HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030341 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20080414•
•
Submitted to:
•
STILLHOUSE CREEK STREAM RESTORATION - Project # 363
First Annual Monitoring Report -Final
February 2008
a 7
a (! r?i.
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
\ Ecosystem Enhancement Program
i Stelll 1652 Mail Service Center
I 1 l ill t ; Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
eeo,v n.n
MOIL too KMENEU
ti Designed by:
United States Department of Agriculture FEB 1 5 ?008
Natural Resources Conservation Services NRCS ?4CECOSYSTEM
?NRA?C??IS:NT PROGRAM
9@gV D)
Ap R 1 4 2008
DERR WS ORMWA?RIBWV
WEnMDS AND
STILLHOUSE CREEK STREAM RESTORATION - Project # 363
First Annual Monitoring Report -Final
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary/Project Abstract ..........................................................................1
II. Project Background ......................................................................................................1
2.1. Project Objectives .....................................................................................................1
2.2. Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach .............................................................2
2.3. Location and Setting .................................................................................................2
2.4. History and Background ...........................................................................................4
2.5. Monitoring Plan View ..............................................................................................6
III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results .............................................................8
3.1. Vegetation Assessment ............................................................................................8
3.1.1. Vegetation Problem Areas .............................................................................. ..9
3.1.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Vegetation) ................................................... ..9
3.2. Stream Assessment ................................................................................................ ..9
3.2.1. Procedural Items ............................................................................................. ..9
3.2.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Stream) .......................................................... 10
3.2.3. Problem Areas Table ...................................................................................... 10
3.2.4. Numbered issue photo section ........................................................................ 11
3.2.5. Fixed station photos ........................................................................................ 11
3.2.6. Stability Assessment Table ............................................................................. 1 l
IV. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 17
4.1. Stream Methodology ............................................................................................. 17
4.2. Vegetation Methodology ....................................................................................... 17
References ......................................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................3
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View ..........................................................................................8
Tables
Exhibit Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ..............................................4
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History ................................................... 4
Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table ............................................................................. 5
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table ......................................................................5
Exhibit Table V. Verification of Bankf ill Events ............................................................10
Exhibit Table VI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment .................... 11
Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................. 12
Exhibit Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ........................... 14
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year I of 5
RJG&A
• APPENDICES
Appendix A Vegetation Data
Al. Vegetation Data Tables
Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table 3. Damage by Species
Table 4. Damage by Plot
Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table 6. Vegetation Problem Areas
A2. Vegetation Problem Area Photos
A3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure Al. Current Conditions Plan View
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
B1. Current Conditions Plan View
B2. Stream Problem Areas Table
B3. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
B4. Stream Photo-station Photos
B5. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment Table
B6. Cross section Plots and Raw Data Tables
B7. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
B8. Pebble Counts
•
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project 4363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A
• I. Executive Summary/Project Abstract
The Stillhouse Creek stream restoration project is located in Orange County Park, in the
historic district of Hillsborough, North Carolina. The project was designed and built
through a combination of efforts by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP, formerly North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program), the Orange County
Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS), and Orange County. It includes restoration of 1,210 feet of Stillhouse Creek
from south of Margaret Lane to its confluance with the Eno River. The area placed under
conservation easement occupies 2.09 acres in USGS HUC 03020201030020 (NCDWQ
Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-01). Construction was completed during March 2006.
Qualitative evaluation was conducted by RJG&A on 14 June 2007. The last 2007 visit to
the Stillhouse Creek site was on 27 November.
The 2007 evaluation and monitoring of the Stillhouse Creek stream restoration site
indicates that the project has met all its design goals after the second post-construction
growing season.
As stated below, qualitative evidence of bankfull flow was observed during the June 2007
evaluation. The crest gauge, which was installed during the June evaluation, indicated
that at least one more bankfull event had occurred. The project, therefore, has met its
hydrologic goals for 2007.
Four vegetation monitoring plots were installed inside the conservation easement and
monitored during October 2007, pursuant to the most-recent NCEEP/CVS guidelines.
The first annual vegetation monitoring results indicate that the Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration Project has exceeded its vegetation restoration goal of 320 stems per acre by
48 percent (planted woody stem average = 475 per acre) and 545 percent (all woody stem
average = 2,064).
II. Project Background
2.1. Project Objectives
RJG&A did not receive a full copy of the restoration plan, but according to the brief
description in the 2005 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Stillhouse Creek
Restoration Project was designed to achieve the following objectives:
• Reduce stream bank erosion and prevent downcutting
• Eliminate threat to existing building foundation from lateral channel instability
• Increase nutrient and sediment uptake and retention
• Increase environmental education opportunities
• Improve terrestrial and aquatic, and semi-aquatic habitats
• Provide temporary stormwater storage
• Improve stream corridor aesthetics
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project 4363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 1
•
•
2.2. Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
According to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration Project, the following changes were made to the creek (MRCS 2003). The
upper 235 feet of Stillhouse Creek involved restoration of a degraded, incised stream to a
stable stream with a floodplain in a confined valley. The next 400 foot reach involved
construction of a new channel reach to restore the pattern, profile, and dimension to that
of a stable stream with a floodplain. The restoration of the next 220 feet involved
enhancement of the existing stream features, including the stabilization of eroding stream
banks. The final 345 feet involved construction of a bankfull bench in a confined valley.
Coir fiber matting, live staking, and brush mattresses were installed to help stabilize the
graded stream banks and the outside of meanders. A 20 foot wide buffer was planted
with native woody and herbaceous species on both sides the upstream-most reach. The
buffer width along the balance of the restoration project is between 20 and 80 feet.
2.3. Location and Setting
To get to the Stillhouse Creek restoration site from I-85, take exit 164 and head north on
South Churton Street for 1.3 miles. Turn east on East Margaret Lane. The upstream
boundary of the conservation easement is 0.1 mile east of the intersection, on the south
side of the road. Its downstream boundary is at Stillhouse Creek's confluence with the
Eno River. Figure 1 shows the general location of the project.
Stillhouse Creek's watershed is approximately 152 acres at its confluence with the Eno
River. North of East Margaret Lane its watershed is approximately 75 acres. The entire
watershed is within downtown Hillsborough and is almost entirely occupied by
residential and commercial development.
Prior to its restoration, Stillhouse Creek traversed open lawn for most of its length across
the Orange County Park. It had unstable and eroding banks throughout and an actively
downcutting streambed that threatened the stability of an adjacent municipal building. A
covered picnic shelter with a stone retaining wall was built immediately adjacent to the
conservation easement boundary during June 2007.
. Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 2
•
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Site
Figure 1. Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration - Orange County. NC
source: NCDOT Data Distribution - Tiles 30 & 53
www.ncdot.orgfiVgis/DataDistdbuflon
N'
? 9
2.4. History and Background
A complete copy of the Stillhouse Creek restoration plan was not provided to RJG&A.
Data in Exhibit Tables I - III are based on the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and as-
built materials that were provided by EEP (CDM 2005). Mitigation type and approach
and type rely on the narrative description of the project and Rosgen (Rosgen 2007).
Exhibit Table I. Mitigation Structure and Objectives Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration - EEP Project #363
Q ?
N U
ai O
bA O
O O ? ?
U N C]
>, O
s-+
n
O c? '?
bA cd cC
GD
I
.
Reach 1 235 R P2 235 - - Shallow pools,
00+00- small
02+35 meanders, and
steep riffles
Reach 2 400 R P1 400 - - Realigned,
02+35-
reconnected to
6+35 flood lain
Reach 3 220 E1 P4 220 - - 6+35- Banks
8+55 stabilized
Reach 4 345 R P3 345 - - Connected to
8+55- floodprone
12+10
area
Exhibit Table IL Activity and Reporting History
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Activity or Report Data Collection Completion
Restoration Plan - November 2005
Final Design - 90% - November 2005
Construction - March 2006
Temporary S&E mix applied - NA
Permanent seed mix applied - NA
Bare Root Planting - March 2006
Mitigation Plan/As-built August 2006 December 2007
Year 1 Monitoring December 2007
Qualitative Evaluation June and November 2007
Vegetation October 2007
Geomorphologic November 2007
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 4
•
•
Exhibit Table III. Project Contacts Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP
Project #363
Designer NRCS
Prima project design POC
Construction Contractor -
Construction Contractor POC -
Planting Contractor Fluvial Solutions
Planting contractor POC Peter Jelenevsky
Planting Source Mellow Marsh
Monitoring Performers RJG&A
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27616
Monitoring POC Ms. Jessi O'Neal
(919) 872-1174
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
Project County Orange
Drainage Area 152 acres 0.24 square mile)
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate (%) 30
Stream Order First Order
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Carolina Slate Belt
Ros en Classification of As-built
Reach 1 B-6
Reach 2 E-4
Reach 3 C-4
Dominant Soil Types
Reach 1 Geor eville-Urban land complex
Reach 2 Geor eville-Urban land complex
Reach 3 Georgeville-Urban land complex and Congaree fine
sand loam
Reference Site ID Upper Reach: UT to Caraway Creek (Randolph
County) and UT to N. Fork New River (Ashe
Count ; Lower Reach: Silas Creek (Forsyth County)
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03020201030020, NA
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and
Reference 03-04-01, NA
NCDWQ Classification for Project and
Reference C - NSW
Any portion of the project segment 303d
listed? No
' No as-built cross-section data collected. Rosgen classification based on Year 1 monitoring cross-section
data.
• z No ID numbers provided by design firm, therefore reference site names included in this table.
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 5
•
•
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
Any portion of the project segment
upstream of a 303d listed segment? No - not in NCDWQ 03-04-01
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor NA
% of Project Easement Fenced 0%
2.5. Monitoring Plan View
See Figure 2 for Monitoring Plan View.
• Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year 1 of 5
Page 6
•
•
•
200 Monitoring Plan View. 2007 Monitoring,
0 300 Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration, Hillsborough,
100 Orange County, NC
400 * Photopoints
y? 500 - Cross-Sections Z
` 600 2007 Thalweg
, - As-BuiltThalweg
\ 0 Rock Structures
700
T; Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Easement Boundary
50 150 250 ----
0 100 20
800 Feet
y Y
350
450 ?
900
I'kowsteIII
°) Approximate location of retaining wall 550
? 650
1000
750 a
850
950
1210
1050
y
Cross-section 2L/3L 1971243.42 845669.42
T
Id Eastin Northing
Veg PIot1 )0,0) 1971300.99 845889.38
Veg Plot 2 (0,0) 1971201.69 845690.87
Veg Pod 3 (0,0) 1971159.37 845502.81
Veg Plot 4 (0,0) 1970941.67 845327.88
Photopoint 1 1971312.17 846033.08
Photopoint 2 1971326.74 845798.97
Photopoint 3 1971174.37 845520.57
Photopoint 4 1971247.60 845701.45
Photopoint 5 1971283.36 845724.00
Photopoint 6 1971208.72 845637.70
Photopoint 7 1971114.65 845398.23
Photopoint 8 1971057.89 845364.02
Photopoint 9 1970923.38 845266.83
Photopoint 10 1970847.19 845207.74
Goss-section 1L 1971334.03 845870.36
Goss-section iR 1971299.88 845874.02
Goss-section 2R 1971223.29 845676.92
Crass-section 3R 1971223.63 845659.37
Crass-section 4L 1970996.57 845273.9
9
Cross-section 4R 1970976.65 845314.06
Goss-section SL 1970966.75 845260.24
oss-section 5R
970947.34 1100
1200
1150
845298.51
1* III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
The site was initially evaluated on 14 June 2007 and appeared to be functioning as
designed. First annual quantitative geomorphologic and vegetation data were collected
during October and November 2007. The site was again qualitatively assessed on 14
November 2007.
3.1. Vegetation Assessment
Four representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in reaches 1, 2,
and 3 during October 2007, pursuant to the EEP/CVS vegetation monitoring protocol.
The average live, planted woody stem density for all plots was just under 12 individuals
per plot (475.5 stems per acre). This exceeds the required 320 stems per acre by 49
percent. The survival rate for planted woody vegetation in Reach 1 is excellent and
consists principally of silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera)
and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). The streambanks of Reach 2 are dominated by
black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). On the floodplain the
planted vegetation consists primarily of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and tulip poplar (Driodendron tulipifera). The planted
vegetation in Reach 3 includes silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), black willow (Salix
nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and survival of planted stems is high.
The most abundant volunteer species counted in all plots was sugarberry (Celtis
40 laevigata, 40 percent of all volunteers). While not planted, this hardwood species is
native to North Carolina and may contribute significantly to the project's stability and
overall success.
Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix A contain specifics about vigor and damage by species
and plot. Photos of the vegetation monitoring plots can also be found in Appendix A.
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year 1 of 5
Page 8
CII GCL l+1103G lV L11G 111 J11VVl-U1 IUr
,\. ?LwLallulia t.??-?uu? vvuo r.uuuu.y
at the time of construction. Compacted or nutrient deficient soil could be the cause of the
smallest problem area near the pocket wetlands (Stations 400-430) where non-woody
vegetation, including sedges and coneflowers, have helped stabilize the soil. The third
and largest vegetation problem area in Reach 2 (Stations 320-580) has experienced poor
survival of planted woody stems and is currently dominated by fescue. At this point, no
remedial action is recommended, but the areas should be observed and replanting may be
necessary in the future.
In Reach 3 (Figure Al) the terrace across from vegetation monitoring plot 3 (Stations
715-830) has sufficient planted stem survival, but vigor is low. This may be due to poor
soils or soil compaction that occurred prior to or during construction. The right top of
bank area near cross-sections 4 and 5 (Stations 1000-1060) has a low survival of planted
woody vegetation. Although, sedges and other non-woody vegetation are well-
established in this area, it should be monitored in case remedial action is needed in the
future. No remediation is recommended at this time.
• 3.1.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Vegetation)
See Figure Al in Appendix A for the Current Conditions Plan View for vegetation.
3.2. Stream Assessment
RJG&A staff evaluated the condition and success of the Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration project during June and November 2007. Overall, the site is maintaining its
as-built dimension, pattern, and profile.
3.2.1. Procedural Items
3.2.1.1. Morphometric Criteria
After a detailed preliminary evaluation in June 2007, RJG&A staff selected and installed
5 cross section sites for annual monitoring. The first annual monitoring data were
collected during November 2007. For the longitudinal profile, the entire stream
restoration (1,210 linear feet) was surveyed. Survey points included thalweg, bankfull,
and beginning of each stream feature. Photographs were taken at all cross sections and at
the 10 permanent photo locations (established by RJG&A in June 2007).
As the quantitative data and qualitative evaluations indicate for the first monitoring year,
the structure and function of the entire restoration project closely match the as-built
3.2.1.2. Hydrologic Criteria
A crest gauge was installed on the Stillhouse Creek site on 14 June 2007. The gauge was
checked on 7 October 2007 and no bankfull event had occurred, but when the gauge was
checked again on 27 November 2007, a bankfull event had occurred. Based on NC
CRONOS data from the weather station (KIGX) at the Chapel Hill Airport, this event
most likely occurred between 24 October and 27 October 2007, during which a total of
4.47 inches of rainfall was recorded. On-site qualitative evidence observed in June
indicate that at least one bankfull event (rack and drift lines and downed vegetation/stems
above the bankfull elevation) had occurred prior to crest gauge installation in 2007 (Table
VIII).
•
Exhibit Table V. Verification of Bankfull Events - Stillhouse Creek Stream
Restoration - EEP Project #363
Date of Data Date of Occurrence Photo #
Collection (mm/dd/yy) Method (if available)
07 Oct. 2007 and 07 Oct. 2007- 23 Crest Gauge NA
23 Nov. 2007 Nov. 2007
June 2007 January - June 2007 On-site highwater NA
indicators
3.2.1.3. Bank Stability Assessments
Table VI BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates only apply to Monitoring year 5 and were
not performed during 2007 (monitoring year 1).
3.2.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Stream)
The Current Conditions Plan View for streams can be found in Appendix B.
3.2.3. Problem Areas Table
Minor problem areas were observed in November 2007 including the formation of small
bars along riffles, piping, and bank scour. Exhibit Table B.1 in Appendix B identifies
these problem areas by station, along with suspected causes and representative photos.
In all cases, the problems are considered a low-priority and are probably due primarily to
the low flow in the channel resulting from this year's drought. These areas should be
monitored, especially if record-low rainfall levels continue into 2008.
• Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 10
• 3.2.4. Numbered issue photo section
Representative problem area photos listed in Table B.1 can be found in Appendix B
immediately following Table B.1.
•
3.2.5. Fixed station photos
Permanent photopoint images can be found in Appendix B.
3.2.6. Stability Assessment Table
Exhibit Table VI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment-
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Reach 1 245 feet
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03
A. Riffles 100% 100%
B. Pools 100% 100%
C. Thalwe 100% NA
D. Meanders 100% NA
E. Bed General 100% NA
F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% 100%
G. Wads and Boulders 100% NA
Reach 2 400 feet
A. Riffles 100% 99%
B. Pools 100% 98%
C. Thalwe 100% 93%
D. Meanders 100% 75%
E. Bed General 100% NA
F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% 100%
G. Wads and Boulders 100% NA
Reach 3 565 feet
A. Riffles 100% 100%
B. Pools 100% 82%
C. Thalweg 100% 94%
D. Meanders 100% 75%
E. Bed General 100% NA
F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% 90%
G. Wads and Boulders 100% NA
• Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 11
0
•
Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Se ment/Reach: 1 - 3 855 feet
Parameter
USGS Gage Data Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing
Condition Reference Reach
Stream
Design
As-built
Dimension Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width ft - - - - - 6.0 7.0 7.6 7.3 9.7 12.4 7.5 - 9.5 -
Floodprone Width (ft) - - - - - - 17.1 35.1 47.0 27.0 49.6 74.0 23 - 176 -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (11) - - - - - 5.6 7.3 8.1 7.3 10.35 13.2 - 9.0 - -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) - - - - - - 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.95 - 1.2 -
Bankfull Max Depth 11 - - - - - 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.3 - 2.4 - -
Width/De th Ratio - - - - - - 4.4 7.1 9.3 7.3 9.3 14.0 6.0 - 10.0 - - -
Entrenchment Ratio - - - - - 2.3 5.1 6.3 2.7 5.6 10.1 2.7 - 20.7 - - -
Bank Height Ratio - - - - - - 1.0 1.13 1.4 1.0 1.06 1.25 - 1.0 -
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - - - - - - 6 11.6 19 12.4 13.7 16.7 8.5 - 19.6 8.7 16.3 24.7
Radius of Curvature (ft) - - - - - - 8.7 12.2 16.5 6.5 14.6 20.5 12.8 - 23.8 4.6 10.0 32.7
Meander Wavelength (ft) - - - - - 29 63 116 21.2 34.7 57.0 12.8 - 39.1 23.8 37.8 75.4
Meander Width Ratio - - - - - - 0.9 1.7 2.7 1.0 1.4 2.3 1.0 - 2.3 - - -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) - - - - - - - - - 2.4 6.6 15.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - - - - - - - - - 0.00 0.0204 0.054 0.006 - 0.017 -0.003 0.029 0.140
Pool Length ft - - - - 11.0 22.5 46.5 7.5 11.8 17.0 8.5 - 19.6 9.4 22.8 76.0
Pool Spacing ft - - - - - - - 37.2 - - 21.5 - - 15.3 - 0 5.0 18.2
Substrate
d50 (mm) - - - - - - - - - - -
d84 (mm) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Length (ft) - 672 168 672 672
Channel Length ft - - 748 267.5 946 855
Sinuosity (ft) 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) - 0.0126 0.0094 0.0086 0.011
BF slope ft/ft) - - - - -
Rosgen Classification - E4 E4/5 E4
*Habitat Index - - - - -
*Macrobenthos - - - - -
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year I of 5
Page 12
• • •
Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Se ment/Reach: 4 355 feet
Parameter
USGS Gage Data Regional Curve
Interval Pre-Existing
Condition Reference Reach
Stream
Design
As-built
Dimension Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width (ft) - - - - 9.8 11.8 14.8 23.1 25.6 28.0 14.9 19.5 - -
Flood prone Width (ft) - - - - - - 15.5 19.3 26.8 33.0 33.7 35.0 17.9 35.1 - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft - - - - 19.2 21.7 24.7 68.5 43.5 48.9 18 22 - -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) - - - - - - 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.1 - 1.2 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) - - - - - 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.9 1.7 - 1.9 - - -
Width/Depth Ratio - - - - - - 4.9 6.2 8.6 12.4 15.2 17.2 12.4 - 17.2 - - -
Entrenchment Ratio - - - 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 - 1.8 - - -
Bank Height Ratio - - - - - - 2.5 2.6 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - -
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
Hydraulic Radius (ft) - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ -
Pattern
i
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - - - - - - 40 43.7 51 23.8 - 39 12.0 19.6 27.9
Radius of Curvature (ft) - - - - - - - - - 19.5 41.25 54.0 29.8 - 39.0 25.4 40.3 55.4
Meander Wavelength (ft) - - - - - - 130 168 245 39 - 94 96.2 132.6 187.8
Meander Width Ratio - - - - - - - - - 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.6 - 2.0 - - -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) - - - - - 9.5 18.4 29.0 6.0 - 19.5 2.5 17.3 40.1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - - - - - - - - 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.017 - 0.034 0.043 0.129 0.164
Pool Length (ft) - - - - - 8.2 31.2 68.0 5 - 53 15.0 70.1 42.6
Pool Spacing (ft) - - - - - - - 27.2 62.4 129.0 39 - 94 0 11.1 40.1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Len th ft - - 282 325 282 282
Channel Length ft - - 314 348 314 355
Sinuosity (ft) - - 1.1 1.07 1.1 1.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft) - - 0.017 0.008 0.017 0.020
BF slope ft/ft - - - _ _ _
Ros en Classification - - G4c/1 B4c/1 B4/1 -
*Habitat Index - - - - -
*Macrobenthos - - -
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 13
• •
Exhibit Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Stillhouse Creek Steam Restoration - EEP Project #363
Reach 1 (235 feed
•
Parameter Cross Section 1 Riffle
Dimension MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft) 18.4
Flood prone Width (ft) 34.44
BF Cross-Sectional Area (s ft) 24.28
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.32
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.71
Width/Depth Ratio 13.95
Entrenchment Ratio 1.87
Bank Height Ratio 1.19
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 19.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.24
Substrate
d50 (mm) 0.04
d84 (mm) 0.57
MY-0l 2007 MY-03 2009 MY-03 2010 MY-04 2011 MY-05 2012
Pattern min Max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 7.6 12.1 10.6
Radius of Curvature (ft) NA NA NA
Meander Wavelength (ft) NA NA NA
Meander Width ratio 0.6
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 2 14 8.3
Riffle slope ft/ft) -0.04 0.06 0.01
Pool length ft 10 30 I9
Poolspacing (1 1) 14 7.3
Additional Reach Parameters MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Valle Length ft 230
Channel Length (ft) 245
Sinuosity 1.07
Water Surface Slope ft/ft 0.009
BF slope (ft/ft 0.01
Rosgen Classification B6
Habitat Index NA
Macrobenthos NA
StWhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A
Page 14
• • •
Exhibit Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Stillhouse Creek Steam Restoration - EEP Project #363
Reach 2 (400 feet)
Parameter Cross S ection 2 Pool Cross S ection 3 Riffle
Dimension MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft) 15.82 12.41
Flood prone Width (ft) 94.5 107
BF Cross-Sectional Areas ft) 22.62 8.61
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.46 0.69
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.62 1.14
Width/De th Ratio 11.07 17.87
Entrenchment Ratio 6 8.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.17 1.13
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 17.21 13.12
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.31 0.66
Substrate
d50 (mm) 6.85 6.85
d84 (mm) 14.59 36.88
MY-01 2007 MY-03 2009 MY-03 2010 MY-04(2011) MY-05 2012
Pattern min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 9.1 23.6 18.5
Radius of Curvature (ft) 2.6 11.6 4.9
Meander Wavelength ft 27.2 40 33
Meander Width ratio 1.3
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 7 20 10.9
Riffle slope ft/ft) -0.07 0.06 0.003
Pool length (ft) 9 28 17
Poolspacing ft 0 26 10.9
Additional Reach Parameters MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Valle Length ft 286
Channel Length (ft) 400
Sinuosity 1.4
Water Surface Slope ft/ft 0.008
BF slope ft/ft 0.007
Ros en Classification C4
Habitat Index NA
Macrobenthos NA
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project 4363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A
Page 15
Exhibit Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Stillhouse Creek Steam Restoration - EEP Project #363
Reach 3 (565 feet)
Parameter Cross S ection 4 Riffle Cross S ection 5 Pool
Dimension MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft) 12.44 8.36
Floodprone Width (ft) 29.3 26.48
BE Cross-Sectional Area (s ft) 13.16 11.4
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.06 1.36
BE Max Depth (ft) 2.06 1.93
Width/Depth Ratio 11.75 6.13
Entrenchment Ratio 2.36 3.17
Bank Height Ratio 1.10 1.24
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.23 9.96
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.99 1.14
Substrate
d50 (mm) 2.67 16
d84 (mm) 58.57 50.7
NIY-01 2007 N1Y-03 2009 MY-03 2010 MY-04 2011 MY-OS 2012
Pattern min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean min max mean
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 12 27.6 20.9
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10.4 53.7 27.1
Meander Wavelength (ft) 70.7 187 111.7
Meander Width ratio 2
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 4 41 16.4
Riffle slope (ft/ft) -0.004 0.12 0.04
Pool length (ft) 18 48 27.9
Poolspacing (ft) 0 44 15.4
Additional Reach Parameters MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-OS
Valley Length (ft) 507
Channel Length (ft) 565
Sinuosity 1.11
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.018
BE slope (ft/ft) 0.016
Rosgen Classification C4
Habitat Index NA
Macrobenthos NA
Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 16
•
•
IV. Methodology
Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP-provided templates and guidelines
(Lee et al 2006). Photographs were taken digitally. A Trimble Geo XT handheld
mapping-grade unit was used to collect cross section, vegetation corner, photopoint, and
problem area locations. Additional notations were written on the as-built plan sheets.
4.1. Stream Methodology
Methods employed were a combination those specified in the Mitigation Plan, the First
Annual Monitoring Report, and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents.
Stream monitoring data was collected using the techniques described in US ACE Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream Channel Reference Sites, and Applied
River morphology (USACE, 2003; Harrelson et al., 1994; Rosgen, 1996). A South
Total Station and Nikon automatic level were used for collecting all geomorphic data.
Photographs facing downstream were taken at each cross section.
4.2. Vegetation Methodology
Four representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in reaches 1, 2,
and 3 during October 2007, pursuant to the EEP/CVS vegetation monitoring protocol
(Lee et al 2006). All plots measure 100 square meters and are either 10 meters by 10
meters, or five meters by 20 meters. The four corners of each plot (either 10x100 or 5x20
feet) were marked with 18-inch long, one-half-inch diameter galvanized steel conduit.
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed during October 2007. Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x
and y) was recorded, and height and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem
location. All planted stems were identified with pink flagging. Vegetation was identified
using Weakley (Weakley 2007). Photos were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0
corner.
Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix A contain the data from the vegetation monitoring.
Monitoring plot photos can also be found in Appendix A.
• Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 17
•
•
References
CDM (2005). Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project Sediment and Erosion
Control Plan. Provided by NCEEP, November 2007.
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. L. Rawlins, and John Potpondy. (1994). Stream Channel
Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. USDA, Forest Service.
General Technical Report RM-245.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2006).
CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved October 30, 2006,
from: http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell (1968). Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rosgen, D L (1996) Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, DL. (1997). "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision, ed. S.S.Y. Wang, E.J. Langendoen and F.B. Shields, Jr. University of
Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS.
USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC,
NCDENR-DWQ
Weakley, Alan (2007). Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding
Areas. Retrieved March 27, 2007 from: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm.
is Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #363 Year 1 of 5
RJG&A Page 18
• Appendix A Vegetation Data
Al. Vegetation Data Tables
Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table 3. Damage by Species
Table 4. Damage by Plot
Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table 6. Vegetation Problem Areas
• A2. Vegetation Problem Area Photo
A3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure Al. Current Conditions Plan View
0
• • •
Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Date Prepared
Sean Doig
2/11/2008 13:21
database name
database location
Stillhouse.mdb
C:\SeanD\EEP\07 Monitoring\Stillhouse
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data.
Plots List of plots surveyed.
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Stem Count by Plot and Spp Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code St - house
project Name Stillhouse
Description
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 4
• Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
•
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing
Ailanthus altissima
Betula ni ra
Ca rya illinoinensis
.Ca rya ovata
Celtis laevi ata
Corpus amomum 5
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 4 1 1
Ilex verticillata 4 2
La erstroemia indica
Li ustrum sinense
Liquidambar st raciflua
N ssa s Ivatica 1
Quercus ni ra
Quercus phellos 2 1
Salix ni ra
Sambucus canadensis 5
Ulmus alata
Morella cerifera 12
Rhus copallinum
Carpinus caroliniana
Quercus rubra 4 1
Ca rya
Lindera benzoin 2
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1
Platanus occidentalis 2
Acer ne undo
Acer rubrum
TOT: 27 41 4 2 1
0
• Table 3. Damage by Species
O
Acer ne undo 3 3
Acer rubrum 1 1
Ailanthus altissima 1 1
Betula ni ra 1 1
Carginus caroliniana 2 2
Ca rya illinoinensis 2 2
Ca rya ovata 1 1
Celtis laevi ata 4 4
Cornus amomum 5 5
Fraxinus penns Ivanica 8 7 1
Ilex verticillata 6 6
Laaerstroemia indica 1 1
Li ustrum sinense
Lindera benzoin
. Liquidambar st raciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Morella cerifera
Platanus occidentalis 2 2
Quercus ni ra 1 1
Quercus phellos 3 3
Quercus rubra 5 4 1
Rhus copallinum 1 1
Salix ni ra 1 1
Sambucus canadensis 5 5
Ulmus alata 1 1
TOT:
•
•
•
0
Table 4. Damage by Plot
•
0
Table 5. Stem County by Plot and Species
??y Fy
o row row rd
y
??O w
? C yw/ yw/ yw/
y
Fi w`? ?
O
w O w c
R ?O ? m ? O
Q Q O
Q Q
y
Cornus amomum 5 2 2.5 3 2
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 6 3 2 2 2 2
Ilex verticillata 6 3 2 3 2 1
Lindera benzoin 2 2 1 1 1
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1 1 1 1
Morella cerifera 12 4 3 4 1 6 1
Platanus occidentalis 2 1 2 2 1 1
Quercus phellos 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus rubra 5 2 2.5 4 1
Sambucus canadensis 5 1 5 5
TOT: 11 47 11 15 5 18 9
0
•
•
Table 6. Vegetation Problem Areas - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #363
Feature/Issue Station/Range Probable Cause Photo #
Limited wood stem planting 235-300 Planting Oversight vpI
Low planted wood stem success 400-430 Soil Compaction VP2
Low planted wood stem success 320-580 Soil Compaction VP1
Low planted wood stem vigor 715-830 Soil Compaction VP3
Low planted wood stem success 1000-1060 Soil Compaction VP4
0
0 0 0
Appendix A2. Vegetation Problem Area Photographs - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
VP3. Low planted woody stem vigor
VP4. Low planted woody stem success
• • •
A3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
Plot 3 (10/31/07)
Plot 2 (10/31/07)
Plot 4 (10/31/07)
•
•
•
Figure Al. Current Conditions Plan View.
200 300 2007 Monitoring, Stillhouse Creek Stream
0 100 Restoration, Hillsborough, Orange County, NC
400 * Photopoints
-
Cross-Sections <01111111111
500 2007 Th
l
600 a
weg
t - As-Built Thalweg
\ 0 Rock Structures
J 700
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
0 Easement Boundary
50 150 250 Vegetation Problem Areas
y 1 800
0 80 160
Feet
_
350 _
J 450
\ ?-
900
M ECQ ystein
71 Approximate location of retaining wall 550 i
650
1000
1
750 a ?
850
950
1210
1050
y
T
Id Easting Northing
Veg Plot 1 (0,0) 1971300.99 845889.38
Veg Plot 2 (0,0) 1971201.69 845690.87
Veg Plot 3 (0,0) 1971159.37 845502.81
Veg Plot 4 (0,0) 1970941.67 845327.88
Photopoint 1 1971312.17 846033.08
Photopoint 2 1971326.74 845798.97
Photopoint 3 1971174.37 845520.57
Photopoint 4 1971247.60 845701.45
Photopoint 5 1971283.36 845724.00
Photopoint 6 1971208.72 845637.70
Photopoint 7 1971114.65 845398.23
Photopoint 8 1971057.89 845364.02
Photopoint 9 1970923.38 845266.83
Photopoint 10 1970847.19 845207.74
Cross-section 1L 1971334.03 845870.36
Cross-section iR 1971299.88 845874.02
Cross-section 2L/3L 1971243.42 845669.42
Cross-section 2R 197122329 845676.92
Cross-section 3R 1971223.63 845659.37
Cross-section 4L 1970996.57 845273.99
Cross-section 4R 1970976.65 845314.06
Cross-section 5L 1970966.75 845260.24
ross-section 5R
970947.34 1100
1200
1150
845298.51
• Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
Figure B1. Current Conditions Plan View
B2. Stream Problem Areas Table
B3. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
B4. Stream Photo-station Photos
B5. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment Table
B6. Cross section Plots and Raw Data Tables
B7. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables
• B8. Pebble Counts
0
•
•
200 300 Figure 131. Stream Current Conditions Plan View.
0 100 Restoration, 2007 rHilsbolrough, Orange County, NC
400 * Photopoints
500 - Cross-Sections
600 2007 Thalweg
As-Built Thalweg
\? 0 Rock Structures
700 Vegetation monitoring Plots
1 0 Easement Boundary
50 150 250 ?
800 Problem Areas (all low priority)
Aggradationlbar + Piping
350 0 75 150
450 Feet
c
900
? Approximate location of retaining wall 550 ? '
650 SYStelil
1000
750
a
850
950
1200
1210
1050
y
T
Id Easting Northing
Veg Plot 1 (0,0) 1971300.99 845889.38
Veg Plot 2 (0,0) 1971201.69 845690.87
Veg Plot 3(0,0) 1971159.37 845502.81
Veg PIot4 (0,0) 1970941.67 845327.88
Photopoint 1 1971312.17 846033.08
Photopoint 2 1971326.74 845798.97
Photopoint 3 1971174.37 845520.57
Photopoint4 1971247.60 845701.45
Photopoint 5 1971283.36 845724.00
Photopoint 6 1971208.72 845637.70
Photopoint 7 1971114.65 845398.23
Photopoint8 1971057.89 845364.02
Photopoint 9 1970923.38 845266.83
Photopoint 10 1970847.19 845207.74
Cross-section 11L 1971334.03 845870.36
Cross-section 1R 1971299.88 845874.02
Cross-section 2L/3L 1971243.42 845669.42
Cross-section 2R 1971223.29 845676.92
Cross-section 3R 1971223.63 845659.37
Cross-section 4L 1970996.57 845273.99
Cross-section 4R 1970976.65 845314.06
Cross-section 5L 1970966.75 845260.24
Cross-section 5R
1970947.34 1100
1150
845298.51
Table B2. Stream Problem Areas - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP
Project #363
Feature/Issue Station Suspected Cause Photo #
Reach 1
A radation/bar in riffle 152 Low flow due to drought SPI
Reach 2
A radation/bar in riffle 430 Low flow due to drought SP I
A radation/bar in riffle 474 Low flow due to drought SP I
Aggradation/bar in riffle 618 Low flow due to drou ht SP I
Reach 3
A gradation/bar in riffle 905 Low flow due to drought SPI
Piping under cross-vane 1042 Low flow due to drought SP2
Piping under cross-vane 1075 Low flow due to drought SP2
Piping under cross-vane 1190 Low flow due to drought SP2
•
0
9 0 0
Appendix B2. Stream Problem Photographs - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
SP1. Aggradation/bar in riffle
SP2. Piping under cross-vane
r
0 0
Appendix B5. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 1 - 2007 -Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
PP #1 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
PP #2 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
PP #3 - Looking South (06/14/07)
PP #4 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
s •
Appendix B5. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 1 - 2007 Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
40
PP #8 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
PP #7 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
•
0 0
VA,
s
yy?
PP #10 - Looking Upstream (06/14/07)
4
PP #9 - Looking Downstream (06/14/07)
0 0 0
B5. Visual Morphological Assessment Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project - Reach 1 - Project #363
Feature Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable) Total Total Percent Feature
Category Number Number Number/ Performing Performing
Performing per As- feet in in Stable Mean (%)
as Intended built Unstable Condition
State
A. Riffles 1. Present 7 7 0/0 100
2. Armor stable 7 7 0/0 100
3. Facet grade appears stable 7 7 0/0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining 7 7 0/0 100
5. Length appropriate 7 7 0/0 100 100
B. Pools 1. Present 8 8 0/0 100
2. Sufficiently deep 8 8 0/0 100
3. Length appropriate 8 8 0/0 100 100
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 0 0 0/0 NA
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 0 0 0/0 NA NA
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 0 0 0/0 NA
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 0 0 0/0 NA
3. Apparent Rc within spec 0 0 0/0 NA
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 0 0 0/0 NA NA
E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 0 0 116 NA
(General) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting or
head cutting 0 0 0/0 NA NA
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour 7 7 0/0 100
2. Height appropriate 7 7 0/0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 7 7 0/0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 7 7 0/0 100 100
G. 1. Free of scour 0 0 0/0 NA
Wads/Bould 2. Footing stable 0 0 0/0 NA NA
0 0 0
B5. Visual Morphological Assessment Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project - Reach 2 - Project #363
Feature Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable) Total Total Percent Feature
Category Number Number Number/ Performing Performing
Performing per As- feet in in Stable Mean (%)
as Intended built Unstable Condition
A. Riffles
1. Present
2. Armor stable
3. Facet grade appears stable
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining
5. Length appropriate
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14 State
1/10
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
93
100
100
100
100
9
B. Pools 1. Present 16 16 0/0 100
2. Sufficiently deep 16 16 0/0 100
3. Length appropriate 15 16 1/25 94 98
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 13 15 2/6 87
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 15 15 0/0 100 93
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 15 15 0/0 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 0 15 0/0 0
3. Apparent Rc within spec 15 15 0/0 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 15 15 0/0 100 75
E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 0 0 4/41 NA
(General) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting or
head cuttinq 0 0 0/0 NA NA
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour 1 1 010 100
2. Height appropriate 1 1 0/0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 1 1 0/0 100
4. Free of pipinq or other structural failures 1 1 0/0 100 100
G. 1. Free of scour 0 0 010 NA
Wads/Bould 2. Footing stable 0 0 0/0 NA NA
•
0 0
B5. Visual Morphological Assessment Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project - Reach 3 - Year 1 - 2007
Feature Metric (per As-built and reference baselines) (# Stable) Total Total Percent Feature
Category Number Number Number/ Performing Performing
Performing per As- feet in in Stable Mean (%)
as Intended built Unstable Condition
State
A. Riffles 1. Present 12 12 1/10 100
2. Armor stable 14 14 0/0 100
3. Facet grade appears stable 14 14 0/0 100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining 14 14 0/0 100
5. Length appropriate 14 14 0/0 100 100
B. Pools 1. Present 11 13 0/0 85
2. Sufficiently deep 10 13 0/0 77
3. Length appropriate 11 13 1/25 85 82
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 8 8 0/0 100
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 7 8 1/2 88 94
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 4 4 NA 100
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 0 4 NA 0
3. Apparent Rc within spec 4 4 NA 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 4 4 NA 100 75
E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 0 0 1112 NA
(General) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting or
head cutting 0 0 0/0 NA NA
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour 12 12 0/0 100
2. Height appropriate 11 12 1/2 92
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 12 12 0/0 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 8 12 4/8 67 90
G. 1. Free of scour 0 0 0/0 NA
Wads/Bould 2. Footing stable 0 0 0/0 NA NA
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
River Basin: Neuse
Watenhed: Stillhouse Creek
XS ID XS I (riffle)
Reach: I
Date: 11;5/2007
Field Crew: S.D. and 1.0.
Station
0 Rod Ht
S Elevation
508.16
0 5.22 507.94
6.06 507.10
4 6.58 50658
5.4 7.09 506.07
6.5 7.71 SW45
7.6 7.9 505.26
9 8.12 505.04
10 8-4 504.76
12 8.7 504.46
13.1 8.82 504.34
15.1 9.32 503-84
15.7 9.51 503.65
16.1 9.69 503.47
16.6 9.78 503.38
17.1 9.87 603.29
17.8 1031 502.85
18.6 10.42 502-74
19.5 10.41 502.75
20.5 10.11 503.05
21.2 M5 503.41
21.6 949 503.67
22 9.11 504.05
224 8.98 504.18
25.1 7.61 505.55
26.8 7.19 505.97
27.6 7.06 506.10
28.7 6.61 506.55
29.4 634 506.82
31.4 5.56 507.60
33.3 5-21 507.95
34.6 4.97 508.19
34.6 4.58 508.58
SUMMAR\' DATA
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 508.16
Bankfull Elevation (D) 505.45
Floodprone Width (ft) 34.44
Bankfu6 Width (D) 18.40
Entrenchment Ratio 1.87
Mean Depth (ft) 132
Maximum Depth (D) 2.71
Width/Depth Ratio 13.95
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 24.28
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 19.51
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.24
Stream Type: B-6c
XS 1 (riffle)
509
508
507 -- -
506
505
p
0) 504 -Bankfull
zoos Nov.
W
503
-
502
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
View of cross-section Stllhouse XS-I looking downstream
66. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
River Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Stillhouse Creek
XS ID XS 2 (pool)
Reach:
Date: 111/2007
Field Crew: S.D. and J.O.
Station R
0 od Ht.
4.66 Elevation
502.74
0 4.93 502,47
1.8 i_05 50235
3.7 5.11 50229
6 5.82 501.58
6.9 6.08 501.32
7.6 6.21 501.19
8.6 6.5 500.90
9.2 6.69 500.71
9.5 6.68 500,72
9.8 6.86 500.54
10 7.14 500.26
11.1 7,47 499.93
12.8 7.7 499.70
14.4 7.73 499.67
14.9 7.68 499.72
153 7.4 500.00
15.8 6.92 500.48
16 6.66 500.74
16.2 6.23 501.17
17.4 6.04 501.36
18.2 5.63 501.77
19.6 5.08 502.32
20.2 4.95 502.45
21.4 4.8 502.60
21.4 4.63 502.77
SUMMARY DATA
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 504.91
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 502.29
Floodprone Width (ft) 94.50
Bankroll Width (ft) 1582
Entrenchment Ratio 6.00
Mean Depth (ft) 1.43
Maximum Depth (ft) 2.62
Width/Depth Ratio 11.07
Bankfull Area (sq it) 22.62
Wetted Perimeter (ft) I T21
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.31
XS 2 (pool)
503
502 - -
-
a?
501
0
? -Bankfull
N
W
?-2007 Nov.
500
-
499-
0 5 10 15 20
Station (feet)
View of cross-section Stillhouse XS-2 lookine downstream
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
River Basin: Neuse
Watershed: Stillhouse Creek
XS ID XS 3 (ni le)
Reach:
Date: IIi5i2007
Field Crew: S.D. and J.O.
Station R od Ht. Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0 4.66 502.74 Floodprone Elevation (ft) 502.94
0 4.93 50147 Banldull Elevation (ft) 501.80
2_I 5.02 502.38 Floodprone Width (ft) 107.00
2.5 5.12 502.28 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.41
3.4 5.18 502.22 Entrenchment Ratio 870
5.6 5.76 50L64 Mean Depth (ft) 0.69
6.7 6 501.40 Maximum Depth (ft) 1_14
7.3 6.1 501.30 Width/Depth Ratio 17,87
8 6.19 501.21 Bankfull Area (sq ft) 8.61
8.7 6.53 500.87 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.12
9.6 6.54 500.86 Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.66
10.9 6.58 500.82
11.2 6.7 500.70 Stream Type: C4
12.1 6.74 500.66
12.7 6.68 500.72
13.1 6.63 500.77
14.7 6.2 501.20
152 6.67 500.73
16.1 5,94 501.46
174 5.6 501.80
19.8 5.45 501.95
22.2 S,43 501.97
22.2 5.29 502.11
XS 3 (riffle)
504
503
m
a? 502
c
o
-Bankfull
W 501 -
`
--2007 Nov.
500
0 5 10 15 20
Station (feet)
View of cross-section Stillhouse XS-3 looking downstream
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
River Basin: heuse
Watershed: Srilllmuse Creek
XS 11) XS 4 (raffle)
Reach: 3
Date: 11/6/2007
Field Crew: S.D. and J.O.
0 2.D2 500.46
0 2.22 500.26
1.1 2.31 500.17
2.3 2.88 499.60
3.5 3.87 498.61
6.4 5.95 496.53
9 7.58 494.90
10.2 8.47 494.01
12.8 8.72 493.76
14.7 9.32 493.16
16.5 10.12 492.36
16.8 10.47 492.01
17 10.55 491.93
17.7 1095 49153
18.4 10.99 49149
19,1 10.85 491.63
20.2 10.58 491.90
21.2 10.1 492.18
23 9.8 492.68
24.7 9.24 493.24
25.9 8.93 493.55
26.9 8.82 493.66
28.2 8.8 493.68
314 8.59 493.89
33.7 8.09 494.39
35.2 7.7 494.78
40.5 5.46 497.02
429 4.62 497.86
44.7 4.35 498.13
44.7 4.08 498.40
SUMMARY DATA
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 495.61
Banldull Elevation (ft) 493.55
Floodprone Width (ft) 29.30
Bankfull Width (ft) 12.44
Entrenchment Ratio 236
Mean Depth (ft) 1-06
Maximum Depth (ft) 2.06
Width/Depth Ratio 11.75
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 13.16
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.23
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.99
Stream Type: C4
XS 4 (riffle)
501
500 -Bankfull
499 2007 Nov
m
498 .
c
° 497
m
496
W
495
494
493
492
491
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)
View ofemss-section Stillhnuse XS-4 look-, dnwn.ctremi
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Year 1 - 2007 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration
River Basin: N,,-
Watershed: Stillhouse Creek
XS ID XS 5 (pool)
Reach: 3
Date: 1 1 62007
Field Crew: S.D. and J.O.
station R
0 od Ht.
1.64 Elevation
500.84
0 1.85 500.63
1.9 2.29 500.19
2.9 2.28 500.20
4.8 3.26 499.22
7.2 5.33 497.15
93 7.41 495.07
1014 8.11 49437
12.1 8.85 493.63
138 9.11 493.37
14.3 9.48 493.00
15.1 9.46 493.02
15.6 10.78 491.70
16 10.93 491.55
16.8 11.15 49133
17.1 11.03 491.45
17.5 1136 491.12
18.7 11_5 490.98
20.6 10.98 491.50
219 10.94 49154
22.5 10.54 491.94
23.1 9,9 492.58
23.5 9.57 492.91
26.2 9.25 493.23
28.8 8.95 493.53
32.8 8.65 493.83
36.8 7.44 495.04
38.7 6.49 495.99
394 6.16 496.32
41.3 5.12 497.36
42.2 4.87 497.61
43.1 4.83 497.65
43.1 4.62 497.86
SUMMARY DATA
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 494.82
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 492.91
Floodprone Width (ft) 26 48
Bankfu0 Width (ft) 836
Entrenchment Ratio 117
Mean Depth (ft) 1.36
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.93
Width/Depth Ratio 6.13
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 11.40
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 9.96
Hydraulic Radios (ft) 1.14
Stream Type: C4
is
XS 5 (pool)
502
501
500
499 -Bankfull
498
+"?. X2007 Nov.
497
0 496
495
494
W
493
492
491
490
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)
View ofeross-section Stillhouse XS-S looking downsnean
B7. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Stationing 0 - 400
•
514
512
510
508
-As-Built ThalM g
e
O -2007 Thalw g
-Water Surface
- Bankfull
W
506 = Grade Control Structures
- - - - - - -
504 - - - -- - - - -
502
V
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (feet)
B7. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Stationing 400 - 800
509
507
505
503
N -AS-Built Thalweg
-2007 Thalweg
O
- W ater Surface
-Bankfull
Grade Control Structures
W 501
499
497
495
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Station (feet)
B7. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363
Stationing 800 - 1210
499
497
495
-As-Built Thalweg
-M.1 Thalweg
-Water Surface
-Bankfull
A Grade Control Structures
493 - - -- - - -
e
0
a
_m
o
CIO 491
489 -- - - -
487
485
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Station (feet)
B8. Pebble Count - Stillbouse Creek Stream Restoration First Year Monitoring 11/14/2007
Cross Section One
0
is
Particle Size Ranee (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 70 70 70
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 2 2 72
Fine Sand .125-.25 0 72
R Medium Sand .25-.5 0 72
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 1 1 73
, Very Course Sand 1.0-2 5 5 78
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 5 5 83
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 1 1 84
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 3 3 87
;, Medium Gravel 8-11.3 7 7 94
p Medium Gravel 11.3-16 3 3 97
U Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 0 97
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 2 2 99
Very Course Gravel 32-45 0 99
, Very Course Gravel 45-64 1 1 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
:3 Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
a
U
Medium Cobble
128-180
0
100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
0
Medium Boulders
512-1024
0
100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
80
Total
100
vi 70
d
v 60
a 50
4-
0 40
`m
.0 30
E
Z 20
10
0
Class %
-0 Cumulative %
J50 = 0.04 mm
J84 = 0.57 mm
100
90
80
70
60 =
m
50 `
40 a
30
20
10
0
r -O ' r? v 1 O 6, .mac, 0 QS 0 Q ;, 'O aS 00 s? 'o J
Oa O ?? S 'O A ?O j ?VD X01 Q c90 c? ins i20 (p ?O v? O?
cS s O O O 6 TD c? cx Op
O
Particle Size Class (mm)
is
B8. Pebble Count - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration First Year Monitoring 11/14/2007
Cross Section Two
•
•
Particle Size Rance (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 30 30 30
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 1 1 31
,0 Fine Sand .125-.25 0 31
Medium Sand .25-.5 3 3 34
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 4 4 38
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 0 38
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 4 4 42
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 4 4 46
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 8 8 54
Medium Gravel 8-11.3 16 16 70
Medium Gravel 11.3-16 20 20 90
Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 3 3 93
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 4 4 97
Very Course Gravel 32-45 3 3 100
Ve Course Gravel 45-64 0 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
B Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
a
U
Medium Cobble
128-180
0
100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
L Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
^a Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
0
Medium Boulders
512-1024
0
100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
45
Total
100
uJ 40
v 35
R 30
4. 25
O
L- 20
E 15
Z 10
5
0
® Class %
f Cumulative %
J50 = 6.85 mm
J84 = 14.59 mm
100
90
80
70
60 =
50
40 a.
30
20
10
0
f •p •> •? •S r? 77 Q> > ?6? ?i- pc? piS` p0 i? ?p ?cS p6? S> >O J
51
6'? . aS .?S •S •p i? iP .p ?p is S n O cp -d" ?Sp gyp) S? ?p a0 3;,
0
Particle Size Class (mm)
0
B8. Pebble Count - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration First Year Monitoring 11/14/2007
Cross Section Three
•
•
't'otal
100
Class %
Cumulative -.%
J50 = 6.85 mm
J84 = 36.88 mm
100
90
80
70
60
d
50 `
40 d
30
20
10
0
°rn :? `'S .S O Q piS ?j ? 6 `' c? 0c? zs v 90 ?0 `'s 06+ - J
.0 0a j .s .0 0 u' i
cs cS 6'
0
Particle Size Class (mm)
Particle Size Range (mml Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 8 8 8
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 0 8
Fine Sand .125-.25 0 8
R
Medium Sand
.25-.5
6
6
14
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 8 8 22
Ve Course Sand 1.0-2 7 7 29
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 14 14 43
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 6 6 49
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 2 2 51
Medium Gravel 8-11.3 10 10 61
Medium Gravel 11.3-16 6 6 67
Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 5 5 72
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 6 6 78
Very Course Gravel 32-45 16 16 94
Ve Course Gravel 45-64 6 6 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
M Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
a
U
Medium Cobble
128-180
0
100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
^o Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
°o Medium Boulders 512-1024 0 100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
16
14
N
12
2
10
CL
0 8
6
s?
E
= 4
Z
2
0
is
B8. Pebble Count - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration First Year Monitoring 11/14/2007
Cross Section Four
•
•
Particle Size Range (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay <.062 28 28 28
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 0 28
,0 Fine Sand .125-.25 0 28
° Medium Sand .25-.5 6 6 34
yr Coarse Sand .5-1.0 7 7 41
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 8 8 49
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 3 3 52
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 1 1 53
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 7 7 60
;, Medium Gravel 8-11.3 4 4 64
Medium Gravel 11.3-16 2 2 66
U Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 8 8 74
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 4 4 78
Very Course Gravel 32-45 1 1 79
, Very Course Gravel 45-64 7 7 86
Small Cobble 64-90 7 7 93
Z Small Cobble 90-128 1 1 94
a
o
U
Medium Cobble
128-180
3
3
97
Large Cobble 180-256 0 97
Small Boulders 256-362 1 1 98
Small Boulders 362-512 1 1 99
°
0 Medium Boulders 512-1024 0 99
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 99
Bedrock > 2048 1 1 100
25
Total
100
U) 20
v
to 15
IL
4-
O
`y 10
J?
E
Z 5
0
® Class %
-Cumulative %
J50 = 2.67 mm
J84 = 58.57 mm
100
90
80
70
60
d
50 `
40 a
30
20
10
0
0- 0
O rn c? .av °n
p
Particle Size Class (mm)
0
B8. Pebble Count - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration First Year Monitoring 11/14/2007
Cross Section Five
•
•
Particle Size Ranee (mml Total # Class % Cumulative
S/C Silt/Clay <.062 12 12 12
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 0 12
,a Fine Sand .125-.25 0 12
Medium Sand .25-.5 2 2 14
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 9 9 23
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 4 4 27
Ve Fine Gravel 2-4 6 6 33
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 2 2 35
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 4 4 39
Medium Gravel 8-11.3 6 6 45
R
L
Medium Gravel
11.3-16
5
5
50
U Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 10 10 60
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 10 10 70
Very Course Gravel 32-45 11 11 81
Ve Course Gravel 45-64 10 10 91
Small Cobble 64-90 4 4 95
a
a Small Cobble 90-128 0 95
,
U Medium Cobble 128-180 0 95
Large Cobble 180-256 0 95
Small Boulders 256-362 0 95
Small Boulders 362-512 2 2 97
0
Medium Boulders
512-1024
0
97
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 97
Bedrock > 2048 3 3 100
25
Total
100
U) 20
v
m 15
IL
4-
O
`y 10
M
E
0
Z 5
0
-Class %
Cumulative %
Jso = 16.0 mm
J84 = 50.7 mm
100
90
80
70
60 c
d
50 `
40 ti
30
20
10
0
'
15, V 0 c? Op d, 6) c? Or,
-p b cs cS j O > ' ?? a aO `Jb
aa ' •> •? 'cS c? •p S Q O co
•O cad' ?O ?S pp ?! ?O v0
cs 6 6' 6 O 6 ?y p
O
Particle Size Class (mm)
is