20050639 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20110105

A MP
Al
­20
4az
IN
44
4r
A�r
MW
pz
909 Capability Dnve
Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606

. J
�I
I
r-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Background
I Project Location
II Mitigation Goals and Objectives
III Project Description and Restoration Approach
IV Project History and Background
V Project Monitormg Plan
VEGETATION MONITORING
I Soil Data
II Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
III Vegetation Success Criteria
IV Results of Vegetative Momtonng
V Vegetation Observations
VI Vegetation Conclusions
VII Vegetation Photos
STREAM MONITORING
I Description of Stream Monitoring
II Stream Restoration Success Criteria
III Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
IV Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
V Stream Stability Assessment
i
VI Cross section Longitudinal Profile and Bed Material Analysis Monitoring Results
HYDROLOGY MONITORING
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
REFERENCES
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006A EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
1
1
1
1
4
6
7
7
7
8
8
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
14
14
15
17
20
20
21
u

APPENDICES
Table 1
Project Mitigation Approach
r
APPENDIX A —
Photo Logs
APPENDIX B —
Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C —
As -built Plan Sheets
APPENDIX D —
Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX E —
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary — Year 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project Mitigation Approach
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Background
Table 5
Soil Data for Project
Table 6
Tree Species Planted
Table 7
Year 5 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8
Volunteers within Wetland Restoration Area
Table 9
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 10
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 11
Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 12
Comparison of Hydrologic Monitoring Results for Years 1 - 5
Table 13
Pre - restoration vs Post - restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
LIST OF
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
FIGURES
Vicinity Map
Topographic Map —
Restoration Summary Map
Wetlands Summary Map
Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC u
December 2010 Monrtonng Year 5

F�
I'
F_ )
L'
SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2010 growing season on the South Fork
Hoppers Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ('Site") Construction of the Site, including
planting of trees, was completed in April 2006 In order to document project success, 10 vegetation
monitoring plots, 16 permanent cross - sections 3,5491mear feet (LF) of longitudinal profile, a ram gauge,
a crest gauge, and 8 hydrologic monitoring gauges (5 automated and 3 manual) were installed and
fi assessed across the Site The 2010 data represents results from the fifth and final year of vegetation,
geomorphic, and hydrologic monitoring for both wetlands and streams
Prior to restoration, wetland, stream, and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion Streams flowing through the Site had been channelized to reduce flooding and
' - provide drainage for adjacent farm fields After construction it was determined that 5 6 acres of riverme
wetlands and 7,229 LF of stream were restored, and 14 acres of riverme wetlands were enhanced
Weather station data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Climate and
-� Water Center (Mahon WETS Station in McDowell County — NC 5340) and the US Geological Survey
(USGS) Water Data for North Carolina (USGS 03451500 French Broad River at Asheville, NC) were
used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to document precipitation amounts
L Though rainfall for the 2010 growing season was below average, the monitoring well data documented
that all 8 of the hydrologic monitoring gauges recorded hydropenods of at least 12 percent before the end
C of the growing season
A total of 10 monitoring plots that were 10 meters by 10 meters or 0 025 of an acre in size were used to
assess survivability of the woody vegetation planted on site These plots were randomly located to
Fill represent the different zones within the project The vegetation monitoring documented a survivability
range of 440 stems per acre to 600 stems per acre with an overall average of 548 stems per acre The site
had earlier met the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third
growing season and has now met the final vegetation survival criteria of 260 stems per acre surviving
after the fifth growing season
II
Over the five -year monitoring period, both cross - section and profile data shows a dynamic system that is
- able to adjust its dimension, pattern, and profile while maintaining stability by accommodating for
' fluctuations in inputs from the contributing drainage area In 2010, two additional bankfull events were
observed and documented during the months of Marchand September of 2010 In general, dimension,
pattern, profile and in stream structures continue to maintain stability and function as a stable "C" type
channel
In summary, the Site has successfully met all hydraulic, vegetative, and stream success criteria specified
in the Site's Restoration Plan
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC m
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site "Site" is located in McDowell County North Carolina
(Figure 1) The Site lies in the Catawba River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) sub basin 03 08 -30 and US Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040020 The
Site has a recent history of pasture and general agricultural usage The streams of the Site were
channelized and riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations Stream and riparian functions on the
Site had been severely impacted as a result of agricultural conversion
The project involved the restoration of 5 6 acres of rivenne wetlands, enhancement of 14 acres of
nverme wetlands, and restoration of 7,229 Imear feet (LF) of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek
(the mainstem) and an unnamed tributary (UT 1) A total of 33 8 acres of stream, wetland, and riparian
buffer are protected on -site through a permanent conservation easement
I Project Location
The Site is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the town of Shelby in McDowell County, North
Carolina (Figures 1 & 2) From Shelby take NC Highway 226 north towards Dysartsville Approximately
3 miles past the Rutherford/McDowell County line, turn left onto Walker Road Take the next right onto
Pierce Road The Site is divided into two separate sections by Pierce Road Access for the downstream
section is northeast of the culvert crossing The conservation easement gate for the upstream section is
southwest of the culvert crossing ) /
II Nhtigahon Goals and Objectives
r
The specific goals for the South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project were as follows
• Restoration of 7,229 LF of stream channel
• Restoration of 5 6 acres of nverme wetlands
• Enhancement of 14 acres of existing riverme wetlands
• Removal of cattle access to the stream channel, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Improvement of floodplain functionality by matching floodplam elevations with the bankfull
stage
• Establishment of native wetland and floodplain vegetation within the conservation easement
• Improvement of wildlife habitat functions of the Site
III Project Description and Restoration Approach
For assessment and analysis purposes, the on -site streams were divided into five reaches four along the
mamstem, and one on UT 1 that flows into the mainstem downstream of Pierce Road (Figure 3) The
following paragraphs describe the Site's pre - construction conditions and the selected restoration
approach
The mainstem entered the Site from the southwest and flowed east through a 48 -inch corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) culvert Reach 1 continued east through a pasture for approximately 1,500 LF and then
entered a second 48 inch CMP culvert Reach 2 began 1,000 LF downstream of the second 48 -inch
culvert, at the confluence of a small tributary, and continued east and north for 578 LF to twin, 72 -inch
CMP culverts under Pierce Road Reach 3 began downstream of the twin culverts and continued
approximately 1,200 LF north through an abandoned pasture Reach 4 extended the final 900 LF to the
north project boundary and was characterized by a flatter slope, finer bed material, and a lower bank
height ratio than the other 3 reaches
UT 1 entered the Site through a 36 -inch culvert under Pierce Road, then flowed east to west, parallel to
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
0
� 0
i
U
L

Pierce Road, and entered Reach 3 approximately 80 LF downstream of the twin 72 -inch culverts UT 1
had a reach length of 306 LF on the project Site
For design purposes the mainstem was divided into two reaches From the assessment, Reach 1
correlates to Design Reach 1, while Reaches 2, 3, and 4 were combined for Design Reach 2
L It is likely that much of the project area once existed as a wetland ecosystem, as evidenced by hydnc soil
areas across the bottomland fields of the Site, as well as landowner accounts of wet areas of the Site prior
(� to drainage activities Wetland areas that once existed on the Site were drained and manipulated to
Lpromote agricultural uses The stream was channelized within the project site to improve surface and
subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding Subsurface drain tiles were also installed in floodplain
areas of the project Site, particularly the field downstream of Pierce Road As a result, wetland functions
L' were impacted within the project area The channelization of the stream impaired its ability to function
L j naturally, resulting in areas of active bank erosion and an overall poor habitat condition
—� Design for the restored stream involved the construction of a new channel meandering through the
L I agricultural fields The restored mainstem was a Rosgen "C' stream type channel with a low width/depth
cross - sectional area approaching typical Rosgen `E' type dimensions ( Rosgen, 1994) A Rosgen B"
stream type was used for the restored UT 1 channel The design dimensions of each stream were based on
n nearby reference reaches Wetland restoration of the agricultural fields on the Site involved raising the
LJ local water table to restore a natural flooding regime The stream through the Site was restored to a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile, such that riverme wetland functions were restored to the adjacent hydnc
soil areas Drainage ditches within the restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface
(_ drainage and raise the local water table Total stream length across the Site was increased from
approximately 5,579 LF to 7,229 LF Total wetland acreage was increased from 2 17 acres to 5 6 acres
Assessment of the restored site determined that 7,229 stream mitigation units (SMU) were provided for
D the stream restoration and a total of 6 3 wetlands mitigation units (WMU) were achieved for wetland
restoration and enhancement
The design allows stream flows larger than the bankfull to spread onto the floodplain, dissipating flow
energies and reducing stress on stream banks In stream structures were used to control streambed grade,
reduce stress on stream banks, and promote bedform sequences and habitat diversity The in-stream
structures consisted of root -wads, cover logs and log vanes, which promote a diversity of habitat features
O in the restored channel Where grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles or rock cross vanes
were installed to provide long -term stability Stream banks were stabilized using a combination of
erosion control matting, live stakes, bare root planting, and transplants Transplants provide living root
r� mass to increase stream bank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota Native
vegetation was planted across the Site, and the entire restoration site is protected through a permanent
conservation easement
i South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

Table I Protect NVILthgathon Approach
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D04006 -4
7 229
Total acres of wetlands restored
56
Total acres of wetland enhanced
�
o
�
Ell
= Enhancement II
Existing
°-
Segment or
Reach ID
k
°o
-
-
Stationing
Comment
Restoration of
dimension
UTl
306 LF
R
P1
203 LF
1
203
200+00 202+03
pattern and
profile to a B
stream type
Restoration to a
'C
South Fork
approaching E
Hoppers Reach
2 595
R
P1 &P2
3 528 LF
1
3528
110+85 146 +17
stream type and
I
LF
P2 used to tie
into the Pierce
Road culvert
Restoration to a
C
approaching' E"
South Fork
2 678
stream type and
Hoppers Reach
LF
R
P1 &P2
3 498 LF
1
3498
146 +17 181 +70
P2 used to tie
2
channel into the
Pierce Road
culvert
164 +50 166 + 90 (R)
Planting and
Wetland
E
14 Ac
05
07
171+05 176 +79 (R)
raising water
Enhancement
175 +91 179 +52 (L)
table
178 +31 179 +52(R)
2 53 Ac
135 +79 139 +00 (L)
Grading soil
154 +53 167 +80 (L)
roughing
Wetland
R
5 6 Ac
1
56
166 +89 174 +25 (R)
planting and
Restoration
175 +50 177 +67 (R)
raising water
175 +70 180 +43 L
table
Total linear feet of channel restored
7 229
Total acres of wetlands restored
56
Total acres of wetland enhanced
14
* R = Restoration
E = Enhancement
S = Stabilization
Total Stream Mitigation 7 229
Units
Total Wetland Mitigation 63
Units
** PI
= Priority I
P2
= Priority II
P3
= Priority III
El =
Enhancement I
Ell
= Enhancement II
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
3

s
IV Protect History and Background
The chronology of the South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2 The
contact information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3 Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4
Table 2 Protect Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D040064
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Com lete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
Mar 05
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
Apr-05
Restoration Plan Appr oved
N/A
Final Design — at least 90% complete)
N/A
Aug-05
Construction Begins
N/A
Jun -05
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Apr-06
Planting of live stakes
N/A
Apr 06
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
Apr-06
End of Construction
N/A
May-06
Survey of As -built conditions Year 0 Momtonn - baseline
Jun -06
Jul -06
Repair work
Oct -06
Oct 06
Year 1 Momtorin
Oct -06
Nov -06
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct -07
Nov -07
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -08
Nov -08
Year 4 Momtonn
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 5 Monitoring
Sept 10
Nov -10
L
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
4

Table 3 Protect Contact Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D040064
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse I, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact
Norton Webster, Tel 919 - 829 -9909
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
1447 S Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact
Eng Chris Yow, Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919 - 742 -1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper, 1- 888 - 888 -7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
1447 S Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Ian Eckardt, Tel [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Ian Eckardt, Tel [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Firm
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Wetland and Natural Resource
Sparta, NC 28675
Consultants
Chris H sman, Tel [phone]
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 5
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

F1
I
J
Fi
11
ri
r-
Table 4 Project Background
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D04006 -4
Project County
McDowell County, NC
Drainage Area
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
0 93 mil
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2
138 mil
UT 1
007 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover
Reach South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
< 5%
Reach South Fork Hoppers Reach 2
< 5%
Reach UT
< 5%
Stream Order
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
2
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2
2
UT 1
1
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As -built
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
C
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2
C
UT -1
B
Rivenne, Upper Perennial,
Cowardm Classification
Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-
Gravel
Dominant Soil Types
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
IoA, EwE, HeD, HcC 1
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2
IoA, EwE, HeD, HcC2
UT 1
IoA
Spencer Creek, Craig Creek, Big
Reference Site ID
Branch, Sals Branch
USGS HUC for Project and Reference Sites
03050101040020
NCDW Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03 -08 -30
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of
a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
50%
V Project Monitoring Plan
Plans depicting the as -built conditions of the major project elements, location of permanent monitoring
cross - sections, locations of hydrologic monitoring stations, and locations of permanent vegetation
monitoring plots are presented in Appendix C of this Report
l South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 6
J December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
LI
J

r
VEGETATION MONITORING
I Soil Data
The soil data for the Site are presented in Table 5
Table S you uata for Yro_lect
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D04006 -4
Max Depth
% Clay on
Series
in
Surface
K
T
OM %
(IaA) - Iotla Sandy Loam, 0 to 3
60
12 -18
02
5
2 -5
percent slopes
(EwE) - Evard -Cowee Complex,
65
5 -20
024
5
1 -5
2 to 95 percent slopes
(HcC2) - Hayesville Clay Loam,
62
10 -25
024
4
1 -3
2 to 60 percent slopes
(HeD) - Hayesville -Evard
62
5 -25
024
5
1 -5
Complex, 2 to 60 percent slopes
USDA NRCS 2006 Official Soil Series Descriptions (http / /soils usda gov/ soils /techmcaUclassittcahon/osd/mdex html)
General taxonomy of Site soils
Iotla
The Iotla series (IaA) consists of very deep, somewhat poorly- drained soils with moderately rapid
permeability on floodplams They formed 'm loamy, recent alluvium Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent
(NRCS, 2006)
Evard -Cowee
The Evard -Cowee complex (EwE) is composed of very deep, well- drained, moderately permeable soils
on ridges and side slopes They formed in residuum affected by soil creep in the upper part and
weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high -grade metamorphic rocks Slopes range from 2 to 95
percent (NRCS 2006)
Hawesville
The Hayesville Series (HcC2 and HeD) consists of very deep well- drained soils on gently sloping to very
steep ridges They most commonly formed in residuum weathered from igneous and high -grade
metamorphic rocks such as granite, granodionte, mica gneiss and schist, but in some places formed from
thickly -bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone On steeper slopes the upper part of some pedons may
have some colluvial influence Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent (NRCS, 2006)
II Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
The Site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March and April 2006 The following tree
species were planted in the restoration area
C
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
7

F
J
I)
�J
Table 6 Tree Species Planted
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Project No D040064
ID
Scientiflc Name
Common Name
FAC Status
1
Betula nzgra
River Birch
FACW
2
Fraxznus pennsylvanzca
Green Ash
FACW
3
Platanus occzdentahs
Sycamore
FACW-
4
J Querrcus phellos
Willow Oak
FACW-
5
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
FACU
6
Quercus mzchauxu
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW-
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
FAC
8
Celhs laevzgata
Sugarbeiry
FACW
9
Diospyros vcrgcnzana
Persimmon
FAC
10
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
FAC
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability Ten plots were
established on the South Fork Hoppers Site, to monitor approximately 15 percent of the Site All plots
were 0 025 acre in size, or 10 meters by 10 meters Six plots were established in areas that included both
the wetlands and stream buffer The remaining four plots were located adjacent to the newly constructed
streambed to monitor the vegetation in the stream restoration buffer The plots were randomly located
within each zone and randomly oriented within the wetland restoration area
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and permanently
establish the area that was to be sampled Then ropes were hung connecting all four corners to help in
determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot Trees on the boundary
and trees dust outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50 percent of their canopy inside
the boundary were counted inside the plot A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over the
metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of plot throughout the five -year monitoring period
r
All of the planted stems insideAhe plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with a three foot
tall piece of half -inch PVC to identify them as the planted stems (vs any colonizers) and to help in
locating them in the future Each stem was then tagged with a permanent, numbered aluminum tag
III Vegetation Success Criteria
r The interim measure of vegetative success for the South Fork Hoppers Mitigation Plan was the survival
U of at least 320 3 -year old planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period which
was met The final vegetative success criteria in the Mitigation Plan was the survival of 260, 5 -year old
planted trees per acre at the end of Year Five of the monitoring period
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of invaders Remedial action may be
required should these (i e loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, etc ) present a problem and exceed 20
r percent composition
IV Results of Vegetative Monitoring
The following tables present stem counts for each of the monitoring plots Each planted tree species is
identified down the left column, and each plot is identified across the top row Trees are flagged in the
field on an as- needed basis before the flags degrade Flags are utilized as opposed to an alternative
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 8
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Fj

identification method because they will not interfere with the growth of the tree Volunteer species are
also flagged during this process Year 5 documented an additional Quercus michauxii in Plot 10 The
species may have been from regrowth or from reseed, however, the stem count for Year 5 was higher for
Quercus rmchauxrr than in Year 4
Vegetation monitoring efforts have documented the average number of stems per acre on site to be 548,
which is a survival rate of greater than 82 percent based on the initial planting count of 664 stems per
acre The Site has achieved the vegetative success criteria of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of
Year 5
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006A EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
1

Table 7 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot for Years 1- 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D04006 -4 Imtial Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 %
Totals I Totals I Totals I Totals I Totals I Totals I Survival
Betula nigra
1
0
0
0 1
0 1
0
0
0
0 1
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
50
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7
1
3
4
0
2
0
0
0
4
24
25
23
24
21
21
88
Platanus occidentahs
2
0
8
4
3
8
0
0
3
0
30
31
32
29
28
28
93
uercus phellos
4
0
3
6
4
1
0
0
5
4
25
32
32
29
30
27
108
uercus rubra
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
3
2
2
2
2
100
uercus michauxii
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
7
7
10
11
11
10
11
157
Linodendron tuli i ena
0
7
0
0
0
2
5
5
4
0
23
27
24
24
23
23
100
Celtis laevi ata
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
18
4
3
3
2
2
11
Diospyros virginiana
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
16
5
5
5 1
4
2
13
N ssa s lvatica
0
6
0
0
0
0
1 4
10
0
0
10
22
21
20
21
20
200
uercus spp
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unknown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Stems/ lot Year 5
14
1 14
14
14
13
13
11
15
14
15
165
161
155
148
139
137
83
Stems /acre Year 5
560
560
560
560
520
520
440
600
560
600
548
Stems /acre Year 4
600
560
600
600
640
360
600
600
560
560
568
Stems /acre Year 3
640
560
600
600
640
520
640
560
560
600
592
Average
Stems /acre Year 2
680
560
640
600
640
600
640
600
640
600
620
Stems /acre Year 1
680
560
640
640
720
600
680
640
640
640
644
Average Stems per Acre for Year 5 548
Range of Stems per Acre for Year 5 440 -600
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 10
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

l
Volunteer species were also monitored throughout the five -year monitoring period Table 8 depicts the
most commonly found woody volunteer species
Table 8 Volunteers within Wetland Restoration Area
r
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Protect No D040064
ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
FAC Status
A
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet m
FAC+
B
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
FAC
Few volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots, and were deemed too small to
tally Red maple (Acer rubrum) is the most common volunteer, though sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciva) was also observed
V Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild rye
(Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) was broadcast
on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre These species are present on the site Hydrophytic herbaceous
vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike rush (Eleochans obtusa), boxseed (Ludwigia spp ), and
sedge (Carex spp ), are observed across the site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation The
presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the
site
The vegetation of both woody and herbaceous species has proliferated throughout the site No additional
plantings were needed throughout the five -year monitoring period The average range in height for
woody species ranges from 8 to 15 feet Willows, sycamore, and tag Alders are well established along
the channel and are providing bank stabilization as designed Herbaceous species are also, well
established along the channel and within the floodplain area Wetland species such as tear thumb, sedge
species, and rush species are flourishing within the designated wetland areas as well as in ephemeral
pools within the floodplain
Invasive species occurring on site consisted of kudzu lespedeza and bamboo These species have been
monitored and treated throughout the five -year monitoring period to allow the desirable vegetation time to
become established
VI Vegetation Conclusions
The site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in April and May 2006 There were ten
vegetation - monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas The data reflect that the overall site
had earlier met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and has
now met the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the Mitigation
Plan
VII Vegetation Photos
Photos of the project showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Moratonng Year 5

r-�
J
STREAM MONITORING
I Description of Stream Monitoring
i
To document the success criteria as per the Mitigation Plan, the following monitoring program was
J
instituted following construction completion on the Site
Bankfull Events The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period was documented by the
l�I
use of a crest gauge and photographs One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of
!
the restored channel, near As -built Station 176+00 The crest gauge recorded the highest watermark
between site visits and was checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event had occurred
Photographs were taken to document the occurrence of these bankfull events and are included in
I
Appendix A
Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross - section and one located at a pool cross - section A total of 16 cross-
sections were established Each cross- section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish
the exact transect used A common benchmark was used for cross- sections and consistently referenced to
facilitate comparison of year -to -year data The annual cross - sectional survey included points measured at
all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, water surface, and thalweg,
lJ
U
if the features are present Riffle cross - sections were classified using the Rosgen stream classification
system ( Rosgen, 1994) Permanent cross sections for 2010 (Year 5) were surveyed in September 2010
O
and are included in Appendix B
Longitudinal Profiles A partial longitudinal profile was surveyed for 2010 (Year 5) The profile was
conducted for approximately 3,549 LF of South Fork Hoppers Creek, beginning upstream of the bridge at
As -built Station 125 +09 and continuing down to As -built Station 160+58 Measurements included
O
thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank Each of these measurements was taken at the head
of each feature (e g, riffle, pool, glide) In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded All survey was
n
tied to a single permanent benchmark These data are included in Appendix B of this report
ILJJ
Bed Material Analysis Pebble counts were conducted for the permanent cross sections (100 counts per
cross - section) on the Site Pebble count data were plotted on a semi -log graph and are included in
n
Appendix B
'
Photo Reference Stations Photographs were used to visually document restoration success As total of
70 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade control structures
(�
across the Site These photos are provided in Appendix A Additional photo stations were established at
}
each of the 16 permanent cross - sections and hydrologic monitoring stations Each streambank was
photographed at each permanent cross - section photo station For each streambank photo, the photo view
line followed a survey tape placed across the channel perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-
section line) The photograph was framed so that the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a
vertical line at the center of the photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near
the lower edge of the frame These photos are presented along with the cross section monitoring data in
Appendix B
I�
l -�
The GPS coordinates of each photo station were noted as additional reference to ensure the same photo
location was used throughout the monitoring period These stations are included in the As -built Plan
CSheets
in Appendix C Reference photos were taken once per year
II Stream Restoration Success Criteria
J
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration success
L
• Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five year monitoring
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 12
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
�I

period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years
• Cross - sections There should be little change in as -built cross sections If changes to channel cross -
section take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e g , settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio)
• Longitudinal Profiles The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining
stable (not aggrading or degrading) The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes and
the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools
• Bed Material Analysis Pebble counts should indicate maintenance of bed material
• Photo Reference Stations Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel, no excessive
bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of riparian vegetation These
stations are included in the As -built Plan Sheets in Appendix C
III Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
The on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of two bankfull flow events during the fifth year
(2009 - 2010) of the post - construction monitoring period Table 9 shows, banldull flows that were
documented during each of the five years of monitoring) Inspection of site conditions following these
events revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flow, confirming the crest gauge reading The largest
stream flow documented by the crest gauge during Year 5 of monitoring was approximately 2 12 feet
(25 44 inches) above the bankfull stage
A photo of the crest gauge reading for March 2010 is not available, however, a photo of the crest gauge
reading for September of 2010 is located in Appendix A
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Ho ppers Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -4
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
of Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
Gage Height
feet
5/11/2006
Unknown
Crest Gage
023
7/17/2006
Unknown
Crest Gage
016
8/18/2006
Unknown
Crest Gage
109
11/29/2006
Unknown
Crest Gage
028
1/16/2007
Unknown
Crest Gage
073
3/13/2007
Unknown
Crest Gage
1 13
5/22/2007
Unknown
Crest Gage
01
7/17/2007
Unknown
Crest Gage
008
9/17/2007
Unknown
Crest Gage
163
1/16/2008
Unknown
Crest Gage
016
4/1/2008
Unknown
Crest Gage
017
7/25/2008
Unknown
Crest Gage
022
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC l 13
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

I
it
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Ho ppers Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -4
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
of Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
Gage Height
feet
3/31/2009
Unknown
Crest Gage
063
7/23/2009
Unknown
Crest Gage
097
3/31/2010
Unknown
Crest Gage
212
9/30/2010
Unknown
Crest Gage
069
IV Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
A photo log of the project showing each of the 70 permanent photo locations is included in Appendix A
of this report Survey data and photos from each permanent cross - section are included in Appendix B of
this report
V Stream Stability Assessment
Table 10 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream structures
0 performed during Year 5 of post - construction monitoring The percentages noted are a general overall
field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of the last photo point survey on
October 29, 2010 These percentages are solely based on the visual assessment of the field evaluator at
O the tune of the site visit
Visual observations of the various structures throughout the Year 5 growing season indicated that
structures were functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade Cover logs placed in meander
a pool areas allowed scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish Root wads placed on the outside
of meander bends provided bank stability and in stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms
Issues discovered during Year 2 monitoring were closely observed during Year 3 and Year 4
^� investigations During Year 2 monitoring a few isolated pockets of scour were observed along the
!� upstream end of rootwads located at stations 124 +50, 126 +75, and 133 +50 The scour appeared to have
taken place before vegetation established along the streambanks These areas of minor scour were only
partially visible during Year 5 monitoring, and have stabilized with the maturation of the riparian
vegetation Three minor areas of scour were observed at stations 131 +25, 141 +85, and 173 +40, in Year 5,
however they should not affect channel stability
Beaver activity downstream of the site and within the downstream extents of the project, were
documented in Monitoring Years 2 and 3, respectively, and were removed in the subsequent year No
J beaver activity was documented in Year 4, however, beaver activity has returned to the site with beaver
_ impoundments located at stations 178 +40 and 181 +60
Table 10 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
}
South Fork Hop rs Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -4
Performance Percentage
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Imo' South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 14
t - December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

Table 10 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
South Fork Hop rs Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -4
Performance Percentage
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY-03
MY -04
MY -05
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1'00%
Wads and Boulders
100%
100%
95%
1 95%
1 95%
1 95%
VI Cross - section, Longitudinal Profile, and Bed Material Analysis Monitoring Results
Cross - sections
Year 5 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September 2010 and
compared to as-built conditions, Year 1 (collected October 2006), Year 2 (collected October - November
2007), Year 3 data (collected October 2008), Year 4 data (collected September 2009) The 16 permanent
cross - sections along the restored channels (8 located across riffles and 8 located across pools) were re-
surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 5 Cross sections are provided in
Appendix B, and data from the cross - sections are summarized in Appendix E
Previous monitoring years have noted slight variations among the monitored cross - sections The changes
in dimension observed are positive changes, mostly from pools decreasing in depth and riffles narrowing
from vegetative growth The channel continues to successfully move sediment through the system and
maintain stability Throughout the monitoring period, point bars continue to develop and become more
defined along the inside of meander bends showing that flow velocity vectors are functioning as designed
The cross- section data, over the five -year monitoring period, continue to show a dynamic system that is
able to adjust its dimension and maintain stability while accommodating for fluctuations in external
environment inputs
Longitudinal Profiles
The Year 5 longitudinal profile was conducted during September 2010 A representative 3,549 LF
section of the channel was surveyed beginning at As built Station 125 +09 and ending at As -built Station
160+58 The representative longitudinal profile along the restored channel was resurveyed to document
stream profile at the end of monitoring Year 5 Placement of the rock cross -vanes upstream of the bridge
at Pierce Rd, as well as, natural migration of the thalweg accounts for the 50 LF discrepancy between the
post- construction survey length and the as-built conditions
Monitoring data show that pool spacing on Reach 1 has slightly increased and that nffle slopes and
sinuosity have continued to slightly increase and decrease, respectively, for Reach 2 throughout the
monitoring period Though present these changes seem to be minor and are not adversely affecting the
stability of the channel All other profile data on both Reach 1 and Reach 2 have maintained consistent
throughout the monitoring period
The longitudinal profile is included in Appendix B A summary of parameters measured are provided in
Appendix E Please note that this summary represents only the portion of the project that was surveyed
Bed Material Analysis
Year 5 bed material samples were collected at each permanent cross- section during September 2010
Both pools and riffles along the main channel have shown the ability to effectively move fine sediments
through the system while maintaining coarser bed material in the nffles and finer sediments in the pools
Riffles within the mamstem continue to be dominated by very coarse gravel and small cobbles, while
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 15
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5

pools are dominated by a mix of coarse sand and fine gravels
A
UT 1 continues to receive influxes of fines to the system from it contributing drainage area Cross section
8 (nffle) has continued to coarsen throughout the momtonng period exhibiting its ability to effectively
�1 move finer sediments, from the contributing drainage area, through the system Cross - section 7 did
contain more silts and clays in Year 5 than previous years, however, the cross- section s mean and max
pool depths are deeper and resemble those of as built conditions Therefore, this accumulation of fines is
likely to be a temporary influx of silts and clays from the contributing drainage area dust prior to
sampling
All pebble count data are provided in Appendix B
J
C
r—.
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 16
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

HYDROLOGY MONITORING
Weather station data from the NRCS National Climate and Water Center (Marton WETS Station in
McDowell County — NC 5340) and the USGS Water Data for North Carolina (USGS 03451500 French
Broad River at Asheville, NC) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts Rainfall was below average for the majority of the growing season
Precipitation fluctuated greatly from October 2009 to February 2010 Though precipitation seemed to
stabilize in amounts recorded from March through September of 2010, rainfall was still significantly
below average When on -site rainfall data was unavailable, total monthly rainfall data was calculated
using the ram gauge data from the aforementioned USGS gauge site
The Restoration Plan for the Site specifies that eight monitoring gauges (five automated and three
manual) would be established across the restored site These eight monitoring gauges were installed
during early -March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all required monitoring locations The
wells were located across the site to document the variability in site hydrology, and the locations of
monitoring gauges are shown on the as-built plan sheets As stated in the Restoration Plan, the well
monitoring data should show that the Site has been saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for at
least 5 percent of the growing season, and that the site has exhibited an increased frequency of flooding
Hydrologic monitoring results are shown in Tables I 1 and 12 Figure 5 compares historic rainfall events
to rainfall observed during this monitoring year
Table 11 Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site EEP Contract No D040064
Year
Month
AverageA
30 %A
70 %A
Observed 2010 Precipitation
2009
October
3 95
2 17
543
9 51**
2009
November
443
296
529
0 02 **
2009
December
396
220
500
5 67 * **
2010
January
4 23
3 10
535
006
2010
February
1546
209
536
2 92*
2010
March
543
345
652
410
2010
April
441
254
600
002
2010
May
540
388
641
2 88
2010
June
470
291
5 98
057
2010
July
428
287
r 553
062
2010
August
424
288
544
277
2010
September
448
222
545
2 74*
(MRCS National Climate and Water Center 2000 and USGS 2009 & 2010)
AData in these columns presented exactly as reported by the NRCS National Climate and Water Center (Marion
WETS Station in McDowell County — NC5340)
*Monthly on site rainfall data unavailable so total monthly rainfall data was calculated using the nearest USGS
rain gauge data (USGS 03451500 FRENCH BROAD RIVER AT ASHEVILLE NC) to the project site (USGS
2009 & 2010)
* *Rainfall recorded on site from 2009
** *2009 data from USGS 03451500 rain gauge
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 17
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

Figure 5. Historic Avera¢e vs. Observed Rainfall
Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
is
16 --�— Observed
14 Precipitation
R 1 —W—Average
C 10 - 300i
T
6
fx
4
0 - -- --
ww6 w JQ6
Month
To meet reporting deadlines, results for the Year 5 monitoring period were collected from the first 186
days of the growing season (3/28/2010 - 9/30/2010). However, the percentage of days in which water as
present within 12 inches of the soil surface for each well is still based on a 222 -day growing season.
Though the growing season data collection was shortened by 36 days, all eight wells had already met the
hydroperiod success criteria with a minimum of 26 consecutive days (7 percent) with water present within
12 inches of the soil surface (VWRP, 2005). Hydrologic data collected from the existing wetland reference
sites indicate that the reference sites experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the hydroperiods
recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC 18
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Table 12 Comnarison of Hvdrolouic Monitnrinu Recnits for Year 5_ Year d_ VPar t VPar 2 and VPar 1
i Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growmg season when the water table rose to less than 12 inches from the soil surface
4 Groundwater gauges MW I and MW3 are manual gauges Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and correlation with automated gauge AW I
5 Groundwater gauge MW2 is a manual gauge Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and correlation with automated gauge AW2
6 Reference ground water gauges are located on an Unnamed Tributary to Little Silver Creek in Morganton NC
7 Growing season for the Year 5 monitoring period was shortened to meet reporting deadline Monitoring data is based on a 186 day growing season (3/28/2010 9/30/2010)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 19
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
South Fork Hoppers
Creek Restoration Site
EEP Contract No D04006 -4
Monitoring
Most Consecutive Days' M ting Critenal
Cumulative Days Meetm
Criteria
Station
Year 5
Monitonn 7
Year 4
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitoring
Year 2
Monitoring
Year 1
Monitoring
Year 5
Monitoring
Year 4
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitonn
Year 2
Monitoring
Year 1
Monitoring
AW1
186(100%)
222 100%
222 100%
222
100%
222(100%)
186(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
222 (100%),
222
100%
AW2
26(14%)
89(40%)
80(36%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
34(18%)
93(42%)
173(78%)
222(100
222(100%)
AW3
94(51%)
113(51%)
76(35%)
133(60%)
75(34%)
139(75%)
210(95%)
131(59%)
218
98%
178
77%
AW4
33(18%)
27(12%)
13(6%)
33(15%)
16(7%)
68(37%)
80
36%
43
20%
58(26%)
58
26%
AW5
186(100%)
222(100%)
166(75%)
222(100%)
175(79%)
186(100
222(100%)
166(75%)
222(100
190(86%)
MW14
186(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
186(100%)
222
100
222(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
MW25
26(14%)
89(40%)
80(36%)
222(100%)
222(100%
34(18%)
91(41%)
173
78%
222(100%),
222
100%
MW34
186(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
222(100%)
186
100%
222(100%)
222
(100%)_,
222(100
222(100%)
REFI6
10(5%)
8(4%)
7(4%)
5(2%)
5(2%)
13(7%)
52(25%)
10(5%)
26(12%)
39(18%)
REF26
3(2%)
6(3%)
5(3%)
4(2%)
4(2%)
3(2%)
25(12%)
10(5%)
13(6%)
17(8%)
i Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches from the soil surface
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growmg season when the water table rose to less than 12 inches from the soil surface
4 Groundwater gauges MW I and MW3 are manual gauges Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and correlation with automated gauge AW I
5 Groundwater gauge MW2 is a manual gauge Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and correlation with automated gauge AW2
6 Reference ground water gauges are located on an Unnamed Tributary to Little Silver Creek in Morganton NC
7 Growing season for the Year 5 monitoring period was shortened to meet reporting deadline Monitoring data is based on a 186 day growing season (3/28/2010 9/30/2010)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC 19
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ,
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation monitoring have documented that the average number of stems per acre on site to be 548,
which is a survival rate of greater than 82 percent based on the initial planting count of 664 stems per
acre Kudzu, bamboo, and lespedeza have been treated throughout the monitoring period and do not seem
to currently pose potential problems The Site has achieved the final vegetative success criteria of at least
260 stems per acre at Year 5
Stream Monitoring
The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 7 229 LF This entire length was inspected
during Year 5 of the monitoring period (2010) to assess stream performance Based on the data collected
and a visual assessment, riffles, pools, and other constructed features along the restored channel are stable
and functioning as designed Remnant isolated scour, noted in Years 2 through 4, along the outer bank of
a few pools upstream of Pierce Road have not shown any further signs of degradation and are becoming
more stable due to maturation of the riparian vegetation Additional minor areas of scour were observed
at Station 131 +25, 141 +85, and 173 +40 and should stabilize on their own over tune Beaver
impoundments located at Stations 178 +40 and 181 +60 should be removed
Overall, the lack of problem areas along the length of the restored channel through five years of post -
construction monitoring supports the functionality of the design It is expected that stability and in-
stream habitat of the system will continue to improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation
matures The Site has achieved the stream stability success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan
Hydrologic Monitoring
Data collected during the 2010 growing season by the eight monitoring gauges showed that hydrology
vaned across the Site The hydrology of these areas is expected to be more variable throughout the
growing season, with the wettest penods during the early spring and late fall Groundwater levels at all
eight gauges recorded hydropenods above the specified success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan
throughout the five year monitoring period, except for one gauge to one year The groundwater inventory
data documents that all wetland areas within the site met the hydrologic success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Throughout the year, frogs, turtles, snakes, aquatic insects, and three- to four -inch long fish have been
observed at the Site Deer and raccoon tracks were commonly observed Two dams at Stations 178 +40
and 181 +60 indicate the presence of beavers Blue herons have also been documented during monitoring
activities
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 20
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

i
_J
REFERENCES
NRCS National Climate and Water Center Marion WETS Station at McDowell County — NC 5340
(1971 -2000) FIPS /County (FIPS) 37111 2002
ftp //ftp wcc nres usda og v /s=ordclimate /wetlands /nc /37111 txt
Real -Time Data for North Carolina_ Precipitation USGS Water -Data Site Information for North Carolina
USGS 03451500 French Broad River at Asheville, NC Retrieved on 2010 -06 through 2010 -09
http / /waterdata usgs gov /nc /nwis /current/9type-- precip &group key = county cd
Rosgen, D L 1994 A classification of natural rivers Catena 22 169 -199
U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
Technical Report Y -87 -1 U S Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil
Series Descriptions, November 2006
http / /soils usda gov /soils /techmcal/classification/osd/mdex html
I
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC 21
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
r"
I
l J

fl
i
�J
J
1
CI
-' APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG
[1
J
L

r
1
CREST GAUGE PHOTOS
A

CREST GAUGE PHOTOS OF BANKFULL
Crest Gauge — 9/30/10
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

�f
,f
0
PHOTO ID LOG
W

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 67
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 69
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 68
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 70
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -1, LLC 13
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

S. Fork Hoppers — PID I
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 2
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 3 S. Fork Hoppers — PID 4
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 5
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 6

• �` , L
y•
I� .. ♦. �. �� ?, t�.:•� ..h it
r` Al-
VIN
t � y
WIN
i
6 Vii` Ti^l
/ yy
t�

z ,
r
4a
1 1 1 I� 11 1 1 1 1 11
•.. `rte 1 .....rs '- +- �..�. -�^
r
may.
1 111• ' 1 1 111• ' 1 1
�" '� ' •fiXd'� of �. .'J'. � 1 S
r _

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 19
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 21
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 23
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 20
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 22
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 24

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 25
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 27
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 26
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 28
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 29 S. Fork Hoppers — PID 30
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC 6
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 31
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 33
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 35
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 32
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 34
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 36

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 37
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 39
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 41
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -1, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 38
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 40
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 42

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 43
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 45
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 47
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 44
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 46
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 48

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 49
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 51
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 53
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 50
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 52
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 54
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC 10
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 55
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 57
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 59
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 56
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 58
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 60

oo
a 4 ♦ 4 r
� y 1
w
Y/i Apt
l `
NZ
e � , i c ^� �y � �� r � °• tL � --
S 2
�A jam.
oe

S. Fork Hoppers — PID 67
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 69
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 68
S. Fork Hoppers — PID 70
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC 13
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

VEG PLOT PHOTOS

Veg Plot #1
Veg Plot #3
Veg Plot #5
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -1, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Veg Plot #2
Veg Plot #4
Veg Plot #6

Veg Plot #7
Veg Plot #9
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -1, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Veg Plot #8
Veg Plot #10

APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA

Permanent Cross Section X1
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
20.4
19.88
1.03
2.24
1
19.37
1
3.5
1186.29
1186.29
X1 Riffle
1189
G------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -- -o
1188
1187
0 1186
�y(
----- -- --- - -- ---
-- - - - - - --
Ei 1185
1184
1183
- -4- Bankfull -- 9- -Floodprone
—* —As Built
- - Year 1
4 Year 2 ---- Year 3
—*— Year 4
——Year 5
1182
95 105 115
125 135
145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X2
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
I WtD
BH Ratio
ER
I BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Pool
16
12.88
1.24 1
2.01
1 10.39
1
5.4
1 1185.88
1 1185.88
X2 Pool
1189
- -- - - --
1188
o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- -------------------- - - - - -o
1187
1186
-----------------
1185
1184
to
1183
1182
-- o- -- Bankfull
-- - -- Floodprone
As Built
*— Year 1
1181
+Year2
— + —Year3
Year4
- -*—Year 5
1180
95 105
115 125
135 145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X3
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream `
BKF
Max BKF
I
Feature
Type
BKF Area
I BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
I TOB Elev
Riffle
E
20.6
14.39
1.43
2.56
1 10.06
1
4.9
1190.54
1190.54
X3 Riffle
1194
-
1193
o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----- --------------- -- - -- - -o
1192
1191
------------- - - - - -- �11R
io`
/
1190
m
w
1189
1188
1187
--�-- Bankfull Floodprone IN As Built
mac-- Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 --i —Year 4 -- ■—Year
1186
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X4
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
IBKFArea
BKF Width
I Depth
I Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
19.8
15.29
1.3
2.68
1 11.78
1
4.6
1190.21
1190.21
X4 Pool
- -- - - --
1194
--
1193
o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- -------------- -- - - - - - --
1192
1191
c
0
1190
--------------------
w
1189
1188
1187
1186
- --e--- Bankfull - --e--- Floodprone --*—As Built – Year 1 Year 2 --+— Year 3 —i-- Year 4 t Year 5
1185
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W(D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
21.9
16.38
1.33
2.38
1 12.28
1
4.3
1193.27
1193.27
X5 Riffle
1196
o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
1195
1194
��ryr
0 1193
------------------------
w 1192
1191
1190
F�__ Bankfull - -9 -- Floodprone --mac— As Built --x----Year 1 — 0 Year 2 — +— Year 3 Year 4 t Year
1189
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Tye
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
43.1
26.78
1.61
3.61
1 16.64
1
2.6
1193.81
1193.81
X6 Pool
1199
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
1197
1195
c�
-----------------------------------------
1193
d
w
1191
1189
- -� -- Bankfull
- -$ -- Floodprone
--*--As Built
—x Year 1
—�— Year 2
--+— Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
1187
95 105
115 125
135 145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D040064, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
IBKFArea
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
8.6
8.01
1.08
2.21
1 7.43
1
8.5
1196.48
1 1196.48
X7 Pool
1200
1199
0-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1198
1197
--- -- - - - - --
1196
d
w
1195
1194
1193
__$__ Bankfull Floodprone As Built —) Year 1 4 Year 2 —i Year 3 —1 —Year 4 — w—Year 5
1192
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D040064, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Tye
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
7.2
13.01
0.56
1.97
1 23.36
1
4.8
1198.01
1198.02
X8 Riffle
--
1201
-
1200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1199
g 1198
------------------
w 1197
1196
- -$ -- Bankfull
Floodprone
—N As Built
—x— Year 1
1195
0 Year 2
—i°- Year 3
– f— Year 4
Year 5
1194
95 105
115 125
135 145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Tye -
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D -
BH Ratio
ER
BKF -Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
82.2
30.57
2.69
4.04
11.36
1
2.3
1200.53
1200.53
X9 Pool
- -
1206
- --
--
—
o---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1204
1202
NO-----------------------------------------------
1200
CD
w
1198
1196
-9-__ Bankfull
- --e--- Floodprone
--*—As Built
— x Year 1
0 Year
— +- - Year 3
Year
--t —Year
1194
95 105
115 125
135
145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
3HrRatio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
23.5
16.89
1.39
2.55
1 12.13
1
4.2
1203.27
1203.27
X10 Riffle
1207
-
1206
o--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- --- ---- ----------- - -- - -o
1205
1204
b+
1203
--- ---- --- -----
--- - - - - --
m
w
1202
1201
1200
- -� -- Bankfull - -� -- Floodprone
—* —As Built
—x— Year 1
0 Year2 -- +� —Year3
— �Year4
tYear5
1199
95 105 115
125 135 145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X11
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth ,:
H Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
31.7
29.77
1.06
2.89
27.98
1
2.3
1214.25
1214.25
X11 Pool
1218
1217
o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ------------ -- ---- --- - - - - -o
1216
1215
0
1214
i� -----------
----- --------- --------- - - - - -�
>
1213
m
w
1212
1211
1210
1209
- -9 -- Bankfull - -A -- Floodprone 19 As Built
- Year 1 t Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year
1208
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X12
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature,
,;;Type
BKF Area
I BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
18.7
17.41
1.07
1.82
16.26
1
4
1214.51
1214.51
X12 Riffle
- --
1217
- --
o-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
1216
1215
c
p"--°------°------°"-
1214
m
w
1213
1212
- -� - Bankfull Floodprone —0 As Built
- Year 1 6 Year 2 t Year 3 —� Year 4 f Year
1211
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X13
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
25.4
12.48
2.04
2.71
6.13
1
5.6
1216.95
1216.95
X13 Pool
1221
-
1220
o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
1219
1218
r.
c
1217
-------- - - - -
--
R
w 1216
1215
1214
--�-- Bankfull
- -9 -- Floodprone
--*—As Built
Year 1
1213
+Year2
Year
—A Year
fYear
1212
95 105
115 125 135
145
155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X14
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF'
Feature
Type
IBKFArea
I BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio I
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
19.8
20.26
0.98
1.97
20.77
1
1 3.5
1218.17
1218.17
X14 Riffle
--
1221
1220
0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
1219
o 1218
--------------------------
w
i
Ei 1217
1216
-- e - Bankfull Floodprone —0 As Built - -- * -- Year 1 0 Year 2 ---+--Year 3 — A Year 4 —f —Year
1215
1214
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X15
(Year 5 Monitroing Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W!D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
16.2
17.58
0.92
1.89
1 19.08
1
4
1222.7
1222.7
X15 Riffle
1225
- -- -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
1224
1223
0
Y
1222
m
w
1221
1220
__,Q, -- Bankfull - -$ -- Floodprone 0 As Built
— — Year 1 6 Year 2 —Year 3 --A Year 4 --11--- Year 5
1219
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

Permanent Cross Section X16
(Year 5 Monitoring Data - collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W!D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
10.2
8.8
1.16
2.09
1 7.55
1
8
1223.98
1223.98
X16 Pool
1227
1226
o-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- -- -- --- --------- --- -- -- -o
1225
1224
- ----- - - - ---
0
1223
w
1222
1221
1220
Bankfull - --e--- Floodprone - As Built - x - Year 1 —4 Year 2 — *— Year 3 Year 4 —F Year
1219
95 105 115 125
135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5
South Fork Hoppers
Creek - Year 5 (2010) Monitoring Profile
1215
LTB
RTB
1210
-+-WSF
-N-As -Built
—Year 2
-4--Year 3
1205
— -4--year 4
—-Year 5
0
1200
—
—
A
w
;r.
1195
1190
1185
14700 14900 15100 15300 15500 15700 15900 16100
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006 -4, EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
December 2010, Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
rl
j I South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
I)
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X1 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/8/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
IDATA ENTRY BY
KS
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
rl
j I South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
I)
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
4 I
4%
4%
Very Fine
063 125
4 I
4%
8%
Fine
125 25
6
6%
14%
Medium
25 50d
2
2%
16%
Coarse
50 1 0
2 w u
2%
18%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
14
14%
32%
R O
V
E
O
C
C
0n o o
�oc1
Very Fine
20 28
�
32%
Very Fine
28 40
=
32%
Fine
40 56
32%
Fine
5 6 8 0
2
2%
34%
Medium
80 110
" 4 -
4%
38%
Medium
11 0 160
n 8 "'
8%
46%
Coarse
160 226
4
4%
50%
Coarse
226 32
6
6%
56%
Very Coarse
32 45
12 °
12%
680
Very Coarse
45 64
16
16%
84%
Small
64 90
12 r
12%
96%
Small
90 128
2 `
2%
98%
<
noo
Large
128 180
2
2%
100%
Large
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024,
,
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
cmBedrock
> 2048
1, yid ��
100%
1
Total
1 100
100%
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
rl
j I South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
I)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X1 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
— 0 Pebble Data
001 01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
C
m
V
L
IL 50%
rn
to
R
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X1 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
I ■ Pebble Data I
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5

f�
i�t
n
F j
�I
0
9L
�I
�I
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X2 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/812010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
DATA ENTRY BY
KS
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
t Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
%Cum
Sett /Clay
< 063
33
33%
33%
Very Fine
063 125`1
L
33%
S
Fine
125 25
10
10%
43%
A
Medium
25 50
14
14%
57%
D
D
Coarse
50 1 0
8
8%
65%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
2 r
2%
67%
Very Fine
20 28
67%
O
Very Fine
28 40
3 a
3%
70%
Fine
40 56
5 �'
5%
75%
R
Fine
56 80
14
14%
89%
V
Medium
80 110
9 �r "'
9%
98%
Medium
110 160
2
2%
100%
E n�
O0 L `C - (
,� ,
Q
Coarse
160 226
s
100%
Coarse
226 32
, a
100%
(o) 0 0 C
Very Coarse
32 45
#;
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
Small
64 90�
°
100%
Small
90 128
100%
<
Large
128 180
100%
rno
Large
180 256
° �' ;
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
6iii
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
90% --*—Pebble Data
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
m
a- 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X2 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
+, 60%
c
m
L 50%
w
is
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
s Pebble Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X2 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

(I
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
I
I
J
0
Pi
0
PI
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
`— December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
�I
J
Distnbution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X3 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/8/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
IDATA ENTRY BY
KS
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
`— December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
�I
J
Distnbution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Sett /Clay
< 063
0%
Very Fine
063 125
,
0%
Fine
125 25
0%
S
A
Medium
25 50
„ 4
0%
N
D
Coarse
50 10
4
4%
4%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
2'
� Fa4
2%
6%
Very Fine
20 28
r � �, ;
6%
OHO
f
Very Fine
28 40
6%
Fine
40 56
_
6%
G
Fine
5 6 8 0
-
6%
R
V
Medium
80 110
6" r
6%
12%
Medium
11 0 160
6t
6%
18%
E
�0 L Q�c
Coarse
160 226
, ' ti
18%
O
C
Coarse
226 32
8
8%
26%
9
�� ��n
Very Coarse
32 45
42 n L
42%
68%
Very Coarse
45 64
24.E
24%
92%
0 C
Small
64 90
4-,
4%
96%
Small
90 128
, P
96%
<
Large
128 180
4
4%
100%
Large
180 256
-
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
t
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
10000
Total
100
100%
Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
`— December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
�I
J
Distnbution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
m
m
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% -1-
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X3 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
—s Pebble Data
01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
v
L 50%
H
y
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X3 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
■Pebble Data �-
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

I
C
L
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
N
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X4 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/10/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
IDATA ENTRY BY
KS
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
N
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class
-gilt / Clay
< 063
18
18%
18%
Very Fine
063 125
4
4%
22%
S
Fine
125 25
16-
16%
38%
A
Medium
25 50
12
12%
50%
N
D
Coarse
50 10
_18
18%
68%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
14
14%
82%
O �
G0
R
0 A
V
0o L
O
�O ooh C
Very Fine
20 28
82%
Very Fine
28 40
4
4%
86%
Fine
40 56
4
4%
90%
Fine
56 80
1
90%
Medium
80 110
4
4%
94%
Medium
110 160
4
4%
98%
Coarse
160 226
2
2%
100%
Coarse
226 32
t
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
O<
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
'
100%
<
Large
128 180
100%
Large
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
w
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
'
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
N
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
O a) 000 �O (00 LO 't
r
JOUTA;uao,1ad
0 -.-0 N
\ \ \
O O O O 0 P a)
LL n
t E
7 U
o a)
U) 0
1;7
L C
L
— Q O
O 0—
0 0 0 0 0 0 8
O a) 000 �O (00 LO 't
r
JOUTA;uao,1ad
0 -.-0 N
\ \ \
O O O O 0 P a)
LL n
t E
7 U
o a)
U) 0

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
a�
M 50%
U)
fA
t0
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
I III Pebble Data I
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X4 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
i
0% ITT; � t� 1� i� j 1� iT i i i i j i i i c i i i
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
U Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
r
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X5 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/8/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
IDATA ENTRY BY
KS
U Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
r
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
�`
0%
�y LL
Very Fine
063 125
0%
s w�zi
Y� A '�L'iL
YY N t
D '�1it
Fine
125 25
0%
Medium
25 50
'!
0%
Coarse
Very Coarse
50 10
1 0 20
2
2%
2%
2%
O
RFine
V
YO L
O
C
00�
Very Fine
20 28
2%
Very Fine
28 40
v
2%
Fine
40 56
' 5
5%
7%
56 80
2
2%
9%
Medium t
80 110
2
2%
11%
Medium
110 160
10
10%
21%
Coarse
160 226
6
6%
27%
Coarse
226 32
10
10%
37%
Very Coarse
32 45
23
23%
60%
Very Coarse
45 64
30
30%
90%
O<
Small
64 90
8
8%
98%
Small
90 128
98%
OLarge
Large
128 180
2
2%
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
RQUIL
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
U Largest particles 150 mm
(riffle)
r
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
90% t Pebble Data
80%
70%
60%
a�
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
m
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X5 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
r
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
L
L 50%
Ul
H
t0
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
1 ■ Pebble Data I
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X5 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
0% i i-r I-i � l I =-F = I I I
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
(pool)
� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION
X6 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/8/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
KS /CT
IDATA ENTRY BY
KS
Largest particles
(pool)
� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
+ 12
12%
12%
'SLY '�t'ti'Yt L
'LYtttt'L�t
�y�y 1yyy�yyy�
Very Fine
063 125
; 7
7%
19%
Fine
125 25
7
7%
26%
Medium
25 50
„14.
14%
40%
Coarse
Very Coarse
50 10
1 0 20
11
4
11%
j 4%
51%
j 55%
O
R
0 A
V
E
L
O
C
n OO6c)C
Very Fine
20 28
n
55%
Very Fine
28 40
8
8%
63%
Fine
40 56
16
16%
79%
Fine
5 6 8 0
3
3%
82%
Medium
80 110
15
15%
97%
Medium
110 160
n 3
3%
100%
Coarse
160 226
t
100%
Coarse
226 32
'
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
OSmall
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
Large
128 180
100%
QLarge
180 256
} ,
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
1000D
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
90%
80%
70%
L 60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
L
m
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
ti
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X6 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
t Pebble Data
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
l
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
1000 10000

aq
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
d
v
L
a 50%
fn
fn
cc
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X6 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
■ Pebble Data I
hi
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
t

f )
l �
0
0
0
0
I�
�I
J
r
l J
L�
f �
.I
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
J
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION
X7 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
IDATA ENTRY BY
IE
J
Largest particles
(pool)
l South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
/o Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
90
90%
90%
i'ttL'titL L
6U i t
8 t'L ♦L 1
A 't i t
N ti L 1
D Y t i
Very Fine
063 125
r 10
10%
100%
Fine
125 25
100%
Medium
25 50
100%
Coarse
Very Coarse
50 1 0
10 20
100%
100%
O�
G
R
V
E
c�O L
O
C
C
n 00�rCS
Very Fine
20 28
100%
Very Fine
28 40
a ��
100%
Fine
40 56
100%
Fine
56 80
r
- y
100%
J Medium
80 110
100%
Medium
110 160
100%
Coarse
160 226
~�
100%
Coarse
226 32
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
0
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
<
0
Large
128 180
100%
Large
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
l South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
11 3
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
+Pebble Data
98%
96%
5
LL
c 94%
d
v
L
m
a
92%
90%
88% 4-
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X7 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0
01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
4)
L
IL 50%
N
N
v 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X7 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
IIII Pebble Data
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 19 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X8 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
IDATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles 19 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
30
30%
30%
'LY 11'1't`111
`L'1 LY'1'i
'►'�1 S Y --1111
Y'1 A 'L'i'1
i'1 N '11'1
p tiiw
Very Fine
063 125
30%
Fine
125 25
25„
25%
55%
Medium
25 50
25
25%
80%
coarse
Very Coarse
50 10
1 0 20
3
3%
83%
83%
O
RFine
Very Fine
20 28
83%
Very Fine
28 40
83%
Fine
40 56
83%
56 80
4
4%
87%
V
E
L
O
���OCIC
Medium
80 110
87%
Medium
110 160
6
6%
93%
Coarse
160 226
` 7
7%
100%
Coarse
226 32
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
00 C
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
<
QLarge
Large
128 180
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
RQUII
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles 19 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0 063
0 125
025
050
10
20
28
40
56
80
113
160
226
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

100%
90%
80%
70%
L 60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
L
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X8 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
—4 Pebble Data
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
a
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
p� 50%
N
N
f0
v 40%
30%
20%
10%
1 ■ Pebble Data I
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X8 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
0% A
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006-4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X9 POOI
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
% cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
0%
i yy yy'i'L 'i i
�i wL
4
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
063 125
125 25
25 50
/ t
21
21%
0%
0%
21%
Coarse
50 10
32 4
32%
53%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
31 ' }
31%
84%
O^
R O
V
E
L
O
(7 OOcx�C
Very Fine
20 28
'
84%
Very Fine
28 40
84%
Fine
40 56
84%
Fine
56 80
15
5%
89%
Medium
80 110
4
4%
93%
Medium
110 160
93%
Coarse
160 226
4
4%
97%
Coarse
226 32
3
3%
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
OC
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
Large
128 180
100%
OLarge
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
O
Bedrock
> 2048
w
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90% t Pebble Data
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X9 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
+, 60%
c
m
L
L 50%
ql
v 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X9 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
1 ■ Pebble Data I
0 0630 1250 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 160 226 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
180 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X10 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
180 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
'
0%
'yfi i'tiL'yL'yL't
ww �w ti w�
'ALL Y'1
tiff Yeti
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
063 125
125 25
25 50
1
f 8 n
8%
00
0%
8%
Coarse
50 10
8%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
r 5 i
5%
13%
O-
R 0
R
V
E
L
O
C
(7 OOcx�cCY
Very Fine
20 28
13%
Very Fine
28 40
13%
Fine
40 56
13%
Fine
56 80
13%
Medium
80 110
13%
Medium
110 160
13%
Coarse
160 226
5
5%
18%
Coarse
226 32
18%
Very Coarse
32 45
15
15%
33%
Very Coarse
45 64
12
12%
45%
OSmall
64 90
8
8%
53%
Small
90 128
27
27%
80%
<
OLarge
Large
128 180
20-
- --'20%
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
'
100%
ROC
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
180 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D040064 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5

100%
90% 4 Pebble Data
80%
70%
60%
d
c
ILL
c 50%
a�
L
a 40%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X10 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
01 1 10 100
- Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
}, 60%
c
d
v
L
CL 50%
H
fq
10
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X10 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
I ■ Pebble Data I
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
IF-1
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X11 POOI
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
IF-1
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
" 15
15%
15%
yy
'tLti'�t�ti
Very Fine
063 125
15
15%
/ 30%
ti t.� L�ti L
`F t 'L't•'L'1
'YLL Y�L'1
Fine
Medium
125 25
25 50
25
20
25%
20%
55%
75%
Coarse
50 1 0
5
5%
80%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
5 --F5'/,
0
85%
O�
G 0
R
V
E
L
O
C
n OQ�C
Very Fine
20 28
r
85%
Very Fine
28 40
85%
Fine
40 56
1
85%
Fine
F
5 6 8 0
, 3
3%
88%
Medium
80 110
7
7%
95%
Medium
110 160
5
5%
100%
Coarse
160 226
,�
100%
Coarse
226 32
-
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
w
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
0 <
OLarge
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
r °
100%
Large
128 180
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
1100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
; .
100%
Total
1,00
100%
Largest particles
IF-1
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
d
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
t Pebble Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X11 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
001 01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
C
G1
V
a 50%
N
N
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
1 ■ Pebble Data I
r—
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X11 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
1 � 1 � i � �
O o �0 TT I � +TIC —i I�� iTi a —T
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
130 mm
(riffle)
^I
J South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
l December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
F 1
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X12 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
1E/PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
130 mm
(riffle)
^I
J South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
l December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
F 1
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
0%
S
A 'Yt
N
Y D �y'�i'�1
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
063 125
125 25
25 50
7
7%
0%
0%
7%
Coarse
50 1 0
5
5%
12%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
12%
O
G
R
A
V
E
�O L
i O
n 0 C
Very Fine
20 28
12%
Very Fine
28 40
12%
Fine
40 56
12%
Fine
56 80
12%
Medium
80 110
12%
Medium
110 160
a 5
5%
17%
Coarse
160 226
17%
Coarse
226 32
15
15%
32%
Very Coarse
32 45
36
1 36%
68%
Very Coarse
45 64
-17
17%
85%
0 <
Small
64 90
5
5%
90%
Small
90 128
10
10%
100%
<
OLarge
Large
128 180
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Rim
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
130 mm
(riffle)
^I
J South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
l December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
F 1

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
a�
m
a- 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001 01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X12 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
L
a 50%
N
N
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X12 - Riffle
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
I i Pebble Data I
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
tNvvi/
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 5 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION
X13 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE/PL
IDATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
tNvvi/
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Pool
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
15
15%
15 %
ti�t'1��LM
i L L'Li�'L LM
wLLy
�KLy
ti'�t l'L�'LM
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
063 125
125 25
25 50
" 10
35
24 _
10%
35%
24%
25%
60%
84%
Coarse
Very Coarse
50 10
1 0 20
84%
84%
O�
G
R
V
E
Very Fine
20 28
84%
Very Fine
28 40
84%
Fine
40 56
w
84%
Fine
5 6 8 0
-
84%
Medium
80 110
84%
Medium
110 160
11
11%
95%
L
O
C
(7 C
Coarse
160 226
95%
Coarse
226 32
95%
Very Coarse
32 45
5
5%
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
OC
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
QLarge
Large
128 180
100%
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
a
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
tNvvi/
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
m
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X13 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0 Pebble Data
01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
a�
L 50%
N
y
_R
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
I ® Pebble Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X13 - Pool
Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

I
ni
�I
l�
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH /LOCATION
X14 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
f
0%
Very Fine
063 125
F ,
0%
'L'L t`►'L'L'L'L'1
S
A �L'�'
D �9
Fine
Medium
125 25
25 50
5
5%
0%
5%
Coarse
50 10
5%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
j
5%
O
c0
R
V
E
L
O
C
C
On o Ocx�c 1
Very Fine
20 28
5%
Very Fine
28 40
5%
Fine
40 56
5%
Fine
56 80
r
5%
Medium
80 110
3
3%
8%
Medium
110 160
8%
Coarse
160 226
3
3%
11
Coarse
226 32
11%
Very Coarse
32 45
- 45
45% '
56%
Very Coarse
45 64
27
27%
83%
0 C
Small
64 90
16
16%
99%
Small
90 128
99%
do
Large
128 180
1
1 %
100%
Large
180 256
100%
r Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Sam
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
150 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek
X14 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% Pebble Data
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
I
01 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
d
v
IL 50%
N
N
tC
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
1 ! Pebble Data I
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X14 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0% i i i I -; TIC T i i i
00630 125025 050 1 0 20 28 40 56 80 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

f
I J
i�
L,
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
220 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 5 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION
X15 Riffle
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
1E/PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
220 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
0%
yLy�.ti��.ti
Very Fine
063 125
0%
'L '4'L'Lti
�'t tiw
Fine
Medium
125 25
25 50
_ 5
5%
0%
5%
Coarse
50 10
5%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
5%
O
G 0
R
V
E
L
O
C
C
O Query
Very Fine
20 28
5%
Very Fine
28 40
5%
Fine
40 56
10
10%
15%
Fine
56 80
15%
Medium
80 110
2
2%
17%
Medium
110 160
17%
Coarse
160 226
17%
Coarse
226 32
5
5%
22%
Very Coarse
32 45
24
24%
46%
Very Coarse
45 64
35
35%
81%
OO
Small
64 90
5
5%
86%
Small
90 128
12
12%
98%
<
Q
Large
128 180
'
98%
Large
180 256
2-
2%
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
220 mm
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitonng Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
d
v
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
* Pebble Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X15 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
001 01 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
100
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
a 50%
U)
N
10
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
■ Pebble Data I
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X15 - Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
O / - i- - i- �- �- -1- -- �
i-T -I IT 1 T'i -r i-i-
0 0630 125 0 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX NEUSE -1 LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET POOL 100 -COUNT
Largest particles
(pool)
+ ^� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
BAKER PROJECT NO 108410
SITE OR PROJECT
South Fork Hoppers Creek Year 5 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION
X16 Pool
DATE COLLECTED
9/22/2010
FIELD COLLECTION BY
IE /PL
DATA ENTRY BY
IE
Largest particles
(pool)
+ ^� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
10
10%
10%
'►'L'L'L'L'L'L'L's
wti way
Very Fine
Fine
Medium
063 125
125 25
25 50
10
1 45
10%
45%
10%
20%
65%
Coarse
50 1 0
16
16%
81%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
d'6
6%
87%
O
R
V
E
L
O
Very Fine
20 28
y
87%
Very Fine
28 40
87%
Fine
40 56
87%
Fine
56 80
v5
5%
92%
Medium
80 110
8
8%
100%
Medium
110 160
100%
Coarse
160 226
100%
C
nO��ry
Coarse
226 32
100%
Very Coarse
32 45
100%
Very Coarse
45 64
100%
0
Small
64 90
100%
Small
90 128
100%
�
Large
128 180
100%
0 ((��
Large
180 256
100%
Small
256 362
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
C
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles
(pool)
+ ^� South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
CD
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
m
°- 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X16 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
—�— Pebble Data
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
1000 10000

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
m
L
L 50%
N
N
V 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
-_j
■Pebble Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X16 - Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0 0630 1250 25 0 50 1 0 2 0 2 8 4 0 5 6 8 0 11 3 16 0 22 6 32 45 64 90 128 `180 256 362 512 1024 2048 5000
Particle Size Class (mm)
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 -4 EBX NEUSE -I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

I
APPENDIX C
AS -BUILT PLAN SHEETS
1
e
J

Mp
-70
ROAD SR 6 1776
JBUC R/M)
'NDEX OF SHEETS
T1 -
S1 -
P1 -P9 -
TITLE SHEET
SYMBOL SHEET
PLAN SHEETS
PROJECT ENGINEER
EGR
DATE
06/30 2006
NOTE
1 PHOTO ID POINTS
AND VEGETATION PLOTS
LOCATED USING GPS
2 THESE PLANS WERE ORGINIIALLY SEALED
ON 06/30/06 AND ARE PROVIDED WITH THIS
MONITORING REPORT FOR REFERENCE ONLY
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS -BUILT
TITLE SHEET

m
arA
LEGEND
{
110 +00
AS -BUILT THALWEG (STA 100 +85 TO 181 +70)
i
ROOTWAD
10+00
DESIGN THALWEG ALIGNMENT (STA 10 +85 TO 82 +00)
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
•
PHOTO ID POINT
- - - - - -900- - - - - - -
MAJOR (INDEX) CONTOUR
°
SURVEY CONTROL POINT
--------- - - - - --
MINOR CONTOUR
CROSS VANE
2
CONSERVATION EASEMENT i
®
LOG VANE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FENCE
0 0 0 oc
VEGETATION TRANSPLANT
BAMBOO BARRIER
°
COVER LOG
X12 CROSS SECTION
CROSS SECTION
BAMBOO TREATMENT AREA
VEGETATION PLOT
FORD STREAM CROSSING
WETLAND RESTORATION
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
v

PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
0224C P1
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLY
APPROVED BY
EGR
DATE
06/30/2006
/X/ �/ \ - - - - --
PHOTO w PHOroa-
POINT 067 Ln
110 + /// / _ _ \ \ \�� 1 \ /// -- W \ \ \\ s
\\ \ PHOTO tD \ / / ' C6 L PHOMOD \ \ — X15 CRpg� SECTI 8\ COVER sac co�R LOG
I / \ \ CL
\ \ POINT 070 \ PQT 065
\
BE UN C5R5TRH6TI0t!_ \ ` \ \ \ / �j / / \ i \ \ I I 1 LLJ
i
i`ry1Ib^ \ \,
lb
\ I
LoC
pWN>T \ PROTOM
7j 31600 \�
11. 13.9iJ- \ _
i
\ \
v
\
A
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS —BUILT
20._y 20 40
�IIIIIII —
SCALE (FT)

PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
I 0224C P2
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLY
I APPROVED BY
EGR
I — — — — DATE
_ 06/30/2006
01
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FENCE
roPC1NT/6\
PWA
\\ __ __�� / \ w( O
COVER LAC
PHOTO 6)
LLB -- /� / I 1 /v�tT A9" ( / / f57 / \ 'v / JI } \ Y I
I POINT � \ ' / z
PHOTO 6) T U
Q j52
COVER LOG \ I g OVER LOG / \ Q
/r - - - --1
16 V.VER LAG
PHOTO 0
P�MIOT / POINT P6 / / / �i j 'x� X -7- _
- - - -
\vcr�PLOrq_ /1(� ; xix X /x_x�
' t x/ �
--x x /x __ x_x -x
/ --
_
X � //X X / s6o��,n NLAREA -- x--- x— X x
\
/ /C / /x� x X �x x/K X\
lX x X x x X\_X x x I Ix Nom/
\ ` \_ x (x x XI /J x X x x x J
\ \ ' I X 6( IX x X
x x x / I
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
RED AR` /W / x 1 x x /x'x i
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N 67723799 / / / / / %` \x X X X/.(/ /
I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1747190.3 7 / / / / / / / XI X I\ X ,1[ _,L
—
33
I SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS -BUILT
I 20 Q 20 40
I
MINOR—
SCALE FT
L *t 0224c lgn 0224 AS9UIL drq SHEEMdvp N 12 2007
I
L

1/
PHO-PHOTO _
POINT 221] \
PD 5
R/
/�I O(i VINF
67761109
COVER �o `.a� 1 I ila76e9 oe WETLAND RESTORATION AREA
PHOTO PaNroi�6 \ PHOrow I�
POINT /16
z
\ \ 1 \ \ COYER LOO :2
p�
PONT T 0sz oO
I \ 3r
COYER LOO
COYER LOO
PNOrn ID
POINT K7
PHOTO ID
POINT /19
/2211 /
REB \ /
\ \ \ \\ \ N677359
IPOINT
r

r
PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
0224C P4
f PROJECT ENGINEER
CLY
I
APPROVED BY
EGR
DAIS
06/30 2006
� a
BCP X2209
REBAR /CAP
N 677822 79
E 1145096 72
ELEV 1217 05 I I
CE 1 I
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FENCE
/ / I
TOMATIC MEd /5
/
/Vo PLOT #8 -
+ + +4 + + + + + NOTO ID PHOTO ID
W
I I POT ►44 POINT N2 i usa+EaoacAL -- —_
NON- DISTURBANCE AREA
/ WETLAND RESTORATION AREA ^ / / / — NT D _
^1 / VEG PLOT 07 POINT
/ ` J
/
OG VANE
COVER LOG
/ I at S'REAV COS 5 a
Ld
00 PHOTO 0
POINT 147 \ Q
PHOTO ID
P094T 041
\ \ COVER LOC BAMBOO BARRIER — — —
A� \ LOG VANE
PONT LOG VANE
/ I I/ I
�I
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS —BUILT
\ ° 20 9 20 40
I SCALE (FT)
L pct 02240 Iqn 0224 ASBUIL Cvp SHEETS.E q N 12 2007
!
I

0
00
apt
X
I
PHOTO ID
POINT 132
CE z
\ \ \
zz
X1205 / —
— _ —
Ltl
\ pA\ppoO� 1d�\ \
='—
_ _ -. \ \\ \\ \ ` — /
= = ==
\O
zzx
L
11970 i
i i i' i �i i i yY i
i i/ i i i
+
Of
DO
\
I
K Nn
U d
I I
I
I1 I I +\ \
/ / WETLAND RESTORATION AREA \
\
I
W O
1194,L
I
I
\ \
I \ PNOT � ro � \
'NOTO
X19
\
I
I
\
POINT J23
\
\ \
\\ I VEO PLOT
a
\ \ \ \ r
I I P
PHOTO ED'
I
'
rty
1 P�OU01 u0
1 PONT j24
PHOTO ID
0
1
POINT In
1
1
F�
S
r
4q 2 /
to° /
I li
USA 9 N 12 2007
II
10,
Iosszw, \ \ \ \ \ \ I\
c M" -MB ss +B2 �x \ 37 OD \ / / — / \ \
a� END OF TWO 202 +02 79 \ \ \ \LOGS VANE y \ \ \
PHOTO 0
T 125
PO RAM I Z
N 67617731 \ I=
11493161 \ \ O
\ � H
POINT /31
\ \ \ \ RAW GAUGE
PROJECT REFERENCE NO
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLY
APPROVED BY
EGR
DATE
06/30/200
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS -BUILT
20 4 20 40
SCALE (FT)

N1
O)
L /
i
I
�
�—
\ 1
apt\\
_i
wl
Ci\
\ \\ \\
I
ONTO/ro
Po 1 —
-93 2
/i
�
N 6nOCAP
N 7BBa0.]J
\
i i i i t
/
t i i i i i
i i \\ i
i i i \ i i •a i
11LiW
n 0 12
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA
I
\v—xm
^ COVER L
O Aur— _
\
\ / ` \" \Vn
�4 I
N1
O)
L /
I
�
\ 1
wl
Ci\
\ \\ \\
I
ONTO/ro
Po 1 —
Ul
/ c'w /
ILo
/ / I
/ 0^
LL
/ / I
LLJ
z
\ J
IU
Q
✓L I
r. I
D /D W
I
/ I
/
4, i I
l I I

J
1
1
I EOC VANE
J / \ /PNOro N)
—70+� / POINT 012 /
PHOTO 10
/ 1 _
POINT 010
6
ob
71
Li.l
/
rNOTa -M
/
/ \\
Z
IN
POT (1}
ENHANPEMENT
$REA
W
\ PHO
PONT PgT /11
I
\
\
\ 1 1
\
y
\ \
\
PHOTO 0
OJT
1C/
\
�L
/
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA \
\
/ ,--.
178+ /
w
T.
TOMATIO WELL 02
Z
T 07
.l�
.I,
_
v
w
w
w
U
41
�L
W
W
EWIANCEMNT AREe
y
4,
—
�
I
a
I
1 I
WETLAND
RESTORAOON AREA
ENHANPEMENT
$REA
W
/
/ ,--.
178+ /
w
W 1I TO
Z
T 07
.l�
.I,
_
v
w
w
w
U
41
W
W
EWIANCEMNT AREe
y -'
'--
—
MOXIT0ILNO NELL /1
w'
— — —
— —
—
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA -
—
I

1 �
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA /
/
w .o` w
t
r a
W w w w W W W
Iw w w W w w w w w w w w W/ W w W
w w w w w w w w w w w 4, w w
/
I
Q / —1185—
(1 w w w W w w w w w w 4PIiOTO ID*
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREA 4t TT N
w w J w w w w W w W w —1185 —
PHOTO ID 1 /
w w w W w
t w w w eel w kJ w
AUTOMATIC WELL 01 }
00 _` w w w w w
_ w w we
a w w w
PHOTO ID/
PANT /3
I
z
ENHANCEMENT AREA '✓ \ /
U w w
i
w r y \ \\ \J$
PHOTO _ = = - -- - ID /
DINT /5
WETLAND RESTORATION AREA /
I /
i
L p
END CONSTRUCTION
101 70
NO 1 SHEET NO
P9
PROJECT ENGINEER
tut(
DAIS
06/30 2006
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS -BUILT
20 4 20 40
IIIII
SCALE (FT)

IFj
r�
i
'J
-1
1
II
�J
t 1
i
APPENDIX E
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY - YEAR 5
J
r

i
0
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 4
Cross Section 7
Cross Section 8
I Cross Section Parameters
Pool
Riffle
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
114
113
111 138
80
134
122
119
133
130
Floodprone Width (ft)
65 5
669
596 61 1
678
479
430
43 3
47 8
63 1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
101
112
82 99
86
9 1
7 1
57
69
73
BF Mean Depth (ft)
09
10
07 07
11
07
06
05
05
06
BF Max Depth (ft)
19
20
15 13
22
14
13
14
15
20
Width/Depth Ratio
130
113
149 192
-174
196
209
249
258
234
Entrenchment Ratio
57
60
54 44
8 5
36
3 5
36
36
49
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
132
132
126 152
102
147
134
129
143
141
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
08
08
07 07
08
06
05
04
05
05
Substrate
d50 (mm)
025
0 16 0 26
<0 063
0 19
026
043
023
d84 (nun)
09
033 048
<0 063
08
08
54
62
H Reachwide Parameters
MY 1 2006
MY 2 2007
MY 3 2008
MY 4 2009
MY 5 20010
Min Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Min
Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
8
15
12
Pool Spacing (ft)
10
20
15
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1793
Channel Length (ft)
203
Sinuosity
1 13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00314
BF Slope (ft/ft)
003
Ros en Classification
B
0
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse 1 LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site Project No D040064
�" �'i�`
�rRe`ifeh
�Stft"it�`Fut•I�H
'°" h 2 �' �
, � k =�`-
t �'
� � � s�
Cross Section I
Cross Section 2
Cross Section 3
Cross Section 4
1 Cross-Section Parameters
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
237
21
2176 2235
1988
1338
153 1576
161
1288
1443 1556
1501
1398
1439
1505
1602
1463
1652 1529
Floodprone Width (ft
7042
7042
7041 7037
7042
6995
70 6969
7001
7003
6983 699
6977
6988
6977
6988
699
6992
699 6994
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
242
2146
21 19 205
2041
17 17
1868 1934
165
1598
1841 199
1898
191
2057
1907
212
1927
232 1983
BF Mean Depth (ft)
10
102
097 092
103
128
122 123
103
124
128 128
126
137
143
127
132
132
141 13
BF Max Depth (11)
24
224
228 225
224
294
223 237
223
201
225 237
233
251
256
255
283
258
3 17 268
WiddvDepth Ratio
23 1
2055
2235 2434
1937
1042
1252 1284
1567
1039
1 l 31 12 16
1188
1021
1006
1187
12 1
11 11
1175 11 78
Entrenchment Ratio
30
335
324 3 1
354
523
458 442
435
544
484 449
465
5
485
464
436
478
423 458
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
2571
2304
237 24 19
2194
1594
1774 1822
18 16
1536
1699 18 12
1753
1672
17 25'
1759
1866
1727
1934 1789
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
094
093
089 085
093
108
105 106
091
104
108 110
108
1 14
1 19
108
1 14
1 12
120 1 11
Substrate
d50 (mm
016
30 40
225
0 095 02
05
035
07
36
38
38
019
024
055 04
d84 mm
035
54 57
65
035 075
49
7
34
55
58
57
15
11
14 36
MY
2006
MY 2
2007
MY 3
2008
MY4
2009
MY 5
2010
11 Reachwrde Parameters
Mm
Max
Mean
Mm
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Mm
Max
Mean
Mm
Max
Mean
Pattern
Channel Beltwrdth (ft
63
108
Radius of Curvature (ft
36
612
Meander Wavelength (ft )
126
198
Meander Width Ratio
3 5
6
Profile
Riffle length (ft
Riffle Slope (fVftl
0 005
0 009
0 007
0 003
002
0 011
0 006
001
0 008
0 003
0 021
0 012
0 006
0 032
0 017
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
72
126
90
58
128
93
63
128
96
71
125
100
76
121
101
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft
2447
1150
1150
1150
1251
Channel Length (ft
3301
1432
1396
1410
1339
SmuOsIt3
135
125
12
123
107
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft
00047
00067
0 004
00045
0 006
BF Slope (ft/ft
00035
00073
0 008
00077
0 006
Rosgen Classificatior
C
C
C
C
C
zI �
wk �
1
Cross Section 5
Cross Section 6
Cross Section 9
1 Cross - Section Parameters
Riffle
Pool
Pool
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MY MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
15 14
2009
1999 19 19
1638
2276
3133 2801
2611
2678
296 3033
299
2967
3057
Floodprone Width (ft )
6977
698
6973 6971
6978
7052
705 7051
7056
707
6971 6976
6978
6972
6986
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
26 I
252
2528 239
2185
502
5122 4636
416
4309
7407 7557
7407
686
8224
BF Mean Depth (ft)
137
125
126 124
133
179
163 166
159
161
242 249
248
231
269
BF Max Depth (ft )
2 17
25
248 242
238
402
392 347
308
361
321 351
338
307
404
Width/Depth Ratio
1 103
1601
1581 1543
1228
1272
19 16 1692
1639
1664
1225 12 18
1207
1283
1136
_
Entrenchment Ratio
461
348
349 36
426
3 1
225 252
27
264
235 23
233
235
229
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1788
2259
2251 2167
1904
2634
3459 3133
2929
30
3444 3531
3486
3429
3595
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
14597
1 11554
1 123 1 103
1 148
191
1 481 148
142
1 436
2 15 2 1402
2 12
200
2 288
Substrate
d50 (mm
75
27 36
39
0 15 02
049
093
032
038
068
093
d84 mm
30
53 57
60
2 08
22
8 3
12
3
48
57
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse 1 LLC
December 2010 Momtonng Year 5

= -_1 = C-7 L= = O O = O O ED O = O CLJ L-i = L-,
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5
South Fork Hoppe Creek Restoration Site Project No D040064
a
Cross Section 10
Cross Section l l
Cross Section 12
Cross Section 13
1 Cross Section Parameters
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft
1893
1801
1732 1775
1689
258
2989 306
3108
2977
181 18 15
1763
18 18
1741
1998
2293
2278
1755 1248
Floodprone Width (ft
7024
7022
7017 7021
70 15
6981
6985 6983
6989
6983
7029 7026
7026
7021
7027
702
7022
703
70 11 70 18
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
2768
2627
2525 248
23 51
388
3529 342
33 5
3168
2271 2175
2084
205
1865
3069
3155
2905
237 2543
BF Mean Depth (ft)
146
146
146 139
139
129
1 18 1 12
108
106
125 120
1 18
1 13
107
1 54
138
127
135 204
BF Max Depth (ft
269
257
258 264
255
284
274 272
288
289
195 189
19
189
182
3 19
287
252
23 271
Width/Depth Rau
1294
1234
1188 1272
12 13
2006
2524 2738
2882
2798
1443 15 14
1492
16 11
1626
13
1667
1787
1301 6 13
Entrenchment Ran
371
39
405 4
4 15
271
234 228
225
235
388 387
398
39
404
3 51
306
309
399 562
Wetted Perimeter (ft )
2185
2093
2024 2053
1967
2838
3225 3284
3324
3189
206 2055
1999
2044
1955
2306
2569
2532
2025 1656
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
127
126
125 121
1 195
137
109 104
101
0 993
1 10 106
104
100
0 954
133
123
1 15
1 17 1 536
Substrate
d50 (mm )
34
44 55
80
027 007
027
022
36
27
45
38
03
017
08 021
d84 mum
80
125 150
148
09 07
49
18
55
44
65
52
052
065
74 13
Il Reachwide Parameters
MY l 2006
MY 2 2007
MY 3 2008
MY 4 2009
MY 5 2010
Mm Max Mean
Mm Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
56
96
Radius of Curvature (ft)
32
544
Meander Wavelength (ft)
112
176
Meander Width Ratio
35
6
Profile
Riffle length (ft
Riffle Slope (ftlff,
001
002
0 015
001
003
002
001
003
002
0 011
003
0 022
0 012
0 035
0 024
Pool Length (ft
Pool Spacing (ft
64
112
88
60
122
91
52
135
94
85
158
114
83
169
116
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft
2527
1508
1508
1508
1565
Channel Length (ft
3725
2130
2164
2139
2220
Sinuosit3
147
14
14
1 42
142
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft
0 0068
00076
00076
00074
0 008
BF Slope (ft/ft
0 005
00078
0 008
00077
0 007
Ros en Classificatiot
C
C
C
C
C
South Fork Ho ers Creek Restoration Site Project No D04006 -4
fff�
sEk
Fork XIRA t( Cott
Cross Section 14
Cross Section 15
Cross Section 16
I Cross - Section Parameters
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft )
1592
1671
1844 1644
2026
1633
1629 1646
1778
1758
1368 1401
1378
1338
88
Floodprone Width (ft)
7008
7007
70 11 7001
7012
6986
6988 6988
6991
6993
6901 7003
7001
6998
7012
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
18 18
1891
1894 192
1977
1774
17 13 1667
164
162
12 16 1135
1143
9 7
1025
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 14
1 13
103 1 17
098
109
105 101
092
092
089 081
083
073
1 16
BD Max Depth (ft)
176
193
199 198
197
185
1 82 179
1 89
189
153 1 8
179
161
209
Width/Depth Ratio
1394
1477
1795 1408
2077
1503
1549 1626
1928
1908
1539 1729
166
1845
755
Entrenchment Ratic
44
419
3 8 43
346
428
429 424
39
398
504 5
508
523
797
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
182
1897
205 1878
2222
1851
1839 1848
1962
1942
1546 1563
1544
1484
11 12
Hydraulic Radius (ft )
100
100
092 102
089
096
093 090
084
083
079 073
074
065
092
Substrate
d50 (mum
35
33 40
43
40 09
43
47
052
0 18
017
04
d84 mm
54
54 56
68
60 52
61
70
75
085
035
16
South Fork Hoppers EEP Contract No D04006 4 EBX Neuse I LLC
December 2010 Monitoring Year 5

FIGURES
�I
r I
li
FIGURES

Targeted Local Watershed
03050101040020 11
•31
Catawba 03-08-30
V
221
r
Project Site
64
Catawba 03 -08-04
13
EEP Contract No.: D04006-4
Map Vicinity Legend Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Restoration Project
Interstate NC Primary Roads South Fork Hoppers Creek
d6" - US Route 8 Digit HUC EBX Neusc-1, LLC
Eymemll 0 0�5 1 2 909 Capability Drive
I allucill-elil Suite 3 100
PROGRAM Raleigh, NC 27606
1 McDowell County, NC December 2010

The site is located north of NC Highway 226 from Shelby towards •, r' ! '` Cj� ' ' r
Dysartsville. Approximately 3 miles past the Rutherford/McDowell
County line, take a left onto Walker Road. Take the next right onto
Pierce Road. The site is divided into two separate sections by
Pierce Road. The construction entrance for the downstream
section is on the right before the culvert crossing. The construction
entrance for the upstream section is on the left immediately after the I ood ontr'N `Q';� ,� s
culvert crossing. '��"'• ,�i�,�
L?8m o •2
( �, - • -• � + . '� '� cry i I. • i.::� `` `.� •�
Jf L 1....
'� ( _� •• -fir ��l-4, [ J
Qrt k
IN,
^� , t►�' ,%� �' ,f r_ ` , \ � Lam, •\ �,,� 'y.� 1, � ; :�J: - •, � , •.,fir
1
- �'C�' -�'` �-� 'v —`� i� �� .1 .�_.- � � pop . %; - �� f . I .,'. - - •, ' 1
1,1 \: �.- �_ ►J F5 .1 ,rte I % ^���, },. -� .''�• v \ • }..! �'� �J vn.
i r' J + • � � • f `, rte.., I � `''` � Mr i r / l t ; - ,, ` •''\�; `•
Nk
/`• � `� - ,-�-.7'' f' /` '`�./''`r'-.` f 1` 11�• `•� 1 ; �"rc -`- 1, 1'j Ir • i y% /, I +_� -`�, J'•'t ,�
/ f: -� � �1�� I it •A -•.y / J�—( -'� Ci /J— _1 �. II ,�t�� _ _ �.;. \..} � .
Aaa vicinr(y Legend r g EEP Contract No.: D04006 -4 Figure 2. Site Topographic Map
Restoration Project
Watershed Boundary South Fork Hoppers Creek
L _ Project Boundary
% // EBX Neuse -1, LLC
tem 4( �' Project Reaches 909 Capability Drive
1d1K'e111e11t U s«, 1.o Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
December 2010 ///irrrr