20031134 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20101101

Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
25 Water Tower Lane ? P.O. Box 241 ? Whittier, NC 28789
Phone: [phone] ? [phone] ? Fax [phone]
Email: fiva(;dnet.net ? Web: www.fishandwikIlifeassociates.com
Ian McMillan
Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
October 29, 2010
RE: BannerLowes Restoration Project
Streams and Wetlands
DWQ Project #03-1134/ COE #200330365
Post Construction Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. McMillan:
OV r 2G,0
l'VETUtiypeM,OWTon.%y ?TALITY
? E"JCtf
Enclosed is the 2010 Post Construction report on the BannerLowes Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Project for the Collett development project on US 184 in Banner Elk, NC.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Barbara S. Wiggins

CC: Amanda Jones, COE
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office
Ron Linville, NC WRC
Mr. Bob Stultz
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
Stream A, Stream B and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Monitoring Summary Report 2010
Prepared for submission to:
US Corps of Engineers
NC Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
PREPARED BY:
FISH AND WILDLIFE ASSOCIATES, INC.
PO BOX 241
WHITTIER, NC 28789
October 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ii
Project Site ......................................................................................................................... 1
Project History ................................................................................................................... 4
BannerLowe Wetland Restoration and Creation ........................................................... 5
BannerLowe Stream Restoration and Relocation .......................................................... 5
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 10
Photographs 2009-2010 ......................................................................................... 11
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 25
Stream B Identification Form and Photographs .................................................. 26
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 30
Stream B and Elk River Replanting Photographs ............................................... 31
Appendix D ...................................................................................................................... 33
Past Monitoring Reports ...................................................................................... 34
i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of BannerLowe Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ....................... 2
Figure 2. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, Lower Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010 ........................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, Upper Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010 ........................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, Lower Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010 ............................................................................ 8
Figure 5. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, Upper Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010 ............................................................................ 9
ii
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
Stream A, Stream B and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Monitoring Summary Report 2010
Project Site
The BannerLowe Mitigation Project is located in Avery County, NC in the Town of Banner Elk.
The project is located south of Banner Elk on the west side of NC 184 (Tynecastle Road), in the
mountain ecoregion of North Carolina (Figure 1). The property at BannerLowes is composed of
a total of 29.3 acres bordering Tynecastle Road. Tynecastle Road is the major thoroughfare into
the Town of Banner Elk and the primary commercial corridor. This property has 720 feet of
road frontage on Tynecastle Road. Primary access to the tract is through the Lowes access drive
from Tynecastle Road. Secondary access is over a private road (Glove Factory Lane) adjacent to
the old Glove Factory land (south) and a private road (Stonebridge Lane) adjacent to a Car Wash
(north). Land use in the project vicinity is commercial along Tynecastle Road with residential
homes set back from the road. The property was formerly used for a residential home, barn and
agricultural pasture.
The project is located within the Elk River watershed of the Watauga River Basin. The site lies
in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 06010103 of the Watauga River Basin (no
NCDWQ subbasin unit). The mitigation project involves three streams and two wetlands on the
property. There are two unnamed tributaries (Stream A & Stream B), with Stream A flowing
into the Elk River on the southeast side of the property. Stream B flows behind the Lowes Store
towards the north, eventually into the Elk River. These streams were headwater streams, with
drainage areas of 0.04 square miles for Stream A, and 0.1 square miles for Stream B. The Elk
River flows through the center of the project on the east side of the Lowes Store, paralleling
Tynecastle Road. The drainage area of the Elk River is 2.95 square miles, and is a second order
stream at the project site. The Elk River was approximately six feet wide and six inches deep
with a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate. The river has experienced impacts from beaver
activity and floods (March 2003 and September 2004), resulting in bank and channel
degradation. Preconstruction conditions are documented in the previous monitoring reports.
The pattern, profile and dimension were restored for the three streams within the project site.
Prior to the project, the three streams had problems related to the existing conditions (primarily
agricultural) on the site. The Elk River was impacted by beaver dams, livestock watering access,
and then by floods in late 2004. Stream A was a perennial stream with its headwaters upstream
on the adjacent property. Stream A was channelized through the pasture on the property and was
impacted by livestock usage. Stream B began as a seep in the rhododendrons, intermittent flow
to the wetland areas, and was a perennial stream below the confluence of the wetland tributaries.
Stream B had been channelized, was heavily impacted by livestock use, and very little riparian
vegetation existed prior to the project. All three streams were in need of stream restoration to
stabilize the channels and improve the water quality of the streams.
1
AW
Elk River
{ t
HITEHAWK LN
y s
?p C,
r oWetlan lti
S ?ta' 2 f
I.: ` rs
,'? ?A' Val a..4.
.fir ti?' ?# R
V,
vo,
` -
V . Wetland ?oJ?FPG?
Stream B . Ws+
?? yy_ '? , r t, 'A? r A M1 u 6
/??T yyy. f dF .1 f ?. 1 ?
Legend
5
Crest Gage '#
Stream A +
Q *,.
Stream Gage ? }:` •,
1w h4
?r Rain Gage
Ground Water Gage f4, '
f
Monitoring Plots L'" t
Streams # "?
Wetlands
Figure 1.
Location of BannerLowes
Stream and Wetland
Project Location % Restoration Site
Banner Elk, NC
JEF`F' F
1 ? F
I
0 65 130 260 390 520
Fe (t
i,r a
2
The project restored the lower portion of the Elk River for a total of 4091f to a stable pattern,
dimension and profile and connected the stream hydrology with the riparian wetland restored
adjacent to the Elk River. Stream A was relocated to the south side of the property and restored
for a total length of 5921f. Stream B was an intermittent stream upstream of the property and
became a perennial stream downstream at the confluence with two unnamed tributaries draining
the springs west of the property. Stream B was relocated behind the current Lowe's Store
location and restored to a length of 1,0961f. Buffers for all three streams were restored and
planted and protected under a Conservation Easement to be held by Avery County.
The restoration project included two wetlands located adjacent to the Elk River on the east side
of the river. The project to date has restored several wetlands on the project site for a total of
0.65 wetland mitigation credits.
There were no comments made by state and federal agencies on the 2009 report. This 2010
report will summarize the stream restoration credits completion; and the replanting and regrowth
of the buffer areas and the stream and wetland vegetation survival.
Project History
February 2005 Site Mitigation Plan Completed
May 2005 Construction Begins on UTA and UTB
July 2005 Completed Construction of UTA and UTB; preliminary
live stakes, matting and seeding
October 2005 Completed Construction of Elk River; vandalism of
planted trees and shrubs on UTA and UTB noted
December 2005 Trees and shrubs planted on streams and river
January 2006 UTA repaired
April 2006 Live stake planting on streams and river; ATV damage to
buffer on UTA noted
May 2006 Completed Construction of Wetland Cells; Repaired
structure on UTB
June 2006 Wetland areas seeded and live stakes; buffers reseeded and
planted
September 2006 Replanted vandalized or damaged/dead trees and shrubs
November-December 2006 Additional replacement trees planted in buffers
June 2007 1 st Annual Monitoring Report, 2nd Year Morphological
surveys
Fall 2007 Additional Trees planted in buffers
Spring 2008 Live stakes planted on wetland berm along river
August 2008 2"d Annual Monitoring Report, 3rd Year Morphological
surveys
Spring 2009 Replanting Trees along Stream A North side
September 2009 Monitoring of gage data and vegetative success
March 2010 Replanting of buffers
August 2010 Vegetation Monitoring and Site Assessment
BannerLowe Wetland Restoration and Creation
The BannerLowe 404 permit #200330365 and 401 certification DWQ#03-1134 issued in 2004
required mitigation of a total impacted area of 0.731 acres (COE permit) of wetlands adjacent to
the Elk River. As noted in the 2009 report, the COE determined that the 0.65 wetland credits
would be accepted and no additional wetland mitigation would be required. Additional scrub-
shrub vegetation was requested for the wetlands.
Vegetation Survival Success in Wetlands
Additional livestakes of silky dogwood, silky willow and black willow were planted in March
2010 around both Wetland #1 and Wetland #2. Survival of these livestakes was monitored in
August 2010 and had 93%-100% survival rates. Livestakes survival of the new and the original
plantings on the edges of the wetlands was high and beginning to spread out during this second
year of normal rainfall. As shown on the photographs in Appendix A, herbaceous wetland
vegetation was heavy in the wetlands and continued growth of shrubs was observed. The
wetlands are still primarily an emergent wetland habitat in Wetlands #1 and #2 and scrub-shrub
wetland habitat is developing along the drier edges of both wetlands and along the rocky Elk
River berms.
There has been complete success in the herbaceous wetland vegetation, which has been in place
since shortly after the wetlands were completed as shown in the previous monitoring report
photographs of the wetlands. Visual assessment of the vegetation in the wetlands will continue
for an additional year to monitor the additional livestake growth.
BannerLowe Stream Restoration and Relocation
Stream Mitigation
Stream A and Stream B are very low flow streams, and the uppermost section of Stream B has
been dry during the summer months as noted in the previous monitoring surveys. In March
2010, Stream B was observed to have a constant flow. A stream identification assessment was
performed and the stream was classified as intermittent. The stream identification form and
photographs of Stream Bin March 2010 can be seen in Appendix B. It was also noted that
several springs had appeared in and near the stream channel of the upper section of Stream B and
they should help to continue to improve the hydrology of this stream channel as the region's
groundwater table continues to recover from the droughts of 2007-2008. As noted in August
2010 monitoring photographs, the upper stream and the springs dry up during the summer
months.
The relocation of Stream A has restored the pattern, dimension and profile of the perennial
stream channel for a total of 592 linear feet as of 2009. The relocation of Stream B has restored
the pattern, dimension and profile of 1096 linear feet of intermittent or perennial flow. The Elk
River project restored the pattern, dimension and profile from the access bridge to the
downstream bridge on Stonebridge Lane for a total of 409 linear feet restored. The total stream
length restored and protected added up to approximately 2,0971f of stream credits in 2010.
The morphology of all of these streams has remained stable during both dry and wet seasons
since construction was completed in 2005. There were some structure changes in the Elk River
section but this did not impact the stability of the restored section. The Elk River structures can
be seen in the photograph in Appendix A.
Stream Buffer Vegetation
Vegetation has been an ongoing problem for some of the stream buffer areas, particularly during
the drought years of 2007-2008. As noted in past monitoring reports, these areas have required
additional plantings and efforts to protect the plantings from inappropriate landscaping. The
drought conditions in the region did not help the survival or the growth of the previous plantings.
In March 2010, additional tree plantings were done in the areas needing additional larger tree
species (See Photographs in Appendix Q. This year was the second year of normal or close to
normal rainfall for the Banner Elk area. Most of the project area ranged from good to excellent
growth of trees, shrubs and herbaceous species, responding to the improved moisture conditions.
Stream A:
Stream A did not experience any encroachment of mowing during the past year and the large
mature trees planted in 2009 have all survived. The fencing has provided a barrier and visual
delineation so that landscaping efforts have remained out of the buffer for the past year. Along
Stream A, the vegetation is healthy and well developed, with rushes, silky willow, black willow
and silky dogwood shrubs growing along the channel. Where water is concentrated in pools
below drops, the shrubs and herbaceous vegetation are heavy. As noted in past reports, the only
area with reduced stem counts was in the lower monitoring plot itself. This monitoring plot had
additional trees planted in March 2010 to bring that plot over the required number of stems. A
few additional trees were planted in the upper section of Stream A to improve the tree growth
behind the chain link fence. The rest of the Stream A buffer has continued to survive and
become established as can be seen in the photographs in Appendix A. No problems were
observed in the buffer or stream channel of Stream A in 2010.
The Lower Monitoring plot on Stream A was documented with a survival rate of 12 planted
stems and a total of 19 stems in the monitoring plot. This resulted in a total of 380 stems/acre for
the lower monitoring plot (See Figure 2). The plot was replanted with birches nearer the stream
channel and red oak and red maple on top of the berm away from the channel in March 2010.
Survival of all planted trees is 75% at this point (including the initial plantings which had poor
survival). Herbaceous cover in the plot is extensive and the stream channel in this section has
well established livestake growth along the channel itself and within the buffer. This can be seen
in the photographs shown in Appendix A.
The Upper Monitoring Plot on Stream A continued to show improvement, with some resprouting
and additional native/volunteer stems (See Figure 3). The monitoring shows 10 planted stems
and a total of 15 stems in the monitoring plot. The removal of landscaping activity on this plot
was observed in the condition and growth of the stems and herbaceous cover in this area. The
6
monitoring shows a total stem count of 300 per acre. This includes the larger, 5-8 year old trees
planted and established in 2009.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant# # Alive # Plants # Plants V # Plant V # Plant V
Stream A Lower Plot
Acer rubrum Red Maple 2 1 2
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 2 2 2
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 1 1
Betula SP. Birch 1 1
Hamamelis virginiana Witch Hazel
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3
Salix nigra Black Willow 3
Salix SP. Willow sp. 2 1 1
Quercus rubra Red Oak 6
Unknown SP. Unknown 2

Total 3 3 4 6 2 2 3 12 7
Total Planted + Volunteers 8 5 19

Survival % planted 100% 100% 100% 25% 75%1
Total stems/acre 60 80 160 100 380
i 25% survival from replantings prior to 2010; additional trees planted in 2010 returns the area to 75%
survival overall.
Figure 2. Vegetative monitoring plot results for Stream A, Lower Monitoring Plot,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant# # Alive # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V
Stream A Upper Plot
Acer rubrum Red Maple 3 2 2 2 2
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 3 3 3
Betula SP. Birch 2 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch 2 2 1
Plantanus occidentalis Sycamore 1 1
Salix nigra Black Willow 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow 1 1 2 2
Alnus sermlata Tag Alder 1 1
Total 3 3 3 1 3 3 9 2 10 5
Total Planted+ Volunteers 4 6 11 15

Survival % planted 100% 100% 100% 100%, 100%
Total stems/acre 60 80 120 220 300
2 67% survival from replantings prior to 2009; additional large trees planted in 2009 returns to more than 100% survival
Figure 3. Vegetative monitoring plot results for Stream A, Upper Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009.
7
stream B
Stream B has had good cover and growth of herbaceous and shrubs in the lower section of the
stream, below the confluence with the two springs/wetland area. Initial tree growth was reduced
or did not survive during the drought years of 2007-2008 in scattered sections of the buffer along
Stream B as noted in past monitoring reports. The upper section of Stream B where the project
experienced difficulties in getting vegetation of any type in previous years was reseeded, matted,
mulched, fertilized and amended as needed. This area was replanted with 30 tree stems in March
2010. The seed mixture was recommended by NC Wildlife Resource Commission staff as being
the best native grass for establishing ground cover on the project. The additional hydrology
noted in March 2010 in the upper section of Stream B has helped to improve the viability and
growth of permanent vegetation. A total of 60 trees were planted in March 2010 throughout the
Stream B buffer.
The lower section of Stream B has more vegetation as it has a more constant source of water
from the wetland seeps. The Lower Monitoring Plot of Stream B shows 5 planted stems
surviving and a total of 8 stems in the monitoring plot, a loss of one stem from 2009 (See Figure
4). The monitoring shows a total stem count of 160 per acre. Herbaceous cover was excellent in
the lower monitoring plot in 2010 as can be seen in the photographs in Appendix A. There have
been some trees that resprouted after dying back during the dry summers of 2007-2008. The
replanting of stems did not add any additional stems to the Lower Monitoring Plot in March
2010, so additional stems will be planted fall/winter of 2010-2011 within the plot itself. The rest
of the buffer in the lower section of Stream B showed good recovery and growth.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant # # Alive # Plants # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V
Stream B Lower Plot
Betula lenta Cher Birch 2 2 0
Betula SP. Birch 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 2 1
Corms amomum Dogwood 2 1
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1
Salix ni ra Black Willow 2
Unknowns . 2
Total 6 6 4 3 1 6 1 5 3
Total Planted + Volunteers 4 7 8

Survival % planted 100% 67% 67% 100% 830N
Total stems/acre 120 80 80 140 160
Figure 4. Vegetative monitoring plot results for Stream B, Lower Monitoring Plot,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010.
The Upper Monitoring Plot of Stream B shows 8 planted stems surviving and a total of 24 stems
in the monitoring plot (See Figure 5). The monitoring shows a total stem count of 480 per acre.
Herbaceous cover was improving within the monitoring plot but was still sparse during the
summer month of August. The Upper Monitoring Plot condition can be observed in the
photographs in Appendix A.
8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant # # Alive # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V
Stream B Upper Plot
Acer rubrum Red Maple 1 1 1 12 1 2 1 1
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 3 3 3 11 1
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 1 1 1
Betula SP. Birch 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch 1
Cornus orida Dogwood 1 1 1 1 1
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1 1 4 12 4 8
Prunus Pensylvanica Pin Cherry 3
Prunus SP. Cher 1
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 121 1 1 1 1
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 1 1 1
Unknown Birch or Cherry 2
Total 9 9 9 27 6 13 11 14 8 16
Total Planted + Volunteers 36 19 25 24

Survival % planted 100% 100% 67% 122% 89%
Total stems/acre 180 720 380 500 480
1 Identification wrong in previous years due to young age, confinned to be Black Cherry in 2009
Figure 5. Vegetative monitoring plot results for Stream B, Upper Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2010.
Elk River Restoration
As noted in past reports, additional trees were requested along the Elk River downstream of the
access bridge. This was addressed in March 2010 with the planting of 100 tree stems of river
birch, northern red oak, red maple, and sycamore on the west side of the Elk River. These trees
appeared to be surviving and growing during the survey in August 2010. Additionally, the
existing birch trees (10) that were holding on from the initial plantings in 2005-2006 are still
surviving and beginning to put on height. Currently, most of the tree stems were covered by
herbaceous growth in the summer months because their height (2'-3') was shorter than the
herbaceous growth (3'-5'). All of the vegetation will help to develop a soil base on the exposed
river rocks that were deposited in the stream valley during the flood of 2004. Excellent shrub
and herbaceous cover along the Elk River can be seen in the photographs in Appendix A.
Stream Conclusion
One additional year of vegetation monitoring will be scheduled to monitor the vegetation plots
on Stream A and Stream B to confirm full recovery and survival. Visual surveys will be made of
the trees in the buffers, particularly the Elk River buffer, to document the growth of the newly
planted trees. Livestakes around the wetlands will be observed and documented as to the
recovery of the scrub-shrub edge around the marsh wetlands. The stream credit concern in past
reports has been addressed by the documentation of at least intermittent hydrology in the upper
section of Stream B.
9
Appendix A
Photographs 2009-2010
10
M
O .m AIL
r ° ?n£y._ :d. _
J?J
Stream A looking upstream from lower end,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.

V • Rh sy
N Ada R t
Stream A looking upstream from lower end,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
11

:k !l S ;
A

Stream A looking downstream from upper end, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.

'Sr r? v+
V
R
f4
0111? ..
Stream A looking downstream from upper end, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
12
.7y "w!R r 4 . .yi -
jt-
•M1 •3 rs .,
•. 4 t Kti 1 ^VI? it

1
t
- f? a ? rf ?? ?'?y 1 a
6l ' ? ?: y t •1 y ?C'
-? aR I^ 5f1, ?$ ??
e4... v
?Ir
??'•14yy n k'ti % ? " a'' • ?r
R !
ray {??'*?? •' ?,?!.?
FRa• P- ? k Y ," ??a1
N! r ? 'a7Y ?? ?'
x. •? !rf/'l??'?R? •`. 1 ?r" ? rot ?- "I
'sd'
R r ?4

Stream A Lower Monitoring Plot, looking west from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.
46, ZIA-
06
ell Q,
sr BF;';' *
r
?'?lny?. * "'t(r r. ASR :> Iy. 1,
Stream A Lower Monitoring Plot, looking west from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC August 2010.
13
yj .ic1 ?.,•`
?_?i ?,.
re v r ar - • T IL?+v ?'
bolt
r
IhA
Stream A Upper Monitoring Plot, looking west from southeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
_Y ?. • ?.k'a. '.' _,r_ i ire
y
u •rr1'rly d:7C?t/?1 .r?r<'?..r. r.d*d ? 5_??fr .?. :?.i. •'r r.
Stream A Upper Monitoring Plot, looking west from southeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
14
q .,

Av,
1166
F .
1

Stream B, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.
iON
00,
I` s .,ate i? ?4a~„ "1'. -~ y -+ ,ci 4
nmi
Stream B, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC August 2010.
15

? ?4y11;1
aR
a,-
-ar
-!
4i q ; 1 b. 1r! I ,. .
' i Y yy!! 6 ?'
\?1 TT JTL?. ! r ,
,lP?, . X
Ot,
1 Ski ? ? t? til " >?
Stream B, looking downstream from middle of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.

4t T ? 4 4 ?1 ? ??. .'
y ?.
;r ?b c q it4r ? l1 ?y $
i J;.11
??? `a.,?l???i1?, Yi !? ,.. '1??ifL.E `+? ?? 1 ?? a;?.? ?'- a ?? r'S??° ?+? ?.-,?? \'?X y'?u
Stream B, looking downstream from middle of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
16
VWMWMWrAMW
?r } y M
t i.
r S
+? ?-.N 9

Stream B, looking downstream towards end of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.

' r
0
46
y
a n 5 ?r 16 ? ? ??li
of

Stream B, looking downstream towards end of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
17

. D r,.
AEI :.
4 ? ?4r
Stream B, looking upstream towards head of project,
above wetland confluence, area of poor vegetative growth,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
SAT
r
_
Ti" I;
J,le 10
fow
J r f.
T`((..
Stream B, looking upstream towards head of project, above wetland confluence, area of
reseeding, matting, and replanting, BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
18
I

nl
?: Tn'",
37" r-M.-VI
t
r R rw ! ? Y ? sy ??? 75 1 - .
t?
?R?'?Idfi????o - .:stir "?•''???? - '1, `° -A,. +"SI?'? '?-M
?• I'? 'fit -- •'! ', ?*?.`? % ? ?'?
R
%yt
Stream B Upper Monitoring Plot, looking south from northeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
IRS
Apok"
ALL.
ism
y ?},' yi r "?' t] r??l lyr '+T? 'SPA -. ?1M _ •.
zapBnY???a?K F ` ¢h i4 yak '` k •"
fRiFrs?4?? ?E.'??:;6s 1?f-aj+? ? •'?a n, _..._ ? .a ?:? Fk?,}?}+„•'." r«?.?"
Stream B Upper Monitoring Plot, looking south from northeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
19
tr i
Jr
s • - !R ?? 04 - ?.
$A¢:e?"
m
l !4 q5
(? r
• ti ;
e
7 E°' =
f t A
- ti,
- ,t rrc•-i??+..
Stream B Lower Monitoring Plot, looking north from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.
' V1h?L?
4 - y

41 y.

Stream B Lower Monitoring Plot, looking north from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC August 2010.
20
y.? TM * -g? aq ? Y
Jw
?•? ?ar?k??r_?-?i'.r _ M?,?.,` nji _.?.:i iii
{ mod' `
Elk River, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
'
pow
t y
Elk River, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
21

j,
17
'qW'd A i -

Elk River Buffer, Downstream of Access Bridge,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2009.
- ?It
r 6 I :$ ` i rkr ..
i f2. • R L'?R'
, p.14
Elk River Buffer, Downstream of Access Bridge,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
22
'to .
-, rve
5 '
µM
•,? y .w kM x'IFa
• yy
Ar.
r $'ff 1
4
W Ur r i g _
;???T 'a i ?? '? ?j•;i a ? ? S,{ ?V II r?J MJ 'b'`'? 1 ? 3' -?C a ?? ?yy r? n. ?d
a ?i aa? 6?2 Y YI i J'J ?
-'? ??'? "?
i_?tA l_ ?7
M
y t. r t J ?
.r
's?'.?'as?i?'i?;"w;r'?`r?``.°jff ?v ?Y+??.?? `:t tr;"?'?? _ ?? ?'•?'{'? ne?,'?.±r?'?+.-?"? ?r:'??,uQ a. i
Wetland 1 looking south from access road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
w t
.a.
?•r+ Via, 9 .?? ? • J .??,;,,?.:? ?,?• ? _
, r
w'.`'. r ?)Y. 1'? Y
.?V?????,}' *? ?•?A?;?,: • 1i? ?It?;y?i? r
l $I e
- U
?a":l?iC"P••??`.. ?? . ;? a ..??I??i ,??1?? ?:.r ?y' ti'r' ?'A" II . r :. t
Wetland 1 looking south from access road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
23

• 1. } • ?` }?.. '? r 3
9t t
A?
t
t

: fP?.y ?,r... ?• Yom. YJ41 .;?i 1? Y V/ k'•'-0'?y.

w
x
Wetland 2 Looking North from Access Road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.

--•?
r
t' r, 41AwCt a^3„
t •v
'fir
00
Wetland 2 Looking North from Access Road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, August 2010.
24
Appendix B
Stream B Identification Form and Photographs
25
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 3 Rq, io Project: QJP,PPtl("?, O ,,)e S Latitude:
Evaluator: C?t, 1010` Site: s, rta,,,& ? Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent t 5 County: e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial 8? 30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10 - 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain 0- 1 (D7 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3'
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
(No =lu)
Yes= 3
'Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18, Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 .5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
n o:..?...... /c. d.a..a.-., - S. c:l I
2. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
_R'. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1-5-
23 . Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; ACW =07 OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 Locus on the presence or uplana plants, item 2a tocuses on [nepresence of agwm of w Ua- IA-1-
Sketch:
Notes: (use backside of this form for additional notes.)
0.51 inMi5, !ft ???I - o!1 3'29^40

26
4 '
i
T
A ' r
Aid
Stream B, algae on rocks in upper section, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, March 2010.
27

Stream B head of project, stream flow in March 2010,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC.
TO 1.7
bra ? ? i:? , tv
?Z

sn, .. J T ? ? ye
??

4 .

Stream B facing downstream in upper section, stream flow in March 2010,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC.
28

4
Stream B gleyed soils near Spring in upper section, March 2010,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC.
y? ? c ;. ??.ra. -??.+. ??.; rr _ is tie+?a jr di'?,?• ??,
i_. -, , ? ?'--.?- - .? err ? ?. ,•,fy,?
?}'????- r .,. *ia _ .r '?`? F ,,,y? `?, f ra. - ? a? a 45 i'P •`•.???u ?'..
?!iW-.' ,Wt? ??kC' rt 1qo. .Ink.ts? -?+ :r. dt
sq J
u '
1! r
'i 7W"
Stream B and Spring C flow in upper section, March 2010,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC.
29
Appendix C
Stream B and Elk River Replanting Photographs
30
.-Noi
Irv,
i
S
f :r-• '?? ?.? !?? 4y'` w. r ?} r R G r ? F a .i"?r r t,r_? ,?' t^' '? ,? F r+?
i? t Z
Stream B upper section, prior to reseeding and replanting,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC, March 2010.

_y
Stream B upper section seeding and matting,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC, March 2010.
31

Stream A Lower Monitoring Plot replanting,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC, March 2010.
32
Stream B upper section, post seeding, mulching and planting,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, Avery County, NC, March 2010.
Appendix D
Past Monitoring Reports
33
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
Stream A, Stream B and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Monitoring Summary Report 2009
Prepared for submission to:
US Corps of Engineers
NC Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
PREPARED BY:
FISH AND WILDLIFE ASSOCIATES, INC.
PO BOX 241
WHITTIER, NC 28789
January 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................ii
Project Site ......................................................................................................................... 1
Project History ................................................................................................................... 4
BannerLowe Wetland Restoration and Creation ........................................................... 5
BannerLowe Stream Restoration and Relocation .......................................................... 7
Replanting Plan ............................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 13
Groundwater, Crest, Stream Height and Rain Gage Graphs ................................. 14
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 18
US Corp of Engineers Banner Elk Lowes Mitigation Credits - Final ................. 19
Appendix C NCDWQ Communications ........................................................................... 20
Letter of February 25, 2009 .................................................................................. 21
Emails on Monitoring Status ................................................................................ 24
Appendix D
Photographs 2009 .................................................................................................. 28
i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of BannerLowe Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ....................... 2
Figure 2. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, lower monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009 ........................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, upper monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009 ........................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, upper monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009 .......................................................................... 10
Figure 5. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, lower monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009 ........................................................................ 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Table for BannerLowes Project, Actual Final
Mitigation, July 2009 .......................................................................................... 5
ii
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
Stream A, Stream B and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Monitoring Summary Report 2009
Project Site
The BannerLowe Mitigation Project is located in Avery County, NC in the Town of Banner
Elk. The project is located south of Banner Elk on the west side of NC 184 (Tynecastle Road),
in the mountain ecoregion of North Carolina (Figure 1). The property at BannerLowes is
composed of a total of 29.3 acres bordering Tynecastle Road. Tynecastle Road is the major
thoroughfare into the Town of Banner Elk and the primary commercial corridor. This property
has 720 feet of road frontage on Tynecastle Road. Primary access to the tract is through the
Lowes access drive from Tynecastle Road. Secondary access is over a private road (Glove
Factory Lane) adjacent to the old Glove Factory land (south) and a private road (Stonebridge
Lane) adjacent to a Car Wash (north). Land use in the project vicinity is commercial along
Tynecastle Road with residential homes set back from the road. The property was formerly
used for a residential home, barn and agricultural pasture.
The project is located within the Elk River watershed of the Watauga River Basin. The site lies
in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 06010103 of the Watauga River Basin (no
NCDWQ subbasin unit). The mitigation project involves three streams and two wetlands on the
property. There are two unnamed tributaries (Stream A & Stream B), with Stream A flowing
into the Elk River on the southeast side of the property. Stream B flows behind the Lowes Store
towards the north, eventually into the Elk River. These streams were headwater streams, with
drainage areas of 0.04 square miles for Stream A, and 0.1 square miles for Stream B. The Elk
River flows through the center of the project on the east side of the Lowes Store, paralleling
Tynecastle Road. The drainage area of the Elk River is 2.95 square miles, and is a second order
stream at the project site. The Elk River was approximately six feet wide and six inches deep
with a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate. The river has experienced impacts from beaver
activity and floods (March 2003 and September 2004), resulting in bank and channel
degradation. Preconstruction conditions are documented in the previous monitoring reports.
AW
Elk River
{ t
HITEHAWK LN A _
?G
-?oWetia'n.
`s# ` S eta kd 2 f
W an141.
f
» Wetland o?EFPG?O
0
Stream B? As+ \, J
14h, A
Ilk
r. ,
Legend
5
Crest Gage r Stream A .3. +
Stream Gage
er Rain Gage e ?
Ground Water Gage
Y
.? Monitoring Plots
Streams
Wetlands
" Figure 1.
f Location of BannerLowes
Stream and Wetland
f ?r
Project Location Restoration Site
Banner Elk, NC t
tk
;- `ape 0 65 130 260 390 520
Fe t
2
The pattern, profile and dimension were restored for the three streams within the project site.
Prior to the project, the three streams had problems related to the existing conditions (primarily
agricultural) on the site. The Elk River was impacted by beaver dams, livestock watering
access, and then by floods in late 2004. Stream A was a perennial stream with its headwaters
upstream on the adjacent property. Stream A was channelized through the pasture on the
property and was impacted by livestock usage. Stream B began as a seep in the rhododendrons,
intermittent flow to the wetland areas, and was a perennial stream below the confluence of the
wetland tributaries. Stream B had been channelized, was heavily impacted by livestock use,
and very little riparian vegetation existed prior to the project. All three streams were in need of
stream restoration to stabilize the channels and improve the water quality of the streams.
The project restored the lower portion of the Elk River for a total of 4091f to a stable pattern,
dimension and profile and connected the stream hydrology with the riparian wetland restored
adjacent to the Elk River. Stream A was relocated to the south side of the property and restored
for a total length of 5921f. Stream B was an intermittent stream upstream of the property and
became a perennial stream downstream at the confluence with two unnamed tributaries draining
the springs west of the property. Stream B was relocated behind the current Lowe's Store
location and restored to a length of 1,0961f. Buffers for all three streams were restored and
planted and protected under a Conservation Easement.
The restoration project included two wetlands located adjacent to the Elk River on the east side
of the river. The project to date has restored several wetlands on the project site for a total of
0.65 wetland mitigation credits.
There have been various levels of success in the mitigation of the stream and wetland impacts
on the BannerLowe site. During 2009, meetings on site, letter and phone discussions, and data
on the conditions on the site were exchanged between DWQ, COE and FWA. Some monitoring
requirements were dropped and other requirements were added to the project in order to fully
achieve mitigation success. This report will summarize the comments from the agencies over
the year and the conclusions reached addressing the 404/401 permit requirements and the future
plans and monitoring.
3
Project History
February 2005 Site Mitigation Plan Completed
May 2005 Construction Begins on UTA and UTB
July 2005 Completed Construction of UTA and UTB;
preliminary live stakes, matting and seeding
October 2005 Completed Construction of Elk River; vandalism of
planted trees and shrubs on UTA and UTB noted
December 2005 Trees and shrubs planted on streams and river
January 2006 UTA repaired
April 2006 Live stake planting on streams and river; ATV
damage to buffer on UTA noted
May 2006 Completed Construction of Wetland Cells;
Repaired structure on UTB
June 2006 Wetland areas seeded and live stakes; buffers
reseeded and planted
September 2006 Replanted vandalized or damaged/dead trees and
shrubs
November-December 2006 Additional replacement trees planted in buffers
June 2007 1 st Annual Monitoring Report, 2nd Year
Morphological surveys
Fall 2007 Additional Trees planted in buffers
Spring 2008 Live stakes planted on wetland berm along river
August 2008 2nd Annual Monitoring Report, 3rd Year
Morphological surveys
Spring 2009 Replanting Trees along Stream A North side
September 2009 Monitoring of gage data and vegetative success
4
BannerLowe Wetland Restoration and Creation
The BannerLowe 404 permit #200330365 and 401 certification DWQ#03-1134 issued in 2004
required mitigation of a total impacted area of 0.731 acres (COE permit) of wetlands adjacent to
the Elk River as per Table 1 below.
FINAL Summary of stream and wetland effects and proposed mitigation for the Banner Lowe Project,
Avery County, NC, Post Hurricanes (Frances, Ivan & Jeanne), October 2004.
Pro osed Mitigat ion Actual Mitigation
Site Pre-Hurricane Post-Hurricane Permitted Restoration Preservation Creation Restoration Preservation Creation
Existing (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Wetlands 1 0.046 0.046 0.034 0.012 0.01
2 0.604 0.214 0.214' 0.175 0.03
3 0.523 0.000 0» 0.377
4 0.183 0.183 0.183"` 0.25
5 0.726 0.726 0.238 0.488 0.50
6 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.05
Total 2.144 1.231 0.334
Proposed Wetlands
1 0.028 0
2 0.400 0.39
6 0.400 0.43
SubTotal 0.552 0.500 0.828 0.28 0.51 0.82
Ratio 1 5 3 1 5 3
Credits with Ratio Applied 0.552 0.100 0776 0.28 0.1 0.27
Total Impacted Areas 0.731 Total Credits Proposed 0.928 Total Credits Generated 0.65
Table 1. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Table for BannerLowes Project, Actual Final
Mitigation, July 2009.
The 0.50+ acres of existing wetlands have been preserved through the protection of Wetland #5
on the west side (on hillside above Lowe's Store) and the protection of Wetland #1 along
Stonebridge Lane. Both of these wetlands are covered under the Conservation Easement for the
project site. The two wetlands on the east side of the Elk River were to provide a total of 0.55
restored acres with an additional 0.82 of created acres combined in the same wetlands for a total
of 1.37 acres for mitigation of wetland impact. The 0.82 acres was measured in April 2009,
during normal spring conditions.
The two restored wetlands have been monitored for hydrologic conditions for over three years
since being constructed. The current groundwater gage data, crest gage, stream height and rain
gage data are shown in Appendix A. The data shows that the wetlands meet the hydrologic
criteria, primarily from the water table during the summer growing season. During 2009, all
gages except GW 1 showed groundwater elevations 12" or above during the growing season.
GW 1 gage is not representative of the groundwater conditions in the area and will be dropped
from consideration. The groundwater elevations show additional hydrologic inputs from the
stream during high flow events. Hydric soils and vegetation have been documented in past
monitoring reports.
Additional wetlands have formed naturally on the project site in addition to the constructed
wetlands. A wetland has formed naturally on the west side of the Elk River across from Wetland
#1. This Wetland #3 was delineated in April 2009 and contains 0.23 acres of wetland. A fourth
wetland has formed on the west side of the lower Elk River, across from Wetland #2 and
contains 0.03 acres. Riparian wetlands are forming within the streambank channels of all three
streams on site, for an additional 0.05 acres or more of wetlands restored or created on site. With
these additional wetlands, the project has generated 0.65 credits for wetland mitigation. This
was short of the required 0.73 mitigation credits. Based on the quality of the restored and
created wetlands (high) compared to the pre-impacted wetlands quality (poor), the COE
determined in July 2009 that no additional wetland mitigation would be required (See attached
final determination document in Appendix B).
Vegetation Survival Success in Wetlands
The NCDWQ letter of February 25, 2009 (Appendix C) noted that the survival of woody
vegetation has been poor. As discussed with field personnel from DWQ and COE in April 2009,
the hydrologic conditions in these wetlands was so wet that an emergent wetland habitat has
formed in Wetlands #1 and #2 and not the scrub-shrub wetland habitat that was originally
proposed. Many of the reference wetlands in the Elk River Valley that were located prior to the
project were emergent wetlands, indicating a common habitat in the area. The monitoring plots
are primarily within this wetter regime, and FWA believes there will be few if any woody stems
possible in the existing monitoring plots and only live stake shrubs at best at the edge of the plots
that are within the conservation easement. There has been extremely successful growth of
herbaceous wetland vegetation offsetting the limited growth of woody stems.
The original live stakes installed in the wetlands did not survive due to very wet conditions.
Additional live stakes have been planted on the edges of the wetlands and are having varying
degrees of survival due to two years of drought and'/z year of normal rainfall. Most of these
shrubs cannot be seen except in close up field surveys during the growing season as they are only
1' to 2' tall. Some areas may need additional live stakes, but growth will occur from existing
plants once weather conditions return to average conditions.
FWA concurs with the DWQ letter that only the second year of vegetation growth in the
wetlands was documented in 2008 and future years should show a better success of live stake
growth and survival. There is complete success in the herbaceous wetland vegetation, which has
been in place since shortly after the wetlands were completed as shown in the previous
monitoring report photographs of the wetlands. Monitoring of the vegetation in the wetlands
will continue for an additional 2 years and replanting as noted in the replanting section below.
6
BannerLowe Stream Restoration and Relocation
Morphology
Stream A and Stream B are very low flow streams, and the uppermost section of Stream B was
dry during the summer months of the past two years (drought conditions). The relocation of
Stream A has restored the pattern, dimension and profile of the perennial stream channel for a
total of 592 linear feet as of 2009. The relocation of Stream B has restored the pattern,
dimension and profile of 748 linear feet of perennial flow. As the water table returns to normal
elevations and the region experiences normal rainfall, the dry channel in the upper Stream B
should return to intermittent stream conditions. The Elk River project restored the pattern,
dimension and profile from the access bridge to the downstream bridge on Stonebridge Lane for
a total of 409 linear feet restored. The total stream length restored and protected added up to
approximately 2,0141f of stream credits in 2009, with an additional 25 if to be found or
documented on site.
The morphology of all of these streams has remained stable during both dry and wet seasons
since construction was completed in 2005 and as was noted in the DWQ letter of February 25,
2009 for Streams A & B. As discussed during email communications with NCDWQ in 2009, it
was stated that if flow does not return to the upper Stream B channel, then additional stream
mitigation will be required for the acceptance of the mitigation project (Appendix Q. Stream
length will be monitored over the next two years to document the total amount of linear footage
of stream restoration present at the end of the project.
Additional monitoring of the morphology will not provide any additional information on the
success of these stream relocations; therefore monitoring of the morphology was proposed to be
dropped. This was discussed with staff with US COE and NC DENR during 2009 and
concurrence was reached that no additional morphology monitoring of Stream A, Stream B and
the Elk River will be required (Appendix C-Emails).
Vegetation
Vegetation has been an ongoing problem. All vegetation growth in the Banner Elk area has been
slow or diminished due to the drought conditions of the past three years in the region. Planted
trees and shrubs that have survived are generally the same size as when they were planted in
2004. This spring of 2009 has shown more growth and vigor in the buffers than has been seen in
the past; so hopefully with a return to normal rainfall patterns, future growth will show better
results.
Stream A
Stream A has experienced encroachment in the buffer due to the landscaping activities on the
north side of the stream. However, the monitoring data for this area (Stream A Upper
Monitoring Plot) for 2009 shows a success criteria of 11 stems, one over the required 10 stems
for the plot, despite this impact (Figure 2).
Nevertheless, the buffer has been impacted and steps were taken to resolve this situation. In May
2009, the area adjacent to the parking lot was fenced and a total of thirty 3-5 year old trees were
planted. The tree survival will be guaranteed for one year through the winter of 2009-2010.
This will provide the additional growth and height of trees that was lost from the impacts over
the past several years, and allow for the natural growth of existing stems. Lowes store
management was contacted and a site survey with Lowes staff and their landscaper was
performed, reviewing the buffer alignments and discussing flagging and no mowing areas. This
was documented on May 8, 2009 in emails to NCDWQ staff and USCOE staff (See photographs
of replanted area in Appendix D).
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant # # Alive # Plants # Plants V # Plant V # Plant V
Stream A Lower Plot
Acer rubrum Red Maple 2 1
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 2 2 2
Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 1
Betula SP. Birch 1
Cornus orida Dogwood
Hamamelis vir iniana Witch Hazel
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1 2 1 3
Salix ni a Black Willow
Salix SP. sp. 1 2
Unknown SP. Unknown 2
Total 3 3 4 8 2 2 3
Total Planted + Volunteers 10 5

Survival % planted 100% 100% 100% 25%
Total stems/acre 60 80 200 100
Figure 2. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, lower monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009.
The south side of the stream has been experiencing slow growth, but is basically vegetated
throughout the buffer length with occasional bare ground spots due to the drought. However, the
monitoring plot data for this side (Figure 3) is below the success criteria and needs additional
tree plantings. Considering the numerous trees and shrubs within the rest of the buffer on the
south side of Stream A, this lack is only in the monitoring plot itself (See Appendix D). The
initial lack of tree survival in this area was due to ATV activities during the first year of
establishment of the buffer in 2004-5. This problem was addressed and the area replanted after
the ATV trail was shut down. The current lack of trees is probably due to the berm like
condition in this area that created drier conditions than the rest of the buffer. This in turn
resulted in the trees experiencing more stress and die-off in the monitoring plot during the
drought than in the remaining portion of the buffer.
2006 2007 20 08 2009 2010
Plant# # Alive # Plants V # Plants V # Plant V # Plants V
Stream A Upper Plot
Acer rubrum Red Maple 3 2 2
Betula lenta Cherry Birch
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 3 3 3
Betula SP. Birch 2 1
Betula ni ra River Birch 3
COMUS orida Dogwood
Hamamelis vtr iniana Witch Hazel
Plantanus occidentalis Sycamore I
Prunus serotina Black Cherry
Salix nigra Black Willow 1
Salix serzcea Silky Willow 1 1
Alnus serrulata T Alder 1
Total 3 3 3 1 3 3 9 2 0 0
Total Planted + Volunteers 4 6 11 0

Survival %planted 100% 100% 100% 100%11 1
Total stems/acre 60 80 120 220 0
1 67% survival from replantings prior to 2009; additional large trees planted in 2009 returns to more than 100% survival
Figure 3. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream A, upper monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009.
Along Stream A, the vegetation is healthy and well developed, with rushes, silky willow, and
silky dogwood shrubs growing along the channel. Where water is concentrated in pools below
drops, the shrubs and herbaceous vegetation are heavy. Where the stream channel is dryer, in
runs or riffles, the streambank vegetation is mainly herbaceous with less growth of the shrubs.
But many of the live stakes are still viable and will take off and grow strongly once normal
rainfall returns to the mountains. In our opinion, the only area of concern is around the lower
monitoring plot itself.
Stream B
Stream B has experienced difficulties in getting vegetation of any type established in the upper
section. This area was constructed with the deepest grading cuts and may have the poorest soil.
The upper section also has had no summer flow since the relocation was completed, adding
additional stress on newly planted vegetation. (Note - this was also the condition prior to the
stream relocation as the upper section of Stream B was primarily a drainageway for the seep in
the forest to the confluence of the wetland drainages). The area has been replanted with trees
and shrubs which are beginning to show signs of growth after surviving the past few years with
minimal growth. As the stem count data shows on Figure 4, there were 13 stems surviving in the
plot on this section (Upper Stream B), well over the 10 stems required for the plot size with an
additional 9 volunteer stems.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant# #Alive #Plants V #Plants V #Plants V #Plants V
Stream B Upper Plot
Acer rubmm Red Maple 1 1 1 12 1 2 1
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 3 3 3 111
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 1 1
Betula SP, Birch 3 3 3 3 2 2 1
Betula ni a RiverBirch 1
COMUS orida Dogwood 1 1 1 1
Hamamelis wrginiam Witch Hazel
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1 1 2 14
Salix nigra Black Willow
Salix serzcea Silky Willow
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 121 2
Unknown Birch or Cherry 2
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 1 1
Total 9 9 9 27 6 13 8 19 0 0
Total Planted+ Volunteers 36 19 27 0

Survival % planted 100% 100% 67% 89%
Total stems/acre 180 720 380 540 0
1 Identification wrong in previous years due to young age, confirmed to be Black Cherry in 2009
Figure 4. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, upper monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009.
There are volunteer species of black cherry and elderberry growing in the buffer and monitoring
plot of the upper section. The soil appropriate for native herbaceous species seems to be the
limiting factor in this area. A hardy vegetation cover like those used by NCDOT may be more
appropriate in order to stabilize the exposed banks. During field inspections with US COE and
NC DENR staff, it was concluded that any hardy cover would be approved. This cover would
provide shade, erosion control, and add a natural organic deposition to the banks, allowing for
the establishment of future native trees and shrubs.
The lower section of Stream B has more vegetation as it has a more constant source of water
from the wetland seeps. This source almost dried up during the summer months, but generally
was present for the remainder of the year. The monitoring of this vegetative plot and the buffer
shows the trees and shrubs are growing, albeit slowly, due to the previous years of drought.
They are difficult to see, especially in the summer months when the herbaceous vegetation grows
quite tall , but most of the stems are present and viable. The monitoring plot on the lower section
(Lower Stream B) is well under the success criteria as shown in Figure 5 and needs additional
plantings to meet the Year 5 success criteria goal. Other buffer areas along Stream B may need
additional stems in scattered locations on a site specific basis. The lower Stream B at the
property line has very little buffer area and has created a linear wetland in the channel, which
would be too wet for additional tree plantings. Additional stems and reseeding of appropriate
areas around Stream B will be addressed in the replanting section below.
10
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Plant# # Alive # Plants # Plants V # Plants V # Plants V
Stream B Lower Plot
Acer rubmm Red Nb le
Betula lenta Cher Birch 2 2 0
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch
Betula SP. Birch 3 3 3 3 1 3 1
Comas amomum Dogwood 2
Hamamelis virniana Witch Hazel
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 1 1
Sal& nigra Black Willow
Sal& SP. Willow sp.
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry
Total 6 6 4 3 1 4 3
Total Planted + Volunteers 4 7

Survival % planted 1000 67% 67% 67%
Total stems/acre 120 80 80 140
Figure 5. Vegetative monitoring plot for Stream B, lower monitoring plot, BannerLowes
Project, Banner Elk, NC, 2009.
Elk River Restoration
The Elk River comments in the DWQ letter concerned the encroachment by grounds keeping
activities into the buffer and the need for additional trees in the downstream buffer on the west
side of the river. The grounds keeping activities were impacting Stream A and are addressed
above. According to the survey overlays of the Conservation Easement boundaries, the
landscaping activities were not impacting the protected Elk River buffer adjacent to the parking
lot. Lowes management indicated that they would restrict further mowing activities into the
wettest areas at the toe of the slope next to the Elk River buffer. As noted in the wetland section
above, an emergent wetland has formed due to a spring draining through this area. Areas outside
of the wetland are extremely rocky from residue of the flood events in 2004 and lack the soil
cover for growing large trees as yet.
Addressing the trees needed along the downstream buffer of the Elk River, a survey in May 2009
showed 11 birches (yellow, cherry or river) from the original plantings surviving with one dead
birch in the area. The majority of the birches have not increased in height over the past 3 years,
remaining at 1'-2' in height and well hidden during the summer months. The trees have been
putting their energies into growing roots up to now. Herbaceous cover and shrubs have survived
in greater densities and are providing soil cover. Other trees planted in the area did not survive
the construction activities of the stream restoration or the drought conditions. Trees planted on
the berms adjacent to the stream channel had poor survival due to the rocky conditions left by the
flood events. Recent rainfall in the region has boosted the tree growth and survival, but
additional trees could be planted to assist this buffer stabilization. The replanting of this area
will be address in the replanting section.
11
Stream Conclusion
No additional morphology monitoring of Stream A, Stream B and the Elk River will be required
(Appendix Q. The main areas of concern are the vegetation survival in specific areas and the
amount of stream credits. A replanting plan for the project will be submitted to the agencies and
installed during the 2010 winter-spring months. Vegetative monitoring of the plots on Stream A
and Stream B will continue for the remaining two years. Elk River buffer replanting will be
monitored through survival of the replants and photographic documentation. Measurements and
documentation of the total amount of stream length restored will continue for the next two years
under normal rainfall events for the region.
Replanting Plan 2010
Replanting efforts of trees, live stakes, and herbaceous seeding will be conducted in the areas
noted above. Trees will be planted within the lower Stream A monitoring plot, within the lower
Stream B plot, as needed throughout the Stream B buffer and within the buffers of the Elk River
downstream of the access bridge. Live stakes will be added around the edges of Wetland 1 and 2
to supplement the herbaceous vegetation. Seeding of the upper Stream B area will be redone
with more hardy seed types that will provide cover quickly and efficiently in the primarily dry
channel and slopes adjacent to the dry channel.
Replanting Proposal for BannerLowes 2010
Lower Stream A Monitoring Plot
Lower Stream B Monitoring Plot
Stream B Buffer
Elk River Buffer
Wetlands
Total
Tree species that can be used:
Live Stakes :
Seeding:
Trees - bare root Live Stakes Seeding, mulch, amendments
10 - -
10 - -
30 - 9,000 sq ft
100 -
100 -
150 100
black cherry, sycamore, red maple, cherry birch, yellow birch, and evenblack willow
oaks (white, red or scarlet), white pine, flowering dogwood (native, not varietal)
and American holly
Silky dogwood, silky willow, black willow, elderberry
Kentucky bluegrass, tall fescue
Soil Amendments, straw and/or excelsior matting will be utilized
12
Appendix A
Groundwater, Crest, Stream Height and Rain Gage Graphs
13
GW2 groundwater elevations
7
6
5
4
s
? 3
.G
0
2
W
1
0
1
2
Date
GW 3 ground water elevation
2
0
_2
s 4
G
G
O
R
-6
W
-10
3'? .4'o Soil 5.,?? 5.,?? S ?Poo?Qoo?Qo? Qoo c ?.4 5?.4
-12
OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ? OQ?
Ss'S`"
o? o? ti? ?,?, 3ti d?" ti5tiff o`Y oa' tin ti? oti o?, ti? ti3' oti o? ti? ti3' 3ti o ti ti 3 o ti ti 3 0? ti? tiff tia'
Date
Wetland #1 Groundwater Gage Data for 2009
14
GW1 groundwater elevation
2
0
-2
-4
s
? -6
c
0
R _Q
i
W
-10
-12
-14
-16
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 o titioti ti tiotitio ti ti tio titi ti
Date
GW 4 groundwater elevations
0
-5
-10
s
c
c
0
R
i
W -15
-20
-25
00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00? 00?
? tiOO? tiOO? tiOO? tiOO? tiOO? tiOO? tiOO?
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
ti
Date
Wetland #2 Groundwater Gage Data for 2009
15
Precipitation Gage Data January-September 2009
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
s
° 1
a 0.8
w`
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
00?
oti
Date
Elk River stream gage January-September 2009
39
34
29
s^ 24
a
a 19
E
R
14
9
4
-1
OO°l
01
Date
16
?p ti? Oti ?p ^+ ??'
?OO°l ?OO°l ?OO°l ?OO°l ?Op°l ?Op°l ?Op°l
Elk River Crest Gage Readings January 2009-September 2009
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
Date
17
Appendix B
US Corp of Engineers
Banner Elk Lowes Mitigation Credits - Final
18
From: Jones, Amanda D SAW [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:21 PM
To: Barbara Wiggins
Cc: Barnett, Kevin
Subject: Banner Elk Lowe's Mitigation Requirements-Final
Attachments: ActualMitigationCredit.xls
Here's what I finally came up with. Called the 0.82 creation based on how we reviewed
it/classified it in the permit. Called the 0.25 restoration which came up with a total of 0.65 acre
of credit generated which makes a deficit of 0.08 acre. Due to the quality of the wetlands being
impacted (low) and the quality of the wetlands created/restored (high), I will not require any
additional mitigation to compensate for that deficit of 0.08 acre. Please check the notes section to
make sure they correspond to the changes I made.
Also, I am permanently suspending monitoring requirements on the relocated stream channel
located directly behind the building due to its questionable jurisdiction. A good example of why
mountain headwater ephemeral/intermittent channels should not be attempted to "restored" -
lesson learned. I do strongly recommend that the area be planted in some sort of ground cover for
stabilization.
With regards to the continuation of monitoring on the remaining wetlands, I am satisfied that
these areas will remain jurisdictional wetlands in their current condition (minus any natural
events) and don't believe any additional monitoring would reveal any significant changes. I do
however, expect that the next hurricane event could deposit material in these areas and fill them
and also possibly scour out new areas (newly created wetlands). The more I've worked this area,
the more I realize how transitional some of these floodplains wetlands are and that our goal of
creating/restoring wetlands in this area for five years is short-sighted at best. The main benefit
this work has provided is that the Elk River still has a floodplain to do what it needs to do and
the stormwater entering the river has a functioning buffer (with the help of storm water
management facilities).
Unless Kevin or Eric have anything to add or objections, these are my final comments.
Amanda Jones
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
office: (828)-271-7980 x.231
fax: [phone]
web: http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/
19
Appendix C
NCDWQ Correspondence
20
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H, Sullins
Governor Director
February 25, 2009
Ms. Barbara S. Wiggins
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 241
Whittier, NC 28789
Re: BannerLowes Restoration Project
2008 Post-Construction Monitoring Report
Avery County
DWQ #03-1134
Dear Ms. Wiggins:
Resources
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 Oversight and Express Review Permitting Unit has
reviewed the Monitoring Report for the above-referenced site, and have reviewed your request
for closeout of the monitoring period for the restored wetlands. In addition, Eric Kulz with this
Office conducted a site visit in the summer of 2008. Our comments on the project and
monitoring report are as follows:
Streams
The morphological data presented in the monitoring report appear to show that the streams are
stable. Both relocated streams (UTA and UTB) appeared to be low-flow streams; UTA had
water only in the lower portion of the channel, and UTB was dry during the site visit.
With respect to the vegetation, the method of presentation of the data in the report make
evaluating success of the project difficult. Tree data are normally presented with raw data
extrapolated to stems per acre for each monitoring plot. According to the interagency Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003), survival of woody species planted at mitigation sites should
be at least 320 stems per acre through year 3. It is unclear if this criteria is being met, based on
the data in the monitoring report.
However, during the site visit, vegetation appears to be a problem for the riparian zones of all the
streams. Survival and vigor appeared poor on both of the UTs, and diversity appeared low,
likely due to drought conditions. Buffer width is an issue on both UTA and the Elk River.
Encroachment by groundskeeping activities and proximity of UTA to the parking lot are
concerns.
401 OverslghUExpress Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:/lh2o.enr,state,nc.us/ncwetiands/
One
NorthCarolina
,Natura!!rf
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer 21
Ms. Wiggins
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
Page 2 of 3
2/25/2009
Based on the Project History presented on Page 4 of the report, construction of the stream
restoration portions of the project was completed in October 2005. Planting was done in
December 2005, with supplemental planting events in 2006 and 2007_2008 represents the third
growing season, based on the initial planting.
With respect to the buffers at this site, the success of this mitigation project is not at all assured.
Continued poor survival, encroachment and vandalism may result in additional monitoring past
the five-year mark.
Wetlands
As noted above, the method of presentation of the tree data make comparison of data from the
site to success criteria difficult. However, due to poor woody vegetation survival and multiple
repair and replanting events during the last 3 years, we recommend that monitoring continue
until it is clear that the targeted community has become established in the restored wetlands.
In regards to vegetation monitoring, we suggest that stem counts continue for planted and
volunteer woody species. Vegetation plots should not all include live stakes, as these tend to
skew the stem counts. Denisty data should be representative of the wetland are as a whole.
Results should be presented as described above, and compared with the success criteria for
wetland mitigation (320 stems per acre in year 3, 288 stems per acre in year 4, and 260 stems per
acre in year 5). However, it is not necessary to count stems of herbaceous vegetation; estimates
of percent cover will be adequate in future monitoring reports.
Based on the Project History presented on Page 4 of the monitoring report, construction of the
wetland cells was completed in May 2006, and planting was completed in June 2006. Therefore,
the first full growing season for the wetlands was 2007. 2008 only represents the second
growing season for the wetland portion of the site.
Wetland mitigation projects generally require monitoring for five years or until success criteria
are met, whichever is longer.
DWQ would be happy to meet on the site with USACE personnel to discuss the progress of the
stream and wetland mitigation, but.we feel that monitoring of this site should, at a minimum,
continue through the five growing seasons outlined in applicable mitigation guidance.
22
Ms. Wiggins
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
Page 3 of 3
2/25/2009
Please feel free to contact Eric Kulz or Tammy Hill at [phone] if you have any questions
regarding this project or our comments.
Sincerely,
Cyndi B. Karoly, Program Manager
01 Oversight and Express Review Program
cc: File Copy (Eric Kulz)
Matt Matthews - DWQ Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Kevin Barnett - DWQ Asheville Regional Office
Amanda Jones - USACE ReefifRegulatory Field Office
??NU-,-r-
23
From: Barnett, Kevin [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:59 PM
To: Jones, Amanda D SAW; Barbara Wiggins
Cc: Karoly, Cyndi; Kulz, Eric
Subject: RE: Banner Elk Lowe's Mitigation Requirements-Final
Hi Barbara:
This has been discussed by both Central Office and Regional Office.
based on 401 water quality certification, this project (with the abandonment of the relocated
stream channel, and that the channel may have had its groundwater hydrology removed from the
shifting of the channel) has a stream mitigation deficit. We need to come up with credits to
resolve the Certification requirements.
The DWQ has no issue with the wetland mitigation accounting.
Best regards,
Kevin
"The time is always right to do what is right"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail] North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources Asheville Regional Office Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section 2090
U. S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
24
From: Barnett, Kevin [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:11 PM
To: Barbara Wiggins
Cc: Kulz, Eric; Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: Banner Lowe - monitoring?
Hi Barbara:
had quick exchange with central office staff and this is the general consensus:
• Elk River and Stream A are stable, and no additional geomorphic monitoring is required.
• Stream A should be replanted, and veg monitoring continue.
• Wetland hydrology and wetland veg should continue for time being.
• Stream B is unresolved. Issues is it is in 404 and 401 application as needing mitigation, and we
have no sucessful mitigation to get it off books (so to say). I will follow up with this.
Thanks,
Kevin
"The time is always right to do what is right"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
25
From: Barbara Wiggins [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:53 PM
To: Kevin Barnett; Amanda Jones
Cc: Barbara Wiggins
Subject: BannerLowe current monitoring status
Kevin and Amanda -
Based on both COE and DWQ comments over the past few months, we have the following
monitoring requirements left at BannerLowes project - please let us know if this is not correct.
All morphological surveys are no longer needed - Stream A, Stream B and Elk River; this
includes cross sections, long pro, pebble counts and BEHI.
DWQ has asked for hydrology monitoring in the wetlands continue while COE has indicated no
further monitoring will be needed. There will be a gap in crest and stream height data in spring
2009 due to this discrepancy in agency requirements. This data will be provided to both
agencies for the year to date.
Vegetation monitoring needs to continue and additional plantings need to be added. We will do
the monitoring plots as usual, but with Eric Kulz's request to drop the livestakes. All buffer areas
will be evaluated this week to document the growth after a normal year of rain.. We expect the
numbers and survival to be up considerably from past years.
Stream B is a perennial stream downstream of the wetland confluence and will be confirmed
with a stream identification rating. The upstream section will be evaluated for intermittent rating
this week and the results submitted to both agencies. If needed, a recheck of this section 48
hours after a rain event will be performed to document flowing conditions. We will also be
surveying and measuring any additional stream channel lengths in the wetland area behind
Lowes' store.
Photographs of the overall project areas will be made.
Please let me know if there are any additional monitoring requirements that need to be
performed. Thanks.
Barbara Wiggins
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
PO Box 241
Whittier, NC 28789
828-497-6505
26
From: Barnett, Kevin [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Barbara Wiggins
Cc: Hill, Tammy
Subject: RE: BannerLowe gage monitoring
Hi Barbara:
After a quick review of the previous a-mails between this office, Central office, and yourself, it is my
understanding that the low producing well was thrown out as being not representative, and the
remainder of the wells had met the mitigation criteria.
At this time, we have no issue with Fish and Wildlife Associates removing these wells for use at the
Muse - Peddlers Square project.
Thanks,
Kevin
"The time is always right to do what is right"
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Kevin Barnett - [e-mail]
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
Asheville Regional Office
Division of Water Quality - Water Quality Section
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
27
Appendix D
Photographs 2009
28

O .m ;ONK
r ° ?n£y._ :d. _
Iv,
yy'Ty,'? 1 ? g ? ci_t, ? P?? •'O,??y ??'jR
Stream A looking upstream from lower end,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
Ilk

1 4 ??
s? a
r c K•
fa y

Stream A looking downstream from upper end, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009, .
29

i P ?rCi R
Ail: ??'•14"y n k "ti 1 ? " a'' • ?r
w !
ray {?:?'*?? •' ?,?!.?
FRa, P - ? k Y , " ??a1
r! r ? 'a7Y k? ?'
x. •? !rr/'l??'?M1?.•`. 1 ?r" ? rot ?. "I
'sd'
R r ?4

Stream A Lower Monitoring Plot, looking west from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.
}
at-* . ? i,'
Ar"

I t T
d
I ' y

T
F Y
r R
4 `M I

r

t ?f

1 , ??+c L _ lt'P+
J»
+
3 t
f
Stream A Upper Monitoring Plot, looking west from southeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
30
Stream B, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.

Mkt' LL
??:???,:? a " jt Y.`.9rv.'I: _. !.' a^,?'?''?r ?f T?l`,?.-?Y ?', ,;1?',?,;?F 'IS• _ ,f

•
jib ? ? .,fit e? °r,t i'i! ? ? 1,?? t? fq?y
? ?ti ? v F
y?+IM7
?
{ ,
° C 1?, ? ? 1 ? I ? v
S
r
a
`;"Il
A%Y`
•,,? wy ? 6 fr ?1?, fj ?Y I V, ' ' 1 ,71
,

Stream B, looking downstream from middle of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
31
VWMWMWrAMW
• -?r r y M.
f• i.
'n
1
7
t
'Sir I,
d(t "?c4an t? ;r??tts f{ t
K Fr vlfa t{, r'?" a?r1.? } a4.s'M,?
yr. r
rya, ? T y*,, ` r, 16F4 ? t it rs, TM ''r?l a +t?y'?<jty« ? ?
IT v - ?` TA^. x{6$1 7t<?,1??'y :. ?f rS (?'A? I al" w t?' e,`i7.`?'?t S'.:Fl7E#__
?yf?ly ;' ? -J rI'e. }, }.,. !rr ( q? wSti ,g? Y . ? r. 1 ,
Tr f y1?, y v n 1:St,.`?C ,M,'yt ?! ?rl1 '? ?.! ?w f''? y ?? {
r, ?; ? 1f? ? ?:';!7!^ , ?. , r : • ? ?., '. /r c f,i a f ., 5 G , • ti I } ? "{' ,r? y?y! ,yt 84'x } ?`."i 14 Pd.l" R"62i 4'0? iig.,
Stream B, looking downstream towards end of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
A .
kAiL
v
ti

?°G? w, f 1 V' f ? h d,I. -"r ",a+?S *dt "ti1'?I na?'t"? ? tA: ?ftr, .•; - '- H
K - 7 iv su ? -
-tF?
3
yy i `t. i 'wry #? ? ...,,{wa' gg?71.1^'r' '?. r??1 4r z-1 :'? ? ?r •_.v ? ;h; ?, -r•;? 4
'AT ti?. _?? a..? .'?9., ? -t :'9 ,<•A? r.. ?!. f.. ?.. C, . _ ..lvvrw ,: ?. ?.. ?..
Stream B, looking upstream towards head of project,
above wetland confluence, area of poor vegetative growth,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
32
F .-. r
ti ?' i r a
??,'?g +q w
1 r ?+?
it
I
? rr
y
,t {Icy y 5 "V4 ?f' 9 -
"i. F r?. i ?,}???,ii ?J? a _ fit'
ar" a 'y¢ 9?
1A a, ti?. A'Ta AA±} 2'IIN, ',' g VI n ,
A €(. Yn -."tl
Stream B Upper Monitoring Plot, looking south from northeast corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
,,"? --r ? ?r•_?' # 'RIB .. _.?.,?,,..,?.? _
rF? c1?
a
A
kr?
1
7 yl Y4
v t,

k ?r AtAt
T <? a
Y w? c
,.?. fir"<},??,'+1'•#
Stream B Lower Monitoring Plot, looking north from southwest corner,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2009.

Yy S l? J "t

f ?t

A sl
rdfits
..?- .
Ir. x r d .4rk, ti.
W?Ll?I
33
r . I{
k aws 1 ° ? I
I- L
??y "].??` Y? ) 114
Lao,
Elk River, looking downstream from head of project,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
W .q
?.
OP,
-wow
Elk River Buffer, Downstream of Access Bridge,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2009.
34
'to .
-, rve
5 '
µM
•,? y .w kM x'IFa
• yy
' « 1 ?Y
Ar.
r $'ff ?1
4
W Ur r i g _
;???T 'a ` ?? '? ?j•;i a ? ? S,{ ?4 II r?J MJ '?b'`'? 1 ? 3' .?C a ?? ?yy r? n. ?d
Wetland 1 looking south from access road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
L. -

Y
r ?l OM y +6
6 p ¦
f y, _ ?yy I ?j
Wetland 2 Looking North from Access Road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, September 2009.
35

h A `ia ?d"" x 3,iT , ,,•wp
N r6 ?I? ?lA?l r?,li l P Y
7v...a.vA,
Wetland 3 looking north towards access road, BannerLowes Project,
Banner Elk, NC, May 2009.
- - P-W-,
MwA y?1
Y
Yet.
0 v4
Wetland 4 looking north at springhead, near Stonebridge Lane,
BannerLowes Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2009.
36
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
UTA, UTB and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Post-Construction Report 2008
Prepared for submission to:
US Corps of Engineers
NC Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
PREPARED BY:
FISH AND WILDLIFE ASSOCIATES, INC.
PO BOX 241
WHITTIER, NC 28789
January 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................iii
PROJECT SITE ............................................................................. ...................................... 1
PROJECT HISTORY .................................................................... ...................................... 4
METHODS .................................................................................... ...................................... 4
RESULTS ...................................................................................... ...................................... 5
Pre-Construction Conditions 2004 ................................................ ...................................... 5
Post Construction Monitoring 2005-2006 ..................................... ...................................... 6
Post Construction Monitoring 2007 .............................................. ...................................... 9
Post Construction Monitoring 2008 .............................................. .................................... 12
FUTURE SAMPLING ...................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Preconstruction Photographs ....................................................................... 25
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................ 34
Stream and Wetland As Built Surveys .................................................................. 35
Photographs 2005-2006 ......................................................................................... 42
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................ 50
Longitudinal Survey Graphs 2005-2006 ............................................................... 51
Longitudinal Photographs October 2006 .............................................................. 54
Pebble Count Graphs October 2006 ...................................................................... 59
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................... 61
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Tables 2006-2007 .................................................... 62
Groundwater, Stream level and Crest Gage Graphs 2006-2007 ........................... 66
Appendix E ........................................................................................................................ 73
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Tables 2006-2008 .................................................... 74
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs 2006-2008 ........................................... 80
Cross Section Photographs 2006-2008 .................................................................. 90
Longitudinal Photographs 2006-2008 ................................................................. 102
Pebble Count Graphs 2006 & 2008 ..................................................................... 127
Groundwater, Stream level and Crest Gage Graphs 2006-2008 ......................... 130
i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of BannerLowe Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ....................... 2
Figure 2. Elk River longitudinal profile, BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk,
North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008 .............................. 15
Figure 3. Stream A longitudinal profile, BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk,
North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008 .............................. 16
Figure 4. Stream B longitudinal profile, Station 0.0 to Station 500.0, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys
2005, 2006 and 2008 .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Stream B longitudinal profile, Station 500.0 to Station 1100.0, BannerLowe
Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys
2005, 2006 and 2008 .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Elk River cross section profile at Station 1805, upstream riffle,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................. 18
Figure 7. Elk River cross section profile at Station 1886, downstream pool,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................... 19
Figure 8. Stream A cross section profile at Station 1438, upstream riffle,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................... 20
Figure 9. Stream A cross section profile at Station 1599, downstream pool,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................... 20
Figure 10. Stream B cross section profile at Station 1209, upstream site,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................... 21
Figure 11. Stream B cross section profile at Station 1634, downstream site,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008 ................... 22
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of As-built Lengths and Restoration Approaches ................................ 1
Table 2. BannerLowe Herbaceous Monitoring Plots Data 2008 ...................................... 14
Table 3. Bank Erosion Pin ............................................................................................... 22
iii
BannerLowe Mitigation Project
UTA, UTB and Elk River Restoration
Wetland Restoration
DWQ #03-1134
USCOE Action ID No. 200330365
Post-Construction Monitoring 2008
PROJECT SITE
The BannerLowe Mitigation Project is located in Avery County, NC in the Town of Banner
Elk. The project is located south of Banner Elk on the west side of NC 184 (Tynecastle Road),
in the mountain ecoregion of North Carolina (Figure 1). The property at BannerLowes is
composed of a total of 29.3 acres bordering Tynecastle Road. Tynecastle Road is the major
thoroughfare into the Town of Banner Elk and the primary commercial corridor. This property
has 720 feet of road frontage on Tynecastle Road. Primary access to the tract is through the
Lowes access drive from Tynecastle Road. Secondary access is over a private road (Glove
Factory Lane) adjacent to the old Glove Factory land (south) and a private road (Stonebridge
Lane) adjacent to a Car Wash (north). Land use in the project vicinity is commercial along
Tynecastle Road with residential homes set back from the road. The property was used for a
residential home, barn and agricultural pasture prior to construction of the commercial
buildings.
The project is located within the Elk River watershed of the Watauga River Basin. The site lies
in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging Unit 06010103 and North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 04-02-01 of the Watauga River Basin. The mitigation
project involves three streams and two wetlands on the property. There are two unnamed
tributaries (UTA & UTB), with UTA flowing into the Elk River on the southeast side of the
property. UTB flows into the Elk river at a point downstream of the property. The Elk River
borders the property on the east side. The drainage areas involved include the Elk River at 2.95
square miles, the UTA at 0.04 square miles, and the UTB at 0.1 square miles.
The Elk River flows parallel to Tynecastle Road and bisects the property. The Elk River was
approximately six feet wide and six inches deep with a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate. The
river experiences impacts from beaver activity and floods (March 2003 and September 2004).
These impacts had resulted in bank and channel degradation of the Elk River on the property.
Preconstruction conditions can be seen in the photographs in Appendix A.
Table 1. Summary of As-built Lengths and Restoration Approaches.
Reach Name As-built Length (ft) Restoration Approach
Elk River 387 Restoration
UTA 536 Relocation and Restoration
UTB 1,089 Relocation and Restoration

Total 2,012
t /'e, : I .- . V; -* -- --. Jdw
Elk River
N 'c t
L „ rip e'" ,
? Z ti-? • `gip J
?wj11TEHpWKLN , - s
SUGAR CREEK LN
2 0?
?., ;_.. etl"and 2
-Af
I,-?q ,r #a ^ W a 1
s
Q?l iY yµ•t /. Fes! .i Yj, N 01
01
G
Stream B_
Legend { - = y,
OV
r Crest Gage
Stream Gage ? '# ?? + Stream A{ _
Rain Gage k
Ground Water Gage
Streams
Monitoring Plots ? •?"•'
Wetlands YV
Figure 1.
r Location of BannerLowes
Stream and Wetland
Project Location Restoration Site
Banner Elk, NC
0 62.5125 250 375 500
,?,`? ` Feet
C ot.an
2
For the restoration project, the lower portion of the Elk River (3871f) was stabilized and the
profile and dimension restored in the stretch (Figure 2). UTA was relocated to the south side of
the property and restored for a length of 5361f. Another UT joins with UTA near the head of
the stream, but is not included in the mitigation project. UTA is a perennial stream and was
channelized prior to the project. See photographs of the stream before the project was
constructed in Appendix A. UTB had been channelized and all riparian vegetation removed
during the agricultural use of the property. UTB was an intermittent stream upstream of the
property and became a perennial stream downstream at the confluence with two tributaries
draining the springs west of the property. UTB was relocated and restored to a length of 1,089
If UTB had been channelized through the pasture, flowing northward into an old pond bed
(Appendix A).
The restoration project included two wetlands located adjacent to the Elk River on the east side
of the river. The project to date has restored Wetland #1 (upstream above the bridge) between
the stormwater wetland BMP and the Elk River. It was restored to 0.30 acres in size. The
project has restored 0.34 acres of Wetland #2 (downstream of the bridge). Further wetlands
have become established on the west side of the Elk River due to natural groundwater flow.
The design for the BannerLowe project involved the restoration of channel dimension, pattern,
and profile on the Elk River and two of its unnamed tributaries (UTA and UTB). After
construction was complete, 2,012 feet of stream had been restored on the site and 0.64 acres of
wetland. This Annual Report details the results of the monitoring efforts performed during
2008 (Year 3 Morphological Surveys) at the BannerLowe Site.
Project History
February 2005 Site Mitigation Plan Completed
May 2005 Construction Begins on UTA and UTB
July 2005 Completed Construction of UTA and UTB;
preliminary live stakes, matting and seeding
October 2005 Completed Construction of Elk River; vandalism of
planted trees and shrubs on UTA and UTB noted
December 2005 Trees and shrubs planted on streams and river
January 2006 UTA repaired
April 2006 Live stake planting on streams and river; ATV
damage to buffer on UTA noted
May 2006 Completed Construction of Wetland Cells;
Repaired structure on UTB
June 2006 Wetland areas seeded and live stakes; buffers
reseeded and planted
September 2006 Replanted vandalized or damaged/dead trees and
shrubs
November-December 2006 Additional replacement trees planted in buffers
June 2007 1 st Annual Monitoring Report, 2nd Year
Morphological surveys
Fall 2007 Additional Trees planted in buffers
Spring 2008 Live stakes planted on wetland berm along river
August 2008 2nd Annual Monitoring Report, 3rd Year
Morphological surveys
METHODS
Longitudinal and cross section reference sites were photographed immediately after construction
and will be documented for at least five years following construction. Photographs will be taken
at each of the vegetation plots during each growing season for at least five years following
construction. Two (2) permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream
restoration work, with one (1) located at a riffle cross-section and one (1) located at a pool cross-
section. There were two cross sections installed on each restored stream segment. A
longitudinal profile will be completed once during the first year after construction and then every
two years (for a total of three times over the five year monitoring period). Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank.
Bank erosion measurements will be made at each permanent cross section. A bank erodibility
hazard index (BEHI) score will also be made at each cross section. Pebble counts will be
conducted at each permanent cross section (100 counts per cross section) and reach-wide over
twenty bankfull widths (100 counts total). Pebble counts will be conducted one year after
construction and at a two-year interval thereafter at the time the longitudinal field surveys are
performed.
Vegetative monitoring plots were established on each of the stream restoration stretches. There
were two 25'x 50' plots each established on UTA, UTB and the Elk River. Trees and shrubs are
flagged and counted each year and survival will be determined based on initial plantings. Within
these monitoring plots, herbaceous vegetation will be monitored using a one meter plot for
determining density and diversity of herbaceous vegetation. Live stakes are monitored with one
plot 50' long on both sides of the streams adjacent to the vegetative monitoring plots, with all
live stakes counted and tracked to determine survival.
Wetlands will be monitored for success using hydrology determinations through groundwater
wells, crest gage, stream gage and rainfall data, wetland rating scores, vegetative stem counts,
herbaceous density and diversity, hydrophytic vegetation, and photographs of the two wetland
areas through the monitoring period. These conditions will be monitored for five years or until
success criteria have been met.
RESULTS - Listed Chronologically from Pre Construction
Pre-Construction Conditions 2004
Pre-construction observations in April 2004 of the streams UTA and UTB showed impacts from
the agricultural use of the land surrounding the two streams. Photographs of the pre-construction
conditions can be found in Appendix A. UTA had very little buffer and was not protected from
livestock access. UTB had some areas of natural vegetation and buffer, especially near the
wetland areas on the west side of the project. Most of UTB was heavily impacted from clearing
and livestock access, with drastic changes in pattern and dimension as can be seen in the
photographs in Appendix A. The Elk River through the project had areas of bank erosion,
dimension impacts from beaver dams, and clearing of the buffer through most of the length
within the project boundaries.
The wetlands on the project had been impacted historically through fill and livestock access to
the area. All of the valley wetlands and the Elk River were heavily impacted through three
consecutive floods in September 2004. The Elk River shifted its channel to the west and much
of the wetlands closest to the river were filled with sand and rock debris from the floods. The
Elk River was relocated back into its original channel in October to prevent the channel erosion
and sediment load from cutting anew channel. The wetland areas adjacent to the river were
heavily impacted from sand and rock deposits and were greatly reduced in size and function.
Photographs of these conditions can be seen in Appendix A. Restoration of the wetlands and the
connection with the Elk River through the mitigation plan would restore these wetland areas.
Post Construction 2005-2006
Vegetation Monitoring
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
Pebble Count
Wetland Restoration
Plans showing as built conditions and photographs for the three streams and the two wetlands are
included in Appendix B. The active project construction extended over a long period of time
with more than a year in construction and planting activities for the project. As can be seen on
the timetable of the project history, the stream restoration projects were completed at two
different times in 2005. The wetlands were not completed until May of 2006. Vegetation
planting efforts were spread out throughout and are continuing into 2007, due to seasonal
planting requirements. There were multiple impacts to the streams and wetlands from adjacent
construction activities, including stormwater BMP construction, sediment and erosion control
structures, utility installations, and general construction impacts. Vandalism had been noted in
2005 and is still being observed through current field surveys. All of these impacts on the
projects will be discussed as it impacted the individual monitoring components and how the
impacts were repaired. Lowes opened for business in early July 2006, ending most landscaping
and associated construction activities.
No excessive rainfall events or floods occurred during 2005 or 2006. Rain events are
documented under the Wetland Restoration monitoring for the site. There were high stream
level events but no bankfull events in 2005 or 2006 as recorded by the crest gage. More
discussion of the precipitation and stream levels will be covered under the stream longitudinal
profile and the wetland restoration sections of this report.
Vegetation Monitoring
STREAMS
Plantings on the three streams began as early as July 2005 and were still continuing into 2007.
There was a partial livestake planting on UTA and UTB in July 2005 along with native grass
seeding to provide an initial head start for bank stabilization. Elk River was planted with native
seeds and livestakes in October of 2005. All three streams were planted with trees in December
2005 and with the rest of the livestakes in March/April of 2006. Some areas on the streams and
the Elk River could not be planted, due to continuing site construction, sediment control fencing,
and other limiting factors. In December 2005, a sewer line crossing disturbed a portion of UTB
and a construction vehicle became stuck in UTA, requiring repairs on both those streams.
Several trees that had been planted along along the streams and river were observed run over,
pushed over or pulled up. Construction on utility lines had impacted all plantings near the lower
section of UTB on the west side.
UTA had lost all of its tree plantings on the south side of the stream in the area from the berm to
the side unnamed tributary, probably due to the ATV that was observed in May 2006 using the
area as a driving track. The area was posted with signs and replanted in the summer of 2006.
Initial vegetation plantings were surveyed during July 2006 for live stakes, tree plantings and
herbaceous cover in the monitoring plots.
WETLANDS
The restored wetlands were completed in May 2006 and seeds and livestakes were planted where
final construction grade was in place. The wetland areas immediately showed signs of
hydrology, hydric soil development and immediate establishment of hydrophytic vegetation with
good growth. The area along the Elk River on both wetlands could not be planted due to
construction activities and Wetland #1 was limited in planting on the stormwater wetland side
until after June 2006. The joint monitoring plots for Wetland #2 and the Elk River were
established and initial stem counts were made.
RESULTS
Vegetative monitoring plot data for the streams and wetlands showed some of the above impacts
during the July survey, but not all of the impacts. None of the plots have been through a full
growing season except for the live stakes on UTA and UTB. Only six monitoring plots out of
eleven were up to design planting numbers in 2006. The other five plots were still under impacts
from construction activities. The number of tree and shrub stems per acre ranged from 67 to 633
stems/acre. Livestake plots ranged from 1200 to 1633 stems/acre on the streams. The wetlands
monitoring plots were only partially planted in 2006 and ranged from no livestakes in one plot to
600 stems/acre in the second plot. Herbaceous plots were established on all streams and wetlands
in 2006 and will be surveyed in 2007 after a full year of unimpacted growth. Preliminary
surveys show that the herbaceous plots are experiencing good growth and cover in the meter
plot. New plantings and replantings of trees, shrubs and livestakes are planned for the winter of
2006-2007 to insure the initial counts met design criteria and will be reported in the 2007
monitoring report.
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section
The total length of stream channel restored on the three streams on the site was 2012 feet. This
entire length was inspected during Year 1 of the monitoring period (2006) to assess stream
performance. Two cross sections and one longitudinal profile on each stream were surveyed and
plotted in October 2006. The longitudinal profile is shown in Appendix C. A third cross section
on Stream B (Cross Section #1, Station 1219) was located in the intermittent flow section and
has had no flows except for rain runoff. This cross section will be dropped and the remaining
two cross sections will be used for the two permanent cross section monitoring points. Based on
the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed features along the restored channel are
stable and functioning as designed. The lack of significant problem areas along the length of the
restored channel after the occurrence of at least one river flow larger than bankfull discharge
further supports functionality of the design. It is expected that stability and in-stream habitat of
the system will only improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation becomes more
established.
7
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
Bank erosion estimates were not performed in 2006, but the cross section surveys show no
change from the as-built conditions. Erosion pins will be installed in 2007 and monitored for the
remainder of the monitoring period.
BEHI observations for UTA were low to very low as the vegetation is very well established, the
channel is connected to its floodplain, and the slope is low. There is one area of higher BEHI
where the second UT confluence enters UTA. UTB has more disturbed channel where the flood
event in late summer of 2005 washed out all channel vegetation down to rock and bedrock, but
the stream banks were recovering and were well covered with vegetation. UTB BEHI ranges
from Low to Moderate with some areas showing a High rating. The Elk River has vegetation
growing along its stream banks, but has been slow to completely cover the banks as the majority
of the bank materials were large cobble and even some boulders. This helps to maintain the
stability of the stream banks even without the vegetation growth. The Elk River BEHI ranges
from Very Low to Moderate, depending on the amount of rocks present in the bank.
Pebble Count
Pebble counts at each permanent cross section and reach-wide over twenty bankfull widths were
performed on the three restored streams and the data is shown in Appendix C. Pebble counts for
the Elk River show a very coarse gravel substrate for the river. UTA and UTB have a medium
gravel substrate. UTB is receiving some sediment from the upstream channel construction which
has not had any water flow other than rain runoff since construction began on the site. The
intermittent channel has become ephemeral until the confluence with the wetland channels.
Downstream of the wetland flow the UTB is perennial.
Wetland Restoration
Two wetland areas adjacent to the Elk River on the east side were restored. This construction
was completed in May-June 2006 and the wetlands have not experienced a full year after
construction yet. Preliminary groundwater data, stream height, and crest levels from August
2006 to February 2007 are shown in Appendix C. Initial data indicates that when the stream
levels rise, the groundwater gages in the two wetlands also respond with a rise in water level.
Soil observations indicate that hydric soils are already developing in both wetland areas. Hydric
vegetation has covered both wetlands except in the deeper water areas. The Wetland #1 has
experienced ponding on the lower end and adjustments are being made to lower the standing
water level. Final adjustments will be made during the growing season of 2007 in order to
maintain hydrology of the wetland. All indications show that the two restored wetlands are
functioning as effective wetlands and maintaining the hydrology, vegetation and hydric soil
conditions of a riparian wetland connected to the adjacent Elk River.
8
Post Construction 2007
Vegetation Monitoring
Cross Section Survey
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
Wetland Restoration
In 2007, most areas of the stream and wetland restoration project were stable and returning to
natural conditions. Two areas of exception were the stormwater wetland berm shared with the
upper wetland (Wetland #1) and the buffer between Stream A and Lowes parking lot. The
stormwater wetland required some construction repairs and a change in discharge pattern into
Wetland #1 which disturbed the berm. This area was replanted with herbaceous seeds and plants
after the grading was completed. The buffer along Stream A next to the Lowes parking lot
continued to be impacted by mowing activities. This area was remarked, reflagged, and
replanted in the fall of 2007. Collett and Associates notified Lowes again of the required buffer
rules. Replanting efforts continued around the restored wetlands during the appropriate season
for plantings.
During 2007 the region was experiencing extreme drought conditions, especially by late summer
and fall. Stream B was dry until just below the discharge outfall from the stormwater BMP, and
less than 40% of the new stream channel had flow by October 2007. Stream A had no to very
minimal flow and vegetation was growing into the stream channel. No excessive rainfall events
or floods occurred during 2007. Rain events are documented under the Wetland Restoration
monitoring for the site. There were high stream level events but no bankfull events in 2005 -
2007 as recorded by the crest gauge. More discussion of the precipitation and stream levels will
be covered under the wetland restoration sections of this report.
Vegetation Monitoring
Streams
Plantings on the three streams began as early as July 2005 and are still continuing into 2008. As
noted above, the buffer along Stream A has continued to experience impacts from mowing and
was replanted again in the Fall of 2007, after the vegetation monitoring had been performed for
the year.
Wetlands
In 2007 the first full growing season had been encountered for the restored wetlands. The
wetland areas continue to show signs of hydrology, hydric soil development and establishment of
hydrophytic vegetation with good growth. This was despite regional drought conditions in
Western NC, indicating successful restoration of wetlands will be possible at this site.
Additional live stake and tree plantings on the berm between the restored wetlands and the Elk
River were not completed before the monitoring occurred in 2007, due to seasonal requirements.
Vegetation Results
Vegetative monitoring plot data for the streams and wetlands showed some areas of improved
growth and success in 2007 and other areas which are still below the required number of stems.
The tables of the results can be seen in Appendix D. Stream A upper monitoring plot next to the
Lowe's parking lot was still being impacted by mowing in the buffer. More trees and shrubs will
be planted in the fall of 2007 and the area was marked with high visibility stakes and paint. The
live stakes along the stream channel are showing good survival, despite the dry stream channel.
The Stream A lower monitoring plot needs additional replanting to bring the area back up in
stem numbers, but the ones that survived the vandalism and ATV impacts are doing well.
Stream B survival in the lower monitoring plot is in good condition, with good live stake
survival and stem survival. The upper monitoring plot on Stream B needs more density of stems,
but those that were planted are surviving. A replanting of trees and shrubs will be done during
the winter months of 2007-2008 to bring the density in the buffer back to the original planting
density.
The two wetland monitoring plots are doing well with herbaceous vegetation, but the live stakes
showed poor survival (conditions were too wet where they were planted). The wetlands are
scheduled for replanting at higher elevations on the slopes with trees and live stakes. This will
occur during the winter months of 2007-2008. In Wetland #2, the upper monitoring plot live
stake area is showing good survival and density. All wetland monitoring plots will be primarily
herbaceous cover due to the degree of moisture present and will be primarily a marsh-type
wetland versus a hardwood or bottomland wetland.
Herbaceous monitoring plots with one exception are showing 80-100% cover. Stem counts
ranged from 17,000-56,000 on most meter plots with the exception of the upper Stream B
monitoring plot. This reach of Stream B has been slow to grow plants of any type, despite
several reseeding attempts and fertilizer additions. More seeding and soil testing will be
performed during the winter months to ensure good growth by the growing season of 2008.
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section
This was Monitoring Year 2, so no longitudinal profile surveys or pebble counts were performed.
Two cross sections on each stream were surveyed and plotted in October 2007. There are some
changes shown on the cross section comparison graphs. Much of the buffer changes from 2006
to 2007 were due to additional land grading after the streams were constructed and surveyed.
Changes in the dimension in Stream A and Stream B from As-Built conditions were due to one
large rain event in the late summer of 2005 which scoured out the vegetation and the channel in
the two smaller streams. Based on the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed
features along the restored channels are stable and functioning as designed. There are small
areas of unstable or eroding stream bank due to the slow growth of vegetation as noted in the
vegetation section of this report, primarily along Stream B. The data from the crest gauge
indicates that several high water events have occurred since completion of the stream restoration
and that the design is functioning as proposed. It is expected that stability and in-stream habitat
of the system will only improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation becomes more
established.
10
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
BEHI observations for UTA were Very Low as the vegetation is very well established, the
channel is connected to its floodplain, and the slope is low. There is one area of less stable banks
where the second UT confluence enters UTA. UTB has more disturbed channel where the flood
event in late 2005 washed out all channel vegetation down to rock and bedrock, but the stream
banks were recovering and were well covered with vegetation in the lower section. UTB BEHI
ranges from Very Low to Low with some of the dry upstream areas showing a Moderate to High
rating. The Elk River has vegetation growing along its stream banks and has stabilized well,
despite the dry weather conditions. The Elk River BEHI ranges from Very Low to Low,
depending on the bank height and bank angle.
Erosion pins were installed in 2007 and will be monitored for the remainder of the monitoring
period.
Wetland Restoration
Two wetland areas adjacent to the Elk River on the east side were restored with the design of a
backwater depression and a levee next to the Elk River. This is the first full year after
construction was completed in June 2006. Groundwater data, stream height, crest levels, and
rainfall amounts from August 2006 to January 2008 are shown in Appendix D. Two of the
gauges lost memory during the period February to June 2007. These two gauges were in
separate wetlands, so there was at least one gauge functioning during this period in each wetland.
Gauges GW2 and GW3 were in Wetland #1 on the upstream side of the access bridge and
showed saturated conditions during the growing season. GW2 was in hydrology that had
standing water on the surface during part of the monitoring period and within 2" of the surface
the remaining time. GW3 generally showed hydrology present within 5' to 10" of the surface for
the whole period graphed. Steps were taken to reduce the ponding of the water in Wetland #1
with future adjustments possible if standing water remains too high, even in the dryer seasons.
In Wetland #2 on the downstream side of the access bridge, GW 1 and GW4 fluctuated between
5" and 20" in water level below the surface throughout the period, with generally higher water
levels in the winter and lower in the dryer summer months. Variation in the elevation was
present during the summer and fall months which were related to the rain events in the valley.
The Restored Wetlands meet the success criteria of hydrology of inundation or saturation within
12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 8-20 consecutive days of the growing season
beginning May 1 and ending October 11 for the 2006 and 2007 growing seasons.
Hydric soil conditions were documented in both restored wetlands. Wetland #1 had a soil
classification of 7.5 YR 4/1 in the top 12" with mottles of 7.5 YR 4/6 in sandy loam soil. The
soil was saturated throughout and inundated in some locations within the wetland. Wetland #2
had soils with lOYR 3/1 in 0'-2", 2.5Y 3/1 from 2"-8", and 2.5 Y 7/2 in 8" - 18" with mottles
throughout in a clayey loam soil. The water table was noted at 12" in both wetlands in August
2007.
11
Vegetation success has been achieved with 100% herbaceous cover in the restored wetlands with
almost 100% hydrophytic vegetation present within the boundaries of the two Wetlands. The
wetlands' species are comparable to reference marsh-type wetlands common in the Elk River
watershed. Stem counts for trees and shrubs on the berms and levee have not been as successful,
due to the delay in planting and as shown on the vegetative result table. Additional plantings and
stakings will be made to insure the success criteria of 328 stems/acres are achieved for the
wetland berm areas.
Overbank flow was monitored with the crest gauge. No data shows that the river crested over
the levee on the upstream site where the gauge was located. However, the levee in the
downstream reach of Wetland #2 was built slightly lower and seemed to experience a bankfull
event when the crest gauge showed elevated water levels below but close to bankfull. There may
have been two events over the period graphed where bankfull was achieved on the lower
wetland. Another factor involved in the hydration of the wetlands was the consistency of the
levees and general soil in the buffer adjacent to the Elk River -a mixture of soil and large cobble
and boulders from historic and current flood events. The cobble mixture allows water flow
between the wetlands and the Elk River during less than bankfull events. This can be observed
through the comparison of the water levels of the groundwater wells and the river water levels
over the period monitored. Peaks in the river water levels can be observed at the same time as
elevation peaks in the groundwater wells, indicating a connection between the water levels of
both the wetlands and the river.
Measurement of the wetland area showed 0.29 acres in Wetland #1 and 0.29 acres in Wetland #2
for a total of 0.58, a slight decrease from the 0.64 acres measured in 2007. This minor decrease
was during a period of drought and showed stable restored wetlands on the project site.
Especially in Wetland #1, the wetland is expanding towards the adjacent commercial property
due to spring heads on the south side. Expansion towards the stormwater wetland BMP is also
expected now that construction and repair activities have been completed.
Post Construction 2008
Vegetation Monitoring
Longitudinal Profile Survey
Cross Section Survey
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
Wetland Restoration
In 2008 the area in western North Carolina experienced the second to third year of drought
conditions, with the area under extreme drought during certain periods of time. The project areas
of the stream and wetland restoration project were stable and returning to natural conditions.
The stormwater wetland berm has become vegetated after the repair work of 2007 and the native
vegetation was becoming established. This growth around and in the stormwater wetland was
slowed by the dry conditions, but the vegetation is present, albeit very small. The buffer along
Stream A next to the Lowes parking lot continued to be impacted by mowing activities. Despite
the communication with Lowes, mowing continued within the buffer area on the north side of
Stream A. Collett and Associates have discussed the situation with Lowes management. A
proposal for replanting 3-5 year old trees and a fence installed is being prepared for Lowes.
12
During 2008 the region was experiencing extreme drought conditions for the second full year,
especially by late summer and fall. Stream B was dry until just below the discharge from the
wetland areas and less than 50% of the new stream channel had now by August 2008. Stream A
had little to no flow and vegetation (primarily rushes) were growing in the stream channel. Rain
events are documented under the Wetland Restoration monitoring for the site. There were high
stream level events in 2008 and at least one bankfull event in late August 2008. More discussion
of the precipitation and stream levels will be covered under the wetland restoration sections of
this report.
Vegetation Monitoring
stream s,
Plantings on the three streams began as early as July 2005 and were completed in the spring of
2008. As noted above, the buffer along Stream A has continued to experience impacts from
mowing and was replanted again in the spring of 2008. The new trees were impacted by mowing
during 2008 prior to the monitoring in August 2008.
Wetlands
In 2008 the restored wetlands had experienced the second full growing season. The wetland
areas continued to show signs of hydrology, hydric soil development and establishment of
hydrophytic vegetation with good growth as can be seen in the Photos in Appendix E. This was
despite regional drought conditions in Western NC as noted previously.
Vegetation Results
Vegetative monitoring plot data for the streams and wetlands showed some areas of improved
growth and success in 2008 and other areas which are still below the required number of stems.
The tables of the results can be seen in Appendix E. Replanting of trees and shrubs occurred in
the spring of 2008 and are noted in the tables as replanted within the monitoring plots.
Replanting of the plots will be done to raise the number of stems to meet the success criteria.
Some of the replanted trees did not survive during the drought conditions of 2008. Some
changes in species identification over the years have occurred as the specimens have grown large
enough for definitive identification, particularly the birch species.
Stream A plot counts showed the impact of the drought conditions in the region. The lower
Stream A vegetation monitoring plot was replanted with additional stems, but was still under the
Year 3 Success Criteria. Two of the stems replanted earlier this year did not survive for the
August plant survey. Stream A upper monitoring plot exceeded the success criteria for the MY3,
primarily due to the replanting efforts. Stream A buffer next to the Lowe's parking lot was still
being impacted by mowing. The live stakes along the stream channel were showing good
survival of silky willows, despite the dry stream channel. The rest of the buffer area around
Stream A was well covered with native vegetation on the south side. The north side was grass
lawn with occasional tree stems. This mowed buffer area will be addressed through additional
13
replanting of older (3-5 year old) trees and installation of a fence during the coming year by
Lowes management.
Stream B survival in the lower monitoring plot was still short on stem survival, also due to the
drought conditions. The live stake plot was showing good survival and growth, primarily of
silky willows. The upper monitoring plot on Stream B showed good volunteer growth of
additional black cherry trees and elderberry shrubs. The total stem count met the success criteria
for the plot for MY3.
The restored wetland monitoring plots were doing well with herbaceous, hydrophytic vegetation
well established. Both restored wetland areas are recovering as marsh-type wetland, with
herbaceous species as the predominate vegetation. Both plots in Wetland #1 are meeting the
stem success criteria for Year 3. Most of the stems are shrubs, due to the wetland conditions, but
river birch and black willow are also present in one of the plots. Tree survival will be limited to
the edges of the plots due to the hydrology in the wetland. Wetland #2 vegetation monitoring
plots are well above the Year 3 success criteria. Silky willows were the predominant species that
are surviving due to the wet conditions. Red maple and black cherry trees were also found on
the slopes above the wetland. The majority of vegetation in Wetland #2 monitoring plots was
rushes and other herbaceous wetland species. The Elk River/Wetland #2 live stake area is
showing good survival and density of silky willow, willow sp., and silky dogwood.
Herbaceous monitoring plots with one exception are showing 80-100% cover as shown in the
photographs in Appendix D. Stem counts ranged from 11,000- 49,000 on all meter plots with
the exception of the upper Stream B monitoring plot (Table 2). This reach of Stream B has been
slow to grow plants of any type, despite several reseeding attempts and fertilizer additions. The
drought conditions have made it difficult for herbaceous plants to become established. There is
progress in vegetative cover occurring in this reach, however, and with return to normal rainfall
amounts should be well established by the end of the monitoring period.
Table 2. BannerLowe Herbaceous Monitoring Plots Data 2008
Stem Counts/sq. meter
Stream A 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Upper 31,500 27,500
Lower 17,500 23,750

Stream B
Upper 1,000 1,750
Lower 18,750 11,750

Wetland #1
Upper 56,750 35,000
Lower 29,000 33,000

Wetland 42 & El k River
Upper 30,000 28,500
Lower 28,250 49,000
14
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section
A longitudinal profile and two cross sections on each stream were surveyed and plotted in
August 2008. The longitudinal profile was surveyed in 2005 (As-Built), 2006 and 2008 and the
results shown in Figures 2-5. The Elk River profile showed only minor changes from the As-
Built condition. In areas where depth had increased in 2006, deposition refilled to As-Built
condition or above in 2008. No headcutting was observed and the structures are holding the
profile as designed. Some accumulation of bed material was occurring in the riffles.
Elk River Longitudinal Profile Comparison

107

105
/

103

101

W ?

99
I

97 \

95
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station (ft)
----Asbuilt MY1 + MY3
Figure 2. Elk River longitudinal profile, BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, North
Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008.
15
UTA Longitudinal Profile Comparison
105

100
95

t~
0

90

W

85
80

75
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
Asbuilt -MY1 -?MY3
Figure 3. Stream A longitudinal profile, BannerLowe Project, Avery County, Banner Elk, North
Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008.
Stream A showed a stable profile over the three year period. No headcutting or major changes in
the profile can be seen in Figure 3. There was some adjustment of the stream channel with
increased slopes and less pools after the drop/pool structures. Most the stream was covered with
vegetation and the channel was being encroached by vegetation during the low flow conditions
of 2008. This allowed for more deposition of fine sediments and the creation of more runs and
riffles with less pools. The profile was considered in a stable condition for an intermittent
stream.
Stream B profiles are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The upper stations (Figure 4) were dry during
the monitoring survey in 2008. This portion of the stream had shown intermittent stream
characteristics previously and did not pick up perennial flows in the summer until below the
wetland on the west side of the project. The upper profile had shown some areas of adjustment,
but overall was maintaining the design profile elevation. One reach near Station 125-175 will be
watched for bed erosion continuing in that area.
16
UTB Longitudinal Profile Comparison
Station 0 to 500 ft.
100

95

90 _

0
85

> -
W 80

75

70

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Station (ft)
- - - - Asbuilt MYl MY3
Figure 4. Stream B longitudinal profile, Station 0.0 to Station 500.0, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008.
The lower profile stations (Figure 5) from Station 500.0 - Station 1100.0 had enough water flow
during the summer months to allow for the growth of wetland plants, particularly at the lower
end where a solid stand of rushes was established in 2008. The profile showed adjustment at
some stations, but overall maintained the As-Built profile elevations. Areas of deposition and
erosion were observed on the profile, but the structures were holding nickpoints in place.
Longitudinal profiles will be surveyed in 2010 during monitoring year 5 for any further changes
or signs of unstable conditions.
UTB Longitudinal Profile Comparison
Station 500 to 1100
7s

70

65
w
0
..
60

a 55

50

45

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Station (ft)
- - - - Asbuilt MYl MY3
Figure 5. Stream B longitudinal profile, Station 500.0 to Station 1100.0, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, North Carolina, Monitoring Surveys 2005, 2006 and 2008.
17
The cross section surveys performed this year showed similar stability as the profiles. There are
some changes shown on the cross section comparison graphs shown in Figures 6-11. Much of
the changes from As-Built conditions were due to additional land grading along the buffer after
the streams were constructed and surveyed. On the Elk River, the cross section surveys show the
structures and features along the restored channels are stable and functioning as designed
(Figures 6-7). Vegetation is well established at both Elk River Cross Section Stations, providing
additional bank stabilization.
Elk River Riffle 1805
Cross Section
97.00
%.00
95.00
p 94.00
93.00
W
92.00
91.00
90.00
0 10 20 30 Width (ft) 40 50 60 70
Oct-06 -.- Oct-07 A. Aug-08
Figure 6. Elk River cross section profile at Station 1805, upstream riffle, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
18
Elk River Pool 1886
Cross Section
97.00
96.00
95.00
94.00
0 93.00
92.00
W 91.00
90.00
89.00
88.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (f[)
--*--Oct-06 m Oct-07 Aug-08
Figure 7. Elk River cross section profile at Station 1886, downstream pool, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
For Stream A, the riffle dimension shows no changes, but the pool dimension shows shifting of
sides and shape (Figures 8-9). This was observed to be a stable channel as shown in the
photographs in Appendix E and from observations of the channel and stream bank throughout
Stream A. The changes observed were due to the stream adjusting and shifting to a stable
dimension. Most of the Stream A channel was 100% covered by canopy and many places had
vegetation growing within the channel, due to the lack of flow in the stream.
19
Stream A Riffle 1438
Cross Section
98.00
97.00
t? 96.00
0
95.00
W 94.00
93.00
92.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
+ Oct-06 --w-Oct-07 t Aug-08
Figure 8. Stream A cross section profile at Station 1438, upstream riffle, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
Stream A Pool 1599
Cross Section
97.00
96.00
95.00
94.00
0 93.00
92.00
W 91.00
90.00
89.00
88.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
Oct-06 -m-- Oct-07 A- Aug-08
Figure 9. Stream A cross section profile at Station 1599, downstream pool, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
Stream B cross section at Station 1209 has continued to widen, but has maintained the same
depth over the years (Figure 10). The widening of the cross section is due to limited vegetation
20
on the upper stations on Stream B. The vegetation was more stressed in the upper reach due to
the drought conditions. There are small areas of unstable or eroding stream bank due to the slow
growth of vegetation as noted in the vegetation section of this report, in the upper reaches of
Stream B. The pool at Station 1634 showed little change over the last 4 years (Figure 11).
The data from the crest gauge indicates that several high water events have occurred since
completion of the stream restoration and that the design is functioning as designed. As noted in
previous reports, it is expected that stability and in-stream habitat of the system will only
improve in the coming years as the stream channels stabilize into a final pattern, dimension and
profile. All streams will be assisted when the buffer vegetation becomes established.
Photographs of each stream profile and cross section are included in the Appendix E of this
report.
Stream B Station 1209
Cross Section
98
97

96

95
94
0
93

W 92
91

90
89

88
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Width (ft)
f Oct-06 -= Oct-07 t Aug-08
Figure 10. Stream B cross section profile at Station 1209, upstream site, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
21
Stream B Station 1634
Cross Section
99.00
98.00
97.00
96.00
0
95.00
94.00
W
93.00
92.00
91.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
Oct-06 = Oct-07 Aug-08
Figure 11. Stream B cross section profile at Station 1634, downstream site, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, Banner Elk, NC, 2006-2008.
Bank Erosion estimates and BEHI
No major changes in BEHI on the three streams were seen over the past 3 years. BEHI
observations for UTA were Very Low to Low as the vegetation is very well established, the
channel is connected to its floodplain, and the slope is low. There is one area of less stable banks
where the second UT confluence enters UTA. UTB BEHI ranges from Very Low to Low with
some of the dry upstream areas showing a Moderate rating. The upstream UTB BEHI will
improve further as the vegetation growth improves. The Elk River has vegetation growing along
its stream banks and has remained stabilized, despite the dry weather conditions. The Elk River
BEHI ranges from Very Low to Low, depending on the bank height and bank angle.
Table 3. Bank Erosion Pin
2007
Initial Set
2008
2009
UTA Cross Section #1 0.0 -0.5"
UTA Cross Section #2 0.0 0.0
UTB Cross Section #1 0.0 0.0
UTB Cross Section #2 0.0 -0.5
Elk River Cross Section #1 0.0 +0.3"
Elk River Cross Section #2 0.0 +0.4"
22
No changes in erosion pin measurements were observed except for slight changes due to the
extensive vegetative growth that has provided increased deposition of organic material over the
pins.
Pebble Count
Pebble counts at each permanent cross section were performed on the three restored streams and
the data is shown in Appendix E. Pebble counts for the Elk River showed a shift from a very
coarse gravel substrate in 2006 to a finer gravel and sandy substrate in 2008. UTA has shifted
from a medium gravel substrate to a silty substrate. UTA flow was reduced greatly in 2008 and
the channel was invaded by rooted vegetation, contributing to the shift in substrate. This was a
natural shift due to flow reduction and was not an indication of channel instability. UTB also
shifted from a medium gravel substrate to a predominately silty substrate. UTB, like UTA, was
experiencing intermittent flow regimes during 2007 and 2008. The upper intermittent channel
on UTB had become ephemeral until the confluence with the wetland channels.
Wetland Restoration
Two wetland areas continued to be restored as wetlands. Groundwater data, stream height, crest
levels, and rainfall amounts from January 2008 to December 2008 are shown in Appendix E.
The restored wetlands were evaluated as to whether they met the success criteria of hydrology of
inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 8-20 consecutive
days of the growing season beginning May 1 and ending October 11 for the 2008 growing
season.
Gauges GW2 and GW3 in Wetland #1 showed saturated or surface water conditions throughout
the growing season in 2008 as shown on the graphs in Appendix E. Wetland #1 received an
increase in hydrology source with the new discharge outlet from the stormwater wetland BMP
into the southern end of the wetland. GW 1 in Wetland #2 showed saturated conditions during
the growing season for well over 20 consecutive days in June-July 2008. GW4 did not show
saturated conditions for 8 consecutive days in 2008. Saturation at 12" depth at GW4 occurred
intermittently during rain events in June and July, but due to the drought conditions in the region,
were not sustained. GW4 lost a source of hydrology when the stormwater wetland BMP outlet
was realigned to discharge into the upper restored wetland. The old discharge alignment resulted
in much of the stormwater wetland flow to pass through the culvert in the road berm to the lower
Wetland #2. Despite this decrease in hydrology, overall Wetland #2 retained wetland
characteristics of hydrology, hydric soil and hydrophytic vegetation. Unless the drought
continues, this area should remain as a restored wetland in the future.
Hydric soil conditions were documented in both restored wetlands. Wetland #1 had a soil
classification of 7.5 YR 2.5/1 in the top 12" with mottles of 7.5 YR 5/8 in sandy clay loam soil.
The soil was saturated throughout and inundated in some locations within the wetland. The
water table was noted above the soil surface (0.5"). Wetland #2 had soils with 10YR 3/2 in the
0"- 4" horizon, with mottles of 7.5 5/8 with a sandy clay loam soil. The soils were 10YR 4/1
23
from 4"-12". At 12", stream gravel and cobble were encountered in higher proportions. The
water table was noted at above the soil surface (0.5").
Vegetation success has been achieved with 100% herbaceous cover in the restored wetlands with
almost 100% hydrophytic vegetation present within the boundaries of the two Wetlands. The
wetlands' species are comparable to reference marsh-type wetlands common in the Elk River
watershed. Species found prevalent in both wetlands are Juncus effusus, carex sp., Salix sericea,
and Mimulus ringens. Many other wetland species were present in community pockets in and
around the wetlands.
Overbank flow from the Elk River to the wetlands was monitored with the crest gauge. At one
date the crest gage was at or close to top of bank. Five other dates in 2008 the crest gage showed
the stream level within 4" of top of bank. When the crest gage elevated points are compared
with the groundwater wells within the wetlands, there is a match between the elevated crest gage
readings and some of the groundwater well levels. The consistency of the levees and general soil
in the buffer adjacent to the Elk River -a mixture of soil and large cobble and boulders from
historic and current flood events- allows water flow between the wetlands and the Elk River
during less than bankfull events. Similarly, peaks in the river water levels in the stream gage
graph (Appendix E) can be observed at the same time as elevation peaks in the groundwater
wells, indicating a connection between the water levels of both the wetlands and the river.
Measurement of the wetland areas in 2008 showed 0.29 acres in Wetland #1 (down from 0.30 ac
in 2007) and 0.29 acres in Wetland #2 (down from 0.32 ac in 2007) restored so far for a total of
0.58 acres restored. This compares with 0.64 acres restored in 2007. Considering the extent of
the drought conditions in the region, this was a minor decrease and showed that the wetlands will
maintain hydrology during dry conditions. Expansion towards the stormwater wetland BMP has
balanced some of the loss of wetland in Wetland #1.
FUTURE SAMPLING
Annual sampling will be performed at the BannerLowes Project site in 2009 and 2010 or until
the success benchmarks are achieved.
24
Appendix A
Pre-Construction Photographs
25
•B
4.11
i4 a
71 '? ,... ? '?„eRt?.. -:tee...... • `?,•.. -.1. V?`1-? .A?;..

y ? ? I W
1
Elk River looking downstream, behind Elk River looking downstream on BannerLowe
Great Train Factory, Bannerlowe Project, April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
Project, April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
.y ,.
"V r"J
M
,mot f? n¢?n

Elk River looking downstream on
BannerLowe Project, eroded banks,
April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
Elk River looking upstream from mid-point,
BannerLowe Project, April 15, 2004,
Avery County, NC.
i. •
?44" +
' '< a l PA

Elk River looking downstream at Beaver Elk River looking upstream from
Dam on BannerLowe Project, Stonebridge Lane, BannerLowe Project
April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC. April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
26
UTB Headwaters looking upstream,
Bannerlowe Project, April 15, 2004,
Avery County, NC.
, ac
?x
,$ ', ?Y

UTB linear wetlands, BannerLowe Project,
April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
le,
UTB Impacted by animal access,
looking downstream on
BannerLowe Project, April 15, 2004,
Avery County, NC.

UTB looking upstream from end of
Project, B annerLowe Project, April
15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
27
Y
UTA headwaters looking upstream, BannerLowe UTA looking downstream towards Elk
Project, April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC. River, BannerLowe Project, April 15,
2004, Avery County, NC.

M_
r ?-
? a
4?
3 -
28
UTA downstream end near confluence with
the Elk River, BannerLowe Project,
April 15, 2004, Avery County, NC.
r
i
1
6 ?
t!O
Wetland #1, BannerLowe Project, April 15, 2004, Avery
County, NC.

L
AC ,,s?f 1 M1I P. ??^''IEA

Wetland #2, BannerLowe Project, April 15, 2004
Avery County, NC.
29

1

i'1` 4 J
F l { rNl? Y J ? ZL'
. 1
I
y
Wetland #3, BannerLowe Project, April 15, 2004,
Avery County, NC.
30

?0 A
M
r

Elk River looking downstream from Glove Factory Lane
Bridge after hurricane floods, new channel cut to left side,
September 24, 2004, BannerLowe
Project, Avery County, NC.

Elk River looking upstream at new channel entering old channel,
Post hurricane flood, September 24, 2004, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, NC.
31

}
#1 7,

r
Elk River and Wetland 2, flood deposits after Hurricane floods, September
24, 2004, BannerLowe Project, Avery County, NC.
Elk River at Glove Factory Lane looking downstream, post 3rd hurricane
flood event, September 30, 2004, BannerLowe Project,
Avery County, NC.
32

Elk River looking upstream, additional cobble deposits,
post 3rd hurricane flood event, September 30, 2004,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, NC.
N

E, 4S717'
Elk River and Wetland #2 additional sand deposits,
Post-3 hurricane flood events, September 30, 2004,
BannerLowe Project, Avery County, NC.
33
Appendix B
Stream and Wetland As-Built Surveys
Photographs 2005
34
v
..I
,-4
I
0
?r

F
w
0
91.4

0 W

A
F

(In
a?c
o
w
?' f55
,. 1 1
. ¦ l ox
5
s
Z zO
N
{SNiJ
N ?3
' 000

s
v
a
'J
ill
HIM
b
v
W
a-
91
W
F.
-1 1
z
2

W
r?
V
4 ?
J

W to ? a r
n.-Col m
ai o• o w
o
5 W
An e$ n n v? a
W
..1
Lu
r"f3?0
c2p- 0-
.

n q 0
U)
o
U

o ?
q b
N
12
J
mI
m
V
1 UgAIN x79. ZKO ?1391027d1
35
3
Y 1
ffl5d? 4 7 [r{ W
st
a?II E? N
i
_ !4 t-
W '' l ?I I i IIx Z
i ? Ii I Z
O
W
f ' ?I
{ i x N
r 1 5 ?
v
I
5 `"1
Pv' y I.
I? 4 IL y y
? ? 5s
g
1
xr ?
?' S x
k?
-SP'to-BSr HSd-'Il3"aZf10\3IInq_ov-,-GIsGa?yy2?l?i5
36
00'00+94 d1S 9 133HS 3NIIHO1dW
?.
6n T
? a ? 1 t i , x
I ? 1 1, ? N
0
o f I 1? v
z
0
1 i; v
4 a]
it
a
1 lx
w
c l l { ? 0
co
j Ix
i uc
0
LLI
p 1 * 80
=m i'x v
a ? 1 i ?c
P a A
x
X
ti
r X
l I i
l { p l
1
m X
I a-
r 1 ML
I ?
F-
O 1 0?
N ! , az
I
? i
i = N Pz
O
_ 0 1 l ?a
Q c
? ¢ G I ' /k
z y I p?
r w H I
r m 0 I I ?? C2
r
r
r
o
?P'S0°857-HS d'I [ 3 tlZ t 101 [ nq_so u6iso0\t[Zt[P1\ 37

38
39
W
W
0
w z
Z U
w W
2 fw
¢ ow
f7 Y
W QQU
y W w0
»Y p? <w
O3 QQ 8 W L
ow zm? ??
N j ^ N W
HO? ?o? H¢
i,

aHg
y m5
m<gaa
0
J
00 Z y o vVi
LLi
vQ?
?
/
N
IO
Y
.)
OI N

IL
IJI
u6p•j-HSd-BSd-'113-21Z bI0\'?I?nq_se\u6csap\
40
w as oam /may `
w°? 1
W w
iw
13
OZ?
o_w Z?r ?? • ..,III 1 //
=RJ sN yo
3
170«
U)
d
Q O0
U)o
o
W W
T
CN%j EL
LO
+
F- 0
za
0
U U)
0 Y
Z J
W W
/
J

--- --_-_- Z Y
-?\ U
/ \\ o O
/ $ \\ fA
I \ \ U
I \ `\\
I `\ \\ \ \\ w o
z
a I p II \\ \\ D 0
?` S \ i II \\\\\ CO
z
y I1 ` I \\ W LL
\ I I \\
zz ~

O / J
U C /
D? OD
Z c0
Y
4I
O Y
mW
? I 4
O
\ I
1
\ 3
\ h
c
a
\
o
0
?An
1

I?
?I
I?
u6p•Z-HSd-BSV-'113-HZbIO\q-l-q-..\u6-.O\

z
5
a
Qz
F
\ i I \\ w
I \
\? \`\ WJ
\
I \r\
I \ I \ \ \ \cQ\
I ? i1
I II
s I
I / I
O
? ?6kp0 0
? SAP

36.
0
?C4 E
J
Z O N
Q
N
0
z
00
?QLLi
?a
zom
P: U) C
gww
?a
W
a
Waa
(V ZW
ago;
?OZ ,
z,
woo,
W J
W IL U
JWW
a W m
J ? ?J
QJO
U W U)
Y= w
z
C5P3:
Nz0
2
6i U) - cn
F- MU)
Z o00W
_:)
LL - o
?wz
°oJ0
NWU

41
Stream A at head of project looking downstream, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2005.

Stream A, looking downstream at mid-point of project, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2005.
42

..-?
y1G
4
00
Akt "T
a
Stream A, looking downstream towards Elk River, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC September 2005.
43

?? Fbs a
i

v AEI ?N ?"
y?
r?
E.k
flSt Y
yy'
i7 kk
Stream B looking downstream from head of project, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2005.

\y

Stream B looking downstream at wetland drainage confluence, middle of
project, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, September 2005.
44
Z Ta ? ?;i

.+J :, r j ?e C rC , '?

w! x?

P '? -_` r 4
y`
T• awl f.,
• ? ?
4
'
'h
? H4 ?'
',yam *
f
y, ?.

Stream B looking downstream from mid-point of stream, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2005.

R4 +N + A,
5 Y
F4 s

Stream B looking at downstream end of project, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, September 2005.
45

Elk River looking downstream from bridge crossing, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2006.
Elk River looking upstream at first structure, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2005.
46

ter.
AL.

??
1 h ,A.
35 -C
,4
.
Elk River looking upstream at second structure, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2005.
Elk River looking upstream at second and third structure, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, May 2005.
47

AF*
t-z
J
?}M
?04' &I-I"",

Upper Created Wetland and Elk River buffer, BannerLowes Mitigation Project,
Banner Elk, NC, June 2006.
,gyp -a ?•. _ .. ???
f
i
? i
'
w'
m
Upper Created Wetland and Stormwater BMP, BannerLowes Mitigation Project,
Banner Elk, NC, June 2006.
48
Aw?
Lower Created Wetland, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC,
June 2006.
Lower Created Wetland outlet to Elk River, BannerLowes Mitigation Project,
Banner Elk, NC, May 2006.
49
Appendix C
Longitudinal Survey Graphs 2005-2006
Photographs October 2006
Pebble Count Graphs October 2006
50
(Y)
(C)
O
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I N
I
I I
I I
I
O

L
> L

}
N
? L V J
0 ? I I I
W 1Q
?
?
S I I ? I
II ? V J
(D \V
¦
mo ?
\
w)
?/ _
W
O
O
J
?
I I
L (D (n

_ ? II II ?
co
M
1.1.1 S I I
I r
I
I
? I I I
(D CC)
..
O II II
I I
I ?
?
I II II ?,
I I ?
I I ?
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I ?
I I I
I I I

(C)
(C)
co (C) IT N O co (C) I
O O O O O (Y) (Y) (Y)

co co co co co co co co
(11) U01jeAa13
51
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I

LO

r I ?
L
? U
(D
I I
0) Cn CO
Q

F-

?.
p I

CN
M Q H H LO

v ?I ?I
?
'I II II ?I ?I

a? ? $
TOM
o

? ? I I I I 'I ?
? ? II II I II' II' ?
N

? I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I
I
.? I I I I I I
0
L I I I I I ?
a
LO
N
I I
I I
I I
I ?
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I
I
I
I ?
I
I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I
I
I

?
N
r te, LO
O LO O LO O LO O LO O
U') 'IT 'IT m m N N

m m m co co co co co co
(}}) UOIIBA013
52
V
? ?y
? /?? I.L
A 1
r
L
0
J ?
L
? ?
? L
M?
W
U
._
0
?I ?I
???) uoi?enal3
M
O
O
N
O
N
M
O
O
N
O
M
O
O
N
? O
M
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
N
M
O
O
N
O O
O ?
ti
M
i i i i
i
--?
(6 U
N ?
?
?
?
?
? ? ?
?
c6 ?
?' ? m ? ?

0
L ?
II
?
?
I I i ?
??
53
O O O O O O
Co ? ? M N ?
M M M M M M
Mook 1
UTA 020
UTA 022
Mook 2
UTA021
t "trip. • W? !. 14S' t<p?y ,?' ?{?r
`t / cd° ,'.. ' . (r> ifs
.n.
r 0 ,
W ai a vM1 "u } t
44
UTA 023
54
?` M A
c y Lr" ?'k ? • ? F? qp?,
r. 7 -T rya
.r y[ s ri ?'t 'ty IX I? cs x
{.??1 '.- y - yY f ?'fG ?? ?} ?}/SY?r.lr? ? p 1$ .•yY y ygr.
! ,I `r
qI -.4
UTA 024
?? 1 • '+?` f bra' V' I? ?' ?k .+
Yx f ryl? j.. .-c!r J
?- r I i qq '???a r l " 4
+1 'a r A i. ,? 1, f• a
UTA PP 1
'?? A x dlj,Fa?'t ,
4^ r Fgp ?(??`p
r x ? },
r 1? 4!
t 3;
f'
'N#!!ll ?,?!?d,?';aat;`ro
I

r!'
i
pP'i ! f
M ?}i? I h?1 Fj A I t ?.
wl?
yrs.
rya
41
? Jr a. k„
UTA PP4
YY 1_..1 <? 4 I
,
...f- Y
icl >j '{ +rGf f; i?h, { `? 5 r Fz. ?. 'emu of Y .a
A0 1? , I
t Kj 4 r ° s -
Ya ? I w ?,rf'S ,• ? J r ?? _ "?
:'S?:.i.!; ti? . r.?l!" . -. ?. i• t1n obi.: mil,. 1 ? - .. ' anl? L
UTA 025
UTA PP2
s7p?
?n
7y
F'f?', - "?r, rrv, u
UTA PP5
55
UTB 030 UTB 033
'?F fr, S• ? ,J• ?;'f"
fi

UTB 034 UTB 037 re, 4

I? r g .

UTB 041 UTB PP 1
56

4'i r D4 4 k ?' at `A' a?. v
ff uti M

UTB PP2
......,,,-,.rte
1_4 t
ILI
+.•?`-'r+F

UTB PP4

UTB PP6
57
UTB PP3
47
FlI? ? Y :. ? Y/p ?F yei wit ? ? #'?'? ,?,,•i K ?r+
UTB PP5
UTB PP7
}
f r?
?U y1 ? ? G F r U ??„ •lPFhj'? 1^ S T•
?I? 1 ? ?• y 1. J r_
$ 11?!y? i. r 1 ? .1
h y 4
A 1 } if ?:
4 `r ?^-? tll! ?? +A???vx} fie`' i "- ' ? ,,-r *?+, 6':
? err ?y _ y ?? .t•? y??•?j; ? t

UTB PP8 UTB PP9
r,
s.7`a a
UTB PP 10

UTB PP 11
XVANE 1
58
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - Elk River
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01

Reach Summary
- - Riffle Summary
- - - Pool Summarv
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
59
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - UTA
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - UTB
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01
1000 10000
60
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Appendix D
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Tables 2006-2007
Groundwater, Stream Level and Crest Gauge Graphs 2006-2007
61
N
Species
TREES
Prunus serotina lack Cherry
Betula lenta Cherry Birch
cer rubrum Red Maple
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch
Betula nigra River Birch
Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Green Ash
Ulm us Americana men* can Elm
melanchier arborea Serviceberry
Corpus Florida Dogwood
Carpmus carolinia usclewood
Salix nigra lack Willow

l Black Willow Live
Stakes
Hamamelis viaymiana itch Hazel
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site
Stream A Plots
Lower
Y2 P RP V Y2
1224 S ft.
1 1
2 2
0 1 3
19
SHRUBS
lnus serrulata Tag Alder
Leucothoe ontanesiana Highland Doghobble
Corpus ammomum Silky Dogwood
Salix sericea Sil Willow
Physocarpus opulifolius me Bark
Clethra acumimta Sweet Pepperbush
Plot Y2 Totals Non-volunteer
Plot Y2 Total Stem Count
Year 3 Count Success Criteria
Year 5 Count Success Criteria
4
4
10
8
0 1 0
1
1
24
41
1224 sa ft
3
25
11
1
40
10
8
0
1
1
Species Species
Y1 Y2
Totals Totals
1 1
2 2
0 0
4 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
25 25
0 0

0 0
0 0
11 11
0 0
1 1
0 0
Y2: Year 2 Total; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site
Stream B Plots

i
S
Lo
Upper Species
Y1 Species
Y2
pec
es I RP V
Y2 P V
Y2 P T
l
t T
l
t
1250 S ft. 1250 s ft o
a
s o
a
s
TREES
Prunus serotina lack Cherry 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 0 2 3 3 11 5 16
cer rubrum Red Maple 1 1 12 1 13
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 0 0
Betula sp 3 3 3 3 3 6 9
Betula nigra River Birch 0 0
Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Green Ash 0 0
Ulm us Americana American Elm 0 0
melanchier arborea Seiviceberr 0 0
Corms Florida Dogwood 1 1 1 1
Carpinus carolinia usclewood 0 0
Salix nigra lack Willow 0 0
Black Willow Live Stakes 1 1 1 1
Hamamelis virginiana itch Hazel 0 0
SHRUBS
lnus serrulata Tag Alder 3 3 1 1 4 4
Leucothoe omanesiana Highland Doghobble 0 0
Corms ammomum Silky Dogwood 4 12 12 12
Salix sericea Silky Willow 23 24 24 24
Ph socar us o uli olius me Bark 0 0

l Elderberry 1 1 2 1 3
Clethra acuminata Sweet Pepperbush 0 0
P lot Y2 Totals Non-volunteer 35 11
Plot Y2 Total Stem Count 46 46 0 0 40 11 0 29
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y2: Year 2 Total; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer
Birch sp.- unable to ID at this young stage
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site
Restored Wetland 41 Plots
i
S
i
S

i
S Lower Upper pec
es
Y1 pec
es
Y2
pec
es Y2 P RP V Y2 P RP V T
l
t T
l
t
1250 S ft 1250 ft o
a
s o
a
s
TREES
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 0 0
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 0 0
cer rubrum Red Maple 0 0
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 0 0
Betula nigra River Birch 0 0
Fraxinus Pennsyh anica Green Ash 0 0
Ulm us Americana men* can Elm 0 0
melanchier arborea Serviceberry 0 0
Corpus Florida Dogwood 0 0
Carpmus carolinia Musclewood 0 0
Salix nigra Black Willow 0 0
Black Willow Live
Stakes
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana itch Hazel 3 3 3 3
SHRUBS
lnus serrulata Tag Alder 0 0
Leucothoe ontanesiana Highland Doghobble 0 0
Corpus ammomum Silky Dogwood 0 0
Salix sericea Silky Willow 4 3 5 3 5 12
Physocarpus opulifolius Line Bark 0 0
Clethra acuminata Sweet Pepperbush 0 0
Plot Y2 Totals Non-volunteer 0
Plot Y2 Total Stem Count 4 0 0 4 12 9 0 3
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y2: Year 2 Total; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site
Elk River and Restored Wetland #2 Plots
i
i

i
S Lower Upper Spec
es
Y1 Spec
es
Y2
pec
es Y2 P RP V Y2 P RP V T
l
t T
l
t
1250 S ft. 1250 s ft o
a
s o
a
s
TREES
Prunus serotina Black Cherry 0 0
Betula lenta Cherry Birch 0 0
cer rubrum Red Maple 3 1 0 4
Betula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 0 0
Betula nigra River Birch 0 0
Fraxinus Pennsylvanica Green Ash 0 0
Ulm us Americana Amen* can Elm 0 0
Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry 0 0
Corms Florida Do wood 0 0
Carpmus carohnia Musclewood 0 0
Salix nigra Black Willow 3 0 3
Black Willow Live Stakes 1 1 6 8 9 9
Hamamelis virginiana itch Hazel 0 0
SHRUBS
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 0
Leucothoe ontanesiana Highland Doghobble 0 0
Comus ammomum Silky Dogwood 4 8 8 8
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3 5 6 10 20 17 25 48
Physocarpus opulifolius ine Bark 1 1 1 1
Clethra acummata Sweet Pepperbush 0 0
Plot Y2 Totals N on-volunteer 5
Plot Y2 Total Stem Count 16 7 0 9 57 36 0 21
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y2: Year 2 Total; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer
GW 1 groundwater elevation
0
-5

-10

v

0

o
rn
rn
-15
W
-20
-25
0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

y

O N O N O
Date
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c? N N c? c? N N N c? c? c? c? c? c? N N c? c? c? c? N N c? c? N N c? c? N
U ? ? U U ?i ?r ? 7-r 7-r 7-r 7-r IT IT Sir ?r CD CD ? ? ?' ?' ? ? CJ CJ ,?.,
O N N O O O N O N N M
GW2 groundwater elevations
5
4
3
2
1
u
0
0
rn W -1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

o ,
O
N
O N
N oo
O
N
Date
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N cv cv N N N c? c? c? c? cv cv N N N N c? c? N N c? c? N N cv cv N
Z Z Q Q w ti O O Z Z Q Q
l? M
00 O ? O N O N O N O N ? N ? N ? OM ?
GW 3 ground water elevation
5
0
-5

v

o -10

rn
w W
-15
-20
-25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . N N . . N N . . N N N c? c? c? c? c? c? N N c? c? c? c? N N c? c? N N c?
v v O O Z Z Q Q?? ti tiC? M O O Z Z Q
N l? ,? O1 -' m 01 O ?O N O N C0 't al O
,? N N N N M p O N ? N ? N p N O N N ,--? N
0 0
0 0
U ?
ti
Q ?
C
N
Date
GW 4 groundwater elevations
0
-5
-10

v

-15
0

0

rn
co W
-20
-25
30
0 0
0 0
O
N v-?
0
Date
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . .
N o N o N o N N N o o °?° o 0 o c? o c? o N o N N N °
Elk River Stream Gauge August 2007-January 2008
0
35
30
25
20
15
s,
10
O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O? O`b O`b
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Date
Elk River Crest Gage readings
0
-2
-4
-6

v

-8

a

-10

-12
-14
-16
-18
`O o`O o`O o`O 00b o`O o`O 'p, 'p, 'p, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o?
0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y b b b b b b b b b y b ?ti ?ti ti ti ??b ??b a a ?? ?? ?? a? a? e4 e4 ?` N` b b b b
5p4 5?4 0 0o` ?° 9? 9? S4 S4 S4 fib, fib, `? `? 44? 44? S4 S4 S? ti ?` ?`
?oo\ ?oob
4
Date
1.8
1.6
1.4

1
2
.
Cw'
Cw'
O 1

v
N 0.8
i.i
QI
0.6
0.4
0.2
Precipitation Gage data
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?o
oo? X4"1 4"? 4"z, 1VN eso 'z o ?eo?e? o?aos? sy
Date
Appendix E
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Tables 2006-2008
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs 2006-2008
Cross Section Photographs 2006-2008
Longitudinal Photographs 2006-2008
Pebble Count Graphs 2006 & 2008
Groundwater, Stream level and Crest Gage Graphs 2006-2008
73
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site 2008
Stream A Plots
i
i
i

i
S
Lower

U Spec
es
Y1 Spec
es
Y2 Spec
es
Y3
pec
es Y3 P
V Y3 P
I RP V T
l T
l T
l
1224 Sq ft. 1224 sq ft ota
s ota
s ota
s
TREES
cer rubrum Red Maple 1 1 3 3 0 0 4
etula lenta Cherry Birch 2 2 0
etula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 4 4 0
etula sp. Birch 1 1 2 2 0 0 3
runus serotina Black Cherry 3 1 2 1 1 3
Salix nigra Black Willow 0 1 0
Salix SP . Willow 2 2 1 1 0 0 3
Unknown sp. Unknown 2 2 0 0 2
SHRUBS
lnus serrulata Tag Alder 0 0 0
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 1 1 0 0 1
eucothoe ontanesiana Highland Doghobble 0 0 0
hysocarpus opulifolius Nine Bark 1 1 1 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow 3 2 1 0 0 3

Totals 9 2 5 2 11 3 4 4
Plot Y3 Totals Non-volunteer 7 7
Plot Y3 Total Stem Count 9 11
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y3: Year 3 Totals; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer: LS: Live stake
Stem Counts for each species arranged b lot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site 2008
Stream B Plots i
S i
S i
S

i
S
Lower U

e pec
es
Y1 pec
es
Y2 pec
es
Y3
pec
es Y3 P V Y3 P
RP V T
l T
l T
l
1250 S ft. 1250 s ft ota
s ota
s ota
s
TREES
cer rubrum Red Maple 1 1 1 13 1
etula lenta Cherry Birch 5 16 0
etula alle haniensis Yellow Birch 1 1 0 0 1
etula s. Birch 4 3 1 2 2 6 9 6
Cornus orida Dogwood 1 1 0
amamelis vir iniana
I Witch Hazel 0 0 0
runus serotina Black Cher 13 6 7 2 3 13
Salix ni a Black Willow
- 0 0 0
Unknown s. Unknown 1 I T 1 0 0 1
SHRUBS
lnus serrulata Tag Alder 1 1 4 4 1
Cornus
I ammomum Silk Dogwood 1 1 1 1 12 12 2
Salix sericea Silk Willow 24 24 0
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 2 1 1 1 3 2
Totals 5 4 0 1 22 13 0 9
Plot Y3 Totals Non-volunteer 4 13
Plot Y3 Total Stem Count 5 22
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y3: Year 3 Totals; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer: LS: Live stake
Birch sp.- unable to ID at this young stage
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site 2008
Restored Wet land #1 Plots

i
S
Lower

UPPe Species

yl Species

Y2 Species

Y3
pec
es ? V
Y3 P Y3 P
RP V Totals Totals Totals
1250 Sq ft. 1250 sq ft
TREES
etula nigra River Birch 3 2 1 0 0 3
etula sp. Birch 0 0 0
amamelis virginiana Witch Hazel 3 3 0
Salix nigra Black Willow 0 0 0
Salix sp. Willow 4 2 2 1 1 4
Unknown sp. Unknown 1 1 1
SHRUBS
Clethra acuminata Sweet Pepperbush 0 0 0
hysocarpus opulifolius Nine Bark 0 0 0
Salix sericea Silky Willow 5 5 32 32 5 12 37
Totals 13 5 0 8 32 0 0 32
Plot Y3 Totals Non-volunteer 5 0
Plot Y3 Total Stem Count 13 32
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y3: Year 3 Totals; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer: LS: Live stake
Stem Counts for each species arranged by plot
BannerLowe Stream Restoration Site 2008
Restored Wetland #2 Plots

i
S
Lower
U Species

Y1 Species

Y2 Species

Y3
pec
es Y3 P
V Y3 P
I RP V Totals Totals Totals
1250 Sq ft. 1250 sq ft
TREES
cer rubrum Red Maple 4 4 7 7 0 4 11
etula lenta Cherry Birch 0 0 0
amamelis virginiana Witch Hazel 0 0 0
runus serotina Black Cherry 1 1 0 0 1
Salix nigra Black Willow 0 3 0
Salix sp. 3 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 5
Unknown sp. Unknown 1 1 9 9 1
SHRUBS
Clethra acuminata Sweet Pepperbush 0 0 0
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 0 0 0
hysocarpus opulifolius Nine Bark 0 0 0
Salix sericea Silky Willow 9 9 12 12 ? ? 21
Totals 16 2 0 14 23 1 0 22
Plot Y3 Totals Non-volunteer 2 1
Plot Y3 Total Stem Count 16 23
Year 3 Count Success Criteria 10 10
Year 5 Count Success Criteria 8 8
Y3: Year 3 Totals; P: Planted; RP: Replanted; V:Volunteer: LS: Live stake
Livestake Counts by Unnamed Tributary A
BannerLowe Stream Res toration Site 2008

Species
Y3 LS V Species
Y1
Totals Species
Y2
Totals Species
Y3
Totals
TREES
Salix sp. Willow 2 2 2 2 2
SHRUBS
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 1 1 11 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow 14 14 25 19 14
hysocarpus opulifolius Nine Bark
Totals 17 17 0
Y3: Year 3 Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer.
Livestake Counts Unnamed Tributary B
BannerLowe Stream Res toration Site 2008
Species Species Species
Species Y3 LS V Y1
T
l
t Y2
T
l
t Y3
T
l
t
o
a
s o
a
s o
a
s
TREES
Salix sp. Willow 0 0 0
SHRUBS
Cornus ammomum Silky Dogwood 2 2 12 4 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow 19 19 24 23 19
Totals 21 21 0
Y3: Year 3 Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer.
Livestake Counts Elk River
BannerLowe Stream Res toration Site 2008
Species Species Species
Species Y3 LS V Y1
T
l
t Y2
T
l
t Y3
T
l
t
o
a
s o
a
s o
a
s
TREES
Salix sp. Willow 2 2 8 8 2
SHRUBS
Cornus ammonium Silky Dogwood 2 2 8 8 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow 16 8 8 25 37 16
Totals 20 12 8
Y3: Year 3 Totals; LS: Live stake; V:Volunteer.
W
0

Stream A Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, July 2006.
Stream A Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, August
2008
"Ov
r e" -4 e `.
r
?x

r, b r

Stream A Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, August
2007

1
f
r
t a ?
1A V A ???. Z
Stream A Upper Vegetative, Live stake and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, July 2006.

Stream A Upper Vegetative, Live stake and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, August 2008.
I Alf
?r
4
?'° n ; v? `'1 s y w .?
Stream A Upper Vegetative, Live stake and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, August 2007.

Stream B Lower Vegetative, Herbaceous and Live Stake
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, June 2006.
00
N

•
1 .?.yh .tT r - ??,
'L?
y,
+'?- f i Frr R Ar # , t

Stream B Lower Vegetative, Herbaceous and Live Stake
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, August 2008.
Stream B Lower Vegetative, Herbaceous and Live Stake
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, September 2007.
W
(.J
t
Y?
Y

x?
?
h.

Stream B Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring Plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, June 2006
-
a f ';
r ,
4
rStream B Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring Plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, August
2008

Stream B Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous Monitoring Plot,
BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, September
2007.
F- ?4
r ?l
ff?
Restored Wetland #1 Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking north, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, July 2006.
00
A
V ; 1, , °?w ?, e r! k ;? .iY
Y d .-7, ? a t> a ?? ?q I •..J j
??pi' }? QIY? f? I a `, ?'Cll I, )S? I' l,?fv/ ti?????? ?i; `?'',?•'i,
Restored Wetland #1 Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking south, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2008.
Restored Wetland #1 Upper Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking south, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2007.
W
cn
n
arc •. ?
Ski
Restored Wetland #1 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking north, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, July 2006.
Restored Wetland #1 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking south, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2008.
n. ^, b
f
Restored Wetland #1 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, Looking south, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2007.

--

Elk River and Restored Wetland #2 Upper Vegetative,
Herbaceous and Live Stake Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, July 2006.
W
A&_ A
"T it 9y
. `
•? ";V.4
? Y -
?10' ow
Elk River and Restored Wetland #2 Upper Vegetative,
Herbaceous and Live Stake Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, October 2008.
PTA

Elk River and Restored Wetland #2 Upper Vegetative,
Herbaceous and Live Stake Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes
Mitigation Project, Banner Elk, NC, June 2007.
W
vL?r
Restored Wetland #2 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, July 2006.
Restored Wetland #2 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, August 2008.

M
II
ys„? s p ?
?1
;1 k??4?
.

Restored Wetland #2 Lower Vegetative and Herbaceous
Monitoring Plot, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner Elk,
NC, August 2007.
I
xestorea weuana AFL monitoring Uage iocauons; rain gage
lower left, two groundwater gages within wetland and one crest
gage on river berm, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner
Elk, NC, December 2006.
W
W
Y a ?f
4 a
,'.r ?, ; I ?r, y1:!.',t? , ??r 1. I _.?•7
f1 yipp ?
IA -t
xestorea weuana AFL monitoring Uage iocauons; rain gage
lower left, two groundwater gages within wetland and one crest
gage on river berm, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner
Elk, NC, August 2008.

aw-
xestorea weuana AFL monitoring Uage iocauons; rain gage
lower left, two groundwater gages within wetland and one crest
gage on river berm, BannerLowes Mitigation Project, Banner
Elk, NC, June 2007.
W
yr <"?' p
Restored Wetland #2 Monitoring Gage locations, two
groundwater gages within wetland, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, October 2006.
Restored Wetland #2 Monitoring Gage locations, two
groundwater gages within wetland, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, August 2008.

Restored Wetland #2 Monitoring Gage locations, two
groundwater gages within wetland, BannerLowes Mitigation
Project, Banner Elk, NC, June 2007.

Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
rr
?dl6?i
*'
?•, i?x? `'?'? ? r bay e.'
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
90

j
f

yWI
?r r '? $^i3?'i ?, OFF Y

r 1 / {
?1 A ,
S }
? ? uY d

Ilk I .

yyt
. ,
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
i
r_ ^d$ 71 J
? 3 71
+? ? ?P is _???1R?4 ?? ? ? }4?1`•} ? ?4 4 .;?(? r'.
j r`. ?,? } y* nnn?
en-? r f ?"p? d
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1438; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
91
1AW
i r f ?` ?p.? sa
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
92
tfi]
1A4
_?Ir4A.r„ 7 .:•:-1•y'1 Vii'.
# r? Ayl
a f? ;e c ' y
7r;?r{ IL
t ? ?? ?' ? r ?'• T?r•? rv, ti FFF??? ?Y r dy ? +{. ,*i?" ,?11 ? . a
IV?51 iY Y?' t a ? ac]. k 3' ?I?C
? ?'1 yy E•,a j' 1 - ? aVJ ?
1
?? rte.. » •"E?".? ?..,' .:. T4 ?a??1((???F???iii?www. ?'?,?r?'';y-..
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
A..
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
Stream A, Cross Section Station 1599; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
93

1 .

y1 !:_.
1a ?4 µ: ?'F y}f ? ?? 1!? ? aJks 'vPl?}f',#{ -

?
Sa 1",yam,
r ?
)??? ?,
At
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
'oe
b y ik 1'> ?y-.°,?,? : A ?:'.
'it
sS ???Y? ?,. ??{?y?'Yi ?,• ? ? ?c Y?i?ti?L er11?? '?• ??
r
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
T 9 1 111 1
1.:
it , I r
,
fitV
t +
yy6
F Ali ? .' t i
ry ?? i 1
pp + {
h
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
94
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
Fr
-ot
+' J J
3 v `? ? r 3j1' ? -t
? J ?1 r 11 *R }y
Xtin,? a 'y s ''??''? wti Ohl.,,
h u* 4
;- : Z
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1634; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
95
tw Aw, -
0
rp ^?
r 1
a
ba M
Il ?'
t s !ILL i
tom` i ?
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
+F :, ? t ?ya ? r4 n lep
i?
t 3\
- ? dry ? }?a ?t r ` 1 ?? ?' r A?i'rlkt}¦15{ rti r? ?r 's7' iry h `r
' M1 x 114 411r'P;+S 11 1 1
s t ?, Af k..,ry ± >. ,.1 r r + r 4r4.
E `, 4 b} kt M tw t r"' ' }- I. p 4kA +. ,
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.

4d
44 tl
yy??i "2 1
??x,r. ?." }! a t t•I?yE' fR ` s . _ ?'?'4 +A I i? 1f.
'
f
ry
r ?
??>T rr?.?'- Mi
?
?
?? ''•.1 Y, ;
y
?
?
r

Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
96
I T+'?
r
r
,a 1
_ t*P? Yf! ^k'?P r

Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.

Stream B, Cross Section Station 1918; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
97
r
j Oft i a\?-. •f .¢I ?
will
r
c ' Yom, +s
?[Y
10
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
r ?.
X. .C
JJ 4 hq i
'k a
Y:

a? ' S?A
i
4
• ?
!?' ?
f
kS?

Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
r. ; ?t ? ;r.FS ,,? p
ty1'
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
98

A
0
off "??t !•?
d ... {t
I

{
5 r
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.

Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
Tp? n t4 w
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1805; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
99

V F f ??
I ? y
t

Y
f
4
?
L-•

Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.

T
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; left
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
T ? L a I

r
5
I'e I
y?y
1 Lei ? w?? ??y~?? #?

Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; left
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
100
i ?
F
?? •;µµ '?
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2006.
a
0411** -1
c' ,r :? c - ? 1 h w
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; right
bank, BannerLowe, August 2008.
to
rte- ?
Elk River, Cross Section Station 1886; right
bank, BannerLowe, October 2007.
101

fi r • .? .r

":i'Y; t.
1

J Hook 1, October 2007, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.

W!NiA Vii:

J Hook 1, August 2008, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.
102
J Hook 1, October 2006, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.

J Hook 2, October 2006, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.

R

J Hook 2, October 2007, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.

T W
I
n
- W

-_
°rr

J Hook 2, August 2008, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.
103
.,

WANE 1, October 2006, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.

- AR
a

WANE 1, October 2007, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.
Lf1' w ?.
WW 1
W
W
°A.

4t -

WANE 1, August 2008, Elk River, Banner Elk, NC.
104
i ?^ Y
4
3
yA"?-A 1.4 T ? e5-r
1a"{{? iY lY t..
Elk River Restoration Reach, looking downstream, June 2007, Banner Elk, NC.
e?ti r, ? ?A Y1v?
04.
? r ,.. f,?_ . ? ? -- - + ?'•_?ts .. a ..,
Elk River Restoration Reach, looking downstream, October 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
105

Stream UTA looking downstream, July 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
v+ i Y'Ilk
lip
X
Y
4 ? ? b
y 1 R
r
Stream UTA looking downstream, October 2007, Banner Elk, NC.
Stream UTA looking downstream, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
106
Bib,

Aw e

Stream UTA looking downstream from midpoint, June 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

?i T '•H
n 1 '?I
yR S
Stream UTA looking downstream from midpoint, October 2007, Banner Elk, NC.

o

Stream UTA looking downstream from midpoint, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
107

Stream UTA looking downstream at end of project, June 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

>3=

Stream UTA looking downstream at end of project, October 2007, Banner Elk, NC.

-
? r

W C
tr
?
?

Stream UTA looking downstream at end of project, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
108

L'
40:1
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 1, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
3 4,
R
lot
,i?'
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 1, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
Lx
109
?Y

e
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 2, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 2, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
110

Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 4, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

Xn,w

+
14

Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 4, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
111
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 5, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary A, Photo Point 5, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC
112
r _? r
Stream UTB from head of project looking downstream,
Uctober LUU"/, Banner rlk, NU.
3 Tr
,?,? `. ?••,?1 a ,?. a ?[,. ?
I7 p ? ? ?
yry ,1.
All
« 9' - 7K
r 7
e _
F
OLicaui u In iiUui ucau Ui PIUJVL L iUUnuig UUMINLicaiii,
August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
113
Stream i TTB from h ea d of nroi ect 1 ooki n g downstream
-

rte: ?.' 14 7j '

e ?
p .p

Stream UTB from midpoint of project looking downstream,
July 2UU6, Banner rlk, NU.
i ; .

Stream UTB from midpoint of project looking downstream,
Uctober 2001, Banner Elk, NU.
r
" - N.?V
Z' i JaJ ae fir:.. - y -
Stream UTB from midpoint of project looking downstream,
August 2008, Banner Elk, NC
114

Stream UTB looking downstream to end of project,
July 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

ti

Stream UTB looking downstream to end of project,
October 2007, Banner Elk, NC.
z
Stream UTB looking downstream to end of project,
August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
115
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 1, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 1, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
116
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 2, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 2, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
117

q 'I i
9 4 f -...• - - - -
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 3, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
r ? ` t ? ti
f ? f
1

Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 3, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
118

r ?I 1
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 4, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
?a
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 4, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.

119
h ? ? at 9'' 7 a?p
j
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 5, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

i v 41
t Z4
e d,
x • *41 n? ,?tSfe-,t
{I ,; '? F f? Y .r " lJ4' C-I '1114,
4 ?h 1 .y v: aYia?', -t -..
44
d' Ni PM1 f iytli I?,
?i?,,? " ?. : `-?#?• Ito ij?F' y!.
t air 3'° ?
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 5, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
120
V R
a ` r
?r11'10
qPY
0 Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 6, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.

r i? ;•' _f frfl"a ?y ter- {
4
fly+ .
ha ? . ; • € 7w ? I '? 1 ?
-
-pi
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 6, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
121

r ??? ? >y.: a, -fir
?T
•.? * ? ? X13 I4`!` `? ???i
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 7, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 7, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
122
I f d
J i +M1 ?

I J
+J ;' _ 77
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 8, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
r + •, - -'Y
3

{
I+- a

?
'r-w qtr I 1 ? ? m ti
1 ?j 9Y
r
_

4 d
.
tl Y'
,Y

!it
1 1 ! tt 4 1 \?"'.
? L
'ZI
44 ?J'
\R` - 1 ;I 4 tl ?1 ?I? 4 ?i• 4
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 8, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
123
A--4,
.tqn,.
}x) n,l?} A W J'?V
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 9, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
?'?(.[VL?'? X11 # v'- +l'1yA

A

:E
Pte.-? ?
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 9, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
124
k rh.?, R f q-!k ti
w r +

N
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 10, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
IMt?1 ? pII ? .I`Y•.
a

r
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 10, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
125
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 11, October 2006, Banner Elk, NC.
Unnamed tributary B, Photo Point 11, August 2008, Banner Elk, NC.
126
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - Elk River
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
v
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Reach Summary
- - Riffle Summary
- - - Pool Summarv

0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 3 monitoring - Elk River
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01
1000 10000
127
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - UTA
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 3 monitoring - UTA
1000 10000
100.00
90
00
. i

80
00
.
01 r
.
70
00
.
Reach Summary
60.00
- - Riffle Summary

50.00
a
- - Pool Summary
a
40
00
.
30
00
.
20
00
.
10
00
.
0
00
.
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
128
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 1 monitoring - UTB
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
n
Reach Summary
- - Riffle Summary
- - - Pool Summarv
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature
Banner Elk Lowes - Year 3 monitoring - UTB
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
c
50.00
w
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01
1000 10000
129
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
`PO
O?
O a
?O ??o ill o
BPD
? X00 ?? 1f
CPO
Z W Off`
CPO,
? cPOO .?? ?1 0
G? cPo
o CPO?I11 ct
O? ?, l Q
N ?P 1 6-'
o CPO, <1 G?
Off.
? Q X00 ??'?f
W o O ?' Off,
?..
O O
ti 00 ?? l
C7 `P
CPO C .t
OF f
CPOO `? X10
F.
?n o ?n o ?n o ?n o
CPO /4!-,
(sauOut) u011PAOIJ O
130
CPo
O
Cpo `00
cp
oP
c P.
c PO??°?I ?
o
cp
0
`p00
a?
`PO ?`?? •?I
APO CcP °
op,
N X00 Ir??,6?
cP c ?I
CPO
Q 0o T? I
W o `P00 ??' Off, U?r
O
3 0
`P00 ??? `sI
o cpo
C'7 cPO ???.9
ro, 9.
?n o ?n o ?n o ?n o cPl
?I
(sauOut) u011PAOIJ O
131
CPO
0
?POo
0()
0
00O??Prr o
o00l
?e b"
011) ?
O 1 a?
J'.
aJ p? 0(
010) C?
° 0--s, Q
ct Q OO T? l
a) o 00 c?0 cT? Off.
o
0()
X00
0
o 00
0)
o? 1
00o go
O.
?n o ?n o ?n o ?n o
(gOUI) UOIjVAajj l0
132
?o
0
cf'OO `Ja
O o I
7t
W CPO <&
as
o °?• f' I Q
N CPO,
-4 J
cpoo
ct Q CP°O
? N `f'OO???y sl
cp
ct 0,
C?7 d'O c?l??
?n o ?n o ?n o ?n o `BOO ?? I?`
I
f'I
(sauOut) u011PAOIJ O
133
?o
o?
`J
a
cf'00 P9?
0
o ??J
CPO
?%v
a? CP
c? 1lj ct
? Z ?O 1:6 Q
O
ct G? Xo, ?? l?0
r
CP O
° `f'O'l
41
CPO, j
a ?n ? c-n N ? o cQ0 ?f` f
f'l
O
(sauoui) uoqjtdt3a.zd
134
Elk River Crest Gage Readings, January 2008-December 2008
Banner Elk, NC
4
0
U
`J -4
a?
a?
? -8
a?
-12
L
-16
04' 04' 04' 04' 04' 04' Cb 04' 4' Cb Cb Cb 04' 04' 0b 04' 04' 04' z 04' 04 O4 04' 04'
0 0 0 0 0 0 ? o ? ? o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o ?o do ?o
Date
Elk River Stream Gage Readings, January 2008-December 2008
Banner Elk, NC
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
y 0
-5
Cb Cb Cb Cb
O? Cb Ocb Ob Ob O? Ob
?O ?O ?O ?? ?? ti? ?O bO ?O ?O
0 0+
o?ti ti o ti O ti
Date
135