20160981 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20201020

UZZLE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SAW-2016-01973
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
October 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1
Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 2
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 2
1.3
Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
StreamSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................... 3
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 4
1.4
Project Components.................................................................................................................. 4
1.5
Stream Design/Approach.......................................................................................................... 5
1.6
Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 6
1.7
Year 2 Monitoring Performance(MY2).................................................................................... 6
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 6
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 6
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 7
WetlandHydrology.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix A: Background Tables
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Table 1: Project Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorpholo2y Data
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross -Section Plots
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 12. 2020 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY2 Groundwater Hydrographs
Uzzle 1 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

1.0 Proiect Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site (the Site), a component of the Neu -Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately six miles southeast of
Clayton. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Site include livestock production, agricultural
production, and improper flow dynamics due to impervious surface runoff. The Site presents 5,897 linear
feet of stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,876 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Little
Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, TLW 03020201100040,
part of the Neuse Regional Watershed Planning (RWP) area, and the Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local
Watershed Plan (WJCLWP). As part of the RWP and WJCLWP, the Site is located in a sub -watershed
identified as High Priority for stream corridor restoration due to current surrounding land use, hydrologic
impairment due to stormwater runoff, and projected impact from highway development.
Originally, consisting of pasture land and wooded areas, the Site's total easement area is 27.3 acres within
the overall drainage area of 1,312 acres. Grazing livestock historically had access to all stream reaches
within the Site and the lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Site. Prior to restoration work,
erosion and aggradation were especially prominent at the upstream end of the Site where Little Poplar Creek
enters via a culvert under HWY US-70.
The stream design approach for the Site was to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The
analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously
in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
are similar between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical
methods to identify the design discharge.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring
period, or until performance standards are met. 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 ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
This site is co -located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian restoration and
enhancement areas where buffer or nutrient offset credits are generated will begin at the most landward
limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams,
then again 151-200 feet from the top of bank. There will be no overlapping buffer crediting areas with
stream crediting areas between 51-150 feet from the top of bank.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Site's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Site. These goals
Uzzle 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

address the excess nutrient input, streambank erosion, and sedimentation that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP.
The Site goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner in a stable
channel;
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reach and downstream water sources by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on -site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the active floodplain; and
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and
aquatic habitat, and restoring a native plant community.
The Site objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile
based on reference reach conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Maintain and improve forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel
along all reaches with a coastal plain hardwood riparian community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Site.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our Site boundaries. While
we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals within the
Site parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact in other
areas within the watershed. However, through this Site's connectivity with other projects in the watershed
and responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and health will
improve to meet the RBRP goals.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream and wetland hydrology data and visual monitoring
will be reported annually.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
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. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
Uzzle 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should
be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring
period.
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.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Site will follow
IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area and there will be a minimum of four plots. Vegetation monitoring will
occur between July 1st and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the
survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees
at the end of Year 5 that are at least 7 feet tall, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees
per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Height measurement success criteria do
not apply to the understory trees or shrubs. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and
included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total
planted stems. Additionally, no species may account for over 50 percent of total stems at a given plot.
1.4 Project Components
The Site is comprised of two easement sections, separated by a newly built ford crossing along Little Poplar
Creek. The stream reaches include Little Poplar Creek (LP1, LP2, LP4, LP5, and LP7) and two unnamed
tributaries (LP3 and LP6), split into seven reaches by treatment type and location. The stream mitigation
components are summarized below. Mitigation credits presented below are based upon the Approved
Mitigation Plan. The Project is co -located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian
enhancement areas where buffer credits are generated begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank
and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams and from 151 — 200 feet.
The buffer from 50 — 150 feet is used to generate credit using the non-standard buffer credit calculation.
Therefore, there is no overlap of buffer crediting areas and stream crediting areas.
Uzzle 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Mitigation Plan Credits
Pre- Design
Mitigation
Stationing
Mitigation
Base
Reach
Construction Length
Type
(Design)
Ratio
SMUs
Length (LF) (LF)
LPl
Restoration
1+24
to
07+53
766 629
1:1
629
LP2
Enhancement II
07+53
to
23+72
1,619 1,619
1 : 2.5
648
LP3
Enhancement II
0+50
to
1+92
142 142
1 : 2.5
57
LP4
Enhancement II
23+72
to
29+31
559 559
1 : 2.5
223
LP5
Enhancement II
29+31
to
36+45
714 714
1 : 2.5
286
LP5
Enhancement II
37+06
to
52+50
1,544 1,544
1 : 2.5
618
LP6
Enhancement II
0+22
to
4+00
378 378
1 : 2.5
151
LP7
Enhancement II
52+50
to
55+62
312 312
1 : 2.5
125
Totals
6,034 5,897
2,736
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-150
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
289
Total Adjusted SMUs
2,876
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-standard Buffer Widths",
published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description
of the methodology and calculations is described in the Mitigation Plan.
1.5 .S'tream Design/Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site 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. For Reach LP1, natural
design concepts were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The
objective of this approach is to build a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements
and ties into the existing landscape.
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site has been broken into the following reaches:
Reach LP1 (Priority I Restoration)
Reach beginning downstream of US HWY 70 at the northern project limits flowing south to Reach LP2.
Wooded active pasture was located adjacent to the reach. Priority I Restoration was performed along Reach
LP1 to address channel degradation and bank erosion caused by cattle access and high energy storm flows
from the upstream culvert. The design approach included meandering the channel within the natural valley,
aligning the channel with the upstream culvert, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to
its floodplam, and excluding livestock from the stream. A minimum 50-foot buffer was established and
planted with native riparian vegetation. Woody debris and grade control structures were installed along the
bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. The watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is
approximately 1,124 acres, and land use is primarily agricultural. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 1,174 acres.
Uzzle 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Reaches LP2, LP3, LP4, LP5, LP6, and LP7 (Enhancement H)
Treatment of these reaches included treatment of invasive vegetation, debris removal, pocketed areas of
supplemental planting, and livestock exclusion. A minimum 50-foot buffer was established along the reach
and was planted with native riparian vegetation where existing vegetation was non-native or limited density.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reaches is 1,312 acres. A rock ford crossing was constructed
at the crossing in the middle of Reach LP5. Both Reaches LP5 and LP6 right bank have less than 50 feet
buffers, but they run parallel to a 50 feet utility easement corridor that is fully vegetated maintained
herbaceous cover with some foot paths.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in May 2019. The Uzzle Mitigation Site was built to design
plans and guidelines. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as -built stream lengths are shown
on Table 1. The as -built survey was included in the Baseline Monitoring Report and includes a redlined
version.
1. 7 Year 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2)
The Uzzle Year 2 Monitoring (MY2) activities were performed in September and October 2020. All Year
2 monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meet vegetation and stream
interim success criteria.
Ve etg ation
Monitoring of the four permanent vegetation plots was completed during September 2020. Vegetation data
are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY2
monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per
acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 486 to 647 planted stems per acre with a mean of 567 planted
stems per acre across the permanent plots. A total of 16 species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer species were noted in three plots, with an average of 30 species per acre. The average stem height
in the vegetation plots was 2.7 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. A few small areas of re -sprouted Chinese privet observed
in 2019 in the lower section of the easement were treated in early 2020 and will continue as needed
throughout the monitoring period. MY2 visual assessments of the easement boundary found no
encroachments or evidence of cattle entry. A small repair was being performed in the utility easement
adjacent to the project, however, there was no sign of excess sediment runoff or concentrated flow through
the riparian area.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY2 was collected during September and October 2020. Summary tables and
cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile on the restoration
reach relatively match the design. The cross sections on the Enhancement II reaches were included to
monitor the changes in dimension post cattle exclusion and riparian planting. This year's conditions show
that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were
designed as very coarse sand bed channels and remain classified as very coarse sand bed channels post -
construction.
Uzzle 6 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. Cross Sections 1 and 2 showed signs of
bank erosion in MY2. Cross Section 2 also has a Bank Height Ratio of 1.4. RES believes this erosion was
caused by a log sill directly upstream of Cross Section 1 that was angled slightly towards the point bar and
by the low survival rate of the livestakes planted during construction. RES performed a supplemental
livestake planting in March 2020 which included these two erosion areas. These areas will be monitored
closely and if conditions worsen in the following monitoring years RES will perform additional adaptive
management.
Stream Hydrology
The stage recorder on LP1 recorded six bankfull events in MY2. The highest event was 1.70 feet above the
top of bank and occurred in September 2020. There has been at least two bankfull events in two separate
years of monitoring. The gauge location can be found on Figure 2, a photo is in Appendix B, and the
hydrology data is in Appendix E.
Wetland Hydrology
Two groundwater wells monitor wetland hydrology in the existing wetland on site. Groundwater Well 1
recorded a 1% hydroperiod and Groundwater Well 2 recorded a 23% hydroperiod. This is the second year
Groundwater Well 1 has had a 1% hydroperiod. RES expects the hydroperiods to increase in future
monitoring years as the site adjusts. However, if this well continues to show low hydroperiods, RES will
install an additional gauge in the area to see if this is just a localized issue or a problem with the well
installation. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2 and the data is in Appendix E.
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at eight cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorder includes an automatic pressure
transducer flow gauge. The flow gauge was installed within the channel and will record water depth at an
hourly interval. A surveyed elevation was recorded at the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder elevation
to detect bankfull events.
Vegetation success is being monitored at four permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation plot monitoring
follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes
analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry
tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal
conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Wetland hydrology is monitored to document maintenance of jurisdictional groundwater levels in the
stream restoration area (as requested by NCIRT). This is accomplished with two automatic pressure
transducer gauges (located in groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. One automatic
pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded
quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed
current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators
are also recorded during quarterly site visits.
Uzzle 7 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

3.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2018). Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Uzzle 8 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables

ISadj'c Rd
s
�µ® r
�t
Ryb
Legend
Gor,l
Conservation Easement
w
r
�s Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,
�4 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
N
Date: 6/25/2019
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
w e Drawn by: RTM
49W
0 500
Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site
s 1,000 Checked by: BPB rLmsJohnston County, North Carolina
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

a
E
a
E
a
E
a
E
a
E
a
E
a
E
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
>
J
0
E
E
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
E
E
W
W
0
wo
0
wo
0
ws
0
ws
0
ws
0
ws
0
ws
�
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
d
o
c
m E
_
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
>
J
>
J
>
J
>
J
>
J
>
J
>
J
N
C
O H
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
c 6
(6 Z
.O m
.O m
.O m
.O m
.m
.O m
.O m
Uc
c
c
.2150
c
c
c
O
O
x
x
x
x
x
x
om
x
U
W U
W d
W d
W d
W d
W d
W d
W d
`O N
N
(O
(O
V
(n
N
V
r
N
co
r-
M
N
M
m N N
Q O Q
W
C
O +N-
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
0
U
N
(O
-It
(O
LO
N
N
00 00
N
(O
In
N
O
o
X
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
a) O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
Ln
Ln
(n
(n
(n
Un
Un
w —
a'
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
d J
O
O >
jq J
C
° O
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
cm
O O N
N
(O
(O
V
(n
(n
V
r
V
N
r
M
N
M
O
5 0)N
° aN
ii Q
N N
(O
V
(n
V
r-
N
O N N
N 0 O d
W L lU
Q
0
E
N
U
N
O
a`
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J
a
J

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 year 5 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 year 5 months
Number of reporting Years : 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Dec-18
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Apr-19
Stream Construction
NA
May-19
Site Planting
NA
May-19
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May-19
Jul-19
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-19
Dec-19
Supplemental Livestaking
NA
Mar-20
Invasive Treatment
NA
May-20
Year 2 Monitoring
XS: Sep-20
VP: Sep-20
Oct-20
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC
David Perry
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC
Kory Strader [phone]
Survey Contractor
Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC
Chris Paderick, PLS
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Contractor point of contact
Kory Strader [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen [phone]
Monitoring Performers
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Uzzle
County
Johnston
Project Area (acres)
27.3
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 35.4754 N Longitude:-78.3117 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
3.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201100040
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
1,312 ac (2.05 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest (49%) Agriculture (28%) Residential/Urban
(16%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
LP1
LP2
LP3
LP4
LP5
LP6
LP7
Length of reach (linear feet)
629
1619
142
559
2258
378
312
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
1124
1174
23
1202
1296
42
1312
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
I
P
P
I
P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Stream Classification (existing)
E5
E5
G5
C5
E5
G5
C5
Stream Classification (proposed)
E5
---
---
---
---
---
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2016-
01973
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 16-
0981
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS
(Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr.
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
No -Rise Cert
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

a
C
N -o o
O
N
��
°
�
,`��
�
w U m
O m o m-
N
U
o
-o
o>
o
°
W .4 p in Q°
c
o o 0 0
2
C
i
N
p
U (D
W Z a ~ m (n N
R O
a 0
E °
lL N d
N
to
J O U
co L .� p `
a�+
N
O
O R cotil X
W () y n Q () (n
'R a) N
��
C LO LO
W n v
mil•
IL
0-M + �
f� !

Uzzle MY2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos (Taken 09/30/2020)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4

Stream Problem Areas
Uzzle
Feature Issue / Location Photo
, N
Bank Erosion / XS 1 & 2
Y:: t
-
J� `T'h

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 2. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems Planted
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
1,800
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
1,100
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
900
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
800
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
700
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvatica
700
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
600
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
600
River Birch
Betula nigra
500
Overcup Oak
Quercus lyrata
400
Tuliptree
Driodendron adipifera
400
Flowering Dogwood
Cornus florida
400
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
300
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
300
American Hazelnut
Corylus americana
300
Totall
9,800
Table 3. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Success
Average
Planted
Volunteer
Total
Plot #
Criteria
Stem Height
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Met?
(ft)
1
486
40
526
Yes
2.3
2
647
0
647
Yes
3.4
3
526
40
567
Yes
2.3
4
607
40
647
Yes
2.6
Project Avg
567
30
597
Yes
2.7

CO
M
CO
V1
.-I
.-I
N
CO
tD
1�
V1
V1
M
.--I
N
.-I
.--I
CO
N
_
01
H
rl
O
CO
m00
M
CO
_
.�-I
N
O
.�-I
CO
CO
M
CO
V1
.-I
.-I
N
CO
tD
1�
V1
V1
M
.--I
N
.--I
CO
a�
CO
N
CO
CO
M
N
M
N
1�
N
7
tD
V1
V1
O
CO
CO
C.-.
m
01
H
c�
N—
CO
N
CO
M
M
N
tD
N
7
CO
C
O
o
00
}
a
o
J
CO
N
CO
M
M
N
tD
N
7
00
Q
O
W
C
d
7
Q1
rl
ll1
.--I
lD
O
H
Ql
�
7
Q1
V1
M
N
O
~
.~-I
}
0
D
V1
J
O
.--I
lI1
rl
lD
�n
C
d
�
o
0
o
d
�
mm
C
o
r
d
M
Q1
tD
O
�
O
O
r
�
�
N
O
M
M
y
N
CO
}
N
d
C
m
O
n
�
Ln
O
O
d
Q
7
N
N
.--I
N
V1
tD
tD
V1
O
N
a
O
c
C
i
01
N
ti
O
U
J
7
N
N
.--I
N
V1
tD
77
7
M
Ln
O
o
o
d
M
M
M
~
CO
rl
O
O
�
N
O
r
�
O
17
tD
01
p
~
O
W
N
Ut
.--I
.-I
N
.--I
.-I
M
M
N
17
tD
M
O
7
O
r
d
a
cc
u
a
E a a a
•u
a
•- a a u
w
m
N
u
L
L
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
N
L1
_
N � N
In
H
L
N
L
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
y
N
L
C
N
Y
m
E
O
E
o
0
m
a
3
Y
Zo
O
op
H
U
w
O
00
CL
L
U
C
Y
O
U
m
O
N
E
L
c
O
O
c
o
o
'�
v
m
m
O
°
'3
a
E
O
E-
N
E
C
N
I
Y
L
L
Q
3
Y
U
u
m
E
Y
3
E
v
m°
Y
v
m
o
6
>-
o
o
o
m
'
z¢
E
o
O>
m
3
3��
m
E
m
U
m
O_
O
E
O
j,
j,
iJ
L
`-'
V
E
"6
Y
Y
m
U
.
m
m
L
O
O
.>
N
m
O
t0
LO
y
to
�
E
o
a
>
o
E
c
a
m
E
m
O
E
N
O
-
m
U
U
U`
z
d
O•
O•
O•
O•
O•
cn
H

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

�o
co
o
No
So
m
o
w m
o
o
2E
NV
Nm oo
o
No
.E
So
0
o.
mm oo
Rm
.oso".7
. 2E
A
lor
o
1 1
000
o
o
o
I
o
IN
I
I N
o m
So
o
m
o
o
. 2E
oN
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
m
N
o w
NA
A
T
�2
o
N
N o o
. . . .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
o
E
m
A T
w
o N
NA
o
co 0
.
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
co
c6 N
H
o
I .
. .
oo N
N
o
o
1w
oo
No
w
N
0
m
-----
-----
o o
o
ol
wa
w
m.
a
ww
w
w.
o
'o
'a
o
o T
cc
67)
'o 3g
o
o
-
wa
E
-w m
>w
w
2 m
o
m
.2 A
2E
lo
m
o
m
0
m
m
h3 m
- w
o
o o
-o
-m
o o
w.
.
-
E
o-
w.
LL
E 2
m-
in
Im
E' m'
Im 'o
E
Tm-
6,
rc
E_
Im.
10 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 ..
I
I I
I I ..
I .
. .
K.

:
)
&
(
}}
y
co
ol
k
�
)
=
f
§
�
)
\(
$
k
2
) —
�
k
ol
-
§
e\a
§
§
G
E
g a
A |
ED
/
\
to
R
�
EE
\)
/
.
-
\
)
-
3
§A
e2
0
\
§
2
7
\§
_
/e
/
/
_
\\t{///
_
t{/]/
\2/{-
210
\2/{\)())
\�k(\)®�
\�k(\�®�
~
~
\
\
0

E
�
k
_
_
\
00
�
�
S
\
\
i
�
�
a
t
_
LL
e
§
a
^
§
�
—
\AN
�
\
Cn
co(
0
\
}
~
\
\
coo
\
n
n
n
§
�
\ F
S
)
9
/
g
p
m
/
$
\ )
y
/
�
�
�
�
n
�
Ln
2
$
o
_
°
/
.
, '
\
\
n
%
a
o
�
m
k
�
§
%
\
ƒ
p
�
)
_
\
�
\
\
®
j
�
m
�
)
o
]
°
g
7
R
R
Q R
m
k u
mg

E
E
�
k
_
j
00
\
�
\
2
�
$
u
co
§
0
/
§
e
ƒ
\
,
/
�
2
�
�
E®
/
�
m
04
®
§
\
g
§
�
5
a
�
�
/
(
/
LO
�
�
|�
�
2
\
a
/
e
|�
�
®
�
0
dugegg
\
/
b
/
\
�
�
M
\
.\
t
$
o
9
r
f
A
g//
t
9
0«
z
A
3
<
o
\
\
/
/
c
A
lo
2
I
/
ƒ)
)
a
)
g
®
?
Z'to
°
§
\
\
/
2
%
0
\
2
j
\
u
\
)

E
�
k
_
I
o
®
r
I
I
r
t
=
I
(
\
�
I
co
�
§
I
0
I
)
|
/
�
�
I
2
/
I
I
§
\ F
)
u
I
A
2
§
I
o
I
\
I
00LO
\
=
I
�
I
�
�
|�
k
I
D
I
§
�
\
I
I
|e
I
m
I
0
cq
dugegg
/
/
b
/
�
n
\
.2
t
$
(
/
ƒ
/
CD
co
«
CD
$
A
/
\
«
/
/
%
®In
c
«
9
/
&
A
»
/
CAQ
o\
c
7
z
9
�
g
p
o
g
r
In
»
ƒ
2
§
§
\
/
\
»
»
\
\
d
/
^
\
\
\
\
\
j
2
§
\
�
2
\
u
\
)
_

a 4 1
a 9 7�
F'
Ufa
J
Y'
I
_
7r
ter,
G' F.
t
r
s
O
m
o�
+
m
W
co
°x
O
I
LD
I
�n
Ln
m
o
LD O
^^O
O
0
v
c�LC
I
o
I
LC)
U
N
I
w
�
I
�
N O
v'
N
O
I
N
O
M
O
N
Cl) r
N
'IT
(D
r_
co
OCO
I
u
_
l�
N
CO
y
O N
c' 0 0
y
O
I
L
� r
N
�
�
N
o
r
N
OM
cV
�
�y00
09
9
LL
I
O
x
N
LD
o
N
x
F•
o
W
O
I
o
�
o
.�
co
O
W
N
O
O)
OD
r—
m
M
N
M
N
M
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
x
(11) uOl;enal3

O
m
m
x
w
m
00 m
V >
rxi
LD
N
V
C
rn
(o
N
u
amc')
O
N
C
O
CY)
w
C''
1
crc
G
O
F
cY)
�/
Ids
1
LO
� i O)
N p
i
N N
U
N
N
�
N I
0
N
y
_
O
N
L
U
�
o
1
00 N
N
d
o
>-
J
L
LO
u
I
N
N
07
co
O
O
m
N
rn 00
N
N
r-
N N
N N
cO
N
N
In
N
N
c
N
N
(11) uOi;enal3
4.1
U
Hcz
N
cz
4.1
w
-a
U
-a
3
Qn
N
W
ct
O
0
O
4.1
Mcz
W
O
Z
o
0
0
dbo
o
o
W
o�
�
�
W
O
g
0
0
1
W
w
m
D
m
0
MD m
n

O
N
x
X
W
l0
C
X
m
L(�
N
V
C
CY)
N
V
CY)
O
O
C
CY) N
w
CY) 04
�
O
ICo
E
�
O)
N o
C
N
U
N
N N
�
0
I
N
U)
_
O
N
L
U
�
o
00 N
Lf)
O
J
L
LD I
N
�
N
N
Cl)
O
LO
N
N
V
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ON
N
O)
00
N
N
(11)
uOi;enal3
5�
H
a
O r"
�F-
cz
m
q
O
3
0
0
1
W
w
,k

E
�
k
_
\
\
\
c
9
a)
§
%
04
/
co\
|
c
E
\ /
§
o §
g
\ \ \
$
j |
0
R
\
/
(
k
LO
� |
J
/
a
e
m
0
dugegg
\4.1
0
)
\
�
\
/
/
/
$
\
�
2
�
/
2
\
o
�
U
/
\
/
\
/
°
/
�
/
e
o
ƒ
\
/
9
/
)
4
5
\
2
\
)
a
�
�
\
\
.!
2
j
\
_
_

E
�
k
_
\
u
}
co
j
\
\
/
b
/
\
\
�
a
®
{
/
§
/
/
_
%
7
=
)E
e
/
co
.2
u
$
»
\
f
/
/
LU
[
`
(
% |
�
R
2
�
)
C6
®
/
_»
^ / \
z
. §
/
k
4.1
o
&
/
z
o
x
/ §
�
6
)
)
k
|
2
)
\
§
ƒ
q
)
a
y
2¥
E
u
\
`
/
�
\
e
2
\
\
m
§
2
\
o
u
a
a
a
a a
a
a
)
2
dugegg
_

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Clayton Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
4.24
3.24
4.93
3.72
February
3.64
2.51
4.34
6.45
March
4.57
3.44
5.33
3.53
April
3.24
1.99
3.92
3.80
May
4.17
2.91
4.96
6.46
June
4.14
2.70
4.97
4.36
July
5.43
3.48
6.53
7.01
August
4.58
3.05
5.49
10.79
September
4.54
2.26
5.55
8.22
October
3.16
1.89
3.81
NA
November
2.95
1.86
3.55
NA
December
3.05
2.02
3.65
NA
Total
47.71
31.35
57.03
54.34
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Year
Number of Bankfull
Events
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft)
Date of Maximum Bankfull
Event
Stage Recorder LPI
MYl 2019
5
1.21
7/23/2019
MY2 2020
6
1.70
9/1/2020

Table 12.
2020 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Well ID
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Da s
Hydroperiod
Days
Hydroperiod
GW1
2
1
22
9
19
GW2
55
23
157
67
8
Table 13.
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Uzzle
Well ID
H droeriod (%)
Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
GW1
1
1
GW2
23
23

(smpui) uoi;e;idl3OJd
O O o
N O O O O O O O O O O O
O W r (O In V (M N O
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
z
0
I
I
I
I
CD
r
0
d
I
Q �
�
N
�
I
N
O
N
3
0
I
I
0
cu
af
04
cu
U
I
I
I
I
Q
I
I
I
LL
O O O O O 0 O
(say3ui) uoi;enBIB aa;empunoaE)

(segmi) uoi;e;idi3oad
O O o
N O O O O O O O O O O O
O W r (O In V (M N O
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
z
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
� �
0
o
d
�
N
I
N
o
af
T
0
O
04
I
U
'
C04
G
I
I
I
I
Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LL
I
I
I
O O O O O 0 O
(soy3ui) uoi;enBIB ao;empunoaE)