The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20042031 Ver 1_Mitigation Report_20110812r � r t r� J r- J J i I. J1 J J l� J �I (I Li F1 o ao3i Zacks Fork Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Year 2010 Measurement Year 5 As -Built Date 2005 NCEEP Project # AW03003A Submitted on August 12, 2011 Delivered to NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27299 -1619 e Vl 1��•�p Prepared by Environmental Services, Inc �-� 0 524 S New Hope Road Raleigh, NC 27610. S Original Design Spaulding &Norms, PA y8' ��PO 972 Trinity Road c� ,s� °' g t3jN °COQ •`� Raleigh, NC 27607 f•�y �eF r,.��~� ,� 1 �� 1',COSy4tCll l a ""r"T'� � lift i! + ill. tfC 1 � 'Cel A�G1't2011 N CEMoN PROMGWM ENHp.N I� IL �J Zacks Fork Creek Year 5 (2010) Monitoring Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8111/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 2 of 48 Page # 1 Executive Summary 3 II Project Description and Background 3 III Project Condition and Monitoring Results 8 A Vegetation Assessment 8-9 B Stream Assessment 11 Vl Methodology and References 19 V Appendices 20 Fi<;:ures P Figure I Location Map 3 Figure 2 As -Built Plans 5-7 Figure 3 Structures, Cross - Sections, & Vegetative Plots, 10 Figure 4 Stream Problem Areas 12 Figure 5R BEHI/NBS Reaches, Right Bank 13 Figure 5L BEHUNBS Reaches, Left Bank 14 Tables Table I Project Mitigation Structure 4 Table 2 Project Background 4 Table 3 Project Contacts 4 Table 4 Vegetative Problem Areas 9 Table 5 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot 9 Table 6 R BEHI/NBS Analysts, Right Bank 15 Table 6 L BEHUNBS Analysis, Left Bank 16 Table 7 Stream Problem Areas 17 Table 8 Summary of Cross - Sectional Morphology 17 Table 9 Summary of Reach Morphology 18 Table 10 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment 18 -19 Table l l Categorical 'Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment 19 Appendices Appendix A Longitudinal and Cross - Sectional Profiles and Data 20 Appendix B Structures, Representative Photographs 35 Appendix C Vegetative Plots, Representative Photographs 48 Appendix D Stream Problem Areas, Representative Photographs 52 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8111/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 2 of 48 I. Executive Summary The monitoring assessment of this project for Year 5 indicates that the hydrology of the restored reach is functioning within design specifications. The dimension, pattern and profile data collected post - construction remain within the designed Rosgen stream type parameters. During the site reconnaissance for this Report, there were a total of nine stream problem areas identified, three of which were significant structural issues (displaced log vanes). There were five areas exhibiting mid - bar accretion or bank scour. One area was experiencing severe bank failure. In April 2011, field work occurred to address the problem areas and bank failures noted during the site reconnaissance. Further, additional plantings were installed in June 2011 to re- vegetate buffer areas disturbed by the equipment completing the above referenced repairs. Photographs of these repair areas are provided in the Appendix D. The Year -5 assessment of vegetation indicates continued success in the establishment of both planted and indigenous vegetation. An upward trend of stem counts throughout the restoration reach was noted in the Year 5 stem counts. There is minimal evidence of beaver herbivory in the middle and lower reaches, but it does not appear to have adversely impacted stem counts during previous infestations. H. Project Background The project site is located in Caldwell County to the north of Lenoir on Zacks Fork Road, adjacent to a municipal soccer field complex (Figure 1). The surrounding land use includes residential developments within the watershed to the north and east of the site that have likely altered the hydrologic regimen, resulting in higher peak events as evidenced by down- cutting and bank erosion The stream restoration encompasses approximately 3,900 linear feet of a reach that had become incised and degraded. Through a combination of natural channel design, grade- control structures and excavation of a bankfull bench this project seeks to address deficiencies in the stream dimension, pattern and profile as well improve both in- stream and riparian habitat. Restoration was undertaken in 2004 -5; a more complete description of the project background and design is given in "Geomorphologic Assessment & Stream Restoration Preliminary Design Report" prepared by FMSM Engineers and "Mitigation Report for Zack's Fork Creek Stream Restoration" prepared by Spaulding & Norris, as revised in February 14, 2008. The as -built plan view of the project area is given in Figure 2; more detailed maps are also available in the "Mitigation Report". Zacks Fork Creek Figure 1. Zacks Fork Creek Location Map ZacKs Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811112011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 3 of 48 Table 1 Protect Mitigation Structure Project Segment or Reach ID Linear Footage or Acreage Reach I 3,900 If Table 2 Protect Background Project County Caldwell Drainage Area 12 3 square miles Rosgen Classification of As -Built C Dominant Soil Types Chewacla Reference Site ID - USGS HUC for Project and Reference - NCDWQ Sub Basin for Project and Reference 03050101 -027 NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference - Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9 No Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed segment9 No Reasons for 303d listing or stressor - % of project easement fenced 0 Edenton, NC 27932 Attn Ellen Colodne Table 3 Project Contacts Firm Address Phone Contact Protect Manager 972 Trinity Road Spaulding & Norris, PA Raleigh NC 27607 Attn Stephanie L Norris PE 919) 854 -7990 Designer 1901 Nelson Miller Parkway FMSM Engineers Louisville, KY 40223 Attn George Athanasakes, PE 502 212 -5000 Construction Contractor 1980 -A Parker Court Environmental Services, Inc Stone Mountain, GA 30087 Attn Steve Jones Phone 770 - 736 -9101 Planting Contractor 3067 Conners Drive Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery Edenton, NC 27932 Attn Ellen Colodne 252 482 -5707 Seeding Contractor 1980 -A Parker Court Environmental Services, Inc Stone Mountain, GA 30087 Attn Steve Jones Phone 770 - 736 -9101 Vegetation Monitoring 524 S New Hope Road Environmental Services, Inc Raleigh, NC 27610 Attn Charles Johnston 919 212 -1760 Stream Monitoring 1980 -A Parker Court Environmental Services, Inc Stone Mountain, GA 30087 Attn Steve Jones Phone 770 - 736 -9101 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811112011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 4 of 48 Figure 2.1 — As -Built Plan CONSERVATION EASEMENT (OFFSET 75' FROM THALWEG) ROOT DTI DRAINAGE. D(TCH EXISTING BRIDGE I,--, 9 CROSS VANE (TYP) EXISUNC STORM SEMER �� —STA. 70+00 /�� 11EGZN C UPSTREAM 1� r�EACH --RELOCATED THALWG (UPSTREAM REACH) J -1400K (Typ) \_.30TT0M OF STREAM BANK (TTY) TOP OF STREAM HANK (TVP) 25 0 Too 200 GRAPHrC SCALE 7' = 700' Lapmd Pr�,e.ed tay ue� H'opeefa D)e'7Y 014*0VM pod P We.ee AYlae > " a-me wne arapesea a-Heer VM* Censwwtkn Eas"wt RaWaW Foe¢ath Aa -&.## Rmt Ebb Aa -I?Un Lag V- Ar&V Rest SNvrtr a z,�cx�s FORK CREaEK $ ry Una oeraxnwm..w.h..., — ►J Nl7RRI.Y� PA ' T e.� �v �. . MN Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811212011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 5 of 48 Figure 2.2 — As -Built Plan EXISTING FOOTPATH EXISTING FOOTPATH ~� $ANK STA81LIZA 77ON (T}'I°) �— EX7S77NG SEWER LINE RELOCATED FOOTPATH (j,rP) JNOOK --�1 (rn°) LOG VANE — VANE — 1 APPROX. LOCA FTON OF EXISMG 6' SEWER uNE 6i ZACK'S FOW CREEK wm we Mumt rww � CROSS VANE (TYP) 25 0 lao 2010 FEET I GRAPHIC; SCALE 1' = IDO' Lapeod trwa..d meat twdra arRo d tog Lt.. D1s*atlm Pow' P mane MAL- PAP"Od rasa were Propuse ✓-Hoak twee 0wvwwtfon Eav"ent Rwbeatd Footpath da -8,4! Rmt Mh )p �c A-1101 Lay V- Aer -Buff Rear Serwetww Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811212011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 6 of 48 Figure 2.3 — As -Built Plan Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811212011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 7 of 48 ` X Prepwod Rent NLae a55 VANE ..,W—.d Lag i8ne M11) Pmpawd Enwgy fu..pofro7 nad APPROX. LOCA770N OF Prapow Cm" 14v» t EXIS77NC 6" SEWER LINE Pmpawd d —tfdok Kwo conwwwtkI EP7YTwt Y Rafocaf.d FoaQoa& LOG VANE � A—RU11 RU& Y6da y� A— "f Lag Vb EVS71NC ArAfff Ronk Sfnfafww 72' SEWER UNE TOP OF STREAM BANK (TYP) / LOG VANE �fi,00 1 • R'�ee OTTOM OF STREAM EXISTING BANK (T1P) FOOTPATH 4 � 1 CONSERVATION EASEMEFI T LOG VANE (OFFSET 7s if FRom TNAL I{EG) ROOT WAD (TrP) i OSS VANE (Tw) •' ay1O 25 0 Too zfw FEET SM. 50+00 GRAMC SCALE ENO DOVeNSTREAM 1' = 700, REACH a �y ZACK�S FOW CME & IJ P WJ DWO ..��qpy�y� o co � "p'nf Cd fbn. ierm n. ININ Mw MM Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811212011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 7 of 48 II Project Condition and Monitoring Results A Vegetation Assessment As specified by the guidelines in Content Format and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports, upon completion of stream construction eleven (11) vegetation sampling plots (I Om x I Om) were staked at intervals in the riparian zone of the project reach Planting was done on a per -acre scale using a combination of live stakes, containerized plants and seeding Baseline counts for the individual sampling plots were not assessed or recorded at the time of planting The Year 1, 2, 3, and 4 vegetation assessments were performed on December 12, 2006 November 21, 2007, November 6 2008, and September 12, 2009 respectively The Year -5 assessment was completed on October 25, 2010, and the results are given in Tables 4 and 5 Chewacla loam is the only mapped soil series within the floodplam of the project and no direct on -site soil sampling was performed as part of the yearly monitoring process The spatial location of the vegetation sampling plots is given in Figure 3 Representative photographs of the vegetative sampling plots are contained in Appendix C The Year 5 vegetation plot data (Table 5) indicates an upward trend of stem counts throughout the restoration s reach This increase is likely due to transplants previously not counted, but now tall enough to be above the grass /sedge cover and potentially due to natural recruitment via seed set or seed bank The 5`h year counts equal or exceed the prior 4 -year counts for all 11 vegetation plots with a mean 41 percent increase There has also been considerable natural recruitment in many plots, most notably of river birch (Betula mgra), silky willow (Salix sericea) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) Stem counts were limited to specimens greater than four feet high, in an attempt to reflect only originally or subsequently transplanted trees Silky willow continues to dominate the plots abutting the stream bank (e g Vegetation plots # 1, 3, 4, 7, and 11) while those plots higher in the floodplam have a more varied species distribution (e g Vegetation plots # 2, 6, 9, and 10) Herbaceous and shrub strata groundcover in all plots is equal to or greater than 90 percent coverage Two vegetative problem areas were identified in the Year 5 assessment (Table 4) There are several areas with evidence of minimal to moderate beaver herbivory The beaver activity does not appear to be recent, however this activity is likely to continue unless the beavers are removed or eliminated The City of Lenoir Public Works Department is actively working to remove beavers from the area and appear to respond to the outcropping of dens in a timely manner to avoid further damage to the stream cross - section and structures From previous monitoring reports, the areas noted to have beaver activity problems have successfully re- sprouted and have been successful in natural regeneration The beavers do not appear to be adversely impacting stem counts at this time The second vegetative problem area consists of the wild rose (Rosa multiflora) growth within the riparian zone In June 2008, selective spot - spraying using a glycophosphate -based herbicide was conducted Evaluation in November 2008 showed this treatment to be partially effective as evidenced by leaf /stem kill of treated plants It was apparent, however that the wild rose growth is not limited to the restoration corridor and that re- colonization from mature plants in adjacent areas and any existing insitu seed bank was likely The Year -5 evaluation shows this re- growth to have occurred, as wild rose is still prevalent, though not dominant However, as tree growth continues, it is expected that the canopy will begin to limit the sunlight into the herbaceous layer, which should inhibit the wild rose growth in these areas The partially re- graded area near the bridge and walking trail at Plot 4 is a vegetative problem area that was noted in the Year 4 monitoring report The grading extended to within approximately 10 feet of the stream bank The remaining sapling vegetation along the stream Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8111/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 8 of 48 1� bank is vigorous and appears at to be sufficient to maintain bank integrity The graded area has regenerated and a stable groundcover of various grasses and young saplings was noted In June J 2011, the City installed approximately 20 trees (verigated dogwood sycamore and birch) throughout the disturbed area, which included Plot 4 These trees have a minimum of 5 years of growth The added trees are not included in the Year 5 Stem counts provided in Table 5 below [I i✓ Table 4 Vegetative Problem Areas Species Feature /Issue Station# /Range Probable Cause Photo # Wild rose Multiple areas Successional growth VPA 1 Table 5 Year 5 Stem counts by species and plot, October 2010 Species Plot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Spp total Alnus serrulata (common alder) 3 5 6 2 3 3 3 4 7 6 3 45 Benda negra (river birch) 0 16 2 3 1 8 3 12 24 19 15 103 Cornus amomun (silky dogwood) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 flex opaca (American holly) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lindera benzoin (spicebush) 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 Liriodendron tulip�fera (tulip poplar) 2 7 3 0 0 2 2 1 4 8 8 37 Platanus occidentalis (sycamore) 4 16 16 8 24 2 3 11 88 Salix sertcea (silky willow) 18 4 18 25 0 0 R14 0 8 98 Sambucus canadensis (elderberry) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stems / Plot 29 51 45 38 26 17 36 45 Stems/ Acre 1175 2066 1823 1539 1053 689 1215 851 1701 1458 1823 Est % Groundcover 100 100 90 100 90 90 100 100 100 100 90 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8/1112011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 9 of 48 NOTE: THE STRUCTURE, CROSS - SECTION AND VEGETATIVE UPSTREAM PLOT LOCATIONS ARE STILL APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR 5 N MONITORING REPORT, PLEASE DISREGARD THE PHOTO 7 > ................... MATCH LINE LOCATIONS REFERENCED IN THIS FIGURE. V > o _ 29 2 0 0'..._.... _ 30 X-SEC #8.` 5, o ,..',rte.......... _1 b .............. 16 0 .....................17 0 :.:.:........... ..._.................._........ o... ... ....... ..............._.............18 o........ ..... ....._.19 o. ................20 O_ _ 21 o. _22 X -SEC #7 X-SEC #6 o_ 23 �_ 24 o— _ - 26 P" 27 4 7 X-SEC #5 28 ....•..•...•..•.... MATCH LINE n..,� ...............38 , O. .. .... .... .......... 39 9 � 0 ......................a o........ ................ 41 _10 Stream Veg Plots Cross Sections o Photo Locations $own: Plan Nap pr lxlN by Spa'ld and Nor PA CMi Englnaadng aM Plann" q+dY.w: *1+Inbnuo-n errtsf m vu+ aynY MhbnNtr/�ropFO�m YrY a Mpnpv�e b. rw� alue4 b W N�"wM9 Or.pe� ENVIRONMENTAL X-SEC #2 42 ', 0 ...._ ....................43 SERVICES, INC. X -SEC #1 1 Date: Oct 2009 7220 Financial Way. Sidle 100 Jacksom9le. Florida 32256 0t........................ 44 11 ........................... 46 0/ :. ....... .................... 46 ......................._47 CI:\ Team \Corel\Lener_ponratt bound.cdr, 01111/05; 3:30pm ...................48 DOWNSTREAM Stream Veg Plots Cross Sections o Photo Locations $own: Plan Nap pr lxlN by Spa'ld and Nor PA CMi Englnaadng aM Plann" q+dY.w: *1+Inbnuo-n errtsf m vu+ aynY MhbnNtr/�ropFO�m YrY a Mpnpv�e b. rw� alue4 b W N�"wM9 Or.pe� ENVIRONMENTAL Structures, Cross - Sections, Project: BUR06127 SERVICES, INC. Vegetative Plots, Photo Locations Date: Oct 2009 7220 Financial Way. Sidle 100 Jacksom9le. Florida 32256 Zack's Fork, Year 4 Monitoring Report Drwn /Chkd: csj /csj (904) 4702200 o� (904) 470.2112 Fax www env�ronme ntalsenlcesinc. com Lenoir, Caldwell County, North Carolina Figure: 3 CI:\ Team \Corel\Lener_ponratt bound.cdr, 01111/05; 3:30pm YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT August 11, 2011 B Stream Assessment This stream restoration incorporates 28 in- stream grade controls (cross vanes, log vanes) and other natural channel design structures (J- hooks, root wads) The Year -5 monitoring assessment collected hydraulic performance parameters, which include longitudinal profile, ten cross sectional profiles, pebble counts, and visual stability assessment Spatial locations of grade - control structures, cross - sections and vegetative plots are depicted in Figure 3 Longitudinal and cross - sectional profiles are given in Appendix A Structural photographs are enclosed in Appendix B, arranged sequentially moving downstream The overall hydrology of the restoration appears to functioning within design specifications There is strong establishment of stable riffle -pool sequences, maintenance of thalweg alignment, strong sediment sorting, well - vegetated banks, formation of point bars, and integrity of grade - control structures There are vegetated bankfull benches in multiple locations and pools appear to be clearing out sediment adequately A total of nine stream problems are identified in Table 7 The majority of these problems did not involve grade control structures Bank scours were the main issues that were documented These issues occurred due to a recent bankfull event One of the grade control structures which utilized a log vane has been displaced which will eventually cause increased flow around the base where these are keyed into the outer curve of the stream bank There were two areas experiencing aggradation due to mid channel bars that have formed Visually, the top two- thirds of the reach are in good condition and are functioning as a natural channel should be However, the wooded area contains the multiple issues that are noted As reflected by the stability of the longitudinal profile, these structures are still adequately holding grade, however, repair or replacement may become necessary in the future if structural integrity and stability further deteriorates A total of nine (9) stream problem areas were cataloged, locations are shown in Figure 4 and representative photographs are contained in Appendix D Cross - sectional morphology and sediment sorting characteristics are given in Table 8 and Table 9 For the most part, the profiles are suitably congruent O As previously referenced in the Executive Summary, repairs to the stream problem areas noted above, in particular bank stabilization, were successfully completed in April 2011 Photographs of these areas are also included in Appendix D The Year -5 assessment also included Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS) analysis The BEHI evaluates variables including bank height ratio, bank angle, root depth and density, bank protection and bank materials, it generates a descriptive index of erosion risk The NBS is similar but incorporates variables such as pool /riffle slope(s), velocity profile estimates and near -bank maximum depth Results of for these two evaluation indices are given in Tables 6 R and 6 L, the evaluation reaches for each bank are shown in Figures 5 R and 5 L The entire geomorphological range the restoration appears to be maintaining stability (Table 11) The visual assessment of the entire restored reach shows a natural progression of the riparian vegetative community in- stream habitat development and functioning grade- control structures Both planted and natural recruitment of vegetation in the riparian corridor continues to provide good ground cover and buffering functions The presence of stream macroinvertebrates and finfish gives a qualitative verification of in- stream habitat and good water quality Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811112011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 11 of 48 NOTE: STREAM PROBLEM AREAS REFERENCED IN THE YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS FIGURE AND ARE INDICATED BY (YR5). .yy 1 SP1 - mid- stream bar VP2 - grading of ' veg.plot #4 STP. 21 +� �� (�(tz5�t -mil" [3A✓~�K 7 , n SCou R 1501 EC3+- �r SP2 - mid- stream bar (W-5) VP2 - beaver herbivory SP3 - beaver dam +� 5TA 4k-tw RlGtQT r� TK <;Q_WR SP4 - bank slum 1` SP5 - bank scour $TA 35+0o R IG, WT- BW K SCc��R 5TA 3-7+s0 f 5TA 3&+_50 �-- CYRS)RI EA NT 13 A�lK ScoeJ � I ,, i Log Vane Rock Crossvone k Root Wad Scuts: Plan Map prbvpad by I �uldlnp and Norrfc PA CIvN Eylnwdrp end PlonNrg. oYtlMar lee i�M eNY =ea m itu ei.e�b b Y[,nr+bW eV Wrl atY aM pnp✓a0 d. W Y.a1 W W b ENVIRONMENTAL Project: BUR06127 Stream Problem Areas SERVICES, INC. Date: Nov 2009 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Zack's Fork, Year 4 Monitoring Report Jacksonville, Florida 32256 DrwnlChkd: csj /csj (904) 470 -2200 Lenoir, Caldwell County, North Carolina (904)470. 2112 Fax Figure: 4 a.cu ev . www envnonrnentatservicesinc. com YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT August 11, 2011 YEAR 5 MONITORING KLFUK i August 11, 2011 14 r, 15 %19 I` 19 �19 21 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 (904) 470.2200 (904) 470 -2112 Fax O en vnwe envkonmenf alserviceslnc. cram 10\ �r 4 �9 07 ,l , i3 j i,( e^" 24 , j � o �_ ,✓ ,1i 24 13 )13! \ 29 30 31 ;;'32 32 1133 �4 35 6 37 r i 38 /40 • X49 41 K43 47 BEHUNBS Reaches, Left Bank Zack's Fork, Year 3 Monitoring Report Lenoir, Caldwell County, North Carolina YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT August 11, 2011 ' Veg Plots Cross Sections ,y.-- Photo Locations Saxca', Plan Mapp.1idWGy Sp AON an0 Noft Pl, CM Englno.d g aM Pbnnhp. OYU�Ynn ily Ybmenm u0te4 m oa Project: BUR06127 Date: Nov 2008 Drwn /Chkd: csjlcsj Figure: 5L Table 6R. Bank Erosion Hazardous Index (BEHD and Near -Bank Stress BS Assessments Reach BEHI Adjective Rating NBS Adjective Rating Study Bank Height Length Right Bank 1 Low Low 2.5 68 Right Bank 2 Low Low 2.0 77 Right Bank 3 Very Low Low 2.5 220 Right Bank 4 Very Low Very Low 2.5 35 Right Bank 5 Low Moderate 3.0 37 Right Bank 6 Low Moderate 2.5 94 Right Bank 7 Low Moderate 3.0 153 Right Bank 8 Low Very Low 3.0 128 Right Bank 9 Very Low Very Low 3.0 171 Right Bank 10 Low Low 3.0 43 Right Bank 11 Very Low Low 3.0 77 Right Bank 12 Very Low Very Low 3.5 126 Right Bank 13 Low Low 3.0 153 Right Bank 14 Low Very Low 3.5 157 Right Bank 15 Very Low Low 3.0 65 Right Bank 16 Low Low 3.0 139 Right Bank 17 Moderate High 3.5 24 Right Bank 18 Moderate Low 3.5 71 Right Bank 19 Low Low 3.0 225 Right Bank 20 Moderate Moderate 4.0 100 Right Bank 21 Low Very Low 2.5 70 Right Bank 22 Low Moderate 3.5 190 Right Bank 23 Very Low Low 3.0 195 Right Bank 24 Very Low Low 3.0 73 Right Bank 25 Low Very Low 4.0 65 Right Bank 26 Very High Very High 5.5 70 Right Bank 27 Moderate Moderate 4.5 118 Right Bank 28 Low Moderate 3.0 56 Right Bank 29 Moderate Very High 4.0 69 Right Bank 30 Low Very Low 3.5 136 Right Bank 31 Very High Extreme 5.0 197 Right Bank 32 Moderate Moderate 4.0 105 Right Bank 33 Very High Very High 5.0 105 Right Bank 34 Moderate Moderate 3.0 88 Right Bank 35 Low High 3.0 107 Right Bank 36 Low High 3.5 93 total... 3900 Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 8/1112011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 15 of 48 Table 6L. Bank Erosion Hazardous Index BEH and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) Assessments Reach BEHI Adjective Rating NBS Adjective Rating Study Bank Height Length Left Bank 1 Low Moderate 3.0 25 Left Bank 2 Low Moderate 3.0 45 Left Bank 3 Low Very Low 2.5 58 Left Bank 4 Low Low 2.0 60 Left Bank 5 Low Low 3.0 101 Left Bank 6 Low Low 3.0 217 Left Bank 7 Very Low Very Low 2.0 143 Left Bank 8 Low Low 2.5 43 Left Bank 9 Low Moderate 2.5 114 Left Bank 10 Moderate Moderate 3.0 41 Left Bank 11 Very Low Low 3.0 97 Left Bank 12 Low Low 3.0 103 Left Bank 13 Moderate Moderate 4.5 27 Left Bank 14 Very Low Low 2.0 288 Left Bank 15 Very Low Very Low 2.5 150 Left Bank 16 Moderate Low 4.5 82 Left Bank 17 High High 5.0 21 Left Bank 18 Low Very Low 2.0 104 Left Bank 19 Low Low 2.5 57 Left Bank 20 Very High Extreme 5.0 24 Left Bank 21 Low Low 2.5 91 Left Bank 22 Low Low 3.0 132 Left Bank 23 High High 5.0 193 Left Bank 24 Moderate Moderate 4.0 64 Left Bank 25 Low Low 4.0 129 Left Bank 26 Very High Extreme 6.0 67 Left Bank 27 Moderate Moderate 4.5 94 Left Bank 28 Low Low 3.0 43 Left Bank 29 Moderate Moderate 3.0 64 Left Bank 30 Low Moderate 3.0 105 Left Bank 31 Very High Very High 6.5 109 Left Bank 32 Moderate Moderate 3.5 45 Left Bank 33 Very High Extreme 5.0 62 Left Bank 34 Low Moderate 3.0 54 Left Bank 35 Moderate Moderate 4.5 56 Left Bank 36 Low Low 3.0 52 Left Bank 37 Low Low 3.0 196 Left Bank 38 High Moderate 4.5 127 Left Bank 39 Low Moderate 3.0 114 Left Bank 40 High High 7.0 67 Left Bank 41 Low Low 3.0 68 Left Bank 42 Very High High 7.0 102 Left Bank 43 Low Low 3.5 66 total... 3900 Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811112011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 16 of 48 L Table 7 Stream Problem Areas Cross - Section Feature Issue Station # Suspected Cause Location # Photo # Aggradation / Bar Formation 25 +25 Mid- stream bar 2 2 41 +00 Mid- stream bar 6 6 Bank Scour 21 +75 Water velocity 1 I 35 +00 Water velocity 3 3 38 +50 Lack of vegetation 5 1 5 41 +50 Water velocity 7 7 Structure Change 37 +50 Log vane displaced 4 4 Table 8 Summary of Cross - Sectional Morphology Cross - Section 1 - pool 2 - riffle 3 -pool 4 -riffle 5 - pool DIMENSION BF Width (ft) 35 5 308 292 33 1 293 Floodprone Width (ft) 200 1300 800 400 51 0 BF Cross sectional area (sq ft) 891 950 799 1207 658 BF Mean Depth (ft) 25 3 l 27 36 23 BF Max Depth (ft) 46 52 3 8 5 3 30 Width/Depth Ratio 141 100 107 9 1 13 Entrenchment Ratio 56 42 27 121 1 7 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 385 342 32 1 368 305 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 23 28 25 3 3 22 SUBSTRATE D50 (mm) 36 125 D84 (mm) 1 14 23 Cross - Section 6 - pool 7 - riffle 8 -pool 9 -riffle 10 - pool DIMENSION BF Width (ft) 21 7 241 243 477 244 Floodprone Width (ft) 600 929 500 300 300 BF Cross sectional area (sq ft) 760 326 705 1066 539 BF Mean Depth (ft) 3 5 14 29 22 22 BF Max Depth (ft) 50 28 54 4 1 42 Width/Depth Ratio 62 179 84 21 5 11 1 Entrenchment Ratio 276 39 206 63 123 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 259 254 275 51 2 27 1 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 29 13 26 21 20 SUBSTRATE D50 (mm) 3 5 5 D84 (mm) 43 13 5 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8/11/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 17 of 48 0, I� I 'I I� U Table 9 Summary of Reach Morphology Feature Category Min Max Med PATTERN Channel Beltwidth (ft) 70 150 110 Radius of Curvature (ft) 22 22 - Meander Wavelength (ft) 180 300 240 Meander Width Ratio 69 115 92 PROFILE Riffle Length (ft) 60 1 126 81 3 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 001 009 004 Pool Length (ft) 458 2873 1177 Pool Spacing (ft) 43 35 330 0 1469 Table 10 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Feature Category Metric # Stable # per As built LF of unstable state % Stable Feature Mean % A Riffles 1 Present? 22 22 - 90 2 Armor stables 22 22 100 3 Facet grade appears stable9 22 22 - 100 4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining'? 22 22 100 5 Length appropriate? 22 22 - 100 98% B Pools 1 Present? 28 28 100 2 Sufficiently deep (maxD mean bkfl >1 69 28 28 100 3 Length appropriate? 100 100 100 100 100% C Thalweg 1 Upstream of meander bend centering? 15 17 100 83 2 Downstream of meander centering? 14 17 100 81 82% D Meanders 1 Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion? 10 11 140 90 2 If eroding # with concomitant bar formation? 2 2 35 80 3 Apparent Rc within specifications 11 11 0 100 4 Sufficient floodplam access and relier? 11 1 1 0 100 93% E Bed 1 General channel bed aggradation areas 22 22 0 100 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811112011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 18 of 48 0 i U r C I !I L Table 11 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment 2 Channel bed degradations (downc uts/headcuts)9 0 0 0 100 100% MY -04 MY -05 A Riffles NA 98% 98% 99% F Vanes 1 Free of back or arm scour9 26 28 30 95 100% 100% 2 Height appropriate9 26 28 0 91 88% 94% 3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate 27 28 0 96 93% 93% 4 Free of piping or other structural failures? 25 28 40 96 95% 100% 100% F Structures NA 98% 98% 94% G Wads /Boulders 1 Free of scour9 5 8 100 62 1 88% 94% 2 Footing stables 8 8 0 100 81% Table 11 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment Feature Initial MY-01 MY -02 MY -03 MY -04 MY -05 A Riffles NA 98% 98% 99% 100% 98% B Pools NA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% C Thalwe NA 85% 88% 88% 94% 82% D Meanders NA 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% E Bed General NA 96% 96% 100% 100% 100% F Structures NA 98% 98% 94% 97% 95% G WadsBoulders NA 88% 88% 1 88% 94% 81% IV Methodology and References Field work was performed using usual and customary methods based on U S Army Corps of Engineers and N C Division of Water Quality guidelines Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel and other non - proprietary software References include but are not limited to USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines NCDWQ (2005) Content Format and Date Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports D L Rosgen 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs CO Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811112011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 19 of 48 0 n APPENDIX A �1 Longitudinal and Cross - sectional Profiles and Data �I 0 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 20 of 48 t__J 0 W Zadcs Fork Long Profile — 2010 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 100 800 900 1000 Distance along stream (ft) 1 CH OM TBIT 4 PI 0 P2 +P3 X Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 21 of 48 0 �I I ^I 1 � I c CD ca W w Zacks Fork Long Profile — 2010 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Distance abN stream (ft) ou OM Tw 4 PI 0 P2 + P3 X P4 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AWO3003A Environmental Services Inc 8/12/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 22 of 48 0 W Zadcs Fd Long Profile — 2010 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2100 2800 2900 3000 Distance abN team (ft) IN OM TBIT 4M 0 P2 + P3 X P4 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AWO3003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 23 of 48 0 W Zacks Fork Long Profile — 2010 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 36110 3700 3800 3900 4000 DIstance abN stream (ft) 1 CH 0 N5 TBIT #M 0 P2 + P3 X P4 Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AWO3003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 24 of 48 c 0 ca CD w Zack's Fork Creek XS -1 PL Year 5 0 Ws Fork DeekV PLY45 IBaolduIMid s V& SAM 1,01rds A ZacksFcrkCaO)S-1PLYear4 Wbkf 35 5 Dbkf 2 51 Abkf 89 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Honzontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 25 of 48 c 0 ca CD w Zack's Fork Creek XS -2 RF Year 5 0 ZaM Fork Creek) &2 Ff Year 5 / BanU lydcxbrs 1 V& surFace Nt A ZaM Fork Creek 62 RF Year 4 Wbkf 30 8 Dbkf 3 09 Abkf 95 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Horizontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 26 of 48 c 0 cv CD w Zack's Fork XS -3 PL Year 5 0Zacks Fork GeekVPL Year 5 4BanlfiilllndiAM 1V& SAM FbIrs AZacks Fork Creek)&3PL Year 4 Nbkf 29 2 Dbkf 2 14 Abkf 19 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Honzontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 27 of 48 c 0 cc a� w Zack's Fork Creek XS4 RF Year 5 0WsFACreek)&4RF Year 5 /Barkulllydcan T V&r Suke Point AZachFDrkCreek)S4RFYear4 Wbkf 33 2 Dbkf 3 64 Abkf 120 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Honzontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 28 of 48 0 ca a� w Zack's Fork Creek XS -5 PL Year 5 07adf ForkCr R)S-5PLYear5 OanldullW abrs MrSutcePurds A &A FDrk Creek)&5 PL Year 4 Wbkf 29 3 Dbkf 2 25 Abkf 65 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Horvor>tal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 29 of 48 c 0 cv as w Zack's Fork Creek XN PL Year 5 OZarksFakCreekVPLYear5 *Bahl 1I WdM TV& Mam Parts 4 ZVs Fork Creek*6PL Year 4 Wbkf 21 1 Dbkf 3 5 Abkf 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Honzotl Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 30 of 48 c 0 ca a> W Zack's Fork Creek XS-7 RF Year 5 OWsForkCreekS7RFYear5 OariduuUdUn T V& Suta FP t A LitFACa*)S7RFYear4 Wbkf 24 1 Dbkf 1 35 Abkf 32 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Honzonial Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitonng Report Page 31 of 48 Zack's Fork Creek XS -8 PL Year 5 o Zacks Fork • Bankfull v V1bter o ZackS Creek XS-8 Indicators Surface Fork Creek PL Year 5 Poi nts XS-8 PL Year 4 Wbkf = 24 3 Dbkf = 2 9 Abkf = 70 5 1131 11 1129-- �« 1128 c 1127 0 1126 Cu 112 U-11 1124-- 1123 1122 k 1121 1120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Horizontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8112/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 32 of 48 c 0 ca a� w Zack's Fork Creek XS -9 RF Year 5 0 Zacks Folk NON Ff Year 5 4 Barkdl ldc m I V& Wave Pards A Zacks Fork Cm*) &9 Ff Year 4 Wbkf 41 1 Dbkf 2 22 Abkf 106 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 110 180 190 Honzontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8/12/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 33 of 48 ri F! L-j n U Lj c 0 ca a� w Zack's Fork Creek XS -10 PL Year 5 0 Zais ForkCreek )&lO PL Year / Ba Al lndii:abrs T VON Surboe kt A ZaM Fork Creek V 0 PL Year 5 4 Wbkf 24 4 Dbkf 2 21 Abkf 53 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Honzontal Distance (ft) Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 811212011 Year 5 of 5 MoMonng Report Page 34 of 48 APPENDIX B Structures, Representative Photographs Zack s Fork Creek EEP# AW03003A Environmental Services Inc 8111/2011 Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Page 35 of 48 Photo Station 1 Photo Station 2 Photo Station 3 Photo Station 4 Photo Station 5 Photo Station 6 Photo Station 7 Photo Station 8 Photo Station 9 Photo Station 11 Photo Station 10 Photo Station 12 Photo Station 13 Photo Station 15 Photo Station 14 Photo Station 16 Photo Station 17 Photo Station 19 Photo Station 18 Photo Station 20 Photo Station 21 Photo Station 23 Photo Station 22 Photo Station 24 Photo Station 25 Photo Station 27 Photo Station 26 Photo Station 28 Photo Station 29 Photo Station 31 Photo Station 30 Photo Station 32 Photo Station 33 Photo Station 35 Photo Station 34 Photo Station 36 Photo Station 37 Photo Station 39 Photo Station 38 Photo Station 40 Photo Station 41 Photo Station 43 Photo Station 42 Photo Station 44 Photo Station 45 Photo Station 47 Photo Station 46 Photo Station 48 APPENDIX C Vegetative Plots, Representative Photographs Zack's Fork Creek, EEP# AW03003A, Environmental Services, Inc., 811112011, Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report, Page 36 of 48 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 8 Vegetation Plot 1 1 VPA APPENDIX D Stream Problem Areas, Representative Photographs Problem Area 1 - Left Bank Scour Problem Area 3 - Left Bank Scour Problem Area 2 — Mid Channel Bar Problem Area 4 — Log vane displacement Problem Area 5 - Right Bank Failure Problem Area 7 - Left Bank Scour Problem Area 6 — Mid Channel Bar ZACKS FORK STREAM RESTORATION APRIL 2011 REPAIR AREAS (Photos taken April 28, 2011) STATION 27 +25 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 31 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 35 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 27 +25 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 31 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 35 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR ZACKS FORK STREAM RESTORATION APRIL 2011 REPAIR AREAS (Photos taken April 28, 2011) STATION 36 +75 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 41 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 44 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 38 +25 - RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 41 +00 - RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 46 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR 2 ZACKS FORK STREAM RESTORATION JUNE 2011 REVEGETATION AREAS (Photos taken July 7, 2011) VEGETATION PLOT 4 STATION 31 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 35 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR VEGETATION PLOT 6 STATION 31 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR VEGETATION PLOT 8 ZACKS FORK STREAM RESTORATION JUNE 2011 REVEGETATION AREAS (Photos taken July 7, 2011) STATION 36 +75 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 41 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 46 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 38 +25 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 44 +00 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR STATION 46 +50 — RIGHT BANK REPAIR SK