HomeMy WebLinkAbout20160225 Ver 1_South Fork MY5 Report_20231218Wildlands Engineering, Inc. phone 919-851-9986 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609
December 18, 2023
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Kim Isenhour
Subject: Action ID No. SAW‐2016‐02364
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank – South Fork Mitigation Site
Seventh Credit Release (Monitoring Year 5 Completion)
Dear Ms. Isenhour:
This correspondence is in reference to the South Fork Mitigation Site, part of the Cane Creek Umbrella
Mitigation Bank. The 18.13‐acre site is in the Cape Fear 02 Cataloging Unit (03030002) and is located off Jonny
Lindley Road, approximately 3.1 miles northeast of Silk Hope, NC in Chatham County. The purpose of this letter
is to request the seventh release of credits (Year 5 Monitoring Complete) for this mitigation site.
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) site assessments were conducted between January 2023 and October 2023. Overall,
the Site is functioning as intended and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. The average planted stem density
is 405 stems per acre, surpassing the MY5 interim requirement of 260 stems per acre. Each of the nine
vegetation plots exceeds the interim requirement. Small amounts of invasive species were observed along
project features and have been treated. These areas will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary. In
November 2023 the South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank closed out with the contingency of a
minor supplemental planting in the winter of 2023‐2024. The majority of streams are stable and functioning as
designed. Erosion is occurring on the outer bend of a pool on SF4A. Two sills on UT2, 2 sills on UT4, and a sill on
SF4A Reach 1 experienced piping during 2023 and will be repaired in 2024. A mechanical repair on a lunker log
on SF4A Reach 4 which took place in September 2022 experienced minor erosion at the beginning of MY5 but
has remained stable since. Bankfull events were recorded on each of the three streams subject to this criterion
and greater than 30 consecutive days of flow was recorded on UT2 and UT4 Reach 2. All culvert and ford
crossings on‐site are functioning as intended. Minor cattle encroachment occurred when cattle were taken
through internal easement breaks to rotate them between pastures. The occasional cattle trespass was
addressed promptly, and no signs of damage have occurred as a result. Fencing remains in good condition
throughout the Site.
Pursuant to the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and the site‐specific South Fork Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan, successful completion of MY5 activities and demonstration that interim performance standards
are being met for all parcels within the bank grants ten percent (10%) of the mitigation site’s total stream
mitigation credits be available for sale. Therefore, we are requesting 431.80 stream credits (SMUs) be released.
Please contact me at 919‐851‐9986 x103 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jeff Keaton,
Project Manager
Type Jurisdiction Date Permittee Project Name Credits Permits (SAW #)Credit
Classification
Impact
HUC
Impact
Quantity
Total
Withdrawn Available Comments
SMU 2/1/2018 647.70 Warm 647.70 Release 1. Bank Establishment. 15%
SMU 3/8/2019 647.70 Warm 1,295.40 Release 2. As Built Release. 15%
SMU 2/25/2020 431.80 Warm 1,727.20 Release 3. Year 1 Monitoring. 10%
SMU 1/28/2021 431.80 Warm 2,159.00 Release 4. Year 2 Monitoring. 10%
SMU Wake County 2/15/2022 Epcon Communities, Inc.The Courtyards at Southerland residential development 314.00 SAW-2021-01617 Warm 03030002 342.00 314.00 1,845.00
SMU 3/18/2022 431.80 Warm 2,276.80 Release 5. Year 3 Monitoring. 10%
SMU 1/20/2023 647.70 Warm 2,924.50 Release 6. Year 4 Monitoring & Bankfull. 15%
SMU Orange County 2/22/2023 Greenpointe, LLC Buckhorn Business Centre 154.00 SAW-2019-02199 Warm 03030002 77.00 154.00 2,770.50 0
SMU Wake County 3/6/2023 M/I Homes of Raleigh, LLC Heelan 860.00 SAW-2020-01098 Warm 03030002 430.00 430.00 2,340.50
Please note that 430 SMUs were debited from the South Fork Mitigation
Site and the remaining 430 SMUs were debited from the UT to Pine Hill
Mitigation Site
3,238.50 898.00 2,340.50
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument: South Fork Mitigation Site
Cape Fear (HUC 03030002)
Stream Credit Ledger
Date Last Updated: 12-18-2023
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2016-02364
Total Credits Released To Date: 3,238.5
Project Name:
Sponsor Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWQ Action ID:
Non‐Forested
Wetland
Credits
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Coastal
4,316 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4,318 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scheduled
Releases
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Scheduled
Releases
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non‐Riverine Non‐Riparian Scheduled
Releases Coastal
1 (Bank/Site Establishment)1, 2 15% 647.70 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A 2/1/2018
2 (Year 0/As‐Built)3 15% 647.70 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A 3/8/2019
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)10% 431.80 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A 10% N/A 2/25/2020
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)10% 431.80 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A 1/28/2021
5 (Year 3 Monitoring)10% 431.80 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 20% N/A 3/18/2022
6 (Year 4 Monitoring)5% 215.90 N/A N/A 5% N/A N/A N/A 10% N/A 1/20/2023
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)10% 431.80 N/A N/A 15% N/A N/A N/A 15% N/A February 2024
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)5% 215.90 N/A N/A 5% N/A N/A N/A NA NA February 2025
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)10% 431.80 N/A N/A 10% N/A N/A N/A NA NA February 2026
Stream Bankfull Standard4 10% 431.80 N/A N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA 1/20/2023
Total Credits Release to Date 75% 3,238.50
Date
Chatham
03030002
2016
18‐Dec‐23
County:
8‐Digit HUC:
Year Project Instituted:
Date Prepared:
Actual Release
Date
Potential Credits from As‐Built Survey
Stream Credits
Credit Classification
Non‐Forested Wetland
CreditsForested Wetland CreditsStream Credits
Current and Future Credit Releases
Credit Release Milestone
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
4 ‐ A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
1 ‐ The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan.
2 ‐ The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) Mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) Recordation of the long‐term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
3 ‐ The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as‐built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan.
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release
Cane Creek UMBI ‐ South Fork Mitigation Site
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC
SAW‐2016‐02364
2016‐0225v1
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
Forested Wetland Credits
Total Potential Credits
Projected
Release Date
MONITORING YEAR 5
REPORT
CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Data Collection: January 2023 – October 2023
Submission Date: December 18, 2023
PREPARED FOR:
The North Carolina Interagency Review Team
USACE Project Manager: Kim Isenhour
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: (919) 851‐9986
December 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) developed the South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) under the Cane
Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Site is in Chatham County, near the Towns of Silk Hope, NC
and Siler City, NC, and within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050 (Cane Creek).
The project includes the restoration and enhancement of 5,661 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
intermittent streams on six unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek, a stream in the Jordan Lake
watershed. The Site is expected to generate 4,318 stream mitigation units and includes restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of adjacent riparian buffers.
The 2005 NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Cape Fear River Basin‐wide Water Quality Plan
(NCDWR, 2005) indicates that Jordan Lake (27‐54‐(3.5)) is classified as Water Supply IV, and a Nutrient
Sensitive Water (NSW) needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic
or macroscopic vegetation. This project is advancing the goals identified in the RBRP by restoring a
vegetated riparian buffer zone, stabilizing eroding streambanks, and removing livestock from the stream
and riparian zones. While benefits such as improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat are important to the
Site, others, such as reduced nutrient and sediment loading, will also affect downstream waters. The
project goals established in the South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) were
designed with careful consideration of local watershed stressors (e.g. confined animal feeding
operations, livestock grazing) within the Cape Fear River Basin. Project goals include:
Exclude livestock from project streams;
Stabilize eroding stream banks;
Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable;
Improve instream habitat;
Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently;
Restore and enhance native floodplain forest; and
Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
Monitoring year 5 (MY5) data collection occurred from January 2023 until October 2023. The average
planted stem density for the site is 405 stems per acre, which exceeds the MY5 interim requirement of
260 stems per acre. All 5 fixed and 4 random vegetation plots satisfied this criterion on an individual
basis. The South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank closed out in November 2023, with the
contingency that approximately 30‐50 trees are planted over 0.21 acres in the winter of 2023‐2024. The
majority of stream reaches are stable and functioning as designed. Bankfull events were recorded using
pressure transducers on each of the three streams subject to the success criterion. Both restored
intermittent streams (UT2 and UT4 Reach 2) exceeded 30 days of consecutive flow. Small and infrequent
invasive species stems have been identified along project features and have undergone mechanical and
chemical treatment. Fencing remains in good condition throughout the Site, however, cattle continue to
occasionally bypass the fence at internal crossings when the landowner rotates them between pastures.
Wildlands continues to work with the landowner to ensure prompt action is taken against removing the
cattle. Additionally, barrels were added to the three‐strand tinsel within crossings that float the strands
during high rain events, which assists in preventing debris from collecting on strands and breaking them.
All culvert and ford crossings on Site are functioning as intended. Overall, the Site is in good condition
and on track to meet MY7 vegetation, stream, and hydrology success criteria.
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report ii
SOUTH FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA ASSESSMENT ...................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Vegetation Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ..................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment .................................................................................................. 2‐2
2.6 Adaptive Management Plan....................................................................................................... 2‐3
2.7 Monitoring Year 5 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2‐3
Section 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 3‐1
Section 4: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 4‐1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
Tables 5a‐5d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Internal Crossing Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Table 8b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross‐Section)
Cross‐Section Plots
Table 10 Bank Pin Exposure
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12 In‐Stream Flow Gage Attainment Summary
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 1‐1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The South Fork Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northwest Chatham County, 3.1 miles northwest of Silk
Hope, NC (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14‐digit HUC 03030002050050 and
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Sub‐basin 03‐06‐04. The Site is within the Jordan Lake
watershed which is classified as Water Supply IV, and a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) needing
additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
Project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. SF4A is the main tributary
on the Site with UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 flowing into SF4A. Mitigation work consisted of
restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II on 5,661 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent
streams. Riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and ecosystem function.
The South Fork Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) was approved by the North Carolina
Interagency Review Team in February 2018. Site construction was completed by Land Mechanic Designs,
Inc. in July 2018 and planting activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in December
2018. Baseline monitoring was completed in January 2019. Annual monitoring and reporting will be
conducted for seven years with close‐out anticipated in 2026 given success criteria are attained.
Appendix 1 provides detailed project activity, history, contact, and site background information.
A conservation easement was recorded on a total of 18.13 acres. The project is expected to yield 4,318
stream mitigation units. Project components and assets are illustrated in Figure 2 and credit allocation is
provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction, on‐site streams and riparian areas were degraded due to livestock impacts, stream
channelization, ditching, bed and bank erosion, and lack of appropriate vegetation communities.
Furthermore, the Site provided minimal capacity to immobilize excess nutrients originating from
livestock waste through uptake in riparian vegetation. The project is intended to contribute to functional
uplift of on‐site and downstream waters within the Cape Fear River Basin by addressing stressors
identified in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWR, 2005). Expected functional
uplift is outlined below as project goals and objectives.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan include:
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes
Reduce pollutant inputs
to streams including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and
phosphorous.
Exclude cattle from streams and buffers
by installing fencing around conservation
easements adjacent to cattle pastures
and providing alternative water sources
or removing cattle from sites.
Reduction in pollutant loads
to streams caused by cattle
access.
Reduce inputs of
sediment into streams
from eroding stream
banks.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
dimensions. Add bank revetments and
in‐stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
Reduction in sediment
loadings to streams from
bank erosion.
Return networks of
streams to a stable form
that is capable of
supporting hydrologic,
biologic, and water
quality functions.
Construct stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic and sediment
inputs to the system, the landscape
setting, and the watershed conditions.
Reduce shear stress on
channel boundary. Support
all stream functions above
hydrology.
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 1‐2
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes
Improve aquatic habitat
in project streams.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush
toes into restored/enhanced streams.
Add woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth.
Increase and diversify
available habitats for
macroinvertebrates, fish, and
amphibians leading to
colonization and increase in
biodiversity over time. Add
complexity including LWD to
the streams.
Raise local groundwater
elevations and allow for
more frequent overbank
flows. Reduce shear
stress on channels during
larger flow events.
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Raise water table and
hydrate riparian wetlands.
Allow flood flows to disperse
on the floodplain. Support
Geomorphic and higher‐level
functions.
Create and improve
riparian habitats. Provide
a canopy to shade
streams and reduce
thermal loadings. Create
a source of woody inputs
for streams. Reduce flood
flow velocities on
floodplain and improve
long‐term lateral stability
of streams.
Plant native tree and understory species
in riparian zone.
Reduce sediment inputs from
bank erosion and runoff.
Increase nutrient cycling and
storage in floodplain. Provide
riparian habitat. Add a source
of LWD and organic material
to the stream. Support all
stream functions.
Ensure that development
and agricultural uses that
would damage the Site or
reduce the benefits of the
project are prevented.
Establish conservation easements on the
Site.
Protection of the Site from
harmful uses in perpetuity.
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 2‐1
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring year 5 Site assessments were conducted between January 2023 and October 2023.
Vegetation, stream geomorphology, and hydrology success criteria were outlined in the Mitigation Plan.
Monitoring features and locations are shown in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) (Figure3).
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures presented by
the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). The final vegetative success
criteria are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height at the end of MY7.
Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and 260
planted stems per acre with an average stem height of 7 feet at the end of MY5. Five fixed 100 square
meter vegetation plots were installed at random on the Site and are monitored annually. Another four
plots are monitored and relocated at random each year operating under the same success criteria.
The 2023 vegetation monitoring resulted in an average planted stem density of 405 stems per acre
within fixed vegetation plots. Individual plots ranged in density from 283 to 526 planted stems per acre.
Random plot sampling resulted in an average stem density of 550 stems per acre with individual plot
densities ranging from 486 to 728 stems per acre. Both fixed and random plot average stem densities
exceed the interim success criterion of 260 stems per acre. Cumulatively, fixed and random vegetation
plots show an average stem density of 469 stems per acre, also far exceeding the interim success
requirement. Vegetation photographs and summary data for each plot are included in Appendix 2 and
Appendix 3, respectively.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
While vegetation plot data has reflected that trees are doing well across the Site, closer visual
assessments at the end of monitoring year 4 and beginning of monitoring year 5 led Wildlands to believe
that some areas not represented by vegetation plots would benefit from a relatively low‐density
supplemental planting. Therefore, 0.93 acres were supplementally planted with containerized stems in
late February 2023 at a density of 100 stems per acre along UT1 and UT2. Species used were those
approved in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, Inc., 2018). Prior to the supplemental planting,
these areas were brush cut to minimize blackberry shrub (Rubus sp.) competition. To further aid in stem
growth and survival, soil amendments were applied locally around the dripline of trees in April 2023
along UT2 and a small portion of SF4A and UT1. Visual assessments showed that survival of
supplemental stems was high after their first growing season, making them successful in boosting stem
density and diversity. This is supported by Random Vegetation Plot 6 (Appendix 3). NCDWR performed a
monitoring year 5 closeout visit for the South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank in
November 2023. The Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank closed out with the contingency that
Wildlands perform an additional planting during the winter of 2023‐2024 at the top of UT1 and along
SF4A Reach 2, which together total 0.21 acres. 0.21 acres is approximately 2% of the planted area.
Containerized stems will be planted which include species approved in the South Fork Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) and an alternative species, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana).
Persimmon was suggested by NCDWR during the on‐site visit and approved for use by the IRT via email
on November 27, 2023. Additionally, Wildlands will control competing vegetation in the upcoming
planting areas by brush‐cutting blackberry shrubs in the area at the top of UT1 and performing ring
sprays around the supplemental stems planted along SF4A.
In prior monitoring years, infrequently dispersed princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) stems had been observed and treated. In
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 2‐2
June and July 2023 these species were again treated as scattered stems appeared throughout the
Parcel. Additionally, sweetgum stems were selectively thinned along a portion of the right bank of SF4A
close to the downstream crossing where they posed a threat of hindering the growth of more desirable
species. Thinning of sweetgum stems will also occur at the bottom of UT2 during monitoring year 6.
Invasives will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary in future years.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Eleven permanent cross‐sections were installed per Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (NCIRT, October 2016) to assess channel
dimensions during the monitoring period. Morphological surveys were conducted in April 2023. Cross
section 7 on SF4A Reach 4, shows erosion on the outer bend of the pool. Some vegetation has
established; however, data suggests that bank migration has continued from as‐built through
monitoring year 5. Despite this, bankfull dimensions have shown little deviation from year to year (Table
9). The remainder of cross section survey data suggests that the majority of stream reaches are stable
and functioning as intended. Overall, cross sections showed little change in bankfull stage elevation,
mean and maximum depth, and width to depth ratio. Bank height ratios for the riffle cross‐sections
remained at or near 1.0. Entrenchment ratios and bankfull widths may show small departures from as‐
built values as width adjustments commonly occur due to vegetation growth and sediment
transportation. These minor changes do not indicate channel instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the
CCPV map, visual stability assessment table, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the
morphological data and cross‐section plots.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Erosion is occurring on the outer bend of a pool on SF4A Reach 4, as shown in cross section 7. Wildlands
is expecting an IRT site visit in 2024 and requests this opportunity be used to discuss this section of
stream. Additionally, 2 sills on UT4, 2 sills on UT2, and a sill on UT1 are piping. Hand repairs will occur in
2024 on the piping sills. A lunker log on SF4A Reach 4 was mechanically repaired in September 2022.
During the following winter, erosion occurred around the lunker log. SF4A experienced 3 bankfull events
in January and February, which likely contributed to the erosion. Live stakes are establishing around the
structure, along with herbaceous vegetation. No further erosion has been observed after multiple
rainfall events greater than 2 inches and 4 bankfull events from April to July, indicating that the
structure is once again stable. See Appendix 2 for a photograph timeline of the structure’s condition
prior to and following the repair. Despite consistent flow throughout much of the monitoring period, the
upper portion of UT2 experienced organic debris build up which led to minor sedimentation during the
beginning of monitoring year 5. Debris was therefore removed from the channel on March 1, 2023. The
top of UT2 runs through a brief area of relatively little topographic relief, which likely contributed to the
organic material build up during monitoring year 5. Bed and bank have remained defined since the
removal of debris and following multiple relatively larger rainfall events later in the year. Table 10 in
Appendix 4 shows the result of bank pin measurements during MY5.
2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment
Four bankfull flow events must be recorded on restored streams in separate years during the seven‐year
monitoring period. During MY5 one bankfull event was recorded on UT2, two were recorded on UT4
Reach 2, and 7 were recorded on SF4A Reach 2 (Table 11). The bankfull criterion has been satisfied for
all applicable streams.
Thirty consecutive days of flow must be recorded annually on restored intermittent streams (UT2, and
UT4 Reach 2). In‐stream flow gages equipped with pressure transducers were installed to monitor
continuity of baseflow. All restored intermittent streams on the Site exceeded the required 30
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 2‐3
consecutive days of flow. UT2 showed continuous flow for 90 days, which spanned from mid‐July until
the beginning of October. UT4 Reach 2 displayed consecutive flow for 160 days, from January until mid‐
June. In‐Stream flow gage plots are included in Appendix 5.
2.6 Adaptive Management Plan
A small supplemental planting will take place in the winter of 2023‐2024. Competing vegetation will be
treated through either ring sprays or brush cutting within supplemental planting areas. Additionally,
sweetgum stems will be selectively removed at the bottom of UT2 to reduce their competition with
planted stems. Invasives will be treated as necessary throughout future monitoring years.
Hand repairs to address any piping sills will occur in 2024.
Fencing has remained in good condition throughout MY5. The landowner utilizes the internal crossings
to rotate cattle throughout pastures. During rotations, cattle occasionally get into the easement through
the three‐strand tinsel fencing located on either end of the crossing. When this occurs the landowner
quickly removes the cattle from the easement. No damage has been observed as a result of cattle
trespassing.
2.7 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Overall, the Site is functioning as intended and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. The average
planted stem density is 405 stems per acre, surpassing the MY5 interim requirement of 260 stems per
acre. Each of the nine vegetation plots exceeds the interim requirement. In November 2023 the South
Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank closed out with the contingency of a minor
supplemental planting in the winter of 2023‐2024. Herbaceous growth is also well established across the
Site. Small amounts of invasive species were observed along project features and have been treated.
These areas will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary. The majority of streams are stable
and functioning as designed. Erosion is occurring on the outer bend of a pool on SF4A. Two sills on UT2,
2 sills on UT4, and a sill on SF4A Reach 1 experienced piping during 2023 and will be repaired in 2024. A
mechanical repair on a lunker log on SF4A Reach 4 which took place in September 2022 experienced
minor erosion at the beginning of monitoring year 5 but has remained stable since. Bankfull events were
recorded on each of the three streams subject to this criterion and greater than 30 consecutive days of
flow was recorded on UT2 and UT4 Reach 2. All culvert and ford crossings on‐site are functioning as
intended. Minor cattle encroachment occurred when cattle were taken through internal easement
breaks to rotate them between pastures. The occasional cattle trespass was addressed promptly, and no
signs of damage have occurred as a result. Fencing remains in good condition throughout the Site.
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 3‐1
Section 3: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub‐meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross‐sections and monitored
quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance
with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring
protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 4‐1
Section 4: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM‐245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐
5.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT), 2013. Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR‐
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. South Fork Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. USACE, Raleigh, NC.
APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
^_
South Fork Mitigation Site Location
03030002050050
03030002050070
03030003070020
03030003070010
03030002050090
Chatham County, NC
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023¹0 10.5 Miles
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
^_Project Location
Directions: From Raleigh, NC,
take US 64 west approximately 24 miles to NC 87 at exit 381.
Take a right and continue on NC 87 for approximately 2 miles.
Turn left onto Silk Hope Lindley Mill Road, continue for 13 miles.
Turn left on Moon Lindley Road, continue for 0.5 miles.
Take a left on Johnny Lindley Road, the project area is on the right.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
SF4A Reach 3UT4 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
UT4 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT2
SF4A Reach 2
SF4A Reach 4
SF4A Reach 1
UT3
UT5
SF4A Reach 2
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364
Monitoring Year 5- 2023
Chatham County, NC
0 200 400 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
As-Built Streams
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
!(Reach Breaks
2021 Aerial Photography
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,318 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Centerline
Stationing Existing Footage Approach
Restoration
Footage1 Mitigation Ratio Total Credits
(SMU)2
Adjusted Credits
(SMU)3
100+62 ‐ 103+73 311 Enhancement II 311 2.5:1 124 117
103+73 ‐ 109+23
109+73 ‐ 120+74 1,748 Restoration 1,651 1:1 1,651 1,666
120+74 ‐ 127+39 665 Enhancement II 665 2.5:1 266 265
127+39 ‐ 131+74
132+24 ‐ 135+31 700 Restoration 742 1:1 742 746
200+54 ‐ 203+79 325 Enhancement II 325 2.5:1 130 106
203+79 ‐ 206+04 251 Restoration 225 1:1 225 226
301+02 ‐ 308+62
308+92 ‐ 310+23 902 Enhancement I 891 1.5:1 594 589
401+54 ‐ 402+21 67 Enhancement II 67 2.5:1 27 27
500+06 ‐ 502+93 287 Enhancement II 287 2.5:1 115 109
502+93 ‐ 507+53 472 Restoration 460 1:1 460 460
605+04 ‐ 605+41 37 Enhancement II 37 2.5:1 15 7
Riverine Non‐Riverine
‐‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐‐
1Linear footage calculated along stream centerline.
‐
Preservation ‐
Rehabilitation
Enhancement I 891
Re‐Establishment
Enhancement II
Restoration 3,078
Restoration
UT5
Stream (Linear Feet)Non‐Riparian Wetland (Acres)Riparian Wetland (Acres)
COMPONENT SUMMATION
1,692
‐
UT3 Restoration
Restoration
Non‐Riparian Wetland
SF4A Reach 3 Restoration
SF4A Reach 4
UT4 Reach 2
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Restoration
UT1 Reach 1
UT4 Reach 1 Restoration
Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
STREAMS
SF4A Reach 1 Restoration
SF4A Reach 2 Restoration
Reach ID
UT1 Reach 2
Restoration
Restoration
UT2 Restoration
‐
‐
‐
PROJECT COMPONENTS
2Total credits are based on reach length and mitigation ratio and do not include adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width.
Buffer (Acres)Restoration Level
3Adjusted credits are the final credit total including the adjustments for reduced or increased buffer width.
MITIGATION CREDITS
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
‐
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
USACE Action ID No. 2017‐02364
Year 4 Monitoring
Localized SF4A R4 Repair
December 2021
Vegetation Survey October 2021
September 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Fence Replacement January 2021
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
September 2019
January 2019
June 2019
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Monitoring, POC
Bruton Natural Systems & Foggy Mountain Nursery
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
April 2023
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
919.851.9986
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor
December 2024
December 2023
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 July 2018 July 2018
Stream Survey March 2020
May 2021
November 2018
January 2019
December 2019
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Construction July 2018
919.851.9986
Jason Lorch
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
July 2018
July 2018
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan October 2017 February 2018
South Fork Mitigation Site
September 2023
Ring Sprays
Final Design ‐ Construction Plans April 2018 April 2018
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments December 2018 December 2018
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 July 2018
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2020
September 2022
December 2021
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2020
2025
Designer
Greg Turner, PE
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
South Fork Mitigation Site
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
P.O. Box 1197
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Year 5 Monitoring
March 2022
Planting Contractor
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
December 2025
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Year 7 Monitoring
2025
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Supplemental Planting
Soil Amendments
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank Closeout
April 2023
November 2023
February 2023
Invasive Vegetation Treatment June‐July 2023
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
SF4A UT1 UT2 UT3 UT4 UT5
613.9 103 17 10 25 15
Applicable? Resolved?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No N/A
No N/A
No N/A
Planted Area (acres)10.61
Physiographic Province
62% Forested, 38% Cultivated
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 03030002050050
Piedmont
Reaches
DWR Sub‐basin
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Drainiage Area (acres)
Project Name
Project Area (acres)
River Basin
Chatham County
South Fork Mitigation Site
18.13
County
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Historic Preservation Act
N/A
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
03030002
Cape Fear
PROJECT INFORMATION
Correspondence from SHPO on July 1st, 2016 indicating they were not aware of any
historic resources that would be affected by the project.
N/A
35° 49' 21.28"N, 79° 22' 54.62"W
Supporting Documentation
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4091.
03‐06‐04
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit
CGIA Land Use Classification
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Regulation
Waters of the United States ‐ Section 404
USFWS correspondence on July 22, 2016 stated the “proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act...”
No suitable habitat and/or individually federally listed species were identified in the
project area.
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!.
!.
!.
!A
PP 9
PP 8
PP 7
PP 6
PP 5
PP 4
PP 3
PP 2
PP 1
PP 20
PP 19
PP 18
PP 17
PP 16
PP 15PP 14
PP 13
PP 12
PP 11
PP 10
X
S
2
XS 5
XS 7
XS 1
XS
9
X
S
8
X
S
6
X
S
4
XS 3
X
S
1
1
XS
1
0
SF4A Reach 3
UT4 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
UT4 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT2
SF4A Reach 2
SF4A Reach 4
SF4A Reach 1
UT3
UT5
SF4A Reach 2
1
5
4
3
2
9
8
7
6
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
Fixed Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
Random Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY5
Selective Sweetgum Removal
Supplemental Planting - Winter 2023-2024
Supplemental Planting
Soil Amendments
As-Built Streams
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Top Of Bank
Cross-Sections
Stream Areas of Concern - MY5
Bank Instability
!(Structure Issue
!A Barotroll
!A Flow Gauge
!A Crest Gauge
GF Photo Point
!.Bank Pin
Figure 3. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02364
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Chatham County, NC
0 200 400 Feet ¹
2021 Aerial Photography
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
SF4A
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As‐Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 27 27 100%
Depth Sufficient 23 23 100%
Length Appropriate 23 23 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)23 23 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)23 23 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
1 28 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 14 15 93%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
15 15 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
UT1
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As‐Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100%
Depth Sufficient 5 5 100%
Length Appropriate 5 5 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)5 5 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)5 5 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.2 3 67%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
3 3 100%
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
UT2
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As‐Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100%
Depth Sufficient 7 7 100%
Length Appropriate 7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)7 7 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.18 18 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.16 18 89%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
UT4
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As‐Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 13 13 100%
Depth Sufficient 9 9 100%
Length Appropriate 9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)9 9 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)9 9 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.5 7 71%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
3 3 100%
Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Planted Acreage 10.61
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(Ac)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
criteria.0.1 0 0 0%
000%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0%
0 0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 18.13
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 0 0 0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0%
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 1 SF4A R1 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/15/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/15/2022)
PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 SF4A R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 SF4A R3 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 SF4A R3 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 SF4A R4 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 SF4A R4 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 UT3 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 UT4 R1 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 UT4 R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 UT4 R2 – downstream (03/01/2023)
PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – upstream (03/01/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 UT5 – downstream (03/01/2023)
STREAM AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
BEFORE REPAIR– SF4A R4 Lunker Log (04/15/2022) AFTER REPAIR – SF4A R4 Lunker Log (10/13/2022)
AFTER REPAIR – SF4A R4 Lunker Log (3/1/2023) AFTER REPAIR – SF4A R4 Lunker Log (10/31/2023)
UT2 – Post Debris Removal – Upstream (4/12/2023) UT2 – Post Debris Removal – Downstream (4/12/2023)
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (09/13/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (9/13/2023)
FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (09/13/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (09/13/2023)
FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (09/13/2023)
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs
RANDOM VEG PLOT 6 (09/13/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 7 (09/13/2023)
RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (09/13/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9 (09/13/2023)
INTERNAL CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS
South Fork Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Internal Crossing Photographs
UT2 Culvert Crossing – Outlet (04/12/2023) UT2 Culvert Crossing – Inlet (04/12/2023)
SF4A R2 Ford Crossing – Outlet (04/06/2023) SF4A R2 Ford Crossing – Inlet (04/06/2023)
SF4A Reach 4 Ford Crossing (04/12/2023) SF4A Reach 4 Ford Crossing (04/12/2023)
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2015‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Plot
Fixed Veg Plot 1
Fixed Veg Plot 2
Fixed Veg Plot 3
Fixed Veg Plot 4
Fixed Veg Plot 5
Random Veg Plot 6
Random Veg Plot 7
Random Veg Plot 8
Random Veg Plot 9 Yes
Success Criteria Met Project Mean
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 111 333333
Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 112
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 111 9111111222
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree 1
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 4 15 21 7
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 112 27 1
Paulownia tomentosa Princess Tree Exotic
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4461117777222669
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut OakTree 333222111
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 111111
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 222222111111
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 1 11 5
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 4 111111
9 9 17 7 7 63 13 13 15 9 9 21 12 12 20
557447667668445
364 364 688 283 283 2,550 526 526 607 364 364 850 486 486 809
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY4 2023)
VP 3VP 4VP 5
1
0.02
1
0.02
Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
VP 1VP 2
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Paulownia tomentosa Princess Tree Exotic
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
7 7 7 10 10 11 9 9 9 12 12 13 15 15 15
112111111222222
55146687715779777
132
10
47 45 18
1130111833193312999
418
20 20 41 20 20 29 20 20 34 20 20 42 20 20 20
666666666666666
222444444555555
666777888888888
17 12
226222222111333
50 50 132 57 57 101 60 60 100 64 64 98 75 75 75
991199119910999999
405 405 1,068 461 461 817 486 486 809 518 518 793 607 607 607
5
0.12
5
0.12
5
0.12
5
0.12
5
0.12
Annual Means
MY4 (2023) MY3 (2021) MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 11
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 4411 556666441313
Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 11 2244
Diospyros virginianna Persimmon Tree 1 1 11
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Tree 662222
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 3 3 13 13 1 1 17 17 42 42 3366
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 33441010202088999944
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1122443377
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 44441111112020141412121717
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 1 1 331133111313
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 11 2211
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 1 1 44331199151522
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 2 2 3322333355
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 22
15 12 31 18 14 13 12 12 72 55 103 61 46 43 46 40 64 64
66666633101010101111111199
607 486 1,255 728 567 526 486 486 720 550 1,030 610 465 435 465 405 668 668
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Te: Number of stems including exotic species
Total: Number of stems excluding exotic species
Species count
Stems per ACRE
RVP 6 RVP 7 RVP 8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1
0.02 0.02
MY1 (2019)
4
0.10
RVP 9
0.02
1
0.02
MY2 (2020)
1
MY5 (2023)
4
0.10
4
0.10
4
0.10
MY3 (2021)
Table 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Current Plot Data (MY3 2021)
1
Annual Means
MY0 (2019)
4
0.10
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 561.33 561.24 561.31 561.43 561.42 556.93 556.90 556.91 556.74 556.97 556.97 556.94 556.91 556.86 556.94
Low Bank Height Elevation 561.33 561.24 561.31 561.43 561.42 556.93 556.90 556.91 556.74 556.97 556.97 556.94 556.91 556.86 556.94
Bankfull Width (ft) 15.6 14.5 15.3 18.4 15.6 18.2 18.4 18.3 14.7 18.2 17.4 15.5 16.5 14.3 15.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 150 150 150 150 150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)16.7 15.8 17.0 18.8 17.8 36.6 28.4 28.9 24.4 28.9 15.2 14.5 13.6 13.4 14.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.5 13.3 13.8 18.0 13.7 9.1 11.9 11.5 8.9 11.5 20.0 16.6 20.0 13.4 16.7
Entrenchment Ratio1 6.4 6.9 6.5 5.4 6.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.6 9.7 9.1 10.5 9.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 556.18 556.21 556.19 556.12 556.18 555.18 555.21 555.26 555.20 555.26 543.89 543.92 543.91 543.96 543.93
Low Bank Height Elevation 556.18 556.21 556.19 556.12 556.18 555.18 555.21 555.26 555.20 555.26 543.89 543.92 543.91 543.96 543.93
Bankfull Width (ft) 18.5 21.2 18.8 19.6 18.9 18.3 19.0 19.1 19.4 19.1 17.7 18.2 18.1 17.6 18.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 120 120 120 120 120
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.1 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.7
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)20.3 21.2 19.6 19.7 20.9 43.0 44.0 45.8 44.8 45.2 26.9 26.9 26.3 26.4 27.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.8 21.1 18.0 19.5 17.1 7.8 8.2 7.9 8.4 8.1 11.6 12.2 12.5 11.7 12.5
Entrenchment Ratio1 8.1 7.1 8.0 7.7 7.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0
1Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Cross‐Section 6 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 4 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 5 (Pool)
SF4A ‐ Reach 4SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Cross‐Section 1 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 2 (Pool)Cross‐Section 3 (Riffle)
Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 543.22 543.22 543.23 543.21 543.26 565.00 564.92 565.01 564.98 564.99 572.12 572.09 572.02 572.16 572.17
Low Bank Height Elevation 543.22 543.22 543.23 543.21 543.26 565.00 564.92 565.01 564.98 564.99 572.12 572.09 572.02 572.16 572.17
Bankfull Width (ft) 18.7 23.6 18.8 22.7 20.2 12.3 10.7 13.9 11.2 11.3 6.7 6.3 6.5 9.1 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 60 60 60 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.3 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)42.3 42.5 46.2 47.3 54.8 8.2 6.1 7.4 7.1 6.8 4.6 4.3 3.1 4.8 4.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 13.1 7.6 10.9 7.5 18.5 18.8 26.2 17.7 18.7 9.7 9.2 13.6 17.4 19.4
Entrenchment Ratio1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.9 5.6 4.3 5.4 5.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 571.01 570.98 570.90 570.93 571.11 556.19 556.19 556.25 556.10 556.34
Low Bank Height Elevation 571.01 570.98 570.90 570.93 571.11 556.19 556.16 556.25 556.10 556.34
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.1 5.3 4.6 5.4 6.5 6.9 7.4 7.2 5.3 6.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 75 75 75 75 75 60 60 60 60 60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)2.1 1.4 1.2 1.4 2.4 3.7 3.5 3.9 2.8 4.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 31.7 19.9 18.3 21.1 18.0 13.1 15.5 13.3 9.9 11.5
Entrenchment Ratio1 9.3 14.3 16.2 13.8 11.5 8.7 8.1 8.3 11.3 8.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 < 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
1Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum
Cross‐Section 10 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 7 (Pool)Cross‐Section 8 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 9 (Pool)
SF4A ‐ Reach 4 UT1 Reach 2 UT2
UT2 UT4 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
17.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.6 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
16.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7 width‐depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 1 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
0 1020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
106+06 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
18.2 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
3.2 max depth (ft)
21.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 2 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
50 60 70 80 90 100
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
112+99 Pool
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.6 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
16.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7 width‐depth ratio
150.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.6 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 3 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
40 50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
113+59 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
18.9 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
19.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1 width‐depth ratio
150.0 W flood prone area (ft)
7.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 4 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
116+29 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
45.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
19.1 width (ft)
2.4 mean depth (ft)
4.2 max depth (ft)
23.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.1 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 5 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
116+84 Pool
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
27.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
18.6 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
20.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5 width‐depth ratio
120.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 6 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 4
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
134+70 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
54.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.2 width (ft)
2.7 mean depth (ft)
4.9 max depth (ft)
24.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.5 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 7 ‐ SF4A ‐ Reach 4
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
538
540
542
544
546
10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
135+15 Pool
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
11.3 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.3 max depth (ft)
11.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7 width‐depth ratio
60.0 W flood prone area (ft)
5.3 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 8 ‐ UT1 ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
563
564
565
566
567
0 10203040
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
204+59 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
9.2 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
10.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 9 ‐ UT2
570
571
572
573
574
0102030
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
307+23 Pool
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
6.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0 width‐depth ratio
75.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 10 ‐ UT2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
569
570
571
572
573
0102030
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
307+53 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
6.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
7.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5 width‐depth ratio
60.0 W flood prone area (ft)
8.7 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 11 ‐ UT4 ‐ Reach 2
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Cross‐Section Plots
554
555
556
557
558
0102030
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
505+62 Riffle
MY0 (11/2018)MY1 (6/2019)MY2 (5/2020)MY3 (5/2021)
MY5 (4/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Table 10. Bank Pin Exposure
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Location Pin
MY1
(6/2019)
MY2
(6/2020)
MY3
(11/2021)
MY4
(10/2022)
MY5
(4/2023)MY6 MY7
Upstream 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
Midstream 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Upstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Midstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Midstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SF4a Reach 2
SF4a Reach 4
UT2
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4*MY5
Date of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
SF4A Reach 4 4/19/2019 6/11/2020 ‐
1/3/2022
3/17/2022
4/18/2022
7/9/2022
9/30/2022
1/4/2023
1/25/2023
2/12/2023
4/7/2023
6/19/2023
6/22/2023
7/8/2023
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
4/13/2020
5/21/2020
6/11/2020
1/21/2019
1/31/2019
8/24/2019
* Gauge relocated to SF4A R2
UT4 Reach 2 4/13/2020
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
South Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
UT2
Reach
8/15/2021
1/3/2021
8/15/2021
8/20/2021
1/24/2019
4/14/2019
8/1/2019
8/24/2019
1/3/2022
3/17/2022
1/3/2022
3/17/2022
7/9/2022
7/8/2023
4/8/2023
7/8/2023
Table 12. In‐Stream Flow Gauge Attainment Summary
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023)** Year 6 (2024) Year 7 (2025)
266 Days/
341 Days
301 Days/
301 Days
194 Days/
362 Days
37 Days/
197 Days
90 Days/
289 Days
177 Days/
272 Days
68 Days/
153 Days
181 Days/
196 Days
126 Days/
229 Days
160 Days/
196 Days
**Data for MY5 recorded through 10/31/2023.
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
Summary of In‐Stream Flow Gauge Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
UT2
UT4 R2
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
90 days of consecutive stream flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
589.5
590.0
590.5
591.0
591.5
592.0
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 5 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
South Fork: UT2
Debris Removed
from Channel
3/1/23
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
South Fork Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02364
160 days of consecutive stream flow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
565.0
565.5
566.0
566.5
567.0
567.5
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 5 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
South Fork: UT4 R2