20030299 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20080201

•
•
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - NCEEP Project #139
Durham, North Carolina
Third Annual Monitoring Report -- FINAL
February 2008
Ift *"
I KKEIVED
NG.ECOSYSTEM
?NMNGEMENTPROGRAM
Designed by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road ?ILE
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
•
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
rw
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
t ??el?l 1652 Mail Service Center
j; ° Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
•
THIRD FORK CREEK STREAM RESTORATION - NCEEP Project #139
2007 MONITORING REPORT - YEAR 3
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Table of Contents
•
1.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Background ................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Project Objectives .................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, and Approach ...........................
2.3 Location and Setting ..........................................................................
2.4. History and Background ...................................................................
2.5. Monitoring Plan View .......................................................................
3.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ...........................................
3.1 . Vegetation Assessment ....................................................................
3.1.1. Vegetation Problem Areas .........................................................
3.1.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Vegetation) .............................
3.2. Stream Assessment ..........................................................................
3.2.1. Procedural Items ..................................................................
3.2.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Stream) ..............................
IV. Methodology ..........................................................................................
4.1. Stream Methodology ........................................................................
4.2. Vegetation Methodology .................................................................
References ....................................................................................................
................ 2
................ 2
................ 4
................ 5
................ 7
................ 7
................ 7
................ 8
................ 8
................ 8
................ 9
.............. 15
.............. 15
.............. 15
.............. 16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View .....................................................................6
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 Bankfull Events ............................................................. 9
Exhibit Table VI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment .................... 10
Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ................................. 11
Exhibit Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ........................... 13
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 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 Photo
A3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Figure Al. Current Conditions Plan View
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
B 1. 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
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A
•
•
•
1.0 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
Survey I4-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03 03 0002060120) 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 objectives
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 first 2007 qualitative evaluation was conducted by RJG&A in April. Subsequent
qualitative evaluations were conducted during July and October 2007. The third annual
vegetation monitoring data were collected during July 2007, using EEP's most-recent
monitoring protocol. The third annual geomorphologic monitoring data were collected
during July 2007.
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. The average live planted woody stem density (905 live stems per acre)
has exceeded the vegetation success criteria (320 live stems per acre) by 183 percent.
Several invasive exotic species are colonizing the site, including Humulus japonicus,
Paulownia tomentosa, and Albizia julibrissin. EEP is in the process of initiating an
herbicide treatment contract to address these exotic invasive issues.
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #139
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5
Page 1
•
2.0 Project Background
2.1. Project Objectives
According to the 2003 Restoration Plan (KCI 2003), the stream restoration project's
objectives were to:
• restore stable channel morphology with the aim of reducing bank erosion
• improve the watershed's sediment transport
• improve aquatic habitat diversity
• increase aesthetic value to local stakeholders.
2.2. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, and Approach
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 and is managed
(mowed).
2.3 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
12C. At the end of the off-ramp, drive north on Duke Street. At the next light, take a left
on Jackson and then a left on to Vickers. Take Vickers to the intersection with
University Drive (US 151501 Business). Forest Hills Park will be directly in front of you.
Take a right on to University and park in the parking lot across from West Forest Hills
Boulevard ( Figure 1). The upstream boundary of the restoration project is 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
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 2
• the restoration's upper reach. The surrounding area is highly urbanized. The majority of
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.
•
•
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 3
•
•
24. History and Background
KCI Associates of North Carolina designed the Third Fork (Forest Hills Park) stream
restoration. The restoration plan was completed in February 2003 and construction was
completed approximately two years later. As-built data collection occurred in March
2005 and the as-built and year one monitoring reports were submitted in December 2005.
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates collected year two monitoring data and submitted the
year-two report in December 2006. Year three monitoring data were collected in July
2007.
Exhibit Table I. Mitigation Structure and Objectives - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration -
EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC
Reach Mitigation Approach Linear Stationing Mitigation Comment
ID Type Feet Credits (ratio)
10+00
- Realigned channel
Upstream Restoration Priority 2 26+00 Z
! with restored
° flood
lain to conve
o p
y

Downstre N
25+00- stormflow/ sediment
Restoration Priority 2 and restore aquatidc
am 40+25 `? -- habitat
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
(re ort date)
As-built March 2005 December 2005
(re ort date)
Year 1 Monitoring December 2005
(re ort date)
Vegetation September 2005
Geomo holo ical September 2005
Year 2 Monitoring December 2006
(report date)
Vegetation September 2006
Geomo holo ical October 2006
Year 3 Monitoring October 2007
re ort date
Vegetation Jul 2007
Geomo holo ical Jul 2007
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project 9139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 4

•
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
[phone]
Construction Contractor: NA
Monitoring Performers RJG&A
(2006 and 2007): 1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27616
Ms. Jessi O'Neal
[phone]
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 5, G5, 5
Lower Reach
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%
2.5. Monitoring Plan View
See Figure 2 for Monitoring Plan View.
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 5
10
2026
1 0
2026
2025
•
+ o
? o O
+ N
f + o
+ Lo
N + 00
N +
M + O
2 + o
? a o
' a o
i
a!
0
,S
1
m
_
N
41
0
W
N
co
W
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-secti ons
1-L 2026045.167310 812046. 165066
1-R 2026008.863870 812074. 268999
2-L 2026019.907700 811829. 907400
2-R 2025969.114450 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
Figure 2.1- 2007 Monitoring.
Plan View - Year 3
Third Fork Creek (Forest Hills)
Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139
' LEGEND
1,cQsyStelll 2007 Thalweg
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
- Cross Sections
Feet
10 Photopoints
0 50 100
As-built Drawings (Supplied by KCI)
Vanes
Thalweg
Edge of water
0 o o Conservation Easement
- r 0 0 Sewer ROW
i o + o
?°+ o
+ 00
0 O N
N N 0+ O C
+
N + O
v + O L
04
N + O M
+
co L
N + O
! N + O
N + 00 N
a
N N
N N N
LL a?
i
--
¦
0
I XS1 f
0
N 26+50 7+0
Irk j
0 -
7 V!
I
XS2
0
8130 8128 8126 8124 8122 8120 8118 8116

