19990974 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20081106

Rq - 097 4
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
25 Water Tower Lane ? P.O. Box 241 ? Whittier, NC 28789
Phone: [phone] ? [phone] ? Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] ? Web: www.fishandwildlifeassociates.com
October 30, 2008
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Wetlands/401 Water Quality Certification Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed is the 2008 Post Construction Monitoring Report for the T.C. Roberson High School
Stream Restoration Project for the fourth monitoring year. FWA is submitting this report on
behalf of the Buncombe County Public Schools. We have included the report and all
attachments and lab results in this submittal.
Please feel free to contact me at our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
F-3 Lq
y FR \ t...:.
[9
NOV 6 2008
Barbara Wiggins ° SAND sTc?s?` ATEn pa14CH
?rdE?r?av°?
Attachments
CC: Mr. Tim Fierle, Director of Facilities, Buncombe County Public Schools

T.C. Roberson Stream Restoration
DWQ #990974
Post Construction Sampling Report
July 2008
Buncombe County Public Schools
175 Bingham Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Prepared by:
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 241
Whittier, North Carolina
October 2008
'Aq-n9`14
h1`?v ® ?',1tJr,
U?°?? ? ??u^^?A3 ?'yTE? BW'' RICH
YdE°?'?DJ pMD ?

1

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v
PROJECT SITE ...................................................................................................................1
INITIAL CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................1
REFERENCE SITE ........................................................................................................... ..1
METHODS ..........................................................................................................................3
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................3
Pre-Construction Results July 2002 .............................................................3
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2005
Benthic Monitoring .............................................................................................................4
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section Surveys .................................................................5
Streambank Erosion .............................................................................................................6
Vegetation Survey ................................................................................................................6
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2006
Benthic Monitoring ..............................................................................................................7
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section Surveys .................................................................8
Pebble Counts ......................................................................................................................9
Streambank Erosion .............................................................................................................9
Vegetation Survey .............................................................................................................. 10
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2007
Benthic Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 11
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Section Surveys ............................................................... 12
Pebble Counts .................................................................................................................... 15
Streambank Erosion ........................................................................................................... 16
Vegetation Survey .............................................................................................................. 16
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2008
Benthic Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 17
Cross Section Surveys ........................................................................................................ 19
Streambank Erosion ........................................................................................................... 25
Vegetation Survey .............................................................................................................. 27
Buffer Problems ................................................................................................................. 29
Future Sampling .....................................................................................................32
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Preconstruction Conditions and Photographs 2002 .....................................33
Appendix B: 2005 Post-Construction Conditions and Photographs .................................50
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data and Reference Reach Photographs 2005 ...........51
Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Data 2005 ................................................55
Pebble Count Graphs 2005 ....................................................................................61
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
' Appendix C: 2005 Post-Construction Conditions and Photographs
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data and Reference Reach Photographs 2006 ..........66
Pebble Count Graphs 2006 ....................................................................................70
Appendix D: 2007 Post-Construction Conditions
' Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data and Reference Reach Photographs 2007 ..........76
Pebble Count Graphs 2007 ....................................................................................81
' Appendix E: 2008 Post-Construction Conditions ..............................................................86
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data and Reference Reach Photographs 2008 ...........87
Cross Section Comparison Photographs 2005-2008 ..............................................91
Longitudinal Comparison Photographs Upper Section B Stream 2005-2008.....108
Longitudinal Comparison Photographs Lower Section E Stream 2005-2008.....128
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Comparison Photographs 2005-2008 .....................152

1

ii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map ........................................................................................2
I Figure 2. Comparison of Longitudinal Profiles Stream B, TC Roberson,
Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2007 ...............................................12
I Figure 3. Comparison of Longitudinal Profiles Stream E, TC Roberson, Buncombe
County, NC, July 2005 - July 2007 ..................................................................14
I Figure 4. Comparison of Distance Adjusted Longitudinal Profiles Stream E, TC
Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2007 ..............................14
' Figure 5. Reachwide Pebble Count Comparison Graph, Stream B, TC Roberson,
Buncombe Count
NC
Jul
2005 - Jul
2007
15
y
y
y,
,
...............................................
' Figure 6. Reachwide Pebble Count Comparison Graph, Stream E, TC Roberson,
Buncombe County
NC
Jul
2005 - Jul
2007
15
,
,
y
y
...............................................
' Figure 7. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 245, Stream B,
TC Roberson
Buncombe Count
2005 - Jul
NC
Jul
2008
20
,
y,
y
,
y
.......................

' Figure 8. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 280, Stream B,
TC Roberson
Buncombe Count
NC
Jul
2005 - Jul
2008
20
,
y,
,
y
y
........................

' Figure 9. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 308, Stream B,
TC Roberson
Buncombe Count
NC
Jul
2005 - Jul
2008
21
,
y,
,
y
y
........................

' Figure 10. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 360, Stream B, TC Roberson,
Buncombe Count
NC
Jul
2005 - Jul
2008
21
y,
,
y
y
...............................................
Figure 11. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 58, Stream E, TC Roberson,
' Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008 ...............................................23
Figure 12. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 88, Stream E, TC Roberson,
' Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008 ...............................................23
Figure 13. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 227, Stream E, TC Roberson,
' Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008 ...............................................24
Figure 14. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 293, Stream E, TC Roberson,
Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008 ...............................................24

iii

List of Figures Continued
' Figure 15. Stream B lower repair area looking north, installed matting and live
stakes, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008,
Buncombe County, NC ....................................................................................25
' Figure 16. Stream B lower repair area looking south at area of repaired
Eroded bank, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008,
' Buncombe County, NC ..................................................................................26
Figure 17. Stream B upper repair area looking south at area of repaired
' eroded left bank, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008,
Buncombe County, NC ..................................................................................26
' Figure 18. Mowed area and clay soil storage along Stream B herbaceous
monitoring plot, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2008 ..................................................................................................28
' Figure 19. Mowed area along Stream B buffer, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project,
Buncombe County, NC, July 2008 ..................................................................28
' Figure 20. Installation of fence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
relocation of storage trailer out of buffer area, TC Roberson Project, October
2008, Buncombe County, NC ..........................................................................30
Figure 21. Installation of fence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,

' TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC ........................31
Figure 22. Installation of fence replanting of trees marked with white flagging,

' TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC ........................31
Figure 23. Installation of fence replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC ........................32

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

List of Tables
Table 1. Summary Table of Biological Monitoring Results 2002- 2008 .........................18
Table 2. Vegetation Survival Plots ...................................................................................27
V

T.C. Roberson Stream Restoration

PROJECT SITE
' The T.C. Roberson High School Stream Restoration Project in Buncombe County, NC is
located south of Asheville in the Skyland area off Long Shoals Road (See Figure 1). The
project involves an unnamed tributary (UT) that flows into an arm of Lake Julian, French
' Broad Watershed, on the north side of Long Shoals Road. The project proposes to
restore a 1200-foot reach of the UT to mitigate a project on another Buncombe County
School Property.
INITIAL CONDITIONS
' The UT began upstream of the school property in a residential area. The upstream
channel was dry in 2002, pre-construction, due to the drought experienced by Western
North Carolina. As the UT entered the school property, it was culverted for 240 linear
feet under a football practice field. The UT had a small flow in 2002 as it emerged from
the football practice field into an existing channel. The UT merged with another adjacent
UT with a very small flow coming from a culvert under the football field parking lot. A
' short distance below this confluence, the UT flowed through a culvert under the football
access road. The UT was open for approximately 575'-600' until it reached the lower
school access road. The project ended at this point. After the project end, the creek went
h
h
' t
roug
a culvert under the lower school access road and adjacent field and discharged
into Lake Julian, approximately 400+' downstream. Preconstruction conditions can also

' be seen in the photographs of the project site in Appendix A.
REFERENCE SITE
t Normally, an upstream site on the same creek would be utilized for a reference site for
sampling. However, the upstream channel was dry during the month of June 2002 and
had been noted as extremely low flow for several months per the NRCS. Even after a
' region wide rain on June 27, there was only a very small seepage noted in the upstream
section. This reach may flow again when normal rainfalls occur in the area, but it will
take a while for the invertebrate population to recolonize this stretch. Another reach was
fo
d
t
t
f
h
' un
jus
eas
o
t
e project just off of Hendersonville Road with a drainage area of 0.3
square miles through residential areas. This compared with 0.2 square miles for the
project site. This Unnamed Tributary also entered into an arm of Lake Julian just east of
' the project site (See Figure 1). This UT had a much greater vegetation cover in the reach
sampled than the project site, but upstream sections of the reference creek have been
cleared and were similar to the watershed of the Project UT. The Habitat Assessment
' Form and photographs for the Reference Reach was submitted with the Pre-Construction
Report (See Appendix A).
%. Valley Spri
RV 3
2306
'rr - ? y ;yam . ? I >: • ` _ _ - ? ? i
j Cry .r/J {t
it 4 ?r rt 4~ F '?• AI ? `- 1 _ / -? i = ! , 1
hu,bee B
( Frady Mtn' 4-
- _ r
Blake Mto
Ducke`rKttn , ?- • P Oak Forest
i • o -- ° Refe•re ice Site
TC rRobe_rson Project : ate.:...
Jm.
Long Shoals L
A rd r•n ' KL
i
6'W
-r
Name: SKYLAND Location: 035.4894728' N 082.5325482' W
Date: 9/11/2006 Caption: Figure 1. TC Roberson Project Site and Reference Site
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Location Map
2
METHODS
For benthic sampling, Qual-4 collection methods were proposed for both creeks as the
drainage areas were <1.0 square miles in size. The reference reach was sampled at the
back of the last office building in the Skyland Office Park at 1998 Hendersonville Road.
All taxa were picked and sent to a certified lab for identification. The certified lab of
Pennington and Associates, Inc. in Cookeville, TN was used for the identification of the
invertebrates for both pre- and post-construction samples.
Initial cross sections, longitudinal profiles and pebble counts were not done the first year
after construction due to problems with the construction of the stream channel. For Post
Construction monitoring, cross section surveys were performed at two riffle areas and
two pool areas for each stream type, for a total of 8 cross sections. Longitudinal profiles
for both the B stream type and the E stream type were surveyed. Pebble counts were
taken at all cross section locations and a reach-wide pebble count was also sampled for
both stream types.
Vegetation success was evaluated through photographs, stem counts in two 1-meter plots
and tree and shrub counts. No information was available on numbers and locations of
initial plantings and few dead stems were observed, so monitoring success will be based
on achievement of 320 stemsiacre average for Year 2 and Year 3 for both stream
sections. A final count of 260 stems/acre average through Year 5 for both sections of the
stream will be used for the monitoring success evaluation in Year 4 and Year 5.
RESULTS - Listed Chronologically from Pre-Construction
Pre-Construction Results July 2002
' The Initial Habitat Assessment Form for the Project site is attached to the report in
Appendix A. Preconstruction benthic samples were taken above and below the parking
lot access road on the project site. There were very few pools and almost no leaf packs
' observed in this section. Due to the heavy vegetation growth in the channel, poor riffle
structure and the small size of the creek, the kick net was not utilized in this section.
Extra sampling was performed with the sweep net and visuals to compensate. Sediment
' deposits were noted in the creek. The dissolved oxygen levels in the creek were very low
(4.0) and there was a sewer odor observed in the area (sewer line parallels the creek).
' At the reference reach creek, there was vegetation on the banks and good leaf packs in
the water. There was a lot of bedrock structure in this section and not a lot of meanders,
so the bank structure was not the best habitat due to the lack of overhangs. Because of
' the size of the creek and lack of good riffle structure to sample, the kick net was not used.
See pre-construction photographs in Appendix A.
The attached benthic results show some differences between the Project Site at TC
Roberson High School and the Reference Reach Tributary (Appendix A). Shredders and
scrapers were more prevalent in the reference reach due to the leaf packs and cobbles

1

1
present. This should show improvement after the restoration is complete and the
vegetation is allowed to grow at the project site. Collector/Gatherers were more prevalent
in the project site. EPTs were only present in the reference reach and only Tricoptera
were present. The project site shows a greater abundance of organisms than the reference
reach.
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2005
The project was confirmed completed in October 2003 by Buncombe County Public
School Facilities Department. The initial construction of the new stream channel
occurred in early 2003, but there were problems with the construction and the Facilities
Department did not accept the project until repairs were made. This meant the first
vegetation survey would occur in the summer of 2005, after the stream had experienced
its first growing season (2004). Fish and Wildlife Associates (FWA) was contracted to
begin post monitoring in the second growing season (2005). No post construction
surveys were performed on the new stream channel after construction (longitudinal
profile, cross section, vegetation initial conditions) due to the construction problems
noted in 2003. The first post construction surveys occurred in 2005.
' Weather conditions in July 2005 were wetter and warmer than normal years. On the day
of the benthic sampling, it was sunny and warm (80's). Afternoon rain showers had been
common the week previous and throughout the month. There was stream flow above the
' new stream channels, which had been dry in 2002. During the early months of 2005, the
Asheville region experienced below normal rainfall compared to normal averages.
' Benthic monitoring
Restored Stream Conditions:

1

Habitat on the restored stream was mixed in quality. Some areas were stable, with
vegetation established and some cobble (upper section) and small woody material present
in the stream. Other areas were bedrock based, and some bank erosion was present.
There were not many leaf packs in 2005, and large boulder/cobble substrate was limited.
The vegetation was not old enough to create root structure and the pools were still in
formation, with runs existing in locations where pools should be developing. Shaded
sections of the stream were limited and only found under the larger existing trees on the
upper section. A lot of iron bacteria floc was observed in both the upper and lower
stream sections, covering most of the rock surfaces.
A single large (>6") crayfish was observed in the lower section and young salamanders
(1/2" long) were observed in both sections of the stream. The lower section had more
organisms and more species collected than the upper section. Both were heavy on
populations of dragonfly and cranefly larvae. One snail species was observed throughout
the sections.

1

Reference Reach Conditions:
The reference reach showed impacts from flood events, probably from the heavy rains
' experienced in September 2004. Most of the vegetation that had been present at water
level had been scoured away. Roots were exposed high on the stream banks, but none in
the water. Deep undercut and severe bank erosion was present in several locations,
' limited only by the presence of bedrock in the banks. Leaf packs were still present, but
the woody debris that had been present in 2002 was much reduced and visuals showed
few species. There was a fine coating of silt and algae on most of the rocks. A snail
' species, different from the UT, was observed in the stream. Very few organisms were
collected and a limited number of species were identified. Photographs of the Reference
Reach can be found in Appendix B.
' Results
' Benthic sampling results are shown in Appendix B for July 2005. The results show the
TC Roberson site experiencing some improvement to the biological community from pre-
construction conditions, with increases in numbers of taxa, EPT organisms, EPT Taxa
and improvement to the NCBI. This should continue to show improvement as the habitat
stabilizes and expands.
' Both the new stream channel and the reference reach appeared to have been greatly
impacted by the heavy rains and floods of the previous year (September 2004). Impacts
from flood events were present on both sites as shown in photographs in Appendix B
(debris/wrack lines, scoured banks and floodplains, dead or damaged shrubs and trees
near the stream channel). This may have caused the reduced populations and diversity of
species more than the construction activities on the new stream channel. This impact
' from floodwaters was significant on both the reference reach and the new stream
channels, especially the B Stream.
' Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections Survevs
Post construction surveys of the restored channel were made in June 2005. Longitudinal
' profile and eight cross sections were surveyed in the two stream reaches (B and E
classification). The B stream section showed impacts from high floods of 2004 which
had shifted the stream channel location in some areas. At Station 150, at the junction of
the UT and a stormwater ditch, the stream channel shifted to the east 4'- 6' from the
created channel, which was filled with cobble debris. The channel reconnected with the
constructed channel approximately 100' downstream. The B stream section was still
stabilizing after the high water impacts on the stream banks and floodplain. Headcutting
was not observed in the B section, and there were areas of bedrock which provided
elevation controls in the section (Stations 379-396).
i

'
The E stream section was developing pools and riffles in the appropriate locations. The
high waters had left a few areas where the stream channel had cut through some
' meanders, but most were becoming re-stabilized by the wetland vegetation that was
prevalent in the section.
' Pebble counts for the eight cross sections and two reach-wide sections (one for each
stream type) were documented. Data from the surveys can be seen in Appendix B. The
B stream was sand dominated system and the E stream was silt/clay dominated.
'
Streambank Erosion
' As noted in the surveys section above, there were areas of streambank erosion in the B
Stream section. Beginning at Station 150 where the stormwater ditch joined the UT and
the stream makes a 90° turn to the south, the left streambank has been scoured of all
' vegetation and has a 1:1 slope, approximately 3'- 4' high, leaving a clay subsoil exposed.
The eroded banks on the left continued until Station 250. Some areas of possibly slumps
were observed downstream of Station 250, but were becoming vegetative and
' establishing a bench adjacent to the stream. Additional areas of streambank erosion was
observed downstream near Stations 406 to 423, in the meander bends that were left from
existing conditions around the large tulip poplar trees. The erosion was occurring on
' alternating left and right banks, depending on the bend of the stream. Entrenchment was
controlled by bedrock, but widening of the banks was only controlled by existing
vegetation.
'
Vegetation Survey
' Vegetation was surveyed during August 2005 for live stakes, tree plantings and
herbaceous cover in the stream sections. Due to the lack of information and initial counts
of trees and shrubs, survival could not be determined. The survey collected data on the
' number of stems/acre and whether the goal of 320 stems/acre for the two stream sections
was met in 2005.

P

The B stream stem count plot was located on the west bank of the stream, beside the
batting cage on the practice field. It was a plot of 61.5'x 22' (0.03 acres) and included
the scoured floodplain near the bend in the stream. There were few stems identified from
the original planting. Most of the stems were young seedlings and many were from the
large tulip poplar trees located on the B stream. The tree and shrub count has an
excessive number of seedlings. The counts should decrease considerably in the years to
come as competition thins out the stems. The B Stream plot was dominated by red maple
and tulip poplar seedlings and silky dogwood shrubs. Joe Pyeweed, goldenrod, vetch,
sedge, milkweed, and blackberry were the predominant herbaceous cover. The one meter
herbaceous plot was located in the impacted floodplain to track recovery from the
scouring of the high water. The cover was estimated at 80% of the one meter plot. The
amount of new growth showed that the vegetation was recovering. Despite the flood
impact, the streambanks were becoming vegetated and stabilized with established cover.
1
The E stream stem count was located on the lower east bank of the project, next to the
parking lot. It was a plot of 81'x 32' or 0.06 acres in size. Because the E stream has very
wet soils next to the stream but dry conditions upslope, there were two distinct vegetation
communities involved on this monitoring plot. There were no tree and very few shrubs
located in the wetlands next to the stream. It is unknown whether no trees or shrubs were
planted or if they could not survive in the wetland conditions. Shrubs that were surviving
and growing well in the wetter areas were silky dogwood, button bush, and tag alder.
Trees and shrubs on the upland areas included sycamore, black willow, black gum, red
maple, red oak, black cherry, hawthorn, dogwood, tulip poplar, and privet (last two were
volunteers). Based on the size of the trees and shrubs, it could be estimated that out of
167 stems planted in the monitoring area, only 4 did not survive to 2005. There was a
total of 163 stems or average of 2,717 stems per acre in the lower E stream section.
Herbaceous cover was also impressive and extremely well established. 100% cover was
present throughout the E section and in the one meter plot. Most of the herbaceous stems
in the herbaceous monitoring plot were rush stems from two large clumps. Other
herbaceous species in the project area included Joe Pyeweed, jewelweed, swamp
milkweed, switchgrass, cattails, queen Anne's lace, goldenrod, sedge (sp), rushes (Juncus
sp.) with fescues, pokeweed and chickweed present along the landscaped shoulders of the
roads and parking lot surrounding the project.
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2006
' Weather conditions in July 2006 were hotter and dryer than average years. On the day of
the benthic sampling, it was sunny and warm (90's). There was stream flow but it was
very low water levels and close to drying up as in 2002. During the early months of
' 2006, the Asheville region experienced below normal rainfall compared to normal yearly
averages and was considered in drought conditions.
Benthic monitoring
Restored Stream Conditions:
Habitat on the restored stream was excellent on the lower E section and moderate to poor
on the upper B section. The stream is still lacking in woody debris and large cobbles. It
was noted that woody debris and leaves were deposited above bankfull in the riparian
buffer of the E section during high water events, removing these from the stream channel
and reducing possible benthic habitat. There were some unstable banks and bank erosion
on the upper B section. No leaf packs in the stream channel were observed in either
section. There were fine root structures, especially in the lower E section. Pools were
formed and appeared to be stable in the lower E section while the upper B section had
lost most of the smaller step/pools. Only the pools in the meander section near the tulip
poplars were still present and were controlled by bedrock formations. Shaded sections
of the stream were limited and only found under the larger existing trees on the upper
section. A lot of iron bacteria floc was observed in both the upper and lower stream
sections, covering most of the rock surfaces. Mussels were observed for the first time in
the B Section. Juvenile salamanders were found in large numbers on both sections.
r
u

u
u
[l
1
n
1

1
0
1

L
1
Reference Reach Conditions:
Habitat on the reference reach stream was mixed in quality. The banks were recovering
from the flood event scour that was noted in 2005, but much of the length of the stream
reach was still bare. Some areas were stable, with vegetation established and some
cobble and small woody material present in the stream. Other areas were bedrock based,
and some bank erosion was present. There were not many leaf packs in 2006, and large
boulder/cobble substrate was limited. There were fine root structures along the stream,
but not large roots. The stream was fairly shaded in the reach that was sampled. A fine
layer of sediment covered rocks in pools and surrounded the cobble in riffles. Very few
organisms were collected and a limited number of families were identified. Reference
reach photograph can be found in Appendix C.
Results
Benthic sampling results are shown in Appendix C for July 2006. The results show that
both streams recovered from the scouring effects in late 2004 in the total number of
organisms and taxa. The reference reach also showed improvement in the number of
EPT organisms and taxa from 2005, while the restored reach showed a decrease in EPT
organisms and taxa from 2005. Both streams show improvement in their Biotic Index
results over the past two years, with the Reference Reach better than the restored stream.
But even the restored stream in 2006 is improved over pre-construction conditions in
2002. The streams were very drought impacted at the time of the sampling during both
the 2002 and 2006 sampling events. Both the new stream channel and the reference
reach show improved benthic habitat since 2005. However, flood event impacts are still
obvious and this may be continuing to impact the populations and diversity of species.
The impact from floodwaters on the upper B section was observed in 2006 and the stream
was still recovering from the scour and erosion with a lot of silt in the stream channel.
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections Surveys
Post construction surveys of the restored channel were made in July 2006. Longitudinal
profile and eight cross sections were surveyed in the two stream reaches (B and E
sections). On Stream B, the turn at Station 150 and immediately downstream the stream
channel was stabilizing and creating a flood bench on both sides of the channel. The left
bank was slumping and undercutting was present in several locations. On the right bank,
the channel was depositing in the old channel and creating the bench. There was bank
erosion at the meander bends downstream, with undercut banks present on the outer
bends. No major headcutting was observed and the profile of the B Stream showed a
relatively stable profile. Areas of bedrock are present in the B Stream which provided
elevation controls in the section (Stations 379-396). Most of the upper B section has lost
the step/pool profile and has become more of a riffle/run complex. Pools are only present
in the meander bends around the tulip poplar trees and bedrock controls at the lower end
of the reach.
1

'
The Stream E section continued the development of pools and riffles in the appropriate

' locations. There were multiple side channels, both wet and dry, throughout the buffer
area along the stream channel, reinforcing the wetland creation along most of the length
of the E section. Despite the dry weather conditions, the buffers were well established

' with wetland vegetation. Some deepening of the pools was noted since last year's
profile.
Cross section surveys of the four cross sections in Stream E show some shifting of the
' channel. In Cross Section Station 58, the pool has shifted to the left bank, has become
shallower, and a point bar on the inside bend has formed. The pool at Station 88 has
shifted to the right and also become shallower at the cross section. The riffle at Station
' 227 has become deeper and more square shaped in dimension which is appropriate for an
E channel. The riffle at Station 293 has not changed in depth but has shifted to the right
bank and become narrower in shape. None of the observed changes are creating unstable
conditions and seem to be the natural adjustment of the stream.
Pebble Counts
'
Pebble counts for the eight cross sections and two reach-wide sections (one for each
stream type) were documented. The B stream changed from the sand dominated system
to a more sand/silt dominated system. The E stream was silt/clay dominated both years.
Streambank Erosion
'
As noted in the surveys section above, there were areas of streambank erosion in the B
Stream section. The area downstream of Station 150 where the banks had been eroded
' and left unstable in 2005 showed some signs of bank slumping and established vegetation
on an inner floodplain. Other areas were still steep sloped and clay subsoil exposed. The
eroded banks on the left continued until Station 250. Additional areas of streambank
' erosion was observed downstream near Stations 406 to 423, in the meander bends that
were left from existing conditions around the large tulip poplar trees. The erosion was
occurring on alternating left and right banks, depending on the bend of the stream.
' Entrenchment was controlled by bedrock, but widening of the banks was only controlled
by existing vegetation. Changes to the eroded streambank areas between 2005 and 2006
were not obvious.
1

1
1

r

1
1

Vegetation Survey
Vegetation was surveyed during July 2006 for tree and shrub stems and herbaceous cover
in the stream sections. The survey collected data on the number of stems/acre and
whether the goal of 260 stems/acre for the two stream sections was met in 2006.
The B stream stem count plot was located on the west bank of the stream, beside the
batting cage on the practice field. It was a plot of 61.5'x 22' (0.03 acres) and included
the scoured floodplain near the bend in the stream. The counts of trees and shrubs
decreased slightly from 2006, but still has large numbers of trees and shrubs present. As
noted in 2005, the counts should decrease considerably in the years to come as
competition and shading thins out the stems. The B Stream plot was dominated by red
maple, sycamore, white pine, red oak, black locust and tulip poplar seedlings and
hawthorn, silky dogwood, tag alder, black willow and button bush shrubs. Joe Pyeweed,
goldenrod, sedge, milkweed, switchgrass, Queen Anne's lace, poison ivy and blackberry
were the predominant herbaceous cover. The one meter herbaceous plot was located in
the impacted floodplain to track recovery from the scouring of the high water. It was
noted that the buffer had been mowed almost to the stakes on the herbaceous plot. The
cover was estimated at 80% of the one meter plot. The amount of new growth showed
that the vegetation was recovering. Despite the flood impact, the streambanks were
becoming vegetated and stabilized with established cover. Volunteer tree and shrub
species were growing and replacing the initial plantings.
The E stream stem count was located on the lower east bank of the project, next to the
parking lot. It was a plot of 81'x 32' or 0.06 acres in size. Because the E stream has very
wet soils next to the stream but dry conditions upslope, there were two distinct vegetation
communities involved on this monitoring plot. There were no tree and only obligate
shrubs located in the wetlands next to the stream. Shrubs that were surviving and
growing well in the wetter areas were silky dogwood, silky willow, button bush, and tag
alder. Many of the shrubs in the wetland areas were large enough that they were merging
with other shrubs, especially the livestakes near the stream channel. These were
becoming impossible to count as separate shrubs and becoming one large clump of stems.
Trees and shrubs on the upland areas included sycamore, black willow, black gum, red
maple, red oak, black cherry, hawthorn, dogwood, black walnut, tulip poplar, and privet
(last two were volunteers). Based on the size of the trees and shrubs, it could be
estimated that out of 167 stems planted in the monitoring area, only 4 did not survive to
2005 and by 2006 another 37 died, merged with adjacent plants or were overgrown.
There was a total of 130 stems or average of 2,167 stems per acre in the lower E stream
section. Herbaceous cover was also impressive and extremely well established. 100%
cover was present throughout the E section and in the one meter plot. Most of the
herbaceous stems in the herbaceous monitoring plot were rush (Juncus effusius),
jewelweed, cattails (4), seedbox (1), sedge and switchgrass. Other herbaceous species in
the project area included Joe Pyeweed, swamp milkweed, Queen Anne's lace, goldenrod,
sedge (sp), rushes (Juncus sp.) with fescues, pokeweed and chickweed present along the
landscaped shoulders of the roads and parking lot surrounding the project.
10

'
Both sections of the restored stream showed impacts from
mowing and clearing (B
' section) and invasive plant species such as bittersweet and privet (E section). The
bittersweet will overgrow any larger trees until it kills the tree and will need control
measures to limit its spread, especially on the dryer slopes of the buffer. The mowing
' and clearing has continued along the B section and was close to the stakes of the
herbaceous plot in the B section.

' Post-Construction Monitoring July 2007
Weather conditions in July and August 2007 were during a state-wide drought. The field
' surveys were performed in sunny and warm conditions (90's). There was stream flow
but it was at very low water levels and similar to the low levels in 2002 and 2006. The
' Asheville area at this time was experiencing a deficit of over 10" of rainfall for the year.
Benthic monitoring
' Restored Stream Conditions:
As in 2006, habitat on the restored stream was excellent on the lower E section and
' moderate on the upper B section. Both stream reaches were becoming less silted and the
riffle's substrates were more defined. There was still a lot of sediment in the pools and
' runs, however. The stream is lacking in woody debris and large cobbles, partly due to the
narrow width of the channel. Woody debris and leaves are deposited above bankfull in
the riparian buffer during high water events, removing these from the stream channel and
' reducing possible benthic habitat. There were some unstable banks and bank erosion on
the upper B section. Iron bacteria floc was still present in several areas, indicating
groundwater was a hydrologic source for the UT.
' Reference Reach Conditions:
Habitat on the reference reach stream was mixed in quality. The stream banks were still
' steep and undercut with bedrock exposure. There was some erosion on the stream banks
and the riparian vegetation was thin. The stream channel substrate consisted of cobble,
gravel and sand with areas of bedrock. Large boulder/cobble substrate was limited.
There were fine root structures along the stream, but no large roots. The stream was
fairly shaded in the reference reach. Reference reach photographs can be found in
' Appendix D.
Results
' Benthic sampling results are shown in Appendix D for July 2007. Both streams
continued to show increased number of organisms and taxa from last year. More
organisms were sampled in the reference reach than in the UT, but the total number of
taxa was close to the same numbers. However, the reference site experienced a sharp
drop in the number of EPT and EPT taxa in 2007 while the TC Roberson Site showed
11
continued improvement. The TC Roberson Site continued to show improved Biotic
Index results over the past three years, but the Reference Reach Biotic Indexes showed a
significant decrease in the quality of water. Factors impacting the Reference Reach
include low water levels and the bedrock habitat. There may also be watershed
influences affecting the Reference Reach that have not been documented.
Longitudinal Profile and Cross Sections Surveys
Post construction surveys of the restored channel were made in August 2007.
Longitudinal profile and eight cross sections were surveyed in the two stream reaches (B
and E sections).
On Stream B, a bench has been formed on both sides of the stream in the upper reaches
and has stabilized. There are two areas of bank erosion, one at the turn at Station 150 and
one at the downstream meander bends, with undercut banks present on the outer bends.
No headcutting was observed and the profile of the B Stream showed a relatively stable
profile (Figure 2).
Longitudinal Profile Stream B
TC Roberson
98
c 95
0
92
as
W 89
86
-s Jul-05 - Jul-06 Jul-07
Figure 2. Comparison of Longitudinal Profiles Stream B, TC Roberson, Buncombe
County, NC, 2005 - 2007.
12
0 100 200 300 400 500
Channel Distance (ft)
Areas of bedrock are present in the B Stream which provided elevation controls in the
section (Stations 379-396). Most of the upper B section has lost the step/pool profile and
has become more of a riffle/run complex. Pools are only present in the meander bends
around the tulip poplar trees and bedrock controls at the lower end of the reach. The
Cross Sections dimensions of Stream B appeared stable with little or no changes
observed from 2005 to 2007. Survey stakes at Station 360 had been removed and were
replaced for this survey.
The Stream E section had changes in the stream channel, particularly in the upper
sections. Braiding and multiple channels were present (2-3 channels) between Stations
15.0 to Station 250.0. This resulted in the main channel becoming shorter, with a loss of
15' between Station 15.0 - 175.0 and an additional 9' from Station 175.0 to the end of the
reach. This was deemed to be a natural progress to a stable pattern as the channels were
meandering through the wetlands on both sides of the stream. And with the presence of
the multiple channels, the total length of stream was equal or greater than the as-built
condition. The stream continued the development of pools and riffles in the appropriate
locations. There were multiple side channels, both wet and dry, throughout the buffer
area along the stream channel, reinforcing the wetland creation along most of the length
of the E section. Despite the dry weather conditions, the buffers were well established
with wetland vegetation. The comparison of the longitudinal profile is shown in Figure
3 and with the adjusted length shown in Figure 4. With the adjusted length, there was
some depth loss of the upper section of the stream where the new channels are being cut.
Other areas were experiencing varying degrees of fill or down cutting, but well within
normal range of a stable stream.
This meandering pattern had shifted the main channel away from Cross Section Station
' 58. The cross section profile shows that the channel was becoming shallower, and
appeared to be accumulating flood debris and sediment from bankfull events. There was
still some flow at the site from a side channel. The other cross sections were still located
' on the main channel of the stream. Some shifting of the profile can be seen on the cross
sections, but most of the changes were minor in nature and were appropriate for natural
channel adjustment in a wetland area.

13
Longitudinal Profile Stream E
TC Roberson
93
V
C
90
ca
m
w 87
84
0
Figure 3. Comparison of Longitudinal Profiles Stream E, TC Roberson, Buncombe
County, NC, 2005 - 2007.
Longitudinal Profile Stream E
Distance Adjusted
TC Roberson
93

C
.0 90
r
ea
as
w
87
84 ! --
0 100 200 300 400 500
Channel Distance (ft)
Jul-05 - Jul-06 Jul-07
Figure 4. Comparison of Distance Adjusted Longitudinal Profiles Stream E, TC
Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, 2005 - August 2007.
14
100 200 300 400 500
Channel Distance (ft)
Jul-05 - Jul-06 $ Jul-07
Pebble Counts
Pebble counts for the eight cross sections and two reach-wide sections (one for each
stream type) were documented. Data from the surveys can be seen in Appendix D. The
B stream continued to change from the sand dominated system in 2005 to a more
silt/clay dominated system. The E stream showed a trend from silt/clay dominated
substrate to a sand/silt substrate. This change was also observed in the riffles with the
presence of more gravel substrate. The Reachwide pebble count changes are documented
in Figures 5 & 6.
Reachwide Stream B Pebble Count, TC Roberson
100%
90%
80%
`m 70%
L
60%
w 50%
40%
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % 2005 --- cumulative % 2006 , cumulative % 2007
i
Figure 5. Reachwide Pebble Count Comparison Graph, Stream B, TC Roberson,
Buncombe County, NC, 2005 - 2007.
Reachwide Stream E Pebble Count, TC Roberson
100%
90%
80%
`m 70%
L
tB 60%
C
w 50%
c
P 40%
o- 30%
20%
10%
0%

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % 2005 t cumulative % 2006 cumulative % 2007
Figure 6. Reachwide Pebble Count Comparison Graph, Stream E, TC Roberson,
Buncombe County, NC, 2005 - 2007.
15
11
1
' Streambank Erosion
As noted in the surveys section above, there were areas of streambank erosion in the B

1 Stream section. The creation of the floodplain bench has improved the stability of the
channel in many areas. There are eroded banks on the left bank near Station 250.
Additional areas of streambank erosion was observed downstream near Stations 406 to

' 423, in the meander bends that were left from existing conditions around the large tulip
poplar trees. The erosion was occurring on alternating left and right banks, depending on
the bend of the stream. Entrenchment was controlled by bedrock, but widening of the

1 banks is controlled by existing vegetation.
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation was surveyed during July 2007 for tree and shrub stems and herbaceous cover
in the stream sections. The survey collected data on the number of stems/acre and
whether the goal of 260 stems/acre in the buffer was met in 2007. Both sections are
1 showing stem counts well over 260 stems/acre.
The B stream stem count plot was located on the west bank of the stream, beside the
1 batting cage on the practice field. It was a plot of 61.5'x 22' (0.03 acres) and included
the scoured floodplain near the bend in the stream. This plot was impacted during the
past year by over half of the buffer being mowed down. Most of the stems present during
1 this year's monitoring count were small, re-sprouts or volunteers. The mowing almost
reached the herbaceous plot, but it was left undisturbed. The School System will need to
take action to prevent future mowing activities and to replant the area where 2-3 year old
1 trees were mowed down. This impact was only on the west bank of the stream. The east
bank has been left undisturbed and is in good condition, despite the dry conditions.
Despite this impact, the Stream B had 68 trees or shrubs for an average of 2,267
1 stems/acre in the plot. Survival of the trees and shrubs in Stream B was 49% after 3
years.
' The B Stream buffer was dominated by red maple, sycamore, white pine, red oak, black
locust, tulip poplar seedlings and hawthorn, silky dogwood, tag alder, black willow and
button bush shrubs. Joe Pyeweed, goldenrod, sedge, milkweed, switchgrass, Queen
' Anne's lace, poison ivy and blackberry were the predominant herbaceous cover. The one
meter herbaceous plot which was located in the impacted floodplain to track recovery
from the scouring of the high water has shown slow recovery. The soil has been slow to
' recover in the area. The cover was estimated at 80% of the one meter plot.
The E stream stem count was located on the lower east bank of the project. It was a plot
1 of 81'x 32' or 0.06 acres in size. Because the E stream has very wet soils next to the
stream but dry conditions upslope, there were two distinct vegetation communities
involved on this monitoring plot. There were no tree and only obligate shrubs located in
the wetlands next to the stream. Shrubs that were surviving and growing well in the
wetter areas were silky dogwood, silky willow, button bush, and tag alder. Many of the

16

L

shrubs in the wetland areas were large enough that they were merging with other shrubs,
especially the livestakes near the stream channel. These were becoming impossible to
count as separate shrubs and becoming one large clump of stems. Trees and shrubs on
the upland areas included sycamore, black willow, black gum, red maple, red oak, black
cherry, hawthorn, dogwood, black walnut, tulip poplar, and privet (last two were
volunteers).
During the 2007 stem counts, 144 stems were observed, which was higher than in 2006.
Some stems may have been overlooked in 2006 or volunteers may have been counted in
2007. Survival in 2006 was 88% and was holding at that level for 2007. There was a
total of 144 stems or average of 2,400 stems per acre in the lower E stream section.
Herbaceous cover was also impressive and extremely well established. 100% cover was
present throughout the E section and in the one meter plot. Most of the herbaceous stems
in the herbaceous monitoring plot were rush (Juncus effusius), jewelweed, cattail,
seedbox, and sedge. Other herbaceous species in the E buffer area included Joe
Pyeweed, swamp milkweed, Queen Anne's lace, goldenrod, sedge (sp), rushes (Juncus
sp.) with fescues, pokeweed and chickweed present along the landscaped shoulders of the
roads and parking lot surrounding the project.
Both sections of the restored stream showed impacts from mowing and clearing (B
' section) and invasive plant species such as bittersweet, privet (E section) and multiflora
rose (both sections). The bittersweet will overgrow any larger trees until it kills the tree
and will need control measures to limit its spread, especially on the dryer slopes of the
' buffer. The mowing and clearing has continued along the B section and almost mowed
over the stakes for the herbaceous plot in the B section.
1
L
f

I
1
1

LI
Post-Construction Monitoring July 2008
Weather conditions in July 2008 were during a state-wide drought and a regional extreme
drought condition. The region was in the third year of dry conditions. The Asheville
area at this time was experiencing a deficit of over 13" of rainfall for the year. The field
surveys were performed in sunny and warm conditions (80's). There was minimal stream
flow with large sections of dry channels in the upper B section.
Benthic monitoring
Restored Stream Conditions:
As in the past reports, habitat on the restored stream was good to excellent on the lower E
section and poor (dry) on the upper B section. The unstable banks for Stream B noted in
the inspection report from NCDENR were repaired in July 2008, and have not yet
impacted the benthic habitat in the upper B section. Both stream reaches were becoming
less silted and the riffle's substrates were more defined. There was still a lot of sediment
in the pools and runs, however. The stream is lacking in woody debris due to the narrow
channel (debris bridges banks), again typical of upper reaches of headwater streams.
17

1

1

Lower E stream is full of root mats, due to the extensive bank vegetation, but was
missing leaf packs and cobbles.
Reference Reach Conditions:
Habitat on the reference reach stream was mixed in quality. The stream banks were still
steep and undercut at bedrock structures. There was some erosion on the stream banks,
although the riparian vegetation was coming back from the flood event of 2004. The
stream channel substrate consisted of cobble, gravel and sand with areas of bedrock.
Large boulder/cobble substrate was limited and it was noted that only snails were found
on rocks during the visual collections. There were a lot of fine root structures along the
stream and logs and leaf packs were common. The stream was fairly shaded in the area
sampled on the reference reach. There were 4 riffles and pools sampled in the reach.
Reference reach photographs can be found in Appendix E.
Results
Table 1. Summary Table of Biological Monitoring Results 2002, 2005-2008
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008
Reference Site 48 22 54 102 46 21 5 22 25 17
TC Roberson Site 81 68 42 54 82 19 28 16 23 27
TOTAL NO OF EPT TOTAL NO OF EPT TAXA
2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008
Reference Site 8 9 31 6 21 2 3 7 1 3
TC Roberson Site 0 14 7 28 1 0 5 2 5 1
NC BIOTIC INDEX (ASSIGNED
VALUES) NC BIOTIC INDEX
2002 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002 2005 2006 2007 2008
Reference Site 6.05 4.65 3.93 6.89 3.21 6.06 4.34 3.64 7.34 3.44
TC Roberson Site 8.04 7.23 6.30 4.79 7.97 8.01 6.63 6.68 4.72 7.95
18
Benthic sampling results are shown in Appendix E for July 2008. As shown in Table 1,
there were variable results in the indexes for both streams over the past 5 sampling
events. The Indices for both streams show an increase in "quality" during the low flow
years, when few but high quality benthic invertebrate taxas are collected. During the
more normal flow years, the indices drop in value but are more accurate in reflecting the
water quality conditions of both streams. Both streams were heavily influenced by the
flow regimes that were encountered during the sampling in 2008. Both streams had large
populations of snails. Salamanders and crayfish were easily collected during the survey
from Stream E.
The reference reach experienced a decrease in the number of organisms, total number of
taxa, and decrease in the water quality shown by both the NC Biotic Index (Assigned
values) and the NC Biotic Index. However, the reference reach did show an increase in
the number of EPT organisms and in the number of taxa from last year. The majority of
species in the reference reach were Lepidostoma sp., a caddisfly with a very low T.V.
value. The low water levels limited the amount of good bank structure habitat this year.
' The TC Roberson stream showed an increase in the total number of organisms and taxa,
of which most were in the families of Diptera, Odonata and Coleoptera. The Odonata
species reflected the abundance of dragonfly larvae which were doing very well in the
' lower, wetland/stream reach. The other family/species are more tolerant of low flow
conditions than the EPT taxa. EPT numbers and taxa dropped very low, with only one
caddisfly species found. This one species, a high quality EPT, was the cause of the high
' NCBI that can be seen. Compared with previous years, the lack of flow in the upper B
Stream limited the habitat greatly. Numbers and indices equaled the values observed in
2002 under similar conditions. This headwater stream benthic habitat has been more
' influenced by the amount of stream flow in the upper reach than the structure that is
present throughout the reach. The lower reach has more of a wetland habitat during low
flow years than a stream habitat.

Cross Sections Surveys
' No longitudinal profiles were taken in Monitoring Year 4 (2008). The two areas of
unstable stream banks that were noted in past inspection letters were repaired in July of
this year. The repaired areas can be seen in photographs in the section under Streambank
' Erosion.
Eight cross section surveys of the restored channel were made in July 2008 in the two
' stream reaches (B and E sections). Photographs in Appendix E show post construction
conditions for the longitudinal profile and the cross sections in the restored stream
reaches for four consecutive years. The Cross Sections dimensions of Stream B appeared
' stable with little or no changes observed from 2005 to 2008 (Figures 7-10).

1
19
96
95
$ 94
c 93
M 92
>91
w 90
89
88
0 10 20
Width (ft)
t Jul-05 - - Jul-06 Jul-07 J ul-081
Figure 7. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 245,
Stream B, TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2005 - July 2008.
93
92
=91
0
90
0 89
w
88
87
0 10 Width (ft) 20 30
Jul-05 • Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08
Figure 8. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 280,
Stream B, TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2005 - July 2008.
30
20
Station 245 Stream B
Cross Section
Station 280 Stream B
Cross Section
Station 308 Stream B
Cross Section
Jul-07 = Jul-08
Figure 9. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 308,
Stream B, TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2005 - July 2008.
96
95
94
o 93
92
as
w 91
90
89
0 10 Width (ft) 20 30
Jul-05 -= Jul-06 Jul-07 -),- Jul-08
Figure 10. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 360, Stream B,
TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008.
21
15 20
Station 360 Stream B
Cross Section

' The B stream channel was becoming narrower, with distinct benches forming on one or
both sides of the channel, adding to the stability of the stream channel. Survey stakes at
' Station 360 had been lost and were replaced for this survey. The survey stake on the
right bank at Station 308 was partially buried under tree brush/limbs that were left after
!i the dying yellow poplars were removed in 2008.
The Stream E section had a channel pattern change in the upper reach just below the
culvert outfall. Station 58 survey site channel has been completely abandoned now
except for high flow events and was dry during the monitoring survey (Figure 11). As
shown by the cross section graph, the pool at old Station 58 was filling in with plant
material and overbank flow debris deposits. Below the new channel at Station 80.0 (old)
' or Station 51.0 (new), the stream channel has stabilized and was maintaining the flow in
the As Built channel. The other cross sections were still located on the main channel of
the stream (Figures 12-14). Station 88 (Pool) has developed a very square shaped
channel and has lost depth from as-built condition. Station 227 (Pool) has remained
constant for the last three years (deeper than as-built condition). Station 293 has changed
slightly over the years to a square channel and close to the as-built depth. All sites show
a stable channel dimension with connection to the bankfull and the linear wetlands along
the creek channel.

1

22
91
$ 90
89
M
as
M 88
87
0 5 Width (ft) 10 15
?- Jul-05 m Jul-06 J ul-07 = J ul-08
Figure 11. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 58, Stream E,
TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 -July 2008.
Station 88 Stream E
Cross Section
90
89
c 88
a>i 87
w
86
85
0 5 Width (ft) 10 15
-+- Jul-05 -- -- Jul-06 Jul -07 Jul-08
Figure 12. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 88, Stream E,
TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008.
23
Station 58 Stream E
Cross Section
91
90.5
e-90
c 89.5
89
88.5
w 88
87.5
87
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Width (ft)
Jul-05 -_-- Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08
Figure 13. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 227, Stream E,
TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008.
90
89.5
$. 89
= 88.5
0
88
aa) 87.5
w
87
86.5
86
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Width (ft)
-+- Jul-05 -;- Jul-06 Jul-07 Jul-08
Figure 14. Comparison of Cross Section Survey at Station 293, Stream E,
TC Roberson, Buncombe County, NC, July 2005 - July 2008.
24
Station 227 Stream E
Cross Section
Station 293 Stream E
Cross Section
Pebble Counts
No pebble counts were performed in 2008 as it was Monitoring Year 4. Pebble counts
and reachwide pebble count will be performed and reported next year (2009), the 5t" and
last Monitoring Year.
Streambank Erosion
The two areas of streambank erosion in the B Stream section noted in previous reports
were repaired, re-sloped with an added stream bench within the channel, matted and re-
seeded and live staked (See Figures 15-17). The repaired areas will also be replanted
with trees and shrubs this coming fall/winter. The creation of the floodplain bench
throughout the Upper Stream B section has improved the stability of the channel in many
areas. Entrenchment was controlled by bedrock controls in the lower reach of the stream,
but widening of the banks is controlled by existing vegetation. Some widening of the
stream dimension in the meanders of Stream B was observed.

Figure 15. Stream B lower repair area looking north, installed matting and live
stakes, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008,
Buncombe County, NC.
25
1

"IN
Figure 16. Stream B lower repair area looking south at area of repaired
eroded bank, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008, Buncombe
County, NC.
,
Figure 17. Stream B upper repair area looking south at area of repaired
eroded left bank, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, July 2008, Buncombe
County, NC.
26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stream E has very good vegetative cover on the stream banks. The stream buffer is now
developing some shaded areas on the downstream sections which was shading out the
herbaceous vegetation on the stream bank. Some streambank erosion is occurring on the
Stream E section as it approaches and enters the culvert at the end of the project. This
was due to the existing bank and culvert design/condition and not associated with the
restoration project.
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation was surveyed during July 2008 for tree and shrub stems and herbaceous cover
in the stream sections. The survey collected data on the number of stems/acre and
whether the goal of 260 stems/acre in the buffer was met in 2008. The results for 2005-
2008 are shown in Table 2. Both sections are showing stem counts well over 260
stems/acre.
Table 2. Vegetation Survival Plots
2005 2006 2007 2008
Plant #s Plant #/acre Plant #s Plant #/acre Plant #s lant #/ac Plant #s Plant #/acre
Stream B Stem Count 139 4633 1 10 3667 68 2267 70 2333
0.03 acre
Stream E Stem Count 163 2717 130 2167 144 2400 194 3233
0.06 acre
Stream B Herbaceous 5700 1900 1400 1750*
1 meter plot
Stream E Herbaceous 45,200 M 3,700 3,700 18,700
1 meter plot
* Stream B Herbaceous Plot reset in 2008
The B stream stem count plot was located on the west bank of the stream, beside the
batting cage on the practice field. It was a plot of 61.5'x 22' (0.03 acres) and included
the scoured floodplain near the bend in the stream. The Stream B buffer continues to
experience impacts from inappropriate mowing and has had over 40% of the buffer
mowed and most of the monitoring plot was impacted this year. The mowing and
softball field clay soil storage area reached the Stream B herbaceous plot this year and the
plot and stakes were completely mowed down or buried. The impacts are shown in
Figures 18 and 19. This impact was only on the west bank of the stream. The east bank
has been left undisturbed and is in good condition, despite the dry conditions experienced
in the region this year. Despite the mowing impacts, the Stream B monitoring plot had a
count of 70 trees or shrubs for an average of 2,333 stems/acre in the plot (Table 2).
27

10. y? Q 5' 4 4b,
Figure 18. Mowed area and clay soil storage along Stream B herbaceous
monitoring plot, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2008.
dl
,
f
"
INO
'k 7
Figure 19. Mowed area along Stream B buffer, TC Roberson Stream Restoration Project,
Buncombe County, NC, July 2008.

28
n
'
The B Stream buffer was dominated by red maple and tulip poplar seedlings, sycamore

' and white pine trees and hawthorn, silky dogwood, tag alder, black willow, elderberry,
American holly and button bush shrubs. Joe Pyeweed, goldenrod, sedge, brown eyed
susan, solidago sp, switchgrass, Queen Anne's lace, poison ivy, multiflora rose and
blackberry were the predominant herbaceous cover. Bittersweet vines were becoming
' established near the south end of the monitoring plot and throughout the lower stream
reach. The Stream B herbaceous monitoring plot was re-established in the vicinity of the
old plot and is shown in the photographs in Appendix E. The cover was estimated at
' 50% of the one meter plot. In the areas of the Stream B buffer where left undisturbed, the
vegetation growth is growing well and becoming strongly established. All stream banks
and the east side of the stream are in good condition. Growth of the volunteer and
' planted tree and shrub species can be seen in the comparison photographs in Appendix D.
The E stream stem count was located on the lower east bank of the project. It was a plot
' of 81'x 32' or 0.06 acres in size. During the 2008 stem counts, 194 stems were observed
for an average 3,233 stems per acre (Table 2). Volunteer tree and shrubs are increasing
the stem counts, but most of the trees and shrubs survived from the initial plantings.
' Survival remained at 88% or higher from the original tree and shrub plantings. Shrubs in
the wetland areas that were surviving and growing well were silky dogwood, silky
willow, button bush, and tag alder with black willows as the only trees in the wetter
' areas. Many of the shrubs in the wetland areas were large enough that they were merging
with other shrubs, especially the livestakes near the stream channel. Complete canopy
coverage was occurring in several locations along the lower stream reach. Trees and
' shrubs on the upland areas included sycamore, black willow, black gum, red maple, red
oak, black cherry, hawthorn, elderberry, dogwood, black walnut, tulip poplar, and privet
(last two were volunteers).
'
Herbaceous cover was also impressive and extremely well established. 100% cover was
present throughout the E section and in the one meter plot. The herbaceous plot
' increased in stems to 18,700 stems/meter, due to numerous rush stems. Most of the
herbaceous stems in the herbaceous monitoring plot were rush (Juncus effusius),
jewelweed, tear thumb, and cattail. Other herbaceous species in the E buffer area
' included Joe Pyeweed, boneset, Queen Anne's lace, seedbox, goldenrod, aster, sedge
(sp), rushes (Juncus sp.) with fescues, pokeweed, blackberry and chickweed present
along the landscaped shoulders of the roads and parking lot surrounding the project.
'
Buffer Problems
Both sections of the restored stream showed impacts from mowing and clearing (B
section) and invasive plant species such as privet (E section), bittersweet and multiflora
rose (both sections). The bittersweet will overgrow any larger trees until it kills the tree
' and will need control measures to limit its spread, especially on the dryer slopes of the
buffer. The mowing and clearing has continued along the B section and has impacted the
full area of the monitoring plots as noted above. The Stream B buffer along the west side
' is also utilized as an occasional dumping area for various unwanted objects, from grass
1
29

clippings and brush/tree limbs to dirt and sand to PVC pipes, plastic pipes, and various
construction materials.
In order to prevent future impacts to the buffer in general and the monitoring plot
specifically, the Buncombe County School Board contracted for fencing along the edge
of the buffer this year, to be installed as soon as possible after the stream repairs were
completed. Replacement tree and shrub plantings were also scheduled for Fall/Winter of
2008 for the impacted areas along Stream B. See Figures 20-23 for documentation of
fencing installation and replanting of trees as of October 2008.

Figure 20. Installation of fence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
relocation of storage trailer out of buffer area, TC Roberson Project, October 2008,
Buncombe County, NC.
30

f -.

Figure 2l . Installation offence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC.

1=.

Figure 22. Installation of fence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC.
31
d a xn s,
r
isc
r
?,. .. •. .; r , ; _ - ? y Any °
..°!gyjy, • a?, '° ?, ?t Sofa ?' '" ? ?r 1E
r z + ? ? i'
?+r? ? .. i ti is a. 'R:wt •.... ?1`- ,t•f,.w .'' ?•Y.r7'. A?` c+!SF'
Figure 23. Installation of fence, replanting of trees marked with white flagging,
TC Roberson Project, October 2008, Buncombe County, NC.
Future Sampling
This project will be monitored for one more year, (2009) for Monitoring Year 5. This
will be the final year for post-construction monitoring and will contain all monitoring
elements.
32
l

APPENDIX A
' Preconstruction Conditions and Photographs
2002

33

Cl'?

P

F1

1
?I
Li
71
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat. Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assessment: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of steam, preferably in
an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should represent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream. All meter readings need to be performed prior to walking the stream When working
the habitat index, select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. There are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics
Physical Characterization: Land an refers to immediate area that you can we from sampling location -
include what you see driving thra the watershed in the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other onusaal conditions.
Land use: Forest _%o Active Pasture % Active Crops % Fallow Fields % Commercial %
Industrial -% Residenttiial !W % Other I % - Describe ?A je /?'cam.
Width: (meters) Stream Channel 3. Q Average Stream Depth: (m)_6. Velocity tn/sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal . Low
Manmade Stabilization: Y Nf ]Describe Sr,,iHe r?;d P
Water Quality: Temperatur?y''0C Dissolved Oxygen y mg/l Conductivity ?mhos/cm pH k.,,23
Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic
Weather Conditions: S>.?.y. 04!1 , teor>Ni 441, fJQ,s photo #
Page 34
34
q
Observer(s) J . A1na ZF- '[7tiicel oeation _ Agency -1.
Type of Study. Fish(-- Benthos Basinwide Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 035'j9' Longitudeb?~.3?- ,2,YV FA gion (circle one) (ly!) P Distance Surveyed /Old meters
i,1, 111X

L Chanad Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) Rif
A. channel nat rai, fiapent bends Good diversity of bends oc fails) .................................................. 5
B. ehatmel natural, k6eque t beads............. .................. ................................................................... 4
' C. some cl>a>gaeli w*m present ................................».._......... .._» .. ~? » . ?
disropbod »
D. more cxhxwive clmmelixatiam, >40% of skeatn ............ _ ..........
l,)E. no bends, eon>pletely c izW or rip rapped or gabione d, etc.._ ............................................... 0
Sublow C;L
Remarks _aSJ a S drat MSC Cwt,14e rum
11.1astrvam Hsbitab Consider the of the that is favorable for beWbos cola on or fish .
atielcs am iw packs) (=NV am, logs)
books err root ma of olds kavrm that am packed wpher and have to
eaves in pool areas are not considered leaf pecks. .E: If>70% of the reach is rocks, I type
is present, circle the score of 17.
' AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER.
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%

1

0

4 or 5 types psea-nt...»..._.._...
3 types prrsesm ...w» .._..........
2 types preset .........................
1 type preseat ...........................
No types preseu t.......» ..................
Score_ _ Scar Scone
10
20 16 12 $
0 15 11 7
18 14 10 6
17 13
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, deb itos, gravel, cobble, bodder) look at Mine reset for substrate sewing
but only look at dM for eedaeddedmess.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble tie{ boulders score
1. embeddedocas -20% (very tittle sand, usually only behind large 15
2. embaddedwas 20-40°i6 ................................»............... ..............................._... ....... 12
3. embeddedoess 40-80e1a .............._......._...._.» ......... .:......----......-..-...._.........._....... _.. 8
4. cusboddeduess >$0°/a ....................................................._......._............................................ 3
B. substrate grand and cabbie
1. embeddedness; -t0°Ya ........................................................................................................... 14
2- erabeddedwss 2!>.4096 .........................._ ........ .._.,._.............._................................... 11
3. embeddedwas 4048096 _ _....... _._..._...- ._.».._..._.. _ __.._._- .......... ....... ......... .._.. 6
4. embeddedtim >SM........»..... ....................».................................................................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedoess <S0% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >500% ............................................................................................................
D. substrate bomgeneoso
1. substratey all bo?+uric ............................ ..._ ........»................,...................._.»...... 3
2. order W to nearly aU sand .......» ..............................».........................,..................»........... 3
3. sibskateneedy alldetritas...... ................._.._............................................,.............._......... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt! clay ......................................_.................-...................................... 1
Remarks
Page 35

35
C
IV. Pool Variety Pools are area of deeper than average nummuun depths with little or no surface turbulence.
' Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30'/a of 100m area surveyed)
IL variety of pool sizes .................................................................................... l0
.. ...............
b. pools same size. 8
2. Pools Infrequent (C301/o of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ......................................................................................................... 6
' b.pools same size ................................................................................................................. CV
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present ............................................................... ............ ............. _............................. ............ 3
2. Runs absent ...................................................................................................................................... 0
' Remarks. Page Total
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and tun, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of strum..... 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X strearn width ........................._.......... 14 7
' C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10
...............................
D. riffles absent .. .0
Subtotal
' VL Bank Stability and Vegetation
Left Bank Right flank:
Score Score
' A. BaWm stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for crosion ................................... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 6 6
' 2. few aces or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 5 5
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ...................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ............................................ Total y 0
' Remarks

1
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
wound block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
10
B. Stream with fall canopy - breaks far light penetration absent. ................................ .......... _........
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
D. Stream with minimal shading - fill sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No shading ....................................................................................................._...........................
Remarks
Page 36
S
?7
2-11
s
36

' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream Breaks refer to the
' near stream portion of the riparian zone (banks), places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Right Bank Left Sank
Score Swre
t A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 sneters .....................................................................................
5
5
2. zone width 12-18 meters....... _ .......................................................................... 4 4
3. zone width 6-12 meters. .................... .. ....... ..... . ............................................. 3 3
1 4. zone width <6 ineters.......... _ ..........................................................................
B. Riparian zone toot intact (banal) 2 2
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ........................................................................ 4 4
' b. z me width meters 12-18 ..
c, zone width ti-12 -12 ntetors ....... .............. ...._......................................... 3
2
2
3
d. zone width < 6 tttebess............._ ............................................ ........ 1 1
2. breaks comam Dn

b
z me width > 18 tnete meters ... .......................................................
b. zone widt th 12-18 meters.. 3

2 3

2
c. zme width 6-12 metem........ .._ ....................._..............._............_....
d. zone width <6 meters ....................... .............................................. 1
? II
`
? :
' Remarks Total -
TOTAL SCORE 3
1

ADD COMMEM, DRAVANGS:
Page 37

37
1 e? 4+ y ?it'
• ?? .mss ', ?+ IY
A a '{ye': >r i?,i a
1 M r 4' y,N ?.. C? YeA`.
e _
d
.?e
i..
e ;! 1 =
At head of School property where the creek is exposed just before entering culvert,
T.C. Roberson Project, UT tributary to Lake Julian, June 2002.
Looking downstream at existing ditch and field on right where the creek runs
underground in the culvert, location of proposed restoration of upper section, T.C.
Roberson Project, UT to Lake Julian, June 2002.
38

G C
- - f
cr. .

r
u1,
wry ? '.iv rFM„?(u.
• ^•ka. l 'ia.
It's
- n r Y 4 a i
? t
t L +r
F 1 ` t? ? w 1T +a a
.1
-'.' .+."+# }ar =? 1 al ? ????yf#'F ??? fY? '? , ''. ??? , ,-{. t ft,#? ri: ,???.4-, Y? ?4.{•K*
.,r '8fr
Looking upstream on UT to Lake Julian above road crossing to parking lot, T. C.
Roberson Project, June 2002.
39
Looking upstream on T.C. Roberson Project Site at UT emerging from culvert on left
and existing drainage ditch on right, UT to Lake Julian, June 2002.
? "? r ?"TMw+?Eq y_'? :.rte ?t Pi ry 'fir t t . W .
,
LooxiriWwristream at culvei L under crosJ,ai Eo pdiking 'c4 t. I to take Ju ari,
T.C. Roberson Project, June 2002.

Looking downstream from road crossing to the end of the project at the next road
crossing, UT to Lake Julian, T. C. Roberson Project, June 2002.
40

J
J

1

J
APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAIN/PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN.
Habitat Astnent field Data Sheer
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Directions for use of this Assemmentr The observer is to suvey a minimum of 100 nicters of stmt, preferably in
an upstream durz ion stinting above the bridge pool and the mad right-of-way. The stream segment which is
assessed should reptesent average stream conditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer
needs to get into the stream All mew readings need to be performed prior to wailoag the stream When wonting
the habitat index, select the description which beat fits the observed babitats and then circle the score. If the
observed habitat falls in between two descriphons, select an intameduft seare. Urns are eight different metrics in
this index and a final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the dd tw t metrics.
stream (.>' ? /K??rsyrt ??ionlR?i ! yy8 f1`f.?td?r5??f y:/?y__?I ??c?r??j C-'
Date (g Ct xr1 Fund Stein
i
Qbsexver(s),/?t ? 'r ffice Location Agen aj
Type of Study: Fish Bawnwide Special Study (Describe) -
Latittrde D35 z9"fJ. 8L Vtnde $ ° 3i 1 / Fkowgion (circle one) ® P
Distance survmflA-ZLO-nieters
Physical Characterization: Laid use refien to immediate area that you ens see from sampling locatbe -
Inchtde what you we driving thro the watershed in the remarks section. Abe use the remade section for
such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other antnanal 090diti0na.
Land use. Forest_ _.% Aaiun Pesaurw% Active Crops % Fatbw Fulda % Commereis1.20 0
Industrial _.% Resideatid-(,Z?/a Other ---!A - Describe -
Width: (metem) St=m Q C 1 J Average Stream Depdr (m) L, Velocity---Tn/sec
Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal
Manmade Stabilization: Y[ ] Describe
Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen-__._..,_n%A Conductivity umhoslcm pH
Turbidity: (circle sear Slightly Ttubid TtubW Tannic
' Weather Conditions: Sz,(-n A Y 4 00-CA, 70rs Photo #
Remarks:

l

Page 34
41

?I

1

1

1
1. Chaunel Modiilcadon (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) SCOW
A. channel naftni firquent beads (good diversity of bends or falls)....... _ ........................................ 5
0. chazmd natural, hriboquent ixnds...._...... _.... »?._.».... _.» .............._...._........».... ....... 4
C. some ehanrxlizatiou present. ........._ ........................_..».......»......_................................................. 3
D. more extensive danuclization, >409A of stream disrupted ._ .............._................................»..........
/E. no ben* completely chartnelized (or tip rapped or gajbioned, etc .... _...__......_ ............_ . 0
Re- mien (.raa--3P I-- ADA '-r-i , l) e nT .L71'.?17PfT'4i snhktd
11. Iustrenn Habig Consider the mn1W of the reach for bdtdhos colaae 6sh Dover.
Circle the l riiafs which oaatf {INm+opivbes) atielca assn ksd arks no an 1 (andercat
baahs or root urn) DefinWa corms' of are pscl ed to®e $ haave began to
decay. Pyles of leaves in pool areas are not considered leaf packs. 1f>70% of the react is roccs, I type
is present, circle the score of 17.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
S
t 40-70%
s 20-40% X20%

4 or 5 types present................ co
t
20 cone
16 rim
12 5calg
8
3 types phr ...„ .:..:............ 19 15 11 7
2 types ptes .. »__».» .... 18 14 10 6
1 type prrseat ».....»......»...»».. 17 13 9 5
No types present ..........................
Remarks subtotal
DL Bottom Subadrafe (afit, stud, detritus, gravel, cobble, bouldw) laec at Bathe reach for substrate scarleg,
but only look at riffle for adwNsdsoesL
A. sabatrafe with good saw of wavel esbble and bosiders §Mre
1. embAdeduess -,92W (very little sand, wally only behind large booldars) ............ ..... 15
7- emboddeduess
12
3. embeddedneas 40-SO'Y... .._......_...._ ....................... _»..........._................ 8
4. embeddedness >8M .-.-....... _ .............................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. craleddethoess Q49b ... ... ... ».... _. .._. ._ .- _ _ r ......... ._ 14
2, embeddedness 2040% . _ .................._...._. »......._................»...._...»....._....».. ».».. 11
3. ?40?80°l0..»..........».._..........»_...... ..._ ._..._ .............._....».......... 6
4.embeddeduess >8094? ........»....»....»..........».»_ ._..........».. 2
C. substrate maatly gravel
1. en <SO'/...»..........,., ................................ ......................».................._............ 8
2. embeddedn= >50% .................. ........................._..................................-........ 2
D. substrate bow

_»..... ......_..._».......
................
2. substude newly all sand ..? ..............»». _. _.. .._.... _» _ _ ... _.............. _. 3
3, substrate neadyaU detritus . .. ....» ....»............»..._.........W....._. ,_ .....__..__..»... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay.»..... _ _.......-........................ ...._ I
Page 35

42

F-
L
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
' Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools
behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams.
A. Pools present Scone
1. Pools Frequent (>301/o of I OOm area surveyed)
' a. variety of pool sizes 10
......... ............................................ .....................................
b. pools same size 8
2. Pools Infirequ ent (40% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .........................................................................................................
' b.pools same size ................................................................................................................ 4
B. Pools absent
1. Runs present .................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Runs absent. ................................................ ......... . ................... . .................................................... 0
' Remarks Page Total
V. Riffle Habitats
Frequent Infrequent
Score Score
A well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of strearn..... 16 12

' B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 14
.
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width....
10
. 7
. ........
....
D. riflies absent.. ......................................... ...
.0

' Subtotal
VL Bank Stability and Vegetation
Left Bank Right Bank

'
A. Basks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... sm So=

7
B. Erosion areas present

' 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems..............»................
2. few trees or small trees and shins-, vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 6 6
5 5
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ....................... Q 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and drubs, high emosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2

' 5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident. ...................... . ..................

Remarks 0 0
Total
VEL Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy
would block out sunlight when the sum is directly overhead).
Score
Stream with good shading with sonte breaks for light penetration ............................................. 60:)
10
B. Stream with full canopy -breaks for light penetration absent ................................._.................. 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa....-......._ .................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ......................... .......... _................. 2
' Ir No shading ..................... .... ................... ............................................................ ....................... 0
Remarks

Page 36
43

u
1
1
L
n

u

G

n
W1. Riparlao V%,da*e zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sedfin t to enter die stream. Breaks refer to the
near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banker places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
Right Bank Uft Bank
S99re Score
1. zone width > 18 meters ...................... _.................................. _......................... 5 5
2. zone width 12-18 railers..........._ ..................................._.............................».. 4 4
3. zone width 6-12 meters .................... _............................................................... 3 3
4. zone width < 6 meters .............................. „.................. ................................... 2
B. Riparian zone not Intact (beaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 rneters........... » ............. .........._.........»........................ 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters ......................................»............................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters. ..................................................... . ............... 2 2
d. zone width < 6 seters.» ...................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. zone width 12-18 meters.............................. .....................»............. 2 2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... I l
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0
Remarks Toga
TOTAL SCORE
ADD COMMENTS, DRAWING&
Page 37
44
Looking upstream on Reference Reach at head of section, T.C. Roberson Project, UT
' to Lake Julian, June 2002.
1
45
T.C. Roberson Project, Reference Reach UT to Lake Julian, stream is on right side
of parking lot looking upstream from Hendersonville Road, June 2002.
Looking upstream on Reference Reach for T.C. Roberson Project, mid-section, UT
to Lake Julian, June 2002.
Looking downstream on Reference Reach for T.C. Roberson Project, end of sampling
section, UT to Lake Julian, June 2002.
46

u
1
i
L
1

n

1

TC ROBERSON PRECONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATES
SAMPLING, JUNE 2002
SPECIES T.V ** F.F.G.*** TC Roberson Reference
_ Project Site Reach
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Planariidae
Cura foremanii 4.97 R
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae *8 FC
Pisidium sp. 6.48 FC R
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia sp. 2.46 SC R
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.84 CG A
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Haplotaxida
Naididae *8 CG A
Hirudinea *8 P R
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Odonata
Aeshnidae *3 P
Aeshna sp. *4 P R R
Boyeria vinosa 5.89 P R
Coenagrionidae *9 P
Argia sp. 8.17 P A
Enallagma sp. 8.91 P A
Cordulegastridae *3 P
Cordulegaster sp. 5.73 P R
Hemiptera
Corixidae 9 PI R
Veliidae - P
Microvelia sp. - P R
Rhagovelia obesa - P R
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 FC C
Philopotamidae *3 FC
Dolophilodes sp. 0.81 FC R
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae *5 P
Laccophilus sp. *5 P R
Elmidae *5 CG
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC R R
Hydrophilidae P R
Preconst. Benthos Data
47
Page 1

'
N MA
TC ROBERSON PRECONSTRUCTIO CROINVERTEBRATES
SAMPLING, JUNE 2002
' SPECIES T.V ** F.F.G.*** TC Roberson Reference
Project Site Reach

' _
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
*5
P
Bezzia/Palpomyia gp. 6.86 P R
Chironomidae R
Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG R
' Cricotopus sp. *7 CG R
Microtendipes sp. 5.53 CG R
Paratendipes sp. 5.11 CG R
' Polypedilum flavum 4.93 SH R
Polypedilum iAinoense 9 SH R
Prodiamesa olivacea 9.5 CG C
' Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.89 FC R
Tanytarsus sp. 6.76 FC R
Thienemannimyia gp. 8.42 P R C
Culicidae *8 FC R
' Empididae 7.57 P
Neoplasta sp. 7.57 P R
Psychodidae CG
' Psychoda sp. 9.64 CG R
Sciomyzidae R
Simuliidae *6 FC
Simulium Sp. 4 FC R C
' Tipulidae *3 SH
Tipula sp. 7.33 SH R
' TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 81 48
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 19 21
TOTAL NO. OF EPT 0 8
TOTAL NO. OF EPT TAXA 0 2
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES 8.04 6.05
BIOTIC INDEX 8.01 6.06
' SCRAPER/FILT. COLLECTORS
SHREDDERS/TOTAL 0.14
0.00 0.22
0.10
% DOMINANT TAXA 25.93% 16.67%
COMMUNITY LOSS 0.895
JACCARD COEFFICIENT
TC Roberson Reference Reach 0.108 0
TC Roberson Project Site 0 0.108
PERCENT SIMILARITY
' TC Roberson Reference Reach 6.2 0
TC Roberson Project Site 0 6.2
' MARGALEF 2.839 3.721
MENHINICK 2.111 3.111
SIMPSON 0.859 0.936
SHANNON 3.261 3.996
' HILL (N1) 9.588 15.958
HILL (N2) 7.09 15.705
' PIELOU
SHELDON 0.768
0.505 0.869
0.725
HELP 0.477 0.712
HILL 0.739 0.984
' HILL MOD. 0.709 0.983
Preconst. Benthos Data
48

Page 2
TC ROBERSON PRECONSTRUCTION MACROINVERTEBRATES
' SAMPLING, JUNE 2002
Cell: A82
Comment: *Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
"North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10
for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes
"""F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers,
SH=Shredders, P=Predators and PI=Piercer
1
1

J
fl

0
1

Preconst. Benthos Data
Page 3
49

u

1

1

APPENDIX B
2005 Past-Construction Conditions and Photographs
50
11
1

[l
n
P

1

n
C

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Reference Reach Photographs
2005
51

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2005
TC Roberson Reference
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Project Site Reach
ANYELIDA
Oligochaets *10 CG
Tubificida
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 CG R
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae 7 CG R
AR,rHROPODA
Insects
F.phemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis SP.
Baetis c,f: flavistriga
Wows
Aeshnidae
Aeshna sp.
Boyeria grafiana ,
Calopterygidae
Hetaerina sp.
Coenagrionidae
Argia sp.
I.schnura .sp.
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegastersp.
Lestidae
Archilesles grandis
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Diplectrona modesto
Hvdropsyche betteni gp.
Diptera
Chironomidac
Chironomus sp.
Conchapelopia sp.
Cricotopus bicinctus
Paratendipes sp.
Polypedilum flavum (convictum)
Proeladius SP.
Psectrotanypus 4vari
Mn'w rsus sp.
Tvetenia bavarica gp.
Sciomyzidae
Simuiiidae
simulium sp.
Tipulidac
Tipula sp.
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
BIOTIC INDEX
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUE
*4
7
*4
6.1
5.6
8.2
9.5
5.7
8
9
6.2
2.2
7.8
9.6
8.4
8.5
5.1
4.9
9.1
10
6.8
3.7
6
7.3
CG
CG
CG
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P1
FC
FC
FC
FC
CG
P
CG
CG
SH
P
P
FC
CG
FC
FC
S11
SH
52
R
R
C
R
C
R
C.
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
C
R
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
R
A
C
R
68
28
5
6.63
7.23
R
22
5
3
4.34
4.65

Cell: A59
Comment: `Hilsenhoff Tolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values are not available
"North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms very intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very
' tolerant of organic wastes
"'F.F.G.-Functional Feeding Group: CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering/Collectors, SC=Scrapers, SH=Shredders,
P=Predators and PI=Piercer
""Not included in analysis
1

1
1
11

1 53
I Reference Reach Looking Upstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe County, NC,
.July 2005.
Reference Reach Looking Downstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2005.
54
Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Data
2005
55
d
V
tt
C
c
0

0
18
O
c
E
m
X
C
m LL
U
N m
O W
C
C ?
V
r?
W
d
F-
o m
N m
3
m
n
.I
00
• o
0 0 om rn rn (N C3 m
y) uopenal3
a
i
• ?t
j
I
a
c
• o
m
N
X
• U LL
• m
y C o ?
W
O •i C
? c
• L
o • U
• I
•
• ? J
Vl
10
- _ 3
•
1 D
a
I I
• i
Y
•
•
•
0
W W
N) UO!ipnal3
LO
TC Roberson B Section - Riffle #1
94
93
92
c 91
0
90
w
89
88
87
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
TC Roberson B Section - Riffle #2
92.5
92
91.5
91
90.5
0 90
89.5
w 89
88.5
88
87.5
87
30

r_
0 5 10 15 20
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
25
57
TC Roberson B Section - Pool #1
94
93
92
C
m 91
W 90
0
89 I
88
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
TC Roberson B Section - Pool #2
96
95
94
c 93
0
92
w
91
90
89
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
35
58
90.5
90
89.5
C
0
C6
a'> 89
w
88.5
88
TC Roberson E Section - Riffle #1
0
88
87.8
87.6
c 87.4
0
A
d 87.2
w
87
86.8
86.6
2 4 6 8 10 12
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
TC Roberson E Section - Riffle #2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
59
TC Roberson E Section - Pool #1
90
89.8
89.6
89.4
89.2
0 89
88.8
Q) 88.6
88.4
88.2
88
87.8
i
0 2 4 6 8 10
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
TC Roberson E Section - Pool #2
88.8
88.6
88.4
88.2
ii;? 88
0 87.8
87.6
w 87.4
87.2
87
86.8
86.6
12 14 16
0 2 4 6 8 10
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
12
60

11

1

Pebble Count Graphs
' 2005
61
1
1
1

100%
90%
80%
L16 70%
c 60%
v 50%
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
O%
Reachwide Pebble Count TC Roberson B Stream
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % # of particles
Reachwide Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B stream type,
Buncombe County, NC, July 2005.
60
50
40 3
m
30 °
v
20 y
10
0
10000
62
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100%
90%
800/0
70%
L 60%
m
G
4= 50%
c
2 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson B Stream
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
- cumulative% - # of particles
30
25
20 3
9
15
n
10 y
5
- 1 0
10000
Pool Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B type stream, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2005.
Riffle Pebble Count, TC Roberson B Stream
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
w 50%
(D 40%
°- 30%
20%
10%
0°/0
35
30
25
20 9
0
15 w
0
10
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % # of particles
Riffle Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B type stream, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2005.
63
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
w
aa) 50%
E
o. 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reachvade Pebble Count, TC Roberson E Stream
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
particle size (mm)
cumulative % # of particles
Reachwide Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E stream type,
Buncombe County, NC.', July 2005.
;-. 80
70
60
c
50
1
40
m
30 0
m
N
20
10
0
1000 10000
64
1
1
1
1
1
Riffle Pebble Count, TC Roberson E Stream
100%
90%
60%
70%
60%
?.
50%
c
40%
u 30%
20%
10%
0%
40
35
30
25
20
m
15 0
in
N
10
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
a cumulative % # of particles
Riffle Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT,E stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2005.
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson E Stream
40
35
30
c
25
20'a
d
15
M
N
10
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
a cumulative % # of particles
100%
90%
80%
70%
m
60%
a?
w
50%
c
u 40%
Q7
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT,E stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2005.
65

1
1
1
APPENDIX C
' 2006 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
And Reference Reach Photographs
1
1
66
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2006
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson Reference
Project Site Reach
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia sp. 2.5 SC
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *10 CG
Tubificida
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae 7 CG
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. *4 SC
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Aeshna sp. *4 P
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P
Hetaerina sp. 5.6 P
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P
Lestidae
Archilestes grandis 8
Hemiptera
Veliidae P
Rhagovelia obesa P
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 FC
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC
Hydropsyche sp. *5 FC
Hydropsyche betteni gp. 7.8 FC
R
R
R
A R
R
R
R
C
R
R
R R
A
R
C R
67
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2006
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson Reference
Project Site Reach
Lepidostomatidae SH
Lepidostoma sp. 0.9 FC C
Philopotamidae FC
Dolophilodes sp. 0.8 FC C
Coleoptera
Elmidae CG
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC R
Hydrophilidae P R
Ptilodactylidae SH
Anchytarsus bicolor 3.6 SH R
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp. 9.6 CG R
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P C C
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG R
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 5.5 CG R
Paratanytarsus sp. 8.5 CG R R
Paratendipes sp. 5.1 CG R
Polypedilum flavum (convictum) 4.9 SH C
Stictochironomus devinctus CG R
Dixidae
Dixella sp. R
Simuhidae FC
Simulium SP. 6 FC C R
Tipulidae SH
Dicranota sp. 0 P R
Tipula sp. 7.3 SH R R
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 42 54
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 16 22
EPT 7 31
EPT TAXA 2 7
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED 6.30 3.93
BIOTC INDEX 6.68 3.64
6s

a ?? LL?
y
Reference Reach Looki ng Upstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2006.
69

1

u
E
u

1
C

Pebble Count Graphs
July 2006
70
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100%
90%
80%
c
70%
Y
c 60%
50%
U
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reachwide Pebble Count TC Roberson Stream B
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
-s- cumulative % • # of particles
70
60
50
c
40 ((DD
0
30
a;
m
20
10
-1 0
10000
Reachwide Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2006.
71

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Riffle Pebble Count TC Roberson Stream B
100%
90%
80%
c 70%
m
w 60%
c
w 50%
c
v 40%
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
70
60
50
c
3
40 (LSD
0
30
20 m
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
? cumulative % # of particles 1
Riffle Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2006.
100%
90%
80%
70%
c
m
60%
a?
50%
c
v 40%
N
n.
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson Stream B
70
60
50
3
40 m
0
30
0
fD
N
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
Pool Pebble Count Upper TC Roberson UT B Stream --.-cumulative % # of particles
type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2006.
72

Pool Stream B Pebble Count, TC Roberson
100%
90%
80% _ ?s--
70% ?--?"
z
60%
a?
??- 50%
40%
n 30°k
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
-a -cumulative % 2005 --t- cumulative % 2004 1
Comparison Pool Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream type, Buncombe
County, NC, July 2005 and July 2006.
Riffle Stream B Pebble Count, TC Roberson
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
ar
w 50%
40%
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
-s-cumulative % 2006 -* '- cumulative % 2005
Comparison Riffle Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream type, Buncombe
County, NC, July 2005 and July 2006.
73

1
1
1
1
1

100%
90%
80%
70%
c 60%
v 50%
0 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reachwide Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
90
80
70
60
3
a
50 m
R
40 v
30 y
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % • # of particles
Reachwide Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, July 2006.
74

1
1

1
1
Riffle Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
I UU%
90%
80%
c 70%
L 60%
N
w
50%
c
40%
°' 30%
20%
10%
0%
vu
80
70
c
60
lD
50
0
40-0
30 `Mm
m
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm) ?-a-cumulative % • # of particles 1
Riffle Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream type, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2006.
100%
90%
80%
70%
c
y 60%
a?
w
50%
c
v 40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
80
70
60
50 3
U
M
40 R
v
30
m
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
-?-cumulative % # of particles
Pool Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream type, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2006.
75
APPENDIX D
2007 Post-Construction Conditions
76
r

1
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
' And Reference Reach Photographs
2007
CIS
F
1

11
1
77

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2007
SPECIES
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium sp.
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Ancylidae
Ferrissia fragilis
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Lumbricidae
Naididae
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Copepoda
Ostracoda
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Heptageniidae
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Aeshna sp.
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx sp.
Coenagrionidae
Argia sp.
Ischnura sp.
Libellulidae
Libellula sp.
Lestidae
Archilestes grandis
Hemiptera
Veliidae
Microvelia sp.
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Diplectrona modesta
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche sp.
Psychomyiidae
Lype diversa
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Stenelmis sp.
Diptera
Chironomidae
T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson Reference
Project Site Reach
*8 FC
6.5 FC
Sc
*10 CG
CG R
*8 CG R
Sc
P
*4 P
P
7.8 P
P
8.2 P
9.5
P
9.6 P
8
P
P
FC
6.2 FC
2.2 FC
2.5 S H
CG
4.1 SC
CG
5.1 Sc
78
R
R
R
R
A
R
C
R
R
C
R
C C
C
A
C
R R

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2007
SPECIES
T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson
Project Site
Chironomus sp. 9.6 CG
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 5.5 CG
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 CG
Polypedilum tlavum (convictum) 4.9 SH
Polypedilum halterale gp. 7.3 SH
Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH
Procladius sp. 9.1 P
Prodiamesa olivacea 9.5
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC
Tvetenia paucunca 3.7 CG
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 P
Dixidae
Dixella sp.
Empididae 7.6 P
Hemerodromia sp. P
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha sp.
Simuliidae FC
Simulium sp. 6 FC
Tipulidae SH
Dicranota sp. 0 P
Tipula sp. 7.3 SH
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
EPT
EPT TAXA
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED
BIOTC INDEX
Reference
Reach
A
R R
C
R C
R C
C

R R
C
R
C
R C
R
R
R
R
R C
R
R
R C

54 102
23 25
28 6
5 1
4.79 6.89
4.72 7.34
79
Reference Reach Looking Upstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2007.
?V?areao/Yfllkaa2Yti r24A3K?l4?YEG::.I?IQiYYBWk#.&3i tlu da..r awMNwz.Y*'AW a. .,. .... . •t.!vemyr ru..,. i

Reference Reach Looking Downstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe County, NC,
July 2007.
80

n

1

1
1
1
1
1

1

Pebble Count Graphs
August 2007
81
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

100%
900/0
8/o
Y 70%
60%
v 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reachwide Pebble Count TC Roberson Stream B
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle size (mm)
cumulative % # of particles
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10000
Reachwide Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream type, Buncombe County,
NC, August 2007.
82
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Riffle Pebble Count TC Roberson Stream B
100%
90%
80%
70%
in
s
60%
w 50%
-15
p 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50
45
40
35 c
B
30
25
20 ?
n
159
10
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mmI cumulative % • # of particles
Riffle Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream Type, Buncombe County, NC,
August 2007.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
c
µ 50%
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson Stream B
0.01 0.1 1
particle size (mm)
10 100 1000
L ?- cumulative %
60
50
40 e
30 g-
78
0
20 $?
10
0
10000
# of particles
Pool Pebble Count, Upper TC Roberson UT, B Stream Type, Buncombe County, NC,
August 2007.
83

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100%
90%
80%
r 70%
r 60%
w
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reachwide Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
80
70
60
c
50 3
cg
'M o
a
n?
30 o
(D
m
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size fmml
-?- cumulative % • # of particles'!
Reachwide Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream Type, Buncombe County,
NC, August 2007.
84

i

11
1

Riffle Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
70
60
50 g
40 g-
30
n
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm) cumulative % # of particles
Riffle Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream type, Buncombe County, NC,
August 2007.
100%
90%
80%
70%
`m
60%
w 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pool Pebble Count, TC Roberson, Stream E
80
70
60
50
40
30
N
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
-ra - cumulative % # of particles
Pool Pebble Count, Lower TC Roberson UT, E Stream Type, Buncombe County, NC,
August 2007.
85

1

1

11
APPENDIX E
2008 Post-Construction Conditions
86

1
1

' Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
And Reference Reach Photographs
' 2008

87
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2008
SPECIES
T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson
Project Site
Reference
Reach
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia sp.
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
Lumbricidae
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Heptageniidae
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp.
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Aeshna sp.
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx sp.
Coenagrionidae
Argia sp.
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Diplectrona modesta
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma sp.
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche sp.
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Elmidae
Stenelmis sp.
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp.
Hydrophilidae
Helocombus bifidus
Paracymus sp.
Tropisternus sp.
Psephenidae
Ectopria sp.
*8 FC R
2.5 SC
8.8 CG R
*10 CG
9.8 CG R
SC
SC
SC
P
P C
P
7.8 P R
P
8.2 P A
9 PI R
FC
2.2 FC
SH
0.9 FC
2.5 SH R
CG
5.1 SC C
8.7 SH R
P
R
CG R
9.7 P R
SC
SC R
Page 1 of 2
88
R
R
R
C
C
C
A
R
R
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TC Roberson Post Construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling July 2008
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. TC Roberson Reference
Project Site Reach
Ptilodactylidae SH
Anchytarsus bicolor 3.6 SH R
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp. 9.6 CG C
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P R
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P R
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 5.5 CG R
Natarsia sp. 10 R
Paratendipes albimanus 5.1 CG R
Polypedilum flavurn (convictum) 4.9 SH R
Procladius sp. 9.1 P R
Tahytarsus sp. 6.8 FC R
Xylotopus par 6 SH R
Culicidae FC R
Anopheles sp. 8.6 FC C
Dixidae CG
Dixella sp. CG R
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha clavipes C R
Tipulidae SH C R
Limonia sp. 9.6 SH R
Tipula sp. 7.3 SH R R
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 82 46
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 27 17
EPT 1 21
EPT TAXA 1 3
BIOTIC INDEX 7.95 3.44
BIOTIC INDEX-ASSIGNED VALUES 7.97 3.21
Page 2 of 2
89
?q.

,.. 1P
Reference Reach Looking Downstream, T.C. Roberson Project, Buncombe
County, NC, July 2008.
90
v ?
?ezz?
{ ??pP

Cross Section Comparison Photographs
2005-2008
91
3 4 ! W
4

3 , ,t
.a ' q.
? R.
1'{? AAI
t?

bA Q
v
CA ? ?
qZ
O ? O
O N O
N ? U Z
O U O O
N
? O
U
C
C
O C1
O
O 9:4 U
N U z
O U ? ?
s. F /?ct O
U FBI U
E
eq o
U
C
U ?
f a C1r O
N O
O 64 U
u mu
s E
on o
U
Q Qa
L]..
O O O
N rA bA
O
M ?. U
?Uz
ell
as -14
O O ? ?
Uva 0U
N
m

F 3 r

a?
a? o
a U
C
bb
r? N
O O O
. ? a N
O N to
C) Q
R C4 U
Uz
?E?
oV
z.. ,., as o
U v? W U
a?
? E
? o
C
O N ? ?
CS.. p .? ti
? O
° ?C4U
Uz
oa:?o
U W U

r

? bn

Ka
?
k , y ? O
.',a F Ty,
p ? d. p N

;y'y'?ta• °??U
Uz

,?. "4?,;t "?' ;"' .;"? •',? U Cn LTA U
N
.a
N O
M r-?
W ? M
? bA F+_I
00
CL
kn
CA O ?
C O Q
•°C?U
u
1
pO ?, «? O
UrnmU
co
O)
_ ? a_ s1??3J,,A4'• ? ?:M?
s E
? o
U
C
O O O
(y ,? 4 N
Ar ? N
C ,O ? Q
O
o ?t?U
?Uz
c
U C/? ? U
N
s ?
? ? GQ
LL.? U
N
?k ? C p
O
?0GU
Uz
Lr
oar
M O
U v? W U
' srt .fir. ±a:,;" Qa ?MC1
U

4
P
E?
s coo
wy a «i 4
? G .??f ykx Av?'+ P'Iw +JE yj? Q ?/L? /?RS O
?" SLR r A 9 E' U V I m U
t P'
w+

E
on o
r U
C
N j a o
o p
C'A
M O
O
.2 04
Uz
Sr y,cC3 O
U v? CO U
v
rn
? o
? o
.-a N
by
o?z
=S
U
U v? ?1 f?
`? o
w
s?
? o
on
o .o Q
0
o v c
U v? m m
a?
o
a U
m ?
U ?
x N
O
w U 00-
O a4 U
cnu
U?CO
E
_ C
m ? m
N ?
?i a ci o
?k ? O p
O
? C4 U
U Z
N '4 q
u to m u
U
E
C
EL Z.O.
N
N?p„O
M O ?
? O ,S) ti
O
° aS tx Uy
N U F
U v? m U
LO
rn

a?
E
U
U
,_.: O O O
E. 00 vO by
N
C O Q
° -
un U z
C? E
? y
Uv]mu
N
? O
U
?1.. r- 4-+
? U
O •?
k r-? 9L O
r- rq
N
O
O 3 ? U
N ? U z
V) m
U va Cn U
v
? O
U
? U
0OO O
rq U)
C O c
o t 02 U
?C?cUZ
V5
C) r
U Cr U
a?
U
'? y o0
"' O 0 O
? ?1 Gj N
oOO O
E.
N ?
O
o ? ? U
U U
cia
Uv?CYaU
ca
rn

?1

1

a?
E
? o
? GO
U
o .o o°
0?0 O ?
N ?. O
O Q
s O C, U
U Z
-S4 r-
s as O
UcnCc U
U
N O
?*?ao
N
o ? ? U
U z
?. cd o
U v? W U
a?
? U
?aci o
N
LLB ? N O
O O O
O? U
U Z
Con
Uv?WU
? o
U
map'', N
o0 b?A
N
C? ? O Q
c+C r4 U
UZ
Uv?XU
rn

E
? o
S1'? U
O
? ? a N
U 00 p V)
E O O
p <
O
?fxU
y U Z
V1 ? F-' T
Ucnf0 U
a,
E
? o
pa c
? U
N O O ?
N 00 C
N
O O ?
O
O ?CxU
N U Z
Cn ? H J;
C
O
u mu
nk a°,fF. ? p •?,
F y O O
tr6' - tx C .? ti
? o
d- Q
r CC 44 O
U?GQU
a?
? o
U
C
? Gq
? U
N O ? pp
U C ON
O O >l
O
O +C? C1, U
;V]UZ
p L C
U?n?GU
00
rn
a? o
a
U
? a Q. N
w O ? ?
M L O
? G o Q
° 04 U
U va m U
o
a U
? U
N O ? ?
?k ? C1, O
N
R;U
ca
.?Uz
o M 0
Uvamu
a?
E
a ?
? U
N O O ?
O
O 00 C
N
O •-
04 ,,O/
° U
C/1 U z
cz -14
UCA mU
? o
? U
2 ?
N ° 00
O
06
N
O O ?
O
ca -1,4
0 o
Uv)WU
rn
rn

a?
.n
-? o
? U
3 an ?-'
? U
''a o•o°o
O a N
O
? CC U
Uz
Uv?CO U
U
-? o
? U
3 tr' ?'
o ? a
?° a o
?o
N
C,
C. O N ?
o ?C?U
Uv?mu

q
t
'V• U
i
t6
t
'X l? •.?1
9? I ?ti Q
j
Y•, R' xe.T? Shy ;??? l?
'?"'? Q Vl ice. ?

?'? ? St t T r? •

*y r O
? ? U

? ' ? yyi 41 r
p
d ' l r 11e.
` ? ?LJ
[-` ?'?l+
t'
G
,fe w-1

'f?
? it o
..
.? !j
rv? U W U
Yom"`'
Y
R
?JJ
5 `1•
? J
4 '
ref S¢ a+.
? o
FL ?'
? C? Aa
?? ? Qr O
N
O
ry • Q ?/ ?
04 u
Uz
Q
i.y yy C? Q
?Uv?AOU
0
0

' F" T . Si?irC!

s
r yr ?q'9i y, ,
.?C
G
? v
o a °o
O 0. N
O kn O
Ln O
r Q
° U
u?Uz
?E
U v? m u
U
tt.. O
U U
z
W z
O ? y
a 0. O
r ? O
O ? ? N
O
° ccz Pi U
N C/] U Z
O U ? O
e.. "??,, cd O
U va m U
N
? o
y U
Y- , a
CG W
N
O O a?
`° a o
? O
N
O O
? C)
0
° 4-
c4U
UZ
?E
L. ??,, CC O
UcnO?U
.D
? o
y U
06
? O
N
0
° ar1U
v,Uz
ch
U v? W U
0
i?

U
U
? O O O
N ? ? N
CN`1 O ?
? ? Q Q
as -114 r-
U m U
a?
°_10 0
(? U
U
O N ? ??
F?O,/
ii U
UZ
U?nmU
a?
.r .s?
U
w ? MM?
U
O
N
?t a Q. O
? p N
O N ? ?
O
x U
? U Z
? cd O
U vya an U
s?
E
? o
U
G'
W ? MM?
c
U
00
`? O O O
N 0. N
O N O
r
? p .s7 Q
O
o i ? U
•??Uz
CA ? F .
as -?4
O N a
s.. ? «3 O
U v? ? U
N
O
i

q
a?
? o
O
3 •c
a N
r
0 N O
p Q
O
UZ
U va m U
.n
? o
? V
W `? W
N ?
C ?
Q
O N O
p ti
O
o s U
Uz
U C'n W U
a?
E
a U
1- n FBI
U
O
U
N r"a p.•, O
? ? O O
p N O
A
A? O N ?
04 U
u mu
? o
? U
h11 w
00
N
? O O O
N ?l a N
N O
C C Q
ccz0.U
U
u V1 U Z
L ? ? o
Uv?WU
M
O
y
N
?' <ga
": a » c z x. 1K
t w?W s
„ r
0
`'? o•oo
? a a o
oo O ?
00
? o a
° cz U
U cr U
0
o cj
a o ?
i o
N
O00 O A
O
° Et
e ?/] U z
E
O 5 /C
U ? m u
E
O
W a
c
a o ?
? a t1. O
? ? O N
? O
° s CG U
E EU-
O
s. M O
U v? W U
au d s:,
?h ti •0.t ?h t^ i?°:.. Rj ?
Po bA (?
r'"V
O 00
oA y k O
tN, a r (?)

• : aY
l
?
`:.a ?4
?x? ? r N S.. ?

v
0

IV

?••" ^ ? is 3 on f?
1 p a? C)
C) C)
oc °
0 vy
as 14 U
U Z
"
fU V) t? U
N
E
O O
N
00 O
p ti
O
° m0.?U
•??Uz
?E
?. M O
Uv?aaU

E
? a 0. O
O kr C O
N
C O
C O 0 '"?
•? ? CL? U
? ? U z
L. ? cC O
U yr M U

a?
E
a? O
O .? U
r..a p O
?. O
N r N
00
L'?r O
O •2 O
• ° 04 u
UZ
Uv?xu
LO
C.
iyY?' S
A
1' } ?S
rC 91 ' ? ? °, i,?
1. 4
+? r
r; `.

14
s f
rf?X' i
Y s i
'XIr y y H 4..?

O
W?
c
MM
°A
3
O •? v
N O ? O
? I? a N
E.
N s.. ?
? 0
Q
0 o
•° eC?U
? ? U z

Uv??U
r'+6;max ?
t;
a. C5
N
S E
.th
O
a M
1 s r ?":"?N O ? V't
.1,•?}?n??4 ie O •? O ?i
O i.
r., ?, cd O
U
v? f? U

c

?
O
it + Y -. ' f?i { • -) Cd W

,..,?.Jr r t? 00
' '
?
? 01 O
c
$?
x?
i
q.T w? Z O ..D ti
3 Rb •
?4 U

UcrMU
0
"i
e ? , rw

a?
a? o
W ? c
3 01D
•? U
C O O
U M p ?
` N CA bpA
? O o Q
s GG U
N ? U Z
ca ?4
O N C ?
U v? cz U
a?
`u o
W ? c
N O ? ?
N
+" N C
p .fl ti
O
o?
U
Y..M U
?0. .; O
•v?f? p O O
`cr
?r O p ? C
V. - , ? O
.e'. LJ CA m u

W,',.,
w? ..

? o
3 °JD
? U
a O •?,
N O O
a?M ?N
p
??Uz
C)CA tmu
0
Longitudinal Comparison Photographs
Upper Section B Stream
2005-2008
108
c
0 C
C o
E0 oz
E-• U ?
o aj
E -0
v? o
? '? o 00
a?
N
bOA Q ? ?
O ? ? O
?l O GL Q
Ln
0
E -°z
? U c
o
E .fl
L
Q?
O p
O a N
C
r?+ O ti
v)
E?z
o °
E-• U ?
S
E
?? v? o
v
°o'oo
? o a
O O
? O
L
E-cz
a
o E
E .D
o
n ?q a o0
o00
bA L1 N
C S3 +-
?•°?' aon
°o0 0 ?
Q
0
c
E U o
0?U
? o
co m m
a ? o
3 o cv
en ° o to
J .? a
o Z: fl
o M o U
aun 0Z
c
o U o
C va c
0
E m m
a?
-o o a ?
t o >,
a
o•o?ti
o o U
o U o
H U
a?
E E
Q) o
con a
m =s
c? ? m
3?00
toO O >'
O ? O U
?.? Un ?. Z

C
E U o
E
cz E
Q o
C v, c
m
r?oo
b o A N
tA° p
C C ? ?
o O ? ti
O;? OU
?.] C/] LLB Z
0

t

r r, ? a

?4 J 'a 34? t? ? 4\ l .
E U o
0 u
E
a
O
? ? V O
3 O
O N
O t
O ;? O C.J
E U
?° o
F" U
E
?D E
E
0 0 a °o
C ? O >,
2 .2
O ? .O
O ? O U
a Con
E U
o F- tj
4. E
+t•+ 4 U
O?•?v-i
o a °o
N
bOA ? ? ?
O ? ? U
r.
r s.>-
? U o
o ? U
a ? o
? L
oo
C?•21
N
C C vOi ?
O ??., O U
1

11

11

11

1

E U o
E
o
c
O
E
? ? GO
ago
°
bAM O ?
O ? O U
E U
0
?°E"V
E
a ? o
a?
? v
o a
N
bA M p ?'
O O ? O
O ? O U
_l t/] C4 Z
U ?
0
E a?
c o
r.
E M :::s
C?s ?
V
? 0
a vi
ooa°o
N
O ? O U
un 1:4 Z
o E-- U0
4 E a?
o o
c? ? m
-d N
O
O
cr r^ O U
Z
04

e
ri . .
v;
mo't'
E U o
?° U
F v
C
o~ ? ?
tin `^ o ?
o Z
o;3 oU
? v
o ?
c?•o?
-C) C)
N
O ? O U
U
E N
U
00 ? O
O a O
N
O ? O U
N .1
?r .q ???? p VM] U
A `i+
00
zw " ` ?n r t
F 7 k y14 = O

ek.,

u
L '
v M ?
U ?
E o
U
cij
O Cn O
O Qa ?
E L
cC O
ts.
3 p O N
C:, C1.
o
o a Q
o •Y ?
o;? oU
U c
o F- o
C?s
E
CA o
o pa c
o 0 0
O Q+ O
?o
o ? o U
CA CR Z
U
E O
O
? U
E
r. CMM/? O
W
3? °o
?oors,o
.Z, .2 N
O ? O U
? V] CG Z
t
M y? J
Y i ? z_r ? r-' O
` _ , ? t rK ?- p O
x; iZ a C
? ? ski ?N A.? :'- •? O O ?-:
O O

v?
o? °
w E U
? v
CA o
O pa
o
0
3o•oN
c ?
o 3
o ? o U
U c
E o
? U
c o
o Ca ?
E
a.
? Q U
3 O ? O
? ? a ON
Z? O
O ? O U
U C
O E" O
U
Q)
?D E
O SUS".
E s. ? Cn O
:s?
cz v Fil
? CJ. U
O?•?vi
3? °o
p N
O >'
to
p +? .O
O ca O U

U C
y ?
1
:
?"?
?'?4 '1 ? { y + yi
' ? it

4

' .
.
,
1 ?a , ?
L ,
.,, ? ?
`
? /n
=
}u f C 00

Jj-
z t r w . -? p Q. ti

r
f` ?' 1l"'Y c?
O O U
s ?j

U ?
o ?" o
? U
a?
r va o
o m ?
3o'ori
00 C :3
o ? o U
a C/)
U c
o
g y
E
c coo o
o m c
a
30 00
•° oQ"o
o;? oU
U ?
o ?' o
? U
o m ?
? o..
- ?i
°o
?ooc?o
o y ?
C) o U
Jv??GZ
U ?
?° U
o va o
o m c
30 000
0
'o 0rq
0
o;? oU
?crpCZ

r
U ?
E o
U
?D E
o v? o
o al ?
E
m s?
0
o'o cv
toN p
O ;? O U
V5 C? Z
U ?
o F" o
? U
C
o to 0
o a1 ?
? L m
a
3? °o
?O M a o
O ? O V
?lC/1f?Z
U C
E p
E U
? va o
O C? ?
VA
30•0W;
0
?oMa"°N
bAN p ?
O ? O U
r-? C!] ?G Z
Z
"F
r J:!?
V ?
? O
V
? va o
0 0.1 ?
? v
3? °o
? M Q. N
bAN p ?
C C ? ?
O .;? O U
?vaCGZ

11

1
1

U ?
E o
E U
ci
E
c ? o
0 0. ?
?.
E G?
3O'pFA
to N O t
.1 .O N Q
O ? O U
U ?
o
? U
o pa ?
cq
o
3 O ? O
?C,0 o
ton 0
o;? oU
acn C2

ht?.A 111 trt ?L U
77

S if •? o U
t' y

a a ;) ?, , . CL? M

hIR t??'b " g y„n ? ?

-? o o U

U ?
E o
E
Y
? VMMJ O
O Wes.
L tt???r??
(? Q W
a, v
3000
o° ? o U
co

va
o ?" o
u
o cn o
O pa
E
u.
3 0'o c?
o ?r a
bAN p ?
O y O U
? V)
U ?
E o
E
va o
0 00 c
?. o
E
cl CD
°5
-°oo?oa o
th o >,
0 o?ti
o ct o U
-?crG?Z

r - t. ?ti O

b b• ?% ?. V] o
C

1 .
r
'
. r e. w
a*1? fi N A
LVl

U ?
O ? O
}M E U
w-V J Q
O ? o
W
?o•?oo
o
V 00
bAN p
? •O y ti
o ??U
m
U ?
E
U
? to o
o p?
sr ?
a
cuo
3 p O N
v
O00 a.
bAM p
O O ? ?
O Q
O ? O U
av?r_?Z
cU c
u
ct3 N
E
c yr p
O ?q
?.
C • ? \O
3? °o
?O o0 CS. O
bA M p j,
C C ? ?
O CZ O U
i M.y? O
a !ems:. , 4? :. s f ?
?U
?n C,
? .o E ? y m
+ + If :r O
Y a O 00 Ate., O
7D -
U C
E f" O
? U
o ?vr?? o
O W C
M S. :z
Q m
+s"- >2 V
vi
30.00
O
'C oo Ci. N
O ? O U
?l v? CG Z
0

CY \ ? .-_a<y.? N
U ?
o ? o
? U
o pa o
u.
vo
? o o
bAM p ?
°o ? o U
U ?
c v? o
O ? O
-?v?iCLN
•? O y ti
O y O U
U
O
i.r
30.0
0
o •o ? ti
o ? o U
J??Z

?. t a
rfi 3? 4
Y
?
_ yE S
r

U ?
C
?° O
E U
E
C O
0 CO O a
? Q
30 000
0
?0 ? a O
00 3 p U
acr
?Z

yaw Ya
CU c
G O
4OL U
GJ
O Cn O
O
s
rn"?7 ?O
3 p O N
'0
torn p tD
O ;? O U
V ?
O
g y
c?
r C/? O
O
E N m
O ? O
T30?p.,O
O ? O U
a P? Z
"i t?L O V
•?+'oYV ? ?•`.v?y rim `+-+ G?
b ?
V) 0
O m
a y ~"; o
r? r4 w ? ? rn ?
iow
r
? ,fir a
r
r t f i+ ?
9 ?? ? ff
f y s{ '?yfF` A
U c
E p
E U
S.
E
? C/) O
O a] O
Lr
E :S
? Qa
3 0 0 00
0
-UO p N
N
r
U c
E o
E U
C C)
E
o pa ?
E - z
ooCi ?
bAM p ?
O ? O U
V r
U
E
0 oa
V'] N
30 00
? ? a oN
°o a o U

.tiiw . L a U

+a O •^'? V1

wY a 1 *y,, r

O 7

U c
E E^ o
E V
? rig o
o pp ?
L
t
t8 D
O • "'? 00
°o
O O???
o o U
V) 0 Z
M
r
U c
E o
? U
c? v
a rn o
a3 O I--1
f1.
3o''ocv
ova. ?
-a o 0
bn? o ?
00 ? o U
av?n:z
U c
E F" o
E U
u
E
o pa ?
C? Q
3C? °o
„oo c CD
t o ?,
.2
o --o
o;? oU
a..a v? c? z
E U
..err
? w. ? ; r$' anti O ? ?
O ? Q ?1
? o
U ?
E F-'
O
? C/] O
O (n MM?
L W
3 0 . 00
O
?O 0 a O
.O ?
o?oU
a? Cn x z
V

0
c o U
O c
U
E.:
?E? o
O ?
? o U
?Ellz
Edo
U U
t?zl 0
FZ -0
0 U
= CA O
Q?
bn
C r
N
O ?
? a U
s ?z
Edo
?° U U
H ?
? o
bn ?q
Ln

0
00
U
0 o
0
?z
Edo
0,vU
E?
Ln
p C1.'? b?A
O C1, ? ?

r 3
Z U
.? L
?° U U
E o
on ?q
O °'0 0
o y,
0
00
c o U
s?z
L
G O
?° U U
? o
? L C
? L U
O ?'o 0
? ? Ci 0

?! tia i "A ?,? Y
?i 4 s {`y• V
y ? ? .bra:.
A
p,.
r
Jim
Ir
O
00
?° U U
.n
Lot
? o
sp. tp
O O., O
? .7 C1. Q
v-Y
c o U
O
? O
?° U U
? o
M F,-.I
O O"•p O
O ?
O
00 r-Y
V?
C 00 U
uz
E o
?° U U
E F
? o
4-
oO ?'p O
kn
O
?- =t e 4 z
'e, 44
?,. •, ,, 0.
All

Longitudinal Comparison Photographs
Lower Section E Stream
2005-2008
128
x,,. '?Y. S YtJ1 ?..
'1 L.S. • yd-' 3 `fr ? Or.
4 y?z, O a!
o O
•?,,• te`"? ?a? r ? fib,. -L3 Ul ? O
' r a' F t a , rt O 3 to
JpS

1 //
? ,' YOr
?yy ?y

?. S.; EUU

3 r ,
anti . °• ,' a+
414.,
...
-
-A
y.i ?d& b

.. E E
O
O ?
O
_O
0
? o y
w ? o
? U U
? O
o?p W ?
O O ,? p
?l ?l 0. N
Y a ? U U
C13 V
1I1 J ?
rn
? i C { a?i. i 11
it""+q?y:
t

Px
17,
•
j.
r. k
Z

O
r L
U
E
rTl Q
O N O O
? 30 ? O
pO•? bA
C
O O ?
? U
O
W O
3 C?
bA O
o a v
0 0 •'_' o
0
O N ?•ro
E U
E o
3 W o
O W
J U
O O •p O
\5i,v

A
?
x O
?
v

y

w -
APOL
U

'M
w ?' 3 m
?. ? r
`
r•

O
Y a ? ?
•? O

?r
0
C ? G
:V
_ .. .aft
r
0
= y
O Q)
EU
C)
rTl Q
O O ^?• O
bA O ? N
p O •? b?A
Q
O ti
E U
c
? o
E ? U
v
E
3 W o
'? 3 as
bn o
O p .,-, O
O ? ? p
O ?'
? U
`l? o
?W
O U ?
?, J} o fb
U
O O p O
O l? z.. O

O N ~'
o
3 W o
O
bA 0 ?
U
00
O O p O
?l?nA.N

kn
06
00
a a U
ox o
? U U
o ? ? o
rs o
? W N
O
^? bA
O
aaad
N
M

,ri, ?
0
? 00 ?i
?? oU
O f? O
E U U
c?3
?. E
s 3 ? o
?.,n ,T?? w^Mr+
`.?J W ^
N U
O O ? p
?1?1G1.N

o
00 "A
>= a U
O C.G ?
E U U
3
O
?J W
? s.. V
.1 U U pp
O O
? a Q. O

0
c ?
o
?z
oar
Ln
?, w
03=0
En
° 0 0
a°aQ
o ?
0
? U
F
EE
c
? o
? U
°
-o o C?
bn ,?
°o°o pOo
O
O ?
°
? U
r'^?^
?V I
W
O O
O O ' p O
? O a O
C
O ?
W
O +.'
O O p O
? O a O
M
cM-
°
0
L
r
Q
cruz
E?
woo
?U
o 00 o
J r- a Q
,It
M
.v.

°
it
4, z
E?
woo
W
? ? as
00 0
0
? ? a o
°
o?
V
? W
mom
° oo 'p O
r.? ,C s4.?
Y ? r
_IA
-r:?:y?'^ mac
0
c ?
o
as
O
c,. E O
E cu u
u
? fl
Gq O ? N
p b?A
O ?
o ?
c W o
0 3 ?
a
0m
a
U
O
0 N n.L. O
C
O ?
4.r O
NY"
o?'oo
? N 0. O

O ?
W
O ?
l??m
.k C? 00
o ?o'o 0
??-1NCLNO

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

c
0
c ?
o ?
. o
`4
Y Q?
W
03=0
o ?; • o ono
0
E
0 0
?U
? W o
? o
? Fo m
o?'pO
a d- a o
o ?
. o
? W
o ?
o W
°vi'p O
r
g
o ?
E o
S. yM'
U
W
0 0
? o pa
o a
1 0 Q) 06
0. 0

c
0
o ?
• o
'03 U
?E
rw0
oo
th
xooth
o ?
M
?? fr ?a ? l? yy{I
«s
1qJ yi ? y;
Q
Q T
it
Q
O
?
C U
4 E
W
0 It c
M?
O W
to
.? ? Q to
.? 0. N
r.
O
O -O
O
Buz
Q
EU
fA W
M?
U
?E O U pp

C
0
o ?
• o
z
? U
c
?U
? W
0 3 0 0
bn ° ? N
.?G ? •? bOp
O 00 O O
? C1. Q
O ?
p
? U
O ?
? U
? W o
O ?
bA a ?
U
O y
O pip ? pO
C
O ?
• O
? W o
o ?
? a
:se O ? vi
F0 ooc L.
o

104`
C
O ?
Q ti
,vz
Vo
w a U
W
man a ?
x o V 00
oo,•oo
o0 0.
00

S y }
7,.•x'3.
y?r? b

• F,
4
c
0
c ?
-°
•o
o
cC U
V1 w
O U O O
bA O ? O
bA
0 6
O
O ?
c
E U
3 a
0 0
U
;`? O N \p
O Q O p
r-
O
O ti
• O
?z
? U
F-'
c{ O
U
E
GU
3 U O
bAa ?
^4 O 0 t/)
O\O•pO
O O L O
O ?
O ^fl ti
. o
O a
w
3
O ?
to a
? O ? 00
?1 N 0. N
r
r

.? M

r_
0
o •?
0
o
Eo
V
? W o
a
?oQ7°
0 bbD
1 N 0. Q
O ?
?uz
v
OOH
M~
Fn ? W
O
o a1 •p O
r-a N G.

O ?

M

J
?
G O
?
kf?
O C, p O
JcNV0..?

°
Wit ?.' Z

?iT ? I • -.; y J
j

`
r G>
'f?''r,w .._. » N a ON
O
V
sQo ; cR`
?,n^ qMl ^TS ry?

lwZ 0,11p,
It .. '•, R,a:
^: r* a ?x^T `,: «? - ? •,
F Ar
TP-
a
0
c ?
o ?
0
F-H
? o
? U
? w O
O N ? O
a
bA O ? ON
p ? •? bOA
a
.?NaQ
a
O ti
rr?^?z
V, U
C
O ?
U
v? w
a
a
U
OO'pO
C4 ?4 0 3 ?
C
O ?
O
z
u
E
O ?
E U
fVl E
w
3 ? C)
o a
O
O ? ? p
?1 N 0. N

4,4
ti
;,;-t
',
kr5 o
??

O

moo

,. #
'+719 ,?. M
4 w l +. s 0. .. h'
ftv
O
L
r..
. Q
Viz.
o? Erl
E U
rn W
O
bA O ? N
O Q?
0 'O bn
..a N A. Q
0
? U
0 c
C W O
0 3 ?
-v ?
? ? oa
o
0 0 0 0
? N 0. NO
O
O ?
V

t ?c+"??? .cam „ rr? O C
r> 4 E O

A&M
7601
jd+j- ?? .. Loy !? ? ?, W O

pCD
ra N 0. N
C
O ?
s..
O
fy V/
W
3
o ?
c
°o° pOo
? N 0. N
N
Y
I 1 R?
?x`i rt r;. ?°a
w ? ,3
r- j ? ?y?NVO'i

I
a4t titi '
?

h.. t F 1??v.r T Y;_Ld
Rai":.

c
0
L
o -°
°
Q
?J V
0 3 ? o
?OO?N
Q ? O +1J
O 00 L O
?1 N G. Q
O
O 1
Q
O
?" W O
E m
o ?
°
Q0 00
pOo
aNaC-a
°

?
r ,?" an d at ''r
0.l Y 1-- ;' ? rt tt"1? p `
C
L '?
U

Q) kri
oo?'oo
° 00 sr o
. N P•, N
\e a
e.tZ
^'45
rr?
lta
?'rw
Q
O
• o
COO U Z
O
c
w
3 ? o
°
-o a
th
o
oa\•oo
0 00 L o
? N 0. N
M
r

s.,
.? ? per- 's!- ? ? a>
l M _• u•M O
Y ??// I 1
a
Y?
+ ? W O
CIA

4
a ,
i?

` k
ep '1

r
Aug

Q
E ?v
C W O
0 3 ?
c
o ?'0 0
r-1MA..NO
C
O ?
• O
? C
O
Vi W
o a
O
CD
`, yF
C
O ?
0
? U
F- Y
?U
w
3
O
? O W
O
o-..7 M CL•. ?
a
r e F? r-.
. x;
0
0

= v
O ?
• O

O

?W
3 0 °
o
bb O N
pO•? bA
O
r?ML'1.Q
p
O ?
O -O ~
p
uz
CCU
?c
? W o
0 0
? a GA
c
?MC1•,N
O
O ?
• O
0
o
U
E
C W o
3
O
? o a1
,? O O vj
O O •p O
w--a M f1. ?
C
O ?
O^fl?'
0
? W o
0 0
an ? ?
O MO ? O
?1MA..N

0
o -O
0
vZ U
E F, c
`= E o
?U
? W o
:se o a?i ?
aMCS.Q
a

w;
C
o
u Z
who
?U
E
ua o
o ?
o ?'0 0
ov, ?o
?1 M A, N
c
0
E ? U
v' E
? W o
o ?
E
se o o0
o ?'0 0
?IMCLN
e 4^
5 ?.? oa

y «'

e fl
tif"ax ..fi .p .

U
cl

..,?, av bA ? ? O
C-
l U
a
O ?
LI
p
y`?z
?U

U
v
.n W
o ? c
? o C1?

JM0. r1
C
O ?
p
RS U
0 v
E
W
3 ? o
o ?
? ? GO
O ? ? O
?-) M 0. N
C
O ?
rn
O ti
O
r 1
?U
v
v? W
3
o ?
c
U
O v
O O p O
--?M0.N
n
v
;rya
w
a?
0
0
c ?
o ?
0
? W o
o?=o
_,.l o?n
0
J ? a Q
o
. o
Y z
u
E F"
o
cq U
W
'C3 ? M
bA r--a
r"I
U
o ? ?p O
c

Z` i 4
.? n a i F.c.i
f
d

Cd U
4r .. y
N i
1
/ C'.1
E
0.
,
:?
?
k

.I
y. A
k o a1

o ?D •p 0
o N t. O
d'0.N
o ?
• o
r4? z
V? I
r?
E E + 4-
° iZ
U
CC LUr y
W
3 ?
o ?
-° ol GO
o \o p 0
o N a O
?l t0.N
00

e'nk
r_
0
o ?
. o
V' U
`t- E o
E U
W
0
-C;
tin°?N
O
O ?
O
EAU
m
3 a
o °
-0 3 ,r
on ,?
c
:x o a ?
0 ? 0 0

?? ray
c
O
75
• O
U
o?
E 2 U
E
r W o
o ?
O ? p 0
C
O ?
O
°
4-
o?
Eo
E B3 U
0 a?
?W
0
.o ?
j
0 d• ? O

0
o )
• C)
U
F
o r
E o
U
?W
°
°?N
i
bb
O ^' O
O
?l d• L1. Q
O ?
O -0O ?
y`?z
? U
o
U
c? ? U
C W O
O O ?
M
bA ,?
c
v
o 7 ° 00
? ?t c1+ N
0
0
cz
E o
E m U
? w o
> s. U
O O r-
'? ? M
bA ,?
rr-i d'd
U
SC O y kn
O O
0
°
? U
`? E o
E U
?w
3
? O W
O y ?
O
O `O t. O
?-••] ? L1.. N
0

0
O
O N
W +?
oaci
C U
G ? ° z
o o
3 -° U
o r u
Mn
rC O
O
N
0 p C
O 00 :3
? ? V N
o a a ~'
E
0
3 -° U
0
0 0 c,3 ?
O o0
c ?n
•° W Oo
? y U N
o W a
w c u
? ° oz
o o
ti
U
0 o u °
o
0
0o a ?
? o0
.° W o0
E a a
? ; oz
IZ
3 U°
th °
r o
o E o
0 p p sz
O 00 o
Z?r?X

Vegetative Monitoring Comparison Photographs
2005-2008
152

+ O L O
t wr t
? ?e r
O th u O
O .? N O
?>?? " - ?l O O N
±x ;fie"??': ? a >,
R
'El
m y CL. to (? O
psi ?;?! ? ? ?•-' U

W 6
W ?
bA
- MM
W

A'?k .. ti ink sp?3 CCl p ?.

n v?n
"'
y\ Q N UUL (O)
l? U
Ire,
w E
rlie
R? may.,
71 N
cz

`'?i
Jr O
, O

P R yP n" ] b.
''1 ?: . to Y V?1
O C U O

?--}
eft ty? ?. i

U
>E-?U

All
J, oc
Q.
s O
a? a? c
m
Lo
t f
?rC^.fiYi6a?!,

Y' •r,
w
?Fn?'4•??.? i
J'
S

7
k d'
?
P
?
b l ,.
pp / ?
e yS {Y'.C ?44. Y ?'y?? M 1 Y+?

Wyi

wg Y?'
ti
cU
°z
o
i U U
^^O 0
M?
W
`L
L 0 U
??acv

r'1
S (J ? rr
? r
1 .?, o

•}??y.;.w a? •
y
i
?
?,,. O
v
G1. O O 0
p

f '?f
- ,t

aU
0
z
?r
Mss O
.a
,-s E
0 O
? o
00
O
v
"Iew
,r.
3 A
,
F.
n
f
r
U
O
U
Wa o
o ? o
o • ?
? U
O
O O
CL
y N N „'y
O O O U
>xz
U
0
U
O
V} +? .fl
a Q. o
U
O
O O
a
W •o cp A
o ? o U
>xz
U
M O
FLU
U
W O ?
•O U
? ? •O Vl
w
W • 5 oo :,
N y y ti
>?z

x
Hj

U
as o
U
W O ?
ff r- U
0
Cs.
N N U ?'-+
>c?z
LD
ti
?°z
° ° pOo
a a.N

?U
°z
o?
U
Wi.•O
ti
?U
°z
w ? U
U U t/)
o 'o 0
J ? a 0
ti
?U
°z
-0 o
a?UU
a ?
s.. ? U
U N ?
LO