20081263 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20130212

,-�) �' Q c�
Year 4 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary
i
Union County, NC 1�
SCO # D06054 -F J
1 in
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
Submitted: December, 2012
I,- ' � V
4\1

Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4802
Main: (614) 775 -4500
RECEIVED
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. n ) 0
Engineers. Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
c

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
U. Project Background..... ........... 3
A Location and Setting
B Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C Project History and Background
D Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results .16
A Vegetation Assessment
1 Soil Data
2 Vegetative Problem Areas
3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4 Stem Counts
5 Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stream Assessment
1 Hydrologic Criteria
2 Stream Problem Areas
3 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4 Stream Problem Areas Photos
5 Fixed Station Photos
6 Stability Assessment
7 Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology 27
List of Tables
Table I Project Structure Table
Table II Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV Project Contact Table
Table V Project Background Table
Table VI Preliminary Soil Data
Table VII Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX Venfication of Bankfull Events
Table X Stream Problem Areas
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table X11 Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Table XIII Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary — All Cross Sections
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page i

List of A�
Appendix
1
2
3
4
vendices
i A Vegetation Raw Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Data Tables
Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
Vegetation Installed during 2011 & 2012 Remedial Planting
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1
Fixed Station Photos
2
Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3
Cross Section Plots
4
Longitudinal Plots
5
Pebble Count Plots
6
Bankfull Event Photos
7
Stream Problem Areas Photos
8
Stream Problem Areas Plan View
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page ii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Davis Branch stream restoration project is located near the town of Marshville, Union County,
` North Carolina Prior to restoration, active use of the land for cattle grazing and hay resulted in
unpaired, channelized, erodmg, incised and entrenched stream channels The project reaches include
the restoration of 1,799 linear feet of the Davis Branch mainstem, enhancement of 1,229 linear feet
of the mamstem, preservation of 766 linear feet of the mamstem, restoration of 459 linear feet of an
unnamed tributary (UT1) and enhancement of 396 linear feet of the same tributary Restoration of
the project streams, completed during April 2009, provided the desired habitat and stability features
required to unprove and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term The following
report documents the Year 4 annual monitoring for this project
Vegetative monitoring was completed on September 13, 2012, following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey methodology Stem counts completed at ten vegetation plots show an average density of 591
stems /acre in Year 4 This is a slight decrease from the Year 3 total of 741 stems /acre for the site but
is a marked increase over the Year 2 average of 454 stems/ acre for the site This density meets the
success criteria of 288 stems /acre after four years of monitoring Only one plot (plot 3) had a stem
density below the nu mmum To address the issue of low stem counts for planted stems observed in
the fall of 2010, specific areas where targeted for supplemental planting in the spring 2011 within the
riparian corridors, concentrated along UT and the portion of the Davis Branch downstream from the
confluence with UT1 This planting effort is reflected in the 2011 increase in average stem density
for planted stems across the site Some natural mortality has occurred over the dry summer months
of 2012 This is reflected in the smaller number of stems /acre observed in Year 4
In 2011, there was a minor area of the riparian corridor along the right bank of the marnstem that was
exhibiting denudation This area is situated between stations 8 +00 and 10 +00 A that time, it was
labeled as a vegetation problem area of low concern because there was no evidence that denudation
was affecting stream stability The lack of vegetation appeared to be attributed to a natural
condition It is situated in the understory of a secondary growth forest where there is competition for
light during certain portions of the day It was expected that shade tolerant recruits would establish
along this section of stream in future years Indeed, this is what appears to be happening in Year 4
Therefore, this area has been taken off of the Vegetation Problem Area Map in Appendix A
Year 4 monitoring of the streams identified a few problem areas along the project reaches The
banks of a few of the outside meander bends are lacking vegetation to stabilize the slopes. These
areas are considered low concern at this time However, it should be noted that vegetation is
beginning to infiltrate the bare areas in 2012, further stabilizing the banks of the project reaches
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of stream features are functioning as
designed and built on the Davis Branch mamnstem and unnamed tributary Dimensional
measurements of the monumented cross - sections remain stable when compared to as -built
conditions The comparison of the As- Built, Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3 profiles to the Year 41ong-
term stream monitoring profile data shows stability with num mal change from as -built conditions
The substrate of the constructed riffles remains stable, with a median particle distribution in the very
coarse gravel range The pool substrate remains stable as well, with median particle sizes ranging
from silt to very coarse gravel, based on Year 4 substrate analysis Based on the crest gage network
installed on the project reaches, at least 3 bankfull events have been recorded since construction was
completed No bankfull events were recorded in Year 4
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch
EEP Contract # D06054 -F
December 2012
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Page 1

The tables below summarize the geomorphological changes along the restoration and enhancement
level 1 reaches for each stream.
Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Reach
Parameter
Pre -
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Length
1,562 ft
1,799 ft
1,799 ft
1,799 ft
1,799 ft
1,799 ft
Bankfull Width
8.3 ft
11.3 ft
10.9 ft
12.2 ft
11.0 ft
13.8 ft
Bankfull Max
Depth
1.8 ft
1.3 ft
1.2 ft
1.5
1.4
1.5
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
19.3
16.2
13.8
13.1
18.8
Entrenchment
Ratio
12.8
8.5
8.9
6.1
7.2
53
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.12
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Reach
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Length
1,289 ft
1,289 ft
1,289 ft
1,289 ft
1,289 ft
1,289 ft
Bankfull Width
8.8 ft
16.7 ft
17.5 ft
19.6
17.8
18.2
Bankfull Max
Depth
2.0 ft
1.3 ft
1.3 ft
1.5
1.4
1.5
Width/Depth
Ratio
6.9
27
24.8
26.2
22.2
23.8
Entrenchment
Ratio
7.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.7
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.7
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
Unnamed Tributary 1- Restoration Reach
-]Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Length
334 ft
459 ft
459 ft
459 ft
459 ft
459 ft
Bankfull Width
7.8 ft
12.4 ft
11.7 ft
11.6
9.9
7.4
Bankfull Max
Depth
0.9 ft
1.0 ft
0.9 ft
0.9
0.9
0.7
Width/Depth
Ratio
14.4
29.1
31.6
26.8
20.2
20.6
Entrenchment
Ratio
3.6
4.4
4
4.3
5.0
5.2
Bank Height Ratio
2.8
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.09
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report - Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 2

i�
H. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located southeast of Olive Branch Road and west of Marshville -Olive Branch Road,
7 8 miles north - northeast of the town of Marshville, Union County, North Carolina The site location
and vicinity map is presented on Figure 1 The project is located on properties owned by Edward
Bruce Staton and wife Deborah H. Staton, and Keith Bunyan Griffin and wife Phyllis Griffin. The
project includes restoration activities along Davis Branch mainstem and one unnamed tributary
stream, designated as UT1 throughout this document.
The directions to the project site are as follows:
From U.S Route 74 in Marshville, North Carolina, turn onto North Elm Street (SR 205) and
travel 5 3 miles to Olive Branch Road (SR 1006) Turn right onto Olive Branch Road and
travel 3 9 miles to 9406 Olive Branch Road (Edward and Deborah Staton Residence) Turn
right onto the Staton's driveway, the dedicated egress /mgress access to the recorded EEP
Conservation Easement Areas on the Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary, Stream
Restoration Project
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Pre - restoration land use surrounding the project streams involved cattle pasture and hay land Cattle
had direct access to the project stream reaches for drinking water, and in areas where established
riparian canopy exist, cattle frequently accessed the project corridors for shade In doing so, the
cattle had denuded and destabilized streambanks due to grazing, browsing and associated hoof shear
The unstable streambanks and denuded riparian corridors were contributing large quantities of
nutrient laden sediment to the project stream reaches Eroded sediment from the unstable
streambanks was transported downstream and off site into the larger Davis Branch, Gourdvine Creek
and Richardson Creek watersheds
Runoff from agricultural land use together with cattle intrusion along the project corridors provided
direct nutrient pathways into the project stream reaches Pre - restoration, the upper reach of UT1 had
sparse riparian vegetation along its stream corridor The lower third of UT1 and the upper Davis
Branch mamstem reaches had established hardwood forested riparian corridors However, cattle
intrusion had denuded herbaceous groundcover, and adversely impaired shrub, rmd -story and canopy
vegetation
Prior to restoration, a number of anthropogemc factors impacted the stream channel and riparian
corridor along the impaired upper mainstem restoration reach, resulting in an unstable, moderately
incised and braided condition In its pre - existing impaired state, upper Davis Branch was
transitiomng from E4 /1 channel dimensions to a multiple thread Rosgen 134 /1 stream type, albeit
under incised conditions along the reach Deep channel incision was attributed to uncontrolled cattle
intrusion (herbaceous groundcover grazing, shrub vegetation browsing and hoof shear) resulting in a
denuded riparian landscape and destabilized, eroding streambanks Multiple thread channels, created
by breaches that rerouted the channel around woody debris dams (avulsions) were present at locations
throughout the reach In addition to cattle intrusion, channelization and an average channel slope of
158 percent increased critical shear stresses acting on the streambed and banks during
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 3

O
4 .W
*A'
�4
4.,
ED1 ARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE ;._'C06.67
l7v A A PID i -MO69002
213 A6ES+/-
Vx
7
KEITH ,AND P)4'
'*EbTAR* 2
GRIFFIN
KEITH-AND PAA!lt GRIFnN'�­ QB Sao. PG 4a\
T % plo -A.0106900
011391, PO 32, q,3t.F A
PID 40069ow
20 AtRES+�/-
E—L, D& 4665 PG:.
0 rd-
EMOL Oft 46" PQ 313
Nz
T.
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTXTE` 5EO057
?ID # 01069002
213 ACRES+/
C
7
7­1
A-
BURKF COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID BRANCH RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Evans, Mechwort. Hafribi,'ov 3 T,llorw. Inc
0,.:o: lanuary 2011
Not To Seals
r�
q
ovstern
n
En an ement
POO"

bankfull flows Bank height ratios (BHR) calculated at impaired conditions cross - sections ranged
from 1 38 to 141 (moderately incised)
A number of anthropogenic factors also impacted the stream channel and riparian corridor along the
impaired lower mainstem Enhancement Level I (EI) reach, resulting in its pre - restoration
channelized, deeply incised, eroding impaired condition. Bank height ratios calculated at unpaired
conditions cross - sections ranged from 158 to 1 86 (deeply incised) Deep channel incision resulted
from steep channel gradient (2 16 percent), linear channel alignment (channel sinuosity = 1.06),
mean bankfull flow velocities approaching 5 5 ft/sec, high shear velocity (u* = 0.93 ft/sec), and
extremely high nearbank critical shear stress (Tc = 148 lbs /ft2 ) In addition to unstable channel
hydraulics and morphology, uncontrolled cattle intrusion exacerbated streambank and streambed
erosion The cumulative effect of these factors resulted in nearly 5 feet high, vertical eroding
streambanks on the lower Davis Branch, EI mainstem reach.
A number of anthropogemc factors impacted the stream channel and riparian corridor along the
impaired UT1 reach, resulting in a channelized, entrenched and deeply incised condition In its pre-
existing impaired state, UT1 maintained E4 /lb channel morphology, albeit under incised conditions
Bank height ratios calculated at impaired riffles were 2 47, 3 67 and 2 32, respectively, with a mean
BHR of 2 82 The extreme degree of channel incision leading to entrenchment was attributed to
steep profile gradient (2 3 percent), linear channel alignment (sinuosity = 1 09) high bankfull mean
velocity (6 58 ft/sec), lugh shear velocity (u* = 0 68 ft/sec), high nearbank critical shear stress (TC =
0 85 lbs /ft2) and uncontrolled cattle intrusion The cumulative effects of these impacts resulted in
nearly 4 feet high, vertical, eroding streambanks on the impaired UT reach
As discussed in the Restoration Plan for Davis Branch and UT1, the mitigation goals and objectives
for the project involved restoring stable physical and biological function of the project streams
beyond pre - restoration (impaired) conditions Impaired conditions consisted of channelized, eroding,
incised and entrenched stream channels Nutrient and sediment loading from agricultural land use
and runoff, together with vegetative denuding and destabilized streambanks associated with hoof
shear resulting from uncontrolled cattle access and was evident The specific mitigation goals and
objectives proposed and achieved for the project are listed below
• Stable stream channels with features inherent of ecologically diverse environments, with
appropriate streambed features including appropriately spaced pool and riffle sequences, and
riparian corridors planted with a diversity of indigenous vegetation
• Reference reach boundary conditions were superimposed on the impaired project reaches in
the restoration design and construction of improvements
• Constructed stream channels with the appropriate geometry and gradient to convey bankfull
flows while entraining suspended sediment (wash load) and bedload materials readily
available to the streams
• Restored connection between the bankfull channels and their floodplains, by constructing
stable stream channels, protected by vegetation and lute coir fabric to prevent erosion
• Minimized future land use impacts to project stream reaches by conveying perpetual,
restrictive conservation easements to the State of North Carolina, including stream corridor
protection via livestock exclusion fencing at the surveyed and recorded conservation
easement boundaries, with gates at the edge of the riparian corridor on river right and left at
reserved conservation easement crossings adjacent to active hay and pasture land
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 5

The restoration of Davis Branch mamstem and UT1 met project goals and objectives set forth in the
restoration plan, by providing desired habitat and stability features required to enhance and provide
long -term ecologic health for the project reaches More specifically, the completed restoration
project accomplished the enhancements listed below.
Davis Branch Mainstem:
• Reversed the effects of channelization using a Priority Level I/Level II (PI/II) and
Enhancement Level I (EI) restoration approaches, restoration increased the average
width/depth ratio from 9 1 to 18 8 on the PI/II reach and from 6.9 to 23 8 on the EI
reach after three years of monitoring
• Restored natural pattern to the P"ll reach channel alignment, increasing sinuosity from
1.12 to 1.29 on the PLM reach, while maintaining a stable relationship between the
valley slope and bankfull slope (the bankfull slope was steeper than the valley slope
prior to restoration and is now less than the valley slope post - restoration) Stable
pattern, profile and dimension were restored based on extrapolation from reference
reach boundary conditions On the mainstem EI reach, profile and dimension were
restored based upon reference reach boundary conditions Pattern (sinuosity = 1 06) was
not modified)
• Stabilized erodmg streambanks by constructing appropriately sized channels with stable
streambank slopes built using a combination of embedded stone, grade control
structures, topsoil, herbaceous seeding, mulch, natural fabrics and hearty vegetation
including live branch (3 -foot spacings), bareroot (4 -foot spacings) and 1- gallon tree
(100 -foot spacings) plantings
• The average Bank Height Ratio was decreased from 141 to 100 on the PI/II reach and
1 86 to 100 on the EI reach, respectively (i e , deeply incised to stable)
• Restored connection between the bankfull channel and the adjacent floodprone area by
raising the bankfull channel to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain The restored
mainstem PI/II and EI reach entrenchment ratios range from 3 34 to 6 85 after four years
of monitoring
• Created rnstream aquatic habitat features, including appropriately spaced pool and riffle
sequences, and a stable transition of the mainstem reach EI thalweg to the invert of the
existing channel at the bottom of the mainstem project reach
• Revegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous canopy, rind -story, shrub and
herbaceous ground cover species, and preserved existing forested riparian corridors
where present
• Protected the riparian corridors by placing livestock exclusion fencing at the edge of the
perpetual, recorded conservation easement boundary
Davis Branch UT1:
Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Enhancement Level II
(Ell) and Priority Level I (PI) restoration techniques The average width/depth ratio of
the restored UTI project reach was 20 62 after four years of monitoring Stable
dimension and profile grade control was restored on the Ell reach (profile station 0 +00
to 3 +96) Stable pattern, profile and dimension were restored on the PI reach (profile
station 3 +96 to 8 +54) based on extrapolation from reference reach to restored reach
boundary conditions
Restored stable channel pattern on the PI reach, increasing sinuosity from 109 to 1 34
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 6

• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing appropriately sized channels with stable
streambank slopes. The average Bank Height Ratio has been reduced from 2 82 to 100
(deeply incised to stable)
• Improved the connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
floodprone area by raising the bankfull channel to the elevation of the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration increased the average entrenchment ratio from
3.63 to 5 22 after four years of monitoring
• Created stable channel dimensions, substrate and grade control structures (rock sills) on
the Ell reach; Created stable pattern, profile and dimension, including appropriately
spaced raffle, run, pool and glide sequences, together with a stable transition of the UTI
PI reach thalweg at its confluence with the Davis Branch Mamstem.
• Revegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous canopy, mid -story, shrub and
herbaceous ground cover, preserving existing forested riparian corridors where present
• Protected the riparian corridor by placing livestock exclusion fencing at the edge of the
perpetual, recorded conservation easement boundary
Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and II
Table I. Project Structure Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Project Segment/Reach ID
Linear Footage or Acreage
Davis Branch Mamstem
3,794 ft
UT1
855 ft
TOTAL
4 649 ft
Table H. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Project
Linear
Segment/ Reach
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
ID
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Comment
Davis Branch
preservation
766 ft
5
153 SMU's
Preserved within the
Mainstem
conservation easement
Davis Branch
Priority Level
Restore dimension,
Mainstem
I/II
1 799 ft
1
1 799 SMU's
pattern, and profile
Restoration
Davis Branch
Enhancement
Restore dimension and
Mamstem
LevelI
1,229 ft
1 5
819 SMU's
profile
UT1
Enhancement
396 ft
2 5
158 SMU's
Restore dimension and
Level II
profile grade control
UT1
Priority Level
459 ft
1
459 SMU's
Restore dimension,
I Restoration
I pattern, and profile
TOTAL
4M9 ft
3,388 SMU's
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 7

C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table III The project contact information is
provided in Table IV The project background history is provided in Table V
Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration plan
A r 2007
Ju12007
Jun 2008
Final Design - 90 %i
--
--
--
Construction
Dec 2008
N/A
A r 2009
Temporary S &E applied
to entire project areal
Dec 2008
N/A
A r 2009
Permanent plantings
Mar 2009
N/A
A r 2009
Mitigation plan/As-built
July 2009
May 2009
June 2009
Year 1 monitoring
2009
Sept 2009 (Vegetation)
Nov 2009 (Geomorphology)
Dec 2009
Year 2 monitoring
2010
Sept 2010 (Vegetation)
Sep 2010 (Geomorphology)
Jan 2011
Year 3 monitoring
2011
Sept 2011 (Vegetation)
Sept 2011 (Geomorphology)
Dec 2011
Year 4 monitoring
2012
Sept 2012 (Vegetation)
Sept 2012(Geomorphology)
Dec 2012
Year 5 monitoring
2013
Full - delivery project, 90% submittal not provided
2Erosion and sediment control applied incrementally throughout the course of the project
N/A Data collection is not an applicable task for these project activities
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Designer
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
South Mountain Forestry
Construction Contractor
6624 Roper Hollow, Morganton, NC 28655
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc
Monitoring Performers
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054
Stream Monitoring POC
Jud M Hines, EMH &T
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Megan F Wolf, EMH &T
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 8

Table V. Project Background Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EE P Project No. D06054 -F
Project County
Union
Drainage Area
Mamstem -214 5 acres
UT1-46 1 acres
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate
052%
Stream Order
Mamstem - 1 st, 2nd
UT1 - 1st
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Ros en Classification of As -built
Mamstem restoration reach - C4 /1
Mamstem E1 reach— 0/1 b
UT restoration reach - C4/1
Dominant Soil Types
Baden channery silt loam,
Cid channery silt loam,
Goldston -Baden complex
Reference Site ID
Davis Branch
SGS HUC for Project and Reference
03040105
CDW Sub -basin for Project and Reference
3040105070080
NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference
C*
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment?
Yes
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
Sediment
of project easement fenced
100%
*The classification for Davis Branch was not listed wrthm the NC DWQ Schedule of Classifications
Gourdvme Creek, the receiving water for Davis Branch, has been assigned as a Class C water
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 9

UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR
DAVIS BRANCH AND
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
NC EEP PROJECT NO. 006054 -F
2012
`J
UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY 2
(UT2) c
Recorded Conmwr olloo
Stmt. Dik 4666 PG 306 `
O
,y
s�
oy
EDWARD BRUCE STATEN
ESTATE SE0057
PID tt 01069002
213 ACRES+f-
4- 0�11am ? - -4 1 '10 mm 1 bwA6gcspAd 1> - I
EDWARD BRUCESTATON
ESTATE 5EDD57
PID 1 01069002
213 ACRES + /
KEITH AND PHYLLIS
GRIFFIN
KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN DB 780, PG 4
DB 797, PG 32 PID # 01069004
PID # 010690048 0.38 ACRES"
2D ACRES-/-
r G
ti
ReeordW CCMe►wlion�
Exn4 DS: 4666 PQ 316 1
li
- AY A-00 - S1rerdr
o rae � asp'
N
TO M
R\® 2>
,�o ft P' i• 3 04 a
ULM
BHANUI
S /TE "'
3 HAIAL70N
Ew
VICINITY NAP
Not To Scde
>e
�8
r
3
0
� 3
W�
s =m�
CL ()�a
°
in
R QZz
Lu O5
LL C h
Q
cOc��
Wd
W
all -
t
z�a3
g :5

KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN As -Built Fence
DB 797, PG 32
PID # 01069004B
20 ACRES + /- t _ --
- -- __ _ -- 485 -
%3nto� - ----- ----- -- - --' -
1 - - -- - -- -'- _ '✓ - -- _ 00- ------------------
0 MG
As -BuAt Gate
� 1
As -Built Low �\ 1
Water Crossing \ `1
As -Built Gate
KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN
t EDWARD BRUCE STATON ' '� \ � � \ G 32
•- I ESTATE 5EO057 / • <<� \ DB 797, P\ PID # 010690048
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /- 20 ACRES+/ -
40 40
�r. .•,' \'�� s�A• pfd \
w.e - " =- I \' �• /R�te,
10 Sadie t' 4C • .`.' - - `. �� ` \ "�
\ S IN
�.ss•! =; - /' \ \ _ j \�b� ` END PRESERVATION REACH
BEGIN RESTORATION REACH \ a►► »3 LS 3ZS f
` - AS -BUILT STA. 7 +81.24 \ `_ - _ -- t
s= .ss`` / �•' -' �; D VIS BRANCH \
Id
LEGEMQ
` / t � \ "•'-- -479
Vegetol';on Plot (VP)
© Crest Gouge As -Bull Rim 1
e As -Built Fence _ ` 1
— — —
Cr— Section AS-Built Rock Sill - _ _
Yonuimenl I _ '__�
- -
—Ex. Property Line Fixed Photo Locations _ --------------- ----------------- - -- _ _ - - - --
Recorded Conser ation -
Easement ..- As -Bait Fence
Ae -suit Thalweg - -'- - and Stationing 'Zgt� - - --
1ee+d+•orlrmeii" r 1». s-r*w 2 - M,■tr ly An Neweli/aCleer b - r x,r1 !1 \.wrrl..►►..l�ml�l�nan ��aerwrwl +lrlx- ,iwln�nssiCaeaw►J atirl - Ab aw+• - -grPm* .011111AMP [12/14,2912 rain Awl - Abft+M .COMM [146* 2 rr.,ebils ap
BEGIN PROJECT
& PRESERVATION REACH
STA. 0+00.00
DAMS BRANCH
3
}
U CIC
H
°5mwl
z
Ni<
N QZ�
Q
r
e�
� I3

�,
it ► -_.,- -
10*
`••� \��\
vegetation Plot (VP)
Z � ,
4'
�a� -
n�
c. «e cauw
At 90t Rich.
g
C\rJ
1
--
\
`
3
,pro°' /
-
- __"464 _,
Crass Section
As -Buit Rock SIR
; �
/
-
c`
�F
Red P31a
-
�N
44
Ftri
Sodmc 1' - 10'
\*V\
40 0 +o
rrc
So" r - ,o• eti
As -Built Gat
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
PID # 01069002
Gate
213 ACRES+/ -
As -Built Fence
so PG a-
oPs. K��• Reg�svY''�
Una Co.
r
i
/f
- - - -- -468 - \ `\ � � � \ \ \ ----- --- --- �"
_.._.- •_. _._467--- ---- -- - - - --- \ \ ��
._- --____. -466" - - -- - - 471 ----------------- / -
- 65� -470—
Cr sf Gauge 1 1 --------- 469—
,9�9✓ cD
N.
LEM=
10*
`••� \��\
vegetation Plot (VP)
�a� -
©
c. «e cauw
At 90t Rich.
g
C\rJ
1
--
\
`
3
,pro°' /
-
- __"464 _,
Crass Section
As -Buit Rock SIR
; �
/
-
Monument
�F
Red P31a
-
— - -
—Ex. P,oprty Line
Fixed Photo Locations
�!
Recorded Conarvotion
_
6
g:
Eosement
As —Built Fence
3
i-
As-Built Tholreq
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
3
and stationing
o
=>
- -- ._ - - - -- -89t+ -- -- ._ --
--
PID # 01069002
- - - -- -468 - \ `\ � � � \ \ \ ----- --- --- �"
_.._.- •_. _._467--- ---- -- - - - --- \ \ ��
._- --____. -466" - - -- - - 471 ----------------- / -
- 65� -470—
Cr sf Gauge 1 1 --------- 469—
,9�9✓ cD
N.
10*
`••� \��\
�a� -
/
•� ;; A.
'89�
i'
--
\
`
,�,�J,y'
,pro°' /
-
- __"464 _,
/
`'����•
; �
/
-
----- - - - - -- ----- - -- -'�;;;-
�F
Red P31a
-
--- - - - - -- "
- - - --
/
_
6
- - -
7_- - - - ---
46
k ------------ --- -.
/
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5E0057
Pr
- -- ._ - - - -- -89t+ -- -- ._ --
--
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
's -Built Fence
4 -/4te. 2 - VANANAW An w.a ycmiew .A - F Ava 111+rt.rrleaa ..hmlrhtoan Bolan iov e�l+trUr -�wt�n �a�far e 7 - rr Anon - SWOAM =
w
CL
OF
H
ILP
06ma�
F- m
Q Qzo
Lu
5 �5
u. C)
_l
r >U
W

�\ \ EDWARD BRUCE STATON
\ \ \ ESTATE 5EO057
\ \ \ \ PID M 01069002
213 ACRES + /X.-Built Fence
\ \-- - - - - -- —
\ -467- ------------- - — _- — — — — _ ----- -- - - - -- - - --
`. 3 \ \\ \ - -_ - i — — ---- _ ---- --- ---- - —
09 -466 - - -- -- - ---
\ ~ - 464.6` ' - --- ,- -- - - - - -- - - -
r �•� '' \�94 ' Zg - -463'' ------ - - -- --
"00 '`rte'__ __ - �� _ 4
wo
Nb
--------------------
60 6•- ------------------ '- �e /a
/ 'ii' -4_ — —460— ,----------- " " -- -- ---- - -- -- --
0obs�a°tt IL
X -Sec 4� X -Sec - ` - -R�d g pot-
------------- �_ 4 '
2-- --- -- - - - - -- OB. K pG. 173' '-��
- 463--- - - - - -- /
ret - -- -- - -- -- - - - -- /
2b - -
loole r •tY _ - -
- EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
As -Built Fence PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
-
As -Built Gate
9Sti - \ J 1 s - Built Fence
-
bsb--- - - - - --
1r -----------------------------------
------------ - - - - -- - ---
osb S
_ - - - - -_ - - --
_ -
6bb,9 n�'\
,px�
'1
/ �aj5' As-B b bX'Lpw
-- - - --- --- Vy4serrossing
-447 _ ;449 ' ' _ 453 -- - 454'"
\
------------ --------
_--------
- ' - 45
- _= �nWvotjw EosmmL
6g PG. 308_314 _ - - -- - - - -
_ CoTrT - - -.!�. --
END RESTORATION REACH
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT I REACH _
As -Bunt Fence AS -BUILT STA. 25 +79.22 ` 40 0
DAMS BRANCH �-Ag -B t "\
soak le . 47
LEG=
'-
vegetation Plot (VP)
©
crest Gouge
Crow Section
Monument
— - -
—E.. Properly Line
Recorded Conservation
Comment
As -Suet Tholeeg
and Stationing
Rune
A.-9u➢!
Am-Built Rock Sill
1.
Fixed Photo Locations
(a— �r-
As -Bui! Fence
4.0*— l - irridy pm Wm;,AVC9rd Rs - r .led!
- Ar Itt11111111ar - Sb WO r JCMMM !r2/140!JW2 r@' MIll AIQ - wmL+M .0VAVF lr409402W.? r r�Orsla
� $ v
3 3
R $n
Za> �
J =m
o�mw�
9 jQo
N Q 11Z
J
LL
Z
Q
O�
W
�e?
N6
F
S

EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
As -Built Fence
-- - - -- ..__- -- 6
- - -- - ---- -- %-450---
�-` i �,i+�, `} '--.� - -__-- • - -' 3 - \ -445- — ` — -- - --- --------------------
� rj) / /i� _ -� Eby ,_ � - 44_ - , Abp - ------------ - - -- ------ _ ~_
8 / lr -436-,, _ _ sib• J \ - - - - -- @o-= _ _ -_ - - - - --
moo/ Est. Thalweg
VP 0
- - _ _- __- - h0' / 44� _ .Aar' _ X445 - '- _ -- -
C/ / /4.46'; - -- __, ed
--- _ — / tk
i4 - =44� 442.443 4¢4 -Sb" ' - _ _ _ -�8 d�- BOG= 3]4t?�NE�RD $f?U�
-------------------- E -S T- ToAI
- -FAG= i-7 - STATE 59057,.-
_" - - - - -_ -- - -- : -- _ _ -
�i - -OSti— — _ __ -- -- - -----
_- - - -- ---- -- --- --- -- — — — -- -_ _ :- :--_ - = --45=
-------------- big'- - -------- - - - - -- -- —
_ — "
\\ '�E6- - - -- -- -' " ' `' - - -- __'- - - - -- - -- --- - - - - -- - \
Ex. Thalweg�,
X38+ — �-
- -'----- �
END PROJECT -
ENHANCEMENT II REACH ____
AS -BUILT STA. 38+67.9 /
DAVIS BRANCH / / r o - I�
VP -8
v - oz
Cb
/ / N N
As -Built Gate `i' T / I - _ "--- - - - - -- R dad Cohsarvatigh Easement /
�l - - - _ -U,1.- ARS& PG. 306314,
9Eti_,_ `^
As - Built Fence
1-
1a — I .IM1
1
EGIM
Vsgetolion Not (VP)
©
Crest Gouge
Crou S�tlon
Ma __t
- - -
Ex. Properly Lire
Recorded Conservotion
Eosenxnt
As -9ullt Thalweg
and Stotloning
--EON-,
--
Ae -Bain R?fne
6MM?k­a
A.—Built Rock Sal
F1xed Photo Locotions
- ...
As -Bull F.
40 0
rwl
so
900 Y - .ar
20
SwW r - +a
ch
a
3
�!h
2
O
n
w
> I-
g =m
a.
a
06
mWa
g
L
N /
0Z
V.
Q
f_
I
9��5

EDWARD BRUCE STATON AS-Built Fence
ESTATE 5EO057 --
PID # 01059002
213 ACRES+ _ -- - -- - _ - -- --- - --- -_..`. '
.494- - - '- - - rvation' _ i ca
-" "- - "- _ -- -- Raca-de�'tonae �a�smerit- _ _ \ �
.Z_ -------------------------- - - dt- 4666_PG, 306.,314 - _ - \ Crest Gouge
Plot (w)
.45 - 451 " -- --- -------- -- - - -- - -- __- -------- .p8. K. Pr- 173., _ _ 1 c.eac ca,gs N
X450- — — — — — — _ _ _ Uni6rt-Oa- ate! _ - `s. -95�. r9A. Mo N
s� �` se Section $ H
\ -.-i / i — 449 -------------- - - - - -- -- - -�_�_� ` -`�' ,,�5�- _ ` BEGIN PROJECT E.na.op..tty U:,.
_ _ ='--- - .- -= - ------ - _ - - - J J k ENHANCEMENT II
\ -8bb -- REACH R.ca.ded cane- vation o
/ STA. 0 +00.00
END ENHANCEMENT nREACH, - _ -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- -', "' \ `� UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1 As -Built rnahmg
\ BEGIN RESTORATION REACH - --- ---" -�" '" f - - - - --- - - - - -- -ti ' _ and Stationing
\ ` AS -BUILT STA. 3 +95.78 — _ _ �� �'- j� \ _• -- \, �, 7.- As -Butt Rune
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1 447"
_ _ _ f ~ ------ Z_
As -Built Rock Sig
.___- __'- ----- �_ �- - -_ - - . ___ ^ N + , \ ` Fixed Pnoto locations
�\ _ -_ , - — - ^,_• '' „� �\ - -AS -Suit Fence
r? - _ -- _ b Eta' / mWn
�_€ _ O`p�' ------------
---- - ---= - ----- - -' -- -�' /
Jx�C� b J / - - -- " -- - " -'- -= - -- — �4" 45 '-- --- -- -- --- ---- -- - - ---- QZ LU
_" - - - - - -- --- -- -- -- - -- - --- -- - --- -- 452 - --- -
" - - - _
- _
- - - - ------------------------------ - - - - -- -453-' ,454 - - - -- Z
-VFW_---- ----------- ----- ---- -- --- - - - - --
I / I -- ,�/ ��- = ---------- - - - - -- --- -- --- --- --- - - - - - -- - -'9Sb
EDWARD BRUCE STATON '6Sb t.r
ESTATE 5EO057 �
PID # 01069002 vEi3
\ '\ 213 ACRES + /-
>
END PROJECT do As -Built Fence G
RESTORATION REACH \'r 1 ,` - rest
AS -BUILT STA. 8 +54,91 y - 210
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1 `�` _ �`.,'- -` _ Sees r - 41Y w
- - - - - - _-- -
+; �5 - -. -_ -- , \� •,;; •�`� --------- - - - - -- - -- ---
% \. \ bbb--- --- - - -- -- - ' - S+oo.00 all
otcwn, S 0 _ o
ZVb- - -- � _ M( Shoat 1� >
- - � � , � G a.• M
433_"
+0
'Crest Gouge
- - - -- -434' +,
tk
435, may`• R'ecae(d Gbn�6►votlor►' Ewen �yA/
OB. 46W4 Z ,305 -31,*
-,`! - -' ,LYhlon,'ClZ Raglatry i 3
1�e. 9 : I
. / ; ' , % , ' / sesic r - 40r
' As -Butt Fence
IL•r w�lrl�t uvrhaa raarlava�omerulutrla++��g1)b- 4-14— 2 - AkW&d+r A- 10mm 2WW a - i a,* !1 \w.wr�l..►t+. awr.rlerslar -�In� •rrl - Ar 4w■+ - SAMdOw A tiM 11V141:012 fWaN Aid - P++e aM JIMU P (tZIV4�2 11.,MW AV

III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1 Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina (USDA
NRCS, January, 1996). The predominant soil type mapped on the Davis Branch mamstem is the Cid
channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes. This map unit consists mainly of moderately deep,
moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and gently sloping Cid and
similar soils on flats, on ndges in the uplands, in depressions and in headwater drainageways
Typically, the surface layer is light brownish gray channery silt loam 4 inches thick, while the
subsurface layer is a pale yellow channery silt loam 5 inches thick The subsoil is 18 inches thick
Weathered, fractured slate bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 27 inches Hard, fractured slate
bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 32 inches The depth to hard bedrock ranges from 20 to 40
inches
Included with the Cid soils on site are areas of Badin channery silt loam (BaB), 2 to 8 percent slopes,
mapped on river left along the mamstem Priority Level LM restoration reach and along the mamstem
preservation reach The Badin map unit consists mainly of moderately deep, well drained undulating
soils on convex upland ridges that are highly dissected by interrmttent drainageways Typically, the
surface layer is brown Channery silt loam 7 inches thick The subsoil is 21 inches thick Weathered,
fractured slate bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 28 inches Hard, fractured slate bedrock is
at a depth of about 41 inches An area of Badin Channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent, eroded
(BdC2) is present along the lower Enhancement Level I mainstem reach on Davis Branch
The soil taxonomy is essentially identical to the BaB map unit
Goldston-Badin complex soils (map symbols - GsB and GsQ, 2 to 8 and 8 to 15 percent slopes,
respectively, are the mapped units on UT1 GsB soils are mapped along the upper third of the project
reach GsC soils are mapped to the confluence of UT1 with Davis Branch mamstem The GsB
mapped soil unit consists mainly of shallow and moderately deep, well drained to excessively
drained, undulating Goldston and Badin soils on ndges in upland areas, as opposed to the GsC (2 to 8
percent slopes) soils mapped on side slopes The topography is highly dissected by interrmttent
drainageways The GsB unit is about 45 percent Goldston soil and about 40 percent Badin soil, while
the GsC unit is about 55 percent Goldston soil and about 30 percent Badin soil
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch
EEP Contract # D06054 -F
December 2012
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Page 16

Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Max. Depth
% Clay on
Feature/Issue
Station # / Range
% Organic
Series
in.
Surface
K'
T
Matter
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to
poor, rocky soil (Resolved)
8 percent slopes (BaB)
41
12 -27
024
2
0.5 -2
Badin channery silty clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded dC2)
41
27-40
024
2
05-2
Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5
percent slopes CmB
32
12 -27
032
2
05-2
Goldston -Badin complex, 2 to
8 percent slopes GsB
27
5 -15
005
1
05-2
Goldston -Badin complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes GsC
27
5 -15
005
1
05-2
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and nll erosion, ranging from 0 05 to 0 69
2Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that can
occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year
2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Photo
Feature/Issue
Station # / Range
Probable Cause
#
8 +00 — 10 +00,
Unknown could be shade competition or
NA
Bare Banks
Mainstem
poor, rocky soil (Resolved)
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing populations of
exotic vegetation There is an area of the riparian corridor along the right bank of the mainstem that
was exhibiting significant denudation in 2011 This area is situated between stations 8 +00 and
10 +00 In Year 3, it was labeled as a vegetation problem area of low concern because there was no
evidence that the denudation was currently affecting stream stability At the time, the lack of
vegetation in this area appeared to be an exacerbation of a natural condition It is situated in the
understory of a secondary growth forest where there is competition for light during certain portions
of the day It was expected that shade tolerant recruits would establish along this section of stream in
future years Indeed, this is what appears to be happening in Year 4 Therefore, this area has been
taken off of the Vegetation Problem Area Map in Appendix A There were no problem areas
identified along UT1 in monitoring Year 4 to report in Table VII
There were several areas along both the mainstem and UT1 where the herbaceous vegetation was
sparse underneath the canopy of the large trees preserved during stream restoration It is likely that
the herbaceous vegetation was patchy in the riparian woodlands prior to construction for stream
restoration The condition as it exists in Year 4 is an artifact of the previously sparse vegetative
community The sparse vegetation issue has improved from Year 2 monitoring to Year 4 monitoring,
as native vegetation continues to spread across the project site Because of the previously mentioned
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 17

reasons, all of these locations of sparse vegetation are not considered problem areas at this time. A
trajectory toward an increase in stabilizing vegetation cover between monitoring Years 2 and 4 is
depicted in the Year 4 fixed station photos (Appendix B) There is only one vegetation plot where
the density of planted woody stems is not high enough to meet the required stem counts. Densities of
planted woody species are discussed in the Stem Counts section of this report
3 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
No vegetation problem areas of concern were noted for the project reaches in Year 4 The
Vegetation Problem Area Map is included in Appendix A.
4 Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII. Table
VlHa provides the survival information for planted species, while Table VIIIb provides the total stem
count for the plots, including all planted and recruit stems. This data was compiled from the
information collected on each plot using the CVS - -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4 0 Additional data tables generated using the CVS -EEP format are included in Appendix A All
vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2
5 Vegetation Problem Areas Photos
Since no vegetation problem areas were noted in Year 4 photographs are not included in Appendix
A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 18

Table VIII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - planted stems.
Davis Branch Stream Restoration/ EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Species
Plots
Near 0
Totals
Yearl
Totals
Year2
Totals I
JYear3jYear4jSuryival
Totals I
Totals I
%
11 21 31 41
51
6 7 81
91 10
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata
1
1
6
61
5r
2
40
Aroma
arbuti olta
3
1
1
1
4
4
5
4
6
150
Cephalanthus
occidentahs
10
2
7
1
14
14
17
7
20
286
Cornus amomum
2
4
6
11
10
4
5
0
13
28
37
132
Sambucus
canadensts
2
3
2
ol
21
21
7
7
100
Trees
Acer saccharmum
8
0
0
0
0
8
NA
Celhs
occidentahs
7
1
2
0
0
0
0
10
NA
Fraxmus
ennsylvamca
2
2
4
1
2
2
1 1
12
12
14
15
14
93
hriodendron
tuh i era
I
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
133
N ssa s lvatica
2
2
2
2
2
2
100
Platanus
occidentahs
3
1
2
5
41
1
1
1
21
21
17
151
18
120
Prunus serotma
2
1
1
4
2
0
0
0
or
8
NA
Quercus bicolor
3
5
3
11
1 1
1
18
22
22
Nr
14
82
Quercus
coccmcea
4
8
0
0
0
20
12
NA
Quercus
mardandica
1
0
01
0
0
1
NA
Quercus rubra
1
0
01
01
Or
I
NA
Year Totals
12
19
7
161
11
14
91
19
27
12
941
1011
1121
1461
1461
130
Live Stem Densfty
486
770
2841
648
446
56713651
770
1094
486
Average Live Stem
Density
1 591
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch
EEP Contract # D06054 -F
December 2012
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Page 19

Table VIII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - all stems.
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Pro'ect No. D06054 -F
Species
Plots
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
9
10
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata
3
1
1
Aroma arbuti oha
3
1
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
7
1
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
10
2
71
1
Cornus amomum
21
41
6
111
10
5
Sahx exigua
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
2
1
Trees
Acer saccharinum
8
Diospyros vir iniana
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
2
4
1
3
2
1
Li uidambar styraciflua
1
Liriodendron tuli i era
1
3
N ssa s lvatica
2
Platanus occidentalis
3
1
2
5
4
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
2
4
2
uercus bicolor
3
5
3
1
3
1
uercus coccinea
4
10
uercus merdandica
1
uercus rubra
1
Rhus typhina
1
Ulmus rubra
1
1
Year 4 Totals
21
19
7
17
12
15
16
20
38
16
Live Stem Density
851
770
284
6891
486
608
648
810
15391
648
Average Live Stem Density
733
The average stem density of planted species for the site far exceeds the nummum criteria of 288
stems per acre after four years One plot (plot 3) has a stem density below the nummum A
substantial number of recruit stems have been found across the site, increasing the total stem density
by approximately 24% The number of recruit stems for the individual plots was large enough to
bring all plots, except plot 3, into compliance with the four year nummum criteria
To address the issue of low Year 2 stem counts for planted individuals, specific areas were targeted
during the Spring of 2011 and 2012 for supplemental planting within the Davis Branch and Unnamed
Tributary riparian corridors, which included the deficient sample plots and surrounding areas withm
the buffer The majority of these plantings were concentrated along UT1 and the portion of the
Davis Branch EI mamstem reach downstream from the confluence with UT1 Deficient portions of
the riparian corridors were supplemented with additional native tree and shrub plantings These
Evans, Mechwart, Ilambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch
EEP Contract # D06054 -F
December 2012
Monitoring Year 4 of S
Page 20

supplemental plantings followed the specifications of the project Restoration Plan and Mitigation
Plan documents
Large (3 gallon potted material) and small (bare -root) woody stock was utilized in performing the
remedial plantings. The larger saplings have a more developed root system and will thus be better
able to compete with the existing vegetation Bare root individuals were placed along UT1 and the
downstream end of Davis Branch mainstem where shade and vegetation competition is relatively
nonexistent. A table describing the species and approximated quantities of vegetation installed in the
spring of 2011 is included in Appendix A
5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos are provided in Appendix A
B. Stream Assessment
1 Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest -stage stream gages were installed on the project reaches, one each on the Davis Branch
Mainstem and UT1 The locations of the crest -stage stream gages are shown on the monitoring plan
view (Figure 2) No bankfull event was recorded during the fourth year of monitoring, as presented
in Table IX This brings the total number of bankfull events to three apiece, for each project reach
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo #
9/20/2009
7/28/2009*
Mainstem & UT Crest Gage Data
BF1,4
9/20/2010
7/12/2010*
Mamstem & UT1 Crest Gage Data
BF2,5
9/14/2011
08/01/2011 *
Mamstem & UT1 Crest Gage Data
BF3,6
9/13/2012
NA
Mainstem & UT Crest Gage Data
NA
*Date is approximate, based on a review of recorded rainfall data
On September 14, 2011, the crest gage on UT1 was observed and indicated a bankfull event at a level
of 6 and 5/8 inches above the bottom of the crest gage The crest gage on the Davis Branch mainstem
reach also documented the bankfull event, with a height of 6 and 3/8 inches above the bottom of the
crest gage These crest gages are set at or above the bankfull elevation of each stream channel
Photographs of the crest gages are shown in Appendix B
The most likely date for the bankfull event was after the precipitation event that occurred on August
1, 2011 On this date, maximum daily gage height recorded at USGS Gage 02124692 Goose Creek
at Fairview, NC, was 6 01 feet Maximum discharge for this day at the same station was 759 ft3 /s
Since this is the largest precipitation event of sigmficance since the crest gages were read in 2010, it
is likely to be the bankfull event recorded by both crest gages This particular gage lies
approximately 15 rmles west of the project site The discharge and gage height recorded at the
Fairview station for Year 3 monitoring are shown on the hydrographs below
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 21

7.0
6.8
J
m
cm 5.8
J
0 4.8
m
L
y 3.0
�o
y 2.8
J
N
Q
° 1.9
0.0 c
Sep
2018
USGS 02124692 GOOSE CR AT FAIRVIEW, NC
Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2818 2911 2611 2811 2811 2011
— Daily naxinun gage height — Period of approved data
— Daily nininun gage height Period of provisional data
Daily nean gage height
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
http: / /waterdata.uss. Qov /nc /nwis /dv?
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
http://waterdata.us.izs.Qov/nc/nwis/dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 22
USGS 02124692 GOOSE CR AT FAIRVIEW, NC
m
9ee.0e
m
w
y
108.00
J
m
m
4
I
�
m
19.99
M�
m
_
L v
N
� 4
J
e.10
Sep
Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2019
2818 2011 2011 2811 2011 2811
— Daily naxinun discharge ^ — Period of approved data
— Daily nininun discharge Period of provisional data
Daily nean discharge
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
http://waterdata.us.izs.Qov/nc/nwis/dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 22

2. Stream Problem Areas
A summary of the areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for Year 4 is
included in Table X.
Table X Stream Problem Areas
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Bare banks - concern for future stability if
8+00 - 10+00, Mamstem
vegetation does not develop (RESOLVED)
SPA 1
Erosion/Bare Banks
18+00-19+00,21+00-
Bank erosion (along meander bends) -
22+00, and 23 +50,
concern for future stability if vegetation
SPA 2 & SPA 3
Mamstem
Idocs not develop (RESOLVED)
Stream problem areas in Year 3 were isolated to a few meander bends along the Davis Branch
mainstem In these places, the right and left banks of the meander bends have little established
vegetation to stabilize the slopes In Year 4, these areas have become increasingly covered with
stabilizing vegetation These areas were considered of low concern in Year 3, as the bends were not
in a state of extreme erosion. Additionally, vegetation continues to infiltrate many of the bare areas
This is resulting in an increased root density which provides better stabilization for the stream banks
At this time, remedial maintenance is not warranted These areas are noted on the Stream Problem
Area Map in Appendix B in order that they be watched to catch any erosion problems that may occur
before vegetation becomes fully established along these slopes Actively monitoring these areas will
allow developing problems to be caught early and managed without the need for mechanical
intervention If erosion problems anse, the outside meander bends could be stabilized using
vegetative methods such as seedmg and live stakes, or with a natural fiber (coconut) geotextile It is
expected that streamside vegetation will continue to increase in density over the next year, thus
allowing these stream problem areas to be de- listed from Table X and taken off the Stream Problem
Area Map in Year 5
The bare bank issues noted along UT1 in Year 2 have been lessened in Years 3 and 4 due to the
colonization of native grasses and herbaceous vegetation Evidence of the increase in streamside
vegetation can be seen in the Fixed Station Photos in Appendix B It is expected that this native
vegetation will continue to fill in bare areas along UT in the years to come
3 Stream Problem Areas Plan View
The locations of problem areas are shown on the stream problem area plan view included in
Appendix B Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern (areas to be
monitored) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted)
4 Stream Problem Areas Photos
Photographs of the stream problem areas are included in Appendix B
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch
EEP Contract # D06054 -F
December 2012
Monitoring Year 4 of S
Page 23

5. Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station on September13, 2012 These
photographs are provided in Appendix B
6 Stabilrtv Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the fourth year of monitoring. The visual assessment for each
reach is summarized in Table Ma through Table XIc. This summary was compiled from the more
comprehensive Table 131, included in Appendix B. Only those structures included in the as -built
survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch & UTI Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Mainstem Restoration Reach
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
99%
98%
98%
99%
B. Pools2
100%
99%
99%
98%
98%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
99%
98%
97%
98%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table XIb. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch & UT1 Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Mainstem EI Reach
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
99%
99%
98%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
96%
93%
985%
99%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 24

Table XIc. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch & UT1 Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Unnamed Tributary 1
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
97%
97%
97%
99%
B. Pools2
100%
98%
98%
98%
98%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
96%
92%
96%
98%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'Riffles are assessed using the longitudinal profile A riffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile
2Pools are assessed using the longitudinal profile A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth
3Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N/A This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders
The visual stream stability assessment revealed in- stream structures are functioning as designed and
built on the Davis Branch mainstem and UT1 Rock -toe channel protection, constructed riffles and
pools are functioning as designed and built There are a few meanders along the project reaches that
have minor erosion along the outer bends In addition, there are a few meanders with bare banks,
that, although not severely eroding, are in danger of doing so due to the lack of vegetation that would
provide stabilization In these areas, vegetation density has increased since 2010, especially along
UT1 (see Fixed Station Photos in Appendix B) Due to increased density of streamside vegetation,
meander erosion along the enhancement reach of the Davis Branch mainstem has also decreased
markedly from Year 2 to Year 4
In 2012, less meander scour and erosion was noted along the restoration reach of the mainstem than
was observed in 2011 This is due in large part to a generalized increase in the density of herbaceous
vegetation along channel banks since 2010 All areas of scour and erosion will again be closely
monitored in Year 5 in order to assess trends in stability If necessary, recommendations will then be
given as to the appropriate bank stabilization practices needed.
In addition to the meander category, there were a few pools and riffles that did not match the as -built
condition as presented in the graphs of the longitudinal profile (see Appendix B) It is assumed that
the rock substrate is shifting over time, evolving into that which better matches a stable channel
morphology The pool and riffle features are all still present and functional Additionally, a few
pools on the mainstem restoration reach and UTl exhibited minor aggradation in Year 4 These
pools remain functional
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 25

7. Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross - sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are presented in
Appendix B A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in Tables XII and XIH
for comparison with the monitoring data shown in the tables in the appendix
The stream pattern data provided for Year 4 is the same as the data provided from the As -Built
survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 4 stream surveys and visual field assessment.
Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the long -term
longitudinal profiles Dimensional measurements of the monumented cross - sections remain stable
when compared to as -built conditions Riffle lengths, slopes and pool to pool spacings are
representative of reference conditions A few parameter measurements have changed when
comparing the Year 1 -4 and As -built profile data. As in previous years, the longitudinal profile
survey in Year 4 continues to detect nucro- features that were not identified during the as -built
survey. Pool and riffle features are developing in the restored and enhanced reaches as the stream
distributes its bedload and redistributes the constructed substrate during high flow events The
comparison of the As -Built and Year 4 long -term stream monitoring profile graphs show stability
with minimal change from as -built conditions, with the exception of the aforementioned
microfeatures
The constructed riffles of Davis Branch mamstem remain stable, with a median particle distribution
in the very coarse gravel range The pool substrate remains stable as well, with median particle sizes
ranging from silt to very course gravel based on Year 4 substrate analysis Median particle
distributions for the pools of the mamstem have fallen since 2011 (Year 3) This is a sign that, since
construction, enough time has passed to allow smaller particles to settle naturally into the channel
and enough flow events have occurred to sort the developing substrate This is a sign of increasing
substrate stability for the Davis Branch mamstem The substrate is therefore stable in Year 4 and
remedial maintenance work is not warranted
A shift in particle distribution along the enhancement reach of Davis Branch resulted in a
classification change from 0/1 (as- built) to C4 /1 (Years 14) The Year 4 classification for this
reach continues to be a C4 /1 The as -built data was collected immediately after construction, at
which time the substrate was composed almost entirely of the large material placed into the channel
during construction, as well as the in situ bedrock The subsequent monitoring results show that
smaller particles have naturally settled into the larger material and caused a change in stream
classification This shift in particle distribution shows a trend toward stability and does not require
any maintenance work
The reach composite for UT is the same as the nffle composite for this stream, as both monumented
cross sections are nffles In Year 4, the D50 is 35 79 mm This represents the second consecutive
year where the D50 falls within the very coarse gravel range
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 26

N. METHODOLOGY
Year 4 vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2012 using the CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4 0 (Lee, M T , Peet, RK , Roberts, S.R , Wentworth, T R. 2006).
Year 4 stream monitoring was conducted in September 2012 in order to provide adequate tune
between the Year 3 and Year 4 monitoring surveys. Subsequent stream monitoring will occur in the
fall of Year 5 in order to provide a full year between surveys. Vegetation monitoring will be
conducted in the fall of 2013, providing a full year between vegetative surveys
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2012
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 27

Table XIIa: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Davis
Branch
and Unnamed Tributary Restoration /
EEP Project No D06054 -F
Station/Reach: Mamstem Restoration Reach
Station 7 +81 to 25 +80
(1,799 linear
feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 1
e XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 2 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3 )
Year 3 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 4 (Riffle XS -I & XS -3)
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Median
Mm
Max
Median
Mm I
Max
Median
Mm I
Max
Median
Mm
Max
Median
Mm
Max
Median
Dimension
Drainage Area mil
05712
05712
01823
01823
01823
01823
01823
01823
01823
Bankfull Discharge cfs
800
776
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
BF Width ft
1177
1291
831
900
917
1338
1128
876
1305
1091
963
1494
1229
790
1407
1099
1087
1662
1375
Flood prone Width 11
5000
5212
165 18
10628
63 19
23817,
11744
6306
11274,
8790
6032
11450
8741
6972
7145
7059
6677
7645
7161
6190
7440
68 15
BF Cross Sectional Area W
15 85
1565
756
792
399
998
699
422
1201
8 12
648,
1687
1168
481,
1497
989
605
1506
10 56
BF Mean Depth ft
135
121
091
088
044
075
060
048
092
070
067
1 13
090
061
106
084
056
091
074
BF Max Depth R
161
181
120
087
162
125
087
157
122
1 10
192
151
100
173
137
123
181
152
Width/Depth Ratio
872
1067
913.
1023
1784
2084
1934
1418
1825
1622
1322
1437
1380
1295
1327,
1311
1826
1941
1884
Entrenchment Ratio
1
387
6271
1988
1279
702
2646
1305
471
1230
851
462
1307
885
467
742
605
475
967
721,
372
68S
529
Bank Height Ratio
100
138
141
140
1 OOL
too
1001
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Wetted Perimeter ft
1447
1372
984
9571
933
1380
1157
894
1355
1125
1006,
1560
1283
821
1479
1150
1122
1734
1428
Hydraulic Radius ft
1 10
1 14
077
0 83
0 43
0 72
0 58
0 47
0 89
0 68
064
1 08
0 86
0 59
1 01
0 80
0 54
0 87
0 71
Pattern
M
Channel Beltwidth ft
2780
5300
38 00 Incised
Linear Braided Channe
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
Radius of Curvature ft
1640
4530
29 40 Incised
Linear Braided Channe
1065
3500.
1970
1065
3500
1970
1065
3500
1970
1065
3500
1970
1065
3500
1970
1065
3500
1970
Meander Wavelength ft
8010
11650
99 20 Incised
Linear Braided Channe
4994
101801
7776
4994
10180
7776
4994
10180
7776
4994
10180
7776
4994
10180
7776
4994
10180
7776
Meander Width Ratio
215
411
2 94 Incised
Linear Braided Channe
556
443
459
407
455
Profile
364
Riffle Len ft
120
1851
150
250 310 270
77
4521
213
71
345
126
60
256
125
541
288
122
76
374
141
76
293
149
Riffle Slope ft/ft
002830
007990
005200
0 02080 0 06290 004499
002270
007620
003990
002806
007468
0 04822
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow I
No Flow
No Flow
00192
00887
00447
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Len ft
120
291
212
195 298 229
171
368
239
115
426
245
105
440
223
1001
513
267
102
658
308
129
652
317
Pool Spacing ft
334
437
386
353 437 400
249
78 1
485
16 8
798
403
140
786
34 1
123
813
376
121
1033
448
134
801
464
Substrate
" 3 ;^
Zi
-r�
D50 mm
692
177
177
333
3631
34 8
28 0
327
304
4181
666
53 1
3551
618
486
320
440
380
D84 mm
Additional Reach Parameters
1401
1 289
289
528
615
572
537
68 0
609
854
Rock
1462
66 61
Bedrock
1922
666
Bedrock
666
-
p
u
Valley Len ft
974
1,397
1
1,397
1,397
1
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
Channel Len ft
1129
1,562
1,802
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
Sinuosity
12
1 121
129
129
1291
129
129
129
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
003110
0015791
001320
0 00828
7-01917
001304
001243
001782
00124-8]f--
01248
0 00812
001758
001232
001179
0 01732
001244
000895
001986
001397
Valle Slope ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
003256
0 01760
001703
0 01066
0 02469
001679
001601
002295
0016071
001046,
002264
001587
001518
0022301
001602
001153
002557
001799
E
E3 /1b*
E4/1— .DA4 /1
E4 /1
C4 /1
C4 /1
C4 /I
C4 /1
C4/1
Notes *E channel morphology, large cobble substrate with bedrock control, barild'iill slope greater than 0 02 ft/ft
The water surface slope in years 1, 2 and 4 represent the "channel slope" since the channel was dry

Table XHb Baseline Geomorph
is and Hydraulic Summary
Davis
Branch and Unnamed Tributary Restoration
/ EEP Project No D06054
-F
Station/Reach
Mamstem Enhancement Level I
Reach Station 25+83 to 38 +72 (1,289
linear feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built (Riffle XS -5 & XS-
Year i (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7
Year 2
Me XS-5 & XS-7
Year 3
file XS-5 & XS -7)
Year 4 (Riffle
XS-5 & XS -7)
Mm Max Mean
Mtn
Max Mean
Min Max Mean
Mm Max
Median
Mm Max Median
Min
Max
Median
Mtn
Max
Median
Mtn
Max
Median
Mm
Max
Median
Dimension
05712
05712
03352
03352
Drainage Area miZ
03352
0 3352
03352
03352
03352
Bankfuli Discharge cfs
800
776
455
45 5
455
455
455
455
455
BF Width ft
1177
1291
878
10 00
15 97 1738 1668
1656
1843
1750
1744
2171
1958
1756
1800
1778
1478
2151
18 15
Flood rove Width ft
50 00
2157 9794 6274
7058 144671
104 34
59 88 6370 6179
5977
6323
6150
5436
6938
6187
6258
6909
6584
6444
7173
6809
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
15851
1565
1118
11 52
10 30 1038 1034
1135
1376
1256
1456
1502
1479
1392
1451
1422
1277
1522
1400
BF Mean Depth R
1351
121
1 27
115
059 065 062
062
083
073
069
083
076
079
081
080
071
086
079
BF Max Depth ft
161
204
-160
122 131 127
125
133
129
135
164
150
135
152
144
150
151
151
Width/Depth Ratio
8721
1067
6 91
870
2457 2946 2702
1995
2973
2484
2101
3146
2624
2222
2223
2223
17 19
3030
23 75
Entrenchment Ratio
387
2 46 11 15 7 15
706 1447
1043
367 375 371
343
361
3521
250
398
324
348
393
371
334
436
385
Bank Height Ratio
1 00
1 58 1 86 172
1 00
1 00 1 00 1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Wetted Perimeter ft
1447
1372
10 21
1085
1619 1757 1688
1685
1879
1782
17931
2201
1997
1797
1835
1816
15 16
2184
18 50
Hydraulic Radius ft
1 10
1 14
1 10
106
0591 064 062
0601
08
071
0681
081
075
0771
0791
078
07
084
077
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
2780
5300 3800
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Radius of Curvature ft
1640
4530 2940
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Meander Wavelength ft
8010
11650 9920
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Meander Width Ratio
215
411 294
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Profile
120
1851 150
r
579 853 671
2401 570
4501
-
4
_,
Riffle Length ft
187
1099
6231
84
507
191
81
595
213
43 4991
194
83
688
236
Riffle Slope 11/ft
00283
00799 00520
00264 00518 00393
000981 00549
0 0504
00316
0 1217
0 0591
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
0 0155
0 1799
0 0634
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Length ft
120
291 212
295 488 392
6 0 400
225
95
501
295
84
392
204
80
579
262
98
51 2
29 2
94800
628200
348900
Pool Spacing ft
334
437 386
922 1030 976
400 880
685
283
1091
634
125
790
356
186
969
55 1
199
92 3
47 7
273
960
628
Substrate
MUM
692
v
1540
3
_
H63
2261
,
5931
410
450
477
46 9
226
5641
395
D50 mm
1540
1
971
80 1
4881
602
545
D84 mm
1401
2074
2074
1793
2165
1979
8781
14621
1170
973
1488
1199
1006
11431
1037
11091
372 1
241 5
Additional Reach Parameters
-
Sam-W&VOWA
man
ME
974
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
Valle Len th ft
1213
Channel I en th ft
1129
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
Sinuosity
1 2
106
106
1 06
1 06
1 06
106
106
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
003110
002160
002160
002122
002124
1 002121
002087
002144
Valley Slope 11/11
003256
0 02290
002290
002290
002290
0 02290
002290
002290
Rosgen Classification
E
E3 /ib*
E3/lb
E3 /1 b
C3 /I b
C4 /l b
C4 /1 b
C4 /lb
C4 /1 b
Notes *E channel morphology, large cobble
substrate with bedrock control,
bankfull slope greater than 0 02 ft/ft
The water surface slope to years
1, 2 and 4 represent the "channel slope"
since the channel was dry

Table XHc. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary Restoration / EEP Project No D06054 -F
Station/Reach. Davis Branch UT1 Restoration Reach Station 3+96 to 8+54 (459 hnear feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre-Existing Condition
Dest
As -Built ftle XS -8 & XS-9
Year 1 (Riffle XS-8 & XS-9)
Year 2 file XS-8 & XS-9)
Year 3 Riffle XS-8 & XS-9
Year 4 (Riffle XS-8 & XS-9
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Mtn
Max
I Mean
Min
Max Median
Mm I Max
Median
Mm Max
Median
m
M Max
Median
Mm
Max
I Median
Min
Max
Median
Dimension **
05712
,.J
05712
Wom
00721
plum"
00721
00721
Drainage Area (mi)
00721
00721
00721
00721
Bankfull Discharge cfs
800
776
98
—98
98
98
98
98
98
BF Width ft
1177
1291
685
839
782
620
1218
1258
1238
1157
1188
i 1 73
1127
1192
1160
879
1093
986
633
837
735
ro
Flood ne Width ft
5000
717
7827
2842
3237
10576
4740
5049
5774
5412
3721
5682
4702
4422
5560
4991
4530
5262
4896
3532
4057
3795
BF Cross Sectional Area W
1585
1565
427
431
430
445
514
545
530
369
5 18
444
432
593
5 13
465
481
473
217
3 11
264
BF Mean Depth ft
135
121
051
0 63
055
1 072
042
043
043
032
044
038
038
050
0441
046
0531
050
034
037
036
BF Max Depth ft
161
077
092
088
100
095
102
099
070
099
085
071
105
088
081
095
088
067
076
072
Width/Depth Ratio
872
1067
1087
1645
1437
861
29001
2926
2913
2700
3616
3158
2384
2966
2675
1658
2376
2017
1862
2262
2062
Entrenchment Ratio
387
092
1001
363
5 22
1706
765
4011
474
438
322
478
4 00
392
466
429
481
5 15
498
485
558
522
Bank Height Ratio
100
232
367
282
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Wetted Perimeter ft
14471
1372
728
874
8 15
673
1238
1274
1256
1170
1208
1189
1141
1213
1177
900
11 14
1007
659
853
756
Hydraulic Radius ft
1 10
1 14
0491
0591
053
066
042
043
043
032
042
037
038
049
044
045
052
049
033
036
035
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
2780
5300
3800
Incised Linear Channel
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
50001
5000
5000
5000
5000
Radius of Curvature 11
16 40
45 30
29 40
Incised Linear Channel
11 10
18 00
1260
11 10
1800
1260
11 10
1800
1260
11 10
1800
1260
11 10
1800
1260
11 10
1800
1260
Meander Wavelength ft
80 ]0
116 50
99 20
Incised Linear Channel
50531
5982
5260
5053
5882
5260
5053
5882
5260
5053
5882
5260
5053
5882
5260
5053
5882
5260
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
215
1201
411
1851
294
s
150
Incised Linear Channel
806
z
397
411
404
421
432
426
419
444
431
457
569
507
597
790
680
Riffle Length ft
11
3057
306
90
230
171
87
450
170
83
466
148
85
331
188
77
4001
166
741
3781
184
Riffle Slope ft/ft
00283
007991
00520
00372
01001
00586
00278
00486
00314
00372
00682
00496
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
00154
006761
00382
No Flow
I No Flow
I No Flow
Pool Len ft
120
2911
212
72
319
192
128
228
187
119
284
172
71
278
147
62
306
169
85
292
176
951
3251
196
PoolSpacing ft
3341
4371
386
156
3248
769
246
415
347
128
503
287
105
382
221
132
582
289
136
400
282
1401
5751
292
Substrate
_.
5
_
692
N
�'
r
114
ULM=
k_rt
D50 mm
114
288
385
3481
335
4651
x 400
—45 OF
4821
469
ry 376
450
41 3
348
372
366
D84 mm
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Len ft
r,
sx „ n
�"`°• ;: z
1401
>,�. a � ;t'-'�
974
MEMO
154
i... _
670
,s_a
_ E,
154
�`
343
620
�' "a
910
572
343
822
.u:
93 11
ri�ia"'
876
343
9381
F
`it - ..
12341
g
1103
343
1077
1242 1187
343
8061
85 1
1
829
343
Channel Len ft
1129
730
450
459
459
459
459
459
Sinuosity
12
109
131
1 34
134
1 34
1 34
134
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
003110
002300
0 02010
002021
002055
002055
001932
002003
Valley Slope ft/ft
003256
002506
002637
002704
002704
002704
002704
002704
Rosgen Classification
E
E3 /lb*
E4 /]b— G4 /ib
E4 /lb
C4 /1 b
C4 /lb
C4 /ib
C4 /Ib
C4 /lb
__._ —. _. ___ _ — � J, �•b� ^""'•" """"""•" ••`� ���.v�� ,.vuu uaanauu � VNa. �c.all.l 111¢,1 V VL l V ll
The water surface slope in years 1, 2 and 4 represent the "channel slope" since the channel was dry

1
Table XIII Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration / EEP Project No D06054 -F
Reach Davis Branch Mamstem - Restoration
Parameter
Cross Section (Riffle 1)
Cross Section (Pool 2)
Cross Section (Riffle 3)
Cross Section (Pool 4
Dimension
FBF
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
my
MY
MY
MY
idth (ft)
9 17
8 76
9 63
7 90
10 87
11 34
11 09
I 1 91
12 52
12 20
13 38
13 05
14 94
14 07
16 62
21 38
21 92
16 67
19 37
l5 41
Flooidth (ft)
112 74
11450
7145
7645
7440
15653
15000
91 32
91 34
8059
6306
6032
6972
6677
6190
6734
71 38
5873
61 93
62 O1
BF Cross Sectional Area (111)
399
422
648
481
605
1197
1149
1326
1084
1294
999
1201
1687
1497
1506.
1864
2097
1537
1871
15 65
BF Mean Depth (11)
044
048
— 067
0 61
056
106
104
1 11
087
1 06
075
092
1 13
106
091
087
096
092
097
102
BF Max Depth (ft)
0 87
087
1 10
1 00
1 23
2 11
200
2 15
2 17
206
1 62
1 57
192
173
181
224
232
183
1 94
1 88
Width/Depth Ratio
-- 2084
18251
1437
12951
1941
10701
1066
1073
1439
1151
1784
14 18
13221
1327
1826
2457
2283
18 12
19971
15 11
Entrenchment Ratio
1230
13071
742
9671
685
13 801
1353
767
730
661
471
462
467
475
372
3 151
326
3 52
320
4021
Bank Height Ratio
I
1
I 1
I
I 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (11)
933
894
1006
821
1122
1210
1179
1274
13 36
1295
1380
1355
1560
1479
1734
2203
2269
1721
2003
1604
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
043
047
064
059
054
099
097
104
081
1 00
072
089
108
101
087
085
092
089
093
098
Substrate
D50 (mm)
3633
2797
41 75
3547
3200
021
0 06
2040,
8 47
0051
33 301
3265
6660
6181
4400
2877
26 13
59251
4668.-43
14
D84 (mm)
1 61 46
6801
85 37
6661
6661
1087
14211
7671 21 811
10541
52811
53741
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
5084
55451
113891
81 161
7830

Table XIII Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration / EEP Project No D06054 -F
Reach Davis Branch Mamstem - Enhancement Level I
Parameter
Cross Section (Riffle 5)
Cross Section (Pool 6)
Cross Section (Riffle 7)
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
I MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
BF Width (ft)
1738
18431
1744
17 56
21 51
It 81
1261
1269
1094
1470
1597
1656
21 71
1800
1478
Flood prone Width (ft)
6370
6323
6938
6909
71 73
8456
7985
7440
65 11
8927
5988
5977
5436
6258
6444
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
1030
1135
1456
1392
1522
1675
18 35
1673
1192
1999
1038
1376
1502
1451
1277
BF Mean Depth (ft)
059
062
0 83
079
071
142
1 46
1 32
1 09
1 36
065
083
069
081
086
BF Max Depth (ft)
122
1 25
164
1 52
1 50
228
233
227
1 85
239
131
133
135
1 35
151
Width/Depth Ratio
2946
2973
21 01
22 23J
30 30
8321
864
961
1004
1081
24571
1995
31461
2222
1719
Entrenchment Ratio
3 67
343
3 98
3931
334
7 161
633
5 86
5 95
607
3751
361
250
348
436
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1757
18 79
1793
1797
21 84
1287
1364
1375
11 67
1569
16 19
1685
2201
18 35
15 16
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
059
060
0 81
077
070
1 30
1 34
122
102
127
064
082
068
079
084
Substrate
D50 (mm)
6306
1600
4500
5640
4880
40 13
42841
45001
1694
005
9712
5925
4772
2260
6020
D84 (mm)
179 28
86 10
9727
10063
11090
8970
80 161
82801
10366
3461
21650
14619,
148801
11432
372 OS

Table XIII Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration I EEP Project No D06054 -F
Reach UTl
Parameter
Cross Section (Riffle 8)
Cross Section (Riffle 9)
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 31
MY 4
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
BF Width (ft)
1258
1157
1127
879
837
1218
1188
1192
1093
6331
Floodprone Width (ft)
5049
3721
4422
4530
4057
5774
5682
5560
5262
3532
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
545
369
432
465
3 11
5 14
5 18
5 93
481
217
BF Mean Depth (ft)
043
032
038
053
037
042
044
050
046
034
BF Max Depth (ft)
095
070
071
081
067
1 02
099
105
095
076
Width/Depth Ratio
2926
36 16
2966
1658
2262
29001
2700
23941
2376
1862
Entrenchment Ratio
401
322
392
5 15
485
474
478
466
481
5 58
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
I 1
I
1
I
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
1274
1170
1141
900
8 53
1238
1208
12 13
11 14
659
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
043
032
0 38
052
0 36
042
043
049
045
033
Substrate
D50 (mm)
278751
46461
4500
3757
3720
38 50
3345
48 16
4500
3479
D84 (mm)
62011
82201
93 82
10771
80641
9102
9305
123441
124201
85 13

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2 Vegetation Data Tables
3 Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
4 Vegetation Installed During 2011 & 2012 Remedial Planting
1�

Vegetation Plot 1
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Vegetation Plot 2
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

K,
' J 1
qq `J
Vegetation Plot 3
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Vegetation Plot 4
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Vegetation Plot 5
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Vegetation Plot 6
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Vegetation Plot 7
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Vegetation Plot 8 - note that flagging tape signifies the location of a bare root planting
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Vegetation Plot 9 — note that flagging tape signifies the location of a bare root planting
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Vegetation Plot 10
Monitoring Year 4
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Table L Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Megan Wolf
Date Prepared
12/10/2012 12 07
database name
cvs-ee n ccl v2 2 6 mdb
database location
q ENVIRONMENTAL \Monnodn EEP Vegetation Database
computer name
HXIN941
file size
51777536
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS
DOCUMENT
Metadato
Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data
Prol planted
Each project Is listed with Its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes.
Prol total stems
Each project is listed oath its TOTAL stems per me for each year This includes live stakes all planted stems and all natural/volunteer stems.
Mots
Ust of plots surveyed with location and summary data Olve stems dead stems missing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vi w classes listed by spedes.
Damage
Ust of most fregumt damage classes with number of o rrences and percent of total stems Impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Dama evalues tallied by type for each sped"
Darnage by Mot
Dama evalues tallied by type for each plot.
ALL Stems by Mot ands p
IA matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined for each plot dead and missing stems are excluded
PROW SUMMARY
Project Code
D06054F
project Name
Davis Branch
Description
Stream restoration of Davis Branch mainstem and unnamed tributary
River Basin
Im ft
strearrrto-ed a width k
areas m
R aired Plots calculated
Sam led Mon
110

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor
by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
01
Missing
Unknown
Acer saccharmum
5
3
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
5
1
1
Gelds occidentalis
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
10
2
2
6
Cornus amomum
18
15
4
1
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
3
1
2
1
Nyssa sylvatica
2
Quercus bicolor
83
1
121
2
3
Quercus coccinea
6
6
1
121
6
Sambucus canadensis
4
Ulmus rubra
1
1
Cercis canadensis
1
Quercus manlandica
1
Quercus rubra
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
21
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
15
3
3
Prunus serotina
5
3
TOT:
18
102
42
7
9
20
11

r
Table 3. Vegetation Damage by
Species
FA
A,
L
O
bo
M
U
00
M
M
M
m
M
'O
O
+_+
Acer saccharinum
9
9
Alnus serrulata
5
5
Aronia arbutifolia
7
7
Celtis occidentalis
11
11
Cephalanthus occidentalis
201
17
3
Cercis canadensis
11
1
Cornus amomum
42
37
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
16
1
Uriodendron tulipifera
4
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
211
21
Prunus serotina
8
6
2
Quercus bicolor
18
17
1
Quercus coconea
21
17
4
Quercus marilandica
1
1
Quercus rubra
21
2
Sambucus canadensis
5
5
Ulmus rubra
2
2
TOT:
18
196
178
18

Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
N
Ol
d
M
^
d
M
M
to
E
M
M
M
M
-p
'O
s.
d
0.
Q
C
v
O
v
D06054F- 01- 0001(year 4)
15
14
1
D06054F -01 -0002 (year 4)
19
19
D06054F -01 -0003 (year 4)
7
7
D06054F -01 -0004 (year 4)
171
13
4
D06054F -01 -0005 (year 4)
Ill
11
D06054F -01 -0006 (year 4)
181
18
D06054F -01 -0007 (year 4)
191
19
D06054F -01 -0008 (year 4)
24
21
3
D06054F -01 -0009 (year 4)
48
40
8
D06054F -01 -0010 (year 4)
18
16
2
TOT: 110
196
178
18

Table S. Stem Count by Plot and Species - Planted Stems
v
v
v
v
v
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
>
0
0
0
0
N
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
ri
O
rl
O
e-1
O
ri
O
�-L
O
r 1
O
a-1
O
rl
O
�=1
O
rl
O
V
U.
LL
LL
Y.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
+�
N
E
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
y
++
O
D
O
D
O
D
O
LD
O
w
O
LD
O
LD
O
LD
O
LD
O
u
O
N
U
D
O
D
O
O
D
O
D
O
D
CL
0
a
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
F-
xt
M
C.
C.
C.
C.
C.
C.
C.
M
C.
C.
Acer sacchannum
8
1
8
1 8
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
6
4
15
3
1
1
1
Celtis occidentals
10
31
333
7
1
2
Cephalanthus occidentals
20
4
51
10
2
7
1
Cornus amomum
37
6
6.17
2
1 41
6
11
10
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
14
7
2
2
2
4
11
21
2
1
briodendron tulipifera
4
2
2
11
3
Nyssa sylvatica
2
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
18
8
225
3
11
2
5
4
11
1
1
Prunus serotina
8
3
267
2
4
2
Quercus bicolor
14
6
233
3
5
31
1
1
1
Quercus coccinea
12
2
6
4
8
Quercus manlandica
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
4
3
133
1
2
1
ulmus rubra
1
1
1
1
TOT: 117
1621
17
12
19
71
15
11
14
16
18
36
14

Table 6. Stem Count by
Plot and Species - All Stems
L
10
L
M
L
M
L
to
L
M
L
L
L
L
L
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
rl
9
9
0
Q
0
I
0
0
0
0
N
H
rl
ei
rl
r1
a-1
rl
e-1
rl
r♦
rl
00
LL
LL.
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL.
LL.
LL
N
•�
ul
Ln
M
M
LA
Ln
M
M
M
Ln
Ln
CL
LO
D
LO
t�
LO
l0
G
LO
G
LD
G
LO
D
LO
G
LO
0
Ln
H
U
M
I
1
01
I
Acer saccharmum
8
1
8
8
Alnus serrulata
4
3
133
2
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
6
4
15
3
1
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
10
3
333
7
1
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
20
4
51
10
2
7
1 1
Cornus amomum
38
6
633
2
4
6
11
10
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15
7
2.14
2
2
4
1
3
2
1
Nyssa sylvatica
2
1
2
2
Quercus bicolor
16
6
267
3
5
3
1
3
1
Quercus coccinea
141
2
71
4
10
Sambucus canadensis
4
3
133
1
2
1
Ulmus rubra
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus marilandica
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
1
1
1
1
Linodendron tullplfera
4
2
21
11
3
Platanus occidentalis
18
8
225
3
1
2
5
4
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
8
3
267
2
4
2
TOT:
17
171
17
13
19
7
16
11
15
16
20
38
16

a.� *'i
oil = I
l
1 1:1
T
a
°o�
ns. MechwLV4iil�
npinaers. b— lR— Rl-- -StlemislN
,i00 Nnw Alta Rnatl ray�nDUS. �N 0.1p5N
os stem
E
ancement
d1
x
N.
"N
u g�S
,?5s� �y5
id
t � v
."..
s k„
0..
t'
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
FOR
DAVIS BRANCH
AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
APPENDIX A
VFC;FTATION PROB FM AREAS
ntizniruiq:?rt^n � ;nEm��^
.E
I:
Dote Job N,
December. 2012 2009 -0326
�CO�C Shael
" = 200'
1 -1

Table 7. Vegetation Installed during 2011 Remedial Planting
_e ►
S
� a0 ��
►_
Ceh halanthus occ►dentahs
Buttonbush
300
bare root & 3-gallon
Corns amomum
Silky dogwood
500
bare root & 3-gallon
Quercus cocc►nea
Scarlet oak
300
bare root
Sambucus canadens►s
Elderberry
400
bare root & 3-gallon
Ulmus amencana
Amencan elm
200
bare root
Table 8. Ve etation Installed dunng 2012 Remedial Planting
eae , �'
S
A a a W
►_
Ceh halanthus occ►dentahs
Buttonbush
100
bare root & 3-gallon
Comus amomum
Silky dogwood
200
bare root & 3-gallon
Prunus serohna
Black cherry
150
3 gallon
Quercus mardandica
Blackjack oak
300
bare root & 3-gallon
Quercus rubra
Red oak
100
bare root & 3-gallon

APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1 Fixed Station Photos
2 Table B1 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3 Cross Section Plots
4 Longitudinal Plots
5 Pebble Count Plots
6 Bankfull Event Photos
7 Stream Problem Areas Photos
8 Stream Problem Areas Plan View

Fixed Station 1
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream at Station 7 +80.
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)
Fixed Station 2
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream near Station 14 +75.
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Fixed Station 3
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream near Station 15 +50.
(EMH &T, 9/13/12)

Fixed Station 4
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 25 +75.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 5
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 27 +25.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

i
6
4 �
Fixed Station 6
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 38 +75.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)
i
-%
&'
Fixed Station 6
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 38 +75.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 7
Overview of UT1, looking upstream near Station 6+50.
(Top Photo — Year l: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 8
Overview of UT1, looking downstream near Station 4+50.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Mainstem enhancement
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
R370-re
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
18
18
0
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
17
181
1,0
94
3 Facet grade appears stable?
18
18
0
100
4 Minimal evidence of embeddin /fmin ?
18
18
0
100
5 Length appropriate?
18
18
0
100
99%
B Pools
1 Presents a g not subject to severe aggrad or mi rat
19
19
0
100
2 Sufficient) deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf >l 6?
191
19
0
100
3 Length appropriate?
19
19
0
100
100%
C Thalweg
1 Upstream of meander bend run /inflection centering?
18
18
0
100
2 Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
18
18
0
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
17
18
1,0
94
2 Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
18
18
0
100
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
181
18
0
100
4 Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
18
18
0
100
99%
E Bed General
1 Geveral channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2 anne a degradation - areas ot increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2 Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G Wads/ Boulders
11 Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2 Footing stable?
N/A
01
N/A
N/A
NIA

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach- Mamstem restoration
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
ea ure
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
41
41
0
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
37
41
4,0
90
3 Facet grade appears stable?
41
41
0
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
41
41
0
100
5 Length appropriate?
41
41
0
100
98%
B Pools
1 Present?(eg not subject to severe aggrad or mi rat
40
40
0
100
2 Sufficient) deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf >l 6?
37
40
3,0
925
3 Length appropriate?
40
40
0
100
98%
C Thalweg
1 Upstream of meander bend run /inflection centering?
36
36
0
100
2 Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
36
36
0
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state 77 limited /controlled erosion?
33
36
3,0
92
2 Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
36
36
0
100
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
36
36
0
100
4 Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
36
36
0
100
98%
E Bed General
1 Geveral channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2 CHannel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcuttmg?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2 Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G Wads/ Boulders 11
Free of scour?
N/Al
01
N/A
N/A
2 Footing stable?
N/A 1
01
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach- UT1 restoration
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number /
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present?
14
14
0
100
2 Armor stable a g no displacement)?
13
14
1,0
93
3 Facet grade appears stable?
14
14
0
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
14
14
0
100
5 Length appropriate?
14
14
0
100
99%
B Pools
1 Presents a g not subject to severe aggrad or mi rat
14
14
0
100
2 Sufficient) deep Max Pool D Mean Bkf >l 6?
13
14
1,0
93
3 Length appropriate?
14
14
0
100
98%
C Thalweg
1 Upstream of meander bend run/inflection centering?
12
12
0
100
2 Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
12
12
0
100
100%
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
11
12
1,0
92
2 Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
12
12
0
100
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
12
12
0
100
4 Sufficient floodplam access and relief?
12
12
0
100
98%
E Bed General
1 Geveral channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
N/A
N/A
010 feet
100
2 Channel bed degradation - areas ot increasing downcutting
or headcuttmg?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2 Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G Wads/ Boulders
11 Free of scour?
N/Al
01
N/A
N/A
2 Footing stable?
N/Al
01
N/A
N/Al
N/A

PROJECT
Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
6.05 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankfull Width
10.87 ft
REACH
Davis Branch
Mean Depth
ft
.56
DATE
09/13/2012
Maximum Depth
1.23 ft
Width/Depth Ratio
19.41
,
Entrenchment Ratio
6.85
CROSS
1
SECTION:
Classification
C
1';CUs4'11t'll1
FEATURE:
Riffle
Davis Branch Mainstem - RItAe XS 1 - Year 4
`
6t_
10R/ • 19.1
111M • .SO Mkl O.R.
� �`T�� L -�T� ji• . r
K +y` _..
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
Horizontal Distance (ft)
from right bank to left bank

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 12.94 R'`
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 12.20 tt
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 1.06 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 2.06 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 11.51
Entrenchment Ratio 6.61
E;y�°'-" . CROSS SECTION: 2
1lQj���ltlll FEATURE: Pool
Davis Branch Mainstern - Pool XS 2 - Year 4
. - - - •�;. .
A...C.iA
fT:
llu �tl..IM - :..:.Ls Il:YV_L A ­r�:owi , A t4A%io f
Ile
Mkt 12.2 Wki I." INk! - 12.Y
t: �v • 1
,_
YYYS
..
ql
j
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
Horizomal Distance ;fzj
from right bank to left bank

Summary Data
PROJECT Davis Branch
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 15.06 ft'`
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 16.62 ft
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 0.91 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 1.81 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 18.26
Entrenchment Ratio 3.72
— CROSS SECTION: 3
Classification C
'" FEATURE: Riffle
1�1 `• -sy` L��� Y}y f ` N��/''yyy 11
Davis Branch Mainstem - Riffle XS
wS3 W YRa T, \'akl °11111, .>3 41S WF A ..$3 RIF 1A,
ft—
W.. 1 10.0 ULXf .YI
3 - Year 4
FIF AS3 W YRZ
XLXh - 15.1
)))yyy r��• `
f yr •N
w
a
Cross - section photo — looking right bank to left
20 40
bank
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 15.65 ft'
TASK Cross- section
Bankfull Width 15.41 ft
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 1.02 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 1.88 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 15.11
Entrenclunent Ratio 4.02
�- CROSS SECTION: a
�',CU11'11t�111 FEATURE: Pool
,M
Davis Branch Mainstem - Pool XS 4 -Year 4
_
li
ts<POOL
IR• *ea .. V spina xsa YSPOOL ♦ XSa POOLM XSa POOLYRt ♦ xsa Pua'rRz
Ina N Pcnls mp
xv
IMkI li.\ ppMl 1.Y! Ilpkl 1Y.E
T
11+
t
\
fx
� axf
y`T
Q
t_7
��.�•_ ..�j isit;
.l .
w• 1.
i'"
W
..
i'r
Cross - section photo — looking upstream
Honzontal Distance (fl)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
DosoSa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 15.22 ft'
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 21.51 ft
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 0.71 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 1.50 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 30.30
Entrenchment Ratio 3.34
CROSS SECTION: 5
Classification C
1•,c1 FEATURE: Riffle
>>y.�lc�tu
Davis Branch Mainstem - Rdffie XS 5 - Year 4
• iu
a M, t . ,j�.� �„ij 1
•.-
+:: wi ix. • un.as • ,..au :w... :; . <ce us u ♦ x7: ro. m: ..:: i.v mi .ue nc
-,� .
wu . a.s G&W - .fl
A
V �t`
Cross - section photo — looking right bank to left
bank
Horizontal Distance (it)

Summary Data
PROJECT Davis Branch
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 19.99 ft'`
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 14.70 ft
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 1.36 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 2.39 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 10.81
Entrenchment Ratio 6.07
CROSS SECTION: s
'"`�4 q
.lY 111 �tl 1 I � FEATURE: Pool
Davis Branch Mamstem - Pool XS 6 - Year 4
'�� ,ti � ��� �jp *5,yr�� i. q�{,'�y,�•! i %'��
.n
Iti151a+ �Y.IIfJ V'NLi:." ._ MCU_Fl44. V li:PYLYKA
SU hO.Y. F4
W \f I4.1 take 1.:76 81.►/ - JY
.11X4
A.
r
Cross - section photo — looking left bank to right
bank
;� <„ ...
Horizontal distance ;fri

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
DosoSa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 12.77 ft`
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 14.78 ft
REACH Davis Branch
Mean Depth 0.86 ft
DATE 09113/2012
Maximum Depth 1.51 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 17.19
Entrenchment Ratio 4.36
r CROSS SECTION: 7
Classification C
, cu;y,len 1 FEATURE: Riffle
l ',
Davis Branch Mainstem - Riffle XS 7 - Year 4
a:w m1 ♦n...ks •.�., n.•... _,.,r N:1v �...r1u m: b av!nv rn+ ♦e;r lu nw
I,:wi1i: Fits IN:
at•k1 • 14.8 SNk1 • .46 NINI 11.11
1...
'
\ I 1 1 �, � /1�� "'lam x\ 1 1 "�4ijYi`.3►
�
� _ :!/
di �1
'I
••
L
Cross - section photo – looking across channel
- —;
it rp Gig 1:L fr. IN
from left bank to right bank
.i
Hor¢or.;al Distance ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 3.11 ft'`
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 8.37 ft
REACH Unnamed Trib. 1
Mean Depth 0.37 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 0.67 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 22.62
Entrenchment Ratio 4.85
-' CROSS SECTION: 8
Classification C
I, cosystoI I FEATURE: Riffle
Davis Branch (UT1) - Riffle XS
8 - Year 4
_w
Wit . 9.31 744! • Ar
A1kr ].11
1
!
S y
.t. yr ".. ,.r � °:r.�' �E �'m+-"' „L r ��
\
�
\
•T
4
ie
R
Y
.1
i
r
-- — -
Cross - section photo — looking right bank to left
bank
"
Horizontal Distance ;ftj

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
Dososa -F
4 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 2.17 ft'`
TASK Cross - Section
Bankfull Width 6.33 ft
REACH Unnamed Trib. 1
Mean Depth 0.34 ft
DATE 09/13/2012
Maximum Depth 0.76 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 18.62
4
Entrenchment Ratio 5.58
CROSS SECTION: 9
"
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
.L'O.)VtiICli l
Davis Branch (UT1) - Riffle XS 9 - Year 4
- -� ,� f`.� -
'i?(
.�JIU UIJ �U�J•1 �.':J- ':.i.• n•::IW llf �.f _.l Ullly I- 1-L 11 <: '�.4 •J)IY .11:
1fkA1 •_i) t4)1 R7k1 - 7.1!
.•
M•
.7�
b '
j
,V\
�Y ,
, *`
y l
.
+ 4
) �, ,,
C� :V.'1
��:
_
yP` 1�A� � I�.0 �tti 1 '••'llfwr�
'� r'-•_ �i-�
� y.+�_� mss• ,(''.� ` `>y� ,`�.�rri_�
J
Cross - section photo — looking across the channel
Horizontal Distance ihj
from right bank to left bank

Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
480--
- -
-- - - - -- - --
- -
LL_ J
O
LL _1
0
477
- v) - - - -
i
- -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -- -
U) a
U)
x�x
474
- -- - -
- - -�-- -- - - � - -
-
I - - - -,I
-
- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -
�
- - - -- -- - -- --
---- - - - - -, -- -I - - -I - -- - - -- - -
471
- `` .;
- ,1
` -. - - -
�I-
- - - - - - -
- --
•�
468
- - --
- - - -- - - -- -� -- -- --
- - -- -
- - - -- - :. - -- - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - -
, - -
-- - -- -I
-I
- - -� - - - -- -
O
N
465--
462----
-il
- ` �
;
I--
- - - -- -- -- - -- --
-- V--- ---r---I'--I-
------r- -- -' -- '- --_
I
I
459--
'
Year 4 Channel Best Fit Slope 0_ 01243
I
I
Bankfull Best Fit Slope = 0. 01140
456
-
-
- -
- ' - - -
- .
I
453
I
- - -- -- - -- - — - --------
-----------
- .
450
,
750
925 1100
1275
1450 1625 1800 1975
2150 2325 2500
Distance along stream (ft)
♦ Year 4
0 Water
7 Bankfull ♦ Left Bank p Right Bank + Left Edge of X Right Edge
Channel
Surface
Water of Water

c
0
CU
W
450 '-
750
Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
C C C C
Li J LL J
C 0 C O
( x U)
X, IX,
i II
I I I I
I I
I I I I
I s'I
II
II
II
II
I
r�
I I I
i I I I
.
II �
i II
I i
Vzn 1100 1275 1450 1625 1800 1975 2150
Distance along stream (ft)
Year 4 0 Water 1/ Bankfull ♦ Left Bank ; Right + Lett Edge ; K. Right Year 1 Year 0 1 Year 2 .'� Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water
2325 2500

Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
470 _Z1 T
J
0
CL
469 U)
X
p ?� l
468 It1u f%
467
O
}I
Cz
0 466
W
465
454
463
462 L
1250
I�1
�I
Al f
Ali
I
1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650
Distance along stream (ft)
Year 4 0 Plater f Bankfull + Left Bank 0 Right + Left Edge f; Right Year 1 Year 0 L Year 2 " Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Plater Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water
1700 1750

C
O
cc
}
w
4
4
Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
joujv itvu IaMv zvvv 2ubu 21 D0 2150 2200 2250
Distance along stream (ft)
♦ Year 4 •0 Water Bankfull + Left Bank s, Right + Left Edge ;K Right Year 1 Year 0 Year 2 L Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water

Y_
J
i
n
0
I W
Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
.4 C7
r
-- -- 4.7Ju C3 /D 14UU 2425 2450 2475 2500
Distance along stream (ft)
0 Year 4 0 Water f Bankfull r Left Bank ;'; Right + Left Edge 'X. Right Year 1 Year 0 It Year 2 . ' . Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
'Hater

0
0
w
441
427
420 L-
2450
Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Level 1 Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
I
I
2585 2720 2855 2990 3125 3260 3395
Distance along stream (ft)
• Year 4 0 Water V Bankfull * Left Bank p Right Bank + Left Edge of x Right Edge
Channel Surface Water of Water
3530
3665
ti
3800

It-
O
cc
W
w
420
2450
Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Level 1 Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
­r -IT
J LL
lCi d �
U) R
4L X co X
r , I X,
I II
I
II
I
I II
II
i II
i I �
II
II
II
II
2585 2720 2855 2990 3125 3260 3395 3530
Distance along stream (ft)
Year 4 Q Water V Bankfull r Left Bank !> Right t Left Edge X Right Year 1 Year 0 ?; Year 2 Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
':later
ibbb 3800

O
CU
}
w
Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
A77
___ ,jV iuuu IUOU Iiuu 1150 1200 1250
Distance along stream (ft)
# Year 4 0 Water Bankfull ♦ Left Bank 1'> Right + Left Edge X Right Year 1 Year 0 r Year 2 Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water

453
451
449
447
O
cc
445
W
441
437 '-
2450
Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Level 1 Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
c
U-
jar }'ti U)
X
2515 2580 2645 2710 2775 2840 2905 2970
Distance along stream (ft)
# Year 4 p Water j Bankfull ; Left Bank j Right +- Left Edge X Right Year 1 Year 0 L Year 2 `; Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water
3035
3100

0
0
W
Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Level 1 Profile - Year 4 - 13 Sep 2012
33UU 34Z)u Jb9u 3660 3730 3200
Distance along stream (ft)
Year 4 J Water V Bankfull ; Left Bank ; Right + Left Edge l Right Year 1 Year 0 Year 2 .=, Year 3
Channel Surface Bank of Water Edge of Channel Channel Channel Channel
Water

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
0
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
1
2
2
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
3
5
7
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
3
5
12
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
8
13
25
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
15
25
50
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
63
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
12
20
83
Small Cobble
64 -90
4
7
90
Small Cobble
90 -128
3
5
95
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
98
Large Cobble
180 -256
1
2
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Lame Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60 -r-100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
1
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
12 +31.44
Histogram
.)V
25
20
15 -- —
C
°- 10
0
5 - -- .
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Partirle Si7P- IMMI

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
37
60
60
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
2
3
63
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
63
edium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
63
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
1
2
65
Ve Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
5
8
73
e Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
1
2
74
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
1
2
76
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
79
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
4
6
85
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
3
5
90
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
90
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
94
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
2
3
97
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
97
Small Cobble
64 -90
0
0
97
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
97
Large Cobble
128 -180
1
2
98
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
98
Small Boulder
256 -362
1
2
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
edrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
62
100
Histogram
70
60
50
u
30
30
20
10
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 S 16 _ 63 1:5 256 512 :048
Particle Size (mm)
., 01111111101111111 /:'P'. � 0111111101
■1111111101111I!!. I�I,II�11111111�11111111
RIM!! ! �11111111 1�111111�11111111�11111111
�, ■%1111111111111 /1111111 ■illlllll ..�IIIII
/11111111 ■11 II /IIIIIIII ■11111 ' � II
MMMEEW .iii 011111111011111 _ . II
, IIIIIIII�11111111�11111 �' ' II
, IIII�11111111 ■11111111�11111111�11111111
, �11111111�11111111 ■11111111�11111111�11111111
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
2
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
12 +66.55
Histogram
70
60
50
u
30
30
20
10
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 S 16 _ 63 1:5 256 512 :048
Particle Size (mm)
., 01111111101111111 /:'P'. � 0111111101
■1111111101111I!!. I�I,II�11111111�11111111
RIM!! ! �11111111 1�111111�11111111�11111111
�, ■%1111111111111 /1111111 ■illlllll ..�IIIII
/11111111 ■11 II /IIIIIIII ■11111 ' � II
MMMEEW .iii 011111111011111 _ . II
, IIIIIIII�11111111�11111 �' ' II
, IIII�11111111 ■11111111�11111111�11111111
, �11111111�11111111 ■11111111�11111111�11111111

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Ran e
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
1
2
2
Very Fine Sand
0.062 - 0.125
0
0
2
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
2
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
2
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
2
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
2
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
2
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
2
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
1
2
3
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
3
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
1
2
5
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
10
17
22
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
5
8
30
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
13
22
52
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
7
12
63
Small Cobble
64 -90
10
17
80
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
80
Large Cobble
128 -180
1
2
82
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
1 0
82
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
82
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
82
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
82
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
82
Bedrock
<2048
11
18
100
Totals
=
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
3
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
21 +61.52
25
20
u
15
e
a
N
to
5
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 S 16 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size Imml
Histogram

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
3
5
5
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
5
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
5
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
5
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
5
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0 1
0
5
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
1
2
7
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
7
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
7
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
7
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
1
2
8
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
3
5
13
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
10
17
30
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
14
1 23
53
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
14
23
77
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
90
Small Cobble
90 -128
4
7
97
Lame Cobble
128 -180
1
2
98
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
98
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
98
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
98
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
98
Lar a Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
98
Bedrock
<2048
1
2
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
4
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
21 +85.85
25
20
15
N
e 10
5
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 20 t8
Particle Size (mm)
Histogram

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
1
2
2
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
2
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
2
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
2
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
2
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
2
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
2
Fine Gravel
.0 -5.7
0
0
2
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
1
2
3
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
1
2
5
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
8
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
5
8
17
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
8
13
30
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
10
17
47
Very Coarse Gravel
5 -64
10
17
63
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
77
Small Cobble
90 -128
8
13
90
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
93
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
93
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
93
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
93
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
93
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
93
edrock
<2048
4
7
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
5
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
29 +36.09
30
16
14
1.
i 10
8
6
4
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size nun
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
38
63
63
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
63
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
63
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
63
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
63
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
67
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
2
3
70
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
73
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
77
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
77
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
77
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
3
5
82
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
1
2
83
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
2
3
87
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
7
93
Small Cobble
64 -90
3
5
98
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
98
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
98
Lame Cobble
180 -256
1
2
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
1<2048
0
0
1 100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. 006054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
6
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
35+09.15
70
60
50
40
z 30
.20
10
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 S 16 32 64 128 256 51: .2048
Particle Size (mm)
liistograu�
., III III mill lHIM 111!10 itil1I1lit1•/1111111
■11111111 ■11111 iiii 1 111 11111111 ■11111111
■11111111 ■111!�lll I I ■11111111 ■11111111
!!!!!!!!!��IIIIIII■ '1111 ■11111111 ■11111111
■11111111 ■11111111 111111 ■11111111" "'111
■11111111 ■111111
AI 11111 11
oil 111111 ■111 111 IIIIIIII ■11111 11
■11111111 1111 ►11111111 ■11111 111
0111!IIII !i!!iill ■11111111 ■11111111 ■11111111
, -'�• �uiiiilllllll ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII ■IIIIIIII
. 1 1 1

Pebble Count - Pool
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Cla
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
0
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
3
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
3
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
4
7
10
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
4
7
17
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
23
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
37
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
IU
17
53
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
67
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
67
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
7
73
Large Cobble
180 -256
2
3
77
Small Boulder
256 -362
4
7
83
Small Boulder
362 -512
6
10
93
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
93
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
93
Bedrock
<2048
4
7
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
7
Date
5/27/2012
Sts No.
35 +33.67
10
16
14
12
10
N_ c
6
4
0
0062 0._5
Histogram
1 4 5 16 G1 128 256 51: _045
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 - 0.125
2
3
5
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
5
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
5
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
6
8
13
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
16
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
16
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
16
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
16
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
18
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
18
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
12
16
34
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
8
11
45
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
10
13
58
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
16
21
79
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
8
87
Small Cobble
90 -128
4
5
92
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
5
97
Larize Cobble
180 -256
2
3
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Lame Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
2048
0
0
100
Totals
76
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
UTl
X Sec
8
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
2 +00.10
25
_0
15
a
=10
a
• 5
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 3: 64 1:8 :56 51: :048
Particle Size (mm1
Histogram

Pebble Count - Riffle
Material
Particle Size nun
Count
% in Ran e
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
8
10
10
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
2
12
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
12
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
12
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
4
5
17
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
8
10
27
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
4
5
32
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
8
10
41
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
5
46
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
14
17
63
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
12
15
78
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
7
85
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
7
93
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
5
98
Large Cobble
180 -256
2
2
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
82
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
UTI
X Sec
9
Date
5/27/2012
Sta No.
5 +84.56
18
16
14
11
ci 10
,r S
_ 6
' J
0
0.062 0.:5
Histograw
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size imm1

BF 1
Crest Gage on the mainstem of Davis Branch (Year 1).
(EMH &T, 9/20/09)
BF 2
Crest Gage on the mainstem of Davis Branch (Year 2).
(EMH &T, 9/20/10)

BF 3
Crest Gage on the mainstem of Davis Branch (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/14/11)
BF 2
Crest Gage 4 on UTl of Davis Branch (Year 1).
(EMH &T, 9/20/09)

BF 5
Crest Gage 4 on UT1 of Davis Branch (Year 2).
(EMH &T, 9/20/10)
BF 6
Crest Gage 4 on UTl of Davis Branch (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/14/11)

SPA 1
Bare banks along stream channel bend on Davis Branch near station 8 +25. ISSUE
RESOLVED - Vegetation density has increased since 2011.
(Top Photo — Year 3: 9/14/11, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

SPA 2
Scour and erosion along the left and right banks at station 21 +50 on Davis Branch. ISSUE
RESOLVED - Vegetation density has increased since 2011.
(Top Photo — Year 3: 9/14/11, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)
y s
�
SPA 2
Scour and erosion along the left and right banks at station 21 +50 on Davis Branch. ISSUE
RESOLVED - Vegetation density has increased since 2011.
(Top Photo — Year 3: 9/14/11, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

F
SPA 3
Scour and erosion along the right bank at station 23+50 on Davis Branch. ISSUE
RESOLVED - Vegetation density has increased since 2011.
(Top Photo — Year 3: 9/14/11, Bottom Photo — Year 4: 9/13/12).
(EMH &T)

i
E
s
i
M
i
F
0
0
0
0
O
O
1
o
O •'� ,dsity mQ o °•� i4
�0..
P"~ o
AWA
s
y
. '� � �`�' hr• p0�g r a' � .
W
iYLy W .. oaG. • o �.
.J iie
l
f
q � �
` ,
p,
i
V}
r
�ocall�
►vvN
z
Ih �.
,q 4'
tK-
♦ ` tax,
- 1
1
�� STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ooe� Job
FOR December, 2012 20000
9 -0326
EmMM.lhw�„. ��mfo „a,fo. DAVIS BRANCH
FSano.R.S4�r,"dCannas.0de05s EF.,COSyStenl AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Scde Shemt
5500 New NCq�y koom CulwnDos. C.h 4]054 lul L �” - 200
°— an ement APPENDIX B 1 —1
vaacRu
ja1,
6�
ip
r i'
�V
/S
. '� � �`�' hr• p0�g r a' � .
W
iYLy W .. oaG. • o �.
.J iie
l
f
q � �
` ,
p,
i
V}
r
�ocall�
►vvN
z
Ih �.
,q 4'
tK-
♦ ` tax,
- 1
1
�� STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ooe� Job
FOR December, 2012 20000
9 -0326
EmMM.lhw�„. ��mfo „a,fo. DAVIS BRANCH
FSano.R.S4�r,"dCannas.0de05s EF.,COSyStenl AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY Scde Shemt
5500 New NCq�y koom CulwnDos. C.h 4]054 lul L �” - 200
°— an ement APPENDIX B 1 —1
vaacRu