The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20180196 Ver 1_CatfishPond_100039_MY3_2022_20230110ID#* 20180196 Select Reviewer: Ryan Hamilton Initial Review Completed Date 01/18/2023 Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/10/2023 Version* 1 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Type of Mitigation Project:* Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jeremiah Dow Project Information ID#:* 20180196 Existing ID# Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank Project Name: Catfish Pond Mitigation Site County: Durham Document Information O Yes O No Email Address:* jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov Version:* 1 Existing Version Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: CatfishPond_100039_MY3_2022.pdf 9.08MB Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted... Signature Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow Signature: * }2 h . MONITORING YEAR 3 ANNUAL REPORT FINAL � fir:-:, ,.�► CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE Durham County, NC Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201 DMS Project No. 100039 December 2022 NCDEQ Contract No. 007424 NCDWR Project No. 2018-0196 USACE Action ID No. 2018-00424 Data Collection Dates: January - November 2022 PREPARED FOR: if NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 PREPARED BY: W WILDLANDS E N G I N E E R I N G 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Jason Lorch jlorch@wildlandseng.com Phone: 919.851.9986 CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits...................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Project Attributes.......................................................................................................................1-4 Section 2: Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment................................................................................2-1 2.1 Vegetative Assessment..............................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Stream Assessment....................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern...........................................................................................................2-2 2.5 Hydrology Assessment...............................................................................................................2-2 2.6 Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................2-2 2.7 Adaptive Management Plan.......................................................................................................2-3 2.8 Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................2-3 Section3: REFERENCES....................................................................................................................3-1 TABLES Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits.....................................................................................................1-1 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements......................................................1-3 Table 3: Project Attributes.........................................................................................................................1-4 FIGURES Figure 1-1b Current Condition Plan View APPENDICES Appendix A Visual Assessment Data Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data Cross -Section Plots Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 9 Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Appendix D Hydrology Data Table 10 Bankfull Events Table 11 Rainfall Summary Table 12 Groundwater Gauge Summary Groundwater Gauge Plots Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 14 Project Contact Table Appendix F Additional Documentation Meeting Minutes: MY2 IRT Site Visit — Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site) is in Durham County, approximately 12 miles north of the City of Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange/Durham County border. The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural and forested land. The streams drain to Mountain Creek, which flows into Little River, the Eno River, and then Falls Lake. A 20.73-acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site. Table 3 presents more information related to the project attributes. 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits Mitigation work within the Site included restoration and enhancement II of perennial and intermittent stream channels (Figures 1-1b). Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and credit totals expected by project closeout. Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits PROJECT QUANTITIES Mitigation Mitigation As -Built Mitigation Restoration Project Segment Plan Ratio Credits Comments Footage Category Level Footage (X:1) Stream Catfish Creek Invasive Control, Conservation 115 115 Warm Ell 2.5 46.000 Reach 1 Easement Invasive Control, Grade Catfish Creek 323 323 Warm Ell 2.5 129.200 Control Structures, Planted Reach 2 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Invasive Control, Grade Catfish Creek 473 474 Warm Ell 2.5 189.200 Control Structures, Planted Reach 3 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Full Channel Restoration, Catfish Creek 374 373 Warm R 1.0 374.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock Reach 4 Exclusion 1_uiver L U U_ GralPRWRTFructures, Catfish Creek Planted Buffer, Livestock 460 460 Warm Ell 2.5 184.000 Reach 5 Exclusion, Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Catfish Creek 454* 444 Warm R 1.0 454.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock Reach 6 Exclusion, Farm Pond Drained Invasive Control, Grade Catfish Creek 1,071* 1,087 Warm Ell 2.5 428.400 Control Structures, Planted Reach 7 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion *Due to a stationing error in the Mitigation Plan, linear feet and associated credits were overestimated on Catfish Creek Reach 6 and underestimated on Reach 7 for a net overage of 10.6 credits. Stream credits were calculated using Mitigation Plan footage because the 10.6 credits represent only 0.28% of the total stream credits. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 1-1 , PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES Mitigation Mitigation As -Built Mitigation Restoration Project Segment Plan Ratio Credits Comments Footage Category Level Footage (X:1) Stream Invasive Control, Planted 263 263 Warm Ell 2.5 105.200 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion LIT1 Reach 42 Culvert Crossin, Invasive Control, Planted 11 Warm Ell 2.5 286.800 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Full Channel Restoration, 515 520 Warm R 1.0 515.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock LIT1 Reach 2 Exclusion 60 61 0.0 .000 Full Channel Restoration, LIT1 Reach 3 149 149 Warm R 1.0 149.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Invasive Control, Planted LIT1 Reach 4 446 446 Warm Ell 2.5 178.400 Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Invasive Control, Grade LIT2 412 412 Warm Ell 2.5 164.800 Control Structures, Livestock Exclusion Invasive Control, Grade Mountain 1,362 1,362 Warm Ell 2.5 544.800 Control Structures, Planted Tributary Buffer, Livestock Exclusion Total: 3,748.800 Restoration Level Stream Warm Cool Cold Restoration 1,492.000 Enhancement I Enhancement 11 2,256.800 Preservation -- Totals 3,748.800 Total Stream Credit^ 3,748.800 ^Credits were adjusted at As -Built to include changes in stream alignment on Catfish Creek Reach 6 due to bedrock in the floodplain. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes the project goals and objectives along with the expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes. Additionally, performance criteria for project objectives and a summary of the related monitoring data results for Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) are included. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 1-2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements Cumulative Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Measurement Monitoring Criteria Results Reduction in sediment, Visually inspect the nutrient, and fecal Exclusion fencing is Install fencing around perimeter, as well No livestock access Exclude conservation coliform bacteria inputs installed and as interior, of the to the through livestock maintained. livestock from easements adjacent to Site to ensure there conservation exclusion. Contribution Livestock remain streams. cattle pastures or are no signs of easement has to protection of or excluded from the remove livestock. livestock entering occurred. improvement of Water project area. the Site. Supply Waterbody. Reconnect Reconstruct stream Raise water table and channels with channels for bankfull hydrate riparian floodplains dimensions and depth wetlands. Allow more Four bankfull Crest gauge and/or A bankfull event and riparian relative to the existing frequent flood flows to wetlands to floodplain. Remove disperse on the events in separate pressure transducer was documented years within recording flow on UT1 but not allow a existing floodplain. monitoring period. elevations. Catfish Creek. natural berms to re -connect Support flooding channel with adjacent geomorphology and regime. wetlands. higher level functions. All cross-section entrenchment Significantly reduce Cross-section data Construct stream Entrenchment ratios are over 2.2. sediment inputs from will be collected Improve the channels ratio over 2.2 and Bank height ratios bank erosion. Reduce during MY1, MY2 , stability of that will maintain bank height ratios are below 1.2, shear stress on channel MY3, MY5, and MY7 stream stable cross -sections, below 1.2 with except on XS4 channels. patterns, and profiles boundary. Support all visual assessments and visual (Catfish Creek over time. stream functions above showing stability. inspections will be Reach 6) which is hydrology. performed annually. just over 1.2 and stable. Increase and diversify Install habitat features available habitats for such as constructed macro invertebrates, riffles, cover/lunker fish, and amphibians There is no Improve logs, and brush toes leading to colonization performance instream into restored/enhanced N/A N/A and increase in standard for this habitat. streams. Add woody materials to channel biodiversity over time. metric. beds. Construct pools Add complexity of varying depth. including LWD to streams. One hundred Reduce sediment inputs from bank 210 planted stems square meter per acre at MY7. vegetation plots are erosion and runoff. Restore and Interim survival placed on 2% of the All 9 vegetation Plant native tree and Increase nutrient enhance rate of 320 planted planted area of the plots have a understory species in cycling and storage in native riparian zone and plant floodplain. Provide stems per acre at Site. Data will be planted stem floodplain and MY3 and 260 at collected during density greater streambank appropriate species on riparian habitat. Add a MY5. Trees in each MY1, MY2, MY3, than 320 stems per streambank. source of LWD and vegetation. organic material to plot must average MY5, and MY7 and acre. 7 ft at MY5 and 10 visual inspections stream. Support all ft at MY7. will be performed stream functions. annually. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 1-3 Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Protect site from visually inspect the Permanently encroachment on the perimeter of the protect the riparian corridor and No easement Establish conservation Prevent easement Site to ensure no project Site direct impact to encroachments easements on the Site. encroachment. easement from harmful streams and wetlands. have occurred. encroachment is uses. Support all stream f unctions. occurring. 1.3 Project Attributes The Site area has been used for livestock grazing or maintained as managed herbaceous cover since at least 1940. Cattle were continually rotated through all fields with access to the project streams. Based on aerial photos from 1940 to 2012, there was an increase in agricultural activity between 1955 and 1972, but onsite streams have existed in their approximate locations with very little change to riparian buffer extents since 1972. Catfish Pond was constructed sometime between 1940 and 1955, and extensive logging and farm road construction along the Site streams were prevalent during this period. Aerial photographs from 1972 show UT1 in a cleared condition. This imagery, in addition to the lack of sinuosity on UT1, suggest that the channel was straightened for agricultural purposes prior to 1972. UT1 showed no signs of riparian buffer growth until 2005, when an aerial photo shows a visible narrow corridor of trees. Catfish Creek, UT2, and Mountain Tributary do not show signs of channel manipulation. Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C present additional information on pre -restoration conditions. Project Activity and Reporting History, as well as the Project Contact Table are included in Appendix E. Table 3: Project Attributes PROJECT OR Catfish Pond Project Name County Durham County Mitigation Site Project Area (acres) 20.73 Project Coordinates 78° 54' 37.66" W PROJECT Physiographic Carolina Slate River Basin Neuse River Province Belt of Piedmont USGS HUC 8-digit 03020201 USGS HUC 14-digit 03020201020040 45.6% forested, 54.2% DWR Sub -basin 03-04-01 Land Use Classification cultivated, 0.2% wetland 227 (Catfish Project Drainage Creek - 197, Area (acres) Mountain Percentage of Impervious Area 0.0% Tributary - 30) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 1-4 RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION Catfish Creek UT1 Parameters Reach 4 Reach 6 Reach 2 Reach 3 Pre -project length (feet) 369 466 430 154 Post -project (feet) 373 444 520 149 Valley confinement Unconfined Moderately Confined Drainage area (acres) 56 70 105 107 Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial DWR Water Quality Classification WS-II/HQW/NSW Dominant Stream Classification Incised E6 N/A C6 E4b (existing) Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4 134a C4 134a Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if Stage IV N/A Stage V Stage IV applicable WGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes No. 4134. Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA N/A N/A N/A or CAMA) Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 1-5 Section 2: Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY3 to assess the condition of the project. The vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved performance standards presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report (Wildlands, 2020). 2.1 Vegetative Assessment The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in September 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an average stem density of 494 stems per acre, which is well above the interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. All nine vegetation plots individually met the interim success criteria and stem densities for each plot range from 324 to 607 stems per acre. Volunteer stems including desirable species such as American persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) continue to establish themselves. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data. 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern While planted trees are growing well, pasture grasses are still thick. In April 2022, where necessary to ensure planted trees remain competitive, herbicide ring sprays were applied around the base of trees. Invasive species at Catfish Pond have been greatly reduced by past treatments throughout the site. However, Wildlands recognizes that multiple treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant control. Sporadic patches of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and blackberry (Rubus spp.) on the upstream portion of UT1 had begun to compete with planted trees and were treated in May 2022 with a foliar spray application of triclopyr herbicide. Intermittent resprouts of multiflora rose, Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense), and tree -of -heaven (Alianthus altissima), were also treated along Catfish Creek with triclopyr and glyphosate using situation and plant appropriate forms of application. In an effort to help shade out in -stream vegetation as much as possible, additional live stakes were planted in areas that seem to get the most sun on Catfish Creek Reach 4 in early April 2022. While waiting for the live stakes to grow, in -stream vegetation was treated with a foliar spray of glyphosate in June 2022. 2.3 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in April 2022. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning. Cross-section 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 graphs show slight deviations from as -built due to sediment deposition and establishment of vegetation. Some sediment deposition in pools is natural and expected. Cross-section 4 on Catfish Creek Reach 6 has not changed noticeably since MY2, after the riffle material in the area washed downstream over the bedrock. Although the bank height ratio is just over 1.2, this is to be expected with the deeper channel. The bedrock stream channel is stable and no longer an area of concern. Cross-section 7 on UT1 Reach 3 is now stable. After repairs, this reach is a step pool system with short riffles and longer glides. This leaves cross-section 7 in a step pool glide, rather than a typical riffle in a C type stream channel. The MY2 and MY3 "Bank Height Ratio — Based on AB-Bankfull Area" in the Cross - Section Plot table and Table 9 (Appendix C) are based on the bankfull area of the channel after repairs were completed in MY2. The repairs changed the channels dimensions, so the low top of bank elevation Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 2-1 and the cross -sectional area are no longer comparable to the MYO AB-Bankfull Elevation or BHR. When the MY3 cross-section 7 graph is compared to the repaired channel in MY2, it has not changed significantly. The Bank Height Ratio is less than 1.2 and the entrenchment ratio is over 2.2. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. Pebble count data is no longer required per the September 29, 2021 Technical Work Group Meeting and is not included in this report. The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary during the monitoring period. 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern The repairs around cross-section 7 on UT1 Reach 3 seem to be stable and holding up well. Cross-section 7 has deepened slightly, which is to be expected in a step pool system, but no significant changes have occurred. Wildlands will continue to observe this reach to confirm stability. In light of the difficulties documenting bankfull events on Catfish Creek (Section 2.5 below), it was suggested at the IRT Site Walk (minutes in Appendix F) that the focus for Catfish Creek be on optimizing high frequency of streamflow. The original crest gauge is located on Reach 6, which is designed as a B channel. This valley shape, the channel shape, the loss of bed material over the bedrock in the reach, and the below normal rainfall this year (Table 11, Appendix D) may be contributing factors to lack of bankfull documentation. See Section 2.7 for future stream flow monitoring plans. 2.5 Hydrology Assessment By the end of MY7, four or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. A bankfull event was recorded on UT1 Reach 2 but no bankfull events were recorded on Catfish Creek Reaches 4 or 6 in MY3. As mentioned in the MY2 Report, Wildlands installed two additional crest gauges on Catfish Creek Reach 4 in the hopes of learning if bankfull events were occurring in other locations along the stream. No bankfull events were recorded. In order to focus on streamflow, the additional crest gauge pressure transducers were re -installed to function both as flow and crest gauges on Catfish Creek Reach 4 in September 2022. Most of the Reach 6 channel is exposed bedrock or bedrock a few inches below the channel bed, making it impossible to install flow gauges. As was suggested at the IRT Site Walk in June 2022, trail cameras to monitor flow were installed on Reach 4 and Reach 6 on July 5, 2022. Thick summer vegetation and low water levels made clear pictures of flow difficult. Despite these difficulties, the fourth camera installed at the downstream end of Catfish Creek Reach 6 faces upstream and gives clear timelapse of stream flow during daylight hours (See Figure 1a for location). The video recording flow from July 5 to October 16, 2022 has been uploaded to YouTube: httras://voutu.be/vD4cOnbiaeg The barotroll on -site malfunctioned at the beginning of the year but the faulty readings were not noticeable until March. Data from the barotroll at a site approximately 6 miles away (Dry Creek Mitigation Site) was used to replace the faulty readings from January until the on -site gauge could be replaced in April. Refer to Appendix D for hydrology data. 2.6 Wetland Assessment As requested by NCDWR, four groundwater wells with pressure transducers were installed and monitored within the existing wetlands zones (one along Catfish Creek Reach 4 and three along UT1 Reach 2). The purpose of these gauges is to assess potential effects to wetland hydrology from the Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 2-2 construction of the restored stream channels. The monitoring results are not tied to performance standards. All gauges were downloaded and maintained quarterly. The measured hydroperiods ranged from 14.1% (36 days) to 27.7% (71 days) of the growing season. Refer to Appendix D for wetland hydrology data. 2.7 Adaptive Management Plan Wildlands plans to re -apply herbicide in rings around planted trees in areas of thick herbaceous competition in spring of 2023. Wildlands will continue to monitor for resprouts of invasive species, and additional treatments will be applied as necessary. Wildlands will continue to monitor the stability of UT1 Reach 3 around cross-section 7. Currently the area is functioning well, and no problems are anticipated. Hydrology on Catfish Creek will be monitored closely with the addition of flow/crest gauges on Reach 4 and the trail cameras requested at the IRT Site Walk. The current Catfish Creek Reach 6 trail camera will remain in place and another trail camera will be adjusted for a clear view of the channel on Reach 4. Flow and crest gauge pressure transducers are recording every 30 minutes and data will be collected with each quarterly download. 2.8 Monitoring Year 3 Summary Vegetation across the Site is exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Monitoring Year 3 data shows an average density of 494 stems per acre across vegetation plots. In addition, desirable volunteer species such as American persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) are establishing themselves. Sporadic resprouts of invasive vegetation were treated and herbicide ring sprays were applied around trees in Monitoring Year 3. Wildlands will continue to monitor and treat as necessary. Additional herbicide ring sprays will be applied as needed around the base of trees in areas of thick herbaceous competition in spring 2023. Project streams are stable and functioning. Cross -sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 show limited deviations from as -built due to sediment deposition and vegetation establishment. Cross-section 4 is no longer an area of concern. Cross-section 7 is stable, and Wildlands will continue to monitor the condition of the area. A bankfull event was documented on UT1 Reach 2 during MY3. Trail cameras and flow gauges have been installed on Catfish Creek to monitor stream flow throughout the year. Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DIMS upon request. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 2-3 Section 3: REFERENCES Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010. NCEEP, NC Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2015. Neuse 01 CU Update. River Basin Restoration Priorities Transition Approach. North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw- reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-Update.pdf United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2019). Catfish Pond Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2020). Catfish Pond Mitigation Project Baseline Monitoring Report. DIMS, Raleigh, NC. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - Final 3-1 V U R o � o Z v E H O = o�`, m W E �� R 0 011 ixz LL u z u c� pp a m 0v� • _ LL V7 LL 0 i 40 40 a, . y �( f/ J {rJ 1AQe ^ 4 x -ITI' { + ` - \ cv _ �`• \ y \\ �1 m 3 = `° I t t av+ P i Ji CNi{ `JJJ /I • i J J! � / JJ/ J ! , JRb 11 % ir a� .a ALk fr , ll ii JJ IS + It ,r co • ' If ., v� m vl o c o cN 00 0 •y z i 40 a U w 48 Z W C7 CO G g 1 o R C z X 3 2 a �c p p O Z C! 4 p m d N £ rC� H E u` 0 � v� in z um o `1 LL ¢ in u`O z u u a m I i iz i 0 APPENDIX A. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Catfish Creek Reach 4 NuT;Fer Total Amount of 'PXWCategory Performing As- i "tage I % Stable, Intended as Intended Assessed Stream Length ft 373 Assessed Bank Length 746 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100% Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure Bank Toe Erosion appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing 0 100% habitat. Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse. 0 100% Totals: 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 25 25 100% Structure Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 58 58 100% Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. Catfish Creek Reach 6 —W.mbe, Total Amount of Major Ch irmel Category Metric Stable . , Number in Unstable Performing As -Built Footage as Intended I Assessed Stream Length % Stable, Performing as Intended 444 Assessed Bank Length 888 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100% Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure Bank Toe Erosion appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing 0 100% habitat. Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse. 0 100% Totals: 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100% Structure Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 4 4 100% Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 UT1 Reach 2 annel Category Number Total Amount of Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing As-BuAL� �tagejj as Intended Assessed Stream Length % Stable, Performing as Intended 520 Assessed Bank Length 1,040 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poorgrowth and/or surface scour. 0 100% Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure Bank Toe Erosion appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing 0 100% habitat. Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse. 0 100 Totals: 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 22 22 100% Structure Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 30 30 100% Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. UT1 Reach 3 Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Numberin Unstable 0 Numbe Tota I Amount Jf[p Performi asintend as -Built Footage Assessed Stream Length %Stable, erforming Intended 149 Assessed Bank Length 298 Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from Bare Bank poorgrowth and/or surface scour. 0 100% Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are Bank Toe Erosion modest, appear sustainable and are providing 0 100% habitat. Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, Bank Failure calving, or collapse. 0 100% Totals: 0 100% Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of Grade Control grade across the sill. 14 14 100% Structure Bank erosion within the structures extent of Bank Protection 7 7 100% influence does not exceed 15%. Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Planted Acreaee 8.00 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Combined % of Planted Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0% Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count 0.10 0 0% Areas criteria. Total 0.00 0% Areas of Poor Growth Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring 0.25 0 0% Rates year. Cumulative Total 0.00 0% Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. Visual assessment was completed October 18, 2022. STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek R1— upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 1 Catfish Creek RI — downstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek R2 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 Catfish Creek 112 — downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 3 Catfish Creek R3 — downstream (0410512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 Catfish Creek R4 —downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek R5 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Catfish Creek R5 —downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 6 Catfish Creek R6 — downstream (0410512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 Catfish Creek R7 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 Catfish Creek R7 —downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 8 Catfish Creek R7 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 9 Catfish Creek R7 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 8 Catfish Creek R7 — downstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 9 Catfish Creek R7 — downstream (0410512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 R1— upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 UTi RI — downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 R1— upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1— upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 R1— downstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1— downstream (0410512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 UTi R2 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2 — downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 UTi R2 — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 R2 — downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 R3 — downstream (0410512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 UTi R4 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 16 UTl R4 — downstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 — downstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 18 Mountain Trib — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 18 Mountain Trib — downstream (0410512022) 1 Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib — upstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 19 Mountain Trib— downstream (0410512022) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib — upstream (0410512022) PHOTO POINT 20 Mountain Trib — downstream (0410512022) ft Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS FIXED VEG PLOT 1(0910112022) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (0912212022) FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (0912212022) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (0912212022) 1 FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (0912212022) FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (0912212022) A Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs RANDOM VEG PLOT 8 (0910112022) RANDOM VEG PLOT 9 (0912212022) k Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs APPENDIX B. VEGETATION PLOT DATA o s a m > v as .1111 Milli MII 1. - o n n m o a 0 a m v > v a w 76 m 0 r m in a m > v a 0 a m v a I FIT I 0 a m > v a +'. U 3 U 3 U 3� U U 3 U 3 U U U m -O m D U v v �, v 3 U❑ a c U v U : o m v U v U : o -- m> v ❑ a a v o a Q o N 4Av E 4A - v o a o} v vai a= E o U o a v N o v } v v vai a= E o U o a v N o v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v a a a a v a a a a d V n Q V n Q i E a>i x 5 o x o y a O E�° E E �° Z o u a� s r u °'0 ap+ °' O ino -_ N V 10 N a v a w v c s E y m c a m o v L v E _ u t E m a 3 3 U T E a 3 - d E o E o m E > 00 >' -pp - 00 -�° N E ❑ -°o c c m o a m Z - o _ m E n n s - •S c N o a _ o ? - a o u ° x - 1 ' u u o a m° a y m '^ v a m -a flood E a �o o y Z Po c v o o -p E o 00 n E v o f -o o v °° ❑ E -o t0 m C Q 00 N t4A - a a a a a E 3 i.i m O .� O m N o o N O -z, o m .mp ^� � l0 lMY1 aY ° ri M M N N N 1p N N W O N � W 00 ~ N > W m > r O F rl lD N e•I N M tD - O a l N 't m v > v C m a � � a m N > � v m a J 7 U U m c m V ] U ] 3 U a U O L U Q 0 O L U a U a U a U a¢¢¢ U U U a a o o V a a V a? " a a £ E v_£ m> E v_ m> c c v m o p m v E O U ° a m v r £ o U ° a v 2 v v v v v v v v v v v o w d v v v L w d F- d d v a c v m c v UW a U N c Q U N c v Q W W L v O Y Y o J Y O Y O 30 m N y 4 0 £ £ p m c E 0 m C_ E Z Y j U L m h m O Y ° m Q E o> v u s v Z ° E m E U > £ m 3 U ut u 0 m £ a E 0 a m U m £ > fL0 > >, c m L O Z w m c uE m m a L a m c •> '^ - uf0 J c v a o L u cJ� N c = 'm V`y1 'm' c m m p` -a c v N v N Q m c m v cf >>>> N 3 N - a -0Z Q w a c c m c o v c m m c o v Im w v 0 0 m £ b0 v. o f m m E -mp J JE a° a a a0 a v c a 0 c U 0 vmi m _ b0 U £ m m aL N m d M F m A E E 7 H T A C A N N V C CA G O O O O O O O O O O O O c c c e e o w w w a a in � tD a l0 Vt Vt l0 � a l0 V1 h of LL N LL N C O a O a � Q Q Q u Q Q u Q E m a a a E � v1Oi v`Oi � E a vrvi � vrvi w w w w w w o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o c c c 0 0 0 w w w a n n o o a n n n n co a o a n m LL N LL N C N N ft Vf ft 7 ii O O a O a � ou ao 6 = 9 > > Q Q Q u Q u Q u Q \ ID n \ r 10 \ oo lD lD C w N c O CC l0 N N l CC C 00 N N W W W N N Vl W W W j O O O O j O O O O C C C 0 0 0 W W W a �a�� a �aaa a min in in LL N LL N LL N O O o a M M tao > > > w = Q Q Q u Q Q u Q E O tD O V l0 Vl l0 Vl E loco � a a a E 't a N v1 -t to W W W N 1n N m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m > m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c m c h0 c h0 c m c m c m c m c m c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -c 0 -c 0 -c 0 -c 0 0 0 0 0 0 cccccccc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 2� 2E 2 2 2 2 2 APPENDIX C. STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA Cross -Section Plots Cross -Section 1 (Pool) Catfish Creek Reach 4 479 6y C O ib 7 a] d67 LLJ 46G 46s MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 465.36 465.65 465.61 465.62 LTOB Elevation 467.55 467.56 1 467.61 1 467.52 LTOB Max Depth 2.19 1.91 2.00 1.90 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 14.39 12.29 12.28 11.12 �t Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 470 469 v 46s c a a � asp LLJ ash 465 Cross -Section 2 (Riffle) Catfish Creek Reach 4 10 20 30 Distance (ft.) -r MY 0 -- MY 1 -4- MY? --6- MY 3 - - Ban Mull Elevation -Based on As -Bunt Bari kfulI Area — Curren{ Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 466.93 467.09 467.04 467.04 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.88 0.93 0.92 Thalweg Elevation 465.71 465.90 465.83 465.85 LTOB Elevation 466.93 466.95 1 466.96 1 466.95 LTOB Max Depth 1.21 1.05 1.13 1.10 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 6.40 5.31 5.74 5.65 t - i Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 447 4ati v 445 c m N 444 W 443 442 Cross -Section 3 (Riffle) Catfish Creek Reach 6 10 20 30 Distance (ft.) r MY 0 � MY 1 -*- MY 2 t MY 3 - - Ban Mull Elevation -Based on As -Built Ban kFulI Area Current Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 444.72 444.81 444.71 444.68 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.91 0.99 0.98 Thalweg Elevation 443.45 443.53 443.26 443.19 LTOB Elevation 444.72 444.70 1 444.69 1 444.64 LTOB Max Depth 1.27 1.17 1.43 1.45 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 5.72 4.92 5.58 5.46 il. i`L� no -. - - I . Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 435 434 v 433 c m 7 � 432 W 431 430 Cross -Section 4 (Riffle) Catfish Creek Reach 6 10 20 30 Distance (ft.) w MY 0 — MY 1 -f- MY 2 -+- MY 3 - - Bankfull Elevation -Based on As -Built Bankfull Area — Curren{ Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 432.39 432.41 431.92 431.93 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.99 1.25 1.23 Thalweg Elevation 431.20 431.24 430.10 430.11 LTOB Elevation 432.39 432.40 1 432.38 1 432.34 LTOB Max Depth 1.19 1.16 2.28 2.23 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 6.96 6.88 10.61 10.19 Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 44" 447 v 445 C 7 445 LU 444 443 Cross -Section 5 (Poai) UT1 Reach 2 — MY ❑ — MY 1 -+ MY 2 -a MY 3 - - Bankfull Elevation -Based on As -Built Bari Mull Area — Current Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 443.44 443.52 443.50 443.52 LTOB Elevation 446.13 446.19 1 446.24 1 446.27 LTOB Max Depth 2.70 2.67 2.74 2.75 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 20.11 19.52 20.37 20.99 Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 44A 447 v 446 C a m 4443 ul 444 443 Cross -Section 6 (Riffle) UT1 Reach 2 10 20 30 Distance (ft.) r MY 0 � MY 1 -*- MY 2 t MY 3 - - Ban Mull Elevation -Based on As -Bunt Bari kfulI Area Current Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 445.98 446.06 446.04 446.05 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97 1.03 1.01 Thalweg Elevation 444.52 444.73 444.65 444.69 LTOB Elevation 445.98 446.01 1 446.07 1 446.06 LTOB Max Depth 1.45 1.28 1.42 1.37 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 8.01 7.57 8.41 8.18 "V, C *I - Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data — Cross -Section Plots 444 S 443 v 442 W 441 440 Cross -Section 7 (Riffle) UT1 Reach 3 0 10 20 30 Distance {ft.) MY2 -i MY 3 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area Current Low Top of Bank MYO MY1 MY2* MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 442.36 442.40 442.20 442.06 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.07 Thalweg Elevation 440.83 440.87 440.64 440.34 LTOB Elevation 442.36 1 442.34 442.20 1 442.17 LTOB Max Depth 1.53 1.47 1.56 1.83 LTOB Cross -Sectional Area 5.39 5.07 7.06 8.02 *Repairs during MY2 changed channel dimensions along this reach. MY2-7 calculations and the graph above are based off the MY2 repaired channel because they are no longer comparable to MYO-1. Downstream (41512022) Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DIMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 illaill I i loll Parameter Catfish Creek Reach 4 Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min I Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 7.0 1 8.5 8.1 2 Floodprone Width (ft) 12.0 1 19.0 200.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.9 1 0.7 0.8 2 Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 1 0.9 1 1.2 1.2 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 6.4 1 5.8 6.4 2 Width/Depth Ratio 7.7 1 12.6 10.2 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 1 >2.2 24.6 2 Bank Height Ratio 2.2 1 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull --- --- --- Rosgen Classification E6 C4 C4 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 18.0 1 17.0 20.6 Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.2 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z 0.016 1 0.014 0.014 Other -- -- Parameter Catfish Creek Reach 6 Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) N/A' 1 8.0 7.7 9.0 2 Floodprone Width (ft) N/A' 1 11.0 1 20.0 30.0 100.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth N/A' 1 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 Bankfull Max Depth N/A' 1 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) N/A' 1 4.9 5.7 7.0 2 Width/Depth Ratio N/A' 1 13.0 10.2 11.6 2 Entrenchment Ratio N/A' 1 1.4 1 2.5 3.3 13.1 2 Bank Height Ratio N/A' 1 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull --- --- Rosgen Classification 134a 134a Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- 1 20.9 28.4 Sinuosity --- 1.04 1.05 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z --- 1 0.043 0.043 Other --- Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Parameter CONDITIONS UT1 Reach 2 MONITORING Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 16.7 1 11.5 10.0 2 Floodprone Width (ft) 22.0 1 25.0 58.0 200.0 2 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.9 0.8 2 Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1 1.0 1.3 1.5 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz) 7.1 1 9.9 8.0 2 Width/Depth Ratio 39.5 1 13.4 12.4 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1 2.2 5.0 20.1 2 Bank Height Ratio 2.4 1 1.0 1.0 2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull --- --- Rosgen Classification C6 C4 C4 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 21.0 1 17.0 9.6 Sinuosity 1.06 1 1.23 1.23 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z 0.020 1 0.005 0.005 Other --- -- Parameter UT1 Reach 3 Riffle Only Min Max n Min I Max Min I Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 6.2 1 8.1 1 8.0 6.5 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 22.0 1 11.0 20.0 60.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.7 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1.1 1 0.9 1 1.1 1.5 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz) 4.2 6.2 1 4.9 5.4 1 Width/Depth Ratio 9.2 10.5 1 13.0 7.8 1 Entrenchment Ratio 2.8 3.6 1 1.4 2.5 9.3 1 Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.5 1 1.0 1.0 1 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull --- --- --- Rosgen Classification E4b B4a B4a Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 21.0 1 21.8 20.1 Sinuosity 1.10 1.02 1.02 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z 0.038 1 0.054 0.061 Other, --- APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA in = Q ± / / ) g%Sm \ k \ o� _ = 0 = 2 / V k 0 u 0 a C-4 k § C-4 k § C-4 � § � k § Q R % k � 3 § r1l Ln 0 / / / ® � r1i 3 r J % % % % � e # § o \ a � / u § Q _ u § B ■ ( \ / 0 e E $ _ N � \ / \ 0 14 \ x 22em k I � � k ` 0 S _ = 0 = ( / V k 2 0 ) u k C-4 k § C-4 k § C-4 � § C-4 k § C-4 \ g g m 00 j / ` � M § \ Q g g g � r-� r \ § \ § 2 C-4 k } \ \ § 2 § \ m m a)§ § tu 0 CL M) m �j $0 ;_ m >- m m \ >- m CL 2 « R R 2 0 « u ID Table 12. Groundwater Gauge Summary Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Gauge Max. Consecutive Hydroperiod (Percentage) MY1 (2020) MY2 (2021) MY3 (2022)* MY4 (2023) MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) 1 14 Days 49 Days 45 Days (5.3%) (19.1%) (17.6%) 2 100 Days 80 Days 59 Days (37.6%) (31.3%) (23.0%) 3 109 Days 87 Days 71 Days (41.0%) (34.0%) (27.7%) 4 59 Days 80 Days 36 Days (22.2%) (31.3%) (14.1%) Perfomance Standard: None Growing Season: 3/1/2022 to 11/11/2022 (255 Days) *Reflects the data collected from 3/1/2022 to 10/18/2022 (231 Days). The remainder of the MY3 growing season data will be updated in MY4. rq N bA 7 M cq U' N y N G1 m M 7 00 O � Q) i i 0 ° t � A w m m U p + a N rn N c cry t. O 02 M bD O H1 N z M U ba d 0 O = N d ++ C - n c o C7 u o a (ui) uoi;e;idi3aad rn m r, �o in a m N ti 0 r 1� I� � �n 0 0 0 0 0 c-I c-I N M (ui) Janaj JaIBM U/ N N bA 7 M (7 N y N j m M 7 00 O � (7 i 0 c' 0 ° LA m U (ui) uoi;e;idi3aad rn m r, �o in a M c.i 0 01 J e �n i 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti N m (ui) lanai .Ja;eM 0 a v (ui) uoi;e;idi3aad rn m r, �o in a m c.i 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti N m (ui) lanai .Ja;eM 0 a o a N m N c cry C b�A O 0 N M b.0 O H1 a+ i M vo0 c a o O = N d ++ C `n c o C7 um o a (ui) uoi;e;idi3aad rn m r, �o in a m c.i 0 r I ow JF 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti N m (ui) lanai Ja;eryA 0 a U/ APPENDIX E. PROJECT TIMELINE AND CONTACT INFO Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Project Instituted NA Completion or Scheduled Delivery January 2018 Mitigation Plan Approved July 2019 July 2019 Construction (Grading) Completed February -March 2020 March 2020 Planting Completed NA March 2020 As -Built Survey Completed March -April 2020 April 2020 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) Stream Survey March -April 2020 June 2020 Vegetation Survey March 2020 Competitive Vegetation Treatment' April -May 2020 Invasive Vegetation Treatment May & September 2020 Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey October 2020 December 2020 Vegetation Survey October 2020 Stream channel repairs on UT1 Reach 3 July 2021 Invasive Vegetation Treatment September 2021 Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey April & October 2021 December 2021 Vegetation Survey September 2021 Competitive Vegetation Treatment' April 2022 Invasive Vegetation Treatment May 2022 In -stream Vegetation Treatment June 2022 Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey April 2022 December 2022 Vegetation Survey September 2022 Year 4 Monitoring December 2023 Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2024 December 2024 Vegetation Survey 2024 Year 6 Monitoring December 2025 Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2026 December 2026 Vegetation Survey 2026 iHerbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems. Table 14. Project Contact Table Catfish Pond Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100039 Monitoring Year 3 - 2022 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Designer 497 Bramson Ct, Suite 104 Daniel Johnson, PE Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 843.277.6221 Main Stream Earthwork, Inc. Construction Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd Reidsville, NC 27320 Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Jason Lorch Monitoring, POC 919.851.9986 APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION k &V WILDLANDS ENGINEERING MEETING MINUTES MEETING: MY2 IRT Site Visit Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Neuse River Basin 03020201; Durham County, NC NCDMS Project No. 100039 USACE ID: SAW-2018-00424 NCDEQ Contract No. 7424 DATE: On -site Meeting: Monday, June 13, 2022 Meeting Notes Distributed: Thursday, June 16, 2022 Attendees Kim Browning, USACE Casey Haywood, USACE Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resource Commission Lindsay Crocker, NC Division of Mitigation Services Jeremiah Dow, NC Division of Mitigation Services Chris Roessler, Wildlands Engineering Jason Lorch, Wildlands Engineering Tasha King, Wildlands Engineering Andrew Radecki, Wildlands Engineering Meeting Notes • Catfish Creek Reach 4 o Leave crest gauges on Catfish Creek but discussed focusing on flow. Install a camera on Catfish Creek Reach 4 and Reach 6 to document flow in the restored channels. • Catfish Creek Reach 6 o There was a long discussion about how bedrock was discovered approximately 6" below the proposed grade of the stream channel through the old pond bed which led to some construction/ installation difficulties in meeting the designed grade. In the future, the IRT would prefer grading banks in lieu of attempting to raise the bed of the channel to the design elevations. The group determined that due to the existing grade control and slope of the reach, flow was more crucial than achieving bankfull in the upper reaches of Catfish Creek. o All agreed the channel is good and bedrock is stable. • UT1 Reach 2 o GWG data is good. If GWGs are Not for Credit - if data shows wetlands are doing well after 3 or 4 years, Wildlands may request to remove the wells and stop monitoring existing wetlands. • UT1 Reach 3 o The IRT agreed that repairs looked fine. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1 Catfish Pond Mitigation Site • Vegetation o The IRT noticed some privet and multiflora rose — Wildlands confirmed they are actively working to keep on top of it. They will be treated again this year. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2 Catfish Pond Mitigation Site