20050377b Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20110715

Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Project No. 92350
2010 Monitoring Report: Year 4 of 5
July 2011
Prepared for NCDENR -EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by Jordan, Jones & Goulding
309 E Morehead St, Suite 110
Charlotte, NC 28202
Design Firm EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
r~
E aTumie t
lROC' RN.a
AITZMA
gw
AN&A
NCDENR
OS-O3a? b
�9�

Table of Contents
SECTION I — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 1 Goals and Objectives 1 -1
1 2 Vegetative Assessment 1 -2
1 3 Stream Assessment 1 -3
1 4 Annual Monitoring Summary 1 -3
SECTION 2 — METHODOLOGY
2 1 Methodology 2 -1
SECTION 3 — REFERENCES
SECTION 4 — APPENDICES
List of Appendices
Appendix 1— General Figures and Plan Views
1 1 — Project Vicinity Map
12 — Current Condition Plan View
Appendix 2 — General Protect Tables
2 1 - Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
2 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History
2 3 - Project Contacts
2 4 - Project Attribute Table
Appendix 3 — Vegetation Assessment Data
3 1 — Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success
3 2 — Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
3 3 — Vegetation Plot Summary Data Table
3 4 — Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix 4 — Stream Assessment Data
4 1 — Stream Station Photos
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 3 of 5

Page u
Table of Contents
4 2 — Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
4 3 - Verification of Bankfull Events
4 4 - Cross - Sections Plots and Raw Data Tables
4 5 - Longitudinal Profile and Raw Data Tables
4 6 - Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

ii
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project (Site) is located in Anson County, North Carolina
on property owned by Mr John Bishop within the Piedmont Eco- Region of the Yadkin River
Basin (USGS Subbasm HUC 03040105) (Appendix 1 1) The Site is one of two 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 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 fourth year of the five year monitoring plan for the Site
11 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 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
Restoration goals for this project include
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 project objectives include
• 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, including adjacent floodplain excavation to achieve
an entrenchment ratio characteristic of E/C -type streams
• 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 UT to Camp Branch, including floodplain excavation along the UT upstream
of Camp Branch to achieve a stable confluence
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

Page 1 -2
Executive Summary
• Level II stream enhancement of approximately 945 if of Camp Branch upstream of its
confluence with the UT via riparian plantings adjacent to the Camp Branch stream banks
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 Bankfull benches were created along
Reach 1 and 4 to re- establish floodplam connection at the existing stream elevation Along
Reach 3, the tributary's streambed was raised to re- connect the channel with its floodplam at a
higher elevation The Site's riparian areas were planted to improve habitat and stabilize stream
banks via planting bare root seedlings to recreate pre - disturbance vegetative communities within
their appropriate landscape contexts Appendix 2 provides more detailed project activity,
history, contact information, and watershed /site background information for this project
12 Vegetative Assessment
JJG conducted the 2010 (year 4 of 5) vegetative assessment and vegetative plot analysis in
February 2011 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, 288 stems /acre after the fourth year of monitoring, and 260 stems /acre after
the fifth and final year of project monitoring
The monitoring data recorded an average of 34 planted live stems per plot The site density is
approximately 931 planted stems per acre, which exceeds the year 4 goal of 288 planted stems
per acre Although all plots met the vegetation success threshold with the exception of plot 1,
the results from plot 1 did not affect the site's average survivability to be considered
unsuccessful Plot 1 is located in the preservation reach, which has an existing hardwood forest
within the floodplam The vigor of the live planted stems within the plots also appears to have
been affected by wildlife activity and drought over the monitoring years Planted stems that
were struggling in previous years have continued to improve in vigor, with the exception of those
in plot 1 as discussed above
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 2010 monitoring year, the site has
exceeded 320 stems per acre Please refer to Appendix 3 for more detailed information on the
2010 vegetation data
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

Page 1 -3
Executive Summary
13 Stream Assessment
Results from the 2010 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 mayor
advancements toward instability within the reach
Main Channel
Overall, the main channel is maintaining both lateral and vertical stability The average bankfull
width (22 5 ft) of the surveyed cross - sections is very close to the upper range of the proposed
design range of 16 -22 ft 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 0038 ft/ft and 0 0034 ft /ft, respectively
All four cross - section pebble counts within the Main Channel indicate a trend toward finer
sediment composition Compared to MY -3, the overall trend appears to be toward aggradation
of the bedform The accumulation of finer substrate may indicate erosion in upstream areas
Tributary
Based on current monitoring data and the visual inspection, the channel's dimension appears to
be functioning properly and maintaining stability No erosional failure was observed along this
reach The average bankfull width (6 6 ft) of the surveyed cross - sections is similar to the
proposed design width of 6 4 ft Compared to the MY3 (2009) data, the thalweg profile appears
to have shifted from well - defined riffle and pool features to a continuous run The reasons for
this shift are uncertain at this time, but the tributary will be reevaluated in the MY5 (2011)
survey and the results conveyed promptly to EEP to determine if any action is needed The
average water surface slope and the average bankfull slope were very similar for the surveyed
reach, 0 0102 ft/ft and 0 0092 ft /ft, respectively
Pebble counts within the Tributary indicate a trend toward finer sediment composition compared
to previous monitoring years This decrease in bedform distribution diversity may indicate
erosion in upstream areas
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 At
least one bankfull event occurred within the 2010 monitoring year, which was verified through
field indicators such as wrack lines and other visual observations
15 Annual Monitoring Summary
In summary, the Site has met the stream and vegetation mitigation goals for monitoring year 4
The 2010 vegetation plot monitoring results indicate that the planted and naturally recruited
vegetation is doing well at the site, although some minor vegetation problems were noted due to
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

1 -4
Executive Summary
herbivory from deer and drought The pattern, profile, and dimension of the restored channel
appear to be maintaining vertical and lateral stability with minimal bank erosion As discussed
above, the profile of the unnamed tributary appears to have experienced a relatively significant
change from MY3 This reach will be reevaluated in the MY5 (2011) survey Corrective
measures will be discussed with EEP if the MY5 profile characteristics are similar to those found
in MY4
As in previous years, a few problem areas were observed, such as moderate bank erosion,
moderate to poor streambank cover, patches of in- stream vegetation, and aggradation These
areas of stream instability do not appear to have advanced from the previous monitoring years,
however, these areas will continue to be monitored closely for shifts in the bed features and the
channel thalweg Heavy sediment deposition is occurring on the downstream end of the main
channel where the restoration reach converges with the preservation reach but is not causing
stream instability at this time
The background information provided in this report is referenced from the mitigation plan and
previous monitoring reports prepared by EcoScience (2007) Summary information /data related
to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics related to performance
of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report
appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports
can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on EEP's website All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

0
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY

SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
21 Methodology
Methods employed for the Camp Branch Stream Restoration Project were a combination of those
established by standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents 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 a] , 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 Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

SECTION 3
REFERENCES

SECTION 3
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 him)
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 Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

JJd
SECTION 4
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - General Figures and Plan Views
Appendix 2 - General Project Tables
Appendix 3 - Vegetation Assessment Data
Appendix 4 — Stream Assessment Data

PR
APPENDIX I
GENERAL FIGURES AND PLAN VIEWS
11 - Vicinity Map
12 - Current Condition Plan View
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

�.
elf, ri
1. A-A
.,1 R
Stream Restoration (Priority 1)
j�
!Stream Restoration (Priority 2)
Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
't; l ire ♦fit` -r'` - Stream Preservation
Wetland Preservation
Pond
/ � -`�_ •� "' \`�� - it � \ 1 �.. � : 1 `' - ° -
�' ,a+r� �,_1 ~�`ir /lf= It `— lT��.:�.� a'� !k � ♦ J ��"�,! i:� '� � - _. —
RD cN ,' ra f
` 1 �a\ '``�,\♦ ..1 ir v 1 r SJ1 !✓` -,J
qb
ZZE
Wart
or
rf v r•_ J r- M �'". _]1� J \�s,_ <i ''t. 1 f;. Ill
Directions to the Site: t '
The Site is located north of Wadesboro in Anson County, NC, just upstream of the ti F f Legend
confluence ofthe Rocky and Yadkin Rivers. From Charlotte, take US Highway 74
East to Wadesboro, then take US 52 north. Approximately 1.3 miles south of USGSSource: NCDOT GIS Conservation Easement
US 52's crossing over the Rocky River, turn east onto Carpenter Road (a gravel road). >_• -_ ti: County Boundary
Follow Carpenter Road to the east. Gated access points to the Site (one for Camp ` ff Mum
Branch, one for Dula Thoroughfare and UT to Dula Thoroughfare) abut Carpenter ( �2,000 1,000 0 2,000 1!A
Road from the east. tr ti�t.l I t I Feet i
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Anson County, NC
n 1al titeienttt Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Submittal Date: July 2011

/ /V
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
Wetland Preservation
-- Terrace Crest
Pond
---- Extent of Bankfull Bench
2010 -Bank Erosion
Channel Bottom
2010 -Bank Slump
Channel Top
2010- InStream Vegetation
Stream Centerline
2010 -Poor Vegetative Cover
Cross - Section
0
Crest Gauge
Stationing (100' Interval)
Veg Plot
Success Criteria
Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
Q
Meets
Stream Preservation
(
Does Not Meet
r_ll2
�tem
Ldl 8 �111CI1t
500 250 0
NOTES:
1. GENERAL SITE DATAARE PROVIDED BY NCEEP.
2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
REACH 4
REACH 3
500
■ Feet
PROJECT NO. 92350
ANSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 5
ire
REACH 1
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM DATE: JULY 2011
CAMP BRANCH STREAM RESTORATION SCALE: 1" = 60'
JOB NO.: JJX31100
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW I FIGURE INDEX

JJG
APPENDIX 2
GENERAL PROJECT TABLES
2 1 - Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
2 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History
2 3 - Project Contacts
2 4 - Project Attribute Table
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

Table 2 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Camp Branch Stream Restorat►on/EEP Project No 92350
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R Ell P
P
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
9 794 if
5 2 ac
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project
Component/Reach ID
Stationing (ft)
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acres
Mitigation Ratio
Reach 1 Camp Branch
0+00-17+94
1 500 If
P2
Restoration
1 767 If
I 1
Reach 2 Camp Branch
N /A*
9451f
N/A
Enhancement
Level ?
9451f
25 1
Reach 3 UT Camp Branch
0+00-4+33
220 If (total)
Pi
Restoration
4031f
1 1
Reach 4 UT Camp Branch
4+33-5+76
Included in
Reach 3 total
P2
Restoration
1431f
1 1
Stream Preservation **
N /A*
6 563 If
N/A
Preservation
6 5631f
5 1
Wetland Preservation
N/A
5 2 ac
N/A
Preservation
5 2 ac
5 1
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream (linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
R►verme
Non R►verme
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
52
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HQ Preservation (P)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
9 821
52
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell SF = Sand Filter SW = Stormwater Wetland WDP = Wet Detention Pond DDP Dry Detention Pond FS = Filter Strip S =
Grassed Swale LS = Level Spreader Ni = Natural Infiltration Area FB = Forested Buffer
*Enhancement and Preservation reaches were not stationed

Table 2 2 Protect Activity and Reporting History
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Protect 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 4 yrs 0 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 4 yrs 0 months
Number of Reporting Years 4
Activity or Report _
Data Collection Completed
Actual Completionro,rDelivery
Restoration Plan
Aug 04
Sep 04
Final Design (90 %)
Mar 05
Jun 05
Construction
N/A
Feb 07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project
area "
N/A
Throughout construction
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
N/A
Oct 06
Bare Root Seedling Installation
N/A
Feb 07
Mitigation Plan
Jun 07
Oct 07
Final Report
Jun 07
Oct 07
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct 07 /Dec 07
Oct 07 /Dec 08
Year 2 Monitoring
May 08 /Set 08
Nov 08
Year 3 Monitoring
Jul 09 /Jan 10
Jan 10
Year 4 Monitoring
Jun 10 /Jan 11
Feb 11
Year 5 Monitonng
TBD
TBD
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed

Table 2 3 Project Contacts Table
Camp Branch Stream Restoration /EEP Project 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street Suite 101
Designer
Raleigh NC 27604
919 828 3433
Vaughn Contruction Inc
Tommy Vaughn and Spencer Walker
Construction
(Foremen)
P O Box 796
Wadesboro NC 28170
704 694 6450
Kiker Forestry and Realty
P O Box 933
Planting Contractor
Wadesboro NC 28170
704 694 6436
Seeding Contractor
N/A
Monitoring Performers
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street Suite 101
Year 1
Raleigh NC 27604
919 828 3433
Jordan Jones & Goulding Inc
Year 2- present
309 E Morehead St Suite 110
Charlotte NC 28202
Stream Monitoring, POC
Alison Nichols 704 527 4106 ext 227
Ve etahon Monitoring, POC

Table 2 4 Protect Attribute Table
Camp Branch Stream Restoration /EEP Protect 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project County
Anson County North Carolina
Drainage Area
2 9 square miles
Impervious cover estimate %
<1 percent
Stream Orders (per USGS Too Quad Ma
Camp Branch/UT to Camp Branch
2nd/lst
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
EcoRe ion Griffith and Omernik
Triassic Basins
Ros en Classifications of As built
C4 E /C4
Camp Branch/UT to Camp Branch
Cowardm Classification
Streams R2UB 121R4SB23
Camp Branch /UT to Camp Branch
Dominant soil types
Badm Channery Silt Loam (BaB BaC) Badm
Goldston Complex (BgD) McQueen (MrB)
Shellbluff (ShA) Tetotum (ToA) Chewacla
hA
Reference Site ID
N /A* (reference areas established on Site)
USGS HUCs for Project and Reference
3040105
NCDWQ Sub basins for Project and Reference
03 07 14
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9
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
"N /A — Not Applicable

J]
APPENDIX 3
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
3 1 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success
3 2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
3 3 Vegetation Plot Summary Data Table
3 4 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Project No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

Appendix 3 1 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success
Camp Branch Stream Restoration /EEP Project 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met
(Y/N)
—Vegetation
Plot 1
N
Plot 2
Y
Plot 3
Y
Plot 4
Y
Plot 5
Y
Plot 6
Y
Plot 7
Y

Vegetation Plot 1 (2/2011)
Vegetation Plot 3 (2/2011)
Vegetation Plot 2 (2/2011)
Vegetation Plot 4 (2/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix 3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Pre ared B
r--;j Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
} , Monitoring Year 4
n1 Submittal Date: March 2011

Vegetation Plot 5 (2/2011)
Vegetation Plot 7 (2/2011)
Vegetation Plot 6 (2/2011)
Prepared For: A pp endix 3.2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Pre aced B
r►� Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
�� Monitoring Year 4
11 n jai ;cnx•nt
Submittal Date: March 2011

Table 3 3 Planted and Total Stem counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Current Data (MY4 2010)
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
1 Plot 6
Plot 7
Current Mean
MY1 2007
MY2 2008
MY3 2009
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer negundo
box elder
T
25
1
N/A
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
2u
^' y
N/A
Alnus serrulata
tag alder
S
15
1
N/A
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Asimina trnloba
pawpaw
T
3
3
N/A
N/A
2
2
2
2
2
4
Bacchans hamdifoha
groundsel tree
S
7
1
N/A
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Betula nigra
river birch
T
71
7
10
16
11
18
1 101
12
71
7
9
13
6
6
9
9
9
8
Celtis laevigota
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
S
2
2
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
2
2
12
15
9
it
8
8
10
11
8
8
9
9
8
1 8
9
9
Froxmus pennsylvamca
green ash
T
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
9
9
8
8
Liquidambarstyrocnfluo
sweet gum
T
1
14
1 12
1
4
1
16
15
8
N/A
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
T
I
I
I 1
1
I
I
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
T
25
27
48
19
4
3
N/A
25
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Platanus occidentahs
American sycamore
T
2
7
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
T
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2 1
2
1 2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
2
2
4
5
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Sahx mgra
black willow
T
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ulmus amerncana
American elm
T
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
00247
2
2
9
11
6
1 8
7
11
1 6
8
9
12
7
11
10 1
15
7
7
7
7 1
12
13
4
4
1 25
69
15
1 55
30
100
1 31
75
27
49
29
45
34
89
1 27 1
27 1
25
30 1
38
42
162
1 162
110121
27941
607
12227
11215
14049
1 12551
30361
1093 1
1984111741
1822 1
931
2296 1
1087 11087
1
995
1215 1
989
1001
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Appendix 3 4 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Planted Acreage 42
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1
7
0 106
025%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3 4, or 5 stem count criteria
0 1
0
0
0%
- = -- - - — -— _- w e t s Total
, {0.
0
, 0 25% —
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
�q
Easement Acreage 95
Mapping
% of
Threshold
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
(SF)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000
0{
0
0%
�q
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
0
0
0%

0
APPENDIX 4
STREAM ASSESSMENT DATA
4 1— Stream Station Photos
4 2 — Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
4 3 - Verification of Bankfull Events
4 4 - Cross - Sections Plots and Raw Data Tables
4 5 - Longitudinal Profile and Raw Data Tables
4 6 - Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Monitoring Report Jordan Jones & Goulding
Protect No 92350 July 2011
Year 4 of 5

Cross - Section 1 -View Upstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Cross - Section 2 -View Upstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Prepared For:
c�
En ent
Cross - Section 1 -View Downstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Cross - Section 2 -View Downstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Appendix 4.1 Stream Cross - Section Photos
Date: March 2011
EEP Project No.: 65

Cross - Section 3 -View Upstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Cross - Section 4 -View Upstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Prepared For:
c�
Cross - Section 3 -View Downstream
Tributary(2 /2011)
Cross - Section 4 -View Downstream
Tributary (2/2011)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Appendix 4.1 Stream Cross - Section Photos
Date: March 2011
EEP Project No.: 65

Cross - Section 5 -View Upstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Cross - Section 6 -View Upstream
Main Channel (2/2011)
Prepared For:
r_�_J
Cross - Section 5 -View Downstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Cross - Section 6 -View Downstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Appendix 4.1 Stream Cross - Section Photos
Date: March 2011
EEP Project No.: 65

Cross - Section 7 -View Upstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Cross - Section 8 -View Upstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Prepared For:
c�
i,I ant
Cross - Section 7 -View Downstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Cross - Section 8 -View Downstream
Main Channel (2 /2011)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Appendix 4.1 Stream Cross - Section Photos
Date: March 2011
EEP Project No.: 65

Appendix 4 2 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
Main Channel (1,767 If)
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Channel Channel
Category Sub Category
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
-
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
L.enth Appropnate
0
Condition
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
Number
100%
4 Thalweg Position
0
100%
Number with
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
for
K —
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
A Stable
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and are
Unstable
Unstable
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
Woody
as intended
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dilodged boulders or logs
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
Vegetation
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
3
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 /
- -
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth 2! 16
Rootwads/lo s providing some cover at baseflow
-
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
AU]USI
Number
100%
0
0
100%
Number with
Footage with
for
Stable
Total
Number of
Amount of
A Stable
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
as intended
As Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
3
212
88%
- -
1 _ -
--
0
0
100%
21
24
_
_ h 1
_
s
88%
19
24
79%
19
24
79%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
_ — — — ­7 — b — —
9
334
91%
0
0
91%
-
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
9
334
91%
0
0
91%
9
9
1
I 11 llrl
I I 1 1
100%
I
� 1 111
li I
I I
9
9
100%
9
9
100%
9
9
100%
9
9
100%

Appendix 4 2 Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
Tributary (5461f)
Camp Branch Stream Restorat►on/EEP Project No 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Adjust /
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable
Total
Number of
Amount of
/ Stable
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub Category
Metric
as Intended
As Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradatwn
F
0
0
100/
_
Dcgredation
0
0
100/
(Riffle and Run units)
-
--
-I } f
r
2 Riffle Condition
Texture /Substrate
16
16
-
100/
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
17
17
100/
_
J k F
Lenth Appropriate
17
17
100 /
Condition
{ _
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
i
r
= —
--
4 Thalweg Position
o �
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
_
I - -
- a +
r
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100/
Banks undercudoverhangmg to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
—
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100/o
providing habitat
-
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100/
0
0
100/
-� _
- _ Totals
0
0
100/
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no ddodged boulders or logs
1
1
1 it
100/
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100 /o
II ' iI
H II I i II
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
1
1
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 /
1
1
loon/
{4
I �
1 i
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth > 16
Rootwads /lo s providing some cover at baseflow
1
1
100/

Appendix 4 3 - Verification of Bankfull Events
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Protect No 92350
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Date of Co Collection
��
Da a of
Occurrence
Method ��
lz
Photo #"`(if a ail�ahle
t 4m
Dec -07
N /A*
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
Aug 08
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
Jan 10
2009
Visual Assessment wrack lines
N/A
Feb 11
2010
Visual
N/A
"Note from previous monitonng report No bankfull events were observed to have occurred during the Year 1 (2007)
monitoring period

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name
Camp Branch
EEP Project Number
92350
Cross - Section ID
XS -1, Riffle, 02 +50
Survey Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
97.85
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft 2)
5.50
Bankfull Width ft
7.83
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
99.07
Flood Prone Width ft
54.83
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.70
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.22
W/D Ratio
11.19
Entrenchment Ratio
7.00
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
97.49
xs1-1 t
0.07
97.46
xsl
0.74
97.5
xsl -r t
1.76
97.62
xsl
4.69
97.63
xsl
7.89
97.69
xsl
10.68
97.46
xsl
13.35
97.36
xsl
17.1
97.78
xsl
19.91
97.79
xs1
22.05
98.09
xsl
23.91
97.98
xsl -lb
25.76
97.47
xsl
27.14
96.8
xsl -lew
28.57
96.63
xsl
29.63
96.76
xs 1 -rew
32.33
97.9
xsl -rb
34.39
98
xsl
37.5
97.97
xs 1
40.74
98.04
xsl
43.75
98.09
xsl
46.75
98.11
xsl
49.49
98.14
xsl
52.57
98.17
xs 1
54.83
98.25
xsl
XS -1: View Upstream
XS -1: View Downstream
Camp Branch (Tributary) - MY4
Cross - Section 1- Riffle
98.6
98.4
98.2
98
_
97.8
.... ............................... .......... ...... .................. ............. ............ ...............................
97.6
97.4
c
97.2
97
r-
96.8
96.6
96.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
- ; -MYI- 10/2007 tMY2- 5/2008 - ►( -MY3- 1/2010
--�- MY4 - 2/2011 ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name
Camp Branch
EEP Project Number
92350
Cross - Section ID
XS -2, Pool, 02 +77
Survey Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
97.60
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
4.97
Bankfull Width ft
6.14
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
98.85
Flood Prone Width ft
65.71
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.81
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.25
W/D Ratio
7.58
Entrenchment Ratio
10.71
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
97.63
xs2-1 t
0
97.56
xs2
2.21
97.71
xs2
6.52
97.84
xs2
9.86
97.79
xs2
11.77
97.7
xs2
14.29
97.36
xs2
17.56
97.38
xs2
20.69
97.78
xs2
23.54
97.7
xs2
26.24
97.77
xs2
31.6
98.01
xs2 -Ib
33.92
97.19
xs2
34.71
96.56
xs2 -lew
36.37
96.5
xs2
37.5
96.35
xs2 -rew
38.41
96.9
xs2
38.93
97.65
xs2
40.84
97.92
xs2 -rb
41.43
97.9
xs2
44.6
97.67
xs2
47.93
97.76
xs2
50.61
97.71
xs2
53.68
97.79
xs2
56.59
97.66
xs2
59.75
97.55
xs2
62.62
97.49
xs2
65.61
97.45
xs2
lxs2-rpt
65.71
97.48
XS -2: View Upstream
XS -2: View Downstream
Camp Branch (Tributary) - MY4
Cross - Section 2- Pool
98.2
98
97.8
97.6
_
97.4
97.2
97
c
96.8
w 96.6
96.4
............................................. ............................... ...................................... ...............................
96.2
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
-dr- MYI- 10/2007 ---4- MY2- 5/2008 -M-Y3-1/2010
---� MY4 - 2/2011 ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name
Camp Branch
EEP Project Number
92350
Cross- Section ID
XS -3, Riffle, 04 +68
Survey Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
94.79
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft 2)
3.17
Bankfull Width ft
6.58
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
95.43
Flood Prone Width ft
39.58
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.48
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.64
W/D Ratio
13.71
Entrenchment Ratio
6.02
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
-4.68
97.28
xs3-1 t
-4.19
97.21
xs3
-1.59
96.4
xs3
1.54
95.43
xs3
4.52
94.87
xs3
7.38
94.77
xs3
10.68
94.8
xs3
13.34
94.81
xs3
17.2
94.78
xs3
18.12
94.88
xs3 -Ib
19.16
94.2
xs3 -lew
22.84
94.15
xs3 -rew
25.83
95.11
xs3 -rb
29.59
94.85
xs3
33.97
94.99
xs3
37.25
95.03
xs3
40.54
95.27
xs3
45.54
96.64
xs3
47.65
96.64
xs3
47.72
96.54
xs3 -r t
XS -3: View Upstream
XS -3: View Downstream
Camp Branch (Tributary) - MY4
Cross- Section 3- Riffle
97
96.5
96
2;
95.5
0
95
94.5
............. .......... ..................... ..... ............................ ........
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
-- - -MY1- 10/2007 MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
MY4 -2/201 I ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name
Camp Branch
EEP Project Number
92350
Cross - Section ID
XS -4, Pool, 04 +84
Survey Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
94.76
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft 2)
3.19
Bankfull Width ft
6.03
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
95.65
Flood Prone Width ft
35.50
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.53
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.89
W/D Ratio
11.38
Entrenchment Ratio
5.89
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
97.32
xs4 -t t
3.18
96.08
xs4
6.45
94.87
xs4
9.2
94.5
xs4
11.94
94.64
xs4
15.28
94.74
xs4
17.69
94.68
xs4
21.08
94.67
xs4
24.45
94.71
xs4
26.19
94.73
xs4 -lb
28.35
93.94
xs4 -lew
29
93.87
xs4
29.82
93.93
xs4 -rew
32.31
94.78
xs4 -rb
36.09
95.08
xs4
38.38
95.18
xs4
42.33
96.45
xs4
44.32
97.14
xs4
46.33
97.09
xs4
46.47
97.09
xs4 -r t
-- t -MYl- 10/2007 tMY2- 5/2008 --m--MY3- 1/2010
-6- MY4- 2/2011 ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface
XS -4: View Upstream
XS -4: View Downstream
Camp Branch (Tributary) - MY4
Cross - Section 4- Pool
98
97.5
97
96.5
y
96
95.5
0
95
M
94.5
. . ...... .. ..
--------- - - - - -- .......... .................. ...............................
w
94
.................................................... ............................... ........................ ...............................
93.5
93
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft)
-- t -MYl- 10/2007 tMY2- 5/2008 --m--MY3- 1/2010
-6- MY4- 2/2011 ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name Cam Branch
EEP Project Number 92350
Cross - Section ID XS -5, Riffle, 08 +95
Survey
Bankfull Elevation ft
93.92
XS -5: View Upstream
32.91
t
XS -5: View Downstream
Date
2/2011
96.34
Flood Prone Width ft
98.48
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.60
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.42
W/D Ratio
12.79
Entrenchment Ratio
Station
Elevation
Notes
2.3
97.98
xs5 -1 t
3.51
98.02
xs5
4.37
97.74
xs5
6.71
97.05
xs5
9.42
96.41
xs5
91
12.85
95.48
xs5
16.37
95.05
xs5
Station (ft)
��- MY1- 10/2007 t MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
�� MY4 -2/201 ] ...... Bankfull ...... Water Surface
19.47
94.99
xs5
23.22
94.84
xs5
26.84
94.67
xs5
29.75
94.63
xs5
32.59
94.7
xs5
35.42
94.81
xs5
37.97
94.75
xs5
40.35
94.67
xs5
43.08
94.48
xs5 -lb
46.32
93.57
xs5
47.18
93.36
xs5
48.17
92.6
xs5 -lew
49.64
92.1
xs5
50.97
91.62
xs5
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
61.41 92.64 xs5 -rew 76.65 94.14 xs5 101.51 95.6 xs5 123.89 98.2 xs5- t
62.67 93.12 xs5 80.77 94.11 xs5 105.17 96.02 xs5
64.14 93.44 xs5 84.73 94.33 xs5 109.56 96.49 xs5
65.63 93.95 xs5 87.99 94.81 xs5 113.75 97.29 xs5
67.45 94.14 xs5 -rb 91.02 95.13 xs5 115.65 97.47 xs5
70.56 94.29 xs5 94.22 95.29 xs5 120.83 98.07 xs5
73.72 94.31 xs5 97.72 95.34 xs5 123.49 98.19 xs5
52.23
91.57
xs5
53.59
91.7
xs5
54.93
91.67
xs5
56.12
91.63
xs5
57.31
91.53
xs5
58.41
91.5
xs5
59.91
91.65
xs5
60.83
91.87
xs5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
93.92
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
32.91
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
93.92
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
32.91
Bankfull Width ft
20.47
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
96.34
Flood Prone Width ft
98.48
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.60
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.42
W/D Ratio
12.79
Entrenchment Ratio
4.81
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Camp Branch (Main Channel) -MY4
Cross - Section 5- Riffle
99
98
97
96
95
� 94
0
93
91
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
��- MY1- 10/2007 t MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
�� MY4 -2/201 ] ...... Bankfull ...... Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name Cam Branch
EEP Project Number 92350
Cross - Section ID XS -6, Pool
Survey
Bankfull Elevation ft
x.
XS -6: View Upstream
24.28
XS -6: View Downstream
Date
2/2011
96.00
Flood Prone Width ft
100.39
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.18
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.88
W/D Ratio
17.52
Entrenchment Ratio
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
97.78
xs6-1 t
1.72
97.78
xs6
x
a
°- 94
5.11
97.29
xs6
8.82
96.18
xs6
...................................... ............................... ... .............................. ...............................
92
11.87
95.29
xs6
15.08
95.19
xs6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
tMYI- 10/2007 --- � -MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
18.34
94.72
xs6
21.22
94.65
xs6
24.41
94.66
xs6
28.04
94.71
xs6
31.48
94.53
xs6
35.08
94.48
xs6
38.92
94.56
xs6
41.72
94.6
xs6
45.14
94.53
xs6
49.75
94.13
xs6 -]b
52.73
94.12
xs6
55.57
93.65
xs6
57.12
93.02
xs6
57.6
92.53
xs6 -lew
59.41
92.24
xs6
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
77.68 94.22 xs6 106.16 95.58 xs6
80.75 94.13 xs6 111.49 96.19 xs6
84.16 94.03 xs6 116.67 96.47 xs6
88.13 94.22 xs6 121.03 97.28 xs6
92.09 94.74 xs6 129.54 98.03 xs6
96.92 95.36 xs6 130.82 98.17 xs6
102.2 95.78 xs6 131.16 98.16 xs6- t
61.5
92.34
xs6
63.52
92.44
xs6
65.09
92.54
xs6
66.82
92.36
xs6
68.47
92.53
xs6 -rew
70.01
93.25
xs6
72.17
93.86
xs6
74.24
94.29
xs6 -rb
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
94.12
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
24.28
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
94.12
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
24.28
Bankfull Width ft
20.67
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
96.00
Flood Prone Width ft
100.39
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.18
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.88
W/D Ratio
17.52
Entrenchment Ratio
4.86
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Camp Branch (Main Channel) -MY4
Cross - Section 6- Pool
99
98
97
96
� 95
x
a
°- 94
ro
w 93
...................................... ............................... ... .............................. ...............................
92
91
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
tMYI- 10/2007 --- � -MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
�� MY4- 2/2011 ...... Bankfull • • • • • • Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name Cam Branch
EEP Project Number 92350
,.
Cross - Section ID XS -7, Riffle
Survey
�!
r,
XS -7: View Upstream XS -7: View Downstream
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.86
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
45.66
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
96.22
Flood Prone Width ft
98.94
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.87
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.36
W/D Ratio
13.07
Entrenchment Ratio
4.05
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
25.52
93.27
xs7-lb
27.87
92.57
xs7
29.5
91.73
xs7
31.44
90.91
xs7 -lew
33.6
89.68
xs7
36.24
89.5
xs7
38.42
89.75
xs7
40.61
90.26
xs7
42.61
90.88
xs7 -rew
45.45
91.58
xs7
48.3
91.98
xs7
51.37
92.69
xs7
54.3
92.85
xs7 -rb
56.73
92.86
xs7
61.7
92.89
xs7
68.11
92.72
xs7
74.55
92.62
xs7
79.64
92.71
xs7
84.66
92.86
xs7
89.13
93.63
xs7
93.93
94.95
xs7
99.82
95.64
xs7
103.18
95.88
xs7
Station Elevation Notes
104.22 96.19 xs7- t
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.86
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
45.66
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.86
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
45.66
Bankfull Width ft
24.44
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
96.22
Flood Prone Width ft
98.94
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.87
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.36
W/D Ratio
13.07
Entrenchment Ratio
4.05
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
3.77
96.29
xs7 -1 t
4
96.28
xs7
7.64
95.37
xs7
11.19
94.2
xs7
15.83
93.42
xs7
20.73
93.1
xs7
25.52
93.27
xs7-lb
27.87
92.57
xs7
29.5
91.73
xs7
31.44
90.91
xs7 -lew
33.6
89.68
xs7
36.24
89.5
xs7
38.42
89.75
xs7
40.61
90.26
xs7
42.61
90.88
xs7 -rew
45.45
91.58
xs7
48.3
91.98
xs7
51.37
92.69
xs7
54.3
92.85
xs7 -rb
56.73
92.86
xs7
61.7
92.89
xs7
68.11
92.72
xs7
74.55
92.62
xs7
79.64
92.71
xs7
84.66
92.86
xs7
89.13
93.63
xs7
93.93
94.95
xs7
99.82
95.64
xs7
103.18
95.88
xs7
Camp Branch (Main Channel) -MY4
Cross - Section 7- Riffle
97
96
95
94
° 92
90
89
0 20 40 60 SO 100 120
Station (ft)
tMYI- 10/2007 - �-MY2- 5/2008 ��MY3- 1/2010
-� MY4- 2/2011 ...... Bankfull ...... Water Surface

Appendix 4.4 Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name Cam Branch
EEP Project Number 92350 tt.
Cross- Section ID XS -8, Pool
Survey
XS -8: View Upstream XS -8: View Downstream
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.48
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
28.73
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
94.54
Flood Prone Width ft
91.26
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.18
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.06
W/D Ratio
20.71
Entrenchment Ratio
3.73
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
22.1
93.02
xs8
28.14
92.65
xs8
33.85
92.71
xs8
37.64
92.69
xs8-lb
40.36
92.73
xs8
43.29
92.42
xs8
46.36
92.31
xs8
49.17
91.46
xs8
50.73
90.72
xs8 -lew
52.36
90.52
xs8
53.75
90.59
xs8
55.24
90.42
xs8
57.42
90.73
xs8 -rew
60.91
91
xs8
63.86
91.39
xs8
66.02
92.08
xs8
69.26
92.31
xs8 -rb
73.27
92.73
xs8
80.47
92.58
xs8
86.37
92.49
xs8
94.45
92.76
xs8
101.15
94.15
xs8
106.67
95.2
xs8
Station Elevation Notes
114.98 96.07 xs8- t
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.48
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
28.73
Bankfull Width ft
Date
2/2011
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
92.48
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
28.73
Bankfull Width ft
24.44
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
94.54
Flood Prone Width ft
91.26
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.18
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.06
W/D Ratio
20.71
Entrenchment Ratio
3.73
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
-4.6
96.77
xs8 -1 t
-4.34
96.75
xs8
0.07
96.43
xs8
6.03
95.89
xs8
11.01
94.74
xs8
17.48
93.35
xs8
22.1
93.02
xs8
28.14
92.65
xs8
33.85
92.71
xs8
37.64
92.69
xs8-lb
40.36
92.73
xs8
43.29
92.42
xs8
46.36
92.31
xs8
49.17
91.46
xs8
50.73
90.72
xs8 -lew
52.36
90.52
xs8
53.75
90.59
xs8
55.24
90.42
xs8
57.42
90.73
xs8 -rew
60.91
91
xs8
63.86
91.39
xs8
66.02
92.08
xs8
69.26
92.31
xs8 -rb
73.27
92.73
xs8
80.47
92.58
xs8
86.37
92.49
xs8
94.45
92.76
xs8
101.15
94.15
xs8
106.67
95.2
xs8
Camp Branch (Main Channel) -MY4
Cross - Section 8- Pool
98
97
96
95
� 94
c
°- 93
w 92
91
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
+� MY1- 10/2007 � -MY2- 5/2008 MY3- 1/2010
�-� MY4- 2/2011 ...... Bankfull ...... Water Surface

Appendix 4.5 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Camp Branch -Main Channel
Longitudinal Profile
2010 Monitoring Year
MY4of5
98
96
♦
_ 94
c�
AA
AA
A
AA A
4� 92
0
AA A
0
c�
W
90
88
86
0 200 400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600 1800 2000
Station (ft)
TW- 10/2007 TW- 5/2008
TW- 1/2010
TW- 2/2011
......••• WS- 2/2011
♦
BKF- 2/2011 • Cross - Section
♦

Appendix 4.5. Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Camp Branch-Tributary
Longitudinal Profile
2010Monitoring Year
MY4of5
100
♦
99
A
A A
98
97
W_
AL
A
. .. . ...........
A
96
95
. .........
94
93
92
91
0 100
200
300
400 500 600
Station (ft )
-TW-10/2007 -TW-5/2008
TW-1/2010
-TW-2/2011 ......•••• WS-2/2011
♦ BKF-2/2011 • Cross-Section ■ Rifflel
♦
♦

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name: Camp Branch - Tributary
Cross - Section: I
Feature: Riffle
MY4- 2/2011
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
96
96%
96%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
96%
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
96%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
96%
coarse sand
1.00
0
0%
96%
very coarse sand
2.0
2
2%
98%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
2
2%
100%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
100%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
00//(
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
07/.
1 100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
1 100%
D84
D95 0.06
and D84 were not calculated due to particle size.
Individual Class Percent
t00%
90%
80%
70%
0 60%
50%
u 40%
9 ;0i
a 20%
�. 101%
0
O" Particle Sme (mm)
SKY I(10 /2007) ■MY2(5 /2008) -MY3(1 /2010) 0 MY4(2/2011)
11
� ■ ■Il.w��. ■■on��■ ■11111 ■ ■��'.r� ■ ■�IIIII
1
f1
�
■■
111111
■
■�11111�
■
■�11111�!�'illll�■
■111111
�
■
■III!lillr•
■
■�11111�
■■
■11111
■�IIIIII�■
■111111
�
■
■■
11111
■■
111111
■
■ ■11111�[ir
■11111
■
■i111111
,
�
■■
■11111
■
■IIIIII�
■■
■11111-'
■ ■11111■
■111111
�
■■
■11111
■
■111111����11111�
'
■ ■11111■
■111111
.,
�
■
■IIIIII�
■
■ /lllll���l��
iii
■■
■11111■
■111111
�■■
I11111�
■II�11111.I�ilrlr�11111�
■■
■11111■
■11111
1 � ■ ■�IIIII��;.1� ■'1111 ■ ■IIIIII� ■■ ■11111■ ■111111
1 .
Individual Class Percent
t00%
90%
80%
70%
0 60%
50%
u 40%
9 ;0i
a 20%
�. 101%
0
O" Particle Sme (mm)
SKY I(10 /2007) ■MY2(5 /2008) -MY3(1 /2010) 0 MY4(2/2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration /EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name: Camp Branch- Tributary
Cross- Section: 2
Feature: Pool
MY4- 2/2011
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
89
89%
89%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
2
2%
91%
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
91%
medium sand
0.50 1
0
0%
91%
coarse sand
1.00
0
0%
91%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
91%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
3
3%
94%
fine gravel
5.7
2
2%
96%
fine gravel
8.0
4
4%
100%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
1 0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
1 0%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50
D84
D95 4.85
and D84 were not calculated due to particle size.
Individual Class Percent
100%
901/6
80%
70%
a 60%
50%
u 4(r
30%
s 20%
s 10%
HE, .. . . . . . . _ - I .
ai
O�'LO 5 O.yS 05 1 'I, 0 ,`'y �b ,y'y �� a5 'JA qp `,ti0 , §' ry,p ,�b'L ;CL ,D.'L� pCl'Qb
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI0-001) ■MY2(5/2008) 'MY3(1/2010) ■MY4(2 /2011)
�11111� ®�':'�III:!!LI■■
�■■ �IIIII�■■ /!!.- :� ■ ■�IIIII
■ ■ ■♦Illll���i�llll�■ ■11111
:�
�■ ■111111 ■ ■1 II
�■ ■III!:' 11111 ■ ■�11111� ■1111111■ ■111111
�■
■1111
�
■
■�IIIII�
■
■IIIIII�I�
■111111■
■111111
'
.,
�■■
�IIIII�
■
■�11111�
■
■IIIIII�I
■�IIIII�■
■111111
-
�
■
■�11111�
■
■111111���111111
�
■
■�11111�■
■111111
.,
�
■■
111111
■
■ /lllli�
■
■��IIII�
■
■�IIIII�■
■111111
�
■■
111111
■I,�11111�
■
■�IIIII�
■
■�IIIII�■
■111111
�
■
■�IIIII�
■�I�IIIII�
■
■�IIIII�■
■111111■
■111111
�
■
■�IIIII�
/
■�IIIII�
■
■�IIIII�■
■111111■
■111111
Individual Class Percent
100%
901/6
80%
70%
a 60%
50%
u 4(r
30%
s 20%
s 10%
HE, .. . . . . . . _ - I .
ai
O�'LO 5 O.yS 05 1 'I, 0 ,`'y �b ,y'y �� a5 'JA qp `,ti0 , §' ry,p ,�b'L ;CL ,D.'L� pCl'Qb
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI0-001) ■MY2(5/2008) 'MY3(1/2010) ■MY4(2 /2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Cross - Section: 3
Feature: Riffle
Description I Material
Sand
very fine sand
fine sand
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
Gravel
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
course gravel
course gravel
very coarse avel
very coarse gravel
Cobble
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
Boulder
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
Bedrock
bedrock
TOTAL % of whole count
64%
Summary Data
D50
5%
D84
72.67
D95
154
were not calculated due to particle size
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
s0%
70%
y 60%
50%
u 40%
a 30%
s 20%
9
10%
0%
-P `tit PTO ,1,56 "b'L h�ti `�•bb rypA a,Ab
Particle Size (mm) CN
•MYI(10 /2007) ■MY2(512008) -MY3(1 /2010) 2 MY4(2 /2011)
MY4- 2/2011
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum %
).062
55
55%
55%
).125
1
1%
56%
).250
0
0%
56%
0.50
1
1%
57%
1.00
3
1 3%
60%
2.0
4
4%
64%
4.0
5
5%
69%
5.7
0
0%
69%
8.0
2
2%
71%
11.3
4
4%
75%
16.0
2
2%
77%
22.3
1
1 1%
78%
32.0
0
0%
78%
45
2
2%
80%
64
2
2%
82%
90
6
6%
88%
128
5
5%
93%
180
4
4%
97%
256
0
0%
97%
362
2
2%
99%
512
1
1%
100%
1024
0
0%
100%
2048
0
0%
100%
10096
t 0
0%
100%
100
100%
100%
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
s0%
70%
y 60%
50%
u 40%
a 30%
s 20%
9
10%
0%
-P `tit PTO ,1,56 "b'L h�ti `�•bb rypA a,Ab
Particle Size (mm) CN
•MYI(10 /2007) ■MY2(512008) -MY3(1 /2010) 2 MY4(2 /2011)
.,
''
■
■I11111�■
■■11111
�:::GG�i�
■.r!!
; ?:iiii��It111
:'
�
■■IIIIII�
■
■■1lINI�
■■�IIII�!!;:!
:ilk■
■■11111
�
■
■III!:t�■
Illlr�
■
■■111!!��r1111111�■
■111111
'
�■■■
�IIII�■
1_■
IIIII�Zr
■11111��1
■��tlll�
■ ■��IIII
-:.
.'
�
■
■■1:„��■■�1111�
■
■IIIIII�I
■111111■
■111111
�
�.
■Iltyll�
■
■■11111���111111%■
■111111■
■111111
.
�
■
■IIIIII�
■
■IIIIII��■■11111�■
■■11111■
■111111
'
�
■■
111111
■I,�IIIII�■
■■11111■
■■11111■
■111111
'
�
■
■IIIIII�
■��■11111�■
■■11111■
■■11111■
■111111
�
■
■IIIIII�I
■IIIIII�■
■■11111
■ ■IIIIII�■
■111111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
s0%
70%
y 60%
50%
u 40%
a 30%
s 20%
9
10%
0%
-P `tit PTO ,1,56 "b'L h�ti `�•bb rypA a,Ab
Particle Size (mm) CN
•MYI(10 /2007) ■MY2(512008) -MY3(1 /2010) 2 MY4(2 /2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Tributary
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name: Camp Branch - Tributary
Cross- Section: 4
Feature: Pool
MY4- 2/2011
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
100
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
100%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
100%
coarsesand
1.00
0
0%
1 100%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gra vel
5.7
0
0%
100%
fine ave1
8.0
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very laze cobble
256
0
1 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
1 100%
Summary Data
D50
D84
D95
D84, and D95 were not calculated due to particle size.
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
g 70%
a 60%
so^r
V 40%
a
.d 3o^i
20%
10%
0%
Ob'L \15 01,5 05 \ 'y a 51 4 \ \'h \b ryry'S n'L p5 bb q0 \,ti4 \�O ry5b �b'Y � \'Y \O�,b ry�6 b
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI(10 /2007) •MY2(5 /2008) *MY3(1 12010) •MY4(2/2011)
� ■ ■�IIIII����11111�
■ ■�IIIII�■ %:. It ■�IIIII
. �
�
■
■�IIIII�
■■
/11111
��i11111���111111�■
■111111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
g 70%
a 60%
so^r
V 40%
a
.d 3o^i
20%
10%
0%
Ob'L \15 01,5 05 \ 'y a 51 4 \ \'h \b ryry'S n'L p5 bb q0 \,ti4 \�O ry5b �b'Y � \'Y \O�,b ry�6 b
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI(10 /2007) •MY2(5 /2008) *MY3(1 12010) •MY4(2/2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Cross - Section: 5
Description Material
Silt/Clay silt/clay
very fine sand
fine sand
Sand medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
Gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
course gravel
course gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
Cobble
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
Boulder
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
Bedrock
bedrock
TOTAL % of whole count
1.00
Summary Data
D50
1.5
D84
9.65
D95
14.59
Cumulative Percent
;;.; �■ ■■11111■ ■111111 ■ ■IIIIIII� �' "=�■ ■11111
� ■■ ■11111 ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■1111!:% �IIIIII� ■■ ■11111
'' � ■■ ■11111■ ■111111 ■ ■1� %i!� 1111111 ■■ ■11111
., �■ ■111111 ■ ■111111��!�IIIII Ii ■IIIIII� ■■ ■11111
� ■ ■Illlll����lllll�i ■111111 I ■111111 ■■ ■11111
. , � ■ ■Iliii�����m�l� ■�IIII � ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■■11111
� ■ ■tl: illy ■ ■ /IIIIi�i�ii�1111�■ ■111111■ ■■11111
=■ ■ ■IIQ� I prim 11
■■11111- ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■■11111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
so%
€ 70%
y 60%
50%
U 40%
v 30%
a 20%
S 10%
0%
Particle Size (mm)
■MY1(1012007) ■MY2(5 /2008) tMY3(1 /2010) ■MY4(2/2011)
MY4-2 /2011
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum %
0.062
46
46%
46%
0.125
0
0%
46%
0.250
0
0%
46%
0.50
0
0%
46%
1.00
2
2%
48%
2.0
4
4%
52%
4.0
12
12%
64%
5.7
9
9%
73%
8.0
7
7%
80%
11.3
8
8%
88%
16.0
10
10%
1 98%
22.3
0
0%
98%
32.0
1
1%
99%
45
1
1%
100%
64
0
0%
100%
90
0
0%
100%
128
0
0%
100%
180
0
0%
100%
256
0
0%
100%
362
0
0%
100%
512
0
0%
100%
1024
0
0%
100%
2048
0
0%
100%
40096
0
01/1
100%
100
100%
100%
Cumulative Percent
;;.; �■ ■■11111■ ■111111 ■ ■IIIIIII� �' "=�■ ■11111
� ■■ ■11111 ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■1111!:% �IIIIII� ■■ ■11111
'' � ■■ ■11111■ ■111111 ■ ■1� %i!� 1111111 ■■ ■11111
., �■ ■111111 ■ ■111111��!�IIIII Ii ■IIIIII� ■■ ■11111
� ■ ■Illlll����lllll�i ■111111 I ■111111 ■■ ■11111
. , � ■ ■Iliii�����m�l� ■�IIII � ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■■11111
� ■ ■tl: illy ■ ■ /IIIIi�i�ii�1111�■ ■111111■ ■■11111
=■ ■ ■IIQ� I prim 11
■■11111- ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■■11111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
so%
€ 70%
y 60%
50%
U 40%
v 30%
a 20%
S 10%
0%
Particle Size (mm)
■MY1(1012007) ■MY2(5 /2008) tMY3(1 /2010) ■MY4(2/2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Description I Material
very fine sand
fine sand
Sand medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
Gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
course gravel
course gravel
very coarse ravel
very coarse gravel
Cobble
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
Boulder
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
Bedrock
bedrock
TOTAL % of whole count
0%
Summa Data
D50
item %
D84
0.06
D95
199
was not calculated due to particle size.
Size
mm
Total
item %
Cum %
0.062
84
84%
84%
0.125
0
0%
84%
0.250
0
0%
84%
0.50
0
0%
84%
1.00
0
0%
84%
2.0
0
0%
84%
4.0
0
0%
84%
5.7
1
1%
85%
8.0
0
0%
85%
113
0
0%
85%
16.0
0
0%
85%
22.3
2
2%
87%
32.0
0
0%
87%
45
0
0%
87%
64
0
0%
87%
90
0
0%
87%
128
4
4%
91%
180
3
3%
94%
256
4
4%
98%
362
0
0%
98%
512
1
1%
99%
1 024
1
1%
100%
2048
0
0%
100%
40096
0
0%
100%
100
100%
100%
� ■■ 111111 ■■II■u��■���y"I:i.■r��:::. ■■Wu
:� � ■■ 111111 ■ ■�Ililll� ■ ■1111!�l� ■1111111■ ■11111
�■ ■111111 ■■ 11111����11111�/I ■111111■ ■111111
. � � ■ ■IIII�,11�■■�11�11�� ■111111�� ■111111■ ■111111
� ■ ■11i �:i■iiul�■ ■1111111■ ■111111■ ■111111
� ■ ■Il: illy ■ ■ /lll�l�ii■■1111�■ ■111111■ ■111111
� ■■ 111111 ■1,111111■ ■111111■ ■111111■ ■111111
� ■■ 111111■ ►1111111■ ■111111■ ■111111■ ■111111
,. � ■ ■IIIIII�I ■111111 ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■111111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
_ 80%
70%
a 60%
5(
40%
30%
20%
10% —
0%
o�b'YO ♦1S o,15 Q5 ♦ 'L a �1 4 ♦ ♦'S ♦b ryy'y ,y'L p5 bb q0 ♦,y4 ♦�O 'LSb '�bR• 5 ♦1. ♦O,)A,.OaQ �qb
Particle Sin (mm)
■MY1 (1020071 0 MY2(5 /2008) °W3(112010) 0 MY4(2/2011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Is
Channel
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #!
Item %
Cum
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
85
85%
85%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
85%
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
85%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
85%
coarse sand
1.00
1
1%
86%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
86%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
86%
fine gravel
5.7
1
1%
87%
fine gravel
8.0
2
2%
89%
medium gravel
11.3
1
1%
90%
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
90%
course gravel
22.3
2
2%
92%
course gravel
32.0
4
4%
96%
very coarse gravel
45
1 0
0%
1 96%
very coarse gravel
64
1
1%
97%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
97%
medium cobble
128
1
1%
98%
large cobble
180
2
2%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
1 2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
I bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50
D84
0.06
D95
29.58
was not calculated due to particle size.
Cumulative Percent
,,. � ■ ■I11111� ■■ 111111 ■ ■I11111���IIIw'.���a:r■ ■111111
�■■ Iliiii� ■�iiiiiii�ii:CG�llll�u /�IIIII�■ ■111111
:' �■■ I11111� ■ ■I11111� ■ ■1111!�� ■II11111�■ ■111111
' � ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■111111���ii11111 �� ■111111■ ■111111
.' � ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■�11111�� ■111111 I ■IIIIII�■ ■111111
■ ■I1111!�:i■�m1���1111I ®■■I11111 ■111111
' � ■ ■Il:ill� ■ ■ /IIIIII>•�■ � ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■111111
� ■ ■IIIIII� ■1,11L�111•■ ■111111■ ■111111■ ■111111
� ■ ■IIIIII� ■� 11111■ ■111111■ ■111111■ ■111111
�■ ■11111 � IIIIII� ■ ■IIIIII� ■ ■IIIIII�■ ■111111
Individual Class Percent
l00%
90%
so%
fi 7o°i
v 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
S Io% —
0i
o�'LO ♦.y5 OryS �5 ♦ 'L b �!� 4 ♦,♦'� ♦b ryy'y ,y'y b5 Fi' GO ♦,y4 ♦�O �5b fib'\• � ♦'1, ♦O,yAry$4OOgb
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI(10 /2007) 0 MY2(5 /2008) =MY3(1/2010) 6 MY4(212011)

Appendix 4.6 Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
Camp Branch Stream Restoration/EEP Project No. 92350
Camp Branch Main Channel
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name: Camp Branch -Main Channel
Cross - Section: 8
Cumulative Percent
Feature: Pool
MY42/2011
Description
Material
Size mm
Total k
Item %
Cum
Silt /Cla
silt/clay
0.062
55
55%
55%
100
_
_
- -
--
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
55%
90%
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
55%
80%
70%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
55%
coarse sand
1.00
1
1%
56%
a 60/
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
56%
' 50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
1 %
57%
40%
30i
fine gravel
5.7
1
1 %
58%
c 20%
fine gravel
8.0
5
5%
63%
10i
medium gravel
11.3
4
4%
67%
of
medium gravel
16.0
4
4%
71%
♦ ♦ ♦ o
° ♦ ♦� ♦°,
Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
71%
course ravel
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
71%
very gravel
45
1
1%
71%
— MYI(10/2007) — MY2(5/2008) — MY30noio) — Y4(2/20u)
very coarse gravel
64
3
3%
75%
Cobble
small cobble
90
10
10%
85%
Individual Class Percent
100%
medium cobble
128
3
3%
88%
large cobble
180
3
3%
91%
very large cobble
256
5
5%
96%
Boulder
small boulder
362
4
4%
100%
Doi
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
70
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
w 60%
In
Bedrock
bedrock
1 40096
1 0
0%
100%
50%
TOTAL% of whole
count
100
100%
100%
U 40%
Summary Data
D50
D84 87.4
D95 240.8
D50 was not calculated due to particle size.
30%
20%
S
toi
of
oobyo ♦,y5'oy5 Oc� ♦ 'l A �� 4 ♦ ♦'7 ♦b ,�,? 'y'l' b5 01 cp ♦'L� ♦�o 'L56 '�b�' h ♦�' ♦01a^+OC4 _�qb
D2�
Particle Size (mm)
■MY1(10/2007) ■MY2 (5/2008) = MY3 (1/2010) ■ MY4 (2/2011