20050745 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20090212

E
DD.
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
BAILEY FORK WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
PROJECT (DRAFT)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2008 (YEAR 3)
Project Number D04006-3
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
r'? ,N
Raleigh, NC 27604 15 f `?
LC05 SteIll X71 P4 ??
Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
' 909 Capability Drive MchW Bake Errpln"dng, Inc.
Suite 3100 m am "e°""P?` ?"
Caqn. . W
rm ca,wma 27s,a
Pho-
Raleigh, NC 27606
99849
Fax'. 9194635490
' December 2008 IN
L
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... ..1
1 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... .. 3
2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. .. 3

' 2.2
2.3 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................
Project Description and Restoration Approach .............................................................. .. 3
.. 3
2.4 Project History and Background .................................................................................... .. 5
2.5 Project Plan .................................................................................................................... .. 7
' 3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING .................................................................................... .. 8
3.1 Soil Data ......................................................................................................................... .. 8
1 3.2
3.3 Description of Vegetation Monitoring ...........................................................................
Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................... .. 8
.. 9
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................................................. .. 9
' 3.5
3.6 Vegetation Observations ................................................................................................
Vegetation Photos .......................................................................................................... 10
10
4.0 STREAM MONITORING .............................................................................................. 12
' 4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring ................................................................................. 12
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria .............................................................................. 12
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results ......................................................................... 13
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos .............................................................................. 14
1 4.5 Stream Stability Assessment .......................................................................................... 14
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline ............................................................................................... 14
' 4.7
4.8 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results .......................................................................
Cross-Section Monitoring Results ................................................................................. 14
15

' 5.0
6.0 HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING ............................................ 17
20
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring .................................................. 20

' 6.2
6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Results ................................................................
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Discussion .......................................................... 20
22
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion .................................................................. 23

1 6.5
7.0 Photograph Log ..............................................................................................................
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 24
25
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................... 27
1 9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 28
1
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC j
1 December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Photo Log
APPENDIX B - Stream Monitoring Data
APPENDIX C - Baseline Stream Summary for Restoration Reaches
' APPENDIX D - Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary - Year 3 Monitoring
APPENDIX E - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Data
' LIST OF TABLES

'
Table 1. Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
' Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
' Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Project Soil Types and Descriptions
' Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Table 7. 2008 (Year 3) Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
' Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
' Table 10. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Table 11. Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2008 (Year 3)
' Table 12. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
' Bailey Fork, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC j j
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Figure 2 (a).
Figure 2 (b).
Figure 2 (e).
Figure 2 (d).
Figure 3.
Project Vicinity Map Bailey Fork Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 13 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 14 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 15 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
As-Built Plan Sheet 16 for the Bailey Fork Mitigation Site.
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Bailey Fork, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-t, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
iii

1.0 SUMMARY
'
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2008 growing season
(Monitoring Year 3) on the Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Site ("Site").
Construction of the Site, including planting of trees, was completed in April 2006. In accordance
with the Restoration Plan for the Site, 21 vegetation monitoring plots, 13 permanent cross-
sections, 3 longitudinal profile surveys, and 8 hydrologic monitoring gauges (4 automated and 4
manual) were installed and/or assessed across the restoration site. The 2008 data represent
' results from the third year of vegetation and hydrologic monitoring for wetlands and streams.
The design for the Bailey Fork Site involved the restoration of a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain
alluvial forest" and associated riverine wetlands described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Prior to restoration, wetland, stream, and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of
agricultural conversion. Streams flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to
' reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm fields. After construction, it was
determined that 12.1 acres of riverine wetlands and 6,097 linear feet of stream were restored, and
5.3 acres of riverine wetlands and 9,765 linear feet 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 the normal 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 21 monitoring plots, each 100 square meters (1 Om x l Om) in size, were used to
document survivability of the woody vegetation planted at the Site. Vegetation monitoring
' documented the average number of surviving stems per acre on site to be 590, which is a survival
rate of greater than 85 percent based on the initial planting count of 698 stems per acre. The data
reflects that the majority of the Site has met the interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by
the end of Year 3. A lower survival rate in Plot 9 has been documented and the surrounding area
will require replanting in early 2009. Overall, the Site is also on track to meet the final success
criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5 as specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site.
Stream cross-sectional data document that there has been some adjustment to stream dimension
since construction. The Year 3 longitudinal profiles showed that some pools have aggraded
slightly due to accumulated sediment. The Site experienced at least one bankfull event on all
three reaches during 2008. The bankfull measurements collected during Year 3 and the
measurements collected during Year 1 of monitoring show that all three restored reaches have
met the success criteria for bankfull events for the project. Overall, monitoring indicates that the
site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in the Restoration
Plan for the Site.
During 2008, all eight wells recorded a hydroperiod of greater than 7 percent during the growing
season. Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system, indicates
that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the hydroperiods
recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site. The performance of the on-site wells is
attributed to the more normal rainfall during the 2008 growing season as compared to previous
dry years.
Bailey Pork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 1
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and habitat diversity for benthic ,
macro invertebrates. 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 re-establish. '
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream success
criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site.

r
f

1
1

Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 2 ,
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
4044
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Site is located in Burke County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project is within cataloging
unit 03050101. The Site has recently been used for pasture and hay production. In the past, the
Site was used for row crop agriculture and pasture. Ditches were installed to increase arable land
and improve drainage when the land was under agricultural production. The streams on the Site
were channelized and riparian vegetation was cleared in most locations. Wetland and stream
functions on the Site had been severely impacted as a result of these land use changes.
The project involved the restoration of 12.1 acres of riverine wetlands, enhancement of 5.3 acres
of riverine wetlands, restoration of 6,097 LF of stream, and enhancement of 9,765 LF of stream.
Figures 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d) summarize the restoration and enhancement zones on the
project site. A total of 61 acres of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer are protected through a
permanent conservation easement.
2.1 Project Location
The Site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, along
Hopewell Road. The Site is divided into two parts by Hopewell Road and I-40. The monitoring
entrance for the northern half of the Site is located at a farm gate on the north side of Hopewell
Road immediately east of the Bailey Fork bridge crossing. The monitoring entrance for the
southern half of the Site is located south of I-40. The entrance is at the end of Flint Avenue
which is accessed from Hopewell Road south of the I-40 overpass.
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the Bailey Fork Restoration Project were as follows:
' • Restore 6,097 LF of stream channel
• Enhance 9,765 LF of stream channel
• Restore 12.1 acres of riparian wetlands
' • Enhance of 5.3 acres of existing, riverine wetlands
• Exclude cattle from stream, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Develop an ecosystem-based restoration design
• Improve habitat functions
• Realize water quality benefits.
2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
For analysis and design purposes, the on-site streams were divided into four reaches. The
reaches were numbered sequentially, moving from south to north, with unnamed tributaries
carrying a "UT" designation. UT1 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the
project area from the southwest, and ends at its confluence with Bailey Fork. UT2 is a first order
stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the west, and ends at its confluence
with UT1. UT3 is a second order stream that begins offsite, flows into the project area from the
south, and ends at its confluence with the main stem of Bailey Fork. Bailey Fork flows into the
project area from the south and ends at the confluence with Silver Creek. The drainage area of
the three tributaries ranges from 0.25 square miles (mi2) to 0.92 mi2, while the drainage area at
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
the downstream end of Bailey Fork is 8.3 mil. All four reaches were classified as incised and
straightened E5 channels prior to restoration activities. Design information is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Design Approach for Bailey Fork Restoration Site
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D 04006-3
Project Segment or Reach
ID Mitigation
Type *
Approach" Linear Footage
or Acreage
Reach UT1 R P1 1,948 ft
Reach UT2 R 131 923 ft
Reach UT' R 131 3,226 ft
Reach UT' Ell SS 135 ft
Reach Bailey Fork Ell SS 9,630 ft
Riverine Wetland R - 12.1 ac
Riverine Wetland E - 5.3 ac
R = Restoration ** PI = Priority I
El = Enhancement I P2 = Priority II
Ell = Enhancement II SS = Stabilization
Wetland functions on the Site had been severely impaired by agricultural conversion. Streams
flowing through the Site were channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and provide
drainage for adjacent farm fields. As a result, nearly all wetland functions within the project area
were destroyed.
The design for the restored streams involved the construction of new, meandering channels
across the agricultural fields. Reaches UT1, UT2, and UT3 were restored to Rosgen "C5"
channels with design dimensions based on nearby reference reaches. The enhancement areas
along Bailey Fork and UT3 were accomplished through the use of stabilizing in-stream
structures in highly eroded areas and additional buffer planting. Wetland restoration of the prior-
converted farm fields on the Site involved grading areas of the farm fields and raising the local
water table to restore a natural flooding regime. The streams through the Site were restored to a
stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that riparian wetland functions were restored to the
adjacent hydric soil areas. Drainage ditches within the restoration areas were filled to decrease
surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table. Total stream length across the
Bailey Fork Restoration Project was increased from approximately 14,076 LF to 15,862 LF.
The designs allow stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto the floodplain,
dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on stream banks. In-stream structures were used to
control streambed grade, reduce stream bank stress, and promote bedform sequences and habitat
diversity. The in-stream structures consisted of root wads, log vanes, log weirs, and rock vanes,
which promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored channel. Where grade control was a
consideration, constructed riffles or rock cross vanes were installed to provide long-term
stability. Stream banks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare-root
planting, and transplants. Transplants provide living root mass to increase stream bank stability
and create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota. Native vegetation was planted across the
Site, and the entire restoration site is protected through a permanent conservation easement.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 4
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

' 2.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Bailey Fork Mitigation Project is presented to Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is shown in Table 3. Relevant
' project background information is presented in Table 4.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration Project: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Data Actual
Scheduled Collection Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Amended N/A N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A N/A Apr-06
Final Design (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A N/A
Construction Begins Oct-05 N/A Nov-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of live stakes Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Planting of bare root trees Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
End of Construction Mar-06 N/A Apr-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) Mar-06 Apr-06 Apr-06
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Year 3 Monitoring Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08
Year 4 Monitoring Scheduled
Oct-09 Scheduled
Nov-09 Scheduled
Nov-09
Year 5 Monitoring Scheduled
Oct-10 Scheduled
Nov-10 Scheduled
Nov-10
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 5
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table 3. Pro.lect Contacts
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX Neuse-I, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Eng. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nurser Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Eng. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact: En g. Kevin Tweedy, Tel. [phone]

Wetland and Natural Resource 3674 Pine Swamp Rd.
Consultants, Inc. Sparta, NC 28675
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Chris Huysman, Tel. [phone]
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSF-1, LLC 6
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4. Proiect Background
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Project Count : Burke County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach: Bailey Fork 8.3 mil
Reach: UT1 0.81mi2
Reach: UT2 0.24miz
Reach: UT3 0.92 mi2
Estimated Drainage Percenf Impervious Cover:
Reach: Bailey Fork > 5%
Reach: UTI > 5%
Reach: UT2 > 5%
Reach: UT3 > 5%
Stream Order:
Bailey Fork 2
UTI 1
UT2 1
UT3 1
Physiogra hic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont
Ros en Classification of As-Built C5
Cowardin Classification Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated
Bottom
Dominant Soil Types Refer to Section 3.1 for Soil Descriptions
Bailey Fork AaA, CvA
UT1 FaC2, HaA, UnB
UT2 FaC2, HaA, UnB
UT3 FaC2, HaA, UnB
Reference site ID (Remnant channel - Bailey Fork)

USGS HUC for Project and Reference sites 3050101040020
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-31
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WS-Iv
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor? N/A
% of project easement fenced 100%
2.5 Project Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, location of permanent
monitoring cross-sections, locations of hydrologic monitoring stations, and locations of
permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented in Figure 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of this
report.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
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
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Soil Name Location Description
Arkaqua** Main Channel and Floodplain Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. Runoff
is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
Colvard Main Channel and Floodplain Colvard series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
CvA loamy alluvium on floodplains. These soils are occasionally flooded,
well drained, and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy sands
in texture.
Fairview Floodplain Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
FaC2 rivers in pastureland. It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
in texture, with an increase in clay content starting at about one foot
below the surface.
Hatboro* Floodplain Hatboro series consists of a very deep soil profile that is poorly
HaA drained with moderate permeability. The series primarily consists of
silt loams with underlying layers of sandy clay loam. These soils are
generally found on floodplains in pastures and woodlands.
Unison Floodplain Unison soil type occurs on mountain foot slopes or stream terraces. It
UnB generally has a very deep soil profile, is well drained, and is
moderately permeable. Uses include cultivated crops, pasture,
orchards, and mixed hardwood forests.
Notes:
Source: From Burke County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efot,g.nres.usda.gov
* Hydric "A" soil type
** Hydric 'B" soil type
3.2 Description of Vegetation Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian area of the Bailey Fork stream
restoration site were planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of permanent
ground cover for herbaceous vegetation. The woody vegetation was planted randomly six to
eight feet apart from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re-vegetation
limits. The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 6. The seed mix of herbaceous
species applied to the project's riparian area included Soft rush (Juncus effusus), Bentgrass
(Agrostis alba), Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), Switch grass (Panicum virgatum),
Gamagrass, (Tripsicum dactyloides), Smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), Little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), Devil's beggars tick (Bidens frondosa), Lanceleaf tickseed
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 8
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

1
1

(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 15 pounds per acre. All planting was
completed in April 2006.
Table 6. Tree Species Planted in the Bailey Fork Restoration Area
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 Betula nigra River Birch FACW
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash FACW
3 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
4 Quercus phellos Willow oak FACW-
5 Quercus rubra Red oak FACU
6 Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak FACW-
7 Driodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar FACW
8 Celtis laevigata Sugarberry FACW
9 Diospyros virginiana Persimmon FAC
10 Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum FAC
At the time of planting, vegetation plots labeled 1 through 21 were established on-site to monitor
survival of the planted woody vegetation. Each vegetation plot is 0.025 acre in size, or 10 meters
x 10 meters. All of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged to distinguish them from any
colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future.
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
' As specified in the approved Restoration Plan for the site, data from vegetation monitoring plots
should display a surviving tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of
monitoring, and a surviving tree density of at least 260, five-year-old trees per acre at the end of
' Year 5 of the monitoring period. Although the select native canopy species planted throughout
the Site are the target woody vegetation cover, up to 20 percent of the Site's established woody
vegetation at the end of the monitoring period may be comprised of invading species.
3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 7 presents stem counts of surviving individuals found at each of the monitoring stations at
the end of Year 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
accurate annual stem counts and calculations of tree survivability. Volunteer individuals found
within the plots are also flagged during this process. Flags are used to tag trees because they do
not interfere with the growth of the tree.
Volunteer woody species were observed in some of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season, they will be flagged and added
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua) is the
most common volunteer, though med maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and black
walnut (Juglans nigra) were also observed.
The data reflects that all of the site with the exception of the area surrounding Plot 9, met the
minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. The area
surrounding Plot 1 and the area surrounding Plots 12 and 13, which were previously flooded by a
beaver impoundment, were replanted in the spring of 2008 and new vegetation monitoring plots
were established. The area surrounding Plot 9 will require replanting in the spring of 2009.
Assuming normal precipitation during the next growing season and successful supplemental
planting in the area surrounding Plot 9, the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre at the end
of Year five should be achieved.
3.5 Vegetation Observations
After construction of the mitigation project, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia
wild rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea) was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre. These species are present
on the restored site. Hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including rush (Juncus effusus), spike-
rush (Eleocharis obtusa), Boxseed (Ludwigia sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.), are observed across the
Site, particularly in areas of periodic inundation. The presence of these herbaceous wetland
plants helps to confirm the presence of wetland hydrology on the Site.
There are a number of weed species occurring on the site, though none at present seem to be
posing a problem for the seeded woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. Commonly seen
weed species include various pasture grasses, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), horseweed (Conyza spp.), milkweed, and beggars tick (Bidens spp.). Any
threatening weed species found in the future will be documented and discussed in trimester
reports.
3.6 Vegetation Photos
Photographs of the Site showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this
Report.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 10
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
-? ? ?• 'Z z z z z Z z z Z Z 2 Z
c z
A...
v O
NF -p ? ? N N = ?
.r ] Y ?R .-• - _ m - -
ro rn
r
w-
rh i `tf Y 'n - - '? N m - N = o 0o m
H
is
5
-

Y •n Y N - _ _ N _ ... _

4i _' -' ire ^ ^ .. •n
? v
L
`
R
v R
_ - N Y N N ?? _ _ Y _ _ N
o ?
M
F G
_ - c
.1
J
W
W
z
m
w
o
z«
5 7
V
w=
si
e=
o?
W
m0

' 4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted following
construction completion on the Site:
' Bankfull Events: Three crest gauges were installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The
gauges are checked each month to record the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurred since the
last inspection. Crest gauge 1 is located on UT1 near station 25+00 (Figure 2(c)). Crest gauge 2 is
' located on UT2 near station 17+00 (Figure 2(c)). Crest gauge 3 is located on UT3 near station 31+00
(Figure 2(d)).
Cross-sections: Two permanent cross-sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration
' work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross-section and one location being a pool cross-
section. A total of 13 permanent cross-sections were established across the Site. Each cross-section
was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. Permanent
' cross-section pins were surveyed and located relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy
comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section surveys include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Riffle
' cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-
sections for 2008 (Year 3) were surveyed in October 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, and UT3). Measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of low bank. Each measurement was taken at the head of the feature (e.g., riffle, pool, glide).
' In addition, maximum pool depths were recorded. All surveys were tied to a single, permanent
benchmark. A longitudinal survey of 3,000 LF of restored stream length was completed in
November 2007 and in October 2008.
Photograph Reference Stations: Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. A
total of 52 reference stations were established to document conditions at the constructed grade
control structures across the Site, and additional photograph stations were established at each of the
13 permanent cross-sections and hydrologic monitoring stations. The Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates of each photograph station were noted as additional references to ensure the same
photograph location is used throughout the monitoring period. Reference photographs are taken at
least once per year.
Each stream bank is photographed at each permanent cross-section photograph station. For each
stream bank photo, the photograph view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross-section line). The photograph is framed so that the
survey tape is centered in the photograph (appears as a vertical line at the center of the photograph),
keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the frame. A
photograph log of the Site is included in Appendix A of this report.
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Restoration Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 12
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years.
• Cross-sections: There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes to channel
cross-sections take place, they should be minor changes representing a move to increasing
stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth
ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all
monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "C" type
channels.
• Longitudinal Profiles: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable (not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water
surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed in "C" type channels.
• Photograph Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of
erosion control measures. Photographs should indicate the absence of developing bars within the
channel, no excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of
riparian vegetation.
4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
During 2008, the on-site crest gauge documented the occurrence of at least one bankfull flow event
at all three crest gauges 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 flows,
confirming the crest gauge readings. The largest on-site stream flow documented by the crest
gauges during Year 3 of monitoring was approximately 0.39 feet (4.68 inches) at crest gauge 3 on
UT3. The bankfull measurements collected during Year 3 and the measurements collected during
Year 1 of monitoring show that all three restored reaches have met the success criteria for bankfull
events for the project.
Table 8. Verification of Bankfull Events
Bailey Fork Restoration Site: EEP Contract No. D0400 6-3
Date of Data Date of Occurrence of Method of Data
Collection Bankfull Event Collection Measurement
1/16/2008 Unknown Ga
uge 2
Crest 0.08
t
2
3/31/2008 Unknown uge 3
Crest
a 0.16
3
T
10/28/2008 Unknown ge 1
Crest
G 0.39
t
1
10/28/2008 Unknown Crest Gau ge 2 0.25

10/28/2008 Unknown uge 3
Crest
a 0.20
3
T
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
' A photograph log of the project showing selected photograph point locations and crest gauge
photographs are included in Appendix A of this report. Data and photographs from each permanent
cross-section are included in Appendix B of this report.
1 4.5 Stream Stability Assessment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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
overall field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of the photograph point
survey. According to the visual assessment, all features of UT2 and UT3 were performing as
designed. The step pool at station 29+00 on UT1 has experienced some minor piping and bank
stability is becoming a localized concern, and this will require repair in 2009. The two cross vanes
on the upstream portion of Bailey Fork on the south side of I40 have beaver dams built on the
boulder inverts. These beaver dams will require removal. However, the noted issues do not
represent a threat to overall channel stability.
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Bailey Fork Miti ation Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100% 95% 95%
Pools 100% 100% 95% 100%
Thalwe 100% 100% 100% 100%
Meanders 100% 100% 100% 100%
Bed General 100% 100% 100% 100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc. 100% 100% 100% 95%
Wads and Boulders 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline
The quantitative pre-construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine mitigation
approach and prepare the construction plans for the project are summarized in Appendix C. The as-
built baseline data that determines stream stability during the project's post construction monitoring
period are also summarized in Appendix C.
4.7 Longitudinal Profile Monitoring Results
The Year 3 longitudinal profile was completed in October 2008 and was compared to the data
collected during the as-built condition survey data. The longitudinal profile is presented in
Appendix B. During Year 3 monitoring, approximately 3,400 LF of channel were surveyed.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
14
According to the Year 3 longitudinal profile of UTI, all pools and riffles from stations 17+50 to
29+65 are at relatively the same elevations as the as-built conditions. However, during Year 2 of
monitoring, the pools in this section of UTI had accumulated sediment. The accumulation of
sediment did not result in instability of UTI and was attributed to below normal rainfall conditions
during 2007.
The Year 3 longitudinal profile of UT2 shows that most pools and riffles from stations 10+50 to
19+30 have changed slightly since as-built conditions. It was determined that during Year 3 of
monitoring, stations 10+00 to 10+50 and 12+00 to 13+00 have filled in with sediment that has
apparently originated off site. This sediment has not caused stream instability, but has decreased the
depths of some pools. Also on UT2, stations 13+00 to 14+50 have filled in with less sediment than
the aforementioned upstream stations. All stations downstream of 14+50 are relatively similar to the
as-built conditions.
The Year 3 longitudinal profile of UT3 also shows that some pools have filled slightly since as-built
conditions. Stations 10+00 to 15+00 have remained unchanged or have filled slightly. However,
stations 15+50 to 22+00 have filled in significantly with sediment. The Year 3 longitudinal profile
of UT3 is similar to the Year 2 longitudinal profile. While pool depths have decreased, pools are
still prevalent through the reach and channel stability has not been affected by the accumulated
sediment.
All of the longitudinal profiles during Year 3 of monitoring showed some changes in the restored
reaches. It is our assessment that these changes do not pose a threat to the stability of the channels.
4.8 Cross-Section Monitoring Results
Year 3 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during September and
October of 2008. The data were compared to baseline stream geometry data collected in April 2006
(as-built conditions), Year 1 monitoring data collected in October 2006 and Year 2 monitoring data
collected in November 2007.
The 13 permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (7 located across riffles and 6 located
across pools) were re-surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 3. Data
from each of these cross-sections are summarized in Appendix D. The cross-sections show that
there have been minor adjustments to stream dimension since construction in April 2006.
Cross-sections 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13 are located across pools found at the apex of meander bends.
Survey data from the cross-sections indicate that all pools, except the pool in cross-section 4, have
experienced moderate dimensional changes in all reaches since as-built conditions. The fluctuations
observed are considered typical for meander pools, as pools fill and scour year to year based on
sediment loads and rainfall events.
Cross-sections 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are located across riffles located between meander bends.
Survey data from these cross-sections indicate that all the riffles have remained relatively stable
since Year 2. However, the channel dimensions of cross-section 12 have fluctuated each monitoring
year since construction, but has never scoured deeper than the as-built condition.
In-stream structures installed within the restored stream include constructed riffles, rock cross vanes,
a rock step-pool, log vanes, log weirs, and root wads. A constructed riffle and a rock step-pool
installed on the lower end of UT I, and a constructed riffle installed at the lower end of UT3 step
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 15
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
77
L

' down the elevation of the restored stream beds to match the existing channel inverts at the
confluences of the restored channels and Bailey Fork.
Visual observations of these structures throughout the Year 3 growing season have indicated that the
rock structures are functioning as designed and holding their elevation grade. However, minor
piping has been noted above a rock step within the rock step-pool sequence on UT I. In this same
localized area one stream bank is becoming unstable. The area will be require repair in early 2009.
' It was also noted that two rock cross vanes on Bailey Fork Creek at approximate stations 17+00 and
28+50 have been impacted by beaver activity. During a site visit in early November 2008, two
beaver dams were observed across the rock inverts on top of the cross vanes. The observer noted
that water was flowing around the sides of both dams and over the arms of the structures. The dams
will require removal during the winter of 2008/2009 and the area will be monitored for further
beaver activity going forward.
Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided scour to keep pools deep and provide cover
for fish. Log weirs placed in riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided downstream
scour holes which provide habitat. Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have
' provided bank stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Photographs of the channel were taken throughout the monitoring season to document the evolution
of the restored stream geometry (see Appendix A). Herbaceous vegetation is dense along the edges
of the restored stream, making it difficult in some areas to photograph the stream channel.

i
?I

Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 16
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

5.0 HYDROLOGY
Weather station data from the Morganton Weather Station (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838) were used in conjunction with a manual rain gauge located on the Site to
document precipitation amounts. The manual gauge is used to validate observations made at the
automated station. For the 2008 growing season, total rainfall during the monitoring period was
above the normal average (from January 2008 through October 2008 rainfall was 14.2 inches
above average). Much of the rain that fell during the 2008 growing season fell from July, '
through September, when evapotranspiration losses were highest (Table 10 and Figure 3).
Table 10. Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall inches
Baile Fork Mit i ation Sit e: EEP Contract No. D04006-3
Month Average 30% 70% Observed 2008 Precipitation
January 4.43 3.45 5.79 3.42
February 4.14 2.83 5.53 7.44
March 4.85 3.36 5.94 4.16
April 3.79 2.36 5.06 5.29
May 4.49 3.22 5.62 4.00
June 4.74 3.25 6.12 3.12
Jul 3.91 2.38 4.95 9.71
August 3.74 2.36 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 -- -- 56.28 (through Sept 08)
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 17
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Figure 3. Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
Bailey Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Historic Average vs. Observed Rainfall
10

t 8
c

0
'
a
.
? 2

CL
0

CO -'0 co CO
N O o 6 O 6 O a ?p O O
Historic 30% probable -?- Historic 70% probable -*I- Observed 2008
The Bailey Fork Restoration Plan specified that eight monitoring wells (four automated and four
manual) would be established across the restored site. A total of eight wells (four automated and
four manual) were installed during early-March 2006 to document water table hydrology in all
required monitoring locations. All wells are located in the restored wetland areas adjacent to
UT3, and the locations of monitoring wells are shown on the as-built plan sheets. Hydrologic
monitoring results are shown in Table 11. A photograph log of the wetland well monitoring
stations is included in Appendix A of this report.
During 2008, all eight wells recorded hydroperiods of greater than 7 percent during the growing
season. Hydrologic data collected from the reference site, an existing wetland system, indicates
that the reference site experienced hydroperiods considerably less than the hydroperiods
recorded by all eight wells at the restoration site. The performance of the on-site wells is
attributed to more normal rainfall during the 2008 growing season as compared to previous dry
years.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-t, LLC 18
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Table I1
Hydrologic Monitoring Results for 2008 (Year 3)
Bailey Fork Mitigation Site: EEP Contract No. D04006-3

onitoring Station

Most Consecutive
Days Meeting
Criteria'

umulative Days
Meeting Criteria2 Number
of
Instances
Meeting
Criteria
AW I 22(10.6%) 35(16.8%) 3
AW2 21(10.1%) 33(15.9%) 3
AW3 39(18.8%) 45(21.6%) 2
AW4 52(25.0%) 65(31.3%) 3
MW14 21(10.1%) 33(15.9%) 3
MW24 21(10.1%) 33 (15.9°/x) 3
MW35 39(18.8%) 45(21.6%) 2
MW4e 52(25.0%) 65(31.3%) 3
REF 1 7(3.4%) 9(4.3%) 2
REF2 3(1.44%) 4(1.9%) 2
Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less
than 12 inches form the soil surface.
2 Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table less than
12 inches from the soil surface.
3 Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to less
than 12 inches from the soil surface.
4 Groundwater gauge MW 1 and MW2 are manual gauges. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on
data from gauge AW2.
s Groundwater gauge MW3 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge A W 3.
Groundwater gauge M W4 is a manual gauge. Hydrologic parameters are estimated based on data from
gauge AW4.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
19 11

6.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
'
6.1 Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Bailey Fork
' Restoration Plan. Because of seasonal fluctuations in populations, macroinvertebrate sampling
must be consistently conducted in the same season. Benthic sampling for the Site was conducted
1 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 Matthew Reid of Baker. Laboratory identification of collected species was
conducted by David Lenat, of Lenat Consulting Services.
' Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at Sites 1 and 2 of the Bailey Fork project on
January 8, 2008 and Sites 3 and 4 on January 23, 2008. Sites 1 and 3 were located within the
restoration area on UT1 to Bailey Fork and UT3 to Bailey Fork, respectively. Site 2 was an
' offsite reference location upstream of Site 1. Site 4 was an offsite reference location on UT3
south of Hopewell Road upstream of Site 3. Figure 1 illustrates the sampling site locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in the stream. In
1 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
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 12
with complete results presented in Appendix E.
' Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 20
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3

1
1
1
1
1

C?

1

1

1

? M R O O f.? O? R r ? p
O R M C, f?l V1 M ? N O ? r ? O ?
C
J
L ? N
?..i ? ?
W
N
v
? V :4 O ? V1 r 00 R N ^ r. ? ?_ M Q1 O
b?+ in N ? N O 'n ? v1 ? ? r
? V
L ? \
^

7

w' L O p ? ? 1 N N fry R R R R R
M
[r Qy Vl
.-. N ?
V
N C M --? '? C ?L C C G'

N
N O \ 1
L v N .p ^, O L. f^ r 00
V

r? r

?" V

L L

C1 O

N 00 Vl Cl

?'
M
10
,--
O
?.
r
r
R
r
7
p
r I
R
7
C
.
.
.a O
++
E""
L
pw
O
.M?-.
p
00
r
N
?
R
?L
.--
O
p
O
r
f'?
R
C
R
?L
R
C
R
C
?
G'
CQ "j
d

v
C L

7 O
O

N
M
?p
R
Vl

N
M
N

r
O?
c?C v'
M

00

p
00
v
ue d
?" '- r C ^
^ r
s
, ?
C x
o
^
U
it 67 O
:i
y
R r 7 O C1
n R c\
Vl N
N O
r ? C O
I M M "n

? Cq

d

.C trl
M
?. `p
F" L
CY ?
^ ?
N '.p p
+ ?
M R
G ff1
r N
7 Vl
`O R
C R
O R
?L R
?L' R
G

'IT

bO+ ?I C. N 00
?C>

W

CO

6! In
M 00 ^'

Vl \O v1

M

N M

r M

p
R
-
D1
•--.
00
p
V'1
,?
.y L
O ?y rl ,
_, •--•
?
O V ?

Q L L V1 V1 M Vl O M N N r V1 p
Q ? ^
I
R
L W v'
.?
O W
? 01
2
-. _ ?
O

M
N
7
r
fn R

'?- ? f\

f? ,_, R

?G R

C R

C R

C R

G

0
O ?+

X
^, c
C
`? X
cC
'

? G

r

T3 N

"d v

`n

C 'y
U ?n
V
.V. CI r-' Q? . ?
E 'O X
11 "O X cC by U 'O s

F
a F E E °'
7?
o
N
U
.a
W
W
w
z
x
W
W
ri
V
Q
zM
V ?
i
CO b0
U C
0. ?
W ?
v
V O
O
y N
O N
w ?
wo
6.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Discussion
At Site 2, the reference site for Site 1, the Year 2 post-construction community structure and
ecological habitat appears to be similar to that observed during the pre-construction monitoring
period. Site 2 showed a decrease in both overall and EPT taxa richness and an increase in total
and EPT biotic indices. The higher indices could be attributed to the decrease in overall shredder
taxa observed during the recent post-construction monitoring. Despite the increase in biotic
indices at Site 2, several of the EPT species that were common or abundant in the pre-
construction sample, such as Stenonema pudicum, Eccoptera xanthenes, and Pyenopsyche 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 are stable and that water quality is
adequate to support intolerant species.
Site 1, which underwent complete restoration, exhibited slight increases in overall and EPT taxa
richness, as well as an increased overall biotic index from pre-construction to Year 2 of post-
construction. 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. However, from Year 1 to Year 2, overall and EPT biotic indices
decreased suggesting that water quality is returning to pre-construction conditions. The EPT
biotic indices at both Site 1 the restoration site, and Site 2, the reference site, were 4.63. Year 2
post-construction shredder taxa slightly decreased from the pre-construction conditions. These
organisms feed on partially decomposed organic matter such as sticks and leaf packs, a rare
habitat (see Habitat Assessments, below). The decrease in sensitive species and lack of
shredders are common responses after a major disturbance to habitat such as the in-stream
construction techniques implemented on Site 1. It is anticipated that as the project matures
shredder populations will increase as more habitat in the form of snags, logs, and leaf packs
become available.
Currently Site I 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 dominant at
Site 1. In pre-construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 41 percent. This indicates that post-
construction recolonization from refugia upstream (represented at Site 2) has taken place. Site 2
is on track for success.
Site 4 was the reference reach for Site 3. The second year of post construction monitoring
showed that total taxa and EPT taxa richness are still below the pre-construction values. The
decrease in both values may indicate stress on the stream. The overall and EPT biotic index
were still above the pre-construction values, indicating that more tolerant species were surviving
or colonizing. Extreme drought conditions during 2007 could attribute to the decrease in taxa
richness and increase biotic indices if the stream stopped flowing at Site 4.
Site 3 was recovering from backwater conditions caused by a beaver dam during Year 1 of post-
construction monitoring. The stagnant water conditions are likely the cause of the decrease in
total and EPT taxa richness from Year 1 to Year 2 of post construction monitoring. A dramatic
decrease in the shedder population was also observed. The decline in shredder population is
likely the result of backwater conditions that appear to have decreased the amount of available
organic material between Year 1 and Year 2. An increase in fine sediment deposition was also
noted during Year 2 monitoring at Site 3. The increase in fine sediment suggests a likely
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 22
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
decrease in available habitat. Although overall richness values decreased the total and EPT
biotic indices stayed relatively the same as in pre-construction conditions. Currently Site 3 has 0
percent DIC with the reference site, down from 50 percent after Year 1 of post construction and
10 percent in pre-construction conditions. The decrease is DIC likely correlates to the prolonged
backwater conditions that decreased available riffle habitat at Site 3. It is anticipated that Site 3
will rebound and improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future
monitoring reports as communities reestablish.
6.4 Habitat Assessment Results and Discussion
Site 1 received a 73 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. The site exhibited-excellent
riffle pool sequencing and pattern. Riffles were mostly gravel and cobbles, moderately
embedded with sand, and the pool bottoms were sandy. Site Ihas a riparian buffer that is
classified as fallow field with immature hardwood saplings scattered throughout. Because there
was very little woody vegetation directly adjacent to the channel, organic habitats such as sticks
and leaf packs were absent at Site 1. The lack of organic habitats is still likely the cause for the
decrease in shredder communities from pre-construction monitoring to post-construction
monitoring. It is anticipated that as the riparian buffer grows in, the shredders from the upstream
reference site (Site 2) will begin to colonize the restoration reach.
Site 2, the reference reach for Site 1, received a habitat assessment score of 72. The reach
exhibited riffle pool sequencing with moderate bank erosion on alternating banks. The riparian
buffer was mature and intact along most of the reach. Rocks, sticks, leaf packs, snags and
undercut banks were all present along this reach; however large substrate in riffles was often
embedded by sand. Bottoms of pools were sandy and filling in. As stated above, the ecological
habitat observed during this monitoring cycle appears to be very similar to the pre-construction
conditions.
Site 3 received a habitat assessment score of 67 during the Year 2 post-construction monitoring
period. The site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing and pattern. In-stream habitat was
diverse but not abundant. Rocks and macrophytes were the common types of habitat. Site 3
experienced backwater conditions throughout much of the Year 2 monitoring period. The
stagnant water was a result of a downstream beaver dam. At the time of Year 2 benthic sampling
the dam had been removed but left behind fine sediment along the bed and banks in the vicinity
of Site 3. The fine sediment covered portions of the riffle substrate. The prolonged backwater
also drowned vegetation along the banks. Rocks, sticks, and leaf packs, and root mats from the
root wads were present but not common in the sampling area.
Site 4, the reference reach for Site 3, received a habitat assessment score of 63. The riparian
zone was mature forest and intact. Rocks, sticks, leaf packs, logs, and undercut banks were
present throughout the reach however riffle substrate was embedded with sand. Pool bottoms
were sandy. The reach had areas of severe bank erosion. This reach scored a 53 in the pre-
construction monitoring report, so it appears that the habitat is similar to pre-construction
conditions. Despite the low habitat assessment score, this reach continues to have a very low
EPT biotic index, indicating that the water quality is high enough to support fairly intolerant
species.
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and
armored riffles has enhanced the overall in-stream habitat throughout the restoration Site, while
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 23
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3 1

the reference reaches appeared ecologically stable. The habitat scores at Sites 1 and 3 decreased
slightly from the scores collected in Year 1 monitoring. The decrease of the habitat score at Site
1, is likely the result of different evaluators conducting the assessments. The decrease in the
habitat score at Site 3 is a result of the prolonged backwater conditions stemming from a
downstream beaver dam. The fine sediment covered up available habitat and drowned some of
' the streambank vegetation. The planted riparian vegetation has had minimal effect on in-stream
habitat at Sites 1 and 3; however, future contributions from planted riparian vegetation will be
evident as the woody plant species mature. Contributions will include in-stream structures such
' as sticks and leaf packs.
The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen,
dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all sites were relatively normal
for Piedmont streams with the above noted exceptions.
' 6.5 Photograph Log
The photograph log is attached as Appendix B. Photos P-1 and P-2 show the stable, well defined
riffle pool sequence at Site 1. Site 1 lacks a mature forested canopy; however young woody
' vegetation is present along the banks. Photos P-3 and P-4 show the mature canopy with breaks
for light penetration at Site 2. Site 3 is shown in P-5 and P-6. The lack of vegetation along the
streambanks caused by the prolonged backwater conditions is visible is P-5. P-7 and P-8 are
upstream and downstream views of Site 4. These photos show the extreme bank erosion
affecting the right bank of the stream. Despite the erosion, the varied habitat types are visible,
including rocks, logs, undercut banks, and leafpacks.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-l, LLC 24
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1
7.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Monitoring. For the 21 monitoring plots, surviving planted stems ranged from
160 stems per acre to 720 stems per acre with an overall average of 590 stems per acre.
The data documents that most of the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of
' 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3 and is on track to meet 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 area surrounding Plot 9 will require replanting in the spring of 2009.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the vegetative success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Stream Monitoring. The entire length of the restored stream channel was inspected
during Year 3 of the monitoring period to assess stream performance.
Stream cross-sectional data document that there has been some adjustment to stream
dimension since construction, but the adjustments are considered typical for newly
restored stream systems and not an indicator of instability. The Year 3 longitudinal
' profiles showed that some pools have filled slightly due to accumulated sediment. It is
likely that these sediments are present in the pools due to the persistent vegetation growth
within the restored channels. Therefore, the vegetation is limiting pool scour due to low
flow velocities. All of the longitudinal profiles during Year 3 of monitoring showed some
changes in the restored reaches. It is our assessment that these changes do not pose a
threat to the stability of the channels
It was also noted that two rock cross vanes on Bailey Fork Creek approximately at
stations 17+00 and 28+50 have been impacted by beaver activity. During a site visit in
' early November 2008 two beaver dams were observed across the rock inverts on top of
the cross vanes. Water was flowing around the sides of both dams and over on the arms
of the structures. The dams will require removal during the winter of 2008/2009.
The Site experienced at least one bankfull event on all 3 reaches during the 2008 growing
season. The bankfull measurements collected during Year 3 and the measurements
collected during Year 1 of monitoring show that all three restored reaches have met the
success criteria for bankfull events for the project.
Overall, the site is on track to achieve the stream morphology success criteria specified in
the Restoration Plan for the Site.
Hydrologic Monitoring. During 2008, all eight wells recorded a hydroperiod of greater
than 7 percent saturation during the growing season. Hydrologic data collected from the
reference site, an existing wetland system, indicates that the reference site experienced
hydroperiods considerably less than the hydroperiod recorded by all eight wells at the
restoration site. The performance of the on-site wells is attributed to the more normal
rainfall during the 2008 growing season as compared to previous dry years.
Overall, the Site is on track to achieve the hydrologic success criteria specified in the
Restoration Plan for the Site.
Bailey Fork Creek, FEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 25
' December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
Benthic Monitoring. The Site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern, and
habitat diversity. The physical and chemical measurements of water temperature, percent
dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific conductivity at all
sites were relatively normal for Piedmont streams. It is anticipated that continued
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring
reports as communities continue to re-establish.
In summary, the Site remains on track to achieve the hydrologic, vegetative and stream
success criteria specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site and monitoring will continue
in 2009.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC 26
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Bailey Fork Site. During certain
times of the year, frogs, turtles and fish have been observed.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
27
9.0 REFERENCES
NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006)
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.
USDA, NC Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina,
2006.
Bailey Fork Creek, EEP Contract No. D04006-3, EBX NEUSE-1, LLC 2$
December 2008, Monitoring Year 3
1

1
1
1

u
FIGURES
1

Figure 1. Location of Bailey Fork Stream Mitigation Site.
O
N??tl N
0
W 30 00'OE+LE ViS K 133HS 3NIIHOiVIN
W

W 0
z
l
o
Z

l7 Z
o0
O
LL
-
w m
0 y w ?
G a ow
° z'
? V
zN
w? o
w ao
m _ y
?V o to
0Jm
O ow V W
Z
Z,

w 0
=wW
FOUJ WNj
Yo-. 2
H¢ O
? z
2
W W
m

mw ^
Y
Y
O
N O
I
U? d
5? z
a O
O
Z
a
a¢
w
m0
w
of Q

wo
>o
?
` o
I

YW ?o
_., ao
ZW
m?
WW

Z
O
p0
rnG
F
W
U'
_
d W
>Y
Q
F
Om
W T. ? W
Z u' w
> Ws
N
O
N so
'
• w z
m '' ¢ ¢
U

Z
\
Gz
a
b'..
=m ?
?a

w ?
U
a z ?O

Y
¢G Gm
Y
<T w
mm
a
o
LL LL
a ?
?
s
Y
o
NU Q
m z
Z
¢
W
>

Q? m
n Z
a
O
2Q
OQY !
I F
.
'
O O
?z
.
O
J
o3
=0Z r
y
EU¢ I Z
Y
z m

m r W
W
O
a
O ?
m a ?
U
Z /
w
U QY

3w ?F
WQ --
r a ? i mN

J
=W
LLw LL
Y> W
J ?O
m
¢
O >
OU Z¢
Z
>¢
'
I.z o w
m
z
QF U
W
Y
Z.
mm
Z
Z

°?
I Z
wo
So
. _o
. w m
tt¢
# u \ p
?
Y
o ¢m

a
?

z O

LL
z
0
j mp
oW
}
W
F >a J
/ of a
w ?m co

I Z, 0
w?
w ~
U

?a U)
z o
o
o
O
L) o
o_

l W
co ?
U)
Q
N
W
ry
Z)
LL
u6p•E -ysd-x63-6b'"2dlZz0\'q

°
z

Q

""?< 0
o

N
= ' ?
w : e 2
w
z g ?zaLL 00'00+99 VIS 96 133HS 3N IIH:DiVH ; E
o m v
Z
u
Z G a

o w ow

Z?
"

?
a
? ]
Z
J
W
U
r?
wN Y
? U
?o 0
Z _
dm 'o„ o
= a
O? Q?
y O N

0
oao
°=
m
u

t`
a z?
0
Z ?U N
Houwi Yom F¢ V ? Ow o O
?

z :, a w
.

r

>

z A

2
U . / I

J
Q Q
I Z
W \ ?'? V W
? e 1 ? ? o

z o
w
> m LL
r? °
z O m LL
w
W OYQ f

Z
O

w
>

U I
F
W QQj
JJ 1
j
?
> d
ZQ
<

m?
Wk
a 1 ?
of

?
i
z
=

Q

g iY
Z
Q
m

?
mY

m jw
a
O
m
LLQ
r
0 ?
O
>
w? a !
5 Y
z
z s
a¢ r `
w

I
W
>

€g Z
m
i w
1 a
I i
w
Y
Y
Z
m

wO 1
W i
ZJ
a
QMO

xN
zz
Q
i a
wm
m¢ mm

w
o?
?Q

?
1 Nd,
mm
WLL
/ ?
no
OU
Z.
Ua
w y
G r
0
Y
m
o z
> O
N
w
a0
N
; y
O ?
U Z
r
y
KQ WY
>Z
W

]
mm /
/nn
V

w M
ww
O>= Z

Q
I
Or `
? Y
Z i
h. ww
K?
U
U
QO
Z§

m
V
Z
w
w
ON _

W
w<
m m co
CC
D
Z
Z
°
i i
U
co W
N (n
W

] (A
] O
LL U
Z
a
m?
a°x
xw

00'0£+L£ ViS £6 133HS 3NIIHOiVvy

ea/9z/z
,6P-b1-ysd-xeA-9Ff uIz 0\1P^4sdw6,saa\aizzeva
L00 /9Z/II

00,
S0ft6
W

0 Z

O o
w
mr p=a

o
w bl3 9
1?3N
(1
S o
Z
V F
V
Q
o w
l? ??/??? LU

0 W

wN

w
?n
10
X00.

?

Z

C
lb

O

a
N

u ¢
gw

V
C m
w3
w
$ n

0 OZm
nz.
imw
zMy
wN? wF
?m
=cwi

' W
W
= w?
aox
xN $ w¢
wN >?w O
Ln
rON yon r¢ 0
2 ¢Q maQ
¢?? O
O
W yQH
z
I' aJ
aY,-
O?'
cc
I?

1
a
¢
w"
ww
q
<
D ¢
µ O
ZLL
Q~
C ¢
LLU

¢
m3
Z '
W
O
Q
.
xN
?¢
I

Y
z
m
Y
Z
mm
ww I'
00
NQ
Wz
w?
I<
I
?
\
mW
¢m
Ym ©
©
m

UAW
m0? I

?

\
Y
WN
QUW

wg

Y
?

.ZZ U?
m?
yY
Q¢
mm

N
00
kti
N¢ Kx
m0
u_ m
K0z

y
U?
? OZ
U¢
LL
mm
. O
W ?
F
O a Z Pp
0
s
O
¢ 1
? mZ
mo ,
¢x
xN

w
az
Z1W O
=?N
mmw ?
>
•?
°
LL
ate'
0
ooa

`

wa
ow
Y

m
3

/ 00
WX
KLL
W
a o
¢x
2N
f/1

?
\
d¢ \
•

OO
? OO

Z
Q s
s CO
m
a o
¢
xN
w m

P .
?

N
W

CD
LL

CO/H/,7
u6p•51-ysd-x83-8d-2iIZZa \'?i'n9-sd\u6?
sa0\d[?ZB\?,y
L00 /9Zrn

D
W 3?dn

Z D
O
¢Aa`
U
w z
G a w
mF
o w
m
.w
o
w
o zm
ww

?a>

a
w z?
?
ao
No

Qw

?

V

W

zZ
U?m
oz
?n c?Q
>MJ 0E

F0.
Yom U
HQ

?
0
f

0
a
0
W
1
F
pos ? .
eb l
S?
tis
?t
I ?
H
a
w
z
z o
Q
U
O ~
Z
H
N
W z
i y
J
0
a
z
0
`,yf r
x ?
0
a
z
O
Q
w
w
>

u6p•91-ysd-x83-8d-dle,'O\?I'"9-sdW6,s

,o
Z
O, LU
m
Z
ZO
p
ON
H?
U?
ow
N Cn o
W
W Un C7
U )z
Z) o<
O 0?2
LL UU

0
1

1

1
APPENDIX A
PHOTO LOG

1
1
1
1
1
1
VEGETATION PHOTOS
7 y, L

41

Pi
k ,
1
1
"y
.
? 'T
5
$` '
+,??
,
?
I?$ • Q. y x.
?
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 1

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 5
n?
8 F ?'
S
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 4
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 2
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 3
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 6
*? .+ ?s
79 r 1` Sys ?cyry.,7. .? i . f s
? t
a y b ?`. J 4}'IE
r°w 9'
i?? •?_ ?? ? ? ?,?i ITT ?`Xc ; ?b?'! 'C ?` • {{
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 7
s,
IV, 4
a
r ?P*i i a ? t k. b i '
?ao?? ? ' ? r I'S C i?itAP Rye .. rM..!<?5C'.: tL? °:.•?"?.??..t,
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 8
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 9
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 10
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 12
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 11
d

7.
e
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 13

p
ii f Y yt
y?
q
{
1
`
'
j

Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 15
w
7 e
C IIA
Do"
.t
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 16
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 14
Bailey Fork Plot Vegetation 17
Bailey Fork Vegetation Plot 18

I STREAM PHOTOS AND WETLAND
PHOTOS
4: tom,} grlti?
JVJ 1,
,?V?..y'?i ? ? •, t 3s} tr 'a * .' ..
f-s+?Ge.I. w xx. .•'!•?, _ v". . +`" a ??.-.. - .- A 4,?

UTI Photo Point 3
3 ,R ?^

w
y d{{ S
t "
? 4
r f?

g ufa
14

?d% t Y
,,,? r 5 ?e r F
.+.FMl ?° .gitr
UT I Photo Point 10
UTI Photo Point 5
UTI Photo Point 7

MT.
17

x? ,i?+ ? ,?+"' Sri 3. ?? ? ;r • ab ?? ;?;C `?j:'x'? Sr;s, f''
r
sir: •?:? '+?'.:'°a:a:-r,,?j. ? -cciE,"?"=y4.?i??/r
.`:' fay'Y3
UT1 Photo Point 19
AT ??.? ?S r. 'r?' ?d • f S b r.
N.t_ n
47
15 ?+ 4 7.
UT2 Photo Point 3
?s:F?W?? ».-'d'? ' - ? i ? • . t a Hc'b rs'< .'?' fir.'
? 44k a? x(( {.? .+f r
?_... !.'? ??'r r+ t/ act ff;. f J
Z r . X /.sr
.<! Ti 4k ` Y .f.
UT1 Photo Point 17
UT1 Photo Point 13
UT2 Photo Point 1
UT2 Photo Point 6
? Ms? ( Lf ? ? : ? t rr r ? Q
? a r „Nj1n r?r'4, eri !t?y?/G??tr ???'?<i •!?`
4 a -L
UT2 Photo Point 8

V

? r

wi ,ys t., rt ?a
UT3 Photo Point 7

UT2 Photo Point 12

F Jy

UT3 Photo Point 10
UT3 Photo Point 1
UT3 Photo Point 4
i i
Vf r
L ! Y fi?
y?f
t ~
> '
` V j4
UT3 Photo Point 12

f ?? , ' , , s M. aMr.>i
.df.,. ...10'

UT3 Photo Point 15
C K{ R 'u ;J
• ? ? ?'?5 spy ;;; """ ' j???
'a 4 z , r4fi+
f .3°23' y--•?J S ;f. °?,fc. ?i ???
a?? a'qn U I It
UT3 Photo Point 18
f jt ia,rz `.
:? .
i ti0- a T tH
9 ?y _ M +
a 's,?. !mil w
UT3 Photo Point 22
`r\y
1 4
f f ?y,
w
UT3 Photo Point 24
UT3 Photo Point 19

Bailey Fork Cross Vane 1, beaver dam across
invert

? A°s F
qty R
i?# ti..? 5 ?J
e.
f"n A

UT3 Photo Point 26
UT3 Photo Point 25
Bailey Fork Cross Vane 2, beaver dam across
invert
Crest Gauge UT3 10/28/08
Crest Gauge UT2 10/28/08
Crest Gauge UT1 10/28/08

f' z
Auto Well 1 - East
Y>
f +a
Auto Well 1 - South

I
I A,

L
Auto Well 2 - East
`' r
ra£•
t .

f, W i?•

Auto Well 1 - North
? FYJ. }?. i ?f
Auto Well I - West

Auto Well 2 - North

Auto Well 2 - West
.-N --II

Auto Well 3 - South

Auto Well 3 - West
Auto Well 2 - South
Auto Well 3 - North
Auto Well 3 - East
?? ? ?? :tom" ? ?`sF?'??•
Auto Well 4 - East
i•`? t. Pan Fr
Auto Well 4 - South
IS,
Manual Well I - East
±f4 ° 9.
s; "x .mil "ta
l # ? .k°
Auto Well 4 - North

€
a
x a'

Auto Well 4 - West

S ?
o`

Manual Well 1 - North

S
Manual Well 2 - South
Manual Well I - South
Manual Well I - West
Manual Well 2 - East
Manual Well 2 - North
Manual Well 2 - West

Manual Well 3 - East Manual Wei 13 - North
Manual Well 3 - South Manual Well 3 - West
I
Manual Well 4 - East Manual Well 4 - North
531.x"' Y.` i??,lO.L ?a9!'?.'* la ?' : ?!??RlAeais,.ia?".
?; s w
Manual Well 4 - South Manual Well 4 - West
Oak
IJVA z-,
A a.4
-If
lit
nce Well 1 - East Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - North
Bailey Fork Reference
;, wt
Es.
AA41,, It, -its"
Ift
Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - South Bailey Fork Reference Well 1 - West '

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
STREAM MONITORING DATA
-
r

• -
O
0)
f
',
i • N
?
• r
?O

? O
U)

N
0

?
?A O
LO
LO
41 . CV
O
t+

00
LO

e
co
cV l/1

? t

O
Y , - LO
L • N
LL

m

??.ry t
3 c U,
0)
m
Q H H

O
- LO
r
U)
M O U) O
M N N U')
T O
r
O O O O O O

(11) UOIIBA813
i

. ¦
M °o
+ . ao
r
?
O
?„r .
r
• O
O
O r

O r

40
.
r
' O
O
? O
O
f+

LO a
O
O f N
^
Ii ;r O
0
N
H `
D o
Y M

i M
cu U
O
- r M
F- =3
cB N

LY CO
3 Co
a
m

M
m
Q H

L.
I-

O
•
¦
O
O

O
N
O
r LO
N N
O O
M
N
O
r
N
O
O
V-
O O
r• r
?
O

(4) U0118AG13

I
°
i
i N
N
s
O

+ r ?a
N

N
O
°

0 O
N

O
O
+
O ti
S
O
O °°

d o
?
O CD

a
M '

M +
Y O
O
O
LL

•
? . 3 Cl)
M
W f0 N
.. Ol C/)
a? m O
N
m 3 o
a ~ 3 F

r
t ;
O
O

M O

N N
I?

O O

0
O O
-- O O O O O
.
r r r r r r
(:}) UOIIBA013
Permanent Cross-section #1 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)
}y # f i ? is
?:f b
??? L yam, _ t
h.'t k i
tr !AA
Stream
Tvoe
Cross-section #1
1020 ----- - ---- ------- -- --
---------------------------------------------------------------------o
1018
c
1016
v
m
W
1014
1012 1
0 10 20 30 40
Year2 o Bankfull
a - - Floodprone - Year 1
t As-Built -?- Year 3
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #2 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)

stream IJKr bm- Max bKt- Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 21.9 27.75 0.79 2.13 35.14 0.8 3.4 1014.34 1014.02
Cross-section #2
1020
1019
1018
1017
1016
o 1015

>

014
1
- ----- -------
7
w 1013 ?-
1012 Year 2 Bankfull
- - o -
1011 a . - Floodprone -- Year 1
1010 - 0 As-Built - a Year 3
1009
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #3 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)

f' r
` `j ki+" S7 Sir':.,
, 10
44,
41 -?A 6.
?a ? Std` ,. ? °^ ? - ? •?'''
Looking at the Right Bank
BKF
MOO
rime L 40.6 23.99 1.69 3.52 14.16 1 3 1013.4 1013.41
Cross-section #3
1019______
1018
1017 --------------------------------------------------o
1016
$ 1015
1014
:0 r
1013
G>
w 1012
1011 Year
1010 o Floo(
1009 -? As-B
1008
0 10 20 30 40
Looking at the Left Bank
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Permanent Cross-section #4 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)
L-
?- IN
v Fy ? ?
4 ry?y'
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 33.8 25.46 1.33 2.84 19.16 1 3.5 1011.7 1011.73
Cross-section #4
1016 ---
1015
-------------------------------------------------------------o
1014
1013
1012 jpoqNE0jh.
.2 1011
1010
a?
w 1009
1008
Year 2 - a - Bankfull
1007 0 - - Floodprone - Year 1
1006 As-Built ?- Year 3
1005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #5 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008) wtw,
s . d - 'z X '?•'g
e 3 7PP- y '? 3t4 r ?'9?5' t
wt.

? r
N III
b ^
M

?i
r 5?'?r? r ? ?; '? der} v?? a t}?? 4:.?'?? ? f'v?

A

Looking at the Right Bank
11.
Cross-section #5
1016
1015
1014 0
1013
$ 1012
0 1011
1010
m
w 1009
1008
Year 2 - a Bankfull
1007 o Floodprone Year 1
1006 -+-- As-Built - 0 Year 3
1005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #6 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 29.8 24.56 1.21 3.25 20.27 1 2.8 1009.46 1009.34
Cross-section #6
1015
1013 --

0 1011
?v
w 1009
Year 2 o Bankfull
1007 0 - Floodprone Year 1
--e As-Built -?- Year 3

1005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #7 UT3
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008) 140" 14' W"P!pm

44
!P , 4 !t';
p r wt t
Looking at the Left Bank
qr r
Orr"
V
ry5C `r
i
?Y
t1 ?yh ?'

Stream I BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Denth W/D RH Rnfin FR RI(F Flov T(1R FIc.A
14
Cross-section #7
1013
1011 •••-•-••--
0 1009
?v
d
W 1007
Year 2 o Bankfull
1005 o Floodprone -- - Year 1
-?-As-Built - ?- Year 3
1003
25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Station (ft)
95 105 115 125 135
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #8 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 25.9 18.35 1.41 3.36 13.01 1 3.2 1029.79 1029.68
Cross-section #8
1033 ----•-------•-•-----•---------------- ------•••
$ 1031
c
0
r
> 1029
m
w
1027
1025 1 1
0 10 20
Year2 o- Bankfull
o - • Floodprone Year 1
-As-Built-Year 3
30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #9 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected Sept. 2008)
BKF
1
Cross-section #9
1028
1027
1026
1025
c
0 1024
w 1023
Year 2 > Bankfull
1022 -0 Floodprone -- Year 1
1021 --0 As-Built -?-Year 3
1020
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #10 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
Pool 24.7 28.35 0.87 2.26 32.5 1 2 1025.96 1026.07
Cross-section #10
1030
1028 t -------•-------•-------------------------------------------o
a
c
0 1026
v
Q
w
1024
1022 '
0 10 20
Year2 o Bankfull
o - • Floodprone Year 1
s As-Built Year 3
30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #11 UT2
(Year 3 Data - Collected September 2008)
? a4
w t^ i Y ,i
j t)
Looking at the Left Bank
.1
?1M ..
Y* 'eA4 .fir y,- ?
1026
1025
-----------------••----------•------------------ 0
1024
1023
c
0
1022
1021
w Year 2 u Bankfull
1020 a Floodprone - Year 1
1019 -? As-Built --? Year 3
1018
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section #12 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)
k
,Y
se
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 9.5 13.99 0.68 1.5 20.67 1 5.7 1031.74 1031.75
Cross-section #12
1036
1035
1034
1033
c
1032
a
w 1031
1030 Year 2 > Bankfull
- - o - Floodprone --e As-Built
1029 -0 Year 3
1028
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Station (ft)
Looking at the Right Bank
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross-section #13 UT1
(Year 3 Data - Collected October 2008)
'f Y 4s'? r .=^ „:•{ ? 70
i ow
x vrk 3a RiS ?fSaL e: ?!S j ?. F
t'1' a ? ?`t ?r?gg9{_??,,S s'E .'?i^t ' d Ec ? ?3. qq$ . "' r c4 T "?'? "? ;??c??? } yt rye > •. ?^ ?1 ? ?} K
?? ? ? ?? `",e?.??s. ? , ? N? - >r` ..;^?. .. , wry..
' rv^C44 ?. i>. 1?. g Y ? + ?rti' c ". ` 3 ` a .ti A
,'°.ri .'? { 1?jtt 41? .a ?$ { f, +1? 7v? .?I 1,7 k - Pte`"' r? 0-1
7 ?8
} ,?
.?*ti'?? ? -? c '7'7? may,
gym..-
r
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank

1

1

' APPENDIX C
i BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY FOR
RESTORATION REACHES

1

t

1

-
C1
Q
tf?"f r? V M S C- C
? O .-, N r? h rn - r
J N-
? ? o U
D M-?
N O
? O V C °u
? ?
? -
.J O r<.
Y 00 ? O
.. O U r- O
- o
O
z
? C o 0 0_ o o
0

0

O Q
rn ? r r r i r P r i ' r r r? r i r r i ? r? [i]
O
Q O
?
? f r r r i r? N v. r i r
? r i i ? r i r 0 r -
C
C ? J i i r i r r^ r i r c i r r r ? r r ?? r p W r?
?.l r r r
W 1, T C O C '? ? O b 'i
La F C J j? N r i r r r r i ? r ?i r r r r

? ?
fl
o ° U r- w n
"? P
P
-
y ?J
J O
0 0
J r
r i r r r
x
L
_
0
f .
[
a `O I

c
? J? O ? C r r r r r r i r ? r r r- i
OD
r i r
rn r i
r r r
i r r
?i
r i ?? ? ? O
i
o
J
.+ m. O Q i O rV ^?
O

?a a v rn ?
3 3 o Q 3 ?c - J a, ,. L ? v = 2 Avg c
?(
- G R N G ? S .?
_
' Pv7 ?J Y ? N ? -r --
O ? Q ` ?
-a u o C J) :J `n U.
? U v v?
c a ?
4? 5
? y .Q 3 i a :_ ?_
Y? C ??
r
d 2 c Ll m
W .fl
? `
c CQ ? ?
W
y?? -? ? 3?
c? a n ?? C R
`o u L!
Q o '.

.? r r i r , r r r i N V J O ? f?
O V,
r i
"
r r r r r

3

W Vr t? at r r C O c
j .?-. r?ir O C P O .? _.

? ,? P?
J' N P y

n
N O V IX O
N

N
J O

? oa V O
J U^_ O
O
d p
0 O
z
C
L r r r r r r i r i N P C
- N O_ '?"
N j N?
r i
r r r r r
p N
?' r N r r r r i i P O p
? O O v
O O ?
r i
r r i r r
C
v C ? w N O N O r

«?.. P ?T O ?. ? V- c i

N
N C V
N o0
V v

N O, V C
Q

?
z
O? v; V O

h
O
U^-
S

a
r O O
O
q I. ? r r r r P r r r r ? r °C r r ? ? ? r r- W ^
L
Cfi
? r r r r r N- v.
r ? r ??
i r r r
r r ?
r o -
a ? r ? r r? r ? o ?' -
r r „ r r r r
F ° r r r r r r r r r r r ? r r.
t
u
a
?
e
o
J
0

W

IL

^

< r r r r r

r r

r r P

0

? r r

r,
A
- 7 0
R
c
0

? J P o ri ? W v+ ?
J O
U
_ c
O ? ? G
n 7 ? t'J
O

Z L L^_ CC fX
s L N t
?Oc¢Q rnN a
u

v ? o
q a E a c k
u? ? -
' E
= ? m m ? c ? N

Y C
f

O
P r
Y
0 a
N M
JO N V
?
? N
? N C i i
N^ v7 P M r 0 n G
`n
O O O ?
U O
?? j U `n
p
Q O

! r -
?
r r
O? N_ r
J r N z

O -
i
M O W
T V' O r r r r r r r
t
r? r r r r i i
N r r r r r r r r
C
?
0
? `? 00 _.
' fJ
N?? O t i
-
C Y? n
<` O a r
O
z O Y
N j V 'rYi ?T j
- O

°
! r W i t ?
i i Y r i rCit
-? J ? v
r N
r r
r r i i r
r i i i r P ? r i i i i? r r r i r r r r- [I] r '-
L
eJ

C

i r r r
-
r N- v'

r i r V i

r r r r

i r r
? O
i ? r .-

!. r r r r . 'n r r r r r ri i r i r r r r r O W ' N

F.i.
G r O _
I. = 00 I m O
N ., -< i
r i r i?
r r r i O
Y r
i r r

U
q
u C
C
U
-

_

O
Y
J

C
C
?' - r- r
?f01 i r r r
r r r i
i i i r
r i ?
r r r? r
-7 n. ° I O
V rl
- ? i o
Y r i r i r . r I r r r i r r i i r r fl r
O
a
-? r° r
? i r i ?
i r r i
i r ? r
r r ?
r r r P r

? O
r m r O r^
P O r r`?
r r r r
r r r r
r i ?i Q
i r W N r O

N ? O
U
? rn
O O
-? O
0
K
W -
-
N r i r i r r r . r r i rv U?
O.
- q G O O
j7, 7 D rn y f l Y r-
9 a a 2 y L i_ 'VO 3 CII s Jl v CU C C Y T A W1 :D - y C N

c a??U ? cy_ ? a3i w ova .:0=?3 - i c ?U `^ w
4

1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC
MONITORING SUMMARY - YEAR 2
MONITORING
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
?
I
I
r

o v

?

o ?
NO N N
oa
N r0 N P ? ?.
r. P, M
I ? ? vl N - N
I
?

O
O
C
o ?
c

<. - m - o o
N N
O N _
ll? _ o o U

R
?
? r
0.
G:7
,c
v ?
a
rn f
? c ?" 'n ? ?? rn
N - N _ N

v

C

r

N M N
v
Ile

?
G ? - O
v
H .-. N

Y '
°
}
c
o 0
ml

O N
`
U ?' per, ar`
a .,

CJ ? P
c

=

'a "° a a s `" o v
i ^n s en v
u .= to en v
72
Q, v oo
?? Q Q ? v E b b
? > m °' aci n c .. a a w
?>? ?° v o v v1 0 o N

0. ti W 3 w °°
° a H b° °> w
c c
'' 3 S 1 L A m .c V K
u
ti ? v
7 °
C
°
?
?' i
v a.
E a ? v F
c ?o
z All
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
a
Y
s
o z

a
°o
N
K
?" X
R
?

C
O
C_

N _C
L
°o a ?

v =
M
O F' O
ri, a o ri,
j
-a
p
C
G J G? ? ? v N
_ N

G G ? N
P

O K
.r.
O M n ip ,n ?p ? c - O 4

4J 0
ti d
?'
?
' V ? M N „
N l o N
O
O
N O
Y
C
-
r L
LJ

z
N No-?,?
? ?
G V N O N M N'? ?G,

O O
-F -E
E E
C N L (lam .C .? L O v

'
L 'D
R P. S ^ ? ;D r- ? ? L Gl t ul Y 'y'U .E
tU W] .-C- y N ,

L ?
>
> ? Q L]. N iC ?? ?
3 N a Ul y N Y L N-d C. .
Y
-
?
2 m o c Y s C G- - .= m
U .. ? o ?
w
CL m
? L ? 'O N ? 0.. 0. > r C "
%
? R
,n
W
3 T e° ¢
L c c.i v' ? 0.

w .' 1 5 i
?, G
o m :: u a vl
L
U V L Y
CC ? Y O
?, '?= O
L
? ? 7
?? ? R Z
0. G
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o ?
? p
N •? N .-. rn +t

O ?
G N 'S - r1
G N O .-• r . ? ,,
?T
- N r? ? C O
I
G
}
f
M
G } r M
1 ? N ' rJ O N r^ ? ,
N C
!. N - ? -' rD n ? p
O ? O
7 yr ?
N
N r N ? ?
'T m 7 .n ?
N
°o ' m o7 ? w v ? i
? 3 x y
-o
O W .v. t
V
C L d ?`
s ? a ?=
O U tea'
? X
z
r
O
_O
U N
}
`? - M rrl
rN.l ? O O L
M - O O
G
V }
c ?
O
M
y O }
? ? O U YG
• p v U NN
L
z r
L
z
7t
r„ - o U G
C U rrl
N w }
I
U }"
L ]? L C L P L CU ^ t G r .y
'? i G) L ^l d CG .U ? ^p G a ?
j N b _ O N rJ L O N :n O O
v = q 3 v vJ '-? v? '? '? v, rn
W C? 3 ? ? w. pG, o R ? c .,,v 0] c
? v x 0. a' t u
s .c q v d U
U ? ? r a
a y a
a 3
S
O
O ?

i
a
a
0
v
O
N
G L 00. 7 ?
O p
o 00 ., ?
1
1
1
1
1
ry C
N C ? ? ' '
.? r^,. ? ^. O.
C ^ C
? ^S N ? ?
N ' J .-. m. O CJ i ?
C 7
? O M ? ?
ry [ 1 - (?1
!. N ?
? vi rl .-. CI - f?I ? ?
? ? M ?
? C ?. ? ?
N f! O fl nl ?'
?n
? _ O O4
'. ? - ?
r,. a N O N ? rl ? ?
7
° = ?-
Ti 'O ? U 4 L ? V :D O?
5 ?' Q ? u cJ -p "O
Lz. U .^. Y, ? u ?:, CC
0] ? G?qj , ? L. G
?. '? ? ? 'O ` Z A
? ? ? ? '? U ?
o n m ? 3
v. .5.
c`'
c w
° o] ::
C L
u
e
c

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX E
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
MONITORING DATA
Legend 0N
Macrobenthic Sampling Sites `"? ^<.. ?a
Stream Enhancement Level 2
Stream Restoration" Site 3
4 r.•
Wetland Restoration '?" ?;• 'u. ?,? r`-? ? ? ?: ? -
Wetland Enhancement
Stream/Upland Buffer
` ;-
q. t a? 4
I'VIk
.t $ k + l
INA
?f
14
Site 4
VIA&
y r
r, Site 1 ry> w:
z :` #.d 7+ a; 4 yl+&. '?f S }" ' r s. i? "''4t+ 'i
? Z
rt r
Site 2
e'Ln
,r a
INV M >
F r? 3.17".$ y I ? ? x` ? rt t? b 2 ?'
Figure 1.
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
2530 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200 0 500 1,000 2,000 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Durham, NC 27713 Feet Sampling Sites
Bailey Fork Site

f

t

? • 'y t t ? R.. S
?

:.: •x y'.'•
y., .
iJIV,
- ?.• ? ...., Ma,..
.4, IN
P2 Site 1 - Facing downstream

,ti

t i c

P6 Site 3 - Facing downstream
PI Site 1 - Facing upstream
P3 Site 2 - Facing upstream
P4 Site 2 - Facing downstream
P5 Site 3 - Facing upstream
P7 Site 4 - Facing upstream
P8 Site 4 - Facing downstream
Appendix A. Benthos Data for Bailey Fork Project Collected on January 7 & 23, 2008

PECIES
Tak

?'aln
P

Fetdh
(,gimp
Site I UTl to

Bailey Fork
I/am Site 2
UT" to OW'ey

Fork
Roferettee
218/08
U73 tSite 3
o Silver

Crook 112
3J08 Site 4

T3 to Silt
Creek
Reference
V 23M
NNELIDA
Oligchaeta
Naididae
Dero s pp. 10.0 GC R
Nais s pp. 8.9 R
Tubificidae
fl odrilus tem letoni 9.3 GC R
Limnodrilus s pp. 9.5 GC R
RTHROPODA
Insecta
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Stenelmis erenata. 7.0 OM R
Ptilodactylidae
Anchytarsm bicolor 3.6 SH R R
Diptera
Chironomidae
Brillia spp. 5.2 SH R R
Conchapelopia grp 8.4 PR R R
Corynoneura spp. 6.0 GC C R
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 OM R
Dierotendipes fumidus N/A N/A R
Diplocladius cultriger 7.4 GC R
Limnophyes spp. 7.4 GC R
Nanocladius spp. 7.1 GC C
Orthocladius obumbratus 8.5 GC A VA
Parametricnemus lundbeeki 3.7 GC C R R
Paraphaenocladius spp. 3.3 GC R
Polypedilum halterale grp 7.3 SH R
Dixidae
Dixa spp. 2.6 GC A
Simulidae
Simulium spp. 6.0 FC C
Tipulidae
Dicronata spp. 0.0 PR R R
Hexatoma spp. 43 PR R
Tipula spp. 73 SH C
E hemero tera
Caenidae
Caenis sp . 7.4 GC C
Ephmeridae
Ephemera sp . 2.0 GC R R
Hexa enia s pp. 4.9 GC R

SPECIES

Tolerance
Values
Functional
Feeding
Group
Site 1 UTl to
Bailey Fork
1/8/08 Site 2
UT1 to Bailey
Fork
Reference
1/8/08 Site 3

UT3 to Silver
Creek 1/23/08 Site 4
UT3 to Silver
Creek
Reference
1/23/08
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella dorothea 6.0 NHA C C
Eurylophella funeralis 2.1 GC R R
Eurylophella spp. 4.3 SC C
Heptageniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A C
Stenonema pudicum 2.0 SC g
j C
Siphlonuridae
Ameletus lineams 2.4 N/A R
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigroniafasciatus 5.6 R
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 PR R
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx spp. 7.8 PR C R C
Coenagrionidae
Argia spp. 8.2 PR R
Enallagma spp. 8.9 PR R
Gomphidae
Ophiogomphits spp. 5.5 PR R
Stylogomphus albistylus 4.7 N/A R
Libellulidae
Libellula spp. 9.6 PR R
Plecoptera
Capnidae
Allocapnia spp. 2.5 SH R R
Perlidae
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 N/A R C R
Perlodidae
Diploperla duplicate 2.7 N/A R R
Isoperla bilineata 5.4 N/A R
Peltoperlidae
Tallaperla spp. 1.2 C
richoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche spp. 6.2 FC C C R
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC C R C
Hydropsyche betteni 7.8 FC A A
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche spp. 2.5 SH C C
Rhyacophildae
Rhyacophila carolina grp. 0.0 R

PECIES

Tolerance

Values

Functional

Feeding
Group

Site 1 LJTI to

Bailey Fork
1/8/08 Site 2

UT1 to Bailey

Fork
Reference
1/8/08
Site 3

UT3 to Silver
Creek
1/23/08 Site 4

UT3 to Silver

Creek
Reference
1/23/08
Uenoidae
Neophyl(m spp. 2.2 SC R R
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Physidae
Physella spp. 8.8 SC R R R
Pleuroceridae
Elimia spp. 2.5 SC R
Total Taxa Richness 33 20 19 9
EPT Taxa Richness 18 13 2 3
Total Biotic Index 4.9 5.1 8.2 4.5
EPT Biotic Index 4.6 4.6 6.2 3.3
Dominant in Common Taxa (%) 86 N/A 0 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 = F il terer-Col lector, 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).
.. 7/00 Revi$ionJ _ 'r fV y"S4,WNL? M 1Jw JiM`VS +s
Habitat Assessment Held Data Sheet lQ1+ a 1?' F? r,s; ?.? ? -?,rr?s'
Molthtain/ Piedmont Streams 17
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ QTAL SCt' UJED
Directions for use: T)ie observer is to survey a minimum of loo teeters of stream, preferably in an upstream duectioa starting abot
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. Tho segment which is assessed should mpreseut average stream conditions. To perform a pro
habitat evaluation the observer needs t4 get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best f is the observed
habitats and then circle the score, if the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habi
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
gAiLt 4'5 16vwC-7ii r
stream u r i, s E"Te i R e l Locationlroad: i- ? (Road Name fz<O - )County I101rKe-

Date II x'j of CC# $asin C'AT1'?'iwS Snbbasin 1 E--? J
Observer(s) Type of Study: 0 Fish k3enthos 0 Basinwide Special Study (Desoribe)
betittide 7z 611b• b Longitaile 1? 9?'f3 Ecoreglon, 0 MT XP C3 Slate Belt ?'llinsicBasin
Water ?Qaalityn Temper Wre?p_3 °C DO //.111 m&4 Conductivity (corr) -so, µmhos/cm pg
,yob,. b
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
estimate driving thm the watershed in watershed land use.
Vie ible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture . % Active Crops.
$ °/.FailowFields . %Coaimercial %Industrial s %{?ther-Dtscribe: NivlhVAy
Watershed laud use (est): .Forest %Agrlculture .Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) S - clue igl (attop ofbank),,Z . Stream Depth: (m) Mao,- ax
13 n
Ww?anable _
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riMe or run) to top of bank): (m)
Batik Angle: -3 ° or © NA (Vertical is 9(r, horizontal is 00. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away fxom.channeL NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
i3Doeply incised-strop straight batiks Moth banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried strictures 13RVosed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Greeu tinge U.-Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N OY: UW retreat, gabions Q Sediment(grad -control structure 13Bmn/ievee
Flow conditions : CMliigh Pil`Tormal OLow
Turbidity: R Mar © Slightly Turbid ?Turbid Manuic ©Millcy ?Colorod (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:_ 7Q / - - photos: UN - NY ROXgitd ?35mm
Remarks: WIld , f 7-',PA-to 0,J fLMCA
1
1
1
Typical stremtrSCsact sasgm
This side is 45° bank angle.
... ................. core
1. Glrannel Modification
s A. channel natural, frequent bends .............................. .............................................. ............................
B. clumel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ................
C. some channelization present ............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted .............................................................. 2
1 33, no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ...........................................,:.... 0
1 13 Evidence of dredging O$vidence of desnagging=no large wco4 ddnis in stream ,,auks of uniform shapelhcight
` lZcuaarks Subtotal -5 '
1
1 II. Tnstream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthas colonization or fish sever.. H>70% of the read
s.rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leaipacks consist of older leaves that are parked together and have begun to '
decry (not piles of leaves in pool areas). ?ilarlc ss Rare Common, or Abundant
ophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or rout mats
? ?fRocks '? Marx
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-760/6 2040%' <200/o
oore Score re Scare
4 or 5 types present ................ 20 16 12 8 '
3 types present. ......... I ....... I ...... 19 15 11 7
t .2 types present. ........................ 18 0 10 6
I type present ........................... 17 13 9
No types present ...................... 0 Subtotal 1
1 E3 No woody vegetation in riparian zone RemarksnSt? r noi`a+?SStft?°S
(J
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at r k
for embeddeduess.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders. core
1. einbeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% ........................... ................................................................ 82
3. embeddedness X40-80% .................................................................... .......,........... . 3
r 4. embeddedness >80% ................... ..... ......................
B. substrate gravel and cobble 14
1. ombeddedaess C20% .......................................................................................................... 11
2. mnbeddedness 2040% .................................. _................ ........ .......... ,...... . ........... ................
..
3. embeddeduess 40-809/o .............................................................................. ....... . ......................
4. etnbeddeduess >80% ............ .....................................
C. substrate mostly gravel '
1. ernbeddedness <5001.................. ............................................ .............................................. 8
2. embeddedness >500/ ............................. ................ ..................................................... 4 .
M D. substrate homogeneous 3
21. . substrate substrate nearly nearly all all bed sand . . ........ .. rock ......... ... ...
........................................................ .............. 3 '
2
3. substrate nearly all detritus ................................................................................................... 1
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
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in tar
'
M high gradient streams. Score
R A. Pools present
i. Pools Frequent (>30% of loom area surve '
a variety of pool sizes................ ................................................................................... 10
r b. pools some, size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................................ '
2. Pools Infrequent (G300/1, of the loom area surveyed)
..
a. variety of pool sizes .......................................... :................................................. ......... ........
b. pools same size ........ .. ....................................... .. ...... .................. ..... .... 0 ,
B. Foals absent .......................................................... .....
Subtotal
17 pool bottom boulder-cobbIc-hard Bottom sandy-sink as you walk D Silt bottom D Some pools over wader dept
Remarks Page Total 13 '
IL

Sn; y?f.:=aox s Te r u7 t
' v. RIMenabitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can. be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
Score
A well defined riffle and nm, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width ofatitam....
B. riffle as wide as strmm but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14
C. riffle not as wide as stream and rifle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10
' D, riffles absent .:.............................................................................................................. 0
Channel Slope: KTypical for area Wte.ep=-fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream
Riffles Infrequent
Moore
12
7
3
Subtotal 1 ?o
VL Bank Stability sud Vegetation
' FACE 13PSTRRAM 1,ef3 B ank
Scare
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank £aiture(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.... 7
' B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systms ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trecs and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy-........ ........... 1-- 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindilQ ............... 3
' 4, mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs; high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erasion and bank failure evident .................................................... 0
1
1
1
1
Remarks ': ? .
K0 3M&
Score
0
S
2
0
TotaIw-!-
VII. Light Penetration. (Canopy is defined as trot or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Scare
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 - sunli& and shading are essentially egaa .................................... '7
D. Stream with mi til-al shading - foil sign in all but a few areas ....................................................... r2
E. No shading............................................................................................................................. L =J
gerrcaerks Subtotal 0
V11L Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition! A
the riparian zone is anyplace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream; such as paths
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPS Lk Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: l7 Trees E3 Skubs Cl (basses #??d field ? kotics (bAlzu,eto) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................................
.............................................. 0
,
2. width 12-18 meters .................................................................................. 4
3. width 6-12 meters ....................... ' ........ ....................................... W........ 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 r
a. width a 18 meters_........................................... ............................. 3. 3
b. width, 12-18 meters.......... ....................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... I 1
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Total to

Page Total ¢
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCURF `1 1
7/00 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment Field Dati Sheet
Mountain! Piedmont Streams - - Z
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: 'lie observer is to survey a minimum of 10,0 meters of stream., preferably-i:n an Upstream . n starting abo?
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. Tire segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To pm orm a pro
habitat ovaiuation, 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 habi
score is determined by adding the results fzmrn the differart metrics.
51
;xl+?Y i! f W 0 SITE. I-) YG 2
Stream ) I.ocationlroati: 40 Pirwe1-t- (ltoadName ?t-- [aunty XvYtIuG '
• Date i L-1, /4 g CC## Basin Subbasin. ??' T`? ?? 3
Observer(s) Type of Study: © Fish Mogenthos O Basinwide []Special Study (Describe)
tirade"72 § x 51. 1 { q o z b . 6 - Ecoregion: L7 MT I?f © Slate Belt 1= T iassic Basin
Water Quality: Terhperaturet?, t7 °e DC? II.3 aa01 Conductivity-(corr.) So _prnhodcm pH--7-
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you tau see from sampling location - include what
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land Use.
Visible Land Use 75 %porest 2-C %lt.esidential °/.Active Pasture - . % Active Crops
°/oMowFields . -%comrnemial%Tndustrial %Ofl=-Describe:
Watershed hand use (est): 'VD %Fotest 6 %Agriculture °/oUrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) ` , Stream Depth: (m) Avg I i Max ' 17
? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (inriifie or run) to top of bank). (ra) ?' L12 3• ( ?1
Bank Angle: 8 ' or O NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (r. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, C 90°
indicate slope is away from.channel. NA ifbank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
Deeply incised-stecp,strwght banks Moth banks undercut at bend 'KChannel filled in with.sedimeant
D Recent overbank deposits Mar development ?Huned structures Eftosed bedrock
? Excessive peripb:yton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Mwn tinge O .Savage smelt
Manmade Stabilization: IONO" ©Y:Mip-rap, cement, gabions 13 Sediment/grado-control structure CIBe?mAevee
Flow coadifts : ©High 84orwal ©Low
Turbidity: Mlear 13 Slightly Turbid ?Turbid CMTannic C1Milky []Colored (from dyes)
Weather Cond[tionsc!?uNNv Photos: [IN- PI "Digital ©nnim
Remarks: ?F rLErtCe &V G ctegTafAM of 5'i T b t.

This side is 45° bank angle.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?,klLlG?'S f?tZlC SiTi; ?
1
Core
' L Channel Modification
......................
A. ohannel natural, fivtluent bends ............... :........................... .....................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some chaanelization present... ............................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted...................... .................,......... 0
1 B. no bends, completely channolized or rip rapped or gabioned, eto .............. .............................
F ©Evidmceof dredging i 3Bvidmw of demMing-na large. woody dtbzis in stream 13Banks of uoiforuk sb&polhei& Subtotal 5.
? Remarks ..
k 3Z lnstream Habitat-, Consider the pcrccrttage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish coven. if >70°/a of the-renal
is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed' together and have begun to
decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Commcn or Abundant
1 G/ R G l
? Racks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks r Snags and logs Undercut beaks or root mats
AMOUNT OF MACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
1 >70% 4"0% 20-40% X20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present... .............. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 0 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 14 6
1 type present .......................... 17 13 9 5
140 types present
Subtotal
n No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks.... 0
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at rii
for embeddeduess. Score
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders.
f 1. einbeddedness C20% (very little sand, usually. only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
! 2. embeddednew 20400/ci ............................... ............................................................. .,............. 12
3. embeddedness 40-801/a ............................................................ 8
4. anbeddedness >800/9 ......................................................................................................... 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <201/a ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40°l0 ....................................................................... .............. ...... 11
3. emboddedness 40-800/ . ................................................................... ...............
2
4. embeddedness >80°/a ........... ............................................................ ...... .........
C. substrate mostly gravel '
etnbeddedness C50..................................................................................... 8
1. %...
2. embeddedness >5(%a ....................:..............:...............................................................:...... 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. ...................................
2. substrate ne-arlyall sand ................................. ................................. ,................ .................. 3
.
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................. ................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. 1
Remarks Subtotal
1Y. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow, fools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in la)
M high gradient streams.
A. fools present score
1. Pools Frequent (>3011/o of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ........... .......... .................... 10
b. pools sable size (indicates pools filling in) ..................................... ........................ r..............
2. Pools infiNuent (t30% of the 100m =4 surveyed)
r a. variety of pool sizes. .................. I ....... .............................................................................. ...... 6
. b, pools same size .................................................................................................................. 4
B. Pools absent ............................................ ................. .:. .,....... 0
Subtotal
13 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard RI Botkom sandy-sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page Total.
• Irr"y`S F-DM 5;1V 2-
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-cam be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream....
B. riffie as wide, as streams but riffle length is not 2X stream width...:................................. 14
C. riffie not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10.
13, riffles abseat..................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: MTypleal foram Mteep7-fast flow Ill ow=lace a coastal stream
VL Bank Stability and Vegetation •
FACE UPSTREAM
Riffles Infrequent
core
12
7
3.
Subtotal 16
l.aftBank Rt. Bank
coca Score
A. Banks stable
1. nb evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erasion.... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 CO
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bmditlg ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if sky trees and shrubs; high u6sion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident.... ................................................ 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream`s surface. Canopy would block
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................^
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent.............................................._..:.. 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially aqua .................................... .7
D. Stream with wlifmal shading- full sun in ail but a few areas ....................................................... 2
R No shading .................... ........................ ........................................................... .......................... 0
Remarks Subtotal 10
VIIL. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A
the riparian zone is anyplace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM
Dominant vegetation: t?lTrees RSk=ubs Grasses 0 WwWold field 13Exotics (adz ow) Ltl. Bank
Score Rt. Bank
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width> 18 meters ..................................................................................... 5
4 5
4
"2. width 12-18 moters ...................... ........... ............ .......:........................ ......
......•----.....I/........
'
width 6-12 meters
3 3 3
..............................
.......................
,
4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
4
a: width> 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... :2
c. width 6-12 meters ...................... ................
. 2 1
......... . .................
d. width < 6 meters ......................................... 1
2. breaks common : •
3
a, width> 18 meters....: ............................................................. ...... 1
' 2
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2
1
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... U
d, width < 6 meters ........................ .......................... ............. ........ 5
'fatal
Remarks
Page Totaa?_..
D Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 7 2-

'
7/00 Revision S
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
' MountaW Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SC41A
-;SUwlng Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream aboi
bridge pool and the road tight-o£ gray. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a pro
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best bits the observed
' habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat fails in between two descriptions, select an intermediate'soore. A &al habi
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
' Stream gmueyl P°YttG 7 ocation/road: St re 3 (RoadName f#eP?Wtr-r- )County
?wrt Vii'
-Date 1113/00
-CC # Baser G*?-T't''g ^t Subbasin --
' *
I
Observer(s)C
E
VA
L Type cif Study. d Fish enthos Ll Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
,vsn•rrtr,?s ?asn??G
?-'13dB o f. t? r j.y Z57fv, d Ecoregion: 13 MT J(P ? Sim Belt Ll Thas4e Basin
1t1?
WaterQetalityi TeAiperatirre ?''? °C DO t3=q m0 Conductivity (corr.) P__PmhosIcM PH

' Physical Characterization: Visible laud use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
estimate driving thru the watershed in -?vaters'hed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest YeResidential. %Aetivc Pasture % Active Crops
98 p
F
li

' a
/o
o?trFields - %Commercial °oInchastrial I- IM -Describe:l IVL*kD
l?CSt C? ? )
Watershed land use (eat): %Forest °?fl °loAgrrculture 10 %Urban Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream d 7S Channel (at top of bank) 3 Stream Depth (m) AvgMax • ti 7
' 0 Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to'top of bank): (m)
Bank Angie: q5 ° or O NA (Vertical is 9v, horizontal is 0°, Angles > 9(r indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 9(r
' indicate slope is away from channel- NA if bank is too tow for bank angle to matter.)
Meeply incised-steep straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend 016bannel filled in with,sediment
' 0 Recent. overborne deposits Mar development Muried structures DEVosed bedrock
U Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ©Green tinge l-`1
Sewage smelt
;
Manmade Stabrilizadon: ON 21Y: -©Rip-rap, cement, gabions © Sediment/grade-control. structure C1BercAovee
Flaw conditions : []High Mo=al ,01ovvi
Turbidity,Mlear 11 Slightly Turbid 13Turbid Mannic C lMilky MColored (from dyes)
Weather Conditiona:_C2u'0 ? photos. ON - ttt 4CDigit d Q35=n
' Remarks: W/,-l I ?7?RRyloN "A(,4
This side is 45° bank angle.
7
L
t
SCOW
' L Channel Modification .
? A. channel natural, ?uenf beads ...............:......................................................... ...................
C_ some channel natural, infrequent bonds (channelization could be old) ....................................................... 3 ,
B.
0
} D. more extensivcchaunelizatrony >40% of stream disraPted....................... ........M .... .. . ............. .
1 B. no beads, eomplemly chaunelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..............
1 n Evidence of dredging 13Evidenee of desmgging=no large woody debris in stream pBanks of uniform shapelltei & ,
. subtotals
1 II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for barthos colonization or fish cover.. If >70% of the react
of leaves circle pool arease,Mark. Rare on:a? o? consist Of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to '
1 is xocks,1 type is
decay (not piles
N
M
Rocks macrophytes Sticks and lealparks Snags and logs R Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONMATIiON OR COVER
>70% 40-76Y* 20400/0 C20%
re Scare Score core
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8
3 types present ........................ 14 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 IL 10 6
I type present .......................... 13
No types present,...... ........... 0 9 55ubtota! L
13 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
III. Bottom Substrate (sidt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at ri
for embeddedness. core
sub*ate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
A
15
.
1. einbeddedness <20% (very littlo sand, usually only behind large boulders) ........................
... 112
2. eutbeddedness 2940% ........................................................».............................................
...
3. embeddedness 40-803/6 .......................................................................................................
..... 3
4, embeddedness >800/9 .....................................................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble
.......
14
1. embeddedness <200/a ........................................ ..---............................................
..... 11
2. embeddeduess 2040% ......................... ..........................
.
...............................
3. embeddectttess 4o-8o% ........................... ................................
..... 2
4. embeddedness >80%........... ............................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel g
1, embness <500/9 ...................................................................................................
.
2. embeddedness >50% ....................... ...................................................................................
D. substrate homogeneous
.... 3
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...............................................................................................
.
...... 3
..
2. substrate nearly all sand ..........................................................
......
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................... ...
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ........ .................................................... .............................. I
Subtotal
Remarks ? OAC
Pool Varlety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. oa??ei velocities la
IV
l
"
.
s
, small poo
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of pocket water
high gradient streams. Score
A. Pools present
1. Pools Frequent 00% of 100m area surveyed) 10
a. variety of pool sizes........................................................................................•.
...........................
. ?
..... ......
b, pools same size (indicates pools filing in).....................................
2. Pools Infrequent (G30% of the 100m area'surveyed)
....„............... 6
a. variety of pool sizes .............................. .....................................................
..... 4
0 g
b. pools same size ..................................................................................................... ...
. ................... ...................._...........................
B. Pools absent ............................................. ......... ».............. Subtotal
lk 0 Silt bottom 13 Some pools over wader depth
13 Pool bottom boulder cobbleshard 0 Bottom sandy-sink as you wa
Remarks Page Total
kft-eys F•vpt: 517e -5
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of roaeration-can be debris data, or narrow cbanael area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
core core
A, well defined riffle and nun, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... t 12
B. riffic as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stmam width .....................................
C. riff not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
.................................„...... ................. ,.......................... 0
D. riffles absent. .............................
Channel Slope: 13Typical for area EISteep 5st flow OLow=lilac a coastal Am= ft*tal 6,
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACEUPSTREkM Lei}Bank Rt. Bank
more core
A. Banks stable
1. nb evidence of erosion or bank failute(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion... (!p
B. Em doa 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 bindigg ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and abrubs; high erasion and failure potential of high flow.. 2 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........... ................................ ......... 0 0
Total. l if
Romarks*k , POOWAO"
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
&o m
' 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 tniriimal shading - full sun in all but a feet areas ............................................ ..•..... 2
E. No shading.............................................. ............... ....................... ............................... .......... ., (V
Remarks Subtoul
' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone ` Yidth
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go be yond floodplain). Definition: A
the riparian zone is anyplace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream; such as paths
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
' AGE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt Bank
Dominant vegetation: 0 Trees 0 Shrubs C roses O WeoWold field QFeotics (kaudzu ete) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... S 5
' 2. width 12-18 meters .......................................... ......... .................................
3. width 6-12 meters ....................... .......,......................................r ........ 3 3
4. width 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact: (breaks)
' 1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ......................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters 2
' d. width < 6 meters ...............................................................
. 1 1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 raeters ....:..................................................................,. 3. 3
b. width
meters . 2
' 12
width 6--12 meters ..
c.
............................. ....................................... I
l 1
d, width < 6 meters........ ................
- 0 0
il'Ar-f ~t PiAoTe;y LooltS
Remarks _NhCIAS_ - TIPAelAif
Aso tc WA90ra M VA%ii-f
' Page Total 31
0 Diselaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
• TOTAL SCORE
7f0O Revision 5
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mattntainl Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL 8;5) E
Directions for-use: The observer is to survey a minimum of LQO meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abM
bridge pool and the noadxight-of way. The segment which is assessed.sbould represent average stream conditions. To perform a pm
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 desoriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habi
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
*fPat=tt. r64cFCwg
Stream SffiLel,; fD K K wf3 L,00ationlroad: glTe `t (}load Name )Coufttyl_?L
-Date CC# Basiu &1ffAwSfF Subbas e. t I -3q- T- 3
Observer(s) ! 6141 Type of Study: 13 Fish. enthos C.! Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
?loR-°G3,J'd•. t?iis rr°s!r ,
_lAtitude ivom?ittrde ?iy9t84.3 Fcoregion: 13 MT t(P OSlate Belt ®TdassicBasin
Water Quality: Tcmptirabrre Lq °C DU i o. 7q mgn Conductivity(corr.) Sr, 0 _ _ ttmhodcm PH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to Immediate area that you can see from sampling location - iddade what
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: /,,§ °/worest Z y */Resident
Y*Fallow Fields % Commercial °/oTndustrial
Watershed land use (est): 5 °/.Parest ?a d %Acricuiture t
Width: (meters) S#tcam Channel (at top of bank) 2,7
17 Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to'top of
*/Active Pasture % Active Craps
°/adthOr ? Dtscn-be: GL??t?-A ? ?*'f ?
fuc?dl?kc?%.+p.s
/aUrban 13 Animal operations upstream
Stream Depth: (m) Avg ' Z'3" Max l
bank): (m) ' Z•:, 5
Bank Angle: fl ° or 0 ?CIA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is (r. AnggW > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-ohannel, < 900
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
l?i '41Y incised steep,straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend 06hannel filled m with-sediment
0 Recent overbank deposits MKir development Muried structures OPatposed bedrock
0 Excessive pertphyton gpwth 0 Heavy Samenum algae growth t3Green tinge ? :Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: M MY: •i7 rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure CiBcnm evee
Plow conditips : OHigh ONormal ow
Turbidity: 230ear 0 Slightly Turbid ©Tlurbid Manic OMilky Motored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions:4%kpm7( `. Photos: C!N- qY Digital 035=n
Remarks: 1WFay0J(C CiTC t<Pf7l -t^ a.F apewe c,- Ob.
Ibis side is 45° bank angle.
,,,ktL,ej'S F-tt-K Nl $ St
Soore
' I. Channel Modification
€ A channel natural, frequent bends ...............:....... ............................................,....................... 5
R. channel natural, infrequent bonds (chaonelizationcould be old) .................................. ..... M
' C. some channelization present ....................................... ............................
...................... 2
D. more extensive channelizatran, >40% of stream disrupted.................. ............ ........
E. no bends, aompletcly eharmelized or rip rapped or gabion4 etc ....:.........................._.................... 0
E O Evidence of dredging 13Evidence of desasgging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shapelhoight Subtotal
' l Re?ma=ks '
1 II lnstream Habitat; Consider the percentage of the teach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the read
is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
1 decay (not piles of leaves in gaol areas}. M_kk as tare Common. Or Abundant.
1
G Rocks A' Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Saags and logs C Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
} >70% 40-760%, 20-40% <20%
1 Score, Score care core
' 4 or 5 types present ..... 20 113 12 8
3 types present.................... . 19 15 11 7
` 2 types present. ........................ 18 lei 10 5
1 type presentr .......................... 17 13 9 5
' No types present ....................... 0 _ t.? .r E`U w
© No woody vegetation inriparian zone Remarks ftw-t utn'iY rl f (`u?A +1Ti? 0 eJtRt ?d vii - Subtotal
r in Bottom Substrate (sift, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at t'il
' for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Scare
1. embeddeduess Q0% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)...... ...... ............ 15
2. embeddedness 20i10%...•• ...................................................................................................... 12
' 3. embeddedness 4D- Wo ................................... ................... ......
...„........... 8
4. ombeddedness >80% .. ............................................................... ........... . ............ 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
' 1. embeddedness 20-40 ........
2. embeddedness 20-44%0 .. ..
?
................................................................................. I I
r 3. embeddedness 40-80% .............................................................. ..
............................ ............................................ 2
4. embeddedaess >80% .............................
' C. substrate mostly gravel
1. ern6eddedness G50 ........... ........................ .. . ...........................................
°/a ., 8
2. embeddedness >50% ..................... :............................. .......................... ................... ............ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
' 1. substrate nearly all bedrock............. I ........................... ...............,............................ 3
2. substrate nearly all send .................
............................ ..... ......................................... .. .............,......... 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus . 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .............................................................. ................................ I
' Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in lay
' M high gradient streams.
A. Pools present core
I- Pools Frequent (}30% of 100tH area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .........:....................................................................................................
$
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ................... ....:............ ......:..:........ ......................
2. Pools Infrequent 0309E of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety ofpcol sizes ............................................................................................................... ti
M b. pools same sire ...................................................................................................... . . .....,........ 4
B. Pools absent .........................» .........,..,.......,...................,..:............,..,...........................«.,......,............ 0
Subtotal
11 Pool bottom boulder-cvbh3e?hard ®Bottom sandy-sink as you walk Q Silt bottom' 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Qoots 4_AVt!? 51 4-(VV l
' Page `total
3,kILZY'5'F6t9 VT.?
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
re
Sort,
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 010 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: OTypical for area [Sheep-fast flow C3Low=like a coastal stream ........ .„ Subtotal , 1L)
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
l1ACEUPS'1'REAM Left Bank R1.Bank
score corn
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 good root systems .....................................
2. few trees or small trees and sbrabs; vagetation,appears generally healthy .......................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g. ............... 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. g
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ..................
Total
Remarks t?arF.? L i+? t? 7 -
VII.. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
W
A Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
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 sbadiug - W sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading.-. ...................:............................................................................................................ 0
Remarks Subtotal 10
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'
the riparian zone is anyplace on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the streawa, such as paths
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
g CE UPSTREAM L8. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: eTr cs RrSShmbs WGrassas O WeeWold field PF cotios (kudzu etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
...........
1..width> 18 meters ........ :.............. .................................. ...............
2. width 12-18 meters ....................................................:................. ..........
3, width 6-12 meters ..........................................................................1.........
4, width < 6 meters..... ................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a: width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c, width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
2. breaks oommon
a. widthz> 18 meters .... :...................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 radon ..................................................................--
d. width < 6 meters......................... ................................................
5 5

.4 '
4
3 .3
2 2
dD" V
3 3
2 2
11 1
3. 3
'2 2
1 1
0 0•
Total $
Page Total,
E3 Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 0
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I