20100103 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20080527

MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE
2007 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 2)
Richmond County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. D04020-2
Design Firm: International Paper
RIECEIVED
FU'
G)?$
KCYSTEA!F
BffKA EJ6 kPR0GPAM
ao[A@WwgD
MAY 2 7 2008
DENR JVAI-ER QUAU(Y
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
February 2008
Prepared for:
Prepared by
NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 Of
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
r
Lcosysteill
/'R'tf:NAM

MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE
2007 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 2)
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
PROJECT MANAGER: MARK HUGHES
719 Southlands Road
Bainbridge, GA 39819
AND

ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
PROJECT MANAGER: DAVID JONES
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
FEBRUARY 2008
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Introduction
EXCUTIVE SUMMARY
' In response to a Request for Proposal (RFP, No. 16-D04016) issued in December of 2003, International
Paper Company (IP) proposed the establishment of the McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (hereafter
referred to as the "Site") located in Richmond County, approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town
' of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town of Rockingham. In order to provide stream channel
restoration and riverine wetland restoration, IP has removed the McDonalds Pond Dam located on Falling
Creek.
' The Site comprises approximately 128 acres, and includes the 17.7 acre McDonalds Pond (a.k.a Shepards
Lake), portions of Falling Creek, numerous headwater tributaries and over 80 acres of forested riparian
' wetlands, seepage wetlands, and marsh wetlands.
The McDonalds Pond Dam was removed in a manner to minimize potential impacts to water resources
both upstream and downstream of the dam. Gradual dewatering and phased dam removal were
undertaken to avoid introducing sediments and pollutants into the receiving Falling Creek reaches
downstream. Heavy equipment operated from or within the footprint of the former dam during dam
removal operations, thereby minimizing the impact to the adjacent intact forest and wetland soil. Dam
removal began with the dewatering (lowering) of the pond in the fall of 2005, followed by the clearing of
trees and small bushes from the former earthen dam in February 2006. Excavation activities continued
for approximately two weeks until dam removal was complete in mid-March 2006.
Monitoring Plan
Monitoring activities began in March 2006 (Year 1), and will be performed for at least five-years or until
success criteria are achieved. Post removal monitoring data will be compared to reference sites as well as
biological baseline values collected in September 2004. Primary success criteria of the project include: 1)
the successful classification of restored/enhanced reaches as functioning systems, 2) channel stability
indicative of a stable stream system, 3) development of characteristic lotic aquatic communities, 4)
establishment of wetland hydrology (as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] Wetlands
Delineation Manual) within the former pond footprint, and 5) vegetative success of 320 stems/acre after
the third year of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year of monitoring.
Year 2 Monitoring Results (2007)
Stream Assessment
Restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek have continued to establish braided, anastomosed,
bifurcated, and single-threaded channels characteristic of the area. In addition, restored and enhanced
stream segments across the Site appear to have further developed stream pattern, profile, and dimension
similar to that of reference reaches. Cross-sections located within the former pond indicate that a
majority of the deposited pond sediment has transported downstream, leaving behind a characteristic
sand-dominated streambed. In addition, stream banks have further stabilized with native vegetation.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Aquatic community assemblages within the former pond have maintained characteristics of a natural lotic
system. Fifty percent (50%) of the macroinvertebrate samples taken in October 2007 (Year 2) from
restored segments of Falling Creek (within the former pond) consisted of macroinvertebrate genera
predominantly found in lotic systems. Genera predominantly found in lentic systems represented only
four percent (4%) of species collected within the former pond during the Year 2 sample. Only two (2)
genera of the EPT (Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera [stoneflies], and Trichoptera [caddisflies]) taxa
were collected within McDonalds Pond during baseline sampling (pre dam removal, September 2004)
while there were 12 different EPT genera collected within the restored segments of Falling Creek (within
the former pond) during October 2007. Year 2 benthic data also shows an increase in the number of taxa
collected as well as a decrease in the biotic index, which indicates improved water quality.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Habitat Assessment Forms (HAFs) were completed
at multiple locations along the restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek. The HAF scores
indicate that the restored and enhanced stream segments are very similar to the reference sites with a
slightly lower score primarily due to the lack of canopy trees within the former pond, which results in less
stream shading and allochthonous input for in-stream habitat.
Wetland Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation monitoring for Year 2 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Levels
1 and 2 at eight (8) 10 x 10 meter plots. Based on Year 2 monitoring, the average count of surviving
planted species is 587 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total survival increases to
1781 stems per acre. The Site is on track to exceed the established success criteria of 320 stems/acre after
the third year and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year.
Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Even though extreme drought conditions occurred in the area, all four (4) on-Site groundwater gauges
have registered water levels within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 28 consecutive days
(Richmond County, NRCS) or 12.5 percent (12.5%) of the growing season. Therefore, wetland
hydrology at the Site is meeting the required success criteria.
Summary
After the second year of monitoring, restored streams and lotic conditions have continued to develop
within the former pond. Streams have migrated more toward that of reference systems, with
characteristic pattern, profile, and dimension, as well as a continued improvement in aquatic community
species composition and diversity. Cross section surveys reveal characteristics of an E-channel with
some areas of braiding consistent with a DA-channel. Groundwater gauge data within the former pond
closely resembles that of the upstream reference gauge and restored wetland hydrology within the former
pond has supported the establishment of a Streamhead Pocosin/Atlantic White Cedar forest community.
Stream (physical and biological), wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology success criteria were met in
Year 2 monitoring.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXCUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... ..1
1.1 Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... ..1
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................................................................ ..1
1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. .. l
1.4 Project History and Background ......................................................................................... 3
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ........................................................... 5
2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................. 5
2. 1.1 Stream Channel Morphology ................................................................................ .. 5
2.1.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................. 13
2.2 Wetland Assessment ......................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Groundwater Hydrology ....................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................................ 15
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 16
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: Figures
' 1. Site Location
2. Stream Monitoring Plan View
3. Stream Monitoring Reach Plan Views
' 4. Vegetation Monitoring Plots
5. Monitoring Gauges
Appendix B: Stream Geomorphology Data
' Appendix C: Aquatic Community Data
Appendix D: NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet: Coastal Plain
' Appendix E: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix F: Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs
' EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation Units .................................................................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .................................................................................... .. 3
Table 3. Project Contacts ........................................................................................................................ .. 3
Table 4. Project Background ................................................................................................................... ..4
Table 5. Baseline Morphology and Hydrologic Summary ..................................................................... .. 7
Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ................................................................... .. 8
Table 6a. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Cont.) ....................................................... ..9
Table 6b. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Cont.) ....................................................... 10
Table 7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metric Summary ........................................................................... 12
Table 8. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores .............................................................................. 13
Table 9. Stem Counts for Planted Species Arranged by Plot .................................................................. 14
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot .............................................................. 14
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot (Cont.) .................................................. 15
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment ..........................................................................................•.......... 15
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
iv

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
' The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently developing stream and wetland
restoration strategies for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040201. As a part of this
effort, International Paper (IP) was selected to complete the McDonalds Pond Restoration Project located
' in Richmond County. The McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (`hereafter referred to as the "Site") is
located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town
of Rockingham between NC Route 1 and NC Route 177 (Figure 1, Appendix A).
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives
Falling Creek, the major drainage feature on-Site, was previously impounded by the McDonalds Pond
' Dam, constructed over 70 years ago. Approximately 3,700 linear feet of Falling Creek and tributaries
were impacted by the construction of the pond dam including streams contained within the pond footprint,
as well as stream sections located both up and downstream of the pond. In addition, approximately 17.7
' acres of riverine wetland were inundated with the construction of the dam. Approximately 4.2 acres of
the floodplain immediately upstream of the pond were impacted by the "backwater effect" (the backing-
up of water), creating marsh wetlands with saturated conditions unsuitable for historic wetland
' communities. An eroded pond outfall channel located at the northern extent of the dam drained adjacent
wetlands and redirected historic flows of the Falling Creek floodplain.
' Stream restoration efforts were achieved through the removal of the McDonalds Pond Dam resulting in
the restoration of 2,969 linear feet of stream. The former dam was excavated to the approximate level of
the pre-existing valley contours, allowing the stream unrestricted flow through the Site. Stream
' restoration efforts were designed to utilize passive stream channel restoration processes, allowing the
channel to reestablish naturally following the removal of the dam. Stream enhancement (Level I) was
achieved through the removal of the dam and the filling of the northern outfall channel, which returned
the historic hydrologic characteristics (stream volume and velocity) to 770 feet of impacted stream
channel downstream of the former dam. Riverine wetland restoration was accomplished within the
former 17.7 acre pond footprint through the excavation of the McDonalds Pond Dam and the
establishment of native Streamhead Pocosin and Atlantic White Cedar forest communities. Additionally,
the Site includes the preservation of 5,800 linear feet of stream, 77.8 acres of wetland, and 25.6 acres of
upland/wetland ecotone buffer.
' 1.3 Project Objectives
The primary project goals include 1) the restoration of a stable, meandering stream channel through the
' areas impacted by the McDonalds Pond Dam, 2) the restoration of historic lotic aquatic communities that
represent the Site's natural range in variation, 3) the restoration of historic wetland conditions within the
pond footprint, and 4) the restoration of natural wetland plant communities within their historic locations.
' Additional potential benefits of the project include the restoration of wildlife functions associated with a
riparian corridor and stable stream and the enhancement of water quality function in the on-Site,
upstream, and downstream segments of Falling Creek and tributaries.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
The specific goals of this project are to:
• Restore approximately 2,969 linear feet of historic stream course, flow volumes, and patterns
through the marsh wetlands, McDonalds Pond footprint, and immediately downstream of the
existing dam.
• Enhance an additional approximate 770 linear feet of Falling Creek downstream of the restored
stream channel extending into the gas line easement.
• Protect the headwaters of Falling Creek that are located within the Site through preservation of
approximately 5,800 linear feet of Falling Creek and associated tributaries.
• Restore approximately 17.7 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the McDonalds Pond
footprint.
• Enhance 4.2 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the marsh wetlands located at the head of
McDonalds Pond.
• Preserve 77.8 acres of forested riverine wetlands adjacent to Falling Creek and associated
tributaries.
• Restore and enhance habitat for vegetation and wildlife species, characteristic of Streamhead
Pocosin and Atlantic White Cedar Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
• Enhance the function and value of the Falling Creek wetland community through the preservation
of 25.6 acres of buffer along the Falling Creek stream/wetland complex.
Table 1. Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation Units

Restoration Activities Linear
feet
Acres Mitigation
Ratios Percentage
of Mitigation
Units Mitigation
Units
Stream Restoration 1,784 N/A 1:1 1,784
Stream Restoration
(undefined channel) 1,185 N/A 1:1 75 1,185
Stream Enhancement (Level I) 770 N/A 1:1.5 513
Stream Preservation 5,800 N/A 1:5 25 1,160
Total Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) Provided 4,642
Total SMUs Under Contract 4,364
Wetlands Restoration N/A 17.7 1:1 75 17.7
Wetland Enhancement N/A 4.2 1:2 2.1
Wetlands Preservation N/A 19 1:5 25 3.8
Total Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) Provided 23.6
Total WMUs Under Contract 23.4
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.4 Project History and Background
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History

Activity Report Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan *NA July 2005 August 2005
Final Design (90%) *NA July 2005 August 2005
Construction *NA N/A March 2006
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area *NA N/A March 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation *NA N/A March 2006
Mitigation Plan *NA June 2006 Jul 2006
Final Report *NA Oct 2006 Oct 2006
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year 1 Stream Monitoring Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2007 Oct 2007 February 2008
Year 2 Stream Monitoring Dec 2007 Oct 2007 Februagr 2008
*NA - Scheduled completion dates unknown due to unanticipated project delays.
Table 3. Project Contacts
Designer 719 Southlands Road
International Paper Bainbridge, GA 39819
[phone]
Construction Contractor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
[phone]
Planting Contractor PO BOX 789
Garcia Forest Service, Inc. Rockingham, NC 28379
[phone]
Seeding Contactor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers 6726 Highway 169
International Paper Bellville, GA 30414
[phone]
Route 1, Box 1097: County Road #3
Shellman, GA 39886
[phone]
EEP Project No. D04020-2
3
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Table 3. Project Contacts (Cont.)
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper 5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
726 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, NC 27530
[phone]
Monitoring Performers 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
EcoScience Corporation Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Stream Monitoring POC David Jones
Vegetation Monitoring POC David Jones
Table 4. Project Background
Project County Richmond
Drainage Area 2.5 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <5 percent
Stream Order 3rd order
Physio a hic Region Southeastern Plains
Ecore ion (Griffith and Omernik) Sandhills
Ros en Classification of As-built DA5/E5
Cowardin Classification Stream (R2UB2)
Dominant soil types Johnston (JmA)
Ailey AcB, AcC
Candor-Wakulla Complex (CaC, WcB)
Reference Site ID Falling Creek
USGS RUC for Project and Reference 03040201
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-07-16
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WSIII
An portion of any roject segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Aquatic weeds
Percent of project easement fenced NA
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
The monitoring results described herein document the Year-2 (2007) monitoring activities. Stream
monitoring activities continued at two (2) stream reaches that were established in April 2006. Each
monitoring reach is approximately 150 feet in length and is comprised of one (1) stream cross-section
where stream profile and dimension are monitored. Another 575 feet of stream channel profile and eight
(8) cross-sections were added to the Site monitoring activities in October 2006 (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Wetland vegetation monitoring activities were conducted in August 2007 and consist of an inventory of
planted and volunteer species within eight (8) plots located throughout the former pond
(Figure 4, Appendix A). Wetland hydrology monitoring activities include groundwater gauge monitoring
conducted throughout the growing season (March 27 - November 5) (NRCS 1999) at four (4) gauges
located within the former pond (Figure 5, Appendix A).
2.1 Stream Assessment
2.1.1 Stream Channel Morphology
' Stream channel cross-sectional surveys were performed at all ten (10) on-Site monitoring locations in
October 2007 (Figure 2, Appendix 2). Bankfull channel geometry for surveyed cross-sections are
presented in Tables 5, 6, 6a, and 6b. Cross-section parameters were not generated for XS2, XS7, or XS8
' where stream braiding has developed multiple active channels. Stream pattern parameters including
channel beltwidth, radius of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio were not generated
this year, and will be re-evaluated during Year-3 monitoring. Cross-section parameters for As-built
' reference reaches and Year-1 monitoring have been updated to a higher level accuracy attained by
computer aided design (CAD), and allows for comparable metrics in subsequent monitoring years. Cross-
section plots are represented in Figures B 1-B 10 in Appendix B.
' In general, bankfull channel parameters were largely unchanged compared to conditions assessed during
Year 1 monitoring. Scouring and transportation of bank and bed material was detected at some
monitoring cross-sections where restored channels continue to migrate towards reference conditions.
Subsidence of surface soils has continued in some locations within the former pond, due in part to the
evaporation of exposed organic material and the continued shrink/swell of formerly inundated soils. Soil
' subsidence will likely diminish as herbaceous and woody vegetation further stabilize the soil and provide
shading to the developing forest floor.
' Stream longitudinal profile was surveyed for approximately 900 feet within the restored channel,
including the section of stream between on-Site Reach 3 and on-Site Reach 2 (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Longitudinal profile data for this portion of the stream is plotted along with Year 1 conditions in Figure
' B-11, Appendix B. A typical riffle/pool sequence is currently absent from this portion of the stream. The
Site's natural low gradient and the large amount of coarse woody debris present within the channel has
produced numerous depositional features (traverse and diagonal bars) scattered among scour pools of
' varying sizes. As a result, longitudinal profile parameters were not generated for the stream due to the
complexity and irregularity of the channel bed.
The stream channel substrate is naturally comprised of more than 90 percent (90%) sand throughout the
Site. As a result, substrate sampling was not conducted at the cross-sections and is not included with the
summarized cross-sectional parameters in Tables 5-6b.
' EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
5
1
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

b M O OO O ,r,
M
N
O o
~ ?
M C)
N d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z

^ N O N N 3F ik dt iE it it Q d -- O O ? iF
d iF
d
pq ?r d d d d d ? d ? ? 6 o6 c ` d d d d d d z z ? O O W z z
? ?. ^' /-, z z z z z z z z z N -- ? N z z z z
z
z
O
O
? M

O N
E
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
a
00
--
?
n
'?
d
d
d
d
d
d
/-. -• z z z z z z
N ?+ 73

' rn

[? o "o o

,-. In

^. In

00

D1 00

O
°
?
°?`
'
?
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
N N .-• d

?
GQ N
?+
a?
x
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
?
d
?
`0
en
O
o
*

d
*

d

d

d
*

d
+

d
d
d
--
O
o
O
o
V,

W
*
d

d
'In y z z z z z z z z z N
N C
N O
V z z z z z z z z '" O O z z

00
3F
iF
df
iF
iF
iF
f. O C d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z d
z M
^ M
O ,,.. o
?

FJI M z z z z z z
i
(/? ? .-: O O Cl O N O1 00 O 00 it it # if M i!
V N r
r
/-. O D\ .-. N O M O D (V "' z z z z z
z
.
i
e b o w
d d d d d d d d d 0 ° W d d

y
cd
N
-E
r
?/-.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
00
•--
?
N
v
V
N
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
z
z
O
o
O
z
z
/

?r d d d d d d d d d `O. N '^. n d d d d d d

cy
w
?
/
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z z
z
z

C b
O O O
° M ^, 7 O
o O o -. '. o\
o r it
d it
d it
d it
d it
d at
d
J? a> M ? o
M h N
N -
N o
h z z z z
z
z
a ? w
~

U
U
N
M
00
00 * w * * * * d d M o0 0o n

W d
d
Q L+ N r z z z z z z z z z M 0?0 N z z z z z z z z ~ O O z z

N c d d d d d d d d d d
?' z z z z z z z z z o z z z z z z
o -' M d a ?! d d ? d : Q d d d ? d
-- q `6- -; z ? M z z z z z z z z z z z z
l
[-? U 4
x
M o
o
-
m
d
o
d
d
d
d
d <-
d
d
d
d
d
Q
T r " ? z Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
O FL-

111 C) d 00 ?* d < d d d d d d d d d d
? O? O O? '. z O` N z z z z z z z z z z z z
Q.. 4"r Cr' ?-. • O Q-+ Q-. Q-. -S
t • 2 Qr' 0'.r G'r . G ?
O

'?

cd

i

•1'

Pi

A'i

F.

a?

rn

o

.C

N

r ic

C

a? t

,

.

N
r-L

J..

f

L

w

1..

J..
N
O

7

U
'O
.

y

3

3

? I=L

Q M
r-L A
1) 'C is >

b Q

?

? Q U a? q p

? C

? ai

o a> w Y

o
G Cua (?O
A a? ? ? O a b b E
'? a a of) o
cn
O o a? c6
? ? w •° al U ? r, ? w
? o o
° ? _°: c cOi k. U x ?
o ' u x ,73 ° ' N vG p" a , >
N 3 x

a w
a U a y x
U w C

E ? o .a v
A A; ?, ri d

b
40
0
i
N
O
O
N
C
O
p.
b
C
O
Q

N
0
N
O
0
Q
O
z
.o
a
W
W

M
X

N 00 O M l- N
OO 0 'O o -? ,__, X 00 0 z z
0

7 0
5
N
kr)
O
M
¢
¢
00 5 4 6 z z

on ?C
o
?

? M
O
h r

u o
U
N
iF
M
iF
iF
iF
iF
iF
iF
it
#
z z z z z z z z z z z
^C

x ¢ ¢ d d d d d d d d d
b z z z z z z z z z z z
a

o
0
0

a

O
x

O ?
? U

F
O
U N W D\ 00 00 Q, -:
" j O cr O O N M O z z
? d d
C CO 4 0 6 oo
N en
M c
-- z z

w ?
b b 0 C C .?.+ q O b O
b V
b
A ?

0
C b

? ? w kMM"
W
? ?
? o
YV N N
1
r/1 w 3 x
a?
?
c w
N
o

a
ca J
b
0

N
O

O
N_
k
0

C
F T I
b
C
0
0

o ?

0 b
00

O
N
?

O

z z z z z z z z
O
C)
x

?
*

d

d

d

d

¢

¢

¢

¢

d
?

d
?

.-;
?
o
?
o °

h
n

¢

d
p z z z z z z z z z z '" o
o o
c d z z
A

z z z z z z z z
b O 'R O

M
z
z
z
z
O
O
?..i X M D\ N * * itr 9t Q Q .-- O O C it
/-. N N In N z z z z z z 0 0 z ?-.
Q

00 °` ?' z z z z

'b N .? O 'v d O O tC7 ,O
? VI V]

pC1 O
U
` ? O 4„
w
c VI
° ?
0.
?R
g
w ""
U cd
x cE
a
i N w A. a a - 0
ld
g N r. m .
it = 'b O U ? °

?+
u U ce
Ri
? y
cd

c
L
?
o ?

c? a
i

b
0
w
a
0

c
0
0
i
A'
b
0
O
P.
N
C
°
A
U

N
O
N
O
O
A
O
U
'o
a
W
w
0

C

JC
O

U
?
M

O
U ,N+ N 0 4\ ? N M O? O M it it
'c+
!-+ ?O 'p O N kn N N O z z
O? ?p D\ O N d Q
,.0 5 M O --i 00 O z z

O

C
O
?
i
06 n o o
a

O, 0
O M N DO

b
cis
V
O
A

v?
a
o ?
? o
0
C? N M

?.y U ?jNy? 00
O
O O
? 00
V' 00 'n
?
Q
fc.? ? O
O l? M O? I? 01 N M iF #
N O ?p O O ? ? N O z z

c0 ctl
b b
3
? O O .i, "?, v b O
b ?
o
A A a
0 as

o Cl)
a
°g
3
w
;,
b

0
U

ED
w C4

O

U M

O
U
N
9F
%
#
iF
iF
dt
iF
ik
it
31
iF
z z z z z z z z z z z
? z z z z z z z z z z z

?
o
U

O

U
N N W) - ° M N ° z z
O
Vl
O
W,
O
V'1
?zy ° Oo O N N N '^ O z z

M

0

U

U
on M

U
a ° N N ° z z
M O 00 O [?
? iF iF
? M

O
N N 0
c -°Oo

? ? ? a 3 W ? b
?
0

c? ? w

a a

O
w
C
b
2
iA
0
0
C
O
a
b
O
O
A

a,
N
O
N
O
O
A
z
U
0
a
w
w

v?

N

•.i
V

L n
C
?
?
+
q

L1
..r

NN

"

CC
3r

x

b ?

0
a ?

U
U M

CC
F+ (, N
? dl
¢ dt
¢ iF
d iF
d it
d ik
d dt
¢ *
¢ t
¢ 3t
d it
¢
? z z z z z z z z z z z

:? z z z z z z z z z z z
° °

b b
w
N
N
cJ
d
?
v O
00
b

o n w ? ? c ?
?• ° ?
N ? W a x
0

,
P A ci

0

0
a?

a

0 '
a

o
A
,
O ,
1
1
N
r O
,
•? N

'd
O '
o
A
w
°
X
y z

E o
c 0.

w

2.1.2 Aquatic Communities
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled within Falling Creek during Year 2 monitoring in October
2007. Aquatic community data, located in Appendix C, are based on laboratory identifications of benthic
macroinvertebrate taxa by Pennington and Associates, Inc., a NCDWQ-certified lab.
Aquatic community assemblages within the former pond continue to develop characteristics associated
' with a Lotic system. Fifty percent (50%) of the macroinvertebrate samples collected during Year 2
monitoring from restored segments of Falling Creek (within the former pond) consisted of
macroinvertebrate genera predominantly found in lotic systems. Compared to Year 1 monitoring, genera
' found in both lotic and lentic systems (with a preference for lotic) increased by 8 percent (8%) within
Falling Creek. Genera predominantly found in lentic systems made up only 4 percent (4%) of taxa
collected from Falling Creek.
Graph 1. Baseline, Year 1, and Year 2 comparisons between collected benthic macroinvertebrates
and their habitat preferences (Source: Merritt and Cummins 1984).
Lotic (27%)
l? Lotic & Lcntic (9%)
o Lcntic & Lotic (27%)
t Lcntic (36't,l
Lotic (50%)
[ Lotic & Lcntic (21 %)
o Lcntic & Lotic (25%)
Lentic (4%)
Lotic (52%)
Lotic & Lcntic (13%)
r---J Lcntic & Lotic (31%)
Unknown (4%)
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
ll
Baseline Habitat Preferences
Year 1 Habitat Preferences
Year 2 Habitat Preferences
In addition to benthic macroinvertebrate habitat preference comparisons, other comparative metrics
including the total number of organisms collected, the total taxa represented in the collection, the richness
(diversity) of EPT taxa, and the biotic index can be used to evaluate aquatic habitat restoration. Table 7
summarizes the mean values for all these metrics from benthic macro invertebrates collected within
Falling Creek during baseline, Year 1, and Year 2 sampling.
Table 7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metric Summary
Monitoring Year Total Organisms Total Taxa EPT Richness Biotic Index
Baseline (2005) 32 15 2 7.42
Year 1 (2006) 209 35 16 5.33
Year 2 (2007) 187 38 12 4.95
As seen in Table 7, all comparative metrics quantitatively improved following dam removal. In the
current monitoring year, species diversity increased, with the presence of three new taxa that were not
previously collected. Additionally, the decrease in biotic index values indicates the progression of a
benthic community less tolerant of poor water quality. The biotic index is derived from North Carolina
Tolerance Values that are assigned to each collected species. These Tolerance Values range from 0 for
organisms intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes. Since dam
removal, the decreasing biotic index values are indicative of improved water quality within Falling Creek.
Exceptional drought conditions (highest ranking drought classification) within the Falling Creek
watershed during benthic sampling (October 1-5) may have altered benthic community composition and
abundance. The following diagram (NCDMAC 2007) shows the drought conditions on October 2, 2007
for North Carolina. The Falling Creek watershed and McDonalds Pond Restoration Site are within the
Exceptional Drought (D4) classification.
Drought Classifications
DO - Abnormally Dry
D1 - hloderate Drought
D2 -Severe Drought
D3 - Extreme Drought
D4 - Exceptional Drought
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site '
12

2.1.3 Habitat Assessment
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Habitat Assessment Forms (HAFs) were completed
at each cross-section location across the Site (Appendix D). Nearly all the HAF scores increased during
' Year 2 monitoring demonstrating an increased availability and quality of aquatic habitat. This
improvement is largely due to the favorable prevalence of in stream habitat including sticks, snags, logs,
leafpacks, and macrophytic vegetation. Limitations to habitat scores result from the lack of canopy trees
within the former pond that would otherwise provide stream shading and allochthonous input for in-
stream habitat. These scores will likely increase as the developing forest community begins to provide
shading and plant material to the establishing stream systems. The HAF scores are summarized in
t Table 8.

i

Table 8. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores
Score
Cross-section
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
XSR1 (Reference) 98 98
XSR4 (Reference) 97 97
XS 1 78 95
XS2 80 80
XS3 84 98
XS4 63 66
XSR2 88 93
XS5 69 80
XSR3 85 90
XS6 65 71
XS7 74 76
XS8 86 90
' In addition, stream habitat characterizations including habitat composition and percentage representation
were completed using plan-view drawings derived from total station surveys of the stream monitoring
reaches (Figure 3, Appendix A). Drawings were updated in the field through visual observation and
' habitat composition (e.g., adjacent streambank trees, root mats/balls, stumps, coarse woody debris, leaf
packs, undercut banks, etc.) was transcribed onto each drawing by hand. Drawings were digitized using
GIS technology to determine rough estimates of habitat type percent representation. As stated in the
' Year 1 monitoring report, a relationship between the relative abundance of the genera Hydropsyche
(Order - Trichoptera; Family - Hydropsychidae) and Pseudocloeon (Order - Ephemeroptera; Family -
Baetidae) and the relative prevalence of macrophytic vegetation within the channel was speculated based
' on Year 1 macroinvertebrate and stream habitat characterizations. This relationship was not observed
during the Year 2 monitoring activities. However, an increase in the number of predators, shredders, and
shredder/collectors and a decrease in the number of collector/gatherers and filter/collectors may indicate a
' slight shift in early successional aquatic communities to that of a more stable climax aquatic community.

EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
13

2.2 Wetland Assessment
2.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Eight (8) 10 x 10 meter plots were sampled in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey Protocol.
Planted stems (woody) were marked with flagging and the species, height, diameter, vigor and coordinate
location within each plot was recorded. Volunteer species where noted and placed into height classes.
The Site is currently meeting the established success criteria for vegetation based on the survival of the
planted species with an average density of 587 trees per acre. Including volunteer species raises the
vegetation survival within the Site to 1,781 trees per acre. An inventory of planted stems is given in
Table 9 and plots are mapped in Figure 4 (Appendix A). A tally of volunteer woody species is listed in
Table 9a. A mis-numbering of vegetation plots occurred in the Year 1 monitoring report and has been
corrected. Year 1 and Year 2 photographs are provided for comparison in Appendix E.
Table 9. Stem Counts for Planted Species Arranged by Plot

Species Plots Initial Year 1 Year 2 Survival
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals Totals Totals /o
Trees
Chamaecyparis thyoides 4 4 2 2 2 7 7 3 32 31 31 97
Liriodendron tulipifera 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 6 6 3 50
Magnolia virginiana 0 6 3 0 0 1 1 0 10 10 11 110
Nyssa Mora 4 5 3 6 0 2 6 2 29 29 28 97
Persea borbonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 100
Pinus serotina 4 3 4 1 8 2 3 5 32 32 30 94
Pinus taeda 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 6 12 12 12 100
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot

Species Plots Year
1 Year
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals Totals
Trees
Acer rubrum 1 3 3 2 0 0 0 7 12 16
Betula nigra 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Chamaecyparis thyoides 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
Cyrilla racemifllora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Liquidambar stryaciua 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Liriodendron tulipifera 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 7
Magnolia virginiana 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
Nyssa Mora 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Pinus serotina 7 24 81 5 1 39 1 7 105 168
Pinus taeda 0 0 14 1 1 12 1 7 0 29
Salix nigra -0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 1
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
14
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot (Cont.)

Species Plots Year
1 Year
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals Totals
Shrubs
Clethra alnifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Baccharis halimifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Kalmia angustifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Vaccinium corymbosum 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
' 2.2.2 Groundwater Hydrology
All four (4) groundwater gauges located on-Site are currently meeting the wetland hydrologic success
' criteria. Groundwater levels were recorded within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for
approximately 95 consecutive days corresponding to approximately 42 percent (42%) of the growing
season [March 27 b - November 5 h] in Richmond County (NRCS 1999). Groundwater gauge locations
are depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix A). Groundwater gauge hydrographs are plotted on Figure F-1 (2006)
and Figure F-2 (2007) (Appendix F).

n

2.2.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment
GaugeID Gauge Hydrology
Threshold Met? Vegetation
Plot ID Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
1 Y
Gauge l Y 2 Y
3 Y
Gauge2 Y
4
Y
5 Y
Gauge3 Y 6 Y
7 Y
Gauge4 Y
8
Y
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
15
REFERENCES
Harod, J.J. 1964. The Distribution of Invertebrates on Submerged Aquatic Plants in a Chalk Stream.
Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 33, No. 2. (June 1964), pp. 335-348.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America.
Kendall-Hunt Publ.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1999. Soil Survey of Richmond County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council (NCDMAC). 2007. Statewide Drought
Conditions Archive (online). Retrieved November 2007 from: www.ncdrought.org.
Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO.
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, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site '
16
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
A

This Page Left Blank Intentionally
f {' fi`r ,f •'? r V ?? .. . • `{\I u { ?X f?/r
, N
.,..r,a •,.?, ,.. C,, ?,/ ?'. CONSERVATION
CEASMENT
? LAT 34.924 -
?%---
LONG 79.682
Fes' ?' 3"?k
?Y1i, r Lrt?t0 n. t ?' ? ?i ? ? •? _ ? h, ? ? ?
` Lli y ?? 11??r'? G'oYttt7[y/_J.
;; ZP
fqD
q O
t ?: l
z
COUNTY
?,.'?...ROA `I 2,000 0 2.000
r°, t..?I+ n`, FEET
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
(CU 03040201)
R I H?M O N
•
Its ]Me1 u? -
?'}^?. I ilfl l?Bf
° ? fi.,
m
INTERNATIONAL PAPER

DWN By
FIGURE
DGJ
SITE LOCATION crcoe.

M
DONALDS POND RES
O
A JWG
EcoScience

Corporation
?• Ste111
C
R
T
TION SITE
EEP Project No. D04020-2
DATE.
FEB 2008
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA E,C PIIIL.
o7-330.00
N 00 O O
0: I O O O
W O >- Q O LO O
N d z N Z N
c/) 0 U O a z m
-J LLJ
z 00 LL
CD LU
LU Of
m F- -i (D (.D N
O z zo zO 0 U Z u
Q, F- oS HZ0-> o
A, U) X: ?-- Wo
Y
W U ro W ix d U E } 10
a z w m m
z W Of 11
I o w
U, II ? z
z z U F- z
O ? Q ZO z0 w O
0 z JJ Q Q Q U >
O L Q O O= Z Of
c/) = w r- F-- a vwi
w z ck? N (n = w
Of w a_ w w o z ck?
O Of C)f Z w a-
z o 0 0
LU z z z :2 :?i :2 :2 :?i
O a a a a a w a a a
w w o w w w
uJ
ch?
J w w w ::D cao?
3 3: cn M - cn cn cn
u , IJ \\
ROAD _ - -?? - cy- w II
// \\ U I I
// \\ Q I
// II cn ? II
x 11
0
to
oil
// 11 II

/ // I
/ I
I

z
0

CIE ?

i o
z // I
/ I
.
QW
I

M w Cn
i
Q I
?? z w
U O

?i? M W ?/ f I
I
Ln
In
x
N
S
U /?o
Q
N
? II
x 11
11
/
X u
\\ // N
\\ // V)
\\ // x
//
y
J
In
X
L?
w
ry
S
U
Q
w
rz

x

/

I.A
0 /

x

p cn
x
c"

x
O

U =
X /
z O
W

/ W Z-1 Q:?
O

/ J
w
0
W
z a_
Q n
cn

LLJ
z
U

// W O

a w
~
(-D
1 ck? Z
O
a_
I cf) J
> II M

x
x

u II
II
II
_ I
I
x II _ _

I
I
I I
II //
11
I

II
I
I I
II

I
I I w
I I
I o
O

CIE II II

O
O
?1 £B OtlN O
in
N 00 Z °
O O
W N Q ° O O c"I
O z m (n ?
V ' d r f N Z Z
o N ^?,y .. = 0 O o f Z w
-++~-+-+ o JOH OUP QZcn L` a G ° w
? S W
U
a? N a a _ M
o z' z0 F- Z zv ?HWJ W
i o f a 0a'NN d F? NZ?IL o 3: LL
U ,,? 2 O
W o Z F y r
U GW I.L d O
H CL Z m d
Z W W ? m U
U w F 3 N
O

a

M
_0
U
Q
w?
ry?
ry
0
?J.
0 0
?. a
f N ?o
/ X o
o
J
N
= o
U
Q=
w
LLJ
w
r
0
S
Q
w
U cl?
Q
W
cy
E
L?
W
W
U
S
U
Q
w

w
w
O
0-
(D
O
O
O
co
C/7
x
z
0

a
U
0 0
z
W

cD z
0
w
J U

C7 w
cn
z

O o 0 0
H cl- O
_ U clw?
z \
O :2 --
<
w
Qw? w
F-- O
U V?
O
O

LL-
w
0
I I
U
Q
W
c'
? z
Z Z 0 z
Q O 0 W W 0
Q w > F-- Z Q
O Q n Z w
n S w u Q cn
w Z oo? (n N S w
ch? w CI- w w 0 Z
0 ao? Qf w w S
Z o 0 o z
LLI Z Z Z :2 ::E w :2 _2 :2
(D a a a a a w a a a
w - w w o w w w
J w w w z
C/-) V) N v cn
N
S
U
Q
W
ry

J
z
O?
F- Z
Qw
>g
Xw
W N
cn Q
Z UJ
O
t? Ut
S \
U
Q
Li
r
J
m rr C8 4VN
j
X"
x
e X\
i
04
???f8 4VN

300 0 300
mm" FEET

EcoScience C?iENt: owv ev.
DGJ FIGURE
CoMoraatiotion
Corpo ? VEGETATION MONITORING PLOTS
M
DONALDS POND RES
OR `n° B"
Jwc

-_nslelil c
ATION SITE
T
EEP Project No. D04020-2 DATE
FEB 2008
INTERNATIONAL ®PAPER RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ESC PRO.ICL t.
07-330.00
C/E
°a
z

\
m \\

11 ?`
11
11
\\ m
09\\
MONITORING LEGEND
* GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGE (GW)
STREAM CREST GAUGE (CG)
A RAIN GAUGE (RG)
11
11
11
I1
11
11
11
BROAD
IIL
CONSERVATION 11 =
EASEMENT 11°
Ilz
11
II
11
Ilo
1 0
1
11
C/E--11
RRG2
I 500 0 500 \\ `C/? ??1 I
FEET
Cuervr: Dwrv By
FIGURE
EcoScience
Corporation ?.-- MONITORING GAUGES
DONALDS P
M DGJ
CKD By
Jwc
?n}
L nS?Sle111 C
OND RESTORATION SITE
EEP Project No
D04020-2 DATE
FEB 2008
INTERNATIONAL ®PAPER .
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA EscPN°'L0
07-330.00

Xr,wi CG1 ???

1

APPENDIX B: STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
' EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
B
U O
U Z
V O
V1 O z ai
4 4u
1 1
a Z
IL 0
d N Z Z zz O J
0 I--
VN o 0 UO
ll?
ZZex H ?N oa Nd
a v N O N V)
z W W 0 =O OX
i o Q' `W Z °- U
U a
?...
I? tD
00
00
N N Z
H
_O O_ ?
H H W
<< J
> > W
W W
J J J
W W )
W W L?
0 0 Y
Q Q Z
of af Q
0 U m
1 1
1 1
1 1 `
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
O
co
W
U
Z O Q CD
F-
_/)
J
Q O
Z -zj-
O
_N
E
O
O
N
r ?J N O
O O O O O ? M r- QO
v) r7 T) L?
('1J) NOUVA33 3
c
a?

0
O
O
N
T
N
- C N
F C C
U ? p (n
O U) X
Q)
N
t

0 E
0 °

T

T U

? C
O

> > O

7 7 U O
(n N L? J
¢ °o o
N O
M
M
m Z
y o
W
a Z V)

U) O
c O
u, O
N
? II
a
N0
O

°'C C
rno + O
o >
.S.0 c- ? N
•C °
O N
N O C C
0'a
4E N Q
U O C

N
°
N
N O
N
0
N -
rn )
I
N C U 0
? °
E
rn Y
C O

!n N
x
o E
U I
N O ' =
° U

(n U u)
d >
- N 0
' O N
H

O Q O
D
W?
Z N t7
-1 00 LU o
c z j5 oo a o
0 N N n
U p.? d N p ZN zZ 0WN m m Z LL'
C ?' I oo U?J ? °
4 z O a°a?l, m0 UQ waZ o o r? N
Ar? ZO??~ Op oU DMZ a o =
U 00 z ? z
., W
O O N N
U O i W W a0 ?o Ofnu m m
r l Q' Lal Z X a
-6 -a 0
W U 112 W F V o v v) v)
a
0
I?
N
0
X
c
E
U
O
N
O
(n

O
O
N
-

I

!fi t

O -
W N
U
Q y i
cn

Q O --
z 00
O
N
O -

z ? f
?

O -- w _.

N y?
+
O .
i
r)
O N
O
O O
O
C. DO
O O-)
r c0
m O-)
( '1?) N OUVA3-1 -?
? CD
00
00
N N
Z Z
00
Q Q
W W
J J
W W
W W
? D
Q Q
C7 C?
I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 i
I 1
1
I 1

? w
O
c
O N
N O r- O
U)
II 0
o _
0

°- c

o
a? N

T
vi
>
'?
H C N

?O _
O 2 S
? N
O (n X

UO V
' C O U ? N
o O *
V) a
o
E ?
N a? v
Q
o c V)
0 °)
N

?N
0 E
V)
V)) 3. tiE oc O C c
00
? v) oo +• X- T T ,?
++
U to ?
O CL C)
c N
` (D
i
_0

H
N
U o N
W
n
n U
J
Q ( ( LL
O
Z N

r
J OD W O
:1 -1 q
C Q
~ O
Z O
(V L) U a N Z Z z Z 0 W m
U OA d p O N ?J ?-- m L, LLI o
z
QrVt .+ Z QZQW ?N UQ N?= o o w ?'?
;--o p z
F- C o U =
cn O z 0 pCL d t o= NM a ? W
I O ? Q v y O :2 NN
U O z W W 0 =O O
w?a W ? a ??z ?x m m
Z v a` W V o v
lEn Q w
n O
o
a, O

(n _

0
N c
O

m c c
131
2 ++ p
o >
c ? .
C: ) -2
V
p U 'E O
O U L N
w N p c c
V) 0- O d
o
E 0
m w w

U p
c? O a,
O-
N _o N -0
N
I U O
°'E U)
c0
E

OHO X
VO
p
U
-N ,o 2Q)
o a Up Lw-a

Z r N f"
n 2
00
00
Z
?O
Z z ~
O _O ?
FF- W
> > W
J -i J
ui Li
LiJ W U-
0 o Y
Q Q Z
U U m
L L
L 1
L 1
L 1
L I
L 1
L 1
i L
I 1

O
O
O
00
171
W
U
O
Q CD

D ?
J
Q O

O }

O ;.
r

N
a
r
O - -
O O O O O O 00 r c9
- m m 0') O
(•1J) NOliVA3-13
c
rli

o
O
O
N
T n

~ c C P7
U O (n
O (n x

t
N '

O O

T
T
? c
O

> > U O
L ?
O U
7 7 O
N (n L? J

L f"

1
it
v"
S
-p x

/!
Y

r 4. -
T
-
Yd

- Am
%LU,
1

44
fi ` ,L !
r z.
11EE'' .-.r. .• sn
i 'Qn p 1A
v tr '.
l T

r6 fb?
?"Tly Ye

t

Q p Q O

?

,
o 6

®
Z
N

QQW
Z H
Z Q
z z

o
vN o
?N o a
O
W

(~j LL.
N?

T

m
o N

m

o c
N

Z to
M1

o

L-i
U
V1 O z
o Z
CCL p C)
a'* zo
NI o
O

U
a

W
L
v N o
O
=
N N
O
c)
r Ol
w r y ct
?../ z
w
W W
4;
Ix
o o
a.
L) Ld
Z
U X
m m o

z

U

a. W v cn
C
N

r o
o
0
N
T vi

H c c d
C) 7 O U)
O (n X
N
L

O N

D
? O

T
T N c
O

> > 'O
3 7 O
V) (n L? J
M
('1?) NoIldn_?T3

u
9 MS (
?
Y ;D ... ? .it.
.?
_

?
r

?2'
?
x
V
IG
:
P?
y
b rb
T
-
?
yd {~

a3 #
M All

J OD W O
o Q O
(N u
d z Z ?7- Q Ow m
U p d H O N Z z F- J m w °z
v I oo U? o
U o vl Z p O U I J L) Z
U
V1 O z o GaON a? o? NN L)
O a v N O ?1 Nw
U 0.2 z M:
W U A W u W a'0 ?2Z ?X m
LLI
c C)
z U a W U o vu w
w
o
c O
N O
U) II
a c
w o
? to .>
C
p0 -c.O >p
c
C O C+• ? N
O w up 0 C 6u
C C
V)? -S-0 ° a
o m 0?
00
U cw ? ?
U U O-
? .H .a? aU+ ? Y
N U O fn ?
na m? x ao
00 nO L
U N i > U
In - C ? O_ O N
H Q C) O W-0
O
Z N 1 )
c
N

I? o
o
0
N
T
N
C N

U 7 O U1
O (n X
N
L

C)
??
O

T
T
? o

> > O O
7 7 O O
(n (n L? J
H
J
m
I
00
O O V) O
Z Z Z ~
_O _O O_
W
Q Q Q J
> > > W
J J J J
W W W J
D
W W W L?
O O 0 Y
Q Q Q Z
[if of of Q
0 0 C) m
I 1 1
1 1 I
1 I 1
1 I 1
I 1 1
1 1 I
1 1 1
1 1 1
O
O
O
00
r
Ld
U O
Z
Q cD
(n
D
J
Q O
Z
O
_N
ry
O
O
N
O

l

1 i
1
1 ;

L~

r
i
t r
1 ? 1
1 1 r,
1 1 11
? la

ro N O
O O O O O m 00 I` cc
r- - m 6) 0') 6
('JJ) NoIldn:17?
4L.
y s
ti-
94C d - t o Y
yra.,
4 6.1
N "k

?tS,r

44: ?

f?

Q O Q O
H
U p'° C N Z ZN Zz O J T m N o
_j m LL
ul L)
_j 00 c
z (9) La 0
U ° rn a ' ZZwH_ -6 N OO < CL
N o w
2 3:
O Ga?N a? O= NO Z V' W
a ca N O N fn
w U W w WO ?z ?X m m
C? -6 -6 0
Ily
Z U a w V 0 v Iu w
.14 w
N O
c O
N O
a 0
N N O
N ,>
o >
o+
c:
? >
C +N
U U .C p
Oup .oO CC
N-0 v.o ° a
O N Nw
U p Cw o q)
a? o
N U p
v'C °N' E co
V) 3: E
00 In T< O oL
U N 00
QL` > U
W - N
?- w,, O
U p W L
O
z N n
O
O
O
00
L
L J
U
Z O Q co
U)
0
J
F__ O
Z -I
O
NN
E
O
O
N
O

11

11
11
11
I

lf
t
It
I
4 ,
?? ? ?? ? III
r

I

?t n N O
O O O O O 0-) 00 N Q0
m ? 0-)
00
z
00
O
z z ~
_O o_ ?
F= H w
w
w Li
J J J
W W J
W W W
O O Y
<<z
Q? Qf Q
0 0 m
1 I
I 1
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
I 1
1 1

n o
O
O
N
T
rri
- C Q)
?

j
c Lr)
U 0 V)
O U)
x
a?
L

W ? p

T
T C
O
N N
> `

>
> U
O
(n U) W J
to '' Y ? 4,,"?-L?p?• ??? i
Owl
"k \
W
%
ti.
a At• I
Y i'7
f? t :$
`N
41
a
p
_;5P Nk
i?
.s
I

J 0 W O
Q O J O
O Q
U O.g d N Z ZN zz o f m w o 0
0 LL. LL
p -0 1 00 V Z o
siut
•U OQz O
U3 11 Q a ZOix? O OU In o
0ovi W C) Z W 0 N o =? z Nw
u f w LAJ w0 U 0x m m a
? v a W V
F- 0
0 V) v u w

U) O
c
O O
O
N
?
II
a

N c
N O

>y,

OC
c? C
OtO p
O>

v U cam.
C p Via)
L N
w 2 0 c c
V)_ o-0
°'a
o
E N a?
a) w
U p c
O p
N O +
E v
N 3
o x
N E
o
2
?
U o
n r
p U
?a
?N
H Q U v wm
O
Z N r?
F
_J
D
m
00 O N
N C4 Q Z
v O
Z Z Z ?-
O O O j
f=it=w
Q Q Q J
> > > W
J J J J
W W W -1
W W W L?
0 O 0 Y
Qaaz
Of c' Of Q
U' U' U' m
O
O
O
Do

W

z O
CD
Q

I
V /

J
F O

z -d
I - -
O

F,-
0
`

JII/I
1{l

O

N -O
O O O O O CD 00 r

('1?) NOIIVA37?
C
N

r O
O
O
N
T
N
C ro
U C Of
7
O (n x
N

N

O O
° c
T T ? .0

>
> _N
o
(n (n LL J
?sx
z? r
ilk
}y
rt.
-K?{e i1 k"flR-r
xWt .t

m
-1 00 Ld 0
a Z ~ °O a o
cli
N ?-I Q Z Z Q O
4 N m V
O z n
v Z / ??- QOQW m0 OHO WO 3 0
U 7" o a ' zzCE ?
N ¢ V) CL o o /W?
20
92-4 zo V) w
rTl ,a !v N O m N N
0 z L;=?
..... W U W U` Ix
LLA aa UO ?X m m !L
Q) LLJ Fr
? U a W ?' U p U N W
H
O
O

O I
M
W -
171 k
17

W i
O
O
Z ----

Q J
1
+1
O
Z ? -
O
N
FY
O
_
O
N ---
I

O
;-

r? N O
O O O O O 6) 00 fl-
m 0) m 0')
NA) Nod VA3TT
00
ZO
z z ~
O O
F ?- W
> > W
Lu Li
J J J
W W J
W W Lt_
O O Y
Q Q z
K Q
C?0m
1 I
1 1
I I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 ?
00
N O
O
N O_
In
? II
0_ c
N vi j O
c o
?c rn0 O >
c? cw-
u U 'E U ` N
w N .2(o) C C
v)-o '-o 0 a
O N N -0
E w 1°'n y
U O O.
I U) N Y
CO c m E c o
0 3: T( . 0 , E
0?0 N o s
U V) 00
(n N O` d U U
1W- - Q- U 0 w-0
O
z ? N 1i
C
N

? o
O
O
N
T
vi

j c cD
U
O V) x
N
L
N "
° v
p
U

T
T
? 0
?
N
> N
>
U _
O

1-
:3
L
Z)
U
0
(n cn W J

om T* ?
Y
? "
.°r ?,
n!r s
,,r

{ H'

w' 1

4 :
C a C q

?aG ? ?sz

is r. 'd'ay' ?\.¢!
i??
•v,?'i
? ?? `
w k

t
0,
r +. \
1
` "
Y " "

J DD W O
09 0
W O Z a N U ° pr)
Q M)
a) V)
U 0.5 IL N ZO ZN zz ?Ld(n m w Z
awl v z ® } rlu Q0QW OO ?? WQZ o o
O a n ZZw I-- ON 0 fnZ In
VU1 O z 4 Oa OH (L,* p zo= NmQ a
w ro z W c w W ? Z a' X U In
m a`
?./ ? = a` W IF 1 U o C) (n w
Q
}
Q
V)

00
00
N N
O
N
rq
O
O
TI)
O
00
N
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
O
17, O
N
W U OM
z
Q
cn O
o CO
Q
O
z ?
O
N
Of
O O
= N
O
O
O
co
O
O
O
N
O
Z Z
O O
J J
W W
W W
O ?
as
0 0
1 1
1 1
I I
I I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
i 1
!
w
rn O
c O
v O_
V) II
a c
O N O
L fn > w+
.? C ?, p
0 C p 0 O>
C 0 Ci+ ? N
U •C v L ?
w N ,5 O C C
.2 E NT N
V O C? p
Q) Q)
V) O? ?Y
I N U O N L
Inc NE cv
x E
t
O°p InO
U > U
In p
a
Oi -? oa vacs
H Q-C U v W
O
Z N 1-i
0
v
0
X
C
E
U
O
N
N
Ul
c
N

r
o
o 0
O
N
T ui

C r
0 V)
O (n x
fD
t
Q)
0
°
E
O v

O C
O
Q) v
> > U p
L
7 L
7 U
O
(n V) IL
4 ? L P? t
a':R h' ? r '4y` n l /
a `ref aW ?.
t br" . , f a4
? V
f
a +P
r4i t*
a ?.
Y i M ; dpi' : if
r Y
7 s ?.
f 2?
m

1
1 ?
r ,

1
}

l a

II
I
1
i r?
1 a
+?'
I r
Z
1
'

1
I

. F

1

1'
I
I

ICI
if.
l
j
n N r O
0 0 0 0 m 00 r- 0
('1?) NOILdn373
-1 00 L11 0
0
O Z Q N U O
U O d y O ZN z: OWy m m ° M It w ( o a / a?+ ZZw? ?N UQ ywZ o o ?
2i C/1 O z N O p0py oo zU mZ a U z V) Mr
o < °av~i ao 01 vyi00 W
fU rO a K W a? =o o V? U T T O
F+i `/ F W Z U x m m a`
Z .2 U a W w s v
NIL) Q
Lq
W
O
Q F

N o
C
Q)
N O
O_
11
O_
O v C
>.2
O, c:
c O c
o,.o O
o >

o
,C O N
w N O C c

C U
.O+ U _
0 0_
O

0 N N
N w
+-' w N N
m O
O

N
N
I N
+
U

O

_Y
a N C N C C c 0
N 3

O
'
X
I
0
O '
U O
N L
O U

x
?
_N a
?O_ >
ON
°= H Q? U o W?
O

c
a)
Z
,-
N
r7

E O_
U N
O
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
?i
Lij
U
Z O
Q ?
J O
Q N
Z
O
N O
[if O
O
O
00
O
W
O
O
N
O

i
"

J

d
i i
J
t
}
r?
.k
w

r'
1
I
'

i
r?) N O
O O O O ? ? T? ?
NOIIVAITJ
00
00
N N
Z Z
00
H ?
Q Q
LJ Li
J J
LJ Li
w W
Q Q
Qf of
O U
i I
U
O
V
d
O
N
c

o

O
O
N
T
N
C
7 C L
U 0 Lo
O N
X

N
t
N

O 0
N
0 ? O

N C

T
T
? O
> >
U O
O 7 O O
V) V) LL J

104

0.1

r ;`
•C
W
?6 u

"tw

• r .j. ? .. • f ?? - dam`
!? ? ! ? $
f
hr `
?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J 00 W O
F O O
Q O
??y1 v 6 N Z Z Z Z Q T N O
_j 00
IN o a /? Q
ZQW ?N oQ jL6 o o w
O ? 12 c? O(LON CL ZS O? ) V'
w O a z W N O =? za
r ? W 0 U O i o
x F W Z J m m a
\./
2 W c v o U
_Y u V)
U a ~ U In W
?% O
- -roc-•------` O
i + ^0 IYf ?-- - -- Z
??? Ln
O_
i O ?i - I? cD I? w r
?! / Ie in 0088 Jp
W p
,I N W WZppp<Y
F_ of
ZOO, Z
J Q Q Q 7 m
?+3 T) j HHJ??of O dN'
! III W JJ W
'I ! ZZ QQ~ W r- LO 0
O O O w== Q p
---I' F-HQHH?iH 00 O
»L?oooC) o ii
> J J? Q Q a Q J J ° o
f? O Ld Ld V) Of cr
?? J J O
??cyVt,i Go - mmmm 77
0 0 LLJ - a- Y Y W
l Q Q H S S 2 2 Z Z d W
Wcr QC_9C9C9C9 QQ ° U
00 W dFrW m0] N ILL
W
d *' J 7
J cn
O
-- -- - t -- CL - Y W
Z Q
!
M
Z
Q
I
o
o - -
CD O-) Z
rt
o I !
co -
? !I I ?
j I
O
0
?r
I
O j
N
to
I
O
O
d r7 N O _
O O O O O CC `- (D U-) d- r7 N O O')
o) 6) 6) 6) 0-) O) 0-) c 07 0') co
O O
O
1'7 (3) I
O O
00 - w
N CO
Cfl--*- - --... - -- CO - - ?---- -I--
00
N 1
° -.. f - -
N m i
O ° I_
N -?---. - _ N -_. ---- - - -j
N 00
r '
O O
O --- - -- - O - -- --- ___ Z
a
N t Go
F F
I
0
co - i - - U
CC)
r
O o
° -- a I a
rI
o ;)
O
! O
0 _j _j
-- - 1--1- - - F
? ,+ 1
- - - °
o - - -
?o I cD
O
O I li
CD
O O -
O -
? I
d- r7 N C O O W (__ U C) I.-) N o O ?? r J O
U O O O - n O) co r- co L) r7 N 1 O
C) 07 M -?; 7._ -- _: 6; X) '7) ?- C) ?_? O _M CT) O (7) (1) rn 1-5) T -
m m m m m
Project Name: McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Task: Longitudinal Profile
Date Surveyed: Oct-07
Crew: DGJ, JDC
Station TWG
Elevation WS
Elevation BKF
Elevation Station TWG
Elevation WS
Elevation BKF
Elevation
0.0 97.85 99.02 99.60 607.5 94.56
10.0 98.27 98.93 611.7 95.05 96.03
19.8 97.63 98.92 618.1 94.02
29.6 97.86 98.92 624.1 94.52 96.03
39.0 97.40 98.79 99.46 633.4 94.58
50.0 97.07 98.75 650.3 94.66 95.96 96.36
59.9 97.34 98.80 657.3 95.18
66.3 97.79 98.78 667.1 94.73 95.87
73.8 98.02 98.73 677.7 94.20
79.1 97.46 98.71 691.1 94.14 95.75
88.8 97.23 98.63 98.80 699.7 94.52 95.82 96.20
100.5 97.56 98.64 725.4 94.36
114.8 96.87 749.4 94.12 95.60
127.7 97.31 98.51 766.8 93.91
155.8 96.78 98.60 772.9 93.73 95.56 96.13
164.7 97.10 785.1 94.65
184.9 96.91 98.50 790.5 93.29 95.49
210.0 97.11 98.44 800.0 94.28
230.1 97.05 812.8 94.07 95.41
246.1 97.02 98.27 98.63 824.0 93.50 95.79
262.5 95.72 98.24 834.2 94.17 95.37
268.1 97.56 98.24 840.2 93.63
291.7 96.80 98.15 847.7 94.01
303.8 97.44 98.03 98.38 853.5 93.46 95.29
325.9 95.95 98.02 860.4 93.77
341.6 97.07 97.88 874.4 94.09 95.29 95.66
353.4 97.15 97.74 end profile
363.3 96.78
379.8 96.67 97.53
399.6 96.19
413.6 96.26 97.25 97.32
425.9 95.83 97.13
436.5 96.35 97.11
452.1 95.94 96.90
470.1 95.73 96.80 97.06
483.0 95.37
496.0 95.60 96.49
503.6 94.84 96.49
512.0 95.35
526.3 95.16 96.37
535.3 94.86 96.37 96.64
548.8 94.87
570.7 94.73 96.30
584.2 95.45
598.0 95.07 96.19 96.74
' EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
B-12
1
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

1

1

APPENDIX C: AQUATIC COMMUNITY DATA
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

1

I

0

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 2 Reach 3
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *10 CG
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae 9.8 CG 2
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae P
Batrachobdella phalera 7.6 P 1
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes 1
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 1
Decapoda
Palaemonidae
Palaemonetes kadiakensis 7.1 CG 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
Acerpenna pygmaea 3.9 1
Diphetor hageni 1.6 2 2
Plauditus sp. CG 7
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 CG 3 8
Ephemeridae CG
Hexagenia sp. 4.9 CG 2
Ephemerellidae SC
Eurylophella sp. 4.3 SC 16 25
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. SC 85 7
Leptophlebiidae CG
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.9 CG 3 2
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P 3 6
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P 9 6
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P 4 31
Enallagma sp. 8.9 P 2 7
Corduliidae P
Macromia s p. 2
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C-1

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 2 Reach 3
Neurocordulia sp. 5 4 5
Gomphidae P
Dromogomphus ornatus 2
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 1 2
Stylurus townesi p 1
Libellulidae P 4
Pocoptera
Leuctridae SH
Leuctra sp. 2.5 SH 17 26
Perlidae P
Perlesta sp. 4.7 P 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Nigronia serricornis 5 P 1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Hydropsyche sp. FC 4 1
Lepidostomatidae SH
Lepidostoma sp. 0.9 FC 2 1
Leptoceridae CG
Triaenodes ignitus 4.6 SH 1
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.8 FC 4 2
Lepidoptera
Pyralidae SH
Petrophila sp. 2.1 SC 1
Coleoptera
Elmidae CG
Ancyronyx variegata 6.5 SC 2
Dubiraphia sp. 5.9 SC 1
Dubiraphia vittata 4.1 SC 7
Promoresia sp. 2.4 SC 1
Promoresia alegans 1
Stenelmis sp. 1
Diptera
Chironomidae
Apsectrotanypus johnsoni 0.1 1 7
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 2
Orthocladius sp. CG 2
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 CG 1
Paratanytarsus sp. 8.5 CG 1 1
Polypedilum halterale gp. 7.3 SH 2
Pol edilum illinoense 9 SH 1
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C-2

1
1

o.

1
1
t
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 2 Reach 3
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 4
Psectrocladius sp. 3.6 SH 1 1
Rheocricotopus tuberculatus 5.1 CG 1
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9 1 2
Stenochironomus sp. 6.5 SH 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 1 2
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 CG 1
Tribelos jucundum 6.3 1
Simuliidae FC
Simulium Sp. 6 FC 6 1
Tipulidae SH
Pedicia s p. P 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 138 101
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 13 14
EPT index 13 10
EPT abundance 146 76
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned values 4.58 5.31
EEP Project No. D04020-2
C-3
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
1
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

1
APPENDIX D: NCDWQ HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM - COASTAL PLAIN

1

EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
r?

11
'
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 right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream Location/road: (Road Name )County
Date CC# Basin Subbasin
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish ?Benthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? CA ? SWP ? Sandhills ? CB
' Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) PS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
' Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use ? Forest ? Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
? Width variable ?Braided channel ?Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel to top of bank): (m)
' Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal ?Low
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ...................................... ?
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ?
D. Root mats out of water .................................................................................................................. ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Turbidity: ?Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes) ?Green tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ? 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
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Weather Conditions: Photos: ?N ?Y ?Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
TYPICAL STREAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-1
I. Channel Modification
Score
A. Natural channel-minimal dredging ................................................................................ 15
B. Some channelization near bridge, or historic (>20 year old), and/or bends beginning to reappear.. 10
C. Extensive channelization, straight as far as can see, channelized ditch .......................... 5
D. Banks shored with hard structure, >80% of reach disrupted, instream habitat gone........ 0
larks Subtotal
IL Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>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 begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
-Sticks Snags/logs -Undercut banks or root mats Macrophytes Leafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>50% 30-50% 10-30% <10%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 15 10 5
3 types present ......................... 18 13 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
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal
111. Bottom Substrate (silt, clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A. Substrate types mixed Score
1. gravel dominant ................................................................................................................... 15
2. sand dominant ..................................................................................................................... 13
3. detritus dominant ................................................................................................................ 7
4. silt/clay/muck dominant ..................................................................................................... 4
B. Substrate homogeneous
1, nearly all gravel .................................................................................................................. 12
2. nearly all sand .................................................................................................................... 7
3. nearly all detritus ................................................................................................................ 4
4. nearly all silt/clay/muck ..................................................................................................... 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ....................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present ............................................................................................................ 4
2. Deep water/run habitat absent ............................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
Remarks
Page Total
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-2
V. Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A. Banks stable or no banks, just 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, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 9 9
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 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).
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ........................................ ..... 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ............................................... ...... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ............................. ........ 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ................................................ ....... 2
E. No canopy and no shading .................................................................................................... ............. 0
Subtotal
VII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break 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 meters ....................................
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 ........................
Lft. Bank
Score
.............................................. 5
.............................................. 4
.............................................. 3
............................................. 2
............................................... 4 4
............................................... 3 3
............................................. 2 2
............................................. 1 1
............................................... 3 3
.............................................. 2 2
............................................. 1 1
............................................. 0 0
Total
Rt. Bank
Score
5
4
3
2
Remarks
Page Total
TOTALSCORE
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-3
Typical Stream Cross-section
3 treme High Water
Normal High Water
Normal Flow
Upper Bank
Lower
Bank
Stream Width
This side is 45° bank angle.
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-4
r l

APPENDIX E: VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
1

EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Year 1 (2006)

t
N
_O
a
0
a?
oq

?e

f

i
f Q

t + ?

d'
O
a
0
O
0

M
_O
a.
O
.y
Cd
V
td)
1N
EEP Project No. D04020-2
i y?
d
jp 4c Yr?
??a x
z
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E-1
Year 1 (2006)
Al

a
a
0
.Y
Y
^O
?i
O
Y
C?
Y

0
a,
0
Y

^_^o
1-?Y
?I
O
.y
Y

EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site I
E-2
Year 2 (2007)
Ihj 1 -

4
I ?
1r i ?
I Y

Y
, on

k?
~.
d'
_O
Q
O
N
bq
N
M
O
a
0
cq
EEP Project No. D04020-2

? O

h
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E-3
Year 2 (2007)

a > `.1 O } F
C
°h o
t } Y
a
0

Y
W
ri
.Y
C?
Y
J
IMF
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E-4
APPENDIX F: GROUNDWATER GAUGE HYDROGRAPHS
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
F
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
(u?) Higuled
o n o ., o V-, o +n o
V M M N N -» O C
Q.
°o
a?
a b 0
Nov 5
?r
w
w
Od / I
u
w
0
is
r` v e
8
4
a
S 2nV
0
z
rl
O
LL
Lr!
bo
d
u
C9
O

o14
---------------------------- \ ---------------- I -------------------
Q o n a Nn o
IT r, cYi rv ri o 0 4
(IJ) saImpunw!) 01 mdaa

pl.
R.
d
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
F-1
(ul) itl3ure?l
o ?n o •, C. v, o V% o
'? M Cl N N ?-+ --? O O
0
? Z f'7
Ri o0 ?
O Sao
a 3 0
N ? y
"Z7 CCCC-++
Cd G
QO
V ?
- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - --- fFa (it V! t?a?
v v v
?+ N M q w"1
? C7 U' tt7 C7 ?
i I
N
W
b??A
w
G
[ci tb
O
C
W
aY Q
H
0
?a
on `?
t7
IS
O
t?
7
C d =r
O Gas ? . ? =,
6D
I I My
o .r, o Vn o ?n o Wn o y, o
Ef M M N N - O O O r+
("'j)3alwnpun0lf) OZLp&(l
d
z
tt
O
GJ
in
00
rn
Q
73
19

ti
a.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
F-2