The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030299 Ver 1_Complete File_20061201 ~ ; hird Fork Creek Stream Restoration - NCEEP Project #139 Durham, North Carolina Second Annual Monitoring Report December 2006 Designed by: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A. Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 PMOG4t~ ~ ' THIRD FORK CREEK STREAM RESTORATION - NCEEP Project #139 , 2006 MONITORING REPORT - YEAR 2 CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Table of Contents I. Executive Summary""",......"., ,.,.""....... ,....." ..."..,.."..,.........'.." ,."."",..........."".........,. 3 II. Proj ect Background......,......"..........",.."",.,......,."....",.."..,.,.,.".......".."..."..........,..., 3 A, Location and Setting ....."..........."....,.....,.....",...."",....".......""",...... ......,.".",.. ,.... .., 3 B. Structure and Objectives.,..,..",..........."....."",........ ,.......,.,."", ,...."", ........,..,..,..,....., 4 C. History and Background,.. ,... ................." ..,..., ,.............,.""",.",..... ,...,.".., ............."" 6 III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ,...................,.......,......,...,..................,......, 9 A. Vegetation Assessment ,.... ,...... ....... ,.."..".. ....... ,..........."".... ,.. ,.......'.,....,..",......,."".. 9 1. Soil Data.......,....." ......"......"...........,...,..,....., ,............ '..."."".,.., ,.......,.. .......... ,...." 9 2. Vegetation Problem Areas ...,.......,......,.,..............,.".."...,.. ,..."..,.""..................".. 9 2,1. Upstream Reach........,....... .,.......... .......... ...... .......................,...., ................... 10 2,2, Downstream Reach ,.......................,..........................,............, ......,.. ..........." 1 0 3. Stem Counts ".."" ",.".".......,...,.....".....,.......,..,.,.....,."."... ,.......,..".,....",.,.........., 1 0 4, Vegetation Plot Photos........." ....,.,...,.,.. ....,........,.,...,.......,.... ......... ,...,..........,...... 13 B. Stream Assessment.""," ,........",.......""""......",.......,......,.."...,....,..."......"..........", 13 C. Wetland Assessment "............., ,......"".,..., ,.......,......,.""..".. ,...,...,'.... ,..".., .........."" 22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map..,.....".",..""............,....."".......,...""",.,..""""..,.... 5 Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View..,..""""".,.....".."...,.."."..,..",..,...."",........, ,8 Figure 3, USGS Stream gauge data for Ellerbe Creek near Gorman, N,C,.....""",."...15 LIST OF TABLES Exhibit Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives""".",.......,.,.""...."",..6 Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History.. ,.",."", ,.., ,...,.',."",. ....", ,.6 Exhibit Table III. Project Contact Table" .....,....... ,....,..,....".,..""",........"""......7 , Exhibit Table IV. Project Background Table,................,.."..,.... ......"....,.".....,....7 Exhibit Table V, Preliminary Soil Data...., ..................,..................,.. .........................,.... ......9 Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas ...............................,...........,......................,....9 Exhibit Table VII, Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot.......,............................12 Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................................14 Exhibit Table X, Stream Problem Areas ...........................................,........ ...............,..........,16 Exhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment...............,.........17 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary........,............................. 18 Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary........,.......................23 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 1 APPENDICES Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data A-I Vegetation Problem Area Plan View A-2 Vegetation Problem Area Photo A-3 Vegetation Survey Summary Data A-4 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos A-5 Vegetation Raw Data Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data B-1 Exhibit- Problem Areas Plan View B-2 Representative Stream Problem Area Photos B-3 Stream Photo-station Photos B-4 Table B.l Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment B-5 Cross section Plots and Raw Data Tables B-6 Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables B-7 Pebble Counts Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 2 I. Executive Summary The Third Fork Creek stream restoration project is located in southwest-central Durham, North Carolina, in the headwaters of the Third Fork Creek watershed (US Geological Surveyl4-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002060120) within the New Hope Creek Sub-basin of the Upper Cape Fear River (NC Division of Water Quality Sub-basin 03-06- 05), The project has restored approximately 2,900 linear feet of perennial stream in the Cape Fear River Basin. Evaluation and design were initiated during the summer of2002. Construction was completed in January 2005. The stream restoration project's goals were: to restore stable channel morphology, which will reduce bank erosion; improve the watershed's sediment transport; improve aquatic habitat diversity; and increase aesthetic value to local stakeholders, The preliminary qualitative evaluation was conducted by RJG&A in early February 2006, Subsequent qualitative evaluation was conducted during early March, late June, and September 2006. The second vegetation monitoring data were collected during September 2006, using EEP's August 2006 monitoring protocol. The second annual geomorphologic monitoring data were collected during October 2006, Overall, the restoration project has met its design goals. Several major geomorphologic changes were documented during the second monitoring year, but overall the site is relatively stable, Aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms have colonized most of the restoration area and the average live planted woody stem density (926 per acre) has exceeded the vegetation restoration goal (320 per acre) by 289 percent. II. Project Background A. Location and Setting The entire restoration site is contained within Forest Hills Park, which is owned by the City of Durham. To get to the Third Fork Creek restoration site from NC 147, take exit 12B and travel south on Roxboro Road, Turn east on West Lakewood Avenue, which merges into University Drive. Forest Hills Park and the Third Fork restoration site are on the left (eastern) side of University Drive (US 15/501 Business, Figure 1), The upstream boundary of the restoration project is immediately downstream from where Third Fork Creek emerges from the box culvert under the northern stretch East Forest Hills Boulevard. The stream restoration extends downstream along the main channel from this point to the southern edge of the Forest Hills Park. The double box culvert under the southern stretch of the East Forest Hills Boulevard loop divides the restoration into upper and lower reaches, An unnamed tributary to Third Fork Creek joins the lower reach on the downstream end of the culvert. The lower reach therefore has a significantly larger watershed, Forest Hills Park is dominated by lawn/open space with relatively little mature canopy cover (less than 25 percent). A playground and other facilities with impervious cover (e,g swimming pool, tennis courts, and picnic shelter) are located near the southern portion of the restoration's upper reach, The surrounding area is highly urbanized. The majority of Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration 2006 Monitoring Report EEPProject#139 Year2of5 RJG&A Page 3 the land use is dedicated to residential and commercial development and secondary roads. Prior to the restoration, both project reaches were incised and had active bed degradation and channel widening characterized by severe bank erosion. B. Structure and Objectives A priority 2 stream restoration approach was used to design and reestablish approximately 3,025 linear feet of meandering, bankfull channel and a new floodplain along Third Fork Creek. The project restored riffle-pool sequencing and used cross-vane and j-hook in-stream structures to provide grade control. The unnamed tributary that enters from the upper reach's left bank (station 20+33) was incorporated and stabilized with a grade control structure to match the grade of the restored channel. Coir fiber matting and live staking were installed/planted to help stabilize the graded stream banks, A 50 foot wide buffer was planted with native species on both sides the restored stream. Space and use needs in the park limited the woody plantings to within 30 feet of the ~m. The buffers' outer twenty feet was planteq in native grasses and i~ managed (mowed). 0\ ..,...-~ cP vi'- Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 4 Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 5 Exhibit Table I. Mitigation Structure and Objectives - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Reach ill Mitigation Type Approach Linear Feet Stationing Mitigation Credits (ratio) Upstream Restoration Priority 2 10+00- 26+00 o o 0'1 C'l~ ,.-,. ........ ........ '--' Downstream Restoration Priority 2 25+00 - 40+25 C'l 0'1 t'-~ C'f') C. History and Background As-built March 2005 Year 1 Monitoring Geomo Year 2 Monitoring Comment .s '~.8 ~ ........1::';:15 ~ '.... ;;> ...... El~~~""" ro..&l::l-<-S ..c:o!::"'O:O C) 0 0 a ro "'O~...... ..c: ~ (/)...... I:: "'0 :>- ~ .g ,~~ ~ s '.;:j ~ 0 :>..... ro ~t1S--g& ~ I-< C) (/) ro Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 6 Exhibit Table III. Project Contacts - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Design: KCI Associates of North Carolina, P,A. Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Mr, Joe Pfeiffer (919) 783-9214 Construction Contractor: NA Monitoring Performers: RJG&A 1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27616 Mr, Ward Marotti (919) 872-1174 Exhibit Table IV. Proiect Background - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Pro,ject #139 County Durham Drainage Area 1,126.4 acres (1.76 square miles) Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate (%) 44% Stream Order Second Order Phvsiographic Region Piedmont Ecoregion Triassic Basins Rosgen Classification of As-built , Upper Reach F5, G5, E5 Lower Reach C5 Dominant Soil Types Upstream Reach Congaree Downstream Reach Congaree Reference Site ID North Prong Creek USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03030002060120,0303002060140 NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-06-05, 03-06-05 NCDWQ Classification for Project and C Reference Anv portion of the project segment 303d listed? Yes Any portion of the project segment upstream of Yes a 303d listed segment? Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor Turbidity, low dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria % ofProiect Easement Fenced 0% Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 7 Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 8 u ~Z oil S s. 'E ::r: '" .{@ t) ] <:I \'lQ 00, ~Nf::.<:I ~ ~~.g ~~e~ I I U tl ,,~~..";l N Q) 0 I-Lo4 Q);>~ S ~@:g ~ i:i:E::~U5 "' (5 (3 ~ ~ -2 ~ .9 ." .c .! o 'ii c ~ g. ffio>.Q~ ~ a; "w1E,,~,,(f) CI) ro ro c ~ Cl" oJ.t:f- >g> ~ .0 _ c..~:G1~ gg~~ ~CroO> lir:j~j~ aU!I 4~lel^J ,naJn6!:l HaJn6!:l O+LZ <= " E ill '" w 2~ '" 0:: ~ Q; i!! " o " ()(/) oO+sz II 09+vl OO+~Z 'I: ~ O5+E2: OO+zZ OS+~Z OO+~l 09+0<: oo+Ol OS+6~ O0+6~ OS+S~ OO+8~ (0 I.()...... co (,00>010 .....c<>..... 0......., I.() 0 ~~~~ (00')010 (1;C')CON~NMO> Cl OO'lVV .....(0(0.............,.., LD co...... 0 ......mIOOlv......NCO " ~m:2~ (0(00..... OM CO 0 '<to l;O (!) .....N(7)<O QI.()CO........C\l.....(t) :E oio)<<>o) cci-ia:ic-.i NcciLriMcciccicci<<:i 1:: :e~~~ ""......NV Ql;~~~~~gg 0 ~~~;: ~~~~ ~~~~~~:::::: og+Z~ Z COa;lCOC(l co CO CO CO co 00 CO CO CO caco CO ggg~ 0000 ~g~g~gg~ ...........010 OO+U '<t(O'<t.... MCO......<<:r ~gf~~~;];t!~ Cl ~~~~ 1'-(")........, (,0(00.... ~re~~~s;~~ :S .....<00>.... NN"";"": u-jo:ioicri cil,(j..r~t.O,....:cci<ci '" ~~fflffl 3gE;~ ~~~lid~mfflffi '" ~rere~ Og+~~ W UlC\lC\lC\lC\l NNNC\lNNNN B~~~~ tIlOOOO 00000000 CNNNN NNNNNNNN a. ~ "' <= <= ~ " 8- Cf'-l0:::-l0::: ~""N(t)'"t ~"!''''!''NN ~""C\IM'<tI()(O"""CO " e > () a. 00+0 ~ 'P^IS SIl!H ISaJO:lISe3 u ,-,Z gj> S E ';::: ::c: JJ ..@ ~ 5 s:: ~ Cl 00, :2:NE::-::: \0 $0. ~.~ O~O,)~ ~~~8 I I u..... "!~~B NQ)O~ ~:> ~ ~ 61 @.= e ~i5:E5U5 m (5 (3 a:: " .[ ~ B 'tl .c ~ ~ Q. c c: g- ffi ~ 0 ~ ~ m C)::B:8C1)!. i ~~ ~ ~1;:€ C)~ ~~~~~~~~ 0000 ~r:::roC) iil~i~l~ <= " E :Jl '" w 5;;: 96'E2:+ -0 "'~ 00+ ~ <u ~ ;< o " ()W I I 09+6E 00+6E os+Qt OO+llt OS+LE OO+LE I~ L_ l~: · JI!t! NNN...- r--r--r--t--- 'o:i"'<:t...-...-...-Ll) O>OtOv -vCOLO'<:tIO"I"'"" 0> v'<t" I'-- CX)C'\IO)O) COCOf"-COQ'f"" LOt-NCO vcocoo It>..... co..... OM OC'\l(J)V 10 0...... ...... N....rNCO('f')t"- ...-COCOlO LO'VCOM 0""" ("')0 (0 r-- ujcci~"-: MO~U'i ..fo.,....:.q:ccicci N('f')l.()-r- f"-I.OLOf"-.. ,....,100......00..... MCO(O...:r co (0 LO LO C"')C\I0Q)W'<;t .....000 0000 .............-000 cccoCX;OO co a; 0; a; rorococoroco 0000 ~~~:! 000000 V,,"l,()t-- CO......N(J)f"-l.() ......OCOv (J) C"') 0> r-- NNCOmLOf"- vO>OLO 0......('1')<0 O)C"')coor--r-- ,5 0100N col.l)om 1.00....../'-0)("1') COU')('I')f"- 000:)<00 COLO co co co co OS+EE :;; lri"":"'a> ciciaiai MNN""':ccici U; N\O......N f'-..f"-mLO coc:omcocoo ;< lU COl'-f"-CO co t- ...... f"- cor--r--f"-r-co Q) W LOLOl.OlO lOlOlOLO l.OLOlOlOlOLO (f) ~NNNN NNNN NNNNNN 00000 000000 000000 OO+fX _NNNN CNNNN NNNNNN C- o .l!l <:: fJ 0 <:: " '6 ii %-ta;:-tCf So>~;:~~::r 09+2:8 'Q)LO<Of"-CO Cf)MC")Vv Ol e 0 ., .<:: > 0 C- OO+lE 09+ ~€ OO+~E 8U!! 40leV\l ,n 8mB!=! ~'~ 8mB!=! 'P^IS SII!H IS8Jo=!lse3 III. Project Conditions and Monitoring Results RJG&A initially evaluated the site during early February 2006. It was qualitatively evaluated during and after significant storm events in April and May 2006, and during low flow in late June, September, and October. Vegetation monitoring was performed during September 2006, pursuant to the August 2006 EEP guidelines, Structural failure and compromise were recorded in a number of specific locations. Exotic invasive woody stem density is relatively low. Planted woody stem density is high, as is success, Exotic invasive vines have had a moderate impact on planted woody stem success on several floodplain benches~~ ~~} In spite of the problem areas the overall restoration project appears to be adequately transporting urban sediment loads and restoring aquatic habitat (Le. meeting its design functions/goals) , A. Vegetation Assessment 1. Soil Data Exhibit Table V. Preliminary Soil Data - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Project #139 - Durham, NC Series Max Depth % Clay on K T OM% (in.) Surface Congaree 80 7-27 0.37 5 0.5-2.0 2. Vegetation Problem Areas Planted woody vegetation appeared to be successful when qualitatively evaluated during September 2006. Invasive exotic woody species have colonized many locations but are quite sparse, relative to the planted native woody stems, Invasive exotic vines have had a detrimental impact to survival on several floodplain benches that have received overbank flow several times during the 2006 growing season, - Exhibit Table VI. ~el!etation Problem Ams - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Proiect #139 - Durham, NC Feature/Issue Station/Ranl!e Probable Cause Photo # Exotic Invasive Vines 12+75 - 14+00 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds Exotic Invasive 12+75 - 14+00 Colonization by air and water VP4&5 Woody Stems borne seeds Exotic Invasive vines 16+75 - 19+75 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds Exotic Invasive vines 20+75 - 22+40 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds Exotic Invasive vines 24+60 - 26+25 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 9 Exhibit Table VI. Vegetation Problem Areas - Third Fork Creek Stream - EEP Pro,ject #139 - Durham, NC Disturbed area 29+90 - 30+80 Diseased tree removal by City of VP1 Durham maintenance crew Woody invasives 34+20 - 35+70 Colonization by air and water VP4&5 borne seeds Invasive vines 36+60 - 37+25 Colonization of floodplain by VP2&3 waterborne seeds 2.1. Upstream Reach Planted woody stem success was high in the upstream reach, Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus) and porcelainbeny (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata) have densely colonized the floodplain benches inside several meanders, In addition to directly competing for light with the planted woody species, these exotic invasive woody vines have caused many of the planted woody stems in these areas to be severely impacted by storm flow, Once rooted, most woody stems can withstand moderate flood events (i,e. they are bent during over-bank flow, but not uprooted, With a dense layer of woody vine stems wrapped around and through them, many planted individuals are uprooted, overturned, and washed away entire 1 Manual removal of these vines could be an effective management , e, if it is done regularly, If not, the vines will recolonize the floodplain benches from existing root stock, or from the large monocultures of these species upstream (on/over both banks throughout the American Tobacco Trail right-of-way (~1,400 feet upstream)), 2.2. Downstream Reach The downstream reach also has invasive exotic woody vines inside one meander and some exotic invasive woody species along a portion of one bank. 3. Stem Counts Eight representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the upstream and downstream reaches during September 2006, pursuant to the new EEP vegetation monitoring protocol (August, 2006). Where appropriate, the new monitoring plots were co-located with the first year monitoring plots, Pursuant to the August 2006 protocol, all plots measure 100 square meters in area and are either 10 meters by 10 meters, or five meters by 20 meters, Levell (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was performed concurrently with plot selection, during September 2006. Because the new plot dimensions are different than the first annual vegetation monitoring plots, direct comparison with the first year data is inappropriate, Pursuant to the new guidelines, the four comers of each plot (e,g, 0,0; 0,10; 10,0; and 10,10; or 0,0; 0,20; 5,0; and 5,20.) were marked with 18 inch long one half inch diameter galvanized steel conduit. Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded and live stem diameter at decimeter height (ddm), and height (em) were recorded, Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 10 The average live, planted woody stem density for all plots was 22.88 individuals per plot, which translates to 929.95 stems per acre, This exceeds the required 320 stems per acre by 291 percent. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 11 U Z i. .,;:. ~! = : Q I U.<:: e g ~~ .. = ~ , I , , I I 0\: ~I =II:: .... ~ .~ Q .. ~ ~ ro.il ro.il I e <n ~ .. .... 00 .:0: ~ ~ .. U .:0: .. Q f;l;. ~ .. := E-o I .... Q Q. ~ = <n '" ~ '~ ~ Q. '" .... ..c <n .... <n ~ .... .. <n e e = '" ~ = <n '" .... = = Q ~ e ~ .... 00 ~ .... ;, ~ ::c <n E-o .... :c := ~ ro.il 8:J01d s o:l (\) t:: ~ o Cl L:JOld 9 :JOld S:JOld ., :JOld ~ (\) .... ~ ;=J f:JOld z: :JOld [ :JOld ('ol ...... M M ('ol ('ol M -.:t ......('ol('ol ('ol M ('ol N ~ N ........ N C'f') ("f') ........ ('f") N........-4......... N......... N .................. N 1,0 ........ ~ N ("f") ('ol 00 C"I') ("f") ......... ......... -.:t......-.:t ('ol ('ol ........ ("f").................. ......... ......... ......... \.0 N f:'.. ('ol pBa(( IB:JO.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW<l:JS # a~B.laAV pB<l(( # aAHBlal{ a;luBpunqv <lAHBlal{ (WW) qpp a~B.laA V (S:JOld liB) <l~B.I<lA V :Jua;l.lad IBA!A.lns pa:JuBld IB:JO.1 O......I'OOMOOMOl/")I'OO ~r-:v:~OOO""':~""!OO('oll/")O~ ................M.........N("f')..................-NNNN......... 0000000000000000 ~~~ig~g;~~62~~~~;;b~:Z OO\o\Ci~""""'OO~("f")NNr-....~O\.................. 1,01' r-:~ 00::: t-Vit--~O\\,QVit'-N~~OO 0 ~B:::~~;;;;~:::~~~;~~ ('ol OMMOMl/")OooOOOOl/")Ml/")l/")oo O""':......l/")......('olOOOOOl/")l/")r-:......~('olM ......('olO......MO('olNOOO............('olOO 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ..........................................................................-4........................................................................ ..........~........~~N~~t-~-q-:!O\~Nti') ~~~~......~......~~('ol~~I'-.:t-.:t~~~('olM sapads :::: 'c:; 'E :9 --- ;:s ''-, 1::$ 't:; ~ "Ii 1::$ ~ "- o ..<::l ~ ~ -S! ~ E ~ '" <:.J '" :::: ",-S! ;:s ~ -E: IE: "Ii "Ii ~ '~ -S! ;:s 'Bi Cl:i 1::$ :::: 1::$ <:.J ';:: ~ IE: 1::$ 1::$ f2. 1::$ <:.J ~ 8 1::$ <:.J 1::$ '~ :::: 1::$ ,S! '" ..2:::::: '~ IE: ~'~ ~ ;:s :::: ,:::; ~ ~ :::: ;>. ~ ~ IE: ~~ ~ 1::$ 1::$ '" ~ '-' <:.J '" ~ IE: '~ ,~ ;:s '_ 1::$ {l >:: ~ ~ IE: C58~~~ 1::$ <:.J 1::$ ';:: <:.J '- 1::$ ~ ~ '- o ;>. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1::$ :::: "- {l ~ '- ,;;;-. <:.J "- <:.J ~ 0 <:.J '" -S! ;:s --- :::: ~ ~ ~o: ~ 0() '~ ,~ ~ .~ :::: {l '" 1::$ 0 e f2. <:.J \:1 '" ~ .~ ~ i:i o-S! .,2->::;:S IE: ~:5 r55~~ ('ol l/") -.:t (") M ...... 00 ('ol ...... N 00 v:~ (") ...... o 00 ~ ~ ~ (") l/") 00 l/") (")0 l/") 0; l/") -.:to v:~ I' (") M ...... N 00 M 00 ...... 00 o o ...... 00 00 ...... ...... I' ...... I' ...... I' ...... I' ...... IE: .a IE: ~~ {l ~ IE: IE: ;:s ;:s ~ ~ ;:s ;:s ..<::l ..<::l ~~ ~ .... r- .... 0'1 ..., ~ .... ..., .... N ..., 0'1 N ..., ..., ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ .... ..., QO .... ..., QO .... .... ~ Q Q ~';' "go =c. <n- Q.~ :3 e Q ~ E-ot; In ~ "" QO QO '" QO r- In .... In ~ "" '" N In In 0'1 N .... "" r- ~ .... '" ..., ..., .... '" N 0'1 .... ~ Q Q ~ ~ .2:l ~ = .. <n ~ Q.~ ~ ~ efIQ. <n ~ e .. ~ <t; In ~ "" 0'1 ~ QO 0'1 "" In N r- '" In "" r- ~ .... 0'1 .... '" .... In In N .... N ~ 0'1 .... N In QO N .... '" e ~ .... '" .... ~ Q Q ~ - ;; ~ ~ efI.. <n ~ .. <n ~ .. .. ~ <Q. ::r:: co ~ * l/") '+-< o ('ol .... o:l (\) >- 1:: 8. ~ Ol) ::: ';::: o ..... -2 o ::;s 1,0 o o ('ol N ...... (\) Ol) o:l p... ~ M ...... =II:: Q (\) '5' .... p... p... u:l u:l ::: ,~ -;;; .... o ..... '" (\) p::: S o:l (\) .... iZi ~ (\) (\) .... U ~ .... o ~ "'0 .... :E E-< <e: ~ C ....., p::: 4. Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation plot photos are in Appendix A. B. Stream Assessment RJG&A personnel initially evaluated the site during early February 2006, It was qualitatively evaluated during and after significant storm events in April and May 2006, and during low flow in late June, September, and October 2006, The second annual cross section, pattern, and longitudinal profile data were collected during October 2006, Markers for cross sections one and two were not re-Iocated in the field, using a total station and a metal detector. Their locations were established using total station survey equipment and best professional judgment. While not in the identical location as the monitoring year 0 I and as-built cross sections, the Year 02 cross section locations are within 20 feet, likely upstream. Because these locations provide representative stability condition data very close to the year 1 and as-built, their comparison to the original data is appropriate, Photographs were taken at the four cross sections and at the 14 permanent photo locations that were established by KCI in March 2005. Overall, the site is maintaining its as-built dimension, pattern, and profile, and planted woody stem success is high. Several stretches of bank erosion are present in both reaches, One of these (station 34+27) is fairly significant, and getting worse (i.e, it has expanded laterally and longitudinally since February). Remedial action (e.g, armoring with root wads and/or roc hould be considered. Overall, the remaining bank slumps and underc relatively minor and should continue to be monitored, as they may \riJ. eqll,ili rate themselves over time. The only other significant problem area (i.e, remedial , \ .. ~V--~tion should be considered) is a backcutj-hook that has had its upstream-most header . ~ V- / rock undercut (station 27+04), The rock has been completely dislodged and fallen back \)J Y (upstream) into the scoured channel. The remainingj-hook/cross vane problem areas are ~ CY~\ relatively minor and should continue to be observed, to determine if remedial action ~ should occur. X\Q~> ~ A wetted perimeter bed material analysis was performed at each cross section during October 2006. The difference between the second annual monitoring substrate analysis . . . J:!^ and the first year's indicates that the upstream-most channel bed has become finer (KS I), .,.. -... ~ (1 while the downstream-most bed (xs2-4) have become coarser. The most significant ~/' change was observed at cross section 3. ~ ^>P ~'t~ Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 13 On-site evidence of over-bank flow (26 June 2007) Two pressure transducers were observed during the initial evaluation in February, The serial numbers, brands and model numbers were recorded. A Solinst Levelogger 3001 reader was subsequently purchased and installed into a laptop. The laptop was brought to the site on 25 April 2006, The gauges had been removed from the PVC crest gauge pipes that held them. Neither gauge was found, after an extensive search, including inside the installed pipe. The upstream unit still had its lock, the lower one had a broken top (above photo). The units are presumed to have been removed by vandals. On-site hydrologic data are therefore not available for the second annual monitoring, Qualitative evaluation (rack and drift lines and downed herbaceous and woody vegetation on the floodplain) indicated at least three events during 2006 (April, June, and September (above photo)), Potential bankfull events were also evaluated based on USGS stream gauge discharge data for Ellerbe Creek near Gorman (USGS 02086849), This gauge is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the restoration site and has a drainage area of 21, 9 square miles, According to the urban piedmont regional curve, a stream with a drainage area of21.9 square miles would reach a bankfull discharge at 2,144.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) (Doll et aI., 2002), Based on USGS data for 2006 (Figure 3), there have been no bankfull events at this gauge. The highest flow event during 2006 was 1080 cfs on November 2ih" which is less than half of the bankfull discharge predicted by the urban piedmont regional curve, Using the rural piedmont regional curve, bankfull discharge is 819,7 cfs, making the high flow event on November 22nd the only bankfull event of the year. The 2006 qualitative evaluation of Third Fork Creek clearly indicates that at least one, probably three storm events resulted in flows over the designedlbuilt bankfull elevation. Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events - Third Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Date of Data Date of Occurrence Method Photo # Collection (if available) 2006 22 November 2006 Proximal USGS Qam!e resource NA 26 June 2006 15 June 2006 On-site hiQh water indicators above 15 September 2006 03 September 2006 On-site hiQh water indicators NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 14 iI USGS "'Cl 2999.9 c o () ~ 1999.9 c.. Gl 0- ..... Gl Gl ~ () .,.,j .Q = () 199.9 ~ Gl QO c.. lU .c () ~ .,.,j Cl )- oJ 1-1 c: Cl USGS 02086849 ELLERBE CREEK NIEAR GORMAN, NC 10:0 Jan 91 2996 Jul 91 2996 Nov 81 2996 l1ar 81 2996 l1ay 81 2996 Sep 81 2996 ---- Provisional Data Subject to Revision ---- --- l1edian daily statistic (9 years> --- Daily nean discharge Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates only apply to Monitoring year 5 and was, therefore, not performed during 2006 (monitoring year 2). Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 15 Exhibit Table X. ~roble~ - Tbird Fork Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Feature/Issue Station Probable Cause Photo Aggradation (bar) 1057 Off site/upstream SP1 Aggradation (bar) 1080 Offsite/upstream SP1 Vane backcut/scour 1090 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Aggradation (pool) 1110 Offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (pool) 1151 Offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (bar) 1193 Off site/upstream SP1 Vane backcut/scour 1419 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slump 1517 . No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 1783 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2034 Insufficient/no coarse backfill, storm flow from UT SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2146 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2171 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slump 2502 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slump 2632 No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 2704 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Vane backcut/scour 2801 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Aggradation (bar) 3075 Double box culvert SP1 Confluence with channelized UT below box Aggradation (bar) 3152 culverts SP1 Aggradation (bar) 3208 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP1 Aggradation (pool) 3216 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP2 Aggradation (bar) 3292 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP1 Aggradation (bar) 3322 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP1 Aggradation (bar) 3404 Bank undercut/slump and off site/upstream SP1 Vane backcut/scour 3410 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Bank undercut/slump 3427 No armor/rootwad SP3 Aggradation (bar) 3485 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SP1 Bank undercut/slump 3559 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slump 3664 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slump 3732 No armor/rootwad SP3 Bank undercut/slump 3805 No armor/rootwad SP3 Vane backcut/scour 3862 Insufficient/no coarse backfill SP4&5 Aggradation (bar) 3976 Bank undercut/slump and offsite/upstream SPl Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 16 ~Xhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 Upstream Reach (1600 Feet) Feature Initial * MY -01 MY -02 MY -03 MY -04 MY -05 A, Riffles 100% NA 92 B. Pools 100% NA 87 C, Thalweg 100% NA (69) D, Meanders 100% NA 90 E. Bed General 100% NA 100 F, Vanes/J Hooks, etc, 100% NA 93 G, Wads and Boulders NA NA NA Downstream Reach (1525 Feet) A. Riffles 100% NA 136, B. Pools 100% NA I 56 ) C. Thalweg 100% NA \ 57 D. Meanders 100% NA \...67/ E, Bed General 100% NA 100 F, Vanes/J Hooks, etc, 100% NA 89 G, Wads and Boulders 100% NA NA *These percentages are assumed, Neither the As-built Monitoring Report nor the First Year Monitoring Report contained any visual stability assessment data. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 17 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration- EEP Pro' ect #139 - Durham County, NC Parameters Pre-existin condition Regional Curve Interval Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft Radius of Curvature ft Meander Wavelen th Meander Width ratio Additional Reach Parameters USGS Data Downstream Reach U stream Reach NA NA 29,2-400 21.8-26,8 1.1-18.3 NA 4.7 8.3-15,9 45,1-57,2 NA NA NA NA 62-400 29.5 6,8 NA 5,8 12,2 71.4 NA NA 0.31-0.38 NA 0.41 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.24-0.57 NA NA NA 0,25-0,29 NA NA Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 18 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham County, NC Reference Parameters Reach Desi n North Prong Creek U stream Reach Downstream Reach NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.8 27 30 33.7 2,3-14,8 6,7 1.5 2,2 2.5 3,0 4,0 4.25 12.1 12,1 12,0 26.2 60 75 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0,20 0.31-0.38 0.41 NA NA NA Pattern Channel Beltwidth ft 158 120 90 Radius of Curvature ft 37-40 60-75 60-80 Meander Wavelen th ft 94-143 160-190 180-210 Meander Width ratio 8,9 4.4 3,0 NA NA NA 0,2-2.1 0,25-0,29 0,25 8-30 27-40 30-45 40-85,5 60-125 70-140 Additional Reach Parameters Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of5 Page 19 Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary - Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #139 - Durham County, NC Parameters Upstream Reach Downstream Reach Dimension mm max average min max average Floodprone Elevation (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Bankfull Elevation (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Bankfull Width (ft) NA NA 27 NA NA 30 Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 14,8 NA NA NA 6,7 Mean Depth (ft) NA NA 2,2 NA NA 2,5 Maximum Deoth (ft) NA NA 4,0 NA NA 4.25 Width/Depth Ratio NA NA 12,1 NA NA 12.0 Bankfull Area (sq ft) NA NA 60 NA NA 75 Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Substrate d50 (mm) 0,31 0,38 NA NA NA 0.41 d84 (mm) NA NA NA NA NA NA Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) NA NA 120 NA NA 90 Radius of Curvature (ft) 60 75 NA 60 80 NA Meander Wavelength 160 190 NA 180 210 NA Meander Width ratio NA NA 4.4 NA NA 3,0 Profile Riffle length (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Riffle slope (ftlft) 0,25 0,29 NA NA NA 0.25 Pool length (ft) 27 40 NA 30 45 NA Pool soacing (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA Additional Reach Parameters Sinuosity NA NA 1.13 NA NA 1.l0 Water Surface Slope Habitat Index NA NA NA NA NA Macrobenthos NA NA NA NA NA As-built* *No as-built numbers were provided, The Third Fork mitigation plan (December 2005) and the First Year Monitoring Report (December 2005) both provide Design numbers only, therefore the design numbers have been provided in the as-built columns, but are redundant ofthose figures appearing earlier in the table, Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 20 ("ol lrJ 0\ 0 t- ("ol "'" 0\ 0 0 "'" 0 0 ID ...... 0\ lrJ <': >=i r..: N 0 "'" t; 00 lrJ <'"\ <'"\ ~ <'"\ 00 0 0 ...... N -.i r..: r..: <'"\ N 0 ...... ;:;E 0\ 0\ "'" ("ol ...... lrJ ("ol ...... ("ol ("ol ("ol """ 0 <'"\ 0 0\ 0 >=i lrJ lrJ 0 ~ 0\ t- < < < 0 0 00 0...... r..: N 0 C'! lrJ 0\ "'" ~ 0 ~ ;:;EO 0\ 0\ "'" <'"\ N -.i Z 0 Z Z ...... N ("ol ("ol ("ol ("ol ID C'I t- ID 0 0 ...... 0 ,.:!:: 0 lrJ 0 ...... ...... 00 ~ ~ t'l '" ,- r..: N 0 lrJ t; "1 lrJ 0\ "1 .... <2 r..: <'"\ -.i -.i ...... =li: 0\ 0\ "'" ...... ...... <'"\ ID .... ("ol ("ol ("ol ~ .~ ("ol Q 00 0 0 10; 0 00 "': 0 t- "'" "'" "'" ...... t- ...... 00 t- ID ~ >=i 0 ~ ("ol 00 ~ lrJ ID <': ~ ("ol loCi lrJ ("ol -.i r..: ~ 0 0\ 0\ "'" lrJ 0\ ...... <'"\ 00 ...... loCi ...... ~ ;:;E ("ol ("ol ("ol ("ol ...... "'" ("ol ~ I ...... lrJ t- O =t'l 0 t; ("ol 0 0 00 "'" 00 0 ID < < 0\ 0 ,S 00 >=i N 0 0 C'! 00 "': t; "': "'" "1 lrJ 0\ Z Z .... ~ 0 0\ 0\ "'" 00 ...... <'"\ lrJ <'"\ 0 ...... ~ ;:;E ("ol ("ol ("ol ("ol ...... lrJ 10; Q .... '" -= ("ol ~ t- 0\ 0 0 ...... ...... ... 0 t- ID ID "'" lrJ 00 ~ ..:!:: <': 0 0 ("ol 00 ...... < < '" lrJ "'" ("ol "': "',- N 0 lrJ t; ...... C'! ~ ID ~ = t; 0\ N "1 ("ol 0 C'! e <2 lrJ r..: <'"\ -.i Z Z 0 lrJ r..: ..t 0 ...... <'"\ 0\ 0\ "'" <'"\ <'"\ lrJ ID ...... 0 ~ ("ol ("ol ("ol ...... ...... lrJ 5 :;s <'"\ lrJ ...... ...... ...... ("ol ~ 10; '" .... <l> ("ol lrJ 0 0 .. ...... .... ~...... ("ol ..:l:: 0 ID ("ol 0 ("ol 0\ 00 lrJ "'" ...... 0 ("ol 0\ 00 '" 0 < < < ~ ~ < <l> >=i N r..: 0 ID ~ t- "': 0\ t- t; "'" 0 t- = I':i 0...... 00 r..: loCi ~ Z Z Z o~ Z , ~ 0 0 0\ "'" 00 N lrJ 0\ ...... N 0 0 0 "'" 10; ;:;E ("ol t- <'"\ :;s 00 ...... <'"\ ("ol ("ol ~ ..:l:: 10; ...... ...... 0 0 Q N 0 0\ 00 ~ C'! ...... 0 <'"\ < ID ...... < 00 < < ID 0 ,.:!:: < ~ < < ~ ~ < < 00 >=i r..: 0 t- ...... 0 ...... '" ,- "Cl ~ 0 ("ol loCi Z N v) Z ("ol Z Z 0 0 <2 z z z z z 0 0\ "'" .. :;s <'"\ ("ol ("ol ("ol t- :a Eo-< ~ 00 t- O <'"\ t- ..:!:: ~ 0 0 00 lrJ ...... t- < < '" ,- r..: 0 "'" 0 ID 00 0\ 0 <2 ...... loCi 0\ -.i 0\ 0 Z Z 0 0\ "'" ("ol e <'"\ N N N t- e = ("ol "'" lrJ 0 N lrJ ~ 0 t; lrJ 0 <'"\ 00 00 0\ N t- ...... ("ol "'" ID -= 0 00 ("ol ID 0 .... N 0 lrJ >=i 0 ID <': ...... ...... ...... "'" 0\ 0 0 0 ... I':i 00 "'" r..: C'! ~ 0 ID ~ ...... t- N 0 '" 0\ 0 0 0 0\ "'" 00 00 N -.i <'"\ N 0 0 .. 0 <'"\ t- ...... ...... 0 00 lrJ 'C ;:;E <'"\ N N N ...... ID <'"\ ~ :;s <'"\ ID ...... II) N <'"\ .s 5 'a '" 0\ "'" 0 <l> ~~ lrJ Q .... ...... 0 t- .. ~ >=i "': lrJ 0 ...... lrJ ID lrJ 0 <': < < ID 0 ~ >=i < ~ < < < ...... 00 0...... r..: 0 ~ N ~ 0 ID 0...... 00 ...... ;:;Eo ...... r..: N Z Z ;:;Eo Z Z Z Z ,~ ~ 0 0\ "'" 00 N <'"\ ...... 0 0 o , .;, <'"\ N ("ol ("ol ...... ID 0 00 "'" :; ~ 10; ID lrJ 0 ~ ..:!:: "': lrJ 0 0 ID <'"\ ...... 0 t- < < ,.:!:: ~ < < < ~ < < < "',- r..: 0 "'" t; ~ ~ t- ~ '" ,- == <2 ...... 0 ...... loCi ...... Z z <2 z z z z z z 0 0\ "'" N ...... <'"\ <'"\ ID "Cl <'"\ N ("ol = ~ ~ ~ ~ Z' 10; Q ;S ~ ~ Z' Z' Z' >=i ~ ~ ;S ;S 8 Z' ~ .:..; ...c: ,8 ... ,8 ;S ,8 ~ <l> <g .... I':i ;:::. ,8 ;:::. ...c: ..... 't;j .... - ~ - g .a >=i 8 ~ ell ,8 ;:::. ell ...c: 't;j ..... '" .:0 <l> ..... Z :>- ~ I;E <l> ;::$ ell $' <l> 't;j ~ ~ e. ~ .:::;. - :a '~ ~ "'i) oS ~ ~ ;S ~ ~ :>- -s 1'= ell <l> ;> ~ :c <l> ...c: <l> ,s ell ell "d "- <l> ~ <l> ...c: Q ..... ~ "'i) u ~ ..<:: '" = <l> ~ <l> ] R e. < ..... ~ ~ ~ ...c: Eo-< Q >=i I':i S <l> ,~ ~ s S III <+-< 'g "u 'r;; 0 ] 0 ] <l> S i ...... p., .... 0 ..... ..... s::: ..9 ~ .... .a .a () Q ;E ~ ~ = "'i) <l> <l> ~ I':i :c = "d 10; .s .s '" "d "d <ll '" .2 I':i <l> .... 10; >=i ;::$ is tV <l> :a ~ "d ..>0: "d ..>0: <l> a '~ ..>0: ~ '" ~ a I':i a e 0 0 ..... t:: :a ell !E S '0 '0 0 = 0 = - <l> ell >=i <l> ,.Q 0 "'" <l> <l> Q ><I is G:: ell G:: ell >=i :;s :;s ~ ell ~ = lrJ 00 '" ...c: ~ :;s :;s 10; ii2 P2 0 0 ~ III III ~ III :I: 00 "d "d ~ U i=4 p., p., 00 u 00 lrJ <+-< o ("ol ~ <l> >< << t:: ...... ZZ 0 ("ol 0.. ~ <l> 0.0 ell 0.0 p., >=i < 't:: Z .8 '2 0 ;:;E ID < 0 0 z ("ol 0\ <'"\ ...... =li: - ~~ () <l> '5' ..... p., p., ~ < ~ z ~ ,~ 't;j ..... .8 '" <l> ~ S ell <l> J::J f/) ..>0: <l> X <l> ..... <l> U "d Ul = 0 ~ ......oS t;S ~ 0 < .~ .g ~ ..0 ... "d o<l ell g ..... CI :I:::E :.E ...., E-< ~ . ' , t C. Wetland Assessment No wetland restoration was included in this project. Third Fork Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #139 RJG&A 2006 Monitoring Report Year 2 of 5 Page 22