20120064 Ver 1_Crooked Creek2_94687_MY7_2022_20230306

MONITORING YEAR 7 
ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT 
REPORT 

FINAL 

CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT 
Union County, NC 
DEQ Contract 6617 
DMS Project Number 94687 
USACE Permit No. SAW‐2011‐02201 

Data Collection Period:  April – November 2022 
Submission Date:  February 27, 2023 

PREPARED FOR: 

NC Department of Environmental Quality 
Division of Mitigation Services 
1652 Mail Service Center 
Raleigh, NC  27699‐1652 

PREPARED BY: 

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 

Phone: [phone] 
Fax: [phone] 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report    ii 
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. Per the Mitigation Plan (2013), the Site was proposed 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). Due to the presence of “at‐risk” wetland areas observed 
during the seven years of post‐construction monitoring, DMS is proposing a revised wetland boundary 
for closeout assets. The proposed closeout credit adjustment includes a reduction of WMUs from 8.400 
WMUs to 6.950 WMUs. The revised asset table and figures are located in Appendix 1 and 2. 
Supplemental wetland data is included in Appendix 6. 
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 created with careful 
consideration of the goals and objectives described in the RBRP and 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. 
The data presented in this report serves as the seventh and final monitoring year (MY7) and the 
closeout report for the Site. Overall, the Site has met the required stream geomorphology, stream 
hydrology, and riparian vegetation success criteria for MY7. All restored and enhanced streams are 
stable and functioning as designed with cross‐section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments 
compared to as‐built. The Site met the final bankfull performance criteria in MY4, and all project 
streams recorded at least one bankfull event in MY7. UT1 met the intermittent stream requirement 30 
consecutive day flow requirement in MY7 and has consistently done so for the past four monitoring 
years (MY3 – MY7). The average planted stem density for the Site is 492 stems per acre with all 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report    iii 
vegetation plots exceeding the final density criteria of 210 stems per acre by greater than 10%. The 
average stem height for the Site is 21 feet and exceeds the final height requirement of 10 feet in the 
closeout year. The MY7 visual assessments revealed minor areas of concern which included a headcut at 
the wetland outlet, a small area of encroachment at the easement boundary and a few pockets invasive 
plant species.  
Four of the eleven groundwater monitoring gages (GWG) installed on the Site met or exceeded the 
hydrologic success criteria for MY7 as well as throughout the post‐construction monitoring period. 
Therefore, DMS has modified the wetland boundary proposed for credit on Site to no longer included 
high areas with weak hydrology represented near GWGs 4, 10 and 11. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the 
original (Table 1) and the revised (Table 1.2) project component and mitigation credit tables and 
Appendix 2 for the revised Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps. 

 Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687)   
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report    iv 
CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1‐1 
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 
1.2 Monitoring Year 7 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 .......................................................................................................... 1‐3 
1.2.7 Hydrology Data with Adjusted Growing Season Data and Soil Temperature Data ........... 1‐4 
1.2.8 Wetland Areas of Concern ................................................................................................. 1‐4 
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1‐4 
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 10a Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot) 
Table 10b Planted and Total Stem Annual Means 
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 7 Annual/Closeout Report    v 
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots 
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events 
 In Stream Flow Gage (UT1) Plot 
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Growing Season 3/23‐ 11/4 
 Groundwater Gage Plots  
 Rainfall Plot 
 Bankfull Wrackline and Hydrology Photographs 
Appendix 6 Supplemental Wetland Soil Documentation and USACE Determination Forms 
 Representative Wetland Groundwater Gage Photos 
 Wetland Soil Investigation Boring Photos 
Appendix 7 Hydrology Data with Adjusted Growing Season and Soil Temperature Data 
 Soil Temperature Probe Plots MY4‐MY7 
 Growing Season Start Bud Burst Documentation 
 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Extended Growing season 3/1‐ 11/26 
 Groundwater Gage Plots with Extended Growing Season 

Appendix 8 Crooked Creek II Buffer Closeout Letter 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  1‐1 
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 (Crooked Creek and UT2) that underwent 
Stream Enhancement as well as one stream (UT1) which underwent Stream Restoration.  
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 created with careful 
consideration of the goals and objectives described in the RBRP and 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. 
The project objectives have been defined as follows:  

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  1‐2 
• 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 7 Data Assessment 
The following sections present the MY7 data collected between April 2022 and January 2023 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 are the 
survival of 210 planted stems per acre with an average height of 10 feet in each plot in the riparian 
corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the seven‐year monitoring period (MY7).  
The MY7 vegetation survey was completed in September 2022 resulting in an average stem density of 
492 stems per acre. All 12 vegetation plots individually met the year seven requirement of 210 
stems/acre, with an average of 12 stems per plot. All plots except 12 individually meet the 10‐foot 
requirement. Plots 12 has an average stem height of 6 feet and is located within the mature canopy of 
the Crooked Creek riparian corridor, slowing growth in the plot. The MY7 average stem height for the 
Site is 21 feet, exceeding the final height requirement and plots exceed the MY7 stem density 
requirement. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the overall vegetation 
condition assessment table. The vegetation data tables are located in Appendix 3. Please refer to 
Appendix 6 for the Invasive Species Treatment Logs. 
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 
Generally, the vegetation within the Site is healthy. The native invasive species, cattail (Typha latifolia) 
continues to surround vegetation plot 5, but it is not adversely affecting tree growth in the plot. The 
colony is established but has not expanded beyond the area adjacent to vegetation plot 5.  
The percent of easement area covered in invasive species is at 0.26% of the easement area in MY7. 
Since the September 2021 invasive treatments in MY6 there have been very few privet, tree of heaven, 
or honeysuckle resprouts observed. These populations are no longer a concern and have been removed 
from the CCPV maps. The only invasive population observed on site in MY7 was balloon vine in two 
isolated populations present in the late Fall growing season. DMS will continue to treat these invasive 
species as needed through closeout.  

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  1‐3 
Previous mowing within the easement during MY5 and MY6 has been resolved with additional easement 
signs and a clear marker line connecting the easement signs with white tape. However, a new area of 
encroachment involving clearing into the easement from an adjacent landowner occurred during MY7 
and DMS is actively corresponding with the landowner to rectify the encroachment and the area is 
circled on the MY7 CCPV maps. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table, Area 
of concern photographs and the CCPV maps for MY7 areas of concern.   
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 
The MY7 morphological survey and substrate assessments conducted in April 2022 indicated that UT1 
channel dimensions appear stable and functioning as designed. In general, the cross‐sections show only 
minor changes in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width‐to‐depth ratio compared to the 
baseline survey. Surveyed riffle cross‐sections and riffle pebble counts continue to fall within the 
parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen, 1996). 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 
There were no stream areas of concern for UT1 or UT2 in MY7.  
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 
The stream hydrology success criteria require two bankfull events must occur in separate years within 
the seven‐year monitoring period. Although, the stream hydrology success criteria were met in MY2, 
bankfull events continue to be recorded on Crooked Creek, UT1, and UT2. Events were verified with 
stream gages or visual indicators, such as wrack lines. During MY7 there were 6 bankfull events recorded 
on UT1. Wracklines were documented on all stream channels during the Site walk on 4/21/22. In 
addition, stream baseflow is being monitored on UT1 and 30 days of consecutive baseflow were 
recorded in MY7. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic plots and photographs of documented bankfull 
events.  
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. The target success 
criteria for wetland hydrology success consists of a groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground 
surface for 17 consecutive days (7.5 %) of the defined 226 day growing season for Union County (March 
23 through November 4) under typical precipitation conditions.  
Four of eleven gages meet success criteria in MY7. Generally, the gages that met were located in 
Wetland Restoration Zone A away from the left floodplain of UT1: GWG3 (36 days,15.9%), GWG6 (44 
days, 19.4%), GWG7 (39 days, 17.2%), and GWG8 (26 days, 11. 5%). GWGs 6, 7, and 8 have consistently 
met the success criteria each monitoring year and GWG3 has met success criteria each monitoring year 
after MY2.  
DMS contracted Wildlands to conduct a soils investigation in Winter 2022. Based on the field 
investigation, GWG10 has neither hydric soils present at the gage nor does the gage data support a high 
water table in this area. Therefore, DMS is no longer seeking credit for the high area surrounding 
GWG10. The soils investigation did indicate that in the floodplain to the west of UT1 represented by 
GWGs 4 and 11 had hydric soil development using the F19 hydric indicator. However, neither of the 
gages have met the required hydrology success criteria throughout the monitoring period. Because 
hydrology would not meet a primary hydrology indicator on the USACE delineation determination form 

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  1‐4 
nor is supported by GWG gage hydrology based on the monitoring data, DMS is no longer requesting 
credit for the proposed wetland area to the west of UT1. Please see Appendix 1 for the adjusted credit 
request (Table 1.2) and the CCPV figures in Appendix 2. All supplemental data collected during the 
Winter 2022 field assessment (soil, vegetation, and delineation forms) is included in Appendix 6.   
GWGs 1, 2, 5, and 9 did not meet hydrology criteria using gage data in the majority of the monitoring 
years. These gages represent the right floodplain in wetland restoration zone A and wetland creation 
zone B and contain F19 hydric soils. In addition to hydric soils, a high water table was present at the 
gages during the soils investigation in Winter 2022. Based on the soils, hydrology, and type of vegetation 
present during the investigation, Wildlands determined that GWGs 1, 2, 5, and 9 would delineate as a 
wetland using the USACE wetland delineation determination form. Although these wetland areas are 
marginal, they show continued development of hydrology and wetland soils and DMS determined this 
area should remain as part of the wetland credits proposed for closeout subject to further field 
discussion. For soil, vegetation, and delineation forms please refer to Appendix 6. Please refer to 
Appendix 5 for the groundwater hydrology data, plots, and rainfall data. 
1.2.7 Hydrology Data with Adjusted Growing Season Data and Soil Temperature Data 
In addition to the modified wetland boundary, DMS has included supplemental data to consider in the 
closeout assessment for the Site. Multiple indicators at Crooked Creek collected over the past few years 
suggest the growing season beings as early as March 1st. Soil temperature data has indicated that the 
ground temperature starts to rise in early March and remains above the 41‐degree Fahrenheit threshold 
throughout the growing season. Supplemental soil temperature data has been collected on site since 
2019. Additionally, Wildlands has included March 1st bud burst documentation from the Deep Meadow 
Mitigation Site, located 9 miles from the Site. 
Data gathered to support an adjusted growing season is included in Appendix 7. A revised groundwater 
attainment table is also included to illustrate the wetland gage attainment with an adjusted growing 
season. For this assessment, the gage data was assessed with an equal number of days added to the 
beginning and end of the growing season for adjusted dates of 3/1‐ 11/26 and 20 days needed to meet 
the 7.5% success criteria requirements. The adjusted gage data supports the developing hydrology and 
soil observations recorded during the soils investigation during winter 2022 and supports that the UT1 
floodplain overall is functioning as a wetland.  
1.2.8 Wetland Areas of Concern 
Currently, the only area of concern in the wetland areas is the headcut within Wetland Creation Zone B. 
The area was stabilized by coir matting and live stake in Spring 2022. There is some evidence that water 
has continued to move through this area where vegetation has not fully established. The headcut area 
will continue to be monitored through closeout. Refer to Appendix 2 for wetland photographs and area 
of concern photographs. 
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 & Closeout Summary 
Assessments completed over the past seven years illustrate that the Site has met success criteria as 
defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) for vegetation and stream morphology and hydrology. 
However, the site has not met the wetland hydrology success criteria for all wetland areas of the site. To 
address the at‐risk wetland areas DMS has revised the wetland credit request in MY7 to include 0.350 
AC wetland enhancement, 5.600 AC for wetland restoration and 1.000 AC for wetland creation to total 
9.365 AC of wetlands on the site. The credit request is being revised from the proposed 8.400 WMUs to 
6.950 WMUs at closeout. The updated credit request is located in Appendix 1, summarized in table 1.2.  

Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (94687) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  1‐5 
Stream morphology surveys throughout MY0‐MY7 demonstrate the dimensions and profiles of the 
restored and enhanced stream channels are stable and are functioning as designed. The Site has 
withstood several bankfull events throughout the monitoring period and has met success criteria for the 
project. The average planted stem density of 492 stems per acre and the average planted stem height of 
21 feet both exceed the MY7 success criteria. The Site has responded well to previous supplemental 
plantings and invasive species treatments. The MY7 visual assessments revealed minor areas of concern 
which included a headcut at the wetland outlet, a small area of encroachment at the easement 
boundary which is actively being addressed with the adjacent landowner, and a few pockets invasive 
plant species.  
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) 
Monitoring Year 7 Annual Report  2‐1 
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 7 Annual Report  3‐1 
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.gooseandcrooked.org/documents/GooseandCrookedLWP‐WMP_Final_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. 

APPENDIX 1.  General Figures and Tables 

03040105040010
03040105030020
03040105010050
03040105010070
03040105030010
03040105070050
03050103020060
03050103030020
03050103020050
03040105070060
03050103020070
03040105050010
03040105040020
03040105070020
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Union County, NC
0 0.5 1 Mile
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
¹
Directions to Site:From Charlotte,NC take US-74 East, take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485. Take Interstate 485 South (Inner Loop) for approximately 3miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill. Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on theright hand side of the road.
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 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 theirdefined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
UT2
Crooke
d

C
r
e
e
k
Reach A
Reach B
U
T
1
E Hwy 218
Zone A
Zone B
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project DMS Project No. 94687 Monitoring Year 7- 2022Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 400 Feet
Powerline EasementCrooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 channel)Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIWetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone BWetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Creation Zone BRiparian Buffer EnhancementRiparian Buffer RestorationConservation Easement
¹
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Nitrogen 
Nutrient 
Phosphorous 
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,242.2 N/A 7.900 0.500 N/A N/A
As‐Built 
Stationing/ 
Location
Existing Footage/ 
Acreage Approach Mitigation 
Ratio
Credits1                 
(SMU/ WMU)
202+20‐215+55 1,555 LF N/A 2.5:1 534.000
215+55‐236+78 2,404 LF N/A 2.5:1 849.200
100+47‐117+18 1,762 LF P1 1:1 1,671.000
300+00‐305+60 470 LF N/A 2.5:1 188.000
N/A 0.7 AC 2:1 0.350
N/A N/A 1:1 6.600
N/A 0.3 AC 2:1 0.150
N/A N/A 3:1 1.300
N/A 25,201 sqft 3:1 8,400.33 sqft
N/A N/A 1:1 45,735 sqft
Buffer Upland
(square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non‐Riverine
6.6 45,735
1.0 25,201
3.9
1 No credit generated where only one side of stream is buffered per email from Harry Tsomides dated October 15, 2018
Enhancement II 3,928
Creation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Restoration 1,671
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian 
(acres) (acres)
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer Enhancement 25,201 sqft
Goose Creek Buffer Restoration 45,735 sqft
Zone B Enhancement 0.3
Zone B Creation 3.9
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils) Enhancement 0.7
Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils) Restoration 6.6
UT1 Restoration 1,671
UT2 Enhancement II 470
Crooked Creek Reach A Enhancement II 1,335
Crooked Creek Reach B Enhancement II 2,123
2 UT1 crediting starts at the outer edge of the powerline right‐of‐way along Hwy 218; Crooked Creek assets have been reduced to account for one‐side easement sections at upstream and downstream ends. 
Reach ID Restoration or Restoration 
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/ 
Acreage
Table 1.  Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian Wetland Buffer (sqft)
54,135.33 N/A
Project Components
STREAMS
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Nitrogen 
Nutrient 
Phosphorous 
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,242.2 N/A 6.600 0.350 N/A N/A
As‐Built 
Stationing/ 
Location
Existing Footage/ 
Acreage Approach Mitigation 
Ratio
Credits1                 
(SMU/ WMU)
202+20‐215+55 1,555 LF N/A 2.5:1 534.000
215+55‐236+78 2,404 LF N/A 2.5:1 849.200
100+47‐117+18 1,762 LF P1 1:1 1,671.000
300+00‐305+60 470 LF N/A 2.5:1 188.000
N/A 0.7 AC 2:1 0.350
N/A N/A 1:1 5.600
N/A 0.3 AC 2:1 0.000
N/A N/A 3:1 1.000
N/A 25,201 sqft 3:1 8,400.33 sqft
N/A N/A 1:1 45,735 sqft
Buffer Upland
(square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non‐Riverine
5.6 45,735
0.7 25,201
3.0
1 No credit generated where only one side of stream is buffered per email from Harry Tsomides dated October 15, 2018.
2 UT1 crediting starts at the outer edge of the powerline right‐of‐way along Hwy 218; Crooked Creek assets have been reduced to account for one‐side easement sections at upstream and downstream ends. 
Highlighted cells have been updated from original credit request based on at‐risk hydrology indicators during MY7
Enhancement II 3,928
Creation
3 The Goose Creek buffer credits approved and closed out by DWR on 9/15/2021. The approval letter is included in Appendix 8. 
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Restoration 1,671
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian 
(acres) (acres)
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer Enhancement 25,201 sqft
Goose Creek Buffer Restoration 45,735 sqft
Zone B Enhancement 0.0
Zone BCreation3.0
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils) Enhancement 0.7
Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils) Restoration 5.6
UT1 Restoration 1,671
UT2 Enhancement II 470
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A Enhancement II 1,335
Crooked Creek Reach B Enhancement II 2,123
Reach ID Restoration or Restoration 
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/ 
Acreage
Table 1.2  Project Components and Mitigation Credits Udpated Credit Request Based on Wetland Performance Standards
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Riparian Wetland Buffer (sqft)
54,135.33 N/A
Project Components
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
DMS Project No. 94687
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) January ‐ February 2016 May 2016
August 2016
April 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2016
August 2017Vegetation Survey
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments January 2016
November 2016
November 2017
Construction January 2015 ‐ April 2015 January 2015 ‐ April 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 January 2015 ‐ March 2015 January 2015 ‐ March 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments January 2015 ‐ March 2015 January 2015 ‐ March 2015
Table 2.  Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan June 2011 August 2013
Final Design ‐ Construction Plans August 2011 April 2014
November 2018
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
April 2019
August 2019
October 2018
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
June 2018
August 2019
May 2018Invasive Treatment
Invasive Treatment August 2018
April 2018
January 2018
November 2019
Invasive Treatment
Supplemental Planting
Septmber 2021
Invasive Treatment
Monitoring, POC Kirsten Gimbert
704.941.9093
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes & Son Nursery 
825 Maude Etter Rd.
McMinnville, TN 37110
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource, LLC
Raleigh, NC 27615
Seeding Contractor
North State Environmental, Inc. 
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental
7921 Haymarket Lane
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Supplemental Planting Contractor & Invasive Species Maintenance
Construction Contractor 
North State Environmental, Inc. 
2889 Lowery Street
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Designer
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Table 3.  Project Contact Table
March 2020
April 2021
April 2022
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.  
January 2022
September 2020
September 2022
September 2021
November 2020
704.332.7754
Year 7 Monitoring
Invasive Treatment October 2020
March 2021
November 2021
195 275
24.5 38
IP
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act 
(CAMA)N/A N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance X X
Crooked Creek is a mapped Zone AE 
floodplain with defined base flood 
elevations. Base flood elevations have been 
defined and the floodway has been 
delineated; (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel 
5540).
Endangered Species Act X X
Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Plan; 
Wildlands determined "no effect" on Union 
County listed endangered species. June 21, 
2011 email correspondence from USFWS 
indicating no listed species occur on site.
Historic Preservation Act X X
No historic resources were found to be 
impacted (letter from SHPO dated 
6/23/2011).
XX
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)X X NPDES Construction Stormwater General 
Permit NCG010000
Regulatory Considerations
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. 
Action ID # 2011‐02201Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401
Native vegetation community Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐Restoration 5%5%60%5%
Slope 0.0022 0.0047 0.0050
FEMA classification
Zone AE Zone AE no regulated 
floodplain no regulated floodplain
Drainage class
Somewhat poorly 
drained
Somewhat poorly 
drained
Somewhat poorly 
drained Well drained
Soil hydric status Type B (inclusions) Type B (inclusions) Type B (inclusions)N/A
Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0‐
2% slopes (ChA)Badin channery silt loam 8‐15% slopes (BaC)
Morphological Desription (stream type)PPP
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration
N/A N/A Stage III
51
NCDWR stream identification score 52 34.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Length of reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration 1,555 2,404 1,671
Drainage area (acres)24,619 153
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture 38%, Forested 29%, Developed 28%, Wetlands 3%, and Herbaceous Upland 2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Crooked Creek 
Reach A
Crooked Creek 
Reach B UT1 UT2
DWR Sub‐basin 03‐07‐12
Project Drainiage Area (acres)24,619
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 28%
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 03040105040010
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
Table 4.  Project Information and Attributes
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Project Information
Project Name Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
County Union County
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit 03040105
Table 5.  Monitoring Component Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Crooked Creek 
Reach A
Crooked Creek 
Reach B UT1 UT2 Wetlands
Riffle Cross‐Section N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A
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 
100 Pebble Count (RF)N/A N/A 1 RW / 2 RF N/A N/A Annual
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 N/A N/A Quarterly
Hydrology Groundwater Gages N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Quarterly
Vegetation Vegetation Plots Annual
Visual Assessment Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual
Exotic and nuisance 
vegetation Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual
Project Boundary Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual
Reference Photos Photo Points Annual
Frequency
Dimension Annual
N/A
12
34
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity / Length by Reach
All Streams

APPENDIX 2.  Visual Assessment Data 

!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
Crooked CreekReach A
UT1
E H w y 2 1 8
Reach B
UT1
UT2
Soil
GW G2
Sheet 3
Sheet 2
Sheet 1
1
2
3
5
9
8 10
4
6
11
12
7
Barotroll
0
GW G4
GW G8
GW G9
GWG10
GW G1
GW G3
GW G6
GW G5
GW G7
GWG11
Figure 3.0 Inegrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 7- 2022
Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 260 520130 Feet
Powerline EasementCrooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 channel)Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIBankfull/TOBCross-Section (XS)Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)Wetland Enhancement Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Wetland Restoration Zone AWetland Restoration Zone A (Dropped from Credit Request) Wetland Creation Zone BWetland Creation Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Riparian Buffer EnhancementRiparian Buffer RestorationConservation Easement
!A Crest Gage (CG)/ Stream Gage (SG)
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Gage
GF Photo Point (PP)
^_Repaired HeadcutGroundwater Gages (GWGs)- MY7
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Criteria MetVegetation Monitoring Plot - MY7Criteria Not MetCriteria MetVegetation Problem Areas- MY7Balloon Vine (treated)CattailsConservation Easement Encroachment
¹
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A ^_
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!A
UT1
UT1
Soil
GW G 2
X
S
3
XS4
XS2
X
S
1
1
2
3
5
9
8
4
6
12
7
PP 25
PP 33
PP 32
PP 1
PP 2
PP 3
PP 4
PP 5
PP 6
PP 7
PP 8
PP 9
PP 10
PP 11
PP 12
PP 13
PP 14
PP 15
PP 16PP 17
PP 18
PP 19
PP 20
PP 21
PP 22
PP 24
PP 23
Barotroll
210+00
212+00
211+00
209+00
208+00
207+00
206+00
100+00
101+00
102+00103+00
104+00
105+00106+00
107+00108+00
109+00
110+00111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
115+00116+00
117+00
GWG4
GWG8
GWG1
GWG3
GWG6
GWG5
GWG7
GWG11
Figure 3.1 Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)Crooked C reek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 7 - 2 022
Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 100 20050 Feet
Powerline EasementNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow ConnectorDitch (former UT1 cha nnel)Stream RestorationStream Enhancement IIBankfull/TOBBeaver Da mCross-Sec tion (XS)Wetla nd Enhanc ement Zone A (Dra ined Hydric Soils)Wetla nd Enhanc ement Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Wetla nd Restoration Zone AWetland Restoration Zone A (D ropped from C redit Request) Wetla nd Creation Zone BWetland Creation Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Wetla nd Credit Boundary with F3 SoilsWetland Credit Boundary with F19 SoilsRiparian Buffer Enhanc ementRiparian Buffer Restoration
!A Crest Ga ge (CG)/Strea m Ga ge (SG)
!A Barotroll
!A Soil Gage
GF Photo Point (PP)
^_HeadcutGroundwater Gages (GW Gs)- M Y7
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Criteria MetVegetation M on itoring Plo t - MY7Criteria Not MetCriteria MetVegetation P rob lem Are as- MY7Balloon Vine (treated)CattailsConservation Easement Encroa chment
¹
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Crooked Creek
Reach A
UT1
UT2UT1
Reach B
XS2
XS4
X S 1
X S 3
5
9
8
10
4
6
11
12
7
PP 28
PP 29PP 30
PP 31
PP 27
PP 26
PP 25
PP 34
PP 33
PP 11 PP 12
PP 13
PP 14
PP 15
PP 16
PP 17
PP 18
PP 19 PP 20
PP 21
PP 22
PP 24
PP 23 210+00
305+00
304+00
302+00
301+00
300+00
228+00
227+00226+00225+00
224+00
223+00
221+00
220+00
219+00
218+00
217+00
216+00
215+00
214+00
213+00
212+00
211+00
209+00
208+00
207+00
206+00205+00
109+00
110+00
111+00
112+00
113+00
114+00
115+00
117+00
GWG4
GWG8
GWG9
GWG10
GWG5
GWG7
Figure 3.2 Integrated C urrent Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)Crooked C reek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 7 - 2 022
Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 125 25062.5 Feet
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement IIRiparian Buffer Restoration
Riparian Buffer EnhancementCrooked Creek Reach Break
Non-Project/Not for Credit StreamsExisting OverflowOverflow Connector
Ditch (former UT1 channel)Bankfull/TOB
Cross-Section (XS)
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Enhancement Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Wetland Restoration Zone A
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Dropped from Credit Request) Wetland Creation Zone B
Wetland Creation Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Wetland Credit Boundary with F3 SoilsWetland Credit Boundary with F19 Soils
Conservation Easement
!A Crest Gage (CG)/ Stream Gage (SG)
!A Barotroll
GF Photo Point (PP)
^_HeadcutGroundwater Gages (GWGs)- MY7
!A Criteria Not Met
!A Criteria MetVegetation Monitoring Plot - MY7Criteria Not MetCriteria MetVegetation Problem Areas- MY7Balloon Vine (treated)Cattails
¹
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Crooked Creek
UT2
Reach A
Reach B
211+00
212+00
213+00
214+00
215+00
216+00
217+00
218+00
219+00
220+00
221+00
223+00
224+00
225+00 226+00 227+00
228+00
229+00
230+00
231+00
232+00
233+00
234+00
235+00
236+00
237+00
238+00
239+00
240+00
241+00
241+44
304+00
305+00
PP 26
PP 27
PP 31
PP 30
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)Crooked Creek #2 Restoration ProjectDMS Project No. 94687Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Union County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 125 25062.5 Feet
Crooked Creek Reach BreakNon-Project/Not for Credit StreamsStream Enhancement IIBankfullExisting OverflowWetland Creation Zone B (Dropped from Credit Request)Conservation Easement
GF Photo Point (PP)
¹
Major Channel 
Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric
Number 
Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐Built
Number of 
Unstable 
Segments
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
% Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Number with 
Stabilizing 
Woody 
Vegetation
Footage with 
Stabilizing 
Woody 
Vegetation
Adjust % for 
Stabilizing 
Woody 
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 16 16 100%
Depth Sufficient 20 20 100%
Length Appropriate 20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 
meander bend (Run)20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 
meander bend (Glide)20 20 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting 
simply from poor growth and/or scour 
and erosion
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the 
extent that mass wasting appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are 
modest, appear sustainable and are 
providing habitat
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 
dislodged boulders or logs.9 9 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow 
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures 
extent of influence does not exceed 
15%. 
9 9 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining 
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6  
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at 
baseflow.
20 20 100%
3. Meander Pool 
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6.  Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7‐ 2022
UT1 (1,671 LF)
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 7.  Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Site 
DMS Project No. 94687
Planted Acreage 15.0
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage1
% of Planted 
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 ac 0 0.0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem 
count criteria.0.1 ac 0 0.00 0.0%
0.00 0.00 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring 
year.0.25 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.00
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage2
% of Easement 
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern1 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF 3 0.26 0.5%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 1 0.04 0.1%
Monitoring Year 7‐ 2022
Total
Cumulative Total
1. Treated October 2020, November 2020, March 2021, and September 2021. 

Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 7

Vegetation Plot 1 – (9/8/2022) Vegetation Plot 2 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 3 – (9/8/2022) Vegetation Plot 4 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 5 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 6 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 7 – (9/8/2022) Vegetation Plot 8 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 9 – (9/8/2022) Vegetation Plot 10 – (9/8/2022)

Vegetation Plot 11 – (9/8/2022) Vegetation Plot 12 – (9/8/2022)
Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 1 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 2 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 2 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 3 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 3 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 4 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 4 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 5 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 5 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 6 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 6 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 7 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 7 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 8 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 8 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 9 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 9 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 10 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 10 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 11 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 11 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 12 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 12 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 13 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 13 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 14 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 14 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 15 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 15 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 16 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 16 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 17 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 17 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 18 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 18 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 19 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 19 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 20 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 20 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 21 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 21 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 22 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 22 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 23 – UT1 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 23 – UT1 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 24 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 24 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 25 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 25 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 26 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 26 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 27 – Crooked Creek looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 27 – Crooked Creek looking downstream (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 28 – UT2 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 28 – UT2 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 29 – UT2 looking upstream (4/21/2022) Photo Point 29 – UT2 looking downstream (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 30 – UT2 looking downstream to UT2 (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking upstream Crooked Creek  
(9/7/2022) 
Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking downstream Crooked Creek 
(9/7/2022) 
Photo Point 31 – UT2 looking upstream UT2 (9/7/2022) 

Wetland Photographs

Photo Point 30 –Wetland CC outlet facing West (4/21/2022) Photo Point 30 –Wetland CC outlet facing East (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 32 –Wetland AA facing West (4/21/2022) Photo Point 32 – Wetland Zone A facing South (4/21/2022) 
Photo Point 33 – Wetland Zone A & B facing West (4/21/2022) Photo Point 33 ‐ Wetland B facing South (4/21/2022) 

Photo Point 34 –Wetland CC facing Northwest (4/21/2022) Photo Point 34 –Wetland CC facing South (4/21/2022) 

Area of Concern Photographs 
Monitoring Year 7

Repaired Wetland Headcut (11/10/2022) Repaired Wetland Headcut (11/10/2022) 

Honeysuckle area treated with no re‐sprouts (9/07/2022) Balloon Vine (9/07/2022) 

Easement Mowing Resolved MY7 (4/22/2022) Easement Encroachment (12/21/2022) 
APPENDIX 3.  Vegetation Plot Data 
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Plot MY2 Success Criteria Met        
(Y/N)Tract Mean
1Y
100%
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
6Y
7Y
8Y
9Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
DMS Project No. 94687
Report Prepared By Ella Wickliff 
Date Prepared 10/2/2022 14:01
Database Name cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.3.0_Crooked Creek_MY6.mdb
Database Location Q:\ActiveProjects\005‐02156 Crooked Creek Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 7 (2022)\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.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are 
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Project Code 94687
Project Name Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Description Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Required Plots (calculated)12
Sampled Plots 12
Table 9.  CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
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 PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 222 333555
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 111111111555111111333222444444
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Shrub 
Tree 111
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Shrub 
Tree 222 111 222
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood
Shrub 
Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 222111111 555222 111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 111
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 666666111222111444222333 111
Quercus Oak sp.
Shrub 
Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 111 111 111333222
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 333111 111666111
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 111111 111 111333 111
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Salix sericea Silky Willow
Shrub 
Tree
Taxodium distichum Bald‐cypress Tree 222444777444999222 111111222 444
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 111333
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 15 15 15 12 12 12 15 15 15 11 11 11 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 13
555444555555333777555777444777333666
526 526 526 486 486 486 445 445 445 405 405 405 445 445 445 607 607 607 486 486 486 607 607 607 445 445 445 405 405 405 526 526 526 526 526 526
Color for Density
Volunteers included in total 
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
1
Scientific Name Common Name
Species 
Type
VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4 VP5
Stem count
VP8
1111size (ares)1111
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
0.02 0.02 0.02
VP6 VP7
111
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
VP10 VP11 VP12VP9
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Annual Means 
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
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 51 11 23 49 43 18 17
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 15 13 13 14 11 11 11 13 13 13 14 14 14
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 24 27 27 28 26 26 26 12 12 14 14 14 15 18 18 18
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood
Shrub 
Tree 111111222222 2
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry
Shrub 
Tree 5555556666669914 4 1
Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood
Shrub 
Tree 111111222222222222666
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 12 12 12 12 12 14 12 12 13 12 12 12 13 13 16 7 7 7 10 10 13 27 27 27
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 42 55 127 41 25 26 45
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 34 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 29 22 39 6 7 7 4
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 112
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 111111222222223222333777
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 26 26 26 26 26 41 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 888888888666888888777
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 4 4 4
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 8888888889910666666333
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow
Shrub 
Tree 1
Taxodium distichum Bald‐cypress Tree 36 36 36 38 38 40 39 39 45 40 40 41 41 41 41 12 12 12 13 13 13 16 16 16
Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 444551655566106612 5 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 14 7
146 146 146 152 152 305 156 156 294 163 163 377 168 168 307 84 84 207 95 95 172 156 156 229
12 12 12 13 13 17 13 13 17 13 13 17 13 13 18 11 11 18 11 11 17 8 8 15
492 492 492 513 513 1029 526 526 991 550 550 1271 567 567 1035 283 283 698 320 320 580 526 526 772
Color for Density
Volunteers included in total 
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
size (ACRES)
Stem count
size (ares)
MY5 (9/2020)
0.30
12
MY4 (8/2019) MY3 (8/2018)MY6 (9/2021)
12
0.30
Annual Means 
MY7 (9/2022)
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Stems per ACRE
Species count
Scientific Name Common Name
Species 
Type
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
12 12
0.30
12 12 12 12
MY2 (8/2017) MY1 (9/2016) MY0 (2/2016)

APPENDIX 4.  Morphological Summary Data and Plots 

Table 11.  Baseline Stream Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
UT1
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)7.0 8.6 11.7 12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)45 49
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)3.5 4.1 7.3 7.5
Width/Depth Ratio 14.9 18.3 18.9 21.1
Entrenchment Ratio 5.7 6.4
Bank Height Ratio 0.6 0.9
D50 (mm)0.3 35.9
Riffle Length (ft)12 50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0055 0.0597 0.0100 0.0670 0.0045 0.0080 0.0004 0.0193
Pool Length (ft)17.8 65.4
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.76 1.27 0.76 1.27 1.5 2.1 1.1 3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)20 74 20 74 15 28 13 47 42 84 36 99
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)115 543 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)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
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.11 0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr)
Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr)17 40
Q‐Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(‐‐‐):  Data was not provided
N/A:  Not Applicable
N/A1: 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/A2: Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied
*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
0.0066 0.0058 0.009 0.0139 0.0041 0.0036
1.3
0.0071 0.0034 0.004 0.0132 0.0032 0.0034
1,789 ‐‐‐‐‐‐1,718 1,718
1.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1,353 1,353
N/A2
24 N/A2
C4 C4
50 N/A2
30 N/A2 18 ‐‐‐30 16
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
0.24 N/A 0.25 0.50 0.24 0.24
<1%<1%
3.5 4.1 4.7 ‐‐‐3.4 2.2
‐‐‐‐‐‐<1%<1%
N/A1 N/A1 C5/6 E4/C4
‐‐‐‐‐‐0.012
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
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
Pattern
N/A
‐‐‐21
‐‐‐
‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1.3 2.5N/A
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
**
3.1 ‐‐‐
7.8 10.6 8.7
2.2+
1.4 2.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
36.4 15.3 7.3 16.6
28.2 49.3 26.3 2.2+
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Shallow
N/A
17.7 10.9 8.7 12.0
500 539 229 44+200+
0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.6
1.3 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.1
8.6
Pre‐Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design As‐Built/Baseline
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2UT to Lyle Creek Spencer Creek 1 UT1 UT1
Table 12. Morphology and Hydrauloc Summary (Dimensional Parameters‐ Cross‐Section) 
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.9 542.0 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.2 542.2
Low Bank Elevation 541.8 541.9 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.8 541.9 542.0 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.0 542.1 542.1 542.1
Bankfull Width (ft)13.3 12.7 13.6 13.3 10.2 12.1 12.2 11.4 11.7 11.1 11.4 15.6 10.9 11.2 10.7 11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐200+200+ 200+ 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.3 89.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)8.7 8.5 8.3
8.7 8.4 8.3 8.5 8.8
7.3 5.9 6.5 7.9 6.3 6.4 5.9 5.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.4 18.9 22.4 20.4 12.5 17.5 17.6 14.6 18.9 20.8 20.1 30.7 18.8 19.8 19.4 22.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐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 0.9 0.9
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull elevation 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8 539.8 539.8
Low Bank Elevation 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.6 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.7 539.8 539.8 539.8 539.7 539.9 539.8 539.8 539.8
Bankfull Width (ft)12.6 12.3 12.2 15.4 13.6 14.2 12.8 11.5 12.6 11.9 12.0 13.1 13.1 12.3 11.8 12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐200+200+ 200+ 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.2
Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)12.6 11.4 12.3 12.6 13.3 13.9 14.6 11.5
7.5 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.6 7.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.7 13.4 12.1 18.9 13.8 14.6 11.2 11.4 21.1 18.0 18.9 22.7 23.2 21.2 18.3 19.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐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 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 In MY3‐ MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) 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 1, UT1 (Pool)
Cross‐Section 3, UT1 (Pool)
Cross‐Section 2, UT1 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 4, UT1 (Riffle)
Table 13.  Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687  
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)11.7 12.6 11.1 11.9 11.4 12.0 13.0 15.6 10.9 19.5 11.2 12.3 10.7 11.8 11.3 12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)83 89 83 89 83 89
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)7.3 7.5 5.9 7.8 6.5 7.6 7.6 7.9 6.3 7.4 6.4 7.1 5.9 7.6 5.6 7.6
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 18.3 19.4 19.3 22.6
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
D50 (mm)0.3 35.9 SC 65.6 SC 66.2 SC 52.8 SC 46.0 0.3 16.0 SC 46.7 16.0 55.0
Riffle Length (ft) 12 50
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 (ft3)
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
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1 In MY3‐ MY5 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) 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.
MY‐7
2.2+
1.0
2.2+
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
As‐Built/Baseline MY‐1
1.1
2.2+ 2.2+
1.0 1.0
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
C4
1,718
1.3
0.0034
0.004
MY‐6
2.2+
0.6
1.0
2.2+
1.0
0.6
2.2+ 
MY‐4MY‐5
Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle1
200+ 200+
MY‐2MY‐3
200+ 89+89+
0.60.6
1.1
Profile
2.2+
SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
Cross Section  1‐UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
11.4 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft) 
11.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Cross‐Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687 
539
540
541
542
543
20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
107+88 Pool
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY4 (04/2019)
MY5 (03/2020)MY6 (04/2021)MY7 (04/2022)Bankfull
Cross Section  2‐UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
11.3 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft) 
11.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
22.6 width‐depth ratio
89.3 W flood prone area (ft)
7.9 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Cross‐Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687 
540
542
544
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
108+32 Riffle
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)
MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)MY6 (04/2021)MY7 (04/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
11.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
11.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.0 max depth (ft) 
12.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687 
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
View Downstream
Cross Section  3‐UT1
536
538
540
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
114+01 Pool
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY4 (04/2019)
MY5 (03/2020)MY6 (04/2021)MY7 (04/2022)Bankfull
Cross Section  4‐UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
7.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
12.1 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft) 
12.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.3 width‐depth ratio
82.9 W flood prone area (ft)
6.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2022
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687 
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
View Downstream
537
539
541
20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
Width (ft)
114+34 Riffle
MY0 (01/2016)MY1 (08/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)
MY4 (04/2019)MY5 (03/2020)MY6 (04/2021)MY7 (04/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
UT1, Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class 
Percentage
Percent 
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 8 39 47 47 47
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 
DMS Project No. 94687
Particle Class
Diameter (mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 1 48
Fine 0.125 0.250 48
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 8 10 10 58
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 2 2 60
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 60SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 60
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 60
Fine 4.0 5.6 60
Fine 5.6 8.0 60
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1 61
Medium 11.0 16.0 61
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 2 2 63
Coarse 22.6 32 10 10 10 73
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 7 80
Very Coarse 45 64 1 1 1 81GRAVELSmall 64 90 1 1 1 82
Small 90 128 4 4 4 86
Large 128 180 12 12 12 98
Large 180 256 2 2 2 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 = 
D35 = 
D50 = 
D84 = 
D95 = 
D100 = 
Silt/Clay
0.3
107.3
165.3
256.0BOULDERTotal 
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 Cl
a
s
s
 Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Particle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018 MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018
MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1, Reachwide
UT1, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
UT1, Cross‐Section 2
min max
Class 
Percentage
Percent 
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 32 32 32
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 
DMS Project No. 94687
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)Riffle 100‐
Count
Summary
Very fine 0.062 0.125 12 12 44
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 4 48
Medium 0.25 0.50 48
Coarse 0.5 1.0 48
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 48SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 48
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 48
Fine 4.0 5.6 48
Fine 5.6 8.0 48
Medium 8.0 11.0 48
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 50
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 4 54
Coarse 22.6 32 18 18 72
Very Coarse 32 45 4 4 76
Very Coarse 45 64 76GRAVELSmall 64 90 76
Small 90 128 8 8 84
Large 128 180 12 12 96
Large 180 256 4 4 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
100 100 100
D16 = 
D35 = 
D50 = 
D84 = 
D95 = 
D100 = 
0.07
16.0
128.0
175.0
256.0BOULDERTotal 
Cross‐Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 Cl
a
s
s
 Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Particle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018 MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018
MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1, Cross‐Section 2
UT1, Cross‐Section 2
Reachwide and Cross‐Section Pebble Count Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
UT1, Cross‐Section 4
min max
Class 
Percentage
Percent 
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 
DMS Project No. 94687
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)Riffle 100‐
Count
Summary
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0
Fine 0.125 0.250 0
Medium 0.25 0.50 0
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 6 6 8SANDVery Fine 2.0 2.8 8
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 8
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 4 12
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 14
Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 22
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 2 24
Coarse 22.6 32 10 10 34
Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 42
Very Coarse 45 64 14 14 56GRAVELSmall 64 90 22 22 78
Small 90 128 14 14 92
Large 128 180 6 6 98
Large 180 256 2 2 100COBBLESmall 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
100 100 100
D16 = 
D35 = 
D50 = 
D84 = 
D95 = 
D100 = 
33.39
55.0
104.7
151.8
256.0BOULDERTotal 
Cross‐Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
8.90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 Cl
a
s
s
 Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Particle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018 MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
 Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
 (%
)
Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution 
MY0‐01/2016 MY1‐08/2016 MY2‐04/2017 MY3‐04/2018
MY4‐04/2019 MY5‐03/2020 MY6‐03/2021 MY7‐04/2022
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1, Cross‐Section 4
UT1, Cross‐Section 4
APPENDIX 5.  Hydrology Summary Data and Plots 
Table 14.  Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Reach MY of 
Occurrence
Date of Occurrence 
(Approximate)Method Reach MY of Occurrence Date of Occurrence 
(Approximate)Method
MY1 7/11/2016 Stream Gage 7/11/2016
MY2 6/20/2017 Stream Gage 10/8/2016
9/17/2018 MY2 6/20/2017
10/12/2018 MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
10/27/2018 MY4 4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
11/5/2018 3/25/2020 Wrack Line
MY4 4/5/2019 Stream Gage 11/1/2020 Wrack Line 
2/7/2020 MY7
4/21/2022 Wrack Line 
3/25/2020 MY6
4/5/2021 Wrack Line 
4/30/2020 7/11/2016
5/21/2020 10/8/2016
5/28/2020 MY2 6/20/2017 Crest Gage
8/10/2020 MY3 11/5/2018 Wrack Line
8/15/2020 4/5/2019 Bankfull Flow Photo
9/25/2020 Unknown Wrack Line
10/11/2020 MY5 3/25/2020 Bankfull Flow Photo
11/1/2020 MY6 4/5/2021 Wrack Line 
1/1/2021 MY7 4/21/2022 Wrack Line 
1/28/2021
2/15/2021
3/16/2021
3/25/2021
6/20/2021
1/3/2022
1/17/2022
2/4/2022
3/9/2022
4/18/2022
7/20/2022
`
MY3
MY5
MY4
Stream Gage, PhotosMY5
MY6
Crest Gage
Crest GageMY1
MY1
Stream Gage UT2
Crooked Creek
Stream Gage, Photos
MY7
UT1
Stream Gage, Photos
Recorded In‐stream Flow Events
DMS Project No. 94687
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
30 days of consecutive stream flow
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
539
540
540
541
541
542
542
543
543
544
544
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 (f
t
)
DMS Project No. 94687
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull
Crooked Creek: In‐Stream Flow Gage  (UT1)
Gage
MY1 (2016) MY2 (2017) MY3 (2018) MY4 (2019) MY5 (2020) MY6 (2021) MY7 (2022)
1 No/0 Days 
(0%)
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/12 Days 
(5%)
Yes/22 Days 
(9.7%)
No/ 15 Days 
(6.6%)
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
No/ 12 Days 
(5.3%)
2 No/2 Days 
(0.9%)
No/8 Days 
(4%)
No/13 Days 
(6%)
Yes/21 Days 
(9.3%)
Yes/ 25 Days 
(11%)
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
3 No/1 Days 
(0.4%)
No/9 Days 
(4%)
Yes/29 Days 
(13%)
Yes/34 Days 
(15%)
Yes/ 25 Days 
(11%)
Yes/ 18 Days 
(7.9%)
Yes/ 36 Days 
(15.9%)
4 No/0 Days 
(0%)
No/6 Days 
(3%)
No/10 Days 
(4%)
No/16 Days 
(7.1%)
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
No/ 10 Days 
(4.4%)
No/ 6 Days 
(2.6%)
5 No/1 Days 
(0.4%)
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/12 Days 
(5%)
Yes/22 Days 
(9.7%)
Yes/ 25 Days 
(11%)
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
No/ 12 Days 
(5.3%)
6 Yes/26 Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/75 Days 
(33%)
Yes/88 Days 
(39%)
Yes/67 Days 
(29.6%)
Yes/116 Days 
(51.1%)
Yes/ 25 Days 
(11.0%)
Yes/ 44 Days 
(19.4%)
7 Yes/18 Days 
(8%)
Yes/47 Days 
(21%)
Yes/45 Days 
(20%)
Yes/56 Days 
(24.8%)
Yes/ 54 Days 
(23.8%) 
Yes/ 30 Days 
(13.2%)
Yes/ 39 Days 
(17.2%)
8 No/14 Days 
(6.2%)
Yes/31 Days 
(14%)
Yes/45 Days 
(20%)
Yes/35 Days 
(15.5%)
Yes/ 51 Days 
(22.5%) 
Yes/ 26 Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/ 26 Days 
(11.5%)
9 No/1 Days 
(0.4%)
No/7 Days 
(3%)
No/13 Days 
(6%)
Yes/23 Days 
(10.2%)
No/ 16 Days 
(7%) 
No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%)
No/ 12 Days 
(5.3%)
10 No/2 Days 
(0.9%)
No/11 Days 
(5%)
No/10 Days 
(4%)
Yes/23 Days 
(10.2%)
No/ 15 Days 
(6.6%) 
No/ 12 Days 
(5.3%)
No/ 5 Days 
(2.2%)
11*No/ 14 Days 
(6.2%) 
No/ 8 Days 
(3.5%)
No/ 4 Days 
(1.8%)
Growing season 3/23/2022‐ 11/4/2022, success criteria is 17 days. 
* GWG11 installed 3/27/2020
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Table 15.  Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Growing Season 3/23‐ 11/4
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
12 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #1 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
14 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #2 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
36 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #3 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
6 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #4 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
12 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #5 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
44 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #6 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #6
Gage malfunction. 
Re‐programmed 
4/6/2022.
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
39 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #7 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
26 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #8 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
12 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #9 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #9
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
5 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #10 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #10
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
3
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
4
/
2
0
2
2
6 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐70
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #11 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #11
Monthly Rainfall Data
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
1 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971‐2000).  (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21 Jul‐21 Aug‐21 Sep‐21 Oct‐21 Nov‐21 Dec‐21
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Date
Crooked Creek 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2022 Union County, NC
USGS Station 351218080331345 CRN‐29 at Belk Scout Camp 30% Rainfall 70% Rainfall

Bankfull Wrackline and Hydrology Photographs 
Monitoring Year 7

UT2 water in channel – UT2 (4/21/2022) Wrack Lines – UT2 (4/18/2022) 

Wrack Lines – Crooked Creek (4/18/2022) Wrack Lines – UT1 (4/18/2022) 

APPENDIX 6.  Supplemental Wetland Soil Documentation and
USACE Determination Forms 

Representative Wetland Groundwater Gage Photos 

GWG1 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG1 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 
GWG2 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG2 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 
GWG3 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG3 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

GWG4 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG4 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 
GWG5 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG5 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 
GWG6 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG6 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

GWG7 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG7 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 
GWG8 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG8 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

GWG9 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG9 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

GWG10 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG10 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

GWG11 – Surrounding wetland area Spring (4/5/2022) GWG11 – Surrounding wetland area Fall (11/10/2022) 

Wetland Soil Investigation Borings 

GWG1 Soil Boring – F19 Hydric Soils (12/21/2022) GWG2 Soil Boring – F19 Hydric Soils (12/21/2022) 
GWG3 Soil Boring – F3 Hydric Soils (1/3/2023) GWG4 Soil Boring –F19 Hydric Soils (12/21/2022) 
GWG5 Soil Boring – F19 Hydric Soils (12/21/2022) GWG7 Soil Boring – F3 Hydric Soils (1/3/2023) 

GWG8 Soil Boring – F3 Hydric Soils (1/3/2023) GWG9 Soil Boring – F19 Hydric Soils (12/21/2022) 
GWG10 Soil Boring – Not Hydric Soil Indicators (12/21/2022) GWG11 Soil Boring – F19 Hydric Soils (1/3/2023) 

USACE Wetland Determination Forms 
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 1.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG1
12/20/22
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
0-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Standing water in the bore hole at 9 inches below the surface and saturated soils starting at 8 inches.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
9
8
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
UPLYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
No
0
10
20
Multiply by:
60
3.71Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACW
30
OBL
Yes FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
18
820
45
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
Yes
No
25
Platanus occidentalis 5
15
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Unknown grass sp.
5Solidago altissima FACU
Lamium purpureum 60
40
Taxodium distichum
Celtis laevigata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
10
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
60.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG1
3
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
300
390
60
105
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C2.5Y 5/3
2.5Y 4/4
7.5YR 4/63-14
0-3
GWG1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Saturation and water table present in hole at 5 inches below ground surface.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
5
5
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG2
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 2.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG2
4
6
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
200
335
40
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
10
Taxodium distichum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Platanus occidentalis
Betula nigra
30 )
40
Indicator
Status
25
15
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
Yes
No
30
5
Betula nigra
Unknown grass sp.
10Solidago altissima FACU
Lamium purpureum 40
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
80
16
25
40
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
5
40
Multiply by:
90
3.35Prevalence Index = B/A =
45
Yes FACW
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
20 8 5
Yes
Yes
FACW
FACW
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
UPLYes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C20
GWG2SOIL
10-16 10YR 5/3
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
85
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 4/6
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 5/4
10YR 3/3
7.5YR 5/64-10
0-4
Loc2
M
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 3.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG3
1/3/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
0-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Saturation present in hold at 8 inches and water table present at 11 inches below ground surface.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
11
8
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
30
0
0
Multiply by:
200
2.09Prevalence Index = B/A =
100
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
16
2050
40
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5)
80
No10
100
Ranunculus repens
Unknown grass sp. 70
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG3
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
230
0
110
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C2.5Y 5/2
10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/62-8
0-2
GWG3SOIL
8-16 2.5Y 6/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
2.5Y 6/6
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
5M
C25
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
XNo X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 4. F19 soils present but weak hydrology indicators.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG4
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1%<floodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
60
0
0
Multiply by:
150
2.35Prevalence Index = B/A =
75
No FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
18
1743
45
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
90
No
No
10
75
Acer negundo
Ranunculus repens
5Lamium purpureum UPL
Unknown grass sp. 75
85
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG4
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
25
235
5
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C2.5Y 5/3
2.5Y 4/3
7.5YR 5/61-8
0-1
GWG4SOIL
8-13 2.5Y 5/4
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
70
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 6/6
%
Distinct redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C30
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 5.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG5
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1-2floodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Water table and saturation present at the hole beginning at 12 inches below ground surface.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
12
12
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
30
0
120
Multiply by:
30
3.27Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
FAC
Yes FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
30
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
FACUNo
12
410
30
5
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
60
Solidago altissima
Yes
No
25
10
Platanus occidentalis
Rubus argutus
5Ranunculus repens FAC
Unknown gass sp. 25
20
Nyssa sylvatica
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
5
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
60.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG5
3
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
180
0
55
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
75 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
D2.5Y 6/4
2.5Y 5/3 10YR 4/4
2.5Y 5/17-14
0-7
GWG5SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 5/6
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Manganese Knodules (5%)
Texture
Manganese Knodules (5%)
20 PL/M
C10
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 7. Stromg hydrology, vegetation and soil indicators.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG7
1/3/2023
Wildlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
0-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Water table and saturation present at 6 inches below ground surface.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
6
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
60
0
0
Multiply by:
150
2.21Prevalence Index = B/A =
75
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
9
1025
23
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
45
Yes20
50
Ranunculus repens
Juncus effusus 25
50
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG7
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
210
0
95
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
95 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/62-7
0-2
GWG7SOIL
7-14 N 4/
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
85
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 4/4
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M15
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
5M
C15
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG8
1/3/2023
NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
0-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 8.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG8
6
9
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
135
0
50
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
20
Taxodium distichum
Acer negundo
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
5
Ranunculus repens
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
FACU5
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Rubus allegheniensis
5Juncus effusus FACW
Unknown grass sp. 10
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
OBL
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
40
FACYes
8
410
20
Dulichium arundinaceum
Solidago altissima
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
15
15
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
45
10
60
Multiply by:
20
2.70Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
OBL
Yes FACW
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
5M
C20
GWG8SOIL
10-16 10YR 5/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
80
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 4/6
%
Matrix
C10YR 5/2
10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6
10YR 4/43-10
0-3
Loc2
M
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
95 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
XNo
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
No hydrology present at well.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
11
11
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG9
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken at Groundwater Gage 9.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG9
3
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
210
0
60
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
60.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
15
Nyssa sylvatica
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
5
Solidago altissima
No
Yes
No
25
5
Acer negundo
Solidago altissima
10Ranunculus repens FAC
Unknown grass sp. 35
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACU
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
80
FACUNo
16
38
40
Rubus argutus
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
35
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
60
0
140
Multiply by:
10
3.50Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
FAC
Yes FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M25
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
GWG9SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 6/3
2.5Y 4/3
7.5YR 5/64-13
0-4
Loc2
75
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
No X X
No X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
No hydrology indicators.
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG10
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1%<floodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point at Groundwater Gage 10. Located in Crooked Creek floodplain. No hydrology or hydric soil indicators present.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG10
3
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
25
270
5
85
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
60.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
50
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Acer negundo
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
15
10
Yes
No
10
25
Celtis laevigata
Unknown grass sp.
5Lamium purpureum UPL
Solidago altissima 30
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
45
9
1025
23
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
30
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
75
0
120
Multiply by:
50
3.18Prevalence Index = B/A =
25
FACW
Yes FACW
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M15
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C40
GWG10SOIL
7-13 2.5Y 6/4
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
55
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
D
7.5YR 5/8
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 5/4
7.5YR 4/3
15
7.5YR 5/63-7
0-3
Loc2
M
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
M
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2.5Y 6/1
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
XNo
XNo X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point at Groundwater Gage 11. F19 soils present but weak hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Crooked Creek Mitigation Site Union
GWG11
12/20/22
Widlands Engineering NC
No
Section, Township, Range:Ian Eckardt & Ella Wickliff
1-2nonefloodplain
Datum: NAD83LRR P, MLRA 136
N/ANWI classification:
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals: (B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)5
=Total Cover
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
5
No
105
5
20
Multiply by:
80
2.47Prevalence Index = B/A =
OBL
40
FACW
Yes FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
35
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
16
1333
40
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15 )
80
No
No
15
Taxodium distichum 5
30
Acer negundo
Ranunculus repens
5Solidago altissima FACU
Unknown grass so. 60
65
Betula nigra
Platanus occidentalis
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30 )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
20
10
FACW
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
GWG11
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
210
0
85
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C2.5Y 4/3
2.5Y 4/3
7.5YR 4/64-8
0-4
GWG11SOIL
8-15 2.5Y 6/3
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
80
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 4/6
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
C20
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
APPENDIX 7.  Hydrology Data with Adjusted Growing Season
and Soil Temperature Data
Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Monitoring Year 4 ‐ 2019
Wetland Restoration Zone A 
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
(DMS Project No. 94687)
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
 (F
)
Monitoring Year 4 ‐2019
Soil Probe #1 Temperature Criteria Level start end
Crooked Creek Soil Temperature Probe #1
Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
(DMS Project No. 94687)
Wetland Restoration Zone A 
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
 (F
)
Monitoring Year 5 ‐2020
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level
Crooked Creek Soil Temperature Probe
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Monitoring Year 6 ‐ 2021
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
(DMS Project No. 94687)
Wetland Restoration Zone A 
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
 (F
)
Monitoring Year 6 ‐2021
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level
Crooked Creek Soil Temperature Probe
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
Soil Temperature Probe Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
(DMS Project No. 94687)
Wetland Restoration Zone A 
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
 (F
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Soil Probe Temperature Criteria Level
Crooked Creek Soil Temperature Probe
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n

Growing Season Start Bud Burst Documentation 

Bud burst documentation (3/1/2022)‐ photo taken at Deep Meadow Mitigation Site approximately 9 miles away from Crooked Creek 
Mitigation Site 

Gage
MY1 (2016) MY2 (2017) MY3 (2018) MY4 (2019) MY5 (2020) MY6 (2021) MY7 (2022)
1 No/6 Days 
(2.2%)
No/9 Days 
(3.3%)
Yes/34 Days 
(12.6%)
Yes/23 Days 
(8.5%)
Yes/ 33 Days 
(12.2%)
Yes/ 20 Days 
(7.5%)
Yes/ 27 Days 
(10%)
2 No/4 Days 
(1.5%)
No/9 Days 
(3.3%)
Yes/35 Days 
(13.0%)
Yes/23 Days 
(8.5%)
Yes/ 33 Days 
(12.2%)
Yes/ 21 Days 
(7.7%)
Yes/ 28 Days 
(10%)
3 No/10 Days 
(3.7%)
No/13 Days 
(4.8%)
Yes/51 Days 
(18.9%)
Yes/56 Days 
(20.7%)
Yes/ 36 Days 
(13.3%)
Yes/ 41 Days 
(15.1%)
Yes/ 58 Days 
(21.4%)
4 No/2 Days 
(0.7%)
No/6 Days 
(2.2%)
Yes/51 Days 
(18.9%)
No/18 Days 
(6.7%)
No/ 14 Days 
(5.2%)
No/ 17 Days 
(6.3%)
No/ 18 Days 
(6.6%)
5 No/2 Days 
(0.7%)
No/7 Days 
(2.6%)
Yes/32 Days 
(11.9%)
Yes/23 Days 
(8.5%)
Yes/ 34 Days 
(12.5%)
Yes/ 36 Days 
(13.3%)
Yes/ 27 Days 
(10%)
6 Yes/48 Days 
(17.8%)
Yes/75 Days 
(27.8%)
Yes/110 Days 
(40.7%)
Yes/89 Days 
(33.0%)
Yes/139 Days 
(51.3%)
Yes/ 36 Days 
(13.3%)
Yes/ 44 Days 
(16.2%)
7 Yes/40 Days 
(14.8%)
Yes/47 Days 
(17.4%)
Yes/67 Days 
(24.8%)
Yes/78 Days 
(28.9%)
Yes/ 77 Days 
(28.4%) 
Yes/ 52 Days 
(19.2%)
Yes/ 61 Days 
(22.5%)
8 Yes/36 Days 
(13.3%)
Yes/31 Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/67 Days 
(24.8%)
Yes/57 Days 
(21.1%)
Yes/ 74 Days 
(27.3%) 
Yes/ 48 Days 
(17.7%)
Yes/ 48 Days 
(17.7%)
9 No/4 Days 
(1.5%)
No/7 Days 
(2.6%)
Yes/35 Days 
(13.0%)
Yes/31 Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/ 34 Days 
(12.5%) 
No/ 21 Days 
(7.7%)
No/ 27 Days 
(10%)
10 No/2 Days 
(0.7%)
No/11 Days 
(4.1%)
Yes/31 Days 
(11.5%)
Yes/23 Days 
(8.5%)
No/ 15 Days 
(5.5%) 
No/ 18 Days 
(6.6%)
No/ 13 Days 
(4.8%)
11*No/ 14 Days 
(5.2%) 
No/ 8 Days 
(3.0%)
No/ 18 Days 
(6.6%)
Growing season 3/1/2022‐ 11/26/2022, success criteria is 20 days. 
* GWG11 installed 3/27/2020
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Extended Growing Season 3/1‐ 11/26
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
27 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #1 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
28 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #2 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
58 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #3 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
18 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #4 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
27 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #5 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
44 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #6 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #6
Gage malfunction. 
Re‐programmed 
4/6/2022.
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
61 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #7 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
48 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #8 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
27 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #9 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #9
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
13 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #10 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #10
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Wetland Wetland Creation
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project 
DMS Project No. 94687
St
a
r
t
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
3/
1
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
 of
 Gr
o
w
i
n
g
 Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
2
6
/
2
0
2
2
18 max consecutive days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
‐70
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #11 Criteria Level 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Crooked Creek  Groundwater Gage #11
APPENDIX 8.  Crooked Creek II Buffer Closeout Letter

September 15, 2021 Division of Mitigation Services DWR Project # 2012-0064v1 Attn: Melonie Allen Union County (via electronic mail: [e-mail] ) Re: Crooked Creek II Site
DMS ID #94687 –CLOSEOUT ACCEPTANCE LETTER Dear Ms. Allen, On August 30, 2021, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a close-out packet from you on behalf of the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) requesting approval to close-out the subject site for monitoring and maintenance of the riparian areas where riparian buffer credit is generated. On September 15, 2021, Katie Merritt with DWR reviewed site documents with you and determined that a site visit would not be necessary to close out the site. The asset map and asset table, both initialed by Ms. Merritt on September 15, 2021, are attached.
DWR has reviewed the close-out request and the following is approved:
River Basin/Service
Area
Mitigation
Type
Credit
Type
Mitigation
Ratio
*Mitigation
Units/Credit
Distance from
stream
Goose Creek
Watershed
Riparian
Enhancement
Buffer 3:1 8,400.33 ft2 unknown
Goose Creek
Watershed
Riparian
Restoration

Buffer

1:1

45,735 ft2
unknown

TOTAL 54,135.33 ft2 Please feel free to contact Ms. Merritt at [phone] if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Paul Wojoski, Supervisor 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch ATTACHMENTS: Project Components Table, Project Component Map cc: File Copy –Katie Merritt (DWR)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 05F80B3C-761C-4B4F-B121-BC1C325CF312
Project Components and Mitigation/Buffer Credits
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Phosphorous
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer (sqft) Nutrient
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,242.2 N/A 7.900 0.500 N/A N/A 54,135.33 N/A
Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Restoration or Restoration
Approach
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation Credits'
Ratio (SMU/ WMU)
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+00-305+60 470 LF N/A Enhancement)) 470 2.5:1 188.000
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A 0.7 AC Enhancement 0. 7 2:1 0.350
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A N/A Restoration 6. 6 1:1 6.600
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 sgft Enhancement 25,201 sgft 3:1 8,400.33 sgft
Goose Creek Buffer N/A N/A Restoration 45,735 sqft 1:1 45,735 sgft
No credit generated where only one side of stream is buffered per email from Harry Tsomides dated October 15, 2018.
UT1 rediti ng starts at the outer edge of the power) i ne right-of-way along Hwy 218, Crooked Creek assets have been reduced to account for one -side easement sections at upstream and downstream ends
DocuSign Envelope ID: 05F80B3C-761C-4B4F-B121-BC1C325CF312
Project Asset Map
Apwerline Easement
Crooked Creek Reath Break
Non-Project/Not for Credit Streams
Existing Overflow
Oveff" Qx7fSCital
Ditch {former UT1 channel I
Stream Restoration
Stream EnhancemenA it
Wetland Enhancement Zane A RDrar r t!d iy r IL S+r:;
Q Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soil!,l
Wetland Creation Lone B
Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Riparian Buffer Restoration
rctnsCrVdtiun Easen,etnt
6i6
ti
r
4
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
401)
Crooked Creek M2 Restoration Project
W l L O L A N U 5 ,
r
Feet WS Project No. 9d687
f4lpnitraring Year S - 20I0
Union Caunfy, NC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 05F80B3C-761C-4B4F-B121-BC1C325CF312