The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120658 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report DRAFT_20171222STREAM AND VEGETATION MONITORING DRAFT YEAR 4 REPORT DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER RECLAMATION POND STREAM RESTORATION DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA DECEMBER 22, 2017 PREPARED FOR: DUKE UNIVERSITY T. RYAN LAVENDER, PE CIVIL ENGINEER DUKE UTILITY & ENGINEERING SERVICES, FMD DUKE UNIVERSITY PREPARED BY: MCADAMS ILIU McADAMS Raleigh/Durham n 2905 Meridian Parkway ■ Durham, NC 27713 Charlotte ■ 11301 Carmel Commons Blvd ■ Suite 111 ■ Charlotte, NC 28226 McAdamsCo.com Designing Tomorrow's Infrastructure & Communities FOR T. Ryan Lavinder, PE Civil Engineer Duke Utility & Engineering Services, FMD Duke University STREAM AND VEGETATION MONITORING DRAFT YEAR 4 REPORT Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Durham, NC Issued: December 22, 2017 by The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. Project No. DKU-14060 Kelly Roth Environmental Consultant The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. -, A/ Si nature Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. I 1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................1 2.0 Channel Stability Assessment................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Cross Sections.................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Pebble Counts................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Longitudinal Profile......................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Crest Stage Gauge............................................................................................................................ 3 2.5 Bank Pins.......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.6 Channel Stability Assessment Summary ..........................................................................................4 3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison...................................................................................................4 4.0 Invasive Species Monitoring................................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Photo Stations......................................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 6 Appendix A: Site Maps Figure 1: Site Location Map Figures 2.1 and 2.2: Conservation Easement Maps Appendix B: Annual Invasive Species Monitoring Document Spring 2016 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive Fall 2016 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive Appendix C: Photo Stations Appendix D: Problem Area Map and Photos 1 !!Jl MCADAMS 1.0 Introduction L I Project Location and Description The Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration project (Stream Restoration project) is on the main campus of Duke University, in Durham, Durham County, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1). More specifically, the Conservation Easement (CE) for the Stream Restoration project is 7.01 acres in size and starts just south of NC Highway 147, runs parallel to Campus Drive, crosses Campus Drive and ties back in to the receiving waters at Oregon Street (Appendix A, Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The Stream Restoration project is approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed stream impacts associated with the Duke University water reclamation pond. The Stream Restoration project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 (USGS 1974), local watershed 14-digit basin 03 03 0002060110, and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin 03-06-05. The unnamed tributary flows directly into Sandy Creek (DWR stream index number of 16-41-1-11) approximately 2.5 miles downstream of the project terminus. The drainage area of the unnamed tributary is approximately 141 acres at the downstream end. Based on a detailed watershed analysis, approximately 27 percent (39 acres) of the watershed area is impervious. The Stream Restoration project is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. A review of the Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina (Griffith et al., 2002) shows the geology of the Stream Restoration project is comprised of quaternary to tertiary red sandy loam to silty clay decomposition residuum, sandstone, conglomerate, mudstone, shale, coal, dikes, and sills within the Triassic Basin. There are currently no agricultural croplands or activities within the watershed; however, there was stream channelization and relocation associated with the sanitary sewer line installation adjacent to the unnamed tributary. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The purpose of this Stream and Vegetation Monitoring Year 4 report is to assess the Stream Restoration project in order to determine restoration success. The monitoring plan to evaluate the success of the Site is based the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April, 2003) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (November, 2011). Monitoring of the Site will occur annually for seven (7) full years. Construction of the Stream Restoration project occurred in the summer of 2013. During the month of November 2013, riparian buffer restoration activities began following construction of the restored active stream channel. Riparian buffer restoration activities included planting trees and staking vegetation plots within the CE. The goal of the stream restoration project is to modify the dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel so that a stable and self - maintaining channel is created by utilizing natural channel design techniques and procedures. The design was developed utilizing Rosgen-based natural channel design principles (Rosgen, 1996). Preventing future stream bank erosion will be accomplished by fulfilling the following general objectives: 1) Conversion of approximately 3,459 linear feet of the tributary from an eroding, degraded channel to a natural, stable system with restored aquatic habitat. 2) Reduction of sediment loading to a river system that flows into Jordan Lake - a recreational water body. TIMcADAMS 3) Establishment of a riparian corridor that has a restored floodplain, aquatic, and morphological functions which provide habitat connectivity to the area and will be protected in perpetuity. The following specific objectives will allow the restoration plan to succeed in obtaining the project's goal: 1) Design a channel with the appropriate cross -sectional dimension, pattern, and longitudinal profile utilizing the existing channel condition survey, and collected reference reach data as a guide. 2) Improve upon and create bedform and aquatic habitat diversity (riffles, runs, pools, and glides). 3) Create a nested floodplain (bankfull bench) that will be accessible at the proposed bankfull channel elevation along the entire reach. 4) Ensure channel and stream bank stabilization by integrating in -channel grade control structures, and native vegetation into the proposed restoration design while also creating a stable and functional aquatic and terrestrial habitat. 5) Establish a native forested riparian plant community within a minimum of 50 feet from the proposed top of the bankfull channel along with the removal of exotic vegetation during construction implementation and the elimination of current embankment maintenance practices. 2.0 Channel Stability Assessment Stream geometry will be considered successful if the geometry, profile, and sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected that there will be minimal changes in the designed cross sections, profile, and/or substrate composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure as it is possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design geometry. Channel stability will be reflected in the surveyed permanent cross -sections, longitudinal profile, evaluation of bank stability and cover, evaluation of in -stream structure performance and to a lesser degree pebble counts compared to the as -built and any previously collected monitoring data. The general trend should reflect a stable or slightly decreasing riffle cross - sectional area whereas pools may increase and yet be considered relatively stable. The longitudinal profile will typically adjust depending on the frequency of bankfull or greater storm events. Normally the constructed channel profile will adjust (especially in a sand dominated bed) but it will need to function without significant degradation (bed scour), aggradation (mid -channel bars), or bank erosion. The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 and the Entrenchment Ratio shall be no less than 2.2. The stream shall remain stable over seven years, through two bankfull events, as indicated by visual surveys, cross -sections, and bank pins. If monitoring (including vegetation) demonstrates success by year five (5), a proposal can be issued by the Owner to terminate monitoring of the site. 2.1 Cross Sections The stream geometry is considered to be successful if the cross-section geometry, profile, and sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected there will be minimal 2 T]McADAMS changes in the designed cross sections, profile, and/or substrate composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period were evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, erosion, mid- channel bars, etc.) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure, as it is possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design geometry. Morphological data will be collected and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. No morphological data was collected as part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment. 2.2 Pebble Counts The composition of the streambed and banks is an important facet of stream character, influencing channel form and hydraulics, erosion rates, sediment supply, and other parameters. The most efficient basic technique in measuring the streambed and banks is the pebble count method. This requires measuring individuals along a cross section and tallying the particle size based on class or category. Pebble counts are conducted to determine bed particle size distribution at each riffle cross section (Cross Sections 1, 3, 6, and 9). Pebble Counts will be conducted and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. No pebble count data was collected as part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment. 2.3 Longitudinal Profile The longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years 1 and 7. The longitudinal profile was not surveyed as part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment. 2.4 Crest Stage Gauge A Crest Stage Gauge (CSG) was installed during Monitoring Year 1 field activities to document bankfull events. The CSG was installed at Station 15+57 near Vegetation Plot 5 (Appendix A, Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and a photograph of the CSG is provided in Appendix G. CSG measurements will be conducted and reported in all years of monitoring. Indicators of overbank flow were not observed within the Stream Restoration project during the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment due to a malfunction of the CSG. Table 1, below, provides a list of bankfull events indicated by the installed CSG. Table 1. Verification of Bankfull Events Monitoring Year Collection Date Depth Rainfall Depth Date of Rainfall Photo MY2 10/30/2015 2.4 feet 2.46 inches 10/03/2015 Appendix G MY3 12/13/2016 2.6 feet 4.46 inches 10/09/2016 Appendix G 2.5 Bank Pins Bank erosion rates are measured using bank pins that were installed into the stream banks during the As -Built. The bank pins were installed so that they can be measured over time in order to observe changes in the stream bank profile. Bank pin measurements can then be used to estimate rates of erosion and sediment loading. Bank pin measurements will be conducted and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Bank pin data was not collected as part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment. TIMcADAMS 2.6 Channel Stability Assessment Summary Overall, the stream system appears stable and is not migrating toward lateral or vertical instability. As part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment, the entire stream restoration project was visually inspected, photographs were taken, and field notes were recorded. Appendix D includes photos and a map showing the locations of potential problem areas. Below is a summary and recommendations based on the visual inspection. These conditions do not appear to pose an imminent threat to the overall stability of the system. There are a few log vanes in the North Section in which water flow has eroded the stream bank and is going around the vane, instead of over the vane, as intended. The log vanes in these locations are still in place and vegetation appears to be keeping the banks relatively stable. It is recommended that the banks in these locations be monitored; repair may be needed if the banks move toward a less stable position. Mowing activities continue to occur within the Conservation Easement. Mowing activities within the Conservation Easement are occurring within the Northern and Central Sections of the stream restoration project. A large tree has fallen across the Southern Section of the stream restoration project. This will create an obstruction during high flows that could lead to bank stability issues. It is recommended that the fallen tree be removed from the CE. 3.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison The primary focus of the vegetative monitoring will be solely on the tree stratum, although shrub and herbaceous species encountered may also be recorded. Vegetation planting success criteria will be based on the survival of a minimum density of 320 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees) after three (3) years of monitoring. After five (5) years of monitoring, the density shall be no less than 260 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees). After seven (7) years of monitoring, the density shall be no less than 210 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees). In addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at year seven (7). If the height standard is met and the stem density is trending toward success after five (5) years of monitoring, monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE and NCDWQ. Vegetation plots will be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The vegetation plots were not sampled as part of the Monitoring Year 4 field assessment. 4.0 Invasive Species Monitoring Construction of the Stream Restoration project required disturbing land within the CE resulting in the creation of a highly disturbed early successional ecological system that contains young tree saplings and shrubs species in addition to naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species. Over time, tree saplings and shrubs species mature and proliferate while naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species dwindle. The new, highly disturbed early successional ecological system created during the construction of Stream Restoration project resulted in prime habitat for many invasive species that were known to occur within the CE prior to construction activities, in addition to the surrounding areas (Invasive Species Management Plan, May, 2014). It is understood that naturally occurring early emergent vegetative species will thrive within the CE during the early years of the Stream Restoration project. The early emergent vegetative species can be aggressive and have characteristics of an invasive species; however, they are generally accepted as part of a 4 TIMcADAMS naturally occurring ecological system. Therefore, a definition of what is an invasive species is warranted. Invasive Species are defined as non-native alien species that have the potential to negatively affect the environment. These species occupy habitat within the riparian buffer and outcompete and suppress native vegetation, thereby inhibiting both the establishment and natural succession of the native riparian community. Considerable effort was made to remove the vast majority of the observed invasive species populations during the construction phase of the Stream Restoration project by both mechanical and chemical means. Although considerable effort was made to remove the invasive plants species from within the CE, remnant populations of these invasive species were recorded in a post construction site visit conducted in May, 2014. Future treatment is likely to be required for the observed invasive species, but additional invasive species may expand the list. As part of the Monitoring Year 4 stream and vegetation monitoring efforts, invasive species monitoring and management was also conducted (Appendix B, Spring 2017 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive; May 1, 2017). Wisteria and Ampelopsis were most prevalent in the Northern sections of the buffer, and all species encountered were treated with herbicide, as noted in the Spring 2017 Treatment report. Fall invasive species monitoring and treatment was not conducted in 2017. A list of invasive species found during Monitoring Year 4 activities is provided below. All species were treated with herbicide as indicated in the Spring 2017 Treatment report. Continued monitoring and prescribed treatments by a registered landscape contractor or a certified plant professional are recommended. List of Monitoring Year 4 Invasive Species — Spring & Fall Treatment Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (porcelain berry) Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle) Ligustrum sinese (Chinese privet) Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese privet) Pueraria montana (kudzu) Wisteria sinensis (Chinese wisteria) 5.0 Photo Stations Photo documentation is essential to monitoring the success the Bank Parcel. Photos provide a visual assessment of the vegetation conditions. Photo documentation will be provided and reported in all years of monitoring. All nine (9) photo stations installed by McAdams were located in Monitoring Year 4. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 (Appendix A) depict the locations of the photo stations. Photographs were taken at high resolution using an iPhone 7 camera. Photographs for the photo stations are located in Appendix C. TIMcADAMS 6.0 References Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2. McAdams and Landscape Sanctuaries, May, 2014. Invasive Species Management Plan, Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration. Morris, George; River Works; Spring 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive; May 12, 2015. Morris, George; River Works; Fall 2015 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive; September 3, 2015. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2004. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. Available at internet site: http://www.nceep.net/news/reports/buffers.pdf. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) November 7, 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. October 2012. Stream Restoration Plan for the Duke University Water Reclamation Pond. US Army Corps of Engineers April, 2013. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. 6 TIMcADAMS APPENDIX A Site Maps ® PBD16CT ND. DKU-14060 DUKE UNIVERSITY WATER M THE JOHNLR.McADAMSFILENAME:DKU14060X,DWG RECLAMATION POND COMPNC.SCALE:1�=1,oDD.STREAM RESTORATION �►��•��FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP)$96ARCH,RIANCIEPQr[EDATE: t7W10-06-14 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA °0a733-5M-^ ,Jc'`�`ft:C-M tlNno8vO H1�ON ',ILNnO3 nVHHflU tioz-90-01 gKv�'� dVV4 1N3W3SV3 NOLVA213SN00 47 32 nou ,OOz _ .1 �4{iwM�rt N011`d2JO1S32d Wb'3�J1S aNOd "°°iOtO°°-"'�• •• � FrNOLVMV-1038 831VM AiIS83AINn Dina o1 w-n»a �1.60. ■ tlNIlVa: VU KidVN ALNI IV,) RVHtll lu *LOZ-90—OL m dVN 1N3VGS' 3 N011VA83SN00 :Z'Z 34noi-A OM _ L NOLV801S32J NV3�J1S GNOd 'MNOOOLQW-^ o. Fri,NOliVVNV�03?3 831`dM ),ilS233AINn 3 ina oto9o-ma ■ 6 b 3 s of wCL s 8 BMW \ �V W WSJ APPENDIX B Annual Invasive Species Monitoring Document IVER WORKS To: George Buchholz JR McAdams Company, Inc 2905 Meridian Parkway Durham, NC 27713 From: George Morris River Works, Inc 6105 Chapel Hill Rd Raleigh, NC 27607 6 1 05 Chapel Hill Road Raleigh, North Carolina 2 7 6 0 7 Subject: Spring 2017 Treatment at Sandy Creek Campus Drive Phone! 9 1 9. 5 8 2. 3 5 7 4 Fax: 9 1 9. 5 8 2. 3 5 7 5 Date: May 1, 2017 On April 28th , 2017, River Works conducted a site visit and invasive plant treatment for the buffer along the Sandy Creek Campus Drive stream restoration. An initial assessment of the species encountered was conducted and the following species were encountered within the buffer: Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese Privet), Ligustrum japonicum (Japanese Privet), Ampelopsis brevipedunculata (Porcelain berry), Pueraria montana (Kudzu) and Wisteria sinensis (Chinese Wisteria). Wisteria and Ampelopsis were most prevalent in the Northern sections of the buffer. All species encountered were treated with herbicide. As noted in previous visits, large populations of invasive species were located outside the buffer and encroachment of invasives will continue until these populations are addressed. A site map with approximate locations of the invasive populations, as well as pesticide application reports, is included with this report. Thank you for allowing us to assist you in reaching your goals. If there are any questions, feel free to contact me at 919-818-3984. George Morris Botanist/Vegetation Specialist River Works, Incorporated L k River Works, Inc Vegetation Management Report Form Date:= � —i Applicators License # �TtivC�i IJ�Geh� �ryi vA 10 d) Method of removal (✓� '* "' LArk 5pa� Weather Conditions S,n�� MEN -7n APPENDIX C Photo Stations Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 4 Report Durham, North Carolina DKU-14060 December 19, 2017 Photo Station Photos: Photo Station 1: View facing downstream Photo Station 2: View facing upstream Photo Station 2: View facing downstream Photo Station 3: View facing upstream F- E` IT Ir i` l 1 i 1p F !. .. A. i it F � • F !. .. A. i it F � • �. � yr 1, o , .,�� • x� � j �WeS.. �. 1 e i •\ Photo Station 6: View facing upstream Photo Station 7: View facing downstream Photo Station 8: View facing upstream Photo Station 8: View facing downstream Photo Station 9: View facing upstream Al �. yar-.« '�a''s_�,�;•K ' �. - f off-. L r ... Photo Station 9: View facing downstream Photo of Crest Stage Gauge (CSG) APPENDIX D Problem Area Map and Photos tlNno8vO H1�ON ',ILNnO3 nVHHflU *10Z-90-01 gKv�'� dVV4 1N3W3SV3 NOLVA213SN00 47 32 nou ,OOz _ .1 �4{iwM�rt N011`d2JO1S32d Wb'3�J1S aNOd "°°iOtO°°-"'�• •• � Fri NOLVMV-1038 831VM AiIS83AINn Dina o 1w w-n»a ■ O F c 0 W � r f O o ,c a 0aW O C: F aLll w c3 o v IQ W 9Z rn �. O o C: 8 IV II \ \ C r co O C. O L (j \� o �wz U1 W W Q W N cw -- W Z 4 to w LL1 U 0 at o 0 EL 3 0 � a r� I& E Cf) O (6 N � 0 (0 w o E o � Wz a)a)o N N L two y �09 F W w O a N Duke University Water Reclamation Pond Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 4 Report Durham, North Carolina DKU-14060 December 19, 2017 Problem Area Photos: Photo 1: Bank erosion at log vane upstream of Vegetation Plot 1 (Northern Section). Tat Ic 1' '+�` ,�i.. fit. •Fa��1'. - -� �tid �., Photo 2: Bank erosion at log vane adjacent to Vegetation Plot 1 (Northern Section). Photo 3: Bank erosion at log vane (lower portion of Northern Section). Photo 4: Mowing in CE (lower portion of Northern Section; CE is to the right of the blue marker stake). Photo 5: Mowing in CE (Middle Section; CE on far side of the blue marker stake). Photo 6: Fallen tree in sanitary sewer easement and across stream (Lower Section, facing downstream; the sanitary sewer easement is in center of photo, and the stream is on the left side of the photo). Photo 7: Fallen tree across stream (Lower Section, facing upstream).