The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20170887 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20201221ID#* 20170887 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Erin Davis Initial Review Completed Date 12/22/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/21/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jason Lorch Project Information ...................................................................................................................................................................... ID#:* 20170887 Existing IDY Project Type: r DIMS r Mitigation Bank Project Name: Bethel Branch Mitigation Site County: Chatham Document Information Email Address:* jlorch@Wldlandseng.com Version: *1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: Bethel Branch Monitoring Year 2 Report.pdf 10.62MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jason Lorch Signature:* MONITORING YEAR 2 REPORT CANE CREEK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK BETHEL BRANCH MITIGATION SITE Chatham County, NC Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002 USACE Action ID Number 2016-02365 Data Collection Period: April - November 2020 Submission Date: December 21, 2020 PREPARED FOR: The North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) USACE Project Manager: Samantha Dailey 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 PREPARED BY: w WILDLANDS ENGINEERING Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Phone: (919) 851-9986 December 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering, Inc. developed the Bethel Branch Mitigation Site (Site) as the third phase of the Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) in Chatham County, North Carolina. The Site is within Hydrologic Unit Code 03030002050050 and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-06-04. The Bank generates stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for permitted impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State waters within the Cape Fear 02 watershed. The project included the restoration and enhancement of 6,696 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams on three unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek, a stream in the Jordan Lake watershed. The Site is expected to generate a total of 5,202 stream mitigation units (after credit adjustments for reduced buffer width). The project also includes the rehabilitation, re- establishment, and enhancement of 3.22 acres of riparian wetlands for a total of 3.14 wetland mitigation units. The 16.30-acre site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. The Site is located near the town of Snow Camp, North Carolina. The Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWR, 2005) indicates that Jordan Lake is classified as Water Supply IV, and Nutrient Sensitive Waters needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. The Bank offers a rare opportunity to contribute to on -going restoration work within the watershed. Adding three new sites to the five existing mitigation sites in the Cane Creek watershed, the Bank helps meet the goals and address the non -point stressors identified in the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (Drostin and Herrmann, 2009). While benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the project site, others, such as reduced pollutant and sediment loading, have farther reaching effects. The project goals established in the Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) were designed with consideration of local watershed stressors (e.g. livestock grazing) within the Cape Fear River Basin. The project goals include: • Reduce pollutant inputs to streams; • Reduce sediment inputs from eroding stream banks; • Improve the stability of stream channels; • Improve instream habitat; • Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime; • Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation; • Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities; and • Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses. Site construction and planting were completed in April 2019 and the as -built survey was conducted in May 2019. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed in November 2020. Overall, the Site is on track to meet MY7 success criteria. All vegetation plots exceeded MY3 interim success criterion of 320 stems per acre on an individual basis, except for vegetation plot 2. If green ash and black walnut volunteers are included in the total, vegetation plot 2 also exceeds the MY3 target stem density. Previously noted bare areas along UT3 are significantly smaller with only one area of low herbaceous growth remaining (less than 0.1 acres). Sporadic growth of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were treated with various forms of herbicide application in MY2. All project streams are stable, functioning as designed, and fall within the appropriate Rosgen stream type parameters. Four separate bankfull events were recorded on UT1 and UT2; three bankfull events were recorded on UT3. The flow gauge on UT3 showed 74 consecutive and 140 total days of flow. Three of the six groundwater gauges met the success criterion. The three groundwater gauges that did not meet success criterion, still met for over 5.7% of the growing season. Rainfall in March was below normal causing groundwater levels in these areas to dip just over 12 to 14 inches below soil surface for a few days. They are expected to show appropriate groundwater levels for at least 8.0% of the growing season in future years when rainfall totals in January through March are normal. No easement encroachment or stream crossing issues have been identified in MY2. BETHEL BRANCH MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 2 Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT.....................................................................2-1 2.1 Vegetation Assessment..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern.....................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Stream Assessment....................................................................................................................2-2 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern...........................................................................................................2-2 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment..................................................................................................2-2 2.6 Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................2-2 2.7 Adaptive Management Plan......................................................................................................2-3 2.8 Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................2-3 Section 3: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................3-1 Section 4: REFERENCES.................................................................................................................4-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figure 3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map Table 5a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Groundwater Well Photographs Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Table 8a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Table 8b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section) Cross -Section Plots Table 10 Bank Pin Exposure Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events Monthly Rainfall Data 30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data Table 12 Wetland Gauge Attainment Summary Groundwater Gauge Plots Soil Temperature Probe Plot Table 13 In -Stream Flow Gauge Attainment Summary Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Bethel Branch Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northern Chatham County, approximately 5.5 miles southeast of Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1). The Site is within the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002050050 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-06-04. The Site is within the Jordan Lake watershed which is classified as Water Supply (WS) IV, and a Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Project streams consisted of restoration and enhancement on three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, and UT3) for a total of 6,696 linear feet of stream. A total of 3.22 acres of riparian wetlands were re- established, rehabilitated, and enhanced. Riparian and wetland areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and ecosystem function. The Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) (Wildlands, 2018) was submitted in October 2018 and approved by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) in November 2018. Site construction was completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in April 2019. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in April 2019. Baseline monitoring (MYO) and Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) were completed in April and November 2019 respectively. Annual monitoring and reporting will continue for seven years with close-out anticipated in 2026 given success criteria are attained. Appendix 1 provides detailed project activity, history, contact, and site background information. A conservation easement was recorded on 16.30 acres. The project is expected to yield 5,202 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 3.14 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Project components and assets are illustrated in Figure 2 and credit allocation is provided in Table 1 of Appendix 1. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives Prior to construction, the primary causes of degradation were due to livestock impacts and the in -line pond which encompassed much of UT3. The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin and strives to maximize ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. While benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading have farther reaching effects. The table below describes expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides specific goals and objectives. These project goals and objectives were developed as part of the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018) considering the goals and non -point stressors listed in the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (Drostin and Herrmann, 2009). Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Exclude cattle from streams and Reduce pollutant inputs to streams buffers by installing fencing around including fecal coliform, nitrogen, conservation easements adjacent to Reduction in pollutant loads to and phosphorus. cattle pastures and providing streams caused by cattle access. alternative water sources or removing cattle from sites. Reduce inputs of sediment into Reconstruct stream channels with streams from eroding stream stable dimensions. Add bank Reduction in sediment loadings banks. revetments and in -stream structures to to streams from bank erosion. protect restored/enhanced streams. Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-1 Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Construct stream channels that will Return networks of streams to a maintain a stable pattern and profile Reduce shear stress on channel stable form that is capable of considering the hydrologic and boundary. Support all stream supporting hydrologic, biologic, and sediment inputs to the system, the functions above hydrology. water quality functions. landscape setting, and the watershed conditions. Install habitat features such as Increase and diversify available constructed riffles, cover logs, and habitats for macroinvertebrates, Improve aquatic habitat in project brush toes into restored/enhanced fish, and amphibians leading to n streams. streams. Add woody materials to colonization and increase in channel beds. Construct pools of biodiversity over time. Add varying depth. complexity including LWD to streams. Raise stream bed elevations and Raise water table and hydrate allow for more frequent overbank Reconstruct stream channels with riparian wetlands. Allow flood flows to provide a source of appropriate bankfull dimensions and flows to disperse on the hydration for floodplain wetlands. depth relative to the existing floodplain. Support geomorphic Reduce shear stress on channels floodplain. and higher -level functions. during larger flow events. Create and improve riparian and Reduce sediment inputs from wetland habitats by planting native bank erosion and runoff. vegetation. Provide a canopy to Increase nutrient cycling and shade streams and reduce thermal Plant native tree and shrub species in storage in floodplain. Improve loadings. Create a source of woody riparian zone and wetland areas. riparian habitat. Add a source of inputs for streams. Reduce flood LWD and organic material to flow velocities on floodplain and stream. Support all stream improve long-term lateral stability functions. of streams. Restore riparian wetlands by raising Restored wetland hydrology, Restore wetland gy, soils, hydrology, y stream beds, plugging existing ditches, formation of hydric soils, and and plant communities. removing fill material over relict hydric establishment of wetland soils, and planting native wetland vegetation. species. Ensure that development and Protect the Site from agricultural uses that would Establish conservation easements on encroachment on the riparian damage the Site or reduce the the Site. corridor and direct impact to benefits of project are prevented. streams and wetlands. Support all stream functions. Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-2 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 2 DATA ASSESSMENT Monitoring Year 2 site assessment was conducted between April 2020 and November 2020. Vegetation, stream geomorphology and hydrology, and wetland hydrology success criteria were approved in the Mitigation Plan. Monitoring features and locations are shown in Figure 3. 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Planted woody vegetation is monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures presented by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Final vegetation success criteria are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height at the end of MY7. Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and 260 planted stems per acre at the end of MY5. Five fixed 100 square meter vegetation plots were installed randomly on the Site and will be monitored annually. Another five 100 square meter vegetation plots are relocated throughout the planted area at random each year. All 10 plots are monitored annually and subject to the success criteria above. The MY2 vegetation survey was completed in September 2020. The average tree stem density across all plots is 615 stems per acre. Fixed vegetation plots 1, 3, 4, and 5, as well as all random vegetation plots (VP 6-10) exceeded the MY3 criterion with plots ranging from 405 to 1,174 stems per acre. Vegetation plot 2 had 283 planted stems per acre, which does not meet the interim target stem density of 320 planted stems per acre. However, if green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and black walnut (Juglans nigra) volunteers are included in the total, the plot surpasses the MY3 target stem density at 567 stems per acre. Even without volunteer species this plot is on track to meet the MY5 interim and MY7 final success criteria. Vegetation plot photographs can be found in Appendix 2 and summary data of each plot can be found in Appendix 3. 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern Thick herbaceous vegetation made finding small, planted stems difficult during MY1. Because of this, stem densities appeared low, especially in the areas around random vegetation plots 6 and 8 which had stem densities of 243 and 283 stems per acre. In MY2, random vegetation plots 6 and 8 were surveyed in generally the same areas and stem densities were 405 and 688 stems per acre. Herbicide ring sprays were applied to thick herbaceous vegetation around planted stems to help them thrive along UT1 Reach 1 below the crossing, and in areas of the old pond bed along UT3. Wildlands will continue to monitor the health of the planted stems throughout the project, and remedial actions will be taken if necessary. The areas of concern along UT3, including areas of inadequate stem density and bare areas that were noted in MY1 were addressed in MY2. As requested by NCDWR, supplementary bare root trees were planted in March 2020, adding a total of 400 additional trees to the old pond bed. Tree species included tag alder (Alnus serrulate), river birch (eetula nigra), silky dogwood (Cornus ammomum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda). Random vegetation plot 10 is in the pond bed area and shows a stem density of 526 stems per acre, as shown in Figure 3 (Appendix 2) and Table 8b (Appendix 3). A supplementary seed mix along with soil amendments were applied to the bare areas in April and October 2020. The two areas along UT3 downstream right are now covered in vegetation. The bare area along UT3 downstream left has sporadic vegetation and is significantly smaller (less than 0.1 acres). Wildlands will continue to seed and add soil amendments as necessary to encourage vegetation establishment in this area during subsequent monitoring years. The populations of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) along UT2 that were identified in MY1 were treated during MY2. Sporadic populations of Chinese privet (Ligustrum Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-1 sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) along UT1 and UT2 in the restoration reaches were also treated using various methods of herbicide application including foliar, cut stump, girdling, and stem injection. Wildlands will continue to note any invasive species on the Site and treat them as necessary in subsequent monitoring years. 2.3 Stream Assessment Ten permanent cross -sections were installed per the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, 2016) in order to assess channel dimension performance. Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in June 2020 and all project streams are stable and functioning as designed. Cross -sections at the Site show little to no change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio. Bank height ratios fall within the appropriate Rosgen stream type parameters. Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual inspection indicates reach wide vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map, visual stability assessment table, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for morphological data and plots. A sizeable storm event occurred after most vegetation had gone dormant causing minor bank scour. The bank pin measurements on the lower portion of UT3 reflect this scour with 3.5 inches of exposure on the most upstream pin (Appendix 4, Table 10). The stream appears to be stable, but the area will continue to observed for stability in subsequent monitoring years. 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern In -stream vegetation was observed intermittently along riffles on all three restored tributaries and was treated with herbicide in the summer of 2020. In -stream vegetation will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary. The minor bank scour along UT3 appears stable and will monitored in subsequent years for signs of erosion. 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restored reaches. Four bankfull events were recorded on both UT1 and UT2, and three bankfull events were recorded on UT3 during MY2. In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on UT3 for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. Results from the flow gauge installed on UT3 show baseflow for 74 consecutive days and a total of 140 days. Monitoring Year 2 is the first full year of data collection and monthly rainfall totals show generally at or above average precipitation, which partially accounts for the improvement in stream hydrology results from MY1. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data. 2.6 Wetland Assessment Four groundwater monitoring wells with pressure transducers were installed during baseline monitoring in wetland re-establishment zones. At the request of the IRT, two additional groundwater monitoring wells with transducers were installed on January 9, 2020 (groundwater gauges 5 and 6). All gauges were installed at appropriate locations so that data collected provides an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland area. The performance criterion for wetland hydrology is groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for 8.0% of the growing season consecutively. To determine the start of the growing season at the Site, one soil temperature probe was installed. However, soil temperature data for MY2 was not included because the probe was removed from the ground multiple times by wildlife. Foust Creek Mitigation Site is Wildland's nearest site with a soil temperature probe and is approximately 7.5 miles away. Soil temperature at Foust Creek stayed above 41 degrees Fahrenheit at Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-2 12 inches below the soil surface for all of 2020 (Wildlands, 2020). Bud burst of silky willow (Salix sericea) and sweet gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua) were observed in Chatham County on February 18, confirming the earliest accepted growing season start date of March 1. A barotroll logger (to measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with well pressure transducer data) was also installed. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for the groundwater well locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots. Three of the six groundwater gauges met the success criteria. The growing season in this area began on March 1 according to bud burst observations and ended on November 17 (261 days) according to the Applied Climate Information System (ACIS) website (NOAA-RCC, 2019). Groundwater gauges 2, 3, and 4 show groundwater within 12 inches of the surface for more than 8.0% of the growing season, with hydroperiods ranging from 13.0% (groundwater gauge 3) to 16.8% (groundwater gauge 4). Groundwater gauges 1, 5, and 6 met the success criterion for 6.1%, 5.7%, and 6.9% of the growing season respectively. March rainfall data shows lower than average precipitation and groundwater was depleted. This caused readings for gauges 1, 5, and 6 to dip anywhere from just below 12 to 14 inches below the soil surface for only a few days at the beginning of the growing season, when groundwater levels often meet success criterion. Refer to the Monthly Rainfall and 30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data in Appendix 5. Groundwater levels around these gauges are expected to be within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 8.0% of the growing season in future years when precipitation levels throughout the first quarter of the year are not abnormally low. 2.7 Adaptive Management Plan The areas that were previously bare along UT3 look much better. The two areas along UT3 downstream right are now covered in vegetation. The bare area along UT3 downstream left has sporadic vegetation and is significantly smaller (less than 0.1 acres). Soil conditioners will be added to the remaining small area of low herbaceous cover to continue encouraging vegetation growth. Wildlands has been active in removing the sporadic populations of invasive species and will continue to monitor for resprouts and schedule follow up treatments using various methods of herbicide application as necessary. Additional live stakes will be planted along stream banks in winter 2020/2021 to help shade out in - stream vegetation. Wildlands will continue to monitor and treat in -stream vegetation as needed. 2.8 Monitoring Year 2 Summary All vegetation plots exceeded MY3 interim success criterion of 320 stems per acre on an individual basis, except for vegetation plot 2. If green ash and black walnut volunteers are included in the total, vegetation plot 2 also exceeds the MY3 target stem density. Previously noted bare areas along UT3 are significantly smaller with only one area of low herbaceous growth remaining (less than 0.1 acres). Sporadic stems of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were treated with various forms of herbicide application in MY2. All project streams are stable, functioning as designed, and fall within the appropriate Rosgen stream type parameters. Four separate bankfull events were recorded on UT1 and UT2; three bankfull events were recorded on UT3. The flow gauge on UT3 showed 74 consecutive and 140 total days of flow. Three of the six groundwater gauges met the success criterion. The three groundwater gauges that did not meet success criterion, still met for over 5.7% of the growing season. Rainfall in March was below normal causing groundwater level in these areas to dip just over 12 to 14 inches below soil surface for a few days. They are expected to show appropriate groundwater levels for at least 8.0% of the growing season in future years when rainfall totals in January through March are Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-3 normal. No easement encroachment or stream crossing issues have been identified in MY2. Overall, the Site is in good condition and on track to meet MY7 success criteria. Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 2-4 Section 3: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Integrated Current Condition View mapping was recorded using a Garmin GLO receiver with 3-meter accuracy and processed using ArcGIS. Pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross -sections to measure bankfull events and were monitored throughout the year. Hydraulic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, released by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT, 2016). Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 3-1 Section 4: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Drostin, R., and Herrmann, M. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Accessed at: https://files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation % 20Services/Watershed_Planning/Cape_Fear_River_Basin/RB RP%20CapeFear%202009%20Revised%20032013.pdf Harrelson, C.C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Accessed at: https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/fplibrary/Harrelson_1994_Stream_Channel_Reference _Sites_An_II lustrated.pdf Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Regional Climate Centers (NOAA-RCC). 2019. Applied Climate Information System. Accessed at: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/ North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Accessed at: http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification- standards/classifications North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw- reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-M itigation-Update.pdf Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Bank: Bethel Branch Site Mitigation Plan. USACE, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Foust Creek Mitigation Site - Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report. DIMS, Raleigh, NC. Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 4-1 APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables Bethel Branch Mitigation Site _ ! Hydrologic Unit Code (14) urn O 762 ft c 03030002050050 f R O 11�� Clark Rd� /�� / ALAMANCE __ 3 / Moon Lirxih,Y �� oSk � C�ntes 03030003070010 �-� Soup /� -Cb /ry �� J Rd Jo hnrrY / eta . ya Corr 5 �' ac n� ( Un°tauyId 772 R 03030002050070 % 41 Wrfr tarn rl Rd /17 Rd Gseek 1 Epps Clark�d 03030002050090 CIE 7 �1 Silk HO A 1b fk C, �"r395 Rd �t5d��5 j From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West approximately 4.8 miles to US a 64W at Exit 98B. Continue on US 64W for 24.3 miles. Exit right at '65o„ Rd o41 exit 381 on NC 87N towards Burlington and continue for approximately one mile. Turn left onto Silk Hope Gum Spring Road 5 4* and continue for approximately 8 miles. At the intersection in Silk 03030003070020 Hope, turn right onto Silk Hope Lindley Mill Road. Travel approximately 3 miles and turn left onto Moon Lindley Road continue for 0.6 miles. Turn right onto R E Wright Road and the yaY� r project area is accessible through the gate 0.1 miles on the left. Figure 1. Vicinity Map WILDLAND S 0 0.5 1 Mile Bethel Branch Mitigation Site ENGINEERING I I I I I USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC Figure 2, Project Component/Asset Map ftWI LD LAN D S 0 175 350 Feet Bethel Branch Mitigation Site tz ENGINEERING I I I I I USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Chatham County, NC Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 ROJECT COMPONE Mitigation Existing Mitigation As -Built Reach ID Footage/ Plan Mitigation Restoration Priority Level Ratio Footage/ Comments Footage/ Category Level Acreage (X:1) Acreage Acreage STREAMS Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control UT1 Reach 1 2,398 2,514 Warm R P1 & P2 1.0 2,514 Structures, Planted Buffer UT1 Reach 2 114 114 Warm Ell N/A 2.5 114 No credit, no buffer on right side of channel UT2 Reach 1 1,242 1,242 Warm Ell N/A 2.5 1,242 Conservation Easement, Planted Buffer Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control UT2 Reach 2 1,364 1,180 Warm R Pi 1.0 1,180 Structures, Planted Buffer Full Channel Restoration, Grade Control UT2 Reach 3 440 411 Warm R Pi 1.0 411 Structures, Planted Buffer UT2 Reach 4 434 434 Warm Ell N/A 2.5 434 No credit, no buffer on right side of channel Pond Removed, Full Channel Restoration, Grade UT3 461 801 Warm R Pi 1.0 801 Control Structures, Planted Buffer WETLANDS Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement,Planted REl and RE2 3.03 3.03 Riparian N/A Re-estab 1.0 3.03 Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement, RHl-RH4 0.07 0.07 Riparian N/A Rehab 1.5 0.07 Planted Hydrologic Restoration, Conservation Easement, ElZ 0.12 0.12 Riparian N/A E 2.0 0.12 Planted Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Coastal Marsh t Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine Restoration 4,703 Enhancement I Enhancement 11 499 Preservation Re -Establishment 3.03 Rehabilitation 0.05 Enhancemel 0.06 Creation Totals 5,202 3.14 'As in the Mitigation Plan, credits have been adjusted to reflect reduced buffer width. Acreage and credits have been adjusted to correct a miscalculation in the Mitigation Plan. Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Activity or Report Mitigation Plan Data Collection Complete October 2018 Completion or Scheduled Delivery October 2018 Final Design - Construction Plans December 2018 December 2018 Construction April 2019 April 2019 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal April 2019 April 2019 Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' April 2019 April 2019 Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments April 2019 April 2019 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) Stream Survey May 2019 July 2019 Vegetation Survey April 2019 Bare Area Seeded October 2019 Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey November 2019 December 2019 Vegetation Survey November 2019 Supplemental Tree Planting March 2020 Invasive Vegetation Removal March, June, October 2020 Bare Areas Seeded and Soil Amendments Added April and October 2020 Competitive Vegetation Treatment' May and June 2020 In -Stream Vegetation Removal June and August 2020 Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey June 2020 December 2020 Vegetation Survey September 2020 Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey 2021 December 2021 Vegetation Survey 2021 Year 4 Monitoring December 2022 Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2023 December 2023 Vegetation Survey 2023 Year Monitoring Decemh—?rna Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2025 D Vegetation Survey 2025 'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. Herbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems. Table 3. Project Contact Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Designer 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Greg Turner, PE Raleigh, NC 27609 919.851.9986 Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Construction Contractor 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Bruton Natural Systems, Inc Planting Contractor P.O. Box 1197 Fremont, NC 27830 Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse Bare Roots Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems, Inc & Foggy Mountain Nursery Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Jason Lorch Monitoring, POC 919.851.9986 Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 PROJECT• • Project Name I Bethel Branch Mitigation Site County lChatham Count Project Area (acres) 16.30 Planted Area (acres) 18.10 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) PROJECT• Physiographic Province 35" 49' 45.56" N, 79" 22' 11.37" W SUMMARY INFORMATION Piedmont River Basin Cape Fear USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3030002 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050050 DWR Sub -basin 03-06-04 Streams UTl UT2 UT3 Drainiage Area (acres) 485 207 49 CGIA Land Use Classification CGIA Land Use Classification Pasture 70% Forested 26% Unmanaged herbaceous 1% Impervious Regulation kGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Applicable? Resolved? 3% Supporting Documentation Waters ofthe United States -Section 404 Ycs Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ401 Water Quality Certification No. 4134. Waters of the United States - Section 401 Ycs Ycs Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Bethel Branch Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect' on Chatham County listed endangered species. The USFWS responded on June 22, 2016 and concurred with NCWRC stating that "the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally -listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at these sites" Historic Preservation Act Yes yes Correspondence from SHPO on July 1, 2018 indicating they were not aware of any historic resources that would be affected by the project. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A Essential Fisheries Habitat No I N/A N/A APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data Reach 2 { fi*t, + P P 10' / P P 9 t / rr /+S',S • /+ Reach 4 / XS4 / X k w,, k tPP 8 Reach 3y k' PAP 23tF ly PP 22 k /s t .a,k ♦+PP21+ GW!5, P,P17 26RP 6 0 -GWe3 t?T,5 k k t `GW 4 ► PP>,20 }. XS /Xs2 UT 1 6 1 P,P'4 }' t / / tPPX19 /} Reach +PP 3 k k / / t 1 k RP17 Reach 2 GW 1 GW/2. P P 2 /+ k t P P 16, + + /+ .:.tP P 1 X/ 10, XS1 P,PA4 i k tPP 13 A - I Reach 1 ir I, +UXZ PP 12' k } 1 Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 0E Category 1. Bed Channel Sub -Category Metric 1. Vertical Stability Aggradation able EE�.n`slable' Perfo r in iIntendl Stable Pe%rformingas ..age Intended Woody Woody Woody Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation 0 100% (Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 100% Fo 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 37 37 100% 100% 3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 36 36 Condition Length Appropriate 100% 36 36 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of 36 36 4.Thalweg Position meanderbend Run 36 36 Thalweg centering at downstream of 100% meanderbend Glide 2. Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% ri/a n/a n/a and erosion. Banks undercut/overhanging to the 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, calving, or collapse. :-1 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Engineered Structures' Structures physically intact with no 1. Overall Integrity dislodged boulders or logs. 21 21 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 1 1 100% maintenance of grade across the sill. 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 1 1 100% underneath sills or arms. Bank erosion within the structures 3. Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 20 20 100% 15%. Pool forming structures maintaining 4. Habitat -Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_1.6 20 20 100% twads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 HT') Category 1. Bed Channel Sub -Category Metric 1. Vertical Stability Aggradation "in able EE�.n`slabe' Perfor in iInterdl Stable Pe%rformingas Woody Woody Woody '..ag �e Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation 0 0 100% (Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 29 29 100% 100% 3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 28 28 Condition Length Appropriate 100% 28 28 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of 28 28 4.Thalweg Position meanderbend Run 28 28 Thalweg centering at downstream of 100% meanderbend Glide 2. Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% ri/a n/a n/a and erosion. Banks undercut/overhanging to the 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, calving, or collapse. :-1 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Engineered Structures' Structures physically intact with no 1. Overall Integrity dislodged boulders or logs. 16 16 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 0 0 N/A maintenance of grade across the sill. 2a Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 0 0 N/A underneath sills or arms. Bank erosion within the structures 3. Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 16 16 100% 15%. Pool forming structures maintaining 4. Habitat -Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_1.6 16 16 100% twads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 IIT3 Category 1. Bed Channel Sub -Category Metric 9EEE�.n`slab�ee' 1. Vertical Stability Aggradation le%rformingas Woody Woody Woody '..'ag Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation 0 0 100% (Riffle and Run Units) Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100% 100% 3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 20 20 Condition Length Appropriate 100% 20 20 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of 20 20 4.Thalweg Position meander bend Run 20 20 Thalweg centering at downstream of 100% meanderbend Glide 2. Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% ri/a n/a n/a and erosion. Banks undercut/overhanging to the 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, calving, or collapse. :-1 0 100% n/a n/a n/a Totals 0 100% n/a n/a n/a 3. Engineered Structures' Structures physically intact with no 1. Overall Integrity dislodged boulders or logs. 15 15 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 0 0 N/A maintenance of grade across the sill. 2a Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 0 0 N/A underneath sills or arms. Bank erosion within the structures 3. Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 15 15 100% 15%. Pool forming structures maintaining 4. Habitat -Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_1.6 15 15 100% twads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Planted Acreage 8.10 Vegetation Category Definitions ThresholdMapping Number of Polygons Combined Acreage %of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0 0.00% Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count Low Stem Density Areas 0.1 0 0 o 0.00/ criteria. Total 0 0 0.00% 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 0.00% Easement Acreage 16.30 Invasive Areas of Concern jAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1,000 0.00 1 0.00% Easement Encroachment Areas jAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). I none 1 0 1 0 1 0% STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO POINT 1 UTi Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 1 UTi Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 UTi Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINTS UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 UTi Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 UTi Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 11 UT2 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 11 UT2 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 12 UT2 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 12 UT2 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) -1 Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 UT2 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 Reach 1— upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 Reach 1— downstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site kv Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 19 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 UT2 Reach 2 — downstream (0412412020) 1 PHOTO POINT 21 UT2 Reach 2 — upstream (0412412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 — upstream (0612512020) 1 PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 — downstream (0612512020) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 — upstream (0612512020) PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 — downstream (0612512020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS FIXED VEG PLOT 1(0911612020) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (0911612020) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (0911612020) FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (0911612020) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (0911612020) k Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs RANDOM VEG PLOT 6 (0911612020) 1 RANDOM VEG PLOT 7 (0911612020) 1 RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (0911612020) RANDOM VEG PLOT 10 (0911612020) 1� Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs GROUNDWATER WELL PHOTOGRAPHS GROUNDWATER WELL 1— (1112412020) GROUNDWATER WELL 3 — (1112412020) GROUNDWATER WELL 2 — (1112412020) GROUNDWATER WELL 4— (1112412020) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Groundwater Well Photographs APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Current Plot Data (MY2 2020) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VPS PnoLS 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 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 5 5 6 2 2 8 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 1 3 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1 Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 3 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ulmus Elm Tree 3 Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 2 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 14 14 18 7 7 14 11 11 14 11 11 16 13 13 13 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 6 6 7 5 5 6 6 6 7La2 8 5 5 5 567 567 728 283 283 567 445 445 567647 526 526 526 Color Coding Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Total includes volunteer/natural woody stems Abbreviations PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes P-all - All Planted Stems T- All Woody Stems Table 8a. Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MYO (2019) PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Betula nigra River Birch Tree 5 5 5 10 10 10 11 11 11 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 16 16 23 15 15 20 16 16 16 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 4 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 1 Liquidambarstyraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 3 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2 7 7 7 8 8 8 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 16 16 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 4 4 4 7 7 7 8 8 8 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Ulmus Elm Tree 3 Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 2 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 56 56 75 71 71 76 75 75 75 5 5 5 0.12 0.12 0.12 9 9 14 9 9 9 9 9 9 453 453 607 575 575 1 615 607 607 607 Color Coding Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Total includes volunteer/natural woody stems Abbreviations PnoLS - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes P-all - All Planted Stems T- All Woody Stems Table 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Current Plot Data (MY2 2020) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type VP 6 VP 7 VP 8 VP 9 VP 10 Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total Betula nigra River Birch Tree 5 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 2 2 1 1 Diospyros virginiona American Persimmon Tree 1 1 Froxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 13 13 9 9 1 1 4 4 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 2 2 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 3 1 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree Nyssa Tupelo Tree 2 2 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 1 1 4 4 5 5 6 6 Quercus lyroto Overcup Oak Tree 1 1 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree Ulmus Elm Tree 6 6 2 2 Ulmus alato Winged Elm Tree 5 5 15 15 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2 2 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 13 10 29 29 17 17 28 27 13 13 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0Lj 0.02 0.02 0.02 4 3 74 4 8 7 4 4 526 405 1,174688 1 688 1,133 1 1,093 1 526 526 Color Coding Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Total includes volunteer/natural woody stems Abbreviations Te - Number of stems including exotic species Total - Number of stems excluding exotic species Table 8b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Density Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MYO (2019) Te Total Te Total Te Total Betula nigra River Birch Tree 10 10 2 2 16 16 Celtis occidentalis Northern Hackberry Shrub Tree 3 3 6 6 Diospyros virginiona American Persimmon Tree 1 1 Froxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 28 28 7 7 16 16 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 2 2 Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet Exotic 4 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 3 3 Nyssa Tupelo Tree 2 2 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 19 19 13 13 16 16 Quercus lyroto Overcup Oak Tree 1 1 6 6 5 5 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 3 3 3 3 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 10 10 Ulmus Elm Tree 8 8 Ulmus alato Winged Elm Tree 20 20 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 6 6 Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2 2 3 3 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 100 96 43 43 75 75 5 5 5 0.12 0.12 0.12 19 18 27 25 9 9 809 777 348 348 607 607 Color Coding Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Total includes volunteer/natural woody stems Abbreviations Te - Number of stems including exotic species Total - Number of stems excluding exotic species APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 1 (Riffle) Cross -Section 2 (Riffle) Cross -Section 3 (Pool) Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 550.51 550.35 550.35 545.35 545.41 545.38 545.15 545.16 545.17 Low Bank Height Elevation 550.51 550.35 550.35 545.35 545.41 545.38 545.15 545.16 545.17 Bankfull Width (ft) 14.3 11.9 10.7 15.4 15.8 14.6 19.7 19.2 18.5 Floodprone Width (ft) 100 100 100 130 130 130 N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9 1 0.9 1 1.1 1.1 1 1.2 1 1 1.6 1 1.6 1.7 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.9 3.4 3.3 3.4 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 13.9 10.7 10.0 17.5 17.7 17.6 31.5 30.2 30.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.7 13.4 11.5 13.5 14.0 12.2 12.3 12.2 11.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios 7.0 8.4 9.3 8.5 8.2 8.9 N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A Cross -Section 4 (Riffle) Cross -Section 5 (Pool) Cross -Section 6 (Pool) Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 540.51 540.58 540.58 540.10 540.17 540.13 550.02 550.02 550.10 Low Bank Height Elevation 540.51 540.58 540.58 540.10 540.17 540.13 550.02 550.02 550.10 Bankfull Width (ft) 13.6 13.9 13.8 15.0 12.5 12.8 13.2 13.7 13.6 Floodprone Width (ft) 120 120 120 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0 1 1.1 1 1.3 1.6 1 1.5 1 1 1.0 1 0.9 1.0 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.0 1.9 2.1 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 14.3 14.4 14.6 20.0 19.6 19.0 12.9 12.8 14.4 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.9 13.4 13.0 11.2 8.0 8.6 13.5 14.7 13.0 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 8.8 8.6 8.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width. 2Bank Height Ratio is the low bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel. *Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6 Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section) Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 7 (Riffle) Cross -Section 8 (Riffle) Cross -Section 9 (Riffle) Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 549.83 549.92 549.90 545.15 545.19 545.19 548.60 548.71 548.57 Low Bank Height Elevation 549.83 549.92 549.90 545.15 545.19 545.19 548.60 548.71 548.57 Bankfull Width (ft) 7.8 7.9 8.5 10.6 10.1 9.8 7.2 9.0 7.0 Floodprone Width (ft) 130 130 130 190 190 190 200 200 200 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6 1 0.6 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 4.3 4.9 4.9 6.0 5.8 5.8 3.7 4.3 3.5 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.1 12.8 14.9 18.8 17.6 16.6 13.9 18.8 13.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll 16.8 16.5 15.3 17.9 18.8 19.4 27.9 22.2 28.7 6 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 MME 1.0 1.1 1.1 Cross -Section 10 (Pool) 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.1 < 1.0 Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) 548.16 548.16 548.16 Low Bank Height Elevation 548.16 548.16 548.16 Bankfull Width (ft) 9.1 9.3 10.8 Floodprone Width (ft) N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0 1 1.0 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8 1.7 1.8 Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 10.3 9.6 10.4 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 9.0 11.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' N/A N/A N/A Bankfull Bank Height RatiO3 N/A N/A N/A 'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width. 2Bank Height Ratio is the low bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel. 3Cross-Section 7 bankfull elevation was misjudged at As -Built, baseline calculations were adjusted during MY1. *Morphological survey and analysis not required for MY4 and MY6 Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 1-UT1 Reach 1 101+65 Riffle 554 552 c 550 v 548 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) MYO (05/2019) MY1 (11/2019) MY2 (06/2020) Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 10.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.7 width (ft) 0.9 mean depth (ft) 1.5 max depth (ft) 11.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.5 width -depth ratio 100.0 W flood prone area (ft) t 9.3 entrenchment ratio ti < 1.0 low bank height ratio n Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Y+` View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 2-UT1 Reach 1 111+56 Riffle 549 547 c 0 545 v 543 0 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) MYO (05/2019) MY1 (11/2019) MY2 (06/2020) Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions ` 17.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)f y - 14.6 width (ft) 1.2 mean depth (ft) 1.9 max depth (ft) 15.3 wetted perimeter (ft) +�• 1.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 12.2 width -depth ratio ' 130.0 W flood prone area (ft) _ - - 8.9 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Fd View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 3-UT1 Reach 1 112+00 Pool 548 546 544 0 w 542 540 0 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) --*--MYO (05/2019) —4—MY1 (11/2019) --*--MY2 (06/2020) —Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 30.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 18.5 width (ft) 1.7 mean depth (ft) y ' 3.4 max depth (ft) 20.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.1 width -depth ratio Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 4-UT1 Reach 1 122+02 Riffle 544 D. 542 c 0 540 v 538 0 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) -4— MYO (05/2019) MY1 (11/2019) MY2 (06/2020) Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area Bankfull Dimensions 14.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) r 13.8 width (ft) 7 3. 1.1 mean depth (ft) a� 1.8 max depth (ft) 14.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) rt� f + _� _ : x• 13.0 width -depth ratio .411 q,." - T .. 4,. , 120.0 W flood prone area (ft) -¢ - 8.7 entrenchment ratio'; 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering' 1H View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 5-UT1 Reach 1 122+37 Pool 543 541 c 0 539 w w 537 0 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) --*--MYO (05/2019) --*--MY1 (11/2019) --*--MY2 (06/2020) -Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 19.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 12.8 width (ft) 1.5 mean depth (ft) 2.7 max depth (ft) .:; r =• 14.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)- 8.6 width -depth ratio'' Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 6-UT2 Reach 2 220+79 Pool 553 551 c 0 549 w w 547 0 10 20 30 40 Width (ft) --*--MYO (05/2019) --*--MY1 (11/2019) MY2 (06/2020) -Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 14.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) y 13.6 width (ft) 1.0 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 14.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) r R{ 13.0 width -depth ratioPOP .' Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 7-UT2 Reach 2 221+10 Riffle 221+10 Riffle 553 551 Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 8-UT2 Reach 3 226+33 Riffle 226+33 Riffle 548 546 0 544 Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 9-UT3 307+74 Riffle 307+74 Riffle ssz 550 O 548 w Cross -Section Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Cross -Section 10-UT3 307+95 Pool 551 549 c 0 547 w w 545 10 20 30 40 50 Width (ft) --*--MYO (05/2019) --*--MY1 (11/2019) MY2 (06/2020) -Bankfull Bankfull Dimensions 10.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.8 width (ft) 1.0 mean depth (ft) _ 1.8 max depth (ft) 12.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.2 width -depth ratio A 4' Survey Date: 06/2020 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Table 10. Bank Pin Exposure Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Location • -. Reach 1 • 1 1 11"0 Mal1 MY1 (11/19/2019) 1 1 MY2 a11/24/2020) 1 1 Monitoring MY3 ----- Year (Date Observed) MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 1 1 1 ----- Reach 1 •----- •----- Reach 2 1 1 •----- •----- 11"- 1 1 1 1 ----- 1 1 III •----- �• 1 1 1 1 ----- APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Reach Summary of Recorded Bankfull Events for Monitoring Years 1 throug Date of Occurrence MY1(2019) MY2 (2020) MY3 (2021) MY4 (2022) MY5 (2023) MY6 (2024) MY7 (2025) Method UT1 Reach 1 None Recorded 1/20-23/2020 Pressure Transducer 2/6/2020 6/11/2020 11/12/2020 UT2 Reach 2 None Recorded 1/24/2020 2/6/2020 6/11/2020 11/12/2020 UT3 None Recorded 1/24/2020 2/6/2020 6/11/2020 Monthly Rainfall Data Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Bethel Branch 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Siler City, NC 2020 7 6 5 �4 0 F R. v 3 a` 2 1 0 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Date 2020 Rainfall -30th Percentile -70th Percentile ' 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Siler City 7.2 NE. 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 N, NC (USDA, 2020). 30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Bethel Branch 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in Siler City, NC 2020 10 — 4 8 c 3 1 6 z � — v 2 m 3 E 0 3 4 u 0 0 M 1 2 D 0 C 4 T C to O_ > u ii Q 2 Q O Z lllllllllllllllllDaily Rainfall —30-Day Cumulative Total —30%Rainfall Total —70%Rainfall Total 12020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Siler City 7.2 NE. 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 N, NC (USDA, 2020). Table 12. Wetland Gauge Attainment Summary Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7 Gauge Success Criterion Achieved'/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) MY1 (2019) MY2 (2020) MY3 (2021) MY4 (2022) MY5 (2023) MY6 (2024) MY7 (2025) Yes/25 Days No/16 Days 1 (10.2%) (6.1%) Yes/34 Days Yes/37 Days 2 (13.9%) (14.1%) Yes/23 Days Yes/34 Days 3 (9.4%) (13.0%) Yes/47 Days Yes/44 Days 4 (19.2%) (16.8%) No/15 Days 5 Installed During MY2 (5.7%) No/18 Days 6 (6.9%) 'Success criterion is presence of a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive 8.0% of the growing season. Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE1 v Bethel Branch Groundwater Gauge #1 0 b o Monitoring Year 2- 2020 a o 20 N cF4 6.0 ° -4 16 max consecutive days 3 r, l7 M o 10 ot= o M U) c 5.0 0 w 4.0 =-10 v �= 3.0 -20 c -30 2.0 -40 1.0 -50 0.0 -60 C i T C 75 bD CL +-' > u Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #1 — — Criteria Level Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE2 20 10 0 _ -10 v J -20 a m -30 -40 -50 -60 C -0 i >- C bD CL +-' > u i ¢ .2t Q n O z O Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #2 — — Criteria Level 6.0 5.0 4.0 c 3.0 c m cc rAII; 1.0 0.0 Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE1 20 10 0 _ -10 v J -20 a m -30 -40 -50 -60 C -0 i >- C bD CL +-' > u i ¢ .2t Q n O z O Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #3 — — Criteria Level 6.0 5.0 4.0 c 3.0 c m cc rAII; 1.0 0.0 Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE2 20 10 0 _ -10 v J -20 a m -30 -40 -50 -60 C -0 i >- C bD CL +-' > u i ¢ .2t Q n O z O Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #4 — — Criteria Level 6.0 5.0 4.0 c 3.0 c m cc rAII; 1.0 0.0 Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE1 C o Bethel Branch Groundwater Gauge #5 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 o UbD o bD 20 6.0 15 max consecutive days o 10 o Y 5.0 0 4.0 v �= 3.0 -20 c -30 2.0 -40 1.0 -50 L JI0.0 -60 C i T C bD CL +-' > u Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #5 — — Criteria Level Groundwater Gauge Plots Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Wetland RE2 20 10 0 a m -30 -40 -50 -60 C -0 i >- C bD CL +-' > u i ¢ .2t Q n O z O Rainfall Reference Gauge Depth Gauge #6 — — Criteria Level 6.0 5.0 4.0 c 3.0 c m cc rAII; 1.0 0.0 Soil Temperature Probe Plot Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 80 70 60 v m v a v 50 40 30 Foust Creek Mitigation Site - Soil Temperature Probe Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 v co Q to O N U O N LL Q Q cn O Z Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level Foust Creek Mitigation Site - Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report (Wildlands, 2020) Table 13. In -Stream Flow Gauge Attainment Summary Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Summary of In -Stream Flow Gauge Results for Monitoring Years I through 7 Max Consecutive Days/Total Days of Baseflow* Reach MY1 (2019)1 MY2 (2020)2 MY3 (2021) MY4 (2022) MY5 (2023) MY6 (2024) MY7 (2025) 3 Days/ 74 Days/ UT3 19 Days 140 Days *Success criterion is presence of baseflow for a minimum of 30 consecutive days. 1Flow gauge was installed May 3, 2019. No data was collected January-Apri12019. 2Data collected through November 24, 2020. Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Bethel Branch Mitigation Site USACE Action ID No. 2016-02365 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 Bethel Branch: In -Stream Flow Gauge for UT3 Monitoring Year 2 - 2020 557.0 556.5 556.0 v v J G1 555.5 555.0 554.5 C Q ? C 00 OQ > U 5 Q S Q in 0 v LL Z O Rainfall UT3 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — •Bankfull 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 c 2.0 w C oc 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0