The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030299 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20061201r V ` ,v Ihird Fork Creek Stream Restoration - NCEEP Project #139 Durham, North Carolina ?Q r J Caonnrl Annnal Mnnitnrina Rarinrf Tlaramhar 2(IfiA 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Subrr w item itted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Designed by: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Landmark Center II, Suite 220 I THIRD FORK CREEK STREAM RESTORATION - NCEEP Project #139 2006 MONITORING REPORT - YEAR 2 CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... .. 3 II. Project Background ................................................................................................... .. 3 A. Location and Setting ................................................................................................ .. 3 B. Structure and Objectives .......................................................................................... .. 4 C. History and Background ........................................................................................... .. 6 III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ................................................................ .. 9 A.Vegetation Assessment ............................................................................................. .. 9 1. Soil Data ............................................................................................................... .. 9 2. Vegetation Problem Areas ..................................................................................... 9 2.1. Upstream Reach ............................................................................................ 10 2.2. Downstream Reach ....................................................................................... 10 3. Stem Counts ......................................................................................................... 10 4. Vegetation Plot Photos ......................................................................................... 13 B. Stream Assessment .................................................................................................. 13 C. Wetland Assessment ................................................................................................ 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View .....................................................................8 Figure 3. USGS Stream gauge data for Ellerbe Creek near Gorman, N.C ...................15 LIST OF TABLES Exhibit Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ....................................6 Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History ...................................... ...6 Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table .......................................................... ...7 Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table .......................................................7 Exhibit Table V. Preliminary Soil Data ............................................................................. ....9 Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas .................................................................... ...9 Exhibit Table VII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot ................................. ...12 Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events ......................................................... ...14 Exhibit Table X. Stream Problem Areas ........................................................................... ....16 Exhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment .........................17 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................... ...18 Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ............................. ...23 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project # 139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 1 APPENDICES Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data A-1 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View A-2 Vegetation Problem Area Photo A-3 Vegetation Survey Summary Data A-4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos A-5 Vegetation Raw Data Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data B-1 Exhibit - Problem Areas Plan View B-2 Representative Stream Problem Area Photos B-3 Stream Photo-station Photos B-4 Table B.1 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment B-5 Cross section Plots and Raw Data Tables B-6 Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables B-7 Pebble Counts Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 2 I. Executive Summary The Third Fork Creek stream restoration project is located in southwest-central Durham, North Carolina, in the headwaters of the Third Fork Creek watershed (US Geological Survey14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002060120) within the New Hope Creek Sub-basin of the Upper Cape Fear River (NC Division of Water Quality Sub-basin 03-06- 05). The project has restored approximately 2,900 linear feet of perennial stream in the Cape Fear River Basin. Evaluation and design were initiated during the summer of 2002. Construction was completed in January 2005. The stream restoration project's goals were: to restore stable channel morphology, which will reduce bank erosion; improve the watershed's sediment transport; improve aquatic habitat diversity; and increase aesthetic value to local stakeholders. The preliminary qualitative evaluation was conducted by RJG&A in early February 2006. Subsequent qualitative evaluation was conducted during early March, late June, and September 2006. The second vegetation monitoring data were collected during September 2006, using EEP's August 2006 monitoring protocol. The second annual geomorphologic monitoring data were collected during October 2006. Overall, the restoration project has met its design goals. Several major geomorphologic changes were documented during the second monitoring year, but overall the site is relatively stable. Aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms have colonized most of the restoration area and the average live planted woody stem density (926 per acre) has exceeded the vegetation restoration goal (320 per acre) by 289 percent. II. Project Background A. Location and Setting The entire restoration site is contained within Forest Hills Park, which is owned by the City of Durham. To get to the Third Fork Creek restoration site from NC 147, take exit 12B and travel south on Roxboro Road. Turn east on West Lakewood Avenue, which merges into University Drive. Forest Hills Park and the Third Fork restoration site are on the left (eastern) side of University Drive (US 151501 Business, Figure 1). The upstream boundary of the restoration project is immediately downstream from where Third Fork Creek emerges from the box culvert under the northern stretch East Forest Hills Boulevard. The stream restoration extends downstream along the main channel from this point to the southern edge of the Forest Hills Park. The double box culvert under the southern stretch of the East Forest Hills Boulevard loop divides the restoration into upper and lower reaches. An unnamed tributary to Third Fork Creek joins the lower reach on the downstream end of the culvert. The lower reach therefore has a significantly larger watershed. Forest Hills Park is dominated by lawn/open space with relatively little mature canopy cover (less than 25 percent). A playground and other facilities with impervious cover (e.g swimming pool, tennis courts, and picnic shelter) are located near the southern portion of the restoration's upper reach. The surrounding area is highly urbanized. The majority of Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 3 ? g' ? ... -t- - W? 4? W v ' ^?T ' -+ ??f( f= ' T, p?.t Pl" ?ifk ! 9 .4• t( g ? .,- y Y f - s +: .n ? ? ",.I P Jl'j {? -.,•'7 ? ?? q ( / ? D ? !- i . .3P''? 't _ *-.r ' ya 'Qb ?' ??t ?) 'J :« it r l i ?? ? ? t r c _ '47 1 F. y? - ;,z L Z '?"h 4t - 7 1F ? f f \ ` J \ { 4 ¢fN A- ) ?.. ?? b ? ?y? ,1'i7 J ' i N a?? , .( 5? !p'Q¢' , ? ? ?1 ? ,a c,;y ? ti - n ? ? i ? l ; { - i44 ? ? l 1 tip ?. ? \.. l t? ? 3y\,?,? ? t \ r? 1 8+ ? ? A? ? ?f'?? ?t ?e[ f { ? ? ? / 9 ? }? ° ?,, 1+ ) yy Third -ork Stream Restoration Slte ij ? f? ? t rte}.-? v ?.`? i 4 i! ,l ! r n Pt f r` I, I? ,./-•?X ) 8^ ice, y .'" ) I v } IR J . t „? ?q?? tom. ? ? j??kr?lr {?S c.^) J,- ,S ?i` ryhf„+t'?C `? ?? ? /i?d ''? ?t'u _ ?_ ?3. 'L?'i\? i ,r r"l r ? /i 1, r' `e . t Figure 1. Third Fork Stream Restoration - Durham County, NC Islas. w- " OL ? source: NCDOT Data Distritwtion -Tile 79 ' L611?1tC1Il y Feet www.ncdot.org, it/gis/DzitaDistributimI Durham County 0 1,500 {4'-ten, -....? \\i? PEW- / i,l'"?ti\:.`Y• "` >jt (fir ?Jt ••j, 1j y ,..?,./ t .? ??:.' 1 r Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 5 the land use is dedicated to residential and commercial development and secondary roads. Prior to the restoration, both project reaches were incised and had active bed degradation and channel widening characterized by severe bank erosion. B. Structure and Objectives A priority 2 stream restoration approach was used to design and reestablish approximately 3,025 linear feet of meandering, bankfull channel and a new floodplain along Third Fork Creek. The project restored riffle-pool sequencing and used cross-vane and j-hook in-stream structures to provide grade control. The unnamed tributary that enters from the upper reach's left bank (station 20+33) was incorporated and stabilized with a grade control structure to match the grade of the restored channel. Coir fiber matting and live staking were installed/planted to help stabilize the graded stream banks. A 50 foot wide buffer was planted with native species on both sides the restored stream. Space and use needs in the park limited the woody plantings to within 30 feet of the stream. The buffers' outer twenty feet was planted in native grasses andis managed (mowed). ?? r7 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&,A Page 4 Exhibit Table I. Mitigation Structure and Objectives - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Reach ID Mitigation Approach Linear Stationing Mitigation Comment Type Feet Credits (ratio) Upstream Restoration Priority 2 10+00- 26+00 o c3 Downstream Restoration Priority 2 N 25+00 - 40+25 M a U ° > C 0 C. History and Background Exhibit Table II. Activity and Reporting History - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139- Durham, NC Activity or Report Data Collection Completion Restoration Plan 2002 February 2003 Construction NA January 2005 Temporary S&E mix applied NA NA Permanent seed mix applied NA NA Bare Root Planting NA NA Mitigation Plan NA December 2005 (report date As-built March 2005 December 2005 (report date) Year 1 Monitoring December 2005 (report date) Vegetation September 2005 Geomo holo ical September 2005 Year 2 Monitoring December 2006 (re ort date) Vegetation September 2006 Geomo holo ical October 2006 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 6 Exhibit Table III. Project Contacts - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Design: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Mr. Joe Pfeiffer 919) 783-9214 Construction Contractor: NA Monitoring Performers: RJG&A 1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27616 Mr. Ward Marotti 919) 872-1174 Exhibit Table IV. Project Background - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139 County Durham Drainage Area 1,126.4 acres 1.76 square miles Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate 44% Stream Order Second Order Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont Ecore ion Triassic Basins Ros en Classification of As-built Upper Reach F5, G5, E5 Lower Reach C5 Dominant Soil Types Upstream Reach Congaree Downstream Reach Congaree Reference Site ID North Prong Creek USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03030002060120, 0303002060140 NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-06-05, 03-06-05 NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference C An portion of the project segment 303d listed? Yes Any portion of the project segment upstream of a 303d listed segment? Yes Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor Turbidity, low dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria % of Project Easement Fenced 0% Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 7 Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 8 • Figure 2.1 - 2006 Monitoring. Plan View - Year 2 Third Fork Creek (Forest Hills) Stream Restoration - Durham, NC T TGXn ; LEGEND -2006 Thalweg 2006 Vegetation Monitoring Plots Cross Sections S S 0 w o0 ! Photopoints As-built Drawings (Supplied by KCI) Vanes e o --- Thalweg N o -- Edge of water + S S -- Conservation Easement Sewer ROW m 2 d O LL W ? I * S ? 3? N S c O S L N + ?r N + ... N oo v I N o _ d N LL ll I+ f Easting Northing Vegetation Plots 1 2026252.522400 812789.657666 2 2026222.941600 812569.691675 3 2025987.289460 812136.701257 4 2025961.194110 811689.362376 Cross-sections 1-L 2026045.167310 812046.165066 1-R 2026008.863870 812074.268999 2-L 2026019.907700 811829.907400 2-R 2025969. 1 14450 811842.610456 Photopoints 1 2026280.064630 812942.007941 2 2026245.292230 812638.539733 3 2026224.428790 812585.685687 4 2026034.128930 812393.109820 5 2026035.393380 812128.144141 6 2025987.976480 812046.207724 7 2025968.377490 811836.182435 8 2025926.650610 811606.368490 0 7qW I I, J_ Easting Northing Vegetation Plots 5 2025825.804140 811325.105992 6 2025751.559070 810836.827402 7 2025773.300850 810651.892462 8 2025829.725470 810411.548741 Cross-sections 3-L 2025870.880914 810673.554871 3-R 2025770.851314 810650.406271 L 4-L 2025798.603914 810554.818971 m 4-R 2025759.096714 810575.310971 Photopoints 9 2025883.659280 811374.025644 10 2025782.503210 811250.741684 ll E 11 2025792.618820 811001.328751 12 2025781.870990 810914.081641 13 2025766.697570 810688.630051 14 2025800.837750 810416.773115 g+ ? o °o ? o "IN I T? Sewer m sN i N N 0 LL N N W c? ' ^ Feet `M\27Y_ ® 0 0 50 o r ? Figure 2.2 - 2006 Monitoring. Plan View - Year 2 Third Fork Creek (Forest Hills) Stream Restoration - Durham, NC LEGEND ----- 2006 Thalweg ® 2006 Vegetation Monitoring Plots -?--? Cross Sections Photopoints As-built Drawings (Supplied by KCI) Vanes - Thalweg -- -- Edge of water Conservation Easement Sewer ROW III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results RJG&A initially evaluated the site during early February 2006. It was qualitatively evaluated during and after significant storm events in April and May 2006, and during low flow in late June, September, and October. Vegetation monitoring was performed during September 2006, pursuant to the August 2006 EEP guidelines. Structural failure and compromise were recorded in a number of specific locations. Exotic invasive woody stem density is relatively low. Planted woody stem density is high, as is success. Exotic invasive vines have had a moderate impact on planted woody stem success on several floodplain benches In spite of the problem areas the overall restoration project appears to be adequately transporting urban sediment loads and restoring aquatic habitat (i.e. meeting its design functions/goals). A. Vegetation Assessment 1. Soil Data Exhibit Table V. Preliminary Soil Data - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Series Max Depth % Clay on K T OM% (in.) Surface Congaree 80 7-27 0.37 5 0.5-2.0 2. Vegetation Problem Areas Planted woody vegetation appeared to be successful when qualitatively evaluated during September 2006. Invasive exotic woody species have colonized many locations but are quite sparse, relative to the planted native woody stems. Invasive exotic vines have had a detrimental impact to survival on several floodplain benches that have received overbank flow several times during the 2006 growing season. Exhibit Table VI. a etation Problem Ar s - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Feature/Issue Station/Range Probable Cause Photo # Exotic Invasive Vines 12+75- 14+00 Colonization of floodplain by waterborne seeds VP2&3 Exotic Invasive 12+75 -14+00 Colonization by air and water Wood Stems borne seeds VP4&5 Exotic Invasive vines 16+75 19+75 Colonization of floodplain by waterborne seeds VP2&3 Exotic Invasive vines 20+75 -22+40 Colonization of floodplain by waterborne seeds VP2&3 Exotic Invasive vines 24+60- 26+25 Colonization of floodplain by waterborne seeds VP2&3 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 9 Exhibit Table VI. Vegetation Problem Areas - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Disturbed area 29+90 -30+80 Diseased tree removal by City of VPl Durham maintenance crew Woody invasives 34+20 -35+70 Colonization by air and water VP4&5 borne seeds Invasive vines 36+60 -37+25 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds 2.1. Upstream Reach Planted woody stem success was high in the upstream reach. Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus) and porcelainberry (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) have densely colonized the floodplain benches inside several meanders. In addition to directly competing for light with the planted woody species, these exotic invasive woody vines have caused many of the planted woody stems in these areas to be severely impacted by storm flow. Once rooted, most woody stems can withstand moderate flood events (i.e. they are bent during over-bank flow, but not uprooted. With a dense layer of woody vine stems wrapped around and through them, many planted individuals are uprooted, overturned, and washed away entirel Manual removal of these vines could be an effective management e, if it is done regularly. If not, the vines will recolonize the floodplain benches from existing root stock, or from the large monocultures of these species upstream (on/over both banks throughout the American Tobacco Trail right-of-way (1,400 feet upstream)). \P1_ 2.2. Downstream Reach The downstream reach also has invasive exotic woody vines inside one meander and some exotic invasive woody species along a portion of one bank. 3. Stem Counts Eight representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the upstream and downstream reaches during September 2006, pursuant to the new EEP vegetation monitoring protocol (August, 2006). Where appropriate, the new monitoring plots were co-located with the first year monitoring plots. Pursuant to the August 2006 protocol, all plots measure 100 square meters in area and are either 10 meters by 10 meters, or five meters by 20 meters. Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was performed concurrently with plot selection, during September 2006. Because the new plot dimensions are different than the first annual vegetation monitoring plots, direct comparison with the first year data is inappropriate. Pursuant to the new guidelines, the four corners of each plot (e.g. 0,0; 0,10; 10,0; and 10,10; or 0,0; 0,20; 5,0; and 5,20.) were marked with 18 inch long one half inch diameter galvanized steel conduit. Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded and live stem diameter at decimeter height (ddm), and height (cm) were recorded. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 10 The average live, planted woody stem density for all plots was 22.88 individuals per plot, which translates to 929.95 stems per acre. This exceeds the required 320 stems per acre by 291 percent. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project # 139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 11 Exhibit Table VII. Stem counts and summary data by species and plot - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139, Durham County, NC ---------- Reach ---------- Unstream Downstream ^C cC [ by a?'. CA 1.' C 6) G> Cm ,-r N M R VJ ?O l? 00 y O? ? L ? {Z, E ? ? C ? y i, ? ? O O O O O O O O w ° w rn ' d ' b d a ,Q A C > U, c c. a a c. a. n c. a Ey `? .ti Q ? Q F, Albizia julibrissin 1 1 100 1.00 8.76 0.55 0 0 1 Alnus serrulata 17 17 100 2.43 11.67 9.29 0 0 3 1 6 1 1 3 2 Amelanchier arborea 1 1 100 0.13 23.97* 0.55 0 1.00 0 1 Betula nigra 12 12 100 1.50 13.35 6.56 0 1.71 0 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 Callicarpa americana 25 25 100 3.13 7.07 13.66 0 3.57 0 4 8 5 1 4 2 1 Cercis canadensis 2 2 100 0.25 14.64 1.09 0 1.00 0 1 1 Cornus amomum 16 16 100 2.00 11.29 8.74 0 2.00 0 4 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 23 23 100 2.88 8.16 12.57 0 3.83 0 3 3 2 1 12 2 Hamamelis virginiana 7 7 100 0.88 6.55 3.83 0 1.40 0 1 1 2 1 2 Ilex deciduas 4 4 100 0.50 7.07 2.19 0 1.00 0 1 1 1 1 Ilex opaca 4 4 100 0.50 12.52 2.19 0 1.33 0 1 2 1 Itea virginica 14 14 100 1.75 5.94 7.65 0 2.80 0 6 1 3 2 2 Morella cerifera 9 9 100 1.13 14.74 4.92 0 2.25 0 2 1 3 3 Platanus occidentalis 18 18 100 2.25 15.78 9.84 0 2.57 0 7 2 1 2 3 2 1 Salix nigra 2 2 100 0.25 LS 1.09 0 2.00 0 2 Sambucus canadensis 3 3 100 0.38 12.00 1.64 0 1.00 0 1 1 1 Symphoricarpos 17 17 100 2.13 5.95 9.29 0 2.12 0 1 3 5 2 1 3 1 1 orbiculatus Viburnum dentatum 7 7 100 0.88 7.54 3.83 0 3.50 0 3 4 Viburnum nudum 1 1 100 0.13 3.60 0.55 0 1.00 0 1 Total planted woody 183 183 100 100 0 0 33 29 32 13 10 39 17 10 stems (all plots) Average planted woody 926 1,336 1,174 1,295 526 405 1,578 688 405 stems per acre Average all woody stems 1,2852 1,902 1,255 1,619 1,174 567 2,549 809 405 per acre *DBH Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 12 4. Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation plot photos are in Appendix A. B. Stream Assessment RJG&A personnel initially evaluated the site during early February 2006. It was qualitatively evaluated during and after significant storm events in April and May 2006, and during low flow in late June, September, and October 2006. The second annual cross section, pattern, and longitudinal profile data were collected during October 2006. Markers for cross sections one and two were not re-located in the field, using a total station and a metal detector. Their locations were established using total station survey equipment and best professional judgment. While not in the identical location as the monitoring year 01 and as-built cross sections, the Year 02 cross section locations are within 20 feet, likely upstream. Because these locations provide representative stability condition data very close to the year 1 and as-built, their comparison to the original data is appropriate. Photographs were taken at the four cross sections and at the 14 permanent photo locations that were established by KCI in March 2005. Overall, the site is maintaining its as-built dimension, pattern, and profile, and planted woody stem success is high. Several stretches of bank erosion are present in both reaches. One of these (station 34+27) is fairly significant, and getting worse (i.e. it has expanded laterally and longitudinally since February). Remedial action (e.g. armoring with root wads and/or roc hould be considered. Overall, the remaining bank slumps and underc relatively minor and should continue to be monitored, as they may rate themselves over time. The only other significant problem area (i.e. remedial \ action should be considered) is a backcut j-hook that has had its upstream-most header rock undercut (station 27+04). The rock has been completely dislodged and fallen back (upstream) into the scoured channel. The remaining j-hook/cross vane problem areas are I relatively minor and should continue to be observed, to determine if remedial action should occur. (? A wetted perimeter bed material analysis was performed at each cross section during October 2006. The difference between the second annual monitoring substrate analysis and the first year's indicates that the upstream-most channel bed has become finer (xsl), while the downstream-most bed (xs2-4) have become coarser. The most significant change was observed at cross section 3. 4P \??ibo Tbird Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 13 Two pressure transducers were observed during the initial evaluation in February. The serial numbers, brands and model numbers were recorded. A Solinst Levelogger 3001 reader was subsequently purchased and installed into a laptop. The laptop was brought to the site on 25 April 2006. The gauges had been removed from the PVC crest gauge pipes that held them. Neither gauge was found, after an extensive search, including inside the installed pipe. The upstream unit still had its lock, the lower one had a broken top (above photo). The units are presumed to have been removed by vandals. On-site hydrologic data are therefore not available for the second annual monitoring. Qualitative evaluation (rack and drift lines and downed herbaceous and woody vegetation on the floodplain) indicated at least three events during 2006 (April, June, and September (above photo)). Potential bankfull events were also evaluated based on USGS stream gauge discharge data for Ellerbe Creek near Gorman (USGS 02086849). This gauge is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the restoration site and has a drainage area of 21.9 square miles. According to the urban piedmont regional curve, a stream with a drainage area of 21.9 square miles would reach a bankfull discharge at 2,144.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Doll et al., 2002). Based on USGS data for 2006 (Figure 3), there have been no bankfull events at this gauge. The highest flow event during 2006 was 1080 cfs on November 22th', which is less than half of the bankfull discharge predicted by the urban piedmont regional curve. Using the rural piedmont regional curve, bankfull discharge is 819.7 cfs, making the high flow event on November 22nd the only bankfull event of the year. The 2006 qualitative evaluation of Third Fork Creek clearly indicates that at least one, probably three storm events resulted in flows over the designed/built bankfull elevation. Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events - Third Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available) 2006 22 November 2006 Proximal USGS gauge resource NA 26 June 2006 15 June 2006 On-site high water indicators above 15 September 2006 03 September 2006 On-site high water indicators NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project # 139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 14 On-site evidence of over-bank flow (26 June 2007) 3. USUS 2006 stream data for Ellerbe Creek near Gorman, N.C. USES 02088849 ELLERBE CREEK NEAR GORMAN, NC 2800.6 0 cs y 1666.6 L 47 a ar a? 0 ? 168.8 S d L V Vi 0 s J H Jan 81 Mar 61 May 81 Jul 81 Sep 61 Now 61 2006 2886 2886 2886 2886 2886 ---- Provisional Data Subject to Revision ---- Median daily statistic (9 years) - Daily nean discharge Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates only apply to Monitoring year 5 and was, therefore, not performed during 2006 (monitoring year 2). Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 15 Exhibit Table X. S eam Problem Are - Third Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Feature/Issue Station Probable Cause Photo A radation bar 1057 Offsite/u stream SP I Aggradation (bar) 1080 Offsite/u stream SPI Vane backcut/scour 1090 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Aggradation (pool) 1110 Offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (pool) 1151 Offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (bar) 1193 Offsite/upstream SP I Vane backcut/scour 1419 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slum 1517 No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 1783 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2034 Insufficient/no coarse backfill, storm flow from UT SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2146 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2171 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slum 2502 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slum 2632 No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 2704 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2801 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 A radation (bar) 3075 Double box culvert SP I A radation bar 3152 Confluence with channelized UT below box culverts SP1 Aggradation (bar) 3208 Bank undercut/slum and offsite/u stream SPI Aggradation (pool) 3216 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (bar) 3292 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SPI Aggradation (bar) 3322 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SPI Aggradation (bar) 3404 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SPI Vane backcut/scour 3410 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slum 3427 No armor/rootwad SP3 Aggradation (bar) 3485 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SPI Bank undercut/slum 3559 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slum 3664 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slum 3732 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slum 3805 No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 3862 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Aggradation (bar) 3976 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP I Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 16 xhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 U stream Reach 1600 Feet Feature Initial* MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 A. Riffles 100% NA 92 B. Pools 100% NA 87 C. Thalwe 100% NA 69 D. Meanders 100% NA 0 E. Bed General 100% NA 100 F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% NA 93 G. Wads and Boulders NA NA NA Downstream Reach 1525 Feet A. Riffles 100% NA 56 B. Pools 100% NA 56 C. Thalwe 100% NA 57 D. Meanders 100% NA 67 E. Bed General 100% NA 100 F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% NA 89 G. Wads and Boulders 100% NA NA *These percentages are assumed. Neither the As-built Monitoring Report nor the First Year Monitoring Report contained any visual stability assessment data. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 17 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration- EEP Proiect #139 - Durham County, NC Parameters Pre-existin condition Dimension USGS Data Regional Curve Interval U stream Reach Downstream Reach Flood prone Elevation ft NA NA Bankfull Elevation ft NA NA Flood prone Width ft 29.2-400 62-400 Bankfull Width (ft 21.8-26.8 29.5 Entrenchment Ratio 1.1-18.3 6.8 Mean Depth ft NA NA Maximum Depth ft 4.7 5.8 Width/De th Ratio 8.3-15.9 12.2 Bankfull Areas ft 45.1-57.2 71.4 Wetted Perimeter ft NA NA Hydraulic Radius ft NA NA Substrate d50 mm 0.31-0.38 0.41 d84 mm NA NA Pattern NA NA Channel Beltwidth ft NA NA Radius of Curvature ft NA NA Meander Wavelength NA NA Meander Width ratio Profile Riffle length (ft) NA NA Riffle slope (ft/ft 0.24-0.57 0.25-0.29 Pool length (ft) NA NA Pool spacing ft NA NA Additional Reach Parameters Valle Length (ft) NA NA Channel Lcn h (fl) 11890 9(_0 Sinuosity 1.03 1.01 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.25 0.20 BF slope ft/ft N ?1 NA Rosgen Classification F5. G5, E5 C5 Habitat Index NA NA Macrobenthos NA NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 18 Exhibit Table XIl. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham County, NC Parameters Reference Reach Desi n Dimension North Prong Creek Upstream Reach Downstream Reach Flood prone Elevation ft NA NA NA Bankfull Elevation ft NA NA NA Flood prone Width ft NA NA NA Bankfull Width ft 17.8 27 30 Entrenchment Ratio 33.7 2.3-14.8 6.7 Mean Depth ft 1.5 2.2 2.5 Maximum Depth ft 3.0 4.0 4.25 Width/De th Ratio 12.1 12.1 12.0 Bankf ill Areas ft 26.2 60 75 Wetted Perimeter ft NA NA NA Hydraulic Radius ft NA NA NA Substrate d50 (nun) 0.20 0.31-0.38 0.41 d84 (mm) NA NA NA Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft 158 120 90 Radius of Curvature ft 37-40 60-75 60-80 Meander Wavelength ft 94-143 160-190 180-210 Meander Width ratio 8.9 4.4 3.0 Profile Riffle length ft NA NA NA Riffle slope ft/ft) 0.2-2.1 0.25-0.29 0.25 Pool length (ft) 8-30 27-40 30-45 Poolspacing (ft) 40-85.5 60-125 70-140 Additional Reach Parameters Valley Length w) NA NA NA Channel Length (ft) 407 2083 925 Sinuosity 1.28 1.13 1.10 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.24 0.25 _ 0 BF slope (tuft) NA NA NA Ros en Classification C5 C5 CS Habitat Index NA NA NA Macrobenthos NA NA NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 19 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham County, NC As-built* Parameters U stream Reach Downstream Reach Dimension min max average min max average Flood rove Elevation ft NA NA NA NA NA NA Bankfull Elevation fr NA NA NA NA NA NA Flood prone Width ft NA NA NA NA NA NA Bankf ill Width (ft) NA NA 27 NA NA 30 Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 14.8 NA NA NA 6.7 Mean Depth ft NA NA 2.2 NA NA 2.5 Maximum Depth (ft) NA NA 4.0 NA NA 4.25 Width/De th Ratio NA NA 12.1 NA NA 12.0 Bankfull Areas ft NA NA 60 NA NA 75 Wetted Perimeter ft NA NA NA NA NA NA Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Substrate d50 mm 0.31 0.38 NA NA NA 0.41 d84 (mm) NA NA NA NA NA NA Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft NA NA 120 NA NA 90 Radius of Curvature ft 60 75 NA 60 80 NA Meander Wavelength 160 190 NA 180 210 NA Meander Width ratio NA NA 4.4 NA NA 3.0 Profile Riffle length ft NA NA NA NA NA NA Riffle slope ft/ft 0.25 0.29 NA NA NA 0.25 Pool length ft 27 40 NA 30 45 NA Pool spacing ft NA NA NA NA NA NA Additional Reach Parameters Valle Length(ft) NA NA NA N,A NA NA Channel Lcn-th 'ft} N.? N,-'' 2083 N ?\ NA - - -- - Sinuosity NA NA 1.13 NA NA 1.10 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) NA NA 0.25 NA NA 0.20 Bl PC (It NA N;\ N,\ N N,"\ Rosgen Classification NA NA C? NA NA C-5 Habitat Index NA NA NA NA NA Macrobenthos NA NA NA NA NA *No as-built numbers were provided. The Third Fork mitigation plan (December 2005) and the First Year Monitoring Report (December 2005) both provide Design numbers only, therefore the design numbers have been provided in the as-built columns, but are redundant of those figures appearing earlier in the table. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 20 F,xhihit Tahle Xiii_ Marnhnlnuv and Hvdraulic Monitorinu Snmmarv - Third Fnrk Creek StrPnm RPctnratinn _ Ti Ti P Pr-of IWAO XS 1 XS 2 XS 3 XS 4 Dimension As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 Flood rove Elevation ft 301.46 301.49 301.74 301.88 302.21 302.65 295.37 295.75 295.88 297.07 297.50 297.05 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 297.55 297.54 297.55 297.07 297.10 297.20 292.09 292.27 292.40 292.56 292.53 292.49 Flood rove Width (ft) 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 Bankfull Width ft 20.40 27.11 28.63 26.43 26.39 27.62 17.50 29.00 25.97 17.50 23.29 20.47 Entrenchment Ratio 11.76 8.85 8.38 9.08 NA 8.69 13.71 8.28 9.24 13.71 NA 11.72 Mean Depth (ft) 3.03 2.26 2.18 2.65 2.76 2.78 3.12 1.84 1.84 3.51 2.59 2.80 Maximum Depth ft 3.91 3.95 4.19 4.81 5.11 5.45 3.28 3.48 3.84 4.51 4.97 4.56 Width/De th Ratio 6.70 12.00 13.12 9.97 NA 9.94 5.61 15.70 14.51 4.98 NA 7.31 Bankfull Areas ft 61.87 61.37 62.47 70.07 72.88 76.71 54.61 53.46 47.67 61.50 60.40 57.34 Wetted Perimeter ft NA NA 30.91 NA NA 31.70 NA NA 28.31 NA NA 23.99 Hydraulic Radius ft NA NA 2.02 NA NA 2.42 NA NA 1.68 NA NA 2.39 Substrate d50 mm 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.49 6.27 1.00 0.85 d84 (mm) 0.60 0.06 0.10 0.78 1.50 16.6 2.00 11.3 Upstream Reach Downstream Reach Pattern As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 As- built Mon 01 Mon 02 Channel Beltwidth ft NA NA 33.88 NA NA 35.77 Radius of Curvature (ft) NA NA 69.42 NA NA 57.96 Meander Wavelength NA NA 177.65 NA NA 162.56 Meander Width ratio NA NA 1.20 NA NA 1.54 Profile Riffle length ft NA NA 51.43 NA NA 14.24 Riffle slope ft/ft) NA 0.001- 0.002 0.002 NA 0.001- 0.011 0.02 Pool length (ft) NA 28.60 NA NA 101.45 Poolspacing (ft) NA 45-115 35.95 NA 14-82 23.28 rauu111011al neacn rararnerers Valley Length (fl) NA NA 3 t U NA NA 308 Channel Length (ft) NA NA 3j0 NA NA 350 Sinuosity NA NA I I N\ %A 1.14 Water Surface Slope (ff/ft) NA NA ?ni? N A N \ 0.0009 BF slope (ft/ft) NA NA 0.0003 NA NA 0.013 Rosgcn CIassi?lca[ion NA NA CS NA NA C51) Habitat Index NA NA NA NA NA NA Macrobenthos NA NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEP Project #139 Year 2 of 5 RJG&A Page 21 C. Wetland Assessment No wetland restoration was included in this project. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 22 Appendix A (Click here)