20180196 Ver 1_CatfishPond_100039_MY4_Buffer_2023_20231208

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL BUFFER REPORT
FINAL

CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201

NCDEQ Contract No. 007424
DMS Project No. 100039
NCDWR Project No. 2018-0196
RFP No. 16-007279

Data Collection Period: September 2023
Draft Submission Date: October 2023
Final Submission Date: December 2023
PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Buffer Report - FINAL i
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 Buffer Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment ............................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Vegetative Assessment ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Monitoring Year 4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 3
Section 2: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................4

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Service Area Map
Figure 3 Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 4 Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel Site Map
Table 1 Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Adjacent Forested Areas Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Table 6 Planted Tree Species

Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 5-5b Monitoring Plan View Maps
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Overview Photographs

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 9 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Table 11 Vegetation Height Data

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Buffer Report - FINAL 1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Catfish Pond
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). A total of 7,140 linear feet of perennial and intermittent streams were restored and
enhanced in Durham County, NC. A conservation easement comprised of 20.73 acres along Catfish Creek
and three unnamed tributaries in the Neuse River Basin are included in the project. A total of 18.22
acres (793,207 ft2) of riparian buffer have been restored or enhanced and are expected to generate
523,358.865 riparian buffer credits, with potential to convert some buffer credits to nutrient offset
credits dependent on the need. The Site is located approximately 12 miles north of the City of Durham
and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange County/Durham County border (Figure 1). The project
resides within Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201020040 and North Carolina Department of Water
Resources (NCDWR) Sub-basin 03-04-01. Two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) drain to Catfish Creek,
which drains to Mountain Creek, and one unnamed tributary (Mountain Tributary) drains directly to
Mountain Creek. Mountain Creek flows into Little River, the Eno River, and then Falls Lake. Falls Lake is
classified as Water Supply Waters (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW).
Work at the Site was planned, designed, and constructed per the Catfish Pond Mitigation Site – Riparian
Buffer Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019) and the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (effective November 1, 2015). The purpose of the riparian buffer restoration is to provide riparian
buffer credits to compensate for buffer impacts within the Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201 and the Falls
Lake Watershed. The service area for the riparian buffer credits is depicted in Figure 2. The mitigation
credits generated from the Site are included in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 3 located in Appendix 1.
With the addition of Catfish Pond II Mitigation Bank Parcel (Catfish Pond II, DWR Project Number 2018-
0196v2), it is not necessary to deduct credits for lack of diffuse flow where Ditch D enters the DMS
conservation easement. The Catfish Pond II conservation easement completely encompasses Ditch D
allowing for diffuse flow through the riparian buffer. Fencing has been installed around Catfish Pond II
(Appendix 1, Figure 4).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction, the primary degradation of Catfish Creek was the creation of Catfish Pond
sometime between 1940 and 1955. Within the same period, extensive logging and farm road
construction took place. Aerial photographs from 1972 suggest that UT1 had been straightened for
agricultural purposes. Catfish Creek above and below the pond, UT2, and Mountain Tributary showed
few signs of channel manipulation.
The major goals of the riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Neuse River Watershed within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed by creating
a functional riparian corridor and restoring the riparian area. The project supports specific goals
identified in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) for the Neuse River Targeted Local
Watershed, which highlights the importance of riparian buffers for stream restoration projects
(Breeding, 2010). Forested riparian areas immobilize and retain nutrients and suspended sediment. The
RBRP also supports the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDWR, 2011). Falls Lake is the
receiving water supply water body downstream of the Site and is classified as WS-IV and NSW. Specific
enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below:
• Exclude cattle from project streams – Fencing has been installed around project areas adjacent
to cattle pastures.

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Buffer Report - FINAL 2
• Decrease nutrient levels – Filtering runoff from the agricultural fields through restored native
riparian zones. The off-site nutrient input is absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows through
restored floodplain areas, where flood flows can disperse through native vegetation.
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations – Riparian areas will
create additional long-term shading of the channel flow to reduce thermal pollution.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation – Planted native tree species in riparian zone
where tree growth was insufficient.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses – Established a conservation easement
on the site.
The 20.73-acre Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Of the 20.73 acres, Neuse
riparian buffer credits were generated by restoring 5.92 acres and enhancing 12.30 acres. No buffer
credit will be generated from the remaining 2.51 acres. In general, riparian buffer restoration area
widths on streams extend out to 50 feet from top of bank on each side of the stream channel. Figure 3
and Table 1 in Appendix 1 detail the buffer credit generation.
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
The Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019) was submitted and accepted by DMS in July 2019. Construction
activities by Main Stream Earthwork, Inc. and tree planting by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. were both
completed in March 2020. The baseline as-built survey was completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying in
April 2020. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed/site background information.
Vegetative performance for buffer restoration areas will be in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(n)(2)(B), and (n)(4) (effective November 1, 2015). To meet success criteria, areas generating buffer
mitigation credits shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree species, where no one species
is greater than 50 percent of stems, and shall have a survival of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of
the required five-year monitoring period. For monitoring to be completed and buffer credit to be
awarded, NCDWR must provide written approval of successful revegetation of buffer restoration areas.
Year 4 monitoring (MY4) was conducted to assess the condition of the vegetation in September 2023.
1.3.1 Vegetative Assessment
The quantity of monitoring vegetation plots was determined in accordance with the Carolina Vegetative
Sampling Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) such that at least 2 percent of the Site is encompassed in monitoring
plots. A total of 7 vegetation plots (each 100 square meters) were established within the conservation
easement boundaries. The plot corners have been marked and are recoverable either through field
identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs are taken at the origin looking
diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner on an annual basis. Trees will be marked annually with
flagging tape. Species composition, vigor, height, density, and survival rates will be evaluated by plot on
an annual basis. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as
necessary.
The 2023 annual vegetation monitoring resulted in an average survival of 486 stems per acre of the
project planting list species, which exceeds the final requirement of 260 stems per acre at the end of
Monitoring Year 5. Plot stem densities range from 324 to 567 stems per acre and each plot includes at
least two planted species. The majority of planted stems have excellent (4) vigor (see Table 11 in
Appendix 3). When approved species that were not on the project planting list are included, all plots
have at least 5 different tree species. The average stem density across vegetation plots also increases to
578, with individual plots ranging from 486 to 648 stems per acre.

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Buffer Report - FINAL 3
The Site is on track to surpass the final success criteria. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition
assessment table, the monitoring plan view map, vegetation plot and overview photographs. Appendix 3
contains vegetation plot data and the vegetation performance summary table.
1.3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
While planted trees are growing well, herbaceous vegetation is dense. In May 2023, another round of
herbicide ring sprays was applied around the base of trees, targeting the area around trees waist high or
less in height. Soil amendments were also added to the base of these stems to give them an advantage
in competing for resources, therefore helping them grow above herbaceous vegetation. Soil
amendments consisted of a mix of nutrients and lime to help neutralize soil, making it easier for roots to
absorb those nutrients.
In March 2023, invasive and aggressively growing species were treated using various approaches along
Catfish Creek. Resprouts of Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) were treated through a cut stump
herbicide application or hand pulled. Sporadic patches of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and competing blackberry (Rubus spp.) were treated with a foliar spray
of triclopyr. Wildlands will continue to monitor for invasive species and additional treatments will be
applied as necessary.
1.4 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
Vegetation across the Parcel is exceeding performance standards. Monitoring Year 4 data shows an
average stem density of 486 stems per acre of planting list species across vegetation plots. The Parcel is
on track to achieve the final success criteria of 260 stems per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 5.
Sporadic resprouts of invasive vegetation were treated and herbicide ring sprays were applied around
trees in Monitoring Year 4. Wildlands will continue to monitor and treat as necessary. The Site has been
walked and no fencing issues, livestock access, or other easement encroachments have been identified.
Summary information/data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can
be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information, formerly found in these reports, can be found in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019)
available on DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Buffer Report - FINAL 4
Section 2: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/FINAL%2
0RBRP%20Neuse%202010_%2020111207%20CORRECTED.pdf
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., & Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2017.
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report Template version
2.0 Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%
20and%20Template%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon_Template_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2000. 15A
NCAC 02B .0233 Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and
Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers. Accessed at:
http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0233.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Falls
Lake Nutrient Management Strategy. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-planning/nonpoint-source-planning/falls-lake-nutrient-strategy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2015. 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian
Buffers. Accessed at: http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac/title%2015a%20-
%20environmental%20quality/chapter%2002%20-
%20environmental%20management/subchapter%20b/15a%20ncac%2002b%20.0295.pdf
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011.
Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2019. Catfish Pond Mitigation Site – Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
DMS Project No. 100039
Project Area
N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound)
Credit Type Location
Subject? (enter
NO if
ephemeral or
ditch 1)
Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (ft2)
Total
(Creditable)
Area of Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Convertible
to Riparian
Buffer?
Riparian Buffer
Credits
Convertible to
Nutrient
Offset?
Delivered
Nutrient Offset:
N (lbs)
Delivered
Nutrient
Offset: P (lbs)
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-50 Catfish Creek, UT1 4,369 4,369 1 100%1.00000 Yes 4,369.000 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-100 Catfish Creek, UT1, UT2,
Mountain Trib 252,086 252,086 1 100%1.00000 Yes 252,086.000 Yes 13,154.184 847.231
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 UT1 1,063 1,063 1 33%3.03030 Yes 350.790 Yes 55.469 3.573
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 0-100 Catfish Creek, UT1, UT2,
Mountain Trib 531,834 531,834 2 100%2.00000 Yes 265,917.000 No ——
Buffer Rural Yes I / P Enhancement via
Cattle Exclusion 101-200 UT1 3,855 3,855 2 33%6.06061 Yes 636.075 No ——
Totals:793,207 793,207
Enter Preservation Credits Below Eligible for Preservation (ft2):264,402
Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer
Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Total
(Creditable)
Area for Buffer
Mitigation (ft2)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Buffer Preservation —
Preservation Area Subtotal (ft2):0
Preservation as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:0.0%
Ephemeral Reaches as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:0.0%Square Feet Credits
257,518 256,805.790
0 793207 535,689 266,553.075
793207 0 0.000
793,207 523,358.865
Square Feet Credits
Nitrogen:0.000
last updated 01/17/2020 Phosphorus:0.000
297.54099
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Nutrient
Offset:0
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Restoration:
Enhancement:
Preservation:
Total Riparian Buffer:
Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Neuse 03020201 - Upper Falls Lake
19.16394
DMS Project No. 100039
DMS Project No. 100039
September 2022 December 2022
September 2023 December 2023
Competitive Vegetation Treatment2 with Soil Amendments
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Final Design - Construction Plans August 2019 August 2019
Construction February-March 2020 March 2020
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Seed Mix Sources Garrett Wildflower Seed Farm
Construction Crew
Main Stream Earthwork, Inc.
631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville, NC 27320
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seeding Contractor
Canady's Landscaping & Erosion
256 Fairview Acres Rd
2Herbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan July 2019 July 2019
March 2020 March 2020
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 April 2020 April 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2020 March 2020
April-May 2020
March 2020Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)June 2020
Year 1 Monitoring
Competitive Vegetation Treatment2
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Vegetation Survey December 2020October 2020
May & September 2020
Bare Roots 825 Maude Etter Rd
McMinnville, TN 37110
1591 Cleveland Rd
Smithfield, NC 27577
Ernst Conservation Seeds, Inc.
8884 Mercer Pike
Meadville, PA 16335
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
September 2021 December 2021
September 2021
Lexington, NC 27295
Designer
Daniel Johnson, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
497 Bramson Ct, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
843.277.6221
March 2023
May 2023
Vegetation Survey
Invasive Vegetation TreatmentYear 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
Competitive Vegetation Treatment2 with Soil Amendments
April 2022
May 2022
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Year 5 Monitoring 2024 December 2024
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC Jason Lorch
919.851.9986
Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Foggy Mountain Nursery
797 Helton Creek Rd
Lansing, NC 28643
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Table 5. Adjacent Forested Areas Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Number
Planted
55
646
365
927
646
55
646
1,207
365
646
55
FAC
FAC
FACW
FACU
FACU
OBL
FACU
FACW
OBL
FAC
Project Name
PROJECT INFORMATION
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Physiographic Province
River Basin
Durham County
36° 9’ 48.03” N, 78° 54’ 37.66” W
20.73
8.00
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
County
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Area (acres)
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Neuse River
CGIA Land Use Classification
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin
Common Name Scientific Name
227 (Catfish Creek - 197, Mountain Tributary - 30)
0.0%
45.6% forested, 54.2% cultivated, 0.2% wetland
Wetland Indicator
Status
03020201
03020201020040
03-04-01
Black Willow Salix nigra
Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Hazel Alder Alnus serrulata
Paw Paw Asimina triloba
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
White Oak Quercus alba
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Table 6. Planted Tree Species
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Common Name Scientific Name % of Total
Arrowwood Viburnum Viburnum dentatum 1.0%
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 11.5%
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 6.5%
River Birch Betula nigra 16.5%
Shumard Oak Quercus shumardii 11.5%
Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis 1.0%
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 11.5%
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 21.5%
Yellow Buckeye Aesculus flava 1.0%
White Oak Quercus alba 6.5%
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 11.5%

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Planted Acreage 8.00
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
criteria.0.10 0 0%
0.00 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Rates
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
year.0.25 0 0%
0.00 0%
Visual assessment was completed October 13, 2023.
Easement Acreage 20.73
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Easement
Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Visual assessment was completed October 13, 2023.
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
/ 0 ac
Invasive Areas of
Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).0.10 0 0%

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

VEG PLOT 1 (09/06/2023) VEG PLOT 2 (09/06/2023)

VEG PLOT 3 (09/06/2023) VEG PLOT 4 (09/06/2023)

VEG PLOT 5 (09/06/2023) VEG PLOT 6 (09/06/2023)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs

VEG PLOT 7 (09/06/2023)

OVERVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS

Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Overview Photographs

09/06/2023

09/06/2023
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Overview Photographs

09/06/2023

09/06/2023
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Overview Photographs

09/06/2023

09/06/2023
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data – Overview Photographs

09/06/2023

09/06/2023

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*Based on the target stem density for MY5 of 260 stems per acre.
Success Criteria Met*Tract Mean
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 9. Vegetation Plot Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
8.00
2020-03-25
2023-09-06
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 2 2 2 3 3 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 7 6 6 3 3 8 8 2 2 5 5 6 6
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 4 5 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1
Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 3
Sum 9 13 12 12 8 8 12 14 12 14 10 13 10 10
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 2
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree FACU 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 5 1
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree FACU 1
Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree FACU 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree FAC 1 1 2
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree FACW 1
Sum 9 15 12 12 8 13 12 16 12 15 10 15 10 14
13 12 8 14 14 13 10
526 486 324 567 567 526 405
3 5 4 5 5 6 2
47 50 38 50 27 33 43
7 14 7 11 7 11 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 12 13 16 15 15 14
607 486 526 648 607 607 567
5 5 5 7 6 7 5
47 50 38 50 27 33 43
7 14 6 11 7 11 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Performance Standard
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Common Name Tree/
Shrub
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that
have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 FIndicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Proposed Standard
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name
Table 10. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
526 7 3 0 486 14 5 0 324 7 4 0
607 4 5 0 486 10 5 0 324 6 4 0
405 3 4 0 526 6 5 0 405 4 5 0
567 3 5 0 607 4 6 0 486 3 6 0
567 3 5 0 607 3 6 0 486 3 6 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
567 11 5 0 567 7 5 0 526 11 6 0
567 9 5 0 567 5 5 0 607 8 6 0
405 7 4 0 526 4 5 0 567 4 5 0
405 4 4 0 526 3 5 0 567 3 5 0
405 4 4 0 526 3 5 0 607 2 6 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht. (ft)# Species % Invasives
405 7 2 0
445 5 3 0
526 4 5 0
648 3 5 0
648 3 5 0
Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 4
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
1 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 0.2 3.0 Dead 0
1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 2.2 2.1 Dead 0
1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.3 1.2 16.4 4
1 Quercus phellos willow oak 8.5 2.7 4.3 4
1 Quercus phellos willow oak 6.6 3.5 4.9 4
1 Aesculus flava yellow buckeye 4.9 4.2 Missing M
1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 3.0 5.1 13.1 4
1 Quercus phellos willow oak 1.4 6.1 3.2 4
1 Quercus phellos willow oak 3.0 8.9 Dead 0
1 Quercus phellos willow oak 5.2 7.4 5.5 4
1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 6.0 6.7 7.3 4
1 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 7.7 6.1 2.3 4
1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 9.4 5.5 Dead 0
1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9.8 8.9 14.8 4
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
2 Betula nigra river birch 0.3 0.3 Dead 0
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 3.5 0.8 20.7 4
2 Quercus alba white oak 7.2 1.6 3.2 2
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.7 4.1 23.0 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.1 2.9 22.3 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.5 2.1 Dead 0
2 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 0.6 4.1 6.0 4
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 4.2 4.5 7.5 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.9 6.6 23.3 4
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 4.4 6.8 10.8 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.1 5.9 21.3 4
2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.5 7.7 23.0 4
2 Quercus alba white oak 1.5 9.8 2.7 4
2 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 5.1 9.2 9.0 4
2 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 8.5 8.8 Missing M
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
3 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 2.2 1.9 3.3 4
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 6.5 0.6 5.6 4
3 Quercus phellos willow oak 17.7 0.4 3.7 4
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 15.0 1.0 10.2 4
3 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 13.6 1.0 6.7 4
3 Quercus lyrata overcup oak 10.2 1.5 Missing M
3 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.2 2.8 10.0 4
3 Quercus phellos willow oak 2.6 3.5 7.5 4
3 Betula nigra river birch 14.4 2.7 10.3 4
3 Quercus phellos willow oak 18.1 2.7 Missing M
3 Quercus lyrata overcup oak 18.8 3.8 Dead 0
3 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 14.9 4.3 Dead 0
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
4 Quercus phellos willow oak 1.3 1.2 6.5 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.9 2.0 14.1 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 9.0 1.6 14.4 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.4 3.7 13.8 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.8 3.4 13.8 4
4 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 1.0 4.2 6.7 4
4 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 0.7 5.9 3.5 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.3 6.5 20.0 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.4 5.9 14.8 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.9 7.8 13.5 4
4 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.2 8.6 19.4 4
4 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 0.9 8.0 5.0 4
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
5 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 1.9 0.3 10.2 4
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 6.3 0.8 6.6 4
5 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 9.8 1.2 Missing M
5 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 8.7 3.2 10.7 4
5 Quercus phellos willow oak 5.0 3.0 5.9 4
5 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.6 2.3 14.8 4
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 4.0 5.1 10.3 4
5 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 7.3 5.3 4.2 4
5 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 6.5 7.6 8.4 4
5 Quercus phellos willow oak 3.1 7.3 2.6 4
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 2.1 9.3 3.1 4
5 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.6 9.8 9.5 4
5 Quercus phellos willow oak 9.7 8.5 6.1 4
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 1.9 0.3 15.9 4
6 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 5.9 0.0 Missing M
6 Unknown Other 8.8 0.6 Dead 0
6 Quercus phellos willow oak 8.6 2.6 7.9 4
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.3 2.0 12.8 4
6 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 1.0 2.3 4.9 4
6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 0.4 4.6 7.5 4
6 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 4.4 3.8 9.2 4
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7.7 4.3 16.1 4
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.5 7.5 14.4 4
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 6.6 6.2 Missing M
6 Quercus phellos willow oak 5.3 8.1 Missing M
6 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 2.6 7.5 11.8 4
6 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 2.0 9.8 9.8 4
6 Quercus phellos willow oak 7.7 9.6 Missing M
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing
Table 11. Vegetation Height Data
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100039
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X Y Height (ft) Vigor
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.2 0.2 5.2 4
7 Betula nigra river birch 1.9 0.8 2.3 4
7 Betula nigra river birch 3.7 1.2 7.1 4
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 5.8 1.4 Missing M
7 Quercus alba white oak 8.0 2.0 Missing M
7 Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak 10.0 5.2 Missing M
7 Betula nigra river birch 8.1 5.1 Dead 0
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 5.9 4.5 7.4 4
7 Betula nigra river birch 4.0 4.2 1.4 4
7 Betula nigra river birch 2.1 0.9 Missing M
7 Betula nigra river birch 0.1 3.0 1.8 4
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 0.2 6.2 13.1 4
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 2.1 7.1 18.0 4
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 4.1 7.1 10.8 4
7 Betula nigra river birch 6.2 7.7 Dead 0
7 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 8.4 8.5 5.9 4
Vigor: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = fair, 1 = unlikely to survive year, 0 = dead, M = Missing