20031306 Ver 1_Year 8 Monitoring Report_20120202

a 3 /364�
Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year -8 Annual Monitoring Report (2011)
Anson County, North Carolina
WBS Element 34398 4 1
TIP No R- 2239WM
NCEEP Project 206
Submitted to
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh North Carolina
c�
�
tem
Er tai emellt
Submitted by
Atkins North America Inc
1616 East Mdlbrook Road Suite 310
Raleigh NC 27609 RECEIVED
FEB - 2 2012
December 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
1 0
INTRODUCTION
2
1 1 Project Description
2
12 Purpose
2
1 3 Project History
2
20
HYDROLOGY
3
21 Success Criteria
3
22 Hydrologic Description
3
23 Results Of Hydrologic Monitoring
3
2 3 1 Site Data
3
2 3 2 Climatic Data
4
30
STREAM ASSESSMENT
5
31 Stream Monitoring Requirements
5
32 Post - Construction Condtions
5
33 Results of Stream Monitoring
5
40
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
15
41 Success Criteria
15
42 Description Of Species
15
43 Results Of Vegetation Monitoring
15
50
REFERENCES
20
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 1 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View
Figure 3 Key Branch 30 -70 Percentile Graph (2011)
APPENDIX B Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs
APPENDIX C Site Photos
APPENDIX D Stream Survey Data
Table 1
Key Branch Hydrologic Monitoring Results
4
Table 2
Bankfull Events
6
Table 3
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
7
Table 4
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
9
Table 5
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
11
Table 6
Stream Reach Data Summary
13
Table 7
Results of Riparian Vegetation Plots Monitoring
16
Table 8
Results of Wetland Vegetation Plots Monitoring
16
Table 9
Riparian Plot Vegetation Summary Data
17
Table 10
Wetland Plot Vegetation Summary Data
19
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 11 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
I 1 SUMMARY
L_
r-�
I�
The Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the
"Site ") is located in Anson County and was constructed and planted in the fall of 2003
The 118 -acre Site covers approximately 6,200 linear feet of restored stream channel
and 108 9 acres of wetland restoration Approximately 47,800 bottomland hardwood
trees were planted on 70 2 acres of the Site To be successful, the Site wetlands must
meet success criteria for both hydrology and vegetation for five consecutive years or
until approved by the regulatory agency Additionally, the restored stream must show
vertical and horizontal stability with respect to as -built conditions based upon the
established success criteria
Thirteen groundwater gauges were monitored in 2011, of which ten met the success
criteria for jurisdictional hydrology (saturation within 12 inches of the surface for greater
than 12 5 percent of the growing season) The three additional gauges did not meet
success criteria Two of the three gauges maintained saturation for approximately 9
percent of the growing season with the third approximating 6 percent The Site
experienced below average rainfall for the 2011 growing season
Four vegetation plots established under North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) protocol, and four riparian vegetation plots established following replanting in
2005 were monitored to measure woody stem density In the current monitoring year,
plots representing the stream restoration buffer (riparian vegetation plots) had an
average tree density of 283 trees per acre and plots representing the wetland
restoration area (wetland vegetation plots) had an average tree density of 750 trees per
acre
Success criteria for the restored stream reach has been established to confirm that no
significant changes have occurred to the dimension, pattern, profile, and bed material
over the monitoring period Location surveys of the constructed features were
conducted to verify the performance of the stream A survey was performed using a
total station to describe the stream longitudinal profile and 12 permanent stream cross -
sections Overall, the stream channel bed form and banks are stable and have not
changed significantly compared to as -built conditions
n Although the reach meets the criteria for success, beaver are abundant in the area and
have persistently recolonized the Site after prior removal efforts The beaver are active
with dams above and below the Site as well as within the Site boundaries at the upper
0 end They were removed most recently in late 2010 and re- established dams in 2011
As per the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program another removal effort
has been contracted with monthly monitoring scheduled for the Site until closeout The
beavers presence has altered the function of the stream Instead of a flowing stream,
parts of the site are characterized as a lentic system The stream has experienced
limited flow in the summer months promoting vegetation growth in the channel This
O condition has been caused by a combination of factors including multiple dry summers,
beaver dams above the Site, and the low slope of the stream channel
Morntonng Year 8 (2011) 1 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
1 0 INTRODUCTION
1 1 Project Description
The Site encompasses 118 acres and is located in Anson County between Lower White
Store Road (SR 1252) to the west and Mineral Springs Church Road (SR 1240) to the
east (Figure 1)
12 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, the Site must be monitored for a
minimum of five years or until approved for close -out by the regulatory agencies
Success criteria are based on federal and state guidelines for stream and wetland
mitigation (USACE 2003) Criteria for wetland hydrologic conditions, restored stream
channel stability, and vegetation survival are included in this document The following
report describes the monitoring results for groundwater hydrology, stream channel
stability, and planted vegetation during the 2011 growing season at the Key Branch
Restoration Site
1 3 Project History
Fall 2003
Construction
November 2003
Site Planted
March - November 2004
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 1)
July 2004
Stream and Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
February 2005
Site Replanted
March - November 2005
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 2)
August 2005
Stream and Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
March - November 2006
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 3)
September 2006
Stream and Vegetation Monitoring (Year 3)
March - November 2007
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 4)
September 2007
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 4)
March - November 2008
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 5)
October 2008
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 5)
March - November 2009
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 6)
August 2009
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 6)
March — November 2010
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 7)
September 2010
Stream and Vegetation Monitoring (Year 7)
March - November 2011
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 8)
September 2011
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 8)
November 2011
Stream Monitoring (Year 8)
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 2 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
20 HYDROLOGY
21 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal and state guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success
criteria for hydrology requires that these areas be inundated or saturated (within
12 inches of the surface) by surface or groundwater consecutively for at least
12 5 percent of the growing season Areas meeting hydrology for less than 5 percent of
the growing season are classified as non - wetlands Areas meeting hydrology between
5 percent and 12 5 percent of the growing season can be classified as wetlands
depending upon such factors as the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils If
wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and hydrological
monitoring, consultation with EEP personnel and regulatory agencies will be undertaken
to determine the extent of wetland restoration in these areas A jurisdictional
determination will be performed in early 2012 to determine the extent of wetland areas
at the Site
The growing season in Anson County begins March 11 and ends November 23
(258 days) These dates correspond to a 50 percent probability that air temperatures
will not drop below 28 °F or lower after March 22 and before November 15 Minimum
wetland hydrology is required for at least 12 5 percent of this growing season, for Anson
County, 12 5 percent of the growing season equals 30 consecutive days
22 Hydrologic Description
On -site hydrologic monitoring was initially facilitated by fourteen, continuously recording
groundwater gauges located throughout the wetland restoration area (Figure 2) One of
the gauges could not be located in 2009, reducing the number to 13 During the 2011
monitoring season, groundwater data was collected monthly from all monitoring gauges
23 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2 3 1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that groundwater was within 12 inches of
the surface was determined for each groundwater gauge This number was converted
into a percentage of the 258 -day growing season The results are summarized in
Table 1 and indicate that all gauges exhibited saturation for at least 6 2 percent of the
growing season The average saturation period for all gauges was 60 1 days (23 3 %)
ranging from 16 to 107 days (6 2 and 41 4 %) Ten of the thirteen gauges met success
criteria by maintaining saturation for more than 30 days The remaining three gauges
maintain saturation for 5 to 12 5 percent of the growing season
C Appendix B contains hydrographs of the daily water depth recorded for each
groundwater gauge In general, groundwater levels show a typical pattern of flooding or
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 3 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
high water table during the winter to early spring, followed by a summer and early fall
drawdown period, punctuated by peaks of associated precipitation events
Table 1 Key Branch Hydrologic Monitoring Results
Monitoring
,
� �
Success
Abe D
Number�of Days"
Gauge 9
<5%
5-125%
>12 5%
Actual %
' Gauges mega
ODates
Success Cntena
KBMG1
✓
391
March 11 —
101
June 19
KBMG2
✓
232
March 9
60
KBMG3
✓
232
March 9
60
KBMG5
✓
178
March 11 —
46
April 25
KBMG6
✓
41 4
March 11 —
107
June 25
KBMG7
✓
391
March 11 —
101
June 19
KBMG8
✓
193
March 11 —
50
April 29
KBMG9
✓
159
March 11 —
41
April 20
KBMG10
✓
9 3
March 27 —
24
April 19
KBMG11
✓
8 9
March 17 —
23
April 18
KBMG12
✓
407
March 11 —
105
June 23
KBMG13
✓
6 2
March 30 —
16
April 14
KBMG14
✓
182
July 17 —
47
August 30
2 3 2 Climatic Data
Figure 3 shows a comparison of 2011 monthly rainfall to the historic range of normal
precipitation for Wadesboro, NC (State Climate Office of NC, CRONOS Database) The
historic range of normal precipitation is determined from rainfall data collected between
1948 and 2011 Figure 3 depicts the range of normal rainfall between the 30 percent
and 70 percent of all observations compared to the actual 2011 monthly rainfall
amounts
Monthly rainfall amounts were below the 30th percentile during five months of the
growing season The months of July, September and October received average rainfall,
while May received above average rainfall The total rainfall of 25 36 inches for the year
Morntonng Year 8 (2011) 4 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
through November is below the historic average of 41 52 inches for the same time
period
3 0 STREAM ASSESSMENT
31 Stream Monitoring Requirements
The Site stream monitoring plan requires an assessment of geomorphologic
parameters in keeping with the U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) "Stream
Mitigation Guidelines', dated April 2003 The monitoring plan includes the protocol and
provisions for providing photographs and channel stability analysis on a yearly basis
Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment was used along with metal detectors to
locate existing cross section pins Twelve permanent cross - sections were located and
surveyed A 3,000 foot longitudinal profile of the restored channel was surveyed
beginning near station 13 +00 (Figure 2 A -B) Bank stability and overall condition of the
stream was assessed during the cross - section and longitudinal profile surveys Lateral
photographs were collected at each cross - section (Appendix D) A stream monitoring
gauge located in the channel provides stream flow elevation data to verify bankfull
events
32 Post Construction Conditions
The project involved the construction of approximately 6,200 linear feet of channel
using a Priority 1 restoration approach Engineered structures included -hook vanes,
log vanes, rock cross vanes, rootwad revetments, step pools, and additional bank
sloping A step pool was installed at the beginning and end of the reach to maintain
grade A rootwad complex was installed in the apex of numerous bends with cover logs
for habitat Cross vanes, log vanes, and -hook vanes were installed throughout the
reach to direct higher flow velocities into the center of the channel Throughout the
entire reach the inner berm was maintained, enhanced, or created as channel
modifications were made
33 Results of Stream Monitoring
The mitigation plan stipulated the placement of a permanent monitoring cross - section
every 20 bankfull widths A total of twelve cross sections were surveyed Three cross -
sections were identified as riffles, cross sections 5, 10, and 12 For this report only
cross sections containing riffles were used in the comparison of channel morphology
presented below in Table 5 Data shown in Table 6 includes all cross sections surveyed
along the reach Overall the stream survey data indicates a stable channel with very
little lateral or vertical movement The stream gauge registered seven bankfull events
during the 2011 monitoring year (March 28, April 1, April 6, April 10, May 12, May 15
and May 28), further demonstrating stream stability Bankfull Events for the eight year
monitoring period are presented in Table 2
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 5 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC D
Table 2 Bankfull Events
Year
s
Evaluation Method s
Number of Events
�Mo'nitoni4Firm
2004
USGS Goose Creek
Gauging Station
3
NCDOT
2005
N/A
N/A
NCDOT
2006
Stream Gauge 1
2
The Louis Berger Group
2007
Stream Gauge 1 and 2
N/A
The Louis Berger Group
2008
N/A
N/A
Atkins
2009
N/A
N/A
Atkins
2010
Stream Gauge 1
3
Atkins
2011
Stream Gauge 1
7
Atkins
0
Although the restored reach met criteria for success, beaver are abundant in the area
and have persistently recolonized the Site after prior removal efforts Beaver are active
with dams above and below the Site as well as within the Site boundaries at the upper
end (Figure 2, Appendix A) They were removed most recently in late 2010 and re-
established dams in 2011 As per the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement D
Program another removal effort has been contracted with monthly monitoring
scheduled for the Site until close out The beavers presence has altered the function of
the stream Instead of a flowing stream, parts of the site are characterized as a lentic
system The stream has experienced limited flow in the summer months promoting
vegetative growth in the channel This condition has been caused by a combination of
factors including multiple dry summers, beaver dams above the Site, and the low slope D
of the stream channel
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 6 December 2011

C�
1,
Table 3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Kev Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site - EEP Proiect 206
Parameter I Gauge Regional Curve Pre - Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design 7 Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
LIL
Eq
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
27
35
22
25
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>150
>150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
101
1 16
065
093
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1 75
217
1 15
1 74
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
35
37
17
21
Width /Depth Ratio
27
34
27
34
Entrenchment Ratiol
>7
>7
>7
>7
Bank Height Ratio
`
Profile j
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
160 180
Radius of Curvature (ft)
500 728 35 60
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
370 465 265 378
Meander Width Ratiol
Transport parameters
I I I I I I I I 1 1 63 1 1 81 1 1 1 1 63 1 1 81
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
'
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
C6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
;
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
1590
4149
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1065
6182
Sinuosity (ft)
1 49
149
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
019
0 005
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
115+
115+ I
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
r
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
`
Biological or Other
Jhaciea cells intricate these cells not available

i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

I
3
LJ
OTable 4 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Kev Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site - EEP Protect 206
' It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history which may influence calculated values
MY1 MY2 MY3 data from a prior performer is not available
Cross Section 1 (Glide)
Cross Section 2 (Run)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
BasedWn flxea baseline bankfull elevation' _ S
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
�,
e
s _
,
`
'�
,1
N=
''r
4r-Y "
°at
I�
i'rdr
�".
Illid
>
v s e
31
Bankfull Width (ft)
186
184
19
197
154
WAAM
NUN
202
238
261
24
223
181
283
29
21 8
244
173
21 3
195
20
221
II
209
229
22
225
24
Floodprone Width (ft
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
's
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
07
09
1
09
07
1 1
1 5
1 3
1 3
1 1
1
1 2
12
1 3
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 3
1
1
1 1
1 1
09
40%,
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1 5
1 6
2
1 9
1 2
2
26
26
23
1 7
1 9
25
29
23
22
21
21
24
23
(
1 8
28
21
1 9
1 7
)�
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
13
162
195
169
11 1
222
352
342
31 4
249
i
181
334
35 1
281
20 8
24 2
23
26
29 3
20 9
23 3
25 2
24 1
20 9
J
&,+
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
26 6
20 9
19
21 9
21 4
18 4
16 1
20
18 5
19 9
18 1
24
24 2
16 8
14 4
18 7
16 3
15 4
16 7
I
20 9
22 5
20
20 5
27 6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5
>5
>5
5 1
6 5
(
>5
>5
>5
4 2
4 5
>5
>5
>5
4 6
E30
I
>5
>5
>5
5
4 5
>5
>5
>5
4 4
4 2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ftZ
I�
`
�e
rm
l
> � _
KIT
V
`
42:1
, ,
- '
rAl
E,
rs
,.
$
d50 mm
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
i�
I�
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Sil t
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Cross Section 6 (Glide)
Cross Section
7 (Run)
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Cross Section 9 (Glide)
Cross Section 10
(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevatwn'
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY7
MY8
MY+
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
IF'
s�
��
f
I
I
®
�
®�
ow
�
-- '
IIII�
(IIIII�
Bankfull Width (ft)
197
21
21
251
199
®
229
199
20 7
30
179
®�
21 9
199
19
212
263
20
199
20
228
234
21 1
20
27
222
248
Floodprone Width (ft)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100�Z
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
11
11
11
09
09
1 1
12
1 2
0 8
1
2
1 2
1 3
1 1
1 3
t
1 3
1 2
1 2
1
0 9
0 9
1
09
08
07
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2
21
2
19
16
2
18
19
17
15
3
2 3
2 5
2
2 4
�
2 2
2
2
1 9
1 8
1 6
17
18
14
12
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
21 7
23 8
23 3
23 7
18 4
®�
25 2
23 6
25
22 8
17 6
9
24 1
25 5
22 8
34 3
26
23 8
23 7
23 1
20 1
19
20 5
24 3
17 1
17 3
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
17 9
18 5
19 1
27 9
21 5
20 8
16 8
17 3
37 5
17 9
5
16 4
14 6
19 3
20 2
Il
®
15 4
16 6
16 7
22 8
27 3
�
23 4
19 5
30 1
27 8
35 6
S
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5
>5
>5
4
5
>5
>5
>5
3 3
4 4
J�jl
5
>5
>5
4 7
3 8
>5
>5
>5
4 4
4 3
)�
>5
>5
>5
4 5
4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1®
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ftZ
®�
III
O
III
�a
d50 mm
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
®ice
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
t
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
I Silt
Silt
Silt
Silt
' It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history which may influence calculated values
MY1 MY2 MY3 data from a prior performer is not available

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

O O—� O O 00 O c0 O 00 i __ I r00 O O O
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aggradauon OT cnannei Oue to numerous Oue to reaucea now trom Deaver dams
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Mayor
Stable
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As built
Se merits
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve station
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aggradation Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
* � tk °
`
}� ti`
�+
NA
6182
°
0 /o
^ ' r
to
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
aa�
I
+ 1 N l y 4 #
2 Degradation Evidence of downcutting
NA
NA
NA
j �yjtq r"
ji�y i l) i ^�F`•
,�p�y r
i' ..-'�� �
if��V'+ ^I } t"�'�lg '\°� yi`�a�d�' � V �3b
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
49�
a
0%
bts
a a rzt b 1^
u , �e e hp lr
% `ro �", + 4
`a, y" rttk�"
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
52
52
100 %A
x
9a� 4� 'r 4 44
9t r f v
� � *N lk
2 Length appropnate ( >30 / of centerline distance between tail of
52
52
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffle)
�uw ��
r � q „ F S rT�
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
52
52
"t
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
49
49
100%
` +r let
ry- ` d "' ,S F ;
'-N JY
.�
� '"ter• �'^ �= Y' 4"
t [
a L '4 » t
. Wr t' i
6 4,
.. e rx
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
° ' 0
r 3 ti r k
A4i x r
0
0
100%
0
0
NA
r
r <
t fS f
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does Q include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
+
$ #
0
0
100%
0
0
NA
and are providing habitat
;44
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
>'
'�
0
0
100%
0
0
NA
i t 4+.. i'+
h�1t tt'i65
y IT , t� " � y ° _
}` �'�
Totals
0
0
0
100%
0
0
NA
�v�
3 Engineered
$trUCtUr @S
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
46
46
+ K � �� [ 4
100%
ell
`r +���} f t 3 V, bi 'I A,;
'+s
^2
', 1 I ,- a
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
46
46
ry f g > fl
� �
°
100 /o
k s w z
✓'T a
�t'���t M
4
0 �� rt
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath sills or arms
46
46
Vt
41 q�%
100%
Y~
�P*�` yy1 /
�141e�
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3 Bank Protection
15/ (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
46
46
arc y
100%
f y
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
100 %�/
3 t e yiY�
Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base flow
4 +
Aggradauon OT cnannei Oue to numerous Oue to reaucea now trom Deaver dams

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Table 6 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site - EEP Project 206
Parameter MY -1 MY -2
MY -3
MY- 7
MY- 8
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
1
23
21 9
234
221
154
233
242
288
Floodprone Width (ft)
F
>100
>100
>100
>100
r
>100
>100
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
097
097
097 1
09
07
1
1
1 3
,
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
-
1 83
213
1 97
1 63
1 2
1 8
1 7
25
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
22 3
21 4
23 2
19 8
r
11 1
233
226
338
Width /Depth Ratio
237
225
245
251
167
242
23
1
356
Entrenchment Ratio
d
>5
1 >5 1
>5 1453
35
44
41
>5
Bank Height Ratio
1
I 1 I
1 I
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
Profile , � � r ro r e I "
Riffle Length (ft)
11
61
120
40
65
135
906
479
464
101 6
245
27
8 4
51 6
474
106
246
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0
0 006
0 037
0 001
0 004
0 011
0 000
0 000
0 001
0 012
0 005
27
0 000
0 004
0 003
0 012
0 003
27
Pool Length (ft)
22
46
70
28
75
178
172
31 7
297
51 2
909
26
12 2
31 8
28 6
51 5
11 1
26
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
39
113
252
32
111
246
256
758
768
135
29
26
27 6
777
73 8
128
281
26
Pattern - - r " e ` I ° F , `
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 91 118 144
91
118 144
69 569 57 129 353
214 681 605 125 272
Radius of Curvature (ft) 12 26 37
12
26 37
18 397 40 73 144
1423
188 41 7 369 86 7 161
1646.
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft) 179 189 215
179
189 215 r
58 139 139 207
161 174 223 372
Meander Width Ratio ` NA 53 NA
Additional Reach Parameters
NA 53 NA
"
03 26 26 58
1 391292 25 433
Rosgen Classification
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
F
3023
3023
3023
3023
Sinuosity (ft)
i
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
000041
000055
NA (dry channel
000029
BF slope ( ft/ft)
0000245
000049
000057
000065
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
r
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
x
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
a
Shaded cells indicate data not available

i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
40 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
41 Success Criteria
According to the Stream Mitigation Guidelines, the success criteria for vegetation
require that at least 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving after the third
growing season The required survival criterion will decrease by 10 percent per year
after the third year of vegetation monitoring for two years (i e , for an expected
288 stems per acre for Year 4, 260 stems per acre for Years 5 and beyond) NCDOT
Stem Counting Protocol was used as the standard sampling methodology
P
42 Description of Species
p P
�I
Based on the mitigation plan, the wetland restoration area and the riparian restoration
area were to be planted with the following species
Wetland Vegetation
Quercus pagoda (Cherrybark Oak)
Quercus phellos (Willow Oak)
Quercus mlchauxtl (Swamp Chestnut Oak)
Quercus lyrata (Overcup Oak)
Quercus ntgra (Water Oak)
Ulmus amencana (American Elm)
Fraxlnus pennsylvanlca (Green Ash)
Betula ntgra (River Birch)
Riparian Vegetation
Betula ntgra (River Birch)
Sallx nlgra (Black Willow)
Cephalanthus occldentalis (Buttonbush)
Corpus amomum (Silky dogwood)
43 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring (10 x 10 m2) plots were established to monitor planted
vegetation within the Site Vegetation monitoring plots were separated into 4 riparian
vegetation plots and 4 wetland vegetation plots During Year 8 monitoring, the Site
exceeded the vegetation success criteria with an average stem density of 283 stems
per acre for riparian plots (Table 6), and an average stem density of 750 stems per acre
for wetland plots (Table 7) Two riparian plots did not meet success criteria but did show
improvement throughout the overall monitoring period (Tables 8 and 9) Herbaceous
vegetation at the Site was found to be dense and healthy (Photographs from the
vegetation plots are provided in Appendix C) Each plot exhibited good diversity and
Mondonng Year 8 (2011) 15 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
included between 5 and 9 species with 15 total species observed across all plots Many
of the trees exhibited heights in excess of 8 -10 feet
Table 7 Results of Riparian Veaetation Plots Monitorina
Table 8 Results of Wetland Veaetation Plots Monitortna
v,
M
�
H —
K
a�
M
Q1
.•
d
V
Riparian
R
X>
°
v,
7
R
c
3-0
L o
ca
,
y
G1+
y y
Plots
+°.
M-0
c N
��
m c=i
tM
d rn
3 M
K
3
c m
°'
E
CL
LL
� �
u,
CY E
CY a
c
-M
F.
°
d
�a
CO
o m
V
a
aci
Cat
Cat
Plots
c
~
R1
7
0
11
2
6
0
2
1
13
0
42
420
R5
5
1
0
0
6
1
4
0
0
0
17
170
R6
5
0
4
0
5
2
3
0
0
0
19
190
R10
1
0
11
2
11
8
0
0
0
2
35
350
TOTAL
18
1
26
4
28
11
9
1
13
2
113
1130
Average Tree Density 283
Table 8 Results of Wetland Veaetation Plots Monitortna
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) 16 December 2011
M
v
E
c
�o
c
M M
ca
,
e��v
—
K
M
U) U)
+°.
tM
°'
v
'
�,
E
3 v,
io
E
u,
Wetland
c
-M
F.
c>
X
�`
�a
N
2
w
aci
Plots
c
o
MN
v
v,
0
`
Em
E '
R
`
d
Q
H
U. c
_y
J
m
m
N
c
h-
Q
2
a
CY
0 C
c
ar
�
D2
0
0
2
0
6
0
3
17
2
8
2
0
40
702
D3
0
0
3
0
44
0
7
9
0
0
0
4
67
1175
D5
0
2
5
2
13
2
3
7
7
3
0
0
44
440
D8
2
2
2
0
4
3
2
17
3
4
0
0
39
684
TOTAL
2
4
12
2
67
5
15
50
12
15
2
4
190
3333
Average Tree Density 750
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) 16 December 2011

F�
Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
U
C
Li
n
�I
Table 9 Riparian Plot Veaetation Summary Data
Species
Riparian Plot Numbers
Year
R1
R5
R6
R10
Betula n►gra
(River birch)
2005
2
1
0
0
2006
2
1
0
0
2007
1
1
0
0
2008
5
4
3
1
2009
5
4
3
1
2010
5
4
3
1
2011
7
5
5
1
Frax►nus
pennsylvan►ca
(Green ash)
2005
0
1
1
1
2006
1
1
3
3
2007
0
1
2
3
2008
12
0
3
12
2009
12
0
3
11
2010
12
0
3
11
2011
11
0
4
11
Quercus laurifoha
(Laurel oak)
2005
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
1
1
2008
2
0
0
0
2009
2
0
0
0
2010
2
0
0
1
2011
2
0
0
2
Quercus lyrata
(Overcup oak)
2005
1
1
4
0
2006
0
0
4
0
2007
0
1
3
0
2008
5
2
2
7
2009
6
4
2
8
2010
6
4
2
8
2011
6
6
5
11
Quercus m►chaux►►
(Swamp chestnut
oak)
2005
0
0
0
1
2006
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
2
2008
0
1
2
6
2009
0
1
2
6
2010
0
1
2
6
2011
0
1
2
8
Morntormg Year 8 (2011) 17 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
Table 9 (continued)
Salix nigra
(Black willow)
2005
1
1
7
0
2006
1
3
7
0
2007
1
3
5
0
2008
10
1
0
0
2009
10
2
0
0
2010
10
2
0
0
2011
,13
0
0
0
Table 10 Wetland Plot Veaetation Summary Data
Species
Wetland Plot Numbers
Year
D2
D3
D5
D8
Betula nigra
(River birch)
2005
0
3
0
1
2006
0
3
1
1
2007
1
4
4
2
2008
2
4
3
1
2009
2
4
4
2
2010
2
4
6
2
2011
2
3
5
2
Fraxmus
pennsylvanica
(Green ash)
2005
3
11
0
4
2006
2
16
0
4
2007
4
32
6
11
2008
6
33
10
3
2009
4
38
9
7
2010
4
38
10
7
2011
6
44
13
4
Quercus laurifoha
(Laurel oak)
2005
7
0
0
0
2006
3
0
2
0
2007
8
2
4
4
2008
1
1
3
0
2009
4
4
5
1
2010
4
4
4
1
2011
3
7
3
2
Quercus lyrata
(Overcup oak)
2005
14
11
4
0
2006
5
11
4
3
2007
8
8
10
15
2008
14
11
4
19
2009
14
9
6
18
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 18 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
C� Table 10 (continued)
D
F'I
L�
Quercus lyrata
(Overcup oak)
2010
14
9
6
18
2011
17
9
7
17
Quercus m►chaux►►
(Swamp chestnut oak)
2005
2
0
2
4
2006
2
0
1
4
2007
2
0
6
6
2008
2
0
8
5
2009
2
0
8
6
2010
2
0
8
6
2011
2
0
7
3
Quercus pagoda
(Cherrybark oak)
2005
0
0
8
7
2006
3
0
1
0
2007
0
0
0
1
2008
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2011
0
0
0
0
Quercus phellos
(Willow oak)
2005
2
1
0
0
2006
0
2
0
0
2007
1
1
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2011
0
0
0
0
Sal►x n►gra
(Black willow)
2005
0
0
0
0
2006
0
0
0
0
2007
0
0
0
0
2008
0
0
0
0
2009
0
0
0
0
2010
0
0
0
0
2011 1
0
0
0
0
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 19 December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
50 REFERENCES
State Climate Office of North Carolina CRONOS precipitation database [online]
Retrieved 11 -28 -11
NRCS USDA National Water and Climate Center Climate Information- Wetlands
Retrieval for Anson County Growing Season [online] Retrieved 11 -28 -11
http / /www wcc nres usda gov /cgibin /getwetco pl ?state =nc
Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003 Authored by a workgroup consisting of
USACE (Wilmington District, USEPA, NCWRC and NCDWQ) Riparian Restoration
pg 18
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) 20 December 2011

i Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
I',
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Pi
I Monitonng Year 8 (2011) December 2011
Li
J

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

v y ,
\ Ceaa' i
Arson vl�
e t toy
�I Ston , s
a a +
c- Wadeshoro
c N S O
s
f 0� A^
tvo�e r dN
IL
PROJECT
STUDY
AREA r1`�a e
by
S K Ir
4 #rVr
GtO��ng 4
ei r 0111
'.3
ch
�►
Directions: 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
Go west on Hwy 74 from Wadesboro in Anson County to Peachland. M06iiiiiiiiiiiiii Feet
Turn left onto Mineral Springs Church Rd. and then right onto Lower White Store Road.
Pass Hasty Rd. and then just before Turkey Growing Rd, turn left into Key Branch Site on a gravel road.
Client'. SITE LOCATION Dwn By ICId By
TAL MCG FIGURE
Dale
ATKINS KEY BRANCH STREAM & Sale NOV 2011
WETLAND RESTORATION SITE 1
$Stem As SHOWN
i',I aI7Cf 111(ilt
PROGRAM Anson County, North Carolina
PBS &J Project No
100005068

KBSG -1 & STREAM MONITORING GAUGE
—� APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGES
MAXIMUM PERCENT OF GROWING SEASON WITH
CONTINUOUS SATURATION IN TOP 12 INCHES
275
> 12.5%
5 -12%
<5%
VEGETATION
LEGEND
•RIPARIAN
ATKINS
WETLAND
D3
<260 STEMS /ACRE
- -99 --
EXISTING CONTOURS
>260 STEMS /ACRE
WETLAND
D3
>260 STEMS /ACRE
i Sib
STREAM FLOW
— — — —
PROJECT STUDY AREA
PRESERVED WETLANDS (6 AC.)
°
'
REVISIONS
PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION (91.4 AC.)
_
H
t
12/07/2011
i
®
EXISTING FOREST (NOT PLANTED) (26.9 AC.)
J�q
/
11 r
z
CONSTRUCTED STREAM CHANNEL'
���
_-
_—
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT (4.70 ACRESf)
2010 SURVEYED STREAM CHANNEL
_
s« (DOES NOT INCLUDE UPSTREAM IMPACTS
20�
-
WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL)
f�0�
2011 SURVEYED STREAM CHANNEL
;- - -.
�—
KBSG -1 & STREAM MONITORING GAUGE
—� APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGES
MAXIMUM PERCENT OF GROWING SEASON WITH
CONTINUOUS SATURATION IN TOP 12 INCHES
275
> 12.5%
5 -12%
<5%
VEGETATION
PLOTS
R6
•RIPARIAN
<260 STEMS /ACRE
WETLAND
D3
<260 STEMS /ACRE
R6 •RIPARIAN
>260 STEMS /ACRE
WETLAND
D3
>260 STEMS /ACRE
/
STREAM FLOW
250' 0 250'
iiiii
SCALE: 1 " = 250'
MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET 2)
Client:
r�
em
[�; a ment
PROpRI�M
KEY BRANCH
STREAM &
WETLAND
RESTORATION
SITE
ANSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Dwn. By: Ckd. By:
RLG JWG
Date: Scale:
DEC 2011 1" =250'
Project No.:
100005068
FIGURE
2A

