20061358 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20110121

'� •:.c A "�iC;?T;,�r"„d'S i`•" {� F- }1:, �U.I':; ' F: 'i.FZ'+'t
, +'yiFii' r i• •:.i }.ry.._5,..:1�'�. �r A...ir t,:%�V�: i ^:: ��!:'�'�}''"'',�y F�}n'�R h' I���
'f tip i �,7.4.., l�' � f{ V•�.
:` -c :AR, mil.. ,11.E •f ,r.. % %' y:;:: �� -,r �,ti.:•r +��' 1' <;} �,'•�� r `, 7N:"r�iai"• ::° :i.: �y!s!
- 'i...J4s•�'' ,�' - Cr''y:.. s•.. ti1;��rr?'�;Y°. p�;..:��t.4•s'.
;�J: -.' - '•.s'Yi�;�;'; ''��,,;;:i,;:;.; - -- - ��', -,.�Y �'Y`''4�:�f•. �.,�.' �t:��;` tom:' �'_cy 4•�;! };i�
i:Y •` .'f':.';M.; .,t :�,.. t.'� - __-' - -:�a }�,t',�.•.��i ';�'°ti';: .��i��..xr �.x "�Yi4:_'.1.A: r:
i`•. �`_�\ n..l, _ _ .!�'c'�` :`.:. . - \wY • r
.r. d 'A
te...,- .G:•_V^ •:tr _: T�;!-'� .u.,
,,•I'. rf ;t'i -- �:'�� =�`�� • - �. ��.i:,
fa.::;; '.'i - �'�' � �'�; � .l„t `:•r::.,�..:::i: � <:��},Y s: s -;fix.: 7t;,q: L� r
..........
f'
... .�•. =: � rly j��:r�._.. �... \�:•.. '.4` S�� Yr �. __ ..., ,�...:�.,.C. ``.yam 4�
/1yy(//`'��.•M.""•AA4 ��'.r �i:i.i�.
�i.. i�� >.;�;' •, i:r '"fit:';,.
.°...':�(:1.;. ;_.+iist t. y'7.is, 4s.`:• '.y,�;1i'r- 7.,, }.L�.,`;.•�1:.: �.4:�',
��.:. - 11 .%: .`t ;�� \� ,;•�. '[7���ij's�.;i�N ��'z:- v��•�.,"'�., �'...•e4F�y' ,��•�.
11. '''..`,i.'7•�. �'Yr,:{'a�:Y_tllll�7sc1'. i ,�.._•. i7X3 ?ti .Y.;� -�"t,f •r.+.cl4-� IyA�?':al.
ke.r

TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1
2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
3
2 1 Project Objectives
3
22 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
3
23 Location and Setting
4
24 Project History and Background
4
25 Project Plan
4
3 0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
8
3 1 Vegetation Assessment
8
3 1 1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
8
3 12 Vegetative Success Cntena
8
3 1 3 Vegetative Observations and Results
9
3 14 Vegetative Problem Areas
10
3 1 5 Vegetation Photographs
11
32 Stream Assessment
11
32 1 Morphometrlc Success Cntena
11
3 2 2 Morphometrlc Results
12
3 2 3 Hydrologic Critena
12
3 2 4 Hydrologic Momtonng Results
13
3 2 5 Stream Problem Areas
13
3 2 6 Stream Photographs
14
3 2 7 Stream Stability Assessment
14
3 2 8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
14
3 2 9 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
15
32 10 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
15
4 0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17
5 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
18
60 REFERENCES
18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Raw Data
APPENDIX B — Stream Raw Data
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 I
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

1
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Momtonng Year 4 FINAL 11
4�
J
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
I
Design Approach for the Crowns West Restoration Site L
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts J
Table 4
Project Background
Table 5
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site iUI
Table 6
Verification of Bankfull Events
Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic U
Table 7
Macromvertebrate Sampling Data
Table A 1
J
Vegetation Metadata
Table A 2
Vegetation Vigor by Species
I
Table A 3
Vegetation Damage by Species
A 4
Vegetation Damage by Plot
JTable
Table A 5
Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A 6
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot 1 }
Table B 1
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B 2
Baseline Stream Summary
Table B 3
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
LIST OF FIGURES
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Momtonng Year 4 FINAL 11
4�
�
U
Figure 1
Location of Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2A
As -built Plan Sheet 1 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2B
As -built Plan Sheet 3 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2C
As -built Plan Sheet 4 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
J
Figure 2D
As -built Plan Sheet 5 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2E
As -built Plan Sheet 6 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2F
As -built Plan Sheet 7 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2G
As -built Plan Sheet 8 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Momtonng Year 4 FINAL 11
4�

LI
10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2010 growing season
(Monitoring Year 4) on the Crowns West Stream Restoration Site ( "Site ") As per the approved
Restoration Plan for the Site, this Annual Monitoring Report presents data on stream geometry,
stem count data from vegetation monitoring stations, and discusses any observed tendencies
relating to stream stability and vegetation survival success
f Crowns West Branch had been channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared in the lower
half of the Site The upstream area had a degraded, early successional buffer that included
several exotic species Prior to restoration, Crowns West Branch was incised along its length
i and lacked bedform diversity As a result, channel degradation was widespread throughout the
Site After construction, it was determined that 3,835 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored
A total of 11 monitoring plots 100 square meters (m) (I OM x IOm) in size were used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on -site Data from the Year 4 monitoring event of
the 11 vegetation plots showed a range of 486 to 972 stems per acre, with an average
- survivability of 659 stems per acre The site is currently on track for meeting the final success
criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5
During Year 4 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp ) and privet (Ligustrum L) were observed on the
Site The kudzu is located east of Haw Branch Road and is present in the NC Division of
Highways (NCDOT) right -of -way and also occurs within the project easement The privet is
located along the southern easement boundary, west of Haw Branch Road or along the right side
of the restored channel west, of Haw Branch Road The kudzu areas were treated m2010 and
are scheduled to be treated again during the 2011 growing season The areas of privet were not
treated during Year 4, but were previously treated in 2009 The privet is also scheduled to be
treated during the 2011 growing season
The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 3,835 LF This entire length was
inspected during Year 4 of the monitoring period (2010) to assess stream performance The
visual stability assessment noted during Year 3 monitoring, several locations on M2 and the
lower portion of M1 exhibited localized bank erosion, mostly in locations where sandy soils
were present During Year 4 of monitoring, these areas did not exhibit any further problems and
ido not call for repair at this time According to the cross - section survey, stream dimension also
remained stable during Year 4 The longitudinal profile for Year 4 showed that the in- stream
structures and features are remaining stable
j The on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during
Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring period Inspection of conditions during site visits
revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flows The largest on -site stream flow documented by
the crest gauge during Year 4 of monitoring was approximately 3 72 feet (44 64 inches) above
the bankfull stage
f , Year 3 macro invertebrate sampling for Site 1 showed substantial improvements in the samples
l_ { The Year 3 post - restoration data has shown that the Site has developed from a newly established
coastal plain stream system with a weak benthic macroinvertebrate community into a system that
exhibits diverse habitat, is continuing to mature, and is able to support and cultivate biological
L) diversity
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

U
i
The Restoration Plan for the Site did not include wetland areas Therefore, no groundwater
monitoring stations or rain gauges were installed on the Site
In summary, the Site is on track to meet the vegetative, hydrologic, and stream success criteria �-
specified in the Site's Restoration Plan
U
r
I
u
L
1 1]
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 2 ��
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
I�
J

I�
11
�a
L!
,--i
U
J
2 0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the proposed restoration of 3,835 LF of stream Table 1 summarizes the
restoration areas on the Site Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix A and B A total
of 10 8 acres of stream and riparian buffer are protected through a permanent conservation
easement
2 1 Project Objectives
The specific goals for the Crowns West Site Restoration Project were as follows
• Restore 3,904 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile
• Improve floodplamn function by matching floodplam elevation with bankfull stage
• Establish native stream bank and floodplam vegetation in the 10 8 -acre permanent
conservation easement
• Improve water quality in the Crowns West and New River watersheds by reducing
sediment and nutrient inputs
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat by creating deeper pools and areas of re- aeration,
planting a riparian buffer, and reducing bank erosion
2 2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided on -site streams Into reaches The
reaches were numbered sequentially from west to east, with an "M" designation for "mainstem "
Ml begins on the upstream portion of the project, and flows east, ending at Haw Branch Road
M2 begins at Haw Branch Road and flows east, to the end of the wood line at the downstream
end of the project One unnamed tributary (UT 1) flowing from Haw Branch Road to the
confluence with Crowns West Branch was originally proposed for restoration and was included
in the 3,904 LF of stream restoration originally proposed for the Site The landowner withdrew
this short section of UT in exchange for additional property and stream length at the upstream
section of M1 on Crowns West Branch UT1 was to be tied into M2, as an alternative the tie -in
point to M2 was stabilized
The restoration design allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the
floodplam, dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on streambanks In- stream structures
were used to control streambed grade, reduce streambank stress, and promote bedform sequences
and habitat diversity The in- stream structures consisted of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, and
constructed riffles, which promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored channel Where
grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles were installed to provide long -term
stability Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting,
temporary and permanent seeding, bare -root planting, and transplants Transplants provide
living root mass to increase streambank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic
biota Native vegetation was planted across the Site The entire restoration project is protected
through a permanent conservation easement
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

Table 1 Design Approach for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site Proiect No D06003 -2
M1 R P1, P2 2,320 10 +46 - 24 +37
M2 R P1, P2 1,515 24+09 - 36 +13
Total linear feet of channel 3 835
*R = Restoration restored '
* *P1 =Priority I
P2 = Priority 1I
2 3 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Onslow County, NC (Figure 1), approximately six miles northwest of the
town of Richlands The Site lies in the White Oak River Basin within North Carolina Division
of Water Quality sub -basin 03 -05 -02 and NCEEP targeted local watershed 03030001010010
2 4 Project History and Background
Land use on the Site consisted primarily of row crop agriculture with adjacent woodlands
Crowns West Branch had been channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared in the lower
half of the Site The upstream area had a degraded, early successional buffer that included
several exotic species Prior to restoration, Crowns West Branch was incised and lacked
bedform diversity As a result, channel degradation was widespread throughout the Site
The chronology of the Crowns West Project is presented in Table 2 The contact information for
all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3 Relevant project
background information is presented in Table 4
2 5 Protect Plan
Plans depicting the as -built conditions of the mayor project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross - sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented
in Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F and 2G of this report
1
I
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
i
4 1_
I

�f
I
Table 2 Proiect Activity and Renorting History
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No
Scheduled
Activio! or Report conipletion
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A
D06003 -2
Data Actual
Collection Conipletion Or
,
N /A Jul 06
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
N/A
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Aug 06
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Oct 06
Construction Begins
Nov 06
N/A
Nov -06
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project
area
N/A
N/A
Mar -07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Mar -07
N/A
Mar -07
Planting of live stakes
Mar -07
N/A
Mar 07
Planting of bare root trees
Mar 07
N/A
Mar -07
End of Construction
Mar 07
N/A
Mar -07
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0
Momtonn - baseline
Mar 07
Mar -07
Mar -07
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec 07
Oct -07
Dec -07
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec 08
Oct -08
Dec -08
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -09
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -10
Oct -10
Dec -10
Year 5 Monitoring
Scheduled
Dec -11
Scheduled
Oct -11
Scheduled
Dec -11
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 5
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

Table 3 Proiect Contacts
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 -2
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Kevin Tweedy Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
l
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
Dwayne Huneycutt Tel [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt Tel [phone]
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
a
r
31

I
I �
�I
I
I�
J
r
�7
r
I!
rl
I
�1
t�l
I �
II
Table 4 Proiect Background
Crowns West Restoration Site
Project No D06003 -2
Project County
Onslow County NC
Drainage Area
Reach M1
065 m12
Reach M2
0 98 M12
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover
Ml
<5%
M2
<5%
Stream Order
M1
1
M2
2
Ph sio graphic Region
Coastal Plain
Ecore ion
Carolina Flatwoods
Ros en Classification of As Built
C5c
Riverme Upper Perennial
Cowardm Classification
Unconsolidated Bottom Sand
Dominant Soil Types
MI
Mk CrB
M2
Mk CrB AuB
Reference site ID
Beaverdam Branch
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites
03030001010010
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project and Reference
03 05 02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
% of project easement fenced
0%
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
7

3 0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3 1 Vegetation Assessment
3 11 Description of Vegetative 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 temporary and permanent
ground cover 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 In general, bare -root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680
stems per acre, in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot grid pattern The tree species planted at the Site are
shown in Table 5 The permanent seed mix of herbaceous species applied to the project's
riparian area included soft rush (Juncus effuses), redtop (Agrostis alba) Virginia wild rye
(Elymus virginicus) switchgrass (Pamcum virgatum) smartweed (Polygonum
pennsylvanicum) tick seed (Baden frondosa) lance leaf coreopsis (Coreopsis
lanceolata) fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), hop sedge (Carex lupuhna) and shallow
sedge (Carex lurida) This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds
per acre All planting was completed in March 2007
At the time of planting, 11 vegetation plots — labeled 1 through 11 - were delineated on-
site to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025
acre in size, or 10 meters x 10 meters All of the planted stems inside the plot were
flagged to distinguish them from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating
them in the future The trees also were marked with aluminum metal tags to ensure that
the correct identification is made during future monitoring of the vegetation plots
On a designated corner within each of the eleven vegetation plots, one herbaceous plot
was also delineated The herbaceous plots measure 1 meter x lmeter in size These plots
are photographed at the end of the growing season The locations of the eleven
vegetation plots are presented in Figures 2A through 2G
3 12 Vegetative Success Criteria
To characterize vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody
vegetation density have been defined Data from vegetation monitoring plots should
display a surviving tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of
monitoring, and a surviving tree density of at least 260 five - year -old trees per acre at the
end of the five -year monitoring period
Table 5 Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 -2
Tota
Scientific Naine Common Mine Pement 111anted bv Species Number'of
Bare Root Trees Species
Betula m ra
River Birch
15%
1,110
Celtis laeva ata
Su arbe
5%
370
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL 1
J
r�
r�i
�l
i

i
�J
f 11
U
J
P�
U
IJ
t
Table 5 Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site Protect No D06003 -2
Scientific Nanic
Fraxinus
enns lvanica
Conitn0ii Naiiie
Green Ash
Percent PWited by Species 11
750%
Total
Number of
I Steins
555
Ju lans m ra
Black Walnut
5%
370
Nyssa sylvatica
var ba ora
Swamp Tupelo
10%
740
Platanus
occidentahs
Sycamore
20%
1480
uercus l rata
Overcup Oak
10%
740
Quercus
michauxu
Swamp Chestnut Oak
10%
740
uercus phellos
Willow Oak
750%
555
Taxodium
distichum
Bald Cypress
10%
740
Native Herbaceous Species
El mus var inicus
Virginia wildrye
15%
NA
Panicum var atum
Switchgrass
15%
NA
Carex vul inoidea
Fox sedge
5%
NA
Polygonum
enns lvanicum
Smart Weed
5%
NA
Juncus e usus
Soft rush
10%
NA
Carex lu ulana
Hop sedge
10%
NA
A rostis alba
Redtop
10%
NA
Bidensfirondosa
Tick seed
10%
NA
Coreopsis
lanceolata
Lance leaf coreopsis
10%
NA
Carex lurida
Shallow sedge
10%
NA
Woody Vegetation for Live Stakes
Salix sericia
Silky Willow
40%
1 040
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
1,040
Sambucus
canadensas
Elderberry
20%
520
-� 3 13 Vegetative Observations and Results
The species that were planted as part of the permanent ground cover seed mixture
! broadcast on the Site after construction were present during Year 4 monitoring of the
Site
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 9
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
F—)
U

I�
Tables A 1 through A 6 in Appendix A present vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data of the monitoring stations at the end of the Year 4
'monitoring period Data from the Year 4 monitoring event of the 11 vegetation plots
showed a range of 486 to 972 stems per acre The data showed that the plots had an
average of 659 stems per acre
Based on these results, all plots are on track to meet the interim success criteria of 260
stems per acre at the end of monitoring Year 5
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 they are all accounted for during the annual
stem counts and calculation of tree survivability Permanent aluminum tags are used on J
surviving stems to aid in relocation and identification during future counts Flags are also
used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree
tl
No significant volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots
The plots will be assessed during Year 5 monitoring for significant volunteer species
c�
3 1 4 Vegetative Problem Areas
During monitoring Year 3, two problems were observed in vegetation plot 1 that
threatened survivability of the plot These problems were weedy species occurring
within the vegetation plot and saturated soils due to beaver dams The strong presence of
arrowleaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum) and an unknown vine species in this area ` J
was affecting the survivability of the smaller planted stems Another problem in this area
was the presence of two beaver dams that had caused the soils to become saturated for
extended periods This had caused planted stems, mostly sycamores, to become unstable
These trees were observed to be leaning following Year 3 monitoring r I
The beaver dams observed in the vegetation plot 1 area were scheduled to be removed in
the wmter of 2009/2010 Dwayne Huneycutt of Baker met with Mark Batchlor of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the Site in February 2010 It was ! -1
noted during the site visit, that the beaver dams observed in the fall of 2009 were not u
present within the conservation easement According to Mr Batchlor of the USDA, it is
likely that the beaver have moved off -site No beaver dams or visible beaver activity 1
were noted in September 2010 This upstream portion of the Site will be closely J
observed for future beaver activity during Year 5 of monitoring
Other weedy species are mostly annuals and seem to pose very little threat to (�
survivability on site �J
During Year 4 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp) was observed on the Site The kudzu is
located south of Haw Branch Road in the NCDOT right -of -way and also within the
project easement Kudzu within the project easement was treated in September 2008,
April 2009 and September 2009 by River Works, Inc During monitoring Year 4, this (�
area was treated in September 2010 Due to the subsequent treatment events, the kudzu !
is now under control within the conservation easement and elimination of the invasive u
plant appears to be possible by the conclusion of Year 5 monitoring in 2011
Some privet (Ligustrum L ) was also observed on the Site, during Year 4 monitoring J
The privet is located along the southern easement boundary, west of Haw Branch Road or
Crowns West Restoration Protect EEP Contract No D06003 2 10 �
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

�J
along the right side of the restored channel, west of Haw Branch Road This area of
(�
privet was not treated in 2010 This area was previously treated in September 2008,
J
April 2009 and September 2009 by River Works, Inc Infested areas had been treated in
previous years with herbicides and are scheduled to be treated again in 2011
3 1 5 Vegetation Photographs
u
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation plot success A total of 11
reference stations were established to document tree conditions at each vegetation plot
across the Site Additional photo stations were also established at each of the 11
vegetation plots for herbaceous vegetation monitoring Reference photos of both tree
conditions and herbaceous conditions are taken at least once per year Photos of the tree
O
plots showing the on -site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report Photos of
the herbaceous plots are also included in Appendix A
3 2 Stream Assessment
U
3 2 1 Morphometric Success Criteria
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Site
Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream
O
restoration work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross - section and one location
being a pool cross - section A total of nine permanent cross - sections were established
across the Site Each cross - section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
0
establish the exact transect used The permanent cross - section pins are surveyed and
located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year
data The annual cross - section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope,
Oincluding
top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
(�
restoration success There should be little change in as -built cross - sections If changes
f
do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a
more unstable condition (e g , down - cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased
stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio) Cross - sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System, and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative
�I
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type
JLongitudinal
Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following
construction completion to record as -built conditions The profile was conducted for the
f
entire length of the restored channels (M 1 and M2) Measurements included thalweg,
water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank Each of these measurements was taken at
the head of each feature (e g, riffle, pool, and glide) In addition, maximum pool depth
was recorded All surveys were tied to a single, permanent benchmark
U
As directed by EEP guidelines, longitudinal profiles will be completed in all five years of
the monitoring period The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, i e , they are not aggrading or degrading The pools should remain
deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 11
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
i

than the pools Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels
of the design stream type
3 2 2 Morphometric Results
Year 4 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during October
2010 The nine permanent cross - sections along the restored channels (five located across
riffles and four located across pools) were re- surveyed to document stream dimension at
the end of monitoring Year 4 Data from each of these cross - sections were compared to
data collected during the as -built condition survey, Years 1, 2 and 3 of monitoring The
cross - sectional data are presented in Appendix B The cross - sections show that there has
been very little adjustment to stream dimension since construction
Cross - sections 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are located across riffles found between meander bends
Cross - section 1 has aggraded slightly since the as -built survey but has remained relatively
stable through Year 4 The channels in cross - sections 3, 4, 7 and 8 have remained
relatively stable since the as -built survey The floodplains of cross - sections 7 and 8
remained stable through Year 4 monitoring It was noted during Years 2 and 3 that visual
on -site observations of areas east of Haw Branch Road documented deposition of
sediment on the floodplain This is considered to be a natural system response and no
areas of concern have been noted due to the deposition
Cross - sections 2, 5, 6, and 9 are located across pools found at the apex of meander bends
Based on the cross - section data, the pool at cross - section 6 has filled slightly since Year 1
monitoring but has remained relatively stable through Years 2, 3, and 4 It was noted
during Year 4 that cross - sections 2, 5 and 9 have remained at or below the as -built
thalweg elevations in the maximum pool depths All pools are remaining deep and seem
to be stable
The longitudinal profiles of reaches M1 and M2 are presented in Appendix B The
longitudinal profile for Year 4 was surveyed in October 2010 and was compared to data
collected during the as -built condition survey, and Years 1, 2 and 3 of monitoring The
results of the Year 4 longitudinal profile show that the pools and riffles in M1 have
maintained elevations and pool depths, similar to those documented during the as -built
survey, and Years 1, 2 and 3 of monitoring The longitudinal profile shows that the
riffles and in- stream structures throughout reach M 1 are stable
The Year 4 profile for M2 shows that the riffles and pools at the beginning of the reach,
(stations 33 +95 to 42 +50) have aggraded slightly since as -built conditions This section
of M2 is showing a tendency to aggrade in drier years (Year 2 and 4) and scour back out
in wetter years (i e Year 3) This is considered to be a normal pattern of stream bed
dynamics within sandbed streams The Year 4 profile for M2 shows that the pools have
remained deep since Year 1 The longitudinal profile for M2 shows that the riffles and
m- stream structures are stable on the downstream portion of the reach
3 2 3 Hydrologic Criteria
One crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events The gauge is
checked regularly and records the highest out -of -bank flow between site visits The
gauge is located on the downstream portion of reach M2, which is presented in Figure
2G
Crowns West Restoration Protect EEP Contract No D06003 2 ` 12
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

L�
The approved Restoration Plan requires that two bankfull flow events must be
l documented within the five -year monitoring period The two bankf ill events must occur
�I in separate years, otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years
I
Fi
U
F]
U
3 2 4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
The on -site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events
during Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 6
Inspection of conditions during site visits revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flow,
confirming the crest gauge readings The highest on -site stream flow documented by the
crest gauge during Year 4 of monitoring was approximately 3 72 feet (44 64 inches)
above the bankfull stage and was the result of overbank flooding of M2 Photographs
documenting bankfull evidence observed during Year 4 are presented in Appendix B
Table 6 Verification of Bankfull Events
Crowns West Restoration Site EEP Contract No D06003
-2
Date of Data
Estimated Date of
Method of Data
Measurement
Collection
Occurrence of Bankfull
Collection
(feet)
Event
2/9/2010
Winter of 2010
Crest Gage on M2
3 51
12/1/2010
9/29/2010
Crest Gage on M2
3 72
The crest gauge on the Site has documented at least one bankfull event per year since as-
built conditions Four bankfull events have been recorded in separate years, which meet
the success criteria as stated the site Restoration Plan The crest gauge readings will
continue to be recorded through Year 5 of the project in order to observe flood event
depths that may occur on the Site
3 2 5 Stream Problem Areas
During Year 2 (2008) monitoring, the Site experienced several areas of localized bank
erosion These problems were repaired in November 2008 The stream problem areas
were located on reaches M 1 and M2 All problems areas were located in pools where
erosion occurred around root wads that were installed in sandy soils During Year 4 these
repaired areas were functioning properly and will continue to be monitored closely during
1 future site visits
During Year 3 monitoring, several additional bank areas on M2 and the lower portion of
M 1 exhibited small localized, areas of bank erosion, attributed to the number of high flow
events during the year and the presence of mostly sandy soils in the identified areas
E , These areas were small and were not considered to call for repair at this time However,
these areas are being closely observed during site visits During Year 4 these areas were
functioning properly with no further degradation and will continue to be monitored
closely during future site visits
J Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 13
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL 4

In 2009, two beaver dams on the upstream portion of M1 had caused the soils to become
saturated for an extended period The saturation affected planted stems, mostly
sycamores, to lean' more than 45 degrees As of October 2010, the dams are currently not
present on the Site All trees within the vegetation plot that were impacted by the soft
soils are currently still alive and are included in the stems totals presented in Table A 1
through A 6 A detailed explanation of the beaver dams and affected areas are discussed
in section 3 14 of this report
3 2 6 Stream Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document restoration success A total of 23 reference
stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade control
structures across the Site, and additional photo stations were established at each of the 9
permanent cross - sections The GPS coordinates of each grade control structure photo
station have been noted as additional reference to ensure the same photo location is used
throughout the monitoring period Reference photos are taken at least once per year
Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross - section photo station For
each stream bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the
channel, perpendicular to flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is
framed so that the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the
center of the photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the
lower edge of the frame
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually Reference stations
were photographed before construction and will be photographed for at least five years
following construction Reference photos will be taken once per year, from a height of
approximately five to six feet Permanent markers are established to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) on the Site are photographed during each monitoring
event Photos for each of the nine permanent cross - sections are included in Appendix B
A photo log of the restored channel is also presented in Appendix B of this report
Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the edges of the restored stream, making the
photography of some of the stream channel areas difficult
3 2 7 Stream Stability Assessment
A summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream structures
performed during Year 4 of post - construction monitoring is presented in Table B 1 The
percentages noted are a general, overall field evaluation of the how the features were
performing at the time of the photo point survey According to the visual stability
assessment, during Year 4 monitoring, some bank areas as described in Section 3 2 5
have experienced some localized erosion problems Excluding these bank areas, all other
stream features are performing as designed
3 2 8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre - construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
restoration approach, as well as the as -built baseline data used during the project's post
construction monitoring period are summarized in Appendix B
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 14
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

I
329" Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Benthic macromvertebrate monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Crowns
West Restoration Plan Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations,
macromvertebrate sampling must be consistently conducted in the same season as the
initial species evaluations Benthic sampling for the Site as well as the reference site was
conducted during March 2010 This report summarizes the benthic samples collected in
March 2010 for Year 3 of the post - construction monitoring phase
This is the final data collection event for benthlc macromvertebrates for the Site
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard
j Operating Procedures for Benthic Macromvertebrates (2006) Field sampling was
LJ conducted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc Laboratory identification of collected
species was conducted by Wendell Pennington, of Pennington and Associates, Inc
Benthic macromvertebrate samples were collected at one location on the Site (Site 1) and
one location at the Beaverdam Branch reference site in Jones County (Site 2) Site 1 is
_ located within the restoration area of M1 on the Site
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the
streams 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
1 concentration (mg/L), pH, and specific conductivity were recorded at each site The
habitat assessment field data sheets, lab results and photos are presented in Appendix B
—�
3210 Benthic Macromvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post - construction monitoring results is presented in
Table 7 with complete laboratory results presented in Appendix B
r' At Site 2, the undisturbed reference site, the Year 3 community structure and ecological
habitat appears to be similar to that observed during the pre - construction, Year 1 and
Year 2 monitoring periods Site 2 data show a stable total taxa richness and a stable EPT
taxa richness EPT taxa richness at Site 2 has remained relatively stable since Year 1
L 1 monitoring The Year 3 sampling results displayed relatively stable total and EPT biotic
indices
Site 1, which underwent complete restoration, exhibited improvements in total and EPT
taxa richness since Year 1 monitoring According to the lab results, Site 1 showed an
_I improvement in the total biotic index following Year 3 of monitoring The EPT biotic
j index following Year 3 has increased from no observed communities to an index 6 36
since March 2006 It is anticipated that, as the project matures, EPT populations will
1 increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs become available
The Year 3 data for the Site displayed 37 5 percent Dominance in Common (DIC)
compared to the reference site This indicates that 37 5 percent of the dominant
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 15
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL

9
U
communities at the reference site are dominant at Site 1 In pre - construction conditions,
Site 1 had a DIC of 41 percent The DIC result of 37 5 percent at Site Ifollowing Year 3
monitoring, indicates that post - construction recolonization from refugia upstream or
downstream, is likely returning to pre - restoration levels It is anticipated that
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in as communities
begin to re- colonize and the project matures
Overall, the Year 3 data for Site 1 has displayed substantial improvements in all criteria
of the macro invertebrate samples The Year 3 post - restoration data has shown that the
Site has developed from a newly established coastal plain stream system with a weak
benthic macroinvertebrate community into a system that exhibits diverse habitats, is
continually maturing, and is able to support and cultivate biological diversity 1
Table 7 Summary of Pre - Restoration vs Post - Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Crowns West Restoration Site EEP Contract No D06003 -2
Site 1
Site 2
M1 Crowns West (Restoration)
Beaverdam Branch (Reference)
Pre
Post
Post
Post
Pre
Post
Post
Post
3/3/2006
2/28/2008
2/9/2009
3/10/2010
1/5/2006
2/28/2008
2/9/2009
3/10/2010
Total Taxa
Richness
24
14
20
19
28
35
34
31
EPT Taxa
Richness
4
0,
1
4
3
6
9
6
Total Biotic
Index
675
399
750
680
778
673
659
640
EPT Biotic Index
578
None
400
636
405
528
469
619
Dommance in
41
18
25
375
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Common ( %)
EPT Abundance
0
2
17
29
35
28
Habitat
Assessment
42
88
65
67
89
106
91
91
Rating
Water
Not
Not
105
86
94
79
89
143
Temperature ( C)
Collected
Collected
DO
Not
Concentration
505
118
1091
9
78
93
Collected
Collected
(mg/1)
Not
pH
663
698
596
724
752
66
Collected
Collectted
Conductivity
Not
Not
(µmhos /cm)
Collected
110
150
90
,
Collected
320
340
240
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2 1E
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
11

fry
!J
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
I
17
r
4 0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
h
Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 3,835 LF This
entire length was inspected during Year 4 of the monitoring period (2010) to assess stream
performance Visual stability assessments during Years 2 and 3 noted several small, localized
-�
erosion areas Those observed during Year 2 were repaired and those observed during Year 3
did not require repairs During Year 4 monitoring, all of these areas appear to be stable
JBased
on the survey data, all riffles, pools, and other constructed features along the restored
channel are stable and functioning as designed The on -site crest gauge documented the
occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during Year 4 of the post - construction monitoring
period The highest on -site stream flow documented by the crest gauge during Year 4 of
monitoring was approximately 3 72 feet (44 64 inches) above the bankfull stage and was the
result of overbank flooding of M2 Inspection of site conditions during visits revealed visual
evidence of out -of -bank flows
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the
111
Restoration Plan for the Site
iJ
Year 3 macromvertebrate lab results for the Site, exhibited improvements in total and EPT taxa
richness The total biotic index improved since Year 2 while a decline m the EPT biotic index
0
was observed during Year 3 It is anticipated that, as the project matures, benthic
macromvertebrate populations will increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf
packs become available The DIC result of 37 5 percent at Site 1 following Year 3 monitoring,
(�
indicates that post - construction recolomzation from refugia upstream or downstream, is likely
�I
returning to pre - restoration levels t
Vegetation Monitoring - For the 11 monitoring plots, vegetation monitoring indicated a
Osurvivability
range of 486 stems per acre to 972 stems per acre with an overall average of 659
stems per acre The data show that the Site has met the minimum interim success criteria of 320
stems per acre by the end of Year 3 and is on track for meeting the final success criteria of 260
E 3
stems per acre by the end of Year 5
During Year 4 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp ) and privet (Ligustrum L) were observed on the
Site These kudzu areas were treated in 2010 and are scheduled to be treated again during the
2011 growing season The areas of pnvet were not treated during Year 4 but were previously
_
treated in 2009 and are scheduled for treatment in 2011
r�
Overall, the site is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the Restoration
U
Plan for the Site
fry
!J
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
I
17

5 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site During certain times of the
year, frogs, snakes, lizards and crawfish and have been observed
60 REFERENCES
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 NCDENR Raleigh, NC
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Onslow County North Carolina,
1992
NCDWQ, Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macromvertebrates (2006)
Crowns West Restoration Project EEP Contract No D06003 2
January 2011 Monitoring Year 4 FINAL
,,
18

_I
lI
t
ICI
I
I�
�J
L
f ,
i
�l
I
I
LJ
1
r_
I �
FIGURES

1
Crowns west
Project Ste
0303000,U,00,O
i
Figure 1 Location of Crowns West Stream Restoration Site
0

Eam
3
z
3
0
U
N
0
1410
0
A
• 0
rPnWN.0 WF.CT IQT1?17AA4 RF.CTnRATTn7V PI?nTl7rT
WC[ Md[ct R[IRRRkCt a16
�IVVRC LM
GRAPHIC SCALES
30 15 0 30 60
PLANS
30 15 0 30 60
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
5 0 5 10
DESIGN DATA
EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 3334 FT
AS -BUILT STREAM LENGTH = 3835 FT
PROJECT REACH
EXISTING
AS -BUILT
Ml
1819 FT
2320 FT
M2
1515 FT
1515 FT
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF
NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
2728 CAPITAL BLVD, SUITE 1H 103
RALEIGH, NC 27604
�,c�siem
PkOOkaat
CONTACT. GUY PEARCE
I" FULL DELIVERY COORDINATOR
1 113
KEVIN TWEEDY
KEVIN TWEEDY
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ENGINEER
Baka, EngMaKwa�ing
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
KEVIN TWEEDY, PE KEVIN L. TWEEDY
PROJECT ENGINEER 027337
MARCH 2007 APRIL 30. 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
COMPLETTON DATE: A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
JOSHUA WHITE
PROJECT DESIGNER

ON
C
ul
ID
C
0
........ . . - I ­­.- I
..... . ...... ......
.. . . . . . ... . ......... .......... . ...........
..... . . . ......... .. ..... ...
------- ...
......... ...... ...
O5_—
VEGETATION
PLOT #1
0) PP #2
FIGURE 213
0
_44 �444444444Ae
.4444444444404 A.l44404
,� Y0444444444
•m
FA
VEGETAI
PLOT #2
TRANSPLANTS OR BRUSH MATTRESS
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE
PRESERVED TREES WHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10-00 TO 33+66,
NOTE'
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE-RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
C!
(b J
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30.2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Baker 6000 N­­ F.1-1
S." 2W
C. NO
Cary CAROLINA
.... ..........
AS—BUILT
PLAN VIEW
310 15 0 30 60
11 i I 16 1 -
SCALE (FT)
—65—
co
4R
—6 .
RNILL
\ VERNAL
OOL
FA
VEGETAI
PLOT #2
TRANSPLANTS OR BRUSH MATTRESS
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE
PRESERVED TREES WHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10-00 TO 33+66,
NOTE'
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE-RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
C!
(b J
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30.2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Baker 6000 N­­ F.1-1
S." 2W
C. NO
Cary CAROLINA
.... ..........
AS—BUILT
PLAN VIEW
310 15 0 30 60
11 i I 16 1 -
SCALE (FT)

c
rn
v
m
m
a
Y
u
m'
m
o-
N
m
n'
0
FIGURE 2C
P�
M
co 00
zVw
�Q
TRANSPLANTS OR BRUSH MATTRESS
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE:
PRESERVED TREES WHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10+00 TO 33+00.
5�
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINAIIY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30, 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Bak9r EnglnHring
- 9000 9egemy Prkwry
- 9urte 300
� Cary. NORTH CAROLINn 3]St9
PNwr' 919 a91.9a99
Fu: 9111.�83.9a90
NOTE: I
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS
AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)

LID
m
CO
s
u
m'
m
a-
N
m
d
0
i
FIGURE 2D
777
r � •rte
TRANSPLANTS OR BRUSH MATTRESS
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE'
PRESERVED TREES WHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10+00 TO 33.66.
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30, 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
/
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Baker Engineering
- eoee N�ge Palley
C., zae
CAROLINA ]]510
/41 �
2
pg_ 9191
P6on9: 9193 5x68
Faa: et9 <6I.W8
777
r � •rte
TRANSPLANTS OR BRUSH MATTRESS
DITCH PLUG
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE'
PRESERVED TREES WHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10+00 TO 33.66.
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)

C
O�
T)
O
m
Q
Y
V
J
m
2
m
0'
m
d
FIGURE 2E
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE:
PRESERVED TREES INHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10 +00 TO 33 +66.
/.
NOTE
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
/
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30, 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
13
Baker Englnearing
- 8000 Reaenry Partway
Q
Cu .200
� � ery NORTH CAROLINA 21510
Poona'. 91H.�83.sasa
��
Fax: B1a x6.1.5180
CHANNEL FILL
NOTE:
PRESERVED TREES INHERE POSSIBLE BETWEEN STATIONS 10 +00 TO 33 +66.
/.
NOTE
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)

C
Ol
U
B
ttl
!n
Q
y
V
J
m
m
Q
N
B
n
0
FIGURE 2F
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
APRIL 30, 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
X
33j \
jj
F
8 k Englnearing
- 800 perry Partway
5 280
Cary NORTIIOMOLINR 3]518
Prom e1ga83.5a8B
'.8 9.a898f90
NOTE: '
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)

0
v
m
m
a
u
m
m
m
S
n
"o
C
T
v
v
FIGURE 2G
=N�
_m
II}STAIiED (W 48 ". CSP
`'•.• (ALUMINIZED' STEEL)
i
', y�, t t 1 VEGETATION TERRACE +�(.�,
S y t PLOT #10 _ 'k*s,
Ax
C /
tk
4 PP #22 /°
Pp #18 LOT #11
GETATION
'fS� GE �tsi BENCH LIMITS — �'* Ai�kO CREST
00 -
GAUGE
PP #20 e..2 / / , ✓ ' ROOTWAD I �'
PP #23
r
,
ROOTWAD
PP #19 _ \
END CONSTRUCTION . M2
VEGETATION A ,/ -.__ - - -- ...__.. \ „ STA 48.98.44
2
#TOOTWAD PLOT 99 f 09
' �
Q
TRANSPLANTS TRANS
BRUSH MATTRESS
ARMOR PIPE CROSSING - DITCH PLUG
WITH #57 STONE
ARMOR UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM
FACE CL FILL SLOPE CL ® CHANNEL FILL
WITH CLASS B RIP RAP EL =53.90
60.00
55.00
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
50.00
i
AS BUILT
45.00 PLAN VIEW
0.00 BED 60.00
EL =47.80 CULVERT
EL =38.80 30 15 0 30 60
SECTION A -A'
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
-
SEALED BY
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
I
027337
APRIL 30, 2007
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
..
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
11,11, Engineer...
Re9°nq PaMay
-
� Su M 208
"• -" -'
CAry. NORTH CARM MA 27518
Q
`
m'. 819 K8Sa88
� 919 A63.Sa90
Z
/
II}STAIiED (W 48 ". CSP
`'•.• (ALUMINIZED' STEEL)
i
', y�, t t 1 VEGETATION TERRACE +�(.�,
S y t PLOT #10 _ 'k*s,
Ax
C /
tk
4 PP #22 /°
Pp #18 LOT #11
GETATION
'fS� GE �tsi BENCH LIMITS — �'* Ai�kO CREST
00 -
GAUGE
PP #20 e..2 / / , ✓ ' ROOTWAD I �'
PP #23
r
,
ROOTWAD
PP #19 _ \
END CONSTRUCTION . M2
VEGETATION A ,/ -.__ - - -- ...__.. \ „ STA 48.98.44
2
#TOOTWAD PLOT 99 f 09
' �
Q
TRANSPLANTS TRANS
BRUSH MATTRESS
ARMOR PIPE CROSSING - DITCH PLUG
WITH #57 STONE
ARMOR UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM
FACE CL FILL SLOPE CL ® CHANNEL FILL
WITH CLASS B RIP RAP EL =53.90
60.00
55.00
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONDITIONS.
50.00
i
AS BUILT
45.00 PLAN VIEW
0.00 BED 60.00
EL =47.80 CULVERT
EL =38.80 30 15 0 30 60
SECTION A -A'
SCALE (FT)

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION RAW DATA

Table A 2 Vegetation Vigor by Species
Crowns West Restoration Site Protect No D06003 2
i aoie A s vegetation uamage oy species
Crowns West Restoration Site Proiect No D060032
swamp tupelo
1
25
"_
AF�
1
Platanus occidentahs
Americans sycamore
4
m
1
3
m
overcu oak
1
19
1
It/
F
14S.c
a
F
12
we
J
ca
�Qa aQ0
�oF
�cQo
y
1
O
v° 20
willow oak
0
13
river birch
2
442
1
a
0
22
3ta
sugarberry
0
�a
Jc
41
�.
Betula ni ra
river birch
11
2
green ash
1
1
Celtis laevi ata
sugarberry
3
3
1
1
51
1
1
Fraxinus enns lvanica
green ash
8
7
2
1
3
Ju lans ni ra
black walnut
1
1
1
3
N ssa Mora
swamp tupelo
2
12
12
Quercus l rata
overcup oak
13
5
1
1
Quercus mlchauxn
swamp chestnut oak
5
5
1
1
Quercus ni ra
water oak
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
8
2
3
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
12
6
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
24
14
11
1
1
TOT
11
Ill
85
57
35
2
9
2
i aoie A s vegetation uamage oy species
Crowns West Restoration Site Proiect No D060032
N ssa Mora
swamp tupelo
1
25
"_
1
Platanus occidentahs
Americans sycamore
4
m
1
3
Quercus l rata
overcu oak
1
19
1
Quercus michauwt
F
14S.c
a
F
12
we
ca
�Qa aQ0
c
�cQo
y
1
v° 20
willow oak
0
13
river birch
2
12
1
1
0
22
3ta
sugarberry
0
4
11
10
180
1
11
7
ins lvanica
green ash
1
20
1
3
black walnut
1
51
1
1
N ssa Mora
swamp tupelo
1
25
"_
1
Platanus occidentahs
Americans sycamore
4
47
1
3
Quercus l rata
overcu oak
1
19
1
Quercus michauwt
swam chestnut oak
0
12
Quercus ni ra
water oak
0
1
Quercus hellos
willow oak
0
13
Taxodium dishchum
bald c ress
0
22
11
11
10
180
1
11
7
1

Table A 4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 2
2y
O�
O,
V�
a
°
�O
m4i
i
4
c `ac
i0
i0
i0
i0 i0 i0
°3
h
yqS?
�C
cy.
s
D060032 DH 0001 year 4
_ 2
11 1
lC
1
D060032 DH 0002 year 4
0
17
Z
Z
Z
D060032 DH 0003 year 4
0
14
y�0
D060032 DH 0004 year 4
1
4
14
QZ
10-
1
10
10
D060032 DH 0005 year 4
0
18
a
.�
ti ti
D060032 DH 0006 year 4
0
17
ti
ti
ti
ro
ti ti
D060032 DH 0007 year 4
0
15
D060032 DH 0008 year 4
0
22
D060032 DH 0009 year 4
6
11
6
D060032 DH 0010 year4
0
24
.°
�
°�
oGP
D060032 DH 0011 year4
1
o0
17
00
1
oGP
oCi
TOT
11
30
180
1
1
71
1
Table A 5 Stem Count by Plot and Soecias
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 2
iSo
i
4
4
i0
i0
i0
i0 i0 i0
h
,y9R
lC
Z
Z
Z
y�0
Fy
QZ
4
Q
QZ
10-
Q%
10
10
F�
a
.�
ti ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ro
ti ti
O�
.°
�
°�
oGP
�v
Ov
o0
00
00
O�
oGP
oCi
00
Q
4J
4�
4e
4?
4e
4�
4?
4�
4e
4t
4Z
Betula ni ra
nver birch
13
7
186
2
1
1
4
1
3
1
Cekis laew ata
sugarberry
4
3
1 33
2
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
18
6
3
2
3
6
1
2
4
Ju lans ni ra
black walnut
3
2
15
1
2
N ssa brflora
swamp tupelo
26
9
289
1
3
2
3
3
1
4
4
5
Platanus ocadentahs
American sycamore
49
11
445
5
9
7
3
1
6
1
6
4
6
1
Quercus l rata
overcup oak
19
6
317
1
1
5
3
4
5
Quercus michauxit
swamp chestnut oak
ill
7
1 57
2
21
2
11
1
21
1
Quercus ni ra
water oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
13
5
26
3
2
1
2
5
Taxodium dishchum
bald cypress
22
6
367
3
1
10
1
1
6
TOT
11
11
179
11
12
17
14
14
18
161
141
22
13
24
15

9
Table A 6 Stem Count for Each Species Arranaed by Plot
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 2
Tree Species
Plots
Year 4
Totals
Average
Stems /acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Betula nigra
2
1
1
4
1
3
1
13
N/A
Ce/tis /aewgata
2
1
1
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
3
6
1
2
4
18
Jug/ans nigra
1
2
3
Nyssa Mora
1
3
2
3
3
1
4
4
5
26
Platanus occidentahs
5
9
7
3
1
6
1
6
4
6
1
49
Quercus lyrata
1
1
5
3
4
5
19
Quercus michauxu
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
11
Quercus nigra
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
3
2
1
2
5
13
Taxodium dishchum
3
1
10
1
1
6
22
Stems /plot Year 4
12
17
14
14
18
16
14
22
13
24
15
179
Stems /acre Year 4
486
688
567
567
729
648
567
891
526
972
607
N/A
659
Stems /acre Year
486
688
567
567
729
688
607
891
648
972
607
677
Stems /acre Year 2
567
688
567
567
809
769
647
891
688
972
809
725
Stems /acre Initial
729
729
607
648
972
760
640
1053
850
1 1093
1 931
1 819
L i = = = l______1 = = = = = lam__ J C— j = = = = = = =

f�
it
�J
U
I�
r�
U
f}
Sri
U
1�
�l
U
VEGETATION PHOTOS

Vegetation Plot 1
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 3

Vegetation Plot 4
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 8
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 9

Vegetation Plot 10
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11 Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 11

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC RAW DATA

I-
STREAM TABLES
m
I
9

C
U
0
D
CI
G
Li
�I
Table B 1 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Crowns Wet Restoration Site Protect No D06003 -2
Performance Percentage
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A Rtfflcs
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
B Pools
100%
100%
90%
90%
90%
C Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F Bank Condition
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
G Wads
100%
1 100%
75%
90%
90%

= = n C =J = = O O O = = = = = = = = = =
Table B 2 Baseline Stream Summary
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 2
Crowns West Reach M1
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As built
Dimension Riffle
--
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width ft
-
--
56
59
62
9
90
90
88
101
113
Flood prone Width ft
—
- -
80
105
130
700
900
1100
582
61
646
BF Mean Depth (ft)
14
16
17
-
—
09
09
09
072
073
074
BF Max Depth (ft
-
—
—
--
1 70
20
220
1 5
16
17
1 1
12
12
12
12
13
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
—
-
-
84
90
95
24
240
24
80
80
80
63
84
74
Width/Depth Ratio
—
—
—
—
34
39
43
110
140
170
100
—
122
139
153
Entrenchment Ratio
—
—
—
—
1 3
18
22
100
105
110
70
90
110
53
61
66
Bank Height Ratio
--
—
—
—
27
28
29
1 0
12
1 3
1 0
1 1
12
10
10
10
BF Velocity fps
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 5
15
1 5
22
—
22
—
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
45
585
72
—
--
—
Radius of Curvature ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
18
27
36
—
--
—
Meander Wavelength ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
—
Meander Width Ratio
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
65
8
—
—
—
Profile
Riffle Length
(ft)—
—
—
—
—
—
Riffle Slope (t/ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Pool Len th ft
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
- -
—
Pod S aan ft
—
—
--
—
25
34
23
34
45
—
--
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
—
—
—
—
—
2/ 29/ 36/ 68/ 94
3/4/5/9/1 2
- -
—
_
-
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f'
—
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (f1
-
-
—
-
-
1 938
—
—
-
-
-
2 372
-
—
2 275
—
Drainage Area (SM)
07
—
3
—
3
-
07
—
-
07
—
Ros en Classification
—
—
—
—
—
G5 /E5
—
—
C5c
-
—
E5
—
—
C5
—
BF Discha a ds
—
—
—
—
—
—
37
37
37
173
—
Sin uosi
—
—
—
127
166
14
—
14
—
BF slope ft/ft
—
- -
—
—
—
—
0 004
—
—
0 0004
—
—
0 0030
—
—
0004
—

Crowns West Reach M2
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As built
Dimension Riffle
—
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width ft
—
58
120
—
10
—
877
1013
1152
Flood prone Width ft
—
170
—
370
—
—
600
700
800
582
784
1331
BF Mean Depth ft
—
—
—
14
18
—
—
10
10
10
071
084
1 12
BF Max Depth ft
—
—
25
30
1 5
1 7
1 2
1 3
1 3
1 19
141
1 80
BF Cross Sectorial Area ft
—
97
168
24
24
24
100
10
100
63
85
106
Width/Depth Ratio
—
—
—
—
34
—
86
110
—
170
--
100
—
85
124
158
Entrenchment Rabo
—
—
—
—
1 5
—
64
100
—
110
60
70
80
52
79
141
Bank Height Ratio
—
—
—
—
19
—
23
1 0
—
1 3
1 0
1 1
12
10
10
1 0
BF Velocity fps
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 5
—
1 5
1 6
16
—
—
—
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
— —
—
—
50
65
80
—
Radius of Curvature (ft)
—
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
20
30
40
—
—
—
Meander Wavelength (ft)
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
Meander Width Ratio
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
5
65
8
—
—
Profile
Rrffle Length ft
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
Rrffle Slope ft/ft
—
—
—
—
—
Pool Length ft
—
—
—
—
Pool Spacing ft
—
—
25
—
34
25
38
50
—
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
—
2/29/36/68/94
3/4/5/9/1
2
—
—
Reach Shear Stress (competency) UP
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Stream Power transport capacity) W/m
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
1396
—
1528
—
1560
Drainage Area (SM)
1
3
3
—
1
—
1
Rosgen Classification
—
—
G5 /E5
C5c
—
--
E5
—
C5
BF Discharge cds
—
—
37
37
37
--
162
-
--
Sinuosi
—
—
1 27
1 66
—
— —
1 4
—
1 38
BF slope (ft/ft)
—
—
—
—
0 004
—
00004
—
— —
0 003
—
—
0 004
—

wi mension
(Substrate
Parameter
i ame es s morpnoiogy ana nyarawic monnonng summary
Crowns West Restoration Site Project No D06003 2
Reach M1 2320 feet
section 1 Cross section 2 Cross section
Riffle I Pool I Riffle
BF Width (ft)
11 52
979
1279
983
BF Mean Depth (ft)
073
061
046
060
Width/Depth Ratio
1578
1605
2797
1632
BF Cross sectional Area (ft')
841
600
580
590
BF Max Depth (ft)
125
097
091
1 04
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
6021
60 18
6018
6016
Entrenchment Rato
52
6 1
47
61
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
10
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)I 12 98 111 01 13 71 111 03
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 32 29 32 71 564 3324
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Cross section
Parameter I Pool
BF Width (ft)
1283
11 19
1469
11 61
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 15
1 33
128
1 55
Width /Depth Ratio
112
84
114
75
BF Cross sectional Area (ft')
147
149
189
180
BF Max Depth (ft)
263
269
291
311
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
6248
6839
6783
7067
Entrenchment Ratio
51
6 1
46
56
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 1
1 0
1 0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)l 15 13 13 85 1 17 25 14 71
Hydraulic Radius (ft)j 23 53 1 18 17 24 14 16 51
d50
d84
1238 1043 1009 1044
1 89 1 57 161 198
654 664 627 526
2346 1640 1620 2070
305 275 277 300
6989 6989 6987 6462
56 67 69 62
12 12 12 11
1616 1357 1331 144
1497 1485 1415 125
1032
1038
1461
1080
071
061
050
062
1448
1699
2905
1743
735
630
730
670
127
110
115
124
6457
64 50
6456
64 64
63
53
44
60
10
11
10
11
11 74
11 6
1561
1204
2967
3459
586
3548
Riffle
877
876
962
908
072
058
066
067
12 18
1510
1451
1362
631
510
640
610
1 19
092
066
1 07
5830
5818
5820
5826
66
66
60
64
10
11
10
11
1021
992
1094
1042
2508
3078
2968
2791
III

c
0
c
=j o a o
MY 1 2007
MY 2 2008
MY 3 2009
MY-4 2010
MY 5 2011
Parameter
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)
28331
28331
28331
28331
Channel Length (ft)
390759
390759
390759
390759
Sinuosity
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00041
00041
00041
00041
BF Slope (ft/ft)
00057
00057
00057
00057
Ros en Classification
C
C
C
C
Reach M2 (1515 feet)
Cross section 6
Cross section 7
Cross section 8
Cross section 9
Parameter
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
1400
13 13
1368
1342
1060
912
1169
1101
946
924
869
893
1231
1444
1522
1101
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 70
126
1 22
121
094
088
079
076
112
098
090
081
1 75
1 79
1 75
076
Width /Depth Ratio
824
1040
11 19
1105
1125
1041
1484
1458
846
946
966
1100
703
806
872
1458
BF Cross sectional Area (ft )
2377
1660
1670
1630
998
800
920
830
1057
900
780
730
2155
2590
2660
830
BF Max Depth (ft)
330
217
244
200
1 52
1 37
1 55
147
180
1 53
1 39
1 33
321
386
391
076
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
8797
85 74
8756
8550
8773
8564
8744
8607
14014
13805
13759
12941
11898
11646
11745
11862
Entrenchment Ratio
55
53
53
51
71
79
64
67
141
139
145
132
89
78
75
67
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
10
1 1
10
10
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
10
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
174
1565
1612
1584
1248
1088
1327
1253
11 7
11 2
1049
1055
1581
1802
1872
1253
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1818
2206
236
2331
i
2344
21 7
3047
2992
18 04
199
2022
2281
1581
1791
1919
2992
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)l
0
c
=j o a o

Parameter
MY 1
2007
MY 2 2008
MY 3 2009
MY-4 2010
MY 5 2011)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltmdth (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)
28331
28331
28331
28331
Channel Length (ft)
390759
390759
390759
390759
Sinuosity
1 38
1 38
1 38
1 38
Water Surface Slope ( ft/ft)
00041
00041
00041
00041
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
00057
00057
00057
00057
Ros en Classification,
C
C
C
C

0
E
D
ri
Q
�I
J
rl
J
[j
rl
STREAM DATA
AND PHOTOS
I

Crowns West Profile Station 15 +00 to 32 +50
65
63
- - - - -- - - -- -
62
@VAIL
- --
61
60
-
59
- -
- - -
C
O
58
- - - --
m
57
- --- --- - -. "_
>
56
W
55
- -
54
-.
-As -built Thalweg
Year1 Thalweg
- - -. - _. -._ - -- -- ._..._ ..... ............._.. ............ - -
53
—Year 2 Thalweg -
-Year 3 Thalweg
-- - -- -- ._._..._ -._ ...... ......... -- - - - --
52
— .—Year 4 Thalweg
- water surface
- _._------------- " -"
51
—Top of Bank
— _
50
1500 1600 1700 1800
1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200
Station (ft)

55
54
53
52
_ 51
C
w
50
!0
d 49
W
48
47
46
45
Crowns West Profile Station 33 +50 to 50 +00
—As -built Thalweg Yearl Thalweg
- Year 2 Thalweg —Year 3 Thalweg
—Year 4 Thalweg —water surface
—Top of Bank
3350 3450 3550 3650 3750 3850 3950 4050 4150 4250 4350 4450 4550 4650 4750 4850 4950
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 1
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
I
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1 1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
5.9
9.83
0.6
1 1.04
16.32
1
1 6.1
63.99
64.02
Crowns West Cross - section 1
67
66
65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
c
0 64
-------- - - - - --
w
co
m
w 63
As -Built Year 1
62
Year 2 -Year 3
Year 4 Bankfull
- -o - Flood prone
61
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
1 1
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1
20.7
10.44
1.98
3
5.26
1 1.1
6.2
62.45
1 62.71
Crowns West Cross - section 2
68
67
66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -- o
65
64
c
63
------------
aa
62
W
61
As -Built
Year 1
60
Year 2
d Year 3
59
Year 4
0 -- Bankfull
-o-- Floodprone
58
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3
(Year 4 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
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.7
10.8
0.62
1.24
17.43
1.1
6
61.2
61.28
Crowns West Cross - section 3
65
64
63
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
�
62
c
0
>
61
m
W
60
As -Built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
59
Year 4
- Bankfull
- -�- Floodprone
58
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 4
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
WJD 1
BH Ratio
ER
1 1
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
6.1
9.08
1 0.67
1.07
13.62
1 1.1
6.4
58.92
58.98
Crowns West Cross - section 4
62
61 -
60 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
w 0 59 ------ - - - - --
m
tL 58
As -Built Year 1
57 Year 2 - - Year 3
Year 4 a--- Bankfull
- -[�-
Flood prone
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 5
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Tye
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
WID
tn�
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Pool
18
11.61
1.55
3.11
7.48
5.6
56.28
56.28
Crowns West Cross - section 5
60
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7�-_
59
58
_ 57
56
----------------
a�i 55
w
As -Built Year 1
54
Year 2 - Year 3
53
Year 4 Bankfull
-o-- Floodprone
52
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 6
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
1
BKF
Width 1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
1
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
16.3
13.42
1.21
2
11.05
1.1
5.1
53.05
53.28
60
58
56
c
g 54
w
a�
w 52
50
48
Crowns West Cross - section 6 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s,
As -Built Year 1
Year2 Year3
Year 4 - -o- -- Bankfull
- o- -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 7
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Tye
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 8.3
11.01
0.76
1.47
1 14.58
1
6.7
52.8
52.78
60
58
56
v
w 0 54
co
w 52
50
48
Crowns West Cross - section 7
As -Built Year 1
Year Year3
--+- —Year 4 - -o- -- Bankfull
- -[� --
Flood prone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 8
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
I
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1 1
BH Ratio 11
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
7.3
8.93
0.81
1 1.33
11
1.1
1 13.2
51.11
51.27
60
58
_ 56
c
0 54
w
�o
w 52
50
48
Crowns West Cross - section 8
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 - -Year 3
Year 4 o Bankfull
- -o- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 9
(Year 4 Data - Collected October 2010)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
IBKFArea
BKF
I Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 23
1 13.62
1.69
4.06
1 8.04
1 1.1
1 8.5
49.83
50.07
56
54
52
0
w 50
�a
w 48
46
44
0
Crowns West Cross - section 9
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
— + — year 4 - - -e -- Bankfull
- a-- Floodprone
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Photo Point 1 - Constructed Riffle 1
Photo Point 2 - Log Weir 1
Photo Point 3 - Constructed Riffle 2
Photo Point 4 - Log Weir 2
Photo Point 5 - Log Weir 3
Photo Point 6 - Log Weir 4

Photo Point 7 - Constructed Riffle 3
Photo Point 8 - Log Weir 5
Photo Point 9 - Constructed Riffle 4
Photo Point 10 - Log Weir 6
Photo Point 11 - Constructed Riffle 5
Photo Point 12 - Constructed Riffle 6

Photo Point 13 - Constructed Riffle 7
Photo Point 14 - Constructed Riffle 8
Photo Point 15 - Constructed Riffle 9
Photo Point 16 - Constructed Riffle 10
Photo Point 17 - Constructed Riffle 11
Photo Point 18 - Constructed Riffle 12

Photo Point 19 - Constructed Riffle 12
Photo Point 20 - Constructed Riffle 13
Photo Point 21 - Constructed Riffle 13
Photo Point 23 - Constructed Riffle 13
Photo Point 22 - Constructed Riffle 13
Crest Gauge after Bankfull — 3.72 feet

Bankfull evidence noted on stream bank
Bankfull evidence noted on stream bank
February 9, 2010 February 9, 2010

LD
�1
Lj
i
q
'J
(1
U
_I
L9
Li
Table 1 Taxa list and abundance for benthic macroinvertebrates collected By Baker
Engineering Crowns West and Beaverdam Branch Onslow /Jones Counties 10 March 2010
Crowns West is a restoration site Beaverdam Branch is a reference site A= Abundant
C= Common R =Rare
Taxon
TV
Crowns W Beaverdam
EPHEMEROPTERA
Leptophlebia sp
62
R
-
Pseudocloeon frondalis
75
C
C
Pseudocloeon propinquous
58
C
R
Baetis intercalans
70
-
C
Maccaffertium modestum
55
-
A
Stenacron interpunctatum
69
-
R
TRICHOPTERA
Cheumatopsyche spp
62
A
A
COLEOPTERA
Gynnus sp
62
R
C
Dineutus sp
55
-
R
Helichus sp
46
C
Enochrus sp
88
R
ODONATA
Calopteryx sp
78
-
A
Ischnura sp
95
-
C
Pachydiplax Iongipennis
99
R
MEGALOPTERA
Nigronia serricomis
50
-
R
DIPTERA MISCELANEOUS
Tipula spp
73
-
R 1
Simulium spp
60
A
C
S ubiquitum
-
A
A
S venustrum gr
71
C
Chrysops sp
67
R
R
DIPTERA CHIRONOMIDAE
\
Microtendipes sp
55
-
R
Polypedilum aviceps
37
-
C
Polypedilum fallax
64
-
R
Rheotanytarsus sp
59
R
Conchapelopia group
84
R
C
Corynoneura sp
60
R
Eukieffenella clanpenrns gr
56
R
-
Cricotopus bicinctus
85
C
C
C patens
R
Orthocladius obumbratus gr
85
C
A
O oliven
A
-
Parametricnemus lundbecki
37
R
R

Taxon
TV
Crowns W Beaverdam
CRUSTACEA
Procambarus sp
70
R
Crangonyx sp
79
R
Gammarus fasciatus
91
-
A
Hyalella azteca
78
-
R
Caeadotea racovitzai
55
-
R
MOLLUSCA
Physella spp
88
-
C
\
OTHER
Ranatra sp (Hemiptera)
78
-
R
Summary Metncs
Total Taxa Richness
- 19
31
EPT taxa Richness
4
6
EPT Abundance
17
28
NC Biotic Index
66
62
Seasonally corrected
68
64
t'
c
1

Site 1 — Crowns West macroinvertebrate sampling
site, view is upstream (Year 3)
Site 1 — Crowns West macroinvertebrate sampling
site, view is downstream (Year 3)
Site 2 — Beaverdam Branch macroinvertebrate
sampling site, view is upstream (Year 3)
Site 2 — Beaverdam Branch macroinvertebrate
sampling site, view is downstream (Year 3)

Notes
-All sites are assumed to be too small for a rating, although the abundance of Hydropsychidae
(which require flowing water) at both sites indicated that these streams could support a more
normal lotic macroi nverteb rate community.
-The Biotic Index values for Crowns West would be in the Fair range for Coastal Plain streams >4
meters wide, while Beaverdam Br would be in the Good -Fair range. Low EPT taxa richness for
Crowns West also suggested lower water quality, esp. the absence of Maccaffertium
-The much higher taxa richness at the reference site may reflect a higher habitat diversity.

0 3/06 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
OTAL SCORE
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ
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 nght -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 deternimed by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream &111U4 0— `fir Locationhoad J i4-e — (Road Narr- Qau E "(A )County
l Date CC# Basin Me v5 e— Subbasm 63—(3q-11
I(� Observer(s)�P Type of Study ❑ Fish bi�thos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
E--J Latitude Longitude Ecoregion ®6A ❑ SWP ❑ S mdhills ❑ CB
r W-iter Quality Temperature floc DO mg/1 Conduchvity (corr) �/NµS /cm pH
Li Physical Char-icterizahon Visible land use refers to immedrite -irea that you can see from sampling location Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed Find use
Visible Land Use (66 %Forest %Residential 1/ %Active Pasture i,-''% Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Indusinal %Other Describe
' I Watershed land use ❑ Forest 2'�Gculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream 11
Width meters
( ) Stream Channel (at top of bank )_ 2y,- Stream Depth (m) AvgMax
❑ Width variable ❑Braided channel ❑Large river >25m wide
Bank Height ( from deepest part of channel to top of bank) (m)__�
Flow conditions ❑High ❑Normal 01-ow
Channel Flow Status
{ Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
UA Water reaches base of both banks, mmrmal channel substrate exposed ❑
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed [>Y
C Water fills 25 75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ❑
0 D Root mats out of water ❑
E Very little water in channel mostly present as standing pools Cl
Turbidity ❑Clear ❑ Shghtly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) ❑Green tinge
O Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Prglect9? ❑ YES ❑ NO
Details
❑Channelized ditch
❑Deeply incised steep straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
Fj ❑Excessive penphyton gro ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization ❑Y ❑Rip rap cement gabions ❑ Sediment/grade control structure ❑Berm/levee
Weather Conditions Photos ❑N ❑Y ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks _
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35

I Channel Modification
A Natural channel nunnnal dredging
B Some channelization near bridge or historic ( >20 year old) and/or bends beginning to reappear
C Extensive channehzation straight as far as can see, channelized ditch.
D Banks shored with hard structure, >80% of leach disrupted mstream habitat gone
Remarks
�J
Score U
5
0
Subtotal i
II Instream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >50% of the
reach is nags, and 1 type is present circle the score of 16 Def nation leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have gun to de211-11- not piles of leav pool areas) Mark as Rare Co 6 or Abundant
�
Sheks gs/logs Undercut banks or root mats Mlcrophytes U eafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLh FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
III Bottom Substrate (Silt clay, sand detritus gravel)
A Substrate types mixed
1 gravel dominant
2 sand dominant
3 det►itus dommant
4 silt/clay /muck dominant
B Substrate homogeneous
1 nearly all gravel
2 neatly 111 sand
3 nearly all detntus
4 nearly all silt/clay /muck
look at entire reach for substrate scoring
Score
7
4
D
'4
1
%f
Remarks Subtotal
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence
associated with pools are always slow
A Pools present
1 Pools Frequent ( >30% of 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling m)
2 Pools infrequent (<30% of the 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same S17e
B Pools absent
1 Deep water /run habitat present
2 Deep water /run habitat absent
Remarks
36 ( —
Water velocities
Score
a
8
6
4
4
0
Subtotal I f
Page Total
>50%
30 -50%
1030%
<10%
Score
Wre
Score
Score
r 4 or 5 types present.
20
15
10
5
3 types present
18
8
4
2 types present
17
12
7
3
1 type present
16
11
6
2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover
0 .�
1
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal ^
III Bottom Substrate (Silt clay, sand detritus gravel)
A Substrate types mixed
1 gravel dominant
2 sand dominant
3 det►itus dommant
4 silt/clay /muck dominant
B Substrate homogeneous
1 nearly all gravel
2 neatly 111 sand
3 nearly all detntus
4 nearly all silt/clay /muck
look at entire reach for substrate scoring
Score
7
4
D
'4
1
%f
Remarks Subtotal
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence
associated with pools are always slow
A Pools present
1 Pools Frequent ( >30% of 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filling m)
2 Pools infrequent (<30% of the 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same S17e
B Pools absent
1 Deep water /run habitat present
2 Deep water /run habitat absent
Remarks
36 ( —
Water velocities
Score
a
8
6
4
4
0
Subtotal I f
Page Total

EJ
U
Ll
L-�,
U
F�
L�
�i
V Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A Banks stable m no banks, just flood pl-un
1 little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion 10 10
B Erosion areas present
1 diverse trees shn►bs grass plants healthy with good root systems
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy
3 sparse vegetation plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 4 4
4 mostly grasses few if any trees and shrubs high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total
Remarks
VI Light Peneh ation (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)
ore
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B Stream with full canopy bieaks for light penetration absent 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shdduig are essentially equal 7
D Stream with minim it canopy - full sun in all but a few areas 2
E No canopy and no shading 0
Subtotal to
Remarks
VII Riparian Veget-itive Zone Width
Definition A bieak in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream Breaks refer to the near stream portion
of the riparian zone (banks) places where pollutants can directly enter the stream
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1 zone width > 18 meteis
2 zone width 12 -18 meters
3 zone width 6 12 meters
4 zone width < 6 meters
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a zone width > 18 meters
b zone width 12 18 meters
c zone width 6 12 meters —
d zone width < 6 meters
2 breaks common
a zone width > 18 meters
b zone width 12 -18 meters
c zone width 6 -12 meters
d zone width < 6 meters
Remarks
37
Lft Bank Rt Bank
Score
Score
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0{
Total t�
Page
7 otal.
TOTAL SCORE
rr

�, fie. 1
3/06 Revision 7 C (-cW r%s :. -1)e'5 -
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Coistal Plain Streams
OTAL SCORE
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ
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
Naw
Stre,im_CM,,p2; 14)c,1* Location/road e- (Road Name t3ca -tih )County
Date _ y ��•/ CC# Basin ni -e ,1 , ` Subbasm ( s ~ d S' Q
Observer(s)_0_0 ._P-_D Type of Study ❑ Fish 5 "en os 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion VA 0 SWP ❑ Sandhrlls 0 CB
W ,xter Quality Temperature q, DO lb 9 1 mg/l Conductivity (eorr ) -11) µS /cm pH 5 14
Physical Characterization Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location Check off whit
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
Visible Land Use Sp %Forest 10 %Residential —Z./.Active Pasture -56 % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields �� /o Commercial %Industrial _ I j5 %Other - Describe P_ es+,, g-, -r L ,.
a ,rc
Watershed land use 0 Forest Agriculture ❑Urban El Animal operations upstream
Width (meters) Stream — !_5 , Channel (at top of bank) Stre -rm Depth (m) Avg,. Max
0 Width vac cable ❑Braided ch -innel ❑Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of (.hdmel to top of bank) (m)
Flow conditions ❑High 04rmal ❑Low
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal of low flow conditions
A Water reaches base of both banks minimal channel substiate exposed
B Water fills >75% of available channel or <25% of channel substrate is exposed
C Water fills 25 -75% of available channel many logs/snags exposed
D Root mats out of water
F Very little water in channel mostly present as standing pools
Turbidity MBC ar ❑ Shghtly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) OGreen tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project'" ❑ YES ❑ NO
Details
W1 In'
❑Channelized ditch
❑Deeply incised steep straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Sewage smell
❑Excessive penphytou growth ❑Heavy filamentous algae growth
Mamnade Stabilization ❑N ERY OR
Rip cement gabions M edrment/giade control structure ❑Berm/levee
Weather Conditions Photos ON ❑Y ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
35
S--
❑

P,
In
i�
�J
IT I
J
^J
n
iJ
r-
i�
r�
I
�I
lJ
J
I Channel Modification
A Natural channel minimal dredging
B Some channelization near biidge of historic ( >20 year old) and/or bends beginning to reappear
C Extensive channelization straight as far as can see channelized ditch
D Banks shored with hard structure >80% of reach disrupted instieam habitat gone
Remain ks
L``
10
5
0
Subtotal
H Instredm Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover It >50% of the
reach is snags and 1 type is present, circle the score of 16 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have gun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare, Common, of Abundant
Sticks J., �naogs ndercut banks or root mats Macrophytes Leafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONILAIION OR COVER
III Bottom Substrate (silt clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire iach for substrate scoring
A Substrate types mixed
1 gravel dominant
2 sand dominant
3 detritus dominant
4 silt/clay /muck dominant
B Substrate homogeneous
1 nearly all gravel
2 nearly all sand
3 nearly all detritus
4 nearly all siltlelay /muck
Remarks
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence
associated with pools aie always slow
A Pools pi esent
1 Pools frequent ( >30% of 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filhnb in)
2 Pools Infiequent (40% of the 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size
B Pools absent
1 Deep water /run habitat present
2 Deep water /run habitat absent
Remarks
Mel
Score
15
ID
4
12
7
4
1
Subtotal
Water velocities
Score
8
6
4
W
Subtotal t/
Page Total 4
>50%
30-50%
1030%
<10%
Scoie
Scoie
SgLare
Scoie
4 or 5 types present
20
15
110
5
3 types present
18
13
4
2 types present
17
12
7
3
1 type present
16
11
6
2
No substi ate for benthos colonization and no fish cover
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
0 D
Subtotal
III Bottom Substrate (silt clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire iach for substrate scoring
A Substrate types mixed
1 gravel dominant
2 sand dominant
3 detritus dominant
4 silt/clay /muck dominant
B Substrate homogeneous
1 nearly all gravel
2 nearly all sand
3 nearly all detritus
4 nearly all siltlelay /muck
Remarks
IV Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence
associated with pools aie always slow
A Pools pi esent
1 Pools frequent ( >30% of 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size (indicates pools filhnb in)
2 Pools Infiequent (40% of the 100m length surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes
b pools about the same size
B Pools absent
1 Deep water /run habitat present
2 Deep water /run habitat absent
Remarks
Mel
Score
15
ID
4
12
7
4
1
Subtotal
Water velocities
Score
8
6
4
W
Subtotal t/
Page Total 4

V Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A Banks stable of no banks, ,lust flood plain
1 little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure little potential for erosion 10 10
B Erosion areas present
1 diverse trees shrubs glass plants healthy with good root systems 9 90
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs vegetation appears generally healthy 7 7
3 sparse vegetation plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 4 4
4 mostly grasses few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total
Remarks
VI Light Penewition (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)
�Scorc
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B Stream with full canopy breaks for light penetration absent 8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Stream with nunimal canopy full sun in all but a few areas
F No canopy and no shading
r Subtotal
Remarks
VIL Riparrin Veget-ihve Zone Width
Defimbon A bleak in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream Breaks refer to the near stream portion
of the riparian zone (banks) places where pollutants can directly entei the stream
37
Lft Bank Rt Bank
Score Score
A Riparian zone nit-ict (no breaks)
1 zone width > 18 meters
5 5
2 zone width 12 18 meters
® 6)
3 zone width 6 12 meters
3 3
4 zone width < 6 meters
2 2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a zone width > 18 meters
4 4
b zone width 12 18 meters
3 3
c zone width 6 12 meters
2 2
d zone width < 6 meters
1 1
2 breaks common
a zone width > 18 meters
3 3
b zone width 12 -18 meters
2 2
C lone width 6 -12 meters
1 1
d lone width < 6 meters
0 0
1 otal
Remarks
Page Total
/
TOTAL SCORE b
37