20081263 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20140808

Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
January 6, 2014
Mr. Guy Pearce
Full Delivery Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Subject: Year 5 Monitoring Report for Stream Mitigation of Davis Branch and UT1; Union County,
NC; SCO# D06054 -F
Dear Guy,
On behalf of Wetlands Resource Center, EMH &T is pleased to submit the Year 5 Monitoring
Report for Davis Branch and UT1 (SCO# D06054 -F). This report contains data from the stream
(geomorphic) and vegetation monitoring conducted in May and September 2013, respectively.
Three hard copies and one electronic copy of the document are being provided in accordance
with established submission guidelines.
We understand a final close -out meeting for this project will be conducted in Spring 2014. If
there are any specific issues you wish for us to discuss prior to that meeting, please do not hesitate
to contact either Cal Miller of Wetlands Resource Center at [phone] or me at (614) 775-
4205.
Sincerely,
Miles F. Hebert, PE, CFM
Director, Water Resources Engineering
Enclosure
Copies: Cal Miller, WRC
A legacy of experience. A reputation for excellence.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 • Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
Columbus • Charlolle • Cincinnati • Indianapolis
emht.com

Year 5 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary
Union County, NC
SCO # D06054 -F
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
r, ,r
Submitted: January 6, 2014

Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4878
Main: (614) 775 -4500
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................... ..............................1
II. Project Background .................................................................................... ..............................2
A. Location and Setting
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C. Project History and Background
D. Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results .............................................. .............................16
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
3. Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stem Counts
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
2. Stream Problem Areas
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
5. Fixed Station Photos
6. Stability Assessment
7. Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology ................................................................................................ .............................27
List of Tables
Table I. Project Structure Table
Table II. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Table V. Project Background Table
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table XII. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Table XIII. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary — All Cross Sections
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page i

List of Appendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables
3. Vegetation Installed during 2011 & 2012 Remedial Planting
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1.
Fixed Station Photos
2.
Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3.
Cross Section Plots
4.
Longitudinal Plots
5.
Pebble Count Plots
6.
Bankfull Event Photos
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page ii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Davis Branch stream restoration project is located near the town of Marshville, Union County,
North Carolina. Prior to restoration, active use of the land for cattle grazing and hay resulted in
impaired, channelized, eroding, incised and entrenched stream channels. The project reaches include
the restoration of 1,799 linear feet of the Davis Branch main stem, enhancement of 1,229 linear feet
of the main stem, preservation of 766 linear feet of the main stem, restoration of 459 linear feet of an
unnamed tributary (UT I) and enhancement of 396 linear feet of the same tributary. Restoration of the
project streams, completed during April 2009, provided the desired habitat and stability features
required to improve and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term. The following
report documents the Year 5 annual monitoring for this project.
Vegetative monitoring was completed in September 2013, following the Carolina Vegetation Survey
methodology. Stem counts completed at ten vegetation plots show an average density of 551
stems /acre in Year 5. This is a slight decrease from the Year 4 total of 591 stems /acre and Year 3
total of 741 stems /acre for the site but is a marked increase over the Year 2 average of 454 stems/
acre for the site. This density meets the success criteria of 260 stems /acre after five years of
monitoring. All individual plots had stem densities meeting the minimum requirement. Additionally,
a large number of recruit stems were found in each plot. To address the issue of low stem counts for
planted stems observed in the fall of 2010, specific areas where targeted for supplemental planting in
the spring 2011 within the riparian corridors, concentrated along UTI and the portion of the Davis
Branch main stem downstream from the confluence with UT 1. This planting effort is reflected in the
2011 increase in average stem density for planted stems across the site. Some natural mortality
occurred over the dry summer months of 2012. This is reflected in the smaller number of stems /acre
observed in Year 4 and Year 5.
In 2011, there was a minor area of the riparian corridor along the right bank of the main stem that
was exhibiting denudation. This area is situated between stations 8 +00 and 10 +00. A that time, it
was labeled as a vegetation problem area of low concern because there was no evidence that
denudation was affecting stream stability. The lack of vegetation appeared to be attributed to a
natural condition. It is situated in the understory of a secondary growth forest where there is
competition for light during certain portions of the day. It was expected that shade tolerant recruits
would establish along this section of stream in future years. Indeed, this is what happened in Year 4.
Therefore, this area was previously has been taken off of the Vegetation Problem Area Map in
Appendix A.
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of stream features are functioning as
designed and constructed on the Davis Branch main stem and UT 1. Dimensional measurements of
the monumented cross- sections remain stable when compared to as -built conditions. The comparison
of the Year I thru 5 long -term stream monitoring profile data shows stability with minimal change
from as -built conditions. The substrate of the constructed riffles remains stable, with a median
particle distribution in the very coarse gravel range. The pool substrate remains stable as well, with
median particle sizes ranging from silt to very coarse gravel, based on Year 5 substrate analysis.
Based on the crest gage network installed on the project reaches, at least 3 bankfull events have been
recorded since construction was completed. One bankfull events was recorded along the main stem
in Year 5.
The tables below summarize the geomorphological changes along the restoration and enhancement
level 1 reaches for each stream.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page I

Davis Branch Main stem - Restoration Reach
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Length (ft.)
1,562
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
Bankfull Width (ft.)
8.3
11.3
10.9
12.2
11.0
13.8
13.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft.)
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
19.3
16.2
13.8
13.1
18.8
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio
12.8
8.5
8.9
6.1
7.2
5.3
5.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.12
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
Davis Branch Main stem - Enhancement (E -I) Reach
Parameter
Pre-
[Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Length (ft.)
1,289
1,289
1,289
1,289
1,289
1,289
1,289
Bankfull Width (ft.)
8.8
16.7
17.5
19.6
17.8
18.2
17.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft.)
2.0 ft
1.3 ft
1.3 ft
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
27
24.8
26.2
22.2
23.8
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
7.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.7
3.9
4.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
Unnamed Tributary 1- Restoration Reach
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Length (ft.)
334
459
459
459
459
459
459
Bankfull Width (ft.)
7.8
12.4
11.7
11.6
9.9
7.4
6.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft.)
0.9 ft
1.0 ft
0.9 ft
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
29.1
31.6
26.8
20.2
20.6
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
4.4
4
4.3
5.0
5.2
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
2.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.09
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located southeast of Olive Branch Road and west of Marshville -Olive Branch Road,
7.8 miles north - northeast of the town of Marshville, Union County, North Carolina. The site location
and vicinity map is presented on Figure 1. The project is located on properties owned by Edward
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report - Davis Branch Monitoring Year S of S
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 2

Bruce Staton and wife Deborah H. Staton, and Keith Bunyan Griffin and wife Phyllis Griffin. The
project includes restoration activities along Davis Branch main stem and one unnamed tributary
stream, designated as UT1 throughout this document.
The directions to the project site are as follows:
From U.S. Route 74 in Marshville, North Carolina, turn onto North Elm Street (SR 205) and
travel 5.3 miles to Olive Branch Road (SR 1006). Turn right onto Olive Branch Road and
travel 3.9 miles to 9406 Olive Branch Road (Edward and Deborah Staton Residence). Turn
right onto the Staton's driveway, the dedicated egress /ingress access to the recorded EEP
Conservation Easement Areas on the Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary, Stream
Restoration Project.
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Pre- restoration land use surrounding the project streams involved cattle pasture and hay land. Cattle
had direct access to the project stream reaches for drinking water, and in areas where established
riparian canopy exist, cattle frequently accessed the project corridors for shade. In doing so, the
cattle had denuded and destabilized streambanks due to grazing, browsing and associated hoof shear.
The unstable streambanks and denuded riparian corridors were contributing large quantities of
nutrient laden sediment to the project stream reaches. Eroded sediment from the unstable
streambanks was transported downstream and off site into the larger Davis Branch, Gourdvine Creek
and Richardson Creek watersheds.
Runoff from agricultural land use together with cattle intrusion along the project corridors provided
direct nutrient pathways into the project stream reaches. Pre - restoration, the upper reach of UT had
sparse riparian vegetation along its stream corridor. The lower third of UT1 and the upper Davis
Branch main stem reaches had established hardwood forested riparian corridors. However, cattle
intrusion had denuded herbaceous groundcover, and adversely impaired shrub, mid -story and canopy
vegetation.
Prior to restoration, a number of anthropogenic factors impacted the stream channel and riparian
corridor along the impaired upper main stem restoration reach, resulting in an unstable, moderately
incised and braided condition. In its pre- existing impaired state, upper Davis Branch was
transitioning from E4 /1 channel dimensions to a multiple thread Rosgen D4 /1 stream type, albeit
under incised conditions along the reach. Deep channel incision was attributed to uncontrolled cattle
intrusion (herbaceous groundcover grazing, shrub vegetation browsing and hoof shear) resulting in a
denuded riparian landscape and destabilized, eroding streambanks. Multiple thread channels, created
by breaches that rerouted the channel around woody debris jams (avulsions) were present at locations
throughout the reach. In addition to cattle intrusion, channelization and an average channel slope of
1.58 percent increased critical shear stresses acting on the streambed and banks during bankfull
flows. Bank height ratios (BHR) calculated at impaired conditions cross - sections ranged from 1.38
to 1.41 (moderately incised).
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 3

X0 /
\ \ UNNAMED
\ \ TRIBUTARY 2 C
\ . \
(U T2) 1
9
Recorded Conservation
Esnnt, DB: 4666 PG: 306
y.
\
'9
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /—
KEITH AND PHYILLIS GRIFFIN
DB 797, PG 32
PID # 01069064B
20 ACRES + /—
l0000l
KEITH AND PHYLNLI\
GRIFFIN
DB 780, PG 481\ \
PID # 01069004B \\
0.38 AC ,F, �
GTSJ��s
.
Recorded Conservation
Esnnt 1)8: 4666 PG: 315
EDWARD BRUCE STATON W
ESTATE 5EO057 A
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /—
LEGEND
E -1
E -11
Restoration
Preservation
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DAVIS BRANCH RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Date: December. 2013
Not To Scale
r�
Enha °nnt
PRWRAM

A number of anthropogenic factors also impacted the stream channel and riparian corridor along the
impaired lower main stem Enhancement Level I (E -1) reach, resulting in its pre- restoration
channelized, deeply incised, eroding impaired condition. Bank height ratios calculated at impaired
conditions cross - sections ranged from 1.58 to 1.86 (deeply incised). Deep channel incision resulted
from steep channel gradient (2.16 percent), linear channel alignment (channel sinuosity = 1.06),
mean bankfull flow velocities approaching 5.5 ft /sec, high shear velocity (u* = 0.93 ft /sec), and
extremely high nearbank critical shear stress (i, = 1.48 lbs /ft2 ). In addition to unstable channel
hydraulics and morphology, uncontrolled cattle intrusion exacerbated streambank and streambed
erosion. The cumulative effect of these factors resulted in nearly 5 feet high, vertical eroding
streambanks on the lower Davis Branch (E -1) main stem reach.
A number of anthropogenic factors impacted the stream channel and riparian corridor along the
impaired UT1 reach, resulting in a channelized, entrenched and deeply incised condition. In its pre-
existing impaired state, UT1 maintained E4 /lb channel morphology, albeit under incised conditions.
Bank height ratios calculated at impaired riffles were 2.47, 3.67 and 2.32, respectively, with a mean
BHR of 2.82. The extreme degree of channel incision leading to entrenchment was attributed to
steep profile gradient (2.3 percent), linear channel alignment (sinuosity = 1.09) high bankfull mean
velocity (6.58 ft /sec), high shear velocity (u* = 0.68 ft /sec), high nearbank critical shear stress (ic =
0.85 lbs /ft2) and uncontrolled cattle intrusion. The cumulative effects of these impacts resulted in
nearly 4 feet high, vertical, eroding streambanks on the impaired UT reach.
As discussed in the Restoration Plan for Davis Branch and UT1, the mitigation goals and objectives
for the project involved restoring stable physical and biological function of the project streams
beyond pre- restoration (impaired) conditions. Impaired conditions consisted of channelized, eroding,
incised and entrenched stream channels. Nutrient and sediment loading from agricultural land use
and runoff, together with vegetative denuding and destabilized streambanks associated with hoof
shear resulting from uncontrolled cattle access and was evident. The specific mitigation goals and
objectives proposed and achieved for the project are listed below.
• Stable stream channels with features inherent of ecologically diverse environments, with
appropriate streambed features including appropriately spaced pool and riffle sequences, and
riparian corridors planted with a diversity of indigenous vegetation.
• Reference reach boundary conditions were superimposed on the impaired project reaches in
the restoration design and construction of improvements.
• Constructed stream channels with the appropriate geometry and gradient to convey bankfull
flows while entraining suspended sediment (wash load) and bedload materials readily
available to the streams.
• Restored connection between the bankfull channels and their floodplains, by constructing
stable stream channels, protected by vegetation and jute coir fabric to prevent erosion.
• Minimized future land use impacts to project stream reaches by conveying perpetual,
restrictive conservation easements to the State of North Carolina, including stream corridor
protection via livestock exclusion fencing at the surveyed and recorded conservation
easement boundaries, with gates at the edge of the riparian corridor on river right and left at
reserved conservation easement crossings adjacent to active hay and pasture land.
The restoration of Davis Branch main stem and UT 1 met project goals and objectives set forth in the
restoration plan, by providing desired habitat and stability features required to enhance and provide
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 5

long -term ecologic health for the project reaches. More specifically, the completed restoration
project accomplished the enhancements listed below.
Davis Branch Main stem:
• Reversed the effects of channelization using a Priority Level I/Level II (PI/II)
restoration and E -I approaches; restoration increased the average width/depth ratio from
9.1 to 18.8 on the PUII reach and from 6.9 to 23.8 on the E -I reach after three years of
monitoring.
• Restored natural pattern to the PUPII reach channel alignment, increasing sinuosity from
1.12 to 1.29 on the PUII reach, while maintaining a stable relationship between the
valley slope and bankfull slope (the bankfull slope was steeper than the valley slope
prior to restoration and is now less than the valley slope post- restoration). Stable
pattern, profile and dimension were restored based on extrapolation from reference
reach boundary conditions. On the main stem E -I reach, profile and dimension were
restored based upon reference reach boundary conditions. Pattern (sinuosity = 1.06) was
not modified).
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by constructing appropriately sized channels with stable
streambank slopes built using a combination of embedded stone, grade control
structures, topsoil, herbaceous seeding, mulch, natural fabrics and hearty vegetation
including live branch (3 -foot spacings), bareroot (4 -foot spacings) and 1- gallon tree
(100 -foot spacings) plantings.
• The average Bank Height Ratio was decreased from 1.41 to 1.00 on the PUII reach and
1.86 to 1.00 on the E -I reach, respectively (i.e., deeply incised to stable).
• Restored connection between the bankfull channel and the adjacent floodprone area by
raising the bankfull channel to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain. The restored
main stem PUII and E -I reach entrenchment ratios range from 3.34 to 6.85 after four
years of monitoring.
• Created instream aquatic habitat features, including appropriately spaced pool and riffle
sequences, and a stable transition of the main stem reach E -I thalweg to the invert of the
existing channel at the bottom of the main stem project reach.
• Revegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous canopy, mid -story, shrub and
herbaceous ground cover species, and preserved existing forested riparian corridors
where present.
• Protected the riparian corridors by placing livestock exclusion fencing at the edge of the
perpetual, recorded conservation easement boundary.
Davis Branch UT1:
• Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Enhancement Level II
(E -II) and Priority Level I (PI) restoration techniques. The average width/depth ratio of
the restored UT1 project reach was 20.62 after four years of monitoring. Stable
dimension and profile grade control was restored on the E -II reach (profile station 0 +00
to 3 +96). Stable pattern, profile and dimension were restored on the PI reach (profile
station 3 +96 to 8 +54) based on extrapolation from reference reach to restored reach
boundary conditions.
• Restored stable channel pattern on the PI reach, increasing sinuosity from 1.09 to 1.34.
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing appropriately sized channels with stable
streambank slopes. The average Bank Height Ratio has been reduced from 2.82 to 1.00
(deeply incised to stable).
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 6

• Improved the connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
floodprone area by raising the bankfull channel to the elevation of the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration increased the average entrenchment ratio from
3.63 to 5.22 after four years of monitoring.
• Created stable channel dimensions, substrate and grade control structures (rock sills) on
the E -II reach; Created stable pattern, profile and dimension, including appropriately
spaced riffle, run, pool and glide sequences, together with a stable transition of the UT1
PI reach thalweg at its confluence with the Davis Branch main stem.
• Revegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous canopy, mid- story, shrub and
herbaceous ground cover, preserving existing forested riparian corridors where present.
• Protected the riparian corridor by placing livestock exclusion fencing at the edge of the
perpetual, recorded conservation easement boundary.
Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and H.
Table I. Project Structure Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Project Segment/Reach ID
Linear Footage or Acreage
Davis Branch Main stem
3,794 ft
UT1
855 ft
TOTAL
4,649 ft
Table II. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Project
Linear
Segment/ Reach
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
ID
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Comment
Davis Branch
Preservation
766 ft
5
153 SMU's
Preserved within the
Main stem
conservation easement
Davis Branch
Priority Level
Restore dimension,
Main stem
1/11
1 799 ft
1
1 799 SMU's
pattern, and profile
Restoration
Davis Branch
Enhancement
1,.5
229 ft
1
819 SMU's
Restore dimension and
Main stem
Level I
profile
UT1
Enhancement
396 ft
2.5
158 SMU's
Restore dimension and
Level II
profile grade control
UT1
Priority Level
459 ft
1
459 SMU's
Restore dimension,
I Restoration
pattern, and profile
TOTAL
4,649 ft
3,388 SMU's
C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table III. The project contact information is
provided in Table IV. The project background history is provided in Table V.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 7

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

Table V. Project Background Table
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EE P Project No. D06054 -F
Project County
Union
Drainage Area
Main stem - 214.5 acres
UT1 -46.1 acres
Drainage hn ervious Cover Estimate
0.52%
Stream Order
Main stem - 1 st, 2nd
UT 1 - 1st
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Carolina Slate Belt
Ros en Classification of As -built
Main stem restoration reach - C4 /1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Main stern E1 reach — C3 /lb
UT restoration reach - C4 /1
Dominant Soil Types
Badin channery silt loam,
Cid channery silt loam,
Goldston - Badin complex
Reference Site ID
Davis Branch
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03040105
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
3040105070080
NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference
C*
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment?
Yes
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
Sediment
% of project easement fenced
100%
*The classification for Davis Branch was not listed within the NC DWQ Schedule of Classifications.
Gourdvine Creek, the receiving water for Davis Branch, has been assigned as a Class C water.
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 9

UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR
DAVIS BRANCH AND
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
NC EEP PROJECT NO. D06054=F
2013
j I i
/
—. 0
`LJ EDWARD BRUCE STATON y2
y ESTATE 5E0057 n
r PID # 01069002 y
213 ACRES + /— 0
Recorded Conservation �
Esmt. DB: 4666 PG: 306
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5E0057
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /—
I
J.12009aMl2OO9aY26envlD *VIEA*&OlYsa 3 —f/gws 2 —
1 X gf. 81397 W&Pdats)
UNNAMED \-KEITH AND PHYLLIS
TRIBUTARY 2 /� GRIFFIN
(UT2) KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN DB 780, PG 48
- - - - -- /�\ DB 797, PG 32 PIDO 3 1
8 ACRES
46
PID # 01069004B
�i 20 ACRES + /— \
s �G
\ cy
Recorded Conservation
Esmt. DB: 4666 PG: 315
Z e /
\ G
C�
LEGEND
E —I
E —II
Restoration
Preservation
VICINITY MAP
Not To Scale
205
�
0
NNEO
200
s
TO
RI
218
Q.
`
SCNDOL RD
?�
O
SO N
'I IVE
/`'MP
216 -
r
Fq�TDN
RD.
�o
0P
H
3
aS
205
�o
5
m
v
L
HAMILTON
E
CROSSING
RD
cnsr
VICINITY MAP
Not To Scale

KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN As -Built Fence As -Built Gate
DB 797, PG 32
PID # 010690048
20 ACRES + /- -- -- - - - - - - _ - - - - - -
/ -485-
—
\ / va/
\ Recair 66 PGS 3,5'24 -- ------------ - - --
46 - -- - -- -484" 1
PB K' Co
Uman
___1 -------------------- /
/ As -Built Low
X82 A8� Water Crossing 1
c` - -- 00 - - - -- -- - -- -
-- - _"
4 �
11O 5F �0
„- - — �485� - - - - --
CID
i
00 �G i
/ J
J � As -Built Gate
- -- KEITH AND PHYLLIS GRIFFIN
EDWARD BRUCE STATION \ DB 797, PG 32
ESTATE 5EO057 \ PID # 01069004B
PID \
# 01069002 .� / � ' 20 ACRES+/ -
213 ACRES + /-
40 0 40
Feet �_
— - - - \ \ R eC
Scale: 1• = 40' P ¢666 C °user
END PRESERVATION REACH Un,o K, PG PG 3�5 °tiara Fa
BEGIN RESTORATION REACH n Co ��3 324 se/hent
AS -BUILT STA. 7 +81.24 Registry
DAVIS BRANCH I
oo
er
Ar_
6 ±00 - -- - - -- W
a \ �,9 ---- - - - - -- 478 - - - -,- / I�
N c
Wes` 00 _ -480--
--
LEGEND
Vegetation Plat (VP) �'�
© As -Built Riffle ` / As -Built Fence
Crest Gauge
I—
Cross Section As -Built Rock Sill -
Monument
Ex. Property Line Fixed Photo Locations
Recorded Conservation _
Easement --O-----G—As-Built Fence - - -_- _
As -Built Thalweg
and Stationing
✓.•k20090326k20090326envkD gk&hk t lYeor 5 -Figure 2 - Monitoring P/on l9ew.dwg Lost Scrod B}^. /cmmer, 11312014 1:04 PM Lost Printed W. Cromer, James, 11312014 1:09 PM
1 Xmf.• 61397xbs(updote)
s
Oct
w
Z
0
iW
I.
o p -
�m�� x
mas
Eog x
f Na< U
>g g
(.0
N
BEGIN PROJECT
E
0
& PRESERVATION REACH
STA. 0 +00.00
DAVIS BRANCH
w
Q
? z
O J
as
L)
�z
Z��
�z
-Z 06
m
z0
CO LU
O
U) 2
a D
N
Q Z
O W
C1 Z
o
Q
s
Oct
w
Z
0
iW
I.
o p -
�m�� x
mas
Eog x
f Na< U
>g g

__ - EDWARD BRUCE STATON
/ ESTATE 5EO057
PID # 01069002
*% As —Built Gate 213 ACRES+/ -
�' 469 --- __ As —Built Fence aserre�t 2
— Cansp6�3i4 VE -4 -- -
- - Orded G.
pteo
C�o� OB6?G Registry ,
o 00 - Ov \Or Ca
O
1
- _
- - - -- 0
s� I
l 7-N — j / / Off.
2 +00 /ox
—470—
4 2 -473 -- J
VP -2 -
X —Sec 2 /
40 0 40 ; X —Sec
Feet
20
Scale: 1' 40'
IT-
e
— — 468 — - - - -
-4u - - - \ 471 - -- - - - — / / `0L r
��X�O
—470 --
—465 I --------- 469-- She @�
Crest Gauge 1
- - - - -- 79. 17 +0Q------ - - -- -- - --
40 0 40 - 7861, -
Feet
Scale: 1' 40'
000 lsgg '
e
468 '
00,00, \ 4
- -464 -- - -- _ -_ -- s rvOt\on Eas
Con 6 -31
k`O - - - - -' Recorded ?G, 30
4600 i �3
—
--466--- PB K G• \stry
\300r\
EDWARD — — - - - - - -- - - EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
-
----- - - -- -- -
PID # 01069002
- -- 468 - - - - - -- - -- 213 ACRES+/ -
' - As—Built-Fence
J
1
CO (0
°o .n
u n
E
x °O>
WQ
>
Z =�
a Umx
Z��
< Z<
oo��m
Z m Lu
o cn2Q
o
N QZ
LU C1 Z
z
Q
Q�
s
oct
w
Z
0
o p -
�m�� x
mas
oa
u 9
f Na< U
2g g
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot (VP)
©
Crest Gauge
As —Built Riffle
Cross Section
As —Built Rock Sill
Monument
Ex. Property Line
0—► Fixed Photo Locations
Recorded Conservation
Easement
--O-----EF--As —Built Fence
As —Built Thalweg
and Stationing
J
1
CO (0
°o .n
u n
E
x °O>
WQ
>
Z =�
a Umx
Z��
< Z<
oo��m
Z m Lu
o cn2Q
o
N QZ
LU C1 Z
z
Q
Q�
s
oct
w
Z
0
o p -
�m�� x
mas
oa
u 9
f Na< U
2g g

\ E
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
v v v E
ESTATE 5E0057
v v v P
PID # 01069002 -
- - - -
v v
213 ACRES + /-
v �
As -Built F
Fence
� A
-- -
- -
60\ �
465 - -
- __,__ - - - - --
00 _ 6
�` \
— — 4
--------------
��i�@
- 4
463�6 ---------- -- - -
__ -_
- _ -
- - - -'
�m @J0 °o`er r -�
:D '
0 <'5l
-
----------- :
' 0
- - -- - -- - -
- - - --
-- 6
-459 -------------- -
- - -- - - -_ -- - i _
_s — - - -
6� �e�.
- - - - -
rI
VP -4 — —460—
-- -
� tion � -
_
- - - X -Sec 4 Recorded Go�s3p6_314 '
- -- -- - X -Sec _ 3 - p8 4666 PG.,
PB K' PG' Re 3str
-------- 463- - - - - --
-------------- - -Union Co. / I
- - -
40 0 40 - - - - - -- - - - --
Feet __ - - -- --
20
Scale: t' = 40' - - - - - - - - EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5E0057
As -Built Fence PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
- -__
As-Built G
_457- -/ - /�� A3S\ _ ` \ Asa t Built Fence
gl/ -\` -` \_``
__454 —455- — — —
ve. _- -- - ------------
�. _4 3 - - --
`ye05 152 - -- -- - -;
-
OODO = 449 448 ----------- — — — --
,ypX
40orJ F
--------- � -446 -- � � -
` - - - -447 - _ -
' -- - -��g -- - - -- -- --
` - _ /��-
` -- ,__ _Corded Conservation Easement
_ - DEL- x#666 - PG. 306 -314 _ -
- _ -- PB_Ks t = _ - - - --
- --- - -- l7n�r= +s
- -- - --
. �tcwxuzctcwsrc�zasnvlrnylexm� .rat�sw a—rgws z —
1 Aftf. 81387kW&Vdb&)
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot (VP)
© Crest Gauge
. Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As —Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As —Built Riffle
As —Built Rock Sill
`l Fixed Photo Locations
--E]-� As —Built Fence
°o .n
u n
E
Q o N
w Q
Z =�
Q
a L)
ZO�0
z Q�c
oo�°m
z m LLl u
o U) 2Q
N 5; <
LU QZ
°°
°
z
Q
4_4
s
Oct
W�
w
•
• �Z:.�� may' • r _ '
• ■ate r��� \..�.,,, W
Z
40 0 40
- Feet
,-Built Gate_ _ - \ 20
— Scale: 1' = 40'
U
i
°o .n
u n
E
Q o N
w Q
Z =�
Q
a L)
ZO�0
z Q�c
oo�°m
z m LLl u
o U) 2Q
N 5; <
LU QZ
°°
°
z
Q
4_4
s
Oct
W�
w
•
• �Z:.�� may' • r _ '
• ■ate r��� \..�.,,, W
Z
40 0 40
- Feet
,-Built Gate_ _ - \ 20
— Scale: 1' = 40'
U
i
Z
40 0 40
- Feet
,-Built Gate_ _ - \ 20
— Scale: 1' = 40'
U
i

EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /–
As–Built Fence
- --
!"
- -�- --- - - _;_4 - -- �_ -:- _;;" � - - �-q- 3 --- - ------
\ ---------------
-- --- --- ' - - - - - -- 4 49 —
- `� 450—
- -- - - - - -- -446 - - --
—
- - -- 44 -- - -- - _
----- - ------ - -
$ (�J T�� s / �x - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- �,
X v / , - 38, 39 440 - - - - - - - -,
h 4 _ ,
- -
v / - IX2 Ek, Thalweg 1
� -- ���, " ---- - -------- ' - - - -"
— - - — — t'h
"- ------- - - - - -- / o
oo
436 0— - - _ — — - ec - - -- �g, _
2.443- -- _ _ — —_ _ s _ i _ase T TOA!
/ - _-44 444 -- - -- _- {)B.P4666 �.- 30Cs -14e - - BRUCE
445.446 — — _ -- -- - - -- - _ -- - - - -- -- - _��� , - --
WARD -S A
_ - -_- 447 -- _ -- -- — -- -- — - -
PB K, P. 47
_ ifniorr Co. 1�e try DT # 0
_ RI 1069002.
-- –450— -_ —_- _ -_ -� --- ___ - - - -
- -- - - - - -- — —
- -- ' - - 434 "- --- --- - -- - -------------------- - -- - -- -- \ _
- \
/ / - -' - -- -X– Sec -6_' - - - -- -
/ - - - -- X –Sec 7 - - -- "
-- - -- "
432-- - - - - -- - � - - -- _ �- _� - — '- - - -""- -_ - - --
/ 431- - `
_430– - -- 429 -- - - - - -- � _ - - -__ - — - 4? \ \
42B__ --
/ ,._______- - - - - -__ _ ,,, Ex Thalweg /me,
6 - -= - -"
END PROJECT &
ENHANCEMENT( REACH / h
AS -BUILT STA. 38 +67.9 / ------
DAVIS BRANCH P -8
V __ - -- - - - -- - - -- -- /���
/ - -- - - - - -- r
M , �oxP
As -Built Gate _ ; � R�corded Conservation Easement � —
i -DB._ 4666- PG. 306 314 ,435
— -" PB. K, PG.-173------ - - -- " - _/
urf- -C6. Re it r - - - - - -- 436
As -Built Fence
I
LEGEND
N °o fn
w
w Q
> H
z =�
IL Umx
Z��
z Q�c
oo��m
Z mLUu
o cn2>
N 5; <
LU Cl QZ
Z
Q
N
s
40 0 40 C�
Feet
20
Scale: 1" 40'
40 0 40 I
feet
20
Scale: 1" - 40'
0
o dig -
CC�Y
cj
E
Erb
o u
vas
U
Vegetation Plot (VP)
©
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As —Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As —Built Riffle
As —Built Rock SIII
Fixed Photo Locations
--O----O--As—Built
Fence
N °o fn
w
w Q
> H
z =�
IL Umx
Z��
z Q�c
oo��m
Z mLUu
o cn2>
N 5; <
LU Cl QZ
Z
Q
N
s
40 0 40 C�
Feet
20
Scale: 1" 40'
40 0 40 I
feet
20
Scale: 1" - 40'
0
o dig -
CC�Y
cj
E
Erb
o u
vas
U

As —Built Fence
EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057 _ — — — — — — _ - -- -- - -- - - -- __ -
PID # 01069002 —
213 ACRES+ — -" - -__- -- _,-
/ 454 " - - Recorded'Conservatisn Easecnerit - \
'452- __----- - - - - -- - -- - \ - `-
/ _ _ _ B: 46Fi6 PG. 306 314 _ _ _ ,
---- - - - - -- - -X— Sec -8- - - - -- FB. K, PG. 1'T3 - -_ �4�;,Sq `A6
-451- — — — _ -- - ion Cu R 456 �� 6°
__ __450 -449 --------------------------- — — S�4SS\ ,.
_ _ -- istry
-- - -
----
- -" -
- - - - -'- -�- - -_ _ -- - -- — J `453 _ BEGIN II �\
a
-
- REACH STA. 0+00.00
END ENHANCEMENT II REACH - ----------- J__ - - - -_ - -- -- \`\ ,
_ UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1
m BEGIN RESTORATION REACH - , - - -
r/ AS —BUILT STA. 3 +95.76
q UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1 \
- - -- - -- -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -
- --
--
0
N2
-- - - -- - --
-- - -- - - — �450�nn�� " - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - --
LEGEND
r /
----- -----------
-"" -_ - -- — - - - - - -- ---------------------------
---------- - - - - -- - -- -------- ' - - -- --
--- - - - - -- -_ -_
- -
—445-- — - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- - - --
' -- - - -- 452-- - - - -"
-- ---
----- ------------------------------- - - - - -- 453—',454 -----------
- - �,,- -- - - — — — — — _ — — -- ---------------------- - - - - -- - -- -- -� —455—
_ 446----- - - - - -- - � � — — — — — — — 45
/ -
- - - -- -__ -' -�,- _'___ - - -- - - - - - -- -- ------ - - - - -- -------- - - ---- 456 40 0 40
--- -- - -___ - -457- Feet
' - 20
- - -- - j ' - - - - - Scale: 1' a 40'
i EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
END PROJECT &
RESTORATION REACH
AS —BUILT STA. 8 +54.91
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1
I
_ -4
\ PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
- As —Built Fence —
- - - - - -- =
- - - - -6 6 - -6 - — — — - ` w
_ 4�
—445— -- - -- ° 7@
�`�m��o
4 `sx
\ - - -- - - -- -- � °�J o
x --------- �� A7 -" X -Sec ` o
x +0
i
A� w - - -- Crest Gauge
- VP -10/
- - - -- -434'
17ecordd/ ' 6ns&votion� ernent�' ,5 0
j DB. 46`66 LPG: 306 -31�
— - -_ M--K, PG,' 173 /
Union, /Co. Registry
As —Built Fence
Z\
40 0 40
Feet
20
Scale: 1' = 40'
CD
x°>
0
w Q
> T�
IL L)
Z0�5
z Qom
oo���
Z LL CO LLI
o Lo 2 2
N QZz
Z
D
LU ��
c-
LL Z
Q
E=
s
�Oct
w
z
0
o p -
»oz
d e�x x
E
oog x
•aZ�
f vD< V
Fg g
Vegetation Plot (VP)
© C
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As -Built Thaiweg
and Stationing
As -Built Riffle
As -Built Rock Sill
ia► F
Fixed Photo Locations
—O—O--As -
-Built Fence
----- -----------
-"" -_ - -- — - - - - - -- ---------------------------
---------- - - - - -- - -- -------- ' - - -- --
--- - - - - -- -_ -_
- -
—445-- — - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- - - --
' -- - - -- 452-- - - - -"
-- ---
----- ------------------------------- - - - - -- 453—',454 -----------
- - �,,- -- - - — — — — — _ — — -- ---------------------- - - - - -- - -- -- -� —455—
_ 446----- - - - - -- - � � — — — — — — — 45
/ -
- - - -- -__ -' -�,- _'___ - - -- - - - - - -- -- ------ - - - - -- -------- - - ---- 456 40 0 40
--- -- - -___ - -457- Feet
' - 20
- - -- - j ' - - - - - Scale: 1' a 40'
i EDWARD BRUCE STATON
ESTATE 5EO057
END PROJECT &
RESTORATION REACH
AS —BUILT STA. 8 +54.91
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1
I
_ -4
\ PID # 01069002
213 ACRES + /-
- As —Built Fence —
- - - - - -- =
- - - - -6 6 - -6 - — — — - ` w
_ 4�
—445— -- - -- ° 7@
�`�m��o
4 `sx
\ - - -- - - -- -- � °�J o
x --------- �� A7 -" X -Sec ` o
x +0
i
A� w - - -- Crest Gauge
- VP -10/
- - - -- -434'
17ecordd/ ' 6ns&votion� ernent�' ,5 0
j DB. 46`66 LPG: 306 -31�
— - -_ M--K, PG,' 173 /
Union, /Co. Registry
As —Built Fence
Z\
40 0 40
Feet
20
Scale: 1' = 40'
CD
x°>
0
w Q
> T�
IL L)
Z0�5
z Qom
oo���
Z LL CO LLI
o Lo 2 2
N QZz
Z
D
LU ��
c-
LL Z
Q
E=
s
�Oct
w
z
0
o p -
»oz
d e�x x
E
oog x
•aZ�
f vD< V
Fg g

III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina (USDA
NRCS, January, 1996). The predominant soil type mapped on the Davis Branch main stem is the Cid
channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes. This map unit consists mainly of moderately deep,
moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and gently sloping Cid and
similar soils on flats, on ridges in the uplands, in depressions and in headwater drainageways.
Typically, the surface layer is light brownish gray channery silt loam 4 inches thick, while the
subsurface layer is a pale yellow channery silt loam 5 inches thick. The subsoil is 18 inches thick.
Weathered, fractured slate bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 27 inches. Hard, fractured slate
bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 32 inches. The depth to hard bedrock ranges from 20 to 40
inches.
Included with the Cid soils on site are areas of Badin channery silt loam (BaB), 2 to 8 percent slopes,
mapped on river left along the main stem Priority Level PH restoration reach and along the main stem
preservation reach. The Badin map unit consists mainly of moderately deep, well drained undulating
soils on convex upland ridges that are highly dissected by intermittent drainageways. Typically, the
surface layer is brown Channery silt loam 7 inches thick. The subsoil is 21 inches thick. Weathered,
fractured slate bedrock is encountered at a depth of about 28 inches. Hard, fractured slate bedrock is
at a depth of about 41 inches. An area of Badin Channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent, eroded
(BdC2) is present along the lower (E -I) main stem reach on Davis Branch. The soil taxonomy
is essentially identical to the BaB map unit.
Goldston - Badin complex soils (map symbols - GsB and GsQ, 2 to 8 and 8 to 15 percent slopes,
respectively, are the mapped units on UT 1. GsB soils are mapped along the upper third of the project
reach. GsC soils are mapped to the confluence of UT 1 with Davis Branch main stem. The GsB
mapped soil unit consists mainly of shallow and moderately deep, well drained to excessively
drained, undulating Goldston and Badin soils on ridges in upland areas, as opposed to the GsC (2 to 8
percent slopes) soils mapped on side slopes. The topography is highly dissected by intermittent
drainageways. The GsB unit is about 45 percent Goldston soil and about 40 percent Badin soil, while
the GsC unit is about 55 percent Goldston soil and about 30 percent Badin soil.
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI.
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing populations of
exotic vegetation. There was an area of the riparian corridor along the right bank of the main stem
that was exhibiting significant denudation in 2011. This area was situated between stations 8 +00 and
10 +00. In Year 3, it was labeled as a vegetation problem area of low concern because there was no
evidence that the denudation was currently affecting stream stability. At the time, the lack of
vegetation in this area appeared to be an exacerbation of a natural condition. It is situated in the
understory of a secondary growth forest where there is competition for light during certain portions
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 16

of the day. It was expected that shade tolerant recruits would establish along this section of stream in
future years. Indeed, this is what appeared to be happening in Year 4 as well as Year 5.
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Davis Branch Main Stem and UT1 Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Station # / Range
Max. Depth
% Clay on
NA
NA
% Organic
Series
in.
Surface
Kl
T2
Matter
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to
8 percent slopes (BaB )
41
12 -27
0.24
2
0.5 -2
Badin channery silty clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded (BdC2)
41
27 -40
0.24
2
0.5 -2
Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5
percent slopes CmB
32
12 -27
0.32
2
0.5 -2
Goldston -Badin complex, 2 to
8 percent slopes GsB
27
5 -15
0.05
1
Goldston -Badin complex, 8 to
15 percent slopes (GsC )
27
5 -15
0.05
1
0.5 -2
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion, ranging from 0.05 to 0.69.
2Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that can
occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year.
The sparse vegetation issue has improved from Year 2 monitoring to Year 5 monitoring, as native
vegetation continues to spread across the project site. Because of the previously mentioned reasons,
all of these locations of sparse vegetation are not considered problem areas at this time. A trajectory
toward an increase in stabilizing vegetation cover between monitoring Years 2 and 5 is depicted in
the Year 5 fixed station photos (Appendix B). All of the vegetation plots had planted woody stem
densities that were high enough to meet the required stem counts. Densities of planted woody
species are discussed in the Stem Counts section of this report. As a result of this data, there are no
problem areas identified along the main stem and UT 1 to report in Table VII.
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Davis Branch main Stem and UT1 Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Feature /Issue
Station # / Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
NA
NA
NA
NA
3. Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
No vegetation problem areas of concern were noted for the project reaches in monitoring year 5 and
the Vegetation Problem Area Map has been excluded from Appendix A.
4. Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII. Table
VIIIa provides the survival information for planted species, while Table VIIlb provides the total stem
count for the plots, including all planted and recruit stems. This data was compiled from the
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 17

information collected on each plot using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.0. Additional data tables generated using the CVS -EEP format are included in Appendix A. All
vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2.
The average stem density of planted species for the site far exceeds the minimum criteria of 260
stems per acre after five years. Each individual plot also has a stem density above the minimum. A
substantial number of recruit stems have been found across the site, increasing the total stem density
by approximately 110 %.
To address the issue of low Year 2 stem counts for planted individuals, specific areas were targeted
during the Spring of 2011 and 2012 for supplemental planting within the Davis Branch and Unnamed
Tributary riparian corridors, which included the deficient sample plots and surrounding areas within
the buffer. The majority of these plantings were concentrated along UT1 and the portion of the
Davis Branch EI main stem reach downstream from the confluence with UTL Deficient portions of
the riparian corridors were supplemented with additional native tree and shrub plantings. These
supplemental plantings followed the specifications of the project Restoration Plan and Mitigation
Plan documents. These plantings were successful as all of the individual plots have a stem density
above the minimum in Year 5.
Large (3 gallon potted material) and small (bare -root) woody stock was utilized in performing the
remedial plantings. The larger saplings have a more developed root system and will thus be better
able to compete with the existing vegetation. Bare root individuals were placed along UT and the
downstream end of Davis Branch main stem where shade and vegetation competition is relatively
nonexistent. A table describing the species and approximated quantities of vegetation installed in the
spring of 2011 is included in Appendix A.
5. Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Since no vegetation problem areas were noted in monitoring year 5, vegetation problem area
photographs are not included in Appendix A.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 18

Table VIIL Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - planted stems.
Davis Branch Stream Restoration/ EEP Pro'ect No. D06054 -F
Species
Plots
Year 0
Totals
Year l
JTotals
Year 2
Totals
Year 3
Totals
Year 4
Totals
Year 5
Totals
Survival
%
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 10
Shrubs
A In us serru la ta
1
1
6
6
5
5
2
2
100
Aronia
arbuti olia
3
1
4
4
5
4
6
4
67
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
2
7
3
14
14
17
7
20
17
85
Cornus
amomum
2
4
5
11
6
2
5
0
13
28
37
30
81
Sambucus
canadensis
2
2
1
0
2
2
7
7
5
71
Trees
Acer
saccharinum
2
0
0
0
0
8
2
25
Celtis
occidentalis
7
3
0
0
0
0
10
10
100
Fraxin us
enns lvanica
21
21
41
1
3
21
1
12
121
14
151
14
15
107
briodendron
tuli i era
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
75
AT ssa s lvatica
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
50
Platanus
occidentalis
31
1
1
5
4
1
21
21
17
15
181
15
83
Prunus serotina
1
2
1 4
2
0
0
0
0
8
8
100
Quercus bicolor
3
2
3
1
1
18
22
22
17
14
10
71
Quercus
coccincea
3
8
0
0
0
20
12
11
92
Quercus
marilandica
11
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
100
Quercus rubra
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Quercus
alustris
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
NA
Ulmus rubra
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
NA
Year Totals
121
101
71
151
10
14
17
21
15
94
101
112
136
146
136
93
Live Stem
Density
1
486
405
284
608
4
567
689
851
608
Average Live
StemDensity
551
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 19

Table VIII. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - all stems.
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
S ecies
Plots
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
91
10
Shrubs
Alnus serrulata
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
7
1
Celtis occidentalis
3
10
6
Cephalanthus occidentalis
16
2
7
3
Cornus amomum
2
10
5
13
6
2
Salix exigua
Sambucus canadensis
4
10
3
Trees
Acer rubrum
1
Acer saccharinum
3
Diospyros virginiana
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
2
4
5
26
3
3
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciva
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
Nyssa sylvatica
1
Platanus occidentalis
3
2
2
6
4
1
Prunus serotina
2
3
41
2
Quercus bicolor
3
2
3
1
1
Quercus coccinea
4
9
Quercus merilandica
1
Quercus palustris
1
Quercus phellos
5
Quercus rubra
Rhus typhina
1
Ulmus americana
15
30
1
1
8
Ulmus rubra
1
Year 5 Totals
32
51
8
29
42
29
21
23
23
28
Live Stem Density
1296
2066
324
1175
1701
1175
851
932
932
1134
Average Live Stem Density
1158
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 20

5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos are provided in Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest -stage stream gages were installed along on the project reaches, one each on the Davis
Branch main stem and UT1. The locations of the crest -stage stream gages are shown on the
monitoring plan view (Figure 2). A bankfull event was recorded during Year 5 for the crest gauge
along the main stem; however, no bankfull event was recorded during this past year of monitoring for
UT1 due to an inability to open the gauge for observation. This brings the total number of bankfull
events to four along the main stem and three along UT 1, as presented in Table IX. Photographs of the
crest gages observed after bankfull events are provided in Appendix B.
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of
Monitoring
Date of
Method
Photo #
Data
Year
Occurrence
Collection
9/20/2009
1
7/28/2009*
Main stem & UT Crest Gage
BF 1,5
Data
9/20/2010
2
7/12/2010*
Main stem & UT Crest Gage
BF 2,6
Data
9/14/2011
3
08/01/2011*
Main stem & UT Crest Gage
BF 3,7
Data
9/13/2012
4
NA
Main stem & UT Crest Gage
NA
Data
5/15/2013
5
05/06/2013*
Main stem Crest Gage Data
BF 4
*Date is approximate; based on a review of recorded rainfall data
The recordation of bankfull events in monitoring years 1 and 2 is discussed in those reports. For
monitoring year 3, the crest gage on the main stem and UT1 were observed on September 14, 2011
and indicated a bankfull event at a level of 6 and 3/8 inches and 6 and 5/8 inches, respectfully, above
the bottom of the crest gages. These crest gages are set at or above the bankfull elevation of each
stream channel. The most likely date for the recorded bankfull event was after the precipitation event
that resulted in the peak stage and discharge recorded at USGS Gage 02124692 Goose Creek at
Fairview, NC, on August 1, 2011. On that day, the recorded peak stage elevation was 6.01 feet and
the maximum peak discharge for this day at the same station was 759 ft3 /s. Since this is the largest
precipitation event of significance since the crest gages were read in 2010, it is likely to be related to
the bankfull event recorded by both crest gages within the project reach. This particular gage lies
approximately 15 miles west of the project site. The discharge and gage height recorded at the
Fairview station for Year 3 monitoring are shown on the graphs below.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 21

7.6
6.0
�. 5.9
L
� 4,9
m
L
m 3.0
as
m
ca
} 2.0
J
H
S
G 1.0
0.0 C
Sep
2918
I VU15 J l UHIL1U11 CVC11L — l CGU1 UCU YilglZ UULU
USGS 02124692 GOOSE CR AT FAIRVIEW, NC
Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2919 2911 2911 2911 2911 2911
— Daily maximum gage height — Period of approved data
— Daily minimum gage height — Period of provisional data
— Daily mean gage height
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
hllp://waterdata.usfzs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
hqp://waterdata.uslzs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
On May 15, 2013, the crest gage on the Davis Branch main stem was observed and indicated a
bankfull event at a level of 5 inches above the bottom of the crest gage. The crest gage on UT was
unable to be opened; therefore, it is unknown whether a bankfull event occurred on the tributary in
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 22
USGS 02124692 GOOSE CR AT
FAIRVIEW, NC
r
699.99
U
_
N
L
a
199,99
m
m
i
U
19,99
—
L+
ti
as
L
L
1.99
L7
N
O
}
J
CE
9.19
Sep
Nov
Jan Mar
May
Jul Sep
2919
2919
2911 2911
2911
2911 2911
— Daily
maximum discharge — Period of
approved data
— Daily
minimum discharge
Period of
provisional data
— Daily
mean discharge
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
hqp://waterdata.uslzs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
On May 15, 2013, the crest gage on the Davis Branch main stem was observed and indicated a
bankfull event at a level of 5 inches above the bottom of the crest gage. The crest gage on UT was
unable to be opened; therefore, it is unknown whether a bankfull event occurred on the tributary in
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 22

Year 5. The most likely date for the recorded bankfull event was after the precipitation event that
resulted in the peak stage and discharge recorded at USGS Gage 02124692 Goose Creek at Fairview,
NC, on May 6, 2013. On that day, the recorded peak stage elevation was 6.39 feet and the maximum
peak discharge at the same station was 892 ft3 /s. Since this is the largest precipitation event
immediately prior to the crest gages were read in 2013, it is likely to be related to the bankfull event
recorded by the main stem crest gage within the project reach. The discharge and gage height
recorded at the Fairview station for monitoring year 5 are shown on the graphs below.
Y ears , Danmull event — recoraea gage data
USES 42124692 GOOSE CR AT FAIRVIEW, NC
8.8
7.8
4J
6.0
r 5.8
iW Y
t 4.8
m
as
3.8 —
H 2.8 —
a
1.8
8.8
Mar 09 Mar 23 Apr 06 Apr 20 May 04 May 18 Jun 01 Jun 15 Jun 29
2813 2813 2813 2813 2813 2813 2813 2813 2813
— daily naxinun gage height — Daily nean gage height
Daily nininun gage height — Period of approved data
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
hqp: / /waterdata.usfzs. jzov /nc /nwis /dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 23

-µ 7i t
USGS 42124692 GOOSE CRAT FAIRVIEW, NC
2990.0 =
1999.9
L
a
as
4 100.0 —
U =
s
U —
4 -
�Q
L 10.0
r
U
d
J
N
p 1.0
Har 09 Mar 23 Apr 06 Apr 20 Hay 04 May 18 Jun 01 Jun 15 Jun 29
2913 2913 2913 2913 2913 2913 2913 2913 2913
— daily naxinun discharge — daily nean discharge
daily nininun discharge — Period of approved data
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina
hLtp://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
2. Stream Problem Areas
There were no areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for Year 5, as
indicated in Table X.
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Feature Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
NA
tNA
NA
NA
Stream problem areas in Year 3 were isolated to a few meander bends along the Davis Branch main
stem and UT1. In these places, the right and left banks of the meander bends had little established
vegetation to stabilize the slopes. In Years 4 and 5, these areas have become increasingly covered
with stabilizing vegetation. These areas were considered of low concern in Year 3, as the bends were
not in a state of progressive erosion. Additionally, vegetation continued to infiltrate many of the bare
areas, resulting in an increased root density and providing stabilization for the stream banks. In
monitoring year 5 the vegetation has become fully established along these slopes. Streamside
vegetation has continued to increase in density over the past year, allowing these stream problem
areas to be de- listed from Table X and taken off the Stream Problem Area Map in Year 5. Evidence
of the increase in streamside vegetation can be seen in the Fixed Station Photos in Appendix B.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 24

3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
Since no stream problem areas of concern were noted during the monitoring year 5 stream
assessment, the stream problem area plan view map is not included in Appendix B.
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
Since no stream problem areas of concern were noted during the Year 5 stream assessment, stream
problem area photos are not included in Appendix B.
5. Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station in September 2013. These
photographs are provided in Appendix B.
6. Stability Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the fourth year of monitoring. The visual assessment for each
reach is summarized in Table XIa through Table XIc. This summary was compiled from the more
comprehensive Table B1, included in Appendix B. Only those structures included in the as -built
survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables.
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Main Stem & UTI Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Main stem Restoration Reach
Feature
Initia
1
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
99%
98%
98%
98%
98%
B. Poo1s2
100%
99%
99%
98%
98%
98%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
99%
98%
97%
98%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes/ J Hooks etc.'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders'
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The visual stream stability assessment revealed the vast majority of in- stream structures are
functioning as designed and constructed on the Davis Branch main stem and UT I. Rock -toe channel
protection, constructed riffles and pools are functioning as designed and built. Due to increased
density of streamside vegetation, previous meander bank erosion along the enhancement reach of the
Davis Branch main stem and UT 1 has decreased markedly from Year 2 to Year 5 and been
eliminated from consideration as on -going problem areas.
In addition to the meander category, there were a few pools and riffles that did not match the as -built
condition as presented in the graphs of the longitudinal profile (see Appendix B). It is assumed that
the rock substrate is shifting over time, evolving into that which better matches a stable channel
morphology. The pool and riffle features are all still present and functional. Additionally, a few
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 25

pools on the main stem restoration reach and UT1 exhibited minor aggradation in Year 4. These
pools remain functional.
Table XIb. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Main Stem & UT1 Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Main stem EI Reach
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
100%
B.Poo1s2
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
C.Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
96%
93%
98.5%
99%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table XIc. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Main Stem & UTI Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: UT 1
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
97%
97%
97%
99%
99%
B. Poo1s2
100%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
C.Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
96%
92%
96%
98%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc. 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'Riffles are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A riffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile.
2Pools are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth.
3Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N /A. This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders.
7. Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross - sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are presented in
Appendix B. A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in Tables XII and XIH
for comparison with the monitoring data shown in the appendix.
The stream pattern data provided for Year 5 is the same as the data provided from the As -Built
survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 5 stream surveys and visual field assessment.
Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the long -term
longitudinal profiles; however, due to the `no flow' condition observed during monitoring year 5, the
profile information documented in Table XII for all three stream segments remains the same from
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 26

Year 4, as does the water- surface (channel bed) slope. Dimensional measurements of the
monumented cross - sections remain stable when compared to as -built conditions. Riffle lengths,
slopes and pool to pool spacings are representative of reference conditions. A few parameter
measurements have changed when comparing the monitoring years 1 thru 5 data with As -built
conditions. As in previous years, the longitudinal profile survey in Year 5 continues to detect micro -
features that were not identified during the as -built survey. Pool and riffle features are developing in
the restored and enhanced reaches as the stream distributes its bedload and redistributes the
constructed substrate during high flow events. The Year 5 stream profile graphs show stability with
minimal change from as -built conditions, with the exception of the aforementioned microfeatures.
The constructed riffles of Davis Branch main stem remain stable, with a median particle distribution
in the very coarse gravel range. The pool substrate remains stable as well, with median particle sizes
ranging from silt to very course gravel based on Year 5 substrate analysis. Median particle
distributions for the pools of the main stem have fallen since 2011 (Year 3). This is a sign that, since
construction, enough time has passed to allow smaller particles to settle naturally into the channel
and enough flow events have occurred to sort the developing substrate. This is a sign of increasing
substrate stability for the Davis Branch main stem. The substrate is therefore stable in Year 5 and
remedial maintenance work is not warranted.
A shift in particle distribution along the enhancement reach of Davis Branch resulted in a
classification change from 0/1 (as- built) to C4 /1 (Years 1 -4); however, the Year 5 classification for
this reach has returned back to 0/1. This shift in particle distribution is fairly subtle and does not
suggest inherent stream channel instability.
The reach composite for UT 1 is the same as the riffle composite for this stream, as both monumented
cross sections are riffles. In Year 5, the median D50 is 26.1 mm and falls within the coarse gravel
range. As with the main stem, the change in riffle particle distribution and median size are subtle and
does not suggest inherent stream channel instability.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Year 5 vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2013 using the CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee, M.T., Peet, RK., Roberts, S.R., Wentworth, T.R. 2006).
Year 5 stream monitoring was conducted in September 2013 in order to provide adequate time
between the Year 4 and Year 5 monitoring surveys.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Davis Branch Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06054 -F Page 27

Table XIIa: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Station /Reach: Mainstem Restoration Reach Station 7 +81 to 25 +80 (1,799 linear feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 1 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 2 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 3 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 4 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Year 5 (Riffle XS -1 & XS -3)
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
I Max
I Median
Min
I Max
I Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Dimension
Drainage Area (mi2)
0.5712
0.5712
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
0.1823
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
80.0
77.6
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
24.8
BF Width (ft)
11.77
12.91
8.31
9.00
9.17
13.38
11.28
8.76
13.05
10.91
9.63
14.94
12.29
7.90
14.07
10.99
10.87
16.62
13.75
10.37
17.09
13.73
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.00
52.12
165.18
106.28
63.19
238.17
117.44
63.06
112.74
87.90
60.32
114.50
87.41
69.72
71.45
70.59
66.77
76.45
71.61
61.90
74.40
68.15
66.41
70.47
68.44
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
15.85
15.65
7.56
7.92
3.99
9.98
6.99
4.22
12.01
8.12
6.48
16.87
11.68
4.81
14.97
9.89
6.05
15.06
10.56
5.44
13.67
9.56
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.35
1.21
0.91
0.88
0.44
0.75
0.60
0.48
0.92
0.70
0.67
1.13
0.90
0.61
1.06
0.84
0.56
0.91
0.74
0.52
0.80
0.66
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.61
1.81
1.20
0.87
1.62
1.25
0.87
1.57
1.22
1.10
1.92
1.51
1.00
1.73
1.37
1.23
1.81
1.52
1.01
1.88
1.45
Width /Depth Ratio
8.72
10.67
9.13
10.23
17.84
20.84
19.34
14.18
18.25
16.22
13.22
14.37
13.80
12.95
13.27
13.11
18.26
19.41
18.84
19.94
21.36
20.65
Entrenchment Ratio
3.87
6.27
19.88
12.79
7.02
26.46
13.05
4.71
12.30
8.51
4.62
13.07
8.85
4.67
7.42
6.05
4.75
9.67
7.21
3.72
6.85
5.29
3.89
6.80
5.35
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.38
1.41
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.47
13.72
9.84
9.57
9.33
13.80
11.57
8.94
13.55
11.25
10.06
15.60
12.83
8.21
14.79
11.50
11.22
17.34
14.28
10.71
17.78
14.25
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.10
1.14
1
1 0.77
0.83
0.43
0.721
0.58
0.471
0.89
0.68
0.641
1.081
0.86
0.591
1.011
0.80
0.541
0.871
0.71
0.511
0.771
0.64
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27.80
53.00
38.00
Incised Linear Braided Channel
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16.40
45.30
29.40
Incised Linear Braided Channel
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
10.65
35.00
19.70
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80.10
116.50
99.20
Incised Linear Braided Channel
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
49.94
101.80
77.76
Meander Width Ratio
1
2.15
4.11
2.94
Incised Linear Braided Channel
5.56
1
1 4.43
1
1 4.59
1
1 4.07
1
1 4.55
1
3.64
1
1 3.64
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.0
18.5
15.0
25.0
31.0
27.0
7.7
45.2
21.3
7.1
34.5
12.6
6.0
25.6
12.5
5.4
28.8
12.2
7.6
37.4
14.1
7.6
29.3
14.9
7.6
29.3
14.9
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.02830
0.07990
0.05200
0.02080
0.06290
0.04499
0.02270
0.07620
0.03990
0.02806
0.07468
0.04822
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
0.0192
0.0887
0.0447
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Length (ft)
12.0
29.1
21.2
19.5
29.8
22.9
17.1
36.8
23.9
11.5
42.6
24.5
10.5
44.0
22.3
10.0
51.3
26.7
10.2
65.8
30.8
12.9
65.2
31.7
12.9
65.2
31.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
33.4
43.7
38.6
35.3
43.7
40.0
24.9
78.1
48.5
16.8
79.8
40.3
14.0
78.6
34.1
12.3
81.3
37.6
12.1
103.3
44.8
13.4
80.1
46.4
13.4
80.1
46.4
Substrate
D50 (mm)
69.2
17.7
17.7
33.3
36.3
34.8
28.0
32.7
30.4
41.8
66.6
53.1
35.5
61.8
48.6
32.0
44.0
38.0
41.8
51.3
46.5
D84 (mm)
140.1
28.9
28.9
52.8
61.5
57.2
53.7
68.0
60.9
85.4
Rock
146.2
66.6
Bedrock
192.2
66.6
Bedrock
66.6
92.6
112.8
102.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
974
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
Channel Length (ft)
1129
1,562
1,802
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
1,799
Sinuosity
1.2
1.12
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.03110
0.01579
0.01320
0.00828
0.01917
0.01304
0.01243
0.01782
0.01248
0.00812
0.01758
0.01232
0.01179
0.01732
0.01244
0.00895
0.01986
0.01397
0.00895
0.01986
0.01397
Valley Slope (ft /ft)
0.03256
0.01760
0.01703
0.01066
0.02469
0.01679
0.01601
0.02295
0.01607
0.01046
I
0.02264
0.01587
0.01518
0.02230
0.01602
0.01153
0.02557
0.01799
0.01153
I
0.02557
0.01799
Rosgen Classification
E
E3 /lb*
E4/1 -+DA4 /1
E4 /1
I
I
I C4 /1
I
I
I C4 /1
I
I C4 /1
I
I C4 /1
I
I
I C4 /1
I
I C4 /1
Notes: *E channel morphology, large cobble substrate with bedrock control, bankfull slope greater than 0.02 ft /ft.
The water surface slope in years 1, 2, 4 and 5 represents the "channel slope" since the channel was dry.

Table XIIb: Baseline Geomorph.ic and Hydraulic Summary
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Station /Reach: Mainstem Enhancement Level I Reach Station 25 +83 to 38 +72 (1,289 linear feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Year 1 (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Year 2 (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Year 3 (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Year 4 (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Year 5 (Riffle XS -5 & XS -7)
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Dimension
Drainage Area (mil)
0.5712
0.5712
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
0.3352
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
80.0
77.6
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
45.5
BF Width (ft)
11.77
12.91
8.78
10.00
15.97
17.38
16.68
16.56
18.43
17.50
17.44
21.71
19.58
17.56
18.00
17.78
14.78
21.51
18.15
15.14
18.91
17.03
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.00
21.57
97.94
62.74
70.58
144.67
104.34
59.88
63.70
61.79
59.77
63.23
61.50
54.36
69.38
61.87
62.58
69.09
65.84
64.44
71.73
68.09
69.76
73.63
71.70
BF Cross Sectional Area ff)
15.85
15.65
11.18
11.52
10.30
10.38
10.34
11.35
13.76
12.56
14.56
15.02
14.79
13.92
14.51
14.22
12.77
15.22
14.00
15.02
16.57
15.80
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.35
1.21
1.27
1.15
0.59
0.65
0.62
0.62
0.83
0.73
0.69
0.83
0.76
0.79
0.81
0.80
0.71
0.86
0.79
0.88
0.99
0.94
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.61
2.04
1.60
1.22
1.31
1.27
1.25
1.33
1.29
1.35
1.64
1.50
1.35
1.52
1.44
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.50
1.81
1.66
Width/Depth Ratio
8.72
10.67
6.91
8.70
24.57
29.46
27.02
19.95
29.73
24.84
21.01
31.46
26.24
22.22
22.23
22.23
17.19
30.30
23.75
15.29
21.49
18.39
Entrenchment Ratio
3.87
2.46
11.15
7.15
7.06
14.47
10.43
3.67
3.75
3.71
3.43
3.61
3.52
2.50
3.98
3.24
3.48
3.93
3.71
3.34
4.36
3.85
3.89
4.61
4.25
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.58
1.86
1.72
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.47
13.72
10.21
10.85
16.19
17.57
16.88
16.85
18.79
17.82
17.93
22.01
19.97
17.97
18.35
18.16
15.16
21.841
18.50
15.57
22.09
18.83
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.10
1.14
1.10
1.06
0.59
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.82
0.71
0.68
0811
0.75
0.77
0.79
0.78
0.70
0.841
0.77
0.75
0.961
0.86
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27.80
53.00
38.00
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16.40
45.30
29.40
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80.10
116.50
99.20
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Meander Width Ratio
2.15
4.11
2.94
Incised Linear Channel
Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Restored Linear Channel
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.0
18.5
15.0
57.9
85.3
67.1
24.0
57.0
45.0
18.7
109.9
62.3
8.4
50.7
19.1
8.1
59.5
21.3
4.3
49.9
19.4
8.3
68.8
23.6
8.3
68.8
23.6
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0283
0.0799
0.0520
0.0264
0.0518
0.0393
0.0098
0.0549
0.0504
0.0316
0.1217
0.0591
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
0.0155
0.1799
0.0634
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Length (ft)
12.0
29.1
21.2
29.5
48.8
39.2
6.0
40.0
22.5
9.5
50.1
29.5
8.4
39.2
20.4
8.0
57.9
26.2
9.8
51.2
29.2
9.5
62.8
34.9
9.5
62.8
34.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
1
1
33.41
43.71
38.6
92.21
103.01
97.6
40.01
88.01
68.5
28.31
109.11
63.4
12.51
79.01
35.6
18.61
96.91
55.1
19.91
92.31
47.7
27.31
96.01
62.8
27.31
96.01
62.8
Substrate
D50 (mm)
69.2
154.0
154.0
63.1
97.1
80.1
22.6
59.3
41.0
45.0
47.7
46.9
22.6
56.4
39.5
48.8
60.2
54.5
40.1
115.4
77.7
D84 (mm)
140.1
207.4
207.4
179.3
216.5
197.9
87.8
146.2
117.0
97.3
148.8
119.9
100.6
114.3
103.7
110.9
372.1
241.5
103.2
185.1
144.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
974
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
Channel Length (ft)
1129
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
1289
Sinuosity
1.2
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.06
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.03110
0.02160
0.02160
0.02122
0.02124
0.02121
0.02087
0.02144
0.02144
Valley Slope (ft /ft)
0.03256
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
0.02290
Rosgen Classification
E
E3 /lb*
E3 /lb
E3 /lb
C3 /lb
C4 /lb
C4 /lb
C4 /lb
C4 /lb
C3 /lb
Notes: *E channel morphology, large cobble substrate with bedrock control, bankfull slope greater than 0.02 ft /ft.
The water surface slope in years 1, 2, 4 and 5 represents the "channel slope" since the channel was dry.

Table XIIc: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributary Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Station/Reach: Davis Branch UT1 Restoration Reach Station 3 +96 to 8 +54 (459 linear feet)
Parameter
Regional Curve Data
Davis Branch Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition
Design
As -Built (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Year 1 (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Year 2 (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Year 3 (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Year 4 (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Year 5 (Riffle XS -8 & XS -9)
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Min
Max
Median
Dimension **
Drainage Area (mil)
0.5712
0.5712
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
0.0721
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
80.0
77.6
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
BF Width (ft)
11.77
12.91
6.85
8.39
7.82
6.20
12.18
12.58
12.38
11.57
11.88
11.73
11.27
11.92
11.60
8.79
10.93
9.86
6.33
8.37
7.35
11.92
6.99
5.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.00
7.17
78.27
28.42
32.37
105.76
47.40
50.49
57.74
54.12
37.21
56.82
47.02
44.22
55.60
49.91
45.30
52.62
48.96
35.32
40.57
37.95
55.60
37.29
33.50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
15.85
15.65
4.27
4.31
4.30
4.45
5.14
5.45
5.30
3.69
5.18
4.44
4.32
5.93
5.13
4.65
4.81
4.73
2.17
3.11
2.64
5.93
2.40
2.20
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.35
1.21
0.51
0.63
0.55
0.72
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.44
0.38
0.38
0.50
0.44
0.46
0.53
0.50
0.34
0.37
0.36
0.50
0.40
0.37
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.61
0.77
0.92
0.88
1.00
0.95
1.02
0.99
0.70
0.99
0.85
0.71
1.05
0.88
0.81
0.95
0.88
0.67
0.76
0.72
1.05
0.66
0.61
Width/Depth Ratio
8.72
10.67
10.87
16.45
14.37
8.61
29.00
29.26
29.13
27.00
36.16
31.58
23.84
29.66
26.75
16.58
23.76
20.17
18.62
22.62
20.62
23.84
20.56
16.52
Entrenchment Ratio
3.87
0.92
10.01
3.63
5.22
17.06
7.65
4.01
4.74
4.38
3.22
4.78
4.00
3.92
4.66
4.29
4.81
5.15
4.98
4.85
5.58
5.22
4.66
5.95
5.65
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
2.32
3.67
2.82
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.47
13.72
7.28
8.74
8.15
6.73
12.38
12.74
12.56
11.70
12.08
11.89
11.41
12.13
11.77
9.00
11.14
10.07
6.59
8.53
7.56
12.13
7.16
6.24
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.10
1.14
0.49
0.59
0.53
1
1 0.66
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.42
0.37
0.38
0.49
0.44
0.45
0.52
0.49
0.33
0.36
0.35
0.49
0.37
0.35
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27.80
53.00
38.00
Incised Linear Channel
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16.40
45.30
29.40
Incised Linear Channel
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
11.10
18.00
12.60
Meander Wavelength (ft)
80.10
116.50
99.20
Incised Linear Channel
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
50.53
58.82
52.60
Meander Width Ratio
2.15
4.11
2.94
Incised Linear Channel
8.06
3.97
4.11
4.04
4.21
4.32
4.26
4.19
4.44
4.31
4.57
5.69
5.07
5.97
7.90
6.80
7.15
4.19
8.35
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.0
18.5
15.0
1.1
305.7
30.6
9.0
23.0
17.1
8.7
45.0
17.0
8.3
46.6
14.8
8.5
33.1
18.8
7.7
40.0
16.6
7.4
37.8
18.4
7.4
37.8
18.4
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0283
0.0799
0.0520
0.0372
0.1001
0.0586
0.0278
0.0486
0.0314
0.0372
0.0682
0.0496
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
0.0154
0.0676
0.0382
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
No Flow
Pool Length (ft)
12.0
29.1
21.2
7.2
31.9
19.2
12.8
22.8
18.7
11.9
28.4
17.2
7.1
27.8
14.7
6.2
30.6
16.9
8.5
29.2
17.6
9.5
32.5
19.6
9.5
32.5
19.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
33.4
43.7
38.6
15.6
324.8
76.9
24.6
41.5
34.7
12.8
50.3
28.7
10.5
38.2
22.1
13.2
58.2
28.9
13.6
40.0
28.2
14.0
57.5
29.2
14.0
57.5
29.2
Substrate
D50 (mm)
69.2
11.4
11.4
28.8
38.5
34.8
33.5
46.5
40.0
45.0
48.2
46.9
37.6
45.0
41.3
34.8
37.2
36.0
48.21
29.71
26.1
D84 (mm)
140.1
15.4
15.4
62.0
91.0
57.2
82.2
93.1
87.6
93.8
123.4
110.3
107.7
124.2
118.7
80.6
85.1
82.9
123.41
116.81
83.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
974
670
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
Channel Length (ft)
1129
730
450
459
459
459
459
459
459
Sinuosity
1.2
1.09
1.31
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.03110
0.02300
0.02010
0.02021
0.02055
0.02055
0.01932
0.02003
0.02003
Valley Slope (ft /ft)
0.03256
0.02506
0.02637
0.02704
0.027041
0.02704
0.02704
0.027041
0.02704
Rosgen Classification
E
E3 /lb*
E4 /lb--).C4 /lb
E4 /lb
C4 /lb
C4 /lb
I
I
I C4 /lb
C4 /lb
C4 /lb
I
C4 /lb
Notes: *E channel morphology, large cobble substrate with bedrock control, bankfull slope greater than 0.02 ft /ft.
The water surface slope in years 1, 2, 4 and 5 represents the "channel slope" since the channel was dry.

Table XIIIa: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach: Davis Branch Mainstem - Restoration
Parameter
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Dimension
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
BF Width (ft)
9.17
8.76
9.63
7.90
10.87
10.37
11.34
11.09
11.91
12.52
12.20
10.92
13.38
13.05
14.94
14.07
16.62
17.09
21.38
21.92
16.67
19.37
15.41
13.58
Floodprone Width (ft)
112.74
114.50
71.45
76.45
74.40
70.47
156.53
150.00
91.32
91.34
80.59
80.73
63.06
60.32
69.72
66.77
61.90
66.41
67.34
71.38
58.73
61.93
62.01
51.31
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
3.99
4.22
6.48
4.81
6.05
5.44
11.97
11.49
13.26
10.84
12.94
11.69
9.98
12.01
16.87
14.97
15.06
13.67
18.64
20.97
15.37
18.71
15.65
10.94
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.44
0.48
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.52
1.06
1.04
1.11
0.87
1.06
1.07
0.75
0.92
1.13
1.06
0.91
0.80
0.87
0.96
0.92
0.97
1.02
0.81
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.87
0.87
1.10
1.00
1.23
1.01
2.11
2.00
2.15
2.17
2.06
2.03
1.62
1.57
1.92
1.73
1.81
1.88
2.24
2.32
1.83
1.94
1.88
1.65
Width/Depth Ratio
20.84
18.25
14.37
12.95
19.41
19.94
10.70
10.66
10.73
14.39
11.51
10.21
17.84
14.18
13.22
13.27
18.26
21.36
24.57
22.83
18.12
19.97
15.11
16.77
Entrenchment Ratio
12.30
13.07
7.42
9.67
6.85
6.80
13.80
13.53
7.67
7.30
6.61
7.40
4.71
4.62
4.67
4.75
3.72
3.89
3.15
3.26
3.52
3.20
4.02
3.78
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.33
8.94
10.06
8.21
11.22
10.71
12.10
11.79
12.74
13.36
12.95
12.02
13.80
13.55
15.60
14.79
17.34
17.78
22.03
22.69
17.21
20.03
16.04
14.19
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.43
0.47
0.64
0.59
0.54
0.511
0.99
0.97
1.04
0.81
1.00
0.97
0.72
0.89
1.08
1.01
0.87
0.77
0.85
0.92
0.89
0.93
0.98
0.77
Substrate
33.30
52.81
61.81
38.50
138.43
D50 (mm)
36.33
27.97
41.75
35.47
32.00
41.75
0.21
0.06
20.40
8.47
0.05
0.04
32.65
66.60
44.00
51.33
28.77
26.13
59.25
113.89
46.68
81.16
43.14
78.30
D84 (mm)
61.46
68.01
85.37
66.61
66.61
112.79
10.87
14.21
76.71 21.81
10.54
65.74
53.74
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
92.55
50.84 55.45
Table XIIIb: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach: Davis Branch Mainstem - Enhancement Level I
Parameter
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Dimension
MY 1
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4 MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
15.97
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
BF Width (ft)
f63.70
18.43
17.44
17.56
21.51
18.91
11.81
12.61
12.69
10.94
14.70
12.52
16.56
21.71
18.00
14.78
15.14
Floodprone Width (ft)
29.71
63.23
69.38
69.09
71.73
73.63
84.56
79.85
74.40
65.11
89.27
85.53
59.88
59.77
54.36
62.58
64.44
69.76
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
0.37
11.35
14.56
13.92
15.22
16.57
16.75
18.35
16.73
11.92
19.99
16.47
10.38
13.76
15.02
14.51
12.77
15.02
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.76
0.62
0.83
0.79
0.71
0.88
1.42
1.46
1.32
1.09
1.36
1.32
0.65
0.83
0.69
0.81
0.86
0.99
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.22
1.25
1.64
1.52
1.50
1.81
2.28
2.33
2.27
1.85
2.39
2.271
1.31
1.33
1.35
1.35
1.51
1.50
Width/Depth Ratio
29.46
29.73
21.01
22.23
30.30
21.49
8.32
8.64
9.61
10.04
10.81
9.48
24.57
19.95
31.46
22.22
17.19
15.29
Entrenchment Ratio
3.67
3.43
3.98
3.93
3.34
3.89
7.16
6.33
5.86
5.95
6.07
6.83
3.75
3.61
2.50
3.48
4.36
4.61
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
17.57
18.79
17.93
17.97
21.84 22.09
12.87
13.64
13.75
11.67
15.69
14.41
16.19
16.85
22.01
18.35
15.16
15.57
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.59
0.60
0.81
0.77
0.70 0.75
1.30
1.34
1.22
1.02
1.27
1.14
0.64
0.82
0.68
0.79
0.84
0.96
Substrate
D50 (nun)
63.06
16.00
45.00
56.40
48.80
40.12
40.13
42.84
45.00
16.94
0.05
5.28
97.12
59.25
47.72
22.60
60.20
115.35
D84 (mm)
179.28
86.10
97.27
100.63
110.90
103.161
89.70
80.16
82.801
103.66
34.61
84.80
216.50
146.19
148.80
114.32
372.051
185.09
Table XIIIc: Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary - All Cross Sections
Davis Branch and Unnamed Tributaries Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach: UTl
Parameter
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
BF Width (ft)
12.58
11.57
11.27
8.79
8.37
6.99
12.18
11.88
11.92
10.93
6.33
4.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.49
37.21
44.22
45.30
40.57
37.29
57.74
56.82
55.60
52.62
35.32
29.71
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
5.45
3.69
4.32
4.65
3.11
2.40
5.14
5.18
5.93
4.81
2.17
1.99
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.43
0.32
0.38
0.53
0.37
0.34
0.42
0.44
0.50
0.46
0.34
0.40
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.95
0.70
0.71
0.81
0.67
0.56
1.02
0.99
1.05
0.95
0.76
0.66
Width/Depth Ratio
29.26
36.16
29.66
16.58
22.62
20.56
29.00
27.00
23.84
23.76
18.62
12.47
Entrenchment Ratio
4.01
3.22
3.92
5.15
4.85
5.34
4.74
4.78
4.66
4.81
5.58
5.95
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.74
11.70
11.41
9.00
8.53
7.16
12.38
12.08
12.13
11.14
6.59
5.32
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.43
0.32
0.38
0.52
0.36
0.331
0.42
0.43
0.49
0.45
0.33
0.37
Substrate
D50 (mm)
28.75
46.46
45.00
37.57
37.20
22.60
38.50
33.45
48.16
45.00
34.79
29.65
D84 (mm)
62.01
82.20
93.82
107.71
80.64
50.70
91.02
93.05
123.441
124.20
85.13
116.84

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables
3. Vegetation Installed During 2011 & 2012 Remedial Planting

Vegetation Plot 1
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)
Vegetation Plot 2
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Vegetation Plot 3
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/13)
Vegetation Plot 4
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Vegetation Plot 5
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)
Vegetation Plot 6
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Vegetation Plot 7
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)
Vegetation Plot 8
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/01/13)

Vegetation Plot 9
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)
Vegetation Plot 10
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Marion Wells
Date Prepared
6/26/2013 11:31
database name
cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.2.6.mdb
database location
Q: \ENVIRONMENTAL \Monitoring \EEP Vegetation Database
computer name
2UA602108H
file size
53424128
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS
DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
D06054F
project Name
Davis Branch
Description
Stream restoration of Davis Branch mainstem and unnamed tributary.
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
10

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor
by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer saccharinum
5
1
1
7
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
2
2
4
1
Celtis occidentalis
8
21
1
1
1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
3
8
5
1
5
6
Cornus amomum
16
7
7
11
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6
7
2
1
2
1
Nyssa sylvatica
11
2
1
Quercus bicolor
1
3
9
2
5
3
Quercus coccinea
4
51
21
1
8
Quercus palustris
1
Sambucus canadensis
2
3
1
Ulmus rubra
1
1
Cercis canadensis
I
1
Quercus marilandica
1
1
Quercus rubra
2
11
11
1
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
2
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
11
4
6
TOT:
Prunus serotina
2
4
2
9
20
11
TOT:
19
1 62145
28
1
1 53
Table 2. Vegetation Vigor
by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Acer saccharinum
5
3
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
5
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
10
2
2
6
Cornus amomum
18
15
4
11
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10
3
1
2
1
Nyssa sylvatica
2
Quercus bicolor
8
3
2
2
3
Quercus coccinea
6
6
2
6
Sambucus canadensis
4
Ulmus rubra
1
1
Cercis canadensis
1
Quercus marilandica
1
Quercus rubra
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
2
11
11
1
Platanus occidentalis
15
3
3
Prunus serotina
5
3
TOT:
118
1102
42
7
9
20
11

Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
v
•L
0
W
v
v
R
a,
M
f0
o
M
E
E
Cl
L.:
@
M
M
0
L
++
L
v
Acer saccharinum
9
9
Alnus serrulata
3
3
Aronia arbutifolia
8
8
Celtis occidentalis
11
11
Cephalanthus occidentalis
22
22
Cercis canadensis
1
1
Cornus amomum
39
39
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
17
16
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
4
3
1
Nyssa sylvatica
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
21
21
Prunus serotina
8
8
Quercus bicolor
15
14
1
Quercus coccinea
19
19
Quercus marilandica
1
1
Quercus palustris
1
1
Quercus rubra
2
2
Sambucus canadensis
5
5
Ulmus rubra
1 11
1
TOT:
119
1 1891
186
2
1

Table 4. Vegetation Damage by Plot
v
•L
0
w
v
M
M
E
an
E
�
E
m
0
0
ra
�
0
s
°J
v
a
D06054F -01 -0001 (year 5)
14
14
D06054F-01-0002 (year 5)
19
19
D06054F -01 -0003 (year 5)
7
6
1
D06054F-01-0004 (year 5)
16
16
D06054F-01-0005 (year 5)
11
11
D06054F-01-0006 (year 5)
181
18
D06054F-01-0007 (year 5)
191
19
D06054F -01 -0008 (year 5)
22
22
D06054F -01 -0009 (year 5)
46
46
D06054F -01 -0010 (year 5)
17
15
2
TOT:
10
189
186
2
1

Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species - Planted Stems
Z�
17
1
A
T
?
T
T
T
A
T
A
T
ri
N
M
:T
Ln
LD
I,
00
M
O
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
4�
N1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
a,
LL
d'
LL
d'
LL
a'
LL
d'
LL
d'
LL
ct
LL
et
LL
c*
LL
a
LL
q*
++
N
E
L!1
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
LA
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
a
�
01
Ln
t0
o
LD
0
tG
0
�D
0
t0
0
LD
0
t0
0
�D
0
t0
0
LD
0
v
M
+�
O
1#
0
++
0
r
0
++
0
a+
0
++
0
41
0
++
0
++
0
++
0
4r
Q
0
Q.
O
t
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
H
�#
co
Q
a
Q
Q.
Q
Q
Q
Q.
Q
Acer saccharinum
2
1
2
2
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
4
2
2
3
1
Celtis occidentalis
10
2
5
7
1 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
17
4
4.25
51
21
7
1
1
1
3
Cornus amomum
30
6
5
2
4
5
11
6
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15
7
2.14
2
2
4
1
3
2
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
1
31
3
Nyssa sylvatica
1
1
1
1 1
Platanus occidentalis
15
6
2.5
3
1
1
5
4
1
Prunus serotina
8
3
2.67
2
4
2
Quercus bicolor
10
5
2
3
2
3
1
1
Quercus coccinea
111
21
5.5
3
8
Quercus marilandica
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
5
3
1.67
2
2
1
Ulmus rubra
1
1
1
1
TOT:
17
136
17
12
10
7
15
10
15
14
17
21
15

Table 6. Stem Count by Plot and Species - All Stems
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
ri
N
M
d'
Ln
l0
I,
00
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Vf
r I
O
r-1
O
r�-I
O
r I
O
r�-I
O
r I
O
r�-I
O
r-I
O
r�-I
O
r-I
O
a)
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
f0
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Q-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Acer saccharinum
3
1
3
3
Alnus serrulata
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
8
2
4
7
1
Celtis occidentalis
19
3
6.33
3
10
6
Cephalanthus occidentalis
28
4
7
16
2
7
3
Cornus amomum
38
6
6.33
2
10
5
13
6
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
48
10
4.8
2
2
4
5
26
3
3
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
2
11
21
2
Nyssa sylvatica
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus bicolor
10
5
2
3
2
3
1
1
Quercus coccinea
13
2
6.5
4
9
Quercus palustris
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
51
11
5
5
Sambucus canadensis
17
3
5.67
4
10
3
Ulmus rubra
1
1
1
1
Rhus typhina
1
1
1
1
Quercus marilandica
1
1
11
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
1
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
18
6
3
3
2
2
6
4
'1
1
Prunus serotina
11
4
2.75
2
3
4
2
Acer rubrum
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
55
5
11
15
30
1
1
8
TOT:
22
286
23
32
51
81
29
42
29
21
23
23
28

Table 7. Vegetation Installed during 2011 Remedial Planting
Species (scientific name)
Species (common name)
Quantity (approximate)
Material size
Cehphalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
300
bare root & 3- gallon
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
500
bare root & 3- gallon
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
300
bare root
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
400
bare root & 3- gallon
Ulmus americans
American elm
200
bare root
Table 8. Vegetation Installed during 2012 Remedial Planting
Species (scientific name)
Species (common name)
Quantity (approximate)
Material size
Cehphalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
100
bare root & 3- gallon
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
200
bare root & 3-gallon
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
150
3 gallon
Quercus marilandica
Blackjack oak
300
bare root & 3- gallon
Quercus rubra
Red oak
100
bare root & 3- gallon

APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1. Fixed Station Photos
2. Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3. Cross Section Plots
4. Longitudinal Plots
5. Pebble Count Plots
6. Bankfull Event Photos

Fixed Station 1
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream at Station 7 +80.
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)
Fixed Station 2
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream near Station 14 +75.
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Fixed Station 3
Overview of Davis Branch, looking downstream near Station 15 +50.
(EMH &T, 10/1/2013)

Fixed Station 4
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 25 +75.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 5: 10/1/2013).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 5
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 27 +25.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 510/1/2013).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 6
Overview of Davis Branch, looking upstream near Station 38 +75.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 5: 10/1/2013).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 7
Overview of UT1, looking upstream near Station 6 +50.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 5: 10/1/2013).
(EMH &T)

Fixed Station 8
Overview of UT1, looking downstream near Station 4 +50.
(Top Photo — Year 1: Sept -2009, Bottom Photo — Year 5: 10/1/2013).
(EMH &T)

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Main stem restoration
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
41
41
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
37
41
4,0
90
3. Facet grade appears stable?
41
41
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
41
41
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
41
41
0
100
98%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat. ?)
40
40
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
37
40
3,0
92.5
3. Length appropriate?
40
40
0
100
98%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run /inflection) centering?
36
36
0
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
36
36
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
36
36
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
36
36
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
36
36
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
36
36
0
100
100%
E. Bed General
1. Geveral channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads/ Boulders
1. Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment /Reach: UTl restoration
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
14
14
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
13
14
1,0
93
3. Facet grade appears stable?
14
14
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding /fining?
14
14
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
14
14
0
100
99%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat. ?)
14
14
0
100
2. Sufficient) deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
13
14
1,0
93
3. Length appropriate?
14
14
0
100
98%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run /inflection) centering?
12
12
0
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
12
12
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
12
12
0
92
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
12
12
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
12
12
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
12
12
0
100
100%
E. Bed General
1. Geveral channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads/ Boulders
1. Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
N/Al
01
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table B1. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Davis Branch Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Segment/Reach: Main stem enhancement
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
18
18
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
18
18
0
100
3. Facet grade appears stable?
18
18
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
18
18
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
18
18
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat. ?)
19
19
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
19
19
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
19
19
0
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run /inflection) centering?
18
18
0
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
18
18
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
18
18
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
18
18
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
18
18
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
18
18
0
100
100%
E. Bed General
1. Geveral channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads/ Boulders
1. Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 5.44 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 10.37 ft
REACH Main stem
Mean Depth 0.52 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 1.01 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 19.94,
Entrenchment Ratio 6.8
CROSS SECTION: 1
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
Ii;n jai ctnett
w
r
Davis Branch - Riffle XS1 - Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
y
QXi1Y 5 fDwMl VN'eier LKu14F$w AKul w M1 VXu1W YFU T%$1 WYN2 Li KS1W M
#�1e) Indlwtas S' Q. YR0
'. �.; h
wreF 1e -• D6kf .SF abkf . 5-"
55
h
1
+fir w,
!Zk
lw
W
v
�`�'�:��Ys,��'.'.'ld'►r+.81.. 1��'" �ixc�w�, 4$ "rS3aid�'�'.. �
a59
-
Cross- section photo — looking across channel
from right bank to left bank
0 12 21 36 +6 50 72 B{ 46 106 124
Horizontal Distance {R}

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054-F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 11.69 ft'
TASK Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 10.92 ft
REACH main stem
Mean Depth 1.07 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 2.03 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 10.21
Entrenchment Ratio 7.4
y
CROSS SECTION: 2
Classification E
F FEATURE: Pool
11�i11�Ci17C11
Davis Branch - Pool XS2 - Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
472—
0__ +%w ►waver A..$ 4 M rs V €nom 7 r93ecxw .... xya vrtc4
fv 11 kMkA- SwY. PDOlM wi YW YRZ YR4
Fl k
Y4k1 - 10.9 flhkf - ,.b1 dbbf - 11.7
a1
_. A.
ice,
+:
m
��� � `�
r
� ; � •
448-
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
from right bank to left bank
U7
a 40 .6 70 Ao
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 13.67 ft'
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 17.09 ft
REACH Main stem
Mean Depth 0.8 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 1.88 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 21.36
Entrenchment Ratio 3.89
Y
CROSS SECTION: 3
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
LII 1 IITI11
Davis Branch - Riffle XS3 - Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
-
�'
:�J"` ?
ti)MM
#F­ fl rwl: .A, %SIY R6 Amlwwl V Y93"YA3 V MI3 YA7 j.Yt.IMM4
011 Inc.c:kore Slplan Tfro
f
f
Punic
444
Wkf - 17.1 lbkf - .1 1Lkf - 13.7
i
i. .(
417
X11
G
,
IJ+
o
0
tf
MD
w
1
� _
f
1
f
Cross - section photo — looking right bank to left
bank
Horizontal DIs[ance (R)

PROJECT
Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
10.94 ft2
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
13.58 ft
REACH
Main stem
Mean Depth
0.81 ft
DATE
09/25/2013
Maximum Depth
1.65 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
16.77,_
3.78
CROSS SECTION:
4
Classification
C
FEATURE:
Pool
Il,ll l�llI]t ll
Davis Branch Pool 7{S4 -Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
1w+xswn 2o:
rseen rMf :mnsu
soKa
Y kf - M6
46
OOLY y, xt+ratt II�f;'oa. r.5a►aCa 7 =w:xn
aoarreo � mee rax mk
MF - .07 Rl,kf
- 149
a
f
4"
5
....
'fit �
Cross - section photo —
looking upstream
o so
a ea
so 707
Horizontal Distance (R)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 16.57 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 18.91 ft
REACH Main stem
Mean Depth 0.88 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 1.81 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 21.49
Entrenchment Ratio 3.89
_
CROSS SECTION: 5
Classification C
i' eYstrenlell FE ATURE: Riffle
n
ai
Davis Branch - Riffle XS5 - Year
5 (September 25, 2013)
- �+ A - �.�+�,
� � ,� }'{"��ti•����k���'
re1 �x,niaa �w.vo x.•. Hr Lx»s ra vR3 FxHS
f'eif vrxr, �xss r�wr7 fl 'xeS wf vHa
'
Mkf - 1R.9 OW -
.B! Abkf . 16 -4
w -
Md
,�^.. "}'•' £
µ��'.
/
�+�� ?.►
m 414
P.
40 ..P i.
M7
Cross - section photo — looking right bank to left
bank
"°
a 17 M M lA 30
Horizontal Distance
tea in
U i13 as
(ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 16.47 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 12.52 ft
REACH Main stem
Mean Depth 1.32 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 2.27 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 9.48
Entrenchment Ratio 6.83
CROSS SECTION: 6
Classification E
FEATURE: Pool
1i;�� Yai e11�en
Davis Branch - Pool X56 - Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
ox�erk, ♦kak� ■•::aa, ��F�k ��vs�� � �e� - ���
twon u r. m , ; a. r�.rmo xaa vns raw 'rn+
�
p`71J;
12.5 vok€ - 1.39 AW - 16.5
L
V
rl ,
AV
%_
t
- ,
i
Cross - section photo — looking left bank to right
2
bank
Hanzonta[ Distance (ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 15.02 ft2
TASK Cross - Section
Bankfull Width 15.14 ft
REACH main stem
Mean Depth 0.99 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 1.5 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 15.29
Entrenchment Ratio 4.61
CROSS SECTION: 7
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
Davis Branch - Riffle XS7 - Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
0
X97 YR5 +SanM11 VWater LX37 MS RIF A, X37 RIFYR3 7XS7 RIFYRI X37 RIFYR2 ❑X97 RIFYR4
Fri Indicators Surface YRO
Wbkf 15.1 Ubkf .99 Hbkf 15
435
'•• rtes —_
434
433
1
\
- -
O 432\
\ \
}
U
R
434
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
429
from left bank to right bank
428
130
O 13 2R 39 2 0_ 78 91 104 117
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 2.4 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 6.99 ft
REACH UT1
Mean Depth 0.34 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 0.56 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 20.56
Entrenchment Ratio 5.34
CROSS SECTION: 8
Classification C
��y FEATURE: Riffle
,I]11i111C'C.II]Cll
UT1 - Riffle XS8 - Year 5 (September
[] k`A YRS * DanYt�ll WaGel %�'6 R6 TR1 a 61Jr1 Rlf ^ 1(x+2 Rlf
iN1Ae1 Inalca9on `.,
MIMe IM 1T10 -RC}CK
$ILL
25, 2013)
YF12 %`�,v7 Rlf YR3 ', ]'@ Rlf YRb
^'`. } LXB 5"'5 i' TL
__ rr k"�?N µ�F �. pf,14 r.fY
�. 0 l.� - E 1 % 1 S"• +.
, �
'�
� �� t i
�' y � '1 .4
�
6.YY 00kk - .U%
0bkf - Y.�l
JY
Pi 4,
455
+R W
i
� Nf •Y.:
f -+aid` �F��!''J� �, '.
'AMR.
•�jY,
...r � �
M:+
i
_ 1•�.. �� •'S �.
N 455
r �
u5
f
4
Cross - section photo — looking left bank to right
bank
"S
0 20 40 A 8U
Horizontal Distance (ft)
100 120 140

PROJECT Davis Branch
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06054 -F
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 1.99 ft,
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 4.99 ft
REACH UT1
Mean Depth 0.4 ft
DATE 09/25/2013
Maximum Depth 0.66 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 12.47
Entrenchment Ratio 5.95
CROSS SECTION: 9
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
Li lI +ITi�I]
UT1 - Riffle XS9 - Year 5 (September 25, 2013)
(}%
446
VR5 Genllull TrW.41 ❑V59 WTR1 j %S9 VF1W V% 9RIFr 3 VMRF TR [%59 R,f TR4
moo] Mi Sulks YRv
Wkf - 4_99 DakF - _$ Fkkf - 1.99
449
4u
1
�iII
4
Fu
3v
Cross - section photo — looking across the channel
from left bank to right bank
`"
P 10 20 M AO SO 60 70 09 BO 190
Horizontal Distance (Ft)

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
6
10
10
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
10
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
10
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
10
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
10
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
13
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
13
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
17
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
17
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
4
7
23
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
27
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
6
10
37
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
40
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
53
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
8
13
67
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
80
Small Cobble
90 -128
4
7
87
Large Cobble
128 -180
8
13
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
1
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
12 +31.44
14
12
10
8
Z 6
4
0
0.062 025
Histogram
100
90
80
70
w 60
0
50
40
E
U 30
20
10
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 41.75mm D84= 112.79mm

Pebble Count -Pool Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Ran e
% Cumulative-
Silt/Clay
<0.062
42
70
70
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
70
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
70
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
70
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
70
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
70
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
70
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
70
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
70
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
73
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
73
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
73
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
0
0
73
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
6
10
83
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
83
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
10
93
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
93
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
97
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
97
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
2
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
12 +66.55
Histogram
80
70
60
50
c 40
30
e 20
10
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
-11111111
.,
■■111111 loll II1111F .''_ ,�mi-1111-
1-10
,
■
11111111
■11111!!!'
/'II�!!;II
■11111111
■11111111
;,
■1111111!!_�II���!�IFilll
■11111111
■11111111
►,111111
■1111111111111111
_.—
..:.,�11111111111
,,
_
,
■11111111
■IIIIIII,�I1111111
■11111
111
II
-.
- . ,
X11111111
■III�nIII
/llllllll
■11111
.
II
tl
■�IIIIII
■
■�i'
"'
■11111
Year 3
_._...I�;
_..,Illa�llllllll
I�Illl.,n��llllllll
■11111111
■11111
Year 4
II
X11111111■
11111111
■11111111
■11111""'M..,JII
■ 11111111 ■11 ■111 ■11111111 ■11111111
■11111111
,

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
—%
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
0
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
0
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
0
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
0
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
4
7
7
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
13
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
20
33
47
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
6
10
57
Small Cobble
64 -90
16
27
83
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
10
93
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
93
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
93
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
93
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
93
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
2
3
97
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
2
3
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
3
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
21 +61.52
3s
30
25
20
z 15
10
0
5
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
0
v
50
Year
Year
0
40
=Year
2
8
U
30
Year
3
Year
4
20
Year
5
10
0-
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 51.33mm
D84= 92.55mm

Pebble Count - Pool Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
10
17
17
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
17
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
17
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
17
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
17
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
17
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
17
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
17
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
20
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
6
10
30
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
6
10
40
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
43
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
57
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
6
10
67
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
10
77
Small Cobble
90 -128
4
7
83
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
87
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
87
Small Boulder
256 -362
4
7
93
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
93
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
93
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
4
7
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
4
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
21 +85.85
18
16
14
12
= 10
R
w 8
6
4
2
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count -Run Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
4
6
6
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
6
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
6
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
6
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
6
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
6
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
6
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
10
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
10
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
13
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
16
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
8
13
29
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
8
13
42
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
55
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
8
13
68
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
81
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
10
90
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
6
97
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
97
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
62
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
5
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
29 +36.09
14
12
10
�g
6
0
4
2
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Histogram

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
20
33
33
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
33
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
33
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
33
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
33
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
37
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
2
3
40
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
8
13
53
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
6
10
63
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
63
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
67
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
67
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
70
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
2
3
73
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
73
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
87
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
10
97
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
1 0
1 100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
6
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
35 +09.15
35
30
25
ryo 20
15
C
10
5
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
■11111111 ■■1111111■■11 /, ■ ■�1111�/i�11111
►;11111111
■
11111111■
11111111
■1_�ill
■11111111
■
11111111
■111.!aiiilll!!'lll
■11111111
■11111111
■■IEillll�!!��il�.11ll
■11111111
■11111111
,,
..��1�11
■11111111
■111
►,illl�ll
JIIII
■11111111
II
- - �
■11111111
■11
�IIIIIII
,111111
■11111
'
=;
II
!!!!!!!!!�i�ll!iil
■�
1111111
■11111
11111111
■�.�IIIII
►11111111
■1111
Year 4
II
Ii11111II
■�I�Illi
■11111111
■1111
■11111111 ■11111111
IIII.�IIIIIII■1111111

Pebble Count - Pool Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative-
Silt/Clay
<0.062
4
7
7
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
7
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
7
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
7
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
7
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
7
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
7
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
7
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
10
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
13
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
13
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
2
3
17
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
0
0
17
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
4
7
23
Very Coarse
Gravel
45 -64
8
13
37
Small Cobble
64 -90
4
7
43
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
10
53
Large Cobble
128 -180
18
30
83
Lar e Cobble
180 -256
6
10
93
Small Boulder
256 -362
4
7
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Lar e Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
7
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
35 +33.67
35
30
25
20
c
a 15
10
5
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
100
90
80
70
c
60
0
50
3 40
E
0
U 30
20
10
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 115.35mm D84= 185.09mm

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
10
17
17
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
17
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
17
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
17
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
17
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
17
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
6
10
27
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
30
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
33
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
8
13
47
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
2
3
50
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
10
17
67
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
8
13
80
Very Coarse
Gravel
45 -64
8
13
93
Small Cobble
64 -90
2
3
97
Small Cobble
90 -128
2
3
100
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
x
a
0
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
UTl
X Sec
8
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
2 +00.10
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
4
7
7
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
7
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
7
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
7
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
7
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
7
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
1 0
7
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
4
7
13
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
13
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
10
16
30
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
33
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
6
10
43
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
6
10
52
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
4
7
59
Very Coarse
Gravel
45 -64
1
2
61
Small Cobble
64 -90
10
16
77
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
10
87
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
7
93
Large Cobble
180 -256
4
7
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
1 100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
61
100
Davis Branch Restoration EEP Project No. D06054 -F
Reach
UT1
X Sec
9
Date
5/15/2013
Sta No.
5 +84.56
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

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

BF 3
Crest Gage on the mainstem of Davis Branch (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/14/11)
BF 4
Crest Gage on the mainstem of Davis Branch (Year 5).
(EMH &T, 5/15/13)

BF 5
Crest Gage 4 on UT1 of Davis Branch (Year 1).
(EMH &T, 9/20/09)
+
i
I � �
4
BF 6
Crest Gage 4 on UT1 of Davis Branch (Year 2).
(EMH &T, 9/20/10)

BF 7
Crest Gage 4 on UT1 of Davis Branch (Year 3).
(EMH &T, 9/14/11)