20130739 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2014_20150414

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95015
Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104 - 040040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: I of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2014
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2015
Submitted To: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NCDENR Contract ID No. 003992
r _+V_
-�J
os se
Ename'mment
PROGRAM

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 1 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
EEP Project ID No. 95015
Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104 - 040040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker International
NC Professional Engineering License # F -1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL I
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2015. MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................... ..............................2
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3 ................................................................. ..............................3
2. 1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation ...................................................................................... ..............................3
2.2 Wetland Assessment ....................................................................................................... ..............................3
2.3 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................................. ..............................3
3.0 REFERENCES ................................................................. ..............................4
APPENDICES
Appendix
A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Vicinity Map and Directions
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts Table
Table
4
Project Attribute Table
Appendix
B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table
5a
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table
5b
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Photo Points
Photos
Vegetation Plots Photos
Monitoring Stations
Photos
Appendix
C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table
9a
CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table
9b
Yearly Density Per Plot
Table
9c
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Appendix
D Hydrologic Data
Figure
4
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
5
Flow Gauge Graph
Figure
6
St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table
10
Wetland Restoration Well Success
Table
11
Flow Gauge Success
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
II
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2015, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,926 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream,
2.8 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and planted 17.5 acres (AC) of native riparian vegetation within the
entire conservation easement along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort
County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Beaufort
County, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03 -03 -07 and the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104 - 040040 of the
Tar - Pamlico River Basin. The project involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream
Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due
to past agricultural conversion and silviculture.
The primary restoration goals of the project were to improve ecological functions to the impaired areas within
the Tar - Pamlico River Basin as described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the project,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the downstream estuary,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse
flow, providing the streams access to their floodplains,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and
within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater
runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments
during the monitoring period.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
• No emergency overflow was constructed along UT3 due to the capacity of the proposed culverts.
• A ford crossing was constructed outside of the conservation easement boundary along UT2 at
approximate station 35 +75 at the landowner's request.
• Due to bare -root shrub availability, some species proposed in the Mitigation Plan differ from shrub
species actually planted within the buffer area following construction. The understory species Titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), swamp doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa), Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and
Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) were not planted on the Site. Instead, the aforementioned species
were substituted with these understory species: beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), swamp
dogwood (Cornus foemina), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), inkberry (Ilex glabra) and
Chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia). Sixty -one percent of the riparian buffer species are overstory trees.
The remaining thirty-nine percent of species are understory shrubs and twenty -one percent of these
species were substituted with species of similar quantities for the riparian wetland planting areas.
During Year 1 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with
no bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data
collected from the nine monitoring plots during Year 1 monitoring, is 676 stems per acre. The Year 1 data
demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by
the end of Year 3.
No areas of invasive species or vegetation areas of concern were observed during Year 1 monitoring.
Year 1 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that 0 of 4 groundwater monitoring wells located along
UT2 and UT3 exhibited water levels within 12 inches of the ground surface that was greater than 12 percent
of the growing season. The four on -site wetland monitoring wells demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods
which ranged from 1.0 to 7.8 percent of the growing season. It is also noted that the monitoring wells were
not installed until March 21, 2014 immediately following construction of the Site. The growing season for
Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6. Therefore, Year 1 monitoring of the wetland
groundwater levels did not record the first 21 days of March in 2014. Also, during Year 1 monitoring, the on-
site wetland reference wells demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods which ranged from 24.8 to 27.0 percent
of the growing season.
On -site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT2 and UT3 was recorded periodically throughout
2014 by the use of pressure transducers. Of the six flow gauges installed on the Site, all gauges recorded flow
in 2014. The flow gauges documented flow through the headwater valleys during Year 1 which ranged from
4.6 to 71.0 days in from March 21 to December 4. It is noted that the gauges demonstrated similar patterns
relative to rainfall events in the vicinity of the Site.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background
and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
and in the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP)
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices are available from NCEEP upon
request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven -year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland
and vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these
components adheres to the NCEEP monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will
continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring
features, such as vegetation plots, flow gauges and wells are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix
B.
The majority of Year 1 monitoring data were collected in November and December 2014. All visual site
assessment data contained in Appendix B were collected in November and December 2014.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3
The UT2 and UT3 mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding
functions in a multi- thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to
document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding
functions. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations and in- channel flow gauges /pressure transducers to document
stream success. As -built stream survey data were collected conventionally using a Nikon DM -522 total
station unit and is georeferenced used NAD83 -State Plane Feet- FIPS32OO. This survey system collects point
data with an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Total observed area rainfall for the period of January 2014 through November 2014 was 47.46 inches,
as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same time period of 50.03 inches annually.
Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed in the UT2 channel as well as two
flow gauges installed in the UT3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet apart
within the restored systems to document flow duration. The automated loggers were programmed to
collect data at every 15 minutes to document flow frequency and duration. The flow data summary
and the observed rainfall graph are located in Appendix D.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches,
moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking upstream at
delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to
provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of photo points,
wetland wells and flow gauges are located in Appendix B.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland monitoring is assessed by the use of four automated groundwater- monitoring stations that are
installed in the UT2 and UT3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells installed in
the downstream portion of the UT3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater monitoring
stations follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN- rs -4.1 (USACE 1997).
The automated loggers are programmed to collect data every 6 hours to document groundwater levels in the
restored wetland areas. The four restoration wells are compared to the two on -site reference wells.
Groundwater data collected during Year 1 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007) and the CVS -NCEEP data entry tool v 2.3.1 (2012). The vegetation monitoring plots are a
minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with nine plots established randomly within the Site's
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters for woody tree species.
Year 1 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. CVS -NCEEP
Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN- WRAP- 05 -2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 4
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, NCEEP PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
DECEMBER 2014, MONITORING YEAR 1 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,
but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general
public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees /contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned
roles and activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
north through a large field. The site is located where
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
downstream culvert crossing.
Beaufort County
Sf
C /air C
r
Lek
C
CD
0
-a
Q le
ZZ
J
.Im
Project
Location
Pamlico River
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03020104040040.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
St. Clair Creek Restoration Site
E11 iaii ement
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No ID. 95015
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
R
RE
Totals
3,274 SMU
2.8 WMU
0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/
Location
Existing Footage/ Acreage
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
UT2
12 +64 —34+00
2,660 LF
Headwater Restoration
2,133 SMU
2,133 LF
1:1
UT3
10+66— 22 +82
1,075 LF
Headwater Restoration
1,141 SMU
1,141 LF
1:1
UT2 Wetland
See plan sheets
0.0 AC
Restoration
1.1 WMU
1.1 WNW
1:1
UT3 Wetland
See plan sheets
0.0 AC
Restoration
1.7 WMU
1.7 WNW
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC)
Non- riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non - Riverine
Restoration
3,274
2.8
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI= Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No ID. 95015
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Jul -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Sep -13
MItigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Oct -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Nov -13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Dec -13
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Mar -14
Planting of live stakes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Apr -14
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
Apr -14
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
N/A
May -14
Jun -14
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -14
Dec -14
Dec -14
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -15
N/A
N/A
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
N/A
N/A
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
N/A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Designer
Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jacob Byers, Tel. 919 - 259 -4814
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919- 742 -1200
ArborGen, 843 -528 -3204
Superior Tree, 850- 971 -5159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Dwayne Huneycutt, Tel. 919 - 481 -5745
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 4. Project Attributes
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Project Information
Project Name
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
County
Beaufort
Project Area acres
17.5
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.452835 N, - 76.76726215 W
Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Tar - Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03020104 / 03020104040040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 03 07
Project Drainage Area (AC)
89 (UT2), 30 (UT3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
13.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation;
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT2
Reach UT3
Length of Reach (LF)
2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing)
1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing)
Valley Classification Ros en)
X
X
Drainage Area (AC)
89
30
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
36
20
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; Sw, NSW
C; Sw, NSW
Morphological Description ( Rosgen stream type)*
Channelized Headwater System (Perennial)
Channelized Headwater System
(Intermittent)
Evolutionary Trend **
Restored G
Restored G
Underlying Mapped Soils
To, Hy, Ro
To, At
Drainage Class
Very poorly drained, poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope (ft/ft )
0.0006
0.0009
FEMA Classification
SFHA, AE
SFHA, AE
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Along UT2
Size of Wetland (AC)
1.1
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Parameters
Wetland Along UT3
Size of Wetland (AC)
1.7
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation **
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
(Appendix B)
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix 13
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix 13
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
I Yes
Yes
1 (Appendix B)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix 13
Notes:
* Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this
channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. ** Supporting documentation is including in the approved Final Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

As -Built Stream
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Mitigation Credit
A. Flow Gauge
Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
Stream Crossing
- Vegetation Plot: (Year 1 Density /Planted Density)
0 Restored Wetland Area
Conservation Easement
MET.EJ r.1W01 01 I19:LIF
SCAW4 Flow Gauge #6
Veg Plot 7: 1040/1160
Flow Gauge #5
P #7 SCAW3 "
Survey Date: Dec 2014 l 44,
Aerial Photo Date: 2012 n, „
NCAOneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Anal' sis, NC 911 Board,
0 300 600 N Figure 2
Michael Baker Feet Current Condition Plan View
'40 system St. Clair Creek Site
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L ancement EEP Project # 95015 Beaufort County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,133
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub - Category
Metric
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
with
with
for
per As -built
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Intended
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
I. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
0
0
I. Depth
0
0
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
0
0
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
0
0
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 0
2. Grade Control
0
0
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath sill or anus
0
0
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
115%
0
0
4. Habitat
JPool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
0
0
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 5a. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,141
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub - Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woodv Veg.
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woodv Veg.
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woodv Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
L Aggradation
0
0
100
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
0
0
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
. Depth
0
0
2. Length
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
0
0
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
1001
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
0
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
0
0
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%
0
0
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
0
0
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
None Observed
--
--
I --
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Planted Acreage: 11.6
Vegetation Category
De6ntions
Mapping Threshold (acres)
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and
herbaceous material.
0. I
NA
0
0.00
0.0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below
target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem
count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class
that are obviously small given the
monitorin ear.
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
jAreas of points (if too small to render as
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0 %
Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St. Clair Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT3
Planted Acreage: 5.9
Vegetation Category
De6ntions
Mapping Threshold acres
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acrea e
% of Planted Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and
herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0 %
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below
target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem
count criteria.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0 %
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class
that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defmtions
Ma in Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
JAreas of points if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
I Areas of points (if too small to render as
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue Station Number Sus ected Cause Photo Number
None Observed
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
j 114 0
6 -
-
�
Photo Point 5 UT2
Photo Point 4 — UT2
Photo Point 6 UT2

Photo Point 7 — UT2
Photo Point 9 — UT2
Photo Point 8 — UT2
14
Photo Point 10 — UT2
Photo Point 11 — UT2
Photo Point 12 — UT2

Photo Point 13 — UT2
Photo Point 14 — UT2
Photo Point 15 — UT2
Photo Point 17 — UT3
Photo Point 16 — UT3
Photo Point 18 — UT3

Photo Point 19 — UT3
Photo Point 21 — UT3
�N
Photo Point 23 — UT3
ppw
Photo Point 20 — UT3
�+ t
kl 1 £ )
Photo Point 22 UT3
Photo Point 24 — UT3
Y�
add
a
�
I
Photo Point 20 — UT3
�+ t
kl 1 £ )
Photo Point 22 UT3
Photo Point 24 — UT3
Y�

Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 8

AUTO WELL - SCAW 1
AUTO WELL - SCAW3
� F
lly
Yi "� II I Mei C J
lz
i
AUTO WELL - SCAW2
AUTO WELL - SCAW4
4, ,
AUTO WELL - SCREFI
AUTO WELL - SCREF2

FLOW LOGGER - SCFL1
,:A.
010
FLOW LOGGER - SCFL2
FLOW LOGGER - SCFL3
FLOW LOGGER - SCFL4
FLOW LOGGER - SCFL5
FLOW LOGGER - SCFL6

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Total /Planted Stem
Count*
Tract Mean
1
Y
680/720
676
2
Y
640/640
3
Y
640/680
4
Y
640/720
5
Y
640/680
6
Y
440/480
7
Y
1040/1160
8
Y
640/720
9
Y
720/760
Note: *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems (Total)
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 8. Vegetation Metadata
St. Clair Creek Restoration Proiect: EEP Proiect ID No. 95015
Report Prepared E Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 12/8/2014 13:50
database name
cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3. l.mdb
database location
L:\Monitoring \Veg Plot Info \CVS Data Tool \St Clair and UT to Cane Crk
computer name
CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
file size
45842432
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by I A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-----------------------------------
Project Code 95015
project Name St Clair Creek Restoration Project
Description
River Basin Tar - Pamlico
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

le 9a. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Clair Creek Restoration Proiect: EEP Proiect ID No. 95015
oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{ oro{
0 Q5 le
� roB � o'er o'er o'er o'er o'er o'er o'er o'er o'er
O h� A ro0 65 tiK tiK ti`' ti`' ti`' ti`' ti`' tiK ti`'
e. 5 5 o C� y �� yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo
Go G14 GfQ Go �� JSt¢ R, OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)
Aronia arbutifolia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
6
3
2
4
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
3
2
1.5
1
2
Clethra alnifolia
Shrub
coastal sweetpepperbush
1
1
1
1
Cornus foemina
Shrub Tree
stiff dogwood
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
4
3
1.33
2
1
1
Morella cerifera
Shrub Tree
wax myrtle
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Tree
blackgum
6
3
2
2
1
3
Persea palustris
Tree
swamp bay
6
2
3
2
4
Quercus laurifolia
Tree
laurel oak
14
5
2.8
4
1
7
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Tree
overcup oak
17
7
2.43
4
2
2
3
3
1
2
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
25
6
4.17
1
2
4
5
5
8
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
11
5
2.2
2
1
1
4
3
Taxodium distichum
Tree
bald cypress
19
41
4.75
1 6
41
8
1 1
Ulmus americana
Tree
American elm
21
6
3.5
3
4
1
1
5
7
Unknown
unknown
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
1
Vaccinium corymbosum
Shrub
highbush blueberry
5
3
1.67
1
1
3
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
6
4
1.5
1
1
3
1
TOT:
0
117
17
16
152
17
17
16
16
16
16
11
26
16
18
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9b. Yearly Denisty Per Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Current Plot Data (MY1 2014)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95015 -01 -0001
95015 -01 -0002
95015 -01 -0003
95015 -01 -0004
95015 -01 -0005
95015 -01 -0006
95015 -01 -0007
95015 -01 -0008
95015 -01 -0009
MYl(2014)
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
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
l
1
l
2
2
2
3
3
3
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corpus foemina
swamp dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
I
I
I
1
l
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Morelia cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
I
1
I
I
I
I
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
14
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
17
17
17
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
25
25
25
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
11
11
11
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
8
8
8
1
1
1
19
19
19
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
7
7
7
21
21
21
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Vaccinium corymbosum
1highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
I 1
l
1
l
3
3
3
5
5
5
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
IShrub
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
Stem count
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
1 16
16
16
16
16
l6
16
l6
11
11
11
26
26
26
16
l6
16
l8
l8
l8
152
152
152
size (ares)
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
9
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
Species count
9
9
9
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
8
81
9
9
9
7
7
7
17
17
17
Stems per ACRE.
687.966
687.966
687.966
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
647.497
445.154
445.154
445.154
1052.18
F10582.18
1052647.497
647.497
647.497
728.434
1728.434
1728.434
683.469
1683.469
683.469
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%
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9c. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name
Plots
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tree Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
2
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
swamp tupelo
2
1
3
uercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
1
2
4
5
5
8
uercus lauri olia
laurel oak
4
1
7
1
1
uercus[ rata
overcup oak
4
2
2
3
3
1
2
Quercus phellos
1willow oak
1 2
1
1 1
1 1
1 4
1 3
Taxodium distichium
lbald cypress
6
1 4
1 8
1
1 1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
3
4
1 1
1
1 1
1 5
1
7
Shrub Species
Clethra alnifolia
sweet pepperbush
1
Car inns caroliniana
ironwood
1
2
Magnolia vir iniana
sweetbay magnolia
Persea palustris
swamp bay
2
4
Callicar a americana
beautyberry
Cornus oemina
swamp dogwood
1
1
Morella cerifera
wax Myrtle
1
Vaccinium corymbosum
blueberry
1
1
1
3
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood
1
3
1
Rosa palustris
swamp rose
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Aronia arbuti olia
chokeberry
4
1
1
1
Unknown
N/A
2
1
1
1 1
Volunteer Species
Unknown N/A
Stems /plot
17
16
16
16
16
11
26
16
18
Stems /acre
688.0
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
445.2
1052.2
647.5
728.5
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 1 (Fall 2014)
683
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As -Built (Baseline Data)
729
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

3/2/2014
0.0
1.0
2.0
R
3.0
E
0
3
c
3
O
U'
0
.0
a
m
0
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
55
St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
St. Clair Creek UT2 Well
(SCAW1)
SCAW1 First Longest Hydroperiod of 2.75 days (1.0%):
7/4/2014 - 7/6/2014 SCAW1 Second Longest Hydroperiod of 2.75 days (1.0%):
9/24/2014 - 9/27/2014
Ground
Surface
- -12 inches
SCAW1
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
0.0
1.0
m
c 2.0
3.0
15
10
5
_ 0
c
-5
d
is -10
3
-15
a -20
0
o -25
a -30
m
o -35
-40
-45
-50
-55
St. Clair Creek UT2 Well
(SCAW2)
SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 10.8 days (3.8%):
3/25/2014 - 4/5/2014
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
—SCAW2

St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
0.0
1.0
w
2.0
3.0
15
10
5
c 0
L
-5
m
30 10
c
o -15
L
c -20
a
-25
p -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
St. Clair Creek UT3 Well
(SCAW3)
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 6.5 days (2.3%):
8/1/2014- 8/7/2014
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date
Ground
Surface
- -12 inches
—SCAW3

St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
0.0
1.0
w
2.0
3.0
15
10
5
c 0
L
-5
m
30 10
c
o -15
L
c -20
a
-25
p -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
St. Clair Creek UT3 Well
(SCAW4)
SCAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of 22.0 days (7.8%):
4/15/2014 - 5/7/2014
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date
Ground
Surface
- -12 inches
—SCAW4

St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
0.0
1.0
m
c 2.0
tY
3.0
15
10
5
0
S
-5
-10
3
-15
o -20
0
o -25
a -30
o -35
-40
-45
-50
-55
St. Clair Creek UT3 Reference Well
(REF1)
REFI Longest Hydroperiod of 70.0 days (24.8%):
9/7/2014 - 11/16/2014
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
— SCAWREF1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2014)
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31/2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
0.0
1.0
m
c 2.0
3.0
15
10
5
0
S
-5
d
m -10
3
-15
o -20
0
o -25
a -30
d
o -35
-40
-45
-50
-55
St. Clair Creek UT3 Reference Well
(REF2)
REF2 Longest Hydroperiod of 65.5 days (23.2%):
9/7/2014 - 11/12/2014
Ground
Surface
- -12 inches
0 = = = MISYTIATA V:10M
3/2/2014 4/1/2014 5/1/2014 5/31 /2014 6/30/2014 7/30/2014 8/29/2014 9/28/2014 10/28/2014 11/27/2014 12/27/2014
Date

Table 10. Wetland Restoration Well Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Percentage of
Percentage of
Consecutive Days
Consecutive Days
Cumulative Days <12
Cumulative Days
Number of Consecutive
Well ID
<12 inches from
Meeting Criteria'
inches from Ground
Meeting Criteria
Instances Meeting Criteria
Ground Surface'
Surface
Wetland Wells
SCA W 1
1.0
2.8
8.5
24.0
11.0
SCAW2
3.8
10.8
30.6
86.3
21.0
SCAW3
2.3
6.5
9.4
26.5
10.0
SCAW4
7.8
1 22.0
17.3
48.8
6.0
Reference Wells
SCAWREF 1
24.8
70.0
46.4
130.8
3.0
SCAWREF2
27.0
65.5
44.5
125.5
3.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
'Indicates the consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
3Indicates the percentage of cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
°Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
5Indicates the number of consecutive instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from the soil
surface.
Growing season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is 282 days long.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria of 12% of the growing seasaon within the monitored growing season with a
water 12 inches or less from the soil surface. Wells that did not meet success criteria of 12% will be closely observed throughout the Year 2 (2015)
growing season for any changes or conditions that could affect success.
All In -Situ wetland monitoring dataloggers were installed on 3/21/2014. Reference wells installed on 7/17/2014.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014 3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0 '
0.5
c
m 1.5
w
E 2.0
0: 2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream UT2)
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
.-. 14.0
13.0
s 12.0
m 11.0
0 10.0
p� 9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
3/1/2014 4/20/2014 6/9/2014 7/29/2014 9/17/2014 11/6/2014 12/26/2014

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014 3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0
0.5
c
jp 1.5
w
E 2.0
M
X 2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
16.0
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
�—� 10.0
C 9.0
p 8.0
7.0
c�a 6.0
f7
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
IL
3/1/2014 4/20/2014 6/9/2014 7/29/2014 9/17/2014 11/6/2014 12126/2014

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014 3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0
0.5
� 1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
_ 9.0
c
.
i 8.0
0. 7.0
d
y 6.0
of
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
3/1/2014 3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/2812014 9127/2014 10/2712014 11/26/2014 12/2612014

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014
3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0
0.5
Ac
1.0
—
1.5
R
2.0
2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL4
(Upstream UT2)
6.0
5.0
_
4.0
c
t
y
3.0
d
7
f6
(7
2.0
1.0
0.0
3/1/2014
3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014
3/31/2014 4130/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0
0.5
1.0
—
1.5
R
2.0
2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
10.0
8.0
6.0
s
a
m
O
p�
4.0
3
l6
2.0
0.0
Ild
3/1/2014
3/31/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014

St. Clair Rain (2014)
3/1/2014 3131/2014 4/30/2014 5/30/2014 6/29/2014 7/29/2014 8/28/2014 9/27/2014 10/27/2014 11/26/2014 12/26/2014
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
JT
2.0
2.5
3.0
St. Clair Creek Site
Groundwater Gauge Station SCFL6
(Downstream UT2)
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
t
5.00
O �
4.00
to
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
3/1/2014 4/20/2014 6/9/2014 7/29/2014 9/17/2014 11/6/2014 12/26/2014

Table 11. St. Clair Creek Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
Figure 6.
UT2 Flow Gauges
SCFL1 71.0
SCFL2
63.7
St. Clair Creek
60.8
SCFL4
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT3 Flow Gauges
10,0
56.8
SCFL6
3
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of cumulative number of days within the
monitoring year where flow was measured.
5
8.0
U
C
C
°—
6.0
.a
4.0
2.0
0.0
e1�r P4 �m9
ySCg x,19 3$yy` .eyes �oci� cc��ccgt
S`e
Historic Average
--*--Historic 30% probable
+Historic 70% probable
—On -Site Observed 2014
Table 11. St. Clair Creek Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: Project ID No. 95019
Well ID
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
UT2 Flow Gauges
SCFL1 71.0
SCFL2
63.7
SCFL3
60.8
SCFL4
23.7
UT3 Flow Gauges
SCFL5
56.8
SCFL6
4.6
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of cumulative number of days within the
monitoring year where flow was measured.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR RESTORATION PROJECT (EEP PROJECT NO. 95015)