The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20160225 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report DRAFT - Reduced_20201217ID#* 20160225 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Erin Davis Initial Review Completed Date 12/17/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/17/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No Type of Mitigation Project:* rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jason Lorch Project Information .................................................................................................................................................................. ID#:* 20160225 Existing IDY Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: South Fork Mitigation Site County: Chatham Document Information Email Address:* jlorch@Wldlandseng.com Version: * 1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: South Fork - MY2 Report DRAFT - Reduced .pdf 7.71 MB Rease upload only one PDF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted... Signature Print Name:* Jason Lorch Signature:* �dO6� C�c9F MONITORING YEAR 2 REPORT CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, NC Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Data Collection: January 2020 – November 2020 Submission Date: December 16, 2020 PREPARED FOR: The North Carolina Interagency Review Team USACE Project Manager: Samantha Dailey 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 PREPARED BY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: (919) 851-9986 December 2020 South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) developed the South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) under the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Site is in Chatham County within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (Cane Creek). The project restored 5,661 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams on three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek, a stream in the Jordan Lake watershed. The project also includes enhancement I activities on one unnamed tributary (891 LF) and enhancement II activities on five unnamed tributaries (1,692 LF). The Site is expected to generate 4,318 stream mitigation units and will also include restoration, enhancement, and preservation of buffers. The Site is located near the Towns of Silk Hope, NC and Siler City, NC. The 2005 NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWR, 2005) indicates that Jordan Lake (27-54-(3.5)) is classified as Water Supply IV, and a Nutrient Sensitive Water needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. The Bank offers a rare opportunity to contribute to on-going restoration work within the watershed. The Bank adds three new sites to the five existing mitigation sites in the Cane Creek watershed, helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While benefits such as improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat are limited to the Site, others, such as reduced nutrient and sediment loading, have farther-reaching effects. The project goals established in the South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) were designed with careful consideration of local watershed stressors (e.g. confined animal feeding operations, livestock grazing) within the Cape Fear River Basin. Project goals are to: • Exclude livestock from project streams; • Stabilize eroding stream banks; • Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable; • Improve instream habitat; • Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently; • Restore and enhance native floodplain forest; and • Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses. The Site construction was completed in July 2018 and as-built surveys were completed in November 2018. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) average planted stem density for the Site was 476 stems per acre, which exceeds the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre. All 5 fixed and 4 random vegetation monitoring plots satisfied this criterion on an individual basis. All stream reaches are stable and functioning as designed. Bankfull events were recorded using pressure transducers on all three streams subject to the success criterion. Both restored intermittent streams (UT2 and UT4 Reach 2) exceeded 30 days of consecutive flow; with the lowest being UT4 R2 which had 68 consecutive days of flow and 153 days of flow throughout the year. Eroded areas mentioned in the MY1 monitoring report (SF4A Reach 2) caused by large storm events immediately after construction and before vegetation was established have since stabilized. Two small areas of invasive vegetation have been treated by mechanical and chemical means; no other areas of vegetative concern are present on the Site. No major easement encroachments have been observed during MY2; however, cattle have occasionally been able to bypass the current fence. The existing fence is scheduled to be replaced by five strand barbed-wire fencing in the first quarter of 2021. All culvert and ford crossings on site are functioning as intended. Overall, the Site is in good condition and on track to meet MY7 vegetation, stream, and hydrology success criteria. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report ii SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 2 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-2 2.6 Adaptive Management Plan .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 Summary .................................................................................................. 2-2 Section 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 3-1 Section 4: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figures 3.0-3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map Tables 5a-5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Table 8a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Table 8b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section) Cross-Section Plots Table 10 Bank Pin Exposure Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events Monthly Rainfall Data 30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data Table 12 In-Stream Flow Gage Attainment Summary Recorded In-Stream Flow Events South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northwest Chatham County, 3.1 miles northwest of Silk Hope, NC (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit HUC 03030002050050 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources Sub-basin 03- 06-04. The Site is within the Jordan Lake watershed which is classified as Water Supply IV, and a Nutrient Sensitive Water needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. SF4A is the main tributary on the Site with UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 flowing into SF4A. Mitigation work consisted of restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II on 5,661 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream. Riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and ecosystem function. The South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) was approved by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team in February 2018. Site construction was completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in July 2018. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in December 2018. Baseline monitoring was completed in January 2019. Annual monitoring and reporting will be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated in 2026 given success criteria are attained. Appendix 1 provides detailed project activity, history, contact, and site background information. A conservation easement was recorded on a total of 18.13 acres. The project is expected to yield 4,318 stream mitigation units. Project components and assets are illustrated in Figure 2 and credit allocation is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives Prior to construction, on-site streams and riparian areas were degraded due to livestock impacts, stream channelization, ditching, bed and bank erosion, and lack of appropriate vegetation communities. Furthermore, the Site provided minimal capacity to immobilize excess nutrients originating from livestock waste through uptake in riparian buffer vegetation. The project is intended to contribute to functional uplift of on-site and downstream waters within the Cape Fear River Basin by addressing stressors identified in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWR, 2005). Expected functional uplift is outlined below as project goals and objectives. The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan include: Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Reduce pollutant inputs to streams including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Exclude cattle from streams and buffers by installing fencing around conservation easements adjacent to cattle pastures and providing alternative water sources or removing cattle from sites. Reduction in pollutant loads to streams caused by cattle access. Reduce inputs of sediment into streams from eroding stream banks. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-stream structures to protect restored/enhanced streams. Reduction in sediment loadings to streams from bank erosion. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-2 Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Return networks of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions. Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary. Support all stream functions above hydrology. Improve aquatic habitat in project streams. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth. Increase and diversify available habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading to colonization and increase in biodiversity over time. Add complexity including LWD to the streams. Raise local groundwater elevations and allow for more frequent overbank flows. Reduce shear stress on channels during larger flow events. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing floodplain. Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands. Allow flood flows to disperse on the floodplain. Support Geomorphic and higher level functions. Create and improve riparian habitats. Provide a canopy to shade streams and reduce thermal loadings. Create a source of woody inputs for streams. Reduce flood flow velocities on floodplain and improve long-term lateral stability of streams. Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone. Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source of LWD and organic material to the stream. Support all stream functions. Ensure that development and agricultural uses that would damage the Site or reduce the benefits of project are prevented. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Protection of the Site from harmful uses in perpetuity. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT Monitoring year 2 (MY2) Site assessments were conducted between January 2020 and November 2020. Vegetation, stream geomorphology and hydrology success criteria were approved in the Mitigation Plan. Monitoring features and locations are shown in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) (Figures 3.0 – 3.2). 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Planted woody vegetation is monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures presented by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). The final vegetation success criteria are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height at the end of MY7. Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and 260 planted stems per acre with an average stem height of 7 feet at the end of MY5. Five fixed 100 square meter vegetation plots were randomly installed on the Site which are monitored annually. Another four plots are monitored and relocated at random each year operating under the same success criteria. MY2 vegetation inventory was completed in September 2020. Average planted stem density across the fixed monitoring plots is 486 stems per acre which is 20% less than the as-built density of 607 stems per acre. The randomly relocated plots had a stem density of 465 stems per acre. Individually, all nine plots exceed the MY3 interim planted stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre with individual plots ranging from 405 to 567 stems per acre. Vegetation photographs and summary data for each plot are included in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3, respectively. 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern A small (0.034 acre), isolated population of a Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense.) was observed growing near UT4 during MY1. Additionally, a (0.112 acre) isolated population of invasive princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) was identified on UT1, this population was growing inside of vegetation plot 1. Both of these areas were mechanically and chemically treated during MY2 and will continue to be observed in subsequent monitoring years. Follow up treatment will be performed if deemed necessary. 2.3 Stream Assessment Eleven permanent cross-sections were installed per Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (NCIRT, October 2016) to assess channel dimensions during the monitoring period. Morphological surveys were conducted in March 2020. Cross- section survey data for project streams suggests all reaches are stable and functioning as intended. Cross-sections representative of these reaches showed little change in bankfull stage elevation, mean and maximum depth, and width to depth ratio. Bank height ratios for the riffle cross-sections remained at or near 1.0. Entrenchment ratios and bankfull widths may show small departures from as-built values as width adjustments commonly occur due to vegetation growth and sediment transportation. These minor changes do not indicate channel instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the CCPV map, visual stability assessment table, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and cross- section plots. 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern SF4A Reach 2 had isolated areas of minor scour shortly after construction. This was caused by large flood events during two Hurricanes in the fall of 2018 before vegetation had become established on the Site. This area has stabilized and will continue to be monitored in subsequent years. All grade control structures remained in place and maintained vertical stability. Table 10 in Appendix 4 shows the result South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-2 of bank pin measurements during MY2. The area on SF4A Reach 2 stabilized during MY2, which was expected since vegetation has established on the Site. 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment Four bankfull flow events must be recorded on restored streams in separate years during the seven year monitoring period. During MY2 five bankfull events were recorded on UT2 and, one event was recorded on SF4A and one on UT4 Reach 2 (Table 11). Thirty consecutive days of flow must be recorded annually on restored intermittent streams (UT2, and UT4 Reach 2). In-stream flow gages equipped with pressure transducers were installed to monitor continuity of baseflow. All restored intermittent streams on site exceeded the required 30 consecutive days of flow with UT2 showing continuous flow from the beginning of the year through the last gage download on October 28, 2020. UT4 Reach 2 displayed baseflow from January through mid-March before intermittently going subsurface through the last gage download on October 28, 2020. This is typical of an intermittent stream in the Carolina Slate Belt Region. In-Stream flow gage plots are included in Appendix 5. 2.6 Adaptive Management Plan Remedial actions regarding any future presence of invasive and in stream vegetation will be implemented if deemed necessary in subsequent monitoring years. During MY2 signs of cattle encroachment was observed along SF4A. After several conversations with the landowner the best solution to keep cattle from encroaching on the conservation easement was to replace the fence around the entire easement during MY3 (2021). The current three strand high tensile electric fence will be replaced with five strand barbed wire fencing. The current fence would frequently lose power and cattle were able to find a way through it. The proposed barbed wire fencing should keep cattle out of the conservation easement. The Site will be observed for any cattle encroachment during subsequent monitoring years. The stream area of concern on SF4A Reach 2 appears to have stabilized during MY2 as vegetation has established on the Site. This area will continue to be observed to determine if full stabilization has occurred. No remedial actions are proposed at this time. 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 Summary The average planted stem density for the Site exceeded the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 stems per acre with an average planted density of 476 stems per acre. All nine vegetative monitoring plots satisfied the 320 stems per acre criterion on an individual basis. Streams are stable and functioning as designed, an area of previous erosion has stabilized on SF4A Reach 2. This reach was impacted by two hurricanes shortly after construction and before vegetation was established. Bankfull events were recorded on all three streams subject to this criterion and greater than 30 consecutive days of flow was recorded on UT2 and UT4 Reach 2. Both areas of invasive vegetation have been treated by mechanical removal coupled with treating the remaining material with selective herbicide. These areas of vegetative concern will continue to be monitored in case retreatment is needed. All culvert and ford crossings on site are functioning as intended. No major easement encroachments were observed and to eliminate any future cattle entries the fence is being replaced by five strand barbed wire in the first quarter of 2021. Overall, the Site is in good condition and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 3-1 Section 3: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 4-1 Section 4: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Harrelson, C.C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1- 5.pdf North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR- DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. USACE, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables ^_ South Fork Mitigation Site Location 03030002050050 03030002050070 03030003070020 03030003070010 03030002050090 Chatham County, NC Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020¹0 10.5 Miles Directions: From Raleigh, NC, take US 64 west approximately 24 miles to NC 87 at exit 381. Take a right and continue on NC 87 for approximately 2 miles. Turn left onto Silk Hope Lindley Mill Road, continue for 13 miles. Turn left on Moon Lindley Road, continue for 0.5 miles. Take a left on Johnny Lindley Road, the project area is on the right. Hydrologic Unit Code (14) ^_Project Location !( !( !( !( !( SF4A Reach 3UT4 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 4 SF4A Reach 1 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC 0 200 400 Feet ¹ Conservation Easement Internal Crossing As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II !(Reach Breaks 2018 Aerial Photography South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 4,318 ------- Centerline Stationing Existing Footage Approach Restoration Footage1 Mitigation Ratio Total Credits (SMU)2 Adjusted Credits (SMU)3 100+62 - 103+73 311 Enhancement II 311 2.5:1 124 117 103+73 - 109+23 109+73 - 120+74 1,748 Restoration 1,651 1:1 1,651 1,666 120+74 - 127+39 665 Enhancement II 665 2.5:1 266 265 127+39 - 131+74 132+24 - 135+31 700 Restoration 742 1:1 742 746 200+54 - 203+79 325 Enhancement II 325 2.5:1 130 106 203+79 - 206+04 251 Restoration 225 1:1 225 226 301+02 - 308+62 308+92 - 310+23 902 Enhancement I 891 1.5:1 594 589 401+54 - 402+21 67 Enhancement II 67 2.5:1 27 27 500+06 - 502+93 287 Enhancement II 287 2.5:1 115 109 502+93 - 507+53 472 Restoration 460 1:1 460 460 605+04 - 605+41 37 Enhancement II 37 2.5:1 15 7 Riverine Non-Riverine --- -- -- --- PROJECT COMPONENTS 2Total credits are based on reach length and mitigation ratio and do not include adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width. Buffer (Acres)Restoration Level 3Adjusted credits are the final credit total including the adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width. MITIGATION CREDITS Phosphorous Nutrient Offset - - - - Restoration SF4A Reach 2 Restoration Reach ID UT1 Reach 2 Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Restoration UT1 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 1 Restoration Restoration or Restoration Equivalent STREAMS SF4A Reach 1 Restoration Restoration UT2 Restoration UT3 Restoration Restoration Non-Riparian Wetland SF4A Reach 3 Restoration SF4A Reach 4 UT4 Reach 2 Restoration UT5 Stream (Linear Feet)Non-Riparian Wetland (Acres)Riparian Wetland (Acres) COMPONENT SUMMATION 1,692 - Enhancement I 891 Re-Establishment Enhancement II Restoration 3,078 1Linear footage calculated along stream centerline. - Preservation - Rehabilitation USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Vegetation Survey 2023 September 2019 January 2019 June 2019 Vegetation Survey Vegetation Survey 2021 September 2020 December 2021 Year 2 Monitoring Invasive Vegetation Treatment September 2020 Year 4 Monitoring December 2019Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Stream SurveyYear 3 Monitoring December 2020 December 2022 2023 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 July 2018 July 2018 Construction July 2018 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery Mitigation Plan October 2017 February 2018 South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Final Design - Construction Plans April 2018 April 2018 Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments December 2018 December 2018 Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 July 2018 July 2018 July 2018 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey December 2023Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey March 2020 2021 November 2018 January 2019 December 2024 Stream Survey Vegetation Survey Year 6 Monitoring 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. December 2025Year 7 Monitoring 2025 Stream Survey Vegetation Survey 2025 USACE Action ID No. 2017-02364 Monitoring, POC Bruton Natural Systems & Foggy Mountain Nursery Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Bruton Natural Systems, Inc 919.851.9986 Designer Greg Turner, PE Fremont, NC 27830 Construction Contractor 919.851.9986 Jason Lorch Nursery Stock Suppliers Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Bare Roots Live Stakes South Fork Mitigation Site 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 P.O. Box 1197 Willow Spring, NC 27592 126 Circle G Lane Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Planting Contractor Table 3. Project Contact Table USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 SF4A UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5 613.9 103 17 10 25 15 Applicable?Resolved? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A No N/A No N/A Planted Area (acres)10.61 Physiographic Province 62% Forested, 38% Cultivated USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050050 Piedmont Reaches DWR Sub-basin PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Drainiage Area (acres) Project Name Project Area (acres) River Basin Chatham County South Fork Mitigation Site 18.13 County Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Essential Fisheries Habitat FEMA Floodplain Compliance Historic Preservation Act N/A South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 03030002 Cape Fear PROJECT INFORMATION Correspondence from SHPO on July 1st, 2016 indicating they were not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. N/A 35° 49' 21.28"N, 79° 22' 54.62"W Supporting Documentation USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4091. 03-06-04 USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit CGIA Land Use Classification N/A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Waters of the United States - Section 401 Endangered Species Act Regulation Waters of the United States - Section 404 USFWS correspondence on July 22, 2016 stated the “proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act...” No suitable habitat and/or individually federally listed species were identified in the project area. ✁✁✂✄☎✆✝✞✟sŝƐƵĂůƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚĂƚĂ !( !( !( !( ")") ") ") ") !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( X S 2 XS 5 XS 7 XS 1XS 9XS 8 X S 6 X S 4 XS 3 XS 1 1 XS 10SF4A Reach 3UT4 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT4 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 4 SF4A Reach 1 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 2 5 1 43 7 8 9 6 Figure 3.0 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC 0 260 520 Feet ¹ Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Chinese Privet Treated (0.034 ac) Princess Tree Treated (0.112 ac) As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections !(Reach Breaks Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY2 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Plots Condition - MY2 !(Criteria Met 2018 Aerial Photography Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 !( !( !(!( !( ") ") ") ") !A !A ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ !. !A X S 2 XS 1XS 9XS 8 X S 4 XS 3 XS 10PP 6 PP 5 PP 4 PP 3 PP 2 PP 1 PP 15 PP 14 PP 13 PP 12 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 SF4A Reach 2 SF4A Reach 1 UT35 1 4 3 7 8 9 6 Figure 3.1 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC0200400Feet¹ Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Princess Tree Treated (0.112 ac) Internal Crossing As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY2 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Plots Condition - MY2 !(Criteria Met !(Reach Breaks !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge !A Barotroll ^_Photo Point !.Bank Pins 2018 Aerial Photography !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ") ") !A !A !A ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ !. !. X S 2 XS 5 XS 7 X S 6 X S 4 XS 3 XS 1 1 PP 9 PP 8 PP 7 PP 6 PP 5 PP 4 PP 3 PP 20 PP 19 PP 18 PP 17 PP 16 PP 11 PP 10 SF4A Reach 3 UT4 Reach 2 UT4 Reach 1 SF4A Reach 4 UT3 UT5 SF4A Reach 2 2 5 7 Figure 3.2 Intergrated Current Condition Plan View Map South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC0200400Feet¹ Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Chinese Privet Treated (0.034 ac) As-Built Streams Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II Cross-Sections !(Reach Breaks !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge !.Bank Pins ^_Photo Point Fixed Vegetation Plots Condition - MY2 ")Criteria Met Random Vegetation Condition - MY2 !(Criteria Met 2018 Aerial Photography USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 SF4A Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 27 27 100% Depth Sufficient 23 23 100% Length Appropriate 23 23 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)23 23 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)23 23 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 15 15 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 15 15 100% Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 South Fork Mitigation Site 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT1 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100% Depth Sufficient 5 5 100% Length Appropriate 5 5 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)5 5 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)5 5 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 3 3 100% 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT2 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100% Depth Sufficient 7 7 100% Length Appropriate 7 7 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.18 18 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.18 18 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 6 6 100% 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 UT4 Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 13 13 100% Depth Sufficient 9 9 100% Length Appropriate 9 9 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)9 9 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)9 9 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 3 3 100% Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Planted Acreage 10.61 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (Ac) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 0 0 0% 0 0 0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0% 0 0.0 0% Easement Acreage 18.13 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (SF) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 0 0 0% Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0% Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – upstream (05/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – downstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – upstream (05/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – downstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – upstream (0 5 /13/2020) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – upstream (0 5 /13/2020) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – upstream (0 5 /13/2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – upstream (0 5 /13/2020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) South Fork Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – upstream (0 5 /13/2020) PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – downstream (05/13 /2020) PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – upstream (0 5/13/2020) PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – downstream (05/13 /2020) VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (09/29/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (09/29/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (09/29/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (09/29/2020) FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (09/29/2020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 6 (09/29/2020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 7 (09/29/2020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (09/29/2020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9 (09/29/2020) APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2015-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Plot Fixed Veg Plot 1 Fixed Veg Plot 2 Fixed Veg Plot 3 Fixed Veg Plot 4 Fixed Veg Plot 5 Random Veg Plot 6 Random Veg Plot 7 Random Veg Plot 8 Random Veg Plot 9 Yes Success Criteria Met Project Mean Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 9 9 9 12 12 13 15 15 15 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 15 7 7 9 7 7 7 Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree 2 2 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 10 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 5 10 1 18 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 5 2 2 14 3 3 19 3 3 12 9 9 9 Paulownia tomentosa Princess Tree Exotic 18 18 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 4 5 1 1 12 7 7 7 2 2 2 6 6 8 20 20 34 20 20 42 20 20 20 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 10 10 17 13 13 51 13 13 13 11 11 21 13 13 16 60 60 118 64 64 108 75 75 75 5 5 7 7 7 10 6 6 6 6 6 7 4 4 5 9 9 12 9 9 10 9 9 9 405 405 688 526 526 2,064 526 526 526 445 445 850 526 526 647 486 486 955 518 518 874 607 607 607 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Volunteer species included in total PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes P-all - All Planted Stems T - All Woody Stems Stem count size (ares)1 5 Current Plot Data (MY2 2020) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 1 0.02 Annual Means MY2 (2020)MY1 (2019)MY0 (2019) 0.12 5 0.120.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 5 0.12size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 1 0.02 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 4 4 13 13 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 2 2 4 4 Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 2 5 5 9 9 9 9 4 4 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 3 7 7 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 14 14 12 12 17 17 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 13 13 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2 2 1 1 Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 2 2 14 14 10 10 10 10 12 12 46 46 46 46 64 64 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 11 11 11 11 9 9 567 567 405 405 405 405 486 486 465 465 465 465 668 668 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Volunteer species included in total Te: Number of stems including exotic species Total: Number of stems excluding exotic species Table 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Current Plot Data (MY1 2019) MY1 (2019) 4 0.10 Random Plot 9 0.02 1 0.02 MY2 (2020) Annual Means 1 1 MY0 (2019) 4 0.10 4 0.10 Species count Stems per ACRE Random Plot 6 Random Plot 7 Random Plot 8 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) 1 0.02 0.02 APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section) South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)561.33 561.24 561.31 556.93 556.90 556.91 556.97 556.94 556.91 Low Bank Height Elevation 561.33 561.24 561.31 556.93 556.90 556.91 556.97 556.94 556.91 Bankfull Width (ft)15.6 14.5 15.3 18.2 18.4 18.3 17.4 15.5 16.5 Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A 150 150 150 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.2 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)16.7 15.8 17.0 36.6 28.4 28.9 15.2 14.5 13.6 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 13.3 13.8 9.1 11.9 11.5 20.0 16.6 20.0 Entrenchment Ratio1 6.4 6.9 6.5 N/A N/A N/A 8.6 9.7 9.1 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)556.18 556.21 556.19 555.18 555.21 555.26 543.89 543.92 543.91 Low Bank Height Elevation 556.18 556.21 556.19 555.18 555.21 555.26 543.89 543.92 543.91 Bankfull Width (ft)18.5 21.2 18.8 18.3 19.0 19.1 17.7 18.2 18.1 Floodprone Width (ft)150 150 150 N/A N/A N/A 120 120 120 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.9 1.9 2.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)20.3 21.2 19.6 43.0 44.0 45.8 26.9 26.9 26.3 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.8 21.1 18.0 7.8 8.2 7.9 11.6 12.2 12.5 Entrenchment Ratio1 8.1 7.1 8.0 N/A N/A N/A 6.8 6.6 6.6 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum. 2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum. SF4A - Reach 2 Cross-Section 6 (Riffle)Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)Cross-Section 5 (Pool) SF4A - Reach 4SF4A - Reach 2 Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)Cross-Section 3 (Riffle) Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section) South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)543.22 543.22 543.23 565.00 564.92 565.01 572.12 572.09 572.02 Low Bank Height Elevation 543.22 543.22 543.23 565.00 564.92 565.01 572.12 572.09 572.02 Bankfull Width (ft)18.7 23.6 18.8 12.3 10.7 13.9 6.7 6.3 6.5 Floodprone Width (ft)N/A N/A N/A 60 60 60 N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)2.3 1.8 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)4.7 4.5 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.7 1.6 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)42.3 42.5 46.2 8.2 6.1 7.4 4.6 4.3 3.1 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 13.1 7.6 18.5 18.8 26.2 9.7 9.2 13.6 Entrenchment Ratio1 N/A N/A N/A 4.9 5.6 4.3 N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 N/A N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft)571.01 570.98 570.90 556.19 556.19 556.25 Low Bank Height Elevation 571.01 570.98 570.90 556.19 556.16 556.25 Bankfull Width (ft)8.1 5.3 4.6 6.9 7.4 7.2 Floodprone Width (ft)75 75 75 60 60 60 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2.1 1.4 1.2 3.7 3.5 3.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 31.7 19.9 18.3 13.1 15.5 13.3 Entrenchment Ratio1 9.3 14.3 16.2 8.7 8.1 8.3 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 1Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum. 2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum. Cross-Section 10 (Riffle)Cross-Section 11 (Riffle) Cross-Section 7 (Pool)Cross-Section 8 (Riffle)Cross-Section 9 (Pool) SF4A - Reach 4 UT1 Reach 2 UT2 UT2 UT4 Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 17.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 15.3 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.7 max depth (ft) 16.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.8 width-depth ratio 100.0 W flood prone area (ft) 6.5 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 1 - SF4A - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 558 560 562 564 0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 106+06 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 28.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.3 width (ft) 1.6 mean depth (ft) 3.2 max depth (ft) 20.9 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.5 width-depth ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 2 - SF4A - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 553 555 557 559 50 60 70 80 90 100Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 112+99 Pool MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 13.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 16.5 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.6 max depth (ft) 17.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.8 hydraulic radius (ft) 20.0 width-depth ratio 150.0 W flood prone area (ft) 9.1 entrenchment ratio < 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 3 - SF4A - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 554 556 558 560 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 113+59 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 19.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.8 width (ft) 1.0 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 19.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 18.0 width-depth ratio 150.0 W flood prone area (ft) 8.0 entrenchment ratio < 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 4 - SF4A - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 553 555 557 559 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 116+29 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 45.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 19.1 width (ft) 2.4 mean depth (ft) 4.2 max depth (ft) 22.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 7.9 width-depth ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 5 - SF4A - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 551 553 555 557 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 116+84 Pool MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 26.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.1 width (ft) 1.5 mean depth (ft) 2.4 max depth (ft) 19.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 12.5 width-depth ratio 120.0 W flood prone area (ft) 6.6 entrenchment ratio < 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross-Section 6 - SF4A - Reach 4 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots 539 541 543 545 547 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 134+70 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 46.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.8 width (ft) 2.5 mean depth (ft) 4.5 max depth (ft) 22.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 7.6 width-depth ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 7 - SF4A - Reach 4 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 538 540 542 544 546 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 135+15 Pool MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 7.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 13.9 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 14.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 26.2 width-depth ratio 60.0 W flood prone area (ft) 4.3 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 8 - UT1 - Reach 2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 563 564 565 566 567 0 10 20 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 204+59 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 3.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 6.5 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.6 max depth (ft) 8.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.6 width-depth ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering Cross-Section 9 - UT2 Cross-Section Plots South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 570 571 572 573 574 0 10 20 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 307+23 Pool MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 1.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) 4.6 width (ft) 0.3 mean depth (ft) 0.5 max depth (ft) 5.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 18.3 width-depth ratio 75.0 W flood prone area (ft) 16.2 entrenchment ratio < 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Cross-Section Plots Cross-Section 10 - UT2 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 569 570 571 572 573 0 10 20 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 307+53 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 3.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 7.2 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 7.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.3 width-depth ratio 60.0 W flood prone area (ft) 8.3 entrenchment ratio < 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date:5/2020 Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering Cross-Section 11 - UT4 - Reach 2 Cross-Section Plots South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 View Downstream 554 555 556 557 558 0 10 20 30Elevation (ft)Width (ft) 505+62 Riffle MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area Table 10. Bank Pin Exposure South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Location Pin MY1 (6/2019) MY2 (6/2020)MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Upstream 8.4 0.0 Midstream 4.1 0.0 Downstream 0.0 0.0 Upstream 0.0 0.0 Midstream 0.0 0.0 Downstream 0.0 0.0 Upstream 0.0 0.0 Midstream 0.0 0.0 Downstream 0.0 0.0 SF4a Reach 2 SF4a Reach 4 UT2 APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 MY1 MY2 Date of Occurrence Date of Occurrence SF4A Reach 4 4/19/2019 6/11/2020 1/24/2020 2/6/2020 4/13/2020 5/21/2020 8/1/2019 8/24/2019 1/21/2019 1/31/2019 8/24/2019 Monthly Rainfall Data South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Siler City 7.2 NE and Siler City 2 N. 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 N, NC (USDA, 2020). UT4 Reach 2 4/13/2020 4/14/2019 6/11/2020 Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events South Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1/24/2019 UT2 Reach 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20Precipitation (in)Date South Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Siler City, NC 2020 2020 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile 30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924). 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2020).JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0 1 2 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 Rainfall (in)30 Day Cumulative Precipitation (in)South Fork Mitigation Site 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Siler City, NC Daily Rainfall 30-Day Cumulative Total 30% Rainfall Total 70% Rainfall Total Table 12. In-Stream Flow Gage Attainment Summary South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Year 1 (2019)Year 2 (2020)**Year 3 (2021)Year 4 (2022)Year 5 (2023)Year 6 (2024)Year 7 (2025) 266 Days/ 341 Days 301 Days/ 301 Days 177 Days/ 272 Days 68 Days/ 153 Days **Data for MY2 recorded through 10/28/2020. *Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow. Summary of In-Stream Flow Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7 Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria* UT2 UT4 R2 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 301 days of consecutive stream flow JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 596.0 596.5 597.0 597.5 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 2 -2020 Rainfall UT2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull South Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT2 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 South Fork Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364 68 days of consecutive stream flow JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 564.0 564.5 565.0 565.5 566.0 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 2 -2020 Rainfall UT4 R2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull South Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT4 R2