20160847 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20211028

ID#* 20160847
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/28/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/28/2021
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
ID#:* 20160847
Existing ID#
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dairyland
County: Orange
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address-*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: Dairyland MY3 Report.pdf 11.64MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature: *
'-wwrff&?2c t

fires
October 26, 2021
Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Dairyland Year 3 Monitoring Report (SAW-2016-01258)
Mr. Tugwell,
360o Glenwood Ave, Suite ioo
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Please find attached the Dairyland Year 3 Monitoring Report. A total of 10 out of the 11 fixed vegetation
plots met the 320 stems per acre success criteria and three out of the four random vegetation plots met
the 320 stems per acre success criteria. There were zero stream problem areas in Year 3 and Year 2
vegetation problem areas, two small areas of encroachment and two low stem density areas, were
repaired in October 2020 and January 2021, respectively. RES plans to replant the 0.47 acres of Year 3 low
stem density areas this dormant season.
RES is requesting a 10% (350.20 SMU) credit release.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist
cc. Sam Dailey

W
3
d
a m a+
V
LL d
o
O
Z
N
•a
a
y
u
c
O
z
d
5
c
W
a
a
O
ad
O
LL
Z
C W
AR C
C 2
- d
u
N
u 3
O W
W
O
a
i
U
m
o
E
m
u
E d
�
m
N
a
c
o
•�
W
2
3
'^
C
•
Y
U
o
U
N
d
a
E
U
N
d
a
d
w
m
o
N
�
O
O
O
a"
'6 Y
W
W
m
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
W W
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
N
ri
N
N
N
N
N
N
���
N
N
a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
�
Q
Q
Q
y
m
Z
Z
Z
.6 a+
V �
W (J
W H
LL
'6
Q
Q
Q
W W
N
N
O
M
ti
O
N
O
M
ti
Z
Z
Z
O
L K
.ti
Z
�
m
C
Q
Z
O
Z
W
C
�
Q
d
d
�
z
6
c d
'6
Q
r
W
N W
Z
i
K K
3
C
W
W
L W
i
In K
3
U
� d
u° �
O W
O
u
m
u`
E
0
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
d
N N
O5
N
O
O
O^
O^
6
6
0
in
��
io
in
m
m
m
ti
m
ti
m
m
m
ei
� N
3
L W
VI �
W
E
Y
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
o
y
r
-_
c
cc
M.
M.
CO
VI
}
W
W
W
W
W
E
W
yam,
U
u
m
^
F
N

\2§2§§ ;--
Ge§:§; a[§

DAIRYLAND STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
October 2021

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 2
StreamSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................... 2
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Design/Approach.......................................................................................................................3
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 4
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3)............................................................................................... 4
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 4
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 5
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Vegetation Plot Photos
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 Geomorpholo2v Data
Baseline Cross -Section Plots
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrolo2y Data
Table 10. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Dairyland Flow Gauge UT2 Stream Flow Hydrograph

1.0 Proiect Summary
L I Project Location and Description
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
and residential land use in Orange County, North Carolina, about eight miles Southwest of Hillsborough.
The project area exhibited diminished hydrology and habitat value as a result of past and on -going
agricultural activities. The project involved the restoration, enhancement, and protection of streams in the
Cape Fear River basin.
The project lies within the Haw River Basin and Jordan Lake Watershed (8-digit USGS HUC 03030002,
14-digit USGS 03030002050030). The project watershed is primarily characterized by agriculture, forests,
and low -intensity residential areas.
The total easement area is 28.6 acres. Adjacent fields are dominated by corn and soybeans. Vegetation
around the ponds and the unbuffered stream reaches (HB1, HB2, and UT2) was primarily composed of
herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. The existing farm ponds offered little habitat to support aquatic
life, and the riparian buffers were not maximizing their potential to filter nutrients.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted at a
minimum of twice per year throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until
performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. The measure of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and
no change in stream channel classification. The measure of vegetative success for the site will be the
survival of at least 210 seven-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique
Places to Save (UP2S), an approved third -party long-term steward. The long-term steward 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. Easements will be stewarded in general
accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. These guidelines include
annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication with the landowner(s).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 hydrologic units. The 2009 Cape
River Basin RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Cape River Basin, as well as for
hydrologic unit code (HUC 03030002), specifically. To satisfy these needs RES has established the RES
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, with the first approved bank site being the Dairyland Mitigation
Site.
The Site is located within the Haw River, the major river in HUC 03030002. This river and its tributaries
flow to B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply. This supply has been designated a Nutrient
Sensitive Water and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a set of goals to reduce non -
point source pollution in its watershed. Goals include promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in
agricultural and urban areas by restoring and preserving streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers. The Site
provides compensatory mitigation for impacts on the Waters of the US under the Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
Dairyland 1 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

Project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Dam breach and pond removal,
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels.
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Enhancement of hydrology and vegetation in existing riparian wetlands,
• Treatment and control of exotic invasive species,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation, and
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, root wads.
Due to its location and improvements, the Site provides numerous ecological and water quality benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such
as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Many of
the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from
agricultural operations, improvement of terrestrial habitat, and construction of in -stream structures, address
the degraded water quality and nutrient input stressors identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009
Cape Fear RBRP.
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 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
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 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.
Dairyland 2 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

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. Vegetation monitoring will occur between July 1st and leaf drop and
includes 11 permanent vegetation plots and four random vegetation plots. 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, 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. 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.
1.4 Project Components
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are based upon site design in the approved final mitigation plan.
SMIJ totals were adjusted and calculated using the most recent non-standard buffer width guidance. The
stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1, as well as Figure 2.
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
3,657
N/A
N/A
Mitigation
Proposed
Stationing
Mitigation Base
Reach
Type
(Proposed) L(LF�h
Ratio
SMUs
Adjusted SMUs
HB-1
Enhancement II
0+17 to 8+90 873
2.5:1
349
349
HB-2
P1 Restoration
9+50 to 22+69 1,319
1: 1
1,319
1,452
UT-1
Enhancement III
0+15 to 9+84 969
5: 1
194
194
UT-2
Enhancement I
0+0 to 2+10 210
1.5:1
140
150
UT-2
P1 Restoration
2+10 to 11+74 964
1: 1
964
1,079
WF-1
Preservation
0+20 to 15+74 1,554
10:1
155
155
WF-2
Enhancement III
16+55 to 19+10 255
5: 1
51
51
WF-2
Enhancement III
23+30 to 34+64 1,134
5: 1
227
227
Total 7,278
3,399
3,657
*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 Approved Mitigation Plan.
1.5 Design/Approach
The 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 "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
Dairyland 3 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore, et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was developed using
analytical methods in an effort to identify the design discharge.
Priority Level I Restoration was performed on Reaches HB-2 and UT-2, both of which were farm ponds.
Restoration activities included draining and breaching the existing impoundments and constructing
channels once the ponds had been breached. A combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement
Level II was performed along the primary project channel (Reaches HB-1 and HB-2) to address existing
impairments, particularly impoundment, floodplain disconnection, and buffer degradation. Enhancement
III was performed on Reaches UT-1 and WF-2, as the channel is stable throughout, regularly accesses its
floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. Preservation was performed for Reach WF-I. The
channel is stable throughout, regularly accesses its floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in August 2018 and planting was completed in November 2018. The
Dairyland Mitigation Site was built to design plans and guidelines. Baseline channel length and stationing
is based on design centerline. The only notable change that was made during construction was changing
the crossing between HB-1 and HB-2 from a culvert to a ford. This modification, which is outside of the
conservation easement area, was made based on the large amount of bedrock unearthed after the ponds
were dewatered. The design engineer drafted and sealed a bulletin drawing to retain the bedrock features
and tie-in with the downstream stream design as shown in the Mitigation Plan. The bulletin is included in
Appendix F. Also, a few log structures were removed from the design to utilize the existing bedrock found
in the new channel location and retained the designed channel slope. Following Hurricane Florence and
Hurricane Michael, the stream construction contractor added rip rap material around the grade control
structures from 7+00 to 9+00 on UT-2. During the As -Built Site Visit with the IRT on November 29, 2018,
RES agreed that the amount of rip rap material was not appropriate for the design. Shortly after the site
visit, RES removed the rip rap from the areas not directly around structures. Two other areas that were
identified during this site visit included two small encroachment areas along WF-2 and the general comment
to treat invasive species in the )AT-2 easement area.
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3)
The Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) activities were completed in May and September 2021. All monitoring data
is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meet vegetation and stream interim success
criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the 11 fixed vegetation plots and four random vegetation plots was completed during mid -
September 2021. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, and associated photos and plot locations are in
Appendix B. MY3 monitoring data indicates that all plots but two are exceeding the interim success criteria
of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 162 to 1012 planted stems per acre with
a mean of 596 planted stems per acre. A total of 12 species were documented within the plots. The average
tree height observed in the permanent vegetation plots was 7.8 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. There are two low stem density areas totaling about 0.47
acres in size. The first area is in and around VP2 and the second is in and around RVP1. These areas will
be supplemental planted this dormant season. The two small areas of encroachment were addressed in
Dairyland 4 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

October 2020 and are no longer an issue. In January 2021, RES performed supplemental planting of about
600 bareroot trees. The supplemental planting was done in areas where MY2 vegetation plots showed less
than 600 stems per acre.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY3 was collected during May 2021. Summary tables and cross section plots are
in Appendix D. Overall, the cross sections relatively match baseline condition. Minor adjustments are
expected in the first few years after construction.
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. One area of bank erosion was observed
around a log sill at Cross Section 7. This area is not considered a problem in MY3 due to the thick livestake
growth in the area. RES will continue to closely monitor this structure.
Stream Hydrology
There are two stage recorders on site, one on Reach HB-2 and one on Reach UT-2. Additionally, as
requested by the IRT, RES is reporting flow data on Reach UT-2. MY3 hydrology data shows four bankfull
events on HB-2 and 10 on UT-2. The highest event on HB-2 was 0.36 feet above bankfull and the highest
event on UT-2 was 0.61 feet above bankfull. Reach UT-2 reported 209 consecutive flow days and 240
cumulative flow days. Gauge locations are shown on Figure 2 and full hydrology 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 16 cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include a flow gauge and a crest
gauge. The flow gauges were installed within the channel and will record flow conditions at an hourly
interval. The crest gauges were installed on the bank at the bankfull elevation. During quarterly visits to the
Site, the height of the corkline will be recorded. HOBO data from the flow gauges will be corrected using
bankfull recordings from the crest gauges. In result of crest gauge failure, the flow gauges will be corrected
using the water depth at the gauge and the height of the top of bank at the gauge. Additionally, flow data is
corrected using the height of the downstream riffle to detect flow.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 11 permanent monitoring plots and four random 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. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of a 100 square meter belt transect.
Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped and new
locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
Dairyland 5 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

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
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). `Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009." (September 2014).
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 (2017). Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (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.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
Dairyland 6 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2021

Appendix A
Background Tables

2
m
a
E
E
m
E
m
m
m
n
n
4
�
0
4
(n
U
~
N
C
C
-
j
N
.0
Y
N
Ul
Ul
Ul
n
L
mmowv
U
m
m
m
m
(n
LL
m>
E
LL
Y
-
o
-
o
m
m
m
E
in
n
o
m
m
a
U
,
O
U
,
v
m
o
U
waEi
aEi
o
°
a
o
°2
a
o
n
n
n
z
a
a
0-1
01
a
1 cn
cn
I cn
a o ay
N
ON
�O
M
'
N
N
N
o Y
U
N
O
6I O
N
N
N
N
U T
° 4
O_
a
a
J
o
o
o
J
Ul
N
Ul
N
Ul
N
Ul
N
�
o �
�
11
O
V
O
O
Y
O
Y
O
O
O
O
N
�
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
U)
N
+
N
o
+
o
O
N
+
M
N
N
N m
o
O
N
O
N
a in m
o
o
ro
QU
O
U
a �v
a m n
m o �
N � T
U
� �
U
p �
CO
CO
d ° u
U �
E
E
O
z
z
a W
v a
a m
o
E
_
-
w
w o
o
-
m
�
"o
° o
_
3=r Ev
c
L
ww
v
c
_
E v v
E
v
m E
r E
E
0
3 v
o m
a w E o
w
w e
o o
E m `m
-
a
_
o r
_
lo
2 3 0
a
w
c
-
-
ao�3Y
o
a
`o w
o
mo
=
o
3
z
o
o v
o a
v
m mo
E.
v >'"
o
o
O
m
E a
O Y v
>
2
v N
W
>
° v
>o
m
- >o
vo °
2
a
0
-OE:
y co
�r
c
C w v�
Qvo�=m
> .o
p
z
a
Ov a
w
N
v
ZEm
V'
o
v
a
o
o v
m °'
-
-
ar
-
3 E � E.
a
3
w w ,
a
w"
= —
o
m' y o
T
m
E
E
N
W
a"
ul
W
i
O
N
Ln
IO
m +�
Gl
M
O c�
i
O
h0
m
c
m
E
�
EA
Q
=
Z
m �
Q m
� U
O
N
-6
ar
(6
in
O
Z
N
U
C
(6 (6
(6
N
_Q
�
N
ww
ro
v
o
m
N
N
J
-
-
-
N
Y
O
E
E
E
E
�
0
>
IT
W
W
W
W
02
d
=

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 3 years 2 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 2 years 11 months
Number of reporting Years : 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
Nov-17
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Apr-18
Stream Construction
NA
Aug-18
Bareroot plantings
NA
Nov-18
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Nov-18
Dec-18
Year 1 Monitoring
XS: Aug-19
Ve : Aug19
Oct-19
Year 2 Monitoring
XS: June-20
Ve : Se -20
Sep-20
Encroachment Repair
NA
Oct-20
Supplemental Planting
NA
Jan-21
Invasive Treatment
NA
Feb-21
Year 3 Monitoring
XS: May-21
Ve : Se -21
Oct-21
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
Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC
Ben Carroll [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC / P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Joseph Wright [phone]
Survey Contractor
Ascension Land Surveying, PC / 116 Williams Road,
Mocksville, NC 27028
Survey contractor POC
Chris Cole, PLS [phone]
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC / P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Contractor point of contact
Joseph Wright [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Claridge Nursery 1-[phone]
Monitoring Performers
RES / 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
N/A

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Dairyland
County
Orange
Project Area (acres)
28.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 35.4754 N Longitude:-78.3117 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
17.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03030002050030
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (Acres)
WF 674 ; HB 144
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1 %
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest; Agricultural; Residential
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
HB1
HB2
UT1
UT2
WF1
WF2
Length of reach (linear feet)
873
1319
969
1174
1554
1389
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
___
___
___
___
___
---
Drainage area (Acres)
57
144
65
55
624
674
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
___
___
___
___
___
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-II, HQW, NSW
---
---
WS-II, HQW, NSW
Stream Classification (existing)
E6
C4
E6
C6
E4
E4
Stream Classification (proposed)
---
E4
---
E4
---
---
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
___
___
___
FEMA classification
---
---
---
---
Zone AE
Zone AE
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2016-
01258
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR-16-
0847
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from
NCWRC
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from
SHPO
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
---
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
---
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

z
a
soar sUpsPo
0
Ab s
�o
9 Y
a
0 V
N
C
O�
Y
�
II
N
C C
:fl
C
K
a
o`
C N
N
CJ
PH Tob
s Oak
c
r�o
Sp00
n
ti
Qd
c
�P
O
PH anoJE) a6°ejo
'O
0
n
a
Vista
Qb
aY
a
z
J
O
a fn U
2
.0
r
w 0 aI O
is y Z
U
0
LL z
J � Z
V/ L O
W
0
Z
I
Irt'•►i
C
A
°�
Eas
C
cu E
W a
0 co
W
CIDaoa
(0
U) N
O N
+oa
i
x
(2)
"�
d
U
o
O
0
o
w O
LL N
a
0

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

H
L
G
E
U
Z
EE
S
R Y
0c
?a
'
w
W
-
---
E
d
N
W
fA
O w
N
=
_
O
o Z o
m
o
.- .- .-
N N N
Q
fA C
'O O
C •-
O>
0
N
7
O
o
ry W
W a
E E a E E
m
o
o Y
E E E m
p
m
7
R R
U C
M
U
ii f7 Z
O
c n n> n n
m U N
u u u 10
ry
LL
_�
?"'
C LL
E
cm_
J
o
`m m o 0 0 0 O
d m m c m m
F
.x o
s s s m
m m
R
7
C
R
U
w
(n y ip
W U O Of
o
W W d F
(n OfM
AUMEE
lZiilii
®.
ER
2
c
E aN
E-
Q E
C U m
O �
a m
c
O 9 =
U
C
O
Q a
� saiaadS anisenu�
E
U

E
Z
E
w
N
W
R y
N
fA C
+'
+
O y
N
=
O
o Z
W
o
O N N N N
m
a
m O
"moo Q
•- •- Y
N N N 0 p
a
M o
N O
R R
C •-
O>
U R
0
N
M
7
O
U
o
w
m
W
m° in in E in in
z'u
� m m
u u 10 m m
m o-' U
01
m
ip
f
W U O d'
W W W d F (n K
-
3 C7
} o
ui
,.•w o
14
AIN
' 1
9
C o m
O �
v m
c
O -
c
c
O
Q a
� saiaadS anisenu�
M

Stream Problem Areas
Dairyland
Feature Issue / Location / Size
Photo
N/A
N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas
Dairyland
Feature Category / Location / Size
Photo
Low Stem Density Area / VP2 / 0.22 ac
f
Low Stem Density Area / RVP1 / 0.25 ac
� _

1, X

elf}}�l9fi l,i y� i�
w�
4 ,y
4= f
C �•
..i

WA

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems Planted
White Oak
Quercus alba
4000
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
3000
River Birch
Betula nigra
3000
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
2850
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2500
Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
2170
Yellow -Poplar
briodendron tulipifera
2000
Bitternut Hickory
Carya cordiformis
1000
Mockernut Hickory
Carya tomentosa
1000
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
1000
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
1000
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
1000
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
960
Total
25,480
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Criteria
Met?
Average
verage
Planted
Stem Height
(ft)
1
364
405
769
Yes
2.5
2
162
0
162
No
4.8
3
567
0
567
Yes
6.9
4
890
40
931
Yes
11.2
5
1012
0
1012
Yes
8.5
6
324
121
445
Yes
5.1
7
647
0
647
Yes
4.6
8
445
0
445
Yes
10.1
9
567
405
971
Yes
5.7
10
931
647
1578
Yes
9.9
11
647
0
647
Yes
11
R1
283
0
283
No
2.6
R2
890
0
890
Yes
9.8
R3
445
0
445
Yes
5.4
R4
364
0
364
Yes
4.7
Project Avg
569
108
677
Yes
7.8

1111�111�11110��1�
1111�111�11111��11
=
1111�111�11111��11
1111�111�11111
11
1111�111�11111��1�
1�11�111�11111���1
=
Illl�lllilllll��ll
1111�111�11111
1�
-
1111�111�11111��11
1111�111:11111
IA
1111�111:1111����1
1111�111�11111��1�
IIII�IIli11111���9
IIII
II
I
I
IIIIII
III
II

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

N
N
CL
00
•
LD
I;
N
I:
o
c
co
N
M
r
�
�
o
I
:
:
(o
co
I
I
I
fn
co
w
I
:
Cl)
O
I
O Y
N
U
O
Cl)
O (6
N m
1
} 0
J
r_
N
I
U
I
N
d
C
I.
Q
C
I
�
O
W
I;
N
CN 0-
_0
r
I:
00
O
O
LL
V
LO
I
r
1
r
C
� m
I•
o O
rn
I
Q
o
I I
co
O
O rn
OD
r�
cO
LO
LO
LO LO
LO
U)
U)
U)
(11) uOi;enal3
w
rl
O
N
In
�
l
a1
/
n
00
n
n
n
u
m
S.i
U
N
01
t-:
"
01
00
n
�O
h
n
O
00
LO
DD
L(')
('7
I�
O
M
0-)
(O
N
O
ao
O
LO
A
M
00
vOi
01
00
4
N
O
00
00
h
00
01
O
n
n
N
O
O
Q
Y
i
Nu
LL
LL
LL
1
(j)
W
Q
0
0
c
ccai
c
0
I
m
p
'Z
J
(n
=
w
m
x
FL
m
U)
m
m
o
U
m
Y
m
O
m
m
�
�
�
R
Y
>
d
c
0
LU
m
z
w
�
R
A
I.S.
� a
by ,Z
s
y C

R
d
N
CL
00
v
LO
O
N
v
M
}
N
co
I
N
co
c
O
r
()
U)
Cl)
Cl)O
O Y
N m
0
L
} 3
�J
U
I
�
N
�
U
�
N N
o
a
01 C
N
N
O �
Cl
N a
m
}
�
ci
I
NNR
Ll�
r
c
io
y
m
O X
N O
�a
c�
0
LO
LO
Ln
LO
LO V
In In
V
In
V
In
LO
LO
(g) uogenel3
a
N
U
N
�
LO
O
m
O
(0
m
LO
N
(V
(h
n
O
LO
O
O
o
-o_
a
m
O
W
Q
rn
c
Y
m
c
0
E
I
C
Occ
c
C
m
0
0
Y
a
3
U
C
m
m
o
0
Y
J
W
m
FLN
N
'2
m
m
O
c
U
m
Y
m
m
m
m
m
z
m
O
m
A

:,,
/V
+
t
N r r
•�r'
i
btu
O
0
00
I:
v
I•
N
o Y
0�
•
I
N m
6
•
N
0
00
co
I :
M
I•
�
I
c
I;
co
;
I:
co
co
I ;
U)
N
I:
U)O
0
co
_
U
1
'
r_
O
1—
N
re
m
o
I •
N x
O
l3
°;
0
I•
cu
N
Q
I•
N
fn
I:
N
N
I
m
co
L
ci
R
1
r_
C4
O�
L
00
N N
cc
I.
r r
�
I I
I;
c')
I:
0
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
(11) uogenel3
O
O
a
M
C
M
00
O
�i
1-
00
O
O
N
r
m
V
M
/
LO
O
(V
Ob
N
N
W
O
N
00
V1
N
O
O
co
X
a
�°
m
0
0
uJ
Q
a�i
rn
c
Y
aa)
0
N
N
N
c
L=
Y
0
2
m
0
.0
C
Y
Q
m
O
Y
J
U)
—
W
m
FL
N
N
N
m
m
O
C
U
m
_2
m
m
m
m
r/�
z
c
�
0
A

O
0
00
v
LIB
N
V
O
rq
C
I
N
co
co
C
m
�a
ci
co
O Y
N
N
co
oN m
N
0
O
J
L
m
IU
c
O
�
N
cc
O
N
d
N
Mn
C
m
O
} O
LL
_
co
ci
R
LO
R
a
cc
m
ON x0
o
a
�Q
co
L
i 0
'ITU)
U)
U)'IT
U)'IT
U)'IT
U)
U)
(11) uOi;enal3
a
7
i
i
i
i

co
v
LO
N
oN Y
O CU
N m
0
N
�J
co
'
L
I
C
co
O
ci
U)
co
co
fA
N
O
Cl)
U
�
O
N �0
m
x
+,
N
, o
L4
U
0-
Q
,Zr m
N
O
I�
N
N
m
co
L
ci
R
LO
co
00
R
L
N N
O (`')
co
IL
i
O
V V
In
V
In
V
In
V
In
V
LO
LO
In
V
(11) uoi;enal3
a
i
i
.�
✓�
O
a
y
Lo
'T
O
(

00
1
LO
�
t7
O
N
�
m
I
0
,
r
,
co
4%
co
co
O
U)
o�
U)
N m
0
o
co
0
c
O
C
N
c
a�
U
N0
'
N
N
N
y
'
N
p
d
Q
_
cr)a)
'
N
N
o
a-6
m
�o
=
00
LL
cc
IR
r
L
a0 cu
m
O
0 i
a
�OL
l
co
i
0
V
V
V V
�
M
M
LO
U)
U)
U)
LO
LO
LO
(11) uogenel3
U =
O N
z0

E
g
�
\
/
_
}I
/
r
�
}�
/
%04
}I
Cj
}/
2
%
2!
a
} �
e
'T
,
}I
\
r
$
m
co
§
/
/
g
H
@
t
'
=
§
%
cu
�I
F0co
.
g
§
§/
r
n
Cl)
o
K
N
d
,
}I
\
{ \
/
3
2
�
_
\
I
«
F
§
®
$
$
e
/
n
:I
t
\
/
k
2
/
Lij
2
§§
\
\
\
§
\
/
k
/
}�
t
}I
\ \
§
§
§)
/
{
§
M
}I
W
®g
/
ƒ
f
)
±
©
m
§
r
°
)
�
\
m
2
I
}I
?
§
=
2
I
/
/
/
[
/
)
§
�
§
V u
mg
=

E
J
�
§
�
E
g
�
\
�
_
I�
/
r
�
}
I`
:
§
a
g
°
$
E
�}
00
/
`
co
%
/
\
j
f
/
z
z
e
g
,
'
5
t
�
co
co
}
f
-
2
CU
§]
§
n
K
z
K
R
c
»
e
2
/
y !
o
'
k
§\^°
o>
o
0
i:
j)
/
g§\
d
Io
Il
6
\
Ib
�}
2
nu
°
(9
/
9
f
f
c
2
g
\
\ /
)
2
°
\
a
a
\
/
��
g
k
-
�
/
\
ƒ
ƒ
%
I
x
=
=
a
=
®
®
`
2
-
°
3
LU
x
C
k
e
e
o
(
2G
]E°]m/tom
>
o
§ 3
m
/
=
g
*
_
I:
�
\\
W
/f»j/_
I
\
m
/
ED
c
}
m
(
/
[
/
[
/
)
/
z
d u
mg
2
Q
\
!

E
d
N
C
E
f4
d
00
IT
LO
IT
N
� O
N Y
O CU
N
00
co04
} 0
J
co �
I
co
co
O
co
I— w O) m
N m
U X
O
N1
N
� I .
_ I
N I
r
00
N N
� I I
co
O
U) U) U) U U)
U) U) U) V) V) V) V)
(11) uOi;enal3

E
R
N
R
N
G
00
L
I
N
V
o Y
N
o
I
m
04
0
C
O
r
J
a
coco
a
a°
I
o
o
I
co
N
N°
o
O
co
co
v�
cn
z
z
M
N
p
3
N
o
U
r
�
m
O
N S
O x
`
•
a�
°
N
�
00
o
I
v¢
cu
V
O
d)
N
I
N ;
IN
l
�
I
I
_
N
I
cocc
W
O
O
ci
.0
N
U
. O
O
K
t
t
Q
t
RC4
00
o o
0
W
O
Q
N
rn
Q
Y
—
N
0
E
o
cc
I
Y
O
m
O
U
U
C
Y
m
4:2
w
u�
o
N
m
I I
�
m
O
0
O
Y
�
0
J
U)
—
m
�
W
—
m
m
°
Y
U
m
Y
m
c0
=
m
M
m
m
z
m
In
V
V
V
V
V
V
O
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U
(11) uOi;enal3
A

§
J
U)
§
a
E
\
/
�
.
_
�
\
&
/
§
I)
[co
co(\
9
CA,
R
/
°
®
,
�
a
/
/
3
/
to
§
t
\
co
/
J
m
I`
«
-
\
\
/
In
I`
§
/\^°
e
s
o°
o
0
j)
///§
a
lo
K%
a
d
f
)
§
)/
\
co[)
_
§
|�
«//F
/�/yy
/
Cl)©
J
/
LL,<
/
E
t
I`
a 3
=
o
o
x
r
k
e
e
o
I
a
§ 6
C
§
§
m
/
{
}
§
cL
)k2)
\L
®»
g%I
)§\
2{±
o
G
r
_
§
I
]
I
[
)
/
§
/ §
/
§
/
z
y
_g
§
Q

00
v
LO
N
O
N
V
M
�
N
Ico
N
(O
Cl)
O
r
Cl)
O Y
(n
O
N �
m
U1
CD}
3
O
L
co
3
IO
C
N
r
U
O
N N
� �
N
o °
N
N Q
_ a
000
} O
LL
�
Ici
C
N
L
Q
O)
m
O X
N 0
} I'
�Q
M
I
O
V
V
V
�
M
M
V
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
U)
(g) uogenel3
x
rl
U
N
0
0
LO
.0
O
O
X
a
S°
m
CL
m
>
>
Y
Q
C
N
I
Y
2
m
O
L
m
0
_
3
0
U
N
j
C
C
m
O
Y
J
=
LU
=
U
m
Y
m
m
�
m
�
m
z
Y
o
m
A

■
E
§
�
E
g
�
$
%
04
9
\ \
co
|}
co
§
co
k
C)
o
�
§
C °=j
\\\
I
�
§
I
\
_
�
\
J
%
k
a
04
cc
\\
�
||
m
Q
@
§
g
m
m
J
d u
mg
�
■
t
�
t
�
|
■
k
�
t
E
t
t
k
F
t
t

Y
0
C
m
0
L
I
N
a
I
cu
O
O,
m
QI
co
o
�
a
�
O
I
(0
co
n
v
-Z
U
cn
i
m
U)
o
I
o
(i
CDN
co
c
O
N
n
N
N
00
V
I
N
I
MnLO
c3
o
O
N
LU
N
,
>-
z
h
h
Q\
O
coL
~
L
n
�
I
N
N
N
.0
0
I
LO
cc
_
_
.0
ON
Q
}
m
p
Y
Q
rn
c
C
N
w
N
C-
L=
i
Y
p
m
0
-�
Y
a)
�
I
m
°o
Y�
�
cn
m
�
N
N
—
�
w
OD
o
m
m
O
—
Y
c
U
Y
co
O
r
m
o
I
z
Y
LO
LO LO
LO
LO
LO
L
o
m
(11) uogenel3
A

E
J
�
§
�
E
g
�
}
/
_
I
0
§
/
r
}
�
}
`
\
I
%
—
$
I
k
}
a
�
LO
co]
§
co
/
2
%
}
I
•
/
r
^
�
^
\§
}
co
/
\
§
/
Q
=
I
/
/
% F
�
®
©
m
§
i
j
§
lo
.1(010111
\
e
,
Mn
cc)
a
o
grq
f
&
&
§
z
/
�
I
=
\
o
»g-
cc^..
0
)
/
«
9
o
a
2
m=
°
3
<
)
E
t
]
x
f
a
e
e
t
o
§
§
§
m
.0
§
|
)
/
D
I
I
o
u
m_
e
E
§
§
,
J
/
3
OD
I
I
§
f
J
»
co\
o
|
cl)
f
]
(
k
\
k
k
\
\
\
I
d u
mg
Q
\

d
N
N
Q
00
v
I
N
o
co
0
co
0
N
M
M
N
N
I
a�i
I
co
U
N
O
•
I
O
cu
U
O
O m
N
n
In
Al
r 0
U
J
C
N
:
�j
00
00.
0
00
N
O
O
O
N
V
m
m
LO
N
N
(h
N
(�
I
c
N
�'
Q
n
t
I
rn C
W
_
N
O
o
O
O
Q�
h
WIn
M
(V
•
I
co
O
U-
cC
(D
M
vi
A
N
N
M
N
Vl
n
I
Q
o
o
0
ci
cc
_
N
t
t
_
r
a
i
m
m
p�
D
W
a
Q
t
:
I
c
O .
c
Y
p
E
.�
(4
0
0
r Q
o
2
m
g
L
°
=
m
I I
m°
o
Y
o�_
J
(n
W
m
m
(D
'2
w—
—
m
m
O
C
-�e
:
I
U
(5
m
co
m
m
o
z
O
o0
I-
(O
In
V
(`')
O
O
m
U)
U)
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
L
(11)
uogenel3
IL
I
A

14 I�
I
9
0
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
co
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
!co
E
U), C,4
E am)
ID
co
w co
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
.0
1
U,
.
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
-0
0
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
0
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
—
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
-
t\\\\
— —
— —
-o
-o o
v v
—
— —
,P?
go
§E
o co,
o' 5,
co
o
Lm
t:
o
o
�q — 75
m
82
o
o
om
o
og.
'm
o. <
p Im o
7-
0
2
o
F
tE o
5
E
o
mo
-o
-5 C,
?:
�2
Im
o
o
6,�?
o
o
. '
�5
, o
0
E 1
0
&
o
o
R
o
U
o
o
— -m
E
�m
Z15
o
o
o
E
E-
o
05
o
E
o
o
I<
I
I
E

Nq NN
E;.!mN
N-
N-
W-oo--oo
m
moN
IS
6
16
f2j.
-I
mo
o .
[2
1
wo B
�2
o
N
2! o
w
o
m
o
oo
N
-
.E
N
mo
0
m w
m
o N
o
m
o
m
o
co
m
T,
oorl
6
1
ril
W--
oN
-----
�2
o
o
-----
�2
.....
.....
. .
- -
. .
. .
. .
. .
milli
1
!1!
- -
- -
- -
- -
-o
o
w
o o
o o
w o
cj
-----
-----
N ,
IM
17N
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
O
co
c6
.s
o
x w
mill!
2E
i
M!
u
u
o o
EF EF
o
E
0
'w'm
w.
-2E
o
-Ei
w
w,
t5
o
w
ma
o
o
ol wm
2mE o,Y
w
�o 2E
o
wa
-w
-
'm
o
0
-o
-5
�o
mw
oE
-
-o
o
o� o
o
'o
Ua
o
o
8
wm
O,'2
E
C)
E
9
Uwv
E
wm-
2E 6)
rc
E
o
El
a
o
E-
o

U
I®ffliffiffi -
®IIIIIIIIII .
e®M■ww■nn■■
INUMMUN
®1111111111 I
MUMMMM■wMww
INUMMUN
®1111111111 I
MOMEMM■M©■■
■Iliiliilii ■IIii11i111
■1111111111 ■1111191111
01111111111 81111111111
■IIIAllllll ■1111111111
■11100111i1 ■1119111111
1 ■1111111111 ■1111111111
■1111111111 ■1111111111
■1111111111 ■1111111111
■1111101111 ■I11III1I1E
■IIIIB11111 ■II1IBIIIIE
■1111111111 0110111110E
■IIIIAIIIII ■IIIIAIIII!
K
G W
m
ru
m
N C
Nl Gl
Gl

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal
Limits
Cane Creek Rsvr
Station Precipitation
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.44
3.17
5.25
3.72
February
3.61
2.59
4.26
6.83
March
4.50
3.26
5.31
2.57
April
3.21
2.13
3.85
1.67
May
4.34
3.30
5.05
2.33
June
4.00
2.53
4.83
5.31
July
4.06
2.38
4.93
5.41
August
4.53
3.19
5.37
7.33
September
4.45
1.83
5.41
5.36
October
3.72
2.11
4.53
---
November
3.62
2.28
4.37
---
December
3.23
2.22
3.85
---
Total
47.71
30.99
57.01
40.53
Above Normal Limits
Below Normal Limits
Table 11. Documentation of Significant Flow Events
Year
Bankfull Events
I Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
Estimated Date of Highest Event
Stage Recorder IH132
MY12019*
1
1.30
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
12
1.40
8/31/2020
MY3 2021
4
0.36
9/23/2021
Stage Recorder UT2
MY12019*
1
2.20
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
11
1.75
1/25/2020
MY3 2021
10
0.61
2/16/2021
*Only manual readings were used in MYl
Year qr Flow Ewnts
'mum Consecutive Flow Days
Cummlative Flow Days
Flow Gauge UT2
MY2 2020
15
36
141
MY3 2021
5
209
240

(ul) Ile;uleb
ao c2 v �2 o
I \
I
I
rn
\
�
I
\
I
I
CL
,
0
L
3
'
'
I
I
'
'
N
�
I
y
L
'
M
(7
I
=
�
I
L
N
\
M
'
'
I
o
I
I
I
I
,
I
N
o
\
o
o
o
I
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
�
m m N N
(ul) y;daa aa;eM