20120064 Ver 1_Year 5 Moitoring Report_2020_20210915

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20120064 Version* 1
.....................................
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 09/15/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -9/15/2021
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
I•J Stream 17 Wetlands rJ Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Melonie Beth Allen [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20120064 Version:*1
Existing IDtt Existing Version
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Crooked Creek 2
County: Union
Document Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Crooked Creek_94687_MY5_2020.pdf 39.02MB
Rease upload only one FtF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Melonie Beth Allen
Signature:*

+�' t i C _, ' r 94 0f it z 7 �.
r# � --•i
,- .t•lie;'4'.'',,,, 11, it.L. ,'T'
's4",1,f4 i'fli 41,7::',1"' "t i 4 gt Mt;'!:'.4 .'' '..i",ii,..''V it : ,..q: ' ' ' '''
i411
.i k, $ � •
�� r �� xG�S�li �� r TI
�.i_
•
'9 r I ,
,,,Y ww to z sm, , gd
likio
it
MONITORING YEAR 5 CROOKED CREEK#2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Union County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DEQ Contract 6617
DMS Project Number 94687
USACE Permit No. SAW-2011-02201
FINAL
Data Collection Period: March—November 2020
Submission Date: January 5, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
111M
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
API'
1‘4
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
January 5, 2021
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site -Year 5 Monitoring Report
Final Submittal for DMS
DMS ID 94687
DEQ Contract Number D091265
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin—CU#03040105; Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments and observations from the Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site Draft Year 5 Monitoring Report.
The following are Wildlands responses to your comments and observations from the report noted in
italics lettering.
DMS Comment; Continuous flow gauge graph for UT1 appears to be missing.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated Appendix 5 to include flow gage for UT1.
DMS Comment; Please add the following as appendices:
• 2020 IRT site visit memo
• Supplemental soils temperature data; describe briefly and indicate this might be discussed
with IRT in 2021.
• Easement encroachment areas (2); please add to the CCPV5 and indicate in the text that
these areas of backyard mowing behind the easement line are being actively addressed with
the respective landowners. A location map is attached.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the text and appendices to include the information listed
above.
DMS Comment;The shapefile DMS has for Zone A Drained Hydric Soils (Restoration) is 6.72 ac,
compared to the 6.6 ac in the asset table. Please attempt to address this difference, and resubmit the
feature if it can be addressed.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the shapefile to match the 6.6 ac recorded in the asset table
and resubmitted the shapefile.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS Comment; Please submit all of the features used in the MY5 CCPV. Currently, there is the MY2
AOC file in the "CCPV GIS Data"folder, then there is a "CCPV GIS Data- Copy"folder with many more
features, but it does not appear that either folder includes the MY5 invasive species polygon,
headcut point, or beaver dam line features. Please be sure the groundwater gauge features that are
included in the digital submittal are updated to include gauge 11.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands has updated the MY5 CCPV files in the digital support files to include all
files shown in the MY5 CCPV map. The shapefile labeled"AOC MY5"includes the MY5 invasive species
polygons. Please let us know if you have additional issues with the files.
DMS Comment;The in-stream flow gauge files is corrupt, please check this file to ensure it is working,
and resubmit.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands has inserted a new file that is working. Please let us know if you
additional issues with this file.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 5 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with the
final electronic files for DMS distribution. Please contact me at 704-941-9093 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

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

CROOKED CREEK#2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 1-2
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 1-3
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment 1-4
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern 1-5
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary 1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Photographs
Stream and Wetland Photographs
Area of Concern Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Mean)
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters—Cross-section)
Table 13 Monitoring Data—Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project(94687)
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report—Final iii

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots and Stream Gage Plot
Rainfall Plot
Bankfull Event Photographs
Appendix 6 Invasive Species Treatment Logs
Appendix 7 2020 IRT Site Visit Memo
Appendix 8 Supplemental Soils Temperature Data
Appendix 9 Easement Encroachment Areas
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project(94687)
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report—Final iv

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth,Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from: http://deq.nc.gov/document/yadkin-pee-dee-rbrp-2009-final
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP),Tetra Tech, CCoG, 2012. Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan. Retrieved from:
http://www.goosea ndcrooked.org/documents/Goosea ndCrooked LW P-W M P_Fi na I_7-2012.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2016. USDA Field Office Climate Data, WETS Table:
Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000).
United States Geological Survey(USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/coastalp.htm
United States Geological Survey(USGS), 2016. Real Time Water Data for North Carolina. Retrieved from:
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/realtime/real_time_yadkin_peedee.html
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2013). Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan. NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC.
WCrooked Creek#2 Restoration Project(94687)
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report—Final 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

- - ) in . :Hydrologic Unit Code(14)
1 NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
I.
-Project Location
N. 0
•
• 0304b ••50100 c %�
cir�F��R` ' , M4ddy 03040105010070
0Rc N, _ — — -- '1`. - erg
+' � C.T. 1 Midland • •
1Ayere Golf — '� ,�- 1
urea �, 1w♦ s'a2 ft
^a 03040105030010 / "
s050103920.Q50 I • / ` l f /
••
833ft ���""�••��/ ���, i Oa, 30401 5050010
i1 ss ,•+.0, / �!'"'""1... .•`
1 GCeek t fit Hill �► ,// , 1 , r e� s r
03050103020060 ' /.;, j
A., =,
/ ;
03040105030020 I r.�
j _` ���'r
�/���'\ /The' t
�.� , /Divide ) Fii•vie
1\ / Golf ‘` J 1 �r
A clue_ ;0 e �,.r
-
rrhews
utler ,/ •''
/oa. ,'e ,..*'I I` !
J4 'AC/ 'HembA rid l. . , '- �".
I• •'', /a-eh Fo Gto4`a•% :` 1F �' .,. 'I Q I,'"'
� �,.i � 03040105040020
03050103020070 ‘'•..," - •
_ R•-'
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of • . •-'/ „,,
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) ',
Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is encompassed - UnlonviWle }_
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered )10 ' ,' I
by land under private ownership.Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement Directions to Site:
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not From Charlotte,NC take US-74 East,take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on
permitted.Access by authorized personnel of state and Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485.
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in Take Interstate 485 South(Inner Loop)for approximately 3
the development,oversight,and stewardship of the restoration miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill.
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.
defined roles.Any intended site visitation or activity by The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on the
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles '•r s right hand side of the road.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
03040105070020
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
WILDLANDS 1 IM 0 r0.5r 1Mile N DMS Project No. 94687
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 5-2020
Union County, NC

- - - Powerline Easement
Crooked Creek Reach Break
Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams
Existing Overflow
•' Overflow Connector
Ditch (former UT1 channel)
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
If/ Wetland Enhancement Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Enhancement Zone B
.... : . =Wetland Restoration Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
=Wetland Creation Zone B
i :_ %___ _�_ Riparian Buffer Enhancement
1
! ,, -'`� = Riparian Buffer Restoration
i `
=' �. s ' u_.1Conservation Easement
' \
i 1.
a
='
I i, d «!x
.; Zone B s
�,„
♦� '1
-:
1 - - ,-' 1 1 ''.
•
1 1 IV 1 1
___ I ' Reach B 1 \i
► Reach A 1. ,'
1 \
Ii . ;
♦♦ "♦ \.
► •
I
�♦
♦ ♦ \
•..
K
otography p .
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
W , Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
WILDLANDS k 0 400 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
ENGINEERING 111
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
IA Mitigation Credits I .
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer(sqft) Nitrogen Phosphorous
Nutrient Nutrient Offset
Type R 1 RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,242.2 N/A 7.900 0.500 N/A N/A 54,135.33 N/A
Project Components
As-Built
Existing Footage/ Restoration or Restoration Restoration Footage/ Mitigation Credits1'2
Reach ID Stationing/ Approach
Acreage Equivalent Acreage Ratio (SMU/WMU)
Location
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A 202+20-215+55 1,555 LF N/A Enhancement II 1,335 2.5:1 534.000
Crooked Creek Reach B 215+55-236+78 2,404 LF N/A Enhancement II 2,123 2.5:1 849.200
UT1 100+47-117+18 1,762 LF P1 Restoration 1,671 1:1 1,671.000
UT2 300+52-305+60 508 LF N/A Enhancement II 470 2.5:1 188.000
WETLANDS
Zone A(Drained Hydric N/A 0.7 AC Enhancement 0.7 2:1 0.350
Soils)
Zone A(Drained Hydric N/A N/A Restoration 6.6 1:1 6.600
Soils)
Zone B N/A 0.3 AC Enhancement 0.3 2:1 0.150
Zone B N/A N/A Creation 3.9 3:1 1.300
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer N/A 25,201 sqft Enhancement 25,201 3:1 8,400.33 sqft
Goose Creek Buffer N/A N/A Restoration 45,735 1:1 45,735 sqft
Component Su
Restoration Level Stream(LF) Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 1,671 6.6 45,735
Enhancement 1.0 25,201
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 3,928
Creation 3.9
1 UT1 crediting starts downstream of the powerline right-of-way along Hwy 218.
2 UT2 crediting ends at Crooked Creek's top of bank.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan June 2011 August 2013
Final Design-Construction Plans August 2011 April 2014
Construction January 2015-April 2015 January 2015-April 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal January 2015-March 2015 January 2015-March 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments January 2015-March 2015 January 2015-March 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments January 2016 January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) January-February 2016 May 2016
Stream Survey August 2016
Year 1 Monitoring November 2016
Vegetation Survey September 2016
Stream Survey April 2017
Year 2 Monitoring November 2017
Vegetation Survey August 2017
Invasive Treatment
January 2018
Supplemental Planting
Stream Survey April 2018
Year 3 Monitoring Invasive Treatment May 2018 November 2018
June 2018
Vegetation Survey August 2019
Invasive Treatment August 2018
October 2018
Stream Survey April 2019
Year 4 Monitoring November 2019
Vegetation Survey August 2019
Stream Survey March 2020
Year 5 Monitoring Vegetation Survey September 2020 November 2020
Invasive Treatment October 2020
Stream Survey 2021
Year 6 Monitoring November 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 7 Monitoring November 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 1430 South Mint Street,Suite 104
Aaron Earley,PE,CFM Charlotte,NC 28203
704.332.7754
North State Environmental,Inc.
Construction Contractor 2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem,NC 27101
Keller Environmental
Planting Contractor 7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh,NC 27615
Carolina Silvics
Supplemental Planting Contractor&Invasive Species Maintenance 908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton,NC 27932
North State Environmental,Inc.
Seeding Contractor 2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem,NC 27101
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource,LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes&Son Nursery
Bare Roots 825 Maude Etter Rd.
Live Stakes McMinnville,TN 37110
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring,POC 704.941.9093

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Project Information
Project Name Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
County Union County
Project Area(acres) 54.94
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 34"58'54.78"N,080"31'25.79"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040105040010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-12
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 24,619
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 28%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture 38%,Forested 29%,Developed 28%,Wetlands 3%,and Herbaceous Upland 2%
Crooked Creek Crooked Creek
Parameters UT1 UT2
Reach A Reach B
Length of reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 1,555 2,404 1,671 195 I 275
Drainage area(acres) 24,619 153 51
NCDWR stream identification score 52 34.5 24.5 I 38
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Morphological Desription(stream type) P P P I I P
N/A N/A Stage III Stage IV
Evolutionary trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoration
Chewacala silt loam 0- Chewacala silt loam 0- Chewacala silt loam 0-
Underlying mapped soils 2%slopes(ChA) 2%slopes(ChA) 2%slopes(ChA) Badin channery silt loam 8-15%slopes(BaC)
Somewhat poorly Somewhat poorly Somewhat poorly Well drained
Drainage class drained drained drained
Soil hydric status Type B(inclusions) Type B(inclusions) Type B(inclusions) N/A
Slope 0.0022 0.0047 0.0050
no regulated
Zone AE Zone AE no regulated floodplain
FEMA classification floodplain
Native vegetation community Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation-Post-Restoration 5% 5% 60% 5%
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 X X USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification No.3885.
Waters of the United States-Section 401 X X Action ID#2011-02201
NPDES Construction Stormwater General
Division of Land Quality(Erosion and Sediment Control) X X
Permit NCG010000
Crooked Creek#2 Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined"no effect"on Union
Endangered Species Act X X County listed endangered species.June 21,
2011 email correspondence from USFWS
indicating no listed species occur on site.
No historic resources were found to be
Historic Preservation Act X X impacted(letter from SHPO dated
6/23/2011).
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act N/A N/A N/A
(CAMA)
Crooked Creek is a mapped Zone AE
floodplain with defined base flood
FEMA Floodplain Compliance X X elevations.Base flood elevations have been
defined and the floodway has been
delineated;(FEMA Zone AE,FIRM panel
5540).
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter Monitoring Feature Crooked Creek Crooked Creek Frequency
Reach A Reach B UT1 UT2 Wetlands
Riffle Cross-Section N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Dimension Annual
Pool Cross-Section N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 0
Substrate Reach Wide(RW)/Riffle N/A N/A 1 RW/2 RF N/A N/A Annual
100 Pebble Count(RF)
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 1 N/A Quarterly
Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Quarterly
Vegetation Vegetation Plots 12 Annual
Visual Assessment All Streams Y Y Y Y Y Semi-Annual
Exotic and nuisance
Semi-Annual
vegetation
Project Boundary Semi-Annual
Reference Photos Photo Points 34 Annual

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

—
She t Ito•1••� --1 1 '
a s Powerline Easement
t
♦ %Barotroll p ' 1 Crooked Creek Reach Break
101 A. Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams N Project/No
UT1 '• +
10 '............. 1 Existing Overflow
' r , MO� 4a `y......... ; M,•Overflow Connector
•
GWG11 ti •
•. . o , Ditch(former UT1 channel)
♦ � r
104+00 , ., ••' Stream Restoration fi.
♦,`0 �; . Stream Enhancement II ag
• L 2 GWG3.. _' ir 3 ' + - Bankfull/TOB iii
106+00 ' —Cross-Section(XS)
•
1o7.p0 GWG6 -
Beaver Dam
GWG4 •- - _- : Wetland Enhancement Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
r `5 Wetland Enhancement Zone B
L
a_ 'i Sheet 2
+ - M Wetland Restoration Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils•
109+00 _-GWG5
/ il m Wetland Creation Zone B
♦110+�0 - -- - ,�, Riparian Buffer Enhancement .,',;'
j�'S•,®, ` ` + ; I Riparian Buffer Restoration
j ��, 11f oo + c,.. • i- ;:: Conservation Easement
112+00• Y + • Crest Gage(CG)/Stream Gage(SG)
•.• t, 113+00 10 -•q. • Barotroll
• •
wit3 .... .
+• 7 ••,• + Soil Gage
• 1++00 ��* •,.•
e e ♦•I,.. Photo Point(PP)
'' •••• , • , * Headcut
•A'� ''', 115 00 ''b. . - . .'�`: i i�, •• ,,,
• 11 r r■■■' ■■■■ Groundwater g -MY5
. ♦ GWG10 Gage
No
117+00 +
• ti . Yes
. \
+ 210+00 211+00
F Sheet 3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot-MY5
'2Ci9+6C ' 30 " + 226+00
225+00227+00 •
♦ 224+00 228+0o .� -Criteria Not Met
. 208+00 212+00 . 2:9+00' ��.
207+00 r , 3+00 . . n Criteria Met
'� ^.0 Reach B
F 206+00 3-i " `
205+00 •
, • Invasive Species Population-MY5
--- . 213+00
r♦� r r+::
' i Conservation Easement Mowing
•,,, ,' r
fry �4+00 - r L ' }
I , •, I r -T
• r ♦ • Air '
, ; I Reach A . -
:. ,r ♦♦.• s •
•
ta. S♦♦♦ a �. t
c \
•
�s `
.44444
\ '1 , -..
•�
\
20 al Photogr... .,. r/
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Key)
IIPINV Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
0 130 260 520 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
WILDLANDS
1 I l I i p N Monitoring Year 5-2020
N�,NEER,N� Union County, NC

•
•
' ,
GPa-- I ,
`% C ' l . PP 2 Japane'
Honeysuo,
' • PP+ .'till PP 5. ,',,,,
` _ t . .
`. GP@ 1 0` + 102+00
{�__ ' . f _ ' PP4 f,► _• o so
% ts) + • Gpp Bradford Pe• al '���,;,'
_ `
GP99 - ',,. :i ,DPP 6 Chinese pry ''���..�`!
., , ; ,,r•� -- '' --SOII -_.mot' .,��.�. •. � '' �.�m m, ,
`. XS2 1 \ ` -_.� Barotroll
` GP43
±GWG2 -`*
�. ',, ;' � 2 GWGI i4+►4
�,' GP9Ei ' , y,.
GPI ' •' -
. 8 , , ./
Japanese
- - -Powerline Easement
Honeysuckle
`` •�• ' W GPT WO Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams
`' 12 9 ____ --' .� Existing Overflow
' , GP� 0MOD ,•'� .. •'N Overflow Connector
,' _ �. ` $ ►. Ditch(former UT1 channel)
' ` ' ,' J0�1,''4"5nOi .Stream Restoration
.s '�GQQ3 rr.�'.1, Stream Enhancement II
t ,' r�' -'' -' GWGS I$�I ►/,�� wJ --•Bankfull/TOB
r, •�. • '�,k er --Beaver Dam
.. i /1/► . —Cross-Section(XS)
,' • '�„� r Wetland Enhancement Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
`�. �� \\\\ i�A ; Y Wetland Enhancement Zone B
��►►1 ' til =Wetland Restoration Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Creation Zone B
1 I 1►04A4/0 II* Riparian Buffer Enhancement
r � ,► u,3s{>^�•11�3r GW,G6►� • Hon-?g4r
r� ►�, Jap. p.
Johnson Gras' `/I V4,4I•/►' �'/�� Riparian Buffer Restoration
_______. , o0„y„P� ,� ,0 �4.I P e 1P. ji + Crest Gage(CG)/Stream Gage(SG)
•• GWGB i�k1►.1.4►,f 1, ►�.//
5 t.. ��4 ! J r+ Barotroll
►, r
__ _ •1 boil + Soil Gage
___-- l.� .. ""ems
` .� 0 Photo Point(PP)
--- It ,',' C Headcut
.����' Ai .'
'mm Groundwater Gage-MY5
.GWG7 .. .m` m, • No
04' kg
Yes
.,...���mmm:mmmm1.......1 .. ..ss..s..s...s..s..s�..�..�...�..� Vegetation Monitoring Plot-MY5
IIV\ Criteria Not Met
' ► I Criteria Met
' At k PP • a _ Invasive Species Population-MY5
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 1)
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
8i 0 50 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
�/ 1 I I I I I Z ` Monitoring Year 5-2020
WILDLANDS
4
ENGINEERING Union County, NC

C . , •;
4
�� PP 11 w�ww+w:%� •
_ Stream Restoration +Conservation Easement Groundwater Gage-MY5
/1- PP 12 .A%vwi�.►A .W * *No
- "*_^�-- -- .04 Stream Enhancement II Wetland Enhancement Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
►o.
Riparian Buffer Restoration Wetland Enhancement Zone B *Yes
N' 109+00 Riparian Buffer Enhancement -Wetland Restoration Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils) Vegetation Monitoring Plot-MY5
- GWG5
•♦ • X r Crooked Creek Reach Break Wetland Creation Zone B Criteria Not Met
•n. ♦•
••ti.• • e PP 13 - : Non-Project/Not for Credit StreamsCrest Gage(CG)/Stream Gage(SG) °Criteria Met
••••• ��, ,i: q. Existing Overflow *Barotroll Invasive Species Population-MY5
p• �!
`'PP 14 :�� Overflow Connector Photo Point(PP) °Conservation Easement Mowing
• ,yGWG7
. a0 Ditch(former UT1 channel) fHeadcut
/
*�� -Bankfull/TOB
• ' : i PP 16 Jo w on
\ 'ws - —Cross-Section(XS)
rs'•\ .\ . - . •3 ` ''_: _ .PP15. _
1 112+00 •••+••••••• ' 1
r_
• 0 0.
,`„,� GWG8 Morning Glory • ••. _ _%!
•
+PP 18 '`.,•••• r _ II-
*.
/ i _.-" • • • • 3,' 00 AMP"
PP 19 has.`..S- GWG9 ••*•••• •• -
•
�� — �'� Honeysuckle UT2 301+Oi ••••• • • •~
+ , .. ■...■ ■...........GPfla{, GWG10 �t"•�••o•s,��., 4,4
A.
'� -223+00 - --
c
207+00 \Reach A , i' `� , .00 '. '�-
206+00 •
� Reach B•
,•^ - 205+00 i PP31.,
213+00 �
---- i _ �• • • -
,
-`, ,- 221+00
214+00
• Ge - -
• - P 26 220+00 d
l'e
1 . 215+0. • ,' G�c ••` ti•••
1 " •• ••••
216+00 J• ••••.
217+r' - '•••• ••••••
- ••
e.-Ae -hotographt
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 2)
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
‘itiv*f
0 62.5 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
!1;14 I l 1 l 1 N Monitoring Year 5-2020
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Union County, NC

T
PPr30...` '•,
•
1 +00 `‘,' •-'U IT� •-� Crooked Creek Reach Break
,.
• �i .,+,,00 225+00 226+00 2274QQ0 a �•.,* Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams
•
' ' 41\.
�.•.,, Stream Enhancement II
1 +00
Vari_�•••:rs , . ••. Bankfull
err.-r-� r.- a�� r r d ` '
I 8 ,U ,' , ��� Existing Overflow
1 ..p -v�21V1s1a'r. r 1 °' - ,
11,:W �������• , I - ,- `� `* •
: =Wetland Restoration Zone A(Drained Hydric Soils)
% • ' Reach •B =Wetland Creation Zone B
i r � , . von.
- ' 0+�r i �,.,Conservation Easement
'
,,s �'' Photo Point(PP)
r • Invasive Species Population-MY5
Reach A 221+00 ;
n Conservation Easement Mowing
r
r •
•
F. 4+00 r r
P,P26
220+00 eel %Mi.
r
`, ve ,,,..••,••
--- ----- .• ••.. ,
�; �. .., ,
.�
.• •
•'• S `
....•. Lw
'.� '>
.• >
•'. 1
, a
.,. >1
• .
•
•
•.. , g
..., `, .
., s
.,
.y.4. .
-., •
.
.'.,
•',44,..
�:
,
••• '.
...
4
'•f
s
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 3)
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
�, 0 62.5 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
♦v I
T
I i I i p N Monitoring Year 5-2020
WILD LANDS
N�,NEER,N� Union County, NC

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1(1,671 IF)
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Segments Footage Intended
Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 16 16 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 20 20 100%
1.Bed Condition Length Appropriate 20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 20 20 100Y
meander bend(Run)
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 20 20 100Y
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
Totals 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 9 9 100Y
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 4 4 100Y
maintenance of grade across the sill
2a.PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow 4 4 100%
3.Engineered underneath sills or arms.
Structures1 Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 9 9 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 20 20 100Y
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Planted Acreage 15.0
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Threshold Polygons Acreage Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 ac 0 0.0 0%
1 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4,5,or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas count criteria. 0.1 ac 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 0.00 0.00 0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor 0.25 0 0.00 0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.00
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Number of Combined %of Easement
Threshold Polygons Acreage2 Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Treated 10/20202 Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF 12 1.5 3%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 2 0.09 0.2%
1 Acreage calculated from annual vegetation monitoring plots and plant warranty inspection plots.
2 Acreage of each polygon modified by estimated percent cover of invasive population

Vegetation
Photographs
Monitoring Year 5

, -' • - A C. .,- ' , = liii, Z.1,kA ifi:;,,F'',. ' ,7..,
Ads 'fn yN, i ' 1 'L > �— .L 'r 47;,.f,�,e, :�T�.;"
S: ir'''-•-•. °•-'..• .,,-, - -•••'. . " • ,.:-."'*-•'-v• f, 1. .. '... •-.... --..*.rt:''• .r.,-.):,,.. V...
y
Vegetation Plot 1—(09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 2—(09/29/2020)
47 1"gyp d r d ; „. +t� ''ice 7' y „ P y, Vi
e 1 a .7 :4* fi, X.qq ,. - . . # Ley ,• t .f i
x •
i tp � p�aa ram,
f .• 4
�z
•i
•
f
N. .._. .,i' : iiiito,'. ,._,..,
Vegetation Plot 3—(11/4/2010) Vegetation Plot 4—(09/30/2020)
�.
•
y
l.
'!. 1 �i . k II ii4.'ttli
t 4 5. 7 7 .2r6, 'fig` d' �' '.t .fM'- :wig i 'II J r ' 'r r��,iv f irt,} �x .W �!'t� .1. "6 '` ^ �$ :
k. by i 8 i n ik0 Iv 9 �. r -
v:/kliv...'..,:,..iv,:,,N.,-.,i,..t.,..,:...i,:i.1,-:,.
'a 4 V.:•'.. ..;.• ' !V.% ''..,,••'(i. .-• ',''' i.,-.•?- “,.;?.. ....$;'hi ':`,,Y. ' (41' ',,. -'',., ..,• , :,., . ,..-1,.,,•,:::::::%...,•Iv4,i .,-:4,....-..."-....,::,'A.14-Art...i..,.,::.1,.,-1.?.... .1:,:,,,-..
' u x/ \ ', .7 7f 6 .' , "tip 4!
i `1 . := K31!IFaA'0, '. •�'
Vegetation Plot 5—(09/03/2019) Vegetation Plot 6—(09/30/2020)

•
1k r' �1 y *1"`k% AT - ' x .1t J . :. .x R J L � -� a� • �.y ;�v
6
•
5
>,S -off.
71 513
___
qq
�
P r 1. 4 f. --
yy 5 l J�
P
Vegetation Plot 7—(09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 8—(09/30/2020)
E x
�/I�ker�'4...,7'"
- .it, r 5' N �IrT�. `�I . l � .� yyj� ��•ti �,t•w �d; • .
• Ct40„.M r :i \ _ _ I[ r 4 S• g 4 �.1 1°�Y i f�1R_.
.. t.. t f r L �" .
.A v ..l
p.• - 1- .4
Ali, „,- : i ,
k
d' ,..., yr' y
k:F r t+
Vegetation Plot 9—(09/30/2020) Vegetation Plot 10—(09/29/2020)
•
iAk 4
} ps'} i�� F c,s,[ ..1 xr4.spa r . r
�„ ��r. '� 4'� (/ � 1 . `� � °,,: to _ � _eF�
� LF .. \
rr h - ( -j
t
}
Vegetation Plot 11—(09/29/2020) Vegetation Plot 12—(09/30/2020)

Stream Photographs

y 9 ,s W r t rl $ ,1
e '•i+1# t`.,. • .. p �, �' Yg1 '_ 1 - f 1' S M `
� d ' .� it s
rf
%' '#', '�`� r 1, /1 rri, /n `I r ¢ p/ '
V ,7 t, a^ � '�' wl,, '_%, y^,.A , F' �! "s'
„44
�;L:Fr �' r V 3 , I y�/ / i �, _!' ..w. . #+3a / e�,'
2:1 .... '" -, _:', ,,,r - -' ' _ _ -I-(
- , _ ,,,.., ___ _ „,, ,
.pµ,,
yy
sue/ - (. r. .1:"07,:':..,
V
,, Ar,;0'':.:4.
♦ , t f .4 AYES ARI\ —. Sl':. y.:'-/' . .rs�_ r .� ! ... ... 1.
Photo Point 1—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 1—UT1 look? ,g/4,downstream (3/27/2020)
VA'
IR t LY 'iRj ' .�' k ij '. / *' r / .dil
r.
br' C S i r 4 lk`� til &'S t _ ,y �,9,E r1j V� b i�d 9,-• -" 3 �t fof ';n r "'H �, # °k: �?Y� ir3r
a-._b-u 's'. \4 li �i�'\ 1 i'.ih� 4C .' +R FF °rY i / ,';',"y• { ' "ln?^..
k` + t i+RE ' fir , -7 '-• .
n.
- H. ''. \ 3 ` i L/s f ` �. t
11-
b' i1 A k�, P"'�i- ''1 ,:�a' te '- 'e
,Jr AP N 7
li
lye ' aA -..,/ �` I/�1i'le, to " 1 7' •
Se +}
Photo Point 2—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 2—UT1 looking downstream (11/5/2020)
•
kiwors
f . A'-,-,-.,,,,,--:7N "4. -4,1.,- Q\ h;of
......., ,, , -,-.4,i , ,,,,.... „, ,,, .:.,. /..,0:,, , , ..
e .. ,,e, , .„,
...,1,5,,,.4.,...;\ , ...., „ i ,..,„ , ,i)4 , b, ,L,i, ivi 7, ,,, .a.
1.-N.,..1, -,..„,*- \ , , t ',,,Y, 41.4), ' I A/ -',. /,e,", ';,, —,,,
v.., .111 4
41
a f '`� .. ` 4
r, ,,i� �5 tit _ `. a" a 4 YY_\ \ f
,: v "r; r �4 E / 1 fib.
144/;.° --' ' ,
'� 4' $ �'{i.�� 1 v `�Y�. 3 i 1 <x• 'I I `+ S t_ ,.•t)tiI � ' 'A, ,f 3
.. 4 �� -- li .y/�. - a -"-- 1 -3A _- } i IM}1} r.
�y I F'`'1r,
i �r
, .
..
f. °{ are ... f,1A
•
, , ,,, .. •-,,,,,„,_, , , i- 1 if,v,,,...6r. .... /
. , , „__ .
,,,,,..v1,-..$:_,,,,,,,;,,....,_ , .. r,„ 4.:,,,,4,27
t k'[�� r �" 7 , ar'•��5 ��. _, , " rl
.. .
l s yI 7s ` a/
yr ��,ti -F 3 �5,,
Photo Point 3—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 3—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)

r
_( ///
I '/`
j,
� -
Photo Point 4—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 4—UT1 looking dwnostream (3/25/2020)
& ��, S �kty rr
...v. tiL., , °, , .y,..z,4,., ?lit- .,..:,,, .' —., ' .4..--„,„, ,'
a.,� r � P 4 o "F' .�.
t F.4 .iV , I - air - , r' - t3' - ,-.
�1 3 5�.
l�l / d YIF r� 1 bi- ., ilk
+ C,, - 'l,xk• _ T. _'ter iA-_Q.:'," .s. `�l� bJ
'S Bm. r ' Gey .e
,J v. � � 4 3y -/��k
Y 'ryJ,iJ�$ "tl$'€., n �qR2��, `�' t �� e'' 2 5 A'd a Cr - ..
Photo Point 5—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 5—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)
Tr- /
I`,►� yk�f ,gip
i /
-,, ...,,,,,,,,, ,4,,,,,,L. ,. ,,.-,,,,,. ,
. b t ten"' �'� + "��
(Y\
� .� � , li,`� ,� F � , �, a �yla f
;r $� ( yew^
:fie$ � i. M �',9. p 41 w~; "wl€' (a',4,, ��
Photo Point 6—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 6—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)

\\11 . 1.
R
-
- ,:i.*.w.4.::: ii.4.,,,....-.-'.'.-.:.:,v...'..::.....t._...:i:.:.:.....E:..':....'...'_--.,'...-.'..
«'< / �.
•
4 _ u r r' as "bk
•
1----:'•-•'--.-.V.%-i..':.'2,.:',i'44,;'..-V-'....ar': .--' -,
`'' ill
,_ . .0.....-„.::::;:.,..,.......-....,„:„....,.....:,:::,„.:..;,„,,,,,,,,,4„,,,,,:,,.,:.!..-,,,•-,,,,„.•,..p,-:Akii.0,_.;;,. .,..,,,,,,, ,,
/ .1
�I jy • i � f" at kur,
F 1 art a ♦ - • f - !�
2 ll' a` tom, A C¢ Y f -
•
r.f...ter! •. _ _ 'a _ M. - - l'.
Photo Point 7—UT1 looking3�upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 7—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)
z atl 'f k4$ r ``"�:� z, ..,e; ' i .Y ., �,rv- r :•• �- $-. 'rJNI'� a.�` �s
c �sf" /ea 1 y � 4n r
z - ra } P�� 1 aI I ► wl a Cy
x x y P 41 t +l Mif*"fifii P . S & 4 k q' r
�y _ &. "�7 fit 1lY rt '• ril s d ' y N { l �Y, z;41 '( t
,. .
. • . . • .
„4.„7:.,:y_..,,i ,tt.,4,_..._,..,,,..,.....„:.,,,. .._ •..... •-.:,;:':.'-tAikt.''':-.';,. -i',:ladtkik '''' :-
4,..,,,'L' '......• 0••!:,:t.,.L,L.,L,:4 „,.-,4f.4k...-,7NEro,o, fpg:.,.. .,.
Ada r. y p. 0 t . : , . . _._..
. . . . ... .. . , .. . . „.
!
:,,..:
Aa
, r
—,_-,- ....,,':."--4,,,.,..-,-,,,-•,,,---,7,,-, ;,. .'7';':.•,„Z:.'•::-.:*-5!!',..,-.'- 4,P.',.‘,..4.1.-:. -----"W'
•
v
s �•' -
Photo Point 8—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 8—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)
y� i� l lri` � d x.�r'� � _ �j$ ���i, lP I Y ' �u�ytVit
. r lt� { 4 rrG!•-
LL} ta'i 5Tr{ - '.7 as r r - y �f.� t 1 I �� 3 "Fk 5;�cgt5 e z tea 1 x
..':4 r•7 I.,`r•a.. f a -1` 1 r Y F�� k E 1‘ if "io: t ii'�`�'��•4tC :• '1'I �,
� � ,f +����'. a�6 ,, .. • ��',�- � yam,'.' .� c rift 9 `•:ew �9 r'-�, -
•
•
° ,r :y�k:T y7 ( 5 ;•,. ;i �.�« < i ir'3d acrfl!"•r s��'K
1 cyr i- I y y194 U� � "L7
A i l *i+� S¢is 7 4
Photo Point 9—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 9—UT1 looking downstream (11/5/2020)

+.
I
-•::.L_,::_..--.:'-• ...±. -„•,.._•••.:::.....,-i.,-:-;...,,,..,•.,:.,EL. .-..c., ;:-.....•::-....11,‘ • ,
j �? I }`} A � . -
� y 1 f
. .'')''' ' 14;0::,,,4,r`r'',Lir r 1'''., .. .' .
' .- -..:.„--...,.-?:,-2.-:".4-"Nert•,,..•.-.- ..__ii r ,iii,, J,..,4 ,..,,..,..!,:,,..
p
:.......... ., ..,i,..4. . .-.',..,
r� �`'-,-....i.:-,.,:,(7:,;.;_,-.,.i.•..:-t.,-',..A.. .,-,4q,.,,:...,,,I,',:-:,.,:. . ,,,,. .,,,,i.,11.-,:.,.4,4',rj•0
vy F,+ - : \6 &� 1„
�y; a
l�Lti .� �, ' F k .. f, �,`�- I y; y'i^�5.. r� �r "„•
t
Ph�otoEyPoint 10—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 10—UT1 looking& downstream(3/25/2020)
`� �R7 i f� ',,1 • r .., • , , A �'3 ,,,, , FI c->4. t FP:'�X
J
' Eyit,t
a ivl
0,,, ,I4 '.4.'.e:•'.:/..„.....k$1 '''',4 '1'',':. ::ili:'.':,'''.....': .' ref-,':::
;,...„..„,..... ..4. •:,,,,,Jr-,..,,,7:41., .-9-;i; kl, ''. or„,,,, .0„,„,...•
..
....,,, ... :,... , ,, ,4, :f„....„,„.04, -.- ,...; ':,f r;a.. ',,..„,-1,,• -..` ":„ : . ".
•
1 p• _ e' a.€ a:6yye
•
:::t.'S.r. ' .
���III r ' z k1� 6 �7 ... P r
E f x ,.5 ���' 1 • %,A ark g3--;` � �
Fh i I F•f r. 4� r y b ^�' �1 ',,.,y.
•
.d
Photo Point 11—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 11—UT1 looking downstream(3/25/2020)
�� y w�:� vr6i,�
"'kV, t, _A t '
-. '• �' .i
•
•
- 1.'✓ F�'1t. 'G - _ 1 W YjQ
• N
-- \ i
•'l ,
•
Photo Point 12—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 12—UT1 looking downstream(3/25/2020)

� �_
i /
" - t
I► —'y ! % — -1
0
it;i:;[:, '''' ' V E4.
y
1 .
FLit*
r? b ':-.-,14''4'' a
Photo Point 13—UT1 looking upstream (3/25/2020) Photo Point 13—UT1 looking downstream (3/25/2020)
.,„s; , \;,. 777 I,;'{41,17,5!,*,,•1 A:ilk ..j,%,e;#1. == •. '', *v' (i
/s
4 r l r7 ylA
/
4 • \� r-f . ,, ✓ ",,'
�a f r'd, ' %.,I./ r 1' --:---
, , -- ,\ - ,-.
,,,.---.,._,,, .. ..., ......„.,;„
,- , -
,,,....,_-v,-
T ,. , -.., , 3 `�. .vas
r S e(."1a_'',., .,
A.,'.
-7_ , , ..„:,
{ �. , L u - / /7...-.,t'� - � -'��� rkr ..-'a 'tea
rya }," A, ! '� �o ,I,,.,A.......,„,r,*,,.,,,,i_,A
'sue .0 - ✓ I "LtE.. r n'1's r, a
Photo Point 14—UT1 looking upstream(3/25/2020) Photo Point 14—UT1 looking downstream(3/25/2020)
tt •
< 7 f I �
p r . . m 9 r. ` p`'k- Y f ; • '�' *�`� t ,
•
r�
yr• k r A.
',,-,,,,,I.,‘`.',, -.'- a7 : , ,
`� / i-
Photo Point 15—UT1 looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 15—UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020)

�� �{,��\ � ���i-�-� �� °� s.�� s*.t.j1.441V
y'' '!'a'• mk i f F� .;qt 1 i�i �� {e3R"N �� n 'Ti 2F 't �� E4'y�`q■�1 YN i d I . ' f f ' I it
' 1.4 y 4,' ,
a 4 �..t�7 , �iy - .sae„ ' ,, s �.i; r c A% � +_70.- A _t i a,,,;,.
\xf�.f �a y 1 kb { n+ �' .� i' zoil': 's` e tr >,� p; t
+yY� f� ,"`t1 'zhy R # A,t£` �'i 't +S. .'f „ ,, fit 1� �' iP . '' .� 1 r s e [
,,,,., .iqc 4 9 ty1,1--�tk,rvaTr �f._, �td` f Rn' Y 'P� � 7c
_,t � � � 'L 6"'Nr9,s� N r*, � n.-j Si� `;��,, /S�3 � i ?' y �9 fr..,'
r
f 1 r F j r" r if*- l�r �Y� x
r \ :�� r' "( -t aa�s
At*
i r - �Y �• ,,, ,}� l„'�` J -S , 11 - "ice'S- � 'i
:10
V' F.s p,St" r /x�-a 'la te,` r. y�•#.., x`�` ,'>� '� <-
RtO,w r k°` ,,,T .zd7. • ak /r _.-�7t'
Photo Point 16—UT1 looking upstream(11/5/2020) Photo Point 16—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)
., ••.4.400
5*
' 1-2'4,,. rv.c.;,..-",,
rl�,„ 41 . .i ` ' ��Sk°' . ,, } ` �v 'RAY . -
g
_ _
ik,,a,
4 t +.,.. , k,,tr , y +d +r ife .gz �„ .
+ +'`�fey wa y,+fir,,: .,,,,s,,,,L-, ,, ,,,,,, ,,,.,,,g), ,,,, ,ra'� n. ! . '., -� ,_ , :, y is' ,,
. t.
a, p r t x I,,a
,-.ki. -,-
;k4.Ytes.,,,,
���'�' «n•+ w _ SSA 7� � a� 5' .�6L w • _Dili \ l.:,, {-., '
G
I.
=p, ck a #
J offr ki 1: I
'r4 f y r� t V�1 F
,,
Photo Point 17—UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 17—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)
-145,1
9} "M Ay��) yaf, R / {
fir. k�-. � - s .�,`�
iiit t Yam"4�� 3 s,o _
Photo Point 18—UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 18—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)

t '�a r I
i
gra
Photo Point 19—UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 19—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)
4
m rc ns ti c 4.
, , 7 a�.", a ' "-.tom
l' ' A C " r 3gy ,'I t i 1d� 1..'i
f
-f E k F * - - -
it
•
Photo Point 20—UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 20—UT1 looking downstream (3/26/2020)
aa
•
g� ,i'h' . N,-. a, r a• I.
hh �wr
v
� h
k n � =�, Y '� �.,5� °r b' -� s
3 k -'
Photo Point 21 UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 21—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)

N ill _ ! ./ g �pig /
it A1' � '7'a ''ir ti,
-1s � £';�, °. r ,� ►fi a s, . '1. �
•
� ✓ `l
� 'Ry �I -I .�J-
ti A �
.• , � -'"`I1'I '.L anrc 'T . pr°'at ,�e Fg k peal ��er
-4.r;it.*Tic.:2r- .,, .."*-, 2,,-,-‘,. I, ,,:,_ --. •
ern
Photo Point 22—UT1 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 22—UT1 looking downstream(3/26/2020)
Y- � zti '"� 4 q, 4 s+ZEr ee'-0 l
,r 4 +4 _,c 'Y.
k r ' ' ; +' 'wk ' -C. yt r+ � 4.aa ,s _ ,-,�
'ram r# y. £ kz s•, r' fl s n 1sba
� � .£-'y/ bS� '3- I �'�� Nrf f,. L +£ Y � M�'3. 'fi ? ".#1 'ems` ;
f `yam '.yfI- °' i�. - ''-q+w}y `I ' ` ''4,. � 's7 row' �S,k .'-- '" � 4- ��•"'
�„ ¢� . �A `n"+ a Y x` ,. ' r �. �x� s - e a° i_ a . """,x4 �'M" are'',
.. rtif1/4
ems. '' :� f :Y•' yf
J i�: ��
a i 3a, �•ae 0327202>d.;
Photo Point 23—UT1 looking upstream(3/2lyt
7/2020) Photo Point 23—UT1 looking downstream(3/27/2020)
�{ i1 r sj', •AY ]r f i0 8"ti e ' 13
z q' R p
cy.. :,=I � I ��
II
? _ I'r .. ,.y ;�{ -5
—
y
..-R _
_x
03s27.202fl ! 27a,2020
Photo Point 24—Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 24—Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020)

M " a k ° f.n ° a. '
.
�._ ate.
II C
r
Ilkik...--‘ '41111kiiir„--
Photo Point 25—Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/26/2020) Photo Point 25—Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/26/2020)
c� �� Y .. R Y' s �' � w� �.__ 'fir 0..2,
a ell V , l * a vYt� } '
. yY F i * fit h 1
h ,-s i "kt,F-41. ilk...', .,..-R`'1,4"v--i- ' , .1,:, i - --I, ,,1 re
6 g 1 rw h: k r+3 ;,x x il'"V--
c `�$. �.s„,,�' "k �+r 1. t 4wH ems,+ 2L y :: ':
-i --. _ _ S ���•��- � � shy�, �^�., �;'
'fi -:,„. ' .--:-''s ; - ..._ ,n
i 'F-, z,
{ \
Photo Point 26—Crooked Creek looking upstreamd(3/27/2020) Photo Point 26—Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020)
�s00. ¢ � `r
7- F� 1 . .{
s ' ' l # n
tiow
x -+. .t t rep -
•
Photo Point 27—Crooked Creek looking upstream (3/27/2020) Photo Point 27—Crooked Creek looking downstream (3/27/2020)

1 1,
4
_ .
_ .
, .
.. . .
. ,
v.,,.. , ,„ .,, , ,..„%;.,,.„._,,„ . .,,,, ,- ,._ . oret
Jar om
•
3'' -• / ..
^ � 4`
i`=a 't-'•r �'`- t Ali•. ?�b`>' ��"-V
h ' r
Photo Point 28—UT2 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 28—UT2 looking downstream(3/26/2020)
• �; ,,; - ._ ,' it i ^:. �1VF� �. 9� '1
Fn rid ..'.'•"{'� L /y' 'M
. r • t„ r
a ?
artia. - l 't° f-1.0
:• -
...a ...104.„.„"Iiii...,, , -;t4L''- ` '
Photo Point 29—UT2 looking upstream(3/26/2020) Photo Point 29—UT2 looking downstream (3/26/2020)
h
r^."'"
•
N--
ei
Photo Point 30—UT2 looking downstream to UT2 (3/26/2020)

I4 3S S '°•
- � .. r `f i g i Y P , v dd !
} • % Y
--
d. +jam 3[I 4; €. k, _.
1 1
•
•
Photo Point 31—UT2 looking upstream Crooked Creek Photo Point 31—UT2 looking downstream Crooked Creek
(3/26/2020) (3/26/2020)
y a,. _,40:„.. ... {
.,,.. .. + .,, ,....... ... . , ..
`p �I• d ;I ,.• i l (1 -
y ' `"'al _Ifs dO Ci5. ' 5 ; 1. . FFplIpg F {
E
J. j 1
tt itAo
t .1:i , ,
Photo Point 31—UT2 looking upstream UT2(3/26/2020)

•
SI
ra ^ i y • tp� hr- i `P� d l r A q • � �. p� �,e +9y \ Ik e,,, f•I',. '04. !Q_�w _ f' Ae� ! ry 'If s ' � ,�.� k �'4 � .'� _ �R.-"F v r� �' 3 e d 9 df V{ Skt- 1 �:R 5 F g,r
y4 b
•
•
•
J.
II
Photo Point 30—Wetland CC outlet facing West(3/26/2020) Photo Point 30—Wetland CC outlet facing East(3/26/2020)
•
,:
•
= I `axe vg
ilt%.--,... .,......* 4 .....,,,;..t .,..,..77.,,A,,,!,,t,..-3.. ,.„...,:,,„,,.. ,,... .,. _„,.i; . .. _
•
•
irk ' �w°n y�"c� r .n#"C1 •• ,' • •ti ' $, `. �' •'
yi,r,ram ! :d +q,
Photo Point 32—Wetland AA facing West(3/25/2020) Photo Point 32—Wetland Zone A facing South (11/5/2020)
r
r -• h
9` wit A°°"sfF,, 'F ®w "�,`!' T b0/4,
n,:i e • • •
.
E
•
•
+{e�y0 .
Photo Point 33—Wetland Zone A& B facing West(3/25/2020) Photo Point 33 Wetland B facing South (3/25/2020)

Wetland Photographs
Monitoring Year 5

•
3 ,.v a e. r v9 ° �� t ' kx
511.4 W L _�� Y>a. C}> er k,ar ::_` & "' 1} .' y.... " . '. .
' E]�� [ att^ 4 a.x xt r f137 L 1 ; 1} 'K 1 b.-.g d
e ., �,• ,mow s ,c " � z fir
,"
m
e�• ii 7 �" r may, X ,g,
�' xF �' 'L1/4
rAt"
'fix; a (� .r �� •s . T ;-, Y'
F F
a.. .zt " \ " .ram eP t: .-t"p - f s s
_ v. K
� a
,I f'�'- rim • l k ,.
+ t .. .:,off
Photo Point 34—Wetland CC facing Northwest(11/5/2020) Photo Point 34—Wetland CC facing South (11/5/2020)

Area of Concern Photographs
Monitoring Year 5

y x 1
s K w"�+� •
ak
.'-
iv
x,a ; a01 T5 r•4& s ' . z 4 , s c �`+� a X xa_ } —tiTF y4 +" a Y' " / I
/
•%
d, , ," � tk w i C9 ♦ x K t - } - 1iK s` � ,,9,�i 1Mrk ' 1 x a rtq ' > t a ' axx 'f ,r �� ayv, i`" �F r, 19! ,ti \. '„yrZ ah(7 rx 7 g F +4FX)`sy .ti„iw V iti: v y „ ✓X �? ,:rx, ! 4 r el , lv',. �A. , .��' ' J r # r - r ; . -- a+_ a m �we.',.,„:::'? yx ,' " ti -drq .+ .w
-- ,,,,.. -,,,,..',,;,4--.-?:r:::*, .-,
70.
, ' 'R'' : � . Sr + . t >. ' \ -1t it � • � : s 4w s` w .nJqX'd` ,' � M 4' j' J " 1x ,„
Beaver Dam at XS3(9/29/2020) Beaver Dam at XS3
°
(
11/2/2020)
e' i� eF , •
%:;.,:,.--I
t<' "�
r.
e t,,, a e a u
ro ''04,,...;tilt')'f!''',..%6.+,,,";,n; , ,j,, 53. j ', '`4'''',,—.,1 1 ' ' f''
4� 06 s �/ / i 11 A6;3 - 4,-
f r
Water ponded behind beaver dam at XS3(9/29/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Plot MY2 Success( /Njiteria Met Tract Mean
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5
6 100%
7
8
9
10
11
12

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Report Prepared By Ella Wickliff
Date Prepared 10/2/2020 14:01
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.0_Crooked Creek_MYS.mdb
Database Location Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02156 Crooked Creek Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4(2019)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name ELLA-PC
File Size 46927872
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Project planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project 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 94687
Project Name Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
Description Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
Required Plots(calculated) 12
Sampled Plots 12

Table 10.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020)
VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VP5 VP6 VP7 VP8
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 15 5 5 5 5
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 1 5
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 31 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus Oak sp. Shrub Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Taxodium distichum Bald-cypress Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 8 4 4 4 9 9 14 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 13
Stem count 16 16 31 12 12 18 11 11 17 11 11 11 11 11 21 17 17 57 12 12 22 15 15 15
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 7 4 4 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 3 3 4 7 7 8 5 5 7 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 647 647 1255 486 486 728 445 445 688 445 445 445 445 445 850 688 688 2307 486 486 890 607 607 607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS:Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all:Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:Total stems

Table 10.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020) Annual Means
VP9 VP10 VP11 VP12 MY5(9/2020) MY4(8/2019) MY3(8/2018) MY2(8/2017) MY1(9/2016) MYO(2/2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 8 3 11 23 49 43 18 17
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 6 6 6 12 12 12 12 12 15 13 13 14 11 11 11 13 13 13 14 14 14
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 22 22 24 27 27 28 26 26 26 12 12 14 14 14 15 18 18 18
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 9 9 14 4 1
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 6
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 3 1 1 1 12 12 13 12 12 12 13 13 16 7 7 7 10 10 13 27 27 27
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 20 55 127 41 25 26 45
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 3 4 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 15 1 22 39 6 7 7 4
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 27 54 27 27 41 28 28 50 12 12 44 13 13 26 15 15 16
Quercus Oak sp. Shrub Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 13 13 13 53 53 53
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 8 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 1 1 1 6 6 6 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 4 4 4
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 8 8 8 9 9 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2
Taxodium distichum Bald-cypress Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 39 39 45 40 40 41 41 41 41 12 12 12 13 13 13 16 16 16
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 5 5 5 6 6 10 6 6 12 5 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1 14 7
Stem count 13 13 22 10 10 45 13 13 13 15 15 22 156 156 294 163 163 377 168 168 307 84 84 207 95 95 172 156 156 229
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Species count 5 5 6 7 7 9 3 3 3 8 8 11 13 13 17 13 13 17 13 13 18 11 11 18 11 11 17 8 8 15
Stems per ACRE 526 526 890 405 405 1821 526 526 526 607 607 890 526 526 991 550 550 1271 567 567 1035 283 283 698 320 320 580 526 526 772
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS:Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T:Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DM5 Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1
Pre-Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design As-Built/Baseline
Parameter Gage UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT to Lyle Creek Spencer Creek 1 UT1 UT1
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Shallow
Bankfull Width(ft) 17.7 10.9 7.0 8.6 8.7 12.0 11.7 I 12.6
Floodprone Width(ft) 500 539 45 49 229 44+ 200+
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ftz) N/A 8.6 7.8 3.5 4.1 10.6 8.7 7.3 7.5
Width/Depth Ratio 36.4 15.3 14.9 18.3 7.3 16.6 18.9 21.1
Entrenchment Ratio 28.2 49.3 5.7 6.4 26.3 2.2+ 2.2+
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.9 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 3.1 --- 0.3 I 35.9
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- 12 50
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) * * 0.0055 I 0.0597 0.0100 I 0.0670 0.0045 I 0.0080 0.0004 0.0193
Pool Length(ft) N/A --- --- --- 17.8 65.4
Pool Max Depth(ft) 0.76 1.27 0.76 1.27 1.3 2.5 1.5 2.1 1.1 3.0
Pool Spacing(ft) 20 74 20 74 15 I 28 13 I 47 42 84 36 99
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- 115 543 21 24 52 30 72 30 72
Radius of Curvature(ft) 61.2 170.6 61.2 170.6 19 32 5 22 22 48 22 48
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 3.5 9.6 3.5 9.6 2.7 3.7 0.6 2.5 1.8 4.0 1.8 4.0
Meander Length(ft) --- 163 400 39 44 54 196 72 132 102 135
Meander Width Ratio --- 10.5 49.7 2.4 3 2.8 6.0 2.5 6.0 2.5 6.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters ' '
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 N/A -/-/3.1/8.6/11.0/16.0 --- -/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0 0.1/3.0/8.8/77/180/- SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz --- --- 0.012 0.11 I 0.12
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.24 N/A 0.25 0.50 0.24 0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) <1% <1% --- --- <1% <1%
Rosgen Classification N/A' N/A' C5/6 E4/C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 3.5 4.1 4.7 --- 3.4 2.2
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 30 N/Az 18 --- 30 16
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) 50 N/Az
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr) N/A 17 I 40 N/Az
Q-Mannings 24 N/Az
Valley Length(ft) --- --- --- --- 1,353 1,353
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,789 -- -- 1,718 1,718
Sinuosity 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z 0.0071 0.0034 0.004 0.0132 0.0032 0.0034
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.0066 0.0058 0.009 0.0139 0.0041 0.0036
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---):Data was not provided
N/A:Not Applicable
N/A':The rosgen classification system is for natural streams.These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/Az:Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel,hydraulic regime not applied
*:Channel was dry during survey,slope was calculated using channel thalweg

Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Dimension and Substrate' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Bankfull elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8
Low Bank Elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8
Bankfull Width(ft) 13.3 12.7 13.6 13.3 10.2 12.1 11.7 11.1 11.4 15.6 10.9 11.2 12.6 12.3 12.2 15.4 13.6 14.2 12.6 11.9 12.0 13.1 13.1 12.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 200+ 200+ 200+ 89.0 89.0 89.0 200+ 200+ 200+ 83.0 83.0 83.0
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft) 8.7 8.5 8.3 8.7 8.4 8.3 7.3 5.9 6.5 7.9 6.3 6.4 12.6 11.4 12.3 12.6 13.3 13.9 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.4 18.9 22.4 20.4 12.5 17.5 18.9 20.8 20.1 30.7 18.8 19.8 12.7 13.4 12.1 18.9 13.8 14.6 21.1 18.0 18.9 22.7 23.2 21.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio --- 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
In MY3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1
Parameter As-Built/Baseline MY-1 MY-3 MY-4
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle'
Bankfull Width(ft) 11.7 I 12.6 11.1 I 11.9 11.4 I 12.0 13.0 I 15.6 10.9 I 19.5 11.2 12.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 200+ 200+ 200+ 89+ 89+ 83 89
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 I 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft°) 7.3 7.5 5.9 7.8 6.5 7.6 7.6 7.9 6.3 7.4 6.4 7.1
Width/Depth Ratio 18.9 21.1 18.0 20.8 18.9 20.1 22.7 30.7 18.8 23.2 19.8 21.2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+ 2.2+
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
D50(mm) 0.3 I 35.9 SC I 65.6 SC I 66.2 SC I 52.8 SC 46.0 0.3 16.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 12 SO
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.0004 0.0193
Pool Length(ft) 18 65
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.1 3.0
Pool Spacing(ft) 36 99
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 30 72
Radius of Curvature(ft) 22 48
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 1.8 4.0
Meander Wave Length(ft) 102 135
Meander Width Ratio 2.5 6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,718
Sinuosity(ft) 1.3
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0034
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) 0.004
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
'In MV3-MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MVO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Cross-Section Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross Section 1-UT1
107+88 Pool
543
542 s
541 -
0
540 -
539
20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
-MYO(01/2016) - MY1(08/2016) -MY2(04/2017) -MY3(04/2018) -MY4(04/2019) +MYS(03/2020) -Bankfull(03/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.1 width(ft)
0.7 mean depth(ft)
1.4 max depth(ft) •
12.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
17.5 width-depth ratio
I ! '
Survey Date: 3/2020 I� •
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering $ }
• �`+
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross Section 2-UT1
108+32 Riffle
544 -
543 -
542
0
541
540
20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
-MVO(01/2016) MY1(08/2016) MY2(04/2017)
-MY3(04/2018) MY4(04/2019) +MYS(03/2020)
-Bankfull(03/2020) Floodprone Area •MVO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.4 x-section area(ft.sq.) .
11.2 width(ft)
0.6 mean depth(ft)
1.0 max depth(ft)
11.5 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
19.8 width-depth ratio
89.3 W flood prone area(ft)
7.9 entrenchment ratio 4-2
0.9 low bank height ratio i
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross Section 3-UT1
114+01 Pool
541 -
540 _
539
538
v 1
537
536
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width(ft)
—MYO(01/2016) MY1(08/2016) —MY2(04/2017) — MY3(04/2018)
—MY4(04/2019) _.—MYS(03/2020) —Bankfull(03/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
14.2 width(ft)
1.0 mean depth(ft)
2.1 max depth(ft) r r;
15.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
14.6 width-depth ratio ,
Survey Date: 3/2020 ,c � - g
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross Section 4-UT1
114+34 Riffle
542
541
540
0
539
538
537
20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
-MVO(01/2016) MY1(08/2016) - MY2(04/2017)
-MY3(04/2018) MY4(04/2019) +MYS(03/2020)
-Bankfull(03/2020) Floodprone Area •MVO Bankful Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.3 width(ft)
0.6 mean depth(ft)
1.0 max depth(ft)
12.7 wetted perimeter(ft) 4'
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
21.2 width-depth ratio
83.0 W flood prone area(ft)
6.7 entrenchment ratio �,m
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
-, i
i'*2
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative UT1,Reachwide
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 10 48 58 58 58 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 58 1004 Silt/Clay i+� - Sand > —
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 2 3 3 61 90 Gravel Cobble 4
Boulder >14
SQJC) Medium 0.25 0.50 61 80 Bedrock
Coarse 0.5 1.0 61 70
e Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 61 i 60 • • • • • • •ice
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 61 •—
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 61
3 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 61 v' 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 62 w 30
sp Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 64 2 20
a
GI Medium 11.0 16.0 64
10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 5 69
Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 12 81 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 12 12 12 93
Very Coarse 45 64 1 1 1 94 Particle Class Size(mm)
Small 64 90 94 —MY0-01/2016 —MY1-08/2016 —MY2-04/2017 —MY3-04/2018 —MY4-04/2019 tMY5-03/2020
�4, Small 90 128 4 4 4 98
`G0 Large 128 180 2 2 2 100
Large 180 256 100 UT1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 e 70
Total 50 50 100 100 100 60 Ii
0.w
Reachwide
N 50
Channel materials(mm) u 40
ra D15= Silt/Clay . 30 —
D35= Silt/Clay � 20
D5u= Silt/Clay a 10 L ``■■11 1 J1 + 1
Dom= 34.8 0 Id I r1 1. 1..Ji• 1■lI+W J.Ji haiLh.-
0L ,L5 ,L5 oy ti 1, ,L4 b y0 sb 1 4) '3ti 10 0b cO ,yb �O hb 61, yti tib aW c,o
D9s= 98.3 C 0' o. titi ti ti ti 3 5 yo do bo
D1oo= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-01/2016 •MY1-08/2016 •MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 •MY4-04/2019 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1,Cross-Section 2
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count
min max Percentage Cumulative UT1,Cross-Section 2
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 32 32 32 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 32 100 Silt/la 4 I Sand
Gravel
Co
Fine 0.125 0.250 14 14 46 90 - Boulder
-bble -.1( ���
Bedrock
St. Medium 0.25 0.50 16 16 62 80
Coarse 0.5 1.0 9 9 71 70
•
oc
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 71 w
j 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 71
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 71 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 71 u 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 71 w 30
JQV Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 72 2 20
a
GQ Medium 11.0 16.0 72
10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 75
Coarse 22.6 32 9 9 84 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 5 5 89
Very Coarse 45 64 89 Particle Class Size(mm)
Small 64 90 89 -MY0-01/2016 -MY1-08/2016 -MY2-04/2017 -MY3-04/2018 -MY4-04/2019 tMY5-03/2020
�4, Small 90 128 1 1 90
`�0 Large 128 180 7 7 97
Large 180 256 3 3 100 UT1,Cross-Section 2
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100 100
IP Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 -. 70
Total 100 100 100 w
a 60
`w
a 50
Cross-Section 2
Channel materials(mm) u 40
D15= Silt/Clay = 30
D35= 0.15 20
Dso= 0.3 c 10 I I I I.I I I _ L I� Z_.t L i .k 1 _ _ .1. i
Da4= 32.0 0
D95= 163.3 o (0 1, ff, a ,E, a�
( 0bti5ohti1' froa5� aytiy�„ti� ti a �a � y h 3� hti oti 19 ko
Dloo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO-01/2016 •MY1-08/2016 •MY2-04/2017 •MY3-04/2018 •MY4-04/2019 •MY5-03/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
UT1,Cross-Section 4
Diameter(mm) Riffle 100- Summary
Particle Class Class Percent
Count UT1,Cross-Section 4
min max Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 17 17 17 Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine 0.062 0.125 17 100-.( Silt/Clay Silt/Cla > S nd
>
O Fine 0.125 0.250 17 90 Gravel obble Boulder Bedrock
St.
Medium 0.25 0.50 5 5 22 80 l
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 24 oc 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 14 14 38
60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 38
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 38 50
E
Fine 4.0 5.6 38 u 40 • • ••••°j/
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 40 w 30
JQV Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 43 2 20
a
GQ Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 50 e
10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 55
Coarse 22.6 32 8 8 63 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 9 72
Very Coarse 45 64 7 7 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
Small 64 90 8 8 87 -MY0-01/2016 -MY1-08/2016 -MY2-04/2017 -MY3-04/2018 -MY4-04/2019 tMY5-03/2020
�4, Small 90 128 10 10 97
`�0 Large 128 180 3 3 100
Large 180 256 100 UT1,Cross-Section 4
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100 100
IP Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 4-. 70
Total 100 100 100 a 60
`1
°- 50
Cross-Section 4
Channel materials(mm) u 40
Di6= Silt/Clay = 30
v_
D35= 1.72 20
D50= 16.0 c
-6 10
L6-61-11111
Dom= 79.2 0 ; 1 1...Jr I I b li
D 119.3 oL L5 L5 Oh v ti tib b 5� 1 1� Lo �L b5 �b �O yb �O h6 �'1, '1, yb b� 4a
9s= �O 0h Q �, h ti ti 3 h ,y0 19 b0
D100= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-01/2016 •MY1-08/2016 •MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 •MY4-04/2019 •MY5-03/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
MY of Date of
Reach Occurrence Method
Occurrence
(Approximate)
MY1 7/11/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 6/20/2017 Crest Gage/Stream Gage
9/17/2018
10/12/2018
MY3
10/27/2018 Stream Gage
11/5/2018
MY4 4/5/2019
2/7/2020
UT1 3/25/2020
4/30/2020
5/21/2020
5/28/2020
MY5 Stream Gage,Photos
8/10/2020
8/15/2020
9/25/2020
10/11/2020
11/1/2020
7/11/2016
MY1
10/8/2016 Crest Gage
MY2 6/20/2017
UT2 MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
MY4 4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
3/25/2020 Wrack Line
MY5 11/1/2020 Wrack Line
7/11/2016
MY1 Crest Gage
10/8/2016
MY2 6/20/2017 Crest Gage
Crooked Creek MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
MY4
Unknown Wrack Line
MY5 3/25/2020 Bankfull Flow Photo

Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.964687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gage MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
(2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022)
No/0 No/7 Days No/12 Yes/22 No/15
1 Days (0%) (3%) Days(5%) Days Days
2 No/2 No/8 Days No/13 Yes/21 Yes/25
Days (4%) Days(6%) Days Days(11%)
3 No/1 No/9 Days Yes/29 Yes/34 Yes/25
Days (4%) Days Days Days(11%)
4 No/0 No/6 Days No/10 No/16 No/14
Days (0%) (3%) Days(4%) Days Days
5 No/1 No/7 Days No/12 Yes/22 Yes/25
Days (3%) Days(5%) Days Days(11%)
Yes/26 Yes/75 Yes/88 Yes/67 Yes/116
6 Days Days Days Days Days
(11.5%) (33%) (39%) (29.6%) (51.1%)
Yes/18 Yes/47 Yes/45 Yes/56 Yes/54
7 Days (8%) Days Days Days Days
(21%) (20%) (24.8%) (23.8%)
No/14 Yes/31 Yes/45 Yes/35 Yes/51
8 Days Days Days Days Days
(6.2%) (14%) (20%) (15.5%) (22.5%)
No/1 No/7 Days No/13 Yes/23 No/16
9 (0.4Days%) (3%) Days(6%) (10 2i) Days(7%)
No/2 No/11 No/10 Yes/23 No/15
10 Days Days(5%) Days(4%) Days Days
(0.9%) (10.2%) (6.6%)
No/14
11* Days
Growing season 3/23/2019-11/4/2019
Success Criteria is 17 consecutive days
*GWG11 installed 3/27/2020
Gages meeting criteria:MY1=2/10,MY2=3/10,MY3=4/10,MY4=9/10.

Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Crooked Creek: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT1
DMS Project No.94687
30 days
545 • — 4.0
- 3.5
544 — —
- 3.0
543
- 2.5
iF
i • 11
Y .� — — — — —
3 I_ �i, ,, 1 I�,, _ - 1.5
541 W L IL ILIILL luLtl. KW Lw 1 L 1 ` W
I 1 1 1 II 111111lc1 1 10
540
- 0.5
539 I I I I I I I I I I 0.0
c d i i. >-
co c 5 tlq 0. 'Li >
u 7 ¢ 5 —,
¢ vvi 0 z 0
Rainfall —UT1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • .Bankfull

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
c c
0 o
v Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#1 Ln
1/1 v
ttO
o Monitoring Year 5-2020 `^ O
c o c o
20 o1.m 3 6.0
0
w - 15 Consecutive days c�
10 — c) 0
t
;° \ _c,
w : 50
0
4.0
-10Vt\
vIL
-20 3.0 ,Tis
c
co
cc
g -30
- 2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 II I II
-60 AI YIIi III .1 J L I 11 �.� 1 L . . Li_I _ I I. [I II..�II . i 1 I . d d II .1. III I 0.0
co v `m a m ao v " v
o
Q O, Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#1 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Lo Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#2Lo
.n o Monitoring Year 5-2020 .n o
pO N pp N
20 3 \ '3 � 6.0
a
25 Consecutive days w
10 o m 0
I .. cs
u 5.0
� ` w
0
\NPA/\* -
4.0
-10 _ , _ _ _ I _ A _ L
>
-20 3.0 ,3
c
;;
m cc
-30 1\ ,\\I\ m
I. - 2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 II I II
-60 �I YIIi III .1 J L I 11 �.� 1 . .�. Li_ I I. [I IIIll . . l I . . I, .I. l i 1 i 0.0
ro v `m a m ? 7 0. u o v
g ¢ g ¢ .n O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#2 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
c c
o o
co Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#3 co
.n o Monitoring Year 5-2020 .n 0
c p c o
20 3 r.s.1 .§ 6.0
O M O
c.9 , 25 Consecutive days c� -1
.i- M
10 - O o
t= c - 5.0
,, �„, 1
0 t W \ w
61\ V/4\
) i t I \ - 4.0
-10
c
> =-
3 -20 3.0 43
c
It".! m
cc
30 — - —
- 2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 II I II
-60 .II YIIi I I .I J I11 �.� I . .�. Li_I _ I I. [I 11.1 II . 1 I I . i I I .1. III I o.o
ro v `m a m v " v
o
w Q O, Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#3 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
c c
Lo Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#4ro
CIJ
.n etoo Monitoring Year 5-2020 V o
c N c o
20OD NI
3 r.q,
'3 6.0
N14 Consecutive days 1
.- M .-
10 _ o 0
a... w - 5.0
0
_
vi
tAilL\IL11....,-\\Iir4\
4 - 4.0
-10 \\1\11\-\
_
= \\VI
w --
w
J -20 3.043
y
(6 ^
-30 -\\
r\t\ cc
2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 I-60 I Y Ii II .I 1 �.� I . .�. L II I. [I I1. �II . . I I . , II .I. I
_ILI 0.0 ro v ` I m 7 0. v m a O 0
g ¢ g ? ¢ 1/1 Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#4 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Creation
Lo Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#5 Lo
.n ttoO Monitoring Year 5-2020 .n 0
N C O
20ba NI
O 3r.s.,' 3r-=-1 6.0
O m 2
25 Consecutive days L7 -1
10 O m o
c - 5.0
in
0 `AN.
- 4.0
10
-20 3.0 ,3
c
co
cc
g -30
- 2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 I-60 11 Y II II .I J 11 �.� I L . . L _I _ II I. [I 11.1 11 I . i I I . d d II .1. III
I 0.0
ro v ` m 0. v m a 0 O o
g ¢ g ? ¢ 1/1 Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#5 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
c c
O 0
✓ Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#6 v
1/1 o Monitoring Year 5-2020 c 0
0.0 0
20 I 3c--1 3r-=-1 6.0
116 Consecutive days c2
.-• M ._
10 - O O
Y c - 5.0
1A. - 4.0
> =-
. -20 3.0 43
c
w c
co
cc
m
-30
- 2.0
-40
- 1.0
-50
-60 1 ' .4 IL .II Y LL 1 ill IA .1 J i I Ilito . 1 . .i. II LI_I _ 1 I. [I Il. 1I I . i 1 I . d d II .1. III I 0.0
ro v `o a m 0 v u o v
g ¢ g ¢ 1/1O Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#6 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Restoration
v Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#7co
vi 0 Monitoring Year 5-2020 vn 0
boo 0 c 0
20 I
om 3 � 6.0
N \
M 54 Consecutive days w -1
10 - ° o
t= N
m c - 5.0
1/1
w
0Aviitivitts
kst �.-.4.�. �/�.1 `+4J - 4.0
c -10 — 1� _ _ _ _ _ _
s._
>
-20 ( 3.0 43
\\ill' iiIiiiv\itc
;; m
I cc
g -30
2.0
-40
- 1.0
-50-60 .11 YIi II .I J I �.� L1. L I _ II is [I II.I 1I I . ' l I . 11 II II .1. IJI
I 0.0
co v ` 0. v m a m 7 O o
2 Q ? Q in Z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Creation
Lo Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#8ro
.n o Monitoring Year 5-2020 .n 0
40 N OD NI
3 rs' _ 51 Consecutive days •3 , 6.0
' O M O
L7 \ L7 1
O fa - O
10 t= c - 5.0
f0 w
Y
1/1
0 y4...kki
�W�ww
ikb
- 4.0
10 lkikk _
c
c
>
-20 3.0 ,3
c
w m
cc
g -30
- 2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 II I
-60 1 ' tI. .II Y1ill IA 1 J i I Ili to . 1 . .i. I.i_I _ 1 I. [I II. 11I . i1 I . dII .1. III I 0.0
co v ` v v o z O o
w g ¢ g ? ¢ 1/1 Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#8 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Creation
v ro
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#9
1/1 o Monitoring Year 5 2020 .n O
0.0
o c N
20 o M 16 Consecutive days '3 6.0
o
O
M "6 c
10 \ O
t
yo c - 5.0
LU
0 J���` WY \
\i\
-10 \\IF
_ _ _ ii l = 4.0
>
-20 IA 11
3.0
c
\I\
It.,)
z
-30
2.0
-40
I—\'
- 1.0
50 II I II
-60 AI YIIi III .1 J L I 1i �.� I . .�. Li_I _ I I. [I Il.1 1 I . 1 I I . d d II .1. III I I 0.0
Y
ro v LL N Q N — 7 N U O v
2 Q Q VI [) Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#9 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Creation
c c
O 0
Lo co
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#10co
CD v
Ifl O Monitoring Year 5-2020 `^ O
eto N c O
20 - 3 � 3 6.0
0
M15 Consecutive days
10 - °
t `mil 5.0
Y W
Ifl
0 I
— i 4.0
V 1 Tv
3.0
c
z
g -30
2.0
-40
- 1.0
50 I I
-60 11 t li. .1I Y I h II-.11 1 JI L I I I. . 1 . .I. Li . 1 I. [I II.III I . iI I . d d II .1. III I 0.0
co v t0 s1 to 7 U1 V O v
g Q g Q In Z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#10 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Wetland Wetland Creation
0 o
Ln
ro Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage#11
ro
v
o Monitoring Year 5 2020 .n O
pp N
20 - oN '3N 6.0
10 - o N 14 Consecutive days w
O
Y \ 5.0
Lu
Ifl
10 \1\
_ _ _ _ Vi\A\-
4.0
>
11
Ty -20
cu
- 3.0 ,3
`w -30 c
�
g
40 2.0
50 - 1.0
60 I di
-70 I I ., J i I �, I.� . � , . ... Li_I _ , i. LI ,I.y I I . i , I . . I, I. , 0.0
Y
v to 0. to 7 U1 V 0 v
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage#11 — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94687
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Crooked Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Union County,NC
10
9
8
7
5 6
c
0
m 5
4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
USGS Station 351218080331345 CRN-29 at Belk Scout Camp -30%Rainfall -70%Rainfall
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table:Monroe,NCS771(1971-2000).(USDA Field Office Climate Data,2016)

Bankfull Photographs
Monitoring Year 5

ry• ` ��gg g� z
w
•
'! •
. a {�,. i.Fd
Bankfull Flow—UT1(3/25/2020) Wrack Lines—UT2(3/26/2020)
•
.fit. -,x
,lM" ,., x 1ail tT„, i. �� `R'�
Ban,' ,,,,,,,, ,,,v...,„, „..,„:„..,.... , , ,.,,,,,..kfull Flow—Crooked Creek(3/25/2020)
--,:,,,,,,,:::::.714,".„,:it,,,• , ''': '* ''',7-,' . -.----T.' H s, ' -' -• -
., 4 [ "may, �^ _
, ..,...
tint ) / -i t,T '�� kk:G '•' _
0.4. is R t t
) ♦ ..
I i , ; 10 A 7r r ly
� tW t h . ,%': I
I V ,
,,;,.1, r,,,r-lr,.?, 44
AF
R f J.- � gYd �+�, f .fig
...r.-. .'*it'V,'-Att'T.?? ' ' . ' )..A4, ''•''.-'•,' ''''''''1' ' If ''
may. �y a 3
Wrack Lines—Crooked Creek(11/5/2020) Wrack Lines—UT2(11/5/2020)

APPENDIX 6. Invasive Species Treatment Logs

Michael Baker We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
Progress Report for Crooked Creek II (DMS #94687) Invasive Vegetation
Management
13 October 2020:
Jason York and Drew Powers applied 10 gallons of 3% Rodeo (glyphosate) as a foliar spray on privet
(Ligustrum spp.) along the northern bank of Crooked Creek. Approximately 60 feet from the banks were
treated. Other invasive plants treated included Sacred Bamboo (Nandina domestica), Burning Bush
(Euonymus alata), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Callery Pear (Pyrus calleryana). Privet
and Callery Pear were also treated with 20%Garlon 4 in Bark Oil Blue as a basal bark application near the
northern most easement boundary. No stems were treated that were tall enough to fall on the adjacent
fence line. Attached is a map showing the approximate area that was treated.
MBAKERINTL.COM

i ;:fir " f, 4 '' c�'
v
t f of r �+
•
II i,
1,
t
I,u>" Rkk tit V. i
# • 11
'` . h, � r �xj
r ' ' s ` .` + . rt�.. t �'
,, 5 N r ' F +>. 1ti. r°' +fit
y
•
tt,
.5
t' s- ,4iet
,` M .40t," ' _
e l 1 6 r y a �y I '" fir✓"
4 a 1 r .y dd mf
'4'A'4114( f'—iik''',''. ;:, -- ;' - "7-134k4-4 , ,- '11 --'i.,,, • "" 'I' t .Aft,' , , - ',k-,'-'t ,
Y Y a
'4 "( J ) ' w l `A ant-.�'_
e yA y, y
a
Legend
Sept - Dec 2020 Treatment
r,
0 85 170 340 Crooked Creek II
Yards Invaisive Veg Management

Project Name Project Monitorin Date 3% 50% 20%
Number g Year Glyphosat Glyphosat Garton 4
Crooked Creek II 180700 2020 10/13/2020 10 1.5
TOTALS 10 0 1.5

APPENDIX 7. 2020 IRT Site Visit Memo

},,STATF
". xf- -'- },-
ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S.REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
6/18/2020
PROJECT SITE MEETING MINUTES
Crooked Creek II Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, Union County
Meeting Date: 6/16/2020
DMS Project ID 94687
USACE ACTION ID: SAW 2011-02201
DWR# 12-0064
In attendance:
Erin Davis (NCDWR), Paul Wiesner (NCDMS), Harry Tsomides (NCDMS), Kelly Phillips (NCDMS)
Meeting Summary
This Design-Bid-Build project is currently in Monitoring Year 5 (2020). The field meeting was held
in order to discuss project history and current conditions as they relate to project performance
and success, identify any apparent concerns heading into the remainder of the monitoring phase,
and evaluate the MY04 (2019) credit release as proposed in the ledger presented to the IRT on
April 20, 2020. Site conditions were rainy and cool (60 degrees).
Previous monitoring events of note:
April 2017 - IRT Credit Release Site Visit (MY2)
January 2018 - Supplemental planting (prior to MY3 growing season)
February 2018 - Wetland creation zone head cut repair (handwork, straw wattles, juncus plugs
and live stakes)
October 2018 - Invasive vegetation treatment (last of a multi-treatment contract)
March 2020 - GWG 11 installation along right floodplain of UT1
Field review and items discussed
• The group met at the project entrance along NC Hwy 218, and briefly discussed the
project status and recent history. The MY4 (2019) credit release ledger was discussed and
DMS noted that they are requesting to "catch up" with the approved mitigation plan
release schedule following credit holdbacks in recent years, based on general trending
towards success with stream flow in UT1 and wetland gauge results. DMS noted that, if
the current proposed release were approved, the remaining unreleased credits for the
D_EQNORTH CAROLINA
Department o16Mmnmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
217 W.Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

project would be 15% of the stream and 30% of the wetland total available credits.
Relevant project monitoring events were discussed (see above), and DWR noted their
support for the addition of GWG 11, which was recently added to provide additional data
for the wetland restoration zone along the right floodplain of UT1.
• The group walked to the upstream section of UT1, and observed flow in the stream
channel, and a well-vegetated buffer;the group walked downstream along UT1 and noted
a lack of base flow along much of UT1, but a well-defined channel with a coarse substrate
mixture. Some evidence of overbank flow (wrack and debris) were present. Recent
continuous flow data were discussed from 2018 (103 days of consecutive flow), 2019 (116
days) and 2020 (83 days, as of March 25, 2020).
• Alongside the right floodplain of UT1, the recently installed ground water gauge (GWG
#11) was found and soils examined; while there were clearly some hydric characteristics
within the soil profiles (0"to 12")taken by DWR and DMS near GWG 11, soils were noted
as probably not fully developed wetland soils yet. At GWG 4 farther downstream along
UT1 (also on the right floodplain), the soils looked similar to those observed at GWG 11.
• The group continued downstream along UT1 to the confluence of Crooked Creek. While
much of UT1 lacked base flow during this visit, flow had been observed on prior visits in
March 2020 by DMS and the monitoring firm Wildlands (separately), and channel features
were generally evident. There were no sections of channel 'choked' with sediments or
wetland herbaceous vegetation (e.g., Juncus spp.). All log structures and constructed
riffles observed appeared intact and functioning.
• DMS noted that there are Goose Creek watershed enhancement and restoration buffer
assets associated with the project (70,936 sq. ft.). DWR noted that buffer credit close out
typically occurs following MY5 and would likely be evaluated for buffer credit closure
sometime in 2021 by the DWR buffer coordinator (Katie Merritt). DMS noted that there
is one vegetation plot in each mitigation area type (restoration and enhancement). All 12
vegetation plots across the site are on track to meet success criteria.
• The group walked downstream along Crooked Creek (enhancement II). Areas of prior
invasive floodplain vegetation treatment were noted. In general, there were no major
issues noted and the Crooked Creek floodplain appeared to be almost entirely clear of
invasive vegetation. There was also no evidence of livestock. Just downstream of the
confluence of UT1 with Crooked Creek, the large debris jam (with downed trees
accumulating in one meander bend) was found and discussed, and while the historic
channel diversion had formed a large oxbow, it appeared that some of the downed trees
which had been spanning the channel on prior visits had been cleared out by more recent
storm events. There were still multiple downed trees and large woody debris
accumulated along both sides of the channel at this location.
D_E(1)
NORTH CAROLINA Department o16Mmnmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
217 W.Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

• A wooden deer stand was observed within the left floodplain of Crooked Creek. DMS has
been aware of the deer stand as it has existed since project inception. It is unknown
whether the deer stand is currently being used, or who may be using it, since this project
is within State-owned property. DMS will try to obtain more information on how this deer
stand might or might not be in use.
• UT2 (enhancement II) was observed flowing into Crooked Creek. The group walked the
length of UT2 up to the fence line and edge of the project area, and adjacent cattle
pasture, where it flows through a concrete pipe into the project area. Flow was evident
along the entire length of UT2. The group then continued to walk towards the
downstream limits of the project along Crooked Creek.
• An area of historic encroachment was inspected, where ATVs had been getting into and
disturbing the left floodplain of Crooked Creek towards the downstream end of the
project. The landowner has been contacted several times about this, additional posting
was installed in 2018, and the activity seems to have ceased, as tall herbaceous vegetation
was seen growing in the entry path from the adjacent mowed/maintained backyard.
However, there appeared to be a swath of maintained/mowed lawn 10-15 feet into the
project area along most of the expansive backyard. DMS will contact this landowner again
and attempt to have this activity stopped. While this section is more than 50 feet away
from the creek, it appears to be an encroachment that need not and should not be
happening.
• The group walked back along the pasture fence line towards the project area wetlands.
To this point,very few invasives had been noted; only very scattered individuals. However,
the monitoring firm's 2020 spring assessment had mapped several areas of invasives.
Using this map as a guide, the group headed for veg plot 10 to evaluate the area for
invasives, as the monitoring map was showing the plot surrounded by Chinese lantern
and morning glory. In general, while the group could not validate the mapped results here,
there seem to be some scattered areas across the site that, when added up, may warrant
another treatment. DMS plans to conduct a further detailed site invasives evaluation
within the next few weeks and engage a contractor to treat the remaining invasives. The
trees in veg plot 10 appeared to be healthy and thriving.
• The group then walked back towards Crooked Creek to observe the wetland head cut that
was reported in MY2 (2017), and addressed in early 2018 with some hand work
stabilization, wattle installation, and live staking. While the condition here has improved
dramatically since treatment, the head cut persists. It is unclear if the head cut is active,
and if so, what is the rate of retreat.A small amount of flow was observed flowing through
the head cut and continuing downgradient. DMS plans to keep a close eye on this and
evaluate options if necessary.
• Walking back towards the parking area through the center of the wetlands, many of the
supplemental plantings from 2018 were evident as healthy trees, albeit shorter than most
D_E Q)
NORTH CAROLINA
Department o16Mmnmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
217 W.Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

of the originally planted trees. DWR noted that some of the trees in this area appeared to
be a few years 'behind' the others. DMS noted this was one of the areas that was indeed
supplemental planted in 2018, prior to the MY3 growing season.
• The meeting concluded with discussion of site conditions and credit releases moving
forward. It was noted that the project is on a 5-year stream / 7-year wetland release
schedule. While the site is trending towards success, there were concerns in earlier
monitoring years about stream flow and wetland gauge attainment. While DWR indicated
their inclination to recommend release of crediting as proposed in the MY4 (2019) ledger,
they expressed concern about the remaining 15% of stream credits and indicated it was
very likely to be held back in 2021 in favor of gathering more stream data and monitoring
the site as a whole (both stream and wetlands) through seven years. DWR recommended
that DMS continue to monitor both stream and wetlands through MY7 (2022), with the
remaining stream credit likely to be held back until project close out, and wetland credits
being released on the current schedule as deemed appropriate. DMS will plan to move
forward with this monitoring approach unless otherwise instructed by the IRT.
Meeting notes compiled by:
Harry Tsomides, Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
D_EQNORTH CAHOLINA
Department o1 Environmental 4ualiry
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
217 W.Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

From: Davis,Erin B
To: Wiesner,Paul
Cc: Kim Browning;Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US);Allen. Melonie;Tsomides, Harry; Phillips, Kelly D
Subject: RE: Meeting Minutes_Crooked Creek#2-Credit Release Site Visit_June 16,2020_DMS#94687_SAW#2011-
02201_DWR#20120064
Date: Friday,June 19, 2020 11:06:24 AM
Hi Paul,
The meeting minutes look good. I just have a few additional comments:
• I agree with your UT1 comments, but we did also observe scattered wetland herbaceous veg
within the channel and fibrous roots across some of the riffles, as well as some signs of rot
on the log sills (although no instability).
• Regarding the headcut, I agree that it should be monitored for mitigation upslope and would
recommend that additional vegetated stabilization measures be considered.
• I also noted the veg die-off we saw from the herbicide treatment along the cattle fence
approximately 3-5 feet into the easement. I understand that the landowner needs to
maintain the fence line, but would ask that more care be given to target the treatment on
the fence itself and limit drift into the easement.
Many thanks. Have a nice weekend!
Erin
From: Wiesner, Paul
Sent: Thursday,June 18, 2020 3:42 PM
To: Davis, Erin B<[e-mail]>
Cc: Kim Browning<[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW
(US) <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie<[e-mail]>; Tsomides,
Harry<[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D<[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting Minutes_Crooked Creek#2-Credit Release Site Visit_June 16, 2020_DMS#
94687_SAW#2011-02201_DWR#20120064
Erin,
The meeting minutes from the June 16, 2020 IRT credit release site visit at the Crooked Creek#2 site
are attached.
Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.
Harry,
Please include the final meeting minutes in the 2020 MY5 report for reference.
Thanks

Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
. 171DIE Q
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

APPENDIX 8. Supplemental Soils Temperature Data

Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
(DMS Project No. 94687)
Wetland Restoration Zone A
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Crooked Creek Soil Temperature Probe
Monitoring Year 5-2020
100
0 0
0 0
v v
90 ao ao
3 .3
0 2
80Lu
70
ns
E 60
a)
50
40 - - -
> c — oa Q +� >
ro LL ro Q co
cn O ° 0
g z
Soil Probe Temperature — — Criteria Level

APPENDIX 9. Easement Encroachment Areas

4 1
4110.
....t,..
I ll
.r :v -.t
, , .,
: 404.-..-.;
. tc�.
,.
CE mowing
\ t
CE mowing
O
;Soma laqii6.9DioitalcIob-U© o - Faillgm eicoggOmMC / em@ CR,MCA 1901260
` AavaIRDo OK elrA t u®am aiw©awful*r wfi lug