20080587 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20160224

AO�V'
zw- -
I hm
44 -
Ado,
pe
ow

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
Stream Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1048
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy -Seven Center Dr., Ste. 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Kristi Suggs
Project Manager
l
Jacob Byers, PE
NC Ecosystem Services Manager

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................4
2.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site.........................................................................................................5
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetation Assessment............................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Wetland Assessment................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................8
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 1
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 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., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 1
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6a -b Monthly Rainfall Data
Figures 7a -b Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table 13 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 II
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 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
Ila
Cross-section Morphology Data Table
Table
l lb
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6a -b Monthly Rainfall Data
Figures 7a -b Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table 13 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 II
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 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 Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS). This report documents and presents Year 4 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 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 UT 1, UT2, and UT3.
South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries had been impacted by livestock, 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 UTI and UT2 using Rosgen Priority I
restoration and Level II enhancement approaches. An additional 1,071 LF of stream along portions of UTI
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 UT 1 of which 1.23 acres comprised restoration
and 0.33 acres comprised enhancement. The Priority I channel design approach entailed raising the elevation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 42251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

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 UT 1, 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 0.15 acres, or 3.4% of the planted acreage for this assessment tract. These two WAS were identified in
the Year 1 monitoring period and carried over through Year 4. Six small areas with invasive plants were
identified during the May 2015 assessment for a combined total area of 0.11 acres or 1.3% of the easement
acreage. Invasive species were treated throughout the conservation easement in September 2015. Kudzu,
multi -flora rose, privet, mimosa, autumn olive, trifoliate orange, tree of heaven, and Bradford pear were
treated using cut -stump, foliar, hand pull, and hand digging methods. Additional treatment will be performed
if invasive species persist. 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 plan view (CCPV)
figures, supporting data tables, and photo logs. The contents of Appendix B were submitted to NCDMS in
May 2015 and served as the interim visual site assessment report.
The average density of total planted stems per plot ranges from 283 — 971 stems per acre with a tract mean
(including volunteers) of 890 stems per acre. Volunteer species continue to thrive throughout the vegetation
plots. The Project site is on track for meeting the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of
Year 5. 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 92 to 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 erosion around 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 six SPAS that were identified in Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring periods were
carried over through Year 4. No new SPAS were identified for the Year 3 assessment; however, three new
SPAS were identified in Year 4. SPA4-1 and SPA4-2 are located on SFHC Reach 1 around stations 16+25
and 20+75, respectively. Both SPAS are characterized by failing rootwads associated with the erosion and
undercutting of the bank tie-in just downstream of a log sill. SPA4-3 is located on UT2 Reach A between
stations 12+36 to 12+53. The left bank in this location has scoured out due to the combination of high near
bank stress during bankfull flows on the outside of a meander bend and topographic relief which has
exacerbated the issue, but appears to be localized and not progressing downstream. 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. 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 with only minor filling in the upstream sections of Reach 1 and UTIB,
which is most likely due to the natural movement of sediment through the system. 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 4 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 UT113 indicate that the stream is moving fines through the system and larger
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

pebbles are making up a greater percentage of the bed material. The site was found to have had at least three
bankfull events based on crest gauge readings. Information on these events is provided in Table 12 of
Appendix E.
Based on the fourth growing season following site construction (March 30, 2013 - November 2, 2015), all
four wetland areas met the success criteria for wetland hydrology during Monitoring Year 4. Groundwater
conditions indicated saturated conditions existed throughout 100% of the growing season for Gauges 2, 3, and
4, and 81 % of the growing season for Gauge 1. 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 DMS'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 (DMS 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 DMS on-call design and construction services contract. All raw data supporting
the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 42251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Project site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetation,
stream, and wetland components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these
three components adheres to the DMS 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 4 monitoring data was collected in May 2015 and September 2015. All visual site
assessment data was collected on May 6, 2015. Vegetation monitoring plot data was collected on September
21 and 24, 2015. All stream survey (channel dimension and profile) and sediment data were collected from
September 21 - 23, 2015. Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A
Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station and was geo-referenced to the NAD83 State Plane
Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the South Muddy Creek As -built
Survey.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension
(cross-sections), profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows,
and reference sites documented by photographs. A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, will be used to
document the occurrence of bankfull events. The methods used and any related success criteria are described
below for each parameter. For monitoring stream success criteria, 6 permanent cross-sections, 1 crest gauge,
and 39 photo identification points were installed.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Six permanent cross-sections were installed throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections
selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Each of the three
restored Project reaches, Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT1B, contains one riffle
and one pool cross-section. A common benchmark 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank. All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the longitudinal
profiles surveyed. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark.
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle during
annual geomorphic surveys of the Project site. One sample was collected at the riffle cross-section
corresponding with each of the three restored Project reaches for a total of three sediment samples
(cross-sections X5, X7, X9). These samples, combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-
section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream
adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation will be evaluated with
respect to stream stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure
5 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
crest gauges and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the right top of bank at station 15+10. The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with
the top of bank (bankfull) elevation. The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site
visits, and are checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs
are used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

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
the CVS-NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.3.1 (CVS-NCEEP, 2012). The size of individual quadrants
varies from 100 -square meters for tree species to 1 -square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Level 1 CVS
vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall. At the
end of the first growing season during baseline surveys, species composition, density, and survival were
evaluated. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events will include diameter,
height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be
determined. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots. Reference photos of tree and
herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year. As part of the visual site assessment
conducted on May 6, 2015, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains
(wetlands), and terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance. This assessment also included the
documentation of invasive species and potential VPAs, which were recorded in the field for subsequent
mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation
condition assessment can be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, supporting data
tables, and photo logs.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 42251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

2.3 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored/enhanced wetland areas to document
hydrologic conditions at the Project site. These four wetland gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures found
in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance
with the USACE standard methods outlined in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02 (July 2000).
Precipitation data from a nearby U.S. Geological Survey rain gauge near Morganton, NC (USGS
354353081410545) was used for comparison to post -construction groundwater monitoring conducted during
the Year 4 growing season. This data was obtained from the USGS "waterdata" website (USGS 2015).
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., DMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2012. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. 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.
US Geological Survey, 2015. USGS 354353081410545. Morganton, NC. Retrieved: 2015-11-19
13:59:59 EST
http://watcrdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/uv/?site no=354353081410545&PARAmeter cd=00045
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. - 42251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - FINAL
DECEMBER 2015, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

S S S SS S S S S S S S S S S T is SS
SS S S jS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S S S S S S S S S S S S is; S S S S S S S S
S S In S S S S jS S S S S S S S S S S S S
SS S S 1% S S S SS S S S S SS S S S S S
S S S S 1
8
Directions to the Hoppers Creek-Melton Farm Site: \ VERY
%S S1ffnjS S S $ptS TITnS St0% \ \
%S S SmS S 1 \
,� " , _--
� S S S S S 1% S S)S 1 o re CATAWBA j
�S S SSS SS S SS S S S l , f
S S J)S 1 l 03-08-31 / sa
M;S S S S S S S jS S S S S S 1 s /
\ CALDYVELL
,s 80 (FRENCH ROADe�
04-0 06
9 S uce Pine
Y C Y
` z
FRE B ~�
-0
9
FRENCH BRO \ D
\ 181
04-03- ,z zs
h
80 � -
+�'"� r,
Glen Al organton
.,
RENCH BROAD - �+
04-03-02
MCDOWELL ,o Mario�i
i.
ontre t WBA
-30
U / Old F rt
B \•
i
zz, ,. CATAWB
03-08-35
Sips nono pn
- South ForkHoppers Creek
i
----- r l,�OR AD BROAD I
Michael �
Baker03� s-0- �- 03-08-04 I
f I
T E A I 0 N_ L
1 li
Map Vicinity Figure 1. Vicinity Map LEGEND:
Project Boundary
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm C� NC River Basins
McDowell County, NC 0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
S S MVpso Q Counties
S jS $nos 0 2.5 5
Miles

Table 1. Project Components
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Project Segment or Reach
Linear Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Existing Feet/Acres
Mitigation Type
Approach
Stationing
Comment
ID
Acrea a*
Ratio
Units
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion,
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
R
131
783
1:1
783
10+00 - 17+83
and provide habitat. Priority I was implemented to reestablish
Reach 1
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain.
1,350
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion,
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
R
P1
445
1:1
445
17+83 - 22+48**
and provide habitat. Priority I was implemented to reestablish
Reach 2
stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain.
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
P
-
722
5:1
144
implemented to on right and left stream banks.
UTI - ReachA
782
Regraded right bank to create a bankfull bench and implemented
Ell
P4
60
2.5:1
24
7+86 - 8+46***
riparian plantings to improve stability and reduce erosion.
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was
P
-
51
5:1
10
9+49 - 10+00***
implemented to on right and left stream banks.
Installed in -stream structures to increase habitat diversity. Installed
UT 1 - Reach B
970
R
P1
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
EII
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 right 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 sought
Hoppers Creek
for mitigation credit.
Stabilized ephemeral drainage with boulder sill structures and
p drainage near the
80
-
-
80
-
-
armored channel bed. Areas outside the channel were mulched and
upstream extend of UT2
ust
planted. Not being sought for mitigation credit.
Ephemeral drainage at
Stabilized ephemeral drainage by regrading, rematting, and
15
-
-
15
-
Station 16+75 of UT2
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.
Wetland
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 UTIB was shifted upstream into UT1A per conversations with DMS and CEC. The section slated for enhancement at the top of UT1B (9+49 to 10+00)
became presevation upon the field change.
Component Summations
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Non-Ripar Upland
LF Wetland Ac Ac Ac
_ Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,293 1.23 - - -
Enhancement 0.33 - - -
Enhancement I -
Enhancement 11 1,257
Creation - - - -
Preservation 1,071 - - - -
HQ Preservation - - - - -
1.56 0.00
Totals 4,621 1.56
Total Mitigation Units 3010 SMU 1.40 WMU
= Non - Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 4 Years 6 Months
Number of Re orting Years: 4
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
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
Sep -13
Dec -13
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -14
Sep -14
Dec -14
Invasive Treatment
N/A
N/A
Sep -15
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -15
Sep -15
Dec -15
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A

Table 3.
Project Contacts Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
Profession Land Surveyor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC.
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Contact:
Professional Land Surveyor
David Turner, Tel. [phone]
As-Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5550 Seventy-Seven Center Dr., Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28217
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Project County
McDowell County, NC
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Inner Piedmon Belt
Project River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites Project: 03050101040020; References: 03040103050 -090 (Spencer
Creek), -080 (Barnes Creek); 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek); 03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch)
NCDW 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 desi n phase ? None
Restoration Component Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers -
Reach 1
South Fork
Hoppers - Reach 2
UT 1 - Reach A
(Preservation)
UT 1 - Reach A
(Enhancement 2)
UT 1 -Reach B
(Preservation)
UT 1 -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
1 st
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 a Rural Urban Developing etc.
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Developed Low -Medium Intensit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A -Cultivated Crops
1.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A -Pasture/Ha
15.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Forested
60.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other (Open water, Grassland, Etc.
22.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Watershed impervious cover %
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDW 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 arcea a as part of the restoration
5.7
Ros en classification ofpre-existing
G5c
C4/1
B
B
E5
E5
G5
G5c
B
Ros en classification of As -built
C5
C5
B
B
C5
C5
G5/135
G5c
B
Valley type
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Valley sloe
0.0115ft/ft
0.0115 ft/ft
-
-
0.023 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
0.034 ft/ft
0.023 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
1 3/5
1 3/5
1 5
5
5
1 515 1
3/5

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 4
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2015
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ 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
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
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 4 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 2015). 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, and
• Identify and document potential SPAS and VPAs.
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and information are provided following the narrative portion of this report
and include:
• Current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 through 3),
• Visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Tables 5a through 5d),
• SPA inventory table (Table 5e),
• Vegetation condition assessment table (Tables 6a and 6b),
• VPA inventory table (Table 6c),
• Stream station photos,
• SPA photos, and
• 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 NCDEQ DMS
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 2015. This data
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 2 of 8

will be summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure of the Year 4 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, UT1 Reach B, and UT2 (Reaches A and B). SFHC Reaches 1 and
2 are delineated by the confluence of UTI Reach B where SFHC Reach 1 is located upstream
of the confluence and SFHC Reach 2 is located downstream of the confluence. UT2 Reach
A extends from the upstream limits located within the conservation easement boundary to the
downstream limits of the constructed step -pool channel, and UT2 Reach B includes the
remaining corridor located downstream of the step -pool channel until its confluence with
SFHC Reach 1.
Due to expected performance issues related to the persistence of invasive species on UT2
(Reaches A and B), vegetation conditions for it were assessed independently from the
remainder of the Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site, which
exhibited uniform conditions; therefore, resulting in two distinct vegetation assessment
tracts. Vegetation conditions for both tracts are reported in Tables 6a and 6b. Baker
performed the visual site assessment on May 6, 2015.
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 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
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 NCDEQ DMS.
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 nine SPAs documented, four of which were identified during the Year 1
visual assessment, two that were identified during the Year 2 assessment, and three that were
identified during the Year 4 assessment. SPAs documented in previous years were included
in this assessment since they have persisted to date. Any SPAs that have been documented in
previous reports, but were not indicated as problems during the Year 4 assessment will not be
described.
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
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 this year and persisting from previous years is discussed below. The
SPAs from previous years noted in this report have generally 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.
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 SPAI-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, but are slowly
stabilizing with native well rooted vegetation. Stabilization is critical to prevent the spread of
lateral instability further downstream.
SPA 1-5 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 (SPA1-6) and the right upper bank has eroded. Coarse riprap material
has been deposited downstream atop the lowest elevation boulder sill, exposing the
underlying filter fabric as a result.
SPA2-1 is located 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 subsided, but has scoured the upstream portion of
the rootwad and the channel toe beneath it, 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. Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are starting to colonize
the problem area. This area should be continually monitored to document and prevent any
further bank degradation
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.
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 5 of 8

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 and exposed,
but vegetation is starting to provide 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
and making the bank more susceptible to subsequent erosion.
SPA4-1 is located downstream of a log step on SFHC Reach 1. SPA4-1 is characterized by a
failing rootwad associated with the erosion and undercutting of the right 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 right bank) and is oriented within the channel
such that flow is being directed toward the right bank immediately downstream of where the
log sill ties into the bank, causing bank erosion. The rootwad has separated from the right
bank, has slumped into the channel, but is still providing erosion protection of the right bank.
Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are present and are providing some stability to the
bank. This area should be continually monitored to document and prevent any further bank
degradation.
SPA4-2 is located downstream of a log step on SFHC Reach 1. SPA4-2 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 20+75. 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. There is erosion immediately upstream of
the rootwad potentially compromising the structure, but the rootwad is still providing some
bank protection. Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are present and are providing
some stability to the bank. This area should be continually monitored to document and
prevent any further bank degradation
SPA4-3 is located on UT2 Reach A between stations 12+36 to 12+53. The left bank in this
location has scoured out due to the combination of high near bank stress during bankfull
flows on the outside of a meander bend and topographic relief which has exacerbated the
issue. This area is localized and does not appear to be progressing downstream.
Log sills associated with deep scour pools on UTI Reach B were inspected and assessed for
vertical stability per DMS' request during the Year 2 assessment and reassessed during the
Year 4 assessments. DMS' 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 UTI Reach B were designed to have a maximum pool depth
(dpoo,) ranging between 1.0 and 2.0 feet and a ratio of pool depth to average bankfull depth
(dpoo,/dbkf) ranging between 2.0 and 4.0 (as cited in Table 7.2 from the South Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Plan). DMS' monitoring guidance (dated November 7, 2011) for
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 UTI Reach B translates to a
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 6 of 8

dpoo, of 0.8 feet in depth or greater. All log sill scour pools on UT 1 Reach B had dpoo,/db,f
ratios exceeding 1.6 and thus fulfilled DMS' monitoring guidance criteria for sufficient depth
for meander pool condition for this current visual morphological assessment. The deepest of
these pools were the 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 2.8 feet and 5.2 respectively. This marks a
slight increase in dpoo, value and dpoo,/db,f ratio of 2.2 feet and 4.4 recorded in the Year 3
Assessment. Even though the dpoo, value of 2.8 feet exceeds that specified for the proposed
design (by 0.8 feet), it still meets DMS' 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. Fine sediment was noted in this pool and other pools
throughout the reach reinforcing pool depth filling and fluctuation. 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 UTI Reach B; Table 6b references the vegetation assessment
tract associated with UT2 (Reaches A and B). There were a total of fourteen VPAs, two of
which were identified during the Year 1 visual assessment, three that were identified during
the Year 2 assessment, and nine that were identified during the Year 4 assessment. Bare
floodplain conditions account for two of the VPAs, and the presence of invasive species
accounts for the remaining twelve VPAs. A DMS licensed contractor conducted exotic
invasive plant control over nine days between June 20 and August 14, 2013. No additional
treatments have been conducted since these treatments. As a result several new VPAs were
identified in the Year 4 assessment. 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 persisting VPAs reported from previous year's
assessment, as well as Year 4's VPAs are 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.
VPA1-1 and VPA1-2 are the two bare areas that were documented in the Year 1 Assessment
in the wetland area located in the right floodplain along SFHC Reach 1. The two VPAs have
remained somewhat bare since construction was completed. This could possibly be due to
standing water from frequent inundation and/or the washing away of dispersed seeds by
frequent overbank flows. The combined total area for these VPAs is 0.15 acres or 3.4% of
the planted area acreage for this assessment tract.
One VPA reported during the Year 2 Assessment within SFHC Reach 2 (VPA2-2) still
persists. It is located around a patch of trees in the left floodplain and is composed of
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 7 of 8

multiflora rose. The combined total area for this VPA is 0.019 acres or 0.4% of the planted
area acreage for this assessment tract.
Two VPAs were reported within SFHC Reach 2 (VPA4-1 and VPA4-2,) during the Year 4
Assessment. They are located in the left and right terrace. These VPAs are composed
primarily of multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle and continue to persist after prior
treatment. Both VPAs appear to be the result of encroachment from outside the easement.
The combined total acreage for these seven VPAs is 0.035 acres or 0.8% of the planted area
acreage for this assessment tract.
Two VPAs reported during the Year 2 Assessment within UTI Reach B (VPA2-4 and VPA2-
5) still persist. They are located on the right terrace/floodplain and are composed primarily
of multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle that continue to persist after prior treatment.
VPA2-4 is located in vegetation monitoring plot 22 and has grown in size from previous
year's assessment. The VPA may have proliferated from seed sources contained within the
existing tree stand located just outside the vegetation plot. The combined total area for these
two VPAs is 0.04 acres or 0.9% of the planted area acreage for this assessment tract.
One VPA was reported within UT 1 B (VPA4-9) during the Year 4 Assessment. This problem
area is located on the right terrace. This VPA is composed of Japanese honeysuckle that has
persisted after treatment as result of encroachment from outside the easement. The combined
total acreage for these four VPAs is 0.02 acres or 0.4% of the planted area acreage for this
assessment tract.
Six VPAs were reported within UT2 (VPA4-3, VPA4-4, VPA4-5, VPA4-6, VPA 4-7, and
VPA4-8) during the Year 4 Assessment. All are located in the left floodplain or terrace
except for VPA4-4, which is located in the right terrace. These VPAs are composed
primarily of multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle that continue to persist after prior
treatment. The combined total acreage for these six VPAs is 0.11 acres or 8.1 % of the
planted area acreage for this assessment tract.
Year 4 Site Assessment Report — S. Fork Hoppers Creek NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. May 2015
Page 8 of 8

---- CE ------ CE ----- CONSERVATION EASMENT
------ ------ — — ASBUILT CENTERLINE
—TB --TB--- ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
X x FENCE
O
VP
U,
VPA 4-4
CROSS SECTION
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
MATCHLINE SHEET 3
0
VP -14
VPA 4-3
l1264~~
/ -_ - C
PID 1 1262
\ VP -15 _
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /
EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT/ RESTORATION � DEGRADATION
� CREST GAUGE STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
WETLAND GAUGE STRUCTURE PROBLEM
�
__Zz�
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
1268
--
\ PID 4
1266 C
SFHC - 10+00
PID 2 .. - -
BEGIN AS -BUILT ` WG3� Plb SPA 2-3
S. FORK HOPPERS CREEK r PI ----�
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
WG4 E
41b" 't2vl& 1256
—� G - GATE ------- ---
VPA 2-2
10
VP-16 PID 8 _�� PID 11 �_ T
VPA 1-1 SPA 1-2 -� VP -18 / f T VP -19 PID 14 a
PID 5 � �
- J CREST SPA 2-1 y, �� ID 12 PID 13
lg GAUGE. 10 / - SPA 4-2
�/ b� . % - f SPA 4-1
PID 7 � PID 9 �,
V
Kt 4
.. PID 19
WG2s'
00
z VPA 1-2.:
E
X
�
'
C aWLVP1 UT1 B T
� F
\ r PID 18 N,
\ j
ti
�z\�°� PID 17 � °258
MATCHLINE SHEET 2
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
80
YEAR 4 MONITORING
Feet
STA. 10+00— 22+48
256
12�Q
PID 15 1256.\`
N � �
�r
VP -20
n
7 ° VPA 4-2
VPA 4-2
1
SFHC - 22+47.76
END AS -BUILT
S. FORK HOPPERS CREEK
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
J
a
Z
0
a
Z
OC
W
H
Z
T_
C0 i
O D
N
N
ami cL)
a
Oco
o
•— dN
r J >
V N
W qa)
ui
L
`
L
O�
m ;
zo
CD
W
0)4)N
a U) cM
}+
o d
t W O a)
C
2U�2•9tt
�Zu6tnUd
W
J
a
Z
0
a
Z
OC
W
H
Z
0
En
E U
C: > co
�_ �rnti
>U)Ucoccoo
LLW.O UNC)
o �'�Uti
� y Z o�
c^� QrY)
i. ! L
Q0
o`nO
Fn CO
0
L
L
0
Z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date:
12/22/2015
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
4of5
Sheet:
1 of 3
UZ_
W
J
W
waU
V
0
Z
O
OC
2
W
Q
OW
aWz
O��
Y
W
Z
N
W
D
(.D
u.
0�U
F-
:)
pO`Q
aJ
Z
W
W
(>
M2
0
En
E U
C: > co
�_ �rnti
>U)Ucoccoo
LLW.O UNC)
o �'�Uti
� y Z o�
c^� QrY)
i. ! L
Q0
o`nO
Fn CO
0
L
L
0
Z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date:
12/22/2015
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
4of5
Sheet:
1 of 3

CE
CE CROSS SECTION
CONSERVATION EASMENT
—TB --TB--- ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
- — X - — — -x— — ASBUILT CENTERLINE
O
VP
FENCE
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /
EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT/ RESTORATION � DEGRADATION
� CREST GAUGE STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
WETLAND GAUGE STRUCTURE PROBLEM
�
_~ END UT1A BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
(NOT SURVEYED) - UT1B - 10+00
~� CE ~~~~ BEGIN AS -BUILT
~~� CE ---~~� LONGITUDINAL PROFILEgp
CE
\—,\
PID END UT1A ~
BEGIN UT113 VP -23 PID4
9+49- PID 1 1270
STA 1272 Q I I
1278 ' -',.`' - PID 3 PID 6
L
06 8 VPA4-9 6' 1270)PID 5
eG 8e� 1272 /
1
�g�L X282 7280 ~ ~ �O 1274
1
40 0 40 80
Feet
VP -22
VPA 2-4
UT1 - B
1270
PID 10
12?,o
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 4 MONITORING
STA. 10+00- 22+48
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
CE _
~ �S� '�1 PID 14 1262
r
�ATFr
FO
ST
Z?
PID 15
LJ
VP-16
WLVP-1
PA 2-1
PID 8
20+85.22
END - UT1 B P /
PID 9
1 • � VP -1
NG
PID 16 -� PID 18
VP -17
PID 10
X
- D1g
9 PPI A ✓
Zk
PID 17
Rr.
CP
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Co
�
i
C
O �
N
w
N
w
ami cU
Oco
•- dN
C
J >
V N
W ")
'0L
`
-
00
_
zo
CD
N
;
wz
0
a U) cM
}+
O d
t W O
C
v U L=
t t
2ZuotnUd
C
J
a
Z
0
a
Z
OG
W
H
Z
r
�
w
UZ_
w
Lu
J
C
w
W
V
�O�
0,
Z
OC
2
C�Uc0o0
wa
� ti
O W N f�
_
LL �.0 UNO
aOZ
°
;
wz
o
N
w
�
0�U
F-
:)
00
�0
aJ
u'
Z
w
�
G O
Q
O p
C
M2
lV
r
�
w
w
W
C
w
o �rnrn
z
C�Uc0o0
� ti
O W N f�
_
LL �.0 UNO
.J
_
-0OM UI-
gy)�zrn
QE�
L
0 CC� N
Q_ O
G O
Q
O p
C
O
lV
U
L
O
z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date:
12/22/2015
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
4of5
Sheet:
2of3

CE
CE CROSS SECTION
CONSERVATION EASMENT
—TB --TB--- ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
— — X — — — —x— — ASBUILT CENTERLINE
O
VP
Lr �
FENCE
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
_. . k
1302
0 0
aim
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT/ RESTORATION
� CREST GAUGE
� WETLAND GAUGE
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
rrZz
UT2 - 13+78.77
END AS BUILT 1276
LONG. PROFILLJ LgD
h- 1zoo fi
—~~ _-------- 1284
O -N - ` VPA 4-6
CVPA-8 12_ 278
/12'•, r \
A2,60
r
SPA 1-5
1306 ' Q,
1304 PID 2 ,
a �
��
� ,cam
SPA 4-3
p
G�G
PID 1
� -
/ UT2 - 12+53. _
� SPA 1-6 BEGIN AS -BUILT —
LONG. PROFILE _ —
i
{
rL-
_G
CE ----•-
30 0 30 60
Feet
1284 ----- -
1286
---- CE ----_
FENCE
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 4 MONITORING
STA. 12+54- 13+79
TF
_ P/03
O
Tu T 2
(NOT SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
r
w
w
2
W
w
_z
J
2
U
Q
G
UZ_
W J
w U
V Z 2
O
Waw
Lu
W z
O O
YW Z
O
��U
Q J
F- W
:) Z
00
M2
J
Q
Z
0
a
Z
OC
W
H
Z
N
D
0
U.
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date:
12/22/2015
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
4of5
Sheet:
3of3
CCo i
O � N
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS(SPA)="
"
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /
w N
.�
J > V N
EROSION
W
�' yt..
L i) L
zo
m ;ply
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
-C r_
COM O d
°'.U,°'"
M
W O a)i
t �
�"� n _ iL
nc�Ua
DEGRADATION
�z
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
rrZz
UT2 - 13+78.77
END AS BUILT 1276
LONG. PROFILLJ LgD
h- 1zoo fi
—~~ _-------- 1284
O -N - ` VPA 4-6
CVPA-8 12_ 278
/12'•, r \
A2,60
r
SPA 1-5
1306 ' Q,
1304 PID 2 ,
a �
��
� ,cam
SPA 4-3
p
G�G
PID 1
� -
/ UT2 - 12+53. _
� SPA 1-6 BEGIN AS -BUILT —
LONG. PROFILE _ —
i
{
rL-
_G
CE ----•-
30 0 30 60
Feet
1284 ----- -
1286
---- CE ----_
FENCE
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 4 MONITORING
STA. 12+54- 13+79
TF
_ P/03
O
Tu T 2
(NOT SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
r
w
w
2
W
w
_z
J
2
U
Q
G
UZ_
W J
w U
V Z 2
O
Waw
Lu
W z
O O
YW Z
O
��U
Q J
F- W
:) Z
00
M2
J
Q
Z
0
a
Z
OC
W
H
Z
N
D
0
U.
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date:
12/22/2015
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
4of5
Sheet:
3of3

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Assessed Length (LF) 783
Major
Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % 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
6 6
1
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
13 13
100%
2. Length
8 8
100%
4. Thalweg
position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8 8
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
7 1 7
1 100%
2. Bank
1.
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
2
19
99%
0
0
99%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
1
10
99%
0
0
99%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totalsl
3
1 29
1 98%
0
1 0
1 98%
3.
Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
24
24
100%
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 not
exceed 15%
12
13
92%
4. Habitat JPool
forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
1 11
1 11
1 100%

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF) 445
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
3 3
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth
10 10
100%
1. Bed
2. Length
3 3
100%
Condition
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3 3
100%
position
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4 1 4
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
3
35
96%0
0
96%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
1
12
99%
0
0
99%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 0
0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totalsl
4
47
1 95%
1 0
1 0
1 95%
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%
3. Engineering
Structures
2a. PipingStructures
lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%
e
10
10
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -- Max Pool Depth
14
14
100%

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT1 Reach B
Assessed Length (LF) 1065
Major
Channel
Category
Channel Sub- Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % 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
10 12
83%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
26 26
100%
2. Length
16 16
100%
4. Thalweg
position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16 16
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1 16 16
100%
2. Bank
1.
Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100%
0
1 0
1 100%
3.
Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
38
38
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
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 not
exceed 15%
16
16
100%
4. Habitat
I Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
1 10
1 10
1 100%

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT2 (Reaches A and B)
Assessed Length (LF) 1197
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
5 5
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth
5 5
100%
1. Bed
2. Length
N/A N/A
N/A
Condition
4. Thalweg
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5 5
100%
position
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4 1 4
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
1
17
99%
0
0
99%
2. Bank
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
10000
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totals
1
17
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
10
10
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
5
5
100%
2a. PipingStructures
lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
5
80%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
5
5
100%

Table 5e. Stream Problem Areas
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS 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
SPA1-1
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
Bank Scour
directed at the left bank by log sill orientation.
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
SPA1-2
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.
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
Bank Scour
18+75 to 18+87
channel causing erosion in between the left
SPA2-3
bank and the well -rooted vegetation (primarily
comprised of Willow Oak, Tag Alder, and Soft
Rush).
Rootwad failure along right bank due to
undercutting along bank. Appears to be caused
20+25
by high near bank stress caused by flood flow
SPA4-1
stream energy vectors being directed at bank.
Engineering structures - Rootwad Failure
Rootwad failure along left bank due to
undercutting along bank. Appears to be caused
20+75
by high near bank stress caused by flood flow
SPA4-2
stream energy vectors being directed at bank.
UT2 Reach A
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Flow piping within riffle cascade and around
Piping
13+40
downstream log sill due to possible tear in filter
SPA1-5
fabric or lack of sealing from re -sorting of
alluvial material and silt.
Left bank scour on outside bend. Appears to be
Bank Scour
12+36.50 to 12+53.50
caused by high near bank stress during bankfull
SPA4-3
storm events.
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 Scour/Degradation
boulder sill
depositing the coarse riffle substrate
SPA1-6
downstream, and exposed the underlying filter
fabric.
*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).
**Not being sought for mitigation

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID SFHC Reaches 1 and 2; UT1 Reach B
Planted Acreage 4.3
Easement Acreage 8.6
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
See Figure 2; Sheet 1
2
0.15
3.4%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
5 stem count criteria.
1000 SF
See Figure 2; Sheets 1 & 2
6
0.11
1.3%
Total
2
0.148
3.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given
0.00
0.0%
Areas
or Vigor
the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
2
1 0.148
1 3.4%
Easement Acreage 8.6
% of
Mapping
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Easement
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
See Figure 2; Sheets 1 & 2
6
0.11
1.3%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Tnone
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas

Table 6b. Vegetation Condition Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT2 Reaches A and B
Planted Acreage 1.4
Easement Acreage 1.5
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
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
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
0.0%
5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given
or Vigor
the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 1.5
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Figure 2; Sheets 1 & 3
6
0.11
7.3%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas

Table 6c. Vegetation Problem Areas
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS 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
Standing water from frequent inundation VPAI-2
SFHC Reach
2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora: persisting after treatment
within existing tree stand
VPA2-2
Rosa multiflora: persisting after treatment and
encroaching from outside easement
VPA4-1
Lonicera japonica: persisting after treatment
and encroaching from outside easement
VPA4-2
UT1 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
persisting after treatment
VPA2-4
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica:
VPA2-5
Lonicera japonica: persisting after treatment
and encroaching from outside easement.
VPA4-9
UT2 Reach B
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
persisting after treatment.
VPA4-3
Rosa multiflora: persisting after treatment
VPA4-4
Lonicera a onica: persisting after treatment.
VPA4-5
Lonicera ja onica: persisting after treatment.
VPA4-6
Lonicera 'a onica: persisting after treatment.
VPA4-7
Rosa multiflora: persisting after treatment
VPA4-8
*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

�g r
Al
_ _ t
Y
AVIVr"
ir
IV � ��" \ F• ��. Yr r
p
W
r p
�' � j � ^ it •- ��
r
i
Y,
:.
+'
AW
Fow
:.
sY „� • - � �� � q C �" �q�'•y/gip e
Ar
T C \, y
F �Z
I
!
o

............
4-14f, r:4-1-7
4 IN
N It
- 4'W
47-4�
47-4�
%. W -.%a

SFHC PID 13 — Log sills &
root wad
r /{tom---+-��Lx!
SFHC PID 15 — Log sills & root wads
SFHC PID 17 — Constructed riffle at downstream
terminus of project
SFHC PID 14 — Log sills & root wad
Mr
M' ri
f
"Mt �y,e
:21¢
SFHC PID 16 — Log vane & matted bank

UTI to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos

OF
�gy.�,.� d ",r r �.��� ux=s4'rf3 �'• _. `��� 5.< ����� ,,�� �.L 1 .,%� $ �,�'.. mar � �
m f., - pY •' � r .,
e
6
Al
7
N t •.
.� _ .'3e - dpi-�Y `� % iik � 15'. s.. ... '�•i..

UT 1 PID 7 — Constructed riffle UT 1 PID 8 — Constructed riffle
UTI PID 9 — Ephemeral pool in right floodplain UT PID 10 — Log sills
UTI PID 1 1 — Constructed riffle UTI PID 12 — Ephemeral pool in right floodplain

� � 4 __
'� 6 r
- � �� ��
i��- _
r %' -
., _ -...y, -...
��
4
9
�dE
�4 �'� SAuP i �t 'IF.�
h � Jx`
{k
5 r.
;.V"
§
1.h
�
����
�`-
L
��,dt � �
�
�
�'=
� �,
y
� _
rp
' -yy
— � * 2 .��
t �` :h � i k
1 � � �
/it
\ �� ^��
`�����
�� v�L
t _. I�
. ' _
���
_
14
� .1
P 4 �1p
�� \
�i
{
�\
��y
����
.
Fs

UTI PID 19 — Constructed riffle

UT2 to South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Station Photos

UT2 PID 1 — Constructed riffle & log sill UT2 PID 2 — Constructed riffles & log sills
T2 PID 3 — Stream crossing

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

SPA 1-1 — SFHC Reach 1: Left bank scour.
SPA 1-2 — SFHC Reach 1: Right bank scour.
SPA2-1 — SFHC Reach 1: Rootwad failure along left
bank due to undercutting along bank.
SPA2-3 — SFHC Reach 2: Left bank scour.
SPA4-1— SFHC Reach 2: Rootwad failure along right
bank due to undercutting along bank.
SPA4-2— SFHC Reach 2: Rootwad failure along left bank
due to undercutting along bank.

SPA 1-5 — UT2 Reach A: Piping within riffle cascade SPA1-6 — UT2: Bed erosion on ephemeral drainage
around log sill. channel.
SPA4-3 — UT2 Reach A: Small area of erosion along the
left bank.

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 and Japanese
honeysuckle
VPA4-1 — SFHC Reach 2: Multiflora rose

VPA4-2 — SFHC Reach 2: Japanese honeysuckle
VPA4-3 — UT2: Mulitflora rose and Japanese
honeysuckle
VPA4-4 — UT2: Mulitflora rose on RTB
VPA4-5 — UT2: Japanese honeysuckle in left
floodplain
VPA4-6 — UT2: Japanese honeysuckle in left
floodplain
VPA4-7 — UT2: Japanese honeysuckle in left
floodplain

VPA4-8 — UT2: Mulitflora rose in left floodplain VPA4-9 — UT1B: Japanese honeysuckle on right
terrace

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Plot Photos

South Fork Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring — Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Veg Plot 13 - 9/24/2015
Veg Plot 15 — 9/24/2015
Veg Plot 17 — 9/21/2015
Veg Plot 14 — 9/24/2015
Veg Plot 16 — 9/24/2015
"-w
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., NCDMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - DRAFT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
Veg Plot 18 — 9/21/2015

South Fork Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Restoration Project
Year 4 Monitoring — Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Veg Plot 19 — 9/21/2015
Veg Plot 21— 9/21/2015
Veg Plot 23 — 9/21/2015
Veg Plot 20 — 9/21/2015
Veg Plot 22 — 9/24/2015
-r
e
t 4
Veg Plot 22 — 9/24/2015
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., NCDMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - DRAFT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
Veg Plot WPL1 — 9/24/2015
-r
a y'?
v'1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., NCDMS PROJECT NO. - 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON FARM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT - DRAFT
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
Veg Plot WPL1 — 9/24/2015

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Planted/Total Stem
Count
Tract Mean
13
14
Y
Y
769/1578
890/1457
610/890
15 Y
486/809
16 Y
283/364
17 Y
607/607
18 Y
567/567
19 Y
364/364
20 Y
728/728
21 Y
971/971
22 Y
567/850
23 Y
647/1902
WLP 1 Y
445/486
Note: *Planted/Total 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
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Report Prepared By
Kristi Suggs
Date Prepared
11/11/2015 11:21
Database name
92251_SFH_Yr2-5_cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database location
C:\CVS
Computer name
ICHABLKSUGGS
File size
146829568
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro'planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro' total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes 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 bSpp
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 lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
92251
Project Name
South Fork Hoppers Creek
Description
This mitigation project consists of 4,621 LF of stream restoration and preservation efforts on South Fork Hoppers Creek at the Melton Farm.
River Basin
Catawba
Length(ft)
3550
Stream -to -edge width ft
120
Areas m
40873.25
Required Plots calculated
11
Sampled Plots
112

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (with Annual Means)
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Tree Species
Common Name Type
Plot 13
P F T
Plot 14
P T
Plot 15
P T
Plot 16
P T
Current Data (MY4 2015)
Plot 17 Plot 18 Plot 19
P T P T P T
Plot 20
P T
Plot 21
P T
Plot 22
P T
Plot 23
P T
Plot WLPI
P T
Current Mean
P T
AB (20 11)
P T
Annual Means
MY 1 (2012) MY2 (2013)
P T P T
MY3 (2014) MY5 (2016)
P T P T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3 3
4
4
3.5
3.5
2
3
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
4
4
3 3
1 1
8 8
1
1
3.4
3.4
1
0
0
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1 1
1 1
3 3 2 2
3 3
3 3
2 2
3 3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
Celtis laevi ata
Sugarberry
Tree
4 4
2 2
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
8 8
19 19
1
1
2 2 2 2
4 4
5 5
1 l
5
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1 1
1
1
2 2
7 7 1 1 3 3
3 3
4 4
3 3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1 1
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
7 7
1 1 2 2
1 1
4 4
1 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
Tree
1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
4 4
3 3
2 2
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus sp.
Oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus falcata
S. Red Oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
2 2
5 5
1 1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1 1
1
1
3
4
4
2
3
3
1
1
Quercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Shrub
1 l
1
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
1
1 I
1
1
l
1
1
1
0
0
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1 1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Volunteers
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
2
10
4
7
10
5
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
5
1
3
10
1
4
2
0
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
]
1
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
0
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
10
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
0
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
0
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
20
9
10
13
5
4
3.4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
Quercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Tree
1
0
2
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
2
2
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
I
1
1
12
7
Plot area (ares)
1
1
1
l
1 I 1
1
1
1
l
1
Species Count
3 3
4 7
7
7
4 5
7 7 9 9 5 5
7 7
8 8
8 11
5 7
4
4
6
7
7
7
7
8
6
7
6
6
P=Planted
Stems/Plot
19 39
22 36
12
20
7 9
15 15 14 14 9 9
18 18
24 24
14 21
16 47
11
12
15
22
19
19
19
29
13
21
13
17
T—Total
Stems Per Acre
769 1578
890 1457
486
809
283 364
607 607 567 567 364 364
728 728
971 971
567 850
647 1902
445
486
610
890
772
772
772
614
540
850
543
668
Total Stems Per Acre (including
1578
1457 1
809
364
607 567 1 364
728
971
850
1902 1
486
890
772
1184
850
668
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.

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
RIGHT BANK
Feature Stream BKF Area BKF BKF Max BKF WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type I I Width Depth Depth
Riffle I C 1 13.2 1 13.15 1.01 1.84 13.06 1 1 1 4.8 1 1260.11 1 1260.11
X5 Riffle
1262
1261
r-
0
m 1260
w
1259
1258 ' I
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR3 2014 YR 2 2013 A YR1 2012 f Asbuilt 2010 —*—YR 4 2015 ---0--- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width BKF Depth Depth
WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 11.2 11.21 1 1 2.22 11.2 1.1 5.9 1260.05 1260.179
1263
1262
1261
c
1260
w 1259
1258
1257
1256
95
YR 3 2014
X6 Pool
105 115 125
Station
YR 2 2013 YR 1 2012
135 145 155 165
Asbuilt 2010 YR 4 2015 ---C -- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Feature
Stream
T e
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
16
13.37
1.2
1.87
11.19
1.0
4.7
1255.11
125574—
X7 Riffle
1257
1256
c
0
1255 -
------------------
m
W
1254 -
1253
95
105
115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR 3 2014
YR 2 2013
t YR 1 2012 s Asbuilt 2010 —*—YR 4 2015 ---e--- Bankfull

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 4 Monitoring - October 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature ream BKF Area BKF Width I ax W/D I BH Ratio ER I BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 1 1 13.7 1 14.18 1 0.96 1 1.95 1 14.72 1.0 1 5 1 1253.12 1 1253.12
1256
1255 11
1254
c
0
1253
as
w
1252
1251
1250 -L-
95
105 115 125 135 145
Station
YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 —*— YR 1 2012 Asbuilt 2010
155 165 175
YR 4 2015 ---a- - Bankfull

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 4 Monitoring - October 2014)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
1261
1260
c
0
ca
1259
w
1258
1257
X9 Riffle
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR 3 2014 )SYR 2 2013 AYR 1 2012 * Asbuilt 2010 —•SYR 4 2015 ---o--- Bankfull
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
WAD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
T e
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Riffle
C
2.8
7.1
0.4
0.96
17.75
1
7.2
1258.79
1258.79
1261
1260
c
0
ca
1259
w
1258
1257
X9 Riffle
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165
Station
YR 3 2014 )SYR 2 2013 AYR 1 2012 * Asbuilt 2010 —•SYR 4 2015 ---o--- Bankfull

UT1
Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 4 Monitoring - October 2015)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature ream BKF Area ax W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 6.4 11.12 1 0.58 1.43 1 19.27 1.1 5.6 1258.65 1258.76
1261
1260
c
0
1259
m
15-
1258 1258
1257
1256 '
95 105 115
X10 Pool
125 135 145 155 165
Station
— YR 3 2014 YR 2 2013 f YR 1 2012 0 Asbuilt 2010 —•—YR 4 2015 ---o--- Bankfull

1264
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2)
Profile Chart
Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015
�—TWG-Asbuilt 2010
—TWG-YR 1 2012
1262
Reach 1
—A,—TWG-YR2 2013
tTWG-YR 3 2014
(Reach Break)
--*.--TWG-YR4 2015
1260
Top of Bank
1
--x— WSF
�
1
O
o Log Sills
1258O
a Ce O
1
❑ Cross Vanes
O
-
X5 Riffle ®
1
1256
X6 Pool
1
c1
15Reach
2
w 1254 -
1
O
1
Y�Jp
1
1
1252
1
X7 Riffle
1250
1
O
X8 Pool
O
1248 -
OO�O.
1246
1244
990 1190 1390
1590 1790
1990
2190
Station

South Fork Hoppers Creek - UT1B
Profile Chart
Year 4 Monitoring - September 2015
1275
TWG-Asbuilt 2010
—TWG-YR 1 2012
—TWG-YR 2 2013
-�'
---TWG-YR 3 2014
1270
I
I'
--*—TWG-YR 4 2015
—Top of Bank
o Log Sills
—_— WSF
1265
. -
� I
W
�_O
Y
1260
O.
'X
I
X9 Riffle
�lyl
X10 Pool
1255
-
1250
990 1190
1390 Station 1590
1790
1990

Figure 5a. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 1 - Cross-section 5 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
23 -Sep -15
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
CB & JN
DATA ENTRY BY:
KLS
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
<.063
60%
1 0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
1
1 %
1 %
Fine .125-25 .25 1 Q 10%
11%
Medium .25 - .50
11%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 20 1 20%
31%
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0
31%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
20%
31%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0
31%
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
33%
Fine 5.6-8.0 4 4%
37%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 3 3%
40%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 % 7%
47%
Coarse 16.0-22.6
47%
Coarse 22.6-32
47%
Very Coarse 32-45 2 2%
49%
Very Coarse 45-64 4 4%
53%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
9
9%
62%
Small 90-128 20 20%
82%
Large 128-180 6 6%
88%
Large 180-256 1 1 1 %
89%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
89%
Small 362-512
89%
Medium 512-1024
89%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
89%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
11
11%
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
D35 =
6.9
D5° =
49.0
D84 =
160.0
D95 =
3100.0
D100 =
5000.0
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
100%
90%
MAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015)
80%
70%
60%
C
u 50%
s.
a 40%
(; 30%
AB (2010)
20%
fli,
10%
Li
K17]
IN
III
90%
1 1 1 M I =&.IRA 1 0 1
I
I ILI __E
0% 1 I 1
°l0
O• O•
Particle Size Class (mm)
/0000
+MY 1 (2012)
80%
—AMY 2 (2013)
AMY 3 (2014)
70%
—*--MY 4 (2015)
60%
U
50%
40%
c�
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%
MAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015)
80%
70%
60%
C
u 50%
s.
a 40%
(; 30%
20%
fli,
10%
Li
IN
III
Al
1 1 1 M I =&.IRA 1 0 1
I
I ILI __E
0% 1 I 1
°l0
O• O•
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5b. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 - Cross-section 7 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
9/29/2015
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
CB & JN
DATA ENTRY BY:
KLS
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Dt6 =
7.4
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
lass %
CELL
% Cum
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
<.063
90%
0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
�T
0%
Fine .125-25 .25 1 1 %
1 %
Medium .25-50 .50 4 4%
5%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 3 1 3%
8%
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 2 2%
10%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
10%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
12%
Fine 4.0-5.6
12%
Fine 5.6-8.0 2 2%
14%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 5 5%
19%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 3 3%
22%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 2 2%
24%
Coarse 22.6-32 5 5%
1 29%
Very Coarse 32-45 12 12%
41%
Very Coarse 45-64 13 13%
54%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
29
29%
83%
Small 90-128 12 12%
95%
Large 128-180 3 3%
98%
Large 180-256 2 2%
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium 512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
�� MY 3 (2014)
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
Dt6 =
7.4
D35 =
37.0
D5° =
57.0
D84 =
95.0
D95 =
125.0
D100 =
250.0
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB (20 10) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4(2015)
90%
80%
�T
T��d
—AB (2010)
90%
* MY 1 (2012)
60%
50%
v
s.
40%
py
1,14�77
30%
U
80%
—MY 2 (2013)
20%
10%
0%
O ti �' ti' p • )' �• �• b• 1 4� X000
Particle Size Class (mm)
�� MY 3 (2014)
70%
—AMY Y4 (2015)
60%
aO
CO
50%
0.,
40%
ea
. 30%
U
20%
10%LL0%
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 (20 10) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4(2015)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
v
s.
40%
py
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
O ti �' ti' p • )' �• �• b• 1 4� X000
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5c. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
UT1B - Cross-section 9 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
23 -Sep -15
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
CB & JN
DATA ENTRY BY:
KLS
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class
D95 =
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
<.063
0%
80%
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
1
1 %
1 %
Fine .125-25 .25 16 16%
17%
SAND
Medium
.25-50 .50
2
2%
19%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 14 14%
33%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
33%
u 50%
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
33%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
1
1%
34%
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3%
37%
Fine 5.6-8.0 1 1%
38%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 2 2%
40%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 6 6%
46%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 2 2%
48%
Coarse 22.6-32
48%
Very Coarse 32-45 6 6%
54%
Very Coarse 45-64 19 19%
73%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
15
15%
88%
Small 90-128 9 9%
97%
Large 128-180 2 2%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium 512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
1 100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
D35 =
4.7
D5° =
36.0
D84 =
73.0
D95 =
125.0
D100 =
215.0
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT1B (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015)
Ml_
80%
T
�T
70%
7�1
—AB (2010)
90%
* MY 1 (2012)
s~
u 50%
"4 0%
030%
20%
10%
10FIA,
i -1 Ed, _L1 _�i it.116
ILI
0%
80%
--AMY 2 (2013)
--)+— MY 3 (2014)
70%
--I--MY 4 (2015)
60%
U
50%
a
40%
30%
U
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT113
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
■ AB (2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015)
80%
70%
60%
s~
u 50%
"4 0%
030%
20%
10%
10FIA,
i -1 Ed, _L1 _�i it.116
ILI
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
USGS
Gau a
Regional Curve Interval
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Jacob
Norwood
(Harman et al, 1999)'
Sal's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
Dimension and Substrate - 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
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
Floodprone 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 (ft)
4.7
3.1
0.7 2.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
----- 1.6
-----
3
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
2.1
-----
1
-----
1.3
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.7
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
290.3
99
6.0 26.0
13.0
7.4
12.5
----- 15.6
-----
3
-----
10.4
----- ----- -----
1
-----
17.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
13.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
15.0
-----
-----
-----
1
Width/Depth Ratio
13
10.3
----- -----
-----
6.1
9.3
----- 14.4
-----
3
-----
7.3
----- ----- -----
1
-----
5.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
13.2
----- ----- -----
1
-----
11.5
-----
-----
-----
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
-----
----- -----
-----
2.0
2.6
----- 3.4
-----
3
-----
18.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
5.5
----- ----- -----
1
-----
3.8+
----- ----- -----
8
-----
4.8
-----
-----
-----
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
54.0
-----
----- 78.0 -----
8
40.0
62.1
62.0
87.0
14.0
7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
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
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
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 (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
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
1.1
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
30.0
36.0
37.0
45.0
6.4
6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
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 (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
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
-----
-----
1
Pool Volume (ft3)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----------
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
d16 / 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
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
33 / 46 / 57
/ 100 / 128
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
0.5
-----
----- 0.76
-----
3
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
200.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
100.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
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 Classification
C4
E
----- -----
-----
-----
G5c
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E4
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
E4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E5/C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Velocity (fps)2
3.9
2.6
----- -----
-----
3.2
-----
----- 6.8
-----
3
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
3.6
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
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) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
0.0101
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0109
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.0047
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0077
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0008
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1. The rural region curve by Harman, etal. 1999 was used for these parameters.
2. An insufficent amount of water surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not being able to accurately calculate water surface and bankfull velocity.

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
USGS
Gauge
Regional
Curve Interval
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
'
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Jacob
Norwood
(Harman et al, 1999)
Sal's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
61.3
32
5.3
21.0
9.0
7.4
10.5
----- 14.4 -----
3
-----
8.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
10.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
14.2
----- ----- -----
1
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
16.8
26.2
----- 33.0 -----
3
-----
163.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
60.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
50+
----- ----- -----
2
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
4.7
3.1
0.75
2
1.2
1.0
1.2
----- 1.6 -----
3
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
0.9
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.8
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.7
----- 2.0 -----
3
-----
2.4
----- ----- -----
1
-----
2.1
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.5
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
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
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
d50(nun)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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
Rc:Bankfull 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 Wavelength (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
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
31
37
37
43
6
3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.015
0.025
----- 0.035 -----
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 (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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 (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 2.7 -----
3
-----
2.1
-----
-----
-----
2
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----------
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
d16 / 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
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.5
-----
----- 0.76 -----
3
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
200.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
175.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
-----
-----
-----
-----
G5c
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E4
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
E4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFVelocity (fps)Z
3.9
2.6
-----
-----
-----
3.2
-----
----- 6.8 -----
3
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
5.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
3.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
19.0
175.0
55.5
-----
50
----- ----- -----
3
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
97.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
50.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1016.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
405
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
850
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1016.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
415
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity1.06
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.14
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.19
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
2.30
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.10
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0101
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0109
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.0047
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0016
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0008-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Banfull Floodplain Area (Acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ChannelStability or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1. The rural region curve by Harman, etal. 1999 was used for these parameters.
2. An insufficent amount of water surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not being able to accurately calculate water surface and bankfull velocity.

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
UTIB 1,065 L
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing Condition
Design
As -built
Gauge
Sat's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
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
BF 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
-----
2.4
----- ----- -----
1
-----
2.1
----- ----- -----
1
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
-----
----- ----- -----
3.4
3.5
----- 3.5 -----
2.0
-----
10.4
----- ----- -----
1
-----
17.8
----- ----- -----
1
-----
3.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
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+
----- ----- -----
1
-----
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
-----
8.8
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-
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 Curvature (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
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
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
4.4
-----
----- 5.2 -----
3
1.3
-----
----- 1.4 -----
5
2.0
-----
----- 3.4 -----
16
1.7
2.8
2.7
3.9
0.6
15
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
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
8.1
1.3
14
Profile
RiffleLength (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
PoolLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
14.0
52.0
----- 110.0 -----
9
35.5
-----
----- 47 -----
3
-----
71
----- ----- -----
5
42.0
-----
----- 105.0 -----
15
49
63
69
106
20
14
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
1.3
1.5
----- 1.6 -----
2
-----
3.1
----- ----- -----
1
-----
3.3
----- ----- -----
1
1.0
-----
----- 2.0 -----
16
-----
1.6
-----
-----
-----
1
Pool Volume (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
----------
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----- ----- -----
0.17 / 0.33 / 0.46 / 22 / 56
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
<0.062 / 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 at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
200.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
20.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
----- ----- -----
34.5
-----
----- 45.5 -----
2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- 0.1 ---
-
-- -
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.0 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.08 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.08
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----------
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
RosgenClassification
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
E5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
E4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
BankfullVelocity (fps)z
-----
----- ----- -----
4
-----
----- 4.1 -----
2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
5.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
4.2
----- ----- -----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
14
----- ----- -----
-----
------
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
97.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
14.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
822
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
816.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
970
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1035
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.18
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.19
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.30
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.60
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
0.0193
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0109
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0047
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0144
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
ChannelStablibity or Habitat Metric
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1. The rural region curve by Harman, etal. 1999 was used for these parameters.
2. An insufficent amount of water surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not being able to accurately calculate water surface and bankfull velocity.

Table lla. Cross-section Morphology Data Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Cross-section 5 (Riffle)
Cross-section 6 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
1255.17
1255.1*
1255.1
1255.1
1255.2
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
BF Width (ft)
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
BF Width (ft)
13.1
12.1
12.3
12.2
13.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
14.6
13.5
13.4
13.4
11.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
12.5
13.1
13.5
13.1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
11.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftp)
15.0
11.8
11.6
11.0
13.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
18.0
17.1
16.7
16.8
11.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.8
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.2
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.8
Entrenchment Ratio
65.9
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
5.2
5.1
5.2
4.8
Bank Height Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
14.1
14.2
14.0
15.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
17.1
16.0
15.9
15.9
13.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.8
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Cross-section 7 (Riffle)
Cross-section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1255.17
1255.1*
1255.1
1255.1
1255.2
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
BF Width (ft)
13.3
14.1
12.8
12.7
13.4
17.5
15.2
12.8
13.7
14.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
13.3
11.1
10.9
11.2
19.0
13.9
13.3
13.9
14.7
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
13.5
14.8
14.8
14.8
16.0
16.0
16.6
12.3
13.6
13.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.9
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.1
71.1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
4.5
4.9
4.9
4.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
16.2
15.1
15.0
15.8
19.3
17.4
14.7
15.7
16.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
* 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.
UT1B (1,065 LF)
Cross-section 9 (Riffle)
Cross-section 10 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
BF Width (ft)
7.0
5.5
5.4
6.8
7.1
10.2
9.1
8.9
9.9
11.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
11.4
13.6
15.9
17.8
13.3
16.3
14.5
18.2
19.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.8
7.9
5.1
5.5
5.4
6.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
51.0
51.0
47.5
49.8
51.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
Entrenchment Ratio
7.3
8.8
8.8
7.3
7.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.1
6.4
6.2
7.7
7.9
11.8
10.2
10.1
11.0
12.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5

Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Parameter
Parameter
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
Monitoring Baseline (As -built)
MY -1
MY -1
MY -2
MY -2
MY -3
MY -3
MY -4
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
Mean
Med Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Wit ()
-----
13.1
----- -----
-----
I
-----
12.1
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
12.3
----- -----
-----
1
-----
12.2
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.2
-----
----- -----
l
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
62.9
----- -----
-----
l
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
62.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
62.8
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
62.8
-----
----- -----
1
62.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
0.9
----- -----
-----
1
-----
0.9
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
----- -----
1
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.7
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.6
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.7
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.8
-----
----- -----
1
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
15.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
11.8
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
11.6
----- -----
-----
1
-----
11.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.2
-----
----- -----
l
-----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
11.5
----- -----
-----
1
-----
12.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
13.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.1
-----
----- -----
1
-----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
4.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
5.2
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
5.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
5.2
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
4.8
-----
----- -----
1
-----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
----- -----
1
1.0
d50(mm)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
49.0
-----
----- -----
1
-----
PatternAMM
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
40.0
62.1
62.0 87.0
14.0
7
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
62.0
62.5
62.5 63.0
-----
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34.0
39.9
39.0 47.0
5.4
7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36.0
55.7
62.0 69.0
17.39
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.6
3.0
3.0 3.6
0.4
7
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.5
3.9
4.4 4.9
1.2
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
146.0
162.0
158.0 184.0
15.7
6
Meander Wavelength (ft)
178.0
246.5
246.5 315.0
-----
2
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
4.7
4.7 6.6
1.1
7
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.4 4.4
-----
2
Profile
Profile
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
34
43
43
51
5.96
5
27
44
36
70 18.3
6
50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
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
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05 0.02
6
0.026
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
74.0
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
5
51
100
104
130 26.3
6
73.0
Substrate and Transport Parameters
81
110
15.9
3
72
80
75 92
10.78
3
74
81
77
0000016-
M
3
57
92
87
137
34.7
4
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
33/46/57/100/128
8/73/89/138/192
8/67/79.4/122.9/168.1
14.1/67.6/82.9/128.0/175.0
0.8/6.9/49.0/160.0/3100/5000
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
DrainageArea (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
----
----
----
0.52 ----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E5/C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E5/C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
E5/C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
E5/C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
C5
----
---- ----
----
0.52
BF Velocity(fps)1
-----
3.6
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
3.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.6
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
3.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
3.6
----
---- ----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
54.1
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
42.5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
41.8
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
39.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
47.5
----
---- ----
----
3.9
Valley Length (ft)
-----
619.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
619.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
619.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
619.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
619.0
-----
---- ----
----
----
Channel length (ft)
-----
783.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
783.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
783.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
783.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
796.0
----
---- ----
----
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.26
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
1.29
----
---- ----
----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.01
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
0.01
----
---- ----
----
-----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
---- ----
----
-----
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Parameter
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 Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)
-----
13.3
----- -----
-----
1
-----
14.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
12.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
12.7
-----
-----
-----
1
----
13.4
----
----
----
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
62.9
----- -----
-----
1
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
62.9
----- -----
-----
1
-----
62.8
-----
-----
-----
1
----
62.9
----
----
----
1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.2
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.2
-----
-----
-----
1
----
1.2
----
----
----
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.5
----- -----
-----
I
-----
1.7
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.9
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.8
-----
-----
-----
1
----
1.9
----
----
----
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
13.5
----- -----
-----
l
-----
14.8
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
14.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
14.8
-----
-----
-----
1
----
16.0
----
----
----
l
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
11.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
10.9
-----
-----
-----
1
----
11.2
----
----
----
l
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
4.7
----- -----
-----
1
-----
4.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
4.9
----- -----
-----
1
-----
4.9
-----
-----
-----
1
----
4.7
----
----
----
l
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
----
1.0
----
----
----
1
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
62.0
62.5
62.5 63.0
-----
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36.0
55.7
62.0 69.0
17.39
3
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.5
3.9
4.4 4.9
1.2
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
178.0
246.5
246.5 315.0
-----
2
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.4 4.4
-----
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
31.0
37.0
37.0 43.0
6
3
29.9
38
34
50
8.6
3
32
44
44 54
11.10
3
34
44
45
52
9.18
3
11
31
32
45
12.6
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.024
0.029
0.028 0.032
0.004
3
0.018
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
0.017
0.028
0.031
0.045
0.012
5
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Pool Spacing (ft)
92
155
155 218
-----
2
73.0
88
81
110
15.9
3
72
80
75 92
10.78
3
74
81
77
91
9.073
3
57
92
87
137
34.7
4
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
7/22.6/36/60/90
36/51.8/65.4/89.4/123.4
32.6/46.5/59.1/87.2/123.1
28.8/48.7/65.0/104.0/251.5
7.4/37.0/57.0/95.0/125.0
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
----
----
----
0.52
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
E5/C5
----
----
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)1
-----
3.9
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
3.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.9
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
3.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
3.9
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
52.767
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
57.681
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
57.72
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
57.72
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
62.4
----
----
----
----
Valley Length (ft)
-----
405
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
405
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
405
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
405
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
405
----
----
----
----
Channel length (ft)
-----
415
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
415
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
415
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
415
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
453
----
----
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.02
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
1.12
----
----
----
----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
0.01
----
----
----
----
BFSlope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----

Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
UT1B 1,065 LF
Parameter
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 Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Wit )
-----
7.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
7.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
5.4
----- -----
-----
1
-----
6.8
-----
-----
-----
1
----
7.1
----
----
----
l
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
51.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
51.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
47.5
----- -----
-----
1
-----
49.8
-----
-----
-----
1
----
51.0
----
----
----
1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.5
----- -----
-----
1
-----
0.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
0.4
----- -----
-----
1
-----
0.4
-----
-----
-----
l
----
0.4
----
----
----
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.1
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
0.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
----
1.0
----
----
----
1
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
3.7
----- -----
-----
1
-----
3.7
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
2.2
----- -----
-----
1
-----
2.9
-----
-----
-----
1
----
2.8
----
----
----
1
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.3
----- -----
-----
1
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.6
----- -----
-----
1
-----
15.9
-----
-----
-----
1
----
17.8
----
----
----
1
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
7.3
----- -----
-----
1
-----
7.3
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
8.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
7.3
-----
-----
-----
1
----
7.2
----
----
----
1
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.2
----- -----
-----
1
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
l
----
1.0
----
----
----
1
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.0
43.5
41.5 57.0
8.9
14
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
Profile
-qw
NONE.
Riffle Length (11)
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
5
15
39
46
51
14.88
5
9.0
33.0
26.0
68.0
21.9
12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
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
0.009
0.023
0.018
0.045
0.013
12
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
5
23
62
56
116
27
12
Substrate and Transport Parameters A
M
IT
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
1.25/35/49/80/90
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
0.2/4.7/36.0/73.0/125.0
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/F
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
----- 0.08
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.08
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.08
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.08
-----
-----
----
----
----
0.08
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C5
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C5
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
C5
----
----
----
----
Bankfull Velocity (fps)1
-----
4.2
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
4.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.2
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
4.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
4.2
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
15.6
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
15.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
9.2
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
12.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
11.8
----
----
----
----
Valley Length (ft)
-----
816.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
816.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
816.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
816.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
816.0
----
----
----
Channel length (ft)
-----
1035
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1035
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1035
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1035
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
1052
----
----
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.27
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
1.34
----
----
----
----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
0.02
----
----
----
----
BFslope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----
----

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Hoppers
Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event*
Method of Data
Collection
Gauge Watermark Height
(feet above bankfull)
November 16, 2015
9/24/2015 - 11/16/2015
Gauge Measurement
0.20
September 24, 2015
5/6/2015 - 9/24/2015
Gauge Measurement
0.25
May 6, 2015
4/16/2014 - 5/6/2015
Gauge Measurement
0.25
April 16, 2014
5/1/2013 - 4/16/2014
Gauge Measurement
0.60
May 1, 2013
12/31/2012 - 5/1/2013
Gauge Measurement
0.10
December 31, 2012
8/1/2012 - 12/31/2012
Gauge Measurement
0.55
August 1, 2012
5/30/2012 - 8/1/2012
Gauge Measurement
0.10
* Date of event(s) occurred sometime between the date range specified.

7
6
5
c
4
0
2
1
Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Morganton, NC (January 2014 - December 2014)
Jan -14 Feb -14 Mar -14 Apr -14 May -14 Jun -14 Jul -14 Aug -14 Sep -14 Oct -14 Nov -14 Dec -14
Date
Rainfall - 30th Percentile — 70th Percentile
Figure 6a. Monthly Rainfall Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 99251

s
7
6
c
5
c
0
w 4
U
S)
L
a
3
2
1
0
Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Morganton, NC (January 2015 - November 16, 2015)
Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15 11/16/2015
Date
Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Figure 6b. Monthly Rainfall Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 99251

12
n.
C
E
In
-12
-16
Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for Monitoring Year 4
Growing Season (3/29/2014 -11/2/2014)
Date
Figure 7a. Precipitation and Water Level Plots
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
12
11.75
11.5
11.25
11
10.75
10.5
10.25
10
9.75
9.5
9.25
9
8.75
8.5
8.25
8
7.75
7.5
7.25
7
6.75
6.5
6.25
6
5.75
5.5
5.25
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
4
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
-Hydrology Criteria
-Gauge 1
Gauge 2
-Gauge 3
-Gauge 4
Start Growing Season
End Growing Season
-Rainfall Data

Figure 7b. Precipitation and Water Level Plots
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for Monitoring Year 4
Growing Season (3/29/2015 - 11/2/2015)
12
12
11.75
Hydrology Criteria
11.5
11.25
- Gauge 1
11
10.75
Gauge 2
8
10.5
-Gauge 3
10 25
- Gauge 4
9.75
9.5
Start Growing Season
4
- -
9.25
9
End Growing Season
8.75
Rainfall Data
8.5
8.25
�..,
•
0
8
7.75
7.5
y
7.25
7
MEMO
6.75
6.5
�-
�'
-4
66.25.
5.55
5.25
4.75
�
4.5
-8
4.25
4
3.75
3.5
3.25
-12
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
1.75
-16
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
-20
0
tiC\N� ti�'N\:",�A��
�Q\
Date
Figure 7b. Precipitation and Water Level Plots
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251

Table 13. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: DMS Project No. 92251
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MY1-MY5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
MY 1 (2011)
MY2 (2012)
MY3 (2013)
MY4 (2014)
MY4 (2015) MY5 (2016)
Gauge 1
g
No/ 10 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/27 days
Yes/176 days
(5%)
(12%)
(100%)
(12%)*
(81%)
Gauge 2
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
N/A**
Yes/218 days
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Gauge 3
g
Yes/188 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
(86%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Gauge 4
g
Yes/200 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
(92%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
*Gauge 1 was not working properly during much of the 2014 growing season.
**Gauge 2 was not working properly throughout the 2014 growing season.