20080058 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20140808

Elk Branch Restoration Project
Year 2 Monitoring Report
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Monitoring Firm: irm: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)
Monitoriniz Firm POC: Matthew Reid
Prepared for: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP)
I -,ko systcl11
NCEEP Project Manager: Harry Tsomides
Report Prepared By: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., NC Professional Engineering License #F -1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contract Number: D06125 -C, EEP Project Number: 92665
Project Construction: 2011
Data Collection Period: November 2013
Date Submitted: February 2014
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ............................... IV
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. ..............................1
1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING ................................................................................................. ..............................1
1.2 MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................... ..............................1
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................... ..............................5
1.4 MONITORING PLAN VIEW ............................................................................................... ..............................8
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS .......................................... ..............................8
2.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. ..............................8
2.1.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................. ..............................8
2.1.2 Soil Data ................................................................................................................. ..............................1 S
2.1.3 Vegetative Problem Areas ...................................................................................... ..............................1 S
2.1.4 Stem Counts ............................................................................................................ ..............................1 S
2.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... .............................16
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ..................................................... .............................16
2.2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ .............................18
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation of Site ...................................................................... .............................18
2.2.4 Stream Stability Assessment .................................................................................... .............................19
2.3 AREAS OF CONCERN ...................................................................................................... .............................19
Tables and Exhibits
Figure
1
Project Location Map
Table
1
Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contact Table
Table
4
Project Background Table
Figure
2
Project Approach
Table
5
Riparian Buffer Planting List
Table
6
Preliminary Soil Data
Table
7
Stem Count Arranged by Plot -Year 2 (Species Survival Rates)
Table
7b
Stem Count Arranged by Plot -Year 2 (Planted Vs. Total)
Table
8
Vegetative Problem Areas
Table
9
Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications
Table
10
Stream Problem Areas
Table
11
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table
12
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table
13
Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Table
14
Cross - section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Appendices
Vegetation Survey Data Tables ........................................................... ..............................A
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos ...................................................... ..............................A
ProblemAreas Plan View ................................................................... ............................... B
Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment Tables ................................ ............................... B
Cross - section Plots with Annual Overlays ......................................... ............................... B
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays ..................................... ............................... B
Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data ................................. ............................... B
Cross - section Morphology and Hydraulic Data .................................. ............................... B
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution (Elk Branch) ................. ............................... B
Stream Reference Station Photologs .................................................. ............................... B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Elk Branch site was restored through a full delivery contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP). This report presents Year 2 monitoring data for the five -year
monitoring period. The goals for the restoration project were as follows:
• Restore or enhance headwater tributaries to Cane Creek and the French Broad Basin;
• Reduce sediment and nutrient loading through restoration of riparian areas and streambanks;
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the project streams and the floodplain;
• Create geomorphically stable conditions on the Elk Branch project site; and
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were implemented:
• Restore the existing trampled, straightened and relocated streams by creating stable channels with
adequate grade control and access to the floodplain;
• Establish buffers for nutrient removal from runoff and stabilization of streambanks to reduce
bank erosion;
• Improve in- stream habitat by reducing fine sediment loading from the watershed, provide a more
diverse bedform with riffles and pools, create deeper pools, develop areas that increase
oxygenation, provide woody debris for habitat, and reduce bank erosion; and
• Improve terrestrial habitat by planting riparian areas with native vegetation and protect these
areas with a permanent conservation easement and fencing, so that the riparian area will increase
storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water
temperature and improve wildlife habitat.
A total of six vegetation monitoring plots 100 square meters (m) (I Om x IOm) in size were installed to
evaluate survival of the woody vegetation planted on -site. The Year 2 vegetation monitoring indicated an
average survival rate of 405 planted stems per acre, no volunteers were observed. The data shows that the
Site is on track to meet both the interim stem survival criteria for Year 3 (320 stems per acre) and the final
success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5.
The design proposed for the Elk Branch mitigation project involved Restoration (Priority 1 & 2) and
Enhancement approaches and this was completed as described in the baseline monitoring report for this
site. The project should ultimately result in stable Cb and Eb -type channels for Elk Branch, UT and
UT2. Longitudinal profile and cross - section data indicate that the project streams have remained stable
since baseline monitoring data were collected in 2011. Additionally, as the photo logs included in this
report show, herbaceous cover at the project site is dense, and in conjunction with other erosion control
measures like matting, is promoting bank stability on -site while planted, woody vegetation becomes more
established. Based on data collected and presented in this report, this site is currently on track to meet the
other success criteria specified in the Elk Branch Mitigation Plan.
Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver impacts or
encroachment, and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Site conditions were evaluated in comparison to
project success criteria; there are no project issues or concerns to report at this time. Although flow in
UT2 went subsurface at one location for 20 linear feet total, Baker feels this is a large improvement over
Year 1 when 103 linear feet of UT2 was observed to go subsurface. Baker will continue to monitor the
status of continuous flow in the channel and EEP will be contacted should it be determined that corrective
measures are needed. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports
can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan
(formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables
and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. IV
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Elk Branch mitigation site is situated in the French Broad River Basin, within North Carolina
Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) sub -basin 04 -03 -06 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
hydrologic unit 06010108040010. The watershed in which the Elk Branch mitigation project is located is
dominated by forested land, but also contains pastures and residences. Slightly less than two - thirds of the
watershed is in forested cover, leaving about one -third of the drainage in some form of pasture land or
other agricultural or residential use. Elk Branch and its tributaries have been impaired by historical and
recent land management practices that include timber harvesting, pasture conversion, channelization, and
livestock grazing. Prior to restoration, stream channelization and dredging were evident through much of
the project site, as were the impacts of open stream access by cattle and horses. A significant loss of
woody streambank vegetation also occurred during the development of the land for agricultural use. Over
time, these practices have contributed excessive sediment and nutrient loading to Elk Branch, Cane Creek
and ultimately to the North Toe River, home to the endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel.
The project involved restoration or enhancement of 3,159 linear feet (LF) primarily along three on -site
streams: Elk Branch and two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2). In addition, a third tributary (UT3)
segment was also restored by day - lighting the tributary from the easement boundary to its confluence
with Elk Branch. UT3 was impounded sometime in the past to create a small pond which flows to the
easement boundary through a pipe. Elk Branch is shown as a solid blue -line stream while spring -fed
tributaries UT1 and UT2 are apparent from the topography, but are not displayed on the USGS
topographic quadrangle map for the site. Elk Branch, UT and UT2 were confirmed as being perennial
and UT3 was considered intermittent based on field evaluations using the NCDWQ stream assessment
protocol.
1.1 Location and Setting
The Elk Branch project site is located about one mile northeast of Bakersville in Mitchell County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). To reach the project site, follow I -26 North from Asheville for approximately 20
miles and take U.S. Highway 19N Exit 9, towards Burnsville and Spruce Pine. Continue along U.S.
Highway 19 (which becomes 19 -E), for 25 miles. Turn left onto N.C. Highway 226 and continue until
you reach the Town of Bakersville. Once in Bakersville, turn right (northeast) onto North Mitchell
Avenue and after approximately a half mile, North Mitchell Avenue turns into Cane Creek Road.
Continue another 0.7 miles, then turn left off of Cane Creek Road onto Nora Lane (SR 1219). The project
site begins just below a spring head at the head of the valley, approximately 1,500 feet beyond the end of
Nora Road (paved).
1.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Table 1 summarizes project data for each reach and restoration approach used. The design proposed for
the Elk Branch mitigation project involved Restoration (Priority 1 & 2) and Enhancement approaches.
Beyond a few minor changes, restoration and enhancement were completed in accordance with the
approved design approach provided in the mitigation plan for this site. Field changes made were
implemented in order to minimize impacts to existing resources and adapt to unmapped or changed field
conditions including micro - topography, vegetation, and existing in- stream grade control. The project
should ultimately result in stable Cb and Eb -type channels for Elk Branch, UT 1 and UT2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Elk Branch Miti ation Project-NCEEP Project #92665
Project
on
C
o
>~
s~
Segment or
,��,
Reach ID
Stationing
Comment
Elk Branch
Adjust pattern, improve dimension by removal of
Reach 1
R
PI
951 LF
1.0:1
951
0 +76 -10 +50
vertical banks and increased floodplain
connectivity, and restore step -pool channel via
ade control and constructed riffles.
Restore stable dimension to halt erosion and add
Reach A
2,020 LF
E
LI
592 LF
1.5:1
395
10 +50 -16 +42
grade control to improve pools. Grade control
structures will provide long -term channel stability
Cb4
and improve instream habitat.
Adjust pattern, improve dimension by removal of
Reach B
R
P1 /2
403 LF
1.0:1
403
16 +42 -20 +60
vertical banks and increased floodplain
connectivity, and restore step -pool channel via
grade control and constructed riffles.
Restore stable dimension to halt erosion and add
Reach 2
279 LF
E
LI
279 LF
1.5:1
186
20 +60 -23 +39
grade control to improve pools. Grade control
structures will provide long -term channel stability
and improve instream habitat.
UT 1
Restore channel - floodplain connectivity of
previously channelized tributary. Adjustments also
Reach 1
685 LF
R
Pi
CM
656 LF
1.0:1
656
0 +06 -6 +83
made to pattern and profile to eliminate eroding
streambanks and improve habitat diversity.
Invasive vegetation also removed; riparian buffer
restored.
UT 2
Excavate previously buried section of UT2. New
channel constructed with stable dimension, pattern,
and profile. Priority 1 approach also applied to
Reach 1
185* LF
R
P1
EM
242 LF
1.0:1
242
0 +92 -3 +34
existing segment of UT2 to improve channel and
bank stability, as well as increased access to the
floodplain. Trash and debris were removed.
*buried portion not included in existing length
UT 3 (New component, not in restoration plan)
Daylight previously piped section of UT3 at the
Reach 1 0 LF R P1
Cb4 36 LF 1.0:1
36 0 +00 -0 +36
easement boundary and run into Elk Branch Reach
B with bank sloping and matting and structure for
grade control.
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream Riparian Wetland
Nonri arian Wetland
Total Wetland
Buffer Comment
2,869
1 NA
NA
NA
Notes: Elk Branch Reach 1 was broken out into smaller reaches subsequent to the submittal and approval of the restoration plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT —YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

The Elk Branch project site is located about one mile northeast of Bakersville in Mitchell
County, North Carolina (Figure 1 in Appendix A). To reach the project site,follow 1 -26 North
from Asheville for approximately 20 miles and take U.S. Highway 19N Exit 9,towards Burns-
ville and Spruce Pine. Continue along U.S. Highway 19 (which becomes 19-E), for 25 miles.
Turn left unto N.C. Highway 226 and continue until you reach the Town of Bakersville, Once
in Bakersville, turn right (northeast) onto North Mitchell Avenue and after approximately a
half mile, North Mitchell Avenue turns into Cane Creek Road. Continue another 0.7 miles,
then turn left off of Cane Creek Road onto Nora Lane (SR 1219). The project site beginsjust
below a spring head at the head of the valley, approximately 1,500 feet beyond the end of
Nora Road (paved).
"The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but
is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas
near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees /contractors involved in the development oversig ht and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any
intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with EEP."
9W
FRE
19
■ r r ■ ■ ■ r r ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
�■
Project
Location Inset
Watershed /Repches
■
s
■ � elf
Cube
�
p
c 4
j, o
■ � �
o
OQ�
■
z
O � (,�.j�''"\. —
■ v
■
■
�
��
n
'm s10
■
w�p�a��li ■
Ci SR
Fted 5Ps �s R
■
f
■
J59t1
Cape reek Rd
-TN -
�1 Elk Branch Project Site
e e ■ \
\
0601TO8040010 � -�
1
�1l
i
� + S
■ 4�
■
■ I
■ i
■
■
I\
1\
VERY
��s Z
N-'-f-oo
f t
221
e
TAWB
r
1
j
i
/r
tit I
t
,,ATAW BA
BURKE I
■
Burleson Rd "ll'
viii c '.X
■ � �
o
SR #] 190 253 0
a
■
z
O � (,�.j�''"\. —
■ v
■
■
�
��
n
'm s10
■
w�p�a��li ■
■ es Branch Rd
■,
Fted 5Ps �s R
■
f
J59t1
Ma n
O 0
Map Inset
LEGEND:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
NCDWQ Sub -basin
�.r
-
J
Counties
Elk Branch Restoration Project
Mitchell County, NC
D
USGS Hydrologic Unit
FF��
En` OMement
Project Hydrologic Unit
e......
0
Mitchell County
0
1 2 4
Miles
Mitchell County, NC
i

Figure 1. Notes
The Elk Branch project site is located about one mile northeast of Bakersville in Mitchell County, North
Carolina, North Carolina. To reach the project site, follow I -26 north from Asheville for approximately 20
miles and take U.S. Highway 19N Exit 9, towards Burnsville and Spruce Pine. Continue along U.S.
Highway 19 (which becomes 19 -E), for 25 miles. Turn left onto N.C. Highway 226 and continue until
you reach the Town of Bakersville. Once in Bakersville, turn right (northeast) onto North Mitchell
Avenue and after approximately a half mile, North Mitchell Avenue turns into Cane Creek Road.
Continue another 0.7 miles, then turn left, off of Cane Creek Road onto Nora Lane (SR 1219). The project
site begins just below a spring head at the head of the valley, approximately 1,500 feet beyond the end of
Nora Lane (paved).
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under
private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary
and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of
the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site
visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires
prior coordination with EEP.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Anthropogenic land use alteration, such as deforestation, channelization of streams for agricultural
purposes, and prolonged open stream access to livestock has resulted in various stream corridor
impairments. Stream channel incision, bank destabilization and erosion, loss of in- stream and riparian
habitat, and loss of shading and buffering capacity functions were present throughout the project area.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan for the site, construction activities began in May 2011.
Project activity on Elk Branch Reach 1, Reach B, UT 1, UT2, and UT3 consisted of making adjustments
to channel dimension, pattern, and profile typically using a Priority 1 Restoration approach. A Level I
Enhancement approach was used on Elk Branch Reaches A and 2 to re- establish adequate channel
dimension for bank stability and floodplain access, while recreating a stable channel profile and bedform
using a step -pool restoration approach that features grade control structures and constructed riffles.
The creation of a step -pool channel profile was used to achieve vertical stability and eliminate self -
propagating headcuts previously found within the site. This was the primary method for promoting
improved stability, water quality, and habitat goals. In- stream structures (constructed riffles, boulder
steps, log vanes, log drops, and log rollers) were used to control streambed grade, reduce stresses on
streambanks, and promote diversity of bedform and habitat. Structures were spaced at a distance that
replicated natural pool to pool spacing and allowed downstream headers to protect the upstream structure
footer to create long term vertical stability.
Stream dimensions were adjusted to eliminate vertical banks and erosion resulting from excessive shear
stress and lack of floodplain relief. Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control
matting, bare -root planting, transplants, and live staking. Transplants will provide living root mass
quickly to increase streambank stability and create shaded holding areas for fish and aquatic biota. Where
feasible, plan form adjustments were made to correct prior channelization by making slight adjustments to
channel pattern (step -pool channels have a low sinuosity). These modifications will allow flows larger
than bankfull to spread onto the restored floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing streambank
stress. Native vegetation was planted across the site, and the entire mitigation site is protected through a
permanent conservation easement.
1.3 Project History and Background
The chronology of the Elk Branch mitigation project is presented in Table 2 while the contact information
for designers, contractors and plant material suppliers is presented in Table 3. Relevant project
background information is presented in Table 4. The total as -built stream length across the project is
3,159 LF.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92665
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
December 2009
Final Design -90%
December 2009
Construction
June 2011
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
June 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to project site
June 2011
Installation of crest gauges
July 2011
Plantings set out
January 2012
January 2012
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
July 2011 /January 2012
April 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2013
February 2014
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Elk Branch Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92665
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project County
Elk Branch Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92665
Principal -In- Charge
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
French Broad
USGS HUC for Project
Contact: Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone] x2002
Designer
04 -03 -06
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cold
% of Project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
Contact: Matthew Reid, Tel. [phone] x2006
Construction Contractor
No
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
6105 Chapel Hill Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
River Works, Inc.
.07 mil
Contact: Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting & Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
River Works, Inc.
Contact: George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen and Hillis Nursery
Monitoring
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact: Matthew Reid, Tel. [phone] x2006
Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project -NCEEP Project #92665
Project County
Mitchell County, NC
Physiograhic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains - Southern Crystalline Ridges and
Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS HUC for Project
6010108040010
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
04 -03 -06
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
In a TLW (French Broad River Basin Priorities Report -
2009
WRC Class
Cold
% of Project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
100% (-60% fenced, 40% demarcated)
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase?
No
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
Elk Branch Reach 1
.07 mil
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92665
Reach A
Reach B
Elk Branch Reach 2
.14 mil
UT1
.06 mil
UT2
.01 mil
Stream Order
Elk Branch- ls`, UT1 -Zero, UT2 -Zero, UT3 -Zero
Restored Length
Elk Branch Reach 1
951 LF
Reach A
592 LF
Reach B
403 LF
Elk Branch Reach 2
279 LF
UT1
656 LF
UT2
242 LF
UT3
36 LF
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed Type
Rural (Predominantly Forested)
Watershed LULC Distribution (Percent area)
Forest
57%
Shrub
6%
Pasture /Crops
33%
Developed Open Space
4%
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate %)
<10%
NCDWQ AU /Index #
7- 2 -59 -8
303d Listed
No
Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
-
Total Acreage of Easement
9.46
Total Vegetated Acreage w /in Easement
Easement vegetated with exception of stream channel and
a ford crossings within an easement breaks
Total Planted Acreage within the Easement
—4 Acres (remainder already forested)
Rosgen Classification (Pre- existing)
Elk Branch
Cb /B /G/Eb
UT 1
Fb
UT2
B
UT3
Piped
Rosgen Classification of As -built
Elk Branch -Reach 1
Cb4
Reach A
Cb4
Reach B
Cb4
Elk Branch -Reach 2
Cb4
UTl
Cb4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCEEP Project #92665
UT2
Eb4
UT3
Cb4
Valley Type
II
Valley Slope
.03 (Elk Branch), .04 (UT 1), .04 (UT2)
Valley Side Slope Range
n/a
Valley Toe Slope Range
n/a
Trout Waters Designation
Yes ( Elk Branch is a tributary to designated trout waters)
Species of Concern
No
1.4 Monitoring Plan View
The current conditions plan view depicts the monitoring features for the Elk Branch mitigation project.
The plan set will also be used to identify locations where stream and vegetation problem areas are present.
At this time, no problems areas are present. Figure 2 illustrates the project as it is delineated by reach.
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
The five -year monitoring plan for the Elk Branch mitigation project includes criteria to evaluate the
success of the vegetation and stream components of the project. The specific locations of vegetation
plots, permanent cross - sections, reference photo stations and crest gauges are shown on the Year 2
Current Condition Plan View submitted with this report.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
2.1.1 Vegetation
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In
order to determine if the criteria are achieved, six vegetation monitoring quadrants were installed
across the restoration site. The size of individual quadrants vary from 100 square meters for tree
species to 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring,
after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to leaf fall. Individual quadrant data provided during
subsequent monitoring events will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities.
Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings
will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be
determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the
current year's living, planted seedlings.
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots. Reference photos of
tree and herbaceous condition within plots are taken at least once per year. Photos of the plots are
included in Appendix A of this report.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of the Year 3 monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria is the survival of 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of the Year 5 monitoring
period. If the measurement of vegetative density proves to be inadequate for assessing plant
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

x�
p�
N
k C
S p c
+D
41n
C m
k +F-
0
N
\ +
n
�FF-I
z
�
D
D FT1
O N 0
+O Co
O Q
zOz y+
00 -i z n l�
Q
O F
Oz>
c� z
_<
+
' U1� 10 �i w
X11
kl
I�kk11
D
�, z
�I
J L�-
07
X
rn
MEN
cn < <
m m
�J G7 G7
D D D
O O
� z z
0
7 0 0
�
z K: 0 7
M M
D Z
7
D
m
0
O j
n o MAT CHINE SHEET 2 ST I f
D A. 8 +00
m
-T1 w
o
rn
0
m o m m m Prepared for ELK BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
o A 0 Ecosystem Enhancement Program ' Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
N- < Z Z MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
m mo _'o N m 2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103 NC Engineering License F -1084
O O j o 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
m " N o° o Z Raleigh, NO 27604
m o o Con p Phone: [phone] CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW I Ashevine,Northcarolina28806
A �' } Phone: [phone]
3
Fax: [phone] Q�y .s em Fax: [phone]
��� 1'l 7aTC.eIl1+L'y' YEAR 2 MONITORING
0
D D
Fri
G7
=
Z7
0
Cl) � 0
O
O
=
U)
7
C C
O
Cr)
70
D
—1-1
x
o
o
cn
<
O m D
-0 z p
o
o
�z
k�
O
1
z
M
�7m
co Cl)
D M M
z K
77\ m
z
MEN
cn < <
m m
�J G7 G7
D D D
O O
� z z
0
7 0 0
�
z K: 0 7
M M
D Z
7
D
m
0
O j
n o MAT CHINE SHEET 2 ST I f
D A. 8 +00
m
-T1 w
o
rn
0
m o m m m Prepared for ELK BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
o A 0 Ecosystem Enhancement Program ' Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
N- < Z Z MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
m mo _'o N m 2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103 NC Engineering License F -1084
O O j o 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
m " N o° o Z Raleigh, NO 27604
m o o Con p Phone: [phone] CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW I Ashevine,Northcarolina28806
A �' } Phone: [phone]
3
Fax: [phone] Q�y .s em Fax: [phone]
��� 1'l 7aTC.eIl1+L'y' YEAR 2 MONITORING

MATCHLWE SHEET
STq, 8-I.00
nj O
O
�j
I�b `\ m
Q) \ \ w' °o
mo \\
:jl I Qo� \ \ x
\ \ cA m
o z ) \
',° w / 1
I I
t I D ° _ ° �z o Fri C: (j) � i �
�
1, O o n O m-i
I \ O -4 -0 z O
O ri
. ,DOS \ O z z o�rz
F—
co z �
� z
\� O
\\
\`
W ■
C o m m
CD 0 0
/ C --i --i
FT1 D D
z '�'
�D� � o 0
n F- o 0
00 N O / o 0
LU
N
OO
—� 'o m
z O D O m
O
O — F— + D
oz> ��' M
�z °
XS2 W D
C %
IT1 4
to
�w
;7 +
Cn
k0
k
- I -F-
O
�o W
(A W
I1 �
\\ 'n
1 O W
tO
IcTI
i o
°
ni r
C/)
k 00
F- ,NE SNEE
m
o
0
o
Prepared tor: ELK BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
S A n Ecosystem Enhancement Program ` Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
0 N o z m —' o ° 2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103 MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NC Engineering License F -1084
O O { o ° N o 0 Raleigh, INC 27604 797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
N) o°o M o Phone [phone] CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Asheville, North Carolina 28806
A
(n.. 61 o CA Phone: [phone]
n dA Fax [phone]�'I {17 YEAR 2 MONITORING Fax: [phone]
s, ;�� 141 ,,l lI+�..

n
C
�J
z
D D
;ou F7
0 F-
M MN 7
+ < 0 C)D
00 ;oJ
zOz
0
+�ou -_
�z>
C
I�1
�I
Aj
x
X X z
0
D
F-
>
x Z
M
D
M
r
0
m
E:1 PO
X
cj�
im
< -0
C7 D D C7
FTl =
�;j C/) (n O
m
0
CDWz
0o
Cn
O
Cn
O
(n
0O
Z
m D
O
0 z O
r
O Z
OZ O m Z
7DF71
D
r
m
co z (n
D M F1
z K
-T
7-\ F1
Z
rn
M m
0 c-)
FTI Fri
cc
D D
m
O O
z z
t Nom.
A
°< Z
'
0 0
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
°
—i
MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
z K:
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
o
m
7
o
2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103
� z
m
NC Engineering License F -1084
O O
- o °
-t
o
O �
co
z
Raleigh, NC 27604
�
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
�
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville,NOrthCarolina28806
D
,
�, o
fTl
Phone: [phone]
}
D
0
(A
C)
o
D
r
m
-T
W
o
rn
0
cc
° °
m
Prepared tor:
ELK BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
t Nom.
A
°< Z
'
'
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
°
MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
m
co
o
2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103
NC Engineering License F -1084
O O
- o °
-t
o
O �
co
py »'
rn o
Raleigh, NC 27604
�
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
�
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville,NOrthCarolina28806
cn
,
�, o
cn
Phone: [phone]
}
Phone: [phone]
K:
�x
Fax: [phone]
lQn�
I
I ;11�3�11 t']ll�'.
YEAR 2 MONITORING
Fax: [phone]

CA
O DD n
C�
(n
m O
O 07 OJ
�
C
D
D
F-
M
O D
m
W
n O Fri �
-0
0
z O
z
F71
O 9
-Tj�7
0
D
0o z cn
D m m
z
z �
Cf�
F7
z
NC Engineering License F -1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
v
< <
a
0) Z
D
0 0
Asheville, North Carolina 28808
O
V p
o
O
O O
O
N
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
I
Phone: [phone]
z
0 0
+
C
d �L[']]�
O m
Fax: [phone]
00--j-1
�z0
M
M
z
O
n
0
� D
F-
M
Z77
c�
z
D
c�
z
CA
O DD n
0
(n
m O
O 07 OJ
�
0
D
D
F-
M
O D
m
W
n O Fri �
-0
0
z O
z
rn
O 9
-Tj�7
0
9
X
< -0
O DD n
fT1 =
n
Z) cn cn O
m O
O 07 OJ
�
O
C C
D
cn
� � �
A ~
O D
m --1 n D
z
n O Fri �
-0
O
z O
z
F-
0 z
i
O 9
-Tj�7
D
0o z cn
D m m
z �
2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103
m
z
NC Engineering License F -1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
v
< <
a
0) Z
Raleigh, NO 27604
0 0
Asheville, North Carolina 28808
A
V p
o
cn 9
O O
Phone: [phone]
z z
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
I
Phone: [phone]
0 0
A
z K:
d �L[']]�
O m
Fax: [phone]
� z
M
M
z
n
� D
M
Z77
D
D °
Prepared tor:
ELK BRANCH RESTORATION PROJECT
A ~
fV o.
o z z
v Ecosystem Enhancement Program
''`
MITCHELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
zt
2728 Capitol Blvd., Suite 1H 103
NC Engineering License F -1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
v
a
0) Z
Raleigh, NO 27604
Asheville, North Carolina 28808
A
o
cn 9
Phone: [phone]
}
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
I
Phone: [phone]
h���
A
Fax: [phone]
d �L[']]�
YEAR 2 MONITORING
Fax: [phone]

community health, additional plant community indices may be incorporated into the vegetation
monitoring plan as requested by the NCEEP.
Temporary seeding applied to streambanks beneath the erosion matting sprouted within two weeks
of application and has provided good ground coverage. Live stakes and bare root trees planted are
also providing streambank stability. Bare -root trees were planted throughout the conservation
easement. A minimum 60- foot -wide conservation easement was established along the project
streams during initial design (this is in addition to the stream width). After final design, a buffer
width of 30 feet on either side of the stream was achieved in most areas. In some areas, regulatory
comments or ultimate field design changes resulted in varying buffer widths. In general, bare -root
vegetation was planted at a target density of 537 stems per acre, in a 9 -foot by 9 -foot grid pattern.
Planting of bare -root trees was completed in January 2012. Species planted are listed below.
Table 5. Riparian Buffer Plantings
Elk Branch Mitigation Project- NCEEP Project #92665
,—Common Name
cientific Name
% Planted by
Planting
Density
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
10%
54
Betula ni ra
River Birch
7%
38
Car inns caroliniaun
Ironwood
7%
38
Ca rya ovata
Shagbark Hickory
5%
27
Cornus orida
Flowering
Dogwood
5%
27
Diospyros vir iniana
Persimmon
5%
27
Lindera benzoin
S icebush
5%
27
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
5%
27
N ssa s lvatica
Black um
5%
27
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
8%
43
uercus alba
White Oak
5%
27
uercus rubs
Red Oak
5%
27
Understory /Shrub Species
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
10%
54
Cal canthus oridus
Sweetshrub
13%
70
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
5%
27
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
40%
215
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
161
Salix ni ra
Black Willow
100/0
54
Sambucus canadensis
I Elderberry
20%
108
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 14
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

2.1.2 Soil Data
Table 6. Preliminary Soil Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project - NCEEP Project #92665
Dominant Soil Series
and Characteristics
Bandana/ Fannin/Saunook- Thunder /Saunook
Depth (in. )
% Clay
K Factor
T Factor
% OM
Elk Branch Reach 1
>60"
7- 20/12 -27, 5 -35
.24/.05,.32
5
4 -10
Reach A
>60"
7- 20/12 -27, 5 -35
.24/.05,.32
5
0 -10
Reach B
>60"
7- 20/12 -27, 5 -35
.24/.05,.32
5
4 -10
Elk Branch Reach 2
>60"
7- 20/12 -27, 10 -20
.24/.05,.2
5,4
4 -10
UT1
>60"
7- 20/12 -27
.24/.05
5
0 -10
UT2
>60"
7- 20/12 -27, 12 -35
.24/.05,.15-.32
5
4 -10
2.1.3 Vegetative Problem Areas
Currently, there are no vegetative problem areas.
2.1.4 Stem Counts
The mitigation plan for the Elk Branch Site specifies that the number of quadrants required will be
based on the species /area curve method, as described in NCEEP monitoring guidance documents.
The size of individual quadrants is 100 square meters for woody tree species, and 1 square meter
for herbaceous vegetation. A total of six vegetation plots, each 10 by 10 meters or 5 by 20 meters in
size, were established across the restored site.
2.1.4.1.1.1 Results
Table 7 in Appendix A presents information on the stem counts for each of the vegetation
monitoring plots. Data from the Year 2 monitoring event showed a range of 202 -607 planted
stems per acre, with approximately 86% of the stems showing no signs of damage. The
average density of planted bare root or livestake stems, based on data collected from the six
monitoring plots during Year 2 monitoring, is 405 stems per acre which indicates that the Site
is on track to meet the minimum interim success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of
Year 3 and the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5. The locations of
the vegetation plots are shown on the Year 2 Current Condition Plan View.
As shown in Table 8 (Appendix A), no woody or herbaceous vegetation problem areas were identified
during Year 2 monitoring. Although the density of herbaceous cover varies across the site, conditions
observed during the Year 2 monitoring survey found ground cover in the easement area to be sufficient
for aiding in site stabilization. Based on the plot data collected, plots 2 and 3 are not currently meeting
the success criteria with 202 and 283 trees per acre respectively. The lower density recorded is likely
attributed to the orientation in which bare roots were planted in relation to the layout of these 5x20'
vegetation plots, and the measurement of stem offsets (9'x9') as described in the Baseline Monitoring
Document. Wet conditions from ground water near the surface may also be the cause of vegetation
mortality in plot 2. In other instances, lower densities can be attributed to damage brought about by
animals and competition with dense herbaceous cover. EEP expressed concerns of low planting density
throughout the easement area. This perception of low planting densities can be attributed to the slow
growth of trees and the thick herbaceous vegetation that makes it difficult to identify the individual trees.
Survival rates of planted woody stems in the vegetation plots indicate that plantings across the easement
area are of sufficient density to meet regulatory requirements, as well as the site stabilization and habitat
enhancement goals originally set forth in the mitigation plan. The eventual onset of volunteer trees will
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 15
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

further aid in site stabilization and habitat improvements. Additional trees will be planted in areas not
meeting the success criteria in Fall 2014. A photo log of the vegetation plots is provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Stream Assessment
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches is being conducted over a five year period to evaluate
the effectiveness of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters include channel
dimension (cross- sections), profile (longitudinal survey), pattern, bed composition, bank stability,
bankfull flows, and stability of reference sites documented by photographs. Crest gauges, as well as high
flow marks, will be used to document the occurrence of bankfull events. The methods used and any
related success criteria are described below for each parameter. To monitor stream success criteria,
eleven permanent cross - sections, six longitudinal profile sections and two crest gauges were installed.
2.2.1.1 Dimension
Eleven permanent cross - sections were installed to help evaluate the success of the mitigation
project and measured data are provided in Appendix B. Permanent cross - sections were
established throughout the project site as follows: five cross - sections were located on Elk
Branch, four cross - sections were located on UT1 and two cross - sections were located on
UT2. Cross- sections selected for monitoring were located in representative riffle and pool
reaches, and each cross - section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish
the exact transect to be used year -to -year. A common horizontal and vertical reference will
be used for cross - sections and consistently referenced to facilitate comparison of year -to -year
data. The cross - sectional surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present. Riffle cross - sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
Although minor changes are not uncommon, there should not be any significant changes in
the as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if
they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down- cutting or erosion)
or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along
the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). At this time, cross - sectional measurements do
not indicate any streambank or channel stability issues.
2.2.1.1.1 Results
As -built cross - section monitoring data for stream stability was collected in July 2011. The
eleven permanent cross - sections along the restored channels were resurveyed in November
2013 to document stream dimension for Monitoring Year 2. Cross- sectional data is
presented in Appendix B and the location of cross - sections is shown on the plan sheets
submitted with this report.
The cross - sections show that there has been little to no adjustment to stream dimension
across the project reaches since construction. What adjustment that has occurred has
primarily been observed in riffle cross - sections that are exhibiting signs of narrowing.
Based on field observation, this narrowing can be attributed to herbaceous vegetation
becoming well established. At this time, cross - sectional measurements do not indicate any
streambank or channel stability issues.
2.2.1.2 Pattern and Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profiles for Year 2 were surveyed during November 2013; profiles of the
various project reaches are provided in Appendix B. A longitudinal profile was completed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 16
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

for the entire project length of Elk Branch, UT and UT2 to evaluate changes in channel bed
conditions since the as -built survey was completed. Longitudinal profiles will be replicated
annually during the five year monitoring period.
Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, and top of
low bank. The pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and the
riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should be
consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type. Profile data collected
reflect stable channel bedform and a diverse range of riffle and pool complexes.
All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, or glide) and
at the maximum pool depth. Elevations of grade control structures were also included in
longitudinal profiles surveyed. Surveys were tied to permanent horizontal and vertical
control. The longitudinal profiles show that the bed features are stable. Where the channel
slopes are steeper, closely- spaced grade control structures should help maintain the overall
profile desired and there was no notable bank erosion observed as a result of the channel
profile adjustments.
Although pattern adjustments were made, Elk Branch and its tributaries are primarily Cb -type
streams characterized by step -pool sequences, and increased sinuosity is not a design goal,
nor a typical characteristic of this channel type. Pattern information is not provided in
Appendix B, as this information is generally only provided for meandering, alluvial channels.
Nevertheless, as the site is monitored, reaches will be evaluated for significant changes in
pattern and any changes warranting repair work will be discussed in future monitoring
reports.
2.2.1.2.1 Results
The longitudinal profiles show that the bed features are also stable across the project site.
As noted in the Stream Reach Morphology Data Tables in Appendix B (Tables 13 and 14),
riffle and pool characteristics do not appear to have changed much and are acceptable when
compared to reference reach and design data provided for the project reaches. Higher
rainfall this year has resulted in increased flows that have resulted in increased depth of
pools on all profiles during this year. This is a positive change that has provided improved
pool habitat for aquatic organisms. Given the location of these project reaches in the
valley and the spacing of structures in these streams, it is expected that the profiles will
display little change over the course of the monitoring period.
As the profile for UT2 demonstrates, there was one section where the flow went subsurface
for 20 linear feet. This is a considerable improvement from the Year 1 Monitoring survey
data that indicated UT2 flow was subsurface for 103 linear feet. Record precipitation was
received during the 2013 monitoring year which provided flows that helped to move
sediment and fines through the system. These increased flows helped seal any structures
where water was discovering a subsurface path to follow. The area where flow goes
subsurface is noted in Appendix B (Table 10). Other than the lack of continuous surface
flow, UT2 appears stable. No other areas of instability were noted in the project area
during Year 2 monitoring.
2.2.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed material analysis consists of conducting a pebble count in the same constructed riffle
during annual geomorphic surveys of the project site. This sample will reveal changes in
sediment gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loading
and transport out of the study reaches. Significant changes in sediment gradation will be
evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 17
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

2.2.1.3.1 Results
For this project, a pebble count was collected in Reach A of Elk Branch. As noted in pebble
count exhibit in Appendix B, the pebble count for Reach A of Elk Branch indicates a
general coarsening of the bedload. Visual observations of Elk Branch and its tributaries
and a review of pebble count data collected did not yield any signs that sediment transport
functions have been hampered by the mitigation project; specifically, no significant areas of
aggradation or degradation within the project area were observed during the Year 2
monitoring survey.
2.2.2 Hydrology
2.2.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period is being documented by the
use of crest gauges and photographs. Crest gauges were installed on the floodplain at
bankfull elevation. One crest gauge was placed near the end of Reach 2 of Elk Branch while
another gauge was set up near the end of the project area on UT1 to Elk Branch. The crest
gauges will record the highest watermark between site visits and will be checked at each site
visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site
visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on each crest gauge within the 5 -year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate
years.
2.2.2.1.1 Results
Since the time of the As -built survey, the Site was found to have had at least two
bankfull events based on crest gauge readings obtained on the mainstem and UT 1.
Information on these events is provided in Table 9 of Appendix B.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations were
photographed during the as -built survey; this will be repeated for at least five years following
construction. Reference photos are taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six
feet. Permanent markers will ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized
during each monitoring period. Selected site photographs are shown in Appendix B.
2.2.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross -
section. A survey tape was captured in most photographs which represents the cross - section
line located perpendicular to the channel flow. The water line was located in the lower edge
of the frame in order to document bank and riparian conditions. Photographers will make an
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
2.2.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i.e. vanes and weirs), along the restored
streams are included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations. Photographers
will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Lateral and structure photographs are used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation,
bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, structure function and stability, and a subjective
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 18
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

judgment of the effectiveness of erosion control measures. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should indicate
successive maturation of riparian vegetation and consistent structure function.
2.2.3.2.1 Results
Photographs of the restoration project were taken in November 2013. The photographs
illustrate stable conditions across the project site. Vegetative growth along the streambanks
and riparian buffers has become dense and improved since construction was completed in
2011. Structures are functioning as designed.
2.2.4 Stream Stability Assessment
In- stream structures installed within the restored streams included constructed riffles, log
drops, log sequences, and boulder steps. The Year 2 visual observations of these structures
indicate that little or no changes have occurred since the baseline survey was performed;
structures are functioning as designed and are holding their elevation and grade. Frequent spacing
of log drops, log sequences and boulder drops have greatly enhanced bedform diversity as well as
promoting more stable C and B -type channels. The Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability
Assessment and Visual Morphological Stability Assessment tables in Appendix B (Tables 11 and
12), summarize the condition of project structures.
Quantitative reference reach and design data used to determine the restoration approach, as
built data, as well as Year 2 monitoring data are summarized in Tables 13 and 14 of
Appendix B.
2.3 Areas of Concern
At this time, there are no areas of concern. As previously noted in the As -built report, additional planting
was proposed if further evaluation of the site indicated stem density was insufficient to meet the
vegetation success criteria set forth in this report across the entire site. Based on Year 2 monitoring data,
increasing stem density by planting additional trees is unnecessary at this time.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 19
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FEBRUARY 2014

APPENDIX A
1. VEGETATION SURVEY DATA TABLES
2. VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS

�•a•a�000aoa
®�����
�
©�oo�om
®m�aaa•�
r�oo��oaoaa�aaa•�
000
ooa
000
000
�a•���o�a000�aaa•�
aao
©a
®000
aaa
���0oa
®aa�aaa•�
r•��a•
oo
®���
000
000
000
�o��o�
���
000
®
®a�aaa•�
000
aaa
r��a•
oo
©���
ooa
000
���
000
oaa
aaa
aaa
����
000
ooa
000
000
���
aao
©a
®000
aaa
r•��a•
oo
®���
000
000
000
���
000
000
aaa
r��a•
oo
©���
ooa
000
���
000
oaa
aaa
aaa
m��a•
000
000
���
���
o
-v
���
000
000
aaa
®��a•
���
���
���
���
as
®���
aaa
aaa
000
•
��a•000a�a��aa��000���0000aoa
©®
r��a•
���
���
ooa
���
oo
®���
©aa
aaa
aaa
®
®m
aoa
©va
aoo
®
®
®
®
®
®mam
aaa
Dam
0
0
0
®00
000
aoa
ooa
®® ©000
®oo
©© ®aoo
a ©®
•

Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Elk Branch Mitigation Project: Project No. 92665
Elk Branch Reach 1 (951 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach A (592 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach B (403 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
I N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach 2 (186 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
I N/A
N/A
UT1 to Elk Branch
(656 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT2 to Elk Branch
(242 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT3
to Elk Branch (36 LF)
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bank
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Flood Plain
N/A
N/A
N/A
Invasive /Exotic Populations
N/A
N/A
N/A

Elk Branch Mitigation Project
Photo Log - Vegetation Plot Photo Points (Year 2)
Notes:
1. Vegetation plots marked by t -posts at corners; herbaceous plot marked by stake within larger plot.
2. Planted vegetation flagged and tagged for future identification.
10/24/2013
Photo 1: Veg Plot 1
10/24/2013
Photo 2: Veg Plot 1: Herbaceous Plot
10/24/2013
Photo 3: Veg Plot 2
10/24/2013
Photo 4: Veg Plot 2: Herbaceous Plot
10/24/2013
Photo 5: Veg Plot 3
10/24/2013
Photo 6: Veg Plot 3: Herbaceous Plot

10/24/2013
Photo 7: Veg Plot 4
10/24/2013
Photo 9: Veg Plot 5
10/24/2013
Photo 11: Veg Plot 6
10/24/2013
Photo 8: Veg Plot 4: Herbaceous Plot
10/24/2013
Photo 10: Veg Plot 5: Herbaceous Plot
10/24/2013
Photo 12: Veg Plot 6: Herbaceous Plot

APPENDIX B
1. HYDROLOGICAL (BANKFULL) VERIFICATIONS (TABLE 9)
2. STREAM PROBLEM AREAS (TABLE 10)
3. CROSS - SECTION PLOTS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAYS
4. LONGITUDINAL PROFILES WITH ANNUAL OVERLAYS
5. CATEGORICAL STREAM FEATURE VISUAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
(TABLE 11)
6. VISUAL MORPHOLOGICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT (TABLE 12)
7. STREAM REACH MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DATA (TABLE 13)
8. CROSS - SECTION MORPHOLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DATA (TABLE 14)
9. RIFFLE PEBBLE COUNT SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTIONS
10. STREAM REFERENCE STATION PHOTO LOGS

Table 9. Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications
Elk Branch Mitigation Project- #92665
Date of Data
Date of
Station No.
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)
Photo Number
Method of Data Collection
Collection
Event
Elk Branch Reach 2
UT1
- --
Lack of
Between
- --
summer during time
Julyn2d011
continuous
with lack of
1 +48 -2 +06
10/25/2012
Gauge measurement.
611, 2.4"
"
3
2+16-2+32
- --
significant rainfall
10/25/12
Lack of
Structure may not be
Between
continuous
1 +43 -1 +63
completely sealed on
- --
10/25/12
flow (UT2)
upstream end
11/27/2013
and
Gauge measurement.
1.6"
4.12"
11/27/13
Table 10. Stream Problem Areas
Elk Branch Mitigation Project- #92665
MY
Feature
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Issue
1 +07 -1 +19
Survey conducted in
- --
Lack of
1 +25 -1 +42
- --
summer during time
1
continuous
with lack of
1 +48 -2 +06
- --
flow (UT2)
2+16-2+32
- --
significant rainfall
Lack of
Structure may not be
2
continuous
1 +43 -1 +63
completely sealed on
- --
flow (UT2)
upstream end

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Eb
2.7
5.19
1 0.51
0.89
10.13
1 1.3
5.1
2620.49
1 2620.71
2624
2623.5
2623
$ 2622.5
2622
0 2621.5
2621
2620.5
W 2620
2619.5
Cross - Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 7 +36 (Elk Branch)
t YR2 2013
Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
-- e- -- Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 3: XS -1 facing upstream
Photo 4: XS -1 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
-
4.8
5.1
1 0.93
1.48
5.46
1 1.3
6.4
2604.32
1 2604.76
Cross - Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 12 +79 (Elk Branch)
2605.5
2605
2604.5
------ - - - - --
2604
0
2603.5 —w— Yr2 2013
W
2603 Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
2602.5
- -- 9--- Bankfull
2602
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (ft)
Photo 5: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 6: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 7: XS -2 facing upstream
Photo 8: XS -2 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
3.4
8.21
1 0.42
0.95
19.59
1 1
4.3
2599.51
1 2599.51
2601
2600.5
2600
0 2599.5
c�
d 2599
W
2598.5
2598
Cross - Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 14 +38 (Elk Branch)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Station (ft)
t Yr2 2013
.i­ Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
-- e- -- Bankfull
30 35 40
Photo 9: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 10: XS -3 facing left bank
Photo 11: XS -3 facing upstream
Photo 12: XS -3 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
4.9
9.44
1 0.52
0.98
18
1 1
4.8
2587.66
1 2587.66
C
O
r�
R
m
W
2590
2589.5
2589
2588.5
2588
2587.5
2587
2586.5
Cross - Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 20 +36 (Elk Branch)
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
t Yr2 2013
Yr1 2012
—�— Asbuilt 2011
-- o - -- Bankfull
50 60
Photo 13: XS -4 facing right bank
Photo 14: XS -4 facing left bank
Photo 15: XS -4 facing upstream
Photo 16: XS -4 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
10.4
10.29
1.01
2.49
10.21
1
4.3
2583.4
1 2583.4
2584.5
2584
2583.5
2583
0 2582.5
> 2582
W
Ei 2581.5
2581
2580.5
Cross - Section X5 - Longitudinal Station 22 +16 (Elk Branch)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 17: XS -5 facing right bank
Photo 18: XS -5 facing left bank
Photo 19: XS -5 facing upstream
Photo 20: XS -5 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
2.7
7.31
1 0.37
0.79
19.72
1 1
5.1
2608.18
1 2608.18
c
r
m
W
2610
2609.5
2609
2608.5
2608
2607.5
2607
Cross - Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 0 +54
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Yr2 2013
Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
-- o - -- Bankfull
50 60
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 3: XS -1 facing upstream
Photo 4: XS -1 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Eb
3.6
7.02
1 0.52
0.93
13.61
1 1
5.8
2599.9
1 2599.9
c
0
d
n
2602
2601.5
2601
2600.5
2600
2599.5
2599
2598.5
Cross - Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2 +59
t Yr2 2013
—� Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
-- e- -- Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 5: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 6: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 7: XS -2 facing upstream
Photo 8: XS -2 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
3.7
8.25
1 0.45
1.04
18.33
1 1
4.6
2592.25
1 2592.25
2596
2595
2594
C
O
2593
d
w 2592
2591
Cross - Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 4 +20
t Yr2 2013
Yr1 2012
t Asbuilt 2011
-- o - -- Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 9: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 10: XS -3 facing left bank
Photo 11: XS -3 facing upstream
Photo 12: XS -3 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
11.7
9.85
1.19
228
8.28
1
4.7
2590.09
1 2590.09
2593
2592
F 2591
0
r 2590
ca
> 2589
w
r4� :l
Cross - Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 4 +75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Photo 13: XS -4 facing right bank
Photo 14: XS -4 facing left bank
Photo 15: XS -4 facing upstream
Photo 16: XS -4 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Eb
2.9
5.23
0.55
0.84
9.5
1
7.6
2639.18
1 2639.18
Cross - Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 1 +35
NEIII&I
2640
F
= 2639.5
o �—
---- - - - - --
> 2639 t 2013 Yr2
m
W 2012 Yr1
2638.5 4 2011 Asbullt
o - -- Bankfull
2638
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 3: XS -1 facing upstream
Photo 4: XS -1 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
Eh
5.9
6.51
1 0.91
1.5
7.15
1 1
5.2
2633.9
1 2633.9
2635
2634.5
w. 2634
c
2633.5
ED 2633
2632.5
2632
Cross - Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2 +56
0 5 10 15 20 25
Station (ft)
t 2013 Yr2
—A— 2012 Yr1
t 2011 Asbuilt
-- o- -- Bankfull
30 35 40
Photo 5: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 6: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 7: XS -2 facing upstream
Photo 8: XS -2 facing downstream

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
3 +00 -6 +00
2640
— *--TWG -Yr2 2013
t TWG -Yr1 2012
2638 —*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
—►ice WSF
2636 --m--Top of Bank
2634
2632
c
m
2630
d
w
2628
MELL-
2626 -
2624 %Ai;;;;
2622
2620
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
6 +00 -9 +00
2630
— *--TWG -Yr2 2013
TWG -Yr1 2012
2628
—*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
—s —WSF
--m—Top of Bank
2626
2624
2622
C
2620
-------- - - - - ------- --
m
w
2618
2616
IL
2614
2612
2610
600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
9 +00 -12 +00
2620
— ik ..TWG -Yr2 2013
--a—. TWG -Yr1 2012
2618
—*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
— o*—WSF
—w—Top of Bank
2616
2614
2612
-
j
C
2610
- - - - - - --
m
m
w
2608
2606
2604
2602
2600
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
12 +00 -15 +00
2610
— *--TWG -Yr2 2013
TWG -Yr1 2012
2608
—*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
—s —WSF
--m—Top of Bank
2606
2604
2602
C
2600
m
w
2598
2596
2594
2592
2590
1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
15 +00 -18 +00
2600
— *—TWG -Yr2 2013
TWG- Yr12012
2598 i TWG- Asbuilt 2011
--x— WS F
2596 tTop of Bank
t
2594 ----------- - - - --- --
2592 - IAML
c
m
2590
m
w
2588
2586
2584
2582
2580
1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
18+00-21+00
2600
— *--TWG -Yr2 2013
TWG -Yr1 2012
2598
—*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
—s —WSF
--m—Top of Bank
2596
2594
2592
c
2590
A
m
w
2588
2586
2584
2582
2580
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -Elk Branch (Yr 2 Monitoring)
21+00-24+00
2590
— ik ..TWG -Yr2 2013
--a—. TWG -Yr1 2012
2588
—*---TWG- Asbuilt 2011
— o*—WSF
—w—Top of Bank
2586
2584
-------- - - - - --
2582
-- -
C
0
2580
- JIM - -- - - -- -
m
w
2578
- -
2576
2574
2572
2570
2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400
Station (ft)

F
2615
2610
2605
2600
2595
2590
Longitudinal Profile -UT1 (Yr 2 Monitoring)
0 +00 -3 +50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile -UT1 (Yr 2 Monitoring)
3 +50 -7 +00
2600
tTWG -Yr2 2013
TWG -Yr1 2012
t TWG - Asbuilt 2011
--*t—WSF
—Top of Bank
2595
2590
c
0
m
w
2585.
__
2580
2575
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Station (ft)

2646
2644
2642
2640
2638
c
0
d
w 2636
2634
2632
2630
2628
Longitudinal Profile -UT2
Year 2 Monitoring
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft)

Table 11. Categorical Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Elk Branch Mitigation Project - Project No. 92665
Elk
Branch Reach 1 (951 LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
I - - - --
Elk Branch Reach A (592
LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
I - - - --
Elk
Branch Reach B (403
LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
100%
100%
100%
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
I - - - --

Elk Branch Reach 2 (186 LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
UTI (656LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
94%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
99%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
UT2 (242
LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Bed General
100%
79%
96%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
98%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
100%
100%
100%
Wads and Boulders
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --

Table 12. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Elk Branch Mitigation Project - Project No. 92665
Elk Branch Reach 1 (951 LF
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
Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
23
23
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
23
23
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
23
23
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin ?
23
23
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
23
23
0/0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
30
30
0/0
100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
30
30
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
30
30
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%,
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3. Apparent Re within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N /A'
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
951
951
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down.
cutting or head cutting.
951
951
0/0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
30
30
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
30
30
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriateli
30
30
0/0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
30
30
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach A (592 LF)
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
Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
15
15
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
15
15
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
15
15
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining!
15
15
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
15
15
0/0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
15
15
0/0
100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
15
15
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
15
15
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%,
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N /A'
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation'
592
592
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
592
592
0/0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
9
9
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
9
9
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriatee
9
9
0/0
100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
9
9
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Elk Branch Reach B (403 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
o a Number
/ feet in unstable
state
Flertorming
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
14
14
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
14
14
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
14
14
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin a
14
14
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
14
14
0/0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
14
14
0/0
100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
14
14
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
14
14
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%,
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N /A'
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
403
403
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting.
403
403
0/0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
14
14
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
14
14
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate'!
14
14
0/0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
14
14
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach 2 (186 LF)
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
Performing
in Stable
Condition
Fee ure
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
7
7
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
7
7
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
7
7
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin e
7
7
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
7
7
0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
7
7
0/0
100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
7
7
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
7
7
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%2
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3.Appa rent Rc within s ec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
NIA a
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation'
186
186
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting.
186
186
0/0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
7
7
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
7
7
0/0
1 100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate!
7
7
0/0
100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
7
7
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Feature
Category
-"able)
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
Number
Performing
as Intended
I o a um er a orming eature
Total number / feet in unstable in Stable Perfomance
per As -Built state Condition Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
29
29
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
29
29
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
29
29
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin a
29
29
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
29
1 29
0/0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
30
30
0/0
100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
30
30
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
30
30
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%,
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A 3
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation'
656
656
0/0
100
Generar
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cutting ?
656
656
0/0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
29
29
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Height appropriate?
29
29
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriatele
29
29
0/0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
29
29
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT2 (242 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -Built and reference baselines)
a e Number
Performing
as Intended
Total number
per As -Built
Total Number
/ feet in unstable
state
Performing
in Stable
Condition
Fee ure
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
10
10
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
10
10
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
10
10
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embeddin /finin i
10
10
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
10
10
0/0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
10
10
0/0
1 100
2. Sufficiently deep Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6?
10
10
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
10
10
0/0
100
100
C. Thalweg'
1. Upstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
2. Downstream of pool structure centering?
1
1
0/0
100
100%2
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
0
0
0/0
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
0
0
0/0
N/A
3. Appa rent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
1 N/A
4. Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A 3
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation'
242
242
0/0
100
General"
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting.
222
242
20
92
96%
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0/0
100
Rock/Log
12. Height appropriate?
11
11
1 0/0
1 100
Drop
13. Angle and geometry appear appropriate i
11
11
0/0
100
4. Free of pipinq or other structural failures?
10
11
0/0
91
98
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
' Thalweg feature is scored according to the centering of the thalweg over inverts of drop structures above pools and through the constructed riffle below pools since this
reach is a step -pool channel without meander bends.
`Of the structures and riffles that contained flow, 100% had a centered thalweg. Centering of the thalweg for all remaining structures and riffles lacking baseflow that are
located within the 'dry' portion of the reach will be re- assessed in the Year 2 monitoring report.
3 Given the stream types present within the project area, stream flow energy was primarily managed vertically through drop control structures. Pattern adjustments were not
designed to increase sinuosity on -site. As a result, the features addressed in Section D. 1 -3 are not as common to the project site as they are on C or E -type channels in
more gently sloping terrain. Pattern adjustments were limited to maintaining channel in low point of the valley.
"The channel bed is stable; the linear feet provided in Column F represents the total linear feet of subsurface flow.

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
Elk Branch: Reach 1
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre- Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
(As- Built)
Monitoring Year t
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle
E .
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width ft
6.3 -9.3
3.9
5.9
7.8
11.7
19.7
27.6
4.0
7.3
10.5
- - --
6.1
- - --
- - --
5.5
- - --
- - --
5.2
- - --
Flood rone Width ft
- --
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
- --
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
- - --
30.9
- - --
- --
24.3
- --
- - --
26.4
- - --
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
.44-.61
0.48
0.80
1.12
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.40
0.58
0.75
- - --
0.67
- - --
- --
0.46
- --
- - --
0.51
- - --
Bankfull Max Depth ft
- - - --
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
- - --
0.98
- - --
- --
0.72
- --
- --
0.89
- - --
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.6 -6.8
2.9
8.7
14.5
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
- - --
4.1
- - --
I - - --
2.6
-
- - --
2.7
- - --
Width/Depth Ratio
- --
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
- - --
9.0
-
- --
12.0
--
- --
10.1
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
--
1.6
4.3
7.0
1.3
2.3
1 3.2
3.0
5.3
7.6
- - --
5.1
-
- --
4.4
- --
- - --
5.1
- - --
Bank Height Rati
--
1.4
2.3
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
- - --
1 1.0
- --
- --
1.0
--
- - --
1.3
- --
Bankfull Velocity fps
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.0
4.0
6.0
- - --
2.6
- - --
- - --
4.1
- - --
- - --
3.9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
- - - --
2
3
4
16
36
55
11
45
80
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Radius of Curvature ft
- --
2
4
7
28
38
47
5
15
25
--
- --
--
- --
--
- --
--
- --
-
Meander Wavelength ft
- - - --
9
23
38
70
165
260
21
52
82
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.1
2.6
4.1
3.5
5.8
8.0
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Profile
Riffle Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
18
34
51
21
29
37
20.4
30.8
38.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.200
0.480
0.760
0.022
0.037
0.051
0.021
0.029
0.045
0.017
0.026
0.031
0.018
0.026
0.034
Pool Length ft
- --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
13
15
16
-
-
-
3
6
9
2
7
13
9
10
13
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - - --
42
- - - --
157
42
137
231
9
30
50
17
40
55
15
39
54
17
40
53
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
1.2/6.6/13/65/130
1- 6/14/31- 39/51- 88/110 -210
.6- 1.5/2- 7/6.2- 19/19 -65/
26 -130
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
- - --
- - --
I - - --
I ____
____
____
____
____
____
_____
_____
1.0
- - --
- - --
0.7
- - --
- - - --
0.7
- - --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.6
- - - --
- - - --
2.8
- - - --
-
2.6
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
- - - --
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
901
- - --
- --
901
- - - --
- - - --
901
- - - --
- - - --
901
- - - --
Drains a Area SM
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.45
1.03
1.60
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Ros en Classification
- --
--
Cb /B /G
/Eb4
- - - --
- --
134
- - - --
-
134
-
- - - --
134
-
-
134
-
-
B4
- - - --
Bankfull Discharge cfs
7 -13
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
Sinuosity
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
1.02
1.07
1.11
--
1.09
-
- - - --
1.09
1.09
BF slope (ft/ft)
----
-----
-----
- --
-----
----
-----
----
- ---
-----
-
0.033
0.032
1 ----
I ----
1 0.029
- --

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
Elk Branch: Reach A
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre- Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
(As- Built)
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle
E .
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Mi n
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.3 -9.3
3.9
5.9
7.8
11.7
19.7
27.6
4.0
7.3
10.5
8.1
- - --
- - --
7.3
- - --
- - --
8.2
- - --
Flood rone Width ft
--
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
- - - --
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
34.6
- - --
-
32.5
-
-
35.6
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
.44 -.61
0.48
0.80
1.12
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.40
0.58
0.75
FMi
0.51
- - --
-
0.40
-
- - --
0.42
- - --
Bankfull Max De th ft
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.83
- - --
-
0.80
-
- - --
0.95
- - --
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.6 -6.8
2.9
8.7
14.5
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
4.2
-
2.9
-
-
3.4
- - --
Width /De th Ratio
- - - --
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
15.8
- - --
-
18.4
- - --
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - --
1.6
4.3
1 7.0
1.3
1 2.3
3.2
3.0
1 5.3
7.6
- - --
4.3
- - --
-
4.4
- - --
-
4.3
Bank Height Ratio
- - - --
1.4
2.3
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.1
1.1
- - --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1 1.0
- - --
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.0
4.0
6.0
- - --
2.5
- - --
- - --
3.6
- - --
- - --
3.1
- - --
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
2
3
4
16
36
55
11
45
80
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Radius of Curvature ft
- - - --
2
4
7
28
38
47
5
15
25
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Wavelength ft )
- - - --
9
23
38
70
165
260
21
52
82
- - -_
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.10
2.60
4.10
3.50
5.75
8.00
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
Profile
Riffle Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
34
45
64
1 31
1 44
64
35
44
64
Riffle Slope (fUft )
- - - --
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.200
0.480
0.760
0.022
0.037
0.051
0.010
0.025
0.040
0.013
0.026
0.037
0.008
0.022
0.039
Pool Length ft
--
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
13
15
16
- - - --
4
5
6
5
9
12
9
12
14
Pool Spacing (ft)
--
42
- - - --
157
42
137
231
9
30
50
22
43
57
28
44
54
21
41
55
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
1.2/6.6/13/65/130
1- 6/14/31- 39/51- 88/110 -21
.6- 1.5/2- 7/6.2- 19/19- 65/26 -130
3.2/12/17/37/69
0.2/17/27/69/117
9.4/24/30/72/152
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
I - - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
0.7
- - - --
- - - --
0.7
- - - --
- - - --
0.7
- - - --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
-----
-- - --
-----
-----
-----
-- - --
-- - --
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.7
-----
-- ---
2.5
-- ---
-- - --
2.1
-- - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
-----
-- ---
-----
-----
-----
-- - --
-- - --
-----
642
-----
- ----
642
-----
- - - --
642
- - ---
- - ---
642
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
- - - --
- - - --
.03-.07
- - - --
0.45
1.03
1.60
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Ros en Classification
- - - --
- - - --
Cb /B /G
/Eb4
- --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
--
B4
-
- - - --
B4
B4
-
B4
- - - --
Bankfull Discharge cfs
7 -13
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
Sinuosity
--
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
--
1.09
- - --
- - --
1.09
--
- - - --
1.09
1.09
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-
- - --
- - ---
-----
-----
- - --
- - --
0.027
-
- - --
0.028
0.028

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
Elk Branch: Reach B
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre- Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
(As- Built)
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle
Eq. _
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width ft
6.3 -9.3
3.9
5.9
7.8
11.7
19.7
27.6
4.0
7.3
10.5
- - --
8.7
- - --
- - --
8.3
- - --
- - --
9.4
- - --
Floodprone Width ft
- - - --
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
- - - --
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
- - --
45.0
- --
- - --
46.5
- - --
- - --
45.2
- - --
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
.44-.61
0.48
0.80
1.12
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.40
0.58
0.75
- - --
0.65
- - --
- - --
0.53
- - --
- - --
0.52
- - --
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
- - --
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
- - --
0.95
- - --
- - --
0.75
- - --
- - --
0.98
- - --
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.6 -6.8
2.9
8.7
14.5
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
- - --
5.7
- - --
- - --
4.4
- - --
- - --
4.9
- - --
Width /Depth Ratio
- --
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
- - --
13.3
- --
- - --
1 15.6
- - --
18.0
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - --
1.6
4.3
7.0
1.3
2.3
3.2
3.0
5.3
7.6
- - --
5.2
- - --
- - --
5.6
- - --
4.8
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
- - - --
1.4
2.3
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
- - --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1.0
- - --
Bankfull Velocity (fps
--
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
--
- - - --
2.0
4.0
6.0
- - - --
1.8
- - - --
- - - --
2.4
- - - --
- - - --
2.1
Pattern IK
Channel Beltwidth ft
- - - --
2
3
4
16
36
55
11
45
80
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Radius of Curvature ft
- - - --
2
4
7
28
38
47
5
15
25
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Wavelength ft
- - - --
9
23
38
70
165
260
21
52
82
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.10
2.60
4.10
3.50
5.75
8.00
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
5
23
42
12
25
42
11
24
40
Riffle Slope ft/ft
- - - --
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.200
0.480
0.760
0.022
0.037
0.051
0.018
0.025
0.039
0.005
0.021
0.041
0.017
0.018
0.022
Pool Length (ft)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
13
15
16
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
4
8
14
8
9
11
8
11
13
Pool Spacing ft
- - - --
42
- - - --
157
42
137
231
9
30
50
10
29
50
17
31
55
17
33
56
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
1.2/6.6/13/65/130
6/14/31- 39/51 - 88/110 -2
.6- 1.5/2- 7/6.2- 19/19-
65/26 -130
- --
- --
- --
Reach Shear Stress competent lb/f2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1.0
- - - --
- - - --
0.9
- - - --
- - - --
0.9
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1.9
- - - --
- - - --
2.0
- - - --
- - - --
1.8
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
403
- - - --
- - - --
403
- - --
- - - --
403
- - - --
- - - --
403
- - - --
Drains a Area SM
- - - --
- - - --
.03-.07
- - - --
0.45
1.03
1.60
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Ros en Classification
- - - --
- - - --
Cb /B /G
/Eb4
64
B4
B4
- - - --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
64
- - - --
Bankfull Dischar a cfs
7 -13
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
Sinuosi
- - - --
1 1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
1.09
- - --
1.09
- - - --
- - - --
1.09
- - - --
- - - --
1.09
BF slope (ft/ft)
- - --
- - - --
- - --
- - --
0.021
- - - --
- - - --
0.023
1 - - --
- - - --
0.021

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
Elk Branch: Reach 2
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre- Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
(As- Built)
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
I Mean
Max
Min
I Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.30
3.9
5.9
7.8
11.7
19.7
27.6
4.0
7.3
10.5
- - --
9.2
- - --
- - --
9.0
- - --
- - --
10.3
- - --
Flood rone Width ft
- - - --
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
- - - --
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
- - --
43.8
- - --
- - --
44.2
- - --
- - --
44.1
- - --
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.61
0.48
0.80
1.12
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.40
0.58
0.75
- - --
0.98
-
- - --
0.96
- - --
- - --
1.01
- - --
Bankfull Max Depth ft
- --
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
- - --
2.02
-
- - --
2.11
- - --
- - --
2.49
- - --
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.80
2.9
8.7
14.5
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
- - --
9.0
-
- --
8.7
- - --
- - --
10.4
- - --
Width/Depth Ratio
- - - --
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
- - --
9.3
-
- - --
9.4
- - --
- - --
10.2
- - --
Entrenchment Rati
- - - --
1.6
1 4.3
7.0
1 1.3
2.3
3.2
3.0
5.3
1 7.6
- - --
4.8
-
- --
4.9
- - --
- - --
4.3
- - --
Bank Height Rati
- - - --
1.4
2.3
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
- - --
1.0
-
- - --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1.0
- - --
Bankfull Velocity fps
- - - --
- ----
-----
-- ---
-- ---
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
-----
1.2
- - - --
-----
1.2
-----
-----
1.0
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
- - - --
2
3
4
16
36
55
11
45
80
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Radius of Curvature ft
- - - --
2
4
7
28
38
47
5
15
25
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Wavelength (ft)
- - - --
9
23
38
70
165
1 260
21
52
82
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.10
2.60
4.10
3.50
5.75
8.00
- - - --
I - - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Profile
Riffle Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- --
- - - --
- --
- - - --
19
30
40
19
30
40
17
27
38
Riffle Slope fUft
- - - --
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.200
0.480
0.760
0.022
0.037
0.051
0.021
0.028
0.039
0.021
0.028
0.041
0.018
0.029
0.049
Pool Length ft
- - - --
--
--
13
15
16
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
7
9
11
5
9
14
9
10
12
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - - --
42
- - - --
157
42
1 137
231
9
30
50
31
39
48
33
39
45
39
43
48
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
1.2/6.6/13165/130
1- 6/14/31 - 39/51- 88/110 -21
.6- 1.5/2- 7/6.2- 19/19-
65/26 -130
Reach Shear Stress competency Ib/
- - - --
- - - --
--
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
--
--
- - - --
- - - --
1.3
- - - --
- - --
1.4
- - - --
- - --
1.4
- - - --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W 1m2
- - - --
-
- --
--
--
- --
- - - --
- --
1.6
- --
- - - --
1.7
- - - --
-- - --
1.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
- - - --
- - - --
--
- - - --
- - - --
- --
- - - --
279
- - - --
- - --
279
- - - --
--
279
- - - --
-----
279
Drainage Area (SM)
- - - --
0.07
--
0.14
0.45
1.03
1.60
0.07
0.11
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Ros en Classification
- - - --
Cb /B /G
/Eb4
- - - --
- - - --
B4
--
- - - --
B4
- - - --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
Bankfull Discharge cfs
13 -23
--- --
- - --
--
-- --
- - --
- - --
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
Sinuosi
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
- - - --
1.09
--
1.09
- - - --
--
1.09
- - - --
- - --
1.09
BF slope (ft/ft)
-
- - --
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.024
- - - --
-
0.023
- -- --
- - ---
0.023
Note: Dimension information based on pool cross - section

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
UT1 to Elk Branch
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre- Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
As -Built
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Mean
Bankfull Width ft
6.90
3.5
7.7
11.9
11.7
19.7
27.6
3.0
6.9
8.4
6.5
6.9
7.3
6.5
7.2
7.8
7.0
7.7
8.3
Floodprone Width ft )
- - - --
6.8
29.4
52.0
20.0
30.5
41.0
9.0
17.0
25.0
34.8
36.3
37.9
33.0
35.0
36.9
36.9
38.9
40.9
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.47
0.34
0.53
0.72
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.46
0.53
0.59
0.34
0.38
0.42
0.37
0.4
0.52
Bankfull Max Depth ft
- - - --
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.40
0.70
1.00
0.68
0.74
0.80
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.79
0.9
1.04
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fl:2
4.10
5.5
7.7
9.9
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
4.5
6.0
3.1
3.5
3.8
2.5
2.7
2.9
2.7
3.2
3.7
Width /Depth Ratio
- - - --
2.1
5.1
8.1
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
11.0
12.8
14.5
16.7
20.0
23.2
13.6
16.7
19.7
Entrenchment Rati
- - - --
1.9
4.8
7.7
1.3
2.3
1 3.2
- - - --
3.0
- - - --
4.8
1 5.3
5.8
4.2
5.0
5.7
4.6
1 5.2
5.8
Bank Height Ratio
- - - --
1.0
1.5
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Velocity (fps
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.8
4.1
2.7
3.2
3.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
- ----
-- - --
- ----
- - ---
16
36
55
- ----
- - - --
- - - --
- ----
- ----
- ----
-- - --
-
-
-- - --
- - - --
- ----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----
-- - --
-----
-----
28
38
47
-----
- - - --
- - ---
-----
-----
-----
- - ---
- -- --
-
- - ---
- - ---
-----
Meander Wavelength ft
- ----
-- - --
- ----
- ---
70
165
260
- ----
--- --
-- - --
-----
-
-
-- - --
- ----
Meander Width Ratio
- ----
-- - --
- ----
-----
1.10
2.60
4.10
- ----
- - - --
-----
-
- - - --
- ----
-
- - ---
- - - --
----- -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
- - - --
- - - --
- - -_
____
_____
_____
_____
__
_____
11
17
24
11
15
22
11
15
19
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.022
0.030
0.038
0.200
0.138
0.076
0.023
0.042
0.061
0.018
0.066
0.104
0.037
0.061
0.080
0.022
0.042
0.063
Pool Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
13
15
16
- - - --
2
4
6
2
5
8
7
9
11
Pool Spacing ft
- - - --
- - - --
--
--
42
137
231
9
13
17
20
23
26
18
21
24
19
23
24
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - --
- 6/14/31- 39/51- 88/110 -21
- - --
- --
- --
- --
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
- - - --
- --
- - - --
--
- --
--
- --
--
--
0.53
- - --
- - - --
0.53
- --
- - - --
0.53
- - --
tream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1.54
- - - --
- - - --
1.98
- - - --
- - - --
1.69
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
- - - --
- - - --
685
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
654
- - - --
- - - --
656
- - - --
- - - --
656
- - - --
- - - --
656
- - - --
Drains a Area SM
--
- - - --
0.06
- - - --
- - - --
0.06
- - - --
- - --
0.06
- - - --
--
0.06
- - --
- - - --
0.06
- - - --
- - - --
0.06
--
Ros en Classification
- ----
- - - --
B4 /G
- - ---
- - - --
B4
- - - --
- - ---
B4
- - - --
-
B4
- -- --
- - - --
B4
-
- - - --
B4
-
Bankfull Discharge cfs
10 -12
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
3
7
10
--
10
- - - --
--
10
--
- - - --
10
- - - --
Sinuosit
--
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
- --
1.04
--
--
1.04
- - --
--
1.04
--
1.04
BF slope (ft/ft)
- --
- - --
---
- --
- --
- --
- --
- --
- -
-- --
-
0.046
-
0.046
-
0.048

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
UT2 to Elk Branch
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Pre - Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
As -Built
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Dimension - Riffle AM
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width ft
3.70
3.5
7.7
11.9
11.7
19.7
27.6
3.0
5.7
8.4
- - --
5.4
- - --
- - --
5.8
- - --
- - --
5.2
- - --
Flood rone Width ft
- - - --
6.8
29.4
52.0
20.0
30.5
41.0
9.0
17.0
25.0
- - --
38.9
- - --
- - --
36.9
- - --
- - --
39.5
- - --
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.28
0.34
0.53
0.72
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.30
0.45
0.60
- - --
0.52
- - --
- - --
0.44
- - --
- - --
0.55
- - --
Bankfull Max Depth ft
- - - --
0.90
1.30
1.70
0.90
1.70
2.50
0.40
0.70
1.00
- - --
0.86
- - --
- --
0.76
- - --
- - --
0.84
- - --
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2
1.50
5.5
7.7
9.9
10.2
21.6
33.0
3.0
4.5
6.0
- - --
2.8
- - --
- - --
2.6
- - --
- - --
2.9
- - --
Width/Depth Ratio
- - - --
2.1
5.1
8.1
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
- - --
10.3
- - --
- --
13.3
- - --
- - --
9.5
Entrenchment Ratio
- - - --
1.9
4.8
7.7
1.3
2.3
3.2
- - - --
3.0
- - - --
- - --
7.2
- - --
- - --
6.3
- - --
- - --
7.6
Bank Height Ratio
- - - --
1.0
1.5
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
- - --
1.0
- - --
- --
1.0
- - --
- - --
1.0
- - --
Bankfull Velocity fps
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.0
4.0
6.0
- - --
2.1
- - --
- - --
2.3
- - --
- - --
2.1
- - --
Pattern
I
AL
_
Channel Beltwidth ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
16
36
55
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- ----
Radius of Curvature ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
28
38
47
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Wavelength ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
70
165
260
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
Meander Width Ratio
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1.1
2.6
4.1
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- ----
Profile 1
Riffle Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
9
12
14
9
13
15
10
13
15
Riffle Slope ft/ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
0.190
0.475
0.760
0.023
0.042
0.061
0.026
0.050
0.080
0.038
0.048
0.056
0.042
0.054
0.065
Pool Length ft
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
13
15
16
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
3
7
11
4
7
9
8
10
12
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
42
137
231
9
26
42
15
22
27
18
21
24
19
21
23
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
- - - --
- - --
1- 6/14/31- 39/51- 88/110
- --
- --
- --
- --
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
1.1
- - - --
- - - --
0.9
- - - --
- - - --
0.9
- - - --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
2.3
- - - --
- - - --
2.1
- - - --
- - - --
1.9
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
- - - --
- - - --
185
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
244
- - - --
- - - --
241
- - - --
- - - --
241
- - - --
- - - --
241
- - - --
Drains a Area (SM)
- - - --
- - - --
0.01
- - - --
0.45
1.025
1.60
- - - --
0.01
- - - --
- - - --
0.01
- - - --
- - - --
0.01
- - - --
- - - --
0.01
-----
Ros en Classification
- - - --
- - - --
134 /G
- - - --
- - - --
134
- - - --
- - - --
134
- - - --
- - - --
B4
- - - --
- -- -
134
- - - --
- - - --
134
- - - --
Bankfull Discharge cfs
2 -3
- - - --
- - - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
6
-----
- - - --
6
- - - --
- - - --
6
- - - --
- - - --
6
- - - --
Sinuosit
- - - --
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
1.04
1.04
- - - --
- - - --
1.04
- - --
1.04
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-
--
0.039
- -- --
0.039
0.040

Table 14. Cross - Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Elk Branch - Reach 1
Elk Branch - Reach A
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Pool
Cross Section 3
Riffle
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width Lftj
6.1
5.5
5.2
6.0
5.7
5.1
8.1
7.3
8.2
Flood prone Width Lft)
30.9
24.3
26.4
32.5
32.5
32.5
34.6
32.5
35.6
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.1
2.6
2.7
7.3
6.3
4.8
4.2
2.9
3.4
BF Mean Depth Lft)
0.67
0.46
0.51
1.22
1.1
0.93
0.51
0.4
0.42
BF Max Depth Lftj
0.98
0.72
0.89
2.16
1.79
1.48
0.83
0.8
0.95
Width/Depth Ratio
9.0
12.0
10.1
4.9
5.1
5.5
15.8
18.4
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.1
4.4
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
Wetted Perimeter ft
7.4
6.5
6.2
8.5
7.9
7.0
9.1
8.1
9.1
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Elk Branch - Reach B
Parameter
Cross Section 4
Riffle
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width Lft2
8.7
8.3
9.44
Flood prone Width ft
45.0
46.5
45.20
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
5.7
4.4
4.90
BF Mean De th ft
0.65
0.53
0.52
BF Max Depth Lft)
0.95
0.75
0.98
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
15.6
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.6
4.8
Wetted Perimeter ft
10.0
9.3
10.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
Parameter
AB 2011
MY -1 2012
MY -2 (20 3)
MY -3 2014
MY -4 2015)
MY -5 2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Mad
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength Lftj
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
5
64
36
12
1 64
29
md
11
64
34
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.010
0.045
1 0.025
0.005
0.041
0.027
0.008
0.039
0.021
Pool Length ft
3
14
7
2
13
9
8.1
13.8
11.8
Pool S acin ft
10
57
44
15
55
45
16.6
56.2
437
Substrate
d50 mm
17
27
30
d84 mm
38
69
72
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
2121
2121
2121
Channel Length ft
1946
1946
1946
Sinuosity
1.09
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.027
0.027
0.029
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0211 0.033 1 0.027
0,023T-0.032 1 0.028
0.021 0.029 0.025
Rosgen Classificationj
B4
B4
B4

Table 14. Cross - Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #D06125 -B
Elk
Branch - Reach 2
Parameter
Cross Section 5
Pool
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width Lft)
9.2
9.0
10.29
Flood prone Width Lft)
43.8
44.2
44.1
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
9.0
8.7
10.40
BF Mean De th ft
0.98
0.96
1.01
BF Max De th ft
2.02
2.11
2.49
Width/Depth Ratio
9.3
9.4
10.2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
4.9
4.3
Wetted PerimeterLftj
11.1
11.0
12.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.8
0.8
0.8
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Parameter
AB 2011
MY -1 2012
MY -2 2013
Min Max Med
17 38 27
0.018 0.049 0.024
9 12 11
39 48 42
304
279
1.09
0.028
0.023
B4 /Eb4
MY -3 2014
MY -4 2015
MY -5 2016
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength Lftj
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length A
19
40
31
19
40
30
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.021
0.039
1 0.026
0.021
0.041
0.025
Pool Length ft
7
11
9
5
14
10
Pool Spacing ft
31
48
40
33
45
40
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 mm
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
304
304
Channel Len th ft
279
279
Sinuosity
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.027
0.027
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0171 0.024 1 0.021
0.023
Rosgen Classification
B4 /Eb4
B4 /Eb4

Table 14. Cross - Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #D06125 -B
UT1
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Cross Section 3
Riffle
Cross Section 4
Pool
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width Lft2
6.7
6.5
7.3
6.5
6.96
7.0
7.3
7.79
8.3
9.4
10.3
9.9
Flood prone Width Lft)
35.7
36.89
36.9
37.6
34.75
40.9
34.8
33.03
37.8
45.2
45.88
45.9
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.1
2.45
2.7
3.8
2.91
3.6
3.6
2.61
3.7
11.9
12.36
11.7
BF Mean De th ft
0.46
0.38
0.37
0.59
0.42
0.52
0.5
0.34
0.45
1.3
1.2
1.2
BF Max Depth Lftj
0.68
0.58
0.79
0.8
0.59
0.93
0.71
0.91
1.04
2.2
2.2
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.7
17.3
19.7
11.0
116.67
13.6
1
1
14.5
23.2
18.3
7.5
8.58
8.3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.7
5.1
5.8
5.0
5.8
4.8
4.2
4.6
4.8
4.45
4.7
Wetted Perimeter ft
7.7
7.3
8.0
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.3
8.5
9.2
11.9
12.7
12.2
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.41
0.34
0.34
0.50
0.37
0.45
0.44
0.31
0.40
1.00
0.97
0.96
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Parameter
AB 2011
MY -1 2012
MY
-2 2013
MY -3 2014
MY
-4 2015
MY
-5 2016
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
11
24
15
11
1 22
14
11
19
16
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.018
0.104
0.080
0.037
0.080
0.063
0.022
0.064
0.044
Pool Length ft
2
6
4
2
8
5
7
19
11
24
10
23
Pool Spacing ft
31
26
23
18
24
22
Substrate
d50 mm
- - --
d84 mm
- - --
- - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Len th ft
662
662
662
Channel Len th ft
683
683
683
Sinuosity
1.04
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.049
0.046
0.046
BF Slo a ft/ft
0.046
0.046
0.048
Rosgen Classification
B
B
B

Table 14. Cross- Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #D06125 -B
UT2
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section
Pool
2
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width Lftj
5.4
5.8
5.2
7.9
7.4
6.5
Flood prone Width Lft)
38.9
36.9
39.5
34.0
34.0
34.1
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
2.8
2.6
2.9
6.6
5.9
5.9
BF Mean Depth Lft)
0.52
0.44
0.55
0.83
0.80
0.91
BF Max De th ft
0.86
0.76
0.84
1.49
1.40
1.50
Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
13.3
9.5
1
9.5
9.3
7.2
Entrenchment Ratio
7.2
6.3
7.6
4.3
4.6
5.2
Wetted Perimeter ±1
6.4
6.7
6.3
9.6
9.0
8.3
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Parameter
AB 2011
MY -1 2012
MY
-2 2013
MY -3 2014)
MY -4 2015)
MY -5 2016
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature Lft)
Meander Wavelength ±1
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
9
14
13
9
15
13
10.00
14.90
14.20
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.026
0.080
0.047
0.038
0.056
0.050
0.042
0.065
0.054
Pool Length ft
3
11
5
4
9
7
8
12
9
Pool Spacing ft
15
27
23
18
24
22
19
23
20
L
Substrate
-
d50 mm
- - --
-
-
-
d84 mm
- - --
- - --
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
320
320
320
Channel Length ft
241
241
241
Sinuosity
- --
1.04
- - --
-
1.04
--
1.04
Water Surface Sloe ft/ft
- --
0.038
- - --
0.038
0.039
- --
BF Slope' ft/ft
0.039
0.049
0.044
0.039
0.040
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Notes:

Figure BI. Elk Branch Pebble Count
Elk Branch Mitigation Project, EEP# 92665
SITE OR PROJECT:
Elk Branch
REACH /LOCATION:
Mainstem, Riffle below PPT16
FEATURE:
Riffle
Summary Data
2013
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE mm
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt/ Clay
Silt / Clay
< .063
8
14%
14%
Sand
Very Fine
.063-.125
NAB (2011)
90%
14%
Fine
.125-.25
4%
18%
Medium
.25-.50
2%
20%
Coarse
.50-1.0
2
20%
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
v
20%
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
a
50%
20%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
20%
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
40%
20%
Fine
5.6-8.0
3
2%
22%
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
1 2
4%
26%
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
10
8%
34%
Coarse
16-22.6
5
6%
40%
Coarse
22.6-32
21
18%
58%
Very Coarse
32-45
18
16%
74%
Very Coarse
45-64
9
8%
82%
Cobble
Small
64-90
12
10%
92%
Small
90- 128
2
4%
96%
Large
128-180
2
2%
98%
Large
180-256
4
2%
100%
Boulder
Small
256-362
Particle Size Class (mm)
Small
362-512
Medium
512-1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
Total% of Whole
Count
100
100
100
Summary Data
Channel Materials
D50 =
30.45
D84 =
71.70
D95 =
151.79
Elk Branch
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
Elk Branch
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
NAB (2011)
90%
80%
■ YR1 (2012)
m YR2 (2013)
70%
—AB (2011)
90%
v
60%
a
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
80%
+YR 1 (2012)
}YR 2 (2013)
10%
di d
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)
70%
60%
50%
U
Sr
40%
A,
30%
c�
20%
U 10%
0%
7 7
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Elk Branch
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
NAB (2011)
90%
80%
■ YR1 (2012)
m YR2 (2013)
70%
v
60%
a
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
di d
0%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for Elk Branch were taken November 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is set up on an
adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream

Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream
Photo Point 5: looking downstream
Photo Point 5: looking upstream
Photo Point 6: looking upstream

Photo Point 6: looking downstream
Photo Point 7: looking upstream
Photo Point 7: looking downstream
Photo Point 8: looking upstream
Photo Point 8: looking downstream Photo Point 9: looking upstream

Photo Point 10: looking upstream
Photo Point 11: looking downstream
Photo Point 10: looking downstream
Photo Point 12: looking upstream
n
Photo Point 13: looking upstream
Photo Point 13: looking downstream

Photo Point 14: looking upstream
Photo Point 14: looking downstream
Photo Point 15: looking upstream
Photo Point 15: looking downstream
Photo Point 16: looking upstream
Photo Point 16: looking downstream

Photo Point 17: looking upstream
Photo Point 17: looking downstream
Photo Point 18: looking upstream
Photo Point 19: looking upstream
Photo Point 18: looking downstream
Photo Point 19: looking downstream

Photo Point 20: looking upstream
Photo Point 20: looking downstream

UT1 to Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for UT to Elk Branch were taken November 2013
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is set up on an
adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream

Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking upstream
Photo Point 5: looking upstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream

UT2 to Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for UT2 to Elk Branch were taken November 2013.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is set up on an
adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream

Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking upstream
Photo Point 5: looking upstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream