20051690 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20110215

2c661696

CARBONTON DAM -DEEP RIVER WATERSHED yps ? *4r 0 ?(Jf
RESTORATION SITE srq?;?p?,?ry
2009 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4)
BRq,?,
Gy
r?
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
U
CARBONTON DAM - DEEP RIVER WATERSHED
RESTORATION SITE
2009 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4)
Chatham, Lee and Moore Counties, NC
NCEEP Project No. D-04012A
Design Firm: Milone and MacBroom, Inc.
Prepared for:
NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Prepared by:
PBS&J
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
r?
,Ecosystem
?' 11 111 '('111e11t
PROGRAM
November 2009
CARBONTON DAM - DEEP RIVER WATERSHED
RESTORATION SITE
2009 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4)
PREPARED BY:

RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
PROJECT MANAGER: GEORGE HOWARD
1101 Haynes Street Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
AND

PBS&J
PROJECT MANAGER: MATT CUSACK
1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
AND
The
Catena
Group
THE CATENA GROUP
PROJECT MANAGER: TIM SAVIDGE
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Dam removal projects performed pursuant to the guidance released by the North Carolina Dam Removal
Task Force (DRTF) are required to quantitatively demonstrate chemical and biological improvements to
restored in-channel ecosystems in order to achieve compensatory mitigation credit (DRTF 2001). The
following monitoring report documents the latest efforts of Restoration Systems, LLC, on behalf of the
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), to document changes in the study area of the
Carbonton Dam removal project (Cape Fear Hydrologic Unit 03030003). The suite of ecological
evaluations performed and described herein establishes new standards for mitigation monitoring. This
standard is in keeping with the goal set forth by state and federal agencies to provide functional ecological
gains to North Carolina watersheds through the efforts of the NCEEP and its contract partners.
The site of the former Carbonton Dam is approximately 9 miles west of Sanford, North Carolina at the
juncture of Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A). The on-site dam
removal activities restored natural flow to approximately 126,673 linear feet of the Deep River and
associated tributaries from the impounding impact of the dam. The limits of the former Site
Impoundment have been identified as any stream reach of the Deep River or associated tributaries located
above the former Carbonton Dam with a thalweg elevation less than 227.6 feet above mean sea level
(MSL), prior to dam removal. Impacts to water quality within the former Site Impoundment (i.e., river
and stream reaches formerly impounded by the dam) were manifested in the form of lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations, higher temperatures, and increased sedimentation. The character of the aquatic
communities within the former Site Impoundment shifted from a free-flowing (lotic) river system to an
impounded (lentic) condition following construction of a dam at the site. Rare and endangered mussel
and fish habitat, which depended on free-flowing lotic conditions, was absent or greatly diminished
within areas of the Deep River impounded by the former dam. These affected stream reaches will be
hereafter referred to as the former "Site Impoundment."
The dam was removed in a manner that minimized impacts to water resources both upstream and
downstream of the dam site. Dam removal began with dewatering (lowering) of the Site Impoundment
on October 15, 2005, followed by breaching on November 11, 2005. Demolition activities continued in
stages until dam removal was completed on February 3, 2006.
Fourth-year monitoring activities began in April 2009. Monitoring is being performed for a minimum of
five years, post dam removal--or until success criteria are achieved. Post removal monitoring data will be
compared to baseline values collected in April-June 2005, Year-1 monitoring values collected in April-
June 2006, Year-2 monitoring values collected in March-July 2007, and Year-3 monitoring values
collected in March-September 2008.
Monitoring Plan
A monitoring plan was developed in accordance with the DRTF guidelines to evaluate the fulfillment of
the project's primary success criteria, which include:
EEP Project No. D-04012A i Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
1) Re-colonization of rare and protected aquatic species, 2) improved water quality, and 3) an improved
aquatic community. Reserve success criteria include: 1) downstream benefits below the dam, and
2) human values (scientific contributions and human recreation).
In order to evaluate project success for the above criteria, a monitoring network was deployed in 2005
throughout the former Site Impoundment, contributing waters, and reference areas both upstream and
downstream of the former dam site (Figure 3, Appendix A). Within the established network, biological
surveys were conducted to provide baseline (i.e., pre-dam removal) aquatic community data within the
Site Impoundment, and will be monitored until 2010 to assess community changes following dam
removal. Monitoring cross-section stations were also established to assess changes in bankfull channel
geometry, channel substrate composition, and aquatic habitat. Water quality data within the former Site
Impoundment and at a downstream reference area were obtained from North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) Ambient Monitoring Stations (AMS).
Fourth Year Monitoring Results
Water Quality
Ambient Monitoring Station (AMS) data indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations within the former
Site Impoundment continue to persist above the established threshold required to meet the success criteria
(mean value is 4.71 mg/L higher than state standard). Additionally, water temperature has remained
below the state standard during Year-4 monitoring. Fecal coliform within the former Site Impoundment
was below the state standard of 200 colonies/100 ml for all but one sample during Year-4 monitoring. It
should be noted that for the event that resulted in high fecal coliform measurements, reference data from
the Ramseur station were not sampled on the same day. Additionally, a near 1-inch rain event occurred
the day before the date of sampling for the Site Impoundment for both outlying data measurements.
Therefore, it is expected that the reference station would have also shown a similar spike in fecal coliform
data if they were available.
The Year-4 mean biotic index (used as a proxy for water quality) from formerly impounded stations is
within one standard deviation of the reference mean, therefore meeting the established success criteria.
Success was previously met for this mitigation goal during Year-1 monitoring (2006). The repeat success
in the current monitoring year indicates that drought conditions were likely responsible for missing this
goal in 2007 and 2008, and that improved water quality has persisted since dam removal.
Aquatic Community
The successful development of lotic conditions within the Deep River, and the resulting aquatic species
colonization, has been documented through the recruitment of the Cape Fear shiner. Riffle/run/pool
habitats have formed at varying intervals throughout the restored reaches, promoting lotic fish, freshwater
mussel, and snail community recolonization.
Year-4 monitoring focused on continued documentation of fish diversity development, with a focus on
the two major tributaries to the Deep River, McLendons Creek and Big Governors Creek. Habitat
reconnaissance within McLendons Creek indicates a continued development of lotic conditions with
noticeably less fine sediment in the channel substrate. Big Governors Creek exhibits slower development
of riffle/run/pool habitats, and a heavy accumulation of woody debris may be slowing the progression
towards lotic conditions. While Cape Fear shiner was not collected in either tributary, fish surveys
EEP Project No. D-04012A ii Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
resulted in a total of 19 other fish species and further re-establishment of lotic conditions. This
improvement is supported by the increase in abundance (and diversity within Big Governors Creek) of
darter species at both sites, as well as two new shiner species.
Benthic data from stations within the former Site Impoundment indicate that the mean values for total
organisms, total taxa, and biotic index exceeded values from reference stations in 2009. While the mean
number of EPT taxa within impounded stations did not exceed the reference station data, the difference in
EPT richness is only two taxa, indicating a continued progression towards reference composition. The
highest overall EPT richness (30 EPT taxa) occurred at a formerly impounded station (Station 1, Figure 3)
located immediately upstream of the former dam.
The NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet was completed at each station in order to evaluate the
quality of in-stream habitat and to provide a comparable score that describes the available habitat.
Compared to baseline conditions (2005), the mean total score of the formerly impounded stations
quantitatively increased in Year-4 monitoring from 42.39 to 61.03, indicating improved aquatic habitat.
Rare and Protected Aquatic Species
Success criteria for rare and protected species were met through the recruitment of the Federally
endangered Cape Fear shiner and five state-listed mussel species within the formerly impounded reaches
of the Deep River. Year-2 fish monitoring resulted in a total of 41 specimens of the endangered Cape
Fear shiner. These individuals were identified throughout the former Site Impoundment at eight of the
sampling sites, while an additional six sites continue to develop favorable habitat for future colonization.
Fish surveys preformed within McLendons Creek and Big Governors Creek during Year-4 monitoring did
not establish the presence of Cape Fear shiner. Mollusk sampling was not performed during Year-4
monitoring, but will be carried out in the final year of monitoring (2010) in order to further demonstrate a
shift in mollusk communities from lentic to lotic character.
Reserve Success Criteria
Reserve success criteria have been achieved based on the implementation/refereed publication of
scientific research related to the removal of Carbonton Dam, and the establishment of a public park at the
location of the former dam. The Carbonton Dam removal project provided funding to the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill to support original research by Adam Riggsbee, PhD and Jason Julian,
PhD. Dr. Riggsbee has published three papers with one in revision from his dam removal research while
Dr. Julian has published one paper pertaining to the restored reach of the Deep River.
Furthermore, a new public park has been established at the site of the former dam that consists of vehicle
parking, picnicking sites, bank fishing, and improved access to the river for kayakers and canoeists. RS
formally transferred the new park to the Deep River Park Association during a ceremony held on the
grounds on November 22, 2008.
Summary
After the fourth year of monitoring since the removal of Carbonton Dam, mitigation success criteria has
been met for all parameters, and successful restoration of lotic conditions has been demonstrated.
Functional improvements have been documented in water quality, fish and mollusk abundance, benthic
community, and sediment transport. Mitigation success has been demonstrated for the following criteria:
EEP Project No. D-04012A iii Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Re-introduction of rare and endangered aquatic species, water quality improvement with respect to
dissolved oxygen concentrations and benthic biotic indices, improved aquatic community, scientific
research, and public recreation. The following table summarizes the project success:
Criterion Parameter Anticipated ChangelReguit 2009
Success
Primary success Presence/absence of Re-colonization within
criteria: Re-colonization of rarelprotected former Site Impoundment Yes
individuals
rare and protected
aquatic species Rare/protected species Improvement/expansion Yes
habitat
Benthic biotic indices Decrease (= improve) Yes

Improved water Increase within former Site
quality AMS dissolved Impoundment (must be >
oxygen data 4.0 mg/L or consistent with Yes
reference station data)
Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Increase (i.e., converge with
Improved aquatic Trichoptera taxa, total reference station data) Yes
number of benthic taxa
community Demonstrated shifts in
Fish, Mussel, and communities from lentic to Yes
Snail community data lotic character
Reserve success
criteria: Downstream Deep River bankfull

benefits below channel within Narrowing/increased
Ongoing
dam formerly eddie/scour stabilization of channel
pool areas below dam
Scientific value Published research Successful completion Yes
Public recreation Construction of Successful completion Yes
planned on-Site park
EEP Project No. D-04012A iv Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... ..1
1.1 Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... ..1
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................................................................ .. l
1.3 Project History and Background ....................................................................................... ..2
1.4 Project Mitigation Goals ................................................................................................... ..3
2.0 PROJ ECT MONITORING AND RESULTS ................................................................................ .. 5
2.1 WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................... .. 5
2. 1.1 Biotic Indices .......................................................................................................... .. 5
2.1.2 Ambient Monitoring Station Network .................................................................... .. 7
2.1.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen ...................................................................................... .. 8
2.1.2.2 Temperature ............................................................................................... .. 9
2.1.2.3 Fecal Coliform ........................................................................................... .. 9
2.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Fishes ................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.3 Mollusks ................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.4 Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................. 14
2.2.4.1 Sediment Class Size Distribution ............................................................... 17
2.2.4.2 Channel Cross-sections .............................................................................. 19
2.2.4.3 Photography and Videography ................................................................... 21
2.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .............................................................................. 21
2.4 RESERVE CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1 Public Recreation .................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Scientfic Research ................................................................................................... 21
2.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 22
3.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix A: Figures
1. Site Location
2. Functional Benefit Area
3. Monitoring Network Deployment
4 Monitoring Cross-sections
Appendix B: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix C: Carbonton Dam Removal Year-4 Fish Monitoring Report Provided by The Catena Group
Appendix D: NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Appendix E: Monitoring Pictures and Videos (data DVD)
EEP Project No. D-04012A v Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stream Mitigation Units (SMU's) Generated by Removal of the Carbonton Dam .....................2
Table 2. Project Activities and Reporting History .....................................................................................2
Table 3. Project Contracts ..........................................................................................................................4
Table 4. Project Background ......................................................................................................................5
Table 5. Benthic Biotic Indices of Formerly Impounded and Reference Stations .............................. .......6
Table 6. Dissolved Oxygen Summary Data ........................................................................................ .......8
Table 7. Water Temperature Summary Data ............................................................................................. 9
Table 8. Fecal Coliform Summary Data .................................................................................................... 9
Table 9. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Summary Data ................................................................................ 11
Table 10. Fish Survey Results: McLendons Creek ................................................................................... 13
Table 11. Fish Survey Results: Big Governors Creek ............................................................................... 14
Table 12. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores ........................................................................ 15, 15,16
Table 13. Sediment Class Size Distribution .............................................................................................. 18
Table 14. Cross-section Bankfull Channel Geometry ............................................................................... 20
Table 15. Mitigation Success Criteria Summary ...................................................................................... 23
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1. Mean Biotic Index of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations ..............................7
Graph 2. Recorded Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations on the Deep River ................................................ 8
Graph 3. Mean Total Taxa of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations .............................. 12
Graph 4. Mean EPT Richness of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations ......................... 12
EEP Project No. D-04012A vi Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
In order to provide stream restoration in the Cape Fear River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 03030003),
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has removed the Carbonton Dam formerly located at the juncture of
Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). The former
Carbonton Dam was located on the Deep River approximately 9 miles west of Sanford, North Carolina,
immediately downstream of the bridge crossing of NC 42 (35.5200N, -79.3485W). The Deep River is a
4t'-order river with a watershed upstream of the former dam location of approximately 1,000 square
miles. For the purposes of this document, the 5.5-acre land parcel that supported the dam will be
hereafter referred to as the "Site." All construction activities mentioned in this report occurred on-Site,
unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
The on-Site construction activities restored the native flow regime to approximately 126,673 linear feet of
the Deep River and associated tributaries from the impounding effects of the dam. These restored stream
reaches will be hereafter referred to as the "Site Impoundment." The limits of the Site Impoundment have
been identified as any stream reach of the Deep River or associated tributaries located above the former
Carbonton Dam with a thalweg elevation less than 227.6 feet above mean sea level (MSL), prior to dam
removal.
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives
The Site Impoundment formerly covered approximately 116 acres with water depths up to 25 feet and
bank-to-bank impoundment widths from 150 to 260 feet. The former Site Impoundment was confined
within the channel of the Deep River, and was characterized by steep banks with occasional areas of bank
failure in locations where mature trees have been toppled by storms or flood flows. The lentic flow that
characterized the Site Impoundment resulted in a stratified water column, where velocities were low near
the surface, and stagnant at depths below the crest pool elevation.
Site restoration efforts consisted primarily of the physical removal of the Carbonton Dam. Construction
activities associated with the removal of the dam were phased in order to minimize disturbance to aquatic
resources upstream, downstream, and in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Furthermore, throughout the
dam removal process, construction best management practices were utilized to prevent and minimize
potential impacts to aquatic resources.
The demolition and removal of the Carbonton Dam is expected to generate at least 90,494 Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) for use by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). The
majority of the credits generated by this project will be validated by evaluating the ecological benefits that
occur in the Deep River over the five-year, post-removal monitoring period. Bonus factors (reserve
success criteria) include downstream benefits and human values such as recreation and scientific research.
Table 1 presents the amount of SMU credits that are proposed for this project. The primary success
criteria are being monitored in accordance with the North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF)
guidance. The mitigation ratios have also been derived from the DRTF guidance (DRTF 2004). The
amount of restored channel was determined through methods described in Section 1. 1.2 of the Restoration
Plan (Restoration Systems 2005). The number of SMUs were determined by multiplying the amount of
EEP Project No. D-04012A 1 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
channel returned to lotic condition (linear feet) by the mitigation ratios. While up to 101,688 SMUs may
be potentially created in accordance with the DRTF guidance, the project will only be evaluated for the
amount of credit that is committed to NCEEP.
Table 1. Stream Mitigation Units (SN
Pr1 wry Success Criteria IUs) ;encrated 1).? ReinoN
Channel Restored (feet) al of' the Carbont
Mitigation Ratio on Dam
SMU
1) Water Quality
2) Improved Aquatic Community 126,673 feet of free-flowing
3) Rare and Protected Aquatic Species river and tributaries under 0.7:1 88,671
the crest pool
Reserve Success Criteria Channel Restored (feet) Mitigation Ratio SMU
Downstream Benefits - 500 feet below dam 0.7:1 350
Below the Dam
Human Values
1) Human recreation ----- 10 percent bonus 12,667
2) Scientific value
Total Potential SMUs 101,688
Total Committed SMUs 90,494
Primary success criteria will be monitored to verify and confirm positive changes to each functional criterion as outlined in this
report and in the Dam Removal Guidance. Reserve criteria will be monitored for possible augmentation of the primary SMUs.
If all primary criteria are successfully met, these reserve criteria should result in excess, unsold credits becoming available at
the end of the monitoring period
1.3 Project History and Background
Activity Report

77 Scheduled
Completion Data Collection
Complete Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan Jul 2004 N/A August 2005
Final Design Jul 2004 N/A August 2005
Construction February 2006 N/A February 2006
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area February 2006 N/A February 2006
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/se ments February 2006 N/A February 2006
Installation of Trees and Shrubs March 2006 N/A March 2006
Mitigation Plan January 2005 N/A June 2006
Minor repairs made fillip small washed out areas N/A N/A N/A
Final Report N/A N/A N/A
Year-1 Vegetation Monitoring N/A N/A N/A
Year-1 Stream Monitoring September 2006 Jul 2006 September 2006
Year-2 Stream Monitoring September 2007 Jul 2007 November 2007
Year-3 Stream Monitoring September 2008 October 2008 November 2008
Year-4 Stream Monitoring September 2009 October 2009 November 2009
EEP Project No. D-04012A 2 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
1.4 Project Mitigation Goals
The desired result of this project is ecological improvement within the former Site Impoundment through
restoration of natural, lotic flow conditions.
The specific goals of this project include:
• Restoration of approximately 126,673 linear feet of impounded Deep River and associated
tributaries to natural, free-flowing riverine conditions.
• Restoration of previously inundated shallow water habitat for the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas), a federally endangered freshwater fish.
• Reduction or elimination of thermal stratification, which results in seasonal declines in dissolved
oxygen concentrations below levels measured in reference reaches.
• Restoration of appropriate in-stream substrate.
• Restoration of upstream and downstream fish passage, and reconnection of currently disjunct
populations of rare aquatic species of concern.
• Restoration of lotic mussel habitat.
• Improvement in the diversity and water quality tolerance metrics for benthic macroinvertebrate
communities.
• Provide public recreational opportunities at the site of the former dam.
• Support independent academic research, resulting in peer-reviewed publications regarding the
ecological consequences of large dam removal.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 3 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Table 3. Project Contacts: Carbonton Dain
Designer Restoration Site
307B Falls Street
Milone and MacBroom, Inc. (MMI) Greenville, SC 29601
[phone]
Construction Contractor P.O. Box 1654
Backwater Environmental, Inc. Pittsboro, NC 27312
[phone]
Planting Contractor 908 Indian Trail Road
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Edenton, NC 27932
[phone]
Seeding Contactor P.O. Box 1654
Backwater Environmental, Inc. Pittsboro, NC 27312
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources 1312 Woody Store Road
Mellow Marsh Farm Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers 1312 Woody Store Road
Mellow Marsh Farm Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery 3067 Conners Drive
Edenton, NC 27932
[phone]
Taylor's Nursery 3705 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27610
[phone]
International Paper Nursery 5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
Ecological Monitors
PBS&J (formerly EcoScience Corporation) 1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919 876-6888
The Catena Group (TCG) 410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
Stream Monitoring POC Matt Cusack
Vegetation Monitoring POC N/A
(project does not require vegetation monitoring)
EEP Project No. D-04012A 4 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Project Count Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties NC
Drainage Area Approximately 1000 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <10%
Stream Order 4 -order
Ph sio a hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion (Griffith and Omernik) Triassic Basin
Ros en (1994) Classification of As-built N/A
Cowardin Classification R2SB3/4
Reference Site ID Dee River
Dominant Soil Types N/A (stream restoration project only)
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03030003
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-06-10
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WS-IV HQW, WS-V HQW
An portion of any ro'ect segment 303d listed? No (NCDWQ 2006)
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment? Yes, Deep River, Sub-basin 03-06-11
(NCDWQ 2006)
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor MS4 NPDES
Percent of project easement fenced N/A
2.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
The monitoring results described herein document the Year-4 (2009) monitoring activities performed to
determine the project's success in meeting the stated mitigation goals. Monitoring activities occurred at
fifty-one (51) stations established prior to dam removal in 2005, as part of the monitoring deployment
network (Figure 3, Appendix A). One (1) additional station was added during the first year of monitoring
bringing the total number of stations to fifty-two (52). Pre-removal baseline data (2005), Year-1, Year-2,
Year-3 and Year-4 monitoring data are compared to evaluate improvements in water quality, the aquatic
community, rare and protected species, and human values within the former Site Impoundment.
2.1 WATER QUALITY
2.1.1 Biotic Indices
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled within the former Site Impoundment, as well as in the
reference reaches both within the Deep River and its major tributaries. Stations were visited prior to dam
removal (2005) and subsequently sampled in 2006, 2007, and 2008 at the same locations. Many of those
stations were resampled during Year-4 monitoring, as well as 6 new sites (Stations 56-61, [Figure 3,
Appendix A]) selected for their high quality benthic macroinvertebrate habitat, which closely resembles
reference conditions. Reference stations that were selected prior to dam removal were targeted within
areas of the Deep River that contained the greatest amount of benthic habitat. Stations within the former
Site Impoundment were also selected prior to dam removal, but the amount of habitat that would develop
after dam removal was unknown. As lotic conditions developed within the former Site Impoundment, it
became clear that certain stations within the former Site Impoundment (Stations 3, 5, 8, and 10) would
never provide the benthic habitat found at the reference stations. The new benthic sampling stations take
the place of those previously sampled, including Stations 3, 5, 8, and 10.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 5 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
After identification of collected macroinvertebrates, the North Carolina Tolerance Values or Hilsenhoff
Tolerance Values were assigned to each of the collected species. These Tolerance Values range from
zero (0) for organisms intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes.
The biotic indices of each station sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates were tallied, and then summary
data were generated for comparison between formerly impounded and reference stations. Success for this
particular mitigation goal was achieved in Year-4 monitoring based on the established criteria that
requires the mean biotic index of the impounded stations to be within one standard deviation of the mean
biotic index of the reference stations. The mean biotic index from Year-4 monitoring in the formerly
impounded stations (µ=5.94) is within one standard deviation of the reference station (µ=6.19). This
success criteria was previously met during Year-1 monitoring (2006). The repeat success in the current
monitoring year indicates that drought conditions may be responsible for missing this goal in 2007 and
2008, and that improved water quality has persisted since dam removal. Table 5 presents the summary
data for benthic biotic indices of both formerly impounded and reference stations.
Table 5. Be nthic Biotic Indices ot'Fo
2006 (Beaellne) rnierll? Impou nded and Re l'urence Stati ons
FORMERLY
REFERECE FORbWJtLY
REFERENCE FORMERLY
REWXMCE
IMPOUNDED
STATIONS r
STATIONS IIMPOUNDED
ST?[TIONS
STATIONS t STATIONS
Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index
High 7.97 6.91 8.58 7.62 8.52 5.71
Low 5.67 4.78 5.76 4.29 4.28 3.92
Mean 6.83 5.9 6.99 6.16 5.86 4.94
Median 6.79 5.99 6.72 6.02 5.3 5.02
Standard 0.83 0.75 0.95 1.04 1.52 0.62
Deviation
Standard
Deviation of
Reference mean 6.65 7.20 5.56
(Success
Criterion)
2006 ( Yar 3) 2009 (Y ear 4) 2010 (Y ear
FORMERLY
ItLFETIENCE FORMERLY
REFERENCE FORMERLY
REFERENCE
IMPOUNDED 3'P
ATIQNS I14II?Ort1NDEU
STATIONS IMPOUNDED
STATIONS
$TATION3 STATIONS STATIONS
Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Biotic Index Bfotic Index Biotic Index
High 8.19 6.36 7.60 6.47
Low 5.13 4.66 4.97 4.52
Mean 6.52 5.56 5.94 5.46
Median 6.40 5.60 5.63 5.60
Standard 1.05 0.50 0
86 0
73
Deviation . .
Standard
Deviation of
Reference mean 6.06 6.19
(Success
Criterion)
EEP Project No. D-04012A 6 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Graph 1 depicts the change in biotic indices from 2005 to present from both the formerly impounded and
reference stations.
Graph 1. Mean Biotic Index of Formerly Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations
with Standard Deviation
Note: A lower index value is indicative of less tolerant species (= higher water quality)
? o
a?
b
4
Y
Q
= 3
Monitoring Year
2.1.2 Ambient Monitoring Station Network
Aside from the in situ sampling occurring at each monitoring station, physical water quality parameters
are currently collected at an Ambient Monitoring Station (AMS) located within the former Site
Impoundment at NC 42 (135575000), immediately upstream of the former Carbonton Dam. A reference
AMS is located on the Deep River at Ramseur, NC (135070000). These data have been obtained from the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), and data coverage exists on a monthly basis for at
least the last 10 years. AMS data dating back five years prior to dam removal are used to provide a
historical record of water quality for comparison to post-removal sampling. Due to time delay between
collection date and public availability, the most recent AMS data available from NCDWQ is through
April 6, 2009 at NC42, and through June 30, 2009 at Ramseur. Data collected by the AMS are not
standard for all samples, but are always sampled at 0.1 meter depth and can include: water temperature
(°C), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), pH (field measured), conductance at 25°C (pmhos/cm), turbidity (NTU),
fecal coliform bacteria (number of colonies/100 milliliters), suspended residue (total suspended solids)
(milligrams/Liter), ammonia as nitrogen (milligrams/Liter), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (milligrams/Liter),
nitrite and nitrate as nitrogen (milligrams/Liter), total phosphorus (milligrams/Liter), and assorted metals.
AMS data are used to evaluate physical water chemistry and associated parameters throughout the
project's monitoring period. Water quality trends from AMS data are utilized in determining the project's
overall success, using state standards established by NCDWQ's "Redbook".
EEP Project No. D-04012A 7 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
2005 (Baseline) 2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3) 2009 (Year 4)
2.1.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
In order to achieve success, dissolved oxygen concentrations within the former Site Impoundment should
not fall below the minimum NCDWQ standard for Class WS-IV waters (unless a similar failure is
recorded at the reference station). The NCDWQ standard is an instantaneous value of no less than
4.0mg1L (daily average no less than 5.0 mg/L). Table 6 provides the minimum, maximum, and mean
instantaneous values for dissolved oxygen recorded within the former Site Impoundment, as well as the
number of samples that fell below the state standard for all monitoring years. Mean value for dissolved
oxygen in Year-4 was 8.71 mg/L and exceeded the state standard for all samples.
Dissolved Table 6. Oxygen Summary Data
Baseline
Year-1
Year-2
Year-3
Year-4
Minimum Value (m L) 1.10 7.20 5.20 5.40 5.70
Maximum Value (m ) 15.00 13.90 10.60 14.30 12.3
Mean Value (m ) 8.07 10.87 7.41 8.62 8.71
Number of Samples Below State Standard 6 0 0 0 0
Graph 2 below depicts the AMS dissolved oxygen concentrations measured at a 0.1 meter depth within
the Site Impoundment (135575000), and at the reference location (135070000), from December 2000
through July 2009. Since the removal of Carbonton Dam, instantaneous dissolved oxygen concentrations
within the former Site Impoundment have remained at or above 4.0 mg/L. It is expected that dissolved
oxygen levels within the former impoundment will stay above the state standard as free-flowing
conditions persist.
Graph 2. Recorded Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Deep River
Note: Green line indicates state standard of 4.0mg/L
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
¦ (NC42) B5575000 ¦ (Ramseur) B5070000
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
EEP Project No. D-04012A 8 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
O a--i e-1 1.1 N N N M M M V tzr -?r V) V) V) ko ko ko r` r- r- W W W Ql M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
z 2 z 2 z 2 z 2 z z ;E !E z z 2
2.1.2.2 Temperature
In order to achieve success, the water temperature within the former Site Impoundment should not exceed
the NCDWQ standard of 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the monitoring period. Table 7 provides the
minimum, maximum, and mean values for water temperature recorded within the former Site
Impoundment during all monitoring years, as well as the number of samples the recorded value exceeded
the state standard.
Table 7. Water Temperature Summar y Data
Baseline
Year-1
Year-2
Year-3
Year-4
Minimum Value (de F) 65.48 41.18 45.32 41.36 44.40
Maximum Value (de F) 87.62 64.58 85.82 84.02 83.48
Mean Value (de F) 63.26 52.76 67.57 63.99 62.86
Number of Samples Exceeding State
Standard
0
0
0
0
0
Water temperature within the former Site Impoundment has remained below the state standard of 90
degrees Fahrenheit since dam removal on February 3, 2006.
2.1.2.3 Fecal Coliform
In order to achieve success, fecal coliform concentrations within the former Site Impoundment should not
exceed an average daily count of 200/100 ml in any 30-day period. Table 8 shows the minimum,
maximum, and mean values for fecal coliform recorded within the former Site Impoundment during all
monitoring years, as well as the number of samples the recorded value exceeded the state standard.
Table 8. Fecal t Summary Data
Baseline
Year-1
Year-2
Year-3 Year-4
Minimum Value (count/100 ml) 3 22 26 14 8
Maximum Value (count/100ml 6300 47 160 5800 2500
Mean Value (count/100ml) 369.7 35.7 62.6 782.3 237.9
Number of Samples Exceeding State Standard 31 0 0 2 1
Fecal coliform within the former Site Impoundment exceeded the state standard of 200/100 ml once
during Year-4 monitoring. With the exception of this single event, all other daily fecal coliform values
recorded during Year-4 monitoring were significantly lower than the state standard (<200/100 ml).
It should be noted that for the single event that resulted in high fecal coliform measurement
(2500/100m1), reference data from the Ramseur station were not sampled on the same day. Additionally,
a near 1-inch rain event occurred the day before the date of sampling for the Site Impoundment for the
outlying data measurement. Therefore, it is expected that the reference station would have also shown a
similar spike in fecal coliform data if had been collected on the same day.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 9 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
2.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
To determine success for the aquatic community's habitat criterion, the former Site Impoundment was
monitored for baseline data and included benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, mussels, and snails, as well
as the quality of available microhabitats that developed. Benthos, fishes and mussel and snail sampling
following dam removal will be used to demonstrate an increased abundance and quality of aquatic habitat
within restored reaches of the Deep River and its tributaries.
2.2.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
The comparative metrics utilized for the success evaluation include the total number of organisms
collected, the total taxa represented in the samples, the richness (diversity) of taxa from the
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) Orders (hereafter referred
to as EPT taxa), and the biotic index of organic waste tolerance. Benthic macroinvertebrate data, located
in Appendix B, are based on laboratory identifications of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa by Pennington
and Associates, Inc. (P&A) of Cookeville, Tennessee. P&A is a NCDWQ-certified benthic identification
laboratory.
Table 9 provides the baseline and Year-1 through Year-4 summary data for the benthic macroinvertebrate
collections. The summary data shows that the mean values of total organisms, total taxa, EPT richness,
and biotic index all improved at formerly impounded stations in Year-4 monitoring compared to last year.
The mean values of total organisms, total taxa, and biotic index of impounded stations were also superior
compared to reference values in 2009. While the EPT richness of the formerly impounded stations did
not exceed reference values, the difference in EPT richness was only two taxa. The mean EPT richness of
the impounded stations also shifted to within one standard deviation of the reference mean, indicating a
continued progression towards reference composition. The highest overall EPT richness (30 EPT taxa)
occurred at a formerly impounded station (Station 1, Figure 3) located immediately upstream of the
former Carbonton Dam.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 10 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
PBS&J scientist positions the kick net in a riffle of
the Deep River
PBS&J staff collect benthic macroinvertebrates
from the sample material
Table 9. Be nthic Macroinvertebrat
Impounded e Summary Data
Stations
Reference Stations
2005 Total
Or anisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index
High 403 62 10 7.97 1168 70 24 6.91
Low 97 18 1 5.67 237 41 14 4.78
Mean 223.33 39.78 5.89 6.83 549.75 54.88 19.13 5.90
Median 207.00 43.00 6.00 6.79 404.00 56.00 19.00 5.99
Standard
Deviation
96.69 T
12.02
2.76
0.83
340.66
10.33
3.14
0.75
Impounded Stations Reference Stations
2006 Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index
High 360 49 15 8.58 546 61 21 7.62
Low 55 17 0 5.76 89 33 5 4.29
Mean 177.50 33.00 7.70 6.99 220.63 42.63 12.50 6.16
Median 160.00 33.50 6.50 6.72 155.00 37.00 12.50 6.02
Standard
Deviation
87.71
11.65
5.85
0.95
158.86
10.76
5.81
1.04
Impounded Stations Reference Stations
2007 Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index
High 1168 83 36 8.52 1242 83 38 5.71
Low 117 31 1 4.28 506 59 14 3.92
Mean 466.40 55.30 20.30 5.86 849.63 68.75 27.75 4.94
Median 475.00 60.00 24.50 5.30 861.50 66.50 31.00 5.02
Standard
Deviation
318.14
18.76
13.00
1.52
250.69
8.01
8.28
0.62
Impounded Stations Reference Stations
2008 Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index
High 342 73 20 8.19 687 66 27 6.36
Low 21 16 1 5.13 246 41 10 4.66
Mean 160.80 36.90 8.10 6.52 384.25 55.13 19.25 5.56
Median 145.00 34.00 6.00 6.40 339.50 58.50 20.50 5.60
Standard
Deviation
106.57
17.21
6.30
1.05
157.35
9.45
6.07
0.50
Impounded Stations Reference Stations
2009 Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index Total
Organisms Total
Taxa EPT
Richness Biotic
Index
High 710 78 30 7.60 532 68 26 6.47
Low 152 29 2 4.97 200 34 11.00 4.52
Mean 399.67 51.50 18.00 5.94 354.13 50.75 20.38 5.46
Median 363.50 51.50 20.00 5.63 384.00 49.00 22.50 5.60
Standard
Deviation
176.48
15.96
9.18
0.86
114.43
10.66
5.42
0.73
EEP Project No. D-04012A 1 l Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Graph 3 and Graph 4 depict the change in mean total taxa and mean EPT richness from 2005 to present
from both the formerly impounded and reference stations.
Graph 3. Mean Total Taxa of Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations with Standard
Deviation
100
80
60
E?
c?
0
H 40
20
0
2005 (Baseline) 2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3) 2009 (Year 4)
Monitoring Year
40
35
30
v 25
a?
20
W 15
10
Graph 4. Mean EPT Richness of Impounded Stations vs. Reference Stations with
Standard Deviation
5
0
2005 (Baseline) 2006 (Year 1) 2007 (Year 2) 2008 (Year 3) 2009 (Year 4)
Monitoring Year
EEP Project No. D-04012A 12 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
2.2.2 Fishes
Success criteria was previously met in 2007 when survey collections demonstrated that riffle adapted
species had colonized in newly restored habitats that were formerly impounded. A total of 34 fish species
were collected at the fifteen fish monitoring sites. Additionally, at least ten of the sampling sites
contained emerging fish communities that emulate reference conditions found beyond the former
impoundment. Overall, a greater number of fish species were documented throughout the former
impoundment during Year-2 monitoring relative to baseline and Year-1 surveys.
Fish surveys were conducted during Year-4 monitoring to further document the development of fish
diversity, with an emphasis on the potential presence of Cape Fear shiner in two major tributaries to the
Deep River, McLendons Creek and Big Governors Creek. A total of 19 fish species were collected at
two surveyed sites (one site on each tributary) [Figure 3]. While the Cape Fear shiner was not collected at
either site, Year-4 surveys demonstrate further re-establishment of lotic conditions and many lotic adapted
species within the former impoundment. Collections within McLendons Creek include two new shiner
species (whitemouth shiner and spottail shiner) and a greater abundance of Piedmont darter and
tessellated darter, both indicative of improved lotic habitat. Within Big Governors Creek, the increased
number of native shiner species and a greater abundance of tessellated darter, as well as the addition of
Piedmont darter, may also be indicative of improving lotic habitat. The survey results of Year-4
collections are provided in Tables 10 and 11, and the complete report from The Catena Group (TCG) is
located in Appendix C.
Table 10. Fish Survey
Scientific Name Results: McLendons Cre
Common Name ek
Relative Abundance
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch Rare
Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker Rare
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter Very Abundant
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish Common
Hybognathus regius eastern silvery minnow Uncommon
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Very Abundant
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Uncommon
Luxilus albeolus white shiner Rare
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass Rare
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Common
Notropis alborus whitemouth shiner Rare
Notropis altipinnis highfin shiner Rare
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner Rare
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner Uncommon
Notropis scepticus sandbar shiner Uncommon
Percina crassa Piedmont darter Very Abundant
EEP Project No. D-04012A 13 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Table 11. Fish Survey R
Scientific Name esults: Big Governors
Common Name Creek
Relative Abundance
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch Uncommon
Cyprinella analostana satinfin shiner Common
Centrarchus macropterus flier Rare
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter Common
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish Abundant
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Abundant
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Uncommon
Luxilus albeolus white shiner Rare
Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner Common
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Rare
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner Common
Percina crassa Piedmont darter Rare
2.2.3 Mollusks
Success criteria was previously met in 2008 when mollusk collections indicated a recruitment of
freshwater mussel species in riffle-adapted habitats (primarily in the upper reach or the Site
Impoundment). Because these fauna are slow colonizers due to their dependence on host fish species,
Year-3 monitoring (2008) comprised the first year for mollusk sampling after dam removal. When
comparing the mussel fauna observed during the pre-removal surveys with the Year-3 surveys, it was
evident that the fauna had transitioned from one composed of habitat generalists and lentic-adapted
species, to one composed of habitat generalists and lotic-adapted species. A total of eleven freshwater
mussel species, three aquatic snail species, and one freshwater clam species were found within newly
formed riffle habitats in the former impounded reach.
Mollusk sampling was not performed during Year-4 monitoring, but will be carried out in the final year of
monitoring (2010) in order to further demonstrate a shift in mollusk communities from lentic to lotic
character.
2.2.4 Habitat Assessment
Habitat assessment data were collected at all monitoring stations to evaluate the potential for changing
aquatic habitats to support changes in community populations. The NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field
Data Sheet was completed at each station in order to evaluate the quality and character of the sampled
habitat niches and to provide a comparable score that describes the available habitat. Table 12 presents
the NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet scores from baseline (2005) through Year-4
monitoring. The categories including channel modification, light penetration, and riparian vegetative
zone width typically did not change in the span of a single monitoring year. Other categories including
in-stream habitat, bottom substrate, and bank stability showed improvement within formerly impounded
stations. Compared to baseline data (2005), the mean total score of the formerly impounded stations
quantitatively increased in Year-4 monitoring from 42.39 to 61.26. The mean total score for reference
stations increased 1.61 points since baseline conditions. Success evaluation is defined as a perceived
progression of the former Site Impoundment habitat values toward those of the lotic reference stations.
During Year-4 monitoring, the mean total score for stations in the former Site Impoundment increased
EEP Project No. D-04012A 14 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
�
■■■9■1■■6■9996■
994919
R
�I��■�
lill�oga�i�a
iif�
I
I
I
oiioiv0i
e
'
o�ai�o■'
a
!I�
��ii����ii�'on'■�
■i
m
l
+off
II
�
i
lii
ieiaii
IS�
1
1
0111,1■9
1
0
0
�I
opo
o
nnnooao�m�e
0
0
0
9B9
��I
p�BB
tl■■9,0■1�9■i�9■��9�i■I■9■9�

atm
�:�'�.
�
�;
:��
;�
p�„
„
������I�I�IN�p
19�
10
Bpi
9�8�
�B�l�9
f
■
Ii19�11Cl�lil�lvlplll���l�1�1'9
�10�III
i9iloii�a
IIII�I
9
IBB
!
I
B
0
�i�'�f���oil��lmmi
eo�aHapoe�m■an�
ne'I�ly��
a
imv�vav■'��w�mo
,an�m
a
aio
IOI■lill�l
1
00
m
a
e
a
oaao�a
1
B
���mm�i�o
�i�i■ire
o
o
■
��lil
0
�i�n��B�l�
i�mi■i■Iola
emmm
�emoemoe�m■m�mmm�m,emo

1.03 percent compared to last year. The mean total score for stations in the former Site Impoundment
also exceeded the Year-4 mean total score of the reference stations by 0.09.
2.2.4.1 Sediment Class Size Distribution
Sediment grain size distribution was analyzed at 38 monitoring stations in 2008 (24 formerly impounded,
14 reference). At each of the 38 stations, 100-count pebble counts were performed consistent with the
Wolman method (Wolman 1954). Mean values for D16, D50, and D84 at formerly impounded stations
remained within the same size class indices, indicating limited change in substrate during Year-4
sampling. The medium grain size (1350) for impounded stations sampled in 2009 is 7.05 mm coarser than
dam pre-removal substrate (2005). The D16 and D84 size class indices also coarsened within formerly
impounded stations following dam removal. Reference stations showed only minor changes in sediment
size class following dam removal. Table 13 provides baseline, Year- I through Year-4 sediment grain size
distributions attained by pebble count method for both reference and formerly impounded stations.
S
ediment grain size cl
Particle Size asses (Wolrnan 1954):
Size Class
<2 mm Sand/silt
2-8 mm Fine gravel
8-16 mm Medium gravel
16-32 mm Coarse gravel
32-64 mm Very coarse gravel
64-128 mm Small cobble
128-256 mm Large cobble
>256 mm Boulder
EEP Project No. D-04012A 17 Carbonton Dam Removal 2008 Monitoring Report

9

'fl _I
N '
N I E

N E

C E

d E

0
V E

0
? E

V E

V E

C E

V E

V E

tl E

V E

tl E

C E

tl I
M

,o I
M E E E
D
1
0
'
N
w
10
'
N
oo
1
y
o
0
9?
N
o E
,?
C

, E
4
M
b E

v E

V E
o0

,:, E

d E

V
0 E

0
D

N

0
N
0 E

C
?
r
'fl E
q E

? E

l
C11 0
M

b
0
N

$ E

N

v E

d E

N

v E

l E

C E

l E

N

v E

d E

N

v E

l E

N

V E

l E

N

V E

d E

? E

l E

rl

v E

l E

M

b E

M

b E

c?

b E

M

b E

M

o

, E

; E

N

v E

l E

"V E

C E

C E

l E

V e q

M
b E

N
v
? E E E E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
'O N

v

tl N

v M b v N

d V N N v v N v N N V

tl N

v

d N

v

V

V
N V V d V 11 d N N V 0 ?
N 1?
N
tl e
V q
V "
V
d
V
tl
V
d
V
?
'fl E
A E
M
o E
M
b E
n E
?
n E
N
v E
tl E
d E
tl E
N

v
1

, E
w E
N

v E

d E
N

v E

tl E
N

v

l E E
N

v E

tl N
M

'6 C -1
M

b 'o

?

C It
IO I

0 1
n
N
0 0 'o
N

N _, `

A N

v E

d E

,o

l c
N

V '
M

b M

o 0 0

$ N

v
° E
W
r
c E
q
M
b E
11
M
o
^ E

N

M E
N
v E

d E
N
V E

C E
N
v E

tl E

C E

d E

V E

d E
N
V

d E E
N
V E

d E
o0
?,
\ E
O
? E

?

C E E
M
? E
M
? E
`D
? E

M E

M E

N E
N
V E
N E
°O E
tl E

-V E
tl E
0o

N E

M E
N

V
? E E E E ? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
V N V ? V d V V V d V V V tl V tl V d V d V V V N V N d V E
d V d V V V d V
E E E
A E
? E
? E
C E
tl E
V E
? E
V E
V E
C E
V E
C
V E E
V
d E E
N E
d E E E E E

M ?

ti E

M E
N
!
j E
:
4 E E
V E E
R E
tl E
C E
?
ti E
I
M ?
N E
V
?

'd E E

N

, E

o E E

? E

V E

d E

N 0
vr E

?
l E

N
V E

C E

C E

tl E

C

d E E

N
v

d E E

N
v E

d E

oD
N

b
, E

o E

N
V

d E E
q
M
b
c
,
E
M
b E

? E

M
b E

N?

M E

b E

N V E

C E

"?I E E E E

W

C-4 ?

M

b E

N

V
? E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
° V V V V V V V V V V V C V V V V V V V ' V V tl N N V V V V 1 C 4
V
V
V
V
V
V

N
V

?

'O

A
E
E

M
6
.-.

0

N
E

0 g
E

M
?
.-.
E

N
M
E

V
E

V
E

V
E
E

V
E

C
E

V

l g
E
E

C

d
E
E

V

V
E
E

CO
?
E

V

M

,6

0

N
E

0

E

V

0

c
E

?

M

_
10

N
e

`
N
M
Ef

n

N

M
E E

V
E

tl

E
b

E

d
E

C

E
O

M

N

N_

?°

E

C
°E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E i I

a

?
0
N
0

?

N

V

V

V

N

V

V

G

V

V

V

V

tl

C

d

?

N

V

V 10

-

,;

°°

?

M

d

V

C

o,

I

1

tl

V

?

V
?E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
G
N 0
N Q N
V
tl N
V
V N
V V N
V N
V N
V N
V N
V
d N
V
tl N
V
V N
V 0
N 0 N
V N
V
N 0
" 0
I N
V 0
N ? N
V N
V N
V N
V
V N (
V V
V N
V
N N
V
?E
ro E ? E ? E
v E
d E
Vd E E
V
d E E
V
d E E
C
tl E E
V E
d E
V
d E ?
a
C E E
a
d E g
?

s
? E

A E
N

A

M E E

M
A

M E E

V E

V E

MV E E

V E

r E E E
?E E
N
M Ez
N,.
a E
N
d E E
N
tl E E
N

V E E
N
C E E
d E E t0 E
tl E E
1
d E E E
d ? ?
M ?
'? E E E E

N E

C E

d E E
N; E
° E E E
N
V V , ; V
V
V
V V V V V v r

[O
,
a

4
N
N
M
N
M
V
N
V
ry
M
V
E E E E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
V A CN Vd Vtl I N
V tl V tl C tl V tl V tl V tl E
V V o
U ; ; V tl V ry VV E N
Vd tl
I d ,; tl
33N3a3d3U
2.2.4.2 Channel Cross-sections
Cross-sectional surveys of channel geometry were performed at all 52 monitoring stations during 2009.
Thirty-four (34) permanent cross-sections were revisited throughout the former Site Impoundment and on
tributaries where functional restoration is expected to occur. Eighteen (18) permanent cross-sections were
revisited on reference reaches above and below the former Site Impoundment. Cross-section locations
are displayed on Figure 3 (Appendix A). All monitoring years' cross-sectional surveys are displayed on
Figures 4A-4D (Appendix A). Table 14 provides bankfull channel geometry including bankfull cross-
sectional area (Abkf), bankfull width (Wbkf), maximum bankfull depth (Dmax), mean bankfull depth
(Dbkf), and width-to-depth ratio (width/depth).
In general, bankfull channel parameters were largely unchanged compared to conditions assessed during
previous monitoring years. Limited scouring and erosion of bank material was detected at formerly
impounded stations, with an associated, minor change in bankfull areas. The Deep River channel is
geomorphically stable, and any erosion is episodic and localized. Station 55 was established following
dam removal and therefore no baseline (2005) bankfull channel geometry data are available for this
station. Other stations for which pins were not found, and subsequently replaced, are noted on Figures
4A-4D. Hence, the discrepancies in cross-sectional dimensions and bankfull channel geometry between
years at the locations where new pins were installed.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 19 Carbonton Dam Removal 2008 Monitoring Report
PBS&J staff prepares to perform a Total Station cross-sectional
survey of the Deep River at Station 15.
?a
?x
Qv
?V
? a
3 'd
? w
Q w
v
L W
a V
b a
3 'o
? w
Q ,.
a
Q
?w
aV
b a
?v
d w
Q ?
?w
av
? a
3 'a
d w
Q `i!
e
Q
?w
av
0
0
a
® I suoggS papunodwl,CIjauuoA I suoqujs aauaaalau I
2.2.4.3 Photography and Videography
Photography and videography were conducted during Year-4 monitoring to assess qualitative changes in
channel cross-sections and in-stream habitat. Monitoring pictures and videos of all stations have been
included on a digital video disc (DVD) in Appendix E.
2.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Success criteria for rare and protected species were met through the recruitment of the Federally
endangered Cape Fear shiner and five state-listed mussel species within the former Site Impoundment.
Fish surveys in 2007 documented the Cape Fear shiner at eight sampling sites throughout the Deep River,
with a total of 41 individuals collected. Furthermore, areas of favorable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner
were observed at many other locations. Mollusk surveys in 2008 documented several mussel species of
conservation interest associated with lotic condition, including five state-listed species: yellow
lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), creeper (Strophitus undulatus), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata),
eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis), and the notched rainbow (Villosa constricta). The presence of
notched rainbow is especially significant because this species is extremely rare throughout the Deep River
watershed. Four collected mussel species (triangle floater, yellow lampmussel, creeper and eastern
creekshell) were targeted rare species identified in the pre-removal report.
Fish surveys performed within McLendons Creek and Big Governors Creek during Year-4 monitoring did
not establish the presence of Cape Fear shiner within the tributaries to the Deep River. While no
individuals of Cape Fear shiner were collected outside the river mainstem, lotic habitat conditions and
riffle-adapted species continue to establish in both tributaries. While it is possible that the Cape Fear
shiner will use these new riffle habitats as they develop further, it is unclear how long that recruitment
process will take. Lotic habitats have been slower to form within these tributaries, possibly as a result of
persistent drought conditions in previous years, and the heavy accumulation of large woody debris (which
has contributed to low/slow flowing conditions).
2.4 RESERVE CRITERIA
2.4.1 Public Recreation
RS formally transferred Carbonton Park with an endowment to the Deep River Park Association during a
ceremony on November 22, 2008. The completed park consists of vehicle parking, picnicking sites, bank
fishing, and improved access to the river for kayakers and canoeists.
The amount of credit to be derived from the successful implementation of the park has not yet been
determined. Under exceptional circumstances, if all primary criteria are successfully met, these reserve
criteria should result in excess, unsold credits becoming available at the end of the monitoring period.
2.4.2 Scientific Research
The former Site Impoundment was subject to original research by Adam Riggsbee, PhD and Jason Julian,
PhD-alumni of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). RS provided UNC with
unrestricted funding to support basic research efforts. To date, Julian has published two papers related to
his dissertation, which investigated the environmental processes controlling benthic light availability and
EEP Project No. D-04012A 21 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
the resulting controls on primary and secondary productivity (Julian et. al. 2008a and 2008b). The
research may be beneficial in measuring the positive impacts to biological productivity that occurs from
lowering the water levels after dam removal to facilitate light penetration to the riverbed. Additional
research by Riggsbee investigated the role of sediment suspensions (resulting from dam removal and
bankfull discharges) on nutrient and organic matter availability within the water column (Riggsbee et al.
2007 and Riggsbee et al., 2008). Dr. Riggsbee has published three papers with an additional manuscript
in revision that originated during his dissertation research (Riggsbee et.al. 2007, Riggsbee et al., 2008 and
Doyle et al. 2008), while Dr. Julian has published two papers (Julian et.al. 2008a and Julian et al., 2008b)
pertaining to the restored reach of the Deep River. Drs. Riggsbee and Julian have also given numerous
oral presentations at professional conferences regarding their research.
The amount of credit to be derived from the support of this research by RS has not yet been determined.
Under exceptional circumstances, if all primary criteria are successfully met, these reserve criteria should
result in excess, unsold credits becoming available at the end of the monitoring period.
2.5 SUMMARY
After the fourth year of monitoring since the removal of Carbonton Dam, mitigation success criteria has
been met for all parameters, and successful restoration of lotic conditions has been demonstrated.
Functional improvements have been documented in water quality, fish and mollusk abundance, benthic
community, and sediment transport. Mitigation success has been demonstrated for the following criteria:
re-introduction of rare and endangered aquatic species, water quality improvement with respect to
dissolved oxygen concentrations and benthic biotic indices, improved aquatic community, scientific
research, and public recreation. The final year of monitoring in 2010 will aim to further document overall
restoration of lotic conditions with an emphasis on the mollusk community and the colonization of Cape
Fear shiner in tributaries of the Deep River. Continued monitoring will also further document the
convergence of benthic taxa to reference data, and improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat.
Table 15 summarizes the project success in meeting primary and reserve mitigation criteria.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 22 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Table 15. Mitigation Succ ess Criteria Sum
Criterion mary
Parameter
Anticipated
Chan e/Result
2009
Success
Primary success criteria: Presence/absence Re-colonization within the
Re-colonization of rare/protected former Site Impoundment Yes
of rare and individuals
protected Rare/protected
aquatic species species habitat Improvement/expansion Yes
Benthic biotic
indices Decrease (= improve) Yes
Improved water Increase within former
quality AMS dissolved Site Impoundment (must
oxygen data be > 4.0 mg/L or Yes
consistent with reference
station data)
Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Increase (i.e., converge

Improved Trichoptera taxa, with reference station
Yes
total number of data)
aquatic
i benthic taxa
commun
ty Fish, Mussel, and Demonstrated shifts in
Snail community communities from lentic Yes
data to lotic character
Reserve success criteria: Deep River
Downstream
benefits below bankfull channel
within formerly Narrowing/increased
Ongoing
dam eddie/scour pool stabilization of channel
areas below dam
Scientific value Published
research Successful completion Yes
Public Construction of
planned on-Site Successful completion Yes
recreation park
3.0 REFERENCES
Doyle M.W., Stanley E.H., Havlick D., Kaiser M.J., Steinbach G., Graf W., Galloway G. and Riggsbee,
J.A. 2008. Aging infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Science.
Julian, J.P., Doyle, M.W., and Stanley, E.H. 2008a. Empirical modeling of light availability in rivers.
Journal of Geophysical Research - Biogeosciences.
Julian, J.P., Doyle, M.W., Powers, S.M., Stanley, E.H., and Riggsbee, J.A. 2008b. Optical water quality
in rivers. Water Resources Research.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 23 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF). 2001 (unpublished). Interagency Memorandum of
Agreement for Dam Removal and Dam Removal Ranking System. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Dam Removal Task Force (DRTF). 2004 (unpublished). Determining Appropriate
Compensatory Mitigation Credit for Dam Removal Projects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006 (Final). N.C. Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
Restoration Systems. 2005. Restoration Plan to Provide Full Delivery Stream Restoration in the Cape
Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit 03030003. Technical Report Submitted to North Carolina
EcoSystem Enhancement Program, July 2005. 38pp.
Riggsbee JA, Julian JP, Doyle MW and Wetzel RG. 2007. Suspended sediment, dissolved organic
carbon, and dissolved nitrogen export during the dam removal process. Water Resources
Research.
Riggsbee J.A., Orr C.H., Leech D.M., Doyle M.W. and Wetzel R.G. 2008. Suspended sediments in river
ecosystems: photochemical sources of dissolved organic carbon and adsorptive removal of
dissolved iron. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences
Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions-American
Geophysical Union 35(6) 951-956.
EEP Project No. D-04012A 24 Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
EEP Project No. D-04012A Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Appendix A
i?
We,? I J

J-
6 ;.' q f ?r 12 Miles
o a
Hroni?
° ?, =ate V Site Impoundment
I O ? ,? D a
000
1 L, t I ? /
r,
.7 0 2?.8 Mile r
Site Location FIGURE Draw By. Date: 2006
Deep River- Carbonton Dam Chkd By: Project No:
Restoration Site APS
06-288.03
Lee, Chatham, and Moore SCALE:
Counties, North Carolina AS SHOWN
f
4
Greensboro
N Ra
Sta
V
4
{
Ra r Siie
Ache `
E
LPH 030 0003
Den
Carbonton Dam Imooundmen
i
'OQon
GoldiQn
r
"0 ui
Legend
r ., AOORE
8-Digit Hydrologic Unity Boundary
0 Site Impoundment Whisperin Pip
Major Rivers Ta e a • e
o River Basins an Fo Pi urst
9 Spr ng
River Subbasins
Countylines Aber 10 0 10 Miles
Major Cities Pinar
a
Hydrologic Units Drawn By: MTC
EcoScience FIGURE
Corporation Deep River-Carbonton Dam Chkd By: GRM
-' --- Restoration Site
Raleigh, North Carolina Date: SEP 2006 2
Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties,
IL North Carolina Project: 06-288
c

a
z-4<
E
co
U

U a
N

> °

C7 N
C
co
co

9
o
w U
aImi E +
c
o

f
+
a

°
m
)
U

(D
~
to p
?

y
D ?
N

o a?i
c
O
° o.

U) of
o
i
a
U (7 U ,
y
f liH

{? 2 O
gg 2 S3I
?? Rd 8 z w= o z
w
¢ o w Q
ZawO~? rrn
a ? _ 0a)
7 I I I I a ?? mw¢w
b ?' t f s °3? 2¢
v a U U $ a
a ?
_ o°o 08; o8w
IP. ? I,fj ?n?.g (III I m I ??II? ? IIIII??I
tlpom a " i? IIII III III IIII IIII 1 hYH
1 rv n
n
97 1 , I _.. ?I ICI IN
I
?T' IIII III
00
z° `III } i l? rv
10 01
. 1 .m
0 0
- - ?I?11 I III ?" IIII ' ( II I ?!
0
m !ID I
- , ? . .III m m
,? I III (il ('',_ I I
Ir III IIII 11; 1, fell I I
a ° ' Gi IIII°it4'Illil 11 l,. l'; a
x _ m o N
n - 'o u
3
z z
0 0 i i Lt'Il'?Vdi 1 ?? iIdl
F F F < Ill' <
` . . o F
u, 8g m II II N'' a
__ _ I III. ICI a IIII ill l
t '. e m II m
_ ? I ? III III ? IIII . IIII r
L,
_ 1 ? ° 1i I',_ ° 11h h Illtlll 1 ?I o
? 1 I
o I II; ???I o ° ° '' °
-Id
(-?i) o.io ai3 .? ?oiaa hi) So.?o ai3 am?oi.a C») o ?o?ai3 a. ?oiaa ° `('o?) o.m?ai3 aw ioiaa ° (») .ion>i3 .? rol.a o (ia) ? ? i3 .mi.d ? °
a ° S $
p o
H 8 ). ° 1
in?ikmlpi
n " " o
ill 1111111!!
Zj 1 'I,?I ?tl" 'IIII' t III I__ - _.
11 - ?a o 111 ? ?HNII?IIt o _ 'I III III C I l.4
o ° g
I?
a
" s m m m IIII lift IIII 1 Irv
o ?? I o
It m 2v m
e
?G IIII '?-. _..m II _ n m m I''?I!?I,I' (IIII I'I ? jll 11111111.:11°m
c uI, c n
i v N
^ "s I1,' ??. ? ^
Z
IIII I it 112? ITT
o
I V c u Z
c F F < I ° F F F I o.
u O
F O O O
rv Y o Q "? g < s o Z Q
o= 1 °o = 1 8 .= I 8 .= E o`
1
I
?
° o o -- - -- ? 11
III ?, IIII III ??
1 i m m
m m
m m
_.. m "r
Ill ? l I
o o -o o ?
r < a f o g
o ° V,I I
r T
1,1! 1 " h tI 1 l 1 1 o
1 ;LEI 11 j I I
o ° 1 I 11
1
°2
1. 11 10 1. TIT) -o yw.t3 .,, yoi.a (a) 1wa13 .,.iowa Pu) ?.Ia+a3mM.o.wn (vi) -113 -ID1.8 . ° TI;) m ai3 --taws ° to
(U a.9,13 -.i.l.a
z s
82 o. o c Op e
>� w
ail i i Grc GE3 g I zwwU~ zN
co V) z U) I I ¢o3w �o
c, C)cc
U
0
a o
:;I.- LI
g S� o; I
N .�
o � ew
..__ ....._. o N • N • N e N e N
0 O
- 0 O O 0
O - F - F
F - Q - < a Q - Q
V U1 N g N o N
------ i z g i g I�• I'
1 1J
S S
o r o a m
a s o o m m o
-
(il) �+oao�•13 M!lol�a Ca) �!la+o13 e�.!l•1•a
Z(a) 011-13 SA!iowa IT-11-13 •�!�•iea
OF o0
�Sn �S
01
8u
o o
a� a
c
�a �a
-- $ - -p
3 to
Zv Z6
14
H o Ul0
0.
0
S
o9eeo,mm 'o'
('ll) -014--13-14DI•a
(v)
8.1.121.11101.
!4- -13-^9.1-8 ('u)-!1--13 (IT) ngona0 -l•Wa (l)) ono a13 DA11018H (7%) uonwa03-1-1-8

z 70:
i Z a w O ;? ~U.,

8 S
n
A o
A o
t

3 +

o

° +

0 t

0
- o
F So o $o F Ss F - F -
F F
N O N

('11) uo
!]°aal3 w!)°NH g
('il) uo`
ilae13 w!]°iaH

S
('H) uo!laa!3 I.P. w! 8
(71) uS1wa13 -11- PH 8
('I!) u°!Iwe13 wllo PH 8
(3J) -El7wa13 w!I°PH
S

S S

INj
v
M
tj n
A r o
A -, n
A Y.
0 _ O _ Z Z
¢
F a <
~ o < s <
F - F - F -
U
I ° V
I ul Y
I
N N
N Yl
2 2 2 S S 2

- ('1l) '?° ii°^el3 w!i°NH ('?l) L,5 :4-13 v^!i°NH

('ll) uo!Iwa13 an!loPa
no 'A w.13 a!IaNH
('U) 101.1-!3 -II-RU O
(54) AW-13 -A-PH
8 8

S S

O

N
.,

O

N n

N o

N x

o
A

`i r
Z
o o - o S? o
F

N
_ F

to

`

N

F

to

a

`?

F

H

F

N

2 Z Z 2 2

(l/) ? !7°^al3 a`!1°PH ('iJ) uo lwel3 a^!1°NH

('lJ) uo!laal3 an!)oPH
('14) u o )ae13 w7°P8 ('4) u o4ae13 uo!1we13 e^17°P8
U
o w o
�Owcc
wO� z�
I I I I I mwaW Om
E r g Cc �¢
os.... osm$
S
h
Z
O n
F F c
o a c f o
YI
ac N 3€ $ sa
x
N 0.
O O N O b
$ v
n
(u)f°°,1w•!3 M!1°188 ('11 U04M213 "11012H()I) -11-.13 -A-PH°u
a`
F o
C'4 0.
N 8 P =)o N$ V<F1 o S q N om N a c
S 11L
0
v
W6
Zv
3:5
_ n.
A
go e
e
F F Z
N o o
o
x N m
O
Y
0 o c
If
/ L
O
o a -
9 -
s
m 0.
$ m o W
-
('u) -n°.•o ('u) u01Iw•13 •Ml°wa � (1A �°a°�•!3 �.!�°i•a q �
O _ Z
pp F o
O O N$ O O g T O Q$ N F
0p 0o �
F
N r
o
a $
('11)f°°n-•!3 -!1°wa (11)!u°11-•13 (-11)x--11--!3 •�n°!aa

APPENDIX B: BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA
EEP Project No. D-04012A Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Appendix B
SPECIES
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium sp.
Sphaerium sp.
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Hydrobiidae
Amnicola limosa
Pleuroceridae
Elimia sp.
Basommatophora
Ancylidae
Ferrissia rivularis
Physidae
Physella sp.
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Tubiricida
Enchytraeidae
Lumbricidae
Naididae
Nais sp.
Slavina appendiculata
Tubificidae w.h.c.
Branchiura sowerbyi
Tubificidae w.o.h.c.
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Hirudinea
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Batrachobdella sp.
Helobdella stagnalis
Helobdella triserialis
Placobdella papillifera
Placobdella sp.
Piscicolidae
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
7.2 1
1
*8 FC
6.5 FC 1
7.6 FC 1
*8 SC
5.2 SC
2.5 SC 1
SC
*6 SC 1
8.8 CG 1 1 1
*6 SC
6.2 SC 1
*10 CG
9.8 CG
SC 2 1 5 2 1 4
*8 CG 3
8.9 CG 1
7.1 CG 1
7.1 CG 4 1
8.3 CG 2
7.1 CG 7 1 5 1
9.5 CG 1
7 CG 3 4 16 4 1 1 2 1 1 7
P 3
P 1
P 1
P 1
8.6 P 4
9.2 P
9 P
9 P 1 1 1 3 1
SPECIES
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes
Lebertiidae
Lebertia sp.
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Isopoda
Asellidae
Caecidotea sp.
Amphipoda
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
Hyalellidae
Hyalella azteca
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus sp.
Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes sp.
Insecta
Collembola
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella sp.
Acerpenna pygmaea
Baetis intercalaris
Callibaetis sp.
Centroptilum sp.
Heterocloeon sp.
Plauditus sp.
Pseudocloeon sp.
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia sp.
Ephemerellidae
Attenella sp.
Danella sp.
Ephemerella sp.
Ephemerella needhami
Eurylophella sp.
Serratella sp.
Timpanoga sp.
Heptageniidae
Heptagenia sp.
Leucrocuta sp.
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp.
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
5.5
5.5
5.5
1
1
SH
9.1 CG 67 15 5
CG
7.9 CG 8 20 7 5
7.8 CG 2 13
7.5
7.6 CG 1 2
7.1 CG 6
CG
2
1 1
1
1
1
2
3
4 1
3.9 3 1 2
7 CG 12 28 10 2 18 7 7 10
9.8 CG
6.6 CG 1
3.5 SC 2 3
CG 1 1 3 3 1 15 3
4 CG 2 16 5 3 3
CG
7.4 CG 3 2 1 1
CG
4.9 CG 1
SC
1 1 2
2 17 1
2 SC 5 2
0 CG 7 1 2 2
4.3 SC 4 3 3 1 2 1
SC 3 2 3 1 3
CG 4
SC
2.6 SC 1
2.4 SC 25 1 4 2 28 4 3 11
SC 223 33 113 61 73 111 68 160 88
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) 3.8 SC 3 7 4 3 3 5 2
Stenacron sp. SC 1
Stenacron pallidum 2.7 1
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 SC 25 48 21 45 35
Stenonema femoratum 7.2 SC 1
Isonychiidae FC
Isonychia sp. 3.5 FC 20 2 7 1 2 1 1 3 3
Leptophlebiidae CG 1
Leptophlebia sp. 6.2 CG 12 1
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.9 CG 1 1 9 1
Potamanthidae CG
Anthopotamus (Potamanthus) 1.5 4 2 1 4 4 4 4
Siphlonuridae
Siphlonurus sp. 5.8 CG 19 1
Odonata
Aeshnidae P 1
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P 1 1 3
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P
Hetaerina americana 1
Hetaerina sp. 5.6 P
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P 7 10 2 1 4 2 2 7 8
Enallagma sp. 8.9 P 9 2 1 2 1
Gomphidae P 1
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 P 1 1 1 3
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 P
Erpetogomphus designatus 1 2 1 12
Erpetogomphus sp. 1
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 3 14 2 1 4 5 18
Hagenius brevistylus 4 P 1 2 1
Libellulidae P
Didymops transversa 2.4 P
Libellula sp. 9.6 P 2
Macromiinae
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 P 2 5 1 1 4
Macromia sp. 6.2 P 2 1 1 8 2
Neurocordulia cf. molesta 1.8 P 1
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 4 3 2 23 19 8
Neurocordulia sp. 5 4
Somatochlora sp. 9.2 P
Tetragoneruia sp. 8.6 5
Plecoptera
Leuctridae SH
Leuctra sp. 2.5 SH 1
Nemouridae SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.3 SH 10 1 3 2
Perlidae p 2 1 5 5 4 1
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 P
Acroneuria sp. P 4 14 1 1 2
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
Agnetina sp. 0 P 1
Neoperla sp. 1.5 P 3 3 3 4 7 4 1 1
Paragnetina sp. 1.5 P 1
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 26 14 9 6
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 P 25 24 46 48 25 9 20 58 18
Perlodidae P
Clioperla clio 4.7 P
Isoperla sp. P 7 3 4 3 2
Taeniopterygidae SH
Taeniopteryx sp. 5.4 SH 1 1 1 1
Hemiptera
Corixidae 9 PI 1 12 2 3
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp. 9.8 1 1
Gerridae P 1
Aquarius sp. P 1
Nepidae -
Ranatra sp. 7.8 P 2 1
Pleidae
Neoplea sp. 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes sp. P
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 P 1 1 1 2 6
Sialidae P
Sialis sp. 7.2 P 1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 FC 13 1 9 13 13 28 7 20 45
Hydropsyche venularis 5 FC
Hydropsyche sp. FC 28 35 11 6 6 19 22 57
Hydroptilidae PI
Hydroptila sp. 6.2 PI 1
Lepidostomatidae SH
Lepidostoma sp. 0.9 FC 2 2 4 1 15
Leptoceridae CG 1 1 1 26
Ceraclea sp. 2 CG 2
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 SH 1 4 9
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 SH 13 1 3 16
Oecetis avara 4.7 P
Oecetis sp. 4.7 P 1
Triaenodes ignitus 4.6 1 1 1 1 3
Triaenodes sp. 4.5 SH 1
Limnephilidae
Ironoquia sp. -
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.8 FC
Chimarra obscurus 2.8 FC 2 2 5 5 12 14 5
Chimarra sp. 2.8 FC
Polycentropodidae FC
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
Neureclipsis sp. 4.2 FC 1
Polycentropus sp. 3.5 FC 1 2 1
Rhyacophilidae P
Rhyacophila fenestrata/ledra p
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC
Coleoptera
Carabidae 1
Dytiscidae p 2 1 1
Copelatus sp. 10 1
Neoporus sp. 8.6 71 3 5
Dryopidae
Helichus sp. 4.6 SC
Elmidae CG
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 SC 1 3 3
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 SC 1
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 SC 1 2 1 1
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 SH 2 3 8 2 20 4 5 39 12
Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 SC 2
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 70 1 33 11 37 43 7 15 46
Gyrinidae P
Dineutus sp. 5.5 P 1
Gyrinus sp. 6.2 P 2
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 SH 5 2 1
Peltodytes duocecimpunctatus 2 2 1
Hydrophilidae p 1 1
Berosus sp. 8.4 CG 4 1 2 4
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 CG 2
Tropisternus sp. 9.7 P 1 1
Psephenidae SC
Ectopria sp. SC 1
Psephenus herricki 2.4 SC 1 1 15 3 7 1 1 1
Scirtidae 2 2
Scirtes sp. 1
Staphylinidae p 1 1 1
Diptera
Blephariceridae SC
Blepharicera sp. 2 SC 1
Ceratopogonidae p 27 1
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 P 3 1
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 P 6 6 2 11 1 5
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 7.2 P
Cardiocladius obscurus 5.9 P
Chironomus sp. 9.6 CG 1 61
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 CG 1
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 FC 1
Clinotanypus sp. P 1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 1 3 3 1 2 1 4 3
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG 1 1 11 5 2 1 1 13
Cricotopus sp. CG 10 9 1 15 41 10 18
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 CG 1 1 1 17 7 1 8 6 13 1
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P 1 1 2 1
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 8.1 CG
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 5 11
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 CG 1 2
Eukiefferiella claripennis gp. 5.6 CG 5 3 7 3
Glyptotendipes sp. 9.5 FC 1
Kiefferulus sp. 8
Kiefferulus dux 3
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 P 1
Lopescladius sp. 1
Orthocladius sp. CG 2 7 1 4 19 13 1
Orthocladius (Euorthocladius)sp. 1 3 1 1
Nanocladius distinctus 7.1 CG 1 1
Nilotanypus sp. 3.9 P 1
Nilothauma sp. 5 CG 1 1
Paracladopelma sp. 5.5 CG 1
Parakiefferiella sp. 5.4 CG 3 5 4 3 25 15 33 3 2 7 1
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 CG
Paratanytarsus sp. 8.5 CG 2
Paratendipes sp. 5.1 CG 1 1 1
Pentaneura sp. 4.7 CG 3
Phaenopsectra punctipes gp. 2
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 SH 7
Polypedilum flavum (convictum) 4.9 SH 25 1 9 4 1 7 46 15 17
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 12 1 11 30 3 4 21 23
Polypedilum scalaenum 8.4 1 5 2 15 3
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 1 1 7
Psectrocladius sp. 3.6 SH 13
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 CG 1 1
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 CG 5 1 1 1
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9 7 1 3 17 10 4 7 11 10 3
Robackia demeijerei 3.7 CG 2
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 SH 1 1
Stictochironomus devinctus CG 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 4 5 8 1 24 3 3 3 10
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 CG 4 21 13 12 10 13 1
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 2 52 1 3
Tvetenia paucunca 3.7 CG
Tvetenia vitracies 3.6 CG 1 4 1 1
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 P 1 1
Culicidae FC 1
Empididae 7.6 P
Hemerodromia sp. P 1
Simuliidae FC
Prosimulium sp. 6 FC 1
Simulium sp. 6 FC 36 1 2 8 14 2 6 2
Tabanidae PI
SPECIES
Chrysops sp.
Tipulidae
Antocha sp.
Limnophila sp.
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
EPT TAXA
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED
FORMERLY IMPOUNDED STATIONS
T.V. F.F.G. 1 40 42 47 51 55 56 57 58 59 60 62
6.7 PI 1
SH
4.3 CG
P
7.3 SH 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
710 261 152 262 191 554 355 326 449 372 616 548
78 32 38 44 29 77 51 52 43 52 55 67
30 5 7 13 2 28 20 24 20 20 22 25
5.47 7.60 6.78 6.37 7.21 5.79 5.21 5.325.194.97 5.92 5.41
SPECIES
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium sp.
Sphaerium sp.
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Hydrobiidae
Amnicola limosa
Pleuroceridae
Elimia sp.
Basommatophora
Ancylidae
Ferrissia rivularis
Physidae
Physella sp.
Planorbidae
Helisoma anceps
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
Lumbricidae
Naididae
Nais sp.
Slavina appendiculata
Tubificidae w.h.c.
Branchiura sowerbyi
Tubificidae w.o.h.c.
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Hirudinea
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Batrachobdella sp.
Helobdella stagnalis
Helobdella triserialis
Placobdella papillifera
Placobdella sp.
Piscicolidae
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes
Lebertiidae
Lebertia sp.
REFERENCE STATIONS
T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
7.2
*8 FC
6.5 FC
7.6 FC
*8 SC
5.2 SC 1
2.5 SC 1
SC
*6 SC 1
8.8 CG
*6 SC
6.2 SC
*10 CG
9.8 CG 1
SC 13 14 1
*8 CG
8.9 CG
7.1 CG
7.1 CG 1
8.3 CG
7.1 CG 2
9.5 CG
7 CG 1 14
P
P
P
P
8.6 P
9.2 P
9 P
9 P
5.5
5.5
5.5 4
4
2
4
3
1
2
2 3
1
1
1
3 1 1
1
REFERENCE STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 3 5 1 5 3 15
Amphipoda CG 1
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 CG 4 3 44 2 3
Hyalellidae
Hyalella azteca 7.8 CG 4 3 7
Decapoda
Cambaridae 7.5 1
Cambarus sp. 7.6 CG 1
Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes sp. 7.1 CG 2 3 5 2
Insecta
Collembola 1
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG 1
Acentrella sp. 4
Acerpenna pygmaea 3.9 3 2 3 1 1
Baetis intercalaris 7 CG 10 2 1 1
Callibaetis sp. 9.8 CG 2
Centroptilum sp. 6.6 CG
Heterocloeon sp. 3.5 SC
Plauditus sp. CG 5 3 6 9
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 CG 1
Caenidae CG
Caenis sp. 7.4 CG 1 2 22 1 1
Ephemeridae CG
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG
Ephemerellidae SC
Attenella sp. 4 1 1
Danella sp. 2
Ephemerella sp. 2 SC 5 3 2 6
Ephemerella needhami 0 CG 7 6 2 4 9
Eurylophella sp. 4.3 SC 1 1 9 1
Serratella sp. SC 6 1
Timpanoga sp. CG 3 4 1 1
Heptageniidae SC 1
Heptagenia sp. 2.6 SC 1 2 2
Leucrocuta sp. 2.4 SC 21 8 6 3 3 1
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. SC 65 162 147 129 25 8 133 52
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) 3.8 SC 3 1 1 1
Stenacron sp. SC
Stenacron pallidum 2.7
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 SC 7 5 7 1
Stenonema femoratum 7.2 SC 1
Isonychiidae FC 1
Isonychia sp. 3.5 FC 6 2 7 7
Leptophlebiidae CG
REFERENCE STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.9 CG 1 4 1 7
Potamanthidae CG
Anthopotamus (Potamanthus) sp. 1.5 4 1 3 3 3
Siphlonuridae
Siphlonurus sp. 5.8 CG 1
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P 1 1
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P 1
Hetaerina americana
Hetaerina sp. 5.6 P 2 1
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P 5 2 9 1 6
Enallagma sp. 8.9 P 1 1
Gomphidae p 8 1
Dromogomphus spinosus 5.1 P 1
Dromogomphus sp. 5.9 P 1
Erpetogomphus designatus
Erpetogomphus sp. 1
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 1 4 3 2
Hagenius brevistylus 4 P 3 3
Libellulidae P
Didymops transversa 2.4 P 1
Libellula sp. 9.6 P 3
Macromiinae
Epicordulia princeps 5.6 P 3 2
Macromia sp. 6.2 P 1 2
Neurocordulia cf molesta 1.8 P
Neurocordulia obsoleta 5.2 9 8 11 17 2
Neurocordulia sp. 5
Somatochlora sp. 9.2 P 1 1
Tetragoneruia sp. 8.6
Plecoptera
Leuctridae SH
Leuctra sp. 2.5 SH 1
Nemouridae SH
Amphinemura sp. 3.3 SH 3 7 5 25 24 14 1
Perlidae p 2 1
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 P 1
Acroneuria sp. P 2 1 2
Agnetina sp. 0 P 2
Neoperla sp. 1.5 P 18 2 2
Paragnetina sp. 1.5 P
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 30 13
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 P 30 8 39 10 13 3 37
Perlodidae P 1
Clioperla Clio 4.7 P 1
Isoperla sp. P 4 1 7 4 53 121 25 5
Taeniopterygidae SH
Taeniopteryx sp. 5.4 SH 1 1
Hemiptera
Corixidae 9 PI
REFERENCE STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp. 9.8
Gerridae p
Aquarius sp. p
Nepidae _
Ranatra sp. 7.8 P 5
Pleidae 1
Neoplea sp.
Megaloptera
Corydalidae p
Chauliodes sp. P 1
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 p 1 1
Sialidae p
Sialis sp. 7.2 P
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC 1
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 FC 45 8 3 3 1 1 6 2
Hydropsyche venularis 5 FC 73
Hydropsyche sp. FC 42 12 4 31 1
Hydroptilidae PI
Hydroptila sp. 6.2 PI 1
Lepidostomatidae SH
Lepidostoma sp. 0.9 FC 8 9 1
Leptoceridae CG
Ceraclea sp. 2 CG
Nectopsyche sp. 2.9 SH 2 2
Nectopsyche exquisita 4.1 SH
Oecetis avara 4.7 p 1
Oecetis sp. 4.7 P
Triaenodes ignitus 4.6 1 1 1 1
Triaenodes sp. 4.5 SH
Limnephilidae
Ironoquia sp. - 2
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.8 FC
Chimarra obscurus 2.8 FC 54 3 2 6
Chimarra sp. 2.8 FC
Polycentropodidae FC
Neureclipsis sp. 4.2 FC 1 1
Polycentropus sp. 3.5 FC 1 1
Rhyacophilidae P
Rhyacophila fenestrata/ledra p 1
Uenoidae
Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC 1
Coleoptera
Carabidae
Dytiscidae p 1
Copelatus sp. 10
Neoporus sp. 8.6 2 2 1
Dryopidae
Helichus sp. 4.6 SC 1 1
Elmidae CG
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 SC 1
REFERENCE STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 SC
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 SC 2 2
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 SH 1 1 1 5
Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 SC 1 1
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 30 13 4 2 8
Gyrinidae P
Dineutus sp. 5.5 P
Gyrinus sp. 6.2 P
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 SH 4 3
Peltodytes duocecimpunctatus 6 1 1 1
Hydrophilidae P
Berosus sp. 8.4 CG 2 1
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 CG
Tropisternus sp. 9.7 P
Psephenidae SC
Ectopria sp. SC 5
Psephenus herricki 2.4 SC 12 2
Scirtidae
Scirtes sp. 1
Staphylinidae P 1
Diptera
Blephariceridae SC
Blepharicera sp. 2 SC
Ceratopogonidae P 1
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.9 P 2 2 1
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.2 P 1 8 4 15
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 7.2 P 1
Cardiocladius obscurus 5.9 P 4
Chironomus sp. 9.6 CG 2
Cladopelma sp. 3.5 CG
Cladotanytarsus sp. 4.1 FC 1 1 1
Clinotanypus sp. P
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 1 1 2 5 8
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG 2 1 2 1 1 1
Cricotopus sp. CG 3 2 1 2 3 2 1
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 CG 2 1 2
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P 1 1
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 8.1 CG 3
Dicrotendipes simpsoni 10 27
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 CG 1
Eukiefferiella claripennis gp. 5.6 CG 3 10 4
Glyptotendipes sp. 9.5 FC
Kiefferulus sp. 8
Kiefferulus dux 1
Labrundinia sp. 5.9 P
Lopescladius sp. 1
Orthocladius sp. CG 5 36 12 2
Orthocladius (Euorthocladius)sp.
Nanocladius distinctus 7.1 CG 1 4
Nilotanypus sp. 3.9 P 1 2
Nilothauma sp. 5 CG
REFERENCE STATIONS
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. 12 14 18 19 39 45 52 53
Paracladopelma sp. 5.5 CG 1 1
Parakiefferiella sp. 5.4 CG 2 2 5 2 3
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 CG 1 1
Paratanytarsus sp. 8.5 CG
Paratendipes sp. 5.1 CG 2 22
Pentaneura sp. 4.7 CG 1 1 3
Phaenopsectra punctipes gp.
Polypedilum fallax 6.4 SH 2
Polypedilum flavum (convictum) 4.9 SH 17 3 11 1 1 8 5
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 3 4 1 1
Polypedilum scalaenum 8.4 5 1
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 2
Psectrocladius sp. 3.6 SH 5
Pseudochironomus sp. 5.4 CG
Rheocricotopus robacki 7.3 CG
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9 6 2 3 2 1
Robackia demeijerei 3.7 CG
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 SH 1 1
Stictochironomus devinctus CG
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 2 1 3 15 2
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 CG 1 4 1 15
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 44 3 3
Tvetenia paucunca 3.7 CG 1
Tvetenia vitracies 3.6 CG 1 1
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 P 1
Culicidae FC
Empididae 7.6 P
Hemerodromia sp. P
Simuliidae FC
Prosimulium sp. 6 FC
Simulium sp. 6 FC 22 15 10 12 8 5
Tabanidae PI
Chrysops sp. 6.7 PI 1
Tipulidae SH
Antocha sp. 4.3 CG 4
Limnophila sp. P 1
Tipula sp. 7.3 SH 2 1 4 2 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 592 501 460 338 609 469 658 465
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 64 73 63 48 55 39 52 51
EPT TAXA 25 27 25 22 16 12 26 17
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED 4.54 5.71 5.50 4.95 6.47 6.01 4.52 6.02
APPENDIX C: CARBONTON DAM REMOVAL YEAR-4 FISH MONITORING REPORT
PROVIDED BY THE CATENA GROUP
EEP Project No. D-04012A Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Appendix C
CARBONTON DAM REMOVAL YEAR-4 MONITORING
REPORT: Tributary Fish Surveys
Deep River Watershed Restoration Site Cape Fear River
Basin Cataloging Unit 030300003
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Prepared by:
The
Catena
Group
The Catena Group, Inc.
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
July 23, 2009
The Catena Group i July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2
L I Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................... 2
2.0 SURVEY EFFORTS ................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Survey Methodology ................................................................................................. 3
2. L.1 Habitat Reconnaissance ..................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Fish Sampling .................................................................................................... 4
3.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1 5 Site I (McLendon Creek-Impoundment): ....................................................... 6
3.2.16 Site 2 (Big Governors Creek-Impoundment): .................................................. 7
4.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 8
4.1 Habitat Reconnaissance .......................................................................................... 8
4.2 Fish Surveys ............................................................................................................. 8
4.3 Future Fish Survey Monitoring ............................................................................ 10
The Catena Group 1 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The removal of the Carbonton dam on the Deep River by Restoration Systems LLC (RS)
is projected to result in the restoration of -10 river miles (RM) of the mainstem Deep
River, as well as portions of three major tributaries (McLendons Creek, Big Governors
Creek and Little Governors Creeks) and fifteen smaller tributaries, all within the Cape
Fear River Basin. Specific goals of the project are to restore habitat for the federally
Endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), several species of rare mussels,
and other riverine aquatic species. Restoration of lotic conditions in this stretch of river
has resulted in a re-connection the upstream and downstream populations of Cape Fear
shiner, which have been essentially isolated' since the dam was constructed in the early
1900's, as this species was documented within the former impounded reach during the
Year-2 and Year-3 post removal monitoring (TCG 2007, TCG 2008).
The restoration success criteria established by the interagency Dam Removal Task Force
(DRTF) and the goals of RS require documenting the diversity of aquatic fauna and
characterizing habitat within the reservoir pool created by the dam, and then monitoring
changes in faunal composition and habitat following the dam's removal. The Catena
Group Inc. (TCG) was retained by RS in 2005 to conduct the pre-dam removal aquatic
species surveys. Eighteen sites were surveyed for freshwater mussels and clams, aquatic
snails, and freshwater fish, the results of which were provided in the August 07, 2006
Pre-removal Survey Report (TCG 2006). The success criteria for the Cape Fear Shiner
within the main stem Deep River were met during the 2-year post removal studies, and
documented in the October 01, 2007 Carbonton Dam Removal Year-2 Monitoring Report
(TCG 2007). The Year-3 monitoring effort documented post-removal recruitment of
juvenile freshwater mussels (TCG 2008) in the upper sections of the river previously
impounded by the dam. The continued evolution of lentic to lotic habitats throughout the
entire former reservoir pool was also documented (TCG 2008).
In Year-4, surveys targeting fish species, particularly shiner species, were conducted at
each of the established impoundment monitoring stations on McLendons and Big
Governors Creeks. General observations of in-stream habitat condition were recorded in
addition to fish collection.
1.1 Monitoring Plan
The five-year monitoring plan that has been initiated to evaluate the success of the dam
removal identified a number of success criteria, including the documentation of Cape
Fear shiner recruitment into the formerly impounded reach of the river, and establishment
of lotic fish, freshwater mussel and aquatic snail communities throughout the entire
former reservoir pool (mainstem and tributaries). This monitoring plan involves
' In the strictest sense, the isolation has been substantial, but not total, since fish from upstream
groups can transit over the dam during full flows. This would theoretically enable some genetic
exchanee between upstream and downstream erouns.
The Catena Group 2 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
conducting aquatic species (fish, freshwater mussels and aquatic snails) surveys at 16
permanent monitoring stations within the former reservoir pool that were established in
the pre-removal surveys. Fourteen stations are in the Deep River and one each in
McClendons Creek and Big Governors Creek. Targeted Aquatic Communities (TAC)
were established for each of the monitoring stations by sampling sections of each water
body outside of the effects of the impoundment (TCG 2006).
As mentioned above, the success criteria of Cape Fear shiner recruitment in the formerly
impounded section of the Deep River has been met (TCG 2007). The other success
criteria, establishment of lotic fish, freshwater mussel and aquatic snail communities,
throughout the entire former reservoir pool, has been met in portions of the former
reservoir pool: 1) lotic fish communities in the Deep River (TCG 2007), lotic freshwater
mussel and snail communities in the upper section of the Deep River (TCG 2008).
In Year-4, the impetus for monitoring was to continue to document the development of
fish diversity, with special attention to the potential presence of Cape Fear Shiner, in the
two major tributaries, McLendons Creek, and Big Governors Creek.
2.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Freshwater fish surveys were conducted for the Year-4 monitoring effort at the two
tributary monitoring locations (Table 1) on May 28, 2009,by the following TCG
personnel: Tim Savidge, Tom Dickinson and Chris Sheats. The locations of the sampled
sites are also depicted in Figure 1.
Table 1. Permanent Monitoring Survey Locations-Carbonton Dam Reservoir Pool
Site # Site Location GPS Location
1 McLendons Creek (impoundment) 35.45894°N, -79.39803°W
2 Big Governors Creek (impoundment) 35.474340N, -79.3564°W
2.1 Survey Methodology
The surveys had two components, habitat reconnaissance and fish sampling.
2. 1.1 Habitat Reconnaissance
Habitat reconnaissance was conducted in each tributary site in Year-4 by recording
observations of in-stream habitat conditions and bank stability. Fish surveys targeting
Cape Fear shiner were also conducted at the tributary monitoring stations, as navigated to
with GPS. In addition, areas where riffles have formed, or are in the process of forming,
were sampled.
The Catena Group 3 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
2.1.2 Fish Sampling
In McClendons Creek and Big Governors Creek, electro-shocking in conjunction with
dip netting was used as the primary sampling method. The large amount of heavy woody
debris in both streams precluded the effectiveness of seine netting for the target species
(shiners). For each survey, the survey team began at the downstream point of the site
and proceeded upstream. Two double handled backpack electro-shocking units were
employed followed by a dip netter to collect the fish. The sampling was performed in the
middle of the channel and close to each bank in order to survey the entire habitat. This
method was effective in riffle and run habitats of shallow to moderate depths as well as
shallow pools, but was fairly ineffective in deeper pools.
The Catena Group 4 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
The Site Map
Catena Four-Year Fish Monitoring
Group (Carbonton Dam Removal Project)
;- = w d I o95 Cmir-.- North CairJrin
Ditto. Figure
June 2009
sceka:
0 015 0.5 Miles
L----J -
Job No.,
3254
3.0 RESULTS
3.2 Fish Surveys
A total of 19 fish species were collected at the two surveyed sites (Figure 1). Relative
abundance was estimated using the following criteria:
• Very abundant: > 30 collected at survey station
• Abundant: 15-30 collected at survey station
• Common: 6-15 collected at survey station
• Uncommon: 3-5 collected at survey station
• Rare: 1-2 collected at survey station
It should be noted that relative abundances of particular species can be affected by survey
methodologies and site conditions. Thus some species, particularly those that are found
in deeper pools and runs and those that can seek cover quickly, may be under-represented
at a sample site. Survey results for each site are further described below.
3.2.15 Site 1 (McLendons Creek-Impoundment):
It appears that natural riffle/run/pool sequences with coarse sand and pea gravel over clay
substrate continue to develop. Much of the fine sediments appear to have been flushed
from the site; however a large amount of woody debris still remains in the channel and
mud/silt areas persist in deeper pools. Electro-shocking was conducted for 2,076
seconds. The targeted aquatic community anticipated to develop is expected to be similar
to the TAC-3 which occurs in the upstream reaches of McLendons Creek (TCG 2006).
A total of 16 species (Table 2) were found at this site in Year-4 compared with the 25
species found in Year-2, seven collected during Year-1 and the nine found at the target
site (TAC-3). Many of the species documented during Year-2, but not Year-4 prefer
habitats that are not typical of the shiner habitats that were the focus of the Year-4 effort
and likely still occupy the reach. The Year-4 efforts were also conducted during higher
spring flows in order to capture shiner species during their typical spawning period, as
opposed to the low clear flows during the Year-2 collection period. Two more shiner
species (whitemouth shiner and spottail shiner) were captured in the Year-4 and a
significantly greater abundance of Piedmont darter and tessellated darter were captured,
both indicative of improved lotic habitat. Eight of the species located in Year-4 are
shared with the TAC-3 site.
Table 2. McLendons Creek: Fish Suecies Collected Year 4
Scientific Name Common Name Relative Abundance
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch Rare
Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker Rare
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter Very Abundant
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish Common
Hybognathus regius eastern silvery minnow Uncommon
The Catena Group 6 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
Scientific Name Common Name Relative Abundance
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Very Abundant
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Uncommon
Luxilus albeolus white shiner Rare
Macropterus salmoides largemouth bass Rare
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Common
Notropis alboous whitemouth shiner Rare
Notropis altipinnis highfin shiner Rare
Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner Rare
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner Uncommon
Notropis scepticus sandbar shiner Uncommon
Percina crassa Piedmont darter Very Abundant
3.2.16 Site 2 (Big Governors Creek-Impoundment):
This site continues to exhibit limited development of riffle/run/pool habitats. Below the
boulder fall, downstream from the Underwood Road crossing, there is a deep, mud/silt
substrate entrenched channel that appears to continue far downstream. However, a new
riffle/run area appears to be developing upstream of the road crossing. Woody debris and
fine sediments are still common through the reach but are anticipated to continue to
washout over time. The aquatic community anticipated to develop is expected to be
similar to the TAC-4, which occurs in the upstream reaches of Big Governors Creek.
Electro-shocking was conducted through the site for 869 seconds of shock time.
A total of 12 species were found at this site (Table 3) in Year-4 compared with the 15
species found in Year-2 and six collected during Year-1 and the six found at the target
site (TAC-4). Again, some of the species documented during Year-2, but not Year-4,
may be the result of sampling biases; time of year and water levels. Specifically, fish
collected during Year-2 surveys were concentrated in pools, the only section of the
channel that retained water at that time. However, the increased number of native shiner
species, in Year-4 (3) compared to Year-2 (1), along with a greater abundance of
tessellated darter and the addition of Piedmont darter may be indicative of improving
lotic habitat. Three of the species located in Year-4 are shared with the TAC-4 site.
Table 3. Big Governors Creek: Fish Species Collected Year 4
Scientific Name Common Name Relative Abundance
Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch Uncommon
Cyprinella analostana satinfin shiner Common
Centrarchus macropterus flier Rare
Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter Common
Gambusia holbrookii eastern mosquitofish Abundant
Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish Abundant
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill Uncommon
Luxilus albeolus white shiner Rare
Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner Common
Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub Rare
Notropis petersoni coastal shiner Common
Percina crassa Piedmont darter Rare
The Catena Group 7 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
4.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Semi-quantitative surveys for various freshwater fish were conducted at the two major
tributary locations formerly impounded by Carbonton dam to document establishment of
lotic habitats and associated fish communities.
4.1 Habitat Reconnaissance
The Year-4 lotic habitats are more developed than during Year-2 Monitoring within
McLendons Creek and to a lesser degree in Big Governors Creek. However, these
tributary reaches are developing more slowly than anticipated. This may be related a
variety of factors such as persistent drought conditions in previous years, and the heavy
accumulations of large woody debris, which has caused sluggish conditions in the
majority of both channels that will likely continue to persist for years until they naturally
decompose, or are carried out during flood conditions.
4.2 Fish Surveys
The results of the habitat reconnaissance and Year-4 monitoring fish surveys demonstrate
further re-establishment of lotic conditions and many lotic-adapted species within the
former reservoir pool. This is exemplary in Year-4 through the increase in abundance
(and diversity in the case of Big Governors Creek) of darter species at both sites. As
riffle habitats and habitat complexity continue to develop, the Cape Fear shiner may use
McLendons and Big Governors Creeks. However, utilization of tributaries by the Cape
Fear shiner remains poorly understood. While it is possible that the species will use these
habitats as they develop further, current conditions may remain unsuitable for their use
for some time. Of the two tributaries surveyed during this effort, McLendons Creek
appears to have more potential than Big Governors Creek to support this species.
However, as discussed above, severe drought conditions in previous years and heavy
woody debris presence may be limiting their use.
Tables 4 and 5 are included below to show the species collected at each site over the
various monitoring years. While total numbers of species have fluctuated from Year-2 to
Year-4, there has been a steady increase in the number of lotic adapted species into Year-
4.
The Catena Group 8 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
Table 4. MCLendons Creek' Mnnitnrino Vear Cmmnarienn
TAC YEAR-1 YEAR-2 YEAR-4
Scientific Name
Etheostoma olmstedi H bo nathus re ius Ameiurus brunneus A hredoderus s anus
Le omis macrochirus Le omis macrochirus Ameiurus natalis Erim zon oblon s
Luxilus albeolus Luxilus albeolus Ameiurus la ce halus Etheostoma olmstedi
Nocomis le tote halus Nocomis le tote halus Anguilla rostrata Gambusia holbrookii
Notro is alborus Notro is hudsonius A hredoderus sa anus H bo nathus re ius
Notro is alti Innis Notro is etersoni Erim zon oblon s Le omis auritus
Notro is hudsonius Notro is sce ticus Esox americanus Le omis macrochirus
Norm is rocne Etheostoma olmstedi Luxilus albeolus
Percina crassa Fundulus rathbuni Micro terus salmoides
Gambusia holbrookii Nocomis le tote halus
ktalurus unctatus Notro is alborus
Le omis auritus Notro is alti Innis
Le omis c anellus Notro is hudsonius
Le omis losus Notro is etersoni
Le omis macrochirus Notro is sce ticus
Le isosteus osseus Percina crassa
Luxilus albeolus
Min trema melano s
Moxostoma a illosum
Nocomis le tote halus
Notro is alti innis
Notro is etersoni
Notro is sce ticus
Percina crassa
Semotilus lumbee
Table 5. Bie Governors Creek: Monitoring Vear Comnarison
TAC YEAR-1 YEAR-2 YEAR-4
Scientific Name
Esox americanus Le omis macrochirus A hredoderus sa anus A hredoderus sa anus
Etheostoma olmstedi Luxilus albeolus Erim zon oblon s C rinella analostana
Etheostoma serri erum Micro terus salmoides Esox americanus Centrarchus macro terus
Le omis macrochirus Nocomis le tote halus Etheostoma olmstedi Etheostoma olmstedi
Micro terus salmoides Notro is etersoni Gambusia holbrookii Gambusia holbrookii
Nocomis le tote halus Notro is sce ticus H bo nathus re ius Le omis auritus
Le omis auritus Le omis macrochirus
Le omis c anellus Luxilus albeolus
Le omis macrochirus Notemi onus c soleucas
Micro terus salmoides Nocomis le tote halus
Moxostoma s p. Notro is etersoni
Notemi onus c soleucas Percina crassa
Nocomis le tote halus
Notro is alti innis
Semotilus lumbee

The Catena Group 9 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
4.3 Future Fish Survey Monitoring
The results of the Year-4 monitoring fish survey demonstrate that the fish
communities in McLendons and Big Governors Creeks continue to develop as lotic
habitat improves. However, Year-4 fish surveys did not establish the presence or
use of these reaches by the Cape Fear Shiner.
While lotic habitat conditions and riffle-adapted species continue to become established
in McClendons Creek, the success criteria for improved aquatic habitat and colonization
by the Cape Fear shiner have not been fully met at this point. Future monitoring efforts
in this stream should take place during spring flows when shiner species are moving to
new territory. This will allow for the best potential to capture Cape Fear shiner in this
stream.
As discussed above, significant riffle habitats have not yet developed in Big Governors
Creek, and colonization by the Cape Fear shiner is questionable. Therefore, restoration
success criteria for this stream should not be based on presence of riffle-adapted species.
An increase in species diversity overtime is thus a better measure of success with this
stream. As with McClendons Creek, any future monitoring of Big Governors Creek
should take place during spring flows.
The Catena Group 10 July 2009
Carbonton Fish Surveys Year 4 TCG Job #3254
APPENDIX D: NCDWQ HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET
EEP Project No. D-04012A Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Appendix D
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ ff7OTALSCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream
Date
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) pS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest ?Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
? Channelized Ditch
?Deeply incised-steep, straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ? Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Bemn/levee
Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal ?Low
Turbidity: ?Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ? YES ?NO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ?
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Weather Conditions: Photos: ?N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
Location/road: (Road Name )County
CC# Basin Subbasin
39
I. Channel Modification Score
A: channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant.
-Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal

III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ? Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
Page Total
40
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent. .................................................................................................................. 0
Channel Slope: ?Typical for area ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading ............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lfl. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field ?Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... 5 5
2. width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Total_
Page Total
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:

90°
P
I
45°

135°
This side is 45° bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
42
APPENDIX E: MONITORING PICTURES AND VIDEOS (DATA DVD)
EEP Project No. D-04012A Carbonton Dam Removal 2009 Monitoring Report
Appendix E