20131295 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2020_20201216

ID#* 20131295 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/16/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/16/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20131295
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Foust Creek Mitigation Site
County: Alamance
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: FoustCreek_95715_MY6_2020.pdf 12.19MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 6
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
FOUST CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 004954
DMS Project Number 95715
USACE Action ID Number 2012-01908
NCDWR Project Number 13-1295
Data Collection Period: March 2020 — November 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2020
Final Submission Date: December 10, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
E N G I NEEDING
December 10, 2020
Jeremiah Dow
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
RE: Draft Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report Comments - Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS #95715)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 004954
Dear Mr. Dow,
We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 6 Report for the above referenced project
dated December 8, 2020 and have revised the report based on these comments. The revised documents
are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your convenience,
the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
1. Appendix 2
a. Table 6 —Recommend adding areas of tree fertilization and/or tree release to this table
where appropriate.
A record was added to Table 6 to summarize areas that underwent tree fertilization and
tree release treatments.
2. The 0.17 acres of re-establishment wetland around gage GW11 are considered credits at risk,
likely to be unrealized. With the wetland RW6 credit reduction in MY3 of 0.10 WMUs and this
year's reduction of 0.17 WMUs, the total functioning WMUs for the site are 3.74. DMS will
adjust the debit ledger accordingly. If GW11 fails to meet in MY7, please adjust the asset table in
the report to reflect a permanent WMU reduction.
The report and appendices were updated to indicate the wetland re-establishment area around
GW11 is considered at risk. Table 1 was modified to account for the area at risk.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E NO I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full delivery project for the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 5,500
linear feet (LF) of stream and rehabilitate and re-establish 4.96 acres of wetlands in Alamance County,
NC. The Foust Creek Mitigation Site (Site) proposes to provide 4,770 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and
3.91 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The project consists of Foust Creek, a second order perennial
stream, and an unnamed, intermittent first order tributary to Foust Creek (UT1). At the downstream
limits of the project the drainage area is 1,259 acres (1.97 square miles).
The Site is located in the southern portion of Alamance County, east of Snow Camp and approximately
15 miles southeast of the City of Burlington (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The Site is in the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed
within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-04 of the Cape Fear
River Basin and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050.
Prior to construction activities, streams and wetlands had been degraded by livestock access and
agricultural practices. The primary objectives of the project were to promote wetland hydrology, restore
a stream and wetland complex to mimic a naturally occurring ecosystem, restore a stream system to
promote hydrologic connectivity with the floodplains and wetlands, stabilize stream banks, promote
instream habitat and aeration, restore riparian buffers, and further improve water quality through
removing existing agricultural practices. Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration and enhancement
components/assets for the Site.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from watershed and
project site stressors:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and eroding
stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus inputs through removing cattle from streams
and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
Stream and wetland restoration and enhancement construction efforts were completed in February
2015. Baseline as -built monitoring activities (MYO) were completed in February 2015. A conservation
easement is in place on 22.11 acres of the stream and wetland riparian corridors to protect them in
perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) site visits and assessments were completed between March and November
2020 to visually assess the conditions of the project and collect stream and wetland hydrology data.
Detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation, substrate, and channel cross -sectional dimensions are
not required during MY6. Visual observations, hydrology data, and management practices are included
in this report. To preserve the clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this report maintains section
and appendix numbering from previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the table
of contents.
Overall, Site performance for vegetation, stream geomorphology, and stream hydrology meet success
criteria for MY6. Vegetation appears to be performing adequately to attain the final success criteria of
210 stems per acre at the end of MY7. Invasive vegetation identified to date has been removed and
areas with tree growth rates limited by competition or nutrient deficiency were treated during MY6.
Visual observations indicated that stream channels have remained geomorphically stable during MY6.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — FINAL

Persistent flows and multiple bankfull events were recorded on both Foust Creek and UT1. An additional
groundwater gage was added during MY6 to assess hydrology in an area that exhibited minimal hydric
soil development. Eight out of 10 groundwater gages met the success criterion of maintaining a free
water surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 8.5 percent of the growing season. The failure of
two gauges to meet criterion may be related to below normal precipitation during the early part of the
growing season. Credit generated by a 0.169 acre wetland re-establishment area surrounding
groundwater gage 11 is considered at risk.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — FINAL

FOUST CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 6 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-d
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data*
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots*
Table 10a-b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a-d
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — FINAL

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Monthly Summarized Rainfall Data
30 Day Cumulative Rainfall Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 In -Stream Flow Gage Attainment Summary
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
*Content omitted from,,.,
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Foust Creek Mitigation Site; hereafter referred to as the Site, is located in southern Alamance
County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) approximately 15 miles
southeast of the City of Burlington. The Site is located upstream and downstream of the Snow Camp
Road stream crossing immediately east of the town of Snow Camp. The Site is located in the Carolina
Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists
primarily of agricultural lands and forest. The drainage area for the project site is 1,259 acres (1.97
square miles) at the lower end of Foust Creek.
The project stream reaches include Foust Creek and UT1 and were improved through stream restoration
and enhancement level II approaches. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration and
enhancement of 5,500 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and rehabilitation
and re-establishment of 4.96 acres (ac) of riparian wetland. The stream and wetland areas were also
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. The Site proposes to
provide 4,770 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 3.91 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014) was submitted and accepted by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in February of 2014. Construction activities
were completed by Fluvial Solutions in February 2015. The planting was completed by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. in February 2015 and baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted in January and February
2015. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence
in 2022 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project.
A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place along the stream and wetland riparian
corridors to protect them in perpetuity. The 22.11 acre easement (Deed Book 3278, Pages 935-944) is
within four parcels. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components
are illustrated in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, both streams had been degraded by livestock access and agricultural
practices. Impacts to the stream included direct access by livestock, trampling of the riparian vegetation
and stream banks, channelization, eroding banks, floodplain ditching, and a lack of stabilizing riparian
vegetation. The adjacent floodplain had been cleared for pasture and was grazed by livestock. The
riparian vegetation was either absent, limited to the streambanks, or periodically disturbed. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 presents the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The Site was designed to meet the over -arching goals as described in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2014). The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin.
While many of these benefits are limited to the Site, others, such as pollutant removal and improved
aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther reaching effects. The following project specific goals
established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014) include:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and
eroding stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological
functions;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus inputs through removing cattle from
streams and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 1-1

The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• On -site nutrient inputs were decreased by removing cattle from streams, re-establishing
floodplain connectivity, and filtering on -site runoff through buffer zones and wetlands. Off -
site nutrient input is absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain
areas and riparian wetlands, where flood flow spreads through native vegetation.
Vegetation uptakes excess nutrients.
Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creeks was greatly reduced in
the project area. Eroding stream banks were stabilized using bioengineering, natural
channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height. Storm flow
containing grit and fine sediment is filtered through restored floodplain areas, where flow
spreads through native vegetation. Spreading flood flows also reduce velocity and allow
sediment to settle out. Sediment transport capacity of restored reaches was improved so
that capacity balances more closely to load. Sediment load reduction will be monitored
through assessing bank stability with cross section surveys and visual assessment through
photo documentation which serves as an accepted surrogate for direct turbidity
measurements.
• Restored riffle/pool sequences promote aeration of water and create deep water zones,
helping to lower water temperature. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers
creates long-term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Lower water
temperatures help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
• In -stream structures were constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
habitat structures were included in the stream as part of the restoration design. Such
structures included log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris.
• Adjacent buffer and riparian habitats were restored with native vegetation as part of the
project. Native vegetation provides cover and food for terrestrial creatures. Native plant
species were planted and invasive species were treated. Eroding and unstable areas were
also stabilized with vegetation as part of this project.
• The restored land is protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
The design streams and wetlands 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 and trajectory. Specifically, the Site design was developed to restore a stream and
wetland complex to mimic a naturally occurring ecosystem creating riparian habitat and improving
water quality.
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 6 (MY6) to visually
assess the condition of the project and collect hydrology data. Per North Carolina Interagency Review
Team (NCIRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation, substrate, and channel cross -
sectional dimensions is not required during MY6.
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY6. Visual assessment during MY6
indicated that vegetation is performing adequately to attain the terminal success criteria of 210 planted
stems per acre averaging ten feet in height.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Concentrated populations of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) covering a total of 0.92 acres
were treated during February 2020 using a foliar herbicide application. Scattered stems of Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate) were also treated throughout the
Site during February 2020. Tree growth rates were limited by deficient soil nutrition within areas on the
left side of Foust Creek Reach 1, the left side of Foust Creek Reach 2, left side of Foust Creek Reach 3a as
well as on the right of Foust Creek Reach 3b totaling 2.28 acres. A mixture of humic organic matter and
fertilizer was added around the base of planted stems within these areas during April 2020. Tree growth
on the left side of Foust Creek Reach 1 was also suppressed by competition with tall fescue
(Schedonorus arundinaceus). A tree release treatment was conducted in this area (0.80 acre) during
August 2020 which included a herbicide treatment of competing vegetation within approximately 3 feet
of desirable woody stems. During November 2020, vigorous new growth on trees within treated was
observed (Figures 3.1-3.3, Table 6).
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Detailed dimensional survey and analysis is not required during MY6. Visual monitoring indicated that
the stream channel is performing as designed. No deposition or erosion exceeding approximate natural
levels or indicators of channel instability were observed.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
There are no stream areas of concern for MY6.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the MY7, two or more bankfull events must have occurred during separate years in the
restoration reaches. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on both Foust Creek and UT1 with
automated crest gages during MY6 data collection. Both Foust Creek and UT1 recorded bankfull events
during MY1, MY2, MY3, MY4, and MY5 (Table 13); therefore, the Site has met the bankfull frequency
success criterion for the seven year monitoring period.
A pressure transducer was installed on UT1 to monitor flow within UT1 to document jurisdictional
status. Baseflow must be present for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter/early
spring) during years with normal rainfall conditions. UT1 flowed continuously from January 1 until July 2
(184 days). UT1 flowed a total of 37 total days between July 2 and September 17 before resuming
continuous flow. Therefore, UT1 has met the flow duration success criterion for MY6. Refer to Appendix
5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater gages are monitored within the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones. All
gages were installed at appropriate locations such that the data collected provides an indication of
groundwater levels throughout the Site. A soil temperature probe and barometric pressure gage was
also installed to support wetland hydrology measurements. All monitoring gages were downloaded and
maintained as needed. The success criterion for wetland hydrology is a free groundwater surface within
12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive 8.5% of the growing season. During MY1 NRCS WETS Data
was used to determine the growing season for the Site. After discussions with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was agreed to use on -site soil temperature data to determine the
beginning of the growing season and use NRCS WETS data to determine the end of the growing season.
The soil temperature probe is used to determine the beginning of the growing season based on soil
temperatures staying above 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches below the soil surface, but the growing
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 1-3

season may not being prior to March 1. Bud burst of elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and black willow
(Salix nigra) were observed in Alamance and adjacent counties during February 2020 further supporting
a March 1 growing season start date. Well 11 was added during MY6 to assess hydrology in an area that
exhibited minimal hydric soil development (0.169 acre) during an NCIRT site visit. Refer to Appendix 2
for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
Eight out of 10 groundwater gages (GW) met the success criterion during MY6. For GW3, the longest
consecutive event of saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface was 2.4% of the growing season (6
days). This gage has recorded hydroperiods satisfying the success criterion in all previous monitoring
years. The water table at GW3 was sustained at only one to two inches below the criterion threshold for
the first 28 days of the growing season. At GW11, the longest consecutive event of saturation above the
criterion threshold was 1.6% of the growing season (4 days). The water table generally receded to
depths between 20 and 30 inches below the soil surface following precipitation during the growing
season. Data indicates that precipitation quantities during the early part of the growing season were
well below normal.
Given the success of GW3 during MY1 through MY5 and the unusually dry spring, it is likely that the
wetland area surrounding GW3 is generally functioning as a wetland and providing ecological uplift as
expected. It is likely that the water table elevation at GW11 was also affected by below normal
precipitation, but recorded values are generally less supportive of a fully functioning wetland. Credit
generated by the 0.169 acre wetland re-establishment area surrounding GW11 is considered at risk
(Table 1, Figure 3.2).
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
The Site will continue to be monitored and treated for invasive species as necessary. Areas treated for
Japanese honeysuckle during MY6 are expected to require additional treatment during spring of 2021.
Areas that had a tree growth enhancement treatment during MY6 will be observed in the spring to
determine if additional management actions are necessary.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary
Survival and growth of planted trees appear to be on track meet interim success criteria. Invasive
vegetation identified to date has been treated and additional treatment is expected during spring of
2021. Areas that had tree growth rates limited by competition or nutrient deficiency were treated
during MY6 and appeared to show a positive growth response. Visual assessment indicated that all
stream reaches within the Site are geomorphically stable and functioning as designed. Stream
hydrology criteria for flow duration were met for MY6, and bankfull event frequency criteria have been
satisfied for the duration of the monitoring period. Eight out of 10 groundwater gages met the success
criterion of maintaining a free water surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 8.5 percent of the
growing season. The failure of two gauges to meet criterion may be related to below normal
precipitation during the early part of the growing season. A 0.169 acre wetland re-establishment area is
considered at risk. Overall, the Site is on track to meet success criteria for closeout in 2022.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld
GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS software. Crest gages and
pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCDMS Level 2 Protocol (Lee
et al., 2008). Summary information and data related to the success of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents
available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/caroIina.htm
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Foust Creek Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report — DRAFT 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

ram'
r _
eLk
Gt
r
am
Vi
fl �a1
03030002040090 f
t
r
i� 1j
IGANE CREe"�C 10OUNT INS
r
G �
1
Snow Camp
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.
*WWILDLANDS
ErNGIr.IEERIr,JG rk�
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
- DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
- Project Area
03030002050010
�.Ai._.�,�� i
Mary, N .r
03030002050020
e
C;,eek
Gay
03030002050050
'Uri kenblc,1) .
Directions:
From 1-40 take exit 147 and turn south on NC 87. Follow NC 87
south for approximately 8 miles and make slight right onto Snow
Camp Rd. The site will be on the right side approximately 3.8 miles down the road.
Figure 1, Project Vicinity Map
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 95715
1 I Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

0
a
r
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration (Partial Credit)
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II (Partial Credit)
No Credit
Conservation Easement
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Credit at Risk (0.169 acre)
t
Figure 2. Project Component/Asset Map
*"WILDLANDS Foust Creek Mitigation Site
ENCvINEERiNG Q 200 400 Feet
DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Type R RE
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Ise
Offset
R-E' RE' R-E' RE'
Totals 4,770
N/A
1.631*
2.11
N/A N/A
Credits at Risk 0
0
0.169
0
N/A N/A
Project Components
As -Built Existing Restoration or Restoration Mitigation
Reach ID Stationingi Footage/ Approach Restoration Equivalent Footage/ Acreage Ratio (S
Location Acreage q
Streams
Foust Creek - Reach 1
101+83 to 109+96
814
Ell
Enhancement
813
2.5
325
Foust Creek- Reach 2
109+96 to 114+21 &
115+19 to 134+84
2,356
PI
Restoration
2,390
1
2,390
Foust Creek- Reach 2
114+21 to 114+35
31
PI
Restoration
(Partial Credit)
14
22
7
Foust Creek - Reach 2
(Easement Break)
114+35 to 115+19
91
PI
Restoration
(No Credit)
84
---
---
Foust Creek - Reach 3A
134+84 to 138+01
307
PI/2
Restoration
317
1
317
Foust Creek- Reach 313
139+O1 to 140+89
187
Ell
Enhancement
(Partial Credit)
188
52
38
Foust Creek - Reach 313
140+89 to 142+31
142
Ell
Enhancement
142
2.5
57
Foust Creek- Reach 313
142+31 to 150+74
684
PI/2
Restoration
843
1
843
UTl to Foust Creek
200+94 to 208+87
713
PI
Restoration
793
1
793
Wetlands
Riparian Wetland RWl
---
0.03
---
Rehabilitation
0.03
1.5
0.02
Riparian Wetland RW2
---
0.08
---
Rehabilitation
0.08
1.5
0.05
Riparian Wetland RW3
---
0.16
---
Rehabilitation
0.16
1.5
0.11
Riparian Wetland RW4
---
0.45
---
Rehabilitation
0.45
1.5
0.30
Riparian Wetland RW4
---
0.21
---
Re -Establishment
0.21
1.0
0.21
Riparian Wetland RW5
---
1.46
---
Rehabilitation
1.46
1.5
0.97
Riparian Wetland RW5
---
1.18
---
Re -Establishment
1.18
1.0
1.18
Riparian Wetland RW6
---
0.52
---
Rehabilitation
0.52
1.5
0.35
Riparian Wetland RW6
---
0.51
---
Re -Establishment
0.241*
1.0
0.241*
Riparian Wetland RW7
---
0.46
---
Rehabilitation
0.46
1.5
0.31
Credits at Risk (RW6)
---
Re -Establishment
0.169
0.169
Component Summation
Restoration Level Riparian Wetla Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
ML (acres)A� (acres) (acres) (acres) J
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,357
-
-
- - -
Enhancement
-
-
- - -
Enhancement I -
Enhancement II 1,143
Creation
-
-
-
Preservation -
-
-
- -
High Quality Preservation -
-
-
- -
Re -Establishment-
Rehabilitation
-
Re -Establishment at Risk
N/A: not applicable
1. R-E=Wed and Re -Establishment and RE= Wetland Rehabilitation per NCDENR July 30, 2013 Memorandum titled: Consistency between
Federal and State Wetland Mitigation Requirements
2. A portion of Foust Creek Reach 2 and Reach 3B does not have a full 50' bufferfrom top of bank to the conservation easement boundary on the
river left side. Therefore, mitigation credit is only included at a rate of half the normal crediting giving the restoration or restoration equivalent type.
* Wetland RW6 Re -Establishment credit calculations were updated for Monitoring Year based on the performance of groundwater well 9. Credit at Risk was deducted from this value for MY5 Reporting.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Mitigation Plan
Date Collection
Complete
October2013-
February 2014
F
Completion or
Scheduled D-livery
February 2014
Final Design -Construction Plans
April 2014-
August 2014
August 2014
Construction
October 2014-
February 2015
F
February 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
February 2015
February 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
February 2015
February 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
February 2015
February 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
February 2015
May 2015
Vegetation Survey
February 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
September 2015
December 2015
Vegetation Survey
September 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey
June 2016
Supplemental Planting
March 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
August 2017
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
September 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
N/A
December 2018
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Supplemental Planting
January 2019
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
May 2019
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
October 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey
August2019
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
N/A
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
February 2020
Tree Fertilization
April 2020
Tree Release
August 2020
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
2021
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela Allen, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Fluvial Solutions
Construction Contractor
P.O. Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 27611
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Fluvial Solutions
Seeding Contractor
P.O. Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 27611
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DIMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Project Information
Project Name
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
County
Alamance County
Project Area
22.11 acres
Planted Area
22.11 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 55' 0.12" N, 79° 24' 6.84" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03030002050050
DW R Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
1,259 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
78% Forested/ Scrubland, 21% Agriculture/ Managed Herbaceous, <1% Open Water, <1% Watershed
mpervious Cover, <1% Developed
Reach Summary Informtation
L Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration 813 2,404 1,490 793
Drainage area (acres)
954 1,047 1,259 173
NCDWR stream identification score
41.5 41.5 44 28
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V WS-V WS-V ---
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P P I
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III/IV N/A III/IV III
Underlying mapped soils
Georgeville silty clay loam, Local alluvial land, Orange silt loam
Drainage class
---
---
Soil Hydric status
---
---
---
---
Slope
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation - Post -
Restoration
0%
Regulatory Considerations
_= Regulation Applicable?_ Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes Quality Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Foust Creek Mitigation Plan(2013); Wildlands determined
"no effect" on Alamance County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter
from SHPO dated 1/9/13).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Foust Creek is located within the floodway and flood fringe
(FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panels 8788 and 8879).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
t
(Key)
WILDLANDS Mitigation Site 0 125 250 375 500 Feet Foust Creek
ENGINEERING
I I I I I DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

F
}
T �
r
gL .
*7r
'
40
1
j / • / '+'
\ 1
1 1 I 1
~'�
1 %
W kv WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gages MY6
+ Criterion Met
* Criterion Not Met
Cross Section (XS)
--- As -Built Bankfull
Structure
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration (Partial Credit)
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II (Partial Credit)
No Credit
Culvert
1� Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
Tree Release (0.80 acres)
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Japanese Honeysuckle Treated (0.92 acre)
Tree Fertilization (2.28 acres)
1 \
i �15+0pT'\� \� GW 1 ��.
y�t
i � I 6
s,
0 50 100 150 200 Feet
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

8
O
O
LO
CV
0.
D*
1 i �1
r it sue' ti. { C`) P• \ . \
co
CD
201,+00
16
�.�--• -•ter. -- x�O �C) \. _
I
Barotroll �,-�`�i,-•\ I ; G1/1/ 11
Crest Gage •�'�.�. ' \�1 \ L
Stream Gage �•.. �,
Photo Point (PP) ♦ ��\
Groundwater Gages MY6
+ Criterion Met ♦'a ) /
♦ Criterion Not Met
Cross Section (XS) '^ ♦ \ 11
--- As -Built Bankfull
N \
Structure \
Stream Restoration •,s \l
Stream Restoration (Partial Credit)
Stream Enhancement II ♦ `
Stream Enhancement II (Partial Credit)
No Credit
DConservation Easement
= Vegetation Plot
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Credit at Risk (0.169 acre)
Japanese Honeysuckle Treated (0.92 acre)
Tree Fertilization (2.28 acres)
'WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 50 100 150 200 Feet
4
018 Aerial Photography
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

+ GW
12
W�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
AV
,.t
0 50 100 150 200 Feet
Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gages MY6
+ Criterion Met
* Criterion Not Met
Cross Section (XS)
--- As -Built Bankfull
Structure
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration (Partial Credit)
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II (Partial Credit)
No Credit
1� Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
FIZ-Oli
Wetland Re-establishment
l ® Wetland Rehabilitation
Japanese Honeysuckle Treated (0.92 acre)
Tree Fertilization (2.28 acres)
'C -•-3 •fE
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Alamance County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Foust Creek Reach 1 (813 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.Overalllntegrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures
sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Foust Creek Reach 2 (2,404 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
9
9
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures
sills or arms
1
1
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Foust Creek Reach 3 (1,490 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
11
11
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
11
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
11
11
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures
sills or arms
3
3
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
UT1 (793 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15
15
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
14
14
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
14
14
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15
15
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
14
14
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
13
13
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
Structures
sills or arms
13
13
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
13
13
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Planted Acreage 22
Mapping
Number
%of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
of
Planted
Acreage
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 22
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number
of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%
Tree Growth Enhancement Areas
Areas that received soil ammendment or competition release treatment to promote
tree growth.
none
5
3.08
14%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 6

PHOTO POINT 1 Foust Creek R1— looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 2 Foust Creek R1— looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 2 Foust Creek R1— looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 3 Foust Creek R1— looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 3 Foust Creek R1— looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 Foust Creek R1— looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 Foust Creek R1— looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 5 Foust Creek R1— looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 5 Foust Creek R1— looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 6 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 6 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 8 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 8 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 9 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 9 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 11 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 11 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 12 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 12 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 14 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 14 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 17 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 18 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 18 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

1 nq fw ` r 44
J Wh
"1 4y_ £A
` l r a6dr _ c
PHOTO POINT 19 Foust Creek R2 — looking upstream (4/7/2020) PHOTO POINT 19 Foust Creek R2 — looking downstream (4/7/2020)
r , c
� e A;
t
�
n
� �
r:
• • •• 1 • �� • 1 1 • • •• 1 • �� •� 1 1
VT7 i
v
1

PHOTO POINT 22 Foust Creek 113a — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 23 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 24 Foust Creek R3b — looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 24 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 25 Foust Creek R3b — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 25 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 26 Foust Creek R3b — looking upstream (4/7/2020) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020) 1
PHOTO POINT 27 Foust Creek R3b — looking upstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 27 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020)
PHOTO POINT 28 Foust Creek R3b — looking upstream (4/7/2020) I PHOTO POINT 28 Foust Creek R3b — looking downstream (4/7/2020) I
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

As
I 41,
¢
�L
pa a Of
R
jyi._-� � �t� ��F p �P�� � ��r y,,, �t\ 1 ♦�� � � ��r
i" \ 1111
Alf
�•.
� r ,

Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 6

e+� 1
i
r
- ht
r
-
� J✓ 3
_ 'lfdY �' G3,i5 4��'1'
whip WE:
L
-
1 _ t

Pictures
I
po
Aiii
.2t'.-=
'A
\
l

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation inventory and analysis not required during MY6

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY6

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Monthly Summarized Rainfall Data
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Foust Creek Monthly Summarized Rainfall for 2020 Graham, NC
7
6
5
c
4
c
0
a
w 3
i
a
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20
Date
2020 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2020 monthly rainfall collected from weather station 3135555, Graham 2 ENE, NC
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station 313555, Graham 2 ENE, NC.

30 Day Cumulative Rainfall Data
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DIMS Project No. 957165)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Foust Creek 30 Day Cumulative Rainfall for 2020 Graham, NC
10
4
9
8
3
7
c
a
6
c
a
w
2
5
nh
w
2
m
E
Q
4
m
0
0
m
3
1
2
H.Y
1
0
L
I IA
0
C T C by O
L1 Q Q In [)
llllllllllllllllDaily Rainfall -30-Day Cumulative Total -30% Rainfall Total -70% Rainfall Total
1 2020 monthly rainfall collected from weather station 3135555, Graham 2 ENE, NC
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station 313555, Graham 2 ENE, NC.

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Reach
Monitoring
Year
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Foust Creek
MY1
10/6/2015
7/2015-10/2015
Cork Crest Gage
M Y2
3/8/2016
1/2016-3/2016
8/2/2016
6/7/2016
Crest
Gage/Pressure
Transducer
10/10/2016
10/8/2016
MY3
6/27/2017
4/24/2017
6/20/2017
MY4
7/6/2018
4/25/2018
10/23/2018
8/20/2018
9/18/2018
1/30/2019
10/11/2018
11/5/2018
11/12/2018
12/20/2018
MY5
5/2/2019
2/23/2019
4/12/2019
4/17/2019
M Y6
3/2/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
8/6/2020
5/21/2020
UT1
MY1
10/6/2015
7/2015-10/2015
Cork Crest Gage
12/4/2015
10/2015-12/2015
M Y2
3/8/2016
1/2016-3/2016
MY3
6/27/2017
4/24/2017
Crest
Gage/Pressure
Transducer
6/20/2017
MY4
3/20/2018
4/25/2018
10/23/2018
9/17/2018
1/30/2019
11/12/2018
12/20/2018
MY5
1/30/2019
1/16/2019
5/2/2019
4/13/2019
MY 6
3/2/2020
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
2/15/2020
4/28/2020
4/13/2020
8/6/2020
5/21/2020
8/6/2020
6/11/2020

Table 14. In -Stream Flow Gage Attainment Summary
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Summary of In -Stream Flow Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Reach
Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria
Year 1 (2015)
Year 2(2016)
Year 3(2017)
Year 4 (2018)
Year 5 (2019)
Year 6 (2020)*
Year 7 (2021)
UT1
342 Days/
106 Days/
56 Days/
77 Days/
109 Days/
184 Days/
343 Days
249 Days
165 Days
264 Days
209 Days
273 Days
*Data collected through 11/10/2020 for MY6
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1 (2015)
Year 2 (2016)
Year 3 (2017)
Year 4 (2018)
Year 5 (2019)
Year 6 (2020)
Year 7 (2021)
Yes/93 Days
Yes/143 Days
Yes/134 Days
Yes/132 Days
Yes/121 Days
Yes/138 Days
1
(40.2%)
(57.0%)
(53.0%)
(52.0%)
(47.6%)
(54.3%)
Yes/46 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/35 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/31 Days
2
(20.0%)
(19.5%)
(17.4%)
(12.8%)
(24.0%)
(12.2%)
Yes/57 Days
Yes/91 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/94 Days
Yes/62 Days
No/6 Days
3
(24.6%)
(36.3%)
(9.1%)
(37.0%)
(24.4%)
(2.4%)
Yes/63 Days
Yes/86 Days
Yes/132 Days
Yes/74 Days
Yes/78 Days
Yes/28 Days
4
(27.2%)
(34.3%)
(52.2%)
(29.1%)
(30.7%)
(11.0%)
Yes/124 Days
Yes/196 Days
Yes/153 Days
Yes/39 Days
Yes/97 Days
Yes/48 Days
5
(53.7%)
(78.1%)
(60.5%)
(15.4%)
(38.2%)
(18.9%)
Yes/47 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/45 Days
Yes/84 Days
Yes/64 Days
Yes/46 Days
6
(20.2%)
(19.5%)
(17.8%)
(33.1%)
(25.2%)
(18.1%)
Yes/152 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/202 Days
Yes/237 Days
Yes/187 Days
Yes/254 Days
7
(66.1%)
(86.9%)
(79.8%)
(93.3%)
(73.6%)
(100%)
Yes/51 Days
Yes/74 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/37 Days
Yes/63 Days
Yes/33 Days
8
(22.0%)
(29.5%)
(9.1%)
(14.6%)
(24.8%)
(13.0%)
Yes/ 119 Days
Yes/179 Days
Yes/144 Days
Yes/124 Days
Yes/123 Days
Yes/189 Days
10
(51.7%)
(71.3%)
(56.9%)
(48.8%)
(48.4%)
74.4%)
No/4 Days
11,
1Wetland Re-establishment area surrounding groundwater well 9 eliminated during MY3
2Well 11 installed during MY6
Criterion is that a free groundwater must be present within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive 8.5% of the growing season

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
60
Foust Groundwater Gage #6
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
3 0
46 max consecutive da
s
O
O
M
(D m
w
o
Gage Malfunction
M
a) 0
Occurred 3/22/20 -
°_° 0
5/20/20
0
C7 �
w
c
w
i T C to cL V
ii Q Q cn 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
o
Foust Groundwater Gage #7
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
0
20
V
to 0
3 0 254 max consecutive days
v
) 0
6.0
0 �
2 m
10
(Dm
—
(D
0
0
5.0
f✓
m
�
0
�
4.0
-10
CF
-20
3.0
w
c
'm
m
�
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
EII
I
h
11 L
11
L III
I
I
I 1
0.0
-60
C i T
i Q
� �
C — to Q
Q ' V) O
> V
° 0
Z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
to Q > V
� � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
w
-20
`w
m
-30
-40
-50
60
Foust Groundwater Gage #11
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
0
3
O
w m
O
t✓
co
N
c
4o♦amax consecutive days 3 \
o
(D
o
�
c
w
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i T C to Q V
ii Q Q cn O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
Pitt
1.0
0.0

Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
(DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
80
70
ZI 60
w
41
41
M
w
a
50
40
30
Foust Soil Temperature Probe
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
C L L C bD Q Y %CL U
ii Q � cn 0 o
� � Q Z
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
558.0
557.5
557.0
w
556.5
`w
m
556.0
555.5
555.0
Foust: In -Stream Flow Gage for UT1
Monitoring Year 6 - 2020
ern Q >
0 z
—Rai nfa II UT1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfu
0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 a
c
to
cc
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0