2026
02026
2025
c
t
U
N
m
m a)
11 E
26+50 117+00 27

i
- -------------
0
Figure 2.2 - 2007 Monitoring-
, Plan View - Year 3
Third Fork Creek (Forest Hills)
Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139
Easting Northing ' LEGEND
Vegetation Plots 11coSteil] 2007 Thalweg
5 2025825.804140 811325.105992 Vegetation monitoring Plots
6 2025751.559070 810836.827402 -? Cross Sections
7 2025773.300850 810651.892462 Fee,
0 Phatopoints
8 2025829.725470 810411.548741 p50 o
As-built Drawings (Supplied by KCI)
Cross-sections 7 Vanes
3-L 2025870.880914 810673.554871 Thalweg
3-R 2025770.851314 810650.406271 --- Edge of water
4-L 2025798.603914 810554.818971 Conservation Easement
4-R 2025759.096714 810575.310971 Sewer ROW

Photopoints
9 2025883.659280 811374.025644
10 2025782.503210 811250.741684
11 2025792.618820 811001.328751
12 2025781.870990 810914.081641
13 2025766.697570 810688.630051
14 2025800.837750 810416.773115
n o
D O ?
co + +
00
I M M O O N O
+ o
M Cl)
M + O O
M M + + N
i M o ° °n o 1.0
00
O + O N
1 j j M
M M +
t i
---
_ 0 0
XS3 I I XS4
•
8116 8114 8112 8110 8108 8106 8104 8102
• • •
2026
2026'
2025
Eastino Northin
^9
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
4-L 2025798.603914 810554.818971
4-R 2025759.096714 810575.310971
Photopoints
9 2025883.659280 811374.025644
10 2025782.503210 811250.741684
11 2025792.618820 811001.328751
12 2025781.870990 810914.081641
13 2025766.697570 810688.630051
14 2025800.837750 810416.773115
v v
_ Figure 2.2 - 2007 Monitoring.
• Plan View - Year 3
Third Fork Creek (Forest Hills)
Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139
LEGEND
ff 2007 Thalweg
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
--<--- Cross Sections
F-t
10 Photopoints
o so loo
As-buik Drawings (Supplied by KCI)
Vanes
--- Thalweg
---- Edge of water
----- Conservation Easement
- Sewer ROW
0 1
.
(a s
i
a
o /
XS3 I XS4
8116 8114 8112 8110 8108 3106 8104
8102`
•
3.0 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
RJG&A's initial 2007 qualitative evaluation was on 11 April. Quantitative vegetation
and geomorphologic data were collected between 12 and 20 July. Another
qualitative/quantitative evaluation was conducted on 12 October 2007.
Like in 2006, structural failure and compromise were recorded in a number of specific
locations. Exotic invasive woody stem density is relatively low but several species have
begun to colonize the restoration area, particularly bankfull benches and floodplain
terraces. Planted woody stem density is high, as is success. Exotic invasive vines have
had a moderate impact on planted woody stem success on several benches.
Geomorphic problem areas observed in 2006 and April 2007 appear to have stabilized
considerably during the 2007 growing season. The restoration project appears to be
adequately transporting urban sediment loads and restoring aquatic habitat (i.e. meeting
its design functions/goals).
3.1. Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation was successful when qualitatively evaluated during October
2007. Planted woody stem success remained high throughout the restoration. Nineteen
species are planted at the restoration site. The average live, planted woody stem density
• for all plots was 22 individuals per plot, which translates to 905 stems per acre, down
from 926 stems per acre observed in 2006. The 2007 density exceeds the required 320
live stems per acre by 183 percent. Stem density is highest for Callicarpa americana,
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, and Viburnum dentatum (Table 5 Appendix A). As can be seen
in Table 2 in Appendix A, 156 of the 179 observed planted stems (87.15%) had a vigor of
4. Mortality in the vegetation plots remains low (less than 2%) and was only observed in
plots 3 and 4.
Monitoring plot photos are also located in Appendix A.
3.1.1. Vegetation Problem Areas
Density and size of invasive exotic species increased slightly during the third growing
season (2007). The total area of dense invasive exotic vine colonization decreased
significantly, from approximately 0.41 acre in 2006, to 0.18 in 2007. Sporadic, low
density invasive vines exist throughout the restoration area. Conversely, invasive exotic
woody stems were more commonly observed at the end of the 2007 growing season
(from approximately 0.03 acre in 2006, to approximately 0.28 acre in 2007).
Dense colonies of Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus) and porcelainberry (Ampelopsis
brevipedunculata) were, like in 2006, observed on floodplain benches. These colonies
have migrated from their observed locations in 2006. The 2007 invasive vine colonies
are much smaller than 2006. In 2007 they only occupy areas that appear to have been
former stands of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). The ragweed stands appear to have
been cut earlier in the growing season by neighbors adjacent to the Forest Hills Park,
• likely to address aesthetic and weed migration concerns.
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 7
•
•
Several small groups of invasive exotic woody stems were also observed in the upper
reach. Most woody stems observed were mimosa (Albisia julibrissin), which were six to
eight feet tall. Several princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) stems were also observed.
They were slightly taller (-10 feet).
Invasive exotic woody stems along the downstream reach increased in absolute number,
vigor and density during the 2007 growing season.
See Table 6, Figure A1-Vegetative Problem Area Plan View, and Vegetation problem
Area Photos in Appendix A.
3.1.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Vegetation)
The Current Conditions Plan View for streams may be found in Appendix A.
3.2. Stream Assessment
3.2.1. Procedural Items
3.2.1.1. Morphometric Criteria
RJG&A personnel qualitatively evaluated the site during early April 2007, during normal
flow and October 2007, during low flow. During July 2007 the third annual cross
section, pattern, and longitudinal profile data were collected based on the 2003 Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003). Four cross-sections were surveyed and
longitudinal profiles of approximately 400 linear feet of both the upstream and
downstream reaches of the stream restoration were surveyed. Photographs were taken at
the four cross sections and at the 14 permanent photo locations that were established by
KCI in March 2005.
3.2.1.2. Hydrologic Criteria
A crest gauge with granulated cork was installed along the right bank at station 33+75 on
13 June 2007. The crest gauge was first evaluated on 16 July 2007. The only cork
remaining inside the gauge was stuck around the cap, indicating that a bankfull storm
event had occurred. Based on NC CRONOS data from the 312515 Durham weather
station, these flows could have occurred in response to storm events which occurred on
14 June (0.66 inch), or 11 July (0.62 inch). After this evaluation, the gauge was re-filled
with approximately five cubic inches of ground cork. The gauge was again evaluated on
12 October 2007. Again, the only granulated cork remaining inside the gauge was inside
the cap at the top, indicating that at least one bankfull event had occurred since 16 July.
The bankfull event was in response to precipitation events on 28 July (1.08 inches), 23
August (0.7 inch), or 15 August (0.6 inch).
The evaluation of Third Fork Creek clearly indicates that at least two storm events
resulted in flows over the designed/built bankfull elevation.
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 8
•
•
Exhibit Table V. Verification of Bankfull Events - Third Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Project
#139
Date of Data Photo #
Collection Date of Occurrence Method (if available)
16 Jul 2007 13 June-16 Jul 2007 Crest Gauge Evaluation NA
12 October 2007 17 Jul -12 October 2007 Crest Gauge Evaluation NA
3.2.1.3. Bank Stability Assessments
A detailed BEHI only applies to Monitoring year 5 and was, therefore, not performed
during 2007 (monitoring year 3).
3.2.2. Current Conditions Plan View (Stream)
The Current Conditions Plan View (Streams) can be found in Appendix B.
3.2.3. Problem Areas Table
Overall, the site is maintaining its as-built dimension, pattern, and profile, and planted
woody stem success is high. Bank erosion along most of the previously observed
problem areas appears to have decreased significantly. The Piedmont's record 2007
drought and the associated lack of flashy storm events have allowed woody and
herbaceous plants to colonize most of the slumps associated with bank undercutting and
lateral channel migration. If woody species become well established, their root systems
may provide long-term bank stability.
Only two significant, high priority problem areas were observed in October 2007. The j-
hook at station 27+04 has been entirely compromised. Its top three boulders have been
entirely undercut, dislodged, and deposited into a deepening pool. No grade control or
velocity dissipation are occurring. The bank undercut/lateral migration between stations
34+11 and 34+80 is expanding and appears to be active.
The remaining bank slumps and undercuts are relatively minor and should continue to be
monitored to ensure that they continue to equilibrate over time.
Table B 1 in Appendix B outlines problem areas by station, along with suspected causes
and representative photos.
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 are located in Appendix B.
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RIG&A Page 9
•
•
3.2.6. Stability Assessment Table
Exhibit Table VI. 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 86
B. Pools 100% NA 87 87
C. Thalwe 100% NA 69 97
D. Meanders 100% NA 90 98
E. Bed General 100% NA 100 100
F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% NA 93 96
G. Wads and Boulders NA NA NA NA
Downstream Reach 1525 Feet
A. Riffles 100% NA 56 56
B. Pools 100% NA 56 56
C. Thalwe 100% NA 57 57
D. Meanders 100% NA 67 67
E. Bed General 100% NA 100 100
F. Vanes/J Hooks, etc. 100% NA 89 94
G. Wads and Boulders 100% NA 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 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page
10

Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Mor holo an d Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration- EEP Project #139 - Upstream Reach
Parameters USGS Data Regional Curve Int. Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach Design As-Built
Dimension
Bankfull Width (ft) 21.8-26.8 17.8 27 NA
Flood prone Width (ft) 29.2-400 NA NA NA
Bankfull Area (s ft) 45.1-57.2 26.2 60 NA
Mean Depth (ft) NA 1.5 2.2 NA
Maximum Depth (ft) 4.7 3.0 4.0 NA
Width/Depth Ratio 8.3-15.9 12.1 12.1 NA
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1-18.3 33.7 2.3-14.8 NA
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA NA NA NA
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA NA NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) NA 158 120 NA
Radius of Curvature (ft) NA 37-40 60-75 NA
Meander Wavelength NA 94-143 160-190 NA
Meander Width ratio 8.9 4.4 NA
Profile
Riffle length (ft) NA NA NA NA
Riffle slope (ft/ft) 0.24-0.57 0.2-2.1 0.25-0.29 NA
Pool length (ft) NA 8-30 27-40 NA
Poolspacing (ft) NA 40-85.5 60-125 NA
Substrate
d50 mm 0.31-0.38 0.20 0.31-0.38 NA
d84 (mm) NA NA NA NA
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Length (ft) NA NA NA NA
Channel Length (ft) 1890 407 2083 NA
Sinuosity 1.03 1.28 1.13 NA
Water Surface Sloe tuft) 0.25 0.24 0.25 NA
BF slope ft/ft) NA NA NA NA
Ros en Classification F5, G5, E5 C5 C5 NA
Habitat Index NA NA NA NA
Macrobenthos NA NA NA NA
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project # 139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page I1
•
0 0
Exhibit Table VII. Baseline Mor holo and Hydraulic Summa - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration- EEP Project #139 - Downstream Reach
Parameter USGS Data Regional Curve Int. Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach Design As-Built
Dimension
Bankfull Width (ft) 29.5 17.8 30 NA
Floodprone Width (ft) 62-400 NA NA NA
Bankfull Area (s ft) 71.4 26.2 75 NA
Mean Depth (ft) NA 1.5 2.5 NA
Maximum Depth (ft) 5.8 3.0 4.25 NA
Width/De th Ratio 12.2 12.1 12.0 NA
Entrenchment Ratio 6.8 33.7 6.7 NA
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA NA NA NA
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA NA NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) NA 158 90 NA
Radius of Curvature (ft) NA 37-40 60-80 NA
Meander Wavelength NA 94-143 180-210 NA
Meander Width ratio 8.9 3.0 NA
Profile
Riffle length ft) NA NA NA NA
Riffle slope ft/ft 0.25-0.29 0.2-2.1 0.25 NA
Pool length ft NA 8-30 30-45 NA
Pools acing (ft) NA 40-85.5 70-140 NA
Substrate
d50 (mm) 0.41 0.20 0.41 NA
d84 (mm) NA NA NA NA
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Length (ft) NA NA NA NA
Channel Length (ft) 900 407 925 NA
Sinuosity 1.01 1.28 1.10 NA
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.20 0.24 0.20 NA
BF slope (ft/ft) NA NA NA NA
Ros en Classification C5 C5 C5 NA
Habitat Index NA NA NA NA
Macrobenthos NA NA NA NA
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #139
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5
Page 12
•
0 0
Table VIII. Mor holo and H draulic Monitoring Summa - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Upstream Reach
XS1 XS2
Dimension As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 As-built MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Flood prone Width (ft) 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00
Bankfull Width (41) 20.40 27.11 28.63 24.45 26.43 26.39 27.62 27.39
Bankfull Area (s ft) 61.87 61.37 62.47 30.12 70.07 72.88 76.71 77.42
Mean Depth 11) 3.03 2.26 2.18 2.23 2.65 2.76 2.78 2.83
Maximum Depth (ft) 3.91 3.95 4.19 12.30 4.81 5.11 5.45 5.59
Width/De th Ratio 6.70 12.00 13.12 61.28 9.97 NA 9.94 9.69
Entrenchment Ratio 11.76 8.85 8.38 8.74 9.08 NA 8.69 8.67
Bank Height Ratio 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.03
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA NA 30.91 11.80 NA NA 31.70 31.14
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA 2.02 39.25 NA NA 2.42 2.49
Substrate
d50 (mm) 0.06 0.04 0.36 0.06 0.09 0.14
d84 (mm) 0.06 0.06 1.88 0.10 0.78 1.63
Pattern As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Channel Beltwidth (ft) NA NA 33.88 29.28
Radius of Curvature ft NA NA 69.42 60.58
Meander Wavelength NA NA 177.65 182.45
Meander Width ratio NA NA 1.20 2.12
Profile
Riffle length (ft) NA NA 51.43 55.57
Riffle slope (ft/ft) NA NA 0.002 0.002
Pool length ft) NA NA 28.60 47.39
Poolspacing 41 NA NA 35.95 21.96
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Length (ft) NA NA 310 310
Channel Length ft) NA NA 350 350
Sinuosity NA NA 1.13 1.13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) NA NA 0.0018 0.0018
BF slope 11/11) NA NA 0.0007 0.0007
Ros en Classification NA NA C5 C5
Habitat Index NA NA NA NA
Macrobenthos NA NA NA NA
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
EEP Project #139
RJG&A
2007 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5
Page 13
• •
Table VIII. MorDholoQv and Hvdraulic Monitoring Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - RF.P Project 4139 Downstream Reach
•
XS 3 XS 4
Dimension As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 As-built MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Flood prone Width 11) 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00
Bankfull Width (1 1) 29.00 25.97 22.32 17.50 23.29 20.47 24.28
Bankfull Areas ft) 54.61 53.46 47.67 55.42 61.50 60.40 57.34 68.79
Mean Depth (1 1) 1.84 1.84 2.48 3.51 2.59 2.80 2.83
Maximum Depth ft 3.28 3.48 3.84 4.26 4.51 4.97 4.56 4.77
Width/Depth Ratio 5.61 15.70 14.51 8.99 4.98 NA 7.31 8.57
Entrenchment Ratio 13.71 8.28 9.24 10.75 13.71 NA 11.72 9.89
Bank Height Ratio 1.04 1.15 0.96 1.09
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA NA 28.31 25.04 NA NA 23.99 27.91
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA 1.68 2.21 NA NA 2.39 2.46
Substrate
d50 (mm) 0.49 6.27 0.76 1.00 0.85 0.78
d84 (mm) 1.50 16.60 9.65 2.00 11.30 3.17
Pattern As-built MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Channel Beltwidth (ft) NA NA 35.77 47.47
Radius of Curvature (ft) NA NA 57.96 56.59
Meander Wavelength NA NA 162.56 183.76
Meander Width ratio NA NA 1.54 1.61
Profile
Riffle length (ft) NA NA 14.24 8.45
Riffle sloe (ft/ft) NA NA 0.021 0.031
Pool length (ft) NA NA 101.45 51.15
Poolspacing (ft) NA NA 23.28 30.45
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Length (ft) NA NA 308 310
Channel Length (ft) NA NA 350 350
Sinuosity NA NA 1.14 1.13
Water Surface Slope ft/ft NA NA 0.0009 0.001
BF slo e (11/11 NA NA 0.0003 0.0046
Ros en Classification NA NA C5b E5
Habitat Index NA NA NA N/A
Macrobenthos NA NA NA N/A
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project 9139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 14
•
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
Eight representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the upstream
and downstream reaches during September 2006. Where appropriate, the new
• monitoring plots were co-located with the first year monitoring plots. All plots measure
100 square meters in area and are either 10 meters by 10 meters, or five meters by 20
meters. Pursuant to the 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.) marked with 18 inch long one half inch diameter
galvanized steel conduit were relocated in 2007. Within each plot, each planted woody
stem location (x and y) recorded in 2006 was relocated. No mortality was observed.
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS/EEP protocol (Lee et al 2006).
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. Because the dimensions of
the plots installed in 2006 are different than the first annual vegetation monitoring plots,
direct comparison with the first year data is inappropriate.
Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix A contain the data from the vegetation monitoring.
Monitoring plot photos can also be found in Appendix A.
• Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 15
•
•
References
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.
Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2007 Monitoring Report
EEP Project #139 Year 3 of 5
RJG&A Page 16
• 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
•
•
Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By Jessi O'Neal
Date Prepared 3/14/2008 11:45
database name
database location
DESCRIPTION OF
WORKSHEETS IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
Metadata
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Stem Count by Plot
and Spp
PROJECT SUMMARY
is •
RJGA-2007-B.mdb
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\2007 CVS veg data entry\Third_Fork
This worksheet, which is a summary of the project and the project data.
List of plots surveyed.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.

Project Code
Project Name
Description
length(ft) stream-to-edge
width (ft)
area (sq m) Required Plots
(calculated) Sampled
Plots
001 3rd fork creek stream restoration 1
3fk Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 7
• Table 2. Veqetation Viqor by Species
•
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missin
Albizia 'ulibrissin
Alnus serrulata 16 1
Amelanchier arborea 1
Betula ni ra 11 1
Callicarpa americana 22 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Clethra alnifolia 1
Cornus amomum 15 1
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 20 3
Itea vir inica 12 1
Li uidambar st raciflua
Paulownia tomentosa
Pinus taeda
Quercus phellos
Salix ni ra 2
Sambucus canadensis 1 2 1
S mphoricarpos orbiculatus 14 2
Taxodium distichum
Ulmus rubra
Viburnum nudum 1 1
Morella cerifera 9
Viburnum dentatum 7
Ilex decidua 4
Ilex opaca 2 1 1
Vaccinium
Cercis canadensis 1 1
Hamamelis vir iniana 5 2
F Platanus occidentalis 12 5 1
Prunus serotina
Acer ne undo
Acer rubrum
TOT: 31 156 19 4 2
0
•
•
Table 3. Damage by Species
oy

a
V ?
y ,
Coq
.?
Acerne undo 1 1
Acer rubrum 1 1
Albizia julibrissin 2 2
Alnus serrulata 19 17 2
Amelanchier arborea 2 2
Betula ni ra 13 11 1
Callicar a americana 25 25 1 1
Ce halanthus occidentalis 1 1
Cercis canadensis 2 2
Clethra alnifolia 1 1
Cornus amomum 16 16
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 25 25
Hamamelis vir iniana 8 5 3
Ilex decidua 4 4
Ilex o aca 4 4
Itea vir inica 15 14 1
Li uidambar st raciflua 5 5
Morella cerifera 10 10
Paulownia tomentosa 2 2
Pinus taeda 1 1
Platanus occidentalis 22 13 9
Prunus serotina 2 2
Quercus hellos 1 1
Salix ni ra 2 2
Sambucus canadensis 6 5 1
S m horicar os orbiculatus 17 17
Taxodium distichum 1 1
Ulmus rubra 2 2
Vaccinium 1 1
Viburnum dentatum 7 7
Viburnum nudum 2 2
TOT:
Q?
3c
ro
Jc
ro
o`
is
•
Table 4. Damaae by Plot
oy m
v 3
O`°F a?F ? J
C? `ry Ord
•
001-jo,sd-0005- ear:1 12 121 1
3fk-jo, sd-0007- ear:1 21 16 5
3fk-sd-0008- ear:1 12 10 1 1
3fk-wjs-0001-year: 1 40 39 1
3fk-WJS-0002- ear:1 31 30 1
3fk-wjs-0003- ear:1 41 40 1
3fk-w s-0004- ear:1 17 14 3
3fk-WM-0006-vear:1 46 41 51 1
0
•
Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species

•
A- 'V w TN
a a o°° o°o .60
?Fy ?,?0, 0' ya 31 ?? 31 3
c0Q?
Q Q Q
Alnus serrulata 17 7 2.43 1 2 3 1 6 1 3
Amelanchier arborea 1 1 1 1
Betula ni ra 12 7 1.71 1 2 1 2 1 2 3
Callicar a americana 23 7 3.29 1 2 1 4 8 4 3
Cercis canadensis 1 1 1 1
Clethra alnifolia 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum 15 8 1.88 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 2
Fraxinus enns Ivanica 23 6 3.83 1 2 3 3 2 12
Hamamelis vir iniana 7 5 1.4 1 2 1 1 2
Ilex decidua 4 4 1 1 1 1 1
Ilex o aca 4 3 1.33 1 2 1
Itea vir inica 13 5 2.6 2 6 1 3 1
Morella cerifera 9 4 2.25 3 2 1 3
Platanus occidentalis 18 7 2.57 2 1 7 2 1 2 3
Salix ni ra 2 1 2 2
Sambucus canadensis 4 3 1.33 1 1 2
S m horicar os orbiculatus 16 8 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 2 2
Viburnum dentatum 7 2 3.5 3 4
Viburnum nudum 2 2 1 1 1
TOT: 19 179 19 10 17 10 32 29 31 12 38
0

Table 6. Vegetation Problem Areas - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project
#139 - Durham, NC
Feature/Issue Station/Range Suspected Cause Photo #
Exotic Invasive Vines 11+70-14+06 Colonization of floodplain by air and

and Wood Stems
waterborne seeds VP1
Exotic Invasive Vines 13+42-15+00 Colonization of floodplain by

waterborne seeds VP2
Exotic Invasive Woody 13+57-35+25 Colonization by air and water borne

Stems
seeds VP3
Exotic Invasive Woody 15+84-16+29 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Vines 17+67-19+33 Colonization of floodplain by VP2
waterborne seeds
Exotic Invasive Vines 19+23-19+59 Colonization of floodplain by VP2
waterborne seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 19+32-19+42 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Vines 22+06-23+50 Colonization of floodplain by air and VPI
and Wood Stems waterborne seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 26+84-27+50 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 28+9-29+38 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Disturbed area 30+14-30+85 Diseased tree removal by City of VP4
Durham maintenance crew - no
replanting
Exotic Invasive Vines 30+15-30+54 Colonization of floodplain by air and VP1
and Wood Stems waterborne seeds
Exotic Invasive vines 30+28-30+90 Colonization of floodplain by VP2
waterborne seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 31+23-32+33 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 31+44-32+38 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 34+74-35+30 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 35+51-35+72 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 36+3-36+67 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 37+44-38+37 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 38+52-38+97 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
Exotic Invasive Woody 38+97-39+14 Colonization by air and water borne VP3
Stems seeds
0
• • •
Appendix A2. Representative Vegetation Problem Area Photos - 2007 - Third Fork Stream Restoration - Project 139

Pf ?` L eat yi
VP3. Exotic Invasive Woody Stems
VP2. Exotic Invasive Vines
VP4. Disturbed Area - not replanted
•

Appendix A3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - 2007 - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
Plot 1 (July 2007)
Plot 2 (September 2006)
Plot 2 (July 2007)

Appendix A3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - 2007 - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
Plot 4 (July 2007)
Plot 3 (September 2006)
Plot 4 (September 2006)
0 0 0
Appendix A3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - 2007 - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration

Plot 5 (July 2007)
Plot 6 (September 2006)
Plot 6 (July 2007)

Appendix A3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - 2007 - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
Plot 7 (September 2006)
Plot 8 (July 2007)
Plot 8 (September 2006)
•
2026
•
2026
2025
•
8130 8128 8126 8124 8122 8120 8118 8116
•
2026
2026
•
2025
•
8116 8114 8112 8110 8108 8106 8104 8102
0 Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
Figure B 1. 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
0 B8. Pebble Counts
•
•
•
•
2026
2026
2025
0
0
o 0
U')
o °o O
+ o
o ? + o
+ N
N + O
0
04
m

I N
N
1 Figure B1- 2007 Current
Conditions - Plan View - Year 3
Fees
? J COSYStelll
0 50 100 Third Fork Creek Forest Hills
( )
Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139
LEGEND
2007 Thalweg
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections
0 Photopoints
As-built Drawings (Supplied by KCI)
Vanes
Thalweg
Edge of water
(0 + o o Conservation Easement
0 o Sewer ROW
a
3 i
M1
W
S
w
N
0
LL
N
w
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-sectio ns
1-L 2026045.167310 812046.165066
1-R 2026008.863870 812074.268999
2-L 2026019.907700 811829.907400
2-R 2025969.114450 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
N CD
O+ O
N O
O ++ N
I N + O
O + N
04 N + O
? N +
I ? I
t

C
L
V

O .
+
?
O
+

N
O
N + O

N ++ o N
`-
N N
E N ? N
L L
05 (0
FF N N 26+50 7+0
s
©? ~ ?_
?i
7 \l, r
XS1 r-,) ? •i
XS2
0
Stream Problem Areas 07
High Priority Low Priority
¦ oo Bank undercut/slump ••• Bank undercut/slump
Vane backcut/scour ? Vane backcut/scour
* Aggradation (pool)
0 Aggradation (bar)
0 UT/Stormwater Headcut
0
8130 8128 8126 8124 8122 8120 8118 8116
•
•
2026
2026
2025
•
8116 8114 8112 8110 8108 8106 8104 8102
0 B2. Stream Problem Areas - Third Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Proiect 4139
•
Feature/Issue Station Probable Cause Photo
A radation (bar) 10+57 Offsite/u stream SPl
Aggradation (pool) 10+68 Offsite/u stream SP2
A radation (bar) 10+75 Offsite/u stream SP1
Aggradation (pool) 11+10 Offsite/upstream SP2
Headcut-stormwater dirt. 14+29 Insufficient armor SP5
Bank undercut/slump 25+85-26+19 No armor/rootwad SP3
Vane backcut/scour 27+04 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4
A radation bar 30+75 Offsite/u stream SP1
A radation bar 31+48 Offsite/u stream SP1
Bank undercut/slum 34+11-34+80 No armor/rootwad SP3
Bank undercut/slum 35+46-35+75 No armor/rootwad SP3
Bank undercut/slum 36+30-36+56 No armor/rootwad SP3
Bank undercut/slum 37+12-37+87 No armor/rootwad SP3
Bank undercut/slum 37+14-38+10 No armor/rootwad SP3
A radation (pool) 38+14 Offsite/upstream SP2
Vane backcut/scour 38+68 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4
0
•

Appendix 133. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos - 2007 - Third Fork Stream Restoration - Project 139
SP3. Bank Undercut/Slump
SP4. Vane Backcut/Scour
•
0 9
Appendix B3. Representative Stream Problem Area Photos - 2007 - Third Fork Stream Restoration - Project 139
SP5. Headcut
0 0
Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
•
PP #1- Looking Upstream (07/16/07)
PP #1 - Looking Upstream (11/20/06)
PP #2 - Looking Upstream (07/16/07)
PP #2 - Looking Upstream (11/20/06)

Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
•
PP #4 - Looking Downstream (11/20/06)
PP #4 - Looking Downstream (07/16/07)
0 0
Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
•
PP #6 - Looking Downstream (11/20/06)
PP #6 - Looking Downstream (07/16/07)

Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
Not Available
PP #8 - Looking Upstream (11/20/06)
PP #7 -
4
PP #8 - Looking Upstream (07/16/07)
•
PP #7 -Looking Downstream (11/20/06)
9 0
Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
0
PP #10 - Looking Downstream (11/20/06)
PP #10 - Looking Downstream (07/16/07)
0 0
Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration

PP #12 - Looking Upstream (11/20/06)
PP #12 - Looking Upstream (07/16/07)
0 0 0
Appendix B4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration
PP #14 - Looking Upstream (11/20/06)
PP #14 - Looking Upstream (07/16/07)
0 0 0
Table B5. Visual Morphological Assessment Third Fork Stream Restoration Project - Upstream Reach - Project #139
Feature
Category

. Riffles Metric (per As-built and reference baselines)

. Present
2. Armor stable
3. Facet grade appears stable
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining (# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended

10
9
8
7 Total
Number
per As-
built

10
10
10
10 Total
Number/
feet in
Unstable
State
1/20
1/5
2/15
3/25 Percent
Performing
in Stable
Condition

100
90
80
70 Feature
Performing
Mean (%)
5. Length appropriate 9 10 1/5 90 86
B. Pools 1. Present 13 15 0 87
2. Sufficiently deep 13 15 2/25 87
3. Length appropriate 13 15 2/25 87 87
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 16 16 0 100
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 15 16 1/23 94 97
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 15 16 1/23 94
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation 0 NA 0 NA
3. Apparent Rc within spec 16 16 0 100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 16 16 0 100 98
E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) 3 NA 0 100
(General) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting or
head cutting
0
NA
0
100
100
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour 22 23 1/15 96
2. Height appropriate 22 23 1/3 96
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 22 23 1/10 96
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 22 23 1/15 96 96
G. 1. Free of scour NA NA NA NA
Wads/Bould 2. Footing stable NA NA NA NA NA
•
• •
Table B5. Visual Morphological Assessment Third Fork Stream Restoration Project - Downstream Reach - Project #139
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 10 3/35 70
2. Armor stable 6 10 4/30 60
3. Facet grade appears stable 5 10 5/60 50
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining 3 10 7/90 30
5. Length appropriate 7 10 3/25 70 56
B. Pools 1. Present 6 12 6/25 50
2. Sufficiently deep 6 12 6/40 50
3. Length appropriate 8 12 4/35 67 56
C. Thalweg 1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering 4 7 3/13 57
2. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering 4 7 3/25 57 57
D. Meanders 1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion 4 7 0/0 57
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation NA NA 2/4 NA
3. Apparent Rc within spec 5 7 0/0 71
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief 5 7 0/0 71 67
E. Bed 1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation) NA NA 3/25 100
(General) 2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting or
head cutting NA NA 4/32 100 100
F. Vanes 1. Free of back or arm scour 8 9 1/7 89
2. Height appropriate 9 9 0/0 100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate 9 9 2/11 100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures 8 9 1/7 89 94
G. 1. Free of scour NA NA NA NA
Wads/Bould 2. Footing stable NA NA NA NA NA
•

B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Third Fork Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 (2007) - Project #139
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Third Fork Creek
XS ID XS 1 (riffle)
Reach: Upstream
Date: 7/16/2007
Field Crew: S. Doi g, K. Barnes
SUMMARY DATA
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 301.82
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 297.59
Floodprone Width (ft) 240.00
Bankfull Width ft 24.45
Entrenchment Ratio 8.74
Mean Depth ft 2.23
Maximum Depth ft 12.30
Width/De th Ratio 61.28
Bankfull Areas ft 30.12
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 11.80
Hydraulic Radius ft 39.25
Stream Type: 5c View of cross-section #I looking upstream
Cape Fear River Basin, Third Fork Creek, XS 1 (riffle)
299
297
w
0
v
295
293
0

- - -Bankfull
t 3rd Year - 07
- 2nd Year - 06
- 1 st Year - 05
- As-built

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
J
0 0 0
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Third Fork Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 (2007) - Project #139
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Third Fork Creek
XS ID XS 2 (pool)
Reach: Upstream
Date: 7/16/2007
Field Crew: S. Doi g, K. Barnes

Station R od Ht. E levation SUMMARY DATA
0 5.26 297.61 Floodprone Elevatk
6.4 5.39 297.48 Bankfull Elevation i
11.8 5.44 297.43 Floodprone Width (
16 5.56 297.31 Bankfull Width ft
18.2 6.04 296.83 Entrenchment Ratio
21.8 7.29 295.58 Mean Depth ft
25.1 8.08 294.79 Maximum Depth
ft
25.9 8.65 294.22 Width/De th Ratio
26.3 9.88 292.99 Bankfull Areas ft
28 10.15 292.72 Wetted Perimeter (1
29.4 10.72 292.15 Hydraulic Radius t
33.4 11.15 291.72
34.6 10.7 292.17
36.4 10.25 292.62
37.2 9.87 293
38.5 7.21 295.66
41.1 6.12 296.75
44 5.41 297.46
48.5 5.44 297.43
51.7 5.37 297.5 298
297
296
w 295
c
0
ro
294
m
293
292
291
Cape Fear River Basin, Third Fork Creek, XS 2 (pool)
IV - -Bankfull
--0-3rd Year - 07
-2nd Year - 06
1 st Year - 05
-- -As-built
0
302.9
297.31
240
27.39
8.67
2.83
5.59
9.69
77.42
31.14
2.49
10
20
Station (feet)
30
40
50
View of cross-section #2 looking upstream
0 9 0
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables - Third Fork Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 (2007) - Project #139
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Third Fork Creek
XS ID XS 3 (riffle)
Reach: Downstream
Date: 7/13/2007
Field Crew: S. Doi g, K. Barnes
Station R od Ht. Elevation
0 5.09 293.06
6 5.26 292.89
8.1 5.73 292.42
9.2 5.91 292.24
10.3 6.32 291.83
10.8 6.56 291.59
11.2 7.55 290.6
12.3 8.37 289.78
13.2 9.14 289.01
14.2 9.42 288.73
15.8 10.15 288
16.6 9.94 288.21
17.9 9.88 288.27
19.8 9.89 288.26
20.4 9.79 288.36
21.2 9.59 288.56
22.8 9.55 288.6
23.4 9.49 288.66
24 8.77 289.38
24.8 7.8 290.35
25.7 7.37 290.78
26.7 7.3 290.85
29.9 6.42 291.73
31.4 5.89 292.26
33.6 5.82 292.33
40 5.32 292.83
46 5.54 292.61
48 5.22 292.93
original (as-built and 1 st year) cross
on was not relocated in 2006.
lequent years' data represent
:ation based best professional
nent, which appropriately
oximates the original location.
292.26
240.00
22.32
25.04
2.21
View of cross-section #3 looking upstream
Cape Fear River Basin, Third Fork Creek, XS 3 (riffle)
LAY
293

292

291 -Bankfull

-3rd Year - 07*

290 -2nd Year - 06*

- - 1 st Year - 05
--

289 -As-built

288 _
N
c
0
M
W
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)
0 0 0
B6. Cross Section Plots, Photos, and Raw Data Tables -Third Fork Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 2 (2006) -Project #139
4

r.. 'i' L .- •xi
7?

Y r
t
4
Station Rod Ht. Elev ation
SUMMARY DATA a
0 6.12 293.73
0.7 6.23 293.62 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 292.90
4.9 6.52 293.33 Floodprone
6.3 6.51 293.34 Bankfull Width (11) 24.28
7.6 6.94 292.91 Entrenchment t t ,
3w: •?
"
9.1 7.62 292.23 Mean Depth ft = x ?
y ;
9.65 7.71 292.14 Maximum
Depth ft
4.77 `a
10.6 8.14 291.71 = ^
Y ?
11.75 8.59 291.26 ?A
,,?„ ? ?'"
? a
?" ?,c,. p,. ,,?
12.6 9.77 290.08 4
r - ~
k •.
13.1 9.95 289
9 Hydraulic
.
13.7 11.39 288.46
r
18.2 11.38 288.47
19.9 11.61 288.24 View of cross-srction ?? looking upstream
21.3 11.72 288.13 S tream Type:
25 11.05 288.8
25.9 9.87 289.98 Cape Fear River Basin, Third Fork Creek, XS 4 (pool)
26.9 9.34 290.51
28.2 7.63 292.22 294
31.9 6.95 292.9
35.2 6.93 292.92
38.3 6.76 293.09 293
41.9 6.41 293.44 1
45 5.92 293.93
292
-Bankfull
f 3rd Year- 07'
291
-2nd Year - 06'
c
q 290
-1st Year - 05
E
-As-built
289
288
'the original (as-built and 1st year) cross
section was not relocated in 2006. 287
Subsequent years' data represent
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
relocation based best professional
judgment, which appropriately Station (feet)
approximates the original location.

River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Third Fork Creek
XS ID XS 4 (pool)
Reach: Downstream
Date: 7' 122007

Field Crew: r
? ' .
S Doik. Nimes

Ftoodprone Elevation (ft) 297.67
Elevation (ft) 292.90
Width (ft) 240.00
Width ft 24.28
Ratio 9.R9
2.83

Width/De th Ratio 8.57
Bankfall Area s ft 68.79
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 27.91
Radius ft 2.46
0 0 0
67. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 (2007) - Durham, NC
River Basin: Ca e Fear
Watershed: Third Fork Creek
Reach: L stream
Profile ID: Profile I
Date: 17J ul 2007
Field Crew: S. Doi and K. Brehm
297.5
296.5
295.5
m
294.5
0
293.5
W
292.5
291.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Sinuosity 1.13
Water Surface Slope (Rift) 0.0018
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.0007
Rosgen Classification
Habitat Index C5
NA
Macrobenthos NA
290.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (feet) i? Bankfn11-07
Water Surface - 07
3rd Year - 07
2nd Year-06
1st Year - 05
- As-Built
A Grade Control Structures j
Upstream Longitudinal Profile
• • •
67. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 (2007) - Durham, NC
River Basin: Cape Fear Pattern min max average
Watershed: Third Fork Creek Channel Beltwidth (ft) 45.5 51.4 47.467
Reach: Downstream Radius of Curvature (ft) 45.20 62.32 56.59
Profile ID: Profile 2 Meander Wavelength 181.6 185.93 183.76
Date: 27 July 2007 Meander Width ratio 1.75 1.47 1.61
Field Crew: J. O'Neal and S. Doig Profile min max average
Riffle length (ft) 5.66 11.70 8.45
Riffle slope (ft/ft) 0.017 0.0441 0.0308
Pool length (ft) 24.21 76.901 51.149
Pool spacing (ft) 21.26 41.407 30.447
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 310
Channel Length (ft) 350
Sinuosity 1.13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.001
0.005
Rosgen Classification
Habitat Index E5
N/A
Macrobenthos N/A
295

