The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201279 Ver 1_CoolSprings_100165_MY1_2023_20240125 MONITORING YEAR 1 ANNUAL REPORT Final January 2024 COOL SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE Harnett County, NC Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030004 DMS Project No. 100166 NCDEQ Contract No. 0302-02 DMS RFP No. 16-20190302/Issued: December 20, 2019 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-01400 DWR Project No. 2020-1279 Data Collection Dates: January 2023 – November 2023 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 PREPARED BY: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Jason Lorch jlorch@wildlandseng.com Phone: 919.851.9986 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL i COOL SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1-5 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT .......................................................................2-1 2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management ....................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2-2 2.6 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2-3 Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1 TABLES Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ...................................................... 1-3 Table 3: Project Attributes ......................................................................................................................... 1-5 FIGURES Figure 1a-b Current Condition Plan View APPENDICES Appendix A Visual Assessment Data Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Stream Area of Concern Photographs Culvert Crossing Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Groundwater Well Photographs Easement Encroachment Photographs Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data Cross-Section Plots Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Appendix D Hydrology Data Table 10 Bankfull Events Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL ii Table 11 Rainfall Summary Table 12 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Table 13 Groundwater Gauge Summary Groundwater Gauge Plots Soil Temperature Probe Plot Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 14 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 15 Project Contact Table Appendix F Additional Documentation As-Built IRT Comments Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Cool Springs Mitigation Site (Site) is located in western Harnett County, approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the City of Lillington and approximately 4.7 miles east of the Town of Broadway. Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes. 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits The Site is located on a single parcel and a conservation easement was recorded on 21.12 acres. Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and the total amount of stream credits expected at closeout. Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES Project Segment Mitigation Plan Footage As-Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments STREAMS UT to Cedar Creek Reach 1 1,808 1,799 Warm EII 2.5 723.200 Fenced Out Livestock, Minor Bank Grading 64 61 Warm EII N/A 0.000 Internal Culvert Crossing 489 491 Warm EII 2.5 195.600 Fenced Out Livestock, Minor Bank Grading UT to Cedar Creek Reach 2 354 359 Warm R 1.0 354.00 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T1 418 425 Warm EII 2.5 167.200 Fenced Out Livestock, Minor Bank Grading T2 466 465 Warm R 1.0 466.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T3 Reach 1 43 42 Warm EII N/A 0.000 Internal Culvert Crossing 379 379 Warm EII 2.5 151.600 Fenced Out Livestock, Minor Bank Grading T3 Reach 2 366 371 Warm R 1.0 366.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T3 Reach 3 295 300 Warm EII 2.5 118.000 Fenced Out Livestock, Minor Bank Grading T4 Reach 1 101 102 Warm R 1.0 101.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T4 Reach 2 62 64 Warm R N/A 0.000 Internal Culvert Crossing 787 790 Warm R 1.0 787.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T5 134 134 Warm R 1.0 134.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T6 499 502 Warm R 1.0 499.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock T7 156 155 Warm EI 1.5 104.000 Bank Protection and Grade Control Structures Installed T8 697 707 Warm R 1.0 697.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fenced Out Livestock Total: 4,863.600 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2 WETLANDS Wetland A 0.066 0.066 Riverine E 2.0 0.033 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland B 0.064 0.064 Riverine E 2.0 0.032 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland C 0.160 0.160 Riverine RH 1.5 0.107 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland D 0.088 0.088 Riverine E 2.0 0.044 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland E 0.162 0.162 Riverine E 2.0 0.081 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland F 0.265 0.265 Riverine RH 1.5 0.177 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland G 0.138 0.138 Riverine RH 1.5 0.092 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland H 0.139 0.139 Riverine E 2.0 0.070 Cattle Exclusion Wetland I 0.024 0.024 Riverine E 2.0 0.012 Cattle Exclusion Wetland J 0.028 0.028 Riverine E 2.0 0.014 Cattle Exclusion Wetland 1 0.087 0.087 Riverine R 1.0 0.087 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland 2 0.090 0.090 Riverine R 1.0 0.090 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland 3 0.227 0.227 Riverine R 1.0 0.227 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Wetland 4 0.262 0.262 Riverine R 1.0 0.262 Planting, Cattle Exclusion Total: 1.328 Blue = Restoration Yellow = Enhancement I Orange = Enhancement II Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Warm Riverine Restoration 3,404.000 Enhancement I 104.000 Enhancement II 1,355.600 Re-Establishment 0.666 Rehabilitation 0.376 Enhancement 0.286 Total Stream Credit 4,863.600 Total Wetland Credit 1.328 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Improve the stability of stream channels. Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering hydrologic and sediment inputs to the system; install bank revetments and grade control; install bank vegetation. Reduce erosion and sediment inputs; maintain appropriate bed forms and sediment size distribution. ER stays over 2.2 and BHR below 1.2 with visual assessments showing progression towards stability. Cross-section monitoring and visual inspections. There are minor deviations from design. Small, isolated areas of scouring on T2 and T8 will be repaired. Exclude livestock from stream channels. Install livestock fencing or relocate livestock as needed to exclude livestock from stream channels, riparian areas, proposed wetland areas and/or remove livestock from adjacent fields. Reduce sediment and nutrients from agriculture/bank erosion. Eliminate livestock waste in streams and trampling of stream substrate. Fence conservation easement to exclude livestock. Install fenced and gated culvert crossings as needed. Visually inspect the Site to ensure no cattle encroachment is occurring. Cattle are excluded from project streams. Improve water quality. Stabilize stream banks. Plant riparian buffers with native trees. Construct BMPs to treat pasture runoff. Fence out livestock. Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks; reduce sediment, nutrient, and bacteria inputs from pasture runoff; keep livestock out of streams, further reducing pollutants in project streams. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Improve wetland hydrology. Remove livestock to allow soil profiles to stabilize. Raise elevation of streambed and realign stream channels closer to wetlands. Plant native trees and herbaceous plants suitable for saturated conditions. Increased surface water residence time will provide contact treatment and groundwater recharge potential. Free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for each representative wetland’s associated hydroperiod under normal precipitation conditions. Seven groundwater gauges equipped with pressure transducers are located in representative wetland areas and monitored annually. During MY1, four out of the seven groundwater gauges attained success criterion for each representative wetland’s associated hydroperiod. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4 Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Improve stream, wetland, and riparian habitat. Install habitat features such as constructed steps, cover logs, and brush toes on restored reaches. Add woody materials/ LWD to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth. Restore and enhance forested riparian wetland habitat. Support biological communities and processes. Provide aquatic habitats for diverse populations of aquatic and riparian organisms. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth relative to the existing floodplain. Reduce shear stress on channel; hydrate adjacent wetland areas; filter pollutants out of overbank flows; provide surface storage of water on floodplain; increase groundwater recharge while reducing outflow of stormwater. Four bankfull events in separate years within monitoring period. 30 consecutive days of flow for intermittent channels. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers recording flow elevations. Multiple bankfull events have been documented on UT to Cedar Creek and T4. Greater than 30 consecutive days of flow recorded on T2, T3, T5, T6, and T8 during MY1. Restore/ improve riparian buffers. Plant native tree species in riparian zone where currently insufficient. Provide a canopy to shade streams and reduce thermal loadings; stabilize stream banks and floodplain. Survival rate of 320 stems per acre at MY3, 260 planted stems per acre and average height of 7ft at MY5, and 210 stems per acre and average height of 10ft at MY7. One hundred square meter vegetation plots are placed on 2% of the planted area of the Site and monitored annually. All twelve vegetation plots have a planted stem density greater than 320 stems per acre. Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Ensure that development and agricultural uses that would damage the Site or reduce the benefits of the project are prevented. Prevent easement encroachment. Visually inspect the perimeter of the Site to ensure no easement encroachment is occurring. The entirety of the Site boundaries were visually inspected during MY1. Chicken litter was found dumped in the easement near BMP 2 during August 2023. No pasture fires have been observed since April 2023. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5 1.3 Project Attributes The Site was an active cattle and chicken farm with wooded buffers along some of the project streams. Review of aerial photos indicates the landcover in the project watersheds was very consistent between 1950 and 1998. Most of the area was wooded during this period except for the southeastern portion of the UT to Cedar Creek watershed, which was cleared prior to 1950 and appears to have been used for grazing livestock. A small pond was constructed at the headwaters of UT to Cedar Creek at some point in the 1960’s. Most of the landcover changes that have occurred on the Site were between 1998 and 2006, including clearing of the pastures and construction of the chicken houses. Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C present additional information on pre-restoration conditions. Table 3: Project Attributes PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Cool Springs Mitigation Site County Harnett County Project Area (acres) 21.12 Project Coordinates 35°26'50.17"N 78°58'5.78"W PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION Physiographic Province Piedmont and Coastal Plain River Basin Cape Fear USGS HUC 8-digit 03030004 USGS HUC 14-digit 03030004010030 DWR Sub-basin 03-06-07 Land Use Classification 43% agriculture, 25% forested, 15% herbaceous, 4% developed Project Drainage Area (ac) 255 Percentage of Impervious Area <1% RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION Parameters UT to Cedar Creek T2 T3 T4 Pre-project length (feet) 2,797 473 1,096 1,091 Post-project (feet) 2,649 465 1,050 892 Valley confinement Moderately Confined to Unconfined Confined Moderately Confined to Confined Unconfined to Moderately Confined Drainage area (acres) 255 6 20 33 Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Intermittent/Perennial DWR Water Quality Classification WS-IV Dominant Stream Classification (existing) B4c A4 A4 F4b Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4/B4c A4/B4a B4/B4a B4/B4a Dominant Evolutionary class III/IV IV I/IV/III I/III Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-6 RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION Parameters T5 T6 T7 T8 Pre-project length (feet) 142 499 124 722 Post-project (feet) 134 502 155 707 Valley confinement Moderately Confined Unconfined Moderately Confined Drainage area (acres) 5 9 76 10 Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial DWR Water Quality Classification WS-IV Dominant Stream Classification (existing) N/A A4 B4 A4/B4a Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) N/A A4/B4a B4/C4b A4/B4a Dominant Evolutionary class I IV III IV REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4134. Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT Annual monitoring and Site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2022). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MY0 Annual Report (Wildlands, 2023). 2.1 Vegetative Assessment A total of twelve standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots were established during baseline monitoring. Two of the twelve vegetation plots will be relocated randomly on an annual basis to monitor vegetation health across the Site. The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in August 2023. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem density range of 324 to 688 planted stems per acre. All twelve vegetation plots exceed the interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre required at MY3. In response to IRT comments on the Cool Springs Mitigation Plan, Wildlands stated that random vegetation plots will be moved each year to represent different portions of the Site and will include portions of the Wetland Enhancement areas in order to complete sufficient monitoring of all credit areas during the seven-year monitoring period. Random vegetation plot 12 collected within a Wetland Enhancement area has a stem density of 526 stems per acre (see Figure 1b). Herbaceous vegetation is also abundant across the Site and includes native pollinator species, indicating a healthy riparian habitat. The riparian habitat is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from cattle outside the easement and stabilizing the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data. There were a significant number of mature hardwood trees that were left untouched from construction along UT to Cedar Creek. Planted trees and volunteer species are growing throughout the Site and starting to fill in an understory that will eventually become a mature hardwood forest. 2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management As noted in the Cool Springs MY0 Report, evidence of a fire was observed on April 14, 2023 throughout pastureland directly adjacent to the conservation easement. The fire is the result of a landowner pasture management practice and is unrelated to Wildlands. The prescribed burn encroached into portions of T2, BMP 3, 4, and 5, affecting approximately one acre of the conservation easement in total. Herbaceous cover has sufficiently returned on all burned areas. Vegetation plot 3 was completely burned during the MY0 encroachment but has retained a stem density of 324 stems per acre in MY1, exceeding the criteria of 320 stems per acre at MY3 (see Appendix B, Table 6). Additionally, random vegetation plot 11 data collected within a burned area along T2 (see Figure 1a) reveals a stem density of 405 stems per acre in MY1, exceeding the criteria of 320 stems per acre at MY3. Refer to Appendix A for Easement Encroachment Photographs. In response to the fire encroachment in MY0, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) has been observed growing prolifically during MY1 along T2 and BMP 3. Foliar spray treatments for smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and Bermuda grass were applied in affected areas along T2 and BMP 3 (see Figure 1a). Soil amendments were applied in a localized manner around the base of trees throughout the Site in the spring of 2023. Broadcast seeding was applied in bare areas throughout the Site, and around trees in burned areas where there is heavy Bermuda grass growth. All project streams received foliar spraying for in-stream vegetation, and pockets of Murdannia keisak were treated in streams and in wetlands Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-2 throughout the Site. Where wetlands were treated for Mudrannia, A cover-crop mix of Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus) and a wetland species mixture consisting of Panicum rigidulum, Bidens aristosa, Helianthus angustifolius, Carex albolutescens, Juncus effusus, Carex lupulina, Rhexia mariana, and Carex vulpinoidea was applied in an attempt to reduce future Murdannia occurrences. Soil amendments and removal of invasive species will continue to be implemented as necessary across the Site, and the need for supplemental planting will be assessed during MY2. A chicken manure pile spanning approximately 560 square feet was found in the conservation easement near BMP 2 during an August, 2023 Site visit (see Figure 1a and Appendix A). Because the pile doesn’t cover more than a couple of planted stems, the pile will not be removed. However, it has been seeded to assist in stabilization. The landowner has been notified, and the easement will continue to be monitored for future manure dumping. 2.3 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in July 2023. All eight cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area and width-to-depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Pebble count data is no longer required per the September 29, 2021 Technical Work Group Meeting and is not included in this report. The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary during the monitoring period. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs and Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. 2.4 Stream Areas of Concern Within the not-for-credit portion of UT to Cedar Creek, located at the lower end of the project stream outside of the easement, localized bank erosion is occurring (see Figure 1b). Boulder toe within this portion of the stream bank dislodged, resulting in bank erosion. Overtime, erosion has spread and worsened, resulting in a partially fallen, mature tree just downstream of the dislodged boulder toe (refer to Appendix A for Stream Area of Concern Photographs). The affected area is approximately 70 linear feet in length. The affected area will continue to be observed, and, if erosion continues to worsen, mechanical repairs may take place in subsequent monitoring years. Within the bottom half of T2 adjacent to photo point 8, water is piping around a series of structures consisting of a rock sill and two log sills, resulting in scouring of the left bank and dislodging of associated brush toe (refer to Appendix A for Stream Area of Concern Photographs). The affected area is approximately 24 linear feet in length (see Figure 1a). Hand repairs are planned to take place during MY2 and mechanical repairs will then be utilized if necessary. Water is piping around a log sill on T8 adjacent to photo point 20, resulting in scouring of the left bank totaling approximately one foot (see Figure 1b and refer to Appendix A-Stream Area of Concern Photographs). Hand repairs have been performed during MY1 and will be implemented in subsequent monitoring years as necessary. If hand-repairs are unsuccessful, mechanical repairs will be utilized. 2.5 Hydrology Assessment UT to Cedar Creek Reach 2 exhibited two bankfull events and T4 Reach 2 exhibited three bankfull events in MY1 as of November 10, 2023, and are on track to meet performance standards of four bankfull events in separate years during the seven-year monitoring period (see Appendix D, table 10). Additional seasons of observation are required to better understand hydrology at the Site and thoroughly evaluate the success of project reaches. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-3 In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent reaches (T2, T3, T5, T6, and T8) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. Gauges on T2, T3, T5, T6, and T8 all exceed criteria (see Table 12, Summary of Recorded In-Stream Flow Events and refer to Appendix D for Recorded In-Stream Flow Event Plots). 2.6 Wetland Assessment The performance criterion for groundwater gauge (GW) 3 is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 8% of the growing season (20 days). The performance criterion for GWs 2 and 7 is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 10% of the growing season (25 days). The performance criterion for GWs 1, 4, 5, and 6 is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12% of the growing season (30 days). The growing season on Site began on or before March 1 according to bud burst observations and soil temperature probe data. Bud burst of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) was observed at a Wildlands Engineering project approximately two miles east of the Site on February, 23, 2023. Black willow (Salix nigra) was seen leafing out on the same neighboring project on February 23, 2023, as well. Additionally, soil temperature data collected on-site shows soil temperatures above 41 degrees consistently after January 30, 2023 (refer to Appendix D). Leaf senescence data and supporting data from AgACIS was utilized to determine the end of the MY1 growing season. Though leaf senescence is primarily controlled by photoperiod, modified by environmental factors, varies with species, and occurs over a period of several weeks, the senescence process begins prior to visible color change. However, because color change is readily observable and requires no laboratory procedures or specialized equipment (Gill et al. 2015, Mariën et al. 2019), Wildlands implemented the approach of assuming leaf senescence is occurring on the Site based on observations of site-scale leaf color change of greater than 50%. On November 10th, 2023, on-site observation indicated approximately 100% of deciduous woody vegetation leaves appeared to have changed color completely, with several hardwood trees beginning to drop leaves. Based on growing season data acquired from AgACIS station Sanford 8 NE, along with leaf senescence data collected in Fall 2023, Wildlands proposes the end of the growing season be November 8th, putting the growing season dates as 3/1 to 11/8 (252 days). Four of the seven GWs at the Site attained the success criterion for MY1 (see Table 13). GWs 1, 2, and 5 within wetland rehabilitation zones exceeded the hydroperiod criterion. GW 7 within a wetland re- establishment zone exceeded criterion, as well. GWs 3, 4, and 6 have not yet met hydroperiod criterion for wetland re-establishment zones in MY1. After construction of the stream channel, it is anticipated that the groundwater table will take some time to recharge. Additional seasons of water table observation are required to better understand hydrology at the Site and thoroughly evaluate the success of wetland re-establishment areas. Refer to Appendix D for hydrologic data. 2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary All twelve vegetation plots exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Most streams within the Site are stable. Two bankfull events were documented on UT to Cedar Creek, and three bankfull events were documented on T4. Greater than 30 consecutive days of stream flow have been recorded on T2, T3, T5, T6, and T8, fulfilling MY1 success requirements. Four out of the seven groundwater wells meet success criteria for MY1. The entirety of the easement boundary was observed during MY1. Damaged conservation easement signs have been replaced as necessary. Fencing and stream crossings are in good condition throughout the Site. A chicken manure pile was found dumped in the easement along a southeastern boundary edge. The landowner has been contacted, and the encroachment has ceased. Overall, the Site is on track to meet final success criteria. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-4 Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1 Section 3: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Gill, A.L., Gallinat, A.S., Sanders-DeMott, R., Rigden, A.J., Short Gianotti, D.J., Mantooth, J.A., and Templer, P.H. 2015. Changes in autumn senescence in northern hemisphere deciduous trees: a meta-analysis of autumn phenology studies. Annals of Botany, 132(2), 1-14. Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. Mariën, B., Balzarolo, M., Dox, I., Leys, S., Lorene, M.J., Geron, C., Portillo-Estrada, M., AbdElgawad, H., Asard, H., and Campioli, M. 2019. Detecting the onset of autumn leaf senescence in deciduous forest trees of the temperate zone. New Phytologist 224(1), 166-176. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2023. Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 0 (MY0) Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [[ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [[[[ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[ [ [ [[ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[[[ [[[[[[ [[[[[[[[ [[[[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [[[ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P !P !P !P Y a n k e e L n T8 UT t o C e d a r C r e e k T7 T6 T4 T4 T5 UT t o C e d a r C r e e k T3 T1 T2 T3Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 BMP 5 BMP 4 BMP 3 BMP 2 BMP 1 Figure 1b Figure 1a !A !A !A !A !A !A !A Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Harnett County, NC 0 200 400 Feet 2019 Aerial Photography ¹ Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Hydroperiod Wetland Re-establishment 12% Wetland Re-establishment 10% Wetland Re-establishment 8% Wetland Rehabilitation 12% Wetland Rehabilitation 10% Wetland Rehabilitation 8% Wetland Enhancement Wetland Not for Credit Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1 Criterion Met - Fixed Criterion Met - Random Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Not for Credit BMP Non-Project Streams [Fence Cross-Section Groundwater Gauge - MY1 !A Criterion Met !A Criterion Not Met !A Flow Gauge !A Crest Gauge !A Soil Temperature Probe !A Barotroll GF Photo Point Gate !P Reach Break !(!( !( GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A !A !A !A [[[[ [[[ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [[[[ [[[[[[ [[ [[[[[[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A GW 1 GW 2 GW 3STP PP 12 PP 16 PP 13 PP 9 PP 6 PP 1 PP 10 PP 3 PP 11 PP 8 PP 7 PP 2 4 7 11 3 6 5 X S 5 X S 4 XS 3 XS 2 50 2 + 0 0 40 2 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 30 2 + 0 0 104+0 0 106+0 0 10 8 + 0 0 110 + 0 0 112+00 114+00 116+00 2 0 2 + 0 0 204+ 0 0 50 0 + 0 0 5 0 4 + 0 0 4 0 4 + 0 0 40 6 + 0 0 4 1 0 + 0 0 304 + 0 0 102+0 0 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 1 BMP 5 BMP 4 BMP 3 BMP 2 BMP 1 T4 T4 T5 UT t o C e d a r C r e e k T3 T1 T2 T3 6 0 1 + 0 0 !P !P !P Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Harnett County, NC¹0 300150 Feet 2019 Aerial Photography Project Location Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Hydroperiod Wetland Re-establishment 10% Wetland Re-establishment 8% Wetland Rehabilitation 12% Wetland Rehabilitation 10% Wetland Rehabilitation 8% Wetland Enhancement Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1 Criterion Met - Fixed Criterion Met - Random Treated Coastal Bermudagrass - MY1 Pasture Fire Encroachment - MY0 Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II Not for Credit BMP Non-Project Streams As-Built Top of Bank Structure [Fence Cross-Section Chicken Manure Encroachment - MY1 Bank Erosion !(Eroding Log Sill !(Eroding Rock Sill Groundwater Gauge - MY1 !A Criterion Met !A Criterion Not Met !A Flow Gauge !A Soil Temperature Probe GF Photo Point Gate !P Reach Break !( GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A !A !A !A !A !A [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [[[ [[ [[[[[[ [[[[ [[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [[[[[[ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !A !A !A !A GW 6 GW 7 GW 5 GW 4 PP 12 PP 16 PP 13 PP 17 PP 14 PP 3 PP 4 PP 18 PP 5 PP 19 PP 20 PP 21 PP 15 PP 11 9 1 12 8 4 7 2 10 XS 6 X S 5 X S 4 X S 8 X S 7 XS 1 118+ 0 0 50 6 + 0 0 50 2 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 114+00 116+00 120+00 90 2 + 0 0 9 0 4 + 0 0 90 6 + 0 0 702+0 0 704 + 0 0 7 0 6 + 0 0 50 0 + 0 0 5 0 4 + 0 0 4 1 0 + 0 0 1 2 2 + 0 0 1 2 4 + 0 0 12 6 + 0 0 5 0 8 + 0 0 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 2 BMP 5 T8 UT t o C e d a r C r e e k T7 T6 T4 T4 T5 T2 T3 128+00 801 + 0 0 6 0 1 + 0 0 !P !P !P Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Harnett County, NC ¹0 300150 Feet 2019 Aerial Photography Project Location Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Hydroperiod Wetland Re-establishment 12% Wetland Re-establishment 10% Wetland Rehabilitation 12% Wetland Enhancement Wetland Not for Credit Vegetation Plot Condition - MY1 Criterion Met - Fixed Criterion Met - Random Treated Coastal Bermudagrass - MY1 Pasture Fire Encroachment - MY0 Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Not for Credit BMP Non-Project Streams As-Built Top of Bank Structure [Fence Cross-Section Bank Erosion !(Eroding Rock Sill Groundwater Gauge - MY1 !A Criterion Met !A Criterion Not Met !A Flow Gauge !A Crest Gauge !A Barotroll GF Photo Point Gate !P Reach Break APPENDIX A. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 UT to Cedar Creek Reaches 1-2 2,649 5,298 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 9 9 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. T1 425 850 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 T2 465 930 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 27 30 90% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 14 15 93% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. T3 Reaches 1-3 1,050 2,100 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 33 33 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 13 13 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Totals: Bank Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 T4 Reaches 1-2 892 1,784 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 33 33 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 26 26 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. T5 134 268 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 12 12 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 T6 502 1,004 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 23 23 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 11 11 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. T7 155 310 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 3 3 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 T8 707 1,414 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 47 47 98% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 16 16 100% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. % Stable, Performing as Intended Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Planted Acreage 13.80 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 0.00 0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10 0.00 0% 0.00 0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0.00 0% 0.00 0% Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. Easement Acreage 21.12 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Easement Encroachment Areas Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area. none Visual assessment was completed November 10, 2023. *Chicken littler has been dumped into approximately 560 square feet of the conservation easement. A landowner-prescribed fire burned approximately 1 acre of the conservation easement during April, 2023. Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total 2 Encroachments Noted* / 1.01 ac Invasive Areas of Concern Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in summation above should be identified in report summary. 0.10 1.30 6% STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 1 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 1 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 2 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 2 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 3 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 3 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 4 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 4 UT to Cedar Creek R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 5 UT to Cedar Creek R2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 5 UT to Cedar Creek R2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 6 T1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 6 T1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 7 T2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 7 T2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 8 T2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 8 T2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 9 T3 R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 9 T3 R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 10 T3 R2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 10 T3 R2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 11 T3 R3 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 11 T3 R3 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 12 T4 R1 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 12 T4 R1 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 13 T4 R2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 13 T4 R2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 14 T4 R2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 14 T4 R2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 15 T4 R2 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 15 T4 R2 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 16 T5 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 16 T5 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 17 T6 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 17 T6 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 18 T6 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 18 T6 – downstream (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs Photo Point 19 T7 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 19 T7 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 20 T8 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 20 T8 – downstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 21 T8 – upstream (11/10/2023) Photo Point 21 T8 – downstream (11/10/2023) STREAM AREA OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs UT to Cedar Creek STA 127+74-128+44: Before – Partially Fallen Tree on Right Bank Causing Bank Erosion (4/7/2023) UT to Cedar Creek STA 127+74-128+44: Before – Dislodged Boulder Toe on Right Bank Causing Bank Erosion (11/10/2023) T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Log Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (4/7/2023) T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Rock Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (4/7/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Log Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (4/7/2023) T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Log Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (11/29/2023) T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Rock Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (11/29/2023) T2 STA 303+05-303+20: Before – Piping Log Sill Causing Dislodged Brush Toe and Scouring of the Left Bank (11/29/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Area of Concern Photographs T8 STA 902+59: Before –Piping Rock Sill Causing Localized Scouring (4/7/2023) T8 STA 902+59: After –Piping Rock Sill Causing Localized Scouring (11/29/2023) CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs UT to Cedar Creek - Looking Upstream (11/10/2023) UT to Cedar Creek - Looking Downstream (11/10/2023) T4 R2 - Looking Upstream (11/10/2023) T4 R2 - Looking Downstream (11/10/2023) T3 - Looking Upstream (11/10/2023) VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (8/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEG PLOT 7 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 8 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 9 (8/10/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 10 (8/10/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 11 (8/10/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 12 (8/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Groundwater Well Photographs GROUNDWATER WELL 1 – (11/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL 2 – (11/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL 3 – (11/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL 4 – (11/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL 5 – (11/10/2023) GROUNDWATER WELL 6 – (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Groundwater Well Photographs GROUNDWATER WELL 7 – (11/10/2023) EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT PHOTOGRAPHS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Easement Encroachment Photographs T2 – Four Days After Burned Area First Discovered (4/18/2023) T2 – Four Days After Burned Area First Discovered (4/18/2023) BMP 5 – Four Days After Burn First Discovered (4/18/2023) BMP 5 – Four Days After Burn First Discovered (4/18/2023) T2 VP 3 – Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) T2 VP 3 – Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Easement Encroachment Photographs Aerial View of T2 Facing West – Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) Aerial View of T2 Facing West – Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) Aerial View of BMP 5 and Adjacent Land Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) Aerial View of BMP 3 and Adjacent Land Three Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/4/2023) T2 – Four Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/12/2023) T2 VP 3 – Four Weeks After Burned Area First Discovered (5/12/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Easement Encroachment Photographs T2 – Four Weeks After Burned Area Discovered (5/12/2023) T2 – Four Weeks After Burned Area Discovered (5/12/2023) T2 – Seven Months After Burned Area Discovered (11/10/2023) T2 – Seven Months After Burned Area Discovered (11/10/2023) BMP 3 – Seven Months After Burned Area First Discovered (11/10/2023) BMP 3 – Seven Months After Burned Area First Discovered (11/10/2023) Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Easement Encroachment Photographs BMP 5 – Seven Months After Burned Area First Discovered (11/10/2023) BMP 5 – Seven Months After Burned Area First Discovered (11/10/2023) Chicken Litter Pile Dumped at Fenceline Directly Perpendicular to BMP 2 (9/1/2023) Chicken Litter Pile Dumped at Fenceline Directly Perpendicular to BMP 2 (9/1/2023) APPENDIX B. VEGETATION PLOT DATA Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 13.8 2023-01-06 2023-08-10 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 4 4 1 1 4 4 3 3 Cephalanthus occidentalis* common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1 1 1 Cercis canadensis*eastern redbud Tree UPL 1 1 Cornus florida*flowering dogwood Tree FACU 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 1 1 Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree FACU 3 3 1 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3 3 3 3 1 1 Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 3 3 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 2 2 2 2 1 1 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 Rosa palustris*swamp rose Shrub OBL 3 3 Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 2 2 Sambucus canadensis*American black elderberry Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL 2 2 1 1 Ulmus alata winged elm Tree FACU 1 1 Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 5 5 Sum 15 15 11 11 8 8 17 17 14 14 15 11 8 17 14 607 445 324 688 567 7 6 4 10 10 27 45 38 24 21 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 8 17 14 607 445 324 688 567 7 6 4 10 10 27 45 38 24 21 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Performance Standard *Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Veg Plot 5 FIndicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant 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. Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 13.8 2023-01-06 2023-08-10 0.0247 Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW Cephalanthus occidentalis* common buttonbush Shrub OBL Cercis canadensis*eastern redbud Tree UPL Cornus florida*flowering dogwood Tree FACU Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree FACU Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Rosa palustris*swamp rose Shrub OBL Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL Sambucus canadensis*American black elderberry Tree FACW Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree OBL Ulmus alata winged elm Tree FACU Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC Sum Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Indicator Status Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Veg Plot 11 R Veg Plot 12 R Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 6 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 7 7 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 8 13 13 15 15 14 14 16 16 10 13 8 13 15 14 16 10 13 324 526 607 567 648 405 526 6 6 9 6 6 6 4 38 23 27 36 44 30 46 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 13 15 14 16 10 13 324 526 607 567 648 405 526 6 6 9 6 6 6 4 38 23 27 36 44 30 46 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F *Species not subject to monitoring height requirement due to species growth habit. 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. Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 607 2 7 0 445 2 6 0 324 2 4 0 648 2 7 0 486 2 6 0 607 2 7 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 688 2 10 0 567 2 10 0 324 2 6 0 688 2 10 0 688 2 11 0 445 2 6 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 526 2 6 0 607 2 9 0 567 2 6 0 567 2 6 0 648 2 9 0 688 2 7 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 648 2 6 0 405 2 6 0 526 2 4 0 688 2 7 0 648 2 7 0 648 2 8 0 *Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F. Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot Group 11 R Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Veg Plot Group 12 R Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F APPENDIX C. STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA CROSS-SECTION PLOTS Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 228.48 228.61 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.91 Thalweg Elevation 226.97 227.22 LTOB Elevation 228.48 228.48 LTOB Max Depth 1.51 1.26 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 10.14 8.59 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 273.70 273.90 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.15 Thalweg Elevation 273.21 273.47 LTOB Elevation 273.70 273.97 LTOB Max Depth 0.49 0.50 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.71 2.16 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 280.86 280.94 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 280.03 280.21 LTOB Elevation 280.86 280.90 LTOB Max Depth 0.83 0.69 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 2.89 2.65 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 260.54 260.27 LTOB Elevation 261.68 261.83 LTOB Max Depth 1.14 1.56 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 4.75 5.78 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 261.10 261.29 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.10 Thalweg Elevation 260.38 260.48 LTOB Elevation 261.10 261.37 LTOB Max Depth 0.72 0.89 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 2.75 3.33 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 268.49 268.63 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.05 Thalweg Elevation 267.87 267.99 LTOB Elevation 268.49 268.66 LTOB Max Depth 0.62 0.67 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 2.92 3.18 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 250.56 250.74 LTOB Elevation 252.21 252.24 LTOB Max Depth 1.65 1.40 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 6.72 6.10 Cool Springs Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (7/11/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 251.58 251.69 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.86 Thalweg Elevation 250.98 251.07 LTOB Elevation 251.58 251.60 LTOB Max Depth 0.60 0.53 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.38 2.68 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 28.0 63.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1.0 1.3 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft)1 1 Floodprone Width (ft)1 8.0 12.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 0.5 0.6 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs)1 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 2.6 4.6 2 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 3.6 5.1 2 9.0 14.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.4 2 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.7 2 0.6 0.7 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.2 1.7 2 1 Width/Depth Ratio 3.3 11.5 2 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.1 2 2.2 5.0 1 Bank Height Ratio 2.6 4.1 2 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 86 51 2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 12.5 6.8 2 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other 1.4 12.6 42 3.1 2.9 4.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 9.7 25.0 0.5 2.9 13.9 3.9 14.9 77 0.8 12.0 0.8 10.1 14.2 47.5 60.0 1.5 5.0 1.0 52 14.0 5.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 153 61 6.3 0.0110 B4/B4a 1.15 2.9 14.0 115 6.8 20.0 0.2 0.0210 C4/B4c --------- 13.0 0.0540 0.0522 1.04 1.15 0.0598 A4 B4/B4a 0.5 ------ 1.10 6.3 17.1 T2 0.0340 T3 R2 1.7 1.20 1.07 1.0 1.10 --- C4/B4c 1.5 --- 43.0 1.03 1.20 5849 B4 3.4 --- 12.2 0.5 0.8 4.1 12.5 15.0 10.7 0.9 16.4 0.0813 A4 A4/B4a A4/B4a 9.4 0.07680.0510 7.1 27.4 2.9 0.4 UT to Cedar Creek DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.2 --- 8.2 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 4.8 7.1 2 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 6.0 8.0 2 10.0 15.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.4 2 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.5 2 0.6 0.8 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.7 2.8 2 1 Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 17.8 2 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.1 2 1.4 2.2 1 Bank Height Ratio 4.8 5.8 2 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 48 36 2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 11.3 9.6 2 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 8.0 13.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 0.5 0.6 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 8.0 13.0 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 0.5 0.6 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1.4 2.2 1 Bank Height Ratio 1 1 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Other --- --- --- 1.04 1.10 1.10 0.0530 A4/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a 4.3 11.0 17.9 18.0 1.9 7.7 1.0 1.0 39 146 85 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.5 3.4 0.0680 0.0719 17.0 14.0 22.1 91.8 16.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8 2.2 1.03 1.10 7.0 1.0 T8 5.1 6.0 8.6 F4b B4/B4a B4/B4a 0.4 PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) 1.0 0.5 3.7 T4 R2 6.3 20.0 0.4 13.0 108 --- --- --- 16.0 1.10 0.0432 1.10 2.6 1.0 81 132 70 1.0 0.0585 --- --- --- 1.3 4.8 A4 14.1 A4/B4a A4/B4a 1.7 0.6 4.0 T6 7.05.8 10.0 0.8 2.4 14.0 0.6 2.9 17.0 3.2 1.2 0.0840 0.0650 1.23 0.0310 1.3 0.7 2.7 14.3 59 18.0 0.4 1.10 0.0456 Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 228.48 228.61 273.70 273.90 280.86 280.94 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.15 1.00 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 226.97 227.22 273.21 273.47 280.03 280.21 LTOB2 Elevation 228.48 228.48 273.70 273.97 280.86 280.90 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.51 1.26 0.49 0.50 0.83 0.69 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.14 8.59 1.71 2.16 2.89 2.65 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 261.10 261.29 268.49 268.63 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.05 Thalweg Elevation 260.54 260.27 260.38 260.48 267.87 267.99 LTOB2 Elevation 261.68 261.83 261.10 261.37 268.49 268.66 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.14 1.56 0.72 0.89 0.62 0.67 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.75 5.78 2.75 3.33 2.92 3.18 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 251.58 251.69 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 1.00 0.86 Thalweg Elevation 250.56 250.74 250.98 251.07 LTOB2 Elevation 252.21 252.24 251.58 251.60 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.65 1.40 0.60 0.53 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.72 6.10 3.38 2.68 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. Cross-Section 7 (Pool) T8 Cross-Section 4 (Pool)Cross-Section 5 (Riffle)Cross-Section 6 (Riffle) Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Riffle)Cross-Section 3 (Riffle) UT to Cedar Creek R2 T2 2LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. T3 R2 T4 R2 T6 Cross-Section 8 (Riffle) APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA Reach MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029) UT to Cedar Creek Reach 2 7/5/2023 7/8/2023 T4 Reach 2 2/5/2023 7/5/2023 7/9/2023 MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029) Annual Precip Total 35.87* WETS 30th Percentile 42.28 WETS 70th Percentile 50.61 Normal * *Annual precipitation total was collected up until 10/31/2023. Data will be updated in MY2. Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Table 10. Bankfull Events Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Table 11. Rainfall Summary Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 MY1 (2023)** MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029) T2 138 Days/ 289 Days T3 Reach 1 220 Days/ 284 Days T5 42 Days/ 71 Days T6 66 Days/ 218 Days T8 44 Days/ 177 Days **Data was collected through 11/8/2023. Data will be updated in MY2. *Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow. Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria* Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 138 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 274 275 276 277 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs: T2 Flow Gauge Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 220 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 300 301 302 303 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs: T3 Flow Gauge Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 42 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 281 282 283 284 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs: T5 Flow Gauge Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 66 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 274 275 276 277 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs: T6 Flow Gauge Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 44 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 250 251 252 253 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs: T8 Flow Gauge Table 13. Groundwater Gauge Summary Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029) 1 178 Days (70.4%) 2 253 Days (100.0%) 3 4 Days (1.6%) 4 16 Days (6.3%) 5 110 Days (43.5.6%) 6 3 Days (1.2%) 7 107 Days (42.3%) Gauge Max. Consecutive Hydroperiod (Percentage) DMS Project No. 100166 WETS Station (Daily Rainfall): Lillington 2.0 W (Approximately 7.5 miles from Site) Growing Season: 3/1/2023 to 11/8/2023 (252 Days) Performance Standard: GW 3 has an 8% (20 consecutive day) hydroperiod criterion. GW 2 and 7 have a 10% (25 consecutive day) hydroperiod criterion. GW 1, 4, 5, and 6 have a 12% (30 consecutive day) hydroperiod criterion. WETS Station (30th & 70th Percentile): Sanford 8 NE (Approximately 7 miles from Site) Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 178 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #1 Gauge Malfunction from 8/13/2022 to 2/4/2023 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 253 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #2 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 4 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge Depth Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #3 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 16 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #4 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 110 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #5 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #5 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 3 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #6 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #6 Groundwater Gauge Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 107 max consecutive days Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n ) Wa t e r L e v e l ( i n ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Daily Precipitation Gauge #7 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Cool Springs Groundwater Gauge #7 Soil Temperature Probe Plot Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Cool Springs Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100166 Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De c St a r t o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 3/ 1 / 2 0 2 3 En d o f G r o w i n g S e a s o n 11 / 8 / 2 0 2 3 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Te m p e r a t u r e ( F ) Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level Cool Springs Soil Temperature Probe Gauge Found Out of Ground on 1/31/23 APPENDIX E. PROJECT TIMELINE AND CONTACT INFORMATION DMS Project No. 100166 DMS Project No. 100166 Stream Survey July 2023 Construction Contractors Table 15. Project Contact Table Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Designer Nicole Millns, PE Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 919.851.9986 Wildlands Construction 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Monitoring, POC Jason Lorch 919.851.9986 Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Year 6 Monitoring December 2028 Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2029 December 2029Vegetation Survey 2029 Year 4 Monitoring December 2026 Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2027 December 2027Vegetation Survey 2027 Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey 2025 December 2025Vegetation Survey 2025 December 2023 Vegetation Survey August 2023 Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey 2024 December 2024Vegetation Survey 2024 Year 1 Monitoring Soil Ammendments Spring 2023 Chicken Manure Encroachment August 2023 Invasive Treatments Spring and Summer 2023 December 2022 December 2022As-Built Survey Completed Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Vegetation Survey January 2023 Stream Survey December 2022 May 2023 Prescribed Fire Encroachment April 2023 Construction (Grading) Completed NA August 2022 Planting Completed NA January 2023 Table 14. Project Activity and Reporting History Cool Springs Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 - 2023 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Task Completion or Deliverable Submission Project Instituted NA July 2020 Mitigation Plan Approved NA January 2022 APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609 December, 2023 Todd Tugwell Chief – Mitigation Branch Regulatory Division Wilmington District, USACE Subject: Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Cool Springs Mitigation Site SAW-2020-01400 Harnett County, North Carolina DMS Contract Number 0302-02 Dear Mr. Tugwell, On September 20, 2023, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) regarding the FINAL MY0/As-Built Baseline Report & Record Drawings dated August 30, 2023. The following letter documents IRT feedback and Wildlands’ corresponding responses. Maria Polizzi, DWR: 1) It is difficult to tell from the photograph, but please confirm whether or not there is undercutting occurring on T2 at Photo Point 8. There is undercutting occurring on T2 adjacent to Photo Point 8. This portion of T2 is where mechanical repairs are planned to take place on a series of three failing structures. The status of repairs on T2 is documented in the MY1 report. 2) I am not an engineer, so this may be by design, but multiple log sills shown in photographs look high to me. Is there a specification for log size? Did these turn out as expected? Also please confirm that all log sills have footer logs. All log sills were installed as designed and have a diameter of at least 12 inches. Footers were used where needed based upon design specifications and site conditions. Large drops visible below log sills are necessary due to the steep slopes of the project channels, with some slopes as high as 8%. 3) Based on the photograph of the culvert at T3, this culvert does not appear to be embedded. DWR would prefer to see embedded culvert designs on future projects. The culvert on T3 was embedded during installation, but it is difficult to see in the picture. 4) The riffle at Cross-Section 6 has more rock than DWR would prefer to see. It appears to be just a pile of rocks in the stream rather than a constructed riffle. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609 This feature was built as a constructed riffle, but was placed in a manner that falls short of typical Wildlands Construction quality. Wildlands will implement hand repairs to achieve a higher quality constructed riffle at cross-section 6. 5) DWR appreciates the justification for red-line changes provided in Section 2.1. Noted. Wildlands will continue including justification for red-line changes to record drawings in future As-Built Reports. 6) There are a handful of deviations from the design that were captured in the cross-sections, some of which are outside the performance standard requirement for entrenchment ratio (must stay over 2.2). Below are a few notable examples: a. UT to Cedar Creek: The entrenchment ratio of 1.3, with a design range of 2.2 to 5 and pre-existing conditions at 1.5. This section became more entrenched. b. T2: Width/Depth ratio is 27.4 with design at 14. Additionally, the entrenchment ratio is 1.5. c. T3 R2: The entrenchment ratio is again lower than the pre-existing conditions and significantly lower than the design. d. T6: Entrenchment ratio is 1.3. MY0 entrenchment ratios displayed in Appendix C, Table 8, were calculated using incorrect floodprone widths. With corrected floodprone widths, all restoration channel dimensions now either closely align, or fall within, design parameters. The correct entrenchment ratios for MY0 all fall within design parameters, and are as follows: a. Ut to Cedar Creek: 5.0 b. T2: 2.9 c. T3 R2: 3.9 d. T4 R2: 3.2 e. T6: 2.6 f. T8: 1.9 The mistake in MY0 calculations has been noted and updated for subsequent monitoring reports. Todd Tugwell, USACE: 1) Table 1.1 – what do the colors mean? I assume mitigation approach. Please label in future reports. The coloration of rows in Table 1 indicates the mitigation approach applied to project stream reaches, and aligns with symbology used within Wildlands’ Current Condition Plan View map figures. Blue denotes stream restoration, yellow denotes stream enhancement I, and orange denotes stream enhancement II. Wildlands will include a color key in future monitoring reports. 2) We understand that a repair is planned to rebuild a series of three consecutive failing sills on T2 and stabilizing bank erosion on the downstream right bank of UT to Cedar Creek, which is proposed to be conducted under a non-notifying NWP. The MY0 report also noted that a repair Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609 will occur on T8 in MY1 or MY2. Why would this repair not be conducted at the same time as the repair on T2 and UT to Cedar Creek? I also don’t believe it is appropriate to state that “all project streams are stable” when in fact several repairs are planned for failing structures. Wildlands does not believe a mechanical repair is needed for T8. However, if the need for a mechanical repair on T8 becomes apparent, it will occur at the same time as the mechanical repairs on other project streams. 3) Please be sure to include a discussion about the prescribed burn damage to planted stems in MY1 and replant if needed. A discussion about the prescribed burn damage to planted stems is included in the MY1 report. The burned area will be assessed during MY2 to determine if replanting is necessary. 4) The flow gauge on T2 appears to be lower on the reach than indicated in the approved mit plan. Additionally, the gauges on T6 and T8 also appear to be lower on the reach than the recommended top third. This was also noted as a comment in the draft mit plan review (reference DWR comment 21). Please note that additional monitoring of flow on intermittent reaches may be required if questions about flow arise during annual reviews. Please ensure that flow gauges are placed in accordance with recommendations on future projects. Noted. Wildlands is prepared to perform additional monitoring of intermittent reaches if questions about flow arise during annual reviews. Wildlands will work to ensure that flow gauges are placed in accordance with recommendations on all future projects. 5) I appreciate the annotation of gate locations on the project maps. Noted. Wildlands will continue including annotation of gate locations on project maps. If you have any questions, please contact me by phone (919) 851-9986, or by email (jlorch@wildlandseng.com). Sincerely, Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator