1 Historical Resources
A review of available records at the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates that the project site lies within the proposed Forest Hills Historic
District (Figure 5: Proposed Forest Hills Historic District). During initial coordination, SHPO
Environmental Review Coordinator Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early stipulated that a review of the Project
Restoration Plan would be necessary in order for SHPO to provide a final effect determination.
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources
A review of available records at and initial coordination with the State Office of Archaeology indicates that
1 no archaeological sites are recorded within the project vicinity and no archeology survey is recommended.
t

I

r

1

L
JCrut)/SCrUb
Barren
M Urban High
03030002060120
Third Fork Creek
Figure 4. 1999 Land Use/Land Cover
N Streams .,
N ,
Drainage Area
-`
KCI Project Reach
N.C. V4'cllands NcyloritiHi Program
600 0 600 Feet -emu x
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, P.4
f
1

t

1

1
1
F1

f

I
R
��1{ f •
• ��. ,. �jf ,�r'�i. ,.,.*' �, r`a .t y�. �tif aEY `tti •/ •-.P.s 's .:� •-�
,- ..- •fie y�,
P.f fw
3l4
� -�_ ! � fir• r t ^ .. -
.., y: , ss ';:,?" `� :. -��! � 8� ¢ 'lire •! l:r'ti `' ,.,: • . r �,'.,
�• . • ,, .. _ � •, , , .. �, . r. + '. 9�y`c.`�• s ,Y i i �,� , .i Ls a ,!r 4 6 -tw. i
;�,' J-�'•.$., �•�j+,,k .� .:i" z.. � y' ; s �f S`i ,rt- fig,. �" 7 '[�y r� � 11.,.
' �\ r � .1' 4 �. /,y • _}6� y� -t:' .� tili ` �yy` 8' ','' ,c �+ a:9 � -
. � \ v'�S • J =,r lr ', •e.�y • .\• Ir'I " 1 � '�.1 Y�11ry T.
- J �
r,+�'t ..t'f �'� i tys 'rr`t�;+;` r..'� _1 <.-1," `g -S!' a 1,,•�h
r, ,, • r ^fir
�� .Ii k. :� .'. , &�'✓., y. I� It••»j1 .i. .r ' '<. •r.lV �'i.Ti Lr - r
f
F '' � \.<,: •Ya. i .n.,'z .r •T 1'14 r. k. ���j y -
•
jj`(., y,,, ,.. „ -; r '•r ` j 4` '`�.. a i a t�r', :' r � : �. - f '' y.. ..\, .;,;�yr ? �.2 • yil�
� «N''A ' i �r., r.e�: ,�,'"._ ,e i 1' � .i �� ,'fit• � *'xy: :''.
�� :» ,•� ,► .% 'r _ ,}. �. d:1� a '',� �� s!a
r1
rD", s � 1.•'q.. y"
r'J l
,a •
.nom •
r•.
��.t.. "� — �=,s.s fit-' � "+� +�' . `v K` ' t„ '� k `� i +r Ge 'f ��g: ,� ,a •-'Is tip, �`,� I - 5.� .�. _ s �•r*, . ..6' y + -:c
, ti< \ .� ,1�.1fF, �` }fig G ,.� v• I... w• .7 A,'}� 4 `*.. E''Y4 t�. i Z • .r�.
-f er. �F. / . 4z•. :r`,R r,� �;, . ,+i � i ' K 8, "ar I; - • < �.y;.>... � - '�' - �y`'
r,
i s I�
•
' d.. •s.4rNN �yy
i .;.,i. + _ .,1. T�...v.--,4,. . 'r,, ;� r '' "t �•S. is �' �' :'G'r '•'•►r'i � . '•ti r
• ,- �/ J► „-
d -, ° y; , �• r / ..�' i t •Tri• R . $$ . ,; r�
Ji-
1 I
.<i
I
r r
•t r
arc ,
17
MV
.s, �c Y �yii ', �nt y �, ;,, iy�*. sof':` � },1- f' � y�•
r � k •�t` �.. - , • �` r.. I :+r.• .f:`,E _ Y � : !'4'-:• ;t _• p�,�g'1'�' .t� . y r M1d�' t-
•' � Ii`, � � :•, -� Thr' � tlr��! err.,."
-a
` 'dam ,. '�' � ,� ..r X... �i'• � J!. �.�, .� i. Y�i.\ kx c• _ � r ��- ,.r` _ . � M,
,
Y
•F -
tr `,;:Y • . .y - • is '- .y _ '� ' � � i i , •'+.� �i.
-
�.r
,
,r
1
p
Figure 1
. Site Aerial
In
N
d
46
C
(6
LL
CL
z KCI
a
a
m
Y
O
m
U
C)
N ASSOCIATES OF
1 � I NORTH CAROLINA, PA
0
4P Trees • Pipe Outfall
• Manhole
Roads
Topography
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drain
Bridges and Walls
rce: 1999 Digital Orthonhotoi raDhs, Durham Countv
N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
NCDENR WQ_

WwE
Ur
MfE
MfE
4
MfD
Ur
Wwc WwE
Wwc
MrD
Ww
WwE
Ur
??
. L CP - WwE
Mrc Soil Tees
- Cartecay and Chewacla soils (Cc)
j. Congaree silt loam (Cp)
. F Mayodan sandy loam (MfE, MID, MfE)
Mayodan-Urban land complex (MrC)
Urban land (Ur)
M White Store sandy loam (WsB)
White Store-Urban land complex (WwC, WwE)
Third Fork Creek
Figure 7. Soils
N Streams
Drainage Area
T Project Reach KCI N.C. Vl'cllttnJy licslor,?wx? Prpgrlni
6i,i li ?'cyu:n
600 Feet
ASSOCIATES OF -r
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
u

t

1

fl

4.3 Existing Riparian Buffer and Natural Communities
The project site is an urban park dominated by mowed grass fields with minimal large woody vegetation. No
natural communities meeting categories established within the "Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina" (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) exist within the project area. However, large individual trees
exist immediately adjacent to streams and roads. These individual trees were recognized as significant and
documented in order to facilitate their incorporation into the proposed restoration design.
4.4 Existing Stream Characteristics
4.4.1 Morphological Description
A Rosgen Level II assessment was conducted in July and August 2002 to gather existing stream dimension,
pattern, and profile data (i.e., width, depth, cross-sectional area, slope, radius of curvature, belt width,
meander length), develop morphological parameters (i.e., W/D ratio, entrenchment ratio, radius of curvature
to bankfull width ratio, sinuosity), and determine the potential for restoration. The project reach is
subdivided into two sections due to the controlling influence of a culverted road crossing and the confluence
of a tributary that significantly increases the contributing drainage area. Data developed from this
assessment are summarized below and detailed data records are presented in Appendix A.
Table 1. Existing Channel Morphology by Sub-Reach.
Parameter Upper Reach Lower Reach
Drainage Area (mi) 0.8-1.1 1.76
Bankfull Width (ft) 21.8-26.8 29.5
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.7-2.6 2.4
Width / Depth Ratio 8.3-15.9 12.2
Bankfull Area (ft) 45.1-57.2 71.4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1-18.3 6.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.55-2.57 1.27
Local W. S. Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.25 0.20
Sinuosity (K) 1.03 1.01
Discharge (cfs) 268 322
D50 (MM) 0.31 0.41
Rosgen Stream Type F5, G5, E5 C5
Additionally, sections of the two tributaries within the project area were assessed and characterized in order
to facilitate discharge estimation and stable confluence design.
4.4.2 Channel Evolution Stage
Stream instability in an urban environment is often a result of direct and indirect human-induced disturbances
such as channelization, riparian and bank vegetation removal, floodplain encroachment, stream crossing
installation, and watershed development. Conceptual channel evolution models are used to describe the
sequential changes a stream undergoes after disturbance and predict its most probable stable endpoint
(stream type). The Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) was utilized to evaluate the project
stream's current stage of adjustment and assist in developing an appropriate restoration approach.
Based upon measurements and observations recorded during the field investigation, sections of the project
reach are in varying stages of evolution toward a stable state. The upstream section of the project reach,
between two East Forest Hills Boulevard road crossings (Sta. 10+00 to 30+00), is in Stage IV/V where
degradation/incision has largely ended. Active bank erosion in outside meander bends is evident as the
I 11
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
stream continues to widen in an effort to establish necessary belt width. Evidence of aggradation (Stage V)
is also observable in areas through the deposition of alternating bars and the redevelopment of a meandering
planform.
The downstream section (Sta. 30+00 to 40+25) extending from the midpoint East Forest Hills Boulevard
road crossing, including the culverted confluence of Tributary 2, to the project endpoint is primarily in Stage
V where aggradation is predominant. However, bank erosion can be observed where the stream continues to
establish necessary belt-width. Limited portions of this section have reached Stage VI - Restabilization, as
evidenced by the development of a new floodplain (bankfull) bench with establishing woody vegetation.
Without intervention, it is likely that the evolutionary process will continue until the stream establishes the
belt width, cross-sectional area and floodplain necessary to maintain a stable dimension, pattern and profile.
However, this will only occur over time while the stream and site continue to experience degraded conditions
including continued erosion, water quality and habitat impairment, and the loss of valuable trees.
4.4.3 Stability Assessment
The current "stream state or condition" (Rosgen, 1996) was further analyzed using Rosgen Level III
methodologies to assess stability through an examination of such parameters such as channel dimension
(W/D,11, compared with W/Dreference), vertical stability (Bank Height Ratio), lateral stability (Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI)), and sediment supply/transport.
In the upper portion of the project reach (Sta. 10+00 to 30+00), comparisons of the existing width-to-depth
ratio values to the reference reach width-to-depth ratio values vary greatly (0.67 - 1.27). Additionally, bank
height ratios in this section ranged from 1.55 to 2.71. Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) scores ranged
from 32 to 34 indicating a high potential for continued bank erosion and channel widening in the upper
project reach. Sediment supply is high from severely eroding banks. Collectively, these factors indicate both
vertical and lateral instability through channel incision and widening, respectively, in this portion of the
project reach.
Conversely, stability assessments suggest that the channel the lower portion of the project reach (Sta. 30+00
to 40+25) has progressed farther towards reestablishing a stable form. Width-to-depth ratio comparisons
produce values ranging from 0.79 to 0.95, as well as bank height ratios ranging from 0.87 to 1.24, indicate
that no significant down cutting is occurring. The channel continues to widen in an effort to establish
sufficient cross-sectional area. BEHI scores for the section range from 28 and 30, indicating moderate
potential for continued bank erosion, as compared to high values in the upper reach. Overall bank erosion is
less frequent in this section, primarily limited to outside meander bends. The formation of new floodplain
benches shows that the channel is beginning to recover.
4.4.4 Bankfull Verification
The accepted methodology for natural channel design is based on the ability to select the appropriate
bankfull discharge and generate the corresponding bankfull hydraulic geometry from a stable reference
reach. Thus, the determination of bankfull stage is the most critical component of the natural channel design
process.
Observable bankfull stage indicators in North Carolina include the incipient point of flooding (top of bank),
upper breaks in bank slope, the back of the highest depositional feature (i.e. point bars and benches), and the
highest scour line. At the project reach, the most consistent field indicator of bankfull stage proved to be the
highest depositional feature - the back edge of the stable benches. Photographs of typical bankfull indicators
and related morphological features at the project site are provided below (Figure 8: Bankfull Indicators).
12
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Prink
Figure 8. Representative Bankfull Indicator Photos
Typical bankfull indicators in upstream section.

Typical bankfull indicators in downstream project area.
13
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
The identification of bankfull stage can be problematic, especially in a degraded urban system. Therefore,
verification measures must be taken to ensure the accurate identification of the bankfull stage. The field
indicated bankfull stage was verified using a combination of tools and data, including: HEC-RAS, Regional
hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves), Log Pearson Type III Flood Frequency analysis of
gauged urban streams in the Piedmont (7 sites with 10+ years of record), and project site surface water level
data recorded over a three-month period using two pressure transducer/data logger gauges.
Stream stage data (water levels) documented for the two gauges were correlated to an estimated discharge
using a rating curve generated for the corresponding cross-sections. These flows were subsequently
compared to HEC-RAS outputs and cross-referenced with hydraulic geometry regional curve data and
corresponding equations developed for urban streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina (Doll et al, 2002).
The bankfull discharges and cross-sectional areas for the project reach were consistent with both the
r discharge and cross-sectional area regressed power function lines from the regional curve; plotting within the
s 95% confidence limits (Figures 9A-B: Regional Curves).
The verification procedures indicate that the bankfull discharges and cross-sectional areas identified in the
field are valid and that in Third Fork Creek the flood frequency curve has clearly shifted left with bankfull
discharge occurring on a more frequent basis than that typically experienced in less developed watersheds.
i 4.5 Constraints
The following are documented constraints that were considered in the development of the restoration strategy
for Third Fork Creek within Forest Hills Park:
¦ FEMA Detailed Flood Study Area.
¦ Stakeholder mandate to preserve large trees along existing stream corridor.
¦ Park infrastructure and space utilization requirements constraining channel adjustment/relocation in
specified areas.
¦ Presence of a subsurface sanitary sewer line that runs parallel and adjacent to the west bank of project
reach for its entire length.
¦ Sanitary sewer line crossings, including one at Sta. 28+20 that will need to be modified in order to
1 accommodate proposed design profile.
¦ Two culverted road crossings for East Forest Hills Boulevard that control profile and planform
adjustments.
¦ Two existing pedestrian bridge crossings: one which remains and one which will be removed and replaced
over the proposed stream.
5.0 REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS
A reference reach is a channel with a stable dimension, pattern, and profile within a particular valley
morphology. The reference reach is used to develop dimensionless morphological ratios (based on bankfull
stage) that can be extrapolated to disturbed/unstable streams to restore a stream of the same type and
disposition as the reference stream (Rosgen, 1998).
A stable section of North Prong Creek, a second order urban stream located in Durham that flows south into
Northeast Creek, was selected as the reference reach for the project (Figure 10: Reference Reach Location).
Approximately 400 linear feet (20 bankfull widths) of North Prong Creek were surveyed in October 2002.
The selection of this reach was based on its location in the same hydrophysiographic province, similar
watershed position and land use, and similar sediment regime as the project site. Likewise, the valley slope
(0.23% compared to 0.30%) and sediment distribution (d50 of 0.2 mm compared to 0.4 mm) of the reference
site are very similar to that of the project site.
14

Figure 9a. NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curve (Discharge)
10000

U
N
110
U
Q
1000
0
?
100
? 3rd Fork - Upper Reach
¦ 3rd Fork - Lower Reach
Power (Lower 95% CI)
Power (Upper 95% CI)
y = .5UD.64x
RZ = 0.9439
10 +-
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Drainage Area (mi 2 )
M M wM r r r M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Figure 9b. NC Urban Piedmont Regional Curve (Cross-Sectional Area)
10000

1000
0
100
0
U
y
5
O
U

10
? 3rd Fork - Upper Reach
¦ 3rd Fork - Lower Reach
Power (Lower 95% CI)
Power (Upper 95% CI)
y = 59.924x°'78
k = 0.973
1 +-
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
Drainage Area (mi 2 )
?, #-I - ZZ&
Project Reach

\tiyr. rti
J `
Figure 10. Reference Reach Location Map
A _
KCI 2000 0 2000 Feet N.f. R4 k. d. Rni•.a6m Pna..m
ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLJN?, yA Source USGS 7. i' Southxest Uurlwm Tup,>g,,y.?. }..:.r :,.
1 Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
To verify the acceptability of the reference site, a field visit with Steve Mitchell (NCDWQ, Raleigh Regional
Office) was conducted. In a letter dated February 6, 2003, Mr. Mitchell confirmed that the surveyed reach
would be an appropriate reference for the Third Fork Creek Restoration Design (Appendix B).
The North Prong Creek reference reach was classified as a narrow width/depth ratio C5 stream type.
Collected morphological data as well as representative photographs of the reference site are provided in
Appendix B. The measured morphological variables and dimensionless hydraulic geometry relationships
developed to facilitate the restoration design are provided below in Section 6.1: Restoration Design - Stream.
6.0 RESTORATION DESIGN
6.1 Stream
The restoration design of Third Fork Creek is based on a Priority Level 2 approach, as described in "A
Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers", (Rosgen, 1997). For clarity and
convenience, definitions of the four restoration priorities are provided in Table 2.
The design proposes constructing 3,025 linear feet of meandering channel. The restoration will establish a
bankfull channel with a new floodplain at its existing level and the dimension necessary to provide stable
flow maintenance and sediment transport. The design bankfull stage will equal the floodplain elevation in
the new channel (bank height ratio = 1.0). The proposed stream dimension, pattern, and profile will be based
on the detailed morphological criteria and hydraulic geometry relationships developed from the reference
stream, see Table 3. The establishment of a stable bedform (i.e., riffle-pool sequence, pool spacing) will be
addressed in the profiling of the design channel. Refer to Figures IIA-B and 12A-D for the proposed
channel dimension, pattern and profile.
In-stream structures will be incorporated to reduce the burden of energy dissipation on the channel geometry.
Cross-Vanes and J-Hook Vanes (J-Vanes) (Figure 13: Instream Structures) will be used. to stabilize the
restored channel. These structures are designed to reduce bank erosion and the influence of secondary
circulation in the near-bank region of stream bends. The structures further promote efficient sediment
transport and produce/enhance in-stream habitat. Cross-vanes will serve as grade control in the restored
channel. Coir fiber matting will be used to provide temporary stabilization on the newly graded
streambanks. The confluence of a tributary with the restored stream will be stabilized with grade control
structures and step sequences where necessary to match the proposed grade of the restored main channel.
Excavated materials from the design channel will be used to backfill the abandoned channel sections. The
existing pedestrian bridge located at Sta. 24+90 will be removed and replaced over the restored stream.
6.2 Riparian Buffers
Native woody and herbaceous species will be used to establish fifty (50) foot wide riparian buffers on both
sides of the restored reach. Park utilization space requirements dictate that the riparian buffers consist of a
thirty (30) foot wide fully forested buffer adjacent to the stream bordered by a twenty (20) foot wide strip of
managed native grasses. In addition, ten (10) to thirty (30) foot wide portions of the buffer areas adjacent to
existing utilities are required to be left free of woody vegetation.
Four hundred thirty-six (436) trees per acre (based on an average 10' x 10' spacing) will be planted to
achieve a mature survivability of three hundred twenty (320) trees per acre in the riparian zone (DENR,
2001). To provide structural diversity, native shrubs will also be incorporated in the buffers at a 4' x 4'
spacing sufficient to provide for 2,700 shrubs per acre. Plant placement and groupings will be randomized
during installation in order to develop a more naturalized appearance in the buffer. Woody vegetation
planting will be conducted during dormancy.
18
Stream Restoration Plan
Table 2. Prioritv Levels of Incised River Restoration.
t

L?
I?
u

J

I
l.?

Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
Description Methods Advantages Disadvantages
Priority 1
Convert G and/or F stream Re-establish channel on Re-establishment of 1) Floodplain re-
types to C or E at previous previous floodplain using floodplain and stable establishment could cause
elevation with floodplain. relic channel or construction channel: flood damage to urban,
of new bankfull discharge 1) reduces bank height and agricultural, and industrial
channel. Design new streambank erosion, development.
channel for dimension, 2) reduces land loss, 2) Downstream end of
pattern, and profile 3) raises water table, project could require grade
characteristic of stable form. 4) decreases sediment, control from new to previous
Fill in existing incised 5) improves aquatic and channel to prevent head-
channel or with terrestrial habitats, cutting.
discontinuous oxbow lakes 6) improves land
level with new floodplain productivity, and
elevation. 7) improves aesthetics.
Priority 2
Convert F and/or G stream If belt width provides for the 1) Decreases bank height and 1) Does not raise water table
types to C or E. minimum meander width streambank erosion, back to previous elevation.
Re-establishment of ratio for C or E stream types, 2) Allows for riparian 2) Shear stress and velocity
floodplain at existing level construct channel in bed of vegetation to help stabilize higher during flood due to
or higher, but not at original existing channel, convert banks, narrower floodplain.
level. existing bed to new 3) Establishes floodplain to 3) Upper banks need to be
floodplain. If belt width is help take stress off of sloped and stabilized to
too narrow, excavate channel during flood, reduce erosion during flood.
streambank walls. End-haul 4) Improves aquatic habitat,
material or place in 5) Prevents wide-scale
streambed to raise bed flooding of original land
elevation and create new surface,
floodplain in the deposition. 6) Reduces sediment,
7) Downstream grade
transition for grade control is
easier.
Priority 3
Convert to a new stream Excavation of channel to 1) Reduces the amount of 1) High cost of materials for
type without an active change stream type involves land needed to return the bed and streambank
floodplain, but containing a establishing proper river to a stable form. stabilization.
floodprone area. Convert G dimension, pattern, and 2) Developments next to 2) Does not create the
to B stream type, or F to profile. To convert a G to B river need not be relocated diversity of aquatic habitat.
Bc. stream involves an increase due to flooding potential. 3) Does not raise water table
in width/depth and 3) Decreases flood stage for to previous levels.
entrenchment ratio, shaping same magnitude flood.
upper slopes and stabilizing 4) Improves aquatic habitat.
both bed and banks. A
conversion from F to Bc
stream type involves a
decrease in width/depth ratio
and an increase in
entrenchment ratio.
Priority 4
Stabilize channel in place. A long list of stabilization 1) Excavation volumes are 1) High cost for stabilization.
materials and methods have reduced. 2) High risk due to excessive
been used to decrease 2) Land needed for shear stress and velocity.
streambed and streambank restoration is minimal. 3) Limited aquatic habitat
erosion, including concrete, depending on nature of
gabions, boulders, and stabilization methods used.
bioengineering methods.
Source: Rosgen, 1997, "A Geonwrphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers".
19
Stream Restoration Plan

