20131295 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20181219

Malandsen noneet dned,it"Pab en Slbsleina—U59cEPOYnn1c btallone
vmslobaseP�rekn"on.d xcvwF Pormrt xa Mnuas
Rlueres=I, done Fad mt. Ine..'8
ConU15L lassood,
D®rtcyelm.mrneW—lis
been made ewllablem to NCIRT by Po®y kb to NCEEP Pwbt pmNtletl to flanenp alM1M M1aw been
m ZRobiti., oft. Moen-loPlon
RecoNadonW pnumdbloodal Im,eewepeeetltle mottnacwptlbleroNe USADEmveAryn gopeily
3) fumplebn MallpbnMlaMbblcgMlImpmwmeeN4Aaml�addir p PvrtwNmH mltpadenplan
C) RecbplNmweury DAperml[cudoAvtlon orv+Aten Cpapprmal Mrpwfecbxfien Mpenntl leunu Ienot requbN
3-A10%roser»olaetlW%b be bell beck wtl Me bankNYawNpeebimanm WntloN llaa Men lMl
fir
OMPFAMMONOWN
®
been made ewllablem to NCIRT by Po®y kb to NCEEP Pwbt pmNtletl to flanenp alM1M M1aw been
m ZRobiti., oft. Moen-loPlon
RecoNadonW pnumdbloodal Im,eewepeeetltle mottnacwptlbleroNe USADEmveAryn gopeily
3) fumplebn MallpbnMlaMbblcgMlImpmwmeeN4Aaml�addir p PvrtwNmH mltpadenplan
C) RecbplNmweury DAperml[cudoAvtlon orv+Aten Cpapprmal Mrpwfecbxfien Mpenntl leunu Ienot requbN
3-A10%roser»olaetlW%b be bell beck wtl Me bankNYawNpeebimanm WntloN llaa Men lMl

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
12101rim
FOUST CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 004954
DMS Project Number 95715
USACE Action ID Number 2012-01908
NCDWR Project Number 13-1295
Data Collection Period: March 2018 - October 2018
Draft Submission Date: November 15, 2018
Final Submission Date: December 19, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
INC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full delivery project for the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 5,500
linear feet (LF) of stream and rehabilitate and re-establish 4.96 acres of wetlands in Alamance County,
NC. The Foust Creek Mitigation Site (Site) proposes to provide 4,770 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and
3.91 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The project consists of Foust Creek, a second order perennial
stream, and an unnamed, intermittent first order tributary to Foust Creek (UT1). At the downstream
limits of the project the drainage area is 1,259 acres (1.97 square miles).
The Site is located in the southern portion of Alamance County, east of Snow Camp and approximately
15 miles southeast of the City of Burlington (Figure 1). It is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The Site is in the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed
within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-04 of the Cape Fear
River Basin and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002050050.
Prior to construction activities, both streams had been degraded by livestock access and agricultural
practices. The primary objectives of the project were to promote wetland hydrology; restore a stream
and wetland complex to mimic a naturally occurring ecosystem; restore a stream system to promote
hydrologic connectivity with the floodplains and wetlands; stabilize stream banks; promote instream
habitat and aeration; restore riparian buffers; and further improve water quality through removing
existing agricultural practices. Figure 2 and Table 1 present the restoration and enhancement
components/assets for the Site.
The following project goals were established to address the effects listed above from watershed and
project site stressors:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and eroding
stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus inputs through removing cattle from streams
and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
Stream and wetland restoration and enhancement construction efforts were completed in February
2015. Baseline as -built monitoring activities (MYO) were completed in February 2015. A conservation
easement is in place on 22.11 acres of the stream and wetland riparian corridors to protect them in
perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) site visits and assessments were completed between the March and October
2018 to visually assess the conditions of the project and collect stream and wetland hydrology data. Per
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of
vegetation, substrate, and channel cross-sectional dimensions did not occur during MY4. Visual
observations, hydrology data, and management practices are included in this report. To preserve the
clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from
previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the table of contents.
Overall, Site performance for vegetation, stream geomorphology, and hydrology meet success criteria
for MY4. Vegetation appears to be performing adequately to attain the interim success criteria of 260
stems per acre at the end of monitoring year five. Visual observation indicated that stream channels
have remained geomorphically stable during MY4. Persistent flows and multiple bankfull events were
recorded on both Foust Creek and UT1. All nine groundwater wells met the success criteria of
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL iii

maintaining a free water surface within 12 inches of the soil surface for 8.5 percent of the growing
season. Identified invasive vegetation has been treated.
FOUST CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL iv

Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/ Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Contacts Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Appendix 2
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Table 6
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Stream Photographs
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.7
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/ Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -d
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation P�.,tographs*
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data*
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots*
Table 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -d Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
^eachwide and Cross Secti, Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL v

Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
In -Stream Flow Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
*Content omitted from Monitoring Year 4 Report
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL vi

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Foust Creek Mitigation Site; hereafter referred to as the Site, is located in southern Alamance
County within the Cape Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002) approximately 15 miles
southeast of the City of Burlington. The Site is located upstream and downstream of the Snow Camp
Road stream crossing immediately east of the town of Snow Camp. The Site is located in the Carolina
Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists
primarily of agricultural lands and forest. The drainage area for the project site is 1,259 acres (1.97
square miles) at the lower end of Foust Creek.
The project stream reaches include Foust Creek and UTI and were improved through stream restoration
and enhancement level II approaches. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration and
enhancement of 5,500 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channel and rehabilitation
and re-establishment of 4.96 acres (ac) of riparian wetland. The stream and wetland areas were also
planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. The Site proposes to
provide 4,770 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 3.91 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The final
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014) was submitted and accepted by the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in February of 2014. Construction activities
were completed by Fluvial Solutions in February 2015. The planting was completed by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. in February 2015 and baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted in January and February
2015. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence
in 2022 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project.
A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place along the stream and wetland riparian
corridors to protect them in perpetuity; ac (Deed Book 3278, Pages 935-944) within four parcels.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated in
Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, both streams had been degraded by livestock access and agricultural
practices. Impacts to the stream included direct access by livestock, trampling of the riparian vegetation
and stream banks, channelization, eroding banks, floodplain ditching, and a lack of stabilizing riparian
vegetation. The adjacent floodplain had been cleared for pasture and was grazed by livestock. The
riparian vegetation was either absent, limited to the streambanks, or periodically disturbed. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 presents the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The Site was designed to meet the over -arching goals as described in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2014). The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin.
While many of these benefits are limited to the Site, others, such as pollutant removal and improved
aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther reaching effects. The following project specific goals
established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014) include:
• Reduce sediment inputs by removing cattle from streams and restoring degraded and
eroding stream channels;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological
functions;
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus inputs through removing cattle from
streams and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• On-site nutrient inputs were decreased by removing cattle from streams, re-establishing
floodplain connectivity, and filtering on-site runoff through buffer zones and wetlands. Off-
site nutrient input is absorbed on-site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain
areas and riparian wetlands, where flood flow spreads through native vegetation.
Vegetation uptakes excess nutrients.
Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creeks was greatly reduced in
the project area. Eroding stream banks were stabilized using bioengineering, natural
channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height. Storm flow
containing grit and fine sediment is filtered through restored floodplain areas, where flow
spreads through native vegetation. Spreading flood flows also reduce velocity and allow
sediment to settle out. Sediment transport capacity of restored reaches was improved so
that capacity balances more closely to load. Sediment load reduction will be monitored
through assessing bank stability with cross section surveys and visual assessment through
photo documentation which serves as an accepted surrogate for direct turbidity
measurements.
• Restored riffle/pool sequences promote aeration of water and create deep water zones,
helping to lower water temperature. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers
creates long-term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Lower water
temperatures help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
• In -stream structures were constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
habitat structures were included in the stream as part of the restoration design. Such
structures included log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris.
• Adjacent buffer and riparian habitats were restored with native vegetation as part of the
project. Native vegetation provides cover and food for terrestrial creatures. Native plant
species were planted and invasive species were treated. Eroding and unstable areas were
also stabilized with vegetation as part of this project.
• The restored land is protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
The design streams and wetlands were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing
watershed conditions and trajectory. Specifically, the Site design was developed to restore a stream and
wetland complex to mimic a naturally occurring ecosystem creating riparian habitat and improving
water quality.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during monitoring year 4 (MY4) to visually
assess the condition of the project and collect hydrology data. Per NCIRT guidelines, detailed monitoring
and analysis of vegetation, substrate, and channel cross-sectional dimensions did not occur during MY4.
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY4. Visual assessment during MY4
indicated that vegetation is performing adequately to attain interim success criteria of 260 planted
stems per acre at the end of MY5 and terminal success criteria of 210 planted stems per acre averaging
ten feet in height.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Concentrated populations of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
and autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata) were observed during MY4 (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.3). The autumn
olive and tree of heaven populations were located adjacent to Foust Creek Reach 1. The Chinese privet
population consisted of re -sprouts from a previous treatment located in the northwestern portion of the
easement adjacent to Foust Creek Reach 3b. Stems of autumn olive and Chinese privet larger than one
inch in diameter were treated with triclopyr or glyphosate, respectively, using the cut stump method.
Stems smaller than one inch in diameter were treated via foliar application of the same respective
herbicides. Tree of heaven was treated with triclopyr using the hack and squirt method. All treatment
occurred during September 2018.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Detailed dimensional survey and analysis is not required during MY4. Visual monitoring indicated that
the stream channel is performing as designed. No deposition or erosion exceeding approximate natural
levels or indicators of channel instability were observed.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
During October of MY4, beaver dams were observed in Foust Creek Reach 2 (Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2). The
USDA has been contracted to remove the beaver and clear the dams from the stream.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the MY7, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the
restoration reaches. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on both Foust Creek and UTI with
automated crest gages during MY4 data collection. Both Foust Creek and UT1 recorded bankfull events
during MY1, MY2, MY3, and MY4 (Table 13); therefore the Site has met the bankfull frequency success
criteria for the seven year monitoring period.
A pressure transducer was installed on UTI to monitor flow within UT1 to document jurisdictional
status. Baseflow must be present for at least some portion of the year (most likely in the winter/early
spring) during years with normal rainfall conditions. A gage malfunction occurred from October 26, 2017
through March 20, 2018. Based on previous years data, it is likely that the stream flowed continuously
during this period in which the gage malfunctioned. Of recorded data, persistent flow occurred until
mid-June (flow recorded 98 out of 101 days). Flow was recorded for a maximum of 53 consecutive days
and a total of 164 days as of October 25, 2018. Therefore, UT1 has met the flow duration success criteria
for MY4. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Nine groundwater gages are monitored within the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones.
All gages were installed at appropriate locations such that the data collected provides an indication of
groundwater levels throughout the Site. To determine the growing season at the Site, one soil
temperature probe was installed. A barometric pressure logging device was also installed to allow
calculation of groundwater depths. All monitoring gages were downloaded and maintained as needed.
The success criteria for wetland hydrology is a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the soil
surface for 8.5 percent of the growing season, which is measured in consecutive days under normal
precipitation conditions. During MY1 NRCS WETS Data was used to determine the growing season for
the Site. After discussions with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it was agreed to use
on-site soil temperature data to determine the beginning of the growing season and use NRCS WETS
data to determine the end of the growing season. The soil temperature probe is used to determine the
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

beginning of the growing season based on soil temperatures staying above 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12
inches below the soil surface. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5
for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
All nine groundwater gages met success criteria during 1MY4, exceeding the 8.5 percent criteria level by
at least 4.3 percent. Consecutive percentages of the growing season during which the water table was at
or above a soil depth of 12 inches range from 12.8 percent to 93.3 percent. Groundwater gage 5
malfunctioned from July 6, 2018 until it was repaired on October 31, 2018. The entire growing season
was not observed since all gages easily satisfied criteria prior to the end of the growing season.
1.2.7 Maintenance Plan
The invasive species populations described above in section 1.2.2 will continue to be monitored and
treated as necessary. Beaver will be removed from the Site and streams will be monitored for any
beaver activity in subsequent monitoring years.
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
Visual assessment indicated that all stream reaches within the Site are geomorphically stable and
functioning as designed. Survival and growth of planted trees appear to be on track meet interim
success criteria. Invasive vegetation identified to date has been treated. Stream hydrology criteria for
flow duration were met for MY4, and bankfull event frequency criteria have been satisfied for the
duration of the monitoring period. All wetland areas met groundwater hydroperiod criteria for MY4. The
Site is on track to meet success criteria for closeout in 2022.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
All data collected for the Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld
GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS software. Crest gages and
pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrology
attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE (2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCDMS Level 2 Protocol (Lee
et al., 2008). Summary information and data related to the success of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents
available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Climate
Information for Alamance County, NC (1971-2000). WETS Station: Graham 2 ENE, NC3555.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Foust Creek Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Foust Creek Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -
Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

t
r
0
o -
CL
03030002040090 f
t
WOUNT] INS
r '
� 1
1
i'
Snow Camp
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
�WILDLANDS
W'ENGlr.IEEPlrJG rk�
03030002050010
0
03030002050050
�u.-ikenbLI,t]
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
- Project Area
Marys, N- .(
r`e&# 9
[/Itl/ItIIlII1Y�Ib71I13�1]
Directions:
From 1-40 take exit 147 and turn south on NC 87. Follow NC 87
south for approximately 8 miles and make slight right onto Snow
Camp Rd. The site will be on the right side approximately 3.8 miles down the road.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 95715
1 i 1 Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Alamance County, NC

r�
RW1
i
i
RW2 .
I
RW3-r
a
0
2016 Aerial Photography
v
y"v4
i
RW7
C
t
t

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Stream
0
Type R
RE
R -E'
Mitigation Credits
Non -Riparian Wetijand
om
RE' R -E' RE'
Buffer
Nutrient Phosphorous
Offset
OffsetNitrogen
Nutrient
Totals 4,770
N/A
1.80*
2.11 N/A
N/A
Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/ILF
Location
E.. st' n g
t. el
Acreage
Project Components
Restoration or
Approach Restoration Equivalent
Streams
Restoration
Footage/ Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
(SMU/WMU)
Foust Creek- Reach 1
101+83 to 109+96
814
Ell
Enhancement
813
2.5
325
Foust Creek- Reach 2
109+96 to 114+21 &
115+19 to 134+84
2,356
P1
Restoration
2,390
1
2,390
Foust Creek- Reach 2
114+21 to 114+35
31
P1
Restoration
(Partial Credit)
14
22
7
Foust Creek- Reach 2
(Easement Break)
114+35 to 115+19
91
PI
Restoration
(No Credit)
84
Foust Creek- Reach 3A
134+84 to 138+01
307
PI/2
Restoration
317
1
317
Foust Creek- Reach 36
139+01 to 140+89
187
Ell
Enhancement(Partial Credit)
188
SZ
38
Foust Creek -Reach 3B
140+89 to 142+31
142
Ell
Enhancement
142
2.5
57
Foust Creek - Reach 3B
142+31 to 150+74
684
PI/2
Restoration
843
1
843
UT1 to Foust Creek
200+94 to 208+87
713
P1
Restoration
793
1
793
Wetlands
Riparian Wetland RW1
---
0.03
--- Rehabilitation
0.03
1.5
0.02
Riparian Wetland RW2
---
0.08
--- Rehabilitation
0.08
1.5
0.05
Riparian Wetland RW3
---
0.16
--- Rehabilitation
0.16
1.5
0.11
Riparian Wetland RW4
---
0.45
--- Rehabilitation
0.45
1.5
0.30
Riparian Wetland RW4
---
0.21
--- Re -Establishment
0.21
1.0
0.21
Riparian Wetland RW5
---
1.46
--- Rehabilitation
1.46
1.5
0.97
Riparian Wetland RW5
---
1.18
--- Re -Establishment
1.18
1.0
1.18
Riparian Wetland RW6
---
0.52
--- Rehabilitation
0.52
1.5
0.35
Riparian Wetland RW6
---
0.51
--- Re -Establishment
0.41*
1.0
0.41*
Riparian Wetland RW7
---
0.46
--- Rehabilitation
0.46
1.5
0.31
Restoration Level
Stream
[LF)
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian
(acres) (acres)
Wetland
Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
4,357
- -
-
-
-
Enhancement
- -
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
Enhancement II
1,143
Creation
- -
-
Preservation
-
- -
-
High Quality Preservation
-
- -
-
-
Re -Establishment
1.80 -
-
Rehabilitation
3.16
N/A: notapplicable
1. R -E = Wetland Re -Establishment and RE = Wetland Rehabilitation per NCDENR July 30, 2013 Memorandum titled:Consistencv between
Federal and State Wetland Mitieation Requirements
2. A portion of Foust Creek Reach 2 and Reach 3B does not have a full 50' buffer from top of bank to the conservation easement boundary on the
river left side. Therefore, mitigation credit is only included at a rate of half the normal crediting giving the restoration or restoration equivalent type.
* Wetland RW6 Re -Establishment credit calculations were updated for Monitoring Year 3 based on the performance of groundwater well 9.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Activity or Report Date Collection
Complete
Completion or
Scheduled Delivery
February 2014
Mitigation Plan October 2013-
February 2014
Final Design - Construction Plans April 2014-
August 2014
August 2014
Construction October 2014-
February 2015
February 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area February 2015
February 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments February 2015
February 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments February 2015
February 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey February 2015
May 2015
Vegetation Survery February 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey September 2015
December 2015
Vegetation Survery September 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey March 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survery June 2016
Supplemental Planting
March 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survery
August 2017
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
September 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey N/A
December 2018
Vegetation Survery N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survery 2019
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survery 2020
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survery r 2021
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela Allen, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Fluvial Solutions
Construction Contractor
P.O. Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 27611
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Fluvial Solutions
Seeding Contractor
P.O. Box 28749
Raleigh, NC 27611
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Live Stakes
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Project Information
Project Name
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
County
Alamance County
Project Area (acres)
22.11 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35° 55'0.12- N, 79° 24'6.84" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002050050
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
1,259 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
78% Forested/ Scrubland, 21% Agriculture/ Managed Herbaceous, <1% Open Water, <1% Watershed
Impervious Cover, <1% Developed
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
Reach Summary Informtation
Foust Creek Foust Creek Foust Creek
813 2,404 1,490 793
Drainage area (acres)
954 1,047 1,259 173
NCDWR stream identification score
41.5 41.5 44 28
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -V WS -V WS -V ---
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P P I
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III/IV N/A III/IV III
Underlying mapped soils
Georgeville silty clay loam, Local alluvial land, Orange silt loam
Drainage class
--- --- ---
Soil Hydric status
--- --- --- ---
Slope
--- --- ---
FEMA classification
AE AE AE ---
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation - Post - 0%
Restoration
Regulation
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ401 Water
Quality Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Foust Creek Mitigation Plan(2013); Wildlands determined
"no effect" on Alamance County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter
from SHPO dated 1/9/13).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Foust Creek is located within the floodway and flood fringe
(FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panels 8788 and 8879).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

f.;
Sheet 2 1
it
6Aerial Photography
Sheet 3
Vk
cFe7 r'
Red Creak `� : �r

0
2016 Aerial Photography
0
00 �',•
I
0 Yt
� 'fir `/ � �♦.
e
♦ e �
1 '
1`
1 F:

F
PP #17
N0
0
0
cM
0
-------------------
(9J� 0 0 m •�•�.
r
f I -
PP #33� ormT..
PP #34
-
%J
E 00
.4'"
mo2016 Aerial Photography 1

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W I L D L A N D 50 50 100 150 200 Feet
I I I I I (Sheet 3 of 3)
oustCreek Stream Restoration Site
ENGINEERING DMS Project No. 95715
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Alamance County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Foust Creek Reach 1 (813 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
n/a
n/a
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Foust Creek Reach 2 (2,404 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
9
9
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
9
9
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
9
9
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
1
1
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Foust Creek Reach 3 (1,490 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
11
11
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
11
11
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
11
11
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
11
11
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
3
3
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
UTI (793 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
15 15
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
14 14
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
14 14
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
15 15
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
14 14
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
JBank slumping, caving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
TOTALS
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
13
13
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms
13
13
100%
Structures
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%
13
13
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Planted Acreage 22
Easement Acreage 22
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number
Combined
Acreage
%of
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
Combined
0.0%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
of
Planted
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
Acreage
(Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 22
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number
of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Foust Creek
Monitoring Year 4

PHOTO POINT 1— looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 3 —looking upstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 9 —looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

f
PHOTO POINT 16 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) PHOTO POINT 16 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 18 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) I PHOTO POINT 18 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) PHOTO POINT 19 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 20 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 21— looking upstream (3/22/2018) PHOTO POINT 21— looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

6
6
• r�'� :srMrs r
y.» �ia Fay �� u.
AM P . d 7 1.
�5r s F
4 k `l z
1 a i d
NEI
ftwim
`, figs . •. 1 �yQ° ! r' ' �
i

PHOTO POINT 26 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 27 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) PHOTO POINT 27 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 28 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 28 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 29 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) PHOTO POINT 29 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 30 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 31— looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 31— looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 32 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 32 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 33 — looking upstream (3/22/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 33 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 34 — looking upstream (3/22/2018)
PHOTO POINT 34 — looking downstream (3/22/2018)
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Foust Creek Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation inventory and analysis not required during MY4

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY4

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Reach
Date of Data Date of
Collection Occurrence
Method
Foust Creek
7/6/2018 4/25/2018
Crest Gage/
Pressure
Transducer
10/23/2018 8/20/2018
10/23/2018 9/18/2018*
UT1
3/20/2018 4/25/2018
10/23/2018 9/17/2018*
*Bankfull flow attributed to Hurricane Florence
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1 (2015)
Year 2 (2016)
Year 3 (2017)
Year 4 (2018)
Year 5 (2019)
Year 6 (2020)
Year 7 (2021)
Yes/93 Days
Yes/143 Days
Yes/134 Days
Yes/132 Days
1
(40.2%)
(57.0%)
(53.0%)
(52.0%)
Yes/46 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/35 Days
2
(20.0%)
(19.5%)
(17.4%)
(12.8%)
Yes/57 Days
Yes/91 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/94 Days
3
(24.6%)
(36.3%)
(9.1%)
(37.0%)
Yes/63 Days
Yes/86 Days
Yes/132 Days
Yes/74 Days
4
(27.2%)
(34.3%)
(52.2%)
(29.1%)
Yes/124 Days
Yes/196 Days
Yes/153 Days
Yes/39 Days
5
(53.7%)
(78.1%)
(60.5%)
(15.4%)
Yes/47 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/45 Days
Yes/84 Days
6
(20.2%)
(19.5%)
(17.8%)
(33.1%)
Yes/152 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/202 Days
Yes/237 Days
7
(66.1%)
(86.9%)
(79.8%)
(93.3%)
Yes/51 Days
Yes/74 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/37 Days
8
(22.0%)
(29.5%)
(9.1%)
(14.6%)
Yes/ 119 Days
Yes/179 Days
Yes/144 Days
Yes/124 Days
10
(51.7%)
(71.3%)
(56.9%)
(48.8%)
*Wetland Re-establishment area surrounding groundwater well 9 eliminated during MY3

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
S-10
a
-20
v
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
.01
-20
a
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i >- C - W O_ > V
Q in O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
R
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i T C - tlq Q > U
ii Q Q N 0 Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
R
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i T C - tlq Q > U
ii Q Q N 0 Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
.01
-20
a
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i >- C - W O_ �-' > U
Q in O Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
R
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i T C - tlq Q > U
ii Q Q N 0 Z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
.01
-20
a
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i >- C - W O_ > V
Q in O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
a
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C Q i >- C - W O_ > V
Q in O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
R
-30
-40
-50
-60
LL Q Q N O Z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

In -Stream Flow Gage Plot
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
Foust Creek Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for UT1
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
558.0 4.0
3.5
557.5 30 days
3.0
557.0 2.5
c
v —
Gage Malfunction Occurred 2.0 w
v 10/26/17- 3/20/18
3 556s _il . l I{ I i 1.5
It .I • - V1 .1 • 1111 1.0
556.0
" 0.5
555.5— 0.0
c > c on o_ > u
LL
S Q vii O Z O
Rainfall UT1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Monthly Rainfall Data
Foust Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 95715)
Monitoring Year 4 - 2018
1 2018 monthly rainfall collected from weather station NC355, in Graham, NC (USDA, 2000).
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC355, in Graham, NC (USDA, 2000).
Foust Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Graham, NC
10
9
8
7
c
6
c
0
m
5
.Q
V
N
a`
4
3
2
1
0
Jan -18
Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18 Nov -18 Dec -18
Date
2018 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2018 monthly rainfall collected from weather station NC355, in Graham, NC (USDA, 2000).
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC355, in Graham, NC (USDA, 2000).