Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120916 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2019_20200206ID#* 20120916 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt Initial Review Completed Date 02/06/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/6/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jeremiah Dow Project Information ................................................................................... ID#:* 20120916 Existing IDY Project Type: Project Name: Email Address:* jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov Version: *1 Existing Version r DMS r Mitigation Bank UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project County: Onslow Document Information Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: UTtoMillSwamp_95019_MY6_2020-02-05.pdf 15.01 MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow Signature:* UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Seventh Monitoring Measurement Sixth Year of Credit Release - Final Onslow County, North Carolina DMS Project ID Number – 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992 USACE Action ID: SAW-2011-02193, DWR# 20120916 Project Info: Credit Release Year: 6 of 7 (Seventh site monitoring since construction) Year of Data Collection: 2019 Year of Completed Construction: 2013 Submission Date: February 2020 Submitted To: NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) i UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Seventh Monitoring Measurement Sixth Year of Credit Release - Final Onslow County, North Carolina NCDMS Project ID Number – 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992 USACE Action ID: SAW-2011-02193, DWR# 20120916 Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084 February 4, 2020 Jeremiah Dow Project Manager NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Subject: Task 12: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 6 Monitoring Report for the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (#95019) White Oak River Basin – CU#03030001, Onslow County, North Carolina DEQ Contract No. 003992, Baker No. 124578 Mr. Dow, As per your request, please find enclosed one hardcopy of the Final Year 6 Monitoring Report and our responses to your review comments received on February 3, 2020 regarding the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project located in Onslow County, NC. We will also provide a secure ftp link with which to download the final updated digital files based on the comments. 1. Digital drawings: a. The following stream centerline GIS shapefiles do not match reported assets in the credit table: Reach UT1B (2,079 lf in shapefile, 1,996 lf in the Table) and Reach UT1A (613 lf in the shapefile, 600 lf in the Table). Please provide DMS with features that accurately capture the assets reported in the "Restoration Footage or Acreage" column of Table 1. Response: The revised stream centerline shapefile is included in the final e-submission files. It matches with the reported assets found in Table 1 for Reach UT1a (both 600 lf) and for UT1c (both 1,513 lf). However, it had previously been determined by DMS and the IRT in Year 4 that the length of Reach UT1b should be calculated using valley length as it is a headwater channel system, not by stream centerline as per our survey. DMS accepted a valley length of 1,996 ft for this reach, which determined the approved stream credit total of 3,909 ft. Thus, this GIS shapefile for UT1b created from survey data used to build the as-built plan sheets and cited in the as-built report will not match the asset table. But his is not due to an error or fault in the shapefile, but rather to a change in how the reach length was calculated. In Year 4, a note was added at the bottom of Table 1 to explain the change from previous monitoring reports and the stationing data for UT1b in the table shows the original length calculation that does match the GIS shapefile. 2. Cover Page: Please change the word “Permits:” to USACE Action ID. Response: Revision made as requested. 3. Appendix B a. Figure 2A: Please label the photo points with their assigned numbers. b. Figure 2B: Please add the gauges colored yellow to the legend. c. It would be helpful to indicate the location of Flow Camera #1 on the CCPV. Response: Revisions made as requested. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 919-481-5731 or via email at Scott.King@mbakerintl.com. Sincerely, Scott King, LSS, PWS Enclosures MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 Stream Assessment – Reach UT1a & UT1b ................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Stream Assessment – Reach UT1c ............................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability ........................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Photographic Documentation .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment .................................................................................. 5 2.3 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 6 3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attributes Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) Stream Station Photographs Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photographs Vegetation Problem Area Photographs Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data* Table 7* Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Planted Stems) Table 8* CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9a* CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species Table 9b* Vegetation Stem Count Densities Table 9c* CVS Density Per Plot Table 9d* Vegetation Summary and Totals MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) iii Appendix D Stream Survey Data Figure 3* Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11* Cross-section Morphology Data Appendix E Hydrologic Data Table 12 Wetland Restoration Area Well Success Figure 4 Wetland Gauge Graphs Table 13 Flow Gauge Success Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graph Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events Figure 6 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average * Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this Year 6 Monitoring Report, but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the otherwise out-of-sequence figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity, Michael Baker wishes to preserve the continuity of the labeling for these features between monitoring years to avoid confusion (e.g. to allow Appendix C to always contain vegetation data, and Table 13 to always be the flow gauge success table, etc. in each monitoring report). These figures and tables had been included in past reports and will be included again as part of the Year 7 monitoring report for 2020. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker Engineering (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, 6.62 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and enhanced 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow County, North Carolina (NC) (Appendix A). The total planted acreage was approximately 15.2 acres, and the permanent conservation easement is 19.6 acres. The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion, cattle grazing, and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities. The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs. The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site, • Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters, • Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs, • Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood processes, and • Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a permanent conservation easement. To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified: • Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic floodplains, • Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion, • Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion, • Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature, • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover, addition of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and • Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary, continue treatments during the monitoring period. The project as-built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below: MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 2 • The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May 2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UT1c area. • Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle. Special Notes: In consideration of this report, the following timeline should be noted: Completion of construction – 5/31/13 Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots – 6/13/13 Year 1 (2013) vegetation monitoring – 10/16/13 Live stake installation - 3/27/14 Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring – 5/18/14 Year 2* (2014) vegetation monitoring – 12/19/14 Year 2 (2015) vegetation monitoring – 11/13/15 Year 3 (2016) vegetation monitoring – November 2016 Supplemental 3-foot bare roots installed in the area around Vegetation Plot 3 only – March 20, 2017 Year 4 (2017) vegetation assessment was conducted in October of 2017, but no formal monitoring plot data is required to be collected as part of Year 4 monitoring effort. Year 5 (2018) vegetation monitoring – 10/30/18 Year 6 (2019) vegetation assessment was conducted in October and December of 2019, but no formal monitoring plot data is required to be collected as part of Year 6 monitoring effort. Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was only 125 days of the growing season (March 18th through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for an additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were planted and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days within the growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 (2014) vegetation monitoring, providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the approved Mitigation Plan. As such, Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data and the data collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has declined to release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring. As such, the 2015 monitoring report was considered Year 2. All references to Year 2 henceforth will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 3 In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the DMS guidance document “Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation” dated 11/7/2011, no formal vegetation plot monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys conducted as part of this Year 6 monitoring effort. A visual assessment of these project features is emphasized this year, with the full vegetation plot and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 7 monitoring in 2020. The Year 6 visual monitoring of the Site indicate that it is geomorphically stable and performing at 100 percent for the all stream morphology parameters evaluated (Table 5a). There are no unstable beds, banks, or structures, and there are no Stream Problem Areas (SPA) to report. Cross-section survey work will again be conducted for the MY7 report in 2020. During Year 6 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas to report, no current low stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. The formal vegetation plot data monitoring will again be conducted for the MY7 report in 2020. Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented during Year 6 monitoring. Two areas of scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) re-sprouts totaling 0.96 acres were discovered in portions of the floodplain along both banks of the middle and lower sections of Reach UT1c. They are identified as a Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) in Table 6b and will be treated as soon as temperatures are appropriate for spraying. Much of the VPA area on the left bank had previously been treated for privet in March of 2019. The exact locations of these areas are shown on the CCPV. During Year 6 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that nine of the fifteen groundwater monitoring wells located along Reach UT1c met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success criteria (MSAW1, MSAW2, MSAW3, MSAW4, MSAW5, MSAW6, MSAW8, MSAW9, and MSAW19) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or greater, and ranged from 13.5 to 38.1 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success criteria (See Table 12) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 4.5 to 9.4 percent of the growing season. As a reminder, with IRT approval during a field visit on 5/1/18, wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated on 6/7/18 to more useful monitoring locations as they had previously been located in areas located outside of the wetland restoration and hydric soils boundary in the adjacent upland area. For Year 6 monitoring, MSAW3 passed with 13.5%, while MSAW7 did not pass, but did achieve 9.4% (23 days), which is nevertheless a significant length of time. Year 6 flow monitoring demonstrated that flow gauge MSFL1 (on upper UT1b) met the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of flow through upper UT1b with 78 days of consecutive flow and 170 days of total cumulative flow. The gauge demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events for the Site. As reported last year, flow gauge MSFL2 (on lower UT1b) unexpectedly and permanently failed during the winter of 2017/2018. It will not be replaced as it had already met the required project success criteria in each of its previous monitoring years with consecutive flow lengths of 35, 131, 152, 105, and 164 days, along with cumulative yearly flow totals of 79, 327, 186, 231, and 243 days (see Table 13). Thus, this gauge has already significantly exceeded the required success criteria of documenting two separate flow events within the project monitoring period. Flow data for this reach will continue to be collected for the remaining project monitoring period from gauge MSFL1 alone (located on upper UT1b). All flow data collected during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix E. The Site was also found to have had at least one above-bankfull event based on the crest gauge reading (and confirmed with flow gauge data) during Year 6 monitoring. The recorded event was measured to be 2.10 feet above bankfull and was associated with a significant storm on 9/5/19. Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 4 supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to the NCDMS Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation guidance document dated 11/7/11 (NCDMS 2011), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots, permanent cross- sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B. The final Year 6 monitoring gauge data were collected in December 2019. All visual site assessment data located in Appendix B were collected in December 2019 as well. 2.1 Stream Assessment – Reach UT1a & UT1b The UT1a and UT1b mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi-thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document groundwater and flooding functions. 2.1.1 Hydrology Two automated groundwater gauges (pressure transducers) are installed along well transects, with a total of four well transects installed in the UT1a and UT1b areas for the purpose of collecting headwater research data for these upper reach sections. The automated loggers are programmed to collect data at 6-hour intervals to record groundwater levels in UT1a and UT1b areas. Graphs of the groundwater data collected for these gauges during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix E. Additionally, two flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges attempt to document flooding connectivity between the restored UT1a and UT1b reaches for at least 30 consecutive days under normal climatic conditions. Flow gauge MSFL2 (on lower UT1b) permanently failed during the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as it had already met the required project success criteria in each previous monitoring year. Flow data for this reach will continue to be collected for the remaining project monitoring period from gauge MSFL1 alone (located on upper UT1b). All flow data collected during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix E. 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 5 photos. Selected UT1a and UT1b site photographs taken at established reference stations are found in Appendix B. 2.2 Stream Assessment – Reach UT1c The UT1c mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a single-thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events and established stream cross- sections to monitor channel stability. Stream survey data is collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As-built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot. 2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to document as-built baseline monitoring conditions (Year 0) only. The survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the USACE or DMS. As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, no cross-section survey data were collected for this Year 6 Monitoring assessment. Consequently, none of the cross-sectional survey graphs (Figure 5) or morphology data (Table 11) are presented in Appendix D as in previous monitoring reports. This data will again be included as part of the Year 7 report in 2020. 2.2.2 Hydrology One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on UT1c approximately at Station 45+50. In MY6, at least one above-bankfull event associated with a significant storm event was documented by the crest gauge and confirmed by the flow gauge readings. All crest gauge reading data are presented in Appendix E and gauge photographs are presented in Appendix B. 2.2.3 Photographic Documentation Representative project photographs for MY6 were taken at the previously established photograph reference stations located along the enhanced and restored stream sections and are presented in Appendix B. 2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, and pool depth maintenance, are also measured and scored. During Year 6 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in-stream structures. All stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream beds are vertically stable, the pools are maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in-stream structures are physically intact MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 6 and performing as designed. No Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) were documented during Year 6 monitoring. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables. 2.3 Wetland Assessment Following construction, ten automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the UT1c wetland restoration area following USACE protocols (USACE 2005). The gauges themselves are all In-Situ brand Rugged Troll 100 data loggers. An additional six monitoring wells were installed in the spring of 2016 in the left floodplain of UT1c for a more detailed evaluation there. During an IRT site visit on 5/1/18, it was suggested that two of the wells (MSAW3 and MSAW7) originally located on, or just outside, the wetland boundary line be relocated to help confirm restored wetland areas elsewhere in the floodplain. As such, in June 2018 those two wells were relocated to the suggested areas as shown in the CCPV found in Appendix B. Also, during Year 5 monitoring, the gauge at well MSAW10 unexpectedly and permanently failed in the summer of 2018. Given that it had never passed the success criteria hydroperiod requirement, it will not be replaced at this stage of the project. Graphs of the groundwater data collected from each well during Year 6 monitoring are found in Appendix E. Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located near Richlands, NC for the previous 12-month period from December 2018 through November 2019 was 43.8 inches. The WETS table for Hoffman Forest station (NC4144) in Onslow County was used to calculate the 30-year average for that same 12-month period and documents an average of 56.5 inches of rainfall, with an historic 30% probable of 51.9 inches and an historic 70% probable of 60.5 inches. Thus, the site appears to have gone below the 30% probable by 8.1 inches. In fact, much of the county was under a Stage D1 Moderate Drought from early May through early September. However, the fall of 2018 and early winter of 2018/2019 had been historically wet (in particular from Hurricane Florence, which dropped approximately 13 inches of rainfall on the site on September 15th alone). Additionally, the rainfall that the site did receive in the early portion of 2019 was evenly distributed, if overall less than normal. 2.4 Vegetation Assessment In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored annually across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site, with six plots established randomly within the planted UT1a, UT1b and UT1c riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of UT1a and UT1b. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, there was no formal vegetation plot monitoring conducted for the Year 6 monitoring effort, and thus no vegetation data summary tables are included in Appendix C as in previous monitoring reports. However, as reported in Table 6a (Appendix B), the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas to report, no current low stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. Vegetation plot data monitoring will again be conducted for the MY7 report in 2020. Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented during Year 6 monitoring. Two areas of scattered Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) re-sprouts totaling 0.96 acres were discovered in portions of the floodplain along both banks of the middle and lower sections of Reach UT1c. They are identified as a Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) in Table 6b and will be treated as soon as temperatures are appropriate for spraying. Much of the VPA area on the left bank had previously been treated for privet in March of 2019. The MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 7 exact locations of these areas are shown on the CCPV. No other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along UT1a, UT1b or UT1c. All Year 6 vegetation assessment information and photographs are provided in Appendix B. 3.0 REFERENCES Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2007. CVS-NCDMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. ____. 2005. “Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites,” WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. ____. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District. Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables 24 £¤258 111 41241 Project Location Warren Taylor Rd O N S L O WONSLOWCOUNTYCOUNTY D U P L I NDUPLINCOUNTYCOUNTY J O N E SJONESCOUNT YCOUNTY L E N O I RLENOIRCOUNTYCOUNTY Beulaville Richlands Pink Hill Onslow County £¤258 24 210 Project Location Figure 1Project Vicinity MapUT to Mill Swamp Site 0 1 2 30.5 Miles ± Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 03030001010020. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the Department of Env ironmental Quality (DEQ) and the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassedby a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundaryand therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in thedevelopment, 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 anyperson outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. Site DirectionsTo access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NCHighway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville andMagnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the KenansvilleBypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NCHighway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles beforeturning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2miles before turning right onto W arren Taylor Road.Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while headingnorth through a large field. The site is located wherethe farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at adownstream culvert crossing. DMS Project # 95019 DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Stream Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Type R, E1 R E Totals 3,909 SMU 4.0 WMU 0 Stationing/ Location Restoration/ Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage Mitigation Ratio 10+00 – 16+00 400 SMU 600 LF 1.5:1 16+00 – 36+93 1,996 SMU 1,996 LF 1:1 37+24 – 52+37 1,513 SMU 1,513 LF 1:1 10+00 – 23+69 N/A N/A N/A See plan sheets 4.0 WMU 4.0 AC 1:1 Stream (LF)Buffer (SF)Upland (AC) Riverine 3,509 4.0 600 Element Location Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Mitigation Credits Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Project Components Project Component or Reach ID Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Reach UT1a 600 LF Enhancement Level I Reach UT1b 2,131 LF Headwater Restoration Reach UT1c 1,350 LF Single thread Restoration Reach UT3 1,060 LF Cattle Exclusion Wetland Area #1 0.0 AC Restoration Component Summation Restoration Level Riparian Wetland (AC)Non-riparian Wetland (AC) Non-Riverine Restoration Enhancement I Enhancement II Creation Preservation High Quality Preservation BMP Elements Purpose/Function Notes BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area *Note: Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg but were revised starting in Monitoring Year 4 to be calculated along stream centerlines and valley length after discussions with the NC-IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Activity or Report Scheduled Completion Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Aug-13 Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep-13 Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Nov-13 Final Design – (at least 90% complete)N/A N/A Mar-13 Construction Begins N/A N/A Apr-13 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A N/A Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jun-13 Planting of live stakes Fall/Winter 2013 N/A Mar-14 Planting of bare root trees N/A N/A Jun-13 End of Construction N/A N/A May-13 Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)N/A Aug-13 Aug-13 Year 1 Monitoring Dec-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 ¹Year 2* Monitoring Dec-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Year 2 Monitoring Nov-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Year 3 Monitoring Dec-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Year 4 Monitoring Dec-17 Nov-17 Jan-18 Year 5 Monitoring Dec-18 Dec-18 Dec-18 Year 6 Monitoring Dec-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Year 7 Monitoring Dec-20 N/A N/A Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 ¹ As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: the US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following construction. As such, this report (2019) will be considered Year 6. All references to Year 6 included in this report will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2019. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring Year 2 is labeled as Year 2* MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 Nursery Stock Suppliers River Works, Inc. Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. ArborGen, 843-528-3204 Superior Tree, 850-971-5159 Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200 Monitoring Performers Seed Mix Sources Planting Contractor River Works, Inc. Seeding Contractor Table 3. Project Contacts Construction Contractor Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Designer Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 River Works, Inc.114 W. Main St. Clayton, NC 27520 Clayton, NC 27520 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Katie Mckeithan, Tel. (919) 481-5703 Contact: 114 W. Main St. 114 W. Main St. Contact: Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 Green Resources, Tel. 336-855-6363 Contact: Clayton, NC 27520 Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Project Name County Project Area (acres) Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Physiographic Province River Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit DWQ Sub-basin Project Drainage Area (AC) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area CGIA Land Use Classification Parameters Length of Reach (LF) Valley Classification (Rosgen) Drainage Area (AC) NCDWQ Stream Identification Score NCDWQ Water Quality Classification Evolutionary Trend Underlying Mapped Soils Drainage Class Soil Hydric Status Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) FEMA Classification Native Vegetation Community Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation Parameters Size of Wetland (AC) Wetland Type Mapped Soil Series Drainage Class Soil Hydric Status Source of Hydrology Hydrologic Impairment Native Vegetation Community Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation Applicable Supporting Documentation Yes See Mitigation Plan Yes See Mitigation Plan No See Mitigation Plan No See Mitigation Plan No See Mitigation Plan No See Mitigation Plan No See Mitigation Plan Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010 (http://www.http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1c0b7e5a-9617-4a44-a5f8- df017873496b&groupId=60329) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Riparian Riverine Yes Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg) Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained 23 1,060 Reach UT3 ~10% Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp <5% Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Essential Fisheries Habitat 03-05-02 421 (d/s main stem UT1) N/A Waters of the United States – Section 401 Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional 9.7% (Before fall 2016 treatment event) N/A Yes Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A Historic Preservation Act N/A Waters of the United States – Section 404 White Oak 03030001 / 03030001010020 Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Endangered Species Act 6.62 (3.36 north of UT1c, 3.26 south of UT1c) Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)G/F (Channelized Headwater System)Intermittent Ditch (N/A) 40.5 Hydric Wetland Summary Information Regulatory Considerations Regulation Resolved Table 4. Project Attributes Project Information UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Onslow 19.6 34.9377 N, -77.5897 W Watershed Summary Information Inner Coastal Plain Groundwater Hydric Wetland 1 (Non-Jurisdictional W1) 421 4,091 X X Impervious Cover (0.6%) Stream Reach Summary Information Reach UT1 <1% 2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413 NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010) Forest (52%) Agriculture (44%) Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision) 21 C; NSW C; NSW N/A N/A GcF Intermittent Ditch (N/A) Mk, St, Ly, FoA Mk, St 0.0058 Hydric 0.0041 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Appendix B Visual Assessment Data UT 1a UT 3 UT 1b UT 1c Reach B reak Reach B reak Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board Figure 2 Index MapCurrent Condition Plan ViewMonitoring Year 6UT to Mill Swamp Site Fig 2A Fig 2B 0 250 500Feet DMS Project # 95019 UT 1a UT 3 UT 1b Veg Plot 3 StreamCrossing Veg Plot 2 Veg Plot 1 Sta. 10+00.00 Sta. 16+00.00 UT 1b: Sta. 26+07.40 UT3 (end): Sta. 23+69.36 Sta. 10+00.00 Flow Ca mera #1 MSAW18MSAW17 MSAW15 MSAW16 MSAW14 MSAW13 MSAW12 MSAW11 PP18 PP11 PP17 PP16 PP15 PP14 PP13 PP12 PP10 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board Figure 2ACurrent Condition Plan ViewMonitoring Year 6UT to Mill Swamp Site Co nse rvation Easement Cre st Gauge Flow Gauges Ph oto Points He adwater Research W ells Stream Crossings Cro ss Section s (Not Re quired f or MY6) Stream Top-Of-Bank In-Strea m Structures Ca ttle Exclusion Fence As-Built Strea ms by Mitigation Type En han ce ment I No Mitiga tion Credit Re sto ratio n: M ulti-Thread Channel Re sto ratio n: Single-Thread Channel Vege tation Plots (Not Required f or MY6) Mon itoring Date: Dec 2019 Ae rial Photo Date: 2016 0 100 200Feet DMS Project # 95019 UT 1c XS-7 XS-8 StreamCrossing MSAW5 MSAW4 Sta. 36+93.00 Sta. 52+37.58 MSAW8 MSAW10 (Old) MSAW9 MSAW7 (Old) MSAW6 MSAW3 (Old) MSAW2 MSAW1 MSAW23 MSAW22 MSAW19 MSAW20 MSAW21All Wetlands South of Stream (3.26 ac) All Wetlands North of Stream (3.36 ac)MSAW24 Scattered Privet Resprouts (0.80 ac) MSAW7 (New) MSAW3 (New) Privet Treated in March 2019 (1.20 ac) Scattered Privet Resprouts (0.16 ac) XS-3 XS-6 XS-2 XS-5 XS-1 XS-4 PP9 PP8 PP7 PP6 PP5 PP4 PP3 PP2 PP1 MSFL2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID , IGN, and the GIS User Community, NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, N C 911 Board Figure 2BCurrent Condition Plan ViewMonitoring Year 6UT to Mill Swamp Site Conservation Easem ent Crest Gauge Flow Gauges Photo Points Monitoring Well Year 6 Success Passed Did Not Pass Did Not Pass, but > 9.0% Headwater Research W ells Old Well Locations Stream Crossings Cross Sections (Not Required for MY6) As-Built Streams by Mitigation Type Enhancem ent I No M itigation Credit Restoration: Multi-Thread Channel Restoration: Single-Thread Channel Vegetation Plots (Not Required for MY6) Privet Treatm ent Area (in March 2019) Veg Problem Area (Privet Resprouts) Restored Wetland Area (6.62 Acres total) Monitoring Date: Dec 2019 Aerial Photo Date: 2016 0 100 200Feet DMS Project # 95019 Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 , Wells MSAW 3 and MSAW 7 were relocated to help confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on, or just outside, the wetland boundary line. Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number per As-built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Veg. Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg. Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg. 1. Aggradation 0 0 100% 2. Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate 3 3 100% 1. Depth 22 22 100% 2. Length 22 22 100% 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)19 19 100% 2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)19 19 100% 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100%0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100%0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100% 0 0 100%0 0 100% 3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 8 8 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 8 8 100% 3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%8 8 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth 8 8 100% Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Assessed Length (LF): 1,513 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals Reach ID: UT1c 1. Bed 1.Vertical Stability MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number N/A N/A N/A N/A Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Total Planted Acreage:15.2 Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold (acres) CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0% 2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage:19.6 Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage 5. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)1000 ft²Yellow polygon 2 0.96 4.9% 6. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)none NA 0 0.00 0.0% Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019 Cumulative Total Total MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Feature Issue Station Numbers / Location Suspected Cause Photos Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense ) Found scattered in the floodplain in sections of the middle right bank (~Station 44+00) and the lower left bank (~Stations 46+00 to 50+00) of UT1c. See CCPV for exact locations. Re-sprouts See Appendix B Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Station Photographs (12/9/19) Photo Point 1 – UT1c Upstream at Culvert Photo Point 2 – Log Jam Photo Point 3 – Log Weir/Log Jam Photo Point 4 – Log Jam Photo Point 5 – Log Jam Photo Point 6 – UT1c Downstream UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Station Photographs (12/9/19) Photo Point 7 – UT1c Upstream Photo Point 8 – UT1b Upstream Photo Point 9 – UT1b at Flow Gauge #2 Photo Point 10 – UT3 above confluence Photo Point 11 – UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 12 – UT3 Log Weir UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Station Photographs (12/9/19) Photo Point 13 – UT3 Log Weir Photo Point 14 – UT1b view upstream Photo Point 15 – UT1b view upstream Photo Point 16 – Log Weir Photo Point 17 – Log Weir Photo Point 18 – Log Weir UT to Mill Swamp: Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photographs Crest gauge reading: 2.10 ft from 9/5/19 storm event Close-up of crest gauge reading: 2.10 ft from 9/5/19 storm event Debris and wrack lines in the floodplain from overbank event on UT-1a (photo from 12/6/19) Debris and wrack lines in the floodplain from overbank event on UT-1b (photo from 12/6/19) Flow Camera #1 on 2/28/19 (flow in channel) Flow Camera #1 on 3/22/19 (flow in channel) UT to Mill Swamp: Vegetation Problem Area Photographs VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 12/6/19 VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 12/6/19 VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 12/6/19 VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 12/6/19 Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data* *No vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 6 Appendix D Stream Survey Data* *No cross-section stream survey monitoring was required for Year 6 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Dimension and Substrate - Riffle LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)-----23.0 80.0 9.9 6.8 ----------8.7 -----2 Floodprone Width (ft)--------------------8.2 ----------11.8 -----2 BF Mean Depth (ft)-----2.3 5.8 1.3 0.8 ----------1.0 -----2 BF Max Depth (ft)--------------------1.1 ----------1.4 -----2 BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----80.0 300.0 16.2 5.6 ----------8.6 -----2 Width/Depth Ratio --------------------8 ----------9 -----2 Entrenchment Ratio --------------------1.2 ----------1.4 -----2 Bank Height Ratio --------------------4.2 ----------2.8 -----2 d50 (mm)-------------------------0.25 ---------------12 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Radius of Curvature (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)-------------------------------------------------- Meander Wavelength (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Meander Width Ratio -------------------------------------------------- Profile Riffle Length (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Riffle Slope (ft/ft)-------------------------------------------------- Pool Length (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Pool Spacing (ft)-------------------------------------------------- Pool Max Depth (ft)--------------------1.1 ----------1.16 -----2 Pool Volume (ft3)-------------------------------------------------- Substrate and Transport Parameters Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%-------------------------------------------------- SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%-------------------------------------------------- d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -------------------- Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²-------------------------------------------------- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)-------------------------------------------------- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²-------------------------------------------------- Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area (SM)-----------------------------------0.66 ---------- Impervious cover estimate (%)--------------------------------------------- Rosgen Classification -------------------------Gc -------------------- BF Velocity (fps)--------------------0.8 ----------1.2 -----2 BF Discharge (cfs)-----290.0 2000.0 66.0 -----6.48 -------------------- 35 -------------------------------------------------- Channel length (ft)2 -------------------------4091 -------------------- Sinuosity -------------------------1.13 -------------------- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)-------------------------0.0045 ---------------2 BF slope (ft/ft)-------------------------------------------------- Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)-------------------------------------------------- BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%-------------------------------------------------- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric -------------------------------------------------- Biological or Other -------------------------------------------------- Regional Curve Interval (Harman et al, 1999)*Pre-Existing Condition1 * Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT1 Reach within the project limits. 2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams. 3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. 4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County 0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25 / 1.2 / 2.72 Parameter USGS Gauge Reach UT1c (1,513 LF) Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Floodprone Width (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ BF Mean Depth (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ BF Max Depth (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----24 ---------------2 7.8 ----------95.9 ---------- Width/Depth Ratio 11 ----------17 -----2 8 ----------14 ---------- Entrenchment Ratio 10 ----------11 -----2 4 ----------13 ---------- Bank Height Ratio 1.0 ----------1.3 -----2 1.0 ----------1.3 ---------- d50 (mm)-----0.5 -------------------------------------------------- Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Radius of Curvature (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.8 ----------2.4 ----------1.5 ----------3.0 ---------- Meander Wavelength (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Meander Width Ratio ------------------------------2.0 ----------6.3 ---------- Profile Riffle Length (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Pool Length (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Pool Spacing (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Pool Max Depth (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Pool Volume (ft3)------------------------------------------------------------ Substrate and Transport Parameters Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%------------------------------------------------------------ SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%------------------------------------------------------------ d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ------------------------------ Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²------------------------------------------------------------ Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)------------------------------------------------------------ Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²------------------------------------------------------------ Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area (SM)---------------3.0 ----------1.0 ----------19.5 ---------- Impervious cover estimate (%)------------------------------------------------------------ Rosgen Classification -----C5c -------------------------E5/C5 -------------------- BF Velocity (fps)-----1.5 --------------------1.0 ----------1.4 ---------- BF Discharge (cfs)-----37 --------------------10 ----------127 ---------- 35 ------------------------------------------------------------ Channel length (ft)2 ------------------------------------------------------------ Sinuosity -----1.66 --------------------1.22 ----------1.77 ---------- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)-----0.0004 --------------------0.0004 ----------0.0022 ---------- BF slope (ft/ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)------------------------------------------------------------ BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%------------------------------------------------------------ Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ------------------------------------------------------------ Biological or Other ------------------------------------------------------------ * Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT1 Reach within the project limits. 2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams. 3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. 4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County NC Coastal Plain Composite Data4 Reference Reach(es) Data Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continuted) Beaverdam Branch Reach UT1c (1,513 LF) 0.3 / 0.4 / 0.5 / 0.9 / 1.2 Parameter MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n BF Width (ft)-----10.3 ---------------1 10.1 ----------13.8 -----4 Floodprone Width (ft)----->100 ---------------1 80.1 ----------105.0 -----4 BF Mean Depth (ft)-----0.7 ---------------1 0.6 ----------1.2 -----4 BF Max Depth (ft)-----1.0 ---------------1 1.1 ----------2.0 -----4 BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----7.6 ---------------1 7.5 ----------12.3 -----4 Width/Depth Ratio -----14 ---------------1 8.3 ----------19.4 -----4 Entrenchment Ratio ----->10 ---------------1 7.9 ----------9.4 -----4 Bank Height Ratio -----1.0 ---------------1 1.0 ----------1.1 -----4 d50 (mm)-----0.25 -------------------------------------------------- Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft)35 ----------60 ----------3 38.0 79.0 -----120.0 ---------- Radius of Curvature (ft)20 ----------30 ----------3 21.0 26.0 -----31.0 ---------- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.0 ----------3.0 ----------3 38.0 79.0 -----120.0 ---------- Meander Wavelength (ft)80 ----------110 ----------3 72.0 104.0 -----124.0 ---------- Meander Width Ratio 3.5 ----------6.0 ----------3 3.5 6.0 -----8.0 ---------- Profile Riffle Length (ft)------------------------------------------------------------ Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.004 ----------0.010 ----------0.0046 0.0043 -----0.0039 ---------- Pool Length (ft)----------------------------------- Pool Spacing (ft)30 ----------80 ----------41 -----72 57 ---------- Pool Max Depth (ft)-----1.6 -------------------------------------------------- Pool Volume (ft3)------------------------------------------------------------ Substrate and Transport Parameters Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%----------------------------------------------------------- SC% / Sa% / G% / B% / Be%----------------------------------------------------------- d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----------------------------------------------------------- Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f²-----0.149 -------------------------------------------------- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull (Rosgen Curve)------------------------------------------------------------ Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m²-----4.181 -------------------------------------------------- Additional Reach Parameters Drainage Area (SM)---------------0.66 -------------------------0.66 ---------- Impervious cover estimate (%)------------------------------------------------------------ Rosgen Classification -----C5 -------------------------C5 -------------------- BF Velocity (fps)-----1.76 -------------------------3.0 -------------------- BF Discharge (cfs)-----12.9 -------------------------340.0 -------------------- 35 -----------------------------------3523 -------------------- Channel length (ft)2 -----1453 -------------------------4238 -------------------- Sinuosity -----1.24 -------------------------1.20 -------------------- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)-----0.0038 -------------------------0.0042 -------------------- BF slope (ft/ft)-----------------------------------0.0054 -------------------- Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)------------------------------------------------------------ BEHI VL% / L% / M% / H% / VH% / E%------------------------------------------------------------ Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ------------------------------------------------------------ Biological or Other ------------------------------------------------------------ Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary (continued) Reach UT1c (1,513 LF) UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 * Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. 1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT1 Reach within the project limits. 2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams. 3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations. 4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch, Brunswick County; Rocky Swamp, Halifax County; and Beaver Dam Branch, Jones County Design As-builtParameter MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Appendix E Hydrologic Data Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) MSAW1 4.4 29.1 20.8 24.6 14.8 100.0 25.4 11 71 51 60 36 244 62 53.5 56.8 52.1 66.5 37.4 100.0 45.9 130 138 127 162 91 244 112 MSAW2 0.7 3.3 6.5 4.0 2.5 12.3 13.9 2 8 16 10 6 30 34 3.5 20.2 26.3 19.8 22.2 40.2 29.9 9 49 64 48 54 98 73 MSAW3 †0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 13.1 13.5 0 1 2 2 1 32 33 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.4 27.9 21.3 0 3 5 2 1 68 52 MSAW4 10.3 27.8 36.4 31.2 46.1 100.0 24.6 25 68 89 76 112 244 60 97.0 74.2 61.0 83.4 80.2 100.0 61.1 236 180 148 203 195 244 149 MSAW5 3.3 21.2 19.7 31.1 25.1 23.4 20.1 8 52 48 76 61 57 49 40.5 51.9 51.6 58.3 52.7 91.4 45.5 98 126 126 142 128 223 111 MSAW6 1.1 3.8 7.0 4.2 10.7 15.2 14.8 3 9 17 10 26 37 36 9.5 23.3 28.3 19.7 24.3 67.6 32.4 23 57 69 48 59 165 79 MSAW7 †0.2 3.7 2.7 2.1 1.6 13.1 9.4 1 9 7 5 4 32 23 0.3 10.9 14.6 7.1 6.6 49.2 24.2 1 27 36 17 16 120 59 MSAW8 14.1 47.3 37.7 31.1 36.2 100.0 38.1 34 115 92 76 88 244 93 96.8 73.9 66.3 83.0 79.4 100.0 45.5 235 180 161 202 193 244 111 MSAW9 2.5 4.5 8.6 5.7 5.3 16.0 15.6 6 11 21 14 13 39 38 44.5 33.0 28.6 41.7 39.1 77.5 41.0 108 80 70 101 95 189 100 MSAW104 0.0 0.6 5.3 2.1 4.9 5.3 --0 2 13 5 12 13 --0.0 1.1 13.1 16.8 30.5 20.9 --0 3 32 41 74 51 -- **MSAW19 ------8.7 12.8 19.3 13.9 ------21 31 47 34 ------43.8 42.4 66.0 30.7 ------107 103 161 75 **MSAW20 ------3.7 3.7 12.3 4.5 ------9 9 30 11 ------10.1 19.3 42.2 15.2 ------25 47 103 37 **MSAW21 ------3.7 10.7 12.7 7.0 ------9 26 31 17 ------12.7 17.7 48.4 21.7 ------31 43 118 53 **MSAW22 ------2.8 3.3 12.7 5.3 ------7 8 31 13 ------14.0 23.0 43.4 21.3 ------34 56 106 52 **MSAW23 ------3.1 9.5 12.7 5.3 ------8 23 31 13 ------23.7 32.5 52.0 24.6 ------58 79 127 60 **MSAW24 ------31.2 26.3 13.9 9.0 ------76 64 34 22 ------72.1 83.1 64.8 26.2 ------175 202 158 64 MSAW11 4.7 21.2 32.3 40.1 36.0 50.0 38.2 12 52 79 98 88 122 93 38.5 72.4 76.7 84.9 68.3 99.6 63.9 94 176 187 206 166 243 156 MSAW12 0.7 15.4 10.1 7.6 14.5 25.4 21.7 2 38 25 19 35 62 53 7.0 19.1 24.9 27.4 15.1 84.0 32.2 17 47 61 67 37 205 79 MSAW13 6.5 46.5 40.0 40.0 36.0 50.0 38.0 16 113 97 97 88 122 93 81.5 80.0 82.2 84.8 66.0 99.2 64.4 198 195 200 206 161 242 157 MSAW14 0.6 39.1 18.3 17.9 25.6 23.4 19.0 2 95 45 44 62 57 46 4.0 31.0 46.7 61.6 32.7 84.8 28.1 10 75 114 150 80 207 69 MSAW15 0.8 0.9 2.4 1.6 1.1 3.7 1.3 2 2 6 4 3 9 3 4.0 3.9 5.1 6.7 2.0 20.1 3.3 10 10 13 16 5 49 8 MSAW16 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.2 13.5 3.9 6 7 6 5 3 33 10 14.5 13.0 11.5 7.1 2.2 40.2 12.7 35 32 28 17 5 98 31 MSAW17 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 3.7 1.9 0 0 2 1 1 9 5 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.2 9.4 4.5 0 0 3 1 1 23 11 MSAW18 3.8 10.2 7.4 2.2 1.2 4.9 4.0 9 25 18 5 3 12 10 18.5 15.3 20.8 10.7 3.6 23.0 4.1 45 37 51 26 9 56 10 Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Notes: ¹Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. ²Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Well ID UT1c Cross-Sectional Well Arrays (Installed July 2013) HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 6 wetland monitoring, nine of the fifteen wells located in credited areas exhibited hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during the 2019 growing season. Well MSAW10 permanently failed in the summer of 2018. **To gather additional well data in the UT1c restoration area, In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers AW19 -AW23 were installed on 2/26/2016, AW24 was installed on 3/10/2016. The installation of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet season when groundwater levels were normally closer to the ground surface. Supplemental UT1c Monitoring Wells (Installed February/March 2016) Headwater Research Cross-Sectional Well Arrays on UT1a and UT1b (Installed July 2013) Percentage of Consecutive Days <12 inches from Ground Surface¹Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria²Percentage of Cumulative Days <12 inches from Ground Surface¹Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria³ ³Indicates the total cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface. 4Well MSAW10 unexpectedly and permanently failed in the summer of 2018. † Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated on 6/7/18 as per IRT suggestion during a field visit on 5/1/18. See CCPV in Appendix B for new and previous locations. The growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 244 days long. 12% of the growing season is 29 days. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW1) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW1 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -62 (25.4%) 3/18/2019 -5/17/2019 GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain Figure 4. Wetland Gauge Graphs -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW2) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW2 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -34 (13.9%) 8/18/2019 -9/20/2019 GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain Note: Well MSAW3 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B. -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW3) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW3 Begin Growing Season End Growing SeasonYR6MOSTCONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -33 (13.5%) 8/16/2019 -9/17/2019 GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain Well quit logging on 2/8/19 to 4/11/2019 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW4) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW4 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -60 (24.6%) 3/18/2019 -5/16/2019 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW5) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW5 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -49 (20.1%) 8/16/2019 -10/3/2019 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW6) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW6 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -36 (14.8%) 3/21/2019 -4/26/2019 Note: Well MSAW7 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B. -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW7) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW7 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -23 (9.4%)4/2/2019 - 4/24/2019 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW8) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW8 Begin Growing Season End Growing SeasonWell quit downloading (4/3/2019 to 8/3/2019) GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -93 (38.1%) 8/16/2019 -11/16/2019 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW9) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW9 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -38 (15.6%) 3/18/2019 -4/25/2019 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp (Well Cross-Sections 11 and 12) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW11 MSAW12 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp (Well Cross-Sections 13 and 14) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW13 MSAW14 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp (Well Cross-Sections 15 and 16) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW15 MSAW16 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp (Well Cross-Sections 17 and 18) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW17 MSAW18 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain Well MSAW-18 permanently failed on 4/3/2019 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW19) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW19 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -34 (13.9%) 8/16/2019 -9/18/2019 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW20) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW20 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -11 (4.5%) 8/19/2019 -8/29/2019 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW21) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW21 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -17 (7.0%) 4/2/2019 -4/18/2019 GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW22) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW22 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -13 (5.3%) 8/16/2019 -8/28/2019 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW23) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW23 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -13 (5.3%) 8/16/2019 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Depth to Groundwater (in)Date UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well (MSAW24) Ground Surface -12 inches MSAW24 Begin Growing Season End Growing Season GROWING SEASON (3/18 -11/16) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Rain YR6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET -22 (9.0%) 8/19/2019 -9/9/2019 Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) Year 7 (2020) Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) Year 6 (2019) Year 7 (2020) MSFL1 9 31 51 59 139 65 78 -34 242 137 187 213 247 170 - MSFL2 35 131 152 105 164 N/A N/A3 -79 327 186 231 243 N/A N/A3 - Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth. Table 13. Flow Gauge Success UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019 Flow Gauge ID Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria1 Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2 Flow Gauges (Installed September 27, 2013) Notes: ¹Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured. 2Indicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured. 3The pressure transducer for MSFL2 permanently failed over the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as it had already met the required project success criteria in each previous year. Success Criteria per UT to Mill Swamp Mitigation Plan: A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the recorded flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during the monitoring year. Two surface water flow events must be documented within a five-year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in separate years. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) * Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019Surface Water Depth (ft)Date UT to Mill Swamp (Flow Gauge 1 -MSFL1) UT1B - Upstream 0.1 ft Flow Depth MSFL1 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1/1/2019 2/15/2019 4/1/2019 5/16/2019 6/30/2019 8/14/2019 9/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019 Rainfall (in)UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain MY6 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS CRITERIA MET - 78 (1/1/2019 - 3/19/2019) Figure 5. Flow Gauge Graph Date of Data Collection Estimated Occurrence of Bankfull Event Method of Data Collection Gauge Reading (feet) 10/16/2013 10/11/2013 Crest Gauge 0.17 12/24/2013 12/15/2013 Crest Gauge 0.19 03/27/2014 03/07/2014 Crest Gauge 0.32 10/14/2014 08/04/2014 Crest Gauge 0.56 12/19/2014 11/26/2014 Crest Gauge 0.27 01/24/2015 01/24/2015 Crest Gauge 0.59 04/27/2015 02/26/2015 Crest Gauge 1.07 06/23/2015 05/11/2015 Crest Gauge 1.61 11/12/2015 10/03/2015 Crest Gauge 1.54 03/10/2016 02/05/2016 Crest Gauge 1.44 11/22/2016 10/8/2016 (Hurricane Matthew)Crest Gauge 2.32 03/20/2017 01/02/2017 Crest Gauge 1.18 06/02/2017 04/25/2017 Crest Gauge 1.20 06/07/2018 05/31/2018 Crest Gauge 1.50 10/30/2018 9/15/2018 (Hurricane Florence)Crest Gauge 3.41 12/06/2019 09/05/2019 Crest Gauge*2.10 Year 4 (2017) Year 5 (2018) * Note: Crest gauge readings can be correlated with spikes in flow gauge measurements (see graph in Appendix E) Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 95019 Year 1 (2013) Year 2* (2014) Year 2 (2015) Year 3 (2016) Year 6 (2019) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019) Note: Total Rainfall for MY6 was just 43.8", a deficit of 12.7" from the historic average of 56.5" 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Precipitation (Inches)UT to Mill Swamp Rainfall: MY6 Historic Average (56.5 in)Historic 30% probable Historic 70% probable Onslow County Observed MY6 (43.8 in) Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average Note: The drought monitor for Onslow County reveals that the entire county was under D1 Moderate Drought conditions from May through August 2019. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/Timeseries.aspx MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)