Elk Branch_92665_MY5_2016

Elk Branch Restoration Project
Year 5 Final Monitoring Report
Mitchell County, North Carolina
MonitoringFirm: irm: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)
Monitoring Firm POC: Micky Clemmons
Prepared for: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
NCDMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid
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,
DMS Project Number: 92665
Project Construction: 2011
Data Collection Period: October 2016
Date Submitted: November 2016

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................1
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................2
1.1
LOCATION AND SETTING...............................................................................................................................2
1.2
MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................2
Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives Table
1.3
PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................5
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.4
MONITORING PLAN VIEW.............................................................................................................................8
Project Contact Table
2.0
PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS......................................................................14
Project Background Table
2.1
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................................................14
Project Approach Map
Table
2.1.1 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................14
Riparian Buffer Planting List
Table
2.1.2 Soil Data...............................................................................................................................................16
Supplemental Riparian Buffer Plantings added in February 2015
Table
2.1.3 Vegetative Problem Areas....................................................................................................................16
Preliminary Soil Data
2.1.4 Stem Counts..........................................................................................................................................17
2.2
STREAM ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................................17
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability..................................................................................17
2.2.2 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................................19
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation of Site...................................................................................................20
2.2.4 Stream Stability Assessment.................................................................................................................20
2.3
AREAS OF CONCERN...................................................................................................................................20
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 Map
Table
5
Riparian Buffer Planting List
Table
5a
Supplemental Riparian Buffer Plantings added in February 2015
Table
6
Preliminary Soil Data
Appendix A
Table 7 Stem Count Arranged by Plot - Year 5 (Species Survival Rates)
Table 7b Stem Count Arranged by Plot - Year 5 (Planted Vs. Total)
Table 8 Vegetative Problem Areas
Exhibit Elk Branch: Vegetation Plot Photo Points (Year 5)
Appendix B
Table 9 Hydrological (Bankfull) Verifications
Table 10 Stream Problem Areas
Exhibit Graphs of mainstem and UT stream cross-sections
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Exhibit
Graphs of mainstem and UT stream profiles
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
Exhibit
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
Exhibit
Reference Photo Points on mainstem and UTs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT- YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Elk Branch site was restored through a full delivery contract with the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS). This report presents Year 5 monitoring data as part of the five-year
monitoring period. The goals for the restoration project are 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 5 vegetation monitoring indicated an
average survival rate of 493 planted stems per acre with an additional 11 individual volunteers observed
within the monitoring plots. The data shows that the Site has met the stem survival criteria for Year 5
(260 stems per acre).
The design proposed for the Elk Branch mitigation project involved Restoration (Priority 1 & 2) and
Enhancement approaches and these were completed as described in the baseline monitoring report for this
site. The project should ultimately result in having stable Cb and Eb-type channels for Elk Branch, UT1
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 has met the
success criteria specified in the Elk Branch Mitigation Plan.
Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as 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 is
one minor area of encroachment but no major project issues or concerns to report at this time. Narrative
background and supporting information can be found in previous reports that are available on DMS's
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon
request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Elk Branch mitigation site is situated in the French Broad River Basin, within North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 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 nutrients 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) of channel, primarily along
three on-site streams: Elk Branch and two unnamed tributaries (UTI and UT2). In addition, a third
tributary (UT3) segment was also restored from the easement boundary to its confluence with Elk Branch.
UT3 was impounded sometime in the past to create a small pond which flowed to the easement boundary
through a pipe. Elk Branch is shown as a solid blue -line stream while spring -fed tributaries UTI and UT2
are apparent from the topography, but are not displayed on the USGS topographic quadrangle map for the
site. Elk Branch, UT 1 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 becomes Cane Creek Road.
Continue on Cane Creek Road another 0.7 miles, then turn left off of Cane Creek Road onto Nora Lane
(SR 1219). Continue on Nora Lane for .65 miles where Nora Lane ends in a turn around with a private
drive continuing north onto the Wylie property (and the upstream point of the project) and to the west of
the turnaround Annies Cove (a dead end) diverges. The Hall property (UTI is on the Hall property) is
accessed from Armies Cove. The project site begins just below a spring head at the top of the valley on
the Wylie property, approximately 1,500 feet beyond the end of Nora Road (unpaved) and the project
along the mainstem ends where it crosses under Annies Cove.
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, UTI and UT2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Tie EII; 3ranch oro':.ect size is located about one milenorthea st of Fa kersvil le in MlsherI
County,Nor.h Ca h -(Fig ure l in Appendix Aj_ To reach the projecr s'ue, follow 1-26 North
hem Ashe lle for appronimately 20 mile: and take U. y. Highway 19N Ent 9. towards 9urns-
'illeand5prucepin C ony J.5. Highway l9 ;w hidr h—r—I PFJe, 25 miles.
Turn left onto IstC Highway 116 and continue un Hl you reach the Town of rakersvilie. Once
in 9akersvllle, tum rlghi on—h—) onto North Mitchell Avenue and after approAr,ately o
half, m,le, North Mitchell Avenue turns into Cane Geek Read Continue another U.? miles.
then [urn leh oR of Cane Creek Road onto Nora Lane )SR 12191. The prpjec[ site beglnsJus[
h,!_ a spring head at rhe head or the valley, app—h-tely 1,500 feet beyond the end of
Nora Road ipa,ad.
The subject prosect srte is an environmental mstorarlon site of the NCOENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Negmm (EER and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, hue
is bordered by land under private ownership Accessing the sire may req, l re traversing areas
n eer Or are, 9 the ea Sem eni Is% nd'aty 3n d therEM -c- by tie den era I is ublle io not
permitted Access W authorized personnel of s otoa nd federal agencies o r their
designees/oGi-tracors involved In the developmen C oversight and shoo rd sh 1p of the
:--1 on site is permdied w'n hin [he terms and tin,Vrames of their d,R,od roles, Any
irrtended site vsitatar or activity by any person outside of they prer�nusrysanclianed roles
and ac lines requires prior cooNlnation with EEP."
if � rs n
3
07
-TN -
Elk Branch Project Site
1 1 �
1 1 �1
` a e ,2e 1
1 1
r- Nc_ H 06016;108 ` y`)
1
1
uce tie
N
o -oof
19E
NE
AVERY
eros
�Gyga
i C
Ilk
10
r
w �9
0
■lot -i i ■ ■,i r ■ IN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■rip ■ ■ r ■ j■ ■ ■ ■ ■ " a. -
Proect � /I
■ Location Inset - , watershed/Reaches wy . ■ �'�'�--'
■ 'jam" 2� G, o ��. I of\� BURKE
■ f �-
■� a 4a �'� AT WBA �\
8-30 �\
■ °'� ��� Bak_e rsvi lie � �■ �\
n.
s� s �� ■v MCDOW LL
■ a��ao -I�e la.o„ra t -_1 4z
t.
■ }�Bo aha ■ f � / C � !r '�
■ •'� 91UfL t90 293 � � ■ � i..;
■ ^ f J �� o s ■ n `�
■■ a__� � � �. gp d � 5Ta
■ a �ppeaY.__. ■
■ r �+
■ $ -s gran ARa
4■r■ ■■■'■■d■m■l ■ ■■■■■tr■ ■■■■i 70
.
r"9ef LEGEND:
North Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
� NCDWQ Sub -basin
Carolina Counties Elk Branch Restoration Project
Division of Mitchell County, NC
USGS Hydrologic Unit
Mitigation Project Hydrologic Unit
Services D Mitchell County
0
0 1 2 4
Mitchell County, NC Miles ® I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT— YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
a
iL
Project
Segment or
,,
d
Reach ID
c°"
e
o
Stationing
Comment
Elk Branch
Adjust pattern, improve dimension by
0+76 to
removal of vertical banks and increased
Reach 1
R
PI
951 LF
1:1
951
10+50
floodplain connectivity, and restore step-
pool channel via grade control and
constructed riffles.
Restore stable dimension to halt erosion
2,020
10+50 to
and add grade control to improve pools.
Reach A
LF
E
LI
592 LF
1.5:1
395
16+42
Grade control structures will provide long-
term channel stability and improve in-
CM
stream habitat.
Adjust pattern, improve dimension by
16+42 to
removal of vertical banks and increased
Reach B
R
P1/2
403 LF
1:1
403
20+60
floodplain connectivity, and restore step-
pool channel via grade control and
constructed riffles.
Restore stable dimension to halt erosion
20+60 to
and add grade control to improve pools.
Reach 2
279 LF
E
Ll
279 LF
1.5:1
186
Grade control structures will provide long-
23+39
term channel stability and improve in-
stream habitat.
UT 1
Restore channel-floodplain connectivity of
previously channelized tributary.
0+06 to
Adjustments also made to pattern and
Reach 1
685 LF
R
P 1
Cb4
656 LF
1:1
656
6+83
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.
0+92 to
Priority 1 approach also applied to existing
Reach 1
279 LF
R
PI
EM
242 LF
1:1
242
3+34
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)
Minor pattern adjustment, extensive
improvements to dimension by removal of
Reach 1
0 LF
R
PI
04
36 LF
1:1
36
0+00 to
vertical banks and increased floodplain
0+36
connectivity, and restore profile via
multiple grade control structures and
constructed riffles.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT—YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream
Riparian Wetland (WMU)
Nonriparian Wetland (WMU)
Total Wetland
Buffer
Comment
(S�)
December 2009
(WMU)
(BMU)
June 2011
2,869
NA
NA
NA
June 2011
Notes:
1. Elk Branch RI was broken into smaller reaches subsequent to the submittal and approval of the restoration plan, following regulatory comments.
2. Mitigation units have been calculated by excluding easement exceptions on Elk Branch Reach I, Elk Branch Reach B and UTI.
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 a stable channel cross-
section that provides 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.
Channel 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. The entire mitigation site is protected through a permanent conservation easement and native
vegetation was planted throughout the easement area.
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-NCDMS 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT—YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
Project County
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
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
Easement boundary was marked by DMS.
Cold
October 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
November /December
2014
February 2015
Supplemental Tree Planting
6105 Chapel Hill Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
February 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
October 2015
November 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
October 2016
November 2016
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project County
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
Designer
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]
Construction Contractor
04-03-06
Within extent of DMS Watershed Plan?
6105 Chapel Hill Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
River Works, Inc.
Cold
% of Project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
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
Supplemental Container Trees
Southern Roots Tree Nursery
Monitoring
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact: Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS 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 DMS 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 only)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase?
No
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
Elk Branch Reach 1
.07 mit
Reach A
Reach B
Elk Branch Reach 2
.14 mit
UTI
.06 mit
UT2
.01 mit
Stream Order
Elk Branch -11, UTI -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
UTI
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 break
Total Planted Acreage within the Easement
—4 Acres (remainder already forested)
Rosgen Classification (Pre-existing)
Elk Branch
CbB/G/Eb
UTI
Fb
UT2
B
UT3
Piped
Rosgen Classification of As -built
Elk Branch -Reach 1
Cb4
Reach A
Cb4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 4. Project Attribute
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92665
Reach B
Cb4
Elk Branch -Reach 2
Cb4
UTI
Cb4
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 major problems areas are present. Figure 2 illustrates the project as it is delineated by
reach.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
XS CROSS SECTION
Fool PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
m
STREAM PROBLEM AREA (NO AREAS EXHIBITING PROBLEMS)
I L - r -\I\ .J IVIV1141 1 VI\11VlJ
STA. 0+00-8+00
u
c v co
p� oOm
i LL d N
16 � pZpc N
M
2
� z°r'aati
U
Z
ul s W_
p
U
ao z0
0z 0z
�� 00
=o 0 (If
Q -J Z LU
� = LLI %.
J =
W
U
�6
W�
LL
3
DMS Project No.
92665
Baker Project No.
111085
Date:
11/14/2016
DESIGNED: Jpm
DRAWN: mm
0 30 60 APPROVED: MK
30 Monitoring Year
Sof 5
SCALE FT sheet
1 of 4

CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
PHOTO ID POINT
ELK BRANCH
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 8+00-16+00
J
ptmN
7
� m
LL.2 N
C CN Om
m�=oma
YG0OMp
m N o z m t
C N
Moo
= LUX 0,
zmQaii
�Q �:
UZ_ W_
"' J >
00
cr Z
U _j Z_
O F
�of Z
QO O
Z: QZo}O
U) z
Z
�=) O to
v0 U 6�
Q J z W
Q,�w W >-
C= ry,
�L ry
[-U U
92665
Baker Project No.
111085
Date:
11/14/2016
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: �dR@
30 y 30 60 APPROVED:
Monitoring Year:
SCALE FT 5 of 5
2 of 4
XS
O�
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
PHOTO ID POINT
ELK BRANCH
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 8+00-16+00
J
ptmN
7
� m
LL.2 N
C CN Om
m�=oma
YG0OMp
m N o z m t
C N
Moo
= LUX 0,
zmQaii
�Q �:
UZ_ W_
"' J >
00
cr Z
U _j Z_
O F
�of Z
QO O
Z: QZo}O
U) z
Z
�=) O to
v0 U 6�
Q J z W
Q,�w W >-
C= ry,
�L ry
[-U U
92665
Baker Project No.
111085
Date:
11/14/2016
DESIGNED:
DRAWN: �dR@
30 y 30 60 APPROVED:
Monitoring Year:
SCALE FT 5 of 5
2 of 4

CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
CROSS SECTION
PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
VEGETATION PLOT MEETING CRITERIA
IVEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
VEGETATION PLOT 4
ELK BRANCH
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING �
STA. 16+00-23+45
U
aaom
Nm
i LL N N
)
_�� o.
C
W 0 U o
� a�CCLO�
O= .
CI c 3ZN
L w N
2
V U n y L X
z�aa
Uz �
W J W
�0
cl�-' U
zc
LD = �-
Qp 0O
�z Oz
U) o 2
Lu Z
(If 0 LO
_0 U�
U
Q J Z W
0,f = W %-
W :E D
C)�I
E
/ ii��111III1111o
Cn6
C
li
1
3
DMS Project No,
92665
Baker Project No.
111085
Date:
11/14/2016
DESIGNED: TEW
DRAWN: m$
300 30 60 APPROVED: 1!6111C
Monitoring Year:
SCALEFT 5 of 5
Sheet:
3 o 4

li
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ASBUILT CENTERLINE
ASBUILT TOP OF BANK
XS. CROSS SECTION
C� PHOTO ID POINT
VEGETATION PLOT
a1VEGETATION PLOT NOT MEETING CRITERIA
/ VEGETATION
1PLOT ` r"
VEGETATION PLOT
51
UT1
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
YEAR 5 MONITORING
STA. 0+00-6+83
r
m�
rW-- - �m
r
30 y 30 60
SCALE FT
�Q
U Z W
W J
O0 Q
Of Z
z U J Z_
O= 0- 0�
Qp Z0
Of0z
Oz o2E
Lu Z
Q:� 0Lo
=Q U (if
U
Q J Z W
cr = W %
J =
W 2Ei D
U
92665
Baker Project No.
111085
Date:
11/14/2016
DESIGNED:Pfd
DRAWN: mQ,B
APPROVED:
Monitoring Year:
5 of 5
Sheet:
4 of 4

f
f
A /tea
t
Reach A
UT3.
EB Reach B R
t 4
EB Reach
_! tea-
T I T, I . 6 -K�. .' 14� - "
.�murce. Esri, Di.gitalGlobe, Geeo e, Eff&§ft Geog ap ics, ONES/Airbus
Ge etmappin.g, Aerogrid, IGN, IGF, swisstopo, and
s the GIS User Communit
LEGEND: Figure 1.3 Proposed Project
NorthComponents
Layer � ! Proposed Easement Boundary
Carolina Enhancement Streams Elk Branch Restoration Project
Division of © Priority I & 2 Restoration Mitchell County, NC
Priority I Restoration
Mitigation ®Priority II Restoration Michael Baker
Services 0 200 400 800
Feet © INTERNATIONAL

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 channel components of the project. The specific locations of vegetation
plots, permanent cross-sections, reference photo stations and crest gauges are shown on the Year 5
Current Condition Plan View shown above.
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. Individual quadrant data provided during
subsequent monitoring events will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities.
Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring
years. Survival 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 plots are taken at least once per year to indicate vegetation condition within the
plots. Photos of the plots are included in Appendix A of this report.
The final vegetative success criteria for the site 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 community health, additional plant community indices may be
incorporated into the vegetation monitoring plan as requested by the NCDMS.
Temporary seeding applied to streambanks beneath the erosion matting sprouted within two weeks
of application and has provided excellent 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 established. 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 14
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 5. Riparian Buffer Plantings
Elk Branch Mitigation Project- NCDMS Project #92665
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Planted by
Species
Planting
Totals
Wetness
Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Trees
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
5
100
FAC
River Birch
Betula nigra
5
100
FACW
Shagbark hickory
Carya ovata
5
100
FACU
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
5
100
FAC
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
5
100
FAC
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
5
100
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
5
100
FACW-
White Oak
Quercus alba
5
100
FACU
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
5
100
FACU
Shrubs
Tag Alder
Alnus serrulate 10
200
OBL
Sweet shrub
Calycanthus floridus 10
300
FACU
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana 5
300
FAC
Flowering Dogwood
Cornus florida 5
400
FACU
Hazelnut
Corylus americana 5
50
FACU
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis virginiana 5
400
FACU
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin 5
100
FACW
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis 5
200
FAC
Highbush Blueberry
Vaccinium sp 5
200
FACU
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Ninebark
Physocarpus opulifolius
10
---
FAC-
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
20
_--
FACW-
Black Willow
Salix nigra
10 or less
__-
OBL
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
35
---
OBL
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
25
---
FACW+
*Note: Total numbers of livestakes installed was not recorded by the planter.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

Table 5a. Supplemental Riparian Buffer Plantings added in February 2015
Elk Branch Mitigation Project- NCDMS Project #92665
Common Name
Scientific Name
o ane by
Species
Planting
Totals
Wetness
Tolerance
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Trees
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
8%
50
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
23%
150
FACW-
Shrubs
Tag Alder
Alnus serrulata
30%
200
OBL
Button Bush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
8%
50
FAC
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
8%
50
FACW
Hazelnut
Corylus americana
15%
100
FACU
Ninebark
Physocarpus opulifolius
8%
50
FAC
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
30%
150
FACW+
Black Willow
Salix nigra
40%
200
OBL
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
30%
150
OBL
An additional 25, 3 Gal containerized trees were planted at this time but specific species was not
noted. There were approximately 3-4 of each of the following species: River Birch, Red Maple,
Sycamore, Green Ash, White Oak, Persimmon, American Elm or American hornbeam planted
randomly at the site.
2.1.2 Soil Data
Table 6. Preliminary Soil Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project-NCDMS 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

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 NCDMS 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 Results
Table 7 in Appendix A presents information on the stem counts for each of the vegetation
monitoring plots. Data for Year 5 monitoring shows a range of 400 - 640 planted stems per acre.
The average density of planted bare root stems, based on data collected from the six monitoring
plots during Year 5 monitoring, is 493 stems per acre which indicates that the Site has met the
minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5. The locations of the
vegetation plots are shown on the Year 5 Current Condition Plan View.
As shown in Table 8 (Appendix A), no woody or herbaceous vegetation problem areas were
identified during Year 5 monitoring. Although the density of herbaceous cover varies across the
site, conditions observed during the Year 5 monitoring found ground cover in the easement area
to be sufficient for providing site stabilization. Based on the plot data collected during Year 3
monitoring, plots 2, 3 and 4 did not meet the success criteria with 202, 243 and 243 trees per acre,
respectively. The reaches along which these failing plots were located were planted with
additional trees and shrubs in February 2015 as described in Table 5a. 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 was 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 site stability documented by photographs. Crest gauges, as well
as high flow marks, were 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; data and graphics 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 UTI 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 is used for cross-sections and
consistently referenced to facilitate comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-sectional surveys
include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge
of water, and thalweg, if the features are discernible. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 17
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

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 October of
2016 to document stream dimension for Monitoring Year 5. Cross- sectional data is presented
in Appendix B and the location of cross-sections is shown on the Year 5 Current Condition
Plan View submitted with this report.
The cross-sections show that there has been minor adjustment to stream dimension across the
project reaches since construction. Fluctuations can be seen in cross sections as shown in
Appendix B, but these fluctuations are minor and may be more pronounced visually on the
cross section plots due to scale. Thick vegetation along the stream banks may also be
influencing surveying of these cross sections along the small channels. 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 5 were surveyed during October of 2016; profiles of the various
project reaches are provided in Appendix B. A longitudinal profile was completed for the entire
project length of Elk Branch, UTI and UT2 to evaluate changes in channel bed conditions since
the as -built baseline survey was completed. Longitudinal profiles have been 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.
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.
2.2.1.2.1 Results
The longitudinal profiles show that the bed features are 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 appropriate when compared to
reference reach and design data provided for the project reaches. Pool depths have reduced to a
minor degree during the 2016 monitoring period. This fluctuation is not a result of instability
but likely natural sediment deposition that may be scoured from pools during subsequent storm
events.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 18
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

It was noted in the Year 1 monitoring survey data that UT2 had subsurface flow for 103 linear
feet. In Year 2 this subsurface flow decreased to one section where the flow was subsurface for
20 linear feet. In Year 3 sampling did not indicate any areas of subsurface flow. In Year 4 we
found that water was present in the pools but was not flowing across the riffles. In Year 5,
water was only present in a few pools near the bottom of the reach, near Station 2+95. This
indicates that the water table has dropped lower than the elevation that supports flow across the
riffles. Survey and monitoring data in Year 5 was collected during a period of severe drought in
western North Carolina and this is a typical pattern for a headwater, intermittent stream under
these conditions. Sediment and fines have moved through the system in the last four years and
have helped seal any areas within the bed or around structures where water was discovering a
subsurface path to follow. Under normal rainfall conditions this channel carries flow as
demonstrated in previous years. No areas of instability were noted in the project area during
Year 5 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.
2.2.1.3.1 Results
For this project, a pebble count was collected in Reach A of Elk Branch. As noted in the pebble
count exhibit in Appendix B, the pebble count for Reach A of Elk Branch indicates a general
coarsening of the bed material and the particle size distribution was very similar to what has
been seen the last two years. 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 impaired by the mitigation project.
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 the 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 UT 1 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, during different years based on crest gauge readings obtained on the mainstem and
UT 1. Information on these events is provided in Table 9 of Appendix B. To date, a bankfull
event has been recorded each monitoring year with the exception of Year 5.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 19
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

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 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 October 2016. The photographs illustrate
stable conditions across the project site. Vegetative growth along the streambanks and riparian
buffers has become dense and has improved since construction was completed in 2011.
Structures are functioning as designed. While the same photo stations have been maintained,
the ability to observe structures is limited at this site due to the thick herbaceous vegetation that
overhangs the channel and most of the structures.
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 5 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 5 monitoring data are summarized in Tables 13 and 14 of Appendix B.
2.3 Areas of Concern
Two additional posts will be installed at the location of the mowing encroachment noted in Year 4. This
area is no longer an area of concern, but will be thoroughly marked nonetheless.
There are no other areas of concern.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 20
ELK BRANCH MITIGATION PROJECT -YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
NOVEMBER 2016

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

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot - Year 5
Project Name: Elk Branch Mitigation Project, NCDMS Project Code 92665.
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Annual Means
E92665-01-0001
E92665-01-0002
E92665-01-0003
E92665-01-0004
E92665-01-0005
E92665-01-0006
MY5 (2016)
MY4 (2015)
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
6
1
7
16
1
17
16
16
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
14
1
15
13
13
7
7
7
7
7
7
Amelanchier arborea
common serviceberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Carya ovata*
shagbark hickory
Tree
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
5
10
1
11
8
8
7
7
11
11
15
15
17
17
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
3
3
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
3
3
3
1 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
5
6
1
2
3
1
1
2
8
10
4
3
7
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
4
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
1
11
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
Quercus rubra
Inorthern red oak
lTree
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
I
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
2
2
1 1
2
1 2
4
1
4
Vaccinium
blueberry
Shrub
I I1
1
1
1
Stem count
12
5
17
16
1
17
11
0
11
10
0 I
10
13
2
15
12
3
15
74
11
85
74
4
78
53
0
53
60
0
60
69
0
69
65
0
65
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Species counti
6
1
6
6
1
6 1
8
0
8
5
0
5
8
1
8
4
3
5
15
1 4
15
15
1 2
15
10
0
10
11
0
11
12
0
12
10
0
10
Stems per ACRE
480
200
680
640
40
680
440
0
440
400
0
400
520
80
600
480
120
600
493
73
567
493
26.67
520
353
0
353.3
400
0
400
460
0
460
433
0
433
P = Planted Exceeds requirements by 10%
V = Volunteer Includes volunteer stems
T = Total
*Catalpa ovata from previous years was deleted and included in the count for Carya ovata

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
N/A
N/A
Elk Branch Reach 2 (279 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
UTI 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 Projects
Photo Log — Vegetation Plot Photo Points (Year 5)
Notes: Photos for Elk Branch vegetation plots were taken October 25, 2016
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.
Photo 1: Veg. Plot 1
Photo 2: Veg Plot 1, Herbaceous Plot
Photo 3: Veg Plot 2
Photo 4: Veg Plot 2: Herbaceous Plot

'''•. r'.i��y Eby '`� e 4I ! "" -7 ,�
i
� � N i ,. �'> � 11 Y- • 1-�! j ' 1 I i � ! ' .. /
f
ax
: Xy.'.
�11
Ail
. s �
� „ i ... 1/ - v" � � .y;•� .�1 fin, n. �` ,

Photo 11: Veg Plot 6 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
Feature Issue
Station No.
Gauge Watermark Height (inches)
Photo Number
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Elk Branch Reach 2
UTI
Collection
1
Lack of continuous flow
summer during time
Between July 2011 and
---
1+48-2+06
---
10/25/2012
(UT2)
Gauge measurement.
6", 2.4"
3"
significant rainfall
10/25/12
---
Between 10/25/12 and
Lack of continuous flow
11/27/2013
Gauge measurement.
1.6"
4.12"
1+43-1+63
11/27/13
---
(UT2)
Between 11/27/13 and
3
NONE
11/25/2014
Gauge measurement.
1.5"
25.5"*
11/25/14
---
Between 11/25/14 and
5
Dry Channel (UT2)
10/20/2015
conditions, see
Gauge measurement.
11.4"
7.8"
10/20/2015
*Cork in the crest gauge was this high on staff but we question accuracy, do believe a banfull flow was recorded.
Table 10. Stream Problem Areas
Elk Branch Mitigation Project -#92665
MY
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
1+07-1+19
Survey conducted in
---
1
Lack of continuous flow
summer during time
1+25-1+42
---
1+48-2+06
---
(UT2)
with lack of
significant rainfall
2+16-2+32
---
Structure may not be
Lack of continuous flow
2
1+43-1+63
completely sealed
---
(UT2)
on upstream end
3
NONE
---
4
NONE
---
Extreme drought
5
Dry Channel (UT2)
0+00-3+00
conditions, see
---
section 2.2.1.2.1

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Eb
2.6
4.97
0.53
0.9
9.34
1
5.8
2620.5
2620.49
Cross -Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 7+36 (Elk Branch)
2624
2623.5
2623
$ 2622.5
2622
e Asbuilt 2011
2621.5 Yr12012
M
d 2621 - YR2 2013
Lu 2620,5 ------- YR32014
2620 YR4 2015
T YR5 2016
2619.5
---0--- Bankfull
2619
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
7.7
9.14
0.84
1.91
10.88
1
3.6
2604.78
2604.81
Cross -Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 12+79 (Elk Branch)
2605.5
2605
2604.5
0 2604
fC
d 2603.5
W
2603
2602.5
2602 -
0 5 10
Photo 3: XS -2 facing right bank
— Asbuilt 2011
— Yr1 2012
—r— Yr2 2013
—*— Yr3 2014
YR4 2015
�— YR5 2016
[�--- Bankfull
15 20 25 30 35
Station (ft)
Photo 4: XS -2 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
3.3
7.06
0.46
0.99
15.28
1.2
5
2599.27
2599.47
91991
2600.5
2600
c
O
2599.5
d
LU 2599
2598.5
2598
Cross -Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 14+38 (Elk Branch)
—�— Asbuilt 2011
Yr1 2012
-- ----- N— Yr2 2013
—x— Yr3 2014
t Yr4 2015
t Yr5 2016
---0--- Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Photo 5: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 6: XS -3 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
3.6
9.6
0.38
0.84
25.47
1
4.6
2587.53
2587.56
Cross -Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 20+36 (Elk Branch)
2590.5
—� Asbuilt 2011
2590 • Yr12012
2589.5 Yr2 2013
2589 —■— Yr3 2014
_ Yr4 2015
r
2588.5 T Yrs 2016
> 2588 [3--- Bankfull
d
w 2587.5 -----------
2587
2586.5
2586
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Photo 7: XS -4 facing right bank
Photo 8: XS -4 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
9.4
11.46
0.82
1.95
14.02
1
3.8
2583.4
2583.4
Cross -Section X5 - Longitudinal Station 22+16 (Elk Branch)
2584.5
2584
$ 2583.5 ------------------- -�
= 2583
o t Asbuilt 2011
2582.5 —� Yr1 2012
d 2582 —w— Yr2 2013
W
Yr3 2014
2581.5 t Yr4 2015
2581 t Yr5 2016
---0--- Bankfull
2580.5 -
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 9: XS -5 facing right bank
Photo 10: XS -5 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
2.6
9.02
0.29
0.67
31.38
1
4.5
2608.28
2608.28
2610
2609.5
Z- 2609
C
c 2608.5
d 2608
W
2607.5
2607
Cross -Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 0+54 (UT1)
t Asbuilt 2011
—� Yr1 2012
----------- �Yr22013
� Yr3 2014
t Yr4 2015
T Yr5 2016
---o--• Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40
Photo 1: XS -1 facing left bank
Station (ft)
50 60
Photo 2: XS -1 facing the right bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
2.2
7.74
0.29
0.72
26.78
1.2
5
2599.88
2600
2602
2601.5
2601
0 2600.5
2600
w
2599.5
2599
2598.5
Cross -Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2+59 (UT1)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Photo 3: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 4: XS -2 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Cb
4.1
9.41
0.43
1.08
21.76
1
4.1
2592.17
2592.17
2595.5
2595
2594.5
2594
= 2593.5
2593
> 2592.5
w 2592
2591.5
2591
2590.5
Cross -Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 4+20 (UT1)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Photo 5: XS -3 facing left bank
Station (ft)
Photo 6: XS -3 facing right bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
8.4
9.85
0.85
1.61
11.55
1
4.2
2590.03
2589.99
2593
2592
2591
c
0
2590
_d
LU 2589
2588
2587
Cross -Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 4+75 (UT1)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Photo 7: XS -4 facing right bank
Station (ft)
Photo 8: XS -4 facing left bank

Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Eb
2.3
4.98
0.47
0.7
10.64
1.1
6.8
2639.15
2639.2
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
4.4
8.31
0.53
0.96
15.82
0.9
4.1
2634.05
2633.95
2635
2634.5
2634
c
0
2633.5
m
LU 2633
2632.5
2632
Cross -Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2+56 (UT2)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Photo 3: XS -2 facing right bank
Station (ft)
Photo 4: XS -2 facing left bank at channel

Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
0+00 to 3+00
2645
2643
Begin Reach 1
2641
2639
2637
C
O
2635
as
W
2633
2631
2629
Low Bank
WSF
m TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
—TWG-Yr2 2013
TWG-Yr3 2014
— TWG-Yr4 2015
—TWG-Yr5 2016
2627
2625
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 0+00 to 3+00
Year to Year comparison.

Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 3+00 to 6+00
Year to Year comparison.
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
3+00 to 6+00
2640 -
Low Bank
+WSF
2638
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
2636
—a—TWG-Yr2 2013
TWG-Yr3 2014
2634
_
TWG-Yr4 2015
—TWG-Yr5 2016
2632
c
O
>
2630
-
- - - - - - - - - - -
a�
W
2628
2626
- - - - -
2624
2622
2620 -
300
350 400 450 500
550 600
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 3+00 to 6+00
Year to Year comparison.

Elk Branch Profile 6+00 to 9+00
Year to Year comparison.
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
6+00 to 9+00
2630
Low Bank
-WSF
2628
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
2626
--TWG-Yr2 2013
TWG-Yr3 2014
TWG-Yr4 2015
2624
-
TWG-Yr5 2016
XS -1
2622
C
'
O
2620
- _
W
'
i
2618
i
-
2616
2614
2612
2610
600
650 700 750 800
850 900
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 6+00 to 9+00
Year to Year comparison.

Elk Branch Profile 9+00 to 12+00
Year to Year comparison.
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
9+00 to 12+00
2620
— Low Bank
WSF
2618
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
2616
_...
—TWG-Yr2 2013
End Reach 1, Begin Reach A
TWG-Yr3 2014
TWG-Yr4 2015
2614
-
- _ _- _- -- _
- _ -
--
-TWG-Yr5 2016
a '
2612
- - -
O
>
2610
-
a�
W
2608
---
-
2606
- -
2604
2602
2600
900
950 1000 1050 1100
1150 1200
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 9+00 to 12+00
Year to Year comparison.

2610
M
2606
2604
2602
C
O
2600
a�
W
2598
2596
2594
2592
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
12+00 to 15+00
W
1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 12+00 to 15+00
Year to Year comparison.

Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
15+00 to 18+00
End Reach A, Begin Reach B
Low Bank
WSF
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
—TWG-Yr2 2013
—R, TWG-Yr3 2014
—TWG-Yr4 2015
—TWG-Yr5 2016
1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 15+00 to 18+01
Year to Year comparison.
2605
2603
2601
2599
2597
C
O
2595
as
W
2593
2591
2589
2587
2585
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
15+00 to 18+00
End Reach A, Begin Reach B
Low Bank
WSF
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
—TWG-Yr2 2013
—R, TWG-Yr3 2014
—TWG-Yr4 2015
—TWG-Yr5 2016
1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 15+00 to 18+01
Year to Year comparison.

2595
2593
2591
2589
2587
C
O
2585
m
W
2583
2581
2579
2577
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
18+00 to 21+00
Low Bank
+WSF
—TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
—TWG-Yr2 2013
TWG-Yr3 2014
—TWG-Yr4 2015
—TWG-Yr5 2016
2575 �--
1800
1850
1900
1950
Station (ft)
2000
2050
2100
Elk Branch Profile 18+00 to 21+00
Year to Year comparison.

Elk Branch Profile 21+00 to 24+00
Year to Year comparison.
Longitudinal Thalwag Profile - Elk Branch for All Years
21 +00 to 24+00
2590
Low Bank
WSF
2588
- TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
—TWG-Yr2 2013
2586
-
_ _
_ _
TWG-Yr3 2014
TWG-Yr4 2015
2584
---
-- --- -XS-S - -
--�- TWG-Yr5 2016
'-'
2582
- -- - ----
0
2580
-
--- - -- --- - - -
a�
,
W
2578
- -
-
-
2576
2574
- - -- -
End Reach 2 -
2572
-_
2570
2100
2150 2200 2250 2300
2350 2400
Station (ft)
Elk Branch Profile 21+00 to 24+00
Year to Year comparison.

UT1 Profile 0+00 to 3+50
Year to Year comparison.
Longitudinal Profile - UT1 for All Years
0+00 to 3+50
2615
Low Bank
—WSF
TWG-Asbuilt 2011
TWG-Yr1 2012
XS-1
2610
--— --! - - - - - - - - --- -
—TWG-Yr2 2013
—--
TWG-Yr3 2014
TWG-Yr4 2015
+TWG-Yr5 2016
2605
-- ------
------ ----- - -
c
0
XS-2
ca
�
_d
W
�
i
2600
_
2595
--- - ------
- ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------
- ------ - ------ - ------ -- ------ - _..
2590
0
50 100 150 200
250 300 350
Station (ft)
UT1 Profile 0+00 to 3+50
Year to Year comparison.

2600
IMSR
2590
c
0
c�
0
W 2585
2575
Longitudinal Profile - UT1 for All Years
3+50 to 7+00
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Station (ft)
UT1 Profile 3+50 to 7+00

UT2 Profile 0+00 to 3+50
Year to Year comparison.

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%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Wads and Boulders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Elk Branch Reach A (592 LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Wads and Boulders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Elk Branch Reach B (403 LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
100%
100%
1 100%
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%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Wads and Boulders
-----
I -----
I ----- I
-----
-----
I -----

UT1 (656LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Wads and Boulders
-----
-----
1 -----
-----
-----
-----
UT2 (242 LF)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Bed General
100%
79%
96%
100%
100%
100%
Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rock/Log Drops
100%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
Vanes / J Hooks etc.
100%
100%
100%
100%
-----
-----
Wads and Boulders
-----
I -----
I ----- I
----- I
-----
-----

Table 12. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Elk Branch Mitigation Project -Project No. 92665
[I(A OO4 f 4 1 54 LF
Feature
Category
Metric per As -Built and reference baselines
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built 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 embedding/fining?
23
1 23
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
23
23
0/0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?
30
30
0/0
100
2. Sufficient) 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 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. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A a
E. Bed
1. General channel bed a gradation 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. Hei ht appropriate?
30
30
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
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
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built 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. Len th 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 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. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A 3
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
592
592
0/0
100
General
T. 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 appropriate?
9
9
0/0
100
Structures
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
P. 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
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
14
14
0/0
100
2. Armor stable e.. no displacement)?
14
14
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
14
14
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
14
14
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
14
1 14
0/0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
14
14
0/0
100
2. Sufficient) dee 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

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 floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A a
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
403
403
0/0
100
General
T. 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. Hei ht appropriate?
14
14
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
14
14
0/0
100
Structures
q, 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
P. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Feature
Category
Elk Branch Reach 2 (279 LF)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
Metric(per As -Built and reference baselines as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
7
7
0/0
100
2. Armor stable e.. no displacement)?
7
7
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
7
7
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
7
7
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
7
1 7
0
100
100
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. 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.Len th 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%,
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 floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A;
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
279
279
0/0
100
General
T. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
279
279
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
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
7
7
0/0
100
Structures
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
UT1 (656 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric(per As -Built and reference baselines
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
29
29
0/0
100
2. Armor stable e.. no displacement)?
29
29
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
29
29
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
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. Sufficient) dee 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 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 floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A'
E. Bed
1. General channel bed ag radation areas bar formation
656
656
0/0
100
General°
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. Hei ht appropriate?
29
29
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
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
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
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 embedding/fining?
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
100
2. Sufficient) 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 1
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. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A a
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?
242
242
0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
11
11
0/0
100
Rock/Log
2. Hei ht appropriate?
11
11
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
11
11
0/0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
11
11
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
UT3 (36 LF)
Feature
Category
Metric(per As -Built and reference baselines
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total Number
Total number / feet in unstable
per As -Built state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
3
3
0/0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
3
3
0/0
100
3. Facet grades appears stable?
3
3
0/0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
3
3
0/0
100
5. Length appropriate?
3
3
0/0
100 1
100
B. Pools
1. Present? e.. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
2
2
0/0
100
2. Sufficient) dee Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?
2
2
0/0
100
3. Length appropriate?
2
2
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 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. Apparent Rc within spec?
0
0
0/0
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
0
0
0/0
N/A
N/A 3
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas bar formation
36
36
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down -
cutting or head cutting?
36
36
0
100
100
F. Vanes,
1. Free of back or arm scour?
2
2
0/0
100
Rock/Log
T. Height appropriate?
2
2
0/0
100
Drop
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
2
2
0/0
100
Structures
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
2
2
0/0
100
100
G. Wads/
1. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
P. 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. It should be noted that this was difficult to access as thick stands of herbaceous vegetation was covering the channel and even the
drop structures were located by feeling along the bottom.
2 100%f the structures and riffles had a centered thalweg.
s 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.

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 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
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
----
----
6.4
----
----
5.0
----
----
5.0
----
Floodprone Width ft
-----
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
-----
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
----
30.9
----
----
24.3
----
----
26.4
----
----
30.5
----
----
28.3
----
----
28.9
----
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
----
----
0.5
----
----
0.5
----
----
0.5
----
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
----
----
0.9
----
----
0.9
----
----
0.9
----
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
----
----
2.6
----
----
2.7
----
----
3.1
----
----
2.5
----
----
2.6
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
1 18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
----
1 9.0
---- I
----
12.0
----
----
10.1
1 ----
----
13.0
1 ----
----
10.1
----
---- 1
9.3
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.6
4.3
7.0
1.3
2.3
3.2
3.0
5.3
7.6
----
5.1
----
----
4.4
----
----
5.1
----
----
4.8
----
----
5.7
----
----
5.8
----
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
----
----
1.3
----
----
1.3
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
----
2.6
----
----
4.1
----
----
3.9
----
----
3.4
----
----
4.2
----
----
4.0
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
2
3
4
16
36
55 1
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
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
18.0
33.6
50.7
21.1
29.2
37.2
20.4
30.8
38.0
12.8
38.3
93.6
22.9
31.6
38.5
14.9
30.8
66.0
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
0.011
0.024
0.039
0.008
0.034
0.074
0.006
0.024
0.044
Pool Length ft
-----
-----
-----
-----
13
15
16
-----
-----
-----
2.5
6.4
9.5
2.3
7.5
1 13.2
8.6
10.2
13.4
7.5
11.7
18.2
9.7
12.5
17.4
7.2
12.4
20.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
42
-----
157
42.0
136.5
231.0
9.0
29.5
50.0
17.1
39.6
54.6
14.7
39.2
54.1
17.2
39.9
52.7
26.5
49.9
106.6
32.1
56.0
100.8
17.4
49.2
99.9
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) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.0
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.8
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.6
-----
-----
2.8
-----
-----
2.6
-----
-----
2.3
-----
-----
3.1
-----
-----
3.2
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
-----
901
-----
Drainage 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
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Rosgen
-----
-----
Cb/B/G
/Eb4
-----
64
-----
-----
B4
-----
64
-----
-----
64
-----
-----
B4
B4
-----
-----
64
-----
-----
B4
-----
Bankfull Di
7-13
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
"slope
-----
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
1.02
1.07
1.11
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
1.09
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
B
0.033
-----
----
0.032
0.029
0.027
-----
0.029
-----
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
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
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
----
8.1
----
----
7.3
----
----
8.2
----
----
7.9
----
----
8.5
----
----
9.1
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
-----
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
----
34.6
----
----
32.5
----
----
35.6
----
----
32.7
----
----
32.4
----
----
33.8
----
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
.44-.61
0.48
0.80
1.12
0.60
0.85
1.10
0.40
0.58
0.75
----
0.51
----
----
0.40
----
----
0.42
----
----
0.3
----
----
0.4
----
----
0.5
----
Bankfull Max Depth (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
----
----
0.8
----
----
0.6
----
----
0.8
----
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
---- I
----
3.4
----
----
2.7
---- I
----
2.9
----
----
3.3
----
Width/Depth 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 1
----
----
22.8
----
----
22.4
----
---- 1
15.3
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.6
4.3
7.0
1.3
2.3
3.2
3.0
5.3
7.6
----
4.3
----
----
4.4
----
----
4.3
----
----
3.9
----
----
4.0
----
----
5.0
----
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
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
----
2.5
----
----
3.6
----
----
3.1
----
----
3.9
----
----
3.6
----
----
3.2
----
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 1
25
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- I
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
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)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
34.0
45.0
63.7
31.4
43.9
63.8
35.0
44.0
64.0
20.5
52.2
107.2
25.3
62.6
97.9
32.6
64.5
96.7
Riffle Slope ft/ft
-----
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
0.010
0.022
0.038
0.013
0.031
0.044
0.018
0.029
0.040
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
13
15
16
-----
-----
4.0
4.9
6.0
5.1
9.0
11.7 1
9.0
12.0
14.0
8.5 1
11.7
18.9
8.6
12.0
13.8
8.0
12.5
15.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
42
-----
157
42
137
231
9.0
29.5
50.0
21.7
43.4
56.7
1 27.8
44.0
54.1
21.0
41.0
55.0
16.0
61.1
127.0
28.8
40.8
52.9
17.9
38.7
53.5
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
18/28/37/82/123
8.1/23/39/76/110
10.25/20.93/36.68/76.76/113.82
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
0.6
-----
-----
0.7
-----
Stream Power transport capacity W/m2
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.7
-----
-----
2.5
-----
-----
2.1
-----
-----
2.6
-----
-----
2.1
-----
-----
2.29
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length ft
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
642
-----
-----
642
-----
-----
642
-----
-----
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
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
1 0.05
0.10
0.14
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
Cb/B/G
/Eb4
-----
-----
64
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
64
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
Bankfull Discharge cfs
7-13
-----
-----
-----
-----
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
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
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
----
0.027
0.028
0.028
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
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
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
----
----
12.6
----
----
9.6
----
----
9.6
----
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
----
----
44.4
----
----
42.6
----
----
43.7
----
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
----
----
0.4
----
0.4
----
----
0.4
----
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
----
----
0.9
----
0.6
----
----
0.8
----
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
----
----
5.1
----
----
3.8
----
----
3.6
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
5.0
9.5
14.0
10.7
18.9
27.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
----
13.3
----
----
15.6
----
----
18.0
----
----
31.3
----
----
24.3
----
25.5
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
----
----
3.5
----
----
4.5
----
----
4.6
----
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
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
-----
1.8
-----
-----
2.4
-----
-----
2.1
-----
-----
2.1
-----
-----
2.8
-----
-----
2.9
-----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
2
3
4
16
36
55
11
45
80
-----
I -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- I
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
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)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.5
22.6
41.7
12.5
25.4
42.1
11.0
24.0
40.0
13.7
32.2
53.4
19.5
26.0
32.1
17.4
33.2
47.0
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
0.003
0.014
0.022
0.017
0.029
0.035
0.003
0.016
0.028
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
- -
-----
13.0
14.5
16.0
-----
-----
-----
4.1
7.6
13.6
7.9
9.3
11.2
8.1
11.2
13.0
10.6
16.4
33.8
11.3
13.7
16.1
9.0
14.7
21.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
42.0
- - -
156.5
42.0
136.5
231.0
9.0
29.5
50.0
10.4
29.0
50.2
16.7
31.1
54.9
17.0
33.0
56.0
29.2
44.1
63.5
17.9
32.6
40.9
35.3
52.6
62.5
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 (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.0
-----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
0.5
-----
-----
0.4
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.9
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
1.8
-----
-----
1.8
-----
-----
1.3
-----
-----
1.3
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
-----
403
-----
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
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Rosgen Classification
-----
---
Cb/B/G
/Eb4
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
B4
B4
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
7-13
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
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
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-
-----
-----
-----
----
0.021
0.023
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.020

Table 13. Stream Reach Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Stream Reach Data Summary
Elk Branch: Reach 2
Parameter
Regional Curve
E uation
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
(As-Built)
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle*
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
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
----
----
12.9
----
----
11.4
----
11.4
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
5.2
30.1
55.0
20.0
-----
41.0
9.0
44.5
80.0
----
43.8
----
----
44.2
----
----
44.1
----
----
>44.0
----
----
43.9
----
----
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
----
----
0.7
---
----
0.6
----
----
0.8
----
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
----
----
2.2
----
----
1.1
----
----
2.0
----
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
----
----
9.4
----
----
6.8
----
----
9.4
----
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
----
----
17.7
----
----
19.2
----
----
14.0
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.6
4.3
7.0
1.3
2.3
3.2
3.0
5.3
7.6
----
4.8
----
----
4.9
----
----
4.3
----
----
3.4
----
----
3.8
----
----
3.8
----
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
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
----
1.0
----
Bankfull Velocity(fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
-----
1.2
-----
-----
1.2
-----
-----
1.0
-----
- -
1.1
-----
-----
1.5
-----
-----
1.1
-----
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 1
8.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
--
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
19.4
30.4
39.6
19
30
40
17
27
38
18.8
26.5
38.2
19.2
27.3
31.6
20.4
28.8
37.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.200
0.480
0.760
0.022
0.037
0.051
0.021
0.028
0.039
0.021
0.028
0.041
0.018
0.029
0.049
0.007
0.016
0.026
0.027
0.033
0.043
0.011
0.019
0.030
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
13.0
14.5
16.0
-----
-----
-----
7.4
9.2
11.0
4.6
9.4
14.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
10.7
12.8
15.9
10.7
12.0
13.3
6.3
13.4
19.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
42.0
-----
156.5
42.0
136.5
231.0
9.0
29.5
50.0
30.6
39.4
47.9
33.5
39.4
45.0
39.0
43.0
48.0
31.8
40.7
47.2
35.2
39.5
42.8
35.7
42.1
45.6
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
dl 6
-----
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-
6-1.5/2-7/6.2-19/19-
65/26-130
---
---
---
---
---
---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
-----
-----
1.40
-----
-----
1.40
----
-----
1.4
-----
-----
0.6
----
-----
1.1
- - -
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.6
-----
-----
1.69
-----
-----
1.41
-----
-----
1.6
-----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
1.3
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
279
-----
-----
279
-----
-----
279
-----
-----
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
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.14
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
Cb/B/G
/Eb4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13-23
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
7
11
14
7
11
14
7
11
14
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
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.09
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
- -
- - -
-----
-----
- -
- -
- -
-
0.024
-----I
-----
0.02
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
0.026
-----
-----
0.025
-----
-----
0.025
-----
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
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.90
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
6.4
9.0
12.6
7.1
7.6
7.9
7.7
9.0
9.9
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
30.5
35.9
44.4
33.5
37.5
40.1
38.3
39.9
41.7
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
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.9
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
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
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
2.4*
2.6*
2.9
2.7
3.3*
3.7
2.7
3.6
5.1
2.5
3.3
3.9
2.2
4.3
8.4
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
13.0
22.4
31.3
14.1
18.2
25.3
11.6
22.9
31.4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.9
4.8
7.7
1.3
2.3
3.2
-----
3.0
-----
4.8
5.3
5.8
4.2
5.0
5.7
4.6
5.2
5.8
3.5
4.1
4.8
4.3
5.0
5.7
4.1
4.5
5.0
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
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.8
4.2*
3.7
2.8*
2.7
2.0
3.0
3.7
2.6
3.3
4.1
1.2
2.9
4.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
16
36
55
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radiusof 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
10
15
23
10
16
23
9
25
38
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
0.015
0.038
0.126
0.024
0.043
0.062
0.01
0.03
0.05
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
13
15
16
-----
----- I
-----
2
4
6
2
5
8
7
9
11
6
10
15
7
12
21
6
12
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
42
231
9
13
17
20
23
26
18
21
24
19
23
24
8
22
31
16
23
27
17
33
46
Substrate and Transport Parameters
H37
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
----
-6/14/31-39/51-88/110-21
----
---
---
---
---
---
---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.53
-----
-----
0.53
-----
-----
0.53
-----
-----
0.53
-----
-----
1.26
-----
1.15
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.54
-----
-----
2.00
-----
-----
1.48
-----
-----
1.58
-----
-----
4.17
-----
-----
3.29
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
685
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
654
-----
-----
656
-----
-----
656
-----
-----
656
-----
-----
656
-----
-----
691
-----
-----
683.40
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
-----
0.06
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
B4/G
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
134
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10-12
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
3
7
10
-----
10
-----
-----
10
-----
-----
10
-----
-----
10
-----
-----
10
-----
-----
10
-----
Sinuosity
-----
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
--
1.04
----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
1.04
-----
-----
1.05
-----
-----
1.05
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----
0.046
--
0.046
----
0.048
0.046
0.046
----
0.046
--
*These datum have been corrected and should be used rather than data shown in
previous monitoring reports.

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
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
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
----
----
5.8
----
----
5.7
----
----
6.6
----
Floodprone 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
----
----
38.9
----
----
35.0
----
----
34.0
----
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
----
----
0.49
----
0.56
----
----
0.5
----
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
----
----
0.88
----
----
0.91
----
----
0.8
----
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
----
----
2.8
----
----
3.3
----
3.4
----
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
----
----
11.9
----
----
10.2
----
----
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.9
4.8
7.7
1.3
2.3
3.2
-----
3.0
-----
---- 7.2
----
----
6.3
----
----
7.6
----
----
6.7
----
----
6.2
----
----
5.5
---
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
----
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
4.0
6.0
---- 2.1
----
2.3
----
----
2.1
----
2.1
----
1.8
----
----
1.8
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
16
36
55
-----
----
-----
---- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
28
38
47
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
----
-----
70
165
260
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
MeanderWidth Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.1
2.6
4.1
-----
-----
-----
----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
9.0 12.0
13.8
9.0
13.1
14.9
10.0
13.0
15.0
5.9
10.5
13.6
9.2
13.3
26.0
10.1
12.6
15.3
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
0.016
0.048
0.091
0.043
0.074
0.113
0.016
0.035
0.048
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
13.0
14.5
16.0
-----
-----
3.0 6.6
11.4
4.1
6.8
9.4
8.0
10.0
12.0
8.6
11.1
15.1
12.9
15.4
17.8
7.1
9.9
13.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
----
-----
-----
-----
42.0
136.5
231.0
9.0
25.5
42.0
15.2 22.2
27.3
17.8
21.0
23.5
19.0
21.0
23.0
14.5
21.3
28.0
16.1
24.7
38.9
14.6
22.2
28.8
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 /d35 /d50 / d84 /d95
-----
----
1-6/14/31-39/51-88/110---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
----- 1.1
----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
0.9
----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
1.0
-----
---
1.0
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----- 2.3
-----
-----
2.1
-----
-----
1.9
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
1.9
-----
-----
1.7
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
185
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
244
-----
----- 241
-----
-----
241
-----
-----
241
-----
-----
241
-----
-----
241
-----
-----
241
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
0.01
-----
0.45
1.025
1.60
-----
0.01
-----
----- 0.01
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
0.01
-----
-----
0.01
-----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
B4/G
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
----- B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
134
-----
-----
34
-----
-----
134
-----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2-3
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
----
-----
6
-----
----- 6
-----
-----
6
-----
-----
6
-----
-----
6
-----
-----
6
-----
-----
6
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.02
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.19
-----
1.04
-----
----- 1 1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.04
-----
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
-----
----
----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
---- 0.039
-----
----
0.039
----
-----
0.040
----
-----
0.041
-----
-----
0.040
-----
0.040
-----

Table 14. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Elk Branch - Reach 1
Elk Branch - Reach A
Cross Section 1
Parameter Riffle
Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3
Pool Riffle
AB
MY1
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 6.1 5.5 5.2 6.4 5.0 5.0
6.0 5.7 5.1 6.7 8.5 9.1 8.1 7.3 8.2 7.9 8.1 7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.9
24.3
26.4 30.5
28.3
28.9
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
32.5
34.6
32.5
35.6
32.7
32.4
35.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 4.1 2.6 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.6
7.3 6.3 4.8 6.4 7.5 7.7 4.2 2.9 3.4 2.7 2.9 3.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5 0.5
1 0.5
0.5
1 1.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
2.2 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.1 1.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
9.0
12.0
10.1 13.0
10.1
9.3
4.9
5.1
5.5
6.9
9.7
10.9
15.8
18.4
19.6
22.8
22.4
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio 5.1 4.4 5.1 4.8 5.7 5.8
5.4 5.7 6.4 4.9 3.8 3.6 4.3 4.4 4.3 3.9 4.0 5.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.4
6.5
6.2 7.4
6.0
6.0
8.5
7.9
7.0
8.6
10.3
10.8
9.1
8.1
9.1
8.6
8.8
8.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.4
0.4 1 0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Elk Branch - Reach B
Cross Section 4
Parameter Riffle
AB MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 8.7 8.3 9.4
12.6
9.6 9.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 45.0 46.5 45.2
44.4
42.6 43.7
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 5.7 1 4.4 4.9
5.1
3.8 3.6
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.5 0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4
BF Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.8 1.0
0.9
0.6 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 15.6 18.0
31.3
24.3 1 25.5
Entrenchment Ratio 5.2 5.6 4.8
3.5
4.5 4.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 10.0 9.3 10.5
13.4
10.4 10.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.6 1 0.5 0.5
0.4
0.4 0.3
Parameter
Min
AB (2011)
I Max Med
1
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
I Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 5.5 63.7 35.7
12.5 63.8 28.6
11.0 63.6 33.8
12.8 107.2 32.9
19.5 97.9 32.1
17.4 47.0
33.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0101 0.045 0.025
0.005 0.041 0.027
0.008 0.039 0.021
0.011 0.039 0.023
0.008 0.074 0.030
0.003 0.028
0.019
Pool Length (ft) 2.5 13.6 7.1
2.3 13.2 8.7
8.1 13.8 11.8
7.5 33.8 12.1
8.6 17.4 13.3
9.0 21.5
13.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 10.4 56.7 44.4
14.7 54.9 44.7
16.6 56.2 43.9
26.5 127.0 1 47.3
17.9 100.8 40.9
35.3 62.5
58.1
Substrate
d50 (mm) 17
27
30
37
39
37
d84 (mm) 38
69
72
82
76
77
1
1
I
I
I
I
Additional Reach Parameters
+_
Valley Length (ft) 2121
2121
2121
2121
2121
2121
Channel Length (ft) 1946
1946
1946
1946
1946
1946
Sinuosity 1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.027
0.027
0.029
0.029
0.027
0.027
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0211 0.033
10.0231 0.032 1 0.028
0.021 1 0.029 1 0.025
0.020 1 0.027 1 0.027
0.0201 0.029 10.026
0.020 10.02910.026
Rosgen Classification B4
1 134
134
B4
B4
1 134

Table 14. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
Elk Branch - Reach 2
Cross Section 5
Parameter Pool
AB MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 9.2 9.0 10.3
12.9
11.4 11.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 43.8 44.2 44.1
>44.0
>43.9 44.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 9.0 8.7 10.4
9.4
6.8 9.4
BF Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.7
0.6 0.8
BF Max Depth (ft) 2.0 2.1 2.5
2.2
1.1 2.0
Width/Depth Ratio 9.3 9.4 10.2
17.7
19.2 14.0
Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 4.9 4.3
3.4
3.8 3.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 11.1 11.0 12.3
14.4
12.6 13.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7
0.5 0.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Min
AB (2011)
I Max Med
MY -1 (20
2)
MY
-2 (2013)
MY
-3 (2014)
MY
-4 (2015)
MY -5 (2016)
Min Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Min I Max Med
Min Max
I Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 19.4 39.6 31.2
18.9 39.9
29.9
16.5 38.0 27.0
18.8 38.2 25.8
19.2 31.6 27.3
20.4 37.6
27.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.021 0.039 0.026
0.021 0.041
0.025
0.018 0.049 0.024
0.007 0.026 0.015
0.027 0.043 0.033
0.011 0.030
0.017
Pool Length (ft) 7 11 9
5 14
10
9 12 11
11 16 13
11 13 12
6 19
14
Pool Spacing (ft) 31 48 40
33 45
40
39 48 42
32 47 42
35 43 40
36 46
43
Substrate
d50 (mm) ---
---
d84 (mm) ---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 304
304
304
304
304
304
Channel Length (ft) 279
279
279
279
279
279
Sinuosity 1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.027
0.027
0.028
0.029
0.038
0.027
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0171 0.024 1 0.021
0.023
0.023
0.027
0.025
0.025
Rosgen Classification B4/Eb4
B4/Eb4
B4/Eb4
B4/Eb4
B4/Eb4
B4/Eb4

Table 14. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
UT1
Parameter
Fi
MY1
Cross Section 1
Riffle
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
Cross Section 2
Riffle
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
Cross Section 3
Riffle
Cross Section 4
Pool
AB MY1 MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 AB
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)6.5
7.3
6.7
7.9
9.0
6.5
6.96
7.0
8.0
7.1
7.7
7.3
7.79
8.3
9.8
7.7
9.4
9.4
10.3
9.9
9.5
9.8
9.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
35.7
36.89
36.9
34.1
33.5
40.8
37.6
34.8
40.9
45.0
40.1
38.3
34.8
33.03
37.8
39.6
38.8
38.9
45.2
45.9
45.9
46.9
43.7
41.7
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
3.1
2.45
2.7
2.1
2.5
2.6
3.8
2.91
3.6
4.7
3.5
2.2
3.6
2.61
3.7
5.0
3.9
4.1
11.9
12.4
11.7
10.7
9.4
8.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.46
0.38
0.37
0.32
0.31
0.29
0.59
0.42
1 0.52
0.59 1
0.50
0.29
0.5
0.34
0.45
0.50
1 0.51
0.43
1.3
1.2
1 1.2
1.12 1
0.96
0.85
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.68
0.58
0.79
0.67
0.53
0.67
0.8
0.59
0.93
1.18
0.90
0.72
0.71
0.91
1.04
1.33
1.09
1.08
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.51
1.88
1.61
Width/Depth Ratio
14.7
17.3
19.7
21.1
25.3
31.4
11.0
16.7
13.6
13.4
14.1
26.8
14.5
23.2
18.3
19.5
15.3
21.8
7.5
8.58
8.3
8.5
10.2
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.3
5.7
5.1
5.1
4.3
4.5
5.8
5.0
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.0
4.8
4.2
4.6
4.0
5.0
4.1
4.8
4.45
4.7
4.9
4.5
4.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.7
7.3
8.0
7.3
8.5
9.6
7.7
7.8
8.1
9.1
8.1
8.3
8.3
8.5
9.2
10.8
8.8
10.3
11.9
12.7
12.2
11.8
11.7
11.55
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.41
0.34
0.34
0.29
0.29
1 0.27
0.50
1 0.37
0.45
0.51
0.44
1 0.26
0.44
0.31
0.40
0.46
0.45 1
0.40
1.00
0.97
0.96
0.91
0.80
0.73
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Min
AB (2011)
Max Med
MY -1 (2012)
1
MY
-2 (2013)
MY
-3 (2014)
1
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 (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 11 1 24 15
11 22 14
11 19 16
9.7 22.8 14.3
9.9 22.8 16.2
9.0 38.4 25.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.018 0.104 0.080
0.037 0.080 0.063
0.022 0.064 0.044
0.015 0.126 0.031
0.024 0.062 0.043
0.011 0.053 0.031
Pool Length (ft) 2.4 6.4 3.8
2.2 7.7 4.6
6.7 10.9 9.6
6.0 15.40 9.50
7.18 22.84 16.20
5.8 17.1 11.7
Pool Spacing (ft) 30.6 25.6 23.2
17.7 23.6 22.1
19.1 24.3 23.3
8.0 31.0 22.4
15.6 26.8 22.8
17.5 45.5 33.9
Substrate
d50 (mm) ----
---
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) ----
---
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 662
662
662
662
662
662
Channel Length (ft) 683
683
683
683
691
683.00
Sinuosity 1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.049
0.046
0.046
0.047
0.046
0.046
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.046
0.046
0.048
0.046
0.046
0.046
Rosgen Classification B
B
B
B
B
B

Table 14. Cross -Section Morphology and Hydraulic Data
Elk Branch Mitigation Project #92665
UT2
Parameter
AB
MY1
Cross Section 1
Riffle
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MY1
Cross Section 2
Pool
MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft) 5.4 5.8 5.2
5.8
5.0 5.0 7.9
7.4
6.5 6.8 6.5
8.3
Floodprone Width (ft) 38.9 36.9 39.5
38.9
35.9 34.0 34.0
34.0
34.1 34.0 34.0
34.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 ) 2.8 2.6 2.9
2.8
2.5 2.3 6.6
5.9
5.9 4.6 4.0
4.4
BF Mean Depth (ft) 0.52 0.44 0.55
0.49
0.50 0.47 0.83
0.80
1 0.91 0.67 1 0.62
0.53
BF Max Depth (ft) 0.86 0.76 0.84
0.88
0.74 0.70 1.49
1.40
1.50 1.23 1.07
0.96
Width/Depth Ratio 10.3 13.3 9.5
11.9
10.0 10.6 9.5
9.3
7.2 10.2 10.5
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio 7.2 6.3 7.6
6.7
7.2 6.8 4.3
4.6
5.2 5.0 5.2
4.1
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 6.4 6.7 6.3
6.8
6.0 5.9 9.6
9.0
8.3 8.2 7.8
9.37
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.4 0.4 0.5
0.4
0.4 1 0.4 0.7
1 0.7
0.7 0.6 0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Min
AB (2011)
I Max Med
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
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft) 9.0 13.8 12.6
9.0 14.9 13.4
10.0 14.9 14.2
5.9 13.6 10.9
9.2 26.0 13.3
10.1 15.3
12.6
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.026 0.080 0.047
0.038 0.056 0.050
0.042 0.065 0.054
0.016 0.091 0.044
0.043 0.113 0.074
0.016 0.048
0.038
Pool Length (ft) 3 11 5
4 9 7
8 12 9
8.6 15.1 11.6
12.9 17.8 15.4
7.1 13.6
9.9
Pool Spacing (ft) 15 27 23
18 24 22
19 23 20
14.5 28.0 21.3
16.1 38.9 24.7
14.6 28.8
23.0
Substrate
d50 (mm) ----
---
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) ----
---
----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft) 320
320
320
320
320
320
Channel Length (ft) 241
241
241
241
241
241
Sinuosity ---- 1.04 - -
---- 1.04 ----
---- 1.04 - -
- -1 1.04 ----
--- 1.04 1 ----
--- 1.04
----
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) ---- 0.038 - -
---- 0.038 ----
---- 0.039 ----
0.040
0.039
0.021
BF Slope (ft/ft) 0.0391 0.049 1 0.044
0.039
0.040
0.041
0.040
0.040
Rosgen Classification B4
B4
B4
B4
B4
B4

Figure B1. Elk Branch Pebble Count
Elk Branch Mitigation Project, DMS# 92665
SITE OR PROJECT: Elk Branch
REACH/LOCATION: Mainstem, Riffle below PPT 16
FEATURE: Riffle
Summary Data
Channel Materials
Dib =
10.25
2016
20.93
MATERIALI
PARTICLE
�SIZ�(mm)ETotal
76.76
Class%
%Cum
Silt / Cla
Silt / Cla
< .63
2
2%
2%
Sand
Very Fine
.063-.125
2%
Fine .125-.25
2%
Medium .25-.50
2%
Coarse .50 - 1.0
2%
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0
2%
Gravel
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
2%
Very Fine 2.8-4.0
2%
Fine 4.0-5.6 3 3%
5%
Fine 5.6-8.0 4 4%
9%
Medium 8.0-11.0 9 9%
18%
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 10 10%
28%
Coarse 16-22.6 9 9%
37%
Coarse 22.6-32 9 9%
46%
Very Coarse 32-45 10 10%
56%
Very Coarse 45-64 20 20%
76%
Cobble
Small
64-90
15
15%
91%
Small 90-128 6 6%
97%
Large 128-180 1 1%
98%
Large 180-256 1 1%
99%
Boulder
Small
256-362
1
1%
100%
Small 362-512
100%
Medium 512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large 1024-2048
100%
Bedrock
Bedrock
> 2048
20%
100%
Total% of Whole Count
100
100%
Summary Data
Channel Materials
Dib =
10.25
D35 =
20.93
D50 =
36.68
D84 =
76.76
D95 =
113.82
D100 =J
256-362
Elk Branch
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
100%
Elk Branch
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90% • AB (2011)
■ YR 1 (2012) ■ YR 2 (2013) ■ YR 3 (2014) ■ YR 4 (2015) ■ YR 5 (2016)
80%
90%
—AB (2011)
OF I
60%
*YR 1 (2012)
50%
40%
U
80%
30%
20%
10%
—*—YR 2 (2013)
0%
70%
"o`%
Particle Size Class (mm)
--e--YR 3 (2014)
60%
tYR 4 (2015)
50%
tYR 5 (2016)
0. 40%
30%
c�
20%
U 10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
Elk Branch
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
90% • AB (2011)
■ YR 1 (2012) ■ YR 2 (2013) ■ YR 3 (2014) ■ YR 4 (2015) ■ YR 5 (2016)
80%
70%
60%
A,
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
"o`%
Particle Size Class (mm)

Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for Elk Branch were taken October 25, 2016.
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

1 _1
T.11kllttl�
4 k !
r
,ri hti,
Vlll
"""AAS
•�
..
r
k
S
rr
1
t
r
,ri hti,
Vlll

Photo Point 6: looking upstream
a
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 9: looking downstream
Photo Point 10: looking upstream
Photo Point 11: looking upstream
Photo Point 10: looking downstream
Photo Point 11: looking downstream

j P
a
Photo Point 12: looking upstream
Photo Point 12: looking downstream
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 18: looking downstream
Photo Point 19: looking upstream
Photo Point 19: looking downstream
Photo Point 20: looking upstream
Photo Point 20: looking downstream

UTI to Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for UTI to Elk Branch were taken October 25, 2016
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 4: looking downstream
Photo Point 5: looking upstream
Photo Point 5: looking downstream

UT2 to Elk Branch
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for UT2 to Elk Branch were taken October 25, 2016.
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

�, ;
;, �
�. �, � F
. n r �'
Ih� :o... '.rF,'�
r
�� �� ��
`� Thr i
�' � '�z �
r,
__
i 'R���. r. , ��, Vit, ;pAer
�" f �/a�"�TM� F 'i�' _S
I� l��m �yl.'v
S � �'��
+��"
F'� .
��� i � -
'.�
,� r
9; � '� � ,� ,,�, � .
��
1,'
'� �. I ` . P
,�I � }
i � � _
h � �
f _�
J3f� '. � /
(,. � _