20050745 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20100217

f
`V ...I':
lk
' ,' •• � : 3'�� ,'*gam 'Q�^'�',t'
909 Capability Drive
- Suite 3100 ,
A.
J.+'�.''?!.. .` \: %,,jrr': �,1 }rte .t' ^•,iy'�. \�': �" '
�''.,. `�rlji:,' :ii i1'•'•�1:. �';% ':1 ;ice \'''::�i:; �''. •;. �.
,fir• �•• •''��jj - ��• -.:. - '`.� \.. ...
._mow .. .i... _ ..
- :'
�=•: •�;_ -;'`: ,'ice >'I- --
909 Capability Drive
- Suite 3100 ,
A.
J.+'�.''?!.. .` \: %,,jrr': �,1 }rte .t' ^•,iy'�. \�': �" '
�''.,. `�rlji:,' :ii i1'•'•�1:. �';% ':1 ;ice \'''::�i:; �''. •;. �.
,fir• �•• •''��jj - ��• -.:. - '`.� \.. ...
._mow .. .i... _ ..

J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 SUMMARY
2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2 1 Project Location
22 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
23 Project Description and Restoration Approach
24 Project History and Background
25 Project Plan
3 0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3 1 Soil Data
32 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
33 Vegetation Success Criteria
34 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
3 5 Vegetation Observations
36 Vegetation Photos
4 0 STREAM MONITORING
41 Description of Stream Monitoring
42 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
43 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
44 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
45 Stream Stability Assessment
46 Stream Stability Baseline
47 Longitudinal Profile Results
48 Cross - Section Monitoring Results
50 HYDROLOGY
60-1 BENTHIC MACROEWERTEBRATE MONITORING
61 Description of Benthic Macromvertebrate Monitoring
62 Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Results
63 Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Discussion
64 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
65 Photograph Log
7 0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
90 REFERENCES
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
0
i
1
3
3
3
3
5
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
17
20
20
20
20
21
22
24
26
27

0
a
APPENDICES O
APPENDIX A - Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary O
APPENDIX E - Benthic Macromvertebrate Monitoring Data
LIST OF TABLES
U
Table 1 Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Background
Table 5 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6 Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Table 7 2009 (Year 4) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment O
Table 10 Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11 Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2009 (Year 4) 0
Table 12 Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic
Macromvertebrate Sampling Data O
0
O
Bailey Fork EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 11
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

I
L
I
�J
Lj
F)
U
I�
L�
U
i
U
f
1]
H
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2 (a)
Figure 2 (b)
Figure 2 (c)
Figure 2 (d)
Figure 3
Figure 4
Project Vicinity Map Bailey Fork Site
As -Built Plan Sheet 13 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
As -Built Plan Sheet 14 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
As -Built Plan Sheet 15 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
As -Built Plan Sheet 16 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Sites
O Bailey Fork EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 111
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

10 SUMMARY
Li This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2009 growing season
(Monitoring Year 4) on the Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ( "Site ")
J Construction of the Site, including planting of trees, was completed in April 2006 In accordance
with the Restoration Plan for the Site, 21 vegetation monitoring plots, 13 permanent cross -
sections, 3 longitudinal profile surveys, and 8 hydrologic monitoring gauges (4 automated and 4
J manual) were installed and/or assessed across the restoration site The 2009 data represent
results from the fourth year of vegetation and hydrologic monitoring for wetlands and streams
The design for the Bailey Fork Site involved the restoration of a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain
J alluvial forest" and associated riverine wetlands described by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
Prior to restoration, wetland, stream, and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields After construction, it was
determined that 12 1 acres of riverine wetlands and 6,097 linear feet of stream were restored, and
5 3 acres of riverine wetlands and 9,765 linear feet of stream were enhanced
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN 14224,
COOP 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts The on -site manual gauge is used to validate observations
J made at the automated station According to the Morganton weather station data, total rainfall
during the Year 4 monitoring period was above the normal average from January 2009 through
November 2009 For this period, the Morganton measured rainfall to be 3 07 inches above the
F1J historic average
l J A total of 21 monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (l Om x l Om) in size, were used to
n document survivability of the woody vegetation planted at the Site Vegetation monitoring
JI documented the average number of surviving stems per acre on site to be 546, which is a survival
rate of greater than 79 percent based on the initial planting count of 687 stems per acre
-, Surviving planted vegetation ranged from 200 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre A lower
Usurvival rate in Plot 9 was documented and the surrounding area will require supplemental
planting with 4 -year old stems in early 2010 Overall, the Site is also on track to meet the final
success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the Restoration Plan for
0 the Site
The Year 4 cross - sectional monitoring data document that there has been some adjustment to
0 stream dimension since construction The Year 4 longitudinal profiles showed that some pools
have filled slightly due to accumulated sediment The on -site crest gauges documented the
occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at two of the three crest gauges during Year 4 of
n the post - construction monitoring period The bankfull measurements collected during
Il J; monitoring through Year 4, document that all three restored reaches have met the success criteria
for bankfull events for the project Overall, monitoring indicates that the Site is on track to
achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the site Restoration Plan
During 2009, all eight on -site wells recorded a hydroperiod of greater than 7 percent during the
growing season Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system,
O indicates that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the
hydroperiods recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site Overall monitoring data indicates
OBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
a

1
that the Site is on track to achieve the hydrologic success criteria specified in the Restoration
Plan
The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and habitat diversity for benthic
macromvertebrates It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic indices and an
increase in Dominance in Common (DIC) will be seen in future monitoring reports as
communities continue to re- establish
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream success
criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
I
r
C
i

F-1
Li
0
0 2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Site is located in Burke County, North Carolina (Figure 1) The project is within cataloging
O unit 03050101 The Site has recently been used for pasture and hay production In the past, the
Site was used for row crop agriculture and pasture Ditches were installed to increase arable land
and improve drainage when the land was under agricultural production The streams on the Site
0 were channelized and riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations Wetland and stream
functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use changes
The project involved the restoration of 12 1 acres of riverine wetlands, enhancement of 5 3 acres
O of riverine wetlands, restoration of 6,097 LF of stream, and enhancement of 9,765 LF of stream
Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d) summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the
project site A total of 61 acres of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer are protected through a
Opermanent conservation easement
21 Protect Location
O The Site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, along
Hopewell Road The Site is divided into two parts by Hopewell Road and I40 The monitoring
entrance for the northern half of the Site is located at a farm gate on the north side of Hopewell
0 Road immediately east of the Bailey Fork bridge crossing The monitoring entrance for the
southern half of the Site is located south of I -40 The entrance is at the end of Flint Avenue
which is accessed from Hopewell Road south of the I -40 overpass
22 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
(� The specific goals for the Bailey Fork Restoration Project were as follows
Ll• Restore 6,097 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 9,765 LF of stream channel
0 • Restore 12 1 acres of riparian wetlands
• Enhance of 5 3 acres of existing, riverme wetlands
• Exclude cattle from stream, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem -based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize water quality benefits
23 Protect Description and Restoration Approach
For analysis and design purposes, the on -site streams were divided into four reaches The
reaches were numbered sequentially, moving from south to north, with unnamed tributaries
carrying a "UT" designation UT1 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the
project area from the southwest, and ends at its confluence with Bailey Fork UT2 is a first order
stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the west, and ends at its confluence
with UT1 UT3 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the
south, and ends at its confluence with the main stem of Bailey Fork Bailey Fork flows into the
project area from the south and ends at the confluence with Silver Creek The drainage area of
Othe three tributaries ranges from 0 25 square miles (mi2) to 092 m12, while the drainage area at
OBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

the downstream end of Bailey Fork is 8 3 m12 All four reaches were classified as incised and
straightened E5 channels prior to restoration activities Design information is shown in Table 1
Table 1 Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3`
Project Segment or
Reach ID
Mitigation
Type *
Approach"
Linear Footage
or Acreage
Stream and
Wetland
Mitigation Units
Reach UT
R
131
1,948 LF
1,948
Reach UT2
R
pt
923 LF
923
Reach UT3
R
131
3,226 LF
3,226
Reach UT3
EII
SS
135 LF
54
Reach Bailey Fork
EII
SS
9,630 LF
3,852
Riverme Wetland
R
12 1 ac
121
Riverine Wetland
E
-
5 3 ac
27
R = Restoration ** P1 = Priority I
EII = Enhancement II SS = Stabilization
Wetland functions on the Site had been severely impaired by agricultural conversion Streams
flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and provide
drainage for adjacent farm fields As a result, nearly all wetland functions within the project area
were destroyed
The design for the restored streams involved the construction of new, meandering channels
across the agricultural fields Reaches UT1, UT2, and UT3 were restored to Rosgen "C5"
channels with design dimensions based on nearby reference reaches The enhancement areas
along Bailey Fork and UT3 were accomplished through the use of stabilizing in- stream
structures in highly eroded areas and additional buffer planting Wetland restoration of the prior -
converted farm fields on the Site involved grading areas of the farm fields and raising the local
water table to restore a natural flooding regime The streams through the Site were restored to a
stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that riparian wetland functions were restored to the
adjacent hydric 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
Bailey Fork Restoration Project was increased from approximately 14,076 LF to 15,862 LF
The designs allow stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the floodplain,
dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on stream banks In- stream structures were used to
control streambed grade, reduce stream bank stress, and promote bedform sequences and habitat
diversity The in- stream structures consisted of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, and rock vanes,
which promote a diversity of habitat features 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 mattmg, bare -root
planting, and transplants Transplants provide living root mass to increase stream bank stability
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 4
December 2009 Momtonng Year 4
r
n
i�
0

LI
LJ
i�
r-
�J
0
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
24 Protect History and Background
The chronology of the Bailey Fork Mitigation Project is presented in Table 2 The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is shown in Table 3 Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Project EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Apr 05
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Apr -05
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Apr -06
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Construction Begins
` Oct -05
N/A
Nov -05
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Mar -06
N/A
Apr -06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Mar -06
N/A
Apr 06
Planting of live stakes
Mar -06
N/A
Apr -06
Planting of bare root trees
Mar -06
N/A
Apr -06
End of Construction
Mar -06
N/A
Apr 06
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Mar -06
Apr -06
Apr -06
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -06
Nov -06
Dec -06
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -07
Nov -07
Dec 07
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -08
Nov -08
Dec 08
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -09
Nov -09
Dec 09
Year 5 Monitoring
Scheduled
Oct -10
Scheduled
Nov -10
Scheduled
Nov -10
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
V
U
0
5

Tnhh- I PrmPCt rnntnrtc
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Full Service Delivery Contractor
?
EBX Neuse-I, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact
Norton Webster Tel [phone]
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy, Tel 919 - 463 -5488
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
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy, Tel 919 - 463 -5488
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy, Tel [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc
3674 Pine Swamp Rd
Sparta NC 28675
Vegetation Monitonng Point of Contact
Chris Hu sman, Tel [phone]
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 6
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

I'
f '
Table 4 Prmect Rnekurnund
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Project County
Burke County, NC
Drainage Area
Reach Bailey Fork
83 miz
Reach UTI
08 1 M12
Reach UT2
0 24m12
Reach UT3
092 mil
Estimated Drainage Percent Impervious Cover
Reach Bailey Fork
<5%
Reach UTI
<5%
Reach UT2
<5%
Reach UT3
<5% '
Stream Order
Bailey Fork
2
UT 1
I
UT2
I
UT3
1
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As Built
C5
Cowardm Classification
Riverine Upper Perennial Unconsolidated
Bottom
Dominant Soil Types
Refer to Section 3 1 for Soil Descriptions
Bailey Fork
AaA CvA
UTI
FaC2 HaA UnB
UT2
FaC2 HaA,UnB
UT3
FaC2 HaA UnB
Reference site ID
Remnant channel Bailey Fork
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
3050101040020
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project and Reference
03 -08 -31
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
WS -Iv
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment'?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
% of project easement fenced
100%
25 Protect Plan
Plans depicting the as -built conditions of the mayor project elements, location of permanent
monitoring cross sections, locations of hydrologic monitoring stations, and locations of
permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented in Figure 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of this
�{ report
0 Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
D, e
7

3 0 VEGETATION MONITORING
31 Soil Data
The soil data for the project site are presented in Table 5
Table 5 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Soil Name Location Description
Arkaqua**
Main Channel and Floodplam
Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplams and creeks Runoff
is slow and permeability is moderate Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam
Colvard
Main Channel and Floodplam
Colvard series consists of very deep well drained soils that formed in
CvA
loamy alluvium on floodplams These soils are occasionally flooded
well drained and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy sands
in texture
Fairview
Floodplam
Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplams along creeks and
FaC2
rivers in pastureland It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
in texture with an increase in clay content starting at about one foot
below the surface
Hatboro*
Floodplain
Hatboro series consists of a very deep soil profile that is poorly
HaA
drained with moderate permeability The series primarily consists of
silt loams with underlying layers of sandy clay loam These soils are
generally found on floodplams in pastures and woodlands
Unison
Floodplam
Unison soil type occurs on mountain foot slopes or stream terraces It
UnB
generally has a very deep soil profile is well drained and is
moderately permeable Uses include cultivated crops pasture
orchards, and mixed hardwood forests
Notes
Source From Burke County Soil Survey USDA NRCS http Uefotg nres usda gov
* Hydric A soil type
** Hydric B soil type
32 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Batley Fork wetland
and stream restoration site were planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of
permanent ground cover for herbaceous vegetation The woody vegetation was planted
randomly six to eight feet apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the
project's re- vegetation limits The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 6 The
seed mix of herbaceous species applied to the project's riparian area included soft rush (Juncus
effusus), bentgrass (Agrostis alba) Virginia wild rye (Elymus virgmicus), switch grass (Panicum
virgatum) gamagrass, (Tripsicum dactyloides) smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) little
bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) devil's beggars tick (Bidens frondosa) lanceleaf tickseed
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE i LLC 8 O
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

(Coreopsis lanceolata) deertounge (Panicum clandestmum) big bluestem (Andropogon
gerardit) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre All planting was
completed in April 2006
The area surrounding Plot I and the area surrounding Plots 12 and 13, which were previously
flooded by a beaver impoundment, and were replanted in the spring of 2008 and new vegetation
monitoring plots were established
Table 6 Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006
-3
ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
FAC Status
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
FACW
3
Platanus occidentahs
Sycamore
FACW-
4
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
FACW-
5
Quercus rubra
Red oak
FACU
6
Quercus michauxu
Swamp chestnut oak
FACW-
7
briodendron tulip fera
Tulip poplar
FACW
8
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
FACW
9
Diospyros virgmiana
Persimmon
FAC
10
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
FAC
At the time of planting, vegetation plots labeled 1 through 21 were established on -site to monitor
survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025 acre in size, or 10 meters
x 10 meters All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them from any
colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future
33 Vegetation Success Criteria
1 As specified in the approved Restoration Plan for the site, data from vegetation monitoring plots
should display a surviving tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of
monitoring, and a surviving tree density of at least 260, five- year -old trees per acre at the end of
Year 5 of the monitoring period Although the select native canopy species planted throughout
the Site are the target woody vegetation cover, up to 20 percent of the Site's established woody
vegetation at the end of the monitoring period may be comprised of invaders
34 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring period Trees within each monitoring plot
are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing their identifying marks due to flag
degradation It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure
accurate annual stem counts and calculations of tree survivability Volunteer individuals found
�J Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
r-

�1
within the plots are also flagged during this process Flags are used to tag trees because they do
not interfere with the growth of the tree O
Volunteer woody species were observed in some of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally If these trees persist) into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added r
to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the U
most common volunteer, though red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and black
walnut (Juglans nigra) were also observed r�
The Year 4 monitoring data reflects that with the exception of Plot 9, the Site is on track for Ijjj- --JJJI
meeting the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by end of Year 5
Vegetation monitoring efforts have documented the average number of stems per acre on site to U
be 546, which is a survival rate of greater than 79 percent based on the initial planting count of �J
687 stems per acre The lower survival rate in Plot 9 has been documented and the surrounding
surviving planted vegetation ranged from 200 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre A low (1
survival rate was documented in Plot 9 and the area surrounding Plot 9 will be supplemental
planted with 4 -year old stems in early 2010 Overall, the Site is on track to meet the vegetative
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan O
35 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation project, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia O
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea) was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre These species are present
on the restored site Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike- O
rush (Eleocharis obtusa), boxseed (Ludwigia sp ), and sedge (Carex sp ), 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 a
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the site, though none at present seem to be
posing any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation Commonly seen
weedy vegetation includes various pasture grasses, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisufoha), goldenrod D
(Solidago spp ), horseweed (Conyza spp) milkweed, and beggarticks (Bidens spp) Any
threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be documented and discussed in trimester
reports O
36 Vegetation Photos
Photographs of the Site showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 10 0
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

Table 7 Year 4 (2009) Stem Counts for
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Con
Betula ntgra
4
46
49
53
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
47
54
49
Platanus occidentahs
3
1
59
68
68
Quercus phellos
3
4
11
17
17
Quercus rubra
1
3
18
19
14
Quercus michauxu
8
11
7
briodendron tultpiferra
2
4
22
24
24
Celtis laevigata
5
33
33
26
Diospyros virgmiana
6
15
15
14
Nyssa sylvatica
4
1
23
20
14
Stems per plot
12
14
17
282
310
286
Stems per acre
480
560
680
1 537
590
546
Bailey Fork Creek JEEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
f
l� 1
I
79%

Fi
r-� 4 0 STREAM MONITORING
U
41 Description of Stream Monitoring
U� To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
L construction completion on the Site
Bankfull Events Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events The
gauges are checked each month to record the highest out -of -bank flow event that occurred since the
last inspection Crest gauge 1 is located on UT1 near station 25 +00 (Figure 2(c)) Crest gauge 2 is
located on UT2 near station 17 +00 (Figure 2(c)) Crest gauge 3 is located on UT3 near station 31 +00
C(Figure 2(d))
Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration
work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross - section and one location being a pool cross -
section A total of 13 permanent cross - sections were established across the Site Each cross - section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used Permanent
cross - section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy
comparison of year -to -year data The annual cross - section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg Riffle
cross - sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system Permanent cross-
sections for 2009 (Year 4) were surveyed in October 2009
Longitudinal Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as -built conditions The profile was conducted for the entire length of the
restored channels (UT1, UT2, and UT3) Measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank Each measurement was taken at the head of the feature (e g , riffle, pool, glide)
In addition, maximum pool depths were recorded All surveys were tied to a single, permanent
1 benchmark A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of restored stream length was completed in
November 2007, October 2008 and October 2009
Photograph Reference Stations Photographs are used to visually document restoration success A
total of 52 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade
control structures across the Site, and additional photograph stations were established at each of the
13 permanent cross - sections and hydrologic monitoring stations The Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates of each photograph station were noted as additional references to ensure the same
photograph location is used throughout the monitoring period Reference photographs are taken at
least once per year
i I Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross - section photograph station For each
stream bank photo, the photograph view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is framed so that the
i survey tape is centered in the photograph (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 A
photograph log of the Site is included in Appendix A of this report
42 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success
UBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 12
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year monitoring
period The two bankf ill events must occur in separate years
Cross - sections There should be little change in as -built cross - sections If changes to channel cross -
sections take place, they should be minor changes representing a move to Increasing stability
(e g, settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio)
Cross - sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all
monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" type
channels
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 Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "C" type channels
Photograph 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 Photographs 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
43 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
During 2009, the on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event
at two of the three crest gauges during Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring period, as shown
in Table 8 Inspection of conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flows,
confirming the crest gauge readings The largest on -site stream flow documented by the crest
gauges during Year 4 of monitoring was approximately 0 9 feet (10 8 inches) at crest gauge 3 on
UT3 The bankfull measurements collected during Year 4 and the measurements collected during
Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 of monitoring show that all three restored reaches have met the success
criteria for bankfull events on the project However, crest gauge monitoring will continue until Year
5 to continually document bankfull flow events within the restored channel
J,
Table 8 Verification of Bankfull Events
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Date of Data Collection
Method of Data Collection
Measurement (ft)
3/31/2009
Crest Gauge 2 UT2
025
3/31/2009
Crest Gauge 3 UT3
09
44 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
A photograph log of the project showing selected photograph point locations and crest gauge
photographs are included in Appendix A of this report Data and photographs from each permanent
cross - section are included in Appendix B of this report
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
13 0
J

I
i )
L
F�
U
0,
J
45 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 9 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream structures
performed during Year 4 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 photograph point
survey According to the visual assessment, all features of UT2 and UT3 were performing as
designed The step pool at station 29 +00 on UT1 has experienced some minor piping and bank
stability is becoming a localized concern, this area will be further assessed further in 2010 and will
be repaired if deemed necessary ,
Table 9 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Bailey Fork
Miti ation Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Feature
Performance Percentage
Initial MY -01 MY -02 MY -03 MY -04 MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
Pools
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
Wads and Boulders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
46 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre - construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project are summarized in Appendix C The as-
- built baseline data that determines stream stability during the project's post - construction monitoring
t period are also summarized in Appendix D
47 Longitudinal Profile Results
J The Year 4 longitudinal profile was completed in October 2009 and was compared to data collected
during the as -built condition survey and with Year 3 monitoring data The longitudinal profile is
F presented in Appendix B During Year 4 monitoring, approximately 3,400 LF of channel were
surveyed
During Year 4 of monitoring 1,215 feet of UT1 were surveyed According to the Year 4
longitudinal profile of UT1, pools from stations 17 +50 to 26 +55 have accumulated some sediment
since as -built conditions and Year 3 monitoring, however, the pools remain significantly deeper than
the riffles and are functioning as designed The longitudinal profile in this same section shows that
-� the riffles and structures have maintained the same elevations as as -built conditions Riffles located
in UT1 from stations 26 +55 through 28 +24 have also remained stable during Year 4 monitoring
The constructed riffle and rock step -pool sequence located at stations 28 +25 through 29 +65 is
installed on the lower end of UTl This section of UT1 was installed to step down the elevation of
the UT1 thalweg to match the existing channel at the confluence with Bailey Fork During Year 4 of
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC 14
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

monitoring, the thalweg in this section of UT has shifted below the as -built elevation, however, the
thalweg has remained relatively stable since Year 3 Minor piping has been noted above a rock step U
within the rock step -pool sequence on UT1 In this same localized area one stream bank has U
experienced some slight erosion At this time, repair of the area does not appear necessary, but
observation of the area will continue Into 2010 During Year 4 of monitoring, 930 feet of UT2 were 1
surveyed The longitudinal profile of UT2 shows that from stations 10 +00 to 13 +00, the streambed U
has become elevated due to deposition of bed material from upstream This material has not resulted
in stream instability, but has rather acted to increase the average slope from stations 10 +00 to 13 +00 O
to approximately the same average slope as the remainder of the channel This is seen as a positive
evolution of the channel, as a section of essentially backwatered channel from 11 +00 to 13 +00 has
now evolved to a section of free - flowing channel with a steeper slope Also within UT2, stations O
13 +00 to 15 +00 have accumulated some sediment, but the bed elevations are similar to those
documented in Year 3 All stations downstream of 15 +00 are relatively similar to the as -built
conditions 1
During Year 4 of monitoring 1,250 feet of UT3 was surveyed The Year 4 longitudinal profile of U
UT3 shows that many pools have accumulated some sediment since as -built conditions, however,
riffles and the in- channel structures are holding grade and have not accumulated sediment Due to O
the above average rainfall amounts observed during 2009, it is concluded that large storm events
have caused higher amounts of sediment from upstream to be deposited in the pools This
deposition of sediment in UT3 during 2009 has likely exceeded the scouring potential normally seen O
during past monitoring years While pool depths have decreased, pools are still prevalent throughout
the reach and channel stability has not been affected by the accumulated sediment
All of the longitudinal profiles from Year 4 monitoring showed some changes in the restored
reaches These changes do not appear to pose a threat to the stability of the channels iJ
48 Cross - Section Monitoring Results 0
Year 4 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September and
October of 2009 The Year 4 data were compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in
April 2006 (as -built conditions) Year 1 monitoring data collected in October 2006 Year 2 0
monitoring data collected in November 2007 and Year 3 monitoring data collected in October 2008
r
The 13 permanent cross - sections along the restored channels (7 located across riffles and 6 located
across pools) were re- surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 4 Data hJ
from each of these cross - sections are summarized in Appendix B and D The cross - sections show
that there have been minor adjustments to stream dimension since construction in April 2006 O
Pool cross - sections 2, 4, and 6 are located on UT3, cross - section 10 is located on UT2 and cross -
section 8 and 13 are located on UT1 The pool cross - sections are located at the apex of meander
bends O
Survey data from UT3 pool cross - sections 2, 4 and 6 Indicate that all pools, except the pool in cross -
section 4, have experienced some dimensional changes since as -built conditions However, UT3
cross - sections 2 and 6 have remained relatively stable since monitoring years 2 through 4 Survey O
data from UT2 pool cross - section 10, indicate that the pool has experienced since as -built conditions,
but this accumulation of material is considered a positive evolutionary step and dimension has
changed little since Year 2 Survey data from UT1 pool cross - sections 8 and 13 indicate that the
channel Is evolving to a stable dimension with the same general trends seen for UT2
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 15 O
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

L�
C�
P,
n
I
J
J
I J
Riffle cross - sections 1, 3, 5 and 7 are located on UT3, cross - section 11 is located on UT2 and cross-
section 9 and 12 are located on UT1 Survey data from UT3 riffle cross - sections 1, 3 Indicate that
all riffles on UT3 have remained stable since as -built conditions Survey data from UT2 riffle cross -
section 11, Indicate that the riffle has relatively stable since as-built conditions Survey data from
UT1 riffle cross - sections 9 and 12 Indicate that both riffles have experienced moderate dimensional
changes since as-built conditions It is likely that cross - sections 9 and 12 are undergoing a natural
shift towards more stable conditions within UT1 It Is noted that the channel dimensions of cross-
section 12 have fluctuated each monitoring year since construction, but has never scoured deeper
than the as -built condition, and such fluctuations are common for streams with a sandy bed material
In- stream structures Installed within the restored stream Include constructed riffles, rock cross
vanes, a rock step -pool, log vanes, log weirs, and root wads A constructed riffle and a rock step -
pool were Installed on the lower end of UT1, and a constructed riffle was installed at the lower end
of UT3 to step down the elevation of the restored stream beds to match the existing channel Inverts
at the confluences of the restored channels and Bailey Fork
Visual observations of these structures throughout Year 4 have Indicated that the rock structures are
functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade However, minor piping has been noted
above a rock step within the rock step -pool sequence on UT1 In this same localized area, one
stream bank has experienced some slight erosion At this time, repair of the area does not appear
necessary, and observation of the area will continue Into 2010
It was also noted that two rock cross vanes on Bailey Fork Creek at approximate stations 17 +00 and
28 +50 have been Impacted by past beaver activity During a site visit in early November 2008 (Year
3), two beaver dams were observed across the rock inverts on top of the cross vanes At that time,
water was flowing around the sides of both dams and over the arms of the structures These beaver
dams were not present in October 2009 (Year 4) However, the area will be monitored for further
beaver activity going forward Photos from October 2009 of these cross vanes are provided in the
photo log in Appendix A
Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover
for fish Log weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided downstream
scour holes which provide habitat Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have
provided bank stability and in- stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms
Photographs of the channel were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution
of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A) Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the edges
of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream channel
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 16
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

50 HYDROLOGY
1
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN 14224,
COOP 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts The on -site manual gauge is used to validate observations
made at the automated station According to the Morganton weather station data, total rainfall
during the Year 4 monitoring period was above the normal average from January 2009 through
November 2009 For this period, the Morganton station measured rainfall to be 3 07 inches
above the historic average Above average to average rainfall occurred during the months of
March, April, May, June, August, September and November Below average rainfall occurred
during January, February, July and October (see Table 10 and Figure 3)
Table 10 Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall inches
Bail Fork Miti
ation Site
EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Month
Average
30%
70%
Observed 2009 Precipitation
January
443
345
579
3 11
February
414
283
553
149
March
485
336
594
614
Aril
379
236
506
3 86
May
449
322
562
794
June
474
325
612
643
July
391
238
495
273
August
374
236
445
491
September
4 18
248
598
4 12
October
384
203
476
288
November
379
255
427
536
December
3 72
248
459
NA
Total
4962
--
--
48 97 (through November 2009
J
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
M
17

�I
0
n
I
Figure 3 Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
O The Bailey Fork Restoration Plan specified that eight monitoring wells (four automated and four
manual) would be established across the restored site A total of eight wells (four automated and
four manual) were installed during early -March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all
required monitoring locations All wells are located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to
UT3, and the locations of monitoring wells are shown on the as -built plan sheets Hydrologic
monitoring results are shown in Table 11 A photograph log of the wetland well monitoring
stations is included in Appendix A of this report
During 2009, all eight on -site wells recorded hydroperiods of greater than 7 percent during the
growing season Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system,
indicates that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the
j hydroperiods recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site
U
Li Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 18
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
I
Historic Average vs
Observed
Rainfall
10
8-
°'
L
6
U
r_
C
0
4
a
2
m
a
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Z O
Q co
—� Historic 30% probable —A Historic 70%
probable --*— Average —}— Morganton Observed 2009
O The Bailey Fork Restoration Plan specified that eight monitoring wells (four automated and four
manual) would be established across the restored site A total of eight wells (four automated and
four manual) were installed during early -March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all
required monitoring locations All wells are located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to
UT3, and the locations of monitoring wells are shown on the as -built plan sheets Hydrologic
monitoring results are shown in Table 11 A photograph log of the wetland well monitoring
stations is included in Appendix A of this report
During 2009, all eight on -site wells recorded hydroperiods of greater than 7 percent during the
growing season Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system,
indicates that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the
j hydroperiods recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site
U
Li Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 18
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
I

Table 11
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2009 (Year 4)
Bailey Fork Mite ation Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Monitoring
Station
Most Consecutive
Days Meeting
Criteria'
Cumulative Days
z
Meeting Criteria
Number of Instances
3
Meeting Criteria
AW 1
26(125%)
100 48 1%)
7
AW2
24(115%)
92(442%)
8
AW3
84(404%)
119(572%)
4
AW4
52(250%)
67(322%)
3
M W 14
24 (11 5 %)
92(442%)
8
MW24
24(115%)
92(442%)
8
MW35
84(404%)
119(572%)
4
M W46
52(250%)
67(322%)
3
REF 1
7(34%)
47(226%)
11
REF2
5(24%)
23 11 1%)
6
' Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less i
than 12 inches from the soil surface !UI
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 growing season when the water table rose to less
than 12 inches from the soil surface
4 Groundwater gauge MW 1 and MW2 are manual gauges Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on
data from gauge AW2 ` l
5 Groundwater gauge MW3 is a manual gauge Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge AW3
6 Groundwater gauge MW4 is a manual gauge Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from €
gauge AW4
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 19 O
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
l�
lJ

F1
L>
6 0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
61 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Bailey Fork
Restoration Plan Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate sampling
must be consistently conducted in the same season Year 3 benthic sampling for the Site was
n conducted during winter of 2009 This report summarizes the benthic samples collected during
�I the third year post - construction monitoring phase
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
0 Procedures for Benthic Macromvertebrates (2006) Field sampling was conducted by Christine
Miller and Ian Eckardt of Baker Laboratory identification of collected species was conducted
by Pennington & Associates, Inc
OBenthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at Site 1 of the Bailey Fork project on January
17, 2009, Site 3 on March 16, and Sites 2 and 4 on March 19 Sites 1 and 3 were located within
0 the restoration area on UT1 to Bailey Fork and UT3 to Bailey Fork, respectively Site 2 was an
off -site reference site located upstream of Site 1 Site 4 was an off -site reference site located on
UT3 south of Hopewell Road upstream of Site 3 Figure 4 in Appendix E illustrates the
O sampling site locations
Benthic macromvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
0 (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (EPT Species) are useful as an index of water quality
These groups are generally the least tolerant to water pollution and therefore are very useful
indicators of water quality Sampling for these three orders is referred to as EPT sampling
0 Habitat assessments using NCDWQ's protocols were also conducted at each site Physical and
chemical measurements including water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and
specific conductivity were recorded at each site The habitat assessment field data sheets are
Opresented in Appendix E
62 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results
0 A comparison between the pre- and post - construction monitoring results is presented in Table 12
in Appendix E with complete laboratory results also provided in Appendix E
n
63 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Discussion
�J Site 2, the reference site for Site 1, exhibited an abundance of taxa in Year 3 post - construction
Overall taxa richness was nearly double that observed during pre - construction monitoring EPT
richness decreased from Year 2 to Year 3 Although EPT richness dropped when compared to
pre- construction values the EPT biotic index was lower than that recorded during pre -
construction monitoring which indicates that the species present were less tolerant than in pre-
construction The total biotic index for Site 2 remained slightly above the pre - construction
value The higher total index could be attributed to the decrease in overall shredder taxa
observed during the recent post - construction monitoring Despite the increase in the total biotic
index at Site 2, the decrease in EPT biotic index suggests that the communities are stable and that
water quality is adequate to support intolerant species
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 20
December 2009 Momtormg Year 4
h

The Year 3 post - construction monitoring at Site 1, which underwent complete restoration,
revealed similar total taxa and EPT taxa richness to that of the pre - construction sampling
Although taxa richness has remained steady throughout the post - construction monitoring the
EPT biotic index has decreased each year This indicates that the EPT species recolonizing at
Site 1 are less tolerant which suggests that water quality is improving Year 3 post - construction
shredder taxa remain slightly below that observed during pre - construction monitoring These
organisms feed on partially decomposed organic matter such as sticks and leaf packs, a rare
habitat (see Section 6 4) The decrease in sensitive species and lack of shredders are common
responses after a mayor disturbance to habitat such as the in- stream construction techniques
implemented on Site 1 It is anticipated that as the project matures, shredder populations will
increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs become available
Currently Site 1 has 13% Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site, which
indicates that 13% of the dominant communities at the reference site are dominant at Site 1 In
Year 2 post - construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 86% Although the DIC has decreased
the sites still share several species The difference lies in the abundance of these species For
example, in Year 2 Pycnopsyche sp , which has a low tolerance value of 2 5, was common at
both Site 1 and 2 In Year 3 Pycnopsyche sp was present but rare at Site 1 and common at Site
2 The difference in DIC may be the result of when sampling was conducted Although both
samples were collected in the winter, Site 1 was monitored on January 27, 2009 and Site 2 was
visited on March 19, 2009
Site 4 was the reference reach for Site 3 The third year of post construction monitoring showed
a significant increase in total taxa and EPT taxa richness at Site 4 Both values were above the
pre - construction values The overall and EPT biotic index were similar to the pre - construction
values During Year 2, Site 4 had very low taxa richness which could have been attributed to the
extreme drought conditions experienced across western North Carolina during 2007 Three
times as many taxa were collected during Year 3 sampling
Site 3 appears to be recovering well from backwater conditions caused by a beaver dam during
Year 2 of post - construction monitoring The stagnant water conditions likely caused the
decrease in total and EPT taxa richness noted in Year 2 of post construction Year 3 total and
EPT taxa richness have significantly increased The increase suggests that available habitat has
improved During Year 2 monitoring fine sediment deposition was observed at Site 3 It appears
that the stream has been able to transport the fine sediment downstream thereby creating more
habitat opportunities for macromvertebrates The total biotic index was below that of the pre -
construction conditions while the EPT biotic index was slightly above Currently Site 3 has 17%
DIC with the reference site, up from 0% after Year 2 of post construction It is anticipated that
Site 3 will continue to improve as the project matures Improvements in biotic indices and an
increase in DIC are likely as communities reestablish
64 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
Site 1 received an 81 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet The site exhibited excellent
riffle pool sequencing and pattern Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles, slightly embedded
with sand, and the pool bottoms were sandy The riparian buffer at Site 1 could be classified as
fallow field with immature hardwood saplings scattered throughout Although herbaceous plants
dominate the stream corridor, tree saplings are beginning to develop Portions of the stream
banks are well shaded by tag alders and willows These streamside shrubs are supplying a small
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE i LLC 21
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

V
n amount of organic debris to the channel and organic habitats such as sticks and leaf packs were
Il J' present but minimal at Site 1 The lack of organic habitats is still likely the cause for the
decrease in shredder communities from pre - construction monitoring to post - construction
monitoring It is anticipated that as the riparian buffer grows in, the shredders from the upstream
reference site (Site 2) will begin to colonize the restoration reach
Site 2, the reference reach for Site 1, received a habitat assessment score of 75 The reach
O exhibited riffle pool sequencing with moderate bank erosion on alternating banks The riparian
buffer was mature and intact along most of the reach Rocks, sticks, leaf packs, snags and
undercut banks were all present along this reach The ecological habitat observed during this
monitoring cycle appears to be very similar to the pre - construction conditions
The habitat assessment score of Site 3 increased from 67 during Year 2 to 83 in Year 3 post -
construction monitoring The increase in habitat assessment score reflects an improvement in
available habitat and a decrease in sedimentation During Year 2 the site experienced backwater
conditions due to a downstream beaver dam As a result, fine sediment covered portions of the
bed and banks in the vicinity of Site 3 During Year 3, the beaver dam was removed and the
(7 excess sediment was flushed downstream thereby increasing available habitat and allowing
greater opportunity for re- colonization In- stream habitat was diverse with rocks and root mats
abundant The site also exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing and pattern once the beaver
O dam was removed
The habitat score for Site 4, the reference reach for Site 3, increased slightly from 63 in Year 2 to
69 for Year 3 post construction monitoring The riparian zone is mix of mature forest and fallow
field Portions of the left floodplam have been impacted by a maintained power line easement
In- stream habitats included rocks, sticks, leaf packs, logs, and undercut banks Pool bottoms
were sandy The reach had areas of severe bank erosion Despite the low habitat assessment
Fj score, this reach continues to have a very low EPT biotic index, indicating that the water quality
is high enough to support intolerant species
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and
armored riffles has enhanced the overall in- stream habitat throughout the restoration sites, while
the reference reaches appeared ecologically stable The habitat scores at Sites 1 and 3 increased
from the scores collected in Year 2 of post construction The planted riparian vegetation has had
minimal effect on in- stream habitat at Sites 1 and 3 however future contributions from planted
LJ riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant species mature Contributions will include
in- stream habitat structures such as sticks and leaf packs
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, pH, and specific conductivity at
all sites were relatively normal for Piedmont streams
65 Photograph Log
lJ The photograph log is attached as Appendix E Photos P -1 and P -2 show the stable, well defined
riffle pool sequence at Site 1 Site 1 lacks a mature forested canopy, however young woody
vegetation is present along the banks Photos P -3 and P -4 show the mature canopy with breaks
for light penetration at Site 2 Site 3 is shown in P -5 and P -6 The site lacks a canopy so the
n stream receives full sunlight with little to no shade Fenced out cattle are visible in the
background of P -6 P -7 and P -8 are upstream and downstream views of Site 4 These photos
OBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 22
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
D 7

show the extreme bank erosion affecting the right bank of the stream Despite the erosion, the
vaned habitat types are visible, including rocks, logs, undercut banks, and leafpacks
1
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
i
�l

7 0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Monitoring For the 21 monitoring plots, surviving planted stems ranged from
{�
200 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre The plots displayed an overall average of 546
IJ
stems per acre which is a survival rate of greater than 79 percent based on the initial
planting count of 687 stems per acre Surviving planted vegetation ranged from 200
stems per acre to 720 stems per acre Overall, the Site is on track to meet the final success
�J
criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the Restoration Plan for
the Site The area surrounding Plot 9 will require supplemental planting with 4 -year old
stems in 2010
Overall, the Site Is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site
Stream Monitoring The entire length of the restored stream channel was inspected
L
during Year 4 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance
Stream cross - sectional data document that there has been some adjustment to stream
dimension since construction, but the adjustments are considered typical for newly
restored stream systems and not an Indicator of instability
The Year 4 longitudinal profiles showed that some pools have aggraded slightly due to
accumulated sediment Due to the above average rainfall amounts observed during 2009,
it is concluded that large storm events have caused higher amounts of sediment to be
deposited in the restored pools The deposition of sediment in UT3 during 2009 has
LJ
exceeded the scouring potential normally seen during past monitoring years While pool
depths have decreased, pools are still prevalent throughout the reach and channel stability
has not been affected by the accumulated sediment It is likely that these sediments are
present in the pools due to off -site deposition Into the upstream portions of the restored
streams system All of the longitudinal profiles during Year 3 of monitoring showed
some changes in the restored reaches These changes do not appear to pose a significant
O
threat to the stability of the channels
It was also noted that two rock cross vanes on Bailey Fork Creek at approximate stations
17 +00 and 28 +50 have been Impacted by beaver activity During a site visit in early
November 2008 (Year 3) two beaver dams were observed across the rock inverts on top
of the cross vanes These beaver dams were not present in October 2009 The area will
continue to be observed for further beaver activity
_1
The on -site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at
two of the three crest gauges during Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring period
The bankfull measurements collected during monitoring in Years 1 through 4 documents
that all three restored reaches have met the success criteria for bankfull events for the
project
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the stream success criteria specified in the
_J
Restoration Plan for the Site
Hydrologic Monitoring During 2009, all eight on -site wells recorded a hydroperiod of
D
greater than 7 percent saturation during the growing season Hydrologic data collected
from the reference site, an existing wetland system, indicates that the reference site
UBailey
Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC 24
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
0

experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the hydroperiod recorded by all eight
wells at the restoration site
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the hydrologic success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site
Benthic Monitoring The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and
habitat diversity during Year 3 of benthic macromvertebrate monitoring Site 1 on UT2,
which underwent complete restoration, revealed similar total taxa and EPT taxa richness
to that of the pre - construction sampling Although taxa richness has remained steady
throughout the post - construction monitoring the EPT biotic index has decreased each
year This indicates that the EPT species re-colonizing at Site 1 are less tolerant which
suggests that water quality is improving Year 3 post - construction shredder taxa remain
slightly below that observed during pre - construction monitoring These organisms feed
on partially decomposed organic matter such as sticks and leaf packs, a rare habitat on
UT2 The decrease in sensitive species and lack of shredders are common responses after
a mayor disturbance to habitat such as the in- stream construction techniques implemented
on Site 1 It is anticipated that as the project matures, shredder populations will increase
as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs become available
Year 3 total and EPT taxa richness on UT3 have significantly increased The increase
suggests that available habitat is improving During Year 2 monitoring fine sediment
deposition was observed at Site 3 The total biotic index was below that of the pre -
construction conditions while the EPT biotic index was slightly above Currently Site 3
has 17% DIC with the reference site, up from 0% after Year 2 of post construction It is
anticipated that Site 3 will continue to improve as the project matures
It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will
be seen in future monitoring reports as communities continue to re- establish The
physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen,
dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all sites were relatively
normal for Piedmont streams
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site and monitoring will continue
in 2009
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
December 2009 Momtonng Year 4
25 i

F, 8 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ,
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Bailey Fork Site During certain
El times of the year, frogs, turtles and fish have been observed
r
U-1
0
0
it
l!
01
I
OBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 26
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4
L1

90 REFERENCES
NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macromvertebrates (2006)
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Rivers Catena 22 169 -199
Schafale, M P , and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation NCDEHNR Raleigh, NC
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Burke County North Carolina,
2006
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 27
December 2009 Monitoring Year 4

9
FIGURES

i
En-orimnul Sam and Exchange LL#
2530 M�cfian ParUway. Suite 200
Durb� NC 27713
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Bailey Fork Site
Figure 1. Location of Bailey Fork Stream Mitigation Site.

m
r
a
m
w
m
a,
N 'm
J1 '
t
0
O
0
M
ti
M
t >e?F
(n
.� - VEGETATION PLOT i 7 "" — .....••'
J
SLOPE BANK
I
W
W
ABOVE TREE
Q
SLOPE BANK 2:1 ABOVE BANKFULL PLACE
„_,__.
SLOPE BANK AND PLACE'
COIR FIBER MATTING
\ z `'VE —ATION PLOT i i_
COIR FIBER MATTING, AND LIVE STAKE
-'
MINOR GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL
RESHAPE BANK
' - -: �,.
""""^^•' ^+...... ,r..` �...�. OSS VANE (iYP.)
COIR FIBER MATTING
AND UVE STAKE
AS SHOWN
`
i � �`�, \�. �• \
�..-
SLOPE BANK
_
"'`-�
i
�%'�
' -'"'` �.,. ,_ -� • - �_,
/
PRESERVE
r
xEsr,j
RESHAPE BANK_
--_. —_.,„, ,�
_. .. _'.
._....... .---
"�--
REMOVE EXOTIC VE
VEGETATION
AND SLOPE BANK
AS SHOWN
REMOVE DEBRIS AND
RESHAPE POINT BAR
—
RESHAPE CHANNEL
-_._ —'- ~-
AS SHOWN COIR FIBER MATTING
•�
” `y
AND LIVE STAKE
SLOPE BANK
SLOPE BANK ROOTWADS
AND
TRANSPLANTS
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
STA 10+00,00
SLOPE BANK
FIGURE: 2A
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31, 2008
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
BUCK °°°�Pho -r'7P' ;eelxoo
EN 0 NEE RING Fn: 9%."3.U90
PLAN VIEW
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
0
O
0
M
ti
M
SLOPE BANK PLACE COIR FIBER
MATING, AND LIVE STAKE
(n
.� - VEGETATION PLOT i 7 "" — .....••'
J
I
W
W
Q
PLAN VIEW
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)

BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
0221H 14
PROJECT ENGINEER
\�V\ THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
KEVIN L TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31. 20M
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
q
1000 R�Rrwy PrRwy SuJY 200
1 BUCK Cry, : C -4&1- 27611
_ VEGETATION PLOT 0 1 PF.: R"S64N
\�raM1 ENO I N E E R I N 6 Fw: Y1RJlSd.IDO
VEGETATION PLOT N 2
VEGETATION PLOT N 5 i
l
VEGETATION PLOT N 3 \ \,_ •/ s�� \\ `
CREST
GAUGE 1
fO VEGETATION PLOT N,4
GA
RESHAPE BANK
M AS SHOWN
^J PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING
RESHAPE BANK
AND LIVE STAKE
Q _... _.
AS SHOWN O
(� REBUILD BANK AND �
STABILIZE W ROCK TOE VEGETATION PLOT N B REMOVE DEBRIS JAM •i,\ OO
— —
RESHAPE BANK "` MATTING,, BANK PLACE L STAKE FIBER
,� — - -- — �•., A9 SHOWN
D.0 T RIGHT OF WAY
ui
W
J l"� VANE (TYP.)
CLEAN OUT DEBRIS•SLOPE BANK AND SLOPE BANK SLOPE BANK SLOPE BANK W
V PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING AND LIVE STAKE �{ /
0
Q REMOVE PRIVET AND
c RESHAPE BANK w
Z_
a
DOUBLE WING J
DEFLECTOR (TYP.)
m C)
m Q
C
G
N
N
m
a"
PLAN VIEW
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
ID
FIGURE: 2B 100 50 0 100 200
N CROSS SECTION NUMBERING CHANGED 11 -20-07
N/
SCALE (FT)

BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
6
022IR 022I 1
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N I
atH116ARO!'o /
+ ` SF.AL /
1
027337 I
I DATE:
I
BUCK 8000 Re9enry =''540'785" 1 5 300
Csry, North 9453a 21
Phone: 19AB3 -490
CN6IN EERINO '� Fax: 619dB364e0
SLOPE BANK BACK
ABOVE BANKFULL
SLOPE BANK BACK ABOVE TREE
AND PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING
AND LIVE STAKE 4.k
SLOPE BANK BACK SLOPE BANK BACCK — RESHAPE BANK
ABOVE BANKFULL ABOVE BANK IUIL� — AS SHOWN
RESHAPE BANK
�• j(JJ �`., _ AS SHOWN
J -HOOK (TYP.)
RE56HAPE BANK �� _ l� _ — •= `- __ _ ,� °� 7% r" 'F
AS SHOWN
— — — co
sr- FILL AND RESHAPE Al �_ —
CATTLE AREASS�\ — CO
SLOPE BANK E
BANKFULLL AND BPRESERVE
�,✓' �,y �r / "'� TRANSPLANT MATERIAL
SLOPE BANK AND PLACE r COIR FIBER MATTING AND $RUSH MATTRESS a/U�
i a < j
COIR FIBER MATTING r ' yy r - C
AND LIVE STAKE
VEGETATION PLOT # 9
RESHHOWNANK 1
g
I,, � � � ♦ \� �x
C,
RESHAPE BANK
AS SHOWN \ \
a;J1 REMOVE DEBRIS AND \ \
o- xOO �;,�.,� FIX CATTLE AREA \ \\
x
00
m
a
N
N
f9
N
o,
PLAN VIEW
m
2. FIGURE: 2C Too 50 o Too zoo
o--
p�% SCALE (Fr)

BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO.
UZZIH 1 /6
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY.
KEVIN L TWEEDY
027337
JULY V, 2008
THIS MEDIA SHALL 140T BE CONSIDERED
GATE A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
END CONSTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
STA 104+72.48
Ph. orth Camilim 275 1
BUCK 'QT:3,79pl,0*4,63"4$s4&,", "'
079
INO Fm 194a3-6490
VEGETATION P
,jbT 8 io
GATE SLOPE PAN "
PLACE
COIR FIBER N
G,AND
LIVE STAKE
SLOPE BANK PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING,,
LIVE STAKE. AND TRANSPLANTS
SLOPE BANK
PLACE
LICOIR FI STAKE BER MATTING AND VE
Qq
SLOPE BANK ABOVE
l(ij ANMATTING PLAC COIR FIBER MD LIVE STAKE
A
N
VEGETATION PLOT 0\12—
L "k,
IWOIAL 4LL 3
t ` G V `
A
A C, VYELL
VEGETATION PLOT,
• 20 CREST GAUGE 31
VEGIErATION PLOTP
lie I # 21
-VEGETATON PLOT 11 19
El - -----
UAL W
--nC —\2T
WELL 11. [VEGETATION PLOT S 13
El
..........
..... . . . . . . . . .......
UAL WELL VEGETATION PLOT 114
Vii
TIC
c
VVE-AtIETA114 PLOT
A
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
co
VEGETATION PLOT Y IS II
EXISTING WETLAND
co
A
VEGErATWN PLOT 8 18
FIGURE: 2D
VEGETATION PLOT 9 16
c L;KUbb SECTION IUN NUMBERING PLAN VLEW
CHANGED 11-20-07
100 50 0 100 200
el `ti
SCALE (FT)

1
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG
0

VEGETATION PHOTOS

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot Photos
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 1
B�
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 2
�F
2

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 3
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 4

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 5
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 6

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 7
F
3
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 8

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 9
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 10

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 11
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 12

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 13
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 14

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 15
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 16

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 17
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 18

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 19
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 20
f3f
20

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 21

STREAM PHOTOS AND WETLAND
PHOTOS

UT1 Photo Point 1
UT Photo Point 2
UT1 Photo Point 3
UT1 Photo Point 5
UT1 Photo Point 7
UT 1 Photo Point 10

UTl Photo Point 13
UTl Photo Point 17
UT1 Photo Point 19
UT2 Photo Point 1
UT2 Photo Point 3
UT2 Photo Point 6

UT2 Photo Point 8
UT2 Photo Point 12
UT3 Photo Point 1
UT3 Photo Point 4
UT3 Photo Point 8
UT3 Photo Point 10

UT3 Photo Point 12
UT3 Photo Point 15
UT3 Photo Point 18
UT3 Photo Point 19
UT3 Photo Point 22
UT3 Photo Point 24

UT3 Photo Point 25
UT3 Photo Point 26
Bailey Fork Cross Vane 1
Bailey Fork Cross Vane 2
Crest Gauge UT3 03/31/09
Crest Gauge UT2 03/31/09

Auto Well 1 - East
Auto Well 1 - North
Auto Well 1 — South
Auto Well 1 - West
Auto Well 2 - East
Auto Well 2 - North

r
5
i
°•aka
AN
XT 4
y.. n

Auto Well 4 - East
Auto Well 4 - North
Auto Well 4 - South
Auto Well 4 - West
Manual Well 1 - East
Manual Well 1 - North

Manual Well 1 - South
Manual Well 1 - West
Manual Well 2 - East
Manual Well 2 - North
Manual Well 2 - South
Manual Well 2 - West

Manual Well 3 - East
Manual Well 3 - North
Manual Well 3 - South
Manual Well 3 - West
Manual Well 4 - East
Manual Well 4 - North

Manual Well 4 - South
Manual Well 4 - West
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - East
Bailey Fork Reference Well I - North
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - South
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - West

Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - East
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - North
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - South
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - West

� APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA
r�
�J
i
0

1035
LLI 1020
Baily Fork - LIT 1 Profile Station 17+50 to 29+65
Year 4 Thalweg Water Surface
Top of Bank
--
1750 1950 2150
--
tv
2350
Station (ft)
2550 2750 2950

102.
102'
102
$ 102
0
cc
102
W
101
101
101
Baily Fork UT 2 Profile Station 10 +00 to 19 +30
As -Built Thalweg Thalweg Year 3
- — �Thalweg Year 4 Water Surface
Top of Bank
1000 1100 1200 1300
1400 1500
Station (ft)
�I
1600 1700 1800 1900

1030
1025
1020
C
O
1015
d
W
1010
1005
1000
Baily Fork UT 3 Profile Station 10 +00 to 22 +50
—As -Built Thalweg - Thalweg Year 3
_.._... ..........
...
Thalweg Year 4 Water Surface
—+ —Top of Bank
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #1 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I C
1 30
1 29.85
1.01
2.36
1 29.66
1
1 3.4
1 1016.4
1 1016.34
1020
1018
C
1016
cc
ca
a�
w
1014
1012
Cross - section #1
As -Built -- Year 1
Year2 Year3
Year 4 =- Bankfull
- o -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40
-------------------------------------------------- 0
50 60
Station (ft)
70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #2 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
20.6
27.94
0.74
1.99
1 37.92
1 1.1
3.3
1014.34
1014.6
Cross - section #2
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
_
1015
cc
1014
-----------------------------------
w
1013
1012
As -Built
Year 1
1011
Year
Year
1010
--- ♦ —Year 4
- o Bankfull
- -Q- -- Floodprone
1009
0
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #3 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
BKF
I Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I C
1 42.1
1 28.18
1.5
3.58
1 18.84
1
2.6
1013.4
1013.26
ft
c
0
0
m
W
1019
1018
1 017
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
1010
1009
1008
Cross - section #3
-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
- - - -- - -- - - --��
As -Built — -Year 1
Year Year
Year 4 – Bankfull
o- -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #4 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
34.7
24.89
1.4
2.99
1 17.83
1
3.6
1011.7
1011.71
Cross - section #4
1016
1015
------------------------ - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
1014
1013
$ 1012
c 1011
0
1010
m 1009
w 1008
As -Built - -- -Year 1
1007
Year 2 Year 3
--� —Year 4 - -- Bankfull
1006
- -o- -- Floodprone
1005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #5 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
20.6
20.47
1.01
2.08
1 2032
1
4.1
1011.45
1011.48
1016
1015
1014
1013
$ 1012
1011
0
1010
1009
w
1008
1007
1006
1005
Cross - section #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
As -Built — Year 1
Year2 Year3
Year 4 - -- Bankfull
o Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40
50
Station (ft)
60 70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #6 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
1 25.5
1 23.29
1.1
2.73
1 21.27
1
2.9
1009.46
1009.42
1015
1013
0 1011
c�
w 1009
1007
1005 L
0
Cross - section #6
----------------------------------------- - - - - -o
10 20 30
40 50 60
Station (ft)
As -Built -- Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 - :� - Bankfull
- -- Floodprone
70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #7 UT3
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
I BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 16.8
1 15.3
1.1
1 2.07
1 13.95
1
8.7
1009.1
1009.05
1013
1011
0 1009
r
ca
°—' 1007
w
1005
1003
25
Cross - section #7
35 45 55 65 75 85
Station (ft)
As -Built - -Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
- -� —Year 4 --- Bankfull
- -[�- Floodprone
95 105 115 125 135

Permanent Cross - section #8 UT1
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
I BH Ratio
I ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
1 19.9
14.55
1.37
2.56
1 10.62
1 1.1
1 3.8
1 1029.79
1 1030
Cross - section #8
1033
---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -o
._
1031
s
O-------------------
a
1029
m
W
As -Built
- -Year 1
1027
f'c
Year2
Year
— —Year 4
- Bankfull
4 -- Floodprone
1025
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #9 UT1
(Year 4 Data - Collected September 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
31.3
23.83
131
2.95
1 18.12
1
1.8
1025.18
1025.1
Cross - section #9
1029
1028
-------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -o
1027
$ 1026
c
1025
------------------ - - - - -- -
m
w 1024
As -Built -- Year 1
1023
Year 2 Year 3
1022
--e Year 4 - -- Bankfull
- -o -- Floodprone
1021
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #10 UT2
(Year 4 Data - Collected September 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 22.7
28.96
0.78
1.93
1 37
1.1
1.9
1025.96
1026.14
Cross - section #10
1030
1028 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
c
1026 - -- ---- - - - - -- ---------
uJ As -Built Year 1
1024 Year 2 Year 3
t Year 4 - -4 Bankfull
-- - -- Floodprone
1022
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #11 UT2
(Year 4 Data - Collected September 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth '
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
I BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 9.8
1 14.5
0.68
1.51
1 21.38
1
1 3.3
1 1022.56
1022.53
Cross - section #11
1026
1025
1024 ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1023
----- - - - - --
° 1022 v
R
w
1021
As -Built Year 1
1020
Year Year
1019 —+-- Year 4 Bankfull
- -4 -- Floodprone
1018
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #12 UT1
(Year 4 Data - Collected September 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
IBKFArea
I BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 7.6
1 13.25
0.57
1 1.1
1 23.08
1.2
6
1031.74
1031.98
1036
1035
1034
1033
c
:r 0 1032
R
2 1031
w
1030
1029
1028
Cross - section #12
X9
As -Built Year 2
Year 3 —+— Year 4
-- o-- Bankfull - -- a--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #13 UT1
(Year 4 Data - Collected September 2009)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
I W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 12.4
1 21.95 1
0.56
1 1.35
1 38.91
0.7
3.1
1036.23
1035.84
1040
1039
1038
$_ 1037
c
1036
co
(D 1035
w
1034
1033
1032
Cross - section #13
---- - - - - -- - - - -- ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
-----------------
As -Built Year 2
Year3 —a Year4
Bankfull - - -& -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40
50
Station (ft)
60 70 80 90 100 110

APPENDIX C
0
� BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
RESTORATION REACHES
0
0
--
il

Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
Bailey Fork Creek Mitigation Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Channel length (ft)
850
1 638
1 920
1948
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
08
039 0 945 1 5
08
08
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
E5 /G5
Reach UTl
C5 -
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
18 220 7647
72
119
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
Regional
Curve Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
124 152 18
Design
14
BF slope ft/ft
As Built
00008
imension -Riffle
Jacob
Norwood
LL
UI E
Mm
Mean Max
Mm
Mean Max
WMI
Med
Max
Min
Mean
ax
Bankfull Width (ft)
61 3
32
67
25 109
92
100 109
149
157
177
198
Floodprone Width (ft)
963
129
359 589
1300
1850
2400
800
1054
1307
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
47
3 1
09
24 14
12
16 20
12
09
1 3
17
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
58
20
24 29
1 8
20
25
3 1
Bankfull Cross sectional
Area (ft2)
290
99
9
37 186
109
163 216
185
'14 0
233
327
Width/Depth Ratio
13
103
5 5
66 78
5 1
71 91
120
170
174
177
Entrenchment Ratio
16
14
34 54
235
87
124
161
5 1
59
66
Bank Height Ratio
13
10
1 5 20
12
10
10
1 1
13
Bankfull Velocity fRsj
39
26
48
58
39
39
attern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
85 5
119
51
67
84
Radius of Curvature (ft)
30
375
45
28
32
37
Meander Wavelength (ft)
104
134
164
130
150
162
Meander Width Ratio
242
546 85
35
575
8
29
38
47
Profile
IBM
MISISM
Riffle Length (ft)
18
45
59
10
45
60
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
0 016
00235
0 031
-0016
00235
0 031
Pool Length (ft)
19
508
697
19
40
63
Pool S acin g ft
52
67
82
65
75
80
Substrate and Transport
t
°
Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0 25 / 0
46 / 0 86 / 9 05 / 14 98
N/A
Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) lb /f2
098
066
064
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W /m2
935
437
396
Channel length (ft)
850
1 638
1 920
1948
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
08
039 0 945 1 5
08
08
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
E5 /G5
E5 E4/5
C5 -
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
18 220 7647
72
119
72
72
Sinuosity
106
11
124 152 18
13
14
BF slope ft/ft
00025
00008
0 013
0 010
0 010

Parameter
USGS Gauge
TImen$'lon ffle
Jacob
Norwoo�
Bankfull Width (ft)
613
320
Floodprone Width (ft)
963
Mm can g
Bankf ill Mean Depth (ft)
47
3 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
5 8
138
Bankfull Cross sectional
100
05
Area (ft2)
2900
990
Width/Depth Ratio
130
103
Entrenchment Ratio
16
170
Bank Height Ratio
13
12
Bankf ilI Velocity fps
39
26
Pattern
82
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
97
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
120
Meander Wavelength (ft)
22
Meander Width Ratio
61
142
WF!"filleflIMMIM
39
Riffle Length (ft)
10
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
t0
Pool Length (ft)
22
Pool Spacing(ft
19
Substrate a d Tra sport
Uplarame
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
35
57
Reach Shear Stress
54
64
(competency) lb/f2
20
25
Stream Power (transport
19
21
capacity) W /m2
69
89
AddItIonal Reach
83
99
ara eter `
35
575
Channel length (ft)
850
46
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
Sinuosity
106
0 013
BF slope ft/ft
00025
00008
10 100 32
Reference Reach(es) Data
51 71
235
12
58
91
- 1 242 546 85
023/039/061/267 /590
032
039 0 945 1 5
E5 E4/5
119
12 15 18
Design
Reach UT2
Regional Curve
Interval
Pre - Existing Condition
L _ _=
ax
E
Mm can g
40
170
64
5 1
138
100
05
17
10
16
08
19
38
170
82
80
12
33
82
20
97
25
120
22
10 100 32
Reference Reach(es) Data
51 71
235
12
58
91
- 1 242 546 85
023/039/061/267 /590
032
039 0 945 1 5
E5 E4/5
119
12 15 18
Design
As built
O n
%ZdrM"pWhAW
ax
Mm
Mean
ax
99
138
600
1400
2200
536
08
07
12
14
82
97
120
197
61
142
222
39
10
t0
22
19
35
57
79
54
64
72
20
25
30
19
21
24
69
89
109
83
99
111
35
575
8
39
46
52
22
27
36
22
27
32
0 003
0 013
0 022
0 003
0 013
0 022
"21
44
58
21
47
64
35
45
55
416
49 285
w
5573
N/A
Not Collected
025
021
96
66
'f
870
923
024
024
C5
C5
18
18
14
14
0 006
0 005

Channel length (ft)
850
2 513
Reach UT3
3 226
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
092
039 0 945 15
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional
Curve
Interval
Pre Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
C5
Design
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1140
As built
29 250 8383
Dimension : __ ffle N N
Jacob
ETr= wood
LL
UL,
: E
M
ean Max
M Mean Max
Mm
Med
ax
n
Mean
Max°
Bankfull Width (ft)
61 3
320
68
260
115
92
100 108
167
133
244
268
Floodprone Width (ft)
963
400
600 800
800
2800
4800
723
969
1297
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
47
3 1
09
25
1 5
19
21 22
12
10
12
14
Bankf ill Max Depth (ft)
58
29
30 3 1
17
19
22
25
Bankfull Cross sectional
Area (ft2)
2900
990
100
400
203
198
203 207
200
159
245
341
Width/Depth Ratio
130
103
43
50 56
5 1 71 91
140
11 1
172
266
Entrenchment Ratio
16
34
5 1 68
23 5
48
168
287
32
65
98
Bank Height Ratio
13
1 3
16 19
12
10
10
Bankfull Velocity fps
39
26
27
27 26
58
27
34
22
16
attern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
59
965
134
85
91
120
Radius of Curvature (ft)
33
41 5
50
27
37
43
Meander Wavelength (ft)
117
1505
184
172
179
200
Meander Width Ratio
242 546 85
35
575
8
3 5
37
49
rofile
Riffle Length (ft)
26
75
91
26
50
63
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
'
0 004
0 004
Pool Length (ft)
-
26
49
69
26
75
98
Pool S acing ft
59
755
92
86
90
100
P ubstrate and Tran p"ort
Malcom
y
ii ��
t����� ''�'
wmwzw�
arameters
f,�Y
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
0 24 / 0 34 / 0 44 / 138 / 3 40
N/A
Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) lb /f2
04
03
0 3
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W /m2
250
147
9 5
Channel length (ft)
850
2 513
3 227
3 226
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
092
039 0 945 15
092
092
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
E5
E5 E4/5
C5
C5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
29 250 8383
54
119
- 54
54
Sinuosity
106
-
11
124 152 18
14
14
BF slope ft/ft
00025
00008
0 002
0 004
0 004

1
APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY

r
L
5
�l
I
I�
l_
11
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summa - Year 4 Monitoring
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
q
ji
Reach UTl_
Cross - section 8
Cross - section 9
Cross
- section 12
Cross - section 13
I Cross - Section Parameters
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
1629
1755
1835 1455
2225
202 199
2383
1525 139
1399
1325
2019
1807
28 18
2195
Floodprone Width (ft)
5465
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2 )
224
257
259 1993
32
295 299
3132
120 8 5
95
76
213
162
21 8
1238
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 37
147
141 1 37
144
146 15
131
079 061
1 5
057
1 06
09
077
056
BF Max Depth (ft)
299
294
336 256
296
287 289
295
179 124
2067
1 1
256
1 84
231
135
Width/Depth Ratio
1187
1197
1301 1062
1548
1383 1325
18 12
1932 2281
2067
2308
191
20 15
3639
3891
Entrenchment Ratio
36
33
32 376
22
24 25
181
52 57
57
6
34
38
24
071
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
II Reachwide Parameters
MY -1
2006
MY -2
2007
MY -3 2008
MY -4
2009
MY -5
2010
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
-Min
Max
Med -
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
85
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
33
41
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
130
136
-
Meander Width Ratio
740
978
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
Pool Length (ft)
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
1948
1 948
1948
Sinuosity
14
14
138
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00108
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00142
00142
00149
Ros en Classification
C5
C5
C5

LI
Ir,
i
Fil
Cross - section 10 Cross - section 11
I Cross - Section Parameters Pool Riffle
MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
2975
2826
2835
2835
1241
1169
16 13
1621
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross sectional Area (ft2 )
262
21 3
247
2474
96
90
119
1198
BF Mean Depth (ft)
088
075
087
087
078
077
074
074
BF Max Depth (ft)
201
1 74
226
226
142
14
178
1 8
Width/Depth Ratio
3381
3757
325
325
1598
15 13
2179
2192
Entrenchment Ratio
21
22
2
199
43
46
3
295
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
-
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
II Reachwide Parameters
MY -1
2006
MY -2
2007
MY -3 2008
MY -4 2009
MY -5 2010
Min
Max
Med
Min Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 50 55
Radius of Curvature (ft) 22 26
Meander Wavelength (ft) 90 100
Meander Width Ratio 769 855
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft) 923 923
Sinuosity 14 14
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0 005 0 005
Ros en Classification C5 C5
923
146
0082
0 005
C5

Cross - section 1 Cross - section 2 Cross - section 3 Cross - section 4
I Cross - Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5_
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
224
2289
3072
2985
-
2614
2527
275
2794
160 180 -
2248
2388
2399
28 18
-
2262
2284
2546
2489
Floodprone Width (ft)
458
-
0035
0035
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
5 16
00049
0053
0053
RosRen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2 )
2940
293
33 3
3005
277
165
219
2058
45 1
401
406
42 15
30
285
338
3473
BF Mean Depth (ft)
131
128
1 08
101
106
065
079
074
201
168
169
1 5
1 32
1 25
133
14
BF Max Depth (ft)
229
23
242
236
258
175
2 13
199
354
366
352
358
254
257
284
299
Width/Depth Ratio
171
172
2837
2966
2465
3862
35 14
3792
1121
1424
1416
1884
1708
1827
1916
1783
Entrenchment Ratio
>4 5
>4 4
33
34
>3 6
>3 7
34
333
>3 2
>3 0
3
256
39
39
3 5
359
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
II Reachwide Parameters
MY -1
2006
MY -2
2007
MY -3 2008
MY -4
2009
MY -5
2010
Min
Max
Med
Min Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Profile
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-
70 90 -
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
28 45 -
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
160 180 -
-
Meander Width Ratio
-
670 16 -
-
Riffle length (ft) - - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - - -
Pool Length (ft) - - -
Pool Spacing (ft) - - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
-
-
Channel Length (ft)
3226
3226
3226
3226
Sinuosity
14
14
151
1 51
Water Surface Slope ( ft/ft)
-
-
0035
0035
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
00049
00049
0053
0053
RosRen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5

Cross - section 5 Cross - section 6 Cross - section 7
I Cross - Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 1 33 77 17 59 23 63 20 47
Floodprone Width (ft)
434
2456
2329
566
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2 )
246
19
224
2063
BF Mean Depth (ft)
073
1 08
095
101
BF Max Depth (ft)
2 17
207
239
208
Width/Depth Ratio
4636
1628
2496
2032
Entrenchment Ratio
25
48
36
411
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
-
-
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
-
-
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
2385
2057
2456
2329
566
-
26 6
223
298
2551
1 12
109
121
1 1
283
224
325
273
21 36
1895
2027
2127
29
32
28
295
1309
1125
139
153
348
143
130
168
1678
109
116
121
11
1 74
1 73
205
207
12
972
1149
1395
97
11
95
871

i 0
lJ
n
(1
I
L�
La
F,
0
FI
0
APPENDIX E
r
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
0

Table 12
Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Site 1
f Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
UT1 to Bailey Fork (Restoration)
UTl to Bailey Fork (Reference)
UT3 to Silver Creek (Restoration)
UT3 to Silver Creek (Reference)
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Pre
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
1/3/2005
1/10/2007
1/8/2008
1/27/2009
1/4/2005
1/17/2007
1/8/2008
3/19/2009
1/3/2005
1/9/2007
1/23/2008
3/16/2009
1/5/2005
1/10/2007
1/23/2008
3/19/2009
Total Taxa Richness
30
35
33
34
26
34
20
43
10
26
19
35
20
14
9
31
EPT Taxa Richness
14
15
18
14
16
20
13
9
1
4
2
9
9
5
3
10
Total Biotic Index
427
633
5 1
528
409
43
504
483
78
787
796
702
418
575
453
439
EPT Biotic Index
371
495
463
449
341
365
498
257
62
655
6 15
665
274
281
33
28
Dominance m
e i
n/a
40
86
19
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
50
0
17
,
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Common
Total Shredder /Scraper
6/4
4/3
3/5
3/5
7/3
5/3
2/5
5/6
0/1
6/3
1/1
3/1
3/2
2/2
2/0
3/5
Index
EPT Shredder /Scraper
3/3
1/2
2/4
2/4
4/2
2/2
1/3
1/3
0/0
0/1
0/0
0/1
1/2
0/1
0/0
1/3
Index
Habitat Assessment
Rating
51
82
73
81
65
70
72
75
37
74
67
83
53
51
63
69
Water Temperature
n/a
8
103
59
n/a
84
79
146
n/a
67
66
104
n/a
66
79
106
C
% Dissolved Oxygen
n/a
427
n/a
n/a
n/a
32 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
517
n/a
n/a
DO
DO Concentration
n/a
505
n/a
n/a
n/a
376
1135
n/a
n/a
47
1359
n/a
n/a
635
1079
n/a
(m g/1)
pH
n/a
604
78
735
n/a
597
78
693
n/a
593
74
706
n/a
595
702
712
Conduct ivity
n/a
40
50
50
n/a
50
80
40
n/a
60
80
60
n/a
70
80
60
hos /cm

Benthos Data for Bailey Creek Project Collected on January 27, March 16, and March 19, 2009
1 of 4
t
�
0
loll
e
r
1
9
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellana
R
MOLLUSCA
Gastro oda
Meso astro oda
Pleurocendae
Ehmaa sp
25
SC
C
A
A
Basommato Nora
Ph sadae
Ph Sella sp
88
CG
R
A
ANNELIDA
Oli ochaeta
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
98
CG
Lumbncadae
R
Naididae
8
CG
C
R
Naas sp
89
CG
A
Naas behnan i
89
CG
R
R
Slavma appendiculata
71
CG
R
Tubaficadae w h c
71
CG
R
R
R
Tubificidae w o h c
71
CG
R
Lamnodrdus ho eastern
95
CG
R
Lumbricuhda
Lumbriculidae
7
CG
R
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
C clo oida
(
C
Iso oda
Aselladae
SH
Caecadotea sp
91
CG
C
Insecta
Collembola
R
E hemero tera
Ameletidae
Ameletus sp
A
Baetadae
Centro tdum sp
66
CG
C
A
Caemdae
CG
Cams sp
74
CG
R
E hemerellidae
E hemerella sp
2
SC
A
A
R
Eutylophella sp
43
SC
C
R
E hemendae
CG
Ephemera sp
2
CG
R
R
Hexa ema sp
49
CG
R
He to emidae
Macca ertaum Stenonema sp
4
SC
A
R
R
Stenacron sp
4
SC
R
1 of 4

Benthos Data for Bailey Creek Project Collected on January 27, March 16, and March 19, 2009
Le to hlebndae
CG
Le to hlebia sp
62
CG
R
R
R
Odonata
Aeshmdae
P
Bo erta vtnosa
59
P
R
R
Calopterygidae
P
Calopteryx maculata
78
P
C
Calopteryx sp
78
P
R
Coena riomdae
P
R
Argia s
82
P
R
Ischnura sp
95
R
Cordule astridae
P
Cordule aster sp
57
P
C
R
Gom hidae
Gom hus sp
58
P
R
Lanthus sp
18
P
R
Ohio om hus sp
55
P
R
Stylogomphus albistylus
47
P
R
R
Pleco tera
Nemouridae
Prostow sp
58
C f
Perlidae
R
Ecco tura xanthenes
37
P
C
R
Perlodidae
Iso erla sp
2
P
R
C
Hemp tera
Velndae
P
Microveha sp
P
R
Me alo tera
Corydalidae
Nigrontafasciatus
56
P
R
Tricho tera
Calamoceratidae
SH
Hetero lectron amertcanum
32
-
H dro s chidae
R
Cheumalopsyche sp
62
FC
A
R
Dt lectrona modesta
22
FC
A
C
H dro s the bettem gp
78
FC
C
A
H dro s the sp
5
FC
R
Le idostomatidae
SH
Le tdostoma sp
09
FC
R
Limne hilidae
Irono uta sp 3 R R
Pycnopsyche sp 25 SH R C C
Phryganeidae SH
Pttlostomts sp 64 SH R
Uenoidae
Neo h lax sp 22 SC C R
2 of 4

Benthos Data for Bailey Creek Project Collected on January 27 March 16, and March 19 2009
3 of 4

Benthos Data for Bailey Creek Project Collected on January 27, March 16, and March 19, 2009
11
4 of 4
i
to
Suncho
Site
al
to
UTl to
3 o
olerance
Barley
SPEC• S
eeding
Barley
Silver
�a ues
roup
ork
Creek
R f ren a
Imam
fi/,2�7P2009�
3!1[9/2009
3/16%2009
3(L9%2009
Antocha sp
43
CG
C
Dicranota sp
0
P
C
Hexatoma sp
43
P
R
C
Pseudohmno hda sp
72
P
C
R
Ptychoptera sp
R
Tr ula sp
73
SH
A
A
11
4 of 4
i

L1
r�
F-I
0
J
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Street
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTA.L SCORE
Directions for use The observer is to survey a mimmam of loo meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, prefers ly in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions
select an intermediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream Location/road `A9- (Road Name )`County Sy�
Date—L-24- O q A CC# Basin CO -1 a vk Subbasm r I -3+ 2-3
='s
Observer(s)�-b Type of Study ❑ Fish *Benthos ❑ Basmwtde OSpecial Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion O MT )A P O Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality Teniperature,511 C DO 15d r7, Conductivity Conductivity (corr } 50 µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
Visible Land Use 15 -/.,Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial fi %Other Describe '--c- -1, --c.
Watershed land use ❑Forest ❑Agnculture OLrban O Animal operations upstream
44
Width (ra ters) Stream 3 -s Channel (at top of bank) �i� ~ Stream Depth %) Avg (~ Max 'a
O Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) W-115—
Bank Angle ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90° horizontal is 0° Angles > 40° indicate slope is towards mid channel < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter)
O Chatntelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits Mar development OBuned structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive penphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization_ ❑N fiY ORip rap cement, gabions O Sediment/grade control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions OHigh Normal []Low
Turbidity Clear O Slightly Turbid OTurbid OTanmc Milky ❑Colored (from dyes),
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project" U YES ONO Detads
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
A Water reaches base ofboth lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed A
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or X25% of channel substrate is exposed 0
C Water fills 25 75% of available channel many logs/snags exposed 0
D Root mats out of water 0
E Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
Weather Conditions U. Q,,An Photos 13N 06Y ;t Digital 1335mm
Remarks
39

I Channel Modification Score
A channel natural, frequent bends
B channel natural mfrequent bends (channelization could be old) 4
C some chamtelizatton present 3
D more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channel zed or np rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnaggmg —rio large woody debris in stream t4nanks of uniform shape/height r
Remarks Subtotal)
Il Instream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover if >70% of the
reach is rocks 1 type is present circle the score of 17 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare. Common or Abundant
Rocks Macrophytes �Sticks and leafpacks Rv Snags and logs A' Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70%
4070%
2040%
<200/0
3 embeddedness 40 80%
Score
Score
Scpre
Score
4 or 5 types present
20
16
12
8
3 types present
19
4 embeddedness >801/a
11
7
2 types present.
18
8
10
6
1 type present
17
13
9
5
No types present
0
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
Subtotal is
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal j
III Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle look for ` mud line or difficulty extracting rocks
A substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
I embeddedness <20% ( very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 embeddedness 20 40%
12
3 embeddedness 40 80%
8
4 embeddedness >80%
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <20%
2 embeddedness 20-40%
11
3 embeddedness 40-801/6
4 embeddedness >801/a
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <501/o
8
2 embeddedness >50%
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock.
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
1
Remarks
Subtotal j
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maxunum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always show Pools may take the form of "pocket water', small pools behind boulders or obstructions in
large high gradient streams or side eddies
A Pools present Score
1 Pools Frequent ( >30% of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizesa
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) 8
2 Pools Infrequent (<301/o of the 200m area surveyed)
a vanety of pool sizes 6
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal
0 Pool bottom„boulder cobble m d Bottom sandy sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom E3 Some pools over wader depth
4 " , ` Page Totals
40

U r--
O V Riffle Habitats
Definition_ Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplarn) Definition A break
Definition Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
scare
Score
A well defined riffle and run riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream 1 d
12
II A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
B riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width
0
7
4
C riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10
3
Il 4 width < 6 meters
D nftles absent 0
J B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
Channel Slope OTypical for area ❑Steep =fast flow OLow=hke a coastal stream
Subtotal
a width > 18 meters
O VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
b width 12 -18 meters
O
3 3
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank
Rt Bank
d width < 6 meters
core
Score
A Banks stable
C '1 little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion
a width > 18 meters
D
�---�
U
B Erosion areas present
2 2
c width 6 12 meters
I diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems
6
6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs vegetation appears generally healthy
5
5
3 sparse nuxed vegetation plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding
3
3
4 mostly grasses few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow
2
2
5 tittle or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident
0
0 L
Total
0 Remarks
n VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
J+ sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shading from mountains, but not use to score thus metric
Score
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
�—, B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C Stream with partial canopy sunlight and shading are essentially equal
D Stream with minimal canopy Bull sun in all but a few areas
( E No canopy and no shading 0
I I
Remarks Subtotal Q,
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition_ Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplarn) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sedmient or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stre=6 storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides etc
FACE UPSTREAM
Lfi Bank Rt Bank
(� Dominant vegetation 0 Trees 13 Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weedslold field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
II A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
5 Q
2 width 12 -18 meters
4
(- 3 width 6-12 meters
3 3
Il 4 width < 6 meters
2 2
J B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width > 18 meters
4 4
b width 12 -18 meters
O
3 3
c width 6 12 meters
2 2
d width < 6 meters
1 1
2 breaks common
a width > 18 meters
D
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters
2 2
c width 6 12 meters
I I
d width < 6 meters
0 0
111 Remarks Q kits 4LQ,tk
Tota1___ia
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer farm filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion atypical stream
TOTAL SCORE
0 41
r
LI

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to detemmne bank angle
L46.4j
1
4: i
90° 45°
0
Site Sketch
Other comments
Typical Stream Cross secnon
Frtre -t —W 9h Wafer
Vor-al H!;b Wirier_ _ _
Stream H Edth
42
8
U pptr 8*ah
I
135°
This side is 45° bank angle

U
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ PIedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE a
Directions for use The observer is to survey a nummum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions
select an uiteimediate score A final habitat score is determined by add rig the results from the different metrics
Stream 6w Is Y r1L Location/road � t '1-2 _ (Road Name 1:4,- County y8„rf c
0 Date 3 - ) G- Dq CC# Basin Cu-i b Subbasin
Observer(s) _ � V_ Type of Study ❑ Fish RIBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
jLatitude Longitude F-coregion ❑ MT 1A P O Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
`J 417,
Water Quality Temperaturelff 6 °C D0_9,3 ti mg/1 Conductivity (corn ) !10 pS/cm pH &73
O Physical Characterization Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
(� Visible Land Use 0 %Forest A5 __%Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
4l JI %Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial a5 %Other Describe I
i
Watershed land use forest L(gncultum OUrban ❑ Animal operations upstream
0 Width (meters) Stream 2 Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth (m) Avg_0_jVlax
❑ Width variable 13 Large nver >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on)
0 Bank Angle 3 0-10 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical n 90°, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid- channel, < 9(r
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is too tow for bank angle to matter)
O Channelized Ditch
(� ODeeply incised -steep straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend OChamnel filled in with sediment
I` �! ❑ Recent overbank deposits Otar development OBuned structures ❑Exposed bedrock
O Excessive penphyton gr ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth 00reen tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization ,i7Y ❑Rip rap, cement, gabtons 13 Sediment/grade control structure OBeim/levee
Flow conditio s OHigh ormal ❑Low
Turbidity MCI= ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid OTarmic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project99 13 YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
l Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
JA Water reaches base of both lower banks minimal channel substrate exposed
B Water fills >75% of available channel or <25% of channel substrate is exposed D
C Water fills 25 75% of available channel many logs/snags exposed D
(� D Root mats out of water ❑
{ E Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools O
Weather Conditions P'FI :4 �7y� r , �ti` Photos ON EY t ❑ Digital Ell�mm
I i Remarks Sik Oar &11\114 �f`c t S11,er Cr-ee Siac6
(L 39

S��e.-4—
I Channel Modification Score
A channel natural, frequent bends
B channel natural infrequent bends (channehzation could be old) 4
C some channelization present 3
D more extensive channelizatnon, >40% of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channelnzed or np rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging OEvndence of desnaggmg=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal .5
11 Inslream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70a/o of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare, ConunQo. or Abundant.
C- Rocks R Macrophytes C Sticks and leafpacks Q.-C Snags and logs /L, Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70%
40-706/o
20-40%
<20%
3 embeddedness 40 80%
$sire
Score
S ore
Score
4 or 5 types present
20
16
12
8
3 types present
19
(>
11
7
2 types present
18
8
10
6
1 type present
17
13
9
5
No types present
0
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
I
E3 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal
Subtotal IS
III Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detntus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks
A substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1 embeddedness Q0% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 embeddedness 20-40%
12
3 embeddedness 40 80%
8
4 embeddedness >80%
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <20%
14
2 embeddedness 20-40%
11
3 embeddedness 40-80%
4 embeddedness >80%
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <50%
8
2 embeddedness >50%
4
D substrate homogeneous
I substrate nearly all bedrock_
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
I
Remarks
Subtotal
1V Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of 'pocket water' small pools behind boulders or obstructions in
large lugh gradient streams, or side eddies
A. Pools present am
1 Pools Frequent ( >30a /a of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes 10
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)
2 Pools Infrequent ( <30a /o of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes 6
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal
0 Pool bottom boulder coblik — bard 0 Bottom sandy sunk as you walls ❑ Silt bottom 13 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page Total 39
40

U
V Raffle Habitats
VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
Definition Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
Score
Score
A well defined riffle and run riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream ce°/
12
O B rifle as aide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
7
C nffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10
3
D riffles absent 0
Channel Slope OTypical for area OSteep= fast flow OLowalike a coastal stream
Subtotal
V1 Bank Stability and Vegetation
0
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
Remarks
Score score
A. Banks stable
1 little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends) little potential for erosion
7 7
B Erosion areas present
O
(� 1 diverse trees shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems
b 6
IUI 2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy
d
3 sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding
3 3
4 mostly grasses few if any trees and shrubs high erosion and failure potential at high flow
2 2
j� 5 little or no bank vegetation mass erosion and bank failure evident
0 0
L)I
Total
Remarks
2 width 12 -18 meters
(�l
VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
LJsunlight
when the sun is directly overhead Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric
A_ Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration
10
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent
8
C Stream with partial canopy sunlight and shading are essentially equal
O
7
D Stream with miaimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas
2
E No canopy and no shading
0
0
Remarks
Subtotal )o
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Defi ution. Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
floodplam) Definition A break
O
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
// FACE UPS'T'REAM
Lf . Bank Rt Bank
vegetation avY reel l(Shnibs EPtrasses O Weedslold field OExotics (kudzu, etc)
Score Score
l�Dominant
l
A Riparian zone mtact (no breaks)
1 width>I 8 meters
5 5
2 width 12 -18 meters
4 4
j�
3 width 6-12 meters
3 3
U4
width < 6 meters
2 2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width> 18 meters
4
O b width 12 -18 meters
3
c width 6-12 meters
2 2
d width < 6 meters
1 1
2 breaks common
a width > 18 meters
3 3
_ b width 12 -18 meters
2 2
c width 6 12 meters
1
O
d width < 6 meters
0
Remarks
Total_
Page Total_
O Disclaimer form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
O 41

S,�tZ
i
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to detemnne bank angle
� 1 I
90° 45°
Tymmll Streams Crass - section
r
ZL
` ♦ � h� rr r
135°
Site Sketch
Other comments
42
This side is 45° bank angle

O 3105 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
O Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ AL SCORE
Directions for use The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right -of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the
(� description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions
11 JI select an intermediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metncs
Stream & Iz r —rl -<- Location/road Zll v= e- 3 (Road Name Hats =,-1 1 Kounty. 'Le
DDate 3-16-01 CC# Basin Subbasin
Z.1c
Observer(s) c—ur\ Type of Study ❑ Fish Gn/3enthos O Basmwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion ❑ MT M / P ❑ Slate Belt 13 Triassic Basin
Water Quality Teniperature��°C DO qa. mgll Conductivity (corr) 60 1,S /cm pH -7o6
GPhysical Characterization Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
rl Visible Land Use %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
U_15_ 0/oFallow Fields % Conmtercrai %Industrial %Other Describe
Watershed land use OForest Agriculture OUrban O Animal operations upstream
UWidth (meters) Stream 0, t--L- Channel (at top of bank) t?'J Stream Depth (m) Ave l S Max 3 S
0 Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank first flat surface you stand on) (m}
Bank Angle 10 ° or O NA (Vertical is 90° honzontal is B° Angles > 9(r indicate slope is towards mid - channel, <90'
indicate slope is away from channel NA ifbank is too low for bank angle to matter)
0 C7iannelmed Ditch
❑Deeply incised steep straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sediment
O Recent overbank deposits OBar development OBuned structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive penphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge O Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization ON OY OR.ip -rap, cement gabions O Sediment/grade control structure OBerm/levee
n Flow conditions Eirgh ONormal OLow
lJ Turbidity OCIear ❑ Slightly Turbid Effurbrd OTannic OMilky, ElColored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project9l O YES MNO Details AI-C-
Channel Flow Status 1
4 ' Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
A Water reaches base o €both Iower banks minimal channel substrate exposed t3
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ❑
C Water fills 25 75% of available channel many logs /snags exposed ❑
D Root mats out ofwater ❑
E Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
-40''
Weather Conditions Qvc� Z ' Photos ON 1 EYbigital 035mm
G r
Remarks ��a � �`�'� � _ i`.. i 1 r� d4 - r'
� J
0 39

I Channel Modification re
A channel natural, frequent bends (�
B channel natural infrequent bends (channeliration could be old) 4
C some channelization present 3
D more extensive channehzation >40% of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channelized or np rapped or gabioned, etc 0
17 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging —no large woody debris in stream dBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Rr-rt3 1 � Subtotal
H Instream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the
reach is rocks 1 type is presem, circle the score of 17 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant
Ar Rocks 0- Macrophytes R C Sticks and teafpacks F. Snags and logs A Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70 % 40-700/a 2040% <20%
Score Score Scare Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 D_ 11 7
2 types present 18 14 10 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present 0
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
-'/
Subtotal �r r
it tit
to i
III Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line or dtfficulty extracting rocks
A substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1 embeddedness <20% (very little sand usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 embeddedness 20 40%
12
3 embeddedness 40-80%
8
4 embeddedness >80%
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
I embeddedness <2W*
14
2 embeddedness 2040%
3 embeddedness 40-80%
6`
4 embeddedness >80%
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness X500/.
8
2 embeddedness >50% T
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
I
Remarks
Subtotal I I
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of "pocket water', small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies
A Pools present
1 Pools Frequent ( >30% of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes r 0
b pools about the some size (indicates pools filling in)
2 Pools Infrequent ( <30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sties 6
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal / (�
Pool bottom boulder cobble -hard 13 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 ilt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Ell
Page Totals j_

J
0'
V Riffle Habitats
Definition Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Scoxg $core
A well defined riffle and nun, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. 12
B nffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width Illy, 7
C nffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D riffles absent 0
Channel Slope 13Typical for area OSteep =fast flow OLow -like a coastal stream Subtotal /b
VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable I /�'�
1 little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion U
B Erosion areas present
1 diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3 sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4 mostly grasses few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total 1 f
Remarks
� r1
VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric
Score
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration � 10
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Stream with miniinal canopy full sun in all but a few areas
E No canopy and no shading
Remarks o -Sr "t c 1 Subtotal
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplam) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drams, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPSTREAM Lft Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation 0 Trees 0 Shrubs O Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ElExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
2 width 12 -18 meters
3 width 6 -12 meters
4 width < 6 meters
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks raze
a width> 18 meters
b width 12 18 meters
c width 6-12 meters
d width < 6 meters
(1> 6)
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
2 breaks con►rnon
a width > 18 meters 3 3
b width 12 -18 meters 2 2
c width 6-12 meters 1 I
d width < 6 meters 0 0
Remarks Total I J
Page Total 'I Z-
0 Disclaimer -farm filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion atypical stream TOTAL SCORE
j
41

I
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle
Lk4jI
90° 45°
Twical Stream Cross sechau
2.004
135°
Site Sketch
Other comments
42
This side is 45° bank angle
u
n

U 3106 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain! Piedmont Streams
0 Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ I froTAL SCORE
Directions for use The observer is to survey a nunimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right -of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
O description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions
select an intermediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream ��. k sy ;art;. Location/road 4r- (Road Name k )County t yr
Date 3- l q -J g CC# Basin, � �,...:.� Subbasm j i
COM
Observers) =.J' -� Type of Study 0 Fish ❑Benthos 0 Basmwide �OSpecial Study (Describe)
OLatitude Longitude, '�coregion O MT M P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
:�
Water Quality Temperature 10` 0 °C DO 3 Omg1l Conductivity (corn) _60 uS /cm pH :T, 1Z
0 Physical Characterization Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location -include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
0 Visible Land Use %Forest : , %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %industrial 1,> %Other• Describe
/ t
Watershed land use 0�orest CdAgriculture C]Lrban ❑ Animal operations upstream
O Width meters Stream __L5_ Channel at t ofbank Stream Depth m Avg ,9 S Max
(meters) —� f } p f) g
O Width variable O Large river >25m wide
O Sank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) (m)
I
Bank Angle ° `' ° or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid - channel < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter )
11 Channelized Ditch
Odeeply incised steep straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend MhanneI filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits Lr1Bar development I OBuried strictures ❑Exposed bedrock
13 Excessive penphyton-grr9wth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth 13Green tinge D Sewage smell
Maiunade Stabilization t3N ❑Y ORip rap cement gabions [J Sediment/grade- control structure ❑Bermllevee
O Flow conditio OHigh L1lormal ❑Low i
Turbidity lear ❑ Slightly Turbid ElTurbid DTaanic OMdky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project''► ❑ YES O440 Details r+,,,1,
Channel Flow Status
O Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions /
A Water reaches base of both lower banks minimal channel substrate exposed Q
B Water fills >75% of available channel or Q5% of channel substrate is exposed ❑
O C Water fills 25 75% of available channel many logslsnags exposed O
D Root mats out of water ❑
E Very little water ui channel, mostly present as standing pools O
I
D Weather Conditions Pr-l. Ci (. by 5 Photos C]N M�( Digital 035mm
l
Remarks
�J
I
S ol-� Oi i~iaAt j _r 3
Coupla
O
j 39

I Channel Modification Score
A channel natural, frequent bends
B channel natural, infrequent bends (channelizatmon could be old) 4
C some channelization present 3
D more extensive cbannelmzation, >40% of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channelnzed or np rapped or gabioned, etc 0
O Evidence of dredging ClEvidence of desnagging -no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks SubtotalC
H Instreain Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant
Rocks (�Macrophytes CSticks and leafpacks L Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40 -70% 20-40%
<20%
Score Score Score
Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 1
8
3 types present. 19 15 1
7
2 types present 18 14 10
6
1 type present 17 13 9
5
No types present 0
O No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks 11 -..4 Z, 1%, - QC r -01,S- 6 �c rcw r
Subtotal j(
p , , D.V/ `1 .._ o Y, 1
III Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only took at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle look for mud line or difficulty extracting rocks
A substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1 embeddedness Q01/o (very little sand usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 embeddedness 20-40%
12
3 embeddedness 40-801/a
8
4 embeddedness >80%
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <20%
1
2 embeddedness 20400/a
11
3 embeddedness 40-80%
4 embeddedness >80%
2
C substrate mostly gravel
I embeddedness <50%
8
2 embeddedness >50%
4
D substrate hoiuogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock
3
2 substrate nearly all sand -
3
3 substrate nearly all detntus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
I
Remarks Subtotal If
IV Pool Vanety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of pocket water ", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large lugh gradient streams, or side eddies
A Pools present Sc ee
I Pools Frequent ( >30% of 200m area surveyed) a
a variety of pool sizes 10
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling inn) _ 8
2 Pools Infrequent (<300/a of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes 6 O
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal 1
O Pool bottom boulder cobble=iard O Bottom sandy sunk as you walk O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth 0
Remarks
Page Total 3
40 O

V Rdile Habitats
Definition Riffle is area of reaeration can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream 16
B riffle as wide as stream but nfile length is not 2X stream width 14 7
C riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D riffles absent 0
Channel Slope OTypical for area OSteep =fast flow OLowrlike a coastal stream Subtotal
VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
Score Score
A Banks stable
1 little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends) little potential for erosion 7 7
B Erosion areas present
1 diverse trees shrubs, grass plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3 sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4 mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow Q 2
5 little or no bank vegetatton, mass erosion and bank failure evident 0
Total_
Remarks
VII Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shading from mountains but not use to score this metric
�Tm
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas 2
E No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal/-)
VIII Riparian Vegetative Zane Width
Definition Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplam) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides etc
FACE UPSTREAM LS Bank Rt Bank
Dominant vegetation O Trees O Shrubs 13 Grasses O Weeds/old field OExoties (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
5
2 width 12 -18 meters
4
4
3 width 6 12 meters
3
3
4 width < 6 meters
2
2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
I breaks rare
a width > 18 meters
4
4
b width 12 -18 meters
3
c width 6-12 meters
2
2
d width < 6 meters
1
1
2 breaks common
a width > 18 meters
3
3
b width 12 -18 meters
2
2
c width 6-12 meters
I
1
d width < 6 meters _
0
0
Remarks P-- o-P 1 4 41, k. f , a' —f l ,
Total��
Page Total 3 Z
O Disclaimer -form filled out but score doesn't match subjective opinion atypical stream
TOTAL SCORE_
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field data Sheet
Diagram to deternnne bank angle
I i .... rC..�
90° 45°
Tvnacal Stream Crogr -whon
Site Sketch
Other conm=nts
A
42
135°
11
Tbm side is 45° bank angle

P1 Site 1 —Facing upstream
P2 Site 1 — Facing downstream
P3 Site 2 — Facing upstream
P4 Site 2 — Facing downstream
P5 Site 3 — Facing upstream
P6 Site 3 — Facing downstream

P7 Site 4 — Facing upstream
P8 Site 4 — Facing downstream