1

u

r
lJ

Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
Table 3. Mornhological Design Criteria
Pa
te Reference Upper Reach* Lower Reach*
rame
rs ch >Existing Design' Existing } D n
Rosgen Stream Type F5, G5, E5 C5 C5 C5
Drainage Area (mil) 304* 0.8-1.1 0.8-1.1 1.76 1.76
Reach Length (ft) 407 1890 2083 900 925
Bankfull Width (ft) 11,8 21.8-26.8 27 29.5 30.0
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft) 1:5 1.7-2.6 2.2 2.4 2.5
Width/Depth Ratio 12.1 8.3-15.9 12.1 12.2 12.0
Bankfull Area (ft2) 262 45.1-57.2 60 71.4 75
Max Bankfull Depth 3.0 2.5-4.0 4.0 4.0 4.25
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 600+ 29.2 - 400 62 - 400 200 200
Entrenchment Ratio 33.7 1.1-18.3 2.3-14.8 6.8 6.7
Max. Pool Depth (ft) 3.3-4.0 4.7 4.8-6.0 5.8 5.5-6.75
Q Ratio: Max. Pool Depth /Mean Bkf Depth; 2.2-2.7 0 1.81-2.76 x ' 2.2 - 2.7 ? 2.42 2.2-2.7
Pool Width (ft) 26.1 17.4 38 28.9 43
Ratio: Pool Width / Bankfull Width 1.5 0.65 - 0.80 1.41 ` 0.98 1.43
Pool Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
30.9
58.7
84
84.4
105
Ratio: Pool Area / Bankfull Area 1.2 1.03-1.30 a' 1.4-- 1.18-- 1.4
Bankfull Mean Velocity (u) (ft/s) 3.1 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.7
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs) 83* 268 280 322 350
Meander Length (ft) 94 - 143 * 160 - 190 * 180 - 210
Ratio: Meander Length / Bankf ill Width" 5.3-8.0%- * -"6.0 - 7.0 6.0 - 7.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 37 - 40 * 60 - 75 * 60 - 80
Ratio: Radius Curvature / Bankfull Width 2.1 - 2.3 * - 2.2 - 2.8 ' 2.2-2.7
a Meander Belt Width (ft) 158 * 120 * 90
Meander Width Ratio (MWR) 8.9 * 4.4 * 3.0
Sinuosity (K) 1.28 1.03 1.13 1.01 1.10
Valley Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.2-2.1 0.24-0.57 0.25-0.29 0.25 0.25
Ratio: Riffle Slope / WS Slope 0.8-8.8 0.89-2.1 1.07 1.08 1.25
Pool Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.0-0.05 0.05 0.0-0.05 0.04 0.0-0.05
Ratio: Pool Slope / WS Slope 0.0-0.2 0.19 0.0 0.17 0.0
a Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) 40 - 85.5 * 60 - 125 * 70 - 140
Rario:=Pool>Spacing / Bankfull Width 2.2-4.7 2.3 - 4.7 2.3-4.7
Pool Length (ft) 8-30 * 27 - 40 30 - 45
Ratio: Pool Length / Bankfull Width 0.4-1.6 1.0 - 1.5vT 1.0-1.5
Low Bank Height (ft) 3.0 6.2-6.43 4.0 5.1 4.25
Ratio`. Low Bank Height / Max. Bkf Depth 1.0 1.55-2.57
1.0
1.27
1.0
Channel Materials (D50) (mm) 0.20 0.31-0.38 0.31-0.38 0.41 0.41
Note:
• The project reach is subdivided into two sections due to the controlling influence of a culverted road crossing (East Forest Hills Blvd.) and the
confluence of a tributary that increases the contributing drainage area.
• The discharge contributed to the reference site by its delineated drainage area is reduced due to impoundment and altered drainage patterns in
the watershed.
• Existing channel pattern and bed morphological features have been altered due to extensive site disturbance.
¦ The design belt width and sinuosity are less than those indicated by the reference due to project site (Park) space utilization requirements that
laterally constrain stream planform adjustments.
20

I

n
11

Figure 11 a. Typical Cross-sections (Sta. 10+00 to 31 +00)
27'
-----------Wbkf -----------
11'
3:1 TO EXISTING
3:1 TO EXISTING
TYPICAL RIFFLE
SCALE 1" = 10'

3:1 TO EXISTING
38'
Wbkf
6'
73:1 TO EXISTING
TYPICAL POOL
SCALE 1" = 10'

0

Figure 11 b. Typical Cross-sections (Sta. 31 +00 to 40+25)
30'
Wbkf
-
-
-
-
-
----
- --- --
--
--
--
-- --- ----- -
----- ----
4.25'
3:1 TO EXISTING 3:1 TO EXISTING
TYPICAL RIFFLE
SCALE 1" = 10'

3:1 TO EXISTING
43'
Wbkf
6.5'
3:1 TO EXISTING
11'
TYPICAL POOL
SCALE 1" = 10'

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i

\
'
\ EYEV 306.71 ' \
_ _ / / r• '- -'.'- _.' / / / /
\ ._ "_ -- - .' i /
IN =3040 8

16400
1 / ----- --- /-
---?, i
_,
GPSTAF,gW1? - x 1100
am o ? F,
r o?F 6
J a / a
SECT i d N 0
0 ,K.X-SECT o
,,
- .j
13440 a

7t-5ECT 2
? 1 \
?
? ?
?
)
E? 1
MA
1
111
EII?;VV 304.Q9
IN =291
99
\ I
.
B' PVC
W •29 i9 IB' PVC
MANHOLE •2 w N

IN
o
a
? O
?
EVEV=30
NE 2.{3-
1 INY L6 ED ? ^ \ Z

x
\ \ A SW WV-1.0 0
\ '
?
w Z LL
\
?? 1 1
I
.n
O
d ?ma
Z
•
I
.
300-
• O
1 \ L - //
\
/ a
`
` \ -
CROSS VANE W
a0.

\ \ \ ` 60' 30' 0 60
NEW
O NpOK VANE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 30'

C.)

\ LLI
0 11?
6' 3' 0 6' ? O

'
' hd ix CL <
W.4

= 3
CNAMFl BLOCK ® VERTICAL SCALE: I 9
Q. Z -'

303 303
t --------------- J Q j

-?
x
Oa

301
301 ,, 4. 0
N-
1- z
, .,-
- D N
W

9 ... ... ... ... .•, .,, ,., ,.. ... ... 99 W
a
o:
x C
29

---
...

-----
...

-----
...

-----
...

------
...

------
...

----
..,
,., , ,

. .

,
-

--

E

. o

a
297 , . , ,,,
297
?

-----

-----

-
?.; f-

N
295
295 F
'. ;

293 -293
wru FEB. 15. 200
1
----- ----- --
xuE GRAPHIC

291 .- ..

....

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

291
-<5
Aw. 4
10+ 0 II+ 12+00 1 +0 14+ 15+ 00 16+00 I + 18+ 00

287 FIG. 12•A
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

r
\
? \ \\\
\\\\ i
/
\
I
?
\\ i i
i jai
??
? i
L ?
x \\
\ i ?..?
i

-
--
"?\? NEW .BAI C

Ww

2yfoo
1
i 0

?
/ 1 1 ?X??o a
l

lox

E

d a
X-SECT
- A

b
i

-? EXISTING P B D
TO BE ROMOVED l

%-SGT 3 ~
?
IB'PYC
N J
?
ti DEMO 0364 I SAN
Is* PVC 15
EVENYcg955

z

z
NE INV=294.36 18'Py
C /
SW INV=299.37 I N INV=291 8.
r\
`
z
_
/
/ 16' PVC S INV=291.46
I a 6
oz
? QU

/ MANHOLE "4 \

r _ W W
J
z rc
EVEV?.tyB.92 \
CNOSS VANE /
T
=BO
I i
W
ED \
S
L

,hlgp( VANE /
HORIZONTAL SCALE: I'= 30'
W
0
6' 3' 0 6' Y O
bil
a
CHANNEL BLOCK ® VERTICAL SCALE I' = 3' W Q
K
I= aZo

303
303 uV12Q
v
- Y J a
j
x
x
301 301 ti F-
[- z

_
N
D
W f
W
a

299

299 x

O

77-
-7
7
.;777
t77
T77? 7

-
-T

-
Tl W

o
a
297 .. ...
F -' 29T cc

:
.
?:.
..
..
-
..
..
..
?
. F-
. . . .. .. .. .,. .?. .?- .,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
. . - -
In
295
295

:.'. .'
------
------
------
--
-
--
-
-----
-
------
-----
------
-----
-
--
- - 293
293

'
o, b
FEB.15.20 W
.. ..... -. - - - s
GRAPHIC
291
291 • ,
.... ... ...? '.h ... .... ,. ,. ,. .. ..? ..? ?.? ..? ?? ..? ?.? ..fi ..? ..* ..? ..* ..h ,.* ?.* ?.* ?.*

19+ 20+00 21+ 0 22+00 + 24+ 00 + 0 2 +00 2 +00
FIG. 12-B
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

H

%
O
TO S
N
i
0o
>
MANHOLE •10
N EYE"-297.26 \\\
pRIVE
/ /
s r /
;
W INV=29229 0`Q
\ / BEVERLY M
/ /
r
i°
Q.- P EVEV=29 .7
0
?
Q\
J \ \
WpOp
Poll
611x \

\
l
1 T r " i
w
\
a
1 P0 9T l / rn TY
P t?
/
g
th
00 35
X
3? ?
CT 5

a

i
I (
? 0 .X-SECT 5 7:

\ 181 PVC
w a
18, W-? Is, PVC
18. PVC

\ /

?. ?.
- ?` ? -- •?- 0i
r ? J
rI ?
a
°
? MAN LE •6
EVE"=03.35 ..? .._....?.? ..? ?,
z
i LL
N INV 2@0.70 O
E INV 2 30 j
\
r y?
vj x
a ?

S INV=29 23
\
\

'

1 ry i

Pw
III
\
1
\\
1 W
u0i
_ cc
PIRA OUND
MOSS VANE W

w
/ ( I I I r 60' 30' 0 60'

Jig01( VANE u-
I
I I
I HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 30'
W
0
6 3 0 6

CK4NMEL Opt ® Y
VERTICAL SCALE: I' = 3' d
o

299
299 Z
?
V ?
O
a
a.
J
x
-
----------------- ------
O
29T 146 0=
An
.:..

N
D
W

95

95 W
a
S
?

.
O
H
U.
o
a
= =:
293 •.. ... ... ... .., • „ .,, ,.. ,,. .,, .,, ::; 293 ?

291
••, •„ •„ •„ ,•. ,,, ,,, „• ,,, 291
-

289 - ------ ------ ---
-

\

y.
-----
---
-----
-

8

• .
• ..
...
.
•
.
-

:

::
: 2
9 mTD FEB
. 15.2001
---- ----- ----- -- ---
-- -
....-
--?.
.
.
-
-i-

GRAPHIC

2a , ,,, ,,;,,, ,;,; ;,; ,,

287
::
. ... .. .
..
2T+ 8+ 0 2 + 0 + 31+00 32 + p 33+ 00 34+ 00 3 +00
94F? 6
FIG. 12-C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-295• -
INLET
° T
-l_
\ 5 INVZ88.88 N b 1 / / /
i
291
295
293
291
289
281
285
c
k5N1RE DRIVE
60' 30' 0 60'
HORIZONTAL SCALE: I' = 30'
3' 0 6'
VERTICAL SCALE: I' = 3'
a.

-? 1

S m -M ?

w

.
-
------
------
-----
Jb+UU
.3 r+uU
Jo?vu
??*vv
'lvrvv

11 1
•n
I( s
i e
41
l;
U
z
N
of
'^ o
? n
OMM4
ON
8 ? 02
?a
?u
0
--I N Y2
LL
S
X
az
JI a No
N QU
J
W C
Z R
z
W
F
V
W
7
O
aal
W
r
o

291 ?
Y f- u
Q
J
x

295 L&
P
GN
W

293 Cc W
a
S
x
O
L? o
Q
291
f-
N
289

281 DAM FEB. 15.21
l ll? GRAPHIC
285
12.0
Figure 13. Typical In-Stream Structures
1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED 1/3 OF PROPOSED
CHANNEL WIDTH CHANNEL WIDTH CHANNEL WIDTH
P\ FLOW
i
20°-30° - - J 20°-30°
FILTER FABRIC
i POOL i
i
P? PLAN VIEW
BASEFLOW
POOL FLOW
PROPOSED i
STREAMBED ELEV.
FOOTER PROFILE VIEW
FILTER FABRIC ROCKS
PROPOSED GRADE
TOP OF VANE ELEVATION
(BANKFULL)
BANKFULL ELEVATION
5 ro 10% SLOPE a
A
m
N
FOOTER ROCKS - -
SECTION A-A STREAM BED
ELEVATION
CROSS VANE
SCALE NTS
NOTE ALL ROCKS OR STONES ARE STONE, BOULDERS
P PROPOSED GRADE
1/3 PR TO 1/2 WIDTH OF TOP OF VANE ELEVATION
PROPOSED CHANNEL (BANKFULL)
20-30°
FILTER FABRIC BANKFULL ELEVATION
ROCK SILL POOL-w-1ILIII-11-III 5 TO SLOPE A
p HOOK ROCKS M
FOOTER ROCKS 1 Ti III
STREAM BED
J -VANE ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW SCALE NTS SECTION A-A
NOTE: ALL ROCKS OR STONES IN THE VANE STRUCTURE ARE STONE, BOULDERS
*** NOTE GAPS SHOULD BE PLACED ONLY BETWEEN THE HOOK ROCKS

u
1

Stream Restoration Plan
Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
Tree and shrub species to be planted may consist of the following:
Trees
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
Shrubs
Spicebush (Lindera benzoin)
Witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana)
Alder (Alnus serrulata)
Fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa)
Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera)
Strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus)
American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana)
Herbaceous vegetation within the buffer shall consist of a native grass mix that may include: big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii), purple love grass (Eragrostis spectabilis), deertongue (Panicum clandestinum), gama
grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), and
Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus). Rye grain (Secale cereale) or brown top millet (Pennisetum glaucum)
will be used for temporary stabilization, depending upon the construction schedule.
On the restored stream banks, live stakes will be used in conjunction with the native herbaceous seed mix to
provide natural stabilization. Appropriate species identified for live staking include elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), silky willow (Salix sericea), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and black willow (Salix nigra).
1
I

1
r

7.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
A stable channel is able to move the sediment supplied by its watershed without aggrading or degrading.
This ability is evaluated through two parameters: competency and capacity. Competency is the channel's
ability to move particles of a certain size, expressed as units of lbs/ft2. Capacity is the channel's ability to
move a specific volume of sediment (sediment discharge). Sediment discharge is the amount of sediment
moving through a cross section over a specified period of time, expressed as units of lbs/sec.
7.1 Competency
The initiation of particle movement (entrainment) is the first stage in sediment transport and shear stress
(tractive force) is the parameter most commonly used to approximate the particle size that can be entrained.
The composition of the project reach streambed is predominantly sand (d56= 0.3 - 0.4 mm). In many cases,
the shear stress (> 0.01 lbs/ft2) in a channel, at the bankfull stage, is considerably higher than that required to
move even the largest sand particle (2.0 mm). Thus, competency is not usually the primary consideration
related to sediment transport in sand-bed streams because nearly if not all of the sediment (bed material)
moves at bankfull.
To validate this theory-based explanation, shear stress was calculated for the design riffle cross-sections in
both the upper and lower project reaches using the equation:
ti=yRs
Where: ti = shear stress (lbs/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.41bs/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average water slope (ft/ft)
28
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
The shear stress values estimated for the upper and lower design riffle cross-sections are 0.38 and 0.37
lbs/ft2, respectively. Comparison to a modified Shield's Curve indicates that particles approximately 20-22
mm in diameter can be mobilized by these shear stresses. This supports the conclusion that the design cross-
sections will competently move sediment and prevent aggradation.
' The calculated shear stress values were further utilized to evaluate whether the design would result in bed
degradation. The estimated shear stress of 0.38 will move particles up to 22 mm in size, which compares
favorably to the project reach cumulative pebble count D84 of 20.6 mm. In addition, the design incorporates
cross vane grade control structures, further increasing confidence that the design stream will maintain
vertical stability.
7.2 Capacity
A sediment transport capacity analysis was conducted to determine whether the project design channel would
transport the same volume of sediment, at bankfull, as the existing stabilizing sections in both the upper and
lower project reaches. A spreadsheet model (calculator) was developed based upon the Ackers and White
Equations (1973) and used in conjunction with field data to predict sediment discharge (lbs/s) for various
discharge rates (flows). This model incorporated three separate components that influence sediment
transport: particle size (Dgr based on the D50 channel material), particle mobility (F., based on shear stress and
immersed sediment weight), and a transport parameter (GS based on stream power).
The sediment transport calculator produced total sediment load transport estimates of 33.5 and 38.6 lbs/s at
bankfull in the existing upper and lower sections, respectively. The calculator estimated total load transport
rates of 50.8 and 46.9 lbs/s at the bankfull stage in the design sections. This comparison indicates that the
restored channel will have sufficient sediment transport capacity to accommodate the total sediment load to
the project reach. In addition, the restoration of an accessible floodplain exhibited a significant change
(flattened) in the sediment discharge curve above bankfull in the restored reaches compared with discharges
above bankfull in the existing degraded reaches. Floods confined within the existing incised channel have
resulted in excess stream power and subsequent erosion and degradation. Supporting sediment transport
calculations and rating curves are provided in Appendix C.
8.0 FLOODING ANALYSIS
Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Detailed Flood Study Zone. As such, any modifications to the stream that would result in the increase of the
100-year flood elevation would require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision. It is the intent of the
restoration design to maintain the 100-year flood elevation at the current level following restoration.
An existing conditions HEC-RAS (River Analysis System) model was developed to establish an existing
conditions hydrologic/hydraulic parameters "baseline" that proposed post-restoration conditions can be
compared against. Following approval of the restoration design, the existing conditions model will be
?. finalized to reflect proposed changes to the channel and floodplain.
9.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian/stream bank vegetation
survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established restoration objectives.
Specifically, project success will be assessed utilizing measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and
profile, site photographs, and vegetation sampling.
' 29

u
1
F1,

Stream Restoration Plan
9.1 Duration
Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
The first scheduled monitoring will be conducted at the end of the first full growing following project
completion. Monitoring shall subsequently be conducted annually for a total period of five (5) years.
9.2 Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted after all monitoring tasks for each monitoring event are
completed. Each report will provide the new monitoring data and compare the new data against previous
findings. Data tables, cross sections, profiles, photographs and other graphics will be included in the report
as necessary. Each report will include a discussion of any significant deviations from the as-built survey and
previous annual measurements, as well as evaluations as to whether the changes indicate a stabilizing or de-
stabilizing condition.
9.3 Stream Stability
The purpose of monitoring is to evaluate the stability of the restored stream. Following the procedures
established in the USDA Forest Service Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson, et.al, 1994) and
the methodologies utilized in the Rosgen stream assessment and classification system (Rosgen, 1994 and
1996), data collected will consist of detailed dimension and pattern measurements, a longitudinal profile, and
bed materials sampling. Width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, low bank height ratio, sinuosity, meander
width ratio, radius of curvature (on newly constructed meanders during ls` year monitoring only), pool-to-
pool spacing as well as the average, riffle and pool water slopes will be calculated from the collected data.
Pebble count data will be plotted by size distribution in order to assess the D50 and D84 size class.
1 9.3.1 Dimension
Four permanent cross-sections, two riffle and two pool, will be established and used to evaluate stream
' dimension. At least one riffle and one pool cross-section will be located within the area also surveyed as part
of the longitudinal profile. Permanent monuments will be established by either conventional survey or GPS.
The cross-section surveys shall provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks, to include points on
the adjacent floodplain, at the top of bank, bankfull, at all breaks in slope, the edge of water, and thalweg.
Subsequently, width/depth ratios, entrenchment ratios and bank height ratios will be calculated for each
cross-section.
?I Cross-section measurements should show little change from the as-built cross-sections. If changes do occur,
they will be evaluated to determine whether they are minor adjustments associated with settling and
increased stability or whether they indicate movement toward an unstable condition.
9.3.2 Pattern
r Measurements associated with the restored channel pattern will include belt width, meander length, and
radius of curvature (on newly constructed meanders only for the first year). Subsequently, sinuosity,
meander width ratio and radius of curvature and meander length/bankfull width ratios will be calculated.
9.3.3 Profile
A longitudinal profile of a representative reach of the restored channel will be surveyed. The profile will
extend a minimum of 20 bankfull widths. Measurements will include slopes (average, pool, riffle), as well as
calculations of pool-to-pool spacing. Annual measurements should indicate stable bedform features with
30
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
little change from the as-built survey. The pools should maintain their depth with lower water surface slopes,
while the riffles should remain shallower and steeper.
t 9.3.4 Bed Materials
Pebble counts will be conducted at each riffle cross-section, as well as across the overall study reach (based
upon percentage of riffles and pools) for the purpose of classification and to evaluate sediment transport.
9.4 Photograph Reference Points
Photograph reference points (PRP's) will be established to assist in characterizing the site and to allow
qualitative evaluation of the site conditions. The location of each photo point will be permanently marked in
1 the field and the bearing/orientation documented to allow for repeated use.
9.4.1 Cross-section Photograph Reference Points
Four (4) photographs will be taken at each permanent cross section, as follows: 1) from the left bank
permanent monument/pin showing the right bank, 2) from the right bank permanent monument/pin showing
the left bank, 3) from downstream of the cross-section looking upstream, and 4) from upstream of the cross-
section looking downstream. The survey tape will be centered in each photograph and the water line will be
located near the lower edge. Effort will be made to consistently show the same area in each photograph.
9.4.2 Longitudinal Photograph Reference Points
Ten (10) permanent points will be established longitudinally throughout the project site to allow further
photo-documentation of the restored stream channel condition.
9.4.3 Additional Photograph Locations
Additional PRP's will be located, as needed, to document the condition of specific in-stream structures such
as J-vanes and cross vanes, as well as infrastructure associated with the stream such as utility and road
crossings.
9.5 Bank and Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
The success of the bank and riparian buffer plantings will be evaluated using ten (10) fifty by fifty foot (50' x
50') vegetative sampling plots. The corners of each monitoring plot will be permanently marked in the field.
The monitoring will consist of a physical inventory within each plot and a subsequent statistical analysis in
order to determine the following: 1) composition and number of surviving species, 2) differentiation between
planted individuals and volunteers, and 3) total number of stems per acre. Additionally, photographs will be
taken from the center of each monitoring plot, starting due north to create a 360-degree view of the sample
site.
Riparian vegetation must meet a minimum survival success rate of 320 stems/acre after five years. If
monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate corrective actions will be
developed, to include invasive species control, the removal of dead/dying plants and replanting.
1

31
Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park
REFERENCES
Ackers, P. and W.R. White. 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Volume 99, Number HY11, pp. 2041-2060.
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith, and J. Spooner.
2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams throughout the Piedmont of North
Carolina. JAWRA, Volume 38, Number 3, pp. 641-651.
Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245. USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
NCDENR. 2001. "Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration." Division of Water Quality, Wetlands
rj Restoration Program, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. 2001. "Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects." Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit,
Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classification for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality Section
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies). September 2002.
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y., E.J.
Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Presented at ASCE
Conference, Denver, CO - June 1998.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. "Natural Channel Design Methodology (40 Steps)." Natural Channel Design and River
Restoration Short Course, Pagosa Springs, CO - October 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, P
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, NCDEHNR, Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in distributed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms. 14(1): 11-26.
11 USDA. 1971. Soil Survey for Durham County, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation Service.
I
32
I Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park

1

Appendix A
Project Site Existing Conditions Data
t

1
1

t
1

N

I

s
II

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Location: Cross-section 1 (Sta. 11+55)
Date:
Particle ize Range mm ota Item o T Cum.
Silt/Clay < .
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0.125 11 11 11
b Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 12 12 23
Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 10 10 33
`n Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 4 4 37
Very Coarse Sand 1 < 2 9 9 46
Very Fine Gravel 2<4 7 7 53
Fine Gravel 4 < 8 6 6 59
Medium Gravel 8 < 16 9 9 68
Coarse Gravel 16 < 32 21 21 89
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 64 6 6 95
:E Small Cobble 64 < 128 4 4 99
U Large Cobble 128 < 256 1 1 100
Small Boulder 256 < 512 0 0 100
"°
M Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock
Totals - 100- 100 100
SMIClay Sands - Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
loo
50
i I ( I I
90 - 45
80
I
I i
I _
i - 40

70

0 60

i I
--- i

I I
35
y
30 ';

50
- .
--- 25
40
0 f ± 20 %
U I I J Z
30 I
s II II -
i 15
20

?

?

? --

I

?

il

'
10
10 I I I ¦I ' --
5
1 1 ¦
o
.
?
I - i
, ?i
]
,
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
--?-% Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent less than mm
ED16 D35 D50 D84 D95
7 0.71 2.97 26.5 45
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/02 Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0 46 49 5 0 0

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Third Fork Creek Reach: XS1, Right Bank Date: 7/10/02 Crew: BG, KN
Bank Height (ft): 6.72 Bank Height Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): 2.48 Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
- Value Range- ---1:0------ - 1.1---- ---- 1 0------- 2a --- --- 80------- 100--- --- --0.0 ------ ---20.0
------ --- --80 ------- -100--
VERY LOW Index Range
--------------- 1.0
------------ 1.9
------- 1.0
------------- 1.9
------- 1.0
------------- 1.9
------- 1.0 1.9
-------------------- 1.0
------------ 1.9
-------
Choice V• 1 • V• 1• V: I: V: I: V: 1 :
- Value Range- 1.11
------------ 1.19
------- 0.5-------
------
-- 55-------
------ -79
--- 21.0 60.0
-------------------- 55 ------
------ - 79---
LOW --Index---- Range-
----- -- 2:0
------ 3.9
------- 2.0-------
------ Al
--- 2.0
------------- 3.9
------- 2.0 3.9
-------------------- 2.0
------------ 3.9-
------
a Choice V: 1 : V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1 :
Value Range 12------ - 1.5 -- 0.3-------
------ 0.49
-- 30-------
------ -54
--- 61.0 80.0
-------------------- 30 --
---------- - 54---
a MODERATE -
-
Index Range-
----------- ---
-- 4_0
------ 5.9
-------- 4.0
-------------- 59
------- 4.0
------------- 5.9
------- 4.0 5.9
-------------------- 4.0
------------ 5.9
-------
C
O Choice V: 1 : V: 1: V: I: V: I: V: I :
co Value Ra
nge 2.0 0_15 29
0. 15
- -29--- --- 810-
---- 90_0--- ---- --15- ------ -- --29
---
W HIGH -
-- --- ----
- -
-Index Range --
- --------- ------
6.0
------------- -
------
7.9
-------- --
------
6.0-------
------
- -
---
---
7_9
--- ------
---- --
6.0
------------- 7.9
------- -
6.0 7.9
-------------------- 6.0
------------ 7.9
-------
Y
C Choice V: I : V: 0.18 1: 6.4 V: 20.0 I: 6.7 V: I: V: 20.0 I : 6.7

m Value Ran a
•----------- -- 2.1
------------ 2.8
- ------ 0.05
------------- 0.14
------- 5
----------°° 14
------ 91.0 119.0
-------------------- 10
------------ 14
-------
VERY HIGH Index Range-
•----------- -- 8_0
------ 9.0
------- 8.0-------
------ 9_0
--- 8.0 ------
------- 9_0
--- 8.0 9.0
-------------------- 8.0
------------ 9.0
-------
Choice V: 2.7 I : 8.9 V: I: V: I: V: 97.0 1: 8.2 V: I :
- Value Range-
--------- --------- >.8
----
-------- 05
--------- -
------- <5
-------------
------- >119
-------------------- <10
------------
-------
EXTREME Index Range-
----------- -------- 10- -
------ 10
-------------
------- 10
-------------
------- 10
------ ------- -------- 10
- -------
Choice V: I : V: I: V:
V = value, I = index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 36.8
k Material Description:
Fine silty loam with significant sand component (in lenses and as deposition)
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
If
b
0 1 10 s
..(r.«t
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMENT
ratification Comments:
No stratification
ratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr 0
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 46.8
Straight Reach F-1 Outside of BendF_J BEHI RATING EXTREME

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
Particle ize Range mm Total Item o o um.
S/C Silt/Clay < .
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0.125 24 24 27
b Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 19 19 46
cl Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 13 13 59
`n Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 8 8 67
Very Coarse Sand 1 < 2 10 10 77
Very Fine Gravel 2<4 8 8 85
Fine Gravel 4 < 8 4 4 89
Medium Gravel 8 < 16 8 8 97
Coarse Gravel 16 < 32 3 3 100
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 64 0 0 100
Small Cobble 64 < 128 0 0 100
U Lar e Cobble 128 < 256 0 0 100
Small Boulder 256 < 512 0 0 100
b Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
r Bedrock a roc
Tatal.q., 100 100 100
SildClay Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
100
50
90 ! ! 45

80 I
- 40
j
70 i ! it j I 35
s,

60
I

-
ti
m ? - 30
50
? ; , ¦ ? ? ! T , , 25
o
: 40 I a
¦ 20
Z
30 15
20
10
'
1o i - -- s
¦ I
0
I
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-?- % Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent less than nun
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
0.091 0.17 0.31 3.7 11
Percent by substrate type o
SHUCla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
3 74 23 0 0 0

t
Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Third Fork Creek Reach: XS2, Right Bank Date: 7/10/02 Crew: BG, KN
Bank Height (ft): 8.60 Bank Height/ Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): 5.80 Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
Value Range
--------------- 1.0
------------- 1.1
------ 1.0
------------- 0.9
------- 80
------------- 100
------- 0.0 20.0
-------------------- 80
------------ 100
-------
VERY LOW Index Range- ---1-0------- 1.9 -- ---1 0 1.9--- --- 1-0 ------ -1-9--- --- 1 _0 -------1.9--- --- -0------ - 1-9 --
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I :
- Value Range- .-- 1-11-
------ 1.19
------ -------
------ 2.21
-- 55-------
------ -79
--- 21.0 60.0
-------------------- 55 ------
------ - 79---
LOW Index Range 2.0 3.9 2.0 3-9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2-0 3.9
;a -
-
Choice -------
.---
V: I: -- -------
V: I: - V: I: ---- ---
V: 1: --
V: 1 :
Value Range 2 1.5 0.3 0_49 30
-- 54 61.0 80.0
-
--- 30
---
--- 54--

d

MODERATE -
-
--Index-- Rangge-

------- -
----
-- 4-0------- --

5.9 -- -----
--------
4.0-------

------
--
5_9

--- --
---
------
4.0

----!- ------ -
---
5.9

-------
-----
---------
--
4.0
----
------- ---5.9 --- --
-
-
--
-- 4A
------ -
-

--5--.9
Choice Choice V: 1.5 I: 5.9 V: I: V: 50.0 I: 5.6 V: 80.0 I: 5.9 V: 50.0 I : 5.6
U) Value Ram 1-6 2.0 0.15 0.29 15 29 81.0
90.0
15
29
Lu HIGH -
-Index Range-
- --------- ---
-------
-- 6-0------- --
7.9 -- --
.0-------
2
----- 7_9

--- ------
6.0
------------- -
7.9---
- --- --- 6_0 7.9

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

------
7.9 --
-
Y
C Choice V: I: V: 0.29 I: 7.9 V: I: V: I: V: I :
W
IM Value Ran? - a
----------- - 2.1
------------- 2.8
------- 0.05
------------- 0.14
------- 5
------------- 14
-------- 91.0 119.0
------ -------------- 10
------------ 14
-------
VERY HIGH •--Index-Range- ---8.0 ------- 9.0 -- --- 8.0 ------- - 9.0 --- --- 8.0 ------- - 9.0 -- 8.0 9.0
-------------------- 8.0
------------ 9.0----
-------
Choice
Choice V: I: V: I: V: 1: V: I: V: I :
- Value Range
- ------- >2-8
-
-------
--------------
------- -------- <5 - ------- --------------------- >1 19 ------- <10
EXTREME Index Range-
•----------- -------- 10-- ------ 10
-------------
------- 10
-------------
------- 10
-------------------- 10
------------
-------
Choice V: I: V: I :
V = value, I = index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 30.9
k Material Description:
Fine silty/sandy loam
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
£6?
O m
nog
0 S p
BANK MATERIAL ADJUS
e
:ratification Comments:
No stratification
:ratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr U
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 40.9
Straight Reach X Outside of Bend BEHI RATING VERY HIGH
?j

f]

J

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Location: Cross-section 3 (Sta. 22+15)
Date:
Particle ize Range mm ota Item o %um.
Silt/Clay < .
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0.125 8 8 8
.0 Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 30 30 38
CI Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 20 20 58
rn Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 15 15 73
Very Coarse Sand 1 < 2 8 8 81
Very Fine Gravel 2<4 2 2 83
Fine Gravel 4 < 8 4 4 87
Medium Gravel 8 < 16 1 1 88
Coarse Gravel 16 < 32 7 7 95
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 64 4 4 99
Small Cobble 64 < 128 1 1 100
U Lar e Cobble 128 < 256 0 0 100
w Small Boulder 256 < 512 0 0 100
:2
M Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024< 2048 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock
T-mis: 100 1 100 100
loo SildClay Sands Gravels I Cobbles L Boulders Bedrock
50
90 !

I
I
j
-? I 45
80 1

?
ii

! 40

? 70
? I I
I
I
I
?
!
I
35
60 ! v
_ - 30

50 25 0

40
I
T

j !
-
I

-

20 z
? i i I I Z
0 ! l + I '
30 - ; 15

s I
20 - --- ! 10
I
?
i I ;
10
1 ¦I 5
0 ! ¦ ¦
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-? % Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent less than mm
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
0.15 0.23 0.38 6 32
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/Clad Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0 81 18 1 0 0

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Reach: XS3, Left Bank Date: 7/10/02 Crew: BG, KN
Bank Height (ft): 6.66 Bank Height( Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): 4.00 Bankfull Ht Bank Hei ht Density % (Degrees) Protection%
Value Range-
--------------- -_1.0
-°--------- 1.1
------- 1.0
------------- 0.9
------- 80
------------- 100
------- 0.0 20.0
--------------------- 80
------------- 100
--------
VERY LOW Index Range-
----------- ---1_0
------ 1.9
------- 1.0
------------- 1.9
------- 1.0
------------- 1.9
------- 1.0 1.9
-------------------- 1.0
------------ 1.9
-------
Choice V• I: V. 1• V: 1: V: 1: V: I:
Value Range 1.11 1.19 0.5 0.89 55 79 21.0 60.0 55 79
LOW Index Range 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9
:a Choice V: I: -------
V: I: --- ---
V: I: V: I: V: 1 :
Y Value Range 12 1.5 0.3 0_49 30 54 61.0 80.0 30 54

O
a

MODERATE -
-
Index Range
-------------- - -------
---
4.0
------------- ...

5.9
5.9 --- ....
-------
---
4.0
--------------
--
5.9
------- -------
------
4.0
-----------
-- -
---
5.9
-------
--------------------
4.0 5.9
--------------------- ------
------
4.0
------------- -
---
5.9
--------
r-
O Choice V: I: V: 0.45 I: 5.5 V: 54.0 I: 5.9 V: I: V: 30.0 I : 4.0
co Value 29n 1_6 2.0 0.15 0.29 15 29 81.0
90.0
15
29

W
HIGH -
-----------
Index Ran a ---
-°----
6.0 ------
7.9 --
------
6.0 -------
7.9 ------
-------
6.0 -
---
7.9 -
- -------------
6.0 7.9 ------------
6.0 -------
7.9
-W
C Choice V: 1.7 I: 6.5 V: I: V: I: V: 90.0 I: 7.9 V: I :
en
m -Value Range-

- ---------- 2.1

------------- 2.8

------ 0.05

------------- 0.14

------- 5

------------- 14

------- 91.0 119.0

--------------------
10
------------
14
-------
VERY HIGH Index Range
--------------- 8.0
------------- 9.0
------ 8.0
------------- 9.0
------- 8.0
------------- 9.0
------- 8.0 9.0
-------------------- 8.0
------------ 9.0
-------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1: V: I :
Value Ran---ge
. >2.8

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

------ <0.05

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

------- <5

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

------- >119

-------------------- <10
-
------------
--------
-------
EXTREME
EXTREME Index Range-
----------- -------- 10-- ------ 10
-------------
------- 10
-------------
------- 10
-------------------- 10
------------
-------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I :
V = value, I = index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 29.8
k Material Description:
Fine silty/sandy loam
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch

0 S p E
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMENT(
(ratification Comments:
No Stratification
(ratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENT
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 39.8
Straight Reach x Outside of Bend BEHI RATING HIGH
Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos
}

t
??
y? r Cll
•i ...

6'? .e ?•
Flaw 4
a
h
'
r'f ?• T` •y .
y..
1

'?c+ 4
•
?
•
??. ' ' , may. ? ? r `? ^4? L

1
ti

_
Ott i
?i ' ?
?
\

??." ! y r3 ?? Fh
J? ?. ?F'YAt -? -a

Aerial view of downstream project area, looking north.
Aerial view of upstream project area, looking south.
Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos
Upstream Project limits. (East Forest Hills Drive culvert/pipe, looking upstream.)
Severely eroded streambank. (Right bank at Sta. 11+50.)

A

t

r

Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos

Incised stream section in upstream project area. (Near Sta. 13+00, looking downstream.)
Typical degraded stream section in upstream project area. (Near Sta. 15+40, looking downstream.)

t

I

r

Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos
H
sl yle Fes' ?.._ ?.v+"S. JSfD-. ? t???
?, 4 -, „' ? y rte, r'
y 'e'v W-
Y
J W

Tributary 1. (At confluence with main channel, Sta. 19+50, looking upstream.)
Park open space east of existing stream through which design channel would be located.
Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos
Existing concrete pedestrian bridge. to he removed. (Sta. 24+90, looking downstream.)
Typical section with eroding banks and developing lateral bars. (Sta. 23+00, looking downstream.)
Third Fork Creek - Represetztative Site Photos
Large trees, playground/picnic area adjacent to stream. (Near Sta. 26+00, looking downstreat
Second East Forest Hill Drive stream crossing box culverts. (Sta. 30+00, looking downstrean
Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos
r Ff r: / i
f q

?r
Degraded section downstream of E. Forest Hills Dr. crossing. (Sta. 30+50, looking downstream.)

"W- jii--
I•?'A
._ A c-V
d'F '..tq mare
M
Typical degraded section in doN? nstream project area. (Sta. 34+00, looking downstream.)
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
v
4
y??,-l I ,?yry?.
Vn

Date:
7/8/2002 Yr1.W ; F '?? ,+,r

?~\ ? M1
' I
? I?`s •? -.K."r`
i. Be"rt"' l??r"
?
J?

Entrenchment Ratio: I . I
Max. ax. Depth Bankfull (ft): 2.5
Bank Height Ratio: 2.6

II'W li ?i ?flll." III'.II ?';IIII

Cape Fear, Third Fork Creek, X-Sec I (Sta. 11+55), Riffle

310

41.0
13.42
294.90 308 - - - - - - - - - -
- ---
304
302
-_° 300
3
298 - - - -
296
- -
-
294
- - -- - -
- -
- -
-
I
292 -
?-
290
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (fr)
River Basin: C<ylu Fear,
Watershed: Ibird Fork Creek,
XS Ill X Src I (Sta. I I+55), Riffle
Drainage Area (111i2):
0.80

Field Crew: D. Red,ate, K. Nimmer, H. Greco -rA
Station Rod Ht. Elevation
0.0 6.14 102.18
5.0 6.48 301.84
10.0 6.80 301.52
13.0 6.92 301.40
14.0 7.22 301.10
15.(1 8.18 300.14
5..E 10.35 297.97
17.0 11.16 297.16
21.0 11.79 296.53
12.33 29599
23.0 13.03 295.29
25.0 13.08 29524
28.0 13.24 295.08
31.0 13.07 295.25
35.7 12.87 295.45
39.0 13.26 295.06

42.4 13.64 294.68
43.3 13.41 294.91
43.8 13.09 295.23
44.2 6.81 301.51
48.0 6.94 301.38
56.0 6.32 302.00

.0

28 Summary Data
Bankfull Width (ft): 26.8
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft): 1.7
Width / Depth Ratio:
Bankfull Area (ft ): 26.8
h
Discharge
ISII 297
Rusgen Stream "Type: F-4
306
302.04

15.9

Local WS Slope (ft/ft) 0.57
(cfs): 252.0
(IT11T1):
V?
Third Fork Creek - Representative Site Photos

55TP??
T`
Liw ?k.
M1,'

. Y
yea

;• ;
aM
? .

?
S
t
w

Typical degraded section in downstream project area. (Near Sta. 40+25, looking downstream.)
Existing steel/wood pedestrian bridge, to remain. (Sta. 38+40, looking downstream.)

1

0

1
0

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Location: Cross-section 4 (Sta. 34+60)
Date:
Particle ize Range nun ota Item o o um.
Silt/Clay < 0.062 4 4 4
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0.125 11 11 15
Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 10 10 25
Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 31 31 56
rn Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 27 27 83
Very Coarse Sand 1 < 2 6 6 89
Very Fine Gravel 2<4 6 6 95
Fine Gravel 4 < 8 3 3 98
Medium Gravel 8 < 16 1 1 99
Coarse Gravel 16 < 32 1 1 100
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 64 0 0 100
Small Cobble 64 < 128 0 0 100
V Large Cobble 128 < 256 0 0 100
&. Small Boulder 256 < 512 0 0 100-
:2
M Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 <2048 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock
TOMIN.- 100 100 IOU
SMIClay Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders Bedrock
100 50

90 - 45
80
40
70
35
d 60 43
30
50
25
m
40 (
-- 20
c 30 Z
S - 15
20 ¦
- --
? 10
10 ? I
- -- 5
0 ¦
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
-?- % Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent less than mm
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
0.134 0.31 0.44 1.1 4
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/Cla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
4 85 11 0 0 0
P-J
t
Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Reach: XS4, Right Bank Date: 11/19/02 Crew: BG
Bank Height (ft): 5.50 Bank Height/ Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): 4.10 Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
--Value Range- _12
------ 1.1----
---- ---- 1.0 ------ 22 --- --- 80
------- 100
------ 0.0 20.0
---------------°--- 80
------------ 100
--------
VERY LOW Index Range-
------------ _12 ------ - ---1.9 ---- ---- 1.
--------- 1 _9
- --- 1.0
------------- 1.9
------ 1.0 1.9
-------------------- 1.0
------------ 1.9
--------
Choice V: I: V: 1: V• 1• V• I V• 1 •
--Value Range-
---- --111-
----- 1.19
------- 0.5 ------
------- 0.89 -- 55
------------- 79
------ 21.0 60.0
-------------------- 55
------------ 79
--------

- LOW Index Range 2.0 3.
9 2.0 3.9 2.0 3.9 2.0
3.9 2.0 3.9

;a --
-
Choice °-
------
---
V: I: ---
- 2
-2 -------
---
---
V: I: --- ---
------
----
V: 55.0 1: --
----
2.0 ---
--------
---
V: 45.0 I: 3.2 ---
------
---
V: 65.0 I --------

: 2.8
Y Value Range 1 2 1.5 0.3 0.49 30 54 61.0 80.0 30 54

00

MODERATE --
-
Index Range-
------------ --
------
-- 4_0
-------
5.9
------- ------
-------
4.0
-------------
--
59
------- -------
------
4.0
------------- ---

5.9
-------
--------------------
4.0 59
--------------------- ------
------
4.0
------------ --
---
5.9
--------
O
Choice
V: 1.3 I:
4.6
V: 0.37 I:
4.7
V: 1:
V: I:
V: 1
:
o Value Range 1_6 2.0 0.15 0.29 15 29 81.0 90.0 15 29

LLI
HIGH -
------------
--Index Range- --
------
-- 6_0
------ - -------
7.9

-------- -
- ------
6.0- ------
--- --- -------
7_9 --- -
------------
--- ---6.0 ------- ---

------ --
-------------
-------
7_9
--- ------------

6.0
------
------ --------

7.9
-
-------
Y
c Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I :
m Value Range-
------------ 2.1
------ 2.8
-
- 0.05
---2? 2 0.14 5

------------- 14

------ 91.0 119.0

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

----12------ ---

--1i
---
VERY HIGH
VERY Index Range
------------ -- 8.0
------------ 9.0
------- 8.0 ------
------- 9_0
--- 8.0
------------- 9.0
- ----- --- 8.0--------9_0
--- 8.0
------------ 9.0
--------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1 :
--Value Range- -->2.8
----- ------- ------- <0_05
------- <5
---------- --
------- >119--------
--------- --------<10
-
------
EXTREME --Index R Lm --------10 ----
- --------- - ------- - _---- 10-- ------ - ------ 10--------- - -----10 - -
--------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I :
V = value, I = index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 17.3
k Material Description:
Fine silty/sandy loam
k Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
6 no
0
a«a?iti«i
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTMENT
tratification Comments:
No Stratification
tratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENT [70
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 25.3
Straight Reach x Outside of BendF_J BEHI RATING MODERATE
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions

,.t
R ,.

7.4 7S2 292.68 Max. Depth Bankfull (i't): 5.8
8.0 8.65 291.55 Bank Height Ratio: -
8.2 11.46 288.74 Local WS Slope (ft/ft) (

10.62 289.58
15.0 10.47 289.73
Cape Fear, Third Fork Creek, X-Sec 5 (Sta. 33+80), Pool

305
303 - -
-

299 -
297
295

0 --
W 293
291 -
289 --- - - -- - -
? - -,
285

River Basin: Cabe Fear,
Watershed: Hind fork Creek,
XS Ill X-Sec 5 (Sta. 33+80), Pool
Drainage Area (mi 1.70
Date: 7/8/2002
Field Crew: D. Rcdgatc, K. Nimmer, B. Greco
Station Rod Ht. Elevation
0.0 4.:37 295.83
3.0 4.67 295.53
4.0 4.82 295.38
6.U 5.67 294.53
7.0 6.29 293.91

9.0 11.53 288.67
I.0 11.25 288.95
13.0 10.82 289.38

16.0 10.24 289.96
17.1 9.68 290.52
19.0 9.42 290.78
23.3 9.22 290.98
25.0 8.41 291.79
26.3 7.07 293.13
27.0 6.51 293.69
28.0 6.38 293.82
29.0 6.62 293.58
3Q0 6.63 293.57
32.0 6.50 293.70
33.0 6.29 293.91
35.0 5.76 294.44
36.6 5.73 294.47
37.6 5.13 295.07

.0

54 Su nuuary Data
Bankfull Width (1't): 28.9
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft): 29
Width Depth Ratio: -
Bankfull Area (ft 2): 84.4
1?ntrenchment Ratio: -
Discharge
ll
Rosgen Stream
301
287
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
295.66 Station (h)

/

°L,): 0.04
(cfs):
D.51) (nun): 0.98
'Type: CS

Ir!

U

,7
711
L
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Existing Conditions
Particle ize Range mm ota Item o o um.
Silt/Clay < .
Very Fine Sand 0.062 < 0.125 0 0 0
ti Fine Sand 0.125 < 0.25 5 5 5
Medium Sand 0.25 < 0.50 7 7 12
`n Coarse Sand 0.50 < 1.0 39 39 51
Ve Coarse Sand 1 < 2 24 24 75
Very Fine Gravel 2<4 12 12 87
Fine Gravel 4 < 8 9 9 96
cd Medium Gravel 8 < 16 4 4 100
Coarse Gravel 16 < 32 0 0 100
Very Coarse Gravel 32 < 64 0 0 100
Small Cobble 64 < 128 0 0 100
U LE Le Cobble 128 < 256 0 0 100
$? Small Boulder 256 < 512 0 0 100
b
M Medium Boulder 512 < 1024 0 0 100
Large Boulder 1024 < 2048 0 0 100
r Bedrock Bedrock

Silt/Clay Sands Gravels Cobbles Boulders - Bedrock
100

I ; $0
90
45

80
40
tt
70
I
(

I!
I
i
I
I
? -
I
i
I 35

60 ti
! - 30
fy
50 I ?
' n

?
I
I
I
, - -
I 25
o
40

I
I
I 20 z
? ( I
0 30
- 15
20
--- 10
10 ( , l

I
I
I
•
I _
i
t 5
0 I ?
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
--+-% Cumulative (Finer Than) ¦ Number of Particles
Size percent less than mm
ED 6 D35 D50 D84 D95
4 0.75 0.98 3.4 7.6
Percent by substrate type o
Silt/Cla Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
0 75 25 0 0 0
E

Bank Erodibility Hazard Rating Guide
Stream: Third Fork Creek
Reach: XS5, Left Bank Date: 11/19/02 Crew: BG
Bank Height (ft): 7.16 Bank Height/ Root Depth/ Root Bank Angle Surface
Bankfull Height (ft): 5.77 Bankfull Ht Bank Height Density % (Degrees) Protection%
--Value Range- -- 1_0
------
- --- 1.1---
---1.0 -------
- 2_9 ---
80 -------
------
-100-
----
0.0 ------- ----20.0- --
------
---- --80 -------
- ---100
---
VERY LOW Index Range-
---
-------- -- 1_0------ -1 9--- ------ 1.0 ------- - ---1.9 --- ------1.0 ------- - °-1.9-- 1.0 -------- ---1.9 --- --- ----1.0 ------ - ---1.9 ---
Choice V: I: V: 1.0 I: 1.0 V: 80.0 I: 1.0 V: I: V: I :
Value
Range- 1.11
------------ 1.19
------- 0.5 ------
------- 0.89
-- 55-------
---- --- 79--- 21.0 60.0
-------------------- 55-------
------ -79 ---

- LOW -- Index Range- -- 21
------ 3.9
------- 2.0 ------
------- 3_9--
- 2.0
------------- 3.9
------ --- 2.0-------- 3_9
--- 2.0
------------- 3.9
-------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I :
4) Value Range 1 2 1.5 0.3 0.49 30
- 54 -- 61.0 80.0
-------------------- 30-------
------ - 54 ---
ao MODERATE --
-
Index Range
------------ - --
------
4_0
-- ------ -------
5.9
------- ------
-------
4.0
------------- -
-
5_9
--- ------
------
4.0
------------- 5.9
------ 4.0 5.9
-------------------- 4.0
------------- 5.9
-------
C
O Choice V: 1.2 I : 4.0 V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 50.0 1 : 5.6
o Value Range 1_6 2.0 0.15 0.29 15 29 810 90.0 15
--- 29
-
-

W
HIGH -
------------
--Index Range- --
-
-----
--- 6.0 ------
--- -------
- 7.9 ---
--- -- ------
--- 6.0 ------
---- -------
7.9 --- -------------
--- 6.0 -------
--- -------
7.9 --
---- ---------------------
---6.0 -------- 7.9 --- ---------
-
--- 6.0 -------
--- --
--
-
- 7.9
------
.x
C Choice V: I : V: I: V: I: V: 85.0 I: 6.8 V: 1 :
m Value Range-
------------ 2.1
------------ 2.8
------- 0.05
------------- 0.14
------- 5
----1------- 14
------ 91.0 119.0
-------------------- 10
------------- 14
-------
VERY HIGH Index Range
--------------- -- 8_0
------ 9.0
------- 8.0
------------- 9A-
- -- 8.0
------------- 9.0
------ --- 8.0 9_0-
-------- -- 8.0
------------- 9.0
-------
Choice V: I: V: I: V: I: V: I: V: 1 :
--Value Range

---- -
-
------- 22.8 -
--------
--------
-------
-------- <5 --
-------
-------- 2119 --------
--------- <10
-

-------
EXTREME Index Range
---
---- --------10 - -
------ -----10
-
------ 10--
- -
----- - ------ 10---
------ -----10 -
- -------
Choice V: I : V: I: V: I: V: 1: V: I :
V = value, I = index SUB-TOTAL (Sum one index from each column) 18.4
k Material Description:
Fine silty/sandy loam
It Materials
Bedrock (Bedrock banks have very low bank erosion potential)
Boulders (Banks composed of boulders have low bank erosion potential)
Cobble (Subtract 10 points. If sand/gravel matrix greater than 50% of bank material, then do not adjust)
Gravel (Add 5-10 points depending percentage of bank material that is composed of sand)
Sand (Add 10 points)
Silt Clay (+ 0: no adjustment)
Bank Sketch
m?
ao
0 ! p
audonp«e)
BANK MATERIAL ADJUSTM
5
(ratification Comments:
No Stratification
(ratification
Add 5-10 points depending on position of unstable layers in relation to bankfull stage
STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENTr 0
VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
5-9.9 10-19.9 20-29.9 30-39.9 40-45.9 46-50
Bank location description (check one) GRAND TOTAL 26.4
Straight Reach x Outside of Bend BEHI RATING MODERATE
I Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park

C?

Appendix B
Reference Reach Data

Michael F. Easley, Governor
wA r?R William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Uj bLLGL -P
Division of Water Quality
February 6, 2003
' Chen i Smith
NCDENR/DWQ
Wetland Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1619
Subject: Third Fork Creek/Forest Hills Park
Stream, and Buffer
Reference and Restoration Reaches
Cape Fear River Basin
Durham County

Dear Ms. Smith:
This letter is being sent to you in response to your request for written verification relative to the suitability
of the subject reaches. As per our site visit, conducted November 7, 2002, the reference reach appears to
be a relatively stable channel and suitable for use in developing a restoration design. North Prong Creek
appears to duplicate the land usage and is similar in sediment size and distribution, water shed position,
and valley slope.
The proposed stream restoration plan for the impacted reach located on the Third Fork Creek within
Forest Hills Park must meet the minimum criteria for acceptance. Please be reminded that when
conducting morphological evaluations and measurements, the length of the reference reach must be at
least two (2) full meander wavelengths, approximately five to six riffle pools, or twenty bankfull channel
widths.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. at (919)-571-4700.
Sincerely,
Steve Mitchell
Environmental Scientist
Cc: CO/Todd St. John ?., -i\ ,,
RRO ,
y s? ?' R a. 7 sV L.
FEB 14 2003
NC WET, LANDS
RESTORATION
Raleigh Regional Office 1628 Mail Service Center phone [phone] Customer Service
Water Quality Section Raleigh, NC 27699-1628 facsimile [phone] 1-800-623-7748
s
#.
INCDENR

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach Data and Dimensionless Ratios

r

fl

Parameters Reference
Reach
Rosgen Stream Type C5
Drainage Area (mi) 3.04*
Reach Length (ft) 407
Bankfull Width (ft) 17.8
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.5
Width/Depth Ratio 12.1
Bankfull Area (ft) 26.2
Max Bankfull Depth 3.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 600+
o Entrenchment Ratio 33.7
Max. Pool Depth (ft) 3.34-4.00
q- Ratio: Max. Pool Depth / Mean Bankfull Depth 2.2-2.7
Pool Width (ft) 26.1
Ratio: Pool Width / Bankfull Width 1.5
Pool Cross-Sectional Area (ft) 30.9
Ratio: Pool Area / Bankfull Area 1.2
Bankfull Mean Velocity (u) (ft/s) 3.1
Bankfull Discharge (Q) (cfs) 83*
Meander Length (ft) 94 - 143
Ratio: Meander Length / Bankfull Width 5.3-8.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 37 - 40
Ratio: Radius Curvature / Bankfull Width 2.1-2.3
a
Meander Belt Width (ft)
158
Meander Width Ratio (MWR) 8.9
Sinuosity (K) 1.28
Valley Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.24
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.2-2.1
Ratio: Riffle Slope / WS Slope 0.8-8.8
Pool Slope (ft/ft) (%) 0.0-0.05
Ratio: Pool Slope / WS Slope 0.0-0.2
0
o,
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
40 - 85.5
Ratio: Pool Spacing / Bankfull Width 2.2-4.7
Pool Length (ft) 8-30
Ratio: Pool Length / Bankfull Width 0.4-1.6
Low Bank Height (ft) 3.0
Ratio: Low Bank Height / Max. Bkf Depth 1.0
Channel Materials (D50) (mm) 0.20
Note: The discharge contributed to the reference site by its delineated drainage area is
reduced due to impoundment and altered drainage patterns in the watershed.

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach Data: Cross-sections
Cross-section 1 (Riffle)
104
103
102
101
100
99
2 98
W
97
96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Cross-section 3 (Pool)
104
103
102
101
100
° 99
98
W
97
96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
Cross-section 4 (Riffle)
104
103

102
101
100
0
99
98
W
97
96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width from River Left to Right (ft)

r

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach Data - Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal Profile
103
102
101
100
99
0 98

W 97

96
95
94
93
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Channel Distance (ft) --•--bed 4 WS • BKF A x-section

1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Thud Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach Data - Bed Materials
very tine
fine
medium
coarse
very coarse
very fine c
fine g
fine g
medium g
medium g
coarse g
coarse g
very coarse g
very coarse
small o
medium o
large o
very large a
small bo
small bo
medium bo
large bo
clay
16%
38%
55
95%
99%
100% 100%
100% 90%
100%
100% 80%
100%
100% 70%
100% c 60%
100%
100% 4) 50%
100% 2
100% n 40%
100% 30%
100%
100% 20%
100% 10%
100%
100% 0%
45
40
35
30 3
25 m
20-,
15 m
N
10
5
0
2048 100% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
4096 100% particle size (mm)
ticle count: 100 -M-cumulative % - # of particles
based on size percent less than (mm) particle size distribution
sediment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 =D95 radation geo mean std dev
articles onl 0.062 0.11 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2.7 0.2 2.6
based on percent by substrate type
total count: 100 total count silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock hardpan wood/det artificial
16% 84% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pebble Count of C
Material
sift/clay
very fine sa
fine sa
medium sa
coarse sa
very coarse sa
very fine grai
fine gray
fine grai
medium gray
medium gray
coarse grai
coarse gra)
very coarse grai
very coarse ray
small cobt
medium cobt
large cobt
verv larae cobt
small boulc
small boulc
medium boulc
large boulc
clay
0
5 I?
29
58
93%
99%
100% 100%
100% 90%
100%
100% 80%
100%
100% :E 70%
100% c_ 60%
100%
100% 50%
100% n 40%
100%
100% 30%
100% 20%
100%
100% 10%
100%
100% 0%
22
32
45
40
35
30
c
25
m
20
v
15
m
m
10
5
0
100% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
100% particle size (mm)
--F-cumulative % - # of particles
ase on size percent less than mm particle size istn utioi
sediment D16 D35 D50 D65 D84 D95 aradation aeo mean std,
count silt/cla sand ravel cobble boulder bedrock
11% 89% 0% 0% 0% 0%
M M » M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach, Durham, North Carolina
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
North Prong Creek Reference Reach: Photo Log
Typical section at upstream limits of surveyed reach.
Typical pool section.

,,
r?

Typical riffle section.

C
Jr
Typical riffle section.
Typical pool section.

pica] section at downstream limits of surveyed rea
I Stream Restoration Plan Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park

Appendix C
Sediment Transport Data
i

LI

Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Transport - Critical Shear Stress Calculations
Upper Section - Design
Critical Shear Stress:
ti=yRS
ti = (62.4)(2.12)(0.0029) = 0.3841bs/ft2
*The particle mobility based on Shield's Curve is approximately 21-22 millimeters (mm).
Lower Section - Design
Critical Shear Stress:
ti=yRS
ti = (62.4)(2.37)(0.0025) = 0.3701bs/ft2
*The particle mobility based on Shield's Curve is approximately 20 millimeters (mm).
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Transport Calculator - Total Load (lbs/sec)
Existing Conditions - Upper Section
Step 1:
U* 1 ' W 6.69
dmean 0.80
Dso (m) 0.00038
Step 2:
rs ?650 n 1 - .
r 1000 m
n 1.1 E-06 Agr 1 -
Dgr C 1 1 1
D., (dimensionless particle size number)
Expresses the relationship between immersed weight of sediment grains and viscous forces.
Step 3:
Fgr
Ggr
qs
1 1 1
Q.,
FQ, (particle mobility number) - Function of shear stress/immersed weight of grains.
GQ,(sediment transport parameter) - Based on stream power.
q, Sediment discharge per unit channel width (m3/m s)
Q, Sediment discharge (in3A)
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT - TOTAL LOAD (lbs/s) 3
DISCHARGE - IMPERIAL CONVERSION (ft-/s)
g 9.81
R 0.6952728
so 0.0024
Q 7.34
A 5.32
P 7.66
Based on Akers and W'/rite Forntuln (Arkers. 1993)
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Transport Calculator - Total Load (lbs/sec)
- upper section
Step 1:
g 9.81
R 0.645479;
Sa 0.00,1)
ti
Q 8.03
A 5.58
P 8.65
W 8.23
dean 0.68
Dso (m) 0.00038
rs 2650 n 1 .
r 1000 m
n 1.1 E-06 Age 1 . .
Dgr C 1 1 1
Dg,(dimensionless particle size number)
Expresses the relationship between immersed weight of sediment grains and viscous forces.
Step 3:
Fr
Ggr 1 . .
qs 1 1 1
QS 1 11:
F (particle mobilitN number) - Function of shear stress/immersed weight of grains.
Gg, (sediment transport parameter) - Based on stream power.
q, Sediment discharge per unit channel width (m3/m s)
Q, Sediment discharge (m3A)
Based on Ackers and It%hite Fornuda (Ackers. 1993)
r r? rr rr rr r r¦? rr rr rr r• rr rr r? rr r . rr ri
100
0 1
0.1
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Rating Curves - Upper Section
• Upper Existing
¦ Upper Design
Rankfull (283 cis)
Power (Upper Existing)
l Power (Upper Design)
I
WOOO 10000?
i

1
0.01
I
10 100 1000
Q Of -3 A)
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Transport Calculator - Total Load (lbs/sec)
K-UNL111g N-UHUMU11J - I IUWCC JCCUVu
Step 1:
g 9.81
R 0.6762891
S.
U. 0.0(11,
Q 9.12
A 6.63
P 9.81
W 8.90
dmea„ 0.75
Dso (m) 0.00011
Step 2:
rs 2650
r 1000
n
D, ,.
Dg, (dimensionless particle size number)
Expresses the relationship between immersed weight of sediment grains and viscous forces.
Fo, (particle mobility number) - Function of shear stress/immersed weight of grains.
G,,, (sediment transport parameter) - Based on stream power.
q, Sediment discharge per unit channel width (in 3/M s)
Q, Sediment discharge (m`/s)
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT - TOTAL LOAD (lbs/s)
DISCHARGE - IMPERIAL CONVERSION (ft /s)
Based on Ackers and ti'hite Fornuda (Ackers. 1993)
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Transport Calculator - Total Load (lbs/sec)
- Lower Section
Step 1:
g 9.81
R 7230498
So 0.0025
U* 1
Q 10.00
A 6.94
P 9.60
W 9.14
dmean 0.76
Dso (m) 0.00044
D,, (dimensionless particle size number)
Expresses the relationship between immersed weight of sediment grains and viscous forces.
F, (particle mobility number) - Function of shear stress/immersed weight of grains.
GQ,(sediment transport parameter) - Based on stream power.
q, Sediment discharge per unit channel width (m;/m s)
Q, Sediment discharge (m3/s)
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT - TOTAL LOAD (lbs/s)
)IS CII_kIZ(;F - IN11'E1ZI \1. CONW,,RS10N (ft /s)
Based on Ackers and White Formula (Ackers, 1993)
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Project
Sediment Rating Curves - Lower Section
100
10
Oi
• Lower Existing
g
¦ Lower Design
Bankfull (353 cfs)
Power (Lower Existing)
Power (Lower Design) i
I i I
J-L
T'f -- --? I I -
M I
0.1
1
10 100 1000
Q (ft 3A)