20120064 Ver 1_Staff Report Davis, Erin B_20210121

Initial Review and Submittal
ID#* 20120064 Version* 1
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/21/2021
Type of Mitigation Project:*
PF Stream f1 Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or New r Yes r No
Site?*
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
Existing 20120064
(DWR)
I D#:
Project Name: Crooked Creek II
Project Type:* r DMS r Mitigation Bank
County: Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 1
Version: (nurrbersonly)
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
All attachments have been uploaded into Laserfiche for your review.
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

Staff Review
Staff Review by Davis, Erin B
Project Location: WaterResources\DWR - Wetlands Program\Non DOT\20120064\Ver 1
Staff Comments
File Upload Jpgorpdfonly
Staff Review 01/21/2021
Completed Date:

ID#* 20120064 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/21/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/21/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20120064
Existing IDV
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Crooked Creek II
Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Crooked Creek_ 94687_MY5_2020.pdf 39.02MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 5 
ANNUAL REPORT 

FINAL 

CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT 
Union County, NC 
DEQ Contract 6617 
DMS Project Number 94687 
USACE Permit No. SAW‐2011‐02201 

Data Collection Period:  March – November 2020 
Submission Date:  January 5, 2021 

PREPARED FOR: 

NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC  27699‐1652 

PREPARED BY: 

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 

Phone: [phone] 
Fax: [phone] 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

January 5, 2021 

Mr. Harry Tsomides 
NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102 
Asheville, NC 28801 

RE: Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site ‐Year 5 Monitoring Report 
 Final Submittal for DMS  
DMS ID 94687 
DEQ Contract Number D09126S  
Yadkin Pee‐Dee River Basin – CU# 03040105; Union County, NC 

Dear Mr. Tsomides: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 
comments and observations from the Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site Draft Year 5 Monitoring Report.  
The following are Wildlands responses to your comments and observations from the report noted in 
italics lettering. 

DMS Comment; Continuous flow gauge graph for UT1 appears to be missing. 

Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated Appendix 5 to include flow gage for UT1. 

DMS Comment; Please add the following as appendices:  
 2020 IRT site visit memo   
 Supplemental soils temperature data; describe briefly and indicate this might be discussed 
with IRT in 2021.  
 Easement encroachment areas (2); please add to the CCPVs and indicate in the text that 
these areas of backyard mowing behind the easement line are being actively addressed with 
the respective landowners. A location map is attached.  

Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the text and appendices to include the information listed 
above.  

DMS Comment; The shapefile DMS has for Zone A Drained Hydric Soils (Restoration) is 6.72 ac, 
compared to the 6.6 ac in the asset table. Please attempt to address this difference, and resubmit the 
feature if it can be addressed.   

Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the shapefile to match the 6.6 ac recorded in the asset table 
and resubmitted the shapefile. 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
DMS Comment; Please submit all of the features used in the MY5 CCPV. Currently, there is the MY2 
AOC file in the “CCPV GIS Data” folder, then there is a “CCPV GIS Data‐ Copy” folder with many more 
features, but it does not appear that either folder includes the MY5 invasive species polygon, 
headcut point, or beaver dam line features. Please be sure the groundwater gauge features that are 
included in the digital submittal are updated to include gauge 11.  

Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the MY5 CCPV files in the digital support files to include all 
files shown in the MY5 CCPV map. The shapefile labeled ”AOC_MY5” includes the MY5 invasive species 
polygons. Please let us know if you have additional issues with the files. 

DMS Comment; The in‐stream flow gauge files is corrupt, please check this file to ensure it is working, 
and resubmit.  

Wildlands Response; Wildlands has inserted a new file that is working.  Please let us know if you 
additional issues with this file.  

Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 5 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with the 
final electronic files for DMS distribution.  Please contact me at 704‐941‐9093 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,  

Kirsten Y. Gimbert 
Project Manager 
[e-mail] 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final  ii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a design‐bid‐build project at the Crooked Creek #2 
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance 
5,599 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams, enhance 1.0 acre of existing wetlands, restore and create 
10.5 acres of wetlands, and restore and enhance 70,936 square feet (SF) of riparian buffer in Union 
County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 3,242.600 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 8.4 wetland 
mitigation units (WMUs), and 1.24 buffer mitigation units (BMU) for the Goose Creek watershed (Table 
1). The Site is located off NC Highway 218 in the northern portion of Union County, NC in the Yadkin 
Pee‐Dee River Basin; eight‐digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14‐digit Hydrologic Unit Code 
(HUC) 03040105040010 (Figure 1). The project streams consist of two unnamed tributaries (UT) to 
Crooked Creek, UT1 and UT2, and two reaches of the Crooked Creek mainstem (Reach A and Reach B) 
(Figure 2). Crooked Creek flows into the Rocky River 4 miles northeast of the Site near Love Mill Road at 
the Stanly County line. The adjacent land to the streams and wetlands is primarily maintained for 
agricultural and residential uses.  
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Lower Yadkin Pee‐Dee River Basin 
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP, 2009). The Site is also located within the Goose Creek and 
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The final watershed management plan (WMP) for Goose 
Creek and Crooked Creek was completed in July 2012 (NCEEP, 2012). The stressors to watershed 
function identified in the WMP were sediment pollution and increases in peak stream flows resulting in 
impairments to aquatic habitat and aquatic life. Stream enhancement and restoration were identified as 
the best management opportunities to offset these impacts. Other stressors identified included 
nonpoint source runoff, degraded terrestrial habitat, and disconnected floodplains. Wetland 
enhancement and restoration was also identified as a best management opportunity to offset impacts 
related to these stressors. The wetland portion of the project was identified as a specific priority in the 
Project Atlas that accompanies the 2012 WMP.  
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) were completed with careful 
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors 
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include: 
 Improve wetland hydrologic connectivity; 
 Decrease sediment input into stream; 
 Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; 
 Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and 
 Decrease nutrient and adverse chemical levels. 
Overall, the Site in Monitoring Year (MY) five appears to be on track to meet the year seven 
requirements. MY5 assessments were completed between March and November 2020. The planted 
vegetation on the Site appears to be doing well with isolated patches of invasive species present. The 
average planted stem density for the Site is 526 stems per acre and is on track to meet the interim year 
seven requirement of 210 stems per acres. All 12 vegetation plots exceeded the year five success 
criteria. The average stem height for the Site is 7.6 feet trending toward meeting the year seven 10‐foot 
requirement. Invasives treatments occurred in October 2020 and will be re‐evaluated in Spring 2020 for 
effectiveness. report. Channel dimension and profiles on UT1 appear stable and functioning as designed. 
Groundwater hydrologic success criteria was achieved in six of the eleven groundwater monitoring 
gages. Although the success criteria for bankfull for the project was met in MY2, additional bankfull 
events were recorded in MY5 on project streams. Annual monitoring will continue to be conducted 
through MY7 with an expected closeout in 2023. 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final  iii 
CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1‐1 
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1‐2 
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1‐2 
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 1‐2 
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1‐3 
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ................................................................................................... 1‐3 
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1‐3 
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1‐4 
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 1‐5 
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1‐5 
Section 2: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2‐1 
Section 3: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 3‐1 

APPENDICES 
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures 
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map 
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map 
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits 
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History 
Table 3 Project Contact Table 
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes 
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary 
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data 
Figure 3.0‐3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View 
Table 6 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 
 Vegetation Photographs 
 Stream and Wetland Photographs 
 Area of Concern Photographs 

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data 
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment 
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata 
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Mean) 
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots 
Table 11 Baseline Stream Data Summary 
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross‐section) 
Table 13 Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary 
 Cross‐section Plots 
 Reachwide and Cross‐section Pebble Count Plots 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final  iv 
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots 
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events 
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary 
 Groundwater Gage Plots and Stream Gage Plot  
 Rainfall Plot 
 Bankfull Event Photographs 

Appendix 6 Invasive Species Treatment Logs 

Appendix 7 2020 IRT Site Visit Memo 

Appendix 8  Supplemental Soils Temperature Data  

Appendix 9  Easement Encroachment Areas 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 1‐1 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 
The Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Yadkin Pee‐Dee River Basin; eight‐digit 
Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14‐digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105040010 (Figure 1). 
The Site is located off NC Highway 218 in the northern portion of Union County, NC (Figure 1). Located in 
the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed 
includes primarily agricultural forested and developed land. The drainage area for the project Site is 
24,619 acres. The project streams consist of two streams that underwent Stream Enhancement, 
Crooked Creek and UT2, as well as UT1 which underwent Stream Restoration consists  
The Site is located within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Lower Yadkin Pee‐Dee River Basin 
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP, 2009). The Site is also located within the Goose Creek and 
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The final watershed management plan (WMP) for Goose 
Creek and Crooked Creek was completed in July 2012 (NCEEP, 2012). The stressors to watershed 
function identified in the WMP were sediment pollution and increased peak stream flows resulting in 
impairments to aquatic habitat and aquatic life. Stream enhancement and restoration were identified as 
the best management opportunities to offset these impacts. Other stressors identified included 
nonpoint source runoff, degraded terrestrial habitat, and disconnected floodplains. Wetland 
enhancement and restoration was also identified as a best management opportunity to offset impacts 
related to these stressors. The wetland portion of the project was identified as a specific priority in the 
Project Atlas that accompanies the 2012 WMP.  
Prior to construction activities, the streams on the Site had been channelized and the adjacent 
floodplain wetland areas had been cleared and ditched to provide drainage for surrounding pasture. 
These land use activities resulted in bank instability due to erosion and livestock access, lack of riparian 
buffer, and altered hydrology. Stream Incision, lateral erosion, and widening also resulted in degraded 
aquatic and benthic habitat, reduction in quality and acreage of riparian wetlands, and lowered 
dissolved oxygen levels in the stream. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Table 11 in Appendix 4 present the 
post‐restoration conditions in more detail. 
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 
This mitigation Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Pee‐Dee River 
Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Crooked Creek project area, others, such as 
pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have 
farther‐reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined 
below as project goals and objectives.  
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) were completed with careful 
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors 
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include: 
 Improve wetland hydrologic connectivity; 
 Decrease sediment input into stream; 
 Create appropriate terrestrial habitat; 
 Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and 
 Decrease nutrient and adverse chemical levels. 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 1‐2 
The project objectives have been defined as follows:  
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately transport 
their sediment loads without significant erosion or aggradation; 
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with coarse bed material and pools with finer 
bed material; 
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody debris, and in‐
stream structures; 
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water temperatures and 
increased dissolved oxygen to improve water quality; 
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to provide 
energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural hydrologic regime; 
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams; 
• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and plugging agricultural drainage 
features; 
• Perform minor grading in wetland areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology; and 
Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities and 
retain existing, native trees where possible.  
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment 
The following sections present the MY5 data collected between March and November 2020 to assess 
the condition of the project. The success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria 
presented in the Crooked Creek #2 Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013).  
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment 
A total of 12 standard 10‐meter by 10‐meter permanent vegetation plots were established during the 
baseline monitoring within the project easement area. The final vegetative success criteria will be the 
survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at 
the end of the seven‐year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative success for the 
Site will be the survival of at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth‐year of monitoring (MY5). In 
addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of MY7.  
The MY5 vegetation survey was completed in September 2020 resulting in an average stem density of 
526 stems/acre. All 12 vegetation plots individually met the year five interim requirement of 260 
stems/acre, with an average of 13 stems per plot. The MY5 average stem height for the Site is 7.6 feet, 
increasing from 7.38 feet in MY4. Overall, the planted stem height appears to be trending toward 
meeting the 10‐foot requirement and all plots are on track to meet the MY7 stem density requirement.  
In several vegetation plots, the canopy cover has continued to mature, providing an increase in shading.  
As a result, a reduction in the dense herbaceous cover was observed in MY5 that was present in 
previous monitoring years. Where invasive species and vine strangulation of planted stems were noted 
present in previous monitoring years, NCDMS contracted to have the Site treated in October 2020. The 
Supplemental planting that occurred in January, 2018 increased the stem density present on the Site 
and stems that have been planted for two growing seasons have recorded healthy vigor. Please refer to 
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and 
Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables. 
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 
Generally, the vegetation within the Site is healthy with a few areas of invasive plant species present 
(approximately 3% of the easement area). Invasive species noted within the site during the MY5 site 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 1‐3 
assessments include cattail (Typha latifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese privet 
(Ligustrum sinense), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), balloon vine (Cardiospermum halicacabum), 
and morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea). The native invasive species, cattail (Typha latifolia) continues to 
colonize an area surrounding Vegetation Plot five, however, vegetation plot five, which is located 
adjacent to this area is meeting success criteria and does not seem to be adversely impacted by the 
presence of cattail.  
The percent of easement area covered in invasive species remains at 3% of the easement area in MY5. 
Invasive species, as noted in Appendix 6, were treated in October 2020 and will continue to be treated 
as needed through 2022. Previous invasive treatments in 2018, resulted in a reduction of Chinese privet 
along Crooked Creek, with very few resprouts observed during the MY5 site walk. In addition, two areas 
of easement encroachment identified during MY5. In both areas, these are areas of backyard mowing 
behind the easement line and are actively being addressed with the respective landowners.  
These areas will be re‐evaluated in the spring of 2021 for resprouts during MY6.  
Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table and CCPV maps for MY5 vegetation 
areas of concern and conservation easement mowing locations.  
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 
The MY5 morphological survey conducted in March 2020 indicated that UT1 channel dimensions appear 
stable and functioning as designed. In general, the cross‐sections show little to no change in the bankfull 
area, maximum depth ratio, or width‐to‐depth ratio compared to the baseline survey.  Surveyed riffle 
cross‐sections continue to fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen 
stream type (Rosgen, 1996). In MY2, the low bank height ratio for cross‐section 2 decreased from 1.0 to 
0.9. However, based on the MY5 survey, this ratio has not changed since which indicates the channel is 
stable and not actively aggrading. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV 
map, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological summary data and plots. 
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 
One beaver dam was observed on cross‐section 3 during the Fall 2020 assessments. Water is ponding 
behind the dam, but is contained within the channel.  The channel upstream and downstream appear to 
be maintaining dimension. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment photographs and stream 
photographs.  
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 
The stream hydrology success criteria requires that two bankfull events must occur in separate years 
within the seven‐year monitoring period.  Although, the stream hydrology success criteria was met in 
MY2, bankfull events continue to be recorded on Crooked Creek, UT1, and UT2, using either stream 
gages or visual indicators, such as wrack lines. Precipitation in 2020 exceeded the 70% average rainfall 
for the months of April, May, and August, leading to a large number of out of bank events on UT1.  In 
addition to bankfull assessments, stream baseflow, although not part of the success criteria for the Site, 
is being monitored on UT1 to demonstrate stream flow regimes are sufficient to establish an Ordinary 
High Water Mark, specifically a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal 
rainfall. Within the data collected during MY5, UT1 recorded 94 days of consecutive baseflow. Refer to 
Appendix 5 for hydrologic plots and photographs of documented bankfull events.  

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 1‐4 
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment 
At total of 11 groundwater gages (GWG) have been installed throughout the wetland areas to provide 
groundwater level data and one soil temperature probe was installed near GWG2. Ten of the GWG (1‐
10) were installed during baseline monitoring. An additional GWG (11) was installed in March 2020 to 
provide information about the water table response to Wetland Restoration Zone A. The target success 
criteria for wetland hydrology success consists of groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground 
surface for 17 consecutive days (7.5 %) of the defined 227 day growing season for Union County (March 
23 through November 4) under typical precipitation conditions.  
The soil temperature probe data collected over the past few years indicates that the ground 
temperature starts to rise in early March, and remains above the temperature threshold of 41 degrees 
Fahrenheit throughout the growing season. The ground temperature does not fall below the 41‐degree 
threshold for 2020. DMS plans to further discuss with the IRT options for adjusting the growing season 
based on soil temperature data. 
The number of GWG meeting success criteria in MY5 decreased from MY4, with 9/10 GWG meeting to 
6/11 GWG meeting, respectively. The GWGs that did not meet success criteria in MY5, GWG1 (15 days 
(6.6%)), GWG4 (14 days (6.2%)), GWG9 (16 days (7.0%)), GWG10 (15 days (6.6%)), and GWG11 (14 days 
(6.2%)), missed meeting success criteria by a small margin. GWG4 is the only gage that has not been 
meeting criteria consistently throughout the five‐year monitoring period.  
There was a noticeable decline in the number of gages meeting success criteria from MY4 (9/10 gages) 
to MY5 (6/11 gages). Higher than average precipitation totals in the winter months of MY4, prior to the 
beginning of the growing season, most likely attributed to the increase in the number of gages that met 
criteria during the MY4 growing season. During MY4, the Site received 20% more rainfall from December 
to March (24.02 inches total) when compared to the same time period in MY5 (19.11 inches). However, 
overall, there was a 41% increase when comparing total rainfall during the growing season from MY4 
(21.07 inches) to MY5 (35.42 inches).  
During the installation of GWG11, the hydrology, vegetation, and soil profile assessment revealed that 
the surrounding area had decent wetland indicators. During the well installation, there was a free water 
surface in the hole at thirteen inches below the ground and sweating along the sides of the hole 
indicating soil saturation. The surrounding vegetation included species known to grow primarily in wet 
areas, such as Sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), Box elder (Acer negundo), River Birch (Betula nigra), 
sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), and soft rush (Juncus effuses). Three soil boring samples were taken 
prior to the gage installation. The soils met the indicator of F19 Piedmont Flood Plain Soils which 
requires: a layer 6 inches thick within the top 10 inches of the soil surface with a matrix chroma of less 
than 4 and 20% or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore 
linings. In addition, the soil profile for GWG11 contained a layer that was 15 inches thick that began 3 
inches below the ground surface with a low chroma matrix color of 2.5Y 5/3, with 20% redox 
concentrations and 5% manganese nodules.  
In conclusion, although the GWG is on the cusp of meeting the success criteria, the wetland area 
represented by GWG4 and 11 are forming the indicators required for hydrology, soils and vegetation 
found in the USACE Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement. There is a possibility that 
GWG11 could meet the success criteria in MY6 when the full growing season is captured, depending on 
the precipitation patterns that occur in the recharge winter months. Please refer to Appendix 5 for the 
groundwater hydrology data and plots. 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 1‐5 
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern 
Currently, there are no areas of concern within the wetland areas.  Repair work completed on the 
headcut near Wetland Creation Zone B, previously reported in MY3, is stable with ample vegetation 
growth. This area will continue to be monitored in subsequent monitoring years. Refer to Appendix 2 for 
wetland photographs.  
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary 
In general, the stream channels dimension and profile appear stable and functioning as designed. UT1 
retains the ability to transport sediment and maintain channel form during bankfull events. The Site has 
withstood several bankfull events in MY5, however the stream hydrology success criteria was met in 
MY2. The average planted stem density of 526 stems/acre and the average planted stem height of 7.6 
feet is on track to meet the Site’s MY7 success criteria. Lastly, the Site has responded well to previous 
supplemental plantings and invasive species treatments and will continued to be monitored and treated 
as necessary. Six of eleven groundwater gages met success criteria in MY5, however, the area of 
Wetland Restoration Zone A to the left of UT1, represented by GWGS 4 and 11, may be at risk of failing 
to meet success criteria during the seven‐year monitoring period.   
Summary information and data related to the 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 Mitigation Plan documents available on 
DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS 
upon request.

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 2‐1 
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:  
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural 
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded 
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub‐meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. 
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross‐sections during annual Site 
visits. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols 
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report – Final 3‐1 
Section 3: REFERENCES 
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream 
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. 
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated 
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM‐245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. 
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording 
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐
2.pdf 
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee‐Dee River Basin 
Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from: http://deq.nc.gov/document/yadkin‐pee‐dee‐rbrp‐2009‐final 
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Tetra Tech, CCoG, 2012. Goose Creek and 
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan. Retrieved from: 
http://www.gooseandcrooked.org/documents/GooseandCrookedLWP‐WMP_Final_7‐2012.pdf  
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018. 
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC. 
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO:  Wildland Hydrology Books. 
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR‐
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2016. USDA Field Office Climate Data, WETS Table: 
Monroe, NC5771 (1971‐2000). 
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from: 
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/coastalp.htm 
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Real Time Water Data for North Carolina. Retrieved from: 
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/realtime/real_time_yadkin_peedee.html 
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2013). Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, 
Raleigh, NC. 

APPENDIX 1.  General Figures and Tables 

03040105040010
03040105030020
03040105010050
03040105010070
03040105030010
03040105070050
03050103020060
03050103030020
03050103020050
03040105070060
03050103020070
03040105050010
03040105040020
03040105070020
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
0 0.5 1 Mile
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
¹
Directions to Site:From Charlotte,NC take US-74 East, take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485. Take Interstate 485 South (Inner Loop) for approximately 3miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill. Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on theright hand side of the road.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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 designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of theirdefined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
UT2
Crooked CreekReach A
Reach B
U
T
1
E H w y 2 1 8
Zone A
Zone B
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset MapCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 400 Feet
Powerline EasementCrooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 channel)Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIWetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone BWetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Creation Zone BRiparian Buffer EnhancementRiparian Buffer RestorationConservation Easement
¹
Nitrogen 
Nutrient 
Phosphorous 
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,242.2 N/A 7.900 0.500 N/A N/A
As‐Built 
Stationing/ 
Location
Existing Footage/ 
Acreage Approach Mitigation 
Ratio
Credits1,2
(SMU/ WMU)
202+20‐215+55 1,555 LF N/A 2.5:1 534.000
215+55‐236+78 2,404 LF N/A 2.5:1 849.200
100+47‐117+18 1,762 LF P1 1:1 1,671.000
300+52‐305+60 508 LF N/A 2.5:1 188.000
N/A 0.7 AC 2:1 0.350
N/A N/A 1:1 6.600
N/A 0.3 AC 2:1 0.150
N/A N/A 3:1 1.300
N/A 25,201 sqft 3:1 8,400.33 sqft
N/A N/A 1:1 45,735 sqft
Buffer Upland
(square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non‐Riverine
6.6 45,735
1.0 25,201
3.9
2 UT2 crediting ends at Crooked Creek's top of bank.  
1 UT1 crediting starts downstream of the powerline right‐of‐way along Hwy 218.
Enhancement II 3,928
Creation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Restoration 1,671
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian 
(acres)(acres)
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer Enhancement 25,201
Goose Creek Buffer Restoration 45,735
Zone B Enhancement 0.3
Zone B Creation 3.9
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric 
Soils)Enhancement 0.7
Zone A (Drained Hydric 
Soils)Restoration 6.6
UT1 Restoration 1,671
UT2 Enhancement II 470
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A Enhancement II 1,335
Crooked Creek Reach B Enhancement II 2,123
Reach ID Restoration or Restoration 
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/ 
Acreage
Table 1.  Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian Wetland Buffer (sqft)
54,135.33 N/A
Project Components
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
DMS Project No. 94687
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Designer
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Table 3.  Project Contact Table
March 2020
2021
2022
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.  
November 2022
September 2020
2022
2021
November 2020
704.332.7754
Year 7 Monitoring
Invasive Treatment October 2020
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource, LLC
Raleigh, NC 27615
Seeding Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc. 
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental
7921 Haymarket Lane
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Supplemental Planting Contractor & Invasive Species Maintenance
Construction Contractor 
North State Environmental, Inc. 
2889 Lowery Street
Monitoring, POC Kirsten Gimbert
704.941.9093
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes & Son Nursery 
825 Maude Etter Rd.
McMinnville, TN 37110
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
November 2018
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
April 2019
August 2019
October 2018
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
June 2018
August 2019
May 2018Invasive Treatment
Invasive Treatment August 2018
April 2018
January 2018
November 2019
November 2021
Invasive Treatment
Supplemental Planting
Table 2.  Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan June 2011 August 2013
Final Design ‐ Construction Plans August 2011 April 2014
Construction January 2015 ‐ April 2015 January 2015 ‐ April 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 January 2015 ‐ March 2015 January 2015 ‐ March 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments January 2015 ‐ March 2015 January 2015 ‐ March 2015
January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) January ‐ February 2016 May 2016
August 2016
April 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2016
August 2017Vegetation Survey
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments January 2016
November 2016
November 2017
195 275
24.5 38
IP
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act 
(CAMA)N/A N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance X X
Crooked Creek is a mapped Zone AE 
floodplain with defined base flood 
elevations. Base flood elevations have been 
defined and the floodway has been 
delineated; (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel 
5540).
Endangered Species Act X X
Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Plan; 
Wildlands determined "no effect" on Union 
County listed endangered species. June 21, 
2011 email correspondence from USFWS 
indicating no listed species occur on site.
Historic Preservation Act X X
No historic resources were found to be 
impacted (letter from SHPO dated 
6/23/2011).
XX
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)X X NPDES Construction Stormwater General 
Permit NCG010000
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable?Resolved?Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States ‐ Section 404 X X USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 
401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885. 
Action ID # 2011‐02201Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401
Native vegetation community Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐Restoration 5%5%60%5%
Slope 0.0022 0.0047 0.0050
FEMA classification
Zone AE Zone AE
no regulated 
floodplain no regulated floodplain
Drainage class
Somewhat poorly 
drained
Somewhat poorly 
drained
Somewhat poorly 
drained Well drained
Soil hydric status Type B (inclusions) Type B (inclusions) Type B (inclusions) N/A
Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)Badin channery silt loam 8‐15% slopes (BaC)
Morphological Desription (stream type)PPP
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration
N/A N/A Stage III
51
NCDWR stream identification score 52 34.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Length of reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration 1,555 2,404 1,671
Drainage area (acres) 24,619 153
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture 38%, Forested 29%, Developed 28%, Wetlands 3%, and Herbaceous Upland 2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Crooked Creek 
Reach A
Crooked Creek 
Reach B UT1 UT2
DWR Sub‐basin 03‐07‐12
Project Drainiage Area (acres)24,619
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 28%
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 03040105040010
Project Area (acres)54.94
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)34° 58' 54.78"N, 080° 31' 25.79"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Table 4.  Project Information and Attributes
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Project Information
Project Name Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
County Union County
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit 03040105
Table 5.  Monitoring Component Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Crooked Creek 
Reach A
Crooked Creek 
Reach B UT1 UT2 Wetlands
Riffle Cross‐Section N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Pool Cross‐Section N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 0
Substrate Reach Wide (RW)/ Riffle 
100 Pebble Count (RF)N/A N/A 1 RW / 2 RF N/A N/A Annual
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 N/A Quarterly
Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Quarterly
Vegetation Vegetation Plots Annual
Visual Assessment All Streams Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual
Exotic and nuisance 
vegetation Semi‐Annual
Project Boundary Semi‐Annual
Reference Photos Photo Points Annual34
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity / Length by Reach
Frequency
Dimension Annual
1
12

APPENDIX 2.  Visual Assessment Data 

!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
Crooked CreekReach A
UT1
E H w y 2 1 8
Reach B
UT1
UT2Soil
Sheet 3
Sheet 2
Sheet 1
1
2
3
5
9
8 10
4
6
11
12
7
GWG4
GWG8
GWG9
GWG10
GWG1
GWG3
GWG6
GWG5
GWG7
GWG11
Barotroll
0
210+00
305+00
304+00
302+00
300+00
241+44241+00
240+00
239+00
238+00
237+00
236+00
235+00
234+00
233+00
232+00
231+00
230+00
229+00228+00227+00226+00225+00224+00
223+00
221+00
220+00
217+00
216+00
215+00
214+00
213+00
212+00
211+00209+00
208+00
207+00206+00205+00
100+00
101+00
102+00
104+00
105+00
106+00
107+00
108+00
109+00
110+00
111+00 112+00
113+00
114+00
115+00
116+00
117+00
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key) Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 260 520130 Feet
Powerline EasementCrooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 channel)
Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIBankfull/TOBCross-Section (XS)Beaver DamWetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone BWetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Creation Zone BRiparian Buffer EnhancementRiparian Buffer RestorationConservation Easement
!A Crest Gage (CG)/ Stream Gage (SG)
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Gage
GF Photo Point (PP)
^_HeadcutGroundwater Gage - MY5
!A No
!A YesVegetation Monitoring Plot - MY5Criteria Not MetCriteria MetInvasive Species Population- MY5
Conservation Easement Mowing
¹
!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A^_GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF!AUT1UT1
Soil
XS3XS4
XS2
X
S
1
Bradford Pear,Chinese privet
Chineseprivet
JohnsonGrass
Johnson Grass
JapaneseHoneysuckle
Cattail
BalloonVine
JapaneseHoneysuckle
JapaneseHoneysuckle
1
2
3
5
9
8
4
6
12
7
GWG4
GWG8
GWG2
GWG1
GWG3
GWG6
GWG5
GWG7
GWG11
PP 25
PP 33
PP 32
PP 1
PP 2
PP 3
PP 4
PP 5
PP 6
PP 7
PP 8
PP 9
PP 10
PP 11
PP 12
PP 13
PP 14
PP 15
PP 16PP 17
PP 18
PP 19
PP 20
PP 21
PP 22
PP 24
PP 23
Barotroll
210+00
212+00
211+00
209+00
208+00
207+00
206+00
100+00
101+00
102+00103+00
104+00
105+00106+00
107+00108+00
109+00
110+00111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
115+00116+00
117+00
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 100 20050 Feet
Powerline EasementNon-Project/Not for Credit Streams
Existing OverflowOverflow Connector
Ditch (former UT1 channel)
Stream RestorationStream Enhancement II
Bankfull/TOBBeaver Dam
Cross-Section (XS)
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Creation Zone B
Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Riparian Buffer Restoration
!A Crest Gage (CG)/Stream Gage (SG)
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Gage
GF Photo Point (PP)
^_HeadcutGroundwater Gage - MY5
!A No
!A YesVegetation Monitoring Plot - MY5
Criteria Not MetCriteria Met
Invasive Species Population- MY5
¹
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Crooked CreekReach A
UT1
UT2UT1
Reach B
JohnsonGrass
JapaneseHoneysuckle
Balloon Vine,Morning Glory
JohnsonGrass
JapaneseHoneysuckle
5
9
8
4
6
11
12
7
GWG4
GWG8
GWG9
GWG10
GWG5
GWG7
PP 28
PP 29PP 30
PP 31
PP 27
PP 26
PP 25
PP 34
PP 33
PP 11 PP 12
PP 13
PP 14
PP 15
PP 16
PP 17
PP 18
PP 19 PP 20
PP 21
PP 22
PP 24
PP 23 210+00
305+00
304+00
302+00
301+00
300+00
228+00
227+00226+00225+00
224+00
223+00
221+00
220+00
219+00
218+00
217+00
216+00
215+00
214+00
213+00
212+00
211+00
209+00
208+00
207+00
206+00205+00
108+00
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
117+00XS1XS2XS4XS3
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 125 25062.5 Feet
Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIRiparian Buffer RestorationRiparian Buffer EnhancementCrooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 channel)Bankfull/TOBCross-Section (XS)Beaver Dam
Conservation EasementWetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone BWetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Creation Zone B
!A Crest Gage (CG)/ Stream Gage (SG)
!A Barotroll
GFPhoto Point (PP)
^_Headcut
Groundwater Gage - MY5
!A No
!A YesVegetation Monitoring Plot - MY5Criteria Not MetCriteria MetInvasive Species Population- MY5Conservation Easement Mowing
¹
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Crooked CreekUT2
Reach A
Reach B
211+00
212+00
213+00
214+00
215+00
216+00
217+00
218+00
219+00
220+00
221+00
223+00
224+00
225+00 226+00 227+00
228+00
229+00
230+00
231+00
232+00
233+00
234+00
235+00
236+00
237+00
238+00
239+00
240+00
241+00
241+44
304+00
305+00
Japanese Honeysuckle
PP 26
PP 27
PP 31
PP 30
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 125 25062.5 Feet
Crooked Creek Reach Break
Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams
Stream Enhancement IIBankfullExisting OverflowWetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Creation Zone B
Conservation Easement
GF Photo Point (PP)Invasive Species Population- MY5Conservation Easement Mowing
¹
Major Channel CategoryChannel Sub‐CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As‐BuiltNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjust % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationAggradation00100%Degradation00100%2. Riffle ConditionTexture/Substrate1616100%Depth Sufficient2020100%Length Appropriate2020100%Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2020100%Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)2020100%1. Scoured/ErodedBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100% n/an/an/a2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.  Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat00100% n/an/an/a3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse00100% n/an/an/a00100% n/an/an/a1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.99100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill44100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.44100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 99100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow.2020100%3. Meander Pool Condition4. Thalweg PositionTable 6.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5‐ 2020UT1 (1,671 LF)1. Bed1. Vertical Stability(Riffle and Run units)1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.2. BankTotals3. Engineered Structures1
Table 7.  Vegetation Condition Assessment TableCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Site DMS Project No. 94687Planted Acreage 15.0Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping Threshold Number of PolygonsCombined Acreage1% of Planted AcreageBare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 ac 0 0.0 0%Low Stem Density Areas1Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.0.1 ac 0 0.00 0.0%0.00 0.00 0.0%Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.00Easement Acreage 54.9Vegetation Category DefinitionsMapping ThresholdNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage2% of Easement AcreageInvasive Areas of Concern Treated 10/20202Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF 12 1.5 3%Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 2 0.09 0.2%2 Acreage of each polygon modified by estimated percent cover of invasive population Monitoring Year 5‐ 2020TotalCumulative Total1 Acreage calculated from annual vegetation monitoring plots and plant warranty inspection plots. 
Vegetation 
Photographs 
Monitoring Year 5 

Vegetation Plot 1 – (09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 2 – (09/29/2020) 
Vegetation Plot 3 – (11/4/2010) Vegetation Plot 4 – (09/30/2020) 
Vegetation Plot 5 – (09/03/2019) Vegetation Plot 6 – (09/30/2020) 

Vegetation Plot 7 – (09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 8 – (09/30/2020) 
Vegetation Plot 9 – (09/30/2020) Vegetation Plot 10 – (09/29/2020) 
Vegetation Plot 11 – (09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 12 – (09/30/2020) 

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 1 – UT1 looking downstream (3/27/2020) 
Photo Point 2 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 2 – UT1 looking downstream (11/5/2020) 
Photo Point 3 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 3 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 

Photo Point 4 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 4 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 5 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 5 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 6 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 6 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 

Photo Point 7 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 7 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 8 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 8 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 9 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 9 – UT1 looking downstream (11/5/2020) 

Photo Point 10 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 10 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 11 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 11 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 12 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 12 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 

Photo Point 13 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 13 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 14 – UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 14 – UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020) 
Photo Point 15 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 15 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 16 – UT1 looking upstream (11/5/2020) Photo Point 16 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 17 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 17 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 18 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 18 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 19 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 19 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 20 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 20 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 21 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 21 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 22 – UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 22 – UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 23 – UT1 looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 23 – UT1 looking downstream (3/27/2020) 
Photo Point 24 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 24 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020) 

Photo Point 25 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 25 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 26 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 26 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020) 
Photo Point 27 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 27 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020) 

Photo Point 28 – UT2 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 28 – UT2 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 29 – UT2 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 29 – UT2 looking downstream (3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 30 – UT2 looking downstream to UT2 (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking upstream Crooked Creek  
(3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking downstream Crooked Creek 
(3/26/2020) 
Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking upstream UT2 (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 30 –Wetland CC outlet facing West (3/26/2020) Photo Point 30 –Wetland CC outlet facing East (3/26/2020) 

Photo Point 32 –Wetland AA facing West (3/25/2020) Photo Point 32 – Wetland Zone A facing South (11/5/2020) 
Photo Point 33 – Wetland Zone A & B facing West (3/25/2020) Photo Point 33 ‐ Wetland B facing South (3/25/2020) 
Wetland Photographs 
Monitoring Year 5

Photo Point 34 –Wetland CC facing Northwest (11/5/2020) Photo Point 34 –Wetland CC facing South (11/5/2020) 

Area of Concern Photographs 
Monitoring Year 5

Beaver Dam at XS3 (9/29/2020) Beaver Dam at XS3 (11/2/2020) 

Water ponded behind beaver dam at XS3 (9/29/2020) 

APPENDIX 3.  Vegetation Plot Data 

Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Plot MY2 Success Criteria Met        
(Y/N)Tract Mean
1Y
100%
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
6Y
7Y
8Y
9Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
DMS Project No. 94687Report Prepared ByElla Wickliff Date Prepared10/2/2020 14:01Database Namecvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.3.0_Crooked Creek_MY5.mdbDatabase LocationQ:\ActiveProjects\005‐02156 Crooked Creek Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4 (2019)\Vegetation AssessmentComputer NameELLA‐PCFile Size46927872DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐MetadataDescription of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Project plantedEach project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.  This excludes live stakes.Project Total StemsEach project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.  This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.PlotsList of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).VigorFrequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.Vigor by SppFrequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.DamageList of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.Damage by SppDamage values tallied by type for each species.Damage by PlotDamage values tallied by type for each plot.Planted Stems by Plot and SppA matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.ALL Stems by Plot and sppA matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Project Code94687Project NameCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDescriptionCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectRequired Plots (calculated)12Sampled Plots12Table 9.  CVS Vegetation Plot MetadataCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Table 10. Planted and Total Stem CountsCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020PnoLS 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 TAcer negundo Box Elder TreeAcer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3Betula nigra River Birch Tree111111111555 111Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree222Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1111Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub TreeDiospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree222111111555Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 15 5 5 5 5Juglans nigra Black Walnut TreeLiquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 15Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar TreeNyssa sylvatica Black Gum TreePlatanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree6666661113331114431222222Quercus Oak sp. Shrub TreeQuercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree111 111Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree333111Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree111111 111 111333Salix nigra Black Willow TreeTaxodium distichum Bald‐cypress Tree4444447784449914222111111Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree222333Ulmus americana American Elm Tree1316 16 31 12 12 18 11 11 17 11 11 11 11 11 21 17 17 57 12 12 22 15 15 15667446556555334778557888647 647 1255 486 486 728 445 445 688 445 445 445 445 445 850 688 688 2307 486 486 890 607 607 607Color for DensityPnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesP‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total stemsCurrent Plot Data (MY5 2020)VP4 VP5Stem countVP8Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Scientific Name Common Name Species TypeVP1 VP2 VP3Exceeds requirements by 10%Species countStems per ACREFails to meet requirements by more than 10%1111size (ares)1111size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02VP6 VP70.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Table 10. Planted and Total Stem CountsCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Acer negundo Box Elder TreeAcer rubrum Red Maple TreeBetula nigra River Birch TreeCarpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub TreeCeltis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub TreeCornus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub TreeDiospyros virginiana American Persimmon TreeFraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash TreeJuglans nigra Black Walnut TreeLiquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum TreeLiriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar TreeNyssa sylvatica Black Gum TreePlatanus occidentalis Sycamore TreeQuercus Oak sp. Shrub TreeQuercus lyrata Overcup Oak TreeQuercus nigra Water Oak TreeQuercus phellos Willow Oak TreeSalix nigra Black Willow TreeTaxodium distichum Bald‐cypress TreeUlmus alata Winged Elm TreeUlmus americana American Elm TreeColor for DensityPnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesP‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total stemsStem countExceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Scientific Name Common Name Species TypeExceeds requirements by 10%Species countStems per ACREFails to meet requirements by more than 10%size (ares)size (ACRES)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 PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T8 3 11 23 49 43 18 176 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 15 13 13 14 11 11 11 13 13 13 14 14 143332224444462222242727282626261212141414151818182222222222 6666669914 4 11111112222222222226662 2 3 1 1 1 12 12 13 12 12 12 13 13 16 7 7 7 10 10 13 27 27 2720 55 127 41 25 26 4534 115 12239677 41112111 1112222222232223337771 1 1 1 1 1 27 27 54 27 27 41 28 28 50 12 12 44 13 13 26 15 15 16222111131313535353111333222888666888888777111666111121212121212121212111111444111 88899106666663332111222 44439394540404141414112121213131316161655566106612 5 1114713 13 22 10 10 45 13 13 13 15 15 22 156 156 294 163 163 377 168 168 307 84 84 207 95 95 172 156 156 22955677933388111313171313171313181111181111178815526 526 890 405 405 1821 526 526 526 607 607 890 526 526 991 550 550 1271 567 567 1035 283 283 698 320 320 580 526 526 772Annual MeansMY0 (2/2016)120.30Current Plot Data (MY5 2020) VP10 VP110.3012VP12 MY4 (8/2019) MY3 (8/2018) MY2 (8/2017)VP91MY1 (9/2016)12 12 1211112MY5 (9/2020)0.30 0.300.020.300.02 0.02 0.02 0.30

APPENDIX 4.  Morphological Summary Data and Plots 

Table 11.  Baseline Stream Data Summary Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5‐ 2020UT1ParameterGageMinMaxMinMax Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxBankfull Width (ft)7.0 8.611.7 12.6Floodprone Width (ft)45 49Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max Depth1.0 1.1Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)3.5 4.17.37.5Width/Depth Ratio14.9 18.318.9 21.1Entrenchment Ratio5.7 6.4Bank Height Ratio 0.6 0.9D50 (mm)0.3 35.9Riffle Length (ft)1250Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0055 0.0597 0.0100 0.0670 0.0045 0.0080 0.0004 0.0193Pool Length (ft)17.8 65.4Pool Max Depth (ft)0.761.270.761.271.5 2.1 1.13.0Pool Spacing (ft)2074207415 28 13 47 42 84 3699Pool Volume (ft3)Channel Beltwidth (ft)11554324 52 30 72 3072Radius of Curvature (ft)61.2 170.6 61.2 170.6 19 32 5 22 22 48 2248Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)3.59.63.59.62.7 3.7 0.6 2.5 1.8 4.0 1.84.0Meander Length (ft)16340039 44 54 196 72 132 102 135Meander Width Ratio10.549.7 2.4 3 2.8 6.0 2.5 6.0 2.56.0Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.11 0.12Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfullStream Power (Capacity) W/m2Drainage Area (SM)Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr)Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr)1740Q‐ManningsValley Length (ft)Channel Thalweg Length (ft)SinuosityWater Surface Slope (ft/ft)2Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles(‐‐‐):  Data was not providedN/A:  Not ApplicableN/A1: The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicableN/A2: Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalwegPre‐Restoration ConditionReference Reach DataDesignAs‐Built/BaselineUT1 Reach 1UT1 Reach 2UT to Lyle Creek Spencer Creek 1UT1UT1Dimension and Substrate ‐ ShallowN/A17.710.98.712.050053922944+200+0.50.70.51.20.70.61.31.01.91.01.18.67.810.68.72.2+1.42.91.01.01.036.415.37.316.628.249.326.32.2+*3.1‐‐‐PatternN/A‐‐‐21‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1.32.5N/A‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐*Substrate, Bed and Transport ParametersN/A‐/‐/3.1/8.6/11.0/16.0‐‐‐‐/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0 0.1/3.0/8.8/77/180/‐SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256‐‐‐‐‐‐0.012Additional Reach ParametersN/A0.24N/A0.250.500.240.24<1%<1%3.54.14.7‐‐‐3.42.2‐‐‐‐‐‐<1%<1%N/A1N/A1C5/6E4/C4C4C450N/A230N/A218‐‐‐3016‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1,3531,353N/A224N/A21,789‐‐‐‐‐‐1,7181,7181.01.51.11.11.30.00660.00580.0090.01390.00410.00361.30.00710.00340.0040.01320.00320.0034
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Bankfull elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8
Low Bank Elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8
Bankfull Width (ft)13.3 12.7 13.6 13.3 10.2 12.1 11.7 11.1 11.4 15.6 10.9 11.2 12.6 12.3 12.2 15.4 13.6 14.2 12.6 11.9 12.0 13.1 13.1 12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)------ --------- ---200+200+ 200+ 89.0 89.0 89.0 ------ --- --- --- ---200+200+ 200+ 83.0 83.0 83.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)8.7 8.5 8.3 8.7 8.4 8.3 7.3 5.9 6.5 7.9 6.3 6.4 12.6 11.4 12.3 12.6 13.3 13.9 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.4 18.9 22.4 20.4 12.5 17.5 18.9 20.8 20.1 30.7 18.8 19.8 12.7 13.4 12.1 18.9 13.8 14.6 21.1 18.0 18.9 22.7 23.2 21.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------ --- --- --- ---2.2+2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+------ --- --- --- ---2.2+2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------ --- --- --- ---1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 ------ --- --- --- ---1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 In MY3- MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height.
Cross-Section 4, UT1 (Riffle)
Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross-Section 1, UT1 (Pool) Cross-Section 2, UT1 (Riffle) Cross-Section 3, UT1 (Pool)
UT1ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxBankfull Width (ft) 11.7 12.6 11.1 11.9 11.4 12.0 13.0 15.6 10.9 19.5 11.2 12.3Floodprone Width (ft)83 89Bankfull Mean Depth0.50.70.5 0.6Bankfull Max Depth0.91.01.01.21.0 1.1Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)7.37.55.97.86.57.6 7.6 7.9 6.3 7.4 6.4 7.1Width/Depth Ratio 18.9 21.1 18.0 20.8 18.9 20.1 22.7 30.7 18.8 23.2 19.8 21.2Entrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0D50 (mm) 0.335.9SC65.6SC66.2 SC 52.8 SC 46.0 0.3 16.0Riffle Length (ft) 1250Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0004 0.0193Pool Length (ft) 1865Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.13.0Pool Spacing (ft) 3699Pool Volume (ft3)Channel Beltwidth (ft) 3072Radius of Curvature (ft) 2248Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.84.0Meander Wave Length (ft) 102135Meander Width Ratio 2.56.0Rosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks0.61.02.2+1.00.61 In MY3‐ MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height.2.2+ SC/SC/0.1/19/90/2560.00340.0041,7181.3PatternAdditional Reach ParametersC41.12.2+2.2+1.01.0Profile2.2+1.02.2+1.1MY‐4MY‐5Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1200+200+MY‐2MY‐3200+89+89+0.60.6Table 13.  Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020 As‐Built/BaselineMY‐1
Cross Section 1-UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.1 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
12.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Cross-Section Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
View Downstream
539
540
541
542
543
20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
107+88 Pool
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)Bankfull (03/2020)
Cross Section 2-UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
6.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.2 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
11.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.8 width-depth ratio
89.3 W flood prone area (ft)
7.9 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Cross-Section Plots
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
View Downstream
540
541
542
543
544
20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
108+32 Riffle
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull (03/2020)Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
Cross Section 3-UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.2 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
15.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Cross-Section Plots
536
537
538
539
540
541
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
114+01 Pool
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)
MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)Bankfull (03/2020)
Cross Section 4-UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.3 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
12.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
21.2 width-depth ratio
83.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Cross-Section Plots
537
538
539
540
541
542
20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)
114+34 Riffle
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull (03/2020)Floodprone Area MY0 Bankful Area Elevation
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020UT1, Reachwidemin max Riffle Pool TotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 10 48 58 58 58Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94687Particle ClassDiameter (mm) Particle Count Reach SummaryVery fine 0.062 0.125 58Fine 0.125 0.250 1 2 3 3 61Medium 0.25 0.50 61Coarse 0.5 1.0 61Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 61SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 61Very Fine 2.8 4.0 61Fine 4.0 5.6 61Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 62Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 64Medium 11.0 16.0 64Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 5 69Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 12 81Very Coarse 32 45 12 12 12 93Very Coarse 45 64 1 1 1 94GRAVELSmall 64 90 94Small 90 128 4 4 4 98Large 128 180 2 2 2 100Large 180 256 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 10050 50 100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = Silt/ClaySilt/Clay34.898.3180.0BOULDERTotal ReachwideChannel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/202001020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, ReachwideUT1, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020UT1, Cross‐Section 2min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 32 32 32Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94687Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100‐CountSummaryVery fine 0.062 0.125 32Fine 0.125 0.250 14 14 46Medium 0.25 0.50 16 16 62Coarse 0.5 1.0 9 9 71Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 71SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 71Very Fine 2.8 4.0 71Fine 4.0 5.6 71Fine 5.6 8.0 71Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 72Medium 11.0 16.0 72Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 75Coarse 22.6 32 9 9 84Very Coarse 32 45 5 5 89Very Coarse 45 64 89GRAVELSmall 64 90 89Small 90 128 1 1 90Large 128 180 7 7 97Large 180 256 3 3 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 0.150.332.0163.3256.0BOULDERTotal Cross‐Section 2Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/202001020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, Cross‐Section 2UT1, Cross‐Section 2
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020UT1, Cross‐Section 4min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay 0.000 0.062 17 17 17Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 94687Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100‐CountSummaryVery fine 0.062 0.125 17Fine 0.125 0.250 17Medium 0.25 0.50 5 5 22Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 24Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 14 14 38SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 38Very Fine 2.8 4.0 38Fine 4.0 5.6 38Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 40Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 43Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 50Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 55Coarse 22.6 32 8 8 63Very Coarse 32 45 9 9 72Very Coarse 45 64 7 7 79GRAVELSmall 64 90 8 8 87Small 90 128 10 10 97Large 128 180 3 3 100Large 180 256 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100Small 362 512 100Medium 512 1024 100Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100BEDROCKBedrock 2048 >2048 100100 100 100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 1.7216.079.2119.3180.0BOULDERTotal Cross‐Section 4Channel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/202001020304050607080901000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0‐01/2016MY1‐08/2016MY2‐04/2017MY3‐04/2018MY4‐04/2019MY5‐03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, Cross‐Section 4UT1, Cross‐Section 4

APPENDIX 5.  Hydrology Summary Data and Plots 

Table 14.  Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Reach MY of 
Occurrence
Date of 
Occurrence 
(Approximate)
Method
MY1 7/11/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 6/20/2017 Crest Gage/Stream Gage
9/17/2018
10/12/2018
10/27/2018
11/5/2018
MY4 4/5/2019
2/7/2020
3/25/2020
4/30/2020
5/21/2020
5/28/2020
8/10/2020
8/15/2020
9/25/2020
10/11/2020
11/1/2020
7/11/2016
10/8/2016
MY2 6/20/2017
MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
MY4 4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
3/25/2020 Wrack Line
11/1/2020 Wrack Line 
7/11/2016
10/8/2016
MY2 6/20/2017 Crest Gage
MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
Unknown Wrack Line
MY5 3/25/2020 Bankfull Flow Photo
UT1
UT2
Crooked Creek
MY3
MY5
MY4
MY5
Stream Gage
Stream Gage, Photos
Crest Gage
Crest GageMY1
MY1
MY1 
(2016)
MY2 
(2017)
MY3 
(2018)
MY4 
(2019)
MY5 
(2020)
MY6 
(2021)
MY7 
(2022)
1 No/0 
Days (0%)
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/12 
Days (5%)
Yes/22 
Days 
No/ 15 
Days 
2 No/2 
Days 
No/8 Days 
(4%)
No/13 
Days (6%)
Yes/21 
Days 
Yes/ 25 
Days (11%)
3 No/1 
Days 
No/9 Days 
(4%)
Yes/29 
Days 
Yes/34 
Days 
Yes/ 25 
Days (11%)
4 No/0 
Days (0%)
No/6 Days 
(3%)
No/10 
Days (4%)
No/16 
Days 
No/ 14 
Days 
5 No/1 
Days 
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/12 
Days (5%)
Yes/22 
Days 
Yes/ 25 
Days (11%)
6
Yes/26 
Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/75 
Days 
(33%)
Yes/88 
Days 
(39%)
Yes/67 
Days 
(29.6%)
Yes/116 
Days 
(51.1%)
7 Yes/18 
Days (8%)
Yes/47 
Days 
(21%)
Yes/45 
Days 
(20%)
Yes/56 
Days 
(24.8%)
Yes/ 54 
Days 
(23.8%) 
8
No/14 
Days 
(6.2%)
Yes/31 
Days 
(14%)
Yes/45 
Days 
(20%)
Yes/35 
Days 
(15.5%)
Yes/ 51 
Days 
(22.5%) 
9
No/1 
Days 
(0.4%)
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/13 
Days (6%)
Yes/23 
Days 
(10.2%)
No/ 16 
Days (7%) 
10
No/2 
Days 
(0.9%)
No/11 
Days (5%)
No/10 
Days (4%)
Yes/23 
Days 
(10.2%)
No/ 15 
Days 
(6.6%) 
11*No/ 14 
Days 
Growing season 3/23/2019‐ 11/4/2019
Success Criteria is 17 consecutive days
* GWG11 installed 3/27/2020
Gages meeting criteria: MY1 = 2/10, MY2 = 3/10, MY3 = 4/10, MY4= 9/10. 
Gage
Table 15.  Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season 
Recorded In‐stream Flow EventsCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 202030 daysJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0539540541542543544545Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)DMS Project No. 94687RainfallUT1 Water DepthThalweg ElevationBankfullCrooked Creek :  In‐Stream Flow Gage for UT1
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #1Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #115 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #2Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #225 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #3Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #325 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #4Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #414 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland CreationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #5Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #525 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #6Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #6116 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland RestorationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #7Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #754 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland CreationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #8Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #851 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland CreationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #9Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #916 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland CreationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #10Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #1015 Consecutive days
Groundwater Gage PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Wetland Wetland CreationCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687Start of Growing Season3/23/2020End of Growing Season11/4/2020JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0‐70‐60‐50‐40‐30‐20‐1001020Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020RainfallReference Gage DepthGage #11Criteria LevelCrooked Creek Groundwater Gage #1114 Consecutive days
Monthly Rainfall DataCrooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 20201 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971‐2000).  (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)012345678910Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20 Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20Precipitation (in)DateCrooked Creek 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Union County, NCUSGS Station 351218080331345 CRN‐29 at Belk Scout Camp30% Rainfall70% Rainfall

Bankfull Photographs 

Monitoring Year 5

Bankfull Flow – UT1(3/25/2020) Wrack Lines – UT2 (3/26/2020) 

Bankfull Flow – Crooked Creek (3/25/2020) 

Wrack Lines – Crooked Creek (11/5/2020) Wrack Lines – UT2 (11/5/2020) 
APPENDIX 6. Invasive Species Treatment Logs

Progress Report for Crooked Creek II (DMS #94687) Invasive Vegetation 
Management 

13 October 2020: 
Jason York and Drew Powers applied 10 gallons of 3% Rodeo (glyphosate) as a foliar spray on privet 
(Ligustrum spp.) along the northern bank of Crooked Creek.  Approximately 60 feet from the banks were 
treated.  Other invasive plants treated included Sacred Bamboo (Nandina domestica), Burning Bush 
(Euonymus alata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana).  Privet 
and Callery Pear were also treated with 20% Garlon 4 in Bark Oil Blue as a basal bark application near the 
northern most easement boundary.  No stems were treated that were tall enough to fall on the adjacent 
fence line.  Attached is a map showing the approximate area that was treated. 
0 170 34085Yards Crooked Creek IIInvaisive Veg Management
Legend
Sept - Dec 2020 Treatment
Crooked Creek II 180700 2020 10/13/2020 10 1.5
TOTALS 10 0 1.5
20% 
Garlon 4 Project Name Project 
Number
Monitorin
g Year Date 3% 
Glyphosat
50% 
Glyphosat
APPENDIX 7. 2020 IRT Site Visit Memo

6/18/2020

PROJECT SITE MEETING MINUTES
Crooked Creek II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Union County
Meeting Date: 6/16/2020

DMS Project ID 94687
USACE ACTION ID: SAW 2011-02201
DWR # 12-0064

In attendance:
Erin Davis (NCDWR), Paul Wiesner (NCDMS), Harry Tsomides (NCDMS), Kelly Phillips (NCDMS)

Meeting Summary
This Design-Bid-Build project is currently in Monitoring Year 5 (2020). The field meeting was held
in order to discuss project history and current conditions as they relate to project performance
and success, identify any apparent concerns heading into the remainder of the monitoring phase,
and evaluate the MY04 (2019) credit release as proposed in the ledger presented to the IRT on
April 20, 2020. Site conditions were rainy and cool (60 degrees).

Previous monitoring events of note:
April 2017 - IRT Credit Release Site Visit (MY2)
January 2018 - Supplemental planting (prior to MY3 growing season)
February 2018 - Wetland creation zone head cut repair (handwork, straw wattles, juncus plugs
and live stakes)
October 2018 - Invasive vegetation treatment (last of a multi-treatment contract)
March 2020 - GWG 11 installation along right floodplain of UT1

Field review and items discussed

 The group met at the project entrance along NC Hwy 218, and briefly discussed the
project status and recent history. The MY4 (2019) credit release ledger was discussed and
DMS noted that they are requesting to “catch up” with the approved mitigation plan
release schedule following credit holdbacks in recent years, based on general trending
towards success with stream flow in UT1 and wetland gauge results . DMS noted that, if
the current proposed release were approved, the re maining unreleased credits for the

project would be 15% of the stream and 30% of the wetland total available credits.
Relevant project monitoring events were discussed (see above), and DWR noted their
support for the addition of GWG 11, which was recently added to provide additional data
for the wetland restoration zone along the right floodplain of UT1.

 The group walked to the upstream section of UT1, and observed flow in the stream
channel, and a well-vegetated buffer; the group walked downstream along UT1 and noted
a lack of base flow along much of UT1, but a well-defined channel with a coarse substrate
mixture. Some evidence of overbank flow (wrack and debris) were present. Recent
continuous flow data were discussed from 2018 (103 days of consecutive flow), 2019 (116
days) and 2020 (83 days, as of March 25, 2020).

 Alongside the right floodplain of UT1, the recently installed ground water gauge (GWG
#11) was found and soils examined; while there were clearly some hydric characteristics
within the soil profiles (0” to 12”) taken by DWR and DMS near GWG 11, soils were noted
as probably not fully developed wetland soils yet. At GWG 4 farther downstream along
UT1 (also on the right floodplain), the soils looked similar to those observed at GWG 11.

 The group continued downstream along UT1 to the confluence of Crooked Creek. While
much of UT1 lacked base flow during this visit, flow had been observed on prior visits in
March 2020 by DMS and the monitoring firm Wildlands (separately), and channel features
were generally evident. There were no sections of channel ‘choked’ with sediments or
wetland herbaceous vegetation (e.g., Juncus spp.). All log structures and constructed
riffles observed appeared intact and functioning.

 DMS noted that there are Goose Creek watershed enhancement and restoration buffer
assets associated with the project (70,936 sq. ft.). DWR noted that buffer credit close out
typically occurs following MY5 and would likely be evaluated for buffer credit closure
sometime in 2021 by the DWR buffer coordinator (Katie Merritt). DMS noted that there
is one vegetation plot in each mitigation area type (restoration and enhancement). All 12
vegetation plots across the site are on track to meet success criteria.

 The group walked downstream along Crooked Creek (enhancement II). Areas of prior
invasive floodplain vegetation treatment were noted. In general, there were no major
issues noted and the Crooked Creek floodplain appeared to be almost entirely clear of
invasive vegetation. There was also no evidence of livestock. Just downstream of the
confluence of UT1 with Crooked Creek, the large debris jam (with downed trees
accumulating in one meander bend) was found and discussed, and while the historic
channel diversion had formed a large oxbow, it appeared that some of the downed trees
which had been spanning the channel on prior visits had been cleared out by more recent
storm events. There were still multiple downed trees and large woody debris
accumulated along both sides of the channel at this location.

 A wooden deer stand was observed within the left floodplain of Crooked Creek. DMS has
been aware of the deer stand as it has existed since project inception. It is unknown
whether the deer stand is currently being used, or who may be using it, since this project
is within State-owned property. DMS will try to obtain more information on how this deer
stand might or might not be in use.

 UT2 (enhancement II) was observed flowing into Crooked Creek. The group walked the
length of UT2 up to the fence line and edge of the project area, and adjacent cattle
pasture, where it flows through a concrete pipe into the project area. Flow was evident
along the entire length of UT2. The group then continued to walk towards the
downstream limits of the project along Crooked Creek.

 An area of historic encroachment was inspected, where ATVs had been getting into and
disturbing the left floodplain of Crooked Creek towards the downstream end of the
project. The landowner has been contacted several times about this, additional posting
was installed in 2018, and the activity seems to have ceased, as tall herbaceous vegetation
was seen growing in the entry path from the adjacent mowed/maintained backyard.
However, there appeared to be a swath of maintained/mowed lawn 10-15 feet into the
project area along most of the expansive backyard. DMS will contact this landowner again
and attempt to have this activity stopped. While this section is more than 50 feet away
from the creek, it appears to be an encroachment that need not and should not be
happening.

 The group walked back along the pasture fence line towards the project area wetlands.
To this point, very few invasives had been noted; only very scattered individuals. However,
the monitoring firm’s 2020 spring assessment had mapped several areas of invasives.
Using this map as a guide, the group headed for veg plot 10 to evaluate the area for
invasives, as the monitoring map was showing the plot surrounded by Chinese lantern
and morning glory. In general, while the group could not validate the mapped results here,
there seem to be some scattered areas across the site that, when added up, may warrant
another treatment. DMS plans to conduct a further detailed site invasives evaluation
within the next few weeks and engage a contractor to treat the remaining invasives. The
trees in veg plot 10 appeared to be healthy and thriving.

 The group then walked back towards Crooked Creek to observe the wetland head cut that
was reported in MY2 (2017), and addressed in early 2018 with some hand work
stabilization, wattle installation, and live staking. While the condition here has improved
dramatically since treatment, the head cut persists. It is unclear if the head cut is active,
and if so, what is the rate of retreat. A small amount of flow was observed flowing through
the head cut and continuing downgradient. DMS plans to keep a close eye on this and
evaluate options if necessary.

 Walking back towards the parking area through the center of the wetlands, many of the
supplemental plantings from 2018 were evident as healthy trees, albeit shorter than most

of the originally planted trees. DWR noted that some of the trees in this area appeared to
be a few years ‘behind’ the others. DMS noted this was one of the areas that was indeed
supplemental planted in 2018, prior to the MY3 growing season.

 The meeting concluded with discussion of site conditions and credit releases moving
forward. It was noted that the project is on a 5-year stream / 7-year wetland release
schedule. While the site is trending towards success, there were concerns in earlier
monitoring years about stream flow and wetland gauge attainment. While DWR indicated
their inclination to recommend release of crediting as proposed in the MY4 (2019) ledger,
they expressed concern about the remaining 15% of stream credits and indicated it was
very likely to be held back in 2021 in favor of gathering more stream data and monitoring
the site as a whole (both stream and wetlands) through seven years. DWR recommended
that DMS continue to monitor both stream and wetlands through MY7 (2022), with the
remaining stream credit likely to be held back until project close out, and wetland credits
being released on the current schedule as deemed appropriate. DMS will plan to move
forward with this monitoring approach unless otherwise instructed by the IRT.

Meeting notes compiled by:
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]

From:Davis, Erin B
To:Wiesner, Paul
Cc:Kim Browning; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Allen, Melonie; Tsomides, Harry; Phillips, Kelly D
Subject:RE: Meeting Minutes_Crooked Creek #2- Credit Release Site Visit_June 16, 2020_DMS# 94687_SAW# 2011-
02201_DWR# 20120064
Date:Friday, June 19, 2020 11:06:24 AM
Hi Paul,

The meeting minutes look good. I just have a few additional comments:

· I agree with your UT1 comments, but we did also observe scattered wetland herbaceous veg
within the channel and fibrous roots across some of the riffles, as well as some signs of rot
on the log sills (although no instability).
· Regarding the headcut, I agree that it should be monitored for mitigation upslope and would
recommend that additional vegetated stabilization measures be considered.
· I also noted the veg die-off we saw from the herbicide treatment along the cattle fence
approximately 3-5 feet into the easement. I understand that the landowner needs to
maintain the fence line, but would ask that more care be given to target the treatment on
the fence itself and limit drift into the easement.

Many thanks. Have a nice weekend!
Erin

From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 3:42 PM
To: Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US) <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; Tsomides,
Harry <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting Minutes_Crooked Creek #2- Credit Release Site Visit_June 16, 2020_DMS#
94687_SAW# 2011-02201_DWR# 20120064

Erin,

The meeting minutes from the June 16, 2020 IRT credit release site visit at the Crooked Creek #2 site
are attached.

Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Harry,

Please include the final meeting minutes in the 2020 MY5 report for reference.

Thanks

Paul WiesnerWestern Regional SupervisorNorth Carolina Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 [e-mail] Western DMS Field Office5 Ravenscroft DriveSuite 102Asheville, N.C. 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

APPENDIX 8. Supplemental Soils Temperature Data
Soil Temperature Probe PlotsMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (DMS Project No. 94687)Wetland Restoration Zone A JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec30405060708090100Temperature (F)Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020Soil Probe TemperatureCriteria LevelCrooked Creek Soil Temperature ProbeStart of Growing SeasonEnd of Growing Season
APPENDIX 9. Easement Encroachment Areas
2
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community