20061358 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20090212

5s'
CROWNS WEST STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2008 (YEAR 2)
Contract Number D06003-2
NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
t
Submitted to:
r
0system
ruucKnm

' Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
- 8000 Regency Parkway
Sere 200
? I Cary. North CaroNna 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
December 2008
DRAFT
1
RECEIVED
DES;93>008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
=?r WATER ^{!F.Lrrv
4. rt a:d??s ?r?c s rC < ; V1 "JER apw rcti

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... .. 2
' 2.1 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... .. 2
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ........................................................ .. 2
' 2.3 Location and Setting .......................................................................................................
2.4 Project History and Background .................................................................................... .. 3
.. 3
2.5 Project Plan .................................................................................................................... .. 3
' 3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ......................................... 7
3.1 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................. .. 7

' 3.1.1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring ...................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Vegetative Success Criteria ...................................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Vegetative Observations and Results ........................................................................ 8
' 3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas ........................................................................................ 9
3.1.5 Vegetation Photographs ............................................................................................ 9
3.2 Stream Assessment ........................................................................................................... 9
' 3.2.1 Morphometric Success Criteria ................................................................................. 9
3.2.2 Morphometric Results ............................................................................................. 10
3.2.3 Hydrologic Criteria ................................................................................................. 11
'

i 3.2.4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ..............................................................................
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas ............................................................................................
3.2.6 Stream Photographs ................................................................................................
3.2.7 Stream Stability Assessment ...................................................................................
3.2.8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables ................................................................ 11
12
12
13
13
3.2.9 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ..................................................................... 13
3.2.10 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion ............................... 13
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 15
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 15
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 16
' APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Raw Data
' APPENDIX B - Stream Raw Data

' Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT

1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Design Approach for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 7. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Table A.1. Vegetation Metadata
Table A.2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Table A.4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
Table A.S. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A.6. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table B.1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B.2. Baseline Stream Summary
Table B.3. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Crowns West Restoration Site.
Figure 2A. As-built Plan Sheet 1 for the Crowns West Restoration Site.
Figure 2B. As-built Plan Sheet 3 for the Crowns West Restoration Site.
Figure 2C. As-built Plan Sheet 4 for the Crowns West Restoration Site.
Figure 21). As-built Plan Sheet 5 for the Crowns West Restoration Site.
Figure 2E. As-built Plan Sheet 6 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2F. As-built Plan Sheet 7 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Figure 2G. As-built Plan Sheet 8 for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 11
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2008 growing season
(Monitoring Year 2) on the Crowns West Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). As per the approved
Restoration Plan for the Site, this Annual Monitoring Report presents data on stream geometry,
stem count data from vegetation monitoring stations, and discusses any observed tendencies
relating to stream stability and vegetation survival success.
' Crowns West Branch had been channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared in the lower
half of the Site. The upstream area had a degraded, early successional buffer that included
several exotic species. Prior to restoration, Crowns West Branch was incised along its length
' and lacked bedform diversity. As a result, channel degradation was widespread throughout the
Site. After construction, it was determined that 3,835 linear feet (LF) of stream were restored.
' A total of 11 monitoring plots 100 square meters (m) (10M x 10m) in size were used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on-site. The Year 2 vegetation monitoring
indicated an average survivability of 725 stems per acre. The data shows that the Site is on track
for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and
the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5.
During Year 2 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp.) and privet (Ligustrum L.) were observed on the
' Site. The kudzu is located east of Haw Branch Road and is present in the NC Division of
Highways (NCDOT) right-of-way and also occurs within the project easement. The privet is
located along the southern easement boundary, west of Haw Branch Road or along the right side
' of the restored channel west, of Haw Branch Road.
According to the cross-section survey, stream dimension remained stable during Year 2. Overall
in-stream structures also remained stable during Year 2. The longitudinal profile for Year 2
showed that the in-stream structures and features are remaining stable. However, the upstream
portion of reach M2 demonstrated slight aggradation below the Haw Branch Road culvert. This
' area will be monitored closely during the coming year.
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during
Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. Inspection of conditions during a site visit
' revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest gauge reading of 1.91 feet
(22.92 inches) above the bankfull stage.
The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 3,835 LF. This entire length was
inspected during Year 2 of the monitoring period (2008) to assess stream performance. During
Year 2 monitoring, the Site did experience several problem areas related to root wad
' installations. All problems areas were located in the pools and involved erosion around rootwads
that were installed in sandy soil areas. These problems were repaired in November 2008 and are
currently functioning properly.
' The restoration plan for the Site did not include wetland areas. Therefore, no groundwater
monitoring stations or rain gauges were installed on the Site.
In summary, the Site is on track to meet the hydrologic, vegetative, and stream success criteria
specified in the Site's Restoration Plan.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFr
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the proposed restoration of 3,835 LF of stream. Table 1 summarizes the
restoration areas on the Site. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix A and B. A total
of 10.8 acres of stream and riparian buffer are protected through a conservation easement.
2.1 Project Objectives
The specific goals for the Crowns West Site Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restore 3,904 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile
• Improve floodplain function by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the 10.8-acre permanent
conservation easement
• Improve water quality in the Crowns West and New River watersheds by reducing
sediment and nutrient inputs
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat by creating deeper pools and areas of re-aeration,
planting a riparian buffer, and reducing bank erosion.
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided on-site streams into reaches. The
reaches were numbered sequentially from west to east, with a "M" designation for "mainstem."
M1 begins on the upstream portion of the project, and flows east, ending at Haw Branch Road.
M2 begins at Haw Branch Road and flows east, to the end of the wood line at the downstream
end of the project. One unnamed tributary (UT1) flowing from Haw Branch Road to the
confluence with Crowns West Branch was originally proposed for restoration and was included
in the 3,904 LF of stream restoration originally proposed for the Site. The landowner withdrew
this short section of UT1 in exchange for additional property and stream length at the upstream
section of M1 on Crowns West Branch. UT1 was to be tied into the project and the tie-in point
was stabilized.
The restoration design allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the
floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on streambanks. In-stream structures
were used to control streambed grade, reduce streambank stress, and promote bedform sequences
and habitat diversity. The in-stream structures consisted of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, and
constructed riffles which promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored channel. Where
grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles were installed to provide long-term
stability. Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting,
temporary and permanent seeding, bare-root planting, and transplants. Transplants provide
living root mass to increase streambank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic
biota. Native vegetation was planted across the Site. The entire restoration project is protected
through a permanent conservation easement.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT

r
Table 1. Design Approach for the Crowns West Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Reach Project
Segment or Linear
1
M1 R P1, P2 2,320 10+46 - 24+37
' M2 R P1, P2 1,515 24+09 - 36+13
Total linear feet of channel
' restored: 3,835
* R = Restoration **P1 = Priority I
P2 = Priority II
2.3 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Onslow County, NC (Figure 1), approximately six miles northwest of the
town of Richlands. The Site lies in the White Oak River Basin within North Carolina Division
of Water Quality sub-basin 03-05-02 and NCEEP targeted local watershed 03030001.010010.
' 2.4 Project History and Background
Land use on the Site consisted primarily of row crop agriculture with adjacent woodlands.
' Crowns West Branch had been channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared in the lower
half of the Site. The upstream area had a degraded, early successional buffer that included
several exotic species. Prior to restoration, Crowns West Branch was incised and lacked
1 bedform diversity. As a result, channel degradation was widespread throughout the Site.
The chronology of the Crowns West Project is presented in Table 2. The contact information for
all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant project
' background information is presented in Table 4.
2.5 Project Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross-sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented
in Figures 2A, 2B, 2C, 21), 2E, 2F and 2G of this report.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT 3
TahiP 2_ Prniert Activity and Rennrtinp Histnrv
Crowns West Restoration S

Activity or Report
Restoration Plan Prepared ite: Project No.

Scheduled
Completion
N/A D06003-2
Data Actual
Collection Completion or
Complete DeliNwy
N/A Jul-06
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A N/A
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Aug-06
Final Design - (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Oct-06
Construction Begins Nov-06 N/A Nov-06
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project
area N/A N/A Mar-07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Mar-07 N/A Mar-07
Planting of live stakes Mar-07 N/A Mar-07
Planting of bare root trees Mar-07 N/A Mar-07
End of Construction Mar-07 N/A Mar-07
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0
Monitorin -baseline Mar-07 Mar-07 Mar-07

Year 1 Monitoring Dec-07 Oct-07 Dec-07
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-08 Oct-08 Dec-08
Year 3 Monitoring Scheduled
Dec-09 Scheduled
Oct-09 N/A
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled
Dec-10 Scheduled
Oct-10 N/A
Year 5 Monitoring Scheduled
Dec-11 Scheduled
Oct-11 N/A
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 4
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT

Table 3. Proiect Contacts
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nurser Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. [phone]
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT'
5
Table 4. Project Background
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Project Count : Onslow County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach: M1 0.65 miz
Reach: M2 0.98 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover:
M1 <5%
M2 <5%
Stream Order:
M1 1
M2 2
Ph sio ra hic Region Coastal Plain
Ecore ion Carolina Flatwoods
Ros en Classification of As-Built C5c
Riverine, Upper Perennial,
Cowardin Classification Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand
Dominant Soil Types
M1 Mk,CrB
M2 Mk,CrB, AuB
Reference site ID Beaverdam Branch
USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites 03030001010010
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-05-02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference C

An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d
listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor? N/A
% of project easement fenced 0%
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 6
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
3.1.1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were
planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of temporary and permanent
ground cover herbaceous vegetation. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to
eight feet apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re-
vegetation limits. In general, bare-root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680
stems per acre, in an 8-foot by 8-foot grid pattern. The tree species planted at the Site are
shown in Table 5. The permanent seed mix of herbaceous species applied to the project's
riparian area included soft rush (Juncus effitses), redtop (Agrostis alba), Virginia wild rye
(Elymus virginicus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), smartweed (Polygonum
pennsylvanicum), tick seed (Bidens frondosa), lance leaf coreopsis (Coreopsis
lanceolata), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), hop sedge (Carex lupulina), and shallow
sedge (Carex lurida). This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds
per acre. All planting was completed in March 2007.
At the time of planting, eleven vegetation plots - labeled 1 through 11 - were delineated
' on-site to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025
acre in size, or 10 meters x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were
flagged to distinguish them from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating
' them in the future. The trees also were marked with aluminum metal tags to ensure that
the correct identification is made during future monitoring of the vegetation plots.
On a designated corner within each of the eleven vegetation plots, one herbaceous plot
was also delineated. The herbaceous plots measure 1 meter x lmeter in size. These plots
are photographed at the end of the growing season. The locations of the eleven
' vegetation plots are presented in Figures 2A through 2G.
3.1.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
' To characterize vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody
vegetation density have been defined. Data from vegetation monitoring plots should
display a surviving tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of
' monitoring, and a surviving tree density of at least 260 five-year-old trees per acre at the
end of the five-year monitoring period.
Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Total
Scientific Name Common Name Percent Planted by Species Number of Stems
Bare Root Trees Species
Betula ni ra River Birch 15% 1,110
Celtis laevi ata Su arberr 5% 370
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT 7
Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Site
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Scientific Name Common Name Percent Planted by Species Number of 1
Stems
Fraxinus 7.50% 555
enns lvanica Green Ash
Ju lans ni ra Black Walnut 5% 370
Nyssa sylvatica 10% 740
var. bi ora Swam Tupelo
Platanus 20% 1,480
occidentalis Sycamore
Quercus l rata Overcu Oak 10% 740
Quercus 10% 740
michauxii Swam Chestnut Oak
Quercus hellos Willow Oak 7.50% 555
Taxodium to% 740
distichum Bald Cypress
Native Herbaceous Species
El mus vir inicus Virginia wildr e 15% NA
Panicum vir atom Switch grass 15% NA
Carex vul inoidea Fox sedge 5% NA
Polygonum 5% NA
enns lvanicum Smart Weed
Juncus e tsus Soft rush 10% NA
Carex hi ulina Ho sedge 10% NA
A rostis alba Redto 10% NA
Bidens ondosa Tick seed 10% NA
Coreopsis 10% NA
lanceolata Lance leaf coreo sis
Carex lurida Shallow sedge 10% NA
Wood Vegetation for Live Stakes
Salix sericia Silk Willow 40% 1,040
Cornus amomum Silk Dogwood 40% 1,040
Sambucus 20% 520
canadensis Elderberry
3.1.3 Vegetative Observations and Results
The species that were planted as part of the permanent ground cover seed mixture '
broadcast on the Site after construction were present during Year 2 monitoring of the
Site.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 8
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT'

Tables A.1. through A.6. in Appendix A present vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data of the monitoring stations at the end of the Year 2
monitoring period. Data from the Year 2 monitoring event of the eleven vegetation plots
showed a range of 567 to 971 stems per acre. The data showed that the plots had an
average of 725 stems per acre. Based on these results, all plots are on track to meet the
interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre at the end of monitoring Year 3.
Trees within each monitoring plot are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from
' losing their identifying marks due to flag degradation. It is important for trees within the
monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure they are all accounted for during the annual
stem counts and calculation of tree survivability. Permanent aluminum tags are used on
' surviving stems to aid in relocation and identification during future counts. Flags are also
used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree.
No significant volunteer woody species were observed in any of the vegetation plots.
The plots will be assessed during Year 3 monitoring for significant volunteer species.
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
There are quite a few weedy species occurring on the Site, though none seem to be
posing any problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The weedy
species are mostly annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability on site.
' During Year 2 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp.) was observed on the Site. The kudzu is
located south of Haw Branch Road and is present in the NCDOT right-of-way and also
' occurs within the project easement.
Privet (Ligustrum L.) was also observed on the Site, during Year 2 monitoring. The
privet is located along the southern easement boundary, west of Haw Branch Road or
' along the right side of the restored channel, west of Haw Branch Road.
These areas have been treated previously with herbicides and are scheduled to be treated
again in the spring of 2009. The privet in the area will be treated by the cut and paint
method. The areas will continue to be monitored and treated with herbicides to control
the spread of invasives.
' 3.1.5 Vegetation Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation plot success. A total of 11
reference stations were established to document tree conditions at each vegetation plot
across the Site. Additional photo stations were also established at each of the 11
vegetation plots for herbaceous vegetation monitoring. Reference photos of both tree
' conditions and herbaceous conditions are taken at least once per year. Photos of the tree
plots showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report. Photos of
the herbaceous plots are also included in Appendix A.
3.2 Stream Assessment
3.2.1 Morphometric Success Criteria
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Site:
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 9
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream
restoration work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location
being a pool cross-section. A total of nine permanent cross-sections were established
across the Site. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used. The permanent cross-section pins are surveyed and
located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year
data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg.
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success. There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes
do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a
more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased
stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in
width/depth ratio). Cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following
construction completion to record as-built conditions. The profile was conducted for the
entire length of the restored channels (M1 and M2). Measurements included thalweg,
water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at
the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool, and glide). In addition, maximum pool depth
was recorded. All surveys were tied to a single, permanent benchmark.
As directed by EEP guidelines, longitudinal profiles will be completed in all five years of
the monitoring period. The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable; i.e., they are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain
deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower
than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels
of the design stream type.
3.2.2 Morphometric Results
Year 2 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during August
2008. The nine permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (five located across
riffles and four located across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at
the end of monitoring Year 2. Data from each of these cross-sections are summarized in
Appendix B. The cross-sections show that there has been very little adjustment to stream
dimension since construction.
Cross-sections 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are located across riffles found between meander bends.
Cross-section 1 has aggraded since the as-built survey, however, it has remained stable
since monitoring during Year 1. The channels in cross-sections 3, 7 and 8 have
remained relatively stable since the as-built survey. However, the floodplains of cross-
sections 7 and 8 have experienced sediment deposition on the floodplain, composed
mostly of fine sand. Visual on-site observations of areas east of Haw Branch Road have
documented the deposition of sediment on the floodplain, which occurred during a large
out-of-bank flow event during the year. This is considered to be a natural system
response and no areas of concern have been noted due to the deposition.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 10
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT

'
Cross-sections 2, 5, 6, and 9 are located across pools found at the apex of meander bends.
Based on the cross-section data, the pools at cross-sections 2 and 6 have filled some since
Year 1 monitoring. Cross-sections 5 and 9 have remained relatively stable since Year 1.
The pool cross-sections are showing slow development of point bar features on the inside
bank of the meander bends.
' The longitudinal profile for Year 2 was surveyed in December 2008 and was compared to
data collected during the as-built condition survey and Year 1 monitoring.
' The results of the Year 2 longitudinal profile show that the pools and riffles in M1 have
maintained elevations and pool depths similar to those documented during the as-built
survey and Year 1 monitoring. The longitudinal profile shows that the riffles and in-
stream structures throughout the reach M1 are stable.
The Year 2 profile for M2 shows that the riffles at the beginning of the reach, (stations
33+95 to 45+05) have slightly aggraded since Year 1. The aggradation in these riffle
areas was found to be generally 0.1- 0.3 feet in depth. The Year 2 profile for M2 shows
that the pools between stations 33+95 to 38+75 have also aggraded slightly since Year 1.
The maximum measurement recorded in the pool areas is 2 feet in depth. It is noted that
this area of concern is downstream of the Haw Branch Road culvert. The longitudinal
profile for reach M2 shows that the riffles and in-stream structures are stable on the
' downstream portion of the reach. The longitudinal profile for the upstream portion of
reach M2 will be closely monitored during Year 3.
The longitudinal profiles of reaches M1 and M2 are presented in Appendix B.
' 3.2.3 Hydrologic Criteria
One crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The gauge is
' checked regularly and records the highest out-of-bank flow between site visits. The
gauge is located on the downstream portion of reach M2, which is presented in Figure
2G.
The approved Restoration Plan requires that two bankfull flow events must be
documented within the five-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur
in separate years, otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
3.2.4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event
during Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 6.
Inspection of conditions during a site visit revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow,
confirming the crest gauge reading. The largest on-site stream flow documented by the
crest gauge during Year 2 of monitoring was approximately 1.91 feet (22.92 inches)
above the bankfull stage and was the result of overbank flooding of M2.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crowns West Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D06003-2
Date of Data Date of Occurrence of Method of Data Ph
Collection Bankfull Event Collection Mea
oto# or
surement
3/24/2008 Unknown Crest Ga ge on M2 1.91
5/29/2008 Unknown Crest Ga ge on M2 0.18
8/20/2008 Unknown Crest Ga ge on M2 0.17
10/2/2008 Unknown Crest Ga ge on M2 0.33
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas
During Year 2 monitoring, the Site experienced several stream restoration-related
problems. These problems were repaired in November 2008 and are currently
functioning properly. The stream problem areas were located on reaches M1 and M2.
All problems areas were located in pools where erosion occurred around root wads that
were installed in sandy soils. The areas were repaired during November 2008 and will be
monitored closely during the coming years.
Photographs of the problem areas prior to repairs are presented in Appendix B.
3.2.6 Stream Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. A total of 23 reference
stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade control
structures across the Site, and additional photo stations were established at each of the 9
permanent cross-sections. The GPS coordinates of each grade control structure photo
station have been noted as additional reference to ensure the same photo location is used
throughout the monitoring period. Reference photos are taken at least once per year.
Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross-section photo station. For
each stream bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the
channel, perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-section line). The photograph is
framed so that the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the
center of the photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the
lower edge of the frame.
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations
were photographed before construction and will be photographed for at least five years
following construction. Reference photos will be taken once per year, from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers are established to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) on the Site are monitored during each monitoring event.
A photo log of the restored channel is presented in Appendix B of this report. Data for
each of the nine permanent cross-sections are also included in Appendix B.
Photographs of the restored channel were taken in October 2008 at the end of the
monitoring season. Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the edges of the restored
stream, making the photography of some of the stream channel areas difficult.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 12
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
2
3
.
.7 Stream Stability Assessment
A summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in-stream structures
' performed during Year 2 of post-construction monitoring is presented in Table B.1. The
percentages noted are a general, overall field evaluation of the how the features were
performing at the time of the photo point survey. According to the visual stability
' assessment, during Year 2 monitoring, all features except the pools described in Section
3.2.5 are performing as designed.

3.2.8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
' restoration approach, as well as the as-built baseline data used during the project's post
construction monitoring period are summarized in Appendix B.
3.2.9 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Crowns
West Restoration Plan. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations,
macroinvertebrate sampling must be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic
sampling for the Site was conducted during February 2008. This report summarizes the
benthic samples collected following Year 1 of the post-construction monitoring phase.
Year 2 data will be collected in February 2009.
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). Field sampling was
conducted by Baker Engineering. Laboratory identification of collected species was
conducted by Wendell Pennington, of Pennington and Associates, Inc.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at one location on the Site (Site 1) and
one location at the Beaverdam Branch reference site in Jones County (Site 2). Site 1 was
located within the restoration area of M1 on the Site.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the
streams. In particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) (EPT species) are useful
as an index of water quality. These groups are generally the least tolerant to water
pollution and therefore are very useful indicators of water quality. Sampling for these
three orders is referred to as EPT sampling.
Habitat assessments using NCDWQ's protocols were also conducted at each site.
Physical and chemical measurements including water temperature, percent dissolved
oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity were recorded at
each site. The habitat assessment field data sheets and photos are presented in Appendix
B.
3.2.10 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in
Table 7 with complete laboratory results presented in Appendix B.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 13
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
At Site 2, the undisturbed reference site, the Year 1 community structure and ecological
habitat appears to be similar to that observed during the pre-construction monitoring
period. Site 2 showed a slight increase in both overall and EPT taxa richness as well as a
slight increase in EPT biotic indices. However, the data showed a lower total biotic
index for Site 2 than was observed during pre-construction sampling.
Site 1, which underwent complete restoration, exhibited decreased total and EPT taxa
richness, as well as decreased total and EPT biotic indices in the post-construction
sample. It is anticipated that, as the project matures, populations will increase as more
habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs become available.
Currently Site 1 has 18 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference
site, which indicates that 18 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are
dominant at Site 1. In pre-construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 41 percent. This
indicates that post-construction recolonization from refugia upstream or downstream
(represented at Site 2) has begun. It is anticipated that improvements in biotic indices
and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities begin to
re-colonize.
Table 7. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
Crowns West Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D06003-2
Site 1 Site 2
Ml Crowns West
(Restoration) Beaverdam Branch
(Reference)
Pre Post Pre Post
3/3/2006 2/28/2008 1/5/2006 2/28/2008
Total Taxa Richness 24 14 28 35
EPT Taxa Richness 4 0 3 6
Total Biotic Index 6.75 3.99 7.78 6.73
EPT Biotic Index 5.78 NA 4.05 5.28
Dominance in Common (%) 41 18 N/A N/A
EPT Abundance - 0 - 29
Habitat Assessment Rating 42 88 89 70
Water Temperature (°C) Not Collected 10.5 Not Collected 7.9
DO Concentration (mg/1) Not Collected 5.05 Not Collected 9
pH Not Collected 6.63 Not Collected 7.24
Conductivity (pmhos/cm) Not Collected 110 Not Collected 320
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 14
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFr

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 3,835 LF. This
entire length was inspected during Year 2 of the monitoring period (2008) to assess stream
performance. During Year 2 monitoring, the Site experienced several areas of bank erosion
around rootwads that were installed within sandy soils. These problems were repaired in
November 2008 and currently appear to be functioning properly.
' Based on the data collected, all riffles, pools, and other constructed features along the restored
channel are stable and functioning as designed. The on-site crest gauge documented the
occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during the Year 2 of the post-construction
' monitoring period. Inspection of site conditions during a site visit revealed visual evidence of
out-of-bank flow.
' Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Macroinvertebrate data at the Site, exhibited a decrease in total and EPT taxa richness, as well as
' a decrease in total and EPT biotic indices in the post-construction sample. It is anticipated that,
as the project matures, populations will increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and
leaf packs become available. The Site has 18 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared
' to the reference site, which indicates that 18 percent of the dominant communities at the
reference site are dominant at Site 1. In pre-construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 41
percent. This indicates that post-construction recolonization from refugia upstream or
' downstream has begun.
Vegetation Monitoring - For the I I monitoring plots, vegetation monitoring indicated a
' survivability range of 567 stems per acre to 971 stems per acre with an overall average of 728
stems per acre. The data shows that the Site is on track for meeting the success interim criteria
of 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5.
During Year 2 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria spp.) and privet (Ligustrum L.) were observed on the
Site. The kudzu is located east of Haw Branch Road and is present within the NCDOT right-of-
way and also occurs within the project easement. The privet is located along the southern
easement boundary west, of Haw Branch Road or along the right side of the restored channel
west, of Haw Branch Road. These areas are scheduled to be treated during the spring of 2009.
' Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site. During certain times of the
year, frogs, snakes and crawfish and have been periodically observed. The macroinvertebrates
' sample in February 2008 revealed that an American eel (Anguilla rostrata) was present on the
Site. The eel was captured and released by use of a kick net on reach M1.
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFT
15
6.0 REFERENCES
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Onslow County, North Carolina,
1992.
NCDWQ, Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. (2006).
Crowns West Restoration Project, EEP Contract No. D06003-2 16
December 2008, Monitoring Year 2 DRAFr
L

1
l7
1
1

? FIGURES
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
h
Crowns West
Project Site
eted Local Water:
03030001010010
,GcP
di4w
Onslow County
Prepared August 5, 2008

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Crowns West Site - Project No. D06003-2
0 1 2 4
Miles
Figure 1. Location of Crowns West Stream Restoration Site.
? m c c
,--r a > >
abIwo
l o l"l.l-
c 141 M
Axe`
V
W ti
O R,
M ?
ti
z
O? ?x
co?° V
Q Z w
I ? O
U xx
?W wo
?? ? oz 3
o
O
O
V
f? a
W /
/ W
?l U
5
3 "v 1 \ I
By°N
O
m
JD 2J ?
z
Z¢o?m O cn
o?Z?
f'InQW?OUJW_
W m Z W J Q W~>
?zoozzocn
wOZ?ooooW
22-gjOaZaO?-i
fn< if-WQWU-
tn J WZwWU ZaFLtJi2 M
?
W W Ht~nCW7vai>oU?MW <
2
U-
0
U
X N CO
Z Q mo O
?" Cl)

W
W
w
°
z
a
w
a w
LLB
U
W w
WN o
?2
w =o
N
0 0
_o W
'"E Nw
= U
HON YoQ F
-Q
a w

W o
W
z
U m o°
w ?:x
Lq ?9'?

w
Z o
i

4 =
N o

K
C
O
PB H.
H.
W aLL _
1
Y Q
0
H
„ O e
0. N
0
U

O LLI
o
W?
?M
ti ug
-Z
?w2
O W
? a
W
?W?IIZ5^ a?..a
[rzoz
w?Z
m=
OFQ?
H ? J
P 0 U
WN
U
aZ" z

wZ
LL LL
v Ln
M Cl)
Cl) co
M M
? II II J
Co
v>
Q LL
N
M
N LL
LO

A Z Z Z LL LL
Z J y T Lo
X
w
W w
q
Ln
N
N
Z - V
D 6
y~j

m

lz
C-4
X
W Q
V
w <
<
w
a

10
N a
F
Z
LU ° O
U Cl)
N
Z
S o
D
4 0 o w
J

LO Ln 0
.-
V 4.
O O
M M
[I[ ssgm SNMO'%Tfl z - coogoa ?s?a oxa

0
10
u6p•00'8Sd-11118-dob6!O\II1-1 so\.6,
m
N
w
ry
LL

z
0
zz
0
U
Z
O
¢H
0
r
N
W
K
w
K
a
w
00
x
N
N
0
w r
r Z
0 0
Z U
a
w
x z
U Z
r ¢
? U
s
O
Qr
S
o_
N
Z
O
F
r
N
Z
W
W
m
W
m
N
a
W
K
N
w
W
K
r
0
w
w
w N
r w
O K
z a
U
N
W
C7
LL
l
u6pGq-qSH-???A_um[,7rn?Zrina_so?u6?sao?.,n?o
L00Z%LZ/I.

ti
Z
0
z
O
U
O
F
I
O
H
w
w
K
w
m
a
w
m
a
O
y
O
K
O
O O
Z U
O
N
y
W
r
a
m
O
N
z C7
5 '
a w
z =
Q U
1- ?
LL
W
z
2
U
F_
On
zZ
O
F
a
z
w
W
m
W
m
N
a
W
w
w
W
o?
z a
0
N
W
Z)
LL

LOOV EZi
+
LO
Q
N
\ N J
F8 J \ ;
ZI
HAW BRANCH ROAD'
f
f? f 00
f w
5
/m
a / =l
I ? iU ZN
o' I I 1 I f? O?
t
wF I \.a: ?; I Lu (Y)
I I ??
f? I I I
c ml Iw .../ # N 1 1 q
XI
Op ?S?sZ S ?1
????y?l bey
N
0
0
0
z
0
U
z
O
F
0
N
W
W
a
w
0
2
O
w z
00
Z U
? n
z o
1U.'Q 4
/yW
O
H
N
W
w
N
w 0
a
zz
w
x
U Fw
w
w
o
O
? ZI N
z as
"6P'L0-85d''I°^8"N06Z0\4i
w
N
w
C?
LL
tsaP\}lOil.7A\:?
LUU6/LL/II
rr r ?r r r rr r r ¦r r r? rr r r r .¦. .¦. .¦. ...
p
W
N
Z Z
W
W °
G ° mz
a
0 W
O w z7
?? Y U
W N W N p
»Y ? aW
° J m o p LL
a
01.
0U'QWw jn? (nw
HOU! YoQ Ix-¢
mL m?
w$8g _
9zo
m???aLL

tEiF??iIIPAis` ' O
cr)
? ? • cH UM?ts 0
p? /? -BEN 42 N
00
0 o J E6 ' ?aa?' is W
> u ? -?! / ? /e?NG ERG ?,?M\ f/)
/ S
?? - W
/ 40+00 f . / U
z
? I J ?o
? LL
a w
x z
U Z
F
O U
1 1 C-D
1, 1c?n I ?b
\ \ (VA?
s?
ui
0
U
F
o 3
?

w s
h.?

W

a
I '? J
V
z } O N

O C1 w'1
w
N
?
O
M
O
O O
Z U
LL
N
W
w
D
(D
L?
u6p•B0-8Sd-'h„8.806Z0\4 l'nq_eo\u6I_p\
L NO/p 66Z /70\ ?
/II
rr ?r rr rr rr r ?r ?r ?r rr ¦r r rr rr rr ?r rr ri ?r
N
Z
O 0
z
K wC aeA ow Z
w xa
N
W W$oz'mm Z? N LL O [[????
uUZi w UW z0 V z N IV
F
G < Ow v - w
d
wN w N? °z Q O N
»m Qw q?
OZ? J ° wF z? O
=¢ug wrva Sw ?? y O
1-ON Y°Q F-Q ? (h
O
2
O F O
Z U
. ..XOyddb) Ob0
I
I \ ? ? b SS300b ` ?' ? ?
I IN \
F I E 6?d? 0 m
g? IJ \ 1 Y °? m
J. I? \ m
ll ?
UI Im O` a 2
11 I \\ a O
1 \ I
o a.
Z
I I F;? \\ 9 Qq
00
w'IT
E8 (3,4N D
U W
v w
1 II `? - o
` w
\ mW
\ a
\ \ a a
\L)I_® 1 `n
No $ ?? O
1 \ \ 1
s
a +, ca OZ a
w ° w ga
a_
fL a I
W4t wwo?
° a G o l
J m
e ?1 of - N?? m
I „r aLLN m
0 1 ? fit' I ¢? ? wg m m m mm
m m m m
QOOU a LO CD In
I ) e°•/: ` ?f I.e ZUF cD to
Cw7 O x lf1 v
( 1`
11 I'`
1 S 1 ,
I _
111 ? ,\o> 11
,
1 `_ ? 1 I
b.. 1
/p
?. .+' 1 I ..., is .. _.
o °.
14
IZ
a ( Im' ( I I \?
I
t
WF
0
e°Ao \ \? o \ 1 I
00.09+Z? I 1;
bps 13-3
1 bW
CD
N
W
D
CD
LL
u6p•60-BSd-'I°"8-de6Z0\41?nq_so\u6isap\LISbzO\:?
L Z/LZ/II

1

APPENDIX A
I VEGETATION RAW DATA

1

1
1

1

1

L
1
1

VEGETATION TABLES

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
r?
0
O
fD
U ?
Q T
Z C O
N
U 2
y o a
R ?
? D
Cd Q
C
Q •L
r, O
rn
d ?
a
` m
Q C a d
m 3 r a
Q O a ::
E
>
O
0
C
W
N
O
o
`O o
>N m
C U)
3 ?
o
U ?
rn c
m 01 N
O1 ?
0o c U
O O Y
N E W
O z
m
M J 0
C
m
m•o
E V E
= o c
0 0 y`0
m m0 7
a n n
N L 3
E U X
d ? N
N T N
a n ?
C N
ca t5 E
N
°- Q N
m Y m E M
N
a v N
U N Y r E N
O > A N E
- N m N a
Q N N C m c
a 0 > N y0 m
c a - N a
m ? N m
U U E ° N
S N a
U
m C N C
U O
O 'N y N a
O- L
O = m a V
l0 ~ N C ?
?, N a m
m T O N N
E U> E U N
O p U N V U
N O m m 0 p O.
m N >_ U
a - _? U N
? N O ? ? O L
m V m m U U
m N m U O m
N o m N N L O
N N a E? L 0? E
0 N E y o '. a Q rn
? a N N 3 L L c
N
U U
O_ z J m N N N N N .>
Z F m m N 0
N J O '- U U m O O W
w D U 'Z
~ U O O o a a Z
ai .w o rn o, m ?• ?, Q
L > > J U
N "' L O O m d ? d N
7 N 3 3 3 c c a a a o °
? a a ?.4 4 Z.?
W N N U1 U1 L L j r0 «0 O p M
0 _
O J 3 Y O ll?
7 N N N E
U U a s N N M
U C 0 Ul N T T N m m N
p O N Y
0 O O Q C C E > N > m L M pm
d Q Q N N O) OI . N
o c E
_u°pEE Y
m ID3E
???E boo is
Z 0 W W J LL LL J O O Q D U UJ
W a
w n
U
Y c o
0 M
M
c z =
? O
3
LL >. Q 3
O N n. -O a
Z E a 0 '01 « y
O o a w a E ? v d v o
T T
v0 Y
a s o E c d a s
rv R 0 0 0 0 U V Z •Q ,'. r p• y
v° a m m w ° m L E d
;? •o •o o o E E E= O" 0 H 0 a L m? E
W N 0 0f T m m m m IK °° y E_
?2"aaa'>'>???a as a??? w mwin
Table A.2. Veaetation Viaor by Species
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Species 4 3 2 1 0 Missing Unknown
Betula nigra 3 9 5 2
Celtis laevi ata 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5 8
Juglans nigra 2 5 4 2
Nyssa biflora 2 12 16
Quercus lyrata 4 10 6
Quercus michauxii 2 4 6
Quercus nigra 1
Quercus phellos 7 5 1
Taxodium distichum 4 11 7
Platanus occidentalis 3 18 29 1 1
Unknown 20
TOT: 12 24 78 91 4 25 2
Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Crowns West Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
?y
oi.

a 0

1 Va ?
Q m
J

0 o ?
0 O O F c
4 V,
Betula ni ra 19 17 2
Celtis laevi ata 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 18
Ju lans ni ra 13 11 2
Nyssa biflora 30 29 1
Platanus occidentalis 52 50 2
Quercus lyrata 20 20
Quercus michauxii 12 12
Quercus ni ra 1 1
Quercus phellos 13 12 1
Taxodium distichum 22 21 1
Unknown 20 19 1
TOT: 12 224 195 1 24 4
r
`91
".
4
41
S a v v
Vi
4441

4i
0
v
V
co
v
It
4
p
pa/
q`4
e4
4p
?'
o
y
as
p
tVp
v
r
?
a
v
rn
rn
m
N
r?
v
rn
(n
041
sa
'40

J
0 as

0 e
?E'
DD
a0
N
(°
N
°?
O
N
N
N
N
l
O O// N N
? a
O
Z
U
p
CL w
O N N N N N (V N N N N N
T m m m m m m m m m
m
m
0. m a) w o m w w m w m m
O T >. T T T T T T
'
Al y N M c (f] CO f? OD m 0
a7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
c d 0 0 0 O
? 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2
c io 0 0 0 0 ? ?
O Q N N N N N N N N N N N
M M M M M M M M M M M
10 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0 (°

0 O

0 O

0 O

0 O a7 UJ O O O

D
? 0 0 0 0 0 0
y ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? ? O r
7
Q

a) c
?
a o
F
U ?
2?e
a?
<<
00
yp
?Je
Z£o
a
o9
? 01
0O/ v C.
0
o
/q
0
l,
p
ZJe
2F0
a
09
?

0O/
60

?

N

V

(O
N
V
-IT
O
,0
o
/d N
,y p
ZFO
te
09
a
0p
's
g
0
; v ? (n ?n ? n
00
O/d
ypt
t
£o
e
00-
a
??° V V7 N (° N
00, o/d N
y0
ZJe
t£o
a
o9
? .90
0O/ r ? ? M N r t0
0
°
°
/
yp
d
t?p
t?o
a
09
f SO
00/
T M (D Ln N
0
o
0
/d
,5,0
2£0
t ?e
09
a
0p/
? b°
o
0
O /q
yp
t e
2to
a
o9
f£°
0O/ N N M CO M
o
O
°
/d
y0
t ?e
t£o
a'l
o9
2
0p
/
0 N N I? N 7
O/
00.
d
yp
t•
7
F0
09
°
0, r M co
?.
00
p/ •-
d
y
p
zto
o
9
S
°
p
41a
r M .-- c0 M
s/o? /d
a
9?
nI, -

Y
as 77 co CO N V) LO CO
n
e
J° co
N M LO M N
1 (
0
1
?I b, N CO IT CO
co
sJo
/q{O
4044% O M (O m m e- co f- m 0 ?
41
s4'
N a/S
b
a
/4
e/d
/p f? V e0 O c0 N N N N T
CD
? /O
.f
a
u
Z
CL
n aa))
D 0
m
c a o
N
o °' sa c
> m - E
L
!? i
nags
N N
-O
a)
m n
O cLi
° ° C C
ac (0 U m U m a) N
A ? > a - 0 0
O c o N
7 c
N (n
7 N
7 w
7 cn
7 w
7 E
7

N

7

y
C C

0

N
C
i
V
i
i

O

L

O N 7

7

a3 a)

7 a)

7 a)

7 a)

7 x

a7

r
CO U LL ? Z a U O C1 U H r

L ?

a
U
O
U
7L =?
Q Vl
z r-

Q
l? .oo ^? O O O N N N
u -
M
n
N
N
z

kn
l
H O?
0 ^
M
0
0 ,
o
M
N d' ?O v1 N N C=

' 00 O
kn V1 ^
^ 00 kn
0 00
M
MO
00

M
N
^ [? O
lp
? - M
I'D
In
N
?O 00
X

O? N
00 G?

'-h
^
Cl

N

M

M

M h o0
a+ 1.0
O
a

N N r- N ?D C)
v
bA
C
C
Q'
y
m ?? ^ ? oo ^ M -' ? r
u
'?
M
^
^
M
un
Z
U

"J;t
L V]

y O G

U O ? ?' ' ? V N

Q ZS U Ci N
d y
•? O O .?, '? ?' sue.. L

E- U co
v
??
Ol
Ol
a
a
[?
0
1

1

I VEGETATION PHOTOS

44
t'+
1r ?r
t
??? ti? 1 i i >• j
is
M 2W ? ?.? ?.? 1 1 ` V ?

Vegetation Plot I
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 1
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 3

Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 4
f 1 '
!y1?oz?yi ^y? ,q r- ff ,iF,r " '?+"M? °4`•r iG. t"? r r_ ?? -- r s
Vegetation Plot 5

rks , i. e'. ? 5!.
Ay a x dig t ?5
14 A. 4.
Vegetation Plot 6
`14 J ?
y
fT ?
: : 4 a ;0r
X'N
9 .
yhy Y - ??`
I
i'x
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 4
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 5
, •r 41
y :.
x Floe o i
r

x '?
? AT

a e .n

ci

Vegetation Plot 7
?, ? a `?# ?e tfve t: ? ? -aa x ? f a };?\ 14 ? r ? ,thy :_ • 'de
:\lr 4? ti s ata$ .ate ;: .?s a 3?`?". ay ?v ..
•7Yc ??'"1 F she" A'` ,?* i,?Y" ? „ ? a c??. ? ? -
y tl'
.'fir yr ` 95 h-' , x? , ?t ? _ r i'•`a.;! '? "^s
G?`I
?a s{yyy ??r e e ?t t
$ w o:3 r ?,` t ',? ue
t ;y #

Vegetation Plot 8
R 'r:' e? m r' wY
b, U
?.>
'gar Y
Vegetation Plot 9
? N
. trg F 4F y a?. ml i r ". i+'
# e ? fit.` L Y t?jt oil 1 of??Li4l •Q s J:} 'i
?Aj
r ` •°,? ?t SfL ((t # t , i P °1 ? 1e, W: ^?µ ?y"1?'l ? 'J
raw ?'? F # t' '
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 8
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 9

1 tt
ti?

s
pi

?
14
I? ? p 9
,;.
,
Vegetation Plot 10
S
+ z ?? .? 1 + ?~? 4 + r
1-7
Y J S i
'Y B
tL[ Y f ,?
i rx.-t 1 p ?\ ?
\ y e Y d
Herbaceous Vegetation Plot 10
_ - j.. -• 'c••+ ,I 44
Yr ` , ?'y 1,(t ' h c Y ! NY?¢ .! "Y? 'Y ? + r
t
M P? ?y ? uC,?M•'`' i"/.
} k r fit +?i ,'.? b? ???
1
t 4 = . ."2 "a } , j '?nl i }"1'i? ' l1 II,•
'Alp
3 x r'ciSyY? .. f?i, .i .a t ?; x cl Y ?. t? i+? f4 E'
Vegetation Plot 11 Herbaceous Vegetation Plot I 1
APPENDIX B
? I GEOMORPHIC RAW DATA

I I

1

1
1

1

STREAM TABLES
1
Table B.I. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Crowns Wet Restoration Site: Project No. D06003-2
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles 100% 100% 95%
B. Pools 100% 100% 90%
C. Thalweg 100% 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100% 100%
F. Bank Condition 100% 100% 95%
G. Wads 100% 100% 75%

0
1
u
L
1

1
L'?IR "IM V Mcoo I I X11I l i I1.I I I I! 11
I I
'
l
?

?
?II?m ol?Ir ?.o,..,?,
IIII,., I I
I
? ? ? I I
l II
I.I I 'I
,
I
II
_. ?
I
?
a I
? ? I r
I I '. ? r r Ln ?i I l v o
? N V rn ? O I , I I I! ', I i I! I
o w II
° ?OIO
? I
I II
II
I I
II
I I
I
?m ?
?0
I
I
-
Q .
I
,N
,
,
,
..
I
I
o
I,I
I,
.
,I
I .
II ?. : 11 I I
?
I i I
I
ciao N NIM NIMl0: i I I I I I I 11 I i l', I i
11 l l' I I II I
ts:l m
v°iol?m N m!r-,, i i I i'I I i I I , IIII I I
I I

X1 o'
Il it NI lii IIII' '
0
11 OJN 110 I SIN jIV N m
1
I
I
?, l
0
rnl ',ol.- m SIN rM Im III III v j1. 1
I
II
1'. II I
??
I
__ ' I I I I I 1
i
I
I
N
II
d W 0O L
N ID
-m °lm'.? S
, I IM

c
- OO ?0 10'O N ?co IIII IIM ' I,I
m o
'
I
g l
o?lm 1 I,rN a
.It?1
',i !. i
N III i I
l
I

A m 11
?I IIII I r v o °.
i IIII '
III I!M' I,I I M,
VII
I M'
II
II ?IN'?'
r
,
.
.
,?
I
u

10

d

? c

t0

d

2E m, Ala
I o'?ol?n
? ? ? ? m o
U
O N ,
r'
I.Ii I. I i'? m O
IV'4?I1O I
I' ? ?.U M. .o
I'I?,NI ? I11 I
I?? I I I II
,
,
t7

CD
l0

4,
w C O'IO ''.

i I' in NI '0,0 i 1' i. ry, I M I M II I
0
Z
C N r° u? M IV W I I I I
'
I
.,

A °

d a

d
• m
d
? o
U m
c' ?D m 'Iv
mim'° coo orn mm M rlw I ro
.
+
y C ?,N.O r N 6M m?0
C C N .?
N
•z y X
W N
N
m
O
c
a
c mlo v'. °r lv v Mjr I II i'I.
II.I
.

6
N d
U
C

y
d LLJ
C
C I

U I I I I i I I
° 7l I
o
d I
I I
m
o
d
f7 I I I I
'
0

? p Q n d rn Q 3 d '
O d o d d m c D d w tq
d
S
o
Lld C X l0 d E,N,-
d.S J..-2 Q
> S
L _'
d
\ d
m e 1Q m e
m
d U LL
d '.. o
d
o?d?g o Llcll-LL U m I`G d o o w n ww m
'
?IE d °
m C O "O
E
.
La
0 o LL '?m ml?lc m c y `m a.. E ° Ll m'l a,lu-'.
o 0,
w N U
? N
'
'
?
N
. y Q
'. 10
I. A N
o d dp d`IN
U
E
LL oQ a 'm
IM
w z 3 a
d m m o

r,
mIE
m
I I I
?
I a
d
c
y
E C C' d A C
o
_
E I 'o
a, a
'
a ol aI Ia y a'

O
E
' E
3
fn

C
O

O

U

a
2

C

T
01
O
O
L
a
0

m
d

F-
C

1
1
LO

O co
U N }
N
O` N N o- W i r e
U ao o ?2 m o co r
} n ^ °2 f7 °? N (D O
o h (6
o r
r D
}

M v

o
U N
>2
m
N ?
N
O N
} m m
M? (n M O M ? i
U ? ? o ? co r cfi
N
M N W ID
1? M N N M O
C
to O 6 V^ r- tD r
a
}

Z
U
N
'?
d
N
c
}
0
d w o
t5

c-4 O
a) }

r M
(n d
in N N
N
?
?"
? ul caD ? ? ? r N
O
_ ? U O r (D to N (fl r
m L

jp U
N _
}
M W fall a' o w (D N
y N r O M n /r In r
N cD

N co ui
N
O` C ? C
U o M °

U N
a)

}

U O
a) M

}
m
J) Na
O` } r O O W i r i O N
} M 61 O) `- i i
? M ;r c0
U ? Ql O? cD O (O r (? ? ? r aD N ? r

} N M OD N
N O r
N r V N N
} M O M D)
N
aD r n O O r O
O oD M m r r N N r
F .O O F
?? N E E
Nm 7 tt? ?.:= m?? N E E
m ?
SS

Q O Q N O) E a co W
O.
S _

a N 'L N Q C -C N a a• E cu
°
Q O
? a
a? m E w, -
LL x O] m C m O L= N U LL ?
ru ? ? c
co m c: m L 2 N U
p
N Y O 2 C Y 7
LL CL a)
2a a
m
a m m m U Y d
N O
ac -O J
a a o m om
m
a
L? mm o co
co
°
LL co mo -a
m
E N ?w >
=
> E co N Ltw
?=
o o `6 p o

a U
o m
a U 'c
ED co
c
o m
u) c
o
N
c
E N
a =

E a
O N
_
o rn' o U)
r

1
n

L
D

1

n.
D
n

0
N
_
N
ca

C_

O
O
N
V
}

N

C
N
O
M
}
X

N
N
N
X

a
N
W
OD O
r--
0

N

. . .

. . .

} X

C_
.tf
L N L L L p) L L O N
a m rn m m .? p1 a' .?
N a U) O J CL cl
J J U) 0 0
Z
> d
U) N
m U >NN
O
O
7E5
p
O O
K
y
C cOj W U
m

d p>
'
C f/l C
N W O

a

p
0
co
e N
>cu N
O

d 0
L a m
cn )
U 0
E ?
U? a
a)
CL L
U j
>

f0
C
C d p
w _ r
a
CL d Q

STREAM DATA
AND PHOTOS

CC
N
?

?

u 9E

?

O
N L 4-

I'I :3

Q L L N
Ca O
? O
N

N
M
C)
O
it
- N
0

T-
• O
LO
N
O C
-.• O

A
''A
v, ?
C?j

M

04 co
O
L. f'

e

IL -
-
O
O
N

C
3 O
O
O
L
V
?
O
O
r
O
O

O

(o
04

CD

D LO LO LO LO LO

r
LO
(41) UOIIBA013
rn

3

-C

a°i

c
rn

4!

°

o
I- fn
N L m
4- M

Cl)
Q L
a) L N O

'
. O
N
0 -

+
+ •
N
o
0
O • ' N
O
LO o
C)
N

ca
vI - .
O p

+ N ?
'^
O +'
L
CL
o

N _o
N

U
3
O
O
O
L
V

?
O
O
ti
r
O
O

COO
C(O
CNO
(0 LO LO O
LO LO L
(:U) UOIIBA013
Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
4.
1011 ., '
Y x`v i 9t rl t n? iq?
4 4
Looking at the Left Bank

Y
r?, ,fg`, „+s e
I
'
aaS a .. a? .y.

41

Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev'
Riffle Cc 6 9.79 0.61 0.97 16.05 1 6.1 64.04 64.05
Crowns West Cross-section 1
68
67
66

e 65
0 ------------------------------------------------------------- --------- o

m 64
w ...
63
- Year 1 Bankfull
62 0 - - Floodprone As-Built
Year2
61

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 2
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
? 7j'???ei lry A??4??' ;•'?..
. r Fti1;c
s
a .R fA
f J
s
Ik ?4 a .d
6_ill,,!
at •?`??,yyr 3?

Feature Stream
Type
B BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 16.4 10.43 1.57 2.75 6.64 1.2 6.7 62.45 62.98
Crowns West Cross-section 2
68
67
66

64
63 - ---?-
..........
62
w
61
- - Year 1 s Bankfull
60 o • . Floodprone As-Built
59 - x- Year 2
58

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
?p t? rt
$Aa
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
I

R

KF Elev

OB Elev
Riffle Cc 6.3 10.38 0.61 1.1 16.99 1.1 5.3 61.27 61 A
Crowns West Cross-section 3
68 -
67
66
65
64
c
R 63
> ---------•--------------------------------------------------------------- o
m 62
W
61
60 y? Year 1 o Bankfull
o - - Floodprone As-Built
59 Year 2
58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)

?X
I
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Cc 5.1 8.76 0.58 0.92 15.1 1.1 6.6 58.92 59.01
Crowns West Cross-section 4
63
62
61
60 .............................................................. .0
59 -
A
w 58
57 ----Year1 > Bankfull
o - - Floodprone As-Built
56 - Year 2
55
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)

t (?i?1
K pr.. rT1 .
r
4.
Looking at the Right Bank

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 14.9 11.19 1.33 2.69 8.42 1.1 6.1 56.28 56.52
Crowns West Cross-section 5
60
59 ------------------ ------- -------------------------- ------------------- -----
58
57
o
56

w 55
54
- Year 1 o Bankfull
53 0 - - Floodprone As-Built
Year 2
52

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
s ??
- - 1' ?? T !<1
As -
,.=9
3 rcr" y t? y .? f a r
i r te; ?d,, f _
;e 9E r kF' llr?d ..,,.? ?''r^?` 'fit ?l i? :.u. '1 ` i„4 '?_ ,., r -j ?•.1
S r f si t t?
3 Y '?si'.'?'?. .•'.i .?.=t+_i'.AeOu
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 16.6 13.13 1.26 217 10.4 1.1 53 53.05 53.37
Crowns West Cross-section 6
60
58
56
--- \
.........................................................
.
c
54
>
d
w 52
- --- Year 1 o Bankfull
50 - - o - - Floodprone As-Built
mac- Year 2

48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
Looking at the Left Bank
f ;
gbh' i
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 8 9.12 0.88 1.37 10.41 1.1 7.9 52.8 52.91
Crowns West Cross-section 7
60
58
56

\
54 ...... ..... .. .......... ..........................• •

d
w 52
50 -- -Year 1 Bankfull
o Floodprone As-Built
-- Year 2
48

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
Sk

14,
i
r t.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth WID BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 9 9.24 0.98 1.53 9.46 1.1 13.9 51.28 51.41
Crowns West Cross-section 8
60 ------Year1 o Bankfull
o - - Floodprone As-Built
58 x Year 2
56
c
0
:r
54
d
W
52
50

48
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 2 Data - Collected August 2008)
? d
( k 1 ?? yPot Y tLooking at the Right Bank
?" 'l
i-
r
v
r q1 J
All,
4 't` Y I ?'F
t
-ti !ti'"_`.Sa$
# 4,
Mw?
Photo Point 1 - Constructed Riffle 1
7,, ire} + r
Photo Point 3 - Constructed Riffle 2
Photo Point 5 - Log Weir 3
Photo Point 6 - Log Weir 4
Photo Point 2 - Log Weir 1
Photo Point 4 - Log Weir 2

Photo Point 7 - Constructed Riffle 3
? •. A g a .
6 ?#
-1
Air

Photo Point 9 - Constructed Riffle 4
Photo Point I 1 - Constructed Riffle 5
Photo Point 10 - Log Weir 6
Photo Point 12 - Constructed Riffle 6
Photo Point 8 - Log Weir 5
14
t _ A
*,
t f ? I}j k "?'r •?

1
r r?+

R{Iii a :x I
P.
?
A
ff!
Photo Point 18 - Constructed Riffle 12
Photo Point 13 - Constructed Riffle 7
Photo Point 14 - Constructed Riffle 8
Photo Point 15 - Constructed Riffle 9
Photo Point 16 - Constructed Riffle 10
Photo Point 17 - Constructed Riffle 11
(tic
- ?.{fr r .f >.-
?` -} ? 'i ?. fps e t 4AL :?;dsS ,6? +4•
Problem Area 1, Station -31+50
4l? ' h

s•;
Crest gauge reading of 1.91 feet Crest gauge reading of 0.33 feet
Problem Area 2, Station -43+00
Problem Area 3, Station -45+25
Problem Area 4, Station -47+50
F.
st ,!
yf,
4
!'M
' BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CROWNS MANAGEMENT, ONSLOW CO., NC,
FEBRUARY 2008.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta.1 Sta.2
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Dugesiidae
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina 7.2 1
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Sphaeriidae *8 FC
Pisidium sp. 6.5 FC 2
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Viviparidae
Campeloma decisum 6.5 SC 2
Basommatophora
Planorbidae *6 SC
Menetus dilatatus 8.2 SC 6
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.8 CG 4
Planorbidae *6 SC
Planorbella sp. 6.8 1
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *10 CG
Tubificida
Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 7.1 CG 1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 2
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp. 7.9 CG 1
Gammaridae
Gammarus sp. 9.1 SH 37
Decapoda
Cambaridae 7.5
Procambarus sp. 7 SH 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 CG 1
Ephemerellidae SC
Eurylophella sp. 4.3 SC 2
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) modestum 5.5 SC 22
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.9 SC 2
Odonata
Calopterygidae p
Calopteryx dimidiata 7.8 P 9
Cordulegastridae p
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Mar 2008 lab results RAW 11/21/2008
BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CROWNS MANAGEMENT, ONSLOW CO., NC,
FEBRUARY 2008.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Sta.1 Sta.2
Cordulegaster maculata 5.7 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Nigronia serricornis 5 P 1
Sialidae P
Sialis sp. 7.2 P 1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.2 FC 1
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.8 FC 1
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus fastigiatus 4.6 SC 1 1
Dytiscidae P 1
Hydroporus sp. 8.6 PI 4 3
Gyrinidae P
Gyrinus sp. 6.2 P 1
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.7 SH 1
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chaetocladius sp. CG 1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 5
Corynoneura sp. 6 CG 8
Cricotopus sp. CG 17 1
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 CG 5
Diplocladius cultriger 7.4 CG 6
Orthocladius sp. CG 18
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 5.5 CG 1
Paralauterborniella nigrohalteralis 4.8 CG 1
Polypedilum flavum (convictum) 4.9 SH 6
Polypedilum fa//ax 6.4 SH 1
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 1
Zavrelimyia sp. 9.1 P 1 1
Simuliidae FC
Simulium sp. 6 FC 42 3
Tabanidae PI
Chrysops sp. 6.7 PI 3
Tipulidae SH
Hexatoma sp. 4.3 P 1
Tipula sp. 7.3 SH 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 105 132
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 14 35
EPT INDEX 0 6
NC BIOTIC INDEX 6.76 7.17
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Mar 2008 lab results-RAW 11/21/2008
? x
1
, .

11 .'' t i. i {t a i
kart' ,.a p '
it xix t.'c A2
Site 1 - Crowns West macroinvertebrate sampling Site 1 - Crowns West macroinvertebrate sampling
site, view is upstream site, view is downstream
Site 1 - American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
Site 2 - Beaverdam Branch macroinvertebrate
sampling site, view is upstream
Site 2 - Beaverdam Branch macro invertebrate
sampling site, view is downstream