20110720 Ver 2_Baseline Monitoring Report_Draft_08062015_20150916

&('$5*529(0,7,*$7,216,7(
'5$)7%$6(/,1(021,725,1*5(3257
ORANGE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA

Submitted By:
(QYLURQPHQWDO%DQF ([FKDQJH//&
PreparedBy:
5HVRXUFH(QYLURQPHQWDO6ROXWLRQV//&
-HIIHUVRQ6WUHHW6XLWH
5DOHLJK1&

$XJXVW
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015


Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
(;(&87,9(6800$5<

The Cedar Grove Mitigation Site is locatedon 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 #27-2-3), 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).
The goal for the Cedar Groveproject is to restore the channelized streams based on reference reach
conditions, enrich the aquatic ecosystem through stream restoration and riparian buffer habitat
improvements, and provide ecological uplift within the NeuseRiver Basin. The design wasbased on
reference conditions, USACE guidance (USACE, 2005), and criteriadeveloped during this project to
achieve success.
The Cedar Grove Mitigation Site involved enhancement and restoration activities to 3,781 linear feet of
existing perennial streamchannel, 1,541 linear feet of existing intermittent stream channel and 880 linear
feet of piped or otherwise altered ephemeral stream channel. In addition, 160 linear feet of stream channel
not proposed for restoration located along the northern boundary will benefit from riparian buffer
restoration. As part of the restoration activities, the total stream length within the project area has increased
from 6,194 linear feet to 7,206 linear feet. The stream restoration design primarily included creation of
Rosgen B, C, and E channels using the Priority Level 1 approach (Rosgen 1996). Design dimensions were
developed utilizing a combination of reference reaches, past projects, and hydrologic/hydraulic capacity
and sediment transport requirements. The Bank Site provides Neuse River Basin buffer, nutrient, and stream
restoration credits.
All construction and planting activitieshave been completed, therefore the site will be monitored on a
regular basis, and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted a minimum of twiceper year
throughout the sevenyear post-construction monitoring period,or until performance standards are met.
These site inspections will identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Annual
monitoring data will be reported and submitted to the Interagency Review Team.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to theNorth
Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection
of the Site to enforce the conservation easementprovisions. The Bank Sponsor will provide sufficient
funding in the form of an endowment to the NCWHF.
The original proposed mitigation plan credit yield was for 7,270 SMUs. Due to re-design constraints and
a change in mitigation approach on the East Fork Eno River from Restoration to EnhancementI, the final
as-built stream length is 7,206 linear feet which generated 6,862 SMUs
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
5HDFK0LWLJDWLRQ
7\SH6WDWLRQLQJ
([LVWLQJ
/HQJWK
/)
$V%XLOW
/HQJWK
/)
0LWLJDWLRQ
5DWLR608V
(DVW)RUN(QR5LYHUEnhancement I314+00 to324+309441,0301 : 1.5 686
87P1 Restoration10+00to20+218341,0211 : 1.0 1,021
87$P1 Restoration10+00to31+381,7141,9541 : 1.01,954
87%P1 Restoration10+00to11+001001001 : 1.0100
87P1 Restoration10+00to34+232,0552,4231 : 1.02,423
87P1 Restoration10+00to12+762452761 : 1.0 276
87P1 Restoration10+00to14+023104021 : 1.0 402
7RWDO
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
7$%/(2)&217(176

1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES ........................................................ 3
1.1 Location and Setting ............................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Project Structure ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach ..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Project History, Mitigation Bank Establishment, Contacts and Attribute Data ..................... 7
1.4.1 Project History ................................................................................................................ 7
1.4.2 Project Watersheds ......................................................................................................... 7
2 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Stream Restoration ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Bankfull Events .............................................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Longitudinal Profile ........................................................................................................ 8
2.1.3 Cross Sections ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.4 Bank Pin Arrays ............................................................................................................. 8
2.1.5 Pebble Counts ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.6 Digital Photo Stations ..................................................................................................... 8
2.1.7 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community and Water Quality Sampling .......................... 9
2.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Scheduling/Reporting ............................................................................................................. 9
3 MONITORING PLAN ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Stream Restoration ............................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 As-Built Survey ............................................................................................................ 10
3.1.2 Bankfull Events ............................................................................................................ 10
3.1.3 Cross Sections .............................................................................................................. 10
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations .................................................................................................. 10
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays ........................................................................................................... 10
3.1.6 Pebble Counts ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1.7 Visual Assessment Monitoring ..................................................................................... 11
3.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 11
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan ............................................................................................. 11
4.1 Stream ................................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 12
5 AS-BUILT CONDITIONS (BASELINE).................................................................................... 12
5.1 As-Built Drawings ................................................................................................................ 12
5.2 Baseline Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 12
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel ............................................................................. 12
5.2.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................... 13
5.2.3 Photo Documentation ................................................................................................... 13
5.2.4 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 13
6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 13




Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
i
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
$SSHQGLFHV
$SSHQGL[$*HQHUDO7DEOHVDQG)LJXUHV
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
$SSHQGL[%0RUSKRORJLFDO6XPPDU\'DWDDQG3ORWV
Baseline MY0 Cross Section Plots
Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary –Cross Sections Data
Table 7. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-8. MY0 Stream Reach Substrate Composition
Stream and Photo Station Photos
$SSHQGL[&9HJHWDWLRQ'DWD
Table 8. Planted Species Summary
Table 9. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 10. Stem Count Total and Planted Species (Species by Plot)
Vegetation Plot Photos
$SSHQGL['$V%XLOW6XUYH\
As-Built Survey Plan Sheets
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
ii
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
352-(&7*2$/6%$&.*5281'$1'$775,%87(6
/RFDWLRQDQG6HWWLQJ
The Cedar Grove Mitigation 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 #27-2-3),
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).
3URMHFW*RDOVDQG2EMHFWLYHV
The Cedar Grovestream mitigation project will provide numerous ecological and water quality benefits
within the NeuseRiver 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.
'HVLJQ*RDOVDQG2EMHFWLYHV
%HQHILWV5HODWHGWR:DWHU4XDOLW\
Nutrient removal
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent CAFOs through buffer areas, the
conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones, and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches and ditch outlets.
Sediment removal
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
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
concentration
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
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.
%HQHILWVWR)ORRG$WWHQXDWLRQ
Water storage Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water during
precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Improved groundwater
recharge
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
hydrologic connections
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately
sized channel, such that the channel’s floodplain will be flooded more frequently at flows greater than
the bankfull stage.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
3
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
%HQHILWV5HODWHGWR(FRORJLFDO3URFHVVHV
Restoration of habitats Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
ecosystem.
Improved substrate and
instream cover
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve bedform
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
debris
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
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 speciesto the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
3URMHFW6WUXFWXUH
7DEOH&HGDU*URYH3URMHFW&RPSRQHQWV
5HDFK0LWLJDWLRQ
7\SH6WDWLRQLQJ
([LVWLQJ
/HQJWK
/)
$V%XLOW
/HQJWK
/)
0LWLJDWLRQ
5DWLR608V
(DVW)RUN(QR5LYHUEnhancement I314+00 to324+309441,0301 : 1.5 686
87P1 Restoration10+00to20+218341,0211 : 1.0 1,021
87$P1 Restoration10+00to31+381,7141,9541 : 1.01,954
87%P1 Restoration10+00to11+001001001 : 1.0100
87P1 Restoration10+00to34+232,0552,4231 : 1.02,423
87P1 Restoration10+00 to12+762452761 : 1.0 276
87P1 Restoration10+00to14+023104021 : 1.0 402
7RWDO
5HVWRUDWLRQ7\SHDQG$SSURDFK
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along five unnamed tributaries and the East Fork EnoRiver
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 Cedar Grove Site includes Priority Level I stream restoration and stream Enhancement Level I.
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
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
4
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
relationships, NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curves, and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. 6,176 linear
feet of stream channel has been reconstructedalong reaches UT-1, UT-2A, UT-2B, UT-3, UT-4, and
UT-5. EnhancementLevel I was applied to 1,030 linear feet of channelalong the East Fork Eno River
that required stabilization and bank improvements, and buffer restoration.
The Cedar GroveSite 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 bysimulations 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 toeswere 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 cuttings bundles and live stakes that included native species (e.g.
black willow (Salix nigra) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)).
Sections of abandoned stream channel have been backfilled to the elevation of the floodplain in areas
adjacent to the new channel with material excavated onsite and by installing channel plugsand flood
plain sillswhere 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 mitigationdesign has met the guidelines of stream
restoration and will be subject to amitigation 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.
(DVW)RUN(QR5LYHUWRThe principal drainage feature (East Fork Eno River)
totaling 1,030 linear feetof Enhancement Level I generally flows northwestto southeastacross the
northeast portion of thesite. UT-1 and UT-3 both flow directly into the East Fork Eno River.The
planform of this E-type channel wasgenerally straight and wasdeeply 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.
87WR±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 matures trees present. Restoration activities
performed along UT-1 included constructing a meandering channel, installing habitat and grade control
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
5
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
structures, filling and plugging the abandoned channel, and planting the stream buffer with native
vegetation.
87$WR±UT2-A is the western most stream reach at the projectsite. Originally,
three ponds wereinlinealong this reach with two smaller ponds at the upstream portion and a larger
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 function as afloodplain 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 wasimproved 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 2,138linear feet, however, 1,954 linear feetof Priority I Restorationwas performed to generate
1,954SMUs.The remaining 184 linear feet is within an easement break across the pond dam.
Restorationactivities 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.
87%WR±UT2-B is a 100 linear feetreachsection 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 includedconstructing 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.
87WR±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 Restorationwas
performed on UT-3 andgenerated 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 ameandering 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.
87WR±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 constructedas 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 bendchannel, 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.
87WR±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
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
6
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
removed during restoration activities and a new stream channel was constructed. A culvert pipe and
valley fill was removed. These activities are anticipated to convey water flow downstream and provide
connectivity with the offsite reach. Restoration activities performed along UT2-A 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.
3URMHFW+LVWRU\0LWLJDWLRQ%DQN(VWDEOLVKPHQW&RQWDFWVDQG$WWULEXWH'DWD
3URMHFW+LVWRU\
The Cedar Grove MitigationSite was restored by EBX Neuse I, LLC (EBX).Tables 2, 3,and 4
(Appendix A)provide a time sequence and information pertaining tothe 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 yearlymonitoring 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.
3URMHFW:DWHUVKHGV
The easement totals 60.14acres 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.UT1has a drainage area of 0.053square miles; itbegins atthe northeast corner of theproject
(STA. 10+00) and extends southwest to STA. 20+21before entering the East Fork Eno River.UT2-A
has a drainage area of0.45 square miles; itbegins at STA. 10+00and 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 276linear feet longwitha
drainage area of 0.045square miles and flows northwest directly into UT3.UT5has a drainage area of
0.072 square milesextending north to south and flows directly into UT2. The land use in the East Fork
Eno Riverwatershed is approximately 40percentagriculture, 50percent wooded, and 2 percent open
water.
68&&(66&5,7(5,$
The success criteria for the Cedar Grove MitigationSite stream restoration will follow accepted and
approved success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and agency guidance.
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
7
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
6WUHDP5HVWRUDWLRQ
%DQNIXOO(YHQWV
Two bankfullflow 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 eventswill be documented using
crest gauges, auto-logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of debris
rack lines.
/RQJLWXGLQDO3URILOH
Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be 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 willnot 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.
&URVV6HFWLRQV
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-
cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall
be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
%DQN3LQ$UUD\V
Bank pins will be installed at the representative pools located along meander bends. Bank pins may be
rebar, chain, or wire that is driven horizontally in the bank face and must be a minimum of three foot
long. Bank pins should be installed at an interval of one pin for every two feet of bank height with the
lowest pin above the normal pool line. Bank pinscan alsobe installed at the cross-section (located at
the maximum pool location), at the first third of the meander bend, and last third of the meander bend.
Exposed length of pins shall be measured and recorded each monitoring year to track lateral movement
of the stream.
3HEEOH&RXQWV
Pebble counts shall be completed atriffle cross-sections on Site. At least one will be done on each
restored stream (East Fork Eno River and UT1 through UT5). Pebble counts will be utilized to
document the streambed substrate over the monitoring periods. A stable streamtypically over time has
gravel, cobble and bouldermaterialwith minimal fine material. Astreambed with abundant amounts
of silt and sandy (fine material)substrate can typically represent an eroding streambed and banks.
'LJLWDO3KRWR6WDWLRQV
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
8
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
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.
%HQWKLF0DFURLQYHUWHEUDWH&RPPXQLW\DQG:DWHU4XDOLW\6DPSOLQJ
Sampling the benthic macroinvertebrate community will take place at three locations at the Bank
Parcel. The preconstruction sampling was performed in the spring 2013 to generate a baseline. Each
monitoring station will be sampled utilizing the Qual 4 Method as described in NCDWQ’s Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit, and (July 2006).
Samples will be 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 will be tabulated.
Water quality parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, total nitrogen,
and total phosphorus) will also be sampled at each site. This task will be performed by a sub consultant
(The Catena Group).
9HJHWDWLRQ
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will
follow CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2) Guidance. Ten by ten meter
square plots will be permanently established following completion of the planting phase and at least
two opposing corners will be permanently installed and surveyed for future use. The plant species,
density, survival rates, and the cause of mortality, if identifiable, will be 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 will be sampled and reported in years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The primary focus
of the vegetative monitoring will be 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 will be 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 will be 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.
6FKHGXOLQJ5HSRUWLQJ
The Bank Sponsor will follow 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 will follow EEP guidelines only to the extent
necessary for IRT approval. A monitoring report will be generated by December 31st of each
monitoring year documenting activities of the site, and submitted to the IRT. The monitoring program
will be 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 will be undertaken for sevenyears or until the final success criteria are
achieved, whichever is longer.
021,725,1*3/$1
Annual monitoring shall be conducted for stream and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below
for sevenyears prior to completion of construction or until success criteria have been met.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
9
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
6WUHDP5HVWRUDWLRQ
$V%XLOW6XUYH\
An as-built survey was conductedin May 2015following 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 7unless requested by USACE resulting from
indications of significant bank or bed instability.
%DQNIXOO(YHQWV
Fivesets of manual and auto-logging crest gauges were installed on the site,one along UT1, one along
UT2, one along UT3,one along UT4and one along East Fork Eno River. The auto logging crest gauges
were installed within the channel and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourlyinterval.
Manual crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked
during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred sincethe last site visit.Crest gauge
readings and debris rack lines will be photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
&URVV6HFWLRQV
A total of 18permanent 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 rifflecross sections were installed along UT3.UT4 has a total of
twocross sections installed throughout its length. Two permanent cross sections were installed along
UT5. Cross sections were typically located at representative riffleand 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 bothends of each cross section to allow ease locating
during monitoring activities. Annual monitoring cross section surveys will be performed oncea year
during Monitoring Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Cross section locations are shown on )LJXUH6 ($SSHQGL[
')and will include all breaks in slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water,
and thalweg.
'LJLWDO,PDJH6WDWLRQV
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for sevenyears 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.
%DQN3LQ$UUD\V
Sixbank pin arrays have been 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 area minimum of twofeet long, and have beeninstalled 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.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
10
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
3HEEOH&RXQWV
Pebble counts were performed atnine riffle cross sections on Site. Pebble count analysis results show
that the dominate streambed substrate for allsix stream reachesis gravel.Typically the restoration
reaches onsitehave three main substrate compositionwhich are sand, gravel, and cobble.The D50 and
D84 for each stream reach is present in 7DEOH(Appendix B). Pebble count and substrate composition
analysis results are located in $SSHQGL[%
9LVXDO$VVHVVPHQW0RQLWRULQJ
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas will be 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
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 overtime should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
9HJHWDWLRQ
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-Builtdrawings (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). 7DEOH(Appendix C) providesa 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
measuredand reportedon an annual basis. Vegetation plot data wasreported for each plot as well as
an overall site average.
0$,17(1$1&($1'&217,1*(1&<3/$1
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic specieswhich 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.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
11
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
6WUHDP
Any stream problem areas which are identified during post construction monitoring activities will be
documented and mapped on the CurrentConditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual stream
monitoring report. Stream problem areas or areas of concern may include bank erosion,
aggradation/degradation, structure failure or not performing as designed, beaver dams, cattle
encroachment due to fence damage, etc. If it is determined through IRTcorrespondence that remedial
action is required to repair an area, a proposed work plan will submitted for remediation.
9HJHWDWLRQ
Any vegetation problem areas which are identified during post construction monitoring activities will
be documented and mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual stream
monitoring report. Vegetation problem areas or areas of concern may include vegetation plot not
meeting success criteria, invasive species abundance, sparse vegetation areas, etc. If it is determined
through IRTcorrespondence that remedial action is required to repair an area, a proposed work plan
will submitted for remediation.
$6%8,/7&21',7,216%$6(/,1(
The Cedar Grove Mitigation Siteas-built survey was completedbetween May and June 2015. A
topographic survey on the constructed stream channel and adjacent floodplain areas was performed to
document post construction conditions.The survey involved locating the stream channel thalweg, top
of bank, stream structures, culvert crossings, woody debris bundles, monitoring cross sections,
vegetation plots, crest gauges, and photo stations.
$V%XLOW'UDZLQJV
The Cedar Grove Mitigation SiteAs-Built Drawing is located in Appendix Dwhich documents post
construction conditions for the project.
The original proposed mitigation plan credit yield was for 7,270SMUs. Due to re-design constraints
and a change in mitigation approach on the East Fork EnoRiver from Restoration to EnhancementI,
the final as-built stream length is 7,206 linear feet which generated 6,862 SMUs
%DVHOLQH'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ
0RUSKRORJLFDO6WDWHRIWKH&KDQQHO
All morphological stream data for the as-built profile and dimensions were collected during the as-built
survey performed during May and June 2015. Appendix Bincludes summary data tables,
morphological parameters, and stream photographs.
Profile
The baseline (MY-0) profiles closely matchesthe proposed design profiles. The plotted longitudinal
profiles can be found on theAs-Built Drawings in Appendix D and morphological summary data tables
can be found in Appendix B.
Dimension
The baseline (MY-0) cross sectional dimensions vary from theproposed design cross section
parameterson some reaches.The comparison and analyses of the design and constructed channels show
that the widths of these channels were constructed with a narrower bottom width than originally
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
12
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
designed which results in thewidth/depth ratios of the constructed channels being lower as well. The
constructed channels are E stream types with width/depth ratios between 7 and 12. The designed C-
type channels had proposed width/depth ratios between 18 and 22. Lower width/depth ratios of the
constructed channels can result in higher in-channel velocities and shear stress. As a result, the channels
are more susceptible to instability and in-channel erosion. Signs of down-cutting will be monitored
and repaired as an adaptive management practice. All cross section plots and data tables can be found
in Appendix B.
Sediment Transport
The as-built conditions show that shear stress and velocitieshave been reduced for allstreamreaches.
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 was coarse sand and medium
gravel.Visual assessment shows the channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to
be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
9HJHWDWLRQ
Based on the baseline vegetation monitoring, all twelve (12) vegetation monitoring plots exceeded the
proposed planting ratio of 680 stems per acre. The Site’s average baseline planted stems per acre is
799. (7DEOH, Appendix C). 7DEOH(Appendix C) providesa more detailed summary of stem counts
and the type of planted species within each vegetation monitoring plot. The number of planted stems
per acre for the monitoring plots ranges from 688 stems to 931 stems.The average stems per vegetation
plot was 19.75 planted stems. The minimum planted stems per plots was 17stems and the maximum
was 23stems per plot.
3KRWR'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
Permanent photo point locations have been established ateachcross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossing, and stream structures by Resource Environmental Solutions, LLCstaff.Additionally, 12
permanent photo stations were installed across the site. At each photo station, photos shall be taken
annually at each photo station in the north, south, east, and west directions. Any additional problem
areas or areas of concern will also be document with a digital photograph during monitoring activities.
Stream digital photographs can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
+\GURORJ\
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 will continuously record flow conditions atan hourly interval.
Manual crest gauges were installed on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked
during each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge
data will be reported in the Year 1 monitoring report.
5()(5(1&(6
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, Manuals and
Reports on Engineering Practice No. 54, Vito A. Vanoni, ed., New York.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
13
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2013). Cedar Grove Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. Eco
Engineering and WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G. and Omernik, J., 2002. Draft Level III and IV Ecoregions of North Carolina. USAEPA,
USDA-NRCS, and NCDENR.
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.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover
Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. December 2004. Surface Water
Classifications. http://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. July 2007. Stormwater Best Management
Practice Manual.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. July 2009 Draft. Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. and Silvey, Lee. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland
Hydrology.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Wildland Hydrology Books,
Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. The Cross-Vane, W-Weir, and J-Hook Vane Structures…Their Description,
Design and Applications for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. 2001 ASCE
Conference Proceedings. Reno, NV.
Schafale, Michael P. and Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1977. Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina. USDA.
United States Geological Survey. 1974. North Carolina Hydrologic Unit Map.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
14
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site • USGS HUC 03020201
Baseline Monitoring Report• OrangeCounty, North Carolina• August 2015
USDA Chapter 11, Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design, Part 654 Stream Restoration Design Issued
August 2007.
Ward, Andy D., Stanley W. Trimble. 2004. Environmental Hydrology, Second Edition. Lewis
Publishers.
Wildland Hydrology. 1998. The Reference Reach Field Book. Wildland Hydrology.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
15
$SSHQGL[$
*HQHUDO7DEOHVDQG)LJXUHV
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
$SSHQGL[$.*HQHUDO7DEOHVDQG)LJXUHV
7DEOHProject Components and Mitigation Credits
Baseline Monitoring Report Year 0
7DEOH3URMHFW&RPSRQHQWVDQG0LWLJDWLRQ&UHGLWV
&HGDU*URYH0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
':53URMHFWY
86$&(3URMHFW6$:
0LWLJDWLRQ&UHGLWV
StreamRiparianWetlandNon-riparianWetland Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
NutrientOffset
TypeR RER RER RE
Totals 6,176686N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
3URMHFW&RPSRQHQWV
ProjectComponent -or- Reach
ID
As-Built
Stationing/Location(LF)
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI,PIIetc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footageor
Acreage MitigationRatio
East Fork Eno River314+00 to 324+30944EI RE 1,030 1 : 1.5
UT-110+00 to 20+21 834PI R 1,021 1 : 1.0
UT2-A10+00 to 31+38 1,714PI R 1,954 1 : 1.0
UT2-B10+00 to 11+00 100PI R100 1 : 1.0
UT-310+00 to 34+23 2,055PI R 2,423 1 : 1.0
UT-4 10+00 to 12+76245PI R 276 1 : 1.0
UT-5 10+00 to 14+02310PI R 4021 : 1.0
&RPSRQHQW6XPPDWLRQ
RestorationLevel Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non-riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
RiverineNon-Riverine
Restoration 6,176
Enhancement I 1,030
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HighQuality
Preservation
%03(OHPHQWV
ElementLocationPurpose/Function Notes
------------
------------
------------
BMPElements
BR = Bioretention Cell;SF = Sand Filter;SW = Stormwater Wetland;WDP = Wet DetentionPond; DDP = Dry DetentionPond;FS= FilterStrip; S = Grassed
Swale;LS = LevelSpreader;NI = NaturalInfiltration Area;FB= ForestedBuffer
7DEOH3URMHFW$FWLYLW\DQG5HSRUWLQJ+LVWRU\
3URMHFW$FWLYLW\DQG5HSRUWLQJ+LVWRU\
&HGDU*URYH0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
':53URMHFWY
86$&(3URMHFW6$:
$FWLYLW\RU5HSRUW
'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ
&RPSOHWH
&RPSOHWLRQRU
'HOLYHU\
MitigationPlanNADecember 2013
Final Design–ConstructionPlansNANA
Construction CompletedApril 2015April 2015
Site Planting CompletedMay2015May2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring–baseline)June2015August2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6Monitoring
Year 7Monitoring

7DEOH3URMHFW&RQWDFWV
3URMHFW&RQWDFWV7DEOH
&HGDU*URYH0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
':53URMHFWY
86$&(3URMHFW6$:
'HVLJQHU EcoEngineering
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
[phone]
Angela Gardner, PE
&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RQWUDFWRU Shamrock Environmental
3500 Lake Herman Drive
Brown Summit, NC 27214
[phone]
3ODQWLQJ&RQWUDFWRU H&J Forestry
Matt Hitch
6HHGLQJ&RQWUDFWRU Shamrock Environmental
3500 Lake Herman Drive
Brown Summit, NC 27214
[phone]
Seed Mix SourcesGreen Resource
NurseryStock SuppliersArbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
%DQN%DQN6SRQVRU
(%;1HXVH,//&


Project Contact:
Neu-Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Bank
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Daniel Ingram([e-mail] )
0RQLWRULQJ3HUIRUPHUV



Project Manager:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh,NC 27605
[phone]
Brian Hockett, PLS([e-mail] )

7DEOH3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
Project Name Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
County Orange
Project Area (acres)60.14
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)36.194464°N 79.159045° W
3URMHFW:DWHUVKHG6XPPDU\,QIRUPDWLRQ
Physiographic ProvincePiedmont
River BasinNeuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 12-digit030202010301
DWQ Sub-basin03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
East Fork Eno River (Accounts for UT1-UT5)
(1,987acres)
03020201
03010104
NC
8
6

E
f
l
a
n
d
-
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

R
d
C
o
m
p
t
o
n

R
d
Al
l
i
s
o
n

R
d
Ca
v
i
n
e
s
s

J
o
r
d
a
n

R
d
Lees Chap
e
l

R
d
Hawkins Rd
Hu
r
d
l
e

M
i
l
l
s

R
d
Oakley Rd
Mc
D
a
d
e

S
t
o
r
e

R
d
Carr
S
t
o
r
e

R
d
R
i
c
k

R
d
Ol
i
n

R
d
Stew
a
r
t

F
a
r
m

R
d
McCullough

R
d
C
e
d
a
r

V
a
l
l
e
y

R
d
Tom
s

C
r
e
e
k

L
o
o
p
Carr Store

R
d
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
02,0001,000
Feet
FIGURE 1.
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NC
Legend
Roads
Cedar Grove Streams
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
HUC Boundary
©Date: 7/31/2015
Drawn by: BSH
Checked by: xxxxxxxx
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
.

S
i
t
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Cedar Grove Mitigation Site
^_^_
^_^_
!>
!>
PS-9
CG-2
CG-1
PS-10
ACG-2
ACG-1
Cro
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

3
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
UT-1 East Fork
E
n
o

R
i
v
e
r
U
T
-
3
VP 2
VP 3
VP 4
VP 6
Cross Section 1
©010050
Feet
Figure 2a.
Cedar Grove Stream
Mitigation Project
UT-1 & EFER
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
As-Built Streams
Top of Bank
Stream Structures
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
^_Auto-Logging Crest Guage
^_Crest Guage
!>Photo Station
Date: 8/3/2015 Drawn by: BSH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
a

-

C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
_
C
C
P
V

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Riparian Buffer Conditions
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Common
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Source: 2012 Google Earth Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
UT-1
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 20+21)
East Fork Eno River
Enhancement I
(314+00 - 324+30)
UT-1
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 34+23)
^_
^_
!>
!>
!>
!>
PS-1
PS-2
PS-3
PS-4
CG-5ACG-5
Cross
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
7
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
4
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
8
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
6
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
5
UT2-A
U
T
-
5
VP 9
VP 11
VP 10
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
3
©
010050
Feet
Figure 2b.
Cedar Grove Stream
Mitigation Project
UT2-A & UT-5
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
As-Built Streams
Top of Bank
Stream Structures
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
^_Auto-Logging Crest Guage
^_Crest Guage
!>Photo Station
Date: 8/3/2015 Drawn by: BSH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
b

-

C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
_
C
C
P
V

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Riparian Buffer Conditions
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Common
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Source: 2012 Google Earth Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
UT2-A
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 31+38)
UT2-A
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 31+38)
UT-5
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 14+02)
^_^_
!>
!>
!>
!>
PS-2
PS-3
PS-4
PS-5
CG-5ACG-5
Cros
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
7
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
4
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
8
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
6
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
5
UT2-A
UT
-
5
VP 11
VP 12
VP 10
©010050
Feet
Figure 2c.
Cedar Grove Stream
Mitigation Project
UT2-A & UT-5
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
As-Built Streams
Top of Bank
Stream Structures
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
^_Auto-Logging Crest Guage
^_Crest Guage
!>Photo Station
Date: 8/3/2015 Drawn by: BSH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
c

-

C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
_
C
C
P
V

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Riparian Buffer Conditions
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Common
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Source: 2012 Google Earth Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
UT2-A
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 31+38)
UT-5
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 14+02)
^_^_
!>
!>
PS-7
PS-6
CG-4ACG-4
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

9
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

8
Cro
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

7
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
1
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
UT-3
UT-4
U
T
2
-
B
VP 8
VP 7
Cross S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
2
©010050
Feet
Figure 2d.
Cedar Grove Stream
Mitigation Project
UT2-B, UT-3 & UT-4
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
As-Built Streams
Top of Bank
Stream Structures
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
^_Auto-Logging Crest Guage
^_Crest Guage
!>Photo Station
Date: 8/3/2015 Drawn by: BSH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
d

-

C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
_
C
C
P
V

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Riparian Buffer Conditions
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Common
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Source: 2012 Google Earth Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
UT2-B
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 11+00)
UT-4
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 12+76)
Pond Emergency
Spillway
UT-3
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 34+23)
^_^_
^_^_
!>
!>
PS-9
PS-8
CG-3
CG-2
ACG-3
ACG-2
Cros
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

3
Cross
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
Cro
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
U
T
-
3
UT-1
Eas
t

F
o
r
k

E
n
o

R
i
v
e
r
U
T
2
-
B
VP 2
VP 4VP 5
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

5
©010050
Feet
Figure 2e.
Cedar Grove Stream
Mitigation Project
UT2-B & UT-3
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
As-Built Streams
Top of Bank
Stream Structures
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
^_Auto-Logging Crest Guage
^_Crest Guage
!>Photo Station
Date: 8/3/2015 Drawn by: BSH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

E
:
\
R
E
S

F
i
l
e
s
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
\
C
A
D
D
\
G
I
S
\
M
X
D
\
C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e

S
t
r
e
a
m

A
s
_
B
u
i
l
t
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2
e

-

C
e
d
a
r

G
r
o
v
e
_
C
C
P
V

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Riparian Buffer Conditions
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Common
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Source: 2012 Google Earth Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
UT2-B
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 11+00)
UT-1
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 20+21)
Pond Emergency
Spillway
UT-3
P1 Restoration
(10+00 - 34+23)
EFER
Enhancement I
(314+00 - 324+30)
$SSHQGL[%
0RUSKRORJLFDO6XPPDU\'DWDDQG3ORWV
Baseline MY0 Cross Section Plots
Table 5. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 6. Dimensional Morphology Summary – Cross Sections Data
Table 7. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-8. MY0 Stream Reach Substrate Composition
Stream and Photo Station Photos
UpstreamDownstream
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
01020304050
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT1 Cross Section 1 -Riffle
Reach UT1 Approx Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT1 Cross Section 2 -Pool
Reach UT1 Approx Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
0510152025303540455055
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach East Fork Eno River Cross Section 3 -Pool
Reach EFER Approx Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
0510152025303540455055
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach East Fork Eno River Cross Section 4 -Riffle
Reach EFER Approx Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
650
650.5
651
651.5
652
652.5
653
653.5
654
654.5
655
0510152025303540455055
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 5 -Pool
Reach UT3 Approx Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 6 -Riffle
Reach UT3 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
660
661
662
663
664
665
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 7 -Riffle
Reach UT3 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
665
666
667
668
669
670
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 8 -Pool
Reach UT3 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
668
669
670
671
-505101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 9 -Riffle
Reach 1B Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
667
668
669
670
671
672
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT3 Cross Section 10 -Pool
Reach UT3 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
669
670
671
672
673
674
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT4 Cross Section 11 -Pool
Reach UT4 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
669
670
671
672
673
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT4 Cross Section 12 -Riffle
Reach UT4 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
678
679
680
681
682
05101520253035
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT2 Cross Section 13 -Riffle
Reach UT2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
676
676.5
677
677.5
678
678.5
679
0510152025303540455055
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT2 Cross Section 14 -Run/Pool
Reach UT2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
671
672
673
674
675
051015202530354045
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT2 Cross Section 15 -Riffle
Reach UT2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
668
669
670
671
672
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT2 Cross Section 16 -Pool
Reach UT2 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
673
674
675
676
0510152025303540455055
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT5 Cross Section 17 -Riffle
Reach UT5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
UpstreamDownstream
671
672
673
674
675
05101520253035404550
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cedar Grove Reach UT5 Cross Section 18 -Pool
Reach UT5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
$SSHQGL[%7DEOHD0RUSKRORJLFDO3DUDPHWHUV6XPPDU\'DWD
&HGDU*URYH0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
':53URMHFWY
86$&(3URMHFW6$:
)HDWXUH
Drainage Area (ac)
Design/Calculated Discharge (cfs)
BF Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[0LQ0D[
Channel Beltwidth (ft)16.433.124.654.033.46815.6 31.717.736.121.047.026.265.537.264.3152215.238
Radius of Curvature (ft)5.522.48.236.511.145.95.221.45.924.415.031.09.060.025.150.2336010.127.2
Radius of Curvature Ratio0.72.80.73.10.72.80.72.80.72.83.87.80.95.22.14.13.76.71.02.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)47.8134.271.7219.197.3275.545.4128.551.7146.560.099.542.0168.075.1168.57516663125
Meander Width Ratio2.04.12.04.42.04.12.04.12.04.15.311.82.66.63.15.31.72.51.63.9
Riffle Length (ft)8.935.8 13.358.418.173.58.434.39.639.19.619.25.247.87.045.37.644.55.517.1
Pool Length (ft)8.94213.368.618.186.38.4 40.29.645.94.212.39.12010.118.96.015.07.125.0
Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft)19.170.728.7115.438.9145.118.187.720.777.132.382.68.9127.324.560.930.351.031.770.8
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
*Habitat Index
1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
0.01810.0187
E4B4
Gravel, SandGravel, Cobble
245345
276402
1.11.17
------
0.8
15.124.8
> 2.2> 2.2
9.210
0.60.4
0.0271
B4
'HVLJQ$V%XLOW%DVHOLQH&RQGLWLRQV
8787
2946
1.81.1
8.99.8
> 50> 50
5.33.9
0.60.4
1.1
1.15
---
0.0213
B4
87
46
---
8.8
> 50
4.0
0.5
0.6
18.0
> 2.2
---
---
Gravel, Cobble
310
361
1.17
---
0.4
0.6
18
> 2.2
---
---
Gravel, Cobble
261
300
87
29
7.7
> 50
3.3
C/E4
6XEVWUDWH
---
0.0166
---
1,980
2,374
1.2
---
0.0108
C/E4
---
---
Gravel, Cobble
982
1.2
C/E4
Gravel, Cobble
---
8787$87
37.9
---
1.2
---
0.0104
> 2.2
0.9
18
> 2.2
3URILOH
> 50
0.6
18
3.7
0.5
$GGLWLRQDO5HDFK3DUDPHWHUV
3DWWHUQ
1,900
2,275
818
Gravel, Cobble
0.9
> 50> 50
15.3
---
1.2
18
8.1
'LPHQVLRQ
16.6
312
---------
12.2
209
0.7
8.3
> 2.2
8787$87
0.664.3
41012.1
37.9209312
0.50.70.8
21.21.6
> 50> 50> 50
27.110.3
4.510.312.7
0.40.70.8
8.11414.4
> 2.2> 2.2> 2.2
1,0211,9542,423
1.21.21.2
GravelGravel, SandGravel, Sand
86016502,025
E4E4E4
---------
0.01640.084850.0166
%DVHGRQIL[HGEDVHOLQHEDQNIXOOHOHYDWLRQBaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
5HFRUGHOHYDWLRQGDWXPXVHG 661.4660.1652.2652.0652.6
Bankfull Width (ft)4.03.720.920.915.0
Floodprone Width (ft)10.216.950.050.050.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.50.52.11.61.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.80.73.42.91.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.01.843.634.414.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio8.17.910.112.715.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.01.01.0
%DVHGRQIL[HGEDVHOLQHEDQNIXOOHOHYDWLRQBaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
5HFRUGHOHYDWLRQGDWXPXVHG 652.8661.7667.6669.2669.5
Bankfull Width (ft)12.19.28.84.410.2
Floodprone Width (ft)50.050.040.025.845.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.80.41.00.30.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.61.01.90.51.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.24.18.51.18.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio14.420.69.117.212.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.01.01.0
%DVHGRQIL[HGEDVHOLQHEDQNIXOOHOHYDWLRQBaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
5HFRUGHOHYDWLRQGDWXPXVHG 671.3671.0680.1677.0672.7
Bankfull Width (ft)8.18.911.05.010.0
Floodprone Width (ft)35.050.030.034.326.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.60.60.80.20.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.31.11.50.41.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.15.38.71.17.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio13.115.113.823.114.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.01.01.0
%DVHGRQIL[HGEDVHOLQHEDQNIXOOHOHYDWLRQBaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+BaseMY1MY2MY3MY4MY5MY+
5HFRUGHOHYDWLRQGDWXPXVHG 669.7674.5672.9
Bankfull Width (ft)9.79.88.8
Floodprone Width (ft)30.950.050.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.50.40.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.10.81.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.93.95.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio19.224.815.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio>2.2>2.2>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1.01.01.0
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO
&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ5XQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH
&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO
$SSHQGL[%7DEOH0RQLWRULQJ'DWD'LPHQVLRQDO0RUSKRORJ\6XPPDU\'LPHQVLRQDO3DUDPHWHUV±&URVV6HFWLRQV
3URMHFW1DPH1XPEHU&HGDU*URYHY
&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO&URVV6HFWLRQ5LIIOH&URVV6HFWLRQ3RRO
Appendix B. Pebble Count Data

7DEOH3HEEOH&RXQW'DWD6XPPDU\
Pre-Construction -2013As-Built -MY0 -2015MY1 -2015MY2 -2016MY3 -2017MY4 -2018MY5 -2019
6WUHDP5HDFK
Pebble CountPebble CountPebble CountPebble CountPebble CountPebble CountPebble Count
D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50 (mm)D84 (mm)D50
(mm)D84 (mm)
East Fork Eno River 33.4806.954
UT19.1192556
UT20.4112.562
UT3 (Upstream)9.8196.518
UT3 (Downstream)5.7162664
UT4 ------2652
UT5 ------2352


&KDUWV0<6WUHDP5HDFK6XEVWUDWH&RPSRVLWLRQ&KDUWV

&KDUW

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
Cedar Grove MY0 Substrate Composition
UT1 UT2 UT3 DS UT3 US UT4 UT5 EFER
Appendix B. Pebble Count Data


&KDUW


&KDUW

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT1 MY0 -Substrate Composition
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT2 MY0 -Substrate Composition
Appendix B. Pebble Count Data


&KDUW


&KDUW

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT3-Upstream MY0 -Substrate Composition
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT3-Downstream MY0 -Substrate Composition
Appendix B. Pebble Count Data

&KDUW


&KDUW


0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT4 MY0 -Substrate Composition
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
UT5 MY0 -Substrate Composition
Appendix B. Pebble Count Data

&KDUW

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrock
East Fork of Eno River MY0 -Substrate Composition
Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

$SSHQGL[%
&HGDU*URYH6WUHDP3KRWRV

UT1 Looking Upstream(5/19/2015)UT1 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)
UT2 Looking Upstream(5/19/2015)UT2 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)
UT2 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)UT3 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)
Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos


&HGDU*URYH6WUHDP3KRWRV

UT3 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)UT5 Looking Downstream(5/19/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 1 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 1 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 1 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 1 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 2North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 2South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 2East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 2West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 3 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 3 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 3 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 3 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 4 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 4 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 4 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 4 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 5 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 5 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 5 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 5 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 6 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 6 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 6 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 6 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 7 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 7 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 7 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 7 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 8 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 8 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 8 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 8 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 9 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 9 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 9 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 9 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 10 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 10 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 10 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 10 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 11 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 11 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 11 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 11 West (5/12/2015)

Appendix B. Streamand Photo Station Photos

&HGDU*URYH3KRWR6WDWLRQV

3KRWR6WDWLRQ

Photo Station 12 North(5/12/2015)Photo Station 12 South(5/12/2015)
Photo Station 12 East(5/12/2015)Photo Station 12 West (5/12/2015)

$SSHQGL[&
9HJHWDWLRQ'DWD
Table 8. Planted Species Summary
Table 9. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 10. Stem Count Total and Planted Species (Species by Plot)
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation DataTables

7DEOH3ODQWHG6SHFLHV6XPPDU\
Planted Date: May 13, 2015
6FLHQWLILF1DPH&RPPRQ1DPH
6SHFLHV
7\SH
7RWDO6WHPV
3ODQWHG
Betula nigra River BirchBare Root4,000
Cercis canadensis Eastern RedbudBare Root200
Liriodendron tulipifera TuliptreeBare Root4,000
Platanus occidentalis American sycamoreBare Root8,200
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut OakBare Root3,700
Quercus nigra Water OakBare Root3,000
Quercus phellos Willow OakBare Root2,000
Quercus rubra Northern Red OakBare Root600
Quercus pagoda Cherry Bark OakBare Root2,000
Cephalanthus occidentalis Common ButtonbushBare Root500
7RWDO
Salix nigra Black WillowLive Stake 1,000
Populus deltoides CottonwoodLive Stake 1,000
Cornus amomum Silky DogwoodLive Stake 1,000
7RWDO
7DEOH9HJHWDWLRQ3ORW0LWLJDWLRQ6XFFHVV6XPPDU\
3ORW
6WUHDP
:HWODQG
6WHPV$FUH
5LSDULDQ
%XIIHU
6WHPV$FUH9ROXQWHHUV
7RWDO6WHPV$FUH
,QFOXGLQJ8QNQRZQ
6SHFLHV
6XFFHVV
&ULWHULD
0HW"
890 890 0 890 Yes
890 8900890 Yes
688 688 0 688 Yes
769 7690769 Yes
728 728 0 728 Yes
688 6880688 Yes
809 809 0 931 Yes
607 6070728 Yes
688 688 0 769 Yes
850 8500850 Yes
850 850 0 890 Yes
728 7280769 Yes
3URMHFW
$YHUDJH<HV
Appendix C. Vegetation DataTables

7DEOH6WHP&RXQW7RWDODQG3ODQWHGE\3ORW6SHFLHV
3URMHFW1DPH&HGDU*URYH0LWLJDWLRQ6LWH
3QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO73QR/63DOO7
Betula nigrariver birchTree222111222333777333111222212121
Cercis canadensiseastern redbudTree777111 111999
DONTKNOW: unsure record 333222222111111999
Liriodendron tulipiferatuliptreeTree111111111333111222111333111111444191919
Platanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTree666333555888111666444333444555111222484848
QuercusoakTree888333555888444666222777111111141414777757575
Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oakTree 111 111
Quercus nigrawater oakTree 111111222
Quercus phelloswillow oakTree 666222555777222222333222333222343434
Quercus rubranorthern red oakTree777333111222444111181818
UnknownShrub or Tree 111 111
222222222222171717191919181818171717232323181818191919212121222222191919237237237
444666666555555666777666666555777777111111
890.3890.3890.3890.3890.3890.3688688688768.9768.9768.9728.4728.4728.4688688688930.8930.8930.8728.4728.4728.4768.9768.9768.9849.8849.8849.8890.3890.3890.3768.9768.9768.9799.3799.3799.3
1
0.02
12
0.30
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
6WHPVSHU$&5(
1
0.02
1
0.02
6SHFLHVFRXQW
1
0.02
$QQXDO0HDQV
0<
6WHPFRXQW
VL]HDUHV
VL]H$&5(6
1
0.02
1
0.02

&XUUHQW3ORW'DWD0<
6FLHQWLILF1DPH&RPPRQ1DPH
6SHFLHV
7\SH


Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

&HGDU*URYH9HJHWDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJ3ORW3KRWRV

Vegetation Plot 1 (5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 2 (5/14/2015)
Vegetation Plot 3(5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 4(5/14/2015)
Vegetation Plot 5(5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 6 (5/14/2015)

Appendix C. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

&HGDU*URYH9HJHWDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJ3ORW3KRWRV

Vegetation Plot 7 (5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 8 (5/14/2015)
Vegetation Plot 9 (5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 10 (5/14/2015)
Vegetation Plot 11 (5/14/2015)Vegetation Plot 12 (5/14/2015)

$SSHQGL['
$V%XLOW6XUYH\
Cedar Grove As-BuiltPlan Sheets
CEDAR GROVE MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NEUSE RIVER BASIN
NUC: 030202010301
DWR-PROJECT # 11-0720V2
USACE-PROJECT # SAW -2012-00294
AS -BUILT SURVEY
PROJECT COORDINATES:
LARTUOE. J5. I90/54' N
LONGIUDE 79.059045' W
PROJECT DIRECTORY
ens. mor ,.c
s.x w
roovm-,o.,
L)
J
X 9
m F
Fy
4
RESOURCE
EMVIROMMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
"2 JEETER50N 57., SURE f00
RALMH, IRC 27US
S-1
SHEET INDEX
COYER SHEET
S-1
LEGEND & NOTES
S-2
STREAM MON0i0RINC OVERVIEW
S—J
STREAM RASEUNE OVERVIEW
S—I
51R£AM BASELfNE AS—RWLM
S-5 THROUGH
SIS
CROSS SECl1ON CHARTS
Sig & S20
L)
J
X 9
m F
Fy
4
RESOURCE
EMVIROMMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
"2 JEETER50N 57., SURE f00
RALMH, IRC 27US
S-1

9 -c•
LLI
Q i
W
Z
Jcc
Ohm
Q
Z
1�' Q
QN
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS. LLC
a Jrrrm� sr., s fin
�RFfCdl. N.C: 3770.5
"� g.2

�
o
bIL
.
\7
�\ ■ �
� ^�
ENVIRONMra
M2�S!_
r
= j
S -a

WZ
vc�c
>:
c an
cva
4 p W
W a ,y,
W
�
1-4
4
J
4
a�
Q�
RESOURCE `
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 .'EfTENSGl4 ST., SURE ! t0
A:lLf1GN, N.C- ilflq
S-4
it �•.
,�
--`
_
-_'-�---'---•--"—'
NEACF wrrxtanw T•ma "��� a!u
,...." i
�'�•
lJ,SP FORK
FIp AI4EA f
1R1
ENMWC@.IPI�I i !.p]a B�
R+VTICtI 9.W1' 1
'
•TA TIN fi6a' fp94
N Q
XT—
��1 T` PI RE8�C�iCT{�Ir• -
LIT"� p'1 RE8PORATION `�Y �. - _
TOTiV. 72GIX EE92
WZ
vc�c
>:
c an
cva
4 p W
W a ,y,
W
�
1-4
4
J
4
a�
Q�
RESOURCE `
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 .'EfTENSGl4 ST., SURE ! t0
A:lLf1GN, N.C- ilflq
S-4

% A
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LuLl 2i
LL[
> 0
0
CLan
Z
Z 0
CC Or%
LLI
as LLI
o z
x a
-J
RESOURCE
RNV IFIONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 1ffffR50M SF.. 51 E 110
N.C.
S-5

------------
------------
'01
_
G cj
+
a {i: i
n
;n 0
N LLI
O=
w� �aZ
z_
Q m oc 0
O
4 C Q UJ
a LL, 0
0S2z
1-4
Cc
W A
U
K�
{C H
Fy
Q
� W
k l
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETA4
TI
SOLUONS, LLC
502 .DifnAWN ST., suer ITU
RALEW NC. 2760.5
5.6

---- -------
---------- - a
------------ --
µ
Z
+
=,
so
W
p r
o oC
W o
J
4
{/CC W Z
q°
m a
Xo0
s! �
UJ
40
�a
W
Z
c.
0
J
J x�
X a
RESOURCE
EHVIROHMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
J017 XFFERSOM SI., SON I IO
PALM, MC 27aw

ra"
9gFJ -
r V
WZ
'ma 0 C H
L
�Zo
xJ
©�W
W 4�
s �= a
cc
Q
V
`
K a
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 JEFFEF M S.., SWE 1IC
RA1PM,k, M.C. ;]R63
S•8

... ......... ..
WIM
o
I --d
Lu 2
Lu --j
> 0
0 Im
CC CL z
a Z D
0
cc 0
LLI
o9z
cc
0
RESOURCE
IENVIRO"METAL
SouffloNs. LLC
" JEAF nw s.., s tfo
RAaW MC 27SO
S-9

0'
X d,r,
Ina
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
507 JUFEP9 ST, Will Igo
RA oyl ILC. 77669
8.10

> 0
0 cc
CC CL Z
All D
Z
CC 0 0 0
4 �
a � LLI
Wa
ocz
is
0
A
L
ry
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LL*
342 affeRsom $71, sum Ila
MEW, KC. 27WS

I
8 W 2
> o
2&
IL z
moa
W... a W
} W 4 L7
V SZ
�a
J
J
RESOURCE
EHYIROMMETAL
SO LUTIOHS, LLC
302 dEff / M V, SUJM 1f0
NAIIM,lf, N.C. 30�$

-------- ---
J - --- -- -- - -- - - - - --
�A
e�
$ _ --- -----
il N, -
--
----
.. ......I LJ
. L_
__ — - . . . . . . ~�
i
1 I
. . . _.. _ - -- -- -. ..--.
�z
w
w''0
0
Q
0c a
© z
�LL
4
M '
O0
0
a
W Q�
N l
1\ z
M
�
7
V
F
r cc
20
U 7
h g
pQ�Vl�
EIMHOMMETAL
SOLUTHM% LLC
flo
M2 -MFFERWN sr,. save
max, OW 27M
- av
M 30

N
J-�
-- --------- - ----------------------------------
-------------------
-- ---------- -
----------------
-------------
-- ----- --------
.......
...
. . ... .......
...........
... .............
.... . ..... . ............ ....
+ UJ
>o> -
C)
+
CC L Z
3 1 i Z
Omafm 0
qzQ W
w
UJ 40
(j Z
P
0
J
A
x0.
. A
L Ll
fNYIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
902 JEFffR$*N sy- swm p PO
RALM M.C. 2760
8.14

-----------------------
__ -----------_____,__
r ---_ _ _ _
--------------------------
zi
------------------------
----
_ - a
BSEP FFw .. ., Flsm
W Z
{ W
m
W m aZ
xJ
00 00
ma a v
a F. W
r9 W Q
Z
-- 5.15
Ka
�c
a
_0
s
ati
RESOURCE
ENYIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
= JLiFFR sr.. nm rro
RALEXH. MC 27"5
-- 5.15

;s
s`arw^"�c
V
M La Z
N W
J ; 0 cc
9
Z-
qac a �
Z.
a Z
O
W O cc O
WO +�
� a $ F
4
W
c� z
5 F4
�o
RESOURCE
ENVIRONRIETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
SOS JrMRWH S7, Sim 710
ROIE", ILC 27M
XLa
F
ah
_hs
RESOURCE
ENVIRONRIETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
SOS JrMRWH S7, Sim 710
ROIE", ILC 27M

flF it Y• 1 w-\ �
v
WZ
W
7
Q
a9 0aZ
T W
0 W
0 CJ
00 CC
C m
i z W
r� }/W�� +<�R0
m V V Z
V �
J
xa
�
RESOURCE
ENVINONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
303 7EFlERWN ST.,. sufm I fD
RAM0% H.C. 1IMS

x} f I
I --
F
e
o -a :i:' LLIZ
Q'0
Kc a Z
zz
J 4
ND 4 CC 0
� rL
a V
a
WW
a L9
C? Z
f— d
�cc
v
d
ccF
IL
RESOURCE
E N V I RONMETAL.
5OLUTIONS,LLC
302 jaffR50H ST., SfRSi fin
WILDGH, N.C. 27605

IMMTM
■m:om::m
wmAEE�
MENNMEN ■■■■■■i
Fommmm7mmmmmmmj;;MMEEMEEII
1 Immoommm ■■■■■l
111111110111111111
■om■■l
■■■■�
F7m!;
imom ■��■■■loom
�■■N■E■1
C�
P
�ENEM0 NMI
���� moil
■Irif-ad_
MENNEN Emil
MENNEN Now
soiiiiiii No
�s
�
U
Z
x
W
UJ
LLI 0
o
�
> Q
D CC
M
ItaZ
2
0�
u
4—
W
va
p W
LLI Q
u
v t? Z
p
XL fis,
RESOURCE
E NVISONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
M2 JEFFERSON $F-. $Wr rra
AALVKH, N.C. 77WJ

now MENOMM
mom EMEN
MEN MEN
NIMIN FRE
moommom
111ME EMMEMEM
BEE MEMOM
MOM
MEMO I Ell
mmmeME
MEN El
No
Mi
EM
MEME m
ONE no,
OM
No,
IMEMOM
NOMME
ig
>0
0 CC
azo
c zCL
o
0
X00
140 FI.L L I
W 0
lu 2 z
99
acx
4L
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 AMRsm ST., sma 110
979"
5-20]
n -A
-----------
I Lj
ig
>0
0 CC
azo
c zCL
o
0
X00
140 FI.L L I
W 0
lu 2 z
99
acx
4L
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 AMRsm ST., sma 110
979"
5-20]
n -A
-----------
ig
>0
0 CC
azo
c zCL
o
0
X00
140 FI.L L I
W 0
lu 2 z
99
acx
4L
RESOURCE
ENVIRONMETAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC
302 AMRsm ST., sma 110
979"
5-20]