20050734 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20090212

6`5-M31
SILVER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2008 (YEAR 3)
Project Number D04006-5

. r F rtr 7f '9f:
7
'
I
41" _ 5
1
r? v

F >
?.%iR 116. .Y
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103 71
Raleigh, NC 27604 " ' ?'
2'?9
;cos stem r F B 1
JENK -WAi t ";.`P.41 TY
reorenon ?PIFTL ..a._.. Ale)
1 „r N JS M0 q ,. : ? ?, ! •Y t?F,,.,? r

Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC
909 Capability Drive
Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
L
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
. , al Suite 200
Cary. Non, Carolina 27518
Phone: 91 g.463,5488
Fax: [phone]
December 2008
ID
1 0 2008
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. .. 3
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... .. 3
2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach .............................................................. .. 3
2.4 Project History and Background ......... ........................................................................... .. 4
2.5 Project Plan .................................................................................................................... .. 4
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ...................................................................................... 8
3.1 Soil Data ......................................................................................................................... .. 8
3.2 Description of Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................... .. 8
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................... .. 9
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. .. 9
3.5 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................ 10
3.6 Vegetation Photos .......................................................................................................... 10
4.0 STREAM MONITORING .............................................................................................. 12
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 12
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 12
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results ......................................................................... 13
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos .............................................................................. 13
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment .......................................................................................... 13
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline ............................................................................................... 14
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results ....................................................................... 14
4.8 Cross-section Monitoring Results .................................................................................. 15
5.0 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................16
6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING ............................................ 18
6.1 Description of Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring .................................................. 18
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion ...................................... 18
6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ............................................................................. 19
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion .................................................................. 20
6.5 Photograph Log .............................................................................................................. 21
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 22
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 23
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................24
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC j
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Project Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 3 Monitoring
APPENDIX E - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Data
Silver Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Design Approach for Silver Creek Restoration Site
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area
Table 7. Year 3 (2008) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table 10. Comparison of Historic Average Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macro invertebrate Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (a). As-Built Plan Sheet 4 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (b). As-Built Plan Sheet 5 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (c). As-Built Plan Sheet 6 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (d). As-Built Plan Sheet 7 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site.
Figure 2 (e). As-Built Plan Sheet 8 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 2 (f). As-Built Plan Sheet 9 for the Silver Creek Mitigation Site
Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Silver Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

1.0 SUMMARY
' Thi
s Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2008 growing season
(Monitoring Year 3) on the Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). In accordance with
' the approved Restoration Plan for this site, this Annual Report presents data on geomorphology
data from 3 longitudinal profiles and 18 cross-sections, and stem count data from 9 vegetation
monitoring stations.
Prior to restoration, stream and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. After construction, it was
' determined that 5,127 linear feet of stream were restored, 1,077 linear feet of stream were
preserved and 3,428 linear of stream were enhanced.
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
automated station. For the 2008 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
' above average (approximately 14 inches mores from January 2008 through October 2008).
Much of the rain that fell during the 2008 growing season fell during the months of July, August,
and September due to tropical systems that moved through the area.
A total of nine vegetation monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (1 Om x l Om) in size, were
used to predict survivability of the woody vegetation planted on-site. The vegetation monitoring
documented an average of 547 surviving stems per acre with a range of 160 stems per acre to
680 stems per acre. Other than the data for Plot 6, the density was 480 stem per acre. These data
reflect that most of the Site has met the interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end
of Year 3 and is on track for meeting the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of
Year 5 as specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site.
The entire length of the Site was inspected during Year 3 (2008) to assess stream performance.
Measurements of cross-sections documented that UT1, UT2 and M3 are performing well.
' The data from the Year 3 longitudinal profiles show that the pools in UT1 have filled slightly,
but have remained relatively stable since Year 2. The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show
that the pools and riffles have remained stable since Year 2 of monitoring. The longitudinal
profile of M3 shows that there have been some minor adjustments to bed profile, primarily
around structures, but overall bed and feature slopes have remained unchanged. The longitudinal
' profile of M3 also shows that the channel repairs conducted in early 2008 are stable.
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during
Year 3 of the post-construction monitoring period. The largest on-site stream flow documented
' by the crest gauges during Year 3 of monitoring was approximately 0.18 feet above the bankfull
stage on UT 1.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

The Year 2 (performed in January 2008) benthic macro invertebrate sampling results revealed
that Site I (Silver Creek) exhibited an increase in total and EPT taxa richness. Site 2 (UTI to
Silver Creek) exhibited a decrease in taxa richness and an increase in biotic indices from Year I
to Year 2 post-construction sampling. It is anticipated that continued improvements in biotic
indices and an increase in Dominance in Common (DIC) will be seen in future monitoring ,
reports as communities continue to reestablish.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative and stream success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site. '
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-t, LLC 2
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
' The project involved the restoration of 5,127
p ? LF of stream, enhancement of 3,428 LF of stream
and the preservation of 1,077 LF of stream. Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f)
summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the project site. A total of 9,632 LF of
stream and riparian buffer are protected through a conservation easement.
2.1 Project Location
The Site is located approximately nine miles southwest of the town of Morganton in Burke
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The Site lies in US Geological Survey (USGS) Cataloging
Unit 03050101 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-31 of
the Catawba River Basin. The existing stream channels were re-designed and constructed as
shown in Figures 2(a) through 2(f), to enhance the water quality and wildlife habitat.
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
' The specific goals for the Silver Creek Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restore 5,127 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 3,428 LF of stream channel
• Preserve 1,077 LF of stream channel
• Exclude cattle from stream and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem-based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize significant water quality benefits.
' 2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
The Site had a recent history of pasture, hay production and general agricultural usage. The
streams on the project site were channelized, riparian vegetation had been cleared in most
' locations, and cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and access the channels. Stream
functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use changes.
' The restoration project provides compensatory mitigation for stream impacts associated with
construction disturbance in the resident cataloging unit. The design approaches for the project are
summarized and presented in Table 1.
Monitoring of the Site is required to demonstrate successful stream mitigation based on the
criteria found in the approved Restoration Plan for this Site. Monitoring of stream performance
is conducted on an annual basis.
' Construction at the Site was completed in April 2006 with all vegetation was also planted by
April 2006.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table 1. Design Approach for Silver Creek Restoration Site
Silver Creek R estoration Site: EE P Contract No. D04006-5
Project Segment or
Reach ID Mitigation
Type X
Approach"
Linear Footage
M1 El PI 1,391 LF
M2 P PI 1,333 LF
M3 R PII 2,127 LF
M4 El PI 1,825 LF
UT1 R PII 1,398 LF
UT2 R PI 1,214 LF
UT3 R PII 175 LF
* R = Restoration ** PI = Priority I
P = Preservation P2 = Priority 11
El = Enhancement I
2.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Silver Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3.
Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
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 2(a),2(b), 2(c),2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) of this report.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 4
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Silver Creek Mitigation Site: Project No. D04006-5
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Jun-05
Final Design - (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Aug-05
Construction Begins Oct-05 N/A Nov-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of live stakes Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of bare root trees Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
End of Construction Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Mar-06 Apr-06 Apr-06
Year I Monitoring Nov-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
Year 2 Monitoring Nov-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Year 3 Monitoring Nov-08 Nov-08 Dec-08
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09
Year 5 Monitoring Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 5
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table 3. Proiect Contacts
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse-I, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
En g. Kevin Tweedy.. Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
River Works. Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen. Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
River Works. Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
River Works, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen. Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers International Paper. 1-888-888-7159

Monitoring Performers
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Michael Baker Engineering. Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Eng. Kevin Tweedy. Tel. [phone]
I I South College Ave., Suite 206
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. Newton. NC 28658
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Chris Hu sman, Tel. [phone]
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4. Project Background
Silver Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-5
Project County: Burke County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach: M 1 6.6 mil
Reach: M2 6.9 mil
Reach: M3 7.2 mil
Reach: M4 7.6 miz
Reach: UT1 0.20 miz
Reach: UT2 0.25 mil
Reach: UT3 0.07 miz
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover:
Reach: Silver Creek < 5%
Reach: UT1 < 5%
Reach: UT2 <5%
Reach: UT3 <5%
Stream Order:
Silver Creek 3
UT1 1
UT2 1
UT3 I
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As-built C
Riverine, Upper Perennial,
Cowardin Classification Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-
Gravel
Dominant Soil Types
Silver Creek CvA,FaD2, AaA, BvB
UT1 CVA,FaD2, AaA, BvB
UT2 CvA,FaD2. AaA. BvB
UT3 CvA,FaD2, AaA, BvB
Reference site ID (Tributary to Baile y Fork)

USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites 03050 1 0 1 040020
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-31
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 75%
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
7
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Soil Data
The soil data for the project site are presented in Table 5
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
Soil Name Location Description
Colvard Flood plains in the southern Colvard series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
(CvA) Appalachian Mountains loamy alluvium on floodplains. These soils are occasionally flooded,
well drained, and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are composed
of loamy sands.
Fairview Piedmont upland Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
(FaD2) rivers in pastureland. It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams,
with an increase in clay content from about one foot below the surface.
Arkaqua Nearly level flood plains Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
(AaA) in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. Runoff
is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
Brevard High-stream terraces. foot Brevard series consists of a very deep soil profile that is well drained
(BvB) slopes, benches, fans, and with moderate permeability. The series primarily consists of
coves colluvium and alluvium. These soils are generally found in footslopes
and toeslopes.
Notes:
Source: From Burke County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS. http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
3.2 Description of Vegetation 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 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 Site's re-vegetation limits. 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 6. The seed mix of herbaceous species applied to
the Site's riparian area included soft rush (Juncus effuses ), bentgrass (Agrostis alba), Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), gamagrass, (Tripsicum
dactyloides), smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), devil's beggartick (Bidens frondosa), lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis lanceolata),
deertounge (Panicum clandestinum), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and Indian grass
(Sorghastrum nutans).
This seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. All planting was
completed in April 2006.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Silver Creek Restoration Area
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-5
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
2 uercus hellos Willow Oak FACW-
3 uercus rubra Northern Red Oak FACU
4 N ssa s lvatica Black Gum FAC
5 Dios ros vir iniana Persimmon FAC
6 Fraxinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
7 Liriodendron tuli i era Tulip Po lar FAC
At the time of planting, nine vegetation plots - labeled I through 9 - were delineated on-site to
monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025 acre in size, or
10 meters x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them
from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
' To define 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 Year 3 and a surviving tree density of at least
260, five-year-old trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site's species composition may be comprised of invaders. Remedial
action may be required should these (i.e. Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum),
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), etc.) present a problem and exceed 20 percent
composition.
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 3 of the post-construction monitoring period. Trees within each monitoring plot
' are flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from losing their identifying marks due to flag
degradation. It is important for trees within the monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure
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 during future counts.
Flags are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree.
' Some volunteer woody species were observed in many of the vegetation plots, but all were
deemed too small to tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season, they will be
flagged and added to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Red maple (Ater rubrum)
is the most common volunteer, though the silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and pine (Pinus
spp.) was also observed in some of the plots.
1
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

The Site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in April 2006. There were nine
vegetation-monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The vegetation
monitoring documented a range of 160 surviving stems per acre to 680 stems per acre with an
overall average density of 547 stems per acre and an overall survival rate of 77 percent. The area
around Plot 6 was particularly affected by the last two dry summers, leaving many of the stems
dead from lack of moisture. This area will require supplemental planting. Other than the area
around Plot 6, the Site meets the initial vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre
surviving after the third growing season. Assuming normal precipitation during the next
growing season and successful supplemental planting in the area of Plot 6, the final success
criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of year five should be achieved.
3.5 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are present on the site.
Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush (Eleocharis
obtusa), boxseed (Ludwigia spp.), and sedge (Carex spp.), were observed across the site,
particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these herbaceous wetland plants
helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
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. Commonly seen weedy
vegetation includes fescue (Festuca spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americans), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and wild dill
(Foenicidum vulgare). Any threatening weedy vegetation found in the future will be
documented and discussed in triannual reports.
3.6 Vegetation Photos
Photos of the project showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 10
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 7. Year 3 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged b Plot
by Initial Year Year Year Year 3
Totals 1 2 3 %
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3 Totals Totals Totals Survival
w:

Betula nigra 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 6 4 4 N/A
Fraxinus N/A
pennsylvanica 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 2
Platanus N/A
occidentalis 4 0 3 8 7 2 0 13 6 59 52 47 43
Quercus N/A
phellos 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 7 7 5 4
Quercus N/A
rubra 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2
Liriodendron
tulipiferra 5 10 0 8 0 0 12 0 3 40 37 41 38 N/A
Diospyros N/A
virginiana 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 6 7
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 N/A
A ssa N/A
s lvatica 3 4 7 0 4 0 0 0 5 24 30 25 23
Stems per
lot 17 14 16 16 12 4 13 17 14 159 146 130 123 77.4
Stems per
acre 680 560 640 640 480 160 520 680 560 706 644 578 547
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
t
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
construction completion on the Site:
Bankfull Events: Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The
gauges record the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurs between site visits. The gauges are
checked each month.during site visits. Locations of the gauges are on UT1, UT2, and M3. See
Figures 2(a), 2(d) and 2(f) respectively.
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 18 permanent cross-sections were established across the Site. Each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent
cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy
comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle
cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-
sections for 2008 (Year 3) were surveyed in September 2008.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as-built conditions. The profile was conducted for the entire length of the
restored channels (UT1, UT2, UT3 and M3). Measurements included thalweg, water surface,
bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature
(e.g., riffle, pool, glide). In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded. All surveys were tied to a
single, permanent benchmark. A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of stream channel that included
UT1, UT2, and M3 was conducted in September 2008.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. A total of
29 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 18 permanent
cross-sections and hydrologic monitoring stations. The Global Positioning System (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. A photo log of the Site is included in Appendix A of this report.
Stream banks are 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.
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 12
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
H

• Cross-sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes to channel
cross-sections take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored
' cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" and "B" type
channels.

1

11

• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed in "C" and "B" type channels.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel, no
excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of riparian
vegetation.
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during Year 3
of the post-construction monitoring period, as shown in Table 8. Inspection of conditions during site
visits revealed visual evidence of out-of-bank flow, confirming the crest gauge reading on UT1.
There were no crest gauge readings of out-of-bank flow documented by the crest gauge on the
mainstem of Silver Creek (M3) during Year 3 of monitoring.
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Silver Creek Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3

Date of Data Collection Date of
Occurrence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection

Measurement
1/16/2008 Unknown Crest Gage UT1 0.18
7/25/2008 Unknown Crest Gage UT1 0.11
10/28/2008 Unknown Crest Gage M1 0.10
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
Data from each permanent cross-section are included in Appendix B of this report. A photo log
showing each of the 18 permanent cross-section locations is also included in Appendix B of this
report.
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment
' Table 9 presents a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in-stream structures
performed during Year 3 of post-construction monitoring. The percentages noted are a general
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBx NEUSE-l, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
13
1
overall field evaluation of the how the structures were performing at the time of the latest photo
point survey. Based on visual assessments during Year 3, all structures on UTI, UT2 and UT3,
performed well. During Year 2 of monitoring, features on M3 had some minor problems. Some
meanders had stability issues, one cross vane showed lack of a scour pool and one riffle had a
stability issue at the tail of riffle. Minor repair work was completed in early 2008 to address these
areas. Disturbed bank and buffer areas were replanted after repairs were completed. The repaired
areas were performing well during the last site visit and will continue to be monitored during Year 4.
Table 9. Categorical Stream Features Stability Assessment
Silver Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-5
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100% 95% 100%
Pools 100% 100% 100% 100%
Thalweg 100% 100% 100% 100%
Meanders 100% 100% 95% 100%
Bed General 100% 100% 100% 100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 95% 100%
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project, as well as the as-built baseline data to
determine stream stability during the project's post construction monitoring period are summarized
in Appendix C.
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
A Year 3 longitudinal profile was completed in September 2008 and was compared to the data
collected during the as-built condition survey, Year 1 data and Year 2 data. The longitudinal profiles
are presented in Appendix B.
During Year 3 monitoring, a total of 3,000 LF of channel was surveyed for UTI, UT2 and M3. The
data from the Year 3 longitudinal profiles show that the pools in UTI have filled slightly, but have
remained relatively stable since Year 2. The partial filling of the pools in UTI is probably due to
accumulated sediment and a dense layer of vegetation throughout the channel. The accumulation of
sediment has not resulted in instability in this section of channel. It is likely that these sediments are
present in the pools due to low flow that is being exerted on the system by the dense vegetation layer
in the channel and the low gradient design of UTI. The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show that
the pools and riffles have maintained stability since Year 2 of monitoring. The longitudinal profile
of M3 shows some minor adjustments to the bed profile, primarily around structures, but overall bed
and feature slopes have remained unchanged.
The longitudinal profile of M3 shows that the stream repairs conducted in early 2008 are stable.
Areas of noted channel adjustments on UTI and M3 will be monitored during future site visits.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 14
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

1
' 4.8 Cross-section Monitoring Results
Year 3 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September 2008.
The Year 3 cross-section data are compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in April 2006
(as-built conditions), Year l data collected in October 2006 and Year 2 data collected in November
2007.
The 18 permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (10 located across riffles and 8 located
across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 3. Data
from each of these cross-sections are summarized in Appendix D. The cross-sections show that
there has been some slight adjustment to stream dimension since construction, but no apparent
instability.
Cross-sections 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 17 are located across pools found at the apex of meander
bends or below cross vanes. Survey data from cross-sections 1, 3, and 5 indicate that these pools
have remained stable since Year 2 of monitoring. Cross-section 9 has deepened since Year 2 and the
data show that the thalweg is now at the same elevation as it was during Year 1. The data show that
the pools in cross-sections 11, 12, 13 and 17 have deepened since Year 2.
Cross-sections 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 18 are located in riffles areas. Cross-sections 2, 4, 6,
' 14, 15, 16 and 18 have remained stable since Year 2 of monitoring. The data from cross-section 7
shows that the channel has experienced deposition that has decreased the channel dimension, but it
appears that the dimension has stabilized. The data for cross-sections 8 and 10 show that there has
' been little change since as-built conditions.
All monitored cross-sections fell within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" or "B" type
channels.
In-stream structures installed within the restored streams included constructed riffles, rock cross
vanes, rock step-pools, log vanes, rock vanes, log weirs, and root wads. A constructed riffle and a
rock step-pool were installed on the lower end of UT1, and a rock cross vane was installed at the
lower end of UT2 to step down the elevation of the restored stream bed to match the existing channel
invert at the confluences of the restored channels and Silver Creek. Visual observations of these
structures throughout the Year 3 growing season have indicated that these structures are functioning
as designed and holding their elevation grade. Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have
provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish. Most riffle areas have maintained
elevations and have also provided a downstream scour hole as habitat. Root wads placed on the
' outside of meander bends have provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Photographs of the channel were taken at the end of the monitoring season to document the
' evolution of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along
the edges of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream channel.
[7
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
15

1
5.0 HYDROLOGY

The Restoration Plan for the Site did not included wetland areas, therefore, no hydrology
monitoring stations were installed.
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the '
automated station. For the 2008 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
above the normal average (approximately 14.2 inches mores from January 2008 through October
2008). Much of the rain that fell during the 2008 growing season fell during the months of July, '
August, and September when evapotranspiration losses were highest (Table 10 and Figure 3).
Table 10. Comparison of Historic Avera e Rainfall to Observed Rainfall Inches
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2008 Precipitation
January 4.43 33. 5.79 3.42
February 4.14 2.83 5.5 7.44
March 4.85 33. 5.94 4.16
April 3.79 2.36 5.06 5.29
-
May 4.49 3 5.62 4.00
June 4.74 3.25 6.12 3.12
July 3.91 2.38 4.95 9.71
August 3.74 2.3 )6 4.45 9.80
September 4.18 2.48 5.98 6.29
October 3.84 2.03 4.76 3.05
November 3.79 2.55 4.27 NA
December 3.72 2.48 4.59 NA
Total: 49.62 Total: 56.28 (through Sept. 08)
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 16
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1

1

Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Silver Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
10
N
t 8
c 6
°. 4
i 2
IL
0

N
c? N CO
N
9
CV CO
I co co CO

CO
Q V
m
V
O
O
2
Q
co p
-.- Historic 30% probable A Historic 70% probable -i-Obser?,ed 2008
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
17
6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in conjunction with the Silver Creek
Restoration Project. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate
sampling must be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic sampling for the Site was
conducted during January 2008. This report summarizes the benthic samples collected during
the second year post-construction monitoring phase.
The sampling methodology followed the Qual 4 method listed in NCDWQ's Standard Operating
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). Field sampling was conducted by Carmen
McIntyre and Jake McLean of Baker. Laboratory identification of collected species was
conducted by David Lenat, a biologist with Lenat Consulting Services.
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two sites on the Silver Creek Project on
January 28, 2008 and at one eco-reference site on a Bailey Fork tributary on January 8, 2008.
Sites 1 and 2 were located within the restoration area on Silver Creek and UT1 to Silver Creek,
respectively. The majority of the restoration activities on Silver Creek were enhancement and
preservation; Site 1 lies within the stream restoration portion of the project. Site 2 is located
approximately 300 feet upstream of where UT1 flows under Morrison Road. Figure 1 illustrates
the sampling site locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream. 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 are presented in Appendix E.
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results and Discussion
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 11
with complete results presented in Appendix E.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 18
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling

1
1

r

Table 11.
Summary of Pre-Restoratton vs. Post-Restoration Benthlc Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
I tiitc3
Site I Site 2 t' I I to B;dlev Fork
Metrics Silver ('reek I I I to Silver Creek
(Reference)
Pre Year 1 Year 2 Pre Year 1 Year 2 Pre Year 1 Year 2
11310 5 1/11/07 1/24/08 1/4/05 1/11/07 1/24/08 1/4/05 1/17/07 1/23/08
Total Taxa Richness 22 36 43 14 39 24 26 34 20
EPT Taxa Richness 14 23 25 3 11 7 16 20 13
Total Biotic Index 3.16 4.40 4.72 7.02 6.86 5.97 4.09 4.30 5.04
EPT Biotic Index 2.59 4.16 4.28 6.1 6.14 4.98 3.41 3.65 4.98
Dominance in Common 29 50 86 12 31 14 n/a n/a n/a
Total Shredder/Scraper
Index 4/4 513 8/4 1/2 3/3 1/3 7/3 513 2/5
EPT Shredder/Scraper
Index 3/2 2/3 4/4 0/1 0/2 1/1 4/2 2/2 1/3
Habitat Assessment Rating 58 72 74 24 78 77 65 70 72
Water Temperature (°C) n/a 7.4 7.6 n/a 3.7 3.8 n/a 8.4 7.9
% Dissolved Oxygen (DO) n/a 57.7 n/a n/a 44.0 n/a n/a 32.1 n/a
DO Concentration (mg/1) n/a 6.92 11.0 n/a 5.82 6.2 n/a 3.76 11.35
pH n/a 6.01 7.24 n/a 5.97 7.09 n/a 5.97 7.8
Conductivity (pmhos/cm) n/a 40 60 n/a 30 30 n/a 50 80
n/a- Data not available
At Site 3, the reference site, the post-construction community structure and ecological habitat
appears to be similar to that observed during the pre-construction monitoring period. Site 3
showed a slight decrease in both overall and EPTtaxa richness with an increase in total and EPT
biotic indices. The higher indices could be attributed to the decrease in overall shredder taxa
observed during post-construction monitoring. Many of the shredders present in the pre-
construction sample that were not present in the post-construction sample had very low tolerance
values. Despite the increase in biotic indices at Site 3, several of the EPT species that were
common or abundant in the pre-construction sample, such as Stenonema pudicum, Eccoptera
xanthenes, and Pycnopsyche spp. (tolerance values of 2.0, 3.7, and 2.5, respectively) were also
common or abundant in the post-construction sample. This suggests that the communities have
not been disturbed and that water quality is adequate to support intolerant species. Therefore,
Site 3 remains a stable eco-reference site.
Site 1, which underwent partial restoration, continued to exhibit an increase in overall and EPT
taxa richness, as well as increase in overall and EPT biotic indices in the Year 2 post-
construction sample. This suggests that although more species were present (assumedly from
increase variety of habitat as provided by designed restoration); these species were slightly more
tolerant than previous communities. This is a typical response after a major disturbance to
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSF-1, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
19
habitat such as the in-stream construction techniques implemented on Site 1. Although taxa
richness and biotic values between Year I and Year 2 are similar, the increased abundance of
long-lived intolerant species, especially perlid stoneflies and Pteronarcys spp. indicates an
improvement in conditions at Site 1. Official bioclass ifications cannot be assigned to the sample
because Qual 4 sampling methods were used. If standard sampling methods had been used, the
increase in EPT taxa would have raised a pre-construction rating of "Fair" to a Year 2 post-
construction rating of "Good-Fair". These classifications may be considered the minimum rating
for this site until classifications are developed for these smaller samples.
Currently Site 1 has 86 percent Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site,
which indicates that 86 percent of the dominant communities at the reference site are also
dominant at Site 1. Site 1 has undisturbed areas located upstream and downstream of the
sampling location, and therefore has excellent sources of refugia. The proximity of undisturbed
benthic communities may be why the DIC is high at Site 1. It is anticipated that improvements
in the biotic indices will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities continue to
recolonize.
Site 2, which underwent complete restoration, saw a decrease in taxa richness and an increase in
biotic indices from Year 1 to Year 2 post-construction samples. This indicates that fewer species
were present and those present were more tolerant species. Site 2 is located along a restored
unnamed tributary to Silver Creek that has a smaller drainage area (0.2 square miles) compared
to Site 1 (6.6 square miles), which is located along the Silver Creek. Extreme drought conditions
that occurred across western North Carolina during late 2007 could also have had greater effects
on the smaller drainage area. Site 2 may have experienced low flow conditions that negatively
impact taxa richness and biotic indices.
Currently Site 2 has 14 percent DIC with the reference site. The decrease in DIC from Year 1 to
Year 2 may indicate a stress on the stream such as low flow conditions. It is anticipated that
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports
if drought conditions ease and communities re-establish.
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
The restoration site habitat scores for Year 2 were similar to those of Year 1 (74 for Site 1 versus
77 for Site 2). Site 1 had a good diversity of substrate sizes but bank erosion was noted directly
upstream from the monitoring location. Recent repairs to stabilize the streambank immediately
above Site 1 should be reflected in slightly higher future assessment scores. Site 2 had very
stable bed and banks but the riffle substrate was fairly homogenous. Neither site had mature
riparian buffers. Site 3, the reference site, received a 72 on the habitat assessment despite
having a mature forested buffer; the banks of the channel were eroded and the substrate was
embedded.
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration,
pH, and specific conductivity at the restoration sites were all relatively normal for Piedmont
streams. The conductivity reading at Site 3 was relatively high (80 µS/cm) compared to the
restoration reaches. The macro invertebrate community at Site 3 appeared stable and therefore
external influences are not suspected for the rise in conductivity at this time.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 20
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the installation of several root wads, vanes,
' and armored riffles has enhanced the overall in-stream habitat throughout the project area. The
immature riparian vegetation has had minimal effect on in-stream habitat at Sites 1 and 2
however future contributions from planted riparian vegetation will be evident as the woody plant
' species mature. Contributions will include in-stream structures such as sticks and leaf packs.
Since no woody riparian buffer currently exists at either Site 1 or 2, it can be concluded that the
existing in-stream structures that include stick and leaf packs have originated from upstream.
'
6.5 Photograph Log
The photograph log for the benthic macro invertebrate sampling event is attached as Appendix E.
' As shown in photos P-l through P-4, both sites exhibit well defined riffle pool sequences. Both
sites lack a forested canopy as the immature riparian vegetation continues to establish. Both sites
are stable, however an unstable meander bend is visible in the background of the upstream view
1 of Site 1. P-5 and P-6 are views of the eco-reference site.

1

1
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 21
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream Monitoring: The total length of the project is 9,632 LF. This entire length was inspected
during Year 3 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance. Measurements of cross-
sections documented that UT1, UT2, M1, M3 and M4 are performing well. The M3 reach area
was repaired during early 2008, as described in Section 4.5.
The data from the Year 3 longitudinal profiles show that the pools in UT1 have aggraded
slightly, but have remained stable since Year 2. The longitudinal profile data for UT2 show that
the pools and riffles have remained stable since Year 2 of monitoring. The longitudinal profile
of M3 shows that there have been some minor adjustments to the bed profile, primarily around
structures, but overall bed and feature slopes have remained unchanged. The longitudinal profile
of M3 shows that the repairs conducted in early 2008 are stable.
The on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event during
Year 2 of the post-construction monitoring period. The largest on-site stream flow documented
by the crest gauges during Year 3 of monitoring was approximately 0.18 feet above the bankfull
stage on UT.
Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Vegetation Monitoring: The vegetation monitoring documented a range of 160 surviving stems
per acre to 680 stems per acre with an overall average of 547 stems per acre, which is a survival
rate of 77 percent based on the initial planting count of 706 stems per acre. The area around Plot
6 was particularly affected by the last two dry summers, leaving many of the stems dead from
lack of moisture. This area will require supplemental planting during the winter of 2008/2009 to
meet the vegetation survival criteria. Other than the area around Plot 6, the Site met the initial
vegetation survival criteria of 320 stems per acre surviving after the third growing season.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the Restoration
Plan for the Site.
Benthic Macro invertebrate Monitoring: Year 2 results revealed that Site 1 (Silver Creek)
exhibited an increase in total and EPT taxa richness. Site 2 (UT1 to Silver Creek) exhibited a
decrease in taxa richness and an increase in biotic indices from Year 1 to Year 2 post-
construction sampling. The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent
dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at the sampling
sites were all relatively normal for Piedmont streams. It is anticipated that continued
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in Year 3 of monitoring as
communities continue to reestablish.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 22
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site. During the past year, frogs,
turtles and fish have been observed at the Site.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
23
9.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macro invertebrates (2006). North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
NC.
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. NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2006. Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina, NC Agricultural Experiment
Station.
Silver Creek EEP Contract No. D04006-5, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year3
24

FIGURES
N
Catawba 03-08-3dZ
Morgantai
70
r
141
Catawba 03-08-31
Pro]
C1 Sde
1
64
Catawba 03-08-35
_ Targeted Loca=e
rshed
0305010150
_f
Catawba 03-08-04
s
Environmental Sant and Exchange LLC
2530 Menaan Parkway Sune 200
Durham. NC 27713
;HU 03050101
r - Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Silver Creek Site
Burke Co.
0 0.5 1 2 3
' Wes
Figure 1. Location of Silver Creek Stream Restoration Site.
r = = = = = = = = m m = = = = m = m r
? + V
+
co Q
+ U
LU "I
Lij
k Z C7
LL
o C'?c W
o ? m
eei9ziz
u6p•50-HSd-X83-Bd ZZZmH\3 P"8_sb\u6isa?\a
Lo

0
O
U
U Z
w ¢ HZ
Ow
m
p
O WU1
m
W ? Z?
NO

O¢p
p?W
fnOQ

r OVw

Zr7
jn?

Yo
wLL
?P,:
row
U
H _

W
i ¢ ¢ ?Z
W

00.
OQX?
a
x tip??b
?S
x ?
3 O
00
? LL
W
Q
O N
O
Q 0
U
Q
w
} U)
J =
Z I-
0
Z
20
U
W cl
W w
Z0
0
0
_w
I- ry
Qw
> n.
w fn
U) Q
w?
w
aY
w
Q
O
ui w i?
O NO
Z 2Z
U
N
L

u6P'90-NSd-x83-9e-ZZZOa\iP"B-sew6i

p
W v'i
?u°+a
W r
3?ari

O
U
Z p
O Iz
a
Q
w p
w
w
N

o O W
Z2
w?
QO
?
z
Wh
I W o mp
a Da0
paw F F
Z"
= wW
?? Z
uC
w
S W'W
O O
>?
WNW vow
=U W
S
N YoQ F-Q ?Z
WE

M +} i
z LO
0
0
O y
O
t
z
0
I--
M
W?
W
N
Wt
ZI
J
U
Q
fl,-COql
J
x
x
y
., a
t
000 ? ... +\
00 +\
000 000
000
00 +
N
W
(D
LL I
'6P•L0-HSd-xed-ae-zzzed\ 3P19-stl\ 16
i i r? 1? iN r? +? !ir ¦i r! r r rr r r ?r i rl? i¦
W
w
e ;oar
00'00+ZL
ViS 6 133HS WITH:DiVN
zZ
Z n m

w ` m?
zw
X I X

F=
WN o
»>
m > D
W O
? ? U
ND
aw

Z

X

I ? i
??

?w zn?

w" Nw

? VW

W
U)
I w

I i ...

x
x
HON =
YOQ 2
HQ ?Z X m

a U A
01

w
19
I
1 \ x
o X
N

U
m f 1
Zn 1

X
O

V t

m

X
-
X -e- i

z-
o m
1
W
U

X u
i
x X
I

X
r n
X m
x
X
_
I
o ;, X
x <°
? 0
x83-8d-ZZZ08\4 l'^8
00
3 °
S
J
V
O N
a o
N
?. O
N
W
ry
C?
LL.

O NA?v
w ;?qe
m4
p
2
Z O
m ¢?n
l7 p
z H
0z

a
W
G w

z Z
z ? m

.?
o z?
w- w
o =o
Np
?
U
i
oQO °= z
°??
¢ zM?
>n? Nw W
W
Foy Yo¢
mi o
W
e?

`

o X
?
(0 o
X o
O
(O z /
6
H LK o a
N s
N

Z ~
N i
' a
Q
w N 0
T 1.

I
x`
J

O?
Ox
C`
?+ b
8
?y
?s
b?G
Z.
f ' ?
a
U
u6Pem-HSd-xa3-ed zzzma?1
3 O
LL
LLJ
J
N v
O N
j
?C °
Q OV
N
N
L
iz
r ?r r r r r ri r ?r ?r r ?r r rr r rr rr ?r r¦
1

1

1
1

1

u
APPENDIX A
PROJECT PHOTO LOG

VEGETATION PHOTOS
' 3 ye. 1.
ads - •f5?
"ilk
Vegetation Plot 1
r

Vegetation Plot 4

10

x A,
y w 1++
( s M X ry?a'? ? gM M fg y

I?N
Vegetation Plot 5

+9?.r
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
A
tit 1'3' ? ? ? ?P
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
STREAM PHOTOS
1
r
Ai"
UTI Photo Point 4
% ?? Z?. 7Y 9 Kl
f
-84
.'^? ?5! \Y h
UTI Photo Point 6 UTI Photo Point 13
Silver Creek Stream Crossing M1
UTl Photo Point I
Silver Creek Cross Vane M I

•
?' 't Y.1?
K
i '?
?y ?'
, ?
r

? ? ?ya71e .? t a"' -
a
`.. r e '"'?a1
l
`
`;s°?`°?'O ?y a? .ors R
{
?
y
n
. •

??
.ice 0r ?'?+a?"p i rt ? k.-??i?? , L
rw j .w. .. ?..- _ '

`
VC,r
UT2 Photo Point 1
r
'flo
r. r
t J? y?6 ?A ' g
r_
poyy ???t '?? Y '
UT2 Photo Point 3

I rb ri d l

k r -Yr
??. ?} ? ? y., y+.???i mss" ? ?t ? .
UT2 Photo Point 6
UT2 Photo Point 2
?' r ? q 3 y
i
UT2 Photo Point 5
UT2 Photo Point 7
UT2 Photo Point 8
UT2 Photo Point 10

t
?
/
y
y
, 4
,_
'' I t? ,' m _

All

i - ?. +tol Sd ? . ?
UT2 Photo Point 9
) 1
Jl*
UT2 Photo Point 15
UT2 Photo Point 11
UT2 Photo Point 14
,r. ? A?.Q rt?r ,.yP?y?s q 'ICS
?17? 'iT•
.

? T.? fi.• ? ? I• y

3
4,
r
6
z 3 :rL t.N ?,
)'" .?'C{ 4.7% , .x :. ?. _`4Y?e ?:r 's :rw12?
UT2 Photo Point 16
- 'b . .

10,

44

ig,

f Vp? { t? ? h L / ? jX

UT3 Photo Point 1
`i III
M3 Photo Point 2
UT2 Photo Point 17

M3 Photo Point 3
M3 Photo Point 1

?'? M1I

r

41
-

M3 Photo Point 4
i ,pig t t'" • y? ' k;
M3 Photo Point 6
r'T VV
PTI

04
K

•
y ,

M4 Photo Point 1 4

K sl 3} .:.

<
,: pa w
a I? + x
Nl ? ?G c.. 4

M4 Photo Point 2
M3 Photo Point 5
M3 Photo Point 7
rJ .. l
t?

M4 Photo Point 1
M4 Photo Point 3
M4 Photo Point 4
M4 Photo Point 9
M4 Photo Point 10
APPENDIX B
? I STREAM MONITORING DATA

0
0

I 1

i
; 0
N

it I
O
O

i
I

/ O
I

O OC
^
O
t
N
O _
O 00
O O
O
t
N
?
r
C (D
O
E
+
.
M Z
O
00 C
°
.
U)

d
M fn

.
:
a?+
cn
} V
? d
O
U

U
?c
0
7 o

y ? O
NO
> I-
I
i
rn
' 3arni?
O
o
.c
]CON

;
f6N
IM
? NNN
' I 1
O
O
ti
O O,
In ? oo t? ? In V M N
v v v v v v v ^
(jj) u01;en313

i
N
?O I i
N

O
a+ r.
O CO
O O
+ O
O N
N
C
'O E
I
O ?
CL
d
M
10
d
i

} V
? d t
f
? p
U I
?
Y
O ?

L

> O c
`t C
?
m
O.
> FO-
0
0
In
N
0
N
O
O
N
0
n
M
N
O
O
N
o =
N A
N ?
0
0
N
N
n
N
O
O
? N
LNN
?HH
>c0N
m ? ? O
Q } } O
N
O
O
00 [? lp 1/'1 7 r'n N --O O? 00 N
? 7 7 7 R C R R? M M
(l3) HOIJUAal:j
C
N
+
r ?
O N
N C
c d
2S
., a
d
N G1
F- ?
M d
Y ?
?U
U
I 0
d
1
V
? I
I
s
i
i
O
O
O
0
0
C
0

°v
M Y
C
FL- a
N O
4 O
Y F
Of O
o
L ? 47
j L
Z co F-
m ?
>11
Q ? I
O
N
rn h U7 Cl)
O) 1? N
v v a v cn r4 co
It
(4) uol;enal3
I I I
I I 1
i I I I
I I I 1 '

O
N

I
I I I
i I II
I
it i 1 N
I
i I
?I

O

LO

I I I
i 1 I
1 1 I ?
I I I

Q I I
1 I
I I II
I I i
+
N
N ?
00
o
+ L. N
I? I C
r'
E O
c a
?. y rn
U
N 0
H V
U
? m

C> N O
> o
_
N }
i

d)2 ?rn?
L U L
L ? t0
F ? t
0
{p I Z ? ~
j
C? r
47
i
0
L
O r LO M rn r 1
M M M M M N N N n
(:U) uol;en813
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
N
Ol
L
H
M
<0
N

J O
? N

m Y
c
H m
N 0
va
a) CL
0
} '7

O p?
gi
a? ? O
O
O t L) N
N ~_ U

Z. W
m Y
co
Q
f

CY)
?
d

I
C
c E a?+

y C N y
N
N y

R O
} d

? V
Y r
d ?
? O
0
? 1 N

O
O

i O
N
O
O
O

(iJ) UOIJOAal3
0
0
0

i
? i
t H
N
O
vy
N
} N
m
cq

?
H N

w M
>? f0
> }
l O
I T ?
00
? N
Q
7
O
O 3
m
Y
O
M ~, CC

O
m O

a O

o
O o ¢ H rq
t N
W)
N y
O E
as
r
v
U) d C
N
N N

d +O'
t7 O
? U O
Y a?+ N
d O

d
? O

N
O
O

i
i
i N
i
i

O
v'i
V'1
N
O
O

o
?
v O
v
N tf)
N
(1!) UOl;an31'3
Permanent Cross-section #1 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
T : ,,? a+A*s war-'!,, ?.
. ?.vy.'PV 1 ?'taaaw s dE ??, ?yy.?
.?p?r {• d"^ i',: Wf?. ?^?fT:?R !?'`.. .. TTSS r P .A :a
-Av
6 ,
1 F3
14
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF MFeatuType BKF Area Width Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 12.9 21.71 0.59 1.63 36.6 1 3.7 1145.95 1145.95
Cross-section #1
1150 ,
114
c
0
114
m
W
114
1142 +
0
-----•------------------------•------...--------•---------- 0
T
Year 2 - - a - Bankfull
o Floodprone Year 1
-?- As-Built -0 Year 3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #2 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
,`
•Al
3 ? ..',? ??rlS',?` 's ?- X"y1 • x.,11 ? 9?a?. ?? ? ... ? ?.
Looking at the Right Bank
aueam ranr ur%r rviax am
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 8.4 15.66 0.54 1.28 29.21 1 4.5 1147 1147.05
Cross-section #2
1149
1148
E
c 1147
0
R
m 1146
w
1145
1144+
0
Looking at the Left Bank
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #3 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
-?, rf? rah'#i?"?
`M 144 '"' » 4J x ? 4 'i ? ??
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Tvae BKF Area Width Deoth Deoth W/D RH Ratin FR RKF Flav T(1R Pav
Cross-section #3
1151
1150
1149 ------------------------------
0
m
w 1147
Year 2 a Bankfull
1146 a • Floodprone Year 1
-+-As-Built - 8 Year 3
1145-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #4 UT2
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 7.9 12.6 0.62 1.32 20.18 1 4.2 1145.2 1145.25
Cross-section #4
1150 , - - - - -
1148
c
0 1146
R
m
w
1144
Tear I
-? As-Built
-? Year 3
1142
0 10

20 30 40
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #5 UT2
(Year 3 Data - Collected Sepember 2008)
All ;ova

1
Cross-section #5
1147 --- ----- ---
. • .. .................................••••------ . ......------ --o
1145

1143
m
Year 2
W o Bankfull
1141 Floodprone
Year 1
t As-Built
0 Year 3
1139

0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
aw??a?saia:saac? s
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #6 UT2
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
i ,'t S FOy
K'

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 5.8 11.02 0.53 1.23 21 0.9 5.9 1137.83 1137.77
Cross-section #6
1139 ------ ------------- - -------------------- ------------------o
v

O
R
m 1137
w
Year 2 a - Bankfull
o - - Floodprone -- Year 1
?- As-Built ?- Year 3

1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #7 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)

3-y

Looking at the Left Bank
1137.4
Cross-section #7
1143
1141
v

v
1139
m
w
1137
1135

0 10
Year 2 o Bankfull
o • • Floodprone --- --- Year 1
?- As-Built -a Year 3
20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
??strr
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #8 M3
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)

A
WK, V

Zvi L - . • ?'N?'*-`?
h i y?_ `r+
.rya .-`?.? y
2 N v47 wnP-`'e 'q y y?_7iC'
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 Bc 55.4 25.63 2.16 3.18 11.85 1.1 1.8 113 75 1139 94 '
Cross-section #8
1149
1147
1145
C 1143
0
a 1141
m
w 1139
1137
1135
1133
0
Year 2 o. Bankfull
- - o - - Floodprone --- Year 1
As-Built -?- year 3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #9 M3
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)

?. a
?fT ?F' y ?qqr r
' i jsX M' A /
Y
J` WWI
ar;
y?y
Cross-section #9
IT.
4
3.1
1148
1146
------------------------------------------------------------
1144 0
1142
c 1140
..
> 1138
d
w 1136
1134 Year 2 0 - Bankfull
1132 ° - - Floodprone Year 1
As-Built -ems- Year 3
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #10 M3
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
'YN `• 'tk r '. !a
us W ,?NF ??':?•'?? ? n •. ?"?,.l?:r ,Ifs-A "j..
Looking at the Left Bank
k ri A
t7Y• r *`s ?t s.
Mel
?t A•
Ali : ? -Z ; r ?? ? ?? •? ??
Jt*

Looking at the Right Bank E3eKpF Feature TyEpe BK5 A3 a I VV5.2 D2 27 I MDaxe

.14 F I W/ D BH Ratio E R I BKF 38ev I 1D1 g8.01V 1 11 Cross-section #10

1148
1146
1144

-- 1142
---------------------------------------
c 1140
1138 ...--•-•-•-----
m
w 1136
Year 2
o- Bankfull
1134 o Floodprone - - Year 1
1132 As-Built a Year 3

1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #11 M3
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
t 'S` t n

t Q-
5Nx ,?.
^: w y
14V ?'I .1 Ali
Looking at the Right Bank
roof 84 42.08 2.23 4.87 18.84 1 3 1137.2 1137.26
Cross-section #11
1146
1144
1142 -------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1140
a 1138
> 1136
m
w 1134 Year 2 o Bankfull
1132 o Floodprone Year 1
1130 As-Built -?- year 3
1128
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #12 M4
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
+?.ho
M : "` f ,fir t'.
A* Noi
J ?' 4 Z_ V
4
tr
1. `?.?6'? ? ?-.? ?.3. ?? ? •? q?-?' f A ? .s'? ??H ?{ "'IC`Y
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
I Pool 1 1 66.2 1 24.47 1 2.7 1 5.9 1 9.05 1 2 1 1.8 1 1133.76 1 1139.6 1
Cross-section #12
1143
1141
1139

= 1137
0
1135
m
w
1133
Year 2
a Bankfull
1131 - - o - • Floodprone
Year 1
1129 -?-Year 3

1127
0 10

20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #13 M4
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
A y
rte'. t i .- - jF i'.`^?A, +¢ r' , ,F 1 ?P+Y
awY x2x
of'
F
x ;
} 7 a $ ?>r` j v -?
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Tvoe BKF Area Width Ds-nth nanth Wm RH Rntin FR mer G?ox, Tne M_.,
I roof 1 1 4W.1 1 12.72 1 3.86 l 4.82 1 3.29 1 2.1 1 3 1 1132 1 1137.27 1
Cross-section #13
1144
1142
1140
1138

1136

A
1134
d 1132
w
1130 Year2
1128 - . o Bankfull
- o - . Floodprone
1126 ---Year 1
-0 Year 3
1124

0 10 20
30 40 50
Station (ft)
60 70
Permanent Cross-section #14 M4
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
nr? , f)y 1S q. .I
1
r

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Bc 76.3 36.43 2.09 5.29 17.39 1 1.6 1134.2 1134.2
Cross-section #14
1144
1142
1140
o
1138-
1136-
0
1134
co
m 1132 Year2
W <> 1130 Bankfull
1128 o • Floodprone
-- Year 1
1126 --o.- Year 3
1124
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)

T-
,?-
-4
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #15 M4
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Tvne RKF Area Width n.nth nonth %nun raw o,e„ CO Qler Cl- TnQ CL .,
Cross-section #15
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
0 1134
R
m 1132
W
1130
1128
1126
1124
0
10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Year 2
a Bankfull
o Floodprone
Year 1
--?- Year 3
50 60 70
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #16 M1
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
2 it
%
. Wit'>'??:,????-+.??? # `? ??1 r„`? _ .. '` ?y' '` ??'>•? ? , '??
%
tic' ax ' ma
or j
\ 1?TtY? r uj ?,'.,tys } • a41? ??,,53., h? f h?,? t 1,t
P* r
4C I AL.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 64.8 25.99 2.49 4.17 10.42 1 2.9 1144.65 1144.61
Cross-section #16
1155 -
1153
1151
1149-
1 147 0 1145
a
d 1143
w
1141
1139
1137
1135
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Pennanent Cross-section M1 #17
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)

Z . ? vPa r _? ?!
«? a
Looking at the Left Bank

Looking at the Right Bank

I rvvi I 1 00 1 Ztl.64 I Z.9/ 1 5.21 l 9.65 1 1.6 1 2 1 1144.03 1 1147.08 I
1149
1147
1145
v
C
0 1143
?a
m 1141
W
1139
1137
1135
0
Cross-section #17
-------------•---•--------------------------•-------o
10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Year 2
0- Bankfull
O Floodprone
Year 1
0 Year 3
60 70
Permanent Cross-section #18 M1
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
i.

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type IBKFArea Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle Bc 73.7 27.35 2.7 3.96 10.15 2.3 1.5 1146.9 1152.2
Cross-section #18
1154
1152
1150
0 1148
R
d 1146-
1144-
1142-
1140--
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank

1

1
? APPENDIX C
? BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
I RESTORATION REACHES

1

1
1

1
1

a
O
C
i
a
L
h
i
E
E

E
v
r.
s
v
C
' y

m
cX? .- V N ?D O C
q 0 N O C ? O

G O `0 C C
..??Xr ? O N o G N

a

et
Q

c

a N o `° C o o °` o m
Z C O Q_ f 1 O_

?
n r ?
vii N ?

i

i 0 ? ?l
?

? rn
? v
O G_
O
r

C
? N-? v
-• O U _

G

0 G
G G ? A ND w. _.

L
U
C G
_
r

R ? ?. G G O
R
? U
E U 7
R un U
OL
ti r C ? ? O C - r iJ
? O 7
N. 41 -. ? ?

'? Cd y o
R ? 4

0

w z ? "-' w ? o
:.7
n Z
m
G G ? ? ?
' 6
az = s
z
-=te
ra x s _ .u
fir, v?
7 3 -
?o r-
3
o F
u
w o m U °o . c
m °o ?? 5 w m 1 v _? v v x d ,n «. ? ?. ?u
c o m t' cd v 5

_ v' o A
C L E L
z F ? v

O ?a
R

r v
t, « «
a Via' a v, e I

a
a
?G O M N N V C
c, - rn O- O -? - r
r r r
r r r r
r r r
r r r r r
,? r N „ ?- r r ??- r O. r 0 d. r r r r r r r
G
? _
O? P? N_ ?. O-
P N V'
? N N
` p
'n N a C? O
r, O P. _- V vi
N C rn rn
r
, 0 !
- O r ? O? m- C
Q 0

r r r r r
G r W r? r r? r,

?
m?
?" C

r ,
'T
O O
N r,

, r
O

r, r r ?
, r, r r

0
L
C m O V'
V 'S

a.

C C 7 C
? r _- rn
r r r r
r r r r
O r ,
P
-
r f [x.7 O-
-

C N O
vii r r, N - r

r, r

r r r C
r

O r r

?
r, r 0,
N
F•'
a
t>
G ? ! N c v N
_ _ r
, r r r
r r r r
r r
c'
r , r „
v c
a I
d c ?
?
r%?
.i
G ,n
? `o v- ? ? N c
`J

? r r r r r r r r r
M -
?- c
4
Ci
L y

i o

f<

I
rig 5 ?r ° n v N- v f
'?', -a = - a N- N
r r r r
r r r r °
r r
r r . r

G .
U R
r r r r
`ic' c r r r r r
r r r
r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r
r r
r r r r
r r„
e
o ?

r r r r r „
^' =? r r r r r „

r r r r
r r r r

r r r r
r r r r

r
r r

r r
r r „
? -a '^ r r r r „ r r „ r r r r r r r „

en
- 0
0 0 o m c
ra ,?, P o
r c r

r „

r.

r
a o
? m rn co
r N,
U' Z
m '^
.J ? o
? m? K P O NO ?? O
- Z? G G -

n a a v s
n.
s vn.5
L" t
7 3
m- v

°
W x v e v
'
a
m v y_ 67,

^
W '
E S

U G C

E -
- S C
°
r. E 'o a c
O ? c: r Q

1
1
1

1
t
L
1

t

? ? P ?T P M
???,?? -n r
rr
rrr
rr
rrrrr

.c P v P r a ? v°?
Q

?? M o o -? ? r r r r r r r r r r r
i rOi r N i r? i i i i r r r 0 r N
O O r r
N i r r r r

?

v rn 'n ? P rn O ?n O O
E N O- - ? J

i r r
V-
V - V
r G r P O
?
\.. -
O N o0

? O - O
? O p] ?_ O
Q

G r- r? i i N i i

r r r r
O
r° r-
O O

O r r O

r r r r r
,G O r i r?? ?- r r r r r r r r r H r r r r r O i
O P
L
r V N ?? rn
r r i i
i i r i
? r p
G
?
?
?
u i
P r f
7-1
0
-

G? i i i N- N- r
r r r r
i i r i O.
O r r
r i i 0 i
M

?

?

C X

i r r r r r r r r
? i r r r r r r i i

i i r r
i i r r

r r r r
r r r r

i t
i t
K

i i i r r?
r i i r r
CJ C_
a O

Y
?
7° h o?
' o
c N
P o g o °-' v
y
L
V _

? rv N ,-? r,
?' V
o o r ? r r r r r r o o^

p - o W '? - o
L
?
G r r i i r i i r r
r r i i
r r r r
r i
r r r? i

C ? i r r r r r r i i i i r r r r r r r r r i r i r r
'? r r i i r i i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r

00 O
O _ rte,
r.., i P? r r f?

r r r i

i i r i

i r i
? O
r? W N O
c7
U z

...,
Y a° v r +- -- ?? =.
a n v ? 5 7? 3
? ?o u r- cr c v
33ociaa =ug ..?v?
v c
?_JQ .Y
? v2e?,v

1 ,O F? ., Q O x=
y
45
P] C?
5
3a
.w ? p C
a
O? 2
b
? qi U n Pa
?o

S a

O Q
i y F r
?- x v
F
r

ro_ i O
c o a a` ?: e

1
1

1
1
1

1

a

^
Z r r
, i j N J, r „ r r

y0
Q
'O O ,n M O O O o 1?
G? rn r- 1- V
?' O?
V C N V V
K ? ?
r? ,- N r ,
P? <I ?
?? U m,
N
O
O

C
L
?
U O
C C -
C N -
N
°

'O

L
V 0
V
/j
1
C O -

OG O ^ ? ? O
r rn r
r r
? ? ? 4C1 ? °
?" N
U'
'n Z O
?
rn [ j

n a a a m s ? -?' a? cii s c? v - v" 3 c4 n-

s
?6 y
1 ?
w ?
v? v A ?? Eb
v QxY
c
.
m
m m u x L ? m
i s
'

Y o s a t
6 ?
O
? a
pa
4 i F F L
F C v
C v

u c
c z
c c ? o
?`
i R
c a O
a L 9
m" 2

k
r i r i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
N
._
L ? r r r r i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i i r

C
z i r i r r r i r r r r r r i r r i r r r r r r r r
Z i r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
DL
O
Z r i r i i i r r r
r r r r
r r r r
r r r
r r r r r

C
2 r r r i r i r i i r r r r r r r r r r r i i r r r

4 O r r ??? i i r i r r r r r e r r i r i r
p N
P
R m P. O ?
°°
a ? ,? CJ O
a ?; _--?
g
? r r r r r r o r r ?
? d

N rr?_--r
i rrr rr o,rr rr
r
L ?

U
?
R
i r i r r r r r r
? i r i r r r i r r
r r r r
r r r r
i r i s
i r i s
r r r
r r r
r r i i i?
r r i i i
U
Ly
.?
Z
U

f
O
U

c
E ?' i r i r r r r r r r r r r i r i s r r r r r i i r
L w
- a`
L ? r ? r r r r r r r ? r i r r r r r r ? i
. r r r r r

r r r r r
? ? r ? r r r r r r . r

. r
r r. r

r
r r r r

r r r
r r r r r r

r r ? ? i i
r r
U

c ?
-? ? r? r r r ? r r
. r
r
r r r
r r
a
-?rrrrrr rr r rrr rrr
u
? o o - o ?
P
r ? o
? W
?
.
r r P- ? ? r r r r r r fl
? r
°
u
r z
_ o
_ c o - -ji -Z

'
O t '
[t] F
L
( O q F?
9 G b '- O
R
d Q ?p Y
C
-
O h` m U ?, ?

9
R s a y
u E s

?a
-
E ? -
r s
E o ? =o
o- 4 a. a` ri,
1

11
D
1
1
1
u
1
1
i?

J
1
n

1

,c, ? N P- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r i r r
A O N Vr O 1
?
r

a r - N
N rn iD - - r
r r r i
r i r r r r r () V O
r? r- O
d

? N v rJ ? r r r r ? r ? ? r r r r r r r ? r
n c
m ° ° o n-
o
?. r? i r r- r r - r^ r j i rv r r
O r r r r r
Ur0
y
0 ? O? m O O- O ro
z M O N rn W? - `J ???
- P P S
1 t`l r C pp
r 0 O
i- r i O N ?? O
r U m- O
N'

C O -
l r° r M' i i M? r i

oOp
N^
O ?
O y 00
r r r i O

r i r r i
k _ vCi O
5 C-?
G O r r r G? - i r r r r r i r i ? i i r i r r, r
0
L

a
rJ

u
r
?" r r?? N r- - V'

r r r r

r r r i ? i i
?
cr v
r N M

W ?

M J

a
ee ? N? a ? c r. - N r r r r r r r ? ?
r r r r r

v c
5 "??"' rn r - r r r r r ? r ? o ., r l W N o
?J k
G?
V] G r^ O j N ?. ? r
?? 0 0 r' ? U?-_ M
O
r r r r
r i i r r r
r r r r i
W r ? ? r r ? r r r . r r r r r r r r r r
C"
C , r r r r r r r. i i i. r r r r r r
C
-? ... r r r r
r
r r r r r r
r
w 3 ° M ° `D r ry ? °
'n

iU G .-' ? O
N O P? P -- r^
r r r.
r. r i r r i 7 = 00
N U--
G G r r, ? ?,

33aCJ vO ? rl? ? vv ?v? J? a ??, -"L qrJ °
v? - v s' m U? 5 ? a y F m c rl J ?-" k.
`
5
m 0
? O
? O .?
!? V]
W
Y
W ? ? A q O 9 c
? ? ? C .
m G
? V .
v r7 FL C
9 ? J ? 0.' 1 R ? ` CO

C ? ? S

c S ?1 G
?_ t 1 S
F
F ?
a
C
O a
t

A
£ k
? 9
?
C

F-
L

1

J
r

1I
J
1
u
1

1
1

i

?rrrrrrrrr rr rrr. rr r r

? r r r r r r r r? r . r r r r r r r
Q
z r r r r
r r r r
. r r
r r
r r r
L r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
C L r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ?" r r r
<, r r r. r r.. r r r r r r r r r . r r r r r r.
R ?_ f! - ?
L O r r r O r r . r r r r r ?f r r r r r ?
r
, C ,
t

V
G rte,
A O ? N

?? O
y ?
L O
C -
? L vii r r r N-- O . r r . r r r r r ? r . r r r 0 .
C
?
R ? cl 00 V O W C ?? . . r r . r r r r r C r r r r r . .
C

z
r

X
u
L
v
L c

00
_

K
?

R ? ? ??
? w rn - ?

r r r

r r ?
c
c
o r r
-

r

W ° o
ri r-°

J ? r r r r r r
? .. r r r r r r
-..... r r r r .. r r r r r r
? ? r r r r r r r r r r r . r r r r
3 r'- ?? °- r r r r r r r r r '? W r i °o
;7 z

n --- r r r r r r r r r r?

-on a s v - t i v :.u ?o a,u S ?r > ?u v Y? = u

O ? j R

C
? Z N 0
? s 2 R
a
R
r
C = .?
F ? v

C ? N CG
R
E ?? c
L o
R ` i .o
a ?
D
0.
0. v
rn ?
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
1
APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY - YEAR 2
MONITORING
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

0 v
0
z

c ?
j. o
c N_

7 7
rC
G
L
O
p
G

L
r. ? N '.p V
C
U Y' I O V ? ?

O
Q Z 0 0 m_ c ?. O
?
z - z
z Z
a ?
?
C z

O C ?-' G .-. O - Y r?
R N
? ll \D
R
C
O
N
? c
G r
O?
V O O oo - "' O -

Y I

u 2 -. - r
L
't
v P M

? C
v. L rv O -- O
`I
O
LJ r
L ? O r , - - ,p -T "- L
M
!. C ?
C G

10
? o? v c A
o^
?
o E
? m

L b
1
a
3
G ?¢ iC ? v e vl
? -o v o? A
? -7 L ..? J

R
L
0.
m O
o ??
m
"
G ? ? C
a.
u
C ? L L a.
+y
p 'O
n' a n. Q
O
.L
0
C
?Or
G
M
L
L
?i
bl
C
.Y
O
0
u
9
S
C
?n
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
c ?
0
i ,= v rn
? x N h
N
? 00 O ?
N
!`L G
}
L
a
yj O 7" v r- N? i?
N N F A G '^ ON O J' ? m
O C. _ G
G ti
O G N ? n - ?
G f l O r. - N? rr?
t
N C C N- r-
G

C G V Q
.4
+
O O - r
ti rn
V:
?
L - G - V
O N
O N - -
.. c

_ a-
;;

'? L

? r
--x yr vx v
O
o c ? ? D a v Q 4 v F?

C L d)
m U L? ? ? p. '
m
O 'Y = O ?
U]
?
?
CL f '? r?
?
?
'
O
L G m "4 L
e.

?- ro
C
L
'O
N
W
N
.Yd
z ?
z
? N
O _

W
O
C z _

z
_ ? x ? ? - ? x w x ,t .z c
-_ v t x L P L .4 y L L O
v
C
O 7 v `?1 L G)
tfi .
^U ^1
72

?

a CO V ? ,? a 0. N' v
0
o 3 0 ? a. 0. s= c
? C

"? x R ? L
m ?? b y u V
s

R
x ? a

Q i ? Y
v 9
S O
9
a a Q

1
1

0
r

r

? z
G G ?
G C
r
? r C
O C ?
O O ti Q ?n ?' o ? m '? i ?
r ? ? ? rv o ? o
c _
0 0- ? 5 p' a y p¢ v? D
w c. y m v s ° v a _
:ii = 3 ? ? ° c v O
m e k m 3 S
3 c ° m m
v .s 3
-• O
N
'r x
A
r-
0
r
z ?
? N
d ? O
•- l? N
? r O

v s? s w o
v
0 s s
7
?
°'
v •o
v o 'v m
? = =

esa
0. m Vu
y p 3 L ?? °o o
" a v c
L? G
- 0. 0.
K

R R o
a ?

o c
a 9
?
v: .. a a Q

0
0

9
0
w
? ?

V] ? C
G
r! [? N M O-

?" fJ N rn ? -
a
O
G fl ? r N ?n ? - O
N

4 f?
C
fn ?

CG U ? N ?f, ? N v rn- °o
C
_
?
?n r- P_ ? i
i m N
r
A
N vl O-
N v
L
rJ

?• ? n
N
O N _ ?
L X
?'^ ? O m n m0 r ?
N W 1? r. vt m t.

O O 5 i 0 0 0 C N ? id .? b > y? N 2 N ? R N N V] p
'
v
0 3 b :?_ a o s 'c

A

e `fl
c v a a`
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
? b
r
GG ? ? ? fi a m
o
.

G O
M ? 07 N - r1
N
J^ O
O
O c ? ?
G C
?
.u W r NJ r V C ,n
- rl ? r .?
.
? ? G N rn N m ?
O
?•j N
7' ?
? r o
O , i
,
fl ,n ri _ L
c
G ? v rn N rn - O
N
L
L
?J G? G rG

u
r
- O

U
N
O
?

, ,
rr m
n ' w? rv ? -

V
G
ry
?
_ ?
? ? O O
? C- 0 0
n
cC G ? oo N ? _ '.'? o
N_

•~
c O
7 '1 N C

N rn ?? . r N
?.
?+
G
if
A
G M- ?

U O

J ^rw'
G. ?

?

r ? . ,
N

l
O
N O
C

G r r r r r r ? ri
r r
N V 00
N O .?
O _

G o
N V ? N r, - -
2 2
'
O ? b
O 4 ? v O. N ? A ? ? "O ? :4 ? GI = E ?U ^U Q b
y

i a
e? ? m?
G '? a' 0. v? `?
o
W u v o b v

cc
m
e s

a
a ? 1 i '7
0. Q
1
1

r

L

1
r
? b
a ?
? o
? o
N
C
?
N
?
oo m a w
Vl
„(

O N ? ? p ?
v O
U C
L ?D N ?D N r" O i ?
N
7^
O
? O VCi C P' ? ? i
N ? N m ?
r
?
N
5

O
?i

? ? C? cc
? G G
O
V
? m U C P ?
?

O_ N N
r ?
b

r
O N O 'D ? ^ ?O
00 N
G ?n r N ? _ O
N

? r
? cc?
G
V

U O^
?-+
r
f
C
UJ ?? N
,
?

U rCi
? m
V rr, V rte,
?
r vi
p
N
YJ
? cN
G
O
_
r ? O O N
A
_
? C 7 7 N cr °? N G
G G
V
ti
G

i

O

.b
Cn ? N V N
? N
G N m vl N ? - -
?
V E
U ? F_
.=_ .: K CC 4J
O
'D 'O U. N i C -i5
Y
?-
.O N -x S ? t 'U iJ - G ? _ R
t ?? tll + ]4 `U
?-
La
72

L n
?
A ti X? s
? .
.?
Ql N
.
v a > i ^ cn '? rn q J J ?? :a
y
c y
G L U ?, 'S N 'a
ILI R R)

c 0 .v ? cv :e °'
G
G J L
U L
+ O
U y
Z?
C W t w
0 Q.4+ L ':7
p. Q
APPENDIX E
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
4'f -A
Ilk
'^r 'AM , tYf1' 'DWI N n" j "4 1
4a Y mmM- Fj ?4 Y L r?-t pl
.rl,. ? t•-V S•. ar"j?ar?
Ar'• 4
w
o%l '7
.
y . y g
a
Ate
?? Is.,r.w, P;, t»# r` t } 4 v'+S..MC '.+^i{. s' , f ??4?^,'ef t `4
'e'J4¢^M?'i+A .. L 4 f _ RqV t a a?"-?,.-. t??' ,;1j.•"?? ,
t g
Site 1
M h •Ti g S V
V.,
1? y '' t Al i1'= 4 .?'Jri ^? xl ?''.:• q k{ P ?' c fSt a • 46
t ?? ?.'?'ry` rF •? .+ r4 "+. 'd4 a\ +, ?y{'A?I.R? q +? ?? r ry.+? ?. ? A.
,
,d
9
! S .?
MIN
i a w" * w
Ak. A ;? is y ,fir + r'
t
Site 2?a?a ?jT? aGW 0..1ma+. iw 0. +LC
= l? ? ail.- '{ .. IAI F S < Q ? w. st s ?.,
Aro
Legend .` ,
Q Macrobenthic Sampling Sites ,
Stream Enhancement Level 1 .. MK??
Stream Preservation 4 "? tw-, • • ;
' W
Stream Restoration.
_ Stream Buffer
r
o . ±f
® Figure 1.
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC 0 500 1,000 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 Feet Sampling Sites
Durham, NC 27713 Silver Creek Site

4
?I x
fb F ? 'Y''1' n
PI Site 1 - Facing Upstream 0 W",
r ar r AM',
P4 Site 2 - Facing Downstream
P2 Site 1 - Facing Downstream
P3 Site 2 - Facing Upstream
P5 Site 3 - Facing Upstream
P6 Site 3 - Facing Downstream

Appendix A. Benthos Data for Silver Creek Project Collected on January 8 & 28, 2008
Sit
3
Site 2 e
Functional Site 1 Siher FT to Baileti
Tolerance 111 to Siher
SPECIES Feeding I Creek Eork
Values G
roup Creek
I138!08 ?
Reference
1!28%08

t

1

ANNELIDA
Oligehaeta
Enchytraeidae 9.8 GC R
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus spp. 4.6 SH C
Elmidae
Oulimnius latiusculus 1.8 N/A R
Stenelmis s pp. 5.1 SC R
H dro hilidae
Berosus s pp. 8.4 PR R
Di tera
Chironomidae
Brillia s pp. 5.2 SH R
Conchapelopia grp 8.4 PR R
Corynoneura spp. 6.0 GC R
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 SH R
Diplocladius cultriger 7.4 GC R C
Micropsectra spp. 1.5 GC C
Microtendipes spp. 5.5 FC R R
Orthocladius obumbratus 8.5 GC A
Porametriocnemus
lundbecki 3.7 GC C C R
Paraphaenocladius spp. N/A N/A A R
Polypedilum fallax grp 6.4 SH R
Rheotanytarsus spp. 5.9 FC C
Tvetenia bavarica 3.7 GC C C
Empididae
Fmpididae 7.6 PR R
Simulidae
Cnephia mutata N/A N/A A
Prosimulium spp. 6.0 FC C
Tipulidae
Antocha spp 4.3 GC A
Hexatoma spp. 4.3 PR R
Tipula spp. 7.3 SH A
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Acentrella ampla 3.6 GC A
Baetiscidae
Baetisca carolina 3.5 OM C

PECIES

phemerellidae
1
Tolerance
i
Values [
Functional

Feeding

Group I' Site 2 Site 2
Site 1 Silver f UT to Bailey -
i, Tt to Silver
Creels ! . Fork
i Creek
1/28/08 Reference
1/28/08 vs/ng
E hemerella catawba 4.4 N/A C
E hemerella dorothea 6.0 GC A C
Ephemerella invaria 2.4 N/A C
Eurylo hella sp 4.3 SC R
Eurylophella funeralis 2.1 GC C R
Ephemeridae
Ephemera spp. 2.0 GC R
Heptageniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC C C
Stenonema pudicum 2.0 SC R C
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia spp. 6.2 GC A
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Corydalus cornutus 5.2 PR C
Nigronia serricornis 5.0 PR C
Odonata
Calo to idae
Calo ter x spp. 7.8? PR R
Coenagrionidae
Argia spp. 8.2 PR C
Gomphidae
Ophiogomphus spp 5.5 PR A
Progomphus obscures 8.2 PR R
Libellulidae
Libellula spp. 9.6 PR R
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.9 PR R
Plecoptera
Capniidae
AIlocapnia spp. 2.5 SH R
Leuctridae
Leuctra spp. 2.5 SH R
Nemouridae
Prostoia spp. 5.8 SH C
Perlidae
Acroneuria abnormis 2.1 PR C
Ecco tuna xanthenes 3.7 N/A C C
Perlodidae
Clio erla cho 4.7 N/A C
Di to erla du licata 2.7 N/A R
Iso erla namata r 2.0 N/A A C
Isoperla sp . N/A N/A C
Pteronarcy idae
Pteronarcys spp. 1.7 SH C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

PI:CI1 S

aenio ter idae

Functional
Tolerance
l?ceding
Values
Group

Site I Silver

€Preck

1/28/08 tiile
Sit, 2
(UT to bailey
Url to Silver.
? Fork
Creek
Reference
X!28108 1/8/08
Stro ho teryx s pp. 2.7 N/A R
Tricho tera
Brachycentridae
Brachycentrus nigrisoma 2.3 FC R
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp. 6.2 FC A C C
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC C R
Hydropsyehe betteni 7.8 FC A A
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila spp. 6.2 SC R
Limne hilidae
P cno s the s. 2.5 SH C C
P cno s ehe le ida r . 2.7 N/A R
Philo otamidae
Chimarra s pp. 2.2 FC R
Dolo hilodes s pp. 2.8 GC R
Phryganeidae
Ptilostomis spp. 6.4 SH C
Uenoidae
Neophylax oligius 2.2 SC C R
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Lymnaeidae
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 SC R
Physidae
Physella spp. 8.8 SC R
Pleurocerbidae
Elirnia spp. 2.5 SC R
Site 2

Functional
Site 1Silver '
Site z
t4 to Bailey ,

9Y1;CIISS Tolerauce
Feeding
Creek U II to Silver:
Fork
Values
Group
11281113 Creek
Reference
? 1/28/08
1/8/08
Total Taxa Richness 43 24 20
EPT Taxa Richness 25 7 13
Total Biotic Index 4.7 5.9 5.1
EPT Biotic Index 4.3 4.9 4.6
Dominant in Common Taxa 86 14 N/A

Notes: Tolerance Values: ranges from 0 (least tolerant to pollution) to 10 (most tolerant to pollution).
Functional Feeding Group: CG = Collector-Gatherer, FC = Filterer-Collector, OM - Omnivore, PR = Predator, SC = Scraper, SH =
Shredder.
Abundance: R = Rare (1-2 individuals); C = Common (3-9 individuals); A = Abundant (10 or more individuals).
?t L UL- it CftCe K S I-rEt
7100 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment FYeld Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE?
' Directions for use: The observer is to survey a,minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a prop
habitat evaluation the observer needs tQ get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed .
habitats and t t+n circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A flad habit,
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. - Po we r
Stream !91 L,0-12 "eOV_ Location/road: 51Ti: r (Road Name )County L3tireK?
-Date l?Zh/Ok CC# Basin <?47-4W17/t- Subbasin 0-3H- 015
' Observer(s) C1tat 5" Type of Study: ? Fish 15Menthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
NoY2JH1n16 €r1S"T?n1?.
L-atitude 70z s V, x Lengitude 1! l °S9 Ecoregion: 13 MT IKP ? Slate Belt ? Tbassic Basin
' Water Quality: Temperature 7- L °C DO i y ? 1) mgll Conductivity (corr.) ? mhos/cm pH 7 Z11
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - Include what y
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 2 5 %Forest %Residential 5 n %Active Pasture % Active Crops
2 %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
' Watershed land use (est): %Foiest %Agriculture °/oUrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel at top of bank) ? Stream Depth: (m) Avg • 1 Max 3•S
' ? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) ?- 5
' Bank Angle: 30 ° or 13 NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend []Channel filled in with sediment
' ? Recent overbank deposits []Bar development []Buried structures OExposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge ? Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: []N ?Y: []Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditipps : []High []Normal allow
Turbidity: J2[Clear ? Slightly Turbid OITurbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: ? w d a l Photos- ?N E'I'Y I~;1SDigital ?35mm
Remarks-
TTWical Stream Cross-section
This side is 450 bank angle.
S"I I,VC-?Z G{?E Ic S 17r I ¦
'
1 Score

...............................
. Channel Modification 'U--_
............
frequent bends ........................................................ ....
atural
l
h

'
,
n
anne
A. c
4
......................
.
........................................
ld be old)
i
i .....
..
.........
3
.....
on cou
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelizat
:::::::::
C. some channelization present ........................................................... 2
:
:
1 D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ........................................
etc ..................................................... 0
abioneil
ed or
a
i
d
li '
1
g
,
pp
or r
p r
ze
E. no bends, completely channe
1713anks of uniform shape/height
1 0 Evidence of dredging l7Evidence of desnagginVno large woody debris in stream
Subtotal
1 Remarks
If >70% of the reach
fi
h
1
cover.
s
m Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for bent hos colonization or
t
t
b
1 o
egun
rea
H. Ins
Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
le the score of 17
i
.
rc
is socks, 1 type is present, c
decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Common or Abundant.
1
Rocks L Macrophytes P- Sticks and leafpacks K Snags and logs K Undercut banks or coot mats
1 AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
<20% ,
i >70% 40-70% 20-40%
Score Sco Score core
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 1 12 8
19 15 11 7
nt
. ........................
3 types prese
18 14 10 6
2 types present. ........................
17 13 9 5
1 type present .....................
No types present ...................... 0 S
tal 1 6
bt
o
u
D No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
' Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riff]
III
.
for embeddedness. Score
substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
A
15 '
.
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
6)
2. embeddedness 20-40% ............................... .....................:............................
....................
3. embeddedness 40-80% ......................................................................................
3
.......................................
4. embeddedness >80% ................................................... ..............
B. substrate gravel and cobble
.. 1
1. embeddedness <20% ..........................................................................................................
i '
2. embeddedness 20-40% ........................ ...................................
................. 6
....... ..........
3. embeddedness 40-80% ""'
................................ 2
4. embeddedness >80% .....................
C. substrate mostly gravel
. 8
: '
.................
1. embeddedness <50% ....................... ............................
.... 4
2. embeddedness >50% .....................................................................................................
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...... •
3
..........
2. substrate nearly all sand ...................•••• ......................••• ....................................
2
r 3. substrate nearly all detritus ..........................
.
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay """""•""•""""'°"..
Subtotal
Remarks
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
hind boulders or obstructions, in large
b
l
ll
"
e
s
poo
, sma
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water
high gradient streams. Score
A. Pools present
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed) Q

a. variety of pool sizes .........:........ ................................................................................. 8 ,
b. pools same size (indicates pools fillip in .............................................................. `............
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed) 6
........
a. variety of pool sizes ..............................
....... 4
..............................
¦
. ...........................
..
. pools same size .
b
.
.........." "......""" .............................. 0
.

.
......... .........
..............
....................
B. Pools absent .............................................
.
................. . . Subtotal ?
r
11 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 0 Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page Total3
r
ti '

S) LVarl 61t66ft- 5I-TE I
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration•-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score &M
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..., tk, 12
' B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width.................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent .............................:..................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ?Typical for area ?SteeVfast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
' Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
' 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with kood root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g.................
4. mostly grasseso few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential of high flow.. GZ
' S. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ....................
5
Total
Remarks rKoS,ao fges ? T ed L-eFT 13AaKI BkR=ER. S N-L Iry?rot? ia? ; MAIT"44 j S7/rKeS?
G?tssts o7rt?aw?r? ST.?+3??
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block of
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
' A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent. .................................................. I . 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 .......................................................
' E. No shading :.......................... .................................................... .........................................
Remarks Subtotal
' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A bi
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream; such as paths do
' stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field ?Exotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
' 1. width 12-18 > 18 meters .. maters . ...................... ....
........
2. width (4 4
.................................................. 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters ..................................................... ........................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters .................................... ............................................ 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a: width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b, width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 ? 3
c. width 6-12 meters. 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
' a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3. 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
' d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Total o
Page Total
' ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
51 LVE& e-II&C-e IG ?'t %E I
VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water togsisnags exposed .............................................
fills 25-75% of available channel, many
..................................
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ...................
Remarks
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Score
4
0
Subtotal
Page Total_` 7
TOTAL SCORE g
7/00 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment FYeld Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TOTAL sc-01 Q
' Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abovc
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a prop
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed .
habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habits
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. f
j?io?Kiro?s .
?7w s? k?
Stream S s wE R G'We lc Location/road: 5'Tc 2 (Road Name )County
Date V'40.8 CC# Basin CA-7,t JISA' Subbasin.
Observer(s). C41ae Type of Study: ? Fish 'Etenthos ? Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
N??TNlnlb _, EAST4&
4,at o 7o0355:1 Longitude- I I5 qq j v Ecoregion: ? MT 10 ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
' Water Quality: Temperature ?7 00 °C DO 6: Z mg/l Conductivity (corr.) pmhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what y
' estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 9D %Forest %Residenfial 10 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
35 %Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial S %Other - Describe: N,4YM oAD
Si®?tt`f1??
Watershed land use (est): %Forest qv %Agriculture 10 %Urban [] Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream { Channel (at top of bank) 2.7 S` Stream Depth: (m) Avg . ?5 Max 5
' ? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)
Bank Angle: __ l0 or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
' indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
[]Deeply incised-steep,straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend 06hannel filled in with sediment
' [] Recent, overbank deposits []Bar development []Buried structures []Exposed bedrock
[] Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth []Green tinge O Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON dy: DRip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditioggs : []High []Normal EGW
Turbidity: ;"Clear [] Slightly Turbid OTurbid []Tannic []Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: 00s(a 136 Photos: ON tqY (Digital ?35mm
Remarks;
Tvoical Stream Cro s-section
This side is 450 bank angle.
S1LVE iZ Cit, Si7e- 2-
1. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 4
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...............:.::......................::::
.........................................
C. some channelization present ................ 3
1 D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
1 E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc........ ••••..••••.•..••••.•••••••••.•••••••••••••• 0
1 ? Evidence of dredging DEvidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream banks of uniform shape/height
Subtotal S
1 Remarks
1 II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach
is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Common; or Abundant.
G Rocks A7 Macrophytes C4 Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
UNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONUATION OR COVER
AMO
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20% '
Score Score Score Score
1 4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
19 15
sent
3
11 7
. .........................
types pre
.x,
18 ? 10 6
2 types present .........................
17 13 9 5
1 type present ......................
No types present ....................... 0 Subtotal
k
R
emar
s
D No woody vegetation in riparian zone
detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffl
sand
Bottom Substrate (silt
III
,
,
.
for embeddedness. S
ore '
c
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
15
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
2
2. embeddedness 2040% ............................................................................ 8
embeddedness 40-80% .........................................................................................................
3
.
.................................. 3
4. embeddedness >80% ...........................................................................
M B. substrate gravel and cobble
14
1. embeddedness <20.% ........................................................................................................... 1
1
. '
..................... 6
2. embeddedness 20-40% ...................................................................................
......
' 3. embeddedness 40-80% ..................................................................................................
2
.................................... 2
4. embeddedness >80% ........................... ..........
substrate mostly gravel
C '
.
1. embeddedness <50% . .......................................................... ........................................ 4
.
......
2. embeddedness >50% ...................... .........................................
D. substrate homogeneous '
.....
1. substrate nearly all bedrock .
3
r .......................................................................
..................
2. substrate nearly all sand . ••••-
2
3. substrate nearly all detritus ....................................................................................................
"'••"•"'•'••'"". I
ilt/
la
ll
l
y
s
c
y a
4. substrate near
Subtotal S
k
R
emar
s
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
in large
ulders or obstructions
d b
hi
"
r ,
o
n
, small pools be
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water
high gradient streams. Score
A. Pools present
Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
(lA?
1
.
.
....
..............................................................................
a. variety of pool sizes. g
b. pools same size (indicates pools fillip in .............................................................. • ............
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
...
.
a. variety of pool sizes ...................................... ....
........ 4
.............................
.......................
....
b. pools same size
0
.
..........
........................................... . ...................................
.....................
B. Pools absent .................... . Subtotal 1
O Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 13 Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom 17 Some pools over wader depth
t
Remarks Page Total 3

f• t

V. Riffle Habitats
' Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration=can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Rides Frequent Riffles Infrequent
core core
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 4ff) 12
13. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ............ 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width .... .................... 10 3
D. riffles ab ent .............................:..................................................................................... 0
s
IG

' tream
Channel Slope: Typical for area ?Steep--fast flow ?Low=like a coastal Subtotal
,
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
'
A. Banks stable Score S_ core
i
l f
a
or erosion....
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potent
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation, plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g. ............... 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential of high flow.. 2 2
' 5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ....................................................
' 0 0
(4'
Total
Remarks P q 1rg 5100 A { ;&4 ?' 61 wf
' VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block of
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ......................................... .... 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 ................................................
E. No shading ............................................ ........ ....... 2
0)
Remarks 2, I A 0 Vl -4 NO r' P? t t?? Vii!` t k 0-{ ? lr -I M A 1%) At" Subtotal -&
' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A br
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths do
' stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weeds/old field C]Exotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
' 1. width > 18 meters .. ............................................................................... ( C
2. width 12-18 meters ............................................................................... 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters ................................................................................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
' B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
' b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
' a. width > 18 meters ..................... ................................................ 3. 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
d. width < 6 meters .......................................................................... 0 0
' Remarks Total 1 D

Page Total
' ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream, TOTAL SCORE 11
SILVLIt llt&C-16 S1762-
a.
VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logsisnags exposed ......... .........................
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ................. ....................................
Score
10
ev
4
0
Subtotal 7
Page Total 7
TOTAL SCORE g_