20050733 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20090529

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
05-0?JJ
CLEGHORN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2007 (YEAR 1)
Project Number: D-04010
Submitted to:
?- NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1 H 103
FIC0 gelll
Y Raleigh, NC 27604
PfYOGNAM
July 2007
Prepared for: EBX Neuse-I, LLC
909 Capability Drive
Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Prepared by: Baker Engineering, NY Inc.
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
- 797 Haywood Road
_ Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
t?
i.?ar 9 2009
IMT64 % AND STORWAT"R BRANCH
`F.IVE
2 0 2007
lr,GECMWP-.
ENHANMM5
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
f
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Approach for Cleghorn Creek Restoration Site
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Background
Table 5. Tree Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Table 6. Herbaceous Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 8. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic
Table 9. Macroinvertebrate Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Figure 2 Biomonitoring Locations
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I
1.0 SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the first year monitoring activities on the Cleghorn Creek Stream Restoration
Site ("Site"). Construction of the Site, including planting of trees, was initially completed in May 2006.
In order to document project success, five vegetation monitoring plots, eleven permanent cross-sections,
two longitudinal profile surveys, one rain gage, and two crest gages were installed and assessed across
the Site.
Prior to restoration, stream and buffer functions on the Site were impaired as a result of adjacent
agricultural land uses, including livestock grazing. The streams on the Site were channelized and riparian
vegetation had been cleared in most locations. Cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and had
unrestricted access to the channels. 2006 as-built surveys indicated that 5,196 linear feet (LF) of stream
were restored on Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek, a tributary to Cleghorn Creek.
Three bankfull events were observed and documented during the Year 1 monitoring period and at least
one additional bankfull event is believed to have occurred during this period. Both Cleghorn Creek and
Charles Creek suffered erosion damage during the multiple flood events. Two rounds of repairs were
conducted between November 2006 and April 2007. One of the bankfull events occurred while the
second round of repairs was in progress. Repairs included bank grading, bioengineering, matting,
seeding, and re-planting throughout Cleghorn Creek and over the upstream half of Charles Creek.
Five monitoring plots that measure 10 by 10 meters in size were initially installed to assess survivability
of the woody vegetation planted on Site. These plots were randomly distributed throughout the riparian
buffer to represent the different zones within the project. Repair work required that the five plots be
temporarily removed and re-established.
The 2007 data presented in this report were collected during a post-repair survey in April 2007, which
was essentially a repeat of the 2006 as-built survey. Changes to cross section dimensions and bank
treatments were significant enough to warrant a new baseline data set.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I

0

1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Cleghorn Creek Restoration Site is located in Rutherford County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
project site is located in Rutherford County, NC, and lies in the Broad River Basin, within North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-02 and United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050105040090. The Site has a recent history of pasture and
general agricultural usage. The streams of the site were historically channelized, and stream and
riparian functions had been severely impacted as a result of agricultural conversion.
The project involved the restoration of 5,196 linear feet (LF) of stream along Cleghorn Creek (the
mainstem) and Charles Creek, a tributary to Cleghorn Creek. A total of 24.33 acres of riparian buffer
are protected through a permanent conservation easement.
2.1 Project Location
The Cleghorn Creek Restoration site is located on Coxe Road at the intersection with Baber Road in
Rutherford County, North Carolina. From Charlotte, take I-85 South to US 74 West. Take the Union
Road Exit from US 74 W and turn left onto Union Rd. At the end of Union Rd., turn left onto Coxe
Road. Coxe Rd. travels northeast and crosses under US 74, then turns hard left. The Cleghorn Creek
site is on the left, across from Cleghorn Plantation Country Club.
2.2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The specific goals for the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Project were as follows:
• Restoration of 5,196 LF of stream channel.
• Removal of cattle access to the stream channel and riparian buffer areas.
• Improvement of floodplain functionality by excavating a new floodplain and creating a
meandering channel.
• Establishment of native wetland and loodplain vegetation within the conservation easement.
• Improvement of wildlife habitat functions of the Site.
' 2.3 Project Description and Restoration Approach
For assessment and analysis purposes, the on-site streams were divided into three reaches: Cleghorn
' Creek upstream from the Charles Creek confluence, Cleghorn Creek downstream from the Charles
Creek Confluence, and Charles Creek (Figure 1 and Appendix C). The following paragraphs describe
the Site's pre-construction conditions.
Restoration of site hydrology involved the restoration of natural stream systems on the site. The
streams in their historic condition were channelized and, as a result, were highly incised. Because of
the extent of the incision, a Rosgen Priority I restoration, which would connect the stream to the
abandoned floodplain (terrace), would not have been feasible without extending the project reach
several thousand feet upstream and significantly altering the channel profile. However, there was
sufficient space within the project boundaries to implement a Rosgen Priority II restoration by
excavating the floodplain and creating a new meandering channel. The restored streams were
designed based on dimensions and shapes of reference sections and reaches.
The design for the restored streams involved the construction of new, meandering channels across the
agricultural fields. The streams through the site were restored to a stable dimension, pattern, and
profile. Total stream length across the project was increased from approximately 4,641 LF to 5,196
LF. The designs allow stream flows larger than bankfull stage to spread onto the floodplains,
dissipating flow energies and reducing streambank stress.
Rootwad and log vane structures were used to protect streambanks and promote habitat diversity in
pool sections. Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare-root
planting, transplants, and a bioengineering technique referred to as a geolift. A geolift is a composite
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I
of coir fiber matting, live brush material and soil that is formed in lifts to create a reinforced stream
bank. Willow transplants were used to provide immediate living root mass to increase streambank
stability and create shaded 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.
Table 1. Project Mitigation Approach for Cleghorn Creek Restoration Site
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D-04010
Project Segment or
Reach ID Mitigation
Type *
Approach**
As-built Linear Footage
Cleghorn Creek R1 R P2 3,395
Cle horn Creek R2 R P2 375
Charles Creek R P2 1,426
Total linear ft of channel restored: 5,196
R = Restoration
E = Enhancement
S -= Stabilization
P 1 = Priority I
P2 = Priority II
P3 = Priority III
El = Enhancement I
Ell = Enhancement II
2.4 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2. The contact
information for all designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant
project background information is presented in Table 4.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I
3
1
1
1
1

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Scheduled Data Collection Actual Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Deliver
Restoration Plan Prepared Feb-05 N/A Mar-05
Restoration Plan Amended Mar-05 N/A Apr-05
Restoration Plan Approved N/A
Final Design - (at least 90% complete) May-05 N/A Jul-05
Construction Begins Jun-05 N/A Aug-05
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire
project area N/A N/A N/A
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 May-06
End of Construction Mar-06 N/A May-06
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0
Monitoring-baseline) Mar-06 Jul-06 Jul-06

Repair Work Jan-07 Apr-07 Apr-07
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-06 Apr-07 June 2007
Year 2 Monitoring Nov-07 Unknown Unknown
Year 3 Monitoring Nov-08 Unknown Unknown
Year 4 Monitoring Nov-09 Unknown Unknown
Year 5 Monitoring Nov-10 Unknown Unknown
t
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' July 2007, Monitoring Year I
4
Table 3. Project Contacts
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site : Project No.D04006-4
Full Service Delivery Contractor
EBX-Neuse I, LLC 909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606
Contact:
Norton Webster, Tel. [phone]
Designer
Baker Engineering, NY Inc. 797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Andrew Bick, Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
Riverworks, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Will Pedersen, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Riverworks, Inc. Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Riverworks, Inc. Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers International Paper, 1-888-888-7159

Monitoring Performers
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Baker Engineering, NY Inc. Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact: Andrew Bick, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact: Chris Hu sman, Tel. [phone]
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4. Project Background
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D04006-4
Project County: Rutherford County, NC
Drainage Area:
Cleghorn Reach 1 14.21 mi'
Cleghorn Reach 2 17.23 mil
Charles Creek 3.02 mi'`
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover:
Reach: Cleghorn Reach 1 < 5%
Reach: Cleghorn Reach 2 < 5%
Reach: Charles Creek <5%
Stream Order:
Cleghorn Reach 1 2
Cleghorn Reach 2 2
Charles Creek I
Physio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion Southern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As-Built
Cleghorn Reach 1 C
Cleghom Reach 2 C
Charles Creek C
Cowardin Classification Riverine, Upper Perennial,
Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand
Dominant Soil Types
Cleghorn Reach 1 ChA, ToA
Cleghorn Reach 2 ToA, RnE
Charles Creek ToA, GrE
Wheat Creek and UT to the Broad
River east of the Hwy 74/Union Rd
Reference Site ID intersection
USGS HUC for Project and Reference Sites 03050105040090
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-08-02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference C
An portion of an project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor? N/A
% of project easement fenced 100%
2.5 Project Plan
Plans depicting the as-built conditions of the major project elements, location of permanent
monitoring cross-sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented on
the plans in Appendix C.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I
6
1
3.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
3.1 Vegetation Problem Areas
The Site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in May 2006. The aforementioned
flooding caused damage or complete destruction of the plants and the five vegetation-monitoring
plots installed at the site had to be abandoned to perform grading repairs. The site was re-planted in
April 2007 and vegetation plots were re-established at locations shown on the plans. The next
monitoring report will include vegetation survival data.
3.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
The following tree species were planted in the restoration area at an average density of 680 stems per
acre:
Table 5. Tree Species Planted in the Cleghorn Restoration Area.
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D-04010
ID Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status
1 N 7ssa sylvatica Black um FAC
2 uercus hellos Willow Oak FACW-
3 Celtis laevigata Hackberry FAC-
4 Fraxinus enns lvanica Green Ash FACW
5 Liriodendron tuli ifera Tulip Poplar FAC
6 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW-
? uercus rubra Northern Red Oak FACU
g Betula nigra River birch FACW+
9 Juglans nigra Black walnut FACU
10 Quercus michauxii Swamp chestnut oak FACW+
The one plot on Charles Creek (# 5) and the other four on Cleghorn Creek were re-established in June
2007. The plots are located within the riparian buffer areas considered to be representative of the
entire planted floodplain.
Plots are marked with steel T-posts and covered with tall PVC posts at each of the four corners to
clearly and permanently establish the area that was to be sampled. For monitoring, ropes will be hung
connecting all four corners to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary are inside or
outside of the plot. Trees right on the boundary and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to
have greater than 50% of their canopy inside the boundary will be counted inside the plot.
All of the planted stems inside the plot will be flagged with orange flagging and marked with a 3 foot
tall piece of half inch PVC to mark them as the planted stems (vs. any colonizers) and to help in
locating them in the future. Each stem will then be tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum tag.
Live stakes were installed on both stream banks along both reaches of Cleghorn Creek and the
upstream half of Charles Creek. The species composition was roughly 40 percent silky dogwood
(Corms amomum), 40 percent silky willow (Salix serecia), 10 percent elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis) and 10 percent ninebark (Physocarpus optQha). These same species were used in
brush mattresses and geolifts installed throughout the repair areas on Cleghorn Creek.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I. LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I

11

1
u

1

After grading repairs were completed on the Site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture was
broadcast on the Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. The seed mix is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Herbaceous Species Planted in the Cleghorn Restoration Area.
Scientific Name Percentage
A rostis alba 10
El mus vir inicos 15
Panicum vir atum 15
Tri sicum dac loides 5
Pol onum ennsylvanicum 5
Schizachyrium scoparium 5
Junells effuses 5
Bidens, frondosa 10
Coreopsis lanceolata 10
Panicum clandestinum 10
Andropogon gerardii 5
Sorgastrum nutans 5
3.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
monitoring period.
t 3.4 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
' No data are available for this monitoring round due to the aforementioned flooding damage and
monitoring plot re-establishment.
3.5 Vegetation Observations
' Since tree and herbaceous planting was just recently completed, observations are not particularly
useful. Roughly 70 percent of the originally transplanted black willow (Salix nigra) stems were
' observed to be growing. Vegetation incorporated into the geolifts and brush mattresses was also
observed to be growing, with a roughly 90 percent survival rate on those plants installed in 2006.
Some hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, mainly rush (Juncos effitsos), was observed at the toe of the
' stream banks along undisturbed sections of both creeks.
There is some evidence of invasive plant species encroaching on the planted buffer near the
confluence of the two creeks, on the left floodplain of Cleghorn Creek. This area will be monitored
closely to determine if additional treatment is needed.
3.6 Vegetation Photos
' Photos of the project showing the on-site vegetation are included in Appendix A of this report.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 Description of Stream Monitoring
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was implemented on the
Cleghorn Restoration Project:
Bankfidl Events: The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period was documented by
the use of crest gages and photographs. Crest gages were installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of
the restored channels. One crest gage was placed on Charles Creek, and one was placed on Reach 1
of Cleghorn Creek. The crest gages record the highest watermark between site visits and were
checked during site visits to determine if a bankfull event occurred. Photographs were taken to
document the occurrence of these bankfull events and are included in Appendix A.
Cross-Sections: Eleven permanent cross-sections were installed in pools and riffles throughout the
site, with seven on Cleghorn Creek Reach 1, one on Cleghorn Creek Reach 2, and three on Charles
Creek. Each cross-section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact
transect used. A common benchmark was used for cross-sections and consistently referenced to
facilitate comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-sectional survey included points
measured at all breaks in slope, including terrace, terrace toe, top of bank, edge of water, water
surface, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections were classified using the
Rosgen stream classification system. Permanent cross-sections for 2007 (Year 1) were established
and surveyed in April 2007, following repair work.
Longitudinal Profiles: A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following completion of repairs
in April 2007 to record "revised as-built" conditions. The profile was surveyed for the entire length of
the restored channels. Measurements included top of terrace, toe of terrace, top of bank, channel,
thalweg, and water surface. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g.,
riffle, pool, and glide). In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded. All survey was tied to a
single permanent benchmark.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs were used to visually document restoration success. Photo
reference stations were established at each of the eleven permanent cross-sections and hydrologic
monitoring stations. These stations are included in the Monitoring Plan Sheets in Appendix C.
Reference photos were taken shortly after completion of the repair work.
The left and right streambanks were photographed at each permanent cross-section photo station. The
photograph was framed so that the channel water surface is a horizontal line near the lower edge of
the frame. These photos are presented along with the cross-section baseline data in Appendix B.
4.2 Stream Restoration Success Criteria
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream restoration
success:
• Bankfidl 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-section take place, they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
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.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I

• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control
1 measures. Photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel, no excessive
bank erosion or increase in channel depth over time, and maturation of riparian vegetation.
' 4.3 Bankfull Discharge Monitoring Results
The on-site crest gage on Cleghorn Creek documented the occurrence of one bankfull flow event
during the first year of the post-construction monitoring period (Table 7). The crest gage on Charles
Creek was damaged before any data could be collected. The Cleghorn gage was subsequently taken
out of service during repair work. Inspection of site conditions over the next seven months revealed
' visual evidence of at least two additional out-of-bank flows. The largest stream flow documented
during Year 1 of monitoring was approximately 2.5 feet above the bankfull stage. Photos of the crest
gage reading and wrack lines are contained in Appendix A.
t aDie t. verification of Bankfull :vents
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D-04010
Date of Data Collection Date of Event Method of Data Collection Gage Height (feet)
8/25/2006 8/12/2006 Crest Gage 2.5
1/3/2007 1/1/2007 Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines 0.1 +/-
3/7/2007 3/2/2007 Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines 2.4+/-
4.4 Stream Monitoring Data and Photos
Survey data and photos from each permanent cross-section are included in Appendix B of this report.
4.5 Stream Stability Assessment
Table 8 presents a summary of the visual inspection of in-stream features and structures performed
during Year I 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 last photo point survey on April
27, 2007, shortly after the repair work had been completed. These percentages are based solely on
the field evaluator's visual assessment at the time of the site visit.
Table 8. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stabilitv Assessment
Cle horn Creek Restoration Site: Project No. D-04010
Performance Percentage
Feature Initial MY-01 NIY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
Riffles 100% 100%
Pools 100% 90%
Thalweg 1000,/0 100%
Meanders 100%0 100%
Bed General 100°%, 95%
Log Vanes 100",4 100%
Geolifts 100%> 100%
Rootwads 100% 100%
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year 1 10
In general terms, as of the date of this Report, both Cleghorn and Charles Creek are functioning well.
Riffles and pools are developing in response to sediment movement during one half-bankfull event in
May 2007. It may take several more events before the bedform rinds an equilibrium and sediment is
distributed throughout the reaches. Because Cleghorn Creek is naturally a sand-bed system, the
location of deep pools and well defined riffles are likely to undergo transformation over an extended
period of time since the bed is very mobile even during small rain events.
4.6 Stream Stability Baseline
The Year 1 monitoring data used to determine stream stability during the project's post construction
monitoring period are summarized in Appendix B.
4.7 Cross-Section Monitoring Results
Year 1 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during April 2007.
The eleven permanent cross-sections along the restored channels (six located across riffles and five
located across pools) were surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of monitoring Year 1.
Data from each of these cross-sections are summarized in Appendix B. The cross-sections show
conditions shortly after completion of grading repairs. A comparison between the 2006 as-built and
Year 1 cross-section data is not particularly meaningful, given that the differences between the data
are attributable to grading activities rather than geomorphic processes.
In-stream structures installed within the restored Cleghorn Creek include log vanes, geolifts and root
wads. Brush mattresses were also installed in several locations near the outside of meander bends, but
these are not referred to as in-stream structures since they are considered bank treatments. Visual
inspection of the log vanes and root wads indicate that they are functioning appropriately and, as of
the date of this Report, there are no signs of instability. The geolifts are also performing well, with
healthy growth of the vegetation and a generally stable bank and toe.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vegetation Monitoring. Vegetation monitoring will take place during the 2007 growing season and
those data will be available for reporting in Year 2. In the meantime, there will be a maintenance
schedule to prevent the invasive plant species that were observed on the perimeter and sparsely
throughout the restoration area from spreading and becoming more densely populated. Assuming that
preventative methods will be used to maintain the invasive exotics, vegetation survivability should be
good on the Site and vegetative success criteria should be met.
Stream Monitoring. The entire lengths of both Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek were re-surveyed
during Year 1 (2007) of the monitoring period to document post-repair conditions and serve as a
baseline for future stream monitoring. The Year 2 data will likely provide a more meaningful
evaluation of project performance since the Year 1 data were collected very shortly after repairs were
completed. However, initial indications are that the repairs have been successful and that the banks
and bed have been stable through one large storm event. It is expected that stability and in-stream
habitat of the system will improve in the coming years as permanent vegetation becomes more
established.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I

6.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common on the Site. Fish have been seen in the both
Charles and Cleghorn Creek. Migratory ducks and geese have also been observed on the project site.
7.0 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING & HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
Baker has completed post-construction benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring for Year 1 of the
project. Sampling methodology utilized during sampling efforts consisted of protocols under the
Qua14 method listed in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Standard Operating
' Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2006). Field sampling was conducted by Anna Cathey
and Carmen Horne-McIntyre of Baker. Laboratory identification of collected species was conducted
by Chris Outlaw and Bobby Louque, biologists with the City of Durham.
' One project reach and a reference reach were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates at the Charles
Creek site on April 10, 2007. On April 12, 2007, a project reach and reference reach were sampled
on Cleghorn Creek. Sites 1 and 3 were located within the restoration area on Cleghorn Creek and on
Charles Creek to Cleghorn Creek, respectively. Site 2 was a reference site located adjacent to Coxe
Road, upstream of Site 1 on Cleghorn Creek. Site 4 was an offsite reference site adjacent to State
Route #1148 on Charles Creek upstream of Site 3. Figure 2 illustrates sample site locations.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected to assess quantity and quality of life in each creek. In
particular, specimens belonging to the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies)
' and Trichoptera (caddisflies) 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. The Qual-4
Method used to assess the Site included the collection of all benthic macroinvertebrate taxa; however,
EPT metrics developed from the data collected are also included in this report. These metrics include
EPT taxa richness, EPT biotic index, and EPT abundance which are shown below in Table 9.
Habitat assessments using the NCDWQ's protocols were also conducted at each site. Physical and
chemical measurements including water temperature, pH, and specific conductivity were recorded at
each site. The habitat assessment field data sheets are presented in Appendix D. The field team
' encountered operational difficulties with the field meter being used. Despite attempts to calibrate the
meter in the field and in the office, the meter continued to issue questionable readings. Areas where
data was unable to be collected during this monitoring event are marked "N/A," or "Not Available."
' Photographs were taken at Sites 1 through 4 to document stream and bank conditions at the time of
sampling. The Photograph Log is presented in Appendix D.
A comparison between the pre- and post-construction monitoring results is presented in Table 9 with
complete results presented in Appendix D.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year 1 12
Table 9. Summary of Pre-Restoration vs. Post-Restoration Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Data
Cleghorn Creek Restoration Site: Proje
I
Sit ct No. D-0 4010
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
e
Cleohor n Cr. Cleghor n Cr. Charles Cr. Charles Cr.
(Restora tion) (Referen ce) (Restora tion) (Referen ce)
Pre Post
2
07 Pre
1/12/05 Post
I Pre Post Pre Post
Total Taxa Richness 1/12/05
15 /
4/1
24 18 25 19 32 18 37
EPT Taxa Richness 7 7 8 12 9 12 10 11
Biotic Index 4.77 5.23 4.02 5.22 4.61 5.24 4.25 4.89
EPT Biotic Index 3.47 3.70 2.98 4.67 4.96 4.76 3.72 4.15
EPT Abundance 13 20 25 52 22 45 18 37
Dominance in Common --- 50 --- 50 --- 52 --- 48

Habitat Assessment 40 68 47 65 58 74 71 82
Rating
Increases in total and EPT taxa richness values and a decrease in biotic index values are indicative of
improvements in water quality. Total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness values across all sites were
shown to have remained constant or have increased since the last biological sampling event that
occurred in January of 2005. It is encouraging to see an improvement in the diversity of taxa present,
particularly when one considers the dynamics associated with sandy bottom streams combined with
recent maintenance work required after several flood events occurred at the Site. An increase in the
diversity of taxa found can be attributed to habitat types created during restoration activities, both pre
and post flooding. Seasonal changes in monitoring events may also contribute to the increases
witnessed, though it would be difficult to quantify given the sampling method utilized and size of
drainage areas comprising the Site.
On a contrary note, with the exception of Site 3 (Charles Creek restoration reach) which displayed
good instream habitat, biotic indices were found to have increased across the project area. This is
likely the result of several contributing factors that have affected the Sites. The fact that the reference
reaches also experienced increases points towards the possibility that there has been a slight decrease
in water quality in the watershed from activities occurring upstream of the Site. Another possibility is
that the multiple flood events that occurred within the twelve months created an influx of sediment
loading that has not yet been fully transported through the project area. Lastly, as is common in the
early stages of restoration and enhancement projects, instream disturbance and sedimentation from
construction activities as well as newly established/altered riparian areas can impact the presence of
intolerant species and composition of functional feeding groups. Continued post monitoring should
bring further clarity for the decrease in biotic metrics measured.
At Site 2, the Cleghorn Creek reference site, the post-construction community structure and
ecological habitat appears to be somewhat similar to that observed during the pre-construction
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I 13
monitoring period. Site 2 showed an increase in both overall and EPT taxa richness as well as a
' considerable increase in total and EPT biotic indices. Several of the original species classified as
shredders or collector-gatherers were lost, but were replaced by a greater variety of other species that
perform the same role, with no discernable trends in tolerance values. Although there was a general
cumulative increase in shredder taxa across the restoration sites, shredders were not found to be
common in this particular reference reach. This is somewhat surprising as Site 2 has a mature
riparian buffer and a diversity of leaf packs, macrophytes, logs and root mats. Three of the EPT
' species that were common or abundant in the pre-construction sample, Ephemerella spp.,
Mccaffertium modestum and Chetimatospsyche spp (tolerance values of 2.0, 5.5 and 6.2,
respectively), were also common or abundant in the post-construction sample. New EPT species that
were found to be common or abundant to the reference reach include: Baetis P. dtrbitts grp.,
' Amphineumura spp. and Pycnopsyche spp. (tolerance values of 5.8, 3.3, and 2.5 respectively). This
reinforces the idea of potential impacts from watershed disturbances upstream of the project area,
albeit water quality is adequate to support intolerant species.
' Site 1 on Cleghorn Creek originally underwent complete restoration and considerable maintenance
work (especially to its banks), after a flood event in December of 2006. Site 1 exhibited an increase
' in taxa richness while the EPT taxa richness remained static. The total biotic and EPT indices both
increased as well as reflected in post-construction sampling. 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. Similar to its reference reach,
common or abundant pre-construction taxa primarily consisted of scrapers and predators; collector-
gatherers were not found in great numbers. Post-construction taxa were found to have greater
' diversity including the establishment of collector-gatherer communities. Shredder taxa were not
found to be numerous in this project area. As noted in the habitat assessment form for Site 1, a lack of
canopy cover has contributed to favorable site conditions for scrapers as they are able to feed off of
macrophytes and other algal growth. However, as the riparian area becomes more established and
' coarser organic debris such as snags and leaf packs become more available, the natural process of
benthic drift (where benthic macroinvertebrates and organic matter travel with the stream current)
will enable the shredder community to increase. The resurgence of riparian vegetation in this is also
expected to decrease the biotic and EPT indices.
The only EPT taxa observed to be common or abundant during pre- and post construction is the
Mccaffertium modestum (tolerance value 5.5). Ephemerella spp. (tolerance value of 2.0) was
previously a rare collector-gatherer in Site 1, but is now found to be abundant.
' Currently Site 1 has 50% Dominance in Common (DIC) compared to the reference site, which
indicates that 50% of the dominant communities at the reference site are dominant at Site 1. In pre-
construction conditions, Site 1 had a DIC of 41 %. This indicates that post-construction re-
colonization from refugia upstream (represented at Site 2) has begun. It is anticipated that
improvements in biotic indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as
communities begin to re-colonize.
' Site 4 was the reference reach for Site 3, both of which are located on Charles Creek. For both sites,
total and EPT taxa richness increased from that observed in the pre-construction sample, and the EPT
abundance from the pre-construction sample had doubled at the time post-construction sampling
' occurred in April 2007 as shown in Table 9 above. Cover and food sources have been enhanced in
Charles Creek through restoration activities (Site 3). Although the presence of macrophytes at Site 3
was not as great as that at Site 1, taxa had taken full advantage of rock structures/ streambank armor
' placed in Charles Creek. In addition to contributions from canopy cover at Site 4, the taxa richness
seen at Charles Creek has likely been augmented by organic material drifting from a beaver dam
upstream of the Charles Creek reference reach. Numerous taxa now colonize Site 4 that were not
' collected in pre-construction sampling. As taxa abundance and diversity has increased, the average
tolerance value for common and abundant species has climbed slightly. In addition, the number of
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
' July 2007, Monitoring Year 1 14
rare taxa has also increased. While the number of individual taxa may currently be low, the shear
number of rare taxa does impact biotic indices when many of them are tolerant of changes in water
quality.
While the total biotic and EPT indices increased for each site including reference Site 4, the EPT
biotic index at the Charles Creek project site (Site 3), actually decreased. As evidenced in the habitat
assessment forms and species list, habitat, channel substrate and food sources for benthic
macroinvertebrates, particularly scrapers, shredders and collector-gatherers has improved more
rapidly than that of Site 1. Only minor maintenance and repair work was completed for the Charles
Creek portion of the project area after the flood event in December of 2006. While monitoring in
subsequent years will be more indicative as to the stability of the banks from vegetative cover,
instream enhancements including rootwads and other lower bank slope BMPs appeared to have held
up, enabling taxa to become better established in this project reach.
For reference Site 4, three of the EPT species that were common or abundant in the pre-construction
sample, Ephemerella spp., Mccaffertium modestum and Chetimatospsyche spp (tolerance values of
2.0, 5.5 and 6.2, respectively), were also common or abundant in the post-construction sample. New
EPT species that were found to be common or abundant to the reference reach include: Baetis P.
dubius grp., Baetisca carolina, Isoperla namata grp., and Amphineumura spp. (tolerance values of
5.8, 3.5, 2.0 and 3.3, respectively). EPT species that were common or abundant in the pre-
construction sample for the restoration reach (Site 3), of Charles Creek, Mccaffertium modestum and
Cheumatospsyche spp (tolerance values of 5.5 and 6.2, respectively), were also common or abundant
in the post-construction sample. New EPT species that were found to be common or abundant to the
reference reach include: P. dubius grp., Baetis intercalaris, B. flavistriga, Baetisca Carolina, and
Ephemerella spp. (tolerance values of 5.8, 7.0, 7.0, 3.5 and 2.0 respectively).
Currently Site 3 has 48% DIC with the reference site. It is anticipated that improvements in biotic
indices and an increase in DIC will be seen in future monitoring reports as communities continue to
reestablish as long as conditions at the reference site do not continue to degrade.
Habitat Assessment
Site 1: Clezhorn Creek Restoration Reach
Site 1 received a 68 on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet. Cleghom Creek is naturally a sandy
bottom stream channel. Due to recent repair work performed after a series of high flow events, the
channel has had little time to establish a diverse substrate and bank features needed for benthos to
become more established. However, the site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern and
bank stabilization. The riffles in and around the vicinity of Site 1 were mostly sand, with pools being
infrequent and possessing a sandy substrate as well. The riparian buffer for Site 1 primarily consists
of a grassy buffer that ranges between 36 to 55 feet wide. Vegetation along the streambanks consists
of grasses and numerous live stakes and shrubs secured by matting. Due to the relatively short time
frame from completion of maintenance activities to the time of monitoring, there is minimal shading
to the creek and no woody vegetation directly adjacent to the channel as a food source and cover.
Site 2: Cle2horn Creek Reference Reach
Site 2, the reference reach for Site 1, received a habitat assessment score of 65. While Site 2 had
contained several bends, there was evidence of prior channelization. The channel bottom was largely
sandy like Site 1; however Site 2 contained a greater variety of macrophytes, leaf packs, logs and
exposed root mats from slightly eroded banks. The reach exhibited riffle pool sequencing with
moderate bank erosion on alternating banks. The riparian buffer was mature and intact and ranged
from 36 to 55 feet in width; however many sections of the streambanks showed signs of instability
and the potential for bank failure during high water events.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-I, LLC
July 2007, Monitoring Year I 15

Site 3: Charles Creek Restoration Reach
' Site 3 received a habitat assessment score of 74 during the post-construction monitoring period. The
site exhibited excellent riffle pool sequencing, pattern and habitat diversity. Rocks, sticks, and leaf
packs, and root mats from the root wads were found in the sampling area, and the gravel and cobble
' located in the riffles were moderately embedded. The streambanks were stable with some erosion
areas present which corresponded with breaks in the riparian zone. The riparian zone for Site 3
consisted of sparse mixed vegetation, (mainly grasses) and no shading at all due to the recent
completion of the construction work which included planting of live stakes and shrubs. The riparian
' zone measured approximately 55 feet or wider and as described earlier, contained frequent breaks.
These breaks were most likely used during site repair work and will be taken over by grasses sewn
and vegetation planted in the riparian corridor.
' Site 4: Charles Creek Reference Reach
The restoration of pattern and dimension as well as the addition of several root wads, vanes, and
' armored riffles has enhanced the overall instream habitat throughout the restoration sites, while the
reference reaches appeared ecologically stable. Newly planted riparian vegetation has had minimal
effect on instream 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 instream
structures such as sticks and leaf packs.
' In previous sample collection, Baker collected physical and chemical measurements parameters such
as water temperature, percent dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, and specific
conductivity. While in the field on April 10, 2007, Baker staff experienced a malfunction with their
' field meter. Despite attempts at calibrating the equipment in the field and in the office, we were
unable to resolve this matter. Therefore, physical and chemical measurements are not included in this
report, but will be resumed in future monitoring reports.
Photograph Log
The photograph log is attached as Appendix D. Photos P-1 and P-2 show the stable, well defined
' riffle pool sequence at Site 1. Due to recent project construction, Site I 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. The embeddedness of the substrate at this site is
visible in P-4. Site 3 is shown in P-5 and P-6. These photos show the backwater condition affecting
' the area during monitoring. The stable banks of Site 3 and the minimal mature forested canopy
present are visible in P-5. P-7 and P-8 are upstream and downstream views of Site 4. These photos
show the 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.
Cleghorn Creek, EEP Contract No. D-04010 EBX NEUSE-1, LLC
t July 2007, Monitoring Year 1 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fj
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1
J
1
1

J

FIGURES

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
j
n ?-oa-u.1
I?ll+l-O.i
La
it
? - ? ? NCDVVQ Sub-Basin
.,,?.y ??^• Counties
is ?1-!. ::.!i,_ ,:. +r.?_ s..+•'• .1'?w•yf,. ?r..1
C FS
HU 0305010
oa-oa-ot • ?,,,.,,of'?",.•-,..,.._a.? .:,_......_ 03
Project Location
Project Location l

N
L••? C ountie s
Fig 1 Project Location Map
Municipal boundaries
Cleghorn Creek Restoration
Secondary Roads
N
?h'rtl
Miles
Rutherford County, NC ? LtY?4

1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
Cleghorn Creek Restoration
Photo Log - Photo Points
Notes:
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and orange flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is
set up on the most accessible bank at that same station.
4
1 S.
t
Nq
looking downstream
M
?4v
O-W
Photo Point 3: looking downstream
S v ?
""k S A f14 .Wf,. _
Photo Point 2: lookin,2 downstream
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 4: looking downstream

t ? I ?f?r
4V

'G`
_?
.L_i;t
rX = > , :v
-

Photo Point 5: looking downstream Photo Point 6: looking downstream
?? . Y e r tT ??^?
\

cF"
- i
h D44 .
s °t r''

r

f /
r •ais> p i .ay .

Photo Point 7: looking downstream Photo Point 8: looking downstream

y
y Y r
t.. -
fi

'pr
-
y
,
y
!
YL

Photo Point 9: looking downstream Photo Point 10: looking downstream

I

I

1
r 2
IS*
Photo Point 11: looking downstream

Photo Point 12: looking downstream

ti

+#.fw4He.• ,•t?"JILL" :'-• . r
h v

Photo Point 13: looking downstream Photo Point 14: looking downstream

}
Nil-
t

r
?
?
'
?
.. "'
?,y?X}'` '
I'•rG.^'yAari .iJ
v o.KC
.-p
?
?
Photo Point 15: looking downstream Photo Point 16: looking downstream
.e
h'3-'lw4n -Y p
Photo Point 17: looking downstream
? a Sr??
Photo Point 18: looking downstream

M. ? f
I
f, :.
s
A ?
Wi +?a ? ? ITj,
V
"
?
r
44 +a:.tl

100

,
Y
,:-
?
' ""'lWnr..

Photo Point 19: looking downstream Photo Point 20: looking downstream

..
414 4

; it
.

i 740
t

- T

Photo Point 21: looking downstream Photo Point 22: looking downstream

Charles Creek Restoration
Photo Log - Charles Creek Photo Points '
Notes:
1. Photo Point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken. '
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and orange flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is
set up on the most accessible bank at that same station.

Charles Creek Photo Point 1: looking upstream Charles Creek Photo Point 2: looking downstream

a °? ..?.
:
? FL Vim, . K x..j. 0 •. j
?10? '' , x a +.E?'" _ a.• , . ..
?pi y ? .
? ? r ? ? • 'Y. '? i T
om

,rat! yy?f,.c '?ffi.+- w ,'!? .? ?.
.r
? - .. ?
-
t'
a •,f'.'.'•.`V.'aiiw?h ?ai ??
V'ai?? ice
•.?_ .., \S?i1.. \
Charles Creek Photo Point 3: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 4: looking downstream
Yl4'
4 r 1 Yt? J
A

.
by
opt
V?vi.
4... d
3 q• ? S ?.?i 9
.: ?.f r. «.?. - a#f -f. ,.;.?.'? -....gJ'1l: F.+IJ ?
?.d'. .-/ -::Lo .r. 4. •..?I+94Lx?Y.3s:.:..n..
Charles Creek Photo Point 5: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 6: looking downstream

4.1
44
Moe

? .''???
h;? , ? ?
1
? i ? .. ? ? [ ` r ? -
.
'
'
Visi_ .•?':' i;•. ?.. .rTiil]iGr.rn'?6. •.i?i' M . _ / _ a ...-R i? a ?76f?
Charles Creek Photo Point 7: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 8: looking downstream

t +9, two,
?`•`

.• i e4v.
l? G. ti17?• ? yr

Charles Creek Photo Point 9: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 10: looking downstream
?
? 'S
- P a ?.
.,i'f .1 ,'? a A ? i?'? rl.. ? ??"?i .w+1yM?? ? J.?i.. -.?+ Y-:-•LM
AlIn

te' r •
a

Charles Creek Photo Point 11: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 12: looking downstream
5r a`. _ _ 50-t
.f

?•
.4
? ` FeF f :
,?'Y ?k;'
; .
'
-
•
tj
,?
?
?? ?,
?
? 'TdY6t'ii?u a sJ: A
.-.., ?
.
' ?
Tf??I?.i '?
_

1
1r f
Aw-

1 . A -. ?. +'.s' L
tea. - '.;! • - ? a M x .v' ?.
,, t
6
•i.1?2?" . f . ? _ . a
? ?.YI . .. .n .'-.'t;i,.,. T .aC ??..\a ?. .??i.?.
?L?- `.--
/.t ?....ti -•Z' . •r?.'?
Charles Creek Photo Point 13: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 14: looking downstream

t 1
4 w •a
1
T
.-.
1.5
• R• -fq?, ..

_ ? a?rg Y•. -ter : ?, - ??is r L ?? • r ,•
Charles Creek Photo Point 15: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 16: looking downstream

u

1

Cleghorn Creek Restoration
Bankfull Event Photo Log
Monitoring Year 1
41 1

IWN
7

)•'
r
L.: t

py it
( v
low,
Deposition anti Mulch Disturbance on Cleghorn -
Cleghorn Crest Ga ge - August 12, 2006 January 2, 2007

j I )
7
lx
"I 4r
.w.IN `+k?
'
9
T lw f
F'
??e? #"
6?

Wrack Line on Cleg horn - March 2, 2007

I

Pi

1

F?

C
' APPENDIX B

' BASELINE STREAM SUMMARY
FOR RESTORATION REACHES
1
1
1
1

1

x o 1 q! 0 1 1 I
CD N O r? Lr)
r- OO LO CD O
N O N O
LL) U) a)!:- 1 i r r P7 r 91r N 00 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Q

4) ?,
f? 1 M N

C? O OM O,CD
ti N ',, O?
U*) LLo Lq O

(\j OI,O
. N LCD

M M,6? O
C) rl-
00 CO 00
V-
f? U N O
?
M
M U-) d? A ?- M M'C`'j O O'Or'N LO O'er crj'
O

.. 0)
'CD

r ? Lf)'O
'.(?
00
1` OM
O O'
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
0) i
CV d' r~ N
CV LO O
.,
r Cam,

CQ i i
Its

1 O I I 1 1 1 1
O
O O O

CD N 0)
CY)
Lf):
' '?
?
f- 0 '1, 00 M
I

1 1
1 1
I I

1 1 I 1 11
I 1 I I 1 1

i CD M ',. i i
r r M '.. CO f- 0:00 Lo
N
6
O

A ce)
N 6 MO to fl- O 00
cln C) - 04
N 0 0) C7 O
(p L j ~ O
CV)
LC) W O Cl? N
~
N'M M It cr)'CY) CO M r cM'crj ? Q'M O'O M O
N
O
Cl?
O
1 '. O I I 1 I 1 I O C)
O O CD Ln "T CO
O CD Q I 1
Z 1 I 1 I 1 1
O 1 1 N r M'CV 00 O r 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
r O

*M
x 00 LA r co C) '., O r M
- O CD
i ~ i M
L)
M LA Ln
Q ,?

iG r (? N N M I? r-'..N ''M

I 1 1 ''.00 ' i 04

1 I

LA I I C.,j'W 00
i
1 N
O C1
cq.
t
d M - LA O T7 'M 0): co CD O i O i O p' M i CO 0)
d :
M N M M CD N oD ~ O M LAC) i i i i N

C h
d O
L

d

O ?' M q;T 00 0
M

I 1 I

0
CD
I Q I

i 'O i
(]
I I

1
I
LO r
04
i
?
?II? LA r- M
f? O 'O , 'N ;
,
c
O W
N i i
, C)

?
E x C'M co '.. LO NqzT N
O i
O N M CD N co N
M

V) L C
o 0) .
U
R
C
N Lf?.0 0)
ro U-) dj,
M O,
N Cfl
CD 0?0 ? co
0 ? 00 ?'.,
0
A?
A
W L
G
L = .
.
M N M L6 (D ??
r LA
C co 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I I 1
O C) CD .
co W r O
y
+
N i.
W r
/ \ O
•
LIJ M
O
C
•? i

d O CO N O 00 ',. Lp Lp
1
1 1 11
I 1
1 I '
-
Z 11
I 1 1 1 1 1
M co C'M C'M '.. O CA LO .

co
N 1 1 1 I 1 1
?
M I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I N I 1
i CO
d :.

Ln LO
oo
i N i
i
R

•
?
d 1 11 1 1 I
M i O
N i LV 1 1 1 1 1 I ''. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1
(Op i i
N i i

LV
1 I M 1 1
N i i O i i O
1 1 11
I I 1 1
1 1 I 00
1 I '.O

W LL O
co 0 N i 0
COO ?.` O

N p c? cy) r- , 00 O M, CD MCA C) N C) CD N
COJ CD
C.0 0) ZT'.Lp CN r r M
I 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 Ln Lf? O O
00.N 7 r'.O
O
-
-
- 4
co
M
M
L L L L a

.C O L

L'L

"O j

U) O
5
O -p
CL CL )
'O :3 O
O > N
CV
O
[u
O C L
'0D
Op 0
?
>
a Q,
-- dY 1
'IT
00 co :L
C-
N
- (A O
?
Q Q) E
O
LO 0 L CD>
>
O J(AJ d
U
\ Q N
Cn
=
O (O COI C U ? CO
>
U LO O
O O
° LII
O Q LL
C p) U
co
? Q'2 ?
:5 N' '?
c c O o
a E ?
, E v

m
C
CO a- N ,,
C m
> ?, L C
LO a O
'? .
0 (
c
OI' Y 0
m' w W m
U S O N
U -° c', M Lo
? o 4-•
°! c
- a
m
° CU m
E
?m
'
m CL C
C
( m
U ,
"
q
°
t°
o
.
CO
a? t
c
CD F- s 3 v
U)
° m
m
' COO ?
E
U

0) co m
O

a L] a sn

= CO i CD (0 i i
N i N it 00
00 co
N M (fl
CO
It
M
OIL O

9 _, -
O° M.
N

O 0Oa00000O?
O
N
00 0000
O
O?f?O-
e-
a01O
N II)
N MCt
M LL1 10 O
9 to
c-
N
N n N It A P- CO
N,N co O CO CD M N r O

- O',
LO

LO N
C)
N p CD C)
N
V N CD'O LO
O Lo N co
N
0
i i
i C p
O

o l O O ? LO
T7 I;t N
co
M N
N
co O ti
M
c y): O
'? T! 000 O '' O ? 00 10

' ? O

co C) !
co O O ''', I` , LO - ; M 00 LO! O Lo,
?
NI0),? M ?
? M, N'M C)0),N C) it
NIA O
O C)
CO
C 0
0)'
i i
O
CD O'O

C?
O ?' (A
O CV Ch,00
M

v
U? ,? CD q: T7 CA,M O
M

'
iM,L
O LA?
i
v I?'',N IM
N N
g O' M',? 00 i p
, 1CV W CO i i
N
O' N,
00

co
T7 LO O T7 M 0) CD
~ COO C) M i O 0)
r MIS-- N? 00 ? r M ? rICD'~ ' O' 'M N
-? p
O

O' OI
= co co co q CO O
0 r I` I lO M O
CD 1 O
cl:
N i
LO '7
0 w
N!

''
(0
C N'? M'
M OM
0) C'? 0
U C) LO
O
LO
O CD ',, M
N CO
?,N',
i
D) CO
0 C0
CD
N M
U N ?',0
C7

Z'
c
W 0 i N i LO
_J C' i co i LO
M i!00

i i

CD
i i O i i
i i 0 i i
L i i
J i M i N i i
N i i 0) C? i i CD
y CO i M i O C) N
Z

00
CV i ' O
WILD IO
' N . O
O
c- CO,ti O C)'CY) CO M 0) O''
O
CO p'V LO N M ,
00:C,4
O

CL 4
E

cu cu cu
L L L `_', w w w

u
L 0) L

L L 0)

O : fn 4=2

L U) v
O
- cu
O O Q' Q ? L . y

a?
D O 5 ?

3 ? Q 5 .U 'IT
CQ vU_- N =3
`)
Q
0
- N C x tti E N
N i, a? _a O'er a

(n

tb ?.

v N' ca (n: O

Q ca
C
C LO C6 =

>
U
a) 2 O
2 m> L

cu
O O O O-

? 0:-5 ?.r O ?N CO

Q p
O O- U U-

C O U cn
m
m Q o a a° _0 m C a
0
m
>
m
' a
v m )
?
?
O Y U)
j
u- C mU) m ,? N
?
U O C M
G. Lo
-? Q ?+ .
-
U
O c
m m ° cu t

U o c
v / b m
0 D cu (L

~ a)
L
cu
m
C Cn O M
`
m U E

cu
0 d cu
z W ir a c
U)
O

0
a
4.
(? V

APPENDIX C
YEAR I MONITORING PLANS
9098Z ON all!nays
Q pZ aunS'peOH POOH 13H L6 133HS 31111 a z
?-
W ON `AlNnoo GbOJ 83Hinb
Z28 $ 07171 1-3131"131sl x83 W o s
0 o a "g 103f0t1d N0I1b2101S3b N210H0310 :ao eowo ea -1 pe-desd z ?
?
IL ) ? f%
6
r -3c,
?,ell #
Vj a
?a ?n f,.J ti
z
z
Q
J ???? \\
W O 1
w
n, o \\a `M
UU?wo r-,
UJ z O cv
0
0 m Z v' /
I- Q z \'\\
(n W in
U 0
Q
?W O ? I \
ry 0-)
1\ \\
? U
\\
o /i
W II \I
v) v)
'\ \1
w \ ?I
z
W LJ I ? II
? ? a l lI
wo // , II
i?
w t? I 1
04
Ld
w
W
N
? i,. ??Fprd?tf . A
o ?
40 t'k t f
x.
a'
z r
n a ;
a L
w o W
Q Q J
O
z W
UZ
w z °
O ? w Im-- in ''-o CD
w w
ftb ?? ~ W Q Z
4 -
z O In Op U Q In
... Q w g Q J H O 0
4......_.. w o w
C U z z Q Q) U V w
o W >
w m o w z
w o 0
U ? z o a Ln v) v)
W - U w
T 0 0 0
C) C)
°
-p -U-
W I J °
v? 2r
r
4, CD
° ?© s W x
10
v-`
t ?? (itsa?n Ricer
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9088Z ON 911!A9gSV
OZ a,lns 'peon poo eH Ls NVld ONNOlINOIN [ 2IV3

M z
ON '.11Nnoo Ml0Jd3Him
o
r v
N
z S
m
lONOW NOIIV'dO1S3U MOH0310 071 'FaSMN X88 m
e a
r
w a
ooa 8
o ? _

___ :10 ealAO e4l jo! pe-ndeid i
m
iLL > L

O to
I / 4AATCHLINE
1
I ? 1 \ /
1 ?
1 \
03
F / I I+ )
z IN
CC! O / // I ? 1 /
z F-
O
a
a 1 1 // l
I / I I
II ' I I
II I \ I
I , \
11 \ \ \
II \
?C I \
\\ \ 1 °0 1
z \
~ . /' ) )
O
I I '?/ / f
I / I
I I '? / I
II ? / )
\ \ 1 \ I
I
O I \\ I' I I
a I / 1 ,I
cli
O I 6? '
w I / w II
Z l / lI
oo// ? I
d
i
I/ r
I / 1
I 1 /
11 1' 1 \
\ l I
\ ??` \ \
\1 \
Y \1 q l \
Ld I
w II; I
I
z °
?o Il /•?
o?
W
U(n 1? 1
?l I
1 1
SHEET 2
z*z
F --
Z
0
n
O
H
O
IL
Ln
z
O
n
O
O
d
M
zuz
H
Z_
O
n
O
O
2
n

t-
z
O
0-
0
O
a
O
O
I I
w
J
Q
U
H
w
J
Q
U
N

9099Z ON all!Aaysy
OZ apg °pBoa poom/ceH Ls F 6
N` Id ONNOiINOIN ? W3
Z
:t.
o
w . > 3N `AlNnoo CJH03H3Himj s )
0 o a a -nXeB
103rMid NOI1tRl MH NHOH0310 :jo o e3N Z
o 01110 41 ! pan ?adeid ?
iLL >` O tq
i
O
+
a H-
/
LLJ
23+-on <
/ / \ \ Q_ = N
O EL
LLJ
/
XZ / / \ \ _. \ \\ CO
/ / \ \( \
/ - \+o \
(4 z
// // /' z \\\ ? I \ o
0 \\ I \ 0
I I
/ / T #5 O I
/ / ? dE? PLD = ? I I I I
o
o
00
z
/ // 1111 ? ? \\ \ a
\ O
\\ \ \ a z
\\ \\
Z
d
x
a
I I P\ \\ \
O I I ??, 1 \
I 1
O
a I I II
I I

X
1
?
1 1 1 1
(?

\ a
111 ?!
1
1 1
11 1
1
.?
1
I
111 ? 11 11

1

/
° I
lo , I

X

0 x
CL /

I I

I o

1
,
I
0) , \ o \ , z
z*z
\\ .\, O

a
!-
z \\ ;? \\
? O
o ?? \ \
\ \
\ `\ \ \

? \ \ \ \
`
po
a
o \ \
x \ \
\ `6 \
\
a II
11
I
1 1
I
1 1 ' I I

I I
'
/
X. ,
I /MATCHUNE
SHEET 3

'
RIM i A,
SHEET 2

z
O
d
O
H-
O
N
z
O
0

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? r ? ? ? ?
? APPENDIX D

? HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORMS AND
' BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
DATA TABLE

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Benthos Data for Cleghorn Creek Project Collected on April 10 & 12, 2007
SPECIES Toleramee
Values Feeding
Group Site 1
Cleghorn
Restoration Site 2
Cleghorn
Reference Site 3
Charles
Restoration Site 4
Charles
Reference
MOLLUSKA
Gastro oda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia s pp. 2.5 SC A C
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
E hemero tera
Baetidae
Acentrella spp. 4.0 SC R R
B. hito 4.3 SC R
P. dubius grp. 5.8 SC R A A C
B. flavistriga 7.0 SC R C
B. intercalaris 7.0 SC R C R
B. propin uus 5.8 SC R
Baetiscidae
B. caroling 3.5 SC C C
Ephemerellidae
E hemerella s. 2.0 C A A A A
Eu to hela s pp. 4.3 C R
S. de iciens 2.8 C R R
He to eniidae
M. modestum 5.5 SC C A A C
Pleco tera
Ca niidae
Alloca nia s pp. 2.5 SH R
Neumouridae
Am hineumura s. 3.3 SH/C R C R C
Perlodidae
L namata grp. 2.0 C<"PR R R R C
Tricho tera
Hydro sychidae
Cheumato s the s. 6.2 FC C A C A
H. betteni 7.8 FC R R
Limne hilidae
Pvcnops•_vche sp . 2.5 SUSH C R
Odonata
Aeshnidae
B. vinosa 5.9 PR R R R
Calo terygidae
Calo to x s pp. 7.8 PR R R C R
Gomphidae
Dromo om hits s pp. 5.9 PR R
Coleo tera
Dr o idae
Helichus s pp. 4.6 SH R
Elmidae
M. glabratus 4.6 SC R
Hydrophilidae
S. tessellates 6.1 PR R

1

I
1
1
1
1
1
1

Di tera
Cerato 0 onidae
Pal om is com lex 6.9 PR R R
Chironomidae
Brillia sp . 5.2 SH R R C
Chironomus s pp. 9.6 GC R
Concha elo is rp. 8.4 PR C R C C
Co noneura s pp. 6.0 GC C A
Cricoto us bicinctus 8.5 SH C C A
Cricoto us/Orthocladius C/O sp 7 5.6 GC C R C
E. cari ennis grp. 5.6 GC A C C
Limno lives spp. 7.4 GC R
O. robacki 6.6 GC C R C C
Nanocladius s pp. 7.1 GC R
Poly edilum avice s 3.7 SH R R
Pol edilum allax grp. 6.4 SH R R R
Poly edihmz flavum 4.9 SH R R C C
Poly edilum illinoense gr . 9.0 SH R
Poly edilum longimana 6.5 GC R R
Poly edihim hmdbeckii 3.7 GC A C A A
Poly edilum scalaenum 8.4 GC R
Rheocricoto us robacki 7.3 GC R R
Rheotan tarsus s pp. Co. 5.9 FC R R
Thienemanniella xena 5.9 GC R
Dixadae
Dixa s pp. 2.6 GIC R R C
Simulidae
Simrrlium s. 6.0 FC A A R C
Ti ulidae
Ti ula s pp. 7.3 SH C R
H dracarina 5.5 PR R
Oli ochaeta
Lumbriculidae 7.0 GC R
Pelc oda
Corbiculidae
C. uminea 6.1 FC R R
Total Taxa Richness 24 25 32 37
EPT Taxa Richness 7 12 12 11
Total Biotic Index 5.23 5.22 5.24 4.89
EPT Biotic Index 3.7 4.67 4.76 4.15
EPT Abundance 20 52 45 37
Habitat Assessment 68 65 74 82
.U«3
Tolerance Values ranges from 0 (least tolerant to organic pollution) to 10 (most tolerant to organic
pollution). Functional Feeding Group: GC = Gatherer-Collector, FC = Filterer-Collector,
PR = Predator, SC = Scraper, SH = Shredder. Abundance: A = Abundant (10 or more individuals), C =
Common (3-9 individuals), R = Rare (1-2 individuals).

1

1
1
7/00 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams ,
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abovd
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper ,
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed
habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics. GXe
Stream ct-E&+4o" Location/road: S I -T-6 I (Road Name SRI W9 )County Rw7N 9P
1
-Date lZ CC# Basin ZRA?c? Subbasin
Observer(s) _&4Z Type of Study: O Fish 10enthos 0 Basinwide OSpecial Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: 0 P 0 Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature 11,1 °C DO F.3 mg/1 Conductivity'(corr.) mhos/cm pH,._,
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use. N
Visible Land Use: _-Forest - 4 -Residential 15 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
3a°/.Fallow Fields . E? % Commercial -Industrial -Other - Describe:
Watershed land use (est): -Forest %Agriculture -Urban ? Animal operations upstream
' Width: (meters) Stream 3.2'5' Channel (at top of bank) ?O Stream Depth: (m) Avg,z5 Max -
? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m)__I. 2 S
' Bank Angle: 2_ ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
' ?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks Moth banks undercut at bend Al hannel filled in with sediment
11 Recent overbank deposits OBar development ?Buried structures OExposed bedrock

? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth OGreen tinge 17. Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: l7Worm.al • Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : OHigh ?Low
Turbidity: Lear ? Slightly Turbid Murbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: StA1JISV V. k A Photos: ON OY KDigital 1335mm
Remarks:
Lpical Stream QMU-section
water - -
Normal ffiah Water_ _ _
upper East
Lower
Bank
Steam Width
This side is 45° bank angle.
E

' I. Channel Modification Score
.................................................................. (7
1 A. channel natural, frequent bends ............... :......................
i B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ......................................................
' C. some channelization present ......................................................................................:...................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
1 E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
1 l7 Evidence of dredging OEvidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream [Banks of uniform shape&eight
1 Remarks Subtotals
1

1

II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach
is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant.
Rocks )?-Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present. ................ 20 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15,
2 types present ......................... 18 14 l?p?l 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 5
No types present ...................... 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal,V
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddeduess.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................ 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ......................................................................................................... 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ..............................................:......................................................... 6
4. embeddedness >80% ............................. .......................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ........................................................ ............................................... 8
j
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus ..................................................................................... .........
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .............................................................. ................................ 1
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 large
high gradient streams.
A. Pools present core
1. Pools Frequent (>300/a of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .............................................................................................................. 10
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes .....................................:..........................................................................
b. pools same size .....................................................................................................................
B. Pools absent ........................................... ............................................................................................ 0
? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ) (Bottom sandy-sink as you walk 13 Silt bottom 13 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Subtotal
Page Tota12D
11
f j
' V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
core
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... (1C7 12
' 13. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 4 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles a nt .:...........................:..................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope:ATypical for area ?Steep=#ast flow ?Low=like a coastal streant Su4total16
r
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
'
A. Banks stable core Score
'
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.... t:D '
' B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil b' ? mditig, ................ 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
' S. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .............................
tal
Remarks MA-rY( C- ttB");1(e 0MfW SPt'4TIN LOO f iN 6aob &pyiTOO To
' N'"f C,g1lS'ZhMC7Z
VII. Light 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).
Score
' A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
" a)
' E. No shading ................. ........................................................................................... ...................:.. 0
Remarks IUCe0 r 0-MST"(7''00- wV6 C-fA-ZOS r <Mn f oL'W7ed. 1 ttyit IWIMI ryt)i ff Subtotal
' VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down
' stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
CE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 13 Trees 13 Shrubs Grasses ? Weedstold field ?Exotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
' 1. width > 18 meters ..................................................................................... 5 5
2. width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters ...................................................: ...........................
' 4. width < 6 meters ...................................................................................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a: width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
' b. width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 ? 3
c. width 6-12 meters.. 2 2
d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
' a. width > 18 meters .... :.................................................................... 3. 3
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... '2 2
c. width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 1 1
' d. width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks ?iTTl,e V&GE`??1' lY?` QWG?-- J31fCG'S ?h(S®Y Total
Page Total ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 1? 8
1

VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
channel substrate exposed ............................ 10
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal
' B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ 4
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logatsnags exposed ............................................ 0
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................
Subtotal
Remarks

Page Total"
TOTAL SCORE " 3

t
i
1
1

t
t 1
1
1
1
1
1

b

u

. Benthos Collection Card M
Date: y?IL?o? Collection Time: lb; M AdW Collectors: AMC Card #.
Stat. Loc. r-LZ4 O04 ) 69. River Basin: 9fu kp County: R-U-nfERFV9,,A
SiTC t
Substrate: River: Field Parameters:
Boulder (10") % Midstream depth Bank Erosion: N Mod Sev
Rubble (2'/:-10') % Maximum depth Canopy % Type
Gravel (1/12-2'/2') % Width Aufwuchs N Mod. Abund
Sand (1/2') % Current Podistemum N Mod.
Abund.
Silt, fine particle %
0 Recent Rain? _
Tribs. Present?
Other /o Photos (9)
Instream Habitat: (01+1++)
Pools Backwaters
Riffles
Snags
Undercut Banks
Root Mats
Detritus
Aquatic Weeds
Other
(C,nnJu abu t)
ts) Water Chemistry:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Salinity
pH
Field Observation: VIAL CID
Benthos Collection Card
1 Date: Collection Time: Collectors: Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: County;

t?
W?
Substrate:
River:
Field Parameters:

1

Boulder
x_
%
Midstream depth
Bank Erosion: N
Mod Sev
stubble 1/2-
(22'/:10") % Maximum depth _
•Canopy 0/k--Type
Gravel (1/12-2 %2")
Sand % Width Au:fwuchs N Mod. Abund_T

Silt, fine particle
% Current
Recent Rain? Podistemum N_Mod. Abund
Tribs
Present?
Other .1 .
o Photos V)
Instream Habitat: (01+1++)
Pools Backwaters
Riffles Detritus
Snags Aquatic Weeds
Undercut Banks Other
Root Mats
nts) Water Chemistry:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Salinity
pH
Field Observation:
Samnles:(# + Commen
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs
Rock-Log
Sand
Visuals
Other

Samples:(# +Comme
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs
Rock-Log
Sand
Visuals
nth-r

1 7/00 Revision 5

r

1
1

Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abovq
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed '4
habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream_ (?ILCi?1Df?^ Location/road: (Road Name )County
Date y 17-- 67. 2
• CC# Basin Subbasin
CN
Observer(s) AdAG Type of Study: ? Fish *enthos ? BBasinnwide ?Special Study (Describe) '
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: WMT D P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO SL. aSn-g/l Conductivity(corr.) __jimhos/cm pH (o
Physical Characterization: 'Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you
estimate driving thra the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: of -/.Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
°/.Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial =_%Other - Describe: c. wow ,, #
Watershed land use (est): %Forest %Agriculture %Urban ? Animal operations upstream 1
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) ?2- Stream Depth: (m) Avg 6; 3 Max
? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) ?-
r/ ,
Bank Angle: or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90° 1
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
liDeeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
13 Recent overbank deposits tsar development ?Burie'd structures Pxposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth IX Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ? Sewage smell
' Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow condid ns : 13High Normal ?Low
Turbidity: ;lean ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)

1
1

Weather Conditions: Photos: ON -AY )Digital 1335mm
Remarks:
This side is 45° bank angle.
11 1
'

t

'
M

1 I. Channel Modification score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ............... :......................................................................................... 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ......................................................
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ................................................... 0
0 Evidence of dredging []Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shapetheight
Remarks Subtotal

' 1
1
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach
is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Common, or Abundant.
1
1
Rocks ? Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks X Snags and logs x Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
1 >70% 40-700/6 20-40% <20%
1 Score Score core
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 1 8

' 3 types present. ........................ 19 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present....... 17 13 9 5
No types present....................... 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal ( Z

w `

'

` IQ. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders core
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. embeddedness 2040% .......................................................................................................... 8
3. embeddedness 40-80%. 8
4. embeddedness >80% ............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble

14
1. embeddedness <20% .............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 2040% ......................................................................................................... 11

' '
................................... ............................... 6
3. embeddedness 40-80% .....................................
4. embeddedness >80% ............................. :.......................................................... .................... 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8

'

? 2. embeddedness >50% .............. ......................................................................................... 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ...................................................................................................
2. substrate nearly all sand us ....................................................................................................
3. substrate nearly all detritus . 2
............................................................. ................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay. . 1
Remarks Subtotal 3

' 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

'

'

' r
M

r high gradient streams.
A. Pools present core
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes.........' ..................................................................................................... 10
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................. r.............. 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed) p?
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................. `lt1
b. pools same size ...................... .......................................................... .................................. 4
B. Pools absent ........................................... ............................................................................ ............ 0
Subtotal
? Pool bottom boulder-cobbleshard 17 Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom [] Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total

' V. Riffle Habitats •
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
' Score score

' A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream....
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 16
14 (2 }
''f'
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles a nt .............................:.....................................................................................
Channel Slope:ypical for area ?Steep--fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream 0
Subtotal-
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM
Left Bank
Score
Rt. Bank
Score
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion....
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, "shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .....................................
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...........................
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g.................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow..
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ....................................................
Remarks
7
6 6
5 j5
3 3
0
0 0
Total
VII. Light 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). a
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading .................................................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down,
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: Trees )0 Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weedstold field VMxotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
A
' rpanan f
zone ntact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ...............................................................
.....................
2. width 12-18 meters .................................................... :..............................

4

4
3. width 6-12 meters ................. .......:............................................................ 3
4. width < 6 meters ......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks) 2 2
1. breaks rare

' a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters .......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters .... :....................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 4
3
2
1

3.
2 4
3
2
1

3
2

' c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
Remarks 1 1
0 0

Total

'
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. R
Page Total -4-S
TOTAL SCORE

' VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................
Score
Q

4
0 I
Subtotalj

'
Remarks -
I
Page
TOTAL SCORE Total
17

i

r
s
r
, r .
r

r
r.
.
ii?

F

r
Benthos Collection Card C 14- k
Date: Collection Time: I 36 Collectors:Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: County:
Substrate:
River:
Field Parameters:
Boulder (10') - % Midstream depth Bank Erosion: N Mod Sev
Rubble (2 %2-10") % Maximum depth Canopy %k---Type
Gravel (1/12-2'/:'1
' % Width Aufwuchs N Mod.
_ Abund
Sand (1/2
i % Current _
Podistemum N
Mod
Abund

Silt, fine particle
% Recent Rain? _
.
.
Tribs. Present?
Other -__ ____% Photos (#)
Instream Habitat: (01+,++)
Pools Backwaters
Riffles Detritus
Snags Aquatic Weeds
Undercut Banks Other
Root Mats
' Field Observation:___ ?oy VI t
?e 4xw. ct,

1
Benthos Collection Card
Date: Collection Time: Collectors: Card #

Stat. Loc. River Basin: County:
00
Substrate:
River:
Field Parameters:
1V Boulder (10")
Rubble (2'/2-10') % Midstream deptb
% Bank Erosion: N Mod Sev

Gravel (1 12-2 /2) Maximum depth
% Width Canopy % T e

(l '?
S
Silt
fine particle Q
/O Curient Aufwuchs N Mod.
Podistemum N Mod. Abund__
Abund.

06 ,
Other % Recent Rain?
% photos Tribs. Present?
se Instream Habitat:
Pools (01+1++) SamolesO + Comments) Water Chemistry:

Riffles Backwaters
Detritus
Kicks
Dem
e

Snags
Undercut Banks
Aquatic Weeds
Oth Sweeps
Leaf Packs Dissolved
lved Oxygen
Conductivity

Root Mats er Rock-Los
Salinity
Sand pH
Visuals
! Field Observation: Outer

Water Chendstrv:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Salinity
pH
Samnles:0 + Comments)
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs
Rock-Log
Sand
Visuals
Itz; a Other

1
1

7/00 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abovtrt
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment whichIs assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform apropel
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed
habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream ('(n Ckt rr S C.^ 1c . Location/road: 5"k J (Road Name )County
Date VV_,I CC# Basin Subbasin 1
c!/
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish )d$enthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
1
Latitude Longitude Eccoorre}gion: XMT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature q v °C DO •?s Im
g/1 Conductivity (corr.) _µmhodcm pH. 47 . /S
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you`d
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 1?L %Forest ?b 'Residential IC 'Active Pasture % Active Crops
' p 'Fallow Fields C % Commercial 'Industrial 'Other -Describe:
Watershed land use (est): 'Forest 'Agriculture 'Urban ? Animal operations upstream
' Width: (meters) Stream ?.? 15 Channel (at top of bank)- Stream Depth: (m) Avg Q, Max Q (;, (J
? Width variable /
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) /_?
Bank Angle: -50 ° or DNA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
' ?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton growth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?. Sewage smell
' Manmade Stabilization: ?N ' ?Y:.?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sedimenttgrade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditi ns : ?High Tormal ?Low
Turbidity:Clear ? Sli tly Turbid ?Turbid OTannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
' Weather Conditions: 5u/7,17V Photos: ?N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
lyppical Stream Cross-sod
lutreme High water
i
Normal High wager _
Normal Blow
upper Bank
' I Loser
Fes- ?
stream width
• This side is 450 bank angle.
t
1
!
!
. e
? I. Channel Modification
? A. channel natural, frequent bends .......................................................................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 5
?
t C. some channelization present ..................................:........,............................................................... 3
? D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
i 0 Evidence of dredging OEvide nce of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shape/height Subtotal
t Remarks

1
1
1
1
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach
is rocks, l 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 RareCommon, or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs
Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
6 12 8
i
r
w

r
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 1
3 types present ......................... 19 15 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 11?? 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0 Subtotal ID
1 .,No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
ilt d d +-+-.- ravel cobble boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
III. Bottom Substrate (s , san g , ,
for embeddedness. Score
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders
15
embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
1
.
2. embeddedness 20-40% .......................................................................................................... 182
3. embeddedness 40-80% ..........................................................................................................
:
. 3
............
....
4. embeddedness >80% .....................:.....................................................................
B. substrate gravel and cobble 14
1. embeddedness <20% ............................................................................................................
.........................................................
embeddedness 20-40% ...............................................
2 14
.
:
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................
. 2
..........................
4. embeddedness >80% .................................................................................

C. substrate mostly gravel 8
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................
4
2. embeddedness >50% .......................... .................................
D. substrate homogeneous 3
1. substrate nearly all bedrock .................................................... ............ ..........................
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .............................................................. ................................ 1
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 large
high gradient streams. S
A. Pools present core
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed) ?"'?
a. variety of pool sizes .............................................................................................................. X10,
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) .............................................................,.............. 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools same size ...................................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent ........................................... . ............................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
0 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hardABottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
Remarks Page Tota1J
s
V. Riffle Habitats .
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
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 .................................... 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 ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream subtotal.
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potettial for erosion.... 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g, .................
3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .................................................... 0 0 /
Total ttf'
Remarks
VII. Light 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).
Score
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .................... ............................. 8
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No shading ..................... ....................................... .....................................................................
?
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ? Trees ? Shrubs ? Grasses ? Weedstold field DExotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ...................... ................................
3. width 6-12 meters .....................................................................................
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 common
a. width > 18 meters ....:....................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters .......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
Remarks
' ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
5
4
3
2
4 4
3 3
2 2
l3J J
'2 2
1 1
0 0
Total ty
Page Total G...
TOTALSCORE
1 VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions. Saore
07-
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ 7
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................. 4
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .................................................. 0
Subtotal' :71S ?w Remarks .
7'1Cr C %Y . Page Total l?
17
1
1
1
1
i' .
1?
d
TOTAL SCORE
. 11
t r Benthos Collection Card C!il /L/
Date: Collection Time: U Collectors: ItW
'
Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: County:
Substrate:
River:
Field Parameters:
Boulder (10'?
" % Midstream depth Bank Erosion: N Mod Se

Rubble (2 %,-10
)
'
% Maximum depth v
Canopy %--Type
Gravel (1/12-2 %:
?
Sand % Width
Current Aufwuchs N Mod. ? Abund

Silt, fine particle
% Recent Rain? Podistemum N -Mod. Abund.
Tribs. Present?
Other % Photos (#)
Instream Habitat: (01+?++)
Pools Backwaters
Riffles Detritus
Snags Aquatic Weeds
Undercut Banks Other
Root Mats
nts) Water Chemistry:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
ConductivitySalinity
pH
Field Observation:
Benthos Collection Card
Date: Collection Time: Collectors: Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: , County:
Substrate: River: Field Parameters:
Boulder (10")
Rubble (2 /r10") .q Midstream depth Bank Erosion:
N Mod Sev

Gravel (1/12-2 h") /o Maximum depth
% Width .
Canopy % Type

Sand (1!2'?
Silt
fine particle

% Current AufOuchs N -

Podistemum N Mod.
Abund
Mod. Abund. T
,
Other % Recent Rain? Tribs. Present?
% hatos )
Instream Habitat: (01+1++) Samples:(# + Comments) Water Chemistry:
Riffles Backwaters
Detritus Kicks Temperature _

Undercut Banks
Aquatic Weeds Sweeps
Leaf Packs Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Root Mats Other Rock-Low Salinity
Sand pH
Visuals

Field Observation: Other
Samples:(# + Comme
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs
Rock-Log
Sand
Visuals
Other

iN

F
L

7/00 Revision 5
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting above
bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a proper
habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the observed
habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat j
score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream C44"5 Gil Location/road: S17E (Road Name f.t tl)CountyTlu7ttt: RD
Date4(/2/ 7 CC# Basin VP.e•? Subbasin 1
Observer(s)_!10
'lG Type of Study:[] Fish k6enthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? MT ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature !Z• °C DO 1.3 mg/1 Conductivity'(corr.)?_µmhos/em pH ?. 16
r
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what you'd
estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use. 1
Visible Land Use: 7- r %Forest tP %Residential °/.Active Pasture % Active Crops
2-0 %oFallow Fields ?_% Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:?ot,F Cva 1t m "5 7N 4 +
S lSflT?
Watershed land use (est): %Forest %Agriculture oUrban ? Animal operations upstream 1
t Width: (meters) Stream Z Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg .3o Max • 83
? Width variable
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in rife or run) to top of bank): (m) D
t Bank Angle: or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid-chamtel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
' ?Deeply incised-steep,straight banks *th banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
? Recent overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
? Excessive periphyton gr9wth ? Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ? Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization:)RN ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions [3 Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
' Flow conditio : ?High V14orym-al ?LoW
Turbidity: Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: 0,04?, K1?N?/ GD Photos: ?N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
' Remarks: CiAwgAT N 120 0 OowNfrW7`1t,R-13rvtv1FWn4-i6t 126*&*
t
Tvuical Stream Crm-section
' Extreme mgb W!tri
i
' _ Normal Hi?i Water_ _
Noraaai Plow
tJppa Bann
Hail[
stream Width
This side is 45° bank angle.

1

1
1
1
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can 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.... 16
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 4
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10
D. riffles ba nt .............................:..................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope:pical for area ?Steep=fast flow ?Low=like a coastal stream
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM

Riffles Infrequent
Score
12
7
3
Subtotal

Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score

A. Banks stable
1. no evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.... 7
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 ..........................
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil bindi4g.................
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
5. no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .................................................... 0
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface.
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
A. Stream with good shading with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial shading - sunlight and shading are essentially equa ....................................
D. Stream with minimal shading - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No shading :......................................................................... ........................................................

7
1

3
2
0
Total 1
(
Canopy would block out

core +
10
8
2
0 l3?
Remarks
Subtotal
Ripanan zone m act (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters .....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ......................
..............................:..............................
3. width 6-12 meters ........................:............................................................
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 common
a. width > 18 meters .........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters ......................................................................
c. width -6-12 meters .......................................................................
Remarks d. width < 6 meters .........................................................................
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 brealq
the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths down
stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: O,Trees ? Shrubs 13 Grasses ? Weeds/old field )Ettxotics (kudzu,etc) Score Score i
A t
' ? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
5

2 5
4
'
2
4 4
2
1 2
1
3.
2 3
2
1
0
_ 1
0
Total
Page Total- 31
TOTAL SCORE_ __

' VIII. Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
D. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .....................................................
Remarks

I

0
1
1
1
1

1
1
t ?
1
s
s
e
score
10
b-
0
Subtotal
Page Total 4-
TOTAL SCORE

7

Benthos Collection Card
Date: ?IIcI0.7 -Collection Time: 2:14 PM Collectors: AMC Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: County:
Substrate:
River.
Field Parameters:
Boulder (10') % Midstream depth Bank Erosion: N Mod Sev
Rubble (2'/s-10")
' % Maximum depth Canopy %--Type
Gravel (1/12-2 %
1 % Width Aufwuchs N Mod. Aburtd
Sand (1/2") % Current Podistemum N_Mod. Abund

Silt, fine particle
%
Recent Rain? .
Tribs. Present?
Other % Photos
' Instream habitat:
Pools (01+t++)
Backwaters

' Riffles
Snags
Undercut Banks
Root Mats Detritus
Aquatic Weeds
Other

ts) Water Chemistry:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Salinity
pH
Field Observation:
Benthos Collection Card
' Date: Collection Time: Collectors: Card #
Stat. Loc. River Basin: County:
00
w?
Substrate:
River.
Field Parameters:

?e
Y?
M
Boulder (10") % Midstream depth Bank Erosion: N Mod Sev
Rubble (2 '/,-10")
' % Maximum depth Canopy 0/k--Type
Gravel (1/12-2'/2
x_
Sand (1/2") % Width Aufwuchs N Mod. Abund

Silt, fine particle %
% Current
Recent Rain? Podistemum N Mod. Abund
Tribs. Present?
Other % nmtts )
Instream Habitat: (01+1++)
Pools Backwaters
Riffles Detritus
Snags Aquatic Weeds
Undercut Banks Other
Root Mats
ts) Water Chemistry:
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Conductivity
Salinity
pH
Field Observation:
Samnles:(# + Commen
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs .
Rock-Log-
Sand
Visuals
Other

Samnles:(# + Commen
Kicks
Sweeps
Leaf Packs
Rock-Log,
Sand
Visuals
Other

w?
1

1
'
Cleghorn & Charles Creek Restoration
Photo Log - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Site
Photo Points

?.

k ,:7 f "-
x
MW

Charles Creek Site 3: looking downstream Charles Creek Site 3: looking upstream
V? f
.. f1 11111N I'll
r

41-
?Y Z Nk S ?'Y".Y ^w
w 4
M

Charles Crock Site 4: looking downstream Charles Creek Photo Point 4: looking upstream

.r' : v 4`dar11?
Charles Creek Site 4:beaver dam upstream
x, ,

3' fa, t
a

Clelshurn Creek Site 1: looking downstream l l?_i???rn l rcci: ?Hc lok)I VIII upstream

`
POW
? flj
v
+Lr 2 RYA
?
'
A, 'm
.
,
f .
?.

7
y
?
.A.!

«[?:*• 'Ids. ? :A+ .. :ire.
-
..
Cleghorn Creek Site l: looking upstream Cleghorn Creek Site 2: looking downstream

I. Channel Modification re
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 1!f-
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 3
C. some channelization present .............................................................................................................
D. more extensive channalization, >40% of stream disrupted ............................................................... 2
1 '
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
13 Evidence of dredging DEvidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shape/height Subtotal S
' 1 Remarks
1
? H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the reach
is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have begun to
' ? decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Marti as Rare, Common. or Abundant.
1
? 4Rocks Macrophytes ,Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Zundercut banks or root mats.
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
1 >70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
1 Score Score Score Score
' , ? 4 or 5 types present ................ 20 16 12 8
? 3 types present. : : ................... 19 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0 15
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal
' M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
' for,embeddedness.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
' 2. embeddedness 2040% . .....
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......................................................................................................... 8
?
4. embeddedness >80% ....... :...::........................ ......................................................................... 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% .............. .................................................................. 1?
2. embeddedness 20-40% .................................................. ' 1
3. embeddedness 40-80% ......................................................................................................... 6
:.............................................................................. 2
4. embeddedness >80% .............................
. substrate mostly gravel
C
1. embeddedness <50% ...................................... ................................................................. 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous .................................................................................................
r 1. substrate nearly all bedrock..
2. substrate nearly all sand . 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .......................................................... .................. ......................... 2
' 4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .............................................................. ................................ 1
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 large
r high gradient streams.
' A. Pools present Score
t 1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ................... ....................................................................................
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the loom area surveyed)
a. variety n pool sizes ............................................................................................................ 6
b. pools same size.. 4
B. Pools absent ........................................... ............................................................................................. 0
Subtotal
17 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard kBottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom 13 Some pools over wader depth
??? Remarks
?? Page Total