20140194 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220131

ID#* 20140194 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/31/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/31/2022
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Harry Tsomides [e-mail]
Project Information
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140194 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
County: Burke
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: RosesCreek_96309_MY6_2021.pdf 36.72MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Harry Tsomides
Signature: *
/y ta"m;�

Year 6 Monitoring Report
Roses Creek
Burke County, NC
DMS Project ID No. 96309
Construction Completed: May 2016
.' UAS Data Collected: March 4, 2021
Visual Data Collected:
February 25 March 4 July 27 Sept 8,
Nov 4, 2021
1 Submitted: January 2022
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Fn'CA Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
Page i

F)R
January 25, 2022
Dear Harry Tsomides
Project Manager, NCDEQ-DMS
DMS provided the following comments and HDR has replied with the below responses in italics:
HDR states that "During Year 5 monitoring, when considering natural recruits, stems per
acre were exceeding criteria, and visual monitoring was suggested for the remainder of
the monitoring period." Does this mean HDR is not planning to quantitatively monitor
vegetation during MY7? Please note that all approved mitigation plan monitoring and
performance standards need to be followed unless a mitigation plan addendum is
approved.
HDR will plan to quantitatively monitor vegetation during MY7. Amended report on page
4.
It is indicated that the culvert above UT 1 connecting to the pond is most likely blocked
and needs to be adjusted; does HDR currently have any plan to rectify this?
The following statement was added to page 4. "In early 2022, HDR plans to investigate
and remediate with the landowner any potential blockage at the culvert crossing above
UT1.
Miscellaneous down cutting/erosion is noted on UT1 and UT2. Was there any head
cutting? Please indicate if HDR is planning any remedial action on these areas, or feel
that no action is warranted. Similarly, please indicate any plan to address the cow
wasting/adjacent impact areas at the lower end of Roses Creek. These have all been
observed over the years so if HDR is planning any activities, it would be a good idea to
implement in 2022 prior to planned close out in 2023.
HDR added the following clarifying statements on page 4. "In early 2022, HDR plans to
investigate and remediate with the landowner any potential blockage at the culvert
crossing above UT1." For the minor channel downcutting - "HDR does not feel any repair
actions are necessary for the minor downcutting along UT1 and UT2." For the lagoon
area - "In 2022, HDR will continue to monitor this area and will work with the landowner
to see if fencing out an additional area in the vicinity is achievable".
Thank you for noting the various invasive species and plans to treat in early 2022. DMS
recommends allowing for follow up treatment in early 2023 as well, to address any
resprouting prior to closeout in 2023.
HDR will plan for a final treatment in early 2023.
Please show the vegetation plots (and all monitoring features) on the CCPVs; even
though plot data were not collected in 2021, all monitoring features need to be shown
hdrinc.com
555 Fayetteville St., Suite 900, Raleigh NC 27601
T 919.232.6600

on the CCPVs. You may indicate that the 2020/MY5 attainment data were used to
determine whether the plots showed success or failure.
HDR has added all monitoring features to the CCPV.
• Please continue to include the 8/27/2019 IRT meeting minutes and USACE and DWR
comments, as an Appendix, and reference in the report.
HDR has included the IRT meeting minutes as Appendix D and has referenced it in the
report.
• Please describe in the report if and how the recently noted encroachment issues have
been addressed.
HDR has not addressed any encroachment issues (two cow wasting areas at the bottom
of Roses Creek) in 2021 and these will be addressed in 2022.
• The data collection years for 2021 events in the events table are listed as 2020; assume
this is a typo that just needs to be changed to 2021.
HDR has amended the typos and changed to '2021" and also changed the stream
morphology collection data to September 2021 as stated on page 4.
• At the 2021 credit release meeting, the IRT asked about Cross Section 4, which has down
cut approximately 1 foot, and asked that HDR look at that cross section in detail in MY6
(2021). Please provide an update and comment on the channel conditions at that
location.
During the credit release meeting in 2020, Cross Section 4 was noted to have down cut
approximately 1 foot. Cross Section 4 is in the vicinity of a previous dam removal from
2019 and appears to be redistributing sediment throughout the reach. HDR will carry out
cross section monitoring in Year 7 to determine if it has stabilized.
• At the 2021 credit release meeting, the IRT requested that site monitoring not be
conducted until later into the growing season. Thank you for collecting the vegetation
data in September. The 2021 (MY6) visual assessment for geomorphology is listed as
February; please ensure that all monitoring data collection in 2022 be performed later
in the year.
HDR adjusted the geomorphology to September, as this was a typo.
• Please date the problem area and aerial photos.
HDR dated the problem area and aerial photos in the report.

Digital Support File Comments
• Please submit stream problem areas as line features and ensure that a feature is
submitted for each identified problem area.
HDR added line features instead of polygons for each of the three problem areas and
added an encroachment polyline file for the two areas of cow wasting adjacent to the
easement fence.
• The scoured eroding segment of Roses Creek should have an associated number of
unstable segments associated with the reported length — it is currently listed as 0.
HDR added in 10 feet of length in Table 5 to represent Roses Creek downcutting areas
around Cross Section 4.
• Please submit water level gauge data, include figures in the report, and include the
surface water summary table with the number of consecutive days. If data is unavailable,
please explain why.
HDR water level gauge data was corrupted for all three UTs. HDR reached out to Onset
to rectify the data files however, no solution was found. No data will be submitted this
year. Data loggers will be re -launched early in Year 7 monitoring period and will be
checked to be sure they are in working order.
• Please include the photos used in the report as JPEGS.
HDR has included the photos in the report as JPEGS.
• Please include a figure displaying the 301h and 701h percentile of monthly precipitation
relative to observed precipitation and submit these data.
HDR has included the USACE Antecedent Tool output showing 30-day rolling total
rainfall, large rain events, and the 30-year normal range of monthly precipitation.
Between May and June of 2021, it was drier than normal.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering (HDR) of the Carolinas
Jessica Tisdale
Sr. Environmental Scientist

Prepared by:
F) ICA
HDR I ICA
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
919.232.6600
919.232.6642 (fax)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED HEREIN, ROSES CREEK YEAR 6
MONITORING REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
SIGNED AND DATED THIS 25 DAY OF January 2022.
wkiil.dil(cv
Vickie Miller, PWS, AICP
Page ii

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................
2
1.2 SUCCESS CRITERIA.................................................................................................................
3
1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY......................................................................................................
3
1.4 VISUAL VEGETATION ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................
3
1.5 VISUAL STREAM ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................
4
2.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................5
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES ............................................
6
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA................................................................................
13
APPENDIX C. HYDROLOGIC DATA............................................................................................
33
APPENDIX D. 2019/2020 IRT MEETING MINUTES NOTES.........................................................
35
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.1 — 2.9. Current Condition Plan View...................................................................... 14
Figures 3.1 - 3.18. Problem Areas, Buffer Vegetation and Aerial Photos ......................... 28
Figure 4.1 USACE Antecedent Precipitation vs. Normal Range ........................................ 34
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits............................................................ 8
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History...................................................................... 9
Table 3. Project Contacts Table............................................................................................. 10
Table 4. Project Information..................................................................................................... 11
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment .................................................. 23
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment........................................................................... 27
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events.................................................................................. 33
Page 1

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the vegetation establishment and stream stability for Year 6
monitoring for the Roses Creek Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") in Burke County, North
Carolina.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
Primary goals for the Site, as detailed in the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
(ICA Engineering 2015) include:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats.
The following objectives accomplish the goals listed above:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation through:
a. Restoring the existing degraded, straightened and incised/entrenched streams as
primarily a Priority 1 restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the
floodplain allowing nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream runoff
to settle from floodwaters to the extent practical. Restoring a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile will ensure the channel will transport and attenuate watershed
flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading.
b. Restore channel banks by relocating the channel, excavating bankfull benches,
placing in -stream structures to reduce shearing forces on outside meander bends,
and planting native vegetative species to provide soil stability, thus reducing
stream bank stressors.
c. Reducing point source (i.e. cattle and equipment crossings) and non -point source
(i.e. stormwater runoff through pastures) pollution associated with on -site
agricultural operations (hay production and cattle) by exclusionary fencing from the
stream and riparian buffer and by eliminating all stream crossings from the
easement.
d. Plant a vegetative buffer on stream banks and adjacent floodplains to treat nutrient
enriched surface runoff from adjacent pastureland associated with on -site
agricultural operations.
e. Restoring riparian buffers adjacent to the streams that are currently maintained for
hay production that will attenuate floodwaters, in turn reducing stressors from
upstream impacts.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat through:
a. Restoration of a sinuous gravel bed channel that promotes a stable bed form, and
accommodates benthic macroinvertebrate and fish propagation. Additionally,
woody materials such as log structures, overhanging planted vegetation and toe
wood/brush toe in submerged water will provide a diversity of shading, bed form
and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms.
b. Restoring native vegetation to the stream channel banks and the adjacent riparian
corridor, that is currently grass dominated, will diversify flora and create a protected
habitat corridor, which will provide an abundance of available foraging and cover
habitat for a multitude of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats through:
a. Planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation.
Page 2

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
b. Protection of the restored community will ensure a protected wildlife corridor
between the Site and the upstream and downstream mature riparian buffers and
upland habitats.
c. Converting approximately 15 acres from existing agricultural land to riparian buffer
protected by permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring
includes stream channel/hydraulics and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria,
and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (NCEEP 2011). Project success criteria are
further detailed in the Baseline Monitoring Document &As -Built Baseline Report (HDRIICA 2016).
1.3 Background Summary
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
contracted HDRJICA to restore 4,746 linear feet of Roses Creek and three of its unnamed
tributaries within the Site to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation needs in the watershed. The Site
is located approximately 12 miles northwest of downtown Morganton in Burke County, NC. The
Site contains Roses Creek and three unnamed headwater tributaries of Roses Creek (UT 1, UT
2 and UT 3). The Site is located within the 03050101060030 14-digit Hydrologic Unit, which is
also a DMS Targeted Hydrologic Unit for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
Roses Creek is classified as a Water Supply Watershed (WS-III), as it is part of the headwaters
that feed Lake Rhodhiss. The Site is comprised of one property owned by Robert B. Sisk and
Martha M. Sisk (PIN # 1767479652) (known as the Sisk Farm). Additional information concerning
project history is presented in Table 2.
1.4 Visual Vegetation Assessment
Visual assessment of on -site vegetation suggests that planted stems are continuing a healthy
growth pattern trajectory and volunteer stems comprised of many native species are becoming
prevalent across the site. Thick recruits of river birch are located on the downstream right of
Roses Creek at STA. 35+00 - 39+00. This early successional vegetation competition is a sign of
good soil productivity and the area will naturally thin itself through resource competition.
Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were the invasive species noted along UT 1. A
large mimosa shrub is located at STA 12+00 on the downstream right bank about 35 feet from
the stream. Chinese privet, multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle were noted around STA
12+50, STA 18+50 and sporadically in between these two areas along UT 1. Removal
treatments to these species occurred along UT 1 in 2019 (mechanical and chemical) and in
2020 (chemical only). HDR plans to do additional mechanical and chemical treatments in early
2022 before the growing season and a final treatment as suggested by DMS in early 2023.
Sparse patches of cattails (Typha latifolia) are located at the top of UT 2 around STA 11+00
through STA 12+00 on the downstream left area. Figures 3.1 — 3.3 and CCPV illustrates the
current conditions and location of these invasive species.
Page 3

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
During Year 5 monitoring, when considering natural recruits, stems per acre were exceeding
criteria, and visual monitoring was suggested for the remainder of the monitoring period in 2020.
However, HDR will continue to provide quantitative vegetative monitoring during Year 7. Overall,
visual vegetation observations indicate that the Site's planted stock will meet the vegetative
performance standard of 210 stems per acre in Year 7 and an average 8 feet in height.
1.5 Visual Stream Assessment
Roses Creek remains stable and functioning as designed. During Year 6 visual monitoring no
areas of erosion were noted along the channel toes and banks. Bank repairs from 2018 appear
stable and vegetation growth along the stream banks is maturing as expected. During the credit
release meeting in 2020, Cross Section 4 was noted to have down cut approximately 1 foot. Cross
Section 4 is in the vicinity of a previous dam removal from 2019 and appears to be redistributing
sediment throughout the reach. HDR will carry out cross section monitoring in Year 7 and will
determine if it has stabilized. A beaver dam was discovered at STA 24+50 in July 2021 creating
minimal backwater effects upstream to STA 24+00. The dam was removed in August 2021, and
two beavers were trapped and removed by APHIS. The stream is currently stable in the vicinity
of the old beaver dam location (Figures 3.9 — 3.11). HDR will continue to monitor stream bank
stability through Year 7.
Generally, UT 1, UT 2 and UT 3 have remained stable over the Year 6 monitoring period. The
IRT has raised concerns about the flow in the tributaries in the past on -site meetings. (Appendix
D) However, two small areas of minor channel erosion were noted on UT 1 and UT 2. At STA
18+50 along UT 1 an area of in -channel downcutting is occurring (Figure 3.12). During the
November field visit, it was noted there was a lack of channel flow at the top of UT 1. The upstream
road culvert (18" CPP) above UT 1 connecting to the pond is most likely blocked/damaged and
needs to be adjusted and/or cleaned out to allow for stream flow. In early 2022, HDR plans to
investigate and remediate with the landowner a potential blockage at the culvert crossing above
UT1. On UT 2 at STA 16+50, adjacent to vegetation plot 8, there was minor channel
erosion/downcutting within the channel and, despite this, the stream banks appear stable. (Figure
3.13). HDR does not feel any repair actions are necessary for the minor downcutting along UT1
and UT2. At the bottom of Roses Creek at STA 41+25 there is a cow wasting area adjacent to
the easement fencing on the downstream left (Figure 3.14 - 15). The herbaceous/forested buffer
between this area and the stream is approximately 50 feet wide and is helping to filter this manure
by soil absorption and plant nutrient uptake. In 2022, HDR will continue to monitor this area and
will work with the landowner to see if fencing out an additional area in the vicinity is achievable.
Thick herbaceous cover during the growing season along these UTs make it difficult to observe
the channel however a single channel is apparent during from UAS photographs taken in March
2021. Figures 3.12 — 3.15 illustrates single channel flow for all three UTs.
A pebble count was conducted on Roses Creek in September 2021. Results show the average
particle size has remained similar from D50 of 50.54 mm at Year 5 to 51.73 mm at Year 6. The
two largest particle type classes include gravel at 58 percent and cobble at 32 percent.
The USGS rain gauge in Morganton indicates the Site received a few large rain events throughout
Year 6 monitoring. On March 25, 2021 3.16 inches of precipitation fell within a 24-hour period,
during August 15 -17, 2021 4.11 inches, and another 2.26 inches on August 26, 2021 were
Page 4

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
recorded. The USACE Antecedent precipitation has been included as Figure 4.1 to show the
actual observed range and the normal 30-year range. Worth noting, it was drier than normal during
the months of May and June in 2021. No water level data was obtained from the Hobo U20
pressure transducers in monitoring Year 6 as all three water level gauge data files were corrupt.
HDR reached out to the manufacturer, Onset, to rectify the data files however, no solution was
found. Data loggers will be re -launched early in Year 7 monitoring period and will be checked to
be sure they are in working order.
2.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
U.S. Army Corps Engineers (USACE). Antecedent Precipitation Tool Version 1.0.19
(https:Hgithub.com/0Deters-USACE/Antecedent-Precipitation-Tool).
Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. University of North
Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
(http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora 2011-May-nay.pdf)
Page 5

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Page 6

a
m
J'•
Q U,
LLB
E
(6 �
L �vU
Of
Z N
w
UJUJ
W UJ
n E
ULLB
O a
0 N C) IZ
0 0 z
4 Y O N .00
T N 6 a C
9 C O C p
U Y M M 0
C U
N Q (6 L O (WD -p (6M p 0
C H (6 (6 O
EZ�6�'�N��m
p a) in
_ f/)
> C o O Qo
) U Oa" �Ea OL
--oo.� Q0
O U O Y T ).0
� (ODNQ�EC��'�
y Q y C
N t0/1 T O C N >i N p O
9 a .� O
O .> C U N E O U
� m a Q Q
z U a
L N C O C N N
HY N9(MD
j C50
0 ^W^'
W
0 LL
0_'
U
z
C�
G Z
O
z® 0
Z U
0
Uw
�Y/
I..L
m
w
C7
LL
M
O 0
'E
a) O) E
T
N N UO
Cu
(n M N 0
X N a)
O 3
O Q�
O-CY
Ib Cu O U
C.)O
O fr 6
U W 0
z � N
U a� o
0 z m
LID o�0H-0
o a a�
00C.)0
m
Y C =
(6 N M
H + N O
N E O Q
. o
in O
o �
0 o rn
c t $
o— rn-T .N
U E E E E
N O N
O LLHHHH
� Co
O
o N
o N
N
w�
�p
N L
oa-
Q
-2

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Roses Creek, Burke County
DMS Project No. 96309
Credit Summary
Stream
Riparian
Non-
Buffer
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
SMU
Wetland
riparian
Nutrient
Nutrient Offset
WMU
Wetland
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
FEF9::,
Totals
5,009.E
Project Components
Project
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
SMU
Footage or
Ratio
Component
Location
Footage/
P( I, PII,
or
Acreage
Acreage
or Reach ID
etc.
Restoration
Equivalent
Roses
10+00-
3,643
PI
Restoration
3,181
1:1
3,121*
Creek
41+81
Roses
41 +81-
38
-
Ell
38
2.5:1
15
Creek
42+19
UT 1
10+00-
267
PI
Restoration
289
1:1
289
12+54;
16+11-
16+46
UT 1
12+54-
641
-
Ell
641
2.5:1
256
16+11;
16+46-
19+30
UT 2
10+00-
610
PI
Restoration
707
1:1
707
17+07
UT 3
10+00-
558
PI
Restoration
621
1:1
621
16+21
Total
NA
5,757
PI
Restoration/
5,477
1-2.5:1
5,009.6
Ell
* Stream Mitigation Units decreased by 60 to account for break in easement at the stream crossing
on Sisk Farm Road
Component Summation
Restoration
Level
Stream
linear
feet NJ
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -Riparian
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
acres
Wetland
Lqcres
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
4,798
Enhancement II
j 679
Page 8

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
Mitigation Plan
September 2015
September 2015
Final Design — Construction Plans
September 2015
March 2016
Construction
February 25, 2016
May 18, 2016
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
May 18, 2016
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
May 18, 2016
Bare Root, Containerized, and B&B plantings for
Entire Project Area
---
May 27, 2016
Mitigation Plan/As-built ear 0 Mon itorin -Baseline
May 2016
July 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2016
January 2017
Stream Morphology
November 2016
--
Vegetation
August 2016
--
Supplemental Planting
---
February 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
August 2017
November 2017
Stream Morphology
June 2017
Vegetation
August 2017
Supplemental Planting
---
February 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
August 2018
November 2018
Stream Morphology
March 2018
Vegetation
August 2018
--
Structural Repairs
---
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2019
December 2019
Stream Morphology
--
--
Vegetation
--
--
Dam Removal
September 2019
Invasive Treatment
Jan. and Sept. 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
December 2020
Stream Morphology
February 2020
Vegetation
August 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
January 2022
Stream Morphology
September 2021
Vegetation
September 2021
Dam Removal
August 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Page 9

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Designer
ICA Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Primary project design POC
Chris Smith [phone]
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Construction Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Structural Repair Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Structural Repair Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover [phone]
Planting Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Planting Contractor POC
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Supplemental Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
114 W Main Street, Suite 106
Supplemental Planting Contractor POC
Clayton, NC 27520
Bill Wright 919 590-5193
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27607
Seeding Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources — Triangle Office
Nursery Stock Suppliers
1) Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
2 Foggy Mountain Nurse live stakes
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Monitoring Performers
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Vickie Miller 919 232-6600
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Stream Monitoring POC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Jessica Tisdale 919 232-6600
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Jessica Tisdale [phone]
Page 10

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Table 4. Project Information
Project Information
Project Name
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
County
Burke
Project Area acres
17.3
Project Coordinates (latitude
and
35.850953,-81.819541
longitude
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Piedmont / Mountain
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit
03050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050101060030
8-digit
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03-08-31
Project Drainage Area acres
Roses: 3,309, UT 1: 35, UT 2: 47, UT 3: 10
Project Drainage Area Percentage
<1 %
of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agri cultu ral/Pastu re
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Geological Unit
Zabg: Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Roses Creek
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Length of reach (linear
3,681 existing
900 existing
610 existing
558 existing
feet
Valley Classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage Area (acres)
3,309
35
47
13
NCDWQ Stream
56
30
33.5
34
Identification Score
NCDWQ Water
WS-III; Tr
WS-III; Tr
WS-III; Tr
WS-III; Tr
Quality Classification
Morphological
E4, B4, and
Description (stream
F4
135, F5
135
135, G5
type)
Evolutionary Trend
Simon's
Could maintain
Stages:
a B type
Premodified v
channel in
Constructed v
majority of
G » B/E
G » B
Degradation
reach
and Widening
Or
F» B
Page 11

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Regulatory Considerations (cont.)
Coastal Zone Management (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
Yes
Yes
CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Page 12

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Page 13

m
LU
2
) !
;
> >\
--
\(
\
- a
e)
_
\ \ \ u
\{
/)9 /
u2(
\ \
§
\
\ ( j El
zw�^71
e
»�
)/E®,�.
.t
,7 _-
�\(
\ ,] w,g d,
�-zIS -
~ `
\ k \ \ \ ` § a ( )
+ , § , y / \ 2 ~
6006 # 19-7fOYcl siva xam usoy -,LqvyLNO�

85Z0-1:IN asuw!l JN
L09LZ 7N 'N6ialob ��'
006 ay!^S
'{aa�yS allinayya.(od SSS
���
VNIIONVJ HidON'A1NnO7 imna
1]3L011d NOIIVNOIS3N WV3N1S
SNVId
ry >
q w
OS SZ 0 SZ
-3ul '6.!.aau!6u3 VDI
51338D SDSON
31VDS
JIHdVNO
L
Z 0
gO
1
W
0U
Ow
w O�
LL
1
C
u
O
Z
Z W U
�_ a >j
Z
o
F
a
w
O
0
Z
Z
O o� o ��
O
O
V
- ♦1\
U
U
U
A
\
0
z
°
3
W
\
>
w
-
z
<(l
C 'O
to c
p
w
E
z
O
U
z
i
z
��
III
oe
a
z w wg
N� Nam
o
o
U
_
I
'�
U
O
U2 UDC) Ui'�
Ou 2-.. 2v-,V
b->
w
l
\
1
Z
Z
"�
o0
U
�j
m
V 2 U(�
�
oLL?
iQ
z
LU
\ \
IL
J
y
E�
X
Z
LD
s
�F-
a0 0 �
>z
ZW 0
`/
Y
w Zw
U
=N
./
Q Z
W O
uW
z
3
00+SL
I
w X
I
�6. zm ..l-,....oa.s ,o��,=�o,d 6�,to ,�ow,�o,d,wo�, _,==�,6o,d � �M z s�w�e ode m s\.........d ..... y P "

SSZD-3 :oN 7N SNVId h .o L09LZ 7N'Hl 6!-ob ��� V'NIIOdVD H1dON'AINOOJ 3m n,
R
4 >
006 ay!^S 1:31Odd NOI1VdOBR Nfd3N1S OS SZ O Sz �� M
'yaa�yS allinayyan3 SSS N33dJ SISOd
-oul ' B.p...!6u3 VDI 31VDS JIHdVN0
MPTGNgEE So ET a REEK
l
os
d8D m
� ss
\
\
\
w `
m
Oj
d N Z
F 00 N Z W Z° o U ww 0 ° o a us o
3 z w y o w >> V
J= ^ in O 2 O U
2 N Z u o
W W J °' 0 O a
> F W V
ZW 1
z W ` Zy tm
O ffim
U U UO VU�
I�
` 0V 2,0. -Ou
Z m
W< <( °
U �v
W l
Z Z
O ZO
\ wZ o g� Qw
I T° m �� ow °o
w� o" on
V2 V3 LLz =Z
+ dQ
o
I. w i
X w
LU
tR J X
S
w J 4 >zl Z
J> J> + t m N < Z w Oz U
Z W
o z
am � m Vw
00+9L w x
� I I
�baem ysa-,�1�sasoa y e ;,� �etd b�1o,�ow�rold�weals�ssa.ao.a i vlonzswie oar mewaal� sasoe�waaais�zaP i"�,"r

��J2 >n
006 _s ��� " _a a mm , z , , / § »
OJ
' S. _m om __,� ��� a� _ _« " �'S �\ !
j
(
&�
\
/
(
-2
:
`®
\
/
(
2
^
74
/

1 ll ZWl :oN asu 9 IN SNVld
'yaa,yg FONd N0I1VdO1SR
L09LZ �N '46ialnb ��1 VNIIONVJ .--N'-NL1OI DNIn9 4 utl a in
a�l� ayya�oj SSS 1J36W AIS S ez 0 9z Ou�
>ul '6uuaaui6u3 VDI ��� MIND SISON 91VDS �IHJVN9
Lu
W
e
w
w O
00
CV
.o
• �Z �
•Lu Lo -
Lu .
0
w o0
>u
JW�
z��
Zar
=3c�
u z
z¢�
pp
um�
0W�
m¢
w °pWz
o°Ju
Mo
Zy,
W aikL
e
�
lb6
3
J
Z
z Q
1.
n
Z
a
O to
Z
O
p
F
w
p <
7zo
a
F
o
z
s w
a� u
>
—
Z
o
�� o
o�
zO o
v
U
p
d
N 0
Z
�
z
o
o
0
I
a
r
�
z
N
V VO
O Ov
Up UH
uape� "�S
Oa
%w
m
6>
❑ ❑
C
❑
z
o
z
z
zFD
%� O=
F�
oo
°o
Ou
°a
Z
w
�sw.
w
J
N
X
z z
0
° o
_Z
¢O
V J
e¢2 ?Z
�
LL
m�
am
¢ z
x zw
�„ °u�
z
LL
00+SL
�
I
u
I
+
,bp sm-ysd-,,—oa g ...A—.,

11�40-L09L :IN asuaall JN
L09LZ 6 011 6s aIob Vol
006 ay.A
I 2Cl
b'NIl011 H180N 'A1N 00D 3�N 09
103fOYd
NSIS3N WV3b1S
N
4 u �
--
'yaauys a...Uya.(oj
)13M
�33710 5350b
oS SZ o Sz
u�
-Dul '6w�aaw6u3 VJI
DI
31VJS JIHdVNJ
� O
c
E N
LU
w t �
p U
y a O
LO
Ua�iia�a
a
U
lb
U
.
3
N VL
Z
Z 4
n
W � s= y �
t O
✓i z W w
Z p
O a =3
O o
z
F
S° w ��
z0 ? J z
a
0
U
OU
O
D
z O
�a
z
-
•
m 9
w w
o
�
�
z
�
O
u'
U
ti
m
E ❑
-
1
}
?f
z
o
F z
Z4
>< t
Uz OF
g0
pU
4L
Ow
O�
D❑
2U
OZ
V� m VaU'
i4
LU
V
W
J x
x
GA
Sob,
` °
-
J '
w
w
y��bw
a z x C) w
a��m
I
W�WLL
00+9L
� I
I x
I
u6pg0 ystl-ryl�sesoy y 1e ;,� ueld 6u.o uo�fo.d�weel�s �sse.6o.d�
L 'I�M-Z'9\WL8 Otl ] 0'9\'lee1�-sesoa
�� tl 3tl
L5���P �n�C

1 ISZO-j :-I --ll 7N SN'99d
L09LZ 6 'y6ia!ob tlNIIONtlJ H1NON 'A1Nf10J 3�N08 4 r
006 a+!^S � m
'yaa�yS al!!nayy.A.=l SSS��' 1J3fObd NOI1V'N0153N VJtl3N1S OS SZ 0 SZ
.�ul '6uuaau16u3 V.71 tcl )IDRD S3S08 3lVJS JI HdVrdO
z
o
z
Z
o a
=
z
O
'g
a s
o
U
H
p
Z
z r W
O � � o
Z O
O
—
U
O
u p�
u
z
oe
z
0
Z a
o
1
}
>
>
z
i �
NFL NFm
op
U Vp
U� Un
Up7 Upg
ow
Z
O
z
ZO
wz
z
O g�
Qu
yO
�
ou
��
o
EZ
da
LU
LU
J
N
X
z
zU
p0 Z
uz
d
10
Ja` 'z
2
3 Ww
u o0
mr
am
¢ z = Q
m w u'�
z
00+SL
I
I
I
I
I
X
pot'

09 JJ%\\
mw' ,
^~
} °
:
006 ee ����
' « __m
���
! > / m� ,TWA"
, z , ,
/
|�<
E
— . _,� V
_,ma
s mwwo
!
�
�
MATCHONE SEE SHEET 5
\
u
;'
) § !
g : k* 3
-
\
.
§ } /}
3
/ \
Z
0
z-
g $
'
'1
Z
:
-
O
§)§ §§2 -
u
� 2 � (1)
\
w
j§&] )§j /,
3
{ ( ❑
_
-•
u
.
>
.
0 §)
\\
\G { O®
k
\( )\
%
z ¥ A e
\
.
\2 )
-
!
.
\
.
\\\\\\(\
"
ms.� I
»
,,-O,q ... A—., m

N O
� a
0
0
o �CZ
H
U] N
u u cjn Lam.
N cz
0
Q W z
R
N aI
S
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
p
o
o
p
o
0
0
0
0
r E
y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o t
N
a
o w y
0
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
N
Er- LL
7
O N N
C
N R N
� E
E aI
O
O
O
O
O
Z V)
c _
S Q
00
00
A
~
d)
d)
d)
d)
d)
O
E w
Z a
C
w
N
E
�
c
w
U)
R
y N
V)
U)
a
C
00
00
01
01
01
01
01
E
r
Z °
ILI
r Y LL
a
o
m�
Y
inWZ�
a1 y cl
m
a
L
u'
Y 3
p
o
m
o
o
o a
m
a
E
�
m
L
u m>
R y
m
E m
o
o
W W
� y
u
IQT
`m
-o
o_
s y
a
—:
o
o f
a w
a+
o
m
`m E
m
E
E
o
E
m
o
x E
W
a
f0
n
o
m
s `m
m
o
m
m
m n
m�
cl
6 0
o
m
s
a
m
o
o
..
n
u
f
x
v�
-oo
o
>
.� E
o
°�
a
Y
°�
E
-oo
m a10i
s
m
m
s
m
>
>
>•
m
m
m oo
R
o
'
10
m
s
3
oo
o
nm
>.o
o
m
o m
o nl
a
aO�
Z
m
o
m
oL
Qo 10
m
p
m
F
m
JI
s
~
Y
a
Y m .o
m
N
N
N
m w
m p
m
(n
(D
(n
m
a p
O
0
C
O1
O
U
y
w
o
a
a
O
W
c
o
0
C R
u s=
y
c 0
w
w
y
m
w
a
;?
R
L 7>
w
w
w `o
m
c
7
m
>
O
0
a
m
2
u co
l0
lV
M U
V
lV
li
fV
N
M
v
°
�
d
(A
L
�
R
U
U
2
c
c
h
o
w
R
L
U
Y
y
c
°
R
m
m
w
fV
M

\ } /
\
k
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
00
\
\
\
\
\
a.
fit&
0
o
e
o
0
0
0
»I$
f]K0
0
0
■�$
`
e
kk\
o
��
co
co
■`
k
.
If
k
m
o��
m
m
j
�C\l
�
�
�
{
■f
a.
k §
!
-
\§j
®
`
®E
j:
}/
7 § f
d )
\
}-
2
-
K §
e
f
r(_
\/
-\
/
~
{
E
`
/
�-
>
\)E
`
`
\�
\\
/
o
ER
c
_
\
2
y)
I
2
-)
);
\
co
f
!!
w
#2j
e
e
-
l
_
«
\
§
§
co
f,
:
_
_
Al
co
co
£/£
\
\
co
cl
co
/
/
/
/§
!/
-
_
§-
°]
(
;
a
3
O 2
w:
w
"i
2
w
w
w
|
(
3
/
u
-
\
!
!
/
�
�
w
�

\ } /
\
§
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
00
\
\
\
\
\
a.
0 4)
o
e
o
0
00
ƒ
} Dr-
»I$
f]K0
0
0
■�$
k \
`
k
C
�
�
&
■`
k
2
§)
§
©
E
C
C\l
C\l
>
.0■f
a LL
m _j
!
_
0D}/
j
f
0
()
f!
)
f
:
§§
«
ot�
:
/
ƒ
/
):
-
/ k
af
°
`
�
f `
r+_
-
-
\r
e 2
/
-_
\\
J
@
:
\
_
-
_{
I
/
0
j
# )
~
)
]
x
-_
z
E
`
\
�
»
®
\
_
\\
§
{
)
}k
_
/
-
k
/
#
-
%
)\
/}
fJ
-
i
!
!
¥\
-
_
)
2
f)
©
-
>
-
:co
k
-
:
-
-
-)))j\
e
-
-
j
«
\
§
§
_
�.
2:
�\
co
0
co
£/£
\
\
w
,&
w
\
/;/!2/
co
/
co
Co§
!/
({
2
-
:
*
-
-
7§f
~
)
_
)
_
-
°!)
(
]
;
a
3
wu
2
w
w
w
N
C
|
(ul
3
/
u
-
\
co/
w!

\
%
/
\ } /
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
00
\
\
\
\
\
a.
0 4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
»I$
f]Ko
0
0
0
■�$
`
z
kk\
■`
k
.
If
k
kkC\l�
/
�
�
{
■f
ILI
a.
k �
!
-
®
`
®\
0
j:
}/
7
o
()
)
f
d )
\
}
y
o
§:
o
-
2
-
,§
!
K §
e
f
r(_lo
_
1.o
\/
/
-\
\ \
J
@
:
\
_
-
_ {
I
/
j
; )
~
)
I
{
-_
:
E
`
/
�-
>
\)
cl
-
o�
`
®
`
\o
\_/
o
{
\
\
\�
\\
_
\
2
y)
LO
{�
)(
I
2
_~
)) ;
2
!o
#f-:
lo
«
§
§
5-
L\
_
2A-jow��'\Bc1.o
co
w
£/£
\
\
w
,&
w
\
;/!2
/
/
/
/§
!/
({
2
-
:
*
-
-
7§f
:a)
)
_
\)
(
_
§
] )
-
,
|
:
-
!)
(
]
;
a
3
O2w:
w
wu
2
w
w
w
|
(
3
/
u
-
\
'OW
!
/
w
�i

\
\
\
\
«
o
/
/
/
°
k
0
k
z
)
#
J
)
J
/�
}
\
§
|
§
\EL
\
\
CL
\
-Q
N
7
{\
\15 j
�\
\E
\
{{
/}
)
{%
\m
7\
k
\\
\
\\
)
>
k
§
§
IL w
|
$
&
»3
�
§,
"
<
-j
/
\
;
w
w
w
/
/
k
w
�
C�j
$

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Figures 3.1 - 3.18. Problem Areas, Buffer Vegetation and Aerial Photos
3.1 UT 1 Invasive Mimosa (7/27/21)
3.3 UT 2 Invasive cattails (7/27/21)
3.5 Roses Creek Buffer (9/8/21)
3.2 UT 1 Invasive Chinese privet (7/27/21)
3.4 River birch Roses floodplain (9/8/21)
3.6 UT 1 Buffer Vegetation (9/8/21)
Page 28

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
3.7 UT 2 Buffer Vegetation (9/8/21)
3.9 Roses Creek beaver dam (7/27/21)
3.11 Beaver dam after removal (9/8/21)
3.8 UT 3 Buffer Vegetation (9/8/21)
3.10 Roses Creek beaver dam (7/27/21)
3.12 UT 1 channel erosion (7/27/21)
Page 29

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
3.13 UT 2 channel erosion (11/4/21)
3.14 Cow wasting area (11/4/21)
3.15 Wasting area (outside easement)
Page 30

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
3.16 UT 1 aerial (March 4, 2021)
3.17 UT 2 aerial (March 4, 2021)
Page 31

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
3.18 UT 3 aerial (March 4, 2021)
Page 32

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Appendix C. Hydrologic Data
Table 7. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date
Crest
Gauge Info
Gauge
Reading
(ft)
Gauge
Elevation
(ft)
Crest
Elevation
(ft)
Bankfull
Elevation
(ft)
Height
above
Bankfull
ft
Site
Sta.
10/5/2016
1
Roses
Creek Lower
0.00
1212.11
N/A
1213.93
N/A
10/5/2016
2
UT 1
0.00
1267.45
N/A
1267.95
N/A
10/5/2016
3
UT 2
0.35
1227.81
1228.16
1228.19
N/A
10/5/2016
4
UT 3
0.25
1216.94
1217.19
1217.36
N/A
11/22/2016
1
Roses
Creek Lower
0.00
1212.11
N/A
1213.93
N/A
11 /22/2016
2
UT 1
0.00
1267.45
N/A
1267.95
N/A
11 /22/2016
3
UT 2
0.00
1227.81
N/A
1228.19
N/A
11 /22/2016
4
UT 3
0.35
1216.94
1217.29
1217.36
N/A
6/2/2017
1
Roses
Creek Lower
1.89
1212.11
1214.00
1213.93
0.07
6/2/2017
2
UT 1
0.80
1267.45
1268.25
1267.95
0.30
6/2/2017
3
UT 2
1.50
1227.81
1229.31
1228.19
1.12
6/2/2017
4
UT 3
1.80
1216.94
1218.74
1217.36
1.38
8/15/2017
1
Roses
Creek Lower
0.50
1212.11
1212.61
1213.93
N/A
8/15/2017
2
UT 1
0.38
1267.45
1267.83
1267.95
N/A
8/15/2017
3
UT 2
0.85
1227.81
1228.66
1228.19
0.47
8/15/2017
4
UT 3
1.64
1216.94
1218.58
1217.36
1.22
3/28/2018
1
Roses
Creek Lower
2.83
1212.11
1214.94
1213.93
1.01
3/28/2018
2
UT 1
0.38
1267.45
1267.83
1267.95
N/A
3/28/2018
3
UT 2
2.50
1227.81
1230.31
1228.19
2.12
3/28/2018
4
UT 3
1.38
1216.94
1218.32
1217.36
0.96
8/6/2018
1
Roses
Creek Lower
3.75
1212.11
1215.86
1213.93
1.93
8/6/2018
2
UT 1
1.13
1267.45
1268.58
1267.95
0.63
8/6/2018
3
UT 2
2.54
1227.81
1230.35
1228.19
2.16
8/6/2018
4
UT 3
2.92
1216.94
1219.86
1217.36
2.50
1/29/2019
1
Roses
Creek Lower
2.68
1212.11
1214.79
12.13.93
0.86
1/29/2019
2
UT 1
0.67
1267.45
1268.12
12.67.95
0.17
1/29/2019
3
UT 2
3.83
1227.81
1231.64
1228.19
3.45
1/29/2019
4
UT 3
3.75
1216.94
1220.69
1217.36
3.33
2020/2021
Insect damage to crest gauges, unreadable for Years 5 & 6
Page 33

on
W,
O
E
U
U_
•L
O
Q
ALP
•�
t
r)
r-i
U]
m
a
Ln
a
9
O
N
O
Z
N
O
O
L 1
^'
W
O
�
VI
N
N
Q�
ra
f6
E
L
O
c
Z
VI
\
Q
4-J
ro
U
d
4-J
8 C
48
U
6
a-J
z
F
T
a
� O O
❑ m m
� N
Ln
3 N
QN
O
rn
O
r-I
N
N
C N
3a
�N
� N
rl
aN
QN
L �
N
�N
9 ~
N
�
W �
C N
6O
�N
U O
N N
❑ O
N
^ O O O O
C
ai
u
N
C
Q
T
t6 N N
rl
in
Z
T
In
Q OJ M 01 rl
cu m a a
Q 0 n N
C N r
O r M O O
N 0 N
p M N N
N �
W
n O
y Co
u �
C O N m O
v
w
u1 rl N h O]
i O O m N
nm a On �
C D7 1' T ID
O
U N l0 � 01
r r n n
M M M M
w Z
Z
❑ z
Z � Z
o s o z (7
y w
>Q z a
J
Ul W Q
L (J
m inZ
N W
� m �
h t0 ul 7 M
(sagDul) Ilpjule,

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR SIX MONITORING REPORT
January 2022
Appendix D. 2019/2020 IRT Meeting Minutes Notes
Page 35

Meeting Minutes
Project: Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site (DMS # 96309)
Subject: IRT Credit Release Meeting
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Location: Burke County
Attendees: Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Mac Haupt (DWR)
Paul Wiesner (DMS)
Tim Baumgartner (DMS)
Joe Famularo (DMS)
Chris Smith (HDR)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Erin Davis (DWR)
Harry Tsomides (DMS)
Melonie Allen (DMS)
Ryan Smith (HDR)
The IRT Credit Release Meeting for the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site was held at 9:00 AM on
Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at the project site in Burke County. The following represents highlights of
discussions that occurred during the site visit:
1. Chris Smith provided a synopsis of the project site to begin the meeting.
2. The IRT expressed concern over the following items at this stage in monitoring (year 4):
a. Vegetation.
i. 2 vegetation plots along UT 1 are not currently meeting success criteria
1. Supplemental planting occurred during 2018.
ii. Invasive Plants: Privet has been treated along UT 1 multiple times this year but
no measures were taken prior to 2019.
b. Repair areas along Roses Creek.
c. Tributary discharge and maintenance of single thread channel as opposed to wetland
complex.
Site Walk
1. Discussion regarding the current condition of the tributaries. UT 2 and UT 3 are the tributaries
of concern:
a. HDR observed that the monitoring cross sections for the tributaries do not show
aggradation or significant alteration in cross sectional dimension.

b. HDR observed that the flow gauge data indicates all the tributaries meet performance
standard requirements.
c. There is flow through the restored channels, however, there is also water flowing in the
floodplains of UT 2 and UT 3.
d. Dense, low growing vegetation (juncus/carex/salix/polygonum) is prevalent along
several reaches of UT 2 and UT 3's channel side slopes and floodplain. The IRT
expressed concern that vegetation is constricting channel flow and could in the future
cause enough aggradation within the channels to the point that they function as a linear
wetland rather than the channel functioning as a stream. HDR reiterated that
monitoring cross -sectional data confirms that the channel is maintaining its dimension
even though the vegetation is admittedly dense which restricts the ability to visually
identify sections of existing bed and bank within some restored channel reaches.
e. Some sediment entered the upstream extent of UT 2 due to a soil access road that had
not been stabilized immediately following construction completion. The road is now
stabilized, however there is still sediment that is slowly being mobilized downstream.
f. The IRT indicated that stream reaches proposed for stream mitigation credit should
function as streams and be considered jurisdictional streams by the regulatory agencies
at project closeout. The IRT noted that stream channels that are determined to be non -
jurisdictional will not be eligible to receive stream mitigation credit. The IRT suggested
documenting stream conditions with photos and videos during winter when plants are
dormant in an effort to more clearly identify the channel bed and bank. The IRT noted
that there has been allowances for providers to maintain vegetation on channel banks
through the first two monitoring years. The IRT does not desire channel vegetation
manipulation at this point for the project, but noted it as a potential tool for future sites.
g. There was discussion during the site walk on if flow gauges should be moved further
upstream compared with their current locations. At the end of the walk it was
determined that the tributaries appear to display sufficient flow and that it may not be
necessary to relocate flow gauges.
2. Continued treatment of invasives including but not limited to privet and multi -flora rose is
necessary though project closeout.
3. Evidence of livestock within the easement was observed.
4. Vegetation on UT 1 was a concern prior to the site walk due to low survival rates within
monitoring plots as noted in the monitoring report. However, during the site walk woody
vegetation was noted to be dense along UT 1, displaying healthy vigor and survivability. HDR
will review monitoring plots to determine if monitored vegetation within the plots is accurate
and/or if vegetation with the plots is representative of survivability along UT 1 and will detail the
information in the MY4 (2019) report.
5. Beaver have entered the site near the downstream terminus of restoration on Roses Creek
(have built one dam and began a second). The IRT noted that beaver management should begin
and removal of the dam is necessary. Beaver inspection, management and dam removal should
be completed until project closeout.
a. NOTE: As of September 11, 2019 the beaver dams have been removed and an
eradication program has begun through a contract with the USDA APHIS.

6. The IRT noted that overall the site is functioning well (both streams, repairs from storm events
and vegetation). The IRT noted issues on both UT 2 and UT 3 that have potential credit
implications. The IRT was willing to release stream credits for MY3 (2018) as long as the
remaining amount of unreleased credits exceeded the potential stream credits associated with
both UT2 and UT3. The IRT indicated that they would review the MY4 report and any
supplemental data provided and discuss the project and additional project credit release at the
2020 IRT credit release meeting.
7. The IRT noted that HDR should document any adaptive management measures and discuss
measures during the credit release meeting in April 2020. Any significant adaptive management
must be pre -approved by the IRT before implementation.
Notes from 2020 Meeting
Rose
96309
2020 — MY5
HDR
PM: Tsomides
2D21: Todd (USACE) reminded everyone that the IRT had recently visited the site in 2019f 2020. The IRT is Still concerned
about the tributaries that flow into Roses creek (UT 1, UT2, and UT3). Vickie Miller (ICA) noted that bath UT1 & UT2 are single
thread channels and there is no sediment source currently upstream of UT 2. DMS still believes UT3 is at risk of credit loss at
closeout. Todd asked about encroachment on the site. Vickie noted that there has been encroachment but the landowner
is planning or has repaired the fencing. The IRT wants follow up documentation regarding encroachment in the MY6 (202
monitoring report. Todd asked about vegetation on the site and the numerous river birch volunteers on the site. ICA
continuing to treat invasives on the site as required. Todd asked about Cross Section 4; which has down cut approximately
foot. Todd asked ICA to look at that cross section in detail in MY6 (2021). Kim asked if beaver were currently on the site. I
noted that no beaver dams are currently on -site and they will continue to manage beaver through project closeout. Tod
requested that site monitoring not be conducted until later into the growing season (2020geomorphology data was collecte
in Feb. 2020). ICA. will plan to collect data later in the applicable monitoring year. The IRT indicated that credits can b
released as proposed with no site visit required.
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Tel. [phone]
Ha igy.TsomidesOn cd erin gov
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
h1 0'. �othtng Compares