20130739 Ver 1_Year 7 Monitoring Report_2020_20210127

ID#* 20130739 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/27/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/27/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20130739
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
County: Beaufort
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: StClair_95015_MY7_2020.pdf 14.19MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 7 Final Monitoring Report

Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
DWR Project #13-0739, DEQ Contract #003986
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar-Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040

Project Info: Monitoring Year: 7 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2021

Submitted To: NC DEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 | Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 | Fax: [phone]

January 25, 2021

Jeremiah Dow
Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Subject: Task 13: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 7 Monitoring
Report for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (DMS #95015)
Beaufort County, North Carolina, Cape Fear Basin – CU#03020104, Baker No. 125116

Mr. Dow,

As per your request, please find enclosed one hardcopy of the Final Year 7 Monitoring Report for the St.
Clair Creek Restoration Project located in Beaufort County, NC. The final revised digital documents will
be sent via a secure ftp link. Our responses to your review comments received on January 8, 2021 are
provided below:

1. Digital Files
a. The following stream features do not match reported lengths in the asset table, and are outlined
below as feature length vs. asset table length. Please provide DMS with features that accurately
represent the assets reported in the "Restoration Footage or Acreage" column of the asset table.
• UT2: 2,309 vs. 2,133
• UT3: 1,184 vs. 1,141
Response: Baker has provided the revised stream shapefile as requested.

b. Please submit a separate stream shapefile that excludes the length of stream no longer receiving
credit.
Response: Baker has also included this separate shapefile with the length of upper UT2 removed
that has IRT concerned and which was not approved for credit release in MY6.

2. Due to IRT concerns with the upper portions of UT2 an eighth year of monitoring (MY8) is
required. DMS recommends requesting permission from the IRT for discontinuation of monitoring
vegetation plots, wetland gauges, and UT3 flow gauges since all have met required project success
criteria.
Response: Given the IRT’s concerns with upper UT2 as previously discussed at the virtual
credit release meeting last April, Baker has been preparing for an additional monitoring year
(MY8) as stated. Baker would welcome a discontinuation of monitoring on the other features
mentioned, which as noted have met the project success criteria, and for which there has been
no expressed IRT concern.

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 | Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 | Fax: [phone]

If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 919-219-6339
or via email at [e-mail].

Sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

i
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 7 Final Monitoring Report

Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
Tar-Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040

Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker International
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Stream Assessment – Reaches UT2 and UT3 ............................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Wetland Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Wetlands Modifications Review ................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 5

APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables and Files Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation memo (1/7/16)
IRT Field Meeting Minutes (5/16/19)
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs) Stream Photo Points Vegetation Plot Photos Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species Table 9b Stem Count for All Species (Planted and Volunteer)
Arranged by Plot
Table 9c Yearly Density by Plot
Table 9d Vegetation Summary and Totals

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

iii
Appendix D Hydrologic Data Table 10 Wetland Restoration Well Success
Figure 3 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Table 11 Flow Gauge Success Figure 4 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 5 St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic
Average
Channel Cross-Section Analysis for UT2 Flow

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,274 linear feet of perennial and intermittent headwater
stream, 2.8 acres of riparian wetlands, and planted 17.5 acres of native riparian vegetation within the entire
conservation easement along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County,
North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Beaufort County,
approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03-03-07 and the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104-040040 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin. The project involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion and
silviculture.

The primary restoration goals of the project were to improve ecological functions to the impaired areas within
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin as described below:

• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the project,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the downstream estuary,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.

To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse flow,
providing the streams access to their floodplains,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and
within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater
runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in-stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments during
the monitoring period.

During Year 7 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data
collected from the nine monitoring plots during Year 7 monitoring, is 594 stems per acre. Thus, the Year 7
data demonstrate that the Site has met the final success criteria of 210 stems per acre.
During the previous Year 7 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) saplings were thinned throughout the buffer
on UT2, in particular in the middle and upper sections. However, during Year 7 monitoring, new, rapidly
growing loblolly pine seedlings and short saplings were again found scattered throughout the riparian buffer of
the UT2 area. It should be noted that the pines do not appear to be suppressing planted species survival or

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

2
growth as vegetation density appears strong throughout the project, even in areas with pine presence.
Nevertheless, these pines will again be treated and heavily thinned during the winter or spring of 2021 prior to
any IRT site closeout visits using hand/power tools and/or chemical applications. The project will continue to
be observed for pine growth throughout the remaining monitoring period.
Year 7 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that all 8 of the groundwater monitoring wells located
in the wetland credited areas along UT2 and UT3 met the success criteria by recording water levels within 12
inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period greater than 12% of the growing season (33 days for the
Site). The Year 7 hydroperiods ranged from 15.6% to 26.6%. All of the wells passed the success criteria early
in the year, just after the growing season began. All wetland restoration well data and reference well data
collected during Year 7 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
Additionally, there are two groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW10) installed on 3/16/17 in areas
located outside the project’s currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas. Well SCAW9 met
the 12% hydroperiod success criteria with 17.7%, though SCAW10 did not with only 7.8%. Both well locations
certainly appear quite wet. Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this
time. Baker is simply conducting exploratory monitoring within potential future wetland restoration areas. The
three potential areas total 1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within
the conservation easement (see Figure 2 in Appendix B). Baker is not presenting this information here for
formal approval or acceptance, but to simply inform DMS and the IRT of all project activity.
On-site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT2 and UT3 was recorded through the use of seven
installed pressure transducers as flow gauges. Each one met the success criteria in Year 7 by recording a
consecutive flow event of 30 days or longer in 2020. Of note, Flow gauge SCFL#4 located at the top of UT2
met the success criteria, recording its longest single duration flow event of 45 days in February and March.
This is of particular significance as flow in the upper portion of UT2 and the results of Flow Gauge #4 have
been the subject of IRT concern in the past. The flow gauge success summary Table 11 and all individual flow
gauge graphs are found in Appendix D.
Additionally, during MY7 two cross-section transects were conducted in the upper portion of Reach UT2 to
help demonstrate flow and channel formation. Please see the Memorandum included in Appendix D for more
details.
In addition, currently contracted riparian buffer credits have been included as part of the project as referenced
by the “Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation” memo from Karen Higgins (NCDWR) dated 1/7/16 and included
as an asset in this report (as found in Appendix A). As part of the St. Clair Creek Restoration project, Riparian
Buffer credits in excess of the contracted 6.8 acres (296,208 square feet) will be provided. Monitoring for
success of riparian buffers will continue to follow the existing vegetation monitoring protocol and success
criteria as stated in the approved mitigation plan for stream and wetland vegetation success. Only vegetation
plots 1-6 are located within the approved buffer credit areas and no additional vegetation monitoring plots are
required to monitor buffer success as these existing plots serve to monitor the success of the vegetation of the
headwater coastal plain stream and the associated riparian buffer. The Year 7 monitoring results demonstrate
that the site has met the success criteria requirements for Riparian Buffer credits in each of vegetation plots 1-
6 as described in the buffer memo, and with an overall average density of 492 stems/acre.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

3
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated 11/7/11, which will continue to serve as the
template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation
plots, flow gauges and wells are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B.
The growing season for the Beaufort County ends on December 6th, and the final well and flow data were
collected on 12/10/20. The visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B were also collected in
December 2020 as noted.
2.1 Stream Assessment – Reaches UT2 and UT3
The UT2 and UT3 mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions
in a multi-thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document
stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The
methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Monitoring efforts focus
on visual observations and in-channel flow gauges/pressure transducers to document stream success.
As-built Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy
using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As-built Survey. This survey system collects point data with
an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Total observed area rainfall for the previous 12-month period from December 2019 through November
2020 was 60.5 inches, as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same period of 50.0
inches annually (see Figure 5 in Appendix D).
Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were originally installed in the UT2 channel along
with two flow gauges installed in the UT3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet
apart within the restored systems to document flow duration. Additionally, a fifth flow gauge (SCFL#7)
was installed approximately halfway between SCFL#4 and SCFL#3 on 6/6/18 in the upper portion of
UT2. As stated in the mitigation plan, annual success criteria are considered to have been met if 30
consecutive days of flow were observed at any point during the monitoring year, with two such 30-day
flow events having been documented in separate monitoring years. The individual flow gauge graphs
and the flow gauge success summary Table 11 are all located in Appendix D.
Additionally, during MY7 two cross-section transects were conducted in the upper portion of Reach
UT2 to help demonstrate flow and channel formation. Please see the Memorandum included in
Appendix D for more details.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches,
moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking at established
locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to provide an overall
view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of the stream photo points, wetland
wells, and flow gauges are all located in Appendix B.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

4
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland monitoring is conducted using eight automated groundwater-monitoring stations that are installed
within the UT-2 and UT-3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells installed in the
downstream portion of the UT-3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater monitoring stations
follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-rs-4.1 (USACE 1997) and the water
table monitoring standards follow Technical Note ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2 (USACE 2005). All wetland
restoration well data collected during Year 7 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
The automated loggers are programmed to collect data to document groundwater levels in the restored wetland
areas. The success criteria for wetland hydrology are considered to have been met when the site has
groundwater within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive number of days equal to a minimum of 12%
of the growing season. For Beaufort County, the growing season is from February 28 to December 6 (282
days), so 12% is a minimum of 33.8 consecutive days for the Site.
It should also be noted that while the success criteria stated in the mitigation plan for wetland hydroperiod is
12%, the 10/24/16 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update document states
that for the Tomotley soils series (which is mapped on the project site) the wetland hydroperiod range is 10%
to 12%.
Two more groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW10) were installed on 3/16/17 in areas located
outside the project’s currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas (see Figure 2 in Appendix
B). Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this time. Baker is simply
conducting exploratory monitoring in potential future wetland restoration areas. The three potential areas total
1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within the conservation
easement. Baker is not presenting this information here for formal approval or acceptance, but simply wishes
to inform NCDMS and the IRT of all project activity.
Additionally, during Year 7 monitoring, the connection pins on the wetland reference well SCAWREF2
degraded to the point where Baker was unable to connect and download the device. It has been sent to the
manufacturer (In-Situ) for their processing.

2.2.1 Wetlands Modifications Review
A brief summary of previous wetlands modifications is presented here as a review of relevant project
history. A more detailed description of this work was presented in the Year 3 report.
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the
easement boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 with the intent to drain water away from his nearby pine
plantation. The work was implemented without the knowledge of Baker and was discovered in the fall of
2015 during monitoring activities. To help remedy the situation, Baker oversaw three areas of drainage
modifications to the project in March of 2016: 1) Three French drains were installed under the farm road
along the northern portion of UT2 and were linked to wide, shallow swales cut into the buffer to reconnect
water flow from the adjacent landowner’s field that routinely ponded water behind the road. 2) The
drainage ditch running parallel to the easement boundary along the western portion of UT2 was filled,
and three wide, shallow swales were cut to connect the existing drainages within the pine plantation to
the project wetlands and buffer. 3) The drainage ditch running parallel to the easement boundary along
the western edge of UT3 was filled, and a shallow swale was cut to connect drainage from the pine
plantation into an existing shallow depression located within the existing wetland.

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7 (2020)

5
It was observed during the Year 7 monitoring that diffuse flow does move through all of the installed
swales, and all remain stable and vegetated. Additional groundwater monitoring wells 5-8 were installed
in April of 2016 specifically to observe the wetland restoration areas potentially affected by these
modifications. The locations of this previous work are provided in Figure 2 in Appendix B.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and the CVS-NCDMS data entry tool v 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with nine plots established randomly within
the Site’s planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are
100 square meters for woody tree species.
Complete Year 7 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix C.
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns
During Year 7 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) seedlings and short saplings were again found scattered
throughout the riparian buffer of the UT2 restoration area. It should be noted that the pines do not appear to be
suppressing planted species survival or growth as vegetation density appears strong throughout the project, even
in areas with pine presence. However, these pines will be treated and thinned again during the winter and/or
spring of 2021 using hand/power tools and/or chemical applications. The entire project will continue to be
closely observed for pine growth throughout the remaining monitoring period.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.

Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NC DEQ. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
____. 2005. “Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites,” WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

Appendix A

Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables and Files

264
306
99
92
264
Bu
r
b
a
g
e
R
d
S Savann
a
R
d
Peoples RdJackson Swamp
R
d
Bonnerton RdPamlico River
Project
Location
St. C
l
a
i
r

C
r
e
e
k
Belhaven
Bath
Beaufort County
33
32
264
306
17
0 1 2 30.5 Miles
Project
Location
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03020104040040.
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
north through a large field. The site is located where
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
downstream culvert crossing.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ 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 their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned
roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Figure 1Project Vicinity MapSt. Clair Creek Restoration Site
NCDEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
StreamBuffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus Nutrient OffsetType R R RE Totals 2,808 SMU / 466 SMU* 2.8 WMU 0 363,577 BMUStationing/ LocationRestoration/ Restoration EquivalentRestoration Footage or AcreageMitigation Ratio12+64 – 34+00 1,667 SMU / 466 SMU* 2,133 LF 1:110+66 – 22+82 1,141 SMU 1,141 LF 1:1See plan sheets 1.1 WMU 1.1 WMU 1:1See plan sheets 1.7 WMU 1.7 WMU 1:112+64 – 34+00 363,577 BMU 8.3 AC 1:1Stream (LF)Buffer (ft2) / (AC)Upland (AC)Riverine3,274 2.8226002 / 5.2137575 / 3.1Element LocationBMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry DetentionPond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area*The SMU credits shown here differ from those presented in previous monitoring reports. They have been reduced by 466 SMU that have been deemed potentially at-risk in the uppermost section of Reach UT2.BMP ElementsPurpose/Function NotesBuffer Zone A: 0-50 ftBuffer Zone B: 51-100 ftPreservationHigh Quality PreservationEnhancement IICreationRestorationEnhancement IComponent SummationRestoration Level Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)Non-RiverineUT3 Wetland 0.0 AC Restoration UT2 Buffer NA Restoration UT3 Stream 1,075 LF Headwater RestorationUT2 Wetland 0.0 AC Restoration Project ComponentsProject Component or Reach ID Existing Footage/ Acreage ApproachUT2 Stream 2,660 LF Headwater RestorationTable 1. Project Components and Mitigation CreditsSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95015Mitigation CreditsRiparian Wetland Non-riparian WetlandMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Activity or Report Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Jul-13
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep-13
MItigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Oct-13
Final Design – (at least 90% complete)N/A N/A Nov-13
Construction Begins N/A N/A Dec-13
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Mar-14
Planting of live stakes N/A N/A N/A
Planting of bare root trees N/A N/A Apr-14
End of Construction N/A N/A Apr-14
Survey of As-built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-baseline)N/A May-14 Jun-14
Year 1 Monitoring (2014)Nov-14 Dec-14 Dec-14
Year 2 Monitoring (2015)Nov-15 Nov-15 Mar-16
Year 3 Monitoring (2016)Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17
Pines thinned in Upper UT2
Ditches cut by landowner adjacent to easement were filled and
new swales cut to connect drainage onto project.
Additional groundwater wells #5-8 installed within credited area
near newly cut swales.
Year 4 Monitoring (2017)Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18
Additional groundwater wells #9 and #10 installed in non-credited
areas.
Pines thinned in Upper UT2 and UT3. Privet treated on Upper
UT2
Year 5 Monitoring (2018)Nov-18 Jan-19 Jan-19
Additional flow gauge #7 installed
Year 6 Monitoring (2019)Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20
Supplemental planting in Upper UT2
Pines thinned in Upper UT2
Year 7 Monitoring (2020)Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21
Pines thinned in Upper UT2
Installed in April 2016
May 2017
February 2019
March 2016
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95015
May and December 2020
April 2019
Installed in June 2018
Installed in March 2017
Conducted in March 2016
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
KBS Earthworks
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Michael Baker International
KBS Earthworks
Seed Mix Sources
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Michael Baker International
Monitoring Performers
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks Julian, NC 27283
5616 Coble Church Rd
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Superior Tree, 850-971-5159
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
Contact:
Julian, NC 27283
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Designer
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
5616 Coble Church Rd
Contact:
Seeding Contractor
Julian, NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore, Telephone: [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
DWQ Sub-basin
Project Drainage Area (AC)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters
Length of Reach (LF)
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
Drainage Area (AC)
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)*
Evolutionary Trend **
Underlying Mapped Soils
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft)
FEMA Classification
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
Parameters
Size of Wetland (AC)
Wetland Type
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Hydrologic Impairment
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
Parameters
Size of Wetland (AC)
Wetland Type
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Hydrologic Impairment
Native Vegetation Community
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
Applicable Supporting Documentation**
Yes (Appendix B)
Yes (Appendix B)
No Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
No Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
No Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Yes (Appendix B)
No Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A
Notes:
* Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is
questionable due to its highly altered state. ** Supporting documentation is including in the approved Final Mitigation Plan.
Endangered Species Act N/A
Historic Preservation Act N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) N/A
Regulation Resolved
Waters of the United States – Section 404 Yes
Waters of the United States – Section 401 Yes
Hydric
Groundwater
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
17.5
Watershed Summary Information
Stream Reach Summary Information
Reach UT2 Reach UT3
Restored GRestored G
2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing) 1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing)
X
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Table 4. Project Attributes
1.7
Hydric
Groundwater
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
<5%
Wetland Along UT3
Wetland Along UT2
Riparian Riverine
To – Tomotley fine sandy loam
Poorly drained
Riparian Riverine
To – Tomotley fine sandy loam
Poorly drained
0.0006 0.0009
SFHA, AE SFHA, AE
1.1
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
<5% <5%
Wetland Summary Information
C; Sw, NSW C; Sw, NSW
Channelized Headwater System (Perennial) Channelized Headwater System (Intermittent)
Hydric Hydric
03 03 07
89 (UT2), 30 (UT3)
<1%
3.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation;
To, Hy, Ro
Very poorly drained, poorly drained Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
To, At
36 20
35.452835 N, -76.76726215 W
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Beaufort
Project Information
X
89 30
Outer Coastal Plain
Tar-Pamlico
03020104 / 03020104040040
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Water Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
January 7, 2016
Kristin Miguez
DEQ-Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-I652
(via electronic mail)
PAT MCCRQRY
Governor
DONALD R.. VAN DER VAART
seco'nar3'
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Dfre[Yo!
DWR# 2013-0739
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation — St Clair Creek Headwater Stream Site
off Peoples Road, Bath, NC
Beaufort County
Dear Ms. Miguez,
On October 5, 2015, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), received a
request from Jake Byers with Michael Baker Engineering, for a site visit at the St. Clair Creek
Restoration Site located off Peoples Road in Bath, NC to determine the potential for Tar -Pamlico
Neuse riparian buffer mitigation. On December 3, 2015, Ms. Merritt perfonned a site
assessment of the subject site. Karen Higgins and Mac Haupt with the DWR along with you and
Mr. Byers were also present. If approved, mitigating this site could provide riparian buffer
mitigation credits within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020104 of the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin and as allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (f).
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the site as an alternative buffer mitigation option for buffer
mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (1) and (2) (effective November 1, 2015)
is provided below:
UT2
• UT2 was approved as part of a Coastal Headwater Stream Mitigation Site (DWR# 2013-
0739) by the IRT in 2013 and is in its second year of monitoring. A copy of the approved
mitigation plan has been provided to the DWR.
■ Preliminary site conditions along with the onsite visit in December 2015 suggests that the
entire area along UT2 (0-100') is viable for riparian restoration and suitable for buffer
mitigation credit at 1: 1. Preliminary photos and documentation have been provided to the
DWR.
• The buffer must be measured perpendicular to the length of the valley being restored.
Approximately 8.35 acres (363,577 t}2) have been planted and restored. A copy of the
proposed restoration site has been provided to DWR.
• An agricultural ditch is present within the proposed riparian restoration and isn't planned
to be removed. The presence of this ditch does not comply with the diffluse flow
requirement of Rule .0295. However, DMS can apply Clarification Memo #2008-019 to
State of North Carolina + ! nvimnmental Quality I VV&W Resoarees
1617 Mall Service Canter Raleigh. NoAh C'at6ma Z7699-16T7
919 807 6300

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Buffer Mitigation Viability
January 7, 2015
Page 2 of 2
this project in order to calculate the deduction of buffer credit where diffuse flow cannot
be attained.
According to the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Year 1 Monitoring Report submitted
in April 2015, all 6 vegetative monitoring plots within the riparian areas are meeting the
success criteria identified in Rule .0295. A copy of the Year l Monitoring Report has
been provided to the DWR.
A conservation easement of the proposed area, dated June 20, 2013 has been provided
to the DWR and is more accurately described as CE-1 and containing 11.55 acres, more
or less. The easement document is located in the Beaufort County Register of Deeds,
Book 1821, Pages 53-64.
A map showing the project site and the buffer mitigation areas assessed is provided and signed
by Ms. Merritt on January 6, 2016. DWR did not assess this site for viability of nutrient offset
and therefore only buffer mitigation is approved. DMS shall provide an annual monitoring
report to Ms. Merritt for review and approval each year for four more years and until the
performance standards have been met. The performance standards for buffer mitigation under
Rule .0295 are the following:
(n) (2) (B) - A minimum of four native hardwood tree species or,/bur native Hardwood tree and
native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the stems.
(a) (2) mill success criteria specified in the approval of the stream mitigation site by the Division
shall be met.
Please provide an As -Built survey verifying the acreage proposed for buffer mitigation credit and
a buffer credit ledger for this site to Ms_ Merritt within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-637 L
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
KAHIkm
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, DWR Clarification Memo #2008-019
cc Tile Copy ( Katie Merritt)

■ ❑
or'-'r.+l1_ r r i/ 1!4 t , \ • (� �p N CDK CD
f=
a) O:
f i i i�fr tD N CL
C �7
Nram. ,=� � y'i' �• k' " ;,;+' f� '.� ti, CD GND
V c. N ,• t. r .r .� .. - . cnn cQ
f. o Ln
03
0
n
n
r
H � w
a RBI
y �
to
/'.. N
Z
Yrt �
C
❑3 �
� C7 Q
0. Q N
z
�..
et
L A" ` T
,._ d r �� � • f+fir l." - r� -� �� r FN•. r _ - � f � •
if
� � •,.� -.}� r.Y .S.- - y��» '�'�'� ,� 1, � ^.ram Y
VA 1
At u
. _.
f • Y�

t 11aiacl I' I gylr+
[ usvepsi a
Willuun 6 Russ. Jr.. 5erretwn
t)epamnrnl Of l-nvlrtmrmni and Nnlu rill trSotiteo
Uo een. rl Sullins, DiNclo
DIViswn of waler QVt;rlrly
Au ILINI N. 2008
!iull�i Inn rprrtttsi0n'S'lariticasinn::�(tfl�-hl'�
11F1I+f RANDILIM
I�i I IIc Winer OttriIdl '4 iDWQ'q wince on whether diMise llow ol'stormv deer through the newly restored buffer, -on
iJj .jIIOn'Niles shouId he a requirement. Diffuse llot% is a requirement ror buffer restoration or enhancement in the Meuse River
[;Iglu Huller Rute 1 SA NCAC 02B.0242(9Xdl(iii). the l ar-Parnlico River Basin Buffer Mule 15A NCACU2B.02600)(d)(iii). and tits
- .ii.ltt ihil River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02Bi 0244 t9lldi(.iii1.
f )iduse floxv is a requirement for all sites in a buffered basin litr bufTer mitiealion and for for sites providing nutrient offset credit a:
hell.
Current P[mtick Aecordin,, to the Mitigation rules in rife Neuse- Tar -Pamlico art Catawba buffer rules, a grading plan must he
riovided ror huITer mitigation sires• In add it inn, tll0se rules state Char "The site shall be graded in a manner W ensure diMise fluty
illnouph ilie riparian huffier'.
I'rtihlem, I lie ttttc,lion hat' been raised as to whether stumiwaier carried by lateral ditches that eniet hullered streams Owtild providr
tlilli sc Ilrtsv prior to that'Slormwater enteriq the restored buffers.
soluflon' The Neuse. Tar -Pamlico and Catawba huller rules %kith respect to buffer mitigation sites contain a veryBlear requiremem
iftai states that diffuse flow al'siorni► aler roust he maintained through tilt buffer, Unless Wietnvise approved by ❑WQ. all butte:
Istitivalton ii{es Must provide diNil, e flow of % I ortirs wate r I¢tmt diICIll + and simiIarconvevanccs throua1) the restated huller.
Wherr Such diflilse flow Cannot be attained and where DIXQ agrees that'Such ireatlneul is not possible, deduction of- hisfler credii tviII
ire [alctilatcd ,>v Follows:
SCENARIO 1
IJ
141t "olt qnd• I. ':rlI iCallon I ow
tore %Cell seniar [ oitc1 kalcigii. tiI+nII t amhna-'7(V`Jy-)tiM1
I t I,ihurr iItmkN vd. tii+lr2 aletgir. Eurtlr t':irs+fina 76W
h • i l r-';t-1��r, 11\ +iy_ +3-nHI)� hncrm! htlp t?ss-crosia�c nr.u,ri �ti:ends
,H
`zn
Une
NonhCilrohll:l
,XlTfurvl4il
n - I'i.d I gq4,llliiiit% li Ili PIPAIN: %Minn 1 iuplowt - 510I. t(t y[ led 111°s, t'u+i t nmuinel Iallo

Page 2 of 4
A. B and C are angles. a, b, and c are distances (lengths)
0WQ believes that using an immediate drainage area extending at a 60-degree angle from the point of discharge to the stream is a
reasonable approach to the issue of determining the area which is not draining through the restored buffer. To calculate the area of
buffer being "short-circuited" by the ditch, the area of the right triangles shown in the figure above must be determined.
a = 50'
A=30'
$=60"
b=acot A
b = 50 (1,732)
b = 86.6' (871)
The arcs to be excluded from credit would be the area of the two right triangles;
Area = (a x b)12
Area - (50 feet x 87feet)12
Area = 2,175 SF
Total deducted area = 2,175 x 2 = 4,350 SF or 0.1 acres.
The example shown above assumes a buffer width of 50 feet from the top of bank (riparian buffer mitigation site). For nutrient offset
sites, credit can be generated out to 200 feet from the top of bank. The policy applies to sites with larger buffers as follows:
fiC IRNAR10 2
401 Wetlands Certificalton Unit
1650 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]I FAX [phone]Internet: Into:! 1120ec tr.slatc.ne.uS pot ellanJs
NorthCarolina
Naturally
An I-'qt:al OpponunAyIARirmative Action FmpIoycr - 5t]4•a Peeycled/ 10% Punt Consumer Paper

Page 3 of a
II it ditch leafing to a buffered stream is bufered. then no credit is deducted from the stream buffer. lithe upstream origin of the ditch
I.- %+it It in the till Ner. no credll IS deducted. ICIlie upstream Origin of the ditch is not bAlered (e.g. if the ditch begins upstream r+iTsite
tllr crcdil deductum is applied to the mom upstream portion of'the ditch On the propene.
SCENARIO 3
crtFArr "ml
�k I w I C .I Imrt ,[1rlt 111 interconnecting ditches occurs on a si3c. and all Of the ditches are buffered. the anly credit deducumi wrutld be io
IIic I,,+Int 55lie re ate uithuffered ditch enters the project:
LYE t11.mm Fj1115 l
Cub M
qm if • G,r Ik ,
1'11 '4 1[ZIIk h I c;al l•In 1 nll
I' I-nl',: 1 � � i+1To 14 a I.i,1, 't l 1 li l ll ,l 1 I111111 :•7!�'�`�-I�i� 11
Ih11 C 11n1dr+;old, NUIIC 2+11, I(ulelg11 \ut1f1 o ahlbrnl, '_ ih114
I'lal, �•I'1_.._I�kr• .I %XilN-;5;-MQ; Iilemo hAIA.lir-'-O jswraia I L; .II.kiVImcrI n
li,IIo IL"111) Itlrmmna Ait111111'ulpluSCt =n' It e�chJ lii", I1nsl L iU1sgI11Ci I'nper
01w
NonhC'aro lna
A7,111mi!!1

Page d of d
Where a natural stream enters the project site, no deduction of credit will occur. Also, when a natural stream or a modified natural
stream now into a buffered stream, no deduction of credit will occur. The modified natural stream must be subject to the busier rules,
ar;d must be ver-:tied to be a modified natural strea it, (as opposed to a ditch) through an on -site determination by DWQ personnel.
, !NARJO 5
a*
Uo »
.N
--I
'FAI,ft MTWAL Cff4W'p
For any additional questions or cluriftt:ations on this issue, please contact Eric Kula or Amy Chapman at [phone],
Signature Date: �,I I 19/ Z oa E
5rgnature:�
dill Wctlwnds CcrtiCcation Unit
1650 Mail Servicc Center, Ralcigh, North Carniina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Btwltvard, Suitt: 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phuns 'J 19-73 3 -17 96 1 FALX 919-73 34 89311ntmncl.;LUPSt?o.enr,51a,e.nc_uVncwc1lands
A t_ittill l t]prwrsdntty7AFri rmaIive Aotian Emplayer - SO% RecyrlcdlIOV, Po51 Co mumei I'aper
Date: 1-15 foci
NPCr[hCaTOItna
)Vatuivily

Meeting Minutes
St. Clair RESTORATION PROJECT
DMS Project ID. 95015
DWR Project# 13-0739, Beaufort County
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar-Parmlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Date Prepared: May 20, 2019
Meeting Date, Time,
Location: May 16, 2019, 10:30 am
On-site (Beaufort County, NC)
Attendees:
USACE – Kim Browning
DMS – Jeff Schaffer, Jeremiah Dow, Melanie Allen
DWR – Erin Davis
WRC – Travis Wilson, Maria Dunn
Baker – Drew Powers, Katie McKeithan
Subject: Credit release site walkover with IRT
Recorded By: Drew Powers

An on-site meeting was held on May 16th, 2019 at 10:30 am to discuss St.Clair Restoration Project (Full
Delivery) in Beaufort County, NC. The purposes of this meeting were to:
1. Discuss credits to be released and to get ready for project closeout; and
2. Identify and discuss potential concerns/issues based on field observations.

General recent weather conditions have been hot and dry in the area.

UT2
The group met at the entrance of the path leading to the site off Peoples Road in Bath, NC. A general
site overview and map orientation was provided and discussed. The group then started walking into the
site near monitoring well 5 where Melanie and Erin took a soil sample within the wetland boundary. The
soils showed mottling and developing hydric features. The group walked upstream.

Both Kim and Erin questioned if the site had previous supplemental planting due to the height of some
of the trees they encountered. Katie replied that there had been supplemental planting (40
containerized plants were installed in early 2019). Erin mentioned that the vigor of the trees looked
good for the most part and noticed an effort to control the pine tree population. Kim mentioned, with
the surrounding pine tree population, that the elimination of all pine trees is inevitable but was glad to
see that efforts have been made. Another soil sample was taken near monitoring well 2. Melanie and
Erin both were more pleased with the results of this sample as it showed more distinct hydric indicators.

The group continued up UT2 towards flow gauge 3. As a group, we inspected the stream area looking at
signs of water, flow, veg, and overall conditions of the stream. The stream was dry but had evidence of
water and the group all agreed that water flows in this area. Katie shared all the flow gauges have
already met 30 days of continuous flow this year (2019) and the Mitigation Plan’s success criteria calls
for two years with 30 consecutive days to be accepted. At this time the group separated and headed up
to the main area of concern flow gauges 4 and 7. Along the way, Jeff referenced the coastal headwater
streams guidance and how bed and bank formation is not the design for this Rosgen DA stream type.
Kim seemed to recall the Mitigation Plan stating that and agreed with the design. She said she was more
concerned with the flow of the water and amount of water that was moving through the system. Jeff
mentioned that he has visited the site on many occasions and it typically has wet channel conditions
with water up to his ankles. As the group made it to flow gauge 7 they noticed a small hole in the ground
about 1” in diameter about 6” downstream of the gauge, that some believed could be tampering with
the results. Both Kim and Travis questioned our results of 84 consecutive days as of March 26th this year
considering how different flow gauge 7 and 3 were from each other. Travis mentioned that it might be
appropriate to check the gauges and confirm that the gauges are reading properly. The group then
headed to flow gauge 4 still looking at veg and channel condition. Melanie and Erin took another soil
sample right by the gauge and confirmed the hydric soils and could see a difference in the wetland soils
compared to the stream soils. Out of curiosity Erin took a soil sample on the floodplain outside of the
swale. This confirmed that these soils were upland and much different than both the stream and
wetlands previous. This concluded the UT2 portion of the walk through and the group decided to
continue to UT3.

UT3
The group congregated at the top of UT3 at monitoring well 8 to orient themselves with the map and
discuss the area. Erin mentioned that the veg looked good and could notice pine and sweetgum
removal. Maria and Travis began looking at the ditches in the easement and outside the easement while
Jeremiah, Erin, and Melanie took a soil sample by monitoring well 7. The soils were dry but showed good
hydric indicators throughout the soil. After this the group fast tracked to the culverts at the bottom of
UT3 to look for flow and culvert placement. On the way, Erin asked Drew if invasive have been treated
and he replied that no invasive species have been an issue on this site. Once the group got to the culvert
they made there way in the stream towards flow gauge 5. Kim saw no issues with the gauge or stream
and Travis was fine with the culverts. This concluded the UT3 walk through.

This concluded the walkover and below are a few notes that were discussed back at the vehicles before
departure.

Erin summarized soils:
- soils look better than expected, seeing hydric indicators except near veg plot 5 which was
showing mottling and developing hydric indicators.
- dark surface soil
- wetlands were a sandy/loam and the reach turned silt
- stream soils differed from the wetland and upland soils
Travis commented:
- flow gauges should be checked for proper installation and maintenance to make sure they
are accurately matching the onsite evidence of flow
Kim’s summary:
- USACE will be looking for a stream JD at close out. UT3 looks OK; however, the upper
section of UT2 is questionable.
- Ditch manipulations from the adjacent ag fields (currently drained and being maintenance)
may not be helping the site.
- Vegetation along UT3 does not look like a wetland with evidence of black berry and ant hills.
Soils do appear to be wetting.
- Some of the vegetation onsite is a little short. There is a strong pine seed source, but
Michael Baker has worked on the population on-site.
- Release:
o At risk at top of UT2, recommend holding.
o Wetlands held at MY 3 and 4, OK with releasing this year.
o Melanie will make a recommendation for release.

This represents Baker Engineering's best interpretation of the meeting discussions. If anyone should find
any information contained in these meeting notes to be in error and/or incomplete based on individual
comments or conversations, please notify me with corrections/additions as soon as possible.

Most sincerely,

Andrew Powers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
%2
UT 2
UT 3
Veg Plot 9:
688 stems/ac Veg Plot 8:
486 stems/ac
Veg Plot 7:
890 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6:
364 stems/ac
Veg Plot 4:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 3:
688 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 1:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 5:
567 stems/ac
SCAW6
SCAW5
SCAW7
SCAW8
0.26 acres
0.66 acres
0.13 acres
SCAW1
SCAW2
SCAW9
SCAW10
SCAW4
SCAW3
Gauge #7
Veg Transect:
653 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
435 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
653 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
471 stems/ac
Veg Transect:
580 stems/ac
PP21
Gauge #6
Gauge #5
Gauge #1
Gauge #2
Gauge #3
Gauge #4
PP9
PP8
PP7
PP6
PP5
PP4
PP3 PP2 PP1
PP24
PP15
PP13
PP14
PP12
PP11
PP10
PP23
PP22
PP20
PP19
PP18
PP17
PP16
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis, NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information
and Analysis, NC 911 Board
0 250 500Feet
Figure 2Current Conditions Plan View: MY5St. Clair Creek SiteBeaufort County, NCNCDEQ - Division of Mitigation ServicesProject # 95015
Conservation Easement
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages Filled (March 2016)
Drainage Not Filled
#0 Photo Points
!(Groundwater Monitoring Wells (All Passed)
Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria (with MY5 Stem Densities)
Temporary Vegetation Transects (with Stem Densities)
Wetland Restoration Areas (2.87 acres total)
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas (1.05 acres total)
Survey / Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2018 & Jan 2019
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
%2 Flow Gauge Meeting Criteria
%2 Flow Gauge Not Meeting Criteria
As-Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Credit
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft (226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio = 226,002 BMUs)
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft (137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio = 137,575 BMUs)
Rev: 14Jan2019
The potential wetland areas shown here are not being
requested for credits at this time and were not originally
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting
exploratory monitoring in these areas only.

Appendix B

Visual Assessment Data

UT 2
UT 3
Veg Plot 9:
728 stems/ac Veg Plot 8:
445 stems/ac
Veg Plot 7:
931 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6:
364 stems/ac
Veg Plot 4:
607 stems/ac
Veg Plot 3:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 1:
445 stems/ac
Veg Plot 5:
526 stems/ac
SCAW6
SCAW5
SCAW7
SCAW8
0.26 acres
0.66 acres
0.13 acres
SCAW1
SCAW2
SCAW9
SCAW10
SCAW4
SCAW3
Gauge #7
PP21
Gauge #4
Gauge #3
Gauge #1
Gauge #2
Gauge #6
Gauge #5
XS-1
XS-2
PP9
PP8
PP7
PP6
PP5
PP4
PP3 PP2
PP1
PP24
PP15
PP13
PP14
PP12
PP11
PP10
PP23
PP22
PP20
PP19 PP18
PP17
PP16
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
0 250 500Feet
Figure 2Current Conditions Plan View: MY7St. Clair Creek SiteBeaufort County, NC
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation ServicesProject # 95015
Conservation Easement
Cross-Section Transects
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages Filled (March 2016)
Drainage Not Filled
Flow Gauges (All Passed in MY7)
Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Pass
Fail
Vegetation Plots (All Passed in MY7)
Wetland Restoration Areas (2.87 acres total)
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas (1.05 acres total)
Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2020
Aerial Photo Date: 2020
Photo Points
As-Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Credit
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft (226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio = 226,002 BMUs)
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft (137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio = 137,575 BMUs)
The potential wetland areas shown here are not being
requested for credits at this time and were not originally
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting
exploratory monitoring in these areas only.
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable (Performing as Intended)Total Number per As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation00100%2. Degradation00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture SubstrateNANA1. DepthNANA2. LengthNANA1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NANA2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)NANA3. Thalweg centering along valleyYes2,133 LF1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100% 0 2,133 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely00100% 0 2,133 100%3. Mass WastingBanks slumping, caving or collapse00100% 0 2,133 100%00100% 0 2,133 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logsNANA2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sillNANA2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or armsNANA3. Bank PositionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%NANA4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth NANA3. Engineering StructuresTotalsReach ID: UT21. Bed1.Vertical StabilityTable 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Assessed Length (LF): 2,1333. Meander Pool Condition4. Thalweg Position2. BankMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable (Performing as Intended)Total Number per As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable Footage% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Footage with Stabilizing Woody Veg.Adjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Veg.1. Aggradation00100%2. Degradation00100%2. Riffle Condition1. Texture SubstrateNANA1. DepthNANA2. LengthNANA1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)NANA2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)NANA3. Thalweg centering along valleyYes1,141 LF1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion00100% 0 1,141 100%2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely00100% 0 1,141 100%3. Mass WastingBanks slumping, caving or collapse00100% 0 1,141 100%00100% 0 1,141 100%1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logsNANA2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sillNANA2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or armsNANA3. Bank PositionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%NANA4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth NANA2. BankTotals3. Engineering StructuresTable 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Reach ID: UT3Assessed Length (LF): 1,1411. Bed1.Vertical Stability3. Meander Pool Condition4. Thalweg PositionMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
None Observed ------
Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Vegetation CategoryDefintionsMapping Threshold (acres) CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasVery limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%Vegetation CategoryDefintionsMapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage5. Invasive Areas of ConcernAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)1000 ft² NA 0 0.00 0.0%6. Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)none NA 0 0.00 0.0%Vegetation Category DefintionsMapping Threshold (acres) CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasVery limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%0 0.00 0.0%Vegetation Category DefintionsMapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)1000 ft² NA 0 0.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment AreasAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)none NA 0 0.00 0.0%Cumulative TotalEasement Acreage:Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment St. Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Reach ID: UT3Planted Acreage: 5.9TotalEasement Acreage:Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Cumulative TotalTotalReach ID: UT2Planted Acreage: 11.6 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Resolution
Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Scattered throughout buffer on
upper UT-2 Post-restoraton seed sourceLoblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)Will be treated in 2021 with power tools and/or
chemical application.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)

Photo Point 1 – UT2 Photo Point 2 – UT2

Photo Point 3 – UT2 Photo Point 4 – UT2

Photo Point 5 – UT2 Photo Point 6 – UT2
St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)

Photo Point 7 – UT2 Photo Point 8 – UT2

Photo Point 9 – UT2 Photo Point 10 – UT2

Photo Point 11 – UT2 Photo Point 12 – UT2
St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)

Photo Point 13 – UT2 Photo Point 14 – UT2

Photo Point 15 – UT2 Photo Point 16 – UT3

Photo Point 17 – UT3 Photo Point 18 – UT3
St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)

Photo Point 19 – UT3 Photo Point 20 – UT3

Photo Point 21 – UT3 Photo Point 22 – UT3

Photo Point 23 – UT3 Photo Point 24 – UT3

St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)

Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge #4 Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge #4 (close-up)

Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge #7

St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/10/20)

Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2

Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4

Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/10/20)

Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 8

Vegetation Plot 9

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)

Auto Well – SCAW1 Auto Well – SCAW2

Auto Well – SCAW3 Auto Well – SCAW4

Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW5 Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)

Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW7 Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW8

Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW9 Supplemental Auto Well – SCAW10

Reference Auto Well – SCREF2

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)

Flow Logger (UT2) – SCFL1 Flow Logger (UT2) – SCFL2

Flow Logger (UT2) – SCFL3 Flow Logger (UT2) – SCFL4

Flow Logger (UT3) – SCFL5 Flow Logger (UT3) – SCFL6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)

Flow Logger (UT2) – SCFL7

Appendix C

Vegetation Plot Data

Plot ID
MY7 Planted Density /
As-built Planted Stem
Density*
1 445/728
2 647/648
3 647/688
4 607/728
5 526/688
6 364/486
7 931/1,174
8 445/728
9 728/769
Y
Y
Y
Y
Note: *MY7 Planted Density / As-built Planted Stem Density - reflects the changes in stem density based on the
current total density of planted stems as compared to the original planted stem density from the As-built conditions.
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?Tract Mean
Y
594
Y
Y
Y
Y
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Report Prepared ByAndrew PowersDate Prepared12/18/2020 12:00database nameMichaelBaker_MY7_2020_StClair_95015.mdbdatabase locationC:\Users\Andrew.Powers\Desktopcomputer nameCARYLAPOWERS1file size48177152DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------MetadataDescription of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Proj, plantedEach project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.Proj, 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 Code95015project NameSt Clair Creek Restoration ProjectDescriptionRiver BasinTar-Pamlicolength(ft)stream-to-edge width (ft)area (sq m)Required Plots (calculated)Sampled Plots9Table 8. CVS Vegetation MetadataSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and SpeciesSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015CommentSpeciesSpecies TypeCommon NameTotal Planted Stems# plotsavg# stemsplot 95015-01-0001-year:7plot 95015-01-0002-year:7plot 95015-01-0003-year:7plot 95015-01-0004-year:7plot 95015-01-0005-year:7plot 95015-01-0006-year:7plot 95015-01-0007-year:7plot 95015-01-0008-year:7plot 95015-01-0009-year:7Aronia arbutifoliaShrub Red Chokeberry522.5 41Carpinus carolinianaShrub Tree American hornbeam541.25 1112Clethra alnifoliaShrub coastal sweetpepperbush1111Fraxinus pennsylvanicaTree green ash5 4 1.25 2111Morella ceriferaShrub Tree wax myrtle2211 1Nyssa sylvaticaTree blackgum7 3 2.3314 2Persea palustrisTree swamp bay62324Quercus laurifoliaTree laurel oak9331 3 5Quercus lyrataTree overcup oak1572.14421 2 213Quercus michauxiiTree swamp chestnut oak2764.514 4558Quercus phellosTree willow oak1152.251113Taxodium distichumTree bald cypress1543.75 437 1Ulmus americanaTree American elm1963.171 42 14 7Vaccinium corymbosumShrub highbush blueberry1111Viburnum dentatumShrub Tree southern arrowwood42213Totals:132 1511 16 16 15 13 9 23 11 18MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
123456 7 89Acer rubrumred maple21 632Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash21 11Liquidambar styracifluasweetgum214311 5 35Nyssa sylvaticablackgum142Pinus taedaloblolly pine222262 4 45Quercus laurifolialaurel oak635Quercus lyrataovercup oak421122 13Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oak14455 8Quercus phelloswillow oak5111 4Taxodium distichumbald cypress4371Ulmus americanaAmerican elm14224 7Aronia arbutifoliaRed Chokeberry41BaccharisSalt myrtle3123483Carpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam1112Clethra alnifoliacoastal sweetpepperbush1Morella ceriferawax myrtle23222132Persea palustrisswamp bay25Rhus copallinumflameleaf sumac55321 1Vaccinium corymbosumhighbush blueberry1Viburnum dentatumsouthern arrowwood13Average Stems Per Acre27 29 31 29 34 22 37 23 331093 1174 1255 1174 1376 890 1497 931 13351192769 728 648 769 688 607 1012 486 809724809 688 728 647 607 445 1012 486 8096921052 1052 809 850 769 405 1133 680 728831567 648 648 648 526 364 850 526 688607607 648 648 648 526 405 1012 607 688643688 648 648 648 648 445 1052 648 728683728 648 688 728 688 486 1174 728 769737Total Stems/Acre Year 5 (December 2018)Total Stems/Acre Year 4 (October 2017)Total Stems/Acre Year 3 (December 2016)Total Stems/Acre Year 2 (November 2015)Total Stems/Acre Year 1 (December 2014)Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As-Built (Baseline Data)Shrub SpeciesStems Per Plot (December 2020)Total Stems/Acre Year 7 (December 2020)Total Stems/Acre Year 6 (December 2019)Table 9b. Stem Count for All Species (Planted and Volunteer) Arranged by PlotSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Botanical NameCommon NamePlotsTree SpeciesMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
PV T PV T PVTPVTPVTPVTPV T PVTPVTAcer rubrumred maple Tree 2 2 1 166 3 3 22Aronia arbutifoliaRed Chokeberry Shrub 4 411Baccharis halimifoliaeastern baccharis Shrub 33 11 22334488 33Carpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam Tree 1 11 11122Clethra alnifoliacoastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1Cornus foeminastiff dogwood Shrub TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1Liquidambar styracifluasweetgum Tree 22 11 4433111155 3355Morella ceriferawax myrtle shrub 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2Nyssa sylvaticablackgum Tree 1 14422Persea palustrisswamp bay tree22415Pinus taedaloblolly pine Tree 2 2 2 2 22 22 66 22 4 4 44 55Quercus laurifolialaurel oak Tree 1 5 6 3 3 5 5Quercus lyrataovercup oak Tree 4 4 2 2 1 1 112 2 2 2 1 13 3Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 4 4 4 45 55 58 8Quercus pagodacherrybark oakTreeQuercus phelloswillow oakTree55111111314Quercus rubranorthern red oakTreeRhus copallinumflameleaf sumacshrub5 5 55 33 22 11 1 1Salix nigrablack willowTreeTaxodium distichumbald cypressTree44 33 7711Ulmus alatawinged elmTreeUlmus americanaAmerican elmTree1144 221 1 2 4477UnknownShrub or TreeVaccinium corymbosumhighbush blueberryShrub11Viburnum dentatumsouthern arrowwoodShrub1133Stem count11 16 27 16 13 29 16 15 31 15 14 29 13 21 34 9 13 22 23 14 37 11 12 23 18 15 33size (ares)size (ACRES)Species count6611 6612 55105611461055975 11 5486510Stems per ACRE445 647 1,093 647 526 1,174 647 607 1,255 607 567 1,174 526 850 1,376 364 526 890 931 567 1,497 445 486 931 728 607 1,335Scientific Name Common Name Species TypePV T PV T PVTPVTPVTPVTPV TAcer rubrumred maple Tree 14 14 2 2P = PlantedAronia arbutifoliared chokeberry Shrub 5 5 5 5 6 66 66 66 66 6V = VolunteerBaccharis halimifoliasalt myrtle Shrub 24 24 7 7T = TotalCarpinus carolinianaAmerican hornbeam Tree 5 5 4 4 4 43144 44 43 3Clethra alnifoliacoastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1Cornus foeminastiff dogwood Shrub Tree22Includes Volunteers:Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree 5 5 5 5 5 55 55 55 54 4Liquidambar styracifluasweetgum Tree 25 25 3 377Morella ceriferawax myrtleshrub2 15 17 2 1 3 2 2 4 11 11 11 11Nyssa sylvaticablackgumTree77 77 77 77 55 77 66Color Key for Stem Density:Persea palustrisswamp bay tree 61 7 6 6 6176 66286 66 6Pinus taedaloblolly pine Tree 26 29 12 12 90 90Quercus laurifolialaurel oak Tree 9514 9 9 9 98 88 88 814 14Quercus lyrataovercup oak Tree 15 1 16 14 2 16 15 6 21 14 1 15 14 14 14 14 17 17Quercus michauxiiswamp chestnut oak Tree 27 27 27 2 29 27 27 27 27 26 26 27 27 25 25Quercus pagodacherrybark oak Tree11 11Quercus phelloswillow oak Tree 11 1 12 10 1 11 10 2 12 10 10 12 12 15 15 11 11Quercus rubranorthern red oak Tree 1 1Rhus copallinumflameleaf sumac shrub 17 17 1 1Salix nigrablack willow Tree11 11Taxodium distichumbald cypress Tree 15 1516 16161616161616161619 19Ulmus alatawinged elm Tree22Ulmus americanaAmerican elm Tree 19 1 20 19 19 19 1 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 21 21UnknownShrub or Tree55Vaccinium corymbosumhighbush blueberry Shrub 1 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5Viburnum dentatumsouthern arrowwood Shrub 4 4 4 4 7 78 88 88 86 6Stem count132 130 265 132 29 161 137 17 154 134 3 137 135 103 238 143 0 143 152 0 152size (ares)size (ACRES)Species count13 11 20 13 8 19 13 8 18 13 3 14 13 6 18 13 0 13 14 0 14Stems per ACRE594 585 1,192 594 130 724 616 76 692 603 13 616 607 463 1,070 643 0 643 683 0 6830.220.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22Exceeds requirements by 10%9 9 9999 90.02 0.02 0.02MY7 (2020) MY6 (2019) MY5 (2018) MY4 (2017) MY3 (2016) MY2 (2015) MY1 (2014)11110.020.020.020.020.020.0295015‐01‐000595015‐01‐000695015‐01‐000795015‐01‐000895015‐01‐00091 1 111Table 9c. Yearly Density Per PlotSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015Current Plot Data (MY6 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type95015‐01‐0001 95015‐01‐0002 95015‐01‐0003 95015‐01‐0004MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
St Clair Creek Restoration Project (#95015)
Plot #Riparian Buffer
Stems1
Stream/ Wetland
Stems2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total4 Unknown Growth
Form
1 911 0 0 1627 0
2 12 16 0 0 13 29 0
3 16 16 0 0 15 31 0
4 15 15 0 0 14 29 0
5 13 13 0 0 21 34 0
6 89 0 0 1322 0
7 n/a 23 0 0 14 37 0
8 n/a 11 0 0 12 23 0
9 n/a 18 0 0 15 33 0
Plot #Stream/ Wetland
Stems2 Volunteers3 Total4 Success Criteria
Met?
1 445 647 1093 Yes
2 647 526 1174 Yes
3 647 607 1255 Yes
4 607 567 1174 Yes
5 526 850 1376 Yes
6 364 526 890 Yes
7 931 567 1497 Yes
8 445 486 931 Yes
9 728 607 1335 Yes
Project Avg 594 598 1192 Yes
Plot #Riparian Buffer Stems1 Success Criteria
Met?
1 364 Yes
2 486 Yes
3 647 Yes
4 607 Yes
5 526 Yes
6 324 Yes
7*n/a n/a
8*n/a n/a
9*n/a n/a
Project Avg 492 Yes
*These plots are not located in areas receiving riparian buffer credits
Stem Class Characteristics
1Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood stems including trees and native shrub species. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than
10%
Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Year 7 (10-Dec-2020)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix D

Hydrologic Data

Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)SCAW11.0 12.3 13.1 33.7 23.0 13.1 17.7 3 3537 95 65 3750 8.5 39.3 61.7 68.1 68.1 40.1 46.8 24 111 174 192192113 132SCAW2 3.8 3.3 9.2 10.6 13.1 12.8 17.7 11 926 30 37 3650 30.6 16.1 19.9 51.1 59.9 41.1 52.5 86 46 56 144169116 148SCAW3 2.3 13.4 9.6 11.0 13.1 12.4 17.7 7 3827 31 37 3550 9.4 37.5 44.3 26.2 47.2 33.0 44.7 27 106 125 7413393 126SCAW4 7.8 12.3 6.0 11.0 22.3 13.1 17.4 22 3517 31 63 3749 17.3 20.3 35.8 25.9 57.8 25.5 34.4 49 57 101 7316372 97SCAW5* -- -- 12.8 11.3 23.4 21.6 26.6 -- --36 32 66 6175 -- -- 46.8 69.968.147.9 73.0 -- -- 132 197192135 206SCAW6* -- -- 3.9 10.3 12.4 12.8 15.6 -- --11 29 35 3644 -- -- 19.9 32.653.933.0 37.9 -- -- 56 9215293 107SCAW7* -- -- 9.6 11.3 22.3 13.1 17.7 -- --27 32 63 3750 -- -- 33.0 38.355.027.3 44.7 -- -- 93 10815577 126SCAW8* -- -- 4.6 11.3 12.8 12.4 16.0 -- --13 32 36 3545 -- -- 22.0 23.850.019.1 31.6 -- -- 62 6714154 89SCAW9* -- -- -- 9.9 12.1 11.0 17.7 -- -- --28 34 3150 -- -- -- 45.455.036.2 48.9 -- -- -- 128155102 138SCAW10* -- -- -- 9.9 12.4 8.2 7.8 -- -- --28 35 2322 -- -- -- 28.736.520.9 33.3 -- -- -- 8110359 94SCAWREF1 24.8 57.9 40.9 41.1 -- --‐‐70 163115 116 -- --‐‐46.4 93.7 77.9 70.1 -- --‐‐131 264 220 198--‐‐ ‐‐SCAWREF2** 27.0 60.1 43.8 40.9 38.2 21.60.066 170124 115 108 61044.5 94.1 76.9 67.166.526.60.0126 257 217 189188750Table 10. Wetland Restoration Area Well SuccessSt. Clair Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95015HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored Year 7 growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. For Year 7 wetland monitoring, all eight wells located in currently credited wetland areas exhibited hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during the 2020 growing season.*To gather additional well data in the wetland restoration area, In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW5 - SCAW 8 were installed in April 2016, several weeks after the growing season had begun. Two additional In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW9 and SCAW10 were installed in March 2017, just over two weeks past the start of the growing season in 2017.**REF2 well gauge connections have degraded and it has been sent to In-Situ for additional MY7 data retrieval. A new gauge will be installed in the winter of 2021.Well IDCumulative Days MeetingCriteria³Percentage of Cumulative Days<12 inches from Ground SurfaceMost Consecutive DaysMeeting Criteria²Percentage of Consecutive Days<12 inches from Ground Surface¹¹Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.²Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.³Indicates the total number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.Growing season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is 282 days long. 12% of the growing season is 33.8 days.Note: The hydric Tomotley soil series present in the wetlands on site is listed as having an average hydroperiod of between 10-12% in the IRT monitoring guidance document issued Oct. 2016Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed September 2013)Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed April 2016)**Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2017)**Reference Wells (Installed Spetember 2013)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -Built Well -SCAW1)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW1
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
(17.7%): 2/28/2020 -4/17/2020
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
Figure 3. Wetland Well Graphs
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -Built Well -SCAW2)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW2
Begin
Growing
Season"
End
Growing
Season
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
(17.7%): 2/28/2020 -4/17/2020
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 31.0 days (11.0%):
3/14/2017 -4/13/2017
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -Built Well -SCAW3)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW3
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
(17.7%): 2/28/2020 -4/17/2020
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -Built Well -SCAW4)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW4
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
SeasonSCAW4LongestHydroperiodof 49 days
(17.4%): 2/28/2020 -4/16/2020
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW5)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW5
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 75 days
(26.6%): 2/28/2020 -5/12/2020
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW6)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW6
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
SCAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 44 days
(15.6%): 2/28/2020 -4/11/2020
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW7)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW7
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
(17.7%): 2/28/2020 -4/17/2020
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW8)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW8
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 45 days
(16.0%): 2/28/2020 -4/12/2020
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW9)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW9
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
SCAW9 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
(17.7%) 2/28/2020 -4/17/2020
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well -SCAW10)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW10
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
0.0
1.0
2.0
01/01/2019 02/15/2019 04/01/2019 05/16/2019 06/30/2019 08/14/2019 09/28/2019 11/12/2019 12/27/2019
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2018)
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
SCAW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 22 days
(7.8%): 2/28/2020 -3/20/2020
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020Depth to Groundwater (in)Date
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well (UT3)
(REF2)
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAWREF2
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in)St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
Well REF2 connections have degraded and has
been sent to In-Situ for data extraction
Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)Year 1 (2014)Year 2 (2015)Year 3 (2016)Year 4 (2017)Year 5 (2018)Year 6 (2019)Year 7 (2020)SCFL1 71 43 83 63 152 224 227 - 206 224 328 363 342343SCFL2 64 43 84 60 121 121 89 - 201 232 204 270 214253SCFL3 61 25 86 35 63 120 88 - 174 203 287 328 271255SCFL4 24 17 46 29* 20 38 45 - 118 124 86 146 85106SCFL5 57 44 62 30 57 74 73 NA 174 162 79 214 327 108SCFL6 5 42 62 30 35 40 52 NA 116 180 191 214 103 87SCFL7 NA NA NA NA 60 117 78 NA NA NA NA 162 167 180Notes:¹Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.2Indicates the number of total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.Success Criteria per St. Clair Creek Mitigation Plan: Two surface water flow events (when flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days) must be documented within a five-year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in separate years. The automated gauges should document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow.Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.25 inches. 3SCFL7 was installed June 6th 2018 to gather additional flow data for upper UT2. *SCFL4 also recorded a 28-day consecutive flow event in 2017, in addition to the 29-day flow event shown above.UT2 Flow Gauge (Installed June 6, 2018)3UT3 Flow Gauges (Installed July 17, 2015)Table 11. Flow Gauge SuccessSt. Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019Flow Gauge IDMost Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria1Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2UT2 Flow Gauges (Installed March 21, 2014)MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORTST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)Date
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream UT2)
SCFL1
0.25 Inches
MY7 MOST CONSECUTIVE
DAYS CRITERIA MET -227
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
Figure 4. Flow Gauge Graphs
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -84.0
(1/1/2016 -3/24/2016)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)Date
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
SCFL2
0.25 inchesYR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -89
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)Date
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
SCFL3
0.25 InchesYR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -88
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.011.012.01/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)DateSt. Clair CreekFlow Gauge SCFL4(Upstream UT2)SCFL40.25 InchesYR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYSCRITERIA MET ‐450.01.02.03.04.01/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)Date
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
SCFL5
0.25 InchesYR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -73
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.01/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)DateSt. Clair Creek Flow Gauge SCFL6(Upstream UT3)SCFL60.25 InchesYR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYSCRITERIA MET ‐520.01.02.03.04.01/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020Gauge Depth (in.)Date
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL7
(Upstream UT2)
SCFL7
0.25 Inches
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
01/01/2020 01/31/2020 03/01/2020 03/31/2020 04/30/2020 05/30/2020 06/29/2020 07/29/2020 08/28/2020 09/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Rainfall (in.)St. Clair Rain (2020)
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -78
Note:  Beaufort County historic average rainfall is 50.0 in, while observed previous 12 months rainfall total recorded onsite was 60.5 in.0.02.04.06.08.010.0Precipitation (inches)Figure 5. Observed Rainfall versus Historic AverageSt. Clair Restoration Project (DMS No. 95015) MY7 2020Historic Average (50.0 in)Historic 30% probableHistoric 70% probableObserved MY7 (60.5 in)

Memorandem
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: Channel Cross-Section Analysis for UT2 Flow
DMS Project ID. 95015
NC DEQ Contract# 003986
USACE Action ID: SAW-2008-02655, DWR# 13-0739
Tar-Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040

Date Prepared: December 13, 2020
Subject: Channel Cross-Section Analysis for UT2 Flow
Recorded By: Scott King

During the monitoring period for the St Clair Creek project, the IRT has expressed reservations regarding
the seasonal flow present in the upper section of Reach UT2. Specifically, whether or not there is
enough flow present to develop an appropriate channel or channels common to headwater coastal plain
systems.

The entire reach is seasonally thick with herbaceous vegetation, which serves to mask both the presence
of water in the reach in photographs as well as the development of a threaded channel system. Even
during field inspections it can be difficult to discern the level of scour and channel formation present in
the reach. As such, Baker took two cross-section transects in the upper portion of UT2 on May 1, 2020
to better illustrate the current conditions in these locations.

Please find attached the results of these cross-sections. They reveal the presence of a distinct multi-
thread channel with shallow water present in the two primary threads at the time of the survey in the
upper transect, and larger channel development with shallow water present in the lower transect. Both
transects show signs of channel scour and evolution, with rough, irregular rutting and scour found all
across the transects, even along the relatively gentle adjacent side slopes draining into the channel.

As the tree canopy matures and generates more shade for the reach, it is expected that this will depress
the extent of the herbaceous growth, which will in turn allow for even more scour and channel
development as this growth certainly provides substantial protection during storm events. Even during
the winter, the presence of dead or quiescent vegetation acts as a stabilizing influence. Furthermore,
this entire headwater system is low-gradient as is common in this portion of the low-lying Coastal Plain,
and during heavy storm events much of the entire surrounding landscape is often inundated, which in
turn inhibits the presence of a higher-velocity scouring flow that might be found in steeper gradient
systems.

If the IRT finds these transects helpful for their evaluation of the upper portion of UT2, Baker would be
happy to take several more transects for their future review.

Most sincerely,

Scott King, LSS, PWS

[e-mail]
919-219-6339 [M]

St Clair Cross Sections (collected 5/1/20):

XS-1XS-2
Cross-Section / Transect Location Map: