20050377b Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20090521

05,03?I h
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Project No. 92350
2008 Monitoring Report (Final): Year 2 of 5
• March 2009
Prepared for: NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center M-
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 ??? I r .l Sir,
I VIA-
D::NK - i'?h,i tit IIl•r•?! i ?
Prepared by: Jordan, Jones, & Goulding UTTLANDS AND STORMYVATER BRw hi
9101 Southern Pine Blvd., Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28273
Design Firm: EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
j t OS tem
t' ! (? f l F )4 t ?
L'xGli..4.AiN
1
k
19
C
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION I - PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting.................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives.......................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project History and Background................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Monitoring Plan View................................................................................................ 1-5
SECTION 2 - PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
2.1 Vegetation Assessment..............................................................................................2-1
2. 1.1 Soil Data...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Vegetative Current Condition..................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 Vegetative Current Condition Plan View ................................................... 2-2
2.1.4 Stem Counts................................................................................................ 2-2
2.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos................................................................................ 2-3
2.2. Stream Assessment................................................................................................... 2-3
• 2.2.1 Stream Current Condition Plan View ......................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Stream Current Condition Table................................................................. 2-3
2.2.3 Numbered Issues Photo Section.................................................................. 2-3
2.2.4 Stability Assessment................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.5 Quantitative Measures Tables..................................................................... 2-5
2.2.6 Hydrologic Criteria...................................................................................2-10
0
SECTION 3 - METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology..............................................................................................................3-1
SECTION 4 - REFERENCES
SECTION 5 - FIGURES
SECTION 6 - APPENDICES
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

•
•
•
Page ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives........................................................ 1-3
Table 1.2 Project Activity and Reporting History............................................................... 1-4
Table1.3 Project Contacts...................................................................................................1-4
Table1.4 Project Background.............................................................................................. 1-5
Table 2.1 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment .................................... 2-4
Table 2.2 Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic As -Built Summary .................................... 2-6
Table 2.3 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary .............................................. 2-8
Table 2.4 Verification of Bankfull Events......................................................................... 2-10
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
Figure 1.2 Monitoring Plan View Map
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Vegetation Raw Data
Appendix 2 Geomorphic and Stream Stability Data
Appendix 3 Current Condition Plan View (Integrated)
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0

• Executive Summary
The Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project (Site) is located in Anson County, North Carolina
on property owned by Mr. John Bishop. The Site is one of three separate Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) projects located on the 200 -acre Bishop Property, each confined
within a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)-owned conservation easement.
Primary goals for the Site were to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile for impacted on-
site stream reaches. Secondary Site restoration goals included stream channel enhancement and
preservation. The following restoration goals were established for the Site.
1. Priority II stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) via
excavation of approximately 1,767 linear feet of a designed E/C-type stream of the main
Camp Branch channel on new location, including adjacent floodplain excavation to achieve
an entrenchment ratio characteristic of E/C-type streams.
2. Priority I stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) of
approximately 403 linear feet and Priority II restoration of approximately 143 linear feet of a
designed E/C-type stream of a UT to Camp Branch, including floodplain excavation along
the UT upstream of Camp Branch to achieve a stable confluence.
3. Level II stream enhancement of approximately 945 linear feet of Camp Branch upstream of
its confluence with the UT via riparian plantings adjacent to the Camp Branch stream banks.
• 4. Re-establishment of the characteristic, pre -disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest(Schafale
and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare root seedling
plantings.
Site construction activities were completed in October 2006, and the riparian and floodplain area
was planted in February 2007. As -built surveys for the Site were performed in May 2007. First
year monitoring was conducted in October 2007. In order to be considered successful, the Site
must achieve vegetative, groundwater, and stream channel success criteria for a minimum of five
years (or until success criteria are achieved). Crest gauges were also installed to monitor for the
occurrence of bankfull events. This report serves as the 2nd year of the 5 year monitoring plan
for the Site.
The 2008 vegetation monitoring results indicated that the Site appears to be meeting vegetation
success criteria. Vegetative monitoring success criteria as stated in the 2007 mitigation plan
requires an average number of planted stems per acre exceeding 320 stems/acre after the third
year of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year of project monitoring. The
survival rate for the woody vegetation monitored for 2008 is 92%. The site density is
approximately 891 planted stems per acre, which exceeds the year 3 goal of 320 planted stems
per acre. However, the first year monitoring reported there were 1,047 planted stems per acre.
Planted stem mortality within the plots is most likely due to the severe drought experienced
• during the 2007 growing season; however, based on visual assessment of the planted vegetation,
it may also be due to wildlife grazing or insects.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

Page 2
Executive Summary
is
Results from the 2008 stream monitoring effort indicate that Camp Branch and its tributary are
maintaining vertical and lateral stability with minimal bank erosion. Although some areas are
illustrating minor erosion, visual assessments along the channel indicated that there are no major
advancements towards instability within the reach. Areas with in -stream vegetation growth
could potentially result in localized areas of aggradation, and lead to lateral and/or vertical shifts
in the stream. These areas will continue to be monitored closely for significant adjustments in
the bed features and the channel thalweg. High sedimentation is evident at the lower end of the
main channel, immediately upstream of the transition point from the restoration reach to the
preservation reach. The shift in bankfull elevation and dimension from the restoration reach to
the preservation reach may have resulted in high silt deposition upstream of the convergence
point.
•
Overall, the Camp Branch Stream Restoration Site appears to be stable and has met stream and
vegetation mitigation goals for monitoring year 2.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

JJC
•
SECTION 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
C1
•

0 SECTION 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The background information provided in this report is referenced from the mitigation plan and
previous monitoring reports prepared by EcoScience (2007).
1.1 Location and Setting
The Site is located north of the Town of Wadesboro in Anson County, North Carolina,
immediately northwest (upstream) of the Rocky River's confluence with the Pee Dee River
(Figure 1.1). The Site is one of three separate Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) projects
located on the 200 -acre Bishop Property, each confined within a North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT)-owned conservation easement. Based on information provided by
EEP, the Site consisted of restoring/enhancing/ preserving 16,176 if of Camp Branch and an UT
to Camp Branch using both Priority 1 and 2 approaches. There are also 12,918 if of stream of
preservation and 11.6 acres of restored/enhanced/preserved wetland areas within the 200 -acre
Bishop Property.
To access the site from Charlotte, take US -74 east towards Wadesboro. Approximately 7.6 miles
after the Town of Polkton, turn left onto US -52 north. Follow US -52 north through Ansonville
until you reach Carpenter Road and turn right. Continue straight on gravel road until you reach
is the second gated access road. Follow this gravel road to the bottom of the hill where it crosses
the stream restoration project. The stream restoration begins upstream of this gravel road.
1.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives
The Site is located within the Piedmont Eco -Region of the Yadkin River Basin (USGS Subbasin
HUC 03040105). Prior to restoration, the site was predominantly utilized for row cropping and
recreational activities, such as hunting and wildlife viewing. Historically, drainage features and
wetland areas were dredged, straightened, and filled in to provide land for agricultural purposes.
These activities are thought to have inhibited stream channel stability and water quality;
therefore, producing an incised, eroded stream. Primary goals for the site were to restore stable
dimension, pattern, and profile for impacted on-site stream reaches. Secondary Site restoration
goals included stream channel enhancement and preservation. These goals were achieved via
planting bare root seedlings to recreate pre -disturbance vegetative communities within their
appropriate landscape contexts.
The following specific restoration goals were established for the Camp Branch Stream
Restoration Project.
1. Priority II stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) via
excavation of approximately 1,767 linear feet of a designed E/C-type stream of the main
• Camp Branch channel on new location, including adjacent floodplain excavation to achieve
an entrenchment ratio characteristic of E/C-type streams.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

Page 1-2
Project Background
. 2. Priority I stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996) of
approximately 403 linear feet and Priority II restoration of approximately 143 linear feet of a
designed E/C-type stream of a UT to Camp Branch, including floodplain excavation along
the UT upstream of Camp Branch to achieve a stable confluence.
•
•
3. Level II stream enhancement of approximately 945 linear feet of Camp Branch upstream of
its confluence with the UT via riparian plantings adjacent to the Camp Branch stream banks.
4. Re-establishment of the characteristic, pre -disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale
and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare root seedling
plantings.
The main reach of Camp Branch was restored by relocating approximately 1,767 if of the
existing channel (Restoration, Priority 2) and restoring approximately 403 if (Restoration,
Priority 1) and 143 if (Restoration, Priority 2) of its tributary. Camp Branch (Reach 1) and its
tributary (Reach 4) were designed as an E/C-type stream (Table 1.1). Bankfull benches were
created along Reach 1 and 4 to re-establish floodplain connection at the existing stream
elevation. Along Reach 3, the tributary's streambed was raised to re -attach the channel with its
floodplain at a higher elevation. The Site's riparian areas were planted to improve habitat and
stabilize streambanks via planting bare root seedlings to recreate pre -disturbance vegetative
communities within their appropriate landscape contexts.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

•
1]
Sl
Page 1-3
Project Background
Table 1.1
Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
*Stationing was not provided for the enhancement and preservation reach.
1.3 Project History and Background
The stream preservation/enhancement/restoration plan was designed by EcoScience Corporation
and constructed by Vaughn Construction, Inc. Construction and planting activities were
completed in February 2007. As -built surveys for the Site were performed in May 2007. The
first annual monitoring activities were conducted in October 2007. This report serves as the 2nd
year of the 5 year monitoring plan for the Camp Branch project. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 provide
detailed project activity, history, and contact information for this project. Table 1.4 provides
more in-depth watershed/site background for the project.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009
Linear
Stationing
Segment/Reach
Mitigation Type
Approach
Footage or
Comments
Acres
(ft)
Channel restoration,
Reach 1 -Camp Branch
R
P2
1,767 if
0+00-17+94
relocation. Total if includes
271f gap in easement at
channel ford.
Channel enhancement.
Reach 2 -Camp Branch
E2
N/A
945 if
N/A*
Enhancement reaches not
stationed
Channel restoration,
Reach 3 -UT Camp Branch
R
P1
403 if
0+00-4+33
relocation. Total if does not
include 301f gap in easement
at channel ford.
Reach 4 -UT Camp Branch
R
P2
143 if
4+33-5+76
Stream Preservation**
P
N/A
6,563 if
N/A*
Wetland Preservation
P
N/A
5.2 ac
N/A
Component Summations
Wetland
(ac)
Restoration Level
Stream (If)
Upland (ac)
Buffer (ac) BMP
Non-
Riparian
Riparian
Restoration (R)
2,313
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Enhancement (E)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Enahncement I (E)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Enhancement 11 (E)
945
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Creation (C)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Preservation (P)
6,563
N/A
5.2
N/A
N/A N/A
HQ Preservation (P)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
9,821
N/A
5.2
N/A
N/A N/A
*Stationing was not provided for the enhancement and preservation reach.
1.3 Project History and Background
The stream preservation/enhancement/restoration plan was designed by EcoScience Corporation
and constructed by Vaughn Construction, Inc. Construction and planting activities were
completed in February 2007. As -built surveys for the Site were performed in May 2007. The
first annual monitoring activities were conducted in October 2007. This report serves as the 2nd
year of the 5 year monitoring plan for the Camp Branch project. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 provide
detailed project activity, history, and contact information for this project. Table 1.4 provides
more in-depth watershed/site background for the project.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

C]
•
•
Page 1-4
Project Background
Table 1.2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Activity or Report
Data Collection Completed
Actual Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan
August 2004
September 2004
Final Design (90%)
March 2005
June 2005
Construction
N/A
February 2007
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area *
N/A
Throughout construction
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
N/A
October 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation
N/A
February 2007
Mitigation Plan
June 2007
October 2007
Final Report
June 2007
October 2007
Year l Monitoring
October 2007 /December2007
October 2007 /December2007
Year 2 Monitoring
May 2008/September 2008
November 2008
Year 3 Monitoring
TBD
TBD
Year 4 Monitoring
TBD
TBD
Year 5'Monitoring
TBD
TBD
*Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 1.3
Project Contacts
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009
EcoScience Corporation
Designer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
919- 828-3433
Vaughn Contruction, Inc.
Tommy Vaughn and Spencer Walker (Foremen)
Construction
P.O. Box 796
Wadesboro, NC 28170
704-694-6450
Kiker Forestry and Realty
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 933Wadesboro,
NC 28170
704-694-6436
Seeding Contractor
N/A
Monitoring Performers
EcoScience Corporation
Year 1
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
919- 828-3433
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Year 2 -present
9101 Southern Pine Blvd., Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28273
Stream Monitoring, POC
Kirsten Young, 704-527-4106 ext.246
Vegetation Monitoring, POC
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

r1
L_J
•
•
Page 1-5
Project Background
Table 1.4
Project Background
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Project County
Anson County, North Carolina
Drainage Area
2.9 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%)
<1 percent
Stream Orders (per USGS Topo Quad Map):
Camp Branch/UT to Camp Branch
2nd/l st
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
EcoRe ion (Griffith and Omernik)
Triassic Basins
Rosgen Classifications of As -built:
Camp Branch/UT to Camp Branch
C4 E/C4
Cowardin Classification
Camp Branch/UT to Camp Branch
Streams: R2UB 12/R4SB23
Dominant soil types
Badin Channery Silt Loam (BaB, BaC) Badin-Goldston Complex (BgD)
McQueen (MrB) Shellbluff (ShA) Tetotum (ToA) Chewacla (ChA)
Reference Site ID
N/A* reference areas established on -Site)
USGS HUCs for Project and Reference
03040105
NCDWQ Sub -basins for Project and Reference
03-07-14
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?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
No fencing along easement
-ivies — rvot App icame
1.4 Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view map (Figure 1.2) illustrates the location of the longitudinal profile
stations, cross-section stations, vegetation plots, and gauges. A total of eight cross-sections were
established within the main reach and its tributary by EcoScience in 2007. Approximately 2,311
If of longitudinal profile were monitored along the main channel and its tributary. Seven
previously established vegetative plots in the riparian zone adjacent to Camp Branch were
identified and monitored. Photographs were taken at each cross-section, vegetation plot, and
current condition areas.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

SECTION 2
PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
•
0

0 SECTION 2
PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
The following monitoring results are from the 2008 (year 2 of 5) survey.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
2.1.1 Soil Data
The Site is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt geologic formation, immediately adjacent to the
Chatham Group of the Triassic Basin geologic formation, within the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. The hydrophysiographic region is characterized by dissected
irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, and isolated monadnocks (Griffith 2002 in EcoScience,
2007). This region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 47 inches per year (NRCS 2000 in EcoScience, 2007).
Site soils have been mapped by the NRCS and include the Badin — Goldston complex (BgD), as
well as the McQueen (MrB), Shellbluff (ShA), Tetotum (ToA), and Chewacla series (ChA)
(NRCS 2000 in EcoScience, 2004). A general description of each soil and its hydric/non-hydric
status is included below.
Badin-Goldston Complex Bal): This series shares many characteristics with the Badin Channery
Silt Loam described above; however, the addition of Goldston in the complex produces
additional ranges for some values. These soils are also found in the Piedmont on slopes of 15 to
25 percent. Depths can rangefrom shallow to moderately deep, and permeability can be
moderate to moderately rapid, though typically well -drained. Depth to the seasonal high water
table is greater than 6.0 feet,and depth to bedrock varies from 10 to 20 inches and 20 to 40 inches
to soft bedrock. Depth to hard bedrock is between 10 to 20 inches and greater than 40 inches.
McQueen MrB: This series, found in the Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain, and Sandhills along
major streams and rivers, is very deep and well -drained. Permeability is slow, and the seasonal
high water table through the months of January through March is at a depth of 4 to 6 feet. Depth
to bedrock is greater than 60 inches. McQueen soils occur in floodplains adjacent to the Rocky
River and Camp Branch.
Shellbluff (ShA): This soil series is also found in floodplains of the Piedmont, Upper Coastal
Plain, and Sandhills landscapes. Shellbluff soils are typically very deep and well drained with
moderate permeability. Slopes are quite flat, ranging between 0 and 2 percent. From December
to March the seasonal high water table can vary between 3 and 5 feet, and depth to bedrock is
more than 60 inches. Shellbluff soils occur in crowned agricultural fields within the Rocky River
floodplain.
Tetotum (ToA): These soils are located on low stream terraces in the Piedmont, Upper Coastal
• Plain, and Sandhills landscapes. Tetotum soils are classified as very deep and moderately well -
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

Page 2-2
Project Condition and Monitoring Results
drained with moderate permeability. These soils are found in low slope areas with slopes ranging
• from 0 to 3 percent. Seasonal high water tables in the months of December to April are between
1.5 and 2.5 feet. Bedrock can be found at depths greater than 60 inches. Tetotum soils occur in
low elevation depressions downstream from a man-made pond in the UT to Camp Branch.
Chewacla ChA: These frequently flooded soils can be found in floodplains of the Piedmont,
Upper Coastal Plains, and Sandhills. Soils are very deep and somewhat poorly -drained with
moderate permeability. During the months of November through April the seasonal high water
table can be at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. Chewacla
soils occur in low elevation depressions within the Rocky River floodplain.
2.1.2 Vegetative Current Condition
Herbaceous seeding appears to provide adequate soil cover along the streambanks; however,
areas along the floodplain have barren areas of little to no vegetative cover. Please refer to
Appendix 1.1 and 1.2 for more details on vegetative problem areas and photos.
2.1.3 Vegetative Current Condition Plan View
Please refer to Appendix 3 for location of vegetative current conditions onsite and Appendix 1.2
for representative vegetation current condition photos.
2.1.4 Stem Counts
• JJG conducted the 2008 (Year 2 of 5) vegetative assessment and vegetative plot analysis in
September 2008 per the 2006 CVS-EEP Level 2 protocol (Lee et al., 2006). The seven
vegetative plots previously established in the design phase were selected randomly and represent
the riparian buffer zone. Vegetative monitoring success criteria as stated in the 2007 mitigation
plan requires an average number of planted stems per acre exceeding 320 stems/acre after the
third year of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year of project monitoring.
Please refer the vegetation summary below and to Appendix 1.1 for a summary of stem counts.
The survival rate for the woody vegetation monitored for 2008 is 92%. The monitoring data
recorded an average of 22 planted live stems per plot. The site density is approximately 891
planted stems per acre, which exceeds the year 3 goal of 320 planted stems per acre. However,
the first year monitoring reported there were 1,047 planted stems per acre. The site density was
calculated by dividing the average number of stems by the plot size (0.025 ac). Planted stem
mortality within the plots is most likely due to the drought like conditions that occurred
throughout North Carolina in the 2007 monitoring year; however, based on visual assessment of
the planted vegetation, it may also be due to wildlife grazing or insects. The vigor of the live
planted stems within the plots also appears to have been affected by wildlife activity and
drought. Approximately 14 percent of the planted stems scored a vigor level of 2 and 35 percent
of the planted stems scored a vigor level of 3. Thus, as recommended by EcoScience,
supplemental plantings may be warranted within planted areas along Camp Branch if the planted
stems vigor continues to decline to ensure the site meets vegetation success criteria in monitoring
year 5.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

Page 2-3
Project Condition and Monitoring Results
• In conclusion, the vegetation throughout the stream and riparian restoration project meets the
success requirements. Although some loss of vegetation has occurred, the overall growth of the
riparian buffer is good. Per the success criterion for the 2008 monitoring year, the site has
exceeded 320 stems per acre.
•
C]
2.1.5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Please refer to Appendix 1.3 for photographs of the vegetation monitoring plots.
2.2 Stream Assessment
Stream dimension, pattern, profile, and substrate were evaluated within 2,311 if of the Site.
Please refer to Table 2.1 for a summary of the visual stability assessment, Table 2.2 for the as -
built morphology and hydraulic summary, Table 2.3 for monitoring years 2007-2008
morphology and hydraulic summary, Table 2.4 for hydrologic criteria, and Appendix 2 for more
detailed stream data tables and plots.
2.2.1 Stream Current Condition Plan View
Please refer to Appendix 3 for the location of the stream current conditions onsite.
2.2.2 Stream Current Condition Table
Please refer to Appendix 2.1 for the stream current condition table.
2.2.3 Numbered Issues Photo Section
Please refer to Appendix 2.2 for representative stream current condition photos.
2.2.4 Stability Assessment
The majority of the project conditions reflected the as -built drawings. The following general
observations were noted.
■ The pattern, profile, and dimension of the restored main channel and its tributary appear
stable.
■ Along the main channel there are areas of poor streambank and floodplain cover due to the
lack of vegetative growth. The lack of vegetative growth could be due to the drought like
conditions experienced after planting occurred on this site.
■ Heavy in -stream sediment deposition is occurring at the downstream end of the main channel
where the restoration reach converges with the preservation reach.
■ Rill formations along the slope between the terrace and floodplain were observed along the
main channel. Based on photographs from the previous monitoring firm, these rills do not
appear to have advanced since last year's monitoring observations.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

•
Page 2-4
Project Condition and Monitoring Results
■ There are sporadic patches of in -stream vegetation occurring along the thalweg of the main
channel and its tributary.
■ A few riffles along the tributary were dry during the 2008 assessment.
Main Channel
Overall, the present channel is maintaining both lateral and vertical stability with minimal bank
erosion. Although some areas are illustrating minor erosion, visual assessments along the
channel indicated that there are no major advancements towards instability within the reach. The
average bankfull width (22.5 ft) of the surveyed cross-sections is slightly higher than the
proposed 16-22 ft. Cross-section 6, which is a riffle, appears to have some minor changes along
the right bank. This change has caused an increase in the channels bankfull width from the
previous monitoring year. The thalweg profile appears to be stable, and is characterized by well-
defined riffle and pool features. The average water surface slope and the average bankfull slope
were very similar for the surveyed reach, 0.0039 ft/ft and 0.0036 ft/ft, respectively.
High sedimentation rates are evident at the lower end of the main channel, immediately upstream
of the transition point from the restoration reach to the preservation reach. The shift in bankfull
elevation and dimension from the restoration reach to the preservation reach could have resulted
in high sediment deposition upstream of the convergence point. Areas with in -stream vegetation
growth could potentially result in localized areas of aggradation, and lead to lateral and/or
vertical shifts in the stream. These areas will continue to be monitored closely for significant
adjustments in the bed features and the channel thalweg.
Tributary
Based on current monitoring data and the visual inspection, the channel appears to be
functioning properly and maintaining stability. No erosional failure was observed along this
reach. In -stream vegetation was observed and noted in the Current Condition Plan View
(CCPV) (Appendix 3).
Table 2.1
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Main Channel
Feature Initial-
2006
MY1- MY2- MY3- MY4-
2007 2008 2009 2010
MY5-
2011
A. Riffles 100%
88% 90%
B. Pools 100%
79% 79%
C. Thalweg 100%
100% 100%
D. Meanders 1 100%
100% 100%
E. Bed General 100%
95% 100%
F. Bank N/A
N/A 100%
G. Vanes N/A
N/A N/A
H. Wads/ Boulders N/A
N/A N/A
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

•
Page 2-5
Project Condition and Monitoring Results
Table 2.1 cont.
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Tributary
Feature
Initial-
2006
MY1-
2007
MY2- MY3- MY4-
2008 2009 2010
' MY5-
2011
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
C. Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
1 100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank
N/A
N/A
100%
G. Vanes
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Wads/ Boulders
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2.5 Quantitative Measures Tables
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 display morphological summary data for baseline as -built conditions and the
2007 and 2008 monitoring year. Please refer to Appendix 2 for morphological plots and raw
data tables.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

0
O
O
00
t --
,rj
ti
-,t
c}
N
DD
Ol
N
O
•-+
�
�
O
Vl
[�
vl
o
�
�
O
N
viN
O�
N
N
�D
v1
M
M
N
O
N
00
M
z
U
O
ll°
OO
O
0
N
NCD
O
cky
p
O
p
al
M
00
DD
N
p
O
N
M
n
N
[�
\O
�;
O
00
N
>
V1
M
tom.
O
O
❑❑
O
,OA
O
O
O
O
r
N
v1
�n
N
N
p
In
N
a\
N
et
N
N
N
v1
M
M
N
O
01
N
>
4.
mN
t.
ID
Op
p
Mo
et
U
Q
z
o
O
�
00
CD
M
O
O
O
�'
O
O
O
>
;
o
�°
O
l�
O
Mm
O
N
0�
N
00
i
c00
p
�%•
Cl)
N
N
z
z
z
z
z
O
z
z
z
t0,
v
M
oo
d
¢
N
N
z
M
N
•--,
z
N
""
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
O
o
U
,...;
M
Q�
Q
00
O
Q
z
00
N
z
z
z
z
z
z
zo-.
O
°i
ON
N
4
N
MO
00
N
z
z
z
z
p
z
z
z
z
bb
� O
d
¢
M
z
z
z
zp
z
o
z
O
z
C
ti U
O
QI
¢
¢
G
N
N
\O--
^�
—Z
ZZ
z
z
z
z
z
z
p
i
'z
>
z'z
z
z
zz
zz
z
z
zz
zz
'z
'z
zz
zz
zz
zz
z
zz
U
�71r
°O
❑ 'F'/.
O
z
�'
N
z
z
N
z
z
zz
z%.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
—
%.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
9
Q
_Q
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
¢
cz
cu
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
_d
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Q
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z¢
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
ro
�O,
L
C!
d
d
cl
y
.w.
n
Q
u
QX
'rl
`4
N
•O
'�
b
>
'y
Z
.0
u
o
3
x
z
3
a
>
>o
o
a°i
t
o
°
w
w
�_
x
Edi
=
o
L
o
a
;,
°
a
A
as
w
3
w
3
x
w
a
v
z
w
Q
Q
d>
v
�,
3
�
0
c�

•
0
°O
M
M
O
O
O
Q
¢
¢
Q
O
00
0
kn
o
°`M
a;
N
vi
z
z
z
z
�t
O
O
M
N
O�
O
M
00z
z
z
z
N
V
ti
N
Q
00
O
O
�t"o
N
O
O
O
_
00
O
M
kn
z
O
z
N
O
zcz
o0
>
>
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
�
[�
O
dN'
OM
�
[�
06
p
O
N
�6
O
O
O
oo
O
N
O
O
O
O
N
M
00N
j
a
d
N
¢
d
kn
�y
�O
N
O
O
O
_
M
cry
[�
O
l�
M
00
_
O
-�
O
co
N
z
O
O
W
to
wl\
O
O
:
r,�
O0
O
O
O
O
n
M
O
O
oo
M
O
oo
N
>
¢
O
d
¢
Q
6~q
¢
bA
d
¢
¢
Q
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
¢
Q
Q
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
N
v v
-(al)
Q
¢
d
d
¢
¢
d
Q
¢
d
¢
Q
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
C4 :
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
N
Q
¢
d
¢
¢
¢
d
¢
¢
d
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
d
d
¢
¢
Z.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
d¢¢
z
z
z
Q
z
¢
z
Q
Q
Q
Q¢
d
d
d¢¢
d¢
Q
d
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
O
a�
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
d
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
¢
Q
d
¢
¢
¢
¢
wo
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
U
a
¢
¢
¢
d
¢
¢
Q
Q
¢
d
¢
¢
d
¢
d
d
¢
¢
¢
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Q
941
¢
Q
z
¢
z
¢
z
¢
¢
z
z
z
z
z
z
�
z
z
71
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
U �
O
¢
N
O
Q
Q
oo
oo
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
z
z
z
z
z.
z
z
z
z.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
QQ
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
z
z
z
z
z
�Qi
z
z
z%.
z I
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
y
¢
¢
¢
_¢
¢
¢
¢
d
¢
Q
¢
cd
z
z
z
z
z
_d
z
z
z
zz
z
z
_¢
z
_¢
z
z
z
z
z
z
Q
co
°
¢
Q
_Q
¢
¢
¢
_d
_d
_d
d
¢
d
Q
d
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
Q
Q
%
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
_d
z
z
zzzz
_d
z
Q
¢
Q
Q
¢
¢
Q
¢
¢
Q
d
d
Q
¢
¢
z
z
z
_d
%.
z
_¢
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
_Q
z
z
z
z
z
_d
z
z
y
L
scG
n
cq
.O
(
O
c
lu
as
04
b
3
N
i�
.�
N
b
x
a
'O
�../
`/
c
Vi
V
y
u
V
y
Ca
r-+
0
co
3
3
ar
ate.+
a
r
N
z
ci
a
o
2
`i'
cc
E11
CU
^p.
O
+�
b�A
a.
A
a
w
ca
ra
as
3
w
3
x
m
a
v
r
a
s
.G
Q
Q
cd
C,3
c
a`
u;
rig
d>
v
as
rx
0

0
kA _4
N
� N
�o
�o
r4
N
a
00
N
� N
V
N 0000
M
�n
N
O
00
O N x
00 N N00
�..�
N
00
N
•--'
M N .--�'� O
N
00
M
�D
O
M
O N rr
O
N
N
O�
M
N
N* ��i N It
N
I
N
kA •� fl
N
rl
rl
C
N
N
Qr
N
N
�
H
6
N
O�
l�
O M 171
N 00 O\ O N ^O
Off,
C
a\
N
O M O
Q, r-
* ON
N
N
0000
�
N M N
M N N O 4 "
,A .-
kA _0 d
N
� N
N
� N
y
O
L
U
f.74 00
N
1")%
o
Q�N00
a
N
00
O O O
O
p C 00 DD
kn
p00
O
N
N
C) N
N n
i
y
n
NN
O
M
^..
nj
vj N ,--� •-• N >0 00 M 00 z 00 U
O
r
O0
W)
-o
c \10;y O \O c>0
p
CD
O
a
w
H
w
R
a�
a
3 �
a�
a.
C
a
QY
t=
w
z�
w
aU,�^w
r% 0 r(U w°ca
O
0
z_
o
.c
t~ bq O N �l
A. .a °° c a � U
x
W
g
°
v w awi a c cn
w
►-
Apawaamaa3w3xaa
o�
y�, O ch
o °> > ro p W) c* a w w o o A o
co
�QQ a
0

0
•
z�
w
O
� O
a
ca
y
y
i0.
U
V
00
N
N
i
00
M
O
•••+
O�
�0
l�
O
+ N
O
O
N
N
a
�
�
M
C
M�
MOS
C
N
� N
30
N �
�•I
�t
N
�
.--�
N �
d•
�
M
0\
M
o.i
O
N *
'� 00
^p
v
eq
�
r^+ x
O
0
O,
0
0
0
O
0 0
It�0
0
00�
0
0
t-
0
M
.�
� O �n
N
O
O
N
cq
R
N
r -
M
M
O O—
N
N
O
N
� O
d• O
.fl
N
C
�
M O
O
N
R
h
L
U
O
00M
r -
O
Nkf)
W)
O
00
O\
r-
O
p
N
rn
C,
O
n
00
O*
N
N/
00
CN
F N
N
�N
N
N
vii
O
O
U
0
O
4
'�" O
��
C
O
o
°°
00
Q
E
N
a
�N
N
zzzz
o
N
¢
N
00
\O
O
.-•
N
01
O
•--•
�y N
�i
�
.,,
z
z
z
z
Z
kn
~
O
W)
000
O*
p
C
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
o0
n
kn
O/
a
O
z
z
z
z
a
W
W
c
0
d
C
v
Via_^
Wd
^ao.�
o
_
co
Fvl
a
}\�+
c
rLto
y
w
�3�
°''�
x�
to
�__
y
z
o
O
^
rte+
E
°ob
F.a
a
x
w
N
N
.a
.� '�
N
i..
ta
y R
d
a
Aaawaar�r�3w3xw
Cd
ca
0ca
,,
�QQ
a
4.
a
o
ic�a°a°d>Uv)3c�
rx
•
z�
w

•
•
•
Page 2-10
Project Condition and Monitoring Results
2.2.7 Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest gauges are located on the Camp Branch Site. One is located on the main channel
upstream of cross-section 1 and the second is located on the UT upstream of cross-section 5.
Table 2.4 below verifies that one bankfull or greater event occurred within the Camp Branch
restoration project in 2008 monitoring year.
Table 2.4
Verification of Bankfull Events
Camp Branch/Project No. 92350
Date of Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo # if available
12/2007
N/A*
Crest Gauge
N/A
Main Channel and Tributary)
8/2008
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
Main Channel and Tributary)
*Note from previous monitoring report: No bankfull events were observed to have occurred during the Year -1 (2007) monitoring period.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY
0
n
U

•
•
•
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology
Methods employed for the Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project were a combination of those
established by standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents and as well as previous
monitoring reports completed by EcoScience. Geomorphic and stream assessments were
performed following guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration a Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Vegetation assessments were performed following
the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006). JJG used the Flora
of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas by Alan S. Weakley as the
taxonomic standard for vegetation nomenclature for this report.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

SECTION 4
REFERENCES
n
u
C]

SECTION 4
• REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E.,
2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
EcoScience Corporation. 2007. Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration 2007 Annual
Monitoring Report (Year 1). Raleigh, NC.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
Rosgen, D L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs,
CO.
• Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and
Surrounding Areas (Draft April 2008). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill,
NC.
•
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
Project No. 92350 March 2009
Year 2 of 5

0 PC
SECTION 5
FIGURES
•

/ 0000
C
• LAX
y L/ S
4� lY
0
Qz
m O
OF
O Q
Q:� cl�
M O
r3Azv'
v
LL, �
`1 w
U Q
z w
Q
z�
z cn
Li
� � U
_ w Z
�m
cn
OCL
U
w Q
U U
z
40
co
f
�VOL*0
aw„U
VUlf /! ! • e
IMI IMI ♦ M �
IMM w .� ♦ � ,�
I►w s • lA i
MMMT 'i � N,j
40
'► i. R C
�j r ary
11 %
W
N Z
J
W
Of
CD Of
�O
z
0
Ln
�Q
cy)>-z
�J
z O fn
� D o 0
zoQZ o
U U -
O
w Z = � N
�0FOf
-
0U)Q z<
mz0ow
� Q z : >
a_
w
w
U
Z
�w
mI--
<
wx
DO
>�
O�
Q
w
QQ
Q
oU)
F-0
v� F -
Q
J U
�-i
w
C,r) Z J
I— Q
O
Z N
LJ
o
O
(N
w
Ln
Y-
0
D
0 0
Of
m
LLJ
O
O
w z
w
F- Q m
D
O
oU)
c)
E
Qz
m O
OF
O Q
Q:� cl�
M O
r3Azv'
v
LL, �
`1 w
U Q
z w
Q
z�
z cn
Li
� � U
_ w Z
�m
cn
OCL
U
w Q
U U
z
40
co
f
�VOL*0
aw„U
VUlf /! ! • e
IMI IMI ♦ M �
IMM w .� ♦ � ,�
I►w s • lA i
MMMT 'i � N,j
40
'► i. R C
�j r ary
11 %
W
N Z
J
W
Of
CD Of
�O
z
0
Ln
�Q
cy)>-z
�J
z O fn
� D o 0
zoQZ o
U U -
O
w Z = � N
�0FOf
-
0U)Q z<
mz0ow
� Q z : >
a_
w
w
U
Z
�w
mI--
<
wx
DO
>�
O�
Q
w
QQ
Q
oU)
F-0
v� F -
Q
J U
�-i
w
C,r) Z J
I— Q
O
Z N
LJ

•
0 d.
0
0
N
Lr) O
O
Q O r
D O 0
Q� Nt co
m ^II 0
Ll pr)
L, O
O w
W Z
LLI -i
Q m D
Q U O
0 N - L�
Q Z
of
(D�-
OQ
Q� 0�3:0 W_
Z V) i
W W
Z
U� NJ
zW W
wN Dof
Z
w Z U- 0
Q
U)m O
On
U
W Q
U U
Z
O
Ln
r7 Q
} Z
F- J
OZO L
Z O Q Z p
UU IY
WZ=ON
3OF--�
O(n�ZQ
0!�z0OW
Cl-az>-
n
W
W
U
Z
� W
m ~
Q
r-) :2
W X
00
5; ry
O d
ry Q -
a Q
QW
F— tY
QQ
o�
W Z
F— O
Q
J ()
QO
ry J
W
(nZ J
W
J
H( -)Q
O
Z -: N
G

-V 30 2 3�inol3 33S 3NI�HOiVN
-V J0 l 32if191J 33S 3NI�HO1`dW
rn
0
} ,r) 0
Of 0
a ,0 N
D O 0
0� -.4- co
m0 MO
li O
0 w
W Z
LLI —i
F— Q m 0Q U p
0 Vl L,
Q Z
ryO
U F-
0
o w_
F-
U' >
ww
Z
LLI U < J
z W
rf W
2 �
wZ OO
Q
�O
Cf) mCf)g
Ow
U�
wQ
U U
Z
IR
O
0404 Q
Z _
F— J
z N
O O Q Z p
F-
VUry
w Z = O N
3OF—_ry
O(nOfZQ
of Z O O w
CL Q Z:2 >-
n
w
w
U
Z
w
m ~
Q
D �
w X
C)O
>ry
On
ryn
nQ
Qw
F- ry
QQ
OV)
wZ
F- O
F-
< 0
-
QO
r J
w
(n ZLLJ UJ J
J
Pc)<
O
Z _: N
0

-V 30 Z 3Nnol3 33S 3NI�HOiVIN
rn d.
0
0
N Lu
r ,n O
af O
ao r7
Z) 0 0
af � co
m^LLJII M
O
O w
w z
LLJ -iIr
Q U p
O Ln � L-
Q Z
of C)
0 F--
0 <
cr ch Q-0 W_
ZF—
U) >
ww
N
Z
U OfJ
Qw Wa
ry
wV �Z
= I.i
wZ OO
Q
m O
O
U
w
Q
U U
Z
to
O
Ln
r7 Q
� Z_
� J
OZO Ln
Z O Q Z p
U U FY
w Z = O N
-3OF--�
oV)IrZQ
IrZOOw
IZ Q Z:2 >-
n :2>-
d
w
w
U
Z
�- w
m~
Q
n 'E
w X
0 O
>ry
Ow
Ir n
wQ
Qw
F— IY
QQ
oLr)
w Z
i- O
�n 1=
Q
J ()
QO
ch J
w
UjZJ
LL, LLJ J
F -0Q
O
Z -� N

Inv 0

•
0
•
PC
Appendix 1 - Vegetation Raw Data
Appendix 2 - Geomorphic and Stream Stability Data
Appendix 3 - Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
SECTION 6
APPENDICES
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

C]
•
1�1
APPENDIX 1
VEGETATION RAW DATA
1. Vegetation Survey Data Tables*
2. Representative Vegetation Current Condition Photos
3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
*Raw data tables have been provided electronically.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

•
•
•
Main Channel (2,71211)
t�oture Issue S 'tion lumhe "Su ected'C toe z ' , _ �: • Photo ID �f
1+04-1+08 Poor vegetative cover - BB
2+74-2+91 Poor vegetative cover - LB
3+21-3+46 Poor vegetative cover - LB
Vegetation Cover - Poor 3+77-3+85 Poor vegetative cover - BB 1
6+91-7+23 Poor vegetative cover - BB
11+36-11+59Poor vegetative over - RB
11+28-11+53 1 Poor vegetative cover - LB
LB - Left Bank Looking Downstream, RB - Right Bank Looking Downstream, BB - Both Banks, TOB - Top of Bank
Appendix 1.1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5

•
1�1
0
N
ca
It o
Cd
Q o
2
unw
0
O � N
R u
N
�
cd
a
O
In
�U.+
4w
N
CL
N
i
Cd
7e"
cC
me.�
O
'UU'
O
c�
'C
ten!
O
V1
y
y
�
N
En
00
e.
C
-
F�
�
p
N
40.
v
ti
y
ca
CL
;
3
CU
Q
El`_„
OL
r
v
i
on
'�
•°
En
o
o
ti
00
V
O
O
>>,
v
cqs
ms
°o
R
p
G
O
O
V
O
V
z
N
N
I
p
cC
O
y
N
•--�
O
O.
M
x
4.
0
N
0
N
0
�',
W
O
M
cd
,�
V
cd
o
,--�
pCL
p
y
ti
N
N
u
R
y
F.YCLC/]
Qw
(U
L
QI
^O
L
6
R
R
R
,
y
y
•L
�"
�
�
'�
^'
v
R
R
RGr
O
,�
,�
R
R
R
Y
CJ
C
y.
y
CJ
a
Q
^Cf
zy
A,
;I
;I
A
Q
Q
V1
'
L
a,
Q
0
N
ca
It o
Cd
Q o
2
unw
0
O � N
R u
N
�

•
•
Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
S ecies
4
3
2
1
0
Missing Unknown
Asimina triloba
3
1
1
Betula ni ra
32
13
1
1
Carva ovata
Celtis laevi ata
1
3
2
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
5
8
5
2
2
Cornus amomum
6
21
12
3
2
2
Cornus florida
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4
3
1
1
N ssa biflora
1
Quercus falcata
uercus michauxii
3
5
1
Quercus pagoda
5
4
1
Quercus phellos
10
1
1
Fa us grandifolia
Quercus rubra
Platanus occidentalis
6
l
2
Ulmus americana
3
4
1
1
l
TOTAL: 117
75
66 1-2-6
5
9
7
Appendix LI Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5

0
•
0
Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Appendix 1.1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5
a�
Asimina triloba
5
l
3
1
Betula nigra
84
71
11
1
1
Carya, ovata
1
1
Celtis laevi ata
13
9
1
1
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
34
18
12
2
2
Cornus amomum
62
30
26
4
2
Cornus florida
2
2
Fa us grandifolia
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
18
13
1
3
1
N ssa biflora
4
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
15
13
2
Quercus falcata
5
5
Quercus michauxii
13
7
3
3
Quercus pagoda
15
13
2
Quercus phellos
19
17
1
1
Quercus rubra
8
8
Ulmus americana
15
12
1
2
TOTAL: 17
315
225
56
16 4
14
Appendix 1.1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5

•
0
0
Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
D05010S-JG,SD-0001- ear:2
4
1
1 4
D05010S-JG,SD-0002- ear:2
36
26
2
3
5
D05010S-JG,SD-0003- ear:2
22
15
5
1
1
D0501OS-JG,SD-0004- ear:2
33
16
12
4
1
D05010S-JG,SD-0005- ear:2
33
11
18
4
D05010S-JG,SD-0006- ear:2
27
22
2
1
2
D05010S-JG,SD-0007- ear:2
33
8
17
3
5
TOTAL: 15
315
225
56
16
4 14
Appendix 1.1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5

•
U
•
Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
Appendix 1.1 Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Year 2 of 5

►]
►i
9
rn O
O
O M
N N
cl
w
U
N .0
� U
Q a
Wi
ai

►�
`C
U
N .0
1 O
Ci a
O
w
O
a
O
O
a
�
cz O
�
O
U
�
G
a
c�
Q
ILL
CL

•
CJ
re
APPENDIX 2
GEOMORPHIC AND STREAM STABILITY DATA
1. Stream Current Condition Table
2. Representative Stream Current Condition Photos
3. Stream Cross -Section Photos
4. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
5. Cross -Section Plots and Raw Data Tables*
6. Longitudinal Plots and Raw Data Tables*
7. Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables*
*Raw data tables have been provided electronically.
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

•
•
0
R—
T ►_
wc1
o
U
`O
�
N
4-i
tr'y
s "^7i
U
R7
4.
O
�
C
O
o
�
U
�
3
o
U
i
o
�
�
d
+
+
+
N
4
V+
�n
r
0+0
O
D1
6
N
01
cq
O
+
N
+
-t
N
W)
+
t—
C)
00
+
M
cq
O
b.
Q
U
CAi

U

A
I
Eli
rf)
FORi
Id
19

E
C�
u
00
Qo
N
A
u
00
0
�o
O N
OCd
U
Q
Ln
LnO
U
LA
I
K42
ai
o ��s
v ) MP
m
a.

w° rzz
i y
d
00
8
rA
rAU
U
w° rzz

E
I
rn o
o to
O M
Naa N
cd
re
N
w

I
Wd

•
•
9
° cl
40
O
Q C/] O
000
pp
O
O
000
00
000
00
000
00
C�
r,r�
ON
ON
t�
O
0
00
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
05�
O�
O
0
O
0
O
o Y
o
o
¢
¢
F~ z
z
z
z
z
z
z
N
H zCU-0 a
`�'
zcnJ:L.
z
z
a�
G
.Y
V
co
N
0
C
�
O
�
O
�
i
c•
_
O
'�•
CL
o
o
o
o
�,
-d
°
Cd
CL
OV
'C7
^
OCL
i.
N
U
En
cO
U
U
N
U
.�.
O
O
`n
w
�•
i
0
3
COa
i�
cai
`�
ca
a°i
U
r"
a>k
ami
3
O
C
�.
(D CL
CL C=
(U
w�
°
b
3
o
o
o
o
o
c
o
w
°
0
b
C
0
°
a°�
�'
C'.
V
v
ani
�
�.
Q
a�
d
U
U
a�
�,
C
v
°V
�
-0
a
d
r
O
ro
.
''
=
o
o
O
•,
,
CA
O
�.
CL
o
�.dw
N
00dv�C7Udwx¢www°
w
a0i
U'
N
�"
N
N
cn
v7
O
bA
�
s.
U
b
�
3
E
a
m
>
3
2

,7
•
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
VHF
o
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
v�
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' U
c
¢
¢
Q
Q
o c
�z���
z
z
Cl0
o
z
z
Cd
¢
z
a
z
�b
0
O
U
.b
40.
w
tf
0
Cc
�.
.o
-0N
,9
C..
Cl.
c
y
O
tc
o
CL
ami
C
y
O
O
O
uN
�
b
U
O
O
U
�
O
cl
O
D
U
ycl.
�•
a�
°�'
o
°�
3
ami
g
tn
w
3
h
a3
N
o
a>
U
Y
i
-0CL
Lu
Cl.
CL
o
o
3
o
a
o
0
0
'"
0
°
'>
'"
-v
o
o
°
,4
°
�'
.
c•
o
y
b
ai
ody
b
Qi
�
a�
..
U
Cl.
U�
;�
cc
•�
�
ti
a�
.�!
0
y
�
(D.�
a
.fl
41
�
y
r
Cly
N
4�
a�
O
„'�
U
.�
3
O
Q>
>
O
a�
a�
O
O.
adw�aa�n
0
.
OOdv�C7UQ
ID wxdwwc°
p
vQL
o
vi�t
-.
N
iV)
GA
�
Qv
w
o
(1)
ami
b
¢
0.1
U
Q
W C7
cz;
C7
x0.1°
a
V)
V)
°
�o
w
v�0 N O
N
>
c
a ¢'
cc
N U
X
b
O
N
¢

C
•
•
M
0
0
�n
c
c�
v W
U
�
3
� �
i
o
wi
O �
..
C 00
O o
V1
k
1
o
l�
N O
r1�
V
q
O
O
o n oo n r- n p in
o o6 rn r rn rn n
� rn rn rn
(,(aeaj►q.ie-;J) uol;enal21
M

•
171
•
O
i
O
O
w
k
Oa
N
U
�
�
3
a
o
V
�
O N
VL
I
�
o
r
0
N
O
O
N
O
O
00 00 et N 00 N
(faea;►qae-;{) uoi;en313
Cd
m
ca
3 ,o
a
0 OJ
OJ
kn
o w
a °
z Y N
(a
ini
O �
U
N U
X

•
C7
0
ami
ca
H
cl
ca
Q �
3 �
c Y
O
tn
a c o
� Y N
N �
U �
tf-, ct
N U
X
'O
C
N
iL
GL
Q
0
0
M
w
o ,
U
w
l
/1 ca
.. 3
1
M P
kn �
N c
o p
w
00
�♦��
�./
O
N
T�
O
CA
1
I
O
N
O
O
O
r
"n
In
(S-MJjiq.le-;j)
UOIJUA013
ami
ca
H
cl
ca
Q �
3 �
c Y
O
tn
a c o
� Y N
N �
U �
tf-, ct
N U
X
'O
C
N
iL
GL
Q

•
•
•
0
0
�t
M
�
O U
000�
O
•O
w O
N
O I
CD
�
o
o
0
0
00n r- �n \C
Cr,rn
((JUJJ►gJR-;j) uoI;en3121

•
•
•
0
N
0
0
�k
k
•a
�3
O
00
11
00
�y
.V
O
N
V
Q
cc
O
• �I
N
CD
U
�
o
V
0
N
`8
O
00 � O� Obi Obi O� Obi � ONi O� OOi
(hv.a;!gae-jj) uoI;enal'j
n,
U
Cu

•
Ll
•
O
ca
ca
U
0
0
0
0
0
00
w
�P.4
V
O
O
r�
O
N
O
(fae r;►q �e-;3) uol;enalg
O
ca
ca
U

•
L'
0
0
ski
0
0
00
0
t-
�
00
o
o
�I
w
�
G
o y
� O
�1
O
Q
i•r
o
0
N
O
O
QOi 00
(faeajigae-;3) uol;enal3
c
0
;a
9

•
V)
N
.0
CO
H

•
•
En
03
�s
d
cv
Q O
� o
.J
Y � kn
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
Oami
O
U
0
0
00
0
0
N
O �
00
o
w o
N
y 3 R
O 00
O O
00 O
N
�n
r
o�
o I
+
a�
kn
�
\p +
N
p
F
a c
o 3
CI1
O
II en
L o
U LIU
S Q L V
O
d
C CQ p '.4
N
� L
0.1 7r a�
O CC
U ►7 N C7 3
O
00
It
N O 00
00
00
(fapa�lgae-�})
UOIIPA313
En
03
�s
d
cv
Q O
� o
.J
Y � kn

•
a
c�
E-�
Q
o
O
a�
'd U
O �
cl
0
Nco
0
C
0
V
V
O
o U
0
0
0
t
0
0
M
00
O
O
N
�
w '^
c 3
0
R
00
O
O
N
O 'n
0
N 3
0o
I
0
o
�
+
o
Q N
N
O
o Eby
c �
i II o
o
I
C L
O cQ
V a N Qa
O
O D, 00 [� � �n d• M N
(faea;�qae-;3) UOIJUA313
a
c�
E-�
Q
o
O
a�
'd U
O �
cl
Nco

•
•
2
n�
ec-
z2
�I
!I
9I
SI
00
A o
N
C v
I
R
Li
a. c
A
?:
C1. N
OI
6
!
9
S
6
F
I
;uiond
ssulD
funpinipul
2

•
•
i
z �
a� 7
c
4 F
0
.�5
ne
ee
ze
Ile
oe
6j
1pj
�j
9j
sj
00
�j
U
L
t
■
w 5
2j
r
d
jj
U
g
� N
6
CP
9
.C'
15
TUa31ad
SSUID
IUnPE^^!PUI
.�5

•
•
•
i�l
U1G
APPENDIX 3
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW (INTEGRATED)
1. Current Condition Plan View (Integrated)
Camp Branch Monitoring Report — FINAL
Project No. 92350
Year 2 of 5
Jordan, Jones, & Goulding
March 2009

s..
AIF
J �I
v j
It A
K
. � zf-,e�,
U
w
U
A4
+ Ar
—z'
0
on
I
n
n
n
too
t
f if T
-
po 0 11� 1111 tl/ m.
�rrr w♦ arr
� • •ilk
r�as w i�
+r a_ Mr
r
rn
0
0
N
}
Of0
D 0 0
cr rl)
m ii 0
0
" o
w Z
� Q
Q U p
0 (n --3
L%N
-
w
Y
w
U
w
Z
Q
J
r1r) 0-
X Z
0
Z ~
W 0
a_0
Q U
H
Z
W
U
0
� Q
N
� � Z
ZO Ln
OD�O
Z
()<z p
F—
UUF
W N
Z = U
0U)QY Q
ofz0Ow
a<z:5>-
a.
w
w
U
z
�w
m~
Q
0 :E
w X
C) O
Ow
CY0-
a- <
-
aQ
LL)
QQ
Q
o�
� O
U)I--
< 0
--QO
Q!� J
w
(n w J
rP <
O
Z N
•
�n
O

w
_J
L.L.
O
fY
d
Q
z
0
z
O
J
Z_
U
w
m
NAD 83 —
z
Ar �f Ar
sEE �GVR�
E
MP,��NUN
•
z
w O
z F
a
LLI
JO LLI
x
O
O
a
I
O m
W Cw9 a
U J Q O Q
W (� I- w
Z LL -Y F- W
Z Y (n w
�V1 W
> z
F Q
� U
z w w I
V m U
o
w _
rn
O
O
N
LL-
>- LO O
WO
Q _ O r
Z) O O
Of -q- (O
in .II Ouj0
� � o
O w
w Z
Ld a m D
Q 0 O
0 V) I L
�
O
U �- w
0Of >
�O z
�~Q
Z w J
LU
w:2Fz
Q� z
w oO
z cn 0- z
w IZ O
U Q U
wz
F-- Q I-
�
m W
wQ D
U U U
z
10
O
L
rr) Q
�>-Z
F- —1
z O Ln
�0Qz o
U U ry
O
wZ=�--
DOS—ry
OV)O�ZQ
of z O O w
IZ Q Z:2 >-
n :2>-
d
w
w
U
Z
w
m~
Q
n >
w X
00
> ch
O0-
0-
�Q
Qw
F-- ly-
QQ
oV)
�O
Q
J U
Q
O
ch
w
V 1 W J
H U Q
O
Z - N
0

-v 30 2 3�inol3 33S 3NI�HOiVh
-b 30 L 3�1no13 33S 3NI�HOiVN
rn d-
0
0
N LL-
} Lr) O
O
a . o N
D 0 0
Q� �
m ^ o0
O
0 w
w Z
Q m
Q U 0
0 N � L
72
O
O W_
ryry Q 1
O Z
F--~ a
Zw
:� �
U � X Z
_ CY z O
z U) W
w 0-0
U Q
w U
� Q I—
m W
wQ
O v U
z
it
0
``'a
��Z
� J
b LO
z0<z 40--
C)
�-0Ury
w z = O N
-)0ry
0V)OO Q
Q!� z O 0 w
d Q Z :E >-
n
W
W
0
Z
W
m~
Q
0
W X
00
> n-
o n
rya
ma
aW
as
o�
w Z
F-0
Q
J (�
a0
ry J
W
U) LLJ lZ J
P(.)a
0
z. - N
0

JO Z 3�jnol3 33S 3NI�RDiVN
0
rn -q-
0
O
N
r Lr) O
cl� O
Q O P)
D O O
Of �
m II 0
O
O w
w Z
LLJ —1
F-- Q m
Q U O U
O N �
�O
O F= _W
� Q >
n Ir
O Z
Z w J
LLJ :5pr)
Qw D
_ W in
Z U) Z
w 0-0
U Q U
w Z
F- Qcn
H
U� m W
00- ItLLJj
U U
U U
Z
O
Ln
r7 Q
N
p)>- Z
F- J
Z O Lc)
O of U
Z O Q Z p
F-UUry
W Z I O N
SOF--CY
OQ
af Z O O w
Cl-QZ�>-
n
w
w
U
Z
W
m ~
Q
w X
00
> ry
O n
tr n
nQ
Qw
F— IY
Qa
o�
wZ
1--o
(n 1-
Q
J U
QO
r J
w
:7 —J
J
F- C� Q
O
Z N
Lj

N o
D
Q
Z
of
0
0
Z a
w 0 I
z F
Q
0 m
z (W') a U W
w�
z U-
HH
Q Z W W� N WUJ �
U m U > ? >
w
LLJJ
•
V)
x
(n
x
6,
O
0
N
N
x
0
to
W
o
OD
0
W
U
w
w n
a
0
N
O
a
0 It
0
0
N LL.
} ,n O
O
Q O 14-
0 O
tD
m II 0
LLI Z w
w J
I— Q m
Q U 0 O
0 (n ---.) L�
�O
O1= W
0ry
Q >
O Z
�- ~ Q
Z w J
:�i M
LLJ
U � X z
2 ry Z O
Z (n W �
LL) O
2U Q U
W Z
j m W
wQ
U U U
z
O
Ln
t") Q
��z
J
� Z 0 LO
ZOQZ p
I—UU�
LUZ=N
O
3OI--a
O(nchZQ
wz00Lv
dQZ:2>-
d
W
W
U
Z
�w
m~
Q
O:2
wx
00
5; It
O0-
o-
aQ
w
QQ
Q
oV)
�
o
�Q
--I U
Q
O
Ch
w
Z J
Po<
O
Z -: N
Is