20180784 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_ 2020_20210104

ID#* 20181151 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/04/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/4/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20181151
Existing 1W
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Arabia Bay
Hoke
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Arabia Bay_100061_MY1_ 2020.pdf 6.42MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

MONITORING REPORT (MY1
ARABIA BAY WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Hoke County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100061
Full Delivery Contract No. 7529
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01151
DWR Project No. 2018-0784
RFP No. 16-007332
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030004
Data Collection: January - November 2020
Submission: December 2020
I
4
s
-;H
re2� �r
il
..
a
4
'f.
g
t
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Arabia Bay Year 1, 2020 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 1 (2020)
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing) was observed.
• Project Photo Log: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wtHHbgvocfkBgpo96
Wetlands
• All fourteen of fourteen groundwater gauges met success for the Year 1(2020) monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology data is in Appendix D.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Year
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2020 (Year 1)
March 2nd, 2020*
March 2-November 12
26 days
(256 days)
*Based on observed/documented bud burst and data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the
Site.
Table 10. Groundwater Hydrology Data (Appendix D)
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
1
Yes - 85 days (33.2%)
2
Yes - 72 days (28.1%)
3
Yes - 72 days (28.1%)
4
Yes - 93 days (36.3%)
5
Yes - 95 days (37.1%)
6
Yes - 36 days (14.1%)
7
Yes - 77 days (30.1%)
8
Yes - 85 days (33.2%)
9
Yes - 94 days (36.7%)
10
Yes - 69 days (27.0%)
11
Yes - 28 days (10.9%)
12
Yes - 61 days (23.8%)
13
Yes - 34 days (13.3%)
14
Yes - 31 days (12.1%)

Vegetation
• Measurements of all 16 plots resulted in an average of 513 planted stems/acre. Additionally, all
individual plots met success criteria except plot 12, which was 1 stem shy of meeting success
criteria (Tables 7-9, Appendix C).
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-007332)
February 8th, 2018
February 8th, 2018
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 7529)
-
April 4, 2018
Mitigation Plan
October 2018
April 30th, 2019
Construction Plans
--
November 2018
Earthwork Completion
--
August 13th, 2019
Planting
--
January 24th, 2020
As -Built Survey
February 2020
March 2020
As -built Monitoring Report
February 2020
March 2020
MY1 Monitoring Report
November 2020
December 2020
Site Maintenance Report (2020)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
07-09-2020
China Berry, Privet, Mimosa, Callery Pear,
Sweet Gum
None
09-30-2020
Cattail, Privet, Callery Pear, Chinaberry Tree
Response to IRT Comments — As -Built and Baseline Monitoring Document
Comments Received April 15th, 2020
IRT Site Visit May 20th, 2020
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
USEPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
1. There seems to be baseline hydrology data missing. The monitoring summary table lists
hydrology as a monitored parameter for the as -built report. Please clarify the language.
Hydrology data is typically not provided during the As-Built/Baseline Monitoring Report, as
wetland gauges have either just been installed or have not been in the ground long enough to
provide relevant data.

DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 4, Section 1.3 —
a. First sentence - Should 16.1 WMUs and acres be 16.0 to be consistent with Table 1? Same
with bullet #4 "Planted 16.1 acres". Also, "riparian" wetland restoration should be
changed to "non -riparian".
Restoration Systems' (IRS) contract with the NC DMS is for 16 Non -Riparian WMUs. Though
16.1 acres were restored via a wetland re-establishment approach, IRS is only requesting the
16 Non -Riparian WMUs. Table 1 (Appendix A) now reflects RS' contract amount, 16 WMUs.
b. Bullet #3 states the average pool depth is 6 to 12 inches. However, the final mitigation
plan states that the habitat pools will be a max. depth of 6 inches. Please explain this
change in design and the implications for vegetation establishment related to inundation
depth and duration.
During construction, suitable clay material was located onsite and used for ditch plugs. The
final grade was slightly below the proposed 6 inches in these areas but did not go below 12-
inches. IRS filled these areas with large woody debris.
c. Bullet #4 states 10,600 stems planted, but Table 5 lists a total of 10,300 stems. And the
final mitigation plan states that 10,900 stems will be planted. Please confirm the total
number of stems planted, and if less than the approved design total please explain why.
10,300 stems were planted. A reduced number of stems were planted given the reduced
acreage of habitat pools between the mitigation plan (2.8 acres) and the as -built (1.6 acres).
2. Page 6, Monitoring Summary — Please include bud burst along with soil temperature data in
support of the growing season start date.
This information is provided above in the Monitoring Summary and within Appendix D
3. Table 2 — Should dates for earthwork completion, planting, and as -built survey be included?
These dates have been added to Table 2, located in the Monitoring Summary and within
Appendix A.
4. Figure 2 —
a. Please confirm whether the total area of habitat pools is 1.6 acres (Fig. 2) or 1.8 acres
(Sheet 3 of 4).
The discrepancy between 1.6 and 1.8 acres results from the surveyor applying a polygon
simplification algorithm to their work, which softens the lines seen in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows
the actual surveyed points of the habitat pools.
b. The location, size and quantity of habitat pools appear notably different from that
presented in the final mitigation plan. The mitigation plan showed 14 pools located
primarily around the perimeter of the restoration area. Figure 2 show 36 smaller pools,
with the larger pools located near the center of the restoration area. DWR understands
that some variability with size and location of pools from mit plan to as -built is expected,
but would like a brief explanation for these construction field changes.
The change is the result of finding suitable clay for ditch plugs within the larger pools. As a
result of harvesting clay in these areas, fewer and small pools were required elsewhere for fill
material.

c. Particularly for wetland restoration projects, it would be helpful to note if there are shifts
(more than just a few feet) in monitoring locations (veg plots and wells) from the final
monitoring plan.
Understood — See Figure below comment responses "Arabia Bay Wetland Mitigation Site
Mit Plan Monitoring Device Location VS As -Built Location".
5. Table 6 — Please confirm whether common hackberry was planted or if it's a typo for
buttonbush.
Hackberry was not planted and was a typo for buttonbush.
6. DWR appreciates the inclusion of soil boring logs for all of the groundwater well locations. This
2016 IRT Guidance Update condition (page 15, A.3.) is not often included in MYO reports, but
the collected data is useful. The Sheet 4 monitoring elevation data is also good information to
have.
Thanks
7. The construction and planting photo log (including dates and descriptions) was helpful for this
review.
Good to know
8. DWR would like to visit this Site within the next year.
We are happy to schedule a site visit when appropriate.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The success criteria for vegetation needs to be revised to exclude the statement "Volunteer
Loblolly pine which is not included in the planting list is a desirable species for the restoration
of the vegetative community and will count towards vegetative success." Loblolly Pine (P. teada)
is not a desirable species and will likely inhabit the Site anyway given the surrounding vegetation
on adjacent properties.
Loblolly pine has been removed from the vegetation success summary within the monitoring
report.
2. There are concerns with the habitat pools being 6"-12" and the inundation effect on vegetation.
The final mitigation plan response to IRT comments states, "We acknowledge the habitat areas
will not exceed 6 inches in depth and will not include gauges. The location and extent of the
habitat areas has been developed and is shown on the design sheets. The size and extent of the
habitat areas was determined by back calculating the volume of fill needed to fill in the existing
ditches. The volume of fill required to fill the ditches is 2,300 cubic -yards, which equates to 1.4
acre-feet. When factoring in the 6-inch max depth of the habitat areas the area required is
doubled to 2.8 acres. The habitat areas vary in shape and are distributed throughout the
Project. Habitat areas were not placed in the middle of the Project as it is expected this will be
the wettest area of the Project and would not benefit from the constructed habitat areas.
Habitat areas will comprise 2.8-acres and be constructed by excavating multiple depressions
ranging in size from 0.10-0.35 acres with a depth of no greater than 6-inches."
Understood. The final location of habitat pools resulted from suitable clay being found onsite
for use as ditch plugs. Clay was in the middle portion of the Site, and is why habitat pools were
constructed in these areas. Yr.1 (2020) vegetation monitoring, including visual inspection,
indicates the planted habitat pool species have established and are doing well. IRS will continue
to monitor these areas with random vegetation transects during out -year monitoring efforts.

It's noted that Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum) was planted in the Riverine Wet Hardwood
Forest. Are there concerns about meeting the vigor requirement given that Bald Cypress may
take longer to establish the first few years?
At this time, IRS is not concerned with Bald Cypress meeting the vigor requirement. Given
suitable habitat, Bald Cypress grows moderately fast, generally 1 to 2 feet per year
(https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/bald-
cypress/#:—:text=Ba Id%2Dcypress%20( USDA%20cold%20hardi ness.to%202%20feet%20per%2
Oyear)
4. Please add veg plots to the habitat pool areas, random is fine. The Pond Cypress success should
be documented.
IRS conducted two random vegetation plots within the habitat pool areas in Year 1 (2020)
monitoring and will continue to do so during out -year monitoring
5. This Site has been added to the back -logged list of IRT site visits.
Understood.

77
ti ti•
Y.
- k r 9�S� e�•9P 1 _
. PIOt'�13 r k
Plot-Z "
f _�f� . • 14 � -
UJ 7
Plot-12
Plot-8 -- Plot-6
�12
8 6
Plot-11
O lot-1
rXV
(¢��y
iLry i
- . -
S
� �.
�eb
!y
rF',� b�;
,\��.,.
a•K
`" i i+. •.
W 9
Y��§r.`� ��t �
rCr
,Vier
t �'1
�
wx
Y � ¢
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SCALE: 1 in = 185ft N Arabia Bay Wetland Mitigation Site
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211 DATE: 12-2020 Mit Plan Monitoring Device Location VS
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone] SITE: L-03-001 As -Built Location
FAX : [phone]
This map aid au d,es C ts—d wimm aye supplied as Is wpm he --ty Pesters— Cvsrems, LLC expressly Aerial Ilya er c ESRI
dlsslalmsr.sp,,slbmryrordamag.soruablllry a-omaxydalmsmarmavr,rmp,,r err heuseormisu.,,fths map. Iris 9 Y: )
me sere respexsi l y er th user m derem,me if me da,a ex th map Is oempst 1. with me users needs. This map Feet Coordinate System:
da,Her cr.aed as survey daL, nor should it be used as such. It Is the users responsibility t, ebt bit proper survey Y
prepared by boomseasurveverMere requiredbylaw. 0 40 80 160 240 320 NAD_1983_SP_NC_FIPS_3200_Ft.

DRAFT
MONITORING REPORT (MY1)
ARABIA BAY WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Hoke County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100061
Full Delivery Contract No. 7529
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01151
DWR Project No. 2018-0784
RFP No. 16-007332
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030004
Data Collection: January - November 2020
Submission: December 2020
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Prepared by:
And
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693(phone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Project Background............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Project Components and Structure.................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Success Criteria................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 METHODS......................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 8. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Hydrology Data
Table 10. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix E. Notice of Credit Release
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016)
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site
Hoke County, North Carolina
Table of Contents page i
Restoration Systems, LLC
December 2020

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (CFRBRP) report (NCEEP
2009). Goals are addressed by project objectives as follows:
1. CFRBRP Goal — Reduce and control sediment inputs
Site -specific objective — Cessation of row crop production and conversion of a ditched Carolina
Bay to a depressional wetland, removal of agricultural sediment outputs from the Site, and control
of sediments within the Site.
2. CFRBRP Goal — Reduce and manage nutrient inputs
Site -specific objective — Cessation of row crop production may result in a direct reduction of 160
pounds of nitrogen and 280 pounds of phosphorus per year (based on the nutrient model) from
the elimination of agricultural nutrient inputs/fertilizer application at the Site.
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of preconstruction and reference wetland systems (NC WFAT
2010) as outlined in the following table.
1.2 Project Background
The Site is situated in a Carolina Bay that was historically cleared, drained, and farmed. In the NC
Geological Survey 1956 aerial photograph for Hoke County, the Site was in agricultural production,
indicating the area was cleared before 1956. The bay is an isolated depression surrounded by sand rims
along the northwest and southeast margins. Land use adjacent to the bay includes rural residential
properties, timber tracts, and additional row crops. Before construction, the Site land use was
characterized entirely by agricultural row crops. Herbaceous vegetation and a few shrubby species grew
along Site ditches, which were regularly maintained by bush hogging and herbicide application.
The 1956 NC Geological Survey aerial photograph and 1974 aerial photograph included in the Hoke and
Cumberland Counties Soil Survey show a historic ditch that was not present before Site restoration (USDA
1984). The ditch was located in the middle of the field and ran from the southeast to the northwest,
connecting to the westernmost primary ditch. The historical ditch appeared to be a secondary ditch that
was not necessary for agricultural production and was therefore filled in during the 1980s. A field
investigation was performed using hand tools to locate the historic ditch location and determine if the
subsurface clay layer was intact. Based on the field investigation, it appears the clay layer within the
footprint of the historic ditch is intact.
A Detailed Restoration Plan was prepared for the Site that outlined backfilling of agricultural ditches and
planting with native forest vegetation. In addition, an outlet structure was designed as an emergency
spillway if the bay filled during significant storm events. The detailed plan was approved by the NCDMS
and Interagency Review Team (IRT) and implemented during the summer of 2019.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) page 2
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Wetland Targeted Functions. Goals. and Obiectives
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
(1) HYDROLOGY
• Filled agriculture ditches to restore
(2) Surface Storage &
jurisdictional hydrology
Retention
• Minimize
• Planted native wood vegetation
y
downstream
• Ceased row crop production within the
flooding to the
easement
maximum extent
• Plowed soils (6-8 inches) to reduce surface
(2) Sub -surface Storage &
possible.
compaction and increase surface roughness
Retention
• Protected the Site with a perpetual
conservation easement
(1) WATER QUALITY
• Remove direct
• Removed agricultural land uses and
nutrient, sediment,
agricultural inputs from the Site
• Filled the ditch network to restore ground
(2) Pollution Change
and pollutant
and surface hydrology within the Site
inputs from the
. Planted woody vegetation
Site.
• Restored jurisdictional wetlands
(1) HABITAT
• Planted woody vegetation to provide organic
(2) Physical Structure
matter and shade
• Improve wildlife
• Filled ditches to provide groundwater
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
within and
habitat witit
hydrology and plant woody native vegetation
adjacent the
Site.
• Protected the Site with a perpetual
(2) Vegetation Composition
conservation easement
• Restored jurisdictional wetlands
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 16.0 Non -riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs)
resulting from 16.1 acres of non -riparian wetland restoration.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following:
• Moving the access road off the Carolina bay bed and onto the adjacent sand rim. The road was
built according to the construction plans at an average elevation of 223 feet,
• Installation of an overflow drop structure to release water from the Carolina bay during significant
storm events (at a water depth of approximately 2.5 feet in the Carolina bay bottom),
• Excavation of shallow, elliptical depressions to form hummocks and pools for habitat variation
across the Site,
• Plant 16.1 acres of the Site with 10,300 stems (planted species and densities by zone are included
in Table 6 [Appendix C)), and
• A permanent seed mix was applied across the Site.
Site design was completed in November 2018. Construction started on August 5th, 2019, and ended with
a final walkthrough on August 22nd, 2019. The Site was planted on January 24th, 2020, and visits by IRT
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) page 3
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

members in May 2020. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts,
and background information are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria were established per the October 24th, 2016, NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. Several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be
functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement from a mitigation perspective.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic condition based on the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE 2016), Table 1, for a Typic Paleaquult (Rains).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
0 Ephemeral pool "habitat areas" are a normal component of Carolina bays. Areas of freshwater marsh are
expected to be comprised of herbaceous emergent vegetation and not forested woody vegetation.
Ephemeral pool "habitat areas" are expected to encompass approximately 20% of the bay area and
should not be held to the above vegetative success criteria.
2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24th, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31st of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) page 4
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Wetlands
Vegetation
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Summary
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Soil temperature* at the
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 4,
beginning of each
5, 6, and 7 throughout
14 gauges spread
monitoring period to verify
Groundwater gauges
the year with the
throughout restored
the start of the growing
growing season defined
wetlands
season, groundwater and
as March 2-November 12
rain data for each
Wetland
monitoring period
Restoration
Visually inspect features to
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5,
Terracell outlet
ensure they
Visual Assessment
and 7
structure and ditch
are performing as designed
plugs
and retaining
hydrological inputs
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation
plots 0.0247 acre (100
square meters) in size;
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5,
14 plots spread
Species, height, planted vs.
CVS-EEP Protocolfor
and 7
across the Site
volunteer, stems/acre
Vegetation
Recording Vegetation,
establishment
Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
and vigor
2008)
Annual random
vegetation plots, 0.0247
As needed
As needed
Species and height
acre (100 square meters)
in size
*Soil Temperature will be measured with a continuous recording soil probe. Temperatures will be measured from February to
the end of April in each monitoring year.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) page 5
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Year
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2020 (Year 1)
March 2nd, 2020*
March 2-November 12
26 days
(256 days)
*Based on observed/documented bud burst and data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the
Site.
All 14 groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2020) monitoring period (Appendix D).
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within
the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et
al. 2008). Year 1 (2020) measurements occurred September 23rd, 2020, and included two (2) additional
random plots (25-meter by 4-meter). Measurements of all 16 plots resulted in an average of 513 planted
stems/acre. Additionally, all individual plots met success criteria except plot 12, which was 1 stem shy of
meeting success criteria (Tables 7-9, Appendix C).
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, SD. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). NC Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
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, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties,
North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
https://websoiIsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [May 8, 2018]. United States
Department of Agriculture.
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) page 6
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables and Map
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

•r I
41
� w �
�S
• �-->��. �+_ ; :. Aram Environmenial, Inc.
Prepared for:
V, - r,, . l ' - -
IRESTORATION
v V ea rC213 _�
1--� .
ma Project:
ARABIA BAY
WETLAND
'' - �= _ — ■. ��'� a - MITIGATION SITE
AraI r - ar
bia ' � � _
40
• - � � r 1 _ , _ l ° � ~ OFF 5C
N,
Sand x I
_
•�1+- ' ,f -'� "; - - _ "i' ` ..• ,\\ 1 - `; �J�JJJ Hoke County, NC
:� I fir" — �._ •� . Fla�_ Title:
Rockfishall
, oad p
log
Raeford � -
T SITE LOCATION
oi
�4—Arabia Road
Drawn by:
. 4" Legend KRJ
o a. Ai-- _ At- _. �3-)•,-�r�l� .0 Date:
N 20 ocwan `� - •[ Arabia Bay Easement = 16.1 ac. JAN 2019
r Y r
r �. NCDOT Roads
Scale:
�c _ :-•�
a _ t� \1 ��•ti aye ' . USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Raeford and Parkton, NC Quads) Project No.:
_ f t _-
18-016
fi �' �•�� Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
Take 1-40 E out of Raleigh; travel -30 miles
—_rt Take exit 328A to merge onto 1-95 S; travel -40 miles FIGURE
i �� Take exit 41 for NC-59 towards Hope Mills and Parkton
Turn right onto NC-59 N, and after 0.7 miles, turn left onto Shipman Rd
�p„ogs+,Fa J � After 1 mile, turn right onto US-301 S; travel 2.4 miles
,�',; .. �., •� 2Turn right onto NC-71 S; travel 2.7 miles
_ Turn right onto 3rd St and continue straight onto Barlow Rd and Chason Road; approx. 5.5 miles
Turn left on Arabia Rd; travel approx. 3 miles
NOTE: No air transport facilities are located .—�
I � � _ 3 - The Site is located on the right, down a gravel driveway.
}� r within 5 miles of the project area. ! \ Site Latitude, Longitude 34.9570,-79.1379 (WGS84)
d

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Restoration orMitigation
Wetland
Existing
Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
Reach ID
Restoration
Type
Acreage
Acreage
Level
Ratio
Credits
Equivalent
Wetland
Non -riparian
16.000
Restoration
16.000
1:1
16.000
Restoration
Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Non -riparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration 16.000
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Non -riparian Wetland 16.000
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-007332)
February 8th, 2018
February 8th, 2018
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 7529)
April 4, 2018
Mitigation Plan
October 2018
April 30th, 2019
Construction Plans
November 2018
Earthwork Completion
August 13th, 2019
Planting
January 24th, 2020
As -Built Survey
February 2020
March 2020
As -built Monitoring Report
February 2020
March 2020
MY1 Monitoring Report
November 2020
December 2020
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems
Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems
218 Snow Avenue
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27603
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Construction Plans and Sediment and
As -built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans
K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA
5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Project County
Hoke County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
16.1
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
34.95702N, 79.13792W
Planted Area (acres)
16.1
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030004150011
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-06-15
Project Drainage Area (acres)
NA
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cultivated
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
16.1 acres drained
Wetland Type
Non -riparian
Mapped Soil Series
McColl
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Precipitation, groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditched and drained
Native Vegetation Community
Bay Forest/Small Depression Pocosin
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
0%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic, vegetative
Enhancement Method
NA
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation*
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
Approved JD (App D)
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
Approved JD (App D)
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document (App E)
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
CE Document (App E)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
CE Document (App E)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
CE Document (App E)
*Included in the Detailed Mitigation Plan
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

12
12 ® 8
8
must+'
1#*'
4
C
4 1
■ __J P'U aura uay LaacI I IV I -I U. I 01 ,
Wetland Restoration = 16.1 ac
® Habitat Pools = 1.6 ac
0 CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria
0 CVS Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria
Temporary Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria
Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria
0 Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature Logger
0 150 300
9
1:
7
7
NNE
�.'�'.� ��1 Ate. • T{i
Art
Axiom Environimnial, mc.
Prepared for:
Project:
ARABIA BAY
WETLAND
MITIGATION
SITE
Hoke County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2020
Scale:
1:1200
Project No.:
18-016
FIGURE
2

Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Arabia Bay
Planted Acreage' 16.1
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaae2 16.1
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list' designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the

Arabia Bay
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2020
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100061)
Arabia Bay Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Arabia Bay
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2020
Plot 10
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100061)
Arabia Bay Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Arabia Bay
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2020
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100061)
Arabia Bay Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 8. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Planted Vegetation Totals
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Species
Quantity
Percentage
Cephalanthus occidentalis
100
1%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
600
6%
Magnolia virginiana
1,000
10%
Nyssa sylvatica v sylvatica
1,000
10%
Quercus bicolor
600
6%
Quercus laurifolia
1,000
10%
Quercus michauxii
600
6%
Quercus nigra
1,000
10%
Quercus pagoda
600
6%
Taxodium distichum
800
8%
7,300
71
Cypress Savanna (Habitat Pools)
Species
Quantity
Percentage
Nyssa sylvatica v biflora
1,000
10%
Taxodium ascendens
2,000
19%
3,000
29
Totals = 10,300
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Table 7. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 18016. Project Name: Arabia Bay
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
18016-01-0001
18016-01-0002
18016-01-0003
18016-01-0004
18016-01-0005
18016-01-0006
18016-01-0007
18016-01-0008
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
3
3
3
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
81
8
8
18
18
18
20
20
20
13
13
13
8
81
8
91
91
9
13
13
13
121
121
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
323.7
323.7
323.7
728.4
728.4
728.4
809.4
809.4
809.4
526.1
526.1
526.1
323.7
323.7
323.7
364.2
364.2
364.2
526.1
526.1
526.1
485.6
485.E
485.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 7. Total Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
Project Code 18016. Project Name: Arabia Bay
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
18016-01-0009
18016-01-0010
18016-01-0011
18016-01-0012
18016-01-0013
18016-01-0014
MY1(2020)
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
eltis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
1
1
1
ephalanthus occidentalis
IFr
common buttonbush
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
axinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
17
17
17
17
17
17
agnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
2
2
2
16
16
16
20
20
20
y ssaa
tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
19
19
19
26
26
26
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Quercus bicolor
swamp white oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
9
9
9
8
8
8
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
17
17
17
221
22
22
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
9
9
9
9
9
9
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
19
19
19
20
20
20
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
19
19
19
29
29
29
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
23
23
23
26
26
26
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
7
7
7
10
10
10
11
11
11
160
160
160
192
192
192
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
7
12
12
12
14
14
14
364.2
364.2
364.2
445.2
445.2
445.2
445.2
445.2
445.2
283.3
283.3
283.3
404.7
404.7
404.7
445.2
445.2
445.2
462.5
462.5
462.5
555
555
555
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 8. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Species
25m x 4m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1(1360)
T-2 (370)
Nysso spp.
6
2
Toxodium oscendens
7
11
Toxodium distichum
9
6
Quercus nigro
1
Diospyros virginiono
1
Total Stems
23
20
Total Stems/Acre
931
810
Table 9. Planted Vegetation Totals
Arabia Bay Restoration Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
324
Yes
2
728
Yes
3
809
Yes
4
526
Yes
5
324
Yes
6
364
Yes
7
526
Yes
8
486
Yes
9
364
Yes
10
445
Yes
11
445
Yes
12
283
No
13
405
Yes
14
445
Yes
T-1
931
Yes
T-2
810
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
513
Yes
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016)
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site
Hoke County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
December 2020

Appendix D
Hydrology Data
Table 10. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Table 10. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
(2026)
1
Yes
85 days (33.2%)
2
Yes
72 days (28.1%)
3
Yes
72 days (28.1%)
4
Yes
93 days (36.3%)
5
Yes
95 days (37.1%)
6
Yes
36 days (14.1%)
7
Yes
77 days (30.1%)
8
Yes
85 days (33.2%)
9
Yes
94 days (36.7%)
10
Yes
69 days (27.0%)
11
Yes
28 days (10.9%)
12
Yes
61 days (23.8%)
13
Yes
34 days (13.3%)
14
Yes
31 days (12.1%)
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

LP
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-2 2
-24
-2 6
-28
-30
-3 2
-34
-3 6
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F� N N N W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M � V v W W W l0 l0 l0 I-- F"
W l\0 I\-� N I\-� N W l\0 I\-� N l\0 I\-� N 0000 I\-� N 0000 I\-� N I\-� N a) I\-� N \ \ \ \ \
O \ l0 l0 O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I � \ Ol Ol Ol I— N In I�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Q1 m \ (.n
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
a, -6
J
-8
3 -10
c
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2020 Data)
I-, N N N W W W LM LM U'1 I-, P, P, P, P,
W l\0 P\ N P\ NJ Q00 P\ NJQ00 P\ NJ P\ NJ I-- NJV F\-� N m P\ NJ\ \ \ \ \
O \ l0 l0 O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ W W \ W W \ m m m N N LM I�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M m \ Ln
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ 0
0 0 NJ
0
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
C
0
Q
2.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
_ -4
a, -6
J -8
i
�; -10
3 -12
c -14
o -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N N N W W W 4�- � � Ln Cn (n m m m v v v m m m LO LO LO N N N N N
W l\O I\-� NJ NJ NJ l\O I\-� NJ l\O I\-� NJ I\-� NJ I\-� NJN I\-� N a) I\-� NJ\ \ \ \ \
O \ (O (O O O O \ (O (O \ (.O (.O \ m m \ m m \ �I � \ m m m I— N In I�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M M \ (n
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 _
1.5 0�
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
_ -2
-4
d -6
-8
J
a� -10
++
3 -12
c -14
o -16
L
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F-� N N N W W W A A A U"I Cfl U"I 6l 6l 6l V v V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F" F" F" F" F�
W l0 N N W l0 F" N lD F" N 00 F" N 00 F, N F" N N m F" \ \ \ \ \
O \ l0 lD O O O 00 00 \ 00 00 M M M F" N Cn F"
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M p7 \ Cn
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N --
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
C
7
0
E
2.0 a
C
m
cc
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
-4
a, -6
a, -8
J
°�' -10
c�
3 -12
-14
° -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N N N W W W -r- _;�h � Ln In In m m m �I V V m m m l0 l0 l0 I-- N N N N
W \O I\-� NJI\-� NJ NJ lNJ \O I\-� \O I\-� 0\0 I\-� N 0\0 I\-� N N I\-� N Q\l I\-� N \ \ \ l\ \
O \ l0 l0 O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I � \ m m m I— N In I�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M m --
NJ O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
0
2.0 Q
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2020 Data)
End
Growing
Season
1■
November
12
L■
■
A�1
IN
I Will
is
I
�.
�1
link
'
'
Iv11►
■I
■M1
■
11211
Islas,
H
El
in
I
Rol
■M
Rini
1■IIM■1
'
■
�l�l■II�1«
■
■
1
■■�I1111■I■�■
MW
UM
'
i■
1i
101
in
■■m■■�■1■
1
Milli
■Hill■I
■1
!!Immmi
l■1■
■1l'
I■f1WR}■
Plm
1■
1
■�
111111111111111110
1�11�111'�■■�1�l1
1■�I■■
,
-
-----
--
--
--
--
--
---
-
L
0
E
Q

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F-� N N N W W W P. P. P. Ln Ln Ln m m m V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F" F" F" F" F"
W lO F-� N F-� N W LO F" N LO F" N 00 F" N 00 F-� N �I F-� N a) F-� N \ \ \ \ \
O \ lD LO O O O \ LO LO \ lO lO \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I V \ Ol Ol Ol F" N Ln F
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ O) a) \ Ln
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N --
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
3
0
E
2.0 a
m
c
m
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
u
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F-� N N N W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ul Ul Ul M M M V V V W W W lD lD lD
W l\0 F\- N F\-� N W l\0 F\-� N l\0 F\-� N 0000 F\-� N 0000 F\-� N N F\-� N m F\-� N \ \ \ \ \
O \ l0 l0 O O O l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I V \ m m m F N Cn I
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M m \ CJ7
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
C
7
2.0 0
c
1.5 m
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
IN
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 1 (2020 Data)
IStart Growing Season End Growing Season■
IMarch 2 November4
I I 1►_ �
■a �I�II■�1�■
I■ � �I�I�IL�■
I■ �I ��11■I■�■
I■ H �� 1 III ��� ■
I■ W� ��I1111■��■
I■ 'll ■ ■■�I11■■��■
II■ �■1�1�■ ■■ I■1
II■■■!��■'■ 1 ■I11 ■�III■1 ■ ■■■��I■1■
II■ ■■m!■ om 1 Milli Milli■I ■I ummmI i■1■
I'■ ■Il' IW■1 NF"ly■ In 1 11111111' IW1IPIIIIIIIIIN FMP a �!R■
I� fV fV fV W W W A A A t o t o In M M M v v v W W W lD lD lD
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O
W lD N N W lD N lD N 00 N 00 N N M N \ \ \ \ \
O \ lD lD O O O \ lD lD \ lD lD \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ J J \ Dl Dl Dl N U1 I--�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ D) D) \ U1
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
O O O
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
C
7
2.0 a
m
C
M
1.5 Cr
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F+ N N N W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M �I V V W W W l0 l0 kD
W l\O I\-� N I\-� N W l\O I\-� N l\O I\-� N 0000 I\-� N 0000 I\-� N J F-I N a) I\-� N \ \ \ \ \
O \ l0 l0 O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I � \ m m m I— N In I�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Q1 M \ (.n
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
c
2.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

E
v
v
J
i
GJ
3
C
0
MW
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 11
Year 1 (2020 Data)
I� fV fV fV W W W A A A Ln Ln In M M M v v v W W W LO LO LO
\ \ \ \ \
O \ lD lD O O O \ lD lD \ lD kz \ 00 00 \ 00 W N Ln I--�
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ m \ (n
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
C
7
2.0 E
a
m
C
m
1.5 cc
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 12
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F� N N N W W W P. P. P. Ln Ln Ui m m m v v V W 00 00 lO lO lO F" F" F" F"
W lO F-� N F-� N W LO F" N LO F" N 00 F" N 00 F-� N �I F-� N Ol F" N \ \ \ \ \
O \ LO LO O O O \ LO lO \ lO LO \ 00 00 \ 00 00 \ �I V \ m m m F" N Ln F
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ O) m \ Ln
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N --
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
C
7
0
2.0 Q
C
m
1.5 cc
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 13
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F-� N N N W W W A A A Ul Ln Ln m m m V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F" F" F" F"
W QOO F\-� N F\-� N W LO F" N LO F" N co F" N 0000 F\-� N V F\-� N a) F" N \ \ \ \ \
O \ LO LO O O O \ LO lO \ lO LO \ 00 00 \ co co \ V V \ m m m F" N Ln F
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ O) M \ Ln
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
C
7
0
2.0 Q
C
m
1.5 cc
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Arabia Bay Groundwater Gauge 14
Year 1 (2020 Data)
F-� N N N W W W A A A Ln In L n m m m v V V 00 00 00 lD lD lD F" F" F" F" F"
W l\O F\-� N F\-� N W l\D F" N l\D F" N co F" N 0000 F\-� N V F\-� N a) F" N \ \ \ \ \
O \ �D lD O O O \ LO lD \ lD lD \ 00 00 \ co co \ �I V \ rn rn rn F" N Cn F
\ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ p) m \ (n
N O N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N --
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
C
0
2.0 Q
c
m
1.5 cc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Appendix E. Notice of Credit Release
MY1 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100016) Appendices
Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Hoke County, North Carolina December 2020

Mitigation Project Name
Arabia Bay
USACE Action ID
2018-01151
DMS ID
100061
DWR Permit
2018-0784
River Basin
Cape Fear
Date Project Instituted
4/5/2018
Cataloging Unit
03030004
Stream/Wet. Service Area
Cape Fear 03030004
County
Hoke
Date Prepared
3/23/2020
Signature & Date of Official Approving Credit Release
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
2 - For NCDMS projects, the initial credit release milestone occurs when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been approved by the NCIRT and posted
to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria have been met:
1) Approved of Final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property.
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan.
4) Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit issuance is not required.
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Credit Release Milestone
Non -Riparian Credits
Project Credits
Scheduled
Releases %
Proposed
Releases %
Proposed
Released #
Not Approved
# Releases
Approved
Credits
Anticipated
Release
Year
Actual
Release
Date
1 - Site Establishment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 - Year 0 / As -Built
30.00%
30.00%
4.800
0.000
4.800
2020
3/23/2020
3 - Year 1 Monitoring
10.00%
2021
4 - Year 2 Monitoring
10.00%
2022
5 - Year 3 Monitoring
15.00%
2023
6 - Year 4 Monitoring
5.00%
2024
7 - Year 5 Monitoring
15.00%
2025
8 - Year 6 Monitoring
5.00%
2026
9 - Year 7 Monitoring
10.00%
2027
Stream Bankfull Standard
N/A
j N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
4.800
Total Gross Credits
16.000
Total Unrealized Credits to Date
0.000
Total Released Credits to Date
4.800
Total Percentage Released
30.00%
Remaining Unreleased Credits
11.200
Notes
Contingencies (if any)
Project Quantities
Mitigation Type
Restoration Type
Physical Quantity
Non -Riparian
Restoration
16.000
Page 1 of 2