20120916 Ver 1_Year 7 Monitoring Report_2020_20210224

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20120916 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/24/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -2/24/2021
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* f Yes C' No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17 Stream rJ Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20120916 Version:*1
Existing IDI# Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County: Onslow
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: UTtoMillSwamp_95019_MY7_2020.pdf 13.21MB
Rease upload only one FtFof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:* 74

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Eighth Monitoring Measurement
Seventh Year of Credit Release - Final
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number—95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW-2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
,,\ , I C ii- , .., :,' ,. ' 11
Ij' , , '_ , ` ---'-',..- t 1 A ../ \ '
, _,., ),., () ,' :, \I i'
,,,.ii. v to:, -1 ,
(_,,,, ,/r}r1\ r : , , / ,
{J i { f i [ S� 1 �I
ti `"4 a N 1 r; 1 1 i i'♦•t
1. I I ,' 11 y, ;',�T' CIS .
ifit
-,
n �.. S FSA� Yq,. r
'` ,.r ?fr'Ki {?Y.` y. e c ',!y F it
�F 9 t; °'* •"i' •=Tirr •� ` it gp r• v;r Zak..`,\
4. . lit,- 'v •: f J' ,, .4 0. a —1: ,
��G� i • `
• ' •if• 1
141
s`p 4J.' ry -:" ,i �aW
Project Info: Credit Release Year: 7 of 7 (Eighth site measurement since construction)
Year of Data Collection: 2020
Year of Completed Construction: 2013
Submission Date: January 2021
Submitted To: NCDEQ—Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1652

Michael Baker Innovation Dane Right...We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
January 11, 2021
Jeremiah Dow
Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1652
Subject: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 7 Monitoring Report
for the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project(#95019)
White Oak River Basin—CU#03030001, Onslow County,North Carolina
DEQ Contract No. 003992,Baker No. 124578
Mr. Dow,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments dated
January 8, 2021 in reference to the UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project Year 7 Draft monitoring report.
We have revised the document and the digital submission files as outlined below:
1. Appendix B
a. Figures 2 &2B: Please show the new wetland boundary/area proposed to be removed from
credit and adjust(or remove)the restored wetland acreage amount in the Legend.
Response: Figures revised as requested.
b. Recommend adding reach(UT1a)to text under photo points 16, 17, & 18.
Response: Revision made as requested.
2. Electronic Files
a. Please submit monitoring photos as JPEGs.
Response: Photographs provided as JPEGs in the revised digital files as requested.
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,
Aft I
Scott King,LSS,PWS
Project Manager

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Eighth Monitoring Measurement
Seventh Year of Credit Release - Final
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number—95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW-2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License#F-1084
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 Stream Assessment—Reach UTla& UT1 b 4
2.1.1 Hydrology 4
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation 5
2.2 Stream Assessment—Reach UT1 c 5
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability 5
2.2.2 Hydrology 5
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation 6
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment 6
2.3 Wetland Assessment 6
2.4 Vegetation Assessment 6
3.0 REFERENCES 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View(CCPV)Map
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas(SPAs)
Table 6a Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas(VPAs)
Stream Station Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Additional Project Photographs
Vegetation Problem Area Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment(Planted Stems)
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9b Vegetation Planted Stem Count Densities
Table 9c CVS Density Per Plot
Table 9d Vegetation Plot Summary Information
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. ii
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figure 3 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 10 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Cross-section Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 4 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graph
Figure 6 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table 12 Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Table 13 Flow Gauge Success
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Wetland Boundary Adjustment Memo
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. iii
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering (Baker) restored 3,606 linear feet of perennial stream, 6.62 acres of riparian
wetlands, and enhanced 600 linear feet of stream along an unnamed tributary(UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow
County,North Carolina(NC), (Appendix A). The total planted acreage was approximately 15.2 acres,and the
permanent conservation easement is 19.6 acres. The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project(Site) is located in
Onslow County,approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The project
involved the restoration and enhancement of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system(Schafale
and Weakley 1990)from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural conversion,cattle grazing,
and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities or
RBRP (NCDMS 2010) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and
nutrient inputs. The primary restoration goals,as outlined in the approved mitigation plan,are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to
receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion,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 incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer,reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas,protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, 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.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 1
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

The project as-built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan(Mitigation Plan)specified the planting of riparian live stakes
during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May
2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be
installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live
stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UT 1 c area.
• Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks
outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for
hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle.
Special Notes:
In consideration of this report,the following timeline should be noted:
Completion of construction—5/31/13
Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots—6/13/13
Year 1 (2013)vegetation monitoring— 10/16/13
Live stake installation- 3/27/14
Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring—5/18/14
Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional
mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the
installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was
only 125 days of the growing season(March 18'through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for an
additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were
supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were planted
and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days within the
growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 (2014) vegetation monitoring,
providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the approved
Mitigation Plan. As such,Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data and the data
collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has declined to
release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation
and monitoring. As such, the 2015 monitoring report was considered Year 2. All references to Year 2
henceforth will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during 2014 that
was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*.
Year 2* (2014)vegetation monitoring— 12/19/14
Year 2 (2015)vegetation monitoring— 11/13/15
Year 3 (2016)vegetation monitoring—November,2016
Supplemental 3-foot bare roots installed in the area around Vegetation Plot 3 only—March 20, 2017
Year 4 (2017) vegetation assessment was conducted in October of 2017, but no formal monitoring plot
data is required to be collected as part of Year 4 monitoring effort.
Year 5 (2018)vegetation monitoring— 10/30/18
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 2
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Year 6(2019)vegetation assessment was conducted in December of 2019,but no formal monitoring plot
data is required to be collected as part of Year 6 monitoring effort.
Year 7 (2020)vegetation monitoring— 12/8/20
The Year 7 monitoring survey data of the eight permanent cross-sections indicate that the Site is geomorphically
stable and performing at 100 percent for the all parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the
lateral/vertical stability and in-stream structure performance categories. Visual assessment of the project
reaches indicate that all channel, banks, and structures appear functioning and stable. There are no Stream
Problem Areas (SPA)to report.
During Year 7 monitoring,the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report,no current low stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. The average density
of total planted stems, based on the data collected from the six monitoring plots in December 2020 was 459
stems/acre. Thus,the Year 7 vegetation data demonstrates that the Site has met the minimum success interim
criteria of 210 stems/acre by the end of Year 7.
Two areas of invasive Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense)totaling 0.96 acres that had previously been identified
as a Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) in the Year 6 report were treated in September of 2020. However,
additional resprouts were again observed and documented during Year 7 monitoring. Scattered privet resprouts
totaling 0.87 acres were observed in two areas along the left and right floodplain of the middle and lower
sections of Reach UT l c. These invasives are identified as a Vegetation Problem Area(VPA)and will be treated
in the spring of 2021, prior to Site closeout evaluations. These resprout areas overlap significantly with the
previously treated areas. The CCPV found in Appendix B shows the locations of each of these areas.
During the Site inspection on 12/8/20, two beaver dams were discovered in the upper and middle portions of
UT 1 c. They were apparently established in the fall of this year as they were not present during the previous
site visit in late August. The dams will be removed in the winter or spring of 2021 prior to Site closeout
evaluations.
During Year 7 monitoring, groundwater monitoring demonstrated that twelve of the fifteen groundwater
monitoring wells located along Reach UTIc met the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation
Plan. The gauges that met success criteria demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12% or greater,ranging
from 14.3 to 100% of the growing season (see Figure 4 and Table 12 in Appendix E). The three wells that
failed are located in outer portion of the left floodplain of Reach UT 1 c and have only passed once in previous
monitoring years, while three additional wells once located in this general outer portion of the floodplain had
also consistently failed(they have since been relocated with IRT permission). As such,at the recommendation
of NCDMS staff during Year 6 review, a closer inspection was made of the wetland boundary in the left
floodplain of UTlc to redelineate and confirm a new adjusted boundary. The results were compiled into a
memorandum,which is included in Appendix E.
Year 7 flow monitoring on Reach UTIb demonstrated that flow gauge MSFL1 (located on upper UTIb) met
the stated success criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through upper UT lb with 133 days of
consecutive flow and 296 days of total cumulative flow. The gauge demonstrated similar patterns relative to
rainfall events for the Site. Flow data collected during Year 7 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
The Site was also found to have had at least one above-bankfull event based on the crest gauge monitoring
conducted during Year 7. A reading of 1.20 feet was measured on 12/8/20 from a 4.9 inch storm on 11/12/20.
This overbank event is also corroborated by the flow gauge readings. The complete project crest gauge data
are presented in Appendix E and gauge photographs are presented in Appendix B. As bankfull events have
now been documented in each year of monitoring,the project has met the bankfull standard required for credit
release.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 3
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

During the field visit with State Property Office (SPO) and NCDMS Property Protection staff on 11/5/20, an
area of conservation easement encroachment was discovered at the northwest corner of the lower easement
parcel. An easement marker was knocked down at some unknown point in the past and mowing has occurred
along a triangular sliver(approximately 0.04 acres in size) at this corner. The landowner was made aware of
the issue and 3 additional posts have been installed to further identify this area. The posts will be connected
with poly-tape this winter to ensure that a clear demarcation of the easement boundary is established,and several
trees will be planted within the area as well.
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 is available from NCDMS upon request.
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 Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland
Mitigation guidance document dated November 7, 2011 (NCDMS 2011), which will continue to serve as the
template for any subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features: vegetation plots,
permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets
found in Appendix B.
The Year 7 vegetation plot data,final monitoring gauge data, and all visual site assessment data were collected
in December 2020,the cross-section survey data were collected in September 2020.
2.1 Stream Assessment—Reach UTla & UT1b
The UT la and UT lb mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding
functions in a multi-thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to
document stability, the use of water level monitoring gauges to document both groundwater and flooding
functions.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Two automated groundwater well gauges(pressure transducers)are installed along well transects,with
a total of four well transects installed in the UT 1 a and UT1b areas. The automated loggers are
programmed to collect data at 6-hour intervals to record groundwater levels in UT 1 a and UT lb areas.
Graphs of the groundwater data collected for these gauges during Year 7 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
Additionally, two in-stream flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the
occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges document
flooding connectivity between the restored UTla and UT lb reaches,with a stated success criteria of at
least 30 consecutive days of flow under normal climatic conditions. Flow gauge MSFL2 (on lower
UT lb) permanently failed during the winter of 2017/2018 and was not replaced as it had already met
the required project success criteria in each previous monitoring year. Flow gauge data is presented in
Appendix E.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 4
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion
of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream
at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established
close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The
angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future
photos. Site photographs for UT 1 a and UT lb were taken at established photo-point stations and can
be found in Appendix B.
2.2 Stream Assessment—Reach UT1c
The UTlc mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a
single-thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations,the use of groundwater
level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events, and established stream cross-
sections to monitor channel stability.
Stream survey data is 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.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as-built baseline monitoring conditions (Year 0) only. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg,water surface,bankfull,and top of low bank. Each of
these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g.,riffle,pool) and at the maximum pool
depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless
channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the USACE or
NCDMS.
Survey data from the eight permanent project cross-sections were collected and classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type (Rosgen 1994). The Year 7 monitoring
survey data for the cross-sections indicates that the Site is geomorphically stable and performing at 100
percent for all the parameters evaluated. The data collected are within the lateral/vertical stability and
in-stream structure performance categories. Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D.
Please note,as per NCDMS/IRT request the bank height ratios for MY7 have been calculated using the
as-built bankfull area to determine bankfull elevation and the max depth based on the current-year
channel profile. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for
in earlier monitoring reports.
2.2.2 Hydrology
To monitor on-site bankfull events,one cork crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull
elevation along the left top of bank on UTIc approximately at Station 45+50. Crest gauge reading data
are presented in Appendix E and gauge photographs are presented in Appendix B.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 5
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Representative project photographs for Reach UTIc were taken at the previously established photo-
point stations located along the enhanced and restored stream sections of UTIc and are presented in
Appendix B. Additionally,reference photograph transects were taken at each permanent cross-section
during the time of survey. The survey tape was centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line
was located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the bank as possible is included in each
photograph.
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in-stream structures throughout
all project reaches as a whole. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated.
During Year 7 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions of the
stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in-stream structures. All
stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream beds are vertically stable, the pools are
maintaining depth,stream banks are stable and vegetating,and in-stream structures are physically intact
and performing as designed. No Stream Problem Areas (SPAs) were documented during Year 7
monitoring. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability
assessment can be found in Appendix B,which includes supporting data tables.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, ten automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the UT 1 c
wetland restoration area following USACE protocols (USACE 2005). The gauges themselves are all
In-Situ brand Rugged Troll 100 data loggers. An additional six monitoring wells were installed in the
spring of 2016 in the left floodplain of UT lc for a more detailed evaluation there. During an IRT site
visit on 5/1/18,it was suggested that two of the wells(MSAW3 and MSAW7)originally located on,or
just outside, the wetland boundary line be relocated to help confirm restored wetland areas elsewhere
in the floodplain. As such,in June 2018 those two wells were relocated to the suggested areas as shown
in the CCPV found in Appendix B. All groundwater monitoring well data collected are presented in
Appendix E.
Total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located near Richlands,NC
(Onslow County)for the previous 12-month period from December 2019 through November 2020 was
65.4 inches. The WETS table for Hoffman Forest station (NC4144) in Onslow County was used to
calculate the 30-year average for that same 12-month period and documents an average of 56.5 inches
of rainfall,with an historic 30%probable of 51.9 inches and an historic 70%probable of 60.5 inches.
Thus,the site appears to have an exceeded the 70%probable by 4.9 inches. May was a particularly wet
month for the site, which exceeded the monthly average by roughly 7 inches. The monthly rainfall
results are shown in Figure 6 found in Appendix E.
2.4 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored annually across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (Lee 2007)using the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). The vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the Site,with six plots established randomly within
the planted UTla, UTIb and UTIc riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring
quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of UTla and UTIb. The sizes of individual
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC. 6
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. All vegetation data are presented in Appendix C while
plot photographs are presented in Appendix B.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey(CVS)and NC Division of Mitigation Services(NCDMS). 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-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7,2011.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(NCDMS). 2010. White Oak River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
Rosgen,D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
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,
NCDENR. Raleigh,NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 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. 7
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT,NCDMS PROJECT NUMBER-95019
MONITORING YEAR 7 OF 7(2020)

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

Y V +L.._ , I 7 \ / 'Se-- ----7-----.1 I % / t / \ I /-
A The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)and the Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is encompassed
/' by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary
Iand therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the
development,oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
•'*�rgLENO R „'. �` �i`, N
;! O U WO
Pink Hill
4
412*
,..- •
, A _
J0A -
4 „1:0,101
it.
GO TY
id
iikt ., it,
14111
I L.
�-
Illx_.., .... _
pk
r
- --10.
-...nr.,_
1.44 _______
\ �, Project Location
11.
aAWarren Taylor Rd II_
:10 Stiori D .p\ G1 �_.,::,,:.!_..t?
eu i •)11 kII4 . f ,�.
Richlands (.,
1 44 O NSL or II
i Co
P
Site Directions i
To access the site from Raleigh,follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and i
Magnolia. From Exit 373,continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC i C
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway i
OIL
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway). i/ tel
Once on US Highway 258,travel for approximately 1.2 \
\ t
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading 1
Inorth through a large field. The site is located where 1
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a Note: Site is located within targeted local
downstream culvert crossing. -jI watershed 03030001010020.
\ I a 1
Figure 1
DMS Project#95019 Project Location Project Vicinity Map
UT to Mill Swamp Site
1 ��
*+�ipli .■■mrwi op 1 s DEQ -
rr�t'1i�:�<i% 11,1`JN,� �� 1 ;,: Division of Mitigation Services
VIOV `, Michael Baker
Onslow County \ INTERNATIONAL
�d 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.95019
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R,E1 R E
Totals 3,909 SMU 4.0 WMU 0
Project Components
As-Built Restoration/
Existing Footage/Acreage Mitigation
Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Approach Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage*
(Pre-Construction) Ratio
Location Credit
Reach UTla 10+00—16+00 600 LF Enhancement Level I 400 SMU 600 LF 1.5:1
Reach UT lb 16+00—36+93 2,131 LF Headwater Restoration 1,996 SMU 1,996 LF 1:1
Reach UTIc 37+24—52+37 1,350 LF Single thread Restoration 1,513 SMU 1,513 LF 1:1
Reach UT3 10+00—23+69 1,060 LF Cattle Exclusion N/A N/A N/A
Wetland Area#1 See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 4.0 WMU 4.0 AC 1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland(AC) Non-riparian Wetland(AC) Buffer (SF) Upland(AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,509 4.0
Enhancement I 600
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
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
*Note: Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg but were revised starting in Monitoring Year 4 to be calculated along stream centerlines and valley length after discussions with the
NC-IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Scheduled Data Collection Actual Completion
Activity or Report Completion Complete or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared N/A N/A Aug-13
Mitigation Plan Amended N/A N/A Sep-13
Mitigation Plan Approved N/A N/A Nov-13
Final Design—(at least 90%complete) N/A N/A Mar-13
Construction Begins N/A N/A Apr-13
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area N/A N/A Jun-13
Planting of live stakes Fall/Winter 2013 N/A Mar-14
Planting of bare root trees N/A N/A Jun-13
End of Construction _ N/A N/A May-13
Survey of As-built conditions(Year 0 Monitoring-baseline) N/A Aug-13 Aug-13
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-13 Dec-13 Jun-14
'Year 2*Monitoring Dec-14 Dec-14 Jan-15
Year 2 Monitoring Nov-15 Nov-15 Dec-15
Year 3 Monitoring Dec-16 Nov-16 Dec-16
Year 4 Monitoring Dec-17 Nov-17 Jan-18
Year 5 Monitoring Dec-18 Dec-18 Dec-18
Year 6 Monitoring Dec-19 Dec-19 Jan-20
Year 7 Monitoring Dec-20 Dec-20 Dec-20
I As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary:the US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the
credits generated from Year 2(2014)citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following
construction. As such,this report(2020)will be considered Year 7. All references to Year 7 included in this report will
indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2020. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring
Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering,Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary,NC 27518
Contact:
Katie Mckeithan,Tel.[phone]
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthworks 5616 Coble Church Rd
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
KBS Earthworks 5616 Coble Church Rd
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 Engineering,Inc. 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
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 4.Project Attributes
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Project Information
Project Name UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County Onslow
Project Area(acres) 19.6
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 34.9377 N,-77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03030001/03030001010020
DWQ Sub-basin 03-05-02
Project Drainage Area(AC) 421(d/s main stem UT1)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.03.99,Other Hay,Rotation,or Pasture;413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp Forest(52%)
Watershed(White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, Agriculture(44%)
2010) Impervious Cover(0.6%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach UT1 Reach UT3
Length of Reach(LF) 4,091 1,060
Valley Classification(Rosgen) X X
Drainage Area(AC) 421 23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 40.5 21
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C;NSW C;NSW
Morphological Description(Rosgen stream type) (Channelized Headwater System) Intermittent Ditch(N/A)
Evolutionary Trend Gc- F Intermittent Ditch(N/A)
Underlying Mapped Soils Mk,St,Ly,FoA Mk,St
Drainage Class Poorly drained,somewhat poorly drained Poorly drained,somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0041 0.0058
FEMA Classification N/A N/A
Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation —10% <5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland 1(Non-Jurisdictional Wl)
Size of Wetland(AC) 6.62(3.36 north of UT lc,3.26 south of UTIc)
Wetland Type Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series Mk(Muckalee),St(Stallings),Ly(Lynchburg)
Drainage Class Poorly drained,somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment Partially(disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp,Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation 9.7%(Before fall 2016 treatment event)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States—Section 404 Yes Yes See Mitigation Plan
Waters of the United States—Section 401 Yes Yes See Mitigation Plan
Endangered Species Act No N/A See Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act No N/A See Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act(LAMA) No N/A See Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A See Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A See Mitigation Plan
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities,2010(http://www.http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1c0b7e5a-9617-4a44-a5f8-
df017873496b&groupId=60329)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

•;P,f•: .'.;4 N..,., dro .w..• r, 44,4.;.. .. - - .(' 1,•
, ' rye. '
�i r ; , ik •- . .• 4
Fig 2A
Fs 1
r
' 1} Ii
II
f �M�.
„I I
au
_ - .'11f`. r ' 't Lt'k:. - ';Lt , 'Mil'',
li L
•
0"...110....... Fig-- 2-B :
itiit
UT 1 b ':; 4
i, a.
". •
M
. -
14
,. ;; . Reach Break
.,:�r.t f�.,
AL a L.- -
I -
di
d.i `-a o LAB,Digital®lobe,C I ta-,C P taac1rdatt-4, :a`�[�ES1:,it s S,/
0 o G ci �. ( d nY� Iw
U@DA,Nee,AgiriiaapD o MI,Eiiiiid fln"P.2O6 NkaP C o rantrinty,NC iliteiF_-1.9.
Alimiliir M cr QoG GeogrAaphic Information�1•]td'\flJ1l3,?M H l tk ri J -
0 250 500 N Figure 2 Index Map
Michael Baker Feet Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 7
INTERNATIONAL
DMS Project#95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

14
` Y ]�;e ,'.. _ `:� wry_
` -., '�s``-- : _ Conservation Easement
Sta. 10+00.00 �7 g x4,"E�i.' :#
\ PP18 "'+ti .. . ,. : . 9,,. t ® Flow Gauges
e a , •. 'r:. r •.,,y� , �'• , . ,. 0 Photo Points
w.
' -`.,; : 0• , ' 'T - C� Headwater Research Wells
S " �i"
.14.7.
` .t �� 7+ •,��� .ri Stream Crossings
Ar.... w
' • •� 4. Cross Sections
k.
," ill ' ` ,". .'' ` . ...VT*.t ;�,` Stream Top-Of-Bank
•
', 1v G� t�jib; -....:11..t.iitc." ati - r - - --•'„ ,- - '� - In-Stream Structures
:110 \
�,`- ` , ` 'Y " ---- Cattle Exclusion Fence
Veg Plot1: ,i.. .,.'
j,,; "IA:. .r +!s 486 stems/ac �,� 4 �':r'. �' • As-Built Streams byMitigation Type
�:�'� • • � ti g Yp
.0.ti0 �'%,•{'' c •:�![1 Enhancement I
�'� ti No Mitigation Credit
i''. A k 3 ., , ;.7A �{ �`.!'-t';]+[ day"' it•v'
" •i .-..-
'Ali. Restoration:Multi-Thread Channel
• , E s . Restoration:Single-Thread Channel
'* �J MSAW17, V. • Vegetation Plots(All Passed)
' Sta. 16 00.00 ,!'
rt t r _ `$'�` \ y" a"` v ;.... Oda li
*; r 1 �� ! �-'Y'»'•�� :y•may .!e� ��, � r. �a
�.. ..;:_.gip! �": _ '*'... _°__' ,"' 31 1 °"' _ lNr*
•
r
a: - ' '• Monitoring Date: Dec 2020 •
1,410.P.44***C011101t .- / \ _ A. Aerial Photo Date: 2019
Olir
- s_•. : il!}. MSAW16
- • • 1 tKig UT1b
•
. 4. i _- -X r .it. UT lb:Sta.26+07.40
UT3(end):Sta.23+69.36
„ ° r` #{'e • '_ = .. --'.�.I v-_-`.. PP11 ~- :M _:-
Veg Plot 3: _
,y- e` 4;- 445 stems/ac
UT 3 r«;1g - _ 4!r'SiiSa7 •
r 7C MSAW1'3
\........
`i_ ' `i:, " :ma . ", MSAW12
•
... > ,� Veg Plot 2: ,
•-` irk., Sta. 10+00.00 �:? ';,
•
. •* - __ '-.{. }.F_ 1 • 364 stems/ac ,-� -y.mow -, F..-,e- -_ \ —
i =— V
'O�T v �-r. r.. - ,, MSAW1•
•,� # ii. I oOneMap,NCB W flu br Ceograp o agi1]:ld 1iT=7liel4,�1C aii
Board
0 100 200 N Figure 2A
Michael Baker Feet A Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 7
INTERNATIONAL DMS Project#95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

F
(- Area Removed From Restored Wetlands(1.483 ac) I= Conservation Easement
��/ Restored Wetland Area-Adjusted(5.133 ac) Easement Encroachment Area(0.04 ac)
-
y
Crest Gauge
- ® Flow Gauges
PP9 • - •
Photo Points
Easement
Encroachment Monitoring Well Year 7 Success
(0.04 acres) Passed
• - __. Veg Plot4:
Sta. 36+93.00 _� .- _. 607 stems/ac Did Not Pass
, All Wetlands North ,-. Headwater Research Wells
of Stream (1.875 ac) r.. Old Well Locations
. - MSAW1oI _
F,._ :. Cross Sections
MSAW9 * Beaver Dam
MSAW23 MSAW7 0 Privet Treated
- ;fir M As-Built Streams byMitigation Type
in Sept.2020 g Yp
• (0.80 ac) Enhancement I
MSAW22 No Mitigation Credit
MSAW8 XS"/' --A, �\ MSAW6 Restoration:Multi-Thread Channel
, '' . ,.:,,,,,,_,_-,_,,,i_r , . .
Restoration:Single-Thread Channel
All Wetlands South MSAW21 - Vegetation Plots(All Passed)
MSAW5 MSAW3 0
Privet Treatment Area(in Sept.2020)
of Stream (3.258 ac) MSAW7(New) • Veg Problem Area(Privet Resprouts)
MSAW2O
imm
MSAW4 5 ''. , °°T' XS 7 F "�'
XS.6� MSAW2 _
lir r
'" Privet Treated -- . (_; MSAW3(New) ,'
in Sept.2020 • - �.�;tti.
(0.16 ac) MSAW1 PP4 :x w
..4..
.. Veg Plot 5:
445 stems/ac ,PP3 s.
Monitoring Date: Dec 2020 - - .
PP2 �r;S �+
F �s .
Aerial Photo Date: 2019
-- - Y Veg Plot 6:
- 405 stems/ac
Note:At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 , Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help _
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on,or just outside,the wetland boundary line.
:e•r-• .7-V11.2,.010E r• 1:0 71•1161MMIM. _ -•Q=A ,- Po Ind(OgiRM P G�eographic 0 0 0 il gitiJ Lil11�ft ,!CC 01 I Il SiCad
0 100 200 N Figure 2B
Michael Baker Feet Current Condition Plan View
INTERNATIONAL Monitoring Year 7
DMS Project#95019 UT to Mill Swamp Site

Table 5a.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Reach ID:UT1c
Assessed Length(LF):1,513
Number Stable, Number of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Performingas Total Number Unstable Amount of Performingas StabilizingWoodyStabilizingStabilizing
g g per As-built Unstable Footage
Intended Segments Intended Veg. Woody Veg. Woody Veg.
1.Aggradation 0 0 100%
1.Vertical Stability
2.Degradation _ 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture Substrate 3 3 1111 100%
3.Meander Pool I.Depth 22 22 100%
Condition 2.Length 22 22 100%
1.Bed
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 19 19 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide) 19 19 100%
III
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
2.Bank IIUndercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Mass Wasting Banks slumping,caving or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineering Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 8 8 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms 8 8 100%
3.Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 8 8 100%
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining-Max Pool Depth 8 8 100% inn
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas(SPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
N/A N/A N/A N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Total Planted Acreage: 15.2
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined
Vegetation Category Defintions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage %of Planted Acreage
(acres)
1.Bare Areas Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
2.Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4 or 5 0.1 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
stem count criteria.
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the 0.25 NA 0 0.00 0.0%
Vigor monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage: 19.6
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping CCPV Number of Combined %of Easement Acreage
Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage
5.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 ft2 Yellow polygon 2 0.87 4.4%
6.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale) none Orange hatched 1 0.05 0.2%
polygon
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas(VPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Feature Issue Station Numbers/Location Suspected Cause Photos
Found scattered in the floodplain in sections of the middle right
Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense) bank(—Station 44+00)and the lower left bank(—Stations 46+00 to Re-sprouts See Appendix B
50+00)of UT1c. See CCPV for exact locations.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Stream Station Photographs (12/8/20)
, 1.m „
� 1' f� I
y ���f'y q YI 1, a��Ir' Y4�P`� d� � jai P I � „�� ���i,�,�'a? Y�
l� ` Y .' I ,r�
9 h` a /
. fi '. ''F's''' .t ,,i' - l+tl�▪ ,di1y + ,=-;4,-,"4 �yls r -- �G.
-• ,.i..=:_.-,. . - . .•-,:4'.,--'----t.,4;,..!...tc...:i..,iee . i'''-'4.-M 4,'*:"9 rl -''''. V.'-'.4 ?-'''' ."°"‘':'"" " i7,41--L'ill''.5 ')1 '‘'
,litt
t 0,
5 e` YF �• 49 I, - _ Y
- �. .} ' '' ,4 / I / c -sue •
- - l{ / b N'
y 1 1j';','v J - / p x air▪ ^./
� v'
Photo Point 1 —UT 1 c Upstream at Culvert Photo Point 2 —UT 1 c Log Jam
?.Y 1 4 �{3h , i el� `. f1 . 4 , ; 4Jt \i b f �i� �'I,e � ��� +I !��„ �4��g4x � �`,�.�
-' h` , &bra 4. - ���FE# y
'. r `� C� % '�ti —� M y,�,b F J$db 2 (yam f 'k"'�" �'`'• ��-.'A�a:�5,,+ jt {'f s $ xlPo i. ', 4 -
', L �, - 3 1 i � 5� yet, ;1 40
l ,.$ --..,,..1-, '.' �`pp ✓; '_ V ''" '''\ ,..,;.,1..,,..,
" r -i€-
7
0
1/ .., .1/ f . -~-'- -V 17:411-1 4:11;•,..4`-...,-- ' ( Alp. '_, N.L.."."7-5,-.. , . . ,..,0-All ,.. A
Photo Point 3 —UT 1 c Log Weir/Log Jam Photo Point 4—UT 1 c Log Jam
+''. , 2f1�. n. f' � ,' k •; �' u " : 'yg ' � "'' �yr rr�. a 4 v �sn:. 'Y ai A ' 0 eSk
it �a� , y7 - \ 0v,, -,-,7 q„- ,. �: y�.A -fA vr, t - ! i k. y ' nr
® . � < � t3 if } � � E lift"
s i a � v
�
t44, , i ,s,� q-, - f n4 � \ � ": xi 7 iy «62, y agy r .
Sk\i 4s Y 'y ..„ t , dfis,- C , L. ."-":"•4 4 µ .§t',I,'','„,'.,,,,, i k
ikit
4* ' 475'4.ri _'.4:' 1 S' + - ;4 _ f , ,./
a�� ' > A s' ;. d{ 1! + - 3 1 w ,a y a, F 1..r.„,,.,0,:: / ,, 0.� 7 .�� i
• •�'Y 1 V f4� �l' T .; a
01116,,- ).2-L,..tt.1.7-0,41 _,'4-,__,-.4-0:41...--7S.- , _._.-- ,, ( tf::', ..r.?•'?-1 ::' f
' •I '�lk i _ I � I � ,s141 Nf' y. i �u ,� « l I }
Photo Point 5 —UT1c Log Jam Photo Point 6—UTlc Downstream

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Stream Station Photographs (12/8/20)
I
•
q;: t:
•
d i ''ry I �. b
y x _ 1- '',, �I-tr '-� Ai...
, •.,,-i ,. .," A� ,fir ; r• .
x -V� j:y �, ti Jr"
`• .�, _tFtta k[ [fit. ,�,1 ", t }7-- A7' t
•
f C':'~ -{ 9b Y� - y qY dx ", ii f p `I- ., '•7�
.vs I,F I .., � o s * - £ - _
Photo Point 7 —UT1c Upstream Photo Point 8 —UTlb Upstream
_ � :V i F 1 i E: }
''' -:,,E:, ' !.: ''. 'S 1 lik',./..--_'-?-27;"4:'':" ,
•
i.
-c n n`- - - -k '. e , _ t• 1 �� . � n- ( � 1 L n� � ,11. t; ,� i W is ' P ¢ - ` a.I r . y...,.if l c E y ,p;„`'1 4 � Eu r '' t a t5 � I 5 1 � E y{ ' , f k aRn s 'A1 I ' E '7 t "Ta i 1
•
N.": til,,P./ ,,''. Jj.- ' ...-,,X,,,,?
•
' -- 3
''A.�s a I F t :! 4 Y"! _ - .4lug j `A� _ '
44T� y
Photo Point 9—UTlb at Flow Gauge#2, upstream Photo Point 10—UTIb below confluence with UT3
r ,"•rx --' I - - ` la Ml7.i7a'e i'4 �, ' ,Ry / - •-
N 7' li _ h 'M
.• -. .fF —.,,,,,,,i--_,i,,,,„"..ir..7,-,-;;;_ sf.,..g,,,v1' ,..-.0
4
4 7 e 1 '���+ s.
{ s G r k 1C/� �r f J'
'�d • •i
ci� q • • - 7
: y+
Photo Point 11 —UT3 Log Weir, view upstream Photo Point 12—UT3 Log Weir, view upstream

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Stream Station Photographs (12/8/20)
'' - \ l ' ' , 1 ,- ' , ) le
s ./ 1 '' ,1 7 9 :F,. .n 't Y e y fir .
-'- / k I el e(�.1 •ra $.. i � k $ "si
sT c 5 .4 ` a
-' t/ _ —�-- • r ., -,, g,1� : ,�s �4 e s v �,
b Yr -- -'_q _ jylF �l • # � rz < .,.,. - y `l4
• ..,?-i.,..1,.-
k ` 1 ,F � ' sCa � ' : I , i sa ,y� , .' �
, 1,
Alt
/ ,
�., f t w i a -1 t4 iiw r >Yp„� a� �� ,..w ,gam.
/ , k .: s F �n� '-{' ,
s.'j t Sid y'.. r r ,' A ,
J 9 t �- }';'' yI^�' v l IY�j a.. , 'Yr
�F .jam}, > 1 - 4 //.1*,. §, ate,
s �w
;, r r r, k
Photo Point 13 —UT3 Log Weir, view upstream Photo Point 14—UT lb view upstream
�. % `�' ' Y ` rat} 5+
'1 II { L AM' r
1401,
s 3fAair ` "�,f r4" 0 -,n•
ew.
,g;:i014d„,i,
s• , adl -- k c #'i Sa 7, ik pg - , ? 7, r' q `'%- :- .
'k,, �i` '„h Y'i .d' het 9 .f F i-, '9 t.L. L� r K :. S i'BF' 4, x, ,,,p 'F x
i a 't c i3��33����`` t L i+- ��'ap'' p(,r
" wpm d� Kh r .t.?,f ''',P.;',i _ t - =, '� •i, 1 I, s x - } 0,11,....�
._ n, 'e.� ,- � k ,>" t�E'� y 'iir i 4�" ' 't I kfj �w,- �-: 'I 'a.: ,E.
''", - ' l' tr."" 'r`a t ' "w.: t, ! w a aC R * r y' ' ' 4 - -
b y�
,. 1 F ` '4 sk in —, Ft 'ff '. k -- - r
3 - "'Sy N - f �"`5q�,'- SV 7 �� 6 J -i :I 0 F .E` 7
'$"' 1 Fie ' i 5" 1, .1 f; ���' � , H f^..' ,, �'1
',; :tr.,.- ,'�... ?. j... Ji:E: . is i V',.D '.0.-!.: "
Photo Point 15 —UT1b view upstream Photo Point 16—UTla Log Weir, view upstream
' '. CC.,ry ' F'wA ti
-"4T ,- P k�.» Trf• ^;'t J $ t t� t - 1 fF- S 1 4 1
�iti 1{ � � � 4 J} 'r .�' �.4f kkiSi r 1 _ .+� gs. ,lif I
.1 Yr S i.
h 3 x, - -., -�:' l \ r� j i�'".y=-.
24
Ri JY k�'-\ # ;F y I. /�\\\\ �y r"1 + ,.' r, fi:-,{.
T fJ
Photo Point 17—UTla Log Weir, view upstream Photo Point 18 —UTla Log Weir, view upstream

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Vegetation Plot Photographs (12/8/20)
al `,�} a ur� ,,°3... sr, 1
411
s ,+ 14' { f !'avp ° °1j
y ,`' -irk 4'x3 r tr% ?r" f'`� F i r; f p) h t Ir
' r,'` k 3 4& F ' 7 a „ $ t-" :it,
• ? , 1 , � rt l lli! . .i fix',,'
( '' ti.y � � k ��, f r'' n#� �l- f� 5�'77� 4 ,4lyrn � }�r���:h�}{°G, ;�, f k �' �,r� ii� �I r, t
I. .,4i
I ,J, .Sa �� i ,�=1"f t, a � t, "( � my �`�rc. � {{ I
�i -- c h -- ` r Y r[..^4'a.4 ^'�J4„ ,,, N !, &,,v,`fit N ,K ; a
47 40,
\ v f
• xs c y ,,, y , 4 ra 4 e , 1va vs y " a '" ' r
¢ i 4 s "-'
• II ,{ 4. fir ., y - f � ' ,.k,4 : t "f.' ' ,, ' `, ',ITV"' .F ,•-� ' V4 6. :' -, 1 �r ' ' ;, -- °, ' r k +. +_Iq_ a i ' fir . %' - y''' y ‘'' -;,, `' , �Z, r \ t {h'= c . I` -- - -, , - F. �,��� ' F ���". � li' ry i1 y t� t os µ;mek4 '- - o i ' r . * ,i4 t5k r .'s - r ay � ~ sI ',
1.
Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2
F 4 -,,,,,,,kit :I �,Kir �+n a i t-` " r 5 v ,�n 4 s I
a .' $�Y u.. h' >s ,
a, y § R ,"t �'_ 4- i r 31 ! , . r ".' '` 4+.- 1 / .� '
``' "'t r �§ C f r • b Y i I y I a
_ s �' avt• � x•„� Ilia '�: r' � ' ,o r ' 3Id
4'Pk h,,.'" '}",,-::''.Q ' --'2 4,1,,,ArT.1,', , ,''-',,., :,-,'P'4t •_.4' 7 ''
�,� �,� i '°� .gym'' 3 p '� � r,�r j�"' r4,,�`4 a' �z`� r s � '-r.
_ K
• � �I 9} i ? 'J x l Zef f +, 4Yy?r /, `� 9
:--'t-,1,4%.32'":,,:;:i';',";•' .
b ''fir g t h
.„ far ' ••la h<
- • _ ''i`. ..
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4
y 1 a r ti af.; 4� `
: , 7 U ' _ ab, ' 1 1 �7+
` �r7' S^ r �1 s''
3
tl
af : �
Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Additional Project Photographs
z �t ., .Ire
, iiirict.
/r1 V ' r �I y Lam,.i� -; , •
� _ �u lfv
; wr Vi ;1'l'-rih ''' fi-( _,r,„....„,...,. , ,, -..,....- , . ., „. , .
\ I sT61+r• --�`I _ $ t _ ::ir-,te ,a• �, , � Y
aa • r
...... .,,,,.:.,.'
.: _, ! '4'A'..1-'*‘i:k!...,) \1:,"I tjAlt.' 7,; ..i. l''.4 C ik„..
,_, ..,„_.,.,,,...., „..„,...„.„ ,..,... ,,'"tl, 4 •
w 3 v l / i ' a. ti •_ .
. 44h"
H !
•
•
-1'• +- any �• �. � - � - -�eI. .. '�l
Crest gauge reading: 1.20 ft from 11/12/20 storm Close-up of crest gauge reading: 1.20 ft from
event(- 4.9"rain) g 11/12/20 storm event
EA
, � or S s
+ v t
Arm
N .r4k` 0 ii'lt' 2 1 i rflfr ' ! v iii I 1 f" -'-'''''' --Y"- st,--'''',- -,:r•r:' I ', 'Wgr, .:,
LC: '2'.. ''''':" v '::li
\/I 1.' c i
�t I A "� sr x` � 5
S,kh M �' 1. > -ug f+ k eMkY r 4- Il- _ �'h
e d
_.c.A:-,:--;;'„::::.:-lr:,,,,':".f...,...4:1,:i,;;;..::;..i.--t:;::'z,..,':;_If,''f.;L:.;t;5't.:;:!:,t4:tu--'.ie;''u':,,,p4,----;rr,;
Culvert crossing
ches atUT easementlban break between The culvert at the crossing between Reaches UTlb
d UT 1 c and UT 1 c
.
r f•
T i
I. 'i.bk 4C
L
� \ il
;
t - -
•
Culvert crossing at the bottom of the project The culvert at the crossing at the bottom of the
(outside of easement) project (outside of easement).

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Vegetation Problem Area Photographs
„., 1i, ice` .{ ;
J
a
# r v k f r
i .. .
'ys�"s rt ,`yy5'.--'- "''''' r • - j
- 4� = 4 sY ,ate— s.�t' :4 e
�„ r -a, SIR'+ '.
T F �, ipr ! i
y�'. Xa. •z �-'[F -ice"" 4.sj �i. ... im
.4„, ,
,_
-� r�'e' ' _ _7 "3.`,�" g`�t" 4 p• - 's '�f ,'7 . - :.R x r#a, , *R r 4�• +tee• } 3
r C
.. � ' - '- -X 3- a.r-F .', is �` fit' '$ 4 •R,_ e. _ ' sA. .a rA.
Privet(Ligustrum sinense) treated Sept. 2020 Privet treated Sept. 2020
mtx
g.
n>''te5'. ' ,-•` ' _' - - --''. -,gi
- -. wi� ^'-g. �,-' ' '�.,- v.'p {S �. 8- amt•-''- '-• as•.v ','�?:''o i--.., t a"
•
4
,.tl.
a1Tr ,rr " I �, tF rk Y . r a'.:, {. 'l' �'�, � 1E �&�"tt'x ;i ke Y ' r �%
y-Y .5 ' gym .r %. 1" , s II x , a '� y 3` ! c :ry ' ,,,,`2 t'' a' x f F� ,t 47 C-P ( N hfr .'t� nr . ., z - ; 1 >s 3r S .r, - Ja . , s t , -• --• 4 + .: b 'r ;2 , a,! , ,4,. °4 a y�i,a wi a d a � ` „ �,;k . 4 N �' ' mot*", r afv.0 aP 11 l' t1��# �yk:$4�!i seS •} r � 1, ,, - s 2 . K?-f ^ a �ny J - •
, k !Y b!.f We i.';i' i ' :^Yt� 'ati*r • yt a i-1t -?.- ..*- t k� k .' : �.' ii, ¥ � S �; is ' -.,- , fF: '
•
':-:
40.
'$tf d--ya . '4i{,h ,1y- ' '\ $ � .c� k � 1fS� CE4 a..r� � � >ra� `F �' � , '4 '' i d` �: 'an -mo` �� �`^Z �40 `, G r, ? e -•- � v - .•
, p
�;• ' �''j,�+ 5^F �'.�' a;�fi.,�� ..`, 4 rr 1� c �` ter.,. } _ i - _ `•._� .
Privet treated(photo from Dec. 2020) Privet treated(photo from Dec. 2020)
r,6 4r, .. 1 'b 4Ir 46 y I'f .r 7Ak;4-'' p .9+ vT w,1 ° i1 ;' p f yi. '.
-• 1;6• 9'4-„.'`N,'',''-*,'7,1O.,i-'.i'1...'t,c-f.„''.--i...,'1..4-,',,.#4TM,..0'..:.:._,.,-..",...-
5° h .-..F .t r S a } + F " Zb✓ a +. T "S » 'fir d
,,.,-,,j•-,-,t.'.,
3, 2! *A'.p' i 6- r , .r , t u z� is N _ , d., p-w 3 i:.". 'f . ,f,r* P a ,'J a�'4YY.° ,`v �§ -y ti € _ Z n 4 ya • _� -- , �"r ._ 4f $[
-4 s 'f?` x *zru+.^`- ' S r ,r ,a `PAS n 't 3t .
'--rt'_ ! '+i 1, , R - T• Ste_ «.' ., vS s^-b t ry -
4o,'L'-''",-,`--4'?4.r4.'ai5.'1..),'--i l-ei-;t".-..,--..'.-,4'`_--r..:-..'',-"- "1'.'.--,,‘,'1.;4.'-.-\1-...
mwq. _ *' ;--r - ..- mi - -h�si
V �• K�."j 6 .Y'X- t b=r 4'C _ F i\- "'• s - 4 , -�r'Tq 1 i '_ 1`
_ y 'B '.- is r.. } yq k a 7 ,f .A F\.,
II •
7,,,,$',/:'`,,,..:4 '".",`.:.::- -,.' '/4.1.-:04ft ' ' 1 "I
Privet treated (photo from Dec. 2020) Privet treated(photo from Dec. 2020)

UT to Mill Swamp MY7: Vegetation Problem Area Photographs
cY 1 ,i 5 4 3 F Y 7 ' - Y 1 - k..4�4
I
'�e If L ��FY*'`ti �*� 3 ':' w � ar �� ' - _.� ..'— C
it
-s r � K
._,--,,,,.., -, =,-.,..,.--,;,,--4.---k- . -,g--..,z,..-4,,,,,-,---04:1;_. _ , _, - , . , .s ;.,, .
A
-• 444 ° M`r9 ,-T '�',". Sr`, ��. 1/ .. ' Fib L k 4.a
A
Privet treated(photo from Dec. 2020),note some Privet treated(photo from Dec. 2020),note some
resprouts already found within the treated area resprouts already found within the treated area
4
4.
arf
„ Ss a ,: , + h i -} to y A _ . '� 4S`'t � t � ' •� '#. $ a .' K
r ,.� Y ' imr :i }+t o
r ,,,,'-:, •,;_,,.'1.11,,•;',!:44—;..\1:::,,',:.45'ii,•,'..,.,,,, :te,...„,....,,,1, ', ,,,,,,/,,,4_4.7;,,,, .,,,A„.1.1,1„...z,„ - 1 ___s
Alz,„.
P .� ,p'6 :,b -. � .F�l; • , 7 ��, Yam,
.,ti r f 4 y ik r-,Y '� F •Y .'
Privet resprouts observed(Dec. 2020) Privet resprouts observed(Dec. 2020)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment(Planted Stems)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
MY7 Planted Density/
Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? As-built Planted Stem 2020 Tract Mean
Density*
1 Y 486/1052
2 Y 364/1052
3 Y 445/728 459
4 Y 607/890
5 Y 445/931
6 Y 405/1052
Note: *Planted/As-Built Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density for each monitoring year as compared to their initial as-
built planting density. These stem counts reflect the changes in the planted stem density ONLY.See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer
species totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Report Prepared By Scott King
Date Prepared 12/14/20 11:13 AM
database name MichaelBaker_UTMillSwamp.mdb
database location L:\Projects\124578\Monitoring\Post-Restoration\Veg Plots
computer name CARYLAPOWERS1
file size 38809600
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.
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
ALL Stems by Plot and spp excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -----------
Project Code 95019
project Name UT to Mill Swamp
Description
River Basin White Oak
length(ft) 5237
stream-to-edge width(ft) 50
area(sq m) 48648.4
Required Plots(calculated) 12
Sampled Plots 6
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 9a.CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No.95019
0fa 0ta Oea 0� Oea Oea
y O� V Or4 O� Oyu Oi
0 `,Lo- 00 00 00 00 00 00
Q
O0 00 QN y �wO �O �O �O �O y0 �O
V. 0• vi 0 0 0 0 O
Species ��� �0F ,`0 Q �A �o �o �o �o �o •o
Carpinus caroliniana Shrub Tree American hornbeam 4 3 1.3 2 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree green ash 1 1 1.0 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tree tuliptree 1 1 1.0 1
Nyssa biflora Tree swamp tupelo 6 5 1.2 1 1 1 2 1
Persea palustris Tree swamp bay 2 2 1.0 1 1
Quercus laurifolia Tree laurel oak 2 2 1.0 1 1
Quercus lyrata Tree overcup oak 6 4 1.5 3 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Tree swamp chestnut oak 14 6 2.3 3 2 4 1 3 1
Quercus nigra Tree water oak 1 1 1.0 1
Quercus pagoda Tree cherrybark oak 17 6 2.8 1 4 1 5 4 2
Quercus phellos Tree willow oak 7 4 1.8 1 1 4 1
Taxodium distichum Tree bald cypress 4 1 4.0 4
Ulmus americana Tree American elm 3 2 1.5 1 2
68 38 12 9 11 15 11 10
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 9b. Vegetation Planted Stem Count Densities
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Plots Year 7 Yearly Average Planted
Species Latin Name Common Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals stems/acre
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 2 1 1 4 ///7// ,
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree 1 1
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo 1 1 1 2 1 6
Persea palustris swamp bay 1 1 2
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak 1 1 2 /7 "7
Quercus lyrata overcup oak 3 1 1 1 6
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 3 2 4 1 3 1 14 //7/ /
Quercus nigra water oak 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak 1 4 1 5 4 2 17
Quercus phellos willow oak 1 1 4 1 7
Taxodium distichum bald cypress 4 4
Ulmus americana American elm 1 2 3
*Number of Planted Stems Per Plot 12 9 11 15 11 10 68 /A
Stems/acre Year 7(Fall 2020) 486 364 445 607 445 4057///f///// 459
Stems/acre Year 6(Fall 2019) - - - - - - -
Stems/acre Year 5(Fall 2018) 567 324 324 648 567 324 459
Stems/acre Year 4(Fall 2017) - - - - - - -
Stems/acre Year 3(Fall 2016) 567 405 243 688 567 364 472
Stems/acre Year 2(Fall 2015) 567 405 283 688 567 283 465
Stems/acre Year 2*(Fall 2014) 607 445 486 688 607 486 553
Stems/acre Supplemental Year 1(Spring 2014) 648 486 486 769 648 607 607
Stems/acre Year 1(Fall 2013) 648 567 567 769 688 648 648
Stems/acre Initial 1052 931 1012 931 I 809 728 911
Notes:
*Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in planted stem density ONLY.See Table 9c and 9d for volunteer species totals.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 9c.CVS Density Per Plot
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Current Plot Data(MY7 2020)
95019-01-0001 95019-01-0002 95019-01-0003 95019-01-0004 95019-01-0005 95019-01-0006
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7 7 3 3 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 2 2 1 1 1 1
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub
Corpus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1
Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire Shrub
Ligustrum vulgare European privet Exotic 4 4 1 1
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 10 10 10 10 4 4 2 2 4 4
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Persea palustris swamp bay tree 1 4 5 5 5 1 1
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 1 1 1 1
Quercuslyrata overcup oak Tree 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 1 3 3 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 4 4 1 1 5 5 4 4 2 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1
Salixnigra black willow Tree 4 4
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 9 9
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 4 4
Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 2 2 1 1 2 2
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Stem count 12 14 26 9 17 26 11 7 18 15 1 22 11 12 23 10 16 26
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 8 2 9 5 3 8 5 1 6 6 2 8 6 5 11 8 4 12
Stems per ACRE 485.6 566.6 1,052.2 364.2 688.0 1,052.2 445.2 283.3 728.4 607.0 40.5 890.3 445.2 485.6 930.8 404.7 647.5 1,052.2
Annual Means
MY7(2020) MY5(2018) MY4(2016) MY3(2015) MY2(2014) MY1(2013)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T P V T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 12 12
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1
Callicarpa americana American beautyberry Shrub 4 4
Carpinuscaroliniana American hornbeam Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 5
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire Shrub 1 1 2 2 2 2
I
Ligustrum vulgare European privet Exotic 5 5
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 30 30 13 13
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 3 1 4 3 3 6 3 3 6 6 7 7
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 6 6 5 5 7 7 7 7 9 9 12 12
Persea palustris swamp bay tree 2 9 11 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 6 6
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 14 14 12 12 13 13 15 15 20 20 21 21
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 6 6
Quercus pagoda cherrybarkoak Tree 17 17 17 17 17 17 14 14 14 14 12 12
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 10 10
Salixnigra black willow Tree 4 4 12 12
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 9 9
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 4 4 2 2
Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 3 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 4
Unknown Shrub or Tree J 2 2
Stem count 68 73 141 68 20 88 70 16 86 69 0 69 82 0 82 96 0 96
size fares) 6 6 _6 _6 6 6
size(ACRES) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Species count 13 9 20 13 5 16 12 2 13 12 0 1 12 12 0 12 12 0 12
Stems per ACRE 458.6 492.4 951.0 458.6 134.9 593.5 472.1 107.9 580.0 465.4 0.0 465.4 553.1 0.0 553.1 647.5 0.0 647.5
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% P Planted
or Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% V Volunteers
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T Total
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Includes Volunteers
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 9d. Vegetation Plot Summary Information
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
UT to Mill Swamp(#95019)
Year 7(8-Dec-2020)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Buffer Stream/Wetland Unknown Growth
Plot# Stems' Stems' Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total4 Form
1 n/a 12 0 0 14 26 0
2 n/a 9 0 0 17 26 0
3 n/a 11 0 0 7 18 0
4 n/a 15 0 0 1 22 0
5 n/a 11 0 4 8 23 0
6 n/a 10 0 1 15 26 0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/Wetland
Plot# Stems' Volunteers3 Total4 Success Criteria Met?
1 486 567 1052 Yes
2 364 688 1052 Yes
3 445 283 728 Yes
4 607 40 890 Yes
5 445 486 931 Yes
6 405 647 1052 Yes
Project Avg 459 452 951 Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Buffer Success
Plot# Stems' Criteria Met?
1 n/a
2 n/a
3 n/a
4 n/a
5 n/a
6 n/a .
Project Avg n/a
Stem Class characteristics
'Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs,does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total Planted+volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl.exotics. Excl.vines.
Colors for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% •
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Figure 3. Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Permanent CrossSeptemb-Section 1
(Year 7 Data - Collected er 2020)
-- . :...Afw7.1 .... -y..._,,,--.?
a a •4.1' — , . ' ',° M
� ��' ... , n'� 'R� '�;` ram a� .� �� _ �,. :�� :, �`.m" � '° � ,44 � s hssz* �;1 � � C, �"� �,.
��� - � s� 4 4 �rqr 'w r'E i
..4-?kb, --,*\_./ ---7 . ',--.-.A. Atitic._,f:4;*.t:2L.:;.1-. - -4.1,-4, '4- ., ,-..---_ -,'....4i.lesli.x=.. ,-F1-1-t,,,:-...,'-
fe
A,
9" °� ,. 4,,,-�c ^.,g -��6" � ",, 1 .�'4.,: - '' . �y '- 1 K µ` .Fta
° � * ! �' fr— # - �� �F ,\,fir �l i i . !,, i ti ; Gs "-'
s`mac" ' r� ��c �� +f..: ,, i 1 '.'� j" t J 3 4" 2r3 ( �2 S A�1
�* •�r_ :a .c. +' � �9'u ��! ' D4 Kinston Flighway
1 �,. 3 ii. i� — Richlands
h 4 W, nslow Counfy
M v o fro ti ' ' '
w bar s_ "'.. '' North Carolina
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 9.0 9.0 1.0 1.9 9.0 1.1 11.6 52.92 52.96
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 1
56
55
o e
54
as
w 52 '1
MY7 BKF=52.74'
As-Built Year 1
TWG=51.06' Year 2 Year 2*
51 Year 3 Year 5
}Year 7 MY7 BKF
AB Bankfull ---0---Floodprone
50 I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent - 2
(Year 7 Data - CollectedCross SeptemberSection 2020)
# �z 4 1 N,. �" "- Spa $ '�4 : � a'..:: t4 I 4 1. C ? ,
t t
u yt ° a 4ai.• .'.[ , t 1 * N
:}c t � �� ti i� x � d"J^ A'.' an � ,,� 3 yy
r('- t+' ,• .. ,.ate 7 .: — _ 'a + r?;d at i '. s
a > a
k ` o f� t v i� �
LF 1br �,�,� "`g+� u> r � 1�.�k. � €..�t� .' ��c _! I ��a � � .9a� ,,i„.�a� 's�"!� "�j s Al,�f � "6
„, k,....4.4;,..,....,..44.. ., ,..„''''''',/,t-., --,'t�.."` ti.• ,. , .: ,,.-- .�1r.i' U._ ,,„ 49 1� ,or.:7,,,,,, ® ' � 1; �-
�a it d s - ,� cikp X. ," .� ��
_ .
a q r 1�: *jai "'B 0+ :s<F 'Li i'i ,i!,I•4''� x r e �4;I
IC, . te r •i ,p, a"w �'�f„E ztl' �4� :' S d �g 'ti. S' .° •y�F^ 'rr .y'�oIlll
AS.- _ .Ar,: '3.ri .L`U` mow. . oit .$ _. ,>� i'§i ,kfr'„( . Y
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 11.6 10.1 1.2 2.0 8.7 52.66 52.82
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-Section 2
56
55 -
0
54 -
AIM h•
53
_ ��
Ia
52
>
a)
w �
511 As-Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 2*
50 Year 3 Year 5
}Year 7
o AB Bankfull
---e---Floodprone
49 E I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 3
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
r tit w • N 3 "#v. iv
.fit t an.3 ., k -" ''
1. f
p 4. f , a ' � r y ''' rs .- t5 - � .• I � [, 1/ po i j 1 w l - .e sp r
'.ih . v.,,,k 4,...* 140-. 4 t, , .,,i,',X1 ,0,,.,,- k a"-- '' '`.4 '''''-'4.PVI*N4W ' ' 0' { ': ' i../J''',. .'''•••••Stf/A7.-
.' ' °' ' ' 4?''' ' ii ' 1.1.1 '4'' ''''V'''' ; l''','''I''.,4 ,:..V.,—2. --,*; 4-A, -4.,L. . -- '..,&;:,:--'1t.'1 ,--
. , ..., „ , ,,.4.,_4 , ,,,,„ ,,, -4' ''' '''', '' '
.'T�" lSSSSS 1443i.A . ,per`—
+ a E r •r g �; •.�- * 5e 18 2849 :45
k, ear f�g-... 1304 Kinston Wi lands
. --,A,
i�+A AI� a 4 � � 1 n uZ Richlands
f -"� e "•�_�. Alt , a :`.: a 5/ Gf urt$y _ s. ,'40nslow Codritr
��� i.���� .z �s=.�d ,z r�. . . i. .4r North Carolina
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width _ Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 14.6 18.3 0.8 1.9 23.1 52.40 51.99
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 3
56
55
o o
54 -
4-
4-
0
• 53 `ate
> 52
a>
W 7 As-Built Year 1
51 -
Year 2 Year 2*
Year 3 Year 5
50
}Year 7 ---o---AB Bankfull
---o---Floodprone
49 - I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 4
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
�a � "try ¢�'.' � -�`r y5`' ti� R - a \�1 !
4 "�`' a'�,�s I,,..'",'
r e >'k'.i 3a, -' � , ' ,a 4 j' , ar k1 ; a
ofiN
,.� :: � ,; may, � k,
•, am_, `.�5 s �t `� " "r' r .fT '�i� ,;�,�tY +i `d a P _.
r., -. Re i J, am 4 � a r? � 1. 'r�+p 1 .'i ,, tip;
•c 1r. •a s r,Y - - vas.a .' _ +'` - .,4 ::Erb... . _ , 'r r �'.
::41:r;14.::"Z},,,::1,.,..
:-iip.Is::-
li-
•
6,".I-Til
Ait
a✓ a 9�,,_1-�`3,. `' +ems ret' iy"�. .e g :::;
.-S -- ,-s•R",-�+G-a�I .€�,
41 - A 4 ryj"
...!--J`'--1 ••:1, -,-Y-t...."":"'.i, ,f:-,..e 4 .,'- ,r-;:liirk-,-'•
-'- -'''''..=r-''..11.4.,.4.-.S,I,',7i-j--, -.:--,, 1.-, 1:,.,' k''kr ' -I, tr -t'„.- i.:4k..-',,, \:,•:,t._ ''''—:-,
',4:''''it'i.714,4g,-./;-, r,,,Tw-1,xti,-°-t: t
1
Aq4„_,;' -; „4:4,:k. ,,,,-;--4
': 5ep I�,�;No 3 8AM y 2b2fl�139 4A
�. ,sTA ° ''-',1. ' t � RIC�1121Td5 �� Y 1,-.f s q r� fi g
t i' !• ' �i ;,�`;r ,, ;North Carolina ��rx +�, r;d s Not
2r��r-Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 9.8 9.9 1.0 1.6 10.0 1.1 10.5 52.38 52.43
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 4
56
55
54 o c
� 53 -
o - - _ _�
co 52 -
//
w 52 � / As-Built Year 1
51 Year 2 Year 2*
MY7 BKF= .11'
TWG =50.76' Year 3 Year 5
50 • Year 7 MY7 BKF
-
--o-- AB Bankfull o Floodprone
49 I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross-Section 5
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
Xs5 rtI
-,Az..L.,;4,4.,,,,5-;z4., .,- ,.,. -.... ....--,.„-:„.0..,..,-;,..,:„.,:',-.-(t4.1 g--,f,,,-,L _._
4
, . .,_._ -..,,,i,,_,,,._ , .--„,- :,. .
,,.,,,..,,,,_ a-,
,,,,,,„,,,c„...„.--,,,,-„,:„.„,„,,,,,7 ,vs. .e -3. ----- - ',-" i .j . _...,..___ -
rn.. ,..,,_,...t.,,r_ , _..„..,s.t 1
�•...... ;„..i.,___,, , . ,..,,, ..„
� '�1 ' �
j', ' ^ Al ti i° fit!P
"� -';r" w� �' r = G x ,.
-a E '
' .r_• l !�
-� .fir a • a 1� � �� hq JF�yfti fr. � ; "'\ °'��`, y . \N r�
.< a s y✓m r l �'K Y T.:„. ip a SSAnr� N ' ,, 4
4r a -' 44�,� e P" .• i�ay_`; a�'j �� icy � k�� r Sep 17,2020 1 21 a-8 PM
�, '. r-, #i °a " . f , a ; 1' 7 �, yg e9< r 7 304 Kinston HIf�, ,
kos.
_�W z �. a' — E�`��.�a.e: �� 'r 01,. ' . .. o-f� ei
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio _ ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 10.5 11.5 0.9 1.6 12.7 1.1 9.7 50.91 51.01
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 5
55
54
53
0 0
C 52 - ..00*. ,
o �` �y
50 � �, As-Built Year 1
MY7 BKF=50.93' Year 2 Year 2*
49 TWG=49.32' Year 3 Year 5
{Year 7 MY7 BKF
--e---AB Bankfull ---o---Floodprone
48 I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Permanent Cross- 6
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
, . ,,,-,--1,-,04",,44,-pirk dp-,r-1
�' 'North C 3 x6 o 3 r"e°
EIS ti l 4� - `qs � ,&• 4ty, .
8z
k �`11',- t }, - - V, y �{f ter_ x mow\ ;�
_.w -r-; rr _—_ i dh - �� �, tl 4� pW�ty+$4p".' 3 �A '!
a 1 , ! Lyy��. -.j f ' ' � ' _e,, ''�F 4:1_, '�'b�Y sn
S Mrt- l�" ,.0 ! 4. 1:�,_ sky ~i '' ' . .- , .V
�; �°.ac, It r" . ! 'y� §ro - ' l;.F�.� "s.�fi .-_jF F�Y� .
t-1,-- \ - '''''-i Nr.{,''' '',1'1` ' -
r' , 'camt' -.t...,._,A., "Irtokezz,„A
r.*� _�- � , �l _ P -' ` � Yt-
ts;
mil ! , t� qi _ y„ .._c ;.
,, 44
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 10.6 9.6 1.1 1.7 8.8 50.61 50.64
UT to Milli Swamp Cross-Section 6
54
53 -
43
o
52 -
51 '; `��-
0
50
v As-Built Year 1
co
W 49 - � -Year 2 Year 2*
-Year 3 Year 5
48 {Year 7 o Bankfull
Floodprone
47 I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-Section 7
(Year 7 Data - Collected September 2020)
C 7 V. ,7. #
X
I.
, - C h , �t
� 4 /f. , x i ` i �
+�Y V `!�( Z �`� _ -'l1 � �7 ,mow rAr` i 1 i".J
.
Ct
r ,
,,,._ - ,
e set �, a r
..' .. \ f _ , . ,, i \\ - '
\A A1i1 �� "F fif
1 iii �
Se 16,2020 2 35: ^M le
S 16-202I' `4
g p Richlands .r J p ' ryes.
AL
r 3
'' orth Carolina , ,.4,1ortht ar6lin.
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type _BKF Area Width _ Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio _ ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool - 17.7 10.6 1.7 2.4 6.4 - - 49.80 49.95
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 7
54
53 - Vegetation Tree base
52 0 0
--"c 51 - ' -'41'1"- \ _ ,
o
m 50 - 1,,
-= —�41 —
W As-Built Year 1
49 -
Year 2 Year 2*
Lj Year 3 Year 5
48 —•Year 7 ---0---AB Bankfull
---o---Floodprone
47 - I I I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)

m - 8
(YearPer 7 Dataanent- CollectedCross September 2020)
l(J�Y Ik({J) Y� �i[y. ?tc i x "T Is
,:1),4 ` A ' 7�i a
ti
14 I l4 - �' J- r 6- x '� /i' I f� `� l ffy
Y� -tkE` �, `M1 1 `T i a�.� n ,i'F ,- �'r- ? v',.�� -1 ,
�Yst t �.y E S@! �'._ it1 y j` ; .:`` :1 �r e.. �, • &,,, ,4- ' - . /,F
' re �k, eft; qy� . ti � f. Av s 0r f � i ' - "- •
41 '311 - .N.P,,y}.,.*, r4�e �"Ys @ S-i�, 9`fs 1 ( p�'�[ --�, ? `"g,, o -. I N. Y...'R tJp ;/,
� ���r.e"r Iyiw r 'i F.1 `� I ,^4� / rd,.� k,rt 'gg r � '' < 4fii+' � W
'�4^� � ' �, 3;�k } 4 P �k ` -rza 1s ^ !`-
4
"1' ,* i n v n 1 ''%' A, � 'a 31't six r 4 $' /
�Y iii ,:.k ° i It ,�l P 'aT;��v�_yl �'s� `�s1.y r ` 7 M1 *P^ �; '�hA_ //
d Y 4fh d Li.'" te
�b a `4fr P' i'.
\ � _ � i�iM W"f _ A a F v\ � ' +� � a ?I),-,„--*--4-4'41 r,---/fr;4.... , '." 9, f Y/'.
S a.
i `+ I� 4. Sep 16,2020 1 20 20 pM ia `` � G• 1 ,' � "V/
r P
, Y.{ r I.. l'- Richlands �;4.-- ,� ).-..E�-54 :,� LI ;, A 1 y �� tf r h .r "rid 'efalitt �_ �v .t dz s +c
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 18.2 10.9 1.7 2.4 6.5 1.2 7.7 48.80 48.84
UT to Mill Swamp Cross-Section 8
54
53
52 0
^. 51 -
c 50 - -
> 49
w 48
MY7 BKF=48.39' \
o
47 - `�
As-Built Year 1
TWG =46.48' Year 2 Year 2*
Year 3 Year 5
46 }Year 7 MY7 BKF
_ o AB Bankfull o Floodprone
I
45I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were
calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation, as was done for previous monitoring reports.

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Reach UT1c(1,513 LF)
Parameter USGS Regional Curve Interval Pre-Existing Condition[
Gauge (Harman et al,1999)*
..111M
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width(ft) 23.0 80.0 9.9 6.8 8.7 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 8.2 11.8 2
BF Mean Depth(ft) 2.3 5.8 1.3 0.8 1.0 2
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.4 2
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft2) 80.0 300.0 16.2 5.6 8.6 2
Width/Depth Ratio 8 9 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.4 2
Bank Height Ratio 4.2 2.8 2
d50(mm) 0.25 12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Radius of Curvature(ft)
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength(ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Spacing(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.16 2
Pool Volume(ftt)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 0.10/0.15/0.25/1.2/2.72
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/fa
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.66
Impervious cover estimate(%)
Rosgen Classification Gc
BF Velocity(fps) 0.8 1.2 2
BF Discharge(cfs) 290.0 2000.0 66.0 6.48
35
Channel length(ft)2 4091
Sinuosity 1.13
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0045 2
BF slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres)
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Harman,W.A.,G.D.Jennings,J.M.Patterson,D.R.Clinton,L.O.Slate,A.G.Jessup,J.R.Everhart,and R.E.Smith.1999.Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams.Wildland Hydrology.AWRA Symposium
Proceedings.D.S.Olsen and J.P.Potyondy,eds.American Water Resources Association.June 30-July 2,1999.Bozeman,MT.
Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT1 Reach within the project limits.
Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
°Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek,Johnston County;Panther Branch,Brunswick County;Rocky Swamp,Halifax County;and Beaver Dam Branch,Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary(continuted)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Reach UT1c(1,513 LF)
Reference Reach(es)Data
Parameter
Beaverdam Branch NC Coastal Plain Composite Data
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD
BF Width(ft)
Floodprone Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
BF Max Depth(ft)
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft') 24 2 7.8 95.9
Width/Depth Ratio 11 17 2 8 14
Entrenchment Ratio 10 11 2 4 13
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.3 2 1.0 1.3
d50(mm) 0.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Radius of Curvature(ft)
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 1.8 2.4 1.5 3.0
Meander Wavelength(ft)
Meander Width Ratio 2.0 6.3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Spacing(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft)
Pool Volume(ft')
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 0.3/0.4/0.5/0.9/1.2
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/t
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/ma
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 3.0 1.0 19.5
Impervious cover estimate(%)
Rosgen Classification C5c E5/C5
BF Velocity(fps) 1.5 1.0 1.4
BF Discharge(cfs) 37 10 127
35
Channel length(ft)2
Sinuosity 1.66 1.22 1.77
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0004 0.0004 0.0022
BF slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres)
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Harman,W.A.,G.D.Jennings,J.M.Patterson,D.R.Clinton,L.O.Slate,A.G.Jessup,J.R.Everhart,and R.E.Smith.1999.Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams.Wildland Hydrology.AWRA Symposium Proceedings.D.S.Olsen and J.P.
Potyondy,eds.American Water Resources Association.June 30-July 2,1999.Bozeman,MT.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UT1 Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek,Johnston County;Panther Branch,Brunswick County;Rocky Swamp,Halifax County;and Beaver Dam Branch,Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary(continued)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Reach UT1c(1,513 LF)
Parameter Design _ '
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width(ft) 10.3 1 10.1 13.8 4
Floodprone Width(ft) >100 1 80.1 105.0 4
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 1 0.6 1.2 4
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.0 1 1.1 2.0 4
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft') 7.6 1 7.5 12.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 14 1 8.3 19.4 4
Entrenchment Ratio >10 1 7.9 9.4 4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1 1.0 1.1 4
d50(mm) 0.25
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 35 60 3 38.0 79.0 120.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 20 30 21.0 26.0 31.0
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2.0 3.0 38.0 79.0 120.0
Meander Wavelength(ft) 80 110 3 72.0 104.0 124.0
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 6.0 3 3.5 6.0 8.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.004 0.010 0.0046 0.0043 0.0039
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Spacing(ft) 30 80 41 72 57
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.6
Pool Volume(ft3)
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/B%/Be% ----
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95 ----
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/P 0.149
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull(Rosgen Curve)
Stream Power(transport capacity)W/m5 4.181
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.66 0.66
Impervious cover estimate(%)
Rosgen Classification C5 C5
BF Velocity(fps) 1.76 3.0
BF Discharge(cfs) 12.9 340.0
35 3523
Channel length(ft)2 1453 4238
Sinuosity 1.24 1.20
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0038 0.0042
BF slope(ft/ft) 0.0054
Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres)
BEHIVL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
*Hannan,W.A.,G.D.Jennings,J.M.Patterson,D.R.Clinton,L.O.Slate,A.G.Jessup,J.R.Everhart,and R.E.Smith.1999.Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams.Wildland Hydrology.AWRA Symposium Proceedings.D.S.Olsen and J.P.Potyondy,eds.
American Water Resources Association.June 30-July 2,1999.Bozeman,MT.
1 Existing conditions survey data is compiled for the entire UTI Reach within the project limits.
2 Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure is not applicable for sand-bed streams.
3 Values were chosen based on sand-bed reference reach data and past project evaluations.
4 Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek,Johnston County;Panther Branch,Brunswick County;Rocky Swamp,Halifax County;and Beaver Dam Branch,Jones County
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 11.Cross-section Morphology Data
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Reach UT1c(1,513 LF)
Cross-section X-1(Riffle Cross-section X-2(Pool) Cross-section X-3(Pool) Cross-section X-4(Riffle
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 I IMY4 I MY5 1 MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 1 MY3 I 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 I 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 I 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 11.9 11.1 11.3 10.1 8.8 -- 8.5 9.0 15.4 22.5 21.3 12.7 11.9 -- 8.9 10.1 21.3 39.2 33.5 19.6 18.1 -- 15.6 18.3 11.2 11.5 11.3 9.6 9.7 -- 9.0 9.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 -- 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 -- 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 s 0.5 0.7 0.7 -- 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 -- 0.7 1.0
Width/Depth Ratio 18.9 17.7 16.1 15.9 11.7 -- 10.3 9.0 14.4 31.2 30.1 12.6 12.0 -- 7.2 8.7 33.9 82.4 72.8 29.6 27.8 -- 21.2 23.1 16.5 15.4 14.7 14.6 14.3 -- 12.7 10.0
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft*) 7.5 6.9 8.0 6.4 6.6 -- 7.1 9.0 16.6 16.2 15.0 12.8 11.9 -- 10.9 11.6 13.4 18.7 15.4 12.9 11.7 -- 11.4 14.6 7.5 8.5 8.7 6.3 6.6 -- 7.8 9.8
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 -- 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.8 -- 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 -- 2.0 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 -- 1.5 1.6
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 104 104 104 104 104 -- 104 104 108 108 108 108 108 -- 108 108 117 117 117 117 117 -- 117 117 104 105 104 104 104 -- 105 105
Entrenchment Ratio 8.8 9.4 9.2 10.3 11.9 -- 12.3 11.6 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - 9.4 9.1 9.2 10.8 10.8 -- 11.6 10.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 -- 1.0 1.1 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 -- 1.1 1.1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 13.2 12.3 12.7 11.4 10.3 -- 9.9 10.5 17.6 23.9 22.7 14.7 13.9 -- 10.2 11.1 22.5 40.2 34.4 20.9 19.4 -- 16.7 19.2 12.5 12.9 12.9 11.0 11.0 -- 9.9 10.6
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -- 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 -- 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 -- 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 -- 0.6 0.9
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft')
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
-d50(mm) - • - • - • - - • -
Cross-section X-5(Riffle - Cross-section X-6(Pool) Cross-section 7(Pool) Cross-section X-8(Riffle
Dimension and substrate Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7 _ Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 I 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 I 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7 Base I MY1 I MY2* I MY2 I MY3 'MY4 I MY5 I MY7
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
BF Width(ft) 13.8 14.6 13.4 11.5 11.2 -- 10.7 11.5 15.1 31.0 22.9 13.3 13.9 -- 11.5 9.6 15.5 16.6 16.3 15.8 15.6 -- 15.2 10.6 10.1 10.7 12.2 9.6 10.2 -- 10.5 10.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 -- 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 -- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 -- 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 -- 1.6 1.7
Width/Depth Ratio 19.4 19.8 19.0 17.3 15.5 -- 16.2 12.7 20.1 78.8 46.4 18.4 17.5 -- 11.8 8.8_ 14.5 14.9 15.0 14.7 13.4 -- _13.6 6.4 8.3 8.4 9.1 6.8 6.2 - 6.7 6.5
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft') 9.9 10.8 9.5 7.6 8.0 -- 7.1 10.5 11.3 12.2 11.3 9.7 11.1 -- 11.2 10.6 16.7 18.4 17.7 17.0 18.2 -- _17.0 17.7 12.3 13.6 16.3 13.7 16.7 -- 18.2 18.2
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 -- 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 -- 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.5 -- 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.6 -- 2.5 2.4
Width of Floodprone Area(ft) 112 112 112 112 112 -- 112 112 114 114 114 114 114 -- 114 114 132 132 132 132 132 -- 132 132 80 83 86 80 85 -- 85 90
Entrenchment Ratio 8.1 7.7 8.4 9.8 10.1 -- 10.5 9.7 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - 7.9 7.8 7.1 8.3 8.4 -- 8.0 7.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 -- 1.0 1.1 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 -- 1.2 1.2
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 15.3 16.1 14.9 12.8 12.6 -- 11.5 12.0 16.6 31.8 23.9 14.8 15.5 -- 13.3 11.1 17.7 18.8 18.5 s 17.9 17.9 -- 16.7 12.4 12.5 13.2 14.8 12.5 13.4 -- 12.6 13.1
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 -- 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 -- 11.8 i 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 -- 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 -- 1.3 1.4
Based on current/developing bankfull feature
BF Width(ft)
BF Mean Depth(ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross-sectional Area(ft')
BF Max Depth(ft)
Width of Floodprone Area(ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
_ Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic Radius(ft)
d50(nun)
Notes:
* As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary:The US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the credits generated from Year 2(2014)citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring,following construction.Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
1 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Site does not require Year 4 and 6 monitoring cross-sectional surveys per Site Mitigation Plan
Note:Per DMS/IRT request,bank height ratio for MY7 has been calculated using the as-built bankfull area. All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation,as was done for previous monitoring reports.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Figure 4. Wetland Gauge Graphs
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
r _ �■ -�I 11 I IF
r �� I1 n ■ r ■ l ■7I q Iry i i 1 1
1.0 - I
To—
= 2.0 -
ca
ce
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW1)
10 - .
5 I Ground
Surface
0 - ` .L I
di.wojks i•tv A e‘,.
7' 1 I -12 inches
c -5 1 k I
13 -10 I1 MSAW1
3 '
c -15
I
2 -20 I 1 — — Begin
0 Growing
o -25 I I Season
w
s I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Q End
d -30 1 CRITERIA MET-132(50.1%) Well quit logging on 1 Growing
CI
3/18/2020-7/27/2020 9/15/2020 to
Season
-35 I 12/8/2020
-40 I I
GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/18- 11/16) I I
-50 I ' I I I I I I ' I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 . Ill il 1 "-ww 1 I TI
1.o i iF r!lIw
it i i ' I
Ws
Es
2.0 -
ce
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW2)
10 - .
Ground
5 I I
Surface
I
41111\ AVII
I -12 inches%1\11
c -5 i
I
I
111:1\\
10 %11 ■M i=I MSAW2
3 c -15 I `\i/kVII
3
2 -20 1 I - - Begin
0 Growing
2 -2 5 I I Season
t 1
+� — — End
o -30 I I Growing
Season
-35
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40 CRITERIA MET-35(14.3%)
GROWING SEASON I 5/21/2020-6/24/2020 I
-45 (3/18- 11/16) I I -
-50 7 I , I I I I I I ' I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 '— T - r7 A 1 T-■.. 1 I ■f ri IF
! I7 r [I'. Ir ■ n ■T II ;l 1 11 "1._
1.0 I 1 'll
-,
TO
4-
Fs
2.0
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW3)
10 - T
I GROWING SEASON Ground
5 - Surface
1 (3/18- 11/16)
_ Ilk'
' 1 il1 -12 inches
LI\ '+± -10 1 MSAW3
� � 1 1
4
31 1 1
c -15 I 1
2 -20 I 1 — — Begin
0 Growing
.2 -25 1 I Season
w 1 1 — . . End
a) 30 1 1 Growing
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS Season
-35 I CRITERIA MET-38(15.6%) I
I 5/21/2020-6/27/2020 I
-40
I I
-45 I I
-50
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
Note: Well MSAW3 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 '— � - A � _•• � I ■� ri iF
� � � ! �� Imo ' F ■T l ■7 1 II
1, 1 I 1
1.0 I
TO
2.0 -
co
cL
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW4)
20
I I Ground
15 Surface
I I
10 I I
-12 inches
c 5 I I
I
2 0 I MSAW4
3 -5 1
c
o -10 1 I — — Begin
Growing
o -15 Season
c — — End
-20
a� I I Growing
c I I Season
-25
I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30 I CRITERIA MET-131(53.7%) I
GROWING SEASON 3/18/2020-7/26/2020
-35 (3/18-11/16)
-40 - I I I I I I I I I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 11/11/2020/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 '— r■ . ■�
— T r ■■ 7 -. 1 I ■r 7 ' 7 ! 1. I w ■T ■ l ■7
1.or„.
I I II t ,II ii_ ��
4_
cis
-
W
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW5)
20 -
I Ground
15 Surface
I I
10 I I
-12 inches
c
5 I I
:� I
ct 0 - - I MSAW5
co
3 -5 I I
c
O -10 I I — — Begin
0 1 I 1 Growing
0 15 Season
I I
End
Q- -20 I I Growing
a)
p I I Season
-25 YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30 I CRITERIA MET-138(56.6%) I
GROWING SEASON I 3/18/2020-8/2/2020
-35 (3/18- 11/16)
-40 f 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/2020 111 I -I/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0 '— 1-. Lil
■■
1.o I 11111 1 1 Fillirryrr lir �1- ii
.1
Ts
.= 2.0 -
CC
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW6)
20 —
I I Ground
15 Surface
I I
10 I I
-12 inches
5 I I
z. 1
2 0 - MSAW6
I 1
c r , �+i -5 i /1 1 , 1
2 -10 1 - - Begin
CD _ I 1 Growing
o -15 Season
I 1
"c — — End
Q -20 1 1 Growing
m
❑ Season
-25 I Well quit logging on YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
I 4/22/2020 to CRITERIA MET-62(25.4%) I
-30 1 GROWING SEASON I 9/15/2020 9/16/2020- 11/16/2020 I
-35 (3/18-11/16)
I
-40 , I I F I F I I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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.o I I rry p ' II_ i, j
WI
Fs
2.0 -
cc
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW7)
20 -
1 1 Ground
15 Surface
I I
10 I I
-12 inches
c 5 I I
I I
2" 0 S\iv4\v -- -MSAW7
3 -5
c
O -10 I 1 - - Begin
_ I Growing
o -15 Season
1 1
t — — End
Z. -20 1 1 Growing
a>
c I I Season
-25
I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-30 1 CRITERIA MET-68(27.9%)
GROWING SEASON (3/18-35 -11/16) I
9/10/2020 11/16/2020
-40 I I I I I I I I I I I
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
Note: Well MSAW7 was relocated by IRT suggestion on 6/7/18 as shown on the CCPV in Appendix B.

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 n -w 1 I ■r 1" I [ 1 1 1
Pr
7 7� I�� w ■T ■ II ii1 l ■7
i
1.0 -
li
To
2.0 -
ci
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW8)
20 - - -
15 I I Ground
Surface
I I
10 I I -12 inches
c
5 I
m 0 - , - I-- I
I MSAW8
i 1
-5 I
I
O -10 I I BeginGrowing
0 I I Season
o -15
t I I � End
Q -20 1 I Growing
m
0 Season
-25 I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
-30 I CRITERIA MET-244(100%)
GROWING SEASON 1 3/18/2020- 11/16/2020 1
-35 — (3/18- 11/16)
I I
-40 - I , I I I I I I , I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 �■ A i
--wI ■r 71 ' r7� I� w ■T ■ l ■7I II • II �i 1 i
1.0 - I
�a
4-
= 2.0 -
co
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW9)
20
15 I I -Ground
Surface
10 I I
5 I 1 -12 inches
I Iiiiihidbi .7 0 . -
• 5 WI T I , , I -MSAW9
1
v 10 I I
3• -15 I 1 — — Begin
e Growing
(9 -20 I I Season
0
s -25 I I — — End Growing
0- I I Season
O -30
-35 I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
I CRITERIA MET-244(100%) I
-40 - GROWING SEASON I 3/18/2020- 11/16/2020 I
-45 - (3/18-11/16) I I
-50 I I ■ I I I I I I ■ I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
01/01/2020 02/15/2020 03/31/2020 05/15/2020 06/29/2020 08/13/2020 09/27/20201 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0- 1.0 -I - _S I I 1 if rrr ■
- r ! ■■ -� A 7 ■� ' I •r u r u 7 r 17• I r r h q ■ f ■ l ■7
To
2.0 -
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Research Wells
(Well Cross-Sections 11 and 12)
20 - -
Ground
15 Surface
10 --12 inches
5 —MSAW11
LIPS
.L 0
►may iNVO MSAW12
1111
3 -5
c -10
0
ill
4Is
11\1\1
41
L •
2,
-15 \1�
a -20
Clo
-25
11110
-30
-35
-40
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
— 0.0 ,- T I . n TA I ■� ' 1 u r r 1� I r r■ r�q I r ■ II- 1i 1 l I ■11
I f
a
w
ci 2.0 •
re
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Research Wells
(Well Cross-Sections 13 and 14)
20 Ground
15 Surface
10 I --12 inches
5
::::
I- 0 r )1 \I \ j11111W4 \41\liktAllAs\4\
4144
12 IsoOte
= -10
o
ill\ki ‘11,41/11\111111414
o -15
0
a -20
a) 1
G -25 Well MSAW-13 connections have
30 degraded and has been sent to
-
In-Situ for data extraction
-35
-40 7 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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
Z.— ' 1 u r r 1� I r r■ r�� T ■ 1I- 1■1 1 l I ■7 I
I f
a
R
2.0 -
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Research Wells
(Well Cross-Sections 15 and 16)
15 -
Ground
10 Surface
5 --12 inches
0 - —MSAW15
C
-5
i 4114*41 % —MSAW16
-10
-15
-20 j",•P*1
4 ) 4‘61 44\I\NII\II?\iis
c -25
r
t
-30
Ga Well MSAW-15 connections have
-35 degraded and has been sent to In-
-40 Situ for data extraction
-45
-50 -T 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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
0.0 T � " I � n ' 1 I •r 71 F
•
7• 'r �� �'r � rim .- I
1.0
2.0 -
(73
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Research Wells
(Well Cross-Sections 17 and 18)
10 -
Ground
5 Surface
0 - --12 inches
-5
—MSAW17
`m -10
r
-15 —MSAW18
'o -20
C9
G -25
Well MSAW-18 permanently
0 -30 failed on 4/3/2019
-35 Well MSAW-17 permanently
40 failed on 1/20/20
-45
-50
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
0.0inr
1.0 - I1111111urrirpr
rti
= 2.0 -
cI
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW19)
20 I I Ground
15 I I Surface
I I
10 -12 inches
1
5
I
a; 0 -
MSAW 19
i -5
3 -10
21 — — Begin
l\
0 -15 I I Growing
p -20 I I Season
\\I
z.t
-25 I I
Q — — End
0 Growing
-30 I I Season
-35 I
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40 CRITERIA MET-40(16.4%) GROWING SEASON
-45 3/18/2020-4/26/2020 (3/18-11/16)
. -
-50 f I I I I I I I I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 n n 1 -A i 1 ■T r ! 1 7 r r 1- 1rF rir ■ l ■7
a1
.= 2.0 -
Fs
CC
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW20)
10 - .
5 I I Ground
Surface
I I
I I -12 inches
c -5 w 1
1
-1 \Vt 1\il MSAW20
p\\AN\
-15
Pfrl
3
20 1 l — — Begin
(9 Ow
Growing
0 25 I I Season
r I411 I
w -30 — End
I Growing
Season
-35 I I
-40 I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS m
I CRITERIA MET-15(6.1%) GROWING SEASON
-45 I 5/21/2020-6/4/2020 (3/18-11/16) -
-50 , I I I I I I I I I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
�i
l ■
0.0 i �■ A i _•• i 1 y iF
! ��� Imo ' n I 7�I1 1 1 rill ■T I
rti
2cis .0 -
w
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW21)
10 - •
5 I Ground
Surface
thoglikov
-12 inches
c -5 I
a--10 \L '
1
ca 1 I MSAW21
C15 I
o -20 k\V\
I 11 A.- I — — Begin
(9 Growing
o -25 I I Season
r I I
-30 - End
II Growing
0 Season
-35 I
YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40 CRITERIA MET-24(9.8%)
3/18/2020-4/10/2020 GROWING SEASON
-45 (3/18-11/16) -
-50 , I I I I I I I I I I
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 . n 1 T.' 1 I ■r f I IF p l 1 r r. Imo , ,in'I ■ f ■ it � I 7 1 l I •,I
_---- 1.0 -
v,
Fs
• 2.0
cc
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW22)
20
I I Ground
15 - I Surface
10 I
-12 inches
I
c 5
I
15, 0 — teNrov, —MSAW22
('s i.
-a 5
c
� (4(‘‘
c -10 \\Alk1\\‘‘ \11‘‘41/41*\ I — — Begin
Growin\\A*
o -15 T I I ' , I Se song
s
a -20 — — End
d
G Growing
-25 Season
I I
-30
GROWING SEASON YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-35 (3/18 11/16) CRITERIA MET-69(28.2%)
-40 r 9/9/2020-11/16/2020
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 . n 1 1 I ■r 71 ' 11 r r 1- I r r rip
In ■T ■ Pr1 i i l ' ■1
_' 1.0 I
cis
-
CL
3.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW23)
15 1 1
Ground
10 I I Surface
I I
5 I I -12 inches
I
A) k4VJ \V
-10-15 V \1\\ I Season
s -20 I I I — — End
Q.
w I I Growing
_25 Season
1 1
-30 1 1 I
GROWING SEASON I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
-35 (3/18-11/16) 1 CRITERIA MET-16(6.5%)5/19/2020
-40
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 ' vprri , .T. I , INT v T r ' i 7 r r 1• [ F ■ l ■7I I�- �, j i �
m 1.0 -
c
2.0 -
cc
3.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW24)
10 - •
5 1 -Ground
Surface
1
0
--12 inches
i -;0
5 \\ 1
'k IAililYl 111\.\\ MSAW24
i � 1 '
c -15 1 1
c
2 -20 I 1 — — Begin
0 Growing
o -25 I 1 Season
w 1 1
y -30 — — End
G I 1 Growing
Season
35 I YR7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I CRITERIA MET-60(24.6%)
-40 -
GROWING SEASON I 9/18/2020-11/16/2020
-45 - (3/18-11/16) I I
-50 , I , r-
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

Figure 5. Flow Gauge Graph
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
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 -1.0 - I 1 . 11 A .*, l q TI r r p 7 �7- Ir ��n ■ r . II— 1I■ ' .�I
'
M 2.0 -
C
3.0 -
4.0 -
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1) —0.1 ft Flow Depth
2.0 UT1 B - Upstream —MSFI 1
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4 MY7 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
1.3 CRITERIA MET-133
(1/1/2020-5/12/2020)
1.2
0 1.1 I
L 1.0
m 0.9
r
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
Cl) 0.4
0.3
1\141.4.
0.2
t,Nii\,\\ \\*
0.1 - - 1 i\Li1/4\1.\4\\44,
0.0 ,
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
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT to Mill Swamp Rainfall: MY7
12.0 -
10.0
8.0 — — —
wiur
Ai 1111
4.0 � ' .1
•
a 2.0
0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
♦F rO tliO �O rO c,l,O tl,O tO ;O ,LO 11O �O
Historic Average(56.5 in) Historic 30%probable
—A—Historic 70%probable —N—Onslow County Observed MY7(65.4 in)
Note: Total Rainfall for MY7 was 65.4", an excess of 8.9"from the historic average of 56.5"
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 12.Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Percentage of Consecutive Days<12 inches from Ground Surface' Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria' Percentage of Cumulative Days<12 inches from Ground Surface' Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria3
Well ID
Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020)
UTlc Cross-Sectional Well Arrays(Installed July 2013)
MSAW 1 4.4 29.1 20.8 24.6 14.8 100.0 25.4 54.1 11 71 51 60 36 244 62 132 53.5 56.8 52.1 66.5 37.4 100.0 45.9 72.5 130 138 127 162 91 244 112 177
MSAW2 0.7 3.3 6.5 4.0 2.5 12.3 13.9 14.3 2 8 16 10 6 30 34 35 3.5 20.2 26.3 19.8 22.2 40.2 29.9 32.8 9 49 64 48 54 98 73 80
MSAW3t 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 13.1 13.5 15.6 0 1 2 2 1 32 33 38 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.4 27.9 21.3 44.3 0 3 5 2 1 68 52 108
MSAW4 10.3 27.8 36.4 31.2 46.1 100.0 24.6 53.7 25 68 89 76 112 244 60 131 97.0 74.2 61.0 83.4 80.2 100.0 61.1 96.7 236 180 148 203 195 244 149 236
MSAW5 3.3 21.2 19.7 31.1 25.1 23.4 20.1 56.6 8 52 48 76 61 57 49 138 40.5 51.9 51.6 58.3 52.7 91.4 45.5 99.6 98 126 126 142 128 223 111 243
MSAW6 1.1 3.8 7.0 4.2 10.7 15.2 14.8 25.4 3 9 17 10 26 37 36 62 9.5 23.3 28.3 19.7 24.3 67.6 32.4 40.2 23 57 69 48 59 165 79 98
MSAW7t 0.2 3.7 2.7 2.1 1.6 13.1 9.1 27.9 1 9 7 5 4 32 23 68 0.3 10.9 14.6 7.1 6.6 49.2 24.2 81.1 1 27 36 17 16 120 59 198
MSAW8 14.1 47.3 37.7 31.1 36.2 100.0 38.1 100.0 34 115 92 76 88 244 93 244 96.8 73.9 66.3 83.0 79.4 100.0 45.5 100.0 235 180 161 202 193 244 111 244
MSAW9 2.5 4.5 8.6 5.7 5.3 16.0 15.6 100.0 6 11 21 14 13 39 38 244 44.5 33.0 28.6 41.7 39.1 77.5 41.0 100.0 108 80 70 101 95 189 100 244
MSAW 10° 0.0 0.6 5.3 2.1 4.9 5.3 -- -- 0 2 13 5 12 13 -- -- 0.0 1.1 13.1 16.8 30.5 20.9 -- -- 0 3 32 41 74 51 -- --
Supplemental UTlc Monitoring Wells(Installed February/March 2016)
**MSAW19 -- -- -- 8.7 12.8 19.3 13.9 16.4 -- -- -- 21 31 47 34 40 -- -- -- 43.8 42.4 66.0 30.7 57.8 -- -- -- 107 103 161 75 141
**MSAW20 -- -- -- 3.7 3.7 12.3 4.5 6.1 -- -- -- 9 9 30 11 15 -- -- -- 10.1 19.3 42.2 15.2 27.0 -- -- -- 25 47 103 37 66
**MSAW21 -- -- -- 3.7 10.7 12.7 7.0 9.8 -- -- -- 9 26 31 17 24 -- -- -- 12.7 17.7 48.4 21.7 47.5 -- -- -- 31 43 118 53 116
**MSAW22 -- -- -- 2.8 3.3 12.7 5.3 _ 28.3 -- -- -- 7 8 31 13 69 _ -- -- -- 14.0 23.0 43.4 21.3 76.6 -- -- -- 34 56 106 52 187
**MSAW23 -- -- -- 3.1 9.5 12.7 5.3 _ 6.6 -- -- -- 8 23 31 13 16 -- -- -- 23.7 32.5 52.0 24.6 47.5 -- -- -- 58 79 127 60 116
**MSAW24 -- -- -- 31.2 26.3 13.9 9.0 24.6 -- -- -- 76 64 34 22 60 -- -- -- 72.1 83.1 64.8 26.2 63.5 -- -- -- 175 202 158 64 155
Headwater Research Cross-Sectional Well Arrays on UTla and UTlb(Installed July 2013)
MSAW11 4.7 21.2 32.3 40.1 36.0 50.0 38.2 51.2 12 52 79 98 88 122 93 125 38.5 72.4 76.7 84.9 68.3 99.6 63.9 93.4 94 176 187 206 166 243 156 228
MSAW12 0.7 15.4 10.1 7.6 14.5 25.4 21.7 23.8 2 38 25 19 35 62 53 58 7.0 19.1 24.9 27.4 15.1 84.0 32.2 67.5 17 47 61 67 37 205 79 165
MSAW13 6.5 46.5 40.0 40.0 36.0 50.0 38.0 14.4 16 113 97 97 88 122 93 35 81.5 80.0 82.2 84.8 66.0 99.2 64.4 14.4 198 195 200 206 161 242 157 35
MSAW14 0.6 39.1 18.3 17.9 25.6 23.4 19.0 25.1 2 95 45 44 62 57 46 61 4.0 31.0 46.7 61.6 32.7 84.8 28.1 58.2 10 75 114 150 80 207 69 142
MSAW15 0.8 0.9 2.4 1.6 1.1 3.7 1.3 0.2 2 2 6 4 3 9 3 1 4.0 3.9 5.1 6.7 2.0 20.1 3.3 0.8 10 10 13 16 5 49 8 2
MSAW16 2.4 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.2 13.5 3.9 1.6 6 7 6 5 3 33 10 4 14.5 13.0 11.5 7.1 2.2 40.2 12.7 1.8 35 32 28 17 5 98 31 5
MSAW17 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 3.7 1.9 0.0 0 0 2 1 1 9 5 0 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.2 9.4 4.5 0.0 0 0 3 1 1 23 11 0
MSAW184 3.8 10.2 7.4 2.2 1.2 4.9 4.0 -- 9 25 18 5 3 12 10 0 18.5 15.3 20.8 10.7 3.6 23.0 4.1 0.0 45 37 51 26 9 56 10 0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Indicates 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 cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
°Well MSAW I O unexpectedly and permanently failed in the summer of 2018,while MSAW 18 failed in the spring of 2019.
t Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated on 6/7/18 as per IRT suggestion during a field visit on 5/1/18. See CCPV in Appendix B for new and previous locations.
The growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 244 days long.12%of the growing season is 29 days.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells located within credited areas that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface
**To gather additional well data in the UTl c restoration area,In-Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers AW 19-AW23 were installed on 2/26/2016,AW24 was installed on 3/10/2016.The installation of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet season when groundwater levels were normally closer to the ground surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 13.Flow Gauge Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project ID No.95019
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criterial Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2
Flow Gauge ID
Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 1 Year 2* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2013) (2014) (2015) (2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020)
Flow Gauges(Installed September 27,2013)
MSFL1 9 31 51 59 139 65 78 133 34 242 137 187 213 247 170 296
MSFL2 35 131 152 105 164 N/A3 N/A N/A 79 327 186 231 243 N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
'Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2lndicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
3The pressure transducer for MSFL2 permanently failed over the winter of 2017/2018.
Success Criteria per UT to Mill Swamp Mitigation Plan:A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the recorded flow duration occurs for aminimum of 30 consecutive days during the
monitoring year. Two surface water flow events 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.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project:DMS Project No.95019
Date of Data Estimated Occurrence of Method of Data Gauge
Collection Bankfull Event Collection Reading(feet)
Year 1(2013)
10/16/2013 10/11/2013 Crest Gauge 0.17
12/24/2013 12/15/2013 Crest Gauge 0.19
Year 2*(2014)
03/27/2014 03/07/2014 Crest Gauge 0.32
10/14/2014 08/04/2014 Crest Gauge 0.56
12/19/2014 11/26/2014 Crest Gauge 0.27
Year 2(2015)
01/24/2015 01/24/2015 Crest Gauge 0.59
04/27/2015 02/26/2015 Crest Gauge 1.07
06/23/2015 05/11/2015 Crest Gauge 1.61
11/12/2015 10/03/2015 Crest Gauge 1.54
Year 3(2016)
03/10/2016 02/05/2016 Crest Gauge 1.44
11/22/2016 10/8/2016(Hurricane Matthew) , Crest Gauge 2.32
Year 4(2017)
03/20/2017 01/02/2017 Crest Gauge 1.18
06/02/2017 04/25/2017 Crest Gauge 1.20
Year 5(2018)
06/07/2018 05/31/2018 Crest Gauge 1.50
10/30/2018 9/15/2018(Hurricane Florence) Crest Gauge 3.41
Year 6(2019)
12/06/2019 09/05/2019 Crest Gauge 2.10
Year 7(2020)
12/08/2020 11/12/2020(4.9"rain) Crest Gauge* 1.20
*Note:Crest gauge readings can be correlated with spikes in flow gauge measurements(see
graph in Appendix E)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING,INC.
YEAR 7 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT(DMS PROJECT NO.95019)

Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Memorandem
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: Wetland Boundary Adjustment
DMS Project ID. 95019
NC DEQ Contract#003992
USACE Action ID: SAW-2011-02193, DWR#20120916
White Oak River Basin:03030001-010020
Date Prepared: December 9, 2020
Subject: Wetland boundary adjustments for upcoming project closeout
Recorded By: Scott King
The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project proposed to restore a total of 6.616 acres of wetlands within
the floodplains along both sides of Reach UT1c. However, over the 8 total years of groundwater well
monitoring, the wells located along the outer half of the left floodplain have proven to have only
intermittently met the success criteria. As such, at the suggestion of DMS staff, Baker conducted a field
review of the wetlands along the left floodplain for the purpose of making appropriate adjustments the
final credited wetland boundary. This field review was completed in January 2020 and used a wide
range of data in making the adjustment including: soil borings, on-site vegetation, hydrologic field
indicators (observed water table, standing water, staining, etc),groundwater well data, and GIS analysis.
During the course of the assessment, a relatively clear visual boundary was apparent running roughly
mid-way through the wetland. The inner portion of the boundary was characterized primarily by the
presence of very shallow standing water and/or soil saturation to the surface (despite not having rained
since getting<0.25" 5 days prior). It also contained notably wetter vegetation (more rushes, sedges,
mosses, wet ferns, etc), had water-stained leaves commonly present, and had other scattered indicators
of hydrology such as crayfish burrows and trim lines on tree trunks. The adjacent outer area still
appeared to be a wetland (i.e. it still appeared to meet all three jurisdictional parameters) but was
nevertheless visually distinct from the clearly wetter inner area. Of note, strong hydric soils were found
throughout the restored wetland and so the boundary adjustment focused on the presence of the other
factors discussed above.
There were exceptions to the above assessment;two areas on the outer extreme of the original wetland
boundary appear to be marginal wetlands, at best, and might even be considered upland area. A slight,
though distinct, shift in topography occurs along their edge, coupled with a shift in vegetation. These
areas total 0.303 acres and are called out on the enclosed Figure 1.
The newly adjusted wetland boundary line was then pulled into GIS for further desktop analysis. Using
LiDAR data, new topographic contours at 0.5 ft intervals were created for the site (Figures 2A and 2B).
The new adjusted boundary appears to follow the new contours fairly well,though these slight changes
were virtually indetectable in the field. The new boundary also appears to follow visual indicators
(primarily standing water) as shown in the most recent aerial photograph from 2019.

As previously noted,the historic well data in the more marginal areas that were removed in the
boundary adjustment provide further evidence to support the new boundary. The wells located within
the removed areas met the hydrologic criteria for jurisdiction in most years but did not meet the
restoration success criteria of 12%.
The new restored wetland boundary on the left floodplain totals 1.875 acres for a revised project
wetland restoration total of 5.133 acres (for 5.133 Riparian Wetland credits). See revised project credits
detailed in the table below:
Table 1. Adjusted Wetland Areas
Area (ac) Ratio Credits
Original Wetlands
Riparian, Restoration 6.616 1:1 6.616
Adjusted Wetlands
Riparian, Restoration 5.133 1:1 5.133
Riparian Wetland Credit Difference 1.483
Most sincerely,
/f/A-
Scott King, LSS, PWS
[e-mail]
919-219-6339 [M]

' • 3• _ Conservation Easement
�
MSAW24
' Orignal Wetlands North :._ 1,-•' * Groundwater Wells (MY7)
_ of Stream (3.358 ac) ''4' 0) Passed(>12°%0)
=;`tt + • ` • Failed(but>4.5%)
nip.,l, _ : �'.-*al- r h 4 y O Old Well Locations(<4.5%)
�` MSAW9 �'' ' q '+L} "�, Marginal/Upland Areas 0.303 acres)
. _� J. C' ^.'n MSAW23 '�
•-iiiiik• 'k (; MSAW7 IV' Adjusted Wetland Adjusted Wetland Boundary(1.889 ac)
'� q' ' or s�rn��` • a- Boundary (1.875 ac) Restored Wetland Area(6.62 Acres total)
"N k:
ztil.141`14tri.:. 7 vr::, ,... . ....
-' MSAW22 '�r E -�l'.
,� a` :�T � Marginal/Upland g1' ,,
MSAW6 111114
- - MSAW6 Areas (0.303 ac) r ` , •
}
-r 1•-
fc14. .
',- * 7.r a -
ii.liw
fia e - � .T
rr F ` �.MSAW5. �?� MSW21 MSAW3 I '
`- _, .. ... aim �� G+.
s -, MSAW7. ' . r ,�,,,� ;''` ° 4,
e-t i -.1
M�SSAAW20 �<. J ~ 4
.. MSAW4 4111t a"*; .: J . ,
UT1c #, .�
_ ,.c-4 wr,T.: -. MSAW2 >.... a
liw • s.. a . a , - _ MSAW19
Orginial Wetlands South _ a`• a.. _. \-4A.t MSAW3
of Stream (3.258 ac) r ' -- Ms w1r
,N.: - " t .arm- = r . -- �� •i� _
Aerial Photo Date: 2019 - ^�= �` • � - '
.4
Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 , Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help • `+ i
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on,or just outside,the wetland boundary line. • '. - ;,-
mi ... -•a�x - • . - Map,GC WAlikartifGeographic briblEftibil Eild hl:1h`.i' ,K(n:'Bll T»xca
N Figure 1
Michael Baker 0 100 200eet Wetland Restoration
INTERNATIONAL DMS Project#95019 Boundary Adjustment
UT to Mill Swamp Site

' 10 MEConservation Easement
*414
+' Topographic Contours(0.5-ft)
Groundwater Wells (MY7)
,• ' - D Passed(>12%)
•• + • Failed(but>4.5%)
¢' '�` 0 Old Well Locations(<4.5%)
tzw...--..-:-.0-
ik
\\` _� z n Adjusted Wetland Boundary(1.889 ac)
�� - ,' L <- Adjusted Wetland
Boundary (1.875 ac) is _1-
4 f MSAW24•.�-�— -_ C � ��
MSAW10 i
Lo.....,_. 9 �'`
" 1 •74\I' 1P1M597— •••,. ".., •., •.,
MSAW7 u ,
''',.3. 4:::,::::•:::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!.,...\ 1 '11 1 i ..,.!_1,..%. -:, -
lizt fir.
Laimia.lak
ilallikMSAW6 :------_ 1
: .
Aerial Photo Date: 2019 r _
i ry
Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 ,Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help -'c '
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on, or just outside,the wetland boundary line. !' - !
Airs__i .,,, ° Gi©Center IxGeographic Information gild 11•10Wii,NC,a'i1 TM-,wd
Michael Baker 0 100 200 N Figure 2A
Feet W Boundary
Wetland Restoration
INTERNATIONAL
DMS Project#95019 AAdjustment (West Section)
UT to Mill Swamp Site

MSAW6 -
•y +�'' f ... _ Conservation Easement
_. _
" , ..,!-Aiii.— !,, •*--- ii•• - -.‘ -----
Topographic Contours(0.5-ft)
� - 4 Adjusted Wetland
`+F-" •4 ;�;', -' r-� Boundary (1.875 ac) 51/ Groundwater Wells (MY7)
�,�• � �, - \ Passed(>12%)
i
I.
F b- 'L • Failed(but>4.5%)
r-
i- - � �►. �� \ :::
Locatio <45%)- MSAW21 Wetland Boundary(1.889 ac)
7-424111-� - ■ .+ MSAW3 0
f' y
• rr '. r r. -.'. , MSAW7(New)
4Ir
- ., , .*, r \ =-
MSAW2O
+' `- r t .. MSAW2 _ y
iok
`�� •
k ?.r MSAW19
It
i• f �`�
_ r ti --JY�'� ' '� , �.. MSAW3
•---... •--....., .,:.--r.. 7;:ty,..---,.:-----..:.0.% .; ..- I. -...—.'k.\. '.. ..•',, :,,•
Aerial Photo Date: 2019 �_P...+ '
Note: At the suggestion of the IRT during the site visit on 5/1/18 ,Wells MSAW3 and MSAW7 were relocated to help •j f ��\ ly
confirm restored wetland areas. They had previously been located on,or just outside,the wetland boundary line. f �f / _, .1
-�-- c Map,•.�nIC� ibr Geographic Informatio%]v�.d 1��Pj->- ;A a CC%y'ii Soie _
Michael Baker 0 100 20Feet N Figure
Wetland Restoration n Boundary
INTERNATIONAL DMS Project#95019 AAdjustment (East Section)
UT to Mill Swamp Site

UT to Mill Swamp: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (1/30/20)
1.4 WIF
it
,,,, :i4,71:17,-,....totAlei.1,;,/t,iewr,p,1...;,,'•'',.$.•--:',„?it•,'"AA,:t4,...`-- §1 :rik,,7,:oaf ^ rr+
.... ,„,e.,. ...k,5..,,..ip , .
P ,01. ,- ;.4-,,'t..N l'.44.140? 4. 7 0. 0 ,. , . .
Y`F"g'N:ep,.4." .Q:, 11.,..!':-,. Y h lb',
...,..,....„. _.;,...:_a.4.4 y 'ems -" E % " yS rto
&.1iPlkirAl:l
a4b
i.
,-,..t.....a4:;,... ...,,..,, ,,, ,,,,,,..,..44.4...tc,..4.;:t..4.41cr, --.4.*:-.2-',;._,- .
46); T ti 'srsr�'' ,' '_';•,,, ..-,:"1 ' • ''2,W;4.,•"40:: ,'" 4-_ ....,,r,:.2„..,„..4 _. ,,_„_.::t
v 4-4.• r •C�y,_ 1
, .
•
Soft rush in area with saturated soil Hydric soil
� : v � .sue 41 �--,� 3' ,�,."'s4 'AF' rr -
�— ,� , `' °,fi4 try � t4' 8 l ° Y' 1..,:� . � � �.
•
led-ip;),Ii I.'' N °lit li -... . - !'-',--,,,i/rfiev i,v4;:&,..,ft,,a:-; ' ,-- ,
„13,-,<, ...errp,"..,,,. ', ‘?it, - t/r1,,, \ i',.sg,i2f,„re. ,.,"..".,-.. .4.1771' ..7i), "Pi.-11 '
4
__,,„,......„ .
-vim jiKf ��, f +1 i" _ ,• �. ,„.,, •F 4 ,?! kr ��.
>"ft -A - .' ern
1 ,N,et-pF Milk
Y _
• 4
. ..1 -
Saturated, hydric soil to surface `� Hydr,,,oto. „, ,-/i,z.--..t,\,,,.44.:.5:4411013.,till' ,L.:11-;,_1/4,i '',':' 4 % , _,--.
ic soil
‘ir" ,. -- . ,..,
. . _ ,..,.
_,,.,,_ ,,;.,!...,.7,•-„, 7'.,::: ,-.1,,,'-e),,:,-;- 4 k,"'-r!''' '
' �c_ �- s '�l` r' ' 1. . Y
u. < F fir7 E '� s �'-,,,::,L.:,,,' L F1 t .
•
` , °S'1 t�s .g� �' � any�s 'Al� �} �.� I e�� �s�f � •..��T� � '.
� � � � �d �[` v" •it � sir -'�� r ' , *I"''r''''1' 04 .N41 Z.
ri � � �k-' •"� �,. e
i _ • s x' v: �' f tie '. 1 s�,.rr�, ,� ty. r .,.y y� 11�� :
r}`' •fl � 7 � �gAl ,
Saturated, hydric soil to surface Hydric soil

UT to Mill Swamp: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (1/30/20)
a ,j, `ustm. p,. +) eat r ,...:.:,,,,Er-,:".iv..,:.,;',.
y f { x
f/r IF _ h i�' _ -y r 3 S . ' 7 i?� • -! _
�: r '- '.� yis'r ".` e` . '7. _ 7 F� ..�,^ � �� r m&''R rf.
..4,... ,-.7,„Atik, 1-0,..----."--.z.-.7-W .
, r X� ,,„ k e 4. a ss _ � o...t , �°,,1 �p,�. ia�,t
- . --,,.,,, ,--iiii....,k, at
iltd--
may, ", �^ � - ,. ''T;'?'s 8 1 ,, ,q ''n. r °.d <.
*.:'11„,' ...„..,71.wsit.-kt- ..,-:-.' ••ok' ' '-to . ,
.1.-'it5r,,--3.-1:4 -
r. kUi-;46-',.1* ,.-. ' "* ;:, °S ' 4,1'4 - ,01,-,... ' '- --z--,„-- '-'- - .. -., _
x .- ¢ �.o W 1. 5":4�r v;�`-Pau,.1 <F,' / y yr•; .. I _ '!.-w+t ar 4� ti
, „.1- ,,,„a,:../1•:.,, "r4,:i.414.•,,i..''. ,,, '',4t,;.' 4- =--7--ros. ..,., - : , :m-,,e...z.:4,&.. - \ - \.-----
4.
-:c. -..--,--74 ; ,AL-I' '!-"r:---.4; 4.''',..;;' - 1:_if_iit;','4'-.,r'14:1. 7•-' •it.,- .. ''• f , ''''--i',Iar-' - '
Saturated, hydric soil to surface Moss trim-line on tree trunk
1�,1 ` 1 . \. O
�!1N •
,..10.
• � a+ y amn a • `° Iiita>r i - 7• 4 sk.
4 Fir. 4
„4.4,,. ,, , 0.,.- -—,fid. ,,,v =V::-,W..Z.4 *X.-4 11' , '1,, 2,
441.4w k
;,....„.....„......c. 4.,.._._...._ , ,,,...,,,.,-.,..„,1
A%tsit„
-_. aY 1 arm `'� N _ ` . J � 0 "
Saturated, hydric soil to surface with moss Hydric soil
\i �,s�n` i'9"f'r .'�' r '9';�. 'ill i.P�• ' . nTi4 Fh L ,�: ys&
4 S Ya .' w >'�^ f ly
11
d ,' ''''f, ,1 7 e x;r E ,gini . ^s, rl h
tz lli ` V _� .,r 'pq x if , 4,: '4�i i_e li l s�f i fr
W �y p� v� r
•
. ry� -'. d b F Y 4,,i .1�y �,il" ✓• -;�L `. Y_Vr N; iFJ ,$ ' b „
,. r 1 , shy. E �,::_C r A ca"e` ...a.-` +�"'f �"�';tie - �rl ���P^ -��'� d;'�' ��._
1 ( _ 1 1�. J 9 k J..r �y c ph i- :al.°'` '�l.'. k- �'
E rf�,,e - !ar N-. ;tP A'A?- < �'„i. i , ,k ., hsF.. "r' �" a
\ �� ` �^�i��1 '� - rs� ��4�C� r- �A� ik e sE �b�� PiF �l �� :,rR ram` 1 �.-' 1 s
/� I"_-a � y:� `YY`. Ta i�L *hA yy '� I.
7�((/f� y -- • �� :. r"y tT
\„..,0,
�3 i rtw .. �.f -, " 1M' 5 - 'r ' � c
A' i* a -`, ,, ,r -
'''' -'•;''c.'" *
� t,:i � tz > � � tit µ r `,';, , yu 1`�� +• ,•�-
'�� ...-.-i g ' , ti Yi'—� `n - - a [ P Miri P ro� ?�
Saturated, hydric soil to surface (with soft rush) Saturated, hydric soil to surface (with Carex spp.)

UT to Mill Swamp • ... \
: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (1/30/20)
1,74,,iv......*7:11.*:,-4 _-:1.-'44w,t, ,-, . ,,,,w;z:;.itA.„),
� A k' I � � � d
.fits
.i.k. ..*".'"..." .•'-',-.11'
t,.
ij I
c. sue? :» °IN
3 -".^r � T',' i`- �,�rsh" �';a,�,v - - f I�' :4 �q;."tl'� '}i
�� � �,'���i a rasa � �",� ��� ��@� '• ' � !�� _ 1•t A � t�. �
•
fir, 'f l d� '+t\ r�- 'E ° f •, f .�7 M\:.
�c7 ��.. c, �j '�Q it,4 .v✓ 4. n. k �• 4 ,jebr
A T K i .-1 ' Bpi `vim ;
Pockets of shallow standing water Hydric soil
10,
dd: x ' .a $
j ; 1rIi:
4irjr. ''''
1:
4
� ' r Y „
.,...:,,e_ --;„
`1.�i>s .{ 3 a c !\7 � s(( A �7` 1. "'" + ., 1 _ a._
ll
�f' '' �r °'r. !ram � �3�
� �- 5 "..4,24-..„: _ �' �<k" �r � � ® ,� � �.�'' � � ,� � �' ��,L`ice �'
i s '` gar - ✓ 1 ' '4 _�� 't fa
, , ,„
r°0„Ad i ; i . , , .„_
�' ���k S, . a "*' t�'y�,. 1 s s !
' P r$ ��d c. ri�r �". � � /_-/ � Jv�` 3��. p�\j 11.
„, ,,,,,, _
7.
- lit.,4-5'.:.:',1,Ff-,Cr-1•".'f„-t:':';',,,.,':,,..,;.'it'-‘. i,1:1.,''''',„1-:,;.,!,.'''#'1,r''',N l'4.1:771-1 eV,ill,".' ' —' ''
it
r
Carex spp. and Scirpus (Woolgrass) in area Area of shallow standing water
saturated to the surface
•
•
e i 0: 4
' 4 "71,*4..t,'"w••yk:'' imot .H.4 *c.d..' 1 -
M _ ,, - ,, ,, ,Asoill
T
,;*—•If. '. . ir",?:filt:': ' I. I „tit:, 1,3°—
.
, k r.:1 4 , '414;4*-'T''''.4:" *. 'L:*
Hydric soil Close-up of hydric soil

UT to Mill Swamp: Wetland Boundary Adjustment Photographs (1/30/20)
i_ ;� /a: . I" ,r „ �� :?1
1 :
ilf
i m vd r ,` A, - y 7� 1
�i°, ram' ' r
/a •/ i, .tlo ' a " as r �.
AI,
11 _
: .-- .„,,,,,,,,, . ,., . , ,,,, ,,
� .E Y. ,�kiAT-� ,i FB ...,.. -,,...., .4„.. - , ..,,,,,,, . , , ---,..., ... , , , . ,, : .v .
, l'*...7,.: ": -,‘ ;.._ -,
,-,,,,, ,,
.-tv , -17, .0. .
,,,,._ -,-. .,,- .,,,,-
..... „,,,,,, , ,,
..,..1 , . , .,
..... , . 1 , . ,. ,..,,, .. ,.. .-.. .
.,.._ .1,- ,.
Saturated, hydric soil to surface Saturated, hydric soil to surface with moss
e k�� � ',y� ; •
/ iv i 1 f�!"l�`6" y f -w-
1( �`~K Y NYC i X 'E � ! h L ` !J Vn LL
'"4 �. x w • rCS,y.. '-ay � / - ,*. � .. /T ' ,r a 1' � �c'. -:� a "� �:-.
� ,_''' �." i'*' .r'4'.4.'t.TI' - ads ' t"-._' 'u�Y .• �,..; ' �! � I•'A' f4° r�t ✓ 6•vim.. „
•
--�"�' - t'•'' ^ �;I k "� 911*' 't, ; i. •-- yam. �� � . Xr 11x :I
' �+, �51 � � { S&. � � m � � � y��/IC -ti If '_w�� `.'1• ��1` �,�-�ia. `.��
A �q A� l d' X � ! ' 44, A9 d i i y�
a! ._ --_„,_.2-4'.k..--, .."*.' '
".g9 ' 3 � ° 0e' —.110
r/
,......„, , ,/
•t .fiy 9 spa. ." , I -r "y b t t,
p.„,-, r',4, ` ,2..r4,;,..;;, •,6 q'...' • / •,- ‘•:-.ft-7.,...,',..;,.-71r. ',. „„,...
4 1 F' 11� ,•,'' .L"',gv 1. 'R s ' ' J I A ,�'�`4-P, . /,
per • 'v.
Pocket of standing water Hydric soil and Carex spp. ;,_ __., .v_
_�' ��*d9 Ph _ aa I
�s '1 � t:� ii �, 4 I, ` Fi mil �;�.
tOcs
;{ 1/ � �1¢���"R+i•1��_,� '�i r� A c�.,� ,-��,'I 4f5�;�z •��`j'� #�'�r ���
%
i �.�y� '.� f .; . f ,' FST �� +� ; r �'1:, A9��Ni,e,4-----,, '✓ %� ':��� ,�' '�0,•�� tee"
2 b g— r.Y � t a+v `,—far is, +C11*,r �1 +9'a\i,
�. �dke
1". �'_ mtk �,." iRn '" , zC •4. f �� •Nam,
4 �' ` .' •� '•°} ,i ° _ .?.�� `l aq a-"�:��Ce did � `
Saturated, hydric soil to surface Crayfish burrow