20130739 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report 2017_20180102

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 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: 4 of 7
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: 2014
Submission Date: January 2018
Submitted To: NC DEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
NC DEQ Contract ID No. 003986

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
ference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
February 6, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
Project Manager
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Subject: Task 10: Response Letter to DMS review comments regarding the Draft Year 4 Monitoring
Report for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project (#95015)
Beaufort County, North Carolina, Cape Fear Basin — CU#03020104
DMS No. 95015, Baker No. 125116
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
Please find enclosed the Final Year 4 Monitoring Report and our responses to your review comments
received on January 29, 2018 regarding the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project located in Beaufort County,
NC. We have also provided the final digital files and required documentation in response to the referenced
review comments below:
1. Digital drawings: Digital files for each asset listed in Table 1 were provided in CADD but were not
formatted or attributed as required in the EEP/DMS digital drawing guidance. The stream centerlines for
example were submitted as a highly segmented polyline and were devoid of attributes such as reach ID.
DMS would prefer to receive shapefiles for all of the features in the digital drawings requirements, but at
a minimum, each asset (as listed in table 1 of the monitoring report) and each monitoring feature must be
provided as a discreet, properly attributed polyline/polygon as required by contract and stated in table 2
of DMS's Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP
version 1.0 (03/27/08).
Response: The GIS shapefiles for the project were reformatted as requested.
2. Executive Summary, sentence 1 paragraph 1: Report states that Baker restored 3,2741f of
perennial and intermittent stream. This should say headwater streams.
Response: Report has been revised as requested.
3. Section 2.1.1: Clarify reason/potential reason for flow gauge SCFL#4 not meeting 30 consecutive
days of flow requirements and be prepared to discuss at the upcoming credit release meeting. For
example, was it due to lower than normal precipitation?
Response: Flow gauge SCFL#4 recorded separate 29 -day and 28 -day flow events, but did not meet
success criteria of 30 -days during the year. The overall rainfall for the site was below the Beaufort
County historic average with a 1.7" deficit, and all of the flow gauges experienced reduced
duration consecutive -day flow events this monitoring year as compared to last year. However, as
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
oma=L!!i x�asEnunr �sALLYPORT MBAKERINTL.COM 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919.463-54881 Fax: [phone]

Innovation Done Pight...We Make a Difference
shown in Table 11 the total cumulative days of flow remained substantial for each gauge (even
increasing from previous years in four of the six gauges). As such, it is believed that the specific
rainfall distribution pattern observed in 2017 is likely why the consecutive -day values are reduced.
In particular, a January where virtually all the rainfall fell in the first week, followed by an
extraordinarily dry February (well below the historic 30% probable average) appears to have
reduced the number and duration of flow events during the exact time of year where they are
generally more prevalent and longer lasting. This late winter to early spring time period is when
the site tends to be the wettest and the flow gauges have previously met their success criteria. This
discussion was added to the text.
4. Appendix C, Table 9d:
a. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals table:
(1) the report states that Plot 6 met success but "just barely". Given that Baker is claiming
riparian buffer credit based on the most recent buffer rules, 15A NCAC 02B .0295, this plot is
more than "barely meeting" based on 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n)(2)(B).
(2) Clarify how Baker arrived at the 324 Riparian Buffer Stems for plot 6 when all other
references to planted stem counts in plot 6 come in at 364.
b. Footnote 1: Based on the most recent buffer rules, specifically 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n)(2)(B), the
final performance standard shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree species or four
native hardwood tree and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of
stems. Therefore, this footnote can be revised similar to "Native planted hardwood stems including
trees and shrubs. No pines. No vines."
Response: The data presented in Appendix C, Table 9d come directly from the CVS program
output, and the riparian buffer sub -table plot stem numbers appear to differ from the veg plot
stem numbers reported elsewhere due to CVS having removed the shrub species from the totals.
However, as DMS points out the recent buffer rule guidance does state that tree and shrub species
may be used so Baker has revised the plot stem totals accordingly. Similarly, the blue color -coded
success rating and `Yes, barely' terminology used in that sub -table were also taken directly from
the CVS output. They have been revised as well to reflect the new stem numbers. The first
footnote for Table 9c has also been revised as recommended.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at 919-481-5731
or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
14 4t 14 -
Scott
King, LSS

St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
Year 4 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
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

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
Wetlands Modifications Review................................................................................................................5
2.3
Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................5
2.3.1
Vegetation Concerns..................................................................................................................................5
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
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 Station Photos
Vegetation Plot Station Photos
Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos
Vegetation Problem Area 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
Table 10 Wetland Restoration Well Success
Figure 3 Wetland Gauge Graphs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Table 11 Flow Gauge Success
Figure 4 Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure 5 St. Clair Creek Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) restored 3,274 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent headwater
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 4 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 4 monitoring, is 603 stems per acre. The Year 4 data
demonstrate that the Site is on track to meet met the minimum success interim criteria of 260 trees per acre by
the end of Year 5.
Following Year 3 monitoring, some Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) was found scattered within the UT -2 restoration
area as well as portions of UT -3. To further prevent this nuisance species from affecting the planted stems, a
thinning and removal effort took place in May 2017. This treatment event targeted the loblolly pine along UT -
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

2 and UT -3, as well as one small portion of Chinese privet on the upstream portion of UT -2. The methods used
were hand/power tools and some chemical applications.
Year 4 wetland groundwater monitoring demonstrated that 1 of 8 groundwater monitoring wells located along
UT -2 and UT -3 met the success criteria by recording water levels within 12 inches of the ground surface for a
consecutive period greater than 12% of the growing season (33.8 days for the Site). Well #1 located in the
wetland area along UT -2 met the criteria with a hydroperiod of 33.7%. However, the remaining seven
monitoring wells all saw substantial increases from their Year 3 results with hydroperiods ranging from 10.6%
to 11.3%, most missing the success criteria by only a day or two. All wetland restoration well data and reference
well data collected during Year 4 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
Additionally, on March 16, 2017 another two groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW 10) were
installed in areas located outside the project's currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas (see
Figure 2: CCPV). Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this time. Given
the project's challenging history regarding the meeting of wetland well success criteria, Baker is simply
conducting exploratory monitoring in potential future wetland restoration areas. The three potential areas total
1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within the conservation
easement. Baker is not presenting this information here for formal approval or acceptance, but simply wished
to inform DMS and the IRT of all project activity. These two new wells were installed a little over two weeks
after the start of the growing season in 2017 but both still achieved 28 days of consecutive water levels within
12 inches of ground surface (for 9.9% of the growing season). It is anticipated they will meet the success
criteria in the future.
On-site flow through the restored headwater valleys of UT -2 and UT -3 was recorded throughout 2017 by the
use of six installed pressure transducers. All but one of which met the success criteria by recording a flow event
of 30 -days or longer in 2017. During 2017, flow gauge SCFL#4 located at the top of UT -2 recorded its longest
single duration flow event of 29 -days, though it also recorded a second event of 28 -days. It was noted that the
flow gauges demonstrated similar flow events relative to rainfall events on site as demonstrated in the gauge
graphs found 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. Only vegetation plots 1-6 are located
within the approved buffer credit areas and no additional vegetation monitoring plots are required to monitor
buffer success as these existing plots serve to monitor the success of the vegetation of the headwater coastal
plain stream and the associated riparian buffer.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report and in
the Mitigation Plan available on the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices are available from NCDMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

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 6th, the year-end well and flow data were
collected on December 15, 2017. The visual site assessment data contained in Appendix B were collected in
April, October, and December 2017 as noted.
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 previous 12 -month period from December 2016 through November
2017 was 48.32 inches, as compared to the Beaufort County WETS table for the same period of 50.03
inches annually, a deficit of 1.71 inches.
Four automated flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed in the UT -2 channel along with two
flow gauges installed in the UT -3 channel. The gauges were installed approximately 500 feet apart
within the restored systems to document flow duration. Annual success criteria are considered to have
been met if 30 consecutive days of flow were observed at any point during the monitoring year. As
stated in the mitigation plan, final flow success is achieved when two such 30 -day flow events have
been documented in separate monitoring years. Results indicate that five of the six flow gauges met
the minimum consecutive days of surface flow required for success during Year 4. Gauge SCFL#4
located at the top of UT -2 recorded flow events of 29 -day and 28 -day durations, but did not meet the
30 -day criteria during the year. The overall rainfall for the site was below the Beaufort County historic
average with a 1.7" deficit, and all of the flow gauges experienced reduced duration consecutive -day
flow events this monitoring year as compared to last year. However, as shown in Table 11 the total
cumulative days of flow remained substantial for each gauge (even increasing from previous years in
four of the six gauges). As such, it is believed that the specific rainfall distribution pattern observed in
2017 is likely why the consecutive -day values are reduced. In particular, a January where virtually all
the rainfall fell in the first week, followed by an extraordinarily dry February (well below the historic
30% probable average) appears to have reduced the number and duration of flow events during the
exact time of year where they are generally more prevalent and longer lasting. This late winter to early
spring time period is when the site tends to be the wettest and the flow gauges have previously met
their success criteria.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Note that flow gauge SCFL#5 located on the bottom of UT -3 did meet the success criteria early in
2017, but experienced a malfunction in early May and did not record data from that point forward. It
has since been reprogrammed and reset and is now operating correctly. It will be very closely observed
in the coming monitoring year. The complete flow data and observed rainfall graphs for each flow
gauge, along with the flow gauge success summary Table 11 are all located in Appendix D.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of both reaches,
moving upstream to the beginning of each reach. Photographs were taken looking upstream at
delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points were close enough together to
provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. Photographs of photo points,
wetland wells, flow gauges, and the rainfall gauge are located in Appendix B.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
Wetland monitoring is conducted using eight automated groundwater -monitoring stations that are installed
within the UT -2 and UT -3 wetland restoration areas, as well as two additional reference wells installed in the
downstream portion of the UT -3 wetland restoration area. Installation of these groundwater monitoring stations
follow Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-rs-4.1 (USAGE 1997).
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 has
groundwater within 12 inches of the soil surface for a consecutive number of days equal to a minimum of 12%
of the growing season. For Beaufort County, the growing season is from February 28 to December 6 (282
days), so 12% is a minimum of 33.8 consecutive days for the Site. Results indicate that only monitoring well
#1 fully met this success criteria in Year 4 with a recorded hydroperiod of 33.7%. However, the remaining
wells all saw substantial increases from their Year 3 results with hydroperiods ranging from 10.6% to 11.3%,
most missing the success criteria by only a day or two. It should be noted that while the success criteria stated
in the mitigation plan for wetland hydroperiod is 12%, the October 24, 2016 Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update document states that for the Tomotley soils series which is mapped
on the project site, the wetland hydroperiod range is 10% to 12%. All wells for Monitoring Year 4 fell within
this range. Additionally, during Year 4 monitoring, the on-site wetland reference wells, which are on the
downstream portion of UT -3, demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 40.9% and 41.0% of the growing
season. It should be noted that the placement of the reference wells is further down valley than the monitoring
wells and is much more heavily influenced by backwater from St. Clair Creek. All wetland restoration well
data and reference well data collected during Year 4 monitoring are located in Appendix D.
The total annual rainfall on the Site was just below average, with a deficit of 1.7" as recorded by the onsite rain
gauge (see Figure 5 in Appendix D). February was the driest month in 2017, which likely impacted the initial
groundwater depths at the very start of the growing season, typically the time of year when the groundwater
depth is closer to the surface, and typically when the wells are expected to meet their success criteria.
Additionally, on March 16, 2017 another two groundwater monitoring wells (SCAW9 and SCAW 10) were
installed in areas located outside the project's currently approved mitigation plan wetland restoration areas (see
Figure 2: CCPV). Please note these areas are not being requested for any credits of any kind at this time. Given
the project's challenging history regarding the meeting of wetland well success criteria, Baker is simply
conducting exploratory monitoring in potential future wetland restoration areas. The three potential areas total
1.1 acres and are all located outside the 50 ft buffer from the stream channel but within the conservation
easement. Baker is not presenting this information here for formal approval or acceptance, but simply wished
to inform DMS and the IRT of all project activity. These two new wells were installed a little over two weeks
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 4
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

after the start of the growing season in 2017 but both still achieved 28 days of consecutive groundwater levels
within 12 inches of ground surface (for 9.9% of the growing season). It is anticipated they will meet the success
criteria in the future.
2.2.1 Wetlands Modifications Review
A brief summary of previous wetlands modifications is presented here as a review of relevant project
history. A more detailed description of this work was presented in the Year 3 report.
In the fall of 2015, the restoration site landowner cut a network of drainage ditches adjacent to the
easement boundaries of both UT -2 and UT -3 with the intent to drain water away from his nearby pine
plantation. The work was implemented without the knowledge of Baker and was discovered in the fall
of 2015 during monitoring activities. To help remedy the situation, Baker oversaw three areas of
drainage modifications to the project in March of 2016: 1) Three French drains were installed under the
farm road along the northern portion of UT -2 and were linked to wide, shallow swales cut into the
buffer to reconnect water flow from the adjacent landowner's field that routinely ponded water behind
the road. 2) The drainage ditch running parallel to the easement boundary along the western portion of
UT -2 was filled, and three wide, shallow swales were cut to connect the existing drainages within the
pine plantation to the project wetlands and buffer. 3) The drainage ditch running parallel to the
easement boundary along the western edge of UT -3 was filled, and a shallow Swale was cut to connect
drainage from the pine plantation into an existing shallow depression located within the existing
wetland.
It was observed during the Year 4 monitoring that diffuse flow does now move through all of the
installed swales, and all remain stable and vegetated. Additional groundwater monitoring wells 5-8
were installed in April of 2016 specifically to observe the wetland restoration areas potentially affected
by these modifications. The locations of this previous work are provided in Figure 2 located in
Appendix B.
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 and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square
meters for woody tree species.
Year 4 vegetation assessment information is provided in Appendix B and C.
2.3.1 Vegetation Concerns
Following Year 3 monitoring, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings were discovered scattered throughout the
buffer of Reach UT -2 and a portion of UT -3. To prevent this nuisance species from affecting the planted stems,
a thinning and removal effort took place in May of 2017 targeting the loblolly pines. The methods used were
hand/power tools and some chemical application. A previous thinning effort had been conducted on UT -2 in
March of 2016. During project monitoring work in October 2017, some small pines were still found scattered
throughout the Site, but in clearly reduced numbers and sizes. The Site will be closely observed for pine growth
throughout the remaining monitoring period. Additionally, a small area of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
was treated on the upstream portion of UT -2 in May 2017 as well. The Vegetation Problem Area photolog
found in Appendix B provides several before/after photographs of some of the treated areas.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 5
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95015
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

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
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

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
St C/a/l Cree
� k
CD
0
-
CD
cn
X
Q
11
Project
Location
Pamlico River
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit EasUNC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NCJ
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 Note: Site is located within tar eted local
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a g
downstream culvert crossing. A- watershed 03020104040040.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
St. Clair Creek Restoration
17
32
Division of Mitigation Services
�„�',► ® hal Baker
Mice
Beaufort306
j
. • •

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/
Location
Existing Footage/ Acreage
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 (ft 2) / (AC)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
31274 2.8
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
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 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 95015
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
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
Dec-17
Jan-18
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 4 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:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
6105 Chapel Hill Road
River Works, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, 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
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
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 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 4. Project Attributes
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Project Information
Project Name
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project
County
Beaufort
Project Area (acres)
17.5
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.452835 N, -76.76726215 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
River Basin
Tar-Pamlico
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03020104 / 03020104040040
DWQ Sub-basin
03 03 07
Project Drainage Area (AC)
89 (UT2), 30 (UT3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
13.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation;
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT2
Reach UT3
Length of Reach LF
2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing)
1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing)
Valley Classification (Rosgen)
X
X
Drainage Area (AC)
89
30
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
36
20
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; Sw, NSW
C; Sw, NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)*
Channelized Headwater System (Perennial)
Channelized Headwater System (Intermittent)
Evolutionary Trend **
Restored G
Restored G
Underlying Mapped Soils
To, Hy, Ro
To, At
Drainage Class
Very poorly drained, poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0006
0.0009
FEMA Classification
SFHA, AE
SFHA, AE
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland Along UT2
Size of Wetland (AC)
1.1
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Parameters
Wetland Along UT3
Size of Wetland (AC)
1.7
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
To — Tomotley fine sandy loam
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation**
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
(Appendix B)
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
(Appendix B
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A
Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes Yes
(Appendix 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 4 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
A Photo Points
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells Not Meeting Criteria
- Vegetation Plot Meeting Criteria: (Year 4 Planted Stem Density)
Wetland Restoration Areas (2.87 acres total)
Potential New Wetland Restoration Areas (1.05 acres total)
Veg Plot 3:
688 stems/ac
UT 2
Veg Plot 1:
567 stems/ac
Veg Plot 2:
647 stems/ac
The potential wetland areas shown here are not being Veg Plot 5:
requested for credits at this time and were not originally 486 stems/ac
provided in the mitigation plan. Baker is conducting
exploratory monitoring in these areas only.
0.26 acres
Survey / Monitoring Data Collected: Dec 2017
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
O Flow Gauge Meeting Criteria
Flow Gauge Not Meeting Criteria
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)
Veg Plot 9:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 4:
647 stems/ac
Veg Plot 7:
890 stems/ac
Veg Plot 6:
364 stems/ac
L
24
UT 3
0.13
Veg Plot 8:
486 stems/ac
0 250 500 N Figure 2
BakerMichael Feet Current Conditions Plan View: MY4
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services St. Clair Creek Site
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Project # 95015 Beaufort County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT2
Assessed Length (LF): 2,133
Number Stable
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number
Footage with Adjusted %
Major Channel Category
Channel Sob -Category
Metric
(Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
with
Stabilizing
for
Intended)
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
.111116-
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
NA
NA
1. Depth
NA
NA
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
NA
NA
1. Bed
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4. Thalweg Position
NA
Nn
3. Thalweg centering along valley
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
*Yes2,133
LF
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
like)
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
1
0
0
1 100%
0
2,133
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
2,133
100%
1. Overall Integrity
IF
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
NA
NA
2. Grade Control
NA
NA
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
NA
NA
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
NA
NA
15%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
NA
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Reach ID: UT3
Assessed Length (LF): 1,141
Number Stable
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Number
Adjusted
Footage with
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
(Performing as
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
with
Stabilizing for
Intended)
per As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Stabilizing
Woody Veg. Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Vertical Stability
2. Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate
NA
NA
1. Depth
NA
NA
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length
NA
NA
1. Bed
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
NA
NA
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
4. Thalweg Position
NA
NA
3. Thalweg centering along valley
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
Yes
1,141 LF
0
0
100 %
0
1,141 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely
0
0
100 %
0
1,141 100%
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
1,141 100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
1,141 100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
NA
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
NA
NA
3. Engineering Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
NA
NA
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
NA
NA
15%
4. Habitat
I Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
NA
NA
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 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 4 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
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
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%
eas wit woo y 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%
Cumulative Total
year.
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
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 or points (if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as
NA
0
0.00
0.0
polygons at ma scale)none
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
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
herbaceous material.
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
�ateobvio,asly small given the monitoring
year.
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as
1000 ft2
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
polygons at map scale)
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
polygons at map scale)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 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
Resolution
Photo Number
Treated in March 2016 - hand/power tools and
Scattered throughout buffer on UT
chemical application
Photos 1-4 in VPA
Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)
2
Post-restoraton seed source
Photolog
Treated again in May 2017- hand/power tools and
chemical application
Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense)
UT -2: 12+00 to 13+00
Post-restoraton seed source
Treated in May 2017- hand/power tools and
Photos 5-6 in VPA
chemical application
Photolog
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations (April 2017)
Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
Photo Point 4 — UT2
Photo Point 5 — UT2
Photo Point 6 — UT2
-s
ti
Photo Point 1 — UT2
Photo Point 2 — UT2
Photo Point 3 — UT2
Photo Point 4 — UT2
Photo Point 5 — UT2
Photo Point 6 — UT2

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations (April 2017)
Photo Point 7 — UT2
Photo Point 9 — UT2
Photo Point 8 — UT2
Photo Point 10 — UT2
Photo Point 11 UT2
Photo Point 12 — UT2

4
X
� r
w
d
Y r
Y

St. Clair Restoration Site — Longitudinal Stream Photo Stations (April 2017)
Photo Point 19 — UT3
Photo Point 20 — UT3
Photo Point 21 — UT3
a r` Z
Photo Point 22 — UT3
Photo Point 23 — UT3
Photo Point 24 — UT3

St. Clair Restoration Site — Vegetation Plots (October 2017)
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
4
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6

St. Clair Restoration Site — Vegetation Plots (October 2017)
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 8

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations (December 2017)
Auto Well — SCAW 1
Auto Well — SCAW3
Y
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW5
Auto Well — SCAW2
Auto Well — SCAW4
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW6

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations (December 2017)
t
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW7
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW8
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW9
Reference Auto Well — SCREFI
Supplemental Auto Well — SCAW 10
Reference Auto Well — SCREF2

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations (December 2017)
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL1
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL3
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL2
Flow Logger (UT2) — SCFL4
Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL5
Flow Logger (UT3) — SCFL6

St. Clair Restoration Site - Hydrology Monitoring Stations (December 2017)
On-site rain gauge - adjacent to SCAW1

St. Clair Restoration Site — Vegetation Problem Areas (Treated in May 2017)
Loblolly Pines on UT2 (April 2017)
Loblolly Pines on UT2 (Dec. 2017)
Loblolly Pines on UT2 (April 2017)
Chinese privet on UT2 (Dec. 2016)
Loblolly Pines on UT2 (Dec. 2017)
Chinese Privet on UT2 (Dec. 2017)

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?
MY4 Planted Density /
As -built Planted Stem
Density*
Tract Mean
1
Y
567/728
603
2
Y
647/648
3
Y
688/688
4
Y
647/728
5
Y
486/688
6
Y
364/486
7
Y
890/1,174
8
Y
486/728
9
Y
647/769
Note: *MY4 Planted Density / As -built Planted Stem Density - reflects the changes in stem density based on the
current total density of planted stems as compared to the original planted stem density from the As -built conditions.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
rt Prepared By Scott King
Prepared 1/8/2018 13:28
abase name MichaelBaker_MY4_2017 StClair_95015.mdb
abase location L:\Projects\125116\Monitoring\Post Restoration\Veg Plots\Year 4_2017
Iputer name CARYLSKING
size 47316992
CRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT -----------
adata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
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.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
r
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
r by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
cage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
cage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
cage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ted 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.
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.
iJECT SUMMARY ----------------------- -----------
ect Code
95015
ect Name
St Clair Creek Restoration Project
ription
r Basin
Tar -Pamlico
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9a. CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS
Project ID No. 95015
M
OQ
0
4
M
OQ
0
4 M
i
�.o
eft
�A,
�5i
.10i
eft
�FirAl
�roi �roi
y�yS
O� O�
O��
04'
O�v
-N
_q O�
Gja'
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00 00
6"
�
Fo
5
Ob
�.�y
�q`
0�5
q4'O
q4'o
q�0
quo
q4'O
q4'O
quo
quo
q4'
G 0Q
�
G
ti
*c
ro
Aronia arbuti olia
Shrub
lRed Chokeberry
61
3
21
41
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
3
3
1
1
1
1
Clethra alni olia
Shrub
coastal sweetpepperbush
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
1
Morella cert era
Shrub Tree
wax myrtle
1
1
1
1
N ssa s lvatica
Tree
blackgurn
7
3
2.33
1
4
2
Perseaalustris
Tree
swamp bay
6
2
3
2
4
uercus Lauri olia
Tree
laurel oak
8
3
2.67
1
3
4
uercus 1 rata
Tree
.0vercup oak
14
7
2
4
2
1
2
2
1
2
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
27
6
4.5
1
4
4
5
5
8
uercus hellos
Tree
willow oak
10
5
2
5
1
1
1
2
Taxodium distichum
Tree
bald cypress
16
4
4
4
3
8
1
Ulmus americana
Tree
American ehn
19
6
3.17
1
4
2
1
4
7
Vaccinium corymbosum
Shrub
hi hbush bluebeny
3
2
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrmw ood
8
3
2.67
3
1
4
TOT: 0 15
15
15
134
15
14
16
17
16
12
9
22
12
Ifi
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Table 9b. Stem Count for All Species (Planted and Volunteer) Arranged by Plot
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95015
Botanical Name
Common Name
1
2
3
4
Plots
5
6
7
8
9
Tree Species
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 2 1 1 1
N ssa s lvatica swamp tupelo
1
4
2
Pinus taeda loblolly pine
12
10
3
5
6
4
2
uercus lauri olia laurel oak
1
3
4
Quercus l rata overcup oak
4
2
1
2
2
1
3
Quercus michauxii swatnp chestnut oak
1
4
4
5
5
8
Quercus pagoda the bark oak
1
Quercus phellos willow oak
5
1
2
1
3
1
Taxodium distichium bald cypress
4
3
8
1
Ulmus americana American elm
1
4
2
1
4
7
Shrub Species
Aroma arbuti olia Red Chokeberry 4 1 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam
1
1
2
Clethra alni olia coastal sweetpepperbush
I
I
Morella ceri era wax myrtle
1
Persea palustris swarnp bay
2
4
Vaccinium corymbosum hi bush blueberry
1
2
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
3
1
5
Stems Per Plot (October 2017)
26
26
20
21
19
10
28
17
18
Average Stems Per
Acre
Total Stems/Acre Year 4 (October 2017)
1052
1052
809
850
769
405
1133
688
728
832
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 4 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 (MY4 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
P
95015-01-0001
V T
P
95015-01-0002
V T
95015-01-0003
P V
T
95015-01-0004
P V
T
P
95015-01-0005
V
T
P
95015-01-0006
V
T
P
95015-01-0007
V T
P
95015-01-0008
V
T
P
95015-01-0009
V
T
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
4
4
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
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
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
4
4
2
2
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
2
2
4
4
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
12
12
10
10
3
3
5
5
6
6
4
4
2
2
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
3
3
4
4
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8
8
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
4
4
3
3
8
8
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
4
4
2
2
1
1
4
4
7
7
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Vaccinium corymbosum
1highbush blueberry
IShrub
1
1
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
3
3
1
1
4
4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)0.02
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
8
567
12
1
11
486 1
26
9
1,052
16
6
647
10
1
0.02
1
405
26
7
1,052
17
6
688
3
1
0.02
1
121
20
7
809
16
5
647
5
1
0.02
1
202
21
6
850
12
4
486
6
1
0.02
1
243
18
5
728
9
5
364
1
1
0.02
1
40
10
6
405
22
7
890
4
1
0.02
1
162
26
8
1,052
12
6
486
2
1
0.02
1
81
14
7
567
16
6
647
2
1
0.02
2
81
18
6
728
MY4 (2017) MY3 (2016) MY2 (2015) MY1(2014)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type P F V T P V T P V T P V T
Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeberry Shrub 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
Clethra alnifolia coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Cornus foemina stiff dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 7 7
Morella cerifera wax myrtle shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 7 7 5 5 7 7 6 6
Persea palustris swamp bay tree 6 6 6 2 8 6 6 6 6
Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 42 42 90 90
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 14
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 14 1 15 14 14 14 14 17 17
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 27 27 26 26 27 27 25 25
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 10 10 12 12 15 15 11 11
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1 1
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 16 16 16 16 16 16 19 19
Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 2 2
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 19 19 19 19 19 19 21 21
Unknown Shrub or Tree 5 5
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry Shrub 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 6
Stem count 134 45 179 135 103 238 143 0 143 152 0 152
size (ares) 9 9 9 9
size (ACRES) 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Species count 15 4 1 17 1 15 6 20 15 0 15 17 0 17
Stems per ACREJ 603 1 202 1 805 1 607 1 463 1 1,070 1 643 1 0 1 643 1 683 1 0 1 683
Color Key for Stem Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Color for Volunteers
P = Planted
V = Volunteer
T = Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Clair Creek Restoration Proiect: DMS Proiect ID No. 95015
St Clair Creek Restoration Project (#95015)
Year 4 (19 -Oct -2017)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian Buffer
Stems
Stream/ Wetland}
Stems2
Live Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers
n
Total
Unknown Growth
Form
1
9
14
0
0
12
26
0
2
12
16
0
0
10
26
0
3
16
17
0
0
3
20
0
4
16
16
0
0
5
21
0
5
12
12
0
0
6
18
0
6
8
9
0
0
1
10
0
7
n/a22
0
0
4
26
0
8
n/a
12
0
0
2
14
0
9
n/a
16
0
0
2
18
0
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Wetland
Plot#
Stems'
Volunteers'
Total'
Success Criteria
Met?
1 567
486
1052
Yes
2 647
405
1052
Yes
3 688
121
809
Yes
4 647
202
850
Yes
5 486
243
728
Yes
6 364
40
405
Yes
7 890
162
1052
Yes
8 486
81
567
Yes
9 647
81
728
Yes
Project Avg 603
202
805
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Riparian Buffer Stems
Success Criteria
Met?
1
567
Yes
2
647
Yes
3
688
Yes
4
647
Yes
5
486
Yes
6
364
Yes
7*
n/a
n/a
S.
We
We
9*
n/a
n/a
Project Avg
567
Yes
*These plots are not located in areas receiving riparian buffer credits
Stem Class Characteristics
Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood stems including trees and native shrub species. No pines. No vines
2Stream/ Wetland Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
°Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95015)

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

Table 10. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
St. Clair Creek Restoration Project: 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 1
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 1
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year1
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 1
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed September 2013)
SCAWI 1.0 12.3 13.1 33.7 2.8 34.8 37.0 95.0 8.5 39.3 61.7 68.1 24.0
110.8 174.0
192.0
SCAW2 3.8 3.3 9.2 10.6 10.8 9.3 26.0 30.0 30.6 16.1 19.9 51.1 86.3
45.5 56.0
144.0
SCAW3 2.3 13.4 9.6 11.0 6.5 37.8 27.0 31.0 9.4 37.5 44.3 26.2 26.5
1
105.8 125.0
74.0
SCAW4 7.8 12.3 6.0 11.0 22.0 34.8 17.0 31.0 17.3 20.3 35.8 25.9 48.8
57.3 101.0
73.0
Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed April 2016)**
SCAW5 12.8 11.3 36.0 1 32.0 46.8 69.9
132.0
197.0
SCAW6 3.9 10.3 11.0 29.0 19.9 32.6
56.0
92.0
SCAW7 9.6 11.3 27.0 32.0 33.0 38.3
93.0
108.0
SCAW8 4.6 11.3 13.0 32.0 22.0 23.8
62.0
67.0
Supplemental Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2017)**
SCAW9 9.9 28.0 45.4
128.0
SCAW 10 9.9 28.0 28.7
81.0
Reference Wells (Installed Spetember 2013)
SCAWREFI 24.8 57.9 40.9 41.0 70.0 163.3 115.3 115.8 46.4 93.7 77.9 70.1 130.8
264.3 219.8
197.8
SCAWREF2 27.0 60.1 43.8 40.9 65.5 169.5 123.5 115.3 44.5 94.1 76.9 67.1 125.5
256.5 216.8
189.3
'Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
2Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the total 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.
**To gather additional well data in the wetland restoration area, In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW5 - SCAW 8 were installed in April 2016, several weeks after the growing season had
begun. Two additional In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers SCAW9 and SCAW 10 were installed in March 2017, just over two weeks past the start of the growing season in 2017.

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
10
5
0
L -5
3 -10
o -15
C7
° -20
s
CL
o -25
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -built well - SCAW1)
MIMMIUMIFILIN fiIUIMMIMM��MKWM
MMEMMSCAMW1 Longest Hydroperiod vf57.0 days (20.2%o):
2/28/2017 - 4/25/2017
r7ROW NG SEASC:71111�
L (2/28-12/6) J�
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW1
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
ir
-
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -built well - SCAW2)
5
Ground
Surface
0
f
I
-12 inches
c
I
d
-10
scaw2
3
-15
— — Begin
Growing
(9
Season"
w
-20
s
End
o.
-25
SCAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 30.0 days (10.6%):
Growing
4)
3/2/2017 - 4/12/2017
Season
-30
GROWING SEASON
Nor
I
-35
1
(2/28 - 12/6)
-40
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
=
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -built well - SCAW3)
5
Ground
Surface
0
I
Am
-12 inches
-5
I
I
SCAW3
i
-10
I NO
_v
-15
Begin
a
0
I
I
Growing
Season
_20
I
End
Growing
w
y
-25
SCAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 31 days (11.0%):
I
Season
0 -30
3/14/2017 - 4/13/2017
I
I
-35
I
I
-40
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5
0
-5
c
-10
N
Y
3 -15
M
c
° -20
0
C7
w
s -25
a..
N
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -built well - SCAW4)
I I
1 I
I . __ .-A A
SCAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of 31.0 days (11.0%):
3/14/2017 - 4/13/2017
I
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6) I 1
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW4
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5
0
-5
c
d -10
Y
{Q
3
_ -15
3
O
L
0 -20
O
CL -25
d
D
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW5)
I I
I
I I
I
I
SCAW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 32.0 days (11.3%):
3/14/2017 - 4/14/2017
IL II
I I
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 -12/6)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW5
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
m 4.0
5.0
5
0
-5
c
m -10
3
-15
3
O
L
0 -20
O
M
EL -25
m
D
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW6)
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I
I
I
SCAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 29.0 days (10.3%):
3/14/2017-4/11/2017
I I
I I
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW6
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
ir
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW7)
5
Ground
0
I
I Surface
-12 inches
-5
c
`m
10
I
I
SCAw7
I
-15
— —Begin Growing
3
O
L
I
I
Season
p
-20
— —End Growing
Season
C
-25
SCAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 32.0 days (11.3%):
3/14/2017 - 4/14/2017
-30
35
I
I
GROWING
SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
-40
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5
0
-5
d -10
a
3
_ -15
a -20
O
a -25
d
D
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(Supplemental Well - SCAW8)
�111�aw1� IMilli IV111111111111111
SCAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 32.0 days (11.3%'
MEL 3/14/2017 - 4/14/2017 -k 1111WM ilium
".="" ... M. M lug 'EM
GROWING SEASON ML
12/31/2016 2/14/2017 3/31/2017 5/15/2017 6/29/2017 8/13/2017 9/27/2017 11/11/2017 12/26/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW8
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
10
5
0
-5
CD
m -10
3
-15
0
o -20
s
a -25
m
-30
-35
-40
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT2)
(As -built well - SCAW9)
SCAW9 Longest Hydroperiod of 28 days (9.9%) 3/16/2017
-4/12/2017
I
I
a
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
SCAW9
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
=
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Restoration Well (UT3)
(As -built well - SCAW10)
5
Ground
Surface
0
I
NAM h
-12 inches
-5
I
I
SCAW10
i
-10
-15
_
— — Begin
C
0_20
I
Growing
Season
w
I
— — End
Growing
M
-25
I
Season
d
-30
I
I
SCAW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 28 days (9.9%):
35
3/16/2017 - 4/13/2017
I
I
-40
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
=
2.0
c
3.0
4.0
5.0
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well (UT3)
(REF1)
25
20
— Ground
Surface
15
10
12 inches
5
0
T
I
y
5
SCAWREF1
r
-10
— —Begin Growing
c-15
I
Season
20
o
-25
REF1 Longest Hydroperiod of 115.8 days (41.0%):
t
I
2/28/2017 - 6/22/2017
— — End Growing
Season
a
-30 I
d
o
-35
-40
-45
GROWING SEASON
(2/28 - 12/6)
-50
I
-55
1/1/2017 2/15/2017
4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017
11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Creek Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
c 3.0
4.0
5.0
E
St. Clair Creek Wetland Reference Well (UT3)
(REF2)
25
20
15
10
5 kN
I
0 ' I
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30 REF2 Longest Hydroperiod of 115.3 days (40.9%):
2/28/2017-6/30/201
-35 7
-40
-45
-50 GROWING SEASON
55 (2/28 - 12/6)
-60
1/1/2017
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017 8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Date
Ground
Surface
12 inches
SCAWREF2
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Table 11. Flow Gauge Success
St. Clair Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting CriteriW
Year 1
2014
Year 2
2015
Year 3
2016
Year 4
2017
Year 5
2018
Year 6
2019
Year 7
2020
Year 1
2014
Year 2
2015
Year 3
2016
Year 4
2017
Year 5
2018
Year 6
2019
Year 7
2020
UT2 Flow Gauges (Installed March 21, 2014)
SCFL1
71
43
83
63
NA
206
224
328
SCFL2
64
43
84
60
NA
201
232
204
SCFL3
61
25
86
35
NA
174
203
287
SCFL4
24
17
46
29*
NA
118
124
86
UT3 Flow Gauges (Installed July 17, 2015)
SCFL5
57
44
62
30
NA
174
162
79
SCFL6
5
42
62
30
NA
116
180
191
Notes:
'Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the number of total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
*SCFL4 also recorded a 28 -day consecutive flow event in 2017, in addition to the 29 -day flow event listed above.
Success Criteria per St. Clair Creek Mitigation Plan: "A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days. Two surface water flow events
must be documented within a five-year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in separate years. The automated gauges should
document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow.."
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.25 inches.

St. Clair Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
is
3.0
4.0
5.0
c
z:
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL1
(Downstream UT2)
IGl
[1]
I SCFL1 I
0.25 Inches
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 63
(9/11/2017-11/12/2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date
'0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2017)
11112017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
C
1.0
= 2.0
3.0
s
r
CL
4)
0
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
----- YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
------ CRITERIA MET - 60
_____ (1/1/2017 - 3/1/2017) _
------------------------ ---------------------
---------------------- -- ---------------------
------------------- ----- ---------------------
------------------------ ---------------------
- ------------ --------- --- -----------------
--------------------- ---- -----------------
--------------------- ---- -----------------
--------------------- ---- -----------------
- --- ------------------- ---- -----------------
-- --------------------- ---- ----------------
-----------------_------_ ---- ---_------------
IL-i --_II --_ --_
-- ---- ----
---------------
---- - --------------
3/2/2017 4/1/2017
.0 ------ PW 0 ----------N---
0 ----------
.0
1/1/2017 1/31/2017
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL2
(Downstream UT2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCFL2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.25 inches -----
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------
---------
------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
------ -------- ---------- L: lk ----------- --------
5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date
'0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 1112712017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
J 3.0
W 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 ------------------
CL 13.0 -----------------
p 12.0
y 11.0 -------------- -
10.0 ----------- ---
9.0 ---------- -----
C9 8.0 ----------------
7.0 - ------ --------
6.0 - ---- - --------
5.0 - -- -- -------
4.0 -----
------
3.0 - -- ----
2.0 ---- - -
1.0 ---------------
0.0
1/1/2017 1/31/2017
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 35
(1/1/2017-2/4/2017)
-------------------------------------
------------ ------------------------
------------ - ----- --------- ------
------------ --- ---------------
A- --------- ---
3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017
0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL3
(Upstream UT2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
----------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------
----------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------
----------------- --------------------------- --------------------------------
---+i------1--- ---- --------1 ------------------------ L --- 4
SCFL3
0.25 Inches
5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
= 3.0
4.0
5.0
12.0
11.0
--------
10.0
--------
9.0
--------
,. 8.0
--------
c
7.0
--------
y 6.0
--------
G
d 5.0
--------
3
to 4.0
--------
-----3.0
3.0
-------
2.0
-----
1.0
-
0.0
1/1/2017
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL4
(Upstream UT2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SCFL4
Y R4 MOST CONSECUTIVE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.25 Inches
DAYS CRITERIA MET - 29
3/13/2017 - 4/10/2017) - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ ---- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------
I --1 ----L---- --- -- ----- - --�----�-----I----------------1-----------------a--k-1-------------------------------------------�---
1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date
).25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT2 valley thalweg

St. Clair Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
2.0
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 ---
d 12.0 ---
G 11.0 ---
y 10.0 ---
3 9.0 ---
8.0 ---
0 7.0
6.0 ---
5.0 --
4.0 -
3.0 -
2.0
1.0 -
0.0
1/1/2017
1/31/2017
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
MET - 30
(1/1/2017-1/30/2017)
-----------------------------
3/2/2017
4/1/2017 5/1/2017
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL5
(Downstream UT3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S C F L 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - 0.2 5 Inches -----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------- This gap in data is due to an ------- ----- ------------------------------------------------
--------
---------------------------------------------------
---------- error in the logger. It has since --------- _--------------------------------------------------
---------- been reset and restarted. -----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/31 /2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date

St. Clair Rain (2017)
1/1/2017 1/31/2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
0.0
1.0
JT
2.0
3.0
St. Clair Creek
Flow Gauge SCFL6
(Upstream UT3)
15.0
14.0 — -------------------------------- --------------
13.0 YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS — ------- —SCFL6 ----------
12.0 CRITERIA MET -30 -------------------- 0.25 Inches --------
(3/13/2017-4/11/2017)
11.0
10.0 - ------------------------------------------- — - - ---------------------------------------------- - ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- — -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.0 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rL 8.0 -
a7.0 - — - – ----- ---- ---
(D
0)
6.0 - ----- ----- ---------------------------------------------------- ----- --- ---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ca
0 5.0 - ----- ----- ---------------------------------------------------- ----- ---------------- --- -------
4.0 - --- --------------------------------------------------------- ----- ---------- ------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 - ------------ - --------------- --------
2.0 ------- -------------------- -- ------ -- --------------------
-------
- I ---
----
1.0 - ---- - L J11 - -----------
0.0 N I
1/1/2017 1 /31 /2017 3/2/2017 4/1/2017 5/1/2017 5/31/2017 6/30/2017 7/30/2017 8/29/2017 9/28/2017 10/28/2017 11/27/2017 12/27/2017
Date
*0.25 inches denotes level at which flow occurs along the UT3 valley thalweg

10.0
8.0
2.0
0.0
Figure 5. St. Clair Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 95015
Year 4 (2017) Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
--*—Historic Average a Historic 30% probable
Historic 70% probable }On -Site Observed 2017
—wt—NC-CRONOS: Aurora Station
Note: Beaufort County historic average rainfall is 50.03 in, while observed previous 12 months rainfall total recorded onsite was 48.32 in, a deficit of 1.71 in.