20050745 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20110201

. t
rap.
�A I
9 Capability Dnve
Suite 3 100
I
i

I
0
o
F
a
o
a
0
IL
ix
0
o
r

TABLE OF CONTENTS
10
SUMMARY
1
2 0
PROJECT BACKGROUND
3
21
Project Location
3
22
Mitigation Goals and Objectives
3
23
Project Description and Restoration Approach
3
24
Project History and Background
5
25
Project Plan
7
3 0
VEGETATION MONITORING
8
3 1
Soil Data
8
32
Description of Vegetation Monitoring
8
3 3
Vegetation Success Criteria
9
34
Results of Vegetative Monitoring
10
35
Vegetation Observations
10
36
Vegetation Photos
11
4 0
STREAM MONITORING
13
41
Description of Stream Monitoring
13
42
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
14
43
Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
14
44
Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
15
45
Stream Stability Assessment
15
46
Stream Stability Baseline
15
47
Longitudinal Profile Results
15
48
Cross - Section Monitoring Results
16
50
HYDROLOGY
19
6 0
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
24
6 1
Description of Benth>c Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
24
62
Benth>c Macromvertebrate Sampling Results
24
63
Benth>c Macromvertebrate Sampling Discussion
24
64
Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
26
7 0
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
29
8 0
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
32
90
REFERENCES
33
I I Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 1
�) Monitoring Year 5

A
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
APPENDIX E — Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Data
LIST OF TABLES
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
2010 (Year 5) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8
Venfication of Bankf ill Events
Table 9
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 10
Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2010 (Year 5)
Table 12
Hydrologic Monitoring Summary (2006 — 2010)
Table 13
Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
0
Bailey Fork EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
J
11

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Bailey Fork Site
Figure 2 (a) As -Built Plan Sheet 13 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (b) As -Built Plan Sheet 14 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (c) As -Built Plan Sheet 15 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (d) As -Built Plan Sheet 16 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site
Figure 3 Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall (2010)
Figure 4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Sites
Bailey Fork EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 111
Monitoring Year 5
0

I'
�I
0
F]
LI
10 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2010 growing season
(Monitoring Year 5) on the Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ( "Site ")
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, 4 longitudinal profile surveys, and 8 hydrologic monitoring gauges (4 automated and 4
manual) were installed and/or assessed across the restoration site The 2010 data represent
results from the fifth and final 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
alluvial forest" and associated rivenne 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 rivenne wetlands and 6,097 linear feet (LF) of stream were
restored, and 5 3 acres of riverine wetlands and 9,765 LF of stream were enhanced
A total of 21 monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (I Om x IOm) in size, were used to
document survivability of the woody vegetation planted at the Site Year 5 vegetation
monitoring documented the average number of surviving stems per acre on site to be 539, which
is a survival rate of greater than 78 percent based on the initial planting count of 687 stems per
acre Surviving planted trees ranged from 280 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre The Site has
met the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5 as specified in the
Restoration Plan
The Year 5 cross - sectional monitoring data document that there has been some adjustment to
stream dimension since construction The Year 5 longitudinal profiles showed that some pools
have filled slightly due to accumulated sediment During the five -year monitoring period, all
stream reaches on the Site showed that the bedform features are remaining stable The pools
have undergone some adjustment since as -built conditions, but have maintained flat water
surface slopes The riffles have also undergone some adjustment since as -built conditions but
have remained steeper and shallower than the pools
The on -site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at all
three crest gauges during Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period The bankfull
measurements collected through Year 5, document that all three restored reaches have met the
success criteria for bankfull events for the project The Site has met the stream morphology
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan
Rainfall data for Years 1 through Year 4 was obtained from the Morganton Weather Station
(Morganton, NC UCAN 14224, COOP 315838) During September 2008, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) installed a weather and deep groundwater monitoring station along
the northern UT2 conservation easement boundary The USGS weather station includes a
rainfall gauge and is identified as Glen Alpine RS well (USGS 354302081433245) Since the
proximity of the USGS station is along the Site conservation easement boundary, it was
determined that this rainfall gauge would be used as the on -site rainfall gauge to document
rainfall data for Year 5 monitoring According to the Morganton weather station data and the
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5

Glen Alpine station data, total recorded rainfall during the Year 5 monitoring period, January
through October 2010 was 38 20 inches and 36 61 inches, respectively
During 2010, all eight on -site wells (two automated and two manual) recorded a hydroper>od
greater than five 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 hydropenods recorded by all eight wells at the
restoration site Based on hydropenod data over the five -year monitoring period, the Site has
met the hydrologic success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan
The Site exhibited excellent raffle -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 as the benthic communities continue to
re- establish
In summary, the Site has met and achieved the hydrologic, vegetative and stream success criteria
specified in the site Restoration Plan
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 2 O
Monitoring Year 5

2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Site is located in Burke County, North Carolina (Figure 1) The project is within cataloging
unit 03050101 The Site had 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
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
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
permanent conservation easement
L 21 Project Location
�
� The Site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, along
J Hopewell Road The Site is divided into two parts by Hopewell Road and I -40 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
• Restore 6,097 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 9,765 LF of stream channel
• Restore 12 1 acres of riparian wetlands
• Enhance of 5 3 acres of existing, nverme wetlands
• Exclude cattle from stream, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem -based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize water quality benefits
O23 Project 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
U carrying a "UT" designation UT 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
0 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
n project area from the south and ends at the confluence with Silver Creek The drainage area of
Jthe three tributaries ranges from 0 25 square miles (mil) to 092 mil, while the drainage area at
LJ Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC
Monitoring Year 5
0 �

the downstream end of Bailey Fork is 8 3 miz 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
Ty e*
Approach"
Linear Footage
or Acreage
Stream and
Wetland
Mitigation Units
Reach UT1
R
P1
1,948 LF
1,948
Reach UT2
R
P1
923 LF
923
Reach UT3
R
P1
3,226 LF
3,226
Reach UT3
EII
SS
135 LF
54
Reach Bailey Fork
EII
SS
9,630 LF
3,852
Rivenne Wetland
R
-
12 1 ac
121
Rivenne Wetland
E
-
5 3 ac
2 7
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 matting, 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
Monitoring Year 5

li
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
Ci 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
�I
I'
u
I�
U
U
�I
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 Delivery
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 Momtonng- baselme)
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
Oct -10
Oct -10
Jan -11
J
f+
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 5
Monitoring Year 5
i
S

_ r
Tahle 3 Project Contacts
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 [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel 919 - 459 -9001
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 \
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen, Tel [phone]
Seedmg 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 [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Eng Kevin Tweedy, Tel [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc
3674 Pine Swamp Rd
Sparta, NC 28675
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Chris Hu sman, Tel [phone]
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
D
11
� Jf
6
i

�I
L'
D
r{
r-
i
U
�I
L
�I
V
Table 4 Proiect'Backi?round
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Project County
Burke County NC
Drainage Area
Reach Batley Fork
83 m12
Reach UT1
0 81m12
Reach UT2
0 24mi2
Reach UT3
0 92 mil
Estimated Drainage Percent Impervious Cover
Reach Batley Fork
<5%
Reach UT1
<5%
Reach UT2
<5%
Reach UT3
<5%
Stream Order
Bailey Fork
2
UT1
1
UT2
1
UT3
1
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As Built
C5
Cowardm Classification
Rlverme Upper Perennial Unconsolidated
Bottom
Dominant Soil Types
Refer to Section 3 1 for Soil Descriptions
Batley Fork
AaA CvA
UT1
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 listed?
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
50%
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
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Momtonng Year 5
G
0
7

CTb���y
I�
N ►l
NN
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
AaA
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains 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 1K -►K
Main Channel and Floodplam
Colvard series consists of very deep well drained soils that formed in
CvA
loamy alluvium on floodplains 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 floodplains along creeks and
FaC2
nvers 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*
Floodplam
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 floodplains in pastures and woodlands
Unison
Floodplain
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 2006 http Hefotg 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 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 virginicus) switch grass (Pantcum virgatum) gamagrass, (Tripsicum(dactyloides)
smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparlum) devil's
beggars tick (Baden frondosa) lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis lanceolata) deertounge (Pantcum
clandestinum) big bluestem (Andropogon gerardn) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5

J
J
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre All planting was
completed in April 2006
At the time of initial planting, vegetation plots labeled 1 through 21 were established on the Site
to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025 acre in size,
U 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
l The area surrounding vegetation plot 1 and the area surrounding plots 12 and 13, were previously
C flooded by a beaver impoundment in the fall of 2007 The beavers and the associated dams were
_J
removed and the affected areas were replanted in the spring of 2008 Newly planted stems were
marked and flagged to facilitate locating them in the future
U Following Year 4 monitoring, a low survival rate in vegetation plots 8 and 9 documented
densities of 200 and 280 stems /acre, respectively Vegetation plots 8 and 9 and the adjacent
areas were replanted in May 2010 with 4 -year old potted stems Species planted during this time
E ! included, tulip poplar (Driodendron tulip fera) swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxu) green
ash (Fraxmus pennsylvanica), sugarberry ( Celtis laevigata) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvattca)
(i
�I
U
i�
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 michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
FACW-
7
Liriodendron tulip fera
Tulip poplar
FACW
8
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
FACW
9
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
FAC
10
Nyssa sylvattca
Blackgum
FAC
33 Vegetation Success Criteria
As specified in the approved site Restoration Plan, 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
U Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
F
U

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 5 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
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
During Year 5 monitoring, volunteer woody species were observed in some of the vegetation
plots, but were deemed too small to tally The observed species do not cause concerns with the
growth of desirable vegetation Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva) is the most common
volunteer, though red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and black walnut (Juglans
nigra) were also observed
Year 5 vegetation monitoring documented the average number of stems per acre on the Site to be
539, which is a survival rate of greater than 78 percent based on the initial planting count of 687
stems per acre Surviving planted trees ranged from 280 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre
The lower survival rate in plots 8 and 9 documented during Year 4 ranged from 200 stems per
acre to 280 stems per acre To ensure survival, the two plots were supplementary planted with 4-
year old stems in May 2010 Following the Year 5 momtormg penod, plots 8 and 9 documented
a survival rate that ranged from 280 stems per acre to 360 stems per acre
The Year 5 data document that all vegetation monitoring plots on the Site have met the final
vegetative success criteria of 260 trees per acre by end of Year 5
35 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation project, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea) was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre These species are present
on the Site Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spikerush
(Eleocharis obtusa), seedbox (Ludwigia spp) and sedge (Carex spp) were observed across the
Site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation The presence of these herbaceous wetland
plants helped to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology in portions of the Site
Wetland vegetation is prevalent throughout the Site Specifically, wetland grasses, herbs and
knotweeds are found in the vicinity of Plots 1 and 2 Wetland sedges and herbs are found in the
area roughly delineated by Plots 12 through 21 The distribution of hydrophytic vegetation
seems to correlate more with the prior land use than the wetness of the Site
1
Plots 1 and 2 are associated with an abandoned pond and the proliferation of knotweed seems to
correlate with species typically associated with pond fringes The more expansive area defined
by Plots 12 through 21 is more open and was historically agricultural in nature and thus it is
populated by sedges
Wetlands associated with Plots 1 and 2 are dominated by tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum),
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), sedges (Carex spp Andropogon spp and Cyperus spp ), cut
grass (Leersia oryzoides), panic grass (Panicum virgatum) and rushes (Juncus effusus and
others) Volunteer woody stems in this area include tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and spice bush
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC t' 10 ,
Monitoring Year 5

�l
(Lindera bemoan) The plant community in this area Includes both planted and volunteer
-; specimens Also, this wetland is being populated by upstream seed sources
Wetlands associated with Plots 12 through 21 are comprised more of sun tolerant and early
successional herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation Observed vegetation includes, sedges (Carex
spp Andropogon spp and Cyperus spp ), rushes (Juncus effusus and others), cattail (Typha
U latifoia), spike rush (Eleocharis obtusa) and seedbox (Ludwigia spp )
Variable topography within the wetland areas has resulted in diverse communities of obligate
j and facultative wetland vegetation throughout a mosaic of interlacing micro - habitats
Weedy species occur on the Site, though none at present seem to be posing any problems for the
kplanted woody or herbaceous vegetation Commonly seen weedy vegetation includes various
pasture grasses, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisa folia), goldenrod (Solidago spp ), horseweed
(Conyza spp ), milkweed (Asclepias spp ) and beggarticks (Baden spp )
36 Vegetation Photos
jr Photographs of the Site showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report
U
U
fj
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
I
J
11

Table 7 Year 5 (2010) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 3
Betula mgrs
I
I
I
I
1
11
1
1 4
3
1
7
4
5
1 14 2
6
44
50
46
49
53
46
Frminu penwylvmwa
2
2
2
4
2
6
7
4
5
8
4
48
56
47
54
49
46
Platanus occtdentalu
2
1
9
10
4
8
9
6
1
5
4 2
2
1
54
59
59
68
68
64
Quercuephellos
4
4
2
3
3
1
10
14
11
17
17
17
Querc cobra
I
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
2
I
20
18
19
14
15
Quercus mtchattsu
t
1
5
2
I
9
11
8
11
7
9
Ltrtodendron tullptjerra
3
4
2
1
6
8
1
38
35
22
24
24
25
Celia laevtgala
5
3
1
5
3
l
4
2
4
49
38
33
33
26
28
Dtospyms vtrgtntana
1
6
4
2
2
0
7
15
15
14
15
Nyssasylvauca
2
4
I
1
3
3
2
2
26
38
23
20
14
18
Stems/plot
14
14
16
17
14
12
15
9
7
15
15
16
10
12
15
12
13
18 12
16
11
362
328
282
310
286
283
Stems/acre
560
560
640
680
560
480
600
360
280
600
600
640
400
480
600
480
520
720 480
640
440
687
624
537
590
539
539
B I y F rr Cm k EEP C tract N D04006 3 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC
M t gY-5
78
12

�l
I�
4 0 STREAM MONITORING
�—
41 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
1 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
1 (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 raffle 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
j comparison of year -to -year data The annual cross - section surveys Include points measured at all
l J 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 ( Rosgen, 1994)
nPermanent cross - sections for the Site were surveyed in April 2006 (As -built conditions), October
�I 2006 (Year 1), November 2007 (Year 2), October 2008 (Year 3), October 2009 (Year 4) and
October 2010 (Year 5)
t Longitudinal Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as -built conditions The as -built profile was conducted for the entire length of
the restored channels (UT1, UT2, and UT3) and was conducted in April 2006 Measurements
t 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 benchmark A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of restored
stream length was completed in November 2007 (Year 2), October 2008 (Year 3), October 2009
-J (Year 4) and October 2010 (Year 5)
O 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
I�
least once per year
`J 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,
i perpendicular to flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is framed so that the
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
Batley Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 13
Monitoring Year 5

42 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success
Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year monitoring
period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years
Cross - sections There should be little change In as -built cross - sections If changes to channel cross -
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�aggradmg 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 2010, the on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event
at all three crest gauge stations 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 three crest gauges
during Year 5 of monitoring was approximately 2 76 feet above bankfull stage, which occurred at
crest gauge 3 on UT1 Bankf ill measurements collected during the first four years of monitoring
documented that all three restored reaches had met the final success criteria for bankf ill events on
the project However, crest gauge monitoring continued through Year 5 to continually document
bankfull flow events within the restored channels
Table 8 Verification of Bankfull Events
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
(Highest readin b reach
Date of Data
r
Date of Occurrence of
Method of Data
Measurement
Collection
Bankfull Event
Collection
feet
Crest Gauge 1
3/31/2010
1/24/2010
UTI
276
`
Crest Gauge 2
3/31/2010
1/24/2010
UT2
185
Crest Gauge 3
6/28/2010
5/31/2010
UT3
065
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 14
Monitoring Year 5
1�

C1
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
i
45 Stream Stability Assessment
Ll Table 9 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream structures
r performed during Year 5 of post - construction monitoring The percentages noted are a general
` 1 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 a localized concern Overall, the Site has maintained stability of the streams and
structures, and the Site is performing as designed
C
LI
F1
I�
Table 9 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Bailey Fork
Mrti 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%
95%
Pools
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
1 100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
Wads and Boulders
100%
1 100%
100%
100%
1 100%
100%
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
period are also summarized in Appendix D
i
47 Longitudinal Profile Results
The Year 5 longitudinal profile was completed in October 2010 and was compared to data collected
n during the as -built condition survey, Year 3 and Year 4 monitoring data The longitudinal profile is
presented in Appendix B During Year 4 monitoring, approximately 3,400 LF of channel were
surveyed
During Year 5 of monitoring 1,215 feet of UT1 was surveyed According to the longitudinal profiles
of the as- built, Year 3, Year 4 and Year 5 surveys of UT I, pools from stations 17 +50 to 26 +55 have
fluctuated with sediment accumulation since as -built conditions The Year 5 survey shows that most
r
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 15
Monitonng Year 5

of the pools are remaining 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 similar
elevations as as -built conditions The constructed riffle and rock step -pool sequence located at
stations 28 +25 through 29 +65 is installed on the lower end of UT1 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 The thalweg in this section of has deepened below the as -built
elevation, however, the thalweg has remained relatively stable since Year 3 In this localized area
one stream bank has experienced some slight erosion Repair of the area does not appear necessary
During Year 5 of monitoring, 930 feet of UT2 were surveyed The Year 4 and 5 longitudinal
profiles of UT2 show that from stations 10 +00 to 13 +00, the streambed 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 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 Pools within stations 13 +00 to 18 +00 have also
accumulated some sediment, but remain stable All stations downstream of 18 +00 are relatively
similar to the as -built conditions
During Year 4 of monitoring 1,250 feet of UT3 was surveyed The Year 4 and 5 longitudinal
profiles show that UT3 pools have accumulated some sediment since as -built conditions, however,
riffles and the >n- channel structures are holding grade and have not accumulated sediment Due to
the below average rainfall amounts observed during 2010, it is concluded that a lack of large storm
events have caused higher amounts of sand to be deposited in the pools This observation has been
made in other stream systems, where pools fill and are scoured back out during higher flow periods
While pool depths have decreased, it should be noted that pools are still prevalent throughout the
reach, riffle areas have continued to maintain their grades through the five -year monitoring period,
and channel stability has not been affected by the accumulated sediment
All of the longitudinal profiles from Year 5 monitoring showed some changes in the restored
reaches These changes are considered characteristic of normal stream processes, especially for
sand -bed systems and do not appear to pose a threat to the stability of the channels
48 Cross - Section Monitoring Results
Year 5 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during October of 2010
The Year 5 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 monitoring data collected in
November 2007, Year 3 monitoring data collected in October 2008 and Year 4 monitoring data
collected in October 2009
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 5 Data
from each of these cross - sections are summarized in Appendix B and D The Year 5 survey
demonstrates that the cross - sections show that there have been minor adjustments to stream
dimension since construction in April 2006
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX\NEUSE [ LLC
Monitoring Year 5
16

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 UT The pool cross - sections are located at the apex of meander
bends
UT3 pool cross - sections 2, 4 and 6 indicate that all pools have experienced some dimensional
Ochanges since as -built conditions Cross - section 2 has seen a decreased area since as -built
conditions, however, it has remained relatively stable since Year 3 monitoring Cross - section 4 has
remained very stable since as -built conditions Cross - section 6 has remained relatively stable since
C as -built conditions Survey data from UT2 pool cross - section 10, Indicate that the pool has
experienced a decrease in cross - sectional area 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 UT pool cross - sections 8 and 13 Indicate that the channel is evolving to a stable
dimension with the same general trends as seen for UT2
n Riffle cross - sections 1, 3, 5 and 7 are located on UT3, cross - section 11 Is located on UT2 and cross -
f section 9 and 12 are located on UT 1
Riffle cross - sectional survey data for cross - sections 1, 3, 5 and 7 indicate that all riffles on UT3 have
remained stable since as -built conditions However, during Year 5 monitoring, cross - section 1
Indicated a narrower channel with a stable thalweg elevation Visual observations did not indicate
that cross - section 1 Is experiencing unstable conditions Survey data from UT2 riffle cross - section
11, indicate that the riffle has remained relatively stable since as -built conditions Survey data from
UTl indicate that riffle cross - section 12 has experienced moderate dimensional changes since as-
built conditions It is likely that cross - section 12 is continuing 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 UT1 riffle cross - section 9
has remained stable since as -built conditions
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 UT I, and a constructed raffle 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 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 did not appear
necessary Observation of the area continued into 2010, no significant changes were noted in this
area during Year 5
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)
During a site visit in the summer of 2010 it was determined that cross -vane 2 and the adjacent banks
should be repaired due instability from the Year 3 beaver dam impact The arms of the cross vane
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 17
Monitoring Year 5

0
had worsened and the banks needed to be re- stabilized In December of 2010, cross vane 2 and the
adjacent banks were repaired Repairs to the cross vane and concerned areas included stabilizing the 0
right and left arms of the cross vane The cross vane arm boulders were stabilized and adjusted
using a track hoe and then backfilled with Class I and Class B stone The right and left banks were
stabilized with three geo -lifts that consisted of a brush layer at the toe, a soil lift, a brush layer, a soil 0
lift, a brush layer, a soil lift and then matting at the top of terrace After repairs, the areas affected
were seeded and mulched
Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover 0
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 0
Photographs of the channel were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution
of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A) Herbaceous vegetation has remained dense 0
along the edges of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream
channel
The Year 5 data documents that the Site has achieved the stream stability success criteria specified in
the Restoration Plan
/ 0
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 18
Monitoring Year 5

1,
J
L
�1
Ji
�l
I
50 HYDROLOGY
Rainfall data for Years 1 through Year 4 were obtained from the Morganton Weather Station
(Morganton, NC UCAN 14224, COOP 315838) The data were used in conjunction with a
manual rain gauge located on the Site to document precipitation amounts
During September 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) installed a weather and
deep groundwater monitoring station along the northern UT2 conservation easement boundary
The USGS weather station includes a rainfall gauge and is identified as Glen Alpine RS well
(USGS 354302081433245) Since the proximity of the USGS station is along the Site's
conservation easement boundary, it was determined that this rainfall gauge would be utilized as
the on -site rainfall gauge The data from the Glen Alpine gauge was used in conjunction with
the Morganton gauge to document rainfall data for the Year 5 monitoring report
Table 10 Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall inches
Bad Fork Mi
i ation Site
EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Month
Average
30%
70%
Morganton Station Observed
2010 Precipitation
January
443
345
579
709
February
4 14
2 83
5 53
404
March
4 85
336
594
398
Aril
379
236
506
191
May
449
322
562
364
June
474
325
6 12
557
July
3 91
238
495
327
August
374
236
445
325
September
4 18
248
598
247
October
3 84
203
476
298
November
3 79
255
427
1 NA
December
372
248
459
1 NA
Total
4962
--
-
1 38 20 (through October 2010
An on -site manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the automated stations During
Year 5 monitoring, the manual gauge experienced several problems throughout the year
Therefore, data from the manual gauge during Year 5 is substituted with rainfall data from the
Glen Alpine station In place of the manual gauge, data from the Glen Alpine station was
compared with the Morganton gauge for this report
According to the Morganton weather station data and the Glen Alpine weather station data, total
rainfall during the Year 5 monitoring period was shown to be below the normal average from
January through October 2010 For this period, the Morganton station measured rainfall to be
3 91 inches below the historic average For the same period, the on -site Glen Alpine weather
station also measured total rainfall to be below the normal average The Glen Alpine station
measured rainfall to be 5 50 inches below the historic average from January to October 2010
li Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 19
Monitoring Year 5

Above average to average rainfall occurred during the months of January, February and June
Below average rainfall during 2010 occurred during March, April, May, July, August, September
and October (see Table 10 and Figure 3)
Figure 3 Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
Historic Average vs Observed Rainfall
10 (2010)
s
N
r 6
� 4
0
M
a 2
a�
CL o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
!� � A A A w A A w �► � A
N N N N N N _N N N N N N
> > 4 2 O
--*— Histonc 30% probable A Historic 70% probable —*— Average — Morganton Observed 2010
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
a
In 2010, all eight on -site wells recorded hydroperlods of greater than five percent of the growing
season, and four wells exceeded the target of 7% of the growing season specified in the
Restoration Plan Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system,
indicates that the reference site experienced hydroperlods considerably less than the
hydropenods recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site The drier on -site conditions
exhibited by the monitoring wells during Year 5 Is attributed to the below normal rainfall
conditions documented during January through October 2010, and especially the significantly
i
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
0
n
�J
i_
20 0

lower rainfall that occurred in the March and April 2010 when the wells would typically have
longer hydropenods
According to the Bailey Fork Restoration Plan, minimum wetland success criteria is considered
to be saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 7% of the growing season
During the five -year monitoring period, on -site monitoring wells met the minimum success
criteria in most years For below average rainfall periods, some on -site monitoring wells
demonstrated soil saturation dust below the minimum success criteria Table 12 compares yearly
monitoring well data with yearly rainfall totals received on the Site
During monitoring Year 1, the four on -site automated monitoring wells demonstrated periods of
saturation that ranged from 15% to 25% During monitoring Year 2, the four on -site automated
monitoring wells demonstrated periods of saturation that ranged from 3% to 18% During
monitoring Year 3, the four on -site automated monitoring wells demonstrated periods of
saturation that ranged from 10% to 2�5% During monitoring Year 4, the four on -site automated
monitoring wells demonstrated periods of saturation that ranged from 11% to 40% During
monitoring Year 5, the four on -site automated monitoring wells demonstrated periods of
saturation that ranged from 5% to 39% During years with normal or high rainfall (Years 1, 3,
and 4) the site easily exceeded the minimum success criteria of 7% (10 — 40 %) During Year 2,
a severe drought hit the area and the rainfall total was 15 inches lower than normal through
October 31 Even under these dry conditions, three of the four automated wells met the
minimum success criteria During Year 5, rainfall was approximately 4 inches below normal,
and monthly rainfall for March and especially April were significantly lower than normal years
This period from March through April is when the site typically meets hydrologic success
criteria As a result, two of the four automated wells had met mmimum success criteria of 7%
during Year 5, while all four wells had exceeded a hydropenod of 5% (typically associated with
the break point between wetland and upland systems)
It is noted that saturation periods at the on -site wells generally exceeded saturation periods at the
monitored reference wells during the five -year monitoring period
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 21
Monitoring Year 5

Table 11
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2010 (Year 5)
Bailey Fork Mrti ation Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Monitoring
Most Consecutive
Cumulative Days
Number of Instances
Station
Days Meet
Criteri a'
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
AW 1
12(6%)
31(14%)
5
AW2
11(5%)
28(13%)
8
AW3
35(16%)
85(40%)
7
AW4
83(39%)
126(60%)
6
MW14
11(5%)
28(13%)
9
MW24
11(5%)
28(13%)
9
MW35
35(16%)
85(40%)
7
MW46
83(39%)
126(60%)
6
REFl
5(2%)
6(3%)
2
REF2
0(0%)
0(0%)
0
i Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less
than 12 inches from the soil surface
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than
12 inches from the soil surface
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored 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
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
t
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
r
22
n
i
I�l
1
l)
r n

I'
�f
P,
i
ri,
Table 12
Hydrologic Monitoring Summary (2006 2010)
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Year
Monitoring
Station
Most Consecutive
Days Meeting
Criteria'
Cumulative
Days Meeting
Criteria 2
Number of
Instances
Meetin
Criteria
Yearly Observed
Rainfall for
period January 1
through October
31
(Inches)
Pearly Rainfall
Deviation from
Average
January 1
through
October 31
Inches
1
(2006)
AW1
67(32%)
8
4304
+1 03
AW2
82(39%)
6
AW3
112(53%)
2
AW4
117(56%)
8
REF1
5 r2 %1 26(12%)
8
REF2
13(6)%
5
2
(2007)
AW1
° 23(11%)
3
2697
1504
AW2
20(10%)
2
AW3
7 r3 %1 12(6%)
2
AW4
53(25%)
4
REF1
5 r2 %1 26(12%)
8
REF2
13(6%)
4
3
(2008)
AW1
35(16%)
9
5628
+1427
AW2
33(15%)
6
AW3
45(21%)
2
AW4
65(31%)
8
REF1
9(4%)
2
REF2
4(2%)
2
4
(2009)
Awl
100(48%)
9
4361
+16
AW2
92(44%)
8
AW3
119(57%)
4
AW4
67(32%)
3
REF1
0� 47(22%)
11
REF2
5 0 23(11%)
6
5
(2010)
AW1
12TRo 31(14%)
5
382
391
AW2
115% 4 28(13%)
8
AW3
85(40%)
7
AW4
126(60%)
6
REF 1
5 ►?� %1 6(3%)
2
REF2
0(0%)
0
Did not meet at least 11 consecutive days (5 / of the growing season) of saturation in the upper 12 inches soil
;,�OUIM Did not meet at least 15 consecutive days (7/ of the growing season) of saturation in the upper 12 inches soil
Met or exceeded saturation in the upper 12 inches of soil greater than 7/ of the growing season
Pi
FJBailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 23
Monitoring Year 5

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
was consistently conducted in the winter of each monitoring year This section summarizes the
benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected during pre - construction and for years 1, 2, and 3 of
the five -year monitoring period
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ, 2006) Field sampling for all monitoring
events was conducted by Baker and laboratory Identification of collected species was conducted
by Pennington & Associates, Inc
Sites 1 and 3 are located within the restoration area on UT to Bailey Fork and UT3 to Bailey
Fork, respectively Site 2 is an off -site reference site located upstream of Site Ion Bailey Fork
Site 4 is an off -site reference site located on UT3 south of Hopewell Road upstream of Site 3
Figure 4 illustrates the sampling site locations
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(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
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
presented in each monitoring report for the respective year of monitoring J
62 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results
Pre - restoration field samples for benthic macroinvertebrates were collected in January 2005
before construction commenced The three remaining sampling events took place each January
during monitoring years 1, 2 and 3 A comparison between the pre- and post - construction
monitoring results is presented in Table 12
63 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Discussion
Site 2, the reference site for Site 1, exhibited an abundance of taxa following Year 3 monitoring
Overall taxa richness was nearly double than the 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 This indicates that the species present in Year 3 were less tolerant than
the species observed in the pre - construction samples
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 later,
post - construction monitoring events Despite the increase in the total biotic index at Site 2, the
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 24 O
Monitoring Year 5

decrease In EPT biotic Index suggests that the communities are stable and that water quality Is
adequate to support Intolerant species
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 for the
same site 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 remained slightly below the observed quantity during pre - construction
monitoring These organisms feed on partially decomposed organic matter such as sticks and
leaf packs, a rare habitat in restored streams The decrease in sensitive species and lack of
jshredders are a common response 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 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site,
which indicates that 13 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are dominant at
Site I In Year 2 post - construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 86 percent 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 as were collected In the pre -
construction samples
{ Site 3 appears to be recovering well from backwater conditions caused by a beaver dam during
U 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 monitoring 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, therefore,
creating more habitat opportunities for macroinvertebrates The total biotic Index was below that
l I of the pre - construction conditions while the EPT biotic index was slightly above Currently, Site
3 has 17 percent DIC with the reference site, up from 0 percent after Year 2 of post construction
1 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 re- establish
' Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 25
Monitoring Year 5

64 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
Site 1 received an 81 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet This 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
amount of organic debris to the channel and organic habitats such as sticks and leaf packs were
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
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 An increase in the 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
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
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 floodplain 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
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 m- 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
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
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
r�26
L

Table 13
Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
UT1 to Bailey Fork (Restoration)
UT1 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
1/3/05
1/10/07
1/8/08
1/27/09
1/4/05
1/17/07
1/8/08
3119/09
1/3/05
119/07
1/23/08
3/16/09
1/5/05
1/10/07
1/23/08
3/19/09
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
6 33
5 1
528
409
43
504
483
78
787
796
702
418
5 75
453
439
EPT Biotic Index
371
495
463
449
341
3 65
498
257
62
655
6 15
665
274
281
3 3
28
Dominance in
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
516
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
51
82
73
81
65
70
72
75
37
74
67
83
53
51
63
69
Rating
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
3 76
1135
n/a
n/a
47
13 59
n/a
n/a
635
1079
n/a
(mg/1)
pH
n/a
604
78
735
n/a
5 97
78
693
n/a
593
74
706
n/a
5 95
702
7 12
Conductivity
n/a
40
50
50
n/a
50
80
40
n/a
60
80
60
n/a
70
80
60
(µmhos/cm)
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
28

70 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
� Vegetation Monitoring For the 21 monitoring plots, surviving planted stems ranged from
280 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre The area surrounding plots 8 and 9 required
supplemental planting with 4 -year old stems in May 2010 Following Year 5 monitoring
it was determined that plots 8 and 9 exhibited densities of 360 and 280 stems per acre,
respectively Following Year 5 monitoring, the vegetation plots displayed an overall
L I average of 539 stems per acre which is a survival rate of greater than 78 percent based on
the initial planting count of 687 stems per acre
�l The Site has met the final vegetative success criteria of 260 trees per acre specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site
Stream Monitoring The entire length of the restored stream channel was inspected
during Year 5 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance
Year 5 stream cross - sectional data document that there has been some adjustment to
1 stream dimension since construction, but the adjustments are considered typical of
Cstabilizing restored stream systems and not an indicator of instability
LJ The Year 5 longitudinal profiles showed that some pools have filled slightly due to
accumulated sediment since as -built conditions Due to the below average rainfall
amounts observed during 2010, it is concluded that lack of large storm events have not
kept some pools deep, therefore, sediment deposition has remained in the restored pools
O While pool depths have decreased, pools are still prevalent throughout the reaches and
channel stability has not been affected by the accumulated sediment All of the
longitudinal profiles during Year 5 of monitoring showed some changes in the restored
reaches These changes do not appear to pose a threat to the stability of the channels, and
Jare considered to be normal fluvial adjustments
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
U 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 or October
2010
The on -site crest gauges documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event at
all three crest gauges during Year 5 of the post - construction monitoring period The
bankfull measurements collected during monitoring Years 1 through 5, documents that all
three restored reaches have met the success criteria for bankfull events for the project
For UT 1, the two highest bankfull measurements recorded were during Years 1 and 5, the
I� readings were 0 91 and 2 76 feet above bankfull stage, respectively For UT2, the two
L _1 highest bankfull measurements recorded were during Years 2 and 5, the readings were
0 35 and 1 85 feet above bankfull stage, respectively For UT3, the two highest bankfull
measurements recorded was during Year 1 and Year 2, the readings were 168 and 3 70
feet above bankfull stage, respectively
i During the five -year monitoring period, all stream reaches on the Site show that the
lbedform diversity is being maintained The pools have undergone some adjustment since
�— as -built conditions, but have maintained flat water surface slopes The riffles have also
Barley Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE 1 LLC
Monitoring Year 5
�I
29

undergone some adjustment since as -built conditions but have remained steeper and
shallower than the pools
The Site has achieved the stream success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the
Site
Hydrologic Monitoring During 2010, four on -site wells recorded a hydroperiod greater
than 7% saturation during the Year 5 growing season, while all eight wells recorded
hydroperiods in excess of 5% The drier on -site conditions exhibited by the monitoring
wells during Year 5 is attributed to the below normal rainfall conditions documented
during January through October 2010, and especially the significantly lower rainfall that
occurred in the March and April 2010 when the wells would typically meet their success
criteria
During the five -year monitoring period, all the monitoring wells on the Site met the target
wetland success criteria of 7% in the majority of years (three out of five) During the two
years that all wells did not achieve the target (Years 2 and 5), 50% of the wells met
criteria in Year 2 and 75% met in Year 5 Both Year 2 and Year 5 had rainfall amounts
that were significantly lower than normal Since the data show that the monitoring wells
are all achieving the target hydroperiod criteria during normal rainfall years and the
majority of wells are achieving the target even during dry years, the Site has met 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 macroinvertebrate 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 m- 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 the future as communities continue to re- establish The physical and chemical
measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC
Monitoring Year 5
30 0
L

concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all sampling location sites were relatively
normal for Piedmont streams
In summary, the Site has achieved 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 31
Monitoring Year 5

8 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Bailey Fork Site During certain
times of the year, frogs, turtles, snakes and fish have been observed
I
Bailey Fork Creek EEP Contract No D04006 3 EBX NEUSE I LLC 32
Monitoring Year 5

90 REFERENCES
NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006)
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Ravers 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 33
Monitoring Year 5

FIGURES

I
'Targeted Local Wetershedl
030501DID40020
lit.
sude 3100
Ral..gh NC 27601
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Bailey Fork Site
Yes• .f.�O.•1:��.>If
rt >► �� ,
Figure 1. Location of Bailey Fork Stream Mitigation Site.

m
C)
8=
ti7
MATCHLINE SHEET 14 STA 37+30M

MATCHU u WA 37+30.00
4t
� f
T '
(7
Nfn li i �z i
m N
mw
Z
2
i
m {
m f
X
0 ) ��
0 { _�
i
m
o
i
4 l IZ
l
a
-
MATCHUNE SHEET 15 STA 49400.00
�r

NT � No
vsaea
IENaNEeE
I 7
e"iti uiW^• I�
sElu
1 uTe
I
BLOPE a,KK 6MLK
ABOVE EINKfULL
µDPPULEKLgR F19�FR�I.NTTI�M1
AND lNE b'TAKE
AB OVE N9WNFFUA
0 KK EAcI`K -.— - ARSE SHHA BANK
�
JN
7
GATREA
� �.��•
LaI�O�Fe,£ S
TRANEVIAM MALE
�i
�pPE BANK AND PLACE 'I "� ,.,
r ,. '.
COIR TIBER AUTTNO
AND MATTRE65
\ Uj
pR FlTTINO
AH uvEEm � r, /.,� /'
+,
`$RUSH
J
S
PE8IUPE 9W(
G:,s,
RE-
v s
%OO A��1 vu�GErnE
A�REA� \\
W
i�
9
a
7
PLAN VIEW
FIGURE: 2C
loo so o 0o 200
SCALE (FO

NN
�r �a� Via\ �' .� � ^J�
w
Z,,
Z9
oc�
O wo
2
0
.151

r i
! I
r�
t_
II
n
�I
1
I/
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG

L_
I
VEGETATION PHOTOS
a

i
i
a .
09,29,2010
s
4
Z.
It
i..
.09!29/2010

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 3
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 4

r
t
w < `
r
4
/29/2010
' r
-0 -9/' 29 2010

.. .fi t.,• ',5 ` iL
}r
_ f
y €
Ile
t
09/29'2010
r.
. .�� mss, ♦ .>
Y
0l 0

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 9
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 10

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 11
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 12

0
c
09/29/2010
w
a.
c
09/29/2010
w

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 15
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 16

r
s
09/29/2010
R�
r
09/ 29/2010
r

3f
09/29/2010
Ilk
09/29!2010

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 21

Ir`l
U
n
�_J
l.1
D
J
i
Li
r
r
J
Ire
V
J
0
STREAM PHOTOS AND WETLAND
PHOTOS

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

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

UT2 Photo Point 8
UT3 Photo Point 1
UT2 Photo Point 12
UT3 Photo Point 4
UT3 Photo Point 9
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 25

Bailey Fork Cross Vane 1 October (20 10)
Before repairs
Crest Gauge UT3 June 28, 2010
F
Bailey Fork Cross Vane 1 (December 20 10)
After repairs

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

Auto Well 2 - South
Auto Well 2 - West
Auto Well 3 - East
Auto Well 3 - North
Auto Well 3 - South
Auto Well 3 - West

05/05/2010
05i05 '2r- 1
4-1
1?e
05/05,-2010
05/05;2010

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

r
r
Ail
w
•4� I
• / r
sue`
+
r
w
•4� I
• / r
w
•4� I

',a�C�@ ►n _ rat ^A,
05:05..'2010
:fir :n10 : 05 05'2018.

APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA

Baily Fork Year 5 - LIT 1 Profile Station 17+50 to 29+65
1035
1030 . ... . .........
--- ..--- - - - - -_
1025 . ........... ... - - - ------ - - - - -- — — - - ---------------- ----------- - --------- -----
0
cc
LU 1020 As-Built Thalweg
--Thalweg Year 3
—Thalweg Year 4
1015 ----- -------- - - - ---------
---Thalweg Year 5
Water Surface
Top of , Bank
1010
1750 1950 2150 2350 2550 2750 2950
Station (ft)

Baily Fork Year 5 UT 2 Profile Station 10 +00 to 19 +30
—As -Built Thalweg Thalweg Year 3
Thalweg Year 4 —Thalweg Year 5
- Water Surface —Top of Bank
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Station (ft)
1029
1027
-
1025
1023
--
C
O
>
1021
Q
W
1019
1017
1015
1000
Baily Fork Year 5 UT 2 Profile Station 10 +00 to 19 +30
—As -Built Thalweg Thalweg Year 3
Thalweg Year 4 —Thalweg Year 5
- Water Surface —Top of Bank
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
Station (ft)

Baily Fork Year 5 UT 3 Profile Station 10+00 to 22+50
1030
1025
------ -
1020
. ....... ............................ ... .............
0
..................................
1015
>
....
0)
LLI
1010
1005
—As-Built Thalweg Thalweg Year 3 - -----
—Thalweg Year 4 —Thalweg Year 5
Water Surface —Top of Bank
1000 A
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #1 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
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 Etev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 23.5
1 29.67
0.79
2.42
37.44
0.9
3.4
1016.4
1016.22
1020
1019
1018
_ 1017
c
1016
c�
d 1015
w
1014
1013
1012
Cross - section #1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 -Year 5
- -o- -- Bankfull - -o- -- Flood prone
70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #2 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
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
9.2
14.9
0.62
1.88
24.02
1
6.2
1014.3
1014.31
1019
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
1013
w
1012
1011
1010
1009
Cross - section #2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
a!
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
- Year Year
o- -- Bankfull Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #3 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
atu
Stream
BKF
d°
BKF
th
Max BKF
Depth p
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
1
BKF Elev
1 1
TOB Elew
Riffle
C
34.6
21.86
1.58
3.01
13.81
1
3.3
1013.4
1013.38
1018
1017
1016
1015
1014
c
1013
M
> 1012
w 1011
1010
1009
1008
Cross - section #3
ME
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 —+— Year 5
- -0 -- Bankfull - -« -- Flood prone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #4 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
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
lmElev
Pool
28.5
23
1.24
2.65
18.57
1
3.9
1011.62
.63
1016
1015
1014
1013
1012
c
c 1011
d 1010
w 1009
1008
1007
1006
Cross - section #4
------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -o
MMMMM=zw_,
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
--Year 4 year 5
- -- Bankfull -- - -- Flood prone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #5 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
WJD
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Eiev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
20.6
1 21.88
1 0.94
2.28
1 23.24
1
3.8
1011.45
F 10 11. 53
1016
1015
1014
1013
$ 1012
0 1011
d 1010
w 1009
1008
1007
1006
Cross - section #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
----- - - - - --
�
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
�-- Bankfull Flood rone
0 10 20 30 40
50
Station (ft)
60 70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #6 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
re
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
23.9
22.71
1.05
2.52
21.56
1
3
1009.46
1009.53
1015
1014
1013
1012
1011
1010
d 1009
w 1008
1007
1006
1005
Cross - section #6
--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
------------- - - - - --
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
- -Year4 Year5
c- -- Bankfull - - -- Flood prone
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
60 70 80 90 100 110

Permanent Cross - section #7 UT3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Tye
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF I
Depth
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH RatIo;I
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
14.6
12.34
1.18
1 1.98
10.43
1
1 10.5
1009.1
1009.15
1014
1013
1012
1011
$ 1010
°_ 1009
M
> 1008
w 1007
1006
1005
1004
Cross - section #7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"
As -Built ---- Year 1
Year Year
- Year Year
o - Bankfull -- - -- Flood prone
25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Station (ft)
95 105 115 125 135

Permanent Cross - section #8 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream i
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
25.3
19.65
1.29
3.6
15.27
1
3
1029.79
1029.71
Cross - section #8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1033
1031
c
o----------- --------
1029
W As -Built Year 1
1027 Year 2 Year 3
,/ Year 4 Year 5
o - Bankfull - -[ - -- Floodprone
1025
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #9 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream I
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth I
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB;E(ey'
Riffle
C
30.9
20.19
1.53
1 2.94
13.19
1
2.4
1025.18
1025.19
Cross - section #9
1029
1028 ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
1027
1026
c
1025 ------------------------
w 1024
As -Built Year 1
1023 Year 2 Year 3
1022 Year 4 --+— Year 5
--o--- Bankfull - -[ - -- Floodprone
1021
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #10 UT2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
1
Stream
Type
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
1
Pool
13.2
25.35
0.52
1.54
48.61
1
2.5
1025.87
1025.8
Cross - section #10
1030
1028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
c
1026
- -------------------------------
M
as
U.11
1024
As -Built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
-Year 5
- -�•- Bankfull
- --G - Floodprone
1022
0
10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #11 UT2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2010)
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
9
13.22
0.68
1.42
1 19.48
1
4.1
1022.56
1022.53
Cross - section #11
1026
1025
1024
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1023
°
1022
1021
w
1020
As -Built
Year 1
Year2
Year
1019
Year 4
Year 5
} -- Bankfull
- C - -- Floodprone
1018
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
Station (ft)

i- _3
0 4'
Permanent Cross - section #12 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
re
1
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
1 5.3
12.37
0.43
1 0.99
28.75
1.3
6.4
1031.74
1032.01
Cross - section #12
1036
1035
1034
1033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
1032
"
——
---------- - - - - --
°'
1031
..
w
1030
As -Built
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
1029
--Year 5
0- -- Bankfull
-�- Floodprone
1028
0
10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section #13 UT1
(Year 5 Data - Collected September 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Wid '.
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
6.9
7.97
0.86
1.72
9.25
1
8.6
1035.84
1035.85
Cross - section #13
1040
1039
1038
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
1037
1036 \� o--- - - - - -- — .✓ -
ea -
a�i 1035
w
1034 V As -Built Year 2
Year 3 Year 4
1033 Year 5 -- o- -- Bankfull
- -o- --
1032 Flood prone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)

F 1
l
�I
APPENDIX C
11
BASELINE STREAWSUMMARY FOR
RESTORATION REACHES
�1
J

4
L
D
J
Reach UT2
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
n me
Jacob
N d
L
UL
Mn, MAOMM ax
Mm
Mean
Max
Mm
Memi
Max
W&RWAM—emnWWOU
Bankfull Width (ft)
613
320
40
170
64
-- 5 l —
—
--
—
—
99
—
—
138
—
FloMprone Width (ft)
%3
—
—
--
—
— 100 —
--
— —
—
600
1400
2200
536
—
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
47
3 1
05
17
10
— 16 —
--
—
—
—
08
--
07
—
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
58
— (
—
—
—
-- 1 9 —
—
—
—
—
12
—
—
14
—
Baukfull Cross - sectional
Area (Q)
2900
990
38
170
82
— 80 —
--
—
--
—
82
—
—
97
—
W idth/Depth Ratio
130
103
—
—
--
— 33 —
5 1
7 1
9 1
— —
120
—
—
197
—
Entrenchment Ratio
16
—
—
—
—
-- 20 —
—
235
—
61
142
222
—
39
—
Bank Height Ratio
13
—
—
—
—
-- 25 —
—
1 2
—
— —
10
—
—
10
—
Bankfull Vcloci s
39
26
22
58
22
19
Pattern
Channel Beliwidth (ft)
—
—
—
—
— —
— — —
—
—
35
57
79
54
64
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
—
— —
—
—
—
— -- --
—
—
—
20
25
30
19
21
24
Meander Wavelength (ft)
—
--
—
—
—
-- — —
—
—
— —
69
89
109
83
99
111
Meander Width Ratio
242
546
85
35
575
8
39
46
52
Pr file
Riffle Length (ft)
—
—
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
22
27
36
22
27
32
Riffle Slope (fVft)
—
—
—
—
— —
— -- —
—
—
--
0 003
0 013
0 022
0 003
0 013
0 022
Pool Length (ft)
--
—
--
—
—
— — —
—
—
—
21
44
58
21
47
64
Pool S m It
35
45
55
416
49 285
5573
Substrate and Transport
ammeters
d l6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
—
—
—
—
—
023/039/061/2671590
_
—
—
N/A
Not Collected
Reach Shcar Stress
(competency) lb/f2
--
—
—
— —
—
— 032 —
—
—
--
—
025
—
021
—
Stream Power (transport
ca city Whn2
—
193 —
—
— —
—
96
—
—
66
—
Addldoaal}Reach
to
Channel length (ft)
850
—
—
—
— 270 —
—
— —
—
870
—
—
923
—
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
—
— 024 —
039
0 945
1 5
024
—
—
024
Rosgcn Classification
C4
E
—
—
—
— E5 —
E5
E4/5
—
C5
—
C5
Baukfull Discharge(cfs)
1140
254
10
100
32
— 18 —
119
18
18
—
Sinuosity
106
—
—
—
—
— 10 —
12
15
18
14
—
14
—
BF slope ft/ft
00025
1 00008
1
0 005
0 006
0 005
D
J

Reach UT3
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre- E:rsd -g Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As -budt
Dimension
%FJOUN
IF
I [
Mm
Mean AWMOR
99tinMAM—M
NO
Max
can
—
—
—
Bankfull Width (R)
613
320
68 260 115
92 100 108
—
167
133
244
268
Floodprone Width (R)
963
—
—
—
--
400
600 800
— —
—
—
800
2800
4800
723
969
1297
Bankfull Mean Depth (R)
47
3 1
09
25
15
19
2 l 22
—
—
—
—
12
—
10
12
14
Bankfull Max Depth (R)
58
—
--
—
29
30 3 1
—
—
—
—
17
—
1 9
22
25
Bankfull Cross sectional
Area (R2)
2900
990
100
400
203
198
203 207
—
—
—
200
—
159
245
34 1
W idth/Depth Ratio
130
103
—
—
—
43
50 56
5 1
71
91
—
140
11 1
172
266
Entrenchment Rano
16
--
--
—
—
34
5 1 68
—
235
48
168
287
32
65
98
Bank Height Ratio
13
—
—
13
16 19
—
12
—
10
--
10
—
Bankfull Velocity s
39
1 26
27
27 26
58
27
34
22
16
sttern
Channel Bcltwidth (R)
—
--
—
—
--
— — —
—
—
59
965
134
85
91
120
Radius of Curvature (R)
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
33
415
50
27
37
43
Meander Wavelength (R)
--
—
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
117
1505
184
172
179
200
Meander Width Ratio
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
2 42
546
85
35
575
8
35
37
49
Proflle
Riffle Length (R)
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
26
75
91
26
50
63
Riffle Slope (NR)
—
—
—
--
— —
—
— —
—
—
--
—
0 004
—
--
0 004
—
Pool Length (R)
--
—
--
—
—
—
— —
--
—
—
26
49
69
26
75
98
Pool S m R
—
—
—
--
—
—
— —
—
—
59
755
92
86
90
100
Transrt
Substrate and po
a m to
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
—
0 24 / 0
34 / 0 44 / 138 / 3 40
—
—
—
N/A
Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) Ib/R
—
--
04 —
—
—
—
—
03
03
--
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W /m2
250
147
95
—
Additional Reach
a e
a
-(�
Channel length (R)
850
—
—
—
—
--
2 513
—
— —
—
—
3 227
—
—
3 226
Drainage Area (SM)
257
72
—
—
—
--
092
039
0 945
1 5
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
—
—
— —
—
—
I 1 —
124
1 52
18
—
14
—
14
—
BF slo NR
00025
1 00008
1
00,02
0 004
0 004

tJ
v
J
APPENDIX D
i
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY
ol
b
0'
0

Morphology and Hydraulic Momtorma Summary Year 5 Monitoring
Bailey Fork Restoration Site EEP Contract No D04006 -3
Reach OTil
Cross section 8
Cross section 9
Cross section 12
Cross section 13
1 Cross section Parameters
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
1629
1755
1835 1455
1965
2225
202 199
2383
20 19
1525 139
13 99
1325
1237
2019
1807
28 18
21 95 797
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross sectional Area (ft2 )
224
257
259 1993
253
32
295 299
3132
309
120 85
95
76
53
213
162
218
1238 69
BF Mean Depth (ft)
137
147
141 137
1 29
144
146 1 5
131
1 53
079 061
1 5
057
043
1 06
09
077
056 086
BF Max Depth (ft)
299
294
3 36 256
3 60
296
2 87 289
295
294
179 1 24
2067
1 1
099
256
184
231
1 35 172
W idth/Depth Ratio
1187
1197
1301 1062
1527
1548
13 83 1325
18 12
13 19
1932 2281
2067
2308
2875
191
20 15
3639
3891 925
Entrenchment Ratio
36
33
32 376
30
22
24 25
181
24
52 57
57
6
64
34
38
24
071 86
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
11 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)
J
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
ProfUe
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (fVft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
1 948
1 948
1948
1 948
1948
Sinuosity
138
1 38
138
138
138
Water Surface Slope (tVft)
00103
00107
00108
00106
00109
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00142
00148
00149
00146
00151
Ros en Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5

