The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19990971 Ver 1_Complete File_20030818 (2)mss uu- c LA-P-1 M1 E'nV B ox Envnr+oninenl?l Consulting Services inc. August 14, 2003 Mr. Dave Penrose NC DENR/Division of Water Quality Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 RE: Kerner Rid opm t DWQ P 890971 Dear Mc Penrose: 37e4 Rominger Road Banner Elk, NC 28604 Ph/Fax 628-297-8946 e-mail: johneenwees.com AUG 2003 "IATERIOU41nITISECTION Enclosed is a report detailing the post-construction benthic monitoring conducted as requited under the 401 permit issued for the referenced project The following items are included in the package., 1. Outline of Procedures 2. Summary of Results/Discussion 3. Biological Tracking Form 4. General Location Map 5. Sampling Site Map 6. Pebble Count Plot 7. Taxa List 8. Quantitative Analysis (metrics) 9. Habitat Assessment Forms for both reaches 10. Sampling Site Photo Sheets Samples were collected between 422-03 and 5-01-03 and sent to Pennington and Associated in Cookeville, TN for analysis. Please respond to me with any qu shuns, comments, or additional information needs at your earliest convenience. In the absence of dly further correspondence we will sample again next year (2004) during the same time of year at both tt* ferenbe and the relocated channel. If you have any questions regarding this information please call me at 828-297-6946, thank you. Sincerely, John C. vias President, E'nV Environmental Consulting Services Inc. CC: Jeff Dickerson Kerner Ridge Residential Services DWQ Project #: 990971 Benthic Monitoring introduction: This project involved the relocation and restoration of a small, unnamed tributary to East Fork (UT-East Fork). East Fork is a major headwater tributary of the South Fork of the New River. The project site is east -- southeast of the Town o atauga county, NC. Construction of the relocated reach was comp May of 2001. UT-East Fork is a first order stream with a drainage area o app ximately 100 acres. The Restored Reach is located at the mouth of the stream where it flows into another first located order stream approximately 100 meters above East Fork. The R e Reach +e fce approximately 300 meters above the Restored. Reach; the drainage Reach is approximately 60 acres. This is the year-2 sample and analysis. The next sample will be collected in April of 2004. Procedures: The Qual-4 methods outlnaed in the SOP and Technical Guidance were followed in the collection of samples. The Reference Reach was sampled 5/01/03, the Restored Reach was sampled 4/22/03, both samples were preserved in 95% ethanol and shipped to Pennington and Associates for analysis on 5/12/03. The sampling team consisted of John Vilas, Adam Williams and Al Childers, all with FIN Environmental Consulting Services Inc. Results: Pennington and Associates analyzed collected benthos samples for both the Restored Reach and the Reference Reach, results were returned July 8, 2003 and are included in '?qq 0 c? . ?i this report. A summary of these results follows: l/" 1. Overall abundance and richness for the Reference site are 314 and 24 respectively, whereas these same values for the Restored reach are 81 and,14. 2. EPT abundance and. richness for the Reference site are 281 and 13 respectively, these values for the Restored reach are 58 and. 5 (see Benthic Analysis). 3. The Biotic Index value for the Reference reach is 4.16 (good water quality) and for the Restored reach is 5.69 (good fair water quality). 4. Stonef lys (Pledoptera) and Caddisks (Trichoptera), non tolerant species, were more prevalent in the Reference reach versus the Restored reach Total Plecoptera abundance (taxa) in the two reaches are 36 (4) and 1(1) respectively. Total Tricoptera abundance (taxa) in the two reach are 76 (2) and 1(1). Kerner Ridge Development 8114/2003 Benthic Monitoring ' 1 5. The Biotic Index value for the Reference reach changed from a 2.9 in 4/01 to a 4.16 in 5/03. 6. Habitat Assessment Forms completed for both sites also show the Reference reach to have a higher quality aquatic habitat (Reference score=82; Restored scare=71) (see Habitat Assessment Forms). 7. The Reference reach is a B4 stream type with a D50 of approximately 4mm (5/21/01). A pebble count was not performed on the Reference reach this year. The Restored reach, an E5 stream type, had a D50 of <0.062 mm in 9/01, and a more recent D50 of 0.17 mm (4/03) (see pebble counts). Disc= The results of the benthic analysis performed on the Restored site and the Reference site indicate a significant difference in factors relevant to macrobenthos colonization, survival and population dynamics between the two reaches. There does not seem to be a clear indication of which factor or factors are most significant. The most likely candidates to explain the, variation in sampled results, in our opinion, include: k e't • Relative age and maturity of reach • Mean particle size ?p,f G • Stream type PO • Water quality influence from watershed • Sampling error, influence from recent ram event The relative age and maturity of the reaches we feel is highly significant in that the Restored reach is still in a period of adjustment. This a&pstament period is rely to be at a maximum for priority-one type restorations (complete new channel construction) as opposed to priority-two or three type restoration where the disturbance to the existing streambed during construction is sporadic (priority-two) or limited (priority-three). The type of adjustment most rely to affect macrobenthos recolonization and survival is the sorting of particles in the stream bed and the flusbing of the excess fines left over from coffin. This process will continue until a sufficient number of bankfiull events occurs such that an equilibrium, is reached between the energy m the channel and the available sediment. Other significant factors related to the age and maturity of the channel are the lack of embedded and established large organic matter (logs and sticks) within the channel and the lack of habitat niches such as undercut banks or debris snags. As noted in the previous paragraph, the Restored reach is still in a period of adjustment with respect to mean particle size in the bed. An icy in the size of D50 was noted on the Restored reach from 9/01(<0.062 mm) to 4/03 (0.17 min). It is anticipated that this reach will continue this trend and become coarser over tone; we expect that as the bell becomes more coarse benthos abundance and richness values will increase. It is not expected that the Restored reach will become as course as the Reference reach given that the Reference reach is a much steeper B type channeL Our expectation is that the Restored reach will eventually have a consistent D50 between the current value of 0.17mm and the D50 measured for the Impact reach, 0.8mm. The D50 measured in the Kerner Ridge Development 8/14/2003 Benthic Monitoring - 2 - Reference reach (4mm) is significantly larger than even the Impact reach and we feel that this difference, if maintained over time, will be sufficient to limit overall richness and most significantly EPT richness in the Restored reach. Stream classification, as defined in Rosgen, 1996, is based on a system of ordered sets of specific hydraulic and sediment relationships within and between rivers. The measurement of elements of a given stream reaches' dimension, pattern, profile and sediment characteristics allows for that reach to be classified along a continuum of defined stream types. The Reference reach is a B4 type stream, slope between 20/0 and streambed 4%, more oxygen rich waters, less sinuosity, narrow sloping floodpli un, and dominated by small gravel. The Restored is an E5 stream type, slope less than 2%, highly sinuous, broad floodplam, and a streambed dominated by sand. The most significant differences between the two stream types with respect to macrobenthos are slope and mean particle size. Particle size has been discussed in the previous section. We feel slope is significant in that channels with steeper slopes often have coarser bed material and are dominated by riffle and run sections with shorter pools. Channels with flatter slopes aoften. nd have finer bed material, and are more evenly split between riffles and runs and pools glides. While these differences may not necessarily affect overall abundance and richness, we heel they may influence the general makeup of the population such that certain species that thrive in the B4 stream may not do as well in the E5 streams. If the E5 stream was recently constructed, recolonization would be primarily through drift, a proms limiter by the upstream population It may require additional time for the newly constructed channel to be introduced to species, not prevalent in the upstream reach, that are better able to thrive in the new habitat. Water quality, particularly high sediment loads from upstream, we feel may be a factor influencing the benthos population in the Restored ea reachThe area of stream ) lies between the Reference and Restored saes (the Mid ) has severe bank erosion, deep incision, and severe entrenchment. This reach is a 64/5, which is an inherently unstable stream type frequently associated with accelerated bank erosion and bed scour. Land use along the Aktdle reach consists primarily of a trader park and apartments on the right bank and how density residential on the left bank. When surveying/sampling (4/03), the Restored stream was littered with traslican. W plant pots, newspaper, and other trash from the land uses along the Kiddle reach By contrast the Reference stream is dominated. by hay--fields and pasture, undeveloped land, and low-density residential development. There was no trash or non-organic debris noted in the Reference stream The net effect of bank instability, impervious runoff, and humoan influences (trash, mowing grass) from the Middle reach, may possibly reduee the numbers of some intolerant benthic species present (ie: stonefly) in the Restored site while others may remain present (ie: mayfly). Sampling error is always a possibility and we make every reasonable attempt to avoid such error. For this sample we do not have any reason to suspect any error associated the Kerner Ridge Development 8/14/2003 Benthic Monitoring - 3 actual collection, preservation or analysis of the samples. However, we feel that the timing of the collections and the antecedent weather could be a factor. The Restored reach was sampled on 4t22/03. On 4/17 there was a 2.4-inch rain event and on 4/10 there was another 2.4-inch rain-on-snow event. It is possible that the Restored reach had not sufficiently recovered from two heavy rain events, one of which was 5 days prior to the sampling. The Reference reach was sampled on 5/l/03. On 4/30 there was a 0.4=inch rain event but no other rain since the large rain of 4/17. In undeveloped watersheds in the mountains a 0.4-inch rain generally results in only minimal increases in stream flow It is possible that the heavy rains of early spring may be in part responsible for the change in Biotic Index calculated for the Reference reach Key Questions for 2004 Sample: 1. Will Biotic Index for Reference reach decline toward the previous level? Will controlling for optimal sampling conditions affect this? 2. Will the stream bed in the Restored reach continue to coarsen? 3. How much of a factor is the Middle reach? 4. Will the proposed construction of the Assisted Living Facility impact stream quality? Kerner Ridge Development 8/14/2003 Benthic Monitoring ' 4 IN, A. B. C. D. E. F. BIOLOGICAL TRACKING S'T'REAM RESTORATION PROJECTS North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetlands/401 Certification Unit Contact a-YcV rose@ncmai1.net Project Name: ??r ?et` ?4 De to "'? Stream Name: (,tT = E a st?o rt/, DWQ Project Number: ? I o I-+ Restoration Map Number. Ecoregion, County and Location Information: ??? - So1? erv:G(stalitre (ZidSes av..ok, ?1a??'?" "S V,?cl a FqS? - Jov ? S ??watah't- l ?,ti. t- 'A OtiC,R 04 6? ?00-1-e nex-}4 Coordinates and USGS Quad Name: -S? a t\ `y'1 /\) 'I a 19 38 ' \?J G. Strew IL n Classification Type (Rosgen}- M4??"4??iv.?S; E5 S1\4 "S Length of Project 700' ` t u rd?t s v,?s ?fi C-0 a n.,e.to t Q+?sS r2 Urban or Rural C,aAtchment curr.e Catchment size: fit on, -kt, f + ,? s; ?t- -P 100 acre?? tPrq to Si Ve =:V AL, r5 Who conducted the biological monitoring? )ok,. V; V5 } $a t _i,tt a S, ?l C .1dg?s Applicant Information: 1. Name and company: ?C- 2. Telephone Number. 3. Email Address: l COnSUltanlvarInformation: v?U neSnd C43npSny: E' 2. Telephone Number. ?o, qi 3. Email Address: ; u?kv.(aj ew.v - (!LS, Co w. prQJ'?t ctatnc• J. K. L M. N. es?VMfio- CD"?e S a 1 . Si i1% CvKti-4 (F;,. N ". ..., ti? ,fir /Y vv i. r4 l I r• l '' ?) . rY ! ? F i• / f ,`' rte,, ?-?2 ` ° ,. ? r ??i Y; ?\ i y, '' `' , `/ ??. r--, `?.J `?. =J ? t jl?i • ,i'O °?7' ?? , J. Ih 'tC?b _*-_.•?.. ( cf 7 A {!7 r , t ?? •1 v ,o t `1 _J ?lO?s i I/J: "'?=Y1 ? `?'' art f t ,i pi' . ?/ , ?'? f ? ? ? ?+t.' ? . o. ?a "'1 1 y?,, ?,o??/ !. ?i trim ., ` •?•??? / ? ??? ., • JJ?. 1 ?? ? J • j • . ; ? ?L' f N • r ., ' i l ? y.? rte,, s??y' Q ti• }? i ? ` T ,??1 Y J ... e •• :?) _fce s A•'' ? /i` ' , 'y a i ! ' ?` % J l 4?+,I " J y'\ i ) ! tip .° t•? `. - •. ` J/?l e - i u°? / f J tit `•,? r` ?J/ . -%/. '? ? ?T ? ?` '?, ? l ?;' 4 r«;??y?=?S I jai. t?"'??-'•??? !( • ? ?`1^{{'}}_? Y ? 1 r ??? ' j ? ' (7 ?Jrl !!? r•r •\ . i `{ r ' + ,,? ' . ...1?` ? ? t '.? ? \ ° i / /t ( r r 3 . l.? t, > )? , j , s• f , .• r ? 1 \ 1 ell ._-Y?,,?t \ raa , }??,t5 J.j ? .?..???? r •?'?'• • \ ?N j?•'?, ? '?.i?`f ?t ?. is .. N CEO m Z o a C; m M CM 32 T L o m C) Y C t d 0U -J? t --- 'b .. •? ./ I ?,??, .1? t j?•ft 1 ?% / l \ 1+;??.,"_ off 8 oC J " r 1 •• ? ' rrl g wc> Z 40 40 a .117`-`.9. .. 1°•? ...+,.•? t .•-"t Hf' [5 / .. Pir) + 1 `I 4 4 ? 4 x r . ate' .. • ?. • ' •,?' t P - _atiW>r'i J rr ?...,,+ ??? f ? ? fl ?t f ff ` f r O { ?'. "? .- !fir I ? j #t' ? , i? ? r L ,, 4 1•tij F •i ? Lf " d r .P f ., ? ? ? . _.... j 1 ?? ... 1 y 41I L , 'P j A, 1? *- ` ?'" ? - x r f t0 C s Y s t Q ? Al ` C ?? Al 9 4 .?`- V[?,y,?'?'? ?". °•f` ??{?' ° - .? f' dry ? I ti • Jy 4 ` 0 ? 1.10 42 C3 • i * 2 O ov-S 9 oGo `? z o 0 2 A m CO) m ? ' O Q V *+ m v ? o m ?a a E L 0 0 (%) aru;elntuno Cl O O O O O O " " O O O O O O O O O O O p O co i. CD t0 d co N `- r BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM WATAUGA COUNTY, NC, MAY 2003. SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Ref Site R1, R2 Mont. Site M1, M2 MOLLUSCA 0 0 Gastropods 0 0 Mesogastropoda 0 0 Pleuroceridae 0 0 Elimia sp. 2.46 SC 11 3.5032 4 4.9383 ANNELIDA 0 0 Oligochaeta *1 CG 0 0 Hapiotaxida 0 0 Lumbricidae CG 2 0.6369 1 1.2346 Branchlobdellida 0 1 1.2346 ARTHROPODA 0 0 Crustacea 0 0 Decapoda 0 0 Cambaridae 7.5 0 0 Cambarus sp. 7.62 P 5 1.5924 3 3.7037 Insects 0 0 Ephemeroptera 0 0 Ameletidae *7 CG 0 0 Ameletus sp. *0 CG 1 0.3185 0 Ephemerellidae *1 Sc 0 0 O Ephr Wa domthea 6 103 32.803 43 53.086 Eury/ophella sp. 4.34 SC 57 18.153 10 12.346 Heptageniidae *4 Sc 0 0 Epeoms plem0s 1.84 CG 1 0.3185 0 Leucrocuta sp. 2.4 SC 1 0.3185 0 Stenonema meddwdanum 0.13 3 0.9554 0 Stenonema modestum 5.5 Sc 0 3 3.7037 Leptophiebiidae *2 CG 0 0 Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.94 CG 3 0.9554 0 Plecoptera 0 0 Leuctridae *0 SH 0 0 Leuctra sp. 2.5 SH 14 4.4586 1 2346 Nemouridae *2 SH 0 0 Amphinemura sp. 3.33 SH 19 6.051 Peltopedidae SH 0 Tallapeda sp. 1.18 SH 1 0.31 Perlodidae *2 P 0 0 Remenus bdobatus 028 - 2 0.6369 0 Hemiptera 0 0 Veliida s P 0 0 Microvelia sp. P 0 1 1.2346 Trichoptera 0 0 Hydropsychidae *4 FC 0 0 Diplectmna modesta 221 FC 74 23.567 1 - 1.2346 L epidostomatidae *1 SH 0 t 0 Lepwastvma sp. 0.9 FC 2 0. 0 Coleoptem 0 0 Hydrophilidae P 3 0. 0 Pennington and Associates, inc. Page 1 of 2 /1 4. \C' 0 EECWataugaCo 7/8/2003 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM WATAUGA COUNTY, NC, MAY 2003. SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Ref Site Mont. Site R1, R2 M1, M2 Diptela 0 0 0 Chironomidae 0 0 Conchapakpia sp. 8.42 P 4 1.2739 Diamesa sp. 7.95 CG 0 4 4.9383 Larsia sp. 9.3 P 1 0.3185 0 Orfhocladius sp. *4 CG 0 3 3.7037 Parametriocnemus sp. *4 CG 2 0.6369 0 Polypeddum illinoense 9 SH 1 0.3185 0 Dbddae CG 0 0 Dim sp. 2.65 CG 2 0.6369 0 Tipuiidae *3 SH 0 0 Limnophila sp. 8.4 P 1 0.3185 1 1.2346 Tpula sp. 7.33 SH 1 0.3185 5 6.1728 CHORDATAr** 0 0 Caudata 2 0.6369 2 TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 314 81 TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 24 14. EPT TAXA 13 5 EPT ABUNDANCE 281 68- BIOTIC INDEX 4.16 6.69 JACCARD COEFFICIENT 0.31 PERCENT SIMILARITY 54 Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 - EECWataugaCo 7/8/2003 R APPENDIX 2. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS: MOUNTAINVIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN. Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Mountain/ Piedmont Streams Directions for use of this Assessaxmt: The obsmver is to smvey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-cf-way. The stream segment which is assessed should represent average stream waditions. In order to perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. All metes readings need to be performed prior to wallc4g the stream. 'When working the habitat index, select the demon which best fits the observed habitaCs and then circle the score. K the observed habitat falls m between, two descriptims, select an inmrmedu to score, There are eight different metrics in this index and a final habitat scm is determined by adding the results from the dii1br ent merles Uh w, w1-?l ''Cc', 5 -}r7 pp Streams Eas-? Locativnaoad (}z-?,wIo3 Fob County Date --T CC# Basin S• Fo r' L fi. i SwAask Ro r ?c 3iv.1 rr..;?? 94 Observer(s) w? iv,s Office LocationVL_Agency L nQ Type of Study: Fisl?- ?d= Basinvade Special Study (Describe) Lititude ?O I Lt/ Longita&(f' -313 ' tJ Ecoregion (circle one) P Distance Surveyed meters Physical Lmd use refers to immedide area, that you eau see from sampling won - Include what you see drlvtng thm the watershed In the remarks section. Also use the remarks section for such descriptions as "deeply incised" or "exposed bedrock" or other m usnal eondidon& Land use: Forest 60 % Active Pasture A-5_% Active Crops % Fallow Fields S % Commercial % Industrial V. Residential 20 V Outer % - Describe Width: (meters) Stream "EO Channel Average Stream Depth: (m)-ai-L- Velocity wsec Flow conditions (circle one): High Normal Low Manmade Stabilisation: Y[ ] N[ ] Describe Water Quality: Temperature °C Dissolved Oxygen me Conductivity pmhos/cm pH Turbidity: (circle) Clear Slightly Turbid Turbid Tannic Weather Conditions: V46 ? 'L 15 k'=? Photo # Bemarb: Vie \- Spas 0 -, ft. L Cbannel Modit'ieatbn (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) co t bends (good diversity of bends or falls) ....................... A. channel natural, frequen ............................ 4 B. channel natural, infrequent bends ..................................................................................................... 4 C. some channefization Present ............................................................................................................ 2 D. more extensive channelrration, >40% of stream disrupted. .............................................................. 0 F. no bends, completely cbarmeiized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... IL Insb* mt Habitat: CouWer the tage of the reach that is favorable for beuthos colonization. or fish co Circle - lacropLytes dAnd loaf pEasae and Easder+eut or .Defnrition: o older Vane packed togedur and have of leaves in pool auras are not conddered leaf packs.. WWRM- N>70% of the reach is rock% 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORA 4 or 5 types present ................. 3 types present ......................... 2 types resent .. .................... BLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER >70% 40-70% 20-40% X20% are soom core Scm 20 16 12 8 15 11 7 p ... 18 14 10 6 l present........................... 17 13 9 _ No types present ........................... Subtotal -la Remarks ? ua 4'r k -e -5 ? !., .?A Iii. Bottom Substrate (sift, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle for' embeddedness. re substrate witb good wk of gravel cobble and boulders A . emb ers <20Y* (very little send, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... 1 15 . .. 2 l ...................................................... 4040A g . ................................................ 3. embeddedness .......................... .. 3 . 4. embeddednew ............................................................................... substrate gravel and cobble B . .............................. . 0 4 .. A ....................................................................... 1. embeddWness <20 ............................................... . 4M 11 . ........................................................ 2. embedded== 20? ... ..................... 6 3. embodded?s 40-M ............................................................................. 2 4. embedd >WA ............................................................................................................ substrate mostly gravel C . . 8 8 1. embeddedness <M .................. .................................................................................... 2. embeddedness>WA ............................................................................................................ IT) D. substrate bomgeneous 3 1. substrate nearly all bedrock .....................................»............................................................ 3 2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 2 3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... I 4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................................................. Remarks Subtotal o[ ID-ft- 4G s+-? N. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams. A. Pools present. 1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveye-M a. variety of pool sizes ........................................................................................................ 8 b. pools some size ................................................................................................................ 2. Pools Infivquent (4M of the loom area surveyed) 6 a. variety of pool sizes. ....................................................................................................... . 4 b.pools same size ......................................................................... ................................... B. Pools absent present 1. Runs 2. Runs absent ................................................. ............................................................................. 0 Remarks A w 5' Page Total V. Riffle Habitats Frequent Infrequent Score Score A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream... 12 B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..................................... 4 7 C. rifflvnot as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................10 3 D. riffles absent ........................................................................................................................0 Subtotal VL Bank Stability and Vegetattlon Left Bank Right Bank SqgM Score A. Banks stable 1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... 7 7 B. Erosion areas print 1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ....................».......... (V G) 2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation %Vwx generally healthy ...................... 5 5 3. sparse vegeUUar; plant types and conditions, suggest poop' soft biudin& ... .. ................. 3 3 4. mostly grasses, few ¢ any trees and shrubs, high ersosion and fail= potential at high flow 2 2 5. so lank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure, evident ............................._............ 0 0 t' _ p 1 Tota` W. VIL Light Peateetradon (Canopy is defined es t= or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead). A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .................. ...................... 10 B. Stream with fall compy - breaks for light peneft-Wou absent ..................................................... C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are esxntially equa .................................... D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas..................................................... E. No shading ................................................................................................................................ 4r 5 Page 16 7 0 E i ffX 2. HABITAT A Directions for use of tiw an dream direction s assessed should needs to get into the stir the habitat index, selec observed habitat falls in this index and a fatal ha Stream . E s ' Dare ; 11- 0-a Obsawer(s), 1 n -t- Type of Study: Fists.`? Latitude 3 V O kl , /v Pbysiaal Chaneterlr? include what you see sueb descriptions as " Land use: FoF98t L18 Industrial % Rd Width: (meters) Strew Flow conditions (viral Manmade Stabilizatiq Water Quality': Tea Remarks: P. Turbidity: (circle Weather Canditie* 06. VUL Riparian yegetadve Zone Width Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stye near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter t A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks) 1. zone width> 18 meters ............................... ................................................. 2. zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................................. ................... 3. zone width 6-12 meters. ......................................................... , ....... 4. zone width <6 meters ...................................................................................... B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 1. breaks rare ......... a. zone width> 18 meters ............................................................ b. zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................... c. zone width 6-12 meters ...................................................................... d. zone width < 6 meters. ....................................................................... 2. breaks common a. zone width> 18 meters ...................................................................... b. zoAc width 12-18 metem .................................................................. c. zone width 6-12 metes. .................................................................... .......... d. zone width < 6 meters ............................................................. TOTAL SCORE -?, J- ADD COMMENTS, DRAWINGS: .. L Channel Modification (Use Topo map as an additional aid for this parameter) Score A. channel natural, f wpent bends (good diversity of bonds or falls) ................................................... 5 B. channel natural, infrequent bends .................................................................................................... 4 C. some channelization present ........................................................................................................... 3 D. more extensive channelization, >400A of stream disrupted .............................................................. 2 E. no bends, completely chsrmelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0 ro Remarks l?g +? k:?`-° Subtotal J IL. Instream Habitaft Coaeside r the owantago of the reach that is favorable for bcollms colonization or fish cover. Circle ilre habitats IMc o+xau- (Gail (Mmrop> ) (Sump me k) 'Iftiffiklm or NO meets Definition: consist of older leaves that are poolmd. bow and havie ves in pool areas are not wed leaf p J EXAAffj If >7096 of flu reach is rocks, 1 type is present circle the score of 17. AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER >70% 40-7090o' 20-400/o QO% score Score ore Score 4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 8 3 types present ........................ 15 11 7 2 types present ........................ 18 14 10 6 1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5 No types prwent ........................... Remarks Subtotal ? d IIL. Bottom Substrate (alit, sand, des, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at rites for embeddedneea ft-re 15 12 A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders 1. embeddedness <We (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ....................... 2. embeddedness 20.4096 ...................................................................................................... 3. embeddedness 40-WA ......................................................................................................... 4. embeddedness>m ...................................................................................................... B. substrate gravel and cobble 1. embeddedness Q0W .............................. ........................................................................ 2. embeddednew 20.40% ...............................»..................... ........................................... 3. embeddedness 404PA ........................................................................................................ 4. ember>WA ........................................................................................................... C. substrate mostly gravel 1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 2. embeddedness>50'/b ............................................................................................................ D. substrate homgeneous 1. substrate nearly all bedmek ................................................. ............................................ 2. substrate nearly all sand ....................................................................................................... 3. substrate nearly all detritus. .......... I ... . ................................................... I ............................... 4. substrate nearly all silt/ day ................................................................................................ 14 I1 "l 3 3 Rennarks?iae? s? seal y 5 ?? ?; ??? 7 c???? f ? ?,t•Q Subtotal ve". 4c ?., IV. Pool Variety pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in large high gradient streams. i A. Pools present ..•....•..•.......• .................................. A8'? 1. Pools Frequent of of I 00m area surveyed) a. variety of pool sizesm ..... .................................................................................................... SS b. pools some size .......................................................... 2. Pools Infrequent (< (We of the 100m area surveyed) 6 . 4 a. variety of pool sizes. ....................................................................................................... bpools same size .......................................................................... ................................... B. Pools absent 1. Runs present ................................................................................................................................... 2. Runs absent ..................................................................................................................................... Remarks Page Total. V. 1 Habitats Frequent lnfiequent Score Score A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..... ?W 12 B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7 C. rifle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ................................10 3 A riffles abserrt .......................................................................................................................0 Subtotal VL Bank Stability and Vegetation Left Bank Right Bank ., soon score A. Backs stable 7 1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ................................... (7 B. Erasion areas Present 1. diverse trees. shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 6 6 2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 5 5 3, sparse vegetation; plant types and ccmMons suggest poorer soil binding ....................... 3 3 4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and sbxubs, high ersosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2 0 0 5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... Total Remarks VIL Idght Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out sunlight when the sun is directly overhead). i 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 A. Stream with minima! shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... E No shading................................................................ .................................................................. _ 0 Remarks !V aw , a d? o ?2 r?,r ?v ?-c/ Page 16 06, P. VUL Riparian Vegetative Zone Width Definition: A break in the ri parian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the near-stream portion of the riparian zone (banks); Places where pollntUb on duvol ly enter the stream. A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks) 1. zone width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... 2. zone widdl 12-18 meters ................................................................................ 3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 4. zone width <6 meters ...................................................................................... B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 1. breaks rare a. zone width> 18 meters, ........................................................................ b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... d zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 2. breaks common a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... b. zone width 12-18 meters....... .......................................................... C. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... d. zone width < 6 meters, ............................................................... TOTAL SCORE ? 8 k ADD COb MENTS, DRAWINGS: Right Bank Left Bank &M Score 5 5 4 4 3 3 1) 0 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Total Page 37 Kerner Ridge Development Site Photo Sheet 1 4/2003 looking upstream looking upstream Project Culvert Downstream pocket wetland Reference reach Lower project reach Kerner Ridge Development Site Photo Sheet 2 4/2003 upper reach near Sta 5+40 Bamboo Rd. Problem area #2 Upper project reach and problem area # 1 Debris littered View from