20120064 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Union County, NC
NCDEQ Contract D09126S
DMS Project Number 94687
Data Collection Period: Aug. 2016 —Sept. 2016
Draft Submission Date: November 18, 2016
Final Submission Date: December 12, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
wk*
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R IN C-
1430
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a design bid build project at the Crooked Creek #2
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance
6,147 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams, enhance 1.0 acre of existing wetlands, restore and create
10.6 acres of wetlands, and restore and enhance 70,936 square feet (SF) of riparian buffer in Union
County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 3,489.6 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 8.6 wetland
mitigation units (WMUs), and 1.3 buffer mitigation units (BMU) for the Goose Creek watershed (Table
1). The Site is located off NC Highway 218 in the northern portion of Union County, NC in the Yadkin
Pee -Dee River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03040105040010 (Figure 1). The project streams consist of two unnamed tributaries (UT) to
Crooked Creek, UT1 and UT2, and two reaches of the Crooked Creek mainstem (Reach A and Reach B)
(Figure 2). Crooked Creek flows into the Rocky River 4 miles northeast of the site near Love Mill Road at
the Stanly County line. The adjacent land to the streams and wetlands is primarily maintained for
agricultural and residential uses.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP, 2009). The Site is also located within the Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The final watershed management plan (WMP) for Goose
Creek and Crooked Creek was completed in July 2012 (NCEEP, 2012). The stressors to watershed
function identified in the WMP were sediment pollution and increases in peak stream flows resulting in
impairments to aquatic habitat and aquatic life. Stream enhancement and restoration were identified as
the best management opportunities to offset these impacts. Other stressors identified included
nonpoint source runoff, degraded terrestrial habitat, and disconnected floodplains. Wetland
enhancement and restoration was also identified as a best management opportunity to offset impacts
related to these stressors. The wetland portion of the project was identified as a specific priority in the
Project Atlas that accompanies the 2012 WMP.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include:
• Improve wetland hydrologic connectivity;
• Decrease sediment input into stream;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and
• Decrease nutrient and adverse chemical levels.
The Site construction and as -built survey was completed in 2015. Planting and baseline monitoring
activities occurred in January and February 2016. Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments were
completed during August and September, 2016 to assess the conditions of the site. The average stem
density for the Site is 320 stems per acre and is therefore on track to meet the interim Year 3
requirement of 320 stems per acres. The floodplain has dense herbaceous cover. Cross section
dimensions appear stable and functioning as designed. Hydrologic success criteria were achieved in two
of the 10 groundwater monitoring wells, and at least one bankfull event occurred on all monitored
reaches.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL

CROOKED CREEK #2 STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.3
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
Appendix 2
1.2.4
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.5
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Table 7
1.2.6
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Stream Photographs
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Vegetation Photographs
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................
2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Wetland Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Mean
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 13 Monitoring Data —Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots and Rainfall Plot
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin; eight -digit
Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105040010 (Figure 1).
The Site is located off NC Highway 218 in the northern portion of Union County, NC (Figure 1). Located in
the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed
includes primarily agricultural forested and developed land. The drainage area for the project site is
24,619 acres.
The project streams consist of Crooked Creek and two UTs to Crooked Creek; UT1 and UT2. Stream
restoration consists of UT1 and Stream Enhancement consist of UT2 and Crooked Creek.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP, 2009). The Site is also located within the Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The final watershed management plan (WMP) for Goose
Creek and Crooked Creek was completed in July 2012 (NCEEP, 2012). The stressors to watershed
function identified in the WMP were sediment pollution and increases in peak stream flows resulting in
impairments to aquatic habitat and aquatic life. Stream enhancement and restoration were identified as
the best management opportunities to offset these impacts. Other stressors identified included
nonpoint source runoff, degraded terrestrial habitat, and disconnected floodplains. Wetland
enhancement and restoration was also identified as a best management opportunity to offset impacts
related to these stressors. The wetland portion of the project was identified as a specific priority in the
Project Atlas that accompanies the 2012 WMP.
Prior to construction activities, the streams on the Site had been channelized and the adjacent
floodplain wetland areas had been cleared and ditched to provide drainage for surrounding pasture.
These land use activities resulted in bank instability due to erosion and livestock access, lack of riparian
buffer, and altered hydrology. Stream Incision, lateral erosion, and widening also resulted in degraded
aquatic and benthic habitat, reduction in quality and acreage of riparian wetlands, and lowered
dissolved oxygen levels in the stream. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Table 6 in Appendix 2 present the pre -
restoration conditions in more detail.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Pee -Dee River
Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Crooked Creek project area, others, such as
pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have
farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined
below as project goals and objectives.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include:
• Improve wetland hydrologic connectivity;
• Decrease sediment input into stream;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and
• Decrease nutrient and adverse chemical levels.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately transport
their sediment loads without significant erosion or aggradation;
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with coarse bed material and pools with finer
bed material;
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody debris, and in -
stream structures;
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water temperatures and
increased dissolved oxygen to improve water quality;
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to provide
energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural hydrologic regime;
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams;
• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and plugging agricultural drainage
features;
• Perform minor grading in wetland areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology; and
Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities and
retain existing, native trees where possible.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The stream
restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in the Crooked
Creek #2 Project (Wildlands, 2013).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 12
vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement areas. All
of the plots were installed using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and
enhanced reaches at the end of the seven year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
year three of the monitoring period (MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the
seventh year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by MY5 and stem density is trending
towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site
may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2016, resulting in an average stem density of
320 stems per acre. Although the site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems/acre, only 6 of the
12 plots (SO%) individually met this requirement. The planted stem mortality was approximately 39%
from the baseline density recorded in February 2016 at MYO of 526 stems/acre. There is an average of 8
stems per plot as compared to 13 stems per plot in MYO. Approximately 60% of the planted stems
scored a vigor of 2 or less, indicating that they are unlikely to survive. This low vigor rating is due to the
dry soil conditions and the suffocation of the surrounding herbaceous material. Please refer to Appendix
2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for
vegetation data tables.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
While significant efforts were implemented during construction to control the invasive species within
the Site, visual assessments in MY1 revealed areas in which follow up treatments may be warranted.
Non-native invasive identified include Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and morning glory (Ipomoea sp.). The native invasive cattail (Typha
latifolia) has colonized into Vegetation Plot 5, which may impact planted woody stem survival.
The majority of the floodplain contains dense, native herbaceous cover; however, the competition for
water could potentially impact the planted stems in drought conditions. Morning glory vines, and other
invasive plants are impacting planted stems near photo point 33, which is located at the center,
northern border of the easement. Despite herbicide treatment along the fence line, the vines have
intruded further into the easement. The treated areas of Chinese privet on Crooked Creek Reach A and
Reach B are showing increasing dominance of this species once again. Refer to Appendix 2 for the
vegetation condition assessment table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), and reference
photographs.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
MY1 Morphological surveys for were conducted in August 2016. Results indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. In general, the cross sections on UT1 show little to
no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio compared to baseline.
Surveyed riffle cross sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen
stream type (Rosgen, 1996). In general, substrate materials in the restoration reaches indicated
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. The particle size
distribution for MY1 riffle cross section 4 are similar or slightly larger than the as -built conditions,
however pebble count data for riffle cross section 2 indicates increased deposition of fine sediment. This
area will be watched in future monitoring years for embeddedness. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual
stability assessment table, CCPV map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the
morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY1 data collection, which was recorded
on crest gages and by visual indicators. Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the
restoration reaches within the seven-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in
separate years. Therefore, the performance criteria have been partially met in MY1. Refer to Appendix 5
for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater monitoring gages (GWG 1-10) were installed during the baseline monitoring so that
the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland areas. The
target performance criteria for wetland hydrology success consists of groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 17 consecutive days (7.5 percent) of the defined 227 day growing
season for Union County (March 23 through November 4) under typical precipitation conditions. Only
two of the ten gages (GWG 6 and GWG7) met the performance criteria for MY1. GWG 6 met criteria for
26 consecutive days (15.5%) and GWG 7 recorded 18 consecutive days (8.0%). Both gages meeting
success criteria are in the Wetland Restoration Zone A. According to onsite rain gage data and climate
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

data from a nearby USGS station, the site received less than typical amount of rain in 2016. The monthly
rainfall in Feb -April and June fell below the 30% percentile for the area (USGS 2016). Refer to Appendix
5 for the groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All restored streams within the Site appear stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density
(320 stems per acre) for the Site is currently on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria; however only
50% of the vegetation plots individually meet the interim success criteria as noted in CCPV. Two of the
10 groundwater gages met the performance criteria in MY1. The bankfull performance criteria has been
partially met in MY1.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections during annual site
visits. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — DRAFT 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from: http://deq.nc.gov/document/yadkin-pee-dee-rbrp-2009-final
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Tetra Tech, CCoG, 2012. Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan. Retrieved from:
http://www.gooseandcrooked.org/documents/GooseandCrookedLWP-WMP_Final_7-2012.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/coastalp.htm
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Real Time Water Data for North Carolina. Retrieved from:
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/realtime/real_time_yadkin_peedee.html
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2013). Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan. NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — DRAFT 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

1 _ �
Reedy
ak Nature \
reserve \ `
03040 5010040;'(, , ZVI�
1/f i "/10
f
``♦
C. T. Myers
Golf
1�ourse
�-'
03050103020050
�r
�e
�s r
♦ 833 ft
r
s
%Mnt Hill
L , Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
03040105010070
03040105030010
.\y
#*"►tee®i y �`_
I\Ldland
S'32 ft
s
I If
r
0304OV505001 C
r
i'
s , 1
03050103020060 �'� �j
' 03040105030020 } ��
t Emerald
\�re11 Lake Golf
/The Club:
.+� y Divide F[tci
y
Goff .
e o
Club
h eiv�5utlhr
r �
rg
0:"
03050 3020070
ti �{ 03040105040020,
40ti
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered 10
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
WILDLANDS , 0 0.5 1 Mile
ENGINEERING I IIIJJI�LLJ
iit) ionvi11e
rj I
Directions to Site:
From Charlotte,NC take US -74 East, take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on
Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485.
Take Interstate 485 South (Inner Loop) for approximately 3
miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill.
Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.
The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on the
right hand side of the road.
0304010507
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Union County, NC

WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
.•••:
;..;Conservation Easement
Non -Project Streams
Ditch (former UT1 channel)
Overflow Connector
Crooked Creek Reach Break
— Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Creation Zone B
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
NIN
C.
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 200 400 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Mitization Credits
Ammmmffi� Mo
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous
Nutrient Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,489.6 N/A 8.0 0.6 N/A N/A 1.3 N/A
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland
ReachlD
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Restoration or Restoration
Approach
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
(SMU/ WMU)
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A
200+00-228+29
1,555 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
1,555
2.5:1
622.0
Crooked Creek Reach B
2,404 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
2,404
2.5:1
961.6
UT1
100+00-117+18
1,762 LF
P1
Restoration
1,718
1:1
1,718.0
UT2
300+00-305+60
470 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
470
2.5:1
188.0
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
0.7 AC
Enhancement
0.7
2:1
0.4
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
N/A
Restoration
6.7
1:1
6.7
Zone B
N/A
0.3 AC
Enhancement
0.3
2:1
0.2
Zone B
N/A
N/A
Creation
3.9
3:1
1.3
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
0.6 AC
Enhancement
0.6
3:1
0.2
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
N/A
Restoration
1.1
1:1
1.1
. ..
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Buffer Upland
(acres)
(acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,718 6.7
45,735
Enhancement
1.0
25,201
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
4,429
Creation
3.9

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
June 2011
August 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
August 2011
April 2014
Construction
January 2015 -April 2015
January 2015 -April 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
January 2015 - March 2015
January 2015 - March 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
January 2015 - March 2015
January 2015 - March 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
January 2016
January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
January - February 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
August -September 2016
November 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
November 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
November 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
2021
November 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
2022
November 2022
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Early, PE, CFM
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
North State Environmental, Inc.
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Keller Environmental
Planting Contractor
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
North State Environmental, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, NC 27101
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes & Son Nursery
Bare Roots
825 Maude Etter Rd.
Live Stakes
McMinnville, TN 37110
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Croaked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year i - 2016
Project Information
Project Name
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
County
Union County
Project Area (acres)
154.94
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitudes
Project
34" 58' 54.78"N, 080" 31' 25.79"W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
0304010504001C
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-12
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
24,619
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
28%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture 38%, Forested 29%, Developed 28%, Wetlands 3%, and Herbaceous Upland 291,
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Crooked Creek Crooked Creek
Reach A Reach B
UTI
UT2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,555 2,404
1,718
195 275
Drainage area (acres)
24,619
153
51
NCDWR stream identification score
52
34.5
24.5 38
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
I P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
N/A
N/A
Stage III
Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Badin channery silt loam 8 -is% slopes (BaC)
Drainage class
Somewhat poorly
drained
Somewhat poorly
drained
Somewhat poorly
drained
Well drained
Soil hydric status
Type B (inclusions)
I Type B (inclusions)
Type B (inclusions)
N/A
Slope
0.0022
0.0047
0.0050
FEMA classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
no regulated
floodplain
no regulated floodplain
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Resto ratio
5% 5%
60%
5%
Wr
gulatory Considerations
44
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885.
Action ID # 2011-02201
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
X
X
NPDES Construction Stormwater General
Permit NCGO10000
Endangered Species Act
x
X
Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect" on Union
County listed endangered species. June 21,
2011 email correspondence from USFWS
indicating no listed species occur on site.
Historic Preservation Act
x
x
No historic resources were found to be
impacted (letter from SHPO dated
6/23/2011).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
x
x
Crooked Creek is a mapped Zone AE
floodplain with defined base flood
elevations. Base flood elevations have been
defined and the floodway has been
delineated; (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel
5540).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Crooked Creek
Reach A
Quantity / Length by Reach
Crooked Creek
Reach B UT1
UT2
Wetlands
Frequency
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
j N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Year 0
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW)/ Riffle
100 Pebble Count (RF)
N/A
N/A
1 RW / 2 RF
N/A
N/A
Annual
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
1
N/A
Quarterly
Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
Quarterly
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
12
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Photo Points
34
Annual

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 125 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year l-2016
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Union County, NC

a
C
7FTPES
L
00
PP 8
Th
0
2
a "T,I
�oft 0 25 50 100 Feet
♦� I I I I I t
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk�
•1"11,1611♦
,� 1j1j1j1jn1111n11j1jn1j
t♦
�rConservation Easement
— Non -Project Streams
Ditch (former UT1 Channel)
- Existing Overflow
In 1 ■ Overflow Connector
- - • Bankfull
—Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Creation Zone B
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
Cross Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY1
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Barotroll
Rain Gage
Crest Gage (CG)
Photo Point (PP)
Groundwater Gage - MY1
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Invasive Plant Population - MY1
10-30% cover
30-50% cover
60-100% cover
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Union County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
WILDLANDS
ENG, NEE R, NG Union County, NC

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
rk�
^1I.I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
WILDLANDS /
ENGINEERING Union County, IV

Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
WILDLANDS
ENG, NEE R, NG Union County, NC

Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
WILDLANDS
ENG, NEE R, NG Union County, NC

Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
rk�
^1I.I i I i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
WILDLANDS /
ENGINEERING Union County, IV

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UTI (1,718 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performin g as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
Degradation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
23 23
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
23 23
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate
23 23
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend(Run)
23 23
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
23 23
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
15
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
15
15
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
15
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1-2016
Planted Acreage 15.0
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
1000 SF
24
1.9
3%
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1 ac
0
0.0
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 ac
23
0.55
4%
count criteria.
Total
23
0.6
4%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
23
0.55
60%
year.
Cumulative Total
23
0.6
64%
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Number of
Polygons
Combined
2
Acreage
%of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
24
1.9
3%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%
Acreage calculated from annual vegetation monitoring plots and plant warranty inspection plots.
2Acreage of each polygon modified by estimated percent cover of invasive population

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 1— UTI looking downstream (08/18/2016) 1
Photo Point 2 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 2 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
�qK _
Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)

Photo Point 4 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 4 — UTI looking downstream (08/18/2016) 1
Photo Point 5 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 5 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 6 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)

r�v�'
i ° V
F a b
o 1A
n

Photo Point 10 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 10 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016) 1
Photo Point 11— UTI looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 11— UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 12 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016) 1 Photo Point 12 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)

y Y
Photo Point 13 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 13 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
Mn
Photo Point 14 — UTI looking upstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 14 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking upstream (08/18/2016)
Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking downstream (08/18/2016)

�A
i
y � II y
w ro �124 - P'~• ,� ✓s' � a��
I'1(
x � -
P
w
SJ,. I i11
J
� I
� a
X�
ltj_
I
'A1 c - r
IN
,;

fes;
4tN
w
mic
I F-7

AM
"l,_,.,_X�w x� � � 'fir •. '� _�.,'�'{� •. �i°�---
IT :" _ { �� _ ,� � �- -•.ewe' }�'x -'`t•
y
17
Ilkx
• • '• •• -• •• • 1: 1 • • • •• • •• •• 1: 1
-
'*`!
u z -
n k
� +L � u � � � , x y . , as � �fi•_, �' � Y t
•L��:S:�:� � a„�� _ �w it 7
z r
;y

7_7
4K
aol
MV
4K
aol
MV
MV

Photo Point 31— UT2 looking upstream Crooked Creek I Photo Point 31— UT2 looking downstream (08/18/2016) 1
Photo Point 31— UT2 looking upstream UT2 (08/18/2016)

Vegetation Photographs

� moi+ �i1 ��� �!� � � -,.`ti �f
� y y mss � � � �i�.y �
� �
�jP �. � 'Otic:^Y P �w✓c_
f�9�a k � �.�iy3 yh.
�r J
�� � �� `�
� _� kit ,�
e ti
�� * �`w ` }" " {}� ! � ` �. :fie h ��"
�'� � 9 Gn, d s, ��� ���z p ..
41 x ti �, � .�
' �� ,lv ,�r��'-, � -
�.
—�� _,—
�r�.E- pF.�`
i-
k'�'.
��
�,�
r �
� fr~
�'
�
.T 3
��� �
�}
� �
- cif.
�
j Vii'-.
�
� �+y

Wetland Photographs

Y
f
b P •� �� !.- yam. i
f

77
F
17
µ ••
WS
t
XAIN
i.r 7y+,r
,•"`� �' wr Syys. -a� 'il " � qf�„ 'r

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
50%
2 Y
3 N
4 N
5 Y
6 N
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 N
11 Y
12 N

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
9/9/2016 14:44
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Crooked Creek MY1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02156 Crooked Creek Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
RUBY
File Size
173449472
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94687
Project Name
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Description
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94687-WEI-0001
PnoLSFP-all T
94687-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
Box elder
Tree
2
4
4
Acerrubrum
Red maple
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
Celtis laevigoto
Southern Hackberry, Sug Shrub Tree
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
1
5
3
7
Juglans nigra
Black walnut
Tree
Liquidambarstyracifluo
Sweet gum
Tree
1
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
14
2
2
2
Quercus sp.
Oak
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
4
4
4
9
9
9
Ulmus olata
Winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACRE
8
1
4 1
1 324 1
8
1
0.02
4 1
324 1
10
5
405
8
4 1
324 1
8
1
0.02
4 1
324 1
10
6
405
4
1 1
162 1
4
1
0.02
1 1
162 1
10
3
405
4
2 1
162 1
4
1
0.02
2 1
162 1
7
3
283
9
1 1
364 1
9
1
0.02
1 1
364 1
9
1
364
6
3 1
243 1
6
1
0.02
3 1
243 1
19
3
769
6
2 1
243 1
6
1
0.02
2 1
243 1
21
6
850
13
5
526
13
1
0.02
5
526
17
6
688
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016) 1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94687-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
Box elder
Tree
2
6
18
17
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
7
7
7
13
13
13
14
14
14
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
14
14
15
18
18
18
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
2
Celtis loevigata
Southern Hackberry, Sugi Shrub Tree
1
1
Cornusflorida
Flowering dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
Oiospyros virginiana
American persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
1
2
10
10
13
27
27
27
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
10
26
45
Juglons nigra
Black walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyrocifluo
Sweet gum
Tree
1
1
7
4
liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
1
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
Plotonus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
13
13
26
15
15
16
Quercus sp.
Oak
Shrub Tree
10
10
10
16
16
16
53
53
53
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
13
13
13
16
16
16
Ulm us alata
Winged elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
4
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
4
526 1
13
1
0.02
4
526 1
15
6
607
3
2
1 121 1
3
1
0.02
2
121
17
6
688
15
2
1 607 1
15
1
0.02
2
607 1
17
3
688
6
4
1 243 1
6
1
0.02
4
243 1
20
9
809
95
11
1 320 1
95
12
0.30
11
320
172
17
580
156
8
526
156
12
0.30
8
526
229
15
772
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTI
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/Al: The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A': Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not appliec
*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
Pre
-Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2
UT to Lyle Creek
Spencer Creek 1
UT1
UTI
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
17.7
10.9
7.0
8.6
8.7
12.0
11.7
12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
500 539 45
49 229 44+ 200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftZ
8.6 7.8 3.5 4.1 10.6 8.7 7.3
7.5
Width/Depth Ratio
36.4 15.3 14.9 18.3 7.3 16.6 18.9
21.1
Entrenchment Ratio
28.2 49.3 5.7 6.4 26.3 2.2+ 2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.4 2.9 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
3.1 --- 0.3
35.9
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
12
50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
*
*
0.0055
0.0597
0.0100
0.0670
0.0045
0.0080
0.0004
0.0193
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
17.8
65.4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.76
1.27
0.76
1.27
1.3
2.5
1.5
2.1
1.1
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
74
20
74
15
28
13
47
42
84
36
99
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
115
543
21
24
52
30
72
30
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
61.2170.6
61.2
170.6
19
32
5
22
22
48
22
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
3.5
1
9.6
3.5
9.6
2.7
3.7
0.6
2.5
1.8
4.0
1.8
4.0
Meander Length (ft)
---
163
400
39
44
54
196
72
132
102
135
Meander Width Ratio
---
10.5
49.7
2.4
3
2.8
6.0
2.5
6.0
2.5
6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
-/-/3.1/8.6/11.0/16.0
---
-/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0
0.1/3.0/8.8/77/180/-
SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
---
---
0.012
0.11
1
0.12
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.24
N/A
0.25
0.50
0.24
0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1% <1% --- --- <1% <1%
Rosgen Classification
N/A' N/A' C5/6 E4/C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5 4.1 4.7 --- 3.4 2.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
30 N/A' 18 --- 30 16
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
50 N/A'
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
17 40 N/A'
Q -Mannings
24 N/A'
Valley Length (ft)
--- --- --- --- 1,353 1,353
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,789 --- --- 1,718 1,718
Sinuosityl
1.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft Z
0.0071 0.0034 1 0.004 1 0.0132 0.0032 1 0.0034
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0066 0.0058 1 0.009 1 0.0139 0.0041 1 0.0036
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/Al: The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A': Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not appliec
*: Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg

Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
541.8
541.9
542.1
542.0
539.7
539.7
539.8
539.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.3
12.7
11.7
11.1
12.6
12.3
12.6
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
200+
200+
---
---
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.9
2.4
2.2
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
8.7
8.5
7.3
5.9
12.6
11.4
7.5
7.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.4
18.9
18.9
20.8
12.7
13.4
21.1
18.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
2.2+
2.2+11.9
12.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 13. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTI
NW Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1 My.��
Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.7
12.6
11.1
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.3
7.5
5.9
7.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
21.1
18.0
20.8
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
DSO (mm)
0.3
35.9
SC
65.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12
50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0004
0.0193
Pool Length (ft)
18
65
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
36
99
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
30
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8
4.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
102
135
Meander Width Ratio
2.5
6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,718
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0034
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d9S/d100
SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 1-UT1
Bankfull Dimensions
8.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
107+88 Pool
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
544
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
543
18.9
width -depth ratio
542
c
0
541
v
w
540
539
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
4 MYO(01/2016)
—4 MY1(08/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.7
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 08/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 2 -UTI
108+32 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
544
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
543
max depth (ft)
11.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.8
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
542
c
0
541
v
w
540
539
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (01/2016) +MY1 (08/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
11.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.8
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 08/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 3 -UTI
114+01 Pool
541
12.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
13.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
540
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
F 539
C
0
538
v
w
537
536
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
4 MYO(01/2016) —s MY1(08/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
13.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 08/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 4-UT1
114+34 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
542
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
541
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
F 540
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
w.
0
539
v
w
538
537
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (01/2016) +MY1 (08/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 08/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
18
46
64
64
64
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Sand
avel
64
Fine
0.125
0.250
64
Medium
0.25
0.50
r
64
Coarse
0.5
1.0
64
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
64
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
64
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
64
Fine
4.0
5.6
64
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
66
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
1
67
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
70
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
71
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
8
8
79
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
82
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
1
83
Small
64
90
4
1
4
4
87
Small
90
128
4
4
4
91
Large
128
180
4
4
4
95
0
Large
180
256
3
3 1
3
98
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
5121024
1024
512
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT1, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
DSo=
Silt/Clay
D. =
69.7
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
silticlay
Sand
avel
bbleIda
r
80
a ro
70
60
m 50
3
? 40
y 30
n 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—,v—, Mriae/zo- s
100
90
80
70
m
60
m
a 50
N
40
U
m 30
3
a 20
= 10
0
UTI, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
O�ra'LOy.�h oyh �y y ti ,k0 P h6 0 .y N10 �,L'o ,�i'L by X00• Ao ytis' ti9y0 ,1h6 3�ti ytiti y�,ya ry�bw aDA�o
Particle Class Size (mm)
.Mroou�o�� •Mr.o.aa.s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1, Cross Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
51
51
51
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
51
Fine
0.125
0.250
51
Medium
0.25
0.50
51
Coarse
0.5
1.0
51
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
51
Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
51
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
54
Fine
4.0
5.6
16
16
70
Fine
S.6
8.0
15
15
85
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
94
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
100
Coarse
16.0 1
22.6
100
Coarse
22.6
32
100
Very Coarse
32
45
100
Very Coarse
45
64
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128 1
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
................................................
Small
256
362
100
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........
:......:Large/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
u 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Mmovm�e mv,.asamc
Cross Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D84 =
7.8
D95 =
11.7
D100 =
16.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
u 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Mmovm�e mv,.asamc

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
21.51
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
4
Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
5
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
10
Coarse
16.0 1
22.6
7
7
17
Coarse
22.6
32
9
1 9
26
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
36
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
48
Small
64
90
28
28
76
Small
90
128
10
10
86
Large
128 1
180
7
7
93
Large
180
256
5
1 5
98
................................................
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
UT1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiltlClay a vel
80
ble er
a ro
70
60
50
E
UO 40
C 30
u
a 20
10
0--t I III
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--n—
mv,.asamc
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
21.51
D35 =
43.49
D50 =
65.6
D84 =
119.3
D95 =
207.2
D100 =
362.0
UT1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiltlClay a vel
80
ble er
a ro
70
60
50
E
UO 40
C 30
u
a 20
10
0--t I III
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--n—
mv,.asamc

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTI, UT2, Crooked Creek
Reach QJ
•. • of Data
8/18/2016
Date of
OccurrenceCollection
7/11/2016
MY ofOccu,,.A.
1
Crest Gage
Year 3 (2018)
UT1
11/9/2016
N/A
N/A
Crest Gage
8/18/2016
7/11/2016
1
Crest Gage
UT2
11/9/2016
10/8/2016
1
Crest Gage
No/2 Days
8/18/2016
7/11/2016
1
Crest Gage
Crooked Creek
11/9/2016
10/8/2016
1
Crest Gage
N/A: Indicator below BKF elevation
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek#2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland success criteria is 7.5% of growing season (17 consecutive days).
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Gage
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
No/0 Days
1
(0%)
No/2 Days
2
(0.9%)
No/1 Day
3
(0.4%)
No/0 Days
4
(0%)
No/1 Day
5
(0.4%)
Yes/26 Days
6
(11.5%)
Yes/18 Days
7
(8.0%)
No/14 Days
8
(6.2%)
No/1 Day
9
(0.4%)
No/2 Days
10
(0.9%)
Wetland success criteria is 7.5% of growing season (17 consecutive days).

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C T C 75 W G. > u
Li @ - D �n
Q O 0
g Q O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C T C 75 W G. > u
Li @ — = �n
Q O �
g Q O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0 3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C>- C W O. > u
Li R Q @ - D �n O O Q)
z Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C T C W G. > u
2 ¢ z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0 3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Creation
o
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #5
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
)
on ti
a
6.0
o
3 \
M
O
10
M
c� rl
°
O
5.0
0
t0
n
C
w
4.0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w
a
–
3.0
-20
�?
c
m
m
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
LA
1 u
0.0
-60
C
�
T C bA d
g ¢
> u
z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
w
>
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
C T C bA G. > u
Li Q m — �n O O Q)
g Q z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0
3.0 _R
c
m
W
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland Wetland Restoration
o
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #7
v
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
mti
v
m�
6.0
c o
c o
orrnn
o�
6�
10
16 m
t�
o
5.0
v
0
vi
c
w
4.0
S-10
._
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —
v
-20
`w
3.0
m
3 -30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
0.0
C
J
T C 75 ho CL
@ D a)
> u
O
¢ g ¢ O
z O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Wetland Wetland Creation
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C T C 75 h0 G. > u
Li @ - D �n
Q O 0
g Q O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Wetland Wetland Creation
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
CT C h0 G. > u
Li m @ — = �n
Q O 0
g Q O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3. 0 3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Wetland Wetland Creation
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60

Monthly Rainfall Data
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Crooked Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Union County, NC
9
8
7
6
S
r 5
0
M
a+
Q 4
'u
G1
a`
3
2
1
0
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16 Nov -16 Dec -16
Date
l� USGS Station 351218080331345 Onsite Rain Gauge (HOBO) —30% Rainfall Total —70% Rainfall
1 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000). (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)
2 On Site rain Gauge (HOBO) installed on 2/5/2016