20170887 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report - Reduced_20200213

ID#* 20170887 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/13/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/13/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jason Lorch
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170887
Existing IDr
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
County: Chatham
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Bethel Branch Monitoring Year 1 Report -
9.32MB
Reduced.pdf
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jason Lorch
Signature:*
j-AMA1 /-o�cw-

MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT

CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
BETHEL BRANCH MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC

Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030002

USACE Action ID Number 2016-02365

Data Collection Period: April - November 2019
Submission Date: December 9, 2019

PREPARED FOR:
The North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT)
USACE Project Manager: Samantha Dailey
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

December 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. developed the third phase of the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank in
Chatham County, North Carolina to generate stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for
permitted impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State waters within the Neuse 01 watershed
(HUC 03030002; DWR Sub-basin 03-06-04). Phase three of the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank is
hereafter referred to as the Bethel Branch Mitigation Site (Site). The project included the restoration
and enhancement of 6,148 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams on three unnamed
tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek for a total of 5,202 stream mitigation units. The project also
includes the rehabilitation, re-establishment, and enhancement of 3.22 acres of riparian wetlands for a
total of 3.14 wetland mitigation units. The 16.30-acre site is protected with a permanent conservation
easement. The Site is located near the town of Snow Camp, North Carolina.
The project site is located within the Cane Creek watershed which is discussed in the 2009 Cape Fear
River Basin Restoration priorities (RBRP) and upstream of Jordan Lake which is designated as a nutrient
sensitive water (NSW) in the 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. While benefits
such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the project site, others, such as
reduced pollutant and sediment loading, have farther reaching effects. This project will advance the
goals identified in the RBRP by restoring a vegetated riparian buffer zone, stabilizing eroding
streambanks, and removing livestock from the stream and riparian zones. These activities will result in
reduced nutrient and sediment inputs, improved aquatic and riparian habitats, and other ecological
benefits.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2018) were developed considering the
goals and objectives listed in the Cape Fear River RBRP plan. The project goals include:
• Reduce pollutant inputs to streams;
• Reduce sediment inputs from eroding stream banks;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation;
• Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses.
Site construction and planting were completed in April 2019. As-built surveys were conducted in early
May 2019. Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were completed in November 2019.
Overall, the Site is on track to meet success criteria. All five fixed vegetation plots met the monitoring
year 3 (MY3) interim success criterion of 320 stems per acre on an individual basis, however three of the
five random vegetation plots did not meet this criterion. This is likely due to thick herbaceous cover
making it difficult to locate planted trees during MY1. All restored streams are stable and functioning as
designed. Since construction wasn’t completed until late April 2019, data wasn’t collected during the
first four months of the year. This likely contributed to no bankfull events being recorded during MY1,
however, all four groundwater wells met their success criterion. The flow gage on UT3 showed 3
consecutive and 19 total days of flow. Bankfull events and UT3 baseflow are expected to meet success
criteria in the future once data is collected for the entire monitoring year.

BETHEL BRANCH MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT .....................................................................2-1
2.1 Vegetation Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment .................................................................................................. 2-2
2.6 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan ...................................................................................................... 2-2
2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-3
Section 3: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................3-1
Section 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................4-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
Table 5a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Groundwater Well Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Table 8b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section)
Cross-Section Plots
Table 10 Bank Pin Exposure
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Table 12 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Bethel Branch Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northern Chatham County, approximately 5.5 miles
southeast of Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit HUC
03030002050050 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources Sub-basin 03-06-04. The Site is within
the Jordan Lake watershed which is classified as Water Supply (WS) IV, and a nutrient sensitive water
needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic
vegetation.
Project streams consisted of restoration and enhancement on three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, and
UT3) for a total of 5,202 linear feet of stream. A total of 3.22 acres of wetlands were re-established,
rehabilitated, and enhanced. Riparian and wetland areas were planted with native vegetation to
improve habitat and ecosystem function. The final mitigation plan was submitted in October 2018 and
accepted by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) in November 2018. Site construction
was completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in April 2019. Planting and seeding activities were
completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in April 2019. Baseline monitoring and monitoring year 1
(MY1) were completed in April and November 2019 respectively. Annual monitoring and reporting will
continue for seven years with close-out anticipated in 2026 given success criteria are attained. Appendix
1 provides detailed project activity, history, contact, and site background information.
A conservation easement was recorded on 16.30 acres. The project is expected to yield 5,202 stream
mitigation units (SMUs) and 3.14 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Project components and assets are
illustrated in Figure 2 and credit allocation is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the project site, reduced
nutrient and sediment loading have farther reaching effects. The table below, describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes are provided with project goals and objectives. The
project goals and objectives were developed as part of the mitigation plan considering the goals and
objectives listed in the Cape Fear River RBRP plan and strive to maximize ecological and water quality
uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the Mitigation Plan include:
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes
Reduce pollutant inputs to streams
including fecal coliform, nitrogen,
and phosphorus.
Exclude cattle from streams and
buffers by installing fencing around
conservation easements adjacent to
cattle pastures and providing
alternative water sources or removing
cattle from sites.
Reduction in pollutant loads to
streams caused by cattle access.
Reduce inputs of sediment into
streams from eroding stream
banks.
Reconstruct stream channels with
stable dimensions. Add bank
revetments and in-stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.
Reduction in sediment loadings
to streams from bank erosion.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-2
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes
Return networks of streams to a
stable form that is capable of
supporting hydrologic, biologic, and
water quality functions.
Construct stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering the hydrologic and
sediment inputs to the system, the
landscape setting, and the watershed
conditions.
Reduce shear stress on channel
boundary. Support all stream
functions above hydrology.
Improve aquatic habitat in project
streams.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, cover logs, and
brush toes into restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody materials to
channel beds. Construct pools of
varying depth.
Increase and diversify available
habitats for macroinvertebrates,
fish, and amphibians leading to
colonization and increase in
biodiversity over time. Add
complexity including LWD to
streams.
Raise stream bed elevations and
allow for more frequent overbank
flows to provide a source of
hydration for floodplain wetlands.
Reduce shear stress on channels
during larger flow events.
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing
floodplain.
Raise water table and hydrate
riparian wetlands. Allow flood
flows to disperse on the
floodplain. Support geomorphic
and higher-level functions.
Create and improve riparian and
wetland habitats by planting native
vegetation. Provide a canopy to
shade streams and reduce thermal
loadings. Create a source of woody
inputs for streams. Reduce flood
flow velocities on floodplain and
improve long-term lateral stability
of streams.
Plant native tree and shrub species in
riparian zone and wetland areas.
Reduce sediment inputs from
bank erosion and runoff.
Increase nutrient cycling and
storage in floodplain. Improve
riparian habitat. Add a source of
LWD and organic material to
stream. Support all stream
functions.
Restore wetland hydrology, soils,
and plant communities.
Restore riparian wetlands by raising
stream beds, plugging existing ditches,
removing fill material over relict hydric
soils, and planting native wetland
species.
Restored wetland hydrology,
formation of hydric soils, and
establishment of wetland
vegetation.
Ensure that development and
agricultural uses that would
damage the Site or reduce the
benefits of project are prevented.
Establish conservation easements on
the Site.
Protect the Site from
encroachment on the riparian
corridor and direct impact to
streams and wetlands. Support
all stream functions.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 2-1
Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring year 1 site assessment was conducted between April 2019 and November 2019. Vegetation,
stream geomorphology and hydrology, and wetland hydrology success criteria were approved in the
mitigation plan. Monitoring features and locations are shown in Figure 3.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures presented by
the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006). Final vegetation success criteria
are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height at the end of MY7. Interim
success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and 260 planted stems
per acre at the end of MY5. Five fixed 100 square meter vegetation plots were installed randomly on the
Site and will be monitored annually. Another five 100 square meter vegetation plots are relocated
throughout the planted area at random each year. All 10 plots are monitored annually and subject to
the success criteria above.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in November 2019. The average planted density across all
plots is 461 planted stems per acre. All fixed vegetation plots (VP 1-5) exceeded the MY3 criterion by
more than 10% with plots ranging from 526 to 607 stems per acre. However, only random vegetation
plots 7 and 9 exceeded the MY3 success criterion. Random plots 6, 8, and 10 were below the 320 stem
per acre success criterion. Most likely stems were overlooked because thick herbaceous vegetation
stands tall relative to the short tree stems making them difficult to locate since random plots do not
have the advantage of a static point of origin for reference. Additional trees are expected to be located
in random vegetation plots in future monitoring years and is not a concern at this time. Vegetation plot
photographs can be found in Appendix 2 and summary data of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Areas in proximity to random vegetation plots 6 and 8 will be monitored for low stem density in
subsequent monitoring years. Woody stem survival and growth in these areas may be limited by
competition with thick herbaceous vegetation. This is not yet considered a concern as most likely these
stems are still alive and obscured by taller early successional vegetation. Remedial actions will be taken
if deemed necessary.
The old pond bed at the top of UT3 was planted at an inadequate stem density. This was due to the
pond bed being very wet and muddy as construction was finishing. The area was very wet and soft
making it unsafe for the planting crew to walk on. The planting contractor came back at a later date to
finish planting the pond area once the soil had sufficiently dried out. We believe they missed some areas
when they returned so areas of the pond area were not planted at the stem density called for in the
construction plans. This is a reason why the stem density in random vegetation plot 10 was so low. This
area will be replanted this winter to achieve the same planted stem density as the rest of the Site.
A few bare areas along UT3 were noted by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) on October 1, 2019
during a site visit. These areas were seeded and covered in straw this fall and vegetation sprouted
before the growing season ended. Refer to the stream banks at photo point 25 in Appendix 2 Stream
Photographs. These areas will continue to be monitored to confirm vegetation growth is occurring.
Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense.) have been observed
growing sporadically along UT2 Reach 1 in the Enhancement II section. A population of tree of heaven
(0.36 acres) is growing at the bottom of UT2 Reach 1, just above the stream crossing. Both of these
invasive species will be addressed during MY2.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 2-2
2.3 Stream Assessment
Ten permanent cross-sections were installed per Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards
for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (NCIRT, October 2016) in order to assess channel
dimension performance. Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in November 2019 and all
project streams are stable and functioning as designed. Cross-sections at the Site show little to no
change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios fall within
the appropriate Rosgen stream type parameters. Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the
project unless visual inspection indicates reach wide vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map, visual stability assessment table, and stream photographs.
Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four bankfull events must have occurred in separate
years within the restoration reaches. No bankfull events were recorded this year but construction did
not finish until late April, so data was not recorded for the entire year. In addition, the presence of
baseflow must be documented on UT3 for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal
precipitation year. Results from the flow gage installed on UT3 show baseflow for only 19 days, three of
which were consecutive. This does not meet the 30 consecutive day minimum, but no data was
collected January through April which are often wet months. Although UT3 baseflow did not meet
success criteria for MY1, it is expected to meet in subsequent monitoring years. Refer to Appendix 5 for
hydrologic data.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater monitoring gages were installed during baseline monitoring in wetland re-
establishment zones. All gages were installed at appropriate locations so that data collected provides an
indication of groundwater levels throughout the Site. The performance criteria for wetland hydrology is
groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for 8.0% of the growing season consecutively. To
determine the growing season at the Site, one soil temperature probe was installed. A barotroll logger
(to measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with well transducer
data) was also installed. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and
Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
As was mentioned previously, project construction finished in late April 2019 so no data could be
collected for the beginning of the growing season. Despite this, all four groundwater monitoring gages
met the success criteria. The growing season in this area is from March 18 to November 17 (244 days)
according to the Applied Climate Information System (ACIS) website (NOAA-RCC, 2019). All groundwater
gages showed groundwater within 12 inches of the surface for more than 8% of the growing season,
ranging from 9.4% (groundwater gage 3) to 19.2% (groundwater gage 4).
After the October 1, 2019 as-built site visit, the IRT requested supplementary groundwater gages be
added to wetland areas. The groundwater gages will be installed before MY2 growing season begins and
data will be included in annual monitoring reports.
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
The vegetation areas of concern along UT3, including areas of low stem density and the bare areas will
be addressed in MY2. Supplemental planting along UT3 in the old pond bed will be completed before

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 2-3
MY2 growing season begins. The bare areas that were seeded in October will be monitored to confirm
vegetation growth in the spring.
Chinese privet and tree of heaven along UT2 will be treated using various methods of herbicide
application including foliar, cut stump, hack and squirt, and stem injection.
2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All five fixed vegetation plots met MY3 interim success criterion of 320 stems per acre on an individual
basis, however three of the five random vegetation plots did not meet this criterion. This is likely to do
to the thick herbaceous vegetation making it difficult to locate planted stems. No bankfull events were
recorded, however, the project wasn’t completed until late April and streams were only monitoring for a
portion of the year. The flow gage on UT3 showed 3 consecutive and 19 total days of flow. Bankfull
events and UT3 baseflow are expected to meet success criteria in future years once data is collected for
the entire monitoring year. All four groundwater wells met their success criterion.

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 3-1
Section 3: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross-sections and monitored throughout
the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers standards (USACE, 2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 4-1
Section 4: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regional Climate Centers (NOAA-RCC). 2019. Applied
Climate Information System. Accessed online at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2018. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Updated.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conserving/documents/ActionPlan/WAP_complete.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2018). Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Bethel Branch Site Mitigation
Plan. USACE, Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03030002050050
03030003070010
03030003070020
03030002050070
03030002050090
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Chatham County, NC
0 0.5 1 Mile ¹
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
2018 Aerial Photography
From Raleigh, NC, take I-40 West approximately 4.8 miles to US
64W at Exit 98B. Continue on US 64W for 24.3 miles. Exit right at
exit 381 on NC 87N towards Burlington and continue for
approximately one mile. Turn left onto Silk Hope Gum Spring Road
and continue for approximately 8 miles. At the intersection in Silk
Hope, turn right onto Silk Hope Lindley Mill Road. Travel
approximately 3 miles and turn left onto Moon Lindley Road
continue for 0.6 miles. Turn right onto R E Wright Road and the
project area is accessible through the gate 0.1 miles on the left.
!(
!(
!(
!(
Wetland RE2
pond removed
Wetland RE2
Wetland RH2
Wetland E1
Wetland RE1
Wetland RE1
Wetland RH4
Wetland RH3
Wetland RH1 Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 2
UT1
UT1
UT2
UT2
UT3
UT2
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
Conservation Easement
External Crossings
Wetland Approach
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Re-Establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
As-Built Streams
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Streams
!(Reach Breaks
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
2017 Aerial Photography
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level Priority Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
As-Built
Footage/
Acreage
UT1 Reach 1 2,398 2,514 Warm R P1 & P2 1.0 2,514
UT1 Reach 2 114 114 Warm EII N/A 2.5 114
UT2 Reach 1 1,242 1,242 Warm EII N/A 2.5 1,242
UT2 Reach 2 1,364 1,180 Warm R P1 1.0 1,180
UT2 Reach 3 440 411 Warm R P1 1.0 411
UT2 Reach 4 434 434 Warm EII N/A 2.5 434
UT3 461 801 Warm R P1 1.0 801
RE1 and RE2 3.03 3.03 Riparian N/A Re-estab 1.0 3.03
RH1 - RH4 0.07 0.07 Riparian N/A Rehab 1.5 0.07
E12 0.12 0.12 Riparian N/A E 2.0 0.12
Warm1 Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,703
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 499
Preservation
Re-Establishment 3.03
Rehabilitation 0.05
Enhancement2 0.06
Creation
Totals 5,202 3.140
1As in the Mitigation Plan, credits have been adjusted to reflect reduced buffer width.
2Acreage and credits have been adjusted to correct a miscalculation in the Mitigation Plan.
Pond Removed, Full Channel Restoration, Grade
Control Structures, Planted Buffer
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Comments
Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement,
Planted
Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement,
Planted
PROJECT CREDITS
Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control
Structures, Planted Buffer
No credit, no buffer on right side of channel
Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control
Structures, Planted Buffer
No credit, no buffer on right side of channel
Conservation Easement, Planted Buffer
Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control
Structures, Planted Buffer
STREAMS
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian
Wetland Coastal Marsh
Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement,
Planted
WETLANDS
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Willow Spring, NC 27592
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
2025
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
December 2025
Table 3. Project Contact Table
2022
December 2023
December 20242024
2024Year 6 Monitoring
November 2019
April 2019
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2021
2020
November 2019
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey
Final Design - Construction Plans December 2018 December 2018
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments April 2019 April 2019
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 April 2019 April 2019
April 2019
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan October 2018 October 2018
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 April 2019 April 2019
Construction April 2019
919.851.9986
Jason Lorch
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc & Foggy Mountain Nursery
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
2023
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
919.851.9986
Designer
Greg Turner, PE
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor P.O. Box 1197
2025
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2023
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey December 20202020
2021
2022 December 2022
Vegetation Survey
May 2019 July 2019
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey December 2021
December 2019
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Applicable?Resolved?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No N/A
No N/A
No N/A
Streams
35° 49’ 45.56” N, 79° 22’ 11.37” W
16.30
03-06-04DWR Sub-basin
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Supporting Documentation
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4134.
207 49
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Drainiage Area (acres)
Project Name
Project Area (acres)
River Basin
Physiographic Province
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
County
03030002050050
Piedmont
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Regulation
Essential Fisheries Habitat
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Historic Preservation Act
N/A
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
3030002
Cape Fear
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Area (acres)8.10
Bethel Branch Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS responded on June 22, 2016 and concurred with NCWRC
stating that “the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed
endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species
currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites.”
Chatham County
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Correspondence from SHPO on July 1, 2018 indicating they were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
N/A
N/A
UT1 UT2 UT3
485
3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Pasture
Unmanaged herbaceous
Impervious
CGIA Land Use Classification
70%
1%
Forested 26%

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[[[[[[
[[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[!(
!(
!(
!(
!A!A !A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!.
!.
!.
!.
!A
pond removed
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 2
UT1
UT1
UT2
UT2
UT3
UT2
XS4
X
S
5
XS2 XS9XS
3
XS
7
XS1 XS10XS8
XS6
GWG 4
GWG 3
GWG 2GWG 1
PP 9
PP 8
PP 7
PP 6
PP 5
PP 4
PP 3
PP 2
PP 1
PP 26
PP 25
PP 24
PP 23
PP 22
PP 21
PP 20
PP 19
PP 18
PP 17
PP 16
PP 15
PP 14
PP 13
PP 12 PP 11
PP 10
Soil Temperature Probe
9
8
6
7
10
1
2
3
4
5
Chatham County, NC
0 350175 Feet ¹
2017 Aerial Photography
!(Reach Breaks
^_Photo Points
!.Bank Pin Array
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Temperature Probe
!A Crest Gage
!A Flow/Crest Gage
Groundwater Gages - MY1
!A Groundwater Criterion Met
Conservation Easement
External Crossings
Wetland Approach
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Re-Establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Tree of Heaven (0.36 Ac)
Low Stem Density Area (0.72 Ac)
Bare Areas (0.14 Ac)
Fixed Vegetation Plots - MY1
Criterion Met
Random Vegetation Plots - MY1
!(Criterion Met
!(Criterion Not Met
As-Built Streams
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
[[Fencing
Cross Section
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
UT1
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 37 37 100%
Depth Sufficient 36 36 100%
Length Appropriate 36 36 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)36 36 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)36 36 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.21 21 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
20 20 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
20 20 100%
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
UT2
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 29 29 100%
Depth Sufficient 28 28 100%
Length Appropriate 28 28 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)28 28 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)28 28 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.0 0 N/A
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.0 0 N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
16 16 100%
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
UT3
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100%
Depth Sufficient 20 20 100%
Length Appropriate 20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)20 20 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.15 15 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.0 0 N/A
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.0 0 N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
15 15 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
15 15 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Planted Acreage 8.10
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(Ac)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 3 0.14 1.73%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
criteria.0.1 1 0.72 8.89%
4 0.86 10.62%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0%
4 0.86 10.62%
Easement Acreage 16.30
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 2 0.36 2.21%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0%
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 1 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 1 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 11 UT2 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 11 UT2 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 12 UT2 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 12 UT2 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 Reach 1 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 Reach 1 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 18 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 18 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 19 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 20 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 20 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 21 UT2 Reach 2 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 21 UT2 Reach 2 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 Reach 3 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 Reach 3 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 Reach 3 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 Reach 3 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 24 UT3 – downstream (11/19/2019)
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 – downstream (11/19/2019)

PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 – upstream (11/19/2019) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 – downstream (11/19/2019)

GROUNDWATER WELL PHOTOGRAPHS

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Groundwater Well Photographs

GROUNDWATER WELL 1 – (11/19/2019) GROUNDWATER WELL 2 – (11/19/2019)

GROUNDWATER WELL 3 – (11/19/2019) GROUNDWATER WELL 4 – (11/19/2019)

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (11/06/2019) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (11/06/2019)

FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (11/06/2019) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (11/06/2019)

FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (11/06/2019)

Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

RANDOM VEG PLOT 6 (11/06/2019) RANDOM VEG PLOT 7 (11/06/2019)

RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (11/06/2019) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9 (11/06/2019)

RANDOM VEG PLOT 10 (10/23/2019)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Plot
Fixed Veg Plot 1
Fixed Veg Plot 2
Fixed Veg Plot 3
Fixed Veg Plot 4
Fixed Veg Plot 5
Random Veg Plot 6
Random Veg Plot 7
Random Veg Plot 8
Random Veg Plot 9
Random Veg Plot 10 N
Success Criteria Met (Y/N)Project Mean
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
70%
Y
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 10 10 10 11 11 11
Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 5 5 5 2 2 7 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 15 15 20 16 16 16
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 7 7 7 8 8 8
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 6 6 6 18 18 18 18 18 18
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7 7 7 7
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 7 7 7 8 8 8
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 15 15 13 13 18 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 71 71 76 75 75 75
7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 9
607 607 607 526 526 728 607 607 607 607 607 607 526 526 526 575 575 615 607 607 607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Includes volunteer/natural woody stems
PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all - All Planted Stems
T - All Woody Stems
VP 4 VP 5
5
0.12
Species count
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
1
0.02
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
1
0.02
5
0.12
Annual Means
MY1 (2019)MY0 (2019)
Stem count
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2
Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 4 4 2 2 1 1 7 7
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 13 13
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 6
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 2
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 0 0
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 3 3 3 3
6 6 15 15 7 7 11 11 4 4 43 43
3 3 6 6 5 5 7 7 2 2 23 23
243 243 607 607 283 283 445 445 162 162 348 348
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Te - Number of stems including exotic species
Total - Number of stems excluding exotic species
Annual Means
MY1 (2019)
5
0.12
VP 9 VP 10
1
0.02
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
1 1
0.02
1
0.02
Table 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density
Species count
Stems per ACRE
VP 6 VP 7 VP 8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1
0.02 0.02

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)Bethel Branch Mitigation Site       USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02365Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Dimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) 550.51 550.35545.35 545.41545.15 545.16Low Bank Height Elevation 550.51 550.35545.35 545.41545.15 545.16Bankfull Width (ft) 14.3 11.915.4 15.819.7 19.2Floodprone Width (ft) 100 100130 130N/A N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.91.1 1.11.6 1.6Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.51.8 1.83.4 3.3Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)13.9 10.7 17.5 17.7 31.5 30.2Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.7 13.413.5 14.012.3 12.2Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio17.0 8.48.5 8.2N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio21.0 < 1.01.0 1.0N/A N/ADimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft)540.51 540.58540.10 540.17550.02 550.02Low Bank Height Elevation 540.51 540.58540.10 540.17550.02 550.02Bankfull Width (ft) 13.6 13.915.0 12.513.2 13.7Floodprone Width (ft) 120 120N/A N/AN/A N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.01.3 1.61.0 0.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.92.9 2.72.0 1.9Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)14.3 14.4 20.0 19.6 12.9 12.8Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.9 13.411.2 8.013.5 14.7Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio18.8 8.6N/A N/AN/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio21.0 1.0N/A N/AN/A N/A1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.2Bank Height Ratio is the low bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.Cross‐Section 4 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 5 (Pool)Cross‐Section 6 (Pool)UT1 Reach 1Cross‐Section 1 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 2 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 3 (Pool)UT1 Reach 1UT2 Reach 2
Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section)Bethel Branch Mitigation Site       USACE Action ID No. 2016‐02365Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Dimension and SubstrateBase3MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft)549.83 549.92545.15 545.19548.60 548.71Low Bank Height Elevation 549.83 549.92545.15 545.19548.60 548.71Bankfull Width (ft) 7.8 7.910.6 10.17.2 9.0Floodprone Width (ft) 130 130190 190200 200Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.60.6 0.60.5 0.5Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.90.9 1.00.8 0.9Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)4.3 4.9 6.0 5.8 3.7 4.3Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.1 12.818.8 17.613.9 18.8Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio116.8 16.517.9 18.827.9 22.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio21.0 1.11.0 < 1.01.0 1.1Dimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) 548.16 548.16Low Bank Height Elevation 548.16 548.16Bankfull Width (ft) 9.1 9.3Floodprone Width (ft) N/A N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.7Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)10.3 9.6Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 9.0Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio3N/A N/A1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.2Bank Height Ratio is the low bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.3Cross‐Section 7 bankfull elevation was misjudged at As‐Built, baseline calculations were adjusted during MY1.*Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6.UT2 Reach 3Cross‐Section 8 (Riffle)UT3Cross‐Section 9 (Riffle)UT3Cross‐Section 10 (Pool)UT2 Reach 2Cross‐Section 7 (Riffle)
Bankfull Dimensions
10.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.9 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
12.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4 width-depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
8.4 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
Cross-Section 1-UT1 Reach 1
547
549
551
553
555
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
101+65 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
17.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.8 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
16.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0 width-depth ratio
130.0 W flood prone area (ft)
8.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 2-UT1 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
542
544
546
548
550
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
111+56 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
30.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.2 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
3.3 max depth (ft)
20.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
Cross-Section 3-UT1 Reach 1
540
542
544
546
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
112+00 Pool
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.9 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
14.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4 width-depth ratio
120.0 W flood prone area (ft)
8.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 4-UT1 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
537
539
541
543
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
122+02 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.5 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
14.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.0 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
Cross-Section 5-UT1 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
View Downstream
536
538
540
542
544
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
122+37 Pool
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.7 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
14.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 6-UT2 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
547
549
551
553
555
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
220+79 Pool
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8 width-depth ratio
130.0 W flood prone area (ft)
16.5 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 7-UT2 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
546
548
550
552
554
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
221+10 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.1 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.6 width-depth ratio
190.0 W flood prone area (ft)
18.8 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 8-UT2 Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
542
544
546
548
550
0 10 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
226+33 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.8 width-depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
22.2 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
Cross-Section 9-UT3
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
View Downstream
545
547
549
551
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
307+74 Riffle
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.3 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
10.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.0 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:11/2019
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross-Section 10-UT3
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Cross-Section Plots
544
546
548
550
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
307+95 Pool
MY0 (5/2019)MY1 (11/2019)Bankfull
Table 10. Bank Pin Exposure
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Upstream 0.0 (in)
Midstream 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 0.0
Downstream 0.0
Upstream 0.0
Midstream 0.0
Downstream 0.0
UT1
Reach 1
(112+00)
UT1
Reach 1
(122+30)
UT2
Reach 2
(220+70)
UT3
(307+50)
PinLocation
Monitoring Year (Date Observed)
MY7MY6MY5MY4MY3MY2MY1
(11/2019)

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Reach Date of Data
Download
Date of
Occurrence Method
UT1 11/19/2019 None
UT2 11/19/2019 None
UT3 11/19/2019 None
Monthly Rainfall Data
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 N (USDA, 2019)
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Crest Gage/
Pressure
Transducer
1 2019 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY 2 N
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19Precipitation (in)Date
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 for Siler City, NC
2019 Monthly Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Table 12. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
MY1 (2019)MY2 (2020)MY3 (2021)MY4 (2022)MY5 (2023)MY6 (2024)MY7 (2025)
1 Yes/25 Days
(10.2%)
2 Yes/34 Days
(13.9%)
3 Yes/23 Days
(9.4%)
4 Yes/47 Days
(19.2%)
1Success criterion is presence of a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive 8.0% of the growing season.
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Gage Success Criteria Achieved1/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland RE1
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Start of Growing Season3/18/2019End of Growing Season11/17/201920 days
FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Criteria Level
Bethel Branch Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland RE2
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Start of Growing Season3/18/2019End of Growing Season11/17/201920 days
FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Criteria Level
Bethel Branch Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland RE1
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Start of Growing Season3/18/2019End of Growing Season11/17/201920 days
FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Criteria Level
Bethel Branch Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland RE2
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
Start of Growing Season3/18/2019End of Growing Season11/17/201920 days
FebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Criteria Level
Bethel Branch Groundwater Gage #4
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Temperature (F)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level
Bethel Branch Soil Temperature Probe
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bethel Branch Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365
30 days
AprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
555.0
555.2
555.4
555.6
555.8
556.0
556.2
556.4
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall UT3 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Bethel Branch: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT3