The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140194 Ver 1_RosesCreek_96309_MY7_2022_20230224 Year 7 Monitoring and Closeout Report Roses Creek Burke County, NC DMS Project ID No. 96309 Construction Completed: May 2016 UAS Data Collected: March 3, 2022 Vegetation Data Collected: September 28, 29 and October 24, 2022 Submitted: February 2023 Prepared for: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Prepared by: HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) of the Carolinas 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601-3034 Prepared by: HDR │ ICA 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 919.232.6600 919.232.6642 (fax) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED HEREIN, ROSES CREEK YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. SIGNED AND DATED THIS 17 DAY OF February 2023. ____________________________________________________________ Vickie Miller, PWS, AICP DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1.5 STREAM STABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 MONITORING YEAR 7 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 5 APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES ....................................................... 6 APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA ............................................................................................ 13 APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA ................................................................................................ 36 APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA ................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGIC DATA ......................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX F. IRT DMS MEETING MINUTES (2022) .............................................................................. 71 APPENDIX G. USACE ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION VS. NORMAL RANGE .......................................... 73 APPENDIX H. 2017 RE-PLANTING ZONES .............................................................................................. 75 APPENDIX I. 2018 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT REPAIRS ......................................................................... 79 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2.0 – 2.8. Current Condition Plan View .......................................................................................... 14 Figures 3.1 - 3.30. Vegetation Plot and Site Photos ................................................................................... 28 Figures 4.1 – 4.12. Cross Section Plots ..................................................................................................... 41 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits .................................................................................. 8 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ......................................................................................... 9 Table 3. Project Contacts Table ................................................................................................................. 10 Table 4. Project Information ...................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ........................................................................ 23 Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ....................................................................... 24 Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ...................................................................... 25 Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ....................................................................... 26 Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment ................................................................................................ 27 Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary ............................................................................ 37 Table 7b. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary ............................................................................ 38 Table 7c. Stems Per Plot Across All Years ................................................................................................. 39 Table 7d. Tree Height by Vegetation Plot .................................................................................................. 40 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary ................................................................................................... 54 Table 9. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary ............................................................... 58 Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events .................................................................................................. 63 Table 11. Tributary Surface Water Summary ............................................................................................ 70 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 1 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY The following report summarizes the vegetation establishment and stream stability for Year 7 monitoring for the Roses Creek Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) in Burke County, North Carolina. 1.1 Goals and Objectives Primary goals for the Site, as detailed in the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (ICA Engineering 2015) include: 1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation. 2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi-aquatic and riparian habitat. 3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats. The following objectives accomplish the goals listed above: 1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation through: a. Restoring the existing degraded, straightened and incised/entrenched streams as primarily a Priority 1 restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the floodplain allowing nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream runoff to settle from floodwaters to the extent practical. Restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure the channel will transport and attenuate watershed flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading. b. Restore channel banks by relocating the channel, excavating bankfull benches, placing in-stream structures to reduce shearing forces on outside meander bends, and planting native vegetative species to provide soil stability, thus reducing stream bank stressors. c. Reducing point source (i.e. cattle and equipment crossings) and non-point source (i.e. stormwater runoff through pastures) pollution associated with on-site agricultural operations (hay production and cattle) by exclusionary fencing from the stream and riparian buffer and by eliminating all stream crossings from the easement. d. Plant a vegetative buffer on stream banks and adjacent floodplains to treat nutrient enriched surface runoff from adjacent pastureland associated with on-site agricultural operations. e. Restoring riparian buffers adjacent to the streams that are currently maintained for hay production that will attenuate floodwaters, in turn reducing stressors from upstream impacts. 2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi-aquatic and riparian habitat through: a. Restoration of a sinuous gravel bed channel that promotes a stable bed form and accommodates benthic macroinvertebrate and fish propagation. Additionally, woody materials such as log structures, overhanging planted vegetation and toe wood/brush toe in submerged water will provide a diversity of shading, bed form and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms. b. Restoring native vegetation to the stream channel banks and the adjacent riparian corridor, that is currently grass dominated, will diversify flora and create a protected habitat corridor, which will provide an abundance of available foraging and cover habitat for a multitude of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 2 3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats through: a. Planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation. b. Protection of the restored community will ensure a protected wildlife corridor between the Site and the upstream and downstream mature riparian buffers and upland habitats. c. Converting approximately 15 acres from existing agricultural land to riparian buffer protected by permanent conservation easement. 1.2 Success Criteria Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring includes stream channel/hydraulics and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (NCEEP 2011). Project success criteria are further detailed in the Baseline Monitoring Document & As-Built Baseline Report (HDR|ICA 2016). 1.3 Background Summary The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) contracted HDR|ICA to restore 4,746 linear feet of Roses Creek and three of its unnamed tributaries within the Site to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation needs in the watershed. The Site is located approximately 12 miles northwest of downtown Morganton in Burke County, NC. The Site contains Roses Creek and three unnamed headwater tributaries of Roses Creek (UT 1, UT 2 and UT 3). The Site is located within the 03050101060030 14-digit Hydrologic Unit, which is also a DMS Targeted Hydrologic Unit for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin. Roses Creek is classified as a Water Supply Watershed (WS-III), as it is part of the headwaters that feed Lake Rhodhiss. The Site was formerly comprised of one property owned by Robert B. Sisk and Martha M. Sisk (PIN # 1767479652) (known as the Sisk Farm) and was recently (2019/2020) subdivided between four owners and six parcels. The three additional owners are Annette Sisk and Samuel Ray Jr. (PIN# 1767470935), Robert M. Sisk and Sarah Turner (PINs # 1767476489, 1767464764 and 1767573144) and Bruce A. Sisk (PIN# 1767579505). Additional information concerning project history is presented in Table 2. 1.4 Vegetation Planted stem performance across the entirety of the Site is meeting or exceeding (by over 10%) Year 7 criteria average of 210 stems per acre. When only taking planted stems into account, 17 of the 17 plots are meeting Year 7 criteria of 210 stems per acre. When considering natural recruits, all vegetation plots far exceed the Year 7 criteria. Individual plot densities ranged between 243 to 486 stems per acre with an average stem density across monitored plots of 343 stems per acre. Three additional transects were performed along UT 1, UT 2 and Roses Creek to illustrate vegetation density in other areas of the conservation easement. All three transects (1-3) are exceeding the Year 7 criteria of 210 stems per acre with 486, 243 and 809 stems per acre, respectively. Planted vegetation height is averaging 10.3 feet across all plots with plot averages ranging from 4.7 to 13.5 feet; DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 3 however, plots 4, 11 and 15 fall short of the average 8-foot height criteria for Year 7 plots. Table 8 illustrates Year 7 tree height in the permanent vegetation plots. Stem density calculations including natural recruits were made based on the 2016 Monitoring Guidance which dictates no single species may account for over 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Plots 1, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have greater than 50% of one single species within the vegetation plots. Plot 1 has 20 common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) natural recruits, and plots 10-17 (excluding 13) have many river birch (Betula nigra) natural recruit seedling and saplings. The river birch natural recruits are located throughout the floodplain along Roses Creek from station 26+00 and downstream to the end of the project. However, planted stems are surviving and providing some diversity. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) have been observed in the past years and recently downstream of station 14+75 along the UT 1 floodplain. As part of the invasives management plan for 2022, invasive species were chemically treated on both sides of UT 1 floodplain, at the confluence at UT1 with Roses Creek, Roses Creek a few hundred feet downstream on both banks and along the fence line of Sisk Farm Road adjacent to UT 2 on April 5, and 29, 2022. On April 5, a combination of basal bark application (20% Garlon 4 in Bark Oil Blue) and foliar spray with 3% glyphosate was applied in the invasive areas along UT 1, Roses Creek and the roadside adjacent to UT 2. On April 29 the foliar spray and cut stem application to privet and a large mimosa along UT 1 was performed. A final treatment for these identified invasives areas is scheduled for UT 2 in the spring of 2023 for the Japanese honeysuckle. The Current Conditions Plan View depicts this invasive populations of honeysuckle between Sisk Farm Road and UT 2. The cattle waste encroachment area outside the conservation easement at approximately station 41+50 of Roses Creek is running into the forested and herbaceous riparian buffer between the pasture area and the stream since it is the low spot in the landscape. The landowner is not willing to remove his cattle from this area of the pasture as it provides a shady spot for cattle and the landowner noted he has limited pasture. HDR believes the wide forested and herbaceous buffer (over 50 feet) inside the easement is processing the excess cattle waste. Another area has been called out on the CCPV as “Fence undermining area” and is located at approximately station 40+00 adjacent to an ephemeral pool. The landowner has added wood and concrete blocks to shore up the bottom fence openings to prevent cattle from passing under or breaching the easement fence. There is no evidence of livestock entering into the easement in 2022. Rutherford Power was hired to relocate utility poles and associated utility easement completely out of the Site at the upper reach of UT 1. The utility pole right of way clearing and relocation of poles was completed in October 2022. All utility easements have been relocated outside the Site. 1.5 Stream Stability Roses Creek and its tributaries have remained in stable, functioning condition over the past monitoring year. Cross section geometry along Roses Creek has experienced minor fluctuations over the past two monitoring years. Cross Section 4 has made small but notable improvements toward better stabilization when compared to year 5 changes due to beaver activity. In Year 5, increased depth and bankfull area were noted with a beaver dam being the likely cause. In Year 7, both the DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 4 depth and bankfull area are trending back down. As seen in the Cross Section 4 photo, the typical riffle characteristics appear just below the monumented cross section location. This indicates that the riffle has migrated just downstream and the area under the tape for Cross Section 4 more closely resembles a glide facet. In Year 5 monitoring, deposition was seen in UT 1, 2, and 3. These conditions have improved for UT 1 and 2 based on Year 7 cross section values. UT 3 however continues a depositional trend. As noted in previous year monitoring, the likely cause is increased vegetation establishment and narrowing of the bankfull area. Each tributary maintains a single thread channel throughout the Site as seen from the aerial drone photography. Cross section geometry along Roses Creek has experienced minor fluctuations over the past two monitoring years. Cross Section 4 has increased in depth and bankfull area due to a beaver dam that was constructed immediately upstream of the cross section causing a scour hole to form through the cross section. The beaver dam was discovered in February 2020 and removed the following month. Another beaver dam was discovered in 2021 and was removed in the summer of 2021. As sediment is transported through the system it is possible that this hole will fill in over time. Stream banks remain stable through this reach following removal of the beaver dam. Adaptive management in the form of supplemental tree planting in 2016/2017 and stream channel repairs in 2018/2019 assisted to increase tree density and stabilize stream banks and channels. Appendix H has been added to the report to show the locations and tree species that were planted in 2017. Appendix I shows the location of repairs along the UTs and the mainstem of Roses Creek that were completed in October 2018 and early 2019. It should be noted the Site had met Success Criteria of two bankfull events by Year 3 of monitoring. All four crest gauges on the Site have been damaged by insects, making the gauge measurements unreadable since 2019. Crest gauge records for Years 1 – 4 are provided in Appendix E. Beaver activity was noted in late summer of 2022 in the downstream portions of Roses Creek. Two beaver dams were located at stations 29+25 and 32+50 along Roses Creek and created some backwater effects upstream of these locations. In late fall of 2022, four beavers were trapped by APHIS and the dams were removed by hand raking and minimal chainsaw work. HDR will visually assess and photo document these areas for stability in late 2022/early 2023 ahead of the agency meeting. Based on water level data obtained using Hobo U20 pressure transducers installed in the bottom of each tributary, UT 2 has indicated constant flow throughout the past monitoring year. It is thought that UT 1 and UT 3 also experienced constant flow throughout the early parts of the past monitoring year; however, due to equipment failure data was not recorded for the entire months of January and February for all UTs. New Hobo U20 pressure transducers were installed in early March 2022 on all three UTs due to malfunction and low battery status of equipment. It is worth noting, UT 1 exhibited 176 days with flow and 24 consecutive flow days and UT 3 exhibited 204 days with flow and 102 consecutive flow days. Water level data is provided in Appendix E as well. Pebble counts were conducted on Roses Creek riffle cross sections as well as riffle cross sections for UT 1, 2, and 3 in March 2022. Results show a D50 of 21mm for Cross Section 1, a D50 of 46mm for DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 5 Cross Section 4, and D50 of 28mm for Cross Section 5. D50 for the tributaries showed results of sandy and silty particle sizes. 1.6 Monitoring Year 7 Summary The Site has met the final geomorphic, vegetation and hydrologic success criteria. Roses Creek, UT 1, UT 2 and UT 3 remain stable and functioning as designed and based on the stream survey data gathered in MY 7 and prior years. Some aggradation is occurring in UT 3 due to the flat nature of the surrounding landscape: however, the channel continues to flow the majority of the year and is functioning as a single thread perennial stream. Visual assessments reveal little signs of instability for all streams and past instabilities have been repaired or have naturally stabilized. As stated in Section 1.4, planted stem density is averaging 343 stems per acre across the Site and is far exceeding the Year 7 criteria of 210 stems per acre. Tables and figures within the appendices of the various performance metrics and monitoring elements support the findings of meeting success criteria. A narrative background on the project can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on DMS’s website. 2.0 METHODOLOGY Year 7 monitoring surveys were completed using a GNSS VRS Rover. Each cross section was marked with a rebar monument at their beginning and ending points. The rebar has been located vertically and horizontally in NAD 83-State Plane. Surveying these monuments throughout the Site ensured proper orientation. The survey data was imported into MicroStation for verification. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ “The Reference Reach Spreadsheet Version 4.3L” were used to analyze cross section data (Mecklenburg 2006). Tables and figures were created using Microsoft Excel. Vegetation monitoring was completed using CVS level II methods, for 20, 100 square meter vegetation plots (Lee et al. 2006). Seventeen permanent vegetation plots were monitored and three additional transects (50 m long by 2 m wide) were added along UT 1, UT 2 and Roses Creek. The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern and Mid- Atlantic States (Weakley 2011). 3.0 REFERENCES Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm). Mecklenburg, Dan. 2006. The Reference Reach Spreadsheet Version 4.3L. 2006. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Soil and Water. (http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/9188/default.aspx) Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States (online). Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2011-May-nav.pdf [May 15, 2011]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 6 APPENDICES Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 8 Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits * Stream Mitigation Units decreased by 60 to account for break in easement at the stream crossing on Sisk Farm Road Roses Creek, Burke County DMS Project No. 96309 Credit Summary Stream SMU Riparian Wetland WMU Non- riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorous Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 5,009 .600 Project Components Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Location Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach (PI, PII, etc.) Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage Mitigation Ratio SMU Roses Creek 10+00- 41+81 3,643 PI Restoration 3,181 1:1 3,121* Roses Creek 41+81- 42+19 38 - EII 38 2.5:1 15 UT 1 10+00- 12+54; 16+11- 16+46 267 PI Restoration 289 1:1 289 UT 1 12+54- 16+11; 16+46- 19+30 641 - EII 641 2.5:1 256 UT 2 10+00- 17+07 610 PI Restoration 707 1:1 707 UT 3 10+00- 16+21 558 PI Restoration 621 1:1 621 Total NA 5,757 PI Restoration /EII 5,477 1-2.5:1 5,009.600 Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres) Non-Riparian Wetland (acres) Buffer (square feet) Upland (acres) Riverine Non-Riverine Restoration 4,798 Enhancement II 679 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 9 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan September 2015 September 2015 Final Design – Construction Plans September 2015 March 2016 Construction February 25, 2016 May 18, 2016 Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area --- May 18, 2016 Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area --- May 18, 2016 Bare Root, Containerized, and B&B plantings for Entire Project Area --- May 27, 2016 Mitigation Plan/As-built (Year 0 Monitoring-Baseline) May 2016 July 2016 Year 1 Monitoring November 2016 January 2017 Stream Morphology November 2016 -- Vegetation August 2016 -- Supplemental Planting --- February 2017 Year 2 Monitoring August 2017 November 2017 Stream Morphology June 2017 -- Vegetation August 2017 -- Supplemental Planting --- February 2018 Year 3 Monitoring August 2018 November 2018 Stream Morphology March 2018 -- Vegetation August 2018 -- Structural Repairs -- October 2018 Year 4 Monitoring November 2019 December 2019 Stream Morphology -- -- Vegetation -- -- Dam Removal -- September 2019 Invasive Species Management January 2019 September 2019 Year 5 Monitoring Stream Morphology February 2020 January 2021 Vegetation August 2020 January 2021 Invasive Species Management April and Aug. 2020 Dam Removal March 2020 Year 6 Monitoring Stream Morphology September 2021 Vegetation September 2021 Dam Removal August 2021 Year 7 Monitoring Stream Morphology March 2, 3, 2022 Vegetation Sept. 28/29, Oct. 24, 2022 Invasives Species Management April 5, 29 2022 (Spring 2023) Dam Removal /Beavers trapped Oct. 11 (traps checked – Oct. 13, 14, 17, 19, 25,26 and 27) & Nov. 9, 2022 (raked 2 dams) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 10 Table 3. Project Contacts Table Designer Primary project design POC ICA Engineering 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Vickie Miller (919) 232-6600 Construction Contractor Construction Contractor POC Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Lloyd Glover (919) 639-6132 Structural Repair Contractor Structural Repair Contractor POC Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Lloyd Glover (919) 639-6132 Planting Contractor Planting Contractor POC Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27592 Lloyd Glover (919) 639-6132 Supplemental Planting Contractor Supplemental Planting Contractor POC River Works, Inc. 114 W Main Street, Suite 106 Clayton, NC 27520 Bill Wright (919) 590-5193 Seeding Contractor Seeding Contractor POC Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 126 Circle G Lane Willow Spring, NC 27607 Lloyd Glover (919) 639-6132 Seed Mix Sources Green Resources – Triangle Office Nursery Stock Suppliers 1) Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN 2) Foggy Mountain Nursery (live stakes) Monitoring Performers HDR|ICA Engineering Inc. 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Vickie Miller (919) 232-6600 Stream Monitoring POC HDR|ICA Engineering Inc. 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Wyatt Yelverton (919) 232-6623 Vegetation Monitoring POC HDR|ICA Engineering Inc. 555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 400 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Jessica Tisdale (919) 232-6654 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 11 Table 4. Project Information Project Information Project Name Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site County Burke Project Area (acres) 17.3 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.850953, -81.819541 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont / Mountain River Basin Catawba USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03050101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03050101060030 NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-08-31 Project Drainage Area (acres) Roses: 3,309, UT 1: 35, UT 2: 47, UT 3: 10 Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1% CGIA Land Use Classification Agricultural/Pasture Ecoregion Northern Inner Piedmont Geological Unit Zabg: Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss Reach Summary Information Parameters Roses Creek UT 1 UT 2 UT 3 Length of reach (linear feet) 3,681 existing 900 existing 610 existing 558 existing Valley Classification VIII VIII VIII VIII Drainage Area (acres) 3,309 35 47 13 NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 56 30 33.5 34 NCDWQ Water Quality Classification WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr WS-III; Tr Morphological Description (stream type) E4, B4, and F4 B5, F5 B5 B5, G5 Evolutionary Trend Simon’s Stages: Premodified » Constructed » Degradation and Widening Could maintain a B type channel in majority of reach Or F » B G » B/E G » B DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 12 Regulatory Considerations (cont.) Coastal Zone Management (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes CLOMR/LOMR Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 13 Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 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 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100% 2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 17 17 100% 3. Meander Pool Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)18 18 100% 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)18 18 100% 4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)17 17 100% 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)17 17 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100.0% 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% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100.0% 3. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.19 19 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 19 19 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.19 19 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 19 19 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.19 19 100% Totals Reach ID: Roses Creek Assessed Length: 3,121 FT Table 5: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (3/4, 5/25 and 10/24/22) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 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 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100% 2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 1 10 96% 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100% 3. Meander Pool Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)2 2 100% 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)2 2 100% 4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)3 3 100% 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)3 3 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 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% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100.0% 3. Engineered Structures 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%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 12 12 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.12 12 100% Totals Reach ID: UT1 Assessed Length: 234 LF Table 5a: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (3/4, 5/25, 10/24/22) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 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 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100% 2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 22 22 100% 3. Meander Pool Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)21 21 100% 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)21 21 100% 4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)22 22 100% 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)22 22 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 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% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100.0% 3. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.21 21 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 21 21 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.21 21 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 21 21 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.21 21 100% Totals Reach ID: UT2 Assessed Length: 707 LF Table 5b: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (3/4, 5/25, 10/24/22) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 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 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100% 2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 13 13 100% 3. Meander Pool Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)12 12 100% 2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)13 13 100% 4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)13 13 100% 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)13 13 100% 2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 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% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100.0% 3. Engineered Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.14 14 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 14 14 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.14 14 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 14 14 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.14 14 100% Totals Reach ID: UT3 Assessed Length: 620 LF Table 5c: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment (3/4, 5/25, 10/24/22) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment (9/28 and 9/29/22) Planted Acreage 15.81 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.05 Acres Pink polygons filled with green x's 0 0.00 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 Acres Blue cross hatch pattern 0 0.0 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.1 Acres Pattern and color. 0 0 0% Easement Acreage 17.33 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Green grass pattern.1 0.4 2% 5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). None N/A N/A N/A N/A % of Planted Acreage Total Cumulative Total Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VP5 VP8 VP7 VP6 VP9 VP10 VP11 VP13 VP14 VP16 VP17 VP20 VP18 X S - 1 0 XS-9 X S - 1 2 XS-8 XS-7 XS - 1 1 XS - 5 XS - 3 XS- 1 XS- 4 XS-2 XS-6 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\4629_NCDENR\00000000_DMS_ECORESTORATION\ROSESCREEK\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\MXD\WORKING\ROSESCREEK_2023_GEOREFERENCEPDF.MXD - USER: JTISDALE - DATE: 2/20/2023 ROSES CREEK FEATURES CLOSEOUT MY 7 DMS PRJ #96309 0 400Feet O DATA SOURCE: HDR March 2022 Orthomosaic LEGEND !Problem Area Points Problem Areas Polylines Parcel lines Problem Areas Polygons ProjectEasement Baseline Restoration !@ Flow Meters !<Crest Gauges Stream Centerlines Monitoring Veg Plots with transects Rutherford Powerlines Relocation Monitoring Veg Plots Monitoring Cross Sections (DISCLAIMER) 1240 1240 12571240 1260 1240 1256 1261 1240 1258 1263 181 Table Rock Irish Si m pson Creek R o s e C r e e k R ussell Irish IrishCreek N ati o n al Forest Rd. F orest Rd . National St.Sis k FishHatchery Rd. Rose Cr ee k Rd. 181 Creek NATIONAL FOREST RD .25 2.59 0 0 0 PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) STATE N.C.1 GRAPHIC SCALES PLANS PROFILE (VERTICAL) LOCATION: TYPE OF WORK: 0 00 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 . . . \ Y e a r 7 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 1 . d g n $ $ $ $ U S E R N A M E $ $ $ $ C O N T R A C T : 50 25 50 100 10 5 10 20 20 10 20 40 VICINITY MAP Prepared in the Office of:DESIGN DATA 2 BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT) DRAINAGE AREA (MI ) WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO MAX DEPTH (FT) BANKFULL WIDTH (FT) BANKFULL AREA (FT ) DESIGN STREAM TYPE 2 CROSS-SECTIONED = = = = = = = = = PROJECT LENGTH » » PROJECT MANAGER FT SHEET NO. 2 BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT) DRAINAGE AREA (MI ) WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO MAX DEPTH (FT) BANKFULL WIDTH (FT) BANKFULL AREA (FT ) DESIGN STREAM TYPE 2 CROSS-SECTIONED = = = = = = = 2 BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT) DRAINAGE AREA (MI ) WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO MAX DEPTH (FT) BANKFULL WIDTH (FT) BANKFULL AREA (FT ) DESIGN STREAM TYPE 2 CROSS-SECTIONED = = = = = = = R O S E S C R E E K ROSES CREEK ROSES CREEK BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA FOREST PISGAH NATIONAL Fish Hatchery Tablerock State LAT: 35 51' 01" N LONG: -81 49' 11" W 0.0021 0.02 13.1 0.63 5.5 2.6 C5 0.0021 0.07 13.0 0.58 5.0 2.1 C5 FT FT FT 930.38 D M S P R O J E C T # : 9 6 3 0 9 UT 2 UT 3 2 BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT) DRAINAGE AREA (MI ) WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO MAX DEPTH (FT) BANKFULL WIDTH (FT) BANKFULL AREA (FT ) DESIGN STREAM TYPE 2 CROSS-SECTIONED = = = = = = = 0.0021 0.06 13.0 0.58 5.0 2.1 C5 UT 1 ROSES CREEK STREAM LENGTH ASBUILT STREAM LENGTH PROPOSED DESIGN = FT FT707.59 = FT FT621.03 UT 1 UT 2 UT 3 627.80 710.07 950.69 3,219.20 3,222.56 0.0062 5.17 14.0 2.72 30.5 66.4 C4 LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL LOCATION CROSS-SECTION FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN ROSES CREEK CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) CREST GAUGE FLOW METER CCPV PLANS - YEAR 7 NC License No: F-0258 Raleigh, NC 27601 Suite 900 555 Fayetteville Street, ICA Engineering, Inc. & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS VICKIE MILLER VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- GRAVEL ROAD EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 TRANSECTS VEGETATION SOIL ROAD PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 10+00 15+00 19+00 10+00 15+ 00 15 + 00 10+00 2 0 + 0 0 25 + 00 3 0 + 0 0 35+00 40+ 00 15+00 10+00 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN UT 3 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN UT 2 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN UT 1 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN ROSES CREEK STA 17+10.07 END UT 2 STA 16+27.80 END UT 3 STA 34+65.21 ROSES CREEK STA 20+50.52 ROSES CREEK STA 11+00.90 ROSES CREEK STA 19+50.69 END UT 1 STA 42+22.56 END ROSES CREEK ( SR 1262) SISK STREET 371 0176600J NO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 3710176600J NO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 3710176600 J NO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 3710176600J NO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 3710176600J NO. SFHA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 371 0 1 7 6 6 0 0 J NO . SF HA (ZON E AE) PER F.I.R .M. MAP 37 1 0 176600 J NO. SFHA (ZON E AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 37 1 0 1 7 6 6 0 0 J NO. SFH A (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP 371 0 1 76 6 0 0 J NO . SF HA (ZONE AE) PER F.I.R.M. MAP X S - 1 XS -2 XS-7 XS-8 XS-9 XS-10 X S-3 XS-4 XS-11 XS-12 XS-5 XS-6 GAUG E CREST F M F M FM VP13 VP14 V P 1 5 V P 1 6 VP 17 VP12 VP11 VP10 VP9 VP8 VP 7 VP5 VP6 VP4 VP3 VP2 VP1 XS-1 15 + 0 0 FM DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 1 7 9 1 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 2 . d g n 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TRE A M RE S TO R A T IO N P R O J E C T RO S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N TY, N O RT H C A R O LIN A ROSES CREEK F l o w D i r e c t i o n Flow Direction U T 1 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN ROSES CREEK STA 19+50.69 END UT 1 STA 11+00.90 ROSES CREEK SEE SHEET 7MATCHLINE UT 1 SEE SHEET 3 MATCHLINE ROSES CREEK INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN LEGEND YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV 2 N C L i c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , I C A E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 1 5 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 19 + 00 10 + 0 0 15 + 0 0 X S - 1 X S - 2 VP4 VP3 SISK STREE T 1 5'' C P P DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 0 3 7 8 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 3 . d g n 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 EEP# 96309 S TRE A M R E S T O RA T IO N P RO J E C T RO S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N T Y , N O RT H C A R O LIN A ROSES CREEK Flow D irection F lo w D ire c ti o n U T 2 02-07-23 3 STA 17+10.07 END UT 2 STA 20+51.69 ROSES CREEK SEE SHEET 8MATCHLINE UT 2 SEE SHEET 2 MATCHLINE ROSES CREEK S E E S H E E T 4 M A T C H L I N E R O S E S C R E E K YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV (SR 126 2 )SISK STREE T INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN N C L i c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , I C A E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7-EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 2 0 + 0 0 GAUGE CREST VP9VP8 VP5 DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 1 7 9 1 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 4 . d g n I C A E n g i n e e r i n g 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 B U R K E C O U N TY, N O RT H C A R O LIN A ROSES CREEK S TR E A M R E S T O RA T IO N P RO J E C T RO S E S C R E E K Flow DirectionSEE SH EE T 3 MA TC H LIN E R O SES C R EE K SE E S HE E T 5 M ATC HLINE R OSES C R E E K 4 YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV N C Lic e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , IC A E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . 08/2021 REMOVED BEAVERDAM 11/2022 REMOVED BEAVERDAM VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7-EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 25+00X S -3 VP11 VP10 DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 0 3 7 8 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 5 . d g n I C A E n g i n e e r i n g 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TR E A M RE S TO R A TIO N P R O J E C T R O S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N TY, N O R TH C A RO LIN A R OS E S C R E E K 5 Flo w Direction Flo w Direction S E E S H E E T 4 M A T C H LI N E R O S E S C R E E K SEE SHEET 6 MATCHLINE ROSES C REEK STA 16+27.80 END UT 3 STA 34+65.21 ROSES CREEK SEE SHEE T 9 MATCHLINE -UT3- YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV GAUGE CREST N C Li c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , I C A E n g i n e e r i n g , In c . 11/2022 REMOVED BEAVERDAM VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 30 + 00 3 5 + 0 0 15 + 00 XS-4 X S - 1 2 F M VP14 VP12 DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 0 3 7 8 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 6 . d g n I C A E n g i n e e r i n g 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TRE A M R E S T O RA T IO N P RO J E C T RO S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N T Y , N O RT H C A R O LIN A R OSES C R EE K 6 MAT C H LIN E R O S E S C R E E K S E E S H E E T 5 Flow D irection STA 42+22.56 END ROSES CREEK YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV GAUGE CREST N C Li c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , IC A E n g i n e e r i n g , In c . AREA UNDERMINE FENCE AREA ENCROACHMENT WASTE CATTLE VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7-EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM DECEMBER 2022) (REPAIRED IN FENCE BREAK LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 40+00 XS-5 X S -6VP15 VP16 VP17 T RAN S E CT- 1 5 0' x 2' VE G 18 '' CPP EXISTING SOIL ROADBED TRANSECT-2 50' x 2' VEG DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 0 3 7 8 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 7 . d g n I C A E n g i n e e r i n g 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TR E A M R E S TO R A TIO N P R O J E C T R O S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N TY, N O R TH C A RO LIN A M A T C H LIN E U T 1 S E E S H E E T 2 7 STA 10+00.00 BEGIN UT 1 YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV GAUGE CREST N C Lic e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , IC A E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 1 0 + 0 0 1 5 + 0 0 XS-7X S - 8 FM V P 2 VP1 DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TR E A M R E S TO R A TIO N P R O J E C T R O S E S C R E E K B U RK E C O U N TY, N O R TH C A RO LIN A 8 Flow Direction BEGIN UT 2 UT 2 SISK FARM RD STA 10+00.00 S E E S H E E T 3 M AT C H LIN E U T 2 YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN N C Li c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , IC A E n g i n e e r i n g , In c . VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE TRANSECT-350' x 2' VEG 15 +00 1 0 + 0 0 X S - 9 X S-10 FM VP7 VP6 DATE: SHEET 2 / 7 / 2 0 2 3 c : \ p w w o r k i n g \ e a s t 0 1 \ d 3 1 0 0 3 7 8 \ R o s e s C r k _ p s h _ 0 9 . d g n I C A E n g i n e e r i n g 0 G R A P H IC S C A LE 2 5 2 5 P LA N S 5 0 02-07-23 EEP# 96309 S TR E A M RE S TO R A TIO N P R O J E C T R O S E S C R E E K B U R K E C O U N TY, N O R TH C A RO LIN A 9 Flow Direction BEGIN UT 3 UT 3 STA 10+00.00 YEAR 7 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV) YEAR 7 CCPV M A T C H L I N E S E E S H E E T 5 N C Li c e n s e N o : F - 0 2 5 8 R a l e i g h , N C 2 7 6 0 1 S u i t e 9 0 0 5 5 5 F a y e t t e v i l l e S t r e e t , IC A E n g i n e e r i n g , In c . VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS POPULATION INVASIVE BANK/BED CONDITION CRITERIA MET CRITERIA UNMET YEAR 7 CONDITIONS VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS MY 7- EROSION MINOR BEAVERDAM LEGEND EASEMENT CONSERVATION THALWEG BANKFULL EPHEMERAL POOL & STATIONING ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS 15 + 0 0 GRAVEL ROAD SOIL ROAD LOCATION CROSS-SECTIONXS-1 FENCE WETLANDS EXISTING CREST GAUGE FLOW METERFM POWERLINE RELOCATED EXISTING CROSS VANE ROCK ROCK L-VANE CLASS B RIP RAP STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BOULDERS STRUCTURE w/ ROCK STEP BRUSH TOE TRANSECTS VEGETATION CROSS VANE ROCK / LOG INTERCEPTOR FLOODPLAIN VEG PLOT 5' x 10' AND DIRECTION PHOTO POINT VEG PLOT 10' x 10' PROPERTY LINE EXISTING POWERLINE REMOVED POWERLINE 1 0 + 0 0 X S -1 1 VP13 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 28 Figures 3.1 - 3.34. Vegetation Plot and Site Photos 3.1 Vegetation Plot 1 3.2 Vegetation Plot 2 3.3 Vegetation Plot 3 3.4 Vegetation Plot 4 3.5 Vegetation Plot 5 3.6 Vegetation Plot 6 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 29 3.7 Vegetation Plot 7 3.8 Vegetation Plot 8 3.9 Vegetation Plot 9 3.10 Vegetation Plot 10 3.11 Vegetation Plot 11 3.12 Vegetation Plot 12 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 30 3.13 Vegetation Plot 13 3.14 Vegetation Plot 14 3.15 Vegetation Plot 15 3.16 Vegetation Plot 16 3.17 Vegetation Plot 17 3.18 Upper beaver dam station 29+25 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 31 3.19 Lower beaver dam station 32+50 3.20 Invasive treatment results at UT1 3.21 Mimosa tree removal at UT1 3.22 Invasive treatment results at UT2 3.23 Upper reach UT1, downstream 3.24 Upper reach UT2, downstream March 2022 March 2022 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 32 3.25 UT 3, view upstream 3.26 Fence opening nearby by Roses Creek December 2022 Station 36+50 3.27 Fence repair nearby Roses Creek 3.28 UT 1 Powerline relocation Station 36+50, December 2022 October 2022 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 33 3.29 UT1 upper reach aerial (March 3, 2022) 3.30 UT1 lower reach aerial (March 3, 2022) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 34 3.31 Pond above UT1 aerial (March 3, 2022) 3.32 UT2 drone aerial (March 3, 2022) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 35 3.33 UT3 drone aerial, view 1 (March 3, 2022) 3.34 UT3 drone aerial, view 2 (March 3, 2022) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 36 Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek Table 7a: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 2 5 Aesculus glabra buckeye Tree 1 Alnus incana gray alder Tree 5 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 2 2 2 Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 16 20 1 1 315 Carya hickory Tree Carya glabra pignut hickory Tree 2 2 3 1 1 1 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood Tree Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 5 1 1 4 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 4 4 6 2 2 2 4 4 7 1 1 1 2 Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 20 Fraxinus nigra black ash Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 6 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 7 2 2 2 Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar Tree 1 Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Shrub Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 3 10 7 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 7 7 13 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Populus heterophylla swamp cottonwood Tree Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 1 1 Prunus serotina var. serotina black cherry Tree Quercus alba white oak Tree 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 6 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree Rosa multiflora multiflora rose Exotic Salix nigra black willow Tree 18 1 1 1 Tilia americana Basswood Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 6 6 37 7 7 15 8 8 22 11 11 39 10 10 25 6 6 12 11 11 18 12 12 39 7 7 32 8 8 35 8 8 323 4 4 7 4 4 7 5 5 8 3 3 8 4 4 6 2 2 5 5 5 8 5 5 6 3 3 8 4 4 7 5 5 6 243 243 1497 283 283 607 324 324 890 445 445 1578 405 405 1012 243 243 486 445 445 728 486 486 1578 283 283 1295 324 324 1416 324 324 13071 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Volunteers included Common Name Species Type WFW-0001 WFW-0002 WFW-0003 WFW-0011 Stem count size (ares)1 1 1 1 1 1 WFW-0004 WFW-0005 WFW-0006 WFW-0007 WFW-0008 WFW-0009 Scientific Name 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 WFW-0010 0.02 Species count Stems per ACRE Current Plot Data (MY7 2022) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 1 1 1 1 size (ACRES) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek Table 7b: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Acer rubrum red maple Tree 6 Aesculus glabra buckeye Tree 1 Alnus incana gray alder Tree 5 1 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 5 2 2 2 3 3 6 2 2 21 2 2 12 Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 151 1 1 4 250 200 60 1 1 103 2 1 1 51 12 12 1138 12 12 586 13 13 384 8 8 151 19 19 19 26 26 26 Carya hickory Tree 1 1 1 1 1 3 Carya glabra pignut hickory Tree 1 3 3 5 1 1 3 2 2 2 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 2 2 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 23 23 43 19 19 33 28 28 38 26 26 26 35 35 35 54 54 54 Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 20 27 20 22 Fraxinus nigra black ash Tree 2 2 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 3 3 3 6 6 7 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 7 7 7 41 41 52 36 36 50 40 40 52 35 35 38 56 56 56 74 74 74 Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar Tree 1 Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Shrub 5 5 1 1 2 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 1 1 1 1 21 9 2 3 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 15 15 23 14 14 18 15 15 17 6 6 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 6 6 44 44 59 42 42 62 40 40 83 31 31 42 49 49 49 59 59 59 Populus heterophylla swamp cottonwood Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Prunus serotina var. serotina black cherry Tree 1 Quercus alba white oak Tree 1 3 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 47 47 47 68 68 68 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 6 2 1 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 Rosa multiflora multiflora rose Exotic 3 Salix nigra black willow Tree 6 42 1 1 13 6 1 1 82 3 1 1 19 1 1 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 Tilia americana Basswood Tree 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 4 4 4 7 7 7 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 3 3 8 2 2 2 7 7 166 12 12 23 7 7 300 8 8 211 8 8 80 8 8 113 12 12 12 6 6 19 20 20 70 144 144 1490 135 135 819 149 149 651 119 119 320 242 242 242 326 326 326 4 4 5 4 4 7 3 3 6 4 4 6 5 5 7 5 5 6 5 5 5 3 3 6 6 6 6 12 12 26 12 12 22 14 14 18 13 13 15 13 13 13 13 13 13 283 283 6718 486 486 931 283 283 12141 324 324 8539 324 324 3237 324 324 4573 486 486 486 243 243 769 809 809 2833 343 343 3547 321 321 1950 355 355 1550 283 283 762 576 576 576 776 776 776 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% 0.02 0.02 0.02 Transect-1 Transect-2 Transect-3 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE Current Plot Data (MY7 2022) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY0 (2016)WFW-0012 WFW-0013 WFW-0014 WFW-0015 WFW-0016 WFW-0017 MY5 (2020)MY3 (2018)MY2 (2017)MY1 (2016)MY7 (2022) 17 17 1711111111 17 17 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 1 17 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek Table 7c. Stems Per Plot Across All Years Plot Planted Stems Planted Stems/ac Total Stems Total Stems/ac Planted Stems Planted Stems/ac Total Stems Total Stems/ac Planted Stems Planted Stems/ac Total Stems Total Stems/ac Planted Stems Planted Stems/ac Total Stems Total Stems/ac Planted Stems Planted Stems/ac Total Stems Total Stems/ac 1 13 526 13 526 0 0 20 809 9 364 30 1214 6 243 42 1700 6 243 37 1497 2 11 445 11 445 1 40 2 81 7 283 7 283 6 243 11 445 7 283 15 607 3 12 486 12 486 7 283 8 324 8 324 8 324 10 405 20 809 8 324 22 890 4 17 688 17 688 12 486 14 567 11 445 14 567 11 445 17 688 11 445 38 1538 5 14 567 14 567 9 364 15 607 10 405 17 688 10 405 18 728 10 405 25 1012 6 20 809 20 809 7 283 7 283 8 324 17 688 8 324 16 647 6 243 12 486 7 13 526 13 526 6 243 8 324 11 445 17 688 11 445 18 728 11 445 18 728 8 19 769 19 769 11 445 11 445 12 486 27 1093 12 486 19 769 12 486 39 1578 9 17 688 17 688 7 283 38 1538 9 364 48 1942 7 283 15 607 9 364 34 1376 10 11 445 11 445 3 121 4 162 9 364 31 1255 8 324 19 769 8 324 35 1416 11 18 728 68 2752 11 445 31 1255 10 405 29 1174 6 243 107 4330 9 364 326 13193 12 12 486 12 486 5 202 27 1093 7 283 54 2185 5 202 109 4411 7 283 161 6515 13 13 526 13 526 13 526 15 607 13 526 17 688 13 526 21 850 12 486 23 931 14 15 607 15 607 3 121 25 1012 7 283 33 1335 7 283 109 4411 7 283 300 12141 15 12 486 32 1295 8 324 30 1214 7 283 31 1255 4 162 107 4330 11 445 214 8660 16 14 567 14 567 9 364 36 1457 9 364 29 1174 3 121 107 4330 8 324 80 3237 17 12 486 12 486 7 283 29 1174 8 324 29 1174 8 324 64 2590 8 324 113 4573 AVG 14 578.5 18.4 745.1 7.0 283.3 18.8 761.8 9.1 369.0 25.8 1042.7 7.9 321.4 48.2 1949.6 8.8 357.1 87.8 3551.7 Stems per plot across all years MY1 (2016)MY2 (2017)MY3 (2018)MY5 (2020)MY7 (2022) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek Table 7d. Tree Height by Vegetation Plot Plot Trees/Shrubs Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7 Plot 8 Plot 9 Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12 Plot 13 Plot 14 Plot 15 Plot 16 Plot 17 1 206 290 380 190 210 190 310 400 400 400 530 400 190 320 190 480 350 2 340 230 240 93 300 220 680 350 460 280 300 400 380 610 110 290 560 3 240 190 270 100 500 140 390 330 230 400 230 350 180 450 160 200 260 4 400 320 310 170 460 270 580 300 400 100 210 400 360 500 160 360 460 5 330 230 370 190 440 280 280 480 46 330 380 350 650 300 160 180 6 580 300 500 300 380 190 330 400 270 240 30 250 260 230 80 330 7 390 170 170 640 370 500 400 400 90 350 380 250 150 260 8 560 150 400 160 340 400 570 300 9 150 450 230 280 150 10 105 340 350 500 160 11 20 390 490 420 12 360 700 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Av. height by plot (cm) 349.3 278.6 350.0 148.9 412.0 215.0 370.0 394.2 315.1 318.8 252.9 357.1 366.7 380.0 144.3 332.5 337.5 Av. height by plot (ft) 11.5 9.1 11.5 4.9 13.5 7.05 12.1 12.9 10.3 10.5 8.3 11.7 12.0 12.5 4.7 10.9 11.1 Av. height across plots (ft) Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Planted Tree/Shrub Height (cm) 10.3 Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 41 Appendix D. Stream Survey Data Figures 4.1 – 4.12. Cross Section Plots River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 33.80 31.10 30.73 29.98 29.94 30.76 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 2.00 2.20 2.19 2.18 2.02 2.21 2.81 2.89 3.01 3.35 3.47 3.40 67.70 68.28 67.22 65.27 60.43 68.06 16.90 14.14 14.03 13.75 14.82 13.90 15.04 16.35 16.54 16.96 16.98 16.53 --- --- --- 3.44 3.6 3.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 >1 0.93 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. TC, WY Dimension and substrate Catawba 03050101060030 XS 1 (Roses Creek) Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3,309 3/3/2022 Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 1233.0 1233.5 1234.0 1234.5 1235.0 1235.5 1236.0 1236.5 1237.0 1237.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-1 Riffle (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 38.53 37.04 39.49 30.03 25.64 24.84 1.73 1.75 1.65 1.96 2.24 2.52 3.47 3.80 4.05 4.02 4.32 4.45 66.48 64.97 65.02 58.79 57.56 62.53 Cross Section 2 (Pool) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Catawba 03050101060030 XS 2 (Roses Creek) 3,309 3/3/2022 TC, WY 1231.0 1232.0 1233.0 1234.0 1235.0 1236.0 1237.0 1238.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-2 Pool (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 32.44 31.58 32.26 32.20 32.28 30.61 2.19 2.32 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.95 4.10 3.99 4.09 4.13 4.68 4.49 71.10 73.39 66.76 65.48 64.54 59.61 Cross Section 3 (Pool) Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio TC, WY Dimension and substrate Catawba 03050101060030 XS 3 (Roses Creek) 3,309 3/3/2022 1217.0 1218.0 1219.0 1220.0 1221.0 1222.0 1223.0 1224.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-3 Pool (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 31.11 31.66 31.03 32.35 32.12 33.04 696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 2.19 2.16 2.08 2.12 2.63 2.47 2.89 3.03 2.80 3.20 4.37 4.20 68.21 68.41 64.61 71.47 84.41 81.58 14.21 14.66 14.92 14.64 12.21 13.38 22.37 21.98 22.43 21.51 21.67 21.07 --- --- --- 3.38 4.42 4.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.15 0.97 **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* Catawba 03050101060030 XS 4 (Roses Creek) 3,309 3/3/2022 TC, WY * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. Dimension and substrate Cross Section 4 (Riffle) 1216.0 1217.0 1218.0 1219.0 1220.0 1221.0 1222.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-4 Riffle (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/26/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 Series7 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 32.56 32.99 34.06 36.04 30.66 32.81 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 2.13 2.25 2.22 2.37 1.90 1.82 3.16 3.23 3.29 3.73 2.80 2.89 69.41 74.12 75.52 85.30 58.11 59.80 15.29 14.66 15.34 15.21 16.14 18.00 17.31 17.08 16.55 15.64 18.38 17.18 --- --- --- 3.69 2.80 2.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 <1 1.00 **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Dimension and substrate Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. Catawba Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* 03050101060030 XS 5 (Roses Creek) 3,309 3/3/2022 TC, WY Cross Section 5 (Riffle) 1212.0 1213.0 1214.0 1215.0 1216.0 1217.0 1218.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-5 Riffle (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 31.02 31.30 30.99 29.70 29.46 32.76 2.37 2.23 2.32 2.69 2.56 2.18 4.07 3.98 4.11 4.36 4.37 4.34 73.63 69.77 71.83 80.01 75.54 71.40 Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Cross Section 6 (Pool) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Catawba 03050101060030 TC, WY 3/3/2022 3,309 XS 6 (Roses Creek) 1211.0 1212.0 1213.0 1214.0 1215.0 1216.0 1217.0 1218.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-6 Pool (Roses Creek) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 5.12 4.46 5.31 5.01 4.66 5.23 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.36 0.21 0.48 0.78 0.59 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.66 2.30 1.82 1.86 1.78 0.96 2.52 11.38 10.88 15.17 13.92 22.19 10.86 17.93 20.58 17.29 18.32 19.70 17.55 --- --- --- 0.57 0.53 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 <1 0.65 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Cross Section 7 (Riffle) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) XS 7 (UT 1) 03050101060030 Catawba Bankfull Width (ft) TC, WY 3/3/2022 38.40 Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* 1263.5 1264.0 1264.5 1265.0 1265.5 1266.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-7 Riffle (UT 1) Baseline - 5/25/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 6.24 7.07 6.80 7.49 6.30 8.45 0.58 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.96 0.77 0.81 0.71 0.70 0.81 3.64 3.10 3.23 3.12 2.50 3.11 Cross Section 8 (Pool) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio Catawba 03050101060030 XS 8 (UT 1) 3/3/2022 TC, WY 38.40 1261.5 1262.0 1262.5 1263.0 1263.5 1264.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-8 Pool (UT 1) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 5.56 6.43 5.69 5.53 2.37 2.57 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.49 0.53 0.16 0.86 0.72 0.63 1.12 0.73 0.35 2.07 1.97 1.90 2.73 1.26 0.41 Cross Section 9 (Pool) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Width (ft) Catawba 03050101060030 XS 9 (UT 2) 44.80 3/3/2022 TC, WY Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio 1239.2 1239.4 1239.6 1239.8 1240.0 1240.2 1240.4 1240.6 1240.8 1241.0 1241.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-9 Pool (UT 2) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Catawba Watershed 03050101060030 XS ID XS 10 (UT 2) Drainage Area (Acres)44.80 Date 3/3/2022 Field Crew TC, WY Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 6.70 7.10 6.79 7.38 5.32 4.81 93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 0.42 0.38 0.32 0.39 0.25 0.36 0.77 0.74 0.64 0.84 0.70 0.69 2.79 2.69 2.17 2.88 1.35 1.74 16.75 18.68 21.22 18.92 21.28 13.28 13.93 13.14 13.75 12.65 17.55 19.41 --- --- --- 0.83 0.87 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 >1 0.91 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* Cross Section 10 (Riffle) Dimension and substrate* Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 1236.2 1236.4 1236.6 1236.8 1237.0 1237.2 1237.4 1237.6 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-10 Riffle (UT 2) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7** 6.00 7.28 5.38 6.73 7.22 5.11 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.4 0.36 0.21 0.37 0.24 0.3 0.13 0.69 0.46 0.65 0.57 0.76 0.57 2.19 1.51 2.01 1.62 2.18 0.69 16.67 34.67 14.54 28.04 24.07 106.7 29.24 24.09 32.60 26.06 24.3 34.34 --- --- --- 0.50 0.85 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 1.12 1.03 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Cross Section 11 (Riffle) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Width (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio* Catawba TC, WY 3/3/2022 12.80 XS 11 (UT 3) 03050101060030 1220.0 1220.5 1221.0 1221.5 1222.0 1222.5 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-11 Riffle (UT 3) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/3/2022 River Basin Watershed XS ID Drainage Area (Acres) Date Field Crew Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 6.39 7.93 7.52 7.99 6.50 5.65 0.56 0.46 0.45 0.40 0.43 0.34 0.90 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.68 0.65 3.55 3.61 3.40 3.23 2.78 1.93 Cross Section 12 (Pool) Dimension and substrate Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Catawba 03050101060030 XS 12 (UT 3) 12.80 3/3/2022 Bankfull Width (ft) TC, WY Low Bank Height (ft) Bank Height Ratio 1219.0 1219.2 1219.4 1219.6 1219.8 1220.0 1220.2 1220.4 1220.6 1220.8 1221.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Distance (ft) XS-12 Pool (UT 3) Baseline - 5/17/2016 Bankfull MY1 - 11/22/2016 MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018 MY5 - 2/17/2020 MY7 - 3/4/2022 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Design Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Mean Mean Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft)41.10 30.50 31.02 31.98 31.11 33.80 1.58 3.00 Floodprone Width (ft)78.90 480.00 394.24 524.76 508.32 671.72 139.47 3.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.67 2.18 2.00 2.19 2.19 2.37 0.19 3.00 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.92 2.72 2.81 3.26 2.89 4.07 0.71 3.00 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)68.83 66.40 67.70 69.85 68.21 73.63 3.29 3.00 Width/Depth Ratio 24.60 14.00 13.09 14.73 14.21 16.90 1.96 3.00 Entrenchment Ratio 1.92 15.70 12.67 16.45 15.04 21.65 4.65 3.00 Bank Height Ratio 1.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 d50 (mm)61.30 61.30 Riffle Length (ft)37.17 64.41 58.40 106.19 18.18 23.00 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 23.00 Pool Length (ft)17.36 53.01 54.24 93.29 20.18 26.00 Pool Max depth (ft)4.13 4.36 3.31 4.50 4.43 6.20 0.80 26.00 Pool Spacing (ft)37.00 - 171.00 2.0 - 7.5 86.78 130.47 130.18 210.45 35.20 25.00 Pool Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Channel Beltwidth (ft)73.00 - 152.00 61.0 - 195.2 Radius of Curvature (ft)28 - 168 61.0 - 91.5 Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)0.7 - 4.1 2.0 - 3.0 Meander Wavelength (ft)200 - 375 61.0 - 344.0 Meander Width Ratio 1.78 - 3.70 2.0 - 6.4 Ri% / P% SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95/ dip / disp (mm) Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 3.83 3.83 Drainage Area (SM)5.17 5.17 Impervious cover estimate (%) Rosgen Classification B4 C4 Bankfull Velocity (fps)4.80 Bankfull Discharge (cfs)300.00 300.00 Valley length (ft)2894.00 2894.00 Channel Thalweg length (ft)3425.00 3219.00 Sinuosity (ft)1.18 1.11 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)0.0099 0.0062 BF slope (ft/ft)0.0062 Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) Proportion over wide (%) Entrenchment Class (ER Range) Incision Class (BHR Range) BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 30.0 - 195.0 30.0 - 178.0 1.0 - 5.8 0.02 30.50 250.00 1.88 2.71 57.40 16.20 8.20 1.00 61.30 C4 3219.00 1.11 2894.00 60 - 344 1.0 - 6.4 Substrate, bed and transport parameters Additional Reach Parameters 35% / 65% As-built/Baseline Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Roses Creek Mitigation Site Roses Creek: 3,200 Lf. Regional Curve Reference - Roses Creek Upstream Profile Pattern Mean 76.9 - 227.9 4.70 Eq. Mountains Eq. Piedmont 35.00 26.20 3.83 4.66 5.10 C4 1.11 0.0192 295.00 0.0059 0.0059 1.80 2.60 66.00 66.10 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Design Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Mean Mean Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft)6.00 5.00 5.12 5.12 5.12 5.12 0.00 1.00 Floodprone Width (ft)8.40 60.00 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.23 0.38 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.36 0.58 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)1.39 2.10 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 0.00 1.00 Width/Depth Ratio 26.20 13.00 11.38 11.38 11.38 11.38 0.00 1.00 Entrenchment Ratio 1.40 12.00 17.93 17.93 17.93 17.93 0.00 1.00 Bank Height Ratio 6.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 d50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)7.20 10.60 9.60 17.00 2.91 12.00 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0260 0.0021 - 0.0029 0.0201 0.0265 0.0213 0.0799 0.0210 12.00 Pool Length (ft)3.60 11.89 9.80 37.39 9.23 11.00 Pool Max depth (ft)Channelized 0.77 0.49 0.73 0.77 0.96 0.19 11.00 Pool Spacing (ft)Channelized 10.0 - 30.0 18.40 24.04 20.90 45.59 8.03 10.00 Pool Cross Sectional Area (ft 2) Channel Beltwidth (ft)Channelized 10.00 - 30.00 Radius of Curvature (ft)Channelized 12.00 - 15.00 Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)Channelized 2.40 - 3.00 Meander Wavelength (ft)Channelized 20.0 - 55.0 Meander Width Ratio Channelized 2.00 - 6.00 Ri% / P% SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95/ di p / disp (mm) Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.07 0.07 Drainage Area (SM)0.06 0.06 Impervious cover estimate (%) Rosgen Classification F5 C5 Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.10 Bankfull Discharge (cfs)2.4 2.40 Valley length (ft)199.00 199.00 Channel Thalweg length (ft)199.00 234.00 Sinuosity (ft)1.00 1.18 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)0.0260 0.0021 BF slope (ft/ft)0.0021 Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) Proportion over wide (%) Entrenchment Class (ER Range) Incision Class (BHR Range) BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 0.50 0.70 3.20 3.30 3.00 0.0027 0.0027 0.07 0.07 1.30 C5 1.16 0.0033 - 0.0284 As-built/Baseline Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT 1 to Roses Creek: 234 LF Regional Curve Reference - UT West Branch Rocky River Profile Pattern Mean 10.10 - 41.0 1.98 Eq. Mountains Eq. Piedmont 6.70 5.30 C5 234.00 1.18 199.00 45.00 - 66.00 2.74 - 4.11 Substrate, bed and transport parameters Additional Reach Parameters 49% / 51% 12.00 - 18.00 10.00 - 14.00 2.30 - 3.20 0.0033 - 0.0284 4.40 27.50 0.51 1.00 2.30 12.80 6.28 1.00 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Design Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Mean Mean Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft)4.40 5.00 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 0.00 1.00 Floodprone Width (ft)8.10 60.00 32.45 32.45 32.45 32.45 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.95 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.39 0.58 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 1.00 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.16 2.10 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79 0.00 1.00 Width/Depth Ratio 4.60 13.00 15.95 15.95 15.95 15.95 0.00 1.00 Entrenchment Ratio 1.84 12.00 4.84 4.84 4.84 4.84 0.00 1.00 Bank Height Ratio 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 d50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)4.27 13.94 13.33 31.46 6.12 23.00 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0260 0.0021 - 0.0030 0.0020 0.0025 0.0025 0.0038 0.0006 23.00 Pool Length (ft)3.73 10.18 8.00 27.19 5.71 24.00 Pool Max depth (ft)Channelized 0.77 0.53 0.96 0.92 1.59 0.24 24.00 Pool Spacing (ft)Channelized 10.0 - 30.00 7.46 25.57 22.39 57.59 11.77 23.00 Pool Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Channel Beltwidth (ft)Channelized 13.70 - 30.00 Radius of Curvature (ft)Channelized 12.00 - 16.00 Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)Channelized 2.40 - 3.20 Meander Wavelength (ft)Channelized 20.00 - 75.50 Meander Width Ratio Channelized 2.70 - 6.00 Ri% / P% SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95/ dip / disp (mm) Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.89 0.06 Drainage Area (SM)0.07 0.07 Impervious cover estimate (%) Rosgen Classification G5 C5 Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.10 Bankfull Discharge (cfs)2.40 2.40 Valley length (ft)575.00 575.00 Channel Thalweg length (ft)575.00 707.00 Sinuosity (ft)1.00 1.99 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)0.0260 0.0021 BF slope (ft/ft)0.0021 Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) Proportion over wide (%) Entrenchment Class (ER Range) Incision Class (BHR Range) BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 0.50 0.80 3.50 3.70 12.00 - 18.00 10.00 - 14.00 2.30 - 3.20 0.0033 - 0.0284 4.40 27.50 0.51 1.00 2.30 12.80 6.28 1.00 C5 707.00 1.23 575.00 45.00 - 66.00 2.74 - 4.11 Substrate, bed and transport parameters Additional Reach Parameters 58% / 42% As-built/Baseline Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT 2 to Roses Creek: 707 LF Regional Curve Reference - UT West Branch Rocky River Profile Pattern Mean 10.10 - 41.00 1.98 Mountains Eq.Piedmont Eq. 7.10 5.60 0.06 0.07 1.30 C5 1.16 0.0033 - 0.0284 3.00 0.0023 0.0023 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Design Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Mean Mean Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft)5.00 5.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 1 Floodprone Width (ft)44.13 70.00 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 0.00 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.26 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.00 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.70 0.63 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.00 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.40 2.60 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 0.00 1 Width/Depth Ratio 12.23 13.10 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67 0.00 1 Entrenchment Ratio 9.52 12.70 29.24 29.24 29.24 29.24 0.00 1 Bank Height Ratio 3.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 d50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)4.0 13.7 11.1 46.1 9.2 20 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0295 0.0029 - 0.0045 0.0025 0.0030 0.0030 0.0035 0.0004 20 Pool Length (ft)3.2 12.1 8.1 34.6 9.0 20 Pool Max depth (ft)Channelized 0.84 0.76 1.49 1.29 2.61 0.61 20 Pool Spacing (ft)Channelized 12.7 - 51.70 10.3 25.0 25.8 45.3 9.4 19 Pool Cross Sectional Area (ft2) Channel Beltwidth (ft)Channelized 15.10 - 49.50 Radius of Curvature (ft)Channelized 12.70 - 17.60 Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)Channelized 2.30 - 3.20 Meander Wavelength (ft)Channelized 15.10 - 83.10 Meander Width Ratio Channelized 2.70 - 9.00 Ri% / P% SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95/ dip / disp (mm) Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.09 0.08 Drainage Area (SM)0.02 0.02 Impervious cover estimate (%) Rosgen Classification B5 C5 Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.00 Bankfull Discharge (cfs)2.6 2.6 Valley length (ft)422 422 Channel Thalweg length (ft)422 620 Sinuosity (ft)1.00 1.47 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)0.0268 0.0025 BF slope (ft/ft)0.0025 Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) Proportion over wide (%) Entrenchment Class (ER Range) Incision Class (BHR Range) BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E% Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other 12.00 - 18.00 10.00 - 14.00 2.30 - 3.20 0.0033 - 0.0284 4.40 27.50 0.51 1.00 2.30 12.80 6.28 1.00 C5 620 1.47 422 45.00 - 66.00 2.74 - 4.11 Substrate, bed and transport parameters Additional Reach Parameters 53% / 47% As-built/Baseline Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT 3 to Roses Creek: 620 LF Regional Curve Reference - UT West Branch Rocky River Profile Pattern Mean 10.10 - 41.00 1.98 Mountains Eq.Piedmont Eq. 4.50 3.50 0.08 0.07 1.30 C5 1.16 0.0033 - 0.0284 3.0 0.0037 0.0037 0.30 0.30 1.50 1.60 Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 33.80 31.10 30.73 29.98 29.94 30.76 38.53 37.04 39.49 30.03 25.64 24.84 Floodprone Width (ft) 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 508.32 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.00 2.20 2.19 2.18 2.02 2.21 1.73 1.75 1.65 1.96 2.24 2.52 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.81 2.89 3.01 3.35 3.47 3.40 3.47 3.80 4.05 4.02 4.32 4.45 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)67.70 68.28 67.22 65.27 60.43 68.06 66.48 64.97 65.02 58.79 57.56 62.53 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.90 14.14 14.03 13.75 14.82 13.90 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 15.04 16.35 16.54 16.96 16.98 16.53 Low Bank Height (ft)3.44 3.60 3.15 Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 >1 0.93 Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 32.44 31.58 32.26 32.20 32.28 30.61 31.11 31.66 31.03 32.35 32.12 33.04 Floodprone Width (ft)696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 696.00 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.19 2.32 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.95 2.19 2.16 2.08 2.12 2.63 2.47 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 4.10 3.99 4.09 4.13 4.68 4.49 2.89 3.03 2.80 3.20 4.37 4.20 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)71.10 73.39 66.76 65.48 64.54 59.61 68.21 68.41 64.61 71.47 84.41 81.58 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.21 14.66 14.92 14.64 12.21 13.38 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 22.37 21.98 22.43 21.51 21.67 21.07 Low Bank Height (ft)3.38 4.42 4.10 Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.15 0.97 Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 32.56 32.99 34.06 36.04 30.66 32.81 31.02 31.30 30.99 29.70 29.46 32.76 Floodprone Width (ft) 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 563.60 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.13 2.25 2.22 2.37 1.90 1.82 2.37 2.23 2.32 2.69 2.56 2.18 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.16 3.23 3.29 3.73 2.80 2.89 4.07 3.98 4.11 4.36 4.37 4.34 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)69.41 74.12 75.52 85.30 58.11 59.80 73.63 69.77 71.83 80.01 75.54 71.40 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.29 14.66 15.34 15.21 16.14 18.00 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.31 17.08 16.55 15.64 18.38 17.18 Low Bank Height (ft)3.69 2.80 2.89 Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 <1 1.00 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Cross Section 5 (Riffle)Cross Section 6 (Pool) Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section) Roses Creek Mitigation Site Roses Creek: 3,200 LF Cross Section 3 (Pool)Cross Section 4 (Riffle) Cross Section 1 (Riffle)Cross Section 2 (Pool) Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 5.12 4.46 5.31 5.01 5.38 5.23 6.24 7.07 6.80 7.49 6.30 8.45 Floodprone Width (ft) 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 91.80 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.45 0.41 0.35 0.36 0.26 0.48 0.58 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.37 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.78 0.59 0.61 0.62 0.74 0.66 0.96 0.77 0.81 0.71 0.70 0.81 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.30 1.82 1.86 1.78 1.40 2.52 3.64 3.10 3.23 3.12 2.50 3.11 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.38 10.88 15.17 13.92 20.69 10.86 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.93 20.58 17.29 18.32 17.05 17.55 Low Bank Height (ft)0.57 0.79 0.43 Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 <1 0.65 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Table 9a. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section) Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT 1 Roses Creek: 234 LF Cross Section 7 (Riffle)Cross Section 8 (Pool) Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 5.56 6.43 5.69 5.53 2.37 2.57 6.70 7.10 6.79 7.38 5.18 4.81 Floodprone Width (ft)93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 93.36 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.49 0.53 0.16 0.42 0.38 0.32 0.39 0.24 0.36 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.86 0.72 0.63 1.12 0.73 0.35 0.77 0.74 0.64 0.84 0.66 0.69 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.07 1.97 1.90 2.73 1.26 0.41 2.79 2.69 2.17 2.88 1.23 1.74 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.75 18.68 21.22 18.92 21.58 13.28 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 13.93 13.14 13.75 12.65 18.03 19.41 Low Bank Height (ft)0.83 0.69 0.63 Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 >1 0.91 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Table 9b. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section) Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT2 Roses Creek: 707 LF Cross Section 9 (Pool)Cross Section 10 (Riffle) Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7** Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Bankfull Width (ft) 6.00 7.28 5.38 6.73 7.22 5.11 6.39 7.93 7.52 7.99 6.50 5.65 Floodprone Width (ft) 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 175.41 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.36 0.21 0.37 0.24 0.30 0.13 0.56 0.46 0.45 0.40 0.43 0.34 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.69 0.46 0.65 0.57 0.76 0.57 0.90 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.68 0.65 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.19 1.51 2.01 1.62 2.18 0.69 3.55 3.61 3.40 3.23 2.78 1.93 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.67 34.67 14.54 28.04 24.07 106.70 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 29.24 24.09 32.60 26.06 24.30 34.34 Low Bank Height (ft)0.5 0.85 0.58 Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 <1 1.12 1.03 * Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as-built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel. **Updated bankfull elevation used in MY7. Also updated method used for bank height ratio (BHR) in MY7. Table 9c. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section) Roses Creek Mitigation Site UT3 Roses Creek: 620 LF Cross Section 11 (Riffle)Cross Section 12 (Pool) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 62 Appendix E. Hydrologic Data DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 63 Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events Date Crest Gauge Info Gauge Reading (ft) Gauge Elevatio n (ft) Crest Elevation (ft) Bankfull Elevation (ft) Height above Bankfull (ft) Photo Site Sta. 10/5/2016 1 Roses Creek Lower 0.00 1212.11 N/A 1213.93 N/A 5.1 10/5/2016 2 UT 1 0.00 1267.45 N/A 1267.95 N/A 5.2 10/5/2016 3 UT 2 0.35 1227.81 1228.16 1228.19 N/A 5.3 10/5/2016 4 UT 3 0.25 1216.94 1217.19 1217.36 N/A 5.4 11/22/2016 1 Roses Creek Lower 0.00 1212.11 N/A 1213.93 N/A 5.5 11/22/2016 2 UT 1 0.00 1267.45 N/A 1267.95 N/A 5.6 11/22/2016 3 UT 2 0.00 1227.81 N/A 1228.19 N/A 5.7 11/22/2016 4 UT 3 0.35 1216.94 1217.29 1217.36 N/A 5.8 6/2/2017 1 Roses Creek Lower 1.89 1212.11 1214.00 1213.93 0.07 5.9 6/2/2017 2 UT 1 0.80 1267.45 1268.25 1267.95 0.30 5.10 6/2/2017 3 UT 2 1.50 1227.81 1229.31 1228.19 1.12 5.11 6/2/2017 4 UT 3 1.80 1216.94 1218.74 1217.36 1.38 5.12 8/15/2017 1 Roses Creek Lower 0.50 1212.11 1212.61 1213.93 N/A 5.13 8/15/2017 2 UT 1 0.38 1267.45 1267.83 1267.95 N/A 5.14 8/15/2017 3 UT 2 0.85 1227.81 1228.66 1228.19 0.47 5.15 8/15/2017 4 UT 3 1.64 1216.94 1218.58 1217.36 1.22 5.16 3/28/2018 1 Roses Creek Lower 2.83 1212.11 1214.94 1213.93 1.01 5.17 3/28/2018 2 UT 1 0.38 1267.45 1267.83 1267.95 N/A 5.18 3/28/2018 3 UT 2 2.50 1227.81 1230.31 1228.19 2.12 5.19 3/28/2018 4 UT 3 1.38 1216.94 1218.32 1217.36 0.96 5.20 8/6/2018 1 Roses Creek Lower 3.75 1212.11 1215.86 1213.93 1.93 5.21 8/6/2018 2 UT 1 1.13 1267.45 1268.58 1267.95 0.63 5.22 8/6/2018 3 UT 2 2.54 1227.81 1230.35 1228.19 2.16 5.23 8/6/2018 4 UT 3 2.92 1216.94 1219.86 1217.36 2.50 5.24 1/29/2019 1 Roses Creek Lower 2.68 1212.11 1214.79 1213.93 0.86 5.25 1/29/2019 2 UT 1 0.67 1267.45 1268.12 1267.95 0.17 5.26 1/29/2019 3 UT 2 3.83 1227.81 1231.64 1228.19 3.45 5.27 1/29/2019 4 UT 3 3.75 1216.94 1220.69 1217.36 3.33 5.28 All four crest gauges were damaged by insects and have been unreadable since 2020. DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 64 Figure 5.1 – 5.3 Tributary Water Level Gauge Meter Data DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 De p t h ( f t ) Time Figure 5.1 UT 1 Water Level UT1: 20654279 Year 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS 237 days of data 176 days with flow 24 max consecutive days (7/22-8/14) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1/1/2022 1/24/2022 2/13/2022 3/5/2022 3/25/2022 4/14/2022 5/4/2022 5/24/2022 6/17/2022 7/7/2022 7/27/2022 8/16/2022 9/5/2022 9/25/2022 10/15/2022 De p t h ( i n c h e s ) Daily Precipitation - USGS 02111000 YADKIN RIVER AT PATTERSON, NC DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 De p t h ( f t ) Time Figure 5.1 UT 1 Water Level UT1: 20654279 Year 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS 237 days of data 176 days with flow 24 max consecutive days (7/22-8/14) DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 De p t h ( f t ) Time Figure 5.2 UT 2 Water Level UT2: 2065469 Year 7 CONSECUTIVEDAYS 228 days with data 228 days with flow 228 max consecutive days (3/3 ‐10/16) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1/1/2022 1/24/2022 2/13/2022 3/5/2022 3/25/2022 4/14/2022 5/4/2022 5/24/2022 6/17/2022 7/7/2022 7/27/2022 8/16/2022 9/5/2022 9/25/2022 10/15/2022 De p t h ( i n c h e s ) Daily Precipitation - USGS 02111000 YADKIN RIVER AT PATTERSON, NC DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 De p t h ( f t ) Distance (ft) Figure 5.3 UT 3 Water Level Series2 Year 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS 237 days with data 204 days with flow 102 max consecutive days 5/20 - 8/29 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1/1/2022 1/24/2022 2/13/2022 3/5/2022 3/25/2022 4/14/2022 5/4/2022 5/24/2022 6/17/2022 7/7/2022 7/27/2022 8/16/2022 9/5/2022 9/25/2022 10/15/2022 De p t h ( i n c h e s ) Daily Precipitation - USGS 02111000 YADKIN RIVER AT PATTERSON, NC DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 De p t h ( f t ) Distance (ft) Figure 5.3 UT 3 Water Level Series2 Year 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS 237 days with data 204 days with flow 102 max consecutive days 5/20 - 8/29 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 70 Table 11. Tributary Surface Water Summary Tributary Dates Number of Consecutive Days with Flow UT 1 6/25/2016 - 7/27/2016 32 UT 1 2/25/2017 - 5/6/2017 70 UT 1 6/1/2017 - 8/14/2017 74 UT 1 1/12/2018 – 3/1/2018 48 UT 1 5/15/2018 – 8/6/2018 83 UT 1 2/17/2020 – 4/26/2020 69 UT 1 4/27/2020 – 8/10/2020 105 UT 1 3/2/2022- 10/28/2022 24 (176*, 237#) UT 2 6/9/2016 - 1/22/2017 228 UT 2 1/23/2017 - 5/11/2017 108 UT 2 6/1/2017 – 7/26/2017 55 UT 2 8/30/2017 – 10/3/2017 34 UT 2 11/18/2017 – 3/20/2018 122 UT 2 4/19/2018 – 8/6/2018 109 UT 2 1/1/2020 – 2/7/2020 37 UT 2 2/7/2020 – 4/9/2020 62 UT 2 4/29/2020-8/10/2020 103 UT 2 3/2/2022-10/28/2022 236 (236*, 236#) UT 3 2/15/2017 – 5/11/2017 85 UT 3 6/1/2017 – 7/23/2017 52 UT 3 12/14/2017 – 3/1/2018 77 UT 3 4/27/2018 – 7/22/2018 86 UT 3 2/14/2020 – 8/10/2020 169 UT 3 3/2/2022-10/28/2022 102 (204*, 237#) *days with flow, #days of data DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 71 Appendix F. IRT DMS Meeting Minutes (2022) Roses Creek 96309 2021 – MY6 HDR PM: Tsomides 2022: The IRT noted persistent issues on the site including braided channels, beaver dams and cattle encroachment. Based on the provider discussions with the landowner, all fencing on the site has been repaired and no livestock encroachment currently exists. Two cattle “wasting areas” located outside of the conservation easement were discussed. HDR reiterated that no livestock are currently in the conservation easement. HDR will work with the landowner to potentially determine a solution prior to project closeout. A beaver dam was removed in MY6(2021) and no additional beaver issues have been observed on the site. All vegetation plots are currently meeting the success criteria. No random vegetation plots are currently being collected on the site. The IRT recommended 2 random vegetation plots/ transects be conducted in MY7(2022) to confirm vegetative success. An overhead utility line that ran parallel to UT2 was moved during MY6(2021) but a line remains transecting the top of UT1; HDR is still in the process of working with the utility to move the line. UT1 low gauge data could not be collected during MY6(2021) but photos of the flow have been collected. IRT asked about the culvert and upstream pond on UT1; HDR believes the culvert is not clogged. IRT asked that all flow gauge data should be summarized in MY7(2022) for each flow gauge on the site (consecutive days of flow and total days of flow). Invasives on the site were discussed and treatment should be completed through project closeout. A potential “headcut” on UT1 was discussed. HDR does not believe the feature is a headcut and does not plan to repair the area. UT3 was discussed and some of the stream credits are “at risk”. Portions of the reach are braided w/ wetland features observed. DMS (Harry) and HDR (Jessica) do not feel that the credits at risk on the site exceed the requested MY6(2021) credit release request; however, the IRT wants to HOLD all outstanding credit (15%) until after MY7(2022) during the final credit release in 2023. NO CREDIT RELEASE IN 2022. DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 73 Appendix G. USACE Antecedent Precipitation vs. Normal Range Dec 2021 Jan 2022 Feb 2022 Mar 2022 Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 2022 Jul 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Oct 2022 Nov 2022 0 2 4 6 8 10 Ra i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) 2022-06-30 2022-05-31 2022-05-01 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2022-06-30 2.787402 5.740945 2.783465 Dry 1 3 3 2022-05-31 2.155512 4.772441 5.692914 Wet 3 2 6 2022-05-01 2.973622 5.509055 3.212599 Normal 2 1 2 Result Normal Conditions - 11 Coordinates 35.850953, -81.819541 Observation Date 2022-06-30 Elevation (ft)1232.79 Drought Index (PDSI)Incipient drought WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days (Normal)Days (Antecedent) BRIDGEWATER HYDRO 35.7428, -81.8361 1100.066 7.53 132.724 4.388 11217 90 GLEN ALPINE 2.6 W 35.7323, -81.8248 1232.94 8.203 0.15 3.693 1 0 GLEN ALPINE 0.7 WSW 35.7266, -81.7902 1262.139 8.748 29.349 4.193 131 0 MARION 4.7 NE 35.7344, -81.9537 1232.94 11.017 0.15 4.96 1 0 MORGANTON 35.7297, -81.6728 1180.118 11.74 52.672 5.901 3 0 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 75 Appendix H. 2017 Re-planting Zones U T 1 UT 3 Roses Cr e e k U T 2 1.8 ac 1.4 ac 2.1 ac 1 ac 0.9 ac 0.6 ac Roses Creek Replanting Map- 2017 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Figureµ0 325 650 975 1,300 Feet Easement Boundary Restoration Enhancement II Vegetation Plot-Criteria Met No Yes Replant Zone A- 1.8 ac B- 0.9 ac C- 0.6 ac D- 1.4 ac E- 2.1 ac F- 0.9 ac 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina YEAR TWO MONITORING REPORT December 2017 Table 13. Planting List for Zone A Through Zone C Zone A- UT 1 1.8 AC 9 x 9 spacing (542 stems/ac) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 146 River Birch Betula nigra 15 146 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 146 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15 146 White Oak Quercus alba 12 117 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 117 American Elm Ulnus american 6 59 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5 49 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 5 49 TOTAL 975 Zone B- Roses 0.9 AC 10 x 10 spacing (436 stems/ac) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 59 River Birch Betula nigra 15 59 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 59 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15 59 White Oak Quercus alba 12 48 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 48 American Elm Ulnus american 6 24 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5 20 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 5 20 TOTAL 396 Zone C- Roses .6 AC 9 x 9 spacing (542 stems/ac) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 49 River Birch Betula nigra 15 49 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 49 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15 49 White Oak Quercus alba 12 39 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 39 American Elm Ulnus american 6 20 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5 17 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 5 17 TOTAL 328 Page 77 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina YEAR TWO MONITORING REPORT December 2017 Table 13a. Planting List for Zone D Through Zone F Zone D- Roses 1.4 AC 10 x 10 spacing (436 stems/ac) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 92 River Birch Betula nigra 15 92 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 92 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15 92 White Oak Quercus alba 12 74 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 74 American Elm Ulnus american 6 37 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5 31 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 5 31 TOTAL 615 Zone E- Roses 2.1 AC 13 x 13 spacing (260 stems/ac) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 82 River Birch Betula nigra 15 82 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 82 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15 82 White Oak Quercus alba 12 65 Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 65 American Elm Ulnus american 6 33 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 5 28 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 5 28 TOTAL 547 Zone F- UT 2 0.9 AC 9 x 9 spacing (542 stems/AC) Common Name Scientific Name % Composition # Planted River Birch Betula nigra 20 97 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 97 Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20 97 Button Bush Quercus alba 15 73 Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 15 73 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 10 49 TOTAL 486 Page 78 DMS IMS No. 96309 Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Burke County, North Carolina Year Seven Monitoring & Closeout Report February 2023 Page 79 Appendix I. 2018 Adaptive Management Repairs