20140194 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181218

Mitigation Project Name Roses Creek Stream Restoration Site
DMS ID 96399
River Basin CatavAa
Cataloging Unit 03050101
County Bmke USACE Action ID 2014-00517
Date Project Instituted ?114/2014 NCDWR Permit No 2014-0194
Data Prepared 5/22/2018
Crest Release Milestone
Potential Credits Midatlon Plan)
Pelentlal Cheats (A%Bulll Sui
_ _
Scheduled Warm
R¢Inses
(Stream)
sream.CrcC11F
cool Cold
5,009.600
5,009.000
-
Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Data
(Stream) (Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Weuand Credits
Rlunic Rlpadan Non
Rivatlne ns arcs Non-dpatlan Scheduled
Releases
(Cdastat)
Coastal An{cipated Actual
Releue YWr RNease Data
(Wetland) (Wegand)
1 She Establishment)
WA
-
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
WA
2 ear 01 As-Buik
30%
1.502.880
2016
9222016
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
3 earl MonROnn
10%
500.960
2017
4/32017
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
a ear 2 Monitoring)
1VA
500.960
2018
48512018.
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
S Year 3 Manhann
10%
2019
WA
WA
WA
NIA
6(YearY4 Mo muni
2020
Released Amounts (credits)
WA
WA
WA
NIA
> ear S Monitoring)
10%
NCOWRPennif USAOEAcSon ID. Pmlea Name
2021
WA
WA
WA
N/A
e ear 6 Monitoring)
SY•
2022
Not
WA
WA
NIA
9(Year7 Monhonn
10%
2023
WA
WA
WA
N/A
stream Bankfoil Standard
10%
2013-00606Division l3
34.000
rem creaks Released to Data
I2,Was00
151.000
SR 1438- Bridge 291-
DEBITS (released meats only)
Rod. 1 2 25
-c-
-
AsBuilt Amounts (feet and acres)
4.738.000
679.000
As -Built Amounts (mitigation onaft)
4,738.000
271.600
Percentage Released
50%
60%
Released Amounts(fect l acres)
2,369.000
339500
Released Amounts (credits)
2,369.000
135.800
NCOWRPennif USAOEAcSon ID. Pmlea Name
SR 1560-Bldge l 16-
2013.00803 Division 13
41.000
SR 1580-Bdtlge 123-
2013-00606Division l3
34.000
2 013-01 76 4 NCDOTLP 8.5138
151.000
SR 1438- Bridge 291-
2013-01675 Division 13
21.000
SR 1150 -Bdtlge 10-
201440641 Dlvisicn 11
68.000
OR 13651mprovemenis-
2014-00119 Division 11
255.000
SR15151mprevemen5-
2015-00240 IDIsic.s i1
130.090
SR 1560 - groan $80125-
201890373 Division 13
100.000
SR1369Imprevements-
201402250 DI .en ii
41.400
203.700
2008-0915 2000-02753 Urvllle Dam ESS) Project
500.000
SR 13691mprovemants-
2015-02250 Dlvlslan 11
324.120
SR 1241- Bruce 110320-
2017-00093 Division 13
62.000
SR 1410- Bridge 580284-
2017-00910 DNislan 13
67.680
35.800
SR 1268 - Bridge 110131-
2017-00930 Division 13
32.100
SR 1258-Bddgs110131-
2017-00930 Dlvislan 13
MAS0
SRi56c-Bddge580120-
201740928 Division13
36.000
2017-00901 NCDOTtiP 11.4447
98.000
SR 1796- End'. 580011-
2017.00896 Division 13
31101

Gses Gr'� I<
2 -For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting itto the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the 11SACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 15% reserve of credits is to be held back un61 the bankfull event performance standard has been met
-------------------
-------------------
===================
2 -For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting itto the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the 11SACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 15% reserve of credits is to be held back un61 the bankfull event performance standard has been met

YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ROSES CREEK STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Burke County, North Carolina
NC DMS Project # 96309
Prepared for:
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
217 West Jones St., Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Construction Completed: May 2016
Morphology Data Collected: March 28, 2018
Vegetation Data Collected: August 6, 2018
Submitted: December 18, 2018

December 18, 2018
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NC Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
RE: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
Roses Creek MY 3 Monitoring Report
DMS Project Number: 96309
Response to DMS Review Comments on Draft Year 3 Monitoring Report for Roses Creek
Mr. Tsomides:
As per your letter dated November 19, 2018, we have reviewed and addressed DMS review comments
as follows:
1. Continue to monitor and report on low flow silted- in sections along tributaries. Some
sections are juncus-dominant. Consider moving UT2 and UT3 flow gauges farther
upstream to represent the entire reach.
Response: These low flow and silted areas will continue to be monitored. During
site visits in the spring, summer and fall flow has been observed in the entire
reaches of UT2 and UT3. Due to consistent visual observation of flow we propose
not to relocate flow gauges at this time.
2. Significant invasives continue to grow along UT1, some privet trees are now more 10-
12 feet tall. There is also scattered privet and invasives along the lower main stem.
Suggest addressing as soon as practicable.
Response: We plan to address the areas of privet and invasives along UTI and the
lower main stem as soon as practicable, likely during the winter of 2019.
3. Please provide approximate locations of site issues / problem areas on the CCPVs;
these were captured in 2017 but are not on the 2018 CCPVs. The mapped locations /
areas presented in the narrative and tables should all be evident on the maps and
mapped with as much detail as possible, including bare areas, silted reaches, erosion,
invasive polygons, etc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
T 919.232.6600

Response: The CCPV has been updated to show areas that are currently of
concern. Many of the areas shown in 2017 were addressed during the repair work in
October, 2018. A separate Adaptive Management Map has been included in the report
in Appendix F. This figure shows areas that were repaired during 2018 and areas to be
addressed in the near future.
4. HDR have done a nice job and been proactive about stream repairs (and planting); the
repairs looked generally good following Hurricane Florence; recommend that the 2018
repair areas be shown on a separate Adaptive Management map, similar to the map
you developed for the supplemental planting in 2017, showing clearly what was done
and where.
Response: Thank you. An Adaptive Management Map has been created and is
included in Appendix F.
5. Table 2 — Structural repair date is indicated as February 2017, however stream repairs
were conducted in October 2018. Please correct.
Response: This error has been corrected.
6. Surface Water Level Meter Data — The water level graphs are hard to follow and
should only present the current monitoring year time frame for clarity; the sensor level
should be shown; rain data should be shown concurrently if possible; following is a
good example.
Response: The water level meter graphs have been edited to show the current
monitoring year only.
7. Table 1 — Total SMU should be 5009.6; we are now breaking out SMU to the tenth.
Response: The SMU amount has been corrected.
8. Update CCPV aerial, if available, to show restored stream alignment.
Response: An updated aerial could not be located at this time.
9. Please confirm that the Standard BHR Calculation guidance has been followed; this
was sent out to all providers the week of 9/17/2018.
555 Fayetteville Street. Suite 900. Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
T 919.232.6600

Response: The Standard BHR Calculation was used for the current monitoring
year. A footnote has been included in the reporting tables.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to give me a call
(919.900.1650)
Sincerely,
HDR I ICA
Kenton Beal
555 Fayetteville Street. Suite 900, Raleigh, NC 27601-3034
T 919.232.6600

Prepared by:
HDR I ICA
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
919.232.6600
919.232.6642 (fax)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED HEREIN, ROSES CREEK YEAR 3
MONITORING REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
SIGNED SEALED, AND DATED THIS I DAY OF D i;GEn i3" 2018.
C AR����ii
.��Q4`�•-53j0.
��rf'�.
a U%&AI
• 035535
Chris L. Smith, PE
Page 1

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 SUCCESS CRITERIA................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 3
1.4 VEGETATION.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 STREAM STABILITY................................................................................................................ 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................5
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................5
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES ............................................ 6
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA................................................................................
13
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA....................................................................................
34
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA.......................................................................................
37
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGIC DATA.............................................................................................
59
APPENDIX F. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN............................................................................
71
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure1. Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.1 — 2.9. Current Condition Plan View...................................................................... 14
Figures 3.1 - 3.27. Vegetation Plot and Problem Area Photos ........................................... 29
Figures 4.1 — 4.12. Cross Section Plots............................................................................... 38
Figures 5.1 - 5.24 Crest Gauge Photos.................................................................................. 60
Figures 6.1 — 6.3 Tributary Water Level Gauge Meter Data ............................................... 66
Figure 7. Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................................... 72
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits............................................................ 8
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History...................................................................... 9
Table 3. Project Contacts Table.............................................................................................
10
Table 4. Project Information....................................................................................................
11
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ..................................................
24
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment...........................................................................
28
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary .......................................................
35
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary..............................................................................
51
Table 9. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary .........................................
55
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events................................................................................
65
Table 11. Tributary Surface Water Summary .......................................................................
70
Page 1

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the vegetation establishment and stream stability for Year 3
monitoring for the Roses Creek Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") in Burke County, North
Carolina.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
Primary goals for the Site, as detailed in the Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
(ICA Engineering 2015) include:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats.
The following objectives accomplish the goals listed above:
1. Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation through:
a. Restoring the existing degraded, straightened and incised/entrenched streams as
primarily a Priority 1 restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the
floodplain allowing nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream
runoff to settle from floodwaters to the extent practical. Restoring a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure the channel will transport and
attenuate watershed flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading.
b. Restore channel banks by relocating the channel, excavating bankfull benches,
placing in -stream structures to reduce shearing forces on outside meander
bends, and planting native vegetative species to provide soil stability, thus
reducing stream bank stressors.
c. Reducing point source (i.e. cattle and equipment crossings) and non -point source
(i.e. stormwater runoff through pastures) pollution associated with on-site
agricultural operations (hay production and cattle) by exclusionary fencing from
the stream and riparian buffer and by eliminating all stream crossings from the
easement.
d. Plant a vegetative buffer on stream banks and adjacent floodplains to treat
nutrient enriched surface runoff from adjacent pastureland associated with on-
site agricultural operations.
e. Restoring riparian buffers adjacent to the streams that are currently maintained
for hay production that will attenuate floodwaters, in turn reducing stressors from
upstream impacts.
2. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat through:
a. Restoration of a sinuous gravel bed channel that promotes a stable bed form,
and accommodates benthic macroinvertebrate and fish propagation.
Additionally, woody materials such as log structures, overhanging planted
vegetation and toe wood/brush toe in submerged water will provide a diversity of
shading, bed form and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms.
b. Restoring native vegetation to the stream channel banks and the adjacent
riparian corridor, that is currently grass dominated, will diversify flora and create a
protected habitat corridor, which will provide an abundance of available foraging
and cover habitat for a multitude of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.
3. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats through:
a. Planting the riparian buffer with native vegetation.
Page 2

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
b. Protection of the restored community will ensure a protected wildlife corridor
between the Site and the upstream and downstream mature riparian buffers and
upland habitats.
c. Converting approximately 15 acres from existing agricultural land to riparian
buffer protected by permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring
includes stream channel/hydraulics and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria,
and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003) and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (NCEEP 2011). Project success criteria are
further detailed in the Baseline Monitoring Document & As -Built Baseline Report (HDRIICA
2016).
1.3 Background Summary
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
contracted HDRJICA to restore 4,746 linear feet of Roses Creek and three of its unnamed
tributaries within the Site to assist in fulfilling stream mitigation needs in the watershed. The
Site is located approximately 12 miles northwest of downtown Morganton in Burke County, NC.
The Site contains Roses Creek and three unnamed headwater tributaries of Roses Creek (UT
1, UT 2 and UT 3). The Site is located within the 03050101060030 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit,
which is also a DMS Targeted Hydrologic Unit for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba
River Basin. Roses Creek is classified as a Water Supply Watershed (WS -III), as it is part of
the headwaters that feed Lake Rhodhiss. The Site is comprised of one property owned by
Robert B. Sisk and Martha M. Sisk (PIN # 1767479652) (known as the Sisk Farm). Additional
information concerning project history is presented in Table 2.
1.4 Vegetation
Planted stem performance has improved over the past monitoring year. The entire site was
replanted in February 2018 by River Works, Inc to mitigate the loss of planted stems from Year
2 supplemental planting. Although some recently planted stems were found dead during the
Year 3 vegetation assessment, the supplemental planting helped a majority of the plots to meet
Year 3 success criteria. When only taking planted stems into account, 12 of the 17 plots are
meeting Year 3 criteria of 320 stems per acre. When taking into account natural recruits, 16
plots meet criteria with the exception of Plot 2. It is anticipated that natural recruits will continue
to colonize on the Site. The site as a whole meets criteria with an average 355 planted stems
per acre.
During Year 2, planted stems along UT 1 and UT 2 were heavily browsed upon by deer. Deer
browse did not appear as evident during Year 3 although tracks are still present.
Bare areas and areas of thin grass noted during previous monitoring years are showing signs of
improvement with the establishment of herbaceous cover and volunteer tree species. The total
area of bare areas has decreased to 0.11 acres (0.7% of planted acreage) after Year 3. These
areas will be closely monitored but are expected to fill in over time.
Page 3

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Chinese privet and Multiflora rose were discovered along UT 1 during Year 3. Invasive species
management is scheduled to occur in early 2019, and may include mechanical and/or herbicide
treatments.
1.5 Stream Stability
Roses Creek and its tributaries have remained in stable, functioning condition over the past
monitoring year with the exception of bank/overbank erosion at stations: 10+91 -11+25, 12+69 -
12+91, 35+90 — 36+18, 37+18 — 37+30 and 39+26 - 39+44. These areas of erosion were
repaired by Land Mechanic Design, Inc. between September 26, 2018 and October 2, 2018.
Furthermore, the rock step structure originally installed at station 37+18 was relocated to station
37+30 due to severe erosion around the structure. A soil lift was installed immediately upstream
of the relocated structure which extends 20 feet upstream. Repair work photos are included in
Appendix B.
Cross Section geometry along Roses Creek has experienced minor fluctuations from previous
monitoring years. Cross Sections 5 and 6 have increased in depth and bankfull area due to
severe erosion along the left bank. Following the recent repair of the severe bank erosion, it is
expected that the cross section will exhibit stability within acceptable parameters. Cross
Sections 9 and 10 have increased in depth and bankfull area from last year. This is likely the
result of sediment that was deposited in previous years moving downstream. As sediment
continues to be transported through UT 2 it is expected that the trend towards baseline
conditions will continue. UT 3 is exhibiting minor aggradation in the upstream half of the
tributary. This can be seen in Cross Section 11 which has decreased in area and doubled in
width to depth ratio. This is most likely the result of thick vegetation along the banks retarding
flow and causing sediment deposition.
Near the confluence of UT 2 and Roses Creek, the small ditch dug in Year 2 continues to drain
standing water from the floodplain as intended. The ditch remains stable and grass has
established in the surrounding area that was disturbed during excavation. Thick vegetation
continues to trap fine sediment at the top of UT 2, however coir logs installed last year have
reduced sediment input from the road crossing above the tributary. This area will continue to be
monitored closely over the next year.
Large amounts of detritus were deposited in the floodplain around station 17+00 indicating that
the site has experienced heavy flows and at least one overbank event in the past year. The
large stump noted at station 13+50 in the Year 2 Monitoring Report at station was transported
out of the channel into the floodplain during one of these events. The crest gauge at the
downstream end of the main channel indicated that during the second half of the monitoring
year Roses Creek overtopped its banks by 1.93'. Crest gauge records are provided in Appendix
E.
Based on water level data obtained using the Hobo U20 pressure transducers installed in the
bottom of each tributary, all three have indicated constant flow throughout the past monitoring
year. It is worth noting that each tributary has exhibited flow for a span of 30+ consecutive days
at least once in the past year. Water level data is provided in Appendix E as well.
Bank pins were examined during morphological surveys and were not exposed.
Page 4

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
A pebble count was conducted on site indicating that the average particle size has increased
over the past year from a D50 of 48.80 mm to 61.45 mm.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Year 3 monitoring surveys were completed using a Total Station. Each cross section was
marked with a rebar monument at their beginning and ending points. The rebar has been
located vertically and horizontally in NAD 83 -State Plane. Surveying these monuments
throughout the Site ensured proper orientation. The survey data was imported into MicroStation
for verification. RIVERMorph was used to analyze cross section data. Tables and figures were
created using Microsoft Excel. A pebble count was conducted and analyzed in RIVERMorph.
Vegetation monitoring was completed using CVS level II methods, for 17, 100 square meter
vegetation plots (Lee et al. 2006). The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this
document was Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States (Weakley 2011).
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
Weakley, Alan S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States (online). Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2011-May-nay.pdf [May 15,
2011]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Page 5

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Sitc
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Page 6

`t
Miller
Mountain
J
A T T O N I� �� • 7 0 R; E,
etc
. f
B
1279 8'Y
•' lriaticin Grope v
Sources: Esri, HERE
—DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,
_ INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China
Legend
� Project Easement
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the NCDEQ Divison of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of
state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved
in the development, monitoring, and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined,
pre -approved roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned activities/roles
requires prior coordination with DMS.
ROSES CREEK STREAM MITIGATION SITE
VICINITY MAP
BURKE COUNTY, NC
N
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Directions:'
Llnvlll
From 1-40 West. Take exit 105 for NC -18 towards Shebly. ,
Project Area
jlderness
Lake
James
.127
State Park
Morganton
Sources: Esri, HERE
—DeLorme, USGS, Intermap,
_ INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China
Legend
� Project Easement
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the NCDEQ Divison of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of
state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved
in the development, monitoring, and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined,
pre -approved roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned activities/roles
requires prior coordination with DMS.
ROSES CREEK STREAM MITIGATION SITE
VICINITY MAP
BURKE COUNTY, NC
N
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet
Directions:'
From 1-40 West. Take exit 105 for NC -18 towards Shebly. ,
Turn right off of the exit and continue on NC -18 for approximately 9 miles.
.127
Turn left on to Fish Hatchery Road and continue 2.2 miles.
Turn right onto Old Table Rock Road.
'.�`
Tab
The site will be at the end of Old Table Rock Road.-
��
-- f
r FIGURE 1
PATH: Z:\ROSES CREEK15.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT\51WORK_IN_PROGRESS\DOCS\MONITORING\YEAR IWPPENDIX A_ VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND
Map Produced 12/2/2016
TABLES\VICINITY
MAP.MXD USER: ADIGERON-DATE: 11/13/3017
Page 7

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Roses Creek, Burke County
DMS Project No. 96309
Credit Summary
Stream Riparian
Non- Buffer
Nitrogen Phosphorous
SMU Wetland
riparian
Nutrient Nutrient Offset
WMU
Wetland
Offset
Type R RE R RE
R RE
Totals 5,009.6
Project Components
Project
Stationing/
Existing
Approach
Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
SMU
Location
or
Footage or
Ratio
Component
Footage/(PI,
PII•
or Reach ID
Acreage
etc.
Restoration
Acreage
Equivalent
Roses
10+00-
3,643
PI
Restoration
3,181
1:1
3,121
Creek
41+81
Roses
41+81-
38
-
Ell
38
2.5:1
15
Creek
42+19
UT 1
10+00-
267
PI
Restoration
289
1:1
289
12+54;
16+11-
16+46
UT 1
12+54-
641
-
Ell
641
2.5:1
256
16+11;
16+46-
19+30
UT 2
10+00-
610
PI
Restoration
707
1:1
707
17+07
UT 3
10+00-
558
PI
Restoration
621
1:1
621
16+21
Total
NA
5,757
PI
Restoration/
5,477
1-2.5:1
5,009.6
Ell
* Stream Mitigation Units decreased by 60 to account for break in easement at the stream crossing
on Sisk Farm Road
Component Summation
Restoration Stream
Level linear
feet
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -Riparian Buffer Upland
Wetland (square feet) acres
acres
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,798
Enhancement II 679
Page 8

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
Mitigation Plan
September 2015
I September 2015
Final Design — Construction Plans
September 2015
I March 2016
Construction
February 25, 2016
I May 18, 2016
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
I May 18, 2016
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
---
I May 18, 2016
Bare Root, Containerized, and B&B plantings for
Entire Project Area
---
May 27, 2016
Mitigation Plan/As-built (Year 0 Monitoring -Baseline)
May 2016
July 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
November 2016
January 2017
Stream Morphology
November 2016
--
Vegetation
August 2016
--
Supplemental Planting
---
I February 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
August 2017
I November 2017
Stream Morphology
June 2017
I --
Vegetation
August 2017
I --
Supplemental Planting
---
I February 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
August 2018
I November 2018
Stream Morphology
March 2018
I --
Vegetation
August 2018
--
Structural Repairs
---
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Morphology
Vegetation
Page 9

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Designer
ICA Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Primary project design POC
Chris Smith [phone]
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Construction Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Structural Repair Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Structural Repair Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Planting Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Planting Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Supplemental Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
114 W Main Street, Suite 106
Clayton, NC 27520
Supplemental Planting Contractor POC
Bill Wright 919 590-5193
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27607
Seeding Contractor POC
Lloyd Glover 919 639-6132
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources — Triangle Office
1) Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
Nursery Stock Suppliers
2 Foggy Mountain Nurser live stakes
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Monitoring Performers
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ben Furr 919 232-6600
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Stream Monitoring POC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ben Furr 919 232-6600
HDRJICA Engineering Inc.
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ben Furr 919 232-6600
Page 10

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 4. Project Information
Page 11
Project Information
Project Name
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
County
Burke
Project Area acres
17.3
Project Coordinates (latitude
and
35.850953,-81.819541
Ion itude
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont / Mountain
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit
03050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03050101060030
8 -di it
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03-08-31
Project Drainage Area acres
Roses: 3,309, UT 1: 35, UT 2: 47, UT 3: 10
Project Drainage Area Percentage
<1%
of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agricultural/Pasture
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Geological Unit
Zab : Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Roses Creek
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Length of reach (linear
3,681 existing
900 existing
610 existing
558 existing
feet
Valley Classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage Area (acres)
3,309
35
47
13
NCDWQ Stream
56
30
33.5
34
Identification Score
NCDWQ Water
WS -III; Tr
WS -III; Tr
WS -III; Tr
WS -III; Tr
Quality Classification
Morphological
E4, B4, and
Description (stream
F4
135,F5
B5
B5, G5
type)
Evolutionary Trend
Simon's
Could maintain
Stages:
a B type
Premodified »
channel in
Constructed »
majority of
G » B/E
G » B
Degradation
reach
and Widening
Or
F» B
Page 11

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Regulatory Considerations (cont.)
Coastal Zone Management (CZMA)/
Coastal Area Management Act
CAMA
No N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes Yes
CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
N/A
Page 12

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Page 13

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 2.0 — 2.8. Current Condition Plan View
Page 14

0
N
\
0
V
W
O
n181
NdGo'ia\ \� I Rd. \
\ a
\ `o PISGAHONNAAST ONAL "io, 1263
f 1261
Tbk testate
h�'\ here _ 1258
Ra
N°- 1240 Table Rock
� 1240 \
1210 1240 181
&eek
1240 Rd.
1240 1256 12 7�
VICINITY MAP
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
00roFALLEN
TREE
0 CONSTRUCTED
BERM
BANKBED CONDITION
►���/� MINOR
EROSION
DEPOSITION
(SILT)
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
INVASIVE
POPULATION
OTHIN GRASS
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
D CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 — REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
ROSES CREEK
LOCATION: BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LAT. 35051'01" N LONG: —81049'11" W
TYPE OF WORK: CCPV PLANS — YEAR 3
END UT 2
STA 17+10.07
LEGEND
0
0
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
& STATIONING
----------
THALWEG
BANKFULL
C J _ —
EPHEMERAL POOL
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
POWERLINE
X
FENCE
XSXs_1
CROSS-SECTION
LOCATION
FM
FLOW METER
CREST GAUGE
O
PHOTO POINT
& DIRECTION
W g
EXISTING
/
WETLANDS
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
BRUSH TOE
ROCK L—VANE
ROCK
CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
ROCK /LOG
CROSS VANE
0
FLOODPLAIN
p
INTERCEPTOR

CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
r
}IITA
EGIN CREEK
R 10+00.00
4
f ,
J . r'
RO CREEK C
ST 1'1 + 00.90
END UT 1
STA 19 + 50.69
VP3
600/600
/0X 0O a
O
O
to
y,
1� �N
{n � O
00 C4 LL
> Uz
a) o- �>------- 5 r —
- - .�
______— ON's c
N
FLOODPLAIN . Lu is N'5
INTERCEPTOR UL, W Z
oo Lo
VP4
RASE \850850/
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
*0**FOL
ALEN CRITERIA MET
TREE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS CRITERIA UNMET
INVASIVE NOTE:
POPULATION 65CV650 — REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
x x X
THIN GRASS STEMS PER ACRE
N
N`P�GNs��c
LEGEND
CREST
GAUGE
O
PHOTO POINT
+
& DIRECTION
ROCK L -VANE
l I--------
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
XS -1 CROSS-SECTION
ROCK
& STATIONING
LOCATION
CROSS VANE
•------------
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
ROCK STEP
BANKFULL
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
EPHEMERAL POOL
D
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
ROCK STEP
E
CONSERVATION
STRUCTURE
wRAP
EASEMENT
CLASS
BRUSH TOEa
FLOODPLAIN
X
FENCE
99
INTERCEPTOR
O
O
to
y,
1� �N
{n � O
00 C4 LL
> Uz
a) o- �>------- 5 r —
- - .�
______— ON's c
N
FLOODPLAIN . Lu is N'5
INTERCEPTOR UL, W Z
oo Lo
VP4
RASE \850850/
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
*0**FOL
ALEN CRITERIA MET
TREE
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS CRITERIA UNMET
INVASIVE NOTE:
POPULATION 65CV650 — REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
x x X
THIN GRASS STEMS PER ACRE
N
N`P�GNs��c

CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV]
YEAR 3
MATCHLINE
2
SEE SHEET 8
ROSES CREEK'
STA 17+10.07
II
c O�
1 O
N
C 0004 LL
0 ��Uz
O0.7S 0
Lu O N O u
LL J
CQJ
ou Lf) W Z
-V)
v
a
U Z
W J
O 0
d u
Z
Lu
W Q
V Z
N Q
W
N Lu ZN
O
V
W
W Y
HD
N m
0 -
N
W
LEGEND
PHOTO POINT
CREST
& DIRECTION
GAUGE
0
...
V7 N
XS-1Lo
Z
v
CROSS-SECTION
g
ROCK L -VANE
r
LOCATION
o
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
& STATIONING
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
ROCK
CROSS VANE
•------------
THALWEG
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
3
ROCK STEP
EEP# 96309
BANKFULL D
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
EPHEMERAL POOL
ROCK STEP
CONSERVATION
BRUSH TOE
RE
STRUCTURE
E
EASEMENT
R�
FENCE
POWER LINE
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
ROSES CREEK'
STA 17+10.07
II
c O�
1 O
N
C 0004 LL
0 ��Uz
O0.7S 0
Lu O N O u
LL J
CQJ
ou Lf) W Z
-V)
v
a
U Z
W J
O 0
d u
Z
Lu
W Q
V Z
N Q
W
N Lu ZN
O
V
W
W Y
HD
N m
0 -
Ln
W
J
...
V7 N
Z
v
g
=
CL
a
o
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
3
EEP# 96309

rb
A
�P VP9
850850
0
I
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CC
_AF
y
VPll
90n400
'AA
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
BANK/BED CONDITION
gNNjodL,f,,A MINOR
EROSION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
m
CREST
O
GAUGE
0
++
O
PHOTO POINT
ROCK STEP
Lo
STRUCTURE w/
& DIRECTION
o
K �� A
------- J--------
VP10
550/550
CROSS-SECTION
a
CLASS B RIP RAP
& STATIONING
LOCATION
INTERCEPTOR
-------------
c
l
Ll
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
o
BANKFULL
a
U
_AF
y
VPll
90n400
'AA
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
BANK/BED CONDITION
gNNjodL,f,,A MINOR
EROSION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
m
CREST
O
GAUGE
0
++
O
PHOTO POINT
ROCK STEP
Lo
STRUCTURE w/
& DIRECTION
o
------- J--------
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
a
CLASS B RIP RAP
& STATIONING
LOCATION
INTERCEPTOR
-------------
THALWEG
Ll
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
o
BANKFULL
a
U
EPHEMERAL POOL
D
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
i
yCONSERVATION
E
EASEMENT
X
FENCE
BRUSH TOE
rI
OLo
N
�N ^ G
0ON LL
=O o
ani 0,Z Z
5�
�1 N'js c
W O N a1 u
L a J
Vu7 `n W z
—
Ln
a
F- a
Z
U �
o
w
a U
Z
UO O
WO
N N Z
�w
O
U
LU Lu
L
m
0 -
Ln
W
J
a
VLo
N N N
V Z
= g
CL o
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
4
EEP# 96309
CREST
GAUGE
ROCK L -VANE
ROCK
CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
rI
OLo
N
�N ^ G
0ON LL
=O o
ani 0,Z Z
5�
�1 N'js c
W O N a1 u
L a J
Vu7 `n W z
—
Ln
a
F- a
Z
U �
o
w
a U
Z
UO O
WO
N N Z
�w
O
U
LU Lu
L
m
0 -
Ln
W
J
a
VLo
N N N
V Z
= g
CL o
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
4
EEP# 96309

00
O
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
BANK13ED CONDITION
MINOR
EROSION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE -
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
YEAR 3
y.
,r
r• 1 t � `
.� • _ V
h
u ROSES CREEK
STA 34 + 65.21
4..
ps
VP12
6004600 j
sz °7
o
ROCK
FLOW
+
ROCK STEP
FM
METER
Lo
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
---------------
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
a
& STATIONING
LOCATION
.------------
THALWEG
❑
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
D
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
E
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
BRUSH TOE
y
FENCE
PHOTO POINT
CREST
O
& DIRECTION
GAUGE
ROCK L -VANE
END UT 3
STA 16+27.80
'i
�f � O
fy�ov\s
I 750/750 , 6 C��
0
0
CREST"
\ GAUGE I
�X
0
OD 9 ,
i
9
L; N m
C N Q v1
6N N O
yQNLL
L_o O
0'j 0` U Z
N
.5$ Z
�N•�s c
W a N Q u
LL
Vu) °C Z
Lo
Q
V
ML
a
woO0
CL
V
Y Z
w o ":
u O
U
NOz
W F-
V)
N
0 Lu
Z
O
W
N
m
0
W Ln
J
VL
N N
N
V_ Z
CL 0
1
04
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
5
EEP# 96309
ROCK
CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
a
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
ROCK /LOG
CROSS VANE
END UT 3
STA 16+27.80
'i
�f � O
fy�ov\s
I 750/750 , 6 C��
0
0
CREST"
\ GAUGE I
�X
0
OD 9 ,
i
9
L; N m
C N Q v1
6N N O
yQNLL
L_o O
0'j 0` U Z
N
.5$ Z
�N•�s c
W a N Q u
LL
Vu) °C Z
Lo
Q
V
ML
a
woO0
CL
V
Y Z
w o ":
u O
U
NOz
W F-
V)
N
0 Lu
Z
O
W
N
m
0
W Ln
J
VL
N N
N
V_ Z
CL 0
1
04
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
5
EEP# 96309

CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
O
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
0
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
N
O
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
l
& STATIONING
•------------
THALWEG
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
E
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
X
FENCE
XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
LOCATION
1■ -rima _1a10
CREST
GAUGE
ao,w
ROCK L -VANE
ROCK
CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
BANK13ED CONDITION
MINOR
EROSION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
UI
C O n
N r O
�O(V LL
L=C, O
Q V z Z
` N
w V)2 rn2
QLn �U
VZ
—Ln
N
r1
ML
0 -
Ln
W
J
a
Lo -
C4
N
V Z
= g
C o
o
trl-=
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
6
EEP# 96309
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
BRUSH TOE
O
PHOTO POINT
& DIRECTION
CREST
GAUGE
ao,w
ROCK L -VANE
ROCK
CROSS VANE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
BOULDERS
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
BANK13ED CONDITION
MINOR
EROSION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
UI
C O n
N r O
�O(V LL
L=C, O
Q V z Z
` N
w V)2 rn2
QLn �U
VZ
—Ln
N
r1
ML
0 -
Ln
W
J
a
Lo -
C4
N
V Z
= g
C o
o
trl-=
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
6
EEP# 96309

C
mr
I
BEGIN UT 1
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CC
I
i O
U j
C7
i
N
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
INVASIVE
POPULATION
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
OQ`X'
PHOTO POINT
& DIRECTION
CREST
GAUGE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
lI
o�
— �0 N
ON ^ 01
�ONLL
L=0 0
o ZV Z
W ii (n ai U
LL J
UL �Z
Ln
IIIIIIIIII,
N
n
ML
a
z
W J
K w
a
U
Z
O
LU
U� O
LU O
W �
W
N
� � J
O
W
Lu
Y
N D
O
u7
W
J
Q
VO4
N N
N
V_ z
cLcL
CL o
I
0
04
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
7
EEP# 96309
LEGEND
o
0
Lo
X
FENCE
_______________
I
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
& STATIONING
LOCATION
•------------
THALWEG
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
FM
O
FLOW
E
CONSERVATION
METER$
EASEMENT
POWER
LINE
PHOTO POINT
& DIRECTION
CREST
GAUGE
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
CLASS B RIP RAP
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
lI
o�
— �0 N
ON ^ 01
�ONLL
L=0 0
o ZV Z
W ii (n ai U
LL J
UL �Z
Ln
IIIIIIIIII,
N
n
ML
a
z
W J
K w
a
U
Z
O
LU
U� O
LU O
W �
W
N
� � J
O
W
Lu
Y
N D
O
u7
W
J
Q
VO4
N N
N
V_ z
cLcL
CL o
I
0
04
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
7
EEP# 96309

SILK: •s; t
.. V4
--------------
w
LEGEND
U�
N
FLOODPLAIN X
N H
Z
INTERCEPTOR ddd
P
• s
�
& DIRECTION
ow
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CCPV)
YEAR 3
SISK FARM RD
_ �=-a----- � r•....kE��--
� y
),r4�
3 i�
. ^O
FIOW Direc
tion
A
OO �
�rA)X
N
~ M
J�
,Jill
Vco
co
(D o
N
�OCV LL
0,Uz
0)0'5s C
C
0N°�`'
LL J
U� wVZ
_Ln
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
w
LEGEND
U�
N
PHOTO POINT
N H
Z
V
g
DEPOSITION
& DIRECTION
LoX
O
FENCE
7
---------------
I
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS
XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
CRITERIA UNMET
CREST
& STATIONING
NOTE:
LOCATION
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
GAUGE
•------------
THALWEG
STEMS PER ACRE
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
EEP# 96309
BRUSH TOE
BANKFULL
ROCK STEP
STRUCTURE w/
EPHEMERAL POOL
D
5 x 20 VEG PLOT
CLASS B RIP RAP
EINTERCEPTOR
CONSERVATION
a
FLOODPLAIN
EASEMENT
FM
FLOW
METER
POWER
LINE
N
~ M
J�
,Jill
Vco
co
(D o
N
�OCV LL
0,Uz
0)0'5s C
C
0N°�`'
LL J
U� wVZ
_Ln
YEAR 3 CONDITIONS
w
CONSTRUCTED
� BERM
U�
N
BANK/BED CONDITION
N H
Z
V
g
DEPOSITION
(SILT)
CL
a �
O
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
7
CRITERIA MET
N�
DATE: 08-23-18
CRITERIA UNMET
ccPv
NOTE:
YEAR 3
650/650 - REPRESENTS TOTAL
SHEET
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
8
EEP# 96309

A
l
r
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW (CC
A
BEGIN UT 3 p
STA 10 + 00.00 k
O
IVPI 3
650/650
At
r
HOW Direction m
CA
m
mCl)
0'w
m
IT
1 :� - t - ! -
BANK13ED CONDITION
DEPOSITION
(SILT)
VEGETATION PLOT CONDITIONS
ebb CRITERIA MET
CRITERIA UNMET
NOTE:
650/650 — REPRESENTS TOTAL
STEMS PER ACRE /PLANTED
STEMS PER ACRE
o
LEGEND
LO
I________
ASBUILT ALIGNMENTS XS -1
CROSS-SECTION
I
& STATIONING
LOCATION
-------------
THALWEG
❑
10 x 10 VEG PLOT
BANKFULL
EPHEMERAL POOL
M -B
EXISTING
WETLANDS
E
CONSERVATION
_ —
EASEMENT
�@
STRUCTURE w/
X
FENCE
CLASS B RIP RAP
O
PHOTO POINT
a9
FLOODPLAIN
INTERCEPTOR
& DIRECTIONS
—} o0
N
�yONLL
=0 0
o`V Z
Q1
p N'jt c
W ON01u
L 0 J
VL °c Z
_ v1
LO
V Z
W J
Q
V
w - F
��
V� O
L,) O Z
W r `
N y FT
O
V
W Lu
H �
N m
O
u7
W
J
Q
VO4
N N
N
V_ Z
CL 0
OD
04
N
DATE: 08-23-18
CCPV
YEAR 3
SHEET
9
EEP# 96309

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 5: Visual Stream Morpholoqv Stabilitv Assessmenl
Reach ID: Roses Creek
Assessed Length: 3,121 FT
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Number Stable,
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Major Channel Category
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
2
57
98%
1!F1
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
17
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
18
18
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
18
18
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
17
17
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
17
17
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2 30
99.9%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and areor
0 0
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
Totals
0 0
100.0%
3. Engineered Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
19
19
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
19
19
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
19
19
100%
K)l I ICA Page 24

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 5a: Visual Stream Morpholociv Stabilitv Assessment
Reach ID: UT1
Assessed Length: 234 LF
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Number Stable,
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Major Channel Category
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
1
20
91%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
2
2
10000/o
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
2
2
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
3
3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0
100.0%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
Totals
0 0
100.0%
3. Engineered Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
12
12
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
12
12100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
12
12
100%
K)l I ICA Page 25

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 5b: Visual Stream Morpholociv Stabilitv Assessment
Reach ID: UT2
Assessed Length: 707 LF
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Number Stable,
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Major Channel Category
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
1
112
84%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
22
22
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth 1.6)
-
21
21
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
21
21
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
22
22
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
22
22
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0 100.0%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0 100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0 100%
Totals
0 1 0 100.0%
3. Engineered Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.21
21
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
21
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
21
21
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
21
21
100%
K)l I ICA Page 26

DVIS IM", \o_ 0660)
1v"", (7'A Strcmi ALt­niun ,Site
Rurk� lnunlc_ Aurih (arnlina
lll.AR llllillll AIOAIlY7RlAG Itl(P�11: f
Dr. ruihcr 'u I �
Table 5c: Visual Stream MorDholocly Stabilitv Assessment
Reach ID: UT3
Assessed Length: 620 LF
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Number Stable,
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Major Channel Category
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
1
75
88%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
12
12
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
13
13
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
13
13
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
13
13
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100.0%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100.0%
3. Engineered Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
14
14
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
14
14
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
14
14
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
14
14
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
14
14
100%
F:)Z ICA Page

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2019
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 15.81
Vegetation Category
Definitions
MaDDina Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acrea a
% of Planted Acrea e
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Pink polygons
1. Bare Areas
material.
0.44 Acres
filled with green x's
4
0.42
2.7%
2. Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based
.
01 Acres
Blue cross hatch
1
0.9
o
5.7/o
Areas
on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
pattern
Total
The entire site is
The entire site is
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
experiencing low stem
experiencing low
1
1.2
o
8 /o
Growth Rates or Vigor
small given the monitoring year.
vigor.
stem vigor.
Cumulative Total
Easement Acreage 17.33
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) None 0 1 0.1 <1%
Concern
5. Easement Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) None N/A 0 0 0
Encroachment Areas
�E:X� I
IcaPage 28

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figures 3.1 - 3.27. Vegetation Plot and Problem Area Photos
3.1 Vegetation Plot 1
3.2 Vegetation Plot 2
3.3 Vegetation Plot 3
3.5 Vegetation Plot 5
3.4 Vegetation Plot 4
3.6 Vegetation Plot 6
Page 29
a& JAWN
'i
,p
3.5 Vegetation Plot 5
3.4 Vegetation Plot 4
3.6 Vegetation Plot 6
Page 29

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
3.7 Vegetation Plot 7
3.8 Vegetation Plot 8
3.9 Vegetation Plot 9
3.10 Vegetation Plot 10
3.11 Vegetation Plot 11
3.12 Vegetation Plot 12
Page 30

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
3.13 Vegetation Plot 13
3.14 Vegetation Plot 14
3.15 Vegetation Plot 15
3.17 Vegetation Plot 17
3.16 Vegetation Plot 16
Page 31

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
3.18 Erosion at station 10+91-11+25
3.19 Repair at station 10+91-11+25
3.20 Erosion at station 12+69-12+91
3.22 Erosion at station 35+90-36+18
3.21 Repair at station 12+69-12+91
P
v -NN O >'
--f--fs JCC,.
3.23 Repair at station 35+90-36+18
Page 32

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
3.24 Severe Erosion and rock step at
station 37+10-37+30
3.26 Erosion at station 39+26-39+44
3.25 Repair of erosion at station 37+10-
37+30 and relocation of rock step
3.27 Repair at station 39+26-39+44
Page 33

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Page 34

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Page 35
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96309-WFW-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0002
PnoLS P -all T
96309-WFW-0003
PnoLS P -all T
96309-WFW-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0011
PnoLS P -all T
Alnus incana
gray alder
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
6
15
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1 1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
20
20
1
1
20
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
2
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus alternifolia
alternateleaf dogwood
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6 6
11
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
20
Fraxinus nigra
black ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 2
5
4
4
6
1
1
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
7
5
5
12
3
3
6
4
4
9
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Populus heterophylla
swamp cottonwood
Tree
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1 1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
jAmerican elm
ITree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
31 31
1
0.02
31 31
121.4 121.4
26
1052
6EE]
7
7
1
0.02
7
4
283.3
8
6
323.7
81
1
0.02
6
323.71
8
6
323.71445.21445.21
11
4
11
1
0.02
4
14
5
566.6
10
4
404.71404.71
10
1
0.02
4
17
4
688
81 81
1
0.02
2 2
323.71 323.71
17
3
6881445.21445.21
11
5
11
1
0.02
5
17
5
6881485.61485.61
12
5
12
1
0.02
5
27
5
1093
91
4
364.21
9
1
0.02
4
364.21
48
7
1942
91
5
364.21
91
1
0.02
5
364.21
31
7
12551404.71
101
6
101
1
0.02
6
404.71
29
6
1174
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Page 35

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
EEP Project Code 96309. Project Name: Roses Creek
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Page 36
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96309-WFW-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0014
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0016
Pnol-S P -all T
96309-WFW-0017
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
Pnol-S P -all T
Alnus incana
gray alder
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
21
2
2
12
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
20
1
1
1
20
20
20
1
1
20
13
13
170
8
8
151
19
19
19
26
26
26
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
1
1
3
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush
Shrub
4
4
4
5
5
5
Cornus alternifolia
alternateleaf dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
28
28
38
26
26
26
35
35
35
54
541
54
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
20
22
Fraxinus nigra
black ash
Tree
2
21
2
9
9
9
9
9
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
6
6
8
1 1
1
4 4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
40
40
52
35
35
38
56
56
56
74
74
74
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
1
1
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
15
17
6
6
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
20
4
4
6
5 5
5
2
2
4
40
40
80
311
31
42
49
49
49
59
59
59
Populus heterophylla
swamp cottonwood
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
31
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
47
47
47
68
68
68
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
3
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
9
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
19
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE[283.31283.3
71
41
71
1
0.02
41
54
51
21851526.11526
13
41
13
1
0.02
41
1
17
4
688
7 7
1
0.02
3 31
283.3 283.3
33
5
1335
7 7
1
0.02
41 41
283.3 283.3
31
7
1255
911
61
364.2
1
0.02
61
364.2
29
7
1174L
8
SE323.7
8
1
0.02
29
5
1174
149
14
354.7
149 434
17
0.42
14 18
354.7 1033
119
13
283.3
119
17
0.42
13
283.3
320
15
761.8
2421
13
576.1
242 242
1
0.42
13 13
576.1 576.11
3261
13
776
3261
1
0.42
13
776
326
13
776
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Page 36

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Page 37

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figures 4.1 — 4.12. Cross Section Plots
Page 38

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.1
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 1 (Roses Creek)
Drainage Area (Acres)
3,309
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
ER I ICA Page 39
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.80
31.10
30.73
29.98
Floodprone Width (ft)
508.32
508.32
508.32
508.32
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.00
2.20
2.19
2.18
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.81
2.89
3.01
3.35
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
67.70
68.28
67.22
65.27
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.90
14.14
14.03
13.75
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
15.04
16.35
16.54
16.96
Low Bank Height (ft)
---
---
---
3.44
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02
Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
ER I ICA Page 39

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2019
Figure 4.2
River Basin Catawba
Watershed 03050101060030
XS ID XS 2 (Roses Creek)
Drainage Area (Acres) 3,309
Date 3/28/2018
Field Crew Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
1238.0
1237.0
1236.0
1235.0
c
0
ro 1234.0
W
1233.0
1232.0
1231.0
0.0
XS -2 Pool (Roses Creek)
t Baseline -5/17/2016 -- Bankfull-5/17/2016 -o-MY1-11/22/2016
t MY2 - 6/1/2017 t MY3 - 3/28/2018
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Distance (ft)
Dimension and substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
38.53 1 37.04 1 39.49 1 30.03
1.73 1.75 1.65 1.96
3.47 3.80 4.05 4.02
66.48 64.97 65.02 58.79
Page 40

DMS IMS No, 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.3
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 3 (Roses Creek)
Drainage Area (Acres) 3,309
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate I Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
XS -3 Pool (Roses Creek)
31.58
t Baseline - 5/17/2016 - - Bankfull - 5/17/2016 MY1 - 11/22/2016
1 32.20
t MY2 - 6/1/2017 MY3 - 3/28/2018
1224.0
1223.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.19
2.32
2.07
1222.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
r
3.99
X1221.0
4.13
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
71.10
d
W1220'
66.76
65.48
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
1219.0
1218.0
0.0
10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate I Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.44
31.58
32.26
1 32.20
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.19
2.32
2.07
2.03
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.10
3.99
4.09
4.13
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
71.10
73.39
66.76
65.48
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bank Heiaht Ratio
KR � i cA Page 41

DMS IMS No, 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.4
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 4 (Roses Creek)
Drainage Area (Acres)
3,309
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
lKenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
1222.0
1221.5
1221.0
1220.5
x
� 1220.0
0
d1219.5
W
1219.0
1218.5
1218.0
1217.5
XS -4 Riffle (Roses Creek)
t
Baseline -5/17/2016-- Bankfull-5/17/2016-i• MY1 - 11/26/2016
t MY2 - 611/2017 -0- MY3 - 3/28/2018
).0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Distance (ft)
Dimension and substrate
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
31.11
31.66
31.03
32.35
Floodprone Width (ft)
696.00
696.00
696.00
696.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.19
2.16
2.08
2.12
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.89
3.03
2.80
3.20
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
68.21
68.41
64.61
71.47
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.21
14.66
14.92
14.64
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22.37
21.98
22.43
21.51
Low Bank Height (ft)
---
-
---
3.38
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
' Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built Bankfull
cross section area to monitoring
year channel.
KR ICA
Page 42

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.5
River Basin Catawba
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Watershed 03050101060030
Area Acres
3,309
Date
3/28/2018
XS ID XS 5 Roses Creek
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
Bankfull Width (ft)
Drainage
32.99
34.06
36.04
Floodprone Width (ft)
563.60
563.60
563.60
563.60
,1 4 ` ti
2.13
2.25
2.22
2.37
_ + }
l
XS -5 Riffle (Roses Creek)
3.23
3.29
3.73
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)69.41
Baseline - 5/17/2016 - - Bankfull - 511 712 01 6 MYi - 11/22/2016
74.12
75.52
85.30
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
t MY2-61112017 tMY3 -312812018
1217.5
1217.0
14.66
15.34
15.21
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1216.5 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1216.0
ar 1215.5
17.08
16.55
15.638
Low Bank Height (ft)
O 1215.0
---
---
3.69
Bank Height Ratio*
w1214.5
1214.0
1213.5
1.00
1.00
<1
1213.0
1212.5
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Distance (ft)
-
�.
*
Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
Area Acres
3,309
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.56
32.99
34.06
36.04
Floodprone Width (ft)
563.60
563.60
563.60
563.60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.13
2.25
2.22
2.37
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.16
3.23
3.29
3.73
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)69.41
74.12
75.52
85.30
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.29
14.66
15.34
15.21
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
17.31
17.08
16.55
15.638
Low Bank Height (ft)
---
---
---
3.69
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00
<1
ICAPage 43

DMS IMS No, 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.6
River Basin Catawba
Watershed 03050101060030
XS ID XS 6 (Roses Creek)
Drainage Area (Acres) 3,309
Date 3/28/2018
Field Crew Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
XS -6 Pool (Roses Creek)
t Baseline - 5/17/2016 - - Bankfull - 5/17/2016 _ MY1 - 11/22/2016
MY2 - 6/1/2017 +MY3 - 3/28/2018
• • i
1218.0
sr' ..
1217.0
1216.0 ----------
w`'
`
1215.0
o
�
• - - Y1!' . `f _ - -
a 1214.0
W
�•
1213.0
�r
1212.0
1211.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
80.0
Distance (ft)
e
_
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
31.02
31.30
30.99
29.70
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.37
2.23
2.32
2.69
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.07
3.98
4.11
4.36
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
73.63
69.77
71.83
80.01
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
FYZ I 'cA
Page 44
Page 44

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.7
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 7 (UT 1)
Drainage Area (Acres)
38.40
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
266.0
1265.5
1265.0
0
m
M 1264.5
1264.0
1263.5
0.0
XS -7 Riffle (UT 1)
tBaseline -5/25/2016-- Bankfull-5/25/2016 MY1 - 11/22/2016
MY2 - 6/1/2017 t MY3 - 3/28/2018
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Distance (ft)
Dimension and substrate
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.12 1
4.46
5.31
5.01
Floodprone Width (ft)
91.80
91.80
91.80
91.80
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.45
0.41
0.35
0.36
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.78
0.59
0.61
0.62
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.30
1.82
1.86
1.78
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.38
10.88
15.17
13.92
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
17.93
20.58
17.29
18.32
Low Bank Height (ft)
---
---
---
0.57
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00 1
1.00
1.00
<1
* Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring
year channel.
' CA Page 45

DMS IMS No, 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.8
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 8 (UT 1)
FYZ I icA Page 46

DMS FMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.9
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 9 (UT 2)
Drainage Area (Acres) 44.80
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
XS -9 Pool (UT 2)
tBaseline-5/17/2016- Bankfull-5/17/2016
�
t MY2 - 6I1I2017 MY3 - 3I28I2018
1241.0
1240.8
1240.6
1240.4
r
� 1240.2
0
y 1240.0
w
1239.8
1239.6
1239.4
1239.2
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Dimension and substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.56 6.43 5.69 5.53
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.49
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.86 0.72 0.63 1.12
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) 2.07 1.97 1.90 2.73
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Page 47
FYZ � icA
MY1 -11/22/2016
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Distance (ft)
30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.10
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 10 (UT 2)
Drainage Area (Acres)
44.80
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
Kenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
XS -10 Riffle (UT 2)
4 -Baseline - 5/17/2016 - - Bankfull - 5/17/2016 -d-MY1 - 11/22/2016
t MY2 - 6/1/2017 + MY3 - 3/28/2018
1237.4
1237.2
1237.0
x
c
c 1236.8
W
1236.6
1236.4
1236.2
0.0 5.0 10.0
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Distance (ft)
F
KR 'CA Page 48
11
JI
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate*
M pr
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.70
7.10
6.79
7.38
Floodprone Width (ft)
93.36
93.36
93.36
93.36
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.42
0.38
0.32
0.39
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.77
0.74
0.64
0.84
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.79
2.69
2.17
2.88
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.75
18.68
21.22
18.92
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
13.93
13.14
13.75
12.65
Low Bank Height (ft)
---
---
---
0.83
Bank Height Ratio'
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.00
*Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
KR 'CA Page 48
11
JI

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.11
River Basin
Catawba
Watershed
03050101060030
XS ID
XS 11 (UT 3)
Drainage Area (Acres)
12.80
Date
3/28/2018
Field Crew
lKenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
1222.5
1222.0
r 1221.5
0
w
W 1221.0
1220.5
1220.0
XS -11 Riffle (UT 3)
t Baseline - 5/17/2016 - - Bankfull - 5/17/2016 -fr MY1 - 11/22/2016
t MY2 - 6/1/2017 --*-- MY3 - 3/28/2018
).0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.00
1 7.28
5.38
6.73
Floodprone Width (ft)
175.41
175.41
175.41
175.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.36
0.21
0.37
0.24
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.69
0.46
0.65
0.57
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.19
1.51
2.01
1.62
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.67
34.67
14.54
28.04
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
29.24
1 24.09
1 32.60
126.061
Low Bank Heiaht (ft)
---
I ---
I ---
1 0.50
II
constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to
' CA Page 49

DMS FMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 4.12
River Basin Catawba
Watershed 03050101060030
XS ID XS 12 (UT 3)
Drainage Area (Acres) 12.80
Date 3/28/2018
Field Crew jKlenton Beal, Alex DiGeronimo
1221.0
1220.8
1220.6
1220.4
1220.2
c
1220.0
w
m
W 1219.8
1219.6
1219.4
1219.2
1219.0
0.0
XS -12 Pool (UT 3)
+Baseline -5/17/2016-- 13ankUl-5/17/2016
t MY2 - 6/1/2017 t MY3 - 3/28/2018
7L1'(IQif6'Y76bi[:
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Distance (ft)
I I Cross Section 12 (Pool) I
Dimension and substrate I Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY6 I MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.39 1
7.93
7.52 1
7.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.56
0.46
0.45
0.40
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.90
0.84
0.82
0.78
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.55
3.61
3.40
3.23
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
f�2 I icn `°F° 50

DMS FMS No- 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
FEZ ICA PLLge 5
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
Roses Creek: 3,200 Lf.
Parameter
Regional Curve Pre -Existing
Condition
Reference -
Roses Creek
Upstream
Design
As-built/Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Eq. Mountains Eq. Piedmont Mean
Mean
Mean
Min Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.00 26.20 1 41.10
30.50
30.50
31.02 31.98
31.11 33.80
1.58
3.00
Floodprone Width ft
78.90
250.00
480.00
394.24 524.76
508.32 671.72
139.47
3.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.80 2.60 1.67
1.88
2.18
2.00 2.19
2.19 2.37
0.19
3.00
Bankfull Max Depth ft
2.92
2.71
2.72
2.81 3.26
2.89 4.07
0.71
3.00
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
66.00 66.10 68.83
57.40
66.40
67.70 69.85
68.21 73.63
3.29
3.00
Width/Depth Ratio
24.60
16.20
14.00
13.09 14.73
14.21 16.90
1.96
3.00
Entrenchment Ratio
1.92
8.20
15.70
12.67 16.45
15.04 21.65
4.65
3.00
Bank Height Ratio
1.80
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
3.00
d50 (mm)
Profile
61.30
61.30
61.30
Riffle Length (ft)
37.17 64.41
58.40 106.19
18.18
23.00
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01 0.02
0.02 0.050.01
23.00
Pool Length (ft)
17.36 53.01
54.24 93.29
20.18
26.00
Pool Max depth ft
4.13
4.70
4.36
3.31 4.50
4.43 6.20
0.80
26.00
Pool Spacing (ft)
37.00 - 171.00
76.9-227.9
2.0-7.5
86.78 130.47
130.18 210.45
35.20
25.00
Pool Cross Sectional Area (W)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
73.00 - 152.00
30.0 - 195.0
61.0 - 195.2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
28-168
30.0-178.0
61.0-91.5
Rc: Bankfull Width ft/ft
0.7-4.1
1.0-5.8
2.0-3.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)
200-375
60-344
61.0 - 344.0
Meander Width Ratio
1.78-3.70
1.0-6.4
240-6w4
Substrate, bed and transport parameters JK
Ri%/P%
35%/65%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be %
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95/ dip/ di'p (mm)
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ft
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s
3.83
3.83
3.83
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area SM
5.17
4.66
5.17
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Ros en Classification
B4
C4
C4
04
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.10
4.80
Bankfull Discharge cfs
300.00
295.00
300.00
Valley length (ft)
2894.00
2894.00
2894.00
Channel Thalweg length ft
3425.00
3219.00
3219.00
Sinuosity (ft)
1.18
1.11
1.11
1.11
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0099
0.0192
0.0062
0.0059
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0062
0.0059
Bankfull Flood Iain Area acres
Proportion over wide (%)
Entrenchment Class ER Range
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/ E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
FEZ ICA PLLge 5

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
FYI ICA P�t�re 52
Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT 1 to Roses Creek: 234 LF
Parameter
Regional Curve Pre-Existing
Condition
Reference - UT
West Branch
Rocky River
Design
As-built/Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Eq. Mountains Eq. Piedmont Mean
Mean
Mean
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
6.70 1 5.30 6.00
4.40
5.00
5.12
5.12
5.12 5.12
0.00
1.00
Floodprone Width ft
8.40
27.50
60.00
91.80
91.80
91.80 91.80
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.50 0.70 0.23
0.51
0.38
0.45
0.45
0.45 0.45
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.36
1.00
0.58
0.78
0.78
0.78 0.78
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.20 3.30 1.39
2.30
2.10
2.30
2.30
2.30 2.30
0.00
1.00
Width/De th Ratio
26.20
12.80
13.00
11.38
11.38
11.38 11.38
0.00
1.00
Entrenchment Ratio
1.40
6.28
12.00
17.93
17.93
17.93 17.93
0.00
1.00
Bank Height Ratio
6.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
1.00
d50 mm
Profile
Riffle Length ft
7.20
10.609.60
17.00
2.91
12.00
Riffle Slo a ft/ft
0.0260
0.0033 - 0.0284 0.0021 - 0.0029
0.0201
0.0265
0.0213 0.0799
0.0210
12.00
Pool Length ft
3.60
11.89
9.80 37.39
9.23
11.00
Pool Max depth ft
Channelized
1.98
0.77
0.49
0.73
0.77 0.96
0.19
11.00
Pool Spacingft)
Channelized
10.10-41.0
10.0-30.0
18.40
24.04
20.90 45.59
8.03
10.00
Pool Cross Sectional Area (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Channelized
12.00 - 18.00
10.00 - 30.00
Radius of Curvature ft
Channelized
10.00 - 14.00
12.00 - 15.00
Rc: Bankfull Width fUft
Channelized
2.30-3.20
2.40-3.00
Meander Wavelength ft
Channelized
45.00 - 66.00
20.0-55.0
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
Channelized
2.74-4.11
2,00-6,00
Ri%/P%
49%/51%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d351 d50/d84/d95/diP/di'P mm
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/ftp
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s
0.07
0 .07
0.07
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area SM
0.06
0.07
0.06
Impervious cover estimate
Ros en Classification
F5
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity fps
Bankfull Discharge cfs
2.4
1.30
3.00
1.10
2.40
Valley length ft
199.00
199.00
199.00
Channel Thalweg length ft
199.00
234.00
234.00
Sinuosity ft
1.00
1.16
1.18
1.18
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0260
0.0033 - 0.0284
0.0021
0.0027
BF slope ft/ft
0.0021
0.0027
Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
Proportion over wide
Entrenchment Class ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range
BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
FYI ICA P�t�re 52

DMS IMS No, 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Profile
Pattern
Pool Max depth (ft)1 1 I Channelized I 1.98 0.77 0.53 0.96 0.92 1.59 0.24 24.00
Pool Soacinq (ft) Channelized 10.10 - 41.00 10.0 - 30.00 7.46 25.57 22.39 57.59 11.77 23.00
Meander Width Ratiol I I I I Channelized 1 2.74-4.11 1 2.70-6.00
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.89 0.06 0.06
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)l 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1
1 Channel Thalweg length (ftJl I 575.00 707.00 707.00
Sinuosity (ft) 1.00 1.16 1.99 1.23
BEHI VL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/
Channel Stability or Habitat M,
Biological or O
HP ' CA Page 53
Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT 2 to Roses Creek: 707 LF
Reference - UT
Parameter
Regional Curve Pre -Existing West Branch
Design
As-built/Baseline
Condition
Rocky River
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Mountains Eq.
Piedmont Eq. Mean Mean
Mean
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.10
5.60 4.40 1 4.40 1
5.00
6.70
6.70
6.70
6.70
0.00
1.00
Floodprone Width (ft)
8.10 27.50
60.00
32.45
32.45
32.45
32.45
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.50
0.80 0.95 0.51
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.39 1 1.00 1
0.58
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.00
1.00
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ( )
3.50 1
3.70 4.16 1 2.30 1
2.10
2.79
2.79
2.79
2.79
0.00
1.00
Profile
Pattern
Pool Max depth (ft)1 1 I Channelized I 1.98 0.77 0.53 0.96 0.92 1.59 0.24 24.00
Pool Soacinq (ft) Channelized 10.10 - 41.00 10.0 - 30.00 7.46 25.57 22.39 57.59 11.77 23.00
Meander Width Ratiol I I I I Channelized 1 2.74-4.11 1 2.70-6.00
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.89 0.06 0.06
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)l 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07 1
1 Channel Thalweg length (ftJl I 575.00 707.00 707.00
Sinuosity (ft) 1.00 1.16 1.99 1.23
BEHI VL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/
Channel Stability or Habitat M,
Biological or O
HP ' CA Page 53

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Profile
Pattern
Pool Max depth ft 1 I Channelized 1.98 1 0.84 1 0.76 1 1.49 1 1.29 I 2.61 1 0.61 1 20 1
Pool Spacinq (ft) Channelized 10.10 - 41.00 12.7 - 51.70 10.3 25.0 25.8 45.3 9.4 19
Meander Width Ratiol I I I I Channelized 1 2.74-4.11 1 2.70-9.00
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.09 0.08 0.08
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)i 1 0.02 1 0.07 1 0.02 1
Channel Thalweg len th ft 422 620 620
Sinuosity (ft) 1.00 1.16 1.47 1.47
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)l 0.0268 10.0033 - 0.0284 1 0.0025 0.0037
BEHI VL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/
Channel Stability or Habitat M,
Biological or O
���
ICA
Page 54
Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT 3 to Roses Creek: 620 LF
Reference - UT
Parameter
Regional Curve Pre -Existing West Branch
Design
As-built/Baseline
Condition
Rocky River
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Mountains Eq.
Piedmont Eq. Mean Mean
Mean
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.50
3.50 5.00 1 4.40 1
5.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
44.13 27.50
70.00
175.41
175.41
175.41
175.41
0.00
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.30
0.30 0.26 0.51
0.42
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.00
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.70 1.00
0.63
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.00
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ( )
1.50 1
1.60 2.40 2.30
2.60
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
0.00
1
Profile
Pattern
Pool Max depth ft 1 I Channelized 1.98 1 0.84 1 0.76 1 1.49 1 1.29 I 2.61 1 0.61 1 20 1
Pool Spacinq (ft) Channelized 10.10 - 41.00 12.7 - 51.70 10.3 25.0 25.8 45.3 9.4 19
Meander Width Ratiol I I I I Channelized 1 2.74-4.11 1 2.70-9.00
Unit Stream Power (transport capacity) lbs/ft.s 0.09 0.08 0.08
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)i 1 0.02 1 0.07 1 0.02 1
Channel Thalweg len th ft 422 620 620
Sinuosity (ft) 1.00 1.16 1.47 1.47
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft)l 0.0268 10.0033 - 0.0284 1 0.0025 0.0037
BEHI VL%/ L%/ M%/ H%/ VH%/
Channel Stability or Habitat M,
Biological or O
���
ICA
Page 54

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 9. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
Roses Creek: 3,200 LF
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.80
31.10
30.73 29.98
38.53
37.04
39.49
30.03
Floodprone Width (ft)
508.32
508.32
508.32 508.32
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.00
2.20
2.19 2.18
1.73
1.75
1.65
1.96
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.81
2.89
3.01 3.35
3.47
3.80
4.05
4.02
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
67.70
68.28
67.22 65.27
66.48
64.97
65.02
58.79
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.90
14.14
14.03 13.75
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
15.04
16.35
16.54 16.96
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.44
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.02
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.44
31.58
32.26 32.20
31.11
31.66
31.03
32.35
Floodprone Width (ft)
696.00
696.00 696.00
696.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.19
2.32
2.07 2.03
2.19
2.16
2.08
2.12
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.10
3.99
4.09 4.13
2.89
3.03
2.80
3.20
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
71.10
73.39
66.76 65.48
68.21
68.41
64.61
71.47
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.21
14.66
14.92
14.64
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
22.37
21.98
22.43
21.51
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.38
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.06
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
32.56
32.99
34.06 36.04
31.02
31.30
30.99
29.70
Floodprone Width (ft)
563.60
563.60
563.60 563.60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.13
2.25
2.22 2.37
2.37
2.23
2.32
2.69
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.16
3.23
3.29 3.73
4.07
3.98
4.11
4.36
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
69.41
74.12
75.52 85.30
73.63
69.77
71.83
80.01
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.29
14.66
15.34 15.21
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
17.31
17.08
16.55 15.64
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.69
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1 1.00 1 <1
* Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
FN 'CA Page 55

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 9a. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT 1 Roses Creek: 234 LF
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.12
4.46
5.31 5.01
6.24
7.07
6.80
7.49
Floodprone Width (ft)
91.80
91.80
91.80 91.80
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.45
0.41
0.35 0.36
0.58
0.44
0.47
0.42
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.78
0.59
0.61 0.62
0.96
0.77
0.81
0.71
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
2.30
1.82
1.86 1.78
3.64
3.10
3.23
3.12
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.38
10.88
15.17 13.92
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
17.93
20.58
17.29 18.32
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.57
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00 <1
* Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
1-31
ICA Page 56

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 9b. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT2 Roses Creek: 707 LF
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
I MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base ankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.56
6.43
5.69 5.53
WE
6.70
7.10
6.79
7.38
Floodprone Width (ft)
93.36
93.36
93.36
93.36
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.37
0.31
0.33 0.49
0.42
0.38
0.32
0.39
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.86
0.72
0.63 1.12
0.77
0.74
0.64
0.84
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.07
1.97
1.90 2.73
2.79
2.69
2.17
2.88
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.75
18.68
21.22
18.92
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
13.93
13.14
13.75
12.65
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.83
Bank Height Ratio'
1.00
1.00
1.01
1 1.00
*Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated byfitdng as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
I -N 'CA Page 57

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 9c. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Roses Creek Mitigation Site
UT3 Roses Creek: 620 LF
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross
Section 12 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Based on fi
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.00
7.28
5.38 6.73
6.39
7.93
7.52
7.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
175.41
175.41
175.41 175.41
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.36
0.21
0.37 0.24
0.56
0.46
0.45
0.40
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.69
0.46
0.65 0.57
0.90
0.84
0.82
0.78
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.19
1.51
2.01 1.62
3.55
3.61
3.40
3.23
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.67
34.67
14.54 28.04
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
29.24
24.09
32.60 26.06
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.5
Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00 <1
* Base - MY2 calculated by holding bankfull elevation constant. MY3 data calculated by fitting as -built bankfull cross section area to monitoring year channel.
KR I 'CA Page 58

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Page 59

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figures 5.1 - 5.24 Crest Gauge Photos
5.1 Crest Gauge Roses Creek Lower (10/5/2016) 5.2 Crest Gauge UT 1 (10/5/2016)
5.3 Crest Gauge UT 2 (10/5/2016)
5.4 Crest Gauge UT 3 (10/5/2016)
Page 60

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
5.5 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (11/22/2016)
5.7 Crest Gauge UT 2 (11/22/2016)
5.9 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (6/2/2017)
5.6 Crest Gauge UT 1 (11/22/2016)
5.8 Crest Gauge UT 3 (11/22/2016)
5.10 Crest Gauge UT 1 (6/2/2017)
Page 61

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
5.11 Crest Gauge UT 2 (6/2/2017)
5.13 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (8/15/2017)
5.12 Crest Gauge UT 3 (6/2/2017)
5.14 Crest Gauge UT 1 (8/15/2017)
5.15 Crest Gauge UT 2 (8/15/2017)
5.16 Crest Gauge UT 3 (8/15/2017)
Page 62
1.:
41
ON
JP
�Lf
5.13 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (8/15/2017)
5.12 Crest Gauge UT 3 (6/2/2017)
5.14 Crest Gauge UT 1 (8/15/2017)
5.15 Crest Gauge UT 2 (8/15/2017)
5.16 Crest Gauge UT 3 (8/15/2017)
Page 62

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
5.17 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (3/28/2018)
5.19 Crest Gauge UT 2 (3/28/2018)
5.18 Crest Gauge UT 1 (3/28/2018)
5.20 Crest Gauge UT 3 (3/28/2018)
5.21 Crest Gauge Roses Creek (8/6/2018) 5.22 Crest Gauge UT 1 (8/6/2018)
Page 63

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
5.23 Crest Gauge UT 2 (8/6/2018) 5.24 Crest Gauge UT 3 (8/6/2018)
Page 64

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date
Crest Gauge
Info
Gauge
Reading
(ft)
Gauge
Elevation
(ft)
Crest
Elevation
(ft)
Bankfull
Elevation
(ft)
Height
above
ll
Bankfu(ft)
Photo
Site
Sta.
10/5/2016
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
0.00
1212.11
N/A
1213.93
N/A
5.1
10/5/2016
2
UT 1
0.00
1267.45
N/A
1267.95
N/A
5.2
10/5/2016
3
UT 2
0.35
1227.81
1228.16
1228.19
N/A
5.3
10/5/2016
4
UT 3
0.25
1216.94
1217.19
1217.36
N/A
5.4
11/22/2016
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
0.00
1212.11
N/A
1213.93
N/A
5.5
11/22/2016
2
UT 1
0.00
1267.45
N/A
1267.95
N/A
5.6
11/22/2016
3
UT 2
0.00
1227.81
N/A
1228.19
N/A
5.7
11/22/2016
4
UT 3
0.35
1216.94
1217.29
1217.36
N/A
5.8
6/2/2017
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
1.89
1212.11
1214.00
1213.93
0.07
5.9
6/2/2017
2
UT 1
0.80
1267.45
1268.25
1267.95
0.30
5.10
6/2/2017
3
UT 2
1.50
1227.81
1229.31
1228.19
1.12
5.11
6/2/2017
4
UT 3
1.80
1216.94
1218.74
1217.36
1.38
5.12
8/15/2017
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
0.50
1212.11
1212.61
1213.93
N/A
5.13
8/15/2017
2
UT 1
0.38
1267.45
1267.83
1267.95
N/A
5.14
8/15/2017
3
UT 2
0.85
1227.81
1228.66
1228.19
0.47
5.15
8/15/2017
4
UT 3
1.64
1216.94
1218.58
1217.36
1.22
5.16
3/28/2018
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
2.83
1212.11
1214.94
1213.93
1.01
5.17
3/28/2018
2
UT 1
0.38
1267.45
1267.83
1267.95
N/A
5.18
3/28/2018
3
UT 2
2.50
1227.81
1230.31
1228.19
2.12
5.19
3/28/2018
4
UT 3
1.38
1216.94
1218.32
1217.36
0.96
5.20
8/6/2018
1
Roses
Creek
Lower
3.75
1212.11
1215.86
1213.93
1.93
5.21
8/6/2018
2
UT 1
1.13
1267.45
1268.58
1267.95
0.63
5.22
8/6/2018
3
UT 2
2.54
1227.81
1230.35
1228.19
2.16
5.23
8/6/2018
4
UT 3
2.92
1216.94
1219.86
1217.36
2.50
5.24
Page 65

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 6.1 — 6.3 Tributary Water Level Gauge Meter Data
Page 66

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
M
d
0.4
0.2
0.0
1/1)
-0.2
Figure 6.1 UT 1 Water Level
UT 1 Water Surface
I-)2 I Hca Page 67

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Figure 6.2 UT 2 Water Level
UT 2 Water Surface
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
F ILI 1.1
0.6
CL
(D
0.4
0.2
0.0
1/1/ 018 2/20/2018 4/11/2018 5/31/2018 7/20/2018
-0.2
Time
I-)2 I Hca Page 68

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
c
0
M
as
w
Figure 6.3 UT 3 Water Level
UT 3 Water Surface
Distance (ft)
I-)2 I Hca Page 69

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Table 11. Tributary Surface Water Summary
Tributary
Dates
Number of Consecutive Days with Flow
UT 1
6/25/2016 - 7/27/2016
32
UT 1
2/25/2017 - 5/6/2017
70
UT 1
6/1/2017 - 8/14/2017
74
UT 1
1/12/2018 — 3/1/2018
48
UT 1
5/15/2018 — 8/6/2018
83
UT 2
6/9/2016 - 1/22/2017
228
UT 2
1/23/2017 - 5/11/2017
108
UT 2
6/1/2017 — 7/26/2017
55
UT 2
8/30/2017 — 10/3/2017
34
UT 2
11/18/2017 — 3/20/2018
122
UT 2
4/19/2018 — 8/6/2018
109
UT 3
2/15/2017 — 5/11/2017
85
UT 3
6/1/2017 — 7/23/2017
52
UT 3
12/14/2017 — 3/1/2018
77
UT 3
4/27/2018 — 7/22/2018
86
Page 70

DMS IMS No. 96309
Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
YEAR THREE MONITORING REPORT
December 2018
Appendix F. Adaptive Management Plan
Page 71