20140194 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2019_20200211

ID#* 20140194 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/12/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/11/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140194
Existing IDt
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Roses Creek
Burke
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: RosesCreek_96309_MY4_2019.pdf 10.52MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

ROSES CREEK STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Burke County, North Carolina
NC DMS Project # 96309

Prepared for:

NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

Construction Completed: May 2016
Visual Assessment Data Collected: Jan 2019, May 2019, Aug 2019, Sept 2019, Nov 2019
Submitted: February, 2020

555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
T 919.232.6600

February 7, 2020
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NC Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

RE: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
Roses Creek MY 4 Monitoring Report
DMS Project Number: 96309
Response to DMS Review Comments on Draft Year 4 Monitoring Report for Roses Creek

Mr. Tsomides:

As per your letter dated January 24, 2020, we have reviewed and addressed DMS review comments
as follows:
1. Please include the 8/27/2019 IRT meeting minutes and USACE and DWR comments,
as an Appendix, and reference in the report.
Response: IRT meeting minutes have been included as Appendix D.
2. There were concerns noted at the 08/2019 IRT meeting about tributary discharge and
maintenance of single thread channel as opposed to wetland complex. HDR states
that single channel flow was obvious during winter months, in UT1 and UT3. On what
basis was this assessment made? Please provide more detail (e.g., dates of
observation, correlation with rain events, photos, video or hydrologic data), if available,
supporting single channel flow.
Response: Aerial photos were taken with a drone on January 29, 2020 and have
been included as Figures 3.11 – 3.16.
3. Similarly, it is stated that single channel flow is evident throughout UT2 except for the
upper 100 LF or so (just below the pond and farm road, to XS-9), and that the stream
is functioning as intended. During the 08/2019 site visit, thick herbaceous vegetation
had established and appeared to be trapping sediments along several sections of this
reach. Since apparent lack of single channel flow has been noted as a concern, any
additional data would be helpful that might support single channel flow.

555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
T 919.232.6600

Response: See aerial photos on Figures 3.13 and 3.14. Based on aerial evidence
of single channel flow throughout UT 2 in January 2020, HDR revised the report
narrative as follows:
“UT 1 and UT 3 have remained stable over the past monitoring year. Thick herbaceous
vegetation along the stream banks makes it difficult to see the channels during the
growing season in some areas but single channel flow is obvious during winter months
(see Figures 3.11 – 3.16). During a site visit in August 2019 it was noted that sediment
from the soil farm road had deposited in the bed of UT 2 just downstream of the culvert
and partially diverted base flow through the floodplain over the upstream most 100 feet of
UT 2. Diverted flow re-entered the channel just downstream of the constructed berm near
cross section 9. Single channel flow was evident throughout UT 2 downstream of cross
section 9 and the stream was functioning as intended through this reach. Based on aerial
photos taken in January 2020 (Figures 3.13 and 3.14), single channel flow was evident
throughout the entirety of UT 2.”

4. Fig 5.3 x-axis label has distance rather than time as a label.
Response: The x-axis label has been corrected and Figure numbers for the Figure
5 series were changed to Figure 4 series to match figure numbering in the MY4 report.
5. Vegetation Visual Assessment –Invasives treatment is mentioned as occurring in
2019. Please provide date(s) of treatment here (at least month-year), and in Table 2
(Project Activity and Reporting History).
Response: Dates of treatments (January and September 2019) were added to the
report narrative and Table 2.
6. Surface Water Level Meter Data – If available, rain data should be shown concurrently,
with the most consecutive days/dates during which criteria were met.
Response: Rain data has been added to Surface Water Level figures.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call
(919.232.6637)
Sincerely,
HDR│ICA

Vickie Miller

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page i
NCDMS Project No. 96309

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 SUCCESS CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 2
1.4 VISUAL VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 2
1.5 VISUAL STREAM ASSESSMENT................................................................................... 2
2.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 3
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES ..................................... 4
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA ...................................................................... 11
APPENDIX C. HYDROLOGIC DATA ................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX D. IRT MEETING MINUTES (08/27/2019) ....................................................... 35

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP ................................................................................................. 5
FIGURE 2.1 – 2.9 CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW ........................................................ 12
FIGURE 3.1 – 3.16 PROBLEM AREAS AND AERIAL PHOTOS .............................................. 26
FIGURE 4.1 – 4.3 TRIBUTARY WATER LEVEL GAUGE METER DATA .................................. 32

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
TABLE 1. PROJECT COMPONENTS AND MITIGATION CREDITS ............................................ 6
TABLE 2. PROJECT ACTIVITY AND REPORTING HISTORY ................................................... 7
TABLE 3. PROJECT CONTACTS TABLE ............................................................................. 8
TABLE 4. PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 9
TABLE 5. VISUAL STREAM MORPHOLOGY STABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 21
TABLE 6. VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 25
TABLE 7. VERIFICATION OF BANKFULL EVENTS ............................................................... 31

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 1
NCDMS Project No. 96309

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the vegetation establishment and stream stability for Year 4
monitoring for the Roses Creek Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) in Burke County, North
Carolina.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
Primary goals for the Site, as detailed in the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
(ICA Engineering 2015) include:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi-aquatic and riparian habitat.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats.
The following objectives accomplish the goals listed above:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation through:
a. Restoring the existing degraded, straightened and incised/entrenched streams as
primarily a Priority 1 restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the
floodplain allowing nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream runoff
to settle from floodwaters to the extent practical. Restoring a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile will ensure the channel will transport and attenuate watershed
flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading.
b. Restore channel banks by relocating the channel, excavating bankfull benches,
placing in-stream structures to reduce shearing forces on outside meander bends,
and planting native vegetative species to provide soil stability, thus reducing
stream bank stressors.
c. Reducing point source (i.e. cattle and equipment crossings) and non-point source
(i.e. stormwater runoff through pastures) pollution associated with on-site
agricultural operations (hay production and cattle) by exclusionary fencing from the
stream and riparian buffer and by eliminating all stream crossings from the
easement.
d. Plant a vegetative buffer on stream banks and adjacent floodplains to treat nutrient
enriched surface runoff from adjacent pastureland associated with on-site
agricultural operations.
e. Restoring riparian buffers adjacent to the streams that are currently maintained for
hay production that will attenuate floodwaters, in turn reducing stressors from
upstream impacts.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi-aquatic and riparian habitat through:
a. Restoration of a sinuous gravel bed channel that promotes a stable bed form and
accommodates benthic macroinvertebrate and fish propagation. Additionally,
woody materials such as log structures, overhanging planted vegetation and toe
wood/brush toe in submerged water will provide a diversity of shading, bed form
and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms.
b. Restoring native vegetation to the stream channel banks and the adjacent riparian
corridor, that is currently grass dominated, will diversify flora and create a protected
habitat corridor, which will provide an abundance of available foraging and cover
habitat for a multitude of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats through:

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 2
NCDMS Project No. 96309

a. Planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation.
b. Protection of the restored community will ensure a protected wildlife corridor
between the Site and the upstream and downstream mature riparian buffers and
upland habitats.
c. Converting approximately 15 acres from existing agricultural land to riparian buffer
protected by permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring
includes stream channel/hydraulics and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria,
and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (NCEEP 2011). Project success criteria are
further detailed in the Baseline Monitoring Document & As-Built Baseline Report (HDR|ICA 2016).
1.3 Background Summary
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
contracted HDR|ICA to restore 4,746 linear feet of Roses Creek and three of its unnamed
tributaries within the Site to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation needs in the watershed. The Site
is located approximately 12 miles northwest of downtown Morganton in Burke County, NC. The
Site contains Roses Creek and three unnamed headwater tributaries of Roses Creek (UT 1, UT
2 and UT 3). The Site is located within the 03050101060030 14-digit Hydrologic Unit, which is
also a DMS Targeted Hydrologic Unit for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
Roses Creek is classified as a Water Supply Watershed (WS-III), as it is part of the headwaters
that feed Lake Rhodhiss. The Site is comprised of one property owned by Robert B. Sisk and
Martha M. Sisk (PIN # 1767479652) (known as the Sisk Farm). Additional information concerning
project history is presented in Table 2.
1.4 Visual Vegetation Assessment
Visual assessment of on-site vegetation suggests that planted stems are becoming well
established and volunteer stems are becoming more evident. The herbaceous vegetation is also
becoming better established as previously noted bare areas are showing a dense community of
annual and perennial species. Overall, visual observations indicate that the Site is performing
well enough to meet the vegetative performance standard of 260 stems per acre in Year 5.

Chinese privet and multiflora rose were observed and treated downstream of STA 14+75 along
UT 1. Invasive stems were mechanically removed, and the stumps were treated with herbicide
twice in 2019 (January and September, 2019). In addition, privet was observed downstream of
STA 37+00 in the left floodplain of Roses Creek. HDR plans to conduct additional treatments in
2020 to control the spread of invasive species on-site. HDR will continue to monitor these areas
closely.
1.5 Visual Stream Assessment
Roses Creek remains stable and functioning as designed. Bank erosion areas repaired in 2018
continue to benefit from the establishment of vegetation along the channel toes and bank. During
Year 4, eight small areas of minor to moderate erosion were noted on Roses Creek as depicted
in the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV). Maturing vegetation along the stream banks should

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 3
NCDMS Project No. 96309

stabilize these areas over time. HDR will monitor areas of erosion closely over the next year. A
beaver dam was discovered near STA 41+80 in August 2019, and backwater effects extended to
approximately STA 38+00. The dam was removed in September 2019 and the stream is currently
stable at this location. Photos of the dam before and after removal are presented in figures 3.1-
3.6. The beavers were removed from the Site to discourage construction of future dams; however,
an additional beaver dam was observed near STA 31+50 in December 2019. HDR will coordinate
with APHIS to trap beaver and remove the dam at this location in 2020.

UT 1 and UT 3 have remained stable over the past monitoring year. Thick herbaceous vegetation
along the stream banks makes it difficult to see the channels during the growing season in some
areas but single channel flow is obvious during winter months (see Figures 3.11 – 3.16). During
a site visit in August 2019 it was noted that sediment from the soil farm road had deposited in the
bed of UT 2 just downstream of the culvert and partially diverted base flow through the floodplain
over the upstream most 100 feet of UT 2. Diverted flow re-entered the channel just downstream
of the constructed berm near cross section 9. Single channel flow was evident throughout UT 2
downstream of cross section 9 and the stream was functioning as intended through this reach.
Based on aerial photos taken in January 2020 (Figures 3.13 and 3.14), single channel flow was
evident throughout the entirety of UT 2. Based on water level data obtained using the Hobo U20
pressure transducers installed in the bottom of each tributary, all three tributaries have indicated
constant flow for a span of 30+ consecutive days at least once this past year. Water level data is
provided in Appendix C.

2.0 REFERENCES

Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).

Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States (online). Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2011-May-nav.pdf [May 15,
2011]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 4
NCDMS Project No. 96309

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 6
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits

* Stream Mitigation Units decreased by 60 to account for break in easement at the stream crossing
on Sisk Farm Road

Roses Creek, Burke County
DMS Project No. 96309
Credit Summary
Stream
SMU
Riparian
Wetland
WMU
Non-
riparian
Wetland
Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 5,009.6
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII,
etc.)
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio

SMU
Roses
Creek
10+00-
41+81
3,643 PI Restoration 3,181 1:1 3,121*
Roses
Creek
41+81-
42+19
38 - EII 38 2.5:1 15
UT 1 10+00-
12+54;
16+11-
16+46
267 PI Restoration 289 1:1 289
UT 1 12+54-
16+11;
16+46-
19+30
641 - EII 641 2.5:1 256
UT 2 10+00-
17+07
610 PI Restoration 707 1:1 707
UT 3 10+00-
16+21
558 PI Restoration 621 1:1 621
Total NA 5,757 PI Restoration/
EII
5,477 1-2.5:1 5,009.6
Component Summation
Restoration
Level
Stream
(linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non-Riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,798
Enhancement II 679

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 7
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History

Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan September 2015 September 2015
Final Design – Construction Plans September 2015 March 2016
Construction February 25, 2016 May 18, 2016
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area -- May 18, 2016
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area -- May 18, 2016
Bare Root, Containerized, and B&B plantings for
Entire Project Area
-- May 27, 2016
Mitigation Plan/As-built (Year 0 Monitoring-Baseline) May 2016 July 2016
Year 1 Monitoring November 2016 January 2017
Stream Morphology November 2016 --
Vegetation August 2016 --
Supplemental Planting -- February 2017
Year 2 Monitoring August 2017 November 2017
Stream Morphology June 2017 --
Vegetation August 2017 --
Supplemental Planting -- February 2018
Year 3 Monitoring August 2018 November 2018
Stream Morphology March 2018 --
Vegetation August 2018 --
Structural Repairs -- October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring November 2019 December 2019
Stream Morphology -- --
Vegetation -- --
Dam Removal -- September 2019
Invasive Treatment Jan. and Sept. 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 8
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Table 3. Project Contacts Table

Designer

Primary project design POC
ICA Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Vickie Miller [phone]
Construction Contractor

Construction Contractor POC
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Structural Repair Contractor

Structural Repair Contractor POC
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Planting Contractor

Planting Contractor POC
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Supplemental Planting Contractor

Supplemental Planting Contractor POC
River Works, Inc.
114 W Main Street, Suite 106
Clayton, NC 27520
Bill Wright [phone]
Seeding Contractor

Seeding Contractor POC
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27607
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources – Triangle Office
Nursery Stock Suppliers 1) Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
2) Foggy Mountain Nursery (live stakes)
Monitoring Performers
HDR|ICA
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Alex DiGeronimo (LMG) [phone]
Stream Monitoring POC
HDR|ICA
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Alex DiGeronimo (LMG) [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
HDR|ICA
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Alex DiGeronimo (LMG) [phone]

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 9
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Project Name Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
County Burke
Project Area (acres) 17.3
Project Coordinates (latitude and
longitude)
35.850953, -81.819541
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont / Mountain
River Basin Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit
8-digit
03050101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03050101060030
NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-08-31
Project Drainage Area (acres) Roses: 3,309, UT 1: 35, UT 2: 47, UT 3: 10
Project Drainage Area Percentage
of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agricultural/Pasture
Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont
Geological Unit Zabg: Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Roses Creek UT 1 UT 2 UT 3
Length of reach (linear
feet) 3,681 existing 900 existing 610 existing 558 existing
Valley Classification VIII VIII VIII VIII
Drainage Area (acres) 3,309 35 47 13
NCDWQ Stream
Identification Score 56 30 33.5 34
NCDWQ Water
Quality Classification WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr
Morphological
Description (stream
type)
E4, B4, and
F4 B5, F5 B5 B5, G5
Evolutionary Trend Simon’s
Stages:
Premodified »
Constructed »
Degradation
and Widening
Could maintain
a B type
channel in
majority of
reach
Or
F » B
G » B/E G » B

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 10
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Regulatory Considerations (cont.)
Coastal Zone Management (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 11
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data

1240
1240
12571240
1260
1240
1256
1261
1240
1258
1263
181
Table Rock
Irish
Si
mpson
CreekRo
s
e
CreekRussellIrish IrishCreekNati
o
n
al
Forest
Rd.
F
orest
Rd
.National
St.Sis
k
FishHatchery Rd.RoseCr
eekRd.
181
Creek NATION
A
LFOREST
RD
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
STATE
N.C.1
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
0
0
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$CONTRACT:50 25 50 100
10 5 10 20
20 10 20 40
VICINITY MAP
Prepared in the Office of:DESIGN DATA
2
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=
PROJECT LENGTH
» »
PROJECT MANAGER
FT
SHEET NO.
2
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
2
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=ROSES CREEKBURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FOREST
PISGAH NATIONAL
Fish Hatchery
Tablerock State
3 4
5678
9LAT: 35 51' 01" N LONG: -81 49' 11" W
FT
FT FT
930.38DMS PROJECT #: 963092
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
= FT FT707.59
= FT FT621.03 627.80
710.07
950.69
3,219.20 3,222.56
CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN ROSES CREEK
STA 17+10.07
END UT 2
STA 16+27.80
END UT 3
STA 20+50.52
ROSES CREEK
STA 11+00.90
ROSES CREEK

STA 19+50.69
END UT 1
LEGEND
CROSS VANE
ROCK
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
2
ROSES CREEK
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
BANK/BED CONDITION
(SR 1262)SI
SK STREETCCPV PLANS - YEAR 4
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
TREE
FALLEN 15+00FM
EROSION
MINOR
BERM
CONSTRUCTED
(SILT)
DEPOSITION
BEAVERDAM
POPULATION
INVASIVE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
0.0062
5.17
14.0
2.72
30.5
66.4
C4
0.0021
0.06
13.0
0.58
5.0
2.1
C5
0.0021
0.07
13.0
0.58
5.0
2.1
C5
0.0021
0.02
13.1
0.63
5.5
2.6
C5
UT 3UT 2UT 1ROSES CREEK
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
STREAM LENGTH
PROPOSED DESIGN
STREAM LENGTH
ASBUILT
Raleigh, NC 27601
Suite 900
555 Fayetteville Street,
ICA Engineering, Inc.
NC License No: F-0258
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
CROSS VANE
ROCK / LOG
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
ROCK L-VANE
BRUSH TOE
WETLANDS
EXISTING
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
POWERLINE
FENCE
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
FLOW METER
CREST GAUGE
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 1
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 2
STA 42+22.56
END ROSES CREEK
STA 34+65.21
ROSES CREEK

STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 3
ROSES CREEK
XS-1
ROSES CREEK
EROSION
MODERATE
10+00
15+00
19+00
10+00 15+0015+0010+00
20+0025+0030+0035+00 40+0015+00
10+00XS-1XS-2XS-7XS-8
XS-9
XS-10XS-3
XS-4
XS-11XS-12XS-5XS-6
GAUGE
CRESTFM850/850
VP4
600/600
VP3
550/550
VP2 600/650VP17700/700VP16600/1600VP15750/750VP14
650/650VP13600/600VP12
900/3400VP11
550/550VP10
850/850VP9
950
/950
VP8 809/809VP6650/650VP7700/700
VP5
550/550
VP2 650/900VP1FMFM
DATE:
SHEET
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAROSES CREEKFlow DirectionFlow DirectionUT 1
STA 19+50.69
END UT 1
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
LEGEND
CROSS VANE
ROCK
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
XS-1
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN 2
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
TREE
FALLEN15+00POPULATION
INVASIVE
BANK/BED CONDITION
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN ROSES CREEK
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
FENCE
BRUSH TOE
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
ROCK L-VANE
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
GAUGE
CREST
EROSION
MINOR
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
EEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258SEE SHEET 7MATCHLINE UT 1
SEE SHEET 3
MATCHLINE ROSES CREEK
STA 11+00.90
ROSES CREEK
19+001
0
+0
0 15+00XS
-
1 XS-2850/850
VP4
600/600
VP3
550/550
VP2
550/550VP2
SISK STREET15'' CPPDATE:$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ROSES CREEK
Flow D irection Flow DirectionUT 2LEGEND
CROSS VANE
ROCK
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
XS-1
3
SEE SHEET 8MATCHLINE UT 2
SEE SHEET 2
MATCHLINE ROSES CREEK SEE SHEET 4MATCHLI
NE ROSES CREEKINTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
(SR 12
6
2
)SISK STREE
T15+00TREE
FALLEN
SHEET0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
ROCK L-VANE
GAUGE
CREST
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
BRUSH TOE
POWER LINEFENCE
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EPHEMERAL POOL
BANKFULL
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
STA 17+10.07
END UT 2
STA 20+51.69
ROSES CREEK
BANK/BED CONDITION
EROSION
MINOR
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
VP920+00GAUGE
CREST 850/850VP9950/950
VP8
700/700
VP5
DATE:
SHEET
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ ROSES CREEK
Flow DirectionSEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE ROSES CREEKSE
E S
HE
E
T
5MATC
HLINE R
OSES C
R
E
E
K
4
LEGEND
CROSS VANE
ROCK
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
BANK/BED CONDITION
15+00DATE:
SHEET
DATE:
SHEET0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258FENCE
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EPHEMERAL POOL
BANKFULL
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
BRUSH TOE
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
GAUGE
CREST
ROCK L-VANE
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
EROSION
MINOR
XS-1
25+00XS-3900/3400
VP11
550/550
VP10
850/850
VP9
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ROS
E
S CRE
E
K5
Flo
w Directi
on
Flo
w
Direction
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T 4MA
T
C
H
LI
N
E
R
O
S
E
S
C
R
E
E
K
SEE SHEE
T
6MATCHLINE ROSES C
REEK
LEGEND
CROSS VANE
ROCK
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
SEE SHEE
T
9
MATCHLINE -UT3-
BANK/BED CONDITION
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
15+00FM
DATE:
SHEET
DATE:
SHEET0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
EROSION
MINOR
GAUGE
CREST
FENCE
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EPHEMERAL POOL
BANKFULL
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
METER
FLOW
BRUSH TOE
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
CROSS VANE
ROCK / LOG
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
ROCK L-VANE
XS-1
STA 34+65.21
ROSES CREEK
STA 16+27.80
END UT 3
GAUGE
CREST
EROSION
MODERATE
BEAVERDAM 30+0035+0015
+
00
XS-4
XS-
12
750/750
VP14
600/600
VP12
F
M
DATE:
SHEET
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ R
OSES C
R
EE
K
6MATCHLINE ROSES CREEK SEE SHEET 5Flow Direction
STA 42+22.56
END ROSES CREEK
LEGEND
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CROSS VANE
ROCK
ROCK L-VANE
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
BOULDERS
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
BRUSH TOE
THALWEG
EPHEMERAL POOL
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
FENCE
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
GAUGE
CREST
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
BANK/BED CONDITION
EROSION
MINOR15+00BEAVERDAM
DATE:
SHEET
DATE:0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258BANKFULL
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
GAUGE
CREST
SEPTEMBER 2019
BEAVER DAM REMOVED
XS-1 POPULATION
INVASIVE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
40+00
XS-5
XS-6600/650
VP17
700/700
VP16
600/1600
VP15
18'' CPPEXISTING SOIL ROADBED
DATE:
SHEET
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ MATCHLINE UT 1 SEE SHEET 27
LEGEND
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
XS-1
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS
GAUGE
CREST
FM15+00POPULATION
INVASIVE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS 0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 1
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
LINE
POWER
METER
FLOW
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
FENCE
GAUGE
CREST10+0015+00XS-7XS-8FM
550/550VP2550/550VP2650/900
VP1
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ 8
Flow DirectionUT 2
SISK FARM RD
SEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE UT 2LEGEND
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
XS-1
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS15+00FM
(SILT)
DEPOSITION
BANK/BED CONDITION
DATE:
SHEET0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
BERM
CONSTRUCTED
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
METER
FLOW
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
FENCE
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
GAUGE
CREST
BRUSH TOE
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
LINE
POWER
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
BEGIN UT 2
STA 10+00.00 3710176600JNO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 15+0010+00XS-9XS-10809/809
VP6
650/650
VP7
FM
DATE:
SHEET
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ 9
Flow Direction
UT 3
LEGEND
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
XS-1
YEAR 4 CONDITIONS MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 515+000GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5012-11-19BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAEEP# 96309
YEAR 4
CCPVSTREAM RESTORATION PROJECTROSES CREEKRaleigh, NC 27601Suite 900555 Fayetteville Street,ICA Engineering, Inc.NC License No: F-0258(SILT)
DEPOSITION
& DIRECTION
PHOTO POINT
FENCE
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EPHEMERAL POOL
BANKFULL
& STATIONING
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
LOCATION
CROSS-SECTION
WETLANDS
EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE w/
ROCK STEP
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
BANK/BED CONDITION
BEGIN UT 3
STA 10+00.00
YEAR 4
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
1
0
+0
0 XS-11650/650
VP13
Major Channel CategoryChannelSub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as Intended1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)00100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate1717100%3. Meander Pool Condition1.Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)1818100%2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1818100%4.Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)1717100%2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)1717100%2. Bank 1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion8160 97.0%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.00100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse00100%00100.0%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.1919100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1919100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.1919100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 1919100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1919100%TotalsReach ID: Roses CreekAssessed Length: 3,121 FTTable 5: Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPage 21
Major Channel CategoryChannelSub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as Intended1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)00100%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate00100%3. Meander Pool Condition1.Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)22100%2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)22100%4.Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)33100%2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)33100%2. Bank 1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.00100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse00100%00100.0%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.1212100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1212100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.1212100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 1212100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1212100%TotalsReach ID: UT1Assessed Length: 234 LFTable 5a: Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPage 22
Major Channel CategoryChannelSub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as Intended1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)133353%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate2222100%3. Meander Pool Condition1.Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)2121100%2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)2121100%4.Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2222100%2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)2222100%2. Bank 1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.00100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse00100%00100.0%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.2121100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 2121100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.2121100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 2121100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.2121100%TotalsReach ID: UT2Assessed Length: 707 LFTable 5b: Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPage 23
Major Channel CategoryChannelSub-Category MetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as Intended1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)125559%2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate1313100%3. Meander Pool Condition1.Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)1212100%2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1313100%4.Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)1313100%2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)1313100%2. Bank 1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.00100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse00100%00100.0%3. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.1414100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1414100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.1414100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 1414100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1414100%TotalsReach ID: UT3Assessed Length: 620 LFTable 5c: Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPage 24
Table 6. Vegetation Condition AssessmentPlanted Acreage15.811. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.05 AcresPink polygons filled with green x's00.000.0%2. Low Stem DensityAreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 AcresBlue cross hatch pattern00.00.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.1 Acres Pattern and color.000%Easement Acreage 17.33Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Green grass pattern.20.85%5. Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). None N/AN/AN/AN/A% of Planted AcreageTotalCumulative TotalVegetation Category DefinitionsMapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined AcreagePage 25

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 26
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Figure 3.1 – 3.16 Problem Areas and Aerial Photos

3.1 Minor erosion at 19+50 3.2 Minor erosion at 20+10
3.3 Beaver dam near STA 41+25 3.4 Backwater effects from dam STA 38+00
3.5 Beaver dam removal near STA 41+25 3.6 UT 2 dense bank vegetation STA 10+75

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 27
NCDMS Project No. 96309

3.7 Beaver dam at 31+50 3.8 Recent sediment deposits at head of
UT 2

3.9 Privet downstream of 37+00 3.10 Privet downstream of 37+00

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 28
NCDMS Project No. 96309

3.11 UT 1 aerial evidence of single channel flow

3.12 UT 1 aerial evidence of single channel flow

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 29
NCDMS Project No. 96309

3.13 UT 2 aerial evidence of single channel flow

3.14 UT 2 aerial evidence of single channel flow

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 30
NCDMS Project No. 96309

3.15 UT 3 aerial evidence of single channel flow

3.16 UT 3 aerial evidence of single channel flow

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 31
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Appendix C. Hydrologic Data
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date
Crest Gauge Info Gauge
Reading
(ft)
Gauge
Elevation
(ft)
Crest
Elevation
(ft)
Bankfull
Elevation
(ft)
Height
above
Bankfull
(ft) Site Sta.
10/5/2016 1
Roses Creek
Lower 0.00 1212.11 N/A 1213.93 N/A
10/5/2016 2 UT 1 0.00 1267.45 N/A 1267.95 N/A
10/5/2016 3 UT 2 0.35 1227.81 1228.16 1228.19 N/A
10/5/2016 4 UT 3 0.25 1216.94 1217.19 1217.36 N/A
11/22/2016 1
Roses Creek
Lower 0.00 1212.11 N/A 1213.93 N/A
11/22/2016 2 UT 1 0.00 1267.45 N/A 1267.95 N/A
11/22/2016 3 UT 2 0.00 1227.81 N/A 1228.19 N/A
11/22/2016 4 UT 3 0.35 1216.94 1217.29 1217.36 N/A
6/2/2017 1
Roses Creek
Lower 1.89 1212.11 1214.00 1213.93 0.07
6/2/2017 2 UT 1 0.80 1267.45 1268.25 1267.95 0.30
6/2/2017 3 UT 2 1.50 1227.81 1229.31 1228.19 1.12
6/2/2017 4 UT 3 1.80 1216.94 1218.74 1217.36 1.38
8/15/2017 1
Roses Creek
Lower 0.50 1212.11 1212.61 1213.93 N/A
8/15/2017 2 UT 1 0.38 1267.45 1267.83 1267.95 N/A
8/15/2017 3 UT 2 0.85 1227.81 1228.66 1228.19 0.47
8/15/2017 4 UT 3 1.64 1216.94 1218.58 1217.36 1.22
3/28/2018 1
Roses Creek
Lower 2.83 1212.11 1214.94 1213.93 1.01
3/28/2018 2 UT 1 0.38 1267.45 1267.83 1267.95 N/A
3/28/2018 3 UT 2 2.50 1227.81 1230.31 1228.19 2.12
3/28/2018 4 UT 3 1.38 1216.94 1218.32 1217.36 0.96
8/6/2018 1
Roses Creek
Lower 3.75 1212.11 1215.86 1213.93 1.93
8/6/2018 2 UT 1 1.13 1267.45 1268.58 1267.95 0.63
8/6/2018 3 UT 2 2.54 1227.81 1230.35 1228.19 2.16
8/6/2018 4 UT 3 2.92 1216.94 1219.86 1217.36 2.50
1/29/2019 1
Roses Creek
Lower 2.68 1212.11 1214.79 1213.93 0.86
1/29/2019 2 UT 1 0.67 1267.45 1268.12 1267.95 0.17
1/29/2019 3 UT 2 1.29 1227.81 1229.10 1228.19 0.91
1/29/2019 4 UT 3 1.29 1216.94 1218.23 1217.36 0.87

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5Rainfall (in.)Date Daily Precipitation0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01/1/2019 2/20/2019 4/11/2019 5/31/2019 7/20/2019 9/8/2019Depth (ft)Date Figure 4.1 UT 1 Water LevelUT 1 Water Surface
0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01/1/2019 2/20/2019 4/11/2019 5/31/2019 7/20/2019 9/8/2019Depth (ft)DateFigure 4.2 UT 2 Water LevelUT 2 Water Surface0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0Rainfall (in.)DateDaily Precipitation
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01/1/2019 2/20/2019 4/11/2019 5/31/2019 7/20/2019 9/8/2019Depth (ft)DateFigure 4.3 UT 3 Water LevelUT 3 Water Surface0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0Rainfall (in.)DateDaily Precipitation

Year 4 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Page 35
NCDMS Project No. 96309

Appendix D. IRT Meeting Minutes (08/27/2019)

Meeting Minutes
Project: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site (DMS # 96309)
Subject: IRT Credit Release Meeting
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Location: Burke County
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE) Kim Browning (USACE)
Mac Haupt (DWR) Erin Davis (DWR)
Paul Wiesner (DMS) Harry Tsomides (DMS)
Tim Baumgartner (DMS) Melonie Allen (DMS)
Joe Famularo (DMS) Ryan Smith (HDR)
Chris Smith (HDR)
The IRT Credit Release Meeting for the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site was held at 9:00 AM on
Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at the project site in Burke County. The following represents highlights of
discussions that occurred during the site visit:
1. Chris Smith provided a synopsis of the project site to begin the meeting.
2. The IRT expressed concern over the following items at this stage in monitoring (year 4):
a. Vegetation.
i. 2 vegetation plots along UT 1 are not currently meeting success criteria
1. Supplemental planting occurred during 2018.
ii. Invasive Plants: Privet has been treated along UT 1 multiple times this year but
no measures were taken prior to 2019.
b. Repair areas along Roses Creek.
c. Tributary discharge and maintenance of single thread channel as opposed to wetland
complex.
Site Walk
1. Discussion regarding the current condition of the tributaries. UT 2 and UT 3 are the tributaries
of concern:
a. HDR observed that the monitoring cross sections for the tributaries do not show
aggradation or significant alteration in cross sectional dimension.
b. HDR observed that the flow gauge data indicates all the tributaries meet performance
standard requirements.
c. There is flow through the restored channels, however, there is also water flowing in the
floodplains of UT 2 and UT 3.
d. Dense, low growing vegetation (juncus/carex/salix/polygonum) is prevalent along
several reaches of UT 2 and UT 3’s channel side slopes and floodplain. The IRT
expressed concern that vegetation is constricting channel flow and could in the future
cause enough aggradation within the channels to the point that they function as a linear
wetland rather than the channel functioning as a stream. HDR reiterated that
monitoring cross-sectional data confirms that the channel is maintaining its dimension
even though the vegetation is admittedly dense which restricts the ability to visually
identify sections of existing bed and bank within some restored channel reaches.
e. Some sediment entered the upstream extent of UT 2 due to a soil access road that had
not been stabilized immediately following construction completion. The road is now
stabilized, however there is still sediment that is slowly being mobilized downstream.
f. The IRT indicated that stream reaches proposed for stream mitigation credit should
function as streams and be considered jurisdictional streams by the regulatory agencies
at project closeout. The IRT noted that stream channels that are determined to be non-
jurisdictional will not be eligible to receive stream mitigation credit. The IRT suggested
documenting stream conditions with photos and videos during winter when plants are
dormant in an effort to more clearly identify the channel bed and bank. The IRT noted
that there has been allowances for providers to maintain vegetation on channel banks
through the first two monitoring years. They did not recommend this for this site during
the visit, but noted it as a potential tool for future sites.
g. There was discussion during the site walk on if flow gauges should be moved further
upstream compared with their current locations. At the end of the walk it was
determined that the tributaries appear to display sufficient flow and that it may not be
necessary to relocate flow gauges.
2. Continued treatment of invasives including but not limited to privet and multi-flora rose is
necessary though project closeout.
3. Vegetation on UT 1 was a concern prior to the site walk due to low survival rates within
monitoring plots as noted in the monitoring report. However, during the site walk woody
vegetation was noted to be dense along UT 1, displaying healthy vigor and survivability. HDR
will review monitoring plots to determine if monitored vegetation within the plots is accurate
and/or if vegetation with the plots is representative of survivability along UT 1 and will detail the
information in the MY4 (2019) report.
4. Beaver have entered the site near the downstream terminus of restoration on Roses Creek
(have built one dam and began a second). The IRT noted that beaver management should begin
and removal of the dam is necessary. Beaver inspection, management and dam removal should
be completed until project closeout.
a. NOTE: As of September 11, 2019 the beaver dams have been removed and an
eradication program has begun through a contract with the USDA APHIS.
5. The IRT noted that overall the site is functioning well (both streams, repairs from storm events
and vegetation). The IRT noted issues on both UT 2 and UT 3 that have potential credit
implications. The IRT was willing to release stream credits for MY3 (2018) as long as the
remaining amount of unreleased credits exceeded the potential stream credits associated with
both UT2 and UT3. The IRT indicated that they would review the MY4 report and any
supplemental data provided and discuss the project and additional project credit release at the
2020 IRT credit release meeting.
6. The IRT noted that HDR should document any adaptive management measures and discuss
measures during the credit release meeting in April 2020. Any significant adaptive management
must be pre-approved by the IRT before implementation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 10:07 AM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Roses Creek_DMS# 96309: IRT Credit Release Site Visit (8-27-19) Meeting Minutes
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Paul, see below.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 1:07 PM
To: 'Davis, Erin B' <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Roses Creek_DMS# 96309: IRT Credit Release Site Visit (8-27-19) Meeting Minutes
Paul, just a couple comments:
1. under the site walk, 1.f., I would stress that we do not want vegetation manipulation along the channel on this
project, not that is just not recommended.
2. I believe we noted some evidence of livestock within the buffer that should be noted in the minutes.
Thanks,
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Erin B [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 8:59 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Roses Creek_DMS# 96309: IRT Credit Release Site Visit (8-27-19) Meeting
Minutes
These meeting minutes generally reflect my field notes with the noticeable omission of the evidence of cattle present
along UT1. Also, I had noted that sections of the adjacent fencing connected to the easement area could use
reinforcement (areas that were down and allowed us to cross) and it's recommended HDR notify the landowner.
Erin B. Davis, PWS
Stream & Wetland Mitigation Specialist
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-3684 office
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 10:48 AM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Smith, Ryan <[e-mail]>; Smith, Christopher <[e-mail]>; Allen,
Melonie <[e-mail]>; Famularo, Joseph T <[e-mail]>; Baumgartner, Tim
<[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roses Creek_DMS# 96309: IRT Credit Release Site Visit (8-27-19) Meeting Minutes
All:
The meeting minutes from the August 27, 2019 Roses Creek IRT credit release site visit are attached for your
review.
Please let us know if you have any additional comments, questions or concerns.
Chris and Ryan,
Please include the final meeting minutes (including any additional IRT comments) in the MY4 report as an
Appendix.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.