The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140334 Ver 1_CandyCreek_96315_MY6_2022_20230223ID#* 20140334 Version* 1 Select Reviewer: Ryan Hamilton Initial Review Completed Date 04/05/2023 Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/23/2023 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No Type of Mitigation Project:* Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name: * Email Address: Emily Dunnigan emily.dunnigan@ncdenr.gov Project Information ID#: * 20140334 Version:* 1 Existing ID# Existing Version Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank Project Name: Candy Creek Mitigation Site County: Guilford Document Information Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: CandyCreek_96315_MY6_2022.pdf 220.49MB Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted... Signature Print Name:* Signature: * Emily Dunnigan MONITORING YEAR 6 ANNUAL REPORT FINAL CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE Guilford County, NC NCDEQ Contract 5794 NCDMS Project Number 96315 USACE Action ID Number 2015‐01209 DWR Project Number 14‐0334 RFP Number 16‐005568 Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002 Data Collection Period: February ‐ October 2022 Draft Submission Date: November 2022 Final Submission Date: February 2023 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC27699‐1652 PREPARED BY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: 704.332.7754 Fax: 704.332.3306 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 February 10, 2023 Emily Dunnigan Project Manager NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 RE: Draft Monitoring Year 6 Report Comments Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS #96315) Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Guilford County Contract No. 005794 Dear Ms. Dunnigan: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 6 report for the Candy Creek Mitigation Project and the site walk conducted on January 19, 2023. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. DMS’ comments and observations from the report are listed below and noted in bold. Wildlands’ response to those comments are noted in Italics. DMS’ comment: Executive Summary: Please reference prior IRT coordination with respect to the 2022 repair work. Wildlands’ response: The partial repairs conducted as part of the IRT site walk in July 2021 were briefly discussed in the third to last paragraph of the Executive Summary as requested. DMS’ comment: Section 1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment ‐ This section indicates land stewardship activities have been implemented and references several areas of encroachment that have been resolved. In addition to these activities, was the entire easement boundary inspected to verify compliance with the boundary marking specifications and requirements and easement integrity? Verification of the entire conservation easement boundary needs to be validated in this report. Wildlands’ response: Table 6 notes that there were no unresolved encroachment issues for MY6. The following text was added to section 1.2.4 (Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities): “The entire easement boundary was inspected for encroachment and boundary marking issues. No issues were observed.” DMS’ comment: Section 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ‐ Were the floodplain areas disturbed by machines replanted/seeded after repairs were complete? Please include in narrative if so. Wildlands’ response: Originally these areas had been left to naturalize on their own because much of the area is wet and would not be conducive for planting container trees. However, after a brief discussion with DMS during the site walk in January 2023, Wildlands has decided to harvest live stakes on site and replant in the area in early 2023 where machine work was conducted. A brief discussion of this has been included in Section 1.2.2. DMS’ comment: Section 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ‐ Approximately how long was the channel impounded by the beaver dam? Was there extensive vegetation damage or sedimentation? Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 Wildlands’ response: The text of the report was expanded to say that “the slope of the stream in this reach is large enough that the water only backed up for one pool. The dam was present for less than a month. No vegetation damage was observed later in the year, as shown in the Improve Areas of Concern photo log.” DMS’ comment: Section 1.2.4 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ‐ Please indicate which species were not included in the original planting plan and confirm that they are appropriate for the vegetative community on site. Wildlands’ response: The species were selected based on the target community and the immediate availability from the local nurseries. Two species, Carpinus caroliniana and Quercus pagoda, were part of the original and approved mitigation planting plan. The remaining eight species were not included in the original planting plan. The Piedmont Bottomland Forest community was the specified target community for the project as a whole. Six of the selected species are appropriate for either the Bottomland Forest community or the similar Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain ecological system. The other three (Amelanchier canadensis, Calycanthus floridus, Cercis canadensis, and Symphoricarpos orbiculatus) are associated with the more upland Mixed Mesic Forest community, which is appropriate since the encroachment areas occurred on the slopes, outside of the floodplain. DMS’ comment: MY6 Site Walk ‐ As discussed in the field, failing structures on EII reaches that meet the reporting threshold need to be discussed and included in the report/CCPV/tables. Wildlands’ response: Structural issues on EII reaches will be discussed in future reports. The structural issues on UT1C and UT1D were added to the CCPV maps. DMS’ comment: MY6 Site Walk ‐ Section 1.2.2: Repairs on UT1C have not been completed, please update the narrative and include future repair plan. Wildlands’ response: The report was updated to state, “Both UT1C and UT1D will require additional manual repairs because water is still piping under the repaired structures. This work will be completed early in 2023.” As requested, Wildlands has included an electronic submittal of one (1) pdf copy of the final report and a full final electronic submittal of the support files. A copy of our responses to the DMS’ comment letter has been included inside the cover of the report, as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kristi Suggs Senior Environmental Scientist Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to restore, enhance, and preserve a total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams in Guilford County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 15,506.467 (warm) stream credits through the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1). The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-06-01 (Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which is part of NCDMS’ Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not mentioned specifically, this document identifies restoration goals for all streams within HUC 03030002; reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to downstream Jordan Lake is a primary goal of the RBRP as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The Haw River Watershed was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species diversity. No rare and endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re‐establishment onsite as part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for “support of conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer).” Restoration at the Site directly and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used for agriculture under permanent conservation easement. The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels, increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches within open pastures. With careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP, the following project goals were established:  Reduce in‐stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in riffles and pools.  Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.  Improve on‐site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone‐based riffles; and by establishing native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.  Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.  Increase and improve hydrologic connectivity between streams and their riparian floodplains; promote temporary water storage and wetland and floodplain recharge during high flows; increase groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promote nutrient and carbon exchange between streams and floodplains and reduce shear stress forces on channels during larger flow events. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL ii The Site construction and as‐built surveys were completed between July 2016 and March 2017, respectively. A conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored riparian corridor in perpetuity. Maintenance measures were implemented between 2017 and 2022. Monitoring Year (MY) 6 assessments and site visits were completed between February and October 2022 to assess the conditions of the project. Per IRT guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation and channel cross‐sectional dimensions were omitted during MY6. Visual observations, hydrology data, and management practices are included in this report. To preserve clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections are noted in the table of contents. Overall, the majority of the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY6, and is on track to meet in MY7. Stream problem areas discussed during the IRT site walk in July 2021 were partially repaired in September 2022. Repairs included rebuilding and stabilizing a meander bend on the right bank of Candy Creek Reach 3 and the removal of fallen trees from channel, partial piping repairs on UT1D, and dropping several large trees into the floodplain that had died and were likely to fall into the channel. The sediment influx first reported during MY4 is continuing to move through the system and is naturally stabilizing. Aggregational areas will continue to be assessed in future monitoring years. Additional problem areas throughout the Site are minimal with few erosional areas. The stream hydrology assessment criteria of having at least two bankfull events in separate monitoring years for each reach has been met. The stream flow gage established on the upstream, intermittent section of UT1D exceeded the minimum 30 consecutive day hydrologic baseflow criteria. Areas of invasive species were treated between 2017 and 2022 and currently make up approximately 1.5% of the total easement area. Three areas of prior mowing encroachments were supplementally planted, and no additional mowing has been observed. Visual assessment surveys indicate that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as intended and the riparian buffer is well vegetated and intact. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL iii CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1‐2 1.2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1‐2 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ....................................... 1‐2 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.2.4 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ................................. 1‐3 1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1‐5 Section 2: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 2‐1 Section 3: REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 3‐1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Components/Assets Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figure 3.0‐3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Table 5a‐m Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Photographs Areas of Concern Photographs Improved Areas of Concern Photographs Appendix 3* Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9a‐e Planted and Total Stems Appendix 4* Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 10a‐f Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11a‐d Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross‐Section) Table 12a‐p Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary Cross‐Section Plots Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plots * Content not required for Monitoring Year 6 Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL iv APPENDICES (cont.) Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plot Table 13a‐c Verification of Bankfull Events Table 14 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Recorded Bankfull Events Plots Appendix 6 Correspondence IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) ‐ July 7, 2021 Candy Creek Site Visit MY6 Comments (email, January 20, 2023) Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Site is located in Guilford County, northeast of the Town of Brown Summit, off of Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figure 1). The project watershed is primarily comprised of agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 937 acres. The project streams consist of Candy Creek and its unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT2A, UT2B, UT3, UT4, UT5, and UT5A). Stream restoration reaches included Candy Creek (Reach 1, 2, and 4), upper UT1C, UT1D, UT2 (lower Reach 1), lower UT3, UT4, and lower UT5. Stream enhancement (Level I and II) activities were utilized for Candy Creek Reach 3, UT2 (upper Reach 1 and Reach 2), UT2A, and UT2B. The intact and functional reaches associated with lower UT1C, upper UT3, and UT5A were preserved with the implementation of the conservation easement. The riparian areas along the restoration and enhancement reaches were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2017. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2017. A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place on 61.74 acres. The project is expected to generate 15,506.467 (warm) stream credits. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close‐ out anticipated to commence in 2023/2024 given that the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the Site in Figure 2. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives Prior to construction activities, stream impairments included incised and over‐widened channels, bank erosion with areas of mass wasting, historic channelization, floodplain alteration, degraded in‐stream habitat, and impoundments. Riparian impairments included clearing and livestock grazing. The overarching goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Site will treat almost all the headwaters of Candy Creek and 47% of the entire 3.1‐square mile Candy Creek watershed before flowing to the Haw River. A primary goal of the NCDMS’ Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) is to restore and maintain water quality as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The project goals established for the Site were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and include the following: • Reduce in‐stream water quality stressors. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions. Stabilize eroding stream banks. Add bank protection and in‐stream structures to protect restored/enhanced streams. • Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable. Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions. • Improve on‐site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self‐ sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone‐based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐2 • Exclude cattle from project streams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent to cattle pastures. • Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning floodplain. • Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species and treat invasive species in the riparian zone.  Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on the Site. 1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment Annual monitoring and quarterly site‐visits were conducted during MY6 to assess the condition of the project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Candy Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The stream reaches were assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period. See Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, and reference photographs. 1.2.1 Stream Assessment MY6 is a reduced monitoring year and detailed geomorphologic surveys or analysis are not required. As discussed in the MY5 report, sediment data will not be collected during MY7 (Wildlands 2022). However, based on field observations during site assessments, site maintenance, and the implementation of land stewardship activities, the majority of the project reaches within the Site continue to remain stable and are functioning as designed. Areas where current and/or former instability or stream functional issues have been noted are discussed in Section 1.2.2, outlined in Tables 5a‐5m, and depicted in Figures 3.1 – 3.7. 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities The Stream Photographs and Areas of Concern Photographs are shown in Appendix 2. The aggradation throughout the Site has continued to improve since the storms in MY4 deposited a lot of off‐site sediment into the system. Less aggradation was observed throughout UT5 as the stream continues to move and sort out the bed materials; therefore, no adaptive management activities are needed at this time. As was discussed during the IRT site walk in July 2021, machine repairs were scheduled for Candy Creek Reach 3 and UT1D. These repairs were performed in September 2022. The right bank of Candy Creek Reach 3 was reshaped to stop the outward erosion of the pool. A brush toe was added using the brush harvested from nearby trees that had fallen in the floodplain. The brush toe was capped with sod or woody transplants from the disturbed area along the bend. Originally these areas had been left to naturalize on their own because much of the area is wet and would not be conducive for planting container trees. However, after a brief discussion with DMS during the site walk in January 2023, Wildlands has decided to harvest live stakes on site and replant in the area in early 2023 where machine work was conducted. Trees that had fallen in the channel near the bridge across Candy Creek Reach 3 were also removed. Several large trees that had died and were likely to fall into the channel were removed or dropped into the conservation easement. The step‐pool structures along UT1D were also repaired. Brush harvested from the channel debris removal was used to create mini brush toes where Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐3 erosion was occurring below the sills. The brush was then capped with sod harvested from the floodplain. Both UT1C and UT1D will require additional manual repairs because water is still piping under the repaired structures. This work will be completed early in 2023. Photos of the repair areas are shown in the Areas of Concern and Improved Areas of Concern Photographs (Appendix 2). Across the site, much of the erosion previously documented is stabilizing as the woody vegetation matures along the stream banks; more than 99% of the banks are stable with only 50 feet of bank erosion documented this year. Bank erosion was observed only in isolated pockets along outer meander bends, behind lunker logs, at the tie‐ins of in‐stream structures, or as scour lines below vegetated tops of bank. There are very few areas that indicate instability for the streams throughout the project in MY6. Visual assessments in subsequent monitoring years will continue to monitor these areas. During MY6, a beaver colonized the upstream portion of Candy Creek Reach 2 and built a dam near station 128+25. A contractor trapped the beaver and removed the dam in April of 2022. The slope of the stream in this reach is large enough that the water only backed up for one pool. The dam was present for less than a month. No vegetation damage was observed later in the year, as shown in the Improve Areas of Concern photo log. No beaver activity was observed during the October 2022 site walk. A photo log is also included in Appendix 2. Stream AOCs will continue to be monitored but are expected to stabilize as the vegetation along the bank continues to mature. Refer to the Appendix 2 for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the CCPV Figures for the AOC locations. 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY6. However, visual assessment during the year indicated that vegetation on the Site is performing well. 1.2.4 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities The Site consists of 61.74 acres within the conservation easement, including 32 acres of planted trees. The Site is performing well. Only one area of low stem density accounting for only 0.2% of the Site’s planted acreage was observed around vegetation plot 35. Invasive plant populations were observed on only 1.5% of the Site. The areas of invasive vegetation have not expanded from the previous year and do not represent a significant risk to the project’s performance. Invasive treatments continued in MY6, focusing on the patch of kudzu (Pueraria montana), along Candy Creek Reach 4. The kudzu population was greatly reduced from MY5, but follow up treatments will be required again in MY7. Locations of the vegetation AOCs are depicted in Figures 3.1 ‐ 3.7. Invasive species will continue to be monitored and controlled, as necessary. A bare area along the left floodplain of UT2 and previously discussed in MY5 was seeded and amended in the fall of 2022. As was noted during the IRT walk in 2021, this area was small, not representative of the entire project, and was slowly starting to revegetate. Therefore, this area has been removed from CCPV figures as it has improved significantly. The entire easement boundary was inspected for encroachment and boundary marking issues. No issues were observed. Three areas of mowing encroachment that were previously mapped and discussed with the IRT consisted of a total of 0.07 acres (0.1% of the easement acreage. These areas were all taped off and replanted in March 2022 with the species list shown below. The encroachment mowing has stopped in all locations. These areas are now represented on the CCPV figures as replanting areas and are considered resolved. Refer to Appendix 6 for the IRT site walk minutes from July 7, 2021. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐4 Table B: Species list for the encroachment areas that were supplementally planted in March 2022. Common Name Species Included in the Approved Mitigation Planting Plan (Yes/No) Wetland Indicator Status Area 1 (Candy R1, LB)1 Area 2 (Candy R1, RB)1 Area 3 (Candy R3, LB)2 Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis No FAC ‐ 3 ‐ Pawpaw Asimina triloba No FAC ‐ 3 ‐ Eastern sweetshrub Calycanthus floridus No FACU ‐ ‐ 3 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana Yes FAC 5 ‐ ‐ Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis No FACU ‐ 8 ‐ Spicebush Lindera benzoin No FAC ‐ ‐ 4 Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum No UPL 4 1 ‐ Water Oak Quercus nigra No FAC ‐ 4 ‐ Cherrybark Oak Quercus pagoda Yes FACW 5 ‐ ‐ Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus No FACU ‐ ‐ 3 Total stems: 14 19 10 1 – Bare roots 2 – 1 gal. plants 1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment For the second year in a row, MY6 had slightly lower amounts of rainfall than average (through October 2022) and only had one rain event greater than 1.5 inches. Nevertheless, five (Candy Creek R2 and R4, UT1C, UT4, and UT5) of the eight gages recorded at least one bankfull event. However, all stream reaches have met the project’s bankfull criteria of two or more bankfull events in separate years. UT1D has also met the project’s criteria of at least 30 consecutive days of seasonal flow. The gage registered 272 consecutive days above the thalweg in MY6. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic summary data and plots. The crest gage on UT3, at cross‐section 37, showed several water level spikes from January 22 – February 7, 2022. These readings do not appear to correspond with rainfall events, but there is a correlation between the spikes and freezing temperatures (raw data provided in electronic files). Wildlands previously contacted In‐Situ on 11/18/2021 to confirm similar findings. Based on the discussion with In‐situ, it is likely that these are the result of ice forming on the probes leading the false pressure readings during these times (Haynes 2021). Therefore, these spikes were not counted towards a bankfull event. The probes’ calibrations were checked in mid‐February 2022 and were working (as shown in the table below). Because the gage on UT3 did not record any water level fluctuations in MY5, the probe was replaced as a precaution on 2/15/2022. Due to the issues incurred in MY5, all of the gages throughout the Site were tested early in MY6 to verify that they were working correctly. The results of the testing (in the table below) indicate that all of the Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐5 probes are working and are reporting correct pressure and water level values. All probes registered an approximate 0.5‐foot change in water depth when submerged approximately 0.5‐feet in water. The field tests were simply to check if the gages were registering pressure differences when submerged in water; the 10% error is considered reasonable as this was just a quick validation check. The crest gage on UT2 at cross‐section 33 malfunctioned when it was downloaded in July 2022. The probe had only recorded data through April of 2022. Multiple troubleshooting attempts were made from July to October, but it was ultimately decided to replace the probe in October 2022. Field testing of the new probe (analysis not shown) indicated that the pressure sensor was working correctly prior to its installation. Table A: Field test results for pressure transducers (gages) at Candy Creek. Conducted 2/15/2022. Probe Reading 1 (air) Reading 2 (0.5 ft water) Difference Error Pressure (psi) Depth (ft) Pressure (psi) Depth (ft) Pressure (psi) Depth (ft) Error (%) Candy UT2A 14.63 33.78 14.84 34.26 0.21 0.48 -4% Candy UT2 14.63 33.77 14.83 34.24 0.20 0.47 -6% Candy Upper 14.58 33.66 14.79 34.14 0.21 0.48 -4% UT1D 14.62 33.75 14.82 34.22 0.20 0.47 -6% UT1C 14.60 33.70 14.81 34.20 0.21 0.50 0% Candy Lower 14.57 33.63 14.78 34.13 0.21 0.50 0% UT31 14.59 33.68 14.80 34.17 0.21 0.49 -2% UT32 14.62 33.74 14.82 34.22 0.20 0.48 -4% UT4 14.61 33.72 14.82 34.22 0.21 0.50 0% UT5 14.59 33.70 14.81 34.19 0.20 0.45 -10% 1 – Probe removed 2/15/22 2 – Replacement probe. Installed 2/15/22 1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary The Candy Creek Mitigation Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for geomorphology, hydrology, and vegetation performance standards. While the vegetation plots were not assessed this year, the Site is expected to exceed the final requirement of 210 stems per acre. All of the streams have met their bankfull criteria; the intermittent reach of UT1D exceeded the 30‐days of consecutive flow criteria in MY6. Most of the banks and structures are stable and functioning. Repairs were performed along Candy Creek Reach 3, UT1C, and UT1D in September 2022 to fix bank erosion and structure issues. Currently, invasive species occupy less than 2% of the Site. The small patch of kudzu on Candy Creek Reach 4 will continue to be treated in MY7. The sediment influx reported during MY4 is moving through the system and no action is required to further address this. The bare area along UT2 was treated with amendments and has improved from the previous year. Three areas of prior mowing encroachments were supplementally planted, and no additional mowing has been observed. Visual assessment surveys indicate that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as intended and the riparian buffer is well vegetated and intact. 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 data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are included in the digital submittal. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 2‐1 Section 2: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data collection follows the standards outlined in Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub‐meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross‐sections. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report – FINAL 3‐1 Section 3: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. 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. Haynes, Kaylie. In‐situ technical support specialist. Phone conversation. 18 November 2021. Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐5.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. DWQ Planning Section, Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8‐725c‐415e‐8ed9‐ c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329 North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC. Phillips, K. Email correspondence. 18 November 2021. 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. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Spec Sheet Reference: Rugged TROLL Registered 100 and 200 Data Loggers, In‐Situ Registered, Fort Collins, CO, Jan 2021. https://insitu.com/pub/media/support/documents/Rugged_TROLL_100_and_200_Data_Loggers.pd f (accessed Nov 18, 2021) United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR‐DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Service. 2019. USGS Station 0209553650, Buffalo Creek at SR2819 NR, McLeansville, NC. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/current/?type=precip&group_key=county_cd Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) Meeting Minutes for Candy Creek Mitigation Site. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Candy Creek Mitigation Site – Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report (Final). NCDMS, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables 03030002010020 03030002010010 03030002020030 03010104021010 03030002020070 03030002010040 03030002020020 03030002010030 03010103220060 03030002020060 03030002010050 03010103240010 03010104021030 03030002020040 03030002030010 03010104032010 0 1.75 3.5 Miles Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC¹ Directions to Site: From Greensboro, NC, take US-29 North approximately 12 miles past the communities of Brown Summit and Monticello. The north end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy Creek Reach 4, UT1C, and UT1D may be accessed by Old Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700). The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. Project Location Hydrologic Unit Code (14) DMS Targeted Local Watershed !P !P !P !P !P !P !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 1 UT5 UT3-P UT4 UT 2 - R e a c h 2 UT2B UT2 A UT1D UT1C Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 4 UT 3 UT5 - P UT1 C - P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 U T 2 - R e a c h 1 Figure 2 Project Components/Assets Map Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams !P Reach Break 2018 Aerial Photography 0 1,000 2,000 Feet ¹ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 14,975.867 530.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A As‐Built Stationing/ Location Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits (SMU/WMU) 100+08 ‐ 117+19 P1 1:1 1,711.000 117+45 ‐ 126+27 P1 1:1 882.000 126+27 ‐ 131+80 P1 1:1 553.000 132+40 ‐ 141+17 P1 1:1 877.000 141+43 ‐ 148+42 P1 1:1 699.000 149+02 ‐ 155+05 EI 1.5:1 402.000 155+05 ‐ 155+33 EII 2.5:1 11.200 155+62 ‐160+35 EII 2.5:1 189.200 160+62 ‐ 170+37 EII 2.5:1 390.000 170+71 ‐ 178+74 P1 1:1 803.000 179+00 ‐ 196+47 P1 1:1 1,747.000 196+68 ‐ 206+35 P1 1:1 967.000 200+12 ‐ 207+40 551 P1 1:1 728.000 207+40 ‐ 211+38 398 ‐5:1 79.600 250+00 ‐ 253+79 437 P1 1:1 379.000 300+00 ‐ 304+24 EI 1.5:1 282.667 304+24 ‐ 305+01 P1 1:1 77.000 305+26 ‐ 311+88 P1 1:1 662.000 311+88 ‐ 318+31 746 EI 1.5:1 428.667 350+84 ‐ 354+37 376 EI 1.5:1 235.333 270+28 ‐ 276+85 702 EII 2.5:1 262.800 400+00 ‐ 411+50 1,150 ‐5:1 230.000 411+50 ‐ 414+96 729 P1 1:1 346.000 500+49 ‐ 514+05 1,270 P1 1:1 1,356.000 599+19 ‐ 600+00 81 ‐5:1 16.200 600+00 ‐ 607+91 1:1 791.000 608+16 ‐ 610+12 1:1 196.000 650+00 ‐ 659+70 ‐5:1 194.000 659+99 ‐ 660+56 ‐5:1 10.800 Component Summation Riverine Non‐ Riverine ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ Non‐Riparian Wetland (ac) Buffer (sqft) Upland (ac) ‐ ‐ 9701,056 Restoration 791 Preservation Preservation 54 1,297 P1 Restoration UT5A UT5 ‐ P 1,356 398 353Enhancement Enhancement UT4 940 Preservation 1,150 Restoration 346 Enhancement Enhancement UT1D 379 424 UT1C UT1C ‐ P N/A Restoration Preservation Restoration Candy Creek Reach 3 2,333 UT2A UT2B Restoration or Restoration Equivalent The linear feet associated with the stream crossings were excluded from the computations. Restoration 553 STREAMS Enhancement 603 Restoration 803 ‐ ‐ Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (ac) Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits Restoration Footage/ Acreage Restoration Non‐Riparian Wetland Preservation 2,653 ‐ Enhancement I 2,023 Restoration Phosphorous Nutrient Offset Enhancement II 2,133 12,774 Enhancement Restoration Level Reach ID Project Components Restoration 1,747 967 877 Restoration 1,711 Candy Creek Reach 2 2,398 Restoration 196 Candy Creek Reach 1 2,885 Restoration Restoration 882 UT5 Enhancement 728 662 699 Enhancement 473 Restoration Candy Creek Reach 4 77 Restoration Enhancement 28 975 81 657 UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 1 3,386 643 Restoration UT3 ‐ P UT3 Preservation Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery November 2014 March 2016 July 2016 July 2016 July 2016 ‐ March 2017 March 2017 July 2016 ‐ March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 Stream Survey October 2016 ‐ March 2017 Vegetation Survey March 2017 Stream Survey October 2017 Vegetation Survey October 2017 Stream Survey June 2018 Vegetation Survey August 2018 Vegetation Survey September 2019 December 2019 Stream Survey October 2019 December 2019 Stream Maintenance October 2020 December 2020 Stream Survey May 2021 Vegetation Survey September 2021 Beaver trapped, dam removed Year 6 Monitoring Encroachment Supplemental Planting Invasive Species Treatment Beaver trapped, dam removed Stream Repairs Stream Survey Vegetation Survey December 2021 April 2022 September 2022 March 2022 Year 5 Monitoring 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. November 2021 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Mitigation Plan September / October 2017 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)May 2017 Final Design ‐ Construction Plans Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1 Construction Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments Year 4 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring December 2017 Year 2 Monitoring November 2018 Riparian Seeding March 2019 Additional easement markings installed (horse tape) Year 7 Monitoring August 2021 September 2019 Year 3 Monitoring Invasive Species Treatment April ‐ October 2020 March ‐ October 2022 February ‐ October 2022 Invasive Species Treatment Invasive Species Treatment Additional easement marker installed Stream Maintenance Jan ‐ May 2020 September 2019 August 2019 Live Staking and Live Facines Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 825 Maude Etter Rd. Fremont, NC 27830 Willow Spring, NC 27592 Nursery Stock Suppliers Bare Roots Live Stakes McMinnville, TN 37110 Foggy Mountain Nursery 797 Helton Creek Rd. Lansing, NC 28643 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Construction Contractor Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Dykes and Son Nursery Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. Green Resource, LLC Designer Aaron Earley, PE Charlotte, NC 28203 126 Circle G Lane Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. P.O. Box 1197 Seeding Contractor Willow Spring, NC 27592 126 Circle G Lane Monitoring, POC Monitoring Performers Table 3. Project Contact Table Seed Mix Sources Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Bruton Natural Systems, Inc Planting Contractor 704.332.7754 704.332.7754 ext. 110 Kristi Suggs Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 N/A N/A N/A Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Guilford County listed endangered species. USFWS responded on April 4, 2014 and stated the “proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act”. No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014). No N/A No N/A No N/A No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Casville Sandy Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained Codorus Loam ‐ Hydric ‐‐‐ Regulatory Considerations Yes Yes Yes Yes Morphological Desription (stream type) NCDWR Water Quality Classification Underlying mapped soils 1% Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained Codorus Loam ‐ Hydric 45.0 Candy Creek Reach 1 Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 WS‐V (NSW) Clifford Sandy Clay Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Gravelly Sandy Loam 937 40.5 45.0 3,5172,129 2,079 03‐06‐01 03030002 03030002010020 Downstream Project Limits – 36°14'39.74"N, 79°39'50.46"W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Cape Fear Project Information Candy Creek Mitigation Site Guilford County Upstream Project Limits – 36°13'27.27"N, 79°39'37.79"W 61.74 Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province County 937 F5 G4c G4c IV IV III/IV Candy Creek Reach 4 2,593 809 1% N/A Piedmont Bottomland Forest 2% Piedmont Bottomland Forest UT3UT2 1,126 UT1D III USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 (Action ID# SAW‐2015‐01209) and DWR 401 Water Quality Certification (letter from DWR dated 5/13/2015). C IV IV IV N/A N/A II/III III/V N/A Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit DWR Sub‐basin Project Drainiage Area (acres) Drainage Area (acres) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area Reach Summary Information Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration CGIA Land Use Classification Length of Reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration NCDWR Stream Identification Score NCDWR Water Quality Classification Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration Length of Reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration FEMA classification Native vegetation community Soil hydric status Drainage Area (acres) 66% – Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 29% – Forested/Scrubland, 5% ‐ Developed Endangered Species Act Historic Preservation Act Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area F5 28 63 15 Morphological Desription (stream type) FEMA Floodplain Compliance FEMA classification Native vegetation community Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐ Restoration Regulation Waters of the United States ‐ Section 404 Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401 Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety) Drainage class Soil hydric status Slope Underlying mapped soils UT4 UT5 379 1,806 F4 31.5 Essential Fisheries Habitat UT2A UT2B 31.5 E5b C5 Parameters 35.0 27.5 34.5 694 1,024 190 560 40.5 G4c 7924 1,496 1,068 Drainage class Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐ Restoration 45 353 657 UT5A 6 1,356 Slope UT1C 31.5 137 Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Project Name Project Area (acres) Parameters NCDWR Stream Identification Score 36.5 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 33.5 G4 IV III III G5 B5c G4 37.5 ‐‐‐ APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P !P !P !P !P !P !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 UT5 UT3-P UT4 UT2 - R e a c h 2 UT2B UT2 A UT1D UT1C Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 4 UT 3 UT5 - P UT1 C - P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Fig u r e 3 . 4 Figur e 3 . 5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 3 U T 2 - R e a c h 1 C a n d y C r e e k Can d y C r e e k Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 1,200600 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Sheet Boundaries Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Cross-Section !P Reach Break GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored 10 0 + 0 0 10 1 + 0 0 10 2 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 10 4 + 0 0 10 5 + 0 0 10 6 + 0 0 10 7 + 0 0 1 0 8 + 0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 1 1 0 + 0 0 11 1 + 0 0 11 2 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 11 4 + 0 0 11 5 + 0 0 1 1 6 + 0 0 1 1 7 + 0 0 118+ 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 1 2 0 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 405 + 0 0 406+0 0 40 7 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 4 0 9 + 0 0 610 + 1 2 599+19 600+00 601+ 0 0 60 2 + 0 0 603+ 0 0 604 + 0 0 605+00 60 6 + 0 0 60 7 + 0 0 608 + 0 0 609 + 0 0 610 + 0 0 650 + 0 0 65 1 + 0 0 6 5 2 + 0 0 65 3 + 0 0 6 5 4 + 0 0 6 5 5 + 0 0 65 6 + 0 0 657 + 0 0 6 5 8 + 0 0 6 5 9 + 0 0 66 0 + 0 0 6 6 0 + 5 6 \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A XY !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 UT5 UT5 - P 9 8 7 5 6 3 4 1 2 82 81 10 85 84 83 Barotroll XS3 XS2 XS4 XS 5 X S 4 4 XS1 X S 4 5 XS46 XS 4 8 XS 4 7 Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 2 3 4 1 39 40 Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Barotroll !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Ailanthus (Tree of Heaven) English Ivy \\Japanese Honeysuckle Supplemental Planting (3/2022) <50' Buffer Width XY Added Easement Sign (MY4) Stream Problem Areas - MY6 Sediment Deposition !P !A !A !A GF 0 250125 Feet ¹ 11 6 + 0 0 1 1 7 + 0 0 118 + 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 1 2 0 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 122 + 0 0 123 + 0 0 1 2 4 + 0 0 1 2 5 + 0 0 12 6 + 0 0 1 2 7 + 0 0 12 8 + 0 0 400+00 4 0 1 + 0 0 4 0 2 + 0 0 403+00404+00 405+00 406 + 0 0 4 0 7 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 4 0 9 + 0 0 4 1 0 + 0 0 4 1 1 + 0 0 4 1 1 + 5 0 41 2 + 0 0 4 1 3 + 0 0 414+ 0 0 4 1 4 + 9 6 51 4 + 0 5 500+00 501+0 0 502 + 0 0 503+00 50 4 + 0 0 5 0 5 + 0 0 506+00 507 + 0 0 508+ 0 0 509+ 0 0 510 + 0 0 511 + 0 0 5 1 2 + 0 0 51 3 + 0 0 61 0 + 1 2 6 0 6 + 0 0 60 7 + 0 0 60 8 + 0 0 60 9 + 0 0 61 0 + 0 0 B \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A!A !A!A !A !P !P UT5 UT3-P UT 4 C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 U T 3 C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 2 9 8 11 75 74 78 77 76 10 14 13 80 79 12 85 84 XS6 XS 7 XS8 XS 4 0 XS37 XS 3 9 XS38 XS46 XS 4 8 X S 4 1 XS47 X S 4 3 XS42 6 5 4 40 37 38 36 39 Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Barotroll !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Ailanthus (Tree of Heaven) Asian Spiderwort/Creeping Primrose \\\ \\\Japanese Honeysuckle <50' Buffer Width Stream Problem Areas - MY6 Bank Erosion / Scour Sediment Deposition B Beaver Dam (removed 4/2022) 1 2 5 + 0 0 12 6 + 0 0 1 2 7 + 0 0 12 8 + 0 0 1 2 9 + 0 0 13 0 + 0 0 131 + 0 0 13 2 + 0 0 133+00 13 4 + 0 0 13 5 + 0 0 1 3 6 + 0 0 13 7 + 0 0 138 + 0 0 13 9 + 0 0 1 4 0 + 0 0 1 4 1 + 0 0 1 4 2 + 0 0 143+ 0 0 1 4 4 + 0 0 14 5 + 0 0 14 6 + 0 0 14 7 + 0 0 1 4 8 + 0 0 4 1 3 + 0 0 414+ 0 0 4 1 4 + 9 6 51 4 + 0 5 51 3 + 0 0 318+31 31 3 + 0 0 31 4 + 0 0 315+00316+00 317+ 0 0 318 + 0 0 !( !( B GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A !P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 UT2 - R e a c h 2 Candy Creek - Reach 1 U T 3 UT4 XS9 XS 1 3 X S 1 0 XS12 XS15 X S 1 4 XS11 XS8 XS37 XS 3 4 X S 4 3 XS35 68 66 23 22 67 21 20 19 18 17 16 75 74 15 14 13 9 7 6 8 33 12 10 11 36 Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Asian Spiderwort/Creeping Primrose <50' Buffer Width Stream Problem Areas - MY6 Bank Erosion / Scour Sediment Deposition B Beaver Dam (removed 4/2022) !(Structure Issue 1 4 8 + 4 2 1 3 9 + 0 0 14 0 + 0 0 1 4 1 + 0 0 142+ 0 0 14 3 + 0 0 1 4 4 + 0 0 1 4 5 + 0 0 1 4 6 + 0 0 1 4 7 + 0 0 14 8 + 0 0 1 4 9 + 0 0 150 + 0 0 270+0 0 271+ 0 0 272 + 0 0 273 + 0 0 27 4 + 0 0 275 + 0 0 27 6 + 0 0 276+ 8 5 318 + 3 1 3 0 0 + 0 0 301+00 302 + 0 0 303 + 0 0 3 0 4 + 0 0 3 0 5 + 0 0 3 0 6 + 0 0 30 7 + 0 0 308+00309+00 310 + 0 0 311 + 0 0 312+ 0 0 313+00314+00 315+0 0 316+0 0317+00 318+00 35 0 + 0 0 351 + 0 0 352+00 3 5 3 + 0 0 35 4 + 0 0 3 5 4 + 3 7 !( !( !( GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A!A !A !P !P UT2 - Reach 1 UT2B UT 2 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 UT2 - Reach 2 UT2 - Reach 1 24 23 C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 24A 24A XS 1 3 XS1 2 XS15 XS1 4 XS31 X S 3 3 XS16 X S 3 4 XS3 6 XS 1 7 XS 3 5 X S 3 0 XS 3 2 25 72 68 58 71 59 60 61 73 62 63 65 64 70 69 66 22 67 21 20 19 33 12 34 32 10 31 11 35 Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography !P !A !A !A GF Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Low Stem Density Supplemental Planting (3/2022) <50' Buffer Width Stream Problem Areas - MY6 Sediment Deposition !(Structure Issue 14 8 + 4 2 14 9 + 0 0 15 0 + 0 0 151+ 0 0 1 5 2 + 0 0 153 + 0 0 154+00 15 5 + 0 0 15 6 + 0 0 1 5 7 + 0 0 1 5 8 + 0 0 1 5 9 + 0 0 1 6 0 + 0 0 1 6 1 + 0 0 1 6 2 + 0 0 1 6 3 + 0 0 25 0 + 0 6 251+00 252+00 253+00 253+8 5 200+00 201+0 0 20 2 + 0 0 203+0 0 204+00205+00 206+ 0 0 207+00 !( !(!( !( !( GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A !A !P !P !P UT1D UT1C C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 UT1C-P X S 1 6 XS 17 X S 2 8 X S 2 9 XS 2 7 57 56 55 54 53 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 24B 16 13 29 15 30 14 28 Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage !A Stream Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Ailanthus (Tree of Heaven) Supplemental Planting (3/2022) <50' Buffer Width !(Structure Issue 1 7 0 + 3 7 160+00 16 1 + 0 0 162+ 0 0 1 6 3 + 0 0 1 6 4 + 0 0 165 + 0 0 166+00 167+00 16 8 + 0 0 16 9 + 0 0 1 7 0 + 0 0 17 1 + 0 0 17 2 + 0 0 1 7 3 + 0 0 174+ 0 0 175 + 0 0 176+ 0 0 177+00 1 7 8 + 0 0 179+0 0 180 + 0 0 181 + 0 0 18 2 + 0 0 1 8 3 + 0 0 184 + 0 0 1 8 5 + 0 0 186 + 0 0 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 4 Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 3 XS 2 0 XS 18 XS 2 1 XS 1 9 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 19 17 20 18 22 21 Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !P Reach Break GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Asian Spiderwort/Creeping Primrose <50' Buffer Width Stream Problem Areas - MY6 Bank Erosion / Scour 2 0 6 + 3 5 180 + 0 0 181 + 0 0 18 2 + 0 0 1 8 3 + 0 0 184 + 0 0 1 8 5 + 0 0 186 + 0 0 187+ 0 0 18 8 + 0 0 18 9 + 0 0 1 9 0 + 0 0 1 9 1 + 0 0 192+ 0 0 1 9 3 + 0 0 1 9 4 + 0 0 195+00 196 + 0 0 197+00 19 8 + 0 0 199 + 0 0 20 0 + 0 0 201 + 0 0 202+00 2 0 3 + 0 0 20 4 + 0 0 20 5 + 0 0 20 6 + 0 0 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF !A Cand y C r e e k - R e a c h 4 XS 23 XS 2 6 X S 2 5 XS 2 2 XS 24 49 47 48 50 51 52 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 27 26 24 25 22 23 Figure 3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 - 2022 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Non Project Streams Bankfull Cross-Section !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY6 Not Monitored Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6 Asian Spiderwort/Creeping Primrose Kudzu <50' Buffer Width Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 1 (2,619 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 39 39 100% Depth Sufficient 38 38 100% Length Appropriate 38 38 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)38 38 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)38 38 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 1 15 >99% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 00100%0 0 100% 115>99%00>99% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.32 32 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 27 27 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 27 27 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 2 (2,215 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 24 24 100% Depth Sufficient 24 24 100% Length Appropriate 24 24 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)24 24 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)24 24 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 1 20 >99% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 120>99%00>99% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.27 29 93% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 17 17 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 17 17 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 3 (2,135 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 23 23 100% Depth Sufficient 17 17 100% Length Appropriate 17 17 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)17 17 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)16 16 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 1 15 >99% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1 15 >99% 0 0 >99% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.35 35 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 23 23 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 23 23 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 4 (3,564 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 42 42 100% Depth Sufficient 39 39 100% Length Appropriate 39 39 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)38 38 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)39 39 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.56 56 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.22 22 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.22 22 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 38 38 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 38 38 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT1C (728 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 7 7 100% Length Appropriate 7 7 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.29 29 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.20 22 91% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.20 22 91% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 7 7 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT1D (379 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 24 24 100% Depth Sufficient 2 2 100% Length Appropriate 2 2 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2 2 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)2 2 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.30 30 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.26 29 90% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.26 29 90% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 20 20 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2 Reach 1 (1,188 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 8 8 100% Length Appropriate 8 8 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)8 8 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)8 8 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.32 32 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.31 31 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.31 31 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 22 22 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2 Reach 2 (643 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 1 30 95% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100% Depth Sufficient 6 7 86% Length Appropriate 6 7 86% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.9 9 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 8 88% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 4 4 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2A (353 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100% Depth Sufficient 4 4 100% Length Appropriate 4 4 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)4 4 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)4 4 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 12 12 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2B (657 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100% Depth Sufficient 6 6 100% Length Appropriate 6 6 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)6 6 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)6 6 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.16 16 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.16 16 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 4 4 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT3 (346 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100% Depth Sufficient 10 10 100% Length Appropriate 10 10 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)10 10 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)10 10 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.15 15 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.9 9 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.9 9 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 5 5 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5l. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT4 (1,356 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 30 30 100% Length Appropriate 30 30 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)30 30 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)30 30 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 15 15 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 16 16 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5m. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT5 (1,012 LF) Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 2 130 87% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 19 21 90% Depth Sufficient 20 21 95% Length Appropriate 20 21 95% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)20 21 95% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)20 21 95% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 12 12 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 11 12 92% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Last assessed on 10/17/2022 Planted Acreage 32 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (Ac) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 0 0.00 0.0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.0.1 1 0.05 0.2% 1 0.1 0.2% Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 0 0 0% 1 0.1 0.2% Easement Acreage 62 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (SF) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern1 Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 12 0.95 1.5% Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0.0% Total Cumulative Total 1 Asian Spiderwort/Creeping Primrose was counted as one polygon because each individual polygon would have been to small to meet the minimum mapping threshold. STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS Candy Creek Monitoring Year 6 PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24A Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24A Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24B Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 24B Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – upstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – downstream (3/28/2022) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – downstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – upstream (3/29/2022) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – downstream (3/29/2022) VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS Monitoring Year 6 Vegetation Plot 1 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 2 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 3 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 4 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 5 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 6 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 7 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 8 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 9 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 10 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 11 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 12 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 13 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 14 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 15 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 16 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 17 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 18 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 19 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 20 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 21 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 22 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 23 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 24 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 25 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 26 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 27 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 28 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 29 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 30 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 31 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 32 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 33 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 34 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 35 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 36 (10/18/2022) Vegetation Plot 37 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 38 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 39 (10/20/2022) Vegetation Plot 40 (10/20/2022) AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Monitoring Year 6 Candy Creek Reach 4 ‐ Kudzu (Sta. 201+50) (10/18/2022) UT1C ‐ Structure issue, piping (Sta. 206+04) (10/21/2022) UT1D ‐ Structure issue, piping (Sta.253+00) (10/21/2022) UT5 ‐ Aggradation (Sta. 600+75) (03/30/2022) IMPROVED AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Monitoring Year 6 Candy Creek Reach 1 ‐ Easement encroachment replanting (Sta. 100+00) (03/31/2022) Candy Creek Reach 1 ‐ Easement encroachment replanting, RB (Sta. 111+00‐113+00) (10/21/2022) Candy Creek Reach 3 ‐ Easement encroachment replanting at Hopkins Road, LB (Sta. 149+00‐150+00) (10/19/2021) Candy Creek Reach 3 ‐ Bank repair, RB (Sta. 151+70‐152+00) (10/21/2022) UT1C ‐ Repaired structure (Sta. 207+25) (10/21/2022) UT1D ‐ Repaired structures (Sta. 252+90) (10/21/2022) Candy Creek Reach 1 ‐ Repaired bridge crossing (Sta. 117+25) (10/21/2022) Candy Creek Reach 2 ‐ Removed beaver dams (Sta. 128+40) (10/21/2022) APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Vegetation assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 6 APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Morphological assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 6 APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plot Table 13a. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method MY1 None MY2 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 1/30/2019 2/23/2019 3/7/2019 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 MY5 None MY6 8/22/2022 MY1 6/19/2017 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 MY3 2/23/2019 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 8/22/2022 MY1 None 2/9/2018 3/9/2018 10/22/2018 1/10/2019 1/16/2019 1/21/2019 1/31/2019 MY4 1/22/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 8/22/2022 MY1 None 1/27/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/11/2019 1/21/2019 1/26/2019 1/30/2019 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 None MY5 MY4 MY3 MY5 MY5 MY3 MY2 MY4 MY2 MY3 Candy Creek Reach 4 (XS23) Candy Creek Reach 2 (XS14) Automated Crest Gage UT1C (XS27) UT2 (XS33) MY2 MY4 Table 13b. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method MY1 None MY2 2/9/2018 1/21/2019 1/27/2019 1/30/2019 MY4 5/21/2020 MY5 7/24‐28/2021 MY6 None MY1 None MY2 10/11/2018 MY3 1/21/2019 MY4 None MY5 10/19/2021 Manual Crest Gage & Visual Documentation MY6 None MY1 None 1/31/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 2/23/2019 6/8/2019 2/6/2020 2/22/2020 5/21/2020 7/24‐25/2021 8/14/2021 9/22/2021 1/3/2022 8/22‐24/2022 9/8‐13/2022 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY4 Automated Crest Gage UT2A (XS36) UT3 (XS37) MY5 UT4 (XS42)Automated Crest Gage MY3 Table 13c. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method 4/24/2017 6/19/2017 1/31/2018 2/6/2018 3/9/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 1/26/2019 1/30/2019 2/23/2019 8/8/2019 10/31/2019 2/6/2020 5/20/2020 6/5/2020 6/8/2020 6/11/2020 7/19/2021 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 9/22/2021 1/3/2022 2/23‐24/2022 3/12/2022 8/22/2022 MY2 MY1 MY5 MY4 MY3 Automated Crest GageUT5 (XS48) MY6 Table 14. Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY4 (2020) MY5 (2021) MY6 (2022) MY7 (2023) UT1D 222 301 280 366 1322 272 1 ‐ Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow. 2 ‐ Gage malfunctioned; no data for part of the year. Reach Max Consecutive Days Meeting Success Criteria1 Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: Candy Reach 2 (XS 14) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: Candy Reach 4 (XS 23) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 748.5 749.5 750.5 751.5 752.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT1C (XS 27) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 757.5 758.5 759.5 760.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT2 (XS 33) Gage error. Probe reset and new log started 9/14 Gage errors. New log started 7/22. New probe installed and new log started 10/18 Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 745.5 746.5 747.5 748.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT2A (XS 36) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 747.5 748.5 749.5 750.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT3 (XS 37) Temperature‐ related gage errors Probe replaced on 2/15/22 Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT4 (XS 42) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2022 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 751 752 753 754 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 6 ‐2022 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek Mitigation Site: UT5 (XS 48) APPENDIX 6. Correspondence 1 MEETING MINUTES MEETING: IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) Candy Creek Mitigation Site MEETING DATE: July 7, 2021 LOCATION: Browns Summit, NC Participants: • Aaron Earley, Wildlands Project Manager • Andrew Radecki, Wildlands Stewardship Lead • Erin Davis, NC IRT for DWR • Jeff Turner, Wildlands Monitoring Lead • John Hutton, Wildlands Principal • Kelly Phillips, NC DMS Project Manager • Kristi Suggs, Wildlands Monitoring Supervisor • Lindsay Crocker, NC DMS Eastern Regional Supervisor • Melonie Allen, NC DMS Closeout & Credit Release Coordinator • Olivia Munzer, NC IRT for WRC Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 1. Met at the Hopkins Road crossing between Candy R2 and R3. 2. Introductions 3. Walked to the encroachment area of Candy R3 (~STA149+50) a. The area was evidently not being mowed as the grass was tall. b. Tree and/or shrub plantings should be scheduled for this winter. 4. Walked downstream along Candy R3 a. Erosion along the inside bend of a pool (~STA150+00) i. Well vegetated and naturally stabilized. It is developing into more of a point bar. IRT agreed that this area was no longer of concern. b. Erosion along outer bend of a pool (~STA151+50) where stream repair work is planned for the fall/winter of 2021. i. Discussed installing a brush toe and perhaps some live stakes. It was thought that this might also help allow for a better bar development on the inside bend. 5. Walked to UT1D where there are a series of failed structures that are piping underneath a. Piping structures (~STA~253+00); repair work is also planned for the same period of the fall/winter of 2021. 2 i. Suspected cause is the increased elevation change where the flatter headwaters ties into the lower elevation of the main channel. The steeper grade likely undercut the structures. ii. No main concerns were raised. 6. For #4b and #5a, IRT was concerned about access to conduct the repairs so that vegetation damage would be minimized during the repairs. a. WEI noted that the site would be accessed by the internal crossing located just downstream of UT1D. b. It was also discussed at the end of the meeting that if the repair work is completed after the current monitoring year (MY5) report has been submitted then the repair items should be highlighted in a photolog and sent to DMS for inclusion into the monitoring report prior to the credit release meeting as there will likely be a discussion about it. The work is planned for the fall/winter so would most likely occur during MY6 and be submitted with the MY6 report. 7. There is a dead snag along Candy R3 that needs to be monitored. It is somewhat near a neighbor’s structure for which it could possibly damage if it were to fall. 8. Walked upstream to Candy R2. a. Looked at manual repair area from 2019/2020. Herbaceous vegetation was well established and was obscuring any substantial view of the bank. No concerns were raised. 9. Walked to UT2. a. Looked at the bare area along UT2 R2 (~STA315+00); discussed giving one more attempted treatment to improve the bare area and keeping the lespedeza at bay but it is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and because there are still trees both along the fence line and the stream in that area. b. Looked at the area where the dam was removed (~STA310+00-311+00) i. No concerns were raised. The process of removing the dam constructing the channel in the pond muck was discussed. It is still maintaining a single-thread channel. 10. Drove upstream to Candy R1 and UT5. 11. Walked part of UT5 (~STA604+00-608+00). a. The aggradation on this channel and how to report it was discussed in detail. The main take away is that the aggradation and sedimentation in the channel that was observed was not negatively impacting the overall structure or function of the stream. b. The sedimentation was mostly within the banks, but some was also on the floodplain. Its structure was coarse sand. The source is suspected to have come from off-site as no erosive areas have been observed within the easement. There are several farm ponds upstream of the project (above UT5-preservation) that drain a large agricultural tract and could have provided the sediment load, as could have an overflowing or breached pond dam (although no direct source has been confirmed). c. For the effects on the stream, it was noted that while the pools are filling with some sand, the stream is functioning more like a sand-bed stream. The pools are present but shallow, and the sediment is not collecting or burying the riffles as noted by the macroinvertebrates present today on the riffle substrate. d. It was discussed how this stream is geographically positioned in a transitional area of the piedmont and the slate belt and that some watersheds have soils with a greater 3 sand load. The sand load in the watershed was not expected during the Mitigation Plan stage but isn’t unexpected given the geographic location. e. How to report the aggradation changes was discussed. The official DMS guidance should be followed; however, the following ideas were mentioned and could be considered if given approval: i. Getting photographs early in the year (prior to leaf-out) would be beneficial. ii. Survey is still desired later in the year to capture changes that occurred during the monitoring year, but it was noted that even if the survey occurs early, the profile will still capture 12 months of change from the last survey period. iii. Using a 360-camera is an idea to show the streams, although the vegetation would be a problem. Using a story map and drones are also ideas, but the latter are better for early projects, or showing vegetation change from year to year. This idea may not be an option for this project, especially within the next few years. 12. The general idea was that the aggradation should continue to be shown and reported, and it should be discussed in the narrative of the text. (It was noted that any area of concern should be discussed in the narrative.) However, the discussion can cover how the aggradation (or any issue) is being reported but is not a substantial cause for concern because of X, Y, or Z. 13. Walked to Candy R1 a. Encroachment area (~STA101+00) i. The area is being encroached upon by an adjacent landowner who is not part of the project. He has been contacted and asked to stop mowing the area. ii. Horse tape is being used as are additional easement markers. iii. Trees and/or shrubs should also be planted in this area. 14. Action items: a. Use the narrative portion of the report to discuss areas of concern; use the text to convey the level of concern about it and if any action is needed. For example using UT5, continue to report its presence but provide information about whether the aggradation is/is not getting worse and if any action is/is not needed. b. Continue to report the current aggradation on UT5 but currently it is not a substantial concern making sure to discuss its current state and to refer to the discussion we had on-site. Include the meeting notes in the monitoring report appendix. c. Look into giving one more attempted treatment to improve the bare area along UT2 R2 and keep the lespedeza at bay. However, don’t go overboard with trying to establish vegetation because it is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and there are still trees both along the fence line and the stream in that area. d. Repairs planned for items #4 and #5. In the MY5 report, discuss the areas of concern in the narrative, provide photos if available, and discuss the repair plan documenting if it has been completed or when it is to be completed. If the work is done prior to the submittal of the MY5 report to DMS, include photos of the repair area. If it is done after the submittal to DMS, send a photolog of the repairs to DMS for inclusion in the report prior to the credit release meeting. e. Encroachment areas should include supplemental plantings of trees/shrubs. f. The next IRT walk is not expected until the final close-out. At that point, any continuing/new encroachment areas could be an issue in getting the final credit release. From:Dunnigan, Emily To:Kristi Suggs Cc:Andrew Radecki Subject:Candy Creek Site Visit MY6 Comments Date:Friday, January 20, 2023 11:20:59 AM Attachments:image001.png Hello Kristi, After touring the Candy Creek Site, I have a few additional comments that need to be included in your comment response letter and the Final Report. 1. As discussed in the field, failing structures on EII reaches that meet the reporting threshold need to be discussed and included in the report/CCPV/tables. 2. Section 1.2.2: Repairs on UT1C have not been completed, please update the narrative and include future repair plan. This doesn’t need to be addressed in a comment, but DMS strongly encourages planting a row or 2 of trees in the area disturbed by machinery for repairs in 2022. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Emily Dunnigan Project Manager – Eastern Region Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 Cell: 919-817-6534