The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160225 Ver 1_Year 1 Full Monitoring Report DRAFT_20191213ID#* 20160225 Version* 2 Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt Initial Review Completed Date 12/13/2019 Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/13/2019 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jason Lorch Project Information .................................................................................................................................................................. ID#:* 20160225 Existing IDY Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: South Fork Mitigation Site County: Chatham Document Information Email Address:* jlorch@Wldlandseng.com Version: *2 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Plans File Upload: South Fork - Full MY1 Report DRAFT - Reduced.pdf 7.33MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jason Lorch Signature:* MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, NC Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Data Collection: June 2019 – October 2019 Submission Date: December 9, 2019 PREPARED FOR: The North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) USACE Project Manager: Samantha Dailey 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 PREPARED BY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: (919) 851-9986 December 2019 South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) developed the South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) under the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The Site is in Chatham County within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (Cane Creek). The project restored 3,078 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream on three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. The project also includes enhancement I activities on one unnamed tributary (891 LF) and enhancement II on five unnamed tributaries (1,692 LF). The Site is expected to generate 4,318 stream credits and will also include restoration, enhancement, and preservation of buffers. The Site is located near the towns of Silk Hope, NC and Siler City, NC. The 2005 NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates that Jordan Lake (27-54-(3.5)) is classified as Water Supply (WS) IV, and a nutrient sensitive water (NSW) needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. The Cane Creek Mitigation Bank offers a rare opportunity to contribute to on- going restoration work within the watershed. The Bank adds three new sites to the five existing mitigation sites in the Cane Creek watershed, helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While benefits such as improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat are limited to the project area, others, such as reduced nutrient and sediment loading, have farther-reaching effects. The project goals established in the mitigation plan were designed with careful consideration of local watershed stressors (e.g. confined animal feeding operations, livestock grazing) within the Cape Fear River Basin. Project goals are to: • Exclude livestock from project streams; • Stabilize eroding stream banks; • Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable; • Improve instream habitat; • Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently; • Restore and enhance native floodplain forest; and • Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses. The Site construction was completed in July 2018 and as-built surveys were completed in November 2018. Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessment was conducted between June and October 2019. MY1 average planted stem density for the Site was 495 stems per acre, which exceeds the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre. All 5 fixed vegetation monitoring plots satisfied this criterion on an individual basis; however, one of the four random monitoring plots did not meet the 320 stems criterion. All stream reaches are stable and functioning as designed. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on all streams subject to this criterion and all restored intermittent streams exceeded 30 days of consecutive flow. A few isolated areas of stream scour developed shortly after construction during two hurricanes in 2018 before vegetation was established. These areas have stabilized and will be assessed in subsequent monitoring years. Repair work will be performed if natural mechanisms are determined insufficient to achieve near as-built channel dimensions. Sporadic areas of invasive vegetation will be managed as necessary. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ii SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 1 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT .....................................................................2-1 2.1 Vegetation Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.6 Adaptive Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-2 2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-2 Section 3: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................3-1 Section 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................4-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figures 3.0-3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map Tables 5a-5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Table 8a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Table 8b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section) Cross-Section Plots Table 10 Bank Pin Exposure Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events Monthly Rainfall Data Recorded In-Stream Flow Events South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northwest Chatham County, 3.1 miles northwest of Silk Hope, NC (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit HUC 03030002050050 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources Sub-basin 03- 06-04. The Site is within the Jordan Lake watershed which is classified as Water Supply (WS) IV, and a nutrient sensitive water needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Project streams consist of six tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. SF4A is the main tributary on the Site with UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 flowing into SF4A. Mitigation work consisted of restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II on 3,078 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream. Riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and ecosystem function. The final mitigation plan was approved by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team in February 2018. Site construction was completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in July 2018. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in December 2018. Baseline monitoring was completed in January 2019. Annual monitoring and reporting will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated in 2026 given success criteria are attained. Appendix 1 provides detailed project activity, history, contact, and site background information. A conservation easement was recorded on a total of 18.13 acres. The project is expected to yield 4,318 SMUs. Project components and assets are illustrated in Figure 2 and credit allocation is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives Prior to construction, on-site streams and riparian areas were degraded due to livestock impacts, stream channelization, ditching, bed and bank erosion, and lack of appropriate vegetation communities. Furthermore, the Site provided minimal capacity to immobilize excess nutrients originating from livestock waste through uptake in riparian buffer vegetation. The project is intended to contribute to functional uplift of on-site and downstream waters within the Cape Fear River Basin by addressing stressors identified in the 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWR). Expected functional uplift is outlined below as project goals and objectives. The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan include: Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing fencing around conservation easements adjacent to cattle pastures and providing alternative water sources or removing cattle from sites. Reduction in pollutant loads to streams caused by cattle access. Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding stream banks. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-stream structures to protect restored/enhanced streams. Reduction in sediment loadings to streams from bank erosion. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-2 Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Return networks of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions. Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary. Support all stream functions above hydrology. Improve aquatic habitat in project streams. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth. Increase and diversify available habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading to colonization and increase in biodiversity over time. Add complexity including LWD to the streams. Raise local groundwater elevations and allow for more frequent overbank flows. Reduce shear stress on channels during larger flow events. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing floodplain. Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands. Allow flood flows to disperse on the floodplain. Support Geomorphic and higher level functions. Create and improve riparian habitats. Provide a canopy to shade streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create a source of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood flow velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral stability of streams. Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone. Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source of LWD and organic material to the stream. Support all stream functions. Ensure that development and agricultural uses that would damage the Site or reduce the benefits of project are prevented. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Protection of the Site from harmful uses in perpetuity. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 2-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT Monitoring year 1 (MY1) Site assessment was conducted between June 2019 and November 2019. Vegetation, stream geomorphology and hydrology success criteria were approved in the mitigation plan. Monitoring features and locations are shown in Figures 3.0 – 3.2. 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Planted woody vegetation is monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures presented by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006). The final vegetation success criteria are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height at the end of MY7. Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and 260 planted stems per acre with an average stem height of 7 feet at the end of MY5. Five fixed 100 square meter vegetation plots were randomly installed on the Site where they will be monitored annually. Another 4 plots are monitored and relocated at random each year operating under the same success criteria. MY1 vegetation inventory was completed in September 2019. Average planted stem density across the fixed monitoring plots is 518 stems per acre which is 15% less than the as-built density of 607 stems per acre. The randomly relocated plots had a stem density of 465 stems per acre, this is believed to be a product of the relatively lower heights of planted tree species compared to thick herbaceous vegetation in MY1, making the planted stems difficult to locate. At this time this is not a subject of concern. Additional trees are expected to be located in random vegetation plots in subsequent monitoring years. Individual plot data suggests stem planted density ranges from 243 to 567 stems per acre. Eight out of the nine individual plots exceed the MY3 interim planted stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre. Random vegetation plot 9 represents a stem density below 320 stems per acre, which is likely attributed to the thick herbaceous cover. Vegetation photographs and summary data for each plot are included in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3, respectively. 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern Areas in proximity to random vegetation plot 9 will be monitored in subsequent monitoring years. Woody stem survival and growth in these areas may be limited by competition with herbaceous vegetation. This is not considered a concern as most likely these stems are still alive and obscured by taller early successional vegetation. A small isolated population of a Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense.) was observed growing near UT4 (Fixed Vegetation Plot 2) (Figure 3.2). This area will be addressed during monitoring year 2. 2.3 Stream Assessment Eleven permanent cross-sections were installed per Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (NCIRT, October 2016) to assess channel dimensions over time. Morphological surveys were conducted in June 2019. Cross-section survey data for project streams suggests all reaches are stable, functioning as intended, and attain success criteria for MY1. Cross-sections representative of these reaches showed little change in bankfull stage elevation, mean and maximum depth, and width to depth ratio. Bank height ratios for these riffle cross-sections remained at or near 1.0. Entrenchment ratios and bankfull widths may show small departure from as- built values as width adjustments commonly occur due to vegetation growth and sediment transportation or deposition. These minor changes do not indicate channel instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map, visual stability assessment table, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 2-2 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern SF 4A Reaches 2 and 4 have had isolated areas of minor scour since construction. This was caused by large flood events during two Hurricanes in the fall of 2018 shortly after construction before vegetation had become established on the Site. These areas have stabilized but will continue to be monitored in subsequent years. All grade control structures remained in place and should maintain vertical stability. Table 10 in Appendix 4 displays the amount of erosion experienced by one pool on SF4A Reach 4. 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment Four bankfull flow events must be recorded on restored streams in separate years during the seven year monitoring period. Bankfull events were recorded on all subject streams during MY1 (Table 11). Thirty consecutive days of flow must be recorded annually on restored intermittent streams (UT2 and UT4 Reach 1). In-stream flow gages equipped with pressure transducers were installed to monitor continuity of baseflow. All intermittent streams on site exceeded the required 30 consecutive days of flow with UT2 showing continuous flow from the beginning of the year through the last gage download on October 21, 2019. UT4 displayed baseflow from January 2019 through June 2019 before going subsurface for the summer. This is typical of an intermittent stream in the Carolina Slate Belt Region, especially with below average rainfall. Flow gage plots are included in Appendix 5. 2.6 Adaptive Management Plan The stream area of concern on SF4A Reach 4 appears to have stabilized during MY1. These areas will continue to be observed to determine if full stabilization has occurred. No remedial actions are proposed at this time. Areas in proximity to vegetation plot 9 will be monitored to ensure tree growth overcomes herbaceous competition. Remedial actions will be implemented if deemed necessary in subsequent monitoring years. 2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary The average planted stem density for the Site exceeded the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre. Eight out of 9 plots satisfied this criterion on an individual basis. Streams are stable and functioning as designed, with an area of previous erosion stabilizing on SF4A Reach 2. This reach was impacted by two hurricanes shortly after construction before vegetation was established. Bankfull events were recorded on all streams subject to this criterion. Greater than 30 days of consecutive flow were recorded on all restored intermittent streams. One area of Chinese privet along UT 4 was identified and will be managed as necessary. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 3-1 Section 3: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006). South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 4-1 Section 4: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Harrelson, C.C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Lee, M.T., Peet, R. K., Steven, D., Wentworth, T.R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR- DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. USACE, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables ^_ South Fork Mitigation Site Location 03030002050050 03030002050070 03030003070020 03030003070010 03030002050090 Chatham County, NC Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019¹0 10.5 Miles Directions: From Raleigh, NC, take US 64 west approximately 24 miles to NC 87 at exit 381. Take a right and continue on NC 87 for approximately 2 miles. Turn left onto Silk Hope Lindley Mill Road, continue for 13 miles. Turn left on Moon Lindley Road, continue for 0.5 miles. Take a left on Johnny Lindley Road, the project area is on the right. Hydrologic Unit Code (14) ^_Project Location !( !( !( !( !( SF4A Reach 3UT4 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 4 SF4A Reach 1 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Chatham County, NC 0 200 400 Feet ¹ Conservation Easement Internal Crossing As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II !(Reach Breaks 2017 Aerial Photography South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 4,318 ------- Centerline Stationing Existing Footage Approach Restoration Footage1 Mitigation Ratio Total Credits (SMU)2 Adjusted Credits (SMU)3 100+62 - 103+73 311 Enhancement II 311 2.5:1 124 117 103+73 - 109+23 109+73 - 120+74 1,748 Restoration 1,651 1:1 1,651 1,666 120+74 - 127+39 665 Enhancement II 665 2.5:1 266 265 127+39 - 131+74 132+24 - 135+31 700 Restoration 742 1:1 742 746 200+54 - 203+79 325 Enhancement II 325 2.5:1 130 106 203+79 - 206+04 251 Restoration 225 1:1 225 226 301+02 - 308+62 308+92 - 310+23 902 Enhancement I 891 1.5:1 594 589 401+54 - 402+21 67 Enhancement II 67 2.5:1 27 27 500+06 - 502+93 287 Enhancement II 287 2.5:1 115 109 502+93 - 507+53 472 Restoration 460 1:1 460 460 605+04 - 605+41 37 Enhancement II 37 2.5:1 15 7 Riverine Non-Riverine --- -- -- --- 1Linear footage calculated along stream centerline. - Preservation - Rehabilitation Re-Establishment 1,692 - Enhancement I 891 Enhancement II Restoration 3,078 UT4 Reach 2 Restoration UT5 Restoration Stream (Linear Feet) Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Restoration UT1 Reach 1 Restoration Non-Riparian Wetland SF4A Reach 3 Restoration SF4A Reach 4 Non-Riparian Wetland (Acres)Riparian Wetland (Acres) UT1 Reach 2 Restoration UT2 Restoration UT3 Restoration UT4 Reach 1 Restoration Restoration or Restoration Equivalent STREAMS SF4A Reach 1 Restoration SF4A Reach 2 Restoration Reach ID COMPONENT SUMMATION - - - Buffer (Acres)Restoration Level 3Adjusted credits are the final credit total including the adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width. MITIGATION CREDITS Phosphorous Nutrient Offset - PROJECT COMPONENTS 2Total credits are based on reach length and mitigation ratio and do not include adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width. USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 USACE Action ID No. 2017-02364 Planting Contractor 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. December 2025 Table 3. Project Contact Table Year 7 Monitoring 2025 Bare Roots Live Stakes South Fork Mitigation Site 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 P.O. Box 1197 Willow Spring, NC 27592 126 Circle G Lane Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey 2022 December 2023 December 20242024 2024Year 6 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey 2021 2020 June 2019 Final Design - Construction Plans April 2018 April 2018 Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments December 2018 December 2018 Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 July 2018 July 2018 July 2018 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery Mitigation Plan October 2017 February 2018 South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 July 2018 July 2018 Construction July 2018 919.851.9986 Jason Lorch Nursery Stock Suppliers Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Monitoring, POC Bruton Natural Systems & Foggy Mountain Nursery Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse 2023 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Bruton Natural Systems, Inc 919.851.9986 Designer Greg Turner, PE Fremont, NC 27830 Construction Contractor Stream Survey Vegetation Survey 2025 Year 2 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey Stream Survey Vegetation Survey 2020 2021 2022 December 2022 Vegetation Survey 2023 September 2019 January 2019 November 2018 January 2019 Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Vegetation Survey Stream Survey Vegetation Survey December 2021 December 2019 December 2020 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 SF4A UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5 613.9 103 17 10 25 15 Applicable?Resolved? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A No N/A No N/A USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit CGIA Land Use Classification N/A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Waters of the United States - Section 401 Endangered Species Act Regulation Waters of the United States - Section 404 USFWS correspondence on July 22, 2016 stated the “proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act...” No suitable habitat and/or individually federally listed species were identified in the project area. Correspondence from SHPO on July 1st, 2016 indicating they were not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. N/A 35° 49' 21.28"N, 79° 22' 54.62"W Supporting Documentation USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4091. 03-06-04 Essential Fisheries Habitat FEMA Floodplain Compliance Historic Preservation Act N/A South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 03030002 Cape Fear PROJECT INFORMATION Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Drainiage Area (acres) Project Name Project Area (acres) River Basin Chatham County South Fork Mitigation Site 18.13 County Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Planted Area (acres)10.61 Physiographic Province 62% Forested, 38% Cultivated USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050050 Piedmont Reaches DWR Sub-basin PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION ✁✁✂✄☎✆✝✞✟sŝƐƵĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂƚĂ !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( ")") ") ") ") !( !( !( !( !( X S 2 XS 5 XS 7 XS 1XS 9XS 8 X S 6 X S 4 XS 3 XS 1 1 XS 10SF4A Reach 3UT4 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 4 SF4A Reach 1 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 2 5 1 43 7 8 9 6 Figure 3.0 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Chatham County, NC 0 250 500 Feet ¹ Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1 Chinese Privet (0.034 ac) As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections !(Reach Breaks Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY1 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Plots Condition - MY1 !(Criteria Met !(Criteria Not Met 2017 Aerial Photography Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 !( !( !(!( !( ") ") ") ") !A !A ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ !. !A X S 2 XS 1XS 9XS 8 X S 4 XS 3 XS 10PP 6 PP 5 PP 4 PP 3 PP 2 PP 1 PP 15 PP 14 PP 13 PP 12 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 1 UT35 1 4 3 7 8 9 6 Figure 3.1 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Chatham County, NC0200400Feet¹ Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY1 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Plots Condition - MY1 !(Criteria Met !(Criteria Not Met !(Reach Breaks !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge !A Barotroll ^_Photo Point 2017 Aerial Photography !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ") ") !A !A !A ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ !. !. X S 2 XS 5 XS 7 X S 6 X S 4 XS 3 XS 1 1 PP 9 PP 8 PP 7 PP 6 PP 5 PP 4 PP 3 PP 20 PP 19 PP 18 PP 17 PP 16 PP 11 PP 10 SF4A Reach 3 UT4 Reach 2 UT4 Reach 1 SF4A Reach 4 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 2 5 7 Figure 3.2 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Chatham County, NC0200400Feet¹ Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Vegetative Areas of Concern - MY1 Chinese Privet (0.034 ac) As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections !(Reach Breaks !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge !.Bank Pins ^_Photo Point Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY1 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Condition - MY1 !(Criteria Met 2017 Aerial Photography USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 SF4A Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 27 27 100% Depth Sufficient 23 23 100% Length Appropriate 23 23 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)23 23 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)23 23 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 15 15 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 15 15 100% 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT1 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100% Depth Sufficient 5 5 100% Length Appropriate 5 5 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)5 5 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)5 5 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 3 3 100% Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT2 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100% Depth Sufficient 7 7 100% Length Appropriate 7 7 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.18 18 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.18 18 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 6 6 100% Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT4 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 13 13 100% Depth Sufficient 9 9 100% Length Appropriate 9 9 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)9 9 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)9 9 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 3 3 100% 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Planted Acreage 10.61 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (Ac) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 0 0 0% 0 0 0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0% 0 0.0 0% Easement Acreage 18.13 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (SF) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 1 0.0343 0% Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0% Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2– downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – downstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – upstream (06/12/2019) PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – downstream (06/12/2019) VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (09/10/19) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (09/10/19) FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (09/10/19) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (09/10/19) FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (09/10/19) RANDOM VEG PLOT 6 (09/10/19) RANDOM VEG PLOT 7 (09/10/19) RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (09/10/19) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9 (09/10/19) APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2015-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Plot Fixed Veg Plot 1 Fixed Veg Plot 2 Fixed Veg Plot 3 Fixed Veg Plot 4 Fixed Veg Plot 5 Random Veg Plot 6 Random Veg Plot 7 Random Veg Plot 8 Random Veg Plot 9 N Success Criteria Met (Y/N)Project Mean Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 89% South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Betula nigra River Birch Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 12 12 13 15 15 15 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 9 7 7 7 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 10 10 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 2 2 2 10 3 3 12 9 9 9 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 4 6 1 1 20 7 7 7 2 2 2 6 6 7 20 20 42 20 20 20 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 14 14 17 14 14 43 14 14 14 11 11 11 11 11 13 64 64 98 75 75 75 5 5 5 8 8 10 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 4 4 9 9 10 9 9 9 567 567 688 567 567 1,740 567 567 567 445 445 445 445 445 526 518 518 793 607 607 607 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Volunteer species included in total PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes P-all - All Planted Stems T - All Woody Stems MY0 (2019) 5 0.120.12 Stems per ACRE 1 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Species count 1 0.02size (ACRES) 1 0.02 Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density MY1 (2019) Stem count size (ares)5 Current Plot Data (MY1 2019) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VP5 1 Annual Means South Fork Mitigation SiteUSACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Monitoring Year 1 - 2019Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te TotalBetula nigraRiver Birch Tree2 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 13 13Celtis occidentalisNorthern HackberryShrub Tree2 22 2 4 4Gleditsia triacanthosHoney LocustTree2 22 2Liquidambar styracifluaSweet GumTree2 2 2 2 2 26 6Fraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTree4 4 2 23 3 9 9 4 4Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip PoplarTree3 33 3 7 7Platanus occidentalisSycamoreTree5 5 4 4 3 312 12 17 17Quercus michauxiiSwamp Chestnut OakTree1 11 1 13 13Quercus pagodaCherrybark OakTree1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1Quercus phellosWillow OakTree1 12 2 3 3 5 5Ulmus americanaAmerican ElmTree2 22 217 17 13 13 10 10 6 6 46 46 64 646 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 11 11 9 9688688526526405405243243465 465 668 668Color for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in totalTe: Number of stems including exotic species Total: Number of stems excluding exotic speciesMY0 (2019)40.10Annual MeansTable 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem DensityCurrent Plot Data (MY1 2019)MY1 (2019)40.10Random Plot 90.0210.02Species countStems per ACRERandom Plot 6Random Plot 7 Random Plot 8Scientific Name Common NameSpecies TypeStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)10.020.0211 APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section) South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)561.33 561.24 556.93 556.90 556.97 556.94 Low Bank Height Elevation 561.33 561.24 556.93 556.90 556.97 556.94 Bankfull Width (ft)15.6 14.5 18.2 18.4 17.4 15.5 Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 N/A N/A 150 150 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.1 2.0 1.5 0.9 0.9 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 1.6 3.3 3.2 1.6 1.6 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)16.7 15.8 36.6 28.4 15.2 14.5 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 13.3 9.1 11.9 20.0 16.6 Entrenchment Ratio1 6.4 6.9 N/A N/A 8.6 9.7 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)556.18 556.21 555.18 555.21 543.89 543.92 Low Bank Height Elevation 556.18 556.21 555.18 555.21 543.89 543.92 Bankfull Width (ft)18.5 21.2 18.3 19.0 17.7 18.2 Floodprone Width (ft)150 150 N/A N/A 120 120 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.0 2.4 2.3 1.5 1.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.9 1.9 4.0 4.2 2.4 2.4 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)20.3 21.2 43.0 44.0 26.9 26.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.8 21.1 7.8 8.2 11.6 12.2 Entrenchment Ratio1 8.1 7.1 N/A N/A 6.8 6.6 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width. 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel. *Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6. SF4A - Reach 2 Cross-Section 6 (Riffle)Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)Cross-Section 5 (Pool) SF4A - Reach 4SF4A - Reach 2 Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)Cross-Section 3 (Riffle) Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section) South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)543.22 543.22 565.00 564.92 572.12 572.09 Low Bank Height Elevation 543.22 543.22 565.00 564.92 572.12 572.09 Bankfull Width (ft)18.7 23.6 12.3 10.7 6.7 6.3 Floodprone Width (ft)N/A N/A 60 60 N/A N/A Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)2.3 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)4.7 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.7 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)42.3 42.5 8.2 6.1 4.6 4.3 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 13.1 18.5 18.8 9.7 9.2 Entrenchment Ratio1 N/A N/A 4.9 5.6 N/A N/A Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 N/A N/A Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)571.01 570.98 556.19 556.19 Low Bank Height Elevation 571.01 570.98 556.19 556.16 Bankfull Width (ft)8.1 5.3 6.9 7.4 Floodprone Width (ft)75 75 60 60 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2.1 1.4 3.7 3.5 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 31.7 19.9 13.1 15.5 Entrenchment Ratio1 9.3 14.3 8.7 8.1 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 < 1.0 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width. 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel. *Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6. Cross-Section 10 (Riffle)Cross-Section 11 (Riffle) Cross-Section 7 (Pool)Cross-Section 8 (Riffle)Cross-Section 9 (Pool) SF4A - Reach 4 South Fork UT1 Reach 2 South Fork UT2 South Fork UT2 South Fork UT4 Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions15.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)14.5 width (ft)1.1 mean depth (ft)1.6 max depth (ft) 15.1 wetted perimeter (ft)1.0hydraulic radius (ft)13.3 width-depth ratio100.0 W flood prone area (ft)6.9 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 1 SF4A - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5585595605615625635640 10 20304050Elevation (ft)Width (ft)106+06 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions28.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)18.4 width (ft)1.5 mean depth (ft)3.2 max depth (ft) 21.0 wetted perimeter (ft)1.4hydraulic radius (ft)11.9 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 2 SF4A - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5535545555565575585590 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)112+99 PoolMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullVernal Pool Bankfull Dimensions14.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)14.7 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.6 max depth (ft) 15.1 wetted perimeter (ft)1.0hydraulic radius (ft)15.0 width-depth ratio150.0 W flood prone area (ft)10.2 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 3 SF4A - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5555565575585590 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft)113+59 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone AreaVernal Pool Bankfull Dimensions21.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)21.2 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.9 max depth (ft) 21.8 wetted perimeter (ft)1.0hydraulic radius (ft)21.1 width-depth ratio150.0 W flood prone area (ft)7.1 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 4 SF4A - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5535545555565575585590 10 203040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)116+29 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions44.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)19.0 width (ft)2.3 mean depth (ft)4.2 max depth (ft) 21.7 wetted perimeter (ft)2.0hydraulic radius (ft)8.2 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 5 SF4A - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5505515525535545555565575580 10 20304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)116+84 PoolMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions26.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)18.2 width (ft)1.5 mean depth (ft)2.4 max depth (ft) 19.0 wetted perimeter (ft)1.4hydraulic radius (ft)12.2 width-depth ratio120.0 W flood prone area (ft)6.6 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamCross-Section 6 -SF4A - Reach 4Monitoring Year 1 - 2019South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section Plots5405415425435445455465470 102030405060Elevation (ft)Width (ft)134+70 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions42.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)23.6 width (ft)1.8 mean depth (ft)4.5 max depth (ft) 27.1 wetted perimeter (ft)1.6hydraulic radius (ft)13.1 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 7 - SF4A - Reach 4Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5385395405415425435445455460 102030405060Elevation (ft)Width (ft)135+15 PoolMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions6.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)10.7 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.0 max depth (ft) 11.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6hydraulic radius (ft)18.8 width-depth ratio60.0 W flood prone area (ft)5.6 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 8 - UT1 - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5635645655665670 10 203040Elevation (ft)Width (ft)204+59 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions4.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.3 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.7 max depth (ft) 7.7 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6hydraulic radius (ft)9.2 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringCross-Section 9 UT2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsView Downstream5705715725735740 10 20 3040Elevation (ft)Width (ft)307+23 PoolMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions1.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)5.3 width (ft)0.3 mean depth (ft)0.5 max depth (ft) 5.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.3hydraulic radius (ft)19.9 width-depth ratio75.0 W flood prone area (ft)14.3 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringSouth Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsCross-Section 10 UT2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019View Downstream5695705715725730 10 203040Elevation (ft)Width (ft)307+53 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions3.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)7.4 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)0.8 max depth (ft) 7.7 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5hydraulic radius (ft)15.5 width-depth ratio60.0 W flood prone area (ft)8.1 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 6/2019Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringCross-Section 11 UT4 - Reach 2Monitoring Year 1 - 2019South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364Cross-Section PlotsView Downstream5545555565575580102030Elevation (ft)Width (ft)505+62 RiffleMY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)BankfullBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Table 10. Bank Pin Exposure South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 Location Pin MY1 (6/2019)MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Upstream 8.4 Midstream 4.1 Downstream 0.0 Upstream 0.0 Midstream 0.0 Downstream 0.0 Upstream 0.0 Midstream 0.0 Downstream 0.0 SF4a Reach 2 SF4a Reach 4 UT2 APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Reach Date of Data Download Date of Occurrence Method 5/7/2019 1/21/2019 5/7/2019 4/14/2019 10/21/2019 8/1/2019 10/21/2019 8/24/2019 5/7/2019 1/21/2019 5/7/2019 1/31/2019 10/21/2019 8/24/2019 SF4A Reach 4 5/7/2019 4/19/2019 Monthly Rainfall Data South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2019) Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 UT4 Reach 2 Crest Gage/ Pressure Transducer UT2 1 2019 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19Precipitation (in)Date South Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 Siler City, NC 2019 Monthly Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 596.0 596.5 597.0 597.5 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019 Rainfall UT2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull South Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT2 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 1 - 2019 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 564.0 564.5 565.0 565.5 566.0 566.5 567.0 567.5 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019 Rainfall UT4 R1 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull South Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT4 R1