20130739 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2016_20170207

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
DWR Project #13-0739, Beaufort County
USACE Action ID: 2008-02655
Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Project Info: Monitoring Year: 3 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2016
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2017
Submitted To: NC DEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1625 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 3 Final Monitoring Report
Beaufort County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 95015
Tar -Pamlico River Basin: 03020104-040040
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker International
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3...............................................................................................3
2. 1.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................3
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Wetland Concerns......................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................6
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns..................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure
1
Vicinity Map and Directions
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts Table
Table
4
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure
2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Figure
3
Ditch Modification Map
Table
5a
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table
5b
Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table
6a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table
6b
Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Longitudinal
Stream Photo Station Photos
Vegetation Plot Station Photos
Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table
7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table
8
CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table
9a
CVS Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table
9b
Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table
9c
Yearly Density by Plot
Table
9d
Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Hydrologic Data
Figure 4 Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure 5 Flow Gauge Graphs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Figure 6 St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table 10 Wetland Restoration Well Success
Table 11 Flow Gauge Success
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017, MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,274 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream,
2.8 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands, and planted 17.5 acres (AC) of native riparian vegetation within the entire
conservation easement along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County,
North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (Site) is located in Beaufort County,
approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The Site is located in the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03-03-07 and the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104-040040 of the Tar -Pamlico River
Basin. The project involved the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (NC
WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) from impairments within the project area due to past agricultural
conversion and silviculture.
The primary restoration goals of the project were to improve ecological functions to the impaired areas within
the Tar -Pamlico River Basin as described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the project,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the downstream estuary,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood
processes, and
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a
permanent conservation easement.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse flow,
providing the streams access to their floodplains,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and
within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater
runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature,
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in -stream cover, addition of
woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and
• Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments during
the monitoring period.
During Year 3 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas or low stem density areas to report. The average density of total planted stems, based on data
collected from the nine monitoring plots during Year 3 monitoring, is 607 stems per acre. The Year 3 data
demonstrate that the Site has met the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre by the end of Year
3.
Following Year 2 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was documented in the area of UT2. The loblolly
pines were short but had the potential to pose a future threat to the survival of planted species installed during
the construction phase. To prevent this nuisance species from affecting the planted stems, a thinning and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

removal effort took place in March 2016, which targeted the loblolly pine. The methods used were hand/power
tools and chemical applications.
Additionally, during the fall of Year 3 monitoring, loblolly pine was still documented in the area of UT2 as well
as the UT3 area. The loblolly pines are dispersed across both reaches of the site. This nuisance species still
has the potential to pose a future threat to the survival of planted species installed during the construction phase.
Additional treatment of the loblolly pines are once again planned for treatment in during Year 4/2017. The
methods to be used for treatment will again be hand/power tools and chemical applications.
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the easement
boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 (shown as dashed green lines on Figure 3). The landowner implemented a
plan to re -cut pre-existing lateral drainage ditches that joined a new deeper ditch that directly abuts the Site's
conservation easements. These new ditches were cut on the eastern and western boundary of UT2 as well as
the western boundary of UT3. The landowner cut the ditches with the intent to drain water away from his pine
plantation that abuts both easement boundaries on the west and east. Additionally, the property and farm access
road that lies to the north of the Site was also retaining water and needed to drain across the northern road into
the conservation easement to prevent hydrologic trespass.
To remedy this ditching impact as described above, a proposed work plan described in Section 2.2.1 took place
in three different locations: (1) The northern conservation easement boundary of UT 2 along the existing farm
road, (2) the western conservation easement boundary of UT2 along the wetland restoration area, and (3) along
the western conservation easement boundary of UT3 along the wetland restoration area.
To provide additional groundwater data during the monitoring period, four new monitoring wells were installed
in April 2016, which is approximately 2 months after the beginning of the growing season. These four
additional wells are providing additional wetland success data, as well as collecting groundwater levels adjacent
to the areas where the additional ditching repairs took place. These four new wells were installed as shown in
Figure 2.
Year 3 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that 2 of 8 groundwater monitoring wells located along
UT2 and UT3 exhibited water levels within 12 inches of the ground surface that was greater than 12 percent of
the growing season. The eight on-site wetland monitoring wells demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods, which
ranged from 3.9 to 13.1 percent of the growing season. The growing season for Beaufort County is from
February 28 to December 6 (282 days). Additionally, during Year 3 monitoring, the on-site wetland reference
wells, which are on the downstream portions of UT3, demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods, which ranged
from 40.9 to 43.8percent of the growing season. It should be noted that the placement of the reference wells is
further down valley then the monitoring wells and is more heavily influenced by backwater from St. Clair
Creek.
On-site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT2 and UT3 was recorded throughout 2016 by the use
of pressure transducers. All six flow gauges installed on the Site recorded flow in 2016. The flow gauges
documented flow through the headwater valleys during Year 3, which ranged from 45.6 to 85.7 consecutive
days. It is noted that the flow gauges demonstrated similar flow events relative to rainfall events on site as
demonstrated in the gauge graphs in Appendix D.
In addition, currently contracted riparian buffer credits have been included as part of the project as referenced
by the "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation" memo from Karen Higgins (NCDWR) dated January 7, 2016 and
included as an asset in this report. As part of the St. Clair Creek Restoration project, Riparian Buffer credits in
excess of the contracted 6.8 acres (296,208 square feet) will be provided. Monitoring for success of riparian
buffers will continue to follow the existing vegetation monitoring protocol and success criteria as stated in the
approved mitigation plan for stream and wetland vegetation success. No additional vegetation monitoring plots
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 2
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

are required to monitor buffer success as the existing monitoring plots serve to monitor the success of the
vegetation of the headwater coastal plain stream and the riparian buffer.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream, wetland and
vegetation components of the project. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components
adheres to the NCDMS monitoring guidance document dated November 7, 2011, which will continue to serve
as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as
vegetation plots, flow gauges and wells are shown on the CCPV sheets found in Appendix B.
Since the growing season for the Beaufort County ends on December 6t'', the Year 3 well and flow data were
collected December 2016. All visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B were collected in October
and 2016.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reaches UT2 and UT3
The UT2 and UT3 mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions
in a multi -thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document
stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The
methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter. Monitoring efforts focus
on visual observations and in -channel flow gauges/pressure transducers to document stream success.
As -built Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy
using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. This survey system collects point data with
an accuracy of less than one tenth of a foot.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Total observed area rainfall for the period of January 2016 through November 2016 was 44.91 inches,
as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same period of 46.68 inches annually.
Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed in the UT2 channel as well as two
flow gauges installed in the UT3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet apart
within the restored systems to document flow duration. Success criteria are considered to have been
met if 30 consecutive days of flow were observed at any point during the monitoring year. Results
indicate that all six flow gauges met the minimum consecutive days of surface flow required for success
during Year 3. The complete flow data and observed rainfall graphs for each gauge, along with the
flow gauge success summary Table 11 are located in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches,
moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking upstream at
delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to
provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of photo points,
wetland wells, and flow gauges are located in Appendix B.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland monitoring is assessed by the use of eight automated groundwater -monitoring stations that are installed
following construction in the UT2 and UT3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells
installed in the downstream portion of the UT3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater
monitoring stations follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-rs-4.1 (USAGE
1997).
As described in Section 2.2.1, to provide additional groundwater data during the monitoring period, four new
monitoring wells were installed at the beginning of the growing season in April 2O16. These four additional
wells provide additional wetland success data, as well as collect groundwater levels adjacent to the areas where
the additional ditching repairs will take place. The four new wells installed as shown in Figure 2.
The automated loggers are programmed to collect data to document groundwater levels in the restored wetland
areas. The success criteria for wetland hydrology are considered to have been met when the site is saturated
within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive number of days equal to a minimum of 12% of the growing
season (34 consecutive days at this site). Results indicate that only monitoring wells 1 and 5 met the minimum
saturation success criteria (both adjacent to UT2). As -built monitoring wells 2, 3, 4 and supplemental
monitoring wells 6, 7, 8 did not meet success during Year 3. It should be noted that wells 5 through 8 were
installed between April 23' and April 29th, thus missing collecting groundwater data for 55 to 61 days of the
early growing season when groundwater levels are typically at their highest. The rainfall graphs should also be
closely reviewed in Appendix D. Very little rain fell at the Site during the critical periods of early spring and
late fall. The total rainfall for the year is not far from the historical average but the rain came in large quick
events, which did not allow for slow and steady infiltration and groundwater recharge. Restoration well data
and reference well data collected during Year 3 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
2.2.1 Wetland Concerns
Ditching
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the
easement boundaries of both UT2 and UT3 (See Figure 3). The landowner implemented a plan to re-
cut pre-existing ditches that joined a new deeper ditch that directly abuts the Site's conservation
easements. These new ditches were cut on the eastern and western boundary of UT2 as well as the
western boundary of UT3. The landowner cut the ditches with the intent to drain water away from his
pine plantation that abuts both easement boundaries on the west and east. Additionally, the property
and farm access road that lies to the north of the Site is also retaining water and needs to drain across
the northern road into the conservation easement to prevent hydrologic trespass.
The work described above was designed and implemented without first consulting Baker. The ditches
were first discovered during fall monitoring in fall 2O15.
To remedy the potential impacts of the new ditch network on restored wetland functions, Baker
implemented a work plan to alleviate the hydrologic trespass outside of the conservation easement and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

filled the new ditches so wetland hydrology would be unimpaired. The proposed work took place in
March 2016 in three different locations (Figure 3). (1) The northern conservation easement boundary
of UT 2 along the existing farm road, (2) the western conservation easement boundary of UT2 along
the wetland restoration area, and (3) along the western conservation easement boundary of UT3 along
the wetland restoration area.
Location (1): Work in this area consisted of connecting existing shallow drainage ditches from an
adjacent property across the farm road into the conservation easement of UT2. A shallow ditch (1' deep
by 2' wide) was cut through the farm road and then filled with rip rap outside of the easement to allow
water to filter through the rock (French drain) and move across the road, but also allows the landowner
to cross easily. Once the rock -filled ditch reaches the conservation easement boundary, a shallow,
wide, flat depression (10' wide by 1' deep with a 0% slope) was excavated to tie these depressions into
the existing ground elevations within the conservation easement. The locations shown as pink lines on
Figure 3 are to scale (length) and are aligned as such to utilize the existing drainage paths as discovered
during a field visit for storm event. It was observed during Year 3 monitoring that flow now diffuses
through these depressions. These areas within the conservation easement were seeded and re -planted
with bare -root trees.
Location (2): Work in this area consisted of excavating shallow and wide depressions through the
wetland restoration polygon along UT 2 to connect and help drain the existing lateral ditches outside
the conservation easement that were plugged during construction. The depressions constructed are
approximately 10' wide and 1' deep. The depression depth of V was measured down from the existing
ground surface inside the wetland area at the conservation easement boundary with the intent to prevent
hydrologic trespass within the landowner's existing pine timber. The depression bottoms are
significantly higher than the existing lateral ditch bottoms within the timber. The depressions are
essentially a zero slope and rely on the hydraulic head from the groundwater within the timber to
promote flow. The depressions were excavated inside the conservation easement only as far as needed
to tie into the existing ground elevations. The constructed lengths of these depressions are shown to
scale in Figure 3. The required excavations are shallower as the depressions get closer to the stream
valley. In addition, the excavated ditch adjacent to the conservation easement was filled. This is shown
as a green dashed line on the attached figure. The small amount of flow that this depression receives
flows diffusely as observed during Year 3 monitoring. The disturbed areas within the conservation
easement were seeded and re -planted with bare -root trees.
Location (3): Work in this area will consisted of removing a small (-5' wide) plug that separated the
newly excavated ditch along UT3 (dashed green line in Figure 3) and existing small depressions within
the conservation easement. These depressions were likely old remnant ditches excavated many years
before the current conditions. These depressions are vegetated and shallow which serves to prevent
hydrologic trespass in the timber areas outside the conservation easement between UT 2 and UT 3.
Additionally, at the time of construction it was determined based on field observations that an additional
shallow ditch would need to be excavated to 151 feet through the wetland restoration polygon (Ditch
5) along UT 3 to connect and help drain the existing lateral ditches outside the conservation easement
that were plugged during construction. The depressions constructed are approximately 10' wide and 1'
deep. Little to no grading will be required inside the conservation easement along UT 3 except Ditch
5.
In addition, the excavated ditch adjacent to the conservation easement was filled. Construction of the
proposed activities as described above was implemented in Year 3 (March 2016).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Logging Issues and Additional Monitoring Wells
It is noted that in the spring of 2015 three wetland restoration wells (SCAW1, SCAW2 and SCAW4)
had accumulated bentonite/mud in the bottom of the well casings. A thick, gooey material was found
to be clogging the water pressure sensors located in the bottom of the pressure transducers. This
accumulation of material was suspected to be the likely the cause for the observed erroneous water
levels recorded in the well casings. To verify groundwater depths and check for logger accuracy,
manual groundwater measurements were recorded during three site visits and compared to datalogger
readings in the appropriate date/time windows. The manual measurements were then used to determine
if there were any significant differences in the recorded groundwater levels. After comparing the data,
it was found that three wetland restoration loggers had errors in depth other than what was recorded
manually. To correct this issue, all well casings, including SCAW3 were pumped to clear excess
bentonite/mud that had built up and to prevent further buildup on the pressure sensors. The on-site
reference wells were not pumped during this time. Additionally, links in the suspension chains from
which the loggers hang in the well casings were also removed so the chain would be shorter. This was
an effort to raise the loggers off the bottom of the well casings as to be above the bentonite/mud buildup.
Subsequent to these adjustments, all on-site well data loggers now are free of bentonite and the
atmospheric pressure hole is clear of any obstructions.
As stated in Section 2.2, four new (supplemental) monitoring wells were installed in April /2016. These
additional wells will provide additional wetland success data, as well as collect groundwater levels in
the areas adjacent to where the additional ditching repairs have taken take place. These four new wells
were installed as shown in the CCPV (Figure 2).
2.3 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007) and the CVS-NCDMS data entry tool v 2.3.1 (2012). The vegetation monitoring plots are
a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with nine plots established randomly within the Site's
planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters
for woody tree species.
Year 3 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns
Following Year 2 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was documented in the area of UT2. The
loblolly pines were short but had the potential to pose a future threat to the survival of planted species
installed during the construction phase. To prevent this nuisance species from affecting the planted
stems, a thinning and removal effort took place in March 2016 and targeted the loblolly pine. The
methods used were hand/power tools and chemical applications.
Additionally, during the fall of Year 3 monitoring, Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was still documented in
the area of UT2 as well as the UT3 area. The loblolly pines were noted to be widely dispersed across
both reaches of the site. This nuisance species still poses a future threat to the survival of planted
species installed during the construction phase. Additional treatment of the loblolly pines are once
again planned for treatment in during Year 4/2017. The methods to be used will be hand/power tools
and chemical applications.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

3.0 REFERENCES
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2007.
CVS-NCDMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-NCDMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2011. Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. November 7, 2011.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation,
NC DEQ. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program.
Technical Note VN-rs-4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN -WRAP -05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington
District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
JANUARY 2017. MONITORING YEAR 3 OF 7

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is
not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the
restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned
roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
no
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
north through a large field. The site is located where
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
downstream culvert crossing.
r�t'11irrl��r�►ii� l`���y"4��
Beaufort County
Sf
C/air C
r
'-e/r
CD
0
m
Q
Im
Project
Location
Pamlico River
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03020104040040.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
St. Clair Creek Restoration Site
NCDEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

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

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

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

Table 4. Project Attributes
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Project Information
Project Name
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
County
Beaufort
Project Area (acres)
17.5
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.452835 N, -76.76726215 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Tar -Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit
03020104 / 03020104040040
DWQ Sub -basin
03 03 07
Project Drainage Area (AC)
89 (UT2), 30 (UT3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
13.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation;
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT2
Reach UT3
Length of Reach LF
2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing)
1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing)
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
X
X
Drainage Area (AC)
89
30
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
36
20
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; Sw, NSW
C; Sw, NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)*
Channelized Headwater System (Perennial)
Channelized Headwater System (Intermittent)
Evolutionary Trend **
Restored G
Restored G
Underlying Mapped Soils
To, Hy, Ro
To, At
Drainage Class
Very poorly drained, poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope(ft/ft)
0.0006
0.0009
FEMA Classification
SFHA, AE
SFHA, AE
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Along UT2
Size of Wetland AC
1.1
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Ira airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation C nummity
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Parameters
Wetland Along UT3
Size of Wetland AC
1.7
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverme
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Ira airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Resolved
Supporting Documentation**
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
(Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
(Appendix B
Endangered Species Act
N/A
RNo
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Historic Preservation Act
N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) N/A
Cate orical Exclusion (A endix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
A endix B
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Notes:
*Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this
channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. ** Supporting documentation is including in the approved Final Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Conservation Easement
Drainage Modification Installed 2016 (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages Filled (March 2016)
Drainage Not Filled
Flow Gauge Meeting Criteria
A Photo Points
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells Not Meeting Criteria
— Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria: (Year 3 Density/Planted Density)
Restored Wetland Areas
UT 2
Veg Plot 1: 567/728
As -Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Mitigation Credit
Buffer Zone A: 0-50 ft (226,002 ft2 or 5.2 ac, 1:1 ratio = 226,002 BMUs)
Buffer Zone B: 51-100 ft (137,575 ft2 or 3.1 ac, 1:1 ratio = 137,575 BMUs)
Survey / Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2016
Aerial Photo Date: 2012
INTERNATIONAL
0 250 500
Feet
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
Project # 95015
Veg Plot 6: 364/486
p.. V4
UT 3
Veg Plot 8: 526/728
Veg Plot 7: 850/1174
NC Center for Geographic lnformaton�and Arisal,y-sis, NC 991Boar,
N Figure 2
Current Condition Plan View - MY3
St. Clair Creek Site
Beaufort County, NC
Rev: 28Mar20

Conservation Easement
Proposed Drainage Modification (10 ft wide, 1 ft deep, length to scale)
Drainages not Filled
Drainages Filled
0 Flow Gauge
Q Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Additonal Groundwater Monitoring Well Location (installed April 2016)
- Vegetation Plot
— Restored Wetland Areas
As -Built Streams
Restoration: Headwater Valley
No Mitigation Credit NANO
Ditch 7: 25 ft rock &
20 ft into easement
Ditch 8: 25 ft rock &
50 ft into easement
Ditch 6: 25 ft rock &
25 ft into easement
INTERNATIONAL
-err-�
i , r Ditch Filled:
575 ft in length
Ditch not Filled:
1063 ft in length
Ditch 5: 145 ft
Ditch 4: 6 ft
UT 3
SCAW8
SCAW�°, �
{SCAW5
Ditch 160ft
DitchFilled:
625 ft�in length
0 250 500
Feet
DEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
Project # 95015
1
,, .,mss
Center fior �eonranhic Information and Analysis NC 911 B&Oi
N Figure 3
Ditch Modification Map
St. Clair Creek Site
Beaufort County, NC
Rev:23Jan2017

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,133
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable
(Performing as
Intended)
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1.Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
NA
NA
3. Meander Pool Condition
1. Depth
NA
NA
2. Length
NA
NA
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
1. Bed
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4. Thalweg Position
NA
NA
3. Thalweg centering along valley
Yes
2,133 LF
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 0
and/or scour and erosion
100%
0
2,133
100%
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
Totals 0 0
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs NA NA
100%
0
2,133
100%
TP
1. Overall Integrity
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill
NA
NA
7L
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
NA
NA
3. Engineering Structures
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
NA
NA
15%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
NA
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

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

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue Station Number Suspected Cause Photo Number
None Observed -- -- --
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Planted Acreage: 11.6
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold (acres)
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
Very limited cover both woody and
1. Bare Areas
herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
herbaceous material.
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
criteria.
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
are obviously small given the monitoring
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
year.
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Cumulative Totali
0
i 0.00
i 0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
Areas of points (if too small to render as
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas of points (if too small to render as
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
St. Clair Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT3
Planted Acreage: 5.9
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold (acres)
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
Very limited cover both woody and
1. Bare Areas
herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target
2. Low Stem Density Areas
levels based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Areas with woody stems or a size class that
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
are obviously small given the monitoring
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
polygons at map scale)
Areas of points (if too small to render as
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
Veg Plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
Post-restoraton seed source
VPI, VP2. VP3, VP4, VP6, VP7,
VP81 VP9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
Photo Point 5 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
h:
f �
n
•y{k w 'j': 1
�i
Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
Photo Point 5 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
Photo Point 4 — UT2
Photo Point 6 — UT2
h:
f �
n
•y{k w 'j': 1
Photo Point 4 — UT2
Photo Point 6 — UT2

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
Photo Point 7 — UT2
Photo Point 9 — UT2
Photo Point 8 — UT2
Photo Point 10 — UT2
Photo Point 11 — UT2
Photo Point 12 — UT2

Ti.
'.
` ': kW; '�
AK

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations
15 �Yr•
46
fi
Photo Point 19 — UT3
Photo Point 21 — UT3
Photo Point 23 — UT3
Photo Point 20 — UT3
Photo Point 22 — UT3
Photo Point 24 — UT3

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Auto Well — SCAW1, December 13, 2016
� r F
MWe
g
=-
�'XT
Auto Well — SCAW3, December 13, 2016
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW5,
December 13, 2016
Auto Well — SCAW2, December 13, 2016
-
� tl e 4£x'�el
a � 1
t
4
Auto Well — SCAW4, December 13, 2016
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW6,
December 13, 2016
4
?
t Ac
ry
+4U,�
f
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW5,
December 13, 2016
Auto Well — SCAW2, December 13, 2016
-
� tl e 4£x'�el
a � 1
t
4
Auto Well — SCAW4, December 13, 2016
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW6,
December 13, 2016

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW7,
T)eremher FI ?016
Reference Auto Well — SCREFI,
T)PrPmhPr 1'A 70M
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL1, December 13, 2016
flow present
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW8,
T)PrPmlhPr VI ?01 ti
Reference Auto Well — SCREF2,
T)PrPmher 1'l 7(11 h
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL2, December 13, 2016
flow present

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL3, December 13, 2016 Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL4, December 13, 2016
flow present "
Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL5, December 13, 2016 Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL6, December 13, 2016
slight flow present no flow present
On-site rain gauge - adjacent to SCAW1,
December 13, 2016

St. Clair Restoration Site — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

St. Clair Restoration Site — Vegetation Plot Photo Stations
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 8

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
YR3 Planted Density /
As -built Planted Stem
Density*
Tract Mean
1
Y
567/728
607
2
Y
648/648
3
Y
648/688
4
Y
648/728
5
Y
526/688
6
Y
364/486
7
Y
850/1174
8
Y
526/728
9
Y
688/769
Note: *YR3 Planted Density / As -built Planted Stem Density - reflects the changes in stem density based on the
density of stems at the time of the As -built survey and the current total density of stems .
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 12/19/2016 9:39
database name MichaelBaker_2016_StClair_95015.mdb
database location L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\St Clair
computer name CARYLRELLISON3
file size 50040832
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------- -----
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Plots
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
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.
95015
St Clair Creek Restoration Project
Tar -Pamlico
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)
9

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
�5t
�5t
oo�
oo�
0
oo�
0
oo�
0
ooh
0
oob
0
oo^ ooz
0 0
oo9
0
-S,
o�
oti
o'er
o�
Aronia arbutifolia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
6
3
2
4
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
4
3
1.33
1
1
2
Clethra alnifolia
Shrub
coastal sweetpepperbush
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
1
Morella cerifera
Shrub Tree
wax myrtle
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Tree
blackgum
5
3
1.67
1
3
1
Persea palustris
Tree
swamp bay
6
2
3
2
4
Quercus laurifolia
Tree
laurel oak
8
3
2.67
1
3
4
Quercus lyrata
Tree
overcup oak
14
71
2
4
2
1
21
2
1
2
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
26
6
4.33
1
4
4
5
5
7
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
12
6
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
Taxodium distichum
Tree
bald cypress
16
4
4
4
3
8
1
Ulm us americana
Tree
American elm
19
6
3.17
1
1
4
2
1
4
1
7
Vaccinium corymbosum
Shrub
highbush blueberry
3
2
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
8
3
2.67
3
1
4
T�-o 15
15
15
135
15
14
16
16
16
13
9
21
13
17
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9b. Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name
1
2
3
4
Plots
5
6
7
8
9
Tree Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 2 1 1 1
N ssa s lvatica swamp tupelo 1 3 1
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak 1 4 4 5 5 7
Quercus lauri olia laurel oak 1 3 4
Quercus l rata overcup oak 4 2 1 2 2 1 2
Quercus phellos willow oak 5 1 2 1 2 1
Taxodium distichium bald cypress 4 3 8 1
Ulmus americana American elm 1 4 2 1 4 7
Shrub Species
Clethra alni olia sweet pepperbush 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana ironwood 1 1 2
Magnolia vir iniana sweetbay magnolia
Persea palustris swamp bay 2 4
Callicar a americana beautyberry
Cornus oemina swamp dogwood
Morella ceri era wax Myrtle 1
Vaccinium co mbosum blueberry 1 2
Viburnum dentatum arrowwood 3 1 4
Rosa palustris swamp rose
Ilex 91abra inkberry
Aronia arbutifolia chokeberry 4 1 1
Stems Per Plot (December 2016)
14
16
16
16
13
9
21
13
17
Average Stems Per
Acre
Total Stems/Acre Year 3 (December 2016)
567
648
648
648
526
364
850
526
688
607
Total Stems/Acre Year 2 (November 2015)
607
648
648
648
526
405
1012
607
688
643
Total Stems/Acre Year 1 (December 2014)
688
648
648
648
648
445
1052
648
728
683
Total Stems/ Acre for Year 0 As-Built (Baseline Data)
728
648
688
728
688
486
1174
728
769
737
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9c. Yearly Density Per Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95015-01-0001
95015-01-0002
95015-01-0003
95015-01-0004
95015-01-0005
95015-01-0006
95015-01-0007
95015-01-0008
95015-01-0009
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
4
4
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
I
1
1
1
2
2
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Cornus foemina
stiff dogwood
Shrub Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
4
4
1
1
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
I
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
3
3
1
1
Persea
bay
Tree
2
2
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
2
2
4
4
Pinus Taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
20
20
21
21
4
4
10
10
2
2
25
25
8
8
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
7
7
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
4
4
3
3
8
8
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
2
2
7
7
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
4
4
2
2
1
1
4
4
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
3
3
1
1
4
4
Stem count
14
21
35
16
22
38
16
4
20
16
12
28
13
0
13
9
4
13
21
29
50
13
8
21
17
3
20
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
8
2
10
6
2
8
5
1
6
5
2
7
4
0
4
5
2
7
8
2
10
8
1
9
6
2
8
Stems per ACRE
566.6
849.8
1416.4
647.5
1 890.3
1537.8
647.5
161.9
809.4
647.5
485.6
1133.1
526.1
0.0
526.1
364.2
161.9
526.1
849.8
1 1173.6
2023.4
526.1
323.7
849.8
688.0
121.4
809.4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species TypeMY3
(2016)
MY2 (2015)
MY1 (2014)
P
F V
T
P
V
T
P V
T
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
6
6
6
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
4
3
3
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
1
1
Cornus foemina
stiff dogwood
Shrub Tree
0
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
5
4
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
0
7
7
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
5
5
7
7
6
6
Persea
bay
Tree
0
2
2
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
Pinus Taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
0
90
90
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
10
10
8
8
14
14
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
12
12
14
14
17
17
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
26
26
27
27
25
25
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
0
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
12
12
15
15
11
11
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
0
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
16
16
16
16
19
19
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
7
2
9
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
12
12
19
19
21
21
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
0
5
5
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
3
3
5
5
5
5
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
8
8
8
8
6
6
Stem count
135
103
238
143
0
143
152 0
152
size (ares)
9
9
9
size (ACRES)
0.22
0.22
0.22
Species count
23
6 21
15
0 15
17
0
17
Stems per ACRE
607.0
463.1 1070.2
643.0
0.0 643.0
683.5
0.0
683.5
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Color for Volunteers
P = Planted
V = Volunteers
T = Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9d. Vegetation Summary and Totals
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Year 3 (13 -Dec -2016)
Vep,etation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian Buffer
Stems'
Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Live Stakes
Invasives
s
Volunteers
4
Total
Unknown
Growth Form
1
14
14
0
0
21
35
0
2
16
16
0
0
22
38
0
3
16
16
0
0
4
20
0
4
16
16
0
0
12
28
0
5
13
13
0
0
0
13
0
6
9
9
0
0
4
13
0
7
21
21
0
0
29
50
0
8
13
13
0
0
8
21
0
9
17
17
0
0
3
20
0
Stem Class
IBuffer Stems
2Stream/ Wetland Stems
3Volunteers
4Total
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Stream/ Wetland
Stems
Volunteers 3
Tota 14
Success Criteria
Met?
1
567
850
1416
Yes
2
647
890
1538
Yes
3
647
162
809
Yes
4
647
486
1133
Yes
5
526
0
526
Yes
6
364
162
526
Yes
7
850
1174
2023
Yes
8
526
324
850
Yes
9
688
121
809
Yes
Project Avg
607
463
1070
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Riparian Buffer Stems'
Success CriteriaMet?
1
14
Yes
2
16
Yes
3
16
Yes
4
16
Yes
5
13
Yes
6
9
Yes
Project Avg
566
Yes
Characteristics
Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

Table 10. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
St. Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Well ID
Percentage of Consecutive Days
<12 inches from Ground
Surface'
Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria'
Percentage of Cumulative Days
<12 inches from Ground
Surface'
Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria'
Year 3
(2016)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 1
(2013)
Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed September 2013)
SCAW1 13.1 12.3 1.0 37.0 34.8 2.8 61.7 39.3 8.5 174.0 110.8 24.0
SCAW2 9.2 3.3 3.8 26.0 9.3 10.8 19.9 16.1 30.6 56.0 45.5 86.3
SCAW3 9.6 13.4 2.3 27.0 37.8 6.5 44.3 37.5 9.4 125.0 105.8 26.5
SCAW4 6.0 12.3 7.8 17.0 34.8 22.0 35.8 20.3 17.3 101.0 57.3 48.8
Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed April 2016)
**SCAW5 12.8 -- - 36.0 -- - 46.8 132.0
**SCAW6 3.9 -- 11.0 -- - 19.9 56.0
**SCAW7 9.6 -- 27.0 -- -- 33.0 93.0
**SCAW8 4.6 -- 13.0 -- -- 22.0 62.0
Reference Wells (Installed September 2013)
SCAWREFI 40.9 57.9 24.8 115.3 163.3 70.0 77.9 93.7 46.4 219.8 264.3 130.8
SCAWREF2 43.8 60.1 27.0 123.5 169.5 65.5 76.9 94.1 44.5 216.8 265.5 125.5
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive or cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is282 days long. 12% of the growing season is33.8 days.
HIGHLIGHTED indicates wells that did not to meet the success criteria for the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12
inches or less from the soil surface. Following Year 3 wetland monitoring, two of eight wells exhibited hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during the 2016 growing season.
These wells will be observed closely throughout monitoring Year 4.
**To gather additional well data in the wetland restoration area, In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW5 - SCAW 8 were installed in April 2017. The installatio
of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet season when groundwater levels are normally closer to the ground surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
0.0
= 1.0
2.0
c 3.0
m 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
5
0
i
-5
C
-10
o -15
c -20
r -25
CL
o -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -built well - SCAW1)
1 1
anA r 1A hR
1
v v
In
1 1
1 SCAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 37.0 days (13.1%): 1
GROWING SEASON 1 9/12/2016 - 10/18/2016 1
(2/28 -12/6) 1 1
12/26/2016
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW1
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
2.0
S
3.0
IX
4.0
5.0
St.
Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -built well - SCAW2)
5
1
1
Ground
0
1
I
Surface
-5
-12 inches
1
-10
dIT
SCAW2
I 1A
VT-
-15
-20
Possible logging issue with datalogger, issue resolved
1
6/23/2016
Begin
L_
C9
1
Growing
-25
Season"
0
1
1
— — End
Q.
-30
Growing
d
1
1
Season
-35
1
-40
SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 26.0 days (9.2%):
9/19/2016 - 10/14/2016
1
GROWING SEASON
-45
(2/28 -12/6)
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
2.0
S
3.0
1
1
1
IX
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -built well - SCAW3)
5
1
1
Ground
0
Surface
I
A
1
h
-5
-12 inches
vyv
V
A A A
1
_
-10
vjj
scAws
d
-15
a
-a
1
1
_
-20
—
— Begin
3
o
I
1
Growing
-25
1
Season
C7
—
— End
s
-30
Growing
Q
1
1
Season
o
-35
1
1
-40
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 27.0 days (9.6%):
9/20/2016 - 10/16/2016
-45
(2/28 -12/6)
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
GROWING SEASON 1
1
1
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
0.0
= 1.0
2.0
S 3.0
IX 4.0
5.0
5
0
-5
-10
c
-15
r
c�
-20
C
LO -25
(9
-30
t
-35
D
-40
-45
50
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -built well - SCAW4)
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
1 1
1 1
v\h �i
till III
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
SCAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of 17.0 days (6.0%):
9/29/2016 - 10/15/2016
1
1
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
1 1
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAW4
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
1
well had been installed at least 2 days earlier; as evident by
the higher April groundwater levels and rainfall amounts.
GROWING SEASON 1
1
(2/28 - 12/6) I
1
4.0
IX
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAWS)
5
1
1
Ground
0
Surface
1
1
-5
-12 inches
E
1
-10
i
SCAW5
-15
-20
1
—
— Begin Growing
3
SCAWS Longest Hydroperiod of 36.0 days (12.8%): 9/12/2016 -
1\j
1
Season
(D
-25
10/16/2016
p
Supplemental well, SCAWS was installed on April 23, 2016 to
—
— End Growing
-30
document additional areas of wetland hydrology. SCAWS
1
Season
G.
d
would likely have exceeded 12.8% of the growing season, if
-35
-40 -
1
-45
-50
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
1
well had been installed at least 2 days earlier; as evident by
the higher April groundwater levels and rainfall amounts.
GROWING SEASON 1
1
(2/28 - 12/6) I
1

I
1
St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1
SCAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 11.0 days (3.9%):
4/29/2/2016 -5/9/2016
Supplemental well, SCAW6 was installed on
April 29, 2016. Groundwater levels from
2/28/2016 - 4/29/2016 were not recorded since
SCAW6 is a supplemental well which was added
to the site in 2016 to document additonal areas
of wetland of hydrology.
=
1.0
1
1
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
1
2.0
c
3.0
m
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW6)
5
Ground
Surface
0
-12 inches
-5
c
L
-10
SCAW6
M
3
-15
— Begin
O
-20
Growing
Season
L
a
O
-25
—
— End Growing
Season
a
-30
d
-35
-40 -
-45
-50
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
I
1
1
I
1
SCAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 11.0 days (3.9%):
4/29/2/2016 -5/9/2016
Supplemental well, SCAW6 was installed on
April 29, 2016. Groundwater levels from
2/28/2016 - 4/29/2016 were not recorded since
SCAW6 is a supplemental well which was added
to the site in 2016 to document additonal areas
of wetland of hydrology.
1
1
1
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
1
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
2.0
c
3.0
1
m
4.0
5.0
St.
Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW7)
10
1
1
Ground
5
Surface
0
1
1
I
-12 inches
1
NR. A A
1
-5
1
1
d
SCAW7
-10
VIN
-15
—
— Begin Growing
O-20
1
1
Season
(9
1
1
—
— End Growing
o
-25
1
Season
a
m
-30
1
SCAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 27.0 days (9.6%):9/19/2016 -
1
-35
10/15/2016
1
Supplemental well, SCAW7 was installed on April 26, 2016.
1
-40
1
Groundwater levels from 2/28/2016 - 4/26/2016 were not
1
GROWING SEASON
recorded since SCAW7 is a supplemental well which was
-45
(2/28 - 12/6)
added to the site in 2016 to document additonal areas of
1
wetland of hydrology.
-50
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016
5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
12/26/2016
Date
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1
I
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
=
1.0
2.0
SCAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 13.0 days (4.6%): 5/29/2016 -
6/10/2016
Supplemental well, SCAW8 was installed on April 23, 2016.
Groundwater levels from 2/28/2016 - 4/23/2016 were not
recorded since SCAW8 is a supplemental well which was
added to the site in 2016 to document additonal areas of
wetland of hydrology.
c
3.0
1
1
1
GROWING SEASON
m
4.0
1
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental - SCAW8)
5
Ground
Surface
O
-12 inches
-5
C
A
L
-10
SCAW8
d
�A
3
-15
3
—
— Begin Growing
-20
Season
G
-25
—
—End Growing
Season
a
-30
d
-35
-40 -
-45
-50
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
I
1
1
I
1
SCAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 13.0 days (4.6%): 5/29/2016 -
6/10/2016
Supplemental well, SCAW8 was installed on April 23, 2016.
Groundwater levels from 2/28/2016 - 4/23/2016 were not
recorded since SCAW8 is a supplemental well which was
added to the site in 2016 to document additonal areas of
wetland of hydrology.
1
1
1
1
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
1
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016
2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
6)
3.0
1
1
S
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well
(UT3)
(REF1)
25
20
Ground
Surface
15
10
-12 inches
5
_
0-
1
SCAWREF1
-5
1
-10
—
— Begin Growing
0
-15
1
Season
-20
1
°
-25
REF1 Longest Hydroperiod of 115.3 days (40.9%):
1 2/28/2016 -6/22/2016
1
End Growing
Q
-30
1
1
Season
m
o
-35
1
1
-40
1
1
-45 -
GROWING SEASON
1
1
(2/28 -12/
-50
-55
1/1/2016 2/15/2016
3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016
9/27/2016
11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
6)
1
1

St. Clair Creek Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
S 3.0
IX 4.0
5.0
25
20
15
10
5
0
L -5
-10
-a -15
c
c -20
o -25
° -30
t
CL -35
o -40
-45
-50
-55
-60
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well (UT3)
(REF2)
1 1
1 1
1 1
JIF
1
1
1
REF2 Longest Hydroperiod of 123.5 days (43.8%):
2/28/2016 -6/30/2016
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
12/26/2016
1/1/2016 2/15/2016 3/31/2016 5/15/2016 6/29/2016 8/13/2016 9/27/2016 11/11/2016 12/26/2016
Date
Ground
Surface
--12 inches
SCAWREF2 I
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure 6. St. Clair Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 95015
Year 3/2016 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
10.0
8.0 IL
6.0
0
.y
y 4.0
U
i-+
a
2.0
0.0
��o
��4
tHistoric Average --*—Historic 30% probable
--A Historic 70% probable —On -Site Observed 2016
Table 11. St. Clair Creek Flow Gauge Success (Year 3)
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Gauge ID
Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
UT2 Flow Gauges
SCFL 1 83.0 223.6
SCFL2 84.0 231.6
SCFL3 85.7 202.6
SCFL4 45.6 123.7
UT3 Flow Gauges
SCFL5 61.1 162.0
SCFL6 61.2 179.5
Note s:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was
measured.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was
measured.
Flow success criteria for the Site is stated as: A surface water flow event will be considered
perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 3 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
ca
4— 3.0
ca
4.0
5.0
R
Hurricane Matthew- 6.37 inches
(10/6/2016- 10/9/2016)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream UT2)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
Date
"0.75 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

R
ca
_
M
St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Hurricane Matthew - 6.37 inches
(10/6/2016- 10/9/2016)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
-----------------
--------------------------------------------------------------- ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------- Y R 3 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS--------------------------------------------------------------- ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------- CRITERIA MET - 84.0--------------------------------------------------------------- ----
-----------------
--------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------- (1/1/2016 - 3/25/2016)
-------------------------------------------------------------- ----
-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----
------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---- ---- ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---- ---- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----
---- ---- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----
---- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ----
---- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----
---- ----------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----
---- ------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----
- --- - ----------
-- ----------- - ----------------------- ---
k--Tg::--------------------
L
- -- - --- -------------------- ---- ----�- -- ------------------------�------- ----------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
----- SCFL2 ---
----- 0.75 inches ---
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
---------------
W-------------------f-I-------
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1 /2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
Date
`0.75 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
R
3.0
4.0
5.0
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
C 16.0
15.0
.� 14.0
y 13.0
p 12.0
y 11.0
10.0
R 9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1/1/2016
Hurricane Matthew - 6.37 inches
(10/6/2016-10/9/2016)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
Date
D.75 inches denotes level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
4.0
5.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
s 15.0
D 14.0
y 13.0
0 12.0
y 11.0
7 10.0
tc 9.0
C7 8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE
DAYS CRITERIA MET - 45.6
1/15/2016 - 3/1/2016)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL4
(Upstream UT2)
Hurricane Matthew- 6.37inches
(10/6/2016-10/9/2016)
-SCFL4
-0.25 Inches
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
Date
).25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs in the vicinity of the SCFL1 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
JT
� 3.0
4.0
5.0
24.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
14.0
s 13.0
y
CL 12.0
p 11.0
y 10.0
9.0
m 8.0
t7 7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Hurricane Matthew - 6.37 inches
(10/6/2016-10/9/2016)
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
------------------------YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.25 Inches -----
------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
------------------------ DAYS MET - 61.1 -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
------------------------- (1/1/2016 - 3/2/2016) -------------------------------------------------------------- -
-----------------------------------
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
--------- ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------
--------- ----------------- ------k
------------------------ - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
--------- ---------------- --------------i
---------- --------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------------
- -------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- ------------------------------------
---------------
----- - - - -- -- -- - - _ _ - ___ --- _�____; ----------------------
:K ----__ -_- --
---- --
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
Date
).25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2016)
1/1/2016 1/31/2016 3/1/2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016 7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016
0.0
1.0
2.0
is
= 3.0
4.0
5.0
22.0
21.0 ---
20.0 ---
19.0 -
18.0 -
17.0 -
16.0 -
15.0 -
14.0 -
13.0 ---
12.0 ---
CL 11.0 ---
0 10.0 ---
9.0 ---
7 8.0 ---
�j 7.0 ---
6.0 ---
5.0 ---
4.0 ---
3.0 ---
2.0 ---
1.0
0.0
1/1/2016
St. Clair Creek Site
Flow Gauge SCFL6
(Upstream UT3)
YR3 MOST CONSECUTIVE
DAYS MET - 61.2
(1/15/2016-3/16/2016
1/31/2016 3/1 /2016 3/31/2016 4/30/2016 5/30/2016 6/29/2016
Date
).25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg
Hurricane Matthew - 6.37 inches
(10/6/2016- 10/9/2016)
SCFL6
0.25 inches
7/29/2016 8/28/2016 9/27/2016 10/27/2016 11/26/2016 12/26/2016