20140704 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20200930

ID#* 20140704 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/01/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/30/2020
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:*
Katie Webber
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140704
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DIMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Buffalo Branch
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Buffalo Branch_ Monitoring Report_MY5_2020.pdf 11.6MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Kathleen Webber
Signature:*

BUFFALO BRANCH MITIGATION SITE
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
USACE PROJECT # SAW-2014-02129
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared For:
EBX-Neuse I, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
Prepared by:
pres
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
September 2020

pres
September 28, 2020
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Buffalo Branch Year 5 Monitoring Report (SAW — 2014 — 02129)
Ms. Dailey,
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Please find attached the Buffalo Branch Year 5 Monitoring Report. All vegetation plots met
success in Year 5. Beaver dams noted in Year 4 were removed in early 2020 and pine thinning
activities were performed throughout 2020. Additionally, a small area of invasive species was
treated along Reach B1.
RES is requesting a 5% (190.6 SMUs) credit release.
On December 19, 2019, the IRT provided comments on the Buffalo Branch Year 4 Monitoring
Report. Please find those comments below with RES' responses in blue.
1. The purpose for visiting Buffalo Branch was based on wanting to see the tributaries (Reach C
and B1), inspect the status of the vegetation and stream channel.
2. We visited Reach C first. There was good flow, however; from mid reach and above most
channel characteristics were lost. DWR recommended that the flow gauge be moved to an area
around cross section 13.
RES added a flow gauge to this location in June 2020. From June to September 2020, 78
consecutive days of flow were recorded.
3. Then proceeded to the confluence of Al and B1 where beaver dams were present. The
presence of beaver where noted on much of the E1 on reach B2, in addition, some presence of
beaver on Al.
RES had these beaver dams removed in early 2020. There was no current beaver activity
reported on site in September.
4. The below the beaver impacted reaches reach A2 looked good.
5. There is a significant amount of pine on all the aforementioned reaches. There needs to be
significant thinning of pine on these reaches.
RES made multiple trips to the site in 2020 to thin pine stands as requested. The pine trees are
not negatively affecting the planted vegetation however RES will continue as needed throughout
the remainder of the monitoring period.
res.us

0
6. The crossing looked stable; however, we did notice the gates were open. DWR prefers that
the gates be closed when cattle are not crossing.
Noted.
7. We did walk a portion of Reach A3, the Ell reach. This reach looked good except for two
issues:
a. We did note a few cow pies in the easement, that is something RES needs to check,
b. The landowner has been dumping dead cows in the easement. This needs to stop
immediately.
RES communicated to the landowner that dumping cows in the easement was inappropriate.
During vegetation monitoring in September 2020, the entire fence line was walked, and no
fence damage was reported.
8. We ended our visit by checking upper reach 131. DWR requested a flow gauge be placed just
below cross section 16. This reach also looks risky for flow and the maintenance channel
features.
RES added a flow gauge to this reach in June 2020. From June to September 2020, 3!
consecutive days of flow were recorded.
9. DWR recommends that the credit be released for this site with the expectation that the
above -mentioned items are addressed by during the next monitoring season.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist

Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC- September 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 1
1.1 Location and Setting...............................................................................................................
I
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 5 (MY5)...................................................................................................
8
5.1 Monitoring Year 5 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
i

Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC- September 2020
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
Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross -Section Data
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Current Conditions Photos
Stream and 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 D. Hydrology Data
Table 12. Crest Gauge Data
Table 13. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Chart 1. Stream Flow Hydrographs
Bankfull Event Documentation — Crest Gauge Reading Photos
11

Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 tme 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
Built
Base
Mitigation
Buffer
Adjusted
Reach
Mitigation Type
Stationing
Length
I(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
B 1
Enhancement II
0+00 to 5+34
534
534
214
1:2.5
16%
248
B2
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 IL 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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 (Comus
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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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, v42) 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, 4, 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.

Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 31st 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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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, v42). 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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
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 be submitted for remediation.
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.
5 MONITORING YEAR 5 (MY5)
The Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Year 5 monitoring activities were completed in September 2020.
All Year 5 monitoring data is presented below and in the appendices. Data collected shows the stream
has remained stable throughout Year 5 and the vegetation is exceeding the interim success criteria. RES
removed one large beaver dam and a couple smaller remnant dams in early 2020 as well as thinned
areas of pine trees.
5.1 Monitoring Year 5 Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
All morphological stream data for the Monitoring Year 5 dimensions were collected in the monitoring
survey performed during June 2020. Appendix B includes summary data tables, morphological
parameters, and stream photographs.
Profile
The baseline profile 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 5 cross -sectional dimensions closely match the baseline cross section parameters.
All cross-section plots and data tables can be found in Appendix B.
Sediment Transport
The Monitoring Year 5 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 in Year 5, they remain classified as sand bed channels. 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 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
5.1.2 Vegetation
Monitoring Year 5 vegetation data collection was performed in September 2020. All 25 vegetation
monitoring plots are meeting the interim success criteria of 260 stems per acre. The Project's average
Monitoring Year 5 planted stems per acre count is 670 (Table 9). The number of planted stems per acre
for the monitoring plots range from 364 stems to 931 stems. Table 10 provides a more detailed
summary of stem counts and the type of planted species within each vegetation monitoring plot. The
average stems per vegetation plot was 17 planted stems. The average stem height was 11.4 feet. The
majority of the site has undergone pine thinning activities throughout 2020. The pine trees are not
negatively affecting any planted hardwood trees however the IRT requested pine thinning to take place
on site. RES will continue to monitor pine tree growth and will thin as necessary throughout the
remainder of the monitoring period. Additionally, a small area of Chinese privet was treated along
Reach B 1 in July 2020.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations are established at each cross section, vegetation plots, stream crossing,
and stream structures by RES staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will also be
document with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream photographs are in Appendix
B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Hydrology
The site recorded bankfull events on two of the three stream reaches during Year 5 monitoring. Reach
A recorded three events and Reach C recorded one event. The highest reading on Reach A was 0.87
foot and Reach C was 0.5 foot.
In June 2020, RES moved the auto logging crest gauges upstream on Reach B and Reach C to record
flow days as requested by DWR during the MY4 site visit. RES left the manual crest gauges in their
place to continue detecting bankfull events with cork. The locations of the gauges can be found in
Appendix B. Between June 23 and September 8, Reach B recorded 35 consecutive days of flow and
Reach C recorded 78 consecutive days of flow. Both flow gauges are located in runs, so a downstream
riffle crest was not used as a reference to detect flow. Instead, the presence of water at the gauge was
recorded as channel flow. Complete crest, flow, and rainfall data is reported in Appendix D.

Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 5 Monitoring Report- Johnston County, NC September 2020
6 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, Manuals and
Reports on Engineering Practice No. 54, Vito A. Vanom, 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 Monitoring
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. hM2://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

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 an 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 A1
0+78 to 14+35
1,033
PII
R
1,357
1 : 1.0
1,628
ReachA2
14+35 to 21+55
720
El
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
Ell - Low
RE
1,830
1 : 5.0
366
Reach B1
0+00 to 5+34
534
Ell
RE
534
1 : 2.5
248
Reach B2
5+34 to 11+22
588
El
RE
588
1 : 1.5
416
Reach C
0+17 to 4+01
360
Ell
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
11308
Enhancement 11
918
Enhancement11 - 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
Data Collection
Completion or
Activity or Report
Complete
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
Aril 2015
Final Design — 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
September 2017
Vegetation: August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream: July 2018
September 2018
Vegetation: July 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation: Sept 2019
September 2019
Stream: June
Year 5 Monitoring
Vegetation: Sept 2020
September 2020
Year 6 Monitorin
Year 7 Monitorin

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
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthworks
5616 Coble Church Road
Julian, NC 27283
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
KBS Earthworks
5616 Coble Church Road
Julian, NC 2728
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbo en NC Forestry Services Nursery
Bank/Bank SponsorNeu-Con
Wetland and Stream Umbrella Bank
EBX Neuse I, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
Project Contact:
Brad Breslow (bbreslowAres.us)
Monitoring Performers
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
Project Manager:[Ryan
Medric ([e-mail])
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
Proiect Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 12-di it
030202011800
DWQ Sub -basin
03-04-06
Reach Al — 475 acres
Reach A2 — 516 acres
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Reach A3 — 540 acres
Reach B 1— 10 acres
Reach B2 — 20 acres
Reach C — 21 acres

E
"Q
Gig�P
1
O
rJ
h�
¢a
P1.
s�
a
T
pRa
Oltl Araare Rd
Lltlle Divrne Ra
03020201180050
t4orm T•
s
e'`
U A
o
errs rm Dr
.. .i �ifte f7wen� Ry
r ca-w o r
v
c
pa�0
`� Pa
4I oe
n
a
c
rnl. t "N m, krl
*,c kvore
Phrlllps Rd
�Qr
Legend
c;
QHUC Boundary `y
Buffalo Branch Streams
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,
Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User,C,pmmunity
FIGURE 1. Date: siaizois
wE PROJECT VICINIITY MAP
s Drawn by: BPB re%so
�,000 z,000
BUFFALO BRANCH MITIGATION SITE
Feet JOHNSTON COUNY, NORTH CAROLINA

fires
Pr''�'• .}!„� a. .�s-.- .1,; .. :;.€ ;!`., -&- - .:. -r. -:ram ty . • •,��.r �v
0 100 200
., •. __; K � _ Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
1.
ti Figure 2.
1 `
I-
FBuffalo Branch Stream
k Reach A3 Mitigation Project
;- Current Conditions
Plan View
MY5 2020
Reach B1
Date: 9/25/2020 Drawn b RTM
a1.7 .._._ _. - �; Lat:35.604523 Long:-78.290021
18�`" LEGEND
r14 -9 O Conservation Easement
ks, Vegetation Plots
Cross Sections
z3 — Stream Structures
20
z — Enhancement I
15 z
Enhancement 11
16
1 �� tom.. �.
�; � ,�� µ � —Enhancement II (Low)
13 = — Restoration
a
wRG ®^9 2�1s 25 I —Top of Bank
o CG®Crest Gauge
CG-1 2s • Flow Gauge
CG-3 "� N' Reach A2 y @ Rain Gauge
i
.•t' \~: .. h a 14 -01 0 2
Reach Al y
Reach C o F 10
13
r.;
Reach A2
t
� 8A.
5�� ,a Vegetation Condition Assessment
12
- Target C mmu
�.
nity
w Present Marginal Absent
_. _ AbsentNo Fill
�� •..
sY. �,..+�"" r ,',� ".'.. ;� _�<•. ' •N Present
Source: 2017 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
..P-�

Appendix B.
Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Appendix B.
Table 5. Buffalo Branch Morphological Parameters Summary- Data
Drainage Area (ac)
Drainage Area (mi)
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)2
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3
Reference Reach
Existing'
Design
As -Built
Al
A2
A3
Bl
B2
C
Al
A2
Al
A2
Pool Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle Pool
Riffle I Pool
Riffle I Pool
Riffle 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 ---
1 14
15
14
15
Floodprone Width (ft)
35.6
50
17
34
34
33
10
9
>50
>50
1 >50
>50
1 >50
>50
1 >50
>50
BF Cross Sectional Area (f£)
11.8
11.0
9.0
15.0
12.8
5.0
2.5
2.8
9.9
11.3
9.9
11.3
8.8
11.2
9.1
9.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
11.9
10.7
24.8
12.3
25.7
11.4
10.5
9.0
7.3
9.0
7.3
12.3
9.7
9.3
7.3
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
1.8
1.7
>2.2
>2.2
1.8
1.7
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
10.2
11.9
10.2
19.9
13.2
11.5
6.0
5.7
10.2
10.1
10.2
10.1
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 1.2
1 0.9
1 0.9
1 0.8
1.0
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.5
1 1.0
1.1
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1 1.0
Substrate
Sand Gravel/Sand Gravel/Saud Sand Sand Sand Sand Gravel/Sand Gravel/Sand Gravel/Sand Gravel/Sand
Pattern
Min
Max
Nled
---
---
---
---
---
---
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
41.2
43.5
42.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
31
53
31
53
30
54
30
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
---
---
---
---
---
---
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.025
0.004
0.004
0.0025
0.0088
0.004
0.025
0.0026
0.0025
0.0026
0.0025
Rosaen Classification
E5
G4c
G5c
E5
G5c
G5c
G5c
E5
E5
E5
E5
I Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 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
Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
rosg Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area*
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
200.3
200.3
200.3
200.5
200.4
199.9
199.9
199.9
200.1
200.2
199.4
199.4
199.4
199.6
199.6
199.4
199.4
199.4
199.5
199.6
198.4
198.4
198.4
198.5
198.8
Bankfull Width 11'
11.9
9.9
8.4
14.1
8.7
10.4
9.8
8.5
13.4
11.2
9.6
9.2
8.9
13.3
17.4
9.4
9.8
8.9
10.7
11.6
8.6
8.1
8.3
10.1
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.1
50.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.9
50.8
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.5
51.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
---
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
---
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
---
I
1 0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
200.5
-
-
-
-
200.1
-
-
-
-
199.4
-
-
-
-
199.2
-
-
-
-
198.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
11.0
10.7
9.5
11.0
11.9
7.5
6.7
5.8
7.5
6.7
9.0
8.2
7.6
9.0
6.8
11.3
10.2
9.9
11.3
8.0
7.8
6.9
7.0
7.8
4.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol
12.9
1 9.2
7.5
18.2
---
14.5
14.3
12.4
23.9
---
10.3
10.2
10.5
19.6
---
7.7
9.4
7.9
10.1
---
9.5
9.6
9.9
13.1
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
>2.2
1 >2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.8
>1.4
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.8
>1.5
>2.2
>2.2
1 >2.2
1 NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>5
1 >1.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
Cross Section 6 (Pool) A
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
ross Section 8 (Pool)
Cross Section 9 (Run)
oss Section 10 (Run)
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
198.2
198.2
198.2
198.3
198.4
198.0
198.0
198.0
198.1
198.2
197.8
197.8
197.8
197.8
197.9
196.0
196.0
196.0
195.9
195.7
195.7
195.7
195.7
195.8
195.8
Bankfull Width ft'
8.9
8.3
8.4
8.9
9.5
12.7
9.6
9.4
14.6
9.8
11.3
10.1
9.1
16.0
12.7
9.3
10.3
8.7
7.7
7.7
10.8
9.8
12.2
12.7
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.6
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.2
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
53.4
53.7
25.0
25.0
26.0
24.0
22.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
48.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
---
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
---
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
1 ---
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
2.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
198.5
-
-
-
198.1
-
-
-
-
197.8
-
-
-
-
196.6
-
-
-
-
195.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
10.7
9.5
9.4
10.7
10.9
10.8
8.9
8.8
10.8
9.7
11.8
10.5
9.4
11.8
10.6
6.2
6.6
6.9
6.2
15.2
9.5
8.3
8.3
9.5
8.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
---
14.8
10.5
10.0
19.7
---
10.9
9.7
8.8
21.8
---
13.9
16.0
11.0
9.7
---
12.3
11.6
18.0
17.1
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.4
>1.5
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA[Et
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
3.1
>2.1
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>4
>1.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Cross Section 11 (Run)
Wross Section 12 (Run)A
Cross Section 13 (Run)
Cross Section 14 (Run/Riffle)
Cross Section 15 (Run) dh
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area*
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
193.8
193.9
193.8
194.2
194.1
204.8
204.8
204.8
205.0
205.0
202.3
202.3
202.3
202.5
202.6
200.2
200.2
200.2
200.3
200.3
204.9
204.9
204.9
205.0
205.0
Bankfull Width ft'
7.1
7.0
7.9
15.6
8.8
11.8
12.6
12.2
12.7
12.5
12.1
12.1
12.1
13.8
13.7
13.0
13.1
12.1
13.7
13.0
14.3
14.5
14.1
14.9
17.1
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
42.0
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.8
---
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
---
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
---
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
---
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
---
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
194.0
-
-
-
-
205.0
-
-
-
-
202.6
-
-
-
-
200.2
-
-
-
-
204.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
12.1
9.9
9.5
12.1
10.9
20.3
18.5
19.1
20.3
20.0
11.9
9.5
10.2
11.9
12.4
11.2
10.8
10.2
11.2
9.1
17.8
15.7
16.5
17.8
14.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol
4.2
5.0
6.5
20.2
---
6.9
8.6
7.8
7.9
---
12.2
15.5
14.4
16.1
---
15.1
15.9
14.4
16.9
---
11.5
13.4
12.1
12.5
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.2
>2.0
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>4
>2.7
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.6
>1.7
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.1
>1.4
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.4
>1.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
oss Section 16 (Pool)
ross Section 17 (Riffle)
Cross Section 18 (Run)
Noss Section 19 (Run)
Cross Section 20 (Riffle)
NIL
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area*
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
202.2
202.2
202.2
202.4
202.3
200.5
200.5
200.5
200.6
200.6
199.0
199.0
199.0
199.1
199.1
198.1
198.1
198.1
198.1
198.2
192.8
192.8
192.8
193.0
193.1
Bankfull Width ft'
12.5
12.6
11.7
13.0
13.0
14.0
11.8
11.5
17.9
12.7
10.3
10.5
10.0
10.5
10.6
12.2
10.9
11.0
13.6
14.4
9.2
9.1
8.7
95
9.0
Floodprone Width ft '
34.3
34.3
34.3
34.2
35.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
45.7
49.3
50.0
42.2
50.0
45.3
48.2
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.1
50.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
50.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
---
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
---
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
---
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
---
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
202.2
-
-
-
-
200.7
-
-
-
-
199.0
-
-
-
-
198.1
-
-
-
-
192.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
8.2
6.7
6.6
8.2
6.7
9.2
7.7
8.0
9.2
9.7
10.4
8.8
9.0
10.4
9.1
11.3
8.4
8.8
11.3
10.3
9.1
8.2
7.5
9.1
7.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.2
23.6
20.6
20.6
---
21.1
18.0
16.4
34.6
---
10.2
12.5
11.2
10.6
---
13.1
14.0
13.8
16.3
---
9.3
10.1
10.2
9.9
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
1 >2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.6
>1.4
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>4.3
>1.4
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.7
>1.5
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>5.3
>1.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with' were calculated using the as -built
cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters
denoted with 2 were calculated using the current year low top of bank as the bankfull.

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)
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area"
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
192.4
192.4
192.4
192.7
192.7
192.1
192.1
192.1
192.1
192.1
192.0
192.0
192.0
192.0
192.0
190.1
190.1
190.1
190.1
190.0
190.2
190.2
190.2
190.2
190.3
Bankfull Width ft 1
8.4
8.2
7.0
16.0
9.4
10.7
9.9
9.8
13.1
17.8
10.4
10.4
11.3
13.6
10.2
8.2
8.7
8.5
10.6
7.3
9.1
9.7
9.1
9.0
9.2
Floodprone Width ft'
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.3
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.3
50.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.4
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.5
40.4
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.3
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
---
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
---
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
---
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.9
---
1 1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
192.6
-
-
-
-
192.3
-
-
-
-
191.9
-
-
-
-
190.2
-
-
-
-
190.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
9.7
8.2
7.0
9.7
8.6
12.4
11.1
11.3
12.4
13.3
13.5
12.3
13.7
13.5
12.5
9.9
9.2
10.6
9.9
11.5
11.7
10.2
11.5
11.7
12.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
8.3
7.0
26.5
---
9.2
8.9
8.5
13.8
---
8.0
8.8
9.4
13.7
---
6.8
8.2
6.8
11.3
---
7.0
9.2
7.2
6.9
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.8
>1.5
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>3.8
>2.1
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
Cross
Section
26
(Riffle)
MYl
Cross Section
MY2
27
MY3
(Pool)
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYl
Cross Section
MY2
28
MY3
(Pool)
MY5
MY7
MY+
Cross
MY
Section
MY2
29
MY3
(Riffle)
MY5
MY7
MY+
MY3 based on fixed baseline bankfull cross sectional area'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
Base
Base
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA1
187.7
187.7
187.7
187.7
187.5
187.8
187.8
187.8
187.9
187.7
185.8
185.8
185.8
185.8
185.7
185.7
185.7
185.7
185.7
185.7
Bankfull Width ft 1
7.9
8.2
7.8
7.6
6.9
10.8
10.1
9.9
20.5
9.6
8.7
8.6
8.7
8.3
8.2
9.6
9.6
9.3
9.3
8.7
Floodprone Width ft'
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.1
40.0
1
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.2
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
40.2
40.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.7
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.7
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.5
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
-
-
188.1
-
-
-
-
187.9
-
-
-
-
186.0
-
-
-
-
185.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
10.4
9.2
10.9
10.4
15.9
14.4
13.5
13.7
14.4
16.2
13.4
12.2
13.8
13.4
15.9
13.2
11.9
12.7
13.2
13.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.9
7.3
5.6
5.6
---
8.1
7.6
7.2
29.3
---
5.6
6.0
5.5
5.1
---
6.9
7.8
6.8
6.6
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>5.2
>2.7
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
NA
NA
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>4.3
>2.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with' were calculated
using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the
bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated
using the ucrrent year low top of bank as the bankfull.
Low Bank Elevation
Low Bank Elevation

Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site
Feature Issue
Reach/Station
Suspected Cause
Status
Photo
Beaver Dams
Reach A
Beavers
Resolved
N/A
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Buffalo Branch Mitigation Site
Feature Category
Reach/Station
Suspected Cause
Status
Photo
Chinese Privet
Reach B 1
Natural
Regeneration
Resolved
N/A
Pines
Throughout Site
Natural
Regeneration
In progress
N/A

Appendix B.
Buffalo Branch Current Conditions Photos
Reach A 1
Reach B 1
Reach C Reach A2

Appendix C.
Vegetation Data

Table 9. Planted Species Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Total
Stems
Planted
Betula ni ra
River Birch
Bare Root
2,300
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Bare Root
1,000
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuli tree
Bare Root
1,300
N ssa s lvatica
Blackgum
Bare Root
2,400
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Bare Root
3,500
uercus l rata
Overcup Oak
Bare Root
2,000
Quercus michauxii
Swainp Chestnut
Oak
Bare Root
2,000
uercus ni ra
Water Oak
Bare Root
3,000
uercus Phellos
Willow Oak
Bare Root
3,000
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
Bare Root
3,300
Total
23,800
Salix ni ra
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 #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted Stem
Height (ft)
1
405
405
809
Yes
5.8
2
931
0
931
Yes
15.8
3
809
324
1133
Yes
12.1
4
364
40
405
Yes
22.9
5
526
81
607
Yes
9.7
6
647
526
1174
Yes
21.5
7
486
202
688
Yes
7.3
8
567
202
769
Yes
10.6
9
647
1093
1740
Yes
10.7
10
567
0
567
Yes
7.2
11
688
283
971
Yes
17.7
12
728
243
971
Yes
7.4
13
809
81
890
Yes
13.4
14
850
2590
3440
Yes
15.3
15
931
526
1457
Yes
3.0
16
769
1416
2185
Yes
8.1
17
647
1497
2145
Yes
11.9
18
728
809
1538
Yes
11.8
19
607
243
850
Yes
13.6
20
526
283
809
Yes
8.8
21
890
1052
1942
Yes
11.7
22
890
0
890
Yes
7.1
23
567
202
769
Yes
10.1
24
647
6070
6718
Yes
14.5
25
526
3076
3602
Yes
8.7
Project Avg
670
850
1520
Yes
11.4

Table 11: Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Current Plot ...
�•� ���
1 1 1 1 111
1 M1 111
1 1 1 ITI
1 1 1 1 111
1 1 1 1 111.
1 M1 ,70"
1 M1 11
1 1 1 11
1 1 1 1 11
WITIM17TIM,1
1 1 1 11
�•� ��
�•� �0 M.
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
Liquidambarstyraciflua
OR
Stem count
size (ares)
000000
0000000000
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Current Plot Data (MY52020)
Annual Means
070402-01-0017
070402-01-0018
070402-01-0019
070402-01-0020
070402-01-0021
070402-01-0022
070402-01-0023
070402-01-0024
070402-01-0025
MY5(2020)
MY4(2019)
MY3(2018)
MY2 (2017)
MYl(2016)
MYO(2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Pno
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
6
4
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
16
16
0etula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
4 4
4
7 7
7
54
54
56
52
52
58
52
52
57
52
52
55
53
53
53
62
62
62
Carya
hickoryTree
2
Cephalanthus occidentali
common buttonbus
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
Crataegus
hawthorn
Tree
3
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
5
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
9 9
9
6
6
6
1 1
1
4
4
4
37
37
37
39
39
41
38
38
40
38
38
40
37
37
37
33
33
33
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
85
65
187
6
90
158
3
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
10
10
10
9
9
11
9
9
13
10
10
10
15
15
15
17
17
17
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
11
1
1
1 1
1
5 5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
1
1
11
21 2
2
39
39
39
44
44
44
53
53
55
54
54
54
60
60
60
70
70
70
Pinus
pine
Tree
25
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
37
19
6
7
26
5
65
11
3261
111
218
88
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2 2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3 3
3
1
1
1
62
62
62
64
64
641
65
65
67
69
69
69
73
73
73
95
95
95
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
3
3
4
14
Quercus
oak
Tree
4
4
4
13
13
13
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
3 3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1 1
1
3
3
3
41
41
41
45
45
47
45
45
47
60
60
68
61
61
61
40
40
40
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1 9
9
91
7
7
7
31
31
32
32
32
34
40
40
401
43
43
43
50
50
50
511
51
51
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
I
1
1
5
5
5
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
7
7
7
9 9
9
2 2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
87
87
87
84
84
84
89
89
89
96
96
100
108
108
108
93
93
93
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
4
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
11
6
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
U22
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
4 4
4
1
1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
3 3
349
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
54
55
55�768
60
60
60
66
66
66Unknown
Shrub orTree
2
1
1
1
9
9
9Stem
count
16
16
53
18
18
38
15
15
21
13
13
20
22
22
48
22
22
22
14
14
19
16
16
166
414
414
939
421
421
597
443
443
827
479
479
528
528
533
565
565
565
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
Speciescount
4 4
5
7 7
91
4 41
51
51
51
61
51
51
51
41
41
51
51 51
7
4
4
6
11
11
16
10 10
19
9 9
17
10 10
15
13
13
15
12 12
12
Stems perACRE
647
2145
72 728
1538
607
850
526
809
890
890
1942
890
890
890
567
567
769
647
6718
526
526
3602
670
1520
681
966
717
1339
775
1243
85
855
863
915
915

Buffalo Branch Monitoring Year 5 Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 3 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 5 (9/9/2020)
- Wel.
A6 .
d
I..
Vegetation Plot 2 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 4 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 6 (9/9/2020)

Vegetation Plot 7 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 9 (9/9/2020)
E i -4�
rye' �y l
1 �
F r �t�
AM
Vegetation Plot 8 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 10 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 11 (9/9/2020) Vegetation Plot 12 (9/9/2020)

r q
-fr 7
4,
r
Vegetation Plot 13 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 15 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 17 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 14 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 16 (9/9/2020)
Vegetation Plot 18 (9/9/2020)

i
I
t

Vegetation Plot 25 (9/9/2020)

Appendix D.
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Number of
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
Estimated Date of Highes t Event
Crest Gauge 1 (Reach A1)
MYl 2016
3
0.70
8/10/2016
MY2 2017
6
3.10
10/8/2016
MY3 2018
4
0.90
4/16/2018
MY4 2019
1
0.75
4/13/2019
MY5 2020
3
0.87
8/15/2020
Crest Gauge 2 (Reach B2)
MYl 2016
0
N/A
N/A
MY2 2017
3
2.34
10/8/2016
MY3 2018
3
0.30
4/16/2018
MY4 2019
1
0.30
4/13/2019
MY5 2020
0
N/A
N/A
Crest Gauge 3 (Reach C)
MYl 2016
0
N/A
N/A
MY2 2017
3
1.85
10/8/2016
MY3 2018
0
N/A
N/A
MY4 2019
0
N/A
N/A
MY5 2020
1
0.50
8/15/2020
Crest Gauge
Number of
Flow Ewnts
Maximum Consecutive Flow Days
Total Flow Days
Crest Gauge 2 (Reach B1)
MY5 2020
1 5
36
54
Crest Gauge 3 (Reach C)
MY5 2020
1 1
78
78
Table 13. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Johnston County
Airport Station
Precipitation
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.24
3.18
4.95
2.43
February
3.66
2.46
4.37
2.45
March
4.57
3.38
5.36
1.48
April
3.24
1.93
3.93
3.28
May
4.16
2.83
4.97
1.67
June
4.14
2.63
5.00
3.34
July
5.14
3.37
6.17
5.26
August
4.58
2.97
5.51
4.05
September
4.54
2.15
5.54
3.66
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
27.62

Chart 1. Stream Flow Hydrographs
MY5 Buffalo Branch Flow Gauge Reach B Stream Flow Hydrograph
15
12
11
35 days
10
10
I
I
• 9
5
$
Q
—
W
7
w
C
R-�TT
�
0
6
5
.5
4
3
-10
2
1
_16
6MQO
MW20 8123r20
Months
- Daly RVfall -ROWII S �6C0

MY5 Buffalo Branch Flow Gauge Reach C Stream Flow Hydrograph
15
12
78 days
1
11
10
10
9
=
5
8
C
Q
—
o
w
L
v
6
5
s
4
3
2
-10
1
1�
0
6C23120
7123I20 8I23120
Months
-RanWI -PoXhf -ben

Appendix D.
Buffalo Branch Crest Gauge Reading Photos
r
ffi;0
s _ �, i
IL
Mat +�•`
Reach C Reading
(0.5 ft; 8/15/2020)