20130186 Ver 1_Yera 1 Monitoring Report_2015_20160328

CEDAR CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
PROJECT
MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR 1
SAMPSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT No. 005011 -PROJECT No. 95718
Prepared for:
Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
March 2016

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 1 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
Cedar Creek
Sampson County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95718
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 3030006090060
Prepared by:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 1

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 1 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project is located within an agricultural watershed in Sampson
County, North Carolina, approximately three miles southwest of Clinton. The stream channels had
been heavily impacted by channelization and agricultural practices. This project involved the
restoration and protection of streams in the Great Coharie Creek watershed. The purpose of this
restoration project is to restore and enhance a stream and wetland complex located within the Cape
Fear River Basin.
The project area is comprised of a single easement area along four tributaries to Great Coharie Creek
(UT1, UT2, UT3 and UT4). UTI is the primary channel at this site, and had been channelized
throughout the project area. It flows westward through the site from Boykin Bridge Road to Great
Coharie Creek. The upper drainage of UTI originates to the southwest of Boykin Bridge Road (SR
1214) near Butlers Crossroads. The tributaries UT2, UT3, and UT4 flow southward into UTI. UT2
begins at the confluence of two headwater streams and had been ditched to the edge of the field. Flow
is redirected along the upslope side of the cultivated field to an unnamed tributary to Cedar Creek.
This unnamed tributary (UT4) enters Cedar Creek upstream of the natural valley for UT2. UT3
begins below a pond east of the airport and had been channelized down to a cultivated field where it
had been redirected to the west. The historical flow path continues in a southerly direction through the
cultivated field to its confluence with UT 1.
The Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report presents the data from 20 vegetation monitoring plots, four
manual crest gauges, four auto crest gauges, an auto -logging rain gauge, eleven wetland restoration
groundwater gauges, three reference groundwater gauges, 26 stream cross sections, eight sets of bank
pins, and photo reference locations, as required by the approved Mitigation Plan for the site.
The Cedar Creek Year 1 Monitoring activities were completed in December 2015. All Year 1
monitoring data is presented below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has one
localized area of bank erosion; however, the site is on track to meeting stream, wetland and
vegetation interim success criteria.
Throughout the Year 1 monitoring season, the restoration and enhancement reaches remained stable
and continued to provide the intended habitat and hydrologic functions. Minimal changes were
noticed for Year 1 cross section surveys resulting from stable bed and bank conditions. No bankfull
events were recorded during the Year 1 monitoring period. Only one stream problem area was noted
during the Year 1 monitoring period. The problem area consists of a tree that has fallen into the
channel and associated bank erosion and scouring with the disturbed root system. The problem area
is addressed below in the report detailing the severity and recommendations.
Ten of the eleven wetland gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within 12
inches of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Wetland hydrology was only
monitored for a portion of the growing season, therefore it is difficult to determine success of the
remaining one unachievable gauge. Groundwater gauge data indicate the hydroperiods being very
responsive to rainfall events. Year 2 wetland hydrology monitoring data will represent the first full
growing season.
The Year 1 vegetation monitoring observations are summarized this report. Planted -stem survival for
all 20 of the Vegetation Plots (VP) at Cedar Creek was above the interim success criterion of 320
trees per acre at the end of Monitoring Year 3. The average stem density (excluding live stakes)
across all vegetation plots was 848 stems per acre. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red
maple (Acer rubrum) volunteers were noted throughout the site. No vegetation problems were noted
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC ii

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 1 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
during the Year 1 monitoring period. The Cedar Creek Site is on track to meet the Year 3 vegetation
survival success criterion of 320 trees per acre as specified in the Mitigation Plan.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iii

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 1 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 1
1.1 Location and Setting............................................................................................................... l
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................
1
1.3 Project Structure.....................................................................................................................
3
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach.....................................................................................
3
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data......................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Project History................................................................................................................
5
1.4.2 Project Watersheds.........................................................................................................5
2 Success Criteria..............................................................................................................................
6
2.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
6
2.1.1 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
6
2.1.2 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
6
2.1.3 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
6
2.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................
7
2.2 Wetland Restoration...............................................................................................................7
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria....................................................................................................
7
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting.............................................................................................................7
3 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................................
8
3.1 Stream Restoration.................................................................................................................
8
3.1.1 As -Built Survey..............................................................................................................8
3.1.2 Bankfull Events..............................................................................................................
8
3.1.3 Cross Sections................................................................................................................
8
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations....................................................................................................
8
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays.............................................................................................................
8
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring.......................................................................................
9
3.1.7 Surface Flow...................................................................................................................
9
3.2 Wetland Hydrology................................................................................................................
9
3.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................
9
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan.............................................................................................
10
4.1 Stream...................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................10
4.3 Vegetation............................................................................................................................10
5 YEar 1 Monitoring Conditions(MY1).........................................................................................
10
5.1 Year 1 Monitoring Data Collection......................................................................................
11
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel.............................................................................
11
5.1.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................11
5.1.3 Photo Documentation...................................................................................................11
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology........................................................................................................12
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology......................................................................................................12
6 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................
12
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iv

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year 1 Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
Appendices
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Photos
Vegetation Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 11. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross Sections Data
Table 12. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Cross Section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Chart 1. 2015 Precipitation Data for Cedar Creek Site
Chart 2. 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Crest Gauge Verification Photos — (NA)
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC v

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
l PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Site is located in Sampson County approximately 3.1 miles
southwest of Clinton, NC (Figure 1). To access the Site from the town of Clinton, travel west on
Highway 24 (Sunset Avenue), take a left onto Airport Road and go 1.3 miles. Turn right onto West
Main Street Extension, go approximately 350 feet, and turn left onto a dirt farm path. Follow the farm
path along the cultivated field edge to the southwest corner and enter the forest. Follow the dirt path
to cultivated fields adjacent to the project below UT2. Turning to the left will take you to UT2. Going
to the right will take you to UT3.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project has provided numerous ecological and
water quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to
the project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have
more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are
outlined below.
Design Goals and Objectives
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent agricultural fields through buffer
Nutrient removal
areas, the conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, improved denitrification and nutrient
uptake through buffer zones, and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of
Sediment removal
sediment loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be
decreased through a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces.
Increase dissolved oxygen
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
concentration
dissolved oxygen concentrations and riparian canopy restoration to lower water temperature to
increase dissolved oxygen capacity.
Runoff filtration
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff,
thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream.
Benefits to Flood Attenuation
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water
Water storage
during precipitation events than under current site conditions. Wetland areas will provide
additional storage of runoff and flood waters.
Improved groundwater
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
recharge
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to
improved infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an
hydrologic connections
appropriately sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at
flows greater than the bankfull stage.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
Restoration of habitats
ecosystem. Protected riparian corridors will create contiguous natural areas with uninterrupted
migration corridors.
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve
Improved substrate and
bedform diversity and to trap detritus. Stream will be designed with the appropriate channel
instream cover
dimension and will prevent aggradation and sedimentation within the channel. Substrate will
become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream banks and an overall decrease in the
amount fine materials deposited in the stream.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
Addition of large woody
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
debris
Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs.
Reduced temperature of
water due to shading
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project is located in the Great Coharie Creek
Watershed (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/DMS/priorities-map). This 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC 03003006090060) and is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Cape Fear
River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP).
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 cataloging units.
RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream
and riparian buffer restoration. These TLWs receive priority for DMS planning and restoration
project funds. Currently, no Local Watershed Plan (LWP) is available for the project area.
The 2009 Cape Fear RBRP identified water quality and agricultural impacts as major stressors within
this TLW. The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project was identified as a Stream and
Wetland opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and hydrology within the TLW.
The project goals addressed stressors identified in the TLW, and include the following:
• Water quality improvements,
• Natural resource protection, and
• Manage agricultural impacts.
The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Converting active farm fields to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Reduction in stream bank slope,
• Restoration of riparian buffer bottornland hardwood habitats, and
• Construction of in -stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
1.3
Project Structure
Table la. Cedar Creek Site Project Components
— Stream Miti ation
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed
Existing
As -Built
Mitigation
SMUs
Stationing
Length (LF)
Length (LF)
Ratio
UT1
Enhancement 11
1+01 to 31+65
3,064
3,064
1:2.5
1,226
UTI
Enhancement I
31+65 to 35+80
415
415
1:1.5
277
UTI
Enhancement II
35+80 to 41+95
615
615
1:2.5
246
UT1
Enhancement I
41+95 to 44+60
265
265
1:1.5
177
UTI
Enhancement II
44+60 to 53+51
891
827
1:2.5
331
UT2
Headwater Valley
0+11 to 3+48
364
337
1:1
337
UT2
P1 Restoration
3+48 to 9+28
587
518
1:1
518
UT2C
Headwater Valley
0+02 to 1+95
NA
193
1:1
193
UT3
P1 Restoration
0+69 to 20+10
1,428
1,941
1:1
1,941
UT4
Enhancement II
0+36 to 1+14
78
78
1:2.5
31
Total
7,707
8,253
5,277
Table lb. Cedar Creek Site Project Components — Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Area
Mitigation
Wetland
Mitigation Type
WMUs
(ac)
Ratio
W1
Restoration
13.72
1:1
13.72
Total
13.72
13.72
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
Stream restoration efforts along the unnamed tributaries to Great Coharie Creek were accomplished
through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach
applied a combination of analytical and reference and/or analog reach based design methods that meet
objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Proposed treatment
activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re-establishing stable planform and
hydraulic geometry. Reaches that required full restoration, natural design concepts have been applied
and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was
to design a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements and ties into the
existing landscape.
The Cedar Creek Site included Priority Level I stream restoration, headwater valley restoration,
stream Enhancement Levels I and 11, and stream buffers throughout the project site have been
restored and protected in perpetuity. Priority Level I stream restoration was incorporated into the
design of a single -thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from the reference
site. Priority 1 stream restoration was performed on 2,459 linear feet of stream channel. Headwater
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 3

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County; North Carolina • March 2016
valley restoration was applied to 530 linear feet of channel. Enhancement Level I was applied to 680
linear feet of channel that required buffer enhancement, bank stabilization and habitat improvements.
Enhancement Level 11 was applied to an additional 4,584 linear feet of channel that required buffer
enhancement and/or minimal bank and habitat improvements.
UT1
UTI flows from southeast to northwest across the project, totaling 5,186 linear feet of Enhancement
Level I and lI. The upper -most portion of UTI (reaches UT1A and UT1B) is stable and has a forested
buffer along both banks; however, privet was dominant within the right buffer. The downstream
portion of UT (reaches UT1C, UTD and UT1E) was moderately stable and exhibited some areas of
localized erosion prior to mitigation activities. The buffer along this section consisted of a five year
old clear-cut along the left bank and cultivated fields along the right bank. A 60 -foot easement break
is present within the downstream section (ME) to account for an existing farm crossing which has
been upgraded. 680 linear feet of Enhancement Level I was performed along reach UTI. Selective
locations were identified to include streambed structures, minor bank grading, planting a native
stream buffer and invasive species control. Primarily, Stabilization/Enhancement 11 activities included
performing minor bank grading, planting the buffer with native vegetation, and invasive species
control.
UT2
UT2 is the middle tributary of the project, totaling 337 linear feet of headwater valley restoration
along the upstream section and 518 linear feet of Priority 1 restoration through the downstream
section. The upper section of the channel was channelized and bordered by cultivated fields to the
northwest and a pine stand to the southeast, while the lower portion was a small ditch surrounded by
cultivated fields. The headwater valley portion relocated the flow path to the natural valley (to the left
of the existing ditch), and the abandoned ditch has been back filled. The performed P1 restoration
included relocating the channel to follow the natural valley and emptying into Cedar Creek near STA
25+50. A 60 -foot easement break crossing is present at STA 4+66 along UT2. Twin 24" HDPE
culverts were installed within the easement break crossing. Restoration activities included
constructing a meandering channel, installing habitat and drop structures, filling and plugging the
abandoned channel, planting the buffer with native vegetation, and invasive species control.
UT2C
UT2C is also located in the middle of the project (adjacent to UT2), totaling 193 linear feet of
headwater valley restoration. The upstream end of the reach begins at an existing wetland that borders
a farm path to the north. Flow from the wetland originally had been diverted to a ditch that ran east -
west along the farm path before it was conveyed across the path and into UT2 near the upstream end.
Restoration activities involved redirecting channel flow to the natural valley and grading out the
existing ditch and path such that the area matches existing grade on either side of the path. Additional
activities included planting the buffer with native vegetation and invasive species control.
UT3
UT3 is the western most tributary of the project, totaling 1,941 linear feet of Priority 1 restoration.
The upper section of the channel was incised/oversized and began at a pond outlet east of the airport
and flowed through a wooded area consisting of saplings and some mature hardwoods, while the
lower section flowed through a cultivated field. The restored channel has been relocated to the west to
follow the natural valley, and now flows through the middle of the wetland restoration area (W1).
UT3 now outlets into Cedar Creek near STA 43+10. Restoration activities included constructing a
meandering channel, installing habitat and grade control structures, filling and plugging the
abandoned channel, planting the buffer with native vegetation, and invasive species control. Small
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
ditches located adjacent to UT3 and within the conservation easement have also been plugged and
filled to redirect and diffuse flow through the wetland restoration area and/or into UT3.
UT4
UT4 is the eastern most tributary of the project, totaling 78 linear feet of Enhancement Level Il. The
reach was relatively stable, but had been historically channelized. The buffer along this section
consisted of an agricultural field along the right bank, and a forested buffer along the left bank;
however, privet was common within the left buffer. Stabilization/Enhancement II activities included
performing minor bank grading, cutting a floodplain bench, and planting the buffer with native
vegetation, and invasive species control.
Wetland W1
This 13.72 -acre wetland is located along UT3 and where it reaches the confluence of with UTI Reach
E. The pre -restoration land use was sparsely wooded and active cropland. Wetland restoration
activities consisted of removing valley fill, filling drainage ditches, removing subsurface drainage
tiles, and raising adjacent stream channels to reconnect the floodplain with seasonal and out of bank
flows. Raising the stream bed will also reduce the "dry shoulder" effect near the stream channel.
Specific wetland restoration activities included: reconnecting low lying areas of hydric soil with the
floodplain, plugging agricultural drainage ditches, planting native tree and shrub species commonly
found in small stream swamp ecosystems, and surface roughening to increase infiltration and storage.
Wetland restoration limits and hydroperiods will be determined by on-site soil investigations and
hydrologic modeling in conjunction with pre -construction water table monitoring at the restoration
sites and reference wetlands. Combined with the stream restoration, these actions will result in a
sufficiently high water table and flood frequency to support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland
hydrology, resulting in restored riparian wetlands.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site was restored by Resource Environmental
Solutions, LLC (RES) through a full -delivery contract awarded by NCDMS in 2012. Tables 2, 3, and
4 in Appendix A provide a time sequence and information pertaining to the project activities, history,
contacts, and baseline information.
1.4.2 Project Watersheds
The easement totals 42.0 acres and is broken into four tributaries, UTI, UT2, UT3, and UT4. The
land use in the 2,778 -acre (4.34 mit) project watershed that drains to UTI consisted of row crop
production, livestock production, silviculture, and sand mining areas. Past land use practices caused
increased erosion and sedimentation along drainage -ways and stream banks in the watershed.
UT2 has a drainage area of 32 acres (0.05 mit) and flows southwest into UT1. Land use in this small
drainage area consisted entirely of row crop production and disturbed hardwood forest. UT2
originated in a disturbed hardwood forest and flows through a cultivated field to its confluence with
UT 1.
UT3 has a drainage area of 147 acres (0.23 miz) and flows south into UTI. Land use in this drainage
area consisted of row crop production, historical and future livestock production, disturbed hardwood
forest, maintained open space, and impervious surfaces associated with residential commercial
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
development. Portions of the Sampson County Airport, including parts of the runway, terminal, and
apron areas, lie within the UT3 drainage area. UT3 originates at a pond that is adjacent to the airport
property. This reach flowed through a disturbed hardwood forest, and then through a cultivated field
to its confluence with UT L
UT4 has a drainage area of 77 acres (0.12 mi2), originates within a disturbed hardwood forest, and
flows southwest into UTI. Land use in this small drainage area consisted of a mix of row crop
production and disturbed hardwood forest located primarily along the drainage way.
UT2, UT3 and UT4 were straightened, dredged, or re -aligned in the past to promote drainage. Soil
investigations showed that much of the low-lying landscape adjacent to UTI and its confluences with
UT2 and UT3 exhibited hydric characteristics and a shallow seasonal high water table. The low lying
fields in this area were considered prior converted wetlands (PC) that were drained and are currently
utilized for row crop and livestock production.
The land use in the watershed is characterized by evergreen forest (47 percent), cultivation (31
percent), woody wetlands (9 percent), open space (8 percent) and shrub/scrub (5 percent).
2 Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Cedar Creek Site stream restoration will follow accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and
agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
2.1 Stream Restoration
2.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will be documented
using crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of
debris rack lines.
2.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-
sections are classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
2.1.3 Bank Pin Arrays
Bank pin arrays will be used as a supplemental method to monitor erosion on selected meander bends
where there is not a cross section. Bank pin arrays will be installed along the outer bend of the
meander. Bank pins will be installed just above the water surface and every two feet above the lowest
pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the exposed pin will be driven
flush with the bank. There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
(for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for
example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
2.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
2.2 Wetland Restoration
Success criteria and monitoring for wetland hydrology within the wetland restoration areas on the site
follows NCDMS Guidance dated 7 November 2011. The target minimum wetland hydroperiod is 9
percent of the growing season. Stream hydrology and water balance calculations indicate the wetland
area will meet jurisdictional criteria (5 percent hydroperiod). However, due to immature vegetation
and reduced PET, a longer success criterion is appropriate. Auto recording gauges are used to
measure daily groundwater elevations throughout the Sampson County growing season in all 7 years
of monitoring.
If a hydrology gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the seven year monitoring period
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or groundwater modeling
may be used to demonstrate the limits of wetland restoration.
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the wetland restoration and riparian
buffers on the site will follow NCDMS Guidance dated 7 November 2011. Vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area.
The following data is recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer),
and grid location. Monitoring occurs in the fall of Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The interim measures of
vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320 three-year old planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 3, and 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. The final vegetative success
criteria is the survival of 210 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 7 of the monitoring period.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant or alter
the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific control
plan.
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology is assessed to determine the success of
the mitigation. The monitoring program will undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCDMS.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by NCDMS in
Version 2.0 of the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template (Oct. 2010).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County; North Carolina • March 2016
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS monitoring template. Annual monitoring
shall be conducted for stream, wetland, and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below.
3.1 Stream Restoration
3.1.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey was conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey will include a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of
bank to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCDMS or USACE.
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT2, one
along UT2C, and one along UT3. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel and
will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual crest gauges were installed on
the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked during each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge readings and debris rack lines will be
photographed to document evidence of bankfull events.
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 27 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability.
Cross sections were typically located at representative riffle/shallows and pool sections along each
stream reach. Four cross sections were installed along UTI where enhancement activities were
performed. Eight cross sections (three pools, two runs, and three shallows) were installed along UT2.
UT2C has one cross section installed throughout its length. Stream reach UT3 has 14 cross sections
installed along its length where stream restoration was performed. Each cross section was
permanently marked with 3/8 rebar pin to establish a monument location at each end. A marker pole
was also installed at both ends of each cross section to allow ease locating during monitoring
activities. Cross section surveys will be performed once a year during annual monitoring years 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7 and will include all breaks in slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of
water, and thalweg.
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for seven years following construction and
planting. Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been
established so that the same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year.
Monitoring photographs will also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas
such as erosion, stream and bank instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage.
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays
Eight bank pin array sets have been installed at pool cross sections located along UT2 and UT3.
These bank pin arrays were installed along the upstream and downstream third of the meander. Bank
pins are a minimum of three feet long, and have been installed just above the water surface and every
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
two feet above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the
exposed pin will be driven flush with the bank.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas is conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability include a complete stream walk and
structure inspection. Digital images are taken at fixed representative locations to record each
monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring
are presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images.
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel
depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks
over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
3.1.7 Surface Flow
The headwater valley restoration reaches on UT2 and UT2C will be monitored to document
intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation, photo
documentation of dye tests, and continuous flow monitoring devices (pressure transducers). An auto
logging crest gauges has been installed within the headwater valley channel and will continuously
record flow conditions at an hourly interval. This gauge will be downloaded during each site visit to
determine if intermittent or seasonal flows conditions are present.
3.2 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland areas. A total of fourteen
automatic recording pressure transducers (Auto -Wells) have been installed on the site. Eleven auto -
wells have been installed within the wetland restoration area and three within reference areas. The
gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing
season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory and DMS guidance. Visual observations of
primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
3.3 Vegetation
A total of 20 vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer
easement. Vegetation plots measure 10 meters by 10 meters or 5 meters by 20 meters (0.02 acres) and
has all four corners marked with metal posts. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each
plot to establish a baseline dataset. Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for
species, "X" and "Y" origin located, and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were
also captured to document baseline conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns,
damaged stems, and survival ratios will be measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot
data will be reported for each plot as well as an overall site average.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic species which prevent the
site from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. These areas
will be documented and remedial actions will be discussed amongst NCDMS staff to determine a plan
of action. If it is determined remedial action is required, a plan will be provided.
4.1 Stream
One stream problem was identified during the Year 1 monitoring period and has been mapped on the
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV), specifically Figure 3b. The problem was noted on the right
bank of Reach UTI, just before the confluence with Reach UT2 (Sta 25+50). The problem area
consists of a tree that has fallen into the channel and associated bank erosion and scouring with the
disturbed root system. Remedial action will include monitoring this area into the first half of the
(MY2) monitoring year 2. If this problem continues to get worse, active measures will include flush
cutting the base of the tree and anchoring the root mass into the bank to serve as a bank stabilization
structure. Upon completion of repair, the area will be matted and livestaked.
4.2 Wetlands
No wetland problems areas were noted during the Year 1 monitoring period. Wetland hydrology and
vegetation represent typical conditions of a site in Year 1 post construction monitoring. If any
wetland problem areas are identified in the future, they will be documented and mapped on the CCPV
as part of the annual monitoring report. Wetland hydrology gauges were installed early June, and
documented hydrology conditions for approximately 67% of the total growing season. Ten of the
eleven wetland gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within the 12 inches
of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Since wetland construction
occurred in the early growing season and wetland hydrology was only monitored for the last portion
of the growing season, it is difficult to determine success of the remaining gauge. Year 2 wetland
hydrology monitoring data will represent the first full growing season.
4.3 Vegetation
No vegetation problem areas were identified during the Year 1 monitoring period. Any vegetation
problem areas which are identified during future monitoring activities will be documented and
mapped on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) as part of the annual monitoring report.
Vegetation problem areas or areas of concern may include vegetation plot not meeting success
criteria, invasive species abundance, sparse vegetation areas, etc. If it is determined through NCDMS
correspondence that remedial action is required to repair an area, a proposed work plan will submitted
for remediation.
5 YEAR 1 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY1)
The Cedar Creek Year 1 Monitoring activities were completed in December 2015. All Year 1
monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. Data presented shows the site has one
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 10

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
localized area of bank erosion; however, the site is on track to meeting stream, wetland and
vegetation interim success criteria.
5.1 Year 1 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
All morphological stream data for the MY1 dimensions were collected during the annual monitoring
survey performed during December 2015. Appendix B includes summary data tables, morphological
parameters, and stream photographs.
Profile
The baseline (MY -0) profiles closely matches the proposed design profiles. The plotted longitudinal
profiles can be found on the As -Built Drawings. Longitudinal profiles will not be performed in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCEEP or USACE. Morphological summary data tables can
be found in Appendix D.
Dimension
The Year 1 (MY -1) cross sectional dimensions closely matches the baseline cross section parameters.
Minimal changes were noticed for most Year 1 cross section surveys resulting from stable bed and
bank conditions. All cross section plots and data tables can be found in Appendix D.
Sediment Transport
The Year 1 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all six restoration
reaches. Pre -construction conditions documented all six reaches as sand bed channels and remain
classified as sand bed channels post -construction. Visual assessments (Appendix B) show the
channels are transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and
degradation.
Bank Pin Arrays
Eight pool cross section locations with bank pin arrays were observed and measured for bank erosion
located on the outside meander bends. If bank pin exposure was noticeable, it was measured,
recorded, photographed, and then driven flush with the bank at each monitoring location. No bank
pin arrays recorded any exposure during the Year 1 monitoring season. Bank pin array data tables
can be found in Appendix D.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 1 monitoring (MY -1) vegetation survey was completed in December 2015 and resulted in
an average of 848 planted stems per acre, well above the interim survival density of 320 stems per
acre at the end of Year 3 monitoring. The average stems per vegetation plot was 21 planted stems.
The minimum planted stem per plot was 14 stems and the maximum was 35 stems per plot.
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum) were noted throughout the site
and were recorded within the CVS-EEP Data entry tool. Vegetation summary data tables can be
found in Appendix C and vegetation plot photos in Appendix B.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by RES staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 11

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County; North Carolina • March 2016
also be documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital
photographs can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Three sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT2, one
along UT2C, and one along UT3. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel and
will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. No bankfull events were recorded
during the Year 1 monitoring period.
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
Eleven wetland hydrology gauges were installed in early June 2015 and documented hydrology
conditions for approximately 67 percent of the total growing season. Ten of the eleven wetland
gauges (only AW7 did not) achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within 12 inches
of the soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Since wetland hydrology was only
monitored for the last portion of the growing season, it is difficult to determine if the remaining gauge
was successful. Groundwater gauge data indicate the hydroperiods being responsive to rainfall
events. All three reference gauges met the nine percent success criteria, with RAW2 and RAW3
having hydroperiods of 21 percent and RAW 1 having a hydroperiod of ten percent. Year 2 wetland
hydrology monitoring data will represent the first full growing season. Wetland gauge and rainfall
data is presented in Appendix E.
6 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
DDMSwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2014). Cedar Creek Stream Restoration Project Final Mitigation
Plan. North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC.
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number
FHWA-HRT-05-072.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.S. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome/html (June 2005).
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 12

Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030006
Year I Monitoring Report • Sampson County, North Carolina • March 2016
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 13

Appendix A
Project Background Data and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Monitoring Report Year 1
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen Phosphorous
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Buffer Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 2,989 2,288 13.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or -
Reach ID
UTI
UTI
UTI
UTI
UTI
UT2
UT2
UT2C
UT3
UT4
Wetland 1
Restoration Level
Restoration
Headwater Valle
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
As -Built
3tationine/Location (LF
0+01 to 31+65
31+65 to 35+80
35+80 to 41+95
41+95 to 44+60
44+60 to 53+51
0+11 to 3+48
3+48 to 9+28
0+02 to 1+95
0+69 to 20+10
0+36 to 1+14
Adjacent to UTI & UT3
Stream
2,459
530
680
4,584
Restoration - Restoration
or -Restoration Footage or
Equivalent Acreage
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII etc.)
RE 3,064
3,064
Enhancement II
RE 415
415
Enhancement I
RE 615
615
Enhancement II
RE 265
265
Enhancement 1
RE 827
891
Enhancement II
R 337
364
Headwater Valley
R 518
587
P1 Restoration
R 193
NA
Headwater Valley
R 1,941
1,428
P1 Restoration
RE 78
78
Enhancement II
R 13.72
13.72
Restoration
Component Summation
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland
Riverine
Non-Riverine
13.72
Restoration - Restoration
or -Restoration Footage or
Equivalent Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs/
WMUs
RE 3,064
1:2.5
1,226
RE 415
1 : 1.5
277
RE 615
1 : 2.5
246
RE 265
1 :1.5
177
RE 827
1:2.5
331
R 337
1:1.0
337
R 518
1 : 1.0
518
R 193
1 : 1.0
193
R 1,941
1:1.0
1,941
RE 78
1:2.5
31
R 13.72
1 : 1.0
13.72
Buffer
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
--- --- --- ---
Upland
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; FB = Forested Buffer

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Reporting History
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project / DMS Project#95718
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
August 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
December 2014
Construction Completed
March 2015
May 2015
Site Planting Completed
May 2015
May 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring —baseline)
July 2015
November 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
December 2015
February 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Year 3 Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27605
Year 4 Monitoring
[phone]
Year 5 Monitoring
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
Year 6 Monitoring
O Box 545
Year 7 Monitoring
[phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project /DMS Project #95718
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
O Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wri ht
Planting Contractor
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
David Godley
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
O Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph ri ht
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
Full Delivery Provider
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Project Manager:
Daniel Ingram
Monitoring Performers
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Project Manager:[Brian
Hockett, PLS

Table 4. Project Information
Protect Information
Project Name Cedar Creek Site
County Sampson
Project Area (acres) 42.0
Project Coordinates (latitude and 34'57'59.663"N 78122'0.778"W
longitude)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030006
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030006090060
DWQ Sub -basin
03-06-19
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,890 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
4.5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Woody wetlands, Shrub/scrub, cultivated crops, evergreen forest
Reach Summary Information (As -Built
Conditions)
Parameters
UTI
UT2
UT3
UT4
Length of reach (linear feet)
5,250
917
1941
78
Valley Classification
X
X
X
X
Drainage area (acres)
2780
35
151
77
NCDWQ stream identification score
50.0
34.5
40.0
42.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Morphological Description (stream
type)
E5
E5
E5
E5
Evolutionary trend
Stage II
Stage 11/111Stage
StageIII
II/III
11/111
Underlying mapped soils
BH
Jo
BH
BH
Drainage class
frequently
undrained
frequently
frequently
flooded
flooded
flooded
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Slope
0.20%
1.40%
1.10%
1.0%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
AE
N/A
cultivated
cultivated,
mixed
mixed
Native vegetation community
Imixed
mixed
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
forest
forest
forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive
<5
0
0
<5
vegetation

Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
UT1/3
Size of Wetland (acres)
13.72
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Bibb/Johnson
Drainage class
Frequently Flooded
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Runoff/GroundwaterDischarge
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised Channel, Dredging
Native vegetation community
Forested
Percent compositionof exotic invasive
vegetation
1-2%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2013-00389
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 13-0186
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr. Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
NA
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
EEP Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA
N/A

Cedar Creek Stream• •
Wetland Mitigation
Hoondros
. r
WJ
i4set 0 c�
o` 0
Sampson County Airport m
ai
CD
° `I
e o• $ Q
0
LT' -
CI
°
r
d`war m I
TUrk—
v.0
v
Le end
e ill
© Airports
NC Highway o
Kenn
State Roads c� Ca er
m
i Streams -2
Cedar Creek Easement The Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Site is located in Sampson County approximately 3.1 miles southwest
Waterbody of Clinton, NC. To access the Site from the town of Clinton, travel west on Highway 24 (Sunset Avenue),
take a left onto Airport Road and go 1.3 miles. Turn right onto West Main Street Extension, go
5 -Mile Aviation Zone approximately 350 feet, and turn left onto a dirt farm path. Follow the farm path along the cultivated field
03030006090060 edge to the southwest corner and enter the forest. Follow the dirt path to cultivated fields adjacent to the
project below UT2. Turning to the left will take you to UT2. Going to the right will take you to UT3.
Figure 1 Date: 11/6/2015
Project Vicinity Map Drawn by: BSH
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
0 0.75 1.5 res
Sampson County, North Carolina
Miles

114'x. _ � '� �'•, •• .1 e �
ampson County,Airport
Legend e
i 4 �
Streams ��
Q Cedar Creek Easement _v_ Garland U GS Topographic Quadrange
—.ter q Copyright:© 2013; Natiorial Geographic Society, i cubed
-- - -
Figuret Date 2/16/2016
wE Project USGS Map Drawn by: BSH
0 1,000 2,000
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
res
Sampson County, North Carolina
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Stream Photos
Vegetation Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Area Photos

UT4 k,7
Enhancement 11
law
res
A',
0 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
�MF' Figure 3a.
Cedar Creek
tRestoration Project
C 4
r .w• ;�1 UT1/UT4
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
r R
3/3/2016 Drawn by: BPB
LEGEND
UT1
Enhancement II
(1+01 -31+65)
t
r - .��• ,�_ �p .��� �. O Conservation Easement
r
Vegetation Plots
I- • -r. �. Stream/Wetland Gauges
State Roads
• ,��'.' ' Enhancement I
— Enhancement II
Headwater Valley Restoration
4 k• I I — P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
Wetland Restoration Area
.E_W,
-
•
ML
i rV 1 f
,.� •k'a'sr: - '.- .: ,'` -. _ �. �'�• `'f: - ` Source: 2013 NC O�nemap Aeria
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
N Present Mar inal Absent
m
•0 Absent No Fill
a
to
Present IIII
•y IIII I
C COrnrnOn ___

VP 15
r !f k
°f
CG -1
ACG -1
VP 9 AW -5
N
Cross Section 13
Cross
S00%,
14
os
s
ECr°,5 S Sect LCP �6
� s
VP 12
�VPP.1 U
UT3
P1 Restoration
(0+69 - 20+10)
AW -6
IFV P 8
1911
- Cro
ss sectf AW -8 AW -7
Cross Sectiorh 7� (RVP 6
AW -10
VP 11
VP 13
A"
CD
"e, �0�
u, 2.1' �a�t�irrrr:�drll �,: �z. _•... �_- fa., 4 f`_ ,1
.A e
r _
It
UT1 _ UT1
Enhancement I Enhancement II
tl{{{//!tl �, ," -� ,�A►1c� ! ,,n^ c (41+95 - 44+60) " (35+80 - 41+95)
UT1 t.
Y. T
Enhancement II � �: r �; . �•
(44+60 - 53+51)
4. '_'Fr f l
cl.a
-•If y r
J.
UT1
Enhancement 1
(31+65 - 35+80)
r
fires
N �
0 50 5 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 3c.
Cedar Creek
Restoration Project
UT1
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
,J Date: 3/29/2016 1 Drawn by: BSH
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
• Crest Gauge Locations
Vegetation Plots
Wetland Well Hydroperiods
ED >9% Successful
® <9% Not Successful
— State Roads
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Restoration
— P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
E7:1 Wetland Restoration Area
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
d
0 Absent No Fill
CL
to
> Present III I
• N III I
m
Common ___

iti _ rt � F _ � .. • • ��� f
1
7
.�
11017
.
Wetland 1
w y
UT3
P1 Restoration
(0+69 - 20+10)
UT1
Enhancement II
(44+60 -53+51
AW -10
VP 13
5;77 y
of `
VP 12
Cro
ss
UT1
Enhancement I
(41+95 - 44+60)
r
fires
0 50 s 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 3d.
Cedar Creek
Restoration Project
UT1
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
Date: 3/29/2016 1 Drawn by: BSH
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
• Crest Gauge Locations
I--. Vegetation Plots
Wetland Well Hydroperiods
(D>9% Successful
® <9% Not Successful
State Roads
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Restoration
— P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
D Wetland Restoration Area
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
N Present Marginal Absent
m
•� Absent No Fill
a
to I I I I I
i Present III I
• y I I I I I
C COrnrnOn ___
REFAW=1
"�
REFAW-2
a-.
4
I
r.
Ai
�
e
�
AW -10
VP 13
5;77 y
of `
VP 12
Cro
ss
UT1
Enhancement I
(41+95 - 44+60)
r
fires
0 50 s 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 3d.
Cedar Creek
Restoration Project
UT1
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
Date: 3/29/2016 1 Drawn by: BSH
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
• Crest Gauge Locations
I--. Vegetation Plots
Wetland Well Hydroperiods
(D>9% Successful
® <9% Not Successful
State Roads
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Restoration
— P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
D Wetland Restoration Area
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
N Present Marginal Absent
m
•� Absent No Fill
a
to I I I I I
i Present III I
• y I I I I I
C COrnrnOn ___

%.4
T"
.arm
.-e
j
UT2C
HWV Restoration
1+95)
Ci2
Se
Goss.
-vet' 1
r~r
s {
UT2 Cron s
s
P1 Restoration y, - ' ' ssect'o�oc�
(3+48 - 9+28)
U 1
Noor HWV Restoration
N `/ y�G0 11 UT2 (0+11 - 3+48)
• U C�osaar:.
SPA1mot70 10
o ?S
1 V°' 4 '
.+�y - ttrtb1 `. r 8r . flay
;r
Enhancement II '
(1+01 - 31+65).7
� a„ -�� '-'k .a '• z.. kid ..' - 1 i
l- k
dl
Source: 2013 NC Onemap Aerial Ima
NC OneMap, INC Center fo Ge U graphi Inm
fo atron and nays s, NC 91'
fires
N
W E
s
0 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 3e.
Cedar Creek
Restoration Project
UT2/UT2C
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
Date: 3/29/2016 1 Drawn by: BSH
LEGEND
C3 Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots
Crest Gauge Locations
State Roads
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Restoration
— P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
D Wetland Restoration Area
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
N Present Mar inal Absent
d
d Absent No Fill
Q.
to
> Present III I
• y III I
R
Common ____

UT1
Enhancement 1
(41+95 - 44+60)
AW -9 N
® C -
VP 12 ~
rn"�p
O
U
• - .rAW-2
+ VP 19'
101)
k, VP 18At rilY 8�
r �
VP 15 AW -11
LYM11
C,Jn
C N
O N
CG -1 0 m
C ACCN �,•
nr S
U
AW -5
VP 9
UT3
P1 Restoration
(0+69 - 20+10)
AW -3 t r
N s VP 17f
n oc'
UT3
P1 Restoration
(0+69 - 20+10)
-�
opp
l, 411
t ` r
Wetland 1
r. _ice • s
lire JY�
fires
N
e
0 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 3f.
Cedar Creek
Restoration Project
UT3
Current Conditions
Plan View Map
Date: 3/29/2016 1 Drawn by: BSH
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Crest Gauge Locations
Vegetation Plots
Wetland Well Hydroperiods
>9% Successful
® <9% Not Successful
' State Roads
Enhancement I
— Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Restoration
— P1 Restoration
Cross Sections
Wetland Restoration Area
Source- 2013 NC�Onemap Aerial Imager
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
N Present Mar inal Absent
m
d Absent No Fill
a
to IIII I
>Present IIII
•y IIII I
R
> Common ____

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT1
Assessed Length 5186
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel
Metric
Performing as
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Sub -Category
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
*
2. Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
1 50
100%
1 50 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
Totals
1 50
100%
1 50 100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
5
5
100%
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
5
5
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2
Assessed Length 855
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
*
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
21
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
21
21
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
21
21
100%
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
21
21
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2C
Assessed Length 193
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
100%
0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
*
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
Zo
100%
0 0 100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
100%
0 0 100%
Totals
0
100%
0 0 100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
3
3
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT3
Assessed Length 1941
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
*
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
19
19
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
19
19
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
19
19
100%
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
19
19
100%
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT4
Assessed Length 78
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Number Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Performing as
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0 0
100%
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely.
*
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0 0
100%
100%
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
100%
2. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
N/A
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
0
0
N/A
(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
0
0
N/A
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 20
Easement Acreaae` 37.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions ThresholdDe
iction
Pol ons
Acreage
Acreage
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres
®
0
0.00
0.0%
1000 SF
® LE
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
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
®
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaae` 37.6
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
® LE
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95718
Feature Category
Feature Issue
Station # / Range
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
N/A
N/A
Loose soil near base of tree; recommend flush
Bank failure/fallen tree
UTI @ 25+00 to
cutting the tree and anchring root mass into
SPAT
25+50
bank for stabiliztion- mat and livestake entire
area
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95718
Feature Category
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Appendix B.
Cedar Creek Stream/Wetland Photos- MYl
UTI — STA 35+25 - Looking Upstream
(11/30/2015)
UTI - STA 25+50 - Looking Upstream
(12/2/2015)
UT2 - STA 8+50 - Looking Downstream
UT2 - STA 8+50 - Looking Upstream
(12/2/2015) (12/2/2015)
UT3 - STA 1+50 - Looking Downstream
(12/2/2015)
UT3- STA 8+25 - Looking Upstream
(12/2/2015)

Wetland Restoration Area 1 and UT3 (12/03/2015)
Wetland Hydrology Gauge AW6 (12/03/2015)
Crest Gauge 1- UT3 (7/30/2015)
ti.
Crest Gauge 2 — UT2C (7/30/2015)
•w®i
Crest Gauge 3 — UT2 (7/30/2015)
Rain Gauge and Ambient — (7/30/2015)

Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 6 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 10 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 12 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 13 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 16 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 17 (12/02/2015)

Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 24 (12/02/2015)
Bank Pin Array at Cross Section 25 (12/02/2015)

Appendix B.
Cedar Creek WI Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (12/2/2015)
Vegetation Plot 3 (11/30/2015)
Vegetation Plot 5 (12/2/2015)
Appendix B. Cedar Creek Site MY1 Vegetation Photos
Vegetation Plot 2 (11/30/2015)
Vegetation Plot 4 (12/2/2015)
Vegetation Plot 6 (12/2/2015)

Cedar Creek MYO Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 7 (12/2/2015)
Vegetation Plot 9 (12/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 11 (12/2/2015)
Appendix B. Cedar Creek Site MY1 Vegetation Photos
Vegetation Plot 8 (12/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 10 (12/2/2015)
Vegetation Plot 12 (12/3/2015)

Cedar Creek MYO Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 13 (12/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 15 (12/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 17 (12/2/2015)
Appendix B. Cedar Creek Site MY1 Vegetation Photos
Vegetation Plot 14 (12/3/2015)
Vegetation Plot 16 (12/2/2015)
Vegetation Plot 18 (12/2/2015)

Cedar Creek WO Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 19 (12/2/2015)
Appendix B. Cedar Creek Site MY1 Vegetation Photos
Vegetation Plot 20 (12/2/2015)

Appendix B - Stream Problem Area Photos
SPAT- Bank Failure @ Sta 25+00 to 25+50

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix C.
Cedar Creek MYl Vegetation Tables
Table 9a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract
Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
Yes
10
Yes
11
Yes
12
Yes
13
Yes
14
Yes
15
Yes
16
Yes
17
Yes
18
Yes
19
Yes
20
Yes

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Cedar Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Brad Breslow
Date Prepared
2/2/2016 15:18
database name
Cedar Creek MY 1 2015.mdb
database location
C.\Users\Brad\Dropbox (RES)\@RES Projects\North Carolina\Cedar
Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\MY1\Vegetation Data
computer name
BRESLOW-PC
file s ize
76546048
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.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted
and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing
stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 95718
project Name Cedar Creek Restoration Site
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
le ngth(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 20

Table 9c Planted Total Stem Counts
Current Plot Data (MY1 2015)
Current Plot Data (MY1 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95718-01-0013
PnoLS P -all T
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95718-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
95718-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0017
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0019
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
red maple
95718-01-0011
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0012
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
12
13
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 22
22
22
30
2
2
2
river birch
9
9
9
1
1
1
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
12
12
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
28
28
28
2
2
2
1
1
1
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
3 3
3
6
6
6
32
32
32
34
34
34
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
11
11
11
3
12 12
12
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
6
Tree
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
9
9
9
19
19
19
Mo/us
apple
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
MCI/us
apple
Tree
4
4
4
10
10
10
Plotonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
35
40
40
40
6
6
6
1
1
1
2 2
2
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
3
3
3 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
11 11
11
1
1
1
1 1
1 14
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
3
3
3
2
2
2
7
7
7 5
5
5
9
9
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2 61
61
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
35
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2 7
7
7
5 5
5
2
2
2 3
3
3 2
2
2
3
3
3
9
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2 44
1
1
1
21
21
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
9
9
1
1
1 3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Sambucus
elderberry
Shrub
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
6 6
6
8
8
8
4
4
4 107
107
107
142
142
142
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
301 301
30
17
17
17
3
3
3 4
4
4
4 4
4
3
3
3 4
4
4
3
4
4
4
6 6
6
Unknown
17
8
688
Shrub or Tree
24 39
1
0.02
7 9
971.2 1578
22
6
890.3
221 22
1
0.02
6 6
890.3 890.3
19 191 19
1
0.02
4 4 4
768.9 768.9 768.9
29
5
1174
29
1
0.02
5
1174
29
5
1174
16
6
647.5
16 16
1
0.02
6 6
647.5 647.5
16
7
647.5
16 16
1
0.02
7 7
647.5 647.5
419
12
847.8
419 445
20
0.49
12 14
847.8 900.4
546
13
11051
546 546
20
0.49
13 13
11051 1105
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
24
51
971.2
241 24
1
0.02
51 5
971.2 971.2
311 311
1
0.02
2 2
1255 1255
31
21
1255
35
61
1416
35 35
1
0.02
61 61
1416 1416
23
61
930.8
23 23
1
0.02
61 6
930.8 930.8
16
71
647.5
16 16
1
0.02
71 71
647.5 647.5
22
61
890.3
22
1
0.02
61
890.3
28
71
1133
22 22 22
1
0.02
4 4 4
890.3 890.31 890.31
21
7
849.81
21 21
1
0.02
7 7
849.81 849.81
18
3
728.41
18 22
1
0.02
3 4
728.41 890.31
19
6
768.91
19 19
1
0.02
6 6
768.91 768.91
14
8
566.61
14 14
1
0.02
8 8
566.61 566.61
18 18 18
1
0.02
2 2 2
728.41 728.41 728.4
Current Plot Data (MY1 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95718-01-0013
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0014
Pnol-S P -all T
95718-01-0015
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0016
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0017
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0018
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0019
PnoLS P -all T
95718-01-0020
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
12
13
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3 22
22
22
30
30
30
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
5
5
5
22
22
22
28
28
28
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
3 3
3
32
32
32
34
34
34
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
9
9
9
19
19
19
Mo/us
apple
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
10
10
10
Plotonus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
2
2
2
1
1
1 35
35
35
40
40
40
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
20
20
20
181
181
181
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1 1
1 14
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
2 54
54
54
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
9 9
9 4
4
4
2
2
2 61
61
61
35
35
35
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2 9
9
9
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2 44
44
44
21
21
21
Sambucus
elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
6 6
6
8
8
8
4
4
4 107
107
107
142
142
142
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
7
566.6
14 14
1
0.02
7 7
566.6 566.6
16
7
647.5
16
1
0.02
7
647.5
17
8
688
24
7
971.2
24 39
1
0.02
7 9
971.2 1578
22
6
890.3
221 22
1
0.02
6 6
890.3 890.3
19 191 19
1
0.02
4 4 4
768.9 768.9 768.9
29
5
1174
29
1
0.02
5
1174
29
5
1174
16
6
647.5
16 16
1
0.02
6 6
647.5 647.5
16
7
647.5
16 16
1
0.02
7 7
647.5 647.5
419
12
847.8
419 445
20
0.49
12 14
847.8 900.4
546
13
11051
546 546
20
0.49
13 13
11051 1105

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table 11. Dimensional Morphology Summary — Cross Sections Data
Table 12. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Cross Section Plots

Table 10. Cedar Creek Morphological Parameters
Reference Reach
Existing'
UT1 (Upper) I UT1 (Lower) I UT2 Reach A
UT3 Reach A UT3 Reach A
UT4 UT2
(Upper) (Lower)
Design
UT3
UT2
As -Built
UT3
Feature
Pool I
Run
I Shallow
Shallow I
Pool
Shallow I
Pool
Shallow I
Run
Run
Shallow I
Run
Shallow
Shallow I
Pool
Shallow I
Pool
Shallow I
Pool
Shallow I
Pool
Drainage Area (ac)
81
2514
2780
34
116
150
79
41
146
41
146
Drainage Area (mi)
0.13
3.93
4.34
0.05
0.18
0.23
0.12
0.06
0.23
0.06
0.23
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)Z
---
---
3.7
44.3
47.7
2.0
4.8
5.8
3.7
2.3
5.7
2.3
5.7
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)3
---
---
1.8
24.9
26.8
0.9
2.4
2.9
1.8
1.1
2.9
1.1
2.9
Design/Calculated Discharge cfs
---
---
5
-
- -
-
---
4.0
1
6.0
1
4.0
1
6.0
Dimension
BF Width ft
6.3
14.0
6.2
18.2
14.1
11.0
10.9
4.8
5.2
4.0
10.4
7.7
6.2
4.6
5.4
6.0
7.0
7.5
7.1
7.9
7.2
Floodprone Width ft
100.0
100.0
100.0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
5.9
2.9
42.1
46.4
32.2
29.2
2.4
3.0
3.4
5.5
4.8
5.6
2.2
3.1
3.6
4.8
2.9
2.9
4.1
4.2
BF Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.4
0.5
2.3
3.3
2.9
2.7
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.0
0.5
0.8
3.2
4.4
3.7
3.3
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.3
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
33.3
13.4
7.9
4.3
3.8
4.1
9.6
10.5
4.7
19.7
12.2
6.9
10.2
9.4
10.2
10.1
20.1
18.1
15.6
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
1.2
1.3
1.6
2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
7.1
14.2
6.7
20.4
18.8
15.8
16.2
5.2
5.9
5.8
10.7
8.2
7.1
4.9
5.9
6.4
7.6
7.7
7.5
8.3
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.4
0.4
2.1
2.5
2.0
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
Substrate
Medium/Coarse Sand
Medium/Coarse Sand
Medium/Coarse Sand
Medium/Coarse Sand
Pattern
Min
Max
Med
---
---
---
---
---
---
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Channel Beltwidth ft
13.0
19.3
13.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
10.5
15.7
12.6
18.8
10.3
23.9
14.3
23.3
Radius of Curvature (ft)
5.2
11.7
9.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
4.2
9.4
5.1
11.3
8.6
22.0
6.4
20.8
Radius of Curvature Ratio
0.7
1.6
1.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.1
2.9
0.8
2.6
Meander Wavelength (ft)
13.3
22.5
21.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
4.6
13.8
6.0
18.0
5.0
18.3
6.5
19.5
Meander Width Ratio
2.1 1
3.1
1 2.2
- -
- -
--
- -
2.1
1
3.1
1 2.1
1
3.1
1.4
1
3.2
1 1.8
1
2.9
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
2.0
30.9
10.9
---
---
--
---
---
1.6
24.5
1.9
29.4
2.5
26.2
2.3
33.2
Run Length (ft)
1.0
20.1
6.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.8
15.9
0.9
19.1
2.1
18.5
2.3
23.2
Pool Length (ft)
2.6
12.1
5.8
---
- -
---
---
---
2.1
9.6
2.5
11.5
3.2
10.2
3.7
12.2
Pool -to-Pool Spacing (ft)
10.1
61.0
28.6
---
---
---
---
---
8.0
48.3
9.6
57.9
12.5
55.6
10.1
60.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
164
3376
1515
255
486
731
78
643
1600
643
1600
Channel Length (ft)
203
3694
1574
275
496
739
78
724
1912
740
1941
Sinuosity
1.24
1.09
1.04
1.08
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.13
1.20
1.15
1.21
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Channel Slope (ft/ft
0.009
0.0022
0.0016
0.012
0.0164
0.007
0.010
0.0170
0.0095
0.0202
0.0130
Rosgen Classification
E/C5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
E5
1 Bankfull stage was estimated using NC Regional Curve equations and existing conditions data
2 NC Regional Curve equations source: Doll et al. (2003)
3 NC Regional Curve equations source: Sweet and Geratz (2003)

1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Appendix D. Table 11. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Cedar Creek Site/ NCDMS Project # 95718
Cross Section 1 (Run)
Cross Section 2 (Run)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Run)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY r
Record elevation (datum) used
89.8
89.8
89.2
89.2
88.1
88.1
85.8
85.8
106.1
106.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.0
18.5
14.3
14.2
23.8
26.1
14.4
14.5
6.9
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.2
2.1
1 1
2.7
2.8
1 1
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.1
3.3
3.1
2.5
2.6
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
41.6
38.9
38.0
40.1
45.5
43.7
24.7
26.3
3.7
3.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
8.8
5.4
5.1
12.4
15.6
8.4
8.0
12.8
12.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
2.1
1.9
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
105.3
105.3
103.5
103.5
103.5
103.5
97.9
97.9
97.4
97.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.9
4.6
7.3
6.5
7.1
8.1
7.5
5.7
5.7
5.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
2.1
1.6
4.5
3.9
5.0
5.1
4.0
2.4
3.5
2.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.0
12.8
11.8
10.9
9.9
13.0
14.2
13.5
9.1
11.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
Cross Section 14 (Riffle)
Cross Section 15 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
93.5
93.5
93.1
93.1
90.9
90.9
90.9
90.9
89.0
89.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.4
6.9
8.1
6.6
9.3
5.4
9.6
6.2
6.8
6.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.9
1.8
1.7
0.9
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
4.8
4.2
6.6
4.7
3.9
1.2
3.7
2.9
4.3
3.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
22.2
11.1
10.0
9.3
22.2
23.2
25.0
13.4
10.8
11.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 16 (Pool)
Cross Section 17 (Pool)
Cross Section 18 (Riffle)
Cross Section 19 (Run)
Cross Section 20 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
88.8
88.8
87.4
87.4
87.1
87.1
108.8
108.8
105.4
105.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.5
6.3
8.8
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
1 0.3
0.3
1 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
3.8
3.5
4.2
4.0
4.0
2.9
2.1
2.7
2.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
14.4
12.0
13.0
12.3
d3.5
19.6
19.4
29.1
15.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Appendix D. Table 11. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -
Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Cedar Creek Site/ NCDMS Project # 95718
Cross Section 21 (Pool)
Cross Section 22 (Riffle)
Cross Section 23 (Riffle)
Cross Section 24 (Pool)
Cross Section 25 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3
MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY r
Record elevation (datum) used
101.8
101.8
101.3
101.3
95.6
95.6
95.4
95.4
91.5
91.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
11.1
6.0
5.9
8.3
8.7
5.9
5.7
6.6
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.4
1 1
0.5
0.6 1 1
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
8.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
3.1
4.0
3.1
3.3
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.2
2.6
2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
25.6
30.8
11.6
10.7
21.9
26.1
11.8
14.7
17.0
15.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 26 (Riffle)
Cross Section 27 (Run)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3
MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
91.3
91.3
105.3
105.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.8
8.2
6.4
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.1
27.3
14.8
15.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3
MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY" Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MYI
MY2 MY3
MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area L
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12.Cedar Creek Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1
Cross Section Location Position Reading
XS 6 @ Sta. 3+25
Reach UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 10 @ Sta.
8+80 Reach UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 12 @ Sta.
12+90 Reach
UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 13 @ Sta.
14+50 Reach
UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 16 @ Sta.
16+95 Reach
UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 17 @ Sta.
18+50 Reach
UT3
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 24 @ Sta.
6+60 Reach UT2
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
XS 25 @ Sta.
8+25 Reach UT2
US
Top 0.0
Bottom 0.0
DS
Top 1 0.0
Bottom 1 0.0
Notes:
US - Upstream from cross section
DS - Downstream from cross section

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT1 Cross Section 1 - Run
95
94
93
92
91
c
° 90 - d00000"
w
89
88
87 \
86 \
85
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT1 Cross Section 2 - Run
94
93
92
91
90
0
89
LU 88
87
86-
i,
85
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

C:
0
0
Lu
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
85
84 +
0
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UTI Cross Section 3 - Riffle
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT1 Cross Section 4 - Run
89
88
87
C 86
7
0
85
LU
84
83
82
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 5 - Riffle
107.5
107
106.5
c
° 106
W 105.5 -
105
104.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

107
106.5
106
c
° 105.5
°
W 105
104.5
104
0
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 6 - Pool
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 7 - Riffle
106
105.5
105
104.5
c
° 104
W 103.5
103
102.5
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 8 - Pool
105
104.5
104
c
° 103.5
Lu 103
102.5
102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
99
98.5
98
0
0
.7�
97.5
W
97
96.5 +
0
J
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 9 - Riffle
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

99
98.5
98
c
° 97.5
a�
LU 97
96.5
96
0
Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 10 - Run/Pool
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

95
94.5
94
c
° 93.5
a�
Lu 93
92.5
92
Upstream Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 11 - Riffle
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 12 - Pool
96
95.5
95
94.5
94
c
° 93.5
93
w
92.5
92
91.5
-
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

93
92.5
92
91.5
91
90.5
90
89.5
89
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 13 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 14 - Riffle
93
92.5
92
91.5
c
° 91
W 90.5
90
89.5
89
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 15 - Riffle
92
91.5
91
90.5
-
90
v
° 89.5
>
a) 89
Lu
88.5
88
87.5
87
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 16 - Pool
92
91.5
91
90.5
90
c
°
89.5
>
a)
89
Lu
88.5
88
87.5
87
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

C:
0
0
Lu
90
89.5
89
88.5
88
87.5
87
86.5
86
85.5
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 17 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT3 Cross Section 18 - Riffle
89
88.5
88
87.5
c
0
> 87
0
w
86.5
86
85.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

110
109.5
109
c
0
108.5
w
108
107.5
0
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 19 - Run
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 20 - Run
106.5
106
105.5
o
105
W
104.5
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 21 - Pool
103
102.5
102
c
a)0
101.5
Lu
101
100.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

HEIM
102.5
102
° 101.5
w 101
100.5
100
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 22 - Riffle
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

98
97.5
97
96.5
c
° 96
W 95.5
95
94.5
94
0
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 23 - Riffle
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40. 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull FloodproneArea
50

97
96.5
96
c
° 95.5
a�
Lu 95
94.5
94
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 24 - Pool
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

92.5
92
C
° 91.5
CO
W 91
90.5
90
Upstream
Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 25 - Pool/Run
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

Upstream Downstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2 Cross Section 26 - Riffle
93
92.5 —
92
0
m 91.5
w
91
90.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area

106.5
106
105.5
c
0
0 105
w
104.5
104
0
Upstream
Cedar Creek Reach UT2-C Cross Section 27 - Run
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
50

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Chart 1.2015 Precipitation Data for Cedar Creek Site
Chart 2. 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Crest Gauge Verification Photos — (NA)

Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Stream
Reach
Number of
Bankfull
Events
Date of Highest
Bankfull Event
Maximum
Bankfull Height
(ft.)
Photo
Number
Crest Gauge 1
UT -3
0
NA
NA
NA
Crest Gauge 2
UT2-C
0
NA
NA
NA
Crest Gauge 3
UT -2
0
NA
NA
NA
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Clinton
Station
Precipitation
On -Site Auto
Rain Gauge
30 70
Percent Percent
January
4.33
3.32
5.03
3.57
---
February
3.23
2.14
3.87
1.03
---
March
4.50
3.23
5.32
4.46
---
April
3.16
1.70
3.85
3.12
---
May
3.68
2.69
4.34
3.27
---
June
4.49
3.11
5.34
5.87
7.61
July
6.06
4.16
7.22
2.16
2.08
August
5.40
3.12
6.56
3.67
6.14
September
5.00
2.04
6.07
6.05
5.22
October
3.21
1.62
3.92
6.78
10.21
November
2.89
1.83
3.49
6.70
8.61
December
3.24
2.14
3.88
6.45
---
Total
49.19
31.10
58.89
53.13
39.87

Table 15. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2015 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 17 -Mar through 14 -Nov, 242 days)
Well Data for June 5 through November 14
Success Criterion 9% = 22 Consecutive Days
Gauge
Consecutive
Percent of
Days growing
Season
Cumulative
Percent of
Days growing
Season
Occurrences—
AWI
162 67
162
67
1
AW2
162 67
162
67
1
AW3
71 29
122
50
8
AW4
100 41
144
60
3
AW5
51 21
78
32
8
AW6
51 21
94
39
10
AW7
5 2
17
7
6
AW8
21 9
54
22
7
AW9
51 21
75
31
4
AW10
50 21
72
30
8
AW1 1
13 5
39
16
9
RAWI
23 10
72
30
11
RAW2
52 21
112
46
8
RAW3
51 21
75
31
7
* Well data represents 162 days (-67%) during the total growing season from June 5" to November 14'.
Chart 1. 2015 Precipitation Data for Cedar Creek Site
2015 Precipitation Data for Cedar Creek Site
9.00 -
8.00 -
7.00
aa)
Ot
.2
"0
F-)
4.00
3.00
%
1.00
OAC
J F
M A
M j i
k S 0 N D
Months
�C41wOadyFtamtm
� GmwN Seam
—6-- OftlAe MAD Ran G&W
cbton mom* Radai ....... 30MOm pe—He

Chart 2. 2015 Cedar Creek Site Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
2015 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauges
10
10.0
Growing Season
r
I
0
8.0
-10
..---------------------------
W
W
7 ---------_._----
-------
7.0
c
a
=
-z0
6.0 r
0
0
is
y
W
W
-00
4.0 IV
c
-49
0
�
3.0
-50
-60
2.0
1.0
-70
I I JI
mom.. .R�,.AIF��� , „dR�+ ��m ...... A
lLt,0
2
J
F M A m J J A S C
N 6
Months
-m.n OaAy-mall CCAVM CCAWL CCA453
—CCAfM9
`
2015 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauges
10
10.00
'r Growing Season
90-1
0
I 4
---------
---------- -, �-
��_._ 7�..
V_
y
20
of
�
m
J
IIS -
5.00
W
GY
-30
D
a
�•
d
4.00 D
all
c
-40
a
2
11
3.00
.=C
200
100
-I —'-
,AU
C 00
J
F L5 n =1 J J A 5 O N
Months
..
i. (A:ALN GG AM �..—f:.ou�FlevHinn

2015 Cedar Creek Groundwater Gauges
10
10.00
Growing Season
fl
o
4 i
.10
---------
---------- — ---- -- — — —
7,00
U
_
600
6 00
O
I
V
N -30
1
5.00 p
W
�
vt
Q
a -40
400 0
d
c
a
a
-5D
200
-5Q
1.170
-7P
coo
J
F M ., J J A S O N
D
(Months
�,in�l Ot'ty RaiYap —CLAM -CCAw9—CCAW70 .�—CCAWtt
2015 Cedar Greek Groundwater Gauges
10
10.0
Growing Season
0
8.0
8.Q
-10
7.0
C -20
N
O
—
t7
C
m
—
(D -30
5.0 p
W
s
m
a
4.0 m
a -40
c
a`
p
c�
3.0
-50
2.0
10
-70Ll
0.0
J
F M A M J J A S, 0
N D
Months
�Cwtm DayRWW—CCREFAM c[: 1414 AVW2 CCREFA7M3