HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171039 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2020_20200721ID#* 20171039 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 07/22/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 7/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20171039
Existing IDt
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Catbird Site
Davie
Document Information
Email Address:*
Harry.Tsomides@ncdenr.gov
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: Catbird_ 100022_MYO_2020.pdf 14.69MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
FINAL
CATBIRD SITE
NCDMS Project 9100022 (Contract #7186)
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01506
DWR Project 920171039
Davie County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Provided by:
pres
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
July 2020
fires
July 10, 2020
Harry Tsomides
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 W Loop S #300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Catbird Site: Baseline Report and As -Built Drawings (NCDMS ID 100022)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on July 9, 2020 regarding the Catbird Site:
Baseline Report and As -Built Drawings and RES' responses.
Appendix F Detailed Easement/Asset Figure
Uncredited reach is shown as white against a white background in the legend. Please use a
color/pattern that is visible.
Done.
Please modify figure and report tables as discussed, to reflect accurate crediting and discussion of
easement adjustment vs. mitigation plan, at upper limit of DS2-A. Please provide the resulting final
digital support files for review.
Done.
Vegetation Tables
Table 9a needs to reflect the random plots; Please incorporate table 9b (random) into 9a (fixed) ad
calculate/report site wide average accordingly. DMS can provide examples.
Table 9a and Table 9b have been combined into Table 9. Table 8 has also been updated to include
Random Plot data for consistency.
As built planted numbers for green ash exceed the mitigation plan target of 10%, including
representing 40% of the planted species in Plot 1. It is now standard practice to minimize the green
ash percentage planted from zero, to 5% maximum, due to the emerald ash borer (Agrilus
planipennis) threatening the longer -term viability of the riparian plantings. Please make note for
future plans and as -built planting efforts that green ash should be minimal (5% or less) or absent
from the project.
Noted.
Record Drawings
Record Drawings need to include the planting plan from the mitigation plan (sheet P1), to make clear
the actual planting zones with stem counts and species and if/how any changes were made from the
mitigation plan (shown in red).
Done.
Other
Table 9a Please provide all the updated final digitals and digital support files for review.
Done.
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 2
Stream Restoration Success Criteria................................................................................................ 2
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Stream Design/Approach.......................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 5
1.7 Baseline Monitoring Performance(MYO)................................................................................. 6
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 6
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 6
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7: Planted Species Summary
Table 8: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorpholo2y Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots
Appendix E: Record Drawings
Appendix F: Easement Comparison Map
1.0 Proiect Summary
L I Project Location and Description
The Catbird Site (the "Project") is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight miles west
of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors affecting the Project
included livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents
stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,080.8 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU).
The Project's total easement area is 6.33 acres within the overall drainage area of 53 acres. Grazing
livestock historically had access to all the stream reaches within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer
vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics contributed to the degradation of
stream banks throughout the Project area.
The stream design approach for the Project was to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed
using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
The Project has been constructed and planted and will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-
year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. The Project will be
transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder
and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible
party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives were realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River RBRP. These goals also reflect the goals and
objectives as stated in the Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan.
The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner in a stable channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce sediment, nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into stream system;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads; and
• Protect Water Supply Watersheds (WSW).
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
Catbird Site 1 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
• Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a stable
dimension, profile, and planform;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored streams;
• Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying
depths to restored streams;
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Install approximately 4,200 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing along the easement boundary
to ensure livestock will no longer have stream access;
• Implement one agricultural BMP structure in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from surrounding farming operations;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will exclude future livestock from
stream channels and their associated buffers.
Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based
Framework, are outlined in the Mitigation Plan.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency guidance.
Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology and
visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. Stage recorders were installed on DS1 and DS2-B to
document bankfull events.
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (for C and E streams).
Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the
seven-year monitoring period.
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not
indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral
images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of
images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers.
Catbird Site 2 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
Intermittent reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. A flow gauge was
installed in the upper portion of DS 1.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project follow
IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is the survival of at least 320
planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre with an average height of seven
feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees per acre with an average height
of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly
monitoring reports, but are not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover,
any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any
vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be
used to demonstrate success.
Catbird Site 3 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
Level
Treatment
Objective
Monitoring Metric
Performance Standard
Converted land -use of
Project reaches from pasture
NA
NA
to riparian forest
Improve the
Visually monitor
transport of water
1 c
Installed one agricultural
from the watershed
integrity of runoff
sediment load attenuation
to the Project
attenuation structure:
Identify and document instability
structure to limit inputs of
reaches in a non-
Performed
and/or flaws to the structure
sediment from surrounding
erosive way
semiannually
farming operations coming
(indirect
into the reach (DS1)
measurement
Stage recorders and
Four bankfull events occurring in
Improve flood
flow gauges:
separate years
At least 30 days of continuous
Reduced bank height ratios
bank connectivity
Inspected
s
and increased entrenchment
by reducing bank
semiannually
flow each year
2
ratios by reconstructing
height ratios and
Entrenchment ratio shall be
�?
channels to mimic reference
increase
Cross sections:
above 2.2 within restored reaches
reach conditions
entrenchment
Surveyed in
C and E
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
ratios
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
1.2
As -built stream profile
NA
Reduce erosion
rates and channel
Cross sections:
Entrenchment ratio shall be no
stability toYears
Surveyed in
less than 2.2 within restored
Established a riparian buffer
reference reachconditions
1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
reaches
Visual monitoring
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
o
°
to reduce erosion and
sediment transport into
1.2
3 o
project streams. Established
Improve bedform
Identify and document significant
cstable
banks with livestakes,
diversity (pool
Visual monitoring:
stream problem areas; i.e.
m
erosion control matting, and
spacing, percent
Performed at least
erosion, degradation,
other in stream structures.
riffles, etc.
semiannually
aggradation, etc.
Increase buffer
Vegetation plots:
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
width to 50 feet
Surveyed in
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall
Vegetation plots:
Surveyed in
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall)
'�
Unmeasurable
(indirect
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall)
Obiective/Expected
Z
Excluded livestock from
measurement
Bene zt
Visual assessment of
riparian areas with exclusion
4
�°,
fence and conservation
Establish native
established fencing
•y
easement, and planted a
hardwood riparian
Inspect fencing and signage.
riparian buffer
buffer and exclude
and conservation
Identify and document any
a
livestock.
signage: Performed at
damaged or missing fencing
least semiannually
(indirect
and/or signs
measurement)
1.4 Project Components
The restoration reaches were significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural practices, and a
lack of riparian buffer. Improvements to the Project help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009
Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to
the riparian corridor within the easement.
Catbird Site 4 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 2,223 LF of stream, generating 2,080.8
Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). This 14.2 SMU below the contract amount (2,095 SMU).
Mitigation Approach
Linear Feet
Ratio
Warm SMU
Restoration
1,986
1
1,986
Enhancement II
237
2.5
94.8
Total
2,223
2,080.8
1.5 Stream Design/Approach
The Project includes Priority I and II Restoration and Enhancement Level IL Stream restoration
incorporates the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from
reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams,
and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques were also a crucial element of the project and were
used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
The Project is broken into the following reaches:
Reach DS1— Priority I and II Restoration was used for Reach DS1. The upstream portion of this reach
required Priority II floodplain excavation as the profile transitions from the existing entrenched channel
to the Priority I channel at the downstream end. To prevent any hydrology loss, the transition from
Priority II to Priority I takes place over several hundred feet and includes multiple channel plugs. Both
in -line and offline restoration was used, and locations were driven by valley constraints. In -stream
structures such as rock sills, log sills and cross vanes were installed for vertical stability and to improve
bedform diversity. The restoration of the riparian areas included planting wider riparian buffers and
excluding cattle. A self -maintaining sediment pack was installed at the upper end of the reach to provide
sediment load attenuation from the adjacent pasture.
Reach DS2-A — Enhancement Level II was used for Reach DS2-A. Enhancement activities included
livestock exclusion and riparian buffer plantings. Livestock fencing follows current NRCS
specifications.
Reach DS2-B — A combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level II was used for Reach
DS2-B. Restoration activities realigned the existing channel to improve stability and floodplain
connection. Rock and log structures were used to provide vertical stability and improve bedform
diversity. Log toe structures were installed on the outside of certain meander bends to provide bank
stability. The restoration of the riparian areas included planting wider riparian buffers and excluding
cattle. The Enhancement Level II portion of the reach contains a diverse channel bed profile, and this
portion of the reach does contain localized areas of bank erosion caused by hoof shear. The
Enhancement of this reach involved livestock exclusion and buffer planting.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in March 2020. The Catbird Site was built to design plans
and guidelines. Two structures were identified as needing repair during the initial post -construction site
visit with DMS. The first was located at the top of DS-B (Lower) and included resetting a rock sill. The
second was on the bottom of DS2-B (Lower) (below the confluence with DS-1) where a rock drop structure
was repaired, and the left bank was graded to alleviate shear stress. The first area was repaired in April
2020 and the second was repaired in June 2020. The as -built survey (including a redlined version) is
included in Appendix E.
Catbird Site 5 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
Following Mitigation Plan approval, RES adjusted the easement to allow for an existing farm path (per
landowner request). This 0.19-acre reduction only affected ephemeral stream channel therefore there was
no change in credits (Appendix F).
Planting plan changes included removing black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and adding crab apple (Malus
angustifolia), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis). Planting plan changes
were based on bare root availability. Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as -built
installation, however, the quantities remained as proposed in the Mitigation Plan.
1.7 Baseline Monitoring Performance (MYO)
The Catbird Baseline Monitoring activities were performed in March 2020. All Baseline Monitoring data
is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim
success criteria.
Ve etg ation
Setup and monitoring of the four permanent vegetation plots and one random vegetation plot was completed
after planting and stream construction on March 4, 2020. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated
photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MYO monitoring data indicates that all
plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged
from 1,133 to 1,740 planted stems per acre with a mean of 1,356 planted stems per acre across the permanent
plots. A total of 13 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were not noted at baseline
monitoring but are expected to establish in upcoming years. The average stem height in the permanent
vegetation plots was 1.6 feet. The stem density in the random plot was 1,174 with an average height of 1.5
feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project.
Stream Geomorphology
Cross section setup and geomorphology data collection for MYO was collected on March 4, 2020. Summary
tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile relatively
match the proposed design. The as -built conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced
for all restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were designed as gravel bed channels and remain
classified as gravel bed channels post -construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders and one flow gauge were installed on March 4, 2020: one stage recorder on DS1
(Lower), one stage recorder on DS2-B (Lower) and one flow gauge on DS1 (Upper). The stage recorders
are in place to document bankfull events and the flow gauge to document at least intermittent flow. Stream
hydrology data will be included in the Monitoring Year 1 Report in this section and in the appendices.
Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.
Catbird Site 6 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at 12 cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGISO,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure
transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder
are used to detect bankfull events. The flow gauge was also installed in a pool and records flow conditions
at an hourly interval. Water level data from the flow gauge is corrected using the height of the downstream
riffle to detect stream flow events.
Vegetation success is being monitored at four permanent monitoring plots and one random monitoring plot.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2
(Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are
processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked
with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the
origin each monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects
with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects
will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
3.0 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina,
(color Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia,
U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2019). Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh,
NC.
USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC:
Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Catbird Site 7 As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
Project 9100022 July 2020
Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Catbird (100022) - Mitigation Assets and Components
Project Segment
Existing
Footage
or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio(X:1)
Mitigation
Plan
Credits
As -Built
Footage or
Acreage
Comments
DS1 (Upper)
300
288
Warm
R
2
1.00000
288.00000
288
Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion
DS1 (Lower)
668
661
Warm
R
1 & 2
1.00000
661.00000
661
Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-A
78
78
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.50000
31.20000
78
Planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-B (Upper)
515
526
Warm
R
1 & 2
1.00000
526.00000
526
Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-B (Middle)
181
159
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.50000
63.60000
159
Planting, livestock exclusion
DS2-B (Lower)
1 522
511
Warm
R
1 1
1 1.00000
511.00000
511
Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
1986.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
94.800
Creation
Preservation
Total
2080.800
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Catbird Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 6 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 4 months
Number of reporting Years : 0
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Jan-19
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Oct-19
Stream Construction
NA
Jan-20
Site Planting
NA
Feb-20
DS2-B Structure Repair 1
NA
Apr-20
DS2-B Structure Repair 2
NA
Jun-20
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Mar-20
Jul-20
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Catbird Mitigation Site
Designer
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Primary project design POC
Ben Carroll
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC
Kory Strader
Survey Contractor
Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC
Chris Paderick, PLS
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Monitoring Performers
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Stream Monitoring POC
JRyan Medric (919) 741-6268
Vegetation Monitoring POC
JRyan Medric (919) 741-6268
Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Catbird
County
Davie
Project Area (acres)
6.33
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 36.030644 Longitude:-80.500865
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
5.26
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040101160010
DWR Sub -basin
3/7/2002
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
53 ac (0.083 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
4%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover and Mixed Upland Hardwoods
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
DS1
DS2-A
DS2-B
Length of reach (linear feet)
968
78
1218
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
mod. confined
mod. unconfined
confined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
26 (0.041)
12 (0.019)
27 (0.042)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, WS-IV
C, WS-IV
C, WS-IV
Stream Classification (existing)
G4
F5b
G5
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4
F5b
E4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
III/IV
III/IV
III/IV
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2017-
01506
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 17-1039
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Mit Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Mit Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Spillman Rd
z
G
Hauser Creek
Mitigation Site
Easement
Redfield Rd
n
f
A �
D "11Z
Sp" Catbird
a� A
n
Mockingbird Mitigation Site
Mitigation Site Easement
Easement
0
a
u' Q"
� Sao
1,
Sparks Rd
a
3
0
0
_
�a
s
h
3
u
7
x
G
Triple it Tr,
— Ile ural Hall \
+
I' I
Catbird
N
Mitigation Site
a chi nvi lle a
A
a G
Lewisville
S
Legend
Clemmons Proposed Easement
- Scout Easement
Mockingbird Easement
- Hauser Creek Easement
,loekr_.vine �Eui TLW - 03040101160010
C.
6? Service Area - HUC 03040101
lj�L-f. NC kr�hway gpr °'
N
Date: 12/14/2018
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
e Drawn by: SCF
s res
Catbird Mitigation Site Checked by MDE
0 500 1,000
Feet Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Catbird Site - DS1
Assessed Len th 949 feet
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. A22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1. Vertical Stability
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
35
35 100%
38 100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
38
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
38
38 100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1. Scoured /Eroding
scour and erosion.
0 0
100 %
0
0 100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0 0
100%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0 0
100%
0
0 100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0
0 100%
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
21
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %
21
21
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth. Mean Bankfull
4. Habitat
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
21
21
100%
Table 5 Cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Catbird Site - DS2
Assessed Len th 1,037 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. A22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
44
44 100%
50 100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
50
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
50
50 100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0
0
100 %
0
0 100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
1111
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
25
25
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
25
25
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
25
25
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15 %
25
25
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
25
25
100%
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 6.76
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Red Simple
0
0.00
0.0%
Hatch
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
Orange
Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
Orange
Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0.0%
Easement Acreaae 6.33
% of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
pp g
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Yellow
Crosshatch
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Red Simple
Hatch
0
0.00
0.0
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with
the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly
longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the
judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP
such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level
for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was
found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Catbird MYO Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (3/4/2020)
Vegetation Plot 3 (3/4/2020)
Vegetation Plot 2 (3/4/2020)
—:-
Vegetation Plot 4 (3/4/2020)
Catbird MYO Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photo
Random Vegetation Plot 1 (3/4/2020)
Catbird Monkn£ln2Device Photos
/: .cam �.. .
\ y
,\
-
w � \\A7.
Stage Recorder DS!
Stage Recorder DS
Flow Gauge DSI
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems Planted
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
1,100
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
800
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
800
River Birch
Betula nigra
800
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
800
Crab Apple
Malus angustifolia
800
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennysIvanica
600
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
600
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tuli i era
600
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
400
Sugarberry
Celtis laevi ata
350
Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
300
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
300
Eastern Redbud
Cercis canadensis
300
Total
8,550
Planted Area
5.26
As -built Planted Stems/Acre
1,625
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Plante d
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Ave rage d
Planted Stem
Height ft
1
1133
0
1133
Yes
1.5
2
1295
0
1295
Yes
1.6
3
1740
0
1740
Yes
1.8
4
1255
0
1255
Yes
1.6
R1
1174
0
1174
Yes
1.5
Project Avg
1649
0
1649
Yes
1.6
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Catbird
Current Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
100022-01-0001
100022-01-0002
100022-01-0003
100022-01-0004
100022-01-R1
MYO (2020)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
17
17
17
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
8
8
8
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
10
10
10
2
2
2
15
15
15
30
30
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
11
11
11
2
2
2
5
5
5
18
18
18
Juglans nigra
blackwalnut
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
4
4
4
12
12
12
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
8
8
8
Quercus
oak
Tree
7
7
7
6
6
6
13
13
13
5
5
5
1
1
1
32
32
32
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
13
13
13
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
StemsperACREI
281
281
28
321
32
32
43
431
43
31
31
31
29
291
29
163
163
163
1
1
1
1
1
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
6
6
61
101
101
10
71
71
71
111
111
11
61
61
61
14
14
14
11331
1133
11331
12951
12951
1295
17401
17401
17401
12551
12551
12551
11741
11741
11741
1649
1649
1649
Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS1
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
3.0
---
5.4
7.4
---
3
4.4
---
---
6.6
---
2
---
4.5
---
5.1
6.0
5.6
7.3
1.2
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.4
---
6.8
10.0
---
3
10.0
---
---
15.0
---
2
---
30.0
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
0.1
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
---
0.5
---
0.7
0.8
---
3
0.6
---
---
0.6
---
2
---
0.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
---
1.1
1.1
---
3
0.9
---
---
1.2
---
2
---
0.7
---
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.3
0.3
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
---
2.3
3.4
3.7
3
2.8
---
I ---
1 3.9
2
---
2.1
---
1.9
2.8
1 3.1
1 3.5
1 0.8
1 3
Width/Depth Ratio
3.9
7.8
16.1
3
6.9
---
---
10.9
2
---
1 9.7
---
---
---
---
---
I ---
I ---
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.4
1.8
3
2.2
---
---
2.2
2
---
6.7
---
6.9
8.6
9.0
9.9
1.5
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
2.5
3
1.0
---
---
1.2
2
1.0
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
4
---
---
18
---
---
3
---
15
2.2
8.7
7.2
17.9
4.3
35
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.4
2.5
1.7
8.0
1.8
35
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
3
---
---
10
---
---
3
---
7
2.1
6.4
6.0
17.1
2.5
38
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
12
---
---
35
---
---
10
---
30
5.9
25.6
20.9
75.2
16.4
37
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
18
---
---
35
---
---
13
---
30
---
---
---
---
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
7
---
---
19
---
---
5
---
15
---
---
---
---
---
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.6
---
---
4.3
---
---
1.1
---
3.3
---
---
---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
30
---
---
44
---
---
20
---
37
---
---
---
---
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
--
---
---
4.1
8
---
---
2.9
---
6.7
---
---
---
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
---
---
--
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
--
Valley length (ft)
1136
146
924
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1179
185
1211
1211
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.27
1.31
---
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
---
--
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0305
0.013
0.017
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued)
Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS2-B (Upper)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
4.3
---
---
4.8
---
2
4.4
---
---
6.6
---
2
---
4.5
---
4.2
4.9
4.9
5.6
1.0
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.6
---
---
7.6
---
2
10.0
---
---
15.0
---
2
---
30.0
---
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
0.1
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
---
0.5
---
---
0.7
---
2
0.6
---
---
0.6
---
2
---
0.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.7
---
---
1.2
---
2
0.9
---
---
1.2
---
2
---
0.7
---
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.0
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
---
2.1
3.1
2
2.8
---
3.9
2
---
2.2
---
2.2
2.4
2.4
1 2.6
1 0.3
1 2
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
9.0
2
6.9
---
10.9
2
9.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
I ---
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.6
2
2.2
---
---
2.2
2
6.7
---
8.8
10.3
10.3
11.8
2.1
2
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
8.4
2
1.0
1.2
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.4
6.6
5.8
18.2
3.2
44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.3
4.1
3.7
14.8
3.1
45
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.1
5.1
5.0
13.7
2.4
50
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3.1
19.2
19.1
40.5
7.5
48
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
18
---
---
35
---
---
13
---
30
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
7
---
---
19
---
---
5
---
15
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
--
1.6
---
---
4.3
---
---
1.1
---
3.3
---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
30
---
---
44
---
---
20
---
37
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
--
4.1
8
---
---
2.9
---
6.7
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
Valley length (ft)
990
146
482
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1051
185
526
526
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.27
1.09
---
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0383
0.013
0.02
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued)
Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS2-B (Lower)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
4.3
---
---
4.8
---
2
4.4
---
---
6.6
---
2
---
5.2
---
---
---
5.7
---
---
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.6
---
---
7.6
---
2
10.0
---
---
15.0
---
2
---
30.0
---
---
---
50.0
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
---
0.5
---
---
0.7
---
2
0.6
---
---
0.6
---
2
---
0.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.7
---
---
1.2
---
2
0.9
---
---
1.2
---
2
---
0.8
---
---
0.8
---
---
---
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
---
2.1
1
3.1
2
2.8
---
3.9
2
---
2.8
---
---
---
2.9
---
I ---
I ---
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
9.0
2
6.9
---
10.9
2
9.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.6
2
2.2
---
---
2.2
2
5.8
---
---
---
8.7
---
I ---
---
'Bank Height Ratiol
1
0.8
8.4
2
1.0
---
---
1.2
2
1.0
---
---
---
1.0
---
---
---
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.4
6.6
5.8
18.2
3.2
44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.3
4.1
3.7
14.8
3.1
45
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.1
5.1
5.0
13.7
2.4
50
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3.1
19.2
19.1
40.5
7.5
48
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
18
---
---
35
---
---
13
---
30
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
7
---
---
19
---
---
5
---
15
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
--
1.6
---
---
4.3
---
---
1.1
---
3.3
---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
30
---
---
44
---
---
20
---
37
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
--
4.1
8
---
---
2.9
---
6.7
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
Valley length (ft)
990
146
450
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1051
185
512
512
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.27
1.14
---
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0383
0.013
0.0175
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Appendix D. Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Catbird #100022
Cross Section 1(Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
756.5
756.6
741.6
741.0
735.7
Bankfull Width (11)'
-
7.3
5.1
-
5.6
Floodprone Width (11)1
-
>50
50
-
50
Bankfull Max Depth (11;
1.6
0.7
1.3
1.5
0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
756.6
741.6
-
735.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area f� z
3.9
1.9
3.5
4.6
3.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
>6.9
9.9
-
9.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
735.5
774.5
774.8
763.4
763.7
Bankfull Width (11)'
-
-
5.6
-
4.2
Floodprone Width (11)1
-
-
50
-
50
Bankfull Max Depth (11;
1.7
1.3
0.8
1.1
0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft
-
-
774.8
-
763.73
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
5.1
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
8.8
-
11.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
Cross
Section
11
(Riffle)
Cross Section
12
(Pool)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
737.5
737.3
Bankfull Width (ft)'
5.7
-
Floodprone Width (11)1
>50
-
Bankfull Max Depth (11;
0.8
1.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
737.51
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area f� z
2.9
3.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>8.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool - Restoration
760
759
758
° 757
w
756
SIJ
755
754
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA
756.50
Bankfull Width (ft)'
-
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)'
1.6
Low Bank Elevation ft
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')'
3.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
57P
y,c
t�
i
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - Restoration
760
759
0000
758
0
°
757
>
d
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
w
756
755
754
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2 1
Riffle
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull IIevation (ft) - Based on ABASA1
756.64
Bankfull Width (ft)'
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>50
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft) 2
0.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
756.64
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
1.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
>6.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 3 - Riffle - Restoration
746
745
744
0
° 743
M
d
w 742
-
-
- -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
-
741
740
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — • Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 3
Riflle
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull IIevation (ft) -Based on ABASA1
741.62
Bankfull Width (ft)'
5.1
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)2
1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
741.62
Bankfull Cro s s Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
3.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
9.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool - Restoration
745
744
743
° 742
>
d
w741
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
—
— — — —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
—
740
739
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull IIevation (ft) - Based on ABASAi
741.04
Bankfull Width (ft)t
-
Floodprone Width (ft)I
-
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)2
1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
4.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
-
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird- Reach DS1 - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - Restoration
740
739
738
737
>
a)
w 736
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
735
734
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 5 Ritlle
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Bas ed on ABASAi
735.70
Bankfull Width (ft)'
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
735.70
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
3.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1
9.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
I
t
z4
c
739
738
737
° 736
w 735
734
733
Upstream
� t+iy6
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 6 - Pool - Restoration
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull IIevation (ft) - Based on ABASAi
735.46
Bankfull Width (ft)t
-
Floodprone Width (ft)I
-
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)2
1.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
5.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
-
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 7 - Pool - Restoration
778
777
776
°
775
w 774
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
773
772
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 7
Pool
91
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA
774.52
Bankfull Width (ft)'
-
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
Bankfull MaxDe th (ft)2
1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
3.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird- Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 8 - Riffle - Restoration
779
778
777
/0000
° 776
>
w 775
- - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
-
—
- -
- -
-
774
7
773
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 8 1
Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on ABASA
774.81
Bankfull Width (ft)'
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)2
0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
774.81
BankfullCross Sectional Area (ft2)2
2.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
8.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 9 - Pool - Restoration
768
767
766
° 765
w 764
763
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - -
762
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 9
Pool
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull IIevation (ft) -Based on ABASAi
763.39
Bankfull Width (ft)I
-
Floodprone Width (ft)I
-
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)2
1.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
27
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
-
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 10 - Riffle - Restoration
768
767
766
0
° 765
w 764
- - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
763
762
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 10 Riffle
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Flevation (ft) -Based on ABASAi
763.73
Bankfull Width (ft)'
4.2
Floodprone Width (ft)'
50
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2
0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
763.73
BankfullCross Sectional Area (ft 2 ) 2
22
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t
11.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
6,-
Upstream
Catbird - Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 11 - Riffle - Restoration
742
741
740
° 739
>
d
w 738
737
— —
— —
— —
— — — —
— —
— — —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — —
— —
—
736
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Saction 11 B
MYo
�,2Y 1
ld 2
%M
N Y5
;7'
_4
Sa ultifull EItN adoi t (fl) - Based on 9>1-XSA
737-31
Bank -RA W- idth ft 1
5.7
Flo o dproneWidth ft l
>50
Bat>VILll Max Deloth ft)
101
Low Baril, Elevatian ft
737-51
BankfullCross Sectional Area ft' '
.29
2atal:EEntrenclirnentRatio 1
>8.7
B antSull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream
Downstream
Catbird - Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 12 - Pool - Restoration
741
740
739
0
° 738
-
w 737
- - - -
- -
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
736
735
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO 2020 — — —Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 12 Pool
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
737.29
Bankfull Width (ft)'
-
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
-
Bankfull Cos s Sectional Area (ft2)2
3.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t
1 -
1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Appendix E
Record Drawings
FeauFh
�"•°�•
1
9crh.iiie
FFo[Elal
C
\
[son
Venn.
ypi'
Aaj'�IiAd
Qe
.wi
n`
Wan Bend
ltvvi.tilp swky�'
WtnanT
Ju}
`'►rrtenyr4
���r LYJe� �-�
:,
rtnOfr �irO,AE
SNaw.nom.4d SO�:n _�.i WL
y1�w np�
f
�c GKk Pkrvy
i
w
caFemum
rm
_
- � Fa�ngien .
PROJECT LOCATION $
-- ��#w �- <durcC A'[adiA EnierVri[e
&iby
Alta—
Rarly Cwk
Polo
VICINITY MAP
NTS
PROJECT DIRECTORY
DESIGNED BY:
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
3000 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27G 1 2
DESIGNED FOR:
HARRY TSOMIDES
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
2 1 7 W. JONES ST. #3000A
RALEIGH, NC 27GO3
SURVEYED BY:
MATRIX EAST, PLLC.
9OG N. QUEEN ST., SUITE A
KI NSTON, NC 28501
DMS PROJECT #: 100022
CONTRACT #: 71 8G
USACE ACTION ID #: SAW-20 1 7-0 1 5OG
RFP #: I G-OOG993
PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY AND AS -BUILT PLANIMETRICS
SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY MATRIX EAST, PLLC. (NC
FIRM LICENSE NUMBER P-022 1, JAMES R. WATSON,
NC PLS L-47 12), DATED APRIL 29, 2020
CATBIRD RECORD DRAWINGS
DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YADKIN 01 RIVER BASIN: HUC 03040101
JULY 2020
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
53
3600 GLENWOOD AVE, SUITE 100
RALEIGH, NC 27612
NTS
5heet Li5t Table
5heet Number
5heet Title
-
COVED
51
LEACH D5 1
52
REACH D5 1
53
LEACH D52
54
REACH D5 2
55
REACH D5 2
P I
PLANTING PLAN
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
�H C A R p4''%,,�
\�
ESS/p�
`C
SEAL
>�0
04�517
FNGINE��
////// IM0
C)
6i
Q o
N
O
� N
O o
J co
Z
�Q
o rY
0
z
LU
O
U)
U)
w 0
U
>
J
w
Ir
Ir 0-1
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C A R 0 ////,�
ESS/0�
SEAL
042580
IN
���iT�'►R1111CP\\\�
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" FULL SCALE
I\
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
0 0
N
O
O N
J
>z
0= Q
0
0
z
0
O
U)
U)
w O
U
>
w
J
w w
Q
z
Ur J
z
Q
Q U
� 2
p
p
O
=
O z
U
w
w
z
p D
O
m U
W W
J
z U Q
p
CD
z
w
Q
o
0=
0_
0=
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S 1
c
ca
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND 1* * * Ij
EXISTING
\ / ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE
OHE
Z \ / PROPERTY LINE — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50
G� LCE AS -BUILT FLOW GAUGE / PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR — —
+ / PROPOSED TOP OF BANK — —
O
O PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
Lt^E REACH DS I
RESTORATION / AS -BUILT CONTOUR MAJOR 50
STA 04+37 TO I 0+98
/ AS -BUILT CONTOUR MINOR
vG XS-03LP
XS-04LP AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK — — — — TB
AS -BUILT CHANNEL CENTERLINE
_ RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
s 9+0 _ INSTALLATION CONFIRMED
O ` \ 9 SO XS-05LP LOG SILL
/
XS-03RP XS-04RP ���� l \ XS-06LP
\ o
S o � � \�
IN
0 _"_735— LOG VANE
nO
XS-05106RP
/
�� � / / ROCK SILL -7507 /
STEP POOL
J/50
XS-1 V 12LP \
1
,, ✓ REACH DS 2 �
r RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
18" R I XS-12RP
°
SEDIMENT TRAP
AS -BUILT BRUSH TOE
755 755
AS -BUILT LOG STRUCTURE
AS -BUILT ROCK STRUCTURE
750 750 AS -BUILT RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
AS -BUILT SEDIMENT TRAP °°
\ CHANNEL BED *000.
°
A -BUI T
T P O BA K AS -BUILT CROSS-SECTION
745 V 745
AS -BUILT STAGE RECORDER O
AS -BUILT FLOW GAUGE
RO OSEP &
OP F B NK
AS -BUILT VEGETATION l/P—#
740 \ \ _ 740 MONITORING PLOT
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
S-B ILT �� \ CONSERVATION EASEMENT LCE
HA NEL 5ED —
735 _ — — 735
— NOTE: ALL SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM
— — THE DESIGN ARE SHOWN IN RED
G+00 G+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50
SCALE: HOR 1 ''=30'; VERT 1 ''=3'
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
�`\\`\\\\�j\ u I I I nuii1
CARp'////�
\�
ESS/0�
9�
SEAL
042580
51
���iT��'►R1111CP�\\\�
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" = FULL SCALE
I\
1" = HALF SCALE
w
Q
0 0
N
�p
O N
J
CD
Z_
OC Q
O
LL 0
U)
LL, q
O
U) 0-'
U)
w O
U
>
w
J
w LU
0-1
z
Ur J
z_ O
Q
Q U
0
0
O
_
O
�
Q
�
w
z
0 Z)
0�O
m CU
W W
J
z U Q
0
C.D
z
w
Q
O
Ir
�
r]
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S2
U)
m
0
w
iM
790
7,50
770
7GO
REACH DS2
ENHANCEMENT II
STA 00+92 TO O 1 +70
931
EXISTING
WETLAND WA
�J
nCn—u r'�cn
D OG+9G
00
IN
XS-1ORP
�J
i
XS-09LP
Ab XS-1
6 00
SS \
1 Ln
o
C9
XS-09RP
PRCPOS
TOP
OF
D
AN
T
w
P CF
BANK
Q
w
O
Q
w
—
n\
+
—
PRO
CHANNEL
OS
D
BED
_
z
O
U
O
—
—
J
v
—
PS
-BUILT
HAN
EL UED
—
—
—
I
I
0+00
V+�V I+VV I+�V C+VV C+
+VV
.�+�V
SCALE:
HOR
1''=30';
VERT I''=G'
...
LEGEND
EXISTING WETLAND
EXISTING OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC UTILITY LINE OHE
PROPERTY LINE — —
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR 50
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR — —
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK — —
PROPOSED CHANNEL CENTERLINE
AS -BUILT CONTOUR MAJOR 50
AS -BUILT CONTOUR MINOR
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK — — — — TB
AS -BUILT CHANNEL CENTERLINE
BRUSH TOE PROTECTION
LOG SILL
LOG VANE
ROCK SILL
STEP POOL
RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
l �
0
SEDIMENT TRAP
°
AS -BUILT BRUSH TOE
800
AS -BUILT LOG STRUCTURE
AS -BUILT ROCK STRUCTURE
790 AS -BUILT RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
0
AS -BUILT SEDIMENT TRAP ° °
0 0 0 ° °
AS -BUILT CROSS-SECTION
7,50
AS -BUILT STAGE RECORDER O
AS -BUILT FLOW GAUGE
770 I AS -BUILT VEGETATION
MONITORING PLOT
7GO
G +00
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
LCE
NOTE: ALL SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM
THE DESIGN ARE SHOWN IN RED
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, INC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
A R p�''%,,�
9�
SEAL
042580
FNGINE��
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" FULL SCALE
I\
1" = HALF SCALE
W
Q
0 0
N
O
O N
J
CD
Z_
OC Q
O tY
LL 0
z
LL, 0
O
U) IY
U)
w O
U
>
w
J
w Ill
Q
z
Ur J
z_ O
Q
Q U
0
0
O
_
O
�
Q
LL,w
z
0 Z)
0�O
m U
W W
J
z U Q
0
H
0
z
w
Q
O
0=
0_
0=
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S3
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
\\\CARO�''%,,�
\�
ESS/0�
SEAL
042580
IN
InRiiuCP\\`\
0
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" FULL SCALE
I\
1" = HALF SCALE
ui
0 0
N
O
O N
J
>z
0= Q
0
0
z
0
O
U)
U)
w O
U
>
w
J
w w
Q
z
Ur J
z
Q
Q U
p
p
O
=
O z
U
w
w
z
p D
O
m U
W W
J
z U Q
0
p
z
w
Q
o
0=
0_
0=
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S4
pres
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Main: 919.829.9909
www.res.us
Engineering Services Provided By:
Angler Environmental, LLC
License: F-1428
SEAL
C A R 0 ////,�
ESS/0�
SEAL
042580
IN
���iT�'►R1111CP\\\�
C)
FULL SCALE: 1 "=30
0 30 60
2" FULL SCALE
I\
1" = HALF SCALE
6i
0 0
N
O
O N
J
>z
0= Q
0
0
z
0
O
U)
U)
w O
U
>
w
J
w w
Q
z
Ur J
z
Q
Q U
p
p
O
=
O z
U
w
w
z
p D
O
m U
W W
J
z U Q
0
p
z
w
Q
o
0=
0_
0=
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
S5
U
m
m
0
w
Q
a
Ib G A /"` LJ r1 C I
I
I
THE PLANTING AREA WAS REDUCED
BY O. 14 AC TO MATCH TH E
REVISED EASEMENT.
PLANTING LEGEND
LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LcE
EXISTING TREELINE
PROPERTY LINE
RIPARIAN PLANTING
(TOTAL AREA: rs+ AC)
5.2G
PLANTING TABLE
Permanent Riparian Seed Mix
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virgmicus
2507o
Indian Grass
Sorghastrum nutans
2507o
Little Blue Stem
Schizachyrium scoparium
1007o
Soft Rush
Juncus effusus
1 Oo7o
Blackeyed Susan
Rudbeckia hirta
1007o
Deertongue
Dichanthehum clandestinum
1 0%
Common Milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
507o
Showy Goldenrod
Sohdago erecta
507o
Live Staking and Live Cuttings Bundle Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
4007o
Black willow
Salix nigra
G007o
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent
Composition
Water Oak
Quercus nigra
—15% 90/o
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
—15% 90/o
River Birch
Betula nigra
—1 �i46 907o
American Sycamore
Platanas occidentahs
—1�i46 907o
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
—1 G4; 707o
Green Ash
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
—1 946 707o
Yellow Poplar
briodendron tulipifera
—18% 707o
Persimmon
Diospyros virgimana
5% 1 307o
Crab Apple
Malus angustifolia
90/o
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
507o
Sugar Berry
Celtic laevigata
407o
Black Walnut
Juglans mgra
407o
Elderberry
Sambucus canadeneis
407o
Eastern Redbud
Cercis canadensis
407o
PLANTING NOTES
ALL PLANTING AREAS
I . EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION
IS ESTABLISHED AND FINAL APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY TO ENSURE MEASURES ARE
FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
2. DISTURBED AREAS NOT AT FINAL GRADE SHALL BE TEMPORARILY VEGETATED WITHIN 10
WORKING DAYS. UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SEEDING SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
3. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED PRIOR TO PLANTING BY DISC OR SPRING -TOOTH
CHISEL PLOW TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12 INCHES. MULTIPLE PASSES SHALL BE MADE ACROSS
PLANTING AREAS WITH THE IMPLEMENT AND THE FINAL PASS SHALL FOLLOW TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS.
4. BARE ROOT PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2. LIVE
STAKES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHOWN ON SHEET D2.
5. TREATMENT/REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES, PINES AND SWEET GUMS LESS THAN G" DBH SHALL
BE PERFORMED THROUGHOUT THE PLANTED AREA.
G. SPECIES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED SUCH THAT 3 TO G PLANTS OF THE SAME SPECIES ARE
GROUPED TOGETHER.
7. BARE ROOT PLANTING DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY 800 STEMS PER ACRE.
8. LIVE STAKES ARE PROPOSED ALONG THE OUTSIDE OF MEANDER BENDS AND ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF STRAIGHT REACHES ADJACENT TO POOLS.
9. TEMPORARY SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 150 LBS/ACRE TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
WITH SLOPES EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3: 1.
10. PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
1 1. PERMANENT HERB SEED MIX SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BREAKS AT A RATE OF 15 LBS/ACRE.
12. BARE ROOT SPECIES AND PERCENT COMPOSITION MAY BE ADJUSTED DUE TO COMMERCIAL
AVAILABILITY PER APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. REPLACEMENT SPECIES MUST NOT INCLUDE
HACKBERRY (Celtic occidentahe) OR SUGARBERRY (Celtic laevigata).
ores
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, INC 27605
Main: 919.829.9909
Fax: 919.829.9913
www. res . us
SEAL
0jX1111111111/�
�H C A R p�''%,,�
\�
SEAL
04 58Q
7 /o tetu v
ke, GINE��
H 111
(D
FULL SCALE: 1 "=100
0 100 200
2" FULL SCALE
I`
1" = HALF SCALE
W
H o
o
N
O o
J �
O
Z
O
C/)
0
Z
cn
w
j
�
� Q
O
w
Q
LL Q
0
O
-
U)
Q O
Lu U
Q
w
w LU
Q
Z
Ur J
Z 0
I..1<_
Z
� �
J
0
CD
0 Z
Z
U
u1
z
Q
� �
J
0
0o U
w u1
w
J
z V Q
U
Z
w
Q
O
Iz
�
Iz
0
PROJECT NUMBER:
0386
PROJECT MANAGER:
BPB
DESIGNED:
BRC
DRAWN:
TRS
CHECKED:
AFM
SHEET NUMBER:
p 1
Appendix F
Easement Comparison Map
V,
A.-
`8v
17
Le-gen
Recorded Easement (6.33 ac)
Mitigation Plan Easement (6.52 ac)
— — — Farm Path
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement 11
No Credit
Qg
H
Easement Comparison Map
s Catbird Mitigation Site
75 150
Davie County, North Carolina
heAV -
0
Date 7/10/2020
Drawn by: RTM res
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 150 feet 0
H
Easement Comparison Map
s Catbird Mitigation Site
75 150
Davie County, North Carolina
heAV -
0
Date 7/10/2020
Drawn by: RTM res
Checked by: BPB
1 inch = 150 feet 0