20120064 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171220

FJ
MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Union County, NC
DEQ Contract D09126S
DMS Project Number 94687
Data Collection Period: April — November 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2017
Final Submission Date: December 20, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a design bid build project at the Crooked Creek #2
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance
6,147 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams, enhance 1.0 acre of existing wetlands, restore and create
10.5 acres of wetlands, and restore and enhance 70,936 square feet (SF) of riparian buffer in Union
County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 3,489.6 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 8.4 wetland
mitigation units (WMUs), and 1.24 buffer mitigation units (BMU) for the Goose Creek watershed (Table
1). The Site is located off NC Highway 218 in the northern portion of Union County, NC in the Yadkin
Pee -Dee River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03040105040010 (Figure 1). The project streams consist of two unnamed tributaries (UT) to
Crooked Creek, UT1 and UT2, and two reaches of the Crooked Creek mainstem (Reach A and Reach B)
(Figure 2). Crooked Creek flows into the Rocky River 4 miles northeast of the site near Love Mill Road at
the Stanly County line. The adjacent land to the streams and wetlands is primarily maintained for
agricultural and residential uses.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP, 2009). The Site is also located within the Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The final watershed management plan (WMP) for Goose
Creek and Crooked Creek was completed in July 2012 (NCEEP, 2012). The stressors to watershed
function identified in the WMP were sediment pollution and increases in peak stream flows resulting in
impairments to aquatic habitat and aquatic life. Stream enhancement and restoration were identified as
the best management opportunities to offset these impacts. Other stressors identified included
nonpoint source runoff, degraded terrestrial habitat, and disconnected floodplains. Wetland
enhancement and restoration was also identified as a best management opportunity to offset impacts
related to these stressors. The wetland portion of the project was identified as a specific priority in the
Project Atlas that accompanies the 2012 WMP.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2013) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include:
• Improve wetland hydrologic connectivity;
• Decrease sediment input into stream;
• Create appropriate terrestrial habitat;
• Decrease water temperature and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations; and
• Decrease nutrient and adverse chemical levels.
The Site construction and as -built survey was completed in 2015. Planting and baseline monitoring
activities occurred in January and February 2016. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) assessments were completed
between April and September 2017, to assess the conditions of the site. The average stem density for
the Site is 283 stems per acre and is therefore not on track to meet the interim Year 3 requirement of
320 stems per acres. Cross-section dimensions appear stable and functioning as designed. Hydrologic
success criteria were achieved in three of the 10 groundwater monitoring gages, and at least one
bankfull event occurred on all monitored reaches.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Table 14
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
1.2.7
Wetland Areas of Concern.................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Appendix 4
Vegetation Photographs
Table 11
Stream Photographs
Table 12
Wetland Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Mean)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross-section)
Table 13
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots and Rainfall Plot
1 kr Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

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

The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Construct stream channels that will remain relatively stable over time and adequately transport
their sediment loads without significant erosion or aggradation;
• Construct stream channels that maintain riffles with coarse bed material and pools with finer
bed material;
• Provide aquatic and benthic habitat diversity in the form of pools, riffles, woody debris, and in -
stream structures;
• Add riffle features and structures and riparian vegetation to decrease water temperatures and
increased dissolved oxygen to improve water quality;
• Construct stream reaches so that floodplains and wetlands are frequently flooded to provide
energy dissipation, detain and treat flood flows, and create a more natural hydrologic regime;
• Construct fencing to keep livestock out of the streams;
• Raise local groundwater table through raising stream beds and plugging agricultural drainage
features;
• Perform minor grading in wetland areas as necessary to promote wetland hydrology; and
Plant native tree species to establish appropriate wetland and floodplain communities and
retain existing, native trees where possible.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between April and October 2017 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Crooked Creek #2 Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 12
vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement areas. All
of the plots were installed using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and
enhanced reaches at the end of the seven year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
year three of the monitoring period (MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the
seventh year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by MY5 and stem density is trending
towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site
may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2017, resulting in an average stem density of 283
stems per acre. Only 4 of the 12 vegetation plots meet the interim requirement of 320 stems/acre. The
planted stem mortality was approximately 46% from the baseline density recorded in February 2016 at
MYO of 526 stems/acre. There is an average of 7 stems per plot as compared to 13 stems per plot in
MYO. The average stem height is 4.2 feet which is 35% increase from MY1. The suffocation due to
surrounding herbaceous material continues to impact the planted stems. In addition, vine strangulation
is affecting the stem growth in several plots. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs
and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
An herbicide treatment was applied along the fence line around photo point 33. However, the invasive
vine species, such as Chinese lantern, Japanese honeysuckle and morning glory, continue to impact the
stem growth within the site. Several invasive species were noted throughout the site and include