I
f VVEVUNPFIMNW
I I
MR-MIti,
Cross section 10
Cross section 11
I Cross section Parameters
Pool
Riffle
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
2975
2826
2835 2835
2535
1241
1169 1613
1621
1322
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross sectional Area (ft2 )
262
213
247 2474
132
96
90 119
1198
90
BF Mean Depth (ft)
088
075
087 087
052
078
077 074
074
068
BF Max Depth (ft)
201
174
226 226
154
142
14 178
1 8
142
Width/Depth Ratio
33 81
3757
325 325
4861
1598
15 13 21 79
2192
1948
Entrenchment Ratio
21
22
2 199
25
43
46 3
295
41
Wetted Penmeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
MY 1
2006
MY 2
2007
MY 3
2008
MY-4 2009
MY 5 2010
11 Reachwide Parameters
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
r
l
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
923
923
923
923
923
Sinuosity
146
146
146
146
146
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00073
00075
00082
00091
00100
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00106
00110
00119
00132
00146
Ros en Classification
I
CS
I
C5
C5
C5
C5
I

00 0_ o0 0 =1 0 0
Reach n1TT3
Cross section I
Cross section 2
Cross section 3
Cross section 4
1 Cross section Parameters
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
MY]
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5
MY
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
MY] MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
224
2289
3072 2985
2967
26 14
2527 275
2794
149
2248 23 88
23 99
2818
21 86
2262
2284
2546
2489 230
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross sectional Area (ft2 )
2940
293
333 3005
235
277
165 219
2058
92
451 401
406
42 15
346
30
285
338
3473 285
BF Mean Depth (ft)
131
128
108 101
079
106
065 079
074
062
201 168
169
1 5
158
132
125
133
14 124
BF Max Depth (ft)
229
23
242 236
242
258
175 2 13
199
188
354 366
3 52
3 58
301
254
257
284
299 265
Width/Depth Ratio
171
172
2837 2966
3744
2465
3862 35 14
3792
2402
1121 1424
14 16
1884
1381
1708
1827
1916
1783 1857
Entrenchment Ratio
45
44
33 34
34
36
37 34
333
62
32 30
3
256
33
39
39
35
359 39
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
MY 1
2006
MY 2
2007
MY 3
2008
MY-4
2009
MY 5
2010
11 Reachwide Parameters
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
3226
3226
3226
3226
3226
Sinuosity
1 51
151
1 51
151
1 51
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00033
00035
00035
00036
00035
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00050
00053
00053
00055
00053
Ros en Classification
I
C5 ?
C5
C5
C5
C5

r
Re"acti UT3 CooHnued
Cross section 5
Cross section 6
Cross section 7
1 Cross section Parameters
Riffle
d
Pool
Riffle
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
3377
1759
2363
2047
2188
2385
2057
2456
2329
2271
1309
1125
139
15 3
1234
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross sectional Area (ft2 )
24 61
19
224
2063
206
266
223
298
2551
239
143
130
168
1678
146
BF Mean Depth (ft)
073
108
095
101
094
112
109
121_,
t 1
10
1 09
116
121
1 1
1 18
BF Max Depth (ft)
2 17
207
239
208
228
283
224
325
273
252
174
173
205
207
198
W idth/Depth Ratio
4636
1628
2496
2032
2324
2136
1895
2027
21 27
2156
120
972
1 149
1395
1043
Entrenchment Ratio
25
48
36
411
38
29
32
28
295
30
97
11
95
871
105
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (It)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 mm
WE

i
APPENDIX E
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA

P 1 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

Benthos Data for Bailey Creek Project Collected on January 27, March 16, and March 19, 2009
t, i[
S C
olerance
Values
unction
eedln g
ro
rte 1
T to
Y
r o
1� 274, 00
Site 2
1 to
Bade Y
o k
Reference
I3f9/209`?'
Ip
/d ti9
Site*
d
UT3 to
Silver
C reek
Referen e
'/19/200
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellana
R
MOLLUSCA
Gastro oda
Meso astro oda
Pleurocendae
Ehmia sp
25
SC
C
A
A
Basommato Nora
Ph sidae
Ph Sella sp
88
CG
R
A
ANNELIDA
Oh ochaeta
Tubiflcida
Enchytraeidae
98
CG
Lumbncidae
R
Naididae
8
CG
C
R
Nais sp
89
CG
A
Naffs behntn i
89
CG
R
R
Slavina appendiculata
71
CG
R
Tubificidae w h c
71
CG
R
R
R
Tubificidae w o h c
71
CG
R
Limnodnlus ho metsten
95
CG
R
Lumbricuhda
Lumbnculidae
7
CG
R
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
C clo oida
C
Iso oda
Aselhdae
SH
Caecidotea sp
91
CG
C
Insecta
Collembola
R
E hemero tera
Ameletidae
Ameletus sp
A
Baethdae
Centro tclum sp
66
CG
C
A
Caemdae
CG
Cams sp
74
CG
R
E hemerellidae
E hemerella sp
2
SC
A
A
R
Eurylophella sp
43
SC
C
R
E hemendae
CG
Ephemera sp
2
CG
R
R
Hexa enia sp
49
CG
R
He to emidae
Macca ertium Stenonema s
4
1 SC
I A
R
R
Stenacron sp
4
1 SC I
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 hlebta sp
62
CG
R
R
R
Odonata
Aeshmdae
P
Bo erta vtnosa
59
P
R
R
Calopterygidae
P
Calopteryx maculates
78
P
C
Calopteryx sp
78
P
R
Coenagnonidae
P
R
Ar to sp
82
P
R
Ischnura sp
95
R
Cordule astndae
P
Cordule aster sp
57
P
C
R
Gom hidae
Gom hus sp
58
P
R
Lanthus sp
18
P
R
O hto om hus sp
55
P
R
Stylogomphus albistylus
47
P
R
R
Pleco tera
Nemoundae
Prostota sp
58
C
Perlidae
R
Ecco tura xanthenes
37
P
C
R
Perlodidae
Iso erla sp
2
P
R
C
Hems tera
Vehtdae
P
Microveha sp
P
R
Me alo tera
Corydalidae
Nt roma asctatus
56
P
R
Tncho tera
Calamoceratidae
SH
Hetero lectron amertcanum
32
-
Hydropsychidae
R
Cheumato s the sp
62
FC
A
R
Dt lectrona modesta
22
FC
A
C
H dro s the bettem gp
78
FC
C
A
Hydropsyche sp
5
FC
R
Le idostomatidae
SH
Le tdostoma sp
09
FC
R
Limn hilidae
Iron uta sp
3
R
R
Pycnopsyche sp
25
SH
R
C
C
Phryganeidae
SH
Pttlostomts sp
64
SH
R
Uenoidae
r
Neophylax sp
22
SC
C
R
2 of 4 4

lJ
O
�J
O
U
0
U
i�
�l
n
1�
0
0
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
J
1
4 of 4
r
FunWcSite
Srte 3
honal
111 to
IJT�3 to
SP LIES
Tolerance
Feeding
Bailey
Nefeirence
Sdver
WReNrence
Yalues
G oup
ork
Creek
lt/2A7/�2009,
3/19/2009
3'/dl'6/r2009
3'/t19/20091
Antocha sp
43
CG
C
Dicranota sp
0
P
C
Hexatoma sp
43
P
R
C
Pseudolimno hda sp
72
P
C
R
Ptychoptera s p
I
R
EE�
Ti ula s
73
SH
A
J
1
4 of 4
r

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Pledmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ IrOTAL 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 segrrnent 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 fatal habitat score is deternuned by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream 0LA 2 Locationtroad A a_ (Road Name 11 + C
Date - 1- O q CC# Basin Ca�n�,.�sK Subbasin 1 ` ' 3+ R -3
Ya
Observer(s)c,NA Type of Study- O Fish *Benthos O Basnnwtde OSpecial Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion. O MT )f P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality Teii>lserature5 =q °C DO ji,±XMI Conductivity (coin ) SO uS/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
Vm ible Land Use _jj__%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
Fallow Fields % Comiitereial %IiidusMai °.60ther - Describe, -per.
Watershed land use OForest OAgnc�ilt►ue OUrban O Animal operations upstream
k
Width (n)6ers) Scm 3 -✓ :
rea Channel (at top of bank) jO � Stream Depth (p(i) Av&D,5 Max J's -a
O Width variable O Large nver >25mwide
Bank Height (from deepest part of nHie to top of bank -fast flat surface you stand on)
U
Bank Angle 3D - RQ ° or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90o indicate slope is towards mud- channel, < 90'°
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is boo low for bank angle to matter)
O Charnelized DKclu
ODeeply incirsed -stomp. straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend Mhannel filled in with sediment
O Recent overbank deposits OBar development OBuned structum OExposed bedrock
O Excessive periphyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge O Sewage WWII
Manmade Sl bnlizaON t JOY ORiprap, cemen gabions O Sedment/grade- control structure OBernvkvee
Flow conditions H JQNormal OLow
Turbidity Gear O Slightly Turbtd OTurbid OTannic Milky OColored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?' 0 YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
0
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
A
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed
O
r� C Water flla 25-75% of available channel. many logs/snags exposed
O
1 D Root mats out of water ..
O
E Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools
O
`
Weather Condittons �..,:,1� LAN . Photos ON 00 XDmgmtal 035mm
Remarks &Abrz-.*E0 . --Z�S4'4' 14,1
u
-
J
39
u

I Channel Modification sm
A. channel natural, frequent bends. 5
B channel natural, infrequent bends (channelrzation could be old) 4
C some channelizathon present- 3
D more extensive channelization. >40% of stream disrupted. _ 2
E no bends, completely r a m fizzed or np rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging OEvidence of desnagging@no large woody debris in stream T- -- of umform shapelheiglit
Remarks Subtotal
IL Instream Habitat- Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% ofthe
reach Is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 ..Definition. kafpacks 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 L-Sthcks and leafpacks it- Snags and hogs AUndercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
IH Bottom Substrate (silt, sand., detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire coact► for substrate sconng, but only look at nfllo
>709/0 40-70%
20-40%
<200A
Score
Score Score
Score
Scorn
4 or 5 types present
20 1
12
8
3 types present ..
19 (15 }
11
7
2 types present
18
10
6
1 type present
17 13
9
5
No types present.
» 0
8
Subtotal �S
0 No woody vegetation in npar= zone Remarks
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock » »
IH Bottom Substrate (silt, sand., detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire coact► for substrate sconng, but only look at nfllo
for embeddedness, and use rocks fiom all parts of mile -look for "nwd line" or difficulty extracting rocks
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1 embeddednew Q0% (very tittle sand, usually only behind large boulders) »
15
2 embeddedness 20.40% » »
12
3 embeddedness 40 -800A ..
8
4 embeddedness >803/0 » »
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness QO%
2 embeddedness 2040%
3 embeddedness 40.80% » »
4 embeddedness >80% .. » » » »
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <50%
8
2- embeddedness >50%. » . »
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock » »
3
2 substrate nearly all said
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus » » » » »»
2
4 substrate nearly all 93111 day »
1
1
Remarks
Subtotal
IV Pool Varlety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
assoctated with pools are always slow Pools may take the form of "pocket water ". small pools behind boulders or obstructions. in
large hugb gradmW streams. or side eddies.
A. Pools present ire
1 Pools Frequent ( >300A of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool suze s » » » 0
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) (�
2 Pools Infrequent (40% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sues » 6
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent » » » » » 0
Subtotal f�
O Pool bottomRboulder- cobble -W W Bottom sZWsmk as you walk 0 Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Page Total

V Rdne Habitats
VIL Light Penetration Campy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
O Definition Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
Score
Sma
A well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. ld
12
B riffle as wide as stream but mile length is not 2X stream width
7
0 C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10
3
D riffles absent- 0
OSteep flow OLow- tike
Subtotal
Channel Slope Crrypical for area =fast a coastal stream
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal » »
VI Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM sett Baffle Rt Bank
score 4I4
A. Banks stable
1 little evidence of erosion or bank flidure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
0
B Erosion areas present
1
1 drverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems
6 6
2 few trees or small trees and dirttbs, vegetation appears generally healthy »
5 5
3 sparse ndxW 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 a
5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident
0 0
Total
Remarks
n
VIL Light Penetration Campy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sari is directly overhead Note shading from mountains, but not use to
score this metric
Jj
1
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration
10
B Stream with foil canopy - breaks for light penetration absent. »
» 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal » »
D Stream with minimal canopy - fitll sun in all but a few areas
E. No canopy and no shading. » ..
0
Remarks
Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definthon. Riparian moue 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 strew storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPSTREAM
Lft Bank Rt. Bank
r�
Dominant vegetation. O Trees O Shrubs D Grasses O Weeds/old field OExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
-J
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters
Q Q
2 width 12 -18 meters. »
4
3 width 6-12 meters
3 3
4 wi < 6 meters. y
dth
2 2
S Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
I breaks rare .. » »
a. width > 18 meters
4 4
b width 12 -18 mettma. » »» » »
3 3
e width 6.12 meters »
2 2
d. width < 6 meters. »
2 breaks common
1 1
L�
a width> 18 meters M
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters
2 2
c width 6-12 meters. »
1 1
J
d. width < 6 meters
ECetr>ar1cE Q�i�et ,,, ��� n., c r 1 Q ,•. tftt � .., I . �.�.. Sir Uk�-�., �. P.a� c
0
M�'��" Total
Page TotalZ
Q Disclaimer -fbinn filled out, but score doesn't match subjective ophdon- atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE
0 41

I
Supplement for Habitat Asstument Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle
t
i
90° 45°
k
Site Sketch
0
Od= comments
42
135°
This ude is 45° bank angle.
i

P,
Q
i
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Amt Unit, DWQ ITOTAL SCORE :P
Directions for use The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right -of way The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics
Strea Location/road � i kC Z (Road Name PI tiL QI )County _&.,,I .c
Date 3-1q- A CC# Basin C a ♦. wG ti Subbasin 1 � J Ll_ � - �
Observer(s) =m)
C__ Type of Study O Fish 013enthos D Basnnwrde OSpectal Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecomwon D MT IA P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality Temperature 1 Y. 6 °C DO q17" q.3 b mgll Conductivtty (corn) q jS/cm pH 6j3
Physical Characterization Visihle'land we refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed In watershed land use
Visible Land Use _%Forest ff r 95Rastdeatial %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial AS %Other - Describe r �'vesl
Watershed land use CWorest 11<gnculhire OUrban O Ammal operations upstream
Width (meters) Stream,_ Channel (at top of bank) � Stream Depth. (m) Avg h. i Max -OX
O Width vanable D Large nver >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of rife to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) (m)__L_�.
Bank Angle 3 0-'4-(). ° or O NA (Vertical is W, horizontal is 0° Angles > 90° uidicate slope is towards rind- channel, < 9(r
indicate slope is away from cbartiiel NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter)
D Clmnelized Ditch
ODeeply mcised stM straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend Chanel filled in with moment
• Recent overbank deposits Mar development OBuried structures OExposed bedrock
• E=eu rve penphyton rolpolmal O Heavy 5lameritom algae growth O(Ireen tinge D Sewage smell
Marinade Stabilization I Y ORip -rap, cement, gabtons O Sedime;Wgrade- coritrol struewre OBemi/levee
Flow condttlonss OHig OLow
Turbidity- D Slightly Turbid OTuubad OTannic OMilky OColored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?9 O YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Usefid especially under abnormal or low flow conditions /
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, nnaimal channel substrate exposed [�
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or d5% of channel substrate is exposed- _ O
C Water fills 25 -75% of available channel, many lop/snap exposed O
D Root mats out of water O
E. Very little water in channel, mostly preset as standing pools D
weather conditions Ply Ci >,� 1, ) ° Photos ONa� EAr D Digital Elf5mm c
Remarks EG: - t � iGilt S, �L "1ar Q�.,�Q,, ror� i S,I,e, ci ee-k, _ A,A
1
39

I Channel Modillcation
A channel natural, frequent bends
B channel natural, mfrequent bends (channeltzatton could be old) _ 4
C some ebanneizzation present » » » 3
D more extensive channehzatron, >400/a of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channebzed or np tapped or gabwned, etc 0
O Evidence of dredging OEvulence of des=ggmg=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform dugw height
Remarks Subtotal,
EL Instream Habitat- Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the
reach s rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17„Defrution leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not pules of leaves in pool areas) Mark N Rare. C WM1 n, or Abundant.
C- Rocks i Macrophytes L Sticks and leafpaeks 0--C Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
_4fg
>700/a
40-70%
20-40% Q00/a
Score Score
4 or S types present
Score
20
Score
16
12 8 y
3 types present. »
19
11 7
2 types present
18
» 11
10 6
1 type present
17
13
9 5
No types present
» 0
8
Subtotal /S
O No woody vegetation in riparian zone
Remarks
1 substrate nearly all bedrock
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 lure" or ddficolty extracting rocks
A. substrate with good raft of gravel, cobble and boulders
_4fg
I embeddedness <20% (very httle sand, usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 redness 204090 » » »
12
3 embeddedness 40. 8035.» - »
8
4 embeddedness >80%
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embed&Awsg <M »
14
2 embeddedness 20 -400A » »
» 11
3 embeddedness 40 -80°% » » » »
D
4 embeddedness >M »» . ». » »
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <S0%.
8
2 embeddedness >509f,.
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 » »
l
Remarb
Subtotal G
1V Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with Irttle 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 �Mm
1 Pools Frequent (>300/a of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool saes» 10
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling m) »
2 Pools Infrequent (<M of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes. » » 6
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent » » .. 0
' Subtotal
O Pool bottom boulder- cobble=bard O Bottom sandy -smk as you walk O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

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 root, ins, but not use to score this metric
O
V Riffle Hatntats
_ 10
Defimhon. Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
Score
9�
A well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream ZF
12
O B ruffle as wide as stream but mile length is not 2X stream width 14
7
C riffle not as wide as stream and rifle length is not 2X stream width 10
3
D riffles absent. 0
r1 Channel Slope OTypical for area DSteep-,fast flow OLow =like a coastal stream
Subtotal
1 Vi Bank Stability and Vegetation
tloodplam) Defnnmon. A break
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
down to stream storm drams, uprooted trees, otter slides, eta
Score am
A. Banks stable
Bank
Lfi. Bank Rt. nda
Score Score
I little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
7 7
B Erosion areas present
5 5
r� I diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems
6 6
U 2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears guy healtby
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
{ 5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident »
0 0
)U{
Total
Remarks
3
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 root, ins, but not use to score this metric
O
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration
_ 10
B Sir eain with full saaopy breaks for light penetration absent »
8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunhght and shading are essentially equal » »
O
_ 7
D Stream with minfrnal canopy - full sun m all but a few areas _
2
E No canopy and no shading ..
0
Remarks
Subtotal 10
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
j Definition. Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
tloodplam) Defnnmon. A break
U in the riparian zone to anyplace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter dw stream such as paths
down to stream storm drams, uprooted trees, otter slides, eta
���// FACE UPSTREAM
I Don ium vegetation. [gees dShrubs Mtrasses ❑ Weedstold field DExotics (kudzu. etc)
Bank
Lfi. Bank Rt. nda
Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
I width > 18 meters
5 5
2 width 12 -18 meters. ..
4 4
3 width 6-12 meters Y
3 3
4 width < 6 nietcis
2 2
B Riparian zone not Intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width> 18 mete:
4
b width 12 -18 meters M
3
c width 6.12 meters
2 2
d_ width < 6 meters
1 1
1 2 breaks comanon
a width > 18 meters
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters.
2 2
c width 6-12 meters.
I
d width <6 meters. _ _
J
0 0
Remarks
Total
Page Total_
D Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doetm't match subjective opmton- atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
41

S. 6,L
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Dmgmm to detcmnne bank angle
r�
1
1
90° 45°
Site Sketch
Other cow
4
42
135°
This side is 4P bankanglo_
.,

�--1
3/46 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment unit, DWQ [TOTAL SCORE _e S _ 1
Directions for use The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream preferably man
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the mad 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 forma, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat fails in between two descriptions,
select an mtermedmte score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream Location/road She- 3 (Road Name FloAwol! County Q,.rL-e.
Date 3- 16 -01 CClt Basin C'ej-'w ace, Subbases
Observers) Dr 1 Type of Study ❑ Fish G16enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion O MT M P D Slate Belt 0 Triassic Balm
Water Quality Temperature_ jn_._t UC DO Conductivity (coif ) -6-i -pS/cm pin _:LO6
Physical Characterization. Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thr u the watershed In watershed land use.
Visible Land Use %forest %Residential -/.Active Pasture % Active Crops
- %Fallow Fields % Commie rciai %Industrial %O&a Describe
Watershed land use ❑Forest Agriculture OUrban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) i2--1J-' Stream Depth (tn) Avg-1 —S Max
❑ Width variable 0 Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of nflle to top of bank -fast flat surface you stand on) (ro)_L5.
Bank Angle _ .12 ° or ❑ NA (vaticah is 90', horizontal is (° Angles > 94° 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 Channehized Duch
❑Deeply incfsed- steep. straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sedmient
O Recent overbank deposits OBar development OBuned structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge, O Sewage smell
Ma>mnade Stabilizati ON Olt ❑Rip -rap cement. gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure ElBenrdlevee
Flow conditions h6fiigh ONotmal. ❑Low
Turbidity ❑Clear O Slightly Tut'bW ®'turbid ❑Tanmc ❑ ❑Colored (from dyes
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project99 ❑ YES M40 Details i1 re��.� cc
Channel Floe► Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
A Water reaches base of both Iowa bankm minimal channel substrate exposed G3
B Water S h >73% of available channel. or <25% of channel substrate is exposed O
C Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed l7
D Root mats out of water . ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools O
Weather Conditions favcm,s% ! . n Photos ON ff Lf igital 035mm
Remarlr. 1:Jkx aoae.�rq P�4 ,�' J aldt_ ° ?_fie,, L .rr 'Ilk
t
39

I Channel Modltleadon
A. channel natural, frequent bends.
B channel natural, mfrequent bends (channelization could be old) 4
C, some channel=ation present 3
D more extensive eharmelizatron, >40°/a of stream disrupted. 2
E no bends, completely channehzed or np rapped or gabwned, etc. 0
0 Evidence of dre ging ❑ Evidence of desnagggrw large woody debris in stream f(Banks of uniform shapetheight
Remarks I Subtotal_
11 Iastream Habitat. Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover if >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17 Definition le0packs consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare. Com inmon, or Abundant.
Rocks 0- Macrophytea R L Sticks and leafpacks P. Snags and logs -A— Undercut banks or root teats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
- >70°% 40-700/a 20-40%
Score Score
<20%
Score
Score
4 or S types present .. 20 16 12
8
r
3 types present 19 Ui 11
7
2 types present 18 14 10
6
1 type present 17 13 9
S
}
No types present 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Q ,,� _ --i t <_,,..
,
, -- ,�
Subtotal /S
C��-�.
III. Bottom Substrate (slit, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look: at n81e
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of mile -look for "rood lute' or, pkoractin rocks
rbti� f
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
score
1 embeddedness <200A (very little sand, usually only behind Large boulders)
is
2 mss 20-40°x. w ..
12
3 embeddedness 40 -809✓%
-
8
4 embeddeduess >8M -
3
B substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness <M
44
2 embeddedness 20.40%. ..
(l t )
3 embeddedness 40 -8086 ..
6b'-'
4 embeddedness >SWo __
2
C substrate mostly gravel
1 embeddedness <50%
8
2 embeddedness >SO%.
4
D substrate homogeaeons
1 substrate nearly all bedrock.
3
2 substrate nearly all and _
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay ..
I
Remarks subtotal 11
IV Pool VarW 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 ( >3016 of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same sire (indicates pools filling m)
Pools Infrequent (40% of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pools
b pools about the same size
B. Pools absent
Y
0
Subtotal_
0 Pool bottom boulder- cobbleshard 0 Bottom sandy -milk as you walk Mint bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total --�L
40

Q
V Riffle habitats
Definition. Rrllle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or =ow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
A well defined riffle and run, raffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. �16� 122
B riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width » f 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 Mteep =fast flow OLow -like a coastal stream Subtotal
VL Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bards RL Bank
am 69-an
A. Banks stable
1 little evidence of erosion or bank faiture(except outside of bends}, little potential for erosion '
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
( iil Total % ILI
Resoark8 �.a.. "I y��.`� R r, �t 1"a1 A4 �i �, f f a n r C
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the strew ds surface Canopy would blackout
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shadutg from mein, but not use to score this metric Score
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks fbr light penetration 10
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Stream with minimal canopy fill sun in all but a few areas » »
E No canopy and no shading
1 Subtotal
u.kN ota.SCtc Sr-.,tl -stn 3 _ara±�. .M �ti � � � •� ...c
VIII Riparlan Vegetative Zone Width
Definition Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (cast go beyond floodplsm) Definition A break
ur tie riparian zon is anyplace on the stream banks winch allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream such as paths
down to streams, storm draia4, uprooted trees, otter slides, eta
FACE UPSTREAM Lit. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation O Trees O Shrubs O Grasses O Weeds/old field OExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
5
1 width > 18 meters » »
2 width 12 -18 meters
4
4
3 width 6-12 meters »
3
3
4 width < 6 meters »
2
2
B Riparian zone not Intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a. width> 18 meters. » » ..
4
4
b. width 12 -18 meters
3
3
c width 6-12 meter;
2
2
d. width < 6 meters »
1
1
2 breaks common
a. width > 18 meters
3
3
b width 12 -18 meters
2
2
c width 6-12 meters.
1
1
d. width < 6 meters.
0
0
R�
Totals
Page Total L
13 Dlsclatmer4mm filled out, but score doesn't thatch subjective opinion- atypical stream
TOTAL SCORE
41

I Supplenwat for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to detemne bank angle.
i �
1 I
90° 45°
k
Site Sketch
A
Other conments
I
42
135°
lbs side a 45° bank angle.

J 3 106 Revision b
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assi mmt Unit, DWQ LDDTAL SCORE "
Directim for use The observer is to survey a adnimum 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 fomm, select the
Q 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 sa..Er., i ot�. Lo¢atwu/tvad 4C _(ltoad Na>rue jLae t i �' I County t vr, n
Date , I q —0 g CC# Basin Cj2 4- — c 4 Subbasin 3
CorA
l Obaerver(s) je / _ Type of Study O Fish EMenthos O Basmwuie OSpectal Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecor� non. O MT M " P O Slate Belt O Tnasstc Basin
0 2-
Water Qtiai[ty Tennpenature lac °C DO �i Conduchvrty (corn) __ tS/cm pH .1-2
12
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
I� Visible Land Use %Forest �2D OARestdenUal %Active Pastam % Active Crops
U %Fallow Fields % Commercial %industrial 1p %Chher - Describe. C►cwJ �X� r
Watershed land use (�orest OA"'griculture OUrban O Animal operations upstream
Width (meters) Stream 1 Channel (at top of bank) `t S Stream Depth (m) Avg D S Max 1
O Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of rife to top of bank -rmt flat surface you stand on) (m)
Bank Angle *4- ° or O NA (Vertical is 90% horizontal is 0° Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid- channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from charnel NA of bank is too low for bank angle to matter )
O C hanridized Ditch
96eeply incised steep, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bead OC hannel filled m with sediment
O Recent overbank deposits (gar development OBw1ed structures Ofixposed bedrock
O Excessive perphyton gqwth O Heavy filamentous algae growth OGrteen tinge O Sewage smell
Manmade stabilization. BN �OY ORnp -rap, cement, gabwns O Sediment/grado-oontrol structure OBemillevee
Flow condidon� OH%h 19Nomial OLow
Tarbldity 19CIear O Slightly Turbid OTurbid OTannie OMdky PColored (from d )
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project ?? O YES 0NU Details . s@
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnommai or low flow conditions
/
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, nummal channel substrate exposed _
H
B Water Ob >75% of available channel, or 45% of channel substrate ms exposed
O
C. Water fills 15 -75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed
O
D Boot mats out of water _
O
F- Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools
O
Weather Conditiorw P. ., C1,. J., 60.s Photos ON Vi' Digital O35nnm
Remnarks
p C.ouPia
kEl

I Channel Modification scope
A channel natural, frequent bends _ Ip
B channel natural, ui&equent bends (channeln'siion could be old)
C somo channeltzawm present. 3
D more extensive chanwl=tton, >40°Yo ofstream disrupted. 2
E. no bends, completely cbannelnzed or rip rapped or gabwned, etc „ „ 0
0 Evidence of dredging DEvidence of desuagging —no large woody debris in stream 013:aks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
U Instream Habitats Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >700/a of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the scone of 17 Definitton. 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 _L_ Macrophytes C- Sticks and leafpaclo C— Snags and togs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Subtotal �J
>70%
40-705/o
20 -400A Qo%
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts ofnfile -look for 'mud line or difficulty extracting rocks.
,.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
1 6
1 type present » „. _
17
13
9 5
No typca present
0
I embeddednes <50% _ „
8
0 No woody vegetatron in riparian zone Remarks P1e.., o rq,.t o�P r7o-w g rc-41 ,
Subtotal �J
,
III. Bottom Substrate (dit, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire Mach for substrate sconng, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts ofnfile -look for 'mud line or difficulty extracting rocks.
A substrate with good adz of gravel, cobble and boulders
Sane
I embeddedness QO% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)
15
2 embeddedness 2040%. .. ... ....
12
3 embeddedness 40-M „ _
8
4 ambeddeduess>80%.
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1 embeddedness Q0o.6. _
2 embeddedness 20-40%
3 embeddedness 40-80% » _
4 embed >809ro _ _
2
C substrate mostly gravel
I embeddednes <50% _ „
8
2 embeddedness >5M
4
D substrate homogeneous
1 substrate Hearty all bedrock. _ „ _
„ 3
2 substrate nearly all saW —
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus „
2
4 substrate nearly all siW clay
I
Remarks
Subtotal if
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 re
I Pools Frequent (>300/c of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes _
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes _ 6
b. pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal 1
O Pool bottom boulder - cobble -bard D Bottom sandy -sink as you walls 17 Silt bottom D Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total IL
40

V RIM Habitats
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead Note shading from mountains. but not use to
Definition. Riffle is area of reneration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ..
A well defined riffle and niq riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream. 16
f2
B riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
7
G nfile not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10
3
D rites absent _ 0
E. No canopy and no shading
Channel Slope OTypical for area OSteep=hst flow Ol.ow =like a coastal stream
Subtotal.
Bank Stability and Vegetation
n VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Widtb
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank. RL Bank
Definition. Riparian zone for this form Is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond tloodplam) Detimtkn. A break
JI
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly eirter the stream, such as paths
nA. Banks stable
1 little evidence of erosion or bank fidure(except outside of bendsl little potential for erosion
7 7
B Erosion areas present
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
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, lugh erosion and failure potential at high flow
® 2
(� 5 little or no bank vegetatim mass erosion and bank failure evident. _
4�I
0 OD
Remarks
Tota �_
(^? VD. 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
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ..
n B Stream with bill canopy - breaks for light penetration absent. ...
J C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal
7
D Stream with minimal canopy - M sun in all but a few areas
2
E. No canopy and no shading
_ 0
Remarks
Subtotal /3
n VIII Riparian Vegetative Zone Widtb
Definition. Riparian zone for this form Is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond tloodplam) Detimtkn. A break
JI
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly eirter the stream, such as paths
down to sirean% storm drains. uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
n FACE UPSTREAM
L8 Bank Rt Bank
U Donut vegetation. O Trees 13 Shrubs O Grasses O Weedatold field OExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 width > 18 meters ..
5 3()
2 width 12 -18 meters.
4 4
3 width 6 12 meters
3 3
4 width < 6 tmeten ..
2 2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width> 18 meters
4 4
b width 12-18 meters
0 3
c width 6-12 meters
2 2
r d width < 6 meters
1 1
U 2 breaks common
a width > 18 meters ..
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters ..
2 2
c width 6-12 mom .. _
I 1
d. width < 6 meters.
0 0
Remarks Pr-t 04 (.�!- ff�101... i..s ea,. r :,« }t, clH.eF
Total
Page Total 2.
O Disclauner -form tilled out. but score doesn't match subjective opinion atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORS 6�
0 41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to dowtatne bank angle
I �
I
90° 45°
Site Sketcb
Other con®cnts
EN
135°
N
Mos side is as bank angle.
N
,r