STREAM RESTORATION EVALUATION ASSESSMENT FORM Prepared by NCSU Water Quality Group March 2006 For NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund
STREAM RESTORATION EVALUATION ASSESSMENT FORM NCSU Water Quality Group March 2006 PREFACE Purpose of this evaluation. The anthropogenic degradation and simplification of streams and wetland systems has led to large efforts to restore aquatic habitats worldwide (NRC 1992). Stream restoration projects in North Carolina have become a very popular tool for the rehabilitation of stressed streams; however, rigorous post­construction monitoring to evaluate compliance to agreed upon pre­construction goals occurs infrequently (Roni 2005). The evaluation procedure described in this protocol is intended to be relatively rapid assessment of restored stream reaches and should not be used as a surrogate for intensive long­term investigations. In addition this evaluation is intended as a one­time assessment of current conditions in the restored stream feature, we would expect that as restored streams mature that the “score” would increase. Stream restoration is defined here as those projects in which the pattern, dimension and profile of the new stream features were modified. This evaluation form was constructed as part of a grant with the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and will be used to assess “existing” project condition. Directions for use of the Evaluation. This Evaluation form is comprised of four primary sections, each individually assessed and scored. In addition Channel Condition and Bank and Riparian Habitat also have subsections, which are also individually assessed and scored. These sections include; A. Channel Condition (Bedform, Dominant Substrate Material, and Cover and Refuge). B. Bank and Riparian Habitat (Streambank stability, riparian vegetation, and floodplain and floodplain soil condition). C. Aquatic Insect Community Assessment D. Evaluation of Instream Structures (condition and function) To help with the assessment worksheets for the assessment of dominant substrate material, riparian vegetation and instream structures are also included. The first of these worksheets included in this assessment is the original design, planform drawing of the restored stream reach. All subsequent evaluations are compared to this drawing. This drawing should have all of the detail used for initial review for certification (404 and 401) and will be used as a template for this evaluation. In addition the field evaluation team will refer to this drawing frequently and may have the ability to make notes on this worksheet about any of the assessment parameters including location of instream structures and location of photographs taken during the evaluation. A roadmap for the use of this evaluation form is summarized on Table 1.
ii Table 1. Roadmap of this Evaluation Protocol. Scoring Summary Primary Section Subsection Criteria Table Bedform Tables 2 and 3 Table 4 A. Channel Condition Dominant Substrate Table 5 Cover and Refuge Table 6 Table 7 Streambank Stability Table 8 B. Bank and Riparian Riparian vegetation Table 9 to13 Table 14 Condition Floodplain condition Table 15 C. Aquatic Insects Community structure Table 16 Function Table 17 D. Instream Structures Table 18 Condition ­ Worksheet ­ Worksheets 2 and 3 ­ ­ Worksheet 4 Worksheet 5 Worksheet 6 Data from each of the summary tables for each of the metrics are then compiled in a final Evaluation and Recommendation section (table 19 of this evaluation form). PDF versions of each of these evaluation forms including all photographs will be available at http://www.ncsu.edu/waterquality/. Quality Control. This evaluation protocol is intended as a relatively rapid assessment of restored stream reaches in North Carolina. Many of the observations used in this protocol, although semi­quantitative, should be conducted by trained evaluators. The NCSU Water Quality Group has conducted staff training as part of the grant with the CWMTF to insure that evaluations are as consistent between evaluators as possible. In addition to the data generated from this protocol this document also has included as appendix 5 a stream performance index. This tool is intended as an extremely rapid, very subjective assessment of the restored reach. These data will be used as part of a doctoral research program. Comments and questions should be directed to: Dave Penrose NCSU Water Quality Group Campus Box 7637 Raleigh, NC 27695­7637 Email: [email protected] Telephone 919/515­8244
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CWMTF Project Overview…………………………………………………………v A. Channnel Condition and Evaluation ……………………………………………1 B. Bank and Riparian Habitat Condition …………………………………………..7 C. Aquatic Insect Community …………………………………………………….15 D. Instream Structure Evaluation …………………………………………………16 E. Project Evaluation and Final Recommendations ………………………………18 Acknowledgements and References ……………………………………………….19 Worksheet 1 – design planview of project ………………………………………....20 Worksheet 2 – Dominant Substrate Material ………………………………………21 Worksheet 3 – Dominant Substrate Material ………………………………………22 Worksheet 4 – Vegetation Analyses ……………………………………………….23 Worksheet 5 – Aquatic Insects ……………………………………………………24 Worksheet 6 – Instream Structure Assessment ……………………………………25 Worksheet 7 – Photo Inventory ……………………………………………………26 Appendices 4
drawing of macrohabitats (fast water and slow water) ……………..27­28 4
list of macrohabitats ………………………………………………...29­30 4
Barbara’s form…………………………………………………………31
iv Clean Water Management Trust Fund – Project Overview Clean Water Management Trust Project ______________ Project No. _______________ Date of Construction ______________ 401 Certification No. ________________ Date of Repairs (if any) ______________ Primary Goal of this project _________________________________________________ Secondary Goal of this project _______________________________________________ Other Goal (s) ___________________________________________________________ Description of stream prior to construction (if available) __________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Evaluation Information: Date of Assessment ____________ Flow conditions _______________ Assessment Team _____________ Stream Name ___________________________ Topographic ___________________________ List of materials. It is required that the entire restored reach is evaluated. The following is a list of basic equipment necessary to conduct this evaluation. Physical measurements Two­25 foot measuring rods 15 meter tape 2 candy canes (vegetation transects) Survey flags Metric ruler (pebble counts) Pocket calculator Soil Auger (floodplain soils) GPS Unit Batteries Digital Camera and inverter
Benthos Collection Equipment Kick net Sweep net Wash Bucket Picking pans Forceps 3­4 6dram vials Alcohol v Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form A. Channel Condition and Evaluation Overview. The primary goal of stream restoration is often the improvement of instream habitat, where the objectives are frequently to increase habitat complexity and fish productivity. Channel morphology and sediment transport measurements are frequently used monitoring tools to assess channel condition (Roni 2005, FISRWG 1998), but require fairly complex protocols and time to complete. The rapid evaluation protocol described here includes the semi­qualitative assessment of three major components of channel condition; 1) bedform or macrohabitat, 2) dominant substrate material or microhabitat and 3) cover and refuge. 1. Bedform. This metric assesses the presence of discrete macrohabitats or channel geomorphic units (CGUs) within the restored reach of the stream feature. The macrohabitats described in this section are those areas of the stream channel that have relatively homogeneous depth and flow characteristics and are bounded by sharp gradients such as riffles and pools (Hawkins, et al. 1993). The use of macrohabitat types in this assessment protocol is most efficient during periods of low flow or baseflow and will provide a framework for organizing habitat change within the restored reach (Bain and Stevenson 1999). Also biological productivity within the restored reach will be directly related to the diversity of these macrohabitats. We assume that the efficient demarcation of these habitats or CGUs between investigators will need to be quality assured and that field training is necessary. Assessment Protocol. For the purposes of this evaluation CGU types will be grouped into four “major habitats” (i.e. riffles, runs or glides, pools, and structure related habitats). The evaluation team will walk the entire restored reach and note the location and quality of each of these 4 major habitat types. A detailed drawing of the restored stream feature Major Habitat Types or GCUs
(obtained from the · Riffles – Fast, turbulent flow with exposed substrate designer) is illustrated material. Moderate slope at points of channel constriction.
on Worksheet 1 of this · Runs or Glides – Nonturbulent flow with no exposed protocol (can/should substrate material. Very low slope usually at the we link it here?) and transition between riffles and pools.
should be referred to · Pools – Extremely variable slow water habitat, may during this evaluation. include scour, plunge, or step pools. These features need to be deep enough to support a fish fauna.
It is essential that the · Structure related habitat – habitat associated with evaluation team is constructed feautes. familiar with the potential habitat types found for this stream type. Example drawings of these macrohabitat types are illustrated in this section. Additionally, these stream habitats are also described in appendices 3 and 4 (Bain and Stevenson 1999). In addition to these major habitat
1 types the evaluation team will also look for any additional CGU (illustrated and described in appendices) and note their presence in the restored stream feature. We would expect that as the stream matures the number of additional CGUs will increase. These CGUs are the foundation for a diverse benthic macroinvertebrate and native fish community. Laying a 300­foot measuring tape along the thalweg may also help with these estimates. Table 2 is the scoring criteria used to determine the design and location of the major habitat types. Each major habitat type is given a score (see Table 4) in both assessment categories using these criteria. The intent of this assessment is to determine if the new stream feature has major habitat types as designed. Frequent reference to Worksheet 1 (design planform illustration of the project) may be necessary. For example we will look for fast water habitat types in straight sections of the feature and the location of pool in the bends. Stream features are given Excellent ratings in this category if all of the designed habitats are where they were designed to be. Table 3 assesses the quality of the habitat features. Does the habitat have appropriate geometry, length, etc? Habitat heterogeneity is important to the biological functions of restored streams. Therefore Table 4 also has estimates of additional CGUs, as the stream matures we should expect to see the formation of these habitat features. A check box is included in this section to help with this part of the assessment. As the field team walks the project check all additional CGUs that apply to the restored reach. In addition these additional habitat types are illustrated in Appendices 1 and 2 and discussed on Appendices 3 and 4. Both scores are averaged and the final score is recorded on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. Table 2. Scoring Criteria to determine proper design and location of Channel Geomorphic Units (a separate score is given to each major habitat type) Score Habitat Design Criteria “As­built” or current design has channel geomorphic units or 4 Excellent habitat types (i. e. riffles, pools) are in proper location >90% “As­built” or current design has channel geomorphic units or 3 Good habitat types (i.e. riffles, pools) are in proper location 75­90%. “As­built” or current design has channel geomorphic units or 2 Fair habitat types (i.e. riffles, pools) are in proper location 50­75%. “As­built” or current design has channel geomorphic units or 1 Poor habitat types (i.e. riffles, pools) are in proper location <50%,.
2 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Table 3. Scoring Criteria to the quality of the designed channel geomorphic units (a separate score is given to each major habitat type) Score Habitat Design Criteria · Habitat features (i.e. riffles, pools) are superior; geometry, length and depth of > 90 of these features are providing functional biological habitat.
4 Excellent
· More than 4 additional CGUs are found in the restored reach, check all that apply (see appendices 1 and 2 for descriptions). · Habitat features (i.e. riffles, pools) are good overall; geometry, length and depth of 75­90% of these structures are providing functional biological 3 Good
habitat.
· 3­4 additional CGUs · Habitat features (i.e. riffles, pools) are fair: geometry, length and depth of 2 Fair
50­75% of these structures are providing functional biological habitat.
· 2­3 additional CGUs are found in the restored reach. · Habitat features (i.e. riffles, pools) are poor; geometry, length and depth of < 1 Poor
50% are providing functional biological habitat.
· Less than 2 additional CGUs. Check List of additional Channel Geomorphic Units (CGU) Fast Water q Falls q Cascades q Steps q Chutes q Sheets q Edgewater Slow Water q Straight Scour Pool q Lateral Scour Pool q Backwater Eddy q Trench q Channel Confluence Pool q Secondary Isolated Pool q Alcove Pocket Water Table 4. Final Bedform Assessment (score from 1 –4 for each category and then average the score. Major Channel Location & Design Habitat Quality Average Geomorphic Units (from table 2) (from table 3) Score Riffles Runs or Glides Pools Structure Related Habitat Additional CGUs Final Score (copy to table 19) __________ Discussion:
3 2. Dominant Substrate Material. The goal of this channel condition assessment is to determine the dominant type or types of substrate material (s). Most of the substrate assessment methods are basically visual, subjective sketches of the substrate material. However with just a little more effort repeated observations can be used to obtain a quantifiable estimate of substrate composition (Bain and Stevenson 1999, NRCS 2004). Bed materials are indicators of sediment supply and transport, as well as embeddedness and biological productivity. Assessment Protocol. Streams that are ten feet wide or less do twenty­five riffle materials measurements from the baseflow wetted area along two riffles. These measurements should be taken in a zig­zag method along entire riffles within the restored stream. If the restored stream feature is more than 10 feet wide then 50 riffle material measurements should be taken. Individual particle measurements are taken along the intermediate axis of all particles (or estimated for very small particles) following protocols developed by Wolman (1954). Particle sizes may be recorded on Worksheet 2 during the field assessment and cumulative frequency calculated. A cumulative frequency plot of particle size distribution (Worksheet 3) will provide the three parameters (D50, D84 and %<2mm) used in this section of the evaluation. These three assessment parameters are calculated then summarized on table 5 and given scores (4 –1, Excellent to Poor). The riffle materials criteria noted on this table are assumed for piedmont or mountain colluvial stream types and that the catchment will be supplying the substrate materials. If this evaluation does not fit those assumptions (i.e. sand bed streams in the coastal plain), these criteria may be modified appropriately. A final score for this metric is the total of these three parameters on table 5 and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. Table 5. Riffle Materials Parameters (select appropriate score for each category and note on right) Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Score D50 (mm) > 20 2 ­ 20 1 ­ 2 < 1 D84 (mm) > 100 20 ­ 100 2 ­ 20 < 2 % < 2mm (%) <20 20 – 40 40­80 > 80 Final Score (copy to table 19) _______ Discussion:
4 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form 3..Cover and Refuge. The assessment of cover and refuge in streams can be complicated and is often overlooked as an assessment tool. However the availability of cover in streams is extremely important for the maintenance of many fish and benthic insect species and is a direct indication of a diverse habitat, which is frequently a goal of restoration activities. Examples of cover and refuge in North Carolina streams include many inorganic structures such as boulders and deep pools in many stream types, but also include areas of turbulence in streams. However much of the cover and refuge in streams is linked to the amount of organic matter found in restored reaches; features such as overhanging vegetation, rootwads, woody debris and macrophytes (such as river weed or Podostemum sp.). It should be emphasized that cover should not be included in this assessment if it’s found in areas of the stream with insufficient depth (Rankin 1989), typically less than 5 inches, under normal flow conditions. Assessment Protocol. This assessment tool mimics to a great extent the protocols developed by the Ohio EPA (Rankin 1989) and the illustrations were reproduced from the Ohio qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI) form with permission from the authors. This assessment is composed of two cover and refuge parameters; the presence of cover types within the restored reach and the amount of overall instream cover for the entire restored reach. Evaluation scores are given to both of these parameters and a final score is recorded on table 7 of this section of the evaluation and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. a. Cover Type. Walk the entire length of the restored reach and note the presence of cover types, this is your chance to think like a bug or a fish. Note the presence of cover types only if they have any functional value including constructed features; do not note the presence of cover if extremely limited in the reach (less than 5% of the new feature). Check all that apply and score from 1 to 4 (4 being most complex). q Undercut Banks ___ q Rootwads ___ q Leaf Packs _____ q Boulders ___ q Overhanging Vegetation ___ q Oxbows, backwaters ___ q Rootmats ___ q Aquatic macrophytes ___ q Pools > 2 feet ___ q Logs or Woody Debris ___ Subtotal ________ b. Overall Instream Cover. Estimate the amount of overall cover for the restored reach. Figure 4 is reproduced from the Ohio QHEI protocol (Rankin, 1989) and should be used to estimate these percentages.
5 Table 6. Scoring Criteria for overall stream cover assessment. Score Parameter Description 10 Excellent > 75% of reach 6 Good 25 – 75% or reach 4 Fair 5 – 25% of reach 1 Poor < 5% of reach Subtotal ________ Table 7. Cover and Refuge Evaluation (select appropriate score for each category and note on right) Parameter a. Cover Type b. Overall Cover % Excellent (10) > 30 > 75% Good (6) 20­30 25­75% Fair (4) 10­20 5­25% Poor (1) < 10 < 5% Score Final Score (copy to table 19) ______ Discussion:
6 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form B. Bank and Riparian Habitat Condition Overview. Many of the stream restoration projects in North Carolina are selected because the streams are unstable with mass wasting of stream banks. Often one of the primary goals of restoration is to stabilize these eroding stream banks. Unstable stream banks are frequently re­sloped to reconnect the stream’s floodplain and replanted with native species. This part of the evaluation protocol includes three major components; 1) streambank stability assessment, 2) health and condition of the riparian vegetation and 3) floodplain and floodplain soils condition. 1. Streambank Stability. The protocols for the assessment of streambank stability are modified from the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) initially developed by Rosgen (1996) for stream restoration projects. In many instances BEHI conditions were collected to justify the permitting of the restoration. If this is the case these data should be compared to these evaluations if they are available. Assessment Protocol. The following 6 parameters are used to estimate streambank erosion potential or recovery. The evaluation team must walk the entire restored reach, frequently refer to the planview illustration in Worksheet one and estimate the average condition of each of these parameters. Characterize both banks over the entire reach and photograph examples of bank types and submit these with this evaluation. Evaluation scores are given to each of these observations and a final score is recorded on table 8 of this section of the evaluation and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. a. Bank Height/Bankfull Height: Calculate by dividing the maximum depth from the top of bank by the maximum depth from the bankfull stage. This ratio provides an indication of the magnitude of flood events that remain within the channel and erosion potential associated with high streamflows. b. Root Depth/Bank Height: Calculate by dividing the root depth from top of bank by the maximum depth from the top of bank. This ratio provides an indication of the bank protection provided by live plant roots.
7 c. Root Density Percentage: Calculate by first estimating the root density in only the rooted area, then multiplying by the ratio of root depth to bank height ratio from the previous calculation. This percentage provides an indication of the bank protection provided by live plant roots. d. Bank Angle: Estimate the bank angle from horizontal to determine the degree of stress exerted on the bank. e. Surface Protection: Calculate by estimating the percentage of bank protected from erosive flows by vegetation, roots, rocks, large woody debris, or manmade materials. Very High f. Near Bank Stress: The NBS is a visual assessment of the amount of stress the channel flow is exhibiting in the near bank area of the channel (area 1/3 near the bank). Low Moderate High Table 8. Streambank Stability Parameters (select appropriate score for each category and note on right) Parameter a Bank Height Ratio b Root Depth Ratio c Root Density % d Bank Angle (degrees) e Surface Protection % f Near Bank Stress Excellent (4) 1.0 – 1.2 0.6 – 1.0 60 ­ 100 < 60 60 ­ 100 Low Good (3) 1.2 – 1.5 0.4 – 0.6 40 ­ 60 60 ­ 80 40 ­ 60 Moderate Fair (2) 1.5 ­ 2.0 0.2 – 0.4 20 ­ 40 80 ­ 90 20 ­ 40 High Poor (1) > 2.0 < 0.2 < 20 > 90 < 20 Very High Score Final Score(copy to table 19) ________ Discussion:
8 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form 2. Riparian Vegetation. Riparian vegetation is important for the production of nutrients and organic matter, sources of large woody debris, fish food and cover, shading, attenuation of flood flow scouring forces and moderation of terrestrial nutrients from agricultural sources (Myers 1989). Vegetation is a critical component of a healthy and functioning riparian area. In addition riparian vegetation helps stabilize stream banks, filters pollutants, slows flood waters, and provides both aquatic and terrestrial habitat for a variety of fauna. Five parameters will be assessed to determine overall quality and health of vegetation within the restored area. Each parameter is scored (tables 9 – 13) and then summarized on table 14. Descriptions of these as well as assessment protocols are listed below. A final value for vegetation assessment is then listed on table 19 in the evaluation section of this protocol. a. Structural Complexity and Species Diversity Habitat value of riparian sites increases with increasing vegetation diversity. Structural diversity is important in providing physical protection, and species diversity offers different food sources and other habitat needs for specialists. Assessment protocol. Locate four or more transects extending outward 10 meters from top of bank, perpendicular to streamflow (Worksheet 4). If it is not possible to extend the transect 10 meters without leaving the riparian area, create shorter transects until they add up to 40 meters and note the change in procedure. Transects should be located so they are representative of the major vegetative trends throughout the riparian zone. For example, if wetlands are a dominant feature of the riparian zone, at least one transect should extend into a wetland area. If tree mortality is localized to a single small location, that location is not appropriate for a representative transect. If the heterogeneity of the project cannot be represented well with four transects, establish an adequate number of transects to represent project­wide conditions. Sampling must be done during the summer months because plant growth and coverage vary seasonally. Characterize vegetation structure. Look along the transect. Designate the percent of the transect that intercepts cover of each type of vegetation (e.g. forbs, graminoids, shrubs, trees). Include percentage of bare ground, if present. These cover percentages may add up to more than 100%, if the transect runs through areas of tree and shrub overstory and vegetated understory. Walk along the transect and record species cover intercepting the transect. Plants do not have to be identified to taxonomic species, but should be recorded at the identifiable taxonomic level and recorded so species
9 richness can be enumerated (e.g. Alnus incana, Salix 1, Salix 2, Rush 1, Rush 2, etc.). Score 4 3 Table 9. Scoring criteria for assessing structural complexity and species diversity (score is averaged for the four transects). Description Complexity At least 3 classes of vegetation >30% OR five classes of Mature vegetation >20% At least one woody class and one herbaceous class >30% OR at Developing least four classes of vegetation >20% 2 Immature 1 Missing At least one woody and one herbaceous class >10% No woody class >10% Subtotal:_____________ b. Planted Trees/Shrubs/Livestakes Planted woody vegetation within the riparian area should be assessed in terms of health. Stressed, damaged, or dead plants may indicate the need for maintenance or intervention methods, especially if the site is to be replanted. Assessment protocol: Walk the entire project length, noting general condition of planted trees, shrubs, and livestakes. Using the descriptions below, assign an overall score for this parameter. Table 10.. Scoring criteria for assessing Planted tree/shubs/livestakes. Score Parameter Description 4 Healthy 3 Stressed/patchiness 2 Damaged 1 Dead/Missing Green, robust leaves, new growth, clean undamaged bark, upright (no j­rooting). Low mortality. Pathy survival. Yellowish leaves, stunted leaves with no new growth, unhealthy bark. Browse marks, root sprouts, choking out by invasive plants Complete mortality Subtotal: _____________ c. Natural Tree and Shrub Regeneration The presence of naturally regenerating native trees and shrubs indicates that the riparian area is capable of self­perpetuation and long­term stability. Depending on the age of the project, naturally regenerating trees and shrubs may be represented by seedlings, saplings and perhaps larger forms. Assessment protocol: Assessment protocol: Walk the entire project length, noting the presence of naturally regenerating vegetation. Using the descriptions below, assign an overall score for this parameter.
10 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Table 11. Scoring criteria for assessing natural tree and shub regeneration. Score Parameter Description 4 Abundant >20% of total cover of woody vegetation represented 3 Patchy 10­20% of total cover of woody vegetation represented 2 Sparse 1­10% of total cover of woody vegetation is represented 1 Missing No naturally regenerating woody vegetation is present Subtotal: ______________ d. Invasive Exotic Species Non­native species tend to grow aggressively in riparian areas and often out­compete desirable native species for resources like nutrients, water, and light. These species generally don’t stabilize soil as well as many native species and are a less desirable food source for wildlife. Assessment protocol: Walk the entire project length, noting the presence of invasive exotic vegetation. Using the descriptions below, assign an overall score for this parameter. Score Table 12. Scoring criteria for assessing invasive exotic species. Parameter Description 4 Sparse/Missing <5% of total cover represented by invasive exotic vegetation 3 Localized 5­20% of total cover represented by invasive exotic vegetation 2 Abundant 20­50% of total cover represented by invasive exotic vegetation 1 Infestation >50% of total cover represented by invasive exotic vegetation Subtotal:____________ e. Streambank Root Mass A well vegetated stream bank stabilizes the bank by binding soil particles in place, protecting the bank from shear stress, and decreasing the number of freeze­thaw events through the winter. Thorough stabilization is achieved with a diversity of plant types including trees, shrubs, graminoids and herbs. Woody species are generally considered to have more stabilizing effects due to deep and expansive root systems. Herbs and graminoids have shallower root systems than trees and shrubs, though some species of grasses, sedges, and rushes have deeper roots. The greater the density of woody species in combination with other species, the greater the streambank stability.
11 Assessment protocol: Using the same transects as described above, score root mass presence within a 2 meter wide swath on each side of the transect. Score Table 13. Scoring criteria for assessing streambank root mass. Root stabilization Description 4 Abundant >85% of streambank has evidence of a deep, binding root mass 60­85% of streambank has evidence of a deep, binding root mass OR >85% with root mass, but >5% highly erosive 3 Present 2 Patchy 30­60% of streambank has evidence of a deep, binding root mass 1 Sparse >30% of streambank has evidence of a deep, binding root mass Subtotal:_____________ Table 14. Riparian Vegetation (circle appropriate category for stable and unstable banks) Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) a Sturctural Complexity and Mature Developing Immature Missing Species Diversity b Planted Stressed Dead Healthy Damaged Trees/Shurbs/Livestakes patchiness Missing c Natural Tree Shrub Abundant Patchy Sparse Missing Regeneration Sparse d Invasive Exotic Species Localized Abundant Investation Missing e Streambank Root Mass Abundant Present Patchy Sparse Score Total Score(copy to table 19) ______________ Discussion:
12 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form 3. Floodplain and Floodplain Soils Condition. Anthropogenic disturbance, such as development of the flood plain for agriculture, has disrupted the natural connection between many rivers and their floodplains. The loss of this connection is exacerbated by continuing incision or entrenchment and resulting in a disconnect from the groundwater. Restoration attempts to reconnect the floodplain to it stream channel and thereby increase the stream’s flood storage capacity. The efficiency of the new floodplain to provide storage and support riparian vegetation can be directly measured by the soil characteristics of the new floodplain (NRCS 2004). Assessment Protocol. These metrics attempt to describe the quality of the floodplain and floodplain soils to the restored stream feature. Table 14 lists six floodplain characteristics (seven for urban stream projects) and general assessment categories for each (optimal to poor). Walk the entire restored reach and note the average condition of each characteristic, circle the appropriate value for each category. Soil type and particle size are important factors when assessing the ability of the riparian zone to hold moisture. It is important that the evaluator can identify basic soil types. A minimum of 2 soil auger samples are collected from riparian areas on both sides of the new stream. Estimates of the soils ability to hold water and to act as a rooting medium are then made (see table 15). Evaluation scores are given to all of these metrics and a final score is recorded on table 15 of this section of the evaluation and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. Discussion:
13 Table 15. Floodplain condition assessment (modified from Center for Watershed Protection 2005 and NRCS 2004­select appropriate score for each category and note on right) Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Floodplain Connection High flows (greater than bankfull) able to enter floodplain. Stream not deeply incised. High flows (greater than bankfull) able to enter floodplain. Some incision occurring High flows (greater than bankfull but less than 2X bankfull) not able to enter floodplain. Stream deeply entrenched. High flows (greater than 2X bankfull) not able to enter floodplain. Stream deeply entrenched Vegetated Buffer Width Width of buffer zone > 50 feet; human activities (i.e. parking lots, roadbeds, clear cuts, lawns, crops) have not impacted zone Width of buffer zone 25­50 feet; human activities have impacted zone only minimally Width of buffer zone 10­15 feet; human activities have impacted zone significantly Width of buffer zone < 10 feet; little or no riparian vegetation due to human activities Floodplain Habitat Mix of wetland and non­wetland habitats, evidence of standing/pooling water Mix of wetland and non­wetland habitats, no evidence of standing/pooling water Either all wetland or all non­wetland habitat, evidence of standing/pooling water Either all wetland or all non­wetland habitat, no evidence of standing/pooling water No evidence of floodplain encroachment in Floodplain the form of fill Encroachment material, land development, or manmade structures Minor floodplain encroachment in the form of fill material, land development, or manmade structures, but not affecting floodplain function Moderate floodplain encroachment in the form of filling, land development, or manmade structures, some effect on floodplain function Significant floodplain encroachment (i.e. fill material, land development, or manmade structures ), significant effect of floodplain function > 65% to 85% of the site has sufficient soil to hold water and act as a rooting medium > 35% to 65% of the site has sufficient soil to hold water and act as a rooting medium 35% or less of the site has sufficient soil to hold water and act as a rooting medium 10% or less of the site with exposed soil surface 10% to 20% of the site has exposed soil surface 20% to 50% of the site has exposed soil surface > 50% of the site has exposed soil surface Excellent Outfalls appear stable. Little Stormwater evidence of erosion Outfall or degradation. Quality (urban Energy dissipation and treatment is projects only) evident. Good Outfalls have very few problems and are generally stable. Attention has been paid to the design, and some treatment and energy dissipation is expected Fair Design appears to consider outfalls. However, exhibits limited ability to either dissipate energy or treat runoff. Soil Characteristics And Rooting Medium Percent Exposed or Bare Ground > 85% of the site has sufficient soil to hold water and act as a rooting medium Score Poor Little to no attention was paid to storm outfalls. Outfalls are failing or are a source of stream floodplain erosion. Either energy dissipation or treatment. Final Score (copy to table 19) _____________
14 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form C. Aquatic Insect Community Overview. Aquatic insects, or benthic macroinvertebrates, are those organisms commonly found on substrates in streams and include such taxa as mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies. These organisms are commonly used by regulatory agencies as water quality indicators; however, these organisms are also good indicators of habitat alteration because they are highly sensitive to changes in physical habitat (flow, depth, substrate size and stability). Assessment Protocol. Aquatic insect samples are collected using methods established by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDENR 1997). Samples are collected from an upstream reference location and from at least one location within the restored stream feature. An additional location may be selected below the restoration project to determine if there’s a potential for improvement in water quality because of the project. These methods include collecting a kick net sample from a riffle area, a sweep net sample from bank habitats, a leaf pack sample and conducting visual inspections of stable substrate material. This collection method is referred to as a Qualitative 4 in the DWQ protocols. All specimens are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level in the field by an experienced benthic biologist and all abundant taxa (greater than 10 organisms) are listed on Worksheet 5). Table 16 lists 6 commonly used assessment metrics for aquatic insect evaluation. These evaluation metrics are only for the restored reach; however the abundant taxa in common are compared to the upstream reference location. It is assumed that the restored streams are 2 nd or 3 rd order systems, if the restored features are larger or smaller adjustments in the scoring criteria will need to be evaluated. Evaluation scores are given to all of these metrics and a final score is recorded on table 16 of this section of the evaluation and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. Table 16. Biological Parameters (select appropriate score for each category and note on right) Score Parameter Excellent (4) Good (3) Fair (2) Poor (1) Total # of abundant taxa* >17 12­17 6­11 <6 No. of abundant EPT taxa* >15 10­15 5­9 <5 EPT Abundance >73 49­73 25­48 <25 Abundant taxa in common (%) >75 50­75 25­49 <25 % shredders and predators >25 15­25 5­14 <5 No. of indicator taxa** >10 6­10 3­5 <3 *will be dependant on stream size **indicator taxa are those organisms that reflect stable habitat Final Score (copy to table 19) ________ Discussion:
15 D. Instream Structure Evaluation Overview. The placement of physical structures in streams to modify or improve instream habitat isn’t a new concept. Tarzwell (1938) first described methods used to improve fish habitat nearly 80 years ago, although there have been relatively few assessment protocols established. Assessment Protocol. Appendix 1 of this evaluation is a scaled drawing of the restoration obtained from the project designer and includes the location of all instream structures. Please refer to this illustration as you walk the new stream feature and note the location, type and condition of each structure. Table 17 lists the expected functions of most of the common instream structures used in North Carolina. As you locate the structure in the new stream feature determine the intended function of the structure from table 17 and note this on worksheet 6. The two scores for this protocol are structure condition and structure function. Both structure condition and function are given scores (table 18), and a total is recorded in this section of the evaluation and noted on Table 19 in the Final Evaluation and Recommendation section of this protocol. Table 17. Expected functions of stream restoration practices (Brown 2000) Structure Rock or log cross vane (including double­ drop cross vane) Single or double wing deflectors Rock or log vane J­hook vane Rock or log sill W­weir Boulder revetment Rootwad revetment Bioengineering Practices (coir log, live fascine, brush mattress) Vortex rock weir Cut­off sill Constructed riffle Functions Grade Control Flow Concentration/Pool formation Bank Protection Biological Habitat Flow deflection Flow Deflection Flow Deflection/Concentration Biological Habitat Grade Control/Riffle formation Grade Control Flow Concentration Bank Protection Bank Protection Cover for aquatic organisms Bank Stabilization Grade Control Flow Concentration/Pool formation Bank Protection Biological Habitat Floodplain stability Grade control Riffle formation
16 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Table 18. Instream Structure condition and function evaluation. Score Structure Function Structure Condition (1­4) Structure type, total # = ______ Total # Bank protection Rock or log cross vane Grade control Single or double wing deflectors Flow deflection/concentration Rock or log vane Bank stabilization Rock or log sill Riffle formation W­weir Floodplain stability Boulder revetment Notes: Rootwad revetment Bioengineering practices Vortex rock weir Cut­off sill Constructed riffle Final Score _______ (copy to table 19) Score (1­4) % of total Subtotal Score _______ (copy to table 19) Discussion:
17 E. Project Evaluation and Recommendations Table 19. Project Evaluation Evaluation Category Channel Condition Bank and Riparian Habitat Aquatic Insects Instream Structures Metric Bedform condition Dominant Substrate Material Cover and Refuge Streambank Stability Riparian Vegetation Floodplain Condition Total Community Structure Structure Function Structure Condition Final Score Potential Range of Scores 5­20 3­12 2­20 6­24 5­20 7­24 (28)* 5­20 5­20** 5­20** Scores for this project Comments From table 4 From table 5 From table 7 From table 8 From table 14 From table 15 From table 16 From table 18 From table 18 43­180 *Urban Streams only **Scores based on the first five functions and conditions, scores are variable for each of the projects Photo Inventory. Each evaluation will include a digital library of photographs taken during the day of assessment. These photographs will be referenced on Worksheet 7, and cross­referenced to the design drawing on Worksheet 1. All photographs will be maintained in a photo library on the NSCU Water Quality Groups website for further reference. Primary Goal of this project (from page 1) ____________________________ Evaluation and Recommendations:
18 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Acknowledgements – We would like to thank the following individuals for their review and cooperation in the preparation of this evaluation form; Jerry Miller, Dick Everhart, Jim Borawa, John Dorney, Mac Haupt and Scott McClendon. In addition we would like to thank Cathy Smith for her help with the final editing and construction of this form. References Bain, M.B and N.J. Stevenson, editors. 1999. Aquatic habitat assessment; common methods. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, Maryland. Brown, K. 2000. Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An Initial Assessment. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland. Center for Watershed Protection. 2005. Unified Stream Assessment: A user’s manual. Ellicott City, Maryland. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration: Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA. Flosi, G., and F.L. Reynolds. 1994. California salmonide stream habitat restoration manual. California Department of Fish and Game, Technical Report. Sacramento. Hawkins, C.P, J.L. Kershner, P.A. Bisson, M.D. Bryant, L.M. Decker, S.V. Gregory, D.A. McCullough, C.K. Overton, G.H. Reeves, R.J. Steedman and M.K. Young. 1993. A Hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features. Fisheries, 18(6)3­12. Myers, L.H. 1989. Riparian area management: inventory and monitoring of riparian areas. U.S Bureau of Land Management, Technical Report 1737­3. Washington, DC. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 1997. Standard Operating Procedures for Biological Monitoring. Division of Water Quality. Water Quality Section. Biological Assessment Group. 52pp. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2004. Biology Technical Note 50. Visual Riparian Assessment Tool. Rankin, Edward T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Assessment Section. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Roni, P. editor. 2005. Monitoring stream and wetland restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesa, Maryland. Tarzwell. C.M. 1938. An evaluation of the methods and results of stream imprvement in the Southwest. Transactions of the 3 rd North American Wildlife Conference. 1938:339­364. Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river­bed material. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 35:951­956.
19 Worksheet 1 Detailed drawing of the restored stream feature. Note the CGUs, photo points
20 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Worksheet 2. Dominant Substrate Material Assessment form (for table 5) Wolman Pebble Count Description Silt/Clay Description Silt/Clay Diameter (mm) < 0.062 Sand Very Fine Fine Medium Coarse Very Coarse Very Fine 0.062 ­ 0.125 0.125 ­ 0.25 0.25 ­ 0.5 0.5 ­ 1.0 1.0 ­ 2.0 2.0 ­ 4.0 Fine Fine Medium Medium Coarse Coarse Very Coarse Very Coarse 4.0 ­ 5.7 5.7 ­ 8.0 8.0 ­11.3 11.3 ­ 16.0 16.0 ­ 22.6 22.6 ­ 32 32 ­ 45 45 ­ 64 Small 64 ­ 90 Small Large Large 90 ­ 128 128 ­ 180 180 ­ 256 256 ­ 362 362 ­ 512 512 ­ 1024 1024 ­ 2048 > 2048
Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Small Small Medium Large Bedrock Riffle 1 Riffle 2 Total % Cum % 21 Worksheet 3 – Dominate Riffle Material Sheet (for table 5).
Cumulative % 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Size (mm) 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 22 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Worksheet 4 – Vegetation Assessment (for table 14) Transect Structure Bare soil Forbs Graminoids Shrubs Trees Wetland Nonvascular Species 1 2 3 4 Total Richness
23 Worksheet 5 – Aquatic Insects (for table 16). List of Abundant Taxa Mayflies Reference ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Restored Shredder/Predator Indicator ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ Stoneflies Reference ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Restored Shredder/Predator Indicator ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ Caddisflies Reference ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Restored Shredder/Predator Indicator ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ Other Taxa Reference ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ ______________ Restored Shredder/Predator Indicator ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ ________________ _____ _____ Total No. Abundant Taxa _____ Total N. of Abundant EPT Taxa _____ EPT abundance _____ Abundant Taxa in Common _____ % Shredders and Predators _____ No. of Indicator Taxa _____
24 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Worksheet 6 – Instream Structure Assessment (for table 18). Structure # and type Structure location Structure Condition Score* Structure Function Scores** * Structure Condition Score ­ 4 if the structure is in good condition, 1 if structure is in poor condition ** Structure Function Score – 4 structure is working as designed, 1 structure isn’t working Total No. Structures __________
25 Worksheet 7 Photo Inventory Project _____________________________ Date ___________ Photo Location Photo # GIS Coordinates Comments
26 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Appendix 1. Typical Fast Water Habitats or Channel Geomorphic Units (Bain and Stevenson 1999).
27 Appendix 2. Typical Slow Water Habitats or Channel Geomorphic Units (Bain and Stevenson 1999).
28 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Appendix 3. Fast water macrohabitates and their characterization (Bain and Stevenson, 1999). Habitat Type Stream Reach Type Turbulence Velocity Substrate Slope Falls High, white water Free falling over verticle drop Variable < 100% Bedrock, formed from a full cascade, step spanning flow obstruction pool Steep gradient or cascade high, mainly whitewater high bedrock or an accumulation of boulders > 7% Bedrock, series of small falls or step cascade, step and pools; stepped pool longitudinal profile considerable; whitewater fast; > 50cm/s cobble, boulder; course, exposed 4­7 % plane bed steps and pocket pools common; planar longitudinal profile < 4% plane bed, pool­ riffle regine, braided channel profile usually straight to convex High gradient or rapids moderate; little­ gravel, pebble, no whitewater; Low gradient or moderate: 20­50 cobble; totally­ high at points of riffle cm/s partially channel submerged constriction Steps Chutes Glides fast; > 50cm/s turbulent nonturbulent swift abrupt breaks in gradient; usually shorter than channel width; features include: bedrock, boulders, cobble bars, logs culverts, dam, weir 10­100% bedrock; little­ none exposed low­moderate; gravel, cobble, even sand Miscellaneous 2­30% bedrock, can be narrow, steep slots cascade, step in bedrock pool 0­1 % wide channel lacking a definite thalweg; usually at the transition between a pool and riffle; no major flow obstructions; lacks features associated with pools; moderately shallow (10­30 cm) Run nonturbulent swift gravel, cobble, boulder low Sheets nonturbulent uniform smooth bedrock variable Edgewater nonturbulent low­still varies from cobble to boulders occurs over a definite thalweg flat plane with a pool­riffle uniform channel form; no regime, braided major flow obstructions; moderately shallow deeper than riffles bedrock, cascade, step pool usually associated with riffles; along margins of stream
29 Appendix 4. Slow water macrohabitates and their characterization (Bain and Stevenson, 1999). Habitat type Substrate Formation Features Stream reach type concave in shape; direction of flow varies widely; depth greater than riffles or runs lateral constriction of bend in channel, large­ channel or sharp drop in scale obstructions water surface profile (e.g., boulder, log) Pool Miscellaneous cascade, step pool, pool­riffle hole encompasses >60% of wetted channel width; symmetrical cross section; deeper at head variable partial channel undercut bank, obstruction constricts channel bed, log, root step pool, pool­riffle, flow to one side of wad, bedrock outcrop, regime, braided channel boulder scour usually confined to <60% of wetted channel width; deepest along bank with obstruction Backwater eddy fine­grained (sand, grave, cobble) eddy scour downstream of a large obstruction root wad, boulder, log almost all reach types along channel margin deep; > 30cm Trench stable; mainly bedrock Straight scour Lateral scour highly variable Channel confluence Plunge Step Dammed Secondary isolated Alcove pocket water Abandoned channel particle size highly variable mid­channel scour caused by flow constriction laterally confined, hardened banks; boulders or woody debris obstructions scour due to tightly constrained channel bedrock walls are highly resistant to erosion scour occuring at confluence of two or more channel partical sorting, plunges, lateral obstructions gravel, sand, silt typically sand and organic matter, but can be of any type U­shaped cross section; very long and narrow; swift velocity; deep; uniform any type of reach also called convergence; greater velocity and turbulence than most other pool types scour due to water falling vertically over a small, steep headwater streams; bedrock, complete or nearly logs, boulder, bedrock complete channel cascade, step pool obstruction deep; > 1 m high­gradient mountain pools separated by stream short riffles or cascades boulder smaller gravels and sand bedrock dominated water impounded upstream due to a complete or nearly complete channel blockage temporary nature because fill up with sediments (rate depends on sediment source) debris jam, beaver, landslide outside of wetland but gravel bars; any other within active channel; feature preventing flow water prevented from from main to entering secondary secondary channel chanel pool­riffle regime, braided outside active channel; into a secondary channel or along boulders, rubble, logs margins; eddy scour near lateral obstructions formed at low flow when bars deposited along main channel isolate water in secondary channel after freshets; may dry up or depend on intergravel flow during late summer length usually less than full channel width; low­ still velocity pool­riffle regime, braided ephemeral or maintained by subsurface flow
30 Stream Restoration Evaluation Assessment Form Stream Performance Index (Draft 3­17­06) Reviewer’s Name: _________________________ Date: ________________________ Occupation: ___________________ Years of Training in Stream Restoration: _______ Stream Name: __________________________ Location: ________________________ Date or restoration completion: _______________ □ 1. Channel Bedform (check all that apply, 15 pts) Score
□ 0­3 pts – Riffles and pools appear in a regular alternating sequence □ 0­3 pts – Riffles and pools are properly located (pools in bends or downstream of boulder and log structures and riffles in straight stretches) □ 0­3 pts – Riffles are adequate in length and have a suitable slope (not oversteep) □ 0­3 pts – Riffles have clean washed coarse material (no accumulation of fine sediment) □ 0­3 pts – Pools are of adequate length, are deep and have gently sloped point bars Please note other observations (good and bad): __________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ □ 2. In­stream habitat (check all that apply, 20 pts) Score
□ 0­3 pts – Large woody debris (LWD) is present in the channel (excluding rootwads) □ 0­3 pts – Leaf Packs are present □ 0­3 pts – Stable undercut banks are present □ 0­3 pts – Rootmats and/or fine root hairs present along toe of streambanks □ 0­3 pts – Overhanging vegetation is present □ 0­3 pts – Rootwads are present □ 0­2 pts – Boulders or boulder clusters area present Please note other observations (good and bad): __________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ □ 3. Sediment Transport (select the category that best applies, 15 pts) Score
□ 11­15 pts –Stream appears to be transporting bedload efficiently with no obvious signs of degradation (bed incision) or deposition (i.e. no mid channel bars or obvious sediment accumulation in pools, structures are not buried or exposed, etc.) Pool depths are maintained and deposition is occurring on innerberm benches, point bars and other appropriate depositional areas only. □ 6­10 pts –Stream is having some trouble with sediment transport. There are indications of degradation (bed incision and/or undercutting of boulder structures). Or there are clear indicators of deposition (i.e. mid channel bars starting to form or sediment accumulation in pools, structures buried, etc.)
31 □ 0­5 pts –Stream is having significant trouble with sediment transport. There are substantial obvious signs of degradation (bed incision) and associated streambank undercutting. Or there is extensive indications of deposition including mid channel bars, sediment accumulation in pools, or structures are buried). Please note other observations (good and bad): __________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ □ 4. Streambank Condition (select the category that best applies, 20pts) Score
□16­20 pts – Streambanks are stable. 10% or less of the banks show obvious signs of erosion or sloughing. □ 11­15 pts 11­30% of the streambanks exhibit signs of erosion, sloughing and instability. Remaining banks are stable. □ 6­10 pts 31­50% of the streambanks exhibit signs of erosion, sloughing and instability. Remaining banks are stable. □ 0­5 pts –51% or more of streambanks are eroding and unstable. Please note other observations (good and bad): __________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ □ 5. Streambank Vegetation (select the category that best applies, 15 pts) Score
□ 11­15 pts – Streambank vegetation is lush on all banks and consists of a diverse native plant community □ 6­10 pts – Good vegetative cover on streambanks, however some bank areas are bare and/or some inclusion of exotic vegetation □ 0­5 pts –Numerous bare areas with poor vegetative cover on streambanks and or extensive presence of exotic vegetation □ 6. Floodplain Function (select the category best applies, 15 pts) Score
□ 11­15 pts –Clear indicators present that larger storm events are accessing the design bankfull benches or floodplain (i.e. deposition of sand and other fine material, rack lines, photo documentation, anecdotal observations by others, etc.) □ 6­10 pts – Some indication that the large flows have accessed the floodplain in most areas. However, floodplain irregularities (i.e. high spots) are present that do not show signs of floodplain access. □ 0­5 pts – Little to no obvious signs of floodplain □ n/a Unable to score as no large storms have occurred since project was installed. Please note other observations (good and bad):__________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Sum the scores from all six categories above to determine a total score. □
Total Score
32