The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171039 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210115ID#* 20171039 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Erin Davis Initial Review Completed Date 01/15/2021 Mitigation Project Submittal-1/15/2021 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No Type of Mitigation Project:* rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Harry Tsomides Project Information ................................................................................... ID#:* 20171039 Existing IDt Project Type: Project Name: County: r DMS r Mitigation Bank Catbird Site Davie Document Information Email Address:* harry.tsomides@ncdenr.gov Version: * 1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: Catbird_ 100022_MY1_2020.pdf 15.84MB Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted... Signature Print Name:* Harry Tsomides Signature:* Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL CATBIRD SITE NCDMS Project 9100022 (Contract #7186) USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01506 DWR Project 920171039 Davie County, North Carolina Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 Provided by: pros Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC Provided for: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services December 2020 fires December 15, 2020 Harry Tsomides NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102 Asheville, NC 28801 RE: Catbird Site: Year 1 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 100022) 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Corporate Headquarters 6575 W Loop S #300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400 Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 11, 2020 regarding the Catbird Site: Year 1 Report and RES' responses. DMS has reviewed the draft MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report for the Catbird Site. This deliverable documents stream restoration and enhancement activities totaling 2,075.6 SMUs (warm thermal regime). Overall, the report looks great in terms of accuracy and completeness. You have captured the credit ratio change on DS-2A and talked about the piping structure and have a plan for it. The project seems to be performing well in MY1. A few comments follow: In an Appendix, please include all the USACE comments sent by email on 8/26/2020 on the Baseline/ MYO review, along with RES's responses to each comment. The IRT comments and RES' responses have been added in Appendix F. Table 9 annual mean stem counts for MYO differ from the final approved baseline report (1649 stems/acre) vs. how they are reported in the draft MY1 (1356 stems/acre). Please clarify/explain. This was an error made when manually entering the random vegetation plot data into the CVS generated table. This has been corrected and updated in the report. Digital Support Files Please include the cross section and veg plot photos as JPEGs in the digital submission. Done. Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ................................................. 1.1 Project Location and Description .......... 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ................ 1.3 Pro_ject Success Criteria ......................... Stream Restoration Success Criteria............ Vegetation Success Criteria ......................... 1.4 Project Components .............................. 1.5 Stream Design/Approach ...................... 1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions.. 1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1) Vegetation.................................................... Stream Geomorphology ............................... StreamHydrology ........................................ 2.0 Methods.............................................................. 3.0 References........................................................... .................................................................................... 1 .................................................................................... 1 .................................................................................... 1 .................................................................................... 2 .................................................................................... 2 .................................................................................... 3 .................................................................................... 4 .................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................... 5 .................................................................................... 6 .................................................................................... 6 .................................................................................... 6 .................................................................................... 7 .................................................................................... 7 .................................................................................... 7 Appendix A: Background Tables Table 1: Project Mitigation Components Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3: Project Contacts Table Table 4: Project Background Information Table Figure 1: Site Location Map Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photos Monitoring Device Photos Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data Table 7: Planted Species Summary Table 8: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table Cross Section Overlay Plots Appendix E: Hydrolo2y Data Table 12. 2020 Rainfall Summary Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events Appendix F: Catbird As -Built IRT Comments 1.0 Proiect Summary L I Project Location and Description The Catbird Site (the "Project") is located in Davie County, North Carolina, approximately eight miles west of Clemmons and five miles northwest of Bermuda Run. Water quality stressors affecting the Project included livestock production, agricultural production, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,080.8 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU). The Project's total easement area is 6.33 acres within the overall drainage area of 53 acres. Grazing livestock historically had access to all the stream reaches within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area. The stream design approach for the Project was to combine the analog method of natural channel design with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge. The Project has been constructed and planted and will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven- year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible parry on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives were realized by the Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River RBRP. These goals also reflect the goals and objectives as stated in the Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan. The Project goals are: • Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner in a stable channel; • Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and connection to the floodplain; • Improve instream habitat; • Reduce sediment, nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into stream system; • Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; • Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP to improve water quality and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads; and • Protect Water Supply Watersheds (WSW). The Project objectives to address the goals are: Catbird Site 1 Year I Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 • Design and reconstruct stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that will maintain a stable dimension, profile, and planform; • Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored streams; • Install habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying depths to restored streams; • Increase forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community; • Install approximately 4,200 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing along the easement boundary to ensure livestock will no longer have stream access; • Implement one agricultural BMP structure in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal coliform to streams from surrounding farming operations; • Treat exotic invasive species; and • Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Project that will exclude future livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers. Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based Framework, are outlined in the Mitigation Plan. 1.3 Project Success Criteria The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency guidance. Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria components are presented below. Stream Restoration Success Criteria Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Stage recorders were installed on DS1 and DS2-B to document bankfull events. There should be little change in as -built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within restored riffle cross sections (for C and E streams). Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period. Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers. Catbird Site 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 Intermittent reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. A flow gauge was installed in the upper portion of DS 1. Vegetation Success Criteria Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre with an average height of seven feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but are not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success. Catbird Site 3 Year I Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 Level Treatment Objective Monitoring Metric Performance Standard Converted land -use of Project reaches from pasture NA NA to riparian forest Improve the Visually monitor transport of water 1 c Installed one agricultural from the watershed integrity of runoff sediment load attenuation to the Project attenuation structure: Identify and document instability structure to limit inputs of reaches in a non- Performed and/or flaws to the structure sediment from surrounding erosive way semiannually farming operations coming (indirect into the reach (DS1) measurement Stage recorders and Four bankfull events occurring in Improve flood flow gauges: separate years At least 30 days of continuous Reduced bank height ratios bank connectivity Inspected s and increased entrenchment by reducing bank semiannually flow each year 2 ratios by reconstructing height ratios and Entrenchment ratio shall be �? channels to mimic reference increase Cross sections: above 2.2 within restored reaches reach conditions entrenchment Surveyed in C and E Bank height ratio shall not exceed ratios Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 1.2 As -built stream profile NA Reduce erosion rates and channel Cross sections: Entrenchment ratio shall be no stability toYears Surveyed in less than 2.2 within restored Established a riparian buffer reference reachconditions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 reaches Visual monitoring Bank height ratio shall not exceed o ° to reduce erosion and sediment transport into 1.2 3 o project streams. Established Improve bedform Identify and document significant cstable banks with livestakes, diversity (pool Visual monitoring: stream problem areas; i.e. m erosion control matting, and spacing, percent Performed at least erosion, degradation, other in stream structures. riffles, etc. semiannually aggradation, etc. Increase buffer Vegetation plots: MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre width to 50 feet Surveyed in MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall) Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 MY 7: 210 trees/acre 10 ft. tall Vegetation plots: Surveyed in MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre Years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 MY 5: 260 trees/acre (7 ft. tall) '� Unmeasurable (indirect MY 7: 210 trees/acre (10 ft. tall) Obiective/Expected Z Excluded livestock from measurement Bene zt Visual assessment of riparian areas with exclusion 4 �°, fence and conservation Establish native established fencing •y easement, and planted a hardwood riparian Inspect fencing and signage. riparian buffer buffer and exclude and conservation Identify and document any a livestock. signage: Performed at damaged or missing fencing least semiannually (indirect and/or signs measurement) 1.4 Project Components The restoration reaches were significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural practices, and a lack of riparian buffer. Improvements to the Project help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as ecological improvements to the riparian corridor within the easement. Catbird Site 4 Year I Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 Through stream restoration and enhancement, the Project presents 2,223 LF of stream, generating 2,075.6 Warm Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1). This is 19.4 SMU below the contract amount (2,095 SMU). Following As -Built Report review (Appendix F), the IRT requested the credit ratio on DS2-A reduce from 2.5:1 to 3:1 due to the easement change and subsequent buffer reduction. This change resulted in a 5.2 SMU loss. Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Warm SMU Restoration 1,986 1 1,986 Enhancement II 159 2.5 63.6 Enhancement II 78 3 26 Total 2,223 2,075.6 1.5 .S'tream Design/Approach The Project includes Priority I and II Restoration and Enhancement Level IL Stream restoration incorporates the design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques were also a crucial element of the project and were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole. The Project is broken into the following reaches: Reach DS1— Priority I and II Restoration was used for Reach DS L The upstream portion of this reach required Priority II floodplain excavation as the profile transitions from the existing entrenched channel to the Priority I channel at the downstream end. To prevent any hydrology loss, the transition from Priority II to Priority I takes place over several hundred feet and includes multiple channel plugs. Both in -line and offline restoration was used, and locations were driven by valley constraints. In -stream structures such as rock sills, log sills and cross vanes were installed for vertical stability and to improve bedform diversity. The restoration of the riparian areas included planting wider riparian buffers and excluding cattle. A self -maintaining sediment pack was installed at the upper end of the reach to provide sediment load attenuation from the adjacent pasture. Reach DS2-A — Enhancement Level II was used for Reach DS2-A. Enhancement activities included livestock exclusion and riparian buffer plantings. Livestock fencing follows current NRCS specifications. Reach DS2-13 — A combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement Level II was used for Reach DS2-B. Restoration activities realigned the existing channel to improve stability and floodplain connection. Rock and log structures were used to provide vertical stability and improve bedform diversity. Log toe structures were installed on the outside of certain meander bends to provide bank stability. The restoration of the riparian areas included planting wider riparian buffers and excluding cattle. The Enhancement Level II portion of the reach contains a diverse channel bed profile, and this portion of the reach does contain localized areas of bank erosion caused by hoof shear. The Enhancement of this reach involved livestock exclusion and buffer planting. 1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions Stream construction and planting was completed in March 2020. The Catbird Site was built to design plans and guidelines. Two structures were identified as needing repair during the initial post -construction site visit with DMS. The first was located at the top of DS-B (Lower) and included resetting a rock sill. The Catbird Site 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 second was on the bottom of DS2-13 (Lower) (below the confluence with DS-I) where a rock drop structure was repaired, and the left bank was graded to alleviate shear stress. The first area was repaired in April 2020 and the second was repaired in June 2020. The as -built survey (including a redlined version) is included in Appendix E. Following Mitigation Plan approval, RES adjusted the easement to allow for an existing farm path (per landowner request). This 0.19-acre reduction only affected ephemeral stream channel therefore there was no change in credits (Appendix F). Planting plan changes included removing black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and adding crab apple (Malus angustifolia), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), black walnut (Juglans nigra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis). Planting plan changes were based on bare root availability. Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as -built installation, however, the quantities remained as proposed in the Mitigation Plan. 1.7 Year I Monitoring Performance (MYI) The Catbird Year 1 Monitoring activities were performed in October 2020. All Year 1 Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim success criteria. Per IRT request, RES reduced the ratio on DS2-A due to the easement reduction between Mitigation Plan Approval and Construction. Details are outlined above in Section 1.4. Vegetation Monitoring of the four permanent vegetation plots and one random vegetation plot was completed on Ocotber 7, 2020. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 607 to 1,012 planted stems per acre with a mean of 785 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 16 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in two out of four permanent plots. The average stem height in the permanent vegetation plots was 2.5 feet. Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. RES began to remove black walnut and southern crabapple stems in MYI and will continue as needed throughout the monitoring period (Appendix F). Stream Geomorphology Cross section setup and geomorphology data collection for MYI was collected on October 6, 2020. Summary tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the current years cross sections relatively match the baseline cross sections. The as -current conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were designed as gravel bed channels and remain classified as gravel bed channels post -construction. Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. The rock drop structure below the confluence of DS2-13 and DS-1 began piping again at the end of MY1. RES plans to rebuild this structure with smaller rock material in early 2021. RES does not believe this failing structure is an immediate threat to the project streams. Catbird Site 6 Year I Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 Stream Hydrology Two stage recorders and one flow gauge were installed on March 4, 2020: one stage recorder on DS1 (Lower), one stage recorder on DS2-13 (Lower) and one flow gauge on DS 1 (Upper). The stage recorder on DS1 (Lower) recorded eight bankfull events in MY with the highest reading being 0.92 feet above top of bank. The stage recorded on DS2-13 (Lower) also recorded eight bankfull events with the highest reading being 0.62 feet above top of bank. The flow gauge on DS1 (Upper) recorded one flow event lasting 215 consecutive days. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and data are in Appendix E. 2.0 Methods Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at 12 cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGISO, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder are used to detect bankfull events. The flow gauge was also installed in a pool and records flow conditions at an hourly interval. Water level data from the flow gauge is corrected using the height of the downstream riffle to detect stream flow events. Vegetation success is being monitored at four permanent monitoring plots and one random monitoring plot. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years. 3.0 References Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000). Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2 Resource Environmental Solutions (2019). Catbird Site Final Mitigation Plan. Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC: Interagency Review Team (IRT). Catbird Site 7 Year I Monitoring Report Project 9100022 December 2020 Appendix A Background Tables Table 1. Catbird (100022) - Mitigation Assets and Components Project Segment Existing Footage or Acreage Mitigation Plan Footage or Acreage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Priority Level Mitigation Ratio(X:1) Mitigation Plan Credits As -Built Footage or Acreage Comments DS1 (Upper) 300 288 Warm R 2 1.00000 288.00000 288 Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion DS1 (Lower) 668 661 Warm R 1 & 2 1.00000 661.00000 661 Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion DS2-A* 78 78 Warm Ell N/A 3.00000 26.00000 78 Planting, livestock exclusion DS2-B (Upper) 515 526 Warm R 1 & 2 1.00000 526.00000 526 Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion DS2-B (Middle) 181 159 Warm Ell N/A 2.50000 63.60000 159 Planting, livestock exclusion DS2-B (Lower) 1 522 511 Warm R 1 1 1 1.00000 511.00000 511 Channel restoration, planting, livestock exclusion *After as -built review, IRT reduced the credit ratio from 2.5:1 to 3:1 on DS2-A due to the easement change and reduced buffer Project Credits Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Rip Wetland Coastal Marsh Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv Restoration 1986.000 Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement Enhancement I Enhancement II 89.600 Creation Preservation Total 2075.600 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Catbird Mitigation Site Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 10 months Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 9 months Number of reporting Years : Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Restoration Plan NA Jan-19 Final Design — Construction Plans NA Oct-19 Stream Construction NA Jan-20 Site Planting NA Feb-20 DS2-B Structure Repair 1 NA Apr-20 DS2-B Structure Repair 2 NA Jun-20 As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline) Mar-20 Jul-20 Year 1 Monitoring XS: Oct-20 VP: Oct-20 Nov-20 Year 2 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 4 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring FeaMonitoring Monitoring = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline Table 3. Project Contacts Table Catbird Mitigation Site Designer RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612 Primary project design POC Ben Carroll Construction Contractor KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC 27283 Construction contractor POC Kory Strader Survey Contractor Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC 28501 Survey contractor POC Chris Paderick, PLS Planting Contractor H&J Forestry Planting contractor POC Matt Hitch Monitoring Performers RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612 Stream Monitoring POC JRyan Medric (919) 741-6268 Vegetation Monitoring POC JRyan Medric (919) 741-6268 Table 4. Project Background Information Project Name Catbird County Davie Project Area (acres) 6.33 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Latitude: 36.030644 Longitude:-80.500865 Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 5.26 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Southern Outer Piedmont River Basin Yadkin Pee -Dee USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101160010 DWR Sub -basin 3/7/2002 Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles) 53 ac (0.083 sqmi) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 4% CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover and Mixed Upland Hardwoods Reach Summary Information Parameters DS1 DS2-A DS2-B Length of reach (linear feet) 968 78 1218 Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) mod. confined mod. unconfined confined Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles) 26 (0.041) 12 (0.019) 27 (0.042) Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent Perennial NCDWR Water Quality Classification C, WS-IV C, WS-IV C, WS-IV Stream Classification (existing) G4 F5b G5 Stream Classification (proposed) E4 F5b E4 Evolutionary trend (Simon) III/IV III/IV III/IV FEMA classification N/A N/A N/A Regulatory Considerations Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs? Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2017- 01506 Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes DWR # 17-1039 Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Mit Plan Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Mit Plan Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes N/A Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A Spillman Rd z G Hauser Creek Mitigation Site Easement Redfield Rd n f A � D "11Z Sp" Catbird a� A n Mockingbird Mitigation Site Mitigation Site Easement Easement 0 a u' Q" � Sao 1, Sparks Rd a 3 0 0 _ �a s h 3 u 7 x G Triple it Tr, — Ile ural Hall \ + I' I Catbird N Mitigation Site a chi nvi lle a A a G Lewisville S Legend Clemmons Proposed Easement - Scout Easement Mockingbird Easement - Hauser Creek Easement ,loekr_.vine �Eui TLW - 03040101160010 C. 6? Service Area - HUC 03040101 lj�L-f. NC kr�hway gpr °' N Date: 12/14/2018 Figure 1 - Site Location Map e Drawn by: SCF s res Catbird Mitigation Site Checked by MDE 0 500 1,000 Feet Davie County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Catbird Site - DS1 Assessed Len th 949 feet Number Footage Adjusted % Number Total Number of Amount of % Stable, with with for Major Channel Channel Stable, Metric Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Category Sub -Category Performing As -built Segments Footage as Intended Woody Woody Woody as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation 1. Bed 1. A22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 1. Vertical Stability flow laterally (not to include point bars). 0 0 100% 2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting. 0 0 100% (Riffle and Run Units) 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate. 35 35 100% 38 100% 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6). 38 3. Meander Pool Condition 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle). 38 38 100% 2. Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 1. Scoured /Eroding scour and erosion. 0 0 100 % 0 0 100 Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 2. Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100% and are providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Engineered 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 21 21 100% Structures 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 21 21 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 21 21 100% Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed 3. Bank Protection 15 % 21 21 100% Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth. Mean Bankfull 4. Habitat Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 21 21 100% Table 5 Cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Catbird Site - DS2 Assessed Len th 1,037 feet Major Channel Category Channel Sub -Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As -built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability 1. A22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars). 0 0 100% 2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting. 0 0 100% (Riffle and Run Units) 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate. 44 44 100% 50 100% 3. Meander Pool 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6). 50 Condition 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle). 50 50 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured /Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100 % 0 0 100 Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 2. Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100% and are providing habitat. 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1111 0 0 100% 0 0 100 3. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 25 25 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 25 25 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 24 25 96% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed 15 % 25 25 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow. 25 25 100% Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Planted Acreage 6.76 Mapping CCPV Number of Combined % of Planted Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres Red Simple 0 0.00 0.0% Hatch 2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres Orange Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0% Total 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres Orange Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0% Cumulative Total 0.0% Easement Acreaae 6.33 % of Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping pp g CCPV Number of Combined Easement Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Yellow Crosshatch 0 0.00 0.0% 5. Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none Red Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0 1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort. 2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries. 3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5. 4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary. Catbird MYl Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos Vegetation Plot 1 (10/7/2020) Vegetation Plot 3 (10/7/2020) Vegetation Plot 2 (10/7/2020) Vegetation Plot 4 (10/7/2020) Catbird MY1 Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photo Random Vegetation Plot 1 (10/7/2020) Catbird Monitoring Device Photos Flow Gauge DS1 Stream Problem Areas Catbird I Feature Issue / Location I Photo I Failing Rock Drop Structure / DS2-B Vegetation Problem Areas Catbird Feature Category / Location / Size Photo N/A N/A Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Planted Species Summary Common Name Scientific Name Total Stems Planted Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 1,100 Water Oak Quercus nigra 800 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 800 River Birch Betula nigra 800 Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 800 Crab Apple Malus angustifolia 800 Green Ash Fraxinus pennysIvanica 600 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 600 Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tuli i era 600 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 400 Sugarberry Celtis laevi ata 350 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 300 Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 300 Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 300 Total 8,550 Planted Area 5.26 As -built Planted Stems/Acre 1,625 Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Volunteer Stems/Acre Total Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? Average Planted Stem Height ft 1 890 202 1093 Yes 3.1 2 607 0 607 Yes 2.5 3 1012 243 1255 Yes 1.5 4 931 0 931 Yes 2.3 R1 526 0 526 Yes 2.9 Project Avg 785 89 882 Yes 2.5 Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Catbird Current Plot Data (MY12020) Random Plot Data Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 100022-01-0001 100022-01-0002 100022-01-0003 100022-01-0004 RVP 1 MY1(2020) MYO (2020) Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 5 5 Betula nigra river birch Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 7 7 7 8 8 8 19 19 19 17 17 17 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1 1 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 Diospyrosvirginiana common persimmon Tree 12 12 12 1 1 1 13 13 13 15 15 15 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 10 10 10 2 2 2 5 5 5 17 17 17 18 18 18 Juglans nigra blackwalnut Tree 4 4 4 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 3 3 3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 4 4 4 13 13 13 8 8 8 Quercus oak Tree 31 31 31 Quercus nigra wateroak Tree 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 1 1 8 8 8 5 5 5 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 6 6 6 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 18 18 9 9 9 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 7 7 7 Salix nigra blackwillow Tree 6 6 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 221 221 27 151 151 15 251 251 31 231 231 23 131 131 13 971 971 109 1631 163 163 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.10 5 5 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 10 10 12 14 14 14 890 890 1093 1 6071 6071 6071 10121 1012 1255 931 931 931 526 1 526 5261 785 7851 882 16491 1649 1649 Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data Table 10. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Random Plot 1 # Species Height (cm) 1 Betula nigra 115 2 Quercus phellos 48 3 Quercus phellos 80 4 Quercus rubra 46 5 Betula nigra 140 6 Betula nigra 92 7 Betula nigra 80 8 Betula nigra 74 9 Betula nigra 105 10 Quercus nigra 70 11 Quercus phellos 62 12 Betula nigra 110 13 Betula nigra 115 Stems/Acre 526 Average Height (cm) 87 Average Height (ft) 2.9 Plot Size (m) 25 x 4 Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool - Restoration 760 759 758 i c 0 757 N L• Y�J• Y�i�L Y• •YY• •YL�L�Y •LIY •L Y�L� L�yYL• Y�J• Y�i L W 756 755 754 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 1 (Pool) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA 756.50 756.4 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Flood rove Width (ft)' - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.7 Low Bank Elevation ft - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.9 4.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - Restoration 760 759 758 4 757 � w 756 LPL •LAY �i� •L� Y• LAY �i�L LPL Yy• •LIY •L� Y�J• Y 755 754 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 2 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 756.64 756.6 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.3 4.7 Floodprone Width (ft)' >50 >33.7 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 0.7 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 756.64 756.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 1.9 2.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >6.9 >7.2 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.1 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 3 - Riffle - Restoration 746 745 744 c 4 743 Pr w 742 ..... .................................. _ _ ..... _ .. . _ ..... _ ..... _ _ ........................ _ _ _ _ _ ... 741 740 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 — MY1-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 3 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA1 741.62 741.7 Bankfull Width (ft)' 5.1 5.4 Floodprone Width (ft)' 50 26.6 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1.1 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 741.62 741.6 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.5 3.0 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 9.9 4.9 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool - Restoration 745 744 743 c 4 742 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w 741 ..... ..... ........................ ..... .... .............................. . 740 739 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 4 (Pool) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 741.04 741.4 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Floodprone Width (ft)' - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.5 1.2 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.6 3.0 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird- Reach DS1 - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - Restoration 740 739 738 2 737 1.000 0000-- w 736 735 .r. .-r.r. .-r.r rs.-r. .rs.-r.r.rs. .r 734 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 5 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Banlifidl Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAI 735.70 735.8 Bankfull Width (ft)t 5.6 5.5 Floodprone Width (ft)t 50 25.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Z 0.9 0.9 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 735.70 735.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.1 2.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios 9.0 4.6 Bankfull Bank Height io'l 1.0 0.9 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS1 - Cross Section 6 - Pool - Restoration 73Oroo 738 737 00000 4 736 a�i •s•s u.=. . s.=.y 2. .u. .=.u. .i y ._. _._. =.=.u.=. .u.=. y. W 735 734 733 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 6 (Pool) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 735.46 735.4 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Floodprone Width (ft)' - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.7 1.7 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.1 5.6 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 7 - Pool - Restoratior 778 777 776 i C g 775 u' 774 773 772 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • • • • • • Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 7 (Pool) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASAI 774.52 774.5 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Floodprone Width (ft)' - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1.3 Low Bank Elevation ft - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.1 3.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird- Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 8 - Riffle - Restoration 77s 778 777 4 776 W 775 774 ............................................................ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ......... N. - - - ............................................................ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 773 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area • • • • • • • • • Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 8 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASAI 774.81 774.8 Bankfull Width (ft)' 5.6 5.1 Flood rove Width (ft)' 50 19.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.8 0.7 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 774.81 774.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.6 1.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 8.8 3.9 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'l 1.0 0.8 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 9 - Pool - Restoration 768 767 766 4 765 iu W 764 763 762 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 9 (Pool) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 763.39 763.4 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Flood rone Width (ft)' - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 1.3 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.7 2.7 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS2-B - Cross Section 10 - Riffle - Restoration 768 767 766 c 4 765 w 764 763 - - ..... - - ... .. - - .............................. - - - - - - ... - - ... . .. - - ..... - - ..... - - ........................ - - - - - - - ... 762 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 10 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAi 763.73 763.9 Bankfull Width (ft)' 4.2 4.7 Floodprone Width (ft)' 50 25.3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.8 0.6 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 763.73 763.8 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.2 1.7 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 11.8 5.4 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' _1_01 0.9 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle - Restoration 742 741 740 4 739 W 738 737 ..... - - ..... - - .................. - - - - - - ...... - - 727 .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ........................ - - - - ... - 736 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MY0 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 11 (Riffle) MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA 737.51 737.6 Bankfull Width (ft)' 5.7 5.3 Floodprone Width (ft)' >50 44.2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.8 0.7 Low Bank Elevation ft 737.51 737.5 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.9 2.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >8.7 >8.7 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1 0.9 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Upstream Downstream Catbird - Reach DS2-13 - Cross Section 12 - Pool - Restoration 741 740 739 c 4 738 pi '1•T1 W 737 T. 0%'r. rill 1TI T1f7• •V%OT• 1T• AST• A ST T1 736 735 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MY0 2020 MY1-2020 — — — Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 12 Pool WO MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 737.29 737.3 Bankfull Width (ft)' - - Flood rove Width ft ' - Bankfull Max Dept ft z 1.2 0.7 Low Bank Elevation ft - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area W z 3.1 2.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS1 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- 3.0 --- 5.4 7.4 --- 3 4.4 --- --- 6.6 --- 2 --- 4.5 --- 5.1 6.0 5.6 7.3 1.2 3 Floodprone Width (ft) 5.4 --- 6.8 10.0 --- 3 10.0 --- --- 15.0 --- 2 --- 30.0 --- 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.1 3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- 0.5 --- 0.7 0.8 --- 3 0.6 --- --- 0.6 --- 2 --- 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.8 --- 1.1 1.1 --- 3 0.9 --- --- 1.2 --- 2 --- 0.7 --- 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.3 3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- 2.3 3.4 3.7 3 2.8 --- I --- 1 3.9 2 --- 2.1 --- 1.9 2.8 1 3.1 1 3.5 1 0.8 1 3 Width/Depth Ratio 3.9 7.8 16.1 3 6.9 --- --- 10.9 2 --- 1 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- I --- I --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.8 3 2.2 --- --- 2.2 2 --- 6.7 --- 6.9 8.6 9.0 9.9 1.5 3 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.8 2.5 3 1.0 --- --- 1.2 2 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- 18 --- --- 3 --- 15 2.2 8.7 7.2 17.9 4.3 35 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.4 2.5 1.7 8.0 1.8 35 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 10 --- --- 3 --- 7 2.1 6.4 6.0 17.1 2.5 38 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 --- --- 35 --- --- 10 --- 30 5.9 25.6 20.9 75.2 16.4 37 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 18 --- --- 35 --- --- 13 --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 19 --- --- 5 --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- 1.1 --- 3.3 --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 30 --- --- 44 --- --- 20 --- 37 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- -- --- --- 4.1 8 --- --- 2.9 --- 6.7 --- --- --- --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull -- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification G4 E4 E4 E4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 1136 146 924 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1179 185 1211 1211 Sinuosity (ft) 1.04 1.27 1.31 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0305 0.013 0.017 3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in. 1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope. 4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued) Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS2-B (Upper) Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD' n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- 4.3 --- --- 4.8 --- 2 4.4 --- --- 6.6 --- 2 --- 4.5 --- 4.2 4.9 4.9 5.6 1.0 2 Floodprone Width (ft) 5.6 --- --- 7.6 --- 2 10.0 --- --- 15.0 --- 2 --- 30.0 --- 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.1 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- 0.5 --- --- 0.7 --- 2 0.6 --- --- 0.6 --- 2 --- 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.7 --- --- 1.2 --- 2 0.9 --- --- 1.2 --- 2 --- 0.7 --- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ --- 2.1 3.1 2 2.8 --- 3.9 2 --- 2.2 --- 2.2 2.4 2.4 1 2.6 1 0.3 1 2 Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 9.0 2 6.9 --- 10.9 2 9.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- I --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.6 2 2.2 --- --- 2.2 2 6.7 --- 8.8 10.3 10.3 11.8 2.1 2 Bank Height Ratio 0.8 8.4 2 1.0 1.2 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 6.6 5.8 18.2 3.2 44 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.3 4.1 3.7 14.8 3.1 45 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 5.1 5.0 13.7 2.4 50 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.1 19.2 19.1 40.5 7.5 48 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 18 --- --- 35 --- --- 13 --- 30 Radius of Curvature (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 19 --- --- 5 --- 15 Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- -- 1.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- 1.1 --- 3.3 --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 30 --- --- 44 --- --- 20 --- 37 Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- -- 4.1 8 --- --- 2.9 --- 6.7 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull -- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification G5 E4 E4 E4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- Valley length (ft) 990 146 482 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1051 185 526 526 Sinuosity (ft) 1.06 1.27 1.09 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0383 0.013 0.02 3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in. 1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope. 4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued) Catbird Mitigation Site - Reach DS2-B (Lower) Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD' n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- 4.3 --- --- 4.8 --- 2 4.4 --- --- 6.6 --- 2 --- 5.2 --- --- --- 5.7 --- --- Floodprone Width (ft) 5.6 --- --- 7.6 --- 2 10.0 --- --- 15.0 --- 2 --- 30.0 --- --- --- 50.0 --- Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- 0.5 --- --- 0.7 --- 2 0.6 --- --- 0.6 --- 2 --- 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.7 --- --- 1.2 --- 2 0.9 --- --- 1.2 --- 2 --- 0.8 --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ --- 2.1 1 3.1 2 2.8 --- 3.9 2 --- 2.8 --- --- --- 2.9 --- I --- I --- Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 9.0 2 6.9 --- 10.9 2 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.6 2 2.2 --- --- 2.2 2 5.8 --- --- --- 8.7 --- I --- --- 'Bank Height Ratiol 1 0.8 8.4 2 1.0 --- --- 1.2 2 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 6.6 5.8 18.2 3.2 44 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.3 4.1 3.7 14.8 3.1 45 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 5.1 5.0 13.7 2.4 50 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.1 19.2 19.1 40.5 7.5 48 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 18 --- --- 35 --- --- 13 --- 30 Radius of Curvature (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 19 --- --- 5 --- 15 Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- -- 1.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- 1.1 --- 3.3 --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 30 --- --- 44 --- --- 20 --- 37 Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- -- 4.1 8 --- --- 2.9 --- 6.7 Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/fZ --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull -- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification G5 E4 E4 E4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- Valley length (ft) 990 146 450 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1051 185 512 512 Sinuosity (ft) 1.06 1.27 1.14 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0383 0.013 0.0175 3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in. 1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope. 4=Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Appendix 1 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology(DimensionalI I Project 1' Catbird ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top ofbank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Appendix E Hydrology Data Table 12. 2020 Rainfall Summary Month Average Normal Limits Bermuda Run Station Precipitation 30 Percent 70 Percent January 3.89 2.80 4.59 --- February 3.49 2.41 4.16 --- March 4.66 3.21 5.55 --- April 3.56 2.22 4.31 6.17 May 4.31 2.90 5.16 8.78 June 3.93 2.26 4.78 2.84 July 4.10 2.93 4.85 3.25 August 3.33 2.36 3.95 9.70 September 4.00 2.33 4.86 5.51 October 3.69 2.11 4.45 4.15 November 3.13 2.35 3.65 --- December 3.54 2.29 4.26 --- Total 45.63 30.17 54.57 40.40 Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events Year Number of Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft) Date of Maximum Bankfull Event JL Stage Recorder DSI (Lower) MYl 2020 1 8 0.92 8/ 15/2020 Stage Recorder DS2-B (Lower) MYl 2020 8 0.62 8/ 15/2020 Year Number of Flow Events Maximum Cons ecutiw Flow Days Maximum Cummlative Flow Days Flow Gauge DS1 (Upper) MYl 2020 1 1 215 215 MY1 Catbird Flow Gauge DS1 Upper Stream Flow Hydrograph z 10 9 8 7 s 5 CL 6 — v w c v 'm t 5 4 3 2 1 01 10 M A M J J A S Months Rainfall —DS1 Upper —Bed — — — DS Riffle Blevalion Appendix F Catbird As -Built IRT Comments 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 res Raleigh, NC 27612 Corporate Headquarters 6575 W Loop S #300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400 December 15, 2020 RE: Catbird Site: As -Built and Baseline Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 100022) Listed below are comments provided by the IRT on August 26, 2020 regarding the Catbird Site: As -Built and Baseline Monitoring Report and RES' responses. DWR Comments, Erin Davis: There were multiple species and quantity changes in what was planted compared to the mitigation plan. Of particular concern, are the additions of southern crabapple and black walnut. As black walnut is a allelopathic species and could have a negative impact on the establishment of planted stems and site diversity, DWR would not consider it a desirable restoration species. Southern crabapple is not mentioned in Shafale (2012); and the range maps show it primarily occurring in NC coastal counties (Native Trees of the Southeast and Atlas of United States Trees). DWR questions the appropriateness of this species (planted at 9%) for this site's target community. RES began to remove black walnut and southern crabapple stems from the easement in MY1 and will continue as necessary throughout the monitoring period. In the future, significant changes to the planting plan will be discussed with the IRT in advance of planting. 2. The IRT was not notified prior to the revision of the easement boundary. Since a portion of the 0.14 acre reduction includes the buffer for DS2-A and the functional uplift proposed for this Enhancement 2 reach was based on planting a 50-ft riparian buffer, DWR believes it is appropriate to reduce the credit ratio of this reach to 3:1 to reflect the functional loss of those plantings and protected buffer area. This portion of DS2-A has been reduced to a credit ratio of 3:1. This change results in a 5.2 SMU loss that will be adjusted in the ledger for MY1. USACE Comments, Kim Browning: The reduction in buffer along DS2-A will warrant a reduction in the credit ratio for this reach given the fact that the justification for this ratio was buffer enhancement and cattle exclusion, and now there is less than a 50-ft buffer. The cattle/farm access road that is directly adjacent to the buffer is also a future potential concern and further increases the need for a larger buffer. We would support a 3:1 ratio on this reach. Please adjust the ledger and assets for MY-1. This portion of DS2-A has been reduced to a credit ratio of 3:1. This change results in a 5.2 SMU loss that will be adjusted in the ledger for MY1. res.us