The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140704 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2017_20171006BUFFALO BRANCH MITIGATION SITE YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT USACE PROJECT # SAW-2014-02129 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For: EBX-Neuse I, LLC 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 919-209-1056 Prepared by: pres Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report• Johnston County, NC • September 2017 Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report, Johnston County, NC • September 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project is located within an agricultural watershed in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately four miles North of Selma. This stream mitigation project is in conjunction with the Buffalo Branch Buffer and Nutrient Offset Site. The project streams that have undergone restoration and/or enhancement had been significantly impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201180050 (USGS, 1998) and within the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Neuse River Sub -basin 03-04-06 (NCDENR, 2005). The 2010 Neuse River Basin Plan identified HUC 03020201180050 as a Targeted Local Watershed. The watershed is characterized by 44 percent agricultural land use area, and is identified as a high priority watershed for projects that address flow restoration, reduction of impoundments, and buffer restoration. The goal for the Buffalo Branch project was to restore the channelized streams based on reference reach conditions, enrich the aquatic ecosystem through stream restoration and riparian buffer habitat improvements, and provide ecological uplift within the Neuse River Basin. The design was based on reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and criteria developed during this project to achieve success. The Buffalo Branch project presents 1,744 linear feet of Stream Restoration and 4,056 linear feet of Stream Enhancement. Priority 2 restoration was completed along one tributary, Priority 1 restoration along a portion of one tributary, Stream Enhancement Level I along two tributaries, and Stream Enhancement Level 11 along three tributaries. In addition to the stream restoration activities, the mitigation design will enhance the hydrology of six existing wetland seeps in the project area. These seeps include two linear seeps and four hillside seeps. Wetland enhancement measures include planting hardwood trees and livestock exclusion on 5.08 acres. Wetland preservation includes 4.47 acres of riparian wetland along Reach A3. Benefits include the storage of excess water during flood events, preventing erosion of stream banks, reducing in -stream sedimentation, and nutrient reductions. No wetland mitigation credits are being generated from the enhancement of these seeps, but using USACE guidance, the site is generating additional stream credits for wider buffers. The Bank Site provides Neuse River Basin buffer, nutrient, and stream restoration credits. All construction and planting activities were completed in the winter 2016 and the site is in the second year (MY2) of monitoring. The site is monitored on a regular basis, and a physical inspection of the site is conducted a minimum of twice per year throughout the seven year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and features that require maintenance. Annual monitoring reports are submitted to the Interagency Review Team. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to enforce the conservation easement provisions. The Bank Sponsor will provide sufficient funding in the form of an endowment to the NCWHF. The original proposed mitigation plan credit yield was 3,844 SMUs. Due to adjustments of the mitigation plan made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, stream Reach A2 had a reduction of 9 SMUs, Reach B2 was reduced by 46 SMUs, and stream Reach C was deducted 20 SMUs. The adjusted total yield for the mitigation plan was for 3,769 SMUs. All stream mitigation unit (SMUs) reductions for Reaches A2, B2, and C performed on the mitigation plan totals were applied to the As -Built SMUs totals. The Buffalo Branch as -built stream length is 5,883 linear feet which generated 3,812 SMUs. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report, Johnston County, NC • September 2017 The Year 2 vegetation monitoring observations for the Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site are summarized in this report. Planted -stem survival for Monitoring Year 2 for all 25 Vegetation Plots (VP) at Buffalo Branch is well above the interim success criterion of 320 trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 3. The average stem density (excluding live stakes) across all vegetation plots was 775 stems per acre for Year 2 monitoring. The majority of vegetation plots recorded volunteer tree species during Monitoring Year 2. No vegetation problem areas were noted during Monitoring Year 2. The Buffalo Branch Site is on track to meet the interim Year 3 vegetation survival success criterion of 320 trees per acre as specified in the Mitigation Plan. During the Year 2 monitoring season, the restored stream channel remained stable and continued to provide the intended habitat and hydrologic functions. All monitored cross sections show little adjustment in stream dimension, and the site remains on track to achieve the stream stability success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan. One stream problem area was identified during Monitoring Year 2. There is an eroded ford downstream of the road crossing on Reach A2 (out of easement). It will be repaired in the fall of 2017. Multiple bankfull crest gauge readings were recorded on the three crest gauges. Reach Mitigation Type Stationing As -Built Length (LF) Credit Length (LF) Base SMU Mitigation Ratio Buffer Multiplier Adjusted SMU Al Restoration 0+78 to 14+35 1357 1357 1357 1:1.0 20% 1628 A2 Enhancement I 14+35 to 21+55 720 720 480 1:1.5 16% 557 A2 Restoration 22+46 to 26+33 387 387 387 1:1.0 11% 430 A3 Enhancement II -Low 26+33 to 45+46 1913 1830 366 1:5.0 0% 366 B 1 Enhancement II 0+00 to 5+34 534 534 214 1:2.5 16% 248 132 Enhancement I 5+34 to 11+22 588 588 392 1:1.5 6% 416 C Enhancement II 0+17 to 4+01 384 384 154 1:2.5 5% 167 TOTAL 5,883 5,800 3,350 3,812 Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report, Johnston County, NC- September2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES..................................................... 1 1.1 Location and Setting..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..............................................................................................1 1.3 Project Structure................................................................................................................ 2 1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach................................................................................. 2 1.4 Project History, Mitigation Bank Establishment, Contacts and Attribute Data ....................4 1.4.1 Project History........................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Project Watersheds..................................................................................................... 4 2 SUCCESS CRITERIA...............................................................................................................4 2.1 Stream Restoration............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Bankfull Events..........................................................................................................5 2.1.2 Longitudinal Profile................................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Cross Sections............................................................................................................5 2.1.4 Digital Photo Stations................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Scheduling/Reporting........................................................................................................ 6 3 MONITORING PLAN.............................................................................................................. 6 3.1 Stream Restoration............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.1 As -Built Survey......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Bankfull Events.......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Cross Sections............................................................................................................6 3.1.4 Digital Image Stations................................................................................................ 7 3.1.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring................................................................................... 7 3.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................................... 7 4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN..................................................................... 7 4.1 Stream............................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................................... 8 5 MONITORING YEAR 2 (MY-2).............................................................................................. 8 5.1 Monitoring Year 2 Data Collection.................................................................................... 8 5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel............................................................................ 8 5.1.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................9 5.1.3 Photo Documentation................................................................................................. 9 5.1.4 Hydrology..................................................................................................................9 6 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................10 Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report, Johnston County, NC- September2017 Appendices Appendix A. General Tables and Figures Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table 4. Project Information Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Appendix B. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Baseline MY1 Cross Section Plots Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross -Section Data Table 7. Stream Problem Areas Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas Stream Photos Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos (No Problem Photos) Appendix C. Vegetation Data Table 9. Planted Species Summary Table 10. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 11. Stem Count Total and Planted Species (Species by Plot) Vegetation Plot Photos Appendix D. Hydrology Data Table 12. 2017 Crest Gauge Data Table 13. 2017 Rainfall Summary Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data Bankfull Event Documentation Crest Gauge Reading Photos 11 Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES 1.1 Location and Setting The Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project (Project) is located in Johnston County approximately four and a half miles north of Selma, NC. To access the Site from the town of Selma, travel north approximately 4.9 miles on NC HWY 96, and turn right onto Little Divine Road. Turn left on the first dirt road (Howard Road) in approximately 0.3 miles. Reach A2 crosses Howard Road 400 feet up from Little Divine Road. The Project is located in the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201 (NCDWQ sub -basin 03-04-06). The project is located within the Neuse River Basin (8-digit USGS HUC 03020201, 14-digit USGS HUC 03020201180050 (USGS, 2012) and the NCDWQ Cape Fear 03-04-06 sub -basin (NCDWQ, 2002). 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The Project provides numerous ecological and water quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined below. Design Goals and Objectives Benefits Related to Water Quality Benefit will be achieved through cattle exclusion and direct removal of fecal inputs, filtering of runoff Nutrient removal through buffer areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, and improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones. Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment Sediment removal loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be decreased through a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces. Increase dissolved oxygen Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and concentration dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower water temperature to increase dissolved oxygen capacity. Runoff filtration Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff, thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream. Benefits to Flood Attenuation Water storage Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water during precipitation events than under current site conditions. Improved groundwater Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral recharge depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved infiltration and groundwater recharge. Improved/restored Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately hydrologic connections sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at flows greater than the bankfull stage. Benefits Related to Ecological Processes Restoration of habitats Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood ecosystem. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 Improved substrate and Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve bedform instream cover diversity and to trap detritus. Substrate will become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the stream. Addition of large woody Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design. debris Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs. Reduced temperature of water due to shading Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas. Restoration of terrestrial habitat Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats. 1.3 Project Structure Table 1. Buffalo Branch Project Components As- Credit Reach Mitigation Type Stationing Built Base Mitigation Buffer Adjusted Length �LF�h SMU Ratio Multiplier SMU (LF) Al Restoration 0+78 to 14+35 1357 1357 1357 1:1.0 20% 1628 A2 Enhancement I 14+35 to 21+55 720 720 480 1:1.5 16% 557 A2 Restoration 22+46 to 26+33 387 387 387 1:1.0 11% 430 A3 Enhancement II -Low 26+33 to 45+46 1913 1830 366 1:5.0 0% 366 B1 Enhancement II 0+00 to 5+34 534 534 214 1:2.5 16% 248 132 Enhancement I 5+34 to 11+22 588 588 392 1:1.5 6% 416 C Enhancement II 0+17 to 4+01 384 384 154 1:2.5 5% 167 TOTAL 5,883 5,800 3,350 3,812 1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the Project were accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Performed treatment activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For stream reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape. The Buffalo Branch Site includes Priority Levels I and II stream restoration and stream Enhancement Levels I and II. Priority Levels I and II stream restoration incorporated the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference site, published empirical relationships, NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. 1,744 linear feet of stream channel was reconstructed. Enhancement Level I was applied to 1,308 linear feet of channel that required stabilization and bank improvements, and buffer restoration. Enhancement Level II was applied to an additional 2,748 linear feet of channel that required buffer enhancement and/or minimal bank and habitat improvements. The Buffalo Branch Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including onsite streams and ditches, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters, including active channel, habitat and floodplain features were developed from analyses performed at the reference site. Analytical design techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat features and in -stream structures such as log grade controls, brush toes, log toes, log drops were used throughout the project to act as grade control and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability was also enhanced through the installation of cuttings bundles and live stakes that included native species (e.g. black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Sections of abandoned stream channel have been backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs and flood plain sills where necessary. The floodplains were planted with native species creating a vegetated buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks were stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible. The stream and adjacent riparian areas have been protected by a minimum 50-foot permanent conservation easement. Reach Al (0+78 to 14+35) - Priority II restoration was performed along Reach Al to address existing impairments, particularly the straightened, oversized channel and lack of bedform diversity. Priority I restoration was not possible along this reach due to elevation constraints at the culverts under HWY 96. The design approach included meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, constructing a floodplain bench, and backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 100-foot buffer was established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Woody debris was installed along the bed to improve in -stream habitat. Livestock were excluded with fencing installed along the easement boundary. All areas within have been planted with native riparian vegetation. Reach A2 (14+35 to 21+55) - Enhancement Level I begins just downstream of the confluence of Reaches Al and C and ends just upstream of Howard Road. Enhancement activities included the smoothing of irregular banks, installation of grade control structures, and installation of woody debris structures. Reach A2 (22+46 to 26+33) - Priority I restoration was implemented along Reach A2 downstream of Howard Road to address historic straightening and channel enlargement. The existing ditch was backfilled, and the channel has been relocated to the existing valley. A ford crossing was installed just downstream of the Howard Road ROW to allow the landowner continued access across the property. Livestock are excluded with fencing installed along the easement boundary. All areas within the proposed buffer have been planted with native riparian vegetation Reach A3 (26+33 to 45+46) - Enhancement Level II (low) was completed on Reach A3. The channel is stable throughout the conservation easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The riparian buffer is relatively intact and consists primarily of mature hardwoods. However, there were impaired areas where the buffer was less than 50 feet wide and cattle had stream access. Minimal grading was implemented in a few areas where cattle had damaged the channel banks. All non -vegetated areas within the buffer were planted with native riparian vegetation. Reach Bl (0+00 to 5+34) - Enhancement Level II was performed on Reach B1 due to the channel's existing stability and presence of mature trees located along the top of banks. The design approach focused on improving the riparian buffer and addressing minor erosional areas from cattle impacts. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 Reach B2 (5+34 to 11+22) Enhancement Level I was performed along Reach B2. The design approach on this reach focused on bank stabilization, improving bedform diversity, and riparian buffer restoration. Stabilization activities included installing grade control structures, installing log toes and vegetated sills to narrow the low - flow channel, and installing woody debris structures to improve hydraulic efficiency and aquatic habitat. All disturbed areas within the proposed buffer have been planted with native riparian vegetation. Reach C (0+17 to 4+01) Enhancement Level II was performed on Reach C due to the channel's current stability and small drainage area. The design approach on this reach focused on improving the riparian buffer and performing minimal grading to address erosional areas from cattle impacts. The existing crossing located at the upper end of the reach was removed and additional bank grading and stabilization were included in the culvert removal. All areas within the proposed buffer have been planted with native riparian vegetation. 1.4 Project History, Mitigation Bank Establishment, Contacts and Attribute Data 1.4.1 Project History The Project was restored by EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX). Tables 2, 3, and 4 (Appendix A) provide a time sequence and information pertaining to the project activities, history, contacts, and baseline information. EBX-Neuse I, LLC, acting as the Bank Sponsor, established a Conservation Easement (CE) and will monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. The Mitigation Plan provides detailed information regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities. The Bank Sponsor has conveyed the CE to the long-term land steward, the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The Bank Sponsor will ensure that the conveyed CE will allow for the implementation of an initial monitoring phase, which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank Sponsor. The conveyed CE will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the yearly monitoring phases. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX-Neuse I, USACE, and NCDWR. 1.4.2 Project Watersheds The easement totals 31.63 acres and is broken into two sections. The total drainage area at the downstream limits of the project is 570 acres (0.89 mi2). The land use in the project watershed is approximately 32 percent cultivated cropland, 40 percent evergreen and deciduous forest, eight percent managed herbaceous cover and pasture, three percent evergreen pine plantation, 16 percent developed, and one percent open water. 2 SUCCESS CRITERIA The success criteria for the Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site stream restoration follows accepted and approved success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 2.1 Stream Restoration 2.1.1 Bankfull Events Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-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. Bankfull events will be documented using crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of debris rack lines. 2.1.2 Longitudinal Profile Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure as it is possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design geometry. However, if a feature is deemed unstable and potentially jeopardizes the geomorphic stability of the project (e.g. severe headcut, structure failure) a longitudinal survey can be performed during that monitoring year, compared to the baseline, and the IRT and Bank Sponsor will determine if remediation is required. 2.1.3 Cross Sections There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down - cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross -sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. 2.1.4 Digital Photo Stations Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. 2.2 Vegetation Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will follow CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2) Guidance. Ten by ten meter square plots will be permanently established following completion of the planting phase and at least two opposing corners will be permanently installed and surveyed for future use. The plant species, density, survival rates, and the cause of mortality, if identifiable, will be recorded within each plot. A minimum of 180 days between March 1 and November 30 must separate initial planting and monitoring of year one. Vegetation plots will be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The primary focus of the vegetative monitoring will be solely on the tree stratum, although shrub and herbaceous species encountered may also be recorded. Within Neuse buffer and nutrient offset restoration areas, success criteria will be based on the survival of a minimum density of 320 trees per acre after five years of monitoring. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 2.3 Scheduling/Reporting The Bank Sponsor will follow the guidance document published by NC DMS, "Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" dated November 7, 2011 and the 2003 USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Due to the fact that this project is a private mitigation bank and not an NC DMS project, monitoring documents will follow DMS guidelines only to the extent necessary for IRT approval. A monitoring report will be generated by December 31 st of each monitoring year documenting activities of the site, and submitted to the IRT. The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. 3 MONITORING PLAN Annual monitoring shall be conducted for stream and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below for seven years prior to completion of construction or until success criteria have been met. 3.1 Stream Restoration 3.1.1 As -Built Survey An as -built survey was conducted in March and April 2016 following construction to document channel size, condition, and location. A longitudinal profile of each stream reach was surveyed post construction at the Site as part of the As -built surveys. Measurements included the thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool, etc.) and at the maximum pool depth. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark to facilitate comparison of data year to year. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in monitoring years 1 through 7 unless requested by USACE resulting from indications of significant bank or bed instability. 3.1.2 Bankfull Events Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along Reach A, one along Reach B, and one along Reach C. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge readings and debris rack lines will be photographed to document evidence of bankfull events. 3.1.3 Cross Sections A total of 29 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability. Eight cross sections were installed along Reach Al and five cross sections were installed along Reach A2. Five cross sections were installed along the length of Reach B, and three cross sections were installed along Reach C. Eight cross sections were installed along Reach A3. Cross sections were typically located at representative riffle and pool sections along each stream reach. Each cross section was permanently marked with 3/8 rebar pin to establish a monument location at each end. A marker pole was also installed at both ends of each cross section to allow ease locating during monitoring activities. Annual monitoring cross section surveys will be performed once a year during Monitoring Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Cross section locations are shown on Current Conditions Plan View Figures (Appendix B) and will include all breaks in slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water, and thalweg. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 3.1.4 Digital Image Stations Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for seven years following construction and planting. Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been established so that the same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year. Monitoring photographs will also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas such as erosion, stream and bank instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage. 3.1.5 Visual Assessment Monitoring Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream walk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record each monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. 3.2 Vegetation Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC permanently installed 25 vegetation monitoring plots for future vegetation monitoring purposes on March 1, 2016. The locations of each vegetation plot are depicted on the As -Built drawings and CCPV figures. The vegetation plots were randomly setup throughout the Bank Site and are 100 square meters in size (10 meter by 10 meter square plots). Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in general accordance to CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2). Table 9 (Appendix C) provides a success summary for each vegetation monitoring plot. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each plot to establish a baseline dataset. Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for species, "X" and "Y" origin located, and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were also captured to document baseline conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns, damaged stems, and survival ratios will be measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot data is reported for each plot as well as an overall site average. 4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability, aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic species which prevent the site from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The USACE will be notified if monitoring or other information indicates that the Bank Site, or a portion of a Bank Site, is not progressing as anticipated towards meeting the site specific performance standards as defined in the Mitigation Plan. In such an event the USACE will be provided with recommendations for adaptive management measures, which may include site modifications, design changes, revisions to maintenance requirements, and revised monitoring requirements. USACE approval will be obtained prior to conducting any adaptive management activities. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 4.1 Stream Any stream problem areas identified during post construction monitoring activities will be documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual stream monitoring report. Stream problem areas or areas of concern may include bank erosion, aggradation/degradation, structure failure or not performing as designed, beaver dams, cattle encroachment due to fence damage, etc. If it is determined through IRT correspondence that remedial action is required to repair an area, a proposed work plan will submitted for remediation. One problem area was observed on the stream channel in MY-2. The ford below the road crossing on Reach A2 (out of easement) eroded during Hurricane Matthew. This area will be repaired in the fall of 2017. Additionally, there is a large point bar that formed at the top of Reach Al after Hurricane Matthew. The sediment is not degrading the stream function and is not a problem area in MY-2. 4.2 Vegetation Any vegetation problem areas identified during post construction monitoring activities will be documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual stream monitoring report. Vegetation problem areas or areas of concern may include vegetation plot not meeting success criteria, invasive species abundance, sparse vegetation areas, etc. If it is determined through IRT correspondence that remedial action is required to repair an area, a proposed work plan will be submitted for remediation. No vegetation problem areas were identified during MY-2. 5 MONITORING YEAR 2 (MY-2) The Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Year 2 monitoring activities were completed in June and August 2017. All Year 2 monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has remained stable throughout Year 2 and is on track to meeting stream and vegetation interim success criteria. 5.1 Monitoring Year 2 Data Collection 5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel All morphological stream data for the Monitoring Year 2 profile and dimensions were collected in the monitoring survey performed during June 2017. Appendix B includes summary data tables, morphological parameters, and stream photographs. Profile The baseline (MY-0) profiles closely matches the design profiles. The plotted longitudinal profiles can be found on the As -Built Drawings located in the Baseline Monitoring Report. Morphological summary data tables are located in Appendix B. Longitudinal profile surveys are not performed during monitoring Years 1-7 unless requested by the IRT to address a stability concern or repair. Dimension The Monitoring Year 2 (MY-2) cross sectional dimensions closely matches the baseline cross section parameters. All cross-section plots and data tables can be found in Appendix B. Sediment Transport The Monitoring Year 2 (MY-2) conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration reaches. Pre -construction conditions documented all onsite reaches as sand bed channels and remain classified as sand bed channels post -construction. Visual assessment shows the channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 5.1.2 Vegetation Vegetation data collection was performed in August 2017. Based on the Monitoring Year 2 vegetation monitoring, all 25 vegetation monitoring plots are on track to meeting the interim success criteria. The Proj ect's average Monitoring Year 2 planted stems per acre is 775. (Table 9, Appendix Q. Table 10 (Appendix C) provides a more detailed summary of stem counts and the type of planted species within each vegetation monitoring plot. The number of planted stems per acre for the monitoring plots range from 526 stems to 971 stems. The average stems per vegetation plot was 19 planted stems. The minimum planted stems per plot was 13 stems and the maximum was 24 stems per plot. 5.1.3 Photo Documentation Permanent photo point locations are established at each cross sections, vegetation plots, stream crossing, and stream structures by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will also be document with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital photographs are located in Appendix B and Appendix C for vegetation photos. 5.1.4 Hydrology The bank site recorded bankfull events on all three stream reaches during Year 2 monitoring. Reach A recorded bankfull events during the months of October 2016 and April, June, and August 2017. Reach B recorded bankfull events during the months of October 2016 and April and August 2017. Reach C recorded bankfull events during the months of October 2016 and April and August 2017. Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges are installed on the site, one along Reach A, one along Reach B, and one along Reach C. The auto logging crest gauges are installed within the channel and continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual crest gauges are installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges were checked during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event had occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge and rainfall data is reported in Appendix D. Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201 Year 2 Monitoring Report* Johnston County, NC September 2017 6 REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 54, Vito A. Vanoni, ed., New York. Environmental Banc & Exchange (2015). Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. Eco Engineering and WK Dickson & Co., Inc. Environmental Banc & Exchange (2015). Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Baseline Montoring Report. Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Sussex, England. Griffith, G. and Omernik, J., 2002. Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of North Carolina. USAEPA, USDA-NRCS, and NCDENR. Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. December 2004. Surface Water Classifications. hllp://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. July 2009 Draft. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. 10 Appendix A. General Tables and Figures Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table 4. Project Information Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan Views Appendix A. General Tables and Figures Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site DWR Project # 14-0704 USACE Project # SAW-2014-02129 Mitigation Credits Stream Ri arian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorous Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 2,058 1 1,753 NA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Components Project Component -or- Reach ID As -Built Stationing/Location LF Existing Footage/Acreage Approach (PI, PH etc.) Restoration - or- Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage Mitigation Ratio SMUs with Buffer Multiplier Reach Al 0+78 to 14+35 1,033 PII R 1,357 1 : 1.0 1,628 Reach A2 14+35 to 21+55 720 EI RE 720 1 : 1.5 557 Reach A2 22+46 to 26+33 311 PI R 387 1 : 1.0 430 Reach A3 26+33 to 45+46 1,830 EII - Low RE 1,830 1 : 5.0 366 Reach B 1 0+00 to 5+34 534 EII RE 534 1 : 2.5 248 Reach B2 5+34 to 11+22 588 EI RE 588 1 : 1.5 416 Reach C 0+17 to 4+01 360 EII RE 384 1 : 2.5 167 Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Buffer (square feet) Upland (acres) Riverine Non-Riverine Restoration 1,744 Enhancement I 1,308 Enhancement II 918 Enhancement II - Low 1,830 Preservation BMP Elements Element Location Purpose/Function Notes BMP Elements BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Project Activity and Reporting History Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site DWR Project # 14-0704 USACE Project # SAW-2014-02129 Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan NA Aril 2015 Final Desi — Construction Plans Aril 2015 Aril 2015 Construction Completed January 2016 January 2016 Site Planting Completed February 2016 February 2016 Baseline Monitoring Document Year 0 Monitoring — baseline Aril 2016 May 2016 Year 1 Monitoring August 2016 September 2016 Year 2 Monitoring Stream: June 2017 Vegetation: August 2017 September 2017 Year 3 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 6 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Table 3. Project Contacts Project Contacts Table Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site DWR Project # 14-0704 USACE Project # SAW-2014-02129 Designer WK Dickson and Co., Inc. 720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh, NC 27607 (919)782-0495 Frasier Mullen, PE Construction Contractor KBS Earthworks 5616 Coble Church Road Julian, NC 27283 (336) 362-0289 Planting Contractor H&J Forestry Matt Hitch Seeding Contractor KBS Earthworks 5616 Coble Church Road Julian, NC 27283 (336)362-0289 Seed Mix Sources Green Resource ursery Stock Suppliers Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery Bank/Bank SponsorNeu-Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Bank EBX Neuse I, LLC 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 (919)209-1061 Project Contact: Daniel Ingram (din,gram(&res.us ) Monitoring Performers Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27605 (919)209-1061 Project Manager: Ryan Medric (rmedric@res.us) Table 4. Project Information Project Information Project Name Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site County Johnston Project Area (acres) 31.63 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.607309°N-78.288312°W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Neuse USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020201 USGS Hydrologic Unit 12-digit 030202011800 DWQ Sub -basin 03-04-06 Reach Al — 475 acres Reach A2 — 516 acres Reach A3 — 540 acres Project Drainage Area (acres) Reach B 1 — 10 acres Reach B2 — 20 acres Reach C — 21 acres o ". 102 VP.18 c ; Reach B2 Reach B1 V 0),M C VP 19 Enhancement I Enhancement II VP 14 N, .0 •• (5+34 - 11+22) (0+00 5+34) A- i vY y e A. ht fir i `p ', " v.; t�f • `' • - • ~. N . �•- .9, VP 20 VP 15 VP 16 VP 13 yr' ge w .:. •`°t? ;yA., Cro ss Sec ti 17 I Rain G. . ' � - °stye ` , • ` ';` t w Ny VP 3 :.3 ' «' �'�►, - � _ 'ram � •�• Cross Secti ,L VP 11 on S� t Cross c Sect' c JIM. , v ' Cross Section �3 VP 1 r' Reach C is• Enhancement 11 -of pd (0+17-4+01) IV +s VP 22 C7' U y rn to "ay.' - y, r "' , •� O y F VP 9 VP 7 Reach A2 Enhancement 1 (14+35 - 21+55) ores + s 0 50 100 Feet 1 inch = 100 feet Figure 2a. Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project MY2 2017 Reaches A, B, & C Current Conditions Plan View Map Date: 9/25/2017 Drawn by: BSH LEGEND O Conservation Easement Enhancement I Enhancement 11 — Enhancement 11 (Low) — Restoration — Stream Structures { Auto -Logging Crest Gauge * Crest Gauge Rain Gauge Cross Sections — Top of Bank Vegetation Plots Met MY2 Success Yes Riparian Buffer Conditions Target Community Present Marginal Absent d Absent W Fill a to Present N Common ---- 4L `r • ' Y V41 i i• i M a M - • 1.�. y _' ht .fin ♦< ` a • �. - '1,, r...l f ., f .. VP 22 Reach A3 '• + SPA1 k Damaged Ford Crossing VP 23 VP_ 9 �', o * ># V y� Reach A2 y P1 Restoration (22+46 - 26+33) Reach A2 Enhancement I VP 25 (14+35 - 21+55) VP t' p ♦tea , ♦ ' ,� " i` +� • `, .; :, '.A. ° �(l r K Enhancement II (Low) (26+33 - 45+46) . A fires N i ' 0 50 100 r Feet >. 1 inch = 100 feet Figure 2b. Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project MY2 2017 Reach A2 & A3 s Current Conditions Plan View Map Date: 9/25/2017 1 Drawn by: BSH LEGEND O Conservation Easement Enhancement I Enhancement 11 — Enhancement 11 (Low) — Restoration Cross Sections — Stream Structures — Top of Bank { Auto -Logging Crest Gauge * Crest Gauge Rain Gauge MY2 SPA Vegetation Plots Met MY2 Success Yes Riparian Buffer Conditions Target Community N Present Mar inal Absent d •u Absent No Fill a to i Present N R Common =__ �_ 4k*., -1, - - 9 _7 a�'" '�%. ' i •�i:tT1 � - \ �! ♦ L � 1. - t If � A f, to �, :, • �, �'ti`! ► A • �.'! '' F a.3�...z ♦ :� `W, • ` !• tf 1 `), ` +•rtw+�.,� t ' -' ; � Pi,*. y4 .�r� { �` •.t p ,yi ', .t AY. IL l � • � � � ♦ t }.1! 1. � `'t� r '.�� n� SPA1 Damaged Ford Crossin W, '. 1�� Reach A2 P1 Restoration (22+46 - 26+33) 19: YReach A3 Enhancement II (Low) (26+33 - 45+46) Reach A3 Enhancement II (Low) (26+33 - 45+46) \ P fires N W E T 0 50 100 Feet 1 inch = 100 feet Figure 2c. Buffalo Branch Stream Mitigation Project MY2 2017 Reach A2 & A3 Current Conditions Plan View Map Date: 9/25/2017 1 Drawn by: BSH LEGEND O Conservation Easement Enhancement I Enhancement 11 — Enhancement 11 (Low) — Restoration MY2 SPAs Cross Sections { Auto -Logging Crest Gauge * Crest Gauge 0* Rain Gauge — Stream Structures — Top of Bank Vegetation Plots Met MY2 Success Yes Riparian Buffer Conditions Target Community N Present Marginal Absent m 'U Absent No Fill a to i Present N R -- Common ____ Appendix B. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Baseline MY2 Cross Section Plots Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross -Section Data Table 7. Stream Problem Areas Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas Stream Photos Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos 203 202 201 c 0 0 200 w 199 198 0 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 1 - Pool Downstream 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) tBaseline t MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 50 202 201.5 201 200.5 c ° 200 ° w 199.5 199 198.5 198 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 2 - Riffle Downstream 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline +MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 50 Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 3 - Riffle 202 201.5 201 200.5 200 —000 c ° 199.5 199 w 198.5 198 197.5 197 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline +MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 4 - Pool 202 201.5 201 200.5 - Z 200 c ° 199.5 199 w 198.5 198 197.5 197 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 5 - Riffle 200 199.5 199 198.5 c ° 198 w 197.5 197 - 196.5 196 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline +MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 6 - Pool 201 200.5 200 199.5 199 c ° 198.5 198 w 197.5 197 196.5 196 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) tBaseline tMY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 200 199.5 199 198.5 c ° 198 m w 197.5 197 196.5 196 0 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al Cross Section 7 - Riffle Downstream 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach Al- Cross Section 8 - Pool 201 200 199 c ° 198 m w 197 196 195 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline —s— MY1 MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area w+y +4f� � y- 7w, �1,r,1 r �' � ! e�° � 1. ` ^F ' � ..Y r � �, ... ` �l�-� Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A2 Cross Section 10 - Run 197.5 197 196.5 c 196 0 195.5 w 195 194.5 194 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline t MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A2 Cross Section 11 - Run 197 196 195 c ° 194 > w 193 192 191 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline +MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach C Cross Section 12 - Run 208 207 206 c 205 0 > 204 w 203 202 201 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline —s— MY1 MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 205 204 203 c 0 m 202 w 201 200 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach C Cross Section 13 - Run 0 5 10 15 20 --*--Baseline —*-- MY1 25 30 Distance (ft) MY2 Approx. Bankfull Downstream 35 40 45 50 Floodprone Area 203 202 201 c 0 m 200 w 199 198 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach C Cross Section 14 - Riffle 0 5 10 15 20 --*--Baseline —*-- MY1 25 30 Distance (ft) MY2 Approx. Bankfull Downstream 35 40 45 50 Floodprone Area l jr y F '. F 208 207 206 c 205 0 204 w 203 202 201 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach B1 Cross Section 15 - Run Downstream 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline t MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 204.5 204 203.5 c 203 0 202.5 w 202 201.5 201 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach B1 Cross Section 16 - Pool Downstream 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline t MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 50 203 202 201 c 0 0 200 w 199 198 0 Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach B1 Cross Section 17 - Riffle 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) tBaseline -o--MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 50 202 201 200 c 0 0 199 w 198 197 0 Upstream �� A, 1� a +e s .', a t • i4wr.f•� y tv' & }: Buffalo Branch Reach B2 Cross Section 18 - Run Downstream 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline t MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach B2 Cross Section 19 - Run 201 200 199 c ° 198 ° w 197 196 195 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline +MY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area lTS E P 4� Pi �"��,' .` 4 �� .... 7 Wi Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A2 Cross Section 20 - Riffle 194.5 194 193.5 193 c 0 .� > 192.5 w 192 191.5 191 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline MY1 MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A2 Cross Section 21 - Pool 195 194 193 c 0 192 w 191 190 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 tMY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream 195 Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 22 - Riffle 194.5 194 193.5 193 c ° 192.5 ° w 192 191.5 191 190.5 190 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 --9--MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 23 - Pool 198 197 196 195 194 c ° 193 ° 192 w 191 190 189 188 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 -9 ---MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream 193 Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 24 - Riffle 192.5 192 191.5 191 c ° 190.5 ° w 190 189.5 189 188.5 188 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 -9 ---MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream 193 Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 25 - Pool 192.5 192 191.5 191 c ° 190.5 ° w 19017 189.5 189 188.5 188 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 -9 ---MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 26 - Riffle 191 190 189 c ° 188 ° w 187 186 185 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 --9--MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 191 190 189 c ° 188 w 187 186 185 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 27 - Pool Downstream 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 --9--MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 40 189 188 187 c ° 186 w 185 184 183 0 Upstream Buffalo Branch Reach A3- Cross Section 28 - Pool Downstream 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 --9--MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 40 Upstream Downstream Buffalo Branch Reach A3 Cross Section 29 - Riffle 189 188 187 c ° 186 ° w 185 184 183 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Distance (ft) --*--Baseline tMY1 -9 ---MY2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Appendix B. Table 5. Buffalo Branch Morphological Parameters Summary Data Drainage Area (mi`) NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)z NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3 Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs) ion BF Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2) BE Mean Depth (ft) BF Max Depth (ft) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio Substrate Reference Reach Existing' Design As -Built AI A2 A3 Bl B2 C Al A2 Al A2 Pool Riffle Rifflc Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle I Pool Riffle Pool Riffle I Pool Riffle I Pool 540 475 516 540 10 20 21 475 516 475 516 0.84 0.74 0.81 0.84 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.74 0.81 0.74 0.81 14.7 13.4 14.2 14.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 13.4 14.2 13.4 14.2 7.7 7.0 7.5 7.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5 17 --- --- I --- I --- I --- I --- 1 14 15 14 15 8.5 10.9 9.8 1 19.3 12.3 11.3 5.4 5.4 35.6 50 17 34 34 33 10 9 11.8 11.0 9.0 15.0 12.8 5.0 2.5 2.8 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 6.2 11.9 10.7 24.8 12.3 25.7 11.4 10.5 >2.2 >2.2 1.8 1.7 >2.2 >2.2 1.8 1.7 10.2 11.9 10.2 19.9 13.2 11.5 6.0 5.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 9.9 1 11.3 1 9.9 1 11.3 1 8.8 1 11.2 1 9.1 1 9.7 Channel Beltwidth (ft) . ... 41.2 I.....a 43.5 I I..I.. 42.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ... 31 .....a 53 I . ... 31 I.....a 53 I . ... 30 I.....a 54 I . ... 30 I.....a 55 Radius of Curvature ft 13.1 24.6 18.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- 14 25 14 25 16 26 15 27 Radius of Curvature Ratio 1.2 2.3 1.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.7 1.6 2.5 1.6 2.9 Meander Wavelength ft 49.5 64.9 50.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- 58 96 58 96 58 96 58 96 Meander Width Ratio 3.8 4.0 3.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.3 5.6 3.3 5.6 2.9 5.2 3.3 6.0 Profile Shallow Length(ft) 4.0 19.9 11.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 23 4 23 4 23 4 23 Run Length (ft) 7.8 23.0 13.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 36 7 36 7 36 7 36 Pool Length (ft) 6.9 21.6 17.1 5 24 5 24 5 24 5 24 Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft) 40.3 109.8 63.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- 28 99 28 99 28 99 28 99 Additional Reach Parameters Valley Length ft 285 1005 1002 1521 530 572 350 1012 325 1012 325 Channel Length (ft) 375 1033 1043 1830 534 588 360 1310 392 1357 387 Sinuosity 1.32 1.03 1.04 1.20 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.29 1.21 1.34 1.19 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0023 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ChannelSlope ft/ft 0.025 0.004 0.004 0.0025 0.0088 0.004 0.025 0.0026 0.0025 0.0026 0.0025 Roseen Classification E5 G4c G5c E5 G5c G5c G5c E5 E5 E5 E5 t Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data 2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003) s NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003) Appendix B. Table 6a. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Project Name/Number: Buffalo Branch SAW-2014-02129 Cross Section 1 (Pool) Cross Section 2 (Riffle) Cross Section 3 (Riffle) Cross Section 4 (Pool) Cross Section 5 (Riffle) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 200.3 200.3 200.3 199.9 199.9 199.9 199.4 199.4 199.4 199.4 199.4 199.4 198.4 198.4 198.4 Bankfull Width (ft) 11.9 9.9 8.4 10.4 9.8 8.5 9.6 9.2 8.9 9.4 9.8 8.9 8.6 8.1 8.3 Floodprone Width (ft) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.5 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft?) 11.0 10.7 9.5 7.5 6.7 5.8 9.0 8.2 7.6 11.3 10.2 9.9 7.8 6.9 7.0 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.9 9.2 7.5 14.5 14.3 12.4 10.3 10.2 10.5 7.7 9.4 7.9 9.5 9.6 9.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 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 1.0 1.0 Cross Section 6 (Pool) Cross Section 7 (Riffle) Cross Section 8 (Pool) Cross Section 9 (Run) Cross Section 10 (Run) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevationr Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY] MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 198.2 198.2 198.2 198.0 198.0 198.0 197.8 197.8 197.8 196.0 196.0 196.0 195.7 195.7 195.7 Bankfull Width (ft) 8.9 8.3 8.4 12.7 9.6 9.4 11.3 10.1 9.1 9.3 10.3 8.7 10.8 9.8 12.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 26.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Baukfall Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 Baukfall Max Depth (ft) 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L 10.7 9.5 9.4 10.8 8.9 8.8 11.8 10.5 9.4 6.2 6.6 6.9 9.5 8.3 8.3 Baukfall Width/Depth Ratio 7.4 7.4 7.6 14.8 10.5 10.0 10.9 9.7 8.8 13.9 16.0 11.0 12.3 11.6 18.0 Baukfall Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 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 Cross Section 11 (Run) Cross Section 12 (Run) ICross Section 13 (Run) Cross Section 14 (Run/Riffle) Cross Section 15 (Run) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 193.8 193.8 193.8 204.8 204.8 204.8 202.3 202.3 202.3 200.2 200.2 200.2 204.9 204.9 204.9 Bankfull Width (ft) 7.1 7.0 7.9 11.8 12.6 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1 13.0 13.1 12.1 14.3 14.5 14.1 Floodprone Width (ft) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.8 1.9 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft?) 12.1 9.9 9.5 20.3 18.5 19.1 11.9 9.5 10.2 11.2 10.8 10.2 17.8 15.7 16.5 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 4.2 5.0 6.5 6.9 8.6 7.8 12.2 15.5 14.4 15.1 15.9 14.4 11.5 13.4 12.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 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 Cross Section 16 (Pool) Cross Section 17 (Riffle) Cross Section 18 (Run) Cross Section 19 (Run) Cross Section 20 (Riffle) Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 202.2 202.2 202.2 200.5 200.5 200.5 199.0 199.0 199.0 198.1 198.1 198.1 192.8 192.8 192.8 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.5 12.6 11.7 14.0 11.8 11.5 10.3 10.5 10.0 12.2 10.9 11.0 9.2 9.1 8.7 Floodprone Width (ft) 34.3 34.3 34.3 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 42.2 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Baukfall Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 Baukfall Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 8.2 6.7 6.6 9.2 7.7 8.0 10.4 8.8 9.0 11.3 8.4 8.8 9.1 8.2 7.5 Baukfall Width/Depth Ratio 19.2 23.6 20.6 21.1 18.0 16.4 10.2 12.5 11.2 13.1 14.0 13.8 9.3 10.1 10.2 Baukfall Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 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 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary." Appendix B. Table 6b. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Project Name/Number: Buffalo Branch SAW-2014-02129 Cross Section 21 (Pool) Cross Section 22 (Riffle) Cross Section 23 (Pool) Cross Section 24 (Riffle) Cross Section 25 (Pool) Based on flxed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 192.4 192.4 192.4 192.1 192.1 192.1 192.0 192.0 192.0 190.1 190.1 190.1 190.2 190.2 190.2 Bankfull Width (ft) 8.4 8.2 7.0 10.7 9.9 9.8 10.4 10.4 11.3 8.2 8.7 8.5 9.1 9.7 9.1 Floodprone Width (ft) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 9.7 8.2 7.0 12.4 11.1 11.3 13.5 12.3 13.7 9.9 9.2 10.6 11.7 10.2 11.5 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 8.3 7.0 9.2 8.9 8.5 8.0 8.8 9.4 6.8 8.2 6.8 7.0 9.2 7.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 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 Cross Section 26 (Riffle) MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Cross Section 27 (Pool) MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Cross Section 28 (Pool) MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Cross Section 29 (Riffle) MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevations Base MY+ Base MY+ Base Base MY+ Record elevation (datum) used 187.7 187.7 187.7 187.8 187.8 187.8 185.8 185.8 185.8 185.7 185.7 185.7 Bankfull Width (ft) 7.9 8.2 7.8 10.8 10.1 9.9 8.7 8.6 8.7 9.6 9.6 9.3 Floodprone Width (ft) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 Baukfall Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L 10.4 9.2 10.9 14.4 13.5 13.7 13.4 12.2 13.8 13.2 11.9 12.7 Baukfall Width/Depth Ratio 5.9 7.3 5.6 8.1 7.6 7.2 5.6 6.0 5.5 6.9 7.8 6.8 Baukfall Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 1.0 1.0 1.01 1 1 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values. Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary." Table 7. Stream Problem Areas Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Feature Issue Reach/Station Suspected Cause Photo Number Damaged Ford Crossing Reach A2 @ 0+40 - 0+60 (out of easement) Hurricane Matthew SPA1 Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Feature Category Reach/Station Suspected Cause Photo Number No Vegetation Problem Areas Appendix B. Buffalo Branch Existing Conditions Photos Reach Al Looking Downstream (8/17/2017) Reach Al Looking Downstream (8/17/2017) Reach A2 Looking Downstream (8/17/2017) Reach Al Looking Upstream (8/17/2017) Reach Al Looking Upstream (6/8/2017) Reach A2 Looking Upstream (8/17/2017) Reach A2 Ford Crossing (8/17/2017) Reach B 1 Looking Upstream (6/8/2017) Reach B2 Looking Downstream (6/8/2017) Reach A2 Looking Downstream (6/5/2017) Reach B 1 Looking Downstream (6/8/2017) Reach B2 Looking Upstream (6/5/2017) jo- Reach A3 Looking Downstream (6/12/2017) Reach A3 Looking Upstream (6/12/2017) Appendix B - Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos Stream Problem Areas SPAT Damaged ford crossing on Reach A2 @ 0+40 0+60 (out of easement). Vegetation Problem Areas No vegetation problem areas. Appendix C. Vegetation Data Table 9. Planted Species Summary Table 10. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 11. Stem Count Total and Planted Species (Species by Plot) Vegetation Plot Photos Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 9. Planted Species Summary Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Total Stems Planted Betula nigra River Birch Bare Root 2,300 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Bare Root 1,000 Liriodendron tulipifera Tuliptree Bare Root 1,300 Nyssa sylvatica Swamp Blackgum Bare Root 2,400 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Bare Root 3,500 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Bare Root 2,000 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Bare Root 2,000 Quercus nigra Water Oak Bare Root 3,000 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Bare Root 3,000 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress Bare Root 3,300 Total 23,800 Salix nigra Black Willow Live Stake 2,500 Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Live Stake 1,500 Total 4,000 Table 10. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Plot # Stream/ Buffer Stems Volunteers Total Success Criteria Met? Average Tree Height (cm)* 1 526 0 526 Yes 66 2 971 283 1255 F Yes 3 890 121 1012 Yes 120 4 688 0 688 Yes 161 5 728 0 728 Yes 105 6 769 81 850 Yes 155 7 647 0 647 Yes 86 8 769 0 769 Yes 125 9 769 202 971 Yes 114 10 769 81 850 Yes 88 11 728 364 1093 Yes 200 12 890 162 1052 Yes 86 13 809 0 809 Yes 161 14 809 3278 4087 Yes 220 15 971 40 1012 Yes 74 16 890 202 1093 Yes 103 17 607 40 647 Yes 132 18 769 324 1093 Yes 138 19 769 40 809 Yes 140 20 567 0 567 Yes 108 21 971 243 1214 Yes 132 22 971 0 971 Yes 182 23 567 162 728 Yes 125 24 728 3116 3845 Yes 126 25 809 1781 2590 Yes 98 Project Avg 775 421 1196 Yes 128 *Average tree height based on tallest eight trees (number need to reach 320 stems/acre). Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 11: Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Project Name: Buffalo Branch Current Plot Data (MY2 2017) Annual Means Species 070402-01-0001 070402-01-0002 070402-01-0003 070402-01-0004 070402-01-0005 070402-01-0006 070402-01-0007 070402-01-0008 070402-01-0009 070402-01-0010 070402-01-0011 070402-01-0012 070402-01-0013 MY2 (2017) MY1 (2016) MYO (2016) Scientific Name Common Name Type 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-a0 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 PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 3 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 7 2 13 Betula a river birch Tree 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2 9 9 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 52 52 54 53 53 53 62 62 62 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 6 6 38 38 39 37 37 37 33 33 33 L' uidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 3 1 154 3 Liriodendron Wlipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 6 6 6 10 10 10 15 15 15 17 17 17 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 1 1 Nyssa s lvatica blackgum Tree 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 7 7 7 4 4 4 54 54 54 60 601 601 70 70 70 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 2 2 91 4 77 2 Platanus occidentalis Americansycamore Tree 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 69 69 69 73 73 7 Quercus oak Tree 4 4 Quercus ata overcu oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 60 65 61 61 6 Quercus michauxii swam chestnut oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 7 7 2 2 2 43 43 43 50 50 5 Quercus a water oak Tree 2 2 2 5 5 Quercus hellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 11 11 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 96 96 98 108 108 10 Rhus co allinum flameleaf sumac shrub 1 3 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 55 55 55 60 60 6 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 13 13 13 24 24 31 22 22 25 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 21 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 24 19 19 21 18 18 27 22 22 26 20 20 20 479 479 739 528 528 53 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.62 0.62 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 10 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 6 5 5 6 4 4 5 7 7 8 6 6 6 10 10 15 13 13 1 526 526 971 971 1255 890 890 1012 688 688 688 72 728 728 769 850 7 647 647 769 769 769 769 769 971 769 769 850 728 728 1093 890 1052 809 809 809 775 775 1196 855 8551961 Current Plot Data (MY2 2017) Annual Means Species 070402-01-0014 070402-01-0015 070402-01-0016 070402-01-0017 070402-01-0018 1070402-01-0019 070402-01-0020 070402-01-0021 070402-01-0022 070402-01-0023 070402-01-0024 070402-01-0025 MY2 (2017) MY1(2016) MYO (2016) Scientific Name Common Name Type 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 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 PnoLS P-all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3 3 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 4 13 Betula nigra river birch Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 7 7 7 52 52 54 53 53 53 62 62 62 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 9 6 6 6 1 1 1 4 4 4 38 38 39 37 37 37 33 33 33 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 1 1 721 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 38 154 3 Liriodendron tulipifera taliptree Tree 3 3 3 10 10 10 15 15 15 17 17 17 Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree I 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 1 4 4 9 9 9 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 54 54 54 60 60 60 70 70 70 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 6 1 5 7 1 4 1 1 32 5 77 2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 7 7 7 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 69 69 69 73 73 73 95 95 95 Quercus oak Tree 1 4 4 4 13 13 13 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 5 5 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 60 60 65 61 61 61 40 40 40 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 43 43 43 50 50 50 51 51 51 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 16 16 16 Quercus pheHos willow oak Tree 3 3 3 11 11 11 3 3 3 1 1 1 7 7 8 9 9 9 1 1 1 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 96 96 98 108 108 108 93 93 93 Rhus co allinum Iflameleafsumac shrub 1 1 3 Taxodium distichum lbald cypress Tree 8 8 8 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 55 55 55 60 60 66 66 66 Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 ;60 9 9 9 Stem count size (ares) 20 20 101 24 24 25 22 22 27 15 15 16 19 19 27 19 19 20 14 14 14 24 24 30 24 24 24 14 14 18 18 18 95 20 20 64 479 479739 528 528 5 565 565 565 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 25 25 size (ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.62 1 0.62 0.62 Species count Stems per ACRE 5 51 71 41 41 5 7 7 81-41 41 41 6 6 7 5 5 51 51 51 51 51 51 6�9755 5 5 6 7 7 11 5 5 8 10 10 15 13 13 15 12 12 12 809 809 4087 971 1012890 890 1093 607 607 647 769 1093 769 809 567 567 567 971 971 1214 567 728 728 3945 809 809 2500 775 775 1196 855 863 915 915 915 Buffalo Branch Monitoring Year 2 Vegetation Plot Photos Vegetation Plot 1 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 3 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 5 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 2 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 4 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 6 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 7 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 9 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 11 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 8 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 10 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 12 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 13 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 15 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 17 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 14 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 16 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 18 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 19 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 21 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 23 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 20 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 22 (8/16/2017) Vegetation Plot 24 (8/17/2017) Vegetation Plot 25 (8/17/2017) Appendix D. Hydrology Data Table 12.2017 Crest Gauge Data Table 13. 2017 Rainfall Summary Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data Bankfull Event Documentation — Crest Gauge Reading Photos Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events Crest Gauge Number of Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft.) Crest Gauge 1 6 3.10 Crest Gauge 2 3 2.34 Crest Gauge 3 3 1.85 Table 13.2017 Rainfall Summary Month Average Normal Limits Johnston County Airport Station Precipitation On -Site Auto Rain Gauge 30 Percent 70 Percent January 4.24 3.18 4.95 2.00 4.85 February 3.66 2.46 4.37 0.56 0.84 March 4.57 3.38 5.36 2.68 2.62 April 3.24 1.93 3.93 5.93 5.10 May 4.16 2.83 4.97 3.74 4.07 June 4.14 2.63 5.00 4.36 4.73 July 5.14 3.37 6.17 1.68 1.52 August 4.58 2.97 5.51 2.76 1.21 September 4.54 2.15 5.54 --- --- October 3.16 1.75 3.89 --- --- November 2.95 1.81 3.57 --- --- December 3.05 1.96 3.67 --- --- Total 47.43 30.42 56.93 23.71 24.94 *August data is through August 17, 2017. Chart 1. 2017 Precipitation Data for Buffalo Branch Site 2017 Precipitation Data for Buffalo Branch Site 10 9 8 7 6 a) 5 O 4 Q------- 3 a - ' 2 --------- -. 1 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D Months �KJNX JOCO Airport Daily Rainfall Growing Season 0 On -Site Auto Rain Gauge —0 KJNX JOCO Airport Monthly Rainfall Appendix D. Buffalo Branch Crest Gauge Reading Photos Crest Gauge 1 Reading (Reach Al — 3.1 ft; 10/8/16) Crest Gauge 3 Reading (Reach C — 1.85 ft; 10/8/2016) Crest Gauge 2 Reading (Reach B2 — 2.34 ft; 10/8/16)