20080587 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCEEP Project Number — 92251
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 3 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2014
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCEEP Project Manager: Mathew Reid
Submission Date: November 28, 2014
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No. 004518
t
1��stnii
PROCAAM
o

Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration
Project
Year 3 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1048
Christopher A. Tomsic, PE, CFM
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Pax: 828.350.1409
William Scott Hunt III, PE
Technical Manager

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1
Stream Assessment ......................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1.1
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability .......................................................... ..............................4
2.1.2
Hydrology .................................................................................................................... ..............................4
2.1.3
Photographic Documentation of Site ........................................................................... ..............................5
2.1.4
Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment .................................................... ..............................5
2.2
Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................ ............................... S
2.3
Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................... ............................... 6
3.0 REFERENCES .....................
...................... ............................... 7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251 I
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum — Site Assessment Report
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 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

Appendices
Figure
3
Cross - sections with Annual Overlays
Figure
4
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure
5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table
l la
Cross - section Morphology Data Table
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
12
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
6
Monthly Rainfall Data
Figure
7
Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table
13
Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251 H
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc. (Baker) through an on -call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP). This report documents and presents Year 3 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 floodplains,
• 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 floodplain connectivity to restore historic floodplain 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 floodplain wetlands, where feasible, and
• Eliminate livestock access to the channel to improve water quality and reduce erosion from hoof
shear.
The Project site is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina,
as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A. The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -08 -30 and United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040 -020. Directions to the Project site can be found in Figure 1 of
Appendix A.
South Fork Hoppers Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and
several small rural residential developments. The land surrounding the Project site has been used historically
for agriculture but was recently used as pasture land for livestock grazing. Some forest land is located in the
upstream extents of UT1, UT2, and UT3.
South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries had been impacted by livestock and were incised and eroded.
Channel incision along South Fork Hoppers Creek resulted in the lowering of the water table; thereby,
dewatering floodplain wetlands. The Project involved the restoration or enhancement of 3,550 linear feet
(LF) of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek, and portions of UT and UT2 using Rosgen Priority 1
restoration and Level II enhancement approaches. An additional 1,071 LF of stream along portions of UT1
and UT3 was placed in preservation. The Project also included the restoration and enhancement of 1.56 acres
of riparian wetland abutting South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1 of which 1.23 acres comprised restoration
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

and 0.33 acres comprised enhancement. The Priority 1 channel design approach entailed raising the elevation
of the channel to establish greater connectivity to the floodplain and to restore the hydrologic relationship
between South Fork Hoppers Creek, its tributaries and riparian wetland areas in the Project area. Channel
pattern was re- established to dissipate flow velocities in meander bends. In- stream habitat was created using
riffle -pool sequences and the strategic placement of in- stream structures. Approximately 5.7 acres of
associated riparian buffer were restored/enhanced throughout the Project area and a conservation easement
consisting of 10.1 acres will protect and preserve all stream reaches, wetland areas, and riparian buffers in
perpetuity.
Vegetation conditions for South Fork Hoppers Reaches 1 and 2, and UT1, Reach B were good and
performing close to 100% for both the planted acreage and invasive /encroachment area categories. Two bare
areas or vegetation problem areas (VPAs), VPA1 -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 WAS were identified in
the Year 1 monitoring period and carried over through Year 3. Four small areas with invasive plants were of
concern and were identified for a combined total area of 0.04 acres or 0.5% of the easement acreage. A more
detailed summary of the results for the vegetation condition assessment can be found in Appendix B which
includes a technical memorandum, current condition planview (CCPV) figures, supporting data tables, and
photo logs. The contents of Appendix B were submitted to NCEEP in May 2014 and served as the interim
visual site assessment report.
The success criteria or survival threshold of 320 stems per acre by the end of Year 3 was met for 8 out of the
12 vegetation monitoring plots. The average density of total planted stems or tract mean (including
volunteers) is 668 stems per acre. Though the majority of the Project site is on track for meeting 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 have been offset by the presence of thriving volunteer species.
Volunteers will continue to be included in each plot's stem count per acre throughout the monitoring period
and will likely aid in the Project's ability to meet its Year 5 final success criteria; however, additional riparian
plantings may be needed in areas where lower stem densities have been documented. Vegetation stem counts
are summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
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. A total of eight SPAS were identified in Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring periods and were carried
over through Year 3. No new SPAS were identified for the Year 3 assessment. A more detailed summary of
the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B.
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 3 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 UT 1 B indicate
that the stream is moving fines through the system and larger pebbles are making up a greater percentage of
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

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 third growing season following site construction (March 30, 2013 - November 2, 2013), all four
wetland areas met the success criteria for Monitoring Year 3. Groundwater conditions at all Gauges indicated
saturated conditions existed for 100% 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 3 monitoring data was collected in May 2014 and August 2014. All visual site
assessment data was collected on April 16, 2014. Vegetation monitoring plot data was collected on
November 4, 2014. All stream survey (channel dimension and profile) and sediment data were collected
September 4, 2014. Stream survey data was collected using a Topcon GRS -1 network Rover GPS unit which
collects point data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension
(cross- sections), profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows,
and reference sites documented by photographs. A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events. The methods used and any related success criteria are described
below for each parameter. For monitoring stream success criteria, 6 permanent cross - sections, 1 crest gauge,
and 39 photo identification points were installed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Six permanent cross - sections were installed throughout the entire project area. Cross- sections
selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross - section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Each of the three
restored Project reaches, Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1B, contains one riffle
and one pool cross - section. A common benchmark 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 major 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 UT113, 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 riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle during
annual geomorphic surveys of the Project site. One sample was collected at the riffle cross - section
corresponding with each of the three restored Project reaches for a total of three sediment samples
(cross- sections X5, X7, X9). These samples, combined with evidence provided by changes in cross -
section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream
adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation will be evaluated with
respect to stream stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure
5 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
crest gauges and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the right top of bank at station 15 +10. The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with
the top of bank (bankfull) elevation. The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site
visits, and are checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251 4
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

are used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented at the crest gauge within the 5 -year monitoring period.
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or until the monitoring period ends.
If two bankfull events have not been documented at the end of 5 years the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will have to decide on an appropriate course of action.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations were photographed
during the as -built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years following construction. Reference
photos are taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period. Selected
site photographs are shown in Appendix B.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross - section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross - section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
to document bank and riparian conditions. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain
the same area in each photo over time.
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i.e. vanes and weirs), along the restored streams are
included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations. Photographers will make every
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Lateral and structure photographs are used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, structure function, and stability, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
subjectively. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. A series of
photos over time should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure
function.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in- stream structures throughout the Project
reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, are also
measured and scored. The entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed
profile (riffle /pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures. Photos were taken at
every stream photo reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAS
which were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary
of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which
includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and SPA photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, twelve vegetation monitoring quadrants were installed across the
Project site, which included one wetland vegetation plot. The total number of quadrants was calculated using
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5

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 April 16, 2014, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains
(wetlands), and terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance; this also included the documentation of
invasive species and potential WAS which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV
figures. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation condition assessment
can be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and photo logs.
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 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 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
4.1.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
US Army Corps of Engineers, WRP, July 2000. Technical Notes ERDC TN- WRAP- 00 -02.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92251
HOPPERS CREEK- MELTON FARM STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 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
oP 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.
VER
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Site: \\
• From I -40, take State Route 226 South (I -40 exit 86). Crossn e -
j
• Continue approximately 10 miles south. �\
o Turn right onto Landis Lane. Continue approximately 1 mile. J O
o Bear right at a fork in the road to stay on Landis Lane. i i j
o Continue approximately 2 miles. s / j CAL D
o Melton Farm will be on the left, at sharp curve to the right. �, 8 ti- W LL
CATAWBA,
3- 08 -31�
NUT vi11iF
19 ruce Pine
1
i
YAN EY
FRE H B AD 2
04 03 -0 1
/r
I
URKE
FRENCMBROAD
181
04 -0 -04 `�V� \ 12
12
CATA BA
03 -08 U \ Glen + 4t , *#gJon
i
MCDOWE L 70 . Marion
FRENCH BR AD
04 -03- yi■ CATAWB
MontireaS�
�) 03-08 -
f Old For'
BUNCOMBE !�
Black MounCain 221 CAT B
-08 -35
HUC 03050101 020
` �� � ^l South Fork Hoppers Creek
Map Vicinity Figure 1. Vicinity Map LEGEND:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, NC Project Area
NCDWQ Sub -basin
rd�l
NCEEP Project No.: 92251 Q Counties
USGS Hydrologic Unit
McDowell County, NC os stem
Anamement o z.5 5
Miles

Table 1. Project Components
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Project Segment or Reach
Existing Feet/Acres*
Mitigation Type
Approach
Linear Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Comment
ID
Acreage*
Ratio
Units
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion
R
P]
783
1:1
783
10+00 - 17 +83
and provide habitat Priority I was implemented to reestablish
Reach 1
1,350
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion
Reach 2
R
Pi
445
1:1
445
17 +83 - 22 +48 **
and provide habitat. Priority I was implemented to reestablish
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
N
-
722
5:1
144
implemented to on right and left stream banks.
UT - Reach A
782
Regraded right bank to create a bankfull bench and implemented
Ii l
P4
60
2.5:1
24
7+86-8+46-
riparian plantings to improve stability 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 increase habitat diversity. Installe
UT I - Reach B
970
k
P]
1,065
1:1
1065
10 +00 - 20 +85 **
fencing to restrict cattle access. Priority I was implemented to
restore dimension, pattern, and profile.
Regraded banks and implemented a step -pool channel where
UT2 - Reach A
366
F'.I I
P4
379
2.5:1
152
10+00 - 13 +79
feasible. Implemented fencing to restrict hog access.
**
Regraded banks and implemented riparian plantings to improve
UT2 - Reach B
802
Ell
P4
818
2.5:1
327
13 +79 - 22 +17
reach stability and reduce erosion
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
UT3
298
P
-
298
5:1
60
-
implemented to on ri ht and left stream banks.
Ephermal drainage in left
Stabilized ephemeral drainage from adjacent pasture by creating a
floodplain of South Fork
348
-
-
497
-
-
flat bottom Swale. Swale was matted and seeded. Not being sough
Hoppers Creek
for mitigation credit.
Stabilized ephemeral drainage with boulder sill structures and
Ephermal drainage near the
upstream extend of UT2
80
-
-
80
-
-
armored channel bed. Areas outside the channel were mulched an
planted. Not being sought for mitigation credit.
Ephemeral drainage at
Stabilized ephemeral drainage by regrading, rematting, and
Station 16 +75 of UT2
15
-
-
15
armoring with riprap. Not being sought for mitigation.
Regraded the wetland boundary to improve hydrologic imputs and
E
-
0.33
2:1
.165
-
maximize surface storage.
Weiland
0.33
R
-
1.23
1:1
1.23
-
Restored wetland hydrology to the original stream alignment.
* Existing reach breaks and
design reach breaks varied
based on initial
geomorphic differences
and design requirements.
** Stationing includes 20 ft. stream crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length
***During construction enhancement slated to occur between 9 +49 and 10+00 of UTI B was shifted upstream into UTI A per conversations with EEP and CEC. The section slated for enhancement at the top of UT1B (9 +49 to 10+1
became prosevation upon the field change.
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip.
Upland
LF
Wetland Ac'
JAQ
Ac
Riverim
Non- Riverim
Restoration
2,293
1.23
Enhancement
033
Enhancement I
Enhancement B
1.257
Creation
Preservation
1,071
HQ Preservation
1 . 6
1 0.00
Totaki
4,621
1.56
Total Mitigation Unit
3010 SMU
1.40 WMU
I I = Nan - Applicable I

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Elapsed Time Since Grading /Planting Complete: 2 year 8 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 3
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
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- baseline)
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
Sep -14
Dec -14
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -15
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A

Table 3.
Project Contacts Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Chris Tomsic, Tel. 828 - 350 -1408, Ext. 2007
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. 919 - 875 -1378
As -Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact:
Chris Tomsic, Tel. 828 - 350 -1408, Ext. 2007
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact:
Chris Tomsic, Tel. 828 - 350 -1408, Ext. 2007
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact:
Chris Tomsic, Tel. 828 - 350 -1408, Ext. 2007

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Project County
McDowell County, NC
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Inner Piedmon Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
Project: 03050101040020; References: 03040103050 -090 (Spencer Creek), -080 ( Bames Creek); 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek); 03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch)
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
Project: 03- 08 -30; References: 03 -07 -09 (Spencer Creek and Barnes Creek); 03 -06 -06 (Morgan Creek); 03 -04 -02 (Sal's Branch)
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan ?
Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP), 2003
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase ?
None
Restoration Component Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers -
Reach 1
South Fork
Hoppers - Reach 2
UT - Reach A
(Preservation)
UT - Reach A
(Enhancement 2)
UTl - Reach B
(Preservation)
UT -Reach B
UT2 - Reach A
UT2 - Reach B
UT3
Drainage area (sq. mi.)
0.48
0.52
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.02
Stream order
2nd
2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
0
0
0
Restored length
783
445
722
60
51
1,065
379
818
298
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.)
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Developed Low - Medium Intensity
Ag- Cultivated Crops
1.5
Ag- Pasture/Hay
15.3
Forested
60.8
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc.)
22.4
Watershed impervious cover ( %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ AU/Index number
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
03 -08 -30
NCDWQ classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
303d listed ?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
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
10.1
Total planted arceage as part of the restoration
5.7
Rosgen classification of pre- existing
G5c
C4 /1
-
-
E5
E5
G5
G5c
-
Rosgen classification of As -built
C5
C5
B
B
C5
C5
G5/B5
G5c
B
Valley type
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Valley slope
0.0115ft/ft
0.0115 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
0.034 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2 -3 %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2 -3 %)
U
U
U
U
U
U
Cowardin classification
Trout waters designation
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y ?N)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
IoA
IoA
EwE
EwE
IoA
IoA
HeD
HeD / IoA
EwE
Depth
10
10
5
6
10
10
5,8
5,8/10
5
Clay %
18
18
25,20
25,20
18
18
25
25/18
25,20
KI
0.15
0.15
0.17, 0.10
0.17, 0.10
0.15
0.15
0.24, 0.17
0.24, 0.17 / 0.15
0.17, 0.10
TJ
5
5
3/5
3/5
5
5
5
515
3/5

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 3
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2014
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
Y
t
astem
PROGRAM
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Pagel 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 3 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 2014). The report describes project
objectives, discusses the assessment methodology, summarizes assessment results, and
documents potential stream and vegetation problem areas (SPAs and VPAs respectively).
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the site assessment were to:
• provide a general overview of stream morphological stability;
• provide a general overview of vegetation conditions;
• identify and document potential SPAs and VPAs.
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and inform ation are p rovided following the na rrative portion of this rep ort
and include:
• current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 through 3);
• visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Tables 5a through 5d);
• SPA inventory table (Table 5e);
• vegetation condition assessment table (Tables 6a and 6b);
• VPA inventory table (Table 6c);
• stream station photos;
• SPA photos;
• 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 2014; this data
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 2 of 8

will be summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure of the Year 3 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 UT 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 charnel 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 April 16, 2014.
2.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphology stability assessment involved the evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in- stream structures
throughout each of the four project stream reaches. Habitat parameters, such as riffle
embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, were also measured and scored. Each stream
reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle /pool facets),
both stream banks, and engineered in- stream structures. Photos were taken at every existing
stream photo point (from the as- built) and in locations of potential SPAs which were
recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures.
2.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
The vegetation condition assessment involved the evaluation of vegetation within the 10.1
acre conservation easement and included assessing the performance of planted vegetation
along stream banks, 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;
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 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
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 project 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 major morphological channel categories) in terms of
lateral, vertical, and in- 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 8 SPAS documented, 4 of which were identified during the Year 1
visual assessment and 4 that were identified during the Year 2 assessment. No new SPAs
were identified for the Year 3 assessment. SPAs documented in previous years were
included in this assessment since they have persisted to date.
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 4 of 8

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. A brief description of the
SPAs reported from previous year's assessment is discussed below. The SPAS have
remained unchanged in condition and scale when observed during this assessment, but they
still remain problem areas and should be monitored. 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.
Two SPAS identified in previous years (SPA 1 -3 and SPA2 -5) have been removed from the
SPA list. These two areas consisted of in stream structures that were exhibiting piping.
SPA 1 -3 involved piping through both vane arms and under the second sill of a boulder cross
vane at station 19 +23 on SFHC Reach 2. SPA2 -5 involved piping under a log sill at station
12 +90 on UT2 Reach A. Both structures have been successfully repaired and are functioning
correctly.
SPA 1 -1 and SPA 1 -2 are characterized by small localized areas of bank scour and are located
across the channel from one another on SFHC Reach 1; SPA 1 -1 is located along the left bank
and SPA 1 -2 is located along the right bank a little further downstream. The invert along
these two sills are sloped to one side (slanted) and oriented within the channel such that flow
is being directed toward the bank immediately downstream of where the log sill ties into the
bank, causing bank erosion. Banks of both SPAS are vertical and exposed, and warrant
stabilizing to prevent the spread of lateral instability further downstream.
SPA1 -5 consists of the piping of flow through a log sill structure in UT2 Reach A. The
structure is vertically and laterally stable and should seal over time.
The heavily armored, ephemeral drainage located near the upstream extents of UT2 Reach A
was inspected for overall structural integrity and stability even though the short reach is not
being sought for mitigation credit. Upon inspection, the channel bed of the downstream riffle
cascade had eroded (SPAT -6). Coarse riprap material has been deposited downstream atop
the lowest elevation boulder sill, exposing the underlying filter fabric as a result.
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 on SFHC Reach 1.
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.
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 5 of 8

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 eroded. 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 extends 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 scoured out and eroded a
small portion of the left bank behind a cluster of well rooted, native vegetation that is thriving
at 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
to erosion over time that has caused the bank to recede. The left bank is vertical, exposed,
and devoid of vegetation resulting in no 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
left bank making the bank more susceptible to subsequent erosion.
SPA24 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 planting 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 SPA24 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 during the Year 2 assessment and reassessed during the
Year 3 assessment. EEP's concern was that the 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 UT Reach B were designed to have a maximum pool depth
(d,,I) ranging between 1.0 and 2.0 feet and a ratio of pool depth to average bankfull depth
(d,001/dbkf) 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
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 6 of 8

defining `sufficient depth' for meander pool condition suggests that a pool should have a
dpoo, /dbkf ratio greater than or equal to 1. 6, which in this case for UT 1 Reach B translates to a
dPoo, of 0.8 feet in depth or greater. All log sill scour pools on UT 1 Reach B had dPoo, /dbkf
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 remains the deepest of the
three and had a dpoo, value and dpoo, /dbkf ratio of 2.2 feet and 4.4 respectively. This marks a
slight decrease in dpoo, value and dpoo, /dbkf ratio of 2.5 feet and 5.0 recorded in the Year 2
Assessment. Even though the dpoo, value of 2.2 feet exceeds that specified for the proposed
design (by 0.2 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.
3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Tables 6a and 6b summarize the vegetation conditions of the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
Stream Restoration site. Table 6a references the vegetation assessment tract associated with
SFHC Reaches 1 and 2, and UT Reach B; Table 6b references the vegetation assessment
tract associated with UT2 (Reaches A and B). There were a total of 6 VPAs, 2 of which were
identified during the Year 1 visual assessment and 4 that were identified during the Year 2
assessment. Bare floodplain conditions account for 2 of the VPAs, and the presence of
invasive species accounts for the remaining 4 VPAs. A NCEEP licensed contractor
conducted exotic invasive plant control over nine days between June 20 and August 14, 2013.
This treatment was effective in reducing the total number of VPAs from 10 in Year 2 to 6 in
Year 3. As a result of the treatment, no new VPAs were identified in the Year 3 assessment.
The VPAs remaining as a result of invasive species show signs of treatment and are less
dense though some re- sprouting has occurred. 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. A brief description of the VPAs reported from previous year's
assessment is discussed below. All VPAs 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.
VPA 1 -1 and VPA 1 -2 are the two bare areas that were documented in the wetland area
located in the right floodplain along SFHC Reach 1. The combined total area for these VPAs
is 0.12 acres, or 2.8% of the planted area acreage for this assessment tract. The two VPAs
have remained somewhat bare since construction was completed. This could possibly be due
to standing water from frequent inundation and/or the washing away of dispersed seeds by
frequent overbank flows.
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 7 of 8

VPA2 -2 is a small area of invasive species located on the left floodplain of SFHC Reach 2.
The primary invasive is multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
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 in which VPA2 -2 is
situated. The three VPAs reported within UT Reach B (VPA2 -2, VPA2 -5, and VPA2 -6) 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. VPA2 -4 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
combined total area for these 4 VPAs is 0.04 acres, or 0.5% of the planted area acreage for
this assessment tract.
Year 3 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 31, 2014
Page 8 of 8

----- CE--------- CE - - -
-- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(SPA)
VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
— — — — — — —
— ASBUILT CENTERLINE
(SPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
TB TB
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
—
— ASBUILT CHANNEL
■
VEGETATION
PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
(SPA)
■STREAM
UNDERCUT BANKS
BARE FLOOD
PLAIN AREA
PROBLEM AREA
FENCE
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
X
X —#
CROSS SECTION
■
VEGETATION
PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
PHOTO ID POINT
VP
VEGETATION PLOT
WETLAND GAGE
WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
�uT2 j
i
j
VP�1 -4 VP14
_
6'_
—' —C
PIO
; -e, - — - - -- ��,
FENCE
-
*\ 1 4� E- -- CE-- CE - - -- CE _- crrA2 -
WG3 3
/
PDT
� FID6 -�- ESPA2-1 FH 10 +00 � o WG4 � — ,ti\ PID11 � L
'BEGIN AS -BUILT \�, ® °� O PID�� T
5 FORK HOPPERS ,REEI�R� VPA1 -1 V�j _ � � !VP18 / o�j
LoN(,ITUDINAL PROFILE �� <� PID5�,_ ° — � pN) ' 9
40 0 40 80
ES \ PIDl
UGE
PID7 �� o
® — SPA2 -2 DID
FLOW D19
WG2
��(UT1B)
2
d�
�y
cq
�o UT1 B \ of VPA2 -6
� O /
\
VP \
n
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +48
L ;z
\ - -VPAl �r
DID 1J
T � 2
i VP20 D17
i\
®WG ° /yc� � VPA2 3�
jet -
- - SFH -22 +47.76
END AS -BUILT
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
- --
FENCE —
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
C N W
LL Y N
C y� 2
= a�
w � 0 70
rn�toa
Y C O M O
fG
wry 26
L W 0c
2
u U y 0 m
z ¢au.
4
W_
ON
Q
z
x U p
�—'Q
z Ctf U
0 CL N
wpm W
o
�Qz �
UJ LL
alf co
U) � O
W <
Q J W
CL O � O
2 W p
U
2
} �t _
Ct
r
WY
WC')
o°
O O
. C �O N
E N N N
w co n
at_ts�
y c o m
W C m
aEiUT.0
LL
m
�Cq
C
U0
N
W
.EP Project No.
92251
',aker Project No.
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: CAT
3of5
1 of 3
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
DEGRADATION
STREAM PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
■STREAM
UNDERCUT BANKS
PROBLEM AREA
(SPA)
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
PIO
; -e, - — - - -- ��,
FENCE
-
*\ 1 4� E- -- CE-- CE - - -- CE _- crrA2 -
WG3 3
/
PDT
� FID6 -�- ESPA2-1 FH 10 +00 � o WG4 � — ,ti\ PID11 � L
'BEGIN AS -BUILT \�, ® °� O PID�� T
5 FORK HOPPERS ,REEI�R� VPA1 -1 V�j _ � � !VP18 / o�j
LoN(,ITUDINAL PROFILE �� <� PID5�,_ ° — � pN) ' 9
40 0 40 80
ES \ PIDl
UGE
PID7 �� o
® — SPA2 -2 DID
FLOW D19
WG2
��(UT1B)
2
d�
�y
cq
�o UT1 B \ of VPA2 -6
� O /
\
VP \
n
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA. 10 +00 -22 +48
L ;z
\ - -VPAl �r
DID 1J
T � 2
i VP20 D17
i\
®WG ° /yc� � VPA2 3�
jet -
- - SFH -22 +47.76
END AS -BUILT
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
- --
FENCE —
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
C N W
LL Y N
C y� 2
= a�
w � 0 70
rn�toa
Y C O M O
fG
wry 26
L W 0c
2
u U y 0 m
z ¢au.
4
W_
ON
Q
z
x U p
�—'Q
z Ctf U
0 CL N
wpm W
o
�Qz �
UJ LL
alf co
U) � O
W <
Q J W
CL O � O
2 W p
U
2
} �t _
Ct
r
WY
WC')
o°
O O
. C �O N
E N N N
w co n
at_ts�
y c o m
W C m
aEiUT.0
LL
m
�Cq
C
U0
N
W
.EP Project No.
92251
',aker Project No.
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: CAT
3of5
1 of 3

----- CE--------- CE - - - -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— — — — — — — — ASBUILT CENTERLINE
TB TB ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
X FENCE
X—# CROSS SECTION
PHOTO ID POINT
VP VEGETATION PLOT
F� WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
+ F�ow
END UT17 _ Z
F-1 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
�] VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
■ VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
BEGIN UT NB PID Vi V
VP22 o�
STA 9 +49 '' ,n \1776 L PID5 PID8
N
��
i 71 - PID7 d��
V_PA2 4 _
PID1
VP21 ��' /, PIDl3
s
PID10 _
UT1 -B
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA, 10+00-22+85
40 0 40 80
11V, PID 1
SING
� \ n
7
Li SPA2 -1
PI
0
AID'
PID IS
�
V P 1 7
L�i�- 9J PID1
ENDBUTIB
PID17
VPAL b
I 1
i
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHCIMAGERY, 2010
W,
so
a
z
2: H J
Q W �
LL- a
Z U
Oz� N
wpm W
� ¢ Z
H
w U) LL
U) Of O
or 2E J
W Q W
O � O
2 C/) 0
U
cO�
W
E
0
E N^ N N
U FF
ca ca m Z m m
am _ j O
�
W 0
�
aEtjTLILL
IL
> a0
m n
U N
W
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN. CAT
2 of 3
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
❑
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
=N
=�2
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
C U 7 W
W
DEGRADATION
N
m oZNM
c 3 &
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEMz°aa�
�@ N
L W = N c
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■STREAM
UNDERCUT BANKS
PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■STREAM
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
PID1
VP21 ��' /, PIDl3
s
PID10 _
UT1 -B
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA, 10+00-22+85
40 0 40 80
11V, PID 1
SING
� \ n
7
Li SPA2 -1
PI
0
AID'
PID IS
�
V P 1 7
L�i�- 9J PID1
ENDBUTIB
PID17
VPAL b
I 1
i
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHCIMAGERY, 2010
W,
so
a
z
2: H J
Q W �
LL- a
Z U
Oz� N
wpm W
� ¢ Z
H
w U) LL
U) Of O
or 2E J
W Q W
O � O
2 C/) 0
U
cO�
W
E
0
E N^ N N
U FF
ca ca m Z m m
am _ j O
�
W 0
�
aEtjTLILL
IL
> a0
m n
U N
W
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN. CAT
2 of 3

-- --- CE------- -- CE -- - --
TB TE
X —#
Fv-p
F I
60 0 30 60
4
UT2 -13 +78.77
END AS -BUILT
LONG. PROFILE ,
9aD/ 12x8 -
4_ l -
{ Zan SPA2 -4
a _64- - - - - -__ - E--
-�� -1282 Tsn E---- - - - - --
\.. -
ce, _ E - - - - --
o /SB
- z 1 2 +53.50 r o
u BEGIN AS -BUILT /' -- Z� J
LONG. PROFILE_ 1 2g�_ /� -
RIFFLE 1280.91 �� ii �SPA1 -5 'P'- "l- 284
40 - �� - t
G� �
CE VP13 - _
sPAI 6
TB CE
FENCE
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA. 12+54-13+79
\` FENCE
2
S° PID3
r
i
i
F �
/ 7/1
UT2
\tJ� NOT
*SURVEYED
IMAGE SOURCE: NO STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
Q
Z
Olf W O of
LL- —�'Q
Z 0(-)
ocr__
w O O
�F- z
LuoZ
N ww O
W <
Q J w
CL d W
O � M
U
it
N
w
Z)
LL
E
mc')
0 o°
_
O E � N0CV
O
n
d m Z O
O.L_LOI�
a W a N c
aEiUQLW
(L
'co
m N
O N
O
W
F
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: CAT
3 of 3
d
c a m
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
17
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
❑
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /EROSION
moo °m
, N
y ==
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
■
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
w ovao
n�
CIO
�NM
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
DEGRADATION
O Z W M
m d
FENCE��`�
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
d rnN- N
L W = d C
0
O'
CROSS SECTION
■
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
PHOTO ID POINT
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■
UNDERCUT BANKS
VEGETATION PLOT
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (SPA)
■
BANK SLUMPING /CALVING /COLLAPSE
WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT /RESTORATION
4
UT2 -13 +78.77
END AS -BUILT
LONG. PROFILE ,
9aD/ 12x8 -
4_ l -
{ Zan SPA2 -4
a _64- - - - - -__ - E--
-�� -1282 Tsn E---- - - - - --
\.. -
ce, _ E - - - - --
o /SB
- z 1 2 +53.50 r o
u BEGIN AS -BUILT /' -- Z� J
LONG. PROFILE_ 1 2g�_ /� -
RIFFLE 1280.91 �� ii �SPA1 -5 'P'- "l- 284
40 - �� - t
G� �
CE VP13 - _
sPAI 6
TB CE
FENCE
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 3 MONITORING
STA. 12+54-13+79
\` FENCE
2
S° PID3
r
i
i
F �
/ 7/1
UT2
\tJ� NOT
*SURVEYED
IMAGE SOURCE: NO STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010
Q
Z
Olf W O of
LL- —�'Q
Z 0(-)
ocr__
w O O
�F- z
LuoZ
N ww O
W <
Q J w
CL d W
O � M
U
it
N
w
Z)
LL
E
mc')
0 o°
_
O E � N0CV
O
n
d m Z O
O.L_LOI�
a W a N c
aEiUQLW
(L
'co
m N
O N
O
W
F
128244
)ate:
12/2/2014
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: CAT
3 of 3

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Assessed Length(LF) 783
Major
Channel
Cateaory
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
mount of
Unstable
Footage
o Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted °o for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate
5
6
83%
92%
100%
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
12
13
2. Length
8
8
4. Thalweg
position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide
7 7
2. Bank
1.
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growtit
and /or scour and erosion
2 16 99%
1 20 99%
0
0
99%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
0
0
99%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 15 99 %
0
0
99
3.
Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or lags
23
Totals 4 51 97 %
24 96%
0 0
97%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
11
11 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does nol
exceed 15%
12
13 92%
4. Habitat
oo orming structures maintaining — Max Pool Dept
11
11 100%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Assessed Lenath(LF) 445
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Nu m er o mount o o to e,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
um er wit
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
ootage wit
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
juste a or
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggraclation
0 0 100%
2. Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate
3 3
100%
100%
100
100
100%
3. Meander Pool
ondition
1. Depth
10 10
2. Len th
3 3
4. hall
position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3 3
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide
4 4
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
1 12 99% 0 0 99%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wastinc
appears likely
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsE
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals
1 12 99% 0 0 99%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
19
19 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
10
10 100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
S
S 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%
10
10 100
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Dept[
14
14 100

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT1 Reach B
Assessed Length(LF) 1065
Major
Channel Sub-
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
mount of
° Stable,
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted °° for
Channel
Category
Performing
Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
per As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate
10
12
83%
1. Depth
26
26
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
100%
position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide
16
16
100%
2. Bank
Am
1.
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
Scoured /Erodin
and /or scour and erosion
0
1 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
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
38
38
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
Structures
the sill.
22
22
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does nol
exceed 15 %
16
16
100%
100%
4. Habitat
oo orming structures maintaining — Max Pool ept
10
10

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID UT2 (Reaches A and B)
Assessed Lenoth(LF) 1197
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
NumberStable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of mount o o Stable, umber with
Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing
Se ments Foota a Intended Woody Veg.
ootage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
juste o or
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0 0 100%
0 0 100%
100%
100%
N/A
100
100%
2. Degradation
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate
5 5
3. Meander Pool
ondition
1. Depth
5 5
2. Len th
N/A N/A
4. Thalweg
position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5 5
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide
4 4
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and /or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2. Undercut
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsE
1 15 99% 0 0 99%
Totals
1 15 99% 0 0 99%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or log
10
10
100%
100%
80%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
5
5
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
5
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does nol
exceed 15%
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Deptl
5
5
100

Table 5e. Stream Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC) Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number"
Scour eroding the left bank immediately
downstream of log sill invert/left bank tie -in.
14 +20 to 14 +26
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPA I -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 invert/right bank tie -in.
14 +40 to 14 +50
Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPA I -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
invert/left 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 orientation which
eventually undermined the rootwad, to where it
separated from the left bank, slumping into the
channel.
Slumping of right bank along downstream
portion of outer meander bend due poor soil
Bank Slumping
15 +95 to 16 +10
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
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 riffle cascade and around
downstream log sill due to possible tear in filter
Piping
13 +40
fabric or lack of sealing from re- sorting of
SPA I -5
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
(across channel from Veg.
SP 2 4
Monitoring Plot 13)
flow seepage along at the top of terrace that
may be undermining the re- graded portion of
bank.
Ephemeral Drainage (near upstream
extents of UT2) **
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Scour of riffle cascade from large storm events
Riffle cascade downstream of second
over time has eroded the channel bed,
Bed Scow/Degradation
depositing the coarse riffle substrate
SPAI -6
boulder sill
downstream, and exposed the underlying filter
fabric.
'Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit reterences the problem area or photo (which would be identical to a prior
years problem area/photo number when persisting from a previous monitoring year).
* *Not being sought for mitigation

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID SFHC Reaches 1 and 2; UT1 Reach B
Planted Acreage 4.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
see figure
2
0.12
2.8%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or
5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
2
0.12
2.8%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class t at are obviously sma given
the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
2
0.12
2.8%
Easement Acreaqe 8.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
NA
4
0.04
0.5%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
NA
0 0.00
0.0%

Table 6b. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach ID UT2 Reaches A and B
Planted Acreage 1.4
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or
5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class t at are obviously sma given
the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0
0.0%
Easement Acreaqe 1.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
see figure
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
NA
0 0.00
0.0%

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
See Plan View Figure
Standing water from frequent inundation
VPA1 -1
Unknown
VPA 1 -2
SFHC Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive /Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multijlora and Ligustrum sinense
persisting after treatment within existing tree
stand
VPA2 -2
UTI Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive /Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multi flora and Lonicera japonica :
persisting after treatment from existing tree
stand
VPA2 -4
Rosa multijlora: persisting after treatment
VPA2 -5
Rosa multi flora: persisting after treatment
VPA2 -6
UT2 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
*Note: The 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).

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Station Photos

SFHC PID 1— Constructed Riffle
a
SFHC PID 3 — Log vane in constructed pool
SFHC PID 5 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 2 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 4 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 6 — Log Sills and Root Wad
f
�.l
�`'
If
3 •� L r�' FA.Y�
SFHC PID 5 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 2 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 4 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 6 — Log Sills and Root Wad

SFHC PID 7 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 9 — Constructed Riffle
SFHC PID 11 — Constructed Riffle
�n s
3
anru rill zs — Log Fitts & xoot waa
SFHC PID 10 — Confluence of UT 1
SFHC PID 12 — Double Drop Cross Vane below
crossing

4. , :.
:1
SFHC PID 13 — Log Sills &
Root Wad
SFHC PID 14 — Log Sills & Root Wad
SFHC PID 15 — Log Sills & Root Wads
SFHC PID 17 — Constructed Riffle at downstream
terminus of project
SFHC PID 16 — Log Vane & Matted Bank
rtr
� rM►:.
;r� I
L
it
SFHC PID 17 — Constructed Riffle at downstream
terminus of project
SFHC PID 16 — Log Vane & Matted Bank

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Station Photos

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

UT 1 PID 7 — Constructed Riffle
UT 1 PID 9 — Ephemeral Pool in Right Floodplain
UT PID I I — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 8 — Constructed Riffle
_.
UT PID 10 — Log Sills
UT PID 12 — Ephemeral Pool in Right Floodplain
,R r
1
UT PID 12 — Ephemeral Pool in Right Floodplain

UT PID 13 — Constructed Riffle
UT PID 15 — Constructed Riffle below stream
•r
UT PID 17 — Log Sills
a
%k 12' ...'� k 'xs l+ •dC
UT 1 PID 14 —Log Sill
UT PID 16 —Constructed Riffle
UT PID 18 —Constructed Riffle

UT PID 19 —Constructed Riffle

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Station Photos

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

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

SPA 1 -1 — SFHC Reach 1 Left bank scour
SPAT -2 — SFHC Reach 1 Right bank scour
SPA 1 -5 — UT2 Reach A Piping within riffle cascade
around log sill
7t4 i �'b tai"
SPA 1 -6 — Ephemeral drainage channel bed erosion
SPA2 -1 — SFHC Reach 1 Rootwad failure along left
bank due to undercutting along bank
SPA2 -2 — SFHC Reach 1 Right bank slumping

SPA2 -3 — SFHC Reach 2 Left bank scour
SPA2 -4 — UT2 Reach B Left bank slumping

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

VPA1 -1— SFHC Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA1 -2 — UT2 Reach 1 Bare Floodplain Area
VPA2 -2 — SFHC Reach 2 Multiflora Rose
VPA2 -4 — UT1B Multiflora Rose and Japanese
Honeysuckle
VPA2 -5 — UT1B Multiflora Rose
VPA2 -6 — UT 1 B Multiflora Rose

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Plot Photos

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 3 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 13
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 15
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
NOVEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 14
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 16
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 18

South Fork Hoppers Creek Project Area
Year 3 Monitoring - Vegetation Plot Photo Log
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 19
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 21
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 23
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., EEP PROJECT NO. - 92551
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 3 MONITORING DOCUMENT REPORT
NOVEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 5
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 20
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot 22
11/4/2014 - Veg Plot WLP1

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
1174/76928
668
14
Y
1093/809
15
N
202/202
16
N
283/283
17
Y
647/567
18
Y
364/364
19
N
283/283
20
Y
567/567
21
Y
1457/1052
22
Y
971/647
23
Y
688/688
WLP1
N
283/283
Note: *Total /Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems
including volunteers (Total).

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Report Prepared By
Kristi Suggs
Date Prepared
11/24/2014 13:33
Database name
cvs -ee -ent ool- v2.3.1 Asheville.mdb
Database location
C: \CVS\Asheville
Computer name
CHABLKSUGGS
File size
165089536
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of proj ect s and project data.
Pro' 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 b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project 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
Areas m
164733.86
Required Plots calculated
24
-Sampled Plots
12

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (with Annual Means)
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Current Data (MY3 2014)
Annual Means
Tree Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 13
Plot 14
Plot 15
Plot 16
Plot 17
Plot 18
Plot 19
Plot 20
Plot 21
Plot 22
Plot 23
Plot WLPI
Current Mean
AB (2011)
MYl (2012)
MY2 (2013)
MY4 (2015)
MY5 (2016)
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
3
2
3
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
2
2
3
3
1
1
8
8
1
1
3
3
1
0
0
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
I
I
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
Celtis laevi ata
Sugarberry
Tree
4
4
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Diospyros vir iniana
Persimmon
Tree
7
7
1 16
16
I
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
I
1 1
1
1 1
1 3
3
1
1
1
1
4
1 4
1
1 1
1
4
1
l
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
I
I
I
1
2
2
6
6
I
1 1
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
Ju lans ni ra
Black Walnut
Tree
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
Liriodendron tuli era
Tulip Poplar
Tree
7
7
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
N ssa s Ivatica
Blackgurn
Tree
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
uercus s.
Oak
Tree
I
I
I
I I
I 1
1
uercus alustris
Pin Oak
Tree
I
I
I
1
7
7
2
2
1
1
1 1
2
2
3
1 4
4
1 2
3
3
uercus Phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
uercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Shrub
1
I
I
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
Salix ni ra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Unknown
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Volunteers
Acer rubrum
Red Ma le
Tree
5
5
5
7
10
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
2
0
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
2
2
Betula ni ra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
0
Dios ros vir iniana
Persimmon
Tree
5
5
10
5
Ju lans ni ra
Black Walnut
Tree
0
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
5
5
1
5
1
3.4
5
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
2
uercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Tree
I
0
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
2
2
Salix s
Willow
Tree
12
7
Plot area acres
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
Species Count
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 4
4
7
7
7
7
4
4
1 8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
3
3
6
6
7
7
7
8
6
7
P= Planted
Stems /Plot
19
29
20
27
5
5
1 7
7
14
1 16
9
9
7
7
14
14
26
36
16
24
17
17
7
7
13
17
19
19
19
29
13
21
T =Total
Stems Per Acrel
769
1 1174
1 809
1 1093
202
202
283
283
15671
647
364
364
283
283
567
567
1052
1457
647
971
688
688
283
283
543
668
772
1 772
1 772
1 614
540
850
Total Stems Per Acrel
1174
1 1093
202
1 283
1 647
364
283
567
1457
971
688
283
1 668
772
1 772
1 1184
1 850
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed. In most cases, the volunteers observed were approximately 30 - 100 cm in height. The information presented is purely for providing information about the species of trees that may occupy the riparian area that were not planted. In Plot 13, multiple tulip poplar and persimmon seedlings were noted but only 5
counted• in Plot 14 numerous tulip poplar saplings were noted but only 5 counted, Plot 21 numerous tulip poplar and red maples were noted but only 5 counted• in Plot 22 numerous red maples were noted but only 5 were counted.

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
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 C 11 12.15 0.9 1.54 13.48 1 5.2 1260.24 1 1260.38
X5 Riffle
1262
1261
a
0
m 1260
w
1259
1258 4-
95
105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
�� YR3 2014 YR 2 2013 f YR1 2012 4 Asbuilt 2010 - - -& -- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width BKF Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 16.8 13.39 1.26 2.7 10.65 1 4.9 1260.05 1260.2
X6 Pool
1263
1262
1261
ca
1260 -----------------
w
1259
1258
1257
1256
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
---W-- YR 3 2014 --)4— YR 2 2013 — YR 1 2012 Asbuilt 2010 > Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 14.8 12.7 1.17 1.77 10.89 1 4.9 1255.11 1255.22
X7 Riffle
1257
1256
0
> 1255 ------------------
m
w
1254
1253 -
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
�� YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 Asbuilt 2010 - --o- -- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
r a W
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area BKF Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 13.6 13.72 0.99 1.78 13.85 1.2 5.2 1 1252.89 1253.22
X8 Pool
1256
1255
1254
0
1253 -----------------
m
w 1252
1251
1250
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 Asbuilt 2010 ---& -- Bankfull

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
mss„.
Pa
h.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature T e Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 2.9 6.79 0.43 0.97 15.85 1 7.3 1258.64 1258.81
X9 Riffle
1261
1260
c
0
> 1259
a�
w- - - - --
1258
1257
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 Asbuilt 2010 - -- Bankfull

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 3 Monitoring - August 2014)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TO B Elev
Pool 5.4 9.94 0.55 1.6 18.19 1.1 6.2 1258.42 1258.54
X10 Pool
1261 -
1260
1259 -
> ------- - - - - --
w 1258
1257
1256
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012 t Asbuilt 2010 - - -& -- Bankfull

1264
1262
1260
1258
1256
c
0
1254
a�
w
1252
1250
1248
1246
1244 1—
990
Reach 1
X5 Riffle
.............
X6 Pool
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2)
Profile Chart
Year 3 Monitoring- August 2014
(Reach Break)
I
I
1
I
I
...................
I
I
I
I
1
MAIM IM,
Reach 2
X8 Pool
— TWG- Asbuilt 2010
— TWG -YR 1 2012
— *—TWG -YR 2 2013
tTWG -YR 3 2014
—Top of Bank
— WSF
O Log Sills
Cross Vanes
1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190
Station

South Fork Hoppers Creek - UT1B
Profile Chart
1275 Year 3 Monitoring- August 2014
tTWG- Asbuilt 2010
— �TWG -YR 1 2012
1270
TWG -YR 2 2013
— TWG -YR 3 2014
—Top of Bank
o Log Sills
WSF
1265
c
O
r
R
m
W
1260
1255
X9 Riffle
X10 Pool
1250
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990
Station

Figure 5a. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
Reach 1 - Cross - section 5 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
5- Sep -14
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY
MDR
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
4
4%
4%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125
4%
Fine
.125-25
80%
4%
Medium
.25 - .50
4%
Coarse
.50-1.0
6
6%
10%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
10%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
60%
10%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
G'
10%
Fine
4.0-5.6
sv. 50%
a
10%
Fine
5.6-8.0
+MY 1 (2012)
10%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
12%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
(
6%
18%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
2
2%
20%
Coarse
22.6-32
3
3%
23%
Very Coarse
32-45
2
2%
25%
Very Coarse
45-64
6
6%
31%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
25
25%
56%
Small
90-128
28
28%
84%
Large
128-180
12
12%
96%
Large
180-256
2
2%
98%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
2
2%
100%
Small
362-512
00(0 �
O��h O,ti� Oho
Medium
512-1024
Particle Size Class (mm)
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
70%
AMY 3 (2014)
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D15 =
14.12
D35 =
67.59
D50 =
82.93
D80. =
128.00
D95 =
174.96
D100 =
256 -362
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
100%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
N AB (2010)
■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014)
80%
—AB (2010)
70%
60%
G'
sv. 50%
a
90%
+MY 1 (2012)
40%
U
30%
80%
—W 2 (2013)
20%
10%
0%
00(0 �
O��h O,ti� Oho
�O �O �4� �O �b �O �� ��O ��b �,`% �� b� �O �y'b 0, ��� ��ti h1ti �0�� ti0�b 0 00
Particle Size Class (mm)
70%
AMY 3 (2014)
60%
U
50%
y 40%
eat
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
N AB (2010)
■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014)
80%
70%
60%
G'
sv. 50%
a
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
00(0 �
O��h O,ti� Oho
�O �O �4� �O �b �O �� ��O ��b �,`% �� b� �O �y'b 0, ��� ��ti h1ti �0�� ti0�b 0 00
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5b. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
Reach 2 - Cross- section 7 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
5- Sep -14
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY
MDR
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
5
5%
5%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125
� MY 3 (2014)
5%
Fine
.125-25
5%
Medium
.25 - .50
50%
5%
Coarse
.50-1.0
4
4%
9%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
j
j 9%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
9%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
9%
Fine
4.0-5.6
9%
Fine
5.6-8.0
U
9%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
11%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
11
Coarse
16.0-22.6
2
2%
13%
Coarse
22.6-32
5
5%
18%
Very Coarse
32-45
14
14%
32%
Very Coarse
45-64
18
18%
50%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
32
32%
82%
Small
90-128
11
11%
93%
Large
128-180
2
2%
95%
Large
180-256
3
3%
98%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
2
2%
100%
Small
362-512
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D15 =
28.79
D35 =
48.71
D50 =
65.03
D80. =
104.02
D95 =
251.53
D100 =
256-362
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach (100 Count) Riffle
—AB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014)
90%
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
AB (2010)
90%
+MY 1 (2012)
80%
—AMY 2 (2013)
� MY 3 (2014)
70%
60%
r+ 60%
50%
v
py 40%
U 30%
20%
10%
U
0%
�b s�L �� (oD �O �L�b 1�0 ��lo ��ti ��ti 00
41 �O �O �� �O h� �O
O�h Or,�O �� ��O �OvD ti0p
O
Particle Size Class (mm)
50%
PO
40%
e�
30%
U
20%
4
10%
L16,
0%
I -
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
—AB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
v
py 40%
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
�b s�L �� (oD �O �L�b 1�0 ��lo ��ti ��ti 00
41 �O �O �� �O h� �O
O�h Or,�O �� ��O �OvD ti0p
O
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5c. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
REACH /LOCATION:
UT1B - Cross - section 9 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
5- Sep -14
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
MDR
DATA ENTRY BY
MDR
Cummulative
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT /CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
9
9%
9%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125
9%
Fine
.125-25
9%
Medium
.25 - .50
60%
9%
Coarse
.50-1.0
5
5%
14%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
U
Sr
14%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
m
14%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
14%
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
2%
16%
Fine
5.6-8.0
3
3%
19%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
2
2%
21%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
5
5%
26%
Coarse
16.0-22.6
2
2%
28%
Coarse
22.6-32
4
4%
32%
Very Coarse
32-45
8
8%
40%
Very Coarse
45-64
18
18%
58%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
24
24%
82%
Small
90-128
10
10%
92%
Large
128-180
7
7%
99%
Large
180-256
1
1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
Small
362-512
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D15 =
5.60
D35 =
36.36
D50 =
54.73
D84 =
96.57
D95 =
148.14
D100 =
180-256
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT1B (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
100%
NAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014)
90%
80%
70%
60%
—AB (2010)
50%
U
Sr
a 40%
m
30%
U
20%
10%
61
90%
4 MY 1 (2012)
0% 1
OZ,b O41
Particle Size Class (mm)
80%
—AMY 2 (2013)
MY 3 (2014)
70%
+, 60%
s~
v
y 50%
40%
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT1B
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
NAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014)
90%
80%
70%
60%
y
50%
U
Sr
a 40%
m
30%
U
20%
10%
61
wd,L.ia+.,
0% 1
OZ,b O41
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10, Baseline Stream Summary
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Crock Reach
1 (783 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Gav c
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(.) Dah
Reference Reach(cs) Data
Design
As
Jacob
Norwood
(Harm.. et a1, 1999)'
Sol's Branch
Sp ... er Creek Downstream
Dimension and Substrate- Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Me.
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
61.3
32
5.0
20.0
8.7
7.4
10.5
- -- 14.4
- - - --
3
- --
8.7
- - - -- - - - --
- - - --
1
- - --
10.7
- - -- - - --
- --
1
- - - --
13.2
- - --
- --
- - --
1
- --
13.1
- --
- --
- --
1
Floodprbne Width (ft )
96.3
- - - --
- --
- --
- --
16.8
26.2
- -- 33.0
- - - --
3
- --
163.0
- - - -- - - - --
- - - --
1
- - --
60.0
- - -- - - --
- --
1
- - - --
50+
- - --
- --
- - --
8
- --
62.9
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
BF Mean Depth (fl)
4.7
3.1
0.7
2.0
1.2
IA
1.2
- 1.6
- - - --
3
- --
1.2
- - - -- - - - --
- - - --
1
- - --
1.6
- -- - - --
- --
1
- - - --
1.0
- - --
- --
- - --
1
- --
1.1
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.8
1.7
1.9
- 2.0
____
3
___
2.4
____ ____
___
1
____
2.1
-__ ____
_ -_
I
_____
1.3
____
-__
____
1
1.7
____
___
____
I
BF Cross - sectional Area (W )
290.3
99
6.0
26.0
13.0
7.4
12.5
- 15.6
- - - --
3
--
10.4
- - -- - - - --
- - - --
1
- - --
17.8
- -- - - --
- --
I
- - - --
13.8
- - --
-
- - --
1
- --
I5.0
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1
Width/Depth Ratio
13
10.3
__-
-__
____
6,1
9.3
- 14.4
____
3
-
7.3
____ _____
___
1
-__
5.7
-__ ____
_-
1
____
13.2
____
-
____
I
__-
11.5
____
___
____
I
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
_____
__-
____
____
2.0
2.6
- 3.4
____
3
-
18.7
____ _____
___
1.5
-__ ____
_ -_
I
____
3.8+
____
-
____
8
__-
41
____
___
____
I
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
_____
__-
____
____
1.3
2,2
- 2.6
____
5+
-
1.2
____ ____
___
1
-__
1.0
-__ ____
_ -_
I
___
1.0.
____
-
__-
I
__-
1.0
___
___
_____
I
d50
0.7
- ____
____
1
-
9.5
____ _ -_
___
____
8.8
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
- --
- - - --
- --
- - --
- - --
- --
- - --
- - - - --
- - - --
- --
10
-
- - -- 16
- - - --
4
383
--
- -- 40.8
- --
2
54.0
- --
-
78.0
- --
8
40.0
62.1
62.0
87.0
14.0
7
Radius of Curvature (fl)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - --
- --
- - --
- - - - --
- - - --
- --
13.1
-
- -- 29.6
- - - --
4
10.9
--
- -- 14.6
- --
5
37.0
- --
- --
53.0
- --
8
34.0
39.9
39.0
47.0
5.4
7
Be Bookstall width(ft/fl)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- --
4.4
-
- -- 5.2
- - - --
3
1.3
--
- -- 1.4
- --
5
2.8
- --
- - - --
4.0
- - --
8
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.6
0.4
7
Meander Wavelength (it)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
--
- - --
- - - --
- --
38
-
- -- 45
- - - --
3
46
--
- -- 48
- --
2
130.0
- --
- - - --
177.0
- - --
6
146.0
162.0
158.0
184.0
15.7
6
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
--
- - - --
- - - --
- --
1.2
-
- - -- 1.8
- - - --
4
3.4
--
- -- 3.6
- --
2
4.1
- --
- - - --
5.9
- - --
8
3.1
4.7
4.7
6.6
LI
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
_____
-----
-----
_____
_____
____
-
- ____
-
___
-
-
____ _ -_
___
____
____
_-
-__ ____
_ -_
___
_-
___
___
-
__-
-_
30.0
36.0
37.0
45.0
6.4
6
Riffle Slope (Rift )
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
0.015
0.025
- 0.035
- - - --
15
0.03
- --
- - -- 0.04
- - - --
4
- --
0.013
- -- - - --
- - --
2
0.013
- --
- --
0.0305
- --
6
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
6
Pool Length (it)
Pool spacing (it
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
27.0
66.0
- 161.0
- - - --
14
35.5
- --
- - -- 47
- --
3
- --
71
- -- - - --
- --
5
82.0
- --
- --
118.0
- --
7
74.0
103.0
100.0
129.0
18.0
7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
_____
---
--
_____
_____
2.1
2.2
- 2.4
____
3
___
3.1
____ ____
___
1
-__
3.3
-__ ____
_ -_
1
_-
2.0
___
-
__-
9
__-
2.4
___
_____
I
Pool
Substrate aad Transport Parameters
d16 /135/d50/184 /195
- --
- --
-
- - --
- - --
<0.2/0.38 /0.69 /26 67
48 /N /A /9.5 /30 /N /A
<0.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
- --
- --
- --
- --
--
- --
33 / 46 / 57
/ 100 / 128
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/
___
___
_ -_
____
____
0.5
____
-_ 0.76
-
3-
-._
__- ____
___
_ -_
___
___
____ ____
-.
__
___
0,4
Max part size (mm) mobilized of bankfull (Rosgen Curve
__-
-_
_-
____
____
_____
200.0
- -_ __-
_
___
100.0
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
___
___
-
____
____
27.9
__-
-_ 48.8
-
3-
-._
__- ____
___
_ -_
___
___
-__ __-
-.
__
___
22.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
25.7
7.2
-
____
____
-__
____
-. 0.5
___
0,2
___
_ -_
-_
___
___ 1.0
-
_-
___
___
___
0.52
__-
__
__-
___
____
0.52
Impervious cover estimate (%
___
-
Rosgen Classificatio
C4
E
___
-
___
:-
Eq
__- ____
___
_ -_
-_
Eq
-__ ____
-.
_-
___
CS
___
-__
__-
__
__-
E5 /C5
BF Velocity (fpJ
3.9
16
_-
-__
____
3.2
___
- 6.8
___
;
___
-__
__- ____
___
____
-_
5.4
____ ____
-
____
___
3.6
BF Discharge (efs)
1140
254
18.0
160.0
52.4
- - - --
50
- -- - - - --
- --
3
- --
- --
- -- - - --
- --
- - - --
- --
97.0
- - -- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- --
50.0
- --
- - --
- --
- - --
- - --
- -
ValleyLength(ft
___
___
_-
-__
____
____
1016.0
- ____
_-
___
___
___
__- ____
___
___
-__
___
____ ____
-
____
___
___
____
___
__-
____
____
619.0
___
Channel length (ft)
850
___
-
____
____
____
1016.0
783.0
Sinuosity
1.06
___
_-
____
____
____
1.14
- ____
_
___
___
1.19
__- ____
___
___
-__
2.30
-.-__ ____
_
___
___
1.20
____
___
__-
_ -_
__-
1.26
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Rift)
___
___
_-
____
____
-___
0.0101
- ____
_-
___
___
0.0109
____ ____
___
___
____
0.0047
-__ ____
-
____
___
0.0077
____
___
__-
_ -_
__-
___
BF slope (AIR)
0.0025
0.0008
____
____
____
-__
___-
-__ ____
___
___
___
____
____ _ -_
___
___
____
Bankfill Floodplain Area (acres)
___
___
____
____
____
-__
____
____ ____
___
BEER VL% / L% /M% / H %/ VH% / Ea/
___
___
____
____
____
-__
____
____ ____
___
___
___
____
____ _ -_
___
___
____
____
____ ____
____
____
___
___
_____
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
___
____
____
____
____
-----
___
____ ____
___
___
___
____
____ _ -_
___
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
-----
_____
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
I. The rural mgio. carve by Harman, eta1. 1999 was aced far the.. parameters.
2. Aa insuffrcent amount of water surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not being able to aceumtely calculate
water surface and bankfull velocity.
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach
2 (445 LF)
USGS
Gauge
Regional Carve Intervai
Reference Reaches) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Parameter
Jacob
Nor nod
(H......t.1
pre - Existing Condition
Spencer Creek Downstream
Design
As -built
Dimension - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Miv
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
___
10.7
1
___
14.2
____
____
_____
1
____
13.3
_____
____
___
1
0o prove t
____
_____
____
_____
___
___
____
163.0
____ ___
____
1
___
60.0
____ _____
___
1
___
50+
____
____
_____
2
____
62.9
_____
____
___
1
___
1.6
___
1
___
0.9
____
____
_____
1
____
1.0
_____
____
___
1
___ 2.0
___
3
____
2.4
___
2.7
____ _____
___
1
___
1.2
____
____
_____
1
____
1.5
_____
____
___
1
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft'
290.3
99
6.0
27.0
13.7
7.4
12.5
- -- 15.6
- --
3
- - --
10.4
- - -- - --
- - --
1
- --
17.8
- - -- - - - --
- --
1
- --
12.7
- - --
- - --
- - - --
1
- - --
13.5
- - - --
- - --
- --
1
Width/Depth Ratio
13
10.3
- --
- --
- - --
6.1
9.3
- -- 14.4
- --
3
- - --
7.3
- - -- - --
- - --
1
- --
5.7
- - -- - - - --
- --
1
- --
15.8
- - --
- - --
- - - --
1
- - --
13.1
- - - --
- - --
- --
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
- - - --
- --
- - --
- - --
2.0
2.6
- -- 3.4
- --
3
- - --
18.7
- -- - --
- - --
1
- --
5.5
- - -- - - - --
- --
1
- --
3.8+
- - --
- - --
- - - --
1
- - --
4.7
- - - --
- - --
- --
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
___
___
____
____
1.3
2.2
___ 2.6
___
5+
____
1.2
___ ___
____
1
___
1.0
____ _____
___
1
___
1.0
____
____
____
1
____
1.0
_____
____
___
1
d50 (mm)
____
___
___
____
___
_____
0.7
___ ___
___
1
____
9,5
___ ___
____
___
___
8.8
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- --
-----
- - - --
- -- - --
- --
- - --
10
- - --
- -- 16
- - --
4
38.3
- - --
- -- 40.8
- --
2
62.0
--
- - --
62.0
- - - --
3
62.0
62.5
62.5
63.0
- --
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- -- - --
- --
- - --
13.1
- - --
- -- 29.6
- - --
4
10.9
- - --
- -- 14.6
- --
5
45.0
--
- - - --
87.0
- - - --
3
36.0
55.7
62.0
69.0
17.39
3
ReRankfull Width(ft/ft)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- -- - --
- --
- - --
4.4
- - --
- -- 5.2
- - --
3
1.3
- - --
- -- 1.4
- --
5
3.2
--
- - - --
6.1
- - - --
3
2.5
3.9
4.4
4.9
1.2
3
Meander Wovelength(ft)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- --
- - --
- - - --
- -- - --
- --
- - --
38
- - --
- -- 45
- - --
3
46
- - --
- -- 48
- --
2
179.0
--
- - - --
313.0
- - - --
2
178.0
246.5
246.5
315.0
- --
2
Meander Width Ratio
____
___
___
____
___
_____
_____
___ ___
___
____
1.2
____
____ 1.8
____
4
3.4
____
___ 3.6
___
2
4.4
_-
_____
4.4
_____
3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
___
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
____
___
___
____
____
____
_____
___ ___
___
____
____
____
___ ___
____
___
___
____
____ _____
___
___
___
____
_____
_____
____
___
31
37
37
43
6
3
Riffle Slope (Rift
- - --
- --
- - --
- - --
- - --
0.015
0.025
- -- O.035.
- --
15
0.03
- - --
- -- 0.04
- - --
4
- --
0.013
- - -- - - - --
- --
2
0.0275
- - --
- - - --
0.0330
- - --
3
0.024
0.029
0.028
0.032
0.004
3
Pool Length (h)
_____
_____
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
- - - --
27.0
66.0
- -- 161.0
- --
14
35.5
- - --
- -- 47
- - --
3
- --
71
- -- - - - --
- --
5
138.0
- - --
- - - --
176.0
- - - --
2
92
155
155
218
- --
2
Pool Max Depth (it)
____
___
___
____
_____
2.1
2.2
___ 2.4
___
3
____
3.1
___ ___
____
1
___
3.3
-__ _____
___
1
2.5
____
____
2.7
___
3
____
2,1
_____
___
___
2
Pool Volume (to)
_-
____
--
___
____
____
____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / Pa/ / G% / S%
SC % /Sa% Ge. /B % /Be%
d 1 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
--
- --
- --
- --
- --
<0.2 / 0.38 / 0.69 /26 / 67
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
<0.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
--
- --
- --
--
--
7 / 22.6 / 36
/ 60 / 90
Rerch She. tress ( compeency ) lb/f
--
- - - --
- - --
- - --
--
0.5
- - --
0.76
3
_ --
-_
0.8
Max Part size (mm) mobilized at backfull (Rosgen Curve
_-
____
_ -_
____
__
____
200.0
-_ ___
___
:_.;_
___
__- -__
___
_ -_
_ -_
_-
____ ____
-_
_ --
___
175.0
_-
Stream PO (hersport capacity) W/m
_-
____
-_
____
_-
27.9
____
-_ 48.8
--
3
:-
__
___
_ -_
_-
___ ____
-_
_ --
___
44
___
_.
__
___
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
25.7
7.2
-_
____
____
____
___
-_ 0.5
-_
___
:_.;_
___
_- 0.2
1.0
-_
_ --
-_
___
___
0.52
_-
-__
___
___
____
0,52
_-
Imp -o's cover estimate (%
_-
RosgenClassitintio
C4
E
_ -_
____
____
__-
G5c
-_ __-
__
___
:_.;_
E4
_- -__
___
____
___
Eq
�__ ____
-_
_ --
___
C5
___
_.__
_-
-__
___
CS
_-
BF Velocity (fps
3.9
2.6
_ -
___
____
..'
___
_ 6,8
A
3
-
-
__ -_
____
___
___
5.4
-
-
___
3.9
BF Discharge (cos)
1140
254
19.0
175.0
55.5
___
50
-__ __-
-__
3
_
-
_- ___
____
____
___
97.0
-__ _____
-__
__-
___
50.0
____
_-
___
____
____
Valley Length (ft)
____
___
_ -_
-_
____
_____
1016.0
-__ __-
____
___
____
-
_- ___
-_
____
___
_ -_
____ ____
-__
__-
___
___
____
-
_-
___
____
405
Channel length (ft)
850
____
_ -_
___
____
_____
1016.0
-__ __-
____
___
____
-
_- ___
-_
____
___
_ -_
____ ____
-__
__-
___
___
____
-
_-
___
____
415
Sinuosity
1.06
___
-_
___
____
_____
1.14
-__ __-
____
___
____
1.19
_- ___
-_
____
___
2.30
____ ____
-_
___
___
1.10
____
-
_-
___
____
1.02
Water Bur ace Slope amel) ( )
____
___
-_
___
____
_____
0.0101
-__ __-
____
___
____
0.0109
__ ___
-_
____
___
0.0047
____ ____
-__
__-
___
0.0016
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0008
-_
___
____
___
_____
-__ __-
___
Banfiall atn Area (Acres)
-
-
-- - --
- - --
BEHIVL% /L % /M% /H% /VH % /E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
- --
--
-
- - --
--
- - --
1.Themealrcio urve by Haase,-1, 1999 wa.ased fmthese parameters.
2. A. in.affl amoam.fwatersurface d=w.a collected alongthis --rh resulted
in not being
ablet.acctastely
nlcalaie water
- ,fraud bankroll
velocity.

Table 10, Baseline Stream Summary
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
UT1B (1,065 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Regional Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Reference Reaeh(es) Data
Design
AabuOt
Gauge
Saws Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
Dimension - Riffle
LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
_-
____ -_ ____
3.4
4.6
___ 5.7 __-
2.0
____
8.7
___ _- ____
1
-_
10.7
____ -_ ___
1
__-
7.0
___ __- ____
1
____
7.0
_ -_ ____
-_
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
- --
- - -- -- - - --
9.8
51.1
- - -- 92.5 - --
2.0
- - --
163.0
- - -- -- - - - --
1
--
60.0
- - -- - -- - - --
1
- --
30+
- -- - - - -- - - --
16
--
51.0
- -- --
--
1
BE Mean Depth(ft)
__-
_ -_ -_ ____
0.6
0.8
___ 1.0 __-
2.0
____
1.2
___ _- -_
1
-_
1.6
____ -__ ___
1
__-
0.5
___ _____ __
1
__
0.5
_ -_ __
___
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
__-
____ -_ ____
1.3
1.4
___ 1.6 __-
2.0
____
2A
___ _- __
1
-_
2.1
____ -__ ___
1
__-
0.8
___ ____ ___
1
-_
1.1
_ -_ _-
___
1
BF Cross - sectional Area(ft'
__-
_____ ____ ____
3.4
3.5
___ 3.5 ____
2.0
____
10.4
___ _- __
1
-_
17.8
____ -__ ___
1
__-
3.6
___ _____ _____
I
____
3.7
_ -_ ____
___
1
Width/Depth Ratio
__-
_____ _____ ____
3.4
6.5
___ 9.5 ____
2.0
____
7.3
___ _- __
1
-_
5.7
____ -__ -
1
_-
13.8
___ _____ _____
1
_____
13.3
_ -_ _____
___
1
Entrenchment Ratio
__-
_____ ____ ____
2.9
9.5
___ 16.2 ____
2.0
____
18.7
___ _- __
1
-_
5.5
____ -__ _-
1
_-
4.3+
___ _____ _____
I
____
7.3
_ -_ _____
___
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
2.0
___ 4.5 ____
5+
____
1.2
___ _- __
1
-_
1.0
____ -__ ___
1
__-
1.0
___ __- ____
1
-_
1.0
_ -_ -----
1
d50 (mm)
m)
_
-- -
0.46
___ -_ __-
-
____
9.5
___ _- __
_ -_
-_
g_g
Pattern
Channel Belts idth (fl)
- --
- -- - - --
--
- --
- -- -- - - --
-
10
-
- - -- 16 --
4
38.3
- - --
- - -- 40.8 - - --
2
32.0
--
- -- 59.0 --
16
28.0
43.5
41.5 57.0
8.9
14
Radius of Corvatme (fl)
- --
- - -- -- - - --
--
- --
- -- -- - - --
--
13.1
-
- - -- 29.6 --
4
10.9
- - --
- - -- 14.6 - - --
5
14.0
--
- -- 24.0 --
16
12.0
19.4
19.0 27.0
4.0
15
Re:Bankfull Width (ft/fl)
- --
- - - -- - - -- - - --
- - -- -- - - --
--
4.4
--
- - -- 5.2 - - --
3
1.3
- - --
- - -- 1.4 - - --
5
2.0
- --
- -- 3.4 - - --
16
1.7
2.8
2.7 19
0.6
15
Meander Wavelength (11)
- --
- - - -- - - - -- - - --
--
- --
- - -- - -- - - --
--
38
- --
- - -- 45 - - --
3
46
- - --
- - -- 48 --
2
58.0
- - --
- - -- 134.0 - - --
13
76.0
97.9
94.0 120.0
14.1
13
Meander Width Ratio
- --
- - - -- - - -- - - --
--
- --
- - -- - -- - - --
--
1.2.
--
- - -- 1.8 - - --
4
3.4
- - --
- - -- 3.6 - --
2
4.6
- - --
- - -- 8.4 - - --
16
4.0
6.2
5.9 B.1
1.3
14
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
__-
____ -_ ____
__-
-__
___ -__ ____
_-
____
-
___ _- -_
_ -_
-_
____
____ -__ __-
-_
__-
_-
___ __- __
_-
17.0
27.0
30.0 47.0
8.0
11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
- --
- - -- -- - - --
0.033
0.127
- - -- 0.564 - - --
19
0.03
-
- - -- 0.04 --
4
--
0.013
- - -- - -- - --
2
0.0198
--
- -- 0.0371 --
12
0.010
0.030
0.020 0.040
0.009
11
Pool Length (ft)
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
--
- -- -- - - --
14.0
510
- - -- 110.0 - - --
9
35.5
-
- - -- 47 --
3
--
71
- - -- - -- - - - --
5
42.0
--
- -- 105.0 --
15
49
63
69 106
20
14
Pool Max, Depth (11)
_-
___ -_ ____
1.3
1.5
___ L6 ____
2
___
3..1
___ _- -_
1
___
3.3
__- -__ ____
1
1.0
_-
- -- 2,0 --
16
--
1.6
_ -_ _-
-_
1
Pool Vo urns( )
__
_- __ ____
__
___
_____ _____
Substrare and Transport Parameters
SC% /Ss % /G % /B % /Be%
_-
____ -_ ____
__
___
_____ _____
d16 / 135 / d50 / d84 / 195
--
- - -- -- - - --
0.17 / 0.33 / 0.46 / 22 / 56
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
10.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
- --
- --
- - -- - -- - - --
- - --
1.25 / 35 /'49 / 80 / 90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
0.61
-__
____ 0.77 ____
2
___
_
____ ___ -_
_ -_
___
__
_- _____ _____
___
__-
0.4
____ __- -
____
-_
__-
_ -_ _____
Max Part Size (mm) mobilized st bankfull (Roagen Curve
__
_- __ ___
__-
200.0
____ ____ ___
_____
___
_
____ ___ -_
_ -_
___
__
__- _____ _____
___
__-
20.0
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
__
_- __ ____
34.5
-__
__- 45.5 ____
2
____
-
____ ___ -_
_ -_
___
__
____ _____ _____
___
__-
22.8
____ __- -
___
-_
__-
_ -_ _____
Additi onal Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (Sir)
__
_- __ ____
__-
___
- 0.1 ____
-
____
-
____ 0,2 -_
_ -_
___
__
_____ 1.0 _____
___
__-
_ -_
____ 0.08 -
____
-_
__-
_ -_ 0.08
Impervious cover estimate (acres
Rosgen Classification
__-
_- __ ____
__-
E5
____ __ ____
_-
____
FA
____ _ - -_
_ -_
-_
pq
_- ___ _____
___
__-
C5
____ __- -
___
-_
C5
Parkhill Velocity (fps)z
____
____ -_ ____
4
-__
- 4.1 __-
2
___
-
_ _- ____
-_
-
5.4
____ ____ _ -_
-_
__-
4.2
_- -_ -
1.0
-__
__-
-_ ____
___
BF Discharge (cfs)
____
____ -_ ____
____
14
- -__ __-
-_
___
-
- _- ____
-_
-_
97.0
____ ____
-_
_-
14.0
___ -_ ___
_-
____
__-
-_ ____
___
Valley Length (it)
____
____ -_ ____
____
822
- -__ __-
-__
___
____
- _- ____
-_
-_
_____
____ ____ -
___
_-
-__
___ -_ ___
_-
____
816.0
-_ ____
___
Channel length (ft)
- - --
- - -- -- - - --
- - --
970
- - -- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
-- - - --
--
--
- - - --
- - - -- - - -- -
' --
- --
- --
- - -- -- -
--
- - --
t035
-- - - - --
- - - --
- --
Sinuosity
____
____ -_ ____
____
1.18
- -__ __-
____
___
1.19
- _- ____
-_
-_
2.30
1.60
___ -_ _
_-
____
1.27
-_ ____
___
Water Surface Stop, (Charnel) (Rift)
____
____ -_ ____
____
0.0193
- -_ __-
____
___
0.0109
_- _- ____
-_
-_
0.0047
____ ____ -
_ -__
_-
0.0144
___ -_ _
_-
____
___
-_ ____
___
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfirll Floodplaia Area (acres)
BEHI VL % / L %/ M %/ H %/ VH% / E%
____
-__ -_ ____
____
-__
- -_ __-
____
___
____
___ _- ____
___
-_
-_ _-
_-
____
__-
-_ ____
___
Charnel Stabbbity or Habitat Metric
- - --
- -- -- - --
- --
- - --
- - -- - --
--
- --
-
- -- - - --
--
--
- - --
- --
-- - - --
- - - --
- --
Biological or other
z Au lnsoffiornramawe ofwerer surface doa was oaltmred along Ml6 ,
1v koh resulted
inmr beingablero
-a-lr rslrvlare werersw(ace eMbnoM11
wIaiiy.

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 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1255.17
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1252.9
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
13.3
BF Width (ft)
13.1
12.1
12.3
12.2
15.2
14.6
13.5
13.4
13.4
1.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
13.1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
12.5
13.1
13.5
13.9
11.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
13.5
BF Cross - sectional Area (W)
15.0
11.8
11.6
11.0
16.6
18.0
17.1
16.7
16.8
1.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
62.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.8
71.1
65.9
66.0
66.0
65.9
4.7
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
5.2
5.1
5.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
15.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
14.1
14.2
14.0
17.4
17.1
16.0
15.9
15.9
0.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.4
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Cross - section 7 (Riffle)
Cross - section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1255.17
1255.1*
1255.1
1255.1
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1258.6
BF Width (ft)
13.3
14.1
12.8
12.7
1258.4
17.5
15.2
12.8
13.7
7.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
9.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
13.3
11.1
10.9
0.6
19.0
13.9
13.3
13.9
13.3
BF Cross - sectional Area (W)
13.5
14.8
14.8
14.8
16.3
16.0
16.6
12.3
13.6
3.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
5.1
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.8
1.1
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.8
1.4
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.1
51.0
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
4.5
4.9
4.9
62.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
16.2
15.1
15.0
1.3
19.3
17.4
14.7
15.7
8.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
10.2
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
*A lower bankfull elevation datum was used in calulating bankful dimension values for MY instead of using the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the data between
the two monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dimension parameters.
U IB (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 on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
BF Width (ft)
7.0
5.5
5.4
6.8
10.2
9.1
8.9
9.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.61
0.55
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
11.4
13.6
15.9
13.3
16.3
14.5
18.2
BF Cross- sectional Area (W)
3.7
2.6
2.2
2.9
7.9
5.1
5.5
5.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
51.0
51.0
47.5
49.8
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
Entrenchment Ratio
7.3
8.8
8.8
7.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.1
6.4
6.2
7.7
11.8
10.2
10.1
11.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5

Table llb. Stream Reach Morphology
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
South
Fork Hoppers Creek Reach
2 (445 LF)
Parameter
Monitoring
Baseline (As- built)
(As- built)
MY -1
MY -1
MY -2
MY -2
MY -3
MY -3
MY -5
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Mad Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD n
Min Mean Mcd Max SD n
Min Mean Mcd Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-
13.1
__- ____
- - --
I
-
12.1
- - - --
- - - --
____
I
_ -_
12.3
-- --
___
1
___
12.2
____
____ ___ I
- - - --
-
Floodprone Wtd[ (ft)
--
62.9
-- - --
_____
I
____
62.9
- --
- - - --
____
1
-
62.8
----- - -__
____
I
-
62.8
-_
_-___ 1
1
BF Mean Dept ()
-
1.1
- -
- --
1
-
1.0
-
-----
-----
1
-
0.9
___ -_
____
1
-
0.9
1
-
1.7
-
BF Max Depth (fi)
-
1.7
- -
- --
1
- --
1.6
--
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
1.7
- --
--
1
-
1.5
--
-- -
- - - --
- --
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
-
15.0
- -
--
1
-
11.8
--
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
11.6
-- - - - --
-
1
-
11.0
--
-- - 1
1
-
Width /Depth Ratio
-
11.5
- -
--
1
-
12.5
--
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
13.1
- - - - --
-
1
-
13.5
-
- -
4.9
- -
Entrenchment Ratio
-
4.8
- -
-
1
-
5.2
--
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
5.1
- - - - --
-
1
-
5.2
-
-- -
-
1
Bank Herght Ratio
-
1.0
- - -.
-
1
-
1.0
-
-----
-----
1
-
1.1
- _____
-
1
-
1.0
-
_____ - 1
d50 (mm)
-
_-
-_
-
___
-___
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
_-
Channel Beltwi are (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern
62.5
55.7
62.5
62.0
69.0
69.0
-
17..39
2
3
40.0
62.1
62.0 87.0
14.0
7
Rc:Baokfull Width (tuft)
2.5
3.9
Channel Beltwidth Ri
4.9
1.2
3
Radius ofC.rvw,.Ht)
34.0
39.9
39.0 47.0
5.4
7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
178.0
246.5
246.5
315.0
-
2
Rc:Bkfull width (tuft)
an
2.6
3.0
3.0 3.6
0.4
7
a,
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
146.0
162.0
158.0 184.0
15.7
6
mew
Profile
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
4.7
4.7 6.6
1.1
7
3
Riffle Length (ft)
29.9
38
34
50
B.
3
32
44
44 54
11.10
3
34 44 45 52 9.18 3
Riffle Slope (tuft)
Profile
0.029
0.028
0.032
0.004
3
0.0 18
0.025
0.026
0.031
0.005
3
0.019
0.025
0.027 0.029
0.005
3
0.021 0.026 0.027 0.029 0.004 3
34
43
43
51 5.96 5'.
Riffle Length (ft)
30.0 36.0 37.0 45.0 6.4 6
31 41 37 60 11.34 5
36 42 42 49 4.94 5
Riffle Slope (tuft)
0.01
0.02
0.02 0.03
0.01
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.003
5
0.02
0.02
0.02 0.03
0.004
5
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03 0.004 5'
81
110
Pool LecgOt (0)
-
72
80
75 92
10.78
3
74 81 77 91 9.073 3
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Pool S acing (ft)
14.0
103.0
100.0 129.0
18.0
7
79.0
102
110
127
19.5
5
75
101
106 118
18.4
5
77
102
104
119 15.9 S
Substrate and Transport Parameters
28.8/48.7/65.0/104.0 /251.5
33/46/57/100/128
Reach Shear Stre, ( competency) Ib /P
-
- - --
-
8F 73 / 89/ 138/192
-
- - - --
--
- - - --
8/67/79.4/122.9 /168.1
- - --
-
-
14.1/67.6/82.9/128.0 /175.0
d16/ 135/ d50/ d84/ 195
-
Reacb Shear Stress (competency) lh/P
-
- --
- -
-
- --
-
--
-
- --
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- - -- -
SneamPower(trans ortce acil) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
-
- - --
-
0.52
-
-
-
- - --
-
0.52
- - --
- - --
-
-
- 0.52
-
-
Drainage Area (SM)
- - -- - 0.52 - - --
- -- - 0.52 -- - --
- - - 0.52 - -
- - -
0.52 - - --
Rosgeo Classification
-
E5 /C5
- -
-
- --
-
E5 /C5
-
- --
--
- --
-
E5 /C5
- - --
-
-
-
ES /C5
-
-- - - --
3.9
-
BF Ve1ocity(fps)1
-
3.6
- -
-
- --
-
3.6
-
- --
--
- --
-
3.6
- -
-
-
-
3.6
-
- - --
- --
-
BF Discharge (cfs)
-
54.1
- -
-
- --
-
42.5
-
- --
--
- --
-
41.8
- -
--
-
-
39.6
-
- - - - --
-
- - --
Valley Length (ft)
-
619.0
- -
-
- --
-
619.0
-
- --
--
- --
-
619.0
- - --
--
-
-
619.0
-
-- - - - - --
415
-
Channel length (ft)
-
783.0
- -
-
- --
-
783.0
-
- --
--
- --
-
783.0
- - --
--
-
-
783.0
-
-- -- - - - --
- - - --
- --
Sinuosity
--
1.26
-- -
-
--
-
1.26
-
- --
--
- --
-
1.26
- -
--
-
-
1.26
-
- -- - --
____
-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
- --
- -- -
-
- --
-
-
-
- --
--
-
-
0.01
- -
--
-
-
0.01
-
- -- - - --
BF ski pc (f /ft)
-
-
-- - --
-
- --
-
--
-
South
Fork Hoppers Creek Reach
2 (445 LF)
Parana".
Monitoring
Baseline
(As- built)
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Mae
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD a
Min Mean Mod Max SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
____
13.3
_____
_____
_____
1
_____
14.0
_____
_____
_____
1
_____
12.8
_____ _____
_____
1
____ 12.7 ___ _____ ____ I
Floodprona Width (ft)
-
62.9
--
- - - --
-
1
- - --
62.9
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
62.9
- -- - - - --
--
1
- 62.8 - - -- - -- - - - -- 1
BF Mean Depth
1.0
1
1.1
-
_____
____
1
-
1.2
- -
-
1
- 1.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
-
1.5
-
- - - --
-
1
-
1.7
-
- - - --
- --
1
-
1.9
- -
-
1
- 1.8 -- - - 1
BF Cross - sectional Area (W)
-
13.5
-
- - - --
-
1
-
14.8
-
- - - --
- --
1
-
14.8
- -
-
1
- 14.8
Width/Depth Ratio
-
13.1
-
- - - --
-
1
-
13.3
-
- - --
- --
1
-
11.1
- -
-
1
- 10.9
Entrenchment Ratio
-
4.7
-
- - - --
-
1
-
4.5
-
- - --
- --
1
-
4.9
- -
-
1
- 4.9 - - -- - 1
Bank Height Ratio
-
I.0
-
- - - --
-
1
-
1.0
-
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
1.1
- - - - --
-
1
- 1.0 - - - - -- - 1
d50 (mm)
-
pattern
Channel Beltwi are (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
62.0
36.0
62.5
55.7
62.5
62.0
69.0
69.0
-
17..39
2
3
Rc:Baokfull Width (tuft)
2.5
3.9
4.4
4.9
1.2
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
178.0
246.5
246.5
315.0
-
2
a,
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
2
Profile
31.0
37.0
37.0
43.0
6
3
Riffle Length (ft)
29.9
38
34
50
B.
3
32
44
44 54
11.10
3
34 44 45 52 9.18 3
Riffle Slope (tuft)
0.024
0.029
0.028
0.032
0.004
3
0.0 18
0.025
0.026
0.031
0.005
3
0.019
0.025
0.027 0.029
0.005
3
0.021 0.026 0.027 0.029 0.004 3
Pool Length (ft)
____
-
____
- ____
-
_-
- _____ _____ _____ _____ __-
Not Spacing (ft)
92
155
155
218
2
73M
88
81
110
15.9
3
72
80
75 92
10.78
3
74 81 77 91 9.073 3
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16/65/ d50 /d84/d95
7/22.6/36/60/90
36/51.8/65.4/89.4
/123.4
32.6/46.5/59.1/872 /123.1
28.8/48.7/65.0/104.0 /251.5
Reach Shear Stre, ( competency) Ib /P
-
- - --
-
--
-
- - - --
--
- - - --
-
- - --
-
-
-
-
-
Strcam Power transport capacity W /m'
- - --
-
- - --
-
- - - --
- - --
- - --
-
- - --
-
Additional Reach Parameters
-
- - --
-
0.52
-
- - --
-
- - --
-
0.52
- - --
- - --
-
-
- 0.52
-
-
Drainage Area (SM)
- - - 052 - - - -- - --
Rosgen Classification
-
C5
-
- --
-
- - --
-
CS
-
- - - --
- --
- - --
-
C5
- - - --
-
-
- C5 - - - - -- - - - -- -
BFVelocity (fps)I
-
3.9
-
___
-
_ -_
-
3.9
-
_____
___
____
-
3.9
- -
-
-
- 3.9
BF Discharge (cfs)
-
52.767
-
- --
-
--
-
57.681
-
- - - --
- --
- - --
-
57.72
- - - --
-
- --
- 57.72 - - -- - - --
Valley Length (R)
- --
405
- --
-
-
-
- - --
405
- - - --
-
-
-
- --
405
-- -
- - - --
-
- -- 405 - - - -- - - - - -- --
Channel length (ft)
-
415
-
- --
-
- --
-
415
-
- - - --
- --
- - --
-
415
- - - --
-
- --
- 415 - -- - - - -- - -- - - - --
Sinuosity
-
1.02
-
- --
-
- - --
-
1.02
-
- - - --
- --
- - --
-
1.02
- - - --
-
- --
- 1.02 - - -- - - - -- - - - -- --
urf
Water S a Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-
____
-
___
-
____
-
____
-
_____
___
____
-
0.02
- ____
-
-
- 0.02
BF Slope (tuft)
-
--

Table 11 b. Stream Reach Morphology
Hoppers Creok- Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
UTIB 1,065 LF
Parameter
Monitoring
Baseline (AS- built)
MY-]
MY-2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Mod Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
Min
Mean
Mod Max
SD n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
Min M. Med Max SD
IIF Width
___
1
___
5.4
_____
1
___
6.R
I
Floodprone Width (ft)
--
51.0
- - - --
I
--
51.0
__-
1
____
47.5
- - - --____
___
I
___
49.8
____ ____
___ 1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-
0.5
- - - --
- - - --
1
-
0.5
-
-
--
1
- - - --
0.4
- - -- - - --
--
1
--
0.4
0.8
- -- - --
--
1
-
1.0
- -- - - --
- - -- 1
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
-
3.7
- --
--
1
--
3.7
-
-
--
1
-
2.2
- - - --
--
1
-
2.9
-- - - --
- - -- 1
Width/Depth Ratio
-
13.3.
- -
-
1
--
13.3
-
-
--
1
-
13.6
- -
-
1
-
15.9
- - - --
- - -- 1
Entrenchment Ratio
-
7.3
- -
-
1
--
7.3
-
-
--
1
-
8.8
- -
-
1
-
7.3
- - - --
- - -- I
Book Height Ratio
-
1.0
1
-
1.0
-
_____
____
-
1,2
- _____
-
1
-
1.
-
-
50 (rum)
-
28.0
43.5
41.5 57.0
8.9
14
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12.0
19.4
19.0 27.0
4.0
15
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.8
2.7 3.9
0.6
15
Meander Wavelength (ft)
76.0
97.9
94.0 120.0
14.1
13
Meander Width Ratio
4.0
6.2
5.9 8.1
1.3
14
Pr
Riffle length (ft)
17.0
27.0
30.0 47.0
8.0
11
17.0
33
42
53
12.2
7
16
38
43 52
14.34
S
15
39
46 SI
14R8 5
Riffle Slope (ft it
0.010
0.030
0.020 0.040
0.009
11
0.022
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.002
7
0.019
0.024
0.024 0.029
0.003
5
0.018
0.023
0.024 0.029
0.004 5
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-_
_-
-
-
_-
-
-
___
- -
-
-
-
_-
- _ -_
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
49.0
63.0
69.0 106.0
20.0
14.0
51.0
73
67
105
17.4
7
48
76
80 102
20.7
5
50
78
83 102
19.99 S
Substrate and Tray nsport Parametefe�
32/47.3/60.9/96 /141.1
25.4/45.7/56.9/90 /143.4
5.6/36.4/55.7/96.7 /148.1
d16/ d35/ d50/ d84/ 195
1.25/35/49/80/90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /F
-
-
- --
-
- - - --
-
- --
-
-
--
-
-
-
- -
--
-
-
Svcam Power transport acct
cap y)
-
-
- --
- - - - --
-
_
Additional Reach Parameters
�.
Drainage Area (SM)
-
-
- 0.08
-
--
--
- --
-
0.08
--
-
-
-
- 0.09
--
-
-
-
-- 0A8
- - - - --
Rosgen Classification
-
C5
- -_
_
-_
C5
-
-
_-
-
-
C5
- _-
_-
-_
-
C5
Bankfull Velocity ((ps)1
-
4.2
- --
-
--
--
4.2
-
-
--
-
-
4.2
- - - - --
--
--
-
4.2
- --
- - - - --
BF Discharge (CW
-
15.6
- -
-
- - --
--
15.6
-
-
- --
-
-
9.2
- -
--
--
-
12.2
- --
- - - - --
Valley Length (ft)
-
816.0
- -
-
- - - --
--
816.0
-
- - - --
- --
-
-
816.0
- - - - --
--
- --
-
816.0
- - --
- - - - --
Channel length (ft)
-
1035
- -
-
- - - --
--
1035
-
- - - --
- --
-
-
1035
- - - - --
--
- --
-
1038
- - --
- - - - --
Sinuosity
-
1.27
- -
-
- - - --
-
1.27
-
- - - --
- --
-
-
1.27
- -
--
--
-
L27
- --
- -
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
-
-
- -
-
- - --
-
--
-
- --
--
-
-
0.02
- -
--
--
-
0.02
- --
- -
BF slope ft/ft

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251
Method of Data
Gauge Watermark
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Collection
Height (feet above
bankfull)
April 16, 2014
May 1, 2013 - April 16, 2014
Gauge measurement
0.6
May 1, 2013
December 31, 2012 - May 1, 2013
Gauge measurement
0.10
December 31, 2012
August 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012*
Gauge measurement
0.55
August 1, 2012
May 30, 2012 - August 1, 2012*
Gauge measurement
0.10
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified.

20
18
16
14
2 12
0
0 10
.Q
'v
i 8
a
6
4
2
0
Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Marion, NC (January 2013 - December 2013)
Jan -13 Feb -13 Mar -13 Apr -13 May -13 Jun -13 Jul -13 Aug -13 Sep -13 Oct -13 Nov -13 Dec -13
Date
Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Mitigation Plan: EEP Project No. 92251

Oa
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for 2013 Growing Season
3/30/13 - 11/2/13
Date
.75
.5
.25
.75
.5
.25
Hydrology level required Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 Start Growing Season End Growing Season Rainfall Data (NC -MD -2)
8.75
8.5
8.25
8
7.75
7.5
7.25 rp
7
75 �•
6.5
6.25
5.75,
5.5 p
5.25
4.75
4.5
4.25 �..i
3.75
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
tK
ti
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
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MYl -MY5
Success Criteria Achieved /Max Consecutive Days During Growing
Gauge
Season (Percentage)
MY 1 (2011)
MY2 (2012)
MY3 (2013) 1 MY4 (2014)
MY5 (2015)
No/ 10 days
Yes /25 days
Yes /218 days
Gauge 1
g
(5 %)
(12 %)
(100 %)
Yes /218 days
Yes /218 days
Yes /218 days
Gauge 2
(100 %)
(100 %)
(100 %)
Yes /188 days
Yes /218 days
Yes /218 days
Gauge 3
(86 %)
(100 %)
(100 %)
Yes /200 days
Yes /218 days
Yes /218 days
Gauge 4
(92 %)
1 (100 %)
1 (100 %)