294

293 Bankfu11 07
292
291

s;
0
Q3

290

W
289

288

287

286 i I
-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Downstream Longitudinal Profile
-
- Water Surface 07
?- 3rd Year - 07
2nd Year - 06
1st Year - OS
As-Built
D Grade Control Structures

u

Station (feet)
B8. Pebble Count - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Third Year Monitoring 07/25/2007
Cross Section One
•
is
00 OC? atS cS > i9 c? '6? 77 6? i9 a0. d'O aSd' OOr? S? 'O?p a0
'cS 'O O > a S Y O ?O X00 ?S6' i?0a c5? 'Oct ?O v0
® Class %
-? Cumulative %
Particle Size Class (mm)
Particle Size Ranee (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay <.062 40 40 40
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 2 2 42
ti Fine Sand .125-.25 2 2 44
Medium Sand .25-.5 14 14 58
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 19 19 77
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 8 8 85
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 11 11 96
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 2 2 98
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 1 1 99
;, Medium Gravel 8-11.3 1 1 100

Medium Gravel
L
11.3-16
0
100
Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 0 100
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 0 100
Very Course Gravel 32-45 0 100
Very Course Gravel 45-64 0 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
Z Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
o Medium Cobble
U 128-180 0 100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
L Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
_b Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
° Medium Boulders
0 512-1024 0 100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
80
i otai
tuu
150 = 0.36 mm
184=1.88 mm
100
90
80
70
60
50 `
40 d
30
20
10
0
U) 70
m
60
M 50
C 40
= 30
E
Z 20
10
0
0
B8. Pebble Count - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Third Year Monitoring 07/25/2007
Cross Section Two

•
1 otal
IOU
O Class %
Cumulative %
150= 0.14 mm
184 = 1.63 mm
100
90
80
70
60
a?
50 `
40 d
30
20
10
0
t` O S c? v S cP >> Q O O>> a S 0 I
00 6r? `'s cS °, " > ? oa Q 6 c? cP0 c36, O? '`' O
O O
c? ?d> i& Lot 0'.
O ?O c? pcP
Particle Size Class (mm)
Particle Size Ranee (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 46 46 46
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 3 3 49
Fine Sand .125-.25 7 7 56
a Medium Sand
R .25-.5 9 9 65
Coarse Sand .5-1.0 14 14 79
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 8 8 87
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 9 9 96
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 1 1 97
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 2 2 99
;, Medium Gravel 8-11.3 1 1 100
Medium Gravel 11.3-16 0 100
U Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 0 100
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 0 100
Very Course Gravel 32-45 0 100
Very Course Gravel 45-64 0 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
.'n Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
0
Medium Cobble
U
128-180
0
100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
is Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
° Medium Boulders
0 512-1024 0 100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
45
VJ 40
v 35
30
a
25
O
20
E 15
Z 10
5
0
0
B8. Pebble Count - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Third Year Monitoring 07/25/2007
Cross Section Three
•
•
Class %
-+-Cumulative %
50
40
30
20
10
0
r p •a •S T-11 Q S o > > a 0 Q 0 0 > > c? ' s ? J
i5) 9 aO 0 c5o O? c? Oa 'po
O OlJ aiS S o p > 0
O? > _? •S •p tJ tP .O ) S Q O cCP ?d ?S ?6? ?? ?O ?cP
rn •rn r' o rn? a ?-Q °
0
Particle Size Class (mm)
Particle Size RanLye (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 22 22 22
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 0 0 22
n Fine Sand .125-.25 9 9 31
Medium Sand .25-.5 6 6 37
Z Coarse Sand .5-1.0 25 25 62
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 12 12 74
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 5 5 79
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 1 1 80
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 2 2 82
Medium Gravel 8-11.3 4 4 86
Medium Gravel 11.3-16 12 12 98
U Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 2 2 100
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 0 100
Very Course Gravel 32-45 0 100
Very Course Gravel 45-64 0 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
Z Small Cobble 90-128 0 100
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

Medium Boulders
0
512-1024
0
100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
16
l'otal
100
100
90
80
70
60
14
to
12
v
10
IL
o $
L-
aD 6
= 4
Z
2
0
150 = 0.76 mm
184 = 9.65 mm
c
m
a?
a
0

•
•
100
-Class %
Cumulative %
150 = 0.78 mm
184= 3.17 mm
100
90
80
70
60
50 L
40 a
30
20
10
0
f` •0 •? •a •S r? Q S cP > > v rn c9 > > a S J
6 c? 0 '0 p iS 6' c? c? cS v O c? o S?
0 6c? c? Oa
?a'a c? S 'S 'O a ? 1 bS Y c90 c? a i? cS 0
a ?S 6 6? c? cP (p0 S6 ?a c? Oc? --
s „ ls?
Partite Sin Class (mm)
B8. Pebble Count - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration Third Year Monitoring 07/25/2007
Cross Section Four
Particle Size Range (mm) Total # Class % Cumulative %
S/C Silt/Clay < .062 10 10 10
Very Fine Sand .062-.125 4 4 14
.a Fine Sand .125-.25 8 8 22
° Medium Sand .25-.5 12 12 34
v' Coarse Sand .5-1.0 29 29 63
Very Course Sand 1.0-2 14 14 77
Very Fine Gravel 2-4 12 12 89
Fine Gravel 4-5.7 2 2 91
Fine Gravel 5.7-8 4 4 95
Medium Gravel 8-11.3 2 2 97
R Medium Gravel
L 11.3-16 2 2 99
Coarse Gravel 16-22.6 1 1 100
Coarse Gravel 22.6-32 0 100
Very Course Gravel 32-45 0 100
Very Course Gravel 45-64 0 100
Small Cobble 64-90 0 100
Z Small Cobble 90-128 0 100

Medium Cobble
U
128-180
0
100
Large Cobble 180-256 0 100
Small Boulders 256-362 0 100
Small Boulders 362-512 0 100
c Medium Boulders 512-1024 0 100
Large Boulders 1024-2048 0 100
Bedrock > 2048 0 100
i otai
25
20
U)
15
O
y 10
E
3
Z 5
0
0