20050639 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080527

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 2)
Project Number: D04006-4
Submitted to:
,r NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program U
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103 rlQQ
Raleigh, NC 27604 MAY % 2000 yt ??
,'U5 teill
`. f1tl`ll3l'lt oENR ST FR BRANCH J/-1
rxw.xnM
WETLANDS AND STORMWA?R BRAN X008
/VC
aVNAIV
CCFM&V? ST M
0GWAA,I
Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC
909 Capability Drive
7 3 Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by: Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
1447 S. Tryon St.
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
November, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................1
2.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ..................................................................................... 7
2.1 Soil Data ..........................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol ........................................................................... .. 8
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................................... .. 8
2.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................................. ..9
2.5 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................................ 10
2.6 Vegetation Photos .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 STREAM MONITORING ............................................................................................. 10
3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 11
3.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results ........................................................................................ 12
3.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos ............................................................................................. 12
3.5 Stream Stability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 12
3.6 Cross-section, Longitudinal Profile, and Bed Material Analysis Monitoring Results .................. 13
4.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING ................................................................................... 14
5.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING ...........................................16
5.1 Description of Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring ................................................................. 16
5.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion ......................................................17
5.3 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 18
5.4 Photograph Log ............................................................................................................................. 19
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................19
7.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................... 20
8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Topo Map
Figure 3 - Restoration Summary Map
Figure 4 - Wetlands Summary Map
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photo Logs
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - As-built Plan Sheets
APPENDIX D - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX E - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 2
APPENDIX F - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Data
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC i
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1
1
1
1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Mitigation Approach
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Soil Data for Project
Table 6. Tree Species Planted
Table 7. Year 2 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8. Volunteers within Wetland Restoration Area
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 10. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 11. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 12. Comparison of Hydrologic Monitoring Results for Year 2 and Year 1
Pre-restoration vs. Post-restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Table 13. Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Topographic Map
Figure 3 Restoration Summary Map
Figure 4 Wetlands Summary Map
Figure 5 Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC ii
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2007 growing season on the South Fork
Hoppers Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). Construction of the Site, including
planting of trees, was completed in April 2006. In order to document project success, ten vegetation
monitoring plots, sixteen permanent cross-sections, 3,562 linear feet of longitudinal profiles, one rain
gauge, one crest gauge and eight hydrologic monitoring gauges (five automated and three manual) were
installed and assessed across the Site. The 2007 data represents results from the second year of vegetation
and hydrologic monitoring for both wetlands and streams and from the first year of macroinvertebrate
data for streams.
Prior to restoration, wetland, stream, and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Streams flowing through the Site had been channelized to reduce flooding and
provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. After construction it was determined that 5.6 acres of riverine
wetlands and 7,229 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored, and 1.4 acres of riverine wetlands were
enhanced.
Weather station data from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) National Climate and
Water Center (Marion WETS Station in McDowell County - NC 5340) and the US Geological Survey
(USGS) Water Data for North Carolina (USGS 03451500 French Broad River at Asheville, NC) were
used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to document precipitation amounts. For
the 2007 growing season, November 2006 through January 2007 rainfall was normal or above normal;
however from February 2007 through October 2007 rainfall was recorded as below normal for greater
than 55 percent of the time. The monitoring well data shows that six of the eight hydrologic monitoring
gauges had met the 7 percent hydrologic success criteria based on field observations in 2007. The
remaining two wells documented hydroperiods similar to those documented for the reference monitoring
wells.
Ten monitoring plots that are 10 meters by 10 meters or 0.025 of an acre in size were used to assess
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on site. They are randomly located to represent the
different zones within the project. The vegetation monitoring documented a survivability range of 560
stems per acre to 720 stems per acre with an overall average of 644 stems per acre. Overall, the Site is on
track for meeting the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third
growing season.
In general, dimension, pattern, profile and in-stream structures remained stable during the second growing
season. Minor scour erosion was noted along the upstream end of a few rootwads at stations 124+50,
126+75, and 133+50. The erosion appears to have taken place before vegetation was fully established.
Minor stream dimension aggradation was documented at a few cross-sections and has occurred within the
last year. On-site evaluation suggests that this is due to increased sediment supply upstream from the site
and a beaver dam located just downstream of the site that is holding back flow and allowing sediment to
settle out of the water column. Point bar formation along the inside of a meander bend indicates flow
velocity vectors occurring as designed. All monitored cross-sections fell within the quantitative
parameters defined for "C" type channels. Five bankfull events were observed and documented during
the months of January, March, May, July, and September.
In summary, the Site is on track to achieve the hydraulic, vegetative, and stream success criteria specified
in the Site's Restoration Plan.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
' The South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site is located in McDowell County, North Carolina (Figure
1). The Site lies in the Catawba River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
sub-basin 03-08-30 and US Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040020. The Site has a
recent history of pasture and general agricultural usage. The streams of the Site were channelized and
riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations. Stream and riparian functions on the Site had been
severely impacted as a result of agricultural conversion.
' The project involved the restoration of 5.6 acres of riverine wetlands, enhancement of 1.4 acres of
riverine wetlands, and restoration of 7,229 linear feet (LF) of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek
(the mainstem) and one unnamed tributary (UT 1). A total of 33.8 acres of stream, wetland, and riparian
' buffer are protected through a permanent conservation easement.
1.1 Project Location
The Site is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the town of Shelby in McDowell County, North
Carolina (Figure 1 & 2). From Shelby take NC Highway 226 north towards Dysartsville. Approximately
3 miles past the Rutherford/McDowell County line, turn left onto Walker Road. Take the next right onto
Pierce Road. The Site is divided into two separate sections by Pierce Road. Access for the downstream
section is northeast of the culvert crossing. The conservation easement gate for the upstream section is
southwest of the culvert crossing.
' 1.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restoration of 7,229 LF of stream channel.
• Restoration of 5.6 acres of riverine wetlands.
' • Enhancement of 1.4 acres of existing riverine wetlands.
• Removal of cattle access to the stream channel, wetland and riparian buffer areas.
• Improvement of floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevations with the bankfull
stage.
• Establishment of native wetland and floodplain vegetation within the conservation easement.
' • Improvement of wildlife habitat functions of the Site.
1.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
' For assessment and analysis purposes, the on-site streams were divided into five reaches: four along the
mainstem, and one on UT 1 that flows into the mainstem downstream of Pierce Road (Figure 3). The
following paragraphs describe the Site's pre-construction conditions.
' The mainstem entered the Site from the southwest and flowed east through a 48-inch corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) culvert. Reach 1 continued east through a pasture for approximately 1,500 LF and then
entered a second 48-inch CMP culvert. Reach 2 began 1,000 LF downstream of the second 48-inch
culvert, at the confluence of a small tributary, and continued east and north for 578 LF to twin, 72-inch
CMP culverts under Pierce Road. Reach 3 began downstream of the twin culverts and continued
approximately 1,200 LF north through an abandoned pasture. Reach 4 extended the final 900 LF to the
' north project boundary and was characterized by a flatter slope, finer bed material, and a lower bank
height ratio than the other 3 reaches.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
UT 1 entered the Site through a 36-inch culvert under Pierce Road, then flowed east to west, parallel to
Pierce Road, and entered Reach 3 approximately 80 LF downstream of the twin, 72-inch culverts. UT 1
had a reach length of 306 LF on the project Site.
For design purposes, the mainstem was divided into two reaches. From the assessment, Reach 1
correlates to Design Reach 1, while Reaches 2, 3, and 4 were combined for Design Reach 2.
It is likely that much of the project area once existed as a wetland ecosystem, as evidenced by hydric soil
areas across the bottomland fields of the Site, as well as landowner accounts of wet areas of the Site prior
to drainage activities. Wetland areas that once existed on the Site were drained and manipulated to
promote agricultural uses. The stream was channelized within the project site to improve surface and
subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding. Subsurface drain tiles were also installed in floodplain
areas of the project Site, particularly the field downstream of Pierce Road. As a result, wetland functions
were impacted within the project area. The channelization of the stream impaired its ability to function
naturally, resulting in areas of active bank erosion and an overall poor habitat condition.
Design for the restored stream involved the construction of a new channel meandering through the
agricultural fields. The restored mainstem was a Rosgen "C" stream type channel with a low width/depth
cross-sectional area approaching typical Rosgen "B" type dimensions. A Rosgen "B" stream type was
used for the restored UT 1 channel. Each stream type's design dimensions are based on those of
reference parameters. Wetland restoration of the agricultural fields on the Site involved raising the local
water table to restore a natural flooding regime. The stream through the Site was restored to a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile, such that riverine wetland functions were restored to the adjacent hydric
soil areas. Drainage ditches within the restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface
drainage and raise the local water table. Total stream length across the Site was increased from
approximately 5,579 LF to 7,229 LF. Total wetland acreage was increased from 2.17 acres to 5.6 acres.
Assessment of the restored site determined that 7,229 stream mitigation units (SMU) were provided for
the stream restoration and a total of 6.3 wetlands mitigation units (WMU) were achieved for wetland
restoration and enhancement.
The design allows stream flows larger than the bankfull to spread onto the floodplain, dissipating flow
energies and reducing stress on stream banks. In-stream structures were used to control streambed grade,
reduce stress on stream banks, and promote bedform sequences and habitat diversity. The in-stream
structures consisted of root-wads, cover logs and log vanes, which promote a diversity of habitat features
in the restored channel. Where grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles or rock cross vanes
were installed to provide long-term stability. Stream banks were stabilized using a combination of
erosion control matting, live stakes, bare-root planting, and transplants. Transplants provide living root
mass to increase stream bank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota. Native
vegetation was planted across the Site, and the entire restoration site is protected through a permanent
conservation easement.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

t
03050101040020
Catawba 03-08-30

-Catawbai 03-08-04
Map Inset Legend EEP Contract No.: D04006-4 Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Restoration Project
`' South Fork Hoppers Creek
waft' Interstate NC Primary Roads
US Route S Digit HUC ® EBX, LLC
V,coJ v s tei i 1 „ „2530 Meridian Parkway
.d Suite 200
Durham, NC 27713
McDowell County, NC November 2007
t, ""? a r..?? l_., s sky •? M+ti?f ? a p, ! sy'? ,'?.? ?1,! ?+ ': ?y?4?
All
' ?. y ? ,- ?` ?. 4w ?r t ?` ? pJf? •A ,gym ,?,...- ?Y * .,??_ ? ? *" #-*? ? ?'' ? ??i?',e??^? .?
H
. ? lr
- k
Y ..
J_ l6 ^de r
rF.? ?a .. J... ? - ?,.???.. f .*?? .YEA ? ? ?t?•y'? ??? ? ?qrt. - ? '`•^?
.
f, t
- ,? w ? St i r• C` '4.T??". _, ?? K,-. ? g ? ? ???1+ ?.te'n•? ,?+.. to .?^.'? •
_ ? ?1? y!•r Tt '0? ? a r ' '1 t.? a ?. '•""" tp' 1 Re'ach 1
v
r i
4
s4r?M3 V""sr "`,? ^r°r 7r 8 a 'Lp: t
t"?'!""S? »{? M.
??+'yr "?3? ?,'.°?? a.r? - ? `L"` ,"': P r ? '. a? > ,? •? :'' ' i ti t ?f .
A f.
.
r y
F . ^ ?.. ter- '?p 'M
I ?C'?o$} Reach 3
ook
!yr _S0 th kk Ho _h
..L - -
F
ft*
? 5* `?^ sir ? X ` ? ??, w ,? ? ? }?°` ??- L
R ac.
ion
each 2
^? s,rMr Reach 1
41
%
X`i
%
?" 4 Legend EEP Contract No.: D04006-4 Figure 3. Restoration Summary blap
Restoration Project
- - - - Conservation Easement South Fork Hoppers Creek
30' Stream Buffer
'CosystelII Existig 1130 n Streams 2530 Mcerri
dian Parkway
° Suite 200
«.
.? ? - Durham, NC 27713
'?-_. - November 2007
4,a I-
AN
yyY,y4. -r. .iR:. 3? , ,, .,ya?.,• ` +y'?e` ?. a:.;?, a +'
A'W, ?t T"'°` ?{.t` i.; •. i??' ^ Y M ? ?q,' ,*'' ?. 4. P< ? 6._;? ? 'R ?.t R•.°.A ?`' `fit Y, {K a..? .. wt_
yi 10. .,» a ..)-?\ ...r x • ?? e?6 ' -g Y•}je..t
M'?': » ?'i4?` P t. r:. i S a.. a t 3 •.„ 45: .:a_. t e,?y• •,? Y•y
Y?v
a
• `?'.y„• ?'??y+^?. •?,j? 5 ? .?? ? ?` CWT, ?' ` ? a , '?°??',?']Ry'J r
,: >'• ? Wf ?.
?dP..??f ? "'? ,?••? ,i?,v t •4
W .
. A?^ M a A? " •? ?W ??? ? `y? i?iF
• ?e.?,?
"Al
# F
a ? • a•3?? ? ?* ? if y ? tt l< '} ?- > ,* ? 'kc?W 4 . { t Wit ,"
y is 4 i ?? .. ?4t, l C k ?} % {
3 .xt'n SJ ? ? ,y ?k d? .. ? l1j e J ? •?'•
n
a tEE S aT{E 5w
L??q ? ? '?.w '?4-'ti1_.. ??` ..?? ., ,: •?"C?.t. - ?({? r y`;+.? s• hil,.
?yy ? "R=?fyli' V .fit E•a# -'•,.$t ?yi??p.+ ? y 'a
;,fir ?z ,?+?'? fy. Y RA .•:;f€ .• a ? ,?^?.
? ?T?'F y , P .?,.,o? ,.-. nw a ,.,:s •y?+y??I?v,, a?Nro': r
4 C T ? 'R 1
..` 1. .y?.?? i irW? • urM.•? ? wy W N• ? I` ,
ck,
{t
?,Soutk "
R
'Pay
?' 's? .F,?S•• r?,„ .a .y' { ; .ts P? ?•y'd'"t „ ?" ?`, ??V i???
IM t
Legend EEP Contract No.: D04006-4 Figure 4. Wetland Summary Map
lY^`' ?? Restoration Project
- - - - Conservation Easement ® Enhancement South Fork Hoppers Creek
r j
Existing Streams F/77IRestoration ?
It,COSystem Project Reaches 25B30 Meridian Parkway
°° 800 Suite 200
Durham, NC 27713
=''- _" November 2007 Ile
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 1. Project Mitigation Approach
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4

Existing Segment
$ e? o eo
or Reach ID ' a $ a a 'Q Stationing Comment
Restoration of
dimension,
UT1 306 LF R P1 203 LF 1 203 200+00 - 202+03 pattern, and
profile to a
"B" stream
type.
Restoration to
a "C"
approaching
South Fork 2,595 R P1 & P2 3,528 LF 1 3528 110+85 - 146+17 "E" stream
Hoppers Reach 1 LF type and P2
used to tie into
the Pierce
Road culvert.
Restoration to
a"C"
approaching
South Fork 2,678 "E" stream
Hoppers Reach 2 LF R P1 &P2 3,498 LF 1 3498 146+17 - 181+70 type and P2
used to tie
channel into
the Pierce
Road culvert.
164+50 - 166 + 90 (R)
Planting
and
Wetland E --- 1.4 Ac 0.5 0.7 171+05- 176+79 (R) ,
raising water
Enhancement 175+91 - 179+52 (L) table
178+31- 179+52 (R)
2
53
.
Ac 135+79- 139+00 (L) Grading, soil
Wetland 154+53- 167+80 (L) roughing,
Restoration R --- 5.6 Ac 1 5.6 166+89- 174+25 (R) planting, and
175+50- 177+67 (R) raising water
175+70- 180+43 (L) table
Total linear feet of channel restored: 7,229
Total acres of wetlands restored: 5.6
* R = Restoration
E = Enhancement
S = Stabilization
** P1 = Priority I
P2 = Priority II
P3 = Priority III
El = Enhancement I
Ell = Enhancement II
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Total Stream Mitigation Units: 7,229
Total Wetland Mitigation Units: 6.3
3
1.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2. The
contact information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4

Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A Mar-05
Restoration Plan Amended N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A
Final Design - at least 90% complete) N/A Aug-05
Construction Begins N/A Jun-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A Apr-06
Planting of live stakes N/A Apr-06
Planting of bare root trees N/A Apr-06
End of Construction N/A May-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Jun-06 Jul-06
Repair work Oct-06 Oct-06
Unknown Unknown
Year 1 Monitoring Oct-06 Nov-06
Year 2 Monitoring Oct-07 Nov-07
Year 3 Monitoring (Scheduled) Oct-08 Nov-08
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled Oct-09 Nov-09
Year 5 Monitoring Scheduled Oct-10 Nov-10
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 4
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

Table 3. Project Contact Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No.D04006-4
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX-Neuse I
LLC 2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200
, Durham, NC 27713
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. 1447 S. Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact:
En g. Chris Yow, Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
Riverworks 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
Riverworks 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Riverworks 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nurse Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159
Monitoring Performers
Baker Engineering 1447 S. Tryon Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Ian Eckardt, Tel.[phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact: Ian Eckardt, Tel.[phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of
Contact: Chris H smen, Tel. [phone]
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
5
Table 4. Project Background
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Project Coun : McDowell County, NC
Drainage Area:
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 0.93 mil
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2 1.38 miZ
UT1 0.07 miZ
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover:
Reach: South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 < 5%
Reach: South Fork Hoppers Reach 2 < 5%
Reach: UT1 < 5%
Stream Order:
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 2
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2 2
UT I 1
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-built
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 C
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2 C
UT-1 B
Riverine, Upper Perennial,
Cowardin Classification Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-
Gravel
Dominant Soil Types
South Fork Hoppers Reach 1 loA, EwE, HeD, HcC 1
South Fork Hoppers Reach 2 IoA, EwE, HeD, HcC2
UT1 IoA
Reference Site ID Spencer Creek, Craig Creek, Big
Branch, Sals Branch
USGS HUC for Project and Reference Sites 03050101040020
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-30
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference C
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of
a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listin or stressor? N/A
Percent of project easement fenced 50%
1.5 Project Monitoring Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, location of permanent monitoring '
cross-sections, locations of hydrologic monitoring stations, and locations of permanent vegetation
monitoring plots are presented in Appendix C of this report.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 6
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1
2.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
2.1 Soil Data
The soil data for the Site is presented in Table 5.

1
1

Table 5. Soil Data for Project
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Max Depth % Clay on
Series (in) Surface K T OM %
(laA) - lotla Sandy Loam, 0 to 3 60 12-18 0.2 5 2-5
percent slopes
(EwE) - Evard-Cowee Complex, 65 5-20 0.24 5 1-5
2 to 95 percent slopes
(HcC2) -Hayesville Clay Loam, 62 10-25 0.24 4 1-3
2 to 60 percent slopes
(HeD) -Hayesville-Evard 62 5-25 0.24 5 1-5
Complex, 2 to 60 percent slopes
NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions (http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.htmi)
General taxonomy of Site soils:
lotla:
The Iotla series (laA) consists of very deep, somewhat poorly-drained soils with moderately rapid
permeability on floodplains. They formed in loamy, recent alluvium. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent.
Evard-Cowee:
The Evard-Cowee complex (EwE) is composed of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils
on ridges and side slopes. They formed in residuum affected by soil creep in the upper part and
weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Slopes range from 2 to 95
percent.
Hayesville:
The Hayesville Series (HcC2 and HeD) consists of very deep well-drained soils on gently sloping to very
steep ridges. They most commonly formed in residuum weathered from igneous and high-grade
metamorphic rocks such as granite, granodiorite, mica gneiss and schist; but in some places formed from
thickly-bedded metagraywacke and metasandstone. On steeper slopes the upper part of some pedons
may have some colluvial influence. Slopes range from 2 to 60 percent.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 7
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
2.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
The Site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March and April 2006. The following
tree species were planted in the restoration area:
Table 6. Tree Species Planted
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Betula ni ra River Birch FACW
2 Fraxinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
3 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
4 uercus hellos Coastal Willow Oak FACW-
5 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak FACU
6 Quercus michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak FACW-
7 Liriodendron tuli i era Yellow Poplar FAC
8 Celtis laevi ata Sugar Berry FACW
9 Dios rus vir iniana Persimmon FAC
10 N ssa s lvatica Black um FAC
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Ten plots were
established on the South Fork Hoppers Site, to monitor approximately 1.5 percent of the site. Six plots
were established in areas that included both the wetlands and stream buffer. The remaining four plots
were located adjacent to the newly constructed streambed to monitor the vegetation in the stream
restoration buffer. The plots were randomly located within each zone and randomly oriented within the
wetland restoration area.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and permanently
establish the area that was to be sampled. Then ropes were hung connecting all four corners to help in
determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot. Trees right on the
boundary and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50 percent of their
canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was
placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of plot throughout the five-year
monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with a three-foot
tall piece of half-inch PVC to identify them as the planted stems (vs. any colonizers) and to help in
locating them in the future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent, numbered aluminum tag.
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
The interim measure of vegetative success for the South Fork Hoppers Mitigation Plan will be the
survival of at least 320, 3-year old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260, 5-year old planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the Site species composition may be comprised of invaders. Remedial action may be
required should these (ie. Loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum, etc.) volunteer species present a problem
and exceed 20 percent composition.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
2.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
The following tables present stem counts for each of the monitoring plots. Each planted tree species is
' identified down the left column, and each plot is identified across the top row. The numbers on the top
row correlate to the ID column of the previous table. Trees are flagged in the field on an as-needed basis
before the flags degrade. Flags are utilized, because they will not interfere with the growth of the tree.
' Volunteer species are also flagged during this process.

I

1

Table 7. Year 2 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot

South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4 Initial
Totals Year 1
Totals Year 2
Totals %
Survival
Year 2 Plot Counts
Tree Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Betula ni ra 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 100.0
Fraximts
erns lvanica 9 1 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 4 24 25 23 95.8
Platanus
occidentalis 2 0 8 4 5 10 0 0 3 0 30 31 32 106.7
ttercus hellos 4 0 4 8 4 1 0 0 7 4 25 32 32 128.0
uercrts rubra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 2 100.0
Quercus
michauxii 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 7 10 11 157.1
Liriodendron
tali i erra 0 7 0 0 0 2 6 5 4 0 0 27 24 0.0
Celtis laevi ata 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 3 16.7
DioMAW
vir iniana 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 16 5 5 31.3
N ssa s lvatica 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 10 0 0 10 22 21 210.0
uercus S PP. 19 0 0 0.0
Unknown 12 0 0 0.0
Stems/ lot 17 14 16 15 16 15 16 15 16 15 165 161 155 93.9
Stems/acre 680 560 640 600 640 600 640 600 640 600 620 average
Average Stems/Acre for Year 2: 620
Range of Stems/Acre for Year 2: 560-680
The data reflects that the overall site is on a trajectory to meet the minimum success interim criteria of
320 trees per acre by the end of year three and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of
year five.
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five-year monitoring period. Table 8 depicts the
most commonly found woody volunteer species.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 9
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Table 8. Volunteers within Wetland Restoration Area
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Li uidambar s raci lua Sweet um FAC+
2 Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC
Few volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots, and were deemed too small to
tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added to the overall
stems per acre assessment of the site. Red Maple (Acerrubrirm) was the most common volunteer, though
Sweetgum (Liguidambarslyrac)ua) was also observed.
2.5 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the Site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild rye (L'ymus
virginicus), switch grass (Paiikwm virgalum), and fox sedge (Cal-ex viilpinoidea) was broadcast on the
Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species were present on the Site. Hydrophytic herbaceous
vegetation, including rush (Jimcus effuses), spike-rush (L'leocharis obliisa), boxseed (Ludwigia sp.) and
sedge (Carexsp.) were observed across the Site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The
presence of these herbaceous wetland plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the
Site.
Quite a few weedy species, including kudzu and lespedeza, were observed on the Site, though currently
none seem to be posing any problems. Because both kudzu and lespedeza can very quickly affect the
survivability of the planted stems, these weedy species should be treated aggressively to prevent any
major mortality.
2.6 Vegetation Photos
Photos of the project showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report.
3.0 STREAM MONITORING
3.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
construction completion on the South Fork Hoppers Restoration Project:
BaukfullEreiils: The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period was documented by the
use of a crest gauge and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of
the restored channel, near As-built Station 176+00. The crest gauge recorded the highest watermark
between Site visits and was checked at each Site visit to determine if a bankfull event had occurred.
Photographs were taken to document the occurrence of these bankfull events and are included in
Appendix A.
Crass sections Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Sixteen total cross
sections were established. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark was used for cross-sections and consistently
referenced to facilitate comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-sectional survey included
points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and
thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen stream
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 10
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

classification system (Rosgen, 1994). Permanent cross-sections for 2007 (Year 2) were surveyed in
October 2007 and are included in Appendix B.
' LongitirdinalProfiles A partial longitudinal profile was surveyed for 2007 (Year 2). The profile was
conducted for approximately 3,550 LF of South Fork Hoppers Creek, beginning upstream of the bridge at
As-built Station 125+09 and continuing down to As-built Station 160+09 (natural migration of the
' thalweg accounts for the additional 50 feet surveyed within the As-built Stations). 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, glide). In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded. All
survey was tied to a single permanent benchmark. This data is included in Appendix B of this report.
BedflaterialAfzaysis:• Pebble counts were conducted for the permanent cross sections (100 counts per
cross section) on the Site. Pebble count data was plotted on a semi-log graph and are included in
' Appendix B.
Photo Reference Stations Photographs were used to visually document restoration success. Seventy
' reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade control structures
across the Site. These photos are provided in Appendix A. Additional photo stations were established at
each of the sixteen permanent cross-sections and hydrologic monitoring stations. Each streambank was
photographed at each permanent cross-section photo station. For each streambank photo, the photo view
' line followed a survey tape placed across the channel, perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-
section line). The photograph was framed so that the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a
vertical line at the center of the photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near
1 the lower edge of the frame. These photos are presented along with the cross-section monitoring data in
Appendix B.
The GPS coordinates of each photo station were noted as additional reference to ensure the same photo
location was used throughout the monitoring period. These stations are included in the As-built Plan
Sheets in Appendix C. Reference photos were taken once per year.
1 3.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
• Bafl, u&&F'vents Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
' • Crass sections- There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes to channel cross-
section take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e.g., settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
• LongitudinalProfiles• The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining
stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes and
the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools.
' • BedMaterialAlm(ysis - Pebble counts should indicate maintenance of bed material.
• Photo ReferenceStatiotzs Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel, no excessive
bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of riparian vegetation. These
stations are included in the As-built Plan Sheets in Appendix C.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D040064, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 11
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
3.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of five bankfull flow events during the second year
(2007) of the post-construction monitoring period (Table 9). Inspection of site conditions following these
events revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest gauge reading. The largest
stream flow documented by the crest gauge during Year 2 of monitoring was approximately 1.63 feet
(19.56 inches) above the bankfull stage. Photos of these crest gauge readings are contained in Appendix
A, except for September 17, 2007. There was a camera malfunction on this date and photos were not
able to be saved.
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Date of Data Date of Occurrence of Method of Data Gage Height
Collection Bankfull Event Collection (feet)
1/16/2007 Unknown Crest gauge 0.73
3/13/2007 Unknown Crest gauge 1.13
5/22/2007 Unknown Crest gauge 0.10
7/17/2007 Unknown Crest gauge 0.08
9/17/2007 Unknown Crest gauge 1.63
3.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
A photo log of the project showing each of the 70 permanent photo locations is included in Appendix A
of this report. Survey data and photos from each permanent cross-section are included in Appendix B of
this report.
3.5 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 10 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in-stream structures
performed during Year 2 of post-construction monitoring. The percentages noted are a general overall
field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of the last photo point survey on
November 5, 2007. These percentages are solely based on the field evaluator's visual assessment at the
time of the site visit.
Visual observations of the various structures throughout the Year 2 growing season indicated that all
structures were functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade. Cover logs placed in meander
pool areas allowed scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. Root wads placed on the outside
of meander bends provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Isolated pockets of scour were observed along the upstream end of a few rootwads located at stations
124+50, 126+75, and 133+50. The scour appears to have taken place before vegetation had time to
become established along the streambanks.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 12
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1

1

1

1

Table 10. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100% 100%
Pools 100% 100% 100%
Thalwe 100% 100% 100%
Meanders 100% 100% 100%
Bed General 100% 100% 100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 100%
Rootwads and Boulders 100% 100% 95%
3.6 Cross-section, Longitudinal Profile, and Bed Material Analysis Monitoring Results
Cross Sections
Year 2 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during October and November
2007 and compared to as-built conditions and Year 1 data (collected October 2006).
The sixteen permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (eight located across riffles and eight
located across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 2.
Cross-sections are provided in Appendix B, and data from the cross-sections are summarized in
Appendix E. The cross-sections show that there has been minor adjustment to stream dimension within
the last year.
A few cross-sections have aggraded, including sections 2, 6, 11, and 16. Cross-section 2, located near the
downstream end of the Site, is likely aggrading in response to a beaver impoundment approximately 120
feet downstream of the project limits. The impoundment is slowing stream flow, which has resulted in
the accumulation of fine sediment within the project area immediately upstream. Cross-sections 6 and 1 I
are located across pools found at the apex of a meander bend. Survey data from these sections indicate
the aggradation on point bar features on the inside bank of the meander bend. Flow through a meander
bend possesses higher conveyance velocity along its boundary with the outer bank of the bend, and lower
flow velocity along its boundary with the bend's inner bank. As flow velocity reduces, its sediment
transport capacity also reduces, causing flow to drop some of its transported sediment as it slows down.
Point bar formation along the inside of a meander bend indicates flow velocity vectors occurring as
designed, and is therefore expected. Cross-section 16 is located at the most upstream extent of the Site
and is receiving a large sediment supply from its contributing watershed. All monitored cross-sections
fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" type channels.
Longitudinal Profiles
The Year 2 longitudinal profile was conducted during October and November 2007. A representative
3,550 LF section of the channel was surveyed, beginning at As-built Station 125+09 and ending at As-
built Station 160+09. Placement of the rock cross vanes upstream of the bridge as well as natural
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D040064, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
13
migration of the thalweg accounts for the 50 LF discrepancy between the surveyed length and the as-built
conditions. The longitudinal profile is included in Appendix B. A summary of parameters measured are
provided in Appendix E. Please note that this summary represents only the portion of the project that was
surveyed.
The representative longitudinal profile along the restored channel was resurveyed to document stream
profile at the end of monitoring Year 2. Riffle slopes, pool-to-pool spacing and sinuosity changed very
little within Reach 1 of South Fork Hoppers Creek. The values for Reach 2 showed little change in pool-
to-pool spacing and sinuosity, but a slight increase riffle slope. The change is a reflection of one riffle
increasing in grade, thereby raising the mean riffle slope value. The majority of Reach 2 riffles were
within the range of those documented in the As-Built survey.
Bed Material Analysis
Year 2 bed material samples were collected at each permanent cross-section during November 2007.
Overall, bed material indicated coarser riffles and finer pools, however riffles showed a trend towards
fining downstream of Pierce Road due to the backwater effects of the downstream beaver dam. Riffle
cross-sections 1 and 3 had d50 of 0.15 mm and 0.7 mm, respectively, which corresponds to sand. The
beaver dam causes the water to slow and fine particles to settle out of suspension, thus fining the riffle.
Riffles begin to coarsen further upstream with a d50 of 7.5 mm at cross-section 5. Upstream of Pierce
Road all riffle cross-sections have a d50 corresponding to very coarse gravel. Pools throughout the
project site are dominated by sand. All pebble count data is provided in Appendix B.
4.0 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
Weather station data from the for NRCS National Climate and Water Center (Marion WETS Station in
McDowell County -NC 5340) and the USGS Water Data for North Carolina (USGS 03451500 French
Broad River at Asheville, NC) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. For the 2007 growing season, November 2006 through January 2007
rainfall was normal or above normal; however from February 2007 through October 2007 rainfall was
recorded as below normal for greater than 55 percent of the time.
The restoration plan for the Site specifies that eight monitoring gauges (five automated and three manual)
would be established across the restored Site. These eight monitoring gauges were installed during early-
March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all required monitoring locations. The wells were
located across the site to document the variability in site hydrology, and the locations of monitoring
gauges are shown on the as-built plan sheets. As stated in the Restoration Report, the well monitoring
data should show that the site has been saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 7 percent
of the growing season, and that the site has exhibited an increased frequency of flooding.
Hydrologic monitoring results are shown in Table 11, 12 and Figure 5.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 14
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1

1

Table 11. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall (Inches)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-4
Month AverageA 30%A 70%A Observed 2007 Precipitation
January 4.23 3.10 5.35 11.2
February 15.46 2.09 5.36 0.718
March 5.43 3.45 6.52 6.15
April 4.41 2.54 6.00 2.79
May 5.40 3.88 6.41 2.70
June 4.70 2.91 5.98 2.75
July 4.28 2.87 5.53 6.79
August 4.24 2.88 5.44 0.53
September 4.48 2.22 5.45 4.68
October 3.95 2.17 5.43 0.70
November 4.43 2.96 5.29 -
December 3.96 2.20 5.00 -
(NRCS National Climate and Water Center, 2000 and USGS, 2007)
"Data in these columns presented exactly as reported by the NRCS National Climate and Water Center.
BMonthly on-site rainfall data unavailable, so total monthly rainfall data was calculated using the nearest USGS rain gauge
data (USGS 03451500 FRENCH BROAD RIVER AT ASHEVILLE, NC) to the project site. (USGS, 2007)
Figure 5. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
18
y 16 e Observed
14 Precipitation
12 -s- Average
C 10
8 30%
a 6
4 .70%
2
0
Month
In 2007, six of the eight wells met the success criteria specified by the Restoration Plan. Automated
wells (AW) 1, 2, and 5 met the soil saturation criteria throughout the entire growing season, as they did in
2006. Manual well 3 (MW3), also, met the criteria throughout most of the growing season. AW3 met
the criteria more often and for longer consecutive periods than in 2006. AW4 met the criteria for a
greater number of consecutive days than in 2006; however, the cumulative days were the same and the
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 15
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
instances that the criteria were met were more often than in 2006. MW 1 and MW2 did not meet the
criteria in 2007 or 2006, nor did the reference wells, except for cumulative days in Year 2 for REF 1.
Table 12. Comparison of Hydrologic Monitoring Results for Year 2 and Year I
South Fork Hoppers Creek R estoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-4
Monitoring
Station Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criterial Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria Number of Instances
Meeting Criteria3
Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring
AW 1 222 100% 222(100%) 222(100%) 222(100%) 1 1
AW2 222(100%) 222(100%) 222(100%) 222(100%) 1 1
AW3 133 60% 75 (34%) 218 98%) 178(77%) 2 6
AW4 33 15% 16 7% 58(26%) 58(26%) 13 12
AW5 222 100%) 175 (79%) 222 100% 190(86%) 1 2
MW14 < 5% < 5% -5% -10% - -
MW25 < 5% < 5% -5% -10%
-
-
MW34 > 95% > 75% -100% -90% - -
REF 16 5 2% 8(4%) 26(12%) 9(4%) 8 1
REF26 4(2%) 3(1%) 13(6%) 4(2%) 4 2
i Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches
form the soil surface.
'` Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than 12 inches from the
soil surface.
Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less than 12 inches from
the soil surface.
4 Groundwater gauges MW 1 and MW3 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and
correlation with automated gauge AWL
5 Groundwater gauge MW2 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on observations and correlation with
automated gauge AW2.
6 Reference ground water gauges are located on an Unnamed Tributary to Little Silver Creek in Morganton, NC
5.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
5.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macro invertebrate monitoring was conducted in conjunction with the South Fork Hoppers Creek
Restoration Project. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate sampling must
be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic sampling for the Site is conducted during the
month of January, therefore this report summarizes the benthic samples collected during the first year
post-construction monitoring phase.
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). Field sampling was conducted by Christine Miller
and Anna Cathey of Baker. Laboratory identification of collected species was conducted by Chris
Outlaw and Bobby Louque, biologists with the City of Durham.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 16
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two sites on the South Fork of Hoppers Creek site
on January 16 and 17, 2007 and one reference site located upstream of the project on January 16, 2007.
' Site 1, the reference site, was located approximately 200 LF upstream of the conservation easement
boundary on South Fork Hoppers Creek, Site 2 was located just upstream of Pierce Road, and Site 3 was
located upstream of the downstream conservation easement boundary. Figure 1 illustrates the sampling
site locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the creek. In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies)
and Trichoptera (caddisflies) 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, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration,
pH, and specific conductivity were recorded at each site. The habitat assessment field data sheets are
presented in Appendix F. Photographs were taken at Sites 1 through 3 to document stream and bank
conditions at the time of sampling. The Photograph Log is also presented in Appendix F.
5.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 13 with
complete results presented in Appendix F.
Table 13. Pre-restoration vs. Post-restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-4
Metric Site 1 Reference Site 2 U/S
Hoppers Site 3 D/S
Hoppers
Pre
1111105 Post
1/17/07 Pre
1111105 Post
1/16/07 Pre
1/12/05 Post
1/16/07
Total Taxa Richness 36 50 31 43 27 40
EPT Taxa Richness 23 21 21 15 14 13
Total Biotic Index 3.15 3.47 3.03 5.58 3.03 5.53
EPT Biotic Index 2.62 3.17 2.56 4.50 2.33 3.93
Dominance in Common % N/A N/A 74 23 58 23
Baetidae/EPT Taxa (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 7.7
Total Shredder/Scraper Index 5/9 8/7 5/8 7/7 6/5 2/5
EPT Shredder/Scraper Index 3/7 4/3 4/6 1/4 4/3 1/2
Habitat Assessment Rating 94 84 74 86 53 82
Water Temperature (°C) N/A 7.0 N/A 12.0 N/A 11.4
% Dissolved Oxygen (DO) N/A 54.7 N/A 35.7 N/A 29.8
DO Concentration (m /t) N/A 6.61 N/A 3.87 N/A 3.25
H N/A 6.20 N/A 6.30 N/A 6.03
Conductivity ( mhos/cm N/A 40 N/A 40 N/A 50
At Site 1, the reference site, the post-construction community structure appears similar to that observed
during the pre-construction monitoring period. Overall taxa richness increased in the post-construction
sample and there was a marginal decrease in EPT taxa richness. Several of the EPT species that were
common or abundant in the pre-construction sample, such as Tallaperla spp., Slnmmmapudicum,
Diplectrona modesla, and Diploperla duplicala (tolerance values of 1.2, 2.0, 2.2, and 2.7, respectively)
were also common or abundant in the post-construction sample. Din-,7o& spp., which has a tolerance
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 17
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
value of 0.0, was not represented in the pre-construction sample but was common in the post-construction
sample. These indicators show that the communities are stable and water quality is adequate to support
intolerant species.
Site 2, which underwent complete restoration, exhibited increased total taxa richness but decreased EPT
taxa richness. EPT abundance was 82 in the pre-construction sample and 84 in the post-construction
sample, which indicates that EPT diversity has decreased. The increase in biotic indices from 2.56 to
4.50 indicates that the existing communities are comprised of more tolerant species. This is a typical
response after a major disturbance to habitat such as the in-stream construction techniques implemented
on Site 2. Thirteen percent of EPT taxa in the post-construction sample were Baetidae species, which are
part of the scraper functional feeding group. The riparian buffer is non-existent along the newly
constructed reach, allowing maximum light penetration for increased photosynthetic activity, thus
producing an abundant food source (periphyton). Periphyton is an excellent food source for scrapers. No
Baetidaes were present in the pre-construction sample, which was taken when the sampling site had an
adequate forested buffer.
Currently Site 2 has 23 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site, indicating
that 23 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are dominant at Site 2. In pre-
construction conditions, Site 2 had a DIC of 74 percent. This indicates that post-construction
recolonization from refugia upstream (represented at Site 1) has begun but that the communities in Site 1
and 2 are not as similar as they were during pre-construction conditions. It is anticipated that
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as the
project and buffer matures and as communities continue to recolonize.
Site 3 also underwent total restoration. The overall taxa richness increased in the post-construction
sample but the EPT Taxa richness decreased slightly. The EPT biotic index increased from 2.33 to 3.93.
This indicates that the EPT species in this sample were more tolerant than during the pre-construction
conditions. Neophylaxmitchelli (tolerance value of 0.1) was abundant in the post-construction sample,
which indicates that water quality is adequate to support intolerant species. Post-construction shredder
taxa were decreased from the pre-construction sample. These organisms feed on partially decomposed
organic matter such as sticks and leaf packs, a rare habitat (see Habitat Assessment Results). The
decrease in sensitive communities and lack of shredders are common responses after a major disturbance
to habitat such as the in-stream construction techniques implemented at Site 3. It is anticipated that, as
the project matures, shredder populations will increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf
packs become available.
Currently Site 3 has 23 percent DIC with the reference site. In pre-construction conditions, Site 3 had a
DIC of 58 percent. This indicates that recolonization post-construction from refugia upstream
(represented at Site 1) has initialized but has not reached pre-construction conditions. It is anticipated
that improvements in biotic indices and an increase in Dominance in Common will be seen in future
monitoring reports as the project and buffer matures and as communities continue to recolonize.
5.3 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
Site 1, the reference site, received an 84 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The site exhibited
excellent riffle substrate, habitat diversity and shading. Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles,
moderately embedded with sand and the pool bottoms were sandy. Site I had a mature hardwood buffer
with minimal breaks. No snags or logs were present within this section of the channel.
Site 2 received an 86 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The site exhibited excellent riffle pool
sequencing, pattern, stability, and habitat diversity. Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles, and the pool
bottoms were silty. The riparian buffer of Site 2 could be classified as fallow field, with immature
hardwood seedlings scattered throughout. Despite the absence of woody vegetation directly adjacent to
the channel, organic habitat such as sticks and leaf packs were common throughout Site 2. The stick and
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 18
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

leaf pack material must have originated upstream of the project area, within the reference reach. It is
anticipated that as the project and buffer continues to mature, habitat will continue to improve and
' diversify.
Site 3 received an 82 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The site exhibited excellent riffle pool
sequencing, pattern and stability. Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles, moderately embedded with
sand, and the pool bottoms were silty. Like Site 2, the riparian buffer of Site 3 could be classified as
fallow field, with immature hardwood seedlings scattered throughout. The riparian vegetation was
virtually non-existent and therefore there were few organic contributions to the stream. The lack of
' organic habitats is likely the cause for the decreased shredder communities from pre-construction
monitoring to post-construction monitoring. It is anticipated that as the riparian buffer becomes
established, the shredders from the upstream reference site (Site 1) will begin to colonize throughout the
' restoration reach.
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and armored
riffles has enhanced the overall in-stream habitat throughout the restoration sites. Newly planted riparian
' vegetation has had minimal effect on in-stream habitat at Sites 2 and 3, however future contributions
from planted riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant species mature. Contributions will
include in-stream structures such as sticks, leaf packs, and root mats.
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved
oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all sites were within established norms for
Piedmont streams.
5.4 Photograph Log
The photograph log is attached as Appendix F. Photos P- I and P-2 show the stable, well defined riffle
' pool sequence at Site 1. The break in the riparian buffer is visible in P-1, and the embedded substrate can
be seen in P-2. Undercut banks are visible in the background of P-2. Photos P-3 and P-4 show the well
defined riffle pool sequence at Site 2. Due to recent project construction, Site 2 lacks a mature forested
' canopy; however, young woody vegetation is present along the banks. Site 3 is shown in P-5 and P-6.
Both photos show the stability of the channel as well as the riffle pool sequence. Woody transplants are
visible both upstream and downstream in P-5 and P-6, respectively.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' Vegetation Monitoring: Vegetation monitoring has documented the average number of stems per acre
on site to be 620, which is a survival rate of greater than 93 percent, based on the initial planting count of
664 stems per acre. A maintenance herbicide application should be scheduled for next year to prevent the
' invasive kudzu and lespedeza, which is observed on the Site perimeter and sparsely throughout the
restoration area, from spreading throughout the Site. The Site is on track to meet the interim vegetative
success criteria of 320 3-year old planted stems specified in the Restoration Plan.
' S?ream?loniloring. The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 7,229 LF. This entire
length was inspected during Year 2 of the monitoring period (2007) to assess stream performance. Based
on the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed features along the restored channel are stable
' and functioning as designed. Isolated scour was noted along the outer bank of a few pools upstream of
Pierce Road. This erosion appears to be stabilized since vegetation has established along the
streambanks. Although a beaver impoundment downstream of the restored area is slowing velocities
' through the lower half of the project and causing fine sediments to settle out of the water column, it has
not been removed because it is not affecting the stability of the channel. The lack of major problem areas
along the length of the restored channel after the occurrence of five stream flow events larger than
bankfull discharge further supports functionality of the design. It is expected that stability and in-stream
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 19
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
habitat of the system will improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation becomes more
established, and that the Site will achieve the stream stability success criteria specified in the Restoration
Plan.
h'ydrologicflonitoring.• Data collected during the 2007 growing season by the eight monitoring gauges
showed that hydrology varied across the Site. The hydrology of these areas is expected to be more
variable throughout the growing season, with the wettest periods during the early spring and late fall.
Groundwater levels met hydrologic success criteria for six of the eight gauges. MW 1 and MW2 did not
meet the hydrologic success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan but did achieve hydroperiods
similar to those achieved by the reference monitoring wells. Overall, the Site appears to be on track to
meet the hydrologic success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan.
7.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer, including a deer carcass, and raccoon tracks are common on the Site. During
certain times of the year, frogs, turtles and fish have also been observed.
8.0 REFERENCES
Allan, J.D. 1996. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and
Hall Publishers. London, England.
Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of logging on macro invertebrates in
streams with and without buffer strips. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol.
37, pp. 1076-1085.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Interim, Internal Technical Guide:
Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration
Projects.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
North Carolina State University. 2006. Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols for Stream Mitigation
and Restoration Projects (401 Certification Projects).
NRCS National Climate and Water Center. Marion WETS Station at McDowell County - NC 5340
(1971-2000). FIPS/County(FIPS). 2002
ftp•//ftp wcc nres usda.gov/support/climate/wetlands/nc/37023.txt
Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Real-Time Data for North Carolina- Precipitation USGS Water-Data Site Information for North
Carolina. USGS 03451500 French Broad River at Asheville, NC. Retrieved on 2007-10-23
14:24:16 EDT http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/current/?iype=precip&vroup key=county cd
Resource Management Group, Inc. 1999. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands.
Dickinson Press, Inc., Grand Rapids, MI.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Camlla 22:169-199.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 20
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Stone, M.K. and J.B. Wallace. 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut
logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater
' Biology, Vol. 39, pp. 151-169.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Series
Descriptions, November 2006. http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.htmi
' Voshell, J. Reses Jr. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America.
The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. Blacksburg, Virginia
Wallace, J.B. and M.E. Gurtz. 1986. Response of,8aetismayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment
logging. The American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 1] 5, pp. 25-41.
' Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02, July 2000. Website
cited June 20, 2006. httl2://ei.erdc.usace.army.mil/wrap/pdf/tnwrapOO-2.pdf.
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 21
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG

PROJECT ID PHOTOS

let

.,..:r.w w *Wo

w f,,? t

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 3
:•y ` At
4 ? a[3 ? ? DTI •?
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 5
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, F,BX NF.USE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 4
2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID I
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 6

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 7

.1444

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 9
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 3
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 8
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 10
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 11
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 12
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 14

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 15
'' iry v r
"t
Norm
•s , t ;
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 16
All
r
< f 4 Y V
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 18
South Fork Iloppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 4
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID U
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 17
K
?a122" ¢ ? by Y T 1gg?. ?. i. 't H
p
Lik
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 19
:?i,;;er,...., a ,? fir: ?? *? ? ?. ??. t ?.,•
f
A S y{N' •? ???/ ? dr to ?'t,C't ? ? '? \ iq
tr ..t? x
WI ?b
N.IA D?` r'?4rr ? ? 9A
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 21
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 23
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

t , yl,
M ,, tti 1 1r1.
f'4 ,py t
Ito
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 20
a
'Fri
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 24
5
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 22
4 r
x < I`ds' ?. :'
1!0. X
V \Tl, ?'•', ? r ? °?xs
Alai
S. Fork Hoppers - YID 25

2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 27

L
a
AI
-
L

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 29
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 26
??
IY • ? J?'c ..A

r
I
i ti u T
1 }
3"?'Y'lb
? Y?
a}?k
t
t ?

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 28
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 30

%

¦ S. Fork Hoppers - PID 31

V I Vyt ,

. y d• qy Q ?'h 1
?4 .
1, yT !

Qf•'9i 41 ?i ? ??
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 33 S. Fork Hoppers - PID 34

.1 t
"Paw
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 35 S. Fork Hoppers - PID 36
I
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
7
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 32

x
S' ?C'? ty1 4 Y ? ?:

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 37
?{ . IN
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 39
1 i{I ,?lti:
t ti _
1
1 l 'y
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 41
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04000-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 38
}
P v

e
, d
Z!.. A

v.
R
RS[ r.

1" 1 ? s ?
i
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 40
?[ 1?/ll?ie''! :. ? ??. Vim. •:i? , '' ?.
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 42
s

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 43

?? a
,. ? , t^t ,? Ag
? , ?' •? r?l«.` ,r .
F
ty, ? {i,, ffv
r fr. ? "aFl ? ?A 3

?+J oit
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 45
51
? r t?'";??tk? yy
t ?
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 47
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2

'
.-
"1 4
,•+

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 44
+',4 a y
Wr
y# #
/rPiA -
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 46
,. .77 a
r
4 ?r
?y 3
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 48
9
,?{?. _ y? .qty
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 49
w
Ala
` A
41
a?'A s y a,F 1, i
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 51

p;' .sue .•?4 's' Y
- '+I:N rt ?y?

?. -Ad
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 53
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
q -ASK y AT
?jJ 7 rn
M M
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 50
10
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 52
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 54

Sri ° - •r'""°

} 4 ry .# ??,w t

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 56
Y??A
A 1,
t
41
, 'A
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 57
rJ,• tr
k?lgT7? ? ??ar r
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 59
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 60
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 58

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 61
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 63

tam
,
T
? `i+??!1?!li??e
7Y?r ?
? ??
yr
,.y
•,? n?.. -
s

te r.-:

ffu? ^ ^
a
??
,?„ ? :•? ? 1. ' ???
, ?

? 3 ?' 1 ?'i '
?
. .

f
X ?
'?
+Y
l r ? 4 ?
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 65
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
t ,a F;
444*
Y, .r
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 62

- r Jr?•?t.-
? ??
': ?wr.? 1 I
a t +Xli
?f
!I??

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 66
12
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 64

K
?

w
= K ,. ..
4
,

A
Frt

j
-
K
^
' , 1f

T' .
- ?

,
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 67

r-

yF.

S. Fork Hoppers - PID 69
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
loft,
_-
t
Vk,
M ?
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 68
S. Fork Hoppers - PID 70
13
VEG PLOT PHOTOS
r
T
;F
yr
g` a 'Y
7lI?J r ,
.pf t 0-'
Veg Plot #1
r
t 4e a s K s
Veg Plot #2
11
Veg Plot #3

Veg Plot #5
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
F
Veg Plot #4
2
Veg Plot #6

Veg Plot #7

Veg Plot #9
South Fork Hoppers, FIT Contract No. D04006-4, EM NEUSE-1, LLC
November 3007, Monitoring Year 2
.yam t?
4
y Vii,. y 4

Veg Plot #10
3
Veg Plot #8
Crest Gauge Photos
CREST GAUGE PHOTOS OF BANKFULL
Crest Gauge -1/16/07

- '1

Crest Gauge - 5/22/07
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Crest Gauge - 3/13/07
Crest Gauge - 7/17/07
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA

1

1

1

1

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 2 (2007) Monitoring Profile
1225
1220
1215
c
0
1210
d
w
1205
1200
1195
12500
13000
13500
Station
14000
14500
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Year 2 (2007) Monitoring Profile
1215
1210
1205
0
1200
m
w
1195
1190
1185
14500
15000
15500
Station
16000
16500
Permanent Cross Section X1
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)

Looking at the Left Bank
?a
a
x ,
? ?a t' E a-r9''y
l-ooking at the Right Bank

Feature Strea
Type m
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 21.5 21 1.02 2.24 20.55 1 3.4 1186.25 1186.26
X1 Riffle
1189

o------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ o
1188
1187
0 1186-

1185-
W
1184-
1183
0 - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone -?- Year 2
X Year l -*--As Built
1182
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Permanent Cross Section X2
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)
a
c? h
N
L s? ,
aw uv :: +,? a ;. as c rfq?,•??,

Fe
ature Stream
Type
I
BKFArea
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 18.7 15.3 1.22 2.23 12.52 1 4.6 1185.87 1185.87
X2 Pool

1189
1188 v------------------------------------------------------------------------------ o
1187
1186
c
1185
?a
W 1184
1183
1182
o Bankfull - o - - Floodprone Year 2 -X- Year 1 --*-As Built
1181

1180
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross Section X3
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)

r .y

!?
F
t
`

Fe
ature S tream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 19.9 15.56 1.28 2.37 12.16 1 4.5 1190.48 1190.49
X3 Riffle
1194 -

1193 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1192
C
m 1191

1190 .-fir---r
W
1189-
1188-
1187 - o - Bankfull - - o - - Flood prone --?- Year 2 - Year 1 -*-As Built
1186

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross Section X4
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)
'? ... 7-
L w
ju.
x..
xti ?:, 1 c.

Feature Stream
Tye
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 21.2 16.02 1.32 2.83 12.1 1 4.4 1190.29 1190.29
X4 Pool

1194
1193 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1192

1191 i
----------------
1190

w 1189

1188
1187
1186 0 - Bankfull - o Floodprone 0 Year 2 -n- Year 1 -a As Built

1185
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)

VF }
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Tye BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 25.2 20.09 1.25 2.5 16.01 1 3.5 1193.4 1193.44
X5 Riffle
1197 --
1196 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1195
1194
0
- - - - - - - -
1193
m
W
1192
1191
1190 0 - - Bankfull o - - Floodprone t Year 2 x Year 1 As Built
1189
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)

Fe
ature Str
T eam
ye
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
Bld Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 51.2 31.33 1.63 3.92 19.16 1 2.3 1193.95 1193.96
X6 Pool
1199 --
o-------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1197
1195

1193
m
W
1191
1189
a Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone -4-- Year 2 * Year l ->? As Built
1187

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)
yy ys'?n ? t M ? Y .. F t +lr. --
?, • ? ? :max, _, .;.,_ ?
A 51r`rr 4 , , JG'^`a+ & Zaw .,I,:' '?2L"? 5 .. Yy?* `-? ?µ Lam.
:.U- ?.. .E Y., ..C? ........ ?5r.''.. - If ti.' _f f.. ??t..._
Looking at the Right

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 11.2 11.26 0.99 2 11.34 1 5.9 1196.51 1196.51
X7 Pool
1200

1199
o--------------------------------------------------------------------
1198
1197
o

1196
m ......--
W
1195
1194
1193 o Bankfull o Floodprone t Year 2 Year l -*-- As Built
1192

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected October 2007)
-3 ?
<.?4- `'fit. .. s,? -_•' i
NIVIF

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 7.1 12.22 0.58 1.31 20.91 1 3.5 1197.85 1197.85

X8 Riffle

1201
1200

1199 ------------ -------------------•---------------
0 1198 --------" '--
m
w 1197
1196
1195 o - Bankfull - o - - Floodprone ?- Year 2 X Year l 0 As Built

1194
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
' Permanent Cross Section X9
year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octohr 2007)

Fe
ature Str
T eam
ype
BKF Area
BKF Uth BKF
Depth Ma>BKF
Depth
JH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Pool 75.6 30.33 2.49 3.51 12.18 1 2.3 1200.37 1200.37
X9 Pool
1206

1204 0.....-----•-.....------•----------------------------••..........-------•---..- - 0
1202
c
i
0 1200 -
W
1198 -
1196-
C> - - Bankfull o Floodprone 0 Year 2 - - Year 1 --*-As Built
1194

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X10
Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octobr 2007)
d c-
77- *-q' g
Stream BKF Ma)BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF itlth Depth Depth YD H Ratio ER BKF Elev T B Elev
Riffle C 26.3 18.01 1.46 2.57 12.34 1 3.9 1203.37 1203.37
X10 Riffle
1207 -
--- -- - -- -
1206 0 ------------------------------------------------- - ........-...-----------------o
1205
1204
o
1203
m
w
1202
1201

1200 o - Bankfull - o - - Flood prone -4-- Year 2 Year 1 --*-As Built
119
9
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X11
year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octohr 2007)
'11111171111 PIT
P
140-

Fe
ature Str
T eam
ye
BKF Area
BKF 18th BKF
Depth MaA3KF
Depth
Xm
H Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Pool 35.4 29.89 1.18 2.74 25.24 1 2.3 1214.31 1214.31
X11 Pool

1218
1217 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1216
1215
c
1214 ---••------------
,.'
1
m

w
1213
rte
1212
1211
1210
o Bankfull o Flood prone -4-- Year 2 -- Year 1- As Built
1209
-1 1
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X12
year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octobr 2007)

S tream BKF Ma>BKF
Fe ature Type BKF Area BKF Wh Depth Depth KN JH Ratio ER BKF Elev T B Elev
Riffle C 21.7 18.15 1.2 1.89 15.14 1 3.9 1214.65 1214.65
X12 Riffle
1217 -

o------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
1216
1215
c ----------- -------
2
1214
m
W
1213
1212
o - - Bankfull - o - - Floodprone Year 2 - ?- Year 1 -ix As Built

1211
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X13
Year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octohr 2007)

Looking at the Left Bank

!?
J

M

F
eature Str
T eam
ype
BKF Area
BKF l&h BKF
De th Ma>8KF
Depth
X@
H Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Pool 31.6 22.93 1.38 2.87 16.67 1 3.1 1217.36 1217.36

X13 Pool
1221

1220 0 0
1219
1218 u
1217 -- ------ ----- - --- 4-
w 1216
1215
1214
1213 o Bankfull o • - Floodprone e Year 2 x Year l - As Built
1212

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross Section X14
year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octohr 2007)
fit,

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Wth BKF
Depth Ma)BKF
Depth
X61
H Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Riffle C 18.9 16.71 113 1.93 14.77 1 4.2 1218 1218
X14 Riffle
1221 - -- -
1220 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1219

M
1218 .---------
m
W
1217
1216
o Bankfull - - o . - Floodprone -?- Year 2 Year 1 - x As Built

1215
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X15
year 2 Monitroing Data - collected Octobr 2007)
'} 1t sr
?r f?Y???lMMf?t?ft?
Looking at the Right

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Wth BKF
Depth Ma>BKF
Depth
YD
JH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Riffle C 17.1 16.29 1.05 1.82 15.49 1 4.3 1222.51 1222.52
X15 Riffle
1225

o------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------o
1224
1223 -
.2

1222
m
W
1221
1220
o - Bankfull o - - Floodprone t Year 2 -- Year l ->« - As Built
1219

95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross Section X16
year 2 Monitoring Data - collected Octohr 2007)
i .

Y Ail" ;Iil
tr?, RI i 5 ? Sal ?
H -ib
'?w 3

Feature Strea
Type m
BKF Area
BKF Wh BKF
Depth MaA3KF
Depth
1lm
JH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev T
B Elev
Pool 11.3 14.01 0.81 1.8 17.29 1 5 1223.5 1223.5
X16 Pool

1226

1225
1224
2 1223
R

W 1222
1221
1220 0 - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone -?- Year 2 x Year l - a As Built

1219
95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Station
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Looking at the Right Bank

I PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT

1

1

BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X1-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 11/6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Largest particles:
(riffle)
' South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4,
EBX NEUSE 1, LLC
t November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X1-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -?- Rife Data
80%
70%
.- 60%
m
C
LL
c 50%
m
d
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT

1

1

BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X2-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4,
EBX NEUSE 1, LLC
' November 2001, Monitoring Year 2
1
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X2-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100% -
90% -?- Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
d
C
LL
C 50%
d
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000
10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: M-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 11/6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Largest particles:
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
1
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X3-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%a -
90% -?- Rife Data
80%
70%
60%
m
C
LL
c 50%
m
as
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT
E BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X4-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
I DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2001, Monitoring Year 2
1
South Fork Hoppers Creek
M-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% - Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
c
LL
c 50%
d
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X5-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
I DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
Largest particles:
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X5-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -?- Rife Data
80%
70%
60%
m
C
LL
c 50%
d
m
IL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000
? illy lli? ' III lllllll? illl¦? ? l? ? I? ? Ili il¦? !? I? ? ? ?
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT

1

Largest particles:
(pool)

1
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X6-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
1
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X6-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -?- Rife Data
80%
70%
L 60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
d
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000
? li• I? ? ? ? ? ? li• li• li• ? ? ? ? ? I? l? li•
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT

1

1
1
1
1

BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X7-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Largest particles:
(pool)
' South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE_I, LLC
' November 2001, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X7-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% ?- Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
C 50%
0
2
0
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000
r r r r r ¦r r r r r r r liiilr r r r r r r

1

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X8-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /6/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/SU
DATA ENTRY BY: KS
Largest particles:
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
g0
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X8-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -?- Rife Data
80%
70%
60%
m
C
U.
c 50%
m
m
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT

1

BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X9-P001
DATE COLLECTED: 11/5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
I DATA ENTRY BY: 1E
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000

South Fork Hoppers Creek
X9-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -+- Riffle Data
80%-
70%
60%
m
C
LL
I.. 50%
d
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%--
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000
10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X1 O-RIffle
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
DATA ENTRY BY: IE
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Largest particles: 250.00
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X10-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -+- Rife Data
80%
70%
60%
d
C
LL
c 50%
d
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X1 1-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/IE
I DATA ENTRY BY: IE

1
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2001, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X11-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
d
U
d
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X12-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
I DATA ENTRY BY: IE

1
1

South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2001, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
Largest particles: 240.00
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X12-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% -+- Rife Data
80%-
70%
60%
m
C
LL
I.. 50%
d
IL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X13-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
I DATA ENTRY BY: IE

1
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X13-Pool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% - Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
m
C
ai
E 50%
d
m
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork HO ers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X14-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 11/5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
DATA ENTRY BY: IE

1
1

South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
Largest particles: 200.00
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers Creek
X14-Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
d
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0 Riffle Data
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: RIFFLE 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X15-Riffle
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
I DATA ENTRY BY: IE
m PA SlImm) Riffle
Silt / Clay < .063
Very Fine 063®
Fine .125-25
A
A Medium .25-.50
N Coarse .50-1.0
D Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
Very Fine 2.0-2.8
Very Fine 2.8-4.0
Fine 4.0-5.6
C' Fine 5.6-8.0
R Medium 8.0-11.0
I V Medium 11.0-16.0
E Coarse 16.0-22.6
L Coarse 22.6 - 32
O Very Coarse 32 - 45
Very Coarse 45 - 64
Small 64 - 90
Small 90 - 128
'0BBLE Large 128 - 180
Lar a 180 256
Small 256 - 362
Small 362 - 512
IOULDER Medium 512 - 1024
Lar a-Very Lar e 1024 - 2048
3EDROCK Bedrock > 2048
Stal
hrgst particles:
RP CI£itS CD Summary
Class % 96u lot size
1
1
1
6
41
4
10
(riffle)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-t, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
11/0 1 % 0.063
1% 2% 0.125
8% 10% 0.25
1 % 11 % 0.50
11% 1.0
11% 2.0
11% 2.8
11% 4.0
1% 12% 5.6
1% 13% 8.0
13% 11.3
1% 14% 16.0
1 % 15% 22.6
6% 21% 32
41% 62% 45
25% 87% 64
5% 92% 90
4% 96% 128
4% 100% 180
100% 256
100% 362
100% 512
100% 1024
100% 2048
100% 5000
1
SoutlforlHoppers Creek
Miff le
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
d
c
U.
c 50%
m
m
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0 Riffle Data
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000
10000

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET: POOL 100-COUNT
BUCK PROJECT NO. 108410
SITE OR PROJECT: South Fork Hoppers Creek, Year 2 Monitoring
REACH/LOCATION: X16-Pool
DATE COLLECTED: 1 1 /5/2007
FIELD COLLECTION BY: RR/1E
I DATA ENTRY BY: IE
Distribution
Plot Size (mm)
0.063
0.125
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
5000
Largest particles:
(pool)
South Fork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
SoutFFor*ioppers Creek
Wool
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
90% - Rife Data
80%
70%
60%
d
c
LL
c 50%
d
d
CL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000
10000
IM m m = m m = m
APPENDIX C
AS-BUILT PLAN SHEETS
DYSARTYILLE
I
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS CREEK
1 s?
LANDIS UN
I
UT1
r-
SOUTH FORK
HOPPPERS CREEK
WALKER RD
PIERCE RD
VICINITY MAP - NTS
200' 0 200' 400'
I --mom
SCALE (FT)
110+85

SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
ENVIROMENTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE, LLC
---------------------
McDOWELL COUNTY
---------------------
LOCATION: SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
NEAR DYSARTSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK: WETLAND AND STREAM
RESTORATION
--------------------
AS-BUILT PLANS
181+70
11 tt...

1
0.

Ifs jj'; :: : INDEX OF SHEETS
t 1 S
T1 - TITLE SHEET

'
I
il
S1 - SYMBOL SHEET
l P1-P9 - PLAN SHEET

?SI
a S
>
NOTE:
as 1. PHOTO ID POINTS
AND VEGETATION PLOTS
LOCATED USING GPS
PIERCE ROAD SR / 1776
• 2. THESE PLANS WERE ORGINIIALLY SEALED
(sD
PUBLIC R/W) ON 06/30/06 AND ARE PROVIDED WITH THIS
MONITORING REPORT FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF:
ENVIROMENTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE, LLC
' 2530 MERIDIAN PARKWAY, SUITE 200
DURHAM, NC 27713
t
_ EBX CONTACT:
THOMAS RINKER
PROJECT MANAGER
¦
i
' LEGEND
110+00
AS-BUILT THALWEG (STA 100+85 TO 181+70)
ROOTWAD
10+00
DESIGN THALWEG ALIGNMENT (STA 10+85 TO 82+00)
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
• PHOTO ID POINT
- - - - - -900- - - - - - - MAJOR (INDEX) CONTOUR
SURVEY CONTROL POINT
MINOR CONTOUR
CROSS VANE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
C
® LOG VANE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FENCE
VEGETATION TRANSPLANT
BAMBOO BARRIER
COVER LOG

X12 CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION .`.`.`.` BAMBOO TREATMENT AREA
VEGETATION PLOT

FORD STREAM CROSSING
WETLAND RESTORATION
y y
y y
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
24C SI
PROJECT ENGINEER
CLY
APPROVED BY
06/30/200 6
SOUTH FORK
HOPPERS AS-BUILT
SYMBOL SHEET
___
MATCHLINE - P1 - 119+50
7T 7
I I I ( // / / ? / as / ? ? (\ \/ ( ( ( ` I 1 I
/ III / / I i \t \ \ \ \ \ 1 ?
/ I ( ( / / / I ? I ?\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 \ \ III
/ / ( ( ( / / ( 1 II 1 \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 \IIII
1 / J I
/ / / / / / ( \ ? ? \ \ \ 1 I I IIIIII?
/ / / / / // / \ ) \ \I I I I III IIII
/ / ) I l
? / / I I I ?? o f
/ / / i I \ 1 1 1 ?
\\ \ 1 ;
1 / / ( o/? \ I \\\\\111 Z
_ m
m
/ / / / / / 1 1 1 1 q ?
T1
/ / / / / / ?/ I I I I I
/ / / / / /? ? I I I I I
j/'Ati ( I I I I I
I l? 1 ? I I(
I I ?? ?I I \ I ? I ? I
I I (
I \ ??\\ ?\\ V? 11 1 11 \ \ I
1 1
I I ? ? ?? ?? e-? \ I 1 1 1\ \I 1
I I I ?? ?? ? \ 1 1 1 \\ II
l I 1 \ I1
I \ \
\ 1
28*00
`x ?T x ?r?c\x x
?? \ \
x X 1 \ \ / / l ` \ \ \\ ? ?
?C l ^ x X'\ \ 1?`1\ x1
I i \x \x mx x \ ? \ x \ ? \x\
i I x x x x \ x \ \ \'? \x\ '? \ xl \ I I?, / / \\ \I \
x xl?l,?l \ 1 1 I / / / \ I
\x lx x x 'f xi I xI )x)/ I I 1 / / \ \
1t I
? >?x? Q? / / /mss \ \
\
_) 1 XI ICI///// II i 1\a / // I \ \ \
-x x /?x xi
X) X( X X/
? (n k ` / 2e*00 \ \ ?
MATCHLINE - P3 - 128+00
m

o =
'o
?N
N m0
`A
_
m D -TI
o I O
co
c
r
o ?
\1
I I I I I I ( / ? I ?
/I I I I II 1\ Il ` Il //
\\11111 I I / / / / \ \ \ s ?? I
\I\\\1 I I I I/ // /? I 1 ?? `? I
\1111111 I I / / / ? I " I I\
111111 ? I I/ / / s /) // 1 \
11 111 I I l / r / 1
III 11 I I ? / ? ? /?' / /
Ilillll I I /I / /i r? r l
\\\\\ \ I 1 1 1 1 ( 11 ? /
\? \?\\ \\ I I I I I
\\\\ \\ 1 \ \ I / x/, ASS Sfcn I I I / a \
\
I \\111111111/ /'? __/// // r/ \\ ?
I 1111 / ? \
I 1111 \ F1
II II I II ) / >
I1?I 111111 \' I ( I m
I \II I\\1\\\\ \ 1 \ ` N
111 1111\ \\ \ ? ?
111111111 \ \? > \?
I1 111111 \
I I1 11111 / \ ? ? \
I I I X111111111 ? \I \ \\\ ?_--- ? a
/ I I III
// / I I I I I I I I \ rl \ \ \ ?\ ?o \
MATCHLINE - P4 - 135+75
rn
y
w 0 n
N i
o ? Q
0 m m
m
?I
0

•CZ? t t ? \
ox 1?
s 1 •
/ \\ \\\\\\I ??1 1 // / y k k i k R I
\\\\\\\\\ \?\\ ??\\ ioo ? k
1111\ =11 / _ \? \ '? ?
?I111111 111 / - J I \I ? / 1:s k
111 I1 / I I
I
11111111111 / I ?\ R
111 1111 / I I
Illlill?jr ? ? ?1 11
IIIIIIII 1 / ?
III 11111 ? ? /? \
IIII1j11 1 ? ? ? / ?\
11
IIII11111/jl // ???? ? ??
III111111 ? ?? i R /
1111/1111111 ? i?/ \? \
lllll,l?? i.1 ?? 1 \ \ \ 1
1
1 I
rl I
/ I ia; I
/ Ts 1

A \

I
I I
I
\ ll \
0
l I /r
III ?/ ? i ?I
I'
MATCHLINE - P5 - 143+50
n
N
I
D
N?
m
m
z
m
z
R

_MATCHLINE - P6 - 151+80
? ,?ll u 1 .? I I
? X776
??QGPU?'? Wl /
O?
N?
+
M
?l r- PC
FORD STREAM CROSSING
w 1 / /\
Z
J \ i /
U \\ Lj,4 /
- -PHOTO D _ \
"MOM SMIt"
MATCHLINE - P5 - 151+80
--------- //T-
r / \\\\ III
i
\ - $ N PIERCE ROAD SR N 1776
/ / \\ (50' PUBLIC R/W)
1200 l l l \ I \ / - J
Al
/ / / / I I I 8 ` k +
/ / / /m I I I I I i lI , l // 1 ll/ l l/ //I /
I I r E / / lI ll IIIIII
? 1 / ll l? I I Ill I I
N +
I `? ` ? ////oN / I z? ,' I I I F ?' III l 111111 I I I I I I I I I.
Il I I / , / J? ,/ ?? ,// I ?/ /III ll/IIIlllllill
I I l / s/ / --?? I ??. llI/ Ill //I II/I/IIIIII a
l / 1 -- _ ?-; lI F III/ I////1//11111/Ill
I l l i ,l ,/,/, ,? ?' ?-__-'- ll I I II ll IIIl11IlIIII
I / l / / ?? ? >:l IIII IIIII?IIIIIIIIIIII
Fo F // k I I I I I I I I I I) l// l//
I I II I 1 I /l ll l/ / l/ 1 ? ° • k E 1111 I III 111//l//////l/ ////
u ?•a• / I II II IIIIIIII 1111
II 1 1 I\ 1 1\ \ \\ \\ I t s / k :: l. .. ? E?/\ F III i I I II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 I // / F., E ?? F \ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ ` ? ? E / \\ IIII 111111111111111111\?\\\
1 \ F / E k I 111 11 \ \\\\\\\ \\\\
\\ \ \\ \\ 1\ \\ \ \ ? \ \ \\ \ k //E k \ 111 I / \\ \\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\ \
/ / / ) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ? F \ F r o F \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\\ \\\ \ \? \ \\ \\\
/ / / I I I 1 I \ \ ask \ F N \\\\ \\ \I 1 I\? \\\\\\\ \?\\\ \\\\
/ / / ? I I I I \ \ I \ ? ? \\\\ III 11111111 11 111 I\\ \\
1 \ k \ F ? F \ F \\ \ I 1 1 111111111 1111 \\ \\
// // / I 1 I I \ \\ 1 \ ? I \?\I I III \111111111111\\\\\\
/ / I I I 1 \ I I 1 1 F FI E D k i \?\\ I III \1111111111\\\\\111
/ ll II II 11 it \ i 1 11 1 k ? F E 1 \? \\ I IIII 11111111\\\\ ?\IIIII l
i t \ I k E `? k k \?\\\ I I\ 111\\11)11 ///////
/ I I I I I 1 1 1 \ I \ \\ I\ ? //// // / //
I / I I 1\ 1 II 1 1 ! ?? \F E i? lillol I I I NIIII^(II ry////N////
I I l I I \\ it 1 1 ?s F \\ F ?? E IIIIII I I I IIIII?IIIIIIII(?(////
/ / / / / I \ I 1 I ?_,??? II III I 111 II111111111111111
i / / / / / \ 11 1 1 k k k IIIIII I \ III II111111IIIIIIIiII
?l l l I / I 111 E F F ! IIIIII I\ IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
? // // ? / // ? I 1 1 F E E _ III Ill I I I IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
1 ? ?-=?/III l I IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII
?/ / / ? i / / I F E F I I r-- _ III / I IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII I
?/ / I I/ / F F E 11 I r r Jl / 1 III IIIIII IIIIIIIIII I
/? / // ? /% / E F F I 11111 I ? / \ ill?llllll?llllllllll
/ / // / ?? II II/ / IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII
/ ?•??,// / // / 1 E k E // ? k I 11111/ / // IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII
/ ????? / ? k k / k \ 1 1 I I I I I IIIIII IIIIIIIII I
// .'-/ // / /?/ / k ???" F ----k F IIIII /l l // IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII ?
/ / ? / // / I k F k lljll/// / /IIIII IIII IIIII
/ / / / I E I E k F ////////?? / ll/llllll /IIIIII
,/ // / / I / Ill/l l/ l/ / 11/llllll111/llll
N MATCHLINE - P7 - 159+20
0
uN 0,
° ? 0
C F
(A
m D o
N (n -Ti C ° ? j
o y
O
°? CY1 .? 0

i?
U \O+ \
'1111///ll1/llll?l? I \ \ \
111111//ll1/l1/ll/ I
1 I I I /
111111I1I11/111/11 1 I I / l
1 11111111111 /1 / l1 I I I I I/
11 IIIIIII111111/// I I I 1 I '
11 1111111111111111 ? ? i I
III II11111111111111 \\?? ??\ ? l? ?
1 11111111111111 ? ? I
?1111?;111111\1\\1\\? \\ \?\ I 1
11; 1111111111\\ \\\\\\ \ \ \ 1 II I it II II ?
11 111111111111111111\ \ 1 I I
X111111111111111111\\\\ 1 I 1111
II 11IIIIVIII111\\\\\\\ 1 1 111111
I 111111111\\\\\\\\\\\ 1 I 11111
II 1111111\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I 1 1111
it III I \\\\\ \\\\\\\ \\\\\\ \ \ 1 111 I
?I1\\\\\\\\\111111111111\ \ \ 11111
11 III 11111111\\\\ \ ? 11111
llllll?ll?lllll?llli\\\\\\\\\\ X1111111
,I 1111111111\\\\\\\ \ \ \1111
11111111\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ 1\111
I?11\INI\1111\lllilllll?l?l\ 1111111
/1111111111111111 I \ llllll
/ //// 11111111111111\\ \ llllll
// /// /II1111111 ? VIII
l//?llll/l///llllll \ \\ 11111111
/11 ///llllll /l // \ \ I dill
l/ ll / I ??lll?ll
ll lllllllllll ( l l I 1111111 "
l/ / //llllll lI I I I I VIII I
// 1///llllll I l i I llllll
? 1111 /11111111 / I I I I II III II
1111111/1111// I I I I I /llllll
111111111111/1 I I I I I /llllll
II 11111111111 I I I I Illlilll?
l l 11 111111111 / ( I 1 II111111
11 11111111111 / I I I 1111111
1 ?' 11 1111 1 111 I /l i I I 111 111 1 ? /
11111111111111 / i I 1 1111111
111 11111 I I
1 11111111111111/ 1 II I 1111111 ?
1 111111111111 \ I I I I it
11 Ill/ I I I l l \ I 11 /llllll ?
IIIIIIIIIIIII \ 1 I \ /llllll
II11111?11111 1 \ I \1111111
/INI MINI Ill/ I \ \ Illlllli? ?
I111111?11111 \ \ \ 111111111
III IIII1111? \ \ \IIIIIIIII
11111111111111 ?SOr,\ \ \ 1111111111 ?
III 111 11111 \ \ \ Ilol Il I? I I
l l l l l l l l 1111 ? \ \ \ II'IIiINII i?
? 1 1 1 ? 1 1 1 1 111 \I \ \ 111?II1??111
i l i l 1111111 1 \ 1111111/l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 \ Ill III11/1 \ 1 ?
1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I \ II/IIIjI/l ?
1 1\\1\ \\\ 1 1 I? 1 /1111/11111/1 ?
1 11 1 I)/// / 1 //1 /1 /I
/llllll/ll1
111 /llllll / l / 111/ lllj ll ?
111111//ll / /l / //lllllllll
111111111/l / l /llllll/ll '
111111 / ?'
lllllllll ? / / //l//ljl ?
'/111111 / /? / //lllljl
OZ+6Sl - 9d -
3N13H3iVN

`t 17.41 51+891 - 8d - 3NIlHXVN
M
ATCHLINE - P7 - 168+15
T \ \T

\
I I I ?? A
I
1 I
/ / I I I I\ I F I k I
\ F I
\\( ? \\\ F
I I I \ I F k l F \ \\\\ I
/ / I I \ I k I E \ \\\ I
/ I I
/
\ I I F \
I
\\
\
/
/ I F k
I F ? \\
k
\ \
?a

/ 1
\
/
/ /
/ / F / F /k
? 1 I
\\
1
\
I
/ /
/ ? / E / F F ?
11
I I

/ / ? ? F / F ? E k I I I I
/ / F ? E Y F

/
/ ? F/ E // E F / / \
/

F F E I F k z o
/
' s
1
1
MATCHLINE - P9 - 176+60MATCHLINE _ P9 - 176+60 1 '°' '' II
MATC
HLINE - P8 - 176+60
F CH
/
1 E? E
I I E E E k I
F
F F ) eE F E I
I
7 / E E E F O
I

I o /
I // /
/ // E E E E F I F I
\
k
I
I m
(F
g I E
/
/ E
? E E r I \ 1
I
I I E
//
/? E
E
Z E E ? k
l
\ ? I E / / / E ? E Em E E ? ?? \

I
/
/ E E
E =E
E
E
\ \
I
E; E E E ? \?F 1
I I I ?I F E E-- E ZE E E +& F I w
I / I
/ I F E +'E Em E E E is
I
I I , s ? k
I I I I ?
ao I E
x E E
E E E E m

I I I I I
I I ti
CI E 55 F E
E
E
E
E I
???
\
\\ e k F } E E E E E $
k

E E
E
E
E
E
E ?
E F E E E F ? F

E -? E E E E

? \
I I'I: :?.
L
•
I • J \\ \ E ?
? E E E ? ?? ? I
I
?
I I I I •
•?•
I __ ?
? F F
\ E F / ? II I
I
I I
I I I I
I 1? ? F E
\ E ? \' I
I /
I
I I
I I
\ E ?
E
F
/ \ E E ? E
/ / E ? I? I
I
I I
\ I I I E E E F
E
F/ F E E E E I /
? ? 1 E E? E E ? E E E F ?
n
D
r
m
IN
O •
?N
0
M

D -Tl
(n 0 °'

[f O)
mi

a

APPENDIX D
I BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR

1

RESTORATION REACHES

South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site - Mainstem Reach 1
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Dimension • RiMe
Bankfull Width ft USGS Gauge
Jacob Norwood
61.3 32.0 Regional Curve Interval
LL UL Eq.
7.0 26.0 24.4 Pre-Construction Condition
Min Mean Max
----- 11.3 ----- Big Branch, NCDOT
Min Mean Max
19.3 ----- 21.5 Sals Branch, Clinton
Min Mean, Max
---- 8.7 ----- Spencer Creek, Buck Eng.
,., Min Mean _ Max
10.7 ----- 11.2
Flood prone Width ft 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 119+ ----- ----- 130 ----- ----- N/A ----- 60 ----- 114+
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 4.7 3.1 0.9 2.3 1.5 ----- 2.0 ----- 1.8 ---- 2.1 ----- 1.2 ----- 1.6 ----- 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth ft 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.2 ----- 2.5 ---- 2.7 ----- 2.4 ----- 2.1 ----- 2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 290.0 99.0 10.0 38.0 20.4 ----- 22.2 ----- 36.9 ---- 39.9 ----- 10.4 ----- 17.8 ----- 19.7
Width/De th Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 5.7 ----- ---- 10.6 ---- ----- 7.3 ----- 5.8 ----- 7.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 111.6 ----- ---- 6.4 ---- ----- ---- ----- 5.5 ----- 10.2
Bank Height Rati ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- 1.4 ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.0 -----
Bankfull Velocity (fps
)
Pattely
Channel Beltwidth f k
3 2
.6
----- -----

-----

----- -----

-----

-----

----- ---

305

-----

44 ----

Ill 5.2

16 4.9

----- A

40.8
Radius of Curvature ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 42.3 ----- 63.1 13.1 29.6 14.6
Meander Wavelen th f ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 185 ----- 260 ----- ----- 48
Meander Width Rati
Prattle
Riffle Length ft -----

----- ----- --'--

----- ----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- ----

----- 1.83 ----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- 3.4

----- -----

----- 3.6

-----
Riffle Slope ft/ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.015 0.019 ----- 0.0833 ----- ----- 0.013
Pool Length ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spicing (ft)

Substrate and Transport Parameters
d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -----

-----

---- -"" ----

----- -----
-----
----- '---'
<0.003 / 0.2 / 0.75 / 15 / 45
97.5 '---- 179.8

0.13 / 0.3 / 1.9 / 5o i I W
355 ----- 47

4.8 / N/A / 9.5 / 30 / N/A
----- 77 -----

<0.062 3 s.8 42 90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.84 ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
dditional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft ----- -----

850 ---- ----

----- --°-

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

2531 -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- ---'.

---- -----

----- ----- -

-----

----- I

-----

-----
Drainage Area SM 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- 0.74 ----- 0.93 ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- 0.96
Ros en Classification C4 E ----- ----- ----- ----- 134/5 ----- ---- E4 ---- ----- E4 ---- E4 -----
Bankfull Discharge (SL s) 254 30 235 84 ----- 102 ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- 53.6 ---- 97 -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ---- ----- 1.0 ----- ---- 1.1 ---- 1.1 --- 2.3
BF slo a ft/ft O.IX)25 0.(XX)8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.(X)9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site - Mainstem Reach 1
Parameter
meaiim Riffle
Bankfull Width it Design
Min Mean Max
----- I6.o - As-built
Min Mean _ Max
16.3 18.0 19.7 MY-1 (2006)
Min Mean, Max _
15.92 17.32 18.93 MY-2 (2007)
Min Mean, max
16.29 17.2 18.15
Flood prone Width ft ----- 35.2+ 69.9 70.1 70.3 69.9 70.1 70.3 69.9 70.1 70.3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft ----- 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth ft ----- 2.0 ----- 1.9 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.8 2.2 2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 ----- 22.0 - 18.6 22.7 26.8 17.7 21.6 27.7 17.1 21.7 26.3
Width/De th Rad 10.0 ----- 12.0 13.6 14.0 14.5 12.9 14.1 15.0 12.3 13.9 15.5
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 ----- 3.6 3.9 4.3 3.7 4.1 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.3
Bank Height Rati ----- 1.0 ----- 1.0 1.0 LO 1.0 1.0 1.0 H) 1.0 1.11
Bankfull Velocitv (fps
Channel Beltwidth f[ -----
56 3.8 -----
96 -----
56 15
----- -----
96 -----
56 3.6
----- -----
96 ----- 3.6
Radius of Curvature ft 32 54.5 32 ----- 55 32 ----- 54.5 ---- ----- -----
Meander Wavelen th ft 112 176 112 ----- 176 112 176 ----
Meander Width Ratio
!'side _
Riffle Length ft 3.5

---- ----- 6 3.5 ----- 6.0

---- 35 6
Riffle Slope ft/ft 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03
Pool Length ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft
ilhstrYle and Transport Parameters.
110 d35 JSO ' 184 ' dv5 64

----- 88

- 112

----- 64

- 88 112
_
---- 64

----- 88 112 60 91 122

0.1-23 / 17-35 /34-40 / 54-80 / 65-130
Reach Shear Stress (com x(enco) Ib t2 ----- (1.5? --- ---- 0.5'_ ----- ----- 0.52 ---- -----
Stream Po N'cr(transport capaciiN) ?. fn2
N dditional Reach PYrame".
Channel lea th ft _____

-----

3665

-----

-----

3725 _____

-----

-----

3725 _____

----- -----

-----

2130

-----
Drainage Area SM 0.74 ----- 0.93 0.74 ----- 0.93 0.74 ----- 0.93 0.74 ----- 0.93
Ros en Classificatio ----- C4 ----- ----- C ----- ----- C _____ ----- C -----
Bankfull Discharge cfs 80 I(X) 120 80 1(X) 120 80 1(X) 120 -----
Sinuosit ----- >1.2 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- 1.5 ----- ----- 1.4 -----
BF slope ft/ft ----- 0.(X15 ----- ----- 0.(X)5 ----- ----- U.IX)5 ----- ----- (1.(X18 ----
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site - Mainstem Reach 2, 3, & 4
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Dimension - Riffle
Banktull Width tt USGS Gauge
Jacob Norwood
61.3 32.0 Regional Curve Interval
LL UL Eq.
8.11 29.0 13.7 Pre-Construction Condition
Min Mean Max
12.5 16.9 21.2 Big Branch, NCDOT
Min Mean. Max
19.3 ----- 21.> Sals Branch. Clinton
Min Mean Max
----- 8.7 ----- Specner Creek. Buck Eng.
Min Mean Max
10.7 ----- 11.2
Flood rove Width ft 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.0 ----- 150+ ----- 130 ----- ----- N/A ----- 60 ----- 114+
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 4.7 3.1 1.1 2.7 1.7 Ll 1.5 1.8 1.8 ---- 2.1 ----- 1.2 ----- 1.6 ----- 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (Lt) 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 ---- 2.7 ----- 2.4 ----- 2.1 ----- 2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area J!2) 2911.11 99.0 14.0 52.0 26.7 20.4 23.1 25.7 36.9 ---- 39.9 ----- 10.4 ----- 17.8 ----- 19.7
Width/De th Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ----- 7.5 13.9 20.3 ---- 10.6 ---- ----- 7.3 ----- 5.8 ----- 7.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- >2.2 ---- 6.4 ---- ----- ---- ----- 5.5 10.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- 1.0 L6 2.2 ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- 1.11 -----
Bankfull Velocity (fps
Pattern
Channel I3eltwidth ft 3.9

----- 2.6

----- -----

-----

----- -----

----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----

30.5 ---- ----

44 -----

Ill 5.2

-- -----

16 4.9

38.3. -----

----- 5.0

40.8
Radius of Curvature ft ----- ----- ----- 42.3 63.1 13.1 ----- 29.6 10.9 ----- 14.6
Meander Wavelength ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 185 260 ----- ----- ----- 46 ----- 48
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ---- 1.83 ----

----- ----- ----

----- ----- -----

----- 3.4 ----- 3.6

----- -----
Riffle Slope ft/ft ----- ---- ----- ----- 0.015 0.019 ----- 0.0833 ----- ----- 0.013
Pool Length ft ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- -----

-----

----

----- -----

----- ----- -----

<0.063/0.17-3.5/0.36-5/10-40/17-128 97.5 179.8

0.13 / 0.3 / 1.9 / 50 / l(M) 35.5 47

4.8 / N/A i 9.5 i 30 i N/A ----- 77

<0.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/t2 - ----- ----- I ---- 0.14 0.94 ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Wim2
3alditional Reach Parameters
Channel length t[

850 ----- -----

-----

----- -----

----- ----- -----

2742 -----

-----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

----- -----

-----

-----
Drainage Area SM 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- 0.93 1.38 ----- L9 ----- ----- 0.2 ----- ----- 0.96
Ros en Classificatio C4 E ----- ---- ----- E4/5, G4/5c, C4 E4 ----- E4 ---- ----- E4 -----
Bankfull Discharge cfs 1140 254 38 31X) 112.4 35 --- 118 53.6 -- 97 ---
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- 1.03 1.34 1.65 1.1 1.1 2.3
BF slo e (ft/ft IL1N125 O.IN08 ---- ----- ----- O.IN124 l1.lN)7 11.012
M
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site - Mainstem Reach 2, 3, & 4
Parameter
nsion - RiMe
Bankfull Width ft Design
Min Mean Max
----- 18.0 ----- As-built
Min Mean JMa
16.6 17.3 MY-1(2006)
Min Mean Max
14.43 19.42 23.67 MY-2 (2007)
Min Mean Max
15.56 15.3 21
Flood rone Width ft ---- 39.6+ ----- 69.6 69.7 69.8 70.0 70.4 69.8 70.1 70.4
Bankfull Mean De th ft ----- 1.5 ----- 1.1 L2 lA 1.2 1.3 LO 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Max De th ft ----- 2.3 ----- 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 27.0 20.3 24.9 29.5 18.4 22.9 26.1 19.9 22.6 25.2
Width/De th Ratio ----- 12.0 12.7 15.2 17.7 11.3 16.7 23.1 12.2 16.4 20.6
Entrenchment Ratio ----- >2.2 ----- 3.1 3.6 4.2 3.0 3.8 4.8 3.4 3.9 4.5
Bank Height Ratio ----- 1.0 ----- 1.0 H) 1.0 1.0 1.0 l.ll 1.0 LO 1.0
Bankfull Velocitv (fps.
attera
Channel Beltwidth ft -----

63 19

-----

108

63

----- ----

108 -----

63 2.6

----- ----

108 -----

---- 2.6
Radius of Curvature ft 36 ----- 61.2 36 ----- 61 36 ----- 61 ----
Meander Wavelength ft 126 ----- 198 126 ----- 198 126 198 ----
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length ft 3.5

-----

----- 6

---- 3.5

----- _____

----- 6.0

----- 3.5

-----

---- 6.0

--'-- ____

-----

--'-

----
Riffle Slope ft/ft 00)45 0.(X)675 0.(X)9 0.(X)45 0.(X)75 0.(X)9 00)45 0.(X)675 0.009 0.(X)3 0.020 0.011
Pool Length ft ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d64 / d95 72

----- 99 126

---- 72

----- 99 126

----- 72

----- 99

----- 126

----- 58 93 128

<O.063-0.12 i 0.063-1.5 / 0.16-7.5 / 30-35 / 45-5o?
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.25 0.57 0.25 ----- 0.57 0.25 0.57 -----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft -----

----

3,340

-----

----- 3,301 -----

----- 3,301 _____

----- _____

-----

1,432
_
-----
Drainage Area SM 0.93 1.155 1.38 0.93 ----- 1.38 0.93 ----- 1.38 0.93 ----- 1.38
Ros en Classification ----- C4 ----- ----- C ----- ----- C ----- ----- C -----
Bankfull Discharge cfs 80 1(X) 121) ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Sinuosity ----- 1.4 ---- ---- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.3 -----
BF slope ft/ft) ----- 0.(X)4 ---- 0.(X)3 ----- 0.(X)4 0.(X)3 ----- 0.(X)4 ---- 0.(X)73 ----
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX E
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY - YEAR 2
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
Reach: Unnamed Tribute 1 (UTl
Cross Section 7 Cross Section 8
I. Cross-Section Parameters Pool Rillle
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BP Width (It) 11.4 11.3 13.4 12.2
Hoodprune Width (it) 65.5 66.9 47.9 43.0
BF Crass Sectional Area (112 ) 10.1 11.2 9.1 7.1
BP Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.6
131 Max Depth (fQ 19 2.0 1.4 1.3
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 113 19.6 20.9
Hntrcnchment Ratio 5.7 6.0 3.6 3.5
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 13.2 13.2 14.7 13.4
I Iydraulic Radius (R) 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm) - 025 - 0.19
d84 (mm) - 0.9 - 0.8
R
h
id
P
H MY-1 (2006) MY-2 (2007 MY-3 2008) MY-4 (2009 MY-5 200111
eac
w
e
arameters
. Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Pattern
Channel Bcltwidth (It) - - - - - -
Radius of Curvature (f) - - - - - -
Meander Wavelength (It) - - - - - -
Meander Width Ratio - - - - - -
Profile
Riffle length (It) - - - - - -
Riffle Slope (It/ft)
Pool Length (it) 8 15 12
Pool Spacing (1t) 10 20 15 - - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) - - 179.3
Channel Length (ft) - - 203 - - -
Sinuosity - - 1.13 - - -
Water Surface Slope (ft/fQ - - 0.0314 - - -
[it: Slope (ft/ft) 0.03
Ros gen Classification B
South Pork Hoppers, FIT Contract No. D040064, LIA Neuse-I.11C
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
M M
M M M= M M M M M i M = M M= M ?
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
Reach: South Fork Ho rs Reach 2
Cross Section I Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3 Cross Section 4
1. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle pool Riffle Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BI,Width (It) 23.7 21 13.38 15.3 14.43 15.56 15.05 16.02
Iloodpronc Width (ft) 70.42 70.42 6295 Ill 69.83 69.9 69.88 69.9
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 24.2 21.46 17.17 18.68 18.41 19.9 19.07 21.2
BF Mcan Depth (11) 1.0 1.02 1.28 1.22 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.32
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.4 2.24 2.94 2.23 2.25 237 2.55 2.83
Width/Depth Ratio 23.1 20.55 10.42 12.52 11.31 12.16 11.87 12.1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.0 3.35 5.23 4.58 4.84 4.49 4.64 4.36
Wetted Perimeter (11) 25.71 23.04 15.94 17.74 1699 18.12 17.59 18.66
Ilydraulic Radius (ft) 0.942 0.9314 1.077 1.053 1.084 1.098 1.084 1.136
Substrate
d50 (mm) - 0.16 - 0.095 - 0.7 - 11.19
d84 mm 0.35 0.35 34 - 15
MY-I 2006 MY-2 2007 MY-3 2008 MY-4(2009) MY-5 201(1
H. Reachwide Parameters
II
Min
Max
Mean
Min Max
Mean
Min Max
Mean
Min Max Mean
Min
Max Mean
Pattern
Channel lichwidth (ft) 63 108
Radius of Curvature (ft) 36 61.2 - - - -
Meander Wavelength (11) 126 198 - - - -
Meander Width Ratio 35 6 - - - -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.003 0.02 0.011
Pool Length (fl) - - - - - -
Pool Spacing (It) 72 126 90 58 128 93
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) - - 2447 - - 1150
Channel Length (ft) 3301 1432
Sinuosity - - 1.35 - - 1.25
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) - - 0.0047 - - 0.0067
BF Slope (ft/ft) (1.0(135 0.0073
Rosgen Classiticatio C C
Reach: Sou th Fork Hoppers Reach 2 (ront'd)
Cross Section 5 Cross Section 6 Cross Section 9
1. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle Pool Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
11F Width (11) 15.14 20.09 22.76 31.33 29.6 30.33
Floodprone Width (ft) 69.77 69.8 70.52 70.5 69.71 69.76
BF Cross Sectional Area (112 ) 20.77 25.2 40.74 51.22 71.57 75.57
BF Mcan Depth (ft) 1.37 1.25 1.79 1.63 2.42 2.49
BP Max Depth (ft) 2.17 2.5 4.02 392 3.21 3.51
Width/Depth Ratio 11.03 16.01 12.72 19.16 12.25 12.18
Entrenchment Ratio 4.61 3.48 3.1 2.25 2.35 2.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 17.88 22.59 26.34 34.59 34.44 35.31
I lydraulic Radius (ft) 1.162 1.1155 1.547 1.481 2.078 2.14
Substrate
d50 (mm) - 7.5 - 0.15 - 0.32
d84 mm) 30 2 - 12
South Fork I toppers, ITII Contract No. D04006-4, F.BX Ncusc-1, LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Protect No. D04006-4
Reach: South Fork Hoppers Reach 1
Cross Section 10 Cross Section I I Cross Section 12 Cross Section 13
I. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11) 18.93 18.01 25.8 29.89 18.1 18.15 19.98 22.93
Ploudprunc Width (ft) 70.24 70.22 69.81 69.85 70.29 7026 70.2 70.22
BP Cross Sectional Area (112 1 27.68 26.27 33.17 35.29 22.71 21.75 30.69 31.55
RP Mean Depth (11) 1.46 1.46 1.29 1.18 125 1.20 1.54 1.38
III) Max Depth (ft) 2.69 2.57 2.84 2.74 1.95 1.89 3.19 2.87
Width/Depth Ratio 12.94 12.34 20.06 25.24 14.43 15.14 13 16.67
Entrenchment Ratio 3.71 3.9 2.71 2.34 3.88 3.87 3.51 3.06
Welted Perimeter (It) 21.85 20.93 28.38 32.25 20.6 20.55 23.06 25.69
I lydraulic Radius (ft) 1.267 1.2551 1.169 1.094 1.102 1.158 1.331 1.228
Substrate
d50 (mm) - 34 - 0.27 - 36 - 0.3
d84 mm) 8(1 ().9 55 0.52
MY-1 2006 MY-2 2007 MY-3 2008 MY-4 (2009 MY-5 2010
II. Reachwide Parameters Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Pattern
Channel Beftwidth (it) 56 96
Radius of Curvature (ft) 32 54.4 - - - -
Meander Wavelength (ft) 112 176 - - - -
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 6 - - - -
Profile
Ri171e length (ft) - - - - - -
Rillle Slope (it/it) 0.01 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.03 0.02
Paul Length (ft) - - - - - -
Pool Spacing (11) 64 112 88 60 122 91
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (II) - - 2527 - - 1508
Channel Length (It) 3725 2130
Sinuosity - - 1.47 - - 1.4
Water Surface Slope (1011) - - 11.0068 - - 0.0076
lit: Slope (it/it) 0.005 11.0078
Ros gen Classificatio C C
South Pork I loppers, FIT Contract No. 1)04006-4,1;13X Neuse-L LLC
November 2007, Monitoring Year 2
M M M

South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Site : Project No. D04006-4
Reach: South Fork Hoppers Reach I (Cont'd)
Cross Section 14 Cross Section 15 Cross Section 16
1. Cross-Section Parameters Rifllc Riffle Pool
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BP Width (ft) 15.92 16.71 16.33 16.29 13.68 14.01
Ploodpronc Width (ft) 70.08 70.07 69.86 69.88 69.01 70.03
BP Cross Sectional Area (112 ) 18.18 18.9I 17.74 17.13 12.16 11.35
BI' Mean Depth (ft) 1.14 1.13 1.09 1.05 0.89 0.81
BD Max Depth (f) 1.76 1.93 1.85 1.82 1.53 1.8
Width/Depth Ratio 13.94 14.77 15.03 15.49 15.39 17.29
Entrenchment Ratio 4.4 4.19 4.28 429 5.04 5
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 18.2 18.97 18.51 18.39 15.46 15.63
Ilydraulic Radius (11) 0.999 0.9968 0.958 0.931 0.787 0.726
Substrate
d50 (mm) 35 - 40 - 0.52
d84 mm 54 60 7.5
South Pork Hoppers, EEP Contract No. D04006-4. HiX Neuse-1, LLC
November 2007. Monitoring Year 2
APPENDIX F
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
r
_ v

Aw !k.
SITE2

Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC Figure 1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate
2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 0 400 800 Sampling Sites
Durham, NC 27713 Feet
South Fork Hoppers Creek
oil
- 01 4;
icy ???PI?~ i+I'r ? f?A •,
it, 3?ga,y?
e
IT }' iL
M
P-3
Site 2 - looking upstream

AL r ' •a2.
14 -
A? S
eiy4M1 'j r.
f
?
i
? • ? ?Ni<
?
?.A jf ?
V e, ? ',
ce
??

?? ?. "siyyyyCC?? ?
? 9k?,?kt• ? Apt'.

P-J
Site 3 - looking upstream
P-4
Site 2 - looking downstream
P-1
Site 1- looking upstream
P-2
Site 1- looking downstream
P-6
Site 3 - looking downstream
Benthos Data for South Fork Hoppers Creek Collected on January 16-17, 2007
NNELIDA
Oligchaeta
Naididae
Nais spp. 8.9 GC R
Tubificidae 7.1 GC C C
RTHROPODA
rustacea
H dracarina 5..5 R
Iso oda
Asellidae
Caecidotea spp. 9.1 CG R
nsecta
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp. 4.6 SH C R
Dytiscidae
Laccophilus spp. 10 PR C R
Elmidae
Microcylloepus pusillus 2.1 GC C
O tioservtts ovalis 2.4 SC A
Promoresia s pp. 2.4 SC R
Eubriidae
Ectopria nervosa 4.2 SC R
Haliplidae
Hali lus s pp. 9.7 SH? R
H dro hilidae
Enochrus s pp. 8.8 GC R
Tro isterntts s pp. 9.7 PR R
Ptilodact lidae
Anch tarsus bicolor 3.6 SH R
Sta h linidae n/a PR R
Diptera
Cerato 0 onidae
Pal om is complex 6.9 PR R
Chironomidae
Brillla s pp. 5.2 SH R
Conchapelopia grp 8.4 PR R A A
Cor noneura s pp. 6.0 GC R R
Cricoto us bicinctus 8.5 SH C
Demicryptochironomus
SPP. 2.1 GC R
Diamesa s pp. 8.1 GC A C
Lo escladius s pp. 1.7 GC R
Microtendi es s pp. 5.5 FC C
Parametriocnemus
lundbecki 3.7 GC C R
Pol edilum avum 4.9 SH? C
Polypedilum illinoense grp. 9.0 SH? C
Potthastia longimana 6.5 GC C
Rheotanytarsus spp. 5.9 FC C R C
Thienemanniella spp. 5.9 GC R
Tvetenia bavarica 3.7 GC C
Dixidae
Dixa spp. 2.6 GC C R R
Simulidae
Prosimulium spp. 6.0 FC C
Simulium spp. 6.0 FC R C C
Tipulidae
Antocha spp. 4.3 GC C A
Dicranota spp. 0.0 PR C
Hexatoma s pp. 4.3 PR R
Limno hila s pp. n/a PR R
Ti ula s pp. 7.3 SH C R A
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella s pp. 4.0 GC A C
Centro tilum s pp. 6.6 GC A
E hemerellidae
E hemerella s. 2 GC R A A
Eur to hella s pp. 4.3 SC R R
He to eniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A A A
Stenonema udicum 2.0 SC? C C
Ison chiidae
Ison Chia s pp. 3.5 FC R
Me alo tera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 PR R
Nigronia fasciatus 5.6 PR R R
Nigronia serricornis 5.0 PR C R
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Basiaeschna janata 7.4 PR R
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 PR R R
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp. 7.8 PR R C A
Coenagrionidae
Ar is s pp. 8.2 PR R
Cordule astridae
Cordule asters . 5.7 PR R R
Gomphidae
Lanthus spp. 1.8 ?. R
Ophiogomphus spp. 5.5 PR R A A
Plecoptera
Capniidae
Alloca nia s pp. 2.5 SH C
Chloro erlidae
Suwallia s pp. 1.5 PR C
Pelto erlidae
Talla erla s pp. 1.2 ?? C R
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 PR R
Ecco tura xanthenes 3.7 ?? R R
Perlodidae
Clio erla clio 4.7 ?? R
Di to erla du licata 2.7 ?? C R
Iso erla bilineata 5.4 ?? A R R
Malirekus hastatus 1.2 ?? C
Pteronarc idae
Pteronarc s s pp. 1.7 SH R
Taenio ter idae
Stro ho ter x s pp. 2.7 ?? R C
Tricho tera
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma s pp. 1.6 SC R R
H dro s chidae
Cheumato s the s. 6.2 FC C A C
Di lectrona modesta 2.2 FC C
H dro s the betteni 7.8 FC A A
S m hito s the s arna 2.7 ?? R
Le idostomatidae
Le idostoma s pp. 0.9 SH C
Limne hilidae
P cno s the s. 2.5 SH C C R
Philo otamidae
Chimarra s pp. 2.8 FC A R
Dolo hilodes s pp. 0.8 GC R
Rh aco hilidae
Rh aco hila uscula 1.9 ?? R
Rh aco hila ni rita 0.0 ?? R
Rh aco hila carolina 0.0 ?? R
Uenoidae
Neo h lax mitchelli 0.1 ?? R C A
OLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 SC R R
Physidae
Ph Sella s pp. 8.8 SC C A
Pleuroceridae
Elimia s pp. 2.5 SC A C A
Total Taxa Richness 50 43 40
PT Taxa Richness 21 15 13
Total Biotic Index 3.47 5.58 5.53
PT Biotic Index 3.17 4.50 3.93
ominant in Common Taxa 23% 23%
Notes: Tolerance Values: ranges from 0 (least tolerant to pollution) to 10 (most tolerant to pollution).
Functional Feeding Group: CG = Collector-Gatherer, FC = Filterer-Collector, OM = Omnivore, PR = Predator, SC = Scraper, SH =
Shredder.
Abundance: R = Rare (1-2 individuals); C = Common (3-9 individuals); A = Abundant (10 or more individuals).
3/06 Revision 6
' Habitat Assessment Field Data Sbeet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams v?
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Mectious for use. The observer is to surrey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters Preferred of smear, Pre erab y in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent avenge
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stresm. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the soon. If the observed habitat fortis in between two descriptions,
' select an intermediator score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the differed metrics.
Stream` ^ :31N?'• rL'C k Locationhoad: '1 (Road Name ,^*.. • , - 4'
Date 1 f u -1 CCII Basin a?', ?. aJ Sabbasia I ' 3_ '
O>seryer(& IYPe of Study: 0 Fish $Bcnthos O Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
P 0 Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
lw? 6? >g6_.S ?LV*tn& ll q G7l a,] Ec O MT )4
1 34.7 PH( p Quality: Tern rerature 7'0 °C DO _L. "n* I Conductivity (corr.) QµS1cm pH?+
Physical Characterisation: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you an see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
b
Visible Land Use: %Forest ! O %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops -60 t v %Fallow Fields % Commercial %IndusbW %Other - Describe:
Watershed hard use : OForest OAgriculture OUrban O Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream jti Charnel (at top of bank) "t Stream Depth: (m) Avzq /jMax ??• 2-
D Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (flan deepest part of riffle to top of bank first flat surface you stand on): (m)_ / • S
o
Bank AuRk: ° or O NA {Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (°. Angles >W indicate slope is towards ruin-channel, < 90"
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to trhatter.)
' 0 Chamhelized Ditch
Weeply incised-steep, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChaaned filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits filklar development OBnried structures DExposed bedrock
O Excessive peripbyton growth D Heavy filamentous algae growth DGnen Burge O Sewage smell
' Manniode Stabilization:)qN OY: DRip-rap, cemcn4 gabions O SedimoWgrscktoabol struchue CiBerM%vee
Flow dUr- lea OS hdy Tuni OLow
Turbidity: D Sl lightly T'urbrd D'['orbid OTanmic DMi>ky_ DCobred (from dyes)
Good potential for Wedamis Restoration Project?? OYES )ZIYO Detoft
' Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrata o><posed ............................ 0
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or d5% of channel substrate is exposed. ?,
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed.. ............ .. ......... C]
D. Root mats out of water .....................................................................................................»........... C]
E. Very little water in charnel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... 13
' Westber Conditions: .111PLotes: C]N AY )tbigital 1335mm
' Reemhrlcs:
39
L Channel Modification &W
A. channel natural, frequent bends .................................................................................................. 5
B. channel natural, infivquent bends (channelization could be ofd .....................................................
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................ (3)
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ..............................................................
Iw no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
G Evidence of dredging DEvidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal -,3?
H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >7094 of the
react is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begFRopiles of leaves ip pool areas). Mark :e C X ks acrophytes X Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70"/a 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Sc_4r? Score Score S
4 or 5 types present .................
3 types present ......................... 20 16
r 12
11 8
7
2 types present ......................... 18 4 10 S
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 1 c1
No types present ....................... 0
S
b
l-
17 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks_ u
tota
i
III. Bottom Substrate (sift, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for `rnud line" or difbeulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
1. embeddedness Q0% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 12
3. ernbeddedness 404M*/a ......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >800/a ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <206/6 ..................................................... _........................................ ....... ..... - 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... V,
3. embeddedness 40»80'/0 ........................................................................................................
4. emlieddedness >80%............» ...................................................................»......................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. et dness <501Y.6 ........................................................................................................... 8
2. embeddedness >540/a ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus. .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................................................................................................... 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maxbrann depths with little or no surface turbulence. water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present 500
1. Pools Frequent (>300A of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety o€pool sizes ............................................................................................................ 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30'/0 of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .............................................................................................................. 6
b. pools about the same size ................................................................................ % ................... Qv
L Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0 [J
Subtotal 7 3 g
0 Pool bottom boulder-cobble4 and 13 Bottom sandy-sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth V
Remarks
Page Tots
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of raaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 6? 12
' B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ......... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ........... » N ............ 10 3
D. riffles absent.... 0
_LL
Channel Slope: "ical forma ClStcep-W flow ?? OLow-like a coastal stream .............. Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM W Beak Rt. Bank
Scare -S-Q=
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erasion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systerm ........ :..... ....................... 2. few trees or small trees and scrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... ~f
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding. ............... 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and fail me potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .................. ........................ 0 0
Total l -3,
Remarks
' VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the streaads surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from nxmulains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
' B. Stream with fall canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ...................................»................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .............»..................... 7
D. Stream with Waimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas........... »..» ...................................... 2
L Ne canopy and no shading .................................... .•.... ..............».......................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
' Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
' FACE UPSTREAM 1A Bank Rt. Bank
Dominart vegetation: O Trees ? Shrubs a Grasses 0 Weedsibld field DExoticu (bowzu. etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
' 1. width 12-18 > 18 meters .................................................................................
2. width ...........................................................................
meters... 4
`1 I

3. width 6-12 maters ......................................................................_............. 3
, 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
' 1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 metem ........................................................................
Q-4)
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3
' c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 mctem ........................................................................ 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters. .. 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ..
.................................................. .........
:. 2 Z
:
c. width 6-12 nteters ..................................................................... 1 1
d. width < 6 maters .........................................................................
R
k 0 0
tal
T
emar
s o
Page Total
0 Disekimer--form filled out, but scoe doesn't match subjective opumort-atypical str+esm. TOT AL SCORE!.

41
Supplement for Habitat Amessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to detennine bank angle:
6AoOI62
1-1..... w
90° 45°
10
rr
rte.. ?...
135°
This side is 4P bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments: - -
if
42
3/06 Revision 6
' Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ ff6f-AL SCORE
Directions for use: The ob"rm 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 read right-of-way. The $egment 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 Inbitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat fait in between two descriptions,
' select an intermediate score. A feral habitat score is determined by adding the results from the difkTant metrics.
Stream , 1 r k LocatiWrosd: A'C. 2 (RoadName j ?"' _RV_0( .?
` c .
Date V =; mf CCg Bash P?4 eo4 ? vjl?, .. Subbasm ? t'i -'S
AMc
Observex(s)L O 1 Type of Study: O Fish Vondm O Basinwide OSpe:cial Study ( ibe)
?_Ecoregion: O MT D P ? Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
22.1-,4
Water Quality: Temperature $' q °C DO 3.=1 a rr>g!1 Conductivity (corf.?y ieS/crn pH
' Physical Cbaraetearixatlon: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include whaf
you es0mate driving thru the watershed in watershed land am
' Visible Land Use: 5 %Fmest o15 %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : )kFore st Agriculture Durban D Animal operations upstream
' +? U,N
Width: (meters) Stream o3 M, Channel (at top of bank) `? -5 Stream Depth: (m) Avg _Max
? Width variable O Large river >25m wide
' Bank Hd$ht (from deepest put of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m) -
Bank A.& ? © ° or O NA (Vertical is 90', horizontal is (°. Angles > 90' indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
D Cliannelized Ditch
IsDeeply incised-steep, 'straight banks 'jawth banks undercut at bend "Chem l filled in with sediment
O ftcm ovesrbank deposits OBar duvelopment !]Buried structures OExposed bedrock
O INces:ive pexiphybm growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth 00reen dw Cl Sewage smell
' Manmade Stabil zedowV OY: ORip-rap, cement, gabions O Se dim en0pule-control structure ©Bertu/levice
Flow comiltiosa : OH' VNOrmal Maw
Turbidity: QCteu Slightly Turbid OTurbid Errannic 13Millry OColored ( dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? O YES ONO Details w4rJ-kk a..Gn
' Channel Flow Status
useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
O
' B. Water fills >75% of available channel, a <25% of channel substrate is exposed. .......................
C. Water MIS 25-75% of availabk charnel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. O
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................. O
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... O
' Weather CondiWna: SL H C c.1.d Photos: ON )QY )'Digital 035mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Modification
A. channel natural, frequent bends ............... ............ ........... »..................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present...» ............ ...................................................................................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................ 0
O Evidence of dredging OEvidence of desnagging--na large woody debris in stream Manks of uniform sbape/height
Remarks Subtotal S
U. Iaatream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the sere of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
hemm to decay (not piles of leaves pool areas). Mark as Rare. Come m or Abundant
Rocks , ,Macrophytes ,_Sddcs and leafpacks Xf Saags and logs Undercut banks or root mat:
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>700A 40-70% 2040% <200A
4 or 5 types present................. 20 16 Qjq 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 is 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present. .......................... 17 t 13 9 5
No types present ...................... 0 v.c
O No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks PU11A %V b-41 e Subtotal 14
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for a ntaldedness, and use rocks from all pans of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders &III
1. embeddedness Q0% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20.40%.........» ...........................................................................................».. 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................ .............. .................................. .„.......................... ..... 8
4. emmbeddedness >8019 ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddeduess <2W6 ........................................................................................................... 14
2. embeddedness 20.40%a ........................................................................................................ 11
3. embeddedness 40-80 o ........................................................................................................ 5
4. embeddedness >809/c ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
i. embeddedness <50% ............................ ...............................................................................
2. embeddedness >50% ........................................................................................................... 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................. 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all sild clay ................................................................................................... - - I - 1
IV. Pool Variety Pools arc areas of deeper then average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient strew, or side eddies.
A. Pools present 5M
1. Pools Frequent (>300/0 of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 0
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ........................................»..............».. 8
2. Pools Infinequent (<30% of the 200m axes surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes. ............................................................................ . ..... . .................... . ... 6
b. pools about the same size ................................................................................ ...................... 4
B. Pools absent .............................................................................................................................»............. 0
0 Pool
Subtotal
as you walk O Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
40 i
r
Page Total "
?
V, RM Habitats
Definition: Riffle is am of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel ms. Riffles Frequent Rifles Infrequent
sum Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..........»... . 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width .......N'• N .... X 3
D. riffles absent.. 0
Charnel Slope: DTypic al for area ? DSWep-fast flow ?? DLow-like a coastal stream ................ Subtotal
' VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Fim _SSW
A. Banks stable
1. tittle evidence of erosion or bank faihue(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Eresion area present
1. diverse tress, shrubs, grass; plants haltiry with good root systems........ ...........................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...» ...................... S
3. sparse mixed vegetation; phuat types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding. ................ 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shnnbs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........ .................................. 0 0
Totai A-
Remake
' VII. Light Penetration Cmpy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading fiom mountains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent...-»......... » .................................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal....................................
D. Stream with rdalmd canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
' L No canopy and no shading ............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Defies: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A beak
in the riparian zone is any place on the strewn banks which allows sediment or pollute to diteclly, eenter the stream, such as paths
dove to stream, storm drains, uprooted tress, otter slides„ etc.
' FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bask
Domhunit vegetation: )d Trees TO Shrubs Grasses D Weeds/old field C3lixotics (ku bm, etc) Score Score
A. R*arian zone intact (no brealca)
1. width > 18 mews..................................................................................... 5 S
' 2. width 12-18 meters ..............................................................................»... 4
3. width 6-12 meters. . .................................................................................. 3 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
'
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ..................................................................»..... 4 4
b. width 12-18 maters. .. ............. ... . ............................... .... . ........ 3
c. width 6-12 meters. ...» ................................................................. 2 (2
d. width < 6 meters................. » ..................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a wid
> 18 ameters .....
. 3 3
th
b.
.................................. .. ......... .............. width 12-18 meters...
.
2 2
c width 6-12 meters ...............................................»...................... 1 1
d. width < 6 meters..
...................................................................... 0 0
Total
' Toni M-
0 D Disclamer--form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-eMal stream. TOTAL SCOR>d
41
Supplement for Habitat Assesonent Field Data Sheet
Diagram to dewmim batik angle:
I
90° 45°
Nermd F? Water _ _ _.
twee
oak
135°
t?n.1?c
This side is 45• bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other oonunew:
+r•
42
3/06 Revision b
Habitat Assessment Reid Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biologiedl Aumment Unit, DWQ IrOTAL SCORE
Directiom for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 209 meters preferred of stream, pre y in an
' upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-0f-way. The segment which is ash should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the fornk select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and that circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in betwm two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
'2_(Road Name i WC ty M b k
Stream TIA VC4 k tQFtiodroad: ?ik ,3
Date 1/6/04 CC# Basin Cg"11.1.c,,,-Jb*,) Subbasin i ?.` ' .. =?--
Observer(s) CO M MTyCpe of Study: O Fish VBenthos O Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
' Ni 4 ?? E 'on: [3 MT ;4P O SIste Belt Ci Triassic Basin
tt
Water Quality: Temperature U 1. °C DO ' ,ZJmg/1 Conductivity (cat.) s--Ps/cm pH • U
Physical Characterludon: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ° %Forest ' aResidential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
-5 %Fallow, Fields % Commercial %industrial %Odwr - Describe:
Watershed hind use : ;OForeA;dAgric h=13Urban O Animal operations upstream
1 , 04
Width: (meters) Stream • StiYy Channel (at top of bank) , Stream Depth: (m) A vg__Max
Width variable [ Large river >25m wide.
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m).
Bank Angle: '30 ° or O NA (Vertical is 901, horizontal is 60. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid-chanacl, < 901
indicate slope is away f vin channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[ Chamteliaed Ditch
ODeeply incisaWtM straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend _'Vaamnel filled in with wdm=t
O Recent ovabank deposits -low development [BurW structures [Exposed bedrock
? Excessive pedpbytom growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth 00rew tinge O Sewage smell
Man n jade Stabilization: [N *: ORW-rap, carment, gabions [ SodinxM/grsde-eonhol structure OBorimIcvee ?u UZJ
Flow conditions : OHigh ONormal [Low
Turbidity: OCIcar Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?annic OMiky OColored
Good potentialTor (fromd es) f" '
Wetlands Restoration Project?? Y YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnor al or low flow conditions. .,.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed gy m ........................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
l+ many logs/snags exposed......... ........................... .......
C. Water fills 25-75% of avail able ctmnme ?
D. Root mats out of water ...............................................................................................................
E Very little water in charnel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... O
Weather Conditions: Sid W 1J4 ?i Photos: ON )4Y V Digital 035mm
Remarks:
39
I. Cbannel Modli cation SC=
A. channel natural. frequent bends... .....................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent, bends (ch.................................... elclold ..................................................... 4
C. some channelization present ....... ................. .......................................................................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted .. .......................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
13 Evidence of Bred ' C3Evidenee of large woody debris in stream E313anks of uniform shapetheight
Remarks ta?uf? _ Subtotal
IL Iastream Hab(tat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Defmridm leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
rRocks to decay not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rarroe C??ormnon or Abundant.
Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks t?5naga and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70'/0 20-40% <20%
4 or 5 types present- ............
3 types present. ........................
2 types present ........................
1 type present ..........................
No types present. ......................
m Score Score score
20 16 12 8
19 15 11
18 <U> 10
17 13 9
0
No woody vegetat}on in riparian zone Remarks
pal;totm
III. Bottom Substrate (slit, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of ride-look for "mnd line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good aft of gravel, cobble erred boulders
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2. eng)eddedness 20-40% ..........................................................................................................
3. ercrbeddedness 40-80°/a ..................................................................».....................................
4. emrbeddedness >Wlo .............................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness QOOA ...........................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-Wlo........... » ............................................................................................
3. eutmbeddednew 40-80% ................»......................................................................................
4. cuix ddedness >80'/0............» ..............................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50'/o ....................... .................................................................................
2. embeddedness >50% ...........................................................................................»...............
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. ...................... . .........................................................................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................ ............................
3. substrate nearly all detritus ....................................................................................................
11 .? ............
Subtotal
but only look at riffle
fir..
15
12
8
3
At. substrate nearly a sr clay .......................................................................................
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average rra ximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with Pools are always slow. Pools nary take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................»..............................»..................... 1
b. pools about the satne size {indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................. 6
b. pools about the ssrne size ....................................................................... .......... !w. ............... 4
IL Pools absent ..................................................................................................................„.......................3ubtot0
O Pool bottom boulder-cobble-hard ABottom sandy-sink as you wa" Silt bottom 17 Some pools over wader depth
Remcarkt
Page Total
40
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of raeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel urea. Rifttes Frequent Riffles nfrequent
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... e4 1 bJ 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but rift length is not 2X stream wkhb .......» ........................... -
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. to 3
D. rifiles absouL ...........................................................................................»................. 0 Subtotal
Charcoal Slope: ,Vw"I far area OStap-fast flow C]Low-like a coastall stream V1. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failmr(except outside of be:ndsN little potential for eraio 7
B. Erosion areas present 6 6
1. diverse trees, shrubs„ grass; plants healthy with good root systems ....................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... S S
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grams, few if any trees and shrubs, high a+osion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the struts surfam canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ...............»............................ 10
8
B. Stream with fill eannopy - breaks for light Penetration absent......... ......... ..:.. •..... .. ...................
C. Stream with partial canopy - $=light and shading are essentially equal..
D. Stream with minimal canopy - hill sun in all but a few arose.................... ................................. ?...??
' E. No eanepy and no shading ............................................................................................................. 0
D...,..r.. a?(AA iQ_ -1, l con a. G41614-), hutsubtotal Z
tative Width
V
i
Ri
ege
par
an
VIII.
Definition: Riparian zone for this fore is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain)• Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is may place on the stream bunks winch allows sediment or poih>fants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, » preened trees, otter slides, etc.
Bank
Lft
Rt
Bank
FACE UPSTREAM . .
Dominant vegetation: O Tries ;l?li Shrubs E3 Creases O Weeda/okl field OExotics (latdzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 1$ meters ............ ....................................................................
4
...»........
2. width 12-18 rnetes.....» ..............................................................

3
/
3. width 6-12 tneters?.:.?w. s ............................................ ........ _............
2 2
4. width < 6 meters ............... :..........................................................
B. Riparian zone art intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
4
4
a. width > 18 mew .................................»...................................... 3
b. width 12-18 nretaaa ...........................».......................................... 3
c. width 6-12 nee/es ................. .. .. .. ... .. ... ... .... .. .................... ..
..?....
d. width < < 6 6 maters.
2
1

1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12.18 mekrs .....................................................................•
e. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
n d. width < 6 t4Qters• ........................................................................
O Disclaimer--form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical I h 0 - I I
3 3
2 2
}
'`b O
Total
Page Total
TOTAL SCORX
41
Supplement for Habitat Asseum mt Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
I
I
90° 45°
135°
Site Sketch:
This side is 4P bank angle.
Other cow
s
42
1
1
1
1