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
GcF 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)