19971120 Ver 1_Complete File_20030421

??®sr
4A 111680
??9TF 21 ;o l/p
o
?Q
4
? ?seCTjo*
' ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3)
CONCORD MILLS WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
' CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
Concord Mills Limited Partnership
1300 Wilson Boulevard
' Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22209
[phone]
Prepared by:
EcoScience
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
t Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
December 2002
1
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE F CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES "
............................................................................................................. iii
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 2.0 STREAM MONITORING .................................................................................................... 3
2.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 3

' 2.1.1 Physical Stream Attributes .........................................................................
2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes .......................................... 3
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS ..................................................................................... 4
' 2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes .........................................................................
2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 4
12
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................. 15
2.3.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 15
' 2.3.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 18
3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING ......................................................................... 19
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 19

' 3.2 MONITORING RESULTS .....................................................................................
3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................. 19
22
' 4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ...........................................................................................
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 24
24
4.2 MONITORING RESULTS ..................................................................................... 24
4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................. 30
5.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 31
6.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 32

n

P

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location ..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Site Plan View: Constructed Stream and Oxbow .............................................. 5
Figure 3 Plan View and Cross-Sections (Upper Reach) .................................................. 10
' Figure 4 Plan View and Cross-Sections (Lower Reach) .................................................. 11
Figure 5 Bio-monitoring Sites .......................................................................................... 13
' Figure 6 Time-Space Substitution of Stream Morphology ................................................ 17
Figure 7 Groundwater Gauge Locations and Wetland Boundary Determination .............. 20
Figure 8 Planting Plan and Vegetation Plots ................................................................... 25
rl?
' LIST OF TABLES
Table 1a Morpological Stream Characteristics (Upper Reach) ......................................... 6
' Table 1 b Morpological Stream Characteristics (Lower Reach) ......................................... 8
Table 2 Benthic Sampling Results ................................................................................. 14
Table 3 Summary of Hydrology Monitoring Data ............................:............................... 21
Table 4 Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Data ........................................................... 27
Table 5 Characteristic Tree Species for Vegetation Success Criteria ............................. 29

' iii

' ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3)
CONCORD MILLS WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Concord Mills Limited Partnership has developed Concord Mills, a 1.7 million square-foot
' shopping mall, on approximately 166 acres in the southwest quadrant of the 1-85/Concord
Mills Boulevard interchange in Cabarrus County. This project unavoidably impacted
streams and wetlands within the project site, including 1796 linear. feet of first-order
stream channel, 2.5 acres of wetlands, and 0.6 acre of open water (ponds).
' In 1997-1998, a detailed mitigation plan was prepared to provide full functional
replacement for wetland and stream impacts associated with the development of Concord
Mills (ESC 1998). The mitigation plan involved stream and wetland restoration on a 23.4-
acre tract located approximately 2500 feet north of Concord Mills Mall, immediately south
of Airport Boulevard, and west of the Concord Regional Airport (Figure 1). The mitigation
site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") comprises an unnamed tributary, termed Airport
Creek, and associated floodplains at the confluence with the Rocky River. The detailed
mitigation plan proposed approximately 3000 linear feet of stream mitigation, 3.0 acres of
wetland restoration /creation (net), and 5.4 acres of wetland enhancement within the Site.
The mitigation plan outlined monitoring procedures designed to track wetland and stream
' development after restoration activities were completed. The monitoring plan requires
annual monitoring for a minimum 5-year period and analysis of the data to evaluate
quantitative success criteria. The monitoring plan has been excerpted from the detailed
' mitigation plan and is attached for reference in Appendix A.
Construction plans were prepared for the project and sediment/erosion control permits
' obtained in the summer of 1999. Construction activities extended from September
through December of 1999 with tree planting completed in early January 2000.
Photographs of the Site have been taken periodically over the past 3 years from
' established vantage points. A sample of post-restoration and time line photographs from
the fall of 2002 may be found in Appendix B.
This document represents the Year 3 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) designed to track
wetland and stream development as outlined in the monitoring plan (Appendix A).
Monitoring has been performed throughout the 2002-growing season for hydrology, and at
the end of the growing season for vegetation and stream parameters.

I?

iLJ

L
17
u
17
L

+? i Y R4t'?dxx ?-C a;.. ? t ?. k.«.. - • '4 ? -- / ?
Vu,
f .
: t
t 36
r

1/
' 4iyll.. Jf'...?.1 Mrp .0

t
.
E
Restoration -
Site

"?. 'ate ? ty
d
C
oncor
Regional
JetPort
ni,
"
,- y
;
y _ I, Concord tl
Y?<
a
J Mills all
_
LkJ
?
t. '?
- fi m t r t

t ?7^.' ? ? _ :-.r'. 4 ? ?.' 1 , ?Am+9/ v ry, V,b r tFt ) !l' ^. •StR1t CW "..^,..-. ... ? .F
r ?... A. _ . n 21 Y
+ } : t u+lu - , ;f"?..
i?
•
w,
'+! ?? r?__ , ats

aw Cs" 1, j J V J+yY ` ?.'ir \X? yh?li {.?' ?T 6 t
'
i f
t ? ?? ?'?i. ? .(.+l _ ?P ?!? CS' i '•.
i >??/" -ti
t.
.l

-
t
/
?
t
20
7 ( ,, °
74 ,
0 _ t1 mi. 4 mi.
1:158,400
r F.. Source: 1977 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.57.
t8

EcoScience
Corporation
FIGURE
Dwn. by: MAF SITE LOCATION - CONCORD MILLS Ckdby; JG
Third Year Wetland Monitoring Report Date: w
JAN 2003
Raleigh, North Carolina
? I
Cabarrus County, North Carolina Project:
02-104

`_J
2:0 STREAM MONITORING
2.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
2.1.1 Physical Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan calls for measurement of stream geometry attributes along a minimum
300-foot reach. Annual fall monitoring protocol includes development of a channel plan
view, channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface
profile. Specific stream data to be presented includes 1) riffle cross-sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width/depth ratio, 6) meander
wavelength, 7) belt width, 8) water surface slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate
composition. The stream is subsequently classified based on fluvial geomorphic principles
outlined in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen 1996). Channel morphology has been
tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan was devised to provide for biological sampling of the stream channel
prior to diversion of flow and again after years 3 and 5. However, the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) has asked that biological sampling be performed annually. Therefore,
an evaluation of bio-monitoring success criteria will appear in all succeeding AMRs. The
procedures and methodologies for biological monitoring program have been modified to
follow the standards put forth by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) January 1997 biological monitoring protocols and the DWQ draft guide for benthic
sampling. The Qual-4 sampling method has been adapted from the May 2000 final draft of
the Interim, Internal Technical Guide for Benthic Macroin vertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects from DWQ.
Baseline (pre-project) aquatic surveys were performed within the stream system in April
1999, prior to stream restoration activities. Baseline sampling was conducted prior to
DWQ guidelines and therefore did not directly follow the Qual-4 sampling methods.
Collections for the baseline sample were not handpicked prior to laboratory analysis.
Rather, multiple grab samples containing all species were processed and analyzed. As a
result, the baseline sample exhibits large numbers of individuals not normally collected
using the Qual-4 method. Results of the base-line, Year 2 AMR, and Year 3 AMR
biological surveys are included in Appendix C.
The biological samples will provide a means to track taxonomic diversity over time.
Specifically, the numbers of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa will be
monitored and evaluated. The EPT taxa are not generally considered primary stream
colonizers and, therefore, not typically found in newly established streams. All taxa will be
identified to the lowest practical level. An increase in the number of EPT genus/species
will be required through the 5-year monitoring period. An evaluation of in-stream and
riparian habitat will also be conducted at each monitoring location, following the DWQ
habitat classification system. If biological success criteria are not being fulfilled, the most
likely cause will be extensive sedimentation, which covers coarse substrates in the
J
channel. If aquatic species diversity is not increasing, additional modifications to channel
' substrates will be performed and upstream sources of sedimentation will be identified.
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS
2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes
Third year stream monitoring efforts evaluated approximately 880 linear feet of
' constructed stream, including approximately 500 linear feet within the upper reach and
approximately 380 linear feet within the lower reach. Permanent cross-section and toe pin
data were overlaid on the previous year's data to evaluate stream stability, specifically
' erosion and sedimentation. Plan view data for the year-3 AMR was obtained through GPS
survey techniques. Data may vary slightly from the previous year because of inherent
differences involved with re-surveying and processing stream data. These differences are
' not indicative of major lateral changes in stream plan form. A plan view of the constructed
stream and oxbow wetland is depicted in Figure 2.
Table 1 a and 1 b summarize stream pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate attributes for
the proposed conditions and the three subsequent monitoring years. The upper reach and
' lower reach of the constructed stream channel have been evaluated separately for bankfull
discharge and channel dimension measurements. The drainage area and associated
impervious surface increases along four drainage area in-falls in the down-valley direction,
' as depicted in Figure 2. Therefore, the bankfull discharge and dimension were modeled as
increasing below the Airport Business Park Road crossing through the Site.
' Channel Dimension Attributes
Channel dimension attributes were obtained from the surveyed cross-sections and plan
forms depicted in Figure 3 (upper reach) and Figure 4 (lower reach). Eight permanent
' cross-sections were established along the constructed channel in 2001, four in the upper
reach and four in the lower reach.
The constructed channel on the upper reach currently exhibits a bankfull mean width of
17.9 feet, a bankfull mean depth of 0.6 feet, and a bankfull width/depth ratio of 30. The
' bankfull cross-sectional area averages 10.7 square feet with a range of 9 to 13 square feet
(Table 1). The proposed conditions for the upper reach included a bankfull average width
of 17 feet, bankfull mean depth of 1.2 feet, and bankfull cross-sectional area of 20 square
' feet. Since construction, the channel has continually decreased in cross-sectional area and
exhibited an increase in the width/depth ratio. Over the same period, the maximum riffle
depth has declined only slightly. Mean pool width has decreased significantly from as-built
conditions, although the mean pool maximum depth has remained relatively stable,
decreasing slightly from 2.5 to 2.1 feet.
The lower constructed reach supports a bankfull width averaging 17.6 feet, a bankfull
mean depth of 1.0 feet, and a bankfull width/depth ratio of 18.5. The bankfull cross-
sectional area averages 16.2 square feet with a range from 15.4 to 16.9 square feet. The
proposed conditions for the upper reach included a bankfull average width of 20 feet,
bankfull mean depth of 1.4 feet, bankfull cross-sectional area of 28 square feet. Similar to
i

• , ;; I

N I

¦ T
¦ ,I
N ; ;
X

2
G7
0
<
m
A A

N
N
n 0
O
Z

0
y
_

In
F
m
A X

Z
O
Vl
m X

Z
O
A
g

A
n
Z
O
C
A
Z
A
f7
Z
C

A
m

Z
m 0
Z'v
m0
mx
?
Zm

O
C
O
Z
r?

Z Z0 ?
y
o O O
m mZ A
y X OO
L
?
v fAC ?m
x
D-iA y
m
v Z A
m00
m
A O
z ZN x

-+ A
m 0
x
0 co
o 0

0
LA N
W V O 0
V U, (A A.
I+ I+ I+ I+

N
W
A
I+
0
0
(fill
0
Z
a?
cc
Xm
Wv
0
3

I

1
I
I
I ,
i
I
I
1
I
1 '
O I ,
2 "
I I
,
;
I
i ;

1 1

1 I
A I
.c
1
- ,
. 1
a -" I
r
I
1
?
I ,

-

"
, /,
Ll,
1
I
n n'.

4 C
00
II
li„' .'.•? •'.• • I
r1o
I I
I,
I
I
I I
m 0 0 ti T n
0 a y - C1 a C'1
co -0 co Z O m o? 3=z a z Ott
r O n
o C) r. 0 4 CA 2? m z m o o r' n ? O
c o Omen nC 'a =j Z ZEM N O Cc
m C- m xDCZ ?n 00 ?C
70mC z° C l
< CA
N Az 00C3Q < oo ?ZT3 2C3 N 0.0
p N NO C 0 D?
P O L4 N D N
1
1
0

F

11

L
V
R
d
d
a?
O
V C)
w y
_N 3
L L
R at
R
r V
m ? U
.Q ?
L
f" V d
G ?
d V
r ?
? O
O.
V Q
0
0
L
G.
O
2
Ch
? O CA
y U o
}
N
O
ami U o
}
r
m
U o
d
}
N
w
O
U o 0
vi co
O
Q
O
CL
U
N ?
E ?
m
aQ
d m C Y
l0 ,,0?, ? N
cn O co
r N M
CO
N N
0)
h
O
N et
vi
N

V

!00 r
r r
t!")
tt5
? f
?J C
I
O
Co
r O r
r N
m CD Co r Lq r O N N
N
d CO O O
O
I CV N
m N
?' N
r v 0
N N
ami ui r
N 8
O v
r o 0
N N
r

fA
co
o
? O
V N
M I C
CA r tt)

O co
N r

0
r?
OC
r
?
i C,
CO N

d
O a 0 M tC') r N
N r ?- S M N
w w
r Cp
r r
r C'7
r ? O
N O
r

N p

N n

r

N
r

r

1

0 00
CV
N
W
R a
? Q
'
Al x
m
O
E
C
O
Q Q
c Co 0 a ?

C)
3y Cl
N O
0
v Q = $ CL

rn c
_
.
z
Q
-O m X G " O
v E
o
w w w 3 '
E
Y
c Y
c Y
c Y
c o
m m
c oca iL
t 'o co r- co rn
M
Cl)
co
o n
r O CV
I CV O r
et A 66
r r
r r C r
a N Cn f.- m
a r S r C r
C? C?
p n n
CA N { i { {
Co N 1 1 I {
O
04
.. N M 1 I I I
Cn

r
ci
r
O
o r
.I
1
{
0
N 1A M
?- r r

q C$ .= i I 1 1
O r r
r
r? N
r r r I I I I

o

O a
R

1%
.
O

0
2n
G 0
4=
C
a)
0
Z
v
C ? ca y
E p E U
D 0 00 -
m C
m m
E o Y m co m

a)
CL Co
? r
m Q
m $ .
c M 3 g 0°
w a aa
r N M
r V' O O f`
r r
O
CM O
N
CO
r
r
L er '
O O
O
N
. CD CO
N
CO ?

I O
CO
r p

o I I
O
W M
I N
r vp i

i O
a p

1
o
a0 Cl)
o
N
r ?
LO S r
O p
M N

i O
N
r
° S r
fA

n
0
a rn
0
v
CL m
(n
o a
? C
j
0
a (
o

°
c w
m 0
o y -' m c
CL m 0
O
r CA
r O r N
N N N
O N M LO
n N CV
v N A
N O Iq M
.? O O
CO O 't O
M r r
O co
N O
LO
O N
I M 1
r
O O
r
' O O I
O CV
I ? M
O O
r
i p o S
O N
I n Cl)
i
s
L a
N '? ? .r7
jZ Y 75
7
0 m 3 a Y
m w cco
r1 C m O m
a?
U m w
m
cn
00 w
CL v
O O N m
a
t0 CO
MNa Nt NN

u

V
l0
d

CL >,
a-
?
O
0 0
3 N ?
? L

O cc
V ? U
V Y
?
d
d d
U
R
d

V Q
' .
O
t
C.
' O

C

1

CO

m o 0
tm 99
I t
m - o
c o
cn
`'
?a 0 0
}
C N N O N

? O O O O
? O O O O
O O O
C
m
O)

R

N

d
C O M
CD
i
I
o
O C

m

? t t t t

r
R

}
c
ami o o i 1
? 0 0
0 0
N
C m

O 0
C 1 i I t

C ?

O
V
v

c Co 0
CL
M I
o o
O o c
o.
in
>
is vi
eo ?-

o
?
m to
w
? m
a ?
cn
N
CL a o
.
m cn ° o
-
2 m
m F= o
L
?o 'N
ao
rn .o
N
N
N M

11

1

e

1

s
d
d
O =
J O
N O
0C)
N ?
W Y
V
O ? U
ca
s
H U y
i
d U
N O
C
V Q
O
0
L
Q.
O
2
11 11
Ch O
d U
}
N
L ?
U T
r
V ?' T
y U r
}
y
C
C 00
U N
U T LOo
C
O
a`
N
N-
E of
cc
C m m U
Q Q
F- rn =
d E c
? m•ro?
?inom
tCf
> r N M

l O
(6 CO
n
r
(
q to
Q
7 7
O r
? r
'
N q to O V
• t() CD
L6
r h
r r T N

r
c
61 U)
r
CO LO
tp 0
0)
lp
T CC 0
Ch M
r O T

N 0)
n O
LO
C r a

t0

? 00

r r

n !. n

N
T
o T r w n
' Ch
M

O/
M N
04
Lq

N 0
r 1

N
N It co C-i 0
C9 O
N
c
N
pCR CO,
j
..
C
)
tV O CC) OR O O
i
c c? N T r ' v
N m . - N O
N
c
co N
04
-- O
' (h
. CO
d

m
c
¢ 3
> co 3
Q 1 1
y
d m
a
E °- o C

G
j
Q _
Q O
a

N
y v
8 8
`O
U m
w
E
o
m :3 :3
3 E
v
c
in co m a.
2 3

v
O
CO
I,- O
CO 0 T
I-T ci
- CR
N
T t!)
N - , N N
ch (b v to
O
tz.
r T T r Q T
N
". Q
Lq Q (n n
N r ' T O
N
O
to
O N
T CO O
N

N In
O r
- r C7
i i
CV
'- r N
O T

r N
'
M O
N 7 7 N
M Ch T ' O
r r .- N
O N , N ,
r r r N '

Q
Cd
m
_
C
cc L 0

o 2 C3
M 3 cc c y
c 3 m o
E
-

o O O Q 7 -
cc ti m -
c
Co
O
E .
p
s l:
m
c
C
v m
•
m ? U m 0 3 Q
, ? a g
W 3 n
. a.
T
r N Ch "
T t2 CO I:
T
L v

Q T C?
to C N CD
O
LO CO CV
r
U Cn7 N r
)
0

T
O
(`
C
co C')

1 O Q v

T
T U) ,
0-)
T o
Q
O
OD CL
?j O
'
T CO ' T
o

N '

i
Q

T Ch
0
o
' ? c
o

?o
> g
C
G

a C
.
C
8
Z
c
? c
g J U
a m `o
o 3 a-

o
m `o c
a 2 m oc(n
2 O 0 T N

T
r C
4 N N
ro "R tO (o
th 9 N CO)
to
N ? T O
N N T ?
(t') O N r
CO CA
_C C.j
CM T
N CD ,
CO N '
n v
m
r
' N M
v T
N r
O Ch
O O
' Q O
O N
, I? C9
a
O 3 ? •?O_
m 3 c
R
a -ab c o M
U co CO 7
Z
cA r -0
C O
00 0
-j 3v
a o
O lD m y
" c c :3
°o m m co
M 'O ,
N N N N

' s
?a
d
cr

' o

O
^ ? U

O R

s
?U d
d £ i
ea U
H w 0
O
N
O.
v Q
' .0
O
s
a
' o

i

LO v

M O
01 O O
Im
O O
c
R M O

M O O
L
R O O
}
C ? V ? M
R
t(7 O
M

R
a
0 0
0
0
O O 00
R

C
R

N
L
d

C ? LO
R
d O O

Cl O
d

R
d
}
C
co LO
O O
O
O
4)
c 61
cm

co
C ?

U

v

U)
c CD 0
C Cl)
L O
o
0 0
IL

d

L
R ?

> a
o
d ?
O
aL ;

? o a a
o

0) 7
5
-
R
.c d
Q > Ec

> N N N M

Lineor (Across Volley) Devotion (ft.) Elevotion (ft.)
Distance (ft.)
O t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0
O N _N 01 OD N ? 01 OD
(T W

O O
o p N

O W?OD mr
D
0<00 mm
3 CD

-----
---- ---
--- ----- x 7 < .«

¦
00 O c tD 0
c
i
- m fD - 415

Z I
, L
1 I L
2 v?_.
Lnn
O .
:
1 "I O v01v Na
N
T
0
TO
-- O
U N

r- O Q,
O
m
O T T
W
N
7 rt ..
-C .`?
0 - -- -- - 0
C
NO t i ?}
-- w "
? o
(D (A
¦
D
0 N

1
J 1
_ U
N

-_ -A _P

00
2
- --
O 0)
-1 T--7 11-11
W 1 IF _ ._
A
__ L_ _
°O
7 g_ 7

0 -

Z)
CD (n .
O O

v

;D
-- -
?GJ-
-- O U1
N 0 m
O O N -0

Ln a)
`
- r
T p
Z
yy
( 7

7 X
O

-
- - _
? - - O 4?
O TI N

m

p O
O

---
- _- ___ -
-
I' 1
I
J O

I I- ITT-,
rw N N a
<
?
?
_L
1 Ir
O F J
I 1..
A4 LJ1
lI T
` 77T
1L L L: LJ1 1L LU1

O N
mm
z
_no W
a
nom
Z? 2
g
SQUARE STADIA ROD z
p

OD m G
Ln r
m
z
m
•-- ----

z
m
__4

;0 m

3
3
N p *1
rm
g=p t
mT1
D Z
-? m cD ?v N
O ? m
C
mz z m
n v/
W 7p

z m

W N -' O

an
-o
art _
g 4
m
'D
v0 o
O
000 ?
N(7 N
WMO- 00
X y O to
N =
T 1
n
::13 1
N
O n
Drt n
o o
C mm
r W
.?+I no

=0 N .
00
N N
a O Q O j 3 N
o 3 g ?o' rn

oo•
'vFV? v?
?o
o;• 0=_(A 0;•
Q10 =tN 0 a0

N 0 fD tD_
< -0 0

7
O -7
n 6-D 0
N 7 CD
CD
7
N
I I
:

¦ I
-n a) :E O L7 ',
;0 M

g r g
o g

0 r' m m m
-
M r- r- r r
m
0 <
z r D D
M m > >1 >

-,
Z z z

D
z N
0 O O

0 O
C) N
O C) N
N 0

co
DZ N
M
O
Ti
F=
M
2 N
V
CD
N
N
t0
CO
X
•D
A
O?
r=
m
0
0
N
N
O
.. ?J .- t .J1L LL.l .J1L
ITr -- n r?
IA --I, III } ?
?P O
-fi
- ? I V?
r
-
7
- - "
" .
-
t71
?
-O-'J--
T - _
1-1
TT
1111 1 11
LIB
Ti r
If J y
I
rr-IT
J1L
Tr
JL. J__ 1 J ?J1 yLJ U11
.
--r-TT- '-T"! -177 1 ? -ITrI
O
O N
FT 7i
1Tl-
TI-
'-1T
L
I I

- 1 lr lT Tr - ITr
O R
_
L
C T i4 r I IITr
. _T
11 IT

•?'r Tr 1 ITr
??
O
- T -
r ITr-I -err
V ? N

O
z
2 N
O
N
0
7
N O

N
_
O
W 0

v
< z
to _u
O
1
F
I
T -r
F
F
T
I
?r
T
-
r
-
1- T 'r T T
_ -r -I
L F T -r
1- T r T 'I- - T 'r
1- T T T 'T I I T 'r T
-
?- T r r T? T r T. .

1
T
I
J?
T r
-r I
. 1?
f
I
--
I
I ? '11
I r T , i r_ r
I ..__
?I
T- -I 1 -I- T' I' - I 1' r -
o
o r T - T
- -

-I- 1 Ir -1 T -r --

T T - - r T
- 11 '1__
-
I r T r r ,
T r Ii- T ? I , 1 r ?I

O ODKW mr
7CDx3 <.?.
F0 0" t0-0
c? tD c
?'o 0) F),
n
OE Oo
cn
O
a
_
_
it C )T
¦
N ¦
CD
0 n•
O O -+
O

(D
0
O
V
N
N D
0
rt
2
O

O
O W
;0 W
(A O
(A
. VI
O ? ID n
v ?

z

O
N
O
m;v
TIT - _ ,? - ~I ¦?'_
¦t,
F?T
I T - r1 T -y --
I

I

-

I
??-
J I L- I - I ?,--

1
' I ' ? T

L
-I T Lr - r? -r l
• -¦ Y---
I

? I
J 1 L ¦
¦ L?
I I I

I
-
I I
T
I ¦
-r
I i
-

ml
1 i
+

I
l
YI

? ¦

¦

¦
l -0 1
- r l
?r .
--
IF;
I
I J ill .!,
, r
'
j

r

r
F, k
=
V:

tD to
< T
01
j
? N
O
N _N 01 OD
N
Elevotion (ft.)
to t0 t0 t0 t0
N 01 OD N
CDDKCO
O<00 mr
m<
?(Dx:3 rt
F ? F
c,°o Oc
N _
-
p5-
410
tD
a
0
a V
NON
S N j
N
0
=
c
i W
(n
O
2 +
0 =
M.
O
N
N
0
_ O
0 ¦
0 ?
N V
N
7

M
w .
l7
.'0
? O

O Vl
om
N l7

O
z

2
O
N
W

O
v
N N
0
0
n
?o

.. N ¦O
rt
O •
t0
01j

O
1.. T. r
?
l i?
? 1
'IT
' -I
IF l
_T- 7
I 1
IF F
1 7 - 7 7 T
l r T I T
II
17 1
I
-,- T r r -ti T - - -r1 T 'r ---
;i
I I ¦ I
11 ¦
r. .i. - 1. T -1¦ r T r -

I
11 i
¦
¦ 1 1 -
u
¦
I

¦
¦ I
_

I ; ; . r r -

1
1
T
r ?
l I
-

F r -, T
N -N C) 0D

l ¦

X I
f
-
,
I I
I
I I
- ¦ -
I

I
? ¦
L
_ J
7 rI? I
C
¦

T
r --
l
r ¦
- I
ll LLI
I?.
?
r

jT
J?
-F i
?'-
? I
J - - -
r?T
,- I i-
i 1 rr
L ? .--
-;-
77
14
[
U
1
1
,IT
?l
t0 t0 t0 t0
N P 01 00
O
2
N 00
O nr•
O
to
O
0
CD
W
0
O
Cn
O
m n o y ? ?
N F
CO 0 ?az O ?-vim O z3G < ?D P,
z .1 ?
n I
rill m m 00
LA
N
0 2 O Z O
O Z D ? ? G) z r
0 w y N D N
CDDKco
0<00 mr
to
O
BCD x :5 .,
<rt
F ? F
O O'"
c
t0-0
?(D rn?

- V
,
0 m j
O.
N
V1 ?. N ?
N ¦
tD 0,:?
.n. V • N
O O
_

CD
O
N
01
N 0
?
O •

O
Q \/
N ,"O

7 W
0 Z1 V)

w N ? 1

o „
m 0
.. N
Z

W
O
N m;u
O rn ?o
? rt
o1 7
O
W (0
O
O
N
O
2
O
N•
O
7
0
0
W N
O p
A
tD
O
O
01
O
CID
Elevation (ft.)
a rn 000
O
O
X
r
3
Om
0
U) ?
;v
O
N 3

Linear (Across Volley)
Distance (ft.)
0 O rr
O O O
MIN
O N W Elevation (ft.) Elevation (ft.)
N N O O N O N ?
O 0
+ trio
----- --------- --- _

E NQILO: -----
7-r -
_._T
---------
---------
r
---
- -
T __

`?-
_
I? _
-T 1 -

-,
1 I
- - C,S'ECTl

T- -
- ---
T -r

-- -- - --T
------- 1-T-7
------ -7-
---
-T rp ;- -T -,- r - - ---:--

-T,- T 1__ T__ __

-T I -;- TRT
------ L .V

-

*
Y -
- - ECIT?OM- - - - ----
_-____,_ _ 5-g _ _ _-

I

I I
i
T) O Q 0

m g
O
g
A -n m
p C
;0
m
m

r- rn m
r r- r r

z ? D

rn D
y
m ? -a --I

> Z z z
m
D
Z N O O
O
O
N N
O O N
N 0
N

W N O
a 0 v n m CO
s?
m
O p ° 01 0 j m 0 N
O N £ F
m
I
X 7 C O m
On ??O? Oy

• o
?
(D ?

O .m-. C 1 n
rt
0
M S 0 m 0
_w
O 60-62 3g
.O 3 83 -
0
_ Orn
O_ ?•
0
C m tD n j
•
O? -' O O A0
o,
in m cop__•
< ° 0
7

o
to So
fD

m
N
N
CO
-a
.'a
O
? N
r
rn
O
O
4
N
O - N W -P.
c ?o c cO
°
05-
n
0
a
O
(O
7
N g0)S
N ¦
CD
0»v
yip

? rt
?
A
O

O
LA 7
(n
O
SIP
m
V ? rt
? w

N
N ?
v O ?
N 0

^J + to
om

?O
(D z
-
? 00

??o

_ a

K
Om
?Z
Z
SQUARE STADIA ROD z?
0
C ?v
OOC
0 r T-

Im

m _4
a
O ? ? m
3
3
pm DD
Z=0 X1
m1
D m
ma)

mz
0 z m0
3 m
z
Z

m
LA
-0
0
I 0
a o

m y
0 ?
m
o ton
0 0 o'
o? 3.40

=z
o o m 0) az
; ? I.TI¦1Z0?0¦
=
C
44h m 0 z
m /V
0(A v
00Cj v
N D .. ?
(? OZ Z
T ic
o N
a N
o 2 Z D? r

°W
V/ ?w
VI

L Zl
(D to
(p ?
(.n
O
U1

J
t
+
F
-
J
1 I
L .

=_
J- i
¦
f - l T -
L - T I --

J
? ti
I I
1T T r _ l T r i, , T -

T
? _
J ? L J 1

¦
, T r - j T r - 1 r - -

J
1 ¦
:
1
i F
I
,
¦ 1
T - 7
1 T
L
?_ , T
r -
_
¦ I I

I ¦
T
i T

l
¦ I 1 r -
T '1 - 11 T r' -1 T 'r -

1- T -r - -l T r
_ 1 T r
L -
?II

?
= F
, r ? T r -i r r I r-
T
WD`Kw mr-
O O < 00 6CD
xAX? <.
«
_ _
?
Ci0 OC I.
?

n
0 (D
o. W
m 7.
0
.
0
0
m

O
o

CD
0
V

N m
?
O

O
3 N
_ ;a
°
°- N
O N
W • '
N
O 7 W m

(D n
00
O z

O

O
m m
N %D
°)
O O
< S
to -0
A
N
V
Elevation (ft.)
OD OD a7Dma7 m_r

O 0<p0 OO
w
X-n X X* < +
-0

0 rt
n O S 0)
0 (D
m
? ?
l
p
S
I ? .p ¦
N
¦
(D N
l
rt
O N
O O -..

°
W
V
00
N m
O D
2
0
N0
O O
j
N N
O CA
(00
W in o m
O O 0

cD 00
O Z
V
O
O
O)
000 O W O
n
a zz
z 0
Z EM
< M i* v
Ch 3
=v
z -p r
D y
m?
rn?
(0-0
a):3

*

,

r

l

1 T I-f -I
I
I II

1-

1 -

i

i-?? -
?r

TI f I

"I
r
711
T
II

T

-1

T T 1

-
r I -

N Lr ? -
a

I
-.i ¦
T 1i -

IT

,Ir

II

?

-,?

T

:
I
II
"r
?
1
1
r
?
J
I-k

,t 17

T

T

r

-

IT

r

-

-
FLH
? T I
4 -

1, T L 4 -4 1,1-
f
ir
11II
IT
'I-
,
T
-I-
? I
11
,'
IT
r
- 11
,1
T
r
?l--
I
I- 1 ?
1 4 11
1
I
1
,I
T ?

k I r
t'-
,jT
-r
--
-

T
r
l T i
I
- I
T

r

1
1
?
11
, ?
_
1 L
1 t
I T
f I I
? T

?
„T

? i

L
T

r

?i--
1
I
I
? -
T L , T r = I

- ?;

? -aT
IT

-
-
-
? - 1 - -
? 1
I

- r ?T- - - - -I? T

? I
1
?
T L
k
j - I
1,
7
r
r
O
O
N
O
O '
N
0
rt
0
O
W N
O ?
7
A
(D
O
Ln
O
°)
O O O O
O N
00 0
V (0
O
O
N
O
2
O
N
O
O
O_
O m
0
0
N
-$+
O
N
0
O
O
O
7 0 ? lwff,\?
0 '
0 PL)
W
Z ??{ CD
F+ • p
0 CD
DW
Z
O) A
0
O ;a N)
O
rn
(ten m
O
O
O
Ln
.W. N
O to
O

= uu>m 0
0 <00 mr
pN
° 3IDX7
F, x <.
N' -0 pC

0
`
< V
0
0
0
j
0

N
O
.

m
S
m AS
N
O m ?rt V
00. V
W n O - -w

0
V
O N W N

I'
91° L
JK SLI LJ1 1L L 11.
chi ? L
, 4rl - - -
_
' L I _ J _ 1LI L J 1 1 L L 11
J L iJ IL
u
1 LI_' J: ! 1LI J1

I

J1

-

L_

I
I
1iI L,L

y

1J1 lLl

L ,4L

1
l
4 m
N
O
ON 6
A
NC-)
O N 0 O
W
(P W rn
O D
W
O A
O 0
rn
m oD
O
W
O N
O O

rT 1 -
T .I
lTr I
Tr1
1v
'Ti
r r 1.1 lTr
F Tr I
i HT 11
-_ - I I
? ? r
, ? r
to =;?-
rQ °? 1
T '1 11
Tr TI ITF
i N; +Ar i-
rO 1
Tom'

a I I
ADF
-]
T -
rf H I I
1T
?
' r Y i - n i Y
Tt 17l- II I I
-nTI- Ai l Mr
t0 w
.T
O to
=
O ?rn

O =0
W O O z

v
,
ILA
N ?

tD
O
O N
Ln
O
o m;u
O O N (D IO'
N
0 W
O
'a
O 0
m ?
."a
M
(o
rn
rt
= tp
5
O 1 4
n N V
O
W
O
O
tA'
N O
7
n
(D
11
T IL
r
1 A
T IL
r
-
rl -1
1? 1
T 1
_
_I T r = 1' r r 1? --
1 T r -
I , -i
1? T
1 L ?I

17 - T 7 I T -I-

7 1 1 T r ,
1 T -r , T r i T IF

1
1

T

r
r T

-

,
l

?

T
, T -r = , T -1 - ' r -
1 T -? - , T T r --
T
L - ?? -
l T r - l T -T l? T -r --
r

1 1
T 1
r _
- J
1 ?
T L
1 I

r- 1 a

11 ?

T I

-r

-
to (O
O N
Elevation (ft.)
OD to to
to W
l J O Q) < K a) m r
ur=n- rrTn1 0 < 0 0 fD N
7 (D X 3 <
O - N FQ F ¦
O N W A.
F ZN
00

1LLL

L
T Ti-- -tO
N T 1 Tr rT TITL .
I T IT
D L'T +F
?? `
L 'rr ,Ti
i III
T-T- > T 1 jr I n+F 7r 1+
11

rn
ti
Im ?
T rtla i
f'r
T I II
'.T
r rT III
1Tr
111
-1T
1101w 11

N
¦ I
n r Tr -,
7
7 7 7 --T 1771-1 MI- 17:11
1

- - _ - < -' 1 - 711 Y 1 LIJ L11.L
i1T rT 'rITI" -1 r1-1 ,

T. I Tr r : T+iF Tr1

II lT'
-rl+L
III
T'l -Tr 'fI-. nTr
I I{~ Trll
I I I I 'nTf
I I

1T' n nili

n -6I7
!?
=5

r

1_L.(
(
IR
-rl
T
p I I
II T,
7 T F, T,

iTn rT

7

7

the upper reach, the lower reach channel has continually decreased in cross-sectional area
and exhibited a slight increase in the width/depth ratio. However, unlike the upper reach,
bankfull was not identified at the constructed top of bank, but to an elevation based on
common bankfull indicators (i.e. lower in the channel). This condition is currently creating
a channel that is slightly incised. The channel is expected to remain incised until the sides
of the riffle fill in and the cross-sectional area and width/depth ratio decrease (see Section
2.3.1 for further discussion). Over the 3-year monitoring period, the maximum riffle depth
has declined from 1.4 to 1.0 feet. Mean pool maximum depth has remained relatively
stable from the as-built conditions, decreasing slightly from 3.8 to 3.6 feet. Most of the
decline in channel depth measurements in the lower reach, compared with the previous
years, is attributed to the bankfull call residing at a lower elevation.
Channel Pattern Attributes
Channel pattern attributes have been measured from the plan forms depicted in Figure 3
and Figure 4. The belt width ranges from 10 to 38 feet in the upper reach and 25 to 44
feet in the lower reach. The meander wavelength along both reaches range from
approximately 75 to 120 feet. Sinuosity measures approximately 1.2 and 1.3 in the upper
and lower stream reach, respectively. The mean floodprone area width varies between
220 to 375 feet and entrenchment ratios range from 11.4 to 21.9 (floodprone area /
bankfull width) for the upper and lower reaches, respectively.
Channel Slope and Substrate
Channel slope and substrate attributes were obtained from measurements depicted in
Appendix D and summarized in Table la and 1b. The mean water surface slope in the
upper reach averaged 0.0024 (rise/run) relative to a valley slope of approximately 0.0029
(rise/run). The mean water surface slope in the lower reach averaged 0.0034 (rise/run)
relative to a valley slope of approximately 0.0044 (rise/run). Pebble counts throughout
both reaches indicate the D50 of the surface substrate is approximately 0.25 millimeters
(sand) and a subsurface substrate of approximately 12 millimeters (Medium Gravel). The
surface substrate is a reflection of the sediment deposition that has occurred within the
channel over the past several years. The original gravel substrate placed within the
channel at the time of construction remains in place, but has been covered in part by sand
and silt. The original substrate is visible within the thalweg of the current channel.
2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes
Pre- and post-project monitoring locations extend approximately 300 linear feet along
designated reaches, and are identified in Figure 5. Qual-4 samples were collected from the
restored stream in July 2002 (Appendix C). Data from the current and past years sampling
is summarized in Table 2.
' The number of EPT taxa (genus/species) has increased to 8 in the 2002 sample. This is an
increase from the base line survey and the 2001 survey, which reported 2 and 4 EPT taxa,
respectively. The total number of individuals within the EPT taxa decreased from 102 in
' 2001 to 34 in 2002. The large number of individuals found in 2001 probably resulted
from one species particularly prevalent at the time of sampling.

' an

cn I I
y
>N X X ; OL
y
CA (A O rn z A
;o r- rn 0
{ A Z <? 1
N - p ? to ?1 ?.
f D g C im r
A co
m
N '
A
o
(- ' R IV E R - ---__?
CD'U
00 pA ® \ ??
m r` \
n
z 00 z OZ
IZ O?
A-4 ;oA `..
Z%i1 ZC
OrC7 O? 1 ? ?
1 LA 0
10 1Z 1 \ '
Ln Z W I Q?
1 '
? - r TI
v Z ? ? I I
I
, i
"
,
I
I I
I `yam
I "
,
" ? (nom i
,
,
I
,
oci
z -
' -;
1 ?(
C?
m 7 O A. V n
N x
'0 co a) A.
p
c 00 ? mm-umom zmo o z3C --I z 70 z 0 c
m m=1 ?n o ? ?p c M=1p z CDC'
N r g .. m zz ?Z?E _M? p?n
O O Z a ??r z r c?
o 0
y a ti

Table 2.
Benthic Sampling Results
for Baseline Data and Monitoring Years 2001 and 2002.
Baseline
1999 2001
Ephemeroptera
Acentrella ampla 10
Stononema modestum 4'
Tricorythodes sp. 92
Baetis sp.
Callibaetis sp.
Centroptilum spa
Caenis sp.
Trichoptera
Cheumatopsyche sp. 10 2
Hydropsyche betteni
Hydropsychidae
Chimarra aterrima
2002
2
1
1
7
4
45
2
2
Total 20 102
34

0

D
I

11
1

However, the 34 individuals found in the current year (2002) remains an increase over
levels found in the baseline survey (1999). Higher EPT taxa diversity indicates better
stream quality than more individuals of a few species.
As a part of the biological stream attribute assessment, a habitat field data sheet has been
completed to describe the potential habitat and physical conditions of the stream. The
habitat assessment scores for 2002 were indicative of characteristics associated with
maturing "constructed" stream development including bend angles, in-stream habitat
features, substrate, bank stability measures, and vegetation parameters. The constructed
stream received a habitat assessment score of 84 out of a possible 100, an increase from
the 62 points assigned to the survey in 2001. The assessment gave high scores for
channel modifications, riffle habitat, bank stability, and pool variety. Medium scores were
attributed to stream bank vegetation cover, substrate type, light penetration, and riparian
vegetation. Completed stream habitat assessment forms describing the physical habitat
characteristics present in the channel during the July 2002 sampling were compared with
the July 2000 and 2001 sampling (Appendix C).
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
2.3.1 Physical Stream Attributes
Success criteria for stream restoration have been subdivided into three primary
components: 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system, 2)
channel stability indicative of a stable stream system, and 3) development of biological
communities over time.
For classification purposes, the stream supports an entrenchment ratio of greater than 2.2
and a width-depth ratio of greater than 12. The upper and lower reach has a width-depth
ratio of 30 and 16.4, respectively. The channel exhibits high sinuosity (> 1.2) and mean
water surface slopes between 0.0024 and 0.0034 feet/feet. The riffle substrate is
dominated by sand with a medium gravel sub-surface. Therefore, stream geometry and
substrate measurements under current conditions suggest a C4/5 stream type, as proposed
in the mitigation plan.
However, based on the 2002 stream surveys and observations, the cross-sectional area of
the constructed stream is generally decreasing. While maximum depths within the thalweg
remain near constructed depths, recent deposition on points bars and channel bars (inner
berm) in the riffle section have lead to a significant decrease in mean depths, resulting in
an increase in width/depth ratios. This would suggest one of several scenarios is occurring
within the constructed channel: 1) the channel was oversized when built 2) the channel is
in transition from a C-type stream to an E-type stream, or 3) the channel has incurred a
large but transient sediment load. The possible scenarios are discussed below.
Oversized Channel
The proposed channel dimensions for the constructed stream were based on reference
streams, regional curves, and hydraulic models. The proposed channel dimensions for the
upper and lower reach are provided in Table 1 a and 1 b. Based on reference data collected
for the Site, a stable stream channel would support a cross-sectional area averaging
?r_

1

L

?7
u

C1
12 square feet and a width-depth ratio ranging between 11 and 15. Streams with
width/depth ratios below 12 (characteristic of E streams) are often found within reference
watersheds below 1.0 square mile. These reference sites were selected due to the
presence of an apparently stable channel and presence of wetland systems in the adjacent
floodplain.
The measured reference cross-sectional area is generally lower than predicted reference
curves for the region. For a 1.1 square mile watershed, Rosgen (1996) predicts a stable
cross-sectional area of approximately 22 square feet. Regional curves by Harman et. a/.
(2000) predict a cross-sectional area for 0.9 and 1.1 square mile watershed at 19 and
23 square feet, respectively. The curves have an inherent high degree of variability,
particularly within smaller watersheds. For example, the confidence interval for a
1.1 square mile watershed ranges between approximately 10 to 40 square feet.
The proposed channel was enlarged from reference data to account for watershed
development. It is generally accepted that bankfull discharge and bankfull stream
dimensions increase in developed watersheds. The design channel cross-sectional area of
the constructed channel was therefore constructed at 20 square feet in the upper reach
and 28 square feet in the lower reach to accommodate a certain degree of development in
the watershed.
The constructed stream was potentially built to be wide and shallow (high width/depth
ratio) for conditions at the Site. A channel that is overly wide and shallow (i.e. high
width/depth ratio) may not be competent to move its own sediment and consequently may
aggrade or accumulate in-stream sediment bars. Such a scenario would be exasperated by
a developing watershed with increased sediment loads and a lack of flushing flows due to
extreme drought conditions over the past several years.
A lower width/depth ratio would increase the stream power within the channel and allow
the sediment to flush through the system. The channel appears to be adjusting itself to
reflect characteristics of a narrow and hydraulic efficient E-type stream (see discussion
below).
Stream Evolution
From observation and survey data, the constructed channel appears to be transitioning
from a C-type stream to an E-type stream. If so, it can be expected that the face of point
bars will become steeper and eventually disappear. With the existing adjacent dense
vegetation typical of E streams, a narrow and relatively deep channel may form. Figure 6
depicts the time-space substitution of stream morphology expected to be occurring at the
Site. E-type streams, by nature, have a high resistance to plan form adjustment which
results in channel stability without down-cutting. These channels are hydraulically efficient
and have a high sediment load transport capacity. This would be encouraging in light of
the high sediment loads found within the receiving watershed. The transition from a C-
type to an E-type stream indicates a very stable reach and such a change in classification
should not jeopardize success criteria.
16
m m m m m m m = m m m m = m = ' = m
n
0
M
n�
ju
n
0 M
EVA
rc
r
CA
C
�m
Or -4
ZZO
�aZ
Z n
1 -1
_ CA
N
r-iK
D0
qr
50
ZG)
O G
N
O
In
CD
CD C
BCH,
cu
(01
CD
sAc,4'
p.d
ID
CD
C>0
o
+
0
CCDoo
co w
o' bd
�0
04)
°
En ^
M, O
En
,�J
CD
CD CD
�H
CD 0
CD
o
+
y
:A
0
CCDoo
co w
o' bd
�0
04)
°
En ^
M, O
En
,�J

Adding speed to the stream transition process is the likelihood that the stream, as
constructed, was not competent to move the current sediment load (Figure 6A). The
increased sediment load is being deposited by the stream, in rapid fashion, to places within
the channel to allow for more efficient movement of water flow and sediment. Current
surveys suggest the stream is in a mid-evolutionary step as depicted in Figure 6B.
' Sediment deposition on point bars (i.e. the area of most recent deposition) has significantly
narrowed pools and bar deposition along the riffle banks has occurred. Riffle width at
bankfull remains close to constructed channel conditions, giving rise to the low mean riffle
depths and high width/depth ratios found under current conditions. As time progresses it
is expected that the depositional side bars within the riffles will approach bankfull
elevation, stabilize with vegetation, and become the new banks of narrower E-type channel
(Figure 6C).
Excess Sedimentation
Upstream (off-site) stream bank erosion and sediment runoff from watershed development
were identified as a potential problem in the early stages of the mitigation plan. Recent
' construction in the watershed and on adjacent property has likely increased sediment to
potentially problematic conditions. Excess sedimentation and overwhelmed erosion control
measures were observed on construction sites within the watershed during recent visual
' inspections.
' In addition, beaver activity has slowed flows and increased sediment deposition within the
upper reach channel. Beaver were removed during 2001 but have since returned to the
upper reach of the stream. A half-year of sediment was stored behind the beaver dam
' prior to demolition. When the beaver dam was removed, a portion of the sediment
remained along the upper channel with the remainder of sedimet released into the
downstream reach of the Site.
Current beaver activity has included the construction of several small dams in the upper
reach and minor to moderate beaver damage to adjacent vegetation. Beaver management
strategies may need to be addressed in the upcoming monitoring year.
2.3.2 Biological Stream Attributes
' The EPT taxa are generally considered secondary colonizers and are less tolerant to
disturbance than other aquatic insects. Therefore, they represent keystone species for
evaluation. Both the diversity of EPT taxa and overall EPT numbers have increased from
' the April 1999 baseline sample to the July 2002 sample (Table 2). The increased habitat
complexity provided by the restored stream, compared to the original channel is resulting in
increased settlement opportunities for dispersing benthic macro-invertebrates. The
increased colonization is leading to higher species diversity and an expansion of benthic
macro-invertebrates within the restored reach.

18
J 3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
Nine continuous recording (RDS24), surficial monitoring gauges have been established
throughout the Site to provide representative flow gradients extending through several
physiographic landscape areas including 1) seepage slope, 2) floodplain pool (oxbow), and
2) riverine floodplain. The monitoring wells were installed in February 2000 following the
completion of stream and wetland construction and prior to the start of the growing
season. Figure 7 depicts the approximate location of the monitoring wells. Monitoring
wells were installed and downloaded in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers', Installing Monitoring We//s/Piezometers in Wet/ands (WRP Technical Note
HY-IA-3.1, August 1.993). The monitoring wells are set to a depth of approximately
' 24 inches below the soil surface.
The gauge data, extending from January 1, 2002 to December 12, 2002, have been
' utilized in this Year 3 AMR report to cover the 2002-growing season. The growing season
in Cabarrus County is defined as the period between March 19 and November 9, or
235 days. Hydrological samples continue to be collected at twenty-four hour intervals.
' 3.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The raw well data are depicted as hydrographs in Appendix E. Intersection of the line at
12 inches below the surface was used as the cut-off for wetland hydrology, following the
regulatory wetland criterion requiring saturation (free water) within 12 inches of the soil
surface. Data used to evaluate wetland hydrology criteria including maximum consecutive
saturation days and percent of the growing season are summarized in Table 3.
' In general, water levels show a typical pattern of flooding during late winter to early
spring, followed by a late summer and autumn draw down period, punctuated by peaks
associated with precipitation events. The region around the Site including the western
' portions of North Carolina have been in the grip of a severe to profound drought over the
past few years. The summer of 2002 was particularly dry as reflected in the data. In
general, the 2002 well data is very consistent with data collected in 2001. The maximum
' number of consecutive saturation days recorded by the wells ranged from 26 to 84 days or
11 to 36 percent of the growing season.
' Wells 1 and 4 are representative of the seepage slope wetland conditions found along
portions of the western Site boundary. Wells 1 and 4 exhibited a similar maximum
' consecutive saturation of 30 percent during the growing season. These wells were deeply
inundated for extended periods during the beginning and end of the year, as represented by
the horizontal line in the hydrographs. Both wells are located in depressional, seepage
areas where surficial expression of groundwater is confined for most of the year.
Wells 2, 3, and 5 are representative of the riverine floodplain adjacent to the constructed
' stream. Wells 2 and 3 are located in the upper reaches of the Site, in the proximity of
H
19
m m r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
O
I
1
I
T
m;X me
A Zm m D X X S D?
? O
gf
? ?t
71
?Z° z0
fN O
m -4 -4
z _?
z O mz
mX
00?1% 00, A m c) O y;
D
2 p2
? S
nn A f`N'I
m y
O
g -zi mm
a
q c 5o 0 A ? ZO
oz
A zn ->
?m
{
X z
y X
<
0 Z
O
fJl W
N
W 10
I+ I+ I+
0 0 0
n ? n

1
I
I
1 I
1
1
? I
1
1
1
i 1
1
I
1 1
1-1 I
I I
O 1 I
I I
/ I
as i ,
?p
1 1
?C)
U? 1? I
2 - 1
a?
/ I
I ,
i ?
, I
I ,
I 1
w?
C I i?
Zy ? '
to O
70
3 ,o -4 go
x
I'
?; ? ?? ; VlgrlON eL
1
T '
n n £
C7 o
0 ;
co is Z r
000 0 o? Z
5?
=
10
? -0 O
C:
a z
M r- 0 C)
o r
D =
mzo0 0
? .? ;o z. °
V M N IC
V
?m- ?`n
0 ? m
d o °
I
M ? C
C
a m C 0
00 =i
< C °
(A r
fC•
o
N D
D 5 z D
y rC z A
? _?? ?•?
° cNn o to
m
v --I
D? G) mr
D r
CD
a o °w N y

C
_

}
C
?
O C
=
,
L
c 0=
O O

M O
W cm c
OJO 6c?

O co ?
_

E
E c-4 O
N N
O
V
O O T N
co
E (D
= ?° ca

>
a
C>
O
co
U
O
co
O
O

O U
m C O O
O
x
co m co O ? N = O O
Q p> `• >

am
as
E
O Cl)
co
i O N
C
+N+ LL -0 x
O fl N C
O
C O _ m i 'O CD
.-.

(? C C7

=
O i

O 0

E

v
U

O
'- C?
Q
N
O
LL
O
LL
U N ? C
O co ca p Li
0a) 02 U U a i
N C LL C > N >
N- N N N (D cz O a > cc
Q> 'a c

>

co

N
Y

Y
O V cz
V cz cif
fl cc _O O
0 O Y
0 O
cif (Y , LL -
C
> C p
m O
E O
E O
m C p
o C
-a
a C
-v
ac
o
a
0)
CD .-
O
o c
O C o
0
"-
a)
m
m
U> Y
1
U C.)
LL C
(q0 C
LLB cc
U
a)
U
U
U
O-
co
0-0
cc
U) U
? U
?L
O
O
O
M
O
C7 C O
N N
T O
M N
T CD
T CD
C7 T
T c9
T r
N
_ (D

0

c? _
CD 0
*_' M N
c`0
M
CO
N C) ce)

N

N
co

O
0

N
O d } T
C
O
U co
d cz O O N
C\j
L N N N N N CD N
co 1-1
T T A N
RT
Ch
d } n N r- N M w N M qT

? N
U ?
U) N
O Q
U.
M 00

CO LO

O O

c'7 P-

c0 O

N O

to M

d' N

N m

W w

w
O
E c4 }
O ?
E N

cc T
co
N
N N
C14
It
0
LO
I
C

A V-

O

a) C\j CV) Lr) CD r, 00 0) c

Z Q
r d
cv c0 2:,
N N
L O
O U
N O

c L
Y O N t
o?+ Q >1 V
y L
E
3 c
y °? d
U ?+
t:
O ?
L
O
Y

d 0
L
7 _

y
w -

E ?-

O 3
0 0 >1
i cn Y

oL
co N

3

c
a? co
c
C O y « ?
«
.
N
2,0
C U
- d O y 7

(D C «
,
U
Q
N cm 7
C N i? N
F :3 c
0) U
C
? i
t0 t
.r
O 0
U w

LO
co
N lC
O
° O
? N
L O
m
O w ~
cts
(D ° co
; .
E 0 3 co

io
U)
y
cc c
o
o
Z -a co E
O
N
o w
W L
y
E
U ?
co co 7

> >
E
>
F
>
wt
E L
.
c E
O c E
?a E c c
U E
v E
N y F- N

Q O L M
c0 O
U
? ca
N F- M
N
C
8.2 (D .a
a) L
N c` y L
?O 0
m 7 C
3 N
m U N
m
v ai
O a Q a
0 cc = E d E
y >
m >a e
S
O
c
41
3
O
c

y O LO to N
0) Q C N
c- co a
3:
0 3 0 a > a
p? N C 7 c0 N
O
(D
0) O

N Cl) O
Well 1. Well 5 is located in the center portion of the Site, approximately 50 feet from the
' edge of the channel. These wells receive hydrologic input from both groundwater and over
bank flow events. Well 2 failed on June 25 and was taken out of service to receive
repairs. Even so, the well recorded a relatively high maximum consecutive saturation
period during the growing season, 61 days or 26 percent. Wells 3 and 5 both recorded
consecutive saturation of 12 percent during the growing season.
' Areas represented by Well 6, include the littoral shelf and delta associated with. the
floodplain pool (oxbow). These areas are influenced by fairly constant water elevations
with flashy water levels induced by precipitation events. Well 6 exhibited a maximum
consecutive saturation of 16 percent during the growing season.
' The remaining wells 7, 8, and 9 are located near the Rocky River and. represent various
hydrologic regimes that are associated with larger riverine floodplains. The wells within
the Rocky River floodplain receive hydraulic input from both groundwater (i.e. the oxbow)
' and over bank flow events. The floodplain microtopography near the Rocky River varies
considerably, where specific ground elevations dictate wetland hydroperiods. The variation
in hydrologic regimes is reflected in the gauge data, where the average maximum number
of consecutive saturation days of these wells ranged from 26 to 84 days or 11 to
36 percent of the growing season. Well 7, located in a depressional area within the
' floodplain, recorded the highest maximum consecutive saturation period during the
growing season at 36 percent.
' 3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Hydrological success criteria requires 1) saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent
of the growing season at lower landscape positions during average climatic conditions and
' 2) saturation or inundation beween 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season at upper
landscape positions during average climatic conditions. Both areas are expected to support
hydrophytic vegetation.
Groundwater data indicate that all well locations and corresponding physiographic areas
achieved hydrological success criteria for 2002. These areas exhibit wetland hydrology for
' a period ranging from 11 to 36 percent of the growing season. The hydroperiods
corresponded with the existing hydric vegetation cover types as described in Section 4.0.
' The average maximum consecutive saturation period during the growing season was
21 percent. The average saturation over the past three monitoring periods has declined
slightly every year, decreasing from 28 percent in 2000, 24 percent in 2001, and
' 21 percent in the current year. The decline in saturation days is likely attributed to the
increasing severity of drought conditions in the region and the very dry summer of 2002 in
particular. Even under these extreme drought conditions, the monitoring wells indicate
that most wetland areas have a hydroperiod that is wetter than the 12.5 percent required
by success criteria. Those areas represented by Wells 3, 5 and 8 were slightly under the
12.5 percent criterion (12 percent, 12 percent, 11 percent, respectively), but remained
' above the 5 percent minimum threshold. The wetter portion of the Site, particularly areas
represented by Wells 1, 2, 4 and 7, demonstrate the variability and corresponding micro-
habitat potential across the Site, including seepage slopes, river oxbows, and backwater
areas.

Based on current well data, restoration of wetland hydrology has been successfully
achieved throughout areas represented by the monitoring wells. Figure 7 depicts wetland
boundaries mapped using well data and corresponding hydrophytic vegetation signatures.
Based on the mapping, approximately 13.9 acres of wetlands and an additional 1.3 acres
of open water/marsh (oxbow) reside within the 23.4-acre Site.

23

F-]

J

n

4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was carried out in October 2002. The six permanent
sampling plots (1-6) established in 2000 were surveyed. Figure 8 depicts the approximate
location of each vegetation sample plot and the as-built planting plan. Each sampling plot
comprises two, 300-foot transects extending from a central point. Plot width along each
transect extends 4 feet on both sides of the centerline, providing a 0.11 acre sample
(600 feet x 8 feet / 43,560 feet / acre). The center and end points of each plot are
permanently marked with a labeled, white polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Plot 6 serves as a
control plot established to represent vegetation characteristics in unplanted areas of the
Site. Plot 6 was not used to evaluate success.
All woody species rooted within the plot boundary were recorded and measured for height.
Because of the large number of black willow (Saiix nigra) stems, only those greater than
0.5-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) were recorded. Average heights were collected to
document growth through subsequent monitoring plans. All plots were averaged to obtain
total trees per acre (density) and percent of total per acre. Percent of total trees per acre
and wetland status were also analyzed for success criteria evaluation. Complete species
inventories can be found in Appendix F. Photographic record of vegetative plots is shown
in Appendix G.
4.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The Site vegetative communities remain a succession continuum of forest development.
As in monitoring years 1 and 2, most of the project area remains in the early stages of old
field (pastured) succession. The former pastured area in the upper reach portion of the
Site, as well as the northern bank adjacent to the oxbow, were maintained as pasture until
just prior to mitigation activity. As part of the mitigation plan, these areas received a full
planting (435 trees/acre) of diagnostic species. The vegetation is currently dominated by
volunteer herbaceous species that vary in abundance according to landscape position,
micro-topographical differences, and seasonal variation. Hydrophytic vegetation
established during the spring and early summer 2000 includes sedges (Cyperus spp.), cat
tail (Typha sp.), seedboxes (Ludwegia spp.), knotweeds (Poiygonum spp.), wool-grass
(Scirpus cyperinus), and rushes (Juncus spp.), all of which are still present in open, very
wet or inundated areas of the floodplain. In drier areas the developing vine and herbaceous
component includes joint-head anthraxan (Anthraxan hispidis var. cryptatherus), panicum
grasses (Panicum spp.), crab grass (Digiteria sp.), beggarticks (Bidens frondosa), blackberry
(Rubus argutus), and broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus).
Farther along the succession continuum are areas that support volunteer trees and shrubs
> 1.0 inch dbh such as black willow, tag alder (Ainus serruiata), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracifiua), loblolly pine, (Pines taeda), and box-elder (Acer negundo). This community is
located predominantly in the lower floodplain, east of the constructed stream, and includes
the wetland bio-reserve area. Portions of the lower floodplain east and west
2 ^
m = = m m m = =
"' 1 4? 0 0 H,7?'

0 A,
zr~-
pg

rW
g 0
~ ."0
(A
>A
mm
y O
Nz
Ay
rn -,
A
to
f
-4

0

c CO.,

O

2

°
00 -nN
mymy
-N

MA
C
O

m

W 2X
00O
O; orn

OV
O S
OR mc
W o
0 0
- c m

, 1
N
T 1 :: 1
I
o m
Zrn

ZO
r" Z
?y
oC
00

00
Z I <
O

m

y
m

o

y N
y
Z
z

m

z -x

X
,A

O
1
;a m

X
f4

O
p

b r
D
L
O

n
Z yy L

N?
?O

Z;
m

m
0
C
oZ
? rn
S <
D
O
Z
N
W
A
I+
0
r
m
m
z
v
;
I
I
r
I ;
r r
1
?I
1
I I
1
r
I ;
i
I1 -1 I
• / 1 I
O ' I
I I
Z /I
I
I ;
°
?O
'0
I 1
r
1
y ' I
)
1
1
;
1 ,
I ,
I;
r '

C /
-a /
? to 7D ; '
tAo
O
3 o.a 1 16
a '
r I
I I
I I
I I
_ I I
I I
. ?. , BL lip'' r
m 0 v v n
n a n o 0 o
v m co n C 115 ?-4 c n?
Z i ?? -Z-I mZ7p mrn A n
1
rmaZ ?-?am o Zip Z O 0
N N m D
o o Z Vs n y
0 °
C4

of the constructed stream are dominated by black willow and tag alder, which have
' reached heights greater than 25 feet and developed full canopy closure. The dense,
herbaceous cover present in these areas in the year 2000 has diminished, and an open,
shaded ground layer devoid of vegetation now exists.
A mature bottomland hardwood forest is located in the Rocky River floodplain. Box elder,
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum, and willow
oak (Quercus phel%s) dominate the canopy. As in the prior two years of monitoring, the
understory is continuing to recover from past grazing activity, but remains generally
' sparse. However, several woody and herbaceous species were noted including saplings of
the various overstory species, lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), blackberry, poison ivy (Toxicodendron
' radicans), and spikegrass (Chasmathium spp.).
The planting plan was modified slightly to accommodate changes in as-built stream and
' oxbow location. Additional changes resulted from project modifications to the adjacent
business park, including the causeway design and enlarged fill slopes. Approximately
13.5 acres of the 23.4-acre mitigation site was planted at a density of 435 stems/acre.
' Stocking levels of planted trees and natural recruitment are summarized in Table 4. A total
of 40 woody species, both planted and volunteers, were surveyed. The eight most
' abundant species remained the same through the third monitoring season, and include
willow, box elder, tag alder, sweetgum, green ash, hackberry, cottonwood, and tulip
poplar. The estimated total stocking level across the site has increased from
3995 trees/acre in 2001 to 6951 trees/acre in the current year. Willows, box elder, tag
alder, green ash, and sweetgum account for approximately 71 percent of the total number
of stems surveyed. Establishment and success of planted seedlings in moist areas remains
' very good.
The survey data revealed a continued increase in the total number of stems of
' characteristic species between 2001 and 2002 (Table 5). Stem density of characteristic
species has increased nearly 20 percent over the past three years (2698 trees/acre in
2000, 3225 trees/acre in 2001, 3350 trees/acre in 2002). Notable is the overall increase
' in density of several hardwood species over the same period, including sycamore
(111 percent increase), green ash (103 percent increase), cottonwood (87 percent
' increase), American red maple (82 percent increase), willow oak (82 percent increase),
hackberry (81 percent increase), tulip poplar (70 percent increase), and sweet gum
(60 percent increse). There has been a slight to moderate increase in the density of most
' of the characteristic tree species over the previous year. Of the most abundant species,
only green ash had a significant decrease in density over the previous year (72 percent).
One characteristic species; cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), not previously found, was
detected in 2002. Water oak, was not detected for the second year, although it was found
in the first year.

11
26

1

co M O
cz
N
CC

G
r- a)
' O
?
{
L v
C
O O cz
N
O
' CC
2
O C
.? co _Cc$

co
_ i
c C (n
'
Eat

U) O O
N a

O
U

:•
tl) N

V•? 7 7 7 7 7 7' 7 7
R
R co
t
U
v
cc
R +
?: > j O > > +
dy
3 U U U a U U U U U U U -o
co U U U U U U U

a U

a U

a U

a U

a
a a a ? a a a a a a a a a a a a a
U- U- u. z U- U- U- U U- U- o U- u. U. U- U- U- U- U. lL I- L-
N
EC > °C 0C > a > °C OC a > °C a » > °? > >> > a: a: o?
a
8 a > a s a a > >
0
U
C Q s- V O N 0 0 0 0 (h O O N O O O O N 0 0 O O O N N
i H w V 0 0 0 6 6 0 (6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 c o
` Nv
a

V d y
d w V i O (D 0 0 0 N 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 (co (WO
co
Q N U
F
V
d
0

r

O

M
d p .
. 1 In Cl) M O) 0 0 0 @9 r r et M CA N r r r Cn f?
d C d Q r r O r 0 0 0 0 0 .4 0 0 0 r (o O O O O O c r
F-
d
?
co
0
'
?
r
?
N
O
N
co
'cr
co

t0A

N

d

0

M

N
Q
d)
E
((j
M
(o
O
I?
N
r
O
r
O
N
N
M
Co
'e
N
00
O
N
000
N
M
N M r r
,H

ay
G b O
G G
j v)
0 R
G :?-
Cl ?
to
m
O

E
O
y m
p C
O O

U
am O
V) G
m j A
` y
C
U
O1 C
L m
C
i j
'"
Z .

ns C

? C

2 O

c?

a t

., cc

c
O
E
i
0)
C
..
OY
o
>
4)
O
°
p
`
V p G i y ?II y
p
G
O
C, I
G
y v

C
a
C
O
h
t
=
0
y
Rf
_
.?
m
a
C
m
O a

•

?

R

?
E
?

?
3 6
c1
y V
Q U
Q V
Q '?
Q
Q
m
mm R{
U OS
U i
U m
U q?
U O
U _
O i
C'S m , ?
»
J
J ?
J
o a o v
Z °? Y z a 3 c y a L
G 0 N N t- y v o t C E o m ? ca
E
` Co CO 0) a
o O c
c a m
a o
° c m E a
i o ?e m )
U u) ._ E .. cr, L ._ 0 t .fl 0) .N L C 0) U to ..

t
U

H

O
co O
cm
cz
O

m O
O .
?
=
_
c2oa?
-0
0
G
U
C

Cl)
?t
-
' Cz
>
N
H

c _

Eat
E cm
N U

O
U

[1

N_ H
'-
m
•
?
? 7 7 7 7 T 7
R
CO)
L
U
'a
3
+. R
+
+
D + +
m y
3 U U U U Q Q U U U U --I Q U U U U U
LL LL LL LL z z LL LL LL LL D z LL LL U- LL LL
N
w
4D
E
U
CL
>
>
>
>
o.
>
>
CL
> cr
d
a:
(L
a
a
E > d > > d
O
U
?..- U N.L O
f: Q L N m o N
0 N
° o o o o co o o o r o o co O o
V O 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 6 0 L6 6 0 0 6 6 0
4) ( V
I-
m N
V d y
(D
Q
O
"t
"T
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
M
O
O
CA
0
0 4m
V i
?a cn?

L
m
m 0 a 4)

-

O

N

O

o

D

O

O

O

N

O

=
a T •- ri O C O O O O C O N
O
.
0
0
0
0
m
IL O
FL-
L i
0` a U
n
?
CA
O
O
M
r
O
N
N
Lo
.t
Lo r
a
4m
I Q r CO
N

m

N
_
I?

Lo

O

N

O

N

I-

O

-
T
r

r

N

CO

N

Cl) M
N co
M
J

.y 0
.? .ro ro
N F

$ C
a h
°
e
a ro
° C
v
0 o ro a

p
C
m y
p C
;0 ?
3 j
>; j
G 3
C 0
m 0
m 0
m U
N •=
p h
•k .
p
? b
> y
>
O
O
CE CE, C2 13Z d 8
,
(n L
m Y
co

Z

m *
*
a

L

L

:

° O

in

*

:

a>

v
3
cis
C •C N m m
U
7 Y
O ` U
O
Co
r) m
a c
ca O t
E
E -
O E
co C
p U
V °
m p m c O m U p 7
y

U a
-
L
O "
c

m c
s L

1

O
U w U 3 3 3 o c 3 3 ca 1
0
0
r
y
c
4f
CD
m
3
c?
t
3
m
m
c
N
m
U
m
C
a
m
c
c?
9-
c
O
c
cm
LO
m
3
O
Q
0
N
7
N y
C m N
m a ?
m E y
v 3 s
00
° aO ' <n
s L
3 O m
U
O
0 cc
V y
fY0 U
W O co
d N
O CO
w C ? ? d
U a C O t
c ?
L 'm0
E y m
O
O U C y
U O
co d U U
Oro" co
O ?
0(D?
L
?? m U m
L m C N w
d co a `p U
3 V =O C
a m
> QC m d
> U d c
a a
m y ?
c m 3 E O
R ? L m
0 •- O m O
II L U N Z
CL ULL M

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 5
Characteristic Tree Species
for Vegetation Success Criteria 2000-2002
Concord Mills Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site

Total Trees per Acre Trees per Acre Allowed to
Evaluate Success Criteria
Common Name Scientific Name 2000 2001 2002 2000 2001 2002
Willow Salix s pp. 795 1116 1111 32 32 32
Box Elder Acer ne undo 922 735 807 64 64 64
Sweet Gum Li uidamberst raciflua 434 442 520 64 64 64
Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 142 424 293 64 64 64
Hackber Celtis laevi ata 114 144 184 64 64 64
Cottonwood Po ulus deltoids 74 127 129 64 64 64
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 33 67 73 33 64 64
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tuli ifera 51 44 71 51 44 .64
Red Maple Acer rubrum 38 58 62 38 58 62
River Birch Betula ni ra 64 24 40 64 24 40
Willow Oak Quercus hellos 22 24 36 22 24 36
Cher bark Oak Quercus pagoda 0 0 17 0 0 17
American Elm Ulmus americana 7 11 5 7 11 5
Ironwood Ca inus caroliniana 0 9 2 0 9 2
Water Oak Quercus ni ra 2 0' 1 0 2 0 0
Total 2698 3225 3350 569 586 642
'Per the success criteria, the number of characteristic tree species elements must exceed 320 stems/acre.
However, the maximum number of stems allowed to fulfill success criteria is limited to 20% of the 320 stem/acre
total for each hardwood species (64 stems/acre maximum by species). For softwood species, the maximum
number of stems per/acre allowed is limited to 10% of the 320 stem/acre total (32 stems/acre by species).
Characteristic species include planted elements along with natural recruitment of native tree species identified in
reference ecosystems. Additionally, characteristic tree species should support a jurisdictional determination.
Swamp Cottonwood and Willow oak were not planted, nor found in reference forests, but are considered here as a
characteristic species.

4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
' Success in the restoration of wetland vegetation includes the establishment and
maintenance of a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination.
Additional success criteria include a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree
' species/acre surviving at least 5 years after initial planting. Characteristic species are
defined as 1) planted elements or 2) natural recruits of native tree species identified in
reference ecosystems. Additionally, characteristic tree species should support a
' jurisdictional determination, having a wetland indicator status of FAC, FAC+, FACW-,
FACW, FACW+, or OBL. At least five character tree species must be present, and no
' single species can comprise more than 20 percent (64 stems) of the 320 stem/acre total.
Softwood species (ex: loblolly pine, black willow) cannot comprise more than 10 percent
(32 stems) of the 320 stem/acre requirement. Table 4 depicts the number of trees/acre by
' species that can be applied to the 320-stem/acre criterion for the three monitoring years
(2001-3). The 642 trees/acre total in 2002 exceeds the 320-stem/acre requirement stated
in the monitoring plan. In addition, the 15 characteristic wetland species sampled exceeds
' the 5-species minimum diversity stated in the monitoring plan. Therefore, current stocking
levels meet the vegetation success criteria.

I I

H

' ?n

5.0 SUMMARY
' The Year 3 AMR (2002) data indicate that the Concord Mills mitigation site achieved
regulatory success criteria for stream geometry, wetland hydrology, and vegetation three
' years after construction. Functional attributes exhibited on-Site include long-term surface
water storage, energy dissipation, retention of nutrients and particulates, and the
establishment of characteristic stream and wetland plant and wildlife populations. A
majority of the Site appears to support hydroperiods and successional vegetation patterns
conducive to establishment of forested wetland habitat.
' The data also indicate that current Site conditions continue to meet or exceed the
mitigation requirements for both stream length and wetland area, as projected by the
' mitigation plan. The Concord Mills project initially required compensatory mitigation for
impacts to 1796 linear feet of stream channel, 2.5 acres of wetlands, and 0.6 acre of open
water. The mitigation plan outlined strategies designed to compensate for these stream,
' wetland, and open water impacts included stream reconstruction and restoration along
approximately 3000 linear feet, 3.0 acres of net wetland restoration/creation, and 5.4
acres of wetland enhancement within remaining portions of the Site.
' The as-built stream channel is exhibiting a transition from the proposed C-type stream to a
highly stable, E-type stream. Mid-evolutionary channel features include a significant
decrease in cross-sectional area, increase in width-depth ratios, decrease in depth,
accreting point bars (narrowing pools), and to a lesser extent side channel bars. The
' transition from the proposed C-type to an E-type stream will ultimately deliver a very stable
condition that should not jeopardize success criteria. Approximately 4000 linear feet of
total stream length has been constructed including approximately 2100 linear feet of new
stream channel construction, 375 linear feet of stream repair and stabilization, and 1200
linear feet of stream length running through the oxbow to the confluence of the Rocky
River.
The groundwater gauge data indicate that wetland hydrology success criteria have been
achieved. Currently, approximately 13.9 acres of succeeding forest wetlands and an
' additional 1.3 acres of oxbow marsh and deep water wetland habitat occur on the Site.
This represents nearly 4.5 acres of net vegetated wetland restoration gain over the pre-
restoration conditions.
Year 3 vegetation surveys continue to reflect conditions typical of early successional forest
' development on disturbed floodplains in the Piedmont. The floodplain surface consists
primarily of an unconsolidated clay sediment wedge induced during past erosion events in
the watershed. Therefore, -early to mid-successional forest conditions must include tree
' species adapted to degraded soil conditions, such as black willow, sweetgum, red maple,
swamp cottonwood, green ash, and river birch. After soil properties have been
ameliorated by these early pioneering species, mast producing species such as oak and
' hickory are expected to become established in sufficient quantity to develop into a
characteristic floodplain bottomland hardwood assemblage. The variable hydrologic regime
found across the Site will promote diverse wetland community patterns and will
' consequently enhance opportunities for wetland-dependent wildlife.
31

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Monitoring Plan
' Appendix B: Post Restoration Photographs
Appendix C: Biological Monitoring Data
Appendix D: Channel Profile and Substrate Data
' Appendix E: Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs
Appendix F: Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix G: Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots

1

I?
0

32

7,
u
' APPENDIX A
Monitoring Plan

6.0 MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring of wetland and stream restoration efforts will be performed until success
' criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for three wetland components, vegetation,
hydrology, and streams.
6.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
While hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells
' will be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers', Installing Monitoring We//s/Piezometers in Wet/ands (WRP Technical Note HY-
IA-3.1, August 1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth immediately above the top
of the clay subsurface layer (range: 60 to 100 cm [24 to 40 in] below the surface).
Nine monitoring wells will be placed immediately adjacent to vegetation sampling plots to
provide representative coverage within each of the identified mitigation design units (Figure
21). Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (EPA 1990).
6.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent
' of the growing season at lower landscape positions, during average climatic conditions.
Upper landscape reaches may exhibit surface saturation/inundation between 5 and 12.5
percent of the growing season based on well data. These 5 to12.5 percent areas are
' expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as
indicated by vegetation and hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed in the questionable area.
6.3 STREAM MONITORING
Two stream reaches will be monitored for geometric and biological activity as depicted in
' Figure 21. Each stream reach will extend for a minimum of 150 ft along the restored
channel. Annual fall monitoring will include development of a channel plan view, channel
cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the
' channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented
will include: 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) max depth, 5)
' width/depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt width, 8) water surface slope; 9)
sinuosity; and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream will subsequently be
classified according to stream geometry and substrate. Significant changes in channel
' morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring
year.
Aquatic surveys will be performed within the existing stream channel prior to diversion of
stream flows. Subsequently, biological monitoring, including macro-invertebrate, reptile,
amphibian, and fish species will be performed along the reconstructed stream in year 3 and
' year 5 of the monitoring plan. Biological data will be collected between March 15 and
April 15. Presence/absence of species populations identified will be reported along with
' observations of changes to in-stream aquatic habitat over time.

J

u

F

6.4 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) successful classification of the reach
as a functioning stream system; 2) channel stability indicative of a stable stream system;
and 3) development of biological communities over time.
The channel configuration will be compared on an annual basis to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate. This data will be utilized to determine the success in
restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width/depth ratio will remain at or
below a value of 20 in each monitoring year. In addition, the maximum depth of the
channel must not exceed 4.0 feet relative to the adjacent floodplain. Modifications to the
channel will performed to increase or decrease the sediment transport capacity, or other
unstable attribute, as needed. If the stream channel is down-cutting or the channel width
is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank or slope stabilization methods will be
employed.
Biological monitoring will indicate an increase in species diversity over time. Specifically,
the number of species identified in the existing channel must be exceeded in year 3 and
year 5 of the monitoring program. If biological success criteria are not being fulfilled, the
most likely cause will comprise extensive sedimentation which covers coarse substrates in
the channel. If aquatic species diversity is not increasing, additional modifications to
channel substrates will be performed and upstream sources of sedimentation will be
identified.
The Site may contain a historic alluvial fan than develops due to backwater conditions
' during significant Rocky River floods. If such a flood event occurs, and an alluvial fan
develops, central portions of the Site which are contained under the fan will be deemed to
have fulfilled stream success criteria. However, remaining stream reaches outside of the
fan will continue to be subject to monitoring and success criteria as described above.
' 6.5 VEGETATION MONITORING
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and
' USACE Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion
of the restoration monitoring program is provided.
' After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and
density. Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if
' necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis
' to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species.
Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1
' and October 30 after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.

' During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, 9 sample plots will be
randomly placed within each mitigation design unit (Figure 21). Sample plot distributions
will be correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on
' hydrological and vegetation parameters. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be
monitored include species composition and species density. Visual observations of the
' percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
6.6 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
' Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional
success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest
' species. Specifically, a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre
must be surviving for at least 5 years after initial planting. At least five characteristic tree
species must be present, and no species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320
' stem/acre total. Characteristic species are defined as 1) planted elements or 2) natural
recruits of native tree species identified in reference ecosystems (Section 4.3).
Additionally, characteristic tree species should support a jurisdictional determination, and
therefore have a wetland status of FAC, FAC + , FACW-, FACW, FACW +, or OBL.
Supplemental planting will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation success
' criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
' vegetation success criteria. Development of bottomland forests over several decades and
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired
wetland understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover of
herbaceous species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
6.7 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation, hydrology, or stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a
mechanism for contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting
' and extended monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not
fulfill minimum species density and distribution requirements.
' Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory
agencies if wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved. Wetland surface modification,
including construction of ephemeral pools, represents a likely mechanism to increase the
' floodplain area that supports jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to
establish wetland hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology
Success Criteria are achieved.
' Stream reconstruction failure may occur due to increased sediment and discharge during
construction activities within the upper watershed. Stream contingency will likely include
' identification and modification of upstream discharge outlets or sediment sources,
additional stabilization of stream banks, and re-establishment of stream substrates required

' to support target aquatic communities. Recommendations for stream contingency will also
be solicited, implemented, and monitored until the Stream Success Criteria are achieved.

H

77

0
0

0

APPENDIX B
Post Restoration Photographs

i
'O
VJ
O
O
.a
L
A?
W
MO
W
2
Q
E
0
W
CD
w
N
O
O
N
R
LL.
a7
3
O
L
.t.
w+
O
O
O
N
a)
a)
_O
L
W
E
O
^O
i
CL

r P _
¢l

t

f
4
? yy

?
7? n
xa,

O
O
O
N
U)
O
O
O
N_
r
L
V
3
^N
Y
O
U
! T
I
?.
# L
rr a,,:

a

r
O
O
Nee
\V
LL
O
O
O
N
L
C
N
11
F
N
u
u
w
N
T
11

I
H

I
I
1

N
O
O
N
t6
LL
i
m
w
I
N
O
O
N
M
LL
O
O
O
N
C
L
N
O
O
O
N_
O
O
r
4
r
C

?R
?"
4w

? 3t "Y l?ilA ? '.l,

,
f d ?
N
fi
a f,

. ` t

O
O
N
6.L
O
O
O
N
L
E
7
cn

i

J

N
O
O
N
m
LL
L
uj

c
0
C
Q.
0
0
w
r_
4)
V
M
Y
T?
V
A?
W
N
L
d
C?
C
U
3
0
0
0
t
a
0
x
O
c
c
0
m
w.+
a)
0)
a)
d-.
tII
..C
L
7
Q
O

we -

a)
cu
C
0
C
0
(D
0)
Q?
0)
C
(D
L
Q?
O
m
L
0
0
70
L
cu
0
U)
Q?
U
U
L
(6
w

a?
c
c
cu
U
C
O
L
r?
L
cu
C
C
N
N
C
co
O
M
0)
O
A
C
N

J

APPENDIX C
Biological Monitoring Data

THIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, JUNE 1999.
' TABLE 1. BEN
SPECIES T.V.- F.F.G."** 98-007#1 FM 98-007 #2 FM TOTAL
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaedidae 6.48 FC 130 130
Pisidium sp.
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae 8.84 CG 270 1 271
Physella sp.
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Haplotaxida 40 40
Lumbricidae
Naididae 8 350 350
Nais sp. .88 CG 7.11 CG 120 170 290 Tubificidae w.o.h.c. 9.47 CG 120 60 180
Limnodrilus hoffineisteri
Lumbriculida
Lumbdculidae 10 10
Lumbriculus sp. 7.03 CG
Hirudinea
Arhynchobdellida *8 P 3 3
Erpobdellidae
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea 10 10
Acariformes
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Candoniidae 1 1
Candona sp.
Decapoda
Cambaddae 1 1
Cambarus sp. 7.62 CG 8 8
Procambarus sp. 9.49 SH 6
cf. acutus 9.49 SH 6
Procambarus (O.)
Insecta
Collembola 10 10
Isotomidae
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae 10 10
Acentrella ampla 3.61 CG
Odonata
Cordulegastridae 3 3
Cordulegaster maculata 5.7 P
Gomphidae 1 1
Gomphus pallidus 5.8 P 15 15
Progomphus obscures 8.22 P 1 1
Stylogomphus albistylus 4.72 P
Hemiptera
,. ECOSCIENCE6999 6/9199
1. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, JUNE 1999.
TABLE
SPECIES T.V.*' F.F.G.**' 98-007 #1 FM 98-007 #2 FM TOTAL
1 1
Veliidae
Trichoptera
10 10
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 FC
Coleoptera
Haliplidae 8.73 SH 10 10
Peltodytes sp.
Diptera
Ceratopo9onidae
Be&a1Pa1p0myia 9P. 6.86 P 41 160 2 41
1
Chironomidae 40 *6 CG 280 280
Chaetocladius sp. 122 5047
Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 1925 312
Conchape 910
topis sp. 8.42 P 270 640 8.54 CG 270 4613 4883
^• CricotOpus bicinctus 6.38 P 140 140
Cryptochironomus fulvus 5.89 CG 140 140
Odontomesa fulva 7.28 CG 30 30
Rheocficotopus robacki 5.89 FC 30 30
Rheotanytarsus sp. 6 76 FC 50 140 190
Tanytarsus sp.
Muscidae 30 30
Limnophora sp. 8.4 P
Psychodidae 10 10
Psychoda sp. 9.64 CG
Simuliidae 4 FC 130 60 190
Simulium sp.
Tabanidae 20 20
Chrysops sp. 6.73 PI 10
Tipulidae 10 30 10 40
Ofmosia sp. 6.27 CG 30 40
7.33 SH 10
Tipula sp.
****CHORDATA
Amphibia 1 1
Caudata
3569 10023 13592
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 26 25 80
TOTAL NO* OF TA :A
•HilsenhoffTolerance Values used when North Carolina Tolerance Values not available.
**North Carolina Tolerance Values range from 0 for organisms
very intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes.
***F.F.G: Functional Feeding Group: SH=Shredder, CG=Collector/Gatherer, FC=Filtering Collector, SC=Scraper,
P=Predator and PI=Piercer
""Not included in analysis.
/99
FCOSCIENCE6999 6/9
ENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, ECOSCIENCE, JULY 24,2001.
B
T.V. F.F.G. Mill Run Concord
SPECIES Ref. Mill
i
MOLLUSCA
Bivaivia
Veneroida
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea 6.12 FC 1
u31
a
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Ephemerellidae
Eurylophella sp.
Heptageniidae
Stenonema modestum
Tricorythidae
Tricorythodes sp.
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx sp.
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster sp.
Gomphidae
Lanthus sp.
Ophiogomphus sp.
Hemiptera
Veliidae
Rhagovelia obesa
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia fasciatus
Nigronia serricornis
Sialidae
Sialis sp.
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp.
Hydropsyche betteni gp.
Philopotamidae
Chimarra aterrima
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus sp.
Coieoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus lithophilus
Haliplidae
8.84 CG
*1.
4.34
*4
5.5
*4
5.06
*3
5.89
*5
7.78
*3
5.73
*1
1.77
5.54
*0
5.55
4.95
*4
7.17
*4
6.22
7.78
*3
2.76
*6
3.53
*5
4.63
SC
SC
SC
SC
CG
CG
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
FC
SC
1
1
106
4
4
92
3 1
10
5
2
1
1
10
12
9
5
3
3
86
1
4
2
4
y
b
Ivy

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, ECOSCIENCE, JULY 24,2001.

T.V. F.F.G. Mill Run Concord
SPECIES Ref. Mill

Peltod es sp.
yt
8.73
SH
7
Hydrophilidae
Hydrochara ap.
CG
3
Psephenidae *4 SC
Ectopria sp.
Ptilodactylidae 4.16 SC
SH 1
Anchytarsus bicolor 3.64 SH 39
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7,19 P 4
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 CG 1
Krenopelopia sp. 8.42 P 5
Polypedilum halterale 7.31 SH 1
Polypedilum dlinoense 9 SH 1 1
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 1
Thlenemannimyia gp. 8.42 P 5 1
Tribe/os sp. 6.31 CG 6
Dixidae CG
Dixa sp. 2.55 CG 5
Dixella sp. CG 2
Ephydridae *8 PI 3
Tipulidae *3 SH
Pseudolimnophila sp. 7.22 P 5

TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
TOTAL NO
OF SPECI 333 129
.
ES 27 16

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CONCORD MILLS RESTORATION SITE
AU

2002. ,
GUST
'
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.*** Reference
Mitigation
Site Site

MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
' Sphaeriidae *8 FC
Pisidium sp. 6.48 FC 7
Gastropoda
Mesogastropoda
Pleuroceridae
' Elimia sp.
Basommatophora 2.46 SC 3
Lymnaeidae SC

' Fossaria sp.
Physidae *7 SC 1
Physella sp. 8.84 CG 10 18
ANNELIDA
' Oligochaeta *10 CG
Haplotaxida
Lumbricidae CG 5 1
Hirudinea *8 P
' Glossiphoniidae *8 P
Helobdella triserialis *6 P 1
ARTHROPODA
' Crustacea
Decapoda
' Cambaridae
Palaemonidae 1 3
Palaemonetes kadiakensis 7.1 CG 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis sp. *4 CG 4 12 y ?Pe'` , rzi>
' Ca//ibaetis sp. 9.84 CG 1
Centroptilum sp. 6.66 CG 1
Caenidae *7 CG
Caenis sp. 7.41 CG 1 7
' Heptageniidae *4 SC
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC 40
' Odonata
Aeshnidae
*3
p
Boyeria vinosa 5.89 P 3 1
Calopterygidae *5 P
' Calopteryx sp. 7.78 P 16
Coenagrionidae *9 P
Argia sp. 8.17 P 4
' Enallagma sp. 8.91 p 2
Cord u legastridae *3 P
Cordulegaster sp. 5.73 P 2
' Gomphidae *1 P 2 11
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 5 1
Pennin
t
d A
i
g
on an
ssoc
ates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 eciscienceconcordmills.xls 8/26/2002
-10
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CONCORD MILLS RESTORATION SITE, AUGUST
2002.
'
SPECIES T.V.** F.F.G.***
Reference
Mitigation
' Site Site
Ophiogomphus sp. 1
Stylogomphus albisty/us 4.72 P 1
' Libellulidae *9 P 5
Hemiptera
Veliidae - P 5
' Rhagovelia obesa - P 1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC 2
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 FC 8 4
' Diplectrona modesta 2.21 FC 4
Hydropsyche sp. *5 FC 7
Hydropsyche betteni gp. 7.78 FC 4 5
' Philopotamidae *3 FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.76 FC 18 2
Uenoidae
' Neophylax sp. 2.2 SC 5
Coleoptera
Curculionidae 1
' Dryopidae *5
Helichus basa/is 4.63 SC 2
Dytiscidae *5 P 1
Elmidae *5 CG
' Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 5 2
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp. 8.73 SH 33
' Hydrophilidae P 1
Psephenidae *4 SC 1
' Diptera
Chironomidae
1
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.19 P 1
Clinotanypus pinguis 8.74 P 1
' Cryptochironomus fulvus 6.38 P 1
Dicrotendipes sp. 8.1 CG 1
Microtendipes sp. 5.53 CG 1
Paratendipes sp. 5.11 CG 2
' Polypedilum illinoense 9 SH 1
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.89 FC 1 1
Tribelos sp. 6.31 CG 4 11
' Xylotopus par 5.99 SH 2
Culicidae *8 FC
Anopheles sp. 8.58 FC 1
' Tipulidae *3 SH
Dicranota sp. 0 P 2
Pilana sp. 1
' Tipula sp. 7.33 SH 6 3
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 177 148
' TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 37 32
'
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of s eciscienceconcordmills. As 8/26/2002

1

C

H

3/01 Revision 6
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 the 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.
SDcIfN ?
Stream Location/road: (Road Name ) County IAA W
Date 76910-1, CC# Basin ?/ Subbasin4l ir?'s??:ll '4ble?l?
Observer(s) - M0,06f Type of Study: ? Fish ltenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? MT ZP ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature 93- °C DO H-? mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) 4No µmhos/cm pH 8-61
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 16 %Forest %Residential Y3 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields - -% Commercial %Industrial SO %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : IJ'Forest ?Agriculture ZUrban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 3-5717 Channel (at top of bank) 7TT Stream Depth: (m) Avg lbll Max 0271y9
? Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) 36 in
Bank Angle: /-ID ° 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 ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
®Recent overbank deposits 013ar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth VrHeavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
' Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal ZLow
Turbidity: R(Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
' Weather Conditions: 5UA)'& Photos: ;2N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks.At3
I

41

' I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................... 5:=
..........
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
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
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
' Remarks I,; L, ` Subtotal .
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 f Macrophytes i± Sticks and leafpacks r- 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 0,61 12 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
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal UP
' III. 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 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% ......................................................................................................... (f
3. embeddedness 40-80% ........................................................................................................ 6
4. embeddedness >80%.... ........................................................................................................ 2
' C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
' D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
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 high gradient streams.
' A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% 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 ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools same size ...................................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
' Subtotal
Ej Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ? Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ?' Some pools over wader depth
43
O Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
' 45
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE _T6__

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ PJ
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. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ?
Diagram to determine bank angle:
L4t.?j I7
90° 45° 135°
Site Sketch:
Y4

1'
L, p

.t

I
Other comments:
I

I

JN
-?w
46

' APPENDIX D
Channel Profile

?\
O
N
N
0
0.
CD
O
c
O
U
co
C
O ? >
N N
N
O W
L
W
cn co
O O O
??
?wco
t i
J `? V i
4
aY
a?
Q

m m m co
(1991) uOIJeA919
00
O
LO
N
O
N
N
O° N
Ir-
c
_co
L
O
O ?
O
LO
O
?4'

elevation (feet)
co co co cfl co cfl co co co co o
o ? rv w -D6 cn m --4 oo co 0
O
m
O
O
O
O
s N
CD O
? O
N
iU C3i
? O.
0
CD
? W
p O
CD O
O
O
O
-p
(31
O
O
0
U) CO

=3 :3 :3
... ... `.

CI) Cl) cf)
0 00
<
:3 ? CL
X CD
CD

.- m CD

.CD. CD 0)

< ? Q
'
?
. o

0
O

n
O
C
CL

CD
iU -?
O
n h
::r CD
N
O
O
N

elevation (feet)
? cn rn v oo co o
0
cn
0
0
0
0
C)
cu
N
c
C)
S?
n
CD
? N
tD ?
CD O
r-f
w
0
0
w
CA
0
.p
0
0
O
n-
O
-I
rCL
o ?
0.
='
n •
=r (D
N
0
0
N

1

APPENDIX E
Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs

N
' O
O
N
N

N

i
V

O
v
1

n
>N
(ui) yjdaa as}eM
0
7
O 0 N M "T O CO N M? O NT M N O O d' W N O O
d CO M N N N - - ' ' -- N N N M M d'

u
11

u

C

0
N
O
O
N
0
N
L
V
U
N
O CO N M V O CO Nco O ?t 00 N ID O d m N CO O
M M N N N- ?- r N N N M M ?1
(u!) uldaa aaleM
O

N
O
O
N
0
L
0
V
0
V
0
?N x N O 0 N x 1* O oo N CO O oo N 0 O
r' r- N N N M M?
(u!) ujdaa jajeM

11

C

i

N
O
O
N
0
d
N
L
V
0
V
>N
0

O 0 N 00 ? O CO N 00 'IT O IT CO N CO O d' w N CO O
CO CO N N N ? ? e- r N N N CO M 'If
(u!) ujdaa aolaM
1

u

I

L

I

N
N
zi
d
N
L
V
0
V
>N
0
11
O CO N mI:T O m N w It O V w N c0 O d w N 0 O
M CO N N N N N N M M cr
(U!) ujdaa JalaM

0

n

I_

7
N
O
O
N
N
L
V
V
N
0

O 0 N w V O 0 N CO d' O T w N 0 Ol;T w N 0 O
't CO M N N N •- ? - I N N N c? C? d
(u!) uldaa aolem

i

0

L

1
n
N
O
O
N

N
L
V
U
ti
(ui) yldaa aaleM
0

O CD N w d' O m N m? O V m N cD O ?f w N 0 O
,;?t M CO N N N ? ? ' ' '17 ? N N N M C? V

1
1

N
1 O
O
' N
N

N

L
V

1
U
'

H

(ui) yldaa aajeM
0

O CO N m T O 0 N m d O ?T m N M O d' m N CO O
I' M M N N N ?- r r r N N N M M

1

' N
' O
O
' N
N

y

V
? O
U

L
rn
a?
I-a
0

O (O N m O (O N w 'It O It w N 0 O ? w N O O
(u!) uldaa jajeM

APPENDIX F
Vegetation Plot Data
k
CL
a
0)
U
N
t1
in
c
li
2
:r
°o
O M
U
C X
O co
U
°
0
CD co CD
CD r- V' co ?fl- CO e- N
M N
I;r co N
CQ
H
i
f
i
i
C
t
C
t
t

M
f
t
t
t
C
C
C
P
0
4
t ?
? C
= e
c
e
e
t
C
e
G
G
u
e
0
C
e
(n

N
N
N M LO
r O
r ? M
i? N ?

1, N 'q* C14
LO (°
I- N M IT N
00 CO M ?- N N N N ce)

N a1 M N M N M r
r- , Cl)

N
N
N
00
N
ti

N N
r
CO 0) 00 N
r- r 00 It
r
N N i-
M fQ
7 U
N ? w •C
O U N C
w is co f0 to > N
to C N N 7 M .C ?o 0 (n co
-0 'a
O Y y N C C () o c E o rn
m° rn> o Q m m m-.0 m 23 E -a tz E a m
a) •_ N fA co 0 (A E U to .n N fCf 0 rn rn O
M a)
7 N 7
-2 :3 7 f0 to fn 7 to >,
-0 C N N '0 N" 7 (n a C: m X X N '° C C 7 7 7 •C C O-
(D -0
(°) ° a m :3 a m m2 is 2 2° E E o? o a°
QQQmU ao0? (ninQJaMQ>>(L LL UOo
O Y
N ?. >i 3 N "a ° C
m a° L° Y o
r cQ Y° -° E m° a> E
` Q 0 - L L a a? a o m E
E a ) 0 ° 3 3 a? U m'D ° c m° 0 E
-a 5- F Q)
D ku Y d M O U (6 U N U (D ai L •iA
m CU 77 a) 5:
.i
o c
,O
Q
a
U)
N
U
O
Q
a
C
O
S
O
U
C
U
<4 N
?t O (O O 'IT O O V N
00
H T ?
M
O
N
co
cm
F.
N
I-- qr CD O
zo
N
;h -
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
O
N
00 ?-
T
T
tD
T
T
T
T
? N
T ?
T
O N .-
C1 ?
CO co co N ?-
I- T r
co N N N
CO N M CO N N <- N N of ?-
M M (O d) ( N C N co V co
CO HN U') CO N N N N
co c0
U O O
C .'? N c0
U
m 70- C:
> N (L6 Q - c0
N N O f0 .C
L a) ;n m L ?_ cv U >
o> a .o ° a m co m i O v)
a) :3 E -0 w CU CY) 'E 'n V) 0
c N m n c o E n x m o a
L L ` ++ X 7 '? O Q N N _X -3
N O N
U U C co O N Q1 D- L O ? O O m U 7 (6 O
Q Q Q U U LL J J _.I a. Gcj? Q? (n m CJ d ?
Y
_ W
O N O
O p O 3: C
N L U `. L E E 0ca O O
N O a N L (Q O 0 U
O O 0 O 0 0 E O E
N AD O O a c = -II § E O E E
E 76
0 Q X -o cm !E °' ti . v O R? j O
X, rn On . ' n .m C ) .. tOi F- 5 n -- C in 0-
O
N
I?
N
U
O
Q
N
Q
C
O
O
U
C
O
' U
R
0
t
O
M
O
N
zo
N
N
<D
N
Ln
N
V
N
M
N
N
N
N
O
N
co
V-
r
zD
V-
r
N
r
r
r
O
r
O
O
F-
(D
N
M
N
r
6
r T LO CO N (O r r
N
O)

N
N
C
r
?- 00
N
N
M
O ti r
N r
N
r
N (D
co N M N
M r r N r
r r M M r r
N
U
C
cu (0
c
'
T C
C () C
0) O
7
a) a) ?O 7 > C E O
fl. O
O 0 `
(D N co 7
O
m ` O:
0 (0
C N O
`
Q C C
X •- j
U N
LL :D D Q 0 (n Q Q a'
E

U) C E O o a) L
E

n N c rn rn m X n m
Q 0 N N O N O M "T N In O r (O 0

O N
M
O)
N
00
N
F.
N
iD
N
En
N

N
N

fV r r
N
r
N
O r M
N
00
r N LO r
?
r r
<D
r
(n
r M r r
L ? a--

_ M

N
r r ?
r
r L r
O
r ti Lo N
C14 N M Uf r
pp C14 N M r r
F- 'IT
ZD 00 N I r
C r N N N
N M (14 O
r
M N N (O O) IT C14
fV 00 N (D N N r r r ?- r r
r N? r r N OD
(0 (0
U 7
C v= ` N
(0
M U Q? ?p C
jT cn fl' C N C E C

U) m Cc
E 21
0
-0 co m ci
O N co U
N
>o ?o0
) E a ,?
c E= ELo 2
m o
a)
N 3 E (6 C 7 •? (0
a)
rn (0 E
rn N 5, 7
_
c V) a a
U C O ?'C O (4 E E In
O
O O U
0
QQUtlJJJQ a-U) of o<
0
IN
y U
Io n
a
O
a) E w ?
> L a 3 E a) E a) C
>1
?

O-

E Q

0 =0 75
0

C

U O a
L
-
`m U)
w 0) o o ? o c- E m
, E ..
c ° o _
5 ` l
o) - c
o E E Z
m
O
Q
O
•U
O
Q
N
Q
O
cu
N
O
U
C
O
' U
O
0
M
01
N
00
N
F-
N
tD
N
N
cm
N
M
N
N
N
N
O
N
co
r
r
r
O
r
4? :;t
? r
= r
N
V-
r
r
O
r
01
co
F
tc
O
d'
M
N
r
V 0? N ONO N V, N O- r- C4 O M N V' CEO OD O. CO
N

Cl)
O
N r- O)
Cl) (O O N
M (O
M r r r r N .- r M (O N
(0 IT Cl) O O ?- 00 co N
O 'a• N
O r V M N - N
O N M
N .- r
m
? O ?
O
(? w C C m E
E
C m >
m
m 0 T O
(A ++ z C -00 U)
Q)
N -
p 0
C O m? N
O C
Y
O
N cB C U 8
> C O C
N E C .O O- d
C` N E O
cn -0 -
N - p Q` Q> c' N (D

t9
O
E a)
0 C
W
7
N C
C N 'd >+ ` (9
O- 7 C C C 0
(` p
N X X O X
Co
L O O
U C N O U)
O X O
L N- O .a
D
N O lD f6 C •-

(O
QQmQ. Ja _
o>Q U LLQ GUCl(? >Q' uJ
Y
(0
O 3
L O
?. E 2 O
m
'0 L O Y T
N O Y ?
(0 - 0 O

.
- p ?
N o o a p v M p n 3 ?
. E c C
O T 1 X rn 0 m Q U `N- m N 'O p m 2 M p (
O
Q.
A
U
O
Q
N
C
O
m
a
O
U
C
O
,U
O
I-
t I d'
z?
N
r
IN
? cv
r+ U
O10-
o
O)
C14
O) N r N r V d ?-
CO N C) r r r r r M I-- M r r LO
?- r co
r
M

co Cl)
r CO tf) r M
r I? r
r
r Lo
r r
In r

r
r
0)
L(') r
r
O) U) QD
? ? r r I? r
N m o) r'IT L r 0)
r (p r
N V' N r r co O
r

M -T r CO
(0 N (O r
M r N O
r
N

r N N
r ?- r N r
N r M
N

N M N +- co r N Ln M r co
N M
N N C N M r N
01 N
C O U N
f0
• Co to
c O (0 w. 4? .5 C
C U N N
C
(0
O O r f0 N p.. > E C •O
A
E C m C
75 c
w
'
co
E f
0
7
'o '
N v'
C C ca p)
p
ca E 16
0
E
C 75 E2

U
0
`? a s 2

m 16 cm

•? E 5 °
o N m m
? rn
?
L? N (n f0
. 7 E C N (n n m a t6 a) N O` N to
Co N O to m

N N
C f6 N +• 3(n
O
C
'C N
C N O
L C i
to
N N N N 7 0 7
C a p_ In 'v m .
E
•C 7 7 0 0 x 7 0 7
•X E m O m fl-
E= ++ N L N
U U U L C m N 0
_
LM LEY- 'C C l0 (0 0 p N f0 O_ 0 7
Q Q Q Q Q CO CO U U p
LL a C1
J J J? co 5 7 U U d' I C Y
l0 (6 p
O N O
y 0
a) V; 0 a) L :3 0)
(6 O N L a U Q E O Q N

N
'- N
O N
?

E

` Y

E
? °
ca
? o
p
T E
(D Z U3 CM a> m
v
p
a
£

.n O
_
(0 N E _
O (D C
C 3: a) Y C N O C
U Y L
U
' Y Y
U
U C 1C m •fn Y y
U
0) x 'D 9 cm p j C C to
n m a' Q
t - t'
m o C
•c (p U
(9 U
T `
O 2 L
r
1
1
APPENDIX G
Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots

f ..?r.
:,,{`

i
e .lsy
Ott

r`#

lot
? Z {

? ire
T
S' ?i .a z v

Y JI s ? I
f.
,r. t. ? ? f t/ l? ? i '"+. °i 1 ? ...E ti ? ? : 1 , • S f .
l t •? S

?
'4!`.
'. \ a ??.. "'?' e `ws
s " # ,•", ?
?'
+m ..
?
?
a?
yb?
. ?
?
?
•
'b ??
?..
# ?
-s`?
? Fg,
'
} rst
{r, 4+N
i
j?
' i
y'?" ..
???.
'4
R??? .
"'
? ol
F`J?FMZ' ? De ?,y
? y+,p
?
+S.

M1 Y ^w ?( 11 ,yam .?4 _

yyY }T .A

?j
ri

_ 1
1101 Haynes Street Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoScience
April 14, 2003
Steve Chapin
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Grove Arcade Building, Room 75
37 Battery Park Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
[phone]
.) 9ti?s
11%, ;P
?sF
Re: Year 3 (Year 2002) Monitoring Report - Concord Mills Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID 199830189
Dear Steve:
On behalf of The Mills Corporation, EcoScience Corporation has completed the third year
monitoring report on the Concord Mills mitigation site located at the Concord Regional Airport
in Cabarrus County. One copy of the document is enclosed for your use. We will forward a
copy of the document to John Dorney of the N.C. Division of Water Quality for Section 401
review.
In summary, the mitigation site met success criteria as stipulated in the mitigation plan and
approved as part of your Section 404 and 401 permits for the mall project. We are continuing
with monitoring in 2003 (Year 4).
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Jens Geratz or Jerry McCrain at ESC.
Sincerely,
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
4 r4
Je Geratz
Senior Scientist
cc: John Dorney, N.C. Division of Water Quality (1 copy)
5
GP
\N A TFA
June 14, 2004
Jens Gertz; EcoScience, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101; Raleigh, NC 27604
Larry Eaton
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
Concord Mills Limited Partnership
1300 Wilson Blvd.
Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22209
Dear Sirs;
RE: Annual Monitoring Report - Concord Mills mall
Wetland and Stream Mitigation
p
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ # 97-1120
Cabarrus County
DWQ staff have reviewed the Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4) for the Concord Mills Wetland
and Stream Restoration, Cabarrus County (DWQ # 97-1120). Based on our review of this plan, we believe
that the wetland mitigation effort to date has been successful although we look forward to reviewing the
monitoring plan for next year. The stream mitigation effort appears to be acceptable as well; however, we
are concerned that the channel appears to be adjusting into a stable "E" channel rather than the "C"
channel that it was designed to be. As long as the channel continues to be stable and show biological
viability, DWQ believes that this mitigation will be deemed to be acceptable to DWQ. In this regard, we
look forward to reviewing next year's monitoring report. In that regard, we believe that a Qual 4 collection
method should be done for the next macrobenthos analysis so it is more directly comparable to the pre-
disturbance data. Please contact Larry Eaton at 919-715-3471 if you have questions in this regard.
If you have any questions, please call me at 919-733-9646.
fSArmyCorp rney
Cc: Steve Chapin, Asheville Field iof gineers
File copy
Central files
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
247%,
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
June 3, 2004
Memorandum
To: John Dorney
From: Lawrence Eaton
?Jfilf Aprt/?

Subject: Comments on Concord Mills Wetland and Stream Restoration Annual Monitoring
Report (year 4), Cabarrus County NC (DWQ # 97-1120)
Trying to assess whether or not this stream has "recovered", has become more of a semantic
exercise, than a water quality assessment. The report says" Success criteria for stream
restoration will include: 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system;
2) channel stability indicative of a stable stream system and 3) development of biological
communities over time."
The stream was originally built to be a C channel, however the report finds that the increased
sedimentation and silting in of pools is making the stream into an E channel. The implication is ?I
that the stream has not yet stabilized and will not stabilize into the designed stream. While El E t?
channels are stable, this is not what they designed and the increased sediment continues to
depress the macroinvertebrate population. Based on items 1 and 2, the stream cannot yet beZ t5 b
classified a success using Concord Mills' definition, with the possible exception of item 3.
Regarding item 3, almost any body of water, outside of a bucket or oil or acid, will develop some
biological community, given enough time. What would be more appropriate would be the
statement "development of a reasonably healthy biological community relative to other streams of
a similar size and location." Dave proposed to define this in his 2003 Stream Restoration report
to EPA as "if comparisons between pre- and post-construction investigations within restored
channels are done, biological success is defined as having at least a 25% increases in taxa
richness of EPT or 25% increase in the abundance of intolerant taxa (as defined by having a NC
Biotic Index value of 3.50 or less), or a decrease in the NC Biotic Index value of one pollution
category (excellent, good, good-fair, fair or poor) during gny post-construction survey". While this
would be easy to measure if Concord Mills had used the same methods in pre and post
construction sampling, they did not. During preconstruction sampling a "grab" sample was
collected, while post construction data was collected using the DWQ Qual 4 technique. It is
unclear what a "grab" sample is: probably some number of rocks or sticks were examined, or a
bite of the bottom was collected with an Ekman or Ponar grab. These are very different methods
yielding very different results. Neither comparable to Qual 4, so essentially the only data that can
be compared is post construction data. If they had collected from their Reference site beyond the
first year of post construction, there may have been something to compare to, but again, they did
not. Three stations within the restoration reach have apparently been sampled over the course of
this project, but it was unclear which of these sites corresponded to the two sites collected in
2003. Two of the three sites had more diverse aquatic communities in years 1 and 2 post
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands
NC Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Unit
construction than were documented at either of the two sites collected in 2003, so even by Dave's
definition, the criteria for success have not been met.
It is possible that the macroinvertebrates will recover more quickly when the stream stabilizes into
its E channel, some habitat (stick or gravel) gets back into the stream, and the dissolved oxygen
in the restored reach rises closer to 4-5 mg/I rather than the 2.1 mg/I documented in the report.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Wetlands/401 Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
1

1
1

r

1

1

1
-7 70? WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
?5a FEB 2 4 2004
,?-
WATER QUALITY SECTION
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 4)
CONCORD MILLS WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA V -
Prepared for:
Concord Mills Limited Partnership
1300 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22209
[phone]
Prepared by:

EcoScience
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
[phone]
December 2003
DwQ *`57-Ilia

lob
fw?
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii
'
.............................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES iii
iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 STREAM MONITORING ................................................................................................... 3
2.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 3
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS ...............................................................
2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 4
4
2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 12
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA ..............................................................
2.3.1 Physical Stream Attributes ......................................................................... 15
15
2.3.2 Biological Stream Attributes ....................................................................... 18
3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING ......................................................................... 20
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................... 20
3.2 MONITORING RESULTS ..................................................................................... 20
3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................. 23

' 4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING ........................................................................................... 25
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM .......................
............................................................ 25
4.2 MONITORING RESULTS .....................................................................................
4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA .............................................................. 25
31
1 5.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 32
6.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 34

1

1

11

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location ..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Site Plan View: Constructed Stream and Oxbow .............................................. 5
Figure 3 Plan View and Cross-Sections (Upper Reach) .................................................. 10
Figure 4 Plan View and Cross-Sections (Lower Reach) .................................................. 11
Figure 5 Bio-monitoring Sites .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 6 Time-Space Substitution of Stream Morphology ................................................ 17.
Figure 7 Groundwater Well Locations and Wetland Boundary Determination .................. 21
Figure 8 Planting Plan and Vegetation Plots ................................................................... 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1a Morphological Stream Characteristics (Upper Reach) .......................................6
Table 1 b Morphological Stream Characteristics (Lower Reach) .......................................8
Table 2 Benthic Sampling Results .................................................................................14
Table 3 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Data .......................................................22
Table 4 Summary of Vegetation Monitoring Data ...........................................................28
Table 5 Characteristic Tree Species for Vegetation Success Criteria .............................30

1
' ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3)
CONCORD MILLS WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
' CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' Concord Mills Limited Partnership has developed Concord Mills, a 1.7 million square-foot
shopping mall, on approximately 166 acres in the southwest quadrant of the 1-85/Concord Mills
Boulevard interchange in Cabarrus County. This project unavoidably impacted streams and
wetlands within the project site, including 1796 linear feet of first-order stream channel,
2.5 acres of wetlands, and 0.6 acre of open water (ponds).
' In 1997-1998, a detailed mitigation plan was prepared to provide full functional replacement for
wetland and stream impacts associated with the development of Concord Mills (ESC 1998).
The mitigation plan involved stream and wetland restoration on a 23.4-acre tract located
approximately 2500 feet north of Concord Mills Mall, immediately south of Airport Boulevard,
and west of the Concord Regional Airport (Figure 1). The mitigation site (hereafter referred to
as the "Site") comprises an unnamed tributary, termed Airport Creek, and associated floodplains
at the confluence with the Rocky River. The detailed mitigation plan proposed approximately
3000 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.0 acres of wetland restoration/creation (net), and
5.4 acres of wetland enhancement within the Site.
The mitigation plan outlined monitoring procedures designed to track wetland and stream
development after restoration activities were completed. The monitoring plan requires annual
monitoring for a minimum 5-year period and analysis of the data to evaluate quantitative
success criteria. The monitoring plan has been excerpted from the detailed mitigation plan and
is attached for reference in Appendix A.
Construction plans were prepared for the project and sediment/erosion control permits obtained
in the summer of 1999. Construction activities extended from September through December of
1999 with tree planting completed in early January 2000. Photographs of the Site have been
taken periodically over the past 4 years from established vantage points. A sample of current
year and timeline photographs from the Fall of 2003 may be found in Appendix B.
1
t
1
1
This document represents the Year 4 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) designed to track
wetland and stream development as outlined in the monitoring plan (Appendix A). Monitoring
has been performed throughout the 2003-growing season for hydrology, and at the end of the
growing season for vegetation and stream parameters.
1 1
1

1

i

1

1

1?
?•
" ,>
M41 k(?" :HC o'x7 r A6Ah r?.M?,_ _ - • ' -' ? yit1.
?
i
?.
r
r
1 } r \
f
y wt
(1t}
r
r\ L• 1 ?..
-_y

? y .
am/
J f
sr f l
?.
' \' ,.
.?. P
Iy 1 lJ
Restorations---:.
Site z

. M
p
a i Concord
M
??.a
•„ ?' . e Regional
Jetport
^
..
'ly
`• :
`
. 3?
n !
? ,
)
.? a G ,
?
ff
t
vi C r
?
Ca
\
y ?,? w "
•1 ?
t

Concord
'- ir,
"??
AR" ,1. Mills Mall r°' ro
? l .r
_; {A,lye t '.. a _ - ++i b
f S, b _ ^?`•, If •? N bar, ??1V.4 t`
%
`.t.. RY• .4.... A? '??? •.-....•?". " a y
4i8
-?1 1 ` r
-^
'
ziw _
p?t.
\ b y 4r y ?
t 1
J
w !\ t 1T

/ Ka; ?( fl
CL" t f A? f •. Kam' all '(? (
?.I._ al
? ?1 ?t mitt, av
7 \_
i
,

t
? .?-.
Pmr Leek t
'" \;, +1 l-SY l
y i9 `.rn \ t `?- I ti Y 1? ?,. \(
\
+ r
<I
t'`ar ty y
1 { iM
' ?1.
>`? •.cr
}I??1 ?
? t .• \'• -. 0?/ 1 •....
.
?t 71
?3 , +
?
1 ?? .?.
/
??; ? t?:? ? ` 1„AM ? vL ; '
?
G r?
7
k t
s L%S?C
..li
h
?
,R•

t r rN
r ,
t.-•
l
0

1 mi
? 4 mi
°
_-
.
.
}r % 1 r i y 'rJJt' 1:158,400
r
} ZI
J
1 ?? ? r
Source: 1977
`-
t ?
r ? North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.57.
,
I . fir` 1? •1`> - 4 ??
-
' '
Dwn. by:
SITE LOCATION - CONCORD MILLS IVIAF FIGURE

EcoScience
Corporation

Fourth Year Wetland Monitoring Report Ckdby: JG

Date:
=- - =
Raleigh, North Carolina
?
Cabal County, North Carolina
DEC 2003
Project: 03-151
I
r
2.0 STREAM MONITORING
2.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
2.1.1 Physical Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan calls for measurement of stream geometry attributes along a minimum 300-
foot reach. Annual fall monitoring protocol includes development of a channel plan view,
channel cross-sections on riffles and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface profile. Specific
stream data to be presented includes 1) riffle cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average
' depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width/depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt width, 8) water
surface slope, 9) sinuosity, and 10) stream substrate composition. The stream is subsequently
classified based on fluvial geomorphic principles outlined in Applied River Morphology (Rosgen
' 1996). Channel morphology has been tracked and reported by comparing data in each
successive monitoring year.
' 2.1.2 Biological Stream Attributes
The monitoring plan was devised to provide for biological sampling of the stream channel prior
to diversion of flow and again after monitoring years 3 and 5. However, the N.C. Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) has asked that biological sampling be performed annually. Therefore, an
evaluation of bio-monitoring success criteria will appear in all succeeding AMRs. The
' procedures. and methodologies for biological monitoring program have been modified to follow
the standards put forth by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
January 1997 biological monitoring protocols and the DWQ draft guide for benthic sampling.
' The Qual-4 sampling method has been adapted from the May 2000 final draft of the Interim,
Internal Technical Guide for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory
Stream Restoration Projects from DWQ.
1
A

1

Baseline (pre-project) aquatic surveys were performed within the stream system in April 1999,
prior to stream restoration activities. Baseline sampling was conducted prior to DWQ guidelines
and therefore did not directly follow the Qual-4 sampling methods. Collections for the baseline
sample were not handpicked prior to laboratory analysis. Rather, multiple b_am Ies
containing all species were processed and analyzed. As a result, the baseline sample exhibits
large numbers of individuals not normally collected using the Qual-4 method. Results of the
base-line, Year 2, 3, and 4 AMR biological surveys are included in Appendix C.
The biological samples will provide a means to track taxonomic diversity over time. Specifically,
the numbers of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa will be monitored and
evaluated. The EPT taxa are not generally considered primary stream colonizers and therefore,
not typically found in newly established streams. All taxa will be identified to the lowest practical
level. An increase in the number of EPT genus/species will be required through the 5-year
monitoring period. An evaluation of in-stream and riparian habitat will also be conducted at
each monitoring location, following the DWQ habitat classification system. If biological success
criteria are not being fulfilled, the most' likely cause will be extensive sedimentation, which
covers coarse substrates in the channel. If aquatic species diversity is not increasing, additional
modifications to channel substrates will be performed and upstream sources of sedimentation
will be identified.
3
1
1

1

1

C
2.2 MONITORING RESULTS
2.2.1 Physical Stream Attributes
Fourth year stream monitoring efforts evaluated approximately 880 linear feet of constructed
stream, including approximately 500 linear feet within the upper reach and approximately 400
linear feet within the lower reach. Permanent cross-section and toe pin data were overlaid on
the previous year's data to evaluate stream stability, specifically erosion and sedimentation.
Plan view data for the year-4 AMR was obtained through GPS survey techniques. Data may
vary slightly from the previous year because of inherent differences involved with re-surveying
and processing stream data. These differences are not indicative of major lateral changes in
stream plan form. A plan view of the constructed stream and oxbow wetland is depicted in
Figure 2.
Table 1 a and 1 b summarize stream pattern, dimension, profile, and substrate attributes for the
proposed conditions and the four subsequent monitoring years. The upper reach and lower
reach of the constructed stream channel have been evaluated separately for bankfull discharge
and channel dimension measurements. The drainage area and associated impervious surface
increases along four drainage area in-falls in the down-valley direction, as depicted in Figure 2.
Therefore, the bankfull discharge and dimension were modeled as increasing below the Airport
Business Park Road crossing through the Site.
Channel Dimension Attributes
Channel dimension attributes were obtained from the surveyed cross-sections and plan forms
depicted in Figure 3 (upper reach) and Figure 4 (lower reach). Eight permanent cross-sections
were established along the constructed channel in 2001, four in the upper reach and four in the
lower reach.
Four years following construction, the upper reach channel currently exhibits a bankfull mean
width of 14.2 feet, a bankfull mean depth of 0.6 feet, and a bankfull width/depth ratio of 23.6.
The bankfull cross-sectional area averages 8.6 square feet with a narrow range of 8.5 to 8.7
square feet (Table 1). The proposed conditions for the upper reach included a bankfull average
width of 17 feet, bankfull mean depth of 1.2 feet, and bankfull cross-sectional area of
approximately 20 square feet. Si?e construction nne ontinually decreas
c?ec_ tinal area, and until the most recent year exhibited an increase i widt /d
r`atigL Over the same period, the maximum riffle depth has declined on y slightly. The current
shift to decreasing lower width/depth ratios and a stable maximum riffle depth is continuing
evidence that the stream is evolving from a C-type to an E-type stream as described in Section
3.3.1. Maximum pool width has decreased significantly over as-built conditions from
approximately 18 feet to 12.4 feet. Likewise, pool maximum depth has decreased from 2.5 to
1.6 feet.
The lower constructed stream reach supports a bankfull width averaging 17.4 feet, a bankfull
mean depth of 0.9 feet, and a bankfull width/depth ratio of 19. The bankfull cross-sectional area
averages 14.9 square feet, with a range from 13.4 to 16.4 square feet.
4
w w w w w w w w ww ww w w w w m w w w w
. i

N
I
?
I I

N ; ; ?
X
M
z
C

r-
m
;u A
o
cNn
to
i
c-
-
z
r
D
Z g
-4

n
m
A X
m
z
O
1

;u
m X
in
z
n
A O

y
O 0
0
n
Z

? z
c)
A
O
?

A :U
m
Z
m p
zm
mo
;
'•'? "'

Zm
O
p
t
W
I+
0
N
rl
1

11
1
O
?N •-a0? f10 Z
OA Oz0 Cl)
m
V, Oz0
mftz -Z Mny
10,z0

Z
FA fr I y --tam vC
N•0 00 .1M 2: /
oA oo Arn Om
z zvl = ?v
A o
co

m
N
V
1j
U
1

W
to
A
I+ I+ I+ I+

\ `'i .?1 I ?I\1? '1
V E R
, i.

-------------
lop
i - ,.N

---
O
\-r C
Y O
CA j LA p ti
-4 C)
10
O \ tB- D
13
Z - .,v????0 1'liv • 1 !','?1111i?11``; - 7p
-------------- ----
AVIA ON
tv-
H ?
O n 0
10 D O m o? 3O0 Z E y Z O
IV c? . Om C-i=v z Z?v
V , I
LA 1: C O -i _ zwr-
2 O n
z
, N N m s m z G) z c?
O O cn D v?
w
1

11

t

1

1
t

V
L
d
M _
0
00
:ir y
y
'i
d L ?
? V
t
Fy- U ?
d
CO 0
0.
?a
0
0
C.
0
2
a
O rn
y U o ?
}
M
? O
y U o =
}
N
V O
y U o =
}
r
f6 U o
}
N
C
c O
O
-O U ° o
co
N O
a
O
a
CI
ZCIF
N
N t
n
H N ?
G1 E C6 v3-
t0 C Y
in O m
N M

m ~
C6 7 M
7
O M
m CD N co N tD N
O O ° r N

d
CA
co
C'i N
Dj
~
O
N
M
N

C ?
- N
CO ^ 6 6 7 6 0
CC) CO O - N
m °. cD - CD o
d O r?
° N
r N
N N
d

00
O
Co
(7 t ` i N N

N N V O
CV O
N

O

N

O , O O

CV N
N
( O O C- N
V
C ? N M (
N
? r- r- 0) - LO C)
O N ?
c v O °
N f- co N O
N
O O M O N
C i

la 6 CO C7 v 0
- ?-- r CV
d °
N 0 0
N O
N
(D
^
Q n
m
O A
E ^

2 Q
a
L o

(a
N

.
C
C 0 d Q
Q
O
a) : m E -
- 2
CO ? p 3 o
o O a
N
N t r- E n 0 ?O

O p C0 X O O
U E -

Y
Y
Y
Y O
E

m m m m O C6
m m co m o. M
V O cD ti 00 rn O
CD
N
N
N
Oo 1-
N
N
O O t- O co
N (V i N O
It co co I-
O CV i CV - O
d V co CO O
O
N N O O n M
N °
C'
O
V ...
V
S
Lh r
N

O
C5 O
M N
i
0
C-
N M
) LO
O
LO Ce)
Oo S
O
cli
LO Cl)
_
O CO
i
i
O
q CV
r
'
a
Q

n a
Q
? N
?
0 CU
` Q
n

O -
L
c O

c
a _
Y
° D.
p n
? aUi
O ? a (6 Cn
n C : w
C a

E N N
O
E D
O U
Q O
ca
L
w w

1 co C r
2
(D
m
Co
M m
o
= a) E
`° .3

d 0
¢
X 3 0 0 0
w ° ° ° a°
N M V O Co I'- r
r ? O ? V
U') 0°O M M
O
O O
? O O N
Co .
LO ° O LO
O
O Lh O
M O
M
OO ° O O N
V
to `

i O
O O
CD

{
O
O 0
Cl)
Cl
?2 O
4 It
o C)
co
0
co o
M I
° o
?2 O a

i O O

co
r

O
O
O
N i i

i °
aN O
U.) ?t
d
!0
c
d _j

0
C E
.
0
N
v
^
3
a w
0 m U
O J L
(L p O w
.
O p
C ?
N
3 O
Z
o
CL
(L)
m 15
m U)
co Cl)
O
N
N
N N
N ? O N
lu? ui eo C? C?
CO 7 e=
M O N N
N ? W W
r` N CV
N ? M O
6 CV N
ob N h
N -4
V N N
Cl) Co N N
O co
n N Cb
-
O
O N
' v
O O
v
O CV
h M
O O
' - .4
O O
O N
r- M
a
n ^
y0>a_
C a ?_ a Y
?• C
l0 Y
a c m 10 d
w
p J w
a- 0
O 00 Cn
C C
-6 (a Ca
a°
M V LO co
N N 04 N

V

d

_C

O
U

d ++
O N to

V L ?

V Y
T
d
R L
U
~ O

L_
Q
>SJ
O
O
t
Q.
O
2

t
t

1

d

v

r
C N
N
01 O O

O O
r
co

d O O

c 99
I
f0 ?- O
0
M O O

?
d O O
}
V W (O O
m N N V N
N O O O O
O O O O
O O O O

I

N
V
(6

}
C (n CO
C4 Ce)

O O
O O

d
rn

(L6

r
c °

40 m ,n
4) °
i
O CD
0 0

c
- A i i
ot
c
0
0
a

0 M
m in
C O O I i

a
O O

d i

Q ?
R ?
O.
O
(J)
d N
O

a T
v?
U) ?r
o
w - U a
t 0) -S
a 0) (D
O
O
. CL
N (n 0 0
U)
N
N N 0
Q>Ra
t0 O
W O
I
-
N
NM
CI
4

(0
(D
N
.D
O
N
a
m
C13
a
N
Z
7
N
0
N
0
l0
7
x
s

C

t
1

V
d
d
J =
v ?
0
V V
w y
y
L L
r V .Q
L ?
? O U
t
F- U m
d
cl) ?U
rL+
o
a
a
0
O
.C
CL
O
E
In r
m U
}
M
U r t
N
y U ? {
}
r
d U r {
}
U)
C
II
C 0
O 0
r N
U o
m LO
0
M
O
a`
N
E
m
(3 L
N ? U
H N ?
m j
41 (6 C Y
N 'm C
f6 in ? m
L
R
r N Cl)
v 0 00
0 ,
(fl ? O ^ N
,
!0 4 N 00 d) CO
M n O r N
cc m 0 rn 0 ,n
M
O to
d IP 00 d
l6 ?Y (n ? V ([') 0?0
r r N
C LO
(O LO
n LO

r
r ? M M

41 O O
00
C ' '

W o0 N r f? (n

? n
N
rn 00
OD LO
m 6i ? r .- { (Y
j (rnj
10
M 0
I
N r N
R N N 'T w N (O
M N
d m
N
N N OR O
0,
M
0
? M N r r M
(p M M t(j 00 C.
N c.. r N O
N
?
QR1
W
N
O
N
r
{ o
M O
r M
m ^
(0
C Q
x ^
a
16 E

N
? ^

O
a
L 'o M
O N
U) c Q
r-
O

O

x

L (D

?
E
a CL
E
^ a C
N O
:3
E 8 CL
to •L-• O O O
O
U E
o
w w w w ?
E L
Y
C Y
C Y
C Y
C
O
X O
m o m3:
m m m a
v (n (0 n 00 0)

r N 0 n 0 L0
N N N . r N
M 00 M r h M
r C-i O r
N
U? O 00 O O rn

N 0
`- (M O r
V d
_ O O (fl r Uf
N r r { ?} N
M M V Q> n O
r
N

p r
N
v, (D O O
(V LO
r { c+i O r
L
N
O (n
O N

N r M
O (n
N r M

Cl)
IT Cl)
N {
r N
(0 (0 { N {

O Lo M (0
{ {
CO CO O
r r N
(0 N { N {
-
a
Q
a
Q
? (4
o 2
oa Q
y
O
?
Y

(Q
W
Q o
1 O
` . N
C ?
N

C n

?

a

x O [6

0 U)
N
O
ar j E ? ?U
E O ? -

O
(0
L
Y _
Y 7
co
O C Y
r

m
L a)
'
2 m m m

ED
Q?
a)
x L -
w
U ? C
co N
? a cc
Q
L m

w X 3 0
o 6 0
o
°
2 -1 a a
a
N M si (0 O n
(0
O ?
r 0
? (n
O {
t00 O
co

CD,
CO

'I
LO m v N M

to
(V

to

r

V

O
(0
0 . M
(0

o O

SO to

N
N

r
(
co 0) M N N

O O
)
CJ
(O O
Cl)
{ o o

O
O O
(O
co
O O
(O a
O O
N am {
O M

{ O C.

co
v
d
N

L
m ?

(?0 rn
c _
E
?
a ca
ca
L ^
d 7
f0
(n r z c
o cj to
a v o
.
O C}
C
> 0
y
> O
-6
a°
?
m :3
m in
CO O
ON
N
N N
n co U? n
M O N M
N ?t r O
N V r M
cM (0 (V r
(O (O co
M (o N M
o6 (n v P?
N V r O
N N r V
M L6 N r
(O m
O (., j
V
M r
= N co
m N
n 14.
CA (6
N M
? r
N r
O fh
O C?
{ O O
(0 N
n M
a
-p L
-:2
++ - L a J
O O
Y > ? O
O cc > v y
` (p - a
N m 3 ? (6
w
00
a C-0
N m U 7
Q. L (0
750
O O N y
C C ?
co m -0
O Co
M V L0 (O
N N N N
1
1

I

1

s

d

L
d

v O
0
0
d :?+ y
O y. O
•L L

0 cu
?.RV
s
?v d
1 G L
d V
w
N O
L
_
V Q

0
0
L
1 C.
O
re _

d

v
0

c LO 't

c, c.

C) O
LO v

M O
? O O

' LO O

M O O

m O O
}
_ M d 0 M
? O 0 O
N O
O
O O
O
O
C. O O
N

= S i
w

N
L
R
d
}
C O co
11 Ul
N O O
O O

m

R ` i

}
r

N c) C)
_

O
O
O O
N
C N
°
s s s
v
?

O
U
v

C to C?
0 co to
CL y Oc,
I
o
o
o 6
CL
N m
d m

2
CL
o
U)
d
O

m
IL ..
-
m ^
ci
a? N U a
o a a
0

H m J .1
41 N N
O
°
` ¢ > a
c
a ? co rn O
N N N M

Linear (Across Volley)
Di stance (f t.)
c
O n o
O O N
O
---
-, - ---------
---T-
-
_ O
- --- - - -----r
O
t10'X- -----
NO

----
O
r - --------- --------- 7;
O
O o ___
O
to ? _ A
-?-- --
--
p
0 O N
0
7 -
w<

O

----- --- ---------

10?5 X O
N0?
`

-npo
nrrn
SQUARE STADIA ROD
Om Z

0

Z
m ?
I
;o
W
N
pm D
Z2
0

X m?
?
mZ z
n

0
z
Z
W N O
00 ?O.to(p m
v o ? o o o m n
0too in?o)c pO
X I
3, 3C
3 O y
O 0 y
n 0 y
O ko M m
-_..O
• n
=0N 00
U!
0
° OQpj 3y
0 3o107
N

0 7 0 -n
0
0
. 5 O =?< 01
0to = N O 'O
7 ,
In N ID (D C..«
<.+O 0
0-3
N O N 0
y 7
(D
7
rn
I
1
p
.Z)
88 r
0
x M
6
0
p -n

rr]? ? F m
'a
m m
O m
Z

D
D
m r
>
-
i
i - m ,

Z Z > Z
m _
D O iz;
O Z
O O
O
O N O
_
N
O O
W O
,
. W
T
XO
100
0
m0
,3 3
VI z
3m
m
to
00
O
O
N
O
O
1
N
O
7
Q
O
fAO
W
O n
cD
O
0
O
0)
CD (O (O t0 O
N -P. O 00

T

I
J
j -
l
_

--
__

-- .1

r

T 4-
i

l
i

-- r
L

T
1

i' -
_
1
1 J
i I
__
__ 1
L 1
1 1
1 1
J__ ? I
L J
1_
.i '
I J

I L
I 4 1.
1
1 J
1
1 J_ _
1;
1 4
1 1 -
1

1 i I I
_I

I I
1
.L
4'
_
1 i _'_ _L I. J __
I I 1 L
I 1
I
'
T
1 '
l
I

I
-

I
i
I

I
1. I
l
I
J 1 I
1- I-
I I
J
I

I

I
L
-
I
1..

I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
'T
I
l
I I
4
1 I I- I I -

T-
1-
--
--
'r 1
T ;
J 1
-- -
r
-i
i'
I I 1 1 , I I
I
I
I-

T
F
T
i
-T
.P
O
O
a7
:a
O N
r
m
ii
O
O

yl ?l_I 'J
O I?y1?--i
I.i fr I ly
; I tC0
??_
011
TI ,?
I•?- -' i' 111'1
' J L LI_J
y

? -
11 LL_
I
?rT
r
•( T
T
I ' -
J
J i l i ? l
L l1
?
Tir
-r _? ? ?
-
-Lill

II
--T _
rfrrll' '
- --
---- .
i i
'l Tl1- - -
-
-- ---
---'?I''! _
Tlr
TYI"
---
--

III -I-Ill
JJ
IIII rrrr

II
rrr llTr- -

IIII Iill
"Tr
;; Trrr-
LL-
IIII
iii
O N

m

m
0 n
c T
? n 0.
06 30°
W Z
0 ;a

C

m
n
o

"
m 0)z

m
nvC ?N

O =
pp MM a

o
0
n 9 .<
r C 2 3
O Z
7 O
Elevation (ft.)
CD (o W
N -P. 0)
p m r
O
NO
..

Z
O 00

O
O
Q
CD
aJ
0)
O
<
3
O
n
N
a
O
N
N
O N
O n
v -?
O
Z
N
m;0
NZ,
<rt
0)
O
n zz
z
0 z3m
< MM
3
D N
N - O
O
O
7
N 0
O
tAO
W
.P.
n
ID
Elevation (ft.)
to to to
N A rn
Cu K co
< m r
W CD
7 (
D X ? <
X-
-00-
(O -a
C 'm m t.. a)
0O
n
OD
to
0 a CL
Ch*u r
N
QO.
?
to .
n O?w
.. 0) V
0-

Q
O
O0
N
O
W
?TIW
N
?m
v 0
Z
rT) X
(D ;O
< 7•
to
(m
t0
N
t0
00
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
7
Q
O
0
W 7
O 0
O
O
0)
t0 t0 t0 t0 O
N 4P (7) 00
I 1
-' 1- -- -- - T l' -- r T. -

I
1, 4? 4
l
r _ _ T

1 I

l J_ _ .1 J. J 1. It

1 ¦
¦
I

III I
I I
- I I
- I
- I
- I
!i ? I
-.
-_
-
A
I

?,- -- -- S IT T 1-1' '- - r 1 1 T -

;. ._ r - -

I I . ,I I I I I I

{ ? ," -
O
W
aa)
Z
A W
O)
m
O
TI
r
m
(D W
?00
O
2
O
N ?.
O
7
0
O
W y
O
n
N

Ln
0)
n?

< C)
o
O

Z F
)
Y' CD
?
p r)
O
= m = = = = r r = = r w = = = r = =
Linear (Across Volley)
Distance (ft.)
0 o is
0 0 0 0
-------- ---- -------------
_ ___ Elevation (ft.) Elevation (ft.)
___ ----- ,___r__.
to (a (o to pj -C? C) OD
---- --- - N ? Ol 00
-------- - m r CD.> mr
00
- -- o<oo m?, o ?NQx3 O
<,«
--- - Fw0 p? t0?
-- - O O p -• t0 D E? m C Om 7
--'--IIX- --'---?-?-- C m? C Q15 0m'O N
?01 ?- _ --- - -- O p=r V N m ¦ O. "f l -- r T l-
?Q m ?wS
-- -- - W m'mp
0 =r
Q OWN
____--------- Q
O 7,... O"
00 -- O O
Q O
00 0 J .
=< 0 TT ' 4
-'c,;-?'- --- ---T-r--
N
-- -- O
t7 • n N
N
a
__ __ _ 0 :3 0
(A j
(n 0
Z1 Ln L
p
O 0 W
: : : I i I l I
o m W y' m O rn
0 o
-- - -- --- --- N? 7 N-i
m
..Z m vZ
0 7
W
` NO?10?5X
-1 l- T
Z D p O
> O
nrm = X m
Om Z SQUARE STADIA ROD
C "a ?v
pO C r 0
m n
Z m
J? m
(A K 3 3 m
rn I co ? -i
N
0mp D ?O Z « O < =r O
o m C tQ rn_v.
mr^ z m O °'?
i?
?Z o
m
O Z to tQ to to
Z N -P. 0) OD N OJ
W N O
Qn vnmpp m
00 O M 0
n to 3E
Oy fA70? p0
X 3 C O to
m S j
I
O n O m m m
-..O m SQ m 00
mm Qa, 7 3w
ao 3Q7
_ :)to m prn
O -• N p
O 5• p C rt m n j•
a0
o'Q _ m Q O
N < -0 j rrr Trrr -1-i TTrf 111
V ?
m O -? 0
t?D O• tOD. a a) N _
M O O tP ItQ ...1T
J W N
N 7 f O
_ 0
O O
0 o p
I i tO N m r m
M
TT rn -I E N
¦ 0 ?J ()
v m
¦ O CO ?r
O -w
U r ;0 N N W
g g 0 1 6
m m p n m I
0
c N
m m rn
r r -0 ? r
< < 0 m < O N tQ
Z r D 0
1 --4 m m >I
Z Z b D Z
m I _
D O N
N N
O O Z O
O_ O N ?. O
v N O O W
W O
W
m n o
n C7 0
Co co m i c O o? 30Z " D Z o
w '2 o o i mnZ =c mzm0 0 OZ 0
Z3O z CIS
Z ??,
N O 0 0 ao m 7o m o 0
c v Z M C N • /
M 0 m mv< C-) ?
O 4 V) OI N = O D -i ?J/ r Z r O CD r, C Pt. 0
cn o O Z 7o r r
0W N fA D

1

-

'
T

I

-

I
1

--

--
I

I
-'-
i
--

I

I
I
"r
±

1
I
r-
I

I
I

i

I
_
F

I
I
I
I

I
i
I

I
I

_
L
1 ?
J _
__ _
__

i L
L

i L
1 B
J_

i i __ L

I L
_L i.
1

I
J

I

J_
I

1
I
_L
I
1 I
I
J I
1
__

I I
1 I
1
.1

I
I
T

1_

_

-
I
i
0
I
r I
T
1 I
y
1 I I I

I
i I

I
i
I I

I
I
I I
-I_
I
I
I

_
I
`
I
1
I

_

I

T
1
I
1

y

-

I_

1

_
I

_I
i

L

4
I
1

J
l
1 1 i I I 1 1 1
I
1
' 1
I ? I

I f -i l_ .

J = _
1 _ I _ L
I T . _
1 i . . _ _
_
I 1 . .
.Ylil
III,
-rrn"
II11
Trrr
JJ_
IIII
-nlT
11LL ?I 111
111
- 111
Ilrl

1LJ1. IIII
illy

_JLLL II
III
rr r
LLi_
I
r r
? rri
rI-I-I +rrr- -IYYr -r
rl y
r
- - yv -
rl-I-l - Tirr i'1lT "rl-li lTir iil- frl-
_ !i
I I I J L LL
I I I I !iii
I i t_1!
l lI J 1 1.
I I Ji _ I_I I J
I i I!_
A 1 1
-; i-ice Trrr --I?r rrl-I ,

-Iii"
iri
r
-riTT
rr. i I I
r r I I
-rnT I I
rrr
IJ 11LL JJJI .LI_IJ L
I _I LL1_
4L

rr
i rQ
rrr
ii'
'ri'
- .ii
ric
• 11 L1_
L LI !J 1 .L_
I I Ji Li
; I i JJ
.
1 I LI_L
I `I
rr? _ i
i
r I ' '
'ii-TQ" ?
- 'r i ?-rn?- -m-r -nT
_f.LJO L I_I JlLi _JJ1 L
I 1

r- T
-

ITTr

-I i-ll

rrl
?
.
LJ_ .
Ji
II J
?
? JJ
II I11

i

_
.
7-i- -CT I-,
l

a
_ II I I
- "
I ' - \ - i T"
1 i _ __ __ L. J L L J._
1 .L 11 _ _ L 1
1.
_ _ _
, T r
i

a I O . i. ?
1 1 71 I I 1 I I I

T
--
--
-
-i
l
--
-
i
T"'

_ r T T r
1 - i T ' .
f l - r I l" i -i
" I-11-'
? •I ??r _ ll- il'rl-
'LLL ..JJ!
111 '
.1.1i
Q m1
II
IIII
1 Iml II
1 r '
' r r
' 11 • l ---
ti4Q ol,t A -

1 1 -g, 11 1 1
_ I J .?

11 L Jl

111
'
IIII
111
11
I
11
T i f IF '
? .1 '1_ . 11
I 11
I _
I
l
1 ? 1
1 l L L
? II

I
i?
i
I
.
.
I?
.
i
1 m
I 1
= = = = m = = m = m = = = = = m = = ?

Linear (Across Volley)
Distance (ft.)
U7 O (!? N
O O O O O
k
r_
7
00
N_ R
O ?
0 O
N ?
. F
I:s

----
-
--r-- - -- ----- -
---
- ---I-'IL --------
NQil; O3 -------
-;X: r -:
- ----r-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_
___ ____
-.__ CSECTIO
--- ---- -------- ---- -----

7 -117-1--
7-r

_
_ - ___-I___ ________ _
k ECT?
OA r _
-- -------- --
Elevation (ft.)
00 w
rn
`O
W D K W m r-
0 a

M X 3
rp (0
`.
7C
o Q i
Q

O C7
? aD
a
o CD c0
0,0
N S 7
° to ¦
O O O T c0 .
N
p'tn

N
O CD
N 6 0
rn

O 'P
O Vl
.0
W
L7
O
W
O
O
N N 0
U
O 0 ;a
0
N
N
+
W 1
rrn
0
O
O
co z
0 CO
O
0
0
Ln
0
0
((yyy-- Z
?rO
0m
r
SQUARE STADIA ROD D
z
p
O
C
' ?v
Oc
T
I
I 0
F
zm I - 1__ 1 I I I I I I I
I I

mZ
N om W.m -I
g=O
z
? m aD Dm N ?
m -0?; m 0
0Z Z 3 m
?'
o m
z
Z ...I
mz
CD to
G
t0 .?
Cn 7
0

1

I

J

I

__

_
1 1
L

L

.
I

4
J
i

¦.

I_
I

.
1

11
L

1.
1
I
I
T I
l
-- I
-- l
r i
T l
l

,y I
i I
r - I
i I
T

I
_L 1
I
L i

J¦_ I

_I_ I
I
L 1
I
I I -? 1
_ I __ __ _ _ l if _ T l
1- I
L

-

-

L.

1.
I
A

LLL
???111
,
--

- ;

-

¦
,
-
-
- I

-
T
r

I

I
•
¦
¦.
1
1
1
1 4,-
¦

?.

I
_I_

I
L

_

I
1 _

¦
1 ¦ 1 1 I
11 i
¦ 1 1

J
_
_L ¦
¦.
L
J
-0
_I_
L
L
1__

I 1 r
¦

1 •
I
I I ¦ I I 1 I
¦

¦

T
1
- ¦
r
T
I
l¦
r
T
1-_
1
1 J 1 1. _

-

It
-
I ;
I 9
, -
I

I

I I

I-

- I

1 I

I '

1 1
¦
yq

1 1

1

- -
T"
I I __
I r T. i II_ _r r
r _
T 1- -- --

-? "r
'1 T l
4' - 1- --

- r "i l'-
It
1
T 1
l
--
-- I
-r i
T i
11
- I I
Ir I
r I
T -
I
-
1 I

I

T, -

11
Elevation (ft.)
000 co co
CD D K CD r
m
_
O
O 3 (D X 7

a)
lI C
o
` 01
¦
0 a

1 S N ¦
N ¦
N N -w V
W
0 ,?.
Q
.
O

0
W
v
w
N
N
0
S
O
N.
O
rt
O
O
(q
W
o n
?
0
Ln
0
_N C7
00
O (n
W (A
O rri
n
o0
0 z
A V

_ L
r
-1
r. 1
T-
4_
I_
T_
.._
4_
__-
1
r
_
T.
1
-1

t

T
'1-

-
--
--- }
- j 1
-
--
-- L
?
i .,
- - rL
-rr
-
--
J _L L. 1, J. i. 1, J, _ L t J._

_ __ __ -

T

I " -- f
r 11 -
It -- 11 T"

I•T 11 -

.l

J_
- _

I
-- _L

I
r
-

I L

I
r
-

I 1 .1_

; _

---

1

V

1
--

1 I.

I
-r

1 L

I

T

1 .I

I

1
I,-

-

1

- l

r

I L

-r

I I.

I
mX
NZ
i
Q T
Ol 7
0)
O
(ODa `O W
0 N
'III
Tirr „T
lllT rrl-I
rr rl ,T rI-
IT Tr -I-I -I,
-I ill
J.J_LL YrI-I-
Trrl-
111E
II
rllr
TTrr
I~II YY1-I
-IIIT -rrI I III
-ITii
IT Tr I
--1'f
;
YYrr
Trrr
1ILL JJJ i LI_I
I JILL
I
I 11J
II i LI_I_
I
?
IIII
TTrr III II
I
;liT'rirl II
ITT17 l YY
rrI'
LLk JJJ1 LI_IJ
L11-1- JILL _JJ LLI_
rr 1?IT 'r`--I 1Tir AT 'r
IL LI_ J_' wI1_ J1L' JJJ iLl_I.
I I
L I NII?1
_ImOLLI?
., L ; I
--
-

I O O
I I I
I
I I i
I l
Trrr Y
-7¦T r1-' ,rr '-'y; rr

TTr ZR
I ?
TTTT
TTr
-iT
11 LL Ll
JJ.LI?L
JiLL
_IJJJ
LL
1 i NJJ I
I I
?
l t

OI
I_I /
y
?
I W

I
I
1 1 1
TYrt- I I
-I -I T - I
-li?
' IYT YrY'I'
7Trr l l irri
LAD
J1 L II
N
Z
W N O
Or7 OotnO7 m
0 N 3-003 CD 0 (n
ON '
N 13 9•
00
X 1
3rn 7 C
o?v? O y
?
O n o O? y N

O rtLD CD (D ,-•
.
N ::r 0 M 00
Ew
a o Qp 7 3 N
o 30Mrt
tO In

08' O
v 0-m o m
,o
0
3
,
=w O ?-- `
7•
?ZD -
=.m 0 Mn

N O CD 0

0 N

rD
7
I N
I

I ¦
¦

¦
,

r CCI
M
A M
D
y
o
g D
O
0 g
1 O m

m m a m
r r r r
m m 0
O m
Z
D m m
I -
i
55 C
Z Z a > Z

N N D Z N
00 -
0
O K)
N p o
O
W O
v
CD
Z
.Zl
0
m
P
m
?P
6

m
W 0
0
O
N ?
a
n
Q
O
0 - N
N
N
CD
O
? N
r
M
-0
0
0
N
O

S
O
W N'
0
O
N y'
O
0
N
O
O N W _A
_ n
m n o -I v
m
n ()
m'
_0 CO 0
a r p Oz ?m 30z z 0
. m .. O N ?? m 0 C 0 z 7DDr_n O n
C_ ;0 O
CAZ nN 0 z37o N O
m IR m D 0 00 -4 M Nab ?d G?•p
L4 [: C
Un o o D ?? +A r D '? r CD
oW z
tR (n
Cn L I JJL_
00 00
v m
O - N W A
O
O
N
O
2
O
N
O
i]
D
W n
o 0
.Q
O
Cn
O
Q>
O

----
Y II1'
-III
JLLL
r; --
- ZN
OQ
O
TrT1-
J..L_
=lll l?
_ 1-L
ri-i-I
1! _._
11iI
--lI

1-r 1
T
_._L_!
L 11 11- -4
0
W
-
= ' T: 1
'
'
"
, ='
?
i
Irl
llii il
- ifrl- l pD TT
fr r,-
?
- Tr il
- 1
-
.

WD -r ll
l
iiTi
J iiL ;
JJ J. -
rrr
1Lr__ ;
J. m
1!LL
!'., l.l
i __
J1 ,;I
_ J.l
r rr
ELI..
lliT '- TTr, - 'j LI -I TII-. _:_1 l -r -1T ri' "
lr l' iir r'
JJ11 _IJ. 11L1_ _ l1 LL !J.1 J. .I1LL IJ. Lllr_

. T
I- I I I I L:
I I
?
I
^M' I I _'¦J
t -T-tI-T' T"i t t TT- T-r.!..1. -1111
0 1 1 L L ! J J 1 L r_ L L. .! J .I L L:-:-
A•V`1 L ?rl - ? '
?
Y.- L
i l
l
? ? ?
-
IIT l TiTI -l 1 ?
? lir- rl- i -I lir ' I

L I` i i I
m m m m ' m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
cn i ? I
i ; ..
Z X X t mm z"0
Ln CA 2 Z m0
;o x
-t N 00 m >y '
Z
-I
N -I
0
A m b c z m
A 0 m
z
0 Z
< 'I 0
cc,
A
I+ 1
0
('1 RIVE„---_?`_
1
S
m'0 co '0
on om ® ?_ A
z 00 z OZ
-iz --I N / -
A -4 ;oA
0 \ =
0C 00
V) =! Ln 0
m z rn
V) V)
Q
l(/ I
c)
n I
? I
91
o
?
?? r N
h
1 V
;
Z ?
v MA O
p - NO
00 ti? A O
Z ; y
70
VIA OIV
VD.
--------------
0
m n o v ? M
W
0
z i>
0 O n O , l-?
?? ?CCO ern n
t?° O yC c 'OZO Z?C ` z
o Z ?N p0=p z m1 rn v Z ?• 1
m m 0 y -1 ?o mM G Mm N n CD
U -t n ZZ ?Z?9 c?i =a3 O n
N N D-i Y r, Z 6 ?
0 0 Q - y D N

7

These numbers are virtually unchanged from the previous year. The proposed conditions for
the upper reach included a bankfull average width of 20 feet, bankfull mean depth of 1.4 feet,
and a bankfull cross-sectional area of 28 square feet. Similar to the upper reach, the lower
reach channel has continually decreased in cross-sectional area and exhibited a slight increase
in the width/depth ratio. However, unlike the upper reach, bankfull was not identified at the
constructed top of bank, but to an elevation based on common bankfull indicators (i.e. lower in
the channel). This condition is currently creating a channel that is slightly incised. The channel
is expected to remain incised until the sides of the riffle fill in and the cross-sectional area and
width/depth ratio decrease (see Section 2.3.1 for further discussion). Over the 4-year
monitoring period, the maximum riffle depth has continued shallow, declining fr feet to
6 feet. During the same peno , mean pool maximum depth has remained relatively stable
from the as-built conditions, decreasing slightly from 3.8 to 3.5 feet.
Channel Pattern Attributes
Channel pattern attributes have been measured from the plan forms depicted in Figure 3 and
Figure 4. The belt width ranges from 30 to 50 feet in the upper reach and 30 to 45 feet in the
lower reach. The meander wavelength along both reaches range from approximately 80 to 120
feet. Sinuosity measures approximately 1.25 and 1.3 in the upper and lower stream reach,
respectively. The mean flood prone area width varies between 220 to 375 feet and
entrenchment ratios range from 15.5 to 21.5 (flood prone area / bankfull width) for the upper and
lower reaches, respectively. These measurements remain essentially unchanged from data of
the previous year.
' Channel Slope and Substrate
Extensive beaver activity within the channel at the time of monitoring prohibited the collection of
useful slope data. Beaver management will be incorporated for the upcoming year so that
' channel slope data may be prepared for the year-5 report. Pebble counts throughout both
reaches indicate the ! 5 the surface substrate is approximately 0.22 mi ' eters (sand t <
subsurface substrate of approximately 14 millimeters Me ium rave ). The surface substrate d?
is a reflection of the sedi osition that continues to be deposited within the channel due
t Pa?.-a?tiv?_t _and ups`m sedim he on i el substr placed within
' the channel at the time of construction remains in place, but has been covered in part b_y_ sand
and silt. The original gravel substrate is visible within the thalweg of the current channel.
' 2.2.2 Biological Stream Attributes
Pre- and post-project monitoring locations extend approximately 300 linear feet along
designated reaches, and are identified in Figure 5. Qual-4 samples were collected from the
restored stream in August 2003 (Appendix C). Data from the current and past years of
sampling are summarized in Table 2. Due to beaver impacts, the stream was divided into two
distinct samples representing the upper and lower reach. The upper portion of the channel has
' experienced extensive beaver activity, creating lentic conditions throughout the reach. In
contrast, the lower reach has experienced less beaver impact and therefore has remained in a
free flowing condition. Significant differences were detected xa collected, including the
EPT taxa.

12
1
' Table 2.
Benthic Sampling Results
for Baseline Data and Monitoring Years 2001-2003. s?
K
Akyr
(\q U
Baseline
1999 2001 2002 2003
1

1

1

1
IN
Ephemeroptera USC* DSC**
Heptageniidae
Stononema modestum 4 a 3
Stononema sp. (?1
Tricorythidae
Tricorythodes sp. 92
Baetidae
Acentrella ampla 10
Baetis sp. 12 1 2
Beatis c.f.flavistrig 6
Callibaetis sp. 1
Centroptilum spo. 1
Pseudocloeon sp. 3 4
Caenis
Caenis sp. 7
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae 2 Cl-)x
Cheumatopsyche sp. 10 2 4 53
Hydropsyche betteni gp. 4 5 24
Philopotamidae
Chimarra aterrima 2
41'-1 Total 120 102 34 4 93
* Upstream reach, above causeway.
* * Downstream reach, below causeway. CL
C? z c vV rr! ??
I
,
ry `L) ,
Xc
lA
J

r
fl

1

1

1

In total, the number of EPT taxa enus/species) has increased to 8 in the composite 2003
sample. This is an increase fr the base line survey and the 2001 survey, which reported 2
and 4 EPT taxa, respectively. Of the total 8 EPT taxa found in the composite sample, 2 were
found in the upper reach and 7 were found in the lower reach. The total number of EPT taxa
has remained the same since the last monitoring period.
The total number of individuals within the EPT taxa increased significantly from 34 in 2002 to 97
in 2003 composite sample. The low number of individuals found in 2002 probably resulted from
the severe drought condition which had persisted in the region during that period. Note that
higher diversity of EPT taxa indicates better stream quality than does more individuals of a few
species.
As a part of the biological stream attribute assessment, a habitat field data sheet has been
completed to describe the potential habitat and physical conditions of the stream. The habitat
assessment scores for the year 2003 were indicative of characteristics associated with maturing
"constructed" stream development including bend angles, in-stream habitat features, substrate,
bank stability measures, and vegVatio? n,arm.eters. The constructed stream received a habitat
assessment score of 91 out o a possible N, an increase from the 62 and 84 points assigned
1 -and--2-002, respectively. The stream assessment gave high scores for all
to the survey in 2001 a
channel attributes including riffle habitat, bank stability, pool variety, stream bank vegetation
cover, substrate type, light penetration, and riparian vegetation. Completed stream habitat
assessment forms describing the physical habitat characteristics present in the channel during
the August 2003 sampling were compared with the July 2002 sampling (Appendix C).
2.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
2.3.1 Physical Stream Attributes
Success criteria for stream restoration have been subdivided into three primary components: 1)
successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system, 2) channel stability
indicative of a stable stream system, and 3) development of biological communities over time.
For classification purposes, the stream supports an entrenchment ratio of greater than 2.2 and a
width-depth ratio of greater than 12. The upper and lower reach has a width-depth ratio of 23.6
and 19.0, respectively. The channel exhibits high sinuosity (>1.2) and mean water surface
slopes between 0.0001 (i.e. beaver impacted areas) and 0.0034 feet/feet. The riffle substrate is
dominated by sand with a medium gravel sub-surface. Therefore, stream geometry and
substrate measurements under current conditions suggest a C4/5 stream type, as proposed in
the mitigation plan.
However, based on stream surveys and observations, the cross-sectional area of the
construc led-stream has decreased significantly. The maximum depths within the thalwe
remain near constructed depths and eposition on point bars and channel bars in the riffle `???Q?rr //((
?? 1{4FGpiU
section have lead to a significant decrease in mean depths, resulting in an increase in s?av? 1
width/depth ratios. This would suggest one of several scenarios is occurring within the Z-
constructed channel: 1) the channel was oversized relative to its watershed when built, 2) the
channel is in transition from a C-type stream to an E-type stream, or 3) the channel has incurred
a large but transient sediment load. The possible scenarios are discussed below.
15

1

11

Oversized Channel
The proposed channel dimensions for the constructed stream were based on reference
streams, regional curves, and hydraulic engineering models. The proposed channel dimensions
for the upper and lower reach are provided in Table la and 1b. Based on reference data
collected for the Site, a stable stream channel would support a cross-sectional area averaging
12 square feet and a width-depth ratio ranging between 11 and 15. Streams with width/depth
ratios below 12 (characteristic of E streams) are often found within reference watersheds below
1.0 square mile. The reference sites were selected due to the presence of stable channel and
wetland systems in the adjacent floodplain.
The measured reference cross-sectional data suggests areas generally lower than that
predicted by reference curves for the region. For a 1.1 square mile watershed, Rosgen (1996)
predicts a stable cross-sectional area of approximately 22 square feet. Regional curves by
Harman et a/. (2000) predicts a cross-sectional area for 0.9 and 1.1 square mile watershed at
19 and 23 square feet, respectively. The curves have an inherent high degree of variability,
particularly within smaller watersheds. For example, the 95 percent confidence interval for a
1.1 square mile watershed ranges between approximately 10 to 40 square feet.
The proposed channel was enlarged from reference data to account for watershed
development. General agreement within the stream restoration community at the time of
construction accepted that bankfull discharge and bankfull stream dimensions increase in
developed watersheds. The design channel cross-sectional was therefore constructed at 20
square feet in the upper reach and 28 square feet in the lower reach to accommodate a certain
degree of development in the watershed. It should be noted that more recently the validity of
urban stream bankfull curves has been called into question (Dave Rosgen, personal
communication).
The constructed stream w_as likely built t(P wide and shallow (high width/depth ratio) for
conditions at the Site. A channel that is overly wide and shallow (i.e. high width/depth ratio)
may not be competent enough to move its ownLedir?nd consequently may aggrade or
accumulate in-stream sediment bars. Such a scenario would be exasperated by a developing
watershed with increased sediment loads, beaver activity, and a lack of flushing flows due to
extreme drought conditions over the past several years.
' A lower width/depth ratio would increase the stream power within the channel and allow the
sediment to flush through the system. The channel appears to be adjusting itself to reflect
characteristics of a narrow and more hydraulically efficient E-type stream (see continued Ir
discussion below).

1 16
M ai MIMI m s s M r MIMI M r M M? m m
IFA
1 m
?= o
a CD d ?
CD CD
0 C)
II
w o' II ID II R O
II ?'
N
¦
0 CD
CD CD
ODD `cy o CD
a .
vn (D III
C7 rn I I A. C7 I +
y Cl)
II
CC
C -? O O N
(A
y '
C? q C ,y
Zzo CAD o 0
v Z
C-D
O o td
O Z n C7 o ?
v U) v ?- -?
?o
ic K
a
z i:0
D 47
G7 _
00
CD \d
d
cD CD
? c
II a ?:
II C7 II '••••'
•.
r
711
CD
d b 'rJ ?' •. ? ? ''Cj
CD
C7 W rt?
N x?r
W fir.

1

Stream Evolution
From observation and survey data, the constructed channel would appear to be transitioning
from a C-type stream to a low width/depth C channel or E-type stream. If this is so, than we can
expect that the face of point bars to become steeper and eventually disappear. With the help of
the adjacent dense vegetation typical for E-type streams, a narrow and relatively deep channel
may form. Figure 6 depicts the time-space substitution of stream morphology believed to be
occurring at the Site. E-type streams, by nature, have a high resistance to plan form adjustment
which results in channel stability without down-cutting. These channels are hydraulically
efficient and have a high sediment load transport capacity. This would be encouraging in light
of the high sediment loads found within the receiving watershed. The transition from a C-type to
an E-type stream indicates a very stable reach and such a change in classification should not
jeopardize success criteria.
Adding haste to the stream transition process is the likelihood that the stream, as constructed,
was not competent to move the current sediment load (Figure 6A). The increased sediment
load is being deposited by the stream, in rapid fashion, to places within the channel to allow for
more efficient movement of water flow and sediment. Current surveys suggest the stream
continues along the evolutionary continuum, as depicted in Figure 6B. Sediment deposition on
point bars (Le. the area of most recent deposition) has significantly narrowed pools and bar
deposition along the riffle banks has occurred. Riffle width at bankfull remains near constructed
channel conditions, giving rise to the low mean riffle depths and high width/depth ratios found
under current conditions. As time progresses it is expected that the depositional side bars
within the riffles will approach bankfull elevation, stabilize with vegetation, and become the new
banks of narrower E-type channel (Figure 6C).
Excess Sedimentation
Upstream (off-site) stream bank erosion and sediment runoff from watershed development were
identified as a potential problem in the early stages of the mitigation plan. On-going
construction in the watershed and to adjacent properties has likely increased sediment to a
potentially problematic condition. Excess sedimentation and overwhelmed erosion control
measures were once again observed on construction sites within the watershed during recent
visual inspections. In addition, beaver activity has slowed flows and increased sediment
deposition, particularly within the upper reach channel.
' Beaver were removed during 2001 but have since returned to the upper reach of the stream.
Current beaver activity has included the construction of six small dams in the upper reach and
minor to moderate beaver damage to adjacent vegetation. Beaver management strategies are
currently being assessed for the upcoming monitoring year.
2.3.2 Biological Stream Attributes
1 The EPT taxa are generally considered secondary colonizers and are less tolerant to
disturbance than other aquatic insects. Therefore, they represent keystone species for
evaluation. Both the diversity of EPT taxa and overall EPT numbers has increased over the
April 1999 baseline sample to the August 2003 sample (Table 2). The increased habitat

18

' complexity provided by the restored stream, compared to the original channel is resulting in
increased settlement opportunities for dispersing and harboring benthic macro-invertebrates.
The increased colonization is leading to higher species diversity and an expansion of benthic
macro-invertebrates within the restored reach.

19

L

3.0 WETLAND HYDROLOGY MONITORING
3.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
Nine continuous recording (RDS24), groundwater monitoring gauges (hereafter referred to as
"wells") have been established throughout the Site to provide representative flow gradients
extending through several physiographic landscape areas including 1) seepage slope, 2)
floodplain pool (oxbow), and 2) riverine floodplain. The monitoring wells were installed in
February 2000 following the completion of stream and wetland construction and prior to the start
of the growing season. Figure 7 depicts the approximate location of the monitoring wells.
Monitoring wells were installed and downloaded in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers', Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note
HY-IA-3.1, August 1993). The monitoring wells are set to a depth of approximately 24 inches
below the soil surface.
The current year's data, extending from January 1, 2003 to December 22, 2003, have been
utilized in this Year 4 AMR report to cover the 2003-growing season. The growing season in
Cabarrus County is defined as the period between March 19 and November 9, or 235 days.
Several wells failed during the course of the year and were taken out of service to receive
repairs. Hydrological samples continue to be collected at twenty-four hour intervals.
3.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The well data are depicted as hydrographs in Appendix D. Intersection of the line at 12 inches
below the surface was used as the cut-off for wetland hydrology, following the regulatory
wetland criterion requiring saturation (free water) within 12 inches of the soil surface. Data used
to evaluate wetland hydrology criteria including maximum consecutive saturation days and
percent of the growing season are summarized in Table 3. Wells record only depth of water
below ground surface. Surface flows are indicated by a straight line at the ground surface.
Depth of surface flow is not available from these instruments.
In general, water levels show a typical pattern of flooding during late winter to early spring,
followed by a late summer and autumn draw down period, punctuated by peaks associated with
precipitation events. The region around the Site has received above average rainfall for the
year, ending the long drought which gripped the region in the previous two years. The summer
of 2003 was particularly wet as reflected in the data. In general, the 2003 well data
substantiates the record rainfall of the past year, more than doubling comparable saturation
days through the growing season. The maximum number of consecutive saturation days
recorded by the wells ranged from 53 days (excluding malfunctioning wells) to 235 days or 23 to
100 percent of the growing season.
Wells 1 and 4 are representative of the seepage slope wetland conditions found along portions
of the western Site boundary. Wells 1 and 4 exhibited a similar maximum consecutive
saturation of 100 percent during the growing season. These wells were deeply inundated for
the entire growing season, as represented by the horizontal line in the
20

O
N
I
cP

I
9 '
&?? I r
I I. I I

t?*1>yX
mC
Zm
m
D

X

N

X

N y

D'O
r
-O
xf
v0 rN
CO1 ZO
m2 p
;
m -i i i 0 m;a
mX
-
m
z 0-

Z
r ,
m
A

"
t/1

O 0
0
z
--r ?;C
>
co
r
m
F O
z? n(?
>m r
0 M
m A
r*m b °c Om
co
Z Y/

A 0
?o o0
zn A OO
in m
Z
m °z {? v
w >1
O
O Z
N
N ? W W
N W r0 A
I+ 1+ 1+ I+
0 0
n n

-4 17 V

VI
f
r
1 V, \(- ?
I \ f' d
1
11 ?
1 ` r
\1
.
r i
T
t

?tT
-R1V-ER

c. '
r
i N
1 Y
tr / Y ? / r
Q r t
t
r '
2 `
C , C
? r
? Zy
0 c
l 00 ~A
2 . 70
r- r ? N
J
I -Iol
1

m
m
[yi n
c o ti ?

° (?
m

°

m

m

Gp O -
Z Q
z
OCn a °z n
o

o `
0 s
Pi p
C 0QC
*aaz ?
?
mz?aQ
?v??? Z aor0
-13-Q
o z,o
z
0
c
V m o
v z
m=! C/?V
y-1pm? nN Q =v
oo F? ? m
ymC o
N n ,
0
W C) 70 S Z a ?
rc Z?3 _
A =

cn

J
N
N
0
Z y m
v
zn -4 G? r
{ N _
z -? r
D
CAD
q 0
w I L- I
1
?.+ O
Q L (Q
L ? G
0 10
1 = L
CO 0-
M p
CV)
i W
m 3=?
co
Q L
= O C
1 cn "0
1
1
0

L Y

c
a) E ? A
2-S 4= U O +. f6

U
U N
2
O
a U O O ?O Q
a0+ N O (6 O O

CL L
cu
=3
r
CO
m E m cu .>

aN
U Q
X E cL &-
N r_
O
O

G1
0 O
._ af >, O
fl __
w
E L
N N
cu
E (? C O 2 U O
(U
a
O O
-

U
L
O
a) O
+
+

°o L L

L LL
0-2 o o a L L
N c ti .? - c _ > >
O._
O a)
C O N N m O
O jE >
CU ;t-- r a _0 M
O
3 >1

Y

Y
+
N U
L
> O
Q
Q
O O U
O Y
U U
O
M C3 U L L L a: -0 W O
> E E E c xo c c
O O "O . L L N L O p O p O a
Y 42 .0- M 40- C p

U CU 0
U M
Ll
(n -
L1. L (6
U N Co
U (6
U N
U
0-0 O Z U Q' U O t O O O
'ct
=
O L
(Q O
O O
O
tl-
r,- O
O
CV)
04
O O
C)

co
O
N } r r 00 r co
d
co M

.
) O
M (D
N N
?- O
co N
r CO
r (D
M
r M
r r
N
O

L
N
'C O M N N N O N
O
_

d
r -
i
d L
m C)
C) C)
C)
N ON O
N r
d M

N O

N O

N co

`-'
} A N

(0 M M LO
ONO LO
M
M

LO U)
O

00 U')
M to
O
O)

00
?
r
(D N N ?- N N ?
d
>

? N M
V

N
L
N

t` _

O

N
_
rl-

N 00

M

00

N

M

d
C = }

V a+

E L N
L

E R
O 00
0 m
OM
C E O
N
?
dM
N
rn LO
co
to
}
w
C

N

N

N

?

N

0

O o
c
a) N N t .- V Cn Lo
V
d

A O
r
L
CY) ?
cc

3
Z Q
c
O
U
3
m 0
O
m
0
M N
O C
.2 O
?
O °T)
r cu m
?? >
.m M >
N L co
a? L
3 0 > >
M
C aa)) E v
o o)
E s U
Y a)
N
y O
y 3 '
0
3 % c0
as
m
ns c m
D) o O 3
C - ? N
C
N ¢ O f0
c N 0
3 aoi O ui
M a`) Z
m E t
L O c N
I - p) m m
m 7 n
>. w Q '
M co a
N -0 () cn
o a) Q a)
c r
rn 'E F-
C c a)
N m O 3
>
O y a) a)
Z a) m E
o
rn w
L y
U :01 -2
O
o m
a)
N 0 m •?
T N ? u1
C 7 c c
0 co
E c
u) o o
u) a) t
l0 a) 0
U (D
a)
`O N T a
`? r a)
a) O w a3
w
a _U
CL f0
N
0 co
3
O N N
C) (0 of O)
c ? as
O >
Im m
f 3
F- V) )
N M V LO co
' hydrographs. Both wells are located in depressed, seepage areas where surface expression of
groundwater is confined for most of the year. Beaver activity in the upper stream reach has also
contributed to the long saturation period recorded at the Well 1 location.
Wells 2, 3, and 5 are representative of the riverine floodplain adjacent to the constructed
stream. Wells 2 and 3 are located in the upper reaches of the Site, in the proximity of Well 1.
' These wells should typically receive hydrologic input from both groundwater and over bank flow
events. However, beaver activity within the upper reach has likely impacted Wells 2 and 3,
giving rise to the extended saturation days. Well 3 and Well 5 recorded consecutive saturation
t 235 days and 182 days, respectively. This translates to 100 percent and 77 percent of the
growing season. Well 5 is located in the center portion of the Site, approximately 50 feet from
the edge of the channel and is not under the direct influence of beaver. Well 5 recorded a
maximum consecutive saturation period during the growing season of 53 days or 23 percent.
This reflects a two-fold increase in saturation days from the past two years and compares
I favorably to results recorded in the first monitoring year which experienced closer to normal
rainfall conditions.
Areas represented by Well 6, include the littoral shelf and delta associated with the floodplain
pool (oxbow). These areas are influenced by fairly constant pool elevations with periodic spikes
in water levels induced by precipitation events. Well 6 experienced a failure on September 25
and was taken out of service for repairs. Therefore, data from Well 6 is incomplete but still
exhibited a maximum consecutive saturation of 80 percent during the growing season.
The remaining wells (7, 8, and 9) are located near the Rocky River and represent the various
hydrologic regimes that are associated with larger riverine floodplains. The wells within the
floodplain receive hydraulic input from both groundwater (i.e. the oxbow) and over bank flow
' events from Airport Creek and the Rocky River. The floodplain microtopography near the Rocky
River varies considerably, where specific ground elevations dictate wetland hydroperiods.
Although both Wells 8 and 9 failed at different times during the year, variation in hydrologic
' regimes continues to be reflected in the data set. Well 9 is located in a depressed area near the
oxbow and has additionally been affected by overtopping from localized beaver impoundments.
' Well 9 has essentially been inundated for most of the year. Likewise, Well 7 is permanently
inundated from overflow and backwater from beaver activity. Well 8 is located on a slight knoll
near the oxbow outlet where water levels fluctuate from periodic rain events. Prior to
1 mechanical failure the well recorded a maximum 19 consecutive saturation days or 8 percent of
the growing season.
' 3.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Hydrological success criteria requires 1) saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of the
growing season at lower landscape positions during average climatic conditions and 2)
' saturation or inundation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season at upper landscape
positions during average climatic conditions. Both areas are expected to support hydrophytic
vegetation.
' Groundwater data indicate that all well locations and corresponding physiographic areas
achieved hydrological success criteria for 2003. These areas exhibit wetland hydrology for a
' period ranging from 53 days (excluding malfunctioning well) 235 days or 23 percent to
23

100 percent of the growing season. The hydroperiods corresponded with the existing hydric
vegetation cover types as described in Section 4.0. The average maximum consecutive
saturation period (including malfunctioning wells) during the growing season was 74 percent.
The average saturation for the current year has increased dramatically from result posted from
past monitoring periods that has spanned one of the worst recorded droughts in the region. For
the current year, the monitoring wells indicate that all wetland areas have a hydroperiod that is
' wetter than the 12.5 percent as required by the success criteria. Beaver have had a
pronounced affect on hydroperiods within portions of the site including upper reach and oxbow
areas represented by Wells 1, 2, 4 and. 7. The other non beaver impacted portions of the Site,
particularly areas represented by Wells 3, 5, 6, and 8, demonstrate the variability and
corresponding micro-habitat potential across the Site, including seepage slopes, river oxbows,
and backwater areas.
Based on current well data, restoration of wetland hydrology has been successfully achieved
throughout areas represented by the monitoring wells. Figure 7 depicts wetland boundaries
mapped using well data and corresponding hydrophytic vegetation signatures. Based on the
mapping, approximately 13.9 acres of wetlands and an additional 1.3 acres of open
water/marsh (oxbow) reside within the 23.4-acre Site.

1

24
4.0 VEGETATION MONITORING
4.1 MONITORING PROGRAM
' Quantitative sampling of vegetation was carried out in September 2003. The six permanent
sampling plots (1-6) established in 2000 were re-surveyed. Figure 8 depicts the approximate
location of each vegetation sample plot and the as-built planting plan. Each sampling plot
comprises two; 300-foot transects extending from a central point. Plot width along each
transect extends 4 feet on both sides of the centerline, providing a 0.11 acre sample (600 feet x
8 feet / 43,560 feet / acre). The center and end points of each plot are permanently marked with
' a labeled, white polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. Plot 3 serves as a control plot established to
represent vegetation characteristics in unplanted areas of the Site. Plot 3 was not used to
evaluate success.
All woody species rooted within the plot boundary were recorded and measured for height.
Because of the large number of black willow (Salix nigra) stems, only those greater than 0.5-
inch diameter at breast height (dbh) were recorded. All plots were averaged to obtain total trees
per acre (density) and percent of total per acre. Percent of total trees per acre and wetland
' status were also analyzed for success criteria evaluation. Complete species inventories can be
found in Appendix E. Photographic record of vegetative plots is shown in Appendix F.
' 4.2 MONITORING RESULTS
The Site vegetative communities remain a succession continuum of forest development. As in
the past monitoring years most of the project area remains in the early stages of old field
' (pastured) succession. The former pastured area in the upper reach portion of the Site, as well
as the northern bank adjacent to the oxbow, were maintained as pasture until just prior to
mitigation activity. As part of the mitigation plan, these areas received a full planting (435
trees/acre) of diagnostic species. The vegetation is currently dominated by volunteer
herbaceous species that vary in abundance according to landscape position, micro-
topographical differences, and seasonal variation. Hydrophytic vegetation established during
' the spring and early summer 2000 includes sedges (Cyperus spp.), cat tail (Typha sp.),
seedboxes (Ludwegia spp.), knotweeds (Polygonum spp.), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and
rushes (Juncus spp.), all of which are still present in open, very wet or inundated areas of the
floodplain. In drier areas the developing vine and herbaceous component includes joint-head
anthraxan (Anthraxan hispidis var. cryptatherus), panicum grasses (Panicum spp.), crab grass
' (Digiteria sp.), beggarticks (Bidens frondosa), blackberry (Rubus argutus), and broom sedge
(Andropogon virginicus).
Farther along the succession continuum are areas that support volunteer trees and shrubs >1.0
inch dbh such as black willow, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
loblolly pine, (Pinus taeda), and box-elder (Acer negundo). This community is located
predominantly in the lower floodplain, east of the constructed stream, and includes the wetland
bio-reserve area. Portions of the lower floodplain east and west

25

o ?Zm

O?>>
OO
T

g0
E5
zm
nrrn

A
mM m
D 1
Z
N2
AD
mm
y
Ln

m
?

?r
O

c

a
O
O
;
y
Z
O

O

AE
0
O
O-'\
rnDmD
1N
=m
A
C
W
yy
N

m

;
co
r
D
xX r-
f0
om
ON
O
02

m1
W
n
k

`
0 o t
?
- o m
u

I+

+

+ o

I+ '4

I+

It
Ig
+
N
`

V)

i S

Zm
m
N
X 11
X
;

m
y
N to
z0
y
A

on
oi
o°
zm,
m m

<
m

°
N
rn

m

N
A
0
A
O

b O
n
O
".{ z

c r o
Z>

--I
O
m
Z
?m
<

r

m
M
Z

v
v ?

O
z

W
A
I+
0
n

+ ++
n>
\ Y
r/
1
O
2 ?
0 C:
N C>
V v
1 D
Ll3?
AV/A
a ,1 •? r 1
m n o n
n n ? ..
< 5 Z? 3O0 V O
C M Z X? LOCO Z r?rn wC. O
C) o rm>- =c -0:4-4M 0 2 _ 30 a O
m o o O? D Z O n N 00=0 Z m? v ° ?? T lit.
O m y -i v n 70 ,? < M M N n P CD
L4 0 V r- C: ;u
N N m >-4 0?? ? r ?
No 0 Z y D N

of the constructed stream are dominated by black willow and tag alder, which have reached
heights greater than 25 feet and developed full canopy closure. The dense, herbaceous cover
present in these areas in the year 2000 has diminished, and an open, shaded ground layer
devoid of vegetation now exists.
A mature bottomland hardwood forest is located in the Rocky River floodplain. Box elder,
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweet gum, and willow oak
(Quercus phellos) dominate the canopy. As in the prior three years of monitoring, the
understory is continuing to recover from past grazing activity, but remains generally sparse.
' However, several woody and herbaceous species were noted including saplings of the various
overstory species, lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum chinensis), blackberry, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), and spikegrass (Chasmathium spp.).
The planting plan was modified slightly to accommodate changes in as-built stream and oxbow
location. Additional changes resulted from project modifications to the adjacent business park,
including the causeway design and enlarged fill slopes. Approximately 13.5 acres of the 23.4-
acre mitigation site was planted at a density of 435 stems/acre. Stocking levels of planted trees
and natural recruitment are summarized in Table 4. A total of 40 woody species, both planted
and volunteers, were surveyed. The eight most abundant species in the third monitoring
season were black willow, box elder, tag alder, sweet gum, green ash, hackberry, cottonwood,
and tulip poplar. This changed slightly in the fourth monitoring season with hackberry and tulip
poplar being replaced by sycamore and winged elm. The estimated total stocking level across
the site has decreased from 4236 trees/acre in 2002 to 3693 trees/acre in the current year.
Willows, box elder, tag alder, green ash, and sweet gum account for approximately 81 percent
of the total number of stems surveyed. Establishment and success of planted seedlings in
moist areas remains very good.
The survey data revealed a decrease in the total number of stems of characteristic species
between 2002 and 2003 (Table 5) by 14 percent. This is reflective of an increase in shading in
some areas as the canopy continues to close. It is also the result of a few stems becoming
dominant in a species such as willow that has multiple stems that emerge from the same root
system while young. The most notably species demonstrating this condition is black willow,
which decreased in 2003 by 26 percent. All other characteristic species decreased slightly to
' moderately with only box elder and green ash increasing from the previous year by 4 percent
and 38 percent respectively. Overall, stem density of characteristic species has increased 7
percent from 2000 to 2003 (2698 trees/acre in 2000, 2894 trees/acre in 2003).
r

t

1 27
11
t

fl
U)

c c
L _
a) cu
C
\? CC
C
O ?
E
O -.- (a
E N
O

O O ?
?cu N CU M
N E
> N
O
U)

=3
C
(n
E QC
G

U) O O
N ?
r
U

t

WN

U

3

N U U U
Q U U U U U U U ?
m U U U U U U U U U U U U
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
LL LL Z L LL LL LL LL LL O LL LL LL LL U- LL LL LL U- LL LL LL

E > > n. > a a a_ > a > > > > a > > > >
a j a? j j a
O
U
o v w ?
V p 0
0 V
,
? o ° o O O ui o 0 0 c, o o o 0 0 ° O o 0 0 0 O
r O
r
? ? U
d

d
U) L
0
O
O
O
O
,2 V L (D (D co N 0 0 ((0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 (D (D
?Q NU

4'
5 (D
Q'
L
0 0
L f"' d V M (0 (O O "t
Cn N co O O O co d o f) 0 't O r O O O n 00 O

'a r N r O O O O O O r O 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0
ao?
d
p d Q V
o
CM
(0
N
m
t`
0
0
N
LO
U')
N
?
N
O
to
O
N
N
rl-
Y7
co

Q
O It t?
N (
d. (h
N

co O
Cl)
r N
N
d
O
O
r
M
o0
N
N
('')
O
r
r
?j
C)
N N

C cu

C? a
U

co co

C z

T h

= m

c

N

d
C
N N
m
U c
0
.m
y
E co ca
co E
O
10 o m
`° p ac, y c
U
`
i '
Z m C - m ? 0 > z c
O m ?° c

Q

N E!
U
,Q

1m

h
v 0

m
C
_

C

y
h
co

Q

O
N U O tq c0
U
h c
c

3

Co a

G

E
M z Q) Q)
U V U A N N m N Q O O O m N O Z p 3 =
U) Q Q Q Q Q 00 oD U U U U U U U U p LL C7 > > ? J

d
3 O ca
?o
Z 4. :3
" 3 L

O
L
IL
N
U
p Y
U
' p
N ?
0 C
O 3
U
? :3
C "p
N
E
co
E M O m L
-, C i • w
m O j W
?
i W
O cl
O
E co a)
E p

E

(v C
-0
L j

C

Y

O
2 L
a)

E

w

C

N

'O i

Y

?N, N

N
c
O
U cr,
b X
Q 0 a
a)
E
m cr, O
L O
'i O
2
U U
L h ? co
p ?
L C
L U to
m m
3:
. . .Q 0 t C "a s 0 U 0

.?, p
CU
D
N

C ? ? N

U
CU c c
CU CU
N N UU E
0 cu
> >
-
U
U
+'
O
(a
C fA
E C
E M -p
U) C)
U
N
0
i 0
U
t
1

0
1
N N
22
V 0 T 7 7 ? ? 7
L Q
= co
U
'r M

N" V
Q U
¢ U U U U U U J
a U U U U U
a < z z < < < a < < < < <
LL LL IL LL Z Z LL LL LL I1 0 z
Z LL IL I1 LL LL
w
c
>
>
>
E
>
d
> > > >
> d
d d d
E
O
U
r O N
i
O y L d y
d
w V
O
L
0

0
0
0
0
0
"t
o
O
O
M
*
O
O
co
O
O O
d 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CO)

m
M
V d N
L Q? L
0 0 w US
O
(D
(D
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
M
O
O
0
0
c% U

L
}r . a)
O O M L N m to m 0 0 0 h M O O d. t` O r .- O
d w a O , N 0 0 0 O O O O O N O r 0 0 0 0
CL o?
H L N
Q
O
(D _
O
O
0
0
N
O
O
N
N
LO
N M
.Q
co M
N

d

LO
co

?

-

0

0

0

D

O

O

O

O

O?

M

M

- ?

C
? N
J
a

y

co .co
F
-
o
co
co Ei
a N
a N
° y ca
a
O
to U co rz
co as
a U
0 0
a -
L Z3
y U
w .C
N N
a
>`
t1

'

co
0

j

Q)
0
11
C,
1- c

3
CL
CL

3
CL

a3

u

o

a

j
a+ 1 0 y
O y h
0 N N , j
d N j N Q .X E E ;C ;Q

41
E
Y Y
O
`a
C 0 a

(D a+

E E

(D *

-0 3
_
0 -
0 °
U a)
U E
7 -`
o ca
O -
.0
E U :3
O CL
O
N N
a O L
E
U v a 0iJ O 0 = 0 0 0 N ° in
O
U m
0
co
0 c
a
.0
?
3
3
3
0
c
- _
•3
m C
§
m
M" wo
al
0
tq
3
a
C
co
ca
t
3
a)
0
m
U
N
CL
N
a
c
co
°'
C
O
N
LO
N
a)
3
O
a
O N
N
co U
U
a 0 co
) co
a3 a U 'C
N N ym U
a n U C13
°O M co
a Co
U
O m co
o L
0 U co Co 0
? N (0 U
N O CU N
`m
0 co
"o w
(D ca := 0
U a 3 L U
L E a
N O
d o C
C
C U O C ca
N U U O
m L ca -
U a 4? ca a3
O O N N
a) C N f6
L' () C (n w
4) :; ?
4: N cu aJ
C
7 o p C
U v-
0 a N f6
N N N
C N
> U m !Z = L
CL
-0 n ca
??a> U °a
3 E vO °
U L ..0•. - C
10
d O 0 p M
II sU N Z °
Q M
FULL *

?J

t
1

M
O
O O
0
? ca
O O
(n O ;+=
U
CU

C
IL- C
U) a) cB
T?
o
o
iU
?na
c?
4- 0 CU
.L E

CU C
1
L O 4-
cu =
co
cn
CU
U O
' O

O U
_
O
U

F

a) M
O
N
M

CO
't
(O
NT
CO
d'
CO
d'
CO
'It
CO
M
M
O
CO
r
M
?
N

r

to

O

O M

co
7 N
R

W
O
R
? N
O
N
M
?
(O
"t
O
V-
CO
VT
O
't
(O
qT
O
'q
(D
N
Cp
O
v-
CO
M
I?

t(7

N

O
N
N
d +r
O U
. N

d o
0 O
N N
M d'
0 qq
m V
O 'IT
(fl IT
0 1;T
0 V
qq M
U) "T
N
N
O r
r
O
O co
co
Q
L U)

d O N
M V
(O
CO V
O d
O V
CO M
M ?-
tt7 OO
M 'T
Cp N
N O I- O N CO
C14
M
CD (o
M to ct
Lf)
O
-
d)
0)
(O
M
CO
M
N
r
t[)
O
O

c
co
N co 'T 0 N

i
V
a

d N
O
r' ti
O O
N M
O It
OD O
N
M
`
N
0
O
'IT
M
M
I-
In
N
O
W)
Cl)
N 00 to N ?- M
N
d
L
~
?
(D Cfl LO
M N
d V
N
N
V
M
N
N
O
CT
O
C1
4
O N (D r l
M
F-

C)
LO
O

N
N

d
M

N
?J

d

??

M

O

M

N

O

I?

O

N co

?C
N t- CA a r r N

d CO
,U
O
E U go co c
w ? ?,

°
( y o
a? n ? m

a c :c
V O to c +
N
_
0 a ?. O
O
r ,U O (o

z

C Q Q) a)

a 0 rz cCB s
-n
CO
N
U

c
p

c

Z3 co

Z3 i
Q
v)
m
N o 10
x

c0 N

U O

J X

?
C', .

N
U

O
C O
Q)
U
Z?
N
N
N
O
I
-
3
L
CU

:3

?+
Q L 6E J Q m 0 O U U p

2
d
E O
E
(C
Z
v Y
N
E
p L E O (B a)
- Y O W ?C
E
C? N
Q
m ` O C
?
a
ca U
m
o C
m
o N
o
E W 0 Y O _
'L G L 0 L L. O ()
U O a) (D a) . EL O (D (D i
co U) V 2 U Q LL LL > U Q O
o?? vi `p
L E C
a)EEv (v
E ca >,
- O (n C
C (xQ E V (B
N O O
E N U C
v C
x CU
(0 ` N
E v7 03 a) (D
L E Y
L
N(.4C; N_N 3
>O
?: a) O c
>
O V in "O
O
N
N a) (p
M
m p N O
E ? O a) c
L
cm O =
U O O /O
O U
?- >
M N 0 !Z
-0 (D .? E
N (6
O L = O
O
?
X .- (n
a)2 OEc
52.O•gO
=5 E O a)
? c
.. T O .
E
U
N U N 'O Q
O O T C N
N L E O O
MQI
O U)
N cm L
ate) Erna?
cno.a3 oAn m
a) O 7
0, O `n cu U
C) C:
64 "
U
a) O If CU
++ .Q E O (n
N?Ea)Q.(o
L Q
a) 70 0.2 c -O a) a)
cu •- E (D mss
(u• ? C ?-0
-E?oP
U (A •X fl.. ? a)
OL .N E ) N
C
?.
E 0 Qo
m
C N U E) (0
a) (D
rL+
U O CL 'L
OJ 0 U) .0 ?N
'C - "O U N N
N
?!t= o •j a)
U CD U O
rn O O U U
(n ++ N (0 C
U N O= U N
O LL V >+ S
^` L
(u
a)
O
N E N N C
-co uc) w <
I

4.3 EVALUATION OF SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success in the restoration of wetland vegetation includes the establishment and maintenance of
a species composition sufficient for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success criteria
include a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre surviving at least 5
years after initial planting. Characteristic species are defined as 1) planted elements or 2)
natural recruits of native tree species identified in reference ecosystems. Additionally,
characteristic tree species should support a jurisdictional determination, having a wetland
indicator status of FAC, FAC+, FACW-, FACW, FACW+, or OBL. At least five character tree
species must be present, and no single species can comprise more than 20 percent (64 stems)
of the 320 stem/acre total. Softwood species (ex: loblolly pine, black willow) cannot comprise
more than 10 percent (32 stems) of the 320 stem/acre requirement. Table 4 depicts the number
of trees/acre by species that can be applied to the 320-stem/acre criterion for the three
monitoring years (2001-3). The 583 trees/acre total in 2003 exceeds the 320-stem/acre
requirement stated in the monitoring plan. In addition, the 15 characteristic wetland species
sampled exceeds the 5-species minimum diversity stated in the monitoring plan. Therefore,
current stocking levels meet the vegetation success criteria.

1

1
1

1
31
II
LJ
5.0 SUMMARY
The Year 4 AMR (2003) data indicate that the Concord Mills mitigation site achieved regulatory
success criteria for stream geometry, wetland hydrology, and vegetation four years after
construction. Functional attributes exhibited on-Site include long-term surface water storage,
energy dissipation, retention of nutrients and particulates, and the establishment of
characteristic stream and wetland plant and wildlife populations. A majority of the Site appears
to support hydroperiods and successional vegetation patterns conducive to establishment of
forested wetland habitat.
The data also indicate that current Site conditions continue to meet or exceed the mitigation
requirements for both stream length and wetland area, as projected by the mitigation plan. The
Concord Mills project initially required compensatory mitigation for impacts to 1796 linear feet of
stream channel, 2.5 acres of wetlands, and 0.6 acre of open water. The mitigation plan outlined
strategies designed to compensate for these stream, wetland, and open water impacts included
stream reconstruction and restoration along approximately 3000 linear feet, 3.0 acres of net
wetland restoration/creation, and 5.4 acres of wetland enhancement within remaining portions of
the Site.
The as-built stream channel continues to exhibit a transition from the proposed C-type stream to
a highly stable, E-type stream. Mid-evolutionary channel features include a significant decrease
in cross-sectional area, increase in width-depth ratios, decrease in depth, accreting point bars
(narrowing pools), and to a lesser extent side channel bars. The transition from the proposed
C-type to an E-type stream will ultimately deliver a very stable condition that should not
jeopardize success criteria. Approximately 4000 linear feet of total stream length has been
constructed including approximately 2100 linear feet of new stream channel construction, 375
linear feet of stream repair and stabilization, and 1200 linear feet of stream length running
through the oxbow to the confluence of the Rocky River.
The groundwater well data indicate that wetland hydrology success criteria have been achieved.
Currently, approximately 13.9 acres of succeeding forest wetlands and an additional 1.3 acres
' of oxbow marsh and deep water wetland habitat occur on the Site. This represents nearly 4.5
acres of net vegetated wetland restoration gain over the pre-restoration conditions.
Year 4 vegetation surveys continue to reflect conditions typical of early successional forest
development on disturbed floodplains in the Piedmont. The floodplain surface consists primarily
of an unconsolidated clay sediment wedge induced during past erosion events in the watershed.
Therefore, early to mid-successional forest conditions must include tree species adapted to
degraded soil conditions, such as black willow, sweet gum, red maple, swamp cottonwood,
green ash, and river birch. After soil properties have been ameliorated by these early
pioneering species, mast producing species such as oak and hickory are expected to become
established in sufficient quantity to develop into a characteristic floodplain bottomland hardwood
assemblage. The variable hydrologic regime found across the Site will promote diverse wetland
community patterns and will consequently enhance opportunities for wetland-dependent wildlife.
n
1 32

Beaver were removed during 2001 but have since returned to the upper reach and oxbow
areas. Current beaver activity has included the construction of six small dams in the upper
reach and minor to moderate beaver damage to adjacent vegetation. Beaver management
strategies are currently being assessed for the upcoming monitoring year.

t
t

['I
Ll

t

1 33

1 6.0
1

1

t
1
1

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Monitoring Plan
Post Restoration Photographs
Biological Monitoring Data
Groundwater Well Hydrographs
Vegetation Plot Data
Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots
34
1
t
1
1
t

1

1
t

J
APPENDIX A
Monitoring Plan
u
1
1 6.0 MONITORING PLAN
' Monitoring of wetland and stream restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are
fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for three wetland components, vegetation, hydrology, and
streams.
J

t
t
t
t

1

1
t

6.1 HYDROLOGY MONITORING
While hydrological modifications are being performed on the site, surficial monitoring wells will
be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers',
Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (W RP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, August
1993). Monitoring wells will be set to a depth immediately above the top of the clay subsurface
layer (range: 60 to 100 cm [24 to 40 in] below the surface).
Nine monitoring wells will be placed immediately adjacent to vegetation sampling plots to
provide representative coverage within each of the identified mitigation design units (Figure 21).
Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the growing season at intervals necessary
to satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (EPA 1990).
6.2 HYDROLOGY SUCCESS CRITERIA
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 12.5 percent of
the growing season at lower landscape positions, during average climatic conditions. Upper
landscape reaches may exhibit surface saturation/inundation between 5 and 12.5 percent of the
growing season based on well data. These 5 to12.5 percent areas are expected to support
hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and
hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in the questionable area.
6.3 STREAM MONITORING
Two stream reaches will be monitored for geometric and biological activity as depicted in Figure
21. Each stream reach will extend for a minimum of 150 ft along the restored channel. Annual
fall monitoring will include development of a channel plan view, channel cross-sections on riffles
and pools, pebble counts, and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be
presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include: 1) cross-sectional
area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) max depth, 5) width/depth ratio, 6) meander
wavelength, 7) belt width, 8) water surface slope; 9) sinuosity; and 10)-stream substrate
composition. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and
substrate. Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by
comparing data in each successive monitoring year.
Aquatic surveys will be performed within the existing stream channel prior to diversion of stream
flows. Subsequently, biological monitoring, including macro-invertebrate, reptile, amphibian,
and fish species will be performed along the reconstructed stream in year 3 and year 5 of the
monitoring plan. Biological data will be collected between March 15 and April 15.
Presence/absence of species populations identified will be reported along with observations of
changes to in-stream aquatic habitat over time.
6.4 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
1
w
t Success criteria for stream restoration will include: 1) successful classification of the reach as a
functioning stream system; 2) channel stability indicative of a stable stream system; and 3)
' development of biological communities over time.
The channel configuration will be compared on an annual basis to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate. This data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring
stream channel stability. Specifically, the width/depth ratio will remain at or below a value of 20
in each monitoring year. In addition, the maximum depth of the channel must not exceed 4.0
feet relative to the adjacent floodplain. Modifications to the channel will performed to increase
or decrease the sediment transport capacity, or other unstable attribute, as needed. If the
stream channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional
bank or slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Biological monitoring will indicate an increase in species diversity over time. Specifically, the
number of species identified in the existing channel must be exceeded in year 3 and year 5 of
the monitoring program. If biological success criteria are not being fulfilled, the most likely
cause will comprise extensive sedimentation which covers coarse substrates in the channel. If
aquatic species diversity is not increasing, additional modifications to channel substrates will be
performed and upstream sources of sedimentation will be identified.
_ The Site may contain a historic alluvial fan than develops due to backwater conditions during
significant Rocky River floods. If such a flood event occurs, and an alluvial fan develops, central
portions of the Site which are contained under the fan will be deemed to have fulfilled stream
success criteria. However, remaining stream reaches outside of the fan will continue to be
subject to monitoring and success criteria as described above.
6.5 VEGETATION MONITORING
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with EPA
guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site Type (MIST) documentation (EPA 1990) and USACE
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (DOA 1993). A general discussion of the
restoration monitoring program is provided.
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be
performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density.
Supplemental planting and additional site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During the first year, vegetation will receive cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to
ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently,
quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between September 1 and October 30
after each growing season until the vegetation success criteria is achieved.
During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, 9 sample plots will be
randomly placed within each mitigation design unit (Figure 21). Sample plot distributions will be
correlated with hydrological monitoring locations to provide point-related data on hydrological
and vegetation parameters. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored
J

LIJ

t

r
1
t
t

include species composition and species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of
shrub and herbaceous species will also be recorded.
6.6 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Success criteria have been established to verify that the wetland vegetation component
supports community elements necessary for a jurisdictional determination. Additional success
criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of characteristic forest species. Specifically,
a minimum mean density of 320 characteristic tree species/acre must be surviving for at least 5
years after initial planting. At least five characteristic tree species must be present, and no
species can comprise more than 20 percent of the 320 stem/acre total. Characteristic species
are defined as 1) planted elements or 2) natural recruits of native tree species identified in
reference ecosystems (Section 4.3). Additionally, characteristic tree species should support a
jurisdictional determination, and therefore have a wetland status of FAC, FAC+, FACW-, FACW,
FACW+, or OBL. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed to achieve the vegetation
success criteria.
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria. Development of bottomland forests over several decades and
wetland hydrology will dictate the success in migration and establishment of desired wetland
understory and groundcover populations. Visual estimates of the percent cover of herbaceous
species and photographic evidence will be reported for information purposes.
6.7 CONTINGENCY
In the event that vegetation, hydrology, or stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism
for contingency will be implemented. For vegetation contingency, replanting and extended
monitoring periods will be implemented if community restoration does not fulfill minimum
species density and distribution requirements.
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology restoration is not achieved. Wetland surface modification, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represents a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area
that supports jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until the Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
Stream reconstruction failure may occur due to increased sediment and discharge during
construction activities within the upper watershed. Stream contingency will likely include
identification and modification of upstream discharge outlets or sediment sources, additional
stabilization of stream banks, and re-establishment of stream substrates required to support
target aquatic communities. Recommendations for stream contingency will also be solicited,
implemented, and monitored until the Stream Success Criteria are achieved.

1

1

1

APPENDIX B
Current Year and Timeline Photographs

C

CD
CD
N
C)
:)-
O
O
cn
O
C7
ZT
N
CD
CD
N
Z3
0 -
CD
I
cn
CD
(c
CD
CD
a
N
Z3
77
cn
v
Z3
0
CT
CD
v
CD
v
n

? a x
t ?'t
. ., L. r'?E•. ?K7f.

Y

eats'' - - jf a ?i'

C»s
Yom. .:
y#$
v4?' ? n

= t
r
0
CD
CD
n
0
0
U)
cn
0
cn
v
CD
3
CD
v
CD
I
cn
0
zT
v
CD
cn
A
CD
Z3
cn
<
CD
3.1J
CD
0
CT
N
Z3
a
CD
m<
CD
3^1J
/-F•
cn
c
3
CD
N
O
O
O

i

N
O
0

• r'

-
?
A 14
.
?
?

i-
-

C
C
CD
tG
N
O
O
Cl
VI
CQ
N
O
O
O

I ?
?'1
N 1
?
?

{ s PIC
? ? x
t
ny Y

c.-
.
.
T
s

• i 1 ? ify

O
3
cD
CD
O
O
K
cr
O
O
3
G
(D
cfl
N
O
O
O
O
C
N
O
O
w
m
a?
T
N
O
O
N
TI
N
O
O
W

qq+Y

AL.
lip

r •'
cn
m
N
O
O
O
fl1
N
O
O
'P.;. ?.
rr
l"
r.-
n
O
N
rt
C
n
0C
C
rr
CD
O
to
CG
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
?.i

r

F

M d
v

F

}? ?: is

r 4i 74 c
S
O
O
c?
CD
O
3
G
CD
3
to
CO
N
O
O
O
O
C
Q
p1
N
O
O
N
.-r
a1
CD
-fi
s
O
3
D
_rt
O
O
C
CD
w
Q.
O
O
Cn
O
C
m
a?
N
O
O
N
TI
N
O
O
W

A
t

t
I

r

t
APPENDIX C
Biological Monitoring Data

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
I
1
1
1

BENTHIC MACROINVERTTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CONCORD MILLS RESTORATION, AUGUST 14,
2003.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G US CULVERT DS CULVERT
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Corbiculidae
Corbicula fluminea 6.12 FC
Sphaeriidae *8 FC
Pisidium sp. 6.48 FC
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.84 CG
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta *1 CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae 7.03 CG
Hirudinea *8 P
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae *8 P
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes 5.53
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae *8 SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.11 CG
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae *4 CG
Baetis sp. *4 CG
Baetis c. f. flavistriga 7 CG
Pseudocloeon sp. 4.02 CG
Heptageniidae *4 SC
Stenonema sp. *4 SC
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC
Odonata
Aeshnidae *3 P
Boyeria vinosa 5.89 P
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.78 P
Coenagrionidae *9 P
Enallagma sp. 8.91 P
Cordulegastridae *3 P
Cordulegaster sp. 5.73 P
Gomphidae *1 P
Ophiogomphus sp. 5.54 P
Stylogomphus albistylus 4.72 P
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae *4 FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.22 FC
Hydropsyche betteni gp. 7.78 FC
Pennington and Associates, Inc.
3
1
2
1 3
1
1
2
1
6 I
3 i 4
3
1 1
15 30
2
4
1 ,3
5
1
53
24
Page 1 of 2 ecoscienceconcordmills2003 12/18/2003

1
1
1
t
1
1
i
BENTHIC MACRO[NVERTTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM CONCORD MILLS RESTORATION, AUGUST 14,
2003.
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G US CULVERT DS CULVERT
Coleoptera
Dryopidae *5
Helichus basalis *4 SC 2
Dytiscidae *5 P
Hydroporus sp. 8.62 PI 1
Elmidae *5 CG
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 5
Hydrophilidae P
Tropisternus sp. 9.68 P 1
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.19 P 1 1
Chironomus sp. 9.63 CG 7
Clinotanypus pinguis 8.74 P 2
Conchapelopia sp. 8.42 P 3
Einfeldia sp. 7.08 CG 1
Polypedilum flavum 4.93 SH 2
Rheotanytarsus sp. 5.89 FC 2
Simuliidae
Simulium Sp. *6
6 FC
FC
15
Tabanidae *7 PI
Chrysops sp. *7 PI 2
Tipulidae *3 SH
Tipula sp. 7.33 SH 4
CHORDATA****
Osteichthyes 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 53 168
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 19 22
EPT TAXA 2 7 - L
BIOTIC INDEX 7.34 6.61 0-4
Cumin a?r h o C µq 7-1..,.. a
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 ecoscienceconcordmills2003 12/18/2003

WA

I I I •
''';'? m ? C ? L

%.:1
'-
I
? E;
l W
L Ei- V F..
.. z ? z z ?- ?
C ?C
@ c
v ? ? ?
b W W

V ?

LLL333••. L - -
? 'CJ r G1 ? ? ?
`- .
vf.
?, •• , y
] .
?
im 3 C

L
r\ O Y ,y.. 4-4

b CV

?
•• JJ

?

N u
C
C W
gy
? 6
+

\
N p
„ m
?
L v ?Ni v \_ ++ L L

VJ

t
t

1 3/01 Revision 6

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 the 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.
Stream " Location/road: r - (Road Name )County
Date CC#.
t Subbasm
1 Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish PBenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? MT fry P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature ? °C DO - mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) 1?µmhos/cm pH .y
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : laF'orest ?Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
3
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg 3 n Max
f e, fa^ a COAM'/'t'Width variable ? Large river >25m wide
? ?Y r
?, S> I n lrer2j h from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): ( `? L
Bank Angle: or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel,
< 90° indicate slo 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
URecent overbank deposits ElBar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y: ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?High f7Normal ?Low
Turbidity: 'Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather. Conditions: Photos: ?N ?Y ? Digital ?35mm
Remarks:

41

e

a

1

(? J

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ : 5.;;
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be ofd) ...................................................... 4
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
? Evidence of dredging ?Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
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.
-L Rocks 'iMacrophytes- 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 12 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
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone RemarksSub total
III. 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 20-40% ..........................................................................................................
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
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ...................................................................................................
Remarks Sub total

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 Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 1 Q :)
b. pools same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................................ 8 ?C
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
171 Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ? Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
43
-Y
_7

I Page Total
? Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORES
t

I

r

45
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ C]
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. Root mats out of water ................................................................................................................... ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... O
Diagram to determine bank angle:
90° 45°
135°
Site Sketch:
46
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
U
O
N
H
U
F,
a
0
U'
yl
O!
A'
wi
Fal
IM\ m Cb ? ? L
???'...
F, W Ei'
& .
1 u
zl?Izl? ti ?
? C C
41
W Lj
PW
?. ? ,}aGp A. rr 4
41
v ?
L
c-
? ?....
V t5
W I i u \t \ `
o ?. o
^ \
b r. .. Aj >
C4 N W 4j y
- =? C
• •. N -4 -4 y O
L v W :, rn 1J L
4-4
r
c$ CS v] v'{i p PW
V] ? H
1 3/01 Revision 6
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ [TOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters of stream, preferably in an upstream direction
starting above the 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.
/? t ,! ,gf
Stream /f' 71? ' F Location/road: , r (Road Name )County
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams

Date CC# Basin -- '` Subbasin y",'
0 e? "(v itd f 7
Observer(s) Type of Study: ? Fish r-/:fBenthos ? Basinwide ?Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion:
'
Water Quality: Temperature t"?/ O
°C D Qmg/1

? MT OP ? Slate Belt ? Triassic Basin
Conductivity corr. mhos/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include
what you see driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: ? %Forest %Residential _%Active Pasture d _% Active Crops
%Fallow Fields =% Commercial %Industrial : %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Morest ?Agriculture P'Urban ? Animal operations upstream
'•
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg ?P s Max
YWidth variable ? Large river >25m wide `;^, /cx t,
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (m) Iv
Bank Angle: ° 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 ?Both banks undercut at bend Channel filled in with sediment
3-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 ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal ElLow
Turbidity: ?Clear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Weather Conditions: Photos: ?N ?Y Digital ?35mm
Remarks:
41

1
I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be ofd) ...................................................... 4
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
? Evidence of dredging 17Evidence,of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ?Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks : Subtotal
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 L 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 11 7
types present ......................... 18 10 6
14
1 type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal
III. 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 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
I C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% ............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness >50% ............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock ................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand ........................................................................................................ 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .................................................................................................... 2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay......; ..................................................................................
Remarks xis
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 Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% 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 ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools same size ......................................................................................................................
B. Pools absent ............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
' ? Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 0, Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ? Silt bottom ? Some pools over wader depth
43

' Page Total_
11 Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE '' -'
i

1
fl

[I
t

I

t

45

t
Ir,

I

1

APPENDIX D
Groundwater Well Hydrographs

1

11

1
1

1

0
N
¦?
L
0
0
U
T
W
C0
G

O CO N w t O Cfl N m NT O d' w N CO O It O N CO O
ct CO CO N N N r. . T T N N N M C? ?
(ui) ujdaa aaleM

1

1

M
O
O
N
0
M?
r
s..
O
V
O
V
N
0

0coNco1;T OON Ov0 V wNw0IzTmN000
? C? C7 N N N T T ? r r N N N M M V
(ui) gldaa aaIBM
r

fl

1

1
fl

1
0
0
N
0
L
O
V
O
0
co
a>
(u!) ujdaa aapeM
0

O m N w It Cl c0 N co 't O O N O O ? O N O O
,zT CO M N N N T T . . r r N N N C? C7 -'

t
t

1

Clf)
O
O
N
U)
i
O
V
O
0
d-
N
(ui) uidad aaluM
0
1
O (0 N w Nt O CO N m d' OIt O N O O NT O N O O
'd' M C7 N N N r r ' ' ? r N N N C'7 C'7 ?
I
11

I

j

M
O
O
N
O
V
O
v

(ui) ujdaa aape/A
0

O (0 N m It O CO N 00 T O ,t w N 0 O w N CO O
d' M M N N N r r ' ' ?-- r N N N M c'7 'c!'
I

1

M
O
O
N
O
V
O
V
N
(u!) uldaa aaju/V1
0

O w N w 'It O w N m d O d m N co O ?t w N c0 O
d' M M N N N T T ' ' r ,- N N N M M d'

t

1

t
t
M
O
O
N
O
V
O
(0)
ti
>N
(u!) uldad aaleM
0

O (0 N M V CD CD N QO d O d M N Cfl O d' co N co O
V M M N N N T T ? ? T T N N N C7 C'7 d'

t

1

H

M
0
0
N
L
O
V
O
V
00
>N
(u!) Ujdaa aapeM
0

O CO N w* O co N M d O d w N CO O d' M N Cfl O
I;t M CO N N N r r ' r r N N N M M;T

M
0
0
N
O
V
O
V
rn
a?
(u!) U3daa aajuM
0

O m N w d O to N w d O d w N m O't w N co O
M c") N N N.- ?- ' '- r N N N CM CM V
I

1

APPENDIX E
Vegetation Plot Data

1

I

U
N
Q
F

E .?
0)
O
O
O
x
O
U 00
N
_O
M o I
iC (D ? I? O ?, (O ?• - M T T T T T N T U) ? M T N
rl- .N
1--
t
O
M
O>
N
00
N
1-
N
i0
N
in
N
d'
N
M
N
CV
N
N
O
N
00
ti
r
r
in
r M

? T
.S O
_ r
N r co
r M
r N N
N M U)
r- T O
Cl)
00 h N O Cl)
ti T r O M
N It CVO
T O O
T T
c} 1- N M ?- Cr) N 04
00 M M T N N N N CY)

N N N O T M N T M N_ M

T
O T Cl)
T T
T
N
N
N
00
N
r-
v T
N N
r
M O 00 r N
h T 00 IT T T
r r r r C) T N N 1l-
(a v
m 7
L y C
v? cu U c
fl. M C m C N >+ E m 'c
E o S a_=-go N 'y H •C C CU .O O O "6 .
m N U p C E 0 o)
-0 CU m? h C m c co w m o O 3 E U (D p m co u) co m u) O
L L O C6 O a V O 0 U C m -0 3 3` 7 7 C 7 U
0 3 N N .p X •x N '? C C X C y
U U a) a)
C N N 'C m 7 O m m -Q v i i U E E 0 0 0a0
Q Q Q [x] 0 D E CY Q' U) (4 Q J CL a Q Z) Z) a LL C) a
m
Q
m L m N -14 o O O
y E O O E O p o N '3 '3 m
-0 -0 0 4) 0) x 0) Q) 0
EL U) 0-0 ?L .. rn 3 Oar E
O Y
m
tm Y
E C
o
o Q m ° u) v ` m E
`6 o c Q E
„E rnmS a? `m
U E
3: a)
.Q 3 Q U rn in U n
Co

III
sz
U
Q

]a,
1
O
U
t
? Lo
00?-M
I-V0't CO It OCA V rCOr
0 r M
r

O r r
M
M
N
00
N

N
CO
N
N r r

N
iM
N
N
N
N
O
N
00
T r
ti
T
<O
T

T

Z T
lV
T N
T
T r
N r ?-
01 r'
00 M M N r
1-• r r
<O r r r
r
ED M r N N N r
;t r N Cl) 00 N N T r r N N Cl)
r
M LO r M CO (3) M It N N CCh
N to Cn r T N LO U) r r N r N T N
r 00 N ?--' LO M N N r N N r
U CCi
7 y
fa C6
> N U v? a c
T Cl) co Q ? C C6
O (0 C - -O to N C
O N G CO O O 7 O -a •CT
C E p 75 !E L 7 m U>
=3 i C?6 N N Q- CO •E m -0 CL = m Lm
m L O y
-0 (D m :3
CU CO i OE a) . C C f0 rn C LO
O N O N .O N .a 'C7 i N X ftS U =1 =3
Q
N N 7 X 7 7 0 p a) U •- am O
U U O C6 N CO CA CT 'i 0 7 0 7 Cry O 7 N O
Q Q U U U'- J J J d d af w Cn m 0 CL 0
Z N
O
a) n E ca
L L
N U) Ca -Op a) cu ? Cr O
r V N E B Y 0 0 fl.
O CL XO 'O cm T m d N Q
75
4. to -0 -co 'n s tm U ai w
Y
N O
O 3
cYa cLa Z' _°_ 0
0 0 (U '3 E O
O w U U •= fO to
7 N CQ > O >, 4)
3 E Z .n c N a

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T d (O N (D T
"
0 U
) N

O
M
CA
N
00
N

N
CO
N
ED
N
CN
N
Ch
N
CV
N
N
O
N
00
T
I?
T
CO
r
r
O
? T
S r-
r N
T
T T
N

O T
?
T
•- 00
N
00 (o O
N
ti (D M
O N
if) N ?
N (O
OM 00 N M N
CV M T T N T
r T T M M r T
f0
U
C
> ff)
C
a a3 ?
•
_

C U ? c

2) p
fn

N a`) ca
CL
•> c 3
E
75
t
om-=
2
CO cu ff) (D

C co 0) 2 2)

Q C C
.n fo
2 fn
y
•X 3 3 3
f
0 E E O X L L 3
L
C O_ (if 0 0 3

E
a) E
N c 3
a)
N
U '6
0
-0 ?: N
E
E
:2
Q- a)
0
cu
0 O O -
E
a)

O
Q

0)
L E rn U )
a) tv o U

a tff
a U) rnQ 3 a 0--a -0 "
!Q r (p
O O N N O N O T M'T - N )o O T O fA
T T
f
O N
M
fA
N
00
N
F-
N
Co
N
EO
N
N
M
N
N `-
N
O T -
C-4
00 N ?o
r
ti
r
CO
T
O M
T
L ?
T
_ M
N r T
T
r 'o
r
O n Lo N
T
CA C'J N M Lo
00 C14 N Cl)
T
ti It O
jp co N T
C-2 T N N
C T N ' ?-
Ch N O O
N T
CV co N O N N T
T N M `-
N
Cl) N O
T
It N
T T T T T
?- N CO
U ff)
O O N
0 ? L fa
co U N c
> a) Co CO O. C N co E ,fa
CU O C.T7 a)a m Cc 3•?
0 .. c a) fn :6 rn
-0 f(L f6 C C L C C) D E L
6) p N f6 O U N ff) p 0> E
3 ` > n -0
L o 6 (L6 irs rn `
a) E OCD Rf co 3 C j N a) f0 m 3 m Lo
L f0 3 E m 3
L •+O_•' •X 7 7'60 tI6 3 X 3 3 m E N t.
U C a) .2).2- •c ff 0 •c O pO U
000LLJJJa: a- (n»w00Q
'o
O
(D
E a)
0 0
3
.L L .-6 3 E °? E fT c
y N 3 Q cu 0 0 .? N fa N -0 O Q
d v Y c a) n E c Y a) 'c E E

0 a) N
X U O C a) O_ (u O U 6) a) +-•' tf3
-0
FL
U)
-0 m=
o)
U
V)) w 0 0? 3 Q
E
ai n?
4
i
i
i
0 M N N (O r r lf) M N
N
V U') r 00
N co co

f
O
Cl)
B)
N
00
N

N
CD
N
C
N
C4
N
M
N
CV
N
N
O
N
co
r
r
CO
r
r

? Ch
= r
CV
r r
`-
r N
G
r r ? r
CA Cl)
CO r 00
j- N r r 0)
CD M r CO 0) N
ED M (r0 (O
(X) ('') r r r r r r N r r r (O r N
C7 (O cam- r It M In In r r 00 M N
CV It N r r v M N r r N
r l() N N r r r r r r r r
N U
7
y (p cu C
U .2 cu c m E
Q C C 5. O O
'0 N C 7 C co
to c6 -00
N '2) N .0 C O C N
cu 0 , cu 0)
-0 =3
75 Z
.00 O" O co E D 0 0- 7 p. > Q N CU
(D N C y 0- 7 to -0 0 M U) O -LM :3 (D Q.
to O Co p c o> i c 9 C i U (? V C C to to
? 0 0. O «6 co Q N '?- •X t N •.N " •x x j x CU :3 -0
CD d J J a L Q > Q U Q C1 U C? (n cA > 0' w .2 =3 ca
Y
cu
V 00 E cu a) 0 3 N N ?. Y O p 0
N N N 3 0 p
:
3 co m O c6 0 '5 p 0
• p 0
) 2 0
d
0 0
N
0 0 Q- c0j
a i U
0 E C 0 0 0 U N N 0
- (6 L
i 0
t4
t
p .n3,. m CL .0 O 3t U-0.0 ca m 3
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
'a 0)
O Cl) 00 N O M 1- M- r- r- ? j O N c- N c- 'V' T r-'
r (0
F-

O
M

N
00
N

N
<D
N
C4
N

C4
N
M
N
lV
N
N
O
N
0_O
ti
r
io
r
(n
r f-
? Cl)

a?
O M 00 Cl)
_ r

r 00 LO Cl)
r
o T r
L rn U')
BO O LO 00

t0 N rn O { r
in N 'IT C14 - CO

d•
C') 'T
? CD
? N (fl - r
M
M r- N N- -!?) N N
n( N OM N •- N LO Cl)
?-
N
N N N O N
O
O
O
O
N O_
N
?- Cl)
O
N
co
Cl)
c6
O
CU M
U
(9

' M v) (0

O O O E O

U
C
m

ca
(U
c
C 0 m y m Q T E E 'co
N (o 6 ° 0 °) c N c ? ca E- ? cu
°'
O E? L N (6 '> •? N p co N O (6 O 2) U ?
>
O N rn .. (n n
(D L
Q a) cc cu E> o rn
N

(6
a)
.?, °D •L •E
0 cu
N E
:3
E C m
m
a 0
co
co _rn co a> v!
-a ,
O v!
CU
L ` •RS

(E

N
V

O _ Q.

a 'a c
a)
N O

•

C j

X C

` O 7 V) C 7 N

X (6 C CU

Q Co
U

U
U O
7
U Q O (Q N
f0 N 7 0 7
7
? '? C
N` N ,
3 c0 j O N (0 W N
0 0 0
¢ ¢ QQ¢ca m 3
UC7 ? .
J-i -i a LL a C'1(o5
(6
-liC
O
O O
N
C y U > N -,"O ?i
E a,
L
ca L N
E a) a- N L B
m
s `
O a
U Q
N E O C N ` _O
? .
a m
a
3 O
` N
O O Z ?c
E
o
•
d m -
a
p i ?
0
) o -a m
Q )
O C
E i E U U
O Q O 0) U c9 U V L U
O
I m x "D
i O O C a)
7
°
i
° •
a U) v
i a 2 10 E 6) L .° r o U
5
c n
v
i
rn s

3

0 t

to

n n 3

f?
1101 Haynes Street Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
EcoScience
February 24, 2004 WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Steve Chapin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FEB 2 4 2004
Regulatory Field Office
Grove Arcade Building, Room 75 WATER QUALITY SECTION
37 Battery Park Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
[phone]
Re: Year 4 (Year 2003) Monitoring Report - Concord Mills Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID 199830189 Awo # 9-- 11,20
Dear Steve:
On behalf of The Mills Corporation, EcoScience Corporation has completed the fourth year
monitoring report on the Concord Mills mitigation site located at the Concord Regional Airport
in Cabarrus County. One copy of the document is enclosed for your use. We will forward a
copy of the document to John Dorney of the N.C. Division of Water Quality for Section 401
review.
In summary, the mitigation site met success criteria as stipulated in the mitigation plan and
approved as part of your Section 404 and 401 permits for the mall project. We are continuing
with monitoring in 2004 (Year 5).
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Jens Geratz or Jerry McCrain at ESC.
Sincerely,
EC SCIEN CORPORATION
Jens ratz
Seni Scientist
cc: John Domey, N.C. Division of Water Quality (1 copy)

1. Concord Mills - Cabarrus County; Constructed July 1999
In 1997 and 1998 a mitigation plan was prepared to provide full functional
replacement for wetland and stream impacts associated with the construction of
the Concord Mills Mall (EcoScience 2001). The mitigation site is an unnamed
tributary of the Rocky River and its associated floodplains. The mitigation plan
proposed approximately 3000 linear feet of stream restoration, 3.0 acres of
wetland restoration and 5.4 acres of wetland enhancement within the site. Some
discrepancies were noted in the monitoring protocols. During the pre-
construction survey (April 1999) data were collected from two locations within the
restoration reach of this stream using quantitative methods (grabs) and were not
compared to reference conditions. During the first post-construction survey (July
2001) Qual-4 collection methods were used to collect samples from the now
restored reach and from a reference reach (Mill Run). During the second post-
construction survey (August 2002), Qual-4 samples were collected from a stable
reach within the same stream (site 1) but above the restored reach and from the
same site within the restored reach (site 2). Benthic macroi vertebrate samples
were not collected from the reference stream, since it was completely dry due to
the extreme drought experienced in NC during 2002. Many of the collection
discrepancies were potentially due to the lack of stream restoration monitoring
protocols by DWQ early in this initiative.
el,
tAY
Table 6. Benthic macroinvertebrate ummary statistics from a Concord Mills strei restoration
project. ??
C nco rd Mills Eco fence
Site Location Referen96 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
Metric/Survey PreC Postl Po t2 Post3 PreC Post1 P t2 Post3 PreC Post1 Po Post3 PreC Post1 P t2 Post3
Total Taxa (ST) 27 dry 37 25 32 26 16 Sed.
EPT taxa (SEPT) 7 dry 9 2 8 0 4 Sed
EPT abundance (EPTn) 31 dry 39 20 23 0 17 Sed
Biotic Index (BI) NA* dry NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* Sed
EPT Biotic Index (BIEPT) NA* dry NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* Sed
Dominants in Common
* NA-Biotic Indices were not calculated. Sed.-no sample was collected at this site due to heavy sedimentation and lack of
water.
Accurate trend analyses of these data is difficult due to the differences in collection methods and
station locations between surveys. However, some interesting results are evident from these
data. During the most recent post-construction investigation (July 2002) samples were collected
from a relatively stable, but incised, reach of this tributary (site 1) and from the upper station
within the restoration reach (site 2). A dominants in common comparison of these data resulting
in 32% similarity, which is much less than the 75% criteria for success. Data were not collected
from the lower site within the restoration reach (site 3). t this oint was not flowing
due to_heaw_sedimentation, perhaps due to erosion from upstream activities that dl not impact
site 1. In fact, flow was reduce to a porn a significant differences in the structure of the
enthic macroinvertebrate community were seen between sites 1 and 2. Site 1 was dominated
by Heptageniid mayflies (Stenonema) and rheophilic caddisflies (hydropsychidae, Chimarra
aterrima and Neophylax), while most of these organisms were not collected from site 2 and may
be considered keystone. The benthic fauna at site 2 was dominated by pulmonate snails
Ph sella), Caenis, beetles (mostly Peltodytes) and Baetis. These data suggest that the restored
reach of this stream is not effectively processing sediment from upstream reaches to a point
where the hydology of this stream has changed and this has resulted in a modified benthic
macroinvertebrate community downstream. DWQ plans to visit and evaluate this project.
4*?
A
• Benthic macroinvertebrates that require water for entire life cycles are present'. A list
of the benthic organisms commonly collected by DWQ biologists during UP
investigations are included in this policy revision, OR
• A numerical value of 30 points is determined from the most recent version of the DWQ
stream classification form.
.
?A
a Q
Q
Table 1. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT)2 perennial stream indicator taxa.
&Vitt ?anw E hemero tera (Mayflies) Pleco tera (Stoneflies) Tricho tera (Caddisflies)
Family Baetidae Perlodidae Hydro sychidae
Genus Baetis s p. Isoperla s Cheumatopsvche s p.
Genus DDi lectrona s .
Genus S m hito s the s p.
Family He tageniidae Perlidae Rhyaco hilidae
Genus Stenonema s p. Eccoptura s p. Rh aco hila s p.
Family Le to hlebiidae Pelto erlidae Le idostomatidae
Genus Paraleptophlebia s p. Talla erla s p. Le idostomasp.
Family Caenidae Limne hilidae
Genus Caenis s p. Iron uia s p.
Genus P cno s the s p.
Genus Neo h lax s p.
Family r ? 10 e4c Molannidae
Genus Molanna s p.
1.) , t ,., "-'-
Table 2. Socex indicators of perennial stream features.
d Md,- ?

Me alo tera Odonata Di tera Coo tera
Family Corydalidae Aeshnidae Ti ulidae Elmidae
Genus Nisronia s p. Boyeria s . Tipula s p.
Family Sialidae Cordulegastridae Dixidae Dryo idae
Genus Sialis s Cordulegaster sp. DkW-SP-
I Helichus s p.
Family Calopterygidae
Genus Calopteuxsp. r+y -fkae
?M,'1,lr( boy 47L
List of References
Lawson, J., R. Darling, D. Penrose, and J.D. Gregory. 2002. Stream Identification and
Mapping for Water-Supply Watershed Protection. In Proceedings, Watershed 2002,
February 23-27, 2002, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
NCDWQ. (North Carolina Division of Water Quality) 1999. N. C. DWQ Stream
Classification Form - Internal Guidance Manual. North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
NCEMC 2000. North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2B .0100. North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
V ei ?bh.rtt
udF
o'r . of"' It
1 Recognition and/or identification of these organisms would require Division based"training.
2 The Genotypes listed for each of the families represent taxa DWQ biologists have collected during U
investigations. Other taxa in these families may also be indicators of perennial flow. ___-J
P?t^ C..r M?7 Mt
21,
L

1
u

1

1

H

APPENDIX F
Photographic Record of Vegetation Plots

I Plot 1
r
11
11

11
11
Plot 2
f P (L' Y
YS
t ?
y
x
0.•Y . ..
Plot 3

• 0W - ?? d
Plot 4
i
w
i
i

I Plot 5
11

11
11
T
I Plot 6
11

11
11
11
11
11
II
11
11
r

11
11

11