�r
MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET 1)
'kd
5-Z
r
z!o
�fl
I
BEGIN LONGITUDINAL
PROFILE FOR MONITORING
STATION 0 +00
so
�x0
0
KBMG -3
-1Sx
°O ,
R5 crk
0
i
d �2
x0o �sb
KBMG -8
R 10 X °°
+SF 2
LEGEND
1 � b �
�o.. CT 5 %; - -99 -- EXISTING CONTOURS
J01 00
— — — PROJECT STUDY AREA
4 ks 00 PRESERVED WETLANDS (6 AC.)
b0 KBMG -7 r °, D PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION (91.4 AC.)
)0 / EXISTING FOREST (NOT PLANTED) (26.9 AC.)
t ;
8 CONSTRUCTED STREAM CHANNEL
000
KBSG -1 }
2010 SURVEYED STREAM CHANNEL
L
/ ,00 KBMG -6
� O
LOCATION OF
BEAVER DAMS
r9 KBMG -1 Sl _ D8
KBMG —? °o ■
2xo KBMG -5"
�b
LAPPROXIMATE EXTENT OF `
EAVER IMPOUNDMENT (0.22 ACRES±)
t (DOES NOT INCLUDE DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS
OR WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL)
�t
S
250' 0 250'
SCALE: 1 " = 250'
i 0 ?On 2011 SURVEYED STREAM CHANNEL
KBSG -1 & STREAM MONITORING GAUGE
r APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF BEAVER IMPOUNDMENT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGES
MAXIMUM PERCENT OF GROWING SEASON WITH
CONTINUOUS SATURATION IN TOP 12 INCHES
> 12.5%
5 -12%
50 <5%
VEGETATION
PLOTS
R6
•RIPARIAN
<260 STEMS /ACRE
WETLAND
D3
<260 STEMS /ACRE
R6 •RIPARIAN
>260 STEMS /ACRE
WETLAND
D3
>260 STEMS /ACRE
/
STREAM FLOW
ATKINSI
REVISIONS
Client:
r-d�f
E��a'��etm ne t
PRIXSRAM
Project:
KEY BRANCH
STREAM &
WETLAND
RESTORATION
SITE
ANSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
RLG I JWG
Date: Scale:
DEC 2011 1,,=250'
Project No.:
100005068
FIGURE
2B

A
5
4
C: 3
0
M
U 2
N
^L
LL
1
A
Fig 3. Key Branch 30 -70 Percentile Graph (2011)
Wadesboro, NC
I
Range of Normal Rainfall Range of Normal Rainfall
Jan -11 Feb -11 Mar -11 Apr -11 May -11 Jun -11 Jul -11 Aug -11 Sep -11 Oct -11 Nov -11 Dec -11
Date
® 2011 Rainfall
70th Percentile
L� 30th Percentile
Data Source: State Climate Office of NC (CRONOS Database)

— Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County NC
CI
n
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER GAUGE HYDROGRAPHS
Monitonng Year 8 (2011) December 2011

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

a
0
CD
0
00
N
O
W
0
n
3
N
O
j
j
L
Q
N
L
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 1 - 1130E7CF
r
N
�- CO .-
N E
N2 cL O
� � Q Z
Month
3.0
2.5
C
2.0
C
O
1.5 Cli
Q
�U
1.0 O
^L
CL
0.5
0.0

O
Monitoring Year 8 (2011)
Water Depth (in)
A W W N N N L L I , -> � N N N CO W A
O O N w A O O N O A O A w N O O A OD N O O
- March 15
March 28
m - April 15
O O W
O C n O (J O Ul O
Precipitation (in)
B -2
November 19
t
O
0 N
� O
C �
CC �
(D
N
W
Cn
m
N
X
1<
a
n
December 2011

9
0
0
0
0
N
O
1p
CA)
0
0
3
Cr
0
N
O
CL
N
i
N
(c
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 3 - A28C2B0
N
00 E
N
CO ` 0 O
fC Q Z
Month
3.0
2.5
C
2.0 �.
C
O
1.5 (�
.Q
.0
1.0 N
0.5
w

Q
N
W
J
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 5 - A286E29
N
L N - N
` L >
@ ` Q O
c Z
Month
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0 C:
1.8
1.6 0
1.4 (6
1.2 Q
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Q
0
N
N
E
U
N
0
IT
CO
0
N
(U
N
}
QI
C
O
C
O
2

40
36
32
28
24
�-. 20
16
12
8
CL 4
-4
L
N 8 -
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 6 - 9DE7A19
N C
L C
Q
Q O
� � Z
c
Month
3.0
2.5
2.0
O
1.5 (U
CL
�U
1.0
0.5
m

K
O
r+
3
Water Depth (in)
W W N N rV L L, -� IN N ro W Cj A
O M N 00 A 0 0 N& 4, O A 00 N O O A 00 N M 0
son - March 15
on - March 28
Cason - April 15
;on - November 19
O O N N W
O CT O CT
Precipitation (in)
O
CQ
CQ
cfl
0
M
w
X
CD
N �
O �
C7
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) B -6 December 2011

W
1p
A
CD
3
Cr
CD
CL
N
L
CU
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 8 - A28A565
CO
N
UL CL
U Q >
Z
O
Month
3.0
O7
2.0
C
O
:*--A
1.5 (U
.QL
�U
1.0 N
0.5
mg

O
Monitoring Year 8 (2011)
Water Depth (in)
A1.&WWrVtVrVLL , — + — NNNW WA
0 D A O O N 0 D A O O N 0 D O A 0 0 N O O A O 0 N O O
m - March 15
- March 28
Son - April 15
i - November 19
Cn O
Precipitation (in)
M
O
CQ
C N
0 0
C
M
N
00
D
w
CD
n
December 2011

K
0
0
cc
CD
N
O
CD
3
Cr
CD
N
O
C
Q.
0
L
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 10 - 13153910
� � N
C L
N
L Q N
Q O
C ' ran C
Month
3.0
2.5
2.0
C
O
1.5 (�
Q
�U
1.o N
^L
L.L
0.5
0.0

O
.-r
Water Depth (in)
A W W N N N L L I —� N N N W W A
O O N w A O M N w A O A M N O O A co N O O
- March 15
March 28
i - April 15
O O N N W
O Cn O CT O Cn O
Precipitation (in)
November 19
O
!y N
io
N
4
tO
Ca
v
0
CD
1<
n
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) B -10 December 2011

m
0
0
CD
N
O
W
CD
0
CD
3
a-
N
O
A-j
CL
N
L
�1
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 12 - A287DCE
r
LO N
CO
UN ` E
` L L1
CO 2 Q N
CD O
g o Z
O c m C
Month
3.0
2.5
C
2.0
C
O
1.5 (Q
.Q
�U
1.0
CL
0.5
0.0

O
Water Depth (in)
A W W N N N L L N N N W Ca A
O CO N 00 A 0 0 r) Co O A M fv 0 0 A 00 N O O
March 15
larch 28
April 15 C
O
O
G)
»
N
0
Q
M
W
N
4
a)
v
M
0
O O N N W
O C n O CT O CJt O
Precipitation (in)
November 19
n
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) B -12 December 2011

9
0
0
N
O
w
0
CD
CD
3
Cy
N
O
C
Q
a
L
�1
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
-4
-8
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
-32
-36
-40
Key Branch
2011
Monitoring Gauge 14 - A28BFDE
U')
00
N
U L `p_
Q
f0 c p
� cc � Z
� c ,
Month
3.0
2.5
C
2.0
O
i--+
1.5 io
_Q
�U
1.0 N
0.5
0.0

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
APPENDIX C
SITE PHOTOS
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
D2 — Vegetation Plot - facing north
D3 — Vegetation Plot - facing north
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
D5 — Vegetation Plot - facing south
D8 — Vegetation Plot - facing north
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
R1 —Vegetation Plot - facing north
R5 — Vegetation Plot - facing northwest
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
R6 — Vegetation Plot - facing southwest
R10 —Vegetation Plot - facing south
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
After beaver dam removal at top of site. November 23, 2010
Beavers had returned to top of site by February 23, 2011
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

O
AF
-�T
4p
gar.
4E
Ik-
P

Key Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration (NCEEP Project 206) Anson County, NC
APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Monitoring Year 8 (2011) December 2011

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

m
CD
0
N
O
O
CDT�
N
y
0
m
o'
Survey Data
Summary
Dato
Key Branch Wetland and Stream Restoration Site, Anson County

a�
I--
0
0
t
U
G
(�D
CO
Y
N
04
N
Z
U
Q)
O
111
W
Survey
Data
IN
Key Branch Wettand and Stream Restoration Site. Anson County
a�
I--
0
0
t
U
G
(�D
CO
Y
N
04
N
Z
U
Q)
O
111
W

m
C
0
CD
00
v
C
CD
y
O
N
O�
3
co
W
Survey Data
...
•
'
��
.
..
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
®__
®_
®
IIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111
1
1111111
II
1111111
�_�_
.___
— —
— —
____IIIIIIII
a- fcing
. =..
I—N
lllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�
►.
1111111.,
�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
=�=
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii�iiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
____
jJ
�4
11/14/11 — 11/15/11
uny
Jeremy Schmid. Jeff Siceloff. Kirsten Hunt
tion 22+50

iiiu?I■II ■I!!;d�lll

iiiii:: 1111111111111 ■11111�:�::!!!1111!�11
,1111 ''1,-
IIIIIIIIII� ►�,IIIIIIII .��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illlllllllllli:��Ilr;� ■111111111111111111111
�. � 1, .
l

i:.` 1111111 IIIIUII!
Ilp':!!I�Alll!ll
IININII:;:i!:11
■11

.1
1611111111111111FA
I I I i il .I. �1,1, .1 .1 I,pd dr i I I I

op
h

IMP!;
ii:!III I IIIIII[ii
111111" u!.III!!10 ill
ml--111

c
0
m
0
h
U
c
ro
Q)
Y
0
O
0
N
Z
U
O
W
Ul
Survey
Data
Cross—Section 10 Riffle
10 1
99
9 C3
Y­7 SURVEY (2010)
Y­8 SURVEY (2011)
Bmkfull
"moll
�7
1. All
Station
Cross—section, upstream looking downstream
Key Branch WeUord and Stream Restoration Site. Anson County
11/1 /" — 11/15/11
S—Y
Jeremy_Schm d. Jeff S-1off. Kirsten Hunt
Station 53+00
c
0
m
0
h
U
c
ro
Q)
Y
0
O
0
N
Z
U
O
W
Ul

II��,. IIIIIIIIIII ..�.��iillll
11111 i!11111! :iilpilll

Survey Data
Cross—Section- 12 Riffle
Cross—section, upstream (ooking downstream
—Summary
Data
uii
Jeremy Schmid. Jeff Siceloff-, Kirtim Hurt
c
u
C
0
0
t
U
C
I-
t
N
O
a
w
w

rn
a.
Z
0
pN
01
m
s*
0
O
r�.
�D
10
10
Legend
2011 (YEAR B) BANKFULL
— 2010 (YEAR 7) GRADE ELEVATION THALWEG
— 2011 (YEAR B) GRADE ELEVATION THALWEG
-�- 2011 YEAR 8 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
10
0 101
10
98
> 97
a
e
96
Ned
YL
Of 95
94
93
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200
Station
SANKFULL SAPLICLOWN
WATER SURFACE SLOPE:OA0M
Title
Lon itudinal Profile
Project
Key Branch Wetland and Stream Restoration Site, Anson County PrOfeLt
Figure
206
L°ngtt diml PrOile
Surwr Dd�
11/14/11 — 11/15/11
Surwy `Meatier
Sunny
FWd Team
Jeremy S°hmia, Jen sieelaff, Icireten Muni
meal
...