20040722 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20080527

4%
oq-692a
ELK SHOALS STREAM RESTORATION SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 3)
Prepared For:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 203
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
.. ?I
Prepared By:
# ?b
vu
M
?o
D?
yNps NR, h, ?Q
'?'OSIT_F,q. U 06)

8akair Enginasrinp NY, Int.
8000 Regariq Parkway
Suke Cary, t?«m Carole 27518
Phone: 919.463:5488
Fax [phone]
VE D
November 2007 'VC1",
4 top
ENHANC ECOSYSTEM
EMENT pRc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Project History .................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 STREAM MONITORING ..............................................................................................10
3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 10
3.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 11
3.3 Results of Stream Monitoring ........................................................................................ 11
4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ....................................................................................13
4.1 Description of Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................... 13
4.2 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 14
4.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. 14
4.4 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Vegetative Conclusions .................................................................................................. 15
4.5.1 Climatic Data .......................................................................................................... 15
5.0 PROJECT MAINTENANCE .........................................................................................17
5.1 Kudzu Control ................................................................................................................ 17
5.2 Beaver Dam Removal .................................................................................................... 17
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site ........................................................ 5
Figure 2. As-built Figures for the Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site .................................. 6-9
Figure 3. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall .............................. 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Background Information .............................................................................................. 2
Table 2. Summary of As-built Lengths and Restoration Approaches ........................................ 3
Table 3. Tree Species Planted in the Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site ............................... 13
Table 4. 2007 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition ............................................ 14
Table 5. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches) ................. 15
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Photo Log
APPENDIX B. Stream Monitoring Data
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 3)
Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site
1.0 SUMMARY
This Year 3 Annual Report for 2007 describes the monitoring activities during the 2007 growing
season on the Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site (Site). Construction of the Site, including
planting of trees, was completed in April 2005. The 2007 data represent results from the third
year of stream and vegetation monitoring.
The design for the Elk Shoals project involved the restoration of channel dimension, pattern, and
profile on Elk Shoals Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries (UTs). After construction was
complete, 5,376 linear feet (LF) of stream had been restored on the Site.
This Annual Report presents the data from 3 vegetation monitoring stations, 21 photo point
stations, 1 crest gauge, 10 cross-sections, and stream profiles on sections of Elk Shoals Creek
and two UTs, as described in the approved Restoration Plan for the site. Photos were taken of
cross-sections and at in-stream structures.
Survival success of woody vegetation is being monitored at 3 vegetation monitoring plots, each
0.057 acre in size, placed randomly at the Site. Survivability of trees in each vegetation plot is
used to estimate the average survivability of all trees planted across the Site. The vegetation
monitoring indicated a range of average survivability between 491 and 614 stems per acre. This
Annual Report details the tree survival data obtained from all onsite vegetation monitoring plots
and provides the average stems per acre of woody vegetation established throughout the Site
during the 2007 growing season.
Part of the monitoring effort for this project includes observation of the project's response to
local climatic conditions. Weather data from the Statesville Weather Station (UCAN: 14362,
COOP: 318292) were used to document precipitation. Historical average rainfall totals were
compared to the 2007 observed rainfall totals. For 2007, rainfall between the months of April
and September was 11.36 inches at the weather station compared to the long-term average of
23.80 inches for the same period of time, indicating that the conditions during the 2007 growing
season were excessively drier than the long-term average.
Stream monitoring data showed that little change has occurred in channel dimension and profile
since the repair work of June 2006. Visual observations of these structures for the Year 3
monitoring season revealed that all structures, including the two repaired cross vanes are
performing as designed. However, deposition was observed downstream of the repaired cross
vanes at the lower end of the Site. The results of longitudinal profile showed that cross vane 4 of
the Elk Shoals profile has accumulated sediment in the scour pool. This accumulation of
sediment has not resulted in instability in this section of channel The longitudinal profile also
showed that the pool downstream of constructed riffle 11 has deepened since Year 1. This area
will also be closely monitored during future site visits.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3
Table 1. Background Information.
Project Name Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site
Primary Contractor Restoration Systems, LLC
1001 Haynes Street, Suite 203, Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Designer Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC, 27518
[phone]
Construction Contractor River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC, 27518
[phone]
Project County Alexander County
Directions to Project Site From Raleigh, follow 1-40 west to exit 144 (Old
Mountain Rd.). Head north on Old Mountain Rd to Old
Concord Church Rd. Turn left on Old Concord Church
Rd., Site entrance is on the right after crossing Elk
Shoals Creek.
Drainage Area Elk Shoals Creek = 4.6 square miles
UT1 = 0.38 square miles
UT2 = 0.5 square miles
USGS Cataloging Unit 03050101
NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-08-32
Project Length 5,376 LF (Restoration)
Restoration Approach Restore and enhance channel dimension, pattern and
profile to three separate stream reaches (As-built
restoration length = 5,376 LF)
Date of Completion April 2005
Monitoring Dates Yearly through 5 growing seasons
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Description
The Elk Shoals Creek Restoration Site (Site) is located near the town of Stony Point in Alexander
County within the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina (Figure 1). The Site lies
in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 03050101 and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin. Environmental
components monitored in this project will be those that allow an evaluation of channel stability
and survivability of riparian vegetation. The design for the restored streams involved the
construction of stable meandering channels for the purpose of improving water quality and
wildlife habitat.
The stream systems that historically flowed through the Site were degraded by past land
management practices including land clearing, straightening and ditching of streams, row crop
production (corn and soybeans), and livestock production. The streams on the Site were
channelized, and riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations to increase arable acreage and
improve drainage for agricultural purposes. Stream and riparian functions on the Site had been
severely impacted as a result of agricultural conversion.
The project involved the restoration of 5,376 linear feet (LF) of channelized stream on Elk Shoals
Creek and two unnamed tributaries (UTs). Table 2 shows the as-built lengths and restoration type
per reach. The as-built plans presented in Figure 2 illustrate the construction and planting that
were completed for this project in April 2005. The 2007 monitoring season represents the third
year of monitoring for the Site.
Table 2. Summary of As-built Lengths and Restoration Approaches.
Reach Name As-built Length (LF) Restoration Approach
Elk Shoals Creek 563 Enhancement Level I
Elk Shoals Creek 3,531 Restoration
UT I 613 Restoration
UT2 669 Restoration
Total 5,376 :: 6=
2.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Elk Shoals Site is required to demonstrate successful stream restoration based
on the criteria described in the approved Restoration Plan for this Site. Vegetation and stream
stability monitoring are conducted on an annual basis. Success criteria for this site must be met
for five consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the monitoring efforts
performed during 2007 (Year 3) at the Elk Shoals Site.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 3
2.3 Project History
October 2004
April 2005
April 2005
December 2005
March 2006
June 2006
December 2006
November 2007
Approved Mitigation Plan
Construction Completed
Planting Completed
1 st Annual Monitoring Report
Supplemental Planting
Channel Repair Work
2nd Annual Monitoring Report
3rd Annual Monitoring Report
December 2008 (scheduled) 4th Annual Monitoring Report
December 2009 (scheduled) 5th Annual Monitoring Report
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 4
Figure 1. Location of Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site.
4 , a5'r+m R
r
e
Ut? (5
r7l
A,
i
VIf
A 4 i tr I J r--_?J" p 4y Rd
"'co r
Project Area
Ib to Rd g? t '
t
?j 153 t' OrQC Gts ., ar
{ Si0' r rd 1JC _ y l
-u 64
C X, Rd L
F? x `x ?f
fit',? :
F l lF- Say Rd ?{ ?
' f j 1 tt a
`
_03
?'
y
i _
4b

16 Rd

sa
l

c:l op o
Are _ ? -
?Y c?i7r L° G am& t 4 ri

• as H
?'\,
?
Sd .?
rs td R
?.-

oc n t,.
62 _ x f
r
l?zeLri 9.'
-% r? Haudk p< t,
Figure 1.1. Project Vicinity Map
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 203
Raleigh, NC 27604
0 0.5 1 2
Mifes
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 5
GO
tt
i?

qF7

N W W w b

?
N ///???
? W
e
U 8 _..-

` Cl
?

W i
i

°

U

W
F? A h
° h
Now
Fw
x
x a
?
`
a ° wo I "
a ?? a ru
z

SIV p O f
C
y ?I?oaa?y
_. i . 8 m ¦ H N 11

Y ,
? ? r f 1
W O

.. ' - p
W

?T !
?
?
N
W m Z
O

U
G? ?' Z _
LL h

?y

2IFLI0 *,L DYfo

IY
d E<
I _
IX •? ,ti
1 f?i.y S
?

t i ?

1
41
.off ? i 1 tltl 11 .

y' \
II%
p

a! '??
m '
\ \
? l
w \
6 N
i ?? t 0
„ L?szu
\ [

?
If
\ Y
0-
,?-
CO

2 O2
O
(00
:1

a off.
w
? i
I
m v , V -

i
l1' \ p
l

J
UU20
0Z
5?`?ox e

[4 -+
-i
r6Z \
z1all
'v
`Lycy?X^
Opy
11 ? Yrn? it
yLL
T
K? J<,? d T._ Q
a 2
Q a
9m?

R
z2
g`?
ulaZ
,
1
z = V, YIII

y
8

0
0
Z
U
H?
y
1
N M
Z
U
LU =
2
JW
M W m
'
V
_
LL
?6P'EB"9V-W'StlECII?""Idv'6?"0?/1
CIO
N
LL
l 1 t r f ?? S f ? ? r
X49 ?) ? ....? ( )I• ? ?}?
c b
w?
a
z _.z N
C f? R? t 1 'A7 '?
t ?1 ?tl t ?? Z
i1 la
•\\? 1, O?wur?
?t P 'i„ wsy ,??
i ? t? p L
? 1.
t I jt:_
l i
00-00,
Et d1S6 ? ?t 'a
?3NS31y?H?1bW; ?'< '' `
m

?a
?q ^3
w
bF WrS

aO -

m ?
1 \ ?
f
f
x
U
N
W
LL
's
S
a
N
N LL
W
332 1?
?qyU?
ZI ? (] S
? a
o
m ? a
N a
z
m
z ~ O
z f
? ^2y
' r
r y??
ap A„? - Mra
d03
i -` _ naa
LL
A ? 2

1N Co , 11
t' 1 1?i
eaaQ ??? R
hp 1
\ W
Sa3 1
ZZ \,.
:5)
r ` f
f jrf u ???
W7

8 y'
d ?
N
N

3.0 STREAM MONITORING
3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Elk Shoals Creek Restoration Site:
Bankfull Events: A crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankf ill events. The
gauge is checked during yearly site visits, and records the highest out-of-bank flow event that
occurs during the year. The gauge is located at stream station 47+00, near permanent cross-
section 10 (see Figure 2-C).
Cross-Sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 2,000 LF of stream restoration
work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being a pool cross-
section. A total of 10 permanent cross-sections were established on the Site, six on Elk Shoals
Creek, two on UT I, and two on UT2. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with
permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent cross-section pins were surveyed
and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data.
The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of
bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle cross-sections are classified using
the Rosgen stream classification system.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as-built conditions. For the monitoring periods years 1, 3, and 5 the
longitudinal profile will be surveyed for at least 1,000 LF of the restored channel on Elk Shoals
Creek, which shall include a 500-foot reach of the restored channel near the upstream section of
the project and another 500-foot reach measured downstream. Measurements will include
thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken
at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool, and glide). In addition, maximum pool depth will
be recorded. All surveys will be tied to a single permanent benchmark.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success.
Twenty-one photo reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed
grade control structures across the Elk Shoals Creek Site, and additional photo stations were
established at each of the ten permanent cross-sections. The GPS coordinates of each photo
station have been noted as additional references to ensure the same photo location is used
throughout the monitoring period. Reference photos are taken at least once per year.
Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross-section photo station. For each
stream bank photo, the photograph is framed so that the survey tape is centered in the photo
(appears as a vertical line at the center of the photograph), keeping the channel water surface line
horizontal and near the lower edge of the frame, to include as much of the photographed bank as
possible in the photo. A photo log of structures and photographs taken at the permanent cross-
sections at the Elk Shoals Creek Site is included in Appendix A of this report.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 10
3.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
• Cross-Sections: There should be little change in the as-built cross-sections. If cross-section
changes are observed, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability
(e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth
ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and
all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for
"C4/E4" type channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed in "C" or "E" type channels.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures. Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the
channel, no excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of
riparian vegetation.
3.3 Results of Stream Monitoring
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during
Year 3 (2007) monitoring period. An inspection of site conditions during the September site visit
revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest gauge reading. The largest
onsite stream flow documented by the crest gauge during Year 3 of monitoring was
approximately 1.8 feet above the bankfull stage. The second largest crest gauge reading was
0.89 feet above the bankfull stage.
The Year 3 longitudinal profile was also completed in August 2007 and was compared to the
data collected during the as-built condition survey and Year 1 data. The longitudinal profile is
presented in Appendix B. The results of longitudinal profile showed that cross vane 4 of the Elk
Shoals profile has accumulated sediment in the scour pool. This accumulation of sediment has
not resulted in instability in this section of channel. The area will be closely monitored during
future site visits. The longitudinal profile also showed that the pool downstream of constructed
riffle 11 has deepened since Year 1. This area will also be closely monitored during future site
visits.
Year 3 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during August 2007 and
compared to baseline stream data collected in May 2005 (as-built conditions), Year 1 data
collected in November 2005 and Year 2 data collected in September 2006. The ten, permanent
cross-sections along the restored channels (five located across riffles and five located across
pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 3. Data
from each permanent cross-section are included in Appendix B of this report. The riffle and pool
cross-sections show that there has been very little adjustment to stream dimension since
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 11
construction. Cross-sections 1 and 7 showed noticeable deposition on the inside meander bends
and the pools have aggraded. Cross-sections 4 and 6 also showed noticeable deposition on the
inside meander bends and the pools have deepened. Cross-Sections 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are located
in pools found at the apex of a meander bend. Cross-Sections 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 are located in
riffles before and after pools. Survey data from all pool cross-sections indicate the continued
development of point bar features on the inside bank of the meander bends. All monitored cross-
sections fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" or "E" type channels.
Two beaver dams were noted in the restored channel during this monitoring year and have since
been removed. The beaver dams did not affect the overall monitoring results for Year 3.
Flow through a meander bend possesses higher conveyance velocity along the outer bank of the
bend, and lower flow velocity along the bend's inner bank. As flow velocity decreases, sediment
transport capacity also declines, causing transported sediment to fall out and settle on the bottom
as it slows down. Point bar formation along the inside of a meander bend indicates flow velocity
vectors occurring as designed, and is therefore expected.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, rock cross
vanes, rock j-hooks and vanes, log bank toe protection, and root wads. A constructed riffle and
three rock cross vanes were installed on the lower end of the project to step down the elevation
of the restored stream bed to match the existing channel invert at the outlet of the project. These
two cross vanes were repaired in June 2006 after minor piping or head cuts were noted upstream.
Visual observations of these structures for the Year 3 monitoring season revealed that all
structures including the two repaired cross vanes are performing as designed. However,
deposition was observed downstream of the repaired cross vanes.
Rock vanes and J-hooks placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep
and provide cover for fish. Cross vanes placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations
and provided a downstream scour hole that provides habitat. Root wads and brush layers placed
on the outside of meander bends have provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and
other aquatic organisms.
Photographs of the channel were taken during the Year 3 monitoring season to document the
evolution of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A and B).
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 12
4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
4.1 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
At the completion of construction activities, stream margins and riparian areas of the Elk Shoals
stream restoration Site were planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a permanent herbaceous
seed mixture. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight feet apart from the top of
the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re-vegetation limits at a density of 680 stems
per acre. The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 3. The seed mix of herbaceous
species applied to the project's riparian area included Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Joe-pie-weed
(Eupatorium maculatum), Wool grass (Scirupus cyperinus), Fringe sedge (Carex crinata), River
Oats (Uniola latifolia), and Cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis). This seed mixture was
broadcast on the Site at a rate of 21 pounds per acre. All planting was completed in April 2005.
Table 3. Tree Species Planted in the Elk Shoals Restoration Area.
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
2 uercus hellos Willow Oak FACW-
3 uercus rubra Northern Red Oak FACU
4 uercus alba White Oak FACU
5 Betula ni ra River Birch FACW
6 Dios ros vir iniana Persimmon FAC
7 Hamamelis vir iniana Witch Hazel FACU
8 Fraxinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
9 Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip Poplar FAC
10 uercus alcata Southern Red Oak FACU-
*11 uercus michauxii Swam Chestnut FACW
*12 uercus vir iniana Live Oak FA CU
*13 uercus shumardii Shumard's oak FAC
At the time of planting, three vegetation plots, labeled Ml, M2, and M3, were delineated on-site
to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.057 acre in size
or 25 feet x 100 feet dimensionally. Plot delineation involved using metal fence posts at each of
the four corners to clearly and permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes
were hung connecting all four corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary
were inside or outside of the plot. Trees on the boundary and trees just outside of the boundary
that appear to have greater than 50 percent of their canopy inside the boundary were counted
inside the plot. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them from
any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 13
4.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
To determine vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation density
have been defined. Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving tree
density of at least 320, 3-year-old trees per acre at the end of Year 3 monitoring, and a surviving
tree density of at least 260, 5-year-old trees per acre at the end of the 5-year monitoring period.
Although the selected native canopy species planted throughout the Site are the target woody
vegetation cover, up to 20 percent of the Site's established woody vegetation at the end of the
monitoring period may be comprised of volunteer species.
4.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 4 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 3. Each planted tree species is identified across the top row, and each plot is
identified down the left column. The numbers on the top row correlate to the ID column of
Table 3. Trees within each monitoring plot are flagged regularly to prevent the occurrence of
unmarked trees due to flag degradation. It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to
remain marked to ensure they are all accounted for during the annual stem counts and calculation
of tree survivability. Volunteer individuals found within the plots are also flagged during this
process. Flags are used to tag trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree.
Table 4. 2007 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition.
*September 2006 after supplemental planting conducted by River Works, Inc *
Tree Species ID Number
Plot 1 2 3
8 9 10 * 11 * 12 * 13 Total Stem/ac
M1 7 2 JJf1
8 29 509
3 6 07 M7 35 614
4 1 5 28
, 491
4.4 Vegetation Observations
All herbaceous species seeded throughout the Site after construction (see Section 4.1 of this
report) were found onsite at the end of the Year 3 monitoring period. In addition, Switch grass
(Panicum virgatum), Deer tongue (Panicum clandestinum), and Aster (Aster spp,) were observed
throughout the Site. Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), a non-native plant, was also noted
within the riparian area. These species were not planted on the Site and are considered to be
volunteer species.
During Year 3 monitoring, Kudzu (Pueraria Montana) was noted on the Site along the road.
Since the survey, the kudzu has been treated by spraying.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 14
4.5 Vegetative Conclusions
The survival success of woody vegetation at each vegetation monitoring plot was notably low at
the end of 2005. This low survival rate of planted trees was attributed to late planting (April
2005) combined with drier than average conditions throughout the growing season.
That Initial low survival success of woody vegetation suggested the Site may not meet the
minimum success criteria established as goal for the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. To
increase the density of successfully established trees at the Site, supplemental planting of woody
vegetation took place during March 2006. The entire Site was planted with 50 percent of the
original plantings, or 2,200 additional trees. No additional planting occurred during 2007.
At the end of Year 3 the vegetation plots for stems\acre ranged from 614 to 491 as shown in
Table 4.
4.5.1 Climatic Data
Table 5 and Figure 3 show a comparison of the 2007 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation
(WETS table for Iredell County, collected between 1971 and 2000) for the Elk Shoals project
area. Historic climate information for Alexander County was not readily available; therefore,
data from Iredell County were used due to its proximity to the Site.
Table 5. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches).
Observed Precipit ation, P (in)
Month Average 30% 70% Month P
January 3.83 2.65 4.74 January 2007 5.32
February 3.48 2.53 4.22 February 2007 1.8
March 4.4 3.13 5.19 March 2007 4.1
April 3.42 2.13 4.53 April 2007 2.47
May 4.15 2.67 5 May 2007 0.3
June 4.49 2.99 5.39 June 2007 4.18
July 3.95 2.57 4.95 July 2007 2.23
August 3.72 2.59 4.65 August 2007 0.63
September 4.07 2.41 5.88 September 2007 1.55
October 3.45 1.99 4.13 October 2007 0
November 3.3 2.45 3.84 November 2007
December 3.64 2.51 4.41 December 2007
Notes:
* Data not available for Statesville Weather Station before submittal date of this report
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 15
Figure 3. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Elk Shoals Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
9

8
---Historic Average ---•--- Observed 2007
N
m
7
t

v
6
.?
c 5

0
0
4

3
•?
(D
2
0.
1

0

?
?
J >J

>C J
Q? ?
'
O
O

¦ Historic 30 percentile --?- Historic 70 percentile

i

Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 16
5.0 PROJECT MAINTENANCE
5.1 Kudzu Control
During the 2007 monitoring activities, two small areas (total of approximately 0.7 acre) of kudzu
(Puerperia lobata) were observed growing within the project easement area. One was located at
Station 50+25 and the other between Stations 43+00 and 44+00, both on the west side of Elk
Shoals Creek.
The two areas were treated with Milestone VM (40.6% active ingredient of aminopyralid)
herbicide. This herbicide is highly effective on plants in the legume family but has little effect
on other species. The areas were treated on October 30, 2007 with approximately 5 ounces of
Milestone mixed in 70 gallons of water. Follow-up surveys during 2008 will be conducted to
determine if additional control activities are necessary.
5.2 Beaver Dam Removal
Two beaver dams on Elk Shoals Creek were observed during the 2007 monitoring activities.
One was located at Station 32+00 and the other at Station 34+40. Both dams were removed with
hand equipment in November 2007. Follow-up surveys during the remainder of 2007 will be
conducted to determine if additional control activities are necessary.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 17
6.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream Monitoring. The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 5,376
LF. This entire length was inspected during Year 3 of the monitoring period to assess
stream performance. Based on the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed
features along the restored channel are stable and functioning as designed. However, at
two cross vanes at the lower portion of the site, deposition was observed downstream of
the inverts. This deposition is likely attributed to the lack of rain during Year 3, which
has produced the absence of high flows in the system. The results of longitudinal profile
showed that cross vane 4 of the Elk Shoals profile has accumulated sediment in the scour
pool. This accumulation of sediment has not resulted in instability in this section of
channel. The area will be closely monitored during future site visits. The longitudinal
profile also showed that the pool downstream of constructed riffle 11 has deepened since
Year 1. This area will also be closely monitored during future site visits. The lack of
significant problem areas along the length of the restored channel after the occurrence of
at least two river flows larger than bankfull discharge further supports functionality of the
design.
Vegetation Monitoring. The Site experienced low survival of planted woody vegetation
during Year 1 of the monitoring period. To increase the density of successfully
established trees at the Site, supplemental planting of woody vegetation took place in
March of 2006. The below average amount of rain during the Year 3 growing season did
not seem to have a detrimental affect on the vegetation plots. The vegetation monitoring
indicated a range of average survivability between 491 and 614 stems per acre. Seeded
herbaceous vegetation has thrived onsite, providing adequate ground cover during the
2007 growing season.
Elk Shoals Monitoring Year 3 18
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG

Constructed Riffle 1

w

? d
-
j p J" g
p .
?
e+ ?
y

Constructed Riffle 4
Constructed Riffle 2
Constructed Riffle 3
Constructed Riffle 5
Constructed Riffle 6
MR
w
q
V., 5
1 ?t ?*vr? -
s+ + r :.
42
` a
Constructed Riffle 11
Cross vane 1
Constructed Riffle 7
Constructed Riffle 8
Constructed Riffle 9
Constructed Riffle 10
Cross vane 2
Cross vane 4
Cross vane 3
Cross vane 5
Cross vane 6 Cross vane 7
Cross vane 8
Cross vane 9
Cross vane 10
APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA

- o
j O
? N
g ?.
w
i ?
7
o Q
u -a
_ 4)
m
a 0
V
m
5s

O i
N
O
O
°
i. I
c
O
? I
° II

? I I
Y
W
rn
m3
L
I
O
HL ?
I 7 ? M I ,-r
m

Q 1(r
1 T
O

M
V1 O V O V ^
M M N N
(13) uoi;ena1:1
M
0
N
0
r
ti
M
t
LO
? n
00
N
N
M ?
?a
? O
t v
U ?
d .r
o °
CL`
N
m
0
t
Cl)
Y
W
U
t C
C: I
Cl) CO
N ?
m a
H
O
N O
3 3
t ?
? L
r M
N
C N
U3 N N
Qrr
N
N
In
N_
v-,
N
O
N
w
c
O
N
In
N
N
vi O vi O_ ?n
(3 3) UOI;6A313
M
r
t
to
T"
O
Q)
O
t
M
r
C
O t-
?, O
1a O
N
co ,
N
M ?
da
U v
O ?
a --
F-
ca
O
t
Y
W
U
ca 0-
?, 0
II
w mm
X33
L (6 (6
7 M'
mc`o`m
cn N N
O O\ 00 (? ?D ?n '?t M N ?--
? ? ONi ? ONi ? GNP ? N ?
(1j) uogt'najU
0
0
0
O
O
O
?i
0
o?
0
0
?r
0
M
O
O
M
N
t
T
O
co
m
T
c
O ti
N
N r
? N
M
7
d Q
} .a
? d
?C N
t
U v
d ?
O
a --
N
F-
M
N
m
O
t
Cl)
Y
n
m
3
m
L i

m
m
r
o?
v 3

L

Cl)
N ?

+}I
7
I
rn
d
3
m Y
co

co
o
Q ??
?T M N^ O O oo I? D v?
N N N N N ? ^ ^
C, O, 0? QN O, a rn c
(43) uOTIVAaia

N

r
N ?
C?
?n
V)
N
IT
M
UT1 Permanent Cross-section #1
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
W-fpa
Pool 5.1 12.33 0.41 0.77 29.78 1.5 6 928.5 928.91 73.98
UT1 Cross-section #1
933
932
931
S930
_
r 929
M
U 928
Year 1 - - -0 - - Bankfull
O - - Floodprone As-Built
Year 2 -0 Year 3
927 j ?(/
926
925
100 110 120 130 140
Station (ft)
b ..................................... ---------------------------------------------- p
150 160 170 180
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
UT1 Permanent Cross-section #2
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)
U 1 1 VI VJJ-JGVlI VII TrL
E
C
0
r
R
m
w
933
932
931
---------------------------------------------------------o
930
929
928
927
926
925
100
Year2 - - O - -Bankfull
- - O - - Floodprone Year 1
As Built 0-year 3
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #3
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 49.6 19.53 2.54 4.75 7.69 1 2.6 926.52 926.59
932
930
.. 928
0 926
> 924
as
w 922
920
918
Elk Shoals Creek
Cross-section #3
------------------------------------ o
Year 2 - - O - -Bankfull
- - O - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built -41- Year3
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #4
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)
Cross-section #4
F
C
r0
eo
m
w
931
929
927
925
923
921
919
917
Year 2 o Bankfull
- - o - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built --o-Year 3
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #5
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E 56.3 24.65 2.28 4.31 10.79 1 3.9 921.43 921.49
Elk Shoals Creek
Cross-section #5
928
926
924
c 922
> 920
d
w 918
916
914
.......................................................................0
Year 2 - - 0 - -Bankfull
- - O - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built --- --Year 3
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #6
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)

4
927
925
923
0 921
:r
> 919
4)
w
917
915
913
Elk Shoals Creek
Cross-section #6
b ---------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Year 2 O - - Bankfull
d - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built -Year 3
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
UT2 Permanent Cross-section #7
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)
UT2 Cross-section #7
924
923
922
c 921
> 920
d
w 919
918
917
0------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
-Year 2 - - O - -Bankfull
- - O - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built - 0 Year 3
100 110 120 130
140 150
Station (ft)
160 170 180 190
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
UT2 Permanent Cross-section #8
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)

t i
9
xi ,
}wf
? Y.. fF ? r .S?u 'a1'fR
924
923
922
w
0 921
r
> 920
m
w 919
918
917
UT2 Cross-section #8
6-------------------------------------------------------------•o
Year 2 - - O - - Bankfull
- - 4 - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built • Year 3
100
110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #9
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 77.6 43.47 1.78 5.24 24.36 1 2.6 919.5 919.49
926
924
922
c 920
?a
918
w
916
914
912
Elk Shoals Creek
Cross-section #9
Year 2 - - O - -Bankfull
- - O - -Floodprone Year 1
As-Built - 9 Year 3
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #10
(Year 3 Data - collected August 2007)
927
925
923
c 921
> 919
w 917
915
913
Elk Shoals Creek
Cross-section #10
?6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Year 2 O - - Bankfull
- O - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built --- *--Year
100 110 120 130 140
150 160 170
Station (ft)
'I OU i yu zuu z 1 v
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank