The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130739 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2019_20200323ID#* 20130739 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt Katie Merritt Initial Review Completed Date 03/23/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/23/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream W Wetlands W Buffer I- Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Jeremiah Dow Project Information ................................................................................... ID#:* 20130739 Existing IDY Project Type: Project Name: Email Address:* jeremiah.dow@ncdenr.gov Version: *1 Existing Version r DMS r Mitigation Bank St. Clair Creek Restoration Project County: Beaufort Document Information Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: StClair_95015_MY6_2019.pdf 31.2MB Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted... Signature Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow Signature:* St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Year 6 Final Monitoring Report Beaufort County, North Carolina DMS Project ID No. 95015 DWR Project 413-0739, Beaufort County USACE Action ID: 2008-02655 Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040 Project Info: Monitoring Year: 6 of 7 Year of Data Collection: 2019 Year of Completed Construction: 2014 Submission Date: February 2020 Submitted To: NC DEQ — Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986 o0 0 #§ kz kkk 2§§ | z m § z k m 0 q � ¢ m r— q cu at ba / \ LO LO rn (O M N I? 0 0 O M o o N N r ;: rn O o 0 N N R 00 (D y � N L W a C O .y. Z 'O u011enJasaJd ysiew lelseoo luawa3ue4u3 ysJeW lelseOO uolleajo ysJeW lelseOO uolleiolsay ysJeW lelseOO uollenJasaJd ueljedlJuON luawa3ue4u3 ueliedlJuON uolleajo uelJedlJuON uolleiolsay ueliedlJuON uollenJasaJd ueliedly luawa3ue4u3 uepedly uolleajo ueliedly uolleiolsay 0 OD N o OD N G O ro M N ro M N u� N O c N c N ueliedly uollenJasaJd weajlS 11 luawa3ue4u3 weajlS I luaw3ue4u3 wea�lS uolleiolsay 0 0 n 0 0 n o o 0 in voi 0 in voi 0 N ro 0 v N 0 r cmo 0 rn 0 rn 0 o o 0 0 0 wea�lg N M N M ^ V N V N O M V V O y in m Q 0 y in m Q 0 y in m Q 0 y m Q N 0 0 y d m Q N N N N Cn m F o F o F o F o F o Z F 0I F 0I F 0I F F 0I 4? y y y y y 0 0 0 0 O D y 0-Z Z Z Z Z 0 V V V m V W N CO U O O O O O O O r R _m W W w rn U rn rn rn N rn N N C C N N C C D > > > > W W O O a s E a E a v E a E as o 0 0 00 o < 'c c N N W W W U w w a a a Z St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Year 6 Final Monitoring Report Beaufort County, North Carolina DMS Project ID No. 95015 Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040 Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker International NC Professional Engineering License 4 F-1084 I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) INTERNATIONAL February 5, 2020 Jeremiah Dow Project Manager NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518 Office:919.463.5488 1 Fax: 919.463.5490 Subject: Task 12: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 6 Monitoring Report for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (DMS 995015) Beaufort County, North Carolina, Cape Fear Basin — CU403020104, Baker No. 125116 Mr. Dow, As per your request, please find enclosed one hardcopy of the Final Year 6 Monitoring Report for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project located in Beaufort County, NC. The final digital documents will be sent via a secure ftp link. Our responses to your review comments received on February 5, 2020 are provided below: Appendix A a. Table 1: Based on the May 16, 2019 credit release site visit the upper 466 LF of UT2 are considered credits at risk. Please revise Table 1 to show UT2 credits as 1,667 SMU and beside the number, in red, please put 466 LF (example: 1,667 SMU / 466 SMU). Add a footnote that identifies red text as credits at risk. Please do the same with the total SMUs at the top of the table (2,808 SMU / 466 SMU) referencing the same footnote. Please note that this puts Baker at 192 SMUs below contract. Response: Baker has revised the table 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, f'�"t 14- Scott King, LSS, PWS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3 2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3............................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................3 2.2 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................4 2.2.1 Wetlands Modifications Review................................................................................................................4 2.3 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................5 2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns..................................................................................................................................5 3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................5 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables and Files Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table Table 4 Project Attribute Table Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation memo (1/7/16) IRT Field Meeting Minutes (5/16/19) Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) 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 Photo Points Vegetation Plot Photos Hydrology Monitoring Stations Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species Table 9b Stem Count for All Species (Planted and Volunteer) Arranged by Plot Table 9c Yearly Density by Plot Table 9d Vegetation Summary and Totals MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) Appendix D Hydrologic Data Table 10 Wetland Restoration Well Success Figure 3 Wetland Gauge Graphs Table 11 Flow Gauge Success Figure 4 Flow Gauge Graphs Figure 5 St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,274 linear feet of perennial and intermittent headwater stream, 2.8 acres of riparian wetlands, and planted 17.5 acres of native riparian vegetation within the entire conservation easement along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Beaufort County, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-03-07 and the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104-040040 of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The project involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion and silviculture. The primary restoration goals of the project were to improve ecological functions to the impaired areas within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin as described below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the project, • Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the downstream estuary, • Protect and improve water quality by reducing 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 channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse flow, providing the streams access to their floodplains, • Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form, • Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, 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. During Year 6 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected from the nine monitoring plots during Year 6 monitoring, is 594 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 6 data demonstrate that the Site is on track to meet the final success criteria of 210 stems per acres by Year 7. During the previous Year 5 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) saplings were heavily thinned throughout the buffer on UT2, in particular in the middle and upper sections, as noted during the IRT site visit on 5/16/19. However, During Year 6 monitoring, new, rapidly growing loblolly pine seedlings and short saplings were again found scattered throughout the riparian buffer of the UT2 area. It should be noted that the pines do not MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 1 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) appear to be suppressing planted species survival or growth as vegetation density appears strong throughout the project, even in areas with pine presence. Nevertheless, these pines will again be treated and heavily thinned during 2020 using hand/power tools and/or chemical applications. The project will continue to be closely observed for pine growth throughout the remaining monitoring period. Year 6 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that all 8 of the groundwater monitoring wells located along UT2 and UT3 met the success criteria by recording water levels within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period greater than 12% of the growing season (33 days for the Site). The Year 6 hydroperiods ranged from 12.4% to 21.6%, with an average of 13.9%. The majority of the wells passed the success criteria early in the year, just after the growing season began. All wetland restoration well data and reference well data collected during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix D. Additionally, there are two groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW 10) installed on 3/16/17 in areas located outside the project's currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas. They did not meet the 12% hydroperiod success criteria, though SCAW9 only missed by one day and certainly appears quite wet. Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this time. Given the project's past challenging history regarding the meeting of wetland well success criteria, Baker is simply conducting exploratory monitoring in potential future wetland restoration areas. The three potential areas total 1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within the conservation easement (see Figure 2 in Appendix B). Baker is not presenting this information here for formal approval or acceptance, but to simply inform DMS and the IRT of all project activity. On -site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT2 and UT3 was recorded in 2019 through the use of seven installed pressure transducers as flow gauges. Each one met the success criteria in Year 6 by recording a consecutive flow event of 30 days or longer in 2019. Of note, Flow gauge SCFL#4 located at the top of UT2 met the success criteria, recording its longest single duration flow event of 38 days in February and March. This is of particular significance as flow in the upper portion of UT2 and the results of Flow Gauge 94 have been the subject of IRT concern in the past. The flow gauge success summary Table 11 and all individual flow gauge graphs are found in Appendix D. In addition, currently contracted riparian buffer credits have been included as part of the project as referenced by the "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation" memo from Karen Higgins (NCDWR) dated 1/7/16 and included as an asset in this report (as found in Appendix A). As part of the St. Clair Creek Restoration project, Riparian Buffer credits in excess of the contracted 6.8 acres (296,208 square feet) will be provided. Monitoring for success of riparian buffers will continue to follow the existing vegetation monitoring protocol and success criteria as stated in the approved mitigation plan for stream and wetland vegetation success. Only vegetation plots 1-6 are located within the approved buffer credit areas and no additional vegetation monitoring plots are required to monitor buffer success as these existing plots serve to monitor the success of the vegetation of the headwater coastal plain stream and the associated riparian buffer. The Year 6 monitoring results demonstrate that the site has met the success criteria requirements for Riparian Buffer credits in each of vegetation plots 1- 6 as described in the buffer memo, and with an overall average density of 499 stems/acre. 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 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 are available from NCDMS upon request. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 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 guidance document dated 11/7/11, which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, flow gauges and wells are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B. The growing season for the Beaufort County ends on December 6', and the final well and flow data were collected on 12/9/19. The visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B were also collected in December 2019 as noted. 2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3 The UT2 and UT3 mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi -thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations and in -channel flow gauges/pressure transducers to document stream success. As -built Stream survey data was 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. 2.1.1 Hydrology Total observed area rainfall for the previous 12-month period from December 2018 through November 2019 was 47.1 inches, as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same period of 50.0 inches annually, an annual deficit of 2.9 inches (see Figure 5 in Appendix D). The site received less precipitation than average for much of the late spring, eventually resulting in Stage DO drought conditions for much of the summer (https://www.ncdrought.org/). Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were originally installed in the UT2 channel along with two flow gauges installed in the UT3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet apart within the restored systems to document flow duration. Additionally, a fifth flow gauge (SCFL#7) was installed approximately halfway between SCFL#4 and SCFL#3 on 6/6/18 in the upper portion of UT2. As stated in the mitigation plan, annual success criteria are considered to have been met if 30 consecutive days of flow were observed at any point during the monitoring year, with two such 30-day flow events having been documented in separate monitoring years. The individual flow gauge graphs and the flow gauge success summary Table 11 are all located in Appendix D. 2.1.2 Photographic Documentation The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches, moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking upstream at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of the stream photo points, wetland wells, and flow gauges are all located in Appendix B. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 2.2 Wetland Assessment Wetland monitoring is conducted using eight automated groundwater -monitoring stations that are installed within the UT-2 and UT-3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells installed in the downstream portion of the UT-3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater monitoring stations follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-rs4.1(USACE 1997) and the water table monitoring standards follow Technical Note ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2 (USACE 2005). The automated loggers are programmed to collect data to document groundwater levels in the restored wetland areas. The success criteria for wetland hydrology are considered to have been met when the site has groundwater within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive number of days equal to a minimum of 12% of the growing season. For Beaufort County, the growing season is from February 28 to December 6 (282 days), so 12% is a minimum of 33.8 consecutive days for the Site. It should also be noted that while the success criteria stated in the mitigation plan for wetland hydroperiod is 12%, the 10/24/16 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update document states that for the Tomotley soils series (which is mapped on the project site) the wetland hydroperiod range is 10% to 12%. Additionally, during Year 6 monitoring, the on -site wetland reference well SCAWREF2, which is on the downstream portion of UT3, recorded a hydroperiod of 21.6% of the growing season. The other on -site reference well SCAWREFI failed early in monitoring Year 5. It was not replaced as there is still a remaining reference well on -site installed in a similar location, and all previous monitoring years' data showed very similar results between the two wells. Thus, reliable reference well data is still being collected for the project. It should be noted that these reference wells are located further down valley than the monitoring wells and are much more heavily influenced by backwater from St. Clair Creek. All wetland restoration well data and reference well data collected during Year 6 monitoring are located in Appendix D. Two more groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW10) were installed on 3/16/17 in areas located outside the project's currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas (see Figure 2 in Appendix B). Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this time. Given the project's challenging history regarding the meeting of wetland well success criteria, Baker is simply conducting exploratory monitoring in potential future wetland restoration areas. The three potential areas total 1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within the conservation easement. Baker is not presenting this information here for formal approval or acceptance, but simply wished to inform DMS and the IRT of all project activity. 2.2.1 Wetlands Modifications Review A brief summary of previous wetlands modifications is presented here as a review of relevant project history. A more detailed description of this work was presented in the Year 3 report. In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the easement boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 with the intent to drain water away from his nearby pine plantation. The work was implemented without the knowledge of Baker and was discovered in the fall of 2015 during monitoring activities. To help remedy the situation, Baker oversaw three areas of drainage modifications to the project in March of 2016: 1) Three French drains were installed under the farm road along the northern portion of UT2 and were linked to wide, shallow swales cut into the buffer to reconnect water flow from the adjacent landowner's field that routinely ponded water behind the road. 2) The drainage ditch running parallel to the easement boundary along the western portion of UT2 was filled, and three wide, shallow swales were cut to connect the existing drainages within the MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 4 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) pine plantation to the project wetlands and buffer. 3) The drainage ditch running parallel to the easement boundary along the western edge of UT3 was filled, and a shallow swale was cut to connect drainage from the pine plantation into an existing shallow depression located within the existing wetland. It was observed during the Year 6 monitoring that diffuse flow does now move through all of the installed swales, and all remain stable and vegetated. Additional groundwater monitoring wells 5-8 were installed in April of 2016 specifically to observe the wetland restoration areas potentially affected by these modifications. The locations of this previous work are provided in Figure 2 located in Appendix B. 2.3 Vegetation Assessment In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and the CVS-NCDMS data entry tool v 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with nine plots established randomly within the Site's planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. Complete Year 6 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix C. 2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns During Year 6 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) seedlings and short saplings were found scattered throughout the riparian buffer of the UT2 restoration area. It should be noted that the pines do not appear to be suppressing planted species survival or growth as vegetation density appears strong throughout the project, even in areas with pine presence. However, these pines will be treated and thinned during 2020 using hand/power tools and/or chemical applications. The entire project will continue to be closely observed for pine growth throughout the remaining monitoring period. 3.0 REFERENCES Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012. Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011. 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, NC DEQ. 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. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) 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. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015 MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 (2019) Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables and Files The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designeestcontractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DIMS. no St Qair Q-6 eA- 0 Site Directions To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40 southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway 24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway). Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2 miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road. Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading north through a large field. The site is located where the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a downstream culvert crossing. ,��t�L ��t♦�i �111 r_t'1irti��,i�w�►��e,�j►* Beaufort County Im Project Location ft Pamlico River Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 03020104040040. Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map St. Clair Creek Restoration Site NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles w o ° a z a 0 a w w p � W U •c. W ca � N M C O p x_ 'E FG 10 W10 .. 4 � d ai W o a � o q o q Cd o o c. ^• d' � q v � d � O ICI cC W � C 0o is kc kc o N N o o cd O CL CL p A A U C/) ti � Cl —cd to F F F F Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DAIS Project No ID. 95015 Activity or Report Scheduled Completion Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Jul-13 Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep-13 MItigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Oct-13 Final Design — (at least 90% complete) N/A N/A Nov-13 Construction Begins N/A N/A Dec-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 Mar-14 Planting of live stakes N/A N/A N/A Planting of bare root trees N/A N/A Apr-14 End of Construction N/A N/A Apr-14 Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline) N/A May-14 Jun-14 Year 1 Monitoring Nov-14 Dec-14 Dec-14 Year 2 Monitoring Nov-15 Nov-15 Mar-16 Year 3 Monitoring Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Year 4 Monitoring Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Year 5 Monitoring Nov-18 Jan-19 Jan-19 Year 6 Monitoring Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Year 7 Monitoring Nov-20 N/A N/A MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) Table 3. Project Contacts Table St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DAIS Project ID No. 95015 Designer 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Michael Baker International Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Katie McKeithan, Tel. 919-481-5703 Construction Contractor 114 W. Main St. River Works, Inc. Clayton, NC 27520 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 Planting Contractor 114 W. Main St. River Works, Inc. Clayton, NC 27520 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 Seeding Contractor 114 W. Main St. River Works, Inc. Clayton, NC 27520 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Telephone: 919-428-8368 Seed Mix Sources Green Resources, Tel. 336-855-6363 Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200 ArborGen,843-528-3204 Superior Tree, 850-971-5159 Monitoring Performers Michael Baker International 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King, Tel. 919-481-5731 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) Table 4. Project Attributes St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project II) No. 95015 Project Information Project Name St. Clair Creek Restoration Project County Beaufort Project Area acres 17.5 Project Coordinates latitude and longitude) 35.452835 N,-76.76726215 W Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Outer Coastal Plain River Basin Tar -Pamlico USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-di it 03020104 / 03020104040040 DWQ Sub -basin 03 03 07 Project Drainage Area (AC) 89 (UT2), 30 (UT3) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Im ervious Area <1% CGIA Land Use Classification 13.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation; Stream Reach Summary Information Parameters Reach UT2 Reach UT3 Length of Reach (LF) 2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing) 1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing) Valley Classification Ros en X X Drainage Area AC 89 30 NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 36 20 NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C; Sw, NSW C; Sw, NSW Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)* Channelized Headwater System (Perennial) Channelized Headwater System (Intermittent) Evolution Trend ** Restored G Restored G Underlying Mapped Soils To, Hy, Ro To, At Drainage Class Very poorly drained, poorly drained Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Avera e Channel Slope ft/ft 0.0006 0.0009 FEMA Classification SFHA, AE SFHA, AE Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% <5% Wetland Summary Information Parameters Wetland Along UT2 Size of Wetland AC 1.1 Wetland Type Riparian Riverine Mapped Soil Series To — Tomotley fine sandy loam Drainage Class Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Impairment Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% Parameters Wetland Along UT3 Size of Wetland AC 1.7 Wetland Type Riparian Riverine Mapped Soil Series To — Tomotley fine sandy loam Drainage Class Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Impairment Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Ve etation <5% Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation — Waters of the United States — Section 404 Yes Yes (Appendix B) Waters of the United States — Section 401 Yes Yes (Appendix B Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes (Appendix B Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B Notes: * Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. ** Supporting documentation is including in the approved Final Mitigation Plan. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (I)MS PROJECT NO. 95015) Water Resources ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY January 7, 2016 PAT MCCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary S. JAY ZIMMERMAN Director Kristin Miguez DWR# 2013-0739 DEQ-Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 (via electronic mail) Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation — St. Clair Creek Headwater Stream Site off Peoples Road, Bath, NC Beaufort County Dear Ms. Miguez, On October 5, 2015, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a request from Jake Byers with Michael Baker Engineering, for a site visit at the St. Clair Creek Restoration Site located off Peoples Road in Bath, NC to determine the potential for Tar -Pamlico Neuse riparian buffer mitigation. On December 3, 2015, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of the subject site. Karen Higgins and Mac Haupt with the DWR along with you and Mr. Byers were also present. If approved, mitigating this site could provide riparian buffer mitigation credits within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River Basin and as allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (f). Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the site as an alternative buffer mitigation option for buffer mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (1) and (2) (effective November 1, 2015) is provided below: UT2 • UT2 was approved as part of a Coastal Headwater Stream Mitigation Site (DWR# 2013- 0739) by the IRT in 2013 and is in its second year of monitoring. A copy of the approved mitigation plan has been provided to the DWR. • Preliminary site conditions along with the onsite visit in December 2015 suggests that the entire area along UT2 (0-100') is viable for riparian restoration and suitable for buffer mitigation credit at 1: 1. Preliminary photos and documentation have been provided to the DWR. • The buffer must be measured perpendicular to the length of the valley being restored. Approximately 8.35 acres (363,577 ft2) have been planted and restored. A copy of the proposed restoration site has been provided to DWR. • An agricultural ditch is present within the proposed riparian restoration and isn't planned to be removed. The presence of this ditch does not comply with the diffuse flow requirement of Rule .0295. However, DMS can apply Clarification Memo #2008-019 to State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources 1617 Mail service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 919 807 6300 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Buffer Mitigation Viability January 7, 2015 Page 2 of 2 this project in order to calculate the deduction of buffer credit where diffuse flow cannot be attained. According to the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Year 1 Monitoring Report submitted in April 2015, all 6 vegetative monitoring plots within the riparian areas are meeting the success criteria identified in Rule .0295. A copy of the Year 1 Monitoring Report has been provided to the DWR. A conservation easement of the proposed area, dated June 241', 2013 has been provided to the DWR and is more accurately described as CE-1 and containing 11.55 acres, more or less. The easement document is located in the Beaufort County Register of Deeds, Book 1821, Pages 53-64. A map showing the project site and the buffer mitigation areas assessed is provided and signed by Ms. Merritt on January 6, 2016. DWR did not assess this site for viability of nutrient offset and therefore only buffer mitigation is approved. DMS shall provide an annual monitoring report to Ms. Merritt for review and approval each year for four more years and until the performance standards have been met. The performance standards for buffer mitigation under Rule .0295 are the following: (n) (2) (B) - A minimum of four native hardwood tree species or four native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the stems. (o) (2) All success criteria specified in the approval of the stream mitigation site by the Division shall be met. Please provide an As -Built survey verifying the acreage proposed for buffer mitigation credit and a buffer credit ledger for this site to Ms. Merritt within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371. Sincerely, Karen Higgins, Supervisor 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit KAH/km Attachments: Site Aerial Map, DWR Clarification Memo #2008-019 cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt) D m N O_ N 40 r d ." +to, W \\ O 1 CD CD I •i Cn I V 4 s Cn C i _ o f N W, ■ N n V C - 1 V C CJ1 _ W f (D _ v n CL CD D CD sv _ v ■ ❑ o m o <n � to CD fv � _ ? N CD N 7 CL O N pl pm) N CD CD 7. d 0 CD cn 7 Michael f. Easley Governor William G. Ross. Jr., Secretary Department of Environment and Natural Resources Coleco. tl. Sullins. Director Division of Water Quality AuWnl l 19, 2008 Buller Interprelation !Clarification 42008-019 MEMORANDUM l he IM ision of Water Quality's (DWQ's) stance on whether diffuse floc- of stormwater through the newly restored buffers on miti,.!aiion sites should be a requirement. Diffuse flow is a requirement for buffer restoration or enhancement in the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0242(9)(d)(iii), the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0260(9)(d)(iii). and the Catawba River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B.0244 (9)(d)(iii). Diffuse flow is a requirement for all sites in a buffered basin for buffer mitigation and for for sites providing nutrient offset credit as well. Current Palic _ According to the Mitigation rules in the Neuse, Tar -Pamlico and Catawba buffer rules, a grading plan must be provided for buffer mitigation sites. In addition, those rules state that "The site shall be graded in a manner to ensure diffuse flow through the riparian buffer". Problem: The question has been raised as to whether stormwater carried by lateral ditches that enter buffered streams should provide diffuse tlovt prior to that stormwater entering the restored buffers. Solution: the Neuse, Tar -Pamlico and Catawba buffer rules with respect to buffer mitigation sites contain a very clear requirement that states that diffuse flow of stormwater must be maintained through the buffer. Unless otherwise approved by DWQ, all buffer mitigation sites must provide diffuse flow of stormwater from ditches and similar conveyances through the restored buffer. Where such diffuse flow cannot be attained and where DWQ agrees that such treatment is not possible, deduction of'buffercredit will he calculated as follows: SCENARIO 1 Jill Wetlands ( ertilication (;nil 1650 Mail Scmcc (enter. Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1050 _'; 21 C rAINe liauleVard. Suite 250. Raleigh. North Carolina 27G04 Phome 919-7 33-1786 / FAX 919-733-6893 % Internet: hts:/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/nc%vetiands One NorthCarolina Natminally \n I iµnd Action Employer - 5011N, Recycled'10% Post Consumer Paper Page 2 of 4 A, B and C are angles. a, b, and c are distances (lengths) DWQ believes that using an immediate drainage area extending at a 60-degree angle from the point of discharge to the stream is a reasonable approach to the issue of determining the area which is not draining through the restored buffer. To calculate the area of buffer being "short-circuited" by the ditch, the area of the right triangles shown in the figure above must be determined. a=50' A = 300 B = 600 b=acot A b = 50 (1.732) b = 86.6' (87') The area to be excluded from credit would be the area of the two right triangles: Area = (a x b)/2 Area = (50 feet x 87feet)/2 Area = 2,175 SF Total deducted area = 2,175 x 2 = 4,350 SF or 0.1 acres. The example shown above assumes a buffer width of 50 feet from the top of bank (riparian buffer mitigation site). For nutrient offset sites, credit can be generated out to 200 feet from the top of bank. The policy applies to sites with larger buffers as follows: SCENARIO 2 NorthCarolina 401 Wetlands Certification Unit gh �atllrll11l� 1 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suitc 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-733-1786 / FAX 919-733-6893 / Internet: httyWh2o.enr.state.tic.us/ncivetlands An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/l0% Post Consumer Paper Page 3 of 4 If a ditch leading to a buffered stream is buffered, then no credit is deducted from the stream buffer. If the upstream origin of the ditch is within the buffer. no credit is deducted. If the upstream origin of the ditch is not buffered (e.g. if the ditch begins upstream offsite), the credit deduction is applied to the most upstream portion of the ditch on the property. SCENARIO 3 CR FAR OEDtlOSb 10%Sf= 60 At /3 Where a network of interconnecting ditches occurs on a site. and all of the ditches are buffered, the only credit deduction would be al the point where an unhuffered ditch enters the project. SCENARIO 4 MAD IT Uejk� UN�tlTICC,f,j3 .bt7�C}t 401 kl olands ( emlicanon Unit ib4� \1;n1 Ser('enter. Raleigh. Noah Carolina 27699-1650 321 ( rahurr noulcrard. Suite Raleigh. Non c arolina 27604 Phone ij l Q.7 ,3-1 7tt6 ; I ,NS 919-733-6893 i Internet. ht :r/h2u.enr.statt nc.ushtcwetlands n I ,peaAction Ln,plm•er 50k. Recveleilil(M. Post Consumer Paper North Carolina NattavIly Page 4 of 4 Where a natural stream enters the project site, no deduction of credit will occur. Also, when a natural stream or a modified natural stream flow into a buffered stream, no deduction of credit will occur. The modified natural stream must be subject to the buffer rules, and must be verified to be a modified natural stream (as opposed to a ditch) through an on -site determination by DWQ personnel. SCENARIO 5 Q0 D8 r MIWIAL CrA j l? beb I to For any additional questions or clarifications on this issue, please contact Eric Kulz or Amy Chapman at (919) 733-1786. Signature:/' �� L-pI4 e Date: $ Signature: Date: 401 Wetlands Certification Unit 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-733-1786 / FAX 919-733-6893 / Internet: jhttti) j/Wo,snr.state.nc.us/ncwednnric An [yual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper North Carol i n a Naturally INTERNATIONAL Meeting Minutes St. Clair RESTORATION PROJECT DMS Project ID. 95015 DWR Project# 13-0739, Beaufort County USACE Action ID: 2008-02655 Tar-Parmlico River Basin: 03020104-040040 Date Prepared: May 20, 2019 Meeting Date, Time, May 16, 2019, 10:30 am Location: On -site (Beaufort County, NC) USACE — Kim Browning DMS —Jeff Schaffer, Jeremiah Dow, Melanie Allen Attendees: DWR— Erin Davis WRC —Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn Baker— Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan Subject: Credit release site walkover with IRT Recorded By: Drew Powers An on -site meeting was held on May 161", 2019 at 10:30 am to discuss St.Clair Restoration Project (Full Delivery) in Beaufort County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to: 1. Discuss credits to be released and to get ready for project closeout; and 2. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations. General recent weather conditions have been hot and dry in the area. UT2 The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Peoples Road in Bath, NC. A general site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed. The group then started walking into the site near monitoring well 5 where Melanie and Erin took a soil sample within the wetland boundary. The soils showed mottling and developing hydric features. The group walked upstream. Both Kim and Erin questioned if the site had previous supplemental planting due to the height of some of the trees they encountered. Katie replied that there had been supplemental planting (40 containerized plants were installed in early 2019). Erin mentioned that the vigor of the trees looked good for the most part and noticed an effort to control the pine tree population. Kim mentioned, with the surrounding pine tree population, that the elimination of all pine trees is inevitable but was glad to see that efforts have been made. Another soil sample was taken near monitoring well 2. Melanie and Erin both were more pleased with the results of this sample as it showed more distinct hydric indicators. The group continued up UT2 towards flow gauge 3. As a group, we inspected the stream area looking at signs of water, flow, veg, and overall conditions of the stream. The stream was dry but had evidence of water and the group all agreed that water flows in this area. Katie shared all the flow gauges have already met 30 days of continuous flow this year (2019) and the Mitigation Plan's success criteria calls for two years with 30 consecutive days to be accepted. At this time the group separated and headed up to the main area of concern flow gauges 4 and 7. Along the way, Jeff referenced the coastal headwater streams guidance and how bed and bank formation is not the design for this Rosgen DA stream type. Kim seemed to recall the Mitigation Plan stating that and agreed with the design. She said she was more concerned with the flow of the water and amount of water that was moving through the system. Jeff mentioned that he has visited the site on many occasions and it typically has wet channel conditions with water up to his ankles. As the group made it to flow gauge 7 they noticed a small hole in the ground about 1" in diameter about 6" downstream of the gauge, that some believed could be tampering with the results. Both Kim and Travis questioned our results of 84 consecutive days as of March 26t" this year considering how different flow gauge 7 and 3 were from each other. Travis mentioned that it might be appropriate to check the gauges and confirm that the gauges are reading properly. The group then headed to flow gauge 4 still looking at veg and channel condition. Melanie and Erin took another soil sample right by the gauge and confirmed the hydric soils and could see a difference in the wetland soils compared to the stream soils. Out of curiosity Erin took a soil sample on the floodplain outside of the swale. This confirmed that these soils were upland and much different than both the stream and wetlands previous. This concluded the UT2 portion of the walk through and the group decided to continue to UT3. UT3 The group congregated at the top of UT3 at monitoring well 8 to orient themselves with the map and discuss the area. Erin mentioned that the veg looked good and could notice pine and sweetgum removal. Maria and Travis began looking at the ditches in the easement and outside the easement while Jeremiah, Erin, and Melanie took a soil sample by monitoring well 7. The soils were dry but showed good hydric indicators throughout the soil. After this the group fast tracked to the culverts at the bottom of UT3 to look for flow and culvert placement. On the way, Erin asked Drew if invasive have been treated and he replied that no invasive species have been an issue on this site. Once the group got to the culvert they made there way in the stream towards flow gauge 5. Kim saw no issues with the gauge or stream and Travis was fine with the culverts. This concluded the UT3 walk through. This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before departure. Erin summarized soils: - soils look better than expected, seeing hydric indicators except near veg plot 5 which was showing mottling and developing hydric indicators. - dark surface soil - wetlands were a sandy/loam and the reach turned silt - stream soils differed from the wetland and upland soils Travis commented: - flow gauges should be checked for proper installation and maintenance to make sure they are accurately matching the onsite evidence of flow Kim's summary: - USACE will be looking for a stream JD at close out. UT3 looks OK; however, the upper section of UT2 is questionable. Ditch manipulations from the adjacent ag fields (currently drained and being maintenance) may not be helping the site. Vegetation along UT3 does not look like a wetland with evidence of black berry and ant hills. Soils do appear to be wetting. Some of the vegetation onsite is a little short. There is a strong pine seed source, but Michael Baker has worked on the population on -site. Release: o At risk at top of UT2, recommend holding. o Wetlands held at MY 3 and 4, OK with releasing this year. o Melanie will make a recommendation for release. This represents Baker Engineering's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone should find any information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and/or incomplete based on individual comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections/additions as soon as possible. Most sincerely, Andrew Powers Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Phone: 919-481-5732 Email: Andrew.Powers@mbakerintl.com Appendix B Visual Assessment Data .d O d �3 F A O N N N N k w�3 m� ,ti• o 0 0 0 3 d �b 72 a edd p d ey =A z� zzz z a z� z z z z z H� = ob z pwd zzz z z z z z z z a o tb _ b ° a cn a � by by by X C� ez �Q _ m x g ti � r0 N pp 7 j U i=i d a kn m b U Y o 'nn A U y `n y e W 0 e �3 o d �b � un en � e 3 �b d o 0 0 0 0 a edd p d e m y � a o rr' p b0 w a oA zQ zzz z z� z z z z z va F ob pFd zzz z z �: z z z z z 0. � a o a •d d �' a. 'a � � b o o. ❑❑y O [ c� b b➢ b a .. � q ' � 17 'O b b➢ by bfi X C� � G7 O � d sz �Q • r ;s o o e o Al •o U F m A e ^e A ` 10 ? ,. N f�I 7 N Hi N N HI go M i °m d •s: � j .7 � etl Y •bp y e Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015 Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number None Observed MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) d a o o e o e a o 0 P. w W w o e O e ° ei iUr U d etl iUr U a o L o 0 0 0 o a A O o 0 U U e c 0 0 P. c o 0 0 0 o 0 0 Pr c o 0 � d z z o F s F > a S U U U U ai ^o o ^ O o ^a 0 � i a 0 0 U � 0 o ° y w O ^O O tE itl a e U O � U yN F etl U � O ° iUi U yN Ci ro Si U O 1y � F rn CG W N M W n �o d v a o o e e a o 0 P. O P. wo e e d etl d it U v ^ v U L O S O U U c e 0 0 P. c o 0 0 0 o 0 0 P. c o 0 s. v i z a z o s F s F � o U � U U U U U a 0 m o i F .9 .9 U � U a Q C\ >O rN h a a W a e U F Ca O y = S U d 3 E > F rn CG W N M W 7 h Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015 Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Resolution Loblolly Pine (Pines taeda) Scattered throughout buffer on post-restoraton seed source Will be treated in 2020 with power tools and/or UT-2 chemical application. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/09/19) Photo Point 1 — UT2 Photo Point 3 — UT2 Photo Point 5 — UT2 Photo Point 2 — UT2 Photo Point 4 — UT2 Photo Point 6 — UT2 St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/09/19) Photo Point 7 — UT2 Photo Point 9 — UT2 Photo Point 11 — UT2 Photo Point 8 — UT2 Photo Point 10 — UT2 Photo Point 12 — UT2 3 / s Al I 5-1 ZI 5 a t ' �.L' a d. �• � �i�'. - `. ':: :.. � ,�`bi—w 'S _/ 1 H:`R� St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/09/19) Photo Point 19 — UT3 Photo Point 21 — UT3 Photo Point 23 — UT3 Photo Point 20 — UT3 Photo Point 22 — UT3 Photo Point 24 — UT3 St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/09/19) Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 12 Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 14 Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 20 Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 13 Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 15 Flow Hydrology at Photo Point 21 St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/5/19) Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 6 St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/5/19) Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 9 Vegetation Plot 8 St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/9/19) Auto Well — SCAW 1 Auto Well — SCAW3 Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW5 Auto Well — SCAW2 Auto Well — SCAW4 Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW6 St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/9/19) Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW7 Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW9 Reference Auto Well — SCREF2 Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW8 Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW 10 St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/9/19) Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL1 Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL3 Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL5 Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL2 Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL4 Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL6 St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/9/19) Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL7 Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015 Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? MY6 Planted Density / As -built Planted Stem Density* Tract Mean 1 Y 486/728 594 2 Y 647/648 3 Y 647/688 4 Y 647/728 5 Y 526/688 6 Y 364/486 7 Y 890/1,174 8 Y 445/728 9 Y 688/769 Note: *MY6 Planted Density / As -built Planted Stem Density - reflects the changes in stem density based on the current total density of planted stems as compared to the original planted stem density from the As -built conditions. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) U k U h N U Yam. cd cd N F" ie 1i cd O CC U ti .--i 2 � U a.. vi CL o� 3Ca v 4.A O o Y C ,i0i iW h� CL F'� V1 Chi A ^O ^O U 6 i A QI QI QI > > A A A QI Y 4�r Fi SUi QI QI CL A �'I .fir ran CC Chi V1 a.• 6000 rOsrps6�° b• U Opp j °sr 0s6,Ot rl N N N N M ci T Opp j °sr °s6�Ot b ��a N opp j °sr0s6'Ot rl �/1 rl N N T T opp i °sr OS6,,Ot V N V M t?7 p p rp, SrOS6�Ot ci r£ °O I °sr OS6�Ot M M p p 000,10 p r0sros6�° a ! t °OO rOsrOS6�° N a t S �a Ln M c-I In c-I M M M N Ln ul N S�Ot�41 SA_ ass Aa�4 t�110 � i a ��`tsa ro o !ate Z 2 2 o� H H H d ro A a 5 ♦+ a 4a� U ea s. p U ea F � o F a cd F+ U �i ON O 00 O\ O 00 00 N h 00 00 Vc 00 00 00 N l— �O h z N �--� N N M � �O Oc OO Oc O Oc �O l� DD o0 00 � ' ' V �O , O � V 00 O V V M V V V 00 00 h O O\ �c �c N �c N 00 V 00 00 h �O DD 00 �c 1>0 �c 1>0 �c00 00 r O 00 N h O oo 00 V �c 00 It- �c 00 It- �c 00 �c 00 00 00 N 00 00 00 00 O bD Fi O\ O\ N h h 00 oo 00 N � h 00 it ~ V O v O� � O oz V G ^ G cC U O O ra C o y a�Vi y �'�'" o ,� y x o ,� � � a x � 3 � `❑❑� o o � o o c '� ,� In O A y A V C y A O � QO A O G i�i iNr w0 •� V ,C tc 7 M N O Z V Q O O y aV7 QO it G cd cd cd cd cd 11 H H�N �z �Uv�� z H H H H H H H o■im■ivi■mi■iii■iniiio m� II 1;11�111;11;111�1111119 1■11■111■11■111■1111111 11 19 1�11�111;11�111�1111111 f0I�0��f��0��1�� 1191119819111illililllBlll �Illllllilllllililllllllll o�ii�iiv�ii,ivi�viviiim oe o�im,oiv�i0�i0i�im,in n �1�11�111�11�111�1111119�11 �I;II�IIIEIIi191;IB;IIlI9@ �1�11�111�11;111�1111111�11 �1;11�111;11;111;11;111�91 �I�IIv111�11�111�11;111�10 1�II�III�IIv111�1111111�11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lillilllvll�llli1111111 lillilllilli191i11i111 99 ��f��I��IlO��1�� OI��OI�f�I�O��ll� tflllllfllflllflll�ll � fllll�fllflllfllll Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015 St Clair Creek Restoration Project (#95015) Year 6 (16-Dec-2019) Vegetation Plot Summary Information Plot# Riparian Buffer Stems' Stream/ Wetland Stems Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers' Total° Unknown Growth Form 1 9 12 0 0 7 19 0 2 12 16 0 F 0 2 18 0 3 16 16 0 0 0 16 0 4 16 16 0 0 3 19 0 5 13 13 0 0 4 17 0 6 1 8 9 0 0 6 15 0 7 n/a 22 0 0 3 25 0 8 n/a 11 0 0 1 12 0 9 n/a 17 0 0 3 20 0 Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre) Plot# Stream/ Wetland Stems a Volunteers a Total Success Criteria Met. 1 486 283 769 Yes 2 647 81 728 Yes 3 647 0 648 Yes 4 647 121 769 Yes 5 526 162 688 Yes 6 364 243 607 Yes 7 890 121 1012 Yes 8 445 41 486 Yes 9 688 121 809 Yes Project Avg 594 130 724 Yes Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals (per acre) Plot # i Riparian Buffer Stems Success Criteria Met? 1 364 Yes 2 486 Yes 3 647 Yes 4 647 Yes 5 526 Yes 6 324 Yes 7* n/a n/a 8* n/a n/a 9* n/a n/a Project Avg 499 Yes *These plots are not located in areas receiving riparian buffer credits Stem Cla ss Characteristics Color for Density 'Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood stems including trees and native shrub species. No pines. No vines. Exceeds requirements by 10 Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines 'Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines. Exceeds requirements, but by less than °Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines. 10% MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. YEAR 6 MONITORING REPORT ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015) Appendix D Hydrologic Data � " m � 3 a N i V 00 V � a � o � S ,p" v v m v rvmi N O1 N a 'ti a�ryw 3 0 a n v : Mn -1 r � 3 ti a o _ G G w •°a 3 3 .o �° m �° ry tl� m m •o m O41 S b]g0 G � m s 3 Q � o z� W •o�mm �NNm �� A� � ,,ry. o, CL `b 6h •a v� � � � a �•a .5 � SN N � 5 a o °� m .p •o N m o m ° � �' N m? N o •� Q5 o m ;jam ,�.� al 3 3333 3333 33""� 72T aU QQQQ Q QQ U., m 3 c � 0 3 o� c < y C7 c O y U ° C7O N O mO wO o N O N N N N N O O O N O N N N o N o N L N N 00 r N ++ _ °° .� i a OU 00 N Cl) � L o = o •� •� m U ' �a o o � L U � L LO L U o Cl)CDN N O O O p N N N N O N p N i O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O O O O O O Ln CD O � N M ' - - N N Mc It (u!) I1eIU1Lu (u!) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa m o N O � o � - a v a � o 5- N = N r+ N un .. c ^ O o° .ti nj Z \ � w L7 Z o0 5 N \ LL N O U C > C O O o O O o � N cD cn <n mc7u(D) wc7cn 0 N 0 N N N O N O N N N dIC o N N o N N 00 N C CY) T O N N_v O N ?j N v r_� .� oU 00 N N -je m _ r C R N L O r N O U � =_ L � ' W 1 � L U CD N N CD O N p N N c:, N i 0 N O L( O Ln O Ln O O O O O Ln C)Ln O O — N C-) V N NC? C? (ui) pe;uieb (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;dea T o m N O \ � N O C O � O -0 O � � T N N v m m .. O o Z °� N O N � Z o� N O K = L:1 N N 6 N L O O C M> > C C O O °a��i C O O °� N �Oa��i 0cn co m0cn w0cn 0 N 0 N N N O O O N O N N N O O N co CD 0 00 N N CY) CY) O O O O N C N N 4 r_ oo Q o0 N Cl) R i rn = rn 0 N l.e G% N L CD O U E2 E2 CO = CO L � A Qm CD Cl) N N U L O N ��/��CD N VI O O O O m m� CCy o� (D y o o 0cn co m0cn wcn 0 N 0 N N N O O O N O N N N o N co o N co N co N T O N N_ 0 CD Ire oU 00 � N Cl) a -he N L O a N O U(0 L � W 1 � CD �/� V ) N_ L LO U O Cl) O N N V � O O O N p N N 00 O L1 m 3 O U C ?> (D C C O O` C (D O ° at6i at6i 0 co co m co ' uj co I O I I O O N O N N N N N O O O N Q N N N o N N � o N N � 00 N C CY) �CY) a T O N 0 Q N N v (� LCl)00 O 1 r -heCD N -0 CD N O a O V C o C, �- L U N A N V Vooll C)Q N N In LO N N Q Q Q N i Q N O (D N Lo (D N C? Lo C? O O O O O D— N co LO C)L? (D (u!) IleIU1eu (u!) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa T m � o N O � � N O C N � O -0 O T N a+ N N N � 0 o Z O N Vl �Ny � Z o� N O K N' l7 w (o C O` C N (D (n (n CO I 0 can, W can, I O I I I I O 0 N 0 N N N N N O O O N O N N N o N N � o N 00 N N 0') r C N 0 Q N N� p() `. 7 00 �� O N *� N � N "� O Q Q rn A V/ N Q% o N C U N A N v o N p N N nJ p N p N O ' LO O N o O O O O o � N M V LO o LO LO CD LO N c? (M O (ul) Ile;uleb NO aa;empunoaE) o3 y;daa I m o o � o � m a o ti � o N� M O o J o0 Z p 3 � M U LLJ N Z OJ 5 N \ m 3 O U C ?> (D C C O 2 C (D O ° at6i at6i 0 co co m co uj co O I O O N O N N N N N O O O N O N N N o N M � o N N � co N CY) O O O T O N 0 Q N LCl)00 O 1 r -heCD N V N O EO V Y C m o �/� C, VI N L U '}/�; 7=� A N N O O N In N l() N N � � O N i p N C) LO - C) - N LO CD N C? LO C? O O O O O D— N C-) V LO C) LO CD (u!) pe;uieb (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;dea T O m N O � � N O C UI � O -0 O T N a+ N ai m m O O m Z U � w � N V1 iy L1 � Z o� N O N' K C7 m 3 O U C W ?> (D C C O 2 C (D O ° at6i at6i 0 co co m co uj co O N O N N N N N O N O N N N o N M � (D N N � 00 N CY) 0-0 O C T O N 0 Q N N v () 00 LCl) O 1 r -heCD N N CD CD V C Cl)C, N_ N C:)VI N N L U N AI L N C) C:)N N 117 N N N � 0 N C) LO - C) - N LO C) NC? LO M O O O O O D— NC-) V LO C) LO C) (ui) pe;uieb (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;dea 1 T m O N O C � N O C UI � O -0 O � T N N ai m m .. O o � C Z co � O _ � a — w \ � � ti z m N p K N, l7 N O °� N U C > C O O °a��i O O 0cn N co m0cn �Oa��i w0cn 0 N 0 N N N O N O N N N O o N N O N L> O O C O > C C O O °a��i O C O °� �Oa��i 0cn co m0cn w0cn 0 N 0 N N N O O O N N O N mom N 00 w N C w C N Of w o C7 3 C O` C OL C N N (D In N C� (n d CO N C N (n W (n I I O N O N N N N O O O N O N N N O O O O 00 N M ` N m O CA r � O O c-4 N 0o � � m Yrn �'� N rno LL o N i o LU o •c m U e N � LO .00 .cu U O7 O ��/•�i O 00 CJ N N N N N rn rn O i O N N � O � O � O � CD � CD � CD � CD � O � O� O O O O O N N N N M M�� (O O N M (ui) pe;uieb (ui) aalempunoaE) of 43daa 0 N m p� a N � O O N O � O! p� CL N O p � N Z = N � N v on o O w � N � Z o0 � N O C7 t` O i. � 0 3 o � � o O Q" N � � In r� •�" U N y ;> 0 � U 'O to M N N 0 U O to O ce C O N O N �' o rn bA � � N O to ;> cOi T to r+ O to N 3 ° O to to to o a T to 0 Ap Ap M N M M A -o 0 to 3 D tlg > DO s+ yOy.. U p N N � U 3 N V cUC � Ln -i O Ln rn O Z U w O a Ln 0 U W_ O a z_ LU W w Z_ C7 z W J Z 2� LU Q W J _ U U Q >- V) T T 0 N 0 I N I I I I I I O', 0 N L.L In f- 0 co O'', O O'','','','','', 00 O',',',',',', 0 O00 } CD O o J N O 0 r r� LL w O U LU SW N O d N G N LC LL (� W (fl •� U rn (+�+ N _ I p Q O I G M Cl)_ LO LO OLO 0 LO O'',', O', Cl) O O N \ I O N 70 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l O N (M O W o0 f� O lff V M N O W o0 f� O V co N— O N � � � (•ul) Ile;ulel{ (-ul) y;da(3 abneE) 0 04 0 Oi N C i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Co CD CO N 0 N W O cn 01 0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i O J N N MULM NCl) I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I 0 OV+ O O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U W Lo z o N O p (h (h N N O O O O O 000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �O — N M V "t N 0 N � 00 o2 (O(n M2 V � 2m w I—(O(n V mNCO � N N N f: N (•ul) 118;ulem (•ui) y;dad a6neE) T 0 N T 0 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1 1 U 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 vJ 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO In 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 N co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N co 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O N J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N p O 1� N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O M li � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L '^ v/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n� o L •/!! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 pN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L O •V /� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O •� � � ,w }I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U /� }� LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ O �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O N LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M LO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 N >_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 � U W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 z Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ir 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1 1 1 c U C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N Cl) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cl) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N N O O O O 70 0000000000000000000000000 O N (M V 4 m N— O W O r— O 6 V M N— O W O r— O 6 V M N— O � N N N N N — — — — — — — — — — (•ul) Ile;ule21 (-ul) y;da(3 abneE) 0 0 o p N LL Lo N U N 0 N CD O N p O T. coa0 O co o J N O LL N O O (.) ` r M LLLiii � � � � � � � � � � � L N O R O L M '^ U V co 0 cn o N L- N /^ ch M M N 7 N o w i i i i i i i i p p N N i LU N z o E2 , U w i i i i i i N N i N Q U co C G N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O N M V N O O a0 f— co N V co N � O� ('ul) Ile;ulea ('ul) 4ldaa a6neE) T 0 N r N T 0 N n N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N C) N LO � i i i i i 1 J — N r N L.L LO U N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 N 00 N O O W 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N W N \O O W N N 0 N N 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 In 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 } 1 1 1 1 1 1 C) N N co1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O i W i i i i i i O o J M I I I I I I C) M LL 1 U W 1 1 1 1 1 N V' Cl)vwi I i Z Q O •(a U A♦ /�� V/ �y 1 O E 1 1 1 1 1 1 U wco p L_ •� i H i i i i i 1 Ln p Q (0 iQ (/) O U •� v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -0) U 0 N O Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N V♦ N 0 N N i i i i i ' i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N C) N N O 0 N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O N N O N M � 0) O N O O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O N M {O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C)- INn V O O w f� O N V 6 N � O (-ul) Ile;ulem (•ul) y;daa 96neE) T T 0 0 U N N O', O co N co N O O coco N N O'', O co co of ON W ON 0_ J .. o LL .� 0 0 r LL OM •� N !4 O L co L co ''(nnQ VCL U rn ++ rn o N cn ? 0 N O O '', '', '', '', '', O 0 LO LO W CD N U W w c �_ Q W N ON O O N N 70 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 O N (M O W 00 r— (O LO V co N O (•ui) y;da(3 abneE) T T 0 N 0 I N I I I I I I O OIIIIII O 00 O 00 00 W Cr) W O N', O N W O'','','','','','','', O of � ti ON J .. o O N ,, �LLN V 0 r LL O M L •� � � N f3 O M L co (a L co V rn ++ CL rn o N ? 0 N M_ LO LL lfI N O O LO W I� U cwLU ON O Q O LU N � N'','','','''', N CO U M LL LO '''''''', (h cA o 0 N 0 N 70 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 O r N (M V O r--: O 6 V (M N O W o0 f,. O Lo V co N— O (•ui) y;da(3 abneE) Figure 5. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average St. Clair Restoration Project (DMS No. 95015) MY6 2019 10.0 8.0 6.0 0 4.0 U 4J F+ a 2.0 0.0 tHistoric Average (50.0 in) t Historic 30%probable —Ar—Historic 70%probable � Observed 2019(47.1 in) Note: Beaufort County historic average rainfall is 50.0 in, while observed previous 12 months rainfall total recorded onsite was 47.4 in, for a deficit of 2.9 in. Beaufort County Drought Data: Beaufort County (NC) Percent Area m m� hftps://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Data/Timesedes.aspx