20110720 Ver 2_Year 7 Monitoring Report (Stream)_DWR_20211116

ID#* 20110720 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/16/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/16/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address-*
Jamey McEachran [e-mail]
Project Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20110720 Version:* 2
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS • Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Cedar Grove Stream Mitigation Project
County: Orange
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: NeuCon 201200294 Cedar Grove
17.07MB
Stream_MY7Report_DW R. pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Jamey McEachran
Signature:

fires
November 2, 2021
Todd Tugwell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Cedar Grove Year 7 Monitoring Report (SAW — 2012 — 00294)
Mr. Tugwell,
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite ioo
Raleigh, NC 276o8
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Please find attached the Cedar Grove Year 7 Monitoring Report. In Year 7, all 12 vegetation plots met the
210 stems per acre success criteria and the average stem height across the site was 14 feet. No stream or
vegetation problem areas were observed. Beaver management was performed in Year 6 and there was no
sign of beavers in Year 7. Invasive species were treated in June 2021, and easement signage was
updated/repaired in September 2021. All stream and vegetation success criteria have been met.
Additionally, the Financial Assurances for the Cedar Grove Mitigation Project are in place and set to renew
on 1/26/2022.
RES is requesting a 10% (662.57 SMU) credit release and the closeout of the Cedar Grove Stream Mitigation
Site.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist
Jamey McEachran I Project Manager
res.us

d
3
d
V �
y C a+
_
d
ad+
LL d
d
Z
R
.q
N
y
V
a
'z
oa O
Z
d
c
�
a
O
C
d
y
�
d 'z
O
d
_a
y o
d
O
LL
Z
C d
d C
a a
�
z 'z
'6 d
O m
V
:6
3
d
V R
m
d
V
£
e
a
d
3
m
p
N
E d
O
G
d
c
d
a
C
O
d
ba
�
r
�
3
�
my
Q
A
V
O
O
O
i
V
d
V
m
d
V
m
aa°
N
o
a
0
0
0 0
O O
o 0
0 0
d y
d=
N N
N N
Q
d
d
Y
d N
O d
a` y
a'
C
d
q
a
y
G
Z
Z
N
d
V
'6
a+ i
d V
d
uNdi
LL
�
a y
M
M
O M
Z N
O
M Z
Z
O
Z
L d
a'
m
•d
a'
O
Z
d
O . c
y a
y
V
a
d C
z o
10
Z
d
m
d
y
C
c
a'
O
i
a
LL
d
d C
C C
d
3
3
-O
d d
3 q
o
0
o o
Q o
Q o
0 0
0
vt
vt
O O
Z vt
Z�
d
d
L d
� z
3
N
d
o
d
`3
V
E y
O
O
O m
W
ti O
Vmf
VI
o
W W
O N
W
eNl
O
o-
m
lD
N lD
lD
lD
N N
o
0
a d
o
0
0 0
0
o
o o
s a
m
m
o^
m o
o
oq
0 0
��TT
po
W
a
of
o
d
O
d
m
C
bA
C C
C
N
N
N
ao
.C�
ao 'o
.C� .C�
'o
.C� C
C C
C
d
o
my
Y C
C C
C Y
Y Y
Y
d
�
L
Q
o
o
o o
C
R
N
\
C L
C d
L L
d d
L C
d C
C C
C C
C
C
y
a
d
O
girrrr?i'y
d
d d
d
i
a
s
N
} F
F F
cc cc
F
w
o
o
C
Y
d
R
eel
M Q
a
Q Q
a 1l1
Q b
1l1
n
O1
V
O
F

CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted By:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC — Neuse I
Prepared By:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1061
November 2021

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 1
1.1 Location and Setting...............................................................................................................
I
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................
1
1.3 Project Structure.....................................................................................................................
2
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach.....................................................................................
2
1.4 Project History, Mitigation Bank Establishment, Contacts and Attribute Data .....................
5
1.4.1 Project History................................................................................................................
5
1.4.2 Project Watersheds.........................................................................................................
5
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA...................................................................................................................
5
2.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
5
2.1.1 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
5
2.1.2 Longitudinal Profile........................................................................................................
6
2.1.3 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
6
2.1.4 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
6
2.1.5 Pebble Counts.................................................................................................................
6
2.1.6 Digital Photo Stations.....................................................................................................
6
2.1.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community and Water Quality Sampling ..........................
6
2.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................
7
2.3 Scheduling/Reporting.............................................................................................................
7
3 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................................
7
3.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
7
3.1.1 As -Built Survey..............................................................................................................
7
3.1.2 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
8
3.1.3 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
8
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................
8
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
8
3.1.6 Pebble Counts.................................................................................................................
8
3.1.7 Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................
8
3.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................
9
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN........................................................................
9
4.1 Stream.....................................................................................................................................9
4.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................
9
5 MONITORING YEAR 7 CONDITIONS (MY7)........................................................................
10
5.1 Year 7 Monitoring Data Collection......................................................................................10
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel.............................................................................10
5.1.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................10
5.1.3 Photo Documentation...................................................................................................11
5.1.4 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................11
5.1.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community and Water Quality Sampling ........................11
6 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................12
i

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
Appendices
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Appendix B. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross Section Plots
Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross Section Data
Table 7. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-8. Stream Reach Substrate Composition
Photo Station Photos
Table 8. Bank Pin Array Summary Table
Table 9. Stream Problem Areas
Table 10. Vegetation Problem Areas
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 11. Planted Species Summary
Table 12. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 13. Stem Count Total and Planted Species (Species by Plot)
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D. Water Sampling and Benthic Mac roinverteb rate Survey
September 2021 — Cedar Grove Bank Site
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 15. 2021 Rainfall Summary
11

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Cedar Grove Mitigation Site ("Site") is located on the former Cedar Grove Golf course off McDade
Store Road (NCSR 1354), just northwest of its intersection with Rick Road in Orange County, North
Carolina (Figure 1). The Site is located approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of
McDade Store Road and State Route 86 and approximately 0.7 miles northeast of the intersection
McDade Store Road and Efland Cedar Grove Road.
The Site is located within the Upper Falls Lake watershed in the Neuse River Basin (8-digit USGS
HUC 03020201, 12-digit USGS HUC 03020201 0301), more specifically within Neuse Sub -basin 03-
04-01. Stormwater runoff from this site drains into the East Fork Eno River (Stream Index 927-2-3),
which is located in the northeastern section of the Site. According to the N.C. Division of Water Quality
Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS), the East Fork Eno River is classified as WS-II
(Water Supply II), HQW (High Quality Waters), and NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Cedar Grove stream mitigation project provides numerous ecological and water quality benefits
within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such
as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects.
Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined below.
Design Goals and Objectives
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Nutrient removal
Benefit will be achieved through improved denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer zones,
and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches and ditch outlets.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
Sediment removal
loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be decreased through
a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces.
Increase dissolved oxygen
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
concentration
dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower water temperature to increase dissolved oxygen capacity.
Runoff filtration
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff,
thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream.
Benefits to Flood Attenuation
Water storage
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will infiltrate more water during
precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Improved groundwater
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
recharge
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately
hydrologic connections
sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at flows greater than
the bankfull stage.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Restoration of habitats
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
ecosystem.

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
Improved substrate and
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve bedform
instream cover
diversity and to trap detritus. Substrate will become more coarse as a result of the stabilization of
stream banks and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the stream.
Addition of large woody
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
debris
Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs.
Reduced temperature of
water due to shading
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
1.3 Project Structure
Table 1. Cedar Grove Project Components
Existing
As -Built
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach
Stationing
Length
Length
SMUs
Type
Ratio
(LF)
(LF)
East Fork Eno River
Enhancement I
314+00
to
324+30
944
1,030
1 : 1.5
686
UT-1
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
20+21
834
1,021
1 : 1.0
1,021
UT-2A*
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
31+38
1,714
1,954
1 : 1.0
1,883.1
UT-213
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
11+00
100
100
1 : 1.0
100
UT-3
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
34+23
2,055
2,423
1 : 1.0
2,423
UT-4
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
12+76
245
276
1 : 1.0
276
UT-5
P1 Restoration
10+00
to
14+02
310
402
1 : 1.0
402
Total
6,202
7,206
6,791.1
* Based on information provided in the Year 5 Monitoring Report, along with an on -site field verification
conducted by members of the IRT on December 12, 2019, the upper 2 ponds of UT2-A should be measured based
on valley length, rather than a single -thread stream channel. As such, the revised total stream mitigation units
(SMUs) for the site will be 6791.1 SMUs (a 70.9 SMU reduction).
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along five unnamed tributaries and the East Fork Eno River
were accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The
design approach applied a combination of analytical and reference reach based design methods that
meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Performed
treatment activities range from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and
hydraulic geometry. Stream reaches requiring full restoration, natural design concepts were applied and
verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was to
design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing
landscape.
The Site includes Priority Level I stream restoration and stream Enhancement Level L Priority Level I
stream restoration incorporated the design and construction of a single -thread meandering channel, with
parameters based on data taken from the reference site, published empirical relationships, NC Rural
Piedmont Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. 6,176 linear feet of stream channel
has been reconstructed along reaches UT-1, UT-2A, UT-2B, UT-3, UT-4, and UT-5. Enhancement

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
Level I was applied to 1,030 linear feet of channel along the East Fork Eno River that required
stabilization and bank improvements, and buffer restoration.
The Site design approach began with a thorough study of existing conditions, including the onsite
streams and ditches, valleys, and watershed. Design parameters included active channel, habitat and
floodplain features were developed from analyses performed at the reference site. Analytical design
techniques were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Engineering analyses were performed concurrently to geomorphic and habitat studies. While the stream
design was verified by simulations of hydrology and fluvial processes, analogs of desirable habitat
features were derived from reference sites and integrated into the project design. Both riparian habitat
features and in -stream structures such as boulder cross -vanes, log vanes, rock n' roll riffles, rock and
wood cluster riffles, j-hooks, and brush toes were used throughout the project to act as grade control
and for bank stabilization by dissipating and redirecting the stream's energy. Bank stability was also
enhanced through the installation of cutting bundles and live stakes that included native species (e.g.
black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)).
Sections of abandoned stream channel were backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas
adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugs and flood
plain sills where necessary. The floodplains were planted with native species creating a vegetated
buffer, which will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits. Stream banks were
stabilized using a combination of grading, erosion control matting, bare -root plantings, native material
revetment techniques (i.e. bioengineering), structure placement, and sod transplants where possible.
The stream and adjacent riparian areas have been protected by a minimum 50-foot permanent
conservation easement.
When all of these components are combined, a functional and stable channel with diverse habitat will
be restored. According to Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003) published by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency, The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the NCDWR, the stream mitigation design has met the guidelines of stream
restoration and will be subject to a mitigation ratio of 1:1. Enhancement Level I activities were
performed on the East Fork Eno River and has a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1.
East Fork Eno River (314+00 to 324+30) - The principal drainage feature (East Fork Eno River)
totaling 1,030 linear feet of Enhancement Level I generally flows northwest to southeast across the
northeast portion of the site. UT-1 and UT-3 both flow directly into the East Fork Eno River. The
planform of this E-type channel was generally straight and was deeply incised throughout. No large
woody debris was observed in the channel during pre -construction conditions. Enhancement activities
included laying back banks, enhancing existing stream benches, installing grade control and habitat
structures, and replanting the buffer.
UT-1 (10+00 to 20+21) — The upstream most unnamed tributary to East Fork Eno River, UT-1 flows
northeast to southwest. UT-1 totaling 1,021 linear feet of Priority I Restoration generated 1,021 SMUs.
This reach flows from a recently logged mature forest and had highly unstable banks. The riparian
buffer consisted of golf course fairways with minimal mature trees present. Restoration activities
performed along UT-1 included constructing a meandering channel, installing habitat and grade control
structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, and planting the stream buffer with native
vegetation.
UT-2A (10+00 to 31+38) — UT2-A is the western most stream reach at the project site. Originally,
three ponds were inline along this reach with two smaller ponds at the upstream portion and a larger

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
one at the bottom. The two ponds at the upstream portion of UT2-A have been drained and removed.
The pond bottoms from the drained ponds now functions as a floodplain for UT2-A. The upstream most
pond dam was breeched and a new channel was constructed through it. The second pond dam remained
in place to allow for access from parcel to parcel. Three new culverts were installed at STA. 16+14 to
allow adequate passage. The inline culvert is a 36" HDPE and the remaining two are 48" HDPE
floodplain culverts. The larger pond at the downstream end remained in place however, the pond dam
was stabilized and a new outlet riser pipe was installed. The outlet structure was improved to allow for
discharge from the bottom of the pond. These alterations will reinstate the outlet structure as the primary
discharge point, effectively repairing the inflow -outflow balance of the pond as well as providing lower
discharge temperatures. A new emergency spillway was also constructed on the northeast end. UT2-A
totals 2,138 linear feet, however, 1,954 linear feet of Priority I Restoration was performed to generate
1,954 SMUs. The remaining 184 linear feet is within an easement break across the pond dam.
Restoration activities performed along UT2-A included constructing a meandering channel, installing
habitat and grade control structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, culvert replacements,
pond dam removal, and planting the stream buffer with native vegetation. After Year 5 monitoring
report and site visit it was determined that the constructed stream was braided and will probably always
be a braided system based upon topography. Therefore, the length changed to valley length within the
two upper ponds. Using valley length, the streams change from 252.61 linear feet to 204.98 linear feet
(upper pond) and 211.64 linear feet to 188.37 linear feet (lower pond) for a net change of -70.9 linear
feet.
UT-2B (10+00 to 11+00) — UT2-B is 100 linear feet reach section downstream of the large pond. This
stream reach originates at the newly constructed outfall from the large pond and flows west to east into
UT-3. UT2-B restoration activities included constructing a meandering channel, installing habitat and
grade control structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, and planting the stream buffer
with native vegetation. Priority 1 stream restoration generated 100 stream mitigation units from UT2-
B.
UT-3 (10+00 to 34+23) — The longest onsite unnamed tributary to East Fork Eno River, UT-3 flows
southwest to northeast for 2,423 linear feet before entering the EFER. Priority I Restoration was
performed on UT-3 and generated 2,423 SMUs. Initially, UT-3 had a culvert crossing at the upstream
end. The culvert was removed, and the stream was day lighted. The stream crossing still remains in
place; however, the culvert was replaced with a ford crossing. This stream crossing is outside the
conservation easement. A continuous channel system was constructed along UT-3 to convey flow
downstream and provide connectivity with the offsite stream reaches. Restoration activities performed
along UT-3 included constructing a meandering channel, installing habitat and grade control structures,
filling and plugging the abandoned channel, removing a culvert crossing and planting the stream buffer
with native vegetation.
UT-4 (10+00 to 12+76) — UT-4 is a 276 linear feet unnamed tributary that flows south to north into
UT-3. UT-4 has a small hydrologic input, therefore, it was constructed as a smaller channel. On average,
the approximate cross -sectional area of UT-4 is 5 square feet. A ford stream crossing was constructed
just upstream of the conservation easement boundary to allow access across the parcel. Priority 1 stream
restoration activities included constructing a slight meander bend channel, installing habitat and grade
control structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, and planting the stream buffer with
native vegetation. 276 stream mitigation units were generated from stream restoration activities
performed on UT-4.
UT-5 (10+00 to 14+02) — UT-5 is a 402 linear feet stream channel that drains north to south into UT2-
A. Much like UT2-A, UT-5 had an inline pond at the upstream end. This pond was completely
removed during restoration activities and a new stream channel was constructed. A culvert pipe and
4

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
valley fill was removed. These activities are anticipated to convey water flow downstream and provide
connectivity with the offsite reach. Restoration activities performed along UT-5 included constructing
a meandering channel, installing habitat and grade control structures, filling and plugging the
abandoned channel, a culvert removal, pond dam removal, and planting the stream buffer with native
vegetation. A total of 402 SMUs were generated from Priority 1 stream restoration activities along UT-
5.
1.4 Project History, Mitigation Bank Establishment, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Site was restored by EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX). Tables 2, 3, and 4 (Appendix A) provide a time
sequence and information pertaining to the project activities, history, contacts, and baseline
information. EBX, acting as the Bank Sponsor, established a Conservation Easement (CE) and will
monitor the Site for a minimum of seven years. This Mitigation Plan provided detailed information
regarding bank operation, including long term management and annual monitoring activities, for review
and approval by the Interagency Review Team (IRT). The Bank Sponsor has conveyed the CE to the
long-term land steward, the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The Bank Sponsor
will ensure that the conveyed CE will allow for the implementation of an initial monitoring phase,
which will be developed during the design phase and conducted by the Bank Sponsor. The conveyed
CE will allow for yearly monitoring and, if necessary, maintenance of the Site during the yearly
monitoring phases. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Neu -Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank made and entered into by EBX, USACE,
and NCDWR.
1.4.2 Project Watersheds
The easement totals 60.14 acres and is broken into three sections. The drainage area for the portion of
the East Fork Eno River on the Site is approximately 1,987 acres (3.1 square miles) at the downstream
end. It extends west to Efland Cedar Grove Road, east to Caviness Jordan Road, and is bisected by
Route 86. UT1 has a drainage area of 0.053 square miles; it begins at the northeast corner of the project
(STA. 10+00) and extends southwest to STA. 20+21 before entering the East Fork Eno River. UT2-A
has a drainage area of 0.45 square miles; it begins at STA. 10+00 and extends to STA. 31+38 before
entering the pond above UT2-B (STA 10+00—11+00). UT3 flows from southwest to northeast (STA.
10+00 to 34+23) and has a drainage area of 0.47 square miles. UT4 is 276 linear feet long with a
drainage area of 0.045 square miles and flows northwest directly into UT3. UT5 has a drainage area of
0.072 square miles extending north to south and flows directly into UT2. The land use in the East Fork
Eno River watershed is approximately 40 percent agriculture, 50 percent wooded, and 2 percent open
water.
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The success criteria for the Site stream restoration follows accepted and approved success criteria
presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and agency guidance. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
2.1 Stream Restoration
2.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will be documented using

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of debris
rack lines.
2.1.2 Longitudinal Profile
Changes that may occur during the monitoring period are evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes
that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling, vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.).
Deviation from the design ratios do not necessarily denote failure as it is possible to maintain stability
and not stay within the design geometry. However, if a feature is deemed unstable and potentially
jeopardizes the geomorphic stability of the project (e.g. severe headcut, structure failure) a longitudinal
survey can be performed during that monitoring year, compared to the baseline, and the IRT and Bank
Sponsor will determine if remediation is required.
2.1.3 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
downcutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross -
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
2.1.4 Bank Pin Arrays
Bank pins were installed at representative pools located along meander bends. Bank pins are rebar that
was driven horizontally in the bank face and must be a minimum of three -foot -long. Bank pins were
installed at an interval of one pin for every two feet of bank height with the lowest pin above the normal
pool line. Exposed length of pins shall be measured and recorded each monitoring year to track lateral
movement of the stream.
2.1.5 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts are completed at riffle cross -sections on Site. At least one is done on each restored stream
(East Fork Eno River and UT1 through UT5). Pebble counts are utilized to document the streambed
substrate over the monitoring periods. A stable stream typically over time has gravel, cobble and
boulder material with minimal fine material. A streambed with abundant amounts of silt and sandy
(fine material) substrate can typically represent an eroding streambed and banks.
2.1.6 Digital Photo Stations
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
2.1.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community and Water Quality Sampling
Sampling the benthic macroinvertebrate community takes place at three locations at the Bank Parcel.
The preconstruction sampling was performed in the spring 2013 to generate a baseline. Each monitoring
station is sampled utilizing the Qual 4 Method as described in NCDWQ's Standard Operating

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, and (July 2006). Samples are
sent to a NCDWQ certified laboratory for identification. The taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, EPT
abundance, Biotic Index, and Biotic Index rating for each site sampled are tabulated. Water quality
parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total
phosphorus) are also sampled at each site. This task is performed by a sub consultant (Three Oaks
Engineering (formerly The Catena Group)).
2.2 Vegetation
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site follows
CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2) Guidance. Ten by ten -meter square
plots were permanently established following completion of the planting phase and at least two
opposing corners were permanently installed and surveyed for future use. The plant species, density,
survival rates, and the cause of mortality, if identifiable, are recorded within each plot. A minimum of
180 days between March 1 and November 30 must separate initial planting and monitoring of year one.
Vegetation plots are to be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. The primary focus of the
vegetative monitoring is solely on the tree stratum, although shrub and herbaceous species encountered
may also be recorded. Within Neuse buffer and nutrient offset restoration areas, success criteria are
based on the survival of a minimum density of 320 trees per acre after five years of monitoring. Within
Neuse buffer enhancement areas, success criteria are based on a minimum of at least two tree species
at an average density of 320 trees per acre (to include both planted and existing trees) following five
years of monitoring. Vegetation Plot 1 does not count towards success criteria. The easement area was
taken out of the bank following a DWR site visit in 2015.
2.3 Scheduling/Reporting
The Bank Sponsor follows the guidance document published by EEP, "Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" dated November 7, 2011 and the 2003
USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Due to the fact that this project is a private mitigation bank and
not an NC EEP project, monitoring documents follow EEP guidelines only to the extent necessary for
IRT approval. A monitoring report is to be generated by December 31st of each monitoring year
documenting activities of the site and submitted to the IRT. The monitoring program is implemented
to document system development and progress toward achieving the success criteria. The restored
stream morphology will be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program
is to be undertaken for seven years or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring is conducted for stream and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below for
seven years prior to completion of construction or until success criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream Restoration
3.1.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey was conducted in May 2015 following construction to document channel size,
condition, and location. A longitudinal profile of each stream reach was surveyed post construction at
the Site as part of the As -built surveys. Measurements included the thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of bank at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool, etc.) and at the maximum pool depth. The
survey was tied to a permanent benchmark to facilitate comparison of data year to year. Longitudinal
profiles will not be required in monitoring years 1 through 7 unless requested by USACE resulting from
indications of significant bank or bed instability.

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Five sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT1, one along
UT2, one along UT3, one along UT4 and one along East Fork Eno River. The auto logging crest gauges
were installed within the channel and continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual
crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges are checked during each site
visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge readings and
debris rack lines are photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 18 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability. Two
cross sections were installed along UT1. Four cross sections (two pools and two riffles) were installed
along UT2 and three pool and three riffle cross sections were installed along UT3. UT4 has a total of
two cross sections installed throughout its length. Two permanent cross sections were installed along
UT5. Cross sections were typically located at representative riffle and pool sections along each stream
reach. Each cross section was permanently marked with 3/8 rebar pin to establish a monument location
at each end. A marker pole was also installed at both ends of each cross section to allow ease locating
during monitoring activities. Annual monitoring cross section surveys will be performed once a year
during Monitoring Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Cross section locations are shown on Figure 2 (Appendix
A) and will include all breaks in slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water,
and thalweg.
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for seven years following construction and planting.
Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been established so that the
same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year. Monitoring photographs will
also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas such as erosion, stream and bank
instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage.
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays
Six bank pin arrays were installed at pools located on meander bends. One set of bank pin arrays were
installed along reaches UT1, UT2, UT5 and the East Fork Eno River. Two set of bank pin arrays were
installed along UT3. Bank pins are a minimum of two feet long and have been installed just above the
water surface and every two feet above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each
monitoring event, and the exposed pin will be driven flush with the bank.
3.1.6 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts are performed at nine riffle cross sections on Site in Monitoring Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Pebble counts are utilized to document the streambed substrate over the monitoring periods. A stable
stream typically over time has gravel, cobble and boulder material with minimal fine material. A
streambed with abundant amounts of silt and sandy (fine material) substrate can typically represent an
eroding streambed and banks.
3.1.7 Visual Assessment Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas is conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments will include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species,
and easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability will include a complete stream
walk and structure inspection. Digital images will be taken at fixed representative locations to record

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
each monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual
monitoring will be presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital
images. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
3.2 Vegetation
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC permanently installed twelve 12 vegetation monitoring plots
for future vegetation monitoring purposes on May 14, 2015. The locations of each vegetation plot are
depicted on the As -Built drawings (Appendix D). The vegetation plots were randomly setup throughout
the Bank Site and each are 100 square meters in size (10 meter by 10 meter square plots). Baseline
vegetation monitoring was conducted in general accordance to CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2). Table 12 (Appendix C) provides a success summary for each vegetation
monitoring plot. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each plot to establish a baseline dataset.
Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for species, "X" and "Y" origin located,
and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were also captured to document baseline
conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns, damaged stems, and survival ratios will be
measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot monitoring data is reported for each plot as
well as an overall site average in Appendix C.
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic species which prevent the site
from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The USACE will
be notified if monitoring or other information indicates that the Bank Site, or a portion of a Bank Site,
is not progressing as anticipated towards meeting the site -specific performance standards as defined in
the Mitigation Plan. In such an event the USACE will be provided with recommendations for adaptive
management measures, which may include site modifications, design changes, revisions to
maintenance requirements, and revised monitoring requirements. USACE approval will be obtained
prior to conducting any adaptive management activities.
4.1 Stream
No stream problem areas were observed in MY7. Beaver management was performed in MY6 and no
beavers were observed again in MY7. The MY7 cross section data shows the channels are remaining
stable. Any stream problem areas which are identified during post construction monitoring activities
are documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and listed on Table 9.
4.2 Vegetation
No vegetation problem areas were observed in MY7. Overall, the site's vegetation is developing into
an established stream buffer. An abundant amount of herbaceous ground cover as well as volunteer
trees species were present during Year 7 monitoring activities. Any vegetation problem areas which are
identified during post construction monitoring activities are documented and mapped on the Current
Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and listed on Table 10. Vegetation problem areas of concern may
include vegetation plot not meeting success criteria, invasive species abundance, sparse vegetation

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
areas, etc. If it is determined through IRT correspondence that remedial action is required to repair an
area, a proposed work plan will submitted for remediation.
5 MONITORING YEAR 7 CONDITIONS (MY7)
The Site annual monitoring activities were completed in May and October 2021. All Year 7 monitoring
data is presented below and in the appendices. The Site has met all stream and vegetation success
criteria and is recommended for closeout.
5.1 Year 7 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
All morphological stream data for the Year 7 survey and dimensions were collected during the annual
monitoring survey performed during May 2021. Appendix B includes summary data tables,
morphological parameters, and stream photographs.
Profile
The baseline (MY-0) profiles closely matched the proposed design profiles. The plotted longitudinal
profiles can be found on the As -Built Drawings (MY-0-Baseline Report) and morphological summary
data tables can be found in Appendix B. No profile survey was performed during MY7.
Dimension
The Year 7 (MY-7) cross sectional dimensions closely matches the baseline cross section parameters.
Little changes have been documented during the Year 7 monitoring phase since the baseline survey.
Sediment Transport
The Year 7 monitoring conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for most
stream reaches on the bank site. Pre -construction conditions documented the existing substrate of East
Fork Eno River and the unnamed tributaries within the Bank as a mixture of sand and medium gravel.
Entrainment computations are applicable to gravel bed streams where the median diameter of the riffle
(D50) particle is two millimeters (mm) or larger. The majority of the bed substrate observed during
Year 7 was silt/clay and medium gravel. Visual assessment shows the channel is transporting sediment
as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Bank Pin Arrays
Six bank pin array locations were observed and measured for bank erosion within meander bends. Each
location was inspected for exposure of the bank pin and any noticeable erosion. No bank pin array
exposure was documented during Year 7 monitoring activities; however, if a reading is measured, the
reading would be recorded, photographed, and then the bank pin would be driven flush with the bank
after each monitoring inspection. A summary of bank pin array readings can be found in Table 8
(Appendix B).
5.1.2 Vegetation
Based on the Year 7 vegetation monitoring, 12 of the 12 vegetation monitoring plots have met the final
success criteria. The Site's average Year 7 planted stems per acre is 550 (Table 12). Table 13 provides
a more detailed summary of stem counts and the type of planted or volunteer species within each
vegetation monitoring plot. The number of planted stems per acre for the monitoring plots ranges from
283 stems to 931 stems. The average stems per vegetation plot was 11 planted stems and including
volunteer species was 14 stems. The Site's average total stems per acre including planted and volunteer
species was 1,234 during Year 7 monitoring. The average stem height across the site was 14 feet.
10

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
Common volunteer species were Sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and Loblolly Pine (Pious taeda). Small areas of invasive species were treated in June
2021. Additionally, in September 2021, easement signage was inspected and repaired across the entire
site.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at each cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC staff. Additionally, 12
permanent photo stations were installed across the site. At each photo station, photos are taken annually
at each photo station. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern are also documented with a
digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital photographs can be found in Appendix
B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Hydrology
Flow days were reported for CG1 (UT1) and CG4 (UT4) and bankfull events for CG2 (EFER), CG3
(UT3), and CG5 (UT2-A). The bank site recorded bankfull events on three of the three stream reaches
during Year 7 monitoring. CG1 (UT1) recorded 119 consecutive flow days and CG4 (UT4) recorded
121 consecutive flow days in Year 7. The rest of the bankfull, flow, and rainfall data, including flow
data from previous years, is in Appendix E.
5.1.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community and Water Quality Sampling
The benthic macroinvertebrate and water quality (MY7) survey was performed on June 1, 2021 by
Three Oaks Engineering. The (MY7) sampling was performed at three locations that were previously
sampled during preconstruction and previous monitoring years. Each monitoring station was sampled
utilizing the Qual 4 Method as described in NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, and (July 2006). Samples were sent to a NCDWQ
certified laboratory for identification. The taxa richness, EPT taxa richness, EPT abundance, Biotic
Index, and Biotic Index rating for each site sampled is tabulated in the Cedar Grove Bank Site Water
Sampling and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey located in Appendix D. Water quality parameters
(dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus) are
also reported for each site. In general, the benthic and water quality results for Year 7 monitoring
remained about the same or improved slightly. The Bioclassification Score for all three sites before
construction were "Poor" and two remained "Poor" while one (Site 3) improved to "Fair" for Year 7
monitoring. The biggest change has been in the Habitat Assessment Scores which have continuously
increased each monitoring year.
11

Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Year 7 Monitoring Report• Orange County, North Carolina • November 2021
6 REFERENCES
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2013). Cedar Grove Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. Eco
Engineering and WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2015). Cedar Grove Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Report
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number FHWA-HRT-05-
072.
Krstolic, J.L., and Chaplin, J.J. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non -urban, non -tidal
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome/httnl (June 2005).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy. AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Hupp, C.R. and A. Simon. 1986. Vegetation and bank -slope development. Proceedings of the Fourth
Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference 4:83-92.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. December 2004. Surface Water
Classifications. http://dem.chnr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. July 2009 Draft. Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan.
12

Appendix A.
General Tables and Figures

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
DWR Project # 11-0720v2
USACE Project # SAW-2012-00294
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Ri arian Wetland
Non-ri arian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
6,105.1
686
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach
1D
As -Built
Stationing/Location LF
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
PI, PII etc.
Restoration -or-
Restoration
E uivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acrea e
Mitigation Ratio
East Fork Eno River
314+00 to 324+30
944
EI
RE
1,030
1 : 1.5
UT-1
10+00 to 20+21
834
PI
R
1,021
1 : 1.0
UT2-A*
10+00 to 31+38
1,714
Pi
R
1,883.1
1 : 1.0
UT2-B
10+00 to 11+00
100
PI
R
100
1 : 1.0
UT-3
10+00 to 34+23
2,055
PI
R
2,423
1 : 1.0
UT-4
10+00 to 12+76
245
PI
R
276
1 : 1.0
UT-5
10+00 to 14+02
310
PI
R
402
1 : 1.0
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
6,105.1
Enhancement I
1,030
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed
Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area, FB = Forested Buffer
*As of MY5, the pond sections of UT2-A are based off valley length (70.9 foot reduction)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
DWR Project # 11-0720v2
USACE Project # SAW-2012-00294
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
December 2013
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
NA
Construction Completed
Aril 2015
Aril 2015
Site Planting Completed
May 2015
May 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document Year 0 Monitoring)
June 2015
August 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2015
January 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
August 2016
September 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream: June 2017
Vegetation: August 2017
September 2017
Upper Pond Container Planting
NA
March 2018
Beaver Dam Removal
NA
March 2018
UT2-A Structure Repair
NA
March 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation: July 2018
September 2018
Supplemental Planting
NA
Aril 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream: May 2019
Vegetation: September 2019
October 2019
Upper Pond Livestaking & EFER Supp. Planting
NA
February 2020
Beaver Dam Removal
NA
May 2020
Pond Siphon Repair
NA
August 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
September 2020
October 2020
Invasive Species Treatment
NA
June 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream: May 2021
Vegetation: October 2021
November 2021
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
DWR Project # 11-0720v2
USACE Project # SAW-2012-00294
Designer
EcoEngineering
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
[phone]
Angela Gardner, PE
Construction Contractor
Shamrock Environmental
3500 Lake Herman Drive
Brown Summit, NC 27214
[phone]
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
Shamrock Environmental
3500 Lake Herman Drive
Brown Summit, NC 27214
[phone]

Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
Bank/Bank SponsorNeu-Con
Wetland and Stream Umbrella Bank
EBX Neuse I, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Project Contact:
Jamey McEachran OmceachranAres.us)
Monitoring Performers
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Project Manager:
Ryan Medric ([e-mail])
Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Project Name
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
County
Orange
Project Area (acres)
60.14
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.1944640 N 79.1590450 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 12-digit
030202010301
DWQ Sub -basin
03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
East Fork Eno River (Accounts for UTI-UT5)
(1,987 acres)

03010104
McCullough Rd
I
e
yG�e des
0
�O
Oakley Rd
Lees C a�
Legend
Roads
Cedar Grove Streams
QCedar Grove Mitigation Site
HUC Boundary
w�E
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
a
W.
Y
x
a
g I
FIGURE 1.
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
I
Hawkins Rd m
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site I I
n
O
O
© OpenStre
Date: 7/31/2015
Drawn by: BSH
Checked by: RTM
0
G
d
Carr store R
(and) contributors, CC -BY -SA
fires

Appendix B.
Morphological Summary Data and Plots

C
OD
v
�r
Q
LO
o
M O
U O
�
O
} LL
N
I
rn
m
co
cu
I
r
(7
N X
=
O
o
I
N Q
�
I
fA
N
w
I
O
N
U
�
o
I
�
N N
�
p
s
I
V
_
N
m
I
ao
0 0
LO
I
R
c°1i
I
N
a,
U,
Nl
I
cu 0
m}
M
II
0
co
co
co
co
co co
co
(4) uogenal3

C
E
3
Y
I
00
cu
m
X
I
LO
�
°
Q
Q
I
04
I
co
}
c
"'
Io
I
a
I
N
co
LO
I
C
�
}
O
o
cn
N
N
O
�
N
L
U
o
M
N c
N
}
0
s
I
a�i
I
N
i00
N
(6
�
I
}
LO
I
c°1i
I
N
I
}
rn
II
(O
co
N
m
00
O
I0
0
0
0
LO
co
(4) uogenel3

C
3
Y
I
00
cu
m
X
O
I
LO
�
Q
Q
I
I
I
O
O
O
d
M
}
I
C
a
O
O
ch
I
v
O
c
LO
VI
m
O
O
}
U
c
I
L
I
N
a;
U
c�
Y
L
N
p
O
I
U-
.+
N
N
W
N
i
O
(6
R
I
�
O
�
N
L
N
}
U
�
I�I
(O
d
(`)
N
m
00
O
I
LO
LO �
in
�
v
00
(4) uogenel3

N
O
Q
d
LO
O
�
M �
�0
N 0
N
} LL
�
I_
I
CD
M
C
coo
"'
I
c>
�
0o
(n
('')
N x
cu 0
0
CD
N Q
U
co
I
I
>
,�
O
o
a
W
�t m
N N
O
LL
W
00
O
I I
LO
d
O
N
U
U
a,
`LO
Nl cu
cu 0
m }
M
II
O
LO
LO
LOIn
LO
V
(4) uogenel3

+`� f
} �
�: _'
i .
4- , --
�•;
'�.
51�
�4

C
R
d
N
CL
0o
Q
�r
LO
0
M O
O
O O
} LL
N
I
rn
m
c
w
M
3
Y
m
tO
M
N X
O
i
(6 Q
O
} Q
o
co
cn
N
I
O
N '�-
U�
�
I
�
N
�
p
s
I
V
_
N
�
� r
m m
d
00
} }
o
I
I
II
LO
I
R
c°1i
I
N
a,
LO
(p
N i
cu
cu 0
I
m }
M
II
I
O
LO
LO
LO
LO
L
LO
(4) uogenal3

R
d
N
CL
co
5D
�r
Q
C
Ln
�
°
M O-
U
O
O O
} �
N
�
I
rn
m
d
co
w
M
3
cu
cu
m
1�
M
N X
=
O
0
8-
} Q
co
cn
I
L
U
�
�
I
�
N
�
p
V
R
N
`m `m
00
LO
I I
f4
�
G1
U
N
a,
m
Nl (6
I
m}
M
II
O
(4) uogenal3

Ae,

E
O
I
�r
Q
L
�
M O-
U
N O
O O
N
} LL
�
Irn
m
co
I
co
_
cu
CY)
m
61
M
=
N O
O
m a
} Q
cn
Ic
N
L
U
�
�
I
�
N
�
p
s
V
R
I
_
N
G)
�
� r
m
00
`m`m
LO
U
N
rn
m
co
°'
Nl
I
cu 0
m}
M
II
O
O-
r-
�
(4) uogenel3

C
E
3
Y
I
OD
C
cu
m
X
LO
Q
Q
I
N
I
co
m
}
O
M
I
I
a
(D
r
Cl)
CY)
LO
C
`m
O
o
U
I
�
I
I
N
o
U
I
I
o
H
N N
}
I
�
o
t
m
W
I go
N
I
d
d
OD
N
0
}
0
I
LO
I
UN
r
rn
I
(O
CY)
N
m
00
O
IO0
0
00
r-
(4) uogenel3

C
i
N
Q
3
Y
I
OD
C
cu
m
X
LO
Q
Q
I
N
I
co
m
O
co
M
I
I
a
co
co
LO
c
o
oco
}
U
a�
y
I
I
_
`-4Cu
o
U
I
I
�,
o
M
H
N N
}
I
�
o
V
N
G)
I
OD
N
}
L(i
U
N
I
}
rn
II
(O
co
N
I
m
O
ILO
'IT
(1)
00
(3)
(4) uogenel3

I

%•
\
y
> .
® �\
.\J
!� z
.max
E
E
§
k
�
cu
/
?
?
}
U
q
j
%
\
�
|
Q
%
�
2
\
�
>
m
§
L2
(14
LI
co
|
�§
|
m
I
\
Q
�
%
�
|
CD
®
|
|
|
n
m
|
o
\
_
)
)
§
)
(
(
[
|
+u«egs

..
-
_ -W.
-
.-'..t
Y
OD
�
C
cu
m
X
LO
�
O
Q
Q
N
I
O
C)
m
O
}
O
a
M
I
c
1.6
LO
�
r
I
O
}
{
VO
d
I
I
c
i�
N
N
O
U
N m
N
H
p
I
�
N
ci
0
N
(6
}
L()
'0
V
�
L
N
U
`m
}
�
I
(O
co
N
I
m
O
IO
U7
0
0
O
O
O O
O
(4) uogenel3

E
O
I
Q
LO
O
�
M O-
U
N O
O O
N
}
�
I
rn
m
m
I
co
-
�
3
Y
C
1
u"
�
I
M
cu
m
I
N X
=
O
o
I
o
rQ
fA
I
vNi
N �
I
o
I
U
N
N N
H
o
s
N
`m `m
00
LO
R
�
U
N
a,
LO
N m
co }
M
I I
O
LO
'IT
(4) uogenel3

C
OD
I
3
I
LO
Y
C
cu
m
X
N
IT
a
Q
I
�
M
I
a
M
}
I
to
T"
M
M
C
O
LO
:.
W
o
M
}
N
I
�
N
H
�Y ca
N N
d
}
0
s
V
N
I
�
N
Q)
I
00
(6
�
I
Lri
a,
U
I
N
�
I
�
}
a)
I
I
(O
�
m
00
M
II
O
r-
r-
r-
�
O-
(4) uogenel3

N

C
L
N
Q
3
Y
I
00
cu
m
I
LO
�
O
Q
Q
I
N
I
I
O
r
C)
m
I
}
M
I
co
co
co
LO
C
O
oco
}
U
a�
cn
I
_
U
�
LO
N N
}
0
s
V
R
N
I
I
d
OD
N
}
L(i
U
N
`m
}
rn
I
(O
co
N
m
O
I0
LO
m N
(4) uogenel3

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Appendix B.
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 1
Cross Section 1 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 1 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 1 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 1 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 2
Cross Section 2 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 2 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 2 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 2 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 3
Cross Section 3 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 3 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 3 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 3 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 4
Cross Section 4 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 4 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 4 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 4 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

- ,vim � h'. �}�: � �� ' ';- 4•
_ r
'tom• � r N', � � � ;�Y ' � � •-t\`�,� 4 � 4' � J

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 7
Cross Section 7 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 7 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 7 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 7 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 8
Cross Section 8 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 8 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 8 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 8 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 9
Cross Section 9 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 9 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 9 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 9 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 10
Cross Section 10 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 10 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 10 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 10 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 11
Cross Section 11 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 11 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 11 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 11 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

:e A
QV*

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 13
Cross Section 13 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 13 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 13 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 13 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 14
,•:� Y�.
,f1., ,:";�: ,..=��M14: -`pry,; ;;
� '',5, , ' ,f�; �.�a
Cross Section 14 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 14 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 14 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 14 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 15
Cross Section 15 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 15 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 15 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 15 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 16
Cross Section 16 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 16 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 16 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 16 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

Appendix B. Cross Sections
Cedar Grove Cross Sections
Cross Section 17
Cross Section 17 Upstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 17 Left Bank (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 17 Downstream (5/19/2021)
Cross Section 17 Right Bank (5/19/2021)

t,
PQ
.O
C.
d'
m
6
k
R
v� O
N O
pp
00
O
m
R
O O
D v�
'
_ N
�o
��
NONooN�o
1�
Hof:
o W
a
'�mc�ciN�
moo
M
�
�
=`O
`^v;
o�N��c�io
oo�
FFii
_
_
N
W
w
w_
w_ w_
P4P,
�a vwG
P4
GF-'
s
�
R
O
?2
v.'
^O
a`
d

1111111111
1111111111
1111111111
a�eeooeeea
�eeeoOSAae
��0��omma�
�ma�oeao�a
����'a'a�e
�ao�'eoove
�o��e0e�mo
�oe�o'a0ee
�0o�o'a�ee
a�ee�aaeea
��ee�oa�ae
��ea��e�'�
a�ea��vAea
oaaoo�a'��
��a��a'mt�
��o�000000
oeemooaeo�
�t'a've'aa
�0o�'eoo�e
�a000'o�'e
�0o�'ooaaa
ICllilllll
IIIIIAAAII
Illlilllll
IIIli10111
IBIIIIIBII
1111110811
1111119111
1191111011

a
0
m
go 9 9 9 9 9 9
n �n �n a m ry �
w
■

Appendix B. Pebble Count Data
Chart 2.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chart 3.
UT1 - Substrate Composition
_ . 11 11.` 1
Silt/Clay Sand
IIIIMMMM
Gravel Cobble
Eli ►►►IKOR"M1F11111"►►►1Fes►►1Ate►►I&'W:::I►►MA
UT2 - Substrate Composition
M/
M/o
60�%o
5CP/
-
4a
30%
20%
100/0
0%
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder Bedrock
Boulder Bedrock
■ MYO ■ MY1 ■ MY2 q MY3 ■ MY5 ■ MY7

Appendix B. Pebble Count Data
Chart 4.
UT3-Downstream - Substrate Composition
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1096 , I �
0/
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ MYO ■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 ■ MY5 ■ MY7
Chart 5.
UT3-Upstream - Substrate Composition
60%
500/ M -
40%
30%
20%
10% I'
0%
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
■ MYO ■ MY1 ■ MY2
I ■■ _
Cobble Boulder
MY3 ■ MY5 ■ MY7
Bedrock
Bedrock

Appendix B. Pebble Count Data
Chart 6.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Chart 7.
100 %
90°l
80°l
70%
60%
50%
40%
30°l
20%
10%
0%
Silt/ Clay
UT4 - Substrate Composition
lot
Sand
1-111
Gravel Cobble
Eli ORFAMIF11111"►►►IFes►►II:W:I►►I&IM:::I►►MA
UT5 - Substrate Composition
Sand
Boulder
111 11,111
Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ MYO ■ MY1 ■ MY2 ■ MY3 ■ MY5 ■ MY7
Bedrock
Bedrock

Appendix B. Pebble Count Data
Chart 8.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
East Fork Eno River - Substrate Composition
11
Sand
1111,111
Gravel Cobble Boulder
Bedrock

�� %�f\\w�
(� »�%�.%3\
`� ®� 22� 5
. ?� �\2
� « � »:� a:

4-1
-
00;

r
MEW
rg

Table 8.Cedar Grove Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 5 Year 7
Bank Pin Location Position Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading
BPA 1 @ Sta. 14+80 -
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UT1 - Right Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BPA 2 @ Sta. 319+80 -
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
EFER - Right Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BPA 3 @ Sta. 29+05 -
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UT3 - Left Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BPA 4 @ Sta. 18+05 -
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UT3 - Left Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BPA 5 @ Sta. 11+40 -
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
UT5 - Left Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Top
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
BPA 6 @ Sta. 27+20 -
UT2 - Right Bank
Bottom
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Table 9. Stream Problem Areas
Cedar Grove
Feature Issue / Location / Size Photo
N/A N/A
Table 10. Vegetation Problem Areas
Cedar Grove
Feature Issue / Location / Size Photo
N/A N/A

Appendix C.
Vegetation Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 11. Planted Species Summary
Planted Date: May 13, 2015
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Total Stems
Planted
Betula ni ra
River Birch
Bare Root
4,000
Cercis canadensis
Eastern Redbud
Bare Root
200
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tuli tree
Bare Root
4,000
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Bare Root
8,200
uercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Bare Root
3,700
uercus ni ra
Water Oak
Bare Root
3,000
uercus phellos
Willow Oak
Bare Root
2,000
uercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Bare Root
600
uercus pagoda
Cherry Bark Oak
Bare Root
21000
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Common Buttonbush
Bare Root
500
Total
28,200
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Live Stake
1,000
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Live Stake
1,000
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Live Stake
1,000
Total
3,000
Table 12. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted
Stem Height
(ft)
1
607
2711
3318
Yes
15
2
486
1133
1619
Yes
8.4
3
364
647
1012
Yes
17.5
4
647
1012
1659
Yes
22.7
5
283
202
486
Yes
9.2
6
526
283
809
Yes
8.5
7
728
1659
2388
Yes
15.8
8
526
243
769
Yes
11
9
405
121
526
Yes
16.9
10
647
81
728
Yes
11.4
11
931
0
931
Yes
15.5
12
445
121
567
Yes
11.4
Project Avg
550
685
1234
Yes
14

.�
a
0
C.
t
c
C.
t
c
F
c
0
0
U
E
M
.,
F
iioiiiiioiiiiilr
■voet�etot�ee�l'
�....,.......'I.
iioiiiiioiiiiili
iioiiiiiiiii
�....,.......'I.
...,.........
�voee�tt�t�ee�l,
ott�ovotot�et
iioiiiiioiiiiili
iiiiiiiiiiiiii
�....,.......'I.
...,........�.
�voee�etot�ee�l,
ott�ttot�t�et
iiiiiiiioiiiiilr
:::�::::::::ii
t,t,ttitt,t,t�
tt,tt,t,t,t,�

Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Cedar Grove Monitoring Year 7 Vegetation Plot Photos (10/12/2021)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Cedar Grove Monitoring Year 7 Vegetation Plot Photos (10/12/2021)
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 12

Appendix D.
Water Sampling and Benthic
Macroinverteb rate Survey

Cedar Grove Bank Site
Post -Construction MY-07
Water Sampling and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey
Orange County, North Carolina
East Fork Eno River (Site 3) during MY-07 surveys
Prepared for:
Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh NC 27612
September 7, 2021

Prepared by:
Three Oaks Engineering
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS...................................................................................................... 1
3.0 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Field Methods................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Water Chemistry ............................................................................................................ 3
3.3 Sample Processing......................................................................................................... 3
3.4 Data Analysis................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis.......................................................................4
4.2 Physicochemical Analysis.............................................................................................4
4.3 Habitat Assessment Scores............................................................................................ 5
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 6
6.0 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................... 9
Table 1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analysis Metrics............................................................ 4
Table 2. Physicochemical Data Collected — Cedar Grove Sampling Stations ......................... 4
Table 3. Habitat assessment scores — Cedar Grove Sampling Stations ................................... 5
Table 4. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results MY-07(2021)..................................... 19
Appendix A. Survey Site Location Map
Appendix B. Graphs
Appendix C. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results
Appendix D. Water Quality Analysis Results
Appendix E. Site photos
Appendix F. Habitat Assessment forms

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Cedar Grove Golf Course in Orange County, North Carolina was converted into the
Cedar Grove Stream Mitigation Bank in 2014. Streams within the former golf course were
restored and enhanced through streambank stabilization and riparian buffer planting. The site
encompasses a portion of the East Fork Eno River and its tributaries. The East Fork Eno River
is a tributary to the Eno River of the Upper Neuse River Basin (HUC# 03020201). Three
Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) conducted pre -construction water sampling and benthic
macroinvertebrate surveys at three sites to generate a baseline in 2013. As part of a seven (7)
year post -construction monitoring period, Monitoring Year (MY- 07) surveys were performed
on June 1, 2021, as detailed in this report. Survey techniques are in accordance with North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) protocol for benthic macroinvertebrate
(BMI) communities to establish baseline condition and monitor change over time.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONS
Collections of benthic macroinvertebrates were made from three sampling locations: Site 1
(UT-2 to East Fork Eno River), Site 2 (UT-1 to East Fork Eno River), and Site 3 (East Fork
Eno River) (Appendix A, Figure 1).
Site 1. Site 1 is located downstream of a previously existing golf cart stream crossing of an
unnamed tributary to the Eno River. The site is within a former fairway approximately 60
meters (m) downstream of a former two -acre pond. During restoration, the stream pattern was
improved by creating greater sinuosity. The riparian buffer was planted with woody tree and
shrub species. These species continue to grow and are providing increased shade and stability
to the stream banks. Coco fiber matting continues to provide bank stability but is no longer
visible due to the growth of herbs and grasses. The wetted stream width ranges from 0.5-1 m
with a bank height of 0.75 m. The channel exhibits substrate sorting with sand and silt in
pools and sand, pea gravel, and cobble in runs. The site is primarily a shallow run, lacking
riffle habitat. The diversity of types of instream habitat at this site have improved as substrate
sorting has begun to establish more defined riffle, run, and pool features for benthic
macroinvertebrate colonization. This is reflected in MY-07 instream habitat where Site 1 sites
received the high score of 16 for that parameter, a steady increase from the baseline value of
11 (Table 3). As time passes, planted and successional vegetation continues to contribute
some shade and woody debris within this reach.
Site 2. Site 2, approximately 600 m downstream of Site 1, is very similar to Site 1. As with
Site 1, stream sinuosity has been increased and the stream buffer was planted with woody tree
and shrub species. Erosion prevention measures such as coco fiber matting are along the
stream banks and various herbs and grasses continue to establish along the banks and
floodplain. The wetted width ranges from 0.5-1 m with a bank height of 0.5 m. The substrate
is predominately silt, sand, and gravel. This site primarily consists of shallow run habitat with
widely spaced riffle and pool habitats. Instream habitat at this site is similar to MY-06 with
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 1
Job # 4161 September 2021

some observed improvements to the in -stream habitat diversification with more pronounced
riffle habitat observed in the reach.
Site 3. Site 3 is located on the East Fork of the Eno River just upstream of the confluence with
the unnamed tributary associated with Sites 1 and 2. As part of the restoration activities, a
bridge was removed from the upstream end of Site 3. Coco fiber matting continues to function
to stabilize the stream banks in the former bridge location. The riparian buffer continues to
become established with previously planted woody tree and shrub species. These species
continue to grow and are beginning to provide more shade and stability to the stream banks.
The banks have an established herb layer comprised of various grasses along with some
woody tree and shrub species. This site is partially shaded with mature trees and woody debris
is present. The wetted width ranges from 3-4 m and the bank height isl.5 m and is
predominantly stable with some evidence of erosion. The substrate is predominately sand and
gravel with some cobble. This site is characterized by a series of shallow to moderate depth
riffle/run/pool habitats. Native freshwater mussels were common within the reach. During
surveys conducted in MY-06 impacts of a beaver (Castor canadensis) dam was observed in
the reach. The beaver dam had altered the flow regime creating more pooling and less riffles
at the former sampling location. During MY-07 surveys the beaver dam had been removed
and the flow regime was more similar to previous survey conditions.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The benthic macroinvertebrate and water quality surveys were conducted on June 1, 2021, by
Three Oaks personnel Lizzy Stokes -Cawley, Tom Dickinson, and Marissa Dellinger.
3.1 Field Methods
Sites were sampled utilizing methods described in the NCDWR's Standard Operating
Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological
Assessment Unit, February 2016, Version 5.0 (SOP, NCDEQ 2016). All sites were sampled
utilizing the Qual 4 Method, an abbreviated Standard Qualitative Method for streams with
drainage areas less than 3 square miles. According to the USGS Streamstats tool the drainage
area of Site 1 is 0.2 square miles, Site 2 is 0.48 square miles, and Site 3 is 2.55 square miles
(USGS Streamstats, 2021). Qualitative collections of aquatic macroinvertebrates were made
with D-frame aquatic dip nets, kick nets, and hand-picking organisms from substrates using a
riffle -kick, sweep, leaf -pack and visual methods to make four collections. A multiple habitat
approach was used, where specimens from all available habitats (stream margins, leaf packs,
aquatic vegetation, detritus, woody debris) were collected. These four collections were then
combined to form one aggregate sample. Samples were preserved in the field with 90% ethyl
alcohol, elutriated with water, and delivered to Pennington and Associates, Inc. Habitat scores
were determined using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain/Piedmont
Streams (Appendix E).
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 2
Job # 4161 September 2021

3.2 Water Chemistry
Water chemistry was measured at each site in conjunction with benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling using a YSI-ProPlus multiparameter meter. Parameters measured in the field were
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, and pH. Water samples were also collected
at each site and analyzed in a National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation certified
(NELAC) laboratory for Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Turbidity.
3.3 Sample Processing
Macroinvertebrates were sorted from debris, counted, and identified to the lowest taxonomic
level with microscopic techniques and taxonomic keys. All specimens are maintained by
Pennington and Associates, Inc. Laboratory.
3.4 Data Analysis
Analysis of, and comparison between, the BMI communities at each site were determined
with established indices and metrics described in the SOP (NCDEQ 2016). The metrics used
in this evaluation included the total taxa richness, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera
(EPT) taxa richness, EPT Abundance, and NC Biotic Index (BI) assigned value based on
small stream criteria for all sites (Table 1). Other information used in the analysis included
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet scores, observations, and best professional judgment.
The primary output was a taxa list, with some indication of relative abundance for each taxon.
Several data -analysis summaries (metrics) can be produced from such samples to evaluate
biological conditions. Through evaluation of the abundance and variety of benthic
macroinvertebrates found in a waterbody an indication of the biological condition can be
calculated (EPA, 2021). These metrics are based on the idea that less polluted, unstressed
streams and rivers have many invertebrate taxa and are typically have a higher percentage of
intolerant species. Conversely, polluted or otherwise stressed streams have fewer numbers of
invertebrate taxa and have a higher percentage of pollution tolerant species. The diversity of
invertebrate fauna is evaluated using taxa richness counts; the tolerance of the stream
community is evaluated using a BI.
Total taxa, EPT (Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera) taxa richness, and the BI values
were compared between sites and over time. In general, higher EPT taxa richness values and
lower BI values usually indicate better stream quality. BI ratings range from 1-10 with a score
of 1 generally reflecting high stream quality based on benthic macroinvertebrate diversity and
habitat availability and a higher score generally reflecting lower stream quality.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 3
Job # 4161 September 2021

4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis
A total of 724 specimens representing 110 different taxa were collected. The taxa list,
analysis metrics, and additional laboratory data are presented in Appendix B. Table 1
compiles the analyses metrics created from this data.
Table 1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analysis Metrics
Total
EPT Index
Biotic Index-
EPT Abundance
Total
Bioclassification
Date
Site
No. of
(# of EPT
assigned
(total # of EPT
ns
Organisms is
Score
Taxa
taxa)
values
organisms)
1
274
32
2
6.99
11
Poor
Sites
Baseline
2
203
24
2
7.13
5
Poor
3
194
45
6
6.77
27
Poor
1
322
22
2
7.32
22
Poor
MY-01
2
316
40
3
7.34
30
Poor
(2015)
3
424
62
9
7.08
66
Poor
1
254
39
4
7.33
18
Poor
MY-02
2
348
47
6
7.48
18
Poor
(2016)
3
245
36
9
6.40
42
Fair
1
563
62
6
7.24
41
Poor
MP-03
2
502
46
4
7.07
97
Poor
(2017)
3
705
75
15
6.72
101
Fair
1
289
41
2
7.17
2
Poor
MY-04
2
463
45
5
7.20
37
Poor
(2018)
3
368
61
8
6.71
66
Fair
1
184
36
1
7.15
1
Poor
MY-05
2
242
41
5
7.15
10
Poor
(2019)
3
248
49
11
6.84
98
Fair
1
243
36
4
6.89
17
Fair
W-06
2
224
47
5
6.96
18
Poor
(2020)
3
230
64
13
6.79
1 46
Fair
1
257
61
4
7.07
23
Poor
W-07
2
279
65
5
7.14
21
Poor
(2021)
3
188
42
8
6.49
43
Fair
4.2 Physicochemical Analysis
Water chemistry data measured is listed in Table 2, parameters measured include water
temperature, pH, DO, specific conductivity, turbidity, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus.
Table 2. Physicochemical Data Collected - Cedar Grove Sampling Stations
Water
Dissolved
Specific
Total
Total
Sampling
Site
Temp
pH
Oxygen
Conductivity
Turbidity
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Date
(00
S.U.
( )
O
(US/cm)
(N TU)
(mg2)
(µg2)
(m /)
Baseline
1
24.2
6.65
4.45
85.7
15.7
2.27
130
MY-00
2
26.8
6.81
2.8
96.6
12.0
2.91
19
(2014)
3
23.2
7.2
7.34
97.4
9.56
1.38
110
1
28.3
7.71
7.07
116.4
34.8
1.2
270
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 4
Job # 4161 September 2021

Dissolved
Water
Specific
Total
Total
Sampling
pH
Oxygen
Turbidity
Site
Temp
Conductivity
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Date
(S.U.)
(DO)
(NTU)
(°C)
(US/cm)
(mg2)
(µg2)
(m �)
MY-01
2
32.5
7.55
7.36
112.2
66
1.4
380
(2015)
3
25.7
7.29
8.45
107.2
10.99
1.1
89
1
24.7
6.69
5.82
91.7
26.1
1.0
190
MY-02
2
22.1
6.95
9.51
94.9
24.6
1.4
150
(2016)
3
19.5
7.53
7.38
92.7
10.11
1.3
86
1
23.9
6.85
7.38
107.0
36
1.6
390
MY-03
2
26.2
7.25
6.85
76.9
13
1.1
180
(2017)
3
22.9
7.35
10.60
97.9
5.6
1.4
67
1
23.3
6.19
5.21
92.3
24.0
1.6
260
MY-04
2
23.0
5.84
4.72
91.8
17.0
1.7
180
(2018)
3
22.3
6.15
6.1
85.9
15.0
1.6
91
1
19.5
6.41
4.72
118.6
34.0
1.3
140
MY-05
2
22.0
6.96
4.64
113.9
18.0
1.4
160
(2019)
3
21.4
7.14
7.83
109.0
8.3
1.0
62
1
16.7
5.65
4.81
90.4
34.0
0.98
410
MY-06
2
21.5
6.34
5.58
62.1
22.0
1.1
83
(2020)
3
19.5
6.02
5.63
86.5
10.0
1.1
110
1
16.3
7.12
6.18
79.0
51
0.94
160
MY-07
2
21.2
7.4
5.24
93.0
14
1.9
120
(2021)
3
20.9
7.16
7.15
88.0
7.6
1.2
100
4.3 Habitat Assessment Scores
Habitat scores were determined using the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Mountain/
Piedmont Streams (NCDEQ 2016) and are shown in Table 3. These visual -based habitat
evaluation scores consist of eight parameters that rate channel modification, in -stream habitat,
bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle habitats, bank stability and vegetation, light penetration,
and riparian vegetation zone width for each sampling reach. A numerical score is used to rate
each parameter and the total score gives a relative measure of overall habitat quality.
Table 3. Habitat assessment scores - Cedar Grove Sampling Stations
Sample
Site
Channel
Instream
Bottom
Pool
Riffle
Bank Stability and
Light
Riparian
Vegetation
Total
Year
Modification
Habitat
Substrate
Variety
Habitats
Vegetation
Penetration
Zone Width
1
3
11
8
4
3
14
0
2
45
Sites
2
3
15
3
4
3
4
0
2
34
Baseline
3
4
16
11
10
3
10
2
6
52
1
5
17
3
4
3
7
2
1
44
MY-01
2
5
14
1
4
3
9
2
2
40
(2015)
3
5
12
3
6
12
12
7
6
65
1
5
16
4
10
12
12
5
9
64
MY-02
2
5
12
8
8
12
12
2
8
58
(2016)
3
5
16
11
10
12
12
7
8
76
1
5
16
4
10
12
12
2
10
62
MY-03
2
5
16
8
10
12
12
2
8
64
(2017)
3
5
16
11
10
12
12
7
8
76
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 5
Job # 4161 September 2021

Sample
Site
Channel
Instream
Bottom
Pool
Riffle
Bank Stability and
Light
Riparian
Vegetation
Total
Year
Modification
Habitat
Substrate
Variety
Habitats
Vegetation
Penetration
Zone Width
1
5
16
4
10
12
12
2
10
62
MY-04
2
5
16
8
10
12
12
2
8
64
(2018)
3
5
16
12
10
12
12
7
9
78
1
5
16
6
10
3
12
2
10
64
MY-05
2
5
16
11
10
3
12
2
8
67
(2019)
3
5
16
12
10
7
12
7
9
78
1
5
15
11
8
3
12
2
10
66
MY-06
2
5
16
11
8
7
12
2
10
71
(2020)
3
5
16
12
10
12
12
7
10
84
1
5
16
11
8
7
12
7
10
76
MY-07
2
5
16
11
11
10
12
8
10
79
(2021)
3
5
16
12
10
14
12
7
10
86
Highest
Possible
5
20
15
10
16
14
10
10
100
Score
5.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna, physiochemical properties, and habitat were evaluated for
this project. The results of these analyses suggest that Sites 1, 2, and 3 benthic
macroinvertebrate and physiochemical analysis are consistent with pre -construction
conditions, while habitat conditions have shown consistent improvements since the beginning
of the project. The assigned Biotic Index values are similar to previous years. According to
the small stream criteria in Version 5.0 of the sampling protocol (February 2016), during the
MY-07 sampling Site 1 and Site 2 had a bioclassification of "Poor", while Site 3 was rated as
"Fair". It is important to note that only NCDWR can officially assign bioclassifications.
Although EPT scores are not calculated for streams with drainage areas less than three square
miles, the EPT abundance values were determined. The EPT Index (number of distinct EPT
taxa) have increased from baseline values over the monitoring period. Variations during each
sampling year were observed, however the trend of the EPT Index is shown to have increased
from the Baseline to the final monitoring year MY-07 (Appendix B, Figures 4-6).
Additionally, the trend for total number of taxa collected each sampling year also has shown
an overall increase, with the exception of site 3 (Table 1; Appendix B, Figures 7-9).
Relative to the baseline survey, more EPT species and higher numbers were seen in
subsequent years beginning in MY-01. Within Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Maccaffertium sp.
was observed beginning in MY-05 and in MY-06 and MY-07, suggesting this species
colonized Site 3 following restoration. Additionally, the highest number of individuals was
seen in the final monitoring year (MY-07). No Plecoptera (Stoneflies) species were observed
during baseline surveys, but species in this category were seen in MY-01, MY-02, and MY-04
to MY-07. Specifically, Perlesta sp. with a low tolerance rating of 2.9 was observed in MY-
06 and MY-07. The increasing presence of EPT, particularly species with low tolerance
ratings is a positive indicator for the surveyed reaches.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 6
Job # 4161 September 2021

The NC Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) monitors the East Fork Eno River at three
locations including SR 1353, SR 1323, and SR 1332. These sites were most recently
monitored in 2014 using the full-scale method as their drainage areas are over 3 square miles.
The most proximate site to Cedar Grove is the SR 1353 crossing of East Fork Eno River. The
2014 sampling received a bioclassification of Good -Fair and a Biotic Index value of 6.01 with
17 EPT taxa collected. While not a direct comparison to the Cedar Grove site due to larger
drainage area and method of collection, we can interpret the similar Biotic Index and Good -
Fair rating as a benchmark that the restored survey sites of Cedar Grove have the potential to
attain.
Water quality parameters measured were temperature, pH, DO, conductivity, turbidity, Total
Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus. Temperature, conductivity, and turbidity readings were
within the normal range of conditions for streams. The measured pH levels for the Sites
ranged from 7.12 to 7.40 standard units (SU). NC Water Quality Standards for pH are
between 6.0 and 9.0 S.U. The measured DO levels for the Sites ranged from 5.24 mg/L to
7.15 mg/L. The minimum standard for DO daily average is 5.0 mg/L. Specific conductivity
readings within rivers in the United States generally range from 50 to 1500 PS/cm. Studies of
inland fresh waters indicate that streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range
between 150 and 500 µS/cm. Conductivity for all 3 sites fell below this range having scores
from 79.0 to 93.0 µS/cm, but values were in the broader appropriate range for rivers in the
United States. For turbidity, which is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU),
readings in NC should not exceed 50 NTU's in streams not designated as trout waters, 10
NTU in streams, lakes or reservoirs designated as trout waters, and 25 NTU for lakes and
reservoirs not designated as trout waters. Site 2 and Site 3 are well below the 50 NTU
standard for streams at 14 and 7.6 NTUs, respectively. Site 1 was 51 NTUs, slightly
exceeding the standard for turbidity. Total Nitrogen levels were lower than baseline
conditions for Sites 1, 2 and 3. Total Nitrogen was similar to the levels measured for recent
years MY-04, MY-05 and MY-06; all values were below the NCDENR water quality standard
for human use of 10 mg/L (NCDENR 2003). However, the EPA recommends nutrient criteria
for Total Nitrogen to be between 0.07 and 1.0 mg/L, which Site 2 (1.9 mg/L) and 3 (1.2 mg/L)
do not meet (USEPA 2000). Total Phosphorus levels are similar to baseline conditions for Site
1 and 3, and relatively higher than baseline as Site 2. Values for Total Phosphorus at Site 1 are
lower than previous years including MY-06 when values were at the highest range for Site 1
compared to all previous monitoring years. Phosphorus values for Site 2 and 3 are similar
compared with recent monitoring years. These levels of Total Phosphorous are below the
NCDENR water quality standard (2000 ug/L), while only Site 3 meets the EPA recommended
nutrient criteria (22.5 — 100.0 ug/L).
The rated stream habitat field assessment parameters were channel modification, in -stream
habitat, bottom substrate, pool variety, riffle habitats, bank stability and vegetation, light
penetration, and riparian vegetation zone width. Favorability of these parameters were
evaluated over the monitoring period beginning with the baseline surveys at the three sampled
sites. Following baseline surveys, restoration increased the sinuosity of the surveyed reaches,
and channel modification received the maximum score of 5 during the subsequent monitoring
years. As mentioned in Section 2.0 Site descriptions, instream habitat gradually increased in
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 7
Job # 4161 September 2021

scores over the monitoring period as habitat types became increasingly more differentiated,
specifically riffle and pool habitats were observed in the final years of monitoring. Similarly
bottom substrate improved over the survey period as sorting of gravel, cobble and sand
diversified substrates; this is reflected in scores at all three sites (Appendix B, Figures 1-3).
All three sites saw pool variety and riffle habitat develop and improve over the monitoring
years. Bank stability and vegetation increased as restoration techniques such as placements of
coco fiber matting and instream structure initially aided in preventing erosion. Over the
monitoring period vegetation growth along the streambanks increased stability and decreased
opportunities for erosion. The natural vegetation growth corresponds to the increased scores
for light penetration as tree canopy has increase providing shading of survey reaches at all
three sites. Similarly riparian vegetation zone width has increased as trees, shrubs and grasses
have become established. The seventh monitoring year habitat field assessment scores for
Sites 1-3 were 76, 79, and 86, respectively (Table 3; Appendix B, Figures 1-3). The score is
on a 100-point scale, with 100 indicating highest quality stream habitat. During monitoring,
stream buffers have continued to mature, and stream microhabitats have become more
defined; these parameters have shown improvements over time and are expected to continue.
These data provide MY-07 post -construction conditions for aquatic community parameters in
the project area that can be used to monitor changes in water quality over time and identify
water quality improvements as a result of stream restoration efforts. While Biotic Index values
have remained similar during the monitoring period, parameters including EPT abundance has
shown improvement from baseline. Habitat conditions, specifically riparian buffers and
instream habitat diversity have improved over the monitoring term. Species diversity has the
opportunity to expand as new microhabitats with the restored reaches are colonized. The
Cedar Grove restoration site has the potential for increased benthic macroinvertebrate
biological diversity as habitat continues to improve and time allows for new species to
colonize restored reaches.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 8
Job # 4161 September 2021

6.0 LITERATURE CITED
NCDENR. 2003. NCDENR Division of Water Quality "RedbooW' Surface Waters and
Wetlands Standards (NC Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B .0100 & .0200. April 1,
2003.
NCDEQ. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Version 5.0. February 2016. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality. Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences Section,
Biological Assessment Branch. 78 pp.
USEPA. 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations — River and Streams in
Nutrient Ecoregion IX.
USEPA 2021. Indicators: Benthic Macroinvertebrates. https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-
resource-surveys/indicators-benthic-macroinvertebratesUSGS, 2021.
Stream States:Streamflow Statistics and Spatial Analysis Tools for Water -Resources
Applications. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-
res ources/science/stream stats-streamflow-statistics-and-spatial-analysis-tool s
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 9
Job # 4161 September 2021

Appendix A. Vicinity Map
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 10
Job # 4161 September 2021

` t
iR
44
�.
N
A
Sample Sites 1-3
USGS Streams WK. i
Prepared For:
Cedar rove Bank Site Figure
s Benthic MacroinvertebrateSampling Site Map
pres
Resource
Environmental
c� Solutions 2021 Imagery Vicinity Map
Orange County, North Carolina
Date: August 2021
Scale: 0 100 206 Feet
I i I
Job No
4161
Drawn By:
NMS
Checked By
LSC

Appendix B. Graphs
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 12
Job # 4161 September 2021

Total Habitat Score Site 1
80
70
60
0
50
40
= 30
�O 20
10
0
Baseline MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Survey Year
Figure 1: Total Habitat Score Site 1
Total Habitat Score Site 2
90
80
ci 70
0
cn 60
50
coo 40
- 30
0
20
10
0
Baseline MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Survey Year
Figure 2. Total Habitat Score Site 2
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 13
Job # 4161 September 2021

Total Habitat Score Site 3
100
90
Gj 80
L
0 70
60
50
= 40
19 30
0
~ 20
10
0
Baseline MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Survey Year
Figure 3. Total Habitat Score Site 3
EPT Index Site 1
7
6
5
x
-6 4
3 a ......................................
2 —
1 ,
0
Sites MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Baseline (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
Survey Year
Figure 4: EPT Index Site 1
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 14
Job # 4161 September 2021

7
6
5
x
4
c
3
w
2
1
0
16
14
12
GX 10
8
H
w 6
4
2
0
EPT Index Site 2
i........... i ........... * I I
Sites MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Baseline (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
Survey Year
Figure 5: EPT Index Site 2
i.......... I ..
Sites MY-01
Baseline (2015)
EPT Index Site 3
MY-02 MY-03 MY-04
(2016) (2017) (2018)
Survey Year
**I ........ I ......... i -
MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
(2019) (2020) (2021)
Figure 6: EPT Index Site 3
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 15
Job # 4161 September 2021

Total No. of Taxa Site 1
70
60
ru
x 50
H
0 40
z 30
o 20
H
10
0
Sites MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Baseline (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
Survey Year
Figure 7: EPT Index Site 1
Total No. of Taxa Site 2
70
ru 60
50
0 40
z° 30
20
0
~ 10
0
Sites MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Baseline (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
Survey Year
Figure 8: EPT Index Site 2
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 16
Job # 4161 September 2021

Total No. of Taxa Site 3
80
70
x 60
50
0 40
z
30
0 20
10
0
Sites MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05 MY-06 MY-07
Baseline (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021)
Survey Year
Figure 9: EPT Index Site 3
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 17
Job # 4161 September 2021

Appendix C. Benthic Macro invertebrate Sample Results
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page I
Job # 4161 September 2021

Table 4. Benthic Macroinverteb rate Survey Results MY-07 (2021)
PAI ID NO
54838
54839
54840
STATION
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
DATE
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
S haeriidae
FC
Musculium secris
2
Pisidium s .
6.6
FC
15
14
5
Gastro oda
Basommato hora
Anc lidae
Sc
1
Ferrissia s .
6.6
Sc
3
Pseudosuccinea columella
7.7
CG
1
L mnaeidae
Sc
Fossaria s .
CG
4
Ph sidae
Ph Sella s .
8.7
CG
9
3
3
Planorbidae
Sc
Menetus dilatatus
7.6
Sc
9
5
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oli ochaeta
CG
Tubiricida
Naididae
CG
Naidinae
CG
2
Nais s .
8.7
CG
1
Tubificinae w.h.c.
CG
4
3
Tubificinae w.o.h.c.
CG
10
6
3
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
2
2
Hirudinea
P
Rh nchobdellida
Glossi honiidae
P
Helobdella sta nalis
P
1
Helobdella triserialis
9.3
P
7
ARTHROPODA
Arachnoidea
Acariformes
1
Hygrobatidae
H robates sp
1
Oxidae
Oxus s .
1
Crustacea
Coe oda
C clo oida
C clo idae
Macroc clo s albidus
5
1
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page I
Job # 4161 September 2021

PAI ID NO
54838
54839
54840
STATION
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
DATE
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
Ostracoda
14
Iso oda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea s .
8.4
CG
3
3
1
Am hi oda
CG
Cran on ctidae
Cran on x s .
7.2
CG
11
5
H alellidae
H alella azteca
7.2
CG
21
12
Deca oda
Cambaridae
1
Cambarus s .
7.5
CG
2
1
Insecta
Collembola
Isotomidae
1
E hemero tera
Baetidae
CG
1
Acer enna s .
CG
1
Baetis avistri a
6.8
CG
3
Caenidae
CG
Caenis s .
6.8
CG
1
2
2
He to eniidae
Sc
Maccaffertium modestum
5.7
Sc
9
Ison chiidae
FC
Ison chia s .
3.6
FC
3
Odonata
Aeshnidae
P
1
Bo eria vinosa
5.8
P
2
Coena rionidae
P
5
3
Arias.
8.3
P
1
1
Enalla ma s .
8.5
P
1
Libellulidae
P
Erythemis s .
P
2
Pach di lax lon i ennis
9.6
1
Corduliidae
1
Pleco tera
Perlidae
P
Perlesta s .
2.9
P
1
2
Hemi tera
Corixidae
Trichocorixa s .
4
Pleidae
Para lea s .
1
Me alo tera
Corydalidae
P
Ni ronia serricornis
4.6
P
1
1
6
Sialidae
P
Sialis s.
7
P
5
2
Tricho tera
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 20
Job # 4161 September 2021

PAI ID NO
54838
54839
54840
STATION
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
DATE
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
H dros chidae
FC
Cheumato s the s .
6.6
FC
20
14
16
H dro s the de ravata gp.
79
FC
7
H dro s the s .
FC
1
H drotilidae
PI
H dro tila s .
6.5
PI
3
1
Le ido tera
Crambidae
Ar ractis drumalis
1
Coleo tera
Curculionidae
1
Dryopidae
Helichus basalis
0.5
Sc
1
Helichus asti iatus
4.1
Sc
3
9
D tiscidae
P
Co elatus s .
2
Il bius s .
1
Neo onus carounus
5
2
Neo onus s .
5
2
10
Elmidae
CG
Dubira hia s .
5.5
Sc
4
Macron chus glabratus
4.7
SH
2
Stenelmis s .
5.6
Sc
1
1
4
G rinidae
P
G rinus s.
5.8
P
1
1
Hali lidae
Peltod tes s .
8.4
SH
2
1
Peltod tes muticus
2
H drohilidae
P
5
C mbiod to s .
CG
9
3
Helochares s .
P
1
S ercho sis tessellatus
4.4
CG
1
Tro isternus s .
9.3
P
1
4
Di tera
Cerato 0 onidae
P
6
10
3
Atricho 0 on s.
6.1
P
1
1
Chironomidae
Ablabesm is mallochi
7.4
P
2
Chironomus s .
9.3
CG
10
3
1
Concha elo is s .
8.4
P
19
49
5
Corynoneura s .
5.7
CG
1
Cricoto us s .
1
6
Cricoto us bicinctus
8.7
CG
1
Cryptochironomus s .
6.4
P
3
Dicrotendi es s .
7.2
CG
3
Dicrotendi es sim Boni
9.8
7
Endochironomus s .
SH
2
Glyptotendipes s .
8.6
FC
2
Microtendi es pedellus gp.
3.9
CG
1
2
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 21
Job # 4161 September 2021

PAI ID NO
54838
54839
54840
STATION
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
DATE
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
6/1/2021
Nanocladius s .
7.4
CG
4
Natarsia s .
9.6
P
7
1
Nilotanypits s .
P
2
Paraclado elma s .
6.3
CG
1
Parametriocnemus s .
3.9
CG
19
2
1
Paratan tarsus dissimilis
8
CG
2
4
Phaeno sectra obediens gp.
6.6
Sc
1
Polypedilumflawim
5.7
SH
3
6
Procladius s .
8.8
P
4
Rheocricoto us robacki
7.9
CG
2
3
Rheotan tarsus exi uus gp.
6.5
FC
9
18
Rheotan tarsus pellucidus
6.5
FC
3
Rheotan tarsus s .
6.5
FC
1
Tan tarsus s .
6.6
FC
4
3
Thienemanniella xena
8
CG
1
2
Tribelos jucundum
5.7
CG
2
Zavrelim is s .
8.6
P
4
Culicidae
FC
Anopheles s .
8.6
FC
1
Culex s .
FC
1
Em ididae
P
Hemerodromia s .
P
2
1
Pt cho teridae
Bittacomorpha clavi es
2
1
Simuliidae
FC
Simulium tuberosum complex
4.9
FC
24
Simulium venustum complex
7.3
20
2
Tabanidae
PI
Chrysops s .
6.7
PI
3
1
Ti ulidae
SH
Limonia (Dicranom ia) s .
9.3
SH
3
Pilaria/ulomor hia s .
1
Pseudolimno hila s .
6.2
P
1
Ti ula s .
7.5
SH
5
6
3
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
257
279
188
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
61
65
42
EPT TAXA
4
5
8
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES
7.07
7.14
6.49
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 22
Job # 4161 September 2021

Appendix D. Water Quality Analysis Results
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 23
Job # 4161 September 2021

�NCa
www.encolabs.com
SAMPLE DETECTION SUMMARY
Client ID: 81 (SITE#1)
Lab ID:
CE08045-01
Analvte
Results
Flak
MDL
PPL
Urits
Method
Notes
Nitrate/Nit,it2 as N
0,28
0,041
C.10
mg/L
EPA 353.2
Phosphor us
0,16
3 325
0.10
mg/L
EPA 365.4
Total Nitrogen
099
0.2E
C.48
Mg/1-
CA LC
Turhicity
51
D
12
25
NTU
SM 21335-2011
Client ID: 91 (SITE#1)
Lab ID:
CE08045-01RE1
Analvte
Results
Flak
MQL
POLL
Uri is
Method
Notes
Total Kjeldahl Nitrog=_n
0,66
0.26
0.48
mg/L
EPA 351.2
dient ID: S2(SITE02)
Lab ID:
CE08045-02
Analvte
Results
FIB
MDL
PP0
Uri is
Method
Notes
Nitrafe/Nitrita as N
0,092
]
3 341
0.10
mg/L
EPA 353.2
Phosphorus
0,12
0,025
C.10
mg/L
EPA 355.4
Total Nitrogen
1,9
0.26
0.48
mg/L
CALC
Turbidty
14
0.50
1.0
NTU
SM 21335-2011
Client ID: S2(SITE#2)
Lab ID:
CE08045-02RE1
Analvte
Results
E(ae.
MPL
L4L
Unts
Method
Notes
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogan
18
0.26
CAB
mg/L
EPA 351.2
dient ID: 93(SITE# 3)
Lab ID:
CE08045-03
Analvte
Results
LLI&
MPl.
EQL
Unts
Method
Notes
Nitrafe/Nit,ita as N
0,22
0,041
C.10
mg/L
EPA 353.2
Phosphor us
0,10
3 325
0.10
mg/L
EPA 365.4
Total Nitrogen
12
0.26
C.48
mg/L
CALL
Turhidty
7C
0.50
1.0
NTU
SM 21338-2011
dient ID: 53 SITE# 3
Lab ID:
CE08045-03RE1
Analvte
Results
Elea
MP1
E4L
Urtits
Method
Notes
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
0,98
0.26
0.42
mg/L
EPA 351.2
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 24
Job # 4161 September 2021

Appendix E. Site Photographs
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 25
Job # 4161 September 2021

Photo 1. View of Site 1 facing upstream.
Photo 2. View of Site 1 facing downstream.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 26
Job # 4161 September 2021

Photo 3. View of Site 2 facing upstream.
Photo 4. View of Site 2 facing downstream.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 2 i
Job # 4161 September 2021

Photo 5. Upstream facing view of Site 3.
Photo 6. Downstream facing view of site 3
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 28
Job # 4161 September 2021

Photo 7. Freshwater mussels observed within the habitat at Site 3.
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 29
Job # 4161 September 2021

Appendix F. Habitat Assessment Forms
Cedar Grove Benthic Macroinvertebrate MY-07 Surveys Page 30
Job # 4161 September 2021

O.q
or
0
w m
13
p+y N N = O
N �
C tA
yF o
ca
3
r+
Ir I I I
I
s
m
rn
N �
Q
J
IIIII`
el SR T
IIII
��
:°
gg
a
2: x -Z
I I I I
I
ig
a,

W
V
'�C d
w wo
Ci p
m
eo
CD
CD
R
C. K
c CD
J-�
cCD
I
a�
g'
❑
g
�•
w Y
� n
�
(��
�' fD
x
❑
s
`° to
�b❑d
�C
or�
�_
�
a
CD
eo
ca C
co
•* c,
'1� CD P
CD
•t
o
"
N "'
w
tvCD
$
et,
G
CD
0
S�
f9
�
°
�
so
R
❑ ❑
�" L7
°
O
C7
a
'�
a
aw
v
�
CSC �.
O
`°�,
o
�. .�
4 y
rDD
CD �•
a;
; ^ CD
�
rn
44 C
.ram
O
S
AD
°�
c5'
�-
p••'
a
cr
CD
CL
�\
CD
o
�•
�
c
1
F
ar
n
�
�
w
0
CD
C
o
fD
am
O
o
�
14 t• O C $� 5 :°m o wVv
�o
10 V y ar �::r, O
�
a ° A y �
b co
1 M CD
CD
p,CD
o��
61 coo v oa°a
a0 TIr
C
as 1
Co
O Cow w
l+ `
f)
CD C
LQ. o
z K CD CD
x
C3 ❑ � � � cD � o r*
aCD
CD
c��3
Q! v CD �• ` n CD
❑
O ❑ .a Elm , CD N �9
CD CD CD �* M. o CL •`3
`. cDD w. cD o p Oil
❑ tea' � � � • �° '� "'* d
' c a°
E y y 2::J - " CD M
A+
o
r
5 °
ICJD
Let a. cr
dCD 0
CD o A
CD
:y
OM �Co �.
" " °
>v
o
w
C
o'
a
00

w
W
00
a
O N W A In K
0000®D
2
�
A
A
0
�
"1 r.t n•S � �
V
O
w
TI
zs
o ; 0
*
� qq
A w
�' cc
O O
�••�, P' '••a w
< �•
o
l/"
p
' CD O
-V
n �
y
:
w
y
IS -
C m
❑
O CA
C
c
G
as
FL
oCD
A
❑
(D
w
�
'O
o a
S
a.
O

d n
y y
�0 mr6'p O'cc O
CD CD CD CD IQ 0 CD
con con am
`G�C t=i V A �
m' mow-' mow-' �OtALA
-' O O
�_. CD w CD
FV
� o
0
G
M
� W Nay .yp
S El S R C(Q P
d d d d K d
CD a e 0
wwwwww
w y m rn A m
V A N A O V
000ONcr 00
O O \ C~D
O O :
4,00
NON �::—
woo �
O
00
00®0
MOON
o
CD
CD
d
CD
[D
a
0
°
y
W
CD
0
0
0
�a
iD
R
O.
z�-N W?
N O O fD
C0 CDC°�w���D
CD
CD
�V
O v oc �o O O O
0000❑8
w.Acnrno O
DOW c
N
C/I O
O N O
00000
1-1
�n O O
00000. o

4
¢r
A �
?� o
0
o �
° o
y
I
�0O•
P �
O y
C
y 0
o A'
O O
o
CACD
O
N �
m `<
C�D �
n' (D
CD
N
y
n
fD
n
.8
❑❑®❑oI°
0
cn
G
S.
C
(D
G
W
A
0
O
G
viAwN��AwN���
o zoo CD
w M 4 ° r.
O ryryCpp C `C e�D CCD w C
p E O O 0 O+
Cr' RD
�, �' CD ma
CD CD0 A CD �o
^ G p m
UQ o C 0 o
K COw N N N
m
N N x K
� m K
O CDCD
CD CD �s
CD Cr CD
.0 G
(9
C
co
CD
CD
ONwtoOw CNJ
C
QQ
fD
�
W
O
G.
O
n
10
CD
cry 4J
do
co
x
CD CD
?;
°BCD
w
w a
w
CD
CD
CD
FD °
G
CD
CDw
c
CD
G
CD
d
❑
N
w
on p'
CD
°
O
CD
N
Q h-
Ui
Ia
(0 41
OAa\A
C
❑❑❑❑ O
•`!
O K
Al �
0
O
"d OAO\
0
�000
0
s

Pd �s
dCD Cl is: A d
0 m ,�
why Ai
p�� o o w.
CD
A V AaV o o -
CD
Via_
_
i—. T 5r ❑
v� N - Oo N 00 CD UD O O
O 00 � 00
a y CD El
CD �, CD y � �
O y 'lD'i y a.. .�
co v, ❑
CD
y C o
CD
W ❑CD
?�
n N C�7 CD
a `� w
0
�• c'ho � w
w
w � CD p
y CD
CD
a CD
CD
� o
cr
O � �
?� a
Ly b CD N W �•-• N W A N w C.n Q O
o y w ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑® COD �a
0 �.
W T In
I�❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑® o
y
O CD
(9 4.
Q
(g9 9.
C
y
N
N CAD
M r
y
Al
Pd

a
00
FD
-01
N
-\
y
3
m 0
z
�
s
n
's Imo!
m
w
o
1
d
M�.r
0
a
n

W
V
p is
rL
CD
�,
C3
11a..11 �'�'
�p
C c
CD
y
ID
C�NzI
,"�'-'
py
Al. CD
w a
t7 J 1
d
O
I CD
to
M
(1
`�
`�
y
3
cp
��w
��
•CD
CD
W��
o
•
�
� M
•Li
�-S
`
a
as
CD
w a
n
V' CD
w
❑�
uo
Q
o
❑❑
w
co
�•
¢
n
�
❑
p,
O
OtvO
y
CD papy�
•*
o CD 0
0
❑
cD R
Vx1
w VJ •
M C p
� � �
�
cD I
1
eo
•'!
�-fJ
O
Q-
❑
�'
`uZy
e'"p
G
C
CD
"
4
A
PD
C
.
P-
N
❑❑
w n
C C�7
�, j
O
� o
�
b
❑
-> >
g
1
v
K
n
CD
CD
�.
� �'
� •
a
�. ,-.
�
b �
M
fD
°
w
c
�a
y❑
a7
n•
ny
Q
CD
y
J
[�
-k
CD
Q•
I—LS
a
Is
�C
n
s
L
a
1
�'
3
10,
F
I
e�
A
^
2
I='
0
a
m
o
C
o
`
C
CD
(D
C
yy
cn
G
O
N
}1
CD
CL
CD
m
C•
w
c•
�C
Jq
0
I
0
rr
C
W
rib
�
"�"� C o• d bd
CD
Oar y A
`r3
CD r4°n
00
C Ky
Cs m tD � o
w
a. y tv
CD
w
�.
O
p y C
0 5
cD w
O N
pr
S CD
c`
w F o
0
ra
CD
I
w
CD w rn
"• ZA
W
z
�yCD
�C��
TA
b
O C
�a�
c�
yea;
�:
C
O �
~I
Q.pCD
yr
A
n' Pt w
n
o.y w
CD ¢ C
0�
0 0
Q;
CD �
v, O
O CAD
n n
O
Rr
y
ft
o �
fD
p

CD
a�
A
m
er
0
C
W
00
�a
� m
c>
CD
^r
0 ,ter
CD
J
d CD
� w
.51 CAD
y �
0 Cp
:3 o
"
1
A
O
'.
: M
CD C
7d ❑
—'
t
� a
�
0
nv O p
N
w e�
13 p.
o
0ID
N
N"
O
N
a• `NRAC
� �
all a
s
0 0
C)
0
N
a a �
d O
o
p
z
c
L
o
g
❑
M
N
C3'
OONwAtn�
i
4
b
C
n
m
0
r�dc�r�a[,
CD CD CD
O
w
L
'
ID
•�
~
10
M W
(k
' CD o
0
c
m cco
m
m M n
o c �
a. w
CD n
�a D
y a
CD
R.

y � �
ao00 c cc�aio c a
ar ar cr d ° a, m O cdo C � coo rn � rn cr a' a' � O
K as y Q-aa.a.< aam.0 "
0 a.a.ao.o. aaaa
cu co co co cc cs e a `D a a o CD a a Q. o
R. m
0
V n .�..
V PN n 0 V AN n xa'
t,n In 00 N w 00 O O O O N 'k '.y g
0 0 0 o a o o 0 0
0000 4h�
�.� \\ \o o0 s e o6 ara C
CD to o
10
'f� fD
CD o �.
cr �
ID °
co p,
O
fb p�
� y �. r
� O
x CD
my
O" O
o N
y O
CD
C
y
V]
Uq
. 00
N Q\ �_ �-.
w 00 �-• �-.
C/i
O
00
�0000
00®0
0000�"
o
O
7r
so
C
CD
0
CD
Ell
w
fo
11
rA V
--1 00 c O O
O
000000
0
v�
o
w�cnO�o
O
000�0
0
I6-
N
C/� O
'40 O N O O�
0000"
I�
ul 0� J 00 O O
000010
N

a r.,
C17CJ(]b7 y
A (D (D N CD
CD !D
N
AD
Cs A p v O
v
aq
Cu
G.
N
y O
N
CA
d o ° O
dCD
W .. d4'
G CD
co wzr
C 'CIDCD
A
0
°
(C CD
n �!
O
E�
(D
W
�
w
o
0 C
vi
fD
CZ
O
C
Cl
Cl
cnAwN��AwN���
rz� �o y.�
O C O
O `< ID `C `d ewe CD Qd1 O C
h K CD
ronc o mar
_ c.
�
d O CD
n o n�
cD
CCD W N D
a
d 0 C
CD
to
O O CD 0
CD CD
C a' zs
CD : ryp CD
CD
CDN
C w
❑
e�
x
I--p
IN
a
w
w

❑
p
t
d
CD0
S
°.
CD
CD
0 0 .�""..
N
CL
a aaa
^
as a
o' S's
o Cr
CD
m co
o
V
O /� �/
CD cp CD
.. m o
y
N 00
�-. 00
m ❑
En
pr Fr
yNy
CD
CD�:
i CD
0
n y
CD
coCD
❑
y
o w
CD°CD
��ydy
t�
cCo
C
o_
�
o
°•
a °o
�•
o •
coo
a
� w
�, `o•'
❑
.� CD
CD
CD
w+
o
rn
eyy �
CD
CA o
b OWN W
f�'1
°CD v� ❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑�
w
(°Op
`'
coo d
❑❑❑❑
(�
❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑®
O
b'
a
CD
w
N
N N
ti r
y
C
d
O
N

I
9 �
rA
la
y
y
I
� n
I �
N
C
b
eD
eD
rA
0
Q
r
CA
eD
rA
QM
D
0
!y
1
1�•
i�
eD
e+

C
a
11
EYE-
n
s
0
N
El
O
11
m
m
C o
oa
o r'
Cal,N
�C o CD
°00
a- �l
C�
8r,.4
CD
y
0
0 CD
O (emu
PO
(D
0
CD
eD
&
y
a - ;
I�
y
0
rA
(D (D N
lD�
h E;- "� C
e'1•
C. C (ao
O
a
ib
> C IS: o
2.
C
r
-" . N y
=
•
G
C]
OR om
om
cpc^emsomf
rr�
CIS
y
ID
o �
.fit
(114
y
CD
ac. o
cr
�
ooa w *CO. -0
�r w
a
rA O o
0 i
� 0
o'
rn o' •- m
o �
N �
w
CN

o y .ti Vxl "ram: % �' m
y �.w CD n l�dc�bdyCKy ID`?a,�,�
I� Ats'o',y'+ �'[rJ!df�Glya �{'• (� a ��y o ����� a �� �c�u
�! M OQ 0 fD (D ��. e0 � H N ti� w w C). � C x O
h7 o t°+C 0v
fD
Rl
al
ar
�o�
�t GG
N' w O G
y ID CD
OQ
On CD
En
C o N: cr, y :' 7 G' 0 G.:
P.o '` d so CD CD 0
a w z {� o❑
CD
CD
o w
13
LQ
Lh O a O 0
0 CD
fD
-e CD CD
M y
C w o• : CD❑
w
w°
"� cu
K aQ CD
cr
CD o
C
°
Vil111 (•� ❑❑❑❑❑
CD
vi ❑ ❑❑❑�CD
0
b �
CD
CD �.
C n
y �+
�• n
o
w o
.y CD 0.
w
y
CA)
00

CT W
w
co
�c
o y b
w
� � b
CD �� O
w
CDCD
0 0CD
O �
Q O CD
.El (9
� � w
CD W'
co w
a o a
�
O
cCD
a
ay
c
C
CD
O O
c o
W
s N
U4 CD
co n
'yr' CD
M
�o
W CD
wW
.'A
W �.
CL CD
CDCD
CD
C1
0
0
W
PO
El
K
y
O
CY
O
FJ
n to
W rA
P
N. r� A P4
N CD � N N N fD CAD
AD o CO N (71 a N N A�7
Cs a. a CL a. C1. e
CD CD CD CDCD CD =
CD�14CD �� CD
a
.. � y w y y A
0 0 O O O O C
CD
C�
00
O
vo
5
cr cr a,
CD aa.�'
aafm
a �•�
Cy o CD
0CD0 �
V Vl V] O
OON�
O O p
CD
CD m
eb a. 61
CD C
or,
a o.
O d
v, G n
p R+ k A
� o
o,
CD
UQQ
CO
G n
CD
CD
Ca
C
ti
11
O
z..i,,WA
N CD
y CD �
O O CD
.a
CD
"� fD
rn V
OVQo"oOO
O
❑❑❑❑❑O
o
V]
O
w P� um tr a,
O
❑❑❑fO
tj
an o.
p 0 r r NJp
o
O
❑❑❑❑�
o
� n
to o� J 00
O O
❑❑❑❑O
o

oCC�z
M
PD
CD CD CO CD
CD
M Q7
•C
CD
Q CD y
A� UQ
co
� CD
CD
0
CD
� y
0
aD CD =s
w�
CD
C C"
C
CDw
a
C
w �
dQ �
o'
0
CD
G.
o y
CD
0
�+ Q D
� %•7
CD 0
O <
0
0
N
N
n
CD
0
'b
G
O N -_] 00 ~O
0
x
0
C
CD
CA
9
0
N
dQ
'Y
A
0
rn
0
1`
0
r
j
G"
O
co
�CC'ZCdy
YCD
°`• Ewa
P. C
cD
CC0
'C (D y
A : `D UQQts
�
�A
Nj
N
y
0
O 0
❑ : rw�j•
r: N� R
Xw
m CD
w CD
CD
a: N
_a
CD
10
0
w
0
CD
w
� M
•'S r
(D
ry
^ITI
CD
W
.7
O
R
CD
,�
CD
�5
a
Gd
N
b
0
� C
00
y N
CD
q o
o °, ^
o 0
o o
cy y
o
CD �h
ID "C
�
o
C
a
a
CD
Q.
•
n
I
w

e CD d
m
7 N ��•� W N �•t'o
'r
N as
ft
w
O0 El A
CD � �Sl
a' A rn V n V o
y r
o y � y ❑ CD
CD
� Ky � w
w Y ° n 2,
r.
m N Cx7 o w
13
y
9
CD
CD
� o
o
O �
�a
ry `b O�Nw �Nw4�, N W 4�1LAp-
n cl❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ 0000 000
.
rn d w
�, � '�i
❑�❑ ❑�❑❑❑ ❑❑❑.® y: =u
�cr
0 CD
a�
CD
y
N
N CAD
M r
w
LIM

y
a
c
Ta
O
r
rA
w
CD
Go
3
D
0
0-01
eD
d
lam•'
A�
n
a
a
CD
Q
k'
n
0
v
cD'
0
v
or
m
n
y
co
(D
Cl)
y
i3
CD

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data

Table 14. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Number of
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
Crest Gauge 1 (UT1)
2015
0
N/A
2016
0
N/A
2017
0
N/A
2018
0
N/A
2019
4
0.70
Crest Gauge 2 EFER
2015
1
1.00
2016
3
1.25
2017
3
2.10
2018
0
N/A
2019
5
1.92
2020
5
1.41
2021
1
0.18
Crest Gauge 3 (UT3)
2015
1
0.60
2016
6
0.80
2017
10
1.30
2018
6
0.20
2019
8
1.47
2020
3
1.05
2021
5
0.73
Crest Gauge 4 (UT4)
2015
5
0.70
2016
1
0.70
2017
12
0.90
2018
5
0.25
2019
9
0.95
Crest Gauge 5 (UT2A)
2015
2
0.90
2016
6
1.25
2017
13
1.55
2018
12
0.80
2019
11
1.45
2020
0
N/A
2021
1
0.31
Flow Gauge
Number of
Flow Events
Maximum Consecutive Flow Days
Crest Gauge 1 (UT1)
2018
15
57
2019
5
87
2020
10
45
2021
1
119
Crest Gauge 4 UT4
2018
8
145
2019
9
128
2020
11
132
2021
8
121

Table 15. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Durham Station Precipitation
30
Percent
70
Percent
January
4.41
3.09
5.24
4.77
February
3.62
2.53
4.30
1 6.14
March
4.48
3.21
5.30
2.68
April
3.22
2.07
3.87
1.49
May
4.44
3.30
5.21
0.31
June
3.98
2.46
4.81
2.53
July
3.96
2.20
4.82
5.64
August
4.46
3.07
1 5.31
6.17
September
4.45
1.71
5.39
3.99
October
3.72
2.03
4.54
2.12
November
3.62
2.20
4.38
NA
December
3.24
2.19
3.87
1 NA
Total
1 47.60
30.06
1 57.04
35.84
Above Normal Limits
Oelow Normal Limit

(u!) Ile;uiea
N O
00 (O V N O
I
'
I
N
�
�
�
O
O
N
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
�
O
N
\
I
I
I
I
I
O
�
O
�
I
I
I
�
'
I
I
I
I
I
O
O
_
r
L
'
I
O
O
_
o
�
\ I
O '
Ln ' �
O
U)
C
C)
o
a�
O
N
0
o
L
cc
M
O
�
I
I
U
N
N
o
O
N
I
0
o
O
N
O
N
O
\
O
O
�
I
'
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
O
(11) y;daa aa;eM

(u!) Ile;uiea
N O
00 (O V N O
N
O
N
N
W
N
N
O
L�
r
�
I
V
w
a�
I
0
C9
L
cc
M
U
N
�
r
N
O
N
ti
0
N
N
O
N
O
N
N O O
(11) y;daa aa;eM