20050377b Ver 1_Closeout Report_20120401

7
05 03776
Camp Branch Stream and Restoration
EEP Project No. 92350
USACE Action ID # 200531348
Closeout Report
Stream and Wetland Project
Construction Completed February 2007
Submission Date April 2012
Project Setting & Classifications
County
Anson
General Location
Ansonvjlle
Basin
Yadkin
Ph sjo ra hjc Re ion
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Triassic Basin
USGS Hydro Unit
03040105 081060
NCDWQ Sub basin
03 07 14
Wetland Classification
Nov 2008
Thermal Regime
Warm
Trout Water
No
Veg Monitoring Year 4
Feb 2011
Monitoring Year 4
July 2011
Project Performers
Aug 2011
Source Agency
NC DOT
Designer
EcoScjence Corporation
Monitoring Firm
Jordan Jones Goulding
Channel Remedjatjon
Plant remedjatjon
N/A
Property Interest Holder
NC DOT
aw�s C6
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Restoration Plan
Sept 2004
Final Design
June 2005
Construction & Plantings completed
Feb 2007
As built survey
May 2007
Monitoring Year 1
Oct 2007
Veg Monitoring Year 2
Sept 2008
Monitoring Year 2
Nov 2008
Veg Monitoring Year 3
July 2009
Monitoring Year 3
Jan 2010
Veg Monitoring Year 4
Feb 2011
Monitoring Year 4
July 2011
Veg Monitoring Year 5
Aug 2011
Monitoring Year 5
March 2012
Closeout Submission
Aril 2012

PC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Protect Setting and Background Summary
The Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project (Site) is located in Anson County, North Carolina
within the Piedmont Eco- Region of the Yadkin River Basin (USGS Subbasin HUC 03040105)
The Site includes one of the two Ecosystem Enhancement Program project sites located on the
200 -acre Bishop Site Camp Branch EEP Project #92350 and Dula Thoroughfare EEP Project
#65 The Site is confined within a North Carolina Department of Transportation -owned
conservation easement
The project channels have exhibited very limited bank erosion and no degradation of the profile
and have generally maintained the dimension of the cross - section (see cross - section overlays
below) The one area of eros ion/floodp lain scour that does exist on site is downstream of a
crossing at station 4 +55 — 5 +60 on reach 1 Two areas lack vegetative growth on the floodplain
because of poor soil conditions located at stations 10 +60 — 11+50 and 12 +15 - 13 +00 on reach 1,
although the bank heights are very low and these will likely vegetate with time Collectively this
represents 5 % of the project footage indicating that 95% of the reach bank footage is stable The
site is characterized by small, low energy channels that were subject to intense drought
conditions during the first year, which like many other small streams in the piedmont during this
time resulted in vegetation growth in the channel in some areas Beaver have also colonized parts
of the site on 2 occasions and have decolonized the site recently in 2012 These factors in
combination with potential sediment inputs above the project as noted by the monitoring firm
seems to have resulted in fining of the bed substrate distributions and has muted bedform, which
is observable in the tributary profile and substrate measurements However, this hasn't resulted
in any widespread bar formation capable of deflecting flows into neighboring banks Assuming
any potential upstream sediment sources moderate with time, future storm events will likely
evacuate this finer It should also be noted that according to the monitoring contractor the
precipitous fining described in the 2011 substrate data may be related to a change in monitoring
personnel material and inconsistencies in the monitoring experience /methodology Except for
localized low- growth areas, riparian zones were vegetating as expected and providing adequate
soil stabilization and protection All vegetative plots, except for plot 1, met the vegetative
success criteria
Goals and Objectives
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
within the Site were dredged, straightened, and filled for conversion into agriculturally
developed land These activities are thought to have impacted stream channel stability, therefore,
producing an incised, eroded stream and degraded water quality

OTC
The primary goal for the site included
• Improve water quality by reducing erosion through reconnection of the stream with a flood
prone area, riparian buffer filtering, and reconfiguring the stream to better attenuate flow
velocities
Secondary Site restoration goals included
• Increased stream biology through enhancement activities
• Protection of functional areas via preservation
The project goals were achieved by incorporating the following objectives
Priority II stream restoration (including all attendant benefits outlined in Rosgen 1996)
via excavation of approximately 1,767 linear feet (If) of a designed E/C -type stream of
the main Camp Branch channel on new location (creating 1810 It), including adjacent
floodplam 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 If and Priority II restoration of approximately 143 if of a designed
E/C -type stream of a unnamed tributary (UT) to Camp Branch, including floodplain
excavation along the UT upstream of Camp Branch to achieve a stable confluence
3 Re- establishment of the characteristic, pre - disturbance Piedmont Bottomland Forest
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches using bare root
seedling plantings
Camp Branch Stream April 2012
Restoration Closeout Report
EEP Project No 92350

Success Criteria
Characteristic
Standard
Dimension
Insignificant change in dimension from as -built
measurements or the previous year's
monitoring measurements Minor changes in
channel dimension are allowed, however,
dimension changes should not represent a trend
towards instability (e g increased width to
depth ratio or decreased width to depth ratio
with decreased entrenchment ratio)
Profile
Little change in longitudinal profile
Pattern and Profile
Pool /riffle spacing should remain fairly
constant
Substrate
Pools should not be aggradmg and riffles
should not scour
Substrate
Pebble count should trend toward a desired bed
material
Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology success criteria of 12 5%
for lower elevation wetland areas and between
5 -12% for upper landscape wetlands
Vegetation
Vegetative Plots success criteria of 260
stems /acre

is
CAMP BRANCH TRIBUTARY
REACH 5 REACH 2
REACH 7
s
1.
I le�
. 11
REACH
REACH 1
CAMP BRANCH
REACH 8 REACH 6
m
ii
iAi
750 375 0 750
Fee

3%
AA
NA
17'
_J
ll
%
Legend
Q,
-son, Conservation Easement
Figure 2: USGS Topography and Hydrologic Features Map Topographical Source: USGS
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Scale 1:9000
EEP Project No. 92350
ell, It Anson County, NC
a Fir
Closeout Report

Table 1
Project Components
Closeout Report: Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No. 92350
Restoration
Segment /Reach
Pre — Construction
(acreage /linear feet)
Mitigation
Approach
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Units
(SMU /WMU)
Camp Branch
R (P2)
1,767
y
1:1
�'
Reach 1
1,500
1,767
Reach 2
945
P
945
7:1
135
Reach 3 (Ut CB)
220
R (P1)
403
1:1
403
Reach 4 (Ut CB)
R (P2)
143
1:1
143
Reach 5
952
P
NA
7:1
135
Reach 6
2,162
P
NA
7:1
309
Reach 7 (Ut CB)
2,305
P
NA
5:1
461
Reach 8 (Ut CB)
1,481
P
NA
5:1
296
WETLAND
Wetland 1
2.36
P
NA
5:1
0.47
Wetland 2
2.75
P
NA
5:1
0.55
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation
Riparian Wetland Units
Non - riparian
Total Wetland
Riparian
Nutrient Offset
Wetalnd
Units (SMU)
Units
WMU
Buffer
3649
1.02
0
1.02
0
0

Table 2
Closeout Report - Stream Areas Requiring Observation
Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No. 92350
Monitoring Year
Station /Area
Description
MY5
Veg Plot 1
Planted stem survivability did not meet the required average of 260 stems /acre
Camp Branch Stations: 0 +00 - 0 +25
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Sharp bend transition into new channel - Left Bank
lookina downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 0 +75 -1 +00
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - No matting, poor veg - Right Bank looking
downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 2 +50 - 3 +50
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Poor vegetation cover, no matting - Right Bank
lookina downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 4 +55 - 5 +60
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Poor vegetation cover, poor soils, radius of curvature -
Left Bank looking downstream
MY5
Camp Branch Stations: 6 +91 7 +23
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Poor vegetative cover, poor soils - Right Bank looking
downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 8 +75 - 9 +00
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Poor vegetation cover, poor soils - Right Bank looking
downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 13 +67 - 13 +96
Bank Scour /Bare Bank - Poor vegetation cover, no matting - Left Bank
Camp Branch Stations: 2 +50 - 3 +50
Poor vegetative cover; poor soils - Both banks
Camp Branch Stations: 9 +20 - 9 +40
Poor vegetative cover; poor soils- Left Bank looking downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 10 +60 - 11 +50
Lack of vegetative growth on floodplain -poor soil conditions- Left Bank
lookina downstream
MY5
Camp Branch Stations: 11 +27 - 11 +52
Poor vegetation cover /soil conditions - Right Bank looking downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 12 +15 - 13 +00
Lack of vegetative growth on floodplain -poor soil conditions- Left Bank
lookin downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 15 +60 - 16 +15
Poor vegetation cover /soil conditions - Left Bank looking downstream
Camp Branch Stations: 2 +54 - 2 +72
Camp Branch Stations: 7 +19 - 7 +30
Camp Branch Stations: 8 +06 - 8 +12
Camp Branch Stations: 9 +50 - 10 +10
Camp Branch Stations: 10 +75 - 11 +00
MY5
Vegetation growing in middle of channel
Camp Branch Stations: 11 +62 - 11 +85
Camp Branch Stations: 13 +04 - 13 +48
Camp Branch Stations: 13 +99 - 14 +27
Camp Branch Stations: 14 +62 - 14 +91
MY5
ICamp Branch Station: 0 +00
IBeaver dam - Removed Early 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphs
Camp Branch ributa Cross - Section 2- Pool
98.2
98
97.8
97.6
mx
97.4
Al
97.2
97
c
96.8
0
96.6
w
96.4
96.2
96
Station (ft) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-- MY1- 10/2007 MY2- 5/2008 — MY3- 1/2010 t MY4- 2/2011 - MY5- 8/2011 Bankfull Water Surface
Camp Branch Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 92350
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphs
Camp Branch Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 92350
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphs
99 - - —__ _ Camp Branch (Main Channel) - Cross - Section 5- Riffle
98
98
97
Aoofr-
97
96
95
94
..
93
c
ar 94
92
w
91
90
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-- MYI- 10/2007 -- MY2- 5/2008 — MY3- 1/2010 t_ MY4- 2/2011 — MY5- 8/2011 Bankfull Water Surface
w 92
99
Camp Branch (Main Channel) - Cross- Section 6- Pool
98
97
96
95
ar 94
•�° 93
w 92
91
Station (ft) 0 20
40 60 80 100 120
—� MYI- 10/2007 MY2- 5/2008
—T— MY3 -1 /2010 MY4- 2/2011 MY5 - 8/2011 ...............1. Bankfull Water Surface
Camp Branch Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 92350
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphs
97 Camp Branch (Main Channel) - Cross- Section 7- Riffle
96
95
94
93
....................... .... .............. ..............
_ 92
a
91
m
w 90
89
Station (ft)D 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
MY1- 10/2007 1 MY2 -52008 MY3- 1/2010 MY4- 2/2011 MY5- 7/2011 ................ Bankfull Water Surface
Camp Branch (Main Channel) - Cross- Section 8- Pool
97
96
95
94
93
............................. . . ................... . ...............................
0 92
w 91
90
Station (ft) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
—� MY1- 10/2007 —+— MY2 -52008 — MY3 -12010 fi– MY4 - 2/2011 — MY5 -72011 ..... . . Bankfull Water Surface
Camp Branch Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 92350
April 2012

Table 3: Cross Section and Longitudinal Profile Graphs
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays Camp Branch -Main Channel
100
98 ♦ ! A - -
a 94 ♦ !
a 92 - -
o ♦ ♦
90
W 88 - `f
86 -
Station(ft)0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
T - /20 - 1 - - - - 1 ••••....• WS-7/2011 • BKF- 7/2011
Longitudinal Profileswith Annual Overlays- Tributary
_ 100
98
96
w
A 94
0
eta 92
M
:
-A
- - --
- - -- - - -- -
- --
--
A
=
!
1 - - --
4
Station (110) 100 200 300
400 500 600
- TW- 10/2007 TW- 5/2008 TW- 1/2010 TW- 2/2011
TW- 10/2011 A BKF - 10/2011 Cross - Section WS- 3/2012
Camp Branch Closeout Summary Report
EEP Project No. 92350
April 2012

Table 4
Closeout Report - Verification of Bankful Events
Camp Branch Main Channel EEP Project No 92350
Date of Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Location
Mar 2012
Unknown
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
Jul 2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
Jun 2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
Apr 2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
Feb 2011
2010
Visual
Jan 2010
2009
Visual Assessment wrack lines
Aug 2008
Unknown
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
Dec 2007
N /A*
Crest Gauge
(Main Channel and Tributary)
*Note from previous monitoring report No bankfull events were observed to have occurred
during the MY 1 monitoring period

Table 5 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
PARAMETER
Cross Section 1 Riffle
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Built
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1100
6 00
800
897
822
783
895
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
l 10
036
070
071
066
070
069
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
940
640
5 80
633
546
5 50
622
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
3730
3742
3742
3742
3742
3742
3742
Channel Slope
00047
00034
00034
00036
00039
00041
00041
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
PARAMETER
Cross Section 2 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Built
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 -2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
270
270
270
270
270
270
270
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
11 00
680
680
680
563
6 14
596
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
1 10
084
084
1 086
081
058
065
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
940
590
590
568
486
497
596
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
3730
3742
3742
3742
3742
3742
3742
Channel Slope
00047
00034
00034
00036
00039
00041
00041
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
1 20
*Pre construction cross section locations do not correspond to monitoring cross section locations therefore
pre construction cross section data was averaged along the entire reach
* *As built data based on Monitoring Year 1 survey

Table 5 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
PARAMETER
Cross Section 5 Riffle
DIMENSION
Pre Construction*
As Built **
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq rm)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankf ill Width (ft)
1780
21 00
21 00
2003
2043
2047
1995
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
240
1 80
1 80
1 86
1 77
1 60
1 64
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
4200
3780
3780
3732
36 18
3281
3265
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
18200
18204
18204
18204
18204
18204
18204
Channel Slope
00047
00100
00100
00103
00103
00110
00116
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
PARAMETER
Cross Section 6 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre Construction*
As-Built"
MYl 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1780
18 10
18 10
2274
2095
2067
1860
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
240
1 30
1 30
1 19
1 1 16
1 18
1 17
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
4200
2400
2400
2700
2420
2448
21 74
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
18200
18204
18204
18204
18204
18204
18204
Channel Slope
00047
00100
00100
00103
/-00103
00110
0 O l 16
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
*Pre construction cross section locations do not correspond to monitoring cross section locations therefore
pre construction cross section data was averaged along the entire reach
* *As built data based on Monitoring Year 1 survey

Table 5 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
PARAMETER
Cross Section 5 Riffle
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Built
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mn)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1780
1900
21 00
2003
2043
2047
1995
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
200
200
1 80
1 86
1 77
1 60
1 64
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
3870
3000
3780
3732
36 18
3281
3265
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16800
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
Channel Slope
00041
00100
00100
00103
00103
00110
00116
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
PARAMETER
Cross Section 6 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As -Built
MYl 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1780
1900
18 10
2274
2095
2067
1860
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
200
200
1 30
1 1 19
1 16
1 18
l 17
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
3870
3000
2400
2700
2420
2448
21 74
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16800
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
Channel Slope
00041
00100
00100
00103
00103
00110
00116
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10

Table 5 Morphologic and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restoration EEP Project No 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
PARAMETER
Cross - Section 7 Riffle
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Built
MY1 -2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 -2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1780
1900
2390
2356
2253
2444
2341
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
200
200
200
1 98
1 95
1 87
194
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft')
3870
3000
4740
4670
4391
4566
4551
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16800
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
Channel Slope
00041
00100
00100
00103
00103
00110
00116
Channel Smousity
1 05
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
PARAMETER
Cross Section 8 Pool
DIMENSION
Pre Construction
As Built
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
MY5 2011
Drainage Area (sq mi)
240
240
240
240
240
240
240
Mean Bankfull Width (ft)
1780
1900
2280
2376
1950
2444
2302
Mean Bankfull Depth (ft)
200
200
140
1 1 20
1 10
1 18
121
Mean Bankfull Cross sectional Area (ft)
3870
3000
31 60
2845
21 48
2873
2792
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16800
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
16724
Channel Slope
00041
00100
00100
00103
00103
00110
00116
Channel Sinousity
1 05
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10
1 10

Table 6
Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restorahon/EEP Project 92350
Type =Shrub or Tree
P =Planted T =Total
Current Data (MY5 -2011)
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot
5
Plot 6
Plot 7
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
cer negundo
box elder
T
5
55-�
2
cer rubra
red maple
T
171
8
lnus serrulata
hazel alder
S
2
l
simina trtloba
pawpaw
T
3
3
Baccharts hamtltfolta
groundsel tree
S
Betula ntgra
river birch
T
6
L28
10
14
6
16
10
13
7
8
Celtas laevtgata
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occtdentahs
common buttonbush
S
1
3
2
3
5
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
11
11
5
12
8
8
10
10
Fraxtnus pennsylvantca
green ash
T
2
3
3
6
2
5
Juntperus vtrgtntana
eastern red cedar
S
l
1
1
1
Ltqutdambar styraciva
sweet gum
T
1
2
Nyssa Mora
swamp tupelo
T
v
1
1
Ptnus taeda
loblolly pine
T
39
Platanus occtdentahs
American sycamore
T
2
6
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
Quercus mtchaux u
swamp chestnut oak
T
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
Quercus ntgra
water oak
T
2
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
3
1 3
2
2
1
l
l
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
2
2
4
4
2
3
l
1
Saltx ntgra
Iblack willow
T
I
2
Ulmus amertcana
American elm
T
5
6
1
if
1
I 1
1
1
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
00247
2
2
6
12
1 5
7
7
1 9
5
8
9
1 11
7
7
4
4
20
167
14
27
29
41
15
38
27
39
28
29
162
162
810
6761
567
1093
1174
1660
607
1538
1093
1579
1134
1174
Type =Shrub or Tree
P =Planted T =Total

Table 6
Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Closeout Report Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project 92350
Type =Shrub or Tree
P =Planted T =Total
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Current Mean
MY1 2007
MY2 - 2008
MY3 2009
MY4 2010
P 7
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer negundo
box elder
T
5
29
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
13
Acer rubra
red maple
T
N/A
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
lnus serrulata
hazel alder
S
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8
simina trdoba
pawpaw
T
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
N/A
N/A
Bacchar►s hamrhfolra
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
Betula nrgra
river birch
T
8
16
6
6
9
9
9
8
9
13
Celtis laevrgata
sugarberry
T
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
'2
1
2
Cephalanthus occrdentahs
common buttonbush
S
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 5
4
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
9
10
9
9
8
8
9
9
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvan►ca
green ash
T
2
5
9
9
8
8
N/A
N/A
2
3
uniperus vlrgmrana
eastern red cedar
S
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Lrguidambar styraciflua
sweet gum
T
N/A
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
12
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
T
N/A
39
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
T
2
1 2
2
2
1
3
1
2
N/A
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
T
1
2
2
1 2
2
2
2
2
2
1 3
Quercus nrgra
water oak
T
1
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
Sahx nrgra
black willow
T
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Ulmus amerncana
American elm
T
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
r
15
20
12 12
12 13
11 12 10
17
42
143
44 44
45 67
35 41 34
110
742
2065
1087 1087
995 1215
989 1001 931
2296
Type =Shrub or Tree
P =Planted T =Total

Table 7
Closeout Report - Comparison of Historic Rainfall to Observed Rainfall
Camp Branch Stream Restoration and Wetland EEP Project No 92350
Month
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Average
30%
70%
Jan
386
1 63
204
307
1 05
374
255
492
Feb
3 31
3 35
1 93
434
301
363
259
467
Mar
343
425
5 37
265
436
450
342
5 57
April
1461
462
240
047
1 98
309
2 16
402
May
024
1 85
524
489
346
321
229
4 12
June
461
067
216
473
649
425
301
548
July
1 97
448
466
3 74
391
431
342
520
Aug
279
5 84
264
6 18
509
429
304
5 53
Set
1 14
443
209
1 06
860
3 84
261
507
Oct
410
2 17
2 15
000
3 75
354
250
457
Nov
028
229
700
036
3 75
3 14
247
3 81
Dec
548
334
568
224
1 93
302
235
369
Year
4582
3892
4336
3373
4738
4453
3241
5665
30%
70%
Month
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Month
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Jan
1 16
049
061
092
032
Jan
270
1 14
1 43
2 15
074
Feb
099
1 01
058
1 30
090
Feb
232
235
1 35
304
2 11
Mar
1 03
1 28
161
080
1 31
Mar
240
298
3 76
1 86
3 05
April
438
1 39
072
014
059
Aril
1023
323
1 68
033
1 39
May
007
056
1 57
1 47
1 04
May
0 17
1 30
367
342
242
June
1 38
020
065
1 42
1 95
June
323
047
1 51
3 31
454
Jul
059
1 34
1 40
1 12
1 17
July
1 38
3 14
326
262
274
Au
084
1 75
079
1 85
1 53
Aug
1 95
409
1 85
433
3 56
Se t
034
1 33
063
032
258
Set
080
3 10
1 46
074
602
Oct
123
065
065
000
1 13
Oct
287
1 52
1 51
000
263
Nov
008
069
2 10
0 11
1 13
Nov
020
1 60
490
025
263
Dec
164
1 00
1 70
067
058
Dec
3 84
234
3 98
1 57
1 35
All information gathered from nearby weather station KNCTROY 1 information gathered from www wunderground com

re
SUMMARY
EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
Overall the Site has matured as expected and is trending towards complete stability and self -
sustainability. Stream related inefficiencies discussed earlier appear to be attributed to watershed
contribution and not instability within restored reaches. Regarding vegetation, the Site has
exhibited acceptable coverage, survivability and diversity that coincide with similar mitigation
projects. Areas of vegetative inefficiencies appear to be attributed to a lack of establishment in
areas of mineral soil dominance, as is common during restoration construction.
EEP recommends site closure pending the implementation of contingencies
Camp Branch Stream April 2012
Restoration Closeout Report
EEP Project No. 92350

Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY I - 11/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
�7 EEP Project No. 92350
I?F� C111ent Closeout Report
Page 1 I &C

r, t
OV MO
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
I
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 92350
tem
;iiyll�enl� Closeout Report
Page 2 1 a Fir

Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 3: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
F�,�� EEP Project No. 92350
I'.iF itenul Closeout Report
" Page 3 Fir

Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 4: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 92350
1;u Iai ci1m Closeout Report
Page 4 0 Pe

Cross Section 5: View Upstream
(MY I - 11/2006)
Cross Section 5: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 5: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 5: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
r-� EEP Project No. 92350
I ;n I�n tend, Closeout Report riv
� Page 5

Cross Section 6: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 6: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 6: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 6: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
�7 EEP Project No. 92350
_i is�$tem IC
l�I � Illelll Closeout Report
Page 6

Cross Section 7: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 7: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 7: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 7: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Figure 4: Photographs Prepared By:
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
r--f . EEP Project No. 92350
1 1i1i`i2t�n�,t Closeout Report pit
- Page 7

Cross Section 8: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 8: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 11/2006)
Cross Section 8: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 8: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Prepared By:
Figure 4: Photographs
Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 92350
1�I Mi Olchi Closeout Report pit
Page 8

PC
APPENDIX A
WATERSHED PLANNING SUMMARY
There is no Local Watershed Plan associated with this project; it is not located in a Targeted
Local Watershed.