HomeMy WebLinkAbout19970269 Ver 1_Complete File_20020830
BLUE Land
Water
Infrastructure,PA
Thursday, August 29, 2002
NCDENR - DWQ
Attn: Mr. John Dorney
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Ste. 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
0\-
u
o'}/
~
139-G Technology Drive Garner North Carolina 27529
Voice: (919) 661-0073 · Facsimile: (919) 661-9829
www.blwi.com · blwi@blwi.com
RE:
Year Two Post-Construction Macroinvertebrate and Vegetation Monitoring
Buckhead Creek Mitigation Project
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
.'
!
Dear Mr. Dorney,
Enclosed you will find the Year Two Post-Construction Macroinvertebrate and Vegetation Monitoring Report for the Buckhead
Creek Mitigation Project. This report has been read and approved for release by the City of Fayetteville. Macroinvertebrate sampling
was conducted during the second year after mitigation related construction activities on Buckhead Creek and the unnamed tributary
(as described in the Buckhead Creek Drainage Project Mitigation Plan dated November 3, 1998). Macroinvertebrate populations
were sampled o~ober 2, 20~CCOrdance with the Standard Qualitative Method outlined in the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality's d<ud ~ ng Procedures for Biological Monitoring (1997). Quantitative measurements of vegetation
establishment (survival and percent cover) were also conducted. Results were compared to the pre-construction and year one
monitoring data, and a discussion of these findings is included.
Subsequent benthic macroinvertebrate samples will continue to be collected as scheduled, annually in years 3-5 (2002-2004).
Vegetation establishment will be monitored annually until deemed successful according to requirements set forth by the approved
City of Fayetteville Stream Mitigation Plan. Annual reports outlining the results of each monitoring period will continue to be
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the United States Army Corps of Engineers upon approval and
release from the City of Fayetteville.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
Amber Coleman
Environmental Consultant
attachments:
Post-Construction Macroinvertebrate and Vegetation Monitoring Report - Year Two
cc: Ms. Lillette Moore, US Army Corps of Engineers
t c._
POST -CONSTRUCTION
MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
VEGETATION MONITORING
(Year Two)
Buckhead Creek Mitigation
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Prepared for
The Rose Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 103
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
Prepared by
B L DE =Uuc~e,,^
December 200 I
BL WI Project Number 990845
t
,-
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORlNG
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1
II. MEmODS .............................................................. 2
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
Vegetation Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Vegetation Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
IV. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 7
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Vegetation Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Vicinity Map
Appendix B. Stream Physical and Water Quality Characteristics
Appendix C. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Species
Appendix D. Metric and Diversity Calculations for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Appendix E. Pre- and Post-Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Comparison
.
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
In 1998, hard improvements (trapezoidal, grout-filled fabric lined permanent channel) were
constructed in an unnamed tributary to Buckhead Creek (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality index # 18-31-24-6) by the City of Fayetteville to increase stormwater runoff
conveyance from existing medical, residential and commercial properties that have experienced
flooding problems. The project, known as the Buckhead Creek Drainage Project, located in
Subbasin CPF15 of the Cape Fear River Basin, impacted 2,385 linear feet of stream and 0.65
acres of wetlands. On-site mitigation at a 1:1 ratio is a requirement of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 Individual Permit (Permit # 199704640) issued to the City of Fayetteville by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Clean Water Act Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (Certification # 3164) issued by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The mitigation plan, a cooperative effort among the City of Fayetteville, the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, and the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (WRP), specified 1,400 linear feet of stream and riparian restoration along the unnamed
tributary downstream of the hard improvements and along 985 linear feet of the main stem of
Buckhead Creek (see Appendix A). Mitigation activities consisted of grading the streambeds,
streambanks, and their associated floodplains as well as revegetating riparian areas through live
stakes, fascines, and seeds of native species. In addition, approximately 400 linear feet of
Buckhead Creek will be realigned to its approximate historical position in the landscape. The
primary goal of the mitigation is to enhance water quality and wildlife/fisheries habitats.
The proposed mitigation was first put forth in a mitigation plan prepared by Soil and
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (S&EC) and accompanied by construction plans prepared by
The Rose Group. BLUE: Land, Water, Infrastructure, PA (BLWI) was contracted to perform
monitoring for the project after this mitigation plan was approved. It is BLWI's understanding
that the mitigation plan, as prepared by S&EC, was approved with a final revised date of
12\14\98. This mitigation plan is the document referred to by BLWI to conduct the mitigation
monitoring. BL WI has conducted the monitoring in a manner consistent with our interpretation
of this document. As per meetings with North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) earlier
in the year, BL WI has complied with sampling criteria set forth in the approved mitigation plan.
However, DWQ did request additional sampling to improve the quality of data. To date, BL WI
has not been authorized to perform additional sampling. Therefore, no additional sampling was
conducted by BL WI for the "Year Two" monitoring. Please direct any questions about the actual
mitigation plan to The Rose Group.
In September 1999, BLWI sampled pre-construction benthic macroinvertebrate populations to
facilitate comparisons of water quality between pre-construction and post-construction
conditions. In early October 2000, BL WI completed the first annual post-construction sampling.
In early October 2001, BLWI completed the second of five annual post-construction benthic
macroinvertebrate assessments in Buckhead Creek and its unnamed tributary. Monitoring
activities also included quantitative measurements of vegetation establishment (survival and
percent cover), physical and chemical water characteristics, as well as qualitative assessments of
general channel conditions.
page 1
)
"
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
MEmODS
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
BL WI has sampled benthic macroinvertebrate populations in Buckhead Creek and the
aforementioned unnamed tributary. The standard qualitative methods described in the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality's Standard Operating Procedures for Biological Monitoring
(1997) were employed for collecting samples. Samples included kick net samples of riflle areas,
sweep-net samples of undercut banks, and fine-mesh samples of woody debris scrapings. In
accordance with the City of Fayetteville Stream Mitigation Plan, these samples were taken at one
location along Buckhead Creek Oower end of mitigation) and one location along the unnamed
tributary Oower end of mitigation). The sampling locations are the same locations sampled
pre-construction in 1999 and post-construction in 2000. The macroinvertebrate samples were
identified by Pennington and Associates, Inc. in their certified laboratory (DWQ Biological
Certificate # 026) in Cookeville, Tennessee. In addition to sampling macroinvertebrates, physical
and water quality 'characteristics were recorded at each sampling location (Appendix B). A
habitat assessment score (based on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet) was assigned at
each sampling location. The metrics (EPT Index and Biotic Index) used to assign fmal
bioclassifications were calculated according to the Division of Water Quality's Standard
Operating Procedures for Biological Monitoring (1997) (Appendices C - E). The
bioclassification ratings in Appendix E are based upon the Biotic Index.
Vegetation Sampling
Revegetation of wetland plants has occurred along the reconstructed channel cross-sections. This
includes the entire mitigation reach along the unnamed tributary and the 400 feet realignment
along Buckhead Creek. The planting plan called for plant material to be added through fascines
and live staking for woody material and seeding for herbaceous material. According to the
approved City of Fayetteville Stream Mitigation Plan, successful revegetation will be realized
when 75% vegetative coverage is attained from top of bank: to top of bank along the planted
areas and the plants have survived for five years. The plan also states that herbaceous cover will
be deemed successful when the re-vegetated areas are comprised of at least three of either the
introduced or volunteer species. For woody vegetation to be deemed successful, the mitigation
plan states that no more than 50% of the successful woody vegetative coverage can be comprised
of one single species and volunteer woody species can count for no more than 10% ofthe overall
success criteria coverage. Table 1 lists those plant species designated for introduction by the
mitigation plan.
To determine the status of the vegetative cover as it relates to the above success criteria, a
sampling regime was established to quantify the site vegetation. Randomized transects 25 feet in
width running perpendicular to the stream from top of bank to top of bank were established
along the revegetated areas of the unnamed tributary and Buckhead Creek. Each transect was
then assessed for overall plant cover. The herbaceous layer was evaluated by documenting all
species found within the transect. The woody vegetation was also assessed by documenting all
species found as well as the percentage of each species within the woody layer.
page 2
.
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Table 1. Plant Material List (from City of Fayetteville Buckhead Creek Mitigation Planting
Plan October 1998
Wood Shrub S ecies for Fascines Live Stakin and Joint Plantin
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
During the collection of macroinvertebrate samples, BL WI also collected physical and water
quality characteristics of the two mitigation reaches. Appendix B shows this information along
with the equivalent information for the pre-construction and Year I post-construction
monitoring. The habitat assessment scores have increased from 2000 to 2001. Dissolved oxygen
has decreased. The overall base flow channel width in the unnamed tributary has decreased
dramatically while depth has doubled. This is due to sediment accumulation and other
morphological functions within the unnamed tributary causing the previous baseflow channel to
decrease and transition into a smaller, deeper channel with a larger floodplain. The base flow
channel width in Buckhead Creek has increased by a few feet while the depth has halved. This is
also due to sediment accumulation. Flow in Buckhead Creek decreased while flow in the
unnamed tributary increased. Some shading was available along the unnamed tributary prior to
construction, but no shading exists currently. The majority of Buckhead Creek still has trees
along its banks and is fully shaded. The relocated portion of Buckhead Creek still has large
established trees within 30 feet of the banks and is currently partially shaded. The relocated
portion of Buckhead Creek and the unnamed tributary are still relatively low in woody debris
compared to pre-construction levels. Buckhead Creek has a wooded reach upstream and trees
relatively close to the banks which wi11likely provide woody debris. The unnamed tributary has
a more limited source and may take many years for woody debris to accumulate within this
reach.
Appendices C and D show the list of benthic macroinvertebrate species and sample calculations
as reported by Pennington and Associates, Inc. Appendix E shows a comparison chart of
page 3
.
'"
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
pre-construction and post-construction findings. The total number of organisms has decreased
from the 2000 to the 2001 sample, particularly in the unnamed tributary. It is unclear what
circumstances caused this decrease, although it could be due to the dramatic change in channel
size in the unnamed tributary. Although decreasing in numbers of organisms, it appears the
unnamed tributary is improving with regard to the type of macroinvertebrates found there. The
unnamed tributary improved from a bioc1assification of 'poor' at pre-construction sampling to
'good-fair' at year 2 post-construction sampling, but Buckhead Creek remained unchanged at
'fair. '
Vegetation Sampling
The banks of the stream are well stabilized with vegetation. BL WI observed a few small areas
where work had likely been conducted on the adjacent sewer lines and were without much
vegetation. However, these areas were covered with erosion control blankets and no erosion was
evident. Except for the few small areas, both the unnamed tributary and Buckhead Creek had
100% vegetative cover.
Herbaceous Vegetation
Both sites were found to have greater than three species of herbaceous plants (see Table 2). Note,
however, that none of the species found during sampling (Table 2) match the species shown in
the list of introduced species (Table 1). It was confirmed in the fall of 2000 that no seed had been
placed on-site since the completion of construction. BL WI staff was told that the management
plan was to seed the wetland shelves in the spring of 2001. There was no indication that this
activity took place. However, the existing vegetation is dense and an introduced seed mix would
not have a high likelihood of success without initial control of the volunteer species. The
approved mitigation plan does not make a distinction between introduced and volunteer species
for the success of the herbaceous layer; and thus, the herbaceous layer should currently be
deemed successful. However, Murdania keisak is still showing dominance at both sites creating
a situation whereby other species may be choked out in subsequent years. This potential problem
will be monitored during the remaining monitoring site visits.
Woody Vegetation
The 'Year l' monitoring report found that woody vegetation was not meeting success criteria as
listed in the approved mitigation plan. As a result of this finding, BL WI stated in the 'Year l'
monitoring report; "To comply with success criteria, the dense Salix nigra stand will need to be
thinned and other woody species listed in Table 1 (plant Material List) will need to be planted."
The primary focus of 'Year 2' monitoring was to document the remediation activities for woody
vegetation success. As shown in Table 3, the sample plots showed no discernible change in
woody vegetation coverage from the 'Year l' monitoring report. BL WI found that nearly 100%
of the woody vegetation coverage in the study area was only one species (Salix nigra). The
approved mitigation plan states that no species can account for more than 50% of the total
woody vegetation coverage, however, both sites are not meeting this requirement. As in the
'Year l' monitoring, both sites are still not meeting approved woody vegetation success criteria.
BL WI would like to make note of some additional woody vegetation planting which did take
place along the unnamed tributary. BLWI found that woody stakes had been planted in portions
of the site. Upon investigation of the planted stakes, BL WI found a mortality of approximately
page 4
.
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROlNVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
90%. The only stakes found with leaves were determined to be Camus amamum (silky
dogwood). BL WI was not provided a list of species planted and cannot confirm if the other two
proposed introduced species were planted. These woody stakes were found along a flat shelf
midway between the base flow channel and top of bank, and within the designed base flow
channel (on the fresh sediment deposits within the base flow channel). The original construction
plans called for woody vegetation to be planted on the slopes but not on the flat tiers and no
planting was to take place within the base flow channel. Along the slopes which were designated
for woody vegetation, no thinning of the existing Salix nigra was evident. To provide for a full
assessment of future planting activities, a report on all woody vegetation remediation activities
will be beneficial for BL WI's monitoring visits.
page 5
.
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
lin
Ve etation
Percentage of Woody
La er
Introduced(I)
or Volunteer
<1% V
<1% V
<1% V
99% I
1% I
99% I
page 6
.
POST-CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
CONCLUSIONS
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
The mitigation appears to be on track, and as of the second year after construction, water quality
has not diminished or risen substantially compared to parameters collected both pre-construction
and post-construction year 1 (Appendix B). The habitat assessment scores are increasing from
previous scores. This increase in score is mainly due to an increase in actual numbers of plants as
well as an increase in the size of the plants. According to the final calculated bioclassifications
using the biotic index, water quality has improved from 'poor' to 'good-fair' along the unnamed
tributary and water quality has remained 'fair' along Buckhead Creek. (Appendix E).
Vegetation Sampling
The overall vegetation coverage is at nearly 100% and thus meets the mitigation plan criteria for
percent vegetation cover. The vegetation appears mostly healthy throughout the mitigation area
and an overall vegetation coverage of nearly 100% is expected to remain.
None of the proposed introduced species listed in Table 1 are present on-site. The herbaceous
vegetation is made up solely by volunteers and there was no evidence of seeding that was to be
performed in the spring of 200 1. Either seeding was not performed or the seedlings were not able
to establish themselves without control of the existing volunteer species. However, the
herbaceous vegetation is quite diverse and meets the success requirements set forth in the
mitigation plan. BL WI recommends that no action be taken in regards to the herbaceous
vegetation at this time. The possibility exists that species diversity might be lost in the
herbaceous layer over time. Therefore, BL WI will continue monitoring efforts to assure that
species diversity is maintained over the next few years.
The woody vegetation does not meet the success requirements set forth in the mitigation plan.
While cover is at nearly 100%, it is highly dominated by the introduced Salix nigra (Black
Willow). A few stakes of other woody species appear to have been planted along the unnamed
tributary but had a very low survival rate. The plan states that no species may account for more
than 50% aerial coverage and volunteers must account for less than 10%. In accordance with the
mitigation plan, the lack of diversity within the woody vegetation layer will require a
contingency plan to amend the problem. BL WI recommends that all stakeholders, including the
Division of Water Quality, be consulted to determine the best plan of action given the current
status of the woody vegetation. Overall, the mitigation project appears to be progressing as
designed.
page 7
.
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORlNG
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX A
Vicinity Map
.
N
+
Vicinity Map
o
500
1000 Feet
,
Scale: I" = 1000'
BLUE
Land
Water
Infrastructun:
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
FA YETIEVILLE Quadrangle (SW Comer)
.. '
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORlNG
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX B
Stream Physical and Water Quality Characteristics
"- .
Cl c:l
~~
o a
E-<U
"""...t::
5'g
::;Sz
5~
""" ;:j
E-< 0
<U
E-<'"d
~] fI)
~ s .~
>'8 ....
fI)
'C
~ ;:j 2
~U 0
E-<(!) c:l
~s a
...t::
IX! g; 0
~~ c
.-
-
~~ c:l
~j;;t., 6-
~ g S
1ii
O'~ ~
~gb '"d
U'~ ~
~~ ";j
0
zij .-
o ~ ]>
"""U p..
E-<'"d
U c:l ~
~~ ~
Eo-< 0 00.
00. ;:j ~
zlX!
0' ><
UN ;a
'~ =
~< (!)
p..
o~ <-
p..~
i I~ .~
= ...... ......
~ ~ 0 '0 0 N a
~ ~ fa 0\ Ie Ie - '<t ~ 0 0
E-4 e ?:i (I)
;::; ::: on \Ci r--: 0\ '<t 0
~ 00 ~ 00
8 ~ \0 - - t--
El 0 0
~ CIS
.~ =
;5
..
~
=
=
~
= ~ N ".... S 1:::-
Q ~
:c:: N N on
l:I t ~ S '0 S ci 0 \0 ~ a
5 u C fa - r--: 0 \0 ..2
t-- \Ci r--: 0\ ~
on 00 '<t on - U
.., ~ '<t t-- \C! ....:
= CIS N 0
= (I) 0 -
l:I ~
I
....
.., l:I
l. =
=
~ I~ 0
= IS;; ~ co
,.Q - - 0 a
Ii 'C 00 Ie ~ e N ""=
I~ 0 e t-- 0 0 00 (I)
E-4 '<t \Ci on 0\ '<t 0
Q N ~ - -
.~ ~ \0 '<t iZl ~ ~
(I) - 0 0 N
.~ El
CIS
=
! ;5
=
~
= ~
~ ~ '0 .f:: M 0\
~ .. '<t 0
U - IS '0 S 0 \0 0\ - a
t: I~ fa 00 e- o @ '<t ..2
~ on loCi 0\ on ~
.., '<t 00 0 - u
= CIS ~ -
= (I) "l -
~ ~ - 0 ~
.., l:I
Q =
~ =
=
.... G
= on ".... G
6\' ,.Q 0\ - '0
'C ~ '<t '0 Ie N N t-- t-; i
~ E-4 e fa ~ Ie on 0 0 0
~ ~ '<t .n r--: ~ on N
~ 00 '<t N
~ - \C! on "l E-4
(I)
~ El - - 0 0\
CIS
=
.s ;5
....
=
=
~
= ..:.:
Q (I) ...... M IS
:c:: ~ ......
..
l:I U t-- ~ ~ - '0
5 on t-- '0 8 - ~ ~
~ ~ 8 fa 0 I~ t-- N 0 -
\0 \Ci ~ '<t N
.., CIS 00 t-- on .n N
= (I) on '<t ~ oci Eo-<
= ~ - N
l:I - ~
~ l:I
~ =
=
E E ti ';J ! G c
..::, ..::, e ~
cl:: cl:: '" ~ ~ e.... ~
~ .Cl '" :g '"
~ ;e 0 (I) '~E ~ :E
.. P- '" ~
(I) .~ ~ -( '" 1S ~
.... (I) .~ -- '.p (,,)
~ 1ii !i <i:: i~ ... (,,)"fiJ E
i ~ ~ 1iJ .... e 0 ~ ~ ~i 00 ~
.. ~ ~ .0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ e 6 0
CIS ::l ~~ :> ~ .... E (I)
"" 00 00 00 o-=- Eo-< U Eo-<
'- '
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX C
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Species
.. ..
Appendix C. Benthic macroinvertebrate species, Buckhead Creek and unnamed tributary, Fayetteville,
Cumberland County, North Carolina, Post-Construction, October 2,2001
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.*** Buckhead Unnamed
Creek Tributary
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.84 CG 1
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *10 CG
Haplotaxida
Hirudinea *8 P 5
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Procambarus sp. 9.49 SH 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemerellidae *1 SC
Eurylophella sp. 4.34 SC 5
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Stenonema sp. *4 SC 20
Odonata
Aeshnidae *3 P
Boyeria vinosa 5.89 P 1
Coenagrionidae *9 P
Enallagma sp. 8.91 P 338 273
Gomphidae *1 P
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 5
Progomphus obscurus 8.22 P 3
Megaloptera
Sialidae *4 P
Sia/is sp. 7.17 P 1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 FC 5 1
Pennington and Associates, Inc.
Page 1 of2
" ~
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G. *** Buckhead Unnamed
Creek Tributary
Coleoptera
Elmidae *5 CG
Ancyronyx variegata 6.49 SC 10
Dubiraphia sp. 5.93 SC 5
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 15
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.73 SH 5
Diptera
Chironomidae 10 10
Ablabesmyia mal/oehi 7.19 P 20 7
Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 10
Crieotopus sp. *7 CG 20
Cryptoehironomus fulvus 6.38 P 10 13
Dierotendipes sp. 8.1 CG 10 326
Mierotendipes sp. 5.53 CG 13
Phaenopseetra sp. 6.5 SC 180 3
Polypedilum halterale 7.31 SH 30 13
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 30 20
Proc/adius sp. 9.1 P 10
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.89 FC 90
Saetheria tylus 7.07 CG 280
Tanytarsus sp. 6.76 FC 170 3
Thienemannimyia gp. 8.42 P 10 3
Tribelos sp. 6.31 CG 140
Simuliidae *6 FC
Simulium sp. 4 FC 5
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF SPECIES
1439
29
691
14
*HilsenhoffTolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
**T.V.= Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms tolerant to organic
pollution to 10 for organisms intolerant to organic pollution
***F.F.G.=Functional Feeding Groups: CG=Collector/Gatherers, SC=Scrapers,
FC=Filtering Collectors, SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercers
Pennington and Associates, Inc.
Page 2 of 2
- ...
. POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX D
Metric and Diversity Calculations
for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
... (\
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
Appendix D. METRIC AND DIVERSITY CALCULATIONS FOR BENTHIC
MACROlNVERTEBRATES COLLECTED BY BLUE: LAND, WATER,
INFRASTRUCTURE, PA ON OCTOBER 2,2001
METRIC Buckhead Creek Unnamed Tributary
Taxa Richness 29 14
NCBI 7.179 6.513
Ratio of Scraper/Filt. Collectors 0.870 0.750
Ratio of ShredderslTotal 0.042 0.055
EPT Index 3 1
% Contribution of Dom. Taxon 23.49% 47.18%
EPT/Chironomidae Abundance 0.03 0.00
Jaccard Coefficient
Buckhead Creek Unnamed Tributary
Buckhead Creek 0 0.344
Unnamed Tributary 0.344 0
Percent Similarity
Buckhead Creek Unnamed Tributary
Buckhead Creek 0 32
Unnamed Tributary 32 0
Diversity Indicies
Index Buckhead Creek Unnamed Tributary
Richness
Number taxa 29 14
Margalef 2.67 1.38
Menbinick 0.764 0.533
Heterogeneity
Simpson 0.863 0.62
Shannon 3.39 1.85
Hill (Nt) 10.45 3.6
Hill (N2) 7.28 2.63
Evenness
Pielou 0.697 0.486
Sheldon 0.36 0.257
Heip 0.37 0.2
Hill 0.697 0.73
Hill mod 0.665 0.627
J.. ,II ..
POST -CONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRA TE & VEGETATION MONITORING
YEAR 2 - Buckhead Creek Mitigation - Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
APPENDIX E
Pre- and Post-Construction
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Comparisons
. ... ".~
o cd
~~
o ;
E-<U
z"€
00
:::EZ
5~
.... ;::s
E-< 0
<U
E-<"O
e3]
~ ~
>'8
0<3 ;::s
~U
E-< ~
(!)
~s
~ ~
~~
p:::~
~~
~ g
0'.;:1
p:::gb
U".;:I
~~
z~
o~
-u
E-<"O
U cd
~~
E-< 0
tf) ;::s
Z~
0'
UN
'~
~<
O~
~:><
rn
I::
o
rn
'i::
cd
~
U
(!)
....
cd
~
t
~
'e
o
cd
~
o
....
.s
I::
(!)
~
I::
o
....
....
g
rn
I::
o
U
I
....
rn
o
~
"0
~
I
(!)
l-<
~
~
><
:a
I::
(!)
0..
0..
<
~
f'l~
- I
-"!Q
\00
8
l:::i '" ..
= ~ ;;
=S....-
,~" IlS = 0\ ;!;
'i" a~\O
.5 :;l Eo<
""
!
=
Q
~..loIil
S ~
~ ""
~u
E'" ~0\_~e:1
"" IlS '<t N '" - <:
sj - r..:~
~ ~
..!. =
""=
~
to
IlS
=
,Q
~ ....
=~
=
="C
~ ~
.~ ~
s:5
'S
Q
~..loIil
= ~
s e
'tu
E'"
"" IlS
= ~
Q~
~ al
a=
j:l.,
\0 -~
OOM.......N~
-N '<t<:
f'l r..:~
0\ \O~
0\00_0'"::1
r-N~-<l.;
- r..:~
I~ '" ~
~e:!V) oo~
::::: IlS = \0 ~ 0 ~ 0
~~~'<t 002
'e Eo<
!
=
Q
~..loIil
= ~
Q ~
~ ""
~u
=", r- \O~
i a1 ~~N~<
g~ \O~
~ ~
~=
""
.B
~
S
IlS
""
IlS
j:l.,
'"
e
'"
'8
~ "'I~
e ~ V1
O~Eo<
~~~ Q
M M .9
..8 21-9. ~ ~
aa~.g~
:3 :3 ll) ......
zz]~~
'3 '3 Eo< '-g g
o 0 p., .... ....
Eo<Eo<~1!l1!l