20080587 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130212

'i D C.ri
()p)577
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number — 92251
Project Info Monitoring Year 1 of 5
Year of Data Collection 2012
Year of Completed Construction 2011
NCEEP Project Manager Paul Wiesner
Submission Date November 301h, 2012
Submitted To NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No 004518
FED 1 2 2013
. N •_ WATER UALITY

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1048
Scott Gregory
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Micky Cle ns
Office Principal

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................4
21 Stream Assessment
2 1 1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
212 Hydrology
2 13 Photographic Documentation of Site
2 14 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
4
4
5
5
6
22 Vegetation Assessment 6
23 Wetland Assessment 7
3.0 REFERENCES........
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 I
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
7
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum — Site Assessment Report for Monitoring Year 1
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5a -d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5e Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Tables 6a -b Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table 6c Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 I
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
7

Appendices
Figure
3
Year 1 Cross - sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
4
Year 1 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure
5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table
11 a
Cross - section Morphology Data Table
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
6
Monthly Rainfall Data
Figure
7
Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table
13
Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 II
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc (Baker) through an on -call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) This report documents and presents Year 1 monitoring data as required
during the five -year monitoring period
The specific goals for the Project were as follows
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Project site,
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplams,
• Improve water quality in the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed,
• Protect the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed from nearby rapid development,
• Restore wetlands along South Fork Hoppers Creek in the Project area, and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Project corridor
To accomplish these goals the following objectives were implemented
• Stabilize eroding channel banks by implementing a combination of Priority I Restoration and
Enhancement II approaches,
• Increase floodplam connectivity to restore historic floodplam wetlands,
• Incorporate bedform diversity with varied in- stream structures to provide a variety of aquatic habitats,
• Reestablish a riparian buffer with native vegetation to improve terrestrial habitat and eliminate
excessive sedimentation from erosion,
• Restore and enhance existing floodplam wetlands, where feasible, and
• Eliminate livestock access to the channel to improve water quality and reduce erosion from hoof
shear
The Project site is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina,
as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -08 -30 and United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040 -020 Directions to the Project site can be found in Figure 1 of
Appendix A
South Fork Hoppers Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and
several small rural residential developments The land surrounding the Project site has been used historically
for agriculture but was recently used as pasture land for livestock grazing Some forest land is located in the
upstream extents of UT1, UT2, and UT3
South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries had been impacted by livestock and were Incised and eroded
Channel Incision along South Fork Hoppers Creek resulted In the lowering of the water table, thereby,
dewatermg floodplam wetlands The Project Involved the restoration or enhancement of 3,550 linear feet
(LF) of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek, and portions of UT1 and UT2 using Rosgen Priority 1
restoration and Level II enhancement approaches. An additional 1,071 LF of stream along portions of UT1
and UT3 was placed in preservation The Project also Included the restoration and enhancement of 1 56 acres
of riparian wetland abutting South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1 of which 1 23 acres comprised restoration
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 1
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

and 0 33 acres comprised enhancement The Priority 1 channel design approach entailed raising the elevation
of the channel to establish greater connectivity to the floodplain and to restore the hydrologic relationship
between South Fork Hoppers Creek, its tributaries and riparian wetland areas in the Project area Channel
pattern was re- established to dissipate flow velocities in meander bends In- stream habitat was created using
riffle -pool sequences and the strategic placement of in- stream structures Approximately 5 7 acres of
associated riparian buffer were restored /enhanced throughout the Project area and a conservation easement
consisting of 10 1 acres will protect and preserve all stream reaches, wetland areas, and riparian buffers in
perpetuity
Vegetation conditions for South Fork Hoppers Reaches 1 and 2, and UT1 Reach B were good and performing
close to 100% for both, the planted acreage and invasive /encroachment area categories Two bare areas or
vegetation problem areas (VPAs), VPA1 and VPA2, were documented in the wetland area located on the
right floodplain along South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 The combined total area for these VPAs was 0 12 acres,
or 2 8% of the planted area acreage for this assessment tract The UT2 vegetation assessment tract did not
perform as well because of the widespread infestation of invasive species associated with VPA3 and VPA4
These two VPAs were solely confined to UT2 Reach B and made up a combined total of 0 27 acres, or 18%
of the 15 acre easement area for the UT2 vegetation assessment tract Invasive vegetation in these VPAs
includes multiflora rose (Rosa multiora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese stilt grass
(Microstegium vimineum) A more detailed summary of the results for the vegetation condition assessment
can be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, current condition planview (CCPV)
figures, supporting data tables, and photo logs, the contents of Appendix B was submitted to NCEEP in June
2012 and served as the interim visual site assessment report
The success criteria or survival threshold for all 12 vegetation monitoring plots at the Project site were
attained and are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C The average density of total planted stems or
tract mean (including volunteers), based on data collected from the 12 monitoring plots during Year 1
monitoring, is 1,184 stems per acre, this further indicates that the Project site is on track for meeting the
minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and the final success criteria of
260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 It should be noted that most vegetation plots exhibiting a lower
planted stem density count are offset by the presence of thriving volunteer species, thereby boosting or
increasing the stem density for a given plot and the tract in general upon inclusion of volunteers for total
stems per acre
Tables 5a through 5d (Appendix B) indicate the Project site was geomorphically stable overall and
performing at 100% for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral /vertical stability and in- stream
structure performance categories UT 1 Reach B was performing at 100% for all sub - categories South Fork
Hoppers Creek Reaches 1 and 2, and UT2 (Reaches A and B) had sub - categories receiving scores of less than
100% namely due to small localized areas of bank scour and/or piping under structures Stream problem
areas (SPAs) correlating with these areas of instability for these three project reaches were documented and
summarized in Table 5e of Appendix B A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream
stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, CCPV figures,
supporting data tables, and photo logs
The six permanent cross - sections along the Project site show that there has been little adjustment to stream
dimension overall within the Project reach since construction The riffle and pool cross - sections located on
UT1B, X9 and X10 respectively, exhibited small decreases in bankfull area, width, and maximum depth due
to minor aggradation within the channel and floodplain, and bank height ratio slightly increased to between
12 to 1 3 respectively as a result of the floodplain deposition However, grade control structures (constructed
riffles and log sills) continue to help maintain the overall profile desired on UTIB with consistent pool
spacing, riffle slopes and riffle lengths as compared to the baseline conditions profile Aggraded areas are
evident within the upstream limits of the UT B profile, and may stem from a transition to a lower channel
slope upon entering the upstream project limits, but should flush downstream during larger storm flows over
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

time The profile for South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2) indicates that the bed features are
generally stable as well, pools are well - maintained, having increased in depth in many areas, while pool
spacing has decreased from the development of micro -pools nested within larger pools located in meander
bends Six cover log (invert) survey points were removed from the mainstem profile plot since they were
mistakenly symbolized as log sills during the baseline survey and erroneously appeared in the maximum
depth of pools on the profile overlay for Year 1 The pebble count data for South Fork Hoppers Creek and
UT1B indicate that the stream is moving fines through the system and larger pebbles are making up a greater
percentage of the bed material The site was found to have had at least two bankfull events based on crest
gauge readings Information on these events is provided in Table 12 of Appendix E
It should be noted that many pools located downstream of log sills have shown a significant increase in depth
of a foot or more along Reaches 1 and 2 and UT1B since the baseline survey The profile indicates that the
maximum depth (dma,,) of the majority of these pools along these reaches is at or within the stable design
tolerance originally proposed for these constructed Rosgen C type channels— reaches 1 and 2 were designed
with a dma, ranging between 2 and 2 7 feet and UTIB with a dm ranging between 1 and 2 feet There are
ax
three pools located on South Fork Hoppers Creek mainstem (Reaches 1 and 2) and three pools located on
UT1B where dma,, design values were exceeded, or reported to be greater than 2 7 and 2 feet respectively, one
of the three pools along the mainstem is located downstream of the cross -vane These pools are
approximately located at stations 16 +16, 19 +40, and 20 +21 along the mainstem, and at stations 19 +19,
19 +31, and 19 +44 along UT1B All these pools coincide with that portion of the longitudinal channel profile
having the highest valley and channel slope of each reach except for the pool located at station 16 +16 along
the mainstem The significant increase in pool depths in these areas may be correlated to areas of higher
vertical energy dissipation due to higher valley /channel slopes as compared with shallower pools located in
flatter areas of the profile In- stream structures located upstream and downstream of these deep pools are
stable and holding grade, and pool length adjustment has been minimal as a result These deep pools are
providing excellent in- stream habitat structure Pool depths (of all pools) within the Project are expected to
fluctuate and adjust in response to storm events and sediment input of various magnitudes as the channel
maintains the average channel geometry over time Baker will continue to monitor these pools during
subsequent assessments
Based on the first growing season following site construction (March 30, 2011 - November 2, 2011), three of
the four wetland areas met the success criteria for Monitoring Year 1 Groundwater conditions at Gauges 2,
3, and 4 each indicated saturated conditions existed for 86% to 100% of the time Gauge 1 is located
downstream of the easement crossing of South Fork Hoppers Creek in an area that was historically drier than
the other wetland areas and failed to meet the wetland success criteria Although there were several episodes
where the wetland around Gauge 1 experienced saturated soil conditions, the longest period the site remained
saturated was 10 consecutive days A summary plot of wetland gauge data as it relates to monthly
precipitation is provided in Figure 7 of Appendix E, wetland areas and corresponding gauges are illustrated in
the CCPV sheets (Figure2) in Appendix B
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment, and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in
the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can
be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly
Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's websrte It should be noted that the Baseline Monitoring
Report and Mitigation Plan for this Project site is included with the summary of constructed design
approaches for the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project (EEP Project No 737), a nearby project site that
was designed and constructed in conjunction with the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project as part of the same EEP on -call design and construction services contract All raw data supporting
the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five -year monitoring plan for the Project site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetation,
stream, and wetland components of the project The methodology and report template used to evaluate these
three components adheres to the EEP monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will
continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years The specific locations of monitoring
features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross - sections, reference photo stations and wetland/crest
gauges, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B
The majority of Year 1 monitoring data was collected in May 2012 and September 2012 All visual site
assessment and vegetation monitoring plot data was collected on May 30`h All stream survey (channel
dimension and profile) and sediment data were collected between September 10th and 12'h Stream survey
data was collected using a Topcon GRS -1 network Rover GPS unit which collects point data with an accuracy
of less than one tenth of a foot
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices installed Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension
(cross - sections), profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows,
and reference sites documented by photographs A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events The methods used and any related success criteria are described
below for each parameter For monitoring stream success criteria, 6 permanent cross - sections, 1 crest gauge,
and 39 photo identification points were installed
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Six permanent cross - sections were installed throughout the entire project area Cross- sections
selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross - section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used Each of the three
restored Project reaches, Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1B, contains one riffle
and one pool cross - section A common benchmark will be used for cross - sections and consistently
referenced to facilitate comparison of year -to -year data The cross - sectional surveys will include
points measured at mayor breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water,
and thalweg, if the features are present Riffle cross - sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System (Rosgen, 1994), and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type
There should be little change in as-built cross - sections If changes do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e g , down -
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio) Cross - sectional data is presented in
Figure 3 of Appendix D
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed for the entire restored lengths of Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork
Hoppers Creek and UT1 B, and are provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D Longitudinal profiles will be
replicated annually during the five year monitoring period
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles Include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e g, riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth Elevations of grade control structures were also Included in the longitudinal
profiles surveyed Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle during
annual geomorphic surveys of the Project site One sample was collected at the riffle cross - section
corresponding with each of the three restored Project reaches for a total of three sediment samples
(cross - sections X5, X7, X9) These samples, combined with evidence provided by changes in cross -
section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream
adjusts to upstream sediment loads Significant changes in sediment gradation will be evaluated with
respect to stream stability and watershed changes Bed material distribution data are located in Figure
5 of Appendix D
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
crest gauges and photographs One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the right top of bank at station 15 +10 The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with
the top of bank (bankfull) elevation The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site
visits, and are checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred Photographs
are used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplam during
monitoring site visits
Two bankfull flow events must be documented at the crest gauge within the 5 -year monitoring period
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or until the monitoring period ends
If two bankfull events have not been documented at the end of 5 years the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will have to decide on an appropriate course of action
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually Reference stations were photographed
during the as -built survey, this will be repeated for at least five years following construction Reference
photos are taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet Permanent markers will
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period Selected
site photographs are shown in Appendix B
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the`right and left banks at each permanent cross - section A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross - section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
to document bank and riparian conditions Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain
the same area in each photo over time
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Photographs of primary grade control structures (I e vanes and weirs), along the restored streams are
Included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations Photographers will make every
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time
Lateral and structure photographs are used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, structure function, and stability, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
subjectively Lateral photos should not Indicate excessive erosion or degradation of the banks A series of
photos over time should Indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure
function
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment Involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the Integrity and overall performance of in- stream structures throughout the Project
reach as a whole Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, are also
measured and scored The entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed
profile (riffle /pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures Photos were taken at
every stream photo reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAS
which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures A more detailed summary
of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which
includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and SPA photos
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community In order to
determine If the criteria are achieved, twelve vegetation monitoring quadrants were Installed across the
Project sites, which included one wetland vegetation plot The total number of quadrants was calculated using
the CVS -NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2 2 7 (CVS - NCEEP, 2007) The size of individual quadrants
varies from 100 - square meters for tree species to 1- square meter for herbaceous vegetation Level 1 CVS
vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall At the
end of the first growing season during baseline surveys, species composition, density, and survival were
evaluated Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include diameter,
height, density, and coverage quantities Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be
determined Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
years Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots Reference photos of tree and
herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year As part of the visual site assessment
conducted on May 3O`h, 2012, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains
(wetlands), and terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance, this also Included the documentation of
invasive species and potential WAS which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV
figures A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation condition assessment
can be found in Appendix B which Includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and photo logs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

2.3 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored /enhanced wetland areas to document
hydrologic conditions at the Project site These four wetland gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures found
in Appendix B Installation and monitoring of the groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance
with the USACE standard methods outlined in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02 (July 2000)
Precipitation data from a nearby meteorological station (NC -MD -2) will also be polled annually for the five
years of groundwater monitoring conducted post - construction, this station is located in close proximity to
Marion, NC This data will be obtained from the State's Climate Office website (CRONOS 2012)
Baker used DRAINMOD (Version 5 1) to develop hydrologic simulation models that represented conditions
at a variety of locations across the Project site DRAINMOD indicated wetland hydrology would occur for
approximately 6 -12% of the growing season Based on these findings, it was determined that success criteria
for wetland hydrology will be met when each wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for
at least 9% of the growing season, or 19 consecutive days
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2007 CVS -NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v 2 2 7 University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC
Lee, M, Peet R, Roberts, S, Wentworth, T 2007 CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Rivers Catena 22 169 -199
US Army Corps of Engineers, WRP, July 2000 Technical Notes ERDC TN- WRAP -00 -02
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

u
0
0
APPENDIX A
aPROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a

C
�l
C1
D
0
0
fl
0
G
it
i�
fl
�l
L�

�-
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along
the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies
or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and
timeframes of their defined roles Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities
requires prior coordination with EEP
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Site:
• From I-40, take State Route 226 South (140 exit 86)
• Continue approximately 10 miles south
• Turn right onto Landis Lane Continue approximately I mile
• Bear right at a fork in the road to stay on Landis Lane
• Continue approximately 2 miles
• Melton Farm will be on the left, at sharp curve to the right
1 "x "
4
URKE
ENC ROAD ' 4 t �F
CATA BAS aiN ' Y yt2V` X
t z' ; Gl
a ( h 03-0 0 �'� Qa
V Il?CDOWE t�� ro �1 MaiSo c
NCH B A
04y03�0 a ,.� j — "h K CATAWP �k
oM�0 6i a r r
�NCOM J i
S k M Untai ,• '4.., ,„.,„,.,,'^^ +�. 4 , 221 CA
0
ITUC 03050101 20
®• �y� > t x s*a� _ �� South Fork Hoppers Creek
r
/ aw 4 `� w. N A ' 1 1, W, I V I ! \ I I t � e6
Map Vicinity Figure 1. Vicinity Map LEGEND:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC Project Area 1�
/' NCDWQ Sub -basin
NCEEP Project No 92251 Counties
November 2012 USGS Hydrologic Unit
McDowell County, NC , 0S
$tim #
) )ai � ltin h 0 2 5 5Mdes
PROf RAN

Table 1 Project Components
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
Project Segment or Reach
Fatstmg Feet/Acres•
Mitigation Type
Approach
Linear Footage or
Stationing
Comment
ID
Acrea e"
Installed in- stream structures to control grade, reduce bank
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
erosion and provide habitat Priority I was implemented to
Reach I
R
PI
783
10+00 - 17 +83
reestablish stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the
1 350
historic floodplam
Installed m -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
R
PI
445
17 +83 - 22 +48 ""
erosion and provide habitat Priority I was implemented to
Reach 2
reestablish stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the
historic floodplam
P
-
722
-
Preservation A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
implemented to on right and left stream banks
UT I - Reach A
782
Regraded right bank to create a bankfull bench and implemented
EII
P4
60
7 +86 - 8 +46•"
riparian plantings to improve stability and reduce erosion
P
-
51
9+49 - 10+00'••
Preservati on A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
implemented to on right and left stream banks
Installed in -stream structures to increase habitat diversity
UT - Reach B
970
R
PI
1 065
10+00 - 20 +85-
Installed fencing to restrict cattle access Priority I was
implemented to restore dimension, pattern, and profile
UT2 - Reach A
366
Ell
P4
379
10+00 - 13+79
Regraded banks and implemented a step -pool channel where
feasible Implemented fencing to restrict hog access
Regraded banks and implemented riparian plantings to improve
UT2 - Reach B
802
Ell
P4
818
13 +79 - 22 +17'+
reach stability and reduce erosion
Uf3
298
P
-
298
_
Preservation A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
implemented to on right and left stream banks
Regraded the wetland boundary to improve hydrologic rmputs and
E
-
033
-
maximize surface storage
Wetland
033
R
-
1 23
-
Restored wetland hydrology to the original stream alignment
' Existing reach breaks and design reach breaks varied based on initial geomorphic differences and design requirements
'" Stationing includes 20 ft stream crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length
— During construction enhancement slated to occur between 9+49 and 10+00 of UTIB was shifted upstream into UTIA per conversations with EEP and CEC The section slated for enhancement at the
top of UTI B (9 +49 to 10+00) became presevatton upon the field change
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rrpar
Upland
(LF)
Wetland (Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
n -4 -
Rrverine
Non- Rrvenne
`,
W -rte % _W1 4k "
Restoration
2 293
1 23
Enhancement
033
Enhancement I
M :?a ;°
.�:</ v , 4,'W <f —0 .e > .:`a« V010"'at TA,
Enhancement It
1 257
2 �. %
I e''«;Pr!"'V
r .�.rJ!
, %
Creation
Preservation
1 071
HQ Preservatton
., -�.,
" 1' ,—.
1 56
000
1'.
Totals
4 621
156

Table 2. Protect Activity and Reporting History
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 1 year 8 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 1
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Jul -07
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Jan-08
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Aug -08
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jun -09
Construction Begins
Jun -10
N/A
Jun -10
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Nov -10
N/A
Jan -I 1
Planting of live stakes
Mar -11
N/A
Mar -11
Planting of bare root trees
Mar -11
N/A
Mar -11
End of Construction
Mar -11
N/A
Jun -11
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Nov -10
N/A
Jun -11
Year I Monitoring
Dec -12
Sep -12
Nov -12
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -14
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -15
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A

I
Table 3.
Project Contacts Table
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr, Ste 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact
Scott Hunt, Tel 919 - 459 -9003
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Stephen James, Tel 919 - 921 -1116
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Stephen James, Tel [phone]
Sedding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Stephen James, Tel 919 - 921 -1116
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel 336 - 384 -5323
Profession Land Surveyor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Contact
Profession Land Surveyor
David Turner, Tel 919 - 875 -1378
As -Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel 919 - 875 -1378
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel 828 - 350 -1408
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel 828 - 350 -1409
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Carmen McIntyre, Tel 828 - 350 -1410

Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
Project County
McDowell County NC
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Inner Piedmon Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
Project 03050101040020 References 03040103050 -090 (Spencer Creek) -080 ( Bames Creek), 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek), 03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch)
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
Project 03- 08 -30, References 03 -07 -09 (Spencer Creek and Barnes Creek), 03 -06 -06 (Morgan Creek) 03 -04 -02 (Sal's Branch)
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan 9
Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) 2003
WRC Class arm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design ph ase 9
None
Restoration Component Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers -
Reach I
South Fork
Hoppers - Reach 2
UT - Reach A
(Preservation)
UT - Reach A
(Enhancement 2)
UTI - Reach B
(Preservation)
UT - Reach B
UT2 - Reach A
UT2 - Reach B
UT3
Drainage area (sq mm)
048
052
006
006
008
008
004
007
002
Stream order
2nd
2nd
1st
1st
1st
lst
0
0
0
Restored length
783
445
722
60
51
1 065
379
818
298
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Percnmal
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed a (Rural, Urban, Developing etc)
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution e )
Developed Low - Medium Intensity
-
-
-
-
-
-
A Cultivated Crops
1 5
-
-
-
-
Ag-Pasture/Hay
153
Forested
608
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc)
224
Watershed impervious cover %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ AU/Index number
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
NCDWQ classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
303d listed 9
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed se ment9
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing orstressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total acreage of easment
101
Total planted arcea a as part of the restoration
5 7
Ros en classification of pre-existing
G5c
C4 /1
E5
E5
G5
G5c
Ros en classification of As -built
C5
C5
B
B
C5
C5
G5 /B5
G5c
B
Valley type
Alluvial
Alluvial
-
-
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
-
Valley sloe
0 01 15111ft
0 0115 ft/ft
0 023 ft/ft
0 023 ft/ft
0 034 ft/ft
0 023 ft/ft
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toe slope ranee g 2 -3 %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
Cowardm classification
Trout waters designation
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc 9 (V9N)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Series
IoA
IoA
EwE
EwE
IoA
IoA
HeD
HeD /loA
EwE
Depth
10
10
5
6
10
10
5 8
5,8/10
5
Clay %
18
18
2520
2520
18
18
25
25/ 18
25,20
K
015
015
017,010
017,010
015
015
024,017
024,017/015
017 010
T
5
5
3/5
3/5
5
5
5
515
3/5

n
0
0
0
0
0
c
r�
n
0
0
0
n
1
1
APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

D
C
CI
0
n
n
n
0
n
0
0
0

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 1
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
June 2012
Submitted To NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No 004518
Submitted By Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
797 Haywood Avenue, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
License F -1084, Baker Project No 128244
Baker
Y
o stem
11 emen
PROGRAM
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem' Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 1 of 6

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report summarizes overall stream and vegetation conditions as part of an interim site
assessment conducted in conjunction with the Year 1 monitoring services for the Hoppers
Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site located in McDowell County, NC This
site assessment will be included as part of a more comprehensive annual monitoring report to
be completed and submitted later this year (fall 2012) The report describes project
objectives, discusses the assessment methodology, summarizes assessment results, and
documents potential stream and vegetation problem areas (SPAS and VPAs respectively)
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the site assessment were to
• provide a general overview of stream morphological stability,
• provide a general overview of vegetation conditions,
• identify and document potential SPAS and VPAs
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and inform ation are provided following the narrative portion of this rep ort
and include
• current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 through 3),
• visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Tables 5a through 5d),
• SPA inventory table (Table 5e),
• vegetation condition assessment table (Tables 6a and 6b),
• VPA inventory table (Table 6c),
• stream station photos,
• SPA photos,
• vegetation monitoring plot photos,
• VPA photos
2 Methodology
The methodology used for assessing overall stream and vegetation conditions at the Hoppers
Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site adhered to the most recent NCEEP
monitoring guidance documents (dated November 7, 2011) The site assessment was
comprised of two components, a visual stream morphology stability assessment and a
vegetation condition assessment, both of which are described in more detail in the following
sections of this report The assessment was strictly qualitative except for that of the
vegetation monitoring plot counts, which were conducted in order to determine whether or
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 2 of 6

not the success criteria was met per plot for illustrative purposes on the CCPV figures All
other vegetation monitoring plot data (tables) will be included in Appendix C of the Year 1
annual monitoring report to be submitted later this year
The Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site was evaluated as four
separate project reaches for the visual stream morphology stability assessment as they were
for the Final Baseline Monitoring Document/As -Built Report South Fork Hoppers Creek
(SFHC) Reaches 1 and 2, UT Reach B, and UT2 (Reaches A and B) SFHC Reaches 1 and
2 are delineated by the confluence of UT 1 Reach B where SFHC Reach 1 is located upstream
of the confluence and SFHC Reach 2 is located downstream of the confluence UT2 Reach
A extends from the upstream limits located within the conservation easement boundary to the
downstream limits of the constructed step -pool channel, and UT2 Reach B includes the
remaining corridor located downstream of the step -pool channel until its confluence with
SFHC Reach 1
Due to expected performance issues related to the persistence of invasive species on UT2
(Reaches A and B), vegetation conditions for it were assessed independently from the
remainder of the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site which
exhibited uniform conditions, and thus resulted in two distinct vegetation assessment tracts
Vegetation conditions for both tracts are reported in Tables 6a and 6b Baker performed the
visual site assessment and collected vegetation monitoring plot data on May 30th, 2012
2.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphology stability assessment involved the evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures
throughout each of the four project stream reaches Habitat parameters, such as riffle
embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, were also measured and scored Each stream
reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle /pool facets),
both stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures Photos were taken at every existing
stream photo point (from the as- built) and in locations of potential SPAS which were
recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures
2.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
The vegetation condition assessment involved the evaluation of vegetation within the 10 1
acre conservation easement and included assessing the performance of planted vegetation
along stream banks, floodplams, and terraces as well as the documentation of invasive
species The assessment of planted vegetation was confined to the 5 7 acres of riparian
buffer planting zones located within the easement boundary as part of the restoration design,
whereas, invasive vegetation and encroachment areas of invasive species were evaluated for
the entire 10 1 acre easement boundary Vegetation plot data was collected as part of this
assessment to determine the success criteria for illustrative purposes on the CCPV figures
Photos were recorded at each vegetation monitoring plot and in locations of potential VPAs
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 3 of 6

throughout the easement, such as areas exhibiting sparse or slow growth /vigor, low stem
density, and invasive areas of concern
2.3 Post - processing of Field Data
The post - processing of field data consisted of the download and organization of photos into
respective photo logs (stream and vegetation), creating the CCPV figures in GIS and
AutoCAD using the field- mapped SPAS and VPAs, populating the SPA and VPA tables, and
finally scoring the performance of the four stream reaches and two vegetation tracts in terms
of stream morphological stability and vegetation condition using assessment forms provided
by NCEEP
3 Summary of Results
3.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Tables 5a through 5d summarize the performance of each of the four project stream reaches
mentioned above for the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project in terms of
lateral (stream bank) and vertical (channel bed) stability while evaluating the functionality
and integrity of m -stream structures Engineered in- stream structures evaluated for the
assessment of this project reach consisted of constructed riffles, log sills (drops), cross vanes,
log vanes, root wads, geolifts, and brush mattresses Constructed riffles were justified for
inclusion in the evaluation of structures since they are the predominant grade control
structure used throughout the site, however, they were only assessed for the `overall
integrity' and `grade control' parameter categories in Tables 5a through 5d
As Tables 5a through 5d indicate, the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project site was geomorphically stable overall and performing at 100% as the design intended
for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral/vertical stability and m- stream
structure performance categories UT1 Reach B was performing 100% for all sub - categories
SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT2 (Reaches A and B) had sub - categories receiving scores of
less than 100% namely due to small localized areas of bank scour and /or to structural piping
SPAS correlating with these areas of instability for these three project reaches were
documented and summarized in Table 5e
SPA and SPA2 were characterized by small localized areas of bank scour and are located
across the channel from one another on SFHC Reach 1, SPA is located along the left bank
and SPA2 is located along the right bank a little further downstream The invert along these
two sills are sloped to one side (slanted) and oriented within the channel such that flow is
being directed toward the bank immediately downstream of where the log sill ties into the
bank, causing bank erosion Banks of both SPAS are vertical and exposed, and warrant
stabilizing to prevent the spread of lateral instability further downstream
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 4 of 6

SPA3 and SPA4 involve the piping of flow and bank scour, respectively, observed at the
cross vane located downstream of the easement crossing in SFHC Reach 2 Since
construction, flow has continued to pipe (SPA3) under the downstream sill and through both
cross vane arms as a possible result of poor soil compaction, inadequate silting, and /or failing
filter fabric The piping of flow through the vane arms may have become exacerbated by the
bank scour and recent exposure of macropores reported along the back of the right vane arm
for SPA4 Bankfull events appear to be diverting excess flow into the left and right
floodplams, and scouring the back of the right (and end of the left) vane arm due to the
transition of expanded flow from the (wide) upstream easement crossing area to a narrower
cross - sectional area downstream Scoured areas around both vane arms should be stabilized
to prevent additional piping that could potentially lead to the compromising of structural
integrity over time
SPAS consists of the piping of flow through a riffle cascade (log sill) structure in UT2 Reach
A The structure is vertically and laterally stable and should seal over time
The heavily armored, ephemeral drainage located near the upstream extents of UT2 Reach A
was inspected for overall structural integrity and stability even though the short reach is not
being sought for mitigation credit Upon inspection, the channel bed of the downstream riffle
cascade had eroded (SPA6) Coarse riprap material had been deposited downstream atop the
lowest elevation boulder sill, exposing the underlying filter fabric as a result
3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Tables 6a and 6b summarize the vegetation conditions of the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
Stream Restoration site Table 6a references the vegetation assessment tract associated with
SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT Reach B, Table 6b references the vegetation assessment
tract associated with UT2 (Reaches A and B) The success criteria or survival threshold for
all 12 vegetation monitoring plots located throughout both vegetation assessment tracts, were
attained
Vegetation conditions for SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT Reach B were good and
performing close to 100% for both, the planted acreage and mvasive /encroachment area
categories, as shown in Table 6a Two bare areas, VPA1 and VPA2, were documented in the
wetland area located in the right floodplain along SFHC Reach 1 The combined total area
for these VPAs was 0 12 acres, or 2 8% of the planted area acreage for this assessment tract
The two VPAs have remained somewhat bare since construction was completed This could
possibly be due to standing water from frequent inundation and /or the washing away of
dispersed seeds by frequent overbank flows
The UT2 vegetation assessment tract did not perform as well because of the widespread
infestation of invasive species associated with VPA3 and VPA4 These two invasive VPAs
were solely confined to UT2 Reach B and made up a combined total of 0 27 acres, or 18% of
the 1 5 acre easement area for the UT2 vegetation assessment tract Invasive vegetation in
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 5 of 6

these VPAs includes multiflora rose, privet, and Japanese stilt grass VPA3 and VPA4
border existing tree lines or stands throughout the UT2 Reach B riparian corridor and
generally occupy the tops of both banks and portions of each terrace as well, VPA3 extends
into a portion of vegetation monitoring plot 13 where privet was reported Existing stands of
trees (such as those in UT2 Reach B) precluded removal of mvasives during construction and
these can often be a source of invasive vegetation even after treatment since the soil matrix is
undisturbed, leaving roots and seeds intact These areas were previously treated but were
exhibiting new growth and are still persisting
Year 1 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc June 26, 2012
Page 6 of 6

--- -- CE--------- CE- - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- -- •— •— •— • —• —•— ASBUILT CENTERLINE
Te TS ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
FENCE
X -# CROSS SECTION
O PHOTO ID POINT
VP
1
UT2
I
VEGETATION PLOT
WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
- SFH -10 +00
1 S�GFORKSHOPIPERS CREEK
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
PIDt - 62
w - +
V$2
®G4 5
\� VPA1
12
FENCE
72E2
1260` -
WG3 SFA1
.® +
SPA.2
,* • Ilk
f{ �
40 Q 40 80
VEG PLOT ATTAINMENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
®VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
DEGRADATION
Y
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
931/647
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
Y
769/890
18
Y
809/567
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
Y
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
UNDERCUT BANKS
688/607
WLVP1
Y
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
WETLAND GAGE MEETING CRITERIA
■
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
•
WETLAND GAGE NOT MEETING CRITERIA
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
12
FENCE
72E2
1260` -
WG3 SFA1
.® +
SPA.2
,* • Ilk
f{ �
40 Q 40 80
VEG PLOT ATTAINMENT
VEG
PLOT ID
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTEDS
TEM COUNT
14
Y
2023/850
15
Y
1174/567
16
Y
931/647
17
Y
769/890
18
Y
809/567
19
Y
405/486
20
Y
688/607
WLVP1
Y
1659/647
,268 - - --
i
— j"
�J; alma &
PID7
i WG2 FLOW
UT1
o �f
019 SPA4
;UT1B)
SPA3
FENCE
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +48
7
- SFH -22 +47.76
END AS-BUILT,
LONGITUDINAL PROF71T+;;,,
IMAGE SOUPCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
Al
N �
4
me
Z
U
W
� O
Z
Oax c\1 ~' z W
W
z
C
w N �
(U w 0
Ix
wJ
CL
a-
0
U
m
J
r L7
} T�T
L i b
LL
�U
W
128244
11/27/2012
DESIGNED: - --
DRAWN: MDR
I of 3

VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) VEG PLOT ATTAINMENT
----- cE--------- cE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
— - — - — - —' —' —' — — ASBUILT CENTERLINE INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR EROSION SURVIVAL LLN
TB ASBUILT TOP OF BANK VEG TOTAL /PLANTEDS o
�
— — ASBUILT CHANNEL
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) PLOT ID THRESHOLD TEM COUNT W - � �
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA DEGRADATION MET? BIZ
�« FENCE 21 Y 1174/1335 g�
X -# VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) l W= t g ..
CROSS SECTION (ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA) ■ STRUCTURE PROBLEM 22 Y 1821/931 s
O PHOTO ID POINT STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) 23 Y 607/1012
■ VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA ■ UNDERCUT BANKS
Fv-pl VEGETATION PLOT (NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
■ STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
F1 WETLAND (NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEM)
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
UT1B -10 +00
BEGIN A�-BUILT
UTIA
LONGl�U INAL
PROFILE
(NOT SURVEYED)
------- CE - - - - -- CE- - - - - -- ----- CE - - - - -- E
+
o I Ow D4,- t- f
END UT1A � ID1
° \
_ STA 9 +49 ..
BEGIN UTtB.:-- - -_' ?N \,. _.o tG72 fPID \ 7 �c`' o b(�\ 1.�
3J PID
2 PID v D PID PID13
90c
i27-1 PID7, �- _
6y
40 0 40 80
PID1 26
UT1 -B
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +85
T
�7 06k .�
/ lI •PID19 .
�0 20 +8$.22
END UTIB
I •
31 bf,
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY. 2010
4
me
Z_
W
LL O' Q
CL'
0 CL
P F (V
ajp0 W
2-z w
LLI0 cq
w N E
W 0
W
O_ O
cn U
m
t�
L: m
g a
rn
LL
u
W
128244
r:
11127/2012
DESICNEO:
DRAWN: 11DB
2 of 3
h�
PID1
T
�7 06k .�
/ lI •PID19 .
�0 20 +8$.22
END UTIB
I •
31 bf,
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY. 2010
4
me
Z_
W
LL O' Q
CL'
0 CL
P F (V
ajp0 W
2-z w
LLI0 cq
w N E
W 0
W
O_ O
cn U
m
t�
L: m
g a
rn
LL
u
W
128244
r:
11127/2012
DESICNEO:
DRAWN: 11DB
2 of 3

---- CE--------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— •— •— •— • —. —•—
— ASBUILT CENTERLINE
TO TO
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
—
— ASBUILT CHANNEL
TEM COUNT
FENCE
PLAIN AREA
X -#
CROSS SECTION
O
PHOTO ID POINT
F_vp]
VEGETATION PLOT
F]
WETLAND
(ALL PLOTS
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) F1 STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR EROSION
■VEGETATION
VEG
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
DEGRADATION
(SPA)
TEM COUNT
BARE FLOOD
PLAIN AREA
2145/728
VEGETATION
PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
(SPA)
(ALL PLOTS
CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
UNDERCUT BANKS
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING
PROBLEM)
PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING
/COLLAPSE
(NO AREAS EXHIBITING
PROBLEM)
V7--G PLOT ATTAINMENT
VEG
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
TOTAL /PLANTEDS
PLOT ID
M ET?
TEM COUNT
13
Y
2145/728
j
s..,; 130
iTT2 -12 +53 50
BEGIN AS- BUILT
E r� LONG. PROFILE
jRIFFLE 1280.91
60 Q 30 60
_ -- _ - - - -
1280 -
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 1 MONITORING
STA. 12+54-13+79
VPA3
- --C_-
a
FENCE
I, C
�PID3
i
UT2
NOT SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
ku
� R
z �
s z >A LL
4
0
me
4z
U
W
Wa
~z� (V
m O Z W
�0
Ix cn
0 LLJ 0 LL
W � J
a
o_ O
U
2
1 .-
�1
it
E U.
i_
W
11127/20132
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: jam$
3 of 3

Table Sa Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Msaesseg Lengm
iLrl
too
the sill
11
11
2a Piping
Major
Channel Sub-
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
Stable,
Number wi
exceed 15%
djusted % for
Channel
Category
Pool forming structures main aining - Max Pool Deptil
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Call
Metric
as intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Ve
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate
6
6
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
13
13
100%
r_oDdition
2 Length
8
6
100%
4 Thalweg
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
position
2 Thahve centenn at downstream of meander Glide
7
7
100%
2 Bank
1
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
toured/
and /or scour and erosion
2
16
99%
0
0
99%
t rued. -..r
Banks undercutloverhanama to the extent that mass wasting
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grace across
the sill
11
11
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
3 Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%
13
13
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures main aining - Max Pool Deptil
11
11
100%
100%
100%
100%

Table 5b Visual Stream Moroholoav Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
rssessea 'engw
tart
rva
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
e,
Number wi
oo age wt
lusted o or
Category
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
per As -Built
Se ments
Footage
Intended
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
Wood Ve
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 A radation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate
3
3
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
10
10
100%
2 Length
3
3
100%
4 Thalweg
1 Thahveg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
position
2 Thalwe centering at downstream of meander Glide
4
4
100%
2 Bank
1
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
ScouredlErodincy
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2 Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
ars likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Mass Wastm
1212 slum ing calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill 10 1(
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms 7 8
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% 9 1(
Habitat P forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depfr- 14 1e
88%

Table 5c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT1 Reach B
Nssesseo Lengm
tart
WOO
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
Major
Channel Sub-
100%
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
Stable,
Numberw t
oo age wi
tus for
Channel
Category
log.
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Ve g
Woody Vag
Woody Ve
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation
10
10
0
0
100%
Iml
s not
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
16
100%
2 Riffle Condition
10
10
100%
1 Texture /Substrate
12
12
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
26
26
100%
2 Length
16
16
100%
4 Thalweg
rosition
1 Thalwe centering at upstream of meander bend Run)
16
16
100%
2 Theta centenn at downstream of meander Glide
16
16
100%
2 Bank
1
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
cou ed/ rodi
and /or scour and erosion
0
0
100% 1
0
0
100%
2 Undercut
Banks undercuttoverhanging to the extent that mass wasting
Engineering 2 Grade Control urage control structures exrnomng ms
Structures the sill
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flov
3 Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures ext
exceed 15%
4 Habitat Pool forming structures main ammg -
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
log.
38
36
100
across
22
22
100%
arms
10
10
100%
Iml
s not
16
16
100%
10
10
100%

Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT2 (Reaches A and B)
mssesseu Lengm
ter/
1 11
Ma /or Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun o
0 a e,
um er wi
oo age wi
/use or
Category
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Ve
Woody Vea
Woody Vag
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate
5
5
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
5
5
100%
2 Length
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 Thalweg
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
positron
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
2 Bank
1
Scoured/ Eroding
and /or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2 Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Mass Wastinq
Bank slumping calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineering
1 Overall Integrity
Structures h sically intact ynth no dislodged boulders or l0
10
10
100%
Structures
2 Grade Control
ra a conVOl structures ex i iting maintenance of gra a across
the sill
5
5
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus
4
5
80 °k
3 Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%
5
5
100
A wr.,•�•
00 ormmp structures main ainma — Max Pool eo
5
5
inn °i

Table 5e Stream Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project Project No 92251
SFHC Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Scour eroding the left bank immediately
downstream of log sill invert/left bank tie -in
14 +20 to 14 +26
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPA I
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
directed at the left banl, by log sill orientation
Bank Scour
Scour eroding the right bank immediately
downstream of log sill inverdnght bank tie -in
14 +40 to 14 +50
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPA2
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
v
directed at the left bank by log sill orientation
SFHC Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Piping of flow through both vane anus around
Engineering structures - Piping
19 +23
the downstream, lower eleveation sill possibly
SPA3
a result of poor sod compaction, inadequate
silting, and/or failing filter fabric installation
Scour and piping along the back of the right
vane arm and at the downstream end of the left
vane arm Appears to be caused from a
Engineering structures - Back and end of vane
19 +23
combination of poor soil compaction around
SPA4
arm scour
the vane arm and the diversion of flow around
the vane arm into the right floodplaui by the
upstream expansion of flow at the stream
crossing
UT2 Reach A
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Flow piping within riffle cascade and around
Piping
13 +40
downstream log sill due to possible tear in filter
SPAS
fabric or lack of sealing from re -sorting of
alluvial material and silt
WiP' E°hemem u sreextntsof earn
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Scour of nffle cascade from large storm events
Riffle cascade downstream of second
over time has eroded the channel bed,
Bed Scour/Degradation
depositing the coarse riffle substrate
SPA6
boulder sill
downstream, and exposed the underlying filter
fabric
wot tieing sougnt for mmgarmn

Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, UT1 Reach B
riameo Acreage
4 s
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both wood and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
Eerie
2
0 12
2 8%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
oo y s em ensi ies c ear y e ow arget eves ase on , or
5. Easement Encroachment
5 stem count criteria
0 1 acres
0
000
00%
Areas
Z 141 NO I
none
NA
0
Q•'
00%
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates
with woody stems o a size class that are o wows y small given
or Vi or
the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
00%
uiaive s
t7
Casement Acreage s b
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as po f gons at map scale )
1000 SF
NA
0
000
00%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
00%

Table 6b Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID UT2 Reaches A and B
tasemem Acreage
10
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
n
Eseefigure
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or oints if too small to render as of ons at ma scale)
1000 SF
1 2
027
180%
5 Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
00%

Table 6c. Vegetation Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: Project No 92251
SFHC Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Bare Floodplam
See Plan View
Standing water from frequent inundation
VPA1
Unknown
VPA2
UT2 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Portion of Veg Plot 13 to
Rosa multi flora, Ligustrum sinense, and
downstream easement crossing (along
Microstegium vimineum persisting after
VPA3
Invasive/Exotic Populations
portions of both banks /terraces)
treatment
Downstream of easement crossing to
Rosa multi flora, Ligustrum sinense, and
confluence with SFHC (left
Microstegium vimineum persisting after
VPA4
bank/terrace)
treatment

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

SFHC PID I— Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 2 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 3 — Log vane in constructed pool
SFHC PID 4 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 5 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 6 — Log Sills and Root Wad
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
NNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

SFHC PID 7 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 9 — Constructed Riffle
SHFC PID 8 — Log Sills & Root Wad
SFHC PID 10 — Confluence of UT 1
SFHC PID 11— Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 12 — Double Drop Cross Vane below
crossing
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK -MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

SFHC PID 13 — Log Sills &
Root Wad
SFHC PID 14 — Log Sills & Root Wad
SFHC PID 17 — Constructed Riffle at downstream
terminus of project
SFHC PID 16 — Log Vane & Matted Bank
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

UT1 to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

UT I P I D I— Constructed Riffle
UT PID 2 — Constructed Riffle
UT 1 PID 3 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 4 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 5 —Constructed Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5
UT PID 6 —Log Sills

UT PID 7 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 8 — Constructed Riffle
UT 1 PID 9 — Ephemeral Pool in Right Floodplain
UT PID 10 — Log Sills
UT 1 PID I 1 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 12 — Ephemeral Pool in Right Floodplain
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

UT 1 PID 13 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 14 — Log Sill
UT1 PID 15 — Constructed Riffle below stream
UT 1 PID 16 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 17 — Log Sills
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
UT 1 PID 18 —Constructed Riffle

UT PID 19 — Constructed Riffle
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

UT2 to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

UT2 PID I — Constructed Riffle & Log Sill
UT2 PID 3 — Stream crossing
UT2 PID 2 — Constructed Riffles & Log Sills
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

SPA1— SFHC Reach 1 Left bank scour
SPA2 — SFHC Reach 1 Right bank scour
SPA4 — SFHC Reach 2 Scour around vane arm
SPAS — UT2 Reach A Piping within riffle cascade
around log sill
SPA 6 — Ephemeral drainage channel bed erosion
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

i
South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Plot Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Notes:
5/30/2012 - Photo 1: Veg Plot 13
5/30/2012 - Photo 2: Veg Plot 13: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo 3: Veg Plot 14
5/30/2012 - Photo 4: Veg Plot 14: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo 5: Veg Plot 15
5/30/2012 - Photo 6: Veg Plot 15: Herbaceous Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/30/2012 - Photo 7: Veg Plot 16
5/30/2012 - Photo 8: Veg Plot 16: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo 9: Veg Plot 17
5/30/2012 -Photo 10: Veg Plot 17: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 11: Veg Plot 18
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 12: Veg Plot 18: Herbaceous Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/30/2012 - Photo 13: Veg Plot 19
5/30/2012 - Photo 14: Veg Plot 19: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo 15: Veg Plot 20
5/30/2012 - Photo 16: Veg Plot 20: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 17: Veg Plot 21
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 18: Veg Plot 21: Herbaceous Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR I OF 5

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
Year 1 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 19: Veg Plot 22
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 20: Veg Plot 22: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 21: Veg Plot 23
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 22: Veg Plot 23: Herbaceous Plot
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 23: Veg Plot WLP1
5/30/2012 - Photo Point 24: Veg Plot WLP1: Herbaceous Plot
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

VPA1 — SFHC Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA2 — UT2 Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA3 — UT2 Reach B Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet, VPA4 — UT2 Reach B Multiflora Rose, Chinese Privet,
Japanese Stilt Grass Japanese Stilt Grass
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 MONITORING DOCUMENT
JUNE 2012, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

0
C
0
Cl
0
LI
0
0
n
0
0
u
u
u
u
0
APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Protect No. 92251
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Total/Planted Stem
Count
Tract Mean
13
Y
2145/728
1184
14
Y
2023/850
15
Y
1174/567
16
Y
931 /647
17
Y
769/890
18
Y
809/567
19
Y
405/486
20
Y
688/607
21
Y
1174/1335
22
Y
1821/931
23
Y
607/1012
WLP 1
Y
1659/647
Note *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted,stems
including volunteers (Total)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Report Prepared By
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Date Prepared
6/6/2012 12 18
Database name
cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 2 7 South Muddy_Hoppers mdb
Database location
L \Monitoring \Monitoring Guidance \Vegetation \CVS EEP Entrytool V2 2 7
Computer name
ASHEWCMCINTYR
File size
128475392
DESCRIPTIONIOF WORKSHEETS INTHIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Prol, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY r
Protect Code
92251
Protect Name
South Muddy Cr Stream Restoration
Description
This mitigation project consists of 7,389 LF of stream restoration and preservation efforts on South Muddy Creek and South
Fork Hoppers (including 1 unnamed tributary) at the Melton Farm
River Basin
Catawba
Length(ft)
7389
Stream -to -edge width (ft)
120
Area (sq m)
164733 86
Required Plots (calculated)
24
Sampled Plots
12

��
©�
©moo
©��oo
©o���■�■���o
©000000©
�
®�®
��.
���
■v�ma��
©�000000000
®voo
©��o©
�
®
®
®®
��
•
oo
©oom000000000m0000000000
®
����
'•
00
®0
®
®m0
®00m
®0
®
®
®0
®m
®om
®0®
�
����
'•
0®
®0000
®
®m0m
®0
®m
®m
©0
®
®m
®m0�0
���®
Notes CVS Level I Survey perfortned In most cases the vo hinteers observed were less than 10 cm m height The infornitinion presented is purely for prov�dmg infornaittion about the species of trees that my occupy the riparian wea that were not planted

�7
G
G
I7
L�
U
0
0
n
0
n
0
n
n
0
c
n
APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type Area Width Depth Depth
Riffle C 11.8 12.11 0.97 1.6 12.48 1 5.2 1260.24 1260.28
X5 Riffle
1262 1 _____ ____ . _ I - - _. - __ - -_ -�
1261
C
0
r
1260
w
1259
1258 +
95
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
—� Yr 1 Monitoring 2012 — 4 Asbuilt 2010 -- Bankfull
165

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature BKF Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type Area Width I I Depth
Pool 1 17.1 13.48 1 1.27 1 2.7 10.65 1 1 1 4.9 1 1260.05 1 1259.98
1263
1262
1261
0
as
1260
w 1259
1258
1257
X6 Pool
95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
—A YR 1 Monitoring 2012 —* Asbuilt 2010 -- -- Bankfull
165

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev:
Type Area Width Depth -'Depth
Riffle C 14.79 14.05 1.05 1.74 1 13.3 1 1 4.5 1 1255.11 1255.11
X7 Riffle
1257
1256
c
0
1255 -------------------
a�
w
1254
1253
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
—!— YR 1 Monitoring 2012 — * Asbuilt 2010 - --0- -- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature T e Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB flev
Pool 16.6 L 15.22 1.09 2.45 1 13.91 1 1 1 4.7 1 1252.89 1 1252.91
X8 Pool
1256 --
1255
1254
0
1253 ----------------
a�
w 1252
1251
1250
95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
—� YR 1 Monitoring 2012 0 Asbuilt 2010 -- - -- Bankfull
165 175

UT1 B
Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature W!D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB E lev
Type Area Width Depth Depth
Riffle C 2.6 5.48 0.48 0.81 11.43 1.2 8.8 1258.64 1258.82
X9 Riffle
1261
1260
0
> 1259
am
W - --
1258
1257
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
—� YR 1 Monitoring 2012 — 4 Asbuilt 2010 Bankfull

UT1 B
Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 1 Monitoring - September 2012)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature BKF Area WJD BH Ratio FIR BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type Width Depth Depth
Pool 1 1 5.1 1 9.11 1 0.56 1 1.37 1 16.34 1 1.3 1 6.8 1 1258.42 1 1258.86
1261
1260
1259
ca
a�
w 1258
1257
1256
95
X10 Pool
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
f YR 1 Monitoring 2012 — 4 Asbuilt 2010 -- o- -- Bankfull
165

South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2)
Profile Chart
Year 1 Monitoring- September 2012
1264
Twg -YR 1 2012
1262
- --- TWG- Asbuilt 2010
Reach 1
—WSF
—Top of Bank
1260
_ _'— _ O Log Sills
(Reach Break) O Cross Vanes
1258
1
1
1
I
X5 Riffle
1256
_ __ _ _ _
X6 Pool
Reach 2
�
0
1
4 1254
>
m
w
1
1
1252
X7 Riffle
1250
X8 Pool
1248
1246
1244
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190
Station

South Fork Hoppers Creek - UT1B
Profile Chart
1274 Year 1 Monitoring- September 2012
1272
- }- TWG -YR 1 2012
1270
—o—TWG- Asbuilt 2010
—m —WSF
—*—Top of Bank
1268
O Log Sills
1266
1264
O
m
W 1262
1260
1258
1256
X9 Riffle
1254
X10 Pool
1252
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990
Station

Figure 5a. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT: Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
Reach 1 - Cross - section 5 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
9/12/2012
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
now re
DATA ENTRY BY:
mw re
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
5
5%
5%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
90%
■ AB (20 10)
5%
Fine
.125-25 .25
2
2%
7%
Medium
.25 - .50
8
8%
15%
Coarse
.50-1.0
15%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
60%
15%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
15%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
15%
Fine
4.0-5.6
-----AB(2010)
15%
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
16%
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
1 %
17%
GRAVEL
Medium
11.0-16.0
2
2%
19%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
19%
Coarse
22.6-32
+ MY 1 (2012)
19%
Very Coarse
32-45
1
1 %
20%
Very Coarse
45-64
5
5%
25%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
25
25%
50%
Small
90-128
31
31%
81%
Large
128-180
13
13%
94%
Large
180-256
5
5%
99%
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100%
Small
362-512
BOULDER
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.4
D35 =
73.3
D5o =
89.4
D, =
137.9
D95 =
192.5
Dioo =
256-362
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
—
90%
■ AB (20 10)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
70%
90%
60%
v
U
a
50%
-----AB(2010)
40%
ewe
30%
U
80%
20%
+ MY 1 (2012)
"J!
10%
0i
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)
TI L
70%
60%
V
11
a+
r.
v 50%
L
40%
30%
20%
U
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mril)
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
—
90%
■ AB (20 10)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
70%
60%
v
U
a
50%
40%
ewe
30%
U
20%
"J!
10%
0i
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5b. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT: Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
Reach 2 - Cross - section 7 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
9/12/2012
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
mw re
DATA ENTRY BY:
mw re
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
Dioo =
180-256
0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-.125
90%
■ AB (2010)
0%
Fine
.125 - .25
80%
IN MY 1 (2012)
0%
Medium
.25-50 .50
70%
90%
0%
Coarse
50-1.0
2
2%
2%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
2%
Very Fine
2.0 - 2.8
2%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
2%
Fine
4.0-5.6
2%
Fine
5.6-8.0
2%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
4%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
1
1 %
5%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
U
5%
Coarse
22.6-32
5
5%
10%
Very Coarse
32-45
18
17%
27%
Very Coarse
45-64
22
21%
48%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
39
37%
85%
Small
90-128
12
11%
96%
Large
128-180
3
3%
99%
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
Small
256-362
0 %
Small
362-512
'L� A"' 'P 0 1ti", 1b� ,Lb N'� Ilk °P 1 1 'Lys ��~ 5~� 101'a
BOULDER
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
105
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
36.4
D35 =
51.8
DSO =
65.4
D84 =
89.4
D95 =
123.4
Dioo =
180-256
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
— -
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
IN MY 1 (2012)
70%
90%
�- AB (2010)
60%
a+
U
a
50%
40%
30%
U
80%
- MY 1 (2012)
20%
M.1111,
10%
0 %
00°� ON'P p p ?� 1� '1�
'L� A"' 'P 0 1ti", 1b� ,Lb N'� Ilk °P 1 1 'Lys ��~ 5~� 101'a
70%
60%
y
u 50%
i,
Qj
a 40%
1
111
11
30%
7
20%
U
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 l 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
— -
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
IN MY 1 (2012)
70%
60%
a+
U
a
50%
40%
30%
U
20%
M.1111,
10%
0 %
00°� ON'P p p ?� 1� '1�
'L� A"' 'P 0 1ti", 1b� ,Lb N'� Ilk °P 1 1 'Lys ��~ 5~� 101'a
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5c. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT: Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
UT1B - Cross - section 9 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
9/12/2012
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
mw re
DATA ENTRY BY:
mw re
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
4
4%
4%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
1
1 %
5%
Fine
.125 - .25
5%
Medium
.25- .50
1
1 %
6%
Coarse
.50-1.0
6%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
6%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
6%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
6%
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
1 %
7%
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1 %
8%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
1
1 %
9%
GRAVEL
Medium
11.0-16.0
2
2%
11
Coarse
16.0-22.6
1
1 %
12%
Coarse
22.6-32
4
4%
16%
Very Coarse
32-45
16
16%
32%
Very Coarse
45-64
21
21%
53%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
29
29%
82%
Small
90-128
11
11%
93%
Large
128-180
7
7%
100%
Large
180-256
0%
Small
256-362
'LO 11�
a0 5� 40 1�� 1fo0 ,1'�L10 �� �`� °P tip', ��O `L�� "P
Small
362-512
BOULDER
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
j Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
32.0
D35 =
47.3
D5o =
60.9
D84 =
96.0
D95=
141.1
Djoo =
128-180
UT1B to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
UT1B to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
90%
70%
60%
AB (2010)
V
a
40%
80%
MY 1 (2012)
cis
U
20%
10%
0%
'LO 11�
a0 5� 40 1�� 1fo0 ,1'�L10 �� �`� °P tip', ��O `L�� "P
Particle Size Class (mm)
70%
60%
C
u 50%
L
40%
R 30%
20%
U
�
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT1B to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2010)
80%
■ MY 1 (2012)
70%
60%
50%
V
a
40%
30%
cis
U
20%
10%
0%
'LO 11�
a0 5� 40 1�� 1fo0 ,1'�L10 �� �`� °P tip', ��O `L�� "P
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table IQ Baseline Stream Summon
Hopper, Creel- Melton Farm Nhngatn Plan EEP Pm)em No 92251
South Fort Hoppen Creel Reach 1 (783 LF)
N.M. r
USGS
Gvu a
Redornl Chive hnensi
PmKxbftng Condition
Reference Rrach(n) Dan
Refeream Rach(es) Data
A.
Jamb
Nornrood
(x.rrsv.. L19991
Sid 11 —rh
S eneer Creek Dow wtmm
Design
-bunt
Dimension and Subsmte -Rme
LL UL Eq
Met
Mein
Mod Marc SD
n
Mm
Mean
Md M.
SD n
Mm
Mean
Med Mai, SD
Met
Mean
Mad Max SD
Mr,
Morn
Med Mai,
SD
BF Width (R)
613
12
50 200 87
74
105
— 144 —
3
—
87
— -_
— 1
—
107
— — —
1
—
132
Floodpmne Widt (fl)
963
—
— — —
168
262
— 330 —
3
—
1630
— —
— 1
—
600
— — —
1
—
SM
— — —
8
—
629
BF Mean Depth (fl )
47
11
07 20 12
10
12
— 16 —
—
12
— —
— 1
—
16
— — —
1
—
10
BF Max Depth(ft
58
—
— — —
17
19
— 20 —
3
—
24
— —
— 1
—
21
— — —
1
—
13
— — —
1
—
17
BF Cmss ricao.]Am(R'
2901
99
60 260 110
74
125
— 156 —
1
—
104
— —
— 1
—
178
— — —
1
—
138
— — —
1
—
1511
WidlNDepth Ratio
13
103
— — —
61
93
— 144 —
3
—
73
— —
— 1
—
57
— — —
I
—
la2
— — —
I
—
115
Eatr 1-1,01'M Ran.
I6
—
— — —
20
26
— 34 —
—
187
— —
— 1
—
55
— — —
I
—
18+
— — —
8
—
48
— —
—
1
Basil Height Rats
13
—
— — —
1 1
2
11
— —
— 1
—
1
1 D
d5O I—
—
—
— — —
—
07
— — —
1
—
95
— —
— —
—
68
— — —
—
_
—'0
—
P.ttere
Channel Bel— dth(ft)
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
IO
—
— 16
— 4
383
—
— 408 —
2
540
—
— 790 —
8
400
621
620 870
140
7
RadnmofCunatme(R
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
131
—
— 296
— 4
109
—
— 146 —
5
'70
—
— 530 —
8
140
399
190 470
54
7
R Barildidl wsdth(Nft )
44
—
— 52
— 3
13
—
— 14 —
5
28
—
— 40 —
8
26
30
30 36
04
7
Meander Wvvelrnglh(R
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
ig
—
— q5
— 3
46
—
— 48 —
2
1100
—
— 1770 —
6
1460
1620
1580 1640
157
6
Meander Width Raw
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
12
—
— Ie
— 4
34
—
— 36 —
2
41
—
— 59 —
8
31
47
47 66
11
7
Proftle
Rime Length (ft'
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
_ — —
—
300
360
370 450
64
6
Rime Slope
0015
0025
— 0035 —
15
003
—
— 0M
— 4
—
0013
— — —
2
0013
—
— 00305 —
6
001
002
002 003
001
6
Pool Length
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Pool Spur w ft
—
—
— — —
270
660
— 1610 —
14
s15
—
— 47
— 3
—
71
— — —
5
920
—
— 1180 —
7
740
1030
100D 1290
180
7
Pool Me, Depth (R
—
—
— — —
21
22
— 24
1
— —
— 1
—
13
— — —
1
—
20
— — —
9
—
24
—
—
I
Pool Volume(fe
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
-
Substitute and Tmusport parameter,
SC % /So % /G% B % /Be%
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
—
—
— — —
-02/018/06926/67
48 /N /A /95 /30 /N /A
-O 062/ 3/ S 8/ 42/90
—
—
— — —
—
33/46/57/100/128
Reach beer Stress (compekncv)@/
—
—
— — —
OS
—
— 076 —
i
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
14
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Max pen s¢e( 01019 mobihzed at bankndl(Rosgen Clove
—
—
— — —
—
2000
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
1000
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
Stearn Power (transport rapacity) WIM
—
—
— — —
279
—
— 488 —
i
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — _
—
—
229
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Addnioeal R—b Parameter,
Dome lie Area (S
257
72
— — —
—
—
— OS —
—
—
—
— 02
— —
—
—
— 10 —
—
—
—
— 052
-
Impervi iw cover estimate I%
-
R.sgrnCl— ficati.
C4
E
— — —
—
GSc
— — —
—
—
E4
— —
— —
—
EJ
— — —
—
—
CS
— — —
—
—
ESlCS
— —
—
—
BFVelocity (fpsf
i9
26
— — —
32
—
— 68 —
3
—
—
— —
_ —
—
54
— — —
—
—
36
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
BF Dmchorge (cfs
1140
254
180 600 524
—
50
— — —
3
—
—
— —
— —
—
970
— — —
—
—
500
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
VanN Length (ft
—
—
— — —
—
10160
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
619 0
— —
—
—
Channel lengW (ft )
850
—
— — —
—
10160
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
7830
— —
—
—
Smuonn
106
—
— — —
—
114
— — —
—
—
119
— —
— —
—
230
— — —
—
—
120
— — —
—
—
126
— —
—
—
WaterS�ceSlope(Channel)(NR
—
—
— — —
—
00101
— — —
—
—
00109
— —
— —
—
00047
— — —
—
—
00077
BF slope (Nn
00025
0 0008
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
-
BankfuE Floodplam Am (in
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
BEHI VL %/ L %/ M %/ H %/ VH %/L
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Channel Smb he or Habimt Mein,
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
Biological or
tIna mr.l M by x01101 aw 1999 was a.w r uiere teii
An mmtLcmt ammni of no. dare wu cdleacd dmg ihi, reach.le.h remited in not ba.g able b.xa —N salwlaie caster surf aid b.Lfull ,eloo-
South Fork Roppen Creek Reach
2 (445 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
RepaW L I—al
pre.Exlsting CondiNoa
Reference Reaeh(n) Date
Reference Rmch(es) Data
.g
A.
Jamb
N.-..d
(eamsn n.L 1999)'
Sal. Breach
S Baer Crxl Downstream
-buds
Dim —fit. -Rule
LL UL Eq
Mm
Mean
Mod Mai, SD
Mm
Meet
Med Mar
SD
Min
Mean
Merl Mex SD
Mm
Meet
Med M. SD
Mm
Mean
Mod Max
SD
❑
BF Width (11)
613
12
51 210 90
74
105
— 144 —
3
—
87
— —
— 1
—
107
— — —
1
—
142
— — —
1
—
113
Floodpmw Width (ft)
961
—
— — —
169
262
— ii 0 —
—
163 0
— —
— 1
—
600
— — —
1
—
50/
— — —
2
—
629
BF Mein Dept (fl)
47
31
075 2 12
10
12
— 16 —
3
—
12
— —
— I
—
16
— — —
1
—
09
— — —
1
—
10
BFMax Dept (fl
58
—
— — —
17
— 20 —
1
—
24
— —
— 1
—
21
— — —
I
—
12
— — —
1
—
la
BF Cro - sectional A— (IF
2903
99
60 270 1,7
74
125
— 156 —
3
—
104
— —
— 1
—
178
— — —
I
—
127
— — —
I
—
115
Wsdth/Dapth Re to
11
101
— — —
61
92
— 144 —
3
—
73
— —
— 1
—
57
— — —
1
—
158
— — —
1
—
111
Entreachmmt Ram
16
—
— — —
20
26
— 34 —
3
—
187
— —
— 1
—
55
— — —
1
—
38+
— — —
I
—
47
Bank Height P.Uo
13
—
— — —
11
22
— 26 —
5+
—
12
— —
— 1
—
10
— — —
1
—
ID
— — —
1
—
10
d50(—
—
—
— — —
—
07
— — _
1
—
95
— —
— —
—
B8
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Petterrs
Channel BelMidt (R)
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
10
—
— 16
— 4
38 3
—
— 408 —
2
620
—
— 620 —
3
620
625
625 610
—
2
Rodin— M —lue(n
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
131
—
— 296
— 4
109
—
— 146 —
5
450
—
— 870 —
3
360
557
620 690
17 39
3
Be BmMull Widt(R/1t
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
44
—
— 52
—
I3
—
— 14 —
5
32
—
— 61 —
3
25
19
44 49
12
1
Meander Wavelength (fl
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
38
—
— 45
— 3
46
—
— 48 —
2
1790
—
— 3130 —
2
1780
2465
2465 3150
—
2
Meender Width Ratio
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
12
—
— 18
4
14
—
— 16 —
-
44
—
— 44 —
44
44
44 44
—
Pronle
Rime Length
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— _ —
—
11
17
.7 4>
6
1
Rime Slop,(ft/ft
—
—
— — —
0015
0D25
— 0035 —
15
003
—
— 004
— 4
—
0013
— — —
2
00275
—
— 00330 —
3
0024
0029
0028 0032
0004
3
Pool Length (11
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
PoolSpocmg(ft
—
—
— — —
270
660
— 1610 —
14
355
—
— 47
— 3
—
71
— — —
5
1380
—
— 1760 —
2
92
155
155 218
—
2
Pool Max Depth ((r
21
22
— 24 —
s
—
31
— —
— 1
—
3s
— — —
1
25
—
— 27 —
—
21
— —
—
2
Pool Volmne(fe
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Substrate and Transport Parameter,
Ri %I Ru % /P% /G % /S9'
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
SCKISa % /G% /B% /Be5'
d16/d35/d50/d94/d95
—
—
— — —
-02/038/06926/67
48 /N /A /95 /30 /N /A
<0062 / 3/ 88/ 42 / 90
—
—
— — —
—
7/226/36/60/90
Reach Shem Stress (rompetencv) Ih/f
05
—
— 076
08
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Max pm sae (noon) (noon) mobilized m bankfull (Rosgen Cm.e
—
—
— — —
—
2000
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
175 0
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Suewi Power (transport c.p.ray) Who
—
—
— — —
279
—
— 488 —
3
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
44
—
Additional Rnch Ponmeten
Drainage A— ISM)
257
72
— — —
—
—
— 05 —
—
—
—
— 02
— —
—
—
— 10 —
—
—
—
— 052 —
—
—
—
— 052
—
—
u
Imperi cover a wte (%
—
—
-
RosgeaClnssinmuo
C4
E
— — —
—
GS,
— — —
—
—
E4
— —
— —
—
E4
— — —
—
—
C5
— — —
—
—
C5
— —
—
—
BFVelocsty (fps),
39
26
— — —
32
—
— 68 —
3
—
—
— —
— —
—
54
— — —
—
—
39
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
BF Dsschmge (c&
1140
254
190 1750 55 5
—
50
— — —
3
—
—
— —
— —
—
970
— — —
—
—
500
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Valkv Length (ft
—
—
— — —
—
10160
— — —
—
—
—
— --
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
405
— —
—
—
Ch.— I length 111)
850
—
— — —
—
10160
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
415
— —
—
—
Smu.aty
106
—
— — —
—
114
— — —
—
—
119
— —
— —
—
210
— — —
—
—
110
-
WaterSurfaceSlope(CM-1)lIV
—
—
— — —
—
00101
— — —
—
—
00109
— —
— —
—
00047
— — —
—
—
00016
-
BFSI.pe(tVft
00025
00008
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Banf.R Floodpl.m Am (Acm )
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
BEHIVL % /L % / MY. /H % /VH %/E
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Channel Smbsht, or Halnmt Metnc
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
— —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Bioio ice) or Other
—
3Mmu6cwenam�.fwmsm( be ra collaatls a.r mcM1 rvkcM1mWiW
mnW
.dc�a.ccm.aN
CdcW.m mia cuf .M NnktWl wlaory

Table 10. B.aelme Strtam Summary
H._ Crtel- Melinn u...., anxwxov Plav ERP P.— N. 92251
UTIB 1065E
P —meter
USGS
Regfoval Cune loten al
Pte- Eabtlog Condid-
RehrtSrt Reaeh(es) Date
Refrrenrt Reaeh(o) D.I.
Design
A bu0t
Csu a
Sala 8ravch
5 veer Crtek Dowvatmm
Dime.... -R,ffk
LL UL Eq
Mm
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Mm
Mevn
Med Max yp
Min
Meet
Med M. SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
Mm
M—
M ax ed M
SD
BFWtdth(R)
—
— — —
34
46
— 57 —
20
—
87
— — —
I
—
107
— — —
1
—
70
— — —
1
—
70
— —
—
1
Floodpmim Width(ftl
—
— — —
98
511
— 925 —
20
—
1630
— — —
I
—
600
— — —
1
—
30*
— — —
16
—
510
— —
—
1
BF Mean Depth (ft
—
— — —
06
08
— 10 —
20
—
12
— — —
I
—
16
— — —
1
—
05
BF Ma�Depth (R
16 —
20
—
24
— — —
1
—
21
— — —
1
—
08
Be C.-W .oml A—(R
—
— — —
34
35
— 35 —
20
—
ID4
— — —
I
—
178
— — —
1
—
36
— — —
I
—
37
Wufth/Depth Rabo
—
— — —
34
65
— 95 —
20
—
73
— — _
I
—
57
138
Enuevchmrnt R.U.
—
— — —
29
95
— 162 —
20
—
187
55
— — —
1
—
43+
— — —
1
—
73
Swk Haght Reno
—
— — —
1 1
20
— 45 —
5+
—
12
— — _
1
—
10
— — —
1
—
10
— — —
1
—
10
— —
—
1
d50 (mm )
046
— — —
—
—
95
— — —
—
—
88
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Pemry
Channel Belt -dth (R)
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
IO
—
— 16 —
4
383
—
— 408 —
2
320
—
— 590 —
16
280
435
415 570
89
14
Radius ofCurvanve(ft
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
131
—
— 296 —
4
109
—
— 146 —
5
140
—
— 240 —
16
120
194
190 270
40
15
Re Bmik{dl Wdth(Nft
—
— — —
— — —
—
44
—
— 52 —
3
13
—
— 14 —
5
20
—
— 34 —
16
17
28
27 .9
06
15
Memder Wavelength (ft )
38
—
— 45 —
3
46
—
— 48 —
2
580
—
— 1340 —
13
760
979
940 1200
141
13
Meander Wtdth Raw
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
12
—
— 18 —
4
14
—
— t6 —
_
46
—
— 84 —
16
40
62
59 81
It
14
Profde
Rime Length (ft
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
170
270
300 470
80
Il
RdBe Slope(Nft
—
— — —
0033
0127
— 0564 —
19
003
—
— 007 —
4
—
001;
— — —
2
00198
—
— 00371 —
12
0010
00'10
0020 0070
0009
11
Pool Length lR
—
— _ —
_
—
— _ —
_
_
_
_ _ _
—
—
_
_ _ —
—
—
_
— _ _
—
—
—
— —
PoolSpacmg(ft
—
— — —
140
520
— 1100 —
9
355
—
— 47 —
3
—
71
— — —
5
420
—
— 1050 —
15
49
63
69 106
20
14
Pool Max Depth (ft)
13
15
— 16 —
2
—
31
— — —
1
—
33
— — —
1
10
—
— 20 —
16
—
16
— —
—
I
—
Subatnite and Tnaapost Paremeten
Rs % /Ru % /P% /G% /S%
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
SC % / Sa %/ G %/ BW BeY
d16 /d35I d50 /d84, d95
—
— — —
017/033/046/22/56
48 /N /A/ 95/ 30 /N/A
0 D6213/ 89/42/90
—
—
— — —
—
115/35/49/80/90
Reach Shear Shess(compeunn) IblF
061
—
— 077 —
2
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
04
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Max Pmt Sae (mm) mobdaed at bmkfull (ROagm Curve
—
— — —
—
200 0
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
20 0
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
SbeamP— (Umisponcapucin) Wid
W5
—
— 455 —
2
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
228
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Addttbnal Reach Nmmetees
Dnunage Aien(SM )
—
—
— 01 —
—
—
—
— 02 —
—
—
—
— 10 —
—
—
—
— 008 —
—
—
—
— 008
—
—
[mperviouscorerestvnate(vcrts
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
RosgrnCl —&—tio
—
— — —
—
E5
— — —
—
—
E4
— — —
—
—
E4
— — —
—
—
C5
— — —
—
—
CS
— —
—
—
Ba.1fu11Velaily(fpr7
—
— — —
4
—
— 41 —
2
—
—
— — —
—
—
54
— — —
—
—
42
— — —
10
—
—
— —
—
—
BFD- hmge(efs
—
— — —
—
14
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
970
— — —
—
—
140
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
VallevLength(R
—
— — —
—
822
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
8160
— —
—
—
Chamellength(R)
—
— — —
—
97D
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
1035
— —
—
—
Smmnn
—
— — —
—
118
— — —
—
—
119
— — —
—
—
2:0
— — —
—
—
160
— — —
—
—
127
— —
—
—
%We Surtacc Slope(ChmmcB(Nfl
—
— — —
—
00193
— — —
—
—
00109
— — —
—
—
00047
— — —
—
—
00144
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Beslope (NR
—
_ — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— _ —
_
—
_
— — _
_
_
_
-
BankfuB Floodphim Arte
-
BEHIVL % /L % /M% /H % /VH %/E
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
Chamirl Stabhlnry
-
B,.I.gim1 or0
-
3 Mwd6can mvw dwxnnvOceaw wa cona¢dilmgihceahwkchmdnd�
not hc.N.ble
to ccmavly cilcWam mmcue( mlhavkrWlc+iovry

Table lla Cross - section Morphology Data Table
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Cross - section 8 (Pool)
Cross - section 5 (Riffle)
Cross - section 6 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BAWWoAliixed basehiie`bankfuli
� 47 7,71, J 4, ,1-477 74
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft )
1255 17
1255 11 *
1258 64
12529
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1260 24
1260 24
133
12601
12601
175
BF Width (ft)
131
121
10
146
135
09
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
10
13 1
12
13
190
Width/Depth Ratio
115
125
135
118
107
160
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft)
150
118
15
180
171
2 1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1 7
16
629
24
27
710
Width of Floodprone Area (ft )
629
629
47
659
660
N/A
Entrenchment Ratio
48
52
1 0
N/A
N/A
10
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
154
10
10
193
Wetted Perimeter (ft )
154
141
09
171
160
08
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 0
08
1 1
1 1
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Cross - section 7 (Riffle)
Cross - section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Ba don fixed tiasehne bankfull elevaho�n� "�
, _ °v"
� 47 7,71, J 4, ,1-477 74
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft )
1255 17
1255 11 *
1258 64
12529
12529
12584
BF Width (ft)
133
141
55
175
152
9 1 1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
10
1 1
05
09
l 1
06
Width/Depth Ratio
13 1
133
114
190
139
163
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
135
148
26
160
166
5 1
BF Max Depth (ft)
15
1 7
08
2 1
25
14
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
629
629
510
710
71 1
620
Entrenchment Ratio
47
45
88
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
12
10
10
13
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
154
162
64
193
174
102
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
09
09
04
08
10
05
*A lower bankfull elevation datum was used in calulating bankful dunension values for MY I instead of using the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the data
between the two monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dunension parameters
UT1B (1,065 LF)
Cross - section 9 (Riffle)
Cross - section 10 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY l MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft
1258 64
1258 64
12584
12584
BF Width (ft)
70
55
102
9 1 1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
05
05
08
06
Width/Depth Ratio
133
114
133
163
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft)
37
26
79
5 1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1 1
08
16
14
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
51 0
510
620
620
Entrenchment Ratio
73
88
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
10
12
10
13
Wetted Perimeter (ft )
8 1
64
118
102
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
05
04
07
05

Tablelib Stream Reecb Morphology
Hovoen Cne \ -Melron Farm Minw...�w Plea EEP Prol- N. 92251
South Fork Hoppers CmL Reach 1 (783 LF)
Parameter
Monitoring Baseline (At-bud0
MY 1
MY 2
MYJ
MY4
MYS
Dkaeadoa told Subrtnre - Riffle 3Wa,
A�Mcc-ftj xMien xk, nMedm I °mi, 7 SD3- c1v ..
Mm Mean a MN aMOA-D 4z1WSD 7 n
Mm ^ Memt E>MN77: r�gMec ^ SDf 8 �n -9
Mcn , ° Men OMN s -0 M' n`
Mot - .Men^a VMN " a MM MI
n ft
Width (n)
— 13 1 — — — 1
— 121
BF
Floode Width (ft)
— 629 — — — 1
— 629
BF Mean Depth (ft)
— 1 1 — — — 1
— 10
BF Mu, Depth (ft )
— 17 — — — 1
— 16 — — — 1
BF :.__honal Am (R')—
IS 0
8
W idth/Depth Ratio
— 11 5 — — — 1
— 12 5
Enbaichmait -0
— 48 — — — 1
— 52
Bank Height Run
— 10 — — — 1
— 10
(mm )
—
Qd50
�+. ,'
�`,. � 'es
H ` •- ..n
n Pa ?w.
w» w
�
> r Li wE
" 71
" ,�,
Chnl Beln.Tdth (R)
RndiuofCneue (n
400 621 620 870 140 7
10 199 190 470 54 7
-
*(�°'v
7,
+
I
F
Re Bankfull (ft/ft)
Meander Wovelength (ft
Mmnder Width Ran.
26 30 30 36 04 7
1460 1620 1560 1840 157 6.,
3 1 47 4 7 66 1
w
„`A
4 4 " `
°' i d�
a
;.ao-�av"$'
-
Pro61e"� `��..«
17
fy�.l.»`..�ve
'a`
RiMcLatgh(R
X300 ^ 760 370 450 64 6�
_.
31 41 N. 37 60 1134 5
y . �.
RiRle Slope(ft/n
001 002 002 003 001 6
002 002 002 003 0003 5
Pool Length (ft )
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
Po.ISpacuig n
740 1030 1000 1290 180 7
790 1022 110 127 195 5
bei6* ®d Tr>tiupoit Panmeten - .,
:� - -'vs
r„,¢ ear.a `s %"
3 , ,,.,"° •< -;.•.
&,.,••,•» y „xaw
'4:
a 3",. Yx,, �% 5w t
d16/d351d50/d941d95
111461571 IOD /128
8/7 /89/1'+8/192
Reach Shear Street (competevev) RJ
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
S nemnPoxer(transportcnpaciNl W/m
Ad_diRonalRnrb'Paramemn
_
_
n
m.�..
_
Drainage Alen (SM)
— — — 052 — —
— — — 052 — —
RosgeuClasnfiwn
— EYC5 — — — —
— E5 /C5 — — — —
BFVelocirv(fps)i
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
BF Duchmge (cfa
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
VeBev Length (n
— 6190 — — — —
— 6190 — — — —
Chmmellength (ft)
— 7830 — — — —
— 7830 — — — —
Smuoah
— 126 — — — —
— 126 — — — —
Witter Smfuce Slope (Chennen(Nft
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
BF do (ft/R
—
1 An,nwtfcenramounr of wrier mKece Jam was collectN eloeg this mach which rtwli�mnoi bang able loemmtch uiculeie wafer surfsco and benkfull .clacm
South Fork Hoppers Cnek Reach 2 (441 LF)
Perimeter
Monitoring Baeline (Arbwlt)
MY -1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-1
MY -5
Dint- d.veod Sabrtrale -RIM.
-M.,, - -SD-°
omin�m�mcinu rs j A
4 rr Metes fsoP -bj
+z Mm.1- sSO -. —,AB
-M- I SD, wanv�•rs>
BF Width (ft)
— 1:: — — — 1
— 140
Floodpmne Wndth(ft)
— 629 — — — 1
— 629
BF Mmv Depth (f)
— 1 0 — — — 1
— 1 1
BF Mir, Depth (ft
— i 5 — — — 1
— 17 — — — 1
BF Cms +xcnocul Am (ft
— 135
148
WidthrDcpth Ran.
— 1' I — — — 1
— 13.
Evmahmnl Ruin,
— 41 — — — 1
— 4 5
Bank Height Ratio
— 10 — — — 1
— 1 lI
150 mm
g
nRlln_y- _ a.XR .
v
Ch—el Belndth (it)
,,gg��##
`in"`4s' *> _ .... .. r.
625
62 0 63 0 — 2
W-= y ,
-
w» w
7,72'-f"
"w"
a
r^ n „ ^d
V,
y
y
RndtunfC —.—(it
Rc Bonkfull Wid(I)
160 557 620 690 17 19 1
25 39 44 49 12 3
`
�
+ a A
7,
+
y
..
a „
Mender Wscnglh (ft
176 0 246 5 246 5 315 0 2
,. --' , R
Mender Width Ruh.
nrv+ri 5 .
"
44 44 44 44 2
mm - T�- - ear •, -rn.
s " .S w ` r
t
Riffle Length (R )
110 17 0 170 4.0 6 i
299 378 3:7 498 86 i
Riffle Slope(ft/ft
0024 0029 0028 0032 0004 3
0018 0025 0026 0031 0005 3
Pool Length III
— — — — —
— — — — — —
Pool Spacing (ft
92 155 155 218 — 2
730 88 81 110 159 3
_
d
,116/135/ 150/ d84/ d95
7/226/36/60/90
36/518/6.4/894/1214
Reach Shear Street (competnev) INIF
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
Snnm Paower mtmport rnpe tv� W/m
Additro'miRn�}ePanmeten
_
n
m.�..
__ _
Dmmoge Areo (S
— — — 052 — —
— — — 052 — —
R.sg.ClusaEnn.
— C5 — — — —
— C5 — — — —
BFVeloalv(fps)I
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
BF Discharge (cfs )
— — — — —
— — — — — —
VeRevLength (it)
405 — — — —
— 405 — — — —
Lhnnel length (ft)
— 415 — — — —
— 415 — — — —
Smw.h
— 102 — — — —
— 102 — — — —
Wata SUR tt Slope (C=I) (tUn
— — — — — —
— — — — — —
BeSlo Nn
—
IM ®vlReem snow o(wYU avfsedw wu cWlsna YOOa Ud rcacb whca rtaWU4mmi Mrq aweroxwwn ulcWwwrm wise mdbub[ull rsleeh
I
5 MICHAEL BARER ENGINEERING MC -EEP PROJECT NOS -9::51
- SOGTH FORE HOPPERS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
RJVE 2012- NIO \M'ORp>G )'EAR i OF 5

Tabk l lb Stmm Reach Morpbok u
Hoppe Creel Melton Farm Mniptron Pl.. EEP Project No 92251
MICHAEL BALER E44TNEERM I\C- EEP PROJECT NOS -92551
SOIffH FORT. HOPPERS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 610NTTORING REPORT
ONE Ml l MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5
UTIB IOGS
Pa..—
Monrmnng
B—liae (ArbaBt)
MY -1
MY -2
MY-3
MY4
MY3
Dhaeadoa aad Snbctrate =RJftk v< r1> s
;BF
a�Mm Mew & Med i�3Max r
zA BD r' —00
a Mm s Memia3 z Medv Is Mazes w SD _ ^ _sn,a
eMrn Mean v r. Medz x ;}Mat � W SD
Mm - Mt a 1� Ff--MA°a I Mar -1
n VV
Mm s Meaner ^•Med Y I €,- ,.Macy SD t
Width (11)
—
70
—
—
— 1
—
70
Flo odpmne Width (fl)
—
510
—
—
— 1
—
510
Br Mean Depth (n
—
05
—
—
— 1
—
05 — — —
BF Mat Depth (ft)
—
1 I
—
—
— '
—
1 I — — —
I
BF Cmaraahonal Area ff
—
3 7
—
—
— 1
—
37 — — —
I
WrdWDeph RUro
—
Iii
—
—
— 1
—
13 — — —
1
Ent —hment Rmro
—
73
—
—
— 1
—
73 — — —
1
Bank Hergld R.U.
—
10
—
—
— 1
—
10 — — —
1
d50 (nm
-
—
—
—
— — - .
:—�-'
5
3
Chmmel Belmidth (ft)
28 0
415
41 5
570
8 9 1S
,
s4
z
Rad,uofCrveture(R
Re BeakaWd1h(fVft
I2 0
17
194
28
190
27
270
39
4 0
06 15
E
Mnder Wenglh
760
l 13
`°✓
�%
'
a p
4 e
h r
x $
(ft)
Meander Width Rah.
4 0
6 2
5 9
8 1
14
1 7 14
Y"
.�"
7 s -
kfi"
.%�e -
0
�
�
�
.a":__... .....,..w.. w.� "'•"
,a ' ,. �.%v. .�:i 'f ».�
°`
`�4"v. ..,,,...� W.». N �„7'wz9
s�`,:.�.`: '`
'#TM'
Rrflle LrngN(n
170
2770
100
470
80 ll
17U
i70 416 > i2 122
7
RrBle Slope(ft/ft )
0010
0030
0020
0040
0009 11
0022
0024 0025 0027 0002
7
Pool Leogth(R )
—
—
—
— —
—
— — —
—
P.1 Spaomgfll
490
610
690
1060
200 140
510
714 670 1050 174
7
SLh�mBlYioapori�Pnrame fe �*.a..�.zr�. ...�z.x
��`� %HS a "tVr`a
s:.m rAmw `
d16/ d35 I dt0/ d84/ d95
125 /35/49/80/90
12/473/609/96/1411
Reach Shem Strew (competencv) lb/
StreamPowa Iran port capacm) A/m
Additlood Rack Yanmeten ;rn+ssu�,s; ` Miff,
X008
Dtamege A— (SK
—
—
—
— —
—
— — 008 —
—
RoagrnClasahwh
—
C5
—
—
— —
—
C5 — — —
—
Bankfill Velocrly (fps)1
—
—
—
—
— —
—
— — — —
—
BF Dlacharge (cfa )
—
—
—
— —
—
— — — —
—
VeBeeLrngth(n
—
8160
—
—
— —
—
8160 — — —
—
ann
Chelkngth(n)
—
1015
—
—
— —
—
1035 — — —
—
S..—
—
127
—
—
— —
—
127 — — —
—
Water Sarf a Slope (Ch n(IVII
— — — —
—
"'j;( V,
—
I AO mvRrcm mourn afn�¢r�uraa LU wa�wax�Jaea tlu meh nb�rnWa4nna
hvg
aN<bscmamN
UicWUenuerruNCe
mdbNfiJl
��Imry
MICHAEL BALER E44TNEERM I\C- EEP PROJECT NOS -92551
SOIffH FORT. HOPPERS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 1 610NTTORING REPORT
ONE Ml l MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 5

0
0
0
nAPPENDIX E
1
HYDROLOGIC DATA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
Date of Data
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Gauge Watermark Height
Collection
(feet above bankfull)
May 30, 2012
September 2010 (crest gauge installation for
Gauge measurement
055
asbuilt) - May 30th, 2012
August 1, 2012
May 30th - August 1st 2012*
Gauge measurement
0 10
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified

s
7
6
5
c
c 4
O
o.
3
ai
a 2
1
0
Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Marion, NC (April 2011 -April 2012)
F 4 ,4 ti
y EC
'y,' 'y1' 'ti1' tit ti~ titi ti~ ti~ ti~ ti~ titi tit ti~ titi titi ti�
Date
=Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251

Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for 2011 Growing Season
3/30/11 - 11/2/11
12
8
7.75
7.5
8
7.25
4
1
7
6.75
0
6.5
6.25
6
-4
—
A
5.5
-8
5.25
~
-12
t+N.�d� f3-9D. 0-- 69R- ias--
G9�$iT�o7f`a :._Y9�'. -^.... ._ ,f� -„ !'. .�����"�'�.i^
4.75
4.5
�.
-16
4.25
�..�
4
A7
3.75
1"
-20
3.5
3.25
-24
3
2.75
-28
2.5
2.25
-32
2
1.75
-36
1.5
1.25
-40
1
0.75
-44
0.5
0.25
48
0
ON
Date
Hydrology level required
—Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 -,Start Growing Season -End Growing Season
Rainfall Data (NC -MD -2)