20201094 Ver 1_Blair Creek_100047_MY2_2023_20240122

Blair Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Year 2 (2023) Monitoring Report FINAL
Clay County, North Carolina Hiwassee River Basin: 06020002
DMS Project ID No. 100047 DMS RFP #16-007278 (Issued: 6/21/17)
DEQ Contract No. 7415 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00449
DWR# 2020-1094
Year 2 Collection Period: September - October 2023

Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652

Submission Date: January 2024
This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28753
Project Contact Information: 828-380-0118, [e-mail] MBAKERINTL.COM

January 17, 2024

Matt Reid, PM
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

Subject:
Response to DMS Comments (January 2, 2024) for DRAFT Monitoring Year 2 Report.
Blair Creek Stream Mitigation Project, Clay County
Hiwassee River Basin: 06020002
DMS Project #100047
DEQ Contract #7415

Dear Mr. Reid,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
dated January 2, 2024 in reference to the Blair Creek Stream Mitigation Project’s DRAFT Monitoring
Year 2 Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to review comments as outlined
below.

· Table of Contents: Please review formatting for appendices and correct as necessary.
RESPONSE: The Table of Contents was reviewed and formatting for appendices was
corrected as requested.

· 1.4 Monitoring Results and Project Performance: Typographical error in first paragraph
last sentence: Stream Problem Areas (SAP1 and SPA2).
RESPONSE: This typographical error has been corrected.

· Mowing encroachments were identified in MY1. Have these encroachments been
resolved?
RESPONSE: These encroachments have been resolved. The encroachments were
identified in December of 2022 at the end of MY1. In February 2023 Baker staff installed
additional boundary markers (T-posts with 10ft PVC with flagging) in these areas to clearly
demarcate the CE line. Since the installation of these markers there has been no issues
with mowing encroachments.

· Report indicates a supplemental planting will occur in the vicinity of vegetation plot 2.
Please include supplemental planting information in the MY3 report regarding this
effort. Include number, area, species, type (bare root, container, etc) and include a

polygon on the CCPV. If species are selected that are not from the approved mitigation
planting list, the IRT will need to be notified in advance.
RESPONSE: Records of the supplemental planting will be kept including the area, species
and number of stems planted. All plants will be chosen from those listed in the approved
mitigation plan. These activities will be reported on in the MY3 Report.

· SPA1 and SPA2 were repaired in July 2023. Please call out the location of these
two repaired areas on the CCPV and update Table 2 to include the repair.
RESPONSE: These repair areas have been called out on the CCPV and added to Table 2 as
requested.

· Invasive treatment occurred in summer 2023. Were any other species targeted other
than cattails? Please update Table 2 to include the invasive treatment.
RESPONSE: No other species were targeted at this time. Other than cattails, the site has a
very low density of invasive species although some scattered rose and privet will be
treated in future monitoring years.

· Text indicates 5 of 11 groundwater wells met or exceeded performance criteria. Table
11 only shows 10 total wells. Please review and revise as necessary.
RESPONSE: BCW 11 had been added to Table 11 as requested.

· Only 5 of 11 wells met success criteria. Does Baker have concerns surrounding site
hydrology and meeting success criteria moving into MY3? DMS recommends installing
additional wells to better define the areas meeting success criteria. Portions of wetlands
not meeting success criteria or trending towards success at the end of MY3 are
considered assets at risk. DMS will work with Baker to determine credits at risk to
prevent overpaying and over releasing credits on the site if this occurs.
RESPONSE: Baker does have concerns surrounding site hydrology and meeting success
criteria, particularly between BCW 6 and 8 on the right floodplain of R1 and on the left
floodplain of R2 between BCW 8 and 9. These data will be reported on during MY3.

· Recommend clarifying that the one flow gauge that met success criteria is the only
required flow gauge installed at the project site on UT1.
RESPONSE: This has been clarified in section 1.4 Monitoring Results and Project
Performance as requested.

· Two easement encroachments on Reach 1 are discussed and shown on the CCPV. Have
the encroachments been resolved? Please include additional information regarding the
resolution.
RESPONSE: The encroachments have not yet been resolved; however, no lasting impact
to the project is apparent. No equipment has since been used inside the easement and

the boundary is clearly marked. Currently the corrugated black plastic drainpipe still
protrudes approximately 2 feet past the easement boundary, draining into a drain
swale. This pipe is underwater and feeds a pool at the head of the swale. Baker has
been reluctant to cut this pipe back to the easement boundary due to the prospect of
litigation involving the property owner’s concern about potential hydrologic trespass.
Until this issue is resolved Baker would opt not to alter any existing drainage features
that might further aggravate the situation.

· Recommend revising ground water gauge labels on CCPV to be consistent with Table 11
and Figure 5. CCPV shows gauges as GW1 as opposed to BCW1 for Figure 5 and Table 11.
RESPONSE: The ground water gauge labels have been changed on the CCPV to be
consistent.

· Table 5 indicates one structure is piping and bank erosion is present on Reach 1. This is
not discussed in the report or shown on the CCPV. Please review and revise as
necessary.
RESPONSE: This was an error in Table 5 leftover from the Stream Problem Areas (SPAs)
reported during MY1. Table 5 has been reviewed and revised as requested.

· Table 5 shows 25’ of active scour/erosion on Reach 2. This is not discussed in the report
or shown on the CCPV. Please review and revise as necessary.
RESPONSE: Please see the above comment.

· 2023 IRT Credit Release Comments:
o The IRT requested that the drainage pipes be discussed MY2 report and include
photos. Please update the text with additional information and include photos.
RESPONSE: The pipes are discussed in Section 1.4 Monitoring Results and Project
Performance. A photo has been added to Monitoring Gauges and Additional
Photographs in Appendix B depicting the current condition of the field drains;
however, the pipe and swale are barely visible in the photo due to thick
vegetation.

o There was discussion regarding how rain gauge data was collected for the site. Baker
indicated that offsite gauge data was preferred due to onsite gauge malfunctions.
Please include additional information regarding the NC Climate Office Weather Climate
Database Legacy System that was used this year for observed project rainfall.
RESPONSE: A discussion of the NC Climate Office Weather Climate Database Legacy
System, Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimates (MPE) has been included in Section 1.5
Technical and Methodological Descriptions and a citation to support the efficacy of this
system has been included in Section 1.6 References (Wooten 2014).

o IRT had concerns with changes noted in XS11, 12, 13 and 14. Recommend adding

additional discussion regarding changes since asbuilt and stream stability.
RESPONSE: A brief discussion of stream stability has been added to Section 1.4
Monitoring Results and Project Performance.

Digital Deliverable Comments
· No comments. Please include updated digital deliverables based on any changes to
final submittal.
RESPONSE: All updated digital deliverables have been submitted as requested.

As requested, Michael Baker has provided an electronic response letter addressing the DMS
comments received and two (2) hardcopies of the FINAL report, and the updated e-submission
digital files will be sent via secure ftp link. A full final electronic copy with electronic support files
have been included on a USB drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me
([e-mail] 828-412-6101) should you have any questions regarding our
response submittal.

Sincerely,

Jason York
Environmental Scientist

Enclosure: Final MY4 Report Russell Gap Mitigation Project

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................. 3
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 4
MONITORING RESULTS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................. 4
TECHNICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 5
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Asset Map
Table 1 Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Station Photo-Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Gauges and Additional Photographs

Appendix

C

Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species

Appendix

D

Stream Geomorphology Data
Figure 4 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlay
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Data
Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 5 Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Table 11 Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Figure 6 Crest and Flow Gauge Graphs
Table 12 All Years Flow Gauge Success
Figure 7 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic
Averages
Appendix F Correspondence
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Description
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 4,293 linear feet of existing
stream along both the North and South Forks of Blair Creek and below the confluence on Blair Creek itself
and enhanced 177 linear feet of an unnamed tributary (UT) to the South Fork. Additionally, the project has
restored-by-reestablishment, restored-by-rehabilitation, or enhanced approximately 6.095 total acres of
riparian wetlands. The project is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Region, within the Broad Basins
Level IV ecoregion. The project watershed drains into the Hiwassee River approximately 1.4 miles
downstream, ultimately emptying into the Tennessee River. Blair Creek and its tributaries are classified by
NCDWR as Class “WS-IV” waters (NCDWR, 2016).
The Blair Creek Mitigation Project (project) is located on five abutting parcels of an active farm in Clay
County, North Carolina, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Town of Hayesville as shown on the Project
Vicinity Map (Figure 1). Historic agricultural use on the project site has predominantly been for a dairy
operation and is currently utilized for row crop and hay production. These activities have negatively
impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project streams. The resulting observed
stressors include streambank erosion, sedimentation, excess nutrient input, channel modification, channel
incision, wetland drainage, and the loss of riparian buffers.
The project is being conducted as part of the NCDMS Full Delivery In-Lieu Fee Program and is anticipated
to generate a total of 4,363.37 cold water stream mitigation credits and 5.772 wetland mitigation credits
and will be protected by a 10.02-acre permanent conservation easement (Appendix B).

Goals and Objectives
The goals of this project are identified below:
· Establishment of geomorphically stable conditions along all project reaches,
· Improvement of water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
· Restoration of natural stream and floodplain interactions,
· Restoration and enhancement of riparian wetland functions,
· Restoration and protection of riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat,
· Improvement of in-stream aquatic habitat, and
· Establishment of a permanent conservation easement on the entire project.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
· To restore appropriate bankfull dimensions, remove spoil berms, and/or raise channel beds, by
utilizing either a Priority I Restoration approach or an Enhancement Level I approach.
· To construct streams of appropriate dimensions, pattern, and profile in restored reaches, slope
stream banks and provide bankfull benches on enhanced streams and utilize bio-engineering to
provide long-term stability.
· Construct the correct channel morphology along all stream channels, increasing the number and
depth of pools utilizing structures including geo-lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs, root wads,
and/or J-hooks.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

· Raise ground water tables within the buffer through the implementation of Priority I restoration.
Wetland vegetation will also be planted.
· Establish riparian buffers at a 30-foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
· Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.

Project Success Criteria
The success criteria and performance standards for the project will follow the NCDMS’s templates As-
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (NCDMS 2020a),
and the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (NCDMS 2020b),
and as described in Section 7 of the approved Mitigation Plan. All specific monitoring activities will
follow those outlined in detail in Section 8 of the approved Mitigation Plan and will be conducted for a
period of 7 years unless otherwise directed by the IRT.

Monitoring Results and Project Performance
The Year 2 monitoring survey data of the fifteen permanent cross-sections indicates that the stream transects
are geomorphically stable and in-stream structures are performing as designed. Minor fluctuations to
vertical and lateral constraints are expected as the channel evolves; however, all reaches are stable and
performing as designed. XS-14 may have experienced some hydraulic changes due to the scour created
from Stream Problem Area 1, although this scour has since been repaired and XS-14 will be monitored
closely during MY3 for stability. Stream Problem Areas (SPA1 and SPA2) were repaired in July 2023 and
are functioning as intended.
During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well overall.
Rainfall was near average during the first four months of MY2. Rainfall was well below average in May
and well above average in August, with the planted stems enduring drought conditions during September
and October of MY2 (2023) (Figure 7). The average density of total planted stems, based on data collected
from the 6 permanent and 2 random monitoring plots for the Year 2 monitoring conducted in October 2023
was 480.75 stems per acre (Table 7). Thus, the Year 2 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is on track
to meet the interim minimum success criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year 3. One vegetation
problem area (VPA) was identified as exceeding the reportable mapping threshold of 0.1 acres. This area
includes Vegetation Plot 2 and the area surrounding this monitoring plot. This area can be seen in the
Vegetation Plot Photographs for Plot 2. Vegetation Plot 2 failed to meet success criteria due to a dense
infestation of cattails in the wetland area outside of the easement which continues to compete with planted
vegetation. Cattails within the easement in this area were cut back and sprayed with herbicide during the
summer of MY2. This area will be replanted with species from the approved planting list before the
growing season begins in MY3.
During Year 2 monitoring, two separate post-construction bankfull events were observed (Table 10). The
events occurred on 6/25/23 and 8/15/2023 as high flows are documented by automated Crest Gauge 3 on
R2 (Table 10). Automated Crest Gauges 1 and 2 did not record a bankfull event. The automated loggers in
Crest Gauges 1 and 2 were faulty and were replaced with new loggers on September 20, 2023.
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project (Figure 7) demonstrates, the past 12 months have
varied dramatically from month to month as compared to historic average precipitation. A total of 50.33
inches of rainfall was observed in the project area, while the region averages 58.07 inches of annual rainfall,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

a deficit of 7.74 inches. All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office
Weather Climate Database Legacy System.
During Year 2 monitoring, five of the eleven automated groundwater monitoring wells met or exceeded the
minimum hydroperiod performance criteria approved in the Mitigation Plan of 12% of the 211-day growing
season (24 or more consecutive days). It should be noted that Clay County is experiencing an “Extreme
Drought,” with October being the driest October on record over the past 129 years and January – October
2023 being the 48th driest year over the past 129 years (NOAA 2023). The sole automated flow gauge on
site, located on UT1, met or exceeded the minimum 30-day performance criteria during MY2 (Table 12).
The easement boundary has been walked and signage is posted up to specifications. Two encroachment
areas were identified where the property owner used a piece of equipment to dredge a drain swale that is a
designed feature of the project. In late December of 2022, two field drains were installed outside of the
conservation easement (CE) that drain into the easement. A few feet of corrugated black plastic drainpipe
extend past the CE boundary. This pipe drains a field adjacent to the left floodplain of Upper Reach 1 and
empties underwater into a pool and the head of a drain swale. These locations are shown on the CCPV in
Appendix B. A letter was sent to the property owners in April 2023 informing them of the encroachment.
A copy of the Deed of Conservation Easement and Right of Access was also included with this letter. This
correspondence is included in Appendix F. No long-term impacts to the site occurred as a result of these
encroachments; however, this incident resulted in the landowner expressing concern over potential
hydrologic trespass which Michael Baker is currently working to resolve.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background
and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the previous Monitoring Reports
and in the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 2 monitoring activities for the post-
construction monitoring period.
Technical and Methodological Descriptions
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
a Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As-built Survey. The survey data from the permanent
project cross-sections were collected and classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System to
confirm design stream type (Rosgen 1994).
The six vegetation-monitoring quadrants (plots) were installed across the site in accordance with the
CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and the data collected from each
was input into the DMS Veg Table Production Tool (2021).
Ten automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the floodplain following USACE
protocols (USACE 2005). The gauges themselves, both flow and groundwater gauges, are all Van Essen
brand Baro-Diver data loggers.
All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office Weather Climate
Database Legacy System, Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimates (MPE). This system combines radar-based
precipitation estimates with regional surface gauges to develop an accurate estimate of precipitation based
on specific site coordinates. A study by the State Climate Office of North Carolina suggests that MPE
compares well with an independent daily precipitation gage network over the Carolinas (Wooten 2014).
We find this method more reliable than traditional on-site rain gauges as we have historically had
insufficient data due to gauge malfunction. These gauges are prone to malfunction due to infestation by
insects such as ants and wasps and are also subject to battery failure, resulting in a loss of data.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
References
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Protocol
for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007), DMS Veg Table Production Tool (2021)
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2020a. Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance October 2020. NC Department of Environmental Quality.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2020b. Guidance document “Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update”. October 2020
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. “Technical Standard for Water-Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites,” WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-
WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
NOAA. National Integrated Drought Information System (2023, November 20). Clay County Conditions
| Drought.gov
Wooten, Adrienne & Boyles, Ryan P. “The Comparison of NCEP Precipitation Estimates with
Independent Gauge Data over the Eastern United States.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, Vol. 53, Issue 12. December 2014 pp. 2848-2862. Comparison of NCEP Multisensor
Precipitation Estimates with Independent Gauge Data over the Eastern United States in: Journal of
Applied Meteorology and Climatology Volume 53 Issue 12 (2014) (ametsoc.org)

APPENDIX A

Background Tables and Figures

^_
Hayesville
06020002060010
£¤64
69
175
Clay County ^_
£¤19
£¤64
141
175
69
Figure 1Project Vicinity MapBlair Creek Mitigation Project
±
Note: Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed 06020002060010
SiteLocation
Site Location
0 1 20.5 Miles
Clay County
North Carolina
Georgia
Chatuge Lake
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047, YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Reach R1
Reach R3
Reach UT1
Reach R2
Conservation Easement
Stream Centerlines by Approach
Restoration
Enhancement Level II
W1: Wetland Restoration: Re-establishment (1:1)
W2: Wetland Restoration: Rehabilitation (1.5:1)
W3: Wetland Enhancement (2:1)
Aerial Photograph Source: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
C h e r r y R o a d
0 250 500125Feet
Figure 2: ProjectAsset and Credit MapBlair Creek Mitigation ProjectClay County, NC
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
DMS Proj. No. 100047
Stream Mitigation FeaturesReachApproachLe ngth (f t)Ratio (X:1)Credi tsR1R2,699.76 1 2699.76R2R1,473.91 1 1473.91R3R118.94 1 118.94UT1EII176.90 2.5 70.76Total Footage f or Cre dit 4,469.51Restoration4,292.61 4,292.61Enhancement II 176.90 70.76Total Credits 4,363.37
Wetland Mitigation Fe aturesApproachArea (ac)Ratio (X:1)Credi ts
Restorati on by Reestabl ishment (W1)5.218 1.000 5.218
Restorati on by Rehabi li tati on (W2)0.693 1.500 0.462
Enhanceme nt (W3)0.184 2.000 0.092
Total Credits 5.772
Table 1.0 Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
Existing Mitigation
Project Wetland Footage As-Built Plan Approach Mitigation
Component Position and or Restored Designed Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan
(reach ID, etc.) HydroType Acreage Stationing
Footage1 Footage Level Level Ratio (X:1)
Credits 2
Reach 1 2,399
10+00 - 2501.60, 2531.66 -
3771.92 2,699.76 2,741.86 R P1 1.0 2,699.760
Reach 2 1,468
09+99.88 - 13+72.39, 14+20.16 -
2555.18 1,473.91 1,507.53 R P1 1.0 1,473.910
Reach 3 185 25+55.18 - 26+88.82 118.94 133.64 R P1 1.0 118.940
Reach UT1 195 10+14.97 - 11+88.00 176.9 173.03 EII - 2.5 70.760
Wetland 1 5.218 5.218 5.217 R Re-establishment 1.0 5.218
Wetland 2 0.693 0.693 0.691 R Rehabilitation 1.5 0.462
Wetland 3 0.184 0.184 0.179 E Enhancement 2.0 0.092
1 All stream stationing and restored footage numbers reported here and shown in the as-built plan sheets use thalweg survey values and have had easement breaks removed.
2 Credits reported here are derived from the design lengths as taken from the approved mitigation plan Table 11.1
Table 1.1 Table 1.2
As-Built Centerline Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,383 4,363.370
Enhancement I RP Wetland 5.772
Enhancement II 173 NR Wetland
Re-establishment 5.217
Rehabilitation 0.691
Wetland Enhancement 0.179
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Overall
Credits
Buffer
Restoration Level
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Asset Category
Stream (cool)
Stream (linear feet)Non-riparian Wetland
(acres)Credited Buffer (ft2)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Grading Completed in December 2021
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:2 years
All Planting Completed in February 2022
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:23 months
Number of Reporting Years1:2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Institution date N/A Jan-22
404 permit date N/A Jan-21
Mitigation Plan N/A May-21
Final Design – Construction Plans N/A Dec-21
Construction Grading Completed 1/1/2022 Jan-22
As-Built Survey Jan-22 Jan-22
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed Feb-22 Feb-22
As-Built Stream Survey Feb-22 Feb-22
As-Built Vegetation Monitoring Mar-22 Apr-22
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MY0) Mar-22 May-22
Year 1 Stream Survey Oct-22 N/A
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring Oct-22 N/A
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-22 Dec-22
Year 2 Stream Survey Sep-23 N/A
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Oct-23 N/A
Year 2 Monitoring Oct-23 Dec-23
Repair of Stream Problem Areas (SPA) N/A Jul-23
Invasive Plant Treatment N/A Jul-23
Year 4 Monitoring (anticipated) Oct-25 Dec-25
Year 5 Monitoring (anticipated) Oct-26 Dec-26
Year 6 Monitoring (anticipoated) Oct-27 Dec-27
Year 7 Monitoring (anticipated) Oct-28 Dec-28
1 = The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Designer 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Survey Contractor 88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Kee Mapping and Surveying Contact:
Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
215 Moonridge Road
Ripple EcoSolutions Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Contact: George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
5204 Highgreen Court,
Green Resources Colfax, NC 27235
Telephone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers 825 Maude Etter Road, McMinnville, TN 37110
Dykes and Son Nursery Telephone: [phone]
Native Forest Nursery 11306 US-441, Chatswort, GA 30705
Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 6020002
Stream Temperature Regime cool
Reach 1
(North Fork)
Reach 2
(South Fork)
Reach 3
(Blair Creek)UT1
2,399 1468 185 195
Unconfined Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
983 880 1864 22
Perennial Perennial Perennial Intermittent
WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV N/A
B-E4/C4 E4/C4 F4/C4 B/B
IV – Degradation
and Widening III – Degradation IV – Aggradation
and Widening III – Degrading
Zone X Zone X Zone AE Zone X
Applicable? Resolved?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No N/A
No N/A
No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A
Endangered Species Act Categorical Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act Categorical Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CAMA) N/A
Parameters Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 PCN
Water of the United States - Section 401 PCN
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing / proposed)
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
FEMA classification
Regulatory Considerations
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Project Drainage Area (acres) 1,862 arcres / 2.94 square miles (at confluence in Blair Creek)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area 1.7% impervious area
USGS National Land Cover Database
(NLCD) for 2011
12.6% developed (predominantly rural residential), 55.7% forested, 29.8%
cultivated crops and pasture/hay, 1.2% shrub/scrub, and 0.7% herbaceous.
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Existing length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
River Basin Hiawassee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 06020002-060010
DWR Sub-basin 04-05-01
Physiographic Province Level III Blue Ridge, Level IV; Broad Basins
Table 4. Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
Blair Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100047
Project Information
Project Name Blair Creek Stream Mitigation Project
County Clay
Project Area (acres) 10.02
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.) 35.026069 N, -83.831862 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX B

Visual Assessment Data

#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0#0#0#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0#0#0#0 #0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
!>
!>
!>
!>"/
!>
"/
!>
!>!.
!>
!>
"/
!>
Fig. 3A
Fig. 3B
±
0 250 500125Feet
Overview Map: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)Blair Creek Mitigation ProjectClay County, NCDMS Proj. No. 100047
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
"/
!>
!>
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
^`
^`
Reach R1
VP1: 648stems/ac
RVP5-MY2:486 stems/ac
VP2: 243stems/ac
VP3: 445stems/ac
VP4: 445stems/ac
MY2 VPA
BCW-11
BCW-2
CG-1
BCW-3
BCW-6
BCW-5
BCW-4
BCW-1
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-16
PP-42
PP-43
PP-44
PP-45
PP-46
XS-2
XS-6
XS-4
XS-1
XS-5
XS-3
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
^`MY2 Encroachment Areas
#0 PhotoPoints
MY2 VPA
MY2 Random Veg Plots
Conservation Easement
Cross-Sections
Monitoring Gauges
"/Crest Gauge -1
!>Groundwater Well FAIL
!>Groundwater Well PASS
Vegetation Plots
FAIL
PASS
Streams by Mitigation Type
Restoration
No Credit
Wetlands: Reestablishment (5.21 ac)
Wetlands: Rehabilitation (0.69 ac)
Wetlands: Enhancement (0.18 ac)
±
Aerial Photo: NC OneMap (2015)
0 250 500125Feet Figure 3A. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)Blair Creek Mitigation ProjectClay County, NCDMS Proj. No. 100047
"
#0
!>
!>"/
!>"/
!>
#0
#0#0#0#0#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0#0#0
#0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0^`^`
Reach R3
Reach UT1
Reach R2
VP4: 445stems/ac
VP6: 567stems/ac VP5: 526stems/ac
Reach R1
C h e r r y R o a dRVP6-MY2:486 stems/ac
SPA 1 Rep aired
SPA 2 Rep aired
BCW-7
CG-2BCW-8
CG-3
BCW-9
FL-1
BCW-10
PP-15
PP-16
PP-17
PP-19
PP-20
PP-21
PP-22
PP-23
PP-25
PP-26 PP-27
PP-29
PP-30 PP-31
PP-32 PP-33
PP-34
PP-35
PP-36
PP-38 PP-39
PP-41
PP-47
PP-18
PP-24
PP-28
PP-37
PP-40
XS-7
XS-8
XS-6
XS-11
XS-10
XS-15
XS-13
XS-12
XS-14
XS-9
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community
MY2 Random Veg Plots
Conservation Easement
#0 PhotoPoints
Cross-Sections
Monitoring Gauges
#0 Flow Gauge
"/Crest Gauge -2
"/Crest Gauge -3
!>Groundwater Well FAIL
Vegetation Plots
PASS
Wetlands: Reestablishment (5.21 ac)
Wetlands: Rehabilitation (0.69 ac)
Wetlands: Enhancement (0.18 ac)
±
Aerial Photo: NC O neMap (2015)
0 250 500125Feet Figure 3B. Cur rent Condition Plan View (CCPV)Blair Cree k Mitigation ProjectClay County, NCDMS Proj. No. 100047
Assessed Length (LF): 2,741.86
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100.0%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 36 36
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5)36 36 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)
27 27
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)27 27 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)27 27 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 31 31 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 31 31 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 31 31 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 14 14 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 1,507.53
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 24 24
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5)26 26 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)26 26
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)26 26 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)26 26 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 21 21 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 21 21 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 21 21 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 7 7 100%
2. Bank
Totals
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Blair Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100047
Reach ID: Reach 2
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Blair Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100047 - All Reaches Assessed in October 2023
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach 1
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Assessed Length (LF): 133.64
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5)3 3 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)3 3
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)3 3 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)3 3 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 1 1 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 173.03
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per As-
built
Number of Unstable
Segments
Amount of Unstable
Footage
% Stable, Performing
as Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 7 7
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) Plunge Pools 7 7 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)7 7
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)N/A N/A 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 7 7 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 7 7 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 7 7 100%
2. Bank
Totals
Blair Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100047
Reach ID: Reach UT1
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Blair Creek Mitigation Project – NCDMS Project No. 100047 - All Reaches Assessed in October 2023
Reach ID: Reach 3
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping
Threshold (acres)CCPV Depiction Number of
Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas * Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
stem count criteria.0.1 acres N/A 1 0.08 1.5%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping
Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Points Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 ft² Green Hatching 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 577 ft² Yellow Polygon 2 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage: 8.3
Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047 - Vegetation Assessed in November 2022
Planted Acreage: 8.3
Total
Cumulative Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-1: R1 Upstream, Station 10+75-
Begin R1
PP-2: R1, Upstream, Station 12+25

PP-3: R1, Upstream, Station 13+50 PP-4: R1, Upstream, Station 15+50

PP-5: R1, Upstream, Station 16+00 PP-6: R1, Upstream, Station 17+00

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-7: R1 Upstream, Station 17+40 PP-8: R1, Upstream, Station 19+50

PP-9: R1, Upstream, Station 20+20 PP-10: R1, Upstream, Station
21+75

PP-11: R1, Upstream Station
23+75
PP-12: R1, Upstream, Station
24+60

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-13: R1, Downstream, Station
24+25- Culvert
PP-14: R1, Upstream, Station
25+60- Culvert

PP-15: R1, Upstream, Station
28+00
PP-16: R1, Upstream, Station
28+60

PP-17: R1, Upstream, Station
31+75

PP-18: R1, Upstream, Station
32+25

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-19: R1, Upstream, Station
32+75
PP-20: R1, Upstream, Station 33+75

PP-21: R1, Upstream, Station
34+65
PP-22: R1, Upstream, Station 36+75

PP-23: R1, Upstream, Station
37+00 – End R1
PP-24: UT1, Upstream, Station
10+60

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-25: UT1, Upstream, Station
11+85- Confluence with R2
PP-26: R2, Upstream, Station
10+50- Begin R2

PP-27: R2, Upstream, Station
11+60
PP-28: R2, Upstream, Station
13+51

PP-29: R2, Upstream, Station
12+25
PP-30: R2, Upstream, Station
16+50

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-31: R2, Upstream, Station
17+40
PP-32: R2, Upstream, Station 18+40

PP-33: R2, Upstream, Station
19+15
PP-34: R2, Upstream at Station
20+80

PP-35: R2, Upstream, Station
21+75
PP-36: R2, Upstream, Station 22+30

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-37: R2, Upstream, Station
23+50
PP-38: R2, Upstream, Station
24+60

PP-39: R2, Upstream, Station
25+20- Confluence with R1
PP-40: R3, Upstream, Station
25+50- Begin R3

PP-41: R3, view upstream at
Station 10+80- End R3
PP-42: R1, Swale on Right
Floodplain, Station 16+25

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

PP-43: R1, Swale on Left
Floodplain, Station 17+00
PP-44: R1, Swale on Left
Floodplain, Station 20+70

PP-45: R1, Swale on Left
Floodplain, Station 24+00
PP-46: R1, Overflow Channel on
Left Floodplain, Station 26+75

PP-47: R1, Swale on Right
Floodplain, Station 36+40
SPA1 (MY1) Before Repair. Photo
Taken November 11, 2022 (MY2)

Blair Creek: Stream Station Photo-Points
NCDMS Project No. #100047 – MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

SPA1 (MY1) After Repair. Photo
Taken September 19, 2023 (MY2)
SPA2(MY1) After Repair. Photo
Taken September 19, 2023 (MY2)

Blair Creek: Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100047

Vegetation Plot #1: Photo taken
October 30, 2023
Vegetation Plot #2: Photo taken
October 30, 2023

Vegetation Plot #3: Photo taken
October 30, 2023
Vegetation Plot #4: Photo taken
October 30, 2023

Vegetation Plot #5: Photo taken
October 30, 2023

Vegetation Plot #6: Photo taken
October 30, 2023

Blair Creek: Vegetation Plot Photographs
NCDMS Project No. 100047

MY2 Random Vegetation Plot #5:
Photo taken October 30, 2023
MY2 Random Vegetation Plot #6:
Photo taken October 30, 2023

Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs. MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

Monitoring Well 1 Monitoring Well 2

Monitoring Well 3 Monitoring Well 4

Monitoring Well 5 Monitoring Well 6

Monitoring Gauges and Additional Photographs. MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

BCW 1 BCW 2

BCW 3 BCW 4

BCW 5 BCW 6

Monitoring Gauges and Additional Photographs. MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

BCW 7 BCW 8

BCW 9 BCW 10

BCW 11 Crest Gauge 1. Reach 1

Monitoring Gauges and Additional Photographs. MY 2 Photos taken October 30, 2023.

Crest Gauge 2. Confluence Reach 1&2 Crest Gauge 3

Flow Gauge 1. UT1 Encroachment Area into existing drain swale. R1 Left
floodplain.

APPENDIX C

Vegetation Plot Data

8.3
2022-02-10
NA
2023-10-30
2023-10-30
0.0247
Veg Plot 5 R Veg Plot 6 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 2 1 1
Acer saccharinum silver maple Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 4 4 1
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 2 1 1 2 3
Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch Tree FAC 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree FAC 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 4 1 7
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 4 2
Ilex verticillata common winterberry Tree FACW 1 1 1 1 2 2
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus imbricaria shingle oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1 1
Sum Performance Standard 16 16 6 6 10 11 9 11 11 13 11 14 12 13
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree FACU 1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 1 1
Sum Proposed Standard 17 17 6 6 13 14 10 12 11 13 11 14 12 13
16 6 11 11 13 14 12 13
648 243 445 445 526 567 486 486
9 6 6 6 7 7 6 6
18 17 29 25 31 29 31 54
2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 6 14 12 13 14 12 13
688 243 567 486 526 567 486 486
10 6 7 7 7 7 6 6
18 17 29 25 31 29 31 54
2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
648 9 0 243 6 0 445 6 0
162 3 0 40 1 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
445 6 0 526 7 0 567 7 0
40 1 0
40 1 0 40 1 0
Stems/Ac.Av. Ht.
(ft)# Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
486 6 0 486 6 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.
Monitoring Year 0
Table 7. Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot Group 1 R
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have
been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Post Mitigation
Plan Species
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100047
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX D

Stream Geomorphology Data

FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 15.9 12.8 1.2 1.7 10.3 -- -- 1848.21 1848.2
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Permanent Cross-section 1
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1 , Cross-Section 1
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E 18.5 16 1.2 2.2 13.9 1.0 3.7 1848.06 1848.2
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
(Year 2 Data - Collected September 2023)
Permanent Cross-section 2
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair CreekMitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 2
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1848.20
Thalweg = 1846.03
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 34.6 12.2 2.8 4.4 4.3 -- -- 1847.87 1847.9
Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 3
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 15 15.8 0.9 1.4 16.7 1.0 4.3 1846.31 1846.5
Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 4
As-built
BKF
Floodprone
MY 1
MY2 DMS BKF
MY2
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1846.49
Thalweg = 1844.86
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 18.4 16.3 1.1 2 14.5 1.0 3.7 1845.28 1845.5
Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 2 Data -September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 5
As-built
BKF
Floodprone
MY1
MY2 DMS BKF
MY2
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1845.49
Thalweg = 1843.23
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 34.6 17.4 2 3.4 8.7 -- -- 1842.09 1842.1
Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 6
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 18.2 16.7 1.1 1.9 15.3 1.0 4.2 1839.27 1839.4
Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 7
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1839.47
Thalweg = 1837.33
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 45.9 15.7 2.9 5.3 5.4 -- -- 1837.5 1837.5
Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross-Section 8
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 6.1 6 2.12 6 -- -- 1845.99 1846.0
Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
UT1, Cross-Section 9
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 35.2 15.7 2.2 3.6 7 -- -- 1843.54 1843.5
Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 10
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 13.7 16.1 0.9 1.5 18.9 1.0 1.5 1841.94 1842.2
Permanent Cross-section 11
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 11
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS
BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1842.19
Thalweg = 1840.4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 25.5 18 1.4 3.04 12.7 -- -- 1839.98 1840.0
Permanent Cross-section 12
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 12
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
Floodprone
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 21.08 20.8 1 2.03 20.4 1.0 3.5 1838.84 1838.9
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Permanent Cross-section 13
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 13
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1838.8425
Thalweg = 1836.89
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 25.9 20.5 1.3 2.8 16.3 1.10 4.6 1837.6 1837.5
Permanent Cross-section 14
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross-Section 14
As-built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1837.19
Thalweg = 1834.82
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
FIGURE 4. MY2 CROSS SECTIONS WITH ANNUAL OVERLAY
Feature
Stream
Type BKF Area BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B 35.3 21.4 1.7 2.6 12.9 1 3.1 1834.8 1834.8
Permanent Cross-section 15
(Year 2 Data - September 2023)
Looking at the Left Bank Looking at the Right Bank
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY2 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as-built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as-built bankfull elevation.
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Station (ft)
Blair Creek Mitigation Site
Reach 3, Cross-Section 15
As-Built
MY1
MY2
BKF
MY2 DMS BKF
Floodprone
DMS MY2 BKF Elevation = 1834.69
Thalweg = 1832.5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width (ft)-----8.57 - 8.59 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 16.5 - 17.0 ----- 16.48 16.60 17.22
Floodprone Width (ft)-----12.9 - 34.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 60.00 ----- 66.46 67.31 76.70
BF Mean Depth (ft)-----1.43 - 1.48 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.1-1.2 ----- 1.09 1.24 1.32
BF Max Depth (ft)-----2.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.4 - 1.8 ----- 1.55 1.84 2.11
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----12.3 - 12.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 18.2 - 20.4 ----- 17.91 20.58 21.91
Width/Depth Ratio -----6.01 - 5.79 ----- 10.00 12.50 15.00 ----- 14.2 - 15 ----- 11.95 12.58 15.10
Entrenchment Ratio -----1.5 - 4.05 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.5-3.6 ----- 3.93 4.04 4.46
Bank Height Ratio -----2.7 - 1.8 ----- 1.00 1.05 1.10 ----- 1.00 ----- 1.00 1.00 1.00
d50 (mm)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- ----
Channel Beltwidth (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 58-60 N/A 132-135 53.00 67.00 92.00
Radius of Curvature (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 33-34 N/A 50-51 33.00 45.00 61.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)-----N/A ----- 2.00 2.5000 3.00 ----- 2.0-3.0 ----- 1.90 2.70 3.70
Meander Wavelength (ft)-----N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 115.00 N/A 235.00 134.00 163.00 229.00
Meander Width Ratio -----N/A ----- 3.50 5.7500 8.00 3.50 N/A 8.00 3.10 4.00 5.60
Riffle Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.10 33.54 87.52
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0260 0.0345 0.0430 ----- ----- ----- 0.006-0.007 0.0080 0.009-0.01 -0.018 0.011 0.09
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 11.00 42.00 70.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) 35.00 57.50 80.00 ----- ----- ----- 58 88.5 119 30.00 80.19 135.00
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.14 1.9600 2.77 ---------------1.8 3.0 4.2 0.00 0.00 5.04
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%------------------------------
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 -----------------------------
Drainage Area (SM) ----- 1.38 - 1.53 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.38 --- ----- 1.38 -----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification ----- B - E ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 -----
BF Velocity (fps) ----- 3.15 - 3.20 ----- ----- 5.00 5.00 ----- 3.00 ----- ----- ---- -----
BF Discharge (cfs) ----- 38.7 - 40.7 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 61.85 ----- ----- ---- -----
Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2,280.00 -----
Channel Length (ft) ----- 2,399 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2,730 ----- ----- 2,771.90 -----
Sinuosity ----- 1.06 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.22 ----- ----- 1.22 -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)------------------------------------------------------------
Pattern
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
0% / 7% / 89% / 4% / 0%0% / 1% / 83% / 16% / 0%
11 / 17 / 21 / 38 / 60 16 / 28 / 37 / 64 / 127
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Blair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100047
Reach 1 (North Fork)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built
Composite
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width (ft)-----9.82 - 11.26 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 17.00 ---- 19.30 21.34 23.69
Floodprone Width (ft)-----25.66 - 26.55 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 60.00 ---- 67.67 70.39 73.49
BF Mean Depth (ft)-----1.54 - 1.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.20 ---- 0.89 0.94 1.00
BF Max Depth (ft)-----2.77 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.40 ---- 1.42 1.73 2.06
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----15.16 - 15.01 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 20.40 ---- 18.86 19.76 21.13
Width/Depth Ratio -----6.38 - 8.47 ----- 10.00 12.50 15.00 ----- 14.20 ---- 19.69 23.05 26.62
Entrenchment Ratio -----2.61 - 2.36 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 3.50 ---- 3.10 3.31 3.51
Bank Height Ratio -----1.96 - 1.54 ----- 1.00 1.05 1.10 ----- 1.10 ---- 1.00 1.00 1.00
d50 (mm)---------- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 65.00 ----- 135 47.00 56.00 72.00
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 34.00 ----- 50 31.00 43.00 48.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- N/A ----- 2.00 2.50 3.0 2.00 ----- 2.9 1.80 2.50 2.80
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- 125.00 ----- 235 129.00 149.00 174.00
Meander Width Ratio ----- N/A ----- 3.50 5.75 8.0 3.80 ----- 7.9 2.80 3.30 4.20
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6.71 34.705 64.44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.026 0.035 0.043 ----- ----- ----- 0.0075 0.0084 0.0093 -0.0460 0.0010 0.1070
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 10.00 37.00 70.00
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) 35 58 80 ----- ----- ----- 60.00 89.00 118.00 30.00 72.40 105.00
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.14 1.96 2.77 -------------1.8000 3.00 4.2000 0.00 0.00 0.00
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Drainage Area (SM) ----- 2.91 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.53 ----- ----- ---- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification ----- F4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 -----
BF Velocity (fps) ----- ----- ----- 3.50 4.25 5.00 ----- 3.00 ----- ----- ---- -----
BF Discharge (cfs) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 61.85 ----- ----- ---- -----
Valley Length ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,310 -----
Channel Length (ft) ----- 185 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1,520 ----- ----- 1,555 -----
Sinuosity ----- 1.07 ----- 1.20 1.30 1.40 ----- 1.14 ----- ----- 1.14 -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)---------------------------------------------
Pattern
Profile
Additional Reach Parameters
0% / 1% / 91% / 8% / 0% 0% / 7% / 92% / 1% / 0%
13 / 18 / 23 / 42 / 131 7 / 13 / 18 / 40 / 55
* The As-Built parameters shown here apply only to those surveyed sections of Reach UT4a where the channel was improved in its cross-section, profile, and in-stream structures.
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built
Composite
Blair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100047
Reach 2 (South Fork)
Parameter
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width (ft)-----19.20 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 22.50 ---- ----- 30.40 -----
Floodprone Width (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 60.00 ----- ----- 58.48 -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)-----1.33 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.10 -----
BF Max Depth (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.80 ----- ----- 2.14 -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----25.60 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 33.80 ----- ----- 33.01 -----
Width/Depth Ratio -----14.44 ----- 10.00 12.50 15.00 ----- 15.00 ----- ----- 27.80 -----
Entrenchment Ratio ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Bank Height Ratio -----2.00 ----- 1.00 1.05 1.10 ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- -----
d50 (mm)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- N/A ----- 43.00 46.00 50.00
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- N/A ----- 33.00 40.00 46.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- N/A ----- 2.00 2.50 3.00 ----- N/A ----- 1.40 1.60 1.90
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- N/A ----- 131.00 134.00 136.00
Meander Width Ratio ----- N/A ----- 3.50 5.75 8.00 ----- N/A ----- 1.80 1.90 2.10
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)----------------------------2.2500 3.75 5.2500 --------------
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 --------------------------------------------
Drainage Area (SM)-----2.91 -------------------------2.91 -------------------
Impervious cover estimate (%)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification -----F4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 ----- ----- C4 -----
BF Velocity (fps)---------- ----- 3.50 4.25 5.00 ----- 3.76 ----- ----- ---- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 128.00 ----- ----- ---- -----
Valley Length ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Channel Length (ft)-----185 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 185 ----- ----- 133.6 -----
Sinuosity -----1.07 ----- 1.20 1.30 1.40 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.09 -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 1.02 -----
Additional Reach Parameters
Pattern
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Blair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100047
Reach 3 Blair Creek, below confluence of North and South Fork.
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built
Composite
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max
BF Width (ft)-----------------------------------7.25 ---------10.14 -----
Floodprone Width (ft)--------------------------------------------------34.30 -----
BF Mean Depth (ft)--------------------------------------------------0.81 -----
BF Max Depth (ft)-----------------------------------1.00 ----------1.53 -----
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft²)-----------------------------------4.30 ----------8.18 -----
Width/Depth Ratio -----------------------------------12.40 -------------------
Entrenchment Ratio ------------------------------------------------------
Bank Height Ratio -----------------------------------------------------
d50 (mm)-----------------------------------------------------------
Channel Beltwidth (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- 15.00 17.00 18.00
Radius of Curvature (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- ---- ---- ----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- 3.20 3.50 3.80
Meander Wavelength (ft) ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- 67.00 70.00 72.00
Meander Width Ratio ----- N/A ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- N/A ----- 3.20 3.50 3.80
Riffle Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Length (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Pool Max Depth (ft)---------------------------------------------------------
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Drainage Area (SM)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Impervious cover estimate (%)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Rosgen Classification ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
BF Velocity (fps)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
BF Discharge (cfs)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Valley Length ---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Channel Length (ft)---------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- -----
Sinuosity --------------------------------------------------173 -----
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)--------------------------------------------------1.02 -----
Pattern
Profile
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Blair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100047
Reach UT1- *As Built data from pool XS
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-builtComposite
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Data Summary
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 1848.21 1848.21 1848.21 1848.06 1848.33 1848.20 1847.87 1847.87 1847.87 1846.31 1846.43 1846.49
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area -- -- -- 1.00 1.00 1.0 -- -- -- 1.00 1.10 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 1845.23 1845.85 1846.5 1845.95 1846.01 1846.03 1844.24 1843.62 1843.43 1844.76 1844.94 1844.86
LTOB2 Elevation 1848.21 1848.21 1848.2 1848.06 1848.14 1848.2 1847.87 1847.88 1847.47 1846.31 1846.51 1846.51
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.98 2.40 1.7 2.11 2.00 2.2 3.63 4.25 4.4 1.60 1.40 1.4
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)25.48 22.60 15.9 20.85 16.70 18.5 38.37 34.27 34.6 17.90 16.00 15.0
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 1845.28 1845.26 1845.49 1842.09 1842.09 1842.09 1839.27 1839.34 1839.47 1837.35 1837.35 1837.5
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.0 -- -- --1.00 1.00 1.0 ------
Thalweg Elevation 1843.48 1843.20 1843.23 1838.86 1838.71 1838.64 1837.37 1837.43 1837.33 1832.31 1832.33 1832.0
LTOB2 Elevation 1845.28 1845.25 1845.5 1842.09 1842.09 1842.09 1839.27 1839.42 1839.42 1837.35 1837.35 1837.5
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.10 2.10 2.0 3.20 3.40 3.40 1.90 1.90 1.9 5.04 5.02 5.3
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)21.90 22.20 18.4 33.50 36.20 34.6 21.70 20.60 18.2 47.58 44.20 45.9
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 1845.99 1845.99 1845.99
1843.54 1843.54 1843.54 1841.94 1842.30 1842.19 1839.98 1839.98 1839.98
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area ------------1.00 1.00 1.00 ------
Thalweg Elevation 1844.76 1843.85 1843.87 1839.97 1839.88 1839.92 1839.88 1840.46 1840.40 1836.55 1836.85 1836.94
LTOB2 Elevation 1845.99 1846.25 1845.99 1843.54 1843.54 1843.54 1841.94 1842.23 1842.20 1839.88 1839.98 1839.98
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.20 2.10 2.12 3.57 3.66 3.60 2.06 1.50 1.50 3.43 3.13 3.04
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.60 4.80 6.1 36.81 33.46 35.20 23.70 14.10 13.70 36.69 27.28 25.50
Stream Reach
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 1838.84 1839.07 1838.84 1837.60 1837.26 1837.19 1834.80 1834.73 1834.69
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1837.14 1837.54 1836.89 1836.18 1835.42 1834.82 1832.66 1832.56 1832.50
LTOB2 Elevation 1838.84 1838.92 1838.92 1837.60 1837.25 1837.53 1834.80 1834.80 1834.80
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.70 1.30 2.03 1.40 2.20 2.80 2.14 2.20 2.60
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)21.13 16.00 21.08 18.90 25.20 25.90 33.01 34.90 35.30
Blair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 100047
Reach 1
UT-1 Reach 2
Cross-section X-9 (Pool)
Cross-section X-1 (Pool) Cross-section X-2 (Riffle) Cross-section X-3 (Pool) Cross-section X-4 (Riffle)
Reach 1
Cross-section X-5 (Riffle) Cross-section X-6 (Pool) Cross-section X-7 (Riffle) Cross-section X-8 (Pool)
Cross-section X-10 (Pool) Cross-section X-11 (Riffle) Cross-section X-12 (Pool)
Reach 2 Reach 3
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.
Cross-section X-13 (Riffle) Cross-section X-14 (Riffle) Cross-section X-15 (Riffle)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking
channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2.
The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in
each successive year.
2 -LTOB Area and Max depth -These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation
(same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX E

Hydrologic Data

Date of Data
Collection
Reach 1 Lower
Right Floodplain
Crest Gauge 3. Reach 2,
Left Floodplain
Estimated Date of
Bankfull Event
Occurrence
Method of Data
Collection
7/1/2022
Photographic Evidence on
right floodplain of Lower
R1 and Left floodplain of
R2 at Crest Gauge 3.
3/13/2022 Photographic Evidence
11/22/2022
Photographic Evidence on
floodplain and Continuous
Logger Data
3/13/2022 & 8/7/2022 Photographic Evidence &
Continuous Logger
10/30/2023
Photographic Evidence on
floodplain and Continuous
Logger Data
6/25/2023 & 8/15/2023 Photographic Evidence &
Continuous Logger
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
Year 1 Monitoring (2022)
Year 2 Monitoring (2023)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #1
(Well BCW1)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 57 days (27%):
4/3/2023 - 5/29/2023
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/20/2023 4/11/2023 5/31/2023 7/20/2023 9/8/2023 10/28/2023 12/17/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #2
(Well BCW2)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 34 days (16%):
4/3/2023 - 5/6/2023
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #3
(Well BCW3)
-12 inches
Begin Growing Season
End Growing Season
BCW3
BCWW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 54 days (26%):
4/3/2023 - 5/26/2023
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #4
(Well BCWW4)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW4 Longest Hydroperiod of days 55 (26%):
4/3/2023 - 5/27/2023
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWINGSEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #5
(Well BCW5)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 12 days (6%):
5/13/2023 - 5/24/2023 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 11/2)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #6
(Well BCW6)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
DOWNLOADING MALFUNCTION CAUSED
GROWING SEASON DATA TO BE
INCOMPLETE. DATA WILL BE ADDED UPON
NEXT SUCCESSFUL DOWNLOAD
BCW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 101 days (48%):
3/29/2023 - 7/12/2023
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #7
(Well BCW7)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 8 days (4%):
6/21/2023- 6/28/2023 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #8
(Well BCW8)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 7 days (3%): 6/21/2023 -
6/27/2023 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 10/29)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #9
(Well BCW9)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW9 Longest Hydroperiod of days 18 (9%):
4/3/2022 - 4/20/2023 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 11/2)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #10
(Well BCW10)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 12 days (6%):
4/2/2023 - 4/13/20203 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 11/2)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Blair Creek Wetland Monitoring Well #11
(Well BCW11)
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
BCW11 Longest Hydroperiod of 7 days (3%):
8/11/2023 - 8/17/20223 -CRITERIA NOT MET
12% of 211 days = 25 days
GROWING SEASON
(4/2 - 11/2)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
1/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
2/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
1
7
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
0
2
3
3/
2
7
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
4/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
1
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
5/
2
6
/
2
0
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
0
2
3
6/
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
6/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
1
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
7/
2
5
/
2
0
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
0
2
3
8/
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
0
2
3
9/
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
3
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
0
2
3
10
/
1
3
/
2
…
10
/
1
8
/
2
…
10
/
2
3
/
2
…
10
/
2
8
/
2
…
11
/
2
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
0
2
3
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
Figure 6: Crest and Flow Gauge Graphs
Rain data from the State Climate Office of NC Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimates.
*Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
0.00
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Blair Creek
In-channel Flow Gauge 1 - UT1
Min Flow - 0.05 Feet
Manual
BC Flow
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET -97
8/3/2023- 10/8/2023)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 8
(2028)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 8
(2028)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 8
(2028)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 8
(2028)
BCW1 27.0 27.0 56 57.0 82.0 64.0 172 135.0
BCW2 26.0 16.0 54 34.0 68.0 69.0 144 146.0
BCW3 13.0 26.0 27 54.0 43.0 50.0 90 105.0
BCW4 10.0 26.0 22 55.0 38.0 49.0 80 104.0
BCW5 10.0 6.0 22 12.0 30.0 36.0 63 76.0
BCW6 44.0 48.0 92 101.0 47.0 48.0 199 101.0
BCW7 4.0 4.0 24 8.0 30.0 19.0 63 41.0
BCW8 4.0 3.0 9 7.0 17.0 12.0 35 26.0
BCW9 11.0 9.0 23 18.0 41.0 40.0 87 86.0
BCW10 11.0 6.0 24 12.0 38.0 37.0 81 79.0
BCW11 N/A 3.0 N/A 7.0 N/A 15.0 N/A 31.0
Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Blair Creek Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
Percentage of Cumulative Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface
Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria³
Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed December 2021)
¹Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
²Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
³Indicates the total number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Clay County is from April 2 to October 29 and is 211 days long. 12% of the growing season is 25 days.
Well ID
Percentage of Consecutive Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface¹
Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria²
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 6: Crest and Flow Gauge Graphs
Bankfull Elevation at Station
15+00.25 = 1848.17
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
e
e
t
)
Date
Blair Creek Crest Gauge #1 Reach 1
at Station 15+00.25
Stream Bed
Water Level
Bankfull Elevation
New logger installed on 9-
20-2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 6: Crest and Flow Gauge Graphs
Bankfull Elevation at Station
36+47.39 = 1836.29
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
e
e
t
)
Date
Blair Creek Crest Gauge #2
at Confluence Reach 1 & 2
Stream Bed
Bankfull Elevation
Water Level
new logger installed on 9-20-2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 6: Crest and Flow Gauge Graphs
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023 12/27/2023
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Date
Blair Creek Crest Gauge #3 Reach 2
at Station 12+47.64
Bankfull Elevation
Crest Gauge #3 Data
Bankfull Elevation at Station
12+47.64 = 1843.21Overbank Events on 6/25/2023 and
8/15/2023
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023
Blair Creek Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
BC Flow 1 259.0 97.0 315.0 143.0
Notes:
¹Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring gauges during a normal rainfall year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
Flow Gauges (Installed January, 2022)
Table 12. All Years Flow Gauge Success
Blair Creek Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100047
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria 1 Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 7. Observed Rainfall vs. Historical Average
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Blair Creek Project, MY2
Observed Rainfall vs. Historic Average
Monthly Precip. (50.325)Historic 30th Percentile Historic 70th Percentile Historic Avg. (58.07)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERNG INC.
BLAIR CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100047)
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX F
Correspondence

797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201 | Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828-412-6101| mbakerintl.com MBAKERINTL.COM
Joseph & Ann Waldroup
767 Waldroup Rd.
Hayesville, NC 28904

Mr. Waldroup,

This is Jason York from Michael Baker International. I am responsible for performing the annual
monitoring and reporting to the state and federal agencies on the Blair Creek Stream
Restoration Project, which is partially on your property. During a site walk by the Division of
Mitigation Services in January 2023 their staff noted that field drains installed on your property
extended into the conservation easement at two locations. It was also noted that a piece of
machinery was used to dredge a small drainage swale within the easement. These activities are
considered an encroachment of the conservation easement area and a violation of our
agreement, Deed of Conservation Easement and Right of Access, signed May 13, 2020. These
prohibitions are detailed in Section K: Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging and Section L:
Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. The N.C. Division of Mitigation Services is requiring that I
cut back the installed field drain lines to just outside of the conservation easement boundary
and to make sure it is understood that no future encroachments should occur. Bear in mind
that our agreement does include Section IV: Enforcement and Remedies that presents how
encroachments of the easement may be addressed, but we would prefer to avoid those
measures, by all parties keeping to the agreement. No additional action is required at this time,
and I do not anticipate this being an issue in the future. I appreciate your cooperation in this
matter, and I have attached the Deed of Conservation Easement and Right of Access document
for your reference. Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter in more detail
(828-380-0118).
Thank you,

Jason York

[e-mail]