20130739 Ver 1_Year 7 Monitoring Report_2020_20210129

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20130739 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/29/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/29/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream 17 Wetlands fJ Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20130739 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
County: Beaufort
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: StClair_95015_MY7_2020.pdf 14.23MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
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
USAGE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar-Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
a a � ' �
i r `,�
r��6i ti . �� � { .�, ,i , ,,��'
k
„\ 1
i : a \n i v"I ;*," I cy �a,, F t
11a� 4 ` ! t t r� k.,.wt i r ,
it
$R r F a J.,,,„....
4 y' ', '� f
'q•d �i`'�t$iz '�� 1 �f{i�v rYak L��, yt rS4 _ I",.� ! F t)
F ,v1 ,d I�' � -- 3 S ys r " -.7.,",:,.`;':,',.
""5,-,��z .
We
,-,--„:-.,.. ,
, 1
r'y ' -mod':;' t1 wr 7 -2.,,, :
q e
Ikt.
pper�,, dt' s r 'T. } F,
` ,+ 0i a ,1 kn `., , e€ is �+'�; r.. �` �,+f
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 7ta Collection-
.of 7
Year Da 2020
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2021
Submitted To: NC DEQ—Division o• f Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986

Michael Baker Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office:919.463.5488 I 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 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway,Ste.600 I Cary,North Carolina 27518
INTERNATIONAL Office:919.463.5488 I 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,
f/A-
Scott King, LSS,PWS

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

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)

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)

1.0 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 Depailment 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 1
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

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 SCAW 10)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 SCAW 10 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 2
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

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 3
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

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 4
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT,DMS PROJECT NUMBER-95015 5
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables and Files

/. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but
4 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
Inot 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.
110/
41
; N ...... ,,, ,, ,,,,,,,,?-- $4.,4, A
Lits Belha ve
:n.....446..4ki
ti A lik
„.s
1
.... i .._ . _it iftiair lith
ir
lliril Jacks;n Swami ��� y
40 it _
,....,„,,
St
if
oPrillM1th,���'p4,
ilikihh.
va�oa-d' ��
lir\
Sga �1
"'ill
p .4mrina.4(I%
3
>/`� . N Project ;tit
x Location
"'Ik cl.M.Alit
144411r 14 ir
Ilk id* ,
pirl
1.1
11 "r/ Pamlico River
ISite Directionsns / ,JIWrIIIL
To access the site from Raleigh,follow Interstate 40 � ,
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
lb Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
IMagnolia. From Exit 373,continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC -Jl
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway �/// },
2ttu4r n(Beulavillen tHighway),hcontinue for 23s tmiles before .
Oncetravel
on US Highway 258, 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 '' Note: Site is located within targeted local
0 the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
downstream culvert crossing. watershed 03020104040040.
r / I I I rll I I f\
Figure 1
', ', Project Vicinity Map
St. Clair Creek Restoration Site
,„ I
♦"Aa��� ■�L. 32
wk���`�i sa"�11r�r c r NCDEQ -
,.�ht.'�1►011r►��*dal r Vril '___2 Division of Mitigation Services
*bylaw
�„i, Michael Baker
INTERN N AT ION AL
Beaufort County Project —
Location 0 0.5 1 2 3
— Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No ID.95015
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus Nutrient Offset
Type R R RE
Totals 2,946.6 SMU/327.4 SMU* 2.8 WMU 0 363,577 BMU
Project Components
Stationing/ Restoration/Restoration Restoration Footage or
Project Component or Reach ID Existing Footage/Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio
Location Equivalent Acreage _
UT2 Stream 12+64—34+00 2,660 LF Headwater Restoration 1,805.6 SMU/327.4 SMU* 2,133 LF 1:1
UT3 Stream 10+66—22+82 1,075 LF Headwater Restoration 1,141 SMU 1,141 LF 1:1
UT2 Wetland See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 1.1 WMU 1.1 WMU 1:1
UT3 Wetland See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 1.7 WMU 1.7 WMU 1:1
UT2 Buffer 12+64—34+00 NA Restoration 363,577 BMU 8.3 AC 1:1
UM Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(AC) Non-riparian Wetland(AC) Buffer(ft2)/(AC) Upland(AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine '
Restoration 3,274 2.8
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Buffer Zone A:0-50 ft 226002/5.2
Buffer Zone B:51-100 ft 137575/3.1
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR=Bioretention Cell;SF=Sand Filter;SW=Stormwater Wetland;WDP=Wet Detention Pond;DDP=Dry Detention
Pond;FS=Filter Strip;S=Grassed Swale;LS=Level Spreader;NI=Natural Infiltration Area
*The SMU credits shown here differ from those presented in previous monitoring reports. They have been reduced by 327.4 SMU that have been deemed potentially at-risk in the uppermost section of Reach UT2.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project No ID.95015
Scheduled Data Collection Actual
Activity or Report Completion or
Completion Complete
Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Jul-13
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep-13
Mltigation 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 March 2016
Ditches cut by landowner adjacent to easement were filled and Conducted in March 2016
new swales cut to connect drainage onto project.
Additional groundwater wells#5-8 installed within credited area Installed in April 2016
near newly cut swales.
Year 4 Monitoring(2017) Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18
Additional groundwater wells#9 and#10 installed in non-credited Installed in March 2017
areas.
Pines thinned in Upper UT2 and UT3. Privet treated on Upper May 2017
UT2
Year 5 Monitoring(2018) Nov-18 Jan-19 Jan-19
Additional flow gauge#7 installed Installed in June 2018
Year 6 Monitoring(2019) Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20
Supplemental planting in Upper UT2 February 2019
Pines thinned in Upper UT2 April 2019
Year 7 Monitoring(2020) Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21
Pines thinned in Upper UT2 May and December 2020
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Michael Baker International
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Katie McKeithan,Tel.[phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Planting Contractor
KBS Earthworks 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
KBS Earthworks
Julian,NC 27283
Contact:
Chris Sizemore,Telephone:[phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources,Tel.[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Farm,919-742-1200
ArborGen,843-528-3204
Superior Tree,850-971-5159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker International 8000 Regency Parkway,Suite 600
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Tel.[phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Tel.[phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact Scott King,Tel.[phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 4.Project Attributes
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Project Information
Project Name St.Clair Creek Restoration Project
County Beaufort
Project Area(acres) 17.5
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.452835 N,-76.76726215 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin Tar-Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03020104/03020104040040
DWQ Sub-basin 03 03 07
Project Drainage Area(AC) 89(UT2),30(UT3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 3.02,Passively Managed Forest Stands,2.01.01.07,Annual Row Crop Rotation;
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach UT2 Reach UT3
Length of Reach(LF) 2,133(proposed)2,660(existing) 1,141(proposed)1,075(existing)
Valley Classification(Rosgen) X X
Drainage Area(AC) 89 30
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 36 20
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C;Sw,NSW C;Sw,NSW
Morphological Description(Rosgen stream type)* Channelized Headwater System(Perennial) Channelized Headwater System(Intermittent)
Evolutionary Trend** Restored G Restored G
Underlying Mapped Soils To,Hy,Ro To,At
Drainage Class Very poorly drained,poorly drained Poorly drained,somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0006 0.0009
FEMA Classification SFHA,AE SFHA,AE
Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5% <5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland Along UT2
Size of Wetland(AC) 1.1
Wetland Type Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series To—Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment Disconnected floodplain from ditches,lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5%
Parameters Wetland Along UT3
Size of Wetland(AC) 1.7
Wetland Type Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series To—Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment Disconnected floodplain from ditches,lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation <5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation**
Waters of the United States—Section 404 Yes Yes (Appendix B)
Waters of the United States—Section 401 Yes Yes (Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion(Appendix B)
Notes:
*Due to its channelized nature,the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is
questionable due to its highly altered state. **Supporting documentation is including in the approved Final Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DON ALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
Water Resources S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
fttrectoi
January 7, 2016
Kristin Miguez DWR#2013-0739
DEQ-Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-I652
(via electronic mail)
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation—St. Clair Creek Headwater Stream Site
off Peoples Road, Bath, NC
Beaufort County
Dear Ms. Miguez,
On October 5, 2015, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources(DWR), received a
request from Jake Byers with Michael Baker Engineering, for a site visit at the St. Clair Creek
Restoration Site located off Peoples Road in Bath,NC to determine the potential for Tar-Pamlico
Neuse riparian buffer mitigation. On December 3, 2015, Ms. Merritt performed a site
assessment of the subject site. Karen Higgins and Mac Haupt with the DWR along with you and
Mr. Byers were also present. If approved,mitigating this site could provide riparian buffer
mitigation credits within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin and as allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (f).
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the site as an alternative buffer mitigation option for buffer
mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o) (1) and (2) (effective November 1,2015)
is provided below:
UT2
• UT2 was approved as part of a Coastal Headwater Stream Mitigation Site(DWR#2013-
(1739)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:I. 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 fi2)have been planted and restored. A copy of the
proposed restoration site has been provided to DWR.
• An agricultural ditch is present within the proposed riparian restoration and isn't planned
to be removed. The presence of this ditch does not comply with the diffuse flow
requirement of Rule .0295. However, DMS can apply Clarification Memo #2008-019 to
State of North Carolina + Environmental Quality I Water Reaoarcex
1617 Mail service Canter Raleigh.North Carolina 27699-1 617
919 807 6300

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Buffer Mitigation Viability
January 7, 2015
Page 2 of 2
this project in order to calculate the deduction of buffer credit where diffuse flow cannot
be attained.
• According to the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Year 1 Monitoring Report submitted
in April 2015, all 6 vegetative monitoring plots within the riparian areas are meeting the
success criteria identified in Rule .0295. A copy of the Year 1 Monitoring Report has
been provided to the DWR.
• A conservation easement of the proposed area, dated June 24`11, 2013 has been provided
to the DWR and is more accurately described as CE-1 and containing 11.55 acres, more
or less. The easement document is located in the Beaufort County Register of Deeds,
Book 1821, Pages 53-64.
A map showing the project site and the buffer mitigation areas assessed is provided and signed
by Ms. Merritt on January 6, 2016. DWR did not assess this site for viability of nutrient offset
and therefore only buffer mitigation is approved. DMS shall provide an annual monitoring
report to Ms. Merritt for review and approval each year for four more years and until the
performance standards have been met. The performance standards for buffer mitigation under
Rule.0295 are the following:
(n) (2) (B) -A minimum of four native hardwood tree species or,four native hardwood tree and
native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the stems.
(o) (2)—All success criteria specified in the approval of the stream mitigation site by the Division
shall be met.
Please provide an As-Built survey verifying the acreage proposed for buffer mitigation credit and
a buffer credit ledger for this site to Ms_ Merritt within 30 days from receipt of this letter. If you
have any questions regarding this correspondence contact Katie Merritt at(919)-807-6371.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
KAHIkm
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, DWR Clarification Memo #2008-019
cc:File Copy (Katie Merritt)

m -
•
v JV4�+r •r r. .� • �! S ;•. . ti• U
= ID _ •"" +sue - - r • ` - m• o CD
4.
,,. �r. I • , u 7 7 co 0"
0 - _ ,r r FtIS i W N �]
•
T. .i y.s.•—be ; {�� Y •
.4. gyp g. LI ro
N ram. '�•' a - r . q' y _ . e• J J•� Q
co
N' \*
~ O co
- :
�. ��• ,-_ _ ice'• - �r al 0 cQ
fly - N N
! . ' • n 5.4 n
1410:I 10 11 - A . .
• _, 63
m
•
• y O
N
1
yA --
Z y�'i- .. --. I
o , c - 4
0• ..
aQ a Nam '
" • �• ,r` ti.4,
O .I
_ , -‘,.:1,...4....4...,.. . :
•
'r k r-5
•1M.' �. MITI- - v'-,i �:�.\ .t; - ..•1.••••,- .- .
•e . - ,� w -•� ••`` x-
'1r 't-. "f lrt f Ff• _4'� +K•• _ 1- •_ tiii- .0,k- .'-
l
•
•
_ _ _ ...ry r 'a } ,,.:.• J .�:• :. - r
•
td
ns.! ;r•fr. f'-• T 3.
NY. ie f fi ram,-- f'. K }" 1 N
yam: � , .. r; # A,.;i:
..- °I f•t. ._ , Y. 2 ,�' - g+ -t , 'S'%. *fief.
h'
440
-i

of w A rE,g nt I+:«I :+sio
O.t1 QG r usvenn+i
witlnun ii Ross.Jr.,5ecretiirr
t)eparnneni Of Ih ironnv of and Nniurnl Ktrorirco
❑ Y Liken.N Sullins,Dircrsln
thvis on nr Waier L7tri+hty
A ugust I Q. 2008
!tullci Int rprettition'Clgritication::20084 1 Q
11I:1t( R.ANUtIM
ki I lie !)o isirvn tit Water Qtnilily's-tDWQ's)stance on whether diffuse flow of sturnlwater through the newly restored buffers on
iiiti��yt+�+n site,should he a requirement. Diffuse now is a requirement for buffer restoration or enhancement in the Meuse River
iiulfer Rule 15A NCAC 02l.0242(9X(dl(iii).the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Buffer Rule 15A NCAC 02B.O2600)01(iiil.and the
r-:ii:trrha River Basin Buffer Rule l5A NCAC 0211.0244 l9]fd)(iii).
I)iftos•flow is a requirement for all sites in a buffered basin for buffer mitigation and for for sites providing nutrient offset credit as
r�ell.
Lumen% P0lick According to the Mitigation riles in the Neuse-Tar-Pamlico and Catawba buffer rules,a grading plan must be
provided for huller mitigation sites. In addition,those rules stale that"The site shall be graded in a manner to ensure diffuse flow
ilinruh the riparian buffer".
I'rtihlem, I he que.lion has been raised as to whether sturn]witler carried by lateral ditches that enter buffered streams sttirrifd provide
tl+ilii,c Iln++ prior to that%tonn+rater entering the restored buffers.
!into'ion. The Neuse.Tar-Pamlico and Catawba buffer rules with respect to huller mitigation sites contain a very clear requirement
that states that diffuse flow ol'storinwater roust he maintained through the buffer. Unless utltenvise approved by DWQ.all buffer
initiation sites must provide diffuse flow of slormwater from ditches and similar conveyances through the restored huller.
Where Such difftisc flaw cannot he attained and where l7WQ agrees that such treatment is not possible.deduction of-huller rre dii r+ill
h� ,alcularcd as ii�llows:
S( Eti.ARI❑ L
RENT blibucE6
d4i
_. 1:Sr44
one
NorihCartulirt:l
nit lipn;ind•l crliMii:alidn I roll A)atllrlflllu
e,+u NI•sik senix[Diner Italcirii.Ninth t.ariiIina _'7r141-{rrsii
I+ i.if+lrcr Hook\ard.',ri+ce-'sl}.I{alelgh.Eurtlr t tirofinn 17htl.
1111.rFL sit r-';r-17\r, 11\on4-73.3- 'Inlernel imp:hri12.11.e 5laic rft.uN/Roscjl4nd5
J i 1111,,.i liiiih 11I iii,aiin l,linn l nipllipvr - 5ii'Si.n(ers ied-lii"i'f'u+I t nnai+tCl lai1ei

Page 2 of 4
A. B and C are angles. a,b,and c are distances(lengths)
OWQ 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°
B=60'
b=a cot A
b=50(1.732)
b= 86.6' (87')
The area to be excluded from credit would be the area of the two right triangles:
Area=(a x b)/2
Area- (50 feet x 87feet)/2
Area=2,175 SF
Total deducted area=2,175 x 2=4,350 SF'or 0.1 acres.
The example shown above assumes a buffer width of 50 feet from the top of bank(riparian buffer mitigation site). For nutrient offset
sites,credit can be generated out to 200 feet from the top of bank. The policy applies to sites with larger buffers as follows:
SCENARIO 2
OSP IT OM e
• � --
•
NorthCarolina
401 Wetlands Cenificalion Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center.Raleigh.North Carolina 27699-1650 i�T
2321 Crabtree Boulevard.Suite 250,Raleigh.North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/FAX [phone]/Internet:pttn://112 enr slale.nc.ustnc cellansllS
An f•:qual Oppi'nunsty/ARirmalive Action Employer-517°•1,Recycled/I0%Post Consumer Paper

Page 3 of 4
Il a ditch leafing to a buffered stream is buffered.then no credit is deducted from the stream buffer. lithe upstream origin of ihe ditch
I:-t+lthui the butler.nu credit is deducted. lithe upstream origin of ihe ditch is nut buffered(e.g. if the ditch begins upstream offsite).
tilt credit Jedui:tion is applied to the most upstream portion ante ditch on ihe property.
SCENARIO 3
t
I
l
1
`._
II II,•re ,I netm'rL or interconnecting ditches occurs on a site.and all of the ditches are buffered.the only credit deduction would b. al
IFIi poii l i here an unbuffered ditch enters the pro}eci:
SCENARIO a
mtclu°sf
,Y
1
i
T ___.
on,:
North Carol lna
I,.l ,s,.11lr,,l, ;i,Ili .Ill•„I III ,1VatrMaf
I' I.nl'n: l,,I ono liah_I_�I, 't nrilV l,Il t,lllt;l :7l o,`0-Ih011
' I ,,Ihll C It1.100iild,Num.291i,Raleigh \orlll l atilinsi, 2760.1
I'Ia,l., ,.I't-' OM. .I 1\ti/9-;.;t-Not Internet ht i,._Ilrlt,nr Siat .JA.IiheAsetlarttl
I,1.I,l1 r l p,oullnl,llrir1114.1110 Aitioil I'ulplutcr =n•'„Rcc.)dcd Iri",,Post L ioisu ivr Purer

Page 4 of 4
Where a natural stream enters the project site,no deduction of credit will occur. Also,when a natural stream or a modified natural
stream flow into a buffered stream,no deduction of credit will occur. The modified natural stream must be subject to the buffer rules.
and must be verified to be a modified natural stream(as opposed to a ditch)through an an-site determination by DWQ personnel.
SCENARIO 5
too Taber eri 084
jP -- —
Uo R
� .�
• 4if NA RAL �"
1 �s)ayWO
NO ri
For any additional questions or clarifications on this issue,please contact Eric Kulz or Amy Chapman at(919)733-17136.
Signature' 7v? rrrZ ( 4- Date: Si I ' /-,c E
Signature: �. e«,F Date: /5 foci[
Ntic
ails Wetlands Certification dolt rthCaro ina
1650 Mail service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699.1650 Aatitrally
2321 Crabtree Boulevard,Suit:250,Raleigh,North Carolina 27&14
l'hons '+I 9-733.1786/FAX [phone] Internet httpSh2 o.enr.oale,nc.astgcwctJands
4n t_uird Oprwrrunnytmirmalive Action Employer-30%Recycled/I0%Pea Consumer Paper

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

_ Conservation Easement = - =:- O Flow Gauge Meeting Criteria
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale) s` ,- • Flow Gauge Not Meeting Criteria
Drainages Filled (March 2016) _ _-`' _�'_ -':-- As-Built Streams
�"i Restoration: Headwater
Drainage Not Filled . + ' _ Valley
A Photo Points _ — No Credit
0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells(All Passed) _ = Buffer Zone A:0-50 ft(226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio=226,002 BMUs)
Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria (with MY5 Stem Densities) _ -_- Buffer Zone B:51 100 ft(137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio= 137,575 BMUs)
Temporary Vegetation Transects(with Stem Densities) • x 1, •..: r
Wetland Restoration Areas(2.87 acres total) 1 �,
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas(1.05 acres total) • W'
Veg Plot 3: .. • Veg Transect:
Veg Transect: 688gtems/ac • 4 580 stems/ac
653 stems/ac • •PP23
':1 Air"'
, - SCAW8 ..
z �, VegPlot9: Gau e
• � ,. PP.8 688 stems/ac ��•, .�SCAW4 g Veg Plot 8:
Veg Plot 1: 0 stems/ac
567 stems/ac l'•.z-1 x�;::. �,PP..74 ��
' P.P`10�x�` y. h 486
.."
PP1,1 :R' • =-' A�;' Veg Plot 4:
, : -.gig : '� s
� I,- scaws' 647 stems/ac PP42. �.b-' •
PP13 x `.•`.;rO,.Gauge#7 : °: O . •or SCAW7 Veg Transect:
.-u=' ._` ' ".� T ,` ; Veg Plot 7: t. 471 stems/ac
r<
" x Gauges /PP6 890 stems/ac ,
•A� SCAW2:
!,, 4,All CN
.�" • .< _ Veg Transect: .PP5 ' ` •-
L. • �{� OGauge#5 0.66 acres
435 stems/ac PP19
. . Gauge,#2x.,-- ;*.°
Veg Plot 2: .�w s O ,� ,'";c f.,.: _.
w �� �. •`PP18 _
647 stems/ac O`=;•-: .- .:;PP4.'. •
Veg Transect: scow, „n '' Veg Plot 6:
'' 653 stems/ac s v' " g
Veg Plot 5: '. :;.
` 364 stems/ac scaw�o
567 stems/ac -.;, O scaws
\\ 174FF16
The potential wetland areas shown here are not being ,
s requested for credits at this time and were not originally ' _, _ . .
q .--Gauge-#1 ;.,-. ,
.- provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting • _ --
ex exploratory monitorin in these areas only.
p rY 9 Y• 0.26 acres _�, • . >ar:=`; --- 0.13 acres ,
SCAW9' -_
Survey/ Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2018&Jan 2019 �: • _
Aerial Photo Date: 2016 - _N.G-Centerifor Geographic lnformati'eri F Analysis,'©OneMap,NC cCoiitgrf+:,rr3:1•Koptek,i[ttimot1co11 4.
111E.. • • _� - and 0 Analysis, NC 99 Be. c _ s
0 250 500 Figure 2
Michael Baker Feet Current Conditions Plan View: MY5
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services St. Clair Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL Project#95015 N Beaufort County, NC
Rev:14Jan2019

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

I. r
' ► w �•
_ Conservation Easement Photo Points ,.�'r� : F` : n• ,• `�• ,r, ti `- ,�„,i
Cross-Section Transects As-Built Streams , .. , ,—• .r i-- •._ ,.ij
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale) — Restoration: Headwater Valley + _. •
+ •
;'"
Drainages Filled (March 2016) • No Credit r • `r. r .■ '', `~ -. ''''y} •.r; "• " ' , {J
Drainage Not Filled • e?I Buffer Zone A:0-50 ft(226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio=226,002 BMUs) J ''^ • F' �. - .:
rii' ! r xs 'art ir, ,1,. ■
O Flow Gauges(All Passed in MY7) Buffer Zone B:51-100 ft(137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio= 137,575 BMUs) V--4. " •-,. e�' ° rs N y 4z'. • �"� •. r'/.".. ..t >"V.{,. ^ r;.
Groundwater Monitoring Wells r ''` K _ _ "` "F"{'
Pass �`:.�!•-
•
• Fail
Vegetation Plots (All Passed in MY7) PP24 �' �f `
A Wetland Restoration Areas(2.87 acres total) Veg Plot 3:
am
647 stems/ac -•. 7�
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas(1.05 acres total) e r b. 4
e' . . . ,.• .A-,,..- i _J ..t.,s' x-, 'r v.r 't;p. r .:... ,"! l...e. `''' 4..w SCAW8
ir
•
y ,, • -• ; v i� Veg Plot 9: Gaugeet)
PP8 j; ,"° i. ' ' '- .- 728 stems/ac
SCAW4 Veg Plot 8:
'' �, ;; 445 stems/ac
Veg Plot 1: '4 - - , r• •
-'' # !i." { ,.
445 stems/ac _ PP10 Gauged • II*
PP11 Veg PIot4: ' ' &' E i. a.� GPI ,
PP 102 SCAW6' 607 stems/ac ;
PP13 ' ' :
Gauge� SCAW7 .-
S/ Veg Plot 7: .,
Gau ems} �' /`^ �`.PP6 .R 931 stems/ac
scaw2 •* l PP20
• PP14• .
ppg
SCAW3
ter %�.. 4,0y,... .,._:_...0,,r.,,,,,„,,,,v 6. .,„. a+ iir• Gaugel
! r1..' • Veg Plot 2: • * ;
� Gauge02
. 647 stems/ac PP19 PP18
•� at '=F SCAW1 PP4
�'rt 4. . :. g
Plot 6:
--r. `- . . , , �� 364 stems/ac SCAW10
v Veg Plot 5: ': SCAW5 PP17
it • 526 stems/ac ' •
A I, Gauge al
• '�..�� .. ' • sr A• ..'�,mow• r .- i VQ �- .. PIA `•w_'x-. - - PP16
j r ; i • r.. '4l+ A. :i,'1 �:iV.'► . ■.!"',c yiY'_. P�'�..7'r1 p. 4.
Iiiiiii
- '
0.26 acres SCAW9 ,' 0.13 acres
The potential wetland areas shown here are not beings ;: - -
requested for credits at this time and were not originally / `__
� -- - 7.. ';.,. Ait i --..`ram :�„
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conductingF, +�, r
exploratory monitoring in these areas only.
Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2020 ,w ` 4 ` '
Aerial Photo Date: 2020 — x ri
. : ' r. i: • r. y IMC©AIX fly Geo ra hic e 9 p Um$.»30.1049
N Figure 2
Michael Baker NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 0 250 500 Current Conditions Plan View: MY7
Project#95015A Feet St. Clair Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL Beaufort County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Reach ID:UT2
Assessed Length(LF):2,133
Number Adjusted
Number Stable Number of Amount of %Stable, Footage with
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Total Number with for
g g ry (Performing as per As-built Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended) Segments Footage Intended Woody Veg.
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability —
2.Degradation ii. 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate NA NA r .
1.Depth NA NA
3.Meander Pool Condition
2.Length NA NA
1.Bed
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run)
NA NA
III
4.Thalweg Position 2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide)
NA NA
3.Thalweg centering along valley Yes 2,133 I.F
111 all. all. i i i
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1.Scoured/Eroding 0 0 100% 0 2,133 100%
and/or scour and erosion _
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 0 0 100% 0 2,133 100%
likely _
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse im. s 0 0 100% 0 2,133 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 2,133 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs NA NA
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the NA NA
sill
3.Engineering Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms NA NA
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed NA NAI
15%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth NA NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Reach ID:UT3
Assessed Length(LF):1,141
Number Adjusted
Number Stable Number of Amount of %Stable, Footage with
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Total Number with for
g y g y (Performing as per As-built Unstable Unstable Performing as Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Intended) Segments Footage Intended Woody Veg.
Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
2.Degradation 0 1 0 1 100% _ _
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate NA NA r r -
1.Depth NA NA
3.Meander Pool Condition —
2.Length NA NA
1.Bed
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run)
NA NA
4.Thalweg Position 2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide)
NA NA
3.Thalweg centering along valley Yes 1,141 LF
i — —
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 0 100% 0 1,141 100%
and/or scour and erosion _
2.Bank 2.Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 0 0 100% 0 1,141 100%
likely _
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 1,141 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 1,141 100",
I.Overall integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs NA NA
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the NA NA
sill
3.Engineering Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms NA NA
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed NA NA
15%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth NA NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
None Observed --
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Reach ID:UT2
Planted Acreage:11.6
Vegetation Category Defmtions Mapping Threshold(acres) CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage %of Planted Acreage
Very limited cover both woody and °
1.Bare Areas herbaceous material. 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%Woody stem densities clearly below target
2.Low Stem Density Areas levels based on MY3,4 or 5 stem count 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor are obviously small given the monitoring 0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category Defmtions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons_ Combined Acreage %of Planted Acreage
5.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as 1000 ft' NA 0 0.00 0.0%
polygons at map scale)
6.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as none NA 0 0.00 0.0%
polygons at map scale)
Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St.Clair Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Reach ID:UT3
Planted Acreage:5.9
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold(acres) CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage %of Planted Acreage
1.Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
herbaceous material.
Woody stem densities clearly below target
2.Low Stem Density Areas levels based on MY3,4 or 5 stem count 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor are obviously small given the monitoring 0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage %of Planted Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Concern 1000 or points(if too small to render as 1000 ft' NA 0 0.00 0.0%
polygons at map scale)
5.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as none NA 0 0.00 0.0%
polygons at map scale)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Resolution
Loblolly Pine(Pines taeda) Scattered throughout buffer on Post-restoraton seed source Will be treated in 2021 with power tools and/or
upper UT-2 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)
' E* NJIY Ft'kk` & h I - i_ £e• # F; . F_
' Ptry ,d' 7 , = rY }u ., d 1 <k $ cr
fie.,_,.. wf'at: {,y7F'� •
: `' . - J.
,,, ? -4 y,'d1� S- T it ti 'h _
a� .y;.
ram i fir,. *R�.- - 9} #3' " `�, ¢ -—
rr G l- I'. ^, Q`I 1 G ,r -a ' y' t .t� , }i z x- �'
r I , „_y�,x ,4 1 2,- .a, + 4 s ,,* ire "x ' y�'�i - y .
• +2'��1"4+I'.?ad:..-or> ,i1";,1- T�yau .f"'�aG rn�e u s'1 , _—_- ,ems".:t:m — ,. V
Photo Point 1 —UT2 Photo Point 2—UT2
- -� -
'.,` v A ," Y • %s a , 4 exV �1
• r.
1
i.- rfi � . >,�' } ° gIa F r e•r ,;b k > ; Sr s z d, , I , % � I, 'C1}A !� I C'I a -f a d �' � y, GeuI I ' ' � � 1 a i 4 p
tli"
Cx � c I I � '° s o + t� 11r 6III I'I�P,,, 1 ° {ll ip a. ' � , ! ' 'tJ, r, wffr' { a 1n1 tf y.� F i ,
r1 , , . ,_ '$ u , '- r!I .1, - -' , -1`' ''1I;IA } I IiI h I e� k 11 l ,' s ,. „ r t' ' ,_ k? a i I ', � A �4�� } a�
•
b
Photo Point 3 —UT2 Photo Point 4—UT2
Q? 11 H XrM d V
I _ 4 y k
; � ,I. 4. i''' �y 1 % r Sri
,, �i1P, ,rl! yj{ �' 4 "t k 61f1- I(,ti_ kdel. ''.4"�J'- yr ,� 4 ii, - - p � '/!
- - 'f r
•
f \1 q' ,;1 II ills -.i , ' 'if , -(0 r , �+..: r• g,,,,", z� r� 4
r 1 'p �t�) '� Illy I;^ :� r plb-,'' I: _ _ ,y 3 - .,
1 , 1' �N 4 Y ,,, 'rs I �j yrh�;'. P} I , I' 4a �" 7 1 s % +
iti
� k�g,,3,'� p ii �i l", I ! a I '1111 , y , '' 1�' ,, - ;11\ `f'°'t�3.� ,r - '
"\I' -- r , 1 i$4 1Ilf ti'11 ,/ 1 a �.' Ali I x I ,: ' 'h ^l _,';';f ',I i!",,<
�`�Illlll 'a:
II pi 'k.l
', z- ti
Photo Point 5 —UT2 Photo Point 6—UT2

St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)
•
rJ• v4 ,r f 01. nl B In ...
A , f �.. •
1 eq RS S`,r i r
- :` a`rfh• 4 r: ac7F, t ?-n' tf iii 4 r r .
r � /s` 1 r ;'r A" :;.'f} - .F ux f•yt ,,i f i 1' ', 1 -- 1
Photo Point 7—UT2 Photo Point 8 —UT2
7 r.'ci'3 ti
F f f' E ,� ."�:Ski-*,#f,Y-i!
•
,-"=1,--r.:_,-, ;4.klmils.,t,...,L,.4*.t',,troo.,...,4,.,.::.: • : '. ,
•
•
'Y?E.�4,$R'" r, `w S s .: 4, .t ;7 r t r , 1 -a, -°s' }'S. fD,* F, #
0 pr s - _ ' u / "",cri 71, r, ,7-. F w�/yy, v: I �".. _y 'r'v - .�f t',.g s .4
,i:i1-..,,1.r..,,-5:,,v*,.tCet,".:r,,,,,4,.7.4.--.&;„F*t:,,'•,6.:i;.;,•„:
j^ k '�a € fr y , z t � # t
1. - . '- i' ;, k- s� .- - k .: 4r`,,- f , '*p ri- p
r, -s� �-S.'G`r"_. ?rl-P Rr ^� �*sr- l`ft0. ,,0� _-� '� fit' . h°
Photo Point 9—UT2 Photo Point 10—UT2
.,
•
r 3�h $' ,te r . , • - y f- : • ,. I, 1 •r
•
•
ka rt 4'e °51v, p{ a "i+ q ".g7 r v� a eiit.: !: " .* ' r i
tii'
. '. V I ram. / <. ,,,: �'k dg "'' 5 '`�• v.'. .. . r Y _ �Y�, ',r w ,1
-gin'" -�- � �,�J aS' � °,� i � - ��� -ywq �� i �,_ s ���i" � � � �.. � •,,sue '-���- ,r-.LL
tro
.,v5 ' c 'r r- a' ' , lxr * ¢ #�� k fa a ice-
sy Y + yfy. - .ss'�a i� ,.[y �! 4 f`#,� i.v, #. vSrr 3k 'r r �.' a„
fi' } i`F - �` f W � � � A fI -,
tr a � '� ae n3'} fit• ? '�
•
_,..„.,.. ...:„....,....?„,i,,,..:::,,,...4k,,,•cf.mt,
..f .,:. .•. . .,.,..„;%,i,....,,,...,...;:.:.. .6'"'''''' '...‘-
` �y 2 F' :. € ,y. `. �� '4M 4J t'M•R ,g'h� wCi:„.A4Y.,{r�� i
• � k
Photo Point 11 —UT2 Photo Point 12—UT2

St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)
711Ir _
a
• �.' s T �a 3,•' = ! aj 1x ji.
i S
?$,,A,-',.',-,1.:44i4;::,..$'-4!.'..,r,,4;,';.':,...k.,,A.,,,.4:11J...•'"°-44-4g,744,4W.,;':.t ''''''''''fr'l ..,..:,::,,,,'7,-.;:,,,,,,vY':,-,,,... ,...,:,,,,,,...
Photo Point 14—UT2
Photo Point 13 —UT2
e
,q�yam ��e = a'&#" e£ °" '^ 3��sr�VGl
' ;p' tl _ I � '`�4 � ! .,,,,,,:.,...,I.,,,:,;
r �,fig vu°� g �. �'
tea �'`1 g" rr w- f x4 ¢ � ak v,,�>` ri nk '.t� - S ,
• P 4 s t" �i.",.14„ .;,."',,O. 5 '5' >t` A
,� f � r• ,�, � ro��-u i tomt tir r d�9 f# +�-a< `� �� `� 1 � J�
% ..-,I, ' t1 9 \�c''`� yl r s y s: ; 1 p f r 4k', n'k -l p f- ti
•e% ( f j ,
k nm i 4 4`€ 3, r ' 'ET - ! J +k I ' -Y" '� i R. r,
v� - IIII • l r, -
,4a" q' �` ,�� '�,I�' - ,, 1-.-n! - w t k -
x ,` �fI.•-, Yea 1 E S .i.'i SO'4.. Mr'' �S 1 ! k 'j ,:. 'f f.
t -'A� • �` 4 i� 'YI'1-J ,-0? ,4; :t4ref 3", a . .. l �^ :
Pt £ ii _ -.. =C :, t om,, t` ' ,£1r, - .Ifi-Ir. ^F., +^
. - I•�.' 4 I• yxi li ,r.1r, •N -�"141I q5 Y � i J�
s i f - ti-1 .r w 1 .s7- �;
- rr ta �1 -- ..,� "' f Ai 4 PAs7'� �.�4�x,4aI
Photo Point 15 —UT2 Photo Point 16—UT3
^ tR dy r ., �N } % .11 fr ., s h.1' t &4 . Ilkj Per k
rr40 r! rid i� , , i. { t lr'' i 'Q �; 2' r t , 5£� j r 'ti
"t J', �,� • 4444 grit t
� r x tiff r: �, qe'`>*is- /„��'I � �,r� `�- - ,`���� � �s I f1���� r -, ��` .� r 1�, , ,
4k��h` .. D 1• 3 i�" r _ r b s"`.r'4- rt , ".f y ' - ti &y= ;:: �S '_M -
z - v I rr 9f' b fir' 'q !: v r N ;4 ,? '
"'r J z bk,; & -�-- •�" - 3 r` '"&fi t • .a to '"
lihf
s ac .' -'�c 3 - r y ,' 1 r . n 'V r4,f 1
ke --� £'�r�syy�r ,#f' � � {f �- �' -)- � a'- � s` 'N� ,"., G :''''.--.'''.:..".'!'-''''or--
� r.- r - �� ri�'�� � � "� i "� ( •�
•- „ - I 43w x '+r .�t'wd I
i sZt r -rS � i s v ajr� a - ."� z 'z
itt
e l �•61 ♦v s f�Y . 1['p, a 1• 70 7 - 'y r r ' .�[� v., ��,4 En,k 44.7�A x , T- -.,
d -. - „P I) W ' ,., I' I� � .4 Y-o'!L e 7 9__ y i -0 ' -•'
nF •4. ply!
'.°Y��,.yea 4 w <,("±+ b; ,??�. d.. >'l' �,� y'i41 - t.-•S r ( r� '`v w'' tt
..d t .�I-`�` w-A"�d«3' .`ci Q rr• N : i""` �L;- .1;�f7Y"',.t^ y in .�k c^ 3:4 .. , •r��►*�1.` 'x'
Photo Point 17—UT3 Photo Point 18—UT3

St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)
, " ; ! ,y •{.,, ig 4yi 1, ti•.+ r.. '� - i, '
A i •k' »i+-i.. f ' I.
Y V ? V I 1 _ _ .04„4 [ 1 h, J- r' r Me-.'
?f• '2 . ,I4. � 3 A 3-bxaY "ri
;r i. �i , 1r�h)9 �� yY ,� yy,
•
-. ,., . . - ink
, .y. i v §� - ., tl t , [ '�� '-i a.• t e,-Lk ,tee �+li p'- „'
•
'6 t pY 9�9 I "a 'y v,� r, 'i I A I { •kn k d� I g
yam' 44 ''J i T. t �L 4 ,�Xi y i1i I d d r z
a �r �:� i' _ i S le.''
try t,-` sS" �','"l ! r' r Y y�, f
[ ¶, t 5 e .,e �- 1 of d"' '
rF 5. „�V /a.p eV 'i Sri t^- �y, �i l IT z "r ,1T ` 14 Y' ,� I ,m 3{k %,
NFL '""1`�'�wd ��l'n•,��� �-, J-,s. .y �,� �" � 1 ci � � �k�� a��I� '�v'F
�'r )� iv� . a}� fi "' '',r o',T 3y �''''%) �PPPv '"'"} f 41 1 `sw ww' 3 =`w_• s�I ' ,,
"ryrt- w .'. i' �'. �ro mr'K � r, i;ax e d. PI 4, , z fi t;i .:,, .- ,ai ' s 7 F
sue- a; 5 s" ,� yy.� k
' .,",',.. l - �.�t= 4 t 'r I i l t.,"4., s� a. 'kid f 1- ,--' f+',;,,, ..11�.� '` '�ii '� f.
Photo Point 19—UT3 Photo Point 20—UT3
'° "; `,fir, b n.,, •6 r 1� '•
* a $k {,. I 1 t, n >.y
' —4'`‘.1 . ' ''' '' ..' ' / '''Ifw7 -t, ,-..-14,-,,,-4,-,;,,,- , ,.0,,,,*,..
Y , -I 11 l-. y+K' YA>t* L ''.0 ilF r :.Y 4,- I I _ -"•k
,�{ d , 'fry ' "± . ?�- 1�E�- 1..' ,. ,,,,,,A..._ +� r , 8 v i; %
, Y Ii+ . r , •,, ; _ , .ti I a • yk a . i
�,, I �; c, , 'E i t K 1� i s '"§r 1 f ,rnr f
r "ate b 2F 1 llll ' ke } ` T i � � � S � �ppa fi
i F, f v " 1 �' • w•' y 1. •box �e - -a T- [ P4 1-f_ .i a , �,
,i Y 6 k E� { . it 1 yy g 'r"' - .. s, ,�a�,'• u h{ i M GSA 'j;- 1
gq� 1 +I" j� + K .�`f�- �4� �I � ° - ,c { x h_ "" {, yam ,,,.� "T i
'Y - V �r�j�'�A'� } IP F � 1 I-�. y� �'Mtg f k 4 _ V J �t "i-+L3 I � � c' G � �
' 9 F k ° k z "Y wii �' 4 d.-t I . C'p 'x^: •.si 7' '4'. a_ q'"r"•�'
k E x 4 1� i 3-�` �,,, l \L 'Y •k,,, } ,k' `� , ( r_ 3 - ;, Ig��r y+� q•-a k,
� r ''l" i' rf rl e , ,�r • ''i '4'-". 1!! y `;: 'I� r y y� .l ,11 r-. , ' kr..i
,1.,• "k FPd 1 .iri _AS
wfiii e? t!',1 ., 3 v. ,i r'i ,, �•', ( ,k[ f,N;iri ��§'IA S"}c 7 e�r�. i e A y�F ';
Photo Point 21 —UT3 Photo Point 22—UT3
k[ �,ahj',c ':,, ap' ��i �r e I,i[ ` x ;r ,is�-
! 4'r P"��iv, �,' ,k, i 14i1 ` ik
1 k 1I rir c t ` }5` 1 q�f�(� 9 4I �,a I ' y ¢ u
11
n - S' .. a M .y a"` k_ :,Irp -i-I. E � i f a ,
Z-..--'—:.-F-,‘• -tyttlich -.-‘:`
_.ray. ?. J�/ "� , ol
- E ii,,, sC k �Y".'9 Y - - -- .e 1 {°Ye 5.
4 ?7,---,-','-tw-4,,s_i.c.--.1-7 ,74.,, ,afz‘--,...N.,.::,,v,,,-:„i-.1.,,,,,./e.s,-‘44,..„:4:4,,ec.,z,
zror
-cr.,,, N���fi3- a,Y -:t",y d �i��'I F Y •L. " V ` rr °, �i $ ^'
'Y - yhY".s . n+- $4.,; _ �"'Y •- •
Q' • .-. :T y: ti ' �, 9 , . q� y ' -L ..1.. 'ce'
It.
•,r'�aeYF ,>SoY •'tt 7. ' .-r#+,.i� - 'C - 1 .•..1 r,i '; ,.
Photo Point 23 UT3 Photo Point 24—UT3

St. Clair Restoration Site: Stream Photo Points (12/10/20)
va - �
,� �c+. • 4;�•
` ` '
�Y I y� o-`z Y4, - ,m
Ir
err
y 'e ' w e V a �� a+ncsv � • ` �r � i?f✓ 7t '!
1 . s ^ •f .- #, - �+ '.4..ti,..Nz•Ve.::..-4*:Viii*Pt.Wr_11,11(i'''i l'±'LitZ44.'W.:-..14,,t,,,,-9. --,..4": • ' -,,-
Y 4� �'�` F r i ,•I�.
�,.ri .� .. P � � § * " x a- ' ..... t
t ��� - '.r 1j xl' u r :..` -t�`ti •rX ',Y'L �. __ ti, ,x -
:14;07.0*7.-',..-!,._•,v."..:, • - -'''--•'•j•;`•";k,r-.:i ..7 - I.'
•
r ✓• F• r
Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge #4 Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge#4 (close-up)
'`� , y'
iiti*.s,„.....w., , . . ,. -- ____ ,, _ _... ..., .
_...,.
. .,..
y „....)'...:.x. './1
Ilk
rJ' ''' -' .',''‘,....,'.:..P.,..,S7....=.,.
\S .7.".:—':.,,',1- -,`.•'••''.- .-
. '.---_, ,7, 7,,,-:-,___-..'...>.,,
„.
'44:'',..tt :•-..)!.-;,;; :,.k',--•... /.. j.,41.! :.. • . • , . ;. • _
.4
., t _ 1 Al _-
f )1— ..../. ''',.. • . ' ".
a
Flow Hydrology at Flow Gauge #7

St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/10/20)
a r. ,
‘,„ .:„.. 4,..4 , .0 „.._,
- P Yp4/ Aft
. ,,,, ' .0„.,-.‘-.,. ..... -, ,,,,..- ' : --4,, -,..,:::-Ii.,,,,t,-,,,:f., '''',. 1,,c,e,,,,,,,N-40;:-,.... ,- s„ , ,',,s.,-'1=k-1;',..,:t
r
Ni'At
,'6 �.: y C 4 '�fit' '` •
- - - A - -ra 4 - . "''(.,- r . ,/` Y pv
44.4174
5 4 � 3. �^'&ss.� Or::',; a 3s G +A• ��'� >u � A--� ram !�; "c"` �,
c.' 3r !4 is Y • �"i ?
Y ygry{� fi r+ d t �i . �'� -,, pay,, ?{ y y y' '. ;.#«'e,+',, 's.,.� r ..
ra
fr
ne' - d e Au * 1 - iY a h' tea• »J
Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2
�'„y `a`s w +b",,„-,-...1';,'_4r--,r-,,-''.1 Nh ',i °. '$s r-, pM k 1, ,;_.', ",,.' 1'
w , 0
:..
.,_ ,
r ;
4.i.,1,,-..
,4,:%.0-•,-,,4,',„t•,o„,-,--i,,,3,4,,e,•,,;,_77
.1,._.2_,,7.1,,,,.i_....,.-.-._._
,i'°
.,
, fi n! 4" N,I,
,#j' , Y , ,tea"F, ' S
k
' ''k.,,i,-;- ;`-,,,r--- _,,v,_, '',,',,i::,.. . 7'..r P',',..1,'.3.,-:•0-:"1-,Q.'''' '4-4!A PavV!
i '� �f p
,�-'' - ..
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4
a .° x 'ter l M i. S I ;F., .. dd,,.) .4, ',r1 ',. '] -,3+� '%�
T
..rnImo' 0° ac,e `!'i,\ �.�, .� % �'y r'�- � v�-.• .��A-�_ �^ �
� 4 01 9 r err i/A y i �a - �
' � � � fit- !:' -' � ?a`t- �i�.� •.
r �,t Hf1!
•
gt
": . I fl
Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Vegetation Plot Photos (12/10/20)
.1 IR NFn' �j1 I �}f �'�
�. �
oi
: r _
3 y .C_,.
. . �r S '.
1 is 0 r. f .
11
.t
'.� . - .q r �{r r b fiat m , ;,.
43444,,
is "lt �. /; r,�+x` ,rrE x - � ,� s ley _ti 1 A -; - :,
ti
r'l
•
V „ :I t , y b' 1 1: k , d ' f '3,
ti
,Y, ^ ,'e.. ,.fS •-�..v o�'? i'
Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 8
R ` 4 , . t jai
t _ t
... ,--,-1,-,...1.1,,,,ki,..,,,,,, ..-, ,1.4. ....; r0 j
t-:, . __,, ,,,..,"-L__. < - , '
, ,
_ --,. -r.„,
JP 1W �p .l 1
i k � BLS
Vegetation Plot 9

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations t :� �.'� s�ad �
(12/10/2020)
-
x +�
•, aw}-' L� a y ,�,� ,•` ' - i- - Serf - t �x-� � -
y ,Sr':4„4' �� '`k xl .�,;'t� 'F� #Z' " -r)' ;.x 3 -E -r '•; ^ ,• .. r "r
' '_ ___,.. „,„,,,-: r 1.� 1`�•4 • . R � . ors �. 4L'r k„ , ;:.
:,,!..4.,--, •..„.3.,,,...,,,,,,v_, y„.....„,,:,,,,.,.,„....„
tea.", gr scT `x' '. = { s,;x : S _ ,'- a 'a i >' ''a --
5'. ,'ti 4 N 1,:1 r r:� _ a L F �'.ar f • 3
44`
•. ,fi . gyp R. k i ,,.�.t1''. x 1 ' a 5 :.. _
dd T 'a S � -
° f��-`• • - aT'1 `y , ,-..• yi. {�1 � /kyk�'n-p i e w*. .y '; --- !J`f '�. _ �,
R 'n I:151 .' �Y-`=• --,,f, '.r4N ::-£'°� c�P. :��t I 1„ . , , �e' ;m. -rM \.�: �.yS�-�1, ;d`�'- a._.:--�,
Auto Well—SCAW1
Auto Well— SCAW2
ems, w,, b,
• •----fr4-• ...'.--' 0';`:•1,;:.I'-"-s'.,C-;rt.•.:..r.,.:::L_aI.i..k-1-N.,.,'„,,,,_,;:::A,f,k.i'.5'4,:,r x...'5-.\-.A_,Z'-,-.%1;:'.',.,',:....
-.:....
',ix. ao - x 'f, �/ -'T, � i -'w,.s,�..� s 'v� s" r e t,
•
. = .r;`` ` " ' A -.-. s -P :� r 4 3 a � "155 5�� " � .4 s _ ,]e Ie _ 1 rx� t ' �I "- � t� ;� -rk , 4 i4 i I ar, '' x� ,� . �� `r7 �hfi�*R �C�'�t i c�: :rs � rx ,.;.,,:..,.,,I, SYkS " �� �� - Z `� I �''K Kr rt r\ >' �" � d •. S f t 1 „ c �, . , A •, - � _ -,r , , nw--,Y
•.-N---47-11.,- ., , ,:41,_-",,,,,I,- _ ..,,,,,..,,Tot-_,,. „:5-,,,*_,07, ..,
ti
�, 'y� y II
xfi , Y '�\ \ R,,S C i '1,! `- 1i �
i ' — !.,,- y"' ;» ..r :`f- � • ! �}3 >'a `'fit !,.:� s, /.f �. ' ', -
�6 Auto Well—SCAW3 Auto Well—SCA W4
.F'x T� -�� @„„ss :i'vk 1 t '3' �,4 f IF l Jy4w� 5 _ f -
'� - R'' 4'�'Y'r rf L ,, Fa gs,! w 4' "' aa.�.\, "� r:� l l•
5 ,'' .,hrr �/ rl - �,6 "
,s�•,r kn ?� .,�(� f §';'3 r, 1.G f C''� ,x`i��. r - d 1 b I � s E
,(;� K ✓� 'i x , � if,At'° f 4 '�ffi 4 . • hr `, , 4g peg S S -.
,3 aq - r .F z.T„`� re e e :,r �+�u.T" S` r a .4 t" 'Faa%�r,-
- ,n:, ,.a A j- f�qq''r .r'� hF g •' se -� . '� -�, Y 4 ' ,r �9 g�iq�P
\! nt `r"�� • ,': r'r{,f �� R: , �, a e , p ` ; �. F a r;rr�•4T:�+Y+• 1....q`0..i,}'a•° --, ` • fi ���u t T9, v �,�' '� �� r� 'fir '> r � R .,.
. t a ' f 5 >t a •- E' � NA , "3 % @ • ,, bi A.t °' F �� Tt
4 x. i 4.: 7! „, . 4' i �vv J,r,+'3,/ , mot.
•
•
x� a } -fir = t,�� s 'S `v a 7,ti r `!�'..�� ! b..'' W,., Ih4 ,4 I
i -• �`-� S ''' °e 3"--ems * {I ) !' - rrJl v r ',', �%, '",4 n;� � "r
Pz.sir';,.. �`�:' t _= +�k 2�,-� .she .. �'.'. h �'XrSf..'-°��.+ std 7W � '�•,
Supplemental Auto Well— SCAW5 Supplemental Auto Well—SCAW6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)
jguu
rr` Tt F ,, �. r r f "i
,,,.,..,4
'it, - ,- 1
404ir
4.00
-,:._ , --7`, ,r . , ..i.1.,,,,A,t-v , ki,-,,;,t._ „„, itt, ' „ 4 4 A..4.-...;," ,- „:„
- 6a ✓: ;l ICI I ti , -r r 5 - ,.iu.c_' ?b % ` r y'.pA��5,
10
ri
4 a F �� s's6 V fib? o a a; �s
�d , Tye ,_ wAA, *�'- . ,. , -_, ��f e Y,... 41 � w +9 .
it t .y ��°
I I f i 6 C� ff �� '� ti f R , ate �'_� ✓ (' f g , •4 I� F 'W� , ;%
e� � M,p� h � `_rl" wit"�'' V":`� S�J� r .`x" A 't k � �-
'..., .7,..204,
, '1 : I I. ,Q,,,,�, < ,� _., , , ?, '''' i'"y' ry ,, Y ,tom . #
ra54,
r am '',1�J �,r rw:s�lra7 °'4.: '"vl'y I�' �.; r�'.�.,7F. - -,r a y , <i
"t � 4 `` �'t� r.� ."'7,lP;r'e r,,4� ' -" "" r1�h9 I -� IFa[- `_
ins - _ ..-,_ J y�r� - I. s-rV l�cx��7�11 'j s
� tetir:t a� r� .�_ r-.12:7. i f x-fit
Supplemental Auto Well— SCAW7 Supplemental Auto Well— SCAW8
al t. v s i 'te)i @1F ^{ c #'..�.'° m "tee: --r.G" , f\ e' ,,
d o cr^`. k 1. t '... .. i , �_ 1
a�""' '� ���—� j r x 74q�� ,-�� _���.m sry�Fi � � -" k r _ -� �"-
' f e
::',-.:-.47„,-* -:bfk.-, „:;-, ..."',.-"'-'5;i. ,... " _',.---,L./1; - ,,,, 1 , .,,„ .. , ,., . ., . . _,:. ,.„ -i
3' �. 8,! Tn9/�11 1 ill] _ ; ri. �r�1-,, i4/
Supplemental Auto Well— SCAW9 y Supplemental Auto Well— SCAW 10
k,
Ada - ; f�g�R�
+ham k i y3 i ` .'
^v��.-
r
0 / .
Reference Auto Well— SCREF2

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)
' � t v` r'S t , " i� 4 ', i , {' s ". . .--- ,=t .. rC *s _
41
;1, �' S ',x o rl I.dam i. - /Nf '�, �; _ �• -H 1, ,�, 3 �_
7 .
Iilli
era 3'. rq 'A. — '•• ., "Rigr b.� �� `'
,� � � i ., rl\y�,
ski ���� ,, ��r y., i
44 a� I r{�I ' - �� ,;,� ,,? � 's:
'ter ° r f `'Ig.., r. I* + ," i%
R ,
Flow Logger(UT2)— SCFL1 Flow Logger(UT2)— SCFL2
fF r° , - �'s v ''Y 'v"s,4 °�'' QS °Y , , 4: � .• av y, �#1" `, k4 :1,
U
77. tlf
•;;_g'' ° Ly rc „
j- Lo,,,_ ,--,,* •,,14t5-, ,, 4:4.•,-,71
r c Y �r ' S r � & 1 r'7 i.r Y x,3 ;� 4 d� Z4-
�-^ 1 ` s E `' > . Iry s 4ii.° a z y �,
k+' G"t rd ',� b 4 fit':2 .sc ";s.--
', G J vP'.��1 '4 t f �` � 3 ,' r�- i 1 F ! Wyk I r.''' ,44 f �i�S
4
v ; trl ae r#' ' { _ ,&�y s :` y, - y1" i I t in', f+7., �,P ,k,
:17;'
A4-s01-1 '�� -ri� Ty' l A Y �-: "����� *'t .l iv��4 � �� s�y„`Of
, dF� R
- . ,d( '*` t Y i,I f ,r -S Y xs..-. :4. y, a� f' i ',
p w -c.a+ F ,q r 'ke - k i`n' - - -. }k� rf 3e, a rR' ,.r c -'F $k ;'i� #r `� 4 .. ',.y,i.r r � `_, " iy nF^+ !yi `
u 4� w, - sus Pf. �' U': i! t
Flow Logger(UT2)—SCFL3 Flow Logger(UT2)— SCFL4
•
I •
,
Flow Logger(UT3)—SCFL5 Flow Logger(UT3)— SCFL6

St. Clair Restoration Site: Hydrology Monitoring Stations (12/10/2020)
- n mQai ' AuNar `+.GY r Syy 4: m j.
G ib{h{ 1 ' I'''; Ri -44. - ,,, a
p y� rai*`EF0 u f � i. :
44• 1M
t1 ,, , M
13iair law
r v
Wt6
P "Bf 7 � •4 , �'� .y"f Y , +
A
$
Flow Logger (UT2) —SCFL7

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
MY7 Planted Density/
Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? As-built Planted Stem Tract Mean
Density*
1 Y 445/728
2 Y 647/648
3 Y 647/688
4 Y 607/728
5 Y 526/688 594
6 Y 364/486
7 Y 931/1,174
8 Y 445/728
9 Y 728/769
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Report Prepared By Andrew Powers
Date Prepared 12/18/2020 12:00
database name MichaelBaker_MY7_2020_StClair_95015.mdb
database location C:\Users\Andrew.Powers\Desktop
computer name CARYLAPOWERS1
file size 48177152
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Proj,planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj,total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,for each year. This includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A 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 spp A 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 Code 95015
project Name St Clair Creek Restoration Project
Description
River Basin Tar-Pamlico
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width(ft)
area(sq m)
Required Plots(calculated)
Sampled Plots 9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 9a.CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
F� $ oA oA 44 A 411 one A oA
� tv.el
roFo~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ oaay �� 5 ,• ,•) ,�o ,�o �o �o o ,�o ,��`� y�, 4 Fg `• w w w w w v. w w wGo 0Q �4 Go k4 ,y 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Aronia arbutifolia Shrub Red Chokeberry 5 2 2.5 4 1
Carpinus caroliniana Shrub Tree American hornbeam 5 4 1.25 1 1 1 2
Clethra alnifolia Shrub coastal sweetpepperbush 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree green ash 5 4 1.25 2 1 i 1 1
Morella cerifera Shrub Tree wax myrtle 2 2 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica Tree blackgum 7 3 2.33 1 4 2
Persea palustris Tree swamp bay 6 2 3 I 2 4
Quercus laurifolia Tree laurel oak 9 3 3 1 3 5
Quercus lyrata Tree overcup oak 15 7 2.14 4 2 1 2 2 1 3
Quercus michauxii Tree swamp chestnut oak 27 6 4.5 1 4 4 5 5 8
Quercus phellos Tree willow oak 11 5 2.2 5 1 1 1 3
Taxodium distichum Tree bald cypress 15 4 3.75 4 3 7 1
Ulmus americana Tree American elm 19 6 3.17 1 4 2 1 4 7
Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub highbush blueberry 1 1 1 1
Viburnum dentatum Shrub Tree southern arrowwood 4 2 2 1 3
Totals: 132 15 11 16 16 15 13 9 23 11 18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 9b. Stem Count for All Species(Planted and Volunteer)Arranged by Plot
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Botanical Name Common Name Plots
1 I 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9
Tree Species
Acer rubrum red maple 2 1 6 3 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 2 1 1 1
Liquidambar styracii lua sweetgum 2 1 4 3 1 1 5 3 5
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum i 1 i 4 i 2
Pinus taeda loblolly pine 2 2 2 2 6 2 4 4 5
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak 6 3 5
Quercus lyrata overcup oak 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 3
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 1 4 4 5 5 8
Quercus phellos willow oak 5 1 1 1 4
Taxodium distichum bald cypress 4 3 7 1
Ulmus americana American elm 1 4 2 2 4 7
Shrub Species
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry 4 1
Baccharis Salt myrtle 3 1 2 3 4 8 3
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 1 I 1 2
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush 1
Morella cerifera wax myrtle 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2
Persea palustris swamp bay 2 5
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac 5 5 3 2 1 1
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry 1
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood 1 3
Average Stems Per
Acre
Stems Per Plot(December 2020) 27 29 31 29 34 22 37 23 33
Total Stems/Acre Year 7(December 2020) 1093 1174 1255 1174 1376 890 1497 931 1335 1192
Total Stems/Acre Year 6(December 2019) 769 728 648 769 688 607 1012 486 809 724
Total Stems/Acre Year 5(December 2018) 809 688 728 647 607 445 1012 486 809 692
Total Stems/Acre Year 4(October 2017) 1052 1052 809 850 769 405 1133 680 728 831
Total Stems/Acre Year 3(December 2016) 567 648 648 648 526 364 850 526 688 607
Total Stems/Acre Year 2(November 2015) 607 648 648 648 526 405 1012 607 688 643
Total Stems/Acre Year 1(December 2014) 688 648 648 648 648 445 1052 648 728 683
Total Stems/Acre for Year 0 As-Built(Baseline Data) 728 648 688 728 688 486 1174 728 769 737
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 9c.Yearly Density Per Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
Current Plot Data(MY6 2019)
95015-01-0001 95015-01-0002 95015-01-0003 95015-01-0004 95015-01-0005 95015-01-0006 95015-01-0007 95015-01-0008 95015-01-0009
Scientific Name Common Name _ Species Type P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 2 2 1 1 6 6 3 3 2 2
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub 4 4 1 1
Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 8 8 3 3 _
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1
Cornus foemina stiff dogwood Shrub Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 3 3 5 5
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2
Nyssasylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 4 4 2 2
Persea palustris swamp bay tree _ 2 2 4 1 5
Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 1 5 6 3 3 5 5
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 8 8
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree
Rhuscopallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 4 4 3 3 7 7 1 1
Ulmus alata winged elm Tree
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 2 4 4 7 7
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry Shrub 1 1
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 1 1 3 3
Stem count 11 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 33
size(ores) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 11 6 6 12 5 5 10 5 6 11 4 6 10 5 5 9 7 5 11 5 4 8 6 5 10
Stems per ACRE 445 647 1,093 647 526 1,174 6 607 1,255 607 567 1,174 526 850 1,376 364 526 890 931 567 1,497 445 486 931 72 607 1,335
Scientific Name I Common Name I Species Type MY7(2020) MY6(2019) MY5(2018) MY4(2017) MY3(2016) MY2(2015) MY1(2014)
P j V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 14 14 2 2 P= Planted
Aronia arbutifolia red chokeberry Shrub 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 V=Volunteer
Baccharis halimifolia salt myrtle Shrub 24 24 7 7 T=Total
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cornusfoemina stiff dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 _ Includes Volunteers:
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 25 25 3 3 7 7
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub 2 15 17 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 7 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 7 7 6 6 Color Key for Stem Density:
Persea palustris swamp bay tree 6 1 7 6 6 6 1 7 6 6 6 2 8 6 6 6 6 (Exceeds requirements by 10%
Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 26 29 12 12 90 90
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 9 I 5 1 14 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 14
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 15 1 16 14 2 16 15 6 21 14 1 15 14 14 14 14 17 17
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 27 27 27 2 29 27 27 27 27 26 26 27 27 25 25
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 11 1 12 10 1 11 10 2 12 10 10 12 12 15 15 11 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1
Rhuscopallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 17 17 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1 1 1 1
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 19 19
Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 2 2 _
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 19 1 20 19 19 19 1 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 21 21
Unknown Shrub or Tree 5 5 _
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry Shrub 1 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 4 4 4 4 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6
Stem count 132 130 265 132 29 161 137 17 154 134 3 137 135 103 238 143 0 143 152 0 152
size(arcs) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
size(ACRES) 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Species count 13 11 20 13 8 19 13 8 18 13 3 14 13 6 18 13 0 13 14 1 0 14
Stems per ACRE 594 585 1,192 594 130 616 76 692 603 13 616 607 463 1,070 643 0 643 0 683
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95015
St Clair Creek Restoration Project(#95015)
Year 7(10-Dec-2020)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Buffer Stream/Wetland Unknown Growth
Plot# Stems Stems2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total' Form
1 9 11 0 0 16 27 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 8 9 0 0 13 22 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
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/Wetland Success Criteria
Plot# Stems' Volunteers3 Total
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 I 598 S 1192 Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Success Criteria
Plot# Riparian Buffer Stems Met?
1 36.e 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 J
*These plots are not located in areas receiving riparian buffer credits
Stem Class Characteristics Color for Density
1111.
Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood stems including trees and native shrub species. No pines. No vines. Exceeds requirements by 10%
'Stream/Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs,does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines. Exceeds requirements,but by less than
'Total Planted+volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl.exotics. Excl.vines. 10%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

Table 10.Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
St.Clair Creek Restoration Project:Project ID No.95015
Percentage of Consecutive Days Most Consecutive Days Percentage of Cumulative Days Cumulative Days Meeting
Well ID <12 inches from Ground Surface' Meeting Criteria' <12 inches from Ground Surface Criteria'
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020)
Wetland Monitoring Wells(Installed September 2013)
SCAW1 _ 1.0 12.3 13.1 33.7 23.0 13.1 17.7 3 35 37 95 65 37 50 8.5 39.3 61.7 68.1 68.1 40.1 46.8 24 111 174 192 192 113 132
SCAW2 _ 3.8 3.3 9.2 10.6 13.1 12.8 17.7 11 9 26 30 37 36 50 30.6 16.1 _ 19.9 51.1 59.9 41.1 52.5 86 46 56 144 169 116 148
SCAW3 2.3 13.4 9.6 11.0 13.1 12.4 17.7 7 38 27 31 37 35 50 9.4 37.5 44.3 26.2 47.2 33.0 44.7 27 106 125 74 133 93 126
SCAW4 7.8 12.3 6.0 11.0 22.3 13.1 17.4 22 35 17 31 63 37 49 17.3 20.3 35.8 25.9 57.8 25.5 34.4 49 57 101 73 163 72 97
Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells(Installed April 2016)**
SCAW5* -- -- -- -- 36 32 66 61 75 -- -- 46.8 69.9 68.1 47.9 73.0 -- -- 132 197 192 135 206
SCAW6* -- -- 3.9 10.3 12.4 12.8 15.6 -- -- 11 29 35 36 44 -- -- 19.9 32.6 53.9 33.0 37.9 -- -- 56 92 152 93 107
SCAW7* -- -- 9.6 11.3 22.3 13.1 17.7 -- -- 27 32 63 37 50 -- -- 33.0 38.3 55.0 27.3 44.7 -- -- 93 108 155 77 126
SCAW8* -- 4.6 11.3 12.8 12.4 16.0 -- -- 13 32 36 35 45 -- -- 22.0 23.8 50.0 19.1 31.6 -- -- 62 67 141 54 89
Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells(Installed March 2017)**
SCAW9* -- -- -- 9.9 12.1 11.0 17.7 -- -- -- 28 34 31 50 -- -- -- 45.4 55.0 36.2 48.9 -- -- -- 128 155 102 138
SCAW10* -- -- -- 9.9 12.4 8.2 7.8 -- -- -- 28 35 23 22 -- -- -- 28.7 36.5 20.9 33.3 -- -- -- 81 103 59 94
IIMIr Reference Wells(Installed Spetember 2013)
SCAWREF1 24.8 57.9 40.9 41.1 -- -- -- 70 163 115 116 -- -- -- 46.4 93.7 77.9 70.1 -- -- -- 131 264 220 198 -- -- --
SCAWREF2** 27.0 60.1 43.8 40.9 38.2 21.6 0.0 66 170 124 115 108 61 0 44.5 94.1 76.9 67.1 66.5 26.6 0.0 126 257 217 189 188 75 0
'Indicates 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.
2lndicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates 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 is282 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 betweed0-12%in the IRT monitoring guidance document issued Oct.2016
HIGHLIGHTED 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 i a
IMI
*To gather additional well data in the wetland restoration area,In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAWS-SCAW 8 were installed in April 2016,several weeks after the growing season had begun. Two additional In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW9 and SCAW 10 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST.CLAIR RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95015)

Figure 3. Wetland Well Graphs
St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
0.0 Lv. T — I r T r 1 I " 11- I r 9 1 I Fr-' I — 1 -
I jl ' r II- it - T II
-1I
to
c 2.0 -
re 3.0 -
4.0 - -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As-Built Well - SCAW1)
10 -
I 1 Ground
5 I I Surface
I I
0 1 ' I -12 inches
\Pr\
5 SCAW1
4 1
34 -10 I , I
c
o -15 I I Season
CD 1 1
r -20 I I — — End Growing
Season
5. SCAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
G -25 (17.7%):2/28/2020-4/17 2020
I
-30
I
I
_35 — GROWING SEASON 1 I
(2/28-12/6)
I
-40 7 I I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
0.0 T r- I lrin
' rI ."- Ir l . pr- I 1 Il1 u r "- 1' _ T I -I -1I
1.0 -CO
I
2.0 -
Ts 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As-Built Well - SCAW2)
5 I u
Ground
0 \\/\)1\k I ' I 1 r• I ' I I Surface
1 I -12 inches
ibi
-5 )f \
r -10 1 \01
' II I SCAW2
3 { I I I
-15 ` I I
/ \ \ \ \\
O I \ \ /.1\ I — — Begin
L Growing
0 -20 I I Season"
0
I — End
0 -25 SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days Growing
a) (17.7%):2/28/2020-4/17/2020 I Season
I I
-30
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON I I
(2/28 12/6) I
-40 1 I ' I I I I I I ' I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020
05/15/2020 06/29/2 020 08/13/20 20 09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
'0.0 T rT n III "- r
c 10 iri I "Fr
I � 1I ill
L ■ �1- �' _ TI - -1I
a 2.0 -
•3 •
3.0 -
Ce
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As-Built Well - SCAW3)
5 I I Ground
I I I Surface
0
1 1
-5 1 -12 inches
011
-10 I I SCAW3
d i
1 1
15 1 /
a — — Begin
1 I
1 Growing
_20 Season
O
2 1, 1 - - End
s -25 I Growing
w SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days Season
d (17.7%):2/28/2020-4/17/2020
CI
-30 I I
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON 1 1
(2/28-12/6)
I 1
-40 -
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
T - '- I 1 r 1 " 1 1 ri "w I r 9 I ' Fr I - 1 I 11 u ,
c 1.0 -
c 2.0 -
4-
•� 3.0 -
CC
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As-Built Well - SCAW4)
5 1 1 Ground
] 1 I Surface
0
I I
-5 I , 1 -12 inches
1IV\j I V.\
C
-10 SCAW4
Lm1
a,3 -151 Y — — Begin
= I Growing
o -20 ` A Season
CD1 — End Growing
O -25 SCAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of 49 days \IXSeason
Q (17.4%):2/28/2020-4/16/2020
d
Ci -30
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON
(2/28-12/6) -
I
-40 -I I I I I I I -
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020
09/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020/2020
0.0 L.,. ' '
c TI rn rr� . wIr I ��P- I - � - I1 1� ■
. rf- ; _ T - - -11 '
1
�a 2.0 -
•6" 3.0 -
W
4.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW5)
5 -
Ground
0 I I Surface
-5 \I\\ -12 inches
--C. I I
d 10 I I SCAW5
1
c -15 I I — — Begin Growing
p 1 1
:1\1\\ \\IC\ Season
L.
0 -20 I I
p — — End Growing
t SCAW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 75 days I Season
Q. -25 (26.6%):2/28/2020-5/12/2020 I
a)
I I
-30
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON I I
(2/28-12/6)
-40 7 I I I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
0.0 1- I I r T �' 1 'r n 1 .�_ I r III 11 1T!
�-' I -- i - 111 19 ■ r Fri
- '1 - T I 'I -1 I
1.0 - I
,F 2.0
C
73 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW6)
5 I
Ground
Surface
0 I I
-12 inches
5 I I
1
Nif‘ k?1\11IV
\11
SCAW6
(II' -10 I \11/41\W \ '
is \\01 II I 1
c \k15 — — Begin
p 1 1 Growing
I Season
✓ -20 — — End Growing
I Season
+..
O. -25 I I
GI SCAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 44 days
I(15.6%):2/28/2020-4/11/2020
-30
1
-35 GROWING SEASON
(2/28-12/6) I \ ,— \\/..—.N. I
-40 -, 1 ' 1 1 I 1 - 1 I 1
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020
06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020
9/27/2020 1 1/11/2020
12/26/2020
0.0 ' '
TIpr1 1f, wwIr11FTI - 1 - I1 � ■
. n- ; — T - -,I
- 2.0 -
c
3.0 -
Ce
4.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW7)
5
Ground
0 - ' ' Surface
-5 hk Iil'
I -12 inches
. \\\
�`, 10 \4. \\.k
SCAW7
-
c -15 ��\\:\ I\/1 \\:
I I
— Begin Growing
Season
CD -20 I
p — End Growing
Q. -25 SCAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 daysritr Season
\\VA‘i\n\A
0 (17.7%):2/28/2020-4/17/2020 I
i I
-30
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON
I I
(2/28-12/6) I
-40 f 1 I I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
_— 0.0 T .- I _1�� 11- ,I i fi w. I rFr ��.-' I I j� ■ r n- il - T 1 -1 -��
42 2.0 -
c
71 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW8)
5 - , u
Ground
0 1 I Surface
-5 1
1-21 I I 12 inches
2 -10 I I SCAW8
I
1 I 1
,1\\-15 1 4 — — Begin Growing
p Season
1 ` 1 Season
L.
0 -20
0
1 — — End Growing
t
11
al -25 \\:\ SCAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 45 days 1
0 (16.0%):2/28/2020-4/12/2020
I
-30 W
I I
-35 GROWING SEASON I I
(2/28-12/6) I
-40 , I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
70.0 1.0 - T - r- I r T " 1 r Ti q.
I r ri 1 1 ITT.- I 1 I lr r Fr ,' - T 1 -1 -iI
c 2.0 -
Ts
3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW9)
10
I I Ground
5 Surface
1 I
Nk11414
1 ' ` 1 M 4 i P 12 inches
I
1
� _5 • 1 � I SCAW9
°' Io -10 I 1
3 1 ,
15 — — Begin
I I Growing
o \\1\ Season
-20 I 1
s \\
1 1 \ ` I Growing
Q -25 I Season
CI SCAW9 Longest Hydroperiod of 50 days
\IP \,.... .
-30 (17.7%)2/28/2020-4/17/2020 1
-35 GROWING SEASON
(2/28-12/6)
-40 I ' I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
7 0.0 T - '- I r Tr 1 IT1n_ Ir ri 1 1 FT' I - 1 Ilr r Fr ,' - T Ii
-ii
c 2.0 -
Ts
3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW10)
5 - I I
Ground
1 \II\1 Surface
0 -
1 I I 1
-5 I 1 -12 inches
c 1
L -10 Il\
SCAW10
d
c -15 1 1 — — Begin
1 1 Growing
o -20 ` Season
0 1 1 — — End
s -25 I I Growing
Q kr
Season
1\\I\f\A\11
•\
Q
-30 1 �. ` 1.r.,,n..�,r1 \'r^ti Inn 1
SCAW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 22 days 1•
(7.8%):2/28/2020-3/20/2020 I
-35 1 GROWING SEASON 1
(2/28-12/6)
I I
-40 1 I I I I I I I
12/31/2019 2/14/2020 3/30/2020 5/14/2020 6/28/2020 8/12/2020 9/26/2020 11/10/2020 12/25/2020
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2020)
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
0.0 T r- I � r r T• I r 1 Fr- I — i 1 ' '
r Fr_ nil _ T I _I -ii
c 1.01 I ri I
4-
713 2.0 -
•@ 3.0
ce
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well (UT3)
(REF2)
25 - i
20 I I — Ground
Surface
15
10 I I -12 inches
5 I
E o I I
.. 5 SCAWREF2
a 5 I 1
To -10
-a -15
— — Begin
-20 I 1 Growing
0 -25 I Well REF2 connections have degraded and has 1 Season
r -30 I been sent to In-Situ for data extraction I — — End Growing
t I I Season
a -35
o -40 I I
-45
_50 GROWING SEASON 1 I
-55 (2/28-12/6) 1
-60 , I I 1 1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date

Table 11.Flow Gauge Success
St.Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.95019
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria - — Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2_ -
Flow Gauge ID Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) 1
UT2 Flow Gauges(Installed March 21,2014)
SCFL1 71 43 83 63 152 224 227 - 206 224 328 363 342 343
SCFL2 64 43 84 60 121 121 89 - 201 232 204 270 214 253
SCFL3 61 25 86 35 63 120 88 - 174 203 287 328 271 255
SCFL4 24 17 46 29* 20 38 45 - 118 124 86 146 85 106
UT3 Flow Gauges(Installed July 17,2015)
SCFL5 57 44 62 30 57 74 73 NA 174 162 79 214 327 108
SCFL6 5 42 62 30 35 40 52 NA 116 180 191 214 103 87
UT2 Flow Gauge(Installed June 6,2018)3
SCFL7 NA NA NA NA 60 117 78 NA NA NA NA 162 167 180
Notes:
'Indicates 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.
*SCFL4 also recorded a 28-day consecutive flow event in 2017,in addition to the 29-day flow event shown above.
3SCFL7 was installed June 6th 2018 to gather additional flow data for upper UT2.
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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Figure 4. Flow Gauge Graphs
St. Clair Rain (2020)
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
0.0 ..
I i i r r� I I II•• I �.�' I I� III' III 'I'�I"II" I 'I I q�I i I'I r I I '� '� 1 I • I
= I
1.0 ..
.l 2.0 -
c
w 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream UT2)
20.0 -
19.0
18.0
...................................................................................................................................... —SCFL1
17.0 _.._.._ .._.._..-
16.0 _.._.._ .._.._.._.._... 0.25Inches -
15.0 MY7 MOST CONSECUTIVE
14.0 DAYS CRITERIA MET-227
c 13.0
12.0 _.._.._.. .._.._.._ _.._.. _..._. ._..._.._ ._..._.._ ._..._.._ .....__ ... _..._..
t
Q 11.0
d
m9.0 _.._..._.._..______.._.._..._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._. .._.._..._...__.._..._.._.._.._..._.._.._...__._.._..._.._.._..._..._.._.._..._..--
01
8.0
ca 7.0 A — —
6.0
5.0
11141\111111\1"ii$ 11\1"1"1111"1114/1°1111441111414111411114.1/
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
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
Date
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
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
0.0 r r . I 11
P 1 1 I II"
I ri ' I II III.' III. I ILIA Ili i. I .. 1 I Il II •I I III r I .I II I I
1.0 -
a 2.0 -
C
a 3.0 -
4.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
24.0 -
23.0 — I
22.0 — —SCFL2 •
21.0 — •
20.0 — YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS —0.25 inches •
19.0 — -
18.0 — - CRITERIA MET-89
17.0 — -
16.0 — -
= 15.0 — -
t 14.0 — - - --
-, 13.0 — - - •-
d 12.0 — .
0 11.0 — •-------- --- •-
3 9.0 — i •---- •-
(.9 7.0 — iikii. __iii___ ____
i-±----------t-_ --1-4-_:-:;_ --_:: iliN
H
- ---A---�-T 1 -a
- --- - -'.T"' -- - --
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
Date
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
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
0.0
11
. .. ..II Ilia 11, •• 11 •,,, ii „1r ll 1 , li I' I • I 111 �� I III .1 1111 I 1 '+ I
1.0 -
cu
c 2.0 -
Ts
Ce 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
24.0 - I
23.0 a
22.0 —SCFL3 -----
21.0 - -----
20.0 0.25Inches ------
18.0.0 ____
1 YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-
17.0 CRITERIA MET-88 -
16.0 —
15.0
14.0
-' 13.0 —
co 12.0 •
11.0 — • T
w a) 10.0 —
z 9.0 — T
co
8.0 — • -
7.0 —
6.0 — 1 - -
5.0 — -- --- - --tv-44101tir -•
- c............mai....‘,u.,.
0.0 , - - -i----- --- -- - -- ----
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
Date
"0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
1/1/2020 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 12/26/2020
0.0 . - I .11
I L. I I .. -i I I ,L- I I I, III. III I I.II,,II,. I .. 1 I 11
III I I I I I I I
1.0 -CU
I I
2.0 -
IY 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL4
(Upstream UT2)
12.0 -
11.0 — —SCFL4 ---
1o.o — —0.25 Inches ----
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
9.0 —
CRITERIA MET-45
8.0 —
c
7.0 —
a
y 6.0 — -
0
a1 5.0 —
c7 4.0 -
2.0 - - •
0.0 I i
1/1/2020 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 12/26/2020
Date
"0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
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
0.0 I I `1 m r 1 I .. i
I ,I.. I �,I , ii'
Ili. II�• I �I•�I��I��. I .. it 111 II •I I III ' r I I • it I 1 • I `I I
I
w- 2.0 -
c
co
ce 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
10.0
L_
9.0 - —SCFL5
8.0 — YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS 0.25 Inches
CRITERIA MET-73
7.0 - -
s IEL 5.0 -
d ---I
0
0 4.0 — - - -- -
c
co
r ' 1
0-640000 - 11001\-i-A-1-ii\I-11/11 -
10
0.0r- Ji. 1 r ■ "T
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
Date
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
1/1/2020 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 12/26/2020
0.0 . I I I" -I I .. -�I I 'I'" I . I I' I l' II`. PII''I',. I .. it I `i II 'I I I'I ' ' i i '�'l I 1 I 1 I
1.0 I I
01 2.0
C
CI 3.0
IX
4.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL6
(Upstream UT3)
10.0
9.0 .........................................................................................................................................................................
—SCFL6
$'0 — 0.25 Inches
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
7.0 CRITERIA MET-52
6.0 ..... ....................................................................................
d 5.0
d
3 4.0
R
3.0
2.0 t / {�
1.0 , I I I0.0 , ,.I.L11. j
1/1/2020 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 12/26/2020
Date
`0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2020)
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
—_ 0.0 1 I r, I I ,L. I li lIl
Ill "[ill"ill,. I .. it I11 111
' 1 1 1 '1 I I I I
.0 -
4- 2.0 -
ce 3.0 -
4.0 -
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL7
(Upstream UT2)
18.0
17.0 - -SCFL7
16.0 .. 0.25 Inches ._............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...._.._..._.._.._..._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._..._.._.._..._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._..._.._..................................................................................
15.0
14.0
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
13.0
12.0 —_.._.. .._.._.._ _.._..._..._ CRITERIA MET-78
t
11.0
9.0
CD 8.0
as
C9 6.0
5.0it\k •4ti,
4.0
3.0siXr\iqttilli\AilillNihyttiv
I
oo 4 _ski
\11 lAtis
0.0
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
Date
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

Figure 5. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
St. Clair Restoration Project (DMS No. 95015) MY7 2020
io.o —
8.0
r
1.1
0 6.0
411111116\ A‘4rA‘r
.o
t.'t 4P‘ 4
4.0
a
2.0
0.0 7 I I I I I
,LO ,LO ,LO y0 , LO ,1O :\ ,19 ,LO r i9
� ��� �� �Q� �� o0 �ti �0% �e� pCw ���
,Historic Average(50.0 in) +Historic 30%probable
—a—Historic 70%probable t Observed MY7(60.5 in)
Note: Beaufort County historic average rainfall is 50.0 in,while observed previous 12 months rainfall total recorded onsite was 60.5 in.

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
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,
isir 4
Scott King, LSS, PWS
[e-mail]
919-219-6339 [M]

St Clair Cross Sections (collected 5/1/20):
'0 St Clair: XS-1 on Upper UT2
Station 16+90
f nn
0
original swale edges
°
6p0
0 00 0
0 O
94.f0
0 000° °
0 7p0
0 0 0°00000000
000
93,50 ° 0 o
0 o
0 00
0° ° O
°0000p°00°tr0
93.00
92.50
92.00
91.50
10 20 30 40 50 0.0 70 80 90

ST Clair: XS-2 on Upper UT2
95.00
at Station 14+90
94.50
original swale edges
94.00 _ r`
0
0 0 n ° 0 0 0,
D 0 0 O 0 0
93.50 0 a 0 ° 0 0
Qa �
0
0 0o a
0 0 0 0 0
93.00
92.50
92.00
10 20 50 40 5C! 60 70 30 70

Cross-Section / Transect Location Map:
r---1 Conservation Easement ' Flow Gauges irk'"Al f _ ,•,5- "•• ' "rM !.• r� `,: Aft.4751/11;
� `' ' ; - •
_-�---� Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale) r * Pass (All Passed in MY6) •" 11;.1 .': _��;:.: '! t" ..- ��r' , r {r '^ �'
4i1 ;r
Drainages Filled(March 2016) As-Built Streams AF �,
., r +`
4
Drainage Not Filled - Restoration: Headwater Valley ` ' •
.i -. #*.'.."0- ; 8; 1 ha ii,`4 ,•,.. ..... ,.-ritt 4 a
- 4 t its i l' ,�. 4"'---
Groundwater Monitoring Wells No Credit ** ;; , , r., ,,„.,, ) \-,- •. ., ` ;y + •_ . ,,
® Pass (>33 days) Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft(226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio=226,002 BMUs) , ' k„-' „?..,,,' 4. 7. r r :
.. n. 1 yi
0 Failed by 1 Day r.774i Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft(137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio= 137,575 BMUs) rt 'ell
1/ ,1`` r ,'„t '►` q y
ta Fail r �y s, 1S � +yh l •} � � %� t. UT 3 r ,1' '4' ; 11
® Photo Points '"s; rr *4 1 :5r ti , ,Y "_ , f • . I . 4 r. . '• ! .
• `,tr, , 4ti rr, •} i P- , v -1 , <,, , r ,t 21' �r ' t S ,t •!, I., . .,,j�ki..-,r �,` 'i 4,
v.
® Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria 1. - ' *• .- _, ' x: ' - ' .' ' ,i1i. i., ,4. i ,PP24:. ` i ,.•�•, ►',t tie ' `t`! ,F,qr nt'
L_—� Wetland Restoration Areas 2.87 acres total) • -*r r' 4 ��r '4 'rf ` , �' 1.41 * �!
( Veg PIot3: _ - ° fr At. • •lr - - r•'�r" - " 'k
647 stems/ac , , .i. '•) - '' _ _., ... ,, a
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas(1.05 acres total) , , k' ' +', '
�l' ' tfo J7L ;1 I �.. ,it -SLAWS f 1
in:
t.
4R ij�'= R4440. .
3 . Veg Plot 9: •.,-104* q
688 stemslac SCAW4 445 stemslac °� �
t '1 4sf Veg Plot 1' t '� , . :* r • ii�'\4:060VI'P
. ‘ 0 4.486 stemslac ;l'i m, , T PP10 ��.Y�• ,���j� , ` � �r
'n },{ /(` ,d ,` PP9 'iX: \: •
-' _ d','f.:A.: •'[ '.,RI q"t ` 7, 4 A• ` i 'T. I
1 '' • L
, y. u- PP12 CAWS 647 stems/ac i+ 4` , , .tM 0 �� . :• �
PP13 • ')
SCAW7 ,r
Gaug i .� ,•4, «a•a it . Veg Plot 7: �'
a � ;' PPG 4 • a 890 stems/ C R '
s PP15 PP14 4 - ' rt:�'+ r ::s ' . t+� �, , ` 11,ac`; '.' ` a
• _4.,t. ++� ► PP5 ;ti4 CAWS : -: '. 0.66acres
• 1F • x ., k _y. 'i 1j ,} 4 'te s/ =, �r
x ' c j'„ Veg Plot 2: J� 'r�l� Jt''��1'��• • .uge�- t� r'' ' 1 }�I�i ; r.
r. } 1t 64 ste slac z s •
,, P P 19 P P 18
r' . � ' Y `1iw K f r .r '��� .SG'Aliill PP4 •, !" ' .., •
r r rl - ` ,X `,4K ,= 4 r: i!i..►: ; .fi er."1-t '` r., Veg Plot 6: 0, a'. 3,0, t; r
i ' ' ?' s '' :".,• ,.... :4,'1t wV • I �L , T 364 stemslac ;fit; CAW10
,,;• , '` «w' •: ; 3 �` } '° WIC ` r; •s ,. * iii• .� Veg Plnt S: y A PP 7 7
,, ar 0 '-
- , ''''�''4 - le 4 +ir " "' �' 526 stemslac ' a `!'f :.9 SCAW5 %40044:, 1
i t 'j . ,. Ito
iv* .,0•• .' Yr�Oh&4 , yam. 1• 4 ', `. .*, `.''/�. ^ :Gauge#1 '-^_ r Ai`IN 1' t-F . ' .. 4 V14.1 • . •'0 '', .
rirtA. ..,.- .-.... ..r.,'.A.
' s. "'�. .L• �� F'; Y .- , 'r� :44;Atki- 0.,rt,.."4.tairgitt. .; ..*It . a, •;,4.- r�r'r •, - _ ©.26 acres - - `SCAW9. �'�. -:. = +,� s 0.13 acres- t The potential wetland areas shown here are not being ' , t;�.': •ii& -., • t 1' ri; ; ' - ' '� - - - �r •r ---'fi; 46t
requested for credits at this time and were not originally „r r ',% i r _^ f _ . , r r e
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting i•ti � • = '' - `` , ', + +" <
, ../ ..r-;' I. .
exploratory monitoring in these areas only. '•-� " 1' fl_ " .--"" a ' y , _ w
' '` , / "'� �, �''`�' ' Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2019 a � R61" - ''!' ^; ` ? � ``rf ' _
' i, n' ', �� 4 r.�.4 -, . Aerial Photo Date: 2016
,ar. . f r, :_- ' NC Center for Geographic Information 8 Analysis,Sourc-:IE.14 o a-, - 1��-3Pirh•3t=1103s 19-rj ksi r;,*zit itia_-3,r 1glA 14p:�,r4i,,,,l;A, LN.
r -'E"r •. = f : and the GIS User Community
N Figure 2
IV!ichael Baker NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services 0 250 500 Current Conditions Plan View: MY6
Project#95015A [ Feet St. Clair Creek Site
INTERNATIONAL Beaufort County, NC