20050745 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20080527

BAILEY FORK WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
PROJECT (DRAFT)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 2)
Project Number D04006-3

Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program D LS @( jay
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite I H 103 i t! ?'/ D
Raleigh, NC 27604 MAY 2 7
r-11?2 2008
DENR - WATER QUAL1 FY
Ecosystem WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC Prepared by: Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
® 909 Capability Drive Baker Engineering NY, inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 3100 • . Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27606 a Pie 9th Card54a9 7519
Fax. [phone]
December 2007
RECEIVED
DEC 1 1 2007
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
1.0 SUMMARY .........................................................................................••--......--------------------- 1
' 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. .. 3
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... .. 3
' 2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach .............................................................. .. 3
2.4 Project History and Background .................................................................................... .. 5
2.5 Project Plan .................................................................................................................... .. 7
' 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING .................................................................................... .. 8
3.1 Soil Data ......................................................................................................................... .. 8
3.2
3.3 Description of Vegetation Monitoring ...........................................................................
Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................... .. 8
.. 9
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. .. 9

' 3.5
3.6 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................
Vegetation Photos .......................................................................................................... 10
10
4.0 STREAM MONITORING .............................................................................................. 12
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 12
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 12
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results ......................................................................... 13
' 4.4
4.5 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos ..............................................................................
Stream Stability Assessment .......................................................................................... 14
14
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline ............................................................................................... 14
' 4.7
4.8 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results .......................................................................
Cross-section Monitoring Results .................................................................................. 14
15
5.0 HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................. 16
6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING ............................................ 19
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring .................................................. 19
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion ...................................... 19
' 6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ............................................................................. 20
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion .................................................................. 21
6.5 Photograph Log .............................................................................................................. 22
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 24
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 25
' 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 25
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No, D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 2 Monitoring
APPENDIX E - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Data
LIST OF TABLES
'
Table 1. Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
' Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
' Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
' Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Table 7. Year 2 (2007) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
' Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
' Table 10. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2007 (Year 2)
Table 12. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Bailey Fork, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.
' Figure 2 (a).
Figure 2 (b).
' Figure 2 (c).
Figure 2 (d).
Figure 3.

Project Vicinity Map Bailey Fork Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 13 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 14 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 15 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 16 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Bailey Fork, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1.0 SUMMARY
i
ng season
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2007 grow
(Monitoring Year 2) on the Bailey Fork 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, 21 vegetation monitoring plots, 13 permanent cross-sections, 3
longitudinal profile surveys, and 8 hydrologic monitoring gauges (4 automated and 4 manual)
were installed and/or assessed across the restoration site. The 2007 data represent results from
the second year of vegetation and hydrologic monitoring for both wetlands and streams.
The design for the Bailey Fork Site involved the restoration of a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain
' alluvial forest" and associated riverine wetlands described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Prior to restoration, wetland, stream, and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. After construction, it was
determined that 12.1 acres of riverine wetlands and 6,097 linear feet (LF) of stream were
restored, and 5.3 acres of riverine wetlands and 9,765 LF of stream were enhanced.
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
1 automated station. For the 2007 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
well below the normal average (approximately 11.4 inches less from January 2007 through
October 2007). Much of the rain that fell during the 2007 growing season fell during the months
' of June, August, and September when evapotranspiration losses were highest.
A total of 21 monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (m) (I OM X IOm) in size, were used to
document survivability of the woody vegetation planted at the Site. In 2007 the vegetation
monitoring documented an average tree density of 537 stems per acre. The data reflects that the
majority of the Site is on track to meet the interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the
end of Year 3 and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified
' in the Restoration Plan for the Site. To increase the density of successfully established trees in
several areas at the Site, supplemental planting of woody vegetation in three isolated zones will
occur prior to the start of the 2008 growing season.
' Stream cross-sectional data document that there has been some adjustment to stream dimension
since construction. The results of the longitudinal profiles document that the pools have

' aggraded slightly due accumulated sediment. It is likely that these sediments are present in the
pools due to the below normal rainfall conditions during 2007. The Site experienced at least two
bankfull events during 2007. Overall, monitoring indicates that the site is on track to achieve the
stream morphology success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site.
' Six of the eight wells achieved the success criteria of greater than 7% saturation during the
growing season. Two wells recorded hydroperiods below the 7% success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site, but these hydroperiods were greater than those recorded by the
monitoring wells at the reference wetland site. The site remains on track to achieve the
hydrophytic success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site.

' Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC ]
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1
The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and habitat diversity for benthic ,
macroinvertebrates. It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic indices and an
increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities continue to re-
establish.
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream success I
criteria specified in the Site's Restoration Plan.
1

1

1

Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 2 ,
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Site is located in Burke County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project is within cataloging
unit 03050101. The Site has recently been used for pasture and hay production. In the past, the
Site was used for row crop agriculture and pasture. Ditches were installed to increase arable land
and improve drainage when the land was under agricultural production. The streams on the
project Site were channelized and riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations. Wetland
and stream functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use
changes.
' The project involved the restoration of 12.1 acres of riverine wetlands, enhancement of 5.3 acres
of riverine wetlands, restoration of 6,097 LF of stream, and enhancement of 9,765 LF of stream.
Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d) summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the
project site. A total of 61 acres of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer are protected through a
permanent conservation easement.
2.1 Project Location
The Site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, along
Hopewell Road. The Site is divided into two parts by Hopewell Road and I-40. The monitoring
entrance for the northern half of the Site is located at a farm gate on the north side of Hopewell
Road immediately east of Bailey Fork. The monitoring entrance for the southern half is located
at the end of an access road along I-40 that connects to Hopewell Road immediately west of the
1-40 overpass.
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
1 The specific goals for the Bailey Fork Restoration Project were as follows:
Restore 6,097 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 9,765 LF of stream channel
• Restore 12.1 acres of riparian wetlands
• Enhance of 5.3 acres of existing, riverine wetlands
• Exclude cattle from stream, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem-based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize water quality benefits.
2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
For analysis and design purposes, the on-site streams were divided into four reaches. The
reaches were numbered sequentially, moving from south to north, with unnamed tributaries
carrying a "UT" designation. UT1 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the
project area from the southwest, and ends at its confluence with Bailey Fork. UT2 is a first order
stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the west, and ends at its confluence
with UTI. UT3 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the
south, and ends at its confluence with the main stem of Bailey Fork. Bailey Fork flows into the
project area from the south and ends at the confluence with Silver Creek. The drainage area of
the three tributaries ranges from 0.25 square miles (miz) to 0.92 miz, while the drainage area at
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 3
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

the downstream end of Bailey Fork is 8.3 mil. All four reaches were classified as incised and
straightened E5 channels prior to restoration activities. Design information is presented in Table
1.
Table 1. Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D 04006-3
Project Segment or Reach
ID Mitigation
Type *
A roach** Linear Footage
or Acrea e
Reach UT1 R P1 1,948 ft
Reach UT2 R P1 923 ft
Reach UT3 R P1 3,226 ft
Reach UT3 Ell SS 135 ft
Reach Bailey Fork Ell SS 9,630 ft
Riverine Wetland R - 12.1 ac
Riverine Wetland E - 5.3 ac
R = Restoration ** P1 = Priority I
El = Enhancement I P2 = Priority II
Ell = Enhancement II SS = Stabilization
Wetland functions on the Site had been severely impaired by agricultural conversion. Streams
flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and provide
drainage for adjacent farm fields. As a result, nearly all wetland functions were destroyed within
the project area.
The design for the restored streams involved the construction of new, meandering channels
across the agricultural fields. Reaches UT1, UT2, and UT3 were restored to Rosgen "C5"
channels with design dimensions based on nearby reference reaches. The enhancement areas
along Bailey Fork and UT3 were accomplished through the use of stabilizing in-stream
structures in highly eroded areas and additional buffer planting. Wetland restoration of the prior-
converted farm fields on the Site involved grading areas of the farm fields and raising the local
water table to restore a natural flooding regime. The streams through the Site were restored to a
stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that riparian wetland functions were restored to the
adjacent hydric soil areas. Drainage ditches within the restoration areas were filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Total stream length across the
Bailey Fork Restoration Project was increased from approximately 14,076 LF to 15,862 LF.
The designs allow stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the floodplain,
dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on stream banks. In-stream structures were used to
control streambed grade, reduce stream bank stress, and promote bedform sequences and habitat
diversity. The in-stream structures consisted of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, and rock vanes,
which promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored channel. Where grade control was a
consideration, constructed riffles or rock cross vanes were installed to provide long-term
stability. Stream banks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare-root
planting, and transplants. Transplants provide living root mass to increase stream bank stability
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.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
2.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Bailey Fork Mitigation Project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3.
Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Project: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Apr-06
Final Design - (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A N/A
Construction Begins Oct-05 N/A Nov-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of live stakes Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of bare root trees Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
End of Construction Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Mar-06 Apr-06 Apr-06
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Year 3 Monitoring Scheduled
Oct-08 Scheduled
Nov-08 Scheduled
Nov-08
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled
Oct-09 Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09
Year 5 Monitoring
I Scheduled
Oct-10 Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 5
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Tahle 3- Prniect Cnntactc
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse-I, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Baker Engineering NY, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
En g. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
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 NY, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Eng. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact: En g. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, 3674 Pine Swamp Rd.
Inc. Sparta, NC 28675
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Chris Hu sman, Tel. [phone]
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 6 '
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Tnhle 4- Prniect Rackornund
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Project Coun : Burke County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach: Bailey Fork 8.3 mil
Reach: UT1 0.81mi2
Reach: UT2 0.24mi'
Reach: UT3 0.92 mil
Estimated Drainage Percent Impervious Cover:
Reach: Bailey Fork >5%
Reach: UT1 > 5%
Reach: UT2 > 5%
Reach: UT3 > 5%
Stream Order:
Bailey Fork 2
UT I 1
UT2 1
UT3 1
Ph sio a hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As-Built C5
Cowardin Classification Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated
Bottom
Dominant Soil Types Refer to Section 3.1 for Soil Descriptions
Bailey Fork AaA, CvA
UT1 FaC2, HaA, UnB
UT2 FaC2, HaA, UnB
UT3 FaC2, HaA, UnB
Reference site ID Remnant channel - Bailey Fork
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites 3050101040020
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-31
NCDW classification for Project and Reference WS-IV
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 listing or stressor? N/A
% of project easement fenced 100%
2.5 Project 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 Figure 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of this
report.

Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 7
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Soil Data
The soil data for the project site are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Soil Name Location Description
Arkaqua** Main Channel and Floodplain Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. Runoff
is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
Colvard Main Channel and Floodplain Colvard series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
CvA loamy alluvium on floodplains. These soils are occasionally flooded,
well drained, and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy sands
in texture.
Fairview Floodplain Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
FaC2 rivers in pastureland. It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
in texture, with an increase in clay content starting at about one foot
below the surface.
Hatboro* Floodplain Hatboro series consists of a very deep soil profile that is poorly
HaA drained with moderate permeability. The series primarily consists of
silt loams with underlying layers of sandy clay loam. These soils are
generally found on floodplains in pastures and woodlands.
Unison Floodplain Unison soil type occurs on mountain foot slopes or stream terraces. It
UnB generally has a very deep soil profile, is well drained, and is
moderately permeable. Uses include cultivated crops, pasture,
orchards, and mixed hardwood forests.
Notes:
Source: From Burke County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, hllp:Hefotiz.nres.usda.gov
* Hydric "A" soil type
** Hydric "B" soil type
3.2 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Bailey Fork stream
restoration site were planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of permanent
ground cover herbaceous vegetation. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to eight
feet apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re-vegetation limits.
The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 6. The seed mix of herbaceous species
applied to the project's riparian area included Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Bentgrass (Agrostis
alba), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), Switch grass (Panicum virgatum), Gamagrass,
(Tripsicum dactyloides), Smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), Little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), Devil's beggartick (Bidens frondosa), Lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1

1
1

1
t
1

1
lanceolata), Deertounge (Panicum clandestinum), Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and
Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans).
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre. All planting was
completed in April 2006.
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Betula nigra River Birch FACW
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash FACW
3 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
4 Quercus phellos Willow oak FACW-
5 Quercus rubra Red oak FACU
6 Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak FACW-
7 Driodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar FACW
8 Celtis laevigata Sugarberry FACW
9 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon FAC
10 Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum FAC
At the time of planting, vegetation plots labeled 1 through 21 were delineated on-site to monitor
survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025 acre in size, or 10 meters
x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them from any
colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
As specified in the approved Restoration Plan for the site, data from vegetation monitoring plots
should display a surviving tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of
monitoring, and a surviving tree density of at least 260, five-year-old trees per acre at the end of
Year 5 of the monitoring period. Although the select native canopy species planted throughout
the Site are the target woody vegetation cover, up to 20 percent of the Sites' established woody
vegetation at the end of the monitoring period may be comprised of invading species.
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. Trees within each monitoring plot
are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing their identifying marks due to flag
degradation. It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure
accurate annual stem counts and calculations of tree survivability. Volunteer individuals found
within the plots are also flagged during this process. Flags are used to tag trees because they do
not interfere with the growth of the tree.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
9

Volunteer woody species were observed in some of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added
to the overall stems per acre assessment of the Site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) is the
most common volunteer, though Red Maple (Acer rubrum), River Birch (Betula nigra), and
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) were also observed.
3.5 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation project, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea) was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre. These species are present
on the restored site. Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-
rush (Eleocharis obtusa), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), are observed across the
Site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these herbaceous wetland
plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the Site.
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the Site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Other than the thick fescue
grasses noted around Plot 9 and the re-occurring grass established in the old pond bottom area,
the weedy species are mostly annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on Site.
Some Lespedeza is noted to be growing in the vicinity of Plots 2 and 5 and some Kudzu is noted
near Plot 10. Other commonly seen weedy vegetation includes various pasture grasses and
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) as well as morning glory (Ipomoea spp.).
3.6 Vegetation Photos
Photographs of the Site showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 10
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r r M M
Table 7. Year 2 (2007) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot.
Table 7. Year 1 Stem Counh for Each Species Arranged by Plot

Ba' Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006J
Tree Sitecies 1 2 4 5 6 7 x 1) 10 11 12 1.; 14 15 H, 17 18 1') 20 21
Berula mgrs 0 0 U 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 7 4 5 13 3 6 0 IniOal
Totals

44 Yeat 1
Totals

50 Year 2
Touts

46 % Survival

A
kir",nus pmn+.rlvmttea O 0 2 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 0 8 4 0 5 8 6 48 56 47 WA
Plamnus -dentalu 0 U I 9 11 5 8 0 0 9 O 0 1 0 5 0 0 5 2 2 1 54 59 59 WA
Qmrcas phellue (1 0 4 0 0 2 0 2 11 0 3 11 0 (1 0 0 0 (1 0 U (1 10 14 11 WA
Quercns rubra I) 3 4 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 4 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 18 WA
(htercus-haurii 0 0 0 0 0 U 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 11 8 WA
Lir-Jendron arliptlerra O 4 0 2 0 0 0 I 0 6 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 35 22 WA
(Wus laevigata (1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 6 3 5 3 l) 3 0 5 49 38 33 N/A
Diospyros virginiana 1 0 6 4 2 2 0 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 N/A
Nyssa sylvatica 4 3 1 11 2 5 0 7 1 0 O (I 1) 0 0 I) (t 0 l) O 0 26 38 23 N/A
Quercns spp. U 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 (1 0 0 0 9 0 0 WA
(/nk-wn 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O U 0 O 0 0 (1 0 0 (1 U 74 0 0 WA
Stems/ lot 5 15 18 17 18 15 15 12 3 is 15 9 7 13 15 17 12 18 14 16 13 362 328 282 77.9
Stems/acre 200 600 720 680 720 600 600 480 120 600 600 360 280 520 600 680 480 720 560 640 520 537 (Average of all Watt)
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D(W X)6-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
construction completion on the Site:
Bankfull Events: Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The
gauges are checked each month to record the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred since the
last inspection. Crest gauge 1 is located on UT1 near station 25+00 (Figure 2(c)). Crest gauge 2 is
located on UT2 near station 17+00 (Figure 2(c)). Crest gauge 3 is located on UT3 near station 31+00
(Figure 2(d)).
Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration
work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being a pool cross-
section. A total of 13 permanent cross-sections were established across the Site. Each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent
cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy
comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle
cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-
sections for 2007 (Year 2) were surveyed in November 2007.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as-built conditions. The profile was conducted for the entire length of the
restored channels (UT1, UT2, and UT3). Measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank. Each measurement was taken at the head of the feature (e.g., riffle, pool, glide).
In addition, maximum pool depths were recorded. All surveys were tied to a single, permanent
benchmark. A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of restored stream length was completed in
November 2007.
Photograph Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. A
total of 52 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade
control structures across the Site, and additional photograph stations were established at each of the
13 permanent cross-sections and hydrologic monitoring stations. The GPS coordinates of each
photograph station were noted as additional references to ensure the same photograph location is
used throughout the monitoring period. Reference photographs are taken at least once per year.
Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross-section photograph station. For each
stream bank photo, the photograph view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-section line). The photograph is framed so that the
survey tape is centered in the photograph (appears as a vertical line at the center of the photograph),
keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the frame. A
photograph log of the Bailey Fork site is included in Appendix A of this report.
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 12 '
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
• Cross-sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes to channel
cross-sections take place, they should be minor changes representing a move to increasing
stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth
ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all
monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" type
channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed in "C" type channels.
• Photograph Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures. Photographs should indicate the absence of developing bars within the
channel, no excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of
riparian vegetation.

1
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
During 2007, the on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events
during Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 8. Inspection of
conditions during a site visit revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest
gauge reading. The largest on-site stream flow documented by the crest gauge during Year 2 of
monitoring was approximately 3.55 feet (42.6 inches) above the bankfull stage and was the result of
overbank flooding of both Bailey Fork and Silver Creek. The crest gauge reading of 3.70 feet is not
a valid reading and attributed to the beaver dam downstream of UT3.
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Bailey Fork Restorat ion Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Date of Data Method of Data Measurement
Collection Collection Feet
Crest Gauge 1
1/9/2007 UT I 0.37
Crest Gauge 2
1/9/2007 UT2 0.35
Crest Gauge 3
1/9/2007 UT3 3.55
Crest Gauge l
3/13/2007 UT I 0.18
Crest Gauge 2
3/13/2007 UT2 0.20
F Crest Gauge 3
3/13/2007 UT3 3.70
' Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 13
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
A photograph log of the project showing each of the 52 photograph point locations is included in
Appendix A of this report. Data and photographs from each permanent cross-section are included in
Appendix B of this report.
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 9 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 photograph point
survey. According to the visual assessment, all features of UTl and UT2 were performing as
designed. Due to a beaver dam on the lower end of UT3, the riffles and pools exhibited some minor
impacts. However, these impacts do not represent a threat to channel stability. This area of UT3 will
be observed during monitoring Year 3.
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Bailey Fork Miti ation Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100% 95%
Pools 100% 100% 95%
Thalwe 100% 100% 100%
Meanders 100% 100% 100%
Bed General 100% 100% 100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 100%
Wads and Boulders 100% 100% 100%
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project are summarized in Table 10. The as-
built baseline data that determines stream stability during the project's post construction monitoring
period are also summarized in Appendix C.
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
The Year 3 longitudinal profile was completed in November 2007 and was compared to the data
collected during the as-built condition survey and Year 1 data. The longitudinal profile is presented
in Appendix B. During Year 2 monitoring, a total of 3000 LF of channel were surveyed. The results
of longitudinal profile show that the pools in UT I, UT2 and UT3 have aggraded slightly due
accumulated sediment. This accumulation of sediment has not resulted in instability in this section of
channel. It is likely that these sediments are present in the pools due to the below normal rainfall
conditions during 2007. These areas will be monitored during future site visits. The longitudinal
profile also showed that the riffles and in-stream structures are stable.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 14
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

4.8 Cross-section Monitoring Results
' Year 2 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during November 2007.
The data were compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in April 2006 (as-built
conditions) and Year I monitoring data collected in October 2006.
The 13 permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (7 located across riffles and 6 located
across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 2. Data
' from each of these cross-sections are summarized in Appendix D. The cross-sections show that
there has been some adjustment to stream dimension since construction.
Cross-sections 2, 10, and 13 are located across pools found at the apex of a meander bend. Survey
' data from these cross-sections indicate that these pools have aggraded substantially during Year 2.
Cross-sections 4, 6 and 8 which are also located in pools aggraded slightly during Year 2. Cross-
section 12 which is riffle also aggraded slightly during Year 2 monitoring. The observed collection
of finer sediments in these locations is believed to primarily the result of low rainfall and flow
conditions for much of the summer of 2007.
A beaver dam that had been constructed downstream of UT3 at the confluence with Silver Creek
was off-site and has been removed. This dam had caused water to back up which decreased the
stream velocity. The decreased water flows due to the dam and lack of rainfall have allowed some
pools to fill in slightly on UT3. The riffles were not significantly affected by the beaver dam.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, rock cross
vanes, a rock step-pool, log vanes, log weirs, and root wads. A constructed riffle and a rock step-
pool installed on the lower end of UT 1, and a constructed riffle installed at the lower end of UT3
step down the elevation of the restored stream bed to match the existing channel invert at the
confluences of the restored channels and Bailey Fork. Visual observations of these structures
throughout the Year 2 growing season have indicated that all structures are functioning as designed
and holding their elevation grade. However, due to the beaver dam on UT3, the banks at the
constructed riffle at the lower end of the reach have experienced some collapse.
Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover
for fish. Log weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided a
downstream scour hole which provides habitat. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends
have provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Photographs of the channel were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution
of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the edges
of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream channel.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 15
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

5.0 HYDROLOGY
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
automated station. For the 2007 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
well below the normal average (approximately 11.4 inches less from January 2007 through
October 2007). Much of the rain that fell during the 2007 growing season fell during the months '
of June, August, and September when evapotranspiration losses were highest (Table 10 and
Figure 3).
Table 10. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall inches
Baile Fork Mit i ation Sit e: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2007 Precipitation
January 4.43 3.45 5.79 5.18
February 4.14 2.83 5.53 1.39
March 4.85 3.36 5.94 4.85
April 3.79 2.36 5.06 2.32
May 4.49 3.22 5.62 0.87
June 4.74 3.25 6.12 6.01
Jul 3.91 2.38 4.95 0.79
August 3.74 2.36 4.45 2.71
September 4.18 2.48 5.98 2.75
October 3.84 2.03 4.76 0.10
November 3.79 2.55 4.27 NA
December 3.72 2.48 4.59 NA
Total: 49.62 -- -- 26.87
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 16 '
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1

Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Bailey Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
7

6
a?
s
5
c
if 4
0
3

•? 2
1
CL
0

0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 ^ ^
0
N N N 1 N N cry ry $ N
m m ? 4 ? s 3 ?°a o o
> ? ? Q g > > Q ? O 2 ^

AR,
v
?'
Historic 30% probable -i- Historic 70% probable tObsened 2007
The Bailey Fork Restoration Plan specified that eight monitoring wells (four automated and four
manual) would be established across the restored site. A total of eight wells (four automated and
four manual) were installed during early-March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all
required monitoring locations. All wells are located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to
UT3, and the locations of monitoring wells are shown on the as-built plan sheets. Hydrologic
monitoring results are shown in Table 11. A photograph log of the wetland well monitoring
stations is included in Appendix A of this report.
In 2007, six of the eight wells achieved the success criteria of greater than 7% saturation during
the growing season. AW 3 and MW 3 did not record a hydroperiod of at least 7% during the
2007 growing season, however, these two locations did exceed the hydroperiods recorded by the
wells at the reference wetland site and did meet success criteria during the 2006 monitoring
season. The performance of these two wells is attributed to the below normal rainfall during the
2007 growing season,. Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland
system, indicate that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the
hydroperiod recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site.
' Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 17
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Table 11
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2007 Year 2

onitoring Station

Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria'

Cumulative Days
Meeting CriteriW Number of
Instances
Meeting
Criteria3
AW 1 17(8.2%) 23(11.0%) 3
AW2 15(7.2%) 20(9.6%) 2
AW3 7(3.4%) 12(5.8%) 2
AW4 39 (18.8%) 53(25.5%) 4
MW14 15(7.2%) 20(9.6%) 2
MW24 15(7.2%) 20(9.6%) 2
MW35 7(3.4%) 12(5.8%) 2
MW46 39(18.8%) 53(25.5%) 4
REF1 5(2.4%) 26(12.5%) 8
REF2 4(l.9%) 13(6.3%) 4
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.
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less
than 12 inches from the soil surface.
4 Groundwater gauge MW 1 and MW2 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on
data from gauge AW2.
5 Groundwater gauge MW3 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge AW3.
6 Groundwater gauge MW4 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge AW4.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 18
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

' 6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Bailey Fork
Restoration Plan. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate sampling
must be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic sampling for the Site was conducted
' during January 2007. 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 Engineering. Laboratory identification of collected species
was conducted by Chris Outlaw and Bobby Louque, biologists with the City of Durham.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two sites on the Bailey Fork Site on
January 9 and 10, 2007 and two reference sites located upstream of the sampling sites on
January 10 and 17, 2007. Sites 1 and 3 were located within the restoration area on UT1 to Bailey
Fork and UT3 to Bailey Fork, respectively. Site 2 was an offsite reference site located upstream
of Site 1. Site 4 was an off-site reference site located on UT3 south of Hopewell Road upstream
' of Site 3. A sampling location map in Appendix E 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
1 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 E.
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 12
with complete results presented in Appendix E.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 19
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Table 12. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Data
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Site 1
UT1 to Bailey
Fork
(Restoration) Site 2
UTI to Bailey

Fork (Reference) Site 3
UT3 to Silver
Creek
(Restoration) Site 4
UT3 to Silver
Creek
(Reference)
Pre
1/3/05 Post
1/10/07 Pre
1/4/05 Post
1/17/07 Pre
1/3/05 Post
1/9/07 Pre
115105 Post
1/10/07
Total Taxa Richness 30 35 26 34 10 26 20 14
EPT Taxa Richness 14 15 16 20 1 4 9 5
Total Biotic Index 4.27 6.33 4.09 4.30 7.8 7.87 4.18 5.75
EPT Biotic Index 3.71 4.95 3.41 3.65 6.2 6.55 2.74 2.81
Dominance in Common (%) 41 40 N/A N/A 10 50 N/A N/A
Total Shredder/Scraper
Index 6/4 4/3 7/3 5/3 0/1 6/3 3/2 2/2
EPT Shredder/Scraper Index 3/3 1/2 4/2 2/2 010 0/1 1/2 0/1
Habitat Assessment Rating 51 82 65 70 37 74 53 52
Water Temperature (°C) N/A 8.0 N/A 8.4 N/A 6.7 N/A 6.6
% Dissolved Oxygen (DO) N/A 42.7 N/A 32.1 N/A N/A N/A 51.7
DO Concentration (mg/1) N/A 5.05 N/A 3.76 N/A 4.70 N/A 6.35
pH N/A 6.04 N/A 5.97 N/A 5.93 N/A 5.95
Conductivity (pmhos/cm) N/A 40 N/A 50 N/A 60 N/A 70
At Site 2, the reference site, the post-construction community structure and ecological habitat
appears to be similar to that observed during the pre-construction monitoring period. Site 2
showed a slight increase in both overall and EPT taxa richness as well as a slight increase in total
and EPT biotic indices. The higher indices could be attributed to the slight decrease in overall
shredder taxa observed during the post-construction monitoring. Many of the shredders present
in the pre-construction sample that were absent from the post-construction sample had very low
tolerance values. Despite the increase in biotic indices at Site 2, several of the EPT species that
were common or abundant in the pre-construction sample, such as Ephemerella spp., Stenonema
pudicum, Eccoptera xanthenes, Diploperla duplicate, and Pycnopsyche spp. (tolerance values of
2.0, 2.0, 3.7, 2.7, and 2.5, respectively) were also common or abundant in the post-construction
sample. This suggests that the communities are stable and that water quality is adequate to
support intolerant species.
Site 1, which underwent complete restoration, exhibited increased overall and EPT taxa richness,
as well as increased overall and EPT biotic indices in the post-construction sample. This suggests
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 20
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

' that although more species were present (presumably from increase variety of habitat as provided
by designed restoration) these species were slightly more tolerant than previous communities.
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, currently
rare at this site (see Habitat Assessments, below). The decrease in sensitive species and lack of
shredders are common responses after a major disturbance to habitat such as the in-stream
construction implemented at Site 1. It is anticipated that, as the project matures, shredder
' populations will increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs become
available.
Currently Site 1 has 40 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site,
which indicates that 40 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are dominant at
Site 1. In pre-construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 41 percent. This indicates that post-
construction recolonization from refugia upstream (represented at Site 2) has begun. It is
anticipated that improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future
monitoring reports as communities begin to recolonize.

Site 4 was the reference reach for Site 3. The post-construction EPT taxa richness decreased
from that observed in the pre-construction sample, and the EPT abundance in the pre-
construction sample was 42 compared to 7 in the post-construction sample. The decrease in both
richness and abundance in the EPT community may indicate a toxic stress on the stream. A
sewage smell was observed at this site during monitoring (see Section 6.4 below). The overall
biotic index increased and the overall taxa richness decreased, indicating that the diversity in the
communities dropped and that only less tolerant species were surviving or colonizing.
The lower end of Site 3 was in backwater conditions during post-construction monitoring.
Despite the slow moving water, total and EPT taxa increased and biotic indices stayed relatively
the same as in pre-construction conditions. The number of shredder taxa increased, indicating
that more organic material is available within the reach. Currently Site 3 has 50 percent DIC
with the reference site, up from just 10 percent in pre-construction conditions. It is anticipated
that continued improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future
monitoring reports as communities begin have time to reestablish as long as conditions at the
reference site do not continue to degrade.
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
Site 1 received an 82 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The site exhibited excellent
riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and habitat diversity. Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles,
moderately embedded with sand, and the pool bottoms were sandy. The Site I riparian buffer
could be classified as fallow field with immature hardwood seedlings scattered throughout.
Because there was no woody vegetation directly adjacent to the channel, organic habitats such as
sticks and leaf packs were rare throughout Site 1. 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 matures, the shredders from the upstream
reference site (Site 2) will begin to colonize the restoration reach.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 21
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
Site 2, the reference reach for Site 1, received a habitat assessment score of 70. The reach
exhibited riffle pool sequencing with moderate bank erosion on alternating banks. The riparian
buffer was mature and intact along most of the reach. Rocks, sticks, leaf packs, snags and
undercut banks were all present along this reach; however large substrate in riffles was often
embedded by sand. Bottoms of pools were sandy and filling in. As stated above, the ecological
habitat observed during this monitoring cycle appears to be very similar to the pre-construction
conditions.
Site 3 received a habitat assessment score of 74 during the post-construction monitoring period.
This site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern and habitat diversity, however the
water level in the channel was high during the monitoring session. The high water surface was
likely caused by recent storm events and was a backwater effect caused by increased water
elevations in Bailey Fork. A beaver dam was also observed near the junction of Bailey Fork and
UT3. Rocks, sticks, and leaf packs, and root mats from the root wads were found in the
sampling area, however the riffle substrate was covered with fine sediments. The leaf packs
found were fresh and probably originated from the minimal canopy directly adjacent to the right
bank at the meander bend.
Site 4, the reference reach for Site 3, received a habitat assessment score of 52. The riparian
zone was mature forest and intact. Rocks, sticks, leaf packs, logs, and undercut banks were
present throughout the reach, however, riffle substrate was embedded with sand. Pool bottoms
were sandy. The reach had severe bank erosion, was incised, and smelled like sewage. A quick
upstream search was performed in attempt to locate the source of the smell to no avail. The
conductivity reading was higher than was anticipated in a "normal" stream with an intact buffer
(70 pS/cm). This reach scored a 53 in the pre-construction monitoring report, so it appears that
the habitat is similar to pre-construction conditions. Despite the low habitat assessment score
and sewage odor, this reach continues to have a very low EPT biotic index, indicating that the
water quality is sufficient to support fairly intolerant species.
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and
armored riffles has enhanced the overall in-stream habitat throughout the restoration sites, while
the reference reaches appeared ecologically stable. Newly planted riparian vegetation has had
minimal effect on in-stream habitat at Sites 1 and 3, however future contributions from planted
riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant species mature. These contributions will
include in-stream structures such as sticks and leaf packs.
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen,
dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all sites were relatively normal
for Piedmont streams with the above noted exceptions.
6.5 Photograph Log
The photograph log is attached as Appendix E. Photographs P-1 and P-2 show the stable, well
defined riffle pool sequence at Site 1. Due to recent project construction, Site 1 lack a mature
forested canopy, however, young woody vegetation is present along the banks. Photographs P-3
and P-4 show the mature canopy with breaks for light penetration. The embeddedness of the
substrate at this site is visible in P-4. Site 3 is shown in P-5 and P-6. These photographs show
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
22 1

the backwater condition affecting the area during monitoring. The stable banks of Site 3 and the
minimal mature forested canopy present are visible in P-5. P-7 and P-8 are upstream and
downstream views of Site 4. These photographs show the extreme bank erosion affecting the
right bank of the stream. Despite the erosion, the varied habitat types are visible, including
' rocks, logs, undercut banks, and leafpacks.
1

1
1

1

Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 23
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
1
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Monitoring. For the 21 monitoring plots, survivability ranged from 120 stems
per acre to 720 stems per acre with an overall average of 537 stems per acre. The data
reflects that the majority of the Site is on track to meet the minimum success interim
criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and the final success criteria of 260
trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site. The
exception to this overall trend is the area surrounding Plot 1, located in an old pond
bottom, and the zone around Plot 9, located in a thick fescue area and under mature black
walnut (Juglans nigra) trees, both of which are known to suppress the development of
young trees. The area surrounding the restored channel at the north end of UT3 was
inundated with water trapped by a beaver dam, and some damage occurred to the young
stems in Plots 12 and 13. These three isolated zones may not meet the interim minimum
success criteria without supplemental planting.
To increase the density of successfully established trees at the site, supplemental planting
of woody vegetation will occur prior to the start of the 2008 growing season.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Stream Monitoring. This entire length of the restored stream channel was inspected
during Year 2 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance. The cross-sections
documented that there has been some adjustment to stream dimension since construction.
The results of longitudinal profile documented that some pools have aggraded slightly
due accumulated sediment. This accumulation of sediment has not resulted in instability
in these sections of channel. It is likely that these sediments are present in the pools due
to the below normal rainfall and flow conditions during 2007.
These areas will be monitored during future site visits. The longitudinal profile
documented that the riffles and in-stream structures are stable. The on-site crest gauge
documented the occurrence of at least two bankfull flow events during Year 2 of the post-
construction monitoring period.
Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in
the Restoration Plan for the Site.
Hydrologic Monitoring. Six of the eight wells achieved the success criteria of greater
than 7% saturation during the growing season as specified in the Restoration Plan for the
Site. The two wells recording less than the specified success criteria did record
hydroperiods greater than the hydroperiod documented at the reference wetland site and
did achieve the success criteria for Year 1.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the hydrologic success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Benthic Monitoring. The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and
habitat diversity. The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent
dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all
sites were relatively normal for Piedmont streams. It is anticipated that continued
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 24
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2

1
1

1
1

1

improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring
reports as communities continue to reestablish.
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site and monitoring will continue
in 2008.
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Bailey Fork Site. During certain
times of the year, frogs, turtles, fish, and also wild turkeys, have been observed.
9.0 REFERENCES
NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macro invertebrates (2006)
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural R fivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S.Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina,
2006.
' Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2007, Monitoring Year 2
25
1
W
M?
m m m m m m m m m i m m m m m m m m m
?II

I 1 03050101040020
r
Catawba 03108-5
t- f . ® En nronmental Banc and Exchange LL(;
2530 MenOan Parkway Suae 200
Durham NC 27713
MU 01050101 ?.
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Bailey Fork Site
Burke Co.
0 0.5 1 2 3
y. Miles
Figure 1. Location of Bailey Fork Stream Mitigation Site.
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY.
KEVIN L TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31, 2006
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
B¦U¦ K BOOO Regency Pllklly Suite 200 I
ry NoM a 38511
Phone: 91G ... 13463603 5489
ENOIN CCRIN6 ? Fax: 919-4e3-5690
SLOPE BANK AND PLACE
MINOR GRADING ABOVE BANKFULL RESHAPE BANK
i4 COIR FIBER MATTING AS SHOWN
CROSS VANE )TYP.) AND LIVE STAKE «a'.® ...®.
SLOPE BANK
Boa.
f 00
SLOPE BANK 2:1 ABOVE BANKFULL, PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING
VEGETATION PLOT # 8 COIR FIBER MATTING, AND LIVE STAKE
RESHAPE BANK
AS SHOWN
REMOVE DEBRIS AND - ?'"" ?'"
RESHAPE POINT BAR "-• -- --
RESHAPE CHANNEL
AS SHOWN COIR FIBER MATTING
AND LIVE STAKE SLOPE BANK
SLOPE BANK ROOTWADS
AND
TRANSPLANTS
ISTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
00 SLOPE BANK
c
rn
S
n
m
w
m
a
s
rv
rv
m
D

FIGURE: 2A
O
O
O
M

r
M
Q
SLOPE BANK - SLOPE BANK, PLACE COIR FIBER
ABOVE TREE MATTING,AND LIVE STAKE ' IA

--VEGETATION 'PLOT #,7
r'
?^"
CROSS yANE (TYP,) •. 35.00

f W
i r z
J

?• V

PRESERVE Q
DOGWOOD 2
IVE EXOTIC VEGETATION
SLOPE BANK
PLAN VIEW
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
BUCK PROJECT REFERBJCE N0. SHEET N0.
m QZZIH !4
PROJECT ENGINEER
N
1v
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:.
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31, 2006
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
BUCK 90W Bry W P iMwaW 5ulie 290
C ry, Nwlh G rolln
P .27511
VEGETATION PLOT # 1 h e1P463Sa80
ENQ EN EERINQ r siseaa5490
\ VEGETATION PLOT # 2
;u..: VEGETATION PLOT # 5
i I
VEGETATION PLOT # 3 ? I?
1 1y
RE $T
\ GAUGE d„
°e CREST
EQ VEGETATION PLOT # 4 GAUUUUUUGGGGGGE ' RESHAP M AS SHOOE#BANK
PLACE LIVE IR FIE R MATTING O
_ RESHAPE BANK O
AS SHOWN
O
V) REBUILD BANK AND REMOVE DEBRIS JAM O
STABILIZE WI ROCK TOE VEGETATION PLOT # 6 +
M RESHAPE BANK
SLOPE BANK, PLACE COIR AS SHOWN MATTING, AND LIVE STAKE FIBER '
... D.O,T. RIGHT OF WAY (()
LLJ
U)
LID
CROSS VANE (TYP.)
CLEAN OUT DEBRIS, SLOPE BANK AND SLOPE BANK SLOPE BANK W
U PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING AND LIVE STAKE SLOPE BANK ?65
U)
[ Q REMOVE PRIVET AND
C RESHAPE BANK W
G Z_
r -I
DOUBLE WING =
a !DEFLECTOR (TYPJ V
x
m
w Q
m
N
N
m
i
n'
PLAN VIEW
c FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
m
° FIGURE: 2B ioo so a ioa soo
N CROSS SECTION NUMBERING CHANGED 11-20-07
SCALE (FT)
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE N0. BMEEf NO.
r?

e
15
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY.
KEVIN L TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31, 2006
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
q Parkway
5
300
¦
¦
900
eA
27
1
B
C'
N
?K
2151
1
ry,
U
-463 5
P lone 19
-5
F". 19463-
CN6INCCRIN6 Fax: 919463h49A
SLOPE BANK BACK
ABOVE BANKFULL
SLOPE BANK BACK ABOVE TREE
AND PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING
AND LIVE STAKE
SLOPE BANK BACK SLOPE BANK BACK -- RESHAPE BANK
ABOVE BANKFULL ABOVE BANKFULL AS SHOWN
RESHAPE BANK
AS SHOWN Q
AO q0
J+100K (TYP.) O

RESHAPE BANK -? n
AS SHOWN

FILL AND RESHAPE
b
a CATTLE AREAS

W
SLOPE BANK ABOVE UJ
BANKFULL AND PRESERVE
TRANSPLANT MATERIAL
COIR FIBER MATTING ?
SLOPE BANK AND PLACE
COIR FIBER MATTING ,„.. _
AND BRUSH MATTRESS '
AND LIVE STAKE

T
- VEGETATION PLOT X 9

RESHAPE BANK
AS SHOWN ?

c
l
l

? RESHAPE BANK
HOWN
AS S

c
N

a AREA
FI
m o00
m

N
N
m

c PLAN VIEW

0 FIGURE: 2C 100 50 0 100 200
NN
N

N/
°m SCALE (FT)

t'
i,
G

SLOPE BANK PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING,
LIVE STAKE, AND TRANSPLANTS
60) i
t1UTOMATIC
c VE IETA IOIN OT # 17 \
h
m oel VEGETATION PLOT # 15
m /
a \,
E
a VEGETATION PLOT # 18
n'
FIGURE: 2D
CROSS SECTION NUMBERING VEGETATION PLOT # 16
CHANGED 11-20-07
0
PLAN VIEW
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
o°
4)
^x
?
R

PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY'
KEVIN L. TWEEDY
027337
JULY 31, 2006
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
BUC ?/ BfiW a 1.1 suite 201
R Cary. Noah P11-1-1 - 27511
3549a9Jfi35/66
hone: Ph..%'9P146/66
SLOPE BANK,PLACE
'
COIR LIVE FIBER MATTING AND
LIVE STAKE [
SLOPE BANK ABOVE BANKFULL
AND PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING
AND LIVE STAKE
VEGETATION PLOT #11
VEGETATION PLOT # 12
MANUAL NkU " • -; ??
1, y /CREST GAUGE : v+c gl
1 P
d VEGETATION PLOT)
# 21 VEGETATION PLOT # 13
VEGETATION PLOT # 14
Li. FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
® EXISTING WETLAND

O
MCI
A
O
? O

VEGETATION PHOTOS
1
Y
Ek Mfr r ?_ ? - J
-jv
7 1 ? 'Lp ,
Ilk
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 1
Ajq
1 r.
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 5
?ww t Y
•? ? it 1 ? E .
1 1r w?
? x. ? A ,.) LID 1x? • z I `?? ?? D? ???'J
1' r 4'7 ? ? F• ?/Y'?fBPR`1441 .; v'!.v ..,? :i? i•f'?. -?
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 4
4
r
E? _
t 1)

r v

' S
ikik
y
? Rr tl E4
?e

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 6
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 2
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 3
I?t < •y? * pVf r
eJ ti 1A ?i
?Y
?a ' •.?t Al ? '°1y 1??,,iJ JS ..,yyy
lot,
Z. 1
M
i fr. w ?? t?,? n? ley ? - ?,• '
? ?TJ ? F \ e 'J x r
u
<•ti i
!\ w 1
e q ?t
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 7
,a, . 4.uti 1 •.;
s 1
r
;r. Jy ar .€b, ? 5
k Je Y e f .' ? ? Y.?? y!
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 9

! 1
?' l4

Rr
AT<?f,

'y? j c ' s ?[i ,JI
>p j?: f1! $ 4? t ??e A f1
? ? 1i ? v
g
J
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 8

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 10

!
1 ,

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 12
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 1 1

8F ? • '
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 13

Bailey Fork Plot Vegetation 17
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 14
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 15
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 16
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 18

?J

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 19
}y ?, 1
7- C
F ?? h * 4'=1y? i 'rte M ? f,((
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 20
(' F J
?yI
46
rx ?? ?y„5111 ? #!tt ??4 ? ? 7+ '{th
f r{rzti s ,, :f ti rr .?
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 21
STREAM PHOTOS AND WETLAND
PHOTOS
r? Ell
k
.A Jxia
?..r
UTI Step Pool Lower
t
a?
UTI Constructed Riffle 3
6 ?
r 6T '.a i 1d" " 1 °
UTI Constructed Riffle 4
UTI Step Pool Middle
UTI Constructed Riffle 2
UTI Constructed Riffle 1/Head of Step Pool
y l? ?
,3t'VF' ?' k99' p.o- f
':fit '? ?, 1 r f<? j "?} -•° k7 .?s
r'
' +art4 .' ? t
N N
14
1 < H ?+ +td ilia a
Vit . Y? p".. -.. s?.rh?' - .?$ao`i?'?L" - &Y!Jr,w ...t; ?'?v?.s UT1 Constructed Riffle 7

4

UT1 Constructed Riffle 9

=
,
•; fir` Y /(I/77- x- T ; j .
q,?y??,?
t?
'
? 5
?
M
x.°•" fly
?S.. ?. s :
.?
p 0,414
}y?rv?{?4 ? qne Z' ?y??.k l?Y
#a rfln y
t f y? y r ? +,tY St
4 tt F
R It
+f I,I _???? "81 v
UT I Constructed Riffle 8
74,
7

r
[ J
Fa`
?
r,ryi
{
Y
S
?
?. 1

UT I Constructed Riffle 10
UT1 Constructed Riffle 6
UT1 Constructed Riffle 5

. , h
.
. r Z t
ly
w
I
o f ? i
7•
?'
gr7jy' I', ? A i f a f `
? ° ? 9S
? 'dam ? { ? ?- ? I 1
?1??, lj
.?? r ,? `?
? f u. f t
i^Yq ?d??Af {i` • ?
1
,
,
t? f ?

UTl Constructed Riffle 11
t
C
t t ',? 4
r6'?u4 a°.} y•
+' .'fy?18 7 ` r A a•'`?4. 4? _ 1;,?R,?it ,'•5
`L 1
1 f f ? ??y'y?1
?•^ i ,t\y+.:?+ig? ? i i?ri' a s• t Y v} ?,,,?_i?,+t srf >;?A'i
c F ?? ?`} i' ?.? ? 5 y?.•?f `, ?: r ? .9,. `"fit
UTl Log Weir 2
t.
UTl Log Weir 1
UT2 Constructed Riffle 1
UT2 Constructed Riffle 2
UT2 Constructed Riffle 3

3
((tt

j ;

•
t
t'
'i?'+.d`U.I'1? r?. '.af ?_ Y i?h a J:RA? _ ??'?'?
#i- 4Ry, .. y..M
Y,? d7
:? 4 Rye D7
{ "917 M ??"4 ? ? . .
UT2 Constructed Riffle 4
UT2 Constructed Riffle 5
UT2 Constructed Riffle 6
UT2 Constructed Riffle 7
UT2 Log Weir 1
UT2 Log Weir 2
UT3 Constructed Riffle I
UT3 Constructed Riffle 1
UT3 Constructed Riffle 3
UT3 Constructed Riffle 4
UT3 Constructed Riffle 5
UT3 Constructed Riffle 6
a s ?„ a

Y fi

r
// _
y a
X
` k
k

UT3 Constructed Riffle 7
r
t
Lwc,
??yx

a

a
t ^ 'v 4'?
? 1 C
If ?
k
1
Nl tl i L 0

1
JJJ

UT3 Constructed Riffle 11
UT3 Constructed Riffle 8
UT3 Constructed Riffle 9
UT3 Constructed Riffle 10
UT3 Constructed Riffle 12
M

+?
'
- ? J,'?a? P`
l f r {
AA d
Ail

y s?/ J9!
r

UT3 Log Weir 4

# l

1 , it.
? ?
E a

J

S ..E6 ?p
7?

UT3 Log Weir 5
UT3 Log Weir 1
UT3 Constructed Riffle 13
UT3 Log Weir 2
UT3 Log Weir 3
¢ 0 777
4 ,a.. -
p
r
' 7 a

-
?
? Tl c
?b
lR
y!
t t? ? 1 ,r
A 4
A y
,

UT3 Log Weir 6
UT3 Log Weir 7
UT3 Log Weir 8
UT3 Log Weir 9
UT3 Log Weir 10
UT3 Log Weir 11

Bailey Fork Cross Vane 2
UT3 Log Weir 13
UT3 Log Weir 12
Bailey Fork Cross Vane 1
Auto Well I - East
Auto Well 1 - North
Auto Well I - South
Auto Well 1 - West
Auto Well 2 - East
Auto Well 2 - North

Auto Well 2 - South
Auto Well 2 - West

Auto Well 3 - South

Auto Well 3 - West
Auto Well 3 - East
Auto Well 3 - North

•

V
c

a ti
p
daft ? 1 4 ?
? 1
.
Manual Well 1 - East
Manual Well 1 - North
Auto Well 4 - East
Auto Well 4 - North
Auto Well 4 - South
Auto Well 4 - West
Manual Well 1 - West
Manual Well 1 - South
Manual Well 2 - East
Manual Well 2 - North
Manual Well 2 - South
Manual Well 2 - West

Manual Well 3 - East

fio, ?i'
Manual Well 3 - South
k
? x
?1?.. wt`s`, iRai r
.77
Manual Well 4 - East
Manual Well 3 - North
Manual Well 3 - West
Manual Well 4 - North

7
7j
Manual Well 4 - West
Manual Well 4 - South

APPENDIX B
I STREAM MONITORING DATA

1

m ? m m r r m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Baily Fork UT1 Profile Year 2 Station 7+75 to 19+75
1032
I
1027 - - - - ---- --- -- --- -------
Tti_? -?
as-Bin
\
N Thalweg
? Left Bank
1022 Right Bank
d Water Surface
W W \
1017
1012

775 975 1175 1375 1575 1775 1975
Station(ft)

Bally Fork UT2 Profile Year 2 Station 0+00 to 10+00
1028
1026 - - - -
x
Y
Y

_

Y
v • x x
1024 s ----------- --
-*-As-Built

• Thalweg
- Left bank
= 1022
------
----- Right Bank
? _ Water surface
W

1020
1018
1016

0 100 200 300 400 ,500 600 700 800 900
Station (ft) 1000

Baily Fork UT3 Profile Year 2 Station 0+00 to 13+00
1025
1020 -
-+- As-Built
- Thalweg

.
° Left bank
w 1015 .•
. _. _._ _- --__-_-.. .. _.----- -__... __ -----. _. _.----- --Right Bank
---- Water Surface

w

1010
1005

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #1
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

n
wr
b ??
r
c . _? $?

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
=ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 29.3 22.89 1.28 2.3 17.86 1 4.4 1016.5 1016.52
Cross-section #1
1020
1019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
1018
1017
-----
1016
w
1015
1014
Year 2 (3 - - Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone Year 1 --- As-Built
1013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #2
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
.AV, AL"

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 16.5 25.27 0.65 1.75 38.62 1.2 3.7 1014.34 1014.64
Cross-section #2
Year 2 o Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone Year 1-As-Built
..............................................................................o

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
1019
1017
r 1015
0
m
1013
w
1011
1009
0
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #3
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
1 k?'•n
A?
w

t .
?.. ? Fr&ofi- x!bilfl
'fie
1t

r ?

Feature Stream
Type I
BKF)rea BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
R!ffie C 40 1 _
23 88 1 68 3 66 14 24 09 3 1013.5 1013.14
Cross-section #3
1019
1018 Year 2 O - -Bankfull - - O - -Floodprone -- Year 1-As-Built
1017 ------------------------------------------------------------------------o
^. 1016
1015
1014
m 1013
w 1012
1011
1010
1009
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #4
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
F V .r
f ? 1
A t4i i rYr c
vJ AlP
4 ?g rS w
VV?? gg a It`.Y? t ? Y i A FR 1Y F h} y i
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 28.5 22.84 1.25 2.57 18.27 1 3.9 1011.7 1011.69
Cross-section #4
1015
---------------------------------------------------------------------- o
1014
_ 1013
1012 -
1011
a
1010
w
1009
1 008 Year 2 - 0 ' Bankfull - O - . Floodprone Year 1 t As-Built
1007
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
100
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #5
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
'Af

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 19 17.59 1.08 2.07 16.28 1 4.8 1011.5 1011.55
Cross-section #5
1015 -- - ----- --- -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1013
p 1011
m
w
1009
Year 2 6 Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone - --- Year 1 t As Built
1007
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #6
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
k r
'rte; T I ,
?X?b
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 22.3 20.57 1.09 2.24 18.95 1.1 3.2 1009.46 1009.58
Cross-section #6
1013
1012 ------------------------------ ------------- ---------o
$ 1011
c 1010
> 1009 Year 2
d
LLI O - Bankfull
1008 O - - Floodprone
- -Year 1
1007
`v t As-Ruin
1006
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)

Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #7
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
;.4?. ? -. -. ,.. -- :;;•.

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 13 11.25 1.16 1.73 9.72 1.1 11 1009.14 1009.3
Cross-section #7
1013
1012
1011
v
1010
c > 1009-
a)
w 1008
1007
1006--
0
Year 2 - - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone - Year 1 --0 As-Built
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #8
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)

t' a
Looking at the Right Bank
Pool 25.7 1 17.55 1 1.47 1 2.94 1 11.97 1 3.3 1029.79 L 1029.77 j
Cross-section #8
1034
•-••--------------------------------------------------------------0
1033
1032
1031
c 1030
1029
m
W 1028 Year 2
1027 O - - B oodprone
--- Year 1
1026 As-Built
1025
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #9
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
1
Cross-section #9
1029 -........
---
1028
1027
1026
c
.... ..-- .
1025-
0
-e 1024 Year 2
W
1023 o Bankfull
O - - Floodprone
1022 Year 1
As-Built
1021
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #10
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
++yy ?
iillff e?
R 'td Y a ,IN ??. ?'+P X'? ?1i yt ! jC' ??`?r'"'? •? ? wYA' S°1 ';!?
` • .? :: ? s *' + ?x t?? ti's * >? ?1l.?'
S
? + • b f
Looking at the Left Bank

Cross-section #10
1030 --- -
1
1029 --------------------------------------------------------••--•- ------- - o j
1028
1027
0
r 1026
R
w 1025 \
1024 \ Year 2 0 Bankfull
1023 0 - - Floodprone - Year 1
+ As-Built
1022
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #11
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
v.
M J
b??? ?•'„ ,«d.t ..... ?? .fit ? . ?. .. `??id'?
Looking at the Left Bank
K/
v* ?
p'
? K;'

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle C 9.00 11.69 0.77 1.4 15.13 1 4.6 1022.55 1022.61
Cross-section #11
1025
1024
C
1023
m
w
1022
1021
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #12
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
Cross-section #12
1034
1033
40
_ 1032
c
1031
?v
m
w 1030
1029
1028
0
M
r
w?' a

Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #13
(Year 2 Data - Collected Nov. 2007)
° t
}4. ??` 1 ii j ? r#!
r "V-P
Looking at the Left Bank
s
i?1 1
M
WS 4!1 WN
rt
, j
Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 16.2 18.07 0.9 1.84 20.15 1 3.8 1036.23 1036.26
Cross-section #13
1041
1040
1039
0
1038-
.2 1037
1036
as
w 1035
1034 Year 2 ,0
O Floodprone -
1033 - --- 0--As-Built
1032
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
APPENDIX C
' BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
RESTORATION REACHES
Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
Bailey Fork Creek Mitigation Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Reach UT1
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Interval Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-Built
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL Ul. Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean N4ax Min Med Max Mill Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32 6.7 25 10.9 9.2 10.0 10.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.9 ----- 15.7 17.7 19.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 12.9 35.9 58.9 ----- ----- ----- 130.0 185.0 240.0 80.0 105.4 130.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 0.9 2.4 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 0.9 1.3 1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.0 2.4 2.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.8 ----- 2.0 2.5 3.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional
Area (ft2) 290 99 9 37 18.6 10.9 16.3 21.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.5 14.0 23.3 32.7
Width/Depth Ratio 13 10.3 ----- ----- ----- 5.5 6.6 7.8 5.1 7.1 9.1 ----- 12.0 ----- 17.0 17.4 17.7
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 3.4 5.4 ----- 23.5 ----- 8.7 12.4 16.1 5.1 5.9 6.6
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 1.5 2.0 ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 1.0 1.1 1.3
Bankfull Velocitv (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 4.8 ----- ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 3.9 ----- ----- 3.9 -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 52 85.5 119 51 67 84
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 30 37.5 45 28 32 37
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 104 134 164 130 150 162
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.42 5.46 8.5 3.5 5.75 8 19 3.8 4.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18 45 59 10 45 60
Riffle Slope (f /ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.016 0.0235 0.031 0.016 0.0235 0.031
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 19 50.8 69.7 19 40 63
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 52 67 82 65 75 80
Substrate and Transport
Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.25 / 0.46 / 0.86 / 9.05 / 14.98 ----- ----- ----- N/A Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.98 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.66 ----- -- 0.64
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W/m2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 93.5 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 43.7 ----- ----- 39.6 -----
Additional Reach
Pa rametcrs
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,638 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,920 ----- ----- 1,948 -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- 0.39 0.945 1.5 ----- 0.8 ----- ----- 0.8 -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ----- ----- ----- E5/G5 ----- E5 ----- E4/5 ----- C5 ----- ----- C5 -----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 18 220 76.47 ----- 72 ----- ----- 119 ----- ----- 72 ----- ----- 72 -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 1.24 1.52 1.8 ----- 1.3 ----- ----- 1.4 -----
BF sloe (ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ----- ----- ----- 0.013 ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- 0.010 ----- ----- 0.010 -----
Reach UT2
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Interval Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Dimension - Riffle Jacob ? Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 4.0 17.0 6.4 ----- 5.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.9 ----- ----- 13.8 -----
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 60.0 140.0 220.0 ----- 53.6 -----
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 0.5 1.7 1.0 ----- 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.8 ----- ----- 0.7 -----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.9 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.4 -----
Bankfull Cross-sectional
Area (ft2) 290.0 99.0 3.8 17.0 8.2 ----- 8.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 8.2 ----- ----- 9.7 -----
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.3 ----- 5.1 7.1 9.1 ----- 12.0 ----- ----- 19.7 -----
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.0 ----- ----- 23.5 ----- 6.1 14.2 22.2 ----- 3.9 -----
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.5 ----- ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 -----
Bankfull Velocitv (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 2.2 ----- ----- 1.9 -----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 35 57 79 54 64 72
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 20 25 30 19 21 24
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 69 89 109 83 99 I H
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2 42 5.46 8.5 3 5 5.75 8 3.9 4.6 5.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22 27 36 22 27 32
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.003 0.013 0.022 0.003 0.013 0.022
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 21 44 58 21 47 64
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 35 45 55 41 6 49.285 55.73
Substrate and -1 ransport
Paramelers
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.23 / 0.39 / 0.61 / 2.67 / 5.90 ----- ----- ----- N/A Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.32 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.25 ----- ----- 0.21 -----
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W/m2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 193 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 9.6 ----- ----- 6.6 -----
Additional Reach
Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 270 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 870 ----- ----- 923 -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.24 ----- 0.39 0.945 1.5 ----- 0.24 ----- ----- 0.24 -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ----- ----- ----- E5 ----- E5 E4/5 ----- C5 ----- ----- C5 -----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 10 100 32 ----- 18 ----- 119 ----- 18 ----- ----- 18 -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.0 ----- 1.2 1.5 1.8 ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.4 -----
BF slope ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.005 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.006 ----- ----- 0.005 -----
Reach UT3
Parameter USG S Gauge Regional Curve Interval Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Dimension - Riffle Jacob Norwood LL UL Eq. Min Mean hoax Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 61.3 32.0 6.8 26.0 11.5 9.2 10.0 10.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.7 ----- 13.3 24.4 26.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 96.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 40.0 60.0 80.0 ----- ----- ----- 80.0 280.0 480.0 72.3 96.9 129.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 4.7 3.1 0.9 2.5 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.2 ----- 1.0 1.2 1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 5.8 ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.9 3.0 3.1 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.7 ----- 1.9 2.2 2.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional
Area (112) 290.0 99.0 10.0 40.0 20.3 19.8 20.3 20.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- 20.0 ----- 15.9 24.5 34.1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 10.3 ----- ----- ----- 4.3 5.0 5.6 5.1 7.1 9.1 14.0 ----- 11.1 17.2 26.6
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.4 5.1 6.8 ----- 23.5 ----- 4.8 16.8 28.7 3.2 6.5 9.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.3 1.6 1.9 ----- 1.2 ----- ----- 1.0 ----- ----- 1.0 -----
Bankfidl Velocity (fps) 3.9 2.6 ----- ----- ----- 2.7 2.7 2.6 ----- 5.8 ----- ----- 2.7 ----- 3.4 2.2 1.6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 59 96.5 134 85 91 120
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 33 41.5 50 27 37 43
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 117 150.5 184 172 179 200
Meander Width Ratio ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2.42 5.46 8.5 3.5 5.75 8 3.5 3.7 4.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26 75 91 26 50 63
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.004 ----- •---- 0.004 -----
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 26 49 69 26 75 98
Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 59 75.5 92 86 90 100
Substrate and Transport
Parameters
d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.24 / 0.34 ! 0.44 / 1.38 / 3.40 ----- ----- ----- N/A Not Collected
Reach Shear Stress
(competency) lb/f2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.4 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.3 ----- ----- 0.3 -----
Stream Power (transport
capacity) W/m2 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 25.0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 14.7 ----- ----- 9.5 -----
Additional Reach
Parameters
Channel length (ft) 850 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2,513 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3,227 ----- ----- 3,226 -----
Drainage Area (SM) 25.7 7.2 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.92 ----- 0.39 0.945 1.5 ----- 0.92 ----- ----- 0.92 -----
Rosgen Classification C4 E ----- ----- ----- ----- E5 ----- E5 ----- E4l5 ----- C5 ----- ----- C5 -----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1140 254 29 250 83.83 ----- 54 ----- ----- 119 ----- ----- 54 ----- ----- 54 -----
Sinuosity 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1 ----- 1.24 1.52 1.8 ----- 1.4 ----- ----- 1.4 -----
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.0025 0.0008 ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.002 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 0.004 ----- ----- 0.004 -----
APPENDIX D
' MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY -YEAR 2
MONITORING

1

Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 1 Monitoring
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Reach: UT1
Cross-section 8 Cross-section 9 Cross-section 12 Cross-section 13
1. Cross-Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 16.29 17.55 22.25 20.2 15.25 13.9 20.19 18.07
Floodprone Width (ft) 5.98 - 5.92 - 3.58 - 5.12 -
BF Cross-sectional Area (112 ) 22.4 25.7 32 29.5 12.0 8.5 21.3 16.2
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.37 1.47 1.44 1.46 .79 0.61 1.06 0.9
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.99 2.94 2.96 2.87 1.79 1.24 2.56 1.84
Width/Depth Ratio 11.87 11.97 15.48 13.83 19.32 22.81 19.1 20.15
Entrenchment Ratio 3.6 3.3 2.2 2.4 5.2 5.7 3.4 3.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) - -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)

MY-1 (2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 (2008) MY-4 2009) MY-5 (2010)
H. Reachwide Parameters
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - 52 85 -
Radius of Curvature (ft) - 33 41 -
Meander Wavelength (ft) - 130 136 -
Meander Width Ratio - 7.40 9.78 -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - -
Pool Length (ft) - -
Pool Spacing (ft) - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) -
Channel Length (ft) 1,948 1,948
Sinuosity 1.4 1.4
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) - -
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0142
Rosgen Classification C5 C5

1

t

Reach: UT2
Cross-section 10 Cross-section I 1
1. Cross-Section Parameters Pool Riffle
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 29.75 28.26 12.41 11.69
Floodprone Width (ft) 4.02 - 2.84 -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2 ) 26.2 21.3 9.6 9.0
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.88 0.75 0.78 .77
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.01 1.74 1.42 1.4
Width/Depth Ratio 33.81 37.57 15.98 15.13
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 2.2 4.3 4.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)

MY-l (2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 (2008) MY-4 (2009) MY-5 (2010)
Il. Reachwide Parameters
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - 50 55 -
Radius of Curvature (ft) - 22 26 -
Meander Wavelength (ft) - 90 100 -
Meander Width Ratio - 7.69 8.55 -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - -
Pool Length (ft) - -
Pool Spacing (ft) - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) - -
Channel Length (ft) 923 923
Sinuosity 1.4 1.4
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) - -
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.005
Roseen Classification C5 C5
Reach: IIT 3
1. Cross-Section Parameters Cross-section I Cross-section 2 Cross-section 3 Cross-section 4

IN . IN IN IN IN IN . . . IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN 0. ?m?omm? oil IN INNINNIN ? IN - I

1

1
Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 22.4 22.89 26.14 25.27 22.48 23.88 22.62 22.84
Floodprone Width (11) 4.58 - 5.16 - - - - -
BF Cross-sectional Area (112 ) 29.40 29.3 27.7 16.5 45.1 40.1 30 28.5
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.31 1.28 1.06 0.65 2.01 1.68 1.32 1.25
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.29 2.3 2.58 1.75 3.54 3.66 2.54 2.57
Width/Depth Ratio 17.1 17.2 24.65 38.62 11.21 14.24 17.08 18.27
Entrenchment Ratio >4.5 >4.4 >3.6 >3.7 >3.2 >3.0 3.9 3.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) - -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
MY-1 (2006) MY-2 (2007) MY-3 (2008) MY-4 (2009) MY-5 (2010)
11. Reachwide Parameters
Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max M ed Min Max M ed Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - 70 90 -
Radius of Curvature (ft) - 28 45 -
Meander Wavelength (ft) - 160 180 -
Meander Width Ratio - 6.70 16 -
Profile
Riffle length (ft) - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) - -
Pool Length (ft) - -
Pool Spacing (ft) - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) - -
Channel Length (ft) 3226 3226
Sinuosity 1.4 1.4
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) - -
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0049 0.0049
Rosgen Classification C5 C5
Rcach: UT3 Continued
Cro ss-section 5 Cross-section 6 Cro ss-section 7
L Cross-Section Parameters Riffle Pool Riffle
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5

Dimension
BF Width (ft) 33.77 17.59 23.85 20.57 13.09 11.25
Floodprone Width (ft) 4.34 - 5.66 - 3.48 -
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2 ) 24.6 19 26.6 22.3 14.3 13.0
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.73 1.08 1.12 1.09 1.09 1.16
BD Max Depth (ft) 2.17 2.07 2.83 2.24 1.74 1.73
Width/Depth Ratio 46.36 16.28 21.36 18.95 12 9.72
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 4.8 2.9 3.2 9.7 11
Wetted Perimeter (ft) - - -
Hydraulic Radius (ft) - -
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)

1
1
1
APPENDIX E
I BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE

1

1

MONITORING DATA
1
Legend
A. Macrobenthic Sampling Sites
Stream Enhancement Level 2
Stream Restoration
Wetland Restoration
- Wetland Enhancement
Stream/upland Buffer
r
ate' `
Ppj
.?i :,s 4 e^ 4s??L.
Site 1 ;
1. .. ra < t.
,y
? ti4i ,yy
Site 2 h?. x
__ 41
?S "'?? i o". °.'AR ?e?^ ° E ?: '+var,^.9.'" ? e tlk: y? §? , "hr.','$+? Y
.:.. _° '? -? 't5 yx ?'kM1; ,#• ? fix' , m? R',,?h ? ....
y' Y ? ?:. ?3 tl,
f,- M
x?? x .. !?a a•`?k'tr rc , r i'. '"?' c4 i' ." ?+wm
4th 4
,
t"
am
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC o 500 1,000 2,000 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
2530 Meridian Parkway. Suite 200
Durham, NC 27713 Feet Sampling Sites
Bailey Fork Site

0 511P.
1KC +
?
1

9
f

P-1
Site 1 - looking upstream
. • fit{' # °„t '

,.... >a 1 to .? IP ?'. 3 }r'f.

l I? Y a? M
a
V r

P-2
Site 1 - looking downstream
P-3
Site 2 - looking upstream
P-4
Site 2 - looking downstream
P-5
Site 3 - looking upstream
P-6
Site 3 - looking downstream
P-7
P-8
Site 4 - looking upstream Site 4 - looking downstream
1

1
1

1

1
1
Appendix A. Benthos Data for Bailey Fork Project Collected on January 9-17, 2007
Site I
Site 3
Functional Sile I [''I'] to lI I1 o 131ileN

I V
to o Silver
13
ol e r?i n cc
ork
SP1'CIEs Feeding Bailey Fork F l! 13 to Silver Creek
?'alnes Group 1%ll)!l17 Reference (peek Reference

j 1/17r06 1/10/07
NNELIDA
Oligchaeta
Lumbriculidae 7.0 GC R
Megadrile
Me adrile oli ochaeta 9.0 R
Tubificidae 7.1 GC R
RTHROPODA
Crustacea
Tal itridae 5.5
Hyallela aiteca 7.8 GC R R
Insecta
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Stenelmis spp. 5.1 SC R
Hydrophilidae
Tropisternus spp. 9.7 PR C
Noteridae
Hydrocanthus spp. 7.1 OM R R
Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsus bicolor 3.6 SH A
Hem iptera
Corixidae 9.0 PR R
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabesmysia mallochi 7.2 OM R
Brillia spp. 5.2 SH C
Chironomus spp. 9.6 GC A
Clinotanypus pinguis 8.7 PR R
Conchapelopia grp 8.4 PR A R A
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 SH R C R
Microtendipes spp. 5.5 FC R R
Orthocladius obumbratus
C/o 10 8.5 GC R
Parakiefferiella spp. 5.4 GC R
Parametriocnemus
lundbecki 3.7 GC R C C C
Paratanytarsus spp. 8.5 GC C
Phaeopsectra spp. 6.5 R
Polypedilum fallax grp 6.4 SH R R
Polypedilum halterale grp 7.3 SH R
Rheocricotopus spp. 7.3 GC C R R
Stenochironomus spp. 6.5 SH R
Stictochironomus spp. 6.1 OM C R

Site 2 Site 4
Functional i Site I IAA to li FI to Itailey Site 3 113 to Silver
Tolerance ? U 13 to Silo er ,
SPb:CIES Fcedin? B<tilcy Fork ' Fork Creek
Values [:reek
Group IAA/07 Reference 1/9/07 Reference
1/17/06 1/10/01
Tanytarsus spp. 6.8 FC R
Zavrelim is spp. 9.1 PR C C
Dixidae
Dixa spp. 2.6 GC C
Simulidae
Simulium spp. 6.0 FC C A A
Tipulidae
Erioptera spp. 4.6 GC R
Hexatoma spp. 4.3 PR C
Tipula spp. 7.3 SH C C C A
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp. 4.0 GC R
Acerpenna pygmaea 3.9 OM R
Baetis pluto 4.3 R
Centroptilum spp. 6.6 GC R
Caenidae
Caenis spp. 7.4 GC C R
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella spp. 2.0 GC A A
Eurylophella funeralis 2.1 GC R C
Serratella deficiens 2.8 GC C C
Ephemera spp. 2.0 GC R
Heptageniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A A R R
Stenonema pudicum 2.0 SC C C
Stenonema Ithaca 3.6 OM R
LeptophlebiIdae
Leptophlebia spp. 6.2 GC C R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia serricornus 5.0 PR R
Sialidae
Sialis spp. 7.2 PR R
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 PR R
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp. 7.8 PR C R
Coenagrionidae
,4rgia spp. 8.2 PR R
Ischnura spp 9.5 PR R
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster spp. 5.7 PR R

1

Site 2
?
Functional Site I I'"1 I to 1, 11 to Bailey
Tolerance
SPECIES V FeedBailey Fork Fork
I Values '
Groin) I 1/10/07 Keference
li17;116
Plecoptera Site 3

UT3 to Silver
Creek

l/9/07 Site 4

UT3 to Silver

Creek

Reference
1110/07
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 PR R R
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 C
Perlodidae
Diploperla duplicata 2.7 ?? C R
/soperla bilineata 5.4 ?? R A
Taeniopterygidae
Strophopteryx spp. 2.7 ?? R R
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp. 6.2 FC A R C
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC C C
Hydropsyche betteni 7.8 FC A R R
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma spp. 0.9 SH R
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsychespp. 2.5 SH C C
Philopotamidae
Chimarra spp. 2.8 FC R
Poly centropodidae
Polycentropus spp. 3.5 PR R
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 SC C
Physidae
Physella spp. 8.8 SC A A
Pleuroceridae
Elimia spp. 2.5 SC R
Total Taxa Richness 35 34 26 14
EPT Taxa Richness 15 20 4 5
Total Biotic Index 6.33 4.30 7.87 5.75
EPT Biotic Index 4.95 3.65 6.55 2.81
Dominant in Common Taxa 40 N/A 50 N/A
Notes: Tolerance Valves: 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).

1
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet 2
Mountain! Piedmont Streams _
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
I description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
scI ct a inter#nedaa ore. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from thl different metrics.
,? locationlroad: ?i?a ,(Road Name" County Stream Ul CCf# Bas' ^Cn+A tire[ a ;l Subbasin_ y ;
AML
Opserver(s) Type of Study: ? Fish ?JBenfts ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
l atttude Z ? 6,(p bongftdde a , Ecoregion: ? MT )IP ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature C37 OC DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) pS/cm pH C1i
8-0"C
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
' Visible Land Use: 1.5 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
`6 %Fallow Fields % Commercial %industrial %Other - Describe: t
r
Watershed land use : OForest`Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 's ry'v Channel (at top of bank) " Stream Depth: (m) Avg_ Max
A Width variable 0 Large river>25m wide l {?
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m)_ c7?
Bank Angie: eQ a ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
? Channelized Ditch
?Deeply incised-steep, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits _Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ? Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N XY: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions % Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berml cvee
Flow conditions : ?tiigh ONormal ?Low N`I.Ti,vr
Turbidity: OClear 19 Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? A YES ?NO Details 1,Li(.{'I u ?) rt e' zc k°
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, rninimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ?
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... 13
Ii. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Weather Conditions: Sl`J*`;nC , IJ Photos: ON VY EY'Digital E135mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ....................................................................................................... 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (ehannelization could be old) ......................................................
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
0 Evidence of dredging 13Evidence ofdesnagging=no large woody debris in stream 013anks of uniform shapc/height
Remarks Subtotal__tZ
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >701/o of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that arc packed together and have
begun to deca nt piles of leaves in popl areas). Mark, as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
',,pp??` 1 X Rocks x Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks „Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 C-10 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present......................
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
L6 "C??D
Subtotal I (P
III. Bottom, Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only took at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Store
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 2040% ............................. ......................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedncss >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ........................................................................................................... 4
2. embeddedness 2040% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ....................................................................................... ............
4. embeddedness >80% ........................................................................................................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ........................ ................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50%...... ...................................................................................................... 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. I
Remarks _ Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety fools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>305/6 of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10,
b. pools about the same 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 same size... ........................................................ . ...................`:.................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal- 4-)
0 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 'Bottom sandy-sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page Total
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... C
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 1o
D. riffles absent ....................... ..................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope:)QTypieal for area 13Steep=fast flow 131.ow- like a coastal stream
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
PACE UPSTREAM
Riffles Infrequent
Score
12
7
3
Subtotal I4P
Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion-07
& Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3
4. mostly grasses; few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0
Remarks
? V
d
6
5
3
2
0
Tota A-
' V
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
F No canopy and no shading ............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zane 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 1,ft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 0 Trees 0 Shrubs X Grasses )Weeds/old field flExotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... 5
2, width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ........................................................................ 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c, width 6-12 meters .................. ... ..... AIL
{ dwidth t 6 meters Remarks e ToPage Totalk?. Q
U Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE-3
41
l
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
A
40
I
90° 45°
Typical Stream Cross section
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
rw
42
3106 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTA), SCORE?
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream r k Locationlroad: .l e'2 (Road Name "'' ^°} '' `County '? t
Date cat Basin la ,ti $ t,?-?ds r?„ Subbasin
/? --
--
t\k AC
Observer(s)C X7'`'1 Type of Study: ? Fish Wenthos d Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
?Jp
-Latitud'e a ra ? 4.1-1+e; g?e (I Ecoregion: ? MT © P ? Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
'?2. Water Quality: Temperature °C DO '_J mg/l Conductivity (corr.)" U pS/cm pH • `1 4
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location include what'
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ':3 c3 %Forest 60 %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : )kForest Agriculturc OUrba3n ? Animal operations upstream
? tin
Width: (meters) Stream i i'Y-%, Channel (at top of bank) LA - S Stream Depth: (m) Avg._____Max
© Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (in)_.-
Bank Angle: & 0 ° or DNA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0 Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
© Channelized Ditch
Deeply incised-steep, straight banks'Woth banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
© Recent overbank deposits OBar development 1313uried structures []Exposed bedrock
O Excessive periphyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth OCTreen tinge Q Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization:.`W OY: ORip-rap, cement, gabions O Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levice
Flow conditions v ?11i h Normal ?Low
Turbidity: ?Clear 'Slightly Turbid OTurbid ?Tannic OMilky 13Colored (from dyes) p n
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? El YES ONO Details kf(+w« Wi'S ? r) C.n
Channel Flow Status j
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. O
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Weather Conditions: 4"VN_ 1V' rC_c t: Photos: [IN )lY 'g Digital 035mm
Remarks:
39
I. Channel Modification Score
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
B. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
0 Evidence of dredging ©Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform sbape/height
Remarks Subtotal '5
II. Instrearn Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >700/0 of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
un to decay (not piles of leaves pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks t?..Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs t, Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 2040% <20%
Scgre. Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present................. 20 16 j y 12 8
3 types present ......... ................ 19 is 11 7
2 types present ......... ................ 18 14 10 6
1 type present ...........
N ................ 17 13 9 5
o types present ......
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone ..........
Remarks f J Sy?SI ???? Subtotal 14
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, de(ritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) book at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mia of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <200/a (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 2040% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >800/9 ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. 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 silt/ clay ......................................................•°.......................................... I
S
b
l
Remarks j g jAA lC Q
? I h u
tota

IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence . Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...............................................................................................................
b. pools about the same 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 same size ................................................................................ `t? .................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal 6
Q Pool bottom boulder-cobble=bardAp Bottom sai7dy-sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom © Some pools over wader depth
40
B
r
'.Y
Page Total
t
V. Rime Habitats
Definition: Ride is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12
B. riffle as wido 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 ............................. 3
D. riffles absent..,......... ....................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ©Typical for area OSteep=fast flow ElLow=like a coastal stream Subtotal
Vt. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1, diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... C6? G
2, few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3, sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4, mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
V1I. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... C-Da
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ...... .................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading . ........................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative 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 strearri, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ;M Trees 10 Shrubs Grasses E3 Weeds/old field C]Exoties (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
S
5
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 meters .......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 3
2 ?3
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b, width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters...... .................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
Remarks
Q Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream
3
2
1
0
Total
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
90° 45°
'tropical Stream Crass-section
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other
42

1
3/06 Revision 6 a
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet' ,(-
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to sur4ey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in betwee o descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream Location/road0i '} t __(Road Name County
-ors'-- ?--- -
Date ?CCC# Basin Subbasin__ °i ._?'a °
p)m? AM c
Observer(s) 't'ype of Study: © Fish Wenthos O Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
?. CY Lrongft f?e "Ecoregion: '63 MT 1Xp a Slate Be `t' © Triassic Basin
D,a ?aiE,:,cin
Water Quality: Temperature- -Loo DO q,7 'mg/l Conductivity (corr.) 0_1ISS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
-75 &` %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Clther - Describe:
Watershed land use : ?Forest,14Agriculture []Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) E t' F Stream Depth: (m) Avg-3(1 Ma>
O Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m) '9 Is E °
Bank Angle: 3 U ° or El NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is a°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards n-ud-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
Q Channelized Ditch
ODeeply incised-steep,, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sedimoiit ,
0 Recent overbank deposits ©Bar development QBuried structures OExposed bedrock {
© Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge O Sewage smell , f
Manmade Stabilization:- ON OY: ORip-rap, cement, gabions O Sediment/grade-control structure OBerni/tevee
Flow conditions :.&Jligh ONormal OLow
Turbidity: OClear O Slightly Turbid 'Eft bid OTannic C3]Milky ©Colored (from d,Yes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? KYES ONO Details V-3-Ct c•t2 eal 5n f-i C1 c,
Channel Flow Status l
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, or X25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. 0
D. Root mats out of water... .............................. ............ ................................................ CJ
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .....................................................
Weather Conditions: T") Photos: []N_ MY ,XDigital 035mm
1 9 y
n
Remarks: ?l ?v v (^J',, L)-T a T'R+ b
39
P"-
y? J
1. Channel Modification care
A. channel natural, frequent bends ............. ................................................................................
13_ 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
17 Evidence of dredging DEvidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream. OBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Ke 1'?yy46 - 5 Subtotal
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves ilt pool areas). Mark as Rare Common or Abundant.
- -101A
Rocks llMacrophytes X Sticks and leafpaeks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root teats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 2040% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present...... ................... 19 15 (DI 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
17 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks jc4 Dec 0 ?zx ^
Y(\ t i ,
i-pN2(-9 f \ Subtotal
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mlx of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <201/o (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3, embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 2040% ......................................................................................................... 1
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ ( o
4. embeddedness >800/,D ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50%- .......................................................................................................... 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4.!subs to nearly all?silt/ clay..... ..........................g.....................}.gZ ........y,............................
kemark-q {. i'S A. <:.n.v-. -a n. , n
, U C Y ? '?v? 1 _ ? I

Subtotal (Y/
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>300/9 of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) .......................... ....................... 41
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ................ "~ 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0 ?tvl
Subtotal
O Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard © Bottom sandy-sink as you walkW Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris darn, or narrow channel area.

Riffles Frequent
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 1
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 1.0
D. riffles absent ............................ ................................................................................. 0
Channel Slope: ©Typical for area C]Steep=fast flow flow=like a coastal stream
vi I3 kStabilt and Vegetation N'l- J
Riffles Infrequent
Score
12
7
3 E
Subtotal {
an y FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank
Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7
B. Erosion areas present
1, diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding....... .......... 3
4, mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0
Remarks ? i tv LGI (.p-, _ 'tft_ r '] 'rsl i?? . ,l n. J
Rt. Bank
Score
0
6
5
3
2
a
Total
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. to
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with ininirnal canopy -full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No canopy and no shading- .......................................................................................................... 0
Remarks < 10 %.'
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters...... .......... ....................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
3_ width 6-12 meters .....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters ......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
i breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters. .......................................................... .......
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .................................. . ...........................
d. wr th < 6 met .. ••.•
Remarks
Q Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesih match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
(2
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 streano, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: Trees Q Shrubs )d Grasses XWeeds/old field ?Fxotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
??J L
3
2
3 3
2 2
1
°0 0
nit Total
Rage Total 1 D
TOTAL, SCORE -`t')
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
E ?
Ems, ?c,?
90° 45°
Typical Stream Cross-section
135°
This side is 45°bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
1642

1

3106 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet ??
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE 1
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, prefera y in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intr med?ate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the efferent metrics.
?' t?sz.c.k: C' 1 'I /?
Strew Location/road: ( (J ?> _Road Name ?Ac?tr::,•- ?" }County .?L L?
Date Q - CCN Basin AWbad: Subbasin4 ( 3?, _
} { 1O,bserver(s)_,&tn t--? `Type of Study: 0 Fish ?Ibenthos 13 Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
?e x,31 l;or?gitudl L_Bcoregion: ? MT XP D Slate Belt C3 Triassic Basin
E1il is
Water Quality: Temperature rL .-(.__°C DO fl1mg11 Conductivity (corr.) 90 p5/cm pH ?c
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed In watershed land use.
Visible Land User %Forest Z U %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : OForest OAgriculture OUrban 13 Animal operations upstream ,C
Width: (meters) Stream 5 Charnel (at top of bank) Ll b Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max
0 Width variable 0 Large river >25ni wide I y •-7
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on): (m) -
Bank Angle: 71; o ° or O NA> (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards nud-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
0 Cbannelized Ditch
Deeply incised-steep, straight banks )dBoth banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
O Recent overbank deposits MBar development OBuried structures O xposed bedrock
0 Excessive periphyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth ClGreen tinge 'Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON OY: ORip-rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditions : OHigh P'lormal OLow
Turbidity: OClear O Slightly Turbid OTurbid Mannic Milky (OColored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 0 YES XYO Details
Channel Flow Status i
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ O
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of charutel substrate is exposed .................. '?
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. 0
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... 0
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... 0
Weather Conditions: 'V11% Y5' Photos: ON OY O Digital 035mm
Remarks:
39

41
1. Channel Modiffcatlon Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ...................................................................................................... 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channeiization could be ofd) ..................................................... >
C. sonic channelization present .............................................................................................................
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ...............................................................
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
0 Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging-no large woody debris in stream 013anks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
11. Instrearn Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes X Sticks and leafpaeks ? Snags and logs X Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>700/0 40-70% 2040% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 2 8 1
3 types present ......................... 19 15 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 G
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 12

No types present .......................
0 -

bt
l
S
D No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks u
ota
Ili. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mlx of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1 „ embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 155
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... X
Cox,'
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% .........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness >80°/fl ............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ................................. ......................................................................... 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock .................................................................................................. 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3, substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay, ...................................................... ......................... ................. I
Remarks _ Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. 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 S_cc e
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .............................................................................................................. 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) .................. ..................................... 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sixes ............................................................................................................... 0
b. pools about the same size ................................................................................`l .................. 4 f
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard X Bottom sandy-sink as you walk 11 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page total
f
40 '"

1
' V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10
D. riffles absent. ............................................................. .......................................... 0
Channel Slope: "ical for area OSteep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream
Riffles Infrequent
Score
r
7
3

Subtotal

' VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Le
ft Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score

I A. Banks stable
1_ little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
. 7 7
i
'

' B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .....................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ..........................
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow..
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ..........................................
6 6
5 5
3 3
2
0 0
Tota
- VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the streams surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
' A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with ntinimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading ........................................................................................................... 0
Remarks Subtotal J
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Dcfinition: 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 Lf3. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 11 Trees 13 Shrubs El Grasses 0 Weedslold field I] Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
Riparian zone idtaet (no breaks)
A
.
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
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 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
Page Total l
13 Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE S
41
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
L2
90° 45°
1pical Stream rocs-section
1.3SO
This side is 45° bank angle-
Site Sketch:
-_ t -cif .
Other
42