20111108 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

YEAR 5 (2016)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
SLIVER MOON NON -RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
CRAVEN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT ID: 95017
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environment Quality
Department of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
November 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Site (Site) designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services wetland restoration goals. The Site is located approximately 4 miles east of Dover,
North Carolina in the western portion of Craven County (Figure 1) and positioned within the
Core Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020202080010 of the Neuse River Basin (8 -
digit HUC 03020202). Core Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C; NSW,
Sw and is considered biologically impaired. This report serves as the Year 5 (2016) annual
monitoring report.
The 17.1 -acre project encompasses 14 acres of non -riparian wetland restoration, for a total for 14
non -riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs). The restoration plan consisted of filling and
plugging perimeter and interior ditches followed by planting the Site with native hardwood
understory and canopy species.
The project goals aim to address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Remove non -point sources of pollution associated with vegetation maintenance including:
a. the cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals
into and adjacent to Site drainage ditches and
b. providing a vegetated wetland to aid in the treatment of runoff.
• Restore wetland hydroperiods that satisfy wetland jurisdictional requirements and
approximate the Site's natural range and variation.
• Promote floodwater attenuation by filling ditches and enhancing groundwater storage
capacity.
• Restore and reestablish natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
• Enhance and protect the Site's full potential of wetland functions and values in perpetuity.
In order to avert hydrologic trespassing issues within the property immediately to the west, a
meandering shallow swale was constructed through the Site. The swale ultimately connects into
the remaining southeastern ditch (Figure 2, Appendix B). The 6 -inch corrugated pipe, found
during construction activities, drained surface water originating from subsurface springs located
within the adjacent western property. Elevations were taken of the pipe and throughout the Site
to determine the path of least resistance. This approach was taken for two reasons 1) to
minimize the possible draw down from the swale and 2) to maintain and enhance the Site's
existing micro -topography, minimizing the amount of cut soil. Filling the western boundary
ditch without allowing the surface hydrology to naturally flow through the Site would have
undoubtedly inundated the neighbor's road and surrounding land. Ultimately, the additional
surface hydrology is a bonus to the Site and will help further the success of the wetland
restoration.
Fourteen vegetation plots (10 -meters by 10 -meters in size) were established and permanently
monumented. These plots were surveyed in July 2016 for the Year 5 (2016) monitoring season
following guidelines established in CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

(Lee et al. 2008). Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density
with 506 planted stems per acre surviving. In addition, each individual plot was above success
criteria with the exception of Plot 5; however, when including natural recruits of red maple (Acer
rubrum) this plot was well -above success criteria.
Agricultural encroachment in the southern margins of the Site occurred in the spring of 2012,
after site planting had occurred. Carolina Silvics replanted the encroached area in the winter of
2012/2013 with approximately 40-3 gallon containerized sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), 200 bare -root black gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica), 700 bare -root swamp
chestnut oaks (Quercus michauxii), 200 bare -root water oaks (Quercus nigra), and 200 bare -root
willow oaks (Quercus phellos). Additionally, the southern boundary was marked more visibly to
alleviate further encroachment into the Site.
An approximately 0.25 -acre area along the southern
margins of the Site was mowed in the spring of
2014. The southern boundary was remarked with
new t -posts, 10 -foot pvc pipes, and DMS signs
every 100 feet. In addition, this area was replanted
in the winter of 2014/2015 with 150-3 gallon black
gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica) (see photo to
left). The replanted trees appear vigorous during
Year 5 (2015), and no further easement
encroachment was observed.
Nine groundwater monitoring gauges were installed at the Site with an additional groundwater
gauge installed in a reference wetland located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of
the Site. All monitored gauges were inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the surface for
greater than 7.5 percent of the year 5 (2016) growing season (18 days), which extends from
March 18 to November 14 (242 days).
Site vegetation and wetland hydrology met success criteria for Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Additionally, the United States Army Corps of Engineers have approved a credit release for this
project (Appendix E).
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Executive Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................1
1.1 Location and Setting.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Objectives.........................................................................................................................1
1.3 Monitoring Plan View................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 ANNUAL MONITORING............................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria.................................................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Vegetation Monitoring Results............................................................................................. 2
2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Hydrology Success Criteria.................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Hydrology Monitoring Results............................................................................................. 4
3.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................5
4.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................7
FIGURES
Figure1. Site Location............................................................................................................... Appendix A
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View.................................................................................................Appendix B
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GENERAL TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION DATA
Table 6. 2016 (Year 5) Planted and Total Stems/Acre
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vegetation Plot Photographs
APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 9. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
2016 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
APPENDIX E. CREDIT RELEASE DOCUMENTATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Credit Release Approval Letter
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page i
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
Located approximately 4 miles east of Dover, North Carolina in western Craven County, the Site
is situated within the Carolina Flatwoods section of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
physiographic province of North Carolina, United States Geological Survey (USGS) HUC
03020202 (NC Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin Number 03-04-08) of the Neuse
River Basin. The Site is situated within an interstream flat north of Core Creek, NCDWQ Stream
Index Number 27-90.
Directions to the Site (Figure 1, Appendix A) from the City of Kinston:
➢ Travel southeast on US 70 Bypass for 7.2 miles
➢ Turn left at SR 1005/Dover Road
➢ Continue on Old US Highway 70 for 0.3 mile
➢ Continue onto West Kornegay Street for 1.3 Miles
➢ Continue onto Old US Highway 70 for 3.7 miles
➢ Turn left at Daisy Lane
➢ Point in center of Site: Latitude: 35.205882 °N, Longitude: -77.361332 °W
1.2 Project Objectives
Project goals include the following:
• Improving Water Quality
o Removing non -point sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities,
including a) eliminating the application of fertilizer, pesticides, and other
agricultural materials into ditches that flow to adjacent streams and wetlands and b)
providing a vegetated wetland to aid in the treatment of pollutants such as sediment
and/or agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape.
o Reducing sedimentation onsite and in adjacent ditches by a) reducing ditch erosion
associated with tillage and b) planting a diverse woody vegetative to reduce runoff.
• Enhancing Flood Attenuation
o Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) removing ditches to reduce the amount of
runoff that occurs during high precipitation; b) restoring wetland hydroperiods that
satisfy wetland jurisdictional requirements and approximate the Site's natural range
of variation; c) restoring non -riparian wetlands, resulting in increased storage
capacity during precipitation events within the Site; d) revegetating the Site to
reduce sheet flow off the Site.
• Restoring Non -riparian Habitat
o Restore and reestablish natural community structure, habitat diversity, and
functional continuity.
• Enhance and protect the Site's full potential of wetland functions and values in perpetuity.
Project objectives include the following:
• Providing 14 non -riparian WMUs, as calculated in accordance with the requirements
stipulated in RFP #16-003571. This will be accomplished by restoring 14 acres of non -
riparian wetland by eliminating row crop production, filling agricultural ditches, restoring
historic water table elevations, redirecting ditches located near the Site to avoid possible
draw -down, and planting the Site with native non -riparian forest vegetation.
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 1
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

1.3 Monitoring Plan View
Monitoring features (vegetation plots and groundwater gauges) are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix
B). Tables 1 through 3 summarize project components and mitigation credits, project activities
and reporting history, and project contacts, respectively (Appendix A).
2.0 ANNUAL MONITORING
Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed for a minimum of 7 years or until success
criteria are fulfilled. The detailed monitoring plan is depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
2.1 Vegetation
Monitoring of planted vegetation will follow guidelines outlined in the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and will be
conducted annually between June 1 and September 30 until vegetation success criteria are
achieved. Fourteen, 10 -meter by 10 -meter vegetation plots have been placed within restored
wetlands (Figure 2, Appendix B). Vegetation will receive a visual evaluation on a periodic basis
to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species.
Agricultural encroachment in the southern margins of the Site occurred in the spring of 2012, after
site planting had occurred. Carolina Silvics replanted the encroached area in the winter of
2012/2013 with approximately 40-3 gallon containerized sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), 200 bare -root black gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica), 700 bare -root swamp
chestnut oaks (Quercus michauxii), 200 bare -root water oaks (Quercus nigra), and 200 bare -root
willow oaks (Quercus phellos). Additionally, the southern boundary was marked more visibly to
alleviate further encroachment into the Site.
An approximately 0.25 -acre area along the southern margins of the Site was mowed in the spring
of 2014. The southern boundary was remarked with new t -posts, 10 -foot pvc pipes, and DMS
signs every 100 feet. In addition, this area was replanted in the winter of 2014/2015 with 150 3 -
gallon black gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica).
2.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of living, planted stems throughout the
planted areas of the Site, all of which is characterized as Non-riverine Wet Hardwood Flat
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). The presence of desirable volunteer species will be considered by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) in
making a determination whether the Site has successfully met the stated goals and objectives. An
average density of 320 stems per acre of living, planted stems must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years. Subsequently, 260 living, planted stems -per -acre must be surviving in Year 5
and 210 living, planted stems -per -acre in Year 7.
2.1.2 Vegetation Monitoring Results
Fourteen vegetation plots (10 -meter by 10 -meter in size) were established and permanently
monumented. These plots were surveyed in July 2016 for the Year 5 (2016) monitoring period.
Vegetation sampled across the Site exceeded the required average density with 506 planted stems
per acre surviving. In addition, each individual plot was above success criteria with the exception
of Plot 5; however, when including natural recruits of red maple (Acer rubrum) this plot was well -
above success criteria. The area surrounding Plot 5 is very wet, with standing water year-round,
which likely contributed to planted stem mortality in this area.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 2
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
2.2 Hydrology
Measurements of wetland hydrology were performed in accordance with traditional methods as
per the April 2003 USACE Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003). Nine continuously recording, groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the 14 -
acres restoration area in accordance with specifications in Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers
in Wetlands (NCWRP 1993); in addition, one reference gauge was installed adjacent to the Site
and monitored. Year 5 (2016) groundwater data are presented by gauge in Appendix D.
2.2.1 Hydrology Success Criteria
Based on the Site's location and hydrology source, target hydrological characteristics include
saturation or inundation for 7.5 percent of the growing season at a minimum of 12 inches below
ground level during average rainfall conditions for a period of seven years. During growing
seasons with atypical climatic conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used
by the USACE/IRT to evaluate hydrology success.
The growing season will primarily be determined by the Unite States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina (USDA 1989) (March 18 -November 14
[242 days]). In abnormally seasonable years the growing season may be based on USACE
Regional Supplement (USACE 2010), which states the following:
The growing season has begun on a site in a given year when two or more
different non -evergreen vascular plant species growing in the wetland or
surrounding areas exhibit one or more of the following indicators of
biological activity:
a. Emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 3
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Planted Stems/Acre Co nting Towards Success Criteria
Plot
Year 1
(2012)
Year 2 Year 3
(2013) (2014)
Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
(2015) (2016) (2017)
Year 7
(2018)
1
688
607 526
486 486
2
648
648 647
607 567
3
486
364 364
364 607
4
567
526 364
324 324
5
324
162 202
121 202
6
567
486 324
324 324
7
607
688 769
769 769
8
405
364 404
324 324
9
486
445 364
283 283
10
607
607 607
526 607
11
567
567 526
567 526
12
648
728 728
728 728
13
769
769 688
688 688 1
14
648
688 647
607 647
_
Average
of All
572
546 511
480 506
r
—1
2.2 Hydrology
Measurements of wetland hydrology were performed in accordance with traditional methods as
per the April 2003 USACE Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al.
2003). Nine continuously recording, groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the 14 -
acres restoration area in accordance with specifications in Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers
in Wetlands (NCWRP 1993); in addition, one reference gauge was installed adjacent to the Site
and monitored. Year 5 (2016) groundwater data are presented by gauge in Appendix D.
2.2.1 Hydrology Success Criteria
Based on the Site's location and hydrology source, target hydrological characteristics include
saturation or inundation for 7.5 percent of the growing season at a minimum of 12 inches below
ground level during average rainfall conditions for a period of seven years. During growing
seasons with atypical climatic conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used
by the USACE/IRT to evaluate hydrology success.
The growing season will primarily be determined by the Unite States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina (USDA 1989) (March 18 -November 14
[242 days]). In abnormally seasonable years the growing season may be based on USACE
Regional Supplement (USACE 2010), which states the following:
The growing season has begun on a site in a given year when two or more
different non -evergreen vascular plant species growing in the wetland or
surrounding areas exhibit one or more of the following indicators of
biological activity:
a. Emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 3
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

b. Appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns (e.g., in
graminoids, bulbs, and corms)
c. Coleoptile/cotyledon emergence from seed
d. Bud burst on woody plants (i.e., some green foliage is visible
between spreading bud scales)
1. Emergence or elongation of leaves of woody plants
f. Emergence or opening of flowers
The end of the growing season is indicated when woody deciduous species
lose their leaves and/or the last herbaceous plants cease flowering and their
leaves become dry or brown, generally in the fall due to cold temperatures
or reduced moisture availability. Early plant senescence due to the
initiation of the summer dry season in some areas does not necessarily
indicate the end of the growing season and alternative procedures (e.g., soil
temperature) should be used.
Summary of Hvdroloev Success Criteria by Year
2.2.2 Hydrology Monitoring Results
All monitored gauges within restoration areas were inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the
surface for greater than 7.5 percent of the monitoring period used for 2016 (Year 5) (18 days),
which extends from March 18 to November 14 (242 days). Several gauges were replaced or
repaired during the growing season. There are data gaps due to failed batteries or faulty data
loggers, in some cases data was unrecoverable.
No hydrology problem areas were identified within the Site during Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Page 4
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used for
7.5 Percent of
Year
Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2012 (Year 1)
__
March 18 -November 14
18 days
(242 days)
Bud burst on red maple (Acer rubrum)
2013 (Year 2)
and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
February 7 -November 14
21 days
and soil temperature of 48°F
(281 days)
documented on February 7, 2013
2014 (Year 3)
__
March 18 -November 14
18 days
(242 days)
March 18 -November 14
2015 (Year 4)
__
(242 days)
18 days
2016 (Year 5)
__
March 18 -November 14
18 days
(242 days)
2.2.2 Hydrology Monitoring Results
All monitored gauges within restoration areas were inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the
surface for greater than 7.5 percent of the monitoring period used for 2016 (Year 5) (18 days),
which extends from March 18 to November 14 (242 days). Several gauges were replaced or
repaired during the growing season. There are data gaps due to failed batteries or faulty data
loggers, in some cases data was unrecoverable.
No hydrology problem areas were identified within the Site during Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Page 4

Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
* Groundwater gauges were installed at the Site on March 24, six days after the published NRCS growing season start date (March
18). Therefore, Year 1 (2012) hydrology success criteria is proposed to use the USDA published growing season dates in place of
the proposed biological and physical indicators of growing season as described for the Site.
**Based on biological and physical indicators for the site, February 7 was determined the start of the growing season for year 2
(2013) monitoring.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 506 planted
stems -per -acre surviving. In addition, each individual plot was above success criteria with the
exception of Plot 5; however, when including natural recruits of red maple (Acer rubrum) this plot
was well -above success criteria. The area surrounding plot five is very wet with standing water
year-round, which likely contributed to planted stem mortality in this area. Areas disturbed by
2012 agricultural encroachment were planted with 40, 3 -gallon containerized trees and 1300 bare -
roots trees. These trees are doing well and are successfully vegetating disturbed areas with the
exception of a 0.25 acre area of additional agricultural encroachment along the south portion of the
Site that occurred during summer 2014. The southern boundary was remarked with new t -posts,
10 -foot pvc pipes, and DMS signs every 100 feet. In addition, this area was replanted in winter
2014/2015 with 150 3 -gallon black gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica). This portion of the site
has recovered, and the replanted trees are vigorous. No additional encroachment or vegetation
problem areas were observed during Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 5
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 (2012)*
Year 2 (2013)**
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
March 18
February 7
March 18
March 18
March 18
Growing
Growing
Growing
Growing
Growing
Season Start
Season Start
Season Start
Season Start
Season Start
1
Yes/25 days
Yes/43 days
Yes/51 Days
Yes/19 Days
Yes/28 Days
(10.3 percent)
(15.3 percent)
(21 percent)
(7.8 percent)
(11.6 percent)
2
Yes/ 117 days
Yes/96 days
Yes/127 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/ 106 Days
(48.3 percent)
(34.2 percent)
(52 percent)
(24 percent)
(43.8 percent)
3
Yes/117 days
Yes/95 days
Yes/ 56 Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/ 106 Days
(48.3 percent)
(33.8 percent)
(23 percent)
31percent)
43.8percent)
4
No/13 days
Yes/29 days
Yes/20 Days
Yes/ 18 Days
Yes/28 Days
(5.4 percent)
(10.3 percent)
(8.3 percent)
(7.5 percent)
(11.6 percent)
5
Yes/76 days
Yes/92 days
Yes/54 Days
Yes/72 Days
Yes/86 Days
(31.4 percent)
(32.7 percent)
(22 percent)
29percent)
35.5percent)
6
Yes/24 days
Yes/43 days
Yes/28 Days
Yes/42 Days
Yes/29 Days
(9.9 percent)
(15.3 percent)
(11.6 percent)
(17 percent)
(12 percent)
7
Yes/40 Days
Yes/93 days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/71 Days
(16.5 percent)
(33.1 percent)
(22 percent)
(19 percent)
(29.3 percent)
8
Yes/97 days
Yes/93 days
Yes/55 Days
Yes/45 Days
Yes/74 Days
(40.1 percent)
(33.1 percent)
(23 percent)
(18 percent)
(30.6 percent)
9
Yes/42 days
Yes/67 days
Yes/57 Days
Yes/56 Days
Yes/242 Days
(17.4 percent)
(23.8 percent)
(24 percent)
23percent)
100percent)
Ref
Yes/ 102 days
Yes/91 days
Yes/ 57 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/ 106 Days
(42.1 percent)
(32.4 percent)
(24 percent)
(19 percent)
(43.8 percent)
* Groundwater gauges were installed at the Site on March 24, six days after the published NRCS growing season start date (March
18). Therefore, Year 1 (2012) hydrology success criteria is proposed to use the USDA published growing season dates in place of
the proposed biological and physical indicators of growing season as described for the Site.
**Based on biological and physical indicators for the site, February 7 was determined the start of the growing season for year 2
(2013) monitoring.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 506 planted
stems -per -acre surviving. In addition, each individual plot was above success criteria with the
exception of Plot 5; however, when including natural recruits of red maple (Acer rubrum) this plot
was well -above success criteria. The area surrounding plot five is very wet with standing water
year-round, which likely contributed to planted stem mortality in this area. Areas disturbed by
2012 agricultural encroachment were planted with 40, 3 -gallon containerized trees and 1300 bare -
roots trees. These trees are doing well and are successfully vegetating disturbed areas with the
exception of a 0.25 acre area of additional agricultural encroachment along the south portion of the
Site that occurred during summer 2014. The southern boundary was remarked with new t -posts,
10 -foot pvc pipes, and DMS signs every 100 feet. In addition, this area was replanted in winter
2014/2015 with 150 3 -gallon black gums (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica). This portion of the site
has recovered, and the replanted trees are vigorous. No additional encroachment or vegetation
problem areas were observed during Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 5
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

All nine monitored groundwater gauges within restoration areas were inundated/saturated within
12 inches of the surface for greater than 7.5 percent of the monitoring period used for 2016 (Year
5) (18 days), which extends from March 18 to November 14 (242 days).
Site vegetation and wetland hydrology met success criteria for Year 5 (2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Page 6
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

4.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Department of Mitigation Services. Raleigh, North Carolina.
NC Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP). 1993. Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in
Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1). Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, 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, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg,
MS. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. 154 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources
Commission, NC Division of Water Quality (USACE et al.). 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Craven County, North Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Page 7

Appendix A.
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

-
__--_.-
Scale:
1 inch= 10,000 feet
FIGURE 1:
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Site
Axiom EnvironmentalDate:
218 Snow Ave
SITE LOCATION MAP
RFP # 16-003571 DMS Project ID # 95017
Craven County, North Carolina
Nov 2015
This figure indicates where the Site is physically
located along with directions to the Site.
Imagery
9 ry USGS Topographical Map
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 INC FEET
Raleigh, NC 27603
A,aom Env,eana*nta+, inc.
Project:
Sliver Moon

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Mitigation
Credits
NA
October - 2011
Conservation Easement
NA
February - 2012
Non-
NA
Nitrogen Phosphorous
Construction
Stream
Riparian
riparian
Buffer
Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset
Baseline Monitoring Document
April -2012
Wetland
Wetland
October 2012
November 2012
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
November 2014
November 2014
Totals
November 2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
November 2016
i 4
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Project Components
Project
Restoration —
Restoration
Component Stationing/Location
Existing Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation Ratio
-or- Reach ID
Footage/Acreage (PI,PII etc.)
otioAcreage
Equivalent
Non -riparian
NA
17.01 NA
Restoration
14
1:1
restoration
Component Summation
Non -
Restoration
Stream
riparian
Riparian Wetland Buffer
Upland (acres)
Level
(linear feet)
Wetland (acres) (square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
0
0
0 14 0
0
Enhancement
0
0 0 0
0
Enhancement 1
0
Enhancement II
0
it
Creation
0
0 0
Preservation
0
0
0 0
0
High Quality
0
0
0 0
0
Preservation
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
CE Document
NA
October - 2011
Conservation Easement
NA
February - 2012
Mitigation Plan
NA
February - 2012
Construction
NA
March - 2012
Bare Root Planting
NA
March - 2012
Baseline Monitoring Document
April -2012
August 2012
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2012
November 2012
Supplemental Planting/Easement Marking
Winter 2012/2013
Year 2 Monitoring
November 2013
November 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2014
November 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
November 2016
November 2016
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
Firm
POC & Address
Restoration Systems, LLC with
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693
Designer:
preliminary consulting by Axiom
218 Snow Ave.
Environmental, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392
Construction Contractor:
Land Mechanics, Inc.
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Dwight McKinney 252.482.8491
Planting Contractor:
Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392
Seeding Contractor:
Land Mechanics, Inc.
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Nursery Stock Suppliers:
ArborGen
1.888.888.7158
Ray Holz; 919.604.9314
Baseline Data Collection
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693
Vegetation Monitoring:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693
Wetland Monitoring:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 4: Project Baseline Information & Attributes Table
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Project Information
Project Name
Sliver Moon
County
Craven
Project Area (acres)
17.01
Project Coordinates (latitude and
longitude)
35.204817, -77.360605 (NAD 83/WGS 84)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Flatwoods section of the Middle Atlantic
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03020202
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-
digit
03020202080010
DWQ Sub -basin
03-04-08
Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (acres)
+/-130
Groundwater Treated by Site (acres)
+/-20
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
< 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
14.00
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non
riverine)
Non -riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Torhunta & Pantego
Drainage class
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Class A
Source of Hydrology
Rain Events
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditches
Native vegetation community
Non-Riverine Wet Harwood Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA/Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)]
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Sediment & Erosion Control Plan (S&EC)
Yes
Yes
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Condition Plan View
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Reference Monitoring
I Monitoring Well #7
Well* Vegetation
Plot #1
Vegetation Vegetation
Plot #12 Plot #14 ,
•
Monitoring
Well #6
Vegetation
•- Plot #11
Monitoring
Well #8
Vegetation Vegetation
Plot #5 Plot #10 • Monitoring
Well #9
• i`e:.,_:,. Vegetation
``` Plot #7
Vegetation
Plot #9
Monitoring ' Well #2
Plot #6 Monitoring
Vegetation • f ;
Plot #4 ` Well #3
r
•
\ • deg
P
Vegetation
Plot #1 Monitoring
Vegetation • Well #5
Plot #3 Vegetation Monitoring
Plot #2 Well #4
Monitoring •'
r

Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Planted Acreage — 17.01
acres (Entire Easement)
Vegetation Category
Mapped
CCPV
Number of
% of
planted
Acreage
Symbol
Polygons
Acreage
Areas of Concern
No areas of concern were
observed during year 5
NA
NA
NA
0%
(2016) monitoring.
Exotic Invasive Species
No invasive species observed
at the Site during year 5
NA
NA
NA
0%
(2016) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION DATA
Table 6. 2016 (Year 5) Planted and Total Stems/Acre
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 6. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
CVS Project Code Sliver M. Project Name: Sliver Moon Non -riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Sliver M -RS -0001
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0002
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0003
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0004
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0005
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0006
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0007
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0008
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0009
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0010
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
6
10
24
17
8
5
9
1
3
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
11
11
14
2
5
7
4
3
8
Betula
birch
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1 1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2 2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
Morella
bayberry
shrub
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
2
2
3
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2 2
2
7
7
7
Persea
bay
Tree
1
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 1
2
2
2
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 4
4
7
7
7
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2 2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
6
6
6
1 1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
12
5
485.6
12
1
0.02
5
485.6
29
1
71
1174
14
81
566.6
14
1
0.02
81
566.6
25
91
1012
15
61
607
15
1
0.02
61
607
26
8
1052
8
61
323.7
8
1
0.02
61
323.7
48
9
1942
5 5
1
0.02
41 41
202.3 202.3
24
6
971.2
8 8 22
1
0.02
3 3 6
323.7 323.7 890.3
19
6
768.9
19
1
0.02
6
768.9
31
8
1255
8
4
323.71
8
1
0.02
4
323.71
22
7
890.3
7
4
283.31
7
1
0.02
4
283.3
12
7
485.61
15
3
6071
15
1
0.02
3
6071
26
5
1052
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 6. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
CVS Project Code Sliver M. Project Name: Sliver Moon Non -riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY5 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Sliver M -RS -0011
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0012
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0013
PnoLS P -all T
Sliver M -RS -0014
PnoLS P -all T
MY5 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (20 5)
PnoLS P -all T
M (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MYl (20 2)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
6
2
91
495
259
177
6
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
14
9
7
61
101
318
S3
28
4
Betula
birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
6
6
6
10
10
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
9
9
9
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
S
2
9
12
3
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
23
23
23
21
21
21
25
25
25
26
26
26
28
28
30
27
27
27
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
15
18
18
18
16
16
21
17
17
17
18
18
18
Morella
bayberry
shrub
I
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
13
13
14
7
7
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
15
15
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
S
5
5
1
1
1
24
24
24
7
7
8
6
6
6
7
7
7
11
11
11
20
20
20
Persea
bay
Tree
I
1
1
1
1
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
S
S
9
S
5
S
10
10
10
9
9
9
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
4
1
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
S
S
7
7
7
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
4
4
4
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
24
24
24
18
18
18
32
32
32
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
17
17
17
29
29
29
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
21
2
2
21
2
2
4
41
4
21
2
3
16
161
18
171
17
17
181
18
19
16
16
16
20
20
20
281
28
28
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
16
16
16
32
32
32
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
2
2
2
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
18
23
23
23
26
26
26
28
28
28
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
1
Salix nigra
1blackwillow
Tree
2
Taxodium distichum
I bald cypress
Tree
71
7
7
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
I
I
i
I
I
I1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
6
526.1
131
1
0.02
6
526.1
29
8
1174
181
6
728.4
181
1
0.02
6
728.4
34
9
1376
171
6
688
171
1
0.02
6
688
8
1214
5
647.5
1
0.02
5
647.5
27
8
1093
17SI
14
SOS.9
1751 385
14
0.35
14 19
505.9 1113
166
15
479.8
1661 995
14
0.350.35
15 19
479.8 2876
1771
15
511.6
1771 498
14
15 19
511.6 14401
1891
16
S46.31
1891 413
14
0.35
16 22
546.31 11941
1981
16
572.3
1981 212
14
0.35
16 19
572.31 612.81644.61
2231
9
223 223
14
0.35
9 9
644.61 644.6
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment based on Planted Stems
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1 Yes
93%
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No*
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 Yes
10 Yes
11 Yes
12 Yes
13 Yes
14 Yes
*This plot didn't meet success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of red maple (Acer rubrum) this plot was well -above success criteria.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/18/2016 17:05
database name
RS-SliverMoon-2016-A-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\10\10-001 RS 10 Monitoring\Sliver Moon\2016
Year 5\CVS
computer name
KEENAN-PC
file size
46919680
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Pro', 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 bSPP
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 -------------------------------- -----
Pro'ect Code
Sliver M
project Name
Sliver Moon Non -riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
Description
14 ac. Non -riparian wetland Mitigation Site in the Neuse 01 River Basin
River Basin
Neuse
length(ft)
730
stream -to -edge width (ft)
1100
area (s m)
56000
Required Plots (calculated)
13
Sampled Plots
14
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Sliver Moon
2016 (Year 5) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2016
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site

10 A f'E
l'�. 1 �, t*''E✓,, n? ,mow 9' �.-syr
k T �
at
C � r
�a
� _ v yLF—
44
4
•
�r+-
11
'`fin
ti
f
10 A f'E
l'�. 1 �, t*''E✓,, n? ,mow 9' �.-syr
k T �
at
C � r
�a
� _ v yLF—
44
•
�r+-
� �
'`fin
ti
10 A f'E
l'�. 1 �, t*''E✓,, n? ,mow 9' �.-syr
k T �
at
C � r
�a
� _ v yLF—
44
10 A f'E
l'�. 1 �, t*''E✓,, n? ,mow 9' �.-syr
k T �
at
C � r
�a
� _ v yLF—

APPENDIX D
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 9. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
2016 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 9. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Sliver Moon Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site, Craven County, DMS Project ID: 95017
* Groundwater gauges were installed at the Site on March 24, six days after the published NRCS growing season start date (March
18). Therefore, Year 1 (2012) hydrology success criteria is proposed to use the USDA published growing season dates in place of
the proposed biological and physical indicators of growing season as described for the Site.
**Based on biological and physical indicators for the site, February 7 was determined the start of the growing season for year 2
(2013) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 (2012)*
Year 2 (2013)**
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
March 18
February 7
March 18
March 18
March 18
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing
Start
Start
Start
Start
Season Start
1
Yes/25 days
Yes/43 days
Yes/51 Days
Yes/19 Days
Yes/28 Days
(10.3 percent)
(15.3 percent)
(21 percent)
(7.8 percent)
(11.6 percent)
2
Yes/ 117 days
Yes/96 days
Yes/127 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/106 Days
(48.3 percent)
(34.2 percent)
(52 percent)
(24 percent)
(43.8 percent)
3
Yes/ 117 days
Yes/95 days
Yes/ 56 Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/106 Days
(48.3 percent)
(33.8 percent)
(23 percent)
(31 percent)
(43.8 percent)
4
No/ 13 days
Yes/29 days
Yes/20 Days
Yes/ 18 Days
Yes/28 Days
(5.4 percent)
(10.3 percent)
(8.3 percent)
(7.5 percent)
(11.6 percent)
5
Yes/76 days
Yes/92 days
Yes/54 Days
Yes/72 Days
Yes/86 Days
(31.4 percent)
(32.7 percent)
(22 percent)
(29 percent)
(35.5 percent)
6
Yes/24 days
Yes/43 days
Yes/28 Days
Yes/42 Days
Yes/29 Days
(9.9 percent)
(15.3 percent)
(11.6 percent)
(17 percent)
(12 percent)
7
Yes/40 Days
Yes/93 days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/71 Days
(16.5 percent)
(33.1 percent)
(22 percent)
19percent)
(29.3percent)
8
Yes/97 days
Yes/93 days
Yes/55 Days
Yes/45 Days
Yes/74 Days
(40.1 percent)
(33.1 percent)
(23 percent)
(18 percent)
(30.6 percent)
9
Yes/42 days
Yes/67 days
Yes/57 Days
Yes/56 Days
Yes/242 Days
(17.4 percent)
(23.8 percent)
(24 percent)
(23 percent)
(100 percent)
Ref
Yes/ 102 days
Yes/91 days
Yes/ 57 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/106 Days
(42.1 percent)
(32.4 percent)
(24 percent)
(19 percent)
(43.8 percent)
* Groundwater gauges were installed at the Site on March 24, six days after the published NRCS growing season start date (March
18). Therefore, Year 1 (2012) hydrology success criteria is proposed to use the USDA published growing season dates in place of
the proposed biological and physical indicators of growing season as described for the Site.
**Based on biological and physical indicators for the site, February 7 was determined the start of the growing season for year 2
(2013) monitoring.
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

12
10
March
8
Growing
SE
6
NJ
Start
4
2
0.2
0
_ -2
-4
ami -6
8
0 10
12
tD
N
tD
N
r
\
r
\
al
3 14
N
\
al
Da
0.0
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
—
w
al
al
�
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 1
MR
0.8
0.7
c
-PI Ln In U1 Ol Ql Ol J J J 00 00
N F\+ N W N N W N N N N
\ \ W W \ W W \ N
Ol Q1 01 a> Ql Ol Ql 01
m
0.4 W
0.3
NJ
0.2
0.1
-
CO 1.0
N I\-�
tD
N
tD
N
r
\
r
\
al
r
\
al
N
\
al
r r
\ \
\
al al
0.0

Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 5 (2016 Data)
12 March 18 0.9
10 Growing Season End Growing Season
8 Start
6 0.8
Gauge
4
2 Malfunction A 11
p 111 If NA 0.7
-2
4 c
01 0.6
J 6 0
3
a g 0
i�80 106 0.5
3 14
0,c
-16 0.4 m
-18
-20
-22 0.3
-24
-26
-28 0.2
-30
-32
-34 I 0.1
-36
-38 -
-40' 0.0
W W � -P� � Ln to to rn rn rn v v 00 00 00 1.0 1.0 1.0 N r r r N r
N A F-� N W H+ N W N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
Ln Ln \ \ \ W W \ W W \ N N N W N N
Ql Q7 Ol Q7 Q7 Q7 Q7 Q7 Q7 Ol Q7 Ql Q7 Q7 Q7 I--� F-� F-� F� H+
a> at Ql a> a>

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
v -4
-6
J
-8 p
d
r
3 -10
_ -12
c -14
t� -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
W
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 5 (2016 Data)
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
0.6
W -PI 4� 4�:- Ul U1 Ul Q1 Q1 Ol J v J 00 00 00 l0 lD l0
NN N A N N W N
NW N N N I\-� N
U'i \ 4� -PI \ A \ W W \ W W \ N N
at at at � � at at at at � � at at at N N
at m
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
\ \ \
W N N
N O O
N N N
at at at

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
a -4
-6
d -8
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
w
N
In
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 5 (2016 Data)
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
0.6
W 't 't ' �
N -PI N N A N N W N N W F�
Ql Ol Ol Ol Ol Ql Ol Ol
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N N
\ N
Ol
Nj
\
Ol
N
\
Ol
N
\
Ql
\
Ol
0
\
Ol
0
N
0
N
N
o
W
I--�
N N
N
N F-�

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
a -4
a
-6
d -8
r
3 -10
-12
0 -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
W
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 5 (2016 Data)
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
0.6
W -P� -P� Ul U1 U1 a> Q1 Q1 J J J 00 00 00 lO l0 l0
N N NA N N W N N W N N N I\-� N N F\-� N \ \ \
N N
at at at � � at at at at � � at at at N N
at m

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
ami -6
-8
o -10
12
3 -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
\ \
N N
al al
Ol Ql
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 5 (2016 Data)
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
4�:- -PI � In Vn In 01 Ol 0) J V 00 00 00 1.0 l0 l0
l.n N N Ln F\-� N N N 4 I\-+ N W N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
\ Ln Ln \ Ln Ln \ � A \ � 4 \ W W \ N N N N N N
Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Ol Q1 Q1 Ol Ql Q1 Q1 Ol I--� F-� Q1 N I--�
al al al �
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
v -4
a, -6
d -8
r
3 -10
-12
o' -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
w
N
Ui
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
c
W :Et 't �t �
N -PI N N A N N W N N W N
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
N N
Ol
Nj
\
Ol
\
Ol
N
\
Ol
\
Ol
0
\
Ol
-
0
N
0
N
F�
o
W
I--�
N N
N N
\ \
N F-�

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
_ 2
a -4
-6
d -8
3 -10
_ -12
c -14
c� -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
W
N
In
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 5 (2016 Data)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
W 4� 4� 4�:- In Ui In Ql at Ol J J J 00 00 00 l0 lD l0
N N N A N N W N N W N N N
In \ 4�
Ql Q1 Q1 a> a> Ql Q1 Q1 a> a> Ol Q1 Q1 Q1 N N
at �

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
v -4
a, -6
J p
O1 -8
Y
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
w
N
In
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge 9
Vpar S 17tH r. nntal
0.9
0.8
0.7
c
0.6
W 't 't 't �
N -PI N N A N N W N N W N
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ql Ol Ol
0.3
0.2
0.1
N N
\ N
N 01
Ol
Nj
\
N
Ol
\
N
Ol
N
01
\
N
Ol
\
N
Ol
0
\
N
Ol
-
0
�
\
N
0
N
\
N
o
W
W
\
I--�
N N
\ \
N N
\ \
N F-�
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
a -4
-6
d -8
r
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
40
W
N
Ui
N
Sliver Moon Groundwater Gauge Reference
Year 5 (2016 Data)
W -PI -91 4� In u, In rn rn rn
N 4 N N N N W I\-� N W F\-�
Ln \ � 4� \ A \ W W \ W
h-+ Ol Ol F-) F-) Olh-+ Ol
a) 0)
0.8
0.7
0.6
_
3
0
E
0.5 a
c
0.4 °C
0.3
0.2
0.1
IL
0
N N
\ N
0
\
00
N
\
h -a
�\-'
\
N
\
N
\
\
N
\
Ol
N
\
N
Ol
N
\
W
Ql
r r
\ \
N
Ol Ol
0.0

APPENDIX E
CREDIT RELEASE DOCUMENTATION
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Credit Release Approval Letter
Year 5 (2016) Annual Monitoring Report
Sliver Moon Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices