20130739 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2015_20160328

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
DWR Project #13-0739, Beaufort County
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 2 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2015
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: March 2016
Submitted To: NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 2 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker International
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATI0NAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1
Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3...............................................................................................3
7
2. 1.1
Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................3
8
2.1.2
Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................3
9a
2.2
Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................3
9b
2.2.1
Wetland Concerns......................................................................................................................................4
9c
2.3
Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................5
9d
2.3.1
Vegetation Concerns..................................................................................................................................6
Figure
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Figure 3 Ditch Modification Map
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Photo Station Photos
Vegetation Plots Photos
Monitoring Stations Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table
9a
CVS Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table
9b
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table
9c
Yearly Density by Plot
Table
9d
Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Hydrologic Data
Figure
4
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
5
Flow Gauge Graphs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
II
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Figure 6 St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table 10 Wetland Restoration Well Success
Table 11 Flow Gauge Success
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,926 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream,
2.8 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and planted 17.5 acres (AC) of native riparian vegetation within the entire
conservation easement along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County,
North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Beaufort County,
approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03-03-07 and the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) (formerly
Department of Environment and Natural Resources) and Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) formerly
Ecosystem Enhancement Program) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104-040040 of the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin. The project involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system
(NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion and silviculture.
The primary restoration goals of the project were to improve ecological functions to the impaired areas within
the Tar -Pamlico River Basin as described below:
Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the project,
Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the downstream estuary,
Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse flow,
providing the streams access to their floodplains,
Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form,
Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and
within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater
runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
During Year 2 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data
collected from the nine monitoring plots during Year 2 monitoring, is 643 stems per acre. The Year 2 data
demonstrate that the Site is on track for meeting the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by
the end of Year 3.
Following Year 2 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was documented in the areas of UT2. The loblolly
pines are currently short but do have the potential to pose a future threat to the survival of planted species
installed during the construction phase. To prevent this nuisance species from affecting the planted stems, a
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

thinning and removal effort will take place in Year 3/2016 and will target the loblolly pine. The methods used
will be either hand/power tools and/or chemical applications.
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the easement
boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 (shown as dashed green lines on Figure 3). The landowner implemented a
plan to re -cut pre-existing lateral drainage ditches that joined a new deeper ditch that directly abuts the Site's
conservation easements. These new ditches were cut on the eastern and western boundary of UT2 as well as
the western boundary of UT3. The landowner cut the ditches with the intent to drain water away from his pine
plantation that abuts both easement boundaries on the west and east. Additionally, the property and farm access
road that lies to the north of the Site is also retaining water and needs to drain across the northern road into the
conservation easement to prevent hydrologic trespass.
To remedy this ditching impact as described above, a proposed work plan described in Section 2.2.1 will take
place in three different locations: (1) The northern conservation easement boundary of UT 2 along the existing
farm road, (2) the western conservation easement boundary of UT2 along the wetland restoration area, and (3)
along the western conservation easement boundary of UT3 along the wetland restoration area.
Year 2 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that 3 of 4 groundwater monitoring wells located along
UT2 and UT3 exhibited water levels within 12 inches of the ground surface that was greater than 12 percent of
the growing season. The four on-site wetland monitoring wells demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods, which
ranged from 3.3 to 13.4 percent of the growing season. The growing season for Beaufort County is from
February 28 to December 6 (282 days). Additionally, during Year 2 monitoring, the on-site wetland reference
wells demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods, which ranged from 57.9 to 60.1 percent of the growing season.
To provide additional groundwater data during the monitoring period, four new monitoring wells will be
installed at the beginning of the growing season in Year 3/2016. These four additional wells will provide
additional wetland success data, as well as collect groundwater levels adjacent to the areas where the additional
ditching repairs will take place. These four new wells are to be installed as shown in Figure 2.
On-site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT2 and UT3 was recorded periodically throughout
2015 by the use of pressure transducers. Of the six flow gauges installed on the Site, all gauges recorded flow
in 2015. The flow gauges documented flow through the headwater valleys during Year 2, which ranged from
16.4 to 43.9 consecutive days. It is noted that the flow gauges demonstrated similar flow events relative to
rainfall events on site as demonstrated in the gauge graphs in Appendix D.
In addition, currently contracted riparian buffer credits have been included as part of the project as referenced
by the "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation" memo from Karen Higgins (NCDWR) dated January 7, 2016 and
included as an asset in this report. As part of the St. Clair Creek Restoration project, Riparian Buffer credits in
excess of the contracted 6.8 acres (296,208 square feet) will be provided. Monitoring for success of riparian
buffers will continue to follow the existing vegetation monitoring protocol and success criteria as stated in the
approved mitigation plan for stream and wetland vegetation success. No additional vegetation monitoring plots
are required to monitor buffer success as the existing monitoring plots serve to monitor the success of the
vegetation of the headwater coastal plain stream and the riparian buffer.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as
vegetation plots, flow gauges and wells are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B.
The Year 2 well and flow data were collected December 2015. All visual site assessment data contained in
Appendix B were collected in November 2015.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3
The UT2 and UT3 mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions
in a multi -thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document
stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The
methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Monitoring efforts focus
on visual observations and in -channel flow gauges/pressure transducers to document stream success. Stream
survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06
Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey
Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with an accuracy of
less than one tenth of a foot.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Total observed area rainfall for the period of January 2015 through November 2015 was 48.76 inches,
as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same period of 46.68 inches annually.
Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed in the UT2 channel as well as two
flow gauges installed in the UT3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet apart
within the restored systems to document flow duration. The automated loggers were programmed to
collect data at every 15 minutes to document flow frequency and duration. Success criteria are
considered to have been met if 30 consecutive days of flow were observed at any point during the
monitoring year. Results indicate that flow gauges 1, 2, 5, and 6 each met the minimum consecutive
days of surface flow required for success, while flow gauges 3 and 4 did not. The complete flow data
and observed rainfall graphs for each gauge, along with the flow gauge success summary Table 11 are
located in Appendix D.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches,
moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking upstream at
delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to
provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of photo points,
wetland wells, and flow gauges are located in Appendix B.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland monitoring is assessed by the use of four automated groundwater -monitoring stations that are installed
in the UT2 and UT3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells installed in the
downstream portion of the UT3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater monitoring stations
follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-rs-4.1 (USACE 1997).
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

The automated loggers are programmed to collect data every 6 hours to document groundwater levels in the
restored wetland areas. The success criteria for wetland hydrology are considered to have been met when the
site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive number of days equal to a minimum of
12% of the growing season (34 consecutive days at this site). Results indicate that monitoring wells 1, 3, and
4 all met the minimum saturation success criteria while well 2 did not. Restoration well data and reference well
data collected during Year 2 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
2.2.1 Wetland Concerns
Ditching
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the
easement boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 (See Figure 3). The landowner implemented a plan to re-
cut pre-existing ditches that joined a new deeper ditch that directly abuts the Site's conservation
easements. These new ditches were cut on the eastern and western boundary of UT2 as well as the
western boundary of UT3. The landowner cut the ditches with the intent to drain water away from his
pine plantation that abuts both easement boundaries on the west and east. Additionally, the property
and farm access road that lies to the north of the Site is also retaining water and needs to drain across
the northern road into the conservation easement to prevent hydrologic trespass.
The work described above was designed and implemented without first consulting Baker. The ditches
were first discovered during fall monitoring in late 2015.
To remedy the potential impacts of the new ditch network on restored wetland functions, Baker is
implementing a work plan to alleviate the hydrologic trespass outside of the conservation easement and
to fill the new ditches so wetland hydrology will be unimpaired. The proposed work will take place in
three different locations (Figure 3). (1) The northern conservation easement boundary of UT 2 along
the existing farm road, (2) the western conservation easement boundary of UT2 along the wetland
restoration area, and (3) along the western conservation easement boundary of UT3 along the wetland
restoration area.
Location (1): Work in this area will consist of connecting existing shallow drainage ditches from an
adjacent property across the farm road into the conservation easement on UT2. A shallow ditch (1'
deep by 2' wide) will be cut through the farm road and then filled with rip rap outside of the easement
to allow water to filter through the rock (French drain) and move across the road, but will also allow
the landowner to cross easily. Once the rock -filled ditch reaches the conservation easement boundary,
a shallow, wide, flat depression (10' wide by F deep with a 0% slope) will be excavated to tie these
depressions into the existing ground elevations within the conservation easement. The locations shown
as pink lines on Figure 3 are to scale (length) and are aligned as such to utilize the existing drainage
paths as discovered during a field visit for storm event. Flow will be diffuse through these depressions.
These areas within the conservation easement will be seeded and re -planted with bare -root trees.
Location (2): Work in this area will consist of excavating shallow and wide depressions through the
wetland restoration polygon along UT 2 to connect and help drain the existing lateral ditches outside
the conservation easement that were plugged during construction. The depressions will be
approximately 10' wide and F deep. The depression depth of 1' will be measured down from the
existing ground surface inside the wetland area at the conservation easement boundary with the intent
to prevent hydrologic trespass within the landowner's existing pine timber. The depression bottoms
will be significantly higher than the existing lateral ditch bottoms within the timber. The depressions
will essentially be a zero slope and will rely on the hydraulic head from the groundwater within the
timber to promote flow. It is anticipated that flow will be diffuse and very low. The depressions will
be excavated inside the conservation easement only as far as needed to tie into the existing ground
elevations. The lengths of these depressions are shown to scale on the attached figure and are based
upon survey data collected in early February 2016. The required excavations will be decrease as the
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

depressions get closer to the stream. In addition, the recently excavated ditch adjacent to the
conservation easement will be filled. This is shown as a green dashed line on the attached figure. The
disturbed areas within the conservation easement will be seeded and re -planted with bare -root trees.
Location (3): Work in this area will consist of only removing a small (-5' wide) plug that separates the
newly excavated ditch along UT3 (dashed green line in Figure 3) and existing small depressions within
the conservation easement. These depressions are likely old remnant ditches excavated many years
before the current conditions. These depressions are vegetated and shallow which will serve to prevent
hydrologic trespass in the timber areas outside the conservation easement between UT 2 and UT 3.
Little to no grading will be required inside the conservation easement along UT 3. In addition, the
recently excavated ditch adjacent to the conservation easement will be filled.
Construction of the proposed activities as described above is scheduled to be implemented in Year 3
(March 2016).
Additional Monitoring Wells
It is noted that in the spring of 2015 three wetland restoration wells (SCAW1, SCAW2 and SCAW4)
had accumulated bentonite/mud in the bottom of the well casings. A thick, gooey material was found
to be clogging the water pressure sensors located in the bottom of the pressure transducers. This
accumulation of material was suspected to be the likely the cause for the observed erroneous water
levels recorded in the well casings. To verify groundwater depths and check for logger accuracy,
manual groundwater measurements were recorded during three site visits and compared to datalogger
readings in the appropriate date/time windows. The manual measurements were then used to determine
if there were any significant differences in the recorded groundwater levels. After comparing the data,
it was found that three wetland restoration loggers had errors in depth than was recorded manually. To
correct this issue, all well casings, including SCAW3 were pumped to clear excess bentonite/mud that
had built up and to prevent further buildup on the pressure sensors. The on-site reference wells were
not pumped during this time. Additionally, links in the suspension chains from which the loggers hang
in the well casings were also removed so the chain would be shorter. This was an effort to raise the
loggers off the bottom of the well casings as to be above the bentonite/mud buildup. Subsequent to
these adjustments, all on-site well data loggers now are free of bentonite and the atmospheric pressure
hole is clear of any obstructions.
Four new monitoring wells will be installed at the beginning of the growing season in Year 3/2016.
These additional wells will provide additional wetland success data, as well as collect groundwater
levels in the areas adjacent to where the additional ditching repairs will take place. These four new
wells are to be installed as shown in Figure 3.
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007) and the CVS-NCDMS data entry tool v 2.3.1 (2012). The vegetation monitoring plots are
a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with nine plots established randomly within the Site's
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters
for woody tree species.
Year 2 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns
Following Year 2 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was documented in the area of UT2. The
loblolly pines are currently short but have the potential to pose a future threat to the survival of planted
species installed during the construction phase. To prevent this nuisance species from affecting the
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

planted stems, a thinning and removal effort will take place in Year 3/2016 and will target the loblolly
pine. The methods used will be either hand/power tools and/or chemical applications.
3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2007.
CVS-NCDMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994, A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NC DEQ. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MARCH 2016, MONITORING YEAR 2 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but
is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is
not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned
roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
N
A
s,
C/air C
r
eek
C
CD
0
-a
Q le
.Im
Project
Location
Pamlico River
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
__J
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before fuming right onto Warren Taylor R.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
�Iocate�dwithin
north through a large field. The site is located where
Note�Site tar eted local
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
g
downstream culvert crossing. I 1 \N� '/`I watershed 03020104040040.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
;` St. Clair Creek Restoration Site
17 32
DENR -
2sa __~% Division of Mitigation Services
33 � �
306
INTERNATIONAL
Beaufort County Project `�
---------
Location 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95015
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus Nutrient
Offset
Type R
R RE
Totals 3,274 SMU
2.8 WMU 0
363,577 BMU
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Stationing/
Existing Footage/ Acreage
Location
Approach
Restoration/ Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
UT2 Stream
12+64 —34+00 2,660 LF
Headwater Restoration
2,133 SMU
2,133 LF
1:1
UT3 Stream
10+66-22+82 1,075 LF
Headwater Restoration
1,141 SMU
1,141 LF
1:1
UT2 Wetland
See plan sheets 0.0 AC
Restoration
1.1 WMU
1.1 WMU
1:1
UT3 Wetland
See plan sheets 0.0 AC
Restoration
1.7 WMU
1.7 WMU
1:1
UT2 Buffer
12+64 —34+00 NA
Restoration
363,577 BMU
8.3 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (ft2) / (AC)
Upland (AC)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,274 2.8
Enhancement I
Enhancement Il
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft
226002/5.2
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft
137575/3.1
BMP Elements
Element Location
Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP=
Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration Area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

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

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Designer
Michael Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jacob Byers, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
T
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Phillip Todd, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200
ArborGen, 843-528-3204
Superior Tree, 850-971-5159
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Jacob Byers, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Jacob Byers, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Jacob Byers, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

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

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Conservation Easement
y Proposed Drainage Modification (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages to be Filled
A Flow Gauge
Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
{ Proposed New Monitoring Well Location
- Vegetation Plot: (Year 2 Density/Planted Density)
Restored Wetland Areas
±y.
As -Built Streams
Z W
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Mitigation Credit
UT 3
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft (226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio = 226,002 BM Us)
Veg Plot 3: 648/688
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft (137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio = 137,575
BMUs)
44
SCAW
UT 2k1
T
Veg Plot 9: 688/769 ` ' ."Gauge #6
Veg Plot 1: 607/728
"� ' `
6 Veg Plot 8: 607/728 '
��..
Gauge #3
�=
�t
Veg Plot 4: 648/728 ti..'
l
#4
_Gauge
. •
SCAW2,"'�
-
� -
Veg Plot 7: 1012/1174
t .Gauge #&
- a, SCAW3
Gauge #2Y
Veg Plot 2: 648/648
w SCAW1Z.
t
r` 9 Ve
Plot 5: 526/688
L �r
Veg Plot 6: 405/486
77,
-.
/.\G ug a e #1 -�
�c
Survey / Monitoring Data Collected: Nov / Dec 2015_
- -
Aerial Photo Date: 2012
neMap, NCCenter for Geogr phic Information and Anal sis, NC 911 Boardb
0 250 500
N
Figure 2
MichaelBakerFeet
Current Condition Plan View - MY2
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
St. Clair Creek Site
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Project # 95015
Beaufort County, NC

Conservation Easement
Proposed Drainage Modification (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages not to be Filled
Drainages to be Filled
A. Flow Gauge
O Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Proposed New Monitoring Well Location
- Vegetation Plot
Restored Wetland Areas
As -Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Mitigation Credit
{ - r UT 3
1711W
,t. 2 Ditch to be Filled:
Ditch 6: 50 ft rock & , _575 ft in length
Ditch 7: 25 ft rock & 65 ft into easement
20 ft into easement Ditch not to be Filled.
1063 ft in length O
Ditch 8: 25 ft rock &
,.
50 ft into easement Ditch 5: 6 ft
Ditch 3: 100 ft Ditch 4: 6 ft o
•q
UT 2
Ditch 1: 60 ft
Ditch to be Filled:
625 ft in length NCOneMaNC Center for deo„ra„hic Information and Anal sis,
p, g p NC 911 Boardr
0 250 500 N Figure 3
BakerMichael Feet Ditch Modification Map
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services St. Clair Creek Site
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Project # 95015 Beaufort County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,133
Number Stable
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
(Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
with
with
for
Intended)
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
NA
NA
1. Depth
NA
NA
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
NA
NA
1. Bed
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4. Thalweg Position
NA
NA
3. Thalweg centering along valley
Yes
2,133 LF
Fl -
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
like)
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
NA
NA
2. Grade Control
NA
NA
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath sill or arms
NA
NA
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
NA
NA
15%
4. Habitat
l Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
NA
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,141
Number Stable
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
(Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
with
with
for
Intended)
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability1.
2. Degradation
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
NA
NA
1. Depth
NA
NA
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
NA
NA
1. Bed
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4. Thalweg Position
3. Thalweg centering along valley
Yes
J141
0
0
100%
0
1,141
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poort
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasti
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely
0
0
100%
0
1,141
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
1,141
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
NA
NA
2. Grade Control
NA
NA
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
NA
NA
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
NA
NA
15%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
NA
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
None Observed - --I --
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

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

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
None Observed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
Photo Point 5 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
Photo Point 4 — UT2
1, P.qpw
I,
P�44;j
it Vf�t.
!
h
ea
Photo Point 6 UT2

Photo Point 7 — UT2
Photo Point 9 — UT2
Photo Point 11 — UT2
Photo Point 8 — UT2
4
Photo Point 10 — UT2
Photo Point 12 — UT2

Photo Point 13 — UT2
Photo Point 15 — UT2
Photo Point 17 — UT3
Photo Point 14 — UT2
'p
Photo Point 16 — UT3
Photo Point 18 — UT3
d
i'iYH9L
i
'/i
Photo Point 15 — UT2
Photo Point 17 — UT3
Photo Point 14 — UT2
'p
Photo Point 16 — UT3
Photo Point 18 — UT3

Photo Point 19 — UT3
e
�� Yy
MffLl
Photo Point 21 — UT3
Photo Point 23 — UT3
Photo Point 20 — UT3
Photo Point 22 UT3
Photo Point 24 — UT3

Vegetation Plot 1
a,
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
w
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 8

Auto Well — SCAW1, November 18, 2015
Auto Well — SCAW2, November 18, 2015
Auto Well — SCAW3, November 18, 2015
Auto Well — SCAW4, November 18, 2015
Auto Well — SCREF1, November 18, 2015
Auto Well — SCREF2, November 18, 2015

Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL1, April 21, 2015
How
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL3, April 21, 2015
How bresent
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL2, April 21, 2015
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL4, April 21, 2015
Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL5, April 21, 2015
flow present
Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL6, April 21, 2015
no flow present, but water is present around gauge

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Total/Planted Stem
Count*
Tract Mean
1 Y 607/728
643
2 Y 648/648
3 Y 648/688
4 Y 648/728
5 Y 526/688
6 Y 405/486
7 Y 1012/1174
8 Y 607/728
9 Y 688/769
Note: *Total/Planted Stem Count reflects the changes in stem density based on the density of
stems at the time of the As -Built Survey (Planted) and the current total density of planted stems (Total)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 11/30/2015 13:41
database name MichaelBaker_2015_StClair_95015.mdb
database location L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\St Clair
computer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
Me size 47431680
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT----------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
Droiect Name
Basin
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
95015
St Clair Creek Restoration Project
Tar -Pamlico
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
'V
N
~
oro
oro.
oro. oro.
oro.
oro. oro.
6y
a
o� o� o� oaf oy�
obi
o`
o`c o�
��a
oti
oti
oti
oti
oti
oti
oti
oti
oti
o
w��w
�c
6y
tih
♦43
♦h
♦�'
tih
♦�S
♦h
tih
ti4
�r
F
y
♦oy
oo
,�
ti
tie
♦4♦
o
wy
♦o
k�o
q,'o
0
q,'o
qyo
q,�o
o
q,'o
0
q,'o
qyo
q,�o
o
q,'o
0
o�
G GjQ
'7Q
o�
G
�
�C
R
♦
ow
♦
ow
♦
♦
♦
ow
♦
ow
♦
♦
♦
Aronia arbuti olia
Shrub
I Red Chokeberry
61
3
2
4
1
1
Carp inus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
JAmerican hombeam
41
3
1.33
1
1
2
Clethra alni olia
Shrub
Icoastal sweetpepperbush
2
2
1
1
l
Fraxinus pennglvanica
Tree
igreen ash
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
1
Morella ceri era
Shrub Tree
Iwax myrtle
1
1
1
1
N ssa s Ivatica
Tree
blackgum
7
3
2.33
1
4
2
Persea palustris
Tree
swamp bay
6
2
3
2
4
Quercus Lauri olia
Tree
laurel oak
8
3
2.67
1
3
4
Quercus! rata
Tree
overcup oak
14
7
2
4
2
1
2
2
1
2
Quercus michaurii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
27
6
4.5
1
4
4
5
5
8
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
15
6
2.5
5
1
2
1
4
2
Taxodium distichum
Tree
bald cypress
16
4
4
4
3
8
1
Ulmus americana
Tree
American elm
19
6
3.17
1
4
2
1
4
7
Vaccinium co mbosum
Shmb
hi hbush blueberry
5
3
1.67
2
1
2
Vibumum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
8
3
2.67
3
1
4
TOT: 0 15
115
115
143
15
15
16
16
16
13
10
25
15
17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9b. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name
1
2
3
4
Plots
5
6
7
8
9
Tree Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 2 1 1 1
N ssa s lvatica swamp tupelo
1
4
2
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
1
4
4
5
5
8
Quercus lauri olia laurel oak
1
3
4
Quercus l rata overcup oak
4
1 2
I
1
1 2
1 2
1 1
2
uercus Phellos willow oak
5
1
2
1
4
2
Taxodium distichium bald cypress
4
3
8
1
Ulmus americana American elm
1
4
2
1
4
7
Shrub Species
Clethra alni olia sweet pepperbush 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood
1
1
2
Magnolia vir iniana sweetbay magnolia
Persea palustris swamp bay
2
4
Callicar a americana beautyberry
Cornus oemina swamp dogwood
Morella ceri era wax Myrtle
1
Vaccinium corynihosum blueberry
2
1
2
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood
3
1
4
Rosa palustris I swamp rose
Ilex glabra inkberry
Aronia arbuti olia chokeberry
4
1
I
1 1
Volunteer Species
N/A
Average Stems Per
Acre
Stems Per Plot (November 2015) 15
16
16
16
13
10
25
15
17
Total Stems/Acre Year 2 (November 2015)
607
648
648
648
526
405
1012
607
688
643
Total Stems/Acre Year 1 (December 2014)
688
648
648
648
648
445
1052
648
728
683
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As-Built (Baseline Data)
728
648
688
728
688
486
1174
728
769
737
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9c. Yearly Density Per Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Current Plot Data (MY2 2015)
Annual Means
95015-01-0001
95015-01-0002
95015-01-0003
95015-01-0004
95015-01-0005
95015-01-0006
95015-01-0007
95015-01-0008
95015-01-0009
MY2(2015)
MY1(2014)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type
Pn.11
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all T
PnoLS
P -all T
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry
Shrub
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
Carpinus carohniana American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus foemina stiff dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
Morella cerifera wax myrtle
shrub
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
N ssa s Ivatica black um
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
7
7
7
6
6
6
Persea palustris swamp bay
tree
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
8
8
8
14
14
14
Quercus l rata overcup oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
17
17
17
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
27
27
27
25
25
25
Quercus phellos willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
15
15 1
15
1 11
11
11
Taxodium distichum bald cypress
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
8
8
8
1
1
1
16
16
16
19
19
19
Ulmus americana American elm
Tree
1
1
1
4
1 4
1 4
2
2
2
1
1 1
1 1
4
4
1 4
1
7
7
7
19
19
19
21
21
21
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
5
5
5
Vaccinum co mbosum hi hbush blueberry
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
Shrub
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
8
8
8
6
6 1
6
Stem count
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
13
13
13
10
10
10
25
25
25
15
15
15
17
17
17
143
143
143
152
152 1
152
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.22
Species count
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
15
15
15
17
17
17
Stems per ACRE
607.0
607.0
607.0
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
647.5
526.1
526.1
526.1
404.7
404.7
404.7
1011.7
1011.7
1011.7
607.0
607.0
607.0
688.0
688.0
688.0
643.0
643.0
643.0
683.5
683.5
683.5
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Year 2 (18 -Nov -2015)
vegetanon riot summary lntormation
Stem Class
Buffer Stems
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Riparian Buffer
Stream/ Wetland
Tota14
Success Criteria
Met?
1
607
Unknown
Plot #
Stems
Stems
Live Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers
Total4
Growth Form
1
15
15
0
0
0
15
0
2
16
16
0
0
0
16
0
3
16
16
0
0
0
16
0
4
16
16
0
0
0
16
0
5
13
13
0
0
0
13
0
6
10
10
0
0
0
10
0
7
25
25
0
0
0
25
0
8
15
15
0
0
0
15
0
9
17
17
0
0
0
17
0
Stem Class
Buffer Stems
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Volunteers3
Tota14
Success Criteria
Met?
1
607
0
607
Yes
2
647
0
647
Yes
3
647
0
647
Yes
4
647
0
647
Yes
5
526
0
526
Yes
6
405
0
405
Yes
7
1012
0
1012
Yes
8
607
0
607
Yes
9
688
0
688
Yes
Project Avg
643
0
643
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(Der acre)
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
Stems'
Success
Criteria
Met?
1
607
Yes
2
647
Yes
3
647
Yes
4
647
Yes
5
526
Yes
6
405
Yes
7
1012
Yes
8
607
Yes
9
688
Yes
Project Avg
643
Yes
Characteristics
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

St. Clair Creek Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
�-� 1.0
c 2.0
M
3.0
5
0
-5
c
L -10
d
3 -15
-20
O
-25
O
a -30
d
-35
-40
-45
-50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(SCAW1)
9/16/2015 - Datalogger raised up in well casing to prevent
atmospheric pressure hole from clogging in bottom of well.
I 1 V 1 1- II 1 IIP -TL V 1/ I
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
I
SCAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 34.8 days (12.3%):
11/2/2015- 12/6/2015
NEW 777-+
T—M T I
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW1
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
c
1.0
M
w
= 2.0
M
IX
3.0
5
0
-5
_ -10
d
@ -15
3
_
-20
3
O
0 -25
O
s -30
CL
m
-35
-40
-45
-50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(SCAW2)
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
9/16/2015 - Datalogger raised up in well casing to prevent
atmospheric pressure hole from clogging in bottom of well.
I
GROWING SEASON I SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 9.3 days (3.3%):
(2/28 - 12/6) 11/6/2015-11/15/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW2
Begin
Growing
Season"
End
Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
m
c 2.0
3.0
5
0
-5
-10
`m -15
m
3a -20
c
-25
-30
t
o -35
-40
-45
-50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(SCAW3)
9/16/2015 - Datalogger raised up in well casing to prevent atmospheric
r _ `, i. i, I pressure hole from clogging in bottom of well.
�MLI MIMIW1KMMk= A11 1\\�>•
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 37.8 days (13.4%):
2/28/2015 - 4/6/2015
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW3
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
m
c 2.0
3.0
5
0
-5
-10
c
-15
a -20
c
o -25
° -30
t
d -35
0
-40
-45
-50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(SCAW4)
9/16/2015, 12/9/2015 - Datalogger raised up in well casing to prevent
atmospheric pressure hole from clogging in bottom of well.
I
I 1
I 1
I 1
SCAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of
GROWING SEASON I 34.8 days (12.3%): 11/2/2015 -
(2/28 - 12/6) I 12/6/2015
1/1/2015 2/15/2015 4/1/2015 5/16/2015 6/30/2015 8/14/2015 9/28/2015 11/12/2015 12/27/2015
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW4
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0 Ir
c
�. 1.0
2.0
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream IJT2)
24.0
23.0 - - -- -
22.0 - -
20.0 YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS —SCFL1 _
19.0 - - _. ------------ CRITERIA MET 42.7 * — -- --_-- 0.75 Inches
18.0 --- - (2/21/2015-4/4/2015) -
17.0
16.0 - -- ---
c_ 15.0 - -- -- -- -- -
Q 13.0 - - --- --
p 12.0 IMWAN
11.010.0 - - _9.08.07.06.05.04.0- -
2.0 -
1.0
0.0
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
.75 inches denotes level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL1 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
c
1.0
E 2.0
M
IY
3.0
24.0
23.0 ---
22.0 ---
21.0 ---
20.0 ---
19.0 ---
18.0 ---
17.0 ---
16.0---
15.0 ---
Ma 14.0 ---
Q. 13.0 ---
N 12.0 ---
11.0 ---
10.0 ---
9.0 ---
8.0 ---
7.0 ---
6.0 --
5.0 --
4.0 --
3.0 -
2.0
1.0
0.0
1/1/2015
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
---------------
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS ---------------
---------------
CRITERIA
-------------_ --------------CRITERIA MET - 42.9
(2/21/2015 - 4/5/2015) ---------------------------
-
_ SCFL2
0.75 inches
1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
m
2.0
.E
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
25.0
---------------
24.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
23.0
22.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -SCFL3 ---�
--------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.0
20.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
----------------------------- YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS--------------------------------------------------------------- -0.75 Inches
19.0
18.0
----------------------------- CRITERIA MET 24.8 ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
-------------------- --------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.0
----------------------------- (2/7/2015 - 3/19/2015) ------------------------------------------------ -
c16.0
----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
15.0
-------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.� 14.0
-- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q13.0
------------------- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
p12.0
------------------- ----------------------------------- ----- -
N 11.0 -
-- ----------------- -------- ---------------------------- ----- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
3 10.0 -
-- ---------------- - --------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv 9.0 -
-- ---------------- - ----- --------------------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
8.0
-- ---------------- - ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --------------------
7.0
-- ---------------- - ---- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - --------------------
6.0
-- --------------- - --- -- - -------------------------- ---- ----------- -- --------------------------------- ------------- - - --------------------
5.0
-- ----- --- ------ - -- --- - ------------------------ ---- ------ ----- -- -- ------------------------------------------ - --------------------
3.0
- - - -- - - - - ------ -------------- ---- ----- -- -- --
2.0
- - - -- - --- - ----- ---- ---- --------
----- -- - -- ----------------------- ------------ - ---------------------
1.0
- - ---- - - -- - --- --- --- - ---- - - - - - ------ ----- - --- ----- - - --
0
1 'S II
0
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
'0.75 inches denotes level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
24.0
23.0 ---
22.0 --
21.0 --
20.0 --
19.0 --
18.0 --
17.0 --
16.0 --
c 15.0 --
14.0 --
13.0 --
y 12.0 --
0 11.0 --
10.0 --
9.0 --
8.0 --
7.0 ---
6.0 --
5.0 --
4.0 --
3.0 --
2.0 --
1.0
0.0
1/1/2015
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL4
(Upstream UT2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I
-------------------------------------- - SCFL4 --
------------------------------------- c 0.25 Inches -
---------------------------------------------------------------
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE
DAYS CRITERIA MET - 16.4
2/21/2015 - 3/10/2015)
1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
).25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL1 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
1.0
m
2.0
3.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
_ 8.0
c
7.0
s
y
CL 6.0
d
D
y 5.0
tT
3
m 4.0
t7
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE
DAYS MET - 43.9
2/20/2015 - 4/5/2015)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
—SCFL5
0.5 Inches
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
0.50 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2015)
1/1/2015 1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
0.0
E 1.0
Ta
2.0
3.0
12.0
11.0 ---
10.0 ---
9.0 ---
_ 8.0 --
c
7.0 -
r
6.0 --
d 5.0 --
4.0 --
3.0 --
2.0 --
1.0
0.0
1/1/2015
St. Clair Creek Site
Flow Gauge SCFL6
(Upstream UT3)
YR2 MOST CONSECUTIVE
----------- DAYS MET - 41.3
----------- (2/21/2015 - 4/4/2015
------------- ---------------------------
---- -------------------L-----I----------
--- SCFL6 --
--- 0.5 inches --
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
-------------------------
1/31/2015 3/2/2015 4/1/2015 5/1/2015 5/31/2015 6/30/2015 7/30/2015 8/29/2015 9/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/27/2015 12/27/2015
Date
*0.50 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

Table 10. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Percentage of
Percentage of
Number of
Consecutive Days <12 Consecutive Days
Cumulative Days
Cumulative Days
Consecutive
Well ID
inches from Ground Meeting Criteria'
<12 inches from
Meeting Criteria
Instances Meeting
Surface'
Ground Surface
Criteria5
Wetland Wells
SCAW 1 12.3 34.8 39.3 110.8 17.0
SCAW2 3.3 9.3 16.1 45.5 12.0
SCAW3 13.4 37.8 37.5 105.8 7.0
SCAW4 12.3 34.8 20.3 57.3 2.0
Reference Wells
SCAWREFI 57.9 163.3 93.7 264.3 3.0
SCAWREF2 60.1 169.5 94.1 265.5 3.0
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from
the soil surface.
2Indicates the consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
3Indicates the percentage of cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from
the soil surface.
4Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
5Indicates the number of consecutive instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 inches or less from
the soil surface.
Growing season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is 282 days long.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria of 12% of the growing seasaon within the monitored growing
season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface
All In-Situ wetland monitoring dataloggers were installed on 3/21/2014. Reference wells installed on 7/17/2014.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Figure 6.
St. Clair Creek
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
s.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Orb otic O,b ~� 0Nb o~�
.dill Q'�t� S°wry SaeOry All oO
Historic Average tHistoric 301 probable
—A—Historic 70% probable —On -Site Observed 2015
Table 11. St. Clair Creek Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Gauge ID
Consecutive Days Meeting
Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria z
UT2 Flow Gauges
SCFL1 42.7
205.1
SCFL2 42.9
200.8
SCFL3 24.8
173.6
SCFL4 16.4
117.6
UT3 Flow Gauges
SCFL5 43.9
173.1
SCFL6 41.3
115.9
Notes:
'Indicates 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.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be
considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)