HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180196 Ver 1_Buffer Mitigation Plan_2019_20190827
RIPARIAN BUFFER
MITIGATION PLAN
July 18, 2019
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7424
DMS ID No. 100039
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
USACE Action ID No. SAW 2018‐00424
DWR Project No. 2018‐0196
RFP #: 16‐007279
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652
DRAFT RIPARIAN BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN
CATFISH POND MITIGATION SITE
Durham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7424
DMS ID No. 100039
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: (919) 851‐9986
This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
15A NCAC 02B .0295 Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers.
15A NCAC 02B .0240, Nutrient Offset Payments Rule, amended effective September 1, 2010
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In‐Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Daniel Taylor, Construction Administrator
Carolyn Lanza, Monitoring Lead
Andrea Eckardt, Lead Quality Assurance
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609
July 25, 2019
Ms. Katie Merritt
RE: Response to DWR comments on Draft Final Buffer Mitigation Plan Submittal
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site, Durham County, NC
Neuse River Basin ‐ 03020201
DMS Project ID No. 100039 / DEQ Contract # 007424
Dear Ms. Merritt,
Wildlands received comments from you dated June 12, 2019 on the Catfish Pond draft final buffer
mitigation plan submitted on May 13, 2019. The comments were constructive and will improve the
mitigation plan. This letter provides our responses to those comments. Edits have been made to the
final mitigation plan.
Catfish Pond Buffer Mitigation Plan Comments
1. General Mitigation Plan & Buffer Plan comments:
a. The use of the term “buffer” and “riparian buffer” is used too loosely throughout the
plan. These terms should only be used to describe an area that is within the Neuse
Riparian Buffer. For this site, only the first 50’ adjacent to streams subject to the rule are
Neuse Riparian Buffers. Therefore, please correct applicable references to “buffer” or
“riparian buffer” and replace incorrect references with “riparian areas” or “riparian
restoration”.
We’ve made those changes.
b. The DWR Stream Determination letter for this site dated 3/12/18 was not included in the
mitigation plan or in Appendix 12. Please include.
We don’t have a stream determination letter for this project. In an email dated 6/13/19,
you said you couldn’t find it either and it probably was not issued.
c. Where plan sheets, figures and appendices of the Stream Mitigation Plan have relevant
information for the buffer plan, those items should be referenced in the buffer plan to
assist DWR with review. Otherwise, things can be mistakenly overlooked. Example: pond
design sheet, Ditch D shown on plan sheets, Planting Plan details, Invasive Species plan,
etc.
References have been added to the buffer plan. Nutrient offset credits were only
derived from buffer restoration areas with widths of at least 50 feet and not more than
100 feet.
2
d. Table 8a & 8b Project Area & Assets – changes and corrections are needed.
1. Based on comments made under Table 8b, it appears there are areas less than
50’, less than 29’ and less than 20’ widths, but none of those areas are depicted
on Table 8a as receiving buffer credit at reduced amounts. Are those areas
included in the buffer credits shown in Table 8a? Explain and correct assets
where necessary.
The notes below Table 8b refer to longitudinal stream lengths (i.e., linear feet)
where the buffer is between 30 and 50 feet. They do not refer to buffer widths.
2. Figures 6 and 9 do not provide reach information, therefore it is difficult to
compare those two figures to see the areas referenced under Table 8b.
We will add reach information to Figures 6 and 9.
3. Text under Table 8b states there is a difference of 5,597 ft2 due to the widths
being less than the required 50’. However, I don’t see that detailed out or shown
in the figures referenced. If the area is small and you can zoom in to the area,
that may be helpful.
These areas are now shown in Figure 9a and the locations are described below
Table 8b.
4. The creditable acreage is shown out to 4 decimal places on Table 8b. Explain
why they aren’t rounded to the nearest hundredth as is normally requested by
DWR.
The acreage is a calculated value based on square feet, and four decimal places
were used to more accurately reflect the actual square footage. I.e., the creditable
area is 255,790 (sqft), but 5.87 (ac) X 43,560 (sqft) = 255,697 (sqft).
2. Section 4.1 –
a. USFWS had concerns about sediment impacts from this site on aquatic species. Please
indicate how sediment impacts to the stream will be prevented during construction.
The dam will be breached and dewatered, with the turbidity curtain in place, as an initial
sequence of construction. This area will be allowed to dry before working with the
material. Once the site is suitably dry for earthwork operations, as determined by the
engineer, the dam will be removed as a first step. This material, if deemed suitable, will
be stockpiled on‐site for reuse in grading operations. Residual sediments shall be
excavated to native ground, spread and stabilized with appropriate seed mixture within
the limits of CE. If saturated, residual sediments shall be stockpiled in loose lifts and
allowed to dry prior to re‐spreading within the CE. This will reduce the potential for
sediment runoff and sloughing of the spread residual sediments. Residual sediments
shall not be reused as structural fill on‐site. Earthwork and grading for the new channel
will only occur in native material or select fill material.
3
Additionally, Wildlands will follow the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan as approved
by DEMLR. Erosion control plan sheets have been added to plan set in the stream
mitigation plan.
b. WRC letter dated 3/21/18 requested biodegradable erosion control measures that are
wildlife friendly. Explain how this request is being acknowledged.
Erosion control measures other than silt fence that are being incorporated within the
limits of construction include biodegradable coir matting along the channel side slopes.
Additionally, the side slopes within the dam removal area will be graded at 3:1. This,
along with the perimeter control along the haul roads, eliminates the need for
application of permanent or temporary matting along these side slopes. The
construction specifications and planting plan have been developed to specifically
address this area with a heavy stabilization and permanent seed mixture.
3. Section 6.0 –
a. Diffuse flow needs to be maintained in all riparian areas generating buffer mitigation
and nutrient offsets. The DWR stream determination letter called the ditch entering UT1
near reach 2 a Ditch. Plan sheets (Sheet 5.4) show this ditch going through the proposed
buffer restoration area. The ditch also extends beyond the conservation easement
boundary. Please explain how diffused will be maintained by the inclusion of Ditch D.
Wildlands will use guidelines in the Diffuse Flow for Buffer Mitigation memo (DWR
Buffer Interpretation/Clarification Memo #2008‐019) and receive no credit for 0.1 acres
where the ditch comes into the easement.
b. Plan sheet 2.6 shows the stream restoration through the Pond and should therefore be
referenced in this section to assist in DWR review.
This reference has been added.
c. Details on how the pond will be breached, efforts made to reduce sediment loss,
stabilization measures, drawdown, etc. aren’t provided but are needed so that DWR can
make informed decision that the pond restoration will be done with the least impact to
streams as possible. If these details are in the stream plan, then reference the applicable
section here to assist DWR review.
Reference is also made within the buffer mitigation plan to the pond removal detail on
plan sheet 6.10. Additionally, Wildlands will follow the Sediment and Erosion Control
Plan as approved by DEMLR.
d. It is recommended that a statement be added to this section that reads similar to
“Riparian restoration and enhancement will occur adjacent to mitigated stream onsite”.
Added this to second sentence of first paragraph in section.
e. No detailed planting plan is referenced in this section, however plan sheets were
provided in Appendix 7 detailing where trees would be planted. Include reference.
4
Referenced that a planting plan is provided on plan sheets 5.0 – 5.7 in Appendix 7.
f. The invasive species plan is pertinent to this plan and should be referenced in this
section.
Referenced that an invasive species plan is provided in Appendix 8.
g. Correct buffer mitigation rule citation in Section 6.3. It should be .0295 (o) instead of
.0295 (o)(6).
Corrected.
4. Section 8.0 ‐
a. Add that planted stems in the monitoring plots will all be flagged.
Added to Section 8.2.
b. Include applicable terms from Table 15 of the Stream plan and add to this section.
Survival rates were added to Section.
c. Vigor needs to be added to 8.2 as a measurement during monitoring. Add height
measurements.
A vigor standard was added to Section 8.2.
5. Section 9.0, second paragraph states that “no livestock, fencing, or internal crossing changes are
currently present or planned by the landowner”. Can you explain the meaning of this sentence
considering there are livestock and fencing currently present.
Removed this sentence. This makes it consistent with Section 11.0 in the stream mitigation plan.
6. Overall, if the riparian restoration and enhancement is done according to the plan and addresses
all comments and corrections provided by DWR, the site should provide a good buffer mitigation
and nutrient offset project.
Sounds good.
We hope that these responses adequately address the IRT’s comments and we look forward to working
with the IRT during the next phases of this important project.
Sincerely,
5
Chris Roessler
Project Manager
croessler@wildlandseng.com
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page i July 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary...................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Watershed Characterization ......................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Site Constraints and Access .......................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Current Site Resources ................................................................................................................. 7
2.8 Historic Site Resources ................................................................................................................. 7
3.0 Site Protection Instrument ........................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Site Protection Instruments Summary Information ..................................................................... 7
4.0 Regulatory Considerations ........................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 8
4.2 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas ......................................................... 9
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance ....................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Other Environmental Issues ......................................................................................................... 9
5.0 Determination of Credits ......................................................................................................... 10
6.0 Mitigation Work Plan .............................................................................................................. 12
6.1 Parcel Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 12
6.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities ........................................................................................... 12
6.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities ....................................................................................... 13
7.0 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................... 13
7.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 13
7.2 Photo Reference Stations ........................................................................................................... 13
7.3 Visual Assessments ..................................................................................................................... 13
7.4 Reporting Performance Criteria ................................................................................................. 14
7.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans ......................................................................................... 14
8.0 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 14
8.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 14
8.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 14
8.3 Photo reference stations ............................................................................................................ 14
8.4 Visual Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 14
9.0 Long‐Term Management Plan ................................................................................................. 15
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan .................................................................................................... 16
11.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 16
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page ii July 2019
TABLES
Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 5: Site Protection Instrument
Table 6: Project Attribute Table
Table 7: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Durham County, NC
Table 8a: Buffer Project Areas and Assets: Riparian Buffer Credits
Table 8b: Buffer Project Areas and Assets: Nutrient Offset Credits
Table 9: Monitoring Components
Table 10: Long‐term Management Plan
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 Watershed Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Credit Calculations Map
Figure 7 Riparian Buffer Zones Map
Figure 8 Proposed Monitoring Map
Figure 9 Nutrient Offset Area Map
Figure 10 Service Area Map
APPENDIX
Appendix 12‐a Site Photographs
Appendix 12‐b NC Division of Water Resources Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation and Nutrient Offset
Letter – March 13, 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 1 July 2019
1.0 Introduction
The Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site) is a riparian restoration project in conjunction with a stream
mitigation project. The Site is located in Durham County approximately 12 miles north of the City of
Durham and approximately 3 miles east of the Orange County/Durham County border (Figure 1). The
Site is comprised of approximately 20.73 acres along Catfish Creek and three additional unnamed
tributaries. Currently, the Site is characterized by a mix of active pastures, fields, and woodlands. The
project will restore or enhance riparian areas within the project area, which will provide 522,327.570
buffer credits or 18.1 acres worth of buffer mitigation.
The Site is located within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201020040 and North Carolina
Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub‐basin 03‐04‐01. Catfish Creek and the three unnamed
tributaries on the Site flow into Mountain Creek, which subsequently flows to Little River, the Eno River,
and then Falls Lake. Falls Lake is classified as water supply waters (WS‐IV) and nutrient sensitive waters
(NSW).
The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists major stressors in Subbasin 03‐04‐01 to be
total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, and chlorophyll α. The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) highlights the importance of riparian areas for stream restoration projects. Riparian
areas retain and remove nutrients and suspended sediments. Of the 123 miles of streams in the Neuse
01 CU, 23% do not have adequate riparian areas. The RBRP states that “priority [restoration] projects
should increase or improve buffers.” Another goal of the RBRP for the Neuse 01 HU is to support the
Falls Lake watershed plan. The RBRP also states that a goal for the Neuse 01 CU is to, “…promote
nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and
riparian buffers.”
This riparian restoration project will
reduce sediment and nutrient loading,
improve terrestrial and in stream habitats,
and improve stream and bank stability.
The area surrounding the streams
proposed for mitigation is a mixture of
active pasture, fields, and woodlands. By
removing cattle access to onsite
tributaries to Little River Reservoir and
Falls Lake, restoring a forest to maintained
riparian areas and protecting and
preserving existing forested riparian
areas; the project will reduce nutrient and
sediment inputs to project streams, and
ultimately to Falls Lake. The restored
floodplain areas will filter sediment during
rainfall events. The establishment of riparian areas will create shading to minimize thermal pollution.
Finally, invasive vegetation will be treated within the project area as needed and the proposed native
vegetation will provide cover and food for wildlife.
UT1 Reach 3
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 2 July 2019
2.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The major goals of the proposed riparian restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Falls Lake watershed of the Neuse River Basin by creating a functional riparian
corridor and restoring the riparian areas. Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below in Table 1.
Table 1: Ecological and Water Quality Goals – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Goal Objective CU‐Wide and RBRP Objectives Supported
Exclude cattle
from project
streams.
Install fencing around project areas adjacent
to cattle pastures.
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
Contribute to protection of or
improvement to a Water Supply
Waterbody.
Decrease nutrient
levels
Filtering runoff from the agricultural fields
through restored native riparian zones. The
off‐site nutrient input will also be absorbed
on‐site by filtering flood flows through
restored floodplain areas, where flood flows
can disperse through native vegetation.
Reduce nutrient inputs to waters of the
Falls Lake watershed.
Decrease water
temperature and
increase dissolved
oxygen
concentrations
Establishment and maintenance of riparian
areas will create additional long‐term
shading of the channel flow to reduce
thermal pollution.
Improve habitat to wildlife by providing
additional habitat.
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain
vegetation.
Plant native tree species in riparian zone
where currently insufficient.
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
Provide a canopy to shade streams and
reduce thermal loadings; Contribute to
protection of or improvement to a Water
Supply Waterbody.
Permanently
protect the
project Site from
harmful uses.
Establish a conservation easement on the
Site.
Protect aquatic habitat; protect water
supply waters.
2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The proposed riparian restoration project will approximately put 20.5 acres of agricultural fields and
woodlands along Catfish Creek and three unnamed tributaries that drain into the Falls Lake watershed,
part of the Neuse River Basin, under a conservation easement. Out of the 20.7 acres, 18.2 acres will be
proposed for a combination of riparian area restoration or enhancement.
In general, this area has maintained its rural, farming character over the last 78 years with only minor
changes in land cover. This consistency in land use within the project watershed indicates that
watershed processes affecting hydrology, sediment supply, and nutrient and pollutant delivery have not
varied widely over this time period. With a lack of developmental pressure, watershed processes and
stressors from outside the project limits are likely to remain consistent throughout the implementation,
monitoring, and closeout of this project.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 3 July 2019
The Site contains two perennial streams: Catfish Creek (Reaches 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and UT1 Reaches 1,
2, 3, and 4), and contains three intermittent streams: Catfish Creek Reach 1, UT2, and Mountain
Tributary.
Catfish Creek Reach 1 begins at a small groundwater seep on the west end of the Site and flows east. A
headcut is present on Reach 2. Catfish Creek Reach 3 begins at the confluence of UT2. Catfish Creek
Reaches 1, 2, and 3 are very similar in their current condition. These reaches are moderately to steeply
sloped and flow through somewhat confined valleys. Riparian vegetation is primarily comprised of a
mature overstory with limited understory and herbaceous vegetation due to cattle grazing. Cattle access
and riparian area grazing are the major limiting factors in the overall health and stability of Catfish Creek
Reaches 1, 2, and 3.
Catfish Creek Reach 4 flows east to an existing farm crossing. Cattle access within this reach has resulted
in extensive adverse impacts to the vegetation. Based on observations, the cattle have begun using the
channel as a wallow area and cattle trail. Understory vegetation along the reach is limited and
extensively grazed. Some overstory hardwood species are present but the understory ground cover is
sparse and dominated by pasture grasses.
Catfish Creek Reach 5 begins below an existing farm crossing and continues east to Catfish Pond. The
stream flows through a somewhat confined, moderately sloped valley with a mature hardwood
dominated overstory and a sparse understory due to cattle grazing.
Catfish Creek Reach 6 flows through Catfish Pond. Currently, all of Reach 6 is contained within Catfish
Pond or the pond embankment, which was installed sometime between 1940 and 1955. Cattle have
unlimited access. Vegetation around the pond is limited to pasture grasses and some trees. As part of
the Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation Project, the manmade dam will be removed and stream restored.
The pond is not currently viable for buffer credit but is being removed and the channel restored as part
of the stream mitigation project. The pond area will be viable for buffer and nutrient credit after stream
restoration has been completed and the as‐built report has been submitted to the IRT.
Catfish Creek Reach 7 begins at the confluence with UT1 and continues to the confluence of Mountain
Creek and Catfish Creek. Catfish Creek Reach 7 has a bedform dominated by bedrock features. At
multiple locations along the reach there is evidence of cattle wallows and trampled banks. The riparian
area is at first in relatively good condition along the left bank, with impacts limited to cattle grazing of
the understory. Elsewhere along Reach 7, however, cattle impacts are more prevasive, with sparse
overstory trees and little to no understory. Ground cover is dominated by pasture grasses and cattle
trampling is widespread.
UT1 flows onto the site from a wooded parcel south of project and flows northeast. The entire stream is
accessed by livestock and, based on historical aerials, the channel and floodplain were heavily altered
sometime between 1955 and 1972. In the 1972 historic aerial photo, a large area of deforestation along
the stream corridor is evident. It also appears that the surrounding floodplain was manipulated from a
forested system to agricultural fields for production. UT1 was divided into four separate reaches.
UT1 Reach 1 begins at the southern project boundary and flows northeast to the confluence with an
ephemeral tributary. Along UT1 Reach 1 there is a narrow riparian area with some woody and
herbaceous vegetation. Throughout the reach there are cattle entry and exit points which have resulted
in unstable banks leading to scour and incision.
UT1 Reach 2 begins at the confluence of UT1 and the ephemeral tributary and flows northeast until an
existing farm crossing. A fence line associated with the parcel boundary bisects UT1 Reach 2.
Downstream of the fence line, there is no woody or herbaceous vegetation within the floodplain and
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 4 July 2019
vegetation is dominated by pasture grasses. Upstream of the parcel boundary, the woody vegetation is
limited with some areas of hazel alder and green ash. The stream banks are cattle trampled. Upstream
of the fence line, it is difficult to identify the main stem of the channel because cattle trampling has
resulted in a braided stream system. As part of the Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation Project, a single
thread channel will be constructed.
UT1 Reach 3 begins downstream of the fence at the parcel boundary and continues through a farm
crossing. The downstream end of the existing farm crossing drops approximately 10 vertical feet at a
stacked rock retaining wall. The riparian area is essentially only pasture grasses.
UT1 Reach 4 begins at the existing farm crossing and continues until the confluence with Catfish Creek.
UT1 Reach 4 is vertically stable due to widespread bedrock in the channel. Grazing areas in the
floodplain have limited understory vegetation along the left bank and the right bank is limited to a single
row of trees.
UT2 to Catfish Creek and Mountain Tributary are both intermittent headwater tributaries within the
project area. UT2 begins at the farthest western edge of the project and flows southeast towards Catfish
Creek. Mountain Tributary begins in the northwest corner of the project area and flows southeast
before turning and flowing northeast into Mountain Creek. The reach ends at an existing culvert
crossing. These headwater tributaries are in a similar existing condition with an established riparian
woody canopy and a grazed understory. Overall, ecological degradation of these streams is directly
attributed to cattle impacts.
Table 2: Buffer Project Attributes – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Project Name Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201020040
River Basin Neuse River
Geographic Location (Lat, Long) 36° 9’ 48.03” N, 78° 54’ 37.66” W
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG) To be recorded
Total Credits (BMU) 526,262.570
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer & Nutrient Offset
Mitigation Plan Date April 2019
Initial Planting Date January 2020
Baseline Report Date February 2020
MY1 Report Date November 2020
MY2 Report Date November 2021
MY3 Report Date November 2022
MY4 Report Date November 2023
MY5 Report Date November 2024
2.2 Watershed Characterization
The Site is located in Durham County approximately 12 miles north of the City of Durham and
approximately 3 miles east of the Orange County/Durham County border (Figure 1). The Site is located
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 5 July 2019
within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201020040
and North Carolina Department of Water Resources
(NCDWR) Sub‐basin 03‐04‐01. Site topography, as
indicated on the Rougemont, NC USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangles, includes mostly steeply sloped
areas with some moderate slopes along the main
tributary (UT1) (Figure 3).
Drainage areas for the streams and riparian areas were
determined by delineating watersheds on the
Rougemont USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangles.
Figure 4 shows the watershed boundaries for each area.
Each of the riparian buffer watersheds is mix of active
pastures, fields, and woodlands. The watershed and
current land use are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Revised Reach Name DWR Stream Designation Watershed Area
(acres) Land Use
Catfish Creek Perennial 197 46% forested; 54% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture; 0.2% Woody Wetland
UT1 Perennial 108 32% forested; 66% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture; 1% Shrub
UT2 Intermittent 32 99% forested; 1% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture
Mountain Tributary Intermittent 30 92% forested; 8% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture
2.3 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Durham County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 4. Figure 5 is a soil map of the Site. Wehadkee soils underly upper UT1 and upper Catfish
Creek. Tatum underlies Catfish Creek Reaches 4, 5, and 6. Georgeville soils are prevalent on Mountain
Tributary. Chewalca and Wehadkee soils are present as Catfish Creek approaches the Mountain Creek
floodplain.
Catfish Creek above Catfish Pond
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 6 July 2019
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Soil Name Description
Wehadkee silt loam
This soil is found on narrow floodplains with a slope of 0 to 2 percent. This soil is
typically poorly drained and frequently floods. The surface layer of the series is
loam with a thickness of about 8 inches. The subsoil of sandy clay loam has a
depth of 43 inches. This soil is fairly well suited for pasture.
Tatum gravelly silt loam
This well‐drained soil is found on uplands with a slope of 15 to 25 percent. The
surface layer has a gravelly silt loam of about 7 inches. The subsoil of silty clay
loam extends to a depth of 42 inches and weathered bedrock is present from 42
to 80 inches. This soil is well suited to pine and hardwood forest and to pasture.
Slope and the erosion resulting from runoff are the major concerns in
management.
Georgeville silt loam
This well‐drained soil is found on narrow side slopes on uplands with a slope of 6
to 10 percent. It has a surface layer of reddish‐brown or brown silt loam to about
7 inches. Its subsoil is red, firm silty clay or silty clay loam to about 10 inches.
Slope and the erosion resulting from runoff are the major concerns for
management.
Chewacla and Wehadkee
soils
These soils are about 60 percent Chewacla soil and 35 percent Wehadkee soil.
These are somewhat poorly drained soils on floodplains with slopes of 0 to 2
percent that flood frequently. They occur as long, level areas parallel to the major
streams and rivers. These soils have a surface layer of loam to about 4 inches and
a subsurface layer of silty clay loam to about 26 inches. These soils are well suited
to hardwood forest and pasture.
Source: Durham County Soil Survey, USDA‐NRCS, http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov
2.4 Geology
The project is located in the Ecoregion 45c ‐ Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province.
The Carolina Slate Belt extends from southern Virginia, across the Carolinas, and into Georgia. The
Carolina Slate Belt consists of metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rock including gneiss and schist
that has been intruded by younger granitic rocks (NCGS, 2013). The underlying geology of the proposed
Site is mapped as late Proterozoic to Cambrian (1 billion to 500 million years in age) intermediate meta‐
volcanic rock (CZiv) and felsic meta‐volcanic rock (CZfv) (NCGS, 1985). The intermediate meta‐volcanic
rock is described as metamorphosed andesitic tuffs and flows that are medium to dark grayish green in
color with minor felsic and mafic meta‐volcanics. The felsic meta‐volcanic rock is described as
metamorphosed daeitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs that is light gray to greenish gray in color that
interbedded with intermediate meta‐volcanic rock. Instances of exposed bedrock along project
channels.
Sources:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Mineral%20resources/mineralresources.html
2.5 Vegetation
Upland portions of the Site maintained for cattle grazing are dominated by pasture grasses including tall
fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), and red fescue (Festuca rubra).
Herbaceous vegetation in wetland and riparian areas includes tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum),
common rush (Juncus effuses), spotted ladysthumb (Polygonum persicaria), yellow jewelweed
(Impatiens pallida), Carex species (Carex spp.), and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum).
Forested riparian areas are generally narrow or discontinuous, but common tree species present in the
canopy are American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sweetgum
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 7 July 2019
(Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Additional woody plants present in smaller proportions or lower strata include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow (Salix nigra),
paw paw (Asimina triloba), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
2.6 Site Constraints and Access
The Site is accessible via a gravel driveway off Roxboro Road. Three internal easement crossings for farm
use are part of the proposed conservation easement. These breaks are not included in the credits
calculated for the project. In places, the Site’s easement and planting will extend beyond the required
50‐foot minimum riparian buffer for streams in the Falls Lake Watershed. There are no known airport
facilities within five miles of the project area (Figure 1). There are no other known constraints on the
proposed Site. A permanent access easement from Roxboro Road to the Site is recorded.
2.7 Current Site Resources
On February 23, 2018, Ms. Katie Merritt, with DWR, conducted on‐site determinations to review
features and land use within the project boundary. The resulting DWR site viability letter and map
confirming the Site as suitable for riparian buffer mitigation has been included in the Appendix.
2.8 Historic Site Resources
The Catfish Pond Buffer Mitigation Site has historically been forested or used for agricultural purposes.
Historic aerial photos are included in the Appendix and date back to 1940, showing the site in various
stages of timber clearing, row crop production, and open pasture. In general, this area has maintained
its rural, farming character over the last 78 years with only minor changes in land cover.
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
3.1 Site Protection Instruments Summary Information
The land required for riparian area planting, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project
includes portions of the parcels listed in Table 5. An option agreement for the project area has been
signed by the property owner and a Memorandum of Option has been recorded at the Durham County
Register of Deeds. The proposed conservation easement on this property has not yet been recorded.
Table 5: Site Protection Instrument – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Landowner PIN County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
to be Protected
Gary Penny
Jack B. Penny, Jr
Richard Penny
0827‐02‐67‐0407
0827‐02‐68‐0515 Durham CE DB: 8235
PG: 776‐780 20.73
All site protection instruments require 60‐day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.
4.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 6, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 4.1‐4.3. A copy of the signed Categorical Exclusion Form for the project can
be found in the Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation Plan
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 8 July 2019
Table 6: Project Attribute Table – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes Yes
(Appendix)
Site Viability Letter
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Yes Yes
(Appendix)
Site Viability Letter
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation
Plan Appendix
(Categorical Exclusion)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation
Appendix
(Categorical Exclusion)
Coastal Zone Management Act No No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes In Process
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
database were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in
Durham County, NC. Three federally listed species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) are currently listed in Durham
County. Table 7 lists their federal status and habitat.
Table 7: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Durham County, NC – Dry Creek Mitigation Site
Species Federal Status Habitat
Vertebrate
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) BGPA Near large open water bodies: lakes, marshes,
seacoasts, and rivers
Vascular Plant
Smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) E Glades, woodlands, cedar barrens and open areas
over mafic rocks.
Michaux’s sumac
(Rhus michauxii) E Woodland edges, woodland, sandhills and sandy
forest.
E = Endangered; BGPA=Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act
The USFWS does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for any of the Federally listed species
within Durham County. Wildlands requested review and comment from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service on February 9, 2018 in respect to the Catfish Pond Mitigation Site and its potential
impacts on threatened or endangered species. USFWS responded on March 2, 2018 and stated the
“proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act”. All
correspondence with USFWS is include in the approved Categorical Exclusion found in the Catfish Pond
Stream Mitigation Plan
A pedestrian survey conducted on April 13, 2018 indicated that the Site provides suitable habitat for the
smooth coneflower and Michaux’s sumac but no species were identified on the site. Therefore,
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 9 July 2019
Wildlands determined that the project would have “no effect: on any of the three federally listed
species.
4.2 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
There are no existing structures in the project area. The Site is not located near any sites listed on the
National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO was contacted in a letter
dated February 9, 2018 and had no concerns or comments on the project site. The approved Categorical
Exclusion for the project is located in the Dry Creek Stream Mitigation Plan.
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance
The project is within the FEMA FIRM panel 3720082700J, effective October 19, 2018. The streams within
the project limits are outside the Special Flood Hazard Area with the exception of the lower extent of
Catfish Creek. Approximately 400 feet of Catfish Creek experiences backwater from Mountain Creek
floodplain and lies within Zone AE. The project design has been developed to avoid hydrologic trespass
to adjacent property. The E2 approach minimizes change to the profile and cross section, thus reducing
the risk of changes to flooding.
Wildlands will coordinate with Durham County to obtain a floodplain development permit, if necessary.
4.4 Other Environmental Issues
An EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck was ordered for the Site through Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. on January 29, 2018. The target property and the adjacent properties are not listed in
any of the Federal, State, or Tribal environmental databases searched by EDR. There were no known or
potential hazardous waste sites identified within one mile of the Parcel.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan DMS ID No. 100039 Page 10 July 2019 5.0 Determination of Credits Mitigation credits presented in Table 8a and 8b and Figures 6 and 9are projections based upon site design and are intended to be used as either riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset credits, dependent on the need. Upon completion of site construction, the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as‐built condition. Table 8a: Buffer Project Areas and Assets: Riparian Buffer Credits – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Jurisdictional Streams Restoration Type Requested Credit Type Feature Name Min‐Max Buffer Width (ft) Total Area (sf) Creditable Area (sf) Initial Credit Ratio (x:1) % Full Credit Final Credit Ratio (x:1) Riparian Buffer Credits (BMU) Subject or Nonsubject Restoration Stream Catfish Creek, Mountain Tributary, and UT1 30‐49 5,598 5,598 1 100% 1.0000 5,598.000 50‐100 254,366 254,366 1 100% 1.0000 254,366.000 101‐200 1,424 1,424 1 33% 3.03030 469.920 Subject or Nonsubject Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Stream Catfish Creek, Mountain Tributary, UT1, UT2 0‐100 521,936 521,936 2 100% 1.0000 260,968.000 101‐200 5,610 5,610 2 33% 6.06061 925.649 Total: 522,327.570
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan DMS ID No. 100039 Page 11 July 2019 Table 8b: Buffer Project Areas and Assets: Convertible to Nutrient Offset Credits – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site *The above creditable areas all meet the 50‐foot minimum width for nutrient offset credits. Small sections along Catfish Creek R7 (20 lf), Mountain Tributary (26 lf), and UT1 R1 (19 lf), R2 (40 lf, by crossing) & R4 (11 lf) have buffer widths of 30‐49 feet, and do not meet nutrient offset requirements. These can be seen when comparing Figure 6 – Buffer Credit Calcs Map with Figure 9 – Nutrient Offset Map and represent the differences between buffer credit area and nutrient credit area. This difference totals 5,597 sf. ** Impacts that occur in the watershed of Falls Lake in the upper Neuse River Basin may be offset only by load reductions in the same watershed; 15A NCAC 02B .0282 (2) (Figure 10) Location Jurisdictional Streams Restoration Type Reach ID / Component Buffer Width (ft) Creditable Area (ac)* Creditable Area (sqft) Eligible Credit Area (ac)** Convertible to Nutrient offset (Yes or No) Nutrient Offset: N (lbs) Nutrient Offset: P (lbs) Rural or Urban Subject or Nonsubject Restoration Catfish Creek, Mountain Tributary, and UT1 0‐200 5.8722 255,790 5.8722 Yes 13,347.464 859.680 Total 13,347.464 859.680
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 12 July 2019
6.0 Mitigation Work Plan
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore high quality ecological function to Catfish Creek and three
unnamed tributaries on the Site. Riparian restoration and enhancement will occur adjacent to mitigated
stream onsite. The ecological uplift can be summarized as transforming agriculturally impacted areas to
a protected forested riparian corridor. The project design will ensure that no adverse impacts to
wetlands or existing riparian areas occur. All riparian restoration activities will commence in
concurrence with the stream mitigation activities and not before. Therefore, the mitigation area where
riparian restoration is being performed may be altered slightly depending on the implementation of the
Catfish Pond Stream Mitigation Plan. Figure 7 illustrates the conceptual design for the Site. More
detailed descriptions of the proposed restoration activity follow in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.
6.1 Parcel Preparation
An in‐line pond on Catfish Creek will be removed as part of the stream restoration. Stream restoration
through the pond is shown on plan sheet 2.6 in Appendix 7. The earthen dam is proposed to be removed
and a portion of the dam will be used to fill the pond bottom to provide a stable foundation for
construction of the new channel. The remainder of the excavated material will be used to fill portions of
the old channels in other areas of the site. Once the dam is removed, the stream restoration will begin
near the upstream extent of the existing impoundment. Below the existing dam the restored channel
will follow the existing alignment until it reaches the confluence with UT1. Further details on pond
removal are provided on plan sheet 6.10 in Appendix 7.
There are no additional permits necessary outside of the 401/404 permits for the pond removal.
The restoration areas will be planted using hand labor with dibble bars or other acceptable forestry
practices.
Several invasive species have been identified on site. During the construction for the Catfish Pond
Stream Mitigation Plan, dense areas of invasive species will be treated.
6.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
The revegetation plan for the riparian restoration area will include permanent seeding, planting bare
root trees, live stakes, and herbaceous plugs. These revegetation efforts will be coupled with treating
invasive species. The specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the community
type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian areas adjacent to the Parcel, and best professional
judgement on species establishment and anticipated site conditions in the early years following project
implementation. Tree species planted across the riparian areas of the site will include a mixture of the
following species: American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), river
birch (Betula nigra), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), willow oak (Quercus phellos), Shumard oak
(Quercus shamardii), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), white oak (Quercus alba), overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), possumhaw viburnum (Viburnum nudum), Allegheny serviceberry (Amelanchier laevis),
and red buckeye (Aesculus pavia).
Trees will be planted at a density sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five years. A planting plan is provided on plan sheet
5.0 – 5.7 in Appendix 7. No one tree species will be greater than 50% of the established stems. An
appropriate seed mix will also be applied as necessary to provide temporary ground cover for soil
stabilization and reduction of sediment loss during rain events in disturbed areas. This will be followed
by an appropriate permanent seed mixture. Planting is scheduled to begin in January 2020.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 13 July 2019
Vegetation management and herbicide applications may be needed during tree establishment in the
restoration areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that could compete with the planted
native species. An invasive species plan is provided in Appendix 8.
6.3 Riparian Area Enhancement Activities
Cattle will be excluded using permanent fencing in the buffer enhancement areas (Figure 7) as followed
by 15A NCAC 02B .0296(o). The enhancement area will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation
easement. Planting isn’t anticipated to be needed except where require in the stream mitigation
planting plan, which is included with the preliminary plans. A seed mix will be applied where cattle have
caused bare soils and removed all vegetation if sufficient sunlight is possible to grow the species in the
seed mix.
Cattle will be fenced out of the easement area. The proposed fencing boundary is shown in Figure 6.
7.0 Performance Standards
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in RFP 16‐007242 and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Annual
monitoring and semi‐annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project.
The riparian restoration project has been assigned specific performance criteria components for
vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five‐year post‐construction
monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
7.1 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the health, survival, and density of at least 260 stems per
acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring, with a minimum of four native hardwood tree or shrub
species composition and no one species comprises more than 50 percent of stems. Vigor, species
composition, and density will all be assessed. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be
monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
7.2 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document stability for five
years following construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so
that the same locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year.
7.3 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi‐annual basis during the five‐year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed
accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas with be re‐evaluated during
each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be
provided in the annual monitoring report.
To ensure compliance with 0295 (0) (6): A visual assessment of the cattle exclusion and preservation
areas within the conservation easement will also be performed each year to confirm:
Fencing is in good condition throughout the site; no cattle access within the conservation
easement area; no encroachment has occurred; diffuse flow is being maintained in the
conservation easement area; and there has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or
similar activities that would negatively affect the functioning of the riparian area.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 14 July 2019
Any issues identified during the visual assessment of the cattle exclusion and preservation areas
will be photographed and mapped as part of the annual monitoring report with remedial efforts
proposed or documented.
7.4 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline and Annual Monitoring Report
Template version 2.0 (May 2017), a baseline monitoring document and as‐built record drawings of the
project will be developed for the constructed Site. Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in the
fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DMS. Annual monitoring reports will be based on the
above referenced DMS Template (May 2017). The monitoring period will extend five years beyond
completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met.
7.5 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project‐specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include a
work schedule and updated monitoring criteria (if applicable).
8.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met and project goals and objectives are achieved. The monitoring report shall provide project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close‐out decision making.
8.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 9 and Figure 8.
8.2 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the Site to measure the survival of the planted
trees (Figure 8). Planted stems in the monitoring plot will all be flagged. The first annual monitoring
activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, at least five months after planting has
been completed, and will be reassessed annually no earlier than the Fall of each year. Species
composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire
site. The number of monitoring quadrants required and frequency of monitoring will be based on the
DMS monitoring guidance documents. Vegetation monitoring will follow the CVS‐EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol. Reference photographs of the
vegetation plots and Site will be taken during the annual vegetation assessments. Planted vegetation
must average 7 feet in height at the end of MY5. Survival rate will be 320 stems per acre at MY3 and 260
stems per acre at MY5.
8.3 Photo reference stations
Photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document stability for five
years following construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so
that the same locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year.
8.4 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi‐annual basis during the five‐year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species or encroachment).
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 15 July 2019
Table 9: Monitoring Components – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity Frequency
Vegetation CVS Level 2 5 Annual
Visual Assessment Yes Semi‐Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation Semi‐Annual
Project Boundary Semi‐Annual
9.0 Long‐Term Management Plan
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long‐term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non‐reverting, interest‐bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A‐
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for stewardship, monitoring,
stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed (Table 10). Any future livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the
responsibility the owner of the underlying fee to maintain.
Table 10: Long‐term Management Plan – Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Long‐Term
Management Activity Long‐Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility
Signage will be installed
and maintained along
the Site boundary to
denote the area
protected by the
recorded conservation
easement.
The long‐term steward will be
responsible for inspecting the Site
boundary and for maintaining or
replacing signage to ensure that the
conservation easement area is clearly
marked.
The landowner shall report damaged or
missing signs to the long‐term manager, as
well as contact the long‐term manager if a
boundary needs to be marked, or
clarification is needed regarding a
boundary location. If land use changes in
future and fencing is required to protect
the easement, the landowner is responsible
for installing appropriate approved fencing.
The Site will be
protected in its entirety
and managed under
the terms outlined in
the recorded
conservation
easement.
The long‐term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
actions that are reasonably calculated
to swiftly correct the conditions
constituting a breach. The USACE, and
their authorized agents, shall have the
right to enter and inspect the Site and
to take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
The landowner shall contact the long‐term
manager if clarification is needed regarding
the restrictions associated with the
recorded conservation easement.
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100039 Page 16 July 2019
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post‐construction monitoring
defined in Section 8. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to address
minor issues as necessary. If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site’s ability to achieve Site
performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of DMS/NCDWR and work
with the DMS/NCDWR to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project‐specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work
schedule and updated monitoring criteria (if applicable).
11.0 References
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Durham County.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water‐resources/planning/classification‐standards/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
NCGS, 2013. Mineral Resources. http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐land‐
resources/north‐carolina‐geological‐survey/mineral‐resources
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2018. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Durham County, NC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Durham County, NC.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/durham.html
Triangle LandConservancy Easement
Triangle LandConservancy Preserve
Durham CountyOpen Space
Durham CountyOpen Space Fl
a
t
Ri
verNEUSE RIVERE ll e r b e C r e e k
Isaac Terry, Sr. House & Farm
Quail Roost
Orange Factory Historic District
Rougemont Village Historic District
Bahama Village Historic District
Adolphus Umstead House
Little River High School
Hill ForestLog Houses
George Poland House
Marcus Tilley House
Hampton-Ellis Farm
Croasdaile Tenant Farm #2
D. C. Umstead Store and House
Spruce Pine Lodge
Russell School Bennahan-CameronHistoric District
Hill Demonstration Forest
Durham County Open Space
Eno River State Park
Durham County Conservation Easement
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Prog ram Easement
Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve
Orange County Open Space
Stagville Center
Hill Forest/Flat River DNP
Orange County Easement
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Easement
Lake Michie Corridor
Little River Gorge
Flat River Slopes above Lake Michie
Little River Uplands
Hill Forest Dial Creek Hardwood Forest
Cabin Branch Creek Bottomland-Swamp
Hill Forest Chestnut Oak/ShortleafPine Forest
Quail Roost Oak Uplands
Little River Aquatic Habitat
Little River Aquatic Habitat
DURHAM
§¨¦85
£¤501
£¤501
£¤501
¬«157
¬«57
¬«157
- DURHAM CO -
- ORANGE CO -
03020201020040
03020201010050
03020201030040
03020201020010
03020201030050
03020201010030
03020201020030
03020201020020
03020201030030
03020201050010
03020201010020
03020201040010
03020201040020
03020201010040
Figure 1 Vicinity MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
¹0 0.75 1.5 Miles
Project Location
County Boundaries
Municipal Boundaries
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
Water Supply Watershed
Targeted Local Watershed
NC Historic Preservation Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
303d Listed Streams
Water Features
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Reach 7
UT2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 5Mountain TributaryReach 6
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 2
Reach 2 Mountain CreekReach 1
Catfish Creek
Catfish Pond
UT1
Reach 4
Figure 2 Site MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 250 500 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Existing Stream Crossings
Project Streams
Perennial Streams
Intermittent Streams
Non Project Streams
!(Reach Breaks
2017 Aerial Photography
Figure 3 USGS Topographic MapRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 500 1,000 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Rougemont USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle
UT2
UT1
Catfish CreekMountain TributaryMountain CreekFigure 4 Watershed MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 300 600 Feet ¹
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Watersheds
Catfish Creek (197 Ac)
UT1 to Catfish Creek (108 Ac)
UT2 to Catfish Creek (32 Ac)
Mountain Tributary (30 Ac)
Project Streams
Non Project Streams
Topographic Contours (4 ft)
2017 Aerial Photography
Figure 5 NRCS 1976 Soils MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 300 600 Feet ¹
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Streams
Non Project Streams
Soil Survey of Durham County, NC - 1976
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!([[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[Mountain CreekUT2
Catfish CreekMountain TributaryUT1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Ditch D
Figure 6 Riparian Buffer Credit Calculatio n MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 0 3020 201
Durham County, NC
0 400 800 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed C onservation Easem ent (20.65 acres)
Proposed Internal C rossings
Riparian Buffer Restoration (TOB-100 ft - 5.97 A c)
Riparian Buffer Restoration (101 -200 ft - 0.03 3 Ac)
Riparian Buffer En hancement via Cattle Exclusion (TOB-1 00 ft - 1 1.98 Ac)
Riparian Buffer En hancement via Cattle Exclusion (10 1-20 0 ft - 0 .1 3 Ac)
No Credit (0.1 ac)
Pro posed S tream A lignm ent
Non Project Strea ms
[[Proposed Fencing
Existing Tree Line
2017 Aerial Photography
UT2
Mountain Tributary
Catfish Creek
UT1
Ditch D
Figure 7 Riparian Buffer Zones MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 250 500 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossings
30 Foot Buffer Width
50 Foot Buffer Width
100 Foot Buffer Width
200 Foot Buffer Width
Proposed Stream Alignment
2017 Aerial Photography
[[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[")
")
")
")
")
")
")Mountain CreekUT2
Catfish CreekMountain TributaryUT1
Ditch D
Figure 8 Proposed Monitoring Components MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201Durham County, NC
0 400 800 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossings
Riparian Buffer Restoration (TOB-100 ft)
Riparian Buffer Restoration (101-200 ft)
Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (TOB-100 ft)
Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion (101-200 ft)
Proposed Stream Alignment
Non Project Streams
[[Proposed Fencing
")Vegetation Plots
2017 Aerial Photography
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Mountain Tributary
Catfish Creek
UT1
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT2
Reach 4
Reach 3
Reach 5
Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 1
Ditch D
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Figure 9 Nutrient Offset Zones MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
0 250 500 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Internal Crossings
50 Foot Buffer Width
100 Foot Buffer Width
200 Foot Buffer Width
Eligible Nutrient Offset Credit Area
Proposed Stream Alignment
2017 Aerial Photography
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!([[
[
[
[
[[
[[[[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[Mountain Tributary
Catfish Creek
UT1
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT2
Reach 4
Reach 3
Reach 5 Reach 6
Reach 7
Reach 1
Ditch D
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Figure 9a Convertible Nutrient Offset AreasCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteNeuse River Basin 03020201Durham County, NC
0 200 400 Feet ¹
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Stream Mitigation (1.98 Ac)
Buffer Restoration (TOB-49 ft - 0.128 Ac)
Buffer Restoration/Nutrient Offset (TOB-100 ft - 5.839 Ac)
Buffer Restoration/Nutrient Offset (101-200 ft - 0.033 Ac)
Buffer Enhancement (TOB-100 - 11.98 Ac)
Buffer Enhancement (101-200 ft - 0.13 Ac)
No Credit (0.6 ac)
[[Proposed Fencing
2017 Aerial Photography
^_
HUC 03020201
0 5 10 Miles ¹
County Boundaries
Service Area Riparian Buffer Credits
Service Area Nutrient Offset Credits
^_Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Figure 10 Service Area MapCatfish Pond Mitigation SiteRiparian Buffer Mitigation PlanNeuse River Basin 03020201
Durham County, NC
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Appendix 12-a Catfish Pond Existing Conditions Photographs
Catfish Creek (R1‐R2) - August 2018
Catfish Creek (R3) - August 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Catfish Creek (R4)
Catfish Creek (R5)
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Catfish Creek (R6) - August 2018
Catfish Creek (R7) - April 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Mountain Tributary - April 2018
UT1 (R1)- August 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
UT1 (R2) - April 2018
\\
UT1 (R4) - August 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Feature D - August 2018
UT2 - August 2018
Catfish Pond Mitigation Site
Appendix 12-a
DMS ID No. 100039 January 2019
Catfish Pond livestock - August 2018
ROY COOPER
Gol'emor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretarv LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director Water Resources
ENVIRONMENT AL QUALITY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: John Hutton
312 West Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
March 13, 2018
(via electronic mail: scott@waterlandsolutions.com )
DWR ID# 2018-0196
Johnston County
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset -Catfish Pond Site
OffUS-501 (36.158391, -78.907343)
Neuse 03020201 (Falls Lake WS)
Durham County
Dear Mr. Hutton,
On February 23, 2018, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you
and others from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. at the proposed Catfish Pond Mitigation Site (Site)
in Bahama, NC. The Site is located in the Falls Lake WS of the Neuse River Basin within the 8-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020201. The Site is being proposed as part of a full-delivery
stream restoration project for the Division of Mitigation Services (RFP #16-007279). Members
of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) and Division of Mitigation Services were also present
onsite. At your request, on February 23, 2018, Ms. Merritt performed an onsite assessment of
riparian land uses adjacent to streams and ditches onsite, which are shown on the attached map
labeled "Figure 6A Concept Map".
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from Top of Bank (TOB)
out to 200' from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 ( effective
November 1, 2015) and for nutrient offset credits pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Feature Classification 1Subject Riearian Land uses Buffer 2Nutrient Mitigation T�ee Determination w£in riearian
to Buffer
Rule
UTl Stream & Yes
Wetland (where
complex stream is
Proposed for restored)
stream
restoration
adjacent to Feature Credit Offset Viable fillli (0-200') Viable at 2,273
lbslacre
Combination of Yes4 Yes (non-Fields -Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
forested and forested fields .0295 (n)
non/forested pasture only)
grazed by cattle Forested Areas -Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 02B .0295 {o) {6)
Crossing 1 has impeded flow and Crossing 2 is
severely perched with impeded flow. Both
crossings need be repaired/replaced.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300
Catfish Pond Full -Delivery Site
Wildlands
March 13, 2018
Feature
Classification
'Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitiaation Type Determination w/in riparian
adiacent to Feature
areas
to Buffer
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
at 2,273
(0-2001
Viable
lbs acre
D
Ditch
No
Non -forested pasture
*see
Yes
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
grazed by cattle
Note
.0295(n)
*The ditch meets 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(8) (A,
B, C & E). More information is needed for
complete assessment.
Catfish
Stream
Yes
Combination of
Yes°
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
Creek
forested and
forested fields
.0295(n)
non/forested pasture
only)
grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 0213.0295 (o) (6)
Crossing 3 has impeded flow and needs to be
repaired/replaced
Catfish
In-line pond
Yes
Combination of
*Yes°
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
Pond
(proposed
forested and
forested fields
.0295 (n)
for stream
non/forested pasture
only)
Restoration)
grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 026.0295 (o) (6)
*If stream channel is created & restored
through the pond, the new riparian areas will be
viable as a Restoration Site
UT2
Stream
Yes
Mostly forested
Yes°
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
pasture with some
forested fields
.0295 (n)
open canopy areas
only)
and grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 026 .0295 (o) (6)
Mountain
Stream
Yes
Mostly forested
Yes4
Yes (non-
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
Tributary
pasture with some
forested fields
.0295(n)
open canopy areas
only)
and grazed by cattle
Forested Areas - Enhancement Site per 15A
NCAC 026 .0295 (o) (6)
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated March 12, 2018 using the 1:24,000
scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared
by the NRCS
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
'The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total
area of buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation only site
to comply with this rule.
'The area described as an Enhancement Site was assessed and determined to comply with all of 15A NCAC 02B
.0295(o)(6).
Page 213
Catfish Pond Full -Delivery Site
Wildlands
March 13, 2018
The attached map (Figure 6A Concept Map) showing the project site and features was provided by
Wildlands Engineering and was initialed by Ms. Merritt on March 13, 2018. There were at least 3
crossings that need to be repaired or replaced to allow for aquatic passage and continuous
hydrologic connectively throughout the streams. This letter should be provided in any future
stream, wetland, buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240. For any areas
generating wetland mitigation credit, no buffer or nutrient offset credit can be generated.
This viability assessment will expire on March 13, 2020 or upon the submittal of an As -Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Figure 6A Concept Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS - Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 313
No BMP here but can
add for buffer/nutrients
if criteria met.
add this wetland to
,Ladd
area
P.
14Mlir�rf®11
®It*i�f an
i rL
_ Kr
�:�
LAI&
.d. r
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
a
* L
4
' ■IFIL
ILIMIr Project Location
—,
1 Proposed Conservation Easement
BMP
® Proposed Crossings
Existing Streams
Reach Breaks
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration
41
Al
_ �•�l
s
i
J � t
i
Joh
14,
b
171(!
Figure 6A Concept Map (Option 1)
0 500 Feet`` eeCatfish Pond Mitigation Site
1 i I i I �(��1Veuse River Basin 03020201
^Q Durham County, NC
v—