20080587 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140117

Eco Ste! 11
P OGRAM
January 16, 2014
Eric Kulz
Division of Water Resources
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: EEP Project Monitoring Reports
Dear Mr. Kulz:
Please find the enclosed monitoring reports for EEP projects, and let me know if you have any
questions.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
JAN 1 7 20114
NR - WATM OUALWY
jrA
R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 bail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 ; 919 -715 -0476 l www.n-.eep.net

I­8 -Q�87
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number — 92251
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2013
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCEEP Project Manager: Paul Wiesner
Submission Date: December 20, 2013
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No. 004518
y t 7]] S .L011p 3
r�secx:u�.ti�
NC E C 0 S?7:vR
4-0-19 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
U Wql 90
JAN 1 7 2014

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Proj ect
Year 2 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1048
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Matthew Reid Micky C emmons
Project Manager Office Principal

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3
21 Stream Assessment 4
2 1 1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability 4
212 Hydrology 5
2 13 Photographic Documentation of Site 5
2 1 4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 5
22 Vegetation Assessment 6
23 Wetland Assessment 6
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. ..............................7
Appendices
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table I Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attnbute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum — Site Assessment Report for Monitoring Year 2
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 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 II
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
�1
Appendices
Figure
3
Year 2 Cross - sections with Annual Overlays j
Figure
4
Year 2 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
Venfication 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 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
�1

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 2 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
r—,
shear
j 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 ofUTI, 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,
dewatering floodplam wetlands The Project involved the restoration or enhancement of 3,55O 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 156 acres
of riparian wetland abutting South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1 of which 123 acres comprised restoration
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 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 floodplam 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 -1 and VPA1 -2, were documented in the wetland area
located on the right floodplain along South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 The combined total area for these WAS
was 0 12 acres, or 2 8% of the planted acreage for this assessment tract These two VPAs were identified in
the Year 1 monitoring period and carried over into Year 2 Six small areas with invasive plants were of
concern and were identified for a combined total area of 0 08 acres or 0 9% of the easement acreage The
UT2 vegetation assessment tract did not perform as well because of the widespread infestation of invasive
plant species associated with VPA1 -3 and VPA1 -4 These two WAS were solely confined to UT2 Reach B
and made up a combined total of 0 29 acres, or 19 3% of the 15 acre easement area for the UT2 vegetation
assessment tract These two WAS were also identified in the Year 1 monitoring period and have increased
slightly in size over time Invasive vegetation in these WAS includes multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
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 ( CCP figures, supporting data tables , and photo logs
The contents of Appendix B were submitted to NCEEP in May 2013 and served as the interim visual site
assessment report
A NCEEP licensed contractor conducted exotic invasive plant control over nine days between June 20 and
August 14, 2013, spread out so far due to rain interfering with times for effective treatment Species treated,
using cut - stump, foliar, and hand pull methods, were Chinese Privet, Multiflora Rose, Kudzu, Silverthorn,
Mimosa, Trifoliate Orange, Callery Pear, two Burning Bushes and one Tree of Heaven Cut -stump treatment
was also performed on the larger, climbing Japanese Honeysuckle Garlon 3A was used for cut -stump and
Glyphomate 41 was used for foliar treatment
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 2
monitoring, is 850 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 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 has remained geomorphically stable overall and
performing at 100% for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral/vertical stability and in- stream
structure performance categories The sub - categories receiving scores of less than 100% are 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 the project reaches were documented and summarized in Table 5e of
Appendix B Five SPAS were identified in the Year 1 monitoring period and carried over into Year 2 Five
new SPAS were Identified for the Year 2 monitoring period A more detailed summary of the results for the
visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
f 1
I �

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 adjustments that have occurred have
primarily been observed in riffle cross - sections that are exhibiting signs of narrowing Based on field
observation, this narrowing can be attributed to herbaceous vegetation becoming well established over the
second year At this time, cross - sectional measurements do not indicate any stream bank or channel stability
issues The longitudinal profiles show that bed features are stable Pools are well maintained, and they have
increased in depth in many areas Grade control structures (constructed riffles, cross vanes and log sills)
continue to help maintain the overall profile desired Visual observations and a review of pebble count data
collected during Year 2 monitoring did not yield any signs that sediment transport functions have been
hampered by the mitigation project 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 one bankfull event based on crest gauge readings
Information on these events is provided in Table 12 of Appendix E
Based on the second growing season following site construction (March 30, 2011- November 2, 2011), all four
wetland areas met the success criteria for Monitoring Year 2 Groundwater conditions at Gauges 2, 3, and 4
indicated saturated conditions existed for 100% of the growing season 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 Gauge 1 failed to meet the minimum wetland success criteria during Year 1 monitoring, but met the
criteria in Year 2 Gauge 1 was saturated for 25 days or 12% of the growing season 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 website 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
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 2 monitoring data was collected in May 2013 and August 2013 All visual site
assessment data was collected on May 10, 2013 Vegetation monitoring plot data was collected on September
23, 2013 All stream survey (channel dimension and profile) and sediment data were collected August 15,
2013 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251 3
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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 UTIB, contains one riffle
and one pool cross - section A common benchmark is being 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 UT1B, and are provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D Longitudinal profiles will be
replicated annually during the five year monitoring period
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 nffles 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 nffle 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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
ti
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
r 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
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i a 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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 site, 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 10, 2013, 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 VPAs 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
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 downloaded 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, EEP PROJECT NO - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

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
41
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 7
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

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: VER
• From I -40, take State Route 226 South (1 -40 exit 86). (��t Cr, e
• Continue approximately 10 miles south.
o Turn right onto Landis Lane. Continue approximately 1 mile.
o Bear right at a fork in the road to stay on Landis Lane. if
o Continue approximately 2 miles. s
o Melton Farm will be on the left, at sharp curve to the right. CALDW
f f c
per'
I FRENCH B&d 'A&
l s:
ROAD
eo (\
OCATA AS
0
CATAWE
4)3 -08 -3
FRENCH B AD `
04 -03 _` CATAV
"t F
03 -08
-'BONCOW
'B;ark Moucca �...
\ INAI HUC 03050101bWO2
—� 1'A6J00"
�^a, South Fork Hoppers Creek
Map Vicinity Figure 1. Vicinity Map LEGEND:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC Project Area
.- C ; NCDWQ Sub -basin
NCEEP Project No.: 92251_ Counties
November 2013 0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
McDowell County, NC ten
{ ?, Mee
11 0 2.5 5
Miles

Table 1 Project Components
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
Project Segment or Reach
Existing FeeUACres•
Mmganoo Type
Approach
Linear Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Comment
ID
Acreage-
Ratio
Unit$
Installed in -stream structures to control grade reduce bank erosion
South Fort Hoppers Creek
R
PI
783
1 1
783
10+00 - 17 +83
and provide habitat Priority 1 was implemented to reestablish
Reach I
1 330
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodpiam
Installed in stream structures to control grade reduce bank erosion
South Fork Hoppers Crock
R
PI
445
1 I
445
17 +83 22 +48••
and provide habitat Priority 1 was implemented to reestablish
Reach 2
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic Boodplam
Preservanon A30 100 foot conservation easement was
P
722
5 1
144
implemented to on right and left stream banks
UTI Reach
782
"'
Regraded tight bank to create a bankiull bench and implemented
Ell
P4
60
25 1
24
7 +86 - 6+46
riparian plantings in rmpm%e stabiltty and reduce erosion
P
-
51
5 1
10
9+49 10+00'•'
Preservation A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
implemented to on right and left stream banks
Installed in stream structures to mcnewc habitat diversity tnstalle
UTI Reach B
970
R
PI
1 065
1 1
1065
10+00 20 +85••
fencing to restrict cattle access Pnontv 1 was implemented to
resmm dimension pattern and profile
UT2 Reach A
366
EII
P4
379
25 1
152
10+00 13 +79
Regraded banks and implemented a step pool channel where
feasible implemented fencing to restrict hog access
UT2 Reach B
802
EH
P4
818
25 1
327
13 +79 22 +I7••
Regraded banks and implemented npanan plantings to improve
reach stabilm and reduce erosion
Presen anon A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
UT3
298
P
298
5 1
60
implemented to on right and left stream banks
Ephemmal drainage in left
Stabilized ephemeral drainage from adjacent pasture by creating a
floodplain of South Fork
348
497
-
-
flat bottom swale Shale was matted and seeded Not being soug
Happens Creek
for mitigation credit
Stabilized ephemeral drainage with boulder sill structures and
Ephemmal drainage tern the
drainage
80
80
-
armored channel bed Areas outside the channel were mulched an
upstream of UT2
planted Not being sought for mitigation credit
Ephemeral drainage at
15
Stabilized ephemeral drainage by regrading remarang and
Station 16 +75 of UT2
15
rumoring with nprap Not being sought for mitigation
Regraded the wetland boundary to improve hvdrologic =puts and
E
-
033
2 1
165
martmize surface storage
Wetland
033
R
123
11
123
Restored wetland hydrology to the original stream alignment
• Existing reach breaks and
design mach bivaks vaned
based on initial
Scomorphic dij7emnces
and design re mremenis
•• Stationing includes 20 It stream crossing but is not reflected in the reach length
—During construction enhancement slated to occur between 9+49 and 10+00 of UTI B was shifted upstream into UTIA per conversations with EEP and CEC The section slated for enhancement at the top of UTIB (9+49 to 10+00)
became presevation upon the field change
Component Summations
Stream
Riparian
Non Ripm
Upland
Restomuon Lesel
(LF)
Wetland (Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
Riverme
I Non Rnenne
Rcstomtion
2 293
123
Enhancement
t
033
Enhancement I
0, "IMAM
ww J, MMMIA
WMWAW
I -
Enhancement 11
1 257
MIUM
Uppo . &,— ..,ii
: "XIVAM,
`a1 RUB
"
�T l 4�1 W
Creation
Preservation
1 071
HQ Presenation
-
_i v
z°% ce.
156
000
Totals
4 621
156
Total Mmgauon Umt
3010 SMU
1 1 395 WMU
=Nan Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 1 year 8 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 2
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 -11
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- baselme)
Nov -10
N/A
Jun -11
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -12
Sep -12
Nov -12
Invasive Treatment
NA
NA
Aug -13
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
Sep -13
Dec -13
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

Table 3. Protect Contacts Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek 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 [phone]
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
Sedding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact
Joanne Cheatham, Tel 336 - 320 -3849
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 [phone]
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
Matthew Reid, Tel 828 - 350 -1408
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Matthew Reid, Tel 828 - 350 -1408
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Matthew Reid, Tel 828 - 350 -1408

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 Pici inon Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS IIUC for Project and Reference sites
Project 03050101040020, References 03040103050 -090 (Spencer Creek), -080 (Barnes 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 Y
Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP), 2003
WRC Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Warn
of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase 9
None
d"A, lxd6f
i",U, 103 1P i Q3I% .W � � Ft
Restoration Component Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers -
Reach 1
South Fork
Hoppers - Reach 2
UT - Reach A
(Preservation)
UTI - Reach A
(Enhancement 2)
UTl - Reach B
(Preservation)
UT 1 - Reach B
UT2 - Reach A
UT2 - Reach B
UT3
Drainage area (sq mi)
048
052
006
006
008
008
004
007
002
Stream order
2nd
2nd
Ist
Ist
Ist
1st
0
0
0
Restored length
783
445
722
60
51
1,065
379
818
296
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type Rural, Urban, Developing etc)
Rural
Ruml
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e )
Developed Low - Medium Intensity-
-
-
-
-
A Cultivated Crops
15
Ag-Pasture/ilay
153
Forested
608
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc )
224
-
-
Watershed impervious cover (%)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ AIJAndex number
03 -08 -30
03 -0 8 -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
3034 listed 9
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment9
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
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
57
Ros en classification of pre-existing
G5c
C4 /l
-
-
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 0115ft/ft
0 0115 ft/ft
0 023 ft/ft
0 023 ft/ft
0 034 ft/ft
0 023 tuft
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toe slope ranee g 2-3%J
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 ° (V9N)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Series
IoA
IoA
EwE
EwE
IoA
IoA
HeD
HeD / IoA
EwE
Depth
10
10
5
6
10
10
5,8
58/10
5
Clay %
18
18
2520
2520
18
18
25
25/18
2520
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
5/5
3/5
rr`

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 2
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2013
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
Fxo.system F.
PROGRAM
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2013
Page 1 of 8

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 2 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 2013) The report describes protect
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 information are provided following the narrative portion of this report
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,
• 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 Vegetation monitoring plot
counts were excluded from this assessment but will be conducted after July 2013, this data
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 2 of 8

i!
i
will be summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure of the Year 2 annual monitoring
report to be submitted in late November of 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 UT1 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 on May 1", 2013
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 m -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 I 1
along stream banks, floodplains, 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, i
whereas, invasive vegetation and encroachment areas of invasive species were evaluated for
the entire 10 1 acre easement boundary Photos were recorded in locations of potential VPAs
throughout the easement, such as areas exhibiting sparse or slow growth/vigor, low stem
density, and invasive areas of concern
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 3 of 8

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 in-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 percent as the design
intended for the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral/vertical stability and in-
stream structure performance categories UT1 Reach B was functioning at the highest level
geomorphically out of all the stream protect reaches, performing at 100 percent for all sub-
categories except for `Riffle Condition' —two riffles located within the upstream project
limits (at stations 10 +00 and 12 +00) were covered in fines from an upstream sediment source
but the coarse riffle substrate appeared intact beneath the fines SFHC Reach 1 received the
lowest performance scores (for all 3 mayor morphological channel categories) in terms of
lateral, vertical, and m -stream structural stability out of all the project stream reaches
followed by SFHC Reach 2 and UT2 (Reaches A and B) SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT2
(Reaches A and B) had more than one sub - category receiving scores of less than 100 percent
namely due to one or more of the following issues localized areas of lateral instability or
bank erosion from bank scour and bank slumping, and the piping or failure of engineered in-
stream structures, SPAs correlating with these issues for these three project reaches were
documented and summarized in Table 5e
There were a total of 10 SPAs documented, 5 of which were identified last year during the
Year 1 visual assessment and 5 that were newly identified during this current assessment As
alluded to previously, SFHC Reach 1 contains the most SPAs (4) out of all the project stream
reaches SPAs documented last year were included in this assessment since there has been
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 4 of 8

minimal to no treatment implemented to date The first number in the SPA naming
convention (in Table 5e) references the monitoring year in which the SPA was identified
during the visual assessment Because the SPAS reported from last year's assessment
remained unchanged in condition and scale when observed during this assessment, they will
not be discussed in this memorandum, but all are included in the scoring of morphological
performance categories in Tables 5a through 5d, and are also summarized in Table 5e, Figure
2 (CCPV), and the SPA photolog
The two newly identified SPAs discovered on SFHC Reach 1, SPA2 -1 and SPA2 -2, are
located in close proximity to each other on opposite banks downstream of a meander bend
between stations 15 +95 and 16 +32 SPA2 -1 is characterized by a failing rootwad associated
with the erosion and undercutting of the left bank located immediately downstream of a log
sill around station 16 +25 The invert along the upstream log sill is sloped to one side (slanted
toward the left bank) and is oriented within the channel such that flow is being directed
toward the left bank immediately downstream of where the log sill ties into the bank, causing -
bank erosion Erosion along the left bank appears to have migrated further downstream over
time, scouring the upstream portion of the rootwad and the channel toe beneath it, eventually
undermining the structure The rootwad has separated from the left bank, has slumped into
the channel, and is no longer affording erosion protection of the left bank
SPA2 -2 is located across the channel and just upstream from SPA2 -1 on the right bank, and
consists of a slumping bank situated along the downstream portion of an outer meander bend
The 15 LF section of calved right bank has separated but not yet slumped into the channel
Flow behind the separated bank threatens to continue to erode and expose the parent bank
which is vertical and devoid of stabilizing vegetation Bank slumping of SPA2 -2 may be a
result of poor soil compaction during construction and/or the unconsolidated nature of the
soil matrix within the bank, which without adequate vegetation to help reinforce or stabilize
the bank is easily erodible This is evident as the mass wasting along the right bank extends
about 15 LF downstream along one continuous fissure to the log sill associated with SPA2 -1
The tie -in of the log sill along the right bank around station 16 +10 is slightly exposed as a
result, the sill appears to be fully functional as grade control, but may become structurally
compromised if scour behind the slumped bank material persists over time
SPA2 -3 involves localized scour along the left bank of a riffle located upstream of the
easement crossing between stations 18 +75 and 18 +87 Flow has wallowed out and eroded a
small portion of the left bank behind a cluster of well rooted, native vegetation that is thriving
at the channel toe of the bank The vegetation is comprised primarily of Willow Oak, Tag
Alder, and Soft Rush Matting along the bank is generally intact but has separated from the
bank in areas due erosion over time that has caused the bank to recede. The left bank is
vertical, exposed, and devoid of vegetation and surface protection The thalweg along the
riffle where SPA2 -3 is located appears to be centered, but velocity vectors, and thus flow,
may have been temporarily redirected toward the left bank during past storm events from
slight temporal shifts in aggraded riffle material within the riffle, thereby increasing stress
along the near bank and making the bank more highly susceptible to subsequent erosion
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 5 of 8

SPA2 -4 is located on UT2 Reach B and is a steep portion of left bank located across from
vegetation plot 13 that is slumping and separating from the top of terrace This bank was
originally stabilized during construction by a combination of bank grading,
temporary/permanent seeding, the installation of staked matting, and the plantmg of live -
stake vegetation The graded bank began to slump before construction was completed and
was re- stabilized before demobilization and project closeout The cause of the recurrent bank
instability at SPA2 -4 may potentially be a result of poor soil compaction and overland storm
flow seepage that appears to be occurring at the top of terrace which may be undermining the
re- graded bank
SPA2 -5 consists of the piping of flow through a riffle cascade (log sill) structure at station
12 +90 in UT2 Reach A The structure is vertically and laterally stable Some water was
observed flowing over the log sill invert, the log sill should re -seal over time
Log sills associated with deep scour pools on UT1 Reach B were inspected and assessed for
vertical stability per EEP's request EEP's concern was that the vast depth of some of these
scour pools could potentially pose a threat and undermine the structural integrity and grade
control function to their upstream log sill counterpart considering the small channel
dimensions associated with this stream reach Pools for UT1 Reach B were designed to have
a maximum pool depth (dPoo,) ranging between 10 feet and 2 0 feet and a ratio of pool depth
to average bankfull depth (dPoo, /db,f) ranging between 2 0 and 4 0 (as cited in Table 7 2 from
the South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Plan) EEP's monitoring guidance (dated
November 7, 2011) for defining `sufficient depth' for meander pool condition suggests that a
pool should have a dPoo, /db,f ratio greater than or equal to 16, which in this case for UT1
Reach B translates to a dPoo, of 0 8 feet in depth or greater
All log sill scour pools on UT1 Reach B had dPoo, /db,f ratios exceeding 1 6 and thus fulfilled
EEP's monitoring guidance criteria for sufficient depth for meander pool condition for this
current visual morphological assessment The deepest of these pools were those three log sill
scour pools located downstream of the easement crossing between stations 19 +00 and 19 +50
The upstream most log sill was the deepest of the three and had a dPoo, value and dPoo, /db,f ratio
of 2 5 feet and 5 0 respectively Even though the dPoo, value of 2 5 feet exceeds that specified
for the proposed design (by 0 5 feet), it still meets EEP's monitoring guidance criteria for the
assessment These log sill structures were constructed with a header and footer log The
footer log at this particular log sill was still buried below the elevation of the scour pool,
affording protection from undermining and helping to hold the entire structure firmly in
place Like other pools throughout the project site, the depth of this pool should fluctuate and
fill in with sediment over time in between storm events These log sills /scour pools will
continue to be monitored in subsequent years
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 6 of 8

3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Tables 6a and 6b summarize the vegetation conditions of the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm f
Stream Restoration site Table 6a references the vegetation assessment tract associated with
SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT1 Reach B, Table 6b references the vegetation assessment
tract associated with UT2 (Reaches A and B) There were a total of 9 VPAs, 4 of which were ;
identified last year during the Year 1 visual assessment and 5 that were newly identified
during the current assessment All 5 newly identified VPAs were located on the SFHC
Reaches 1 and 2/UT1 Reach B vegetation assessment tract VPAs documented last year were
included in this assessment since there has been no treatment implemented to date (although
treatment is scheduled sometime this year) As with the SPAS, the first number in the VPA
naming convention references the monitoring year in which the VPA was identified during
the visual assessment Most of the VPAs (except VPA1 -3) reported from last year's
assessment remained unchanged in size and species composition when observed during this
assessment, and therefore will not be discussed in this memorandum, but all are included in
the scoring of easement acreage performance categories in Tables 6a and 6b, and are also
summarized in Table 6c, Figure 2 (CCPV), and the VPA photolog
Vegetation conditions for SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT1 Reach B were good and '
performing close to 100 percent for both, the planted acreage and invasive /encroachment area
categories, as shown in Table 6a Invasive species were not present during last year's
assessment throughout these reaches but were observed for the first time during this current
assessment, occurring in seven discrete areas totaling approximately 0 08 acres or 0 9 percent
of the total easement acreage The largest of these areas were VPA2 -1, VPA2 -2, and VPA2 -
3 which are all located within the upstream and downstream limits of the SFHC mainstem,
and are all composed of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and privet (Ligustrum smense)
The close proximity of VPA2 -1 and VPA -2 -3 to the project easement boundary makes these
areas more susceptible to the encroachment of mvasive vegetation from outside the easement
where invasive vegetation is thriving and has not been treated, VPA2 -1 may also have been
caused by the proliferation of a seed source in the adjacent VPA1 -4 VPA2 -2 appears to
have been caused by a combination of invasives persisting after treatment and from intact
seed sources contained within the existing tree stand cluster in which VPA2 -2 is situated
The three VPAs reported within UT1 Reach B are all located in the right floodplain or terrace
and are composed primarily of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) that seems to have persisted
after prior treatment VPA24 is located on the eastern periphery of vegetation monitoring
plot 22 and may have proliferated from seed sources contained within the existing tree stand
located just outside the vegetation plot
The UT2 vegetation assessment tract did not perform as well once again because of the
widespread infestation of invasive species associated with VPA1 -3 and VPA1 -4 While
VPA 1 -4 has remained unchanged in size and composition, VPA 1 -3 has increased in area by
0 02 acres since last year's assessment, extending up the valley along the left bank of UT2
Reach B approximately 130 LF These two invasive VPAs were solely confined to UT2
Reach B and made up a combined total of 0 29 acres, or 19 3 percent of the 1 5 acre easement
area for the UT2 vegetation assessment tract (a total increase of 0 02 acres or 13 percent of
the easement acreage since last year's assessment) Invasive vegetation in these VPAs
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 7 of 8 I

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
It appears that several pine trees were recently cut down Just outside of the easement along
the left floodplam/terrace of UT1 Reach B A few of these pine trees fell inside vegetation
monitoring plots 21 and 23 These downed trees may have damaged some native buffer
plantings located inside and out of the vegetation plots EEP and the landowner were notified
and the trees are to be removed by the landowner before the end of June 2013 in time for the
Year 2 vegetation plot counts to be conducted
Year 2 Site Assessment Report — S Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc May 31, 2013
Page 8 of 8

----- CE--------- CE- - - --
— • — • — • — • — - — • — • —
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
14
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR EROSION
Te TB
— —
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
Y
647/567
VEGETATION
BARE FLOOD
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
PLAIN AREA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
DEGRADATION
SPA
(SPA)
X –#
FENCE
CROSS SECTION
•
WETLAND GAGE
MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
Y
688/607
WLVP1
Y
850/647
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
O
PHOTO ID POINT
■
VEGETATION
PLOTS
PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
UNDERCUT BANKS
(SPA)
(ALL
CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
VEGETATION PLOT
VP
WETLAND
■
VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
UT2
r
ter.
yw
un
!
W 1 4
`}�e:
a ;a
i r
it
� r
rcr
VEG PLOT ATTAINMENT
VEG
PLOT ID
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTEDS
TEM COUNT
14
Y
1335/850
15
Y
647/567
16
Y
607/647
17
Y
850/890
18
Y
364/567
19
Y
364/486
20
Y
688/607
WLVP1
Y
850/647
FIN law-
PID
- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -,
YPAY` 2
FRk
SPA2 -1
/-SFH-10+00 �\ WG4 PIDS PID11
BEGIN AS -BUILT
S. FORK HOPPERS CREEK - t ke
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE VPA1 FLOW \,.,' \�
y
A 9
P101 A,
CRE
$P — .GAUGE
t
SPA2 2 �paa i
\` W 2 ; , FLOW —
c " •c, VPA}-2 D ? (UT118) ®WGIa \ 3
I �
SPA1 3' •
d l i L I J 9 - -- - - SFH -22 +47.76
UT1 3 � - END AS BUILT..
VPA2 -6 _- _ LONGITUDINAL PROFI
FENCE -
VP tt
TI,
\ _
. w .. ,. .s ..w...,;� _. <` • .. � ; -- -1299
40 Q 40 80
l IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY• 2010
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +48
u
c
tWwmm�
s is
5 Z
U O
w�
p 0- N
W
ZQ� W
.z F Z
LLJ
Z LL
�
Uj0
W Q •j
0-
_ W 0
G�
j cam/]
O Y
a •
N
N
W
92251
128244
5!28/2013
DESIGNED: - --
DRAWN: MDR
APPROVED:
Non wft Year.
2 of 5
1 of 3

---- CE--------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— •— •— •— . —• —•—
— ASBUILT CENTERLINE
TB TS
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
—
— ASBUILT CHANNEL
FENCE
X -#
CROSS SECTION
O
PHOTO ID POINT
VP
VEGETATION PLOT
F-1
WETLAND
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
DEGRADATION
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
—UT1 8-10 +00
BEGIN AS —BUILT
LONGITUDINAL
UT1A PROFILE
(NOT SURVEYED)
------- CE-=--- CE- - - - - --
END
�q� - -- BEGIN
X37_ -- -- - -3D— STA
—eI's
40 0 40 80
❑VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
❑
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
VEG
PLOT ATTAINMENT
VEGETATION
BARE FLOOD
PROBLEM AREA (VPA
PLAIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
DEGRADATION
(SPA)
VEG
PLOT ID
SURVIVAL
THRESHOLD
MET?
TOTAL /PLANTEDS
TEM COUNT
VEGETATION
(ALL PLOTS
PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
(SPA)
21
Y
1093/1335
22
Y
1335/931
®
VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
_
.
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
UNDERCUT BANKS
(SPA)
23
Y
486/1012
PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
UT1 -B
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +85
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
4
is
Q
z
IUO
LL
z Ix xU
Oa~ N
wpp W
�Fz
NwU
LU J
a
= o
U
2
r
r-
v
r-
C�
$0
m
PN
W
5/28/2013
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: MORR
APPROVED:
AorAoArp Ywr.
2 of 5
2 of 3

u
--- -- CE--------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT STREAM PROBLEM AREA SPA VEG PLOT ATTAINMENT U
— • — • — • — • — • — • — — ASBUILT CENTERLINE INVASIVE I SPECIES PROBLEM (VPA) ❑ (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR
/EROSION
TO ASBUILT TOP OF BANK STREAM PROBLEM AREA SPA VEG THRESHOLD TOTAL /PLANTEDS Dior&
ASBUILT CHANNEL VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) ■ ( ) PLOT ID TEM COUNT
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA DEGRADATION MET? Zoe
som
u m
* X —# * FENCE STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA) 13 Y 1578/728 j
CROSS SECTION ■ VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA ■ STRUCTURE PROBLEM Lz,
(ALL PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING CRITERIA)
O PHOTO ID POINT STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■ VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA ,, _ UNDERCUT BANKS
1_vpVEGETATION PLOT STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■ BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
Fl WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
h r
60 Q 30 60
14;
ceo4
�c v
n E�0 UT2- 13+78.77
END AS —BUILT
LONG. PROFILE
,rte,
UT2 -12 +5150
BEGIN AS —BUILT
LONG. PROFILE
RIFFLE 1280.91
i
0
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
STA. 12+54-13+79
VPA1 -3
l
\\ 1 12 0
\•� \ VPID3
\
vPAt -ti
UT2
\� ,J10T SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY• 2010
4
W_
ON
Q
Z
;2: U O
Ow (3 Q
U
o n. F
W
ZO25 N
Z jt
r j
LLJ F.-Z 0
0 Lu O
WJ
CL
CL
U
� F
1
ID
1
5/28/2013- -
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: jdQ$
3 of 3
tt2BE SPA2 -4
--
- - -- •,
P p8 B
R\
VPAl -3
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 2 MONITORING
STA. 12+54-13+79
VPA1 -3
l
\\ 1 12 0
\•� \ VPID3
\
vPAt -ti
UT2
\� ,J10T SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY• 2010
4
W_
ON
Q
Z
;2: U O
Ow (3 Q
U
o n. F
W
ZO25 N
Z jt
r j
LLJ F.-Z 0
0 Lu O
WJ
CL
CL
U
� F
1
ID
1
5/28/2013- -
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: jdQ$
3 of 3

Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology StabditV Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
mssessea Lengm
lLrl
104
Major
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
Stable,
Numberw r
oo ge wi
us e o for
Channel
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
erAs -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Vag
Woody Vag
Woody Vag
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggraclation
0
0
100%
2 Degradation
0
0
100%
2-Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate
5
6
83%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
12
13
92%
dition
2 Length
8
8
100%
4 Thalweg
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
position
T—Thalweg centenn at downstream of meander Ilide
7
7
100%
2 Bank
1
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
11111111k
1
1
1
cam„ „roaic� �i�
and/or scour and erosion
2
16
99%
0
0
99%
Structures h sicall intact wth no dislodged boulders or logs 23 24
Grade Control Grade con A structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill 11 11
Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus 9 9
Bank Protection Bank erosion wthin the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% 12 13
Habitat Pool torming structures maintaining - Max Pool Deptt 11 11
0 99%
0 99%
0 97%

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Abtiesseg Lengm
Lrl
tianK iacKing vegetative cover resutnng simply Trom poor grown
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
moun of
Stable, Number w'
oo age vvi
bus a or
Category
Category
0
99%
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
p er As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Vea
Woody Vag
Wood Ve
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation
3 Mass Wastin
Bank slumping calving or colic se
0
0
100%
41 tdl, rpitt
i�,
+sa %itr >,,t
100 %
2 Degradation
Totals
0
0
100%
99%
0
0
99 %
2 Riffle Condition
1 Overall Integrity
1 TexturelSubstrate
3
3
19
19
100%
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
10 _
10
�;i _
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
tianK iacKing vegetative cover resutnng simply Trom poor grown
and/or scour and erosion
1
12
99%
0
0
99%
2 Undercut
Bans undercut/overhanging tot the extent that mass wasting
appears like
0
0
100 °G
0
0
100%
3 Mass Wastin
Bank slumping calving or colic se
0
0
100%
0
0
100 %
Totals
1
12
99%
0
0
99 %
3 Engineering
1 Overall Integrity
Structures
Structures h sicall intact wdh no dislod ed boulders or logs
19
19
100%
2 Grade Control
ra a contro structures ex i itmg maintenance o gra a across the
k
sill
10
10
100%
2a Piping
Structures lackin an substantial flow underneath sills or arms
7
8
88%
3 Bank Protection
Bank wthin t e structures extent ot intluence does not
exceed 15%
1
10
10
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures main aining - Max Pool Deptt
14
1 14
lull
100%
i

f
Table 5c
Reach ID
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT1 Reach B
rassesseg Lengm
tLrl
iuoo
Major
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Number o
Amount
e,
Number with
Footage wi
1us e ° or
Channel
Category
Performing
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cateciory
Metric
as intended
Segments
Intended
Wood Ve
Wood Vag
Wood Vag
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 A radation
0
100%
2 De radation
0
100 %
2 Riffle Condition
t16
jFa
1 Texture /Substrate
10
83%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth
26
100%
2 Length
16
100%
4 Thatweg
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
100%
position
2 Thalwe centenn at downstream of meander Glide
16
100%
2 Bank
1
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
c ure odin
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 Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3
1 Overall Integrity
Engineering
SWctures h sisal intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
38
38
100%
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill
22
22
100%
2a Piping
Structures tar-king any substantial flow underneath sills or anus
10
10
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does nol
exceed 15% 1
16
16
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures main aining - Max Pool Deptr
10
10
1 0 0
100 °h

Table 5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT2 (Reaches A and B)
Assessed Length [LF)
1197
Major Channel
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
um er o
moun o
a e,
um er wi
oo age w
djusted % for
Category
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Metric
as Intended
per As -Built
Sectments
Footage
Intended
Woody Veq
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
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%
position
2 Thalwe centerm at downstream of meander Glide
4
4
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Erodmy
Rank lacking vegetative cover resu ling situp y rpm poor growl
and /or scour and erosion
1
15
99%
0
0
99%
2 Undercut
an s un ercu overhanging to t e extent t at mass wasting
appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Mass Wastm
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
15
99%
0
0
99%
3 Engineering
1 Overall Integrity
Structures h sicall mtacl with no dislod ed boulders or I
10
10
100%
Structures
2 Grade Control
ra a contro structures ex i sting maintenance o gra a across the
sill
5
5
100%
2a Piping
Nis
Structures lackm an substantial flow underneath sills or arms
3
5
60%
3 Bank Protection
an erosion wd m the structures extent o influence does not
exceed 15%
5
5
100%
4 Habitat
o0 forming structures main aininF=M--P­- ax oo ep
5
5
100%

Table Se. Sri eam Problem Areas
Happen Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project Project No 92251
South Fork Happen Creek (SFHQ Reach 1
Feamie Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number*
Scour eroding the left bank immediately
downstream of log sill invert/left bank ue-m
14 +20 to 14 +26
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPAI -1
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
directed at the left bank by log sill orientation
Bank Scour
Scour eroding the right bank immediately
downstream of log sill mven/right bank tie in
14 +40 to 14 +50
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPAI -2
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
directed at the left bank by log sill orientation
Rootwad failure and undercut banks along the
left bank immediately downstream of log sill
inveNleft bank tie-in Appears to be caused by
bank scour upstream and beneath the rootwad
Engineering structures Rootwad Failure
16 +12 to 16+32
resulting from flow (velocity vector) directed at
SPA2 -1
the left bank by log sill onentaton which
eventually undermined the rootwad to where it
separated from the left bank slumping into the
channel
Slumping of right bank along downstream
Bank Slumping
15+95 to 16+10
portion of outer meander bend due poor sod
SPA2 2
compaction and a lack of woody root mass to
hold and stabilize the bank in place
SFHC Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No,
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Piping of flow through both vane arms around
Engineering structures - Piping
19 +23
the downstream lower eleveation sill possibly a
SPAT-3
result of poor sod compaction, inadequate
silting and/or fading filter fabric installation
Localized scour along the left bank behind well
rooted bank vegetation thriving at the toe of
channel causing erosion in between the left
Bank Scour
18 +75 to 18 +87
bank and the well - rooted vegetation (primarily
SPA2 -3
comprised of Willow Oak Tag Alder and Soft
Rush)
UT2 Reach A
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Flow piping within nfte cascade and around
downstream log sill due to possible tear in filter
Piping
13 +40
fabric or lack of sealing from re- sorting of
SPAI -5
alluvial material and silt
Flow piping within riffle cascade and around
Piping
12+90
downstream log sill due to possible tear in filter
SPA2 -5
fabric or lack of sealing from re-sorting of
alluvial material and silt
UT2 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Steep re graded portion of left bank is slumping
and separating from the top of terrace possibly
Upstream reach limits along left bank
due to poor soil compaction and overland storm
Bank Slumping
channel V
(across channel from Veg
flow seepage along at the top of terrace that
SPA2-4
Mss
Plot
may be undermining the re- graded portion of
bank
"'W' E hemeral Drama a (near u sti eam extents of UT2)* *1
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Scour of nffle cascade from large storm events
Riffle cas ile downstream of second
over time has eroded the channel bed
Bed Scour/Degradation
depositing the coarse riffle substrate
SPAI -6
boulder sill
downstream and exposed the underlying filter
fabric
'Note 1110 Iasi sign in the Photo number column references me monitoring year aria me secona aign micrenccs ine prooiem area or pnoto twmcn %oma tie menucaf m a pnor
,ears problem area photo number %hen persisting from a pmvious monitoring year)
-Not being sought for mingation

Table 6a
Reach ID
Vegetation Condition Assessment
SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, UT1 Reach B
.cayc
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or oints if too small to render as po f y9ons at map scale)
1000 SF
NA
7
008
09%
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woodX and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
see figure
2
012
28%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly e ow target levels based on MY3, 4, or
5 stem count criteria
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
00%
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas win woody stems of a size class that are o wows y small given
or VI or
the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA 1
0
000
00%
rasemenT acreage u b
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or oints if too small to render as po f y9ons at map scale)
1000 SF
NA
7
008
09%
5 Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none NA
0
000
00%

Table 6b
Reach ID
Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT2 Reaches A and B
vianteg Acreage
14
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both wood and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
00%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly e ow target levels based on MY3, 4, or
Areas or omts if too small to render as poXoons at map scale)
5 stem count criteria
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
00%
1,
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems Or a size class that are o vious y small given
5 Easement Encroachment
or Vigor
the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
00%
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
00%
c.+beineni Mcreaye
10
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De ict'on
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or omts if too small to render as poXoons at map scale)
1000 SF
see fi ure
2
029
193%
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 Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
SFHC Reach
1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number*
Bare Floodplain
Standing water from frequent inundation
VPAI -1
Unknown
VPAi -2
Rosa nizzllzi lora and Lzgustrum sznense
See Plan View Figure
persisting after treatment/potential
Invasive /Exotic Populations
encroachment from outsideand possibly
VPA2 -1
proliferating from seed source in adjacent
VPAi -4
SFHC Reach
2
Feature issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Rosa multzflora and Lzgustrum sznense
persisting after treatment within existing tree
VPA2 -2
invasive /Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
stand
Rosa multzflora and Lzgustrum sznense
persisting after treatment/potential
VPA2 -3
encroachment from outside
UTI Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Rosa multi flora and Lonzcerajaponzca
persisting after treatment from existing tree
VPA2 -4
invasive/Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
stand
Rosa nfzzltz ora persisting after treatment
VPA2 -5
Rosa multi ora persisting after treatment
VPA2 -6
UT2 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Portion of Veg Plot 13 to
Rosa multzflora, Lzgustrum sznense, and
downstream easement crossing (along
Mzcrostegzum vzmzneum persisting after
VPAI -3
Invasive /Exotic Populations
portions of both banks /terraces)
treatment
Downstream of easement crossing to
Rosa multzflora, Lzgustrum smense, and
confluence with SFHC (left
Mzcrostegzum vznuneum persisting after
VPAI -4
bank/terrace)
treatment
`Note I he first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior years
problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year)

�c�

SFHC PID 1— 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

SFHC PID 7 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 9 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 10 — Confluence of UT 1
SFHC PID I I — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 12 — Double Drop Cross Vane below
crossing

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

UT1 to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos

UT1 PID 1— Constructed Riffle
UT 1 PID 2 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 3 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 4 —Constructed Riffle
UT1 PID 5 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 6 —Log Sills

UTI PID 7 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 8 —Constructed Riffle
UT 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

?t
t i4t��trY "t:�iK{ tr �+r: 1'�,:'. 't''w ,��2.1I t� {.',!'`4..,��Hjs•� k�. -'�r,
v
r:.s:. er4
1 is +tt�.:- ?�w.., - f
Constructed
J i1
g y '' ryi Ir T
_6'
sa, f. \a3r.,4u1 �-7�" �ht'�,.j'� a�tt. -•. �4^7L� w f r� �H`_i�,`.
�Y
UTIM1t J(� tS a
' ID 15 — Constructed Riffle below
crossing
g + a �n. l "r ,�'"` t,� 1 7 y, • _ l—` � f�S"r" sl `13 (+ 7 '� +� }t'�i�,r
rte{ e F,•qa y1 'Lti �� �, t� ffi.�.r�+�;��v,'�' � ��{� r r i `io ! t ? .�.
vy�'�'t"� ' r 1j:4' ,rt�g',IY"•', �r>a ]- ."r,�, �`,yrti�ti! ���d'3'�:2 fie,
z�.t^IadiIi \� i >v\4�,,t7Ff �i 'r,"�+
3�'��
t a ,1fs
u�l
�.t ]��?t3?F'r���. .�i �'1� +,.rte �lt � " +1h1 " ". .,. ♦- f'c I_j
� '� J � v r >A di�ir' �/ � ,Sd�` �r. •,F '� ], .�o' j' `!za ;n`�tr
rNI
JAY(' sits C t
MI
r?t`5 tA'L ,� +R,..a. .T �•q�j -r'FE K'�
4 -a1 -b- • (�� �,' BEd 1, �,&v'i s ;'
UT I PID 14 •. Sill
.rs36..4 t� '. t
4 + y tom,. 'J Y +v
1 r T t i' s ;`
.s
r
S
UTI 1111 16 —Constructed Rittle
v
t a.,T `�7.(,/�`� �.r }. a'�' „xC tst .� t�e� '£• �{'. t z ?� �.
Frnt "f }jrtito- kSi��fcFL�
9�,yC,��,f

UT PID 19 —Constructed Riffle

UT2 to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos

UT2 PID 1 — Constructed Riffle & Log Sill
UT2 PID 3 — Strcam crossing
UT2 PID 2 — Constructed Riffles & Log Sills

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos

SPA 1 -1— SFHC Reach 1 Left bank scour
SPA 1 -2 — SFHC Reach 1 Right bank scour
SPA 1 -3 — SFHC Reach 2 Piping of cross vane
SPA 1 -5 — UT2 Reach A Piping within riffle cascade
around log sill
SPA 1 -6 — Ephemeral drainage channel bed erosion
SPA2 -1— SFHC Reach 1 Rootwad failure along left
bank due to undercutting along bank

t
t L t > I
jr
11, fal
th
J`
o � t
S* r1*5 W�T
x � f'j;W��
�. Sd, t• F�.,�c M1ai � r `i`t
.•2-. -. 1 � �� 3 '� ... ���y.�� y '6,- N `7' -r r N r (I \�' ✓��jt �'1iF'����'1.1 t� ^• -1✓ 3 j\ r �� -rt r,
rt fi w
�yd���'¢.y'1�J'r'ifs-��
r75 ,.. t"r' SY,, aw' r r �, fy ` ..(�- '� L\ ,\ •� ,,ice ,pc \'�
"% ..'k ✓if' S .sue i � +i - "i � .
'iuc' �t ����3'(S ,,,e,7''�� � �.rl�x+ Y� /< ,� tom• - _ �^'}.�� Ltx�t� ��g���t�'3
,Ci^. _ '-- {Ss...4F 7.• y ih'lx"�• -ir' �•" �� y..p 1"o'.7:f, q� � ,1 .�'
'� �• �'3� -.'' �, ,i Ylj�.,y �'L �F ff � �,,Yr Nsi'�_? 4 r�F. � h, } ,. t..��t

f
South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos

VPA1 -1 — SFHC Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA 1 -2 — UT2 Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA1 -3 — UT2 Reach B Multiflora Rose, Chinese
Privet, Japanese Stilt Grass
VPA1 -4 — UT2 Reach B Multiflora Rose, Chinese
Privet, Japanese Stilt Grass
VPA2 -1 — SFHC Reach 1 Multiflora Rose and Chinese
Privet
VPA2 -2 — SFHC Reach 2 Multiflora Rose and Chinese
Privet

ti
1F ��
..l`L.
ei {+��•„z�� -i�"`' -
'+�
r t
- •„E -c,��1 K�-z3 ��* ;,�.. S- t y���7 :;,{ YI{.Sq;J.v3� � :fy _ -
^�
�t la t� y ,ty i t s {, ^. ,Y f J" •x Y/
-
7
Ai f I
tt 1 `C.� 1. Ef. J� If"x�r ' � � e }�c �� ^'�'' r €.� 1�'k' ! r^�,.� t I ,�p! It. •✓ ��tf'r% 1 � '
t • � 'cctY � ,yft�v ;F'�\ lt' � � � yS:: f°' �j�fj `ti� -n �•�K 8' I `, t"� #'1` r i
r _. l � �' c' e `Y, � j r 4 }� � •i' S 1 '1 ; yt .. �H `4. 1 � t J Is -i8 x i r �S� �• ,( 1 Y '
> i ���� f i �a'T''`. ��.` td •~ -.-a, Gf 1C. 5i;. {z r�'� r3''• ���r,; �Y �J }� r��'i �l `�` �1 ,y1 x ` 1i `' if �"a,t -,
,,.�, �' `� -f t� ``,� *'�''��r iw. f '4.., ��•r ,_ l,,.,srt�t;�- a, , ,. .;£s I��?'("z . .:�,J�
1 `�2 t , � w Ord '* , � t;,' .+k� � i -i' .'r Yf � t • E i � ;i" i > .r+ � � i -s.

ipers Creek (SFHC)
n Plot Photos

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/23/2013 - Photo 1: Veg Plot 13
9/23/2013 - Photo 2: Veg Plot 13: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo 3: Veg Plot 14
9/23/2013 - Photo 4: Veg Plot 14: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo 5: Veg Plot 15
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
9/23/2013 - Photo 6: Veg Plot 15: Herbaceous Plot

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/23/2013 - Photo 7: Veg Plot 16
9/23/2013 - Photo 8: Veg Plot 16: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo 9: Veg Plot 17
9/23/2013 - Photo 10: Veg Plot 17: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 11: Veg Plot 18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 12: Veg Plot 18: Herbaceous Plot

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/23/2013 - Photo 13: Veg Plot 19
9/23/2013 - Photo 14: Veg Plot 19: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo 15: Veg Plot 20
9/23/2013 - Photo 16: Veg Plot 20: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 17: Veg Plot 21
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. — 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 18: Veg Plot 21: Herbaceous Plot

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 2 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 19: Veg Plot 22
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 20: Veg Plot 22: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 21: Veg Plot 23
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 22: Veg Plot 23: Herbaceous Plot
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 23: Veg Plot WLP 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 2 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2013, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 5
9/23/2013 - Photo Point 24: Veg Plot WLP1: Herbaceous Plot

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP- Project No. 92251
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Total/Planted Stem
Count
Tract Mean
13
Y
1578/728
850
14
Y
1335/850
15
Y
647/567
16
Y
607/647
17
Y
850/890
18
Y
364/567
19
Y
364/486
20
Y
688/607
21
Y
1093/1335
22
Y
1335/931
23
Y
486/1012
WLP 1
Y
850/647
Note *TotaUPlanted 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
Matthew Reid
Date Prepared
9/30/2013 12 16
Database name
cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 3 1 South Muddy_Hoppers mdb
Database location
L \Monitoring \Monitoring Guidance \Vegetation \CVS EEP Entrytool V2 3 1
Computer name
ASHEWMDREID2
File size
128475392
DESCRIPTION'OF WORKSHEETS IN THISfDOCUMENTt a
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Proj, 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
PROJECYSUMMARY' � ?`
Protect Code
92251
Project 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

a.
�i®
0
®
®�00
®Omo
©O
©
®0mmo�ooOOmO
©OOOmom
�c��mmmoommmmmmommmommmommmmmommmmmmm
�m•
���mmmmoommmmmmommmmmmmmmmaommmm
®mmmmm��i
®
®�®
2����moommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoommoo
. a��®
mmomoom
©m
©mmmmmmmo
©mmmommmmmmmmmmmmm
®mmmmmi,
�m•®
. ��rm
♦
�a�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
®vvmmmmmmoomomommmmomoommmmmm
©mmm
®mmm,
s�c�r�
�asm
:em•mmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmm
•
®mmmma000mmmmmomommmmamoommaoo
mm
©am
®mmmmmmi
®000000
r�r,
rama�®®
�. �mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoommm
oommoomm0000mmmmoommm000mm
®
®om®
®mmmmmm
®mmmm
a�n�
��mt�ammmmmmmoommmmmmm
®
®aommmmmmoommomammmmmmommmm
©oommmmmmmoo
®
®o
®mmm,
®
®mm.
�m�s�
[ �L: u����mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm000mm
®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoaom®
®
®mmmmm.
®m
®mm
®
moommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoo
SWAM
®m
®mmmm
u��®
mmm•
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmm
®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�m•
��®
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmommmmmm
u- x�m®
m®
mmmmmommmmmommmmmmmmm
©m
®�0mmmmmm
m�c��®
���-
smmmmm©
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmm�
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmommmmmmmm®
®mmm
� ��mmm_
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
_m_m_m_m_m__mm_m_m_m_
®_mmm
®_
®mmmmmmm
®mmmmmmm
©mmmmmmm
®00000
®mmmmmmm
��aoomoomomo
�0000mmmm00momm00m
©m
©maommoom
©000000
©000mmmmommmmmm,
®0000
®mmmmmmm
Comm
m
©m
®amm
®mmmmmmm0om
®momomm0m
®m
®8m
®mm
®mom
®oo
®®
®mom0mommmmmm
®mmm
©mmmmmmm

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type: Area Width Depth Depth,
Riffle I C 11.6 12.32 0.94 1.68 13.05 1.1 5.1 1260.24 1260.38
1262 X5 Riffle
1261
0
1260
w
1259
1258 -I-
95
105 115 125 135 145
Station
– E YR 2 2013 —A YR1 2012 - -* Asbuilt 2010
155
- a -- Bankfull
165

4� z
..
.. -.
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
Feature l Stream
Tvoe
1263
1262
1261
c
;° 1260
M
w
1259
1258
1257
1256
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
BKF BKF BKF Depth I Max BKF I W/D BH Ratio I ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Area Width De th
16.7 1 13.39 1.25 2.84 10.71 1.1 4.9 1260.05 1 1260.2
X6 Pool
95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
— -- YR 2 2013 A YR 1 2012 —* Asbuilt 2010 -- o -- Bankfull
165

ti
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
gig IF
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature W/D -' BH Ratio ER BKF.. Elev TOB Elev
Type Area Width Depth De th -
Riffle C 14.8 1 12.78 1 16 —T-1.9L__L 11.06 1.1 4.9 1 1255.11 1 1255.22
X7 Riffle
1257 ,
1256
r-
0
1255
m
w
1254
1253 4-
95
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
-- —YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 —* Asbuilt 2010 -- o- -- Bankfull
165
LEFT BANK
gig IF
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature W/D -' BH Ratio ER BKF.. Elev TOB Elev
Type Area Width Depth De th -
Riffle C 14.8 1 12.78 1 16 —T-1.9L__L 11.06 1.1 4.9 1 1255.11 1 1255.22
X7 Riffle
1257 ,
1256
r-
0
1255
m
w
1254
1253 4-
95
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
-- —YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 —* Asbuilt 2010 -- o- -- Bankfull
165

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature BKF Width W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
22
Type Area De ` th be th
Pool 12.3 12.76 0.96 1.73 13.28 1.2 5.6 1252.89 1253.
1256 X8 Pool
1255
1254
c
1253
-----------------
m
w 1252
1251
1250
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
�E- YR 2 2013 —f —YR 1 2012 —* Asbuilt 2010 0 -- Bankfull

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF -;BKF Max BKF
Feature T e Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF EIeV 'TOB Elev
Riffle I C 1 2.2 5.42 1 0.4 0.76 1 13.62 1 1.2 1 8.8 1 1258.64 1 1258.81
1261
1260
0
> 1259
a�
w
1258
1257
95
X9 Riffle
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
—YR 2 2013 —AYR 1 2012 6 Asbuilt 2010 - --0- -- Bankfull
1 fb 5

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 2 Monitoring - August 2013)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream ` " BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 5.5 8.9 0.61 1.62 14.52 1.1 7 1258.42 1258.54
X10 Pool
1261
1260
c
c�
1259
------- - - - - --
w 1258
1257
1256 --
95
105 115 125 135 145 155
Station
— YR 2 2013 —*--- YR 1 2012 —$ Asbuilt 2010 -- o- -- Bankfull
MGM

South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2)
Profile Chart
Year 2 Monitoring- August 2013
1264
—TWG-Asbui112010
1262
Reach 1 - — - — -- — - —TWG-YR 12012
—6--TWG-YR 2 2013
--Top of Bank
1260
. ...... . ......... --- --------------- —WSF
(Reach Break) 0 Log Sills
III Cross Vanes
1258
X5 Riffle
1256
X6 Pool
Reach 2
0
...... . .. ................ ... ---- -- - --
LU
1252 -
X7 Riffle
1250
X8 Pool
1248
1246 -
1244
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190
Station

1274
1272
1270
1268
1266
1264
0
Uj 1 262
1 260
1258
1256
1254
1252
South Fork Hoppers Creek - UTlB
Profile Chart
—TWG-Asbuift 2010
—TWC-YR 1 2012
.. .....X9 Riffle
. . .... ............
X10 Pool
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990
Station

Figure 5a. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Die= 8.00
Dzs= 66.98
D� = 79.42
Da, = 122.90
De, = 168.14
Dr = 256 -362
11
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACHILOCATION:
Reach 1 - Cross - section 5 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
15- Aug -13
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY:
MDR
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Die= 8.00
Dzs= 66.98
D� = 79.42
Da, = 122.90
De, = 168.14
Dr = 256 -362
11
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
%Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt /Clay
<.063
6
6%
6%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 -.125
20%
10%
0%
-
- - - ___. .._ -._
I Im 111IL.A.
6%
Fine
.125-25 .25
6%
Medium
.25 -.50
5
5%
11%
Coarse
.50 -1.0
3
3%
14%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
14%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0 -2.8
■11111111�I11111111
14%
Very Fine
23 -4.0
■11111111
14%
Fine
4.0 -5.6
14%
Fine
5.6 -8.0
2
2%
16%
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
1 %
17%
Medium
1140 -16.0
4
4%
21%
Coars e
16.0 -22.6
21%
coarse
22.6 -32
3
3%
24%
Very Coarse
32-45
2
2%
26%
Very Coarse
45 -64
5
5%
31%
COBBLE
Small
64 -90
30
30%
61%
Small
90-128
26
26%
87%
Large
128-180
10
10%
97%
Large
180-256
2
2%
99%
BOULDER
Small
256 -362
1
1%
100%
Small
362-512
/11111111
Medium
512 -1024
�
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
11111111■
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Die= 8.00
Dzs= 66.98
D� = 79.42
Da, = 122.90
De, = 168.14
Dr = 256 -362
11
,
■ AB (2010)
■MY 1 (2012)
■MY2(2013
- -�';
70
60%
d
50%
L
4000
m
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
-
- - - ___. .._ -._
I Im 111IL.A.
:;
I- - 71111111■
_
Ll
11111111
■Illlul�r,��lllllll■11111111
1111111111
■IIIIIIII
■11111111�I11111111
■11111111
.,.
r■��imir11111111
■IIIIIIII
■Illlllil
►111111111
■IIIIIIII
■
11111111■
11111111■
11111111
■IIIIIU�
/11111111
■11111111
�
■
1111111■
11111111■
.
11111111
■Illl�li�
■11111111
■11111111
_
11111111■
11111111■
',
1111111
■Ill�l��iil
■1111111
■11111111
■
1
II ■11111111
■11111111
■1111
tll ■1111111
■11111111
■
11111111■
1111111
■Illlllllw���+l�lll
■11111111
■1111111
■
11111111
■111,';II�.I..������M.�IIIIII
■11111111
■11111111
■1111"
iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiir11111111
■■1111111
■11111111
1 I II 111 1111
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
900 /a
RO%
"/0
■ AB (2010)
■MY 1 (2012)
■MY2(2013
70
60%
d
50%
L
4000
m
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
-
- - - ___. .._ -._
I Im 111IL.A.
_
Ll
a~
Particle Size Class mm

Figure 5b. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulathre
Channel materials (mm)
D,e = 32.61
D. = 46.46
D. = 59.08
D. = 87.17
Des = 123.09
D, = 256 -362
II
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT'
Hoppers Creck- Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACHILOCATION:
Reach 2 - Cross - section 7 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
15- Aug-13
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY:
MDR
Cummulathre
Channel materials (mm)
D,e = 32.61
D. = 46.46
D. = 59.08
D. = 87.17
Des = 123.09
D, = 256 -362
II
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class%
%Cum
SILT /CLAY
Sill /Clay
<.063
2
2%
2%
Very Fine
063-125 .125
p4 40
2%
SAND
Fine
.125 -.25
2
2%
4%
Medium
.25 -.50
4%
Coarse
.50 -1.0
1
1%
5%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
1
5%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0 -2.8
5%
Very Fine
2.8 -4.0
5%
Fine
4.0 -5.6
.,
5%
Fine
5.6 -8.0
5%
Medium
8.0 -11.0
3
Medium
11.0-16.0
1
1 %
9%
Coarse
16.0 -22.6
�'11III
9%
Coarse
22.6 -32
6
6%
15%
Very Coarse
32 -45
18
18%
33%
Very Coarse
45 -64
22
22%
55%
Small
64 - 90
32
32 %
87%
COBBLE
Small
90 -128
9
9%
96%
Large
128-180
2
2%
98%
Large
180-256
1
1 %
99%
Small
256-362
1
1 %
100°/a
BOULDER
Small
362-512
Medium
512 -1024
■111I'III■,1IIIIIL,1'
Large -Very Large
1024 -2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
■11��II'lll■,IIIIIII■,II'llll
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulathre
Channel materials (mm)
D,e = 32.61
D. = 46.46
D. = 59.08
D. = 87.17
Des = 123.09
D, = 256 -362
II
1
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
90%
R0 %
70
■ AB (2010)
AMY 1 (2012)
■ MY 2 (2013
60%
u 50%
L
p4 40
•
�1'll'III■'1'IIIII.1111
-5 'k aP `o, �� ,yyb �b .�� 1�M o
Particle Size Class (oi
el� ���II'III■'1IIIIII
I ,
1
.,
1,
1tII�lII�11'
I�III�11IIII�1.11IIIIIL,III�III
�'11III
II�
111IIIII■,1'lll
II.11'IIIII.,1111III■,'IIIIII
■111I'III■,1IIIIIL,1'
lull
■11��II'lll■,IIIIIII■,II'llll
.1
■
11111111
■1111111111111111
■1!I
�illl
■11111111
■11111111
■
11111111
■IIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�JIIIIIII
■11111111
■IIIIIIII
� ,,
■
11111111
■Iiiinu������111��11�lllll
■11111111
■11111111
,,,
■
,,
IIIIIIII��_.....
1_
�_.
I.
���Irl�llllll
■IIIIIIII
■IIIIIIII
■IIII'���!+�::l;;;!_�::�:!�;,:
��IIIIII
■IIIIIIII
■IIIIIIII
1 1 1 I 11 111 111
100 %
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
90%
R0 %
70
■ AB (2010)
AMY 1 (2012)
■ MY 2 (2013
60%
u 50%
L
p4 40
U 30%
20
10%
0%
-5 'k aP `o, �� ,yyb �b .�� 1�M o
Particle Size Class (oi

Figure 5c. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Drs = 25.38
Dos = 45.67
D.= 56.91
De. = 90.00
Dss = 143.40
Drm= 180 -256
11
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
UTI B - Cross- section 9 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
15- Aug -13
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY:
MDR
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Drs = 25.38
Dos = 45.67
D.= 56.91
De. = 90.00
Dss = 143.40
Drm= 180 -256
11
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE I—)
Riffle
Class%
%Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
<.063
5
5%
57
SAND
Very Fine
.063 -.125
80%
■ MY 2 (2013)
5%
Fine
.125 -.25
1
1%
6%
Medium
.25 -.50
■Illllllil�11111111
6%
Coarse
.50-1.0
2
2%
8%
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
u
8%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
8%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
20
8e�
Fine
4.0 -5.6
2
2%
10%
Fine
5.6 -8.0
10%
Medium
8.0 -11.0
1
1%
11%
Medium
11.0-16.0
3
3%
14%
Coarse
16.0 -22.6
14%
Coarse
22.6 -32
6
6%
20%
Very Coarse
32 -45
14
14%
34%
V ery Coarse
45-64
24
24%
58%
COBBLE
Small
64 -90
26
26%
84%
Small
90 - 128
9
9%
93%
Large
128-180
6
6%
99%
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
11111111■
Small
362 - 512
Medium
512 -1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
11111111
■1111,�II
Total
100
100%
100
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Drs = 25.38
Dos = 45.67
D.= 56.91
De. = 90.00
Dss = 143.40
Drm= 180 -256
11
South Fork Hoppers Creek UTIB
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
-- -�-��-
90%
■ AB (2010)
■MY 1 (2012)
80%
■ MY 2 (2013)
;�;
f
711111111■
11111111
■Illllllil�11111111
■11111111
u
I
r
y 40%
111111111■
11111111
U 30%
■111111!'�IIIIIIII
20
■11111111
10%
.,.
0%
tib a `'b
Particle Size Class (mm)
`
■■������J11111111■
I
11111111
■IIIIIIII
■11111111
■11111111
■
11111111■
11111111■
I..
11111111
■1111,�II
■1111111
■11111111
'',
11111111■
11111111
■1111,111
■11111111
■11111111
',
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
■11111111
'
■11111111
■11►illll
11111
■
/1111111
■
11111111
■
IIIIIIII■
IIIIIIII
■Illlllli
■��IIIIII
■11111111
■11111111
■1111�1111!1111,11�
■�iiNiiiir:!
illlill
■IIIIIIII
■11111111
■
1111
,��1..�
■��������■��mIr11111111
■11111111
■11111111
11 1 I II III III
South Fork Hoppers Creek UTIB
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100
90%
■ AB (2010)
■MY 1 (2012)
80%
■ MY 2 (2013)
70%
60
u 50%
u
r
y 40%
U 30%
20
10%
0%
tib a `'b
Particle Size Class (mm)

1
31
- - - -
- -- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
-
-
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - -- - -
- - - - - -
- -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
-
..... ....... .
- -
- - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - -
-
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - -
-- - - -
- -- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
Tl
-
-
- - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
..........
- - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - -

-) -_ _ __ ` -- . -- -- �--� ---- r--'. --- - -1 r--- -�-1 r---` �-'-
|_ _ __ � _ __ ' | _ ___ _� `____ ___� �___ ._ '_ _ ___ �_ _ ___~ _� ` _

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
Based�6&frsed(baselme,bankfull
�gk�
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1255 17
1255 1*
1255 1
12586
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
12602
12602
12602
BF Width (ft)
1260 1
1260 1
1260 1
55
BF Width (ft)
13 1
121
123
BF Mean Depth (ft)
146
135
134
05
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
10
09
Width/Depth Ratio
12
13
13
114
Width/Depth Ratio
115
125
13 1
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
118
107
107
26
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
150
118
116
BF Max Depth (ft)
180
171
167
08
BF Max Depth (ft)
17
16
17
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
24
27
28
510
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
629
629
628
Entrenchment Ratio
659
660
660
8 8
Entrenchment Ratio
48
52
5 1
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1 1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10
10
1 1
64
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
154
141
142
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
171
160
159
04
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
10
1 08
1 08
05
1 1
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
Bo edron�Pizedfbaselrae bankfull'elevation -°
F A� ���
� `� a -� ��
�gk�
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1255 17
1255 1*
1255 1
12586
12529
12529
12529
12584
BF Width (ft)
133
141
128
55
175
152
128
91
BF Mean Depth (ft)
10
1 1
12
05
09
1 1
10
06
Width/Depth Ratio
131
133
11 1
114
190
139
13 3
163
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
135
148
148
26
160
166
123
5 1
BF Max Depth (ft)
15
17
19
08
21
25
17
14
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
629
629
629
510
710
71 1
71 1
620
Entrenchment Ratio
47
45
49
8 8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
10
10
1 1
12
10
10
12
13
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
154
162
151
64
193
174
147
102
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
09
1 09
1 10
04
08
1 10
1 08
05
* A lower bankfull elevation datum was used in calulating bankful dimension values for MY1 instead of using the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the data between
the two momtonng penods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dimension parameters
UT1B (1,065 LF)
Cross - section 9 (Riffle)
Cross- section 10 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based or►fixeil�baseline baokfull)'elevahou��
� `� a -� ��
� -__' :.�
�"`�`� �=
�= " ���`• = y��
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
12586
12586
12586
12584
12584
12584
BF Width (ft)
70
55
54
102
91
89
BF Mean Depth (ft)
05
05
04
08
06
061
Width/Depth Ratio
13 3
114
136
133
163
145
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
37
26
22
79
5 1
55
BF Max Depth (ft)
1 1
08
08
16
14
162
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
510
510
475
620
620
620
Entrenchment Ratio
73
8 8
8 8
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
10
12
12
10
13
1 1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8 1
64
62
1 1 8
102
10 1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
05
04
04
07
05
05

T�, T�, T., T.,
Nvl --
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - -
7
- -
- - - ---
- - - - - -
- - - - ---
- --
- - - - --
T�, T�, T., T.,
7
T

A
M H H III ;Q H HHHHI
1111111.1f,1111 811 UIHH11
.11111111ki, jaP. jHHIHHHI
,oral
l"H I I I
IIIIIIIII
H H H H I M; H H H H I
IIIIIIIIIII al Nil I I j I I H I I I I
111111111 HIS Pi IIIIIIIII
is it I Olt: I I
I
iH!HHlb
I 1 11 HHIHII
al I H I H H I I
I H I I A I 1 10 II I I I I I I I I I
I H I H H H U n; R.1 1 H H A I I
IE
HIMIII
I III I
lip cralp! flull

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan EEP Protect No 92251
Method of Data
Gauge Watermark
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Collection
Height (feet above
bankfull)
May 1, 2013
December 31, 2012 - May 1, 2013
Gauge measurement
0 10
December 31, 2012
August 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012*
Gauge measurement
055
August 1, 2012
May 30, 2012 -August 1, 2012*
Gauge measurement
010
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified

Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Marion, NC (January 2012 - December 2012)
9
8
7
6
=
0 5
U 4
v
L
a
3
2
1
0
Jan -12 Feb -12 Mar -12 Apr -12 May -12 Jun -12 Jul -12 Aug -12 Sep -12 Oct -12 Nov -12 Dec -12
Date
Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251

12
R
4
C 0
v
-4
L
-12
-16
-20
Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for 2012 Growing Season
3/30/12- 11/2/12
R
7.75
7.5
7.25
7
6.75
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
5.5
5.25
5 .t
4.75 n
4.5 'p
4.25 T
4 y
3.75 ..
3.5 D
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
I
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
41
ry
��ti
~ ti 1 A A
�N,\,ry �l��ti ►y1`�1'Y �``\1�
d~
1`1�ti
, ���\,~ �ry�ry
Date
Hydrology level required —Gauge 1 —Gauge 2
—Gauge 3
Gauge 4
Start Growing Season End Growing Season — Rainfall Data (NC -MD -2)

Table 13. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
Mitigation Plan EEP Project No 92251
-Stiihmary of Groundwater Gau erResults for MYl -MY5,,
x oA
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days Dur► g Growmg
Gaugelfl
Season ercentae
._;4 ?,'MY
1 2011
MY2 2012
MY3`2013
MY4 2014
MY5x 2015
Gauge 1
No /10 days
(5 %)
Yes /25 days
(12 %)
�ff,
Yes /218 days
Yes /218 days
Gauge 2
(100 %)
(100 %)
Gauge 3
Yes/ 188 days
Yes /218 days
0
.
(86%)
(100 /o)
Gauge 4
Yes 200 days
Yes 218 ays
o)
'��4
(92%)
( 100 /o