HoppersSFMeltonFarms_92251_MY5_2016

South Fork Hoppers Creek
Stream Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
NCDMS Project Number — 92251
- Melton Farm
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 5 of 5
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: 2011
NCDMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid
Submission Date: January 10, 2017
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 004518
FINAL

South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
Stream Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report
McDowell Countv, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1048
INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
Kristi Suggs
Project Manager
Jacob Byers, PE
NC Ecosystem Services Manager

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................4
2.1.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site.........................................................................................................5
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetation Assessment............................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Wetland Assessment................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................8
Appendices
Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Technical Memorandum — Site Assessment Report
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5a -d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5e Stream Problem Areas (SPAs)
Tables 6a -b Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Table 6c Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 4 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 5 Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 I
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Appendices
Table Ila
Table llb
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12
Cross-section Morphology Data Table
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6 Monthly Rainfall Data
Figures 7 Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table 13 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Bankfull Photo Documentation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 II
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project (Project) was restored by Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc. (Baker) through an on-call design and construction services contract with the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS). This report documents and presents Year 5 monitoring data as required during
the five-year monitoring period.
The specific goals for the Project were as follows:
Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Project site,
Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the streams and their floodplains,
Improve water quality in the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed,
Protect the South Fork Hoppers Creek watershed from nearby rapid development,
Restore wetlands along South Fork Hoppers Creek in the Project area, and
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the Project corridor.
To accomplish these goals the following objectives were implemented:
Stabilize eroding channel banks by implementing a combination of Priority I Restoration and
Enhancement II approaches,
Increase floodplain connectivity to restore historic floodplain wetlands,
Incorporate bedform diversity with varied in -stream structures to provide a variety of aquatic habitats,
Reestablish a riparian buffer with native vegetation to improve terrestrial habitat and eliminate
excessive sedimentation from erosion,
Restore and enhance existing floodplain wetlands, where feasible, and
Eliminate livestock access to the channel to improve water quality and reduce erosion from hoof shear.
The Project site is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina,
as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A. The Project is situated in the Catawba River Basin, within the United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040-020. Directions to the Project site can be found
in Figure 1 of Appendix A.
South Fork Hoppers Creek lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Its watershed is predominately
forested, supporting some isolated rural residential housing, chicken farms, agricultural lands, nurseries, and
several small rural residential developments. The land surrounding the Project site has been used historically
for agriculture but was recently used as pasture land for livestock grazing. Some forest land is located in the
upstream extents of UTI, UT2, and UT3.
South Fork Hoppers Creek and its tributaries had been impacted by livestock, were incised, and eroded.
Channel incision along South Fork Hoppers Creek resulted in the lowering of the water table; thereby,
dewatering floodplain wetlands. The Project involved the restoration or enhancement of 3,550 linear feet (LF)
of stream along South Fork Hoppers Creek, and portions of UTI and UT2 using Rosgen Priority I restoration
and Level 11 enhancement approaches. An additional 1,071 LF of stream along portions of UTI and UT3 was
placed in preservation. The Project also included the restoration and enhancement of 1.56 acres of riparian
wetland abutting South Fork Hoppers Creek and UTI of which 1.23 acres comprised restoration and 0.33 acres
comprised enhancement. The Priority I channel design approach entailed raising the elevation of the channel
to establish greater connectivity to the floodplain and to restore the hydrologic relationship between South Fork
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Hoppers Creek, its tributaries and riparian wetland areas in the Project area. Channel pattern was re-established
to dissipate flow velocities in meander bends. In -stream habitat was created using riffle -pool sequences and
the strategic placement of in -stream structures. Approximately 5.7 acres of associated riparian buffer were
restored/enhanced throughout the Project area and a conservation easement consisting of 10.1 acres will protect
and preserve all stream reaches, wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
Vegetation conditions for South Fork Hoppers Reaches 1 and 2, and UTIReach B, and UT2 Reaches A and B
were good and performing close to 100% for both the planted acreage and invasive/encroachment area
categories. Treatment control applications for exotic invasive species were conducted in monitoring Years 2
and 4; however, three Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs), consisting predominantly of Lonicera japonica
(Japanese honeysuckle) and Rosa multiflora (multi -flora rose) and exceeding the mapping threshold continue
to persist. A more detailed summary of the results for the vegetation condition assessment can be found in
Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, current condition plan view (CCPV) figures, supporting
data tables, and photo logs. The contents of Appendix B were submitted to NCDMS in May 2016 and served
as the interim visual site assessment report.
The average density of total planted stems per plot ranges from 324 — 890 stems per acre with a tract mean (not
including volunteers) of 587 stems per acre; therefore the Site has met the Year 5 vegetative success criteria of
260 trees per acre. Volunteer species continue to thrive throughout the vegetation plots and include planted
species, as well as, other native species such as: Pinus virginiana and Rubus sp. Vegetation stem counts are
summarized in Tables 7 and 9 of Appendix C.
Tables 5a through 5d (Appendix B) indicate the Project site has remained geomorphically stable overall, with
lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure performance of 100% on UT1B, 83 — 100% on Reach 1, 95 —
100% on Reach 2, and 60 —100% on UT2 A and B. The sub -categories receiving scores of less than 100% are
namely due to small localized areas of bank scour and/or erosion around structures. Stream Problem Areas
(SPAS) correlating with these areas of instability for the project reaches are documented and summarized in
Table 5e of Appendix B. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can
be found in the "Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 5" in Appendix B.
The six permanent cross-sections along the Project site show that there has been little adjustment to stream
dimension overall within the Project site since construction. Cross-section 9 (X9) exhibits only a minor amount
sedimentation in the riffle, which is most likely a result, as indicated from the sediment analysis, of an influx
of sands from the upstream ford crossing. As indicated in Figure 3, cross-sectional measurements throughout
the five year monitoring period have remained geomorphically similar to as -built conditions and do not indicate
any stream bank or channel stability issues.
The longitudinal profiles show that bed features are stable. Pools are well maintained with only minor filling
in the upstream sections of Reach 1 and UT1B, which is most likely due to the natural movement of sediment
through the system in areas where the channel gradient is low and the floodplain remains inundated throughout
much of the year. Grade control structures (constructed riffles, cross vanes and log sills) continue to help
maintain the overall profile desired. As depicted in Figure 4, overall longitudinal profiles for Reach 1, 2, and
UT1B have remained geomorphically stable throughout the post -construction five year monitoring period.
Visual observations and a review of pebble count data collected during Year 5 monitoring did not yield any
signs that sediment transport functions have been hampered by the mitigation project. The pebble count data
for South Fork Hoppers Creek and UT 1B indicate that the stream is moving fines through the system and a mix
of substrates make up the bed material. Pebble count data is provided in Figures 5a — 5c in Appendix D.
Two bankfull event were observed and documented during MY5. Overall the site has experienced at least seven
documented bankfull events during the five year monitoring period. With at least two of the events occurring
in separated monitoring years, the site has met its hydrologic success criteria. Information on bankfull events
is provided in Table 12 of Appendix E.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Though groundwater data loggers for Wells 2 and 4 had to be replaced in August 2016, all four wetland areas
met the success criteria for wetland hydrology during Monitoring Year 5. Groundwater conditions indicated
saturated conditions existed throughout 100% of the growing season for Gauge 3 and for Gauges 2 and 4, after
replacement, while Gauge 1 documented saturated conditions for 99.5% of the growing season. Based on
ground water data collected during the five growing seasons following site construction (March 30, 2013 -
November 2, 2016), the site has successfully met the success criteria for wetland hydrology of soil saturation
within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 9% of the growing season, or 19 consecutive days. See Appendix
E for a depiction of plot of wetland gauge data as it relates to monthly precipitation for Monitoring Year 5
(Figure 7) and a summary of wetland gauge attainment for all five monitoring years (Table 13). See CCPV
sheets (Figure 2) in Appendix B, for a depiction of wetland and corresponding gauge locations.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment, and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the
report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be
found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly
Restoration Plan) documents available on DMS's website. It should be noted that the Baseline Monitoring
Report and Mitigation Plan for this Project site is included with the summary of constructed design approaches
for the South Muddy Creek Restoration Project (DMS Project No. 737), a nearby project site that was designed
and constructed in conjunction with the Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project as part of the
same DMS on-call design and construction services contract. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in
the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The five-year monitoring plan for the Project site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetation,
stream, and wetland components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these
three components adheres to the DMS monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will
continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring
features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photo stations and wetland/crest gauges,
are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Figure 2 of Appendix B.
The majority of Year 5 monitoring data was collected in May 2016 and October 2016. All visual site assessment
data was collected on May 25, 2016. Vegetation monitoring plot and sediment data were collected between
October 18' and 19th, 2016. All stream survey (channel dimension and profile) data were collected between
September 27' and October 4th, 2016. Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and
Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station and was geo-referenced to the NAD83 State Plane
Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the South Fork Hoppers Creek As -
built Survey.
2.1 Stream Assessment
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches was conducted for five years to evaluate the effectiveness
of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension (cross-sections),
profile (longitudinal survey), bed composition, bank and channel stability, bankfull flows, and reference sites
documented by photographs. A crest gauge, as well as high flow marks, were used to document the occurrence
of bankfull events. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
For monitoring stream success criteria, 6 permanent cross-sections, 1 crest gauge, and 39 photo identification
points were installed.
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Six permanent cross-sections were installed throughout the entire project area. Cross-sections selected
for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool facets and each cross-section was marked
on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Each of the three restored
Project reaches, Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork Hoppers Creek and UTIB, contains one riffle and one
pool cross-section. A common benchmark is being used for cross-sections and consistently referenced
to facilitate comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys included points measured at
major breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the
features are present. Riffle cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System (Rosgen, 1994), and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type.
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -cutting or
erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along
the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sectional data is presented in Figure 3 of Appendix
D.
2.1.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles were surveyed for the entire restored lengths of Reaches 1 and 2 of South Fork
Hoppers Creek and UT1B, and are provided in Figure 4 of Appendix D. Longitudinal profiles were
replicated annually during the five year monitoring period.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and the top of low
bank. All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the longitudinal
profiles surveyed. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark.
The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain
steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be consistent with those observed
for channels of the design stream type as well as other design information.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed load material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle during annual
geomorphic surveys of the Project site. One sample was collected at the riffle cross-section
corresponding with each of the three restored Project reaches for a total of three sediment samples
(cross-sections X5, X7, X9). These samples, combined with evidence provided by changes in cross-
section and profile data will reveal changes in sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream
adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation were evaluated with
respect to stream stability and watershed changes. Bed material distribution data are located in Figure
5 of Appendix D.
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period were documented by the use of crest
gauges and photographs. One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation
along the right top of bank at station 15+10. The bottom of the crest gauge coincides with the top of
bank (bankfull) elevation. The crest gauges record the highest watermark between site visits, and are
checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs are used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring
site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented at the crest gauge within the 5 -year monitoring period.
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or until the monitoring period ends.
If two bankfull events have not been documented at the end of 5 years the Interagency Review Team
(IRT) will have to decide on an appropriate course of action.
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs were used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations were photographed
during the as -built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years following construction. Reference
photos were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period. Selected site
photographs are shown in Appendix B.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-section. A
survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross-section line located
perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge of the frame in order
to document bank and riparian conditions. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain
the same area in each photo over time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i.e. vanes and weirs), along the restored streams are
included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations. Photographers have made every
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Lateral and structure photographs were used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, structure function, and stability, and effectiveness of erosion control measures
subjectively. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. A series of
photos over time should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure function.
2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout the Project reach
as a whole. Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth maintenance, were also measured
and scored. The entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile
(riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. Photos were taken at every stream
photo reference station as discussed in the previous section, and in locations of potential SPAS which were
documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary of the
methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B which includes
a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and SPA photos.
2.2 Vegetation Assessment
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, twelve vegetation monitoring quadrants were installed across the Project
site, which included one wetland vegetation plot. The total number of quadrants was calculated using the CVS-
NCEEP Entry Tool Database version 2.3.1 (CVS-NCEEP, 2012). The size of individual quadrants for tree
species is 100 -square meters. Level 1 CVS vegetation monitoring was conducted between spring, after leaf -
out has occurred, and fall prior to leaf fall. At the end of the first growing season during baseline surveys,
species composition, density, and survival were evaluated. Individual quadrant data provided during
subsequent monitoring events will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values
were calculated, and importance values were determined. Individual seedlings were marked to ensure that they
can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality was determined from the difference between the
previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Photographs were used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots. Reference photos of vegetation
condition within plots were taken at least once per year. As part of the visual site assessment conducted on
May 25, 2016, the vegetation condition of planted vegetation along stream banks, floodplains (wetlands), and
terraces were qualitatively evaluated for performance. This assessment also included the documentation of
invasive species and potential VPAs, which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV
figures. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the vegetation condition assessment can
be found in Appendix B which includes a technical memorandum, supporting data tables, and photo logs.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater monitoring stations were installed in restored/enhanced wetland areas to document
hydrologic conditions at the Project site. These four wetland gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures found
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance
with the USACE standard methods outlined in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02 (July 2000).
Precipitation data from a nearby U.S. Geological Survey rain gauge near Morganton, NC (USGS
354353081410545) was used for comparison to post -construction groundwater monitoring conducted during
the Year 4 growing season. This data was obtained from the USGS "waterdata" website (USGS 2016).
Baker used DRAINMOD (Version 5.1) to develop hydrologic simulation models that represented conditions at
a variety of locations across the Project site. DRAINMOD indicated wetland hydrology would occur for
approximately 6-12% of the growing season. Based on these findings, it was determined that success criteria
for wetland hydrology will be met when each wetland site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for
at least 9% of the growing season, or 19 consecutive days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2012. CVS-NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
US Army Corps of Engineers, WRP, July 2000. Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02.
US Geological Survey, 2016. USGS 354353081410545. Morganton, NC. Retrieved: 2016-11-28.
h!Ltp://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/uv/?site no=354353081410545&PARAmeter cd=00045
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251 8
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - JANUARY 2017
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES

Directions to the Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Site:
� VERY
\
Cro re
CATAWBA j 1
J � 44033-08�-.3�1. i 90
s CALD ELL
19 80 H ROAD a
4 06� �
�1
Y C Y
26
FRE BRO -�
-0 0
FRENCH BRO
e
04-03-042
'z
80
Glen Ald Morganton
ENCH BROAD �� +
04-03-02
MCDOWELL \ 70 Marion I
'firW BA
ontre t -30
BUNCOMBE 01'
Black Mount
Michael Baker
Map Vicinity
r�r/,It= �Aa�NA`j�4+` ,
� T
r� `?�BR AD
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm
McDowell County, NC
° CATAWB
03-08-35
South Fork Hoppers Creek
i
� I
B I AD� i
\
-- 03-08-04
`I
,i
LEGEND:
Project Boundary
�J NC River Basins
0 USGS Hydrologic Unit
Counties
0 2.5 5
Miles

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
Table 1. Project Components
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Existing
Mitigation
Linear Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Project Segment or Reach ID
Approach
Stationing
Comment
Feet/Acres*
Type
Acreage*
Ratio
Units
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion, and provide habitat. Priority I was implemented to
Reach 1
R
P1
783
1:1
783
10+00 - 17+83
reestablish stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain.
1,350
South Fork Hoppers Creek -
Installed in -stream structures to control grade, reduce bank erosion, and provide habitat. Priority I was implemented to
Reach 2
R
P 1
445
1:1
445
17+83 - 22+48 **
reestablish stream pattern and relocate the channel onto the historic floodplain.
P
722
5:1
144
-
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was implemented to on right and left stream banks.
UTI - Reach A
782
EII
P4
60
2.5:1
24
7+86 - 8+46***
Regraded right bank to create a bankfull bench and implemented riparian plantings to improve stability and reduce erosion.
P
-
51
5:1
10
9+49 - 10+00***
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was implemented to on right and left stream banks.
UTI - Reach B
970
Installed in -stream structures to increase habitat diversity. Installed fencing to restrict cattle access. Priority I was
R
131
1,065
1:1
1065
10+00 - 20+85**
implemented to restore dimension, pattern, and profile.
UT2 - Reach A
366
EII
P4
379
2.5:1
152
10+00 - 13+79
Regraded banks and implemented a step -pool channel where feasible. Implemented fencing to restrict hog access.
UT2 - Reach B
802
EII
P4
818
2.5:1
327
13+79 - 22+17**
Regraded banks and implemented riparian plantings to improve reach stability and reduce erosion.
UT3
298
P
298
5:1
60
-
Preservation. A 30 - 100 foot conservation easement was implemented to on right and left stream banks.
Ephennal drainage in left
Stabilized ephemeral drainage from adjacent pasture by creating a flat bottom swale. Swale was matted and seeded. Not
floodplain of South Fork Hoppers
348
-
497
-
-
being sought for mitigation credit.
Creek
Ephermal drainage near the
Stabilized ephemeral drainage with boulder sill structures and armored channel bed. Areas outside the channel were
upstream extend of UT2
80
80
mulched and planted. Not being sought for mitigation credit.
Ephemeral drainage at Station
15
-
15
-
-
Stabilized ephemeral drainage by regrading, remattin , and armoring with ri rap' Not being sought for mitigation.
of UT2
E
-
0.33
2:1
.165
-
Regraded the wetland boundary to improve hydrologic imputs and maximize surface storage.
Wetland
0.33
R
-
1.23
1:1
1.23
-
Restored wetland hydrology to the original stream alignment.
* Existing reach breaks and design reach breaks varied based on initial geomorphic differences and design requirements.
** Stationing includes 20 ft. stream crossing, but is not reflected in the reach length
***During construction enhancement slated to occur between 9+49 and 10+00 of UT1B was shifted upstream into UT1A per conversations with DMS and CEC. The section slated for enhancement at the top of UT1B (9+49 to 10+00) became presevation upon the field change.
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non-Ripar
Upland
(LF)
Wetland (Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,293
1.23
-
-
-
Enhancement
0.33
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement II
1,257
Creation
-
-
-
-
Preservation
1,071
-
-
-
-
HQ Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
1.56
0.00
Totals
4,621
1.56
Total Mitigation Units
3010 SMU
1.40 WMU
= Non - Applicable
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Elapsed Time Since Grading/Planting Complete: 5 Years 6 Months
Number of Re orting Years: 5
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Jul -07
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Jan -08
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Aug -08
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Jun -09
Construction Begins
Jun -10
N/A
Jun -10
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Nov -10
N/A
Jan -11
Planting of live stakes
Mar -11
N/A
Mar -11
Planting of bare root trees
Mar -11
N/A
Mar -11
End of Construction
Mar -11
N/A
Jun -11
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
Nov -10
N/A
Jun -11
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -12
Sep -12
Nov -12
Invasive Treatment
NA
NA
Aug -13
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -13
Sep -13
Dec -13
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -14
Sep -14
Dec -14
Invasive Treatment
NA
NA
Sep -15
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -15
Sep -15
Dec -15
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Jan -17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 3.
Project Contacts Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contact:
Joanne Cheatham, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery, Tel. [phone]
Profession Land Surveyor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC.
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Contact:
Professional Land Surveyor
David Turner, Tel. [phone]
As-Built Plan Set Production
Lissa Turner, Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact:
Kristi Suggs, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Project County McDowell County, NC
Physiographic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Inner Piedmon Belt
Project River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites Project: 03050101040020; References: 03040103050 -090 (Spencer Creek), -080(Barnes Creek); 03030002060 -070 (Morgan Creek); 03020201080 -020 (Sal's Branch
NCDW Sub -basin for Project and Reference Project: 03-08-30• References: 03-07-09 (Spencer Creek and Barnes Creek • 03-06-06 (Morgan Creek
• 03-04-02 (Sal's Branch
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan ? Muddy Creek Local Watershed Plan LWP 2003
WRC Class Warm Cool Cold Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated 100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase ? None
Restoration Component Attribute Table
South Fork South Fork Hoppers
Hoppers - Reach 1 Reach 2
UT 1 - Reach A
Preservation
UT 1 - Reach A
Enhancement 2)
UT 1 -Reach B
(Preservation)
UTI - Reach B
UT2 - Reach A
UT2 - Reach B
UT3
Drainage area (sq. mi. 0.48
0.52
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.02
Stream order 2nd
2nd
1st
1 st
1 st
1 st
0
0
0
Restored length 783
445
722
60
51
1,065
379
818
298
Perennial or Intermittent Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.) Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Developed Low -Medium Intensity
Ag -Cultivated Crops 1.5
Ag-Pasture/HayAg-Pasture[Hay 15.3
Forested 60.8
Other (Open water, Grassland Etc. 22.4
Watershed impervious cover (%) U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
NCDW AU/Index number 03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
03-08-30
NCDWQ classification C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
303d listed ? No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total acreage of easment
10.1
Total planted arcea a as part of the restoration
5.7
Rosgen classification of pre-existing G5c
C4/1
B
B
E5
E5
G5
G5c
B
Ros en classification of As -built C5
C5
B
B
C5
C5
G5/135
G5c
B
Valley type Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Alluvial
Valley sloe 0.0115ft/ft
0.0115 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
0.034 ft/ft
0.023 ft/ft
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2-3%) U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley toe slope ranee.. 2-3% U
U
U
U
U
U
-
Cowardin classification
Trout waters designation No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N0
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y?N) No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series IoA
IoA
EwE
EwE
IoA
IoA
HeD
HeD / IoA
EwE
Depth 10
10
5
6
10
10
5,8
5,8/10
5
Clay % 18
18
25,20
25,20
18
18
25
25/18
25,20
KI 0.15
0.15
0.17, 0.10
0.17, 0.10
0.15
0.15
0.24, 0.17
0.24, 0.17 / 0.15
0.17, 0.10
T1 5
5
3/5
3/5
5
5
5
5/5
3/5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Site Assessment Report — Monitoring Year 5
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
McDowell County, North Carolina
May 2016
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDEQ Contract ID No. 004518
Submitted By: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 28277
License: F-1084, Baker Project No. 128244
INTERNATIONAL
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 1 of 7

I Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This report summarizes overall stream and vegetation conditions as part of an interim site
assessment conducted in conjunction with the Year 5 monitoring services for the Hoppers Creek -
Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site located in McDowell County, NC. This site
assessment will be included as part of a more comprehensive Annual Monitoring Report to be
completed and submitted later this year (Fall 2016). The report describes project objectives,
discusses the assessment methodology, summarizes assessment results, and documents potential
stream and vegetation problem areas (SPAS and VPAs respectively).
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the site assessment were to:
Provide a general overview of stream morphological stability;
Provide a general overview of vegetation conditions;
Identify and document potential SPAS and VPAs.
1.3 Supporting Data
Supporting data and information are provided following the narrative portion of this report and
include:
Current condition plan view (CCPV) figures (Figure 2, sheets 1 through 3);
Visual stream morphology stability assessment table (Tables 5a through 5d);
SPA inventory table (Table 5e);
Vegetation condition assessment table (Tables 6a and 6b);
VPA inventory table (Table 6c);
Stream station photos;
SPA photos;
VPA photos.
2 Methodology
The methodology used for assessing overall stream and vegetation conditions at the Hoppers Creek -
Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site adhered to the NCDEQ DMS monitoring guidance
documents (dated November 7, 2011). The site assessment was comprised of two components, a
visual stream morphology stability assessment and a vegetation condition assessment, both of
which are described in more detail in the following sections of this report. The assessment was
strictly qualitative. Vegetation monitoring plot counts were excluded from this assessment but will
be conducted after July 2015. This data will be summarized in Appendix C and the CCPV figure
of the Year 5 Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted in late November of this year.
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 2 of 7

The Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site was evaluated as four separate
project reaches for the visual stream morphology stability assessment as they were for the Final
Baseline Monitoring Document/As-Built Report: South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC) Reaches 1
and 2, UTI Reach B, and UT2 (Reaches A and B). SFHC Reaches 1 and 2 are delineated by the
confluence of UT 1 Reach B where SFHC Reach 1 is located upstream of the confluence and SFHC
Reach 2 is located downstream of the confluence. UT2 Reach A extends from the upstream limits
located within the conservation easement boundary to the downstream limits of the constructed
step -pool channel, and UT2 Reach B includes the remaining corridor located downstream of the
step -pool channel until its confluence with SFHC Reach 1.
2.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphology stability assessment involved the evaluation of lateral and vertical
channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout each
of the four project stream reaches. Habitat parameters, such as riffle embeddedness and pool depth
maintenance, were also measured and scored. Each stream reach was walked, noting geomorphic
conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and engineered in -
stream structures. Photos were taken at every existing stream photo point (from the as -built) and
in locations of potential SPAS which were recorded in the field for subsequent mapping on the
CCPV figures.
2.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
The vegetation condition assessment involved the evaluation of vegetation within the 10.1 acre
conservation easement and included assessing the performance of planted vegetation along stream
banks, floodplains, and terraces as well as the documentation of invasive species. The assessment
of planted vegetation was confined to the 5.7 acres of riparian buffer planting zones located within
the easement boundary as part of the restoration design; whereas, invasive vegetation and
encroachment areas of invasive species were evaluated for the entire 10.1 acre easement boundary.
Photos were recorded in locations of potential VPAs throughout the easement, such as areas
exhibiting sparse or slow growth/vigor, low stem density, and invasive areas of concern.
2.3 Post -processing of Field Data
The post -processing of field data consisted of the download and organization of photos into
respective photo logs (stream and vegetation), creating the CCPV figures in GIS using the field -
mapped SPAS and VPAs, populating the SPA and VPA tables, and finally scoring the performance
of the four stream reaches and two vegetation tracts in terms of stream morphological stability and
vegetation condition using assessment forms provided by NCDEQ DMS.
3 Summary of Results
3.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Tables 5a through 5d summarize the performance of each of the four project stream reaches
mentioned above for the Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project in terms of lateral
(stream bank) and vertical (channel bed) stability while evaluating the functionality and integrity
of in -stream structures. Engineered in -stream structures evaluated for the assessment of this project
reach consisted of constructed riffles, log sills (drops), cross vanes, log vanes, root wads, geo-lifts,
and brush mattresses. Constructed riffles were justified for inclusion in the evaluation of structures
since they are the predominant grade control structure used throughout the site; however, they were
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 3 of 7

only assessed for the `overall integrity' and `grade control' parameter categories in Tables 5a
through 5d.
As Tables 5a through 5d indicate, the Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project site
was geomorphically stable overall and performing at or near 100 percent as the design intended for
the majority of parameters evaluated within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure
performance categories. UTI Reach B was functioning at the highest level geomorphically out of
all the stream project reaches, performing at 100 percent for all morphological sub -categories.
Individual results for the remaining reaches varied in performance for the three major
morphological channel categories.
Both SFHC Reach 1 and Reach 2 performed at 100% for bedform condition and stability and at
96% for bank stability; however, they differed slightly relative to performance of engineered
structures. SFHC Reach 1 received scores ranging from 91% to 100% for the performance of
engineered structures, while SFHC Reach 2 received ranging from 95% to 100%. Performance
rates of less than 100% on these reaches were due primarily due to erosional pockets forming
around root wad and log sill bank tie-ins.
UT2 performed near 100% for the majority of the sub -category metrics. Pool performance for two
out of the five step pools received more moderated ratings in the categories of condition and habitat.
Though the results seem unfavorable, they are likely only the result of the natural processes of
moving sediment loads from large storm events through the system and not a performance issue.
This is especially likely since these results were not noted as occurring or trending in previous
assessment years. SPAS correlating with these issues for these three project reaches were
documented and summarized in Table 5e.
There were a total of thirteen SPAs documented, three of which were identified during the Year 1
visual assessment, one that was identified during the Year 2 assessment, three that were identified
during the Year 4 assessment, and six that were identified during the Year 5 assessment. SPAs
documented in previous years were included in this assessment since they have persisted to date.
Any SPA's that have been documented in previous reports, but were not indicated as problems
during the Year 5 assessment will not be described.
The first number in the SPA naming convention (in Table 5e) references the monitoring year in
which the SPA was identified during the visual assessment. A brief description of the SPAs
reported from this year and persisting from previous years is discussed below. The SPAs from
previous years noted in this report have generally remained unchanged in condition and scale when
observed during this assessment, but they still remain problem areas and should be monitored. All
are included in the scoring of morphological performance categories in Tables 5a through 5d, and
are also summarized in Table 5e, Figure 2 (CCPV), and the SPA photolog.
SPA 1-2 is characterized by a localized area of bank scour along the right bank of Reach 1 of SFHC.
This SPA is likely caused by the invert of the upstream log roller directing the channel flow toward
the bank just downstream of sill tie-in. The bank slope in this area is vertical; however, it is well
vegetated at the top of bank. The area may widen slightly, but should stabilize in time as the large
woody vegetation becomes even more established in this area.
SPA 1-5 consists of the piping of flow around a log sill structure in UT2 Reach A. The structure is
vertically and laterally stable and should seal over time.
The heavily armored, ephemeral drainage located near the upstream extents of UT2 Reach A was
inspected for overall structural integrity and stability even though the short reach is not being sought
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 4 of 7

for mitigation credit. Upon inspection, the channel bed of the downstream riffle cascade has eroded
(SPA1-6) and a small localized area of erosion persists on the right upper bank. Coarse riprap
material has been deposited downstream atop the lowest elevation boulder sill, exposing the
underlying filter fabric as a result.
SPA2-1 and SPA5-3 are located just downstream of a log sill on SFHC Reach 1 at Station 16+25.
These SPAs are characterized by erosion, undercut bank, and structure failure. The invert along
the upstream log sill is directing velocity vectors into the bank which has caused erosion to occur
around the back of the root wad and the invert/left bank tie-in of the downstream log sill; therefore,
resulting in structure failure. The root wad has slumped into the channel and the log sill had
separated ftom the bank and is under water. Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are present
and providing some stability to the bank. This area will be assessed again during the Year 5
Monitoring period to document its state of stability.
SPA4-1 and SPA 5-5 are located on the left bank just downstream of a log sill on SFHC Reach 2
at Station 20+20. These SPAs are characterized by erosion, undercut bank, and structure failure.
The invert along the upstream log sill is directing velocity vectors into the bank causing erosion to
occur around the back of the root wad and around the downstream of log sill invert/left bank tie-in.
The root wad and the sill's header log are still tied -in to the bank; however, it appears that the sill's
header and footer have separated. Currently the header log is suspended across the channel above
the surface water elevation. Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are present and aiding in the
stability of the bank. This area will be assessed again during the Year 5 Monitoring period to
document its state of stability.
SPA4-2 consists of both bank erosion and undercut bank and is located along the right bank
downstream of a log sill on SFHC Reach 2 (Station 20+75). This SPA is likely caused by the invert
of the log sill directing the channel flow into the right bank just downstream of sill's tie-in. The
area of erosion is located immediately upstream of the root wad and may eventually compromise
the integrity of the structure. However, the root wad is still providing some bank protection, at this
time. Native herbaceous and woody vegetation are present and are providing some stability to the
bank. This area will be assessed again during the Year 5 Monitoring period to document its state
stability.
SPA4-3 is located on UT2 Reach A between Stations 12+36 to 12+53. In this area, the channel
hugs the valley wall, and the outside meander bend experiences high levels of near bank stress
during bankfull events which has led to a localized area of bank scour.
SPA5-1 and SPA5-2 are located on UT 2 Reach A just below the second and fourth log step,
respectively. These SPAs consist of sediment filled pools. Because it is normal for an active
channel to move sediment through the system and there are no other indicators of excessive
aggradation within this area, it is likely that this is just part of the normal channel processes. These
SPAs will be reassessed during the Year 5 monitoring period.
SPA 5-4 is located on Reach 1 of SFHC from Station 18+30 to 18+45. The SPA consists of a
localized area of erosion on the left in between the rootwads along the apex of the meander bend.
Both woody and herbaceous vegetation are still present and aiding the stability of the bank. This
area is likely to heal over time.
SPA 5-6 is located on Reach 2 of SFHC at Station 20+45. The SPA consists of undercutting of the
right bank between root wads immediately downstream of the compromised log sill associated with
SPA5-5. This appears to be a localized area of erosion caused by high levels of near bank stresses
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 5 of 7

directed at the right bank and currently it is unclear whether or not this SPA is a result of the
upstream problem area. This area will be further monitored during the Year 5 monitoring period.
Log sills associated with deep scour pools on UTI Reach B between Stations 19+00 and 19+50
were inspected and assessed for vertical stability per DMS' request during the Year 2 assessment
and reassessed during the Year 4 assessments. DMS' concern was that the depth of some of the
scour pools on a channel with such a small dimension could potentially pose a threat and undermine
the integrity of its upstream log step. During these assessments pool depth and pool to pool ratio
were evaluated and compared to the design values.
The upstream log sill was the deepest of the three located within the assessment area and had a dpool
value and dpoo,/dbkf ratio of 2.8 feet and 5.2 respectively. These measurements are greater than
design values and had slightly increased from the previous assessment; however, they still meet
DMS' monitoring guidance criteria for the assessment. Additionally, this log sill structure was
evaluated for stability. Because each sill is constructed with both a header and footer log, the footer
log on this log sill was still buried below the elevation of the scour pool, affording protection from
undermining and helping to hold the entire structure firmly in place. Therefore, since the channel
bed is stable and it is normal for pool depths and pool to pool ratios to fluctuate over time in an
active riparian systems. Observations of this area during the Year 5 assessment did not document
any instability; therefore, no measurements were taken. These log sills/scour pools will also be
assessed during the Year 5 monitoring period.
3.2 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Tables 6a and 6b summarize the vegetation conditions of the Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream
Restoration site. Table 6a references the vegetation assessment tract associated with SFHC
Reaches 1 and 2, and UTI Reach B; Table 6b references the vegetation assessment tract associated
with UT2 (Reaches A and B). There were a total of three mapped VPAs. All of which consist of
the presence of an invasive species population at least 1000 square feet in size. One of the three
was identified during the Year 2, while the remaining two were identified during the Year 4
assessment. The presence of invasive species accounts for all three of the VPAs.
A DMS licensed contractor conducted exotic invasive plant control between June 20 and August
14, 2013. In September 2015, invasive species control treatments were conducted using a variety
of treatment applications such as: cut -stump, foliar, hand pull, and hand digging methods. Invasive
species that were treated throughout the conservation easement in September 2015 included Kudzu,
multi -flora rose, privet, mimosa, autumn olive, trifoliate orange, tree of heaven, and Bradford pear.
As with the SPAs, the first number in the VPA naming convention references the monitoring year
in which the VPA was identified during the visual assessment. A brief description of the VPAs
reported from previous year's assessment that have persisted as well as Year 4 VPA's is discussed
below. All VPAs are included in the scoring of easement acreage performance categories in Tables
6a and 6b, and are also summarized in Table 6c, Figure 2 (CCPV), and the VPA photolog.
VPA2-4 is located on UTI Reach B within vegetation monitoring plot 22 on the right floodplain
terrace. The area has received treatment applications in the past; however, though the overall
populations of multi -flora rose and Japanese honeysuckle within this area have diminished, they
continue to persist. The combined total acreage is 0.03 acres, or 0.3% of the planted area acreage
for this assessment tract.
Two VPAs of invasive species also continue to persist after treatment along UT2 (VPA4-3 and
VPA4-5). Both VPAs are located within the floodplain. VPA4-3 consists of both multi -flora rose
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 6 of 7

and Japanese honeysuckle, while VPA4-5 is comprised primarily of the latter. VPA4-3
encompasses the majority vegetation monitoring plot 14. The combined total acreage for these two
VPAs is 0.06 acres, or 4.0% of the planted area acreage for this assessment tract.
Though there were no other VPAs which exceeded the mapping threshold, individual stems and/or
localized populations of invasive species were observed throughout the assessment area. These
species consisted primarily of multi -flora rose; however, Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle
were also noted. Locations of these species were mainly limited to the fence line along the
easement with a few sporadic populations within the planted easement areas.
Year 5 Site Assessment Report - Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project
NCDEQ — DMS (Prof. No. 9225 1) May 2016
Page 7 of 7

CE CE CROSS SECTION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS(SPA)S
Co
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /
�LL N
N
------------------- CONSERVATION EAS M E N T
INVASIVE SPECIES P R E S E N T
EROSION
0 0� o�
= L o
.� J � V N
___TB — TB - — ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
VEGETATION PROBLEM
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
-0
W 0 M uA
r_ O W
d i w O ZR
�0CuZo
m
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
AGGRADATION
=m o
S W r -i C
------------- ASBUILT CHANNEL
WO
��"~
2ZaMUd
— — x- --- -x— — ASBUILT CENTERLINE
X -# rr�inr
FENCE
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
MATCHLINE SHEET 3
@ CREST GAUGE
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
DEGRADATION
® WETLAND GAUGE STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
uu
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT/ RESTORATION
UT2
VPA 4-5
F � �• r
VPA 4-3 ,.
VP -14 = -
7'
1264 ~ C
CEF
PID 1 1262
e
VP -11 5
NJ
PID 4�'-� -�
�• �' `�• � �-� 726 � �-
`- 1260 C
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
1266
1264
_Z7,9 _
CE ------- CE ---- CE — ---- E C
CE _��---�_ 1256
SFHC - 10+00` v SPA 5-4
SPA 5 7 , SPA 5-8
�120_
f�"
''"1
v'_
_ BEGIN AS -BUILT PID 2 �� -'` 0. * WG3� `� w PID 6 \�
S. FORK HOPPERS CREEK L PID 3 v 0 ,0 , �-
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE VP-16
'' PID 11
WG4 T, - `� PID 8 _<p
_ T VP -18'
�C.F' SPA 1-2 \ �i
PID 5 CREST r SPA 2-1
GAUGE PID 10
4, � S PA 5-3
PID 7 PID 9 ` �• /
, W G 2 r 4 PID 19
ffff
WLVP-1 41 UT1 B fl
PID 18
� I
7' . VP -17 m i1
� 1
PID 17 1258
l
MATCHLINE SHEET 2
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
80
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 10+00 - 22+48
N
A_J
1268
f 4258
-
GATE --- ---- �E--_�--_ E - — — — — — --
PID 15
PID5
&P ID 16 � \
VP -19 PID 14
PID 13
.eID 12 SPA 4-1
17
s _ C PA 4-2 VP -20 \ .
t5`
SPA 5-5SPA 5-6
WG1 00
1264
f
SFHC - 22+47.76
END AS -BUILT
1256 S. FORK HOPPERS CREEK
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
1260
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
J
z
Q
z
lx
W
z
C1
N �
L
U
0 i Q0
i U �d7ti
N
i U co 00
0 u ti
U- -4- U N O
� 01-,
�) .��zrn
(a aU)
GE =��
o_Qo�M0
}� .O CO LL
0
0
Z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date: 2016
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
5of5
Sheet: 1 of 3
UZ_
W
J
W
WO
'0
w
-
u
CU
Z
2
U)Oit
wao
N
a
O
Z
W
I�
Z
�_
IYi
OU
20
w
J
H
W
Z
p
00
0
JLu
p
C1
N �
L
U
0 i Q0
i U �d7ti
N
i U co 00
0 u ti
U- -4- U N O
� 01-,
�) .��zrn
(a aU)
GE =��
o_Qo�M0
}� .O CO LL
0
0
Z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date: 2016
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
5of5
Sheet: 1 of 3

CE
CE CROSS SECTION
------------------- CONSERVATION EAS M E N T
TB -TB-- ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
ASBUILT CHANNEL
- - x - --- -x- - ASBUILT CENTERLINE
X -# rr�inr
O
VP
FENCE
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
FENCE DOWN DUE TO LOGGING
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
RARF FI nnr PI AIN AREA
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR /
EROSION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
AGGRADATION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
W WETLAND ENHANCEMENT/ RESTORATION DEGRADATION
® CREST GAUGE
® WETLAND GAUGE
O FALLEN TREE ON FENCE LINE
END UT1A BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
(NOT SURVEYED) - UT113 - 10+00
CE BEGIN AS -BUILT ^�
CE --- _ LONGITUDINAL PROFILE 80
CE
}ate l
END UT1
A
O 4^`BEGIN UT113 _ PID 1 VP -23 PID 4
STA 9+49 0 '1272
0 1. 1270 1278 PID 3 `� PID 6
rn
11
�� 1270 PID 5 �� N
06"l �8�� 1-- 1272
` VP -22
ZS I 7 82 1280 ��� O 1274 VPA2-4
�PID 7
30
40 0 40 80
Feet
UT1 - B
1270
PID 10
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 10+00 - 22+48
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
1aroePID 14 1262
PID 11
OTB
V
PID 120 f
/ PID 13
GATE
16'
6
WLVP-1
rl
GATF
20+85.22
FO END - UT1 B
ST EAM
OSSING
PID 16 o w PID 18
���� VP -1 7
o�, /
0
PID 15 PID 17
N ��0
1
CA
PA 2-1
�_ PID 8
PID 9
/ VP -1
oa �'
P I D 10
PID 19 rte"
IMAGE SOURCE: NC One Map, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
= 00 1-
O N
Co
alp N
LL Cu
�_
4) CD
V L N
r J k V N
W - �A
i R i O
(D 'r o 0 I
z.4
m � C o
two0oCu 0c
�Zo)Ua
z
0
z
lx
w
z
r
c�
UZ_
rn
�
6
WLVP-1
rl
GATF
20+85.22
FO END - UT1 B
ST EAM
OSSING
PID 16 o w PID 18
���� VP -1 7
o�, /
0
PID 15 PID 17
N ��0
1
CA
PA 2-1
�_ PID 8
PID 9
/ VP -1
oa �'
P I D 10
PID 19 rte"
IMAGE SOURCE: NC One Map, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
= 00 1-
O N
Co
alp N
LL Cu
�_
4) CD
V L N
r J k V N
W - �A
i R i O
(D 'r o 0 I
z.4
m � C o
two0oCu 0c
�Zo)Ua
z
0
z
lx
w
z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date: 2016
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
5of5
Sheet:
2of3
�a
Lu
UZ_
�
W
J
E U i
'� 10
W
0
L 0rnrn
Z
C�Ucfloo
0 LLJ C N ti t`
J
LL -4- UNO
'L
W
0 � C)
WO
c.�a)zrn
Cz a)
'0
0 CC�
0 6 M
LL'
0- 0
N
-
� Q
u
L
U
Z2
0
z
0
it
a
W
N
a
w
z
W
13-
0
0
Yfl
Z
O
O
O
w
J
H
W
:)Z3:
0
JLu
p
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date: 2016
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
5of5
Sheet:
2of3
Lu
_
2
E U i
'� 10
W
0
L 0rnrn
Z
C�Ucfloo
0 LLJ C N ti t`
J
LL -4- UNO
'L
0 � C)
U
c.�a)zrn
Cz a)
L
0 CC�
0 6 M
0- 0
N
� Q
L
U
0
z
DMS Project No.
92251
Baker Project No.
128244
Date: 2016
DESIGNED: ------
DRAWN: KLS
APPROVED: JB
Monitoring Year:
5of5
Sheet:
2of3

CE CROSS SECTION
------------------- CONSERVATION EAS M E N T
- - TB
—' x—
—TB - — ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
—x
ASBUILT CHANNEL
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
FENCE
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA)
BARE FLOOD PLAIN AREA
WETLAND ENHANCEM
® CREST GAUGE
ENT / RESTORATION
® WETLAND GAUGE
O FALLEN TREE ON FENCE LINE
�00 ti
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA) — co
"
�� "
BANKS WITH EVIDENT SCOUR / N
� 5 Lo
EROSION
.�J U"
W �cvtun
"r— O i✓w
O1P
Ile
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS(SPA)
�0Z
�00
AG G RA DATION = W (b` 0
M O
Ma C)a
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
DEGRADATION
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
STRUCTURE PROBLEM
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (SPA)
UNDERCUT BANKS
E o(9zz
•
�f
1302 UT2 - 13+78.77 tc
IENDAS-BUILT E W 1276
,4300 , i LONG. PROFIL�gO
1286
2$4 s
/ 128
o �02
�Cb
o C� 127$
161
280
1282
SPA 5-2 / / 1284 VP -13
SPA 1-56/,1286
1306 ---- CE -------- CE –--------
o b PID 2 G
SPA 5-11 / s SPA 5-el�
1304 // JL4` /
�FENCE
SPA 4-3 ^0,
PID 1
SPA 1-6 y � 1 ll
UT2 - 12+53.50
/ BEGIN AS -BUILT
LONG. PROFILE
SPA/9 / � i
G
/G SPA 5-10
,G
r'
30 0 30 60
Feet
UT2
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 12+54- 13+79
127/�i f 1� !__— —------- (—�
P/'0,3
O°
UT2
(NOT SURVEYED)
IMAGE SOURCE: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Assessed Length (LF) 783
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -
Category
Metric
Number Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable
'
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
6 6
1
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
13 13
100%
2. Length
8 8
100%
4. Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8 8
1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
7 1 7
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
3
52
97%
0
0
97%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
1
20
99%
0
0
99%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totals
4
1 72
1 95%
0
1 0
1 95%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
20
24
83%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
11
91%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
13
13
100%
4. Habitat
I Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
1 11
1 11
1 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Assessed Length (LF) 445
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -
Category
Metric
Number Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable
'
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
3 3
1
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
10 10
100%
2. Length
3 3
100%
4. Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3 3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4 1 4
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
3
39
96%
0
0
96%
3. Mass Wastin
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
1 0
100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totals
3
1 39
96%
0
0
96%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
18
19
95%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
I Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
1 14
14
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT1 Reach B
Assessed Length (LF) 1065
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -
Category
Metric
Number Stable
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable'
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
12 12
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
26 26
100%
2. Length
16 16
100%
4. Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16 16
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
16 1 16
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 0
1 0
1 100%
1 0
1 0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
38
38
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
16
16
100%
4. Habitat
JPool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
1 10
1 10
1 100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT2 (Reaches A and B)
Assessed Length (LF) 1197
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -
Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
per As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
1 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate
5 5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth
3 5
60%
2. Length
N/A N/A
N/A
4. Thalweg position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5 5 1
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4 4
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
1
17
99%
1
15
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1 0
1 0
100%
1 0
1 0
1 100%
Totals
1
1 17
99%
1
15
100%
3. Engineering
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
5
80%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
lPool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth
1 3
5
60%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5e. Stream Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek-Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC) Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number*
Scour eroding the right bank immediately downstream of log sill
Bank Scour
14+35 to 14+57
invert/right bank tie-in. Appears to be a localized area of high near
SPAT-2
bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector) directed at the left bank
by log sill orientation.
Rootwad failure and undercut banks along the left bank
immediately downstream of log sill invert/left bank tie-in. Appears
Undercut Banks &
to be caused by bank scour upstream and beneath the rootwad
Engineering structures -
16+12 to 16+32
resulting from flow (velocity vector) directed at the left bank by log
SPA2-1 & 5-3
Rootwad & Log Sill
sill orientation which eventually undermined the rootwad and the
Failure
log sill, to where each has separated from the left bank. The root
was has slumped into the channel and the log sill had separated and
is under water.
Bank Scour &
Localized scour along the left bank behind root wads is causing the
Engineering Structures -
18+30 to 18+45
root wads to separate from the bank and has compromised the log
SPA5-4 & 5-7
Rootwad and Log Sill
sill tie-in.
Failure
Bank Scour
18+60 to 18+75
Localized scour along the left bank diverting water behind bank toe
SPA5-8
and discharge downstream.
SFHC Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Rootwad failure and undercut banks along the left bank
immediately downstream of log sill invert/left bank tie-in. Appears
Undercut Banks &
to be caused by bank scour upstream and beneath the rootwad
resulting from flow (velocity vector) directed at the left bank by log
Engineering structures -
20+20 to 20+40
sill orientation which eventually undermined the rootwad and the
SPA4-1 & 5-5
Rootwad lu Log Sill
log sill. The root wad and the sill's header log are still tied-in to the
Fa
Failure
bank; however, it appears that the sill's header and footer have
separated. Currently the header log is suspended across the channel
above the surface water elevation.
Undercutting of right bank between root wads immediately
Undercut Banks
20+45
downstream of compromised log sill. Appears to be a localized
SPA5-6
area of high near bank stress caused by flow (velocity vector)
directed at the right bank.
Undercut Bank &
Rootwad failure along right bank due to undercutting along bank.
Engineering structures -
20+75
Appears to be caused by high near bank stress caused by flood flow
SPA4-2
Rootwad Failure
stream energy vectors being directed at bank.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 5e cont. Stream Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC) Reach 1
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number*
UT2 Reach A
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Bank Scour
12+36.50 to
Left bank scour on outside bend. Appears to be caused by high
SPA4-3
12+53.50
near bank stress during bankfull storm events.
Engineered
Step pool filling with sediment. Most likely to be from upstream
Structure/Aggradation
12+92
sediment supply moving through the system.
SPA5-1
Flow piping within riffle cascade and around downstream log sill
Piping
13+40
due to possible tear in filter fabric or lack of sealing from re -sorting
SPAT -5
of alluvial material and silt.
Engineered
Step pool filling with sediment. Most likely to be from upstream
Structure/Aggradation
13+42
sediment supply moving through the system.
SPA5-2
Ephemeral Drainage (near upstream extents of UT2)**
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Riffle cascade
Scour of riffle cascade from large storm events over time has
Bed Scour/Degradation
downstream of
eroded the channel bed, depositing the coarse riffle substrate
SPA 1-6
second boulder
downstream, and exposed the underlying filter fabric.
sill
Scour along right bank boulder tie-in which appears to be caused by
Bank Scour &
Engineering Structures -
Fourth boulder sill
high near bank stress during storm events. Erosion has led the
SPA5-9 & SPA5
boulder tie-in to dislodge from the bank and may lead to further
10
Boulder Sill
structure failure.
Scour along right bank boulder tie-in which appears to be caused by
Bank Scour
First boulder sill
SPA5-11
high near bank stress during storm events.
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area
"Not being sought for mitigation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 6a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID SFHC Reaches 1 and 2; UTI Reach B
Planted Acreage 4.3
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.15
3.4%
material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
o
0.0 /o
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.15
3.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0/o o
Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.15
3.4%
Easement Acreage 8.6
% of
Mapping
pp g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Easement
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
NA
1
0.03
0.3%
map scale).
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
map scale).
none
NA
3
0.05
o
0.6 /�
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 6b. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
Reach ID UT2 Reaches A and B
Planted Acreage 1.4
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
0
0
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
0.25 acres
NA
0
0.00
o
0.0/o
Rates or Vigor
small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 1.5
% of
Mapping
pp g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Easement
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
scale).
1000 SF
See Figure
2
0.06
4.0%
5. Easement Encroachment
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map
Areas
scale).
none
See Figure
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 6c. Vegetation Problem Areas
Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Stream Restoration Project: Project No. 92251
UT1 Reach B
Feature IssueStation
No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
persisting after treatment
VPA2-4
UT2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Invasive/Exotic
Populations
See Plan View Figure
Rosa multiflora and Lonicera japonica :
ersisting after treatment.
VPA4-3
Lonicera 'a onica: persisting after treatment.
VPA4-5
*Note: The first digit in the Photo Number column references the monitoring year and the second digit references the problem area or
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Stream Station Photos

Ilk,
v
�
y<
yr
t• ' p
1
y
�t
gy
TIN,,
_1
Ilk,
y<
yr
t• ' p
1
y
�t
gy
TIN,,
_1
s
.
44
t
Ilk,
y<
yr
y
�t
gy
TIN,,
44
y<
yr

Al
�
s '� :)fjJ ► ,
L
vY
10'�
Al
L
vY
4
_i • _ i i� s � y

SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK — Reach 2
PID 12 — Double drop cross vane below crossing
(5/16/16)
PID 14 — Log sills & root wad (5/25/16)
PID 16 — Log vane & matted bank (5/25/16)
PID 13 Log sills & root wad (5/25/16)
PID 15 Log Vane (5/25/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

P
r`
1
e'
k=Lb
k E
`
T

71.
St
of

l;
qtr
,�
Y.
14
_f",Y
_.
Y
_
w
N
P
��
w � •
a? 7v4f!
l;
i
qtr
,�
Y.
14
_f",Y
_.
Y
_
w
P
i
qtr
,�
Y.
_f",Y
_.

h ;
1•�F�4 ,tF It � ij `�S
}�-
PID I — Constructed
riffle & log sill (5/16/16)
pw
-IX.
I
AN
ark s r�
• ti � ��w` r cwt i � '•
- - �` fig- r..''{t -,-'yd �' �w� � � \` •
IL
-
T—
M
}�-
PID I — Constructed
riffle & log sill (5/16/16)
pw
-IX.
ark s r�
• ti � ��w` r cwt i � '•
- - �` fig- r..''{t -,-'yd �' �w� � � \` •
IL
-
T—
M

Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm
Stream Problem Area (SPA) Photos

SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK — Reach 1
SPA 1-2 —Right bank scour (5/16/16)
SPA2-1 — Bank scour along left bank has led to erosion
around root wads and log sill causing structure failure
(5/16/16)
SPA 5-3 — Log sill has slipped out of place and is under water
SPA54 — Bank scour along left bank behind root wads
SPA 5-7 — Bank scour from SPA5-4 has led to water to be diverted behind the bank toe and discharging
downstream (10/ 19/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK — Reach 2
S PA4-1 Undercutting bank along left bank has led to
root wad failure
SPA4-2 — Root wad failure along right bank due to
undercutting along bank
SPA5-5 — Log sill has been compromised due to bank
scour on left bank from SPA 4-2 (5/16/16)
SPA5-6 — Undercut bank causing erosion around root
wad (5/16/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

UTI
Fence line down from logging activity located outside but adjacent to easement
UT2
SPA1-5 — Piping within riffle cascade around log sill
SPA4-3 — Small area of bank left bank erosion.
SPA5-1 —Pool below log sill is filling with sediment
(5/16/16)
SPA5-2 — Pool below log sill is filling with sediment
(5/16/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

EPHEMERAL DRAINAGE
SPA 1-6 — Ephemeral drainage channel bed erosion
(5/16/16)
SPA5-11 — Scour around boulder tie-in on first boulder
sill of ephemeral drainage channel (10/19/16)
SPA5-9 & SPA5-10 — Scour and loss of structure
integrity on boulder tie-in on fourth boulder sill of
ephemeral drainage channel (10/19/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos

UT2
VPA4-3 — Multi -flora rose and Japanese honeysuckle
UT1B
VPA24 — Multi -flora rose and Japanese honeysuckle
VPA4-5 — Japanese honeysuckle in left floodplain
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Planted/Total Stem
Count
Tract Mean
13
Y
769/1578
587/867
14 Y -
890/1457
15 Y
445/769
16 Y
324/405
17 Y
607/607
18 Y
526/526
19 Y
445/445
20 Y
567/567
21 Y
890/890
22 Y
526/809
23 Y
607/1862
WLP 1 Y
445/486
Note: *Planted/Total Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems
including volunteers (Total).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
Table S. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Report Prepared By
Kristi Suggs
Date Prepared
11/25/2016 10:39
Database name
S.ForkHoppers 92251 MY2-5 cvs-e -en ool-v2.3.1 2016 rwm.mdb
Database location
C:\My Documents\Baker\CVS\S.ForkHoppers
Computer name
CHABLKSUGGS
File size
48009216
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Descri tion of database file the report worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro' total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year. This includes all planted stems and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data live stems dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Fre ency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigo bSpp
lFrequencydistribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each lot dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
92251
Project Name
South Fork Hoppers Creek
Description
This mitigation project consists of 4,621 LF of stream restoration and preservation efforts on South Fork Hoppers Creek at the Melton Farm.
River Basin
Catawba
Length(ft)
3550
Stream -to -edge width ft
120
Area (sq m)
140873.25
Required Plots calculated
ll
Sampled Plots
112
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (with Annual Means)
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Tree Species
Common Name Type
Plot 13
P T
Plot 14
P T
Plot 15
P T
Plot 16
P T
Current Data (MY5 2016)
Plot 17 Plot 18 Plot 19
P T P T P T
Plot 20
P T
Plot 2 I
P T
Plot 22
P T
Plot 23
P T
Plot WLP I
P T
Current can
P T
AB (20 l 1)
P T
Annual Means
MY 1 (20 12) MY2 (2013)
P T P T
MY3 (2014) MY4 (2015)
P T P T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3 3
4
4
3.5
3.5
2
3
4
4
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
4 4
3 3
1 1
8 8
1
1
3.4
3.4
1
0
0
3
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1 1
1 1
3 3 2 2 1 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
2 2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam Tree
1 1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Tree
5 5
2 2
4
4
1
1 1
1 1
2
1
1
3
3
1 3
3
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
I 1
1 I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
7 7
18 18
1 1
1 1 1 1
3 3
4 4
1 1
5
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
l 1
1 1
2 2
7 7 1 1 3 3
2 2
4 4
3 3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
7 7
l 1 2 2
1 1
4 4
1 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
Tree
1 1
1 1 1 1
3 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2 2
1 1
1 1 2 2 3 3
4 4
3 3
2 2
5
5
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus sp.
Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus falcata
S. Red Oak
Tree
I 1
1
1
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
2 2
6 6
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1 I
I
1
1
1
3
4
4
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Tree
2
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1 I
I 1 1 1
1
I
1
1
1
I
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
1 1
1 l
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
Volunteers
Acer rztbrunr
Red Maple
Tree
1
2
10
4
7
10
5
4
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
Tree
5
1
3
10
1
4
2
0
4
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub
1
1
2
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
0
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
1
I
1
10
5
5
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
0
1
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
0
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
20
9
10
13
5
4
3.4
13
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
1
Quercus rubra
N. Red Oak
Tree
1
0
2
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Tree
2
2
2
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
I
I I I I
1
1
12 1
7-1
1
1
Plot area (ares)
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
l
1
1
1
1
Species Count
3 3
4 7
7 7
5 5
7 7 8 8 6 6
6 6
7E
6 11
6 7
4
4
6
7
7
7
7
8
6
7
6
6
6
7
P=Planted
Stems/PlotE76
39
22 36
11 19
8 10
15 15 13 13 11 11
l4 14
22
15 46
11
12
15
21
19
19
19
29
13
21
13
17
15
22
T=Total
Stems Per Acre
1578
890 1457
445 769
324 405
607 607 526 526 445 445
567 567
890E&�607
1862 445
486
587
867
772
772
772
614
540
850
543
668
610
890
�Tc-talStems Per Acre (including
1578
1457
769
405
607 526 445
567
890
809
1862
486
867
772
1184
850
668
890
Notes: CVS Level 1 Survey performed. In most cases, the volunteers observed were approximately 50 -
100 cm in height. The information presented is purely for providing information about the species of trees that may occupy the riparian area that were not planted.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek — Melton Farm Restoration Project
Year 5 Monitoring — Vegetation Plot Photo Log
Veg Plot 13 - 10/19/2016
Veg Plot 15 —10/19/2016
Veg Plot 14 —10/19/2016
Veg Plot 16 —10/19/2016
Veg Plot 17 —10/19/2016
Veg Plot 18 —10/19/2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

;r
1
- ri.l r Yfi
.3rdo3, a...a+
F
17
y
;r
1
- ri.l r Yfi
.3rdo3, a...a+
F
y
;r
1
- ri.l r Yfi

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

Figure 3. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X5
(Year 5 Monitoring - Oct 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Feature Stream BKF Area BKF BKF Max BKF WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Type Width Depth Depth
Riffle C 14.6 12.93 1.13 1.67 11.47 1 4.9 1260.2 1260.24
1263
1262
c
0
1261
a�
LU
1260
1259
1258
95
105
YR3 2014
Asbuilt 2010
X5 Riffle
115 125 135 145
Station
— —YR 2 2013 —A YR1 2012
--4W—YR 5 2016 - -O - - Bankfull
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2016, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
155 165
YR 4 2015
- - Floodprone

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 1
Permanent Cross Section X6
(Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width BKF Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 14 11.39 1.23 2.93 9.26 1 6.6 1260.1 1260.2
1264
1263
1262
c
c�
1261
m
LU 1260
1259
1258
1257
1256
95
X6 Pool
105 115 125 135
Station
——YR32014
s Asbuilt 2010
145 155 165
--X-- YR 2 2013 --Ar-- YR 1 2012
--0--• Bankfull -4 YR 5 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
YR 4 2015
Floodprone

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X7
(Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016)
LEFT BANK
RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 15 13.73 1.09 1.85 1 12.58 1 4.6 1255.2 1 1255.24
X7 Riffle
1257.5
1256.5
c
0
ca
>1255.5
w
1254.5
1253.5
1252.5 '
95 105
# YR 3 2014
4 Asbuilt 2010
115 125 135 145
Station
YR 2 2013 A YR 1 2012
- -O - Bankfull YR 5 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
155 165
YR 4 2015
— - - Floodprone

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Reach 2
Permanent Cross Section X8
(Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area BKF Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 13.5 13.43 1 2.34 13.38 1 5.3 1252.96 1253.31
1256
1255
c 1254
0
ca
m
w 1253
1252
1251
1250
95 105
0 YR 3 2014
* Asbuilt 2010
X8 Pool
115 125 135 145 155
Station
— — YR 2 2013 —A YR 1 2012
- -O - Bankfull —*— YR 5 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
165
YR 4 2015
- Floodprone
1 /b

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT1
Permanent Cross Section X9
(Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth WAD BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 2.3 6.1 0.38 0.77 16.08 1 8.3 1258.8 1258.84
iW10 i■
1260 -
c
0
ca
LU 1259 -
1258
1257
95 105
YR 3 2014
t Asbuilt 2010
is:�fi 07
115 125 135 145 155
Station
YR 2 2013 --Ar-- YR 1 2012 YR 4 2015
- -O - • Bankfull YR 5 2016 _ - Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
165

Figure 3 Cont. Cross-sections with Annual Overlays
UT1
Permanent Cross Section X10
(Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016)
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 6.2 12.7 0.48 1.66 26.23 1 4.9 1258.44 1258.62
X10 Pool
1261
1260d-------------------------------------------
_
0
1259
m
w
1258
1257
1256
95 105
—N—YR32014
—4 Asbuilt 2010
115
--K-- YR 2 2013
--6—YR 5 2016
125 135
Station
A YR 1 2012
- -O - - Bankfull
145 155
YR 4 2015
- - Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
165

Figure 4. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
souni l+ork
1264
1262
1260
1258
1256
0
.m
M 1254
1252
1250
1248
1246
1244
Creek - lylenon k'arm Kestoration Yroject: my1J Yroject No. vzzm
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Reaches 1 and 2)
Profile Chart
Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016
X5 Riffle
Reach 1
X6 Pool
(Reach Break)
1
1
1
1
1
1
Reach 2
OWNllX7 Riffle
TWG-Asbuilt 2010
TWG-YR 1 2012
TWG-YR2 2013
TWG-YR 3 2014
—TWG-YR4 2015
— TWG-YR5 2016
— W S F --
o Log Sills
❑ Cross Vanes
—Top of Bank
Pool L }
990 1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 4 Cont. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek - UT113
Profile Chart
Year 5 Monitoring - October 2016
1275
-__-
TWG-Asbuilt 2010
—TWG-YR 1 2012
—TWG-YR 2 2013
TWG-YR 3 2014
—TWG-YR 4 2015
—+—TWG-YR 5 2016
1270
_ _ -- - — ----- _
—*—WSF
o Log Sills
—Top of Bank
1265
_
C
H
O
d
W
1260
-
X9 Riffle
X10 Pool
1255
1250
990
1190 1390 1590
1790 1990
Station
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 5a. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 1 - Cross-section 5 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
19 -Oct -16
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTRY BY:
RM
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
<.063
NAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015) MY 5 (2016)
0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063 - .125
80%
0%
Fine .125 - .25 5 5%
5%
Medium .25 - .50 21 21%
26%
Coarse .50-1.0 4 4%
30%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
30%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
30%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
32%
Fine 4.0-5.6 2 2%
34%
Fine 5.6-8.0 6 6%
40%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 6 6%
46%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 3 3%
49%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 2 2%
52%
Coarse 22.6-32
52%
Very Coarse 32-45 1 1%
53%
Very Coarse 45-64 5 5%
58%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
9
9%
67%
Small 90-128 10 10%
77%
Large 128-180 4 4%
81%
Large 180-256 4 4%
85%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
85%
Small 362-512
85%
Medium 512-1024
85%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
85%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
15
15%
100%
Total
99
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
D35 =
5.8
D5° =
17.4
D84 =
237.7
D95 =
3258.5
Dioo =
> 2048
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
100%
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
NAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015) MY 5 (2016)
80%
t AB (2010)
70%
60%
C
u 50%
s
a�
a
90%
40%
c�
U 30%
20%
+MY 1 (2012)
10%
U
80%
—AMY 2 (2013)
0%
ILI I
Q1rI��O �'b �� ��O ��b ��� ticb0 ��� 4ti
Particle Size Class (mm)
–AMY 3 (2014)
70%
-*—MY 4 (2015)
60%
---*-MY 5 (2016)
U
d 50%
a
40%
30%
U
20%
10%
OeI
Hi
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90%
NAB(2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013 ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015) MY 5 (2016)
80%
70%
60%
C
u 50%
s
a�
a
40%
c�
U 30%
20%
10%
U
0%
ILI I
Q1rI��O �'b �� ��O ��b ��� ticb0 ��� 4ti
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5b. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
Reach 2 - Cross-section 7 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
10/19/2016
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTRY BY:
RM
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE(mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
80%
0%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
0%
Fine .125 - .25 3 3%
3%
Medium .25-50 .50 2 2%
5%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 12 2%
7%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
7%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
50%
v
40%
7%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 2 2%
9%
Fine 4.0-5.6 5 5%
14%
Fine 5.6-8.0 5 5%
19%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 13 13%
32%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 9 9%
41
Coarse 16.0-22.6 3 3%
44%
Coarse 22.6-32 1 1%
45%
Very Coarse 32-45 10 10%
55%
Very Coarse 45-64 15 15%
70%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
17
17%
87%
Small 90-128 11 11%
98%
Large 128-180 1 1%
99%
Large 180-256 1 1 %
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium 512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.46
D35 =
12.46
D50 =
37.95
D84 =
84.74
D95 =
116.28
D100 =
180-256
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
r-7-772010)
i
1
milli
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
■ AB (2010) ■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015) ■ MY 5 (2016)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
v
40%
a
30%
U
20%
10%
11 1 W1I
0%
re", ez
Particle Size Class (mm)

Figure 5c. Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution with Annual Overlays
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Cummulative
BAKER PROJECT NO. 128244
SITE OR PROJECT:
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project
REACH/LOCATION:
UT1B - Cross-section 9 (Riffle)
DATE COLLECTED:
19 -Oct -16
FIELD COLLECTION BY:
KS and RM
DATA ENTRY BY:
RM
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
SILT/CLAY
Silt / Clay
< .063
5
5%
5%
SAND
Very Fine
.063-125 .125
5%
Fine .125-25 .25 14 14%
19%
Medium .25 - .50 25 25%
44%
Coarse .50 - 1.0 7 7%
51%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
51%
GRAVEL
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
51%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0
51%
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3%
54%
Fine 5.6-8.0 1 1 %
55%
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 5 5%
60%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 $ 8%
68%
Coarse 16.0-22.6 1 1 %
69%
Coarse 22.6-32
69%
Very Coarse 32-45 2 2%
71%
Very Coarse 45-64 7 7%
78%
COBBLE
Small
64-90
13
13%
91%
Small 90-128 5 5%
96%
Large 128-180 4 4%
100%
Large 180-256
100%
BOULDER
Small
256-362
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium 512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total
100
100%
100%
Cummulative
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.2
D35 =
0.4
D50 =
0.9
D84 =
74.9
D95 =
119.3
D100 =
128-180
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT1B (100 Count) Riffle
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
South Fork Hoppers Creek UT1B
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
NAB(2010)
■ MY 1 (2012) ■ MY 2 (2013) ■ MY 3 (2014) ■ MY 4 (2015) r MY 5 (2016)
90%
80%
70%
60%
0
u 50%
a 40%
U
30%
20%
10%
J16A+iAIs
0%
i i _nNi-Lij, A11111611k JL I I i i
O• O• O• O•
� 1 � � � �
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Parameter
USGS
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
pre -Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Jacob
Norwood
Harman et al 1999
Sal's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SO n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
-----
10.7
-----
-----
I
_____
13.2
---- ----- -----
I
-----
13.1
_____
-----
-----
I
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.3
-----
-----
----- -----
16.8
26.2
-----
33.0
-----
3
-----
163.0
----- -----
----- I
-----
60.0
----- -----
-----
I
-----
50+
----- ----- -----
8
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
I
BF Mean Depth (ft)
4.7
3.1
0.7
2.0 1.2
1.0
1.2
-----
1.6
-----
3
_____
1.2
----- -----
----- I
-----
1.6
---- -----
-----
I
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.8
-----
----
----- -----
1.7
1.9
-----
2.0
-----
3
-----
2.4
----- -----
----- I
-----
2.1
----- -----
-----
I
-----
1.3
----- - -----
I
-----
1.7
-----
-----
-----
I
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
290.3
99
6.0
26.0 13..0
7.4
12.5
-----
15.6
-----
3.
-----
10.4
----- -----
----- 1
-----
17.8
----- -----
-----
1
-----
13.8
----- - -----
1
-----
15.0
-----
-----
-----
1
Width/Depth Ratio
13
10.3
-----
----- -----
6.1
9.3
-----
14.4
-----
3
-----
7.3
----- -----
----- I
-----
5.7
----- -----
-----
I
-----
13.2
----- ----- -----
I
-----
11.5
-----
-----
-----
I
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
-----
-----
--- -----
2.0
2.6
-----
3.4
-----
3
-----
18.7
----- -----
----- I
-----
5.5
----- -----
-----
I
-----
3.8+
----- ----- -----
8
----
4.8
-----
-----
-----
I
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
-----
-----
----- -----
1.3
2.2
-----
2.6
-
5+
-
1.2
----- -
----- I
-----
1.0
----- -----
-----
I
-----
1.0
----- - -----
I
-----
1.0
-
-----
-----
1
----- -----
------ -----
-----
8.8
----- -
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattcrn
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
----
-----
--- ---
_____
-----
_____
_____
-----
-
10
-----
----- 16
---- 4
38.3
-----
----- 40.8
-----
2
54.0
-----
----- 78.0 -----
8
40.0
62.1
62.0
87.0
14.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
13.1
-----
----- 29.6
----- 4
10.9
-----
----- 14.6
-----
5
37.0
-----
----- 53.0 -----
8
34.0
39.9
39.0
47.0
5.4
Rc:Banldull width(ft/ft)
----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.4
-----
----- 5.2
--- 3
1.3
-----
----- 1.4
-----
5
2.8
-----
----- 4.0 -----
8
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.6
0.4
_
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
38
----- 45
----- 3
46
-----
----- 48
-----
2
130.0
-----
----- 177.0 -----
6
146.0
162.0
158.0
184.0
15.7
0
Meander Width Ratio
-
----
----
----- -----
_____
-
--
_____
-----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.8
----- 3
3.4
-----
----- 3.6
-----
2
4.1
-----
----- 5.9 -----
8
3.1
4.7
4.7
6.6
1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
30.0
36.0
37.0
45.0
6.4
t
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
----
-----
----- -----
0.015
0.025
-----
0.035
-----
15
0.03
-----
----- 0.04
----- 4
-----
0.013
----- -----
-----
2
0.013
-----
----- 0.0305 -----
6
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
PoolLength (ft)
----
---
_ _ _ _ _
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
_....
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
---
-----
----- -----
27.0
66.0
-----
161.0
-----
14
35.5
-----
----- 47
----- 3
-----
71
----- -----
-----
5
82.0
-----
----- 118.0 -----
7
74.0
103.0
100.0
129.0
18.0
_
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
----
-----
----- -----
2.1
2.2
-----
2.4
-----
3
-----
3,1
----- -----
----- I
-----
3.3
----- -----
-----
1
-----
2.0
----- - -----
q
-----
2.4
-----
-----
Pool Volume (f1')
-----
--- --
----
----------
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/ Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-----
---
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
_____
___
-----
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____ _____
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
_____
___
-----
_____
-----
_____ _____ _____
_____
_
-----
_____
_____
_____
dl / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----
-----
----- -----
10.2 / 0.38 / 0.69 /26 / 67
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
<0.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
-----
-
----- - -----
-
33 / 46 / 57
/ 100 / 128
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/1'
----
---
-----
----- -----
0.5
-----
-----
0.76
-----
3
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -
-----
----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (min) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
---
-----
----- -----
-----
200.0
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
100.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
--
-----
----- -----
27.9
-----
-----
48,8
-----
3
-----
-----
- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
22.9
----- ----- -----
----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
25.7
7.'
____
----- _____
_____
_____
_____
0.5
_____
-----
____
___
_____ 0.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ 1.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.52 _____
-----
-----
-
_____
0.52
_____
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
----
--
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -
-----
-----
-----
-
----- ----- -----
-
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
----
Rosgen Classification
C4
R
_____
___ -----
_____
G5c
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
E4
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
E4
_____ -
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
E5/C5
_____
_____
_____
-----
BE Velocity(fps)2
3.9
2.i,
-----
----- -----
3.2
-----
-----
6.8
-----
3
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
5.4
----- -
-----
-----
-----
3.6
----- ----- -----
---
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
1140
2>]
18.0
I �;�. i.�a 52.4
_____
50
_____
_____
_____
3
___
___
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
97.0
_____ -
_____
_____
_____
50.0
_____ _____ _____
_____
____
-
_____
_____
_____
-----
ValleyLength (ft)
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
1016.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
619.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
850
---
----
--- -----
-----
1016.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
783.0
_____
-----
-----
----
Sinuosity
1.06
-- --
-----
----- -----
-----
1.14
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.19
----- -----
----- -----
-----
2.30
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.20
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope a
_____
-----
_____
_____ _____
_____
0.0101
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
0.0109
----- _____
-----
0.0047
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.0077
----- -----
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
BE slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
0.0008
-----
----- -----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bankfill Floodplain Area (acres)
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
-
__ -
_____
___
___
_____
-----
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
-----
----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_____
___
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
__-
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
I -----
-----
----
1. The rural region curve by Hannan, tal. 1999 was used for these parameters.
2. An insufficent amount ofwa a surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not
being able to accurately
calculate
-t- 11- and bankfull velocity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
USGS
Gauge
Regional
Curve Interval
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference
Reaches) Data
Parametcr
(Harman
et al, 1999)
pre -Existing
Condition
Sal's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
Design
As -built
Jacob
Norwood
Dimensimt - Riffle
LL
UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SO n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width )
61.3
32
5.3
21.010.5
_____
14.4
_____
-----
10.7
-----
-----
I
""-
14.2
----- -----
I
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
I
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.3
-----
----
----- -----
16.8
26.2
-----
33.0
-----
3
-----
163.0
----- -----
----- I
-----
60.0
-----
-----
----
I
-----
50+
----- - -----
2
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
l
BF Mean Depth (ft)
4.7
3.1
0.75
2 1.2
1.0
1.2
-----
1.6
-----
3.
-----
1.2
----- _____
----- I
-----
1.6
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
0.9
----- - -----
I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.8
-----
-----
----- -----
1.7
-----
2.0
-----
3
-----
2.4
----- -----
----- 1
-----
2.1
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.5
-----
-----
-----
I
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
290.3
99
6.0
27.0 13.7
7.4
12.5
-----
15.6
-----
3
---
10.4
----- -----
----- I
-----
17.8
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
12.7
----- ----- -----
1
-----
13.5
-----
-----
-----
----WI
Width/Depth
t ept Ratio
13
10.3
-----
----- -----
6.1
9.3
-----
14.4
-
3
-----
7.3
----- -----
----- I
-----
5.7
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
15.8
----- - -----
I
-----
13.1
-----
-----
-----
I
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
---
----
----- -----
2.0
2.6
-----
3.4
-----
3
-----
18.7
----- -----
---- 1
-----
5.5
-----
-
----
1
-----
3..8+
----- ----- -----
I
-----
4.7
-----
-----
-----
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
----
-----
----- -----
1.3
2.2
----
2.6
-----
5+
-----
1.2
----- -----
----- I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
____
9.5
-----
-----
8.8
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(it)
-----
----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10
-----
----- 16
---- 4
38.3
-----
-----
40.8
-----
2
62.0
-----
----- 62.0 -----
3
62.0
62.5
62.5
63.0
-----
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-
-
-----
-----
13.1
-----
----- 29.6
----- 4
10.9
-----
-----
14.6
-----
5
45.0
-
----- 87.0 -----
3
36.0
55.7
62.0
69.0
IT.39
3
Rc:Battldull Widal (ft/ft)
-----
----- -----
_____
-
-
-
-----
----- 5.2
----- 3
1.3
-----
1.4
-----
5
3.2
-----
----- 6.1 -----
3
2.5
3.9
4.4
4.9
1.2
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-- -
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
38
-----
----- 45
----- 3
46
-----
-----
48
-----
2
179.0
-----
----- 313.0 -----
2
178.0
246.5
246.5
315.0
-----
2
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.2
-----
----- 1.8
----- 4
3.4
-----
-----
3.6
-----
2
4.4
-----
----- 4.4 -----
3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
-----
2
P -111c
RiffleLength (ft)
-----
-----
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
31
37
37
43
6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
0.015
0.025
-----
0.035
-----
15
0.03
-----
----- 0.04
----- 4
-----
0.013
-----
-----
-----
2
0.0275
-----
----- 0.0330 -----
3
0.024
0.029
0.028
0.032
0.004
3
PoolLength (ft)
_____
--- -
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____ _____ -----
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
27.0
66.0
-----
161.0
-----
14
35.5
-----
----- 47
----- 3
-----
71
-----
-----
-----
5
138.0
-----
----- 176.0 -----
2
92
155
155
218
-----
2
Pool Max Depth (ft)
----
---
----
--- -----
2.1
2.2
-----
2.4
-----
3
-----
3.1
----- -----
----- I
-----
3.3
-----
-----
-----
1
2.5
-----
----- 2.7 -----
3
----
2.1
-----
-----
-----
2
PoolVolume (ft)
_____
___
_____
_____ _____
__________
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-
---
-----
-----
-----
----- -
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- - -----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
--- -
SC%/Sa%/G% 13% Be%
_____
___
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ -_ -----
_____
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
-----
dl 6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
10.2 / 0.38 / 0.69 /26 / 67
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
<0.062 /
3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
---
7 / 22.6 / 36
/ 60 / 90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f'
----
----
-----
----
0.5
-----
-----
0.76
---
?
---
---
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.8
----- - -----
---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
----
--- -
-----
----- -----
-----
200.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
175.0
----- - -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
____
___
_____
_____ _____
27.9
_____
_____
48,8
_____
3
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
-
_____
_____
_____
44
_____ - _____
-----
-----
_
_____
_____
_____
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
25.7
7.2
-----
----- _____
_____
-
_____
0.5
_____
_____
___
_____
_____ 0.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
1.0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ 0.52 _____
_____
-----
-----
_____
0.52
_____
-----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Rosgen Classification
C4
E
___
----- _____
_____
G5c_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
E4
_____ _____
_____ _____
_____
E4
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
C5
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
L5
_____
_____
_____
_____
BF Velocity(fpS)'
3.9
2.6
----
----- -----
3.2
-----
-----
6.8
-----
3
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
5.4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.9
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Discharge (cfs)
1140
254
19.0
175.0 55.5
-----
50
-----
-----
-----
3
-----
-----
----- -----
----- ""'
-----
97.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
50.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
ValleyLength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1016.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
405
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
850
---
----
----- -----
-----
1016.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-
-----
415
----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity
1.06
----
----
----- -----
-----
1.14
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.19
----- -----
----- -----
-----
2.30
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.10
----- - -----
-----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)
-----
---
-----
----- -----
-----
0.0101
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0109
----- -----
----- -----
-----
0.0047
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0016
----- - -----
-
-----
-----
---
-----
-----
-----
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.0025
,Door
----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BanfullFloodplain Area (Acres)
_____
-----
____
----- _____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
___
_____
_____ ----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
___
-----_____
-----
-----
_____
-----
_____
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
----
----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-----
---
-----
----- -----
-----
-
------
-
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
__-
-----
__-
-----
-----
Biological or Other
-----
-----
-----
I -----
-----
-----
1. The rural region curve by Harman, ..1. 1999 was used for these parameters.
2. An insufficent amount .17 -ler surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not
being able to accurately calculate water surface aad baakfll velocity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 10. Baseline Stream Summary
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
UTIB (1,065 LF)
USGS
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Parameter
Gan a
Regional Curve Interval
Pre -Existing
Condition
Sal's Branch
Spencer Creek Downstream
Design
As -built
Dimensimt - Riftle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max SO
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width O
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.4
4.6
-----
5.7 -----
2.0
-----
8.7
----- ----- _____
I
_____
10.7
_____ _____ _____
1
_____
7.0
_____ _____ _____
I
_____
7.0
_____
_____
_____
I
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
9.8
51.1
-----
92.5 -----
2.0
-----
163.0
----- ----- -----
I
-----
60.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
30+
----- ----- -----
16
----
51.0
-----
_____
-----
I
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.6
0.8
-----
1.0 ----
2.0
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.6
----- ----- -----
1
-----
0.5
----- ----- -----
I
-----
0.5
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
I
-----
2.1
----- -----
I
-----
0.8
----- ----- -----
I
---
1.1
-----
-----
-----
I
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.4
3.5
-
3.5 -----
2.0
-----
10.4
----- ----- -----
I
-----
17.8
----- ----- -----
I
-----
3.6
----- ----- ---
I
-----
3.7
-----
-----
-----
----Width/DepthRaTio
Width/Depth Ratio
_____
-----
-----
-----
3.4
6.5
-----
9.5 -----
2.0
----
7.3
----- ----- -----
I
-----
5.7
----- ----- -----
1
_____
13.8
-"'- ----- -
I
---
13.3
-----
-----
-----
I
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.9
9.5
-----
16.2 -----
2.0
-----
18.7
----- ----- -----
I
-----
5.5
----- ----- -----
I
-----
4.3+
----- ----- -----
I
-----
7.3
-----
-----
-----
I
Bank Height Ratio
-----
----
-----
-----
Ll
2.0
-----
4.5 -----
5+
-----
1.2
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
1
-----
1.0
----- ----- -----
I
-----
1.0
----
-----
-----
I
d50(mm)
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.46
-
----- -
-
-----
9.5
----- ----- --
----
-----
8.8
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
- ----- -
-----
---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pattel'11
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
10
-----
----- 16 -----
4
38.3
-----
----- 40.8 -----
2
32.0
-----
----- 59.0 -----
16
28.0
43.5
41.5
57.0
8.9
14
-----
13.1
----'
----- 29.6 -----
4
10.9
-----
----- 14.6 -----
5
14.0
-----
----- 24.0 -----
16
12.0
19.4
19.0
27.0
4.0
15
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
4.4
-----
----- 5.2 -----
3
1.3
-----
----- 1.4 -
5
2.0
-----
----- 3.4 -
16
1.7
2.8
2.7
3.9
0.6
15
Meander Wavelength IT)
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
38
-----
----- 45 -----
3
46
-----
----- 48 -
2
58.0
-----
----- 134.0 -
13
76.0
97.9
94.0
120.0
14.1
13
Meander Width Ratio
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1.2
-
- 1.8 -----
4
3.4
-----
----- 3.6 -
2
4.6
-----
- 8.4 -
16
4.0
6.2
5.9
8.1
1.3
14
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
17.0
27.0
30.0
47.0
8.0
11
Riffle Slope (ff/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.033
0.127
-----
0.564 -----
19
0.03
-----
----- .0.04 -----
4
-----
0.013
----- ----- -----
2
0.0198
-----
----- 0.0371 -----
12
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.040
0,009
11
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing ()
_____
_____
_____
14.0
52.0
_____
110.0 -
9
35.5
_____
----- 47 -----
3
-----
71
----- ----- -----
5
42.0
-----
----- 105.0 -----
I
49
63
69
106
20
14
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
1.5
-
1.6 -----
2
-----
3.1
----- ----- -----
I
-----
3.3
----- ----- -----
1
1.0
-----
----- 2.0 -----
16
-----
1.6
-----
-----
-----
I
Pool Volume (11)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
--
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Rt o Rua P o 0 0
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -____
_ _____
___
_____
_____
-
_____
_____
___
SC%/Sa%/G%/B% Be%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
d16 / 135 / d50 / d84 / 195.
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.17 / 0.33
/ 0.46 / 22 / 56
48 / N/A / 9.5/ 30 / N/A
<0.062 / 3 / 8.8 / 42 / 90
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
1.25 / 35 / 49 / 80 / 90
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/t2
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.61
-----
-
0.77 -
2
-----
-
- ----- -
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.4
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
Max Part Size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
200.0
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -
-----
-----
20.0
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
__-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
-----
-----
-----
-----
34.5
-----
-----
45.5 -----
2
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
22.8
----- ----- -----
-----
---
-----
-----
----
----
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.1 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.2 -----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.0 -
-----
-----
-----
----- 0.08 -----
-----
-----
-----
-
0.08
-----
-----
Impervious cover estimate (acres)
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
____
____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ ____ _
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____-
___
_____
_____
_____
_____
Rosgen Classification
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
E5
-----
----- --
-----
----
E4
- ----- -----
-----
-----
E4
----- ----- -
-----
-----
C5
----- ----- -
-----
---
C5
-
-----
-----
-----
Bankfull Velocity s
-----
-"--
-----
-----
-----
5.4
----- ----- -
-----
-----
4.2
----- ----- -
1.0
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
BFDischarge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
14
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
- ----- -----
-----
-----
97.0
----- ----- -
-----
-----
14.0
----- ----- -
-----
---
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
ValleyLength (ft)
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
822
-
----- -
-----
-----
----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- --
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
---
816.0
-
-----
-----
-----
Channellength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
970
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1035
-----
-----
-----
-----
Sinuosity-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.18
-----
----- -----
---
-----
1.19
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
2.30
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
1-60
----- ----- -----
-----
----
1-27
-----
-----
-----
-----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (tuft)
-----
`----
-----
-----
-----
0.0193
-----
----- -----
-----
----
0.0109
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0047
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
0.0144
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF slope (ff/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____-__
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
__-
_____
_____
-----
_____
__-__
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
---------- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BEHIVL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____
_____
_____
_____
- _____ -
____-
___
_____
____
____
___
-----
Channel Stabhbity or Habitat Metric
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Biological or Other
_____
_____
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
_____
_
-----
___
-----
-----
1. The i -d region curve by Harman, etal. 1999 was wed for these parameters.
2. An imufficent amount of ware, surface data was collected along this reach which resulted in not
being able to accurately calculate
water -hi a and baokf ll velocity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table lla. Cross-section Morphology Data Table
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Cross-section 5 (Riffle)
Cross-section 6 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.2
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
1260.1
BF Width (ft)
13.1
12.1
12.3
12.2
13.2
12.9
14.6
13.5
13.4
13.4
11.2
11.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
12.5
13.1
13.5
13.1
11.5
11.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.2
9.3
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
15.0
11.8
11.6
11.0
13.2
14.6
18.0
17.1
16.7
16.8
11.2
14.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.9
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.8
62.9
65.9
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
62.1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
5.2
5.1
5.2
4.8
4.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
14.1
14.2
14.0
15.2
15.2
17.1
16.0
15.9
15.9
13.2
13.9
Hydraulic Radius(ft)-1.0
1 0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1 0.8
1 1.0
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Cross-section 7 (Riffle)
Cross-section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1255.17
1255.1*
1255.1
1255.1
1255.2
1255.2
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1252.9
1253.0
BF Width (ft)
13.3
14.1
12.8
12.7
13.4
13.7
17.5
15.2
12.8
13.7
14.2
13.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
13.3
11.1
10.9
11.2
12.6
19.0
13.9
13.3
13.9
14.7
13.4
BF Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
13.5
14.8
14.8
14.8
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.6
12.3
13.6
13.7
13.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.3
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
62.9
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.9
62.9
71.0
71.1
71.1
71.1
71.1
70.9
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
4.5
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.4
16.2
15.1
15.0
15.8
15.9
19.3
17.4
14.7
15.7
16.1
15.4
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.9
1 0.9
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 0.9
1 0.8
1 1.0
1 0.8
1 0.9
1 0.9
1 0.9
* A lower bankfull elevation datum was used in calulating bankful dimension values for MY 1 instead of using the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the data between the two
monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dimension parameters.
** A higher bankfull elevation datum was used in calulating bankful dimension values for MY5 instead of using the baseline bankfull elevation datum which normalized the data between the
monitoring periods thereby reducing data anomalies and enabled a more accurate representation and comparison of dimension parameters.
UT1B (1,065 LF)
Cross-section 9 (Riffle)
Cross-section 10 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record Elevation (Datum) Used (ft)
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.6
1258.8
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.4
1258.44
BF Width (ft)
7.0
5.5
5.4
6.8
7.1
6.1
10.2
9.1
8.9
9.9
11.1
12.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
11.4
13.6
15.9
17.8
16.1
13.3
16.3
14.5
18.2
19.3
26.2
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
3.7
2.6
2.2
2.9
2.8
2.3
7.9
5.1
5.5
5.4
6.4
6.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.7
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
51.0
51.0
47.5
49.8
51.0
50.9
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.1
Entrenchment Ratio
7.3
8.8
8.8
7.3
7.2
8.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.1
6.4
6.2
7.7
7.9
6.9
11.8
10.2
10.1
11.0
12.3
13.7
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.5
1 0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
1 0.3
1 0.7
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 1 (783 LF)
Parameter
Monitoring
Baseline
(As -built)
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate -RifFle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
\lin
Mean
Med
Max I
SO
n
Min
Mean
Med I
Max
SD I n
\hn
Mean
Med
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
u
Width (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
12.3
-----
-----
--- !
-----
12.2
----- I
-----
13.2
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
12.9
-----
-----
-----
I
......rone Width
-----
.
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
62.8
-----
-----
---- I
-
62.8
1
- ----
62.8
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
I
BF can Depth (fl)
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
I
-----1.0
-----
-----
----0.9
-----
-----
---
-
0.9
---- I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
I
---
-
1.5
----- I
-----
1.8
-----
-----
----
-----
1.7
-----
-----
-----
I
BF Cross-sectional Area ftp)
-----
15.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
11.8
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
11.6
-----
-----
--- I
----
11.0
-----
----- ---- I
-----
13.2
-----
-----
-----
-----
14.6
-----
-----
-----
I
----- I
-----
13.1
-----
-----
----
I
-----
11.5
-----
-----
-----
I
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
4.8
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
5.2
-----
---- I
-----
4.8
-----
-----
----
I
-----
4.9
-----
----
-----
I
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
----
I
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.0
-----
----- ----- I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
-----
1
d50 (naam)
-----
-----
-----
-----
--
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
--- -----
-----
-----
----------
----- -----
-----
49.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
17.4
-----
-----
-----
I
Pattern
40.0
62.1
62.0
87.0
14.0
7
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34.0
39.9
39.0
47.0
5.4
7
Rc:Baukfull width (ft/ft)
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.6
0.4
3K:
Meander Wavelength (ft)
146.0
162.0
158.0
184.0
15.7
6
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
4.7
4.7
6.6
Ll
Profile
31
41
37
60
11.34
5
36
42
42
49
4.94 5
34
43
43
51 5.96 5
27
44
36
70
18.3
6
Riffle Length (ft)
30.0 36.0 37.0 45.0 6.4 6
20
35
39
41
9.0
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.003
5
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.004 5
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03 0.004 5
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
6
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.01
5
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
74.0
103.0
100.0
129.0
18.0
7
79.0
102
110
127
19.5
5
75
101
106
118
18.4 5
77
102
104
119 15.9 5
51
100
104
130
26.3
6
63
102
98
138
26.0
7
8/73/89/138/192
8/67/79.4/122.9/168.1
14.1/67.6/82.9/128.0/175.0
0.8/6.9/49.0/160.0/3100/5000
d 16/ d35/ d50/ d84/ d95
33/46/57/100/128
0.4/5.8/17.4/237.7/3258.5/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/F
-----
-----
-----
-----
-
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----------
-----
-----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
---
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- -
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.52
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.52 ----- -----
----
----
----
0.52
----
----
----
-
----
0.52
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C3
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
C3
-----
----- ----- -----
----
C4
----
----
----
----
----
C4
----
----
----
----
BF Velocity (fps) I
-
3.6
-----
----
-----
----
-----
3.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.6
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
3.6
-----
----- ----- -----
----
3.6
----
----
----
----
----
3.6
----
---
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
54.1
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
42.5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
41.8
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
39.6
-----
----- ----- -----
----
47.5
----
----
----
----
----
52.6
----
---
----
----
Valley Length (ft)
-----
619.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
619.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
619.0
-----
-----
----- -----
-
619.0
-
----- ----- -----
----
619.0
----
----
----
---
----
619.0
----
----
----
----
Channel length (ft)
-----
783.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
783.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
783.0
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
783.0
-----
----- ----- -----
----
796.0
----
----
----
----
----
792.3
----
---
----
----
Sinuosity
---
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
1.26
-----
----- ----- ----
----
1.29
----
----
----
----
----
1.28
----
----
----
---
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (eft)
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
- -----
-----
0.01
---
----- ----- -
----
0.01
----
----
----
----
----
0.01
----
-
----
----
BF slope (11/11)
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 11b. Stream Reach Morphology
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
South Fork Hoppers Creek Reach 2 (445 LF)
Parameter
Monitoring
Baseline
(As -built)
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max I
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD ��
Min
Mean
Med
Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD n
---
----- ----- ----- I
-----
12.7
-----
----- ----- I
----
13.4
----
----
----
I
----
13.7 ---- ---- ----------------12.8
0o prone Width (ft)
-----
62.9
-----
-----
-----
I
----62.9
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
62.9 ----- ----- ----- !
-----
62.8
-----
--------- I
----
62.9
----
----
----
I
----
62.9 ---- ---- ----!
BEMean Depth-----
.
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
.
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
.----- ----- ----- !
-
-----
----- ----- I
----
1.2
----
----
----
I
----
1.1 ---- ----
BE Max Depth (fi)
-----
1.5
-----
-----
-----
-- --1.7
-----
-----
----1.9
----- ---------- I
----`
1.8
---- I
----
1.9
----
----
----
I
----
1.9 ---- ---- ----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
-----
13.5
-----
-----
----
1
-----
14,8
-----
-----
-----
-----
14.8 ----- ----- ----- !
-----
14.8
-----
----- ----- I
----
16.0
----
----
---
I
----
15.0 ---- ---- ---- !
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.1
-----
-----
----
I
----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
11.1 ----- ----- I
-----
10.9
-----
----- ----- 1
----
11.2
----
----
----
I
----
12.6 ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
4.7
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
4.5
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
4.9 ----- ----- ----- !
-----
4.9
-----
----- ----- 1
----
4.7
----
----
----
I
----
4.6 ---- ---- ----
-Bank
BankHeight Ratio
-
I.0-----
-----
-----
I
-----
1.0
-----
-----
----- I
----
1.0
----
----
----
I
----
1.0 ---- --- ---- !
d50 mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- ----
----
-----
-----
-----
-
----- ---
----
----
----
----
----
----
-- --
---- --
38.0 -- -----
Pastern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
62.0
62.5
62.5
63.0
-----
2
Radius of Curvature (11)
36.0
55.7
62.0
69.0
17.39
7
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.5
3.9
4.4
4.9
1.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
178.0
246.5
246.5
315.0
-----
2
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4-----
2
Profile L
_
31.0
37.0
37.0
43.0
6
3
32
44 44 54 11.10 3
34
44
45
52 9.18 3
11
31
32
45
12.6
5
21
33 34 44 10.0 4
Riffle Length (ft)
29.9 38 34 50 8.6 3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
3
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.01
3
0.02
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 3
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03 0.00 3
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.01
5
0.02
0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 4
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
- ____ - ____ ____
Pool Spacin (ft
92
155
155
218
2
73.0
88
81
110
15.9
3
72
80 75 92 10.78 3
74
81
77
91 9.073 3
57
92
87
137
34.7
4
69
117 103 179 56.0 3
Substrate and Transport Parameters
�..
_.
7/22.6/36/60/90
28.8/48.7/65.0/104.0/251.5
7.4/37.0/57.0/95.0/125.0
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
36/51.8/65.4/89.4/ 123.4
32.6/46.5/59.1/87.2/123.1
6.5/12.5/38.0/84.7/116.3/180-256
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/P
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
------
-
---------- -----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____
-----
----- ----- -----
----
----
----
----
____
----
----
---- ---- ---- ---- --__
Additional Reach Parameters
-----
----- ----- 0.52 ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.52 ----- -----
----
----
----
0.52
----
----
----
- ---- 0.52 ---- ----
Drainage Area (SM)
- ----- ----- 0.52 ----- -----
---- ----- ----- 0.52 ----- -----
Rosgen Classification
-
C4
-----
-----
-----
----
----
C3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
C3
-----
----- ----- -----
----
C4
----
----
----
----
----
C4 ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Velocity (fps) I
-----
3.9
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
3.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
39 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
3.9
-----
----- ----- -----
----
3.9
----
----
----
----
----
3.9 ---- --- ---- ----
BF Discharge (efs)
-----
52.767
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
57.681
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
57.72 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
57.72
-----
----- ----- -----
----
62.4
----
----
----
----
----
58.5 ---- --- ---- ----
Valley Length (ft)
-----
405
-----
-----
-----
----
----
405
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
405 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
405
-----
----- ----- -----
----
405
----
----
----
----
----
405 ---- --- ---- ----
Channel length (ft)
-----
415
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
415
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
415 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
415
-
----- ----- -----
----
453
----
----
----
----
----
454 ---- ---- ---- ----
Sinuosity
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-
----
-----
1.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.02 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
1.02
--
----- ----- -----
----
1.12
----
----
----
----
----
1.12 ---- --- ---- ----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (11/11)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02 ----- ----- ----- -----
-----
0.02
---
----- ----- -----
----
0.01
----
----
----
----
----
0.01 ---- --- ---- ----
BF Slope (11/ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Table 116. Stream Reach Morphology
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
UTIR (1,065 LF)
Parameter
Monitoring
Baseline
(As -built)
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3
MY -4
MY -5
Dimension and Substrate -RifFle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO
n
Min I
Mean
Med Max I
SO
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SO n
Min
Mean
Med
I Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
I Max
SD
_____
I
-
6.8
_____ I
____
7,1
____
____
____
I
____
6.1
____
____
____ I
0o prone Width (ft)
-----
51.0
-----
-----
-----
-----51.0
-----
-----
-----
1
-----47.5
----- -----
-----
-----
49.8
-----
-----
-----I
----
51.0
----
----
----
I
----
50.9
----
---
----
BF Mean Depth
-----
0.5
-----
-----
-----
1
-----0.5
-----
-----
----0.4
----- -----
-----
-
0.4
----- I
----
0.4
----
----
----
I
----
0.4
----
----
----
BF Depth (ft)
-----
1.1
-----
-----
-----
----0.8
----- -----
-----
-
1.0
----- 1
----
1.0
----
----
----
I
----
0.8
----
----
----
BFCross-sectional Area
-----
3.7
-----
-----
----
3.7
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.9
-----
-----
----- I
----
2.8
----
----
---
I
---
2.3
----
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
13.3
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
13.6
----- ----
-----
-----
15.9
-----
-----
----- I
----
17.8
----
----
----
I
----
16.1
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
7.3
-----
-----
-----
1
-----
7.3
-----
-----
-----
I
-----
8.8
----- -----
-----
----
7.3
-----
-----
----- I
----
7.2
----
----
----
I
----
8.3
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-
1.0
_____
_____
_____
I
_____
1.0
_____
_____
_____
I
_____
1.2
_____ _____
_____
I
____
1.0
_____
_____
_____ I
____
1.0
____
____
____
I
____
1.0
____
____
____ 1
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
- ---
----
----
----
----
0.9
----
---
--------
Pattei:EBb
AML
_A11100k.-
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.0
43.5
41.5
57.0
8.9
14
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12.0
19.4
19.0
27.0
4.0
1 s
Rc:Bankfull Width (f /ft)
1.7
2.8
2.7
3.9
0.6
1
Meander Wavelength (ft)
76.0
97.9
94.0
120.0
14.1
1
_ Meander Width Ratio
4.0
6.2
5.9
8.1
1.3
14
15
39
46
51
14.88 5
9.0
33.0
26.0
68.0
21.9
12
12.9
30.0
29.9
60.0
14.0 10
Profile
Riffle Length (t))
17.0 27.0 30.0 47.0 8.0 11
17.0 33 42 53 12.2 7
16 38 43 52 14.34 5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.030
0.020
0.040
0.009
11
0.022
0.024
0.025
0.027
0.002
7
0.019
0.024
0.024 0.029
0.003
5
0.018
0.023
0.024
0.029
0.004 5
0.009
0.023
0.018
0.045
0.013
12
0.012
0.026
0.026
0.035
0.008 10
PoolLength (ft)
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____ -_
Pool Spac_in (ft
49.0
63.0
69.0
106.0
20.0
14_.0_
51.0
73
67
105
17.4
7
48
76
80 102
20.7
5
50
78
83
102
19.99 5
23
62
56
116
27
12
38
72
68
108
22 14
Substrate and Transport Parameters
1.25/35/49/80/90
25.4/45.7/56.9/90/143.4
d16/ d35/ d50/ d84/ d95
32147.3/60.9/96/141.1
5.6/36.4/55.7/96.7/148.1
0.2/4.7/36.0/73.0/125.0
0.2/0.4/0.9/74.9/119.3/128-180
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
----- -----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
__________
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
___ -
----
----
----
----
____
----
----
----
----
---- ----
Additional Reach Parameters
PW
00000001w
­
----
-----
-----
0.08
-----
-----
----
-
----
---- ----
Drainage Area (SM)
----- ----- ----- 0.08 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.08 ----- -----
----- ----- ----- 0.08 ----- -----
---- ---- ---- 0.08 ---- ----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----- -----
----
C4
----
----
----
----
----
C5
----
-
---- ----
Bankfull Velocity (fps) I
_____
4.2
_____
-----
_____
_____
_____
4.2
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
4.2
_____ _____
_____
_____
_____
4.2
_____
_____
_____ _____
____
4.2
____
____
____
____
____
4.2
____
____
____ ----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
15.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
15.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
9.2
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
12.2
-----
-----
----- -----
----
11.8
----
----
----
----
----
9.7
----
----
---- ----
Valley Length (ft)
-----
816.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
816.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
816.0
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
816.0
-----
-----
----- -----
----
816.0
----
----
----
----
----
816.0
----
---
---- ----
Channel length (ft)
-----
1035
-----
-----
-----
----
----
1035
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1035
----- -----
-----
-----
-
1035
-
-----
----- -----
----
1052
----
----
----
----
----
1070
----
----
---- ----
Sinuosity
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
---
-----
----- -----
----
1.34
----
----
----
----
----
1.31
----
----
---- ----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (eft)
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
----- -----
----
0.02
----
----
----
----
----
0.02
----
-
---- ----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO, 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017. MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Hoppers Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
Location
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data Collection
Gage Height (feet)
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
5/30/2012
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.55
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
8/1/2012
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.10
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
12/31/2012
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.55
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
5/1/2013
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.10
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
4/16/2014
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.60
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
5/6/2015
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.25
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
9/24/2015
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.25
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
11/16/2015
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.20
South Fork Hoppers Creek (Station 15+10)
5/16/2016
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.08
South Fork Hoppers Creek Station 15+10
10/19/2016
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.15
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 6. Monthly Rainfall Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek -Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 99251
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
c 5.5
0
a 5
.Q
'E5 4.5
m
L
a 4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Monthly Rainfall near Morganton, NC vs. Average Rainfall Data
(January 2016 - November 28, 2016)
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16 11/28/16
Date
� Monthly Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile Average Rainfall
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

Figure 7. Precipitation and Water Level Plots
South Fork Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92251
12
0
0
5%
-16 -
-20
<ti��' Nati ti� Inti �\ti ���' Date b�ti 1_\\111 Jb\N 1o�ti
Assessment of Wetland Gauge Data for Monitoring Year 5
Growing Season (3/29/2016 -11/2/2016)
Datalogger for Gauge 2 and 4
Not Functioning
Dataloggers for Gauge 2 and 4
Replaced on 8/16/16
(Nlumm A
Lq
h k1A.
LOW'M Nix Ji LIN' gdm�11111111111111VL.-
® -Hydrology Criteria Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 Start Growing Season End Growing Season Rainfall Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Z_

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5
Table 13. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
South Fork Hoppers Creek Mitigation Plan: DMS Project No. 92251
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for MYl-MY5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing
Season (Percentage)
Gauge
MY 1 (2011)
MY2 (2012)
MY3 (2013)
MY4 (2014)
MY4 (2015)
MY5 (2016)
Gauge 1
No/10 days (5%)
Yes/25 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/27 days
Yes/176 days
Yes/95 days
(12%)
(100%)
(12%)*
(81%)
(44%)
Gauge 2
g
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/47 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/79 days
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(22%)*
(100%)
(36%)**
Gauge 3
g
Yes/188 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
(86%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Gauge 4
g
Yes/200 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/218 days
Yes/79 days
(92%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(36%)**
*Gauge 1 and 2 were not working properly during much of the 2014 growing season.
**Gauge 2 and 4 were not working properly during much of the 2016 growing season.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5

South Fork Hoppers Creek (SFHC)
Bankfull Photo Documentation

South Fork Hoppers Creek — Bankfull Photolog
Crest Gauge Photo (5/16/16)
Crest Gauge Photo (10/19/16)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., DMS PROJECT NO. 92251
SOUTH FORK HOPPERS CREEK - MELTON CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT - 2017, MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5