20180196 Ver 1_AsBuilt (stream) 2020_20200722

ID#* 20180196 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 07/22/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/22/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180196
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
County: Durham
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: CatfishPond_100039_AB_2020.pdf 20.44MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
FINAL
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 007424
DMS Project Number 100039
USACE Action ID Number 2018-00424
NCDWR Project Number 2018-0196
Data Collection Period: March - April 2020
Draft Submission Date: June 30, 2020
Final Submission Date: July 16, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
nkt
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
%zO.*vww
WILDLANDS
E MO I N E E R ING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

XXX6111MITMVi 1/ 1l I Vi1e1 N
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Catfish Pond
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). A total of 7,140 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams were restored and
enhanced in Durham County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 3,745.200 stream mitigation units
(SMUs) when calculated along stream centerlines. The Site is located approximately 12 miles north of
the City of Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham County border (Figure 1). It is
in the Neuse River Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 and within a DMS targeted
watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201020040 and NC Division of
Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01. The Site contains Catfish Creek and 3 unnamed tributaries.
The streams drain to Mountain Creek, which flows into Little River, the Eno River, and then Falls Lake.
Falls Lake is classified as Water Supply Waters (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). The 20.73-
acre Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement.
The Site is located within the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) as discussed in the 2010 Neuse River
Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP), which highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream
restoration projects (Breeding, 2010). Current and past degradation at the Site includes an in -line pond,
extensive logging, farm road crossings, stream channelization, and livestock access to streams and
buffers.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives described in the Neuse River RBRP plan. The project goals
established include:
• Exclude cattle from project streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
The project will contribute to achieving goals for the watershed discussed in the Neuse River RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While benefits such as habitat improvement
and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, others, such as reduced pollutant and sediment loading,
have farther reaching effects.
Site construction and planting were completed in March and April 2020. As -built surveys were
conducted in April 2020. The Site has been built as designed, with a few exceptions due to field
conditions, and is expected to meet the upcoming monitoring year's performance criteria. Adjustments
were made during construction and specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1. Baseline (MYO) profiles
and cross-section dimensions closely match the design parameters, except where channel alignments
were adjusted due to bedrock in a section of Catfish Creek Reach 6 and UT1 Reach 3. Cross-section
widths and pool depths occasionally deviate from the design parameters but fall within a normal range
of variability for natural streams.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................1-1
1.1 Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach..................................................................1-2
1.3.1 Project Structure................................................................................................................1-3
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................1-3
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data...........................................................................1-4
Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................2-2
2.2 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Visual Assessment......................................................................................................................2-2
2.5 Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................2-2
Section 3: MONITORING PLAN......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................................................3-2
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Visual Assessment......................................................................................................................3-2
Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN.....................................................................4-1
4.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Site Boundary.............................................................................................................................4-1
Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)..................................................................................5-1
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings..........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Catfish Creek Reach 4.........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Catfish Creek Reach 6.........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 UT1 Reach 2.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.4 UT1 Reach 3.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment.........................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................5-1
5.2.2 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.3 Wetlands............................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.4 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................5-2
Section 6: REFERENCES.................................................................................................................6-1
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

Table 1: Mitigation Goals and Objectives — Catfish Pond Mitigation Site ....................
Table 2: Restoration Type and Approach Per Reach — Catfish Pond Mitigation Site....
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Monitoring Plan View Map Key
Figure 3a-b Monitoring Plan View Map
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 6b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 7a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 8 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Record Drawings
Appendix 6 Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
1-2
1-3
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Durham County approximately 12 miles north of the
City of Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham County border (Figure 1). From
Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 279B for NC-147 N towards Durham/Downtown.
Travel approximately 8 miles and exit onto Duke Street. Merge onto South Duke Street and continue 4.3
miles until South Duke Street merges with US-501 N/N Roxboro Street. Travel north on US-501 N/N
Roxboro Street for 7.5 miles. Make a U-turn and travel south on N Roxboro Street for 0.2 miles, turn
right on the first gravel road. Drive approximately 0.2 miles and take the first right onto another gravel
road. The Site is located at the end of the gravel road. A conservation easement was recorded on 20.73
acres.
The Site is located within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed, which is within the Neuse River Basin.
Both the Neuse River and Falls Lake have been designated as Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW). The Site is
within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201020040 and is located within the Neuse River Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) (Figure 1) as identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) (Breeding, 2010). This document highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream
restoration projects. Riparian buffers immobilize and retain nutrients and suspended sediment. The
RBRP also supports the Falls Lake watershed plan. Falls Lake is the receiving water supply water body
downstream of the Site and is classified as WS-IV and NSW.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges and elevations ranging
from 300-1500 feet above sea level. The Site topography and relief are typical for the region. The
Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The area is called
"Slate Belt" because of the slaty cleavage of many of the surficial rocks. The region's geology also
includes coarse -grained intrusive granites.
Prior to construction activities, one of the primary causes of degradation on the Site was the creation of
an in -line pond on Catfish Creek Reach 6 sometime between 1940 and 1955. In that time period
extensive logging and farm road construction also took place at the Site. Aerial photographs from 1972
suggest that portions of UT1 had been straightened for agricultural purposes. Catfish Creek above and
below the pond, UT2, and Mountain Tributary showed few signs of channel manipulation. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 and Tables 7a-b in Appendix 4 present additional information on pre -restoration conditions.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, others, such as
reduced pollutant and sediment loading, have farther reaching effects. Expected improvements to water
quality and ecological processes are outlined below as mitigation goals and objectives in Table 1. These
goals were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives described in
the RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-1

Table 1: Mitigation Goals and Objectives — Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Function(s) Supported
Reduce and control sediment
Install fencing around
inputs; reduce and manage
Exclude cattle from
conservation easements
nutrient inputs;
reduce and manage fecal
Geomorphology,
project streams.
adjacent to cattle pastures to
coliform inputs. Contribute to
Physicochemical
remove livestock.
protection of or improvement
to a Water Supply Waterbody.
Reconnect channels
Reconstruct stream channels
Raise water table and hydrate
with floodplains and
for bankfull dimensions and
riparian wetlands. Allow more
riparian wetlands to
depth relative to the existing
frequent flood flows to
Hydraulic
allow a natural
floodplain. Remove existing
disperse on the floodplain.
flooding regime.
berms to re -connect channel
Support geomorphology and
with adjacent wetlands.
higher -level functions.
Construct stream channels
Significantly reduce sediment
Improve the
that will maintain stable
inputs from bank erosion.
stability of stream
cross -sections, patterns, and
Reduce shear stress on channel
Geomorphology
channels.
profiles over time.
boundary. Support all stream
functions above hydrology.
Install habitat features such as
Increase and diversify available
constructed riffles,
habitats for
covernto
r logs, and brushstored/enhanced
macroinvertebrates, fish, and
Improve instream
re
toes into re
amphibians leading to
Geomorphology
habitat.
colonization and increase in
(supporting Biology)
streams. Add woody materials
biodiversity over time. Add
to channel beds. Construct
complexity including LWD to
pools of varying depth.
streams.
Reduce sediment inputs from
Restore and
bank erosion and runoff.
Hydrology (local),
enhance native
Plant native tree and
Increase nutrient cycling and
Hydraulic,
floodplain and
understory species in riparian
storage in floodplain. Provide
Geomorphology,
n.
zone and plant appropriate
riparian habitat. Add a source
Physicochemical,
vegetation.
vegetation.
species on streambank.
of LWD and organic material to
Biology
stream. Support all stream
functions.
Permanently
Protect Site from
Hydrology (local),
protect the project
Establish conservation
encroachment on the riparian
Hydraulic,
Site from harmful
easements on the Site.
corridor and direct impact to
Geomorphology,
streams and wetlands. Support
Physicochemical,
uses.
all stream functions.
Biology
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The Mitigation Plan was approved in July 2019. Construction activities were completed by Main Stream
Earthwork, Inc. in March 2020. Kee Mapping and Surveying completed the baseline as -built survey and
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. completed planting in April 2020. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project
activity, history, contact information, and watershed/Site background information.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-2

1.3.1 Project Structure
The project will provide 3,745.200 stream mitigation units (SMUs). Project credits have been adjusted to
include changes in stream alignment on Catfish Creek Reach 6 due to bedrock in the floodplain. Refer to
Figure 2, the Project Component/Asset Map for the stream restoration feature exhibits, and Table 1 in
Appendix 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed
conditions. The project consists of the stream restoration and enhancement activities as described
below (Table 2) and illustrated in Figure 2.
Table 2: Restoration Type and Approach Per Reach — Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Stream
Reach
Primary Stressors/Impairments
Treatment Approach
Restoration Activity
R1
Livestock Access
Enhancement Level II
Bank Stabilization, Fencing
Livestock Access, Headcut, Lack
R2
of Riparian Vegetation
Enhancement Level II
Bank Stabilization, Fencing
R3
Bank Erosion, Livestock Access
Enhancement Level II
Bank Stabilization, Fencing
Stream Channelization,
Restoration —
Plan, Pattern, Profile, Replace
Catfish
R4
Livestock Access
Priority 1
Culvert, Fencing
Creek
R5
Livestock Access Incision Near
Enhancement Level II
Step -pool Transition from
Culvert at Upper End
Reach 4 to Existing Elevation
Farm Pond, Lack of Riparian
Restoration —
Farm Pond Removal, Plan,
R6
Vegetation, Livestock Access
Priority 1
Pattern, Profile, Fencing
Bank Stabilization,
R7
Livestock Access Bank Erosion
Enhancement Level II
Constructed Riffle, Toe
Lack of Riparian Vegetation
Protection
Livestock Access Bank Erosion
Fencing, Bank Stabilization,
R1
Lack of Riparian Vegetation
Enhancement Level II
Constructed Riffles
R2
Livestock Access, Aggradation
Restoration —
Plan, Pattern, Profile, Fencing
UT1
Priority 1
Livestock Access, Culvert, Rock
Restoration —
R3
Plan, Pattern, Profile, Fencing
Retaining Wall
Priority 2
R4
Livestock Access
Enhancement Level II
Bank Stabilization, Fencing
UT2
Livestock Access, Incision
Enhancement Level II
Fencing, Constructed Riffles
Mountain
Livestock Access, Bank Erosion,
Tributary
Lack of Habitat
Enhancement Level II
Fencing, Raise Streambed
The design approach for this Site employed a combination of analog and analytical approaches for
stream restoration. Reference reaches were identified to serve as an acceptable range for design
parameters. Channels were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis. Designs were then
verified and/or modified based on a sediment transport analysis. This approach has been used on many
successful Piedmont and Slate Belt restoration projects (e.g., Underwood, Foust, Holman Mill, Maney
Farm, and Agony Acres Mitigation Sites) and is appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site.
The morphologic design parameters are shown in Appendix 4, Tables 7a and 7b for the restoration
reaches, and fall within the ranges specified for C4 and 134a streams (Rosgen, 1996). The specific values
for the design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified
with morphologic data form reference reach data sets.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-3

1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data -
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a full delivery contract with DMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project
Contacts, and Project Information and Attributes.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-4

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved standards presented in the
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Updated in October 2016 by the
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits by
qualified personnel will be conducted to assess the condition of the project. Specific performance
standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance
standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring.
2.1 Stream
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank height ratios
shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored C channels and no less
than 1.4 for B channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross -sections should fall within the parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated
to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a
vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement
toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering
channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a
movement toward stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the NCIRT
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (2016) and the 2003 USACE
and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Visual assessments and photo
documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do not indicate a trend toward
vertical or lateral instability. A longitudinal profile was conducted as part of the as -built survey to
provide a baseline for comparison should it become necessary to perform longitudinal profile surveys
later during monitoring and to insure accordance with design plans.
2.1.3 Substrate
Channel substrate materials will be sampled in the four restoration reaches (Catfish Creek Reach 4 and 6
and UT1 Reach 2 and 3) using the reach -wide pebble count method. Reaches should show maintenance
of coarser substrate in the riffles than in the pools. Riffle cross-section pebble counts were conducted
during as -built baseline monitoring and will not be conducted during annual monitoring unless
observations indicate a trend toward finer substrate and a comparison is needed.
2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control
structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable.
Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-1

2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the seven-year monitoring period.
Stream monitoring will continue until performance standards in the form of four bankfull events in
separate years have been documented.
2.2 Wetlands
Wildlands installed four groundwater wells at locations requested by the NCIRT in comments made on
June 26, 2019. One is along Catfish Creek Reach 4 and three are along UT1 Reach 2. Although there is no
pre -construction wetland data for comparison, the purpose of the data from these groundwater wells is
to assess potential impacts to existing wetland hydrology from the project. Results are not tied to
success criteria nor stream crediting. It is expected that the project will result in a net increase in
wetland quality.
2.3 Vegetation
Vegetative performance for riparian buffers associated with the stream restoration component of the
project (buffer widths 0 — 50 feet) will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued
October 2016 by the NCIRT. The success criteria are an interim survival rate of 320 planted stems per
acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3), 260 stems per acre at the end of monitoring year 5
(MY5), and a final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per acre at the end of monitoring year 7 (MY7).
Trees should also average 7 feet in height at MY5 and 10 feet in height at MY7. No one species shall
account for more than 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot at the end of
MY7.
The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the
required monitoring period.
2.4 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
2.5 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template (June 2017), the monitoring reports will include the
following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
• Monitoring Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps with major project elements noted such
as grade control structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, and crest gauges;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Site based on the cross -sections;
• Vegetative data as described above including the establishment of any undesirable plant
species;
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism; and
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-2

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, hydrologic, and vegetative data to assess the project
performance based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis until performance criteria
have been met. The performance of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream
channel's dimension, pattern, substrate composition, permanent photographs, surface water hydrology,
and vegetation. Any areas identified as high priority problems, such as streambank instability,
aggradation/degradation or lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
The problem areas will be visually noted, and remedial actions will be discussed with DMS staff to
determine a plan of action. A remedial action plan will be submitted if maintenance is required. The
monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments will follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification document (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 and
Record Drawings in Appendix 5 for monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
A total of seven cross -sections were installed along the stream restoration reaches. Two cross -sections
were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work. Each cross-section was permanently
marked with pins to establish its location. Cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in
slope; including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg to monitor any deviations in
dimension. If moderate bank erosion is observed along a stream reach during the monitoring period, a
series of bank pins will be installed in representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a
bankfull width of greater than five feet. Bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in
upper third of the pool, one at the mid -point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). If bank
pins are required, exposure will be documented during each bank assessment and bank pins will be re-
set flush with the bank. Cumulative measurements will be assessed annually to document the severity of
bank erosion. Annual cross-section surveys will be conducted in MY1, MY2, MY3, MYS, and MY7.
Photographs will be taken annually of the cross -sections looking upstream and downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring show a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the NCIRT
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (2016) and the 2003 USACE
and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Stream pattern and profile will be
assessed visually as described below in section 3.4.
3.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in the four restoration reaches (Catfish Creek Reach 4 and
6 and UT1 Reach 2 and 3) during monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 for classification purposes and to
show that riffles remain coarser than pools. Riffle cross-section pebble counts were conducted during
as -built baseline monitoring only unless observations indicate a trend toward finer substrate and a
comparison is needed.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Documentation
A total of 20 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches after
construction. Permanent markers were established so that the same locations and view directions on
the Site are photographed each year. Longitudinal stream photographs will be taken looking upstream
and downstream once a year to visually document stability. Cross -sectional photos will be taken at each
permanent cross-section looking upstream and downstream. The photographer will make every effort
to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Two automated crest gauges were installed on Site. The crest gauges were installed in surveyed riffle
cross -sections on Catfish Creek Reach 6 and UT1 Reach 2 (cross -sections 3 and 6). Crest gauge data will
be downloaded quarterly to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
3.2 Wetlands
Four groundwater monitoring wells equipped with pressure transducers were installed to assess
hydrology in wetland areas. Pressure transducers will record groundwater pressure at least twice daily.
Data from the wells will be downloaded at regular intervals and included in annual monitoring reports
for informational purposes only. Results are not tied to success criteria nor stream crediting. It is
expected that the project will result in a net increase in wetland quality. Groundwater well locations are
shown in Appendix 2 Figure 3.
3.3 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) to monitor and
assess the planted woody vegetation. A total of eight standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots
and one 5-meter by 20-meter vegetation plot were established within the project easement area, seven
fixed and two random.
Vegetation plots were randomly established throughout the planted area within the conservation
easement boundaries and five feet from the top of stream banks. Fixed vegetation plot corners have
been marked and are recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit.
Reference photographs were taken at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite
corner during the baseline monitoring in March and April 2020. Subsequent annual assessments
following the baseline survey will capture the same reference photograph locations. Planted woody
stems will be marked annually, as needed, based off a known origin so they can be found in subsequent
monitoring years.
A new center point will arbitrarily be chosen each year within the conservation easement planted areas
for the two random vegetation plots. Trees within a 100 square meter area will be measured and
assessed as described below.
Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the
entire Site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any),
and survival. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living planted
stems and the current year's living planted stems. Vegetation surveys will be conducted during
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
3.4 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream restoration and enhancement areas on a semi-
annual basis during the seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-2

instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, or
headcuts), vegetation health (i.e. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or
encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and accompanied
by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each
subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided
in the annual monitoring report.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-3

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed at the Site. A physical inspection of the Site shall be
conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until
performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify components and features that
require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following construction and may include one or more of the following components.
4.1 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual stream
assessment. Stream problems areas may include bank erosion, structure failure, beaver dams,
aggradation/degradation, etc. Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where storm water runoff flows into the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Vegetative
problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual vegetation assessment.
Vegetation problem areas may include planted vegetation not meeting performance criteria, persistent
invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, or grass suffocation/crowding of
planted stems. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
4.3 Site Boundary
Site boundary issues will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual visual assessment.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and adjacent
properties. Boundaries are marked with conservation easement signs attached to metal posts. Boundary
markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4-1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction was completed in March 2020 and as -built surveys were completed in April 2020.
The survey included developing an as -built topographic surface; as well as surveying the as -built channel
centerlines, top of banks, structures, and cross -sections. For comparison purposes, baseline monitoring
divided the reach assessments in the same way they were established for design parameters: Catfish
Creek Reaches 1-7, UT1 Reaches 1-4, UT2, and Mountain Tributary.
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
A sealed half-size set of record drawings are in Appendix 5 which includes the post -construction survey,
alignments, structures, and monitoring features. These include redlines for any significant field
adjustments made during construction that differ from the design plans. Where needed, adjustments
were made during construction based on field evaluation and are listed below.
5.1.1 Catfish Creek Reach 4
Station 113+00 culvert installed based on dimensions listed in details of construction plan
sheets.
5.1.2 Catfish Creek Reach 6
• Station 118+30 log sill removed due to stability at head of riffle and stream banks during
construction;
• Station 119+76 rock sill removed due to bedrock in channel;
• Station 119+81 through 121+90 deviation of alignment due to bedrock in floodplain; and
• Station 122+54 reach break moved upstream from 122+71 due to bedrock in channel and to
minimize tree clearing during construction.
5.1.3 UT1 Reach 2
• No significant changes made.
5.1.4 UT1 Reach 3
• Station 217+10 riffle and rock sill not constructed due to bedrock in field; and
• Station 217+38 riffle and rock sill shifted upstream 10 LF due to bedrock in field.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between March and April 2020. The first annual monitoring
assessment (MY1) will be completed in late 2020. The streams will be monitored for a total of seven
years, with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2026. The close-out for the Site will be
conducted in 2027 given the performance criteria have been met.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected in March and April 2020. Refer to Appendix 2
for stream photographs and Appendix 4 for summary data tables and morphological plots.
Profile
The MYO longitudinal profiles closely match the design profile on Catfish Creek Reach 4 and UT1 Reach
2. Bedrock within the floodplain resulted in a section of Catfish Creek Reach 6 to be realigned and some
adjustments to be made on UT1 Reach 3 but the overall slope is consistent with design. The bedrock
would not allow for as many pools as were designed, this resulted in a predominantly riffle section on
Catfish Creek Reach 6. On the design profiles, pools and riffles were depicted as straight lines with
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-1

consistent slopes. The as -built surveyed profiles are not as consistent in slope due to natural deposition,
scour, and bedrock. Pool and riffle depths and slopes are expected to be maintained near design
parameter values. The variations in slope and depth do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for
remedial actions and will be assessed visually during site walks.
Dimension
The MYO channel dimensions are within an acceptable range of the design parameters. The channels are
expected to maintain dimensions of C4 or 134a Rosgen type channels. Summary data and cross-section
plots of each project reach are included in Appendix 4.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fall within an acceptable range of the design parameters. No major changes to
design alignments were made during construction on Catfish Creek Reach 4 and UT1 Reach 2 and 3.
Catfish Creek Reach 6 had to be re -aligned between station 119+81 and 121+90 due to bedrock in the
floodplain. Pattern data will be evaluated in monitoring year five if channel dimensions or profile
indicate that significant geomorphic changes have occurred.
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along the reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates an overall
increase in substrate particle size (Appendix 4). The shear stresses calculated for the constructed
channels are within the allowable range, which indicates the channel is not at risk to trend toward
channel degradation.
5.2.2 Hydrology
Bankfull events recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the MY1 report.
5.2.3 Wetlands
Wetland data recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the MY1 report for
informational purposes only.
5.2.4 Vegetation
The MYO vegetation survey was completed in April 2020. The MYO planted density is 553 stems per acre
which exceeds the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Vegetation
plot photographs are included in Appendix 2 and summary data for each plot are included in Tables 6a
and 6b in Appendix 3.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-2

Section 6: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. Accessed at:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/FINAL%
20RBRP%20Neu se%202010_%2020111207%2000RRECTED.pdf
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, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
Accessed at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011.
Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-
Mitigation-Update.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/O/Conserving/documents/ActionPlan/WAP_complete.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Coteno 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.
Accessed at: http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2019). Catfish Pond Mitigation Site - Mitigation Plan. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh, NC.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Timberk3ke
- Project Location
----- ` 03020201010010 ; a�
--•--� County Boundary
! Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
Targeted Local Watershed t �0302020101004(
0,1020207070077—
--� 1
..-----------..—..—..—..—..—..—........ ..—..—..—.•—•..........................
mGr11 03020201010030 ~
03020201020010 i � N.
1 �
� � l
03020201020020
I
r
03020201030030
10
03020101010020
I
--------------
03020201040�I
creP4
I
I�
I�
03020201010050
'
03020201020040
. / 1
03020201020030
11
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
�'WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
I
J I
I
'1 I
1 03020201040020
I
`I
Directions:
From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham.
Take exit 279B for NC-147 N towards Durham/Downtown.
Travel approximately 8 miles and exit onto Duke Street.
Merge onto South Duke Street and continue 4.3 miles until
South Duke Street merges with US-501 N/N Roxboro Street.
Travel north on US-501 N/N Roxboro Street for 7.5 miles.
Make a U-turn and travel south on N Roxboro Street for 0.2
miles, turn right on the first gravel road. Drive approximately
0.2 miles and take the first right onto another gravel road.
The Site is located at the end of the gravel road.
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
0 1 2 Miles Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
I I I I I DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 — 2020
Durham County, NC

Project Location
_Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
® Existing Wetland
-Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
Fence
,.
`' Reach Break
Ar
Reach 3
>, ` „�
�E3={— •
_�l • 1 �14
Op
oe ,
ft,,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
0 250 500 Feet Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
I i I I I DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 — 2020
Durham County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
•
• •
Mitigation
Mitigation
Existing
Mitigation
Restoration
Reath ID
Plan
Priority Level
Ratio
Flootage
Comments
Footage
Category
Level
Footage
(X:1)
STREAMS
Catfish Creek Reach 1
115
115
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
115
Invasive Control, Conservation Easement
Invasive Control, Grade Control Structures, Planted
Catfish Creek Reach 2
323
323
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
323
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Invasive Control, Grade Control Structures, Planted
Catfish Creek Reach 3
474
473
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
474
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock
Catfish Creek Reach 4
9
374
Warm
R
P1
1.0
373
Exclusion
65
Culvert Crossing
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer, Livestock
Catfish Creek Reach 5
460
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
460
Exclusion, Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock
Catfish Creek Reach 6
466
454
Warm
R
P1
1.0
444
Exclusion, Farm Pond Drained
Invasive Control, Grade Control Structures, Planted
Catfish Creek Reach 7
,087
1,071
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
1,087
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Invasive Control, Planted Buffer, Livestock
307
263
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
263
Exclusion
N/A
UT1 Reach 1
Culvert Crossing
Invasive Control, Planted Buffer, Livestock
717
717
Warm
Ell
2.5
711
Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock
UT1 Reach 2
430
515
Warm
R
P1
1.0
520
Exclusion
Culvert Crossing
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock
UT1 Reach 3
154
149
Warm
R
P2
1.0
149
Exclusion
Invasive Control, Planted Buffer, Livestock
UT1 Reach 4
447
446
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
446
Exclusion
Invasive Control, Grade Control Structures,
UT2
412
412
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
412
Livestock Exclusion
Invasive Control, Grade Control Structures, Planted
Mountain Tributary
1,362
1,362
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
1,362
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,482.000
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
2,263.200
Preservation
Re -Establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Creation
Total*
3,745.200
"Credits have been adjusted to include changes in stream alignment on Catfish Creek Reach 6 due to bedrock in the floodplain.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Activity or Report _1W
Mitigation Plan
Data
July 2019
Delivery
July 2019
Final Design - Construction Plans
August 2019
August 2019
Construction
February -March 2020
March 2020
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
March 2020
March 2020
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
April 2020
April 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2020
March 2020
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0(
Stream Survey
April2020
June 2020
Vegetation Survey
April2020
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
2020
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
2021
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
Year 4 Monitoring
2023
December 2023
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2024
December 2024
Vegetation Survey
2024
Year 6 Monitoring
2025
December 2025
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2026
December 2026
Vegetation Survey
2026
'Seed a nd mulch R added as each section of construction R—pleted.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
497 Bramson Ct, Suite 104
Daniel Johnson, PE
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
843.277.6221
Main Stream Earthwork, Inc.
Construction Crew
631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville, NC 27320
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27630
Canady's Landscaping & Erosion
Seeding Contractor
256 Fairview Acres Rd
Lexington, NC 27295
Seed Mix Sources
Garrett Wildflower Seed Farm
1591 Cleveland Rd
Smithfield, NC 27577
Ernst Conservation Seeds, Inc.
6664 Mercer Pike
Meadville, PA 16335
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots
625 Maude Etter Rd
McMinnville, TN 37110
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Rd
Lansing, NC 26643
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Jason Lorch
919.651.9966

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name lCatfish Pond Mitigation Site
County Durham County
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36° 9' 48.03" N, 78° 54' 37.66" W
Project Area (acres) 20.73
Planted Acerage (acres of woody stems planted) 8.00
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Neuse River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201020040
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-01
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
227 (Catfish Creek- 197, Mountain Tributary- 30)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.0%
CGIA Land Use Classification
REACH
Parameters
145.6%forested, 54.2% cultivated, 0.2% wetland
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Catfish Creek
RI
R2
R3
R4
IRS
R6
R7
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
115
323
474
373
460
444
1,087
Valley Confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Confined
Confined
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Drainage Area (acres)
17
17
53
56
61
70
197
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
I
P
P
P
P
P
P
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.00
---
30.00
45.25
---
---
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-II/HQW/NSW
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
E5b/E4b
E5b/E4b
E4
Incised E6
C4b
N/A
C4b
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
E5b/E4b
E5b/E4b
E4
C4
C4b
34a
C4b
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
N/A
V
FEMA Classification
None
Zone AE
Parameters
UT1
UTZ
Mountain Tributary
R3
R2
R3
R4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
974
520
149
446
412
1,362
Valley Confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Confined
Confined
Moderately Confined
Drainage Area (acres)
75
105
107
108
32
30
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
P
P
I
I
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
31.50
1 26.00
26.00
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-II/HQW/NSW
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
E4
C6
E4b
E4b
C3b/C4b
E4b
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
E4
C4
34a
E4b
C3b/C4b
E4b
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
FEMA Classification
REGULATORY
Regulation
None
CONSIDERATIONS
Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 4134.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Catfish Pond Mitigation Plan; per the Categorical Exclusion research
and response by US Fish and Wildlife Service the "proposed action [in
this project] 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."
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Correspondence from SHPO on March 5, 2018 stated they were
aware of "no historic resources which would be affected by the
project."
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Durham County Floodplain Development Permit No. 19800041 was
obtained on October 7, 2019.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
(—): Data was not provided

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity / Length by Reach
Frequency
Catfish Creek
Reach 4
Catfish Creek
Reach 6
UT1
Reach 2
UT1
Reach 3
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Sections
1
2*
1
1
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Pool Cross -Sections
1
0
1
0
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
Year 0 (Unless Required)
Substrate
Reachwide Pebble Count
1
1
1
1
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Hydrology
Crest Gauge (Continuous Overbank
Flow Recorder)
N/A
1
1
N/A
Quarterly
Wetlands'
Groundwater Wells
4
Quarterly
Vegetation
CVS Level 2 Vegetation Plots
7 Fixed, 2 Random
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Vegetation
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Semi- Annual
Reference Photos
Photographs
20
Annual
'Groundwater well data will be collected for informational purposes only, no success criteria is associated with the wetland areas.
*Construction changes along Catfish Creek Reach 6 resulted in a riffle dominant system. Both cross -sections are riffles to be representative.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

fir
L.
W
dog id
s L
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
IIIIII
_.AftL+ # tea
n
i
J Project Location
�A ' Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetland
Fixed Vegetation Plot
`Random Vegetation Plot
" -Stream Restoration
-Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
E3 K Fence
Cross -Section
Reach Break
Crest Gauge
4- Groundwater Well
0 Photo Point
, 7 �
I
r ,
S
s }10 f
Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View Map Key
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 — 2020
Durham County, NC

Figure 3a. Monitoring Plan View Map
ON W I L D L A N D S Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 200 400 Feet
DMS Project No. 100039
1 1 1 1 I Monitoring Year 0— 2020
Durham County, NC

_
1
�
II
'
1
�Gw/4
Aff
S!
VYA
y
r
r
S
y
�
G
G
J
Ai
-f 1i.� f
(/4:
,+' ,
�g ;Q • w
4.
-f
%r'
�4.
f y
40
Alf
41,
Ad
?e -
ft,L,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
= Project Location
1P _--Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
® Existing Wetland
JW Fixed Vegetation Plot
- Random Vegetation Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project/Not for Credit Stream
�s Fence
----•Top of Bank
Structure
Cross -Section (XS)
—_ Reach Break
Crest Gauge
Groundwater Well (GW)
0 Photo Point (PP)
Barotroll
A1111;'O.Ils! IN
Figure 3b. Monitoring Plan View Map
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
0 200 400 Feet DMS Project No. 100039
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0— 2020
Durham County, NC

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek RI — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek R1— downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek R2 — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek 1112 — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3 — upstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3 — downstream (0412812020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4 — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4 — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek R5 — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek 115 — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6 — upstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6 — downstream (0412812020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

xi
s
-
_�•�. ram-
�^
-�b��n
.:
,
�
.y<`
i. � �l�}."rive-+4 �:�„
�_ .:.► -.
-..
al
' Imo• � "
<
ra` v
,�.
rye
K 4y, t
evo

PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 R1— upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 R1— downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 R1— upstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1— upstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 R1— downstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1— downstream (0412812020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 UTi R2 — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 R2 — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 R2 — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3 — upstream (0412812020)
PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3 — downstream (0412812020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

w , 4
PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib — upstream (0412812020) 1 PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib — downstream (0412812020) 1
PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib — upstream (0412812020) I PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib — downstream (0412812020)
` % Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
`9' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

FIXED VEG PLOT 1(0312612020) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (0312612020) 1
FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (0312612020) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (0312612020) 1
FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (0312612020)
FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (0312612020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs

I� Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
`�' Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY0 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 1
VP 2
VP 3
VP 4
VP 5
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Aesculus sylvatica
Painted Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
8
8
8
2
2
2
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus lyrato
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercusshumardii
IShumardOak
ITree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species counti
Stems per ACRE
14
1 14
14
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
1 6
1 6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
567
567
567
607
607
607
486
486
486
486
486
486
526
526
H52
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%
PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all - All Planted Stems
T -All Woody Stems

Table 6a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 6
VP 7
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Aesculus sylvatica
Painted Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
7
7
7
9
9
9
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
36
36
36
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus lyrato
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
4
4
4
16
16
16
Quercusshumardii
IShumardOak
ITree
7
7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species counti
Stems per ACREI
15
15
15
16
16
16
97
97
97
1
1
7
0.02
0.02
0.17
6
1 6
1 6
4
4
4
9
9
9
607
1 607
1 607
647
1 647
1 647
561
1 561
1561
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%
PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all - All Planted Stems
T -All Woody Stems

Table 6b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 8
VP 9
MYO (2020)
Te
Total
Te
Total
Te
Total
Aesculus sylvotico
Painted Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
2
2
3
3
etulo nigro
River Birch
Tree
3
3
1
1
4
4
roxinus pennsylvonico
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
lotonus occidentolis
IF
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
4
4
7
7
uercus olbo
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
4
4
Quescus shumordii
Shumard Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Viburnum dentotum
Arrowwood Viburnum
IShrub Tree
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
13
13
13
26
26
1
1
2
0.02
0.02
0.05
8
8
8
8
10
10
526
1 526
526
526
526
526
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

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish Creek Reach 4 & UT1 Reach 2
PRE -RESTORATION r DATA DESIGN
Catfish Creek UT1 UT4 UT to Varnals Catfish Creek UT1
Parameter age
G
ReacUTto Wells Creekh 4 Reach 2 (UT to Cedar Creek) Creek Reach 4 Reach 2
Catfish Creek UT1
Reach 4 Reach 2
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min I Max Min I Max
Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bank -full Width (ft)
N/A
7.0
16.7
7.3
6.2
8.6
9.3
10.5
8.5
11.5
8.1
10.0
Floodprone Width (ft)'
12.0
22.0
20.1
16.0
22.0
60.0
100.0
19.0
25.0 58.0
200.0
200.0
Bank -full Mean Depth
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.5
1.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bank -full Max Depth
1.3
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.7
0.9 1.2
1.0 1.3
1.2
1.5
Bank -full Cross Sectional Area (ft')
6.4
7.1
4.2
3.9
6.3
10.3
12.3
5.8
9.9
6.4
8.0
Width/Depth Ratio
7.7
39.5
12.6
6.1
12.6
8.1
9.3
12.6
13.4
10.2
12.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.7
1.3
2.7
1.9
4.1
5.7
10.0
>2.2
2.2 5.0
24.6
20.1
Bank Height Ratio
2.2
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
28.5
37.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.006 0.049
0.017 0.078
0.024 0.057
0.016 0.026
0.007 1 0.012
0.011 1 0.042
0.004 0.027
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.4
---
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
17.6
24.1
17.0
63.0
7.8
82.0
48.0 1 61.0
36.0
64.0
35.0
78.0
30.0
71.0
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
3.2
5.7
10.0
35.0
15.0
45.0
21.0
38.0
33.0
48.0
21.0
38.0
33.0
48.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
5.3
12.6
2.3
32.0
8.3
47.3
21.0
35.0
18.0
26.0
21.0
35.0
18.0
26.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
---
0.7
1.7
0.3
4.0
0.6
3.2
2.5
4.1
P.
2.3
2.5
4.1
1.6
2.3
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
10.2
17.0
---
---
109.0
120.0
93.0
125.0
109.0
120.0
93.0
125.0
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
0.4
0.8
1.3 4.4
1.0 3.0
2.5
4.5
2.9
4.2
2.5
4.5
2.9
4.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
___
MENEM
0.1/0.6/4.5/53/
96/x
2.9/9.2/15.0/56.0/
88.0
sc/6.69/16.0/ sc/sc/0.5/
60.9/107.3/>2048 56.9/107.3/256
SC%/Sa%/G %/C%/ B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft' 0.56 0.26 --- --- --- --- --- 0.65 0.13
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bank -full
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/A
0.09
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.41
0.09
0.16
0.09
10.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0.0%
---
---
---
0.0%
0.0%
Rosgen Classification
E6
C6
C4
C4
C4/E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bank -full Velocity (fps)
2.8
3.0
5.2
6.1
3.8
4.4 1 5.2
3.0
2.1
3.2
1.1
Bank -full Discharge (cfs)
18.0
21.0
21.7
25.8
15.0
54.0
17.0
20.6
20.6
9.6
Q-NFF regression
---
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
369 (65 crossing)
430 (60 crossing)
---
---
---
374 (72 crossing)
515 (60 crossing)
373 (72 crossing)
520 (61 crossing)
Sinuosity
1.07
1.06
1.05
1.41
1.20
1.18
1.23
1.18
1.23
Bank -full Slope (ft/ft)
0.016
0.020
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.014
0.005
0.014
0.005
' Differences between Design and As-Built/Baseline calculations are due to the ranges used in Design and field surveyed measurements used in As-Built/Baseline.
(---): Data was not provided

Table 7b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
ratfi<h Rcarh r. A I IT'I Rcarh 3
Parameter
PRE -RESTORATION
Catfish Creek UT1 Catfish Creek UT3 Catfish Creek
rUT to Henry Fork Agony Acres Reach 6 Reach 3 Reach 6
Gage Reach 6 Reach 3
(Reach 4 XS)
LIT1
Reach 3
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
N/A'
6.2 6.1
3.2
7.7
11.1
6.5
8.0
7.7
9.0
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)'
N/A'
22.0
6.3
13.3
25.2
12.0 21.0
11.0 1 20.0
30.0
100.0
60.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
N/A'
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
N/A'
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9 1.1
0.9 1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
N/A'
4.2
6.2
1.3
3.6
7.4
5.3
4.9
5.7
7.0
5.4
Width/Depth Ratio
N/A'
9.2
10.5
1 5.2
16.4
16.6
13.6
13.0
10.2
11.6
7.6
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A'
2.6
3.6
1.7
2.0
2.3
1.4 2.5
1.4 2.5
3.3
13A
9.3
Bank Height Ratio
N/A'
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
N/A'
--
34.0
50.6
--
--
34.4 1 40.6
34.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
MEOW
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A'
---
0.050 0.070
---
0.031 0.045
0.049 0.055
0.005 0.059
0.040 0.093
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A'
--
--
1.6
2.3
3.0
1.5
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A'
--
14.1 24.9
--
13.0 51.0
11.0 26.0
7.9
142.1
19.0
32.0
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A'
I
N/A'I
N/A'I
N/A'I
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A'
-
N/A'I
N/A'I
N/A'I
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/Aa
-
N/A3
N/A3
N/Aa
N/Aa
N/Aa
N/Aa
Meander Length (ft)
N/A'
-
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
Meander Width Ratio
N/A'
-
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d 50/d64/d95/d100
N/A
---
2.0/12.9/50.6/
166.1/>2046.1
16.56/32.92/50.6/
2560.3/3545.2/>2046
sc/7.10/23.2/
71.7/120.7/>2046
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
1.52
1.69 --
--
--
--
1.66
1.69
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/AQ-USGS
0.11
0.16
0.05
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.11
1 0.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0.0%
--
--
0.0%
0.0%
Rosgen Classification
---
E46
34a
33
34a
34a
34a
34a
Bankfull Velocity(fps)
--
5.1
3.6 1 5.4
4.9
4.0
4.4
4.9
3.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
21.0
12.0
37.0
21.6
26.4
20.1
Q-NFF regression
---
---
--------
M20.
extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Va ey Lengt
Channel Thalweg Length(ft)
466
154
--
--
149
444Sinuosity
---
1.10
1.10
1.04
1.02
1.05
1.02
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft)
--
0.036
0.042
0.050
0.043
0.054
0.043
0.061
1 Catfish Creek Reach 6 wasan embankment pond and thus had no existing channel characteristics.
Differences between Design and As-Built/Baseline calculationsare d ue to the ranges used in Design and field surveyed measurements used in ASAuift/Baseline.
' Pattern data is not applicablefor B-type channels.
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 1 (Pool)
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
467.55
466.93
444.72
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
467.55
466.93
444.72
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.0
8.1
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
20C
10C
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
14.4
6.4
5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
10.2
10.2
Entrenchment Ratios;N/A
A
24.6
13.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
Cross -Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Cross -Section 6 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
432.39
446.13
445.98
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
432.39
446.13
445.98
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
12.7
10.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
30
N/A
200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.7
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
7.0
1
1
1
1
1
20.1
1
1
1
1
1
1 8.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
8.0
12.4
Entrenchment Ratios
3.3
N/A
20.1
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
1.0
N/A
1.0
Cross
-Section
7 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
442.36
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
442.36
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
6C
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
5.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.3
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Ind us" Technical Work Group Memo rand um.
Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Ind us[ry Technical Work Group Memo rand um.
"Morphological survey and analysis not required for My4 and My6.

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish Creek Reach 4 - Sta 109+11 to Sta 112+8S
471
469
467
w 465
`o_
463
w
461
459
10900 10950 11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2020) ---• WS (MYO-4/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-4/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-4/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-4/2020)
•
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish Creek Reach 6 - Sta 118+17 to Sta 120+50
446
446
444
vA
Al
w 442
`O_
w 440
436
436
11600 11650 11900 11950 12000 12050
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2020) _ _ _ • WS (MYO-4/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-4/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-4/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-4/2020)
Catfish Creek Reach 6 - Sta 120+50 to Sta 122+54
439
437
435
w 433
O
w 431
AL
429
427
12050 12100 12150 12200 12250
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2020) _ _ _ • WS (MYO-4/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-4/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-4/2020) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-4/2020)
♦
a
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
I IT1 R... h 7 - It. 71 fl+7A to qt. 71 S+RQ
452
450
446
w 446
A, Ai^
____ ____
Y AA! A. •
r
_____
— ----- —
--------
—
v444
442
440
21050
21100 21150 21200
21250 21300 21350 21400 21450 21500 21550 21600
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-4/2020)
---• WS (MYO-4/2020) ♦
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-4/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-4/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-4/2020)
UT1 Reach 3 - Sta 216+49 to Sta 217+98
446
444
AA
442
w 440
`o_
w 436
t'
436
434
21600 21650 21700 21750 21600 21650 21900 21950 22000 22050 22100 22150
Station (feet)
�TW(MYO-4/2020)---•WS(MYO-4/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB(MYO-4/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MYO-4/2020) 0 STRUCTURE(MYO-4/2020) — Culvert Crossing Inlet — Culvert Crossing Outlet
I �
X
I — •
r —
♦

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 1 - Catfish Creek Reach 4
109+98 Pool
470
469
468
c
467
v
466
465
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.0 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.2 max depth (ft)
12.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 2 - Catfish Creek Reach 4
110+30 Riffle
110+30 Riffle
470
469
468

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 3 - Catfish Creek Reach 6
118+79 Riffle
447
446
445
c
444
v
443
442
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2020)
—Bankfull Flood prone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)41
0.7 mean depth (ft)
M
1.3 max depth (ft)
8.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
- - - -
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
13.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
= t
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
- -
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 4 - Catfish Creek Reach 6
121+68 Riffle
121+68 Riffle
435
434
433

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 5 - UT1 Reach 2
214+06 Pool
448
447
446
c
445
(U
444
443
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.1 x-section area (ft.sq.).
12.7 width (ft)�+,
1.6 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
14.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.0 width -depth ratio y
r.
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying -
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 6 - UT1 Reach 2
214+38 Riffle
448
447
446
c
445
v
444
443
0 10
20
30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2020)
—Bankfull
Flood prone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.0 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.4 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
_
20.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
-
-
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 7 - UT1 Reach 3
216+90 Riffle
445
444
443
c
442
441
440
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2020)
—Bankfull Flood prone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
-
6.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8 width -depth ratio
60.0 W flood prone area (ft)•
9.3 entrenchment ratio'
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish R4, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
16
21
21
21
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
0.062
0.125
21
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
22
0.25
0.50
1
2
3
3
25
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
28
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
6
34
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GPP Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2.0
2.8
34
2.8
4.0
34
4.0
5.6
34
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
36
8.0
11.0
5
2
7
7
43
11.0
1 16.0
6
1
7
7
50
16.0
22.6
4
4
8
8
58
22.6
32
3
3
6
6
64
32
45
5
3
8
8
72
45
64
12
2
14
14
86
Small
Largel
Large
64
90
5
1
6
6
92
18
2
6
6
98
180
1
99
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
J8#EDROC6K
512
1024
99
IM Large/Very Large
1024
2048
99
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
1 1
1 100
Total
60
40
100
1 100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.69
D50 =
16.0
D80. =
60.9
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
>2048
Catfish 114, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
40
u
c 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020
Catfish 114, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
n
R
40
u
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
h
0 oy o o'
ti ti °� A [o 'b y1 N11 C� .�'L p5 rak �o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p 0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish R6, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
4
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
0.062
0.125
4
0.125
0.250
4
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
7
0.5
1.0
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GPP Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2.0
2.8
7
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
8
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
9
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
10
8.0
11.0
10
11.0
1 16.0
5
5
5
15
16.0
22.6
10
10
10
25
22.6
32
9
9
9
34
32
45
11
1
12
12
46
45
64
12
12
12
58
Small
Smal
cots o Largel
Large
64
90
9
2
11
11
69
18
180
2
2
2
75
180
256
1
1
1
76
Small
256
362
76
Small
362
512
76
Medium
512
1024
76
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
76
$bflROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
14
10
24
24
100
Total
80
20
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.56
D35 =
32.92
D50 =
50.6
D84 =
2580.3
D95 =
3545.2
D100 =
>2048
Catfish 116, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
E 40
u
c 30
u
20
a
10
0
EU
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020
Catfish 116, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
n
R
40
u
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p 0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
31
36
36
36
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
38
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
40
0.25
0.50
1
9
10
10
50
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
53
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
54
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GPP Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2.0
2.8
54
2.8
4.0
54
4.0
5.6
54
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
56
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
59
11.0
16.0
5
5
5
64
16.0
22.6
4
1
5
5
69
22.6
32
6
6
6
75
32
45
4
1
5
5
80
45
64
6
6
6
86
Small
Small
Large
Large
64
90
7
7
7
93
1
8
180
2
2
2
99
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
JH#EDROC6K
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35=
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.5
D80. =
56.9
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
256.0
UT1 112, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
40
u
c 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020
UT1 112, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
n
R
40
u
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p 0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 R3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
22
25
25
25
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
26
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
28
0.25
0.50
28
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
31
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
32
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
GPP Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
2.0
2.8
32
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
33
4.0
5.6
33
5.6
8.0
2
1
3
3
36
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
38
11.0
1 16.0
3
2
5
5
43
16.0
22.6
5
1
6
6
49
22.6
32
9
5
14
14
63
32
45
8
2
10
10
73
45
64
8
8
8
81
Small
Small
�'
c0Large
Large
64
90
8
1
9
9
90
1
1
8
180
2
2
2
98
180
256
98
Small
256
362
98
Small
362
512
98
Medium512
MHEDROMOK
1024
98
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
1
1
99
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
1
100
Total
60
40
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
7.10
D50 =
23.2
D80. =
71.7
D95 =
120.7
D100 =
>2048
UT1 113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
40
u
c 30
u
20
177
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020
UT1 113, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
n
R
40
u
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p 0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish R4, Cross -Section 2
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
StLTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
22
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
22
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
30
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
36
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
42
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
54
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
62
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
74
Small
64
90
12
12
86
Small
90
128
10
10
96
�V
C0�
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
<Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
1.19
D35 =
15.03
D50 =
28.5
D80. =
85.0
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
180.0
Catfish 114, Cross -Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
er
Sand
I
1ravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
70
60
f0 50
3
40
3
u
30
u
d 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MVO-03/2020
Catfish 114, Cross -Section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
m
40
u
3
30
v
>
'v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 6L b5 �b CO yLW yp 'o0 ��ti yyti y�Lb Cobb "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish R6, Cross -Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter I
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
StLTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
6
GQP
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
23
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
36
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
47
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
61
Very Coarse
45
64
24
24
85
�V
C0�
Small
64
90
9
9
94
Small
90
128
4
4
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK <Bedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 3
Channel materials I
D16 =
8.59
D35 =
21.83
D50 =
34.4
D80.=
63.1
D95 =
98.3
D100 =
180.0
Catfish 116, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
der
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
M
M 40
u
c 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MVO-03/2020
Catfish 116, Cross -Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 6L b5 �b -O yLW "p 'o0 ��ti yyti ye Cobb "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Catfish R6, Cross -Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
StLTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
5
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
7
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
12
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
20
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
36
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
56
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
70
Small
64
90
11
11
81
Small
90
128
10
10
91
C0�
Large
128
180
4
4
95
Large
180
256
1
1
96
Small
256
362
96
Small
362
512
96
Medium
512
1024
96
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
96
Sft3R©GK
<Bedrock
2048
>2048
4
4
100
Total 1
100
100
100
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.00
D35 =
31.31
D50 =
40.6
D80. =
100.0
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
>2048
Catfish 116, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
er
Sand
ravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
70
60
f0 50
3
40
3
u
30
u
d 20
a
10
El
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MVO-03/2020
Catfish 116, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
N
m
40
u
3
30
v
>
'v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 6L b5 b CO yLW 'gyp �0 4^1 yyti y�nL �o"I b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 R2, Cross -Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter I
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
StLTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
GQP
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
11
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
17
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
21
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
31
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
44
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
57
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
76
'NNEW&
�V
C0�
Small
64
90
13
13
89
Small
90
128
7
7
96
Large
128
180
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
ESEDROCK
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
<Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 6
Channel materials I
D16 =
9.89
D35 -
25.15
D50 =
37.5
D84 =
78.9
D95 =
121.7
D100 =
256.0
UT1 112, Cross -Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
_
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
m
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MVO-03/2020
UT1 112, Cross -Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 6L b5 �b �O yLW y�0 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 R3, Cross -Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter I
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
StLTICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
GQP
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
23
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
33
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
47
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
63
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
83
�V
C0�
Small
64
90
10
10
93
Small
90
128
6
6
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
1024
99
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
1 1
100
BEDROCK <Bedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 7
Channel materials I
D16 =
11.96
D35 =
23.75
D50=
34.1
D80. =
66.2
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
2048.0
UT1 113, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
80Bedrock
70
0
60
j
50
M
m 40
u
c 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MVO-03/2020
UT1 113, Cross -Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 6L b5 �b -O yLW s 'o0 ��ti yyti ye Cobb "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MVO-03/2020

APPENDIX 5. Record Drawings

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site - Record Drawings
Durham County, North Carolina
for
Durham County, NC
Q
N
SITE
es� l.lit1B RiVBr ® ,0
Regional ;T Bahama
�� Park and
Natural Area
N �a
0 2
3 �ara�
zsn
G
, Nu,
Mason a
Rd.
i
g
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Site Coordinates
Latitude Longitude
36.163342-78.910461
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Environmental
Quality
As -Built and Record Drawings - Issued
June 18, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY
I, ___ PHILLIP B_KEE ...... CERTIFY THAT THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
PORTION OF THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM
AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION; THAT THE RECORD
DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC. FROM DIGITAL FILES
PROVIDED BY KEE MAPPING AND SURVEYING, PA AS SHOWN ON AN AS —BUILT
SURVEY FOR "WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC.", JOB #1909105—AB, DATED JUNE 05,
2020; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO
MEET THE FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS AND TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A
HORIZONTAL AND CLASS C VERTICAL WHERE APPLICABLE; THAT THE ORIGINAL
DATA WAS OBTAINED BETWEEN THE DATES OF 0313J29-04L412a_; THAT THE
CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD;
THAT ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) AND ALL
ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVD 88; THAT THIS MAP MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AS STATED IN TITLE 21, CHAPTER 56, SECTION .1606.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND
SEAL THIS 8TH_ DAY OF JUNE_, 2020, A.D.
0���
OSEAL
DocuSigned by:
T ee
e d QB4y e
Erl�i�lip PJ.cc
D965004A7692407...
�UI'�
PHILLIP B. KEE, PLS L-4647
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes and Legend 0.2
Project Overview 0.3
Stream Plan and Profile 1.1-1.19
Planting Plan 2.1-2.2
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Rd., Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Chris Roessler
919-851-9986
Surveying:
Kee Mapping & Surveying
Box P.O. 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
Phillip B. Kee, PLS
828-575-9021
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St. Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Jeremiah Dow
919-707-8280
DMS Project No. 100039
Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-00424
m
bA
Q �
O
C
a)U
I 4-j
Q
4z
o
U
^o ^
U
s
N
v7
v

/ ticb
l SyFT
F
l ?Z6' cF� P
is
SyFFT114 �T2 SHEET 1.17 4
f
� tiF�T
/ SHEET 1.2
ALBERT F. TERRY
PIN:0827-01-39-6106 CE —�
DB: 7312 PG: 627 CF
PB: 174 PG: 91
/ CE C
S x�x FFT F
/ ?3�EE
/ x
SNE�
CE
CATFISH CREEK
AS -BUILT FENCE x\
/ JACK B. PENNY, JR., RICHARD P. PENNY x —x
I & GARY W. PENNY /
PIN:0827-02-67-0407 /
ESTATE FILE: 2017 E/1493
DB: 1935 PG:
178
/ PB: 130 PG: 13838 �y
I }/CC` �
rr �
ozo
i
L
JACK B. PENNY, JR, RICHARD P. PENNY
& GARY W. PENNY
PIN:0828-02-50-6117
ESTATE FILE: 2017 E/1493
— — DB: 438 PG: 589 — —
JACK B. PENNY, JR, RICHARD P. PENNY
& GARY W. PENNY
PIN:0827-02-68-0515
ESTATE FILE: 2017 E/1493
DB: 438 PG: 590
PB: 88 PG: 44
r_x
SHEET 1.S
J� SyFF\x
16
KRISTOFER R. BUTLER & WIFE
ALICIA C. BUTLER
PIN:0828-02-60-9207
DB: 7144 PG: 831
— — — —
PB: 70 PG: 76 & PB: 195 PG: 227
1
1
Y
w
I
Lu
U
Z I
� 1,
CE—CE SCE SHEET 1.8
c �,
x —�x
\CF
0' 40' 80' 120'
(11-INrny
YVONNEMCFARLAND
PIN:0827-02-78-4579
DB: 2700 PG: 907
PB: 144 PG: 78, TRACT #3
J
VCE�CE
1
tv
1 k,
I �
,R; a Z
C F';
— — — — — — des"
zz
r� z o N
.� z wq g
w
4

500
495
490
485
480
47s
100+00
\\
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
\
\\
DESIGN GRADE
1
`
100+50 101+00 101+50
STA:101+15
END CATFISH CREEK F
ENHANCEMENT II
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK
ENHANCEMENT II
0
m � 1p1'0
n PP1
m
1 x 00
102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00
500
495
490
485
480
475
104+20
L,_
3D,3D,
tN H AN CtIVI tN I II I
STA: 100+00 BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 3 p0
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 1 20 ENHANCEMENT II o
1m ENHANCEMENT II CATFISH CREEK `� 3*00 tip D
/CE\ V_ I�
x cE CF \ 2
m cE/cE/ \CF V- Ir
z
\cF\ Im
CF I In
cF D
\CF\cF iO
\ I�
cF t
\ N
CF \CFCEI�
CECE CE \�'y-
\
cF CE CE -CE
1 CF
S- I
0' 3' 6' 9'
(1T-1)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
CARO,'�,,..
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
0
U
0
z
9
0
N

485
480
475
470
465
460
104+20 104+50
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00
485
480
475
470
465
460
108+50 108+70
x�
x�x 3D�3D�3D�3D�3D�3D�3D\ \
/
/00
107+00 i
CATFISH CREEK o 0
�\ 0 1
X PP3
r'o\
\1306CE CE
+00 \ CE ' a
� CF
STA: 104+38 CE � GE -
END CATFISH CREEK REACH 2 C,E \CF
\ ENHANCEMENT II \
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 3 /LF, o� \ ENHANCEMENT II C F\
o �
CF\
o / CF
CF
\ c \CF
0' 3' 6' 9'
(1T-1)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
10` \' �CAROR��..
t�t�• . FS%��1%��� 7�5:
pOF•.NGINEF.���•
0
U
0
z
9
w
N
O
N 7t
U�
U E

480
475
470
465
460
455
Em
\ _
DESIGN GRADE AS -BUILT GRADE
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
49" x 33" ARCH CMP
INV. IN:461.82'
108+70 109+00
109+50 110+00
1 -y�
11 STA: 109+11
END CATFISH CREEK REACH 3
1 ENHANCEMENT II
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 4
1 RESTORATION
1 &109100
_ --- --_
KO 00
1 \
01
� CE 3n
\CE
of
\CE\CC'21 �
cE\CE VP1
u�l \ CE
\CEO _
=11 cF\ AEG
F\
c
�1 cF
1 \c
1 F\
110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00
EEK
O
113.+00 -\
STA: 112+85 /
BEGIN INTERNAL CROSSING
END CATFISH CREEK REACH 4
RESTORATION ,
Ly GW 1 y
XS 2
y y y
y
� y y y
y y y
y
\ y y
y y
y
PP4
i
-v
i
i y
y y
y i y
i y
-V
i
VP8
480 0, 3' 6' 9'
cn
Q
0' 20' 40' 60' 2
z=0
(HO-ONTAL) a w
itZ
475
470
CAROR� �..
,,o�•.N
465 Eun
460
455
112+50 113+00
v
STA: 113+57
i
END INTERNAL CROSSI
BEGIN CATFISH CREED
EACH 5
O
v
/
v
°
I ��
40 LF ARC IP
W:5-
H: 3Fr' 33" L�
, a
x ;
60'INTEfjf6ALCROSSING
G7
C
a) U
NOTES:
P4
1. CULVERT INSTALLED BASED ON DIMENSIONS LISTED IN DETAILS
4-j
OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEETS.
O
4z
C) -4j
c
o
� Q
U
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa\c
N

470
465
460
455
450
44s
113+00 113+50 114+00
�O
X/
d
STA: 112+85 a0 /
BEGIN INTERNAL CROSSING / a
END CATFISH CREEK REACH 4
U
> o
X
/C)
CE—CE
49"
INV.
x 33"
OUT:
ARCH
461.44'
CMP
46
AS -BUILT GRADE
DESIGN GRADE
46,
/
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
45�
45,
44�
114+50 115+00 115+50
r
Jos
� X°o
f00 CATFISH CREEK
116+00 116+50 117+00
�'Jr
PPS
k STA: 113+57
END INTERNAL CROSSING
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 5 CE�\Cf
CE
U 40 LF ARCH PIPE\CE
W : 5-7� 49" CE / \ CE
e H: 3flr'33"
60'INTERNALCROSSING
SCE/ \cF
U / CE cF\
Y CE / CE cF
E } CE CE
cF.
0' 3' 6' 9'
(T—)
0' 20'
40' 60'
(HO-ONrnL)
/V
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
t�t�• . FS%��1%��� 7�5:
pOF•.NGINEF.���•
N

450
445
440
435
430
425
117+00
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
AS -BUILT GRADE
117+50 118+00 118+50 119+00
1 �
1
1 �
1
/ 3O
1 3O
119+50
PROPOSED GRADE
120+00 120+50
450
445
440
435
J \
430
425
121+00 121+30
------- JJ___- --------------- ------
/ — ---- - _—:
3O --
- - — ---
--
121+00
STA. 119+76: ROCK SILL REMOVED
DUE TO BEDROCK IN CHANNEL /L
STA: 118+17
00 END CATFISH CREEK REACH 5 , _ -
`�' ENHANCEMENT II _
BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH 6 _ -
v RESTORATION _ -- 4
440
_ - - 119+00 o 120+00 _440�---- - - - ---- _ f 440
--
PP6 ---- , - " _
_ -
CG " .v - - - -- - -�
110 8+pp -_,__ 445
F
1 - - -- -
-- - - - -- _-
--- ------ - - ----- - - GE ��.�445 -
_ -- — ' -
1 y
__445
- _-- _- _—
- � 445 _ -- ---- --— —, -- , ----' _ _ —� , '
---------- �----------- --- ------—' - /-G� / C " --- U
STA. 119+81: BEGIN 209 LF -- - , " GE
\ W DEVIATION OF ALIGNMENT ----
DUE ��-
CE \ Z TO BEDROCK IN ��
E"
CE\J� FLOODPLAIN GE/� ' 445,
V1 CE\CE STA. 118+30: LOG SILL REMOVED /C,/ I
\CE DUE TO STABILITY AT HEAD OF RIFFLE /GE
\CE AND STREAM BANKS DURING CONSTRUCT
vEE cF ' cE/C� CATFISH CREEK 1
—30�30
VP2
0' 3' 6' 9'
(1T—)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTES:
1. STA. 119+81 - 121+90: THE CHANNEL DESIGN WAS ALTERED
AND REALIGNED DUE TO BEDROCK THAT WAS PRESENT IN THE
FLOODPLAIN. THE REALIGNMENT RESULTED IN 209 LF OF
CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL COMPARED TO 207 LF IN THE
ORIGINAL DESIGN.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa\C
10` \' � C A R OR/ 1,
04
t�t�• . FS%��1%��� 7�5:
pOF•.NGINEF.���•
E
U
0
z
9
0
U
N

445 445
440 440
435 435
AS -BUILT GRADE
430 _ _ 430
425 ` DESIGN GRADE 425
7-
420 PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND. 420
415 ` ` 415
410 4410
121+30 121+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50
I
O
N�----- ----- -------------
--� --------------------3D 3D 3D — 3D —
Q 3D-33'�� 3D-3D-3D-3D-3D
- _ __ 3z �� --------�
----- ----
W, -- - ___------------------------- - --__
" ---
- 435 - __ _ STA. 121+90: END 209 LF ('' �/
- __--- - _DEVIATIONOFALIGNMENTDUE `CATFISH CREEK
Q 435 ,,,- FLOODPLAI TO BEDROCK IN N
--
- - - - - - ----- _
43g - - - 123+00
--- 440 -_435--- ---- -
- �-- -_ _ _ STA: ""z�122+54
- �-'� �" END CATFISH CREEK REACH 6
-- ----------- -- - _ RESTORATION
`
440= ------ BEGIN CATFISH CREEK REACH
-�-----� �--
ENHANCEMENT II
_ CE ----CE --__ CE-----C�,CE
------------ m
----445- n
I
I
Io
—3D-3D-3D-3D-3D-3D-3 �I�Lr) 3D-3-
N
IQ
IN
Iw
Iz
I=
U
H
i 12SX QC
,Op IC
I
I
I
I
I
c�
/ �CE
CE�CE_
0' 4' 8' 12'
(1T—)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
a�
NOTES:
1. CATFISH CREEK REACH 6 END MOVED UPSTREAM FROM
STATION 122+71 to 122+54 DUE TO BEDROCK IN CHANNEL
AND TO MINIMIZE TREE CLEARING DURING CONSTRUCTION.
2. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
CARORII�,,
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
E
N

420
415
410
405
400
395 �--
125+50
GROUND
DESIGN GRADE
126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 128+00 128+50 129+00
420
415
410
405
400
395
129+50 129+70
\a�
33 — 31 — 30 33 — 30 — 30 33 — 3J
3J3J3J3J3J3J�3J3J3J�
3J3J3J3J3J3J3j_/�O�\���%
I �ti
o
I CATFISH CREEK \� $1IZ
126+00 ---^�
y
127+00 IzB-V\ y
----'--- — --�T x
00 y
129+00 -V \ y
+ I -V — y y -VLn -V
lV I y V -V y \ y
Q I y PP8 -V y y y y y
H y -V -Vy -Vy \ y
N I y y y y -Vu1 -V -V -V -V -V
-VZ -V -V -V
y
y
�CE�CIE y y 6
�CECE�CECECECECE ��C, Cl.
�I
CECECECECECECE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE�C
I
I
0' 3' 6' 9'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
�HORizorv.ay
N�
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
10` \' �CAROR/04
�..
t�t�• . FS%��1%��� 7�5:
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
E
w
N

410
405
400
395
390
385 4--
129+70
ON GROUND
130+00 130+50 131+00 131+50 132+00 132+50 133+00 133+50
3J � 3D1
3J-3J�3J�3J�3J�3J� �
I 3J � 3J 1
3J3J3J- 3J 3J�
I 3j - 3J-3J-3J�3J�3J�3J� v
I w
OGA I
VP3
Hq v
I "E� CATFISH CREEK
1
v' U
v. 133+00
� � I
O
a)
fV
W `F
Z f \ CE v
2�U SCE \ .
� I
Q
�I
I
I
-CE CE CE CE CE CE
132+00 END CATFISH CREEK REACH 7 J 1
ENHANCEMENT II v
1
U
1
CE
-CEE
� CE
� CE
-CE�CE
� CE
� CE
� CE
� CE
CE�CE
410
0' 2' 4' 6'
w T—) V
Q
0' 20' 40' 60' 0 2
(10-ONTAQ a w
�w oN�
405 N Q� q
400
CAROR� �..
t�t�• . FS aa��JJ,,O0�� 7�5:
395 pOF•.!�'NF.�. `tS�
390
---� 385
134+00
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
N

465
460
455
450
200+00
\
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
1
DESIGN GRADE
200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00
202+50
203+00 203+50
- 465
- 460
- 455
450
204+00 204+20
I I I
I
i
3 303D30-3I _3J_3U_
�D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 30 30 30 30 0� �30 30 30 31D 3D 3D 3D T 3 a
I
\ GHA m m
\k x N I
VP4
N - N I
STATION 203+15 STATION 203+57
STA:200+52 PP10 BEGIN INTERNAL CROSSING END INTERNAL CROSSING
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1 VEG
200+00 ENHANCEMENT II m m I
N N
201+00
7 203+00 -
i
N
,x
UT1 x I�
--y I I N
m m Iw k i
N N Ij
\ CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE
CE CE CE\ IF—
CE�CCE�CE
I C CE
\ I I I
0' 2' 4' 6'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
1
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 ac
1.15 1.17 oJc•t,
1.2 C� Catfish Cree 1.4 k
1.9
1
7 1.13
1.12
CAROR� �..
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
N

460
455
450
445
204+20
PRE -CONSTRUCTION
GROUND
DESIGN
GRADE
204+50 205+00 205+50 206+00 206+50 207+00 207+50 208+00
460
455
450
445
208+50
0' 2' 4' 6'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
JJ
NOTES:
LL LL LL L L LL \ I 1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
" REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
o� � � � � � � � � � � �J to
L'
r1j+ 00
OI \ Irli 3D 3D
fV \ 3D�3D Q
3D�3D� H
N I m JJ
3D�3D�3D� IN
3U - 3U - 3U - 3U L 3D �3D i
IW
z
JI I
_ u
~I PP12 IQ
PP11
°°° °
206+00 LL LL
03+00
Sheet Index
208+00
L L LL LL LL L LL L LL L LL LL L I L L 1.19
1.18
l�
LL LL L LL L UT1 wa
1.14LL LL LL LL L LL L LL LL LL LL
1.v �c
GT2 1.z Catfish Cre
� � � � � � � � � � � I� I� I� � � � LL� ILL� ILL� ILL LL1.a 1.s I� I ek
I � � 1.6
I CE CE CE — 1.11.3 1.7
1.8
L LL L LL L L LL LL C- I 1.13
L v- IL L / I Jay 1.12
— CE CE + CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE I 1.11
CF CE / 1.10
1.9
CAROR� �..
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
U7
r�r
I --I
O
te�a/) u
I-- 4-j
o
4z
o-4j
ct
C)
u
o �
� Q
u
N
•
z
z
o
1� o
us

455
450
445
440
208+50
PRE
-CONSTRUCTION
GROUND
AS-BUILTGRADE
DESIGN
GRADE
v
—
_
209+00 209+50 210+00 210+50 211+00 211+50 212+00
I
3J3J3J I(3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J3J
I \
VPS �O
PP12 I /
I �F
G
c � L
STA: 210+74
END UT1 REACH 1
ENHANCEMENT II
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2�
RESTORATION ,
3J3J--7--3J 3J3J 3J3J
PP13
7
VP9
212+50
k
0' 2' 4' 6'
wE acne) V1
Q
455 0' 20' 40' 60' �'"
z=0��y
oR=o ,n, it w
oN
2
450
CARORII�,
04
t�t�• . FS%��1%��� 7�5:
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
445
440
213+00
1+00 � �-- �
0
09+ 00
� k k k c k : 212t0 p
Ick V
UT1
� �
WI� '1 -4,�k
/CE �ICECECECEGW2 �I k k C7k
V
�I CE�CECECECE I
_CE_CE_ �I
— CE � G W 3
I � CE CE �
I � CE CE CE k � CE � `J3/1
CE CE CE CE
E CE
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
N

450
445
440
435
213+00
DUAL
INV.
49" x
INV. IN
IN
33" ARCH
LEFT:443.14'
RIGHT:443.03.
CMP
DUAL
INV.
INV.
49"
OUT
OUT
x 33"
LEFT:442.89'
RIGHT:442.99'
ARCH
CMP
AS -BUILT GRADE
DESIGN
GRADE
\
\/
\
213+50 214+00 214+50 215+00 215+50 216+00
_
J3J3j— I 3J-3j_O� =0 33
\
3J
/ I 33--33--\ J
NI 3J—
31 �O C
<I — 31
�31
VP9 Lu
I 3J mfN
Ic Ic CG 7
GW2 k O / PP14 o
AEG I GW4 k,- °m
G W 3 1c 1c \
Ic I Ic �VP6
k I UT1 \ ��
CE CEO `03A _� — —► — CE
E
EEC CE�CE \
�CE_—�
CE ` CE � CE CE CECE� \
' `CE�CE`CE�CE�CE�CE \
216+50 217+00
0' 2' 4' 6'
450
Q
0' 20' 40' 60'
oR=o ,a, it w
o"
445
440
435
217+50
STA: 216+49 - ---__- - - _
---- ------
BEGIN UT1 REACH 3--_____ 445 ---_-—
---------
___ RESTORATION "1 " "445 _-
_ — —
STA. 217+38: RIFFLE AND - ---- —�
ROCK SILL SHIFTED 1
UPSTREAM 10 LF DUE TO f-CE _
/V-
fN BEDROCK IN FIELD - ----"- -
El
31 F DUAL ARCH PIPE +
W. F I�
H: 33
`� /` I Q
N
/ W
� � z
U
I�
I
{ I
I
x \
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
CAROR� �..
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
N
N
�z

445
440
DESIGN GRADE
435
r
AS -BUILT DE
430
425
420
217+50
218+00
GROUND
218+50 219+00 219+50 220+00
a50--------
J
�I
9
+o
—' 2
1
- UfHANCEMENTII
v �\
v �\
/ VGA
\ Xs0
\ CF
\ CF
\cF\
CF
\CF\
CF
\ CF
\cF\
CF
220+50
445
440
435
430
425
--+ 420
221+00
0' 3' 6' 9'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
�HORizorv.ay
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
CARo, ,,
t�t�• . Ey
pOF•. �GINEF. ��
N
s
vz
o A

515
510
505
500
495
490
\
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
\
\
485
300+00
300+50 301+00 301+50
302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 304+00
515
510
505
500
495
490
485
304+20
x i
x x o
X 3U X /rV
M
y
302+00 /� \
/m
STA: 302+35 /2 �
m BEGIN UT2 f J y
ENHANCEMENT II ,I~ y
/ PP17 / Q
/ 303+00
m /
UT2 /
rr
/
/
0' 4' 8' 12'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
PEM
(HORIZONTAL)
N�
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
CARORII�,,
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
N
1111M
o A

490
485
480
475 �--
304+20
N GRADE
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
304+50 305+00 305+50 306+00
490
485
480
­4 475
306+50
NI
PP3 /
_3-1
k
/ �3J
STA:306+47
PP17 I END UT2
ENHANCEMENT II
C�
305+00
3o3ko� O
Q � �
a
�I
UT2 jw
Z �
CxE u
I
op �
0' 2' 4' 6'
1uE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
10` \' �CAROR/04
�..
t�t�• . FS�a1��� 7�5:
E
0
U
0
z
9
N
1111m
�A

500 `
495
490
485
480
475
400+00
400+00
N GRADE
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
500 0' 3' 6' 9'
T-) V
Q
0' 20' 40' 60' 0it
Z
495 Q 6 � o. r,
490
CAROR� �..
pOF•.NGINEF. ��
485
480
U7
475
400+50 401+00 401+50 402+00 402+50 403+00 403+50 404+00 404+20
Cl.
+ CE � CE �
x`CE�CECE CE
T
x CE- CE-CE-
U CE �X �� SCE-CE-CE�CE-CEO CEO
k/
I
U
I STA: 400+89
BEGIN MOUNTAIN TRIB
v ENHANCEMENT II 404+00NO
I /
xp0
Np3
I PP18
x/ o
(V
I�
MOUNTAIN TRIB I`r'
w
ICE
H
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 xa�C
e
O
u
0
Iffie
N

485
480
475
470
465
460
404+20
48,
1
DESIGN GRADE
47
47,
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
V�
`
I
\
.►�
\
�\
46
Al.
L-F
46,
404+50 405+00 405+50 406+00 406+50 407+00 407+50 408+00 408+50 408+80
..,may-VU
404+00
ce
ce
\ CF U
c) \ \OTx }
110
O 408+00
/ 406+00
0' 3' 6' 9'
wE acne) V1
Q
0' 20' 40' 60' 0 2 �'!
z=�
oR=o,n,�aw _
N
�2 �H
CARORII�,,
t�t�• .
pOF•.NGINE.. c,-
'o,,FRE
NOTES:
1. SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ENHANCEMENT II REACHES.
REACHES WERE BUILT PER DESIGN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Sheet Index
1.19
1.18 Q
1.16 a�C
1.15 1.17 oJc•t,
1.2 C� CatfiS6 Cree 1.4 k
0
U
0
z
N
O
7
7�
N
1.7
1.8
1.13
maH
u
1.12
•
z

465
460
455
450 4---
408+80
DESIGN GRADE
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GROUND
409+00 409+50 410+00 410+50 411+00 411+50 412+00 412+50
465
460
455
--+ 450
413+00
I\ +
xC� OF \ cF
OI I+
�E �F
oro
f ��/`�/ \`F\�F Id-
C Clzj" OF \ I H
OFfuj
ZCF�CE
W
zl E
J
o U
uI bti° ICQ
QI PP20
q I C
�I MOUNTAIN TRIB
I I
409+00 k
k 9 �
3J � �O
I / 3J \ 3J
/�O \ 3J \
3J
/ 3J
3J
0' 2' 4' 6'
wE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
Sheet Index
1.19
1.16 xa�C
10` \' � C A R OR/ 1,
04
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
E
w
N
W
•
1111m
p� p

\�J \ 4c
�J 4c
�J \
460
455
450
44s
413+00
PRE
-CONSTRUCTION
GROUND
413+50 414+00 414+50
\cF\ l
CFX
CE- CE
CF-CE�CE�
/
/
/ MOUNTAIN TRIB
------------ -
Q /
~ / VP7
/
/
/
460
455
450
445
414+80
STA: 414+51
END MOUNTAIN TRIB
ENHANCEMENT II
0' 2' 4' 6'
1uE acne
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
G�2
Sheet Index
f1.19
1.18 ,Q
1.16 xa�C
CAROR� �..
t�t�• .
pOF•.!�'GINEF. ���
E
N
1111m

I
I
1
1
�
1
1
I
- 1-IMAIN TD,n
Zone 2 - Buffer Planting Zone
(Upland)
tttttttttttj1
1 LLLLLLLLLLL Zone 2 - Buffer Planting Zone
ILLLLLLLLLLL (Wetland)
I
I
I
I
I
I
fN
i
f
.50' 300' 450'
— — (Hoaizorvra�)
•moo• 048 2
m
bA
O
O
a) U
0
} O
o
ct
o
U
o �
UO
A
a

APPENDIX 6. Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report

Buffer Baseline
Monitoring Report
July 2020
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 007424
DMS ID No. 100039
DWR Project Number 2018-0196
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
RFP #: 16-007279
a:7:1]_10:111tik;
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
BUFFER BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 007424
DMS ID No. 100039
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Wft.,
W ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
This Baseline Monitoring Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the
following:
• 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers.
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Chris Roessler, Project Manager Daniel Taylor, Construction Administrator
John Hutton, Principal in Charge Tasha King, Monitoring Lead
Jason Lorch, Baseline Monitoring Plon Andrea Eckardt, Lead QuolityAssuronce

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Mitigation Project Summary....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions.................................................................................................. 1
2.0
Determination of Credits.........................................................................................................2
3.0
Baseline Summary...................................................................................................................2
3.1 Parcel Preparation........................................................................................................................ 2
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities............................................................................................. 2
3.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities......................................................................................... 3
4.0
Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria...........................................................................3
4.1 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Overview Photographs................................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Visual Assessments.......................................................................................................................4
4.4 Annual Reporting Performance Criteria.......................................................................................4
4.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans........................................................................................... 4
5.0
References..............................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 4
Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel Site Map
Figure 5
Monitoring Plan View Map Key
Figure 5a-b
Monitoring Plan View Map
Table 1
Buffer Project Attributes
Table 2
Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table 3
Monitoring Components
Appendix 2 DWR Correspondence
NC Division of Water Resources - Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset Letter — March
13, 2018
Appendix 3 As -Built Survey
Appendix 4 Overview Photographs
Appendix 5 Permit Approvals
Appendix 6 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 4 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page i July 2020

Mitigation Project Summary
The Catfish Pond Buffer Mitigation Site (Site) is a riparian restoration project located in Durham County
approximately 12 miles north of the City of Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange
County/Durham County border (Figure 1). Figure 2 depicts the service area of the Site which includes
the Falls Lake watershed in the Neuse river basin. A conservation easement comprised of 20.73 acres
along Catfish Creek and three unnamed tributaries was recorded on the Site (Figure 3). Before
construction, the majority of the Site was used as cattle pasture, with some forested riparian areas. In
addition, Catfish Pond was a significant source of degradation on Catfish Creek. The project is expected
to generate 523,358.865 riparian buffer credits.
The Site is within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201020040 and North Carolina Department of
Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-04-01. Two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) drain to Catfish
Creek, which drains to Mountain Creek, and one unnamed tributary (Mountain Tributary) drains directly
to Mountain Creek. Mountain Creek flows into Little River, the Eno River, and then Falls Lake. Falls Lake
is classified as water supply waters (WS-IV) and nutrient sensitive waters (NSW).
1.1 Project Goals
The major goals of the riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Neuse River Watershed within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed by creating
a functional riparian corridor and restoring the riparian area. The project supports specific goals
identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities Plan (RBRP) for the Neuse River Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW). This document highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream
restoration projects. Forested riparian areas immobilize and retain nutrients and suspended sediment.
The RBRP also supports the Falls Lake watershed plan. Falls Lake is the receiving water supply water
body downstream of the Site and is classified as WS-IV and NSW. Specific enhancements to water
quality and ecological processes are outlined below:
• Exclude cattle from project streams — Fencing has been installed around project areas adjacent
to cattle pastures.
• Decrease nutrient levels — Filtering runoff from the agricultural fields through restored native
riparian zones. The off -site nutrient input is absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through
restored floodplain areas, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation.
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations — Riparian areas will
create additional long-term shading of the channel flow to reduce thermal pollution.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation — Planted native tree species in riparian zone
where tree growth was insufficient.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses — Established a conservation easement
on the site.
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions
The riparian restoration project includes 20.73 acres of cattle pasture and riparian forest along Catfish
Creek and the three unnamed tributaries that drain into the Neuse River Basin. Prior to construction, the
primary degradation of Catfish Creek was the creation of Catfish Pond sometime between 1940 and
1955. In that same time period extensive logging and farm road construction also took place. Aerial
photographs from 1972 suggest that UT1 had been straightened for agricultural purposes. Catfish Creek
above and below the pond, UT2, and Mountain Tributary showed few signs of channel manipulation.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 1 July 2020

Two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) drain to Catfish Creek, which drains to Mountain Creek, and
one unnamed tributary (Mountain Tributary) drains directly to Mountain Creek. Catfish Creek, UT1, UT2,
and Mountain Tributary are all jurisdictional streams. The buffer project attributes are listed in Table 1,
located in Appendix 1.
On May 13, 2018, NCDWR conducted on -site determinations to review features and land use within the
project boundary. The resulting NCDWR site viability letter and map confirming the Site as suitable for
riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation is located in Appendix 2. Catfish Creek and the three
unnamed tributaries are appropriate for buffer and nutrient offset mitigation as related to the rules set
forth in the Neuse Buffer Mitigation Rules: Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and
Maintenance of Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B .0295) and Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC 02B
.0233).
Determination of Credits
The project is expected to generate 523,358.865 riparian buffer credits, through buffer restoration and
buffer enhancement via cattle exclusion, per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15A NCAC 02B
0.0295 (o)). There is also potential to convert some buffer credits to nutrient offset credits, dependent
on the need. Mitigation credits are presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 3 (Appendix 1).
Calculations are based upon the as -built survey included in Appendix 3.
In the Mitigation Plan, 0.1 acres of buffer restoration credits were removed around Ditch D because it
did not meet the requirement to maintain diffuse flow throughout the buffer. With the addition of
Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel (DWR Project Number 2018-0196v2), this deduction is no longer
necessary. The Catfish Pond II conservation easement completely encompasses Ditch D allowing for
diffuse flow. Fencing has been installed around Catfish Pond II (Appendix 1, Figure 4).
3.0 Baseline Summary
The Wildlands Team restored high quality riparian areas along Catfish Creek and three unnamed
tributaries on the Site. The buffer and nutrient offset mitigation took place in conjunction with Catfish
Pond Stream Mitigation. The project design ensured that no adverse impacts to existing riparian areas
occurred. Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual design for the Site. Detailed descriptions of the restoration
activity follow in Sections 3.1 through 3.4. Overview site photographs are included in Appendix 4.
3.1 Parcel Preparation
Prior to stream construction, the Site was cattle pasture, with livestock having access to all streams
causing streambank erosion. UT1 was also channelized to maximize land use. Catfish Pond was removed
during stream construction and the four streams were restored and/or enhanced. The approved permits
are included in Appendix 5. During stream construction, invasive plants were targeted and removed to
reduce native competition. Soil amendments were added to certain graded areas after construction as
directed by soil test results. Amendments included agricultural lime, slow release fertilizer, and soil
conditioners (humic acid, organic material, soil biota stimulants). Haul roads and other high trafficked
areas were also ripped to a depth of 18" where possible to reduce soil compaction.
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
The revegetation plan for the riparian restoration area included permanent seeding and planting bare
root trees. These revegetation efforts were coupled with the select treatment of invasive species to
control their population. The species composition planted was selected based on the desired community
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 2 July 2020

type, occurrence of species in riparian areas adjacent to the Site, and best professional judgement. The
total number of tree species planted across the buffer areas are as follows: sycamore (Plotonus
occidentolis) 1,207 stems, river birch (Betulo nigro) 927 stems, green ash (Froxinus pennsylvonico) 646
stems, Shumard oak (Quercus shumordii) 646 stems, swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michouxii) 646
stems, willow oak (Quercus phellos) 646 stems, white oak (Quercus olbo) 365 stems, overcup oak
(Quercus lyroto) 365 stems, and 55 stems each of arrowwood viburnum (Viburnum dentotum), smooth
serviceberry (Amelonchier loevis), and yellow buckeye (Aesculus flovo). Additionally, 350 stems each of
silky dogwood (Cornus ommomum) and silky willow (Solix sericeo) and 100 stems of elderberry
(Sombucus conodensis) were planted along streambanks. In total, 6,413 stems were planted across the
site.
Trees were planted at a density sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five years. An appropriate seed mix was applied as
necessary to provide temporary ground cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during
rain events in disturbed areas. This was followed by an appropriate permanent seed mixture. Tree
planting was completed in March 2020.
Vegetation management and herbicide applications are being implemented as needed during tree
establishment in the restoration areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that could compete
with the planted native species.
3.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities
Fencing was used to exclude cattle throughout the entire project as allowed by 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o)
and minimal work was done on the streams through the enhancement areas. Fencing was built to
incorporate the conservation easement for Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel as shown in Figure 4.
The enhancement area has been protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement.
Annual Monitoring and Performance Criteria
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in Request for Proposal (RFP) 16-007279 and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A
NCAC 02B .0295). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the
condition of the finished project. The riparian restoration project has been assigned specific
performance criteria components for vegetation that will be evaluated throughout the five-year post -
construction monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria and monitoring components follows.
Monitoring components are included in Table 3 and vegetation plots are depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix
1).
4.1 Vegetation
Performance Standards for the Site will be based on the health and survival of a minimum density of 260
trees per acre after five years of monitoring, with a minimum of four native hardwood tree or shrub
species composition and no one species comprising more than 50 percent of stems. Height, visual
assessment of damage, and vigor will be used as indicators of overall health. Desirable volunteer species
may be included to meet the success criteria upon DWR approval. The extent of invasive species
coverage will also be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the required five-year monitoring
period.
Seven fixed 100 square meter vegetation monitoring quadrants were installed across the Site to
measure the survival of the planted stems (Figure 5) with a mean of 561 stems per acre (Table 4).
Vegetation monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008). All planted
stems were marked with flagging tape and a reference photograph was taken from the southwestern
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 3 July 2020

corner of each vegetation plot during vegetation assessments. Each year, trees will be re -marked and
plot photos will be taken along with overview photographs of the Site. Appendix 6 includes the baseline
(MYO) vegetation plot planted and total stem counts, as well as plot photographs.
4.2 Overview Photographs
Photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document stability for five
years following construction. Baseline overview photographs are included in Appendix 4.
4.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the performance standards for each metric as described above.
Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi-annual basis during the five-year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species, or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed
accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during
each subsequent visual assessment.
4.4 Annual Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and
Annual Monitoring Report Template version 2.0 (2017), monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of
each monitoring year and submitted to DMS. The monitoring period will extend five years beyond
completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met.
4.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The conservation easement has been properly and accurately marked by adding witness posts with
easement placards along the easement boundary and at every corner. Adaptive management will be
performed during the monitoring years to address minor issues as necessary. If during annual
monitoring it is determined the project's ability to achieve performance standards are jeopardized,
Wildlands will notify and work with the DMS/NCDWR to develop contingency plans and remedial
actions. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously
and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria (if applicable).
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 4 July 2020

References
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. Accessed at:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/FINAL%2
ORB RP%20 Neu se%202010_%2020111207%2000 RRECTE D. pdf
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey. Accessed at:
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2017.
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report Template version
2.0 Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%
20and%20Template%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon_Template_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2000. 15A
NCAC 02B .0233 Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and
Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers. Accessed at:
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0233.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2015. 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers. Accessed at: http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011.
Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2019). Catfish Pond Mitigation Site — Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh,
NC.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Buffer Baseline Monitoring Report
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 5 July 2020

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Project Location
Conservation Easement
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Slate �o+est Rd
V
Y
Y
C�
D
}'F�4rr;s
Bahama r
+2d
n
C.�eni9e Hopkins Rd
°s
r
Al
�0
'JfoG a 5JO ft G
L�le
Rives Park
2
c
3
r
O
n
f
f GAS
501John Jories/i�t
�
pp
O
Y
¢r4
y ',
ILI,
ir
D)
r ---,;,4CID
l _
O
I to
N
o
,.
d
�
1
U
WILDLANDS 0 0.5 1Miles
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

Il I
Frx,
i
lib P? - I"
I
1
Upper
I
nt5a
Falls Lake
d
Watershed
j
I
�
j�Hrrtnar
j
"a
j..1
Durham
G-t
I ur ! oro
B Everett
Jordan
Lake
1
Cary
1
Ape
�v
Holly
pangs
�.—..—; County Boundary
Service Area - Riparian Buffer Credits (HUC 03020201)
Service Area - Nutrient Offset Credits (Falls Lake Watershed)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Falls Lake �-
Watershed
w -
i
Raleigh Knightdale ';Jendel
Louisburg
1 4
•��'�.
/ -.
��.. �•
% Selma
`rniEMreld
/ Ra—
IJ r1
Fkck
�• - date Park
3 �....
�r4i
f
/
iiuies
r
/
Creek
Lilhngton
Coats
f�1
k•t� t�
Erwin
969
—
[, I Inn �� ♦ ^
% •
Walkerlown
�f
�Y�
�,R
I-r ltrl L d.
r
4e'r
4
I WILDLANDS 0 5 10Miles P
ENGINEERING I I I I I d'
-MV tf I
Figure 2. Service Area Map
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

c v!
� � ,•.ter 1 �' �
O
_1111W 11 . 9 -,
4 17-
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
}
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
5
Project Features
Project Stream
Project Ditch
Project Ephemeral Channel
} `J
Non -Project Stream/Channel
Mitigation Approach
g pp
Buffer Restoration (TOB-49')
Buffer Restoration (TOB-50')
- Buffer Restoration (51'-100')
- Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
'' f • •�
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (TOB-50')
►
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (51'-100')
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (101'-200')
No Credit
tt U Fence
,�a
�: A •
rf-..- oaf„s `' €Zr. "fir s
1 v 40
A �F
�'
a
Figure 3. Project Component/Asset Map
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
I I I I I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

Project Location
® Catfish Pond Conservation Easement
Catfish Pond II Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
1 Project Stream
Project Ditch
Project Ephemeral Channel
*� Non -Project Stream
' e tt tt Fence
�
I
� •t
Il
�A01
y�X
4,0
,� � L✓. 1 ram.
k A ra r
�� .a 1
�• y- ;�'.fY�-.r., ... , +ifs'-�
Figure 4. Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel Site Map
W I L D L A N D S Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 250 500 Feet Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
t� I I I I I t�l Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

4
I
W`�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
I I I I I
Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Project Features
Project Stream
Project Ditch
Project Ephemeral Channel
`J
Non -Project Stream/Channel
Mitigation Approach
Buffer Restoration (TOB-49')
'
Buffer Restoration (TOB-50')
- Buffer Restoration (51'-100')
M
- Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
*�
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (TOB-50')
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (51'-100')
tr
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (101'-200')
No Credit
r ,/s
Vegetation Plot `.
}
tt tt Fence
* �
:.alp
• �:
!• 141
,
s V
i
L A
0
Figure 5. Monitoring Plan View Map Key
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

Figure 5a. Monitoring Plan View Map
WILDLANDS
E N G! N E E R I NG 0 200 400 Feet Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
I ! I ! I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

•at •wP♦J®.r�PP.♦PPP P ® rgT.., ,
• i41
�._" ♦�♦ �... °PPP♦ � v , t
".`a - , t � .r ws r�,:•••sir• was • w♦
" � _-. � ., w 9"+. d4�r1' 4 i�� wlwsc® ., e•.s .91, P,�abe+'.� z� ;
� - �' . '3 =- � -v �? `� " � - • � -- '3 : _- ii' f. •� „+ { ` + P�i�►�e°�A`°.-
PsrA 1
'41
1
p�P♦ •1 w°♦ ' 9 P° fJP° °�°raci♦g • r
� l ..,_� "r 'S- .i,•�°JI"O<rA°19 �°9°♦��9°♦°•°9''^A ,
•' Y
PO
4t
r � / e 1•P•CA
�f % s -o° ±9�9e♦!� r�' Project Location
Conservation Easement
,1 V �i��y, * t Internal Crossing
-
e•♦s
' ,' �' ',� .♦ P+`�♦ Project Features
.. , 't °_ :� �An9e•�♦P° •�P�I:i@' Project Stream
y . �� , ` r p�Q,.♦° Pr'• _ y Project Ditch
K�a•� �y.,+,+ �_� Project Ephemeral Channel
_ l► r
Non -Project Stream/Channel
L,+
�+ Mitigation Approach
Buffer Restoration (TOB-49')
Buffer Restoration (TOB-50')
♦PPI; �, r - Buffer Restoration (51'-100')
0 . 1 • w e ' ! 4r , , ' , °+ova° , 7 y Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
' d Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (TOB-50')
F-
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (51-100 ) '�
Buffer Enhancement Via Cattle Exclusion (101'-200')
--
�� =
} No Credit
= Vegetation Plot
9 Fence
Figure 5b. Monitoring Plan View Map
ft,,WILDLANDS Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 200 400 Feet
Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
I I I I I Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Durham County, NC

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Project Name
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201020040
River Basin
Neuse
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
36° 9' 48.03" N, 78° 54' 37.66" W
Site Protection Instrument (DB/PG)
DB8235/776-780
Total Credits (BMU)
523,358.865
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
July 2019
Initial Planting Date
March 2020
Baseline Report Date
June 2020
MY1 Report Date
December 2020
MY2 Report Date
December 2021
MY3 Report Date
December 2022
MY4 Report Date
December 2023
MY5 Report Date
December 2024

Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Project Area
®®
®®®®®Total
(Creditable) Area
®®®®®®®®
Enter Preservation Credits Below
Elieible for Preservation Ift21: 264,402
®®®®®®®®
®®®®
Preservation Area Subtotal (ft2):l o
Preservation as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 0.0%
Ephemeral Reaches as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation: 0.0%
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).
�m�
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
I Square Feet
F Credits
Restoration:
257,518
256,105,11
Enhancement:
535,689
266,553.075
Preservation:
0
0.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
793,207
523,358.865
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
I Nitrogen:
0
0.000
FPhosphorus:
o.000

Table 3. Monitoring Components
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Monitoring
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Feature
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
7 Plots
Year 1-5
Photographs and
Visual Assessment
Semi -Annual
Mapping
Exotic and Nuisance
Photographs and
Semi -Annual
Vegetation
Mapping
Photographs and
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
Mapping
Overview Photos
Photographs
Year 1-5

APPENDIX 2. DWR Correspondence

Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 13, 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: John Hutton
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
(via electronic mail: scott(&waterlandsolutions.com )
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secrelmy
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
DWR ID# 2018-0196
Johnston County
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Catfish Pond Site
Off US-501 (36.158391,-78.907343)
Neuse 03020201 (Falls Lake WS)
Durham County
Dear Mr. Hutton,
On February 23, 2018, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you
and others from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. at the proposed Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site)
in Bahama, NC. The Site is located in the Falls Lake WS of the Neuse River Basin within the 8-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery
stream restoration project for the Division of Mitigation Services (RFP #16-007279). Members
of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) and Division of Mitigation Services were also present
onsite. At your request, on February 23, 2018, Ms. Merritt performed an onsite assessment of
riparian land uses adjacent to streams and ditches onsite, which are shown on the attached map
labeled "Figure 6A Concept Map".
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
out to 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature
Classification
15ubiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
iti a2ion Type Determination VIM ri arian
areas
to Buffer
adjacent to Feature
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
0-200'
Viable
Ibs acre
UT1
Stream &
Yes
Combination of
Yes°
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
Wetland
(where
forested and
forested fields
.0295 (n)
complex
stream is
non/forested pasture
only)
Proposed for
restored)
grazed by cattle
Forested Areas- Enhancement Site per 15A
stream
NCAC 02B .0295 (a) (6)
restoration
Crossing 1 has impeded flow and Crossing 2 is
severely perched with impeded flow. Both
crossings need be repaired/replaced.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Catfish Pond Full -Delivery Site
Wildlands
March 13, 2018
Feature
Classification
'Sublect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination wlin riparian
adlac_e_nt to Feature
areas
to Buffer
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
ff-ZQ _
Viable
at 2 73
Ibs acre
D
Ditch
No
Non -forested pasture
"See
Yes
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
grazed by cattle
Note
.0295 (n)
*The ditch meets 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(8) (A,
B, C & E). More information is needed for
complete assessment.
Catfish
Stream
Yes
Combination of
Yes°
Yes (tan-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 028
Creek
forested and
forested fields
.0295 (n)
non/forested pasture
only)
grazed by cattle
Forested Areas- Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (of (6)
Crossing 3 has impeded flow and Reeds to be
repo iredlreplaced
Catfish
In -line pond
Yes
Combination of
*Yes"
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 028
Pond
(proposed
forested and
forested fields
.0295 (n)
for stream
non/forested pasture
only)
Restoration)
grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 02B.0295 (o) (6)
*tf stream channel is created & restored
through the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site
UT2
Stream
Yes
Mostly forested
Yes°
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 026
pasture with some
forested fields
.0295 (n)
open canopy areas
only)
and grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 1.5A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o) illy
Mountain
Stream
Yes
Mostly forested
Yes,
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
Tributary
pasture with some
forested fields
.0295 (n)
open canopy areas
only)
and grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (6)
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated March 12. 2018 using the 1:24,000
scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared
by the MRCS
z NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations far determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Bu-f er Establishment
`The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall c0111prise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total
area of buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation only site
to comply with this rule.
'The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(o)(6).
113

Catfish Pond FuH-Delivery Site
Wildlands
March 13, 2018
The attached map (Figure GA Concept Map) showing the project site and features was provided by
Wildlands Engineering and was initialed by Ms. Merritt on March 13, 2018. There were at least 3
crossings that need to he repaired or replaced to allow for aquatic passage and continuous
hydrologic connectively throughout the streams. This letter should be provided in any future
stream, wetland, buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR. for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240. For any areas
generating wetland mitigation credit, no buffer or nutrient onset credit can be generated.
This viability assessment will expire on March 13, 2020 or upon the submittal of an As -Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-5371 if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Figure 5A Concept Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS - Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
i'<<:: 313

0
No BMP here but can
add for buffer/nutrients
if criteria met.
'� -- ■rrra
1 project Location
w! Proposed Conservation Easement
BMP
Proposed Crossings
,. Existing Streams
r Reach Breaks
Stream Enhancement II
r
►►'i i+rr Stream Restoration
All
Crossing49
lb
Catfish Pond. Embankment,
Crossingand Existing
to be Removed
6i;'Inrernal Crossing
radd this wetland to
=/prj area
AAA
Off
f 8(
r�irlrl�■s y•, �
A.irrrarrrrrrrrrrirra,IRI elsrrririrrriwrrarrrrrirr� r '�
Figure 5A Concept Map (Option 1)
W I L D L A N D S 0 500 Feet �j ` Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
E N G] N E E R I N G E `�`—fVeuse River Basin 03020201
na� Durham County, NC
�� T

APPENDIX 3. As -Built Survey

DocuSign
tnveiope iu: 1ptt5/rVVJ-tJlpu-400m-yUIto-r-mom uI /AuL
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY
PHILLIP B. KEE JACK B.PENNY,JR.,RICHARDP.PENNY&GARYW.PENNY NAD83vrcin
I, CERTIFY THAT THIS BUFFER MAP WAS DRAWN UNDER I PIN:0828-02-50-6117 NAD83 (2011)
MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE CALCULATION OF THE BUFFER AREAS AND IS L_ — — —
BASED ON THE DIGITAL AS —BUILT CONDITIONS DATA DATED APRIL 14, 2020 BY KEE — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MAPPING AND SURVEYING, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA DATED SEPTEMBER 26, / — — —.0 o-
2018 BY KEE MAPPING AND SURVEYING, THE EASEMENT BOUNDARY AS RECORDED IN / (�o00
PB 201 PGS 153 & 154 OF THE DURHAM COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE AND / ���P�� 0000°
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING INC; THAT THE BOUNDARIES NOT / 00, 0 000°og 0000°
SURVEYED ARE INDICATED AS DRAWN FROM INFORMATION AS REFERENCED; AND THAT ° o oo°o'o°
THIS PLAT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS ONLY FOR / 0000 00 ° 000
ooo
THE PURPOSE OF DEPICTING THE RIPARIAN BUFFER AREAS. °o 000 o0 0000°°
/ oo 0000 f °0000 o°
o0 0 o 00 o o
/ 0000 000 "oo 'loll no
"0000° 0000 0 o, no
l00000 0000 o°0000 o '
/ �o n 0°000 0o0 ,
oOono o°ono °o° °
/ o 0 0 0 0 000
voo 0. o°o°vo °°
o / oo oo
o°o°o°O°o7�
0 0000
/
ALBERT F.TERRY / JACK B. PENNY, JR., RICHARD P. PENNYBGARYW. PENNY
PIN:0827-01-39-6106 / A� �T� PIN:0827-02-68-0515
/ �o°o y
----- / ov° "000
o°o
0000°°
&F'00000 o no
l0000 'loll C,
o 0 0 , r /'OiS,
'loll ° °°°°°v°v F�
/ GPC ��o-vv°vov000000no °° o 00 °°° ' it
1. ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCES IN US ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o° ° ° ° °
/ �oo °°
SURVEY FEET. THE AREA SHOWN HEREON WAS COMPUTED vv° 00000°°000000''. {' ° °°00000
/ o o 00000°0 0 00000
o° �, o° 'lo '°° o°o°o°on 0 00000
USING THE COORDINATE COMPUTATION METHOD. \ ° ° ° 'loll °o °0000 ° '
/ o 0 o rF' 0000 0- 0 0 0�'0 �,
F o °,{,{,h °v°o - 0 0 ; , , , ;
2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO SHOW THE AS —BUILT no ° °00000 0 00 ' ' ' ' ' 00000
AREAS FOR RIPARIAN BUFFER CREDITS WITHIN THE / n o 0 00000°
00 0,
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THIS PLAT IS NOT A BOUNDARY / °0000
SURVEY. THE LAND PARCELS AND THEIR BOUNDARIES / °oono
AFFECTED BY THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ARE NOT °+° .o o°o°o°o
/ 'l° o 00000
CHANGED BY THIS PLAT. on
'loll °n°°°
3. LINES NOT SURVEYED ARE SHOWN AS A DASHED LINE AND / oo '
WERE TAKEN FROM INFORMATION REFERENCED HEREON. / 'oo o ,'
4. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, AND/OR
ENCUMBRANCES THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY(S). s:
5. SEE CONSERVATION EASEMENT MAP RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK / — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — 201 PAGES 153-154 IN THE DURHAM COUNTY, NC REGISTER OF / — — — — — — —
DEEDS OFFICE.
6. BUFFER AREAS ARE BASED ON THE DIGITAL AS —BUILT /
CONDITIONS DATA DATED APRIL 14, 2020 BY KEE MAPPING /
AND SURVEYING, THE EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA DATED / o '
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 BY KEE MAPPING AND SURVEYING, THE JACKB.PENNv,JR.,
RICHARD P. PENNY BGARYW.PENNY
EASEMENT BOUNDARY AS RECORDED IN PB 201 PGS 153 & / PIN:0827-02-67-0407 Job o 0
154 OF THE DURHAM COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS OFFICE AND / �� ° °°o
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING INC. / o00 00
0000
RIPARIAN BUFFER: SO. FT. ACRES / 00000u�
BUFFER RESTORATION / 0000000
0'-49' (MIN 30') 4,369 0.10
BUFFER RESTORATION
0'-50' (MIN 30') 203,644 4.68 / on o°
BUFFER RESTORATION 48,442 1.11 / o'vvv° 000
o°
50'-100' / 0000 °0000
BUFFER RESTORATION
100'-200' 1,063 0.03 / *; °°
CATTLE EXCLUSION 481,652 11.06
0'-50'
CATTLE EXCLUSION 50,182 1.15 �� /
— 50'-100' L vo.
CATTLE EXCLUSION 09 0— — — — — — 0000
3,855 0.°
100'-200' _
NO CREDIT AREA 109,428 2.51 JAMES L. O'BRIANT 8 WIFE, KAY P. O'BRIANT
TOTAL CE AREA 902,635 20.73 PIN: 0827-02-56-5373
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND
SEAL THIS — 1ST--- DAY OF
----JUNE ---, 2020, A.D.
eCAR®
e o L- 4 6 4 7 e s
DocuSigned by:
E-1
®®®/
4A7692407
Ip Boo ®®®
®®®®�IICOIBV4�4®®®
PHILLIP B. KEE, PLS L-464,
SURVEYOR NOTES
VICINITY MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
0
_J
W
0
0
\\
Lu
SITE
AHOPKINS,.RD
D1v
RD
STATE FOREST RD
� D
N
x
G9�`,pq, , n
T
x �O
�O
�a
�P� I
HN
JON p
ES RD O
0?
0110
PGjORY FiD p 3
0
0
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES,
OR CONVEYANCES AND DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
cqT�
0000° y ��
0000
o0 oo0 0
0000 00000
o'l o 0 0
00000 °00000
vo 1,
o° o 00000 ' °o o
0000 on 0
00o 00
000000�0 o0°0000°no
�o_o_o_o�o �
LEGEND
I
'YVONNE MCFARLAND
PIN:0827-02-78-4579
\ �oG
on
°o
CE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
— CE-XS — CONSERVATION EASEMENT CROSSINGS
— — — — PROPERTY LINE
AS -BUILT SURVEY OF BUFFER AREAS FOR
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING INC.
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
DMS J100039 SPO FILE #32-FO NEUSE RIVER BASIN
SITE ADDRESS: 9021 NORTH ROXBORO STREET (US 501), BAHAMA, NC 27503
MANGUM TOWNSHIP, DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN BY: LDP, AB CHECKED BY., PBK JOB #1909105
REVISION: DATE.,
SHEET SIZE: II'X 17 SHEET #. 1 OF 1 SCALE: 1"--300'
0' 300' 600' 900,
ONE INCH =THREE HUNDRED FEET
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28802
[phone]
www.keenmp.com
License # C-3039

APPENDIX 4. Overview Photographs

O Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 4: Overview Photographs

O Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 4: Overview Photographs

APPENDIX 5. Permit Approvals

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Dirertnr
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
October 1, 2019
DWR # 18-0196
Durham County
NC Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lin Xu
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Chris Roessler
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Subject: APPROVAL OF 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION WITH
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Dear Mr. Xu and Mr. Roessler:
You have our approval for the impacts Iisted below for the purpose described in your
application dated August 27, 2019, received by the Division of Water Resources (Division)
August 28, 2019. These impacts are covered by the attached Water Quality General
Certification Number 4134 and the conditions listed below. This certification is associated
with the use of Nationwide Permit Number 27 once it is issued to you by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the enclosed certification(s) or
general permit and the following additional conditions:
1. The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific
and general conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved,
including incidental impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b) and/or (c)]
North Carolina Department of Lnvlronmental Quality I D10ston of Water Resources
� EQ 512 North Salisbury Street 1 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000
r�mrnc+an.,

Catfish Pond
DWR# 18-0196
Page 2 of 4
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
(units)
Permanent
Amount Approved
(units)
Temporary
Stream
S1
0 linear Feet
52 linear feet
S2
0
112
S3
378
0
S4
0
72
S5
0
51
S6
99
0
S7
97
0
S8
0
35
S9
0
122
S10
0
88
S11
0
69
S12
0
134
S13
0
300
S14
444
0
S15
168
0
S16
0
28
S17
0
27
S18
0
411
S19
0
13
Total
1,186
1,514
404 401 Wetlands
W1
0.0086 acres
0.0691 acres
W2
0.0564
0
W3
0
0.0032
W4
0.0156
0
W5
0.0046
0
W6
0.1327
0.3357
W7
0
0.0032
Total
0.2179
0.4112
Open Waters
01
0.597 acres
0 acres
Total
0.597
0
2. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans
and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the
Certification. If you change your project, you must notify the Division and you may
be required to submit a new application package with the appropriate fee. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this approval letter and

Catfish Pond
DWR# 18-0196
Page 3 of 4
General Certification(s)/Permit/Authorization and is responsible for complying with
all conditions. [15A NCAC 02H .05O7(d)(2)]
3. The issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification for the restoration/enhancement
project does not represent an approval of credit yield for the project. [15A NCAC
O2H _O500(h)]
4. You have our approval for your proposed final stream enhancements/restorations
plan. The stream restorations/enhancements must be constructed, maintained, and
monitored according to the plans approved by this Office and this Certificate of
Coverage. Any repairs or adjustments to the site must be made according to the
approved plans or must receive written approval from this Office to make the repairs
or adjustments. [15A NCAC 02H .O506(h)]
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. [G.S. 143-215.5]
This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B
by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within sixty (60) calendar days.
A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http:/�www.ncoah.cam/ or by calling the
OAH Clerk's Office at [phone] for information. A petition is considered filed when
the original and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the
OAH during normal office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:0Oam and 5:00pm,
excluding official state holidays).
The petition may be faxed to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one
copy of the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within
five (5) business days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS,
FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to Department of Environmental Quality:
William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Catfish Pond
D W R# 18-0196
Page 4 of 4
This letter completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Please contact Mac Haupt at 919-707-3632 or mac.hau t ncdenr. ov if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sin erely,
dwe-
Mac Haupt,
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
Enclosures: GC 4134
cc: Todd Tugwell, Kim Browning, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 180196CatfishPond(Durham)_401_ approval Itr.October 1, 2019.docx

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2018-00424 County: Durham U.S.G.S. Quad: Rougemont
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee
Address:
Telephone:
NC Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Mr. Tim Baumgartner
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-707-8319
Permittee:
Address:
Telephone:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Chris Roessler
321 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
919-851-9986 x111
Size (acres) 20.73 acres Nearest Town Bahama
Nearest Waterway Mountain Creek River Basin Neuse
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 36.162562 °N Longitude:-78.910068°W
Location description: The NCDMS 20.73-acre Catfish Pond Mitigation Site includes Catfish Creek and three of its tributaries.
All drain to Mountain Creek. The site is located in Durham County, North Carolina, approximately 12 miles north of the city
of Durham and 3 miles east of the Orange County/Durham County border. PIN: 0827-02-67-0407, 0827-02-58-9864, 0828-04-
50-5560_
Description of projects area and activity: The co -applicants, NCDMS and Wildlands Engineering, Inc, have requested a
Denartment of the Armv nermit authorization to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States
associated with the NCDMS Catfish Pond Mitigation Site. Implementation of the proposed restoration and enhancement
activities will result in the discharge of fill material into 2,700 linear feet of stream channel and 0.6291 acres of wetlands
associated with mechanized land clearing, excavation, placement of fill material, and stream relocation activities for the
mitigation site. Comnensatory mitigation is NOT required in coniunction with the aforementioned activities. Refer to the
enclosed Table 1 for a detailed summary of impacts
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number and/or Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 27 — Aquatic Habitat Restoration,
Enhancement, and Establishment Activities
SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated August 27, 2019. Any violation of the attached
conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class
I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide and/or regional general permit
authorization is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide and/or regional general
permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided
it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization
expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon
the nationwide and/or regional general permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the
date of the nationwide and/or regional general permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been
exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), prior
to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone].

SAW-2018-00424
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State
or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Kimberly Browning, 919.554.4884 x60.
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: October 3, 2019
Expiration Date of Verification: March 18, 2022

SAW-2018-00424
Table 1. Authorized discharge of fill material into waters of the United States in association with the
NCDMS Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-00424).
Table 1 Pr000scd imvacts invcritory
la- %N?k'hsecbnrs we -re comVeted below fof yntr pm eel @the k al t#atappty;:
® w-etlanas 0strearns-ttttularias ❑ Ewffers
Do", wale rs ❑ Flo nd-rommrucion
Table i VkHand lrrMpaea
If them ere wfdtWrrd inipacLs propased on the see, itien wnplete this quaaiian for each wetland area Ii-vaned.
1a. 1b le. 1d. 1e. 1f.
Watiand kr;pact I I 7ypa of posdcbw
ri unter- Type ofimpacl -'" of vwmand Forested (C&#s-404. 10 Arba of inVatA
Permanent fl)8t 1 (if knMn) OVWC3-rranA04, cd'h&5 (allss�
Temanranr iT
VV1-1Ned2m w4
Z F. [I T
Ezt avatrcn
Hea�►at�e st
Fore
Yes
❑ No
OCorps
bV�
Q.006 �
11 1 - Wfdaiid M
Rnodpla ui
Weacwaier Faes1
❑ Yes
Caps
1} f]@91
D P E)7
Grading
W -1ltai
Q W
ElYm
DWO
3NP
4.4564
W2—WgyLtAmd
® P ❑ 7uta,rad;ari
Ffesnwatef Main
❑ No
❑ DWa
Vw3-waumd Y
F"llain
Headvatef Forest
0 Yes
OCaps
0.0032
[IP ® T
Gfxdmg
p Na
0 DWO
VWA-Vwetland VM
Flo dpiain
Heaewadef Faest
Yes
❑ Caps
a.G156
F) P ❑ T
Grading
Temporary
Crossing
Flncrdptain
Headnateir Kamst
HeadWger Kooesl
❑ No
0 Yes
❑No
Q Yes
2 CYWO
MCorps
ODWO
@ Caps
Q.0046
i}.3357
W5- WOW rid D
❑P❑T
V46-Wetiand A
[I P, 14 T
Gtadin9
Ewf r�tinn
(emMJent)
Hea&atw Forest
No
❑ Yes
O DWO
® Caps
0.132 r
W6-V4e and A
Ia P [IT
ford Cr=kV
( ige trl)
Na
Yes
DV 4
�Cnaps
VM7-V4raumd Cb
[5 P OT
C+aoan,nMission I
Headwater Foram
❑ Nor
❑ l�
0.0032
2& TotialVrettaW ir"ac15 0.6.Ni
7 t,. Gdrn n,rirlts.
4f*rtvds 14iMkn the v"X aE8 7Y he LaW6d with aalelW Truce d ungq cmatruclio q Ia prHe'It =r &I&d impacts.
51mrn UnpaGts
VtMrAare VerkiINACm ilfl-8rt'niltintstreamimpacts(irtdudn€Wn &afylnVaCL:S) wupoSedWthe 41.9,lhelltxa1rdirLPIli Is
�rJ� iru i, f{n al I stun, gdtt nijAeAd.
Stream impact Type Of rny]ixi Strew„ Ile me P13MIV,i21 Type of Eurisdir'tion Avarage 111„Vat
,xintbef (PF=H)or (Cofps-404, 10 *1 darn Iwifth
Pem,aIva IA {P) or intarmilter& O— M114N, vridLh (Iint,ar
T13nvu!aIVM {NT)F ORMeA ( qeo Bret}
S1 ❑; P ® T
S2 ❑ P ® 1
S3 ®P❑T
S4 ❑PET
-95 LIP !a-f
�tdi711v_aLrall
Stabi lvat;x,
Fia Ine" iM
Stall k afore
inn LbAiDt,
GatfiS#t Lek
❑ PER
❑ IN7
® Carps
0 NYC
[:offish isMeek
Z PER
@ Corps
Z CCtps -
® QV4(�
OCorps
Galfi3h T-'MtR 14#5-ER
131NT
CatF hC,eeK 0 pr:R
El INT
0 DWO
0 Cn,ps
0 DwC
CatriSh Creak ❑ PER
DINT
3.3
52
5.8
112
7.0
37i8
DA
72
fi.4
51

SAW-2018-00424
Stream Impacts Continued
S5 OPEIT -tWocal,dn cainso Creak p
[J INT
coops
G1 two
99
97 ❑ P ❑ T R docatm Catffsh Cmk ❑ PEA
❑ INT
O°rps
D1w0
S7
S8 []PUT
SPOINYLallhr" Catfish Creak
B p N
❑ INT
� r�WO
r3wo
1.5
35
❑P [9T stab&nlla, i Catfish Creek 17 I 7.9
122
91fl ❑ P Ei,r statyleaborl Catfr:ih Creek PAR Gorr 7.9
p INT awo
8g
S11 O P C I StabOiLaWn Catfish CfWk ❑ Pri� 0 COTS 7.9
❑ lNT (a DWO
00
S12 ❑ P (0 T gta bftaUan -- - -- U T1 ® PEA: Warps 7
DINT 0DWO
134
30D
813 ❑ P01 SfaMpAtho UT1 PNT ER � 7
514 0 P❑ T Relac"n
Lrri
I PEA � � cap&
❑ INT 1rwO
19.1
I 444
S10 0 P ❑ T RdomSw
U-r1 0 P5-R 14 corps
DINT 0
71 168
s1$ ❑POT Sta biilzaw-5
Lrt2
IJPE
4 J$ 28
0 !
!
®
S17 ❑ p m T St blk alion
Mountah Tab
� Pi=#t
INT
0 Corps
0 bvw0
7.5
21
S18 [I POT SiaWkntk]"
mountain rent,
Ea
0 corps
�F11
PER
O NT
S15 ❑ P 0 T
StaidYzato"
Wajltmi trdh I❑
P l s
j� INt 0WO
7.5
13
11. TvtW stream and bi buta ry im pa dt I 2.7m
1 x Stmam manna per F" 3 SI& 1 in PJD. - -- --
*Impacts are associated with aquatic resource restoration and enhancement activities and are expected to result in a net gain in Waters
of the US.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The permittee understands and agrees that the document entitled "Final Mitigation Plan — Catfish Pond Mitigation
Site" dated July 18, 2019 is incorporated and made part of this permit. Execution of the work and terms given in the
approved mitigation plan are a condition of this permit.
2. This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply suitability of this property for compensatory mitigation for any
particular project. The use of any portion of this site as compensatory mitigation for a particular project will be
determined during the permit review process for that project.

SAW-2018-00424
COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
Action ID Number: SAW-2018-00424 County: Durham
Permittee: NC Division of Mitigation Services Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Tim Baumgartner Attn: Mr. Chris Roessler
Project Name: NCDMS Catfish Pond Site
Date Verification Issued: October 3, 2019
Project Manager: Kim Browning
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification
and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Regulatory Division Mitigation Office
Attn: Kim Browning
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27587
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may result in the Corps suspending,
modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal
action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms
and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

APPENDIX 6. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 4. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY0 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 1
VP 2
VP 3
VP 4
VP 5
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Aesculus sylvatica
Painted Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
8
8
8
2
2
2
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus lyrato
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercusshumordii
IShumardOak
Tree
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
2
1 2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
14
14
14
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
567
1 567
1 567
1 607
1 607
1 607
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 526
526
526
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%
PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all - All Planted Stems
T -All Woody Stems

Table 4. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 6
VP 7
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Aesculus sylvatica
Painted Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
7
7
7
9
9
9
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
36
36
36
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus lyrato
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
4
4
4
16
16
16
Quercusshumordii
IShumardOak
ITree
1
7
1 7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
15
15
15
16
16
16
97
97
97
1
1
7
0.02
0.02
0.17
6
6
6
4
4
4
9
9
9
607
1 607
1 607
647
647
647
561
561
561
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%
PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all - All Planted Stems
T -All Woody Stems

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

VEG PLOT 1(0312612020) 1 VEG PLOT 2 (0312612020) 1
VEG PLOT 3 (0312612020) 1 VEG PLOT 4 (0312612020) 1
VEG PLOT 5 (0312612020)
VEG PLOT 6 (0312612020)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 6: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

F4 Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 6: Vegetation Plot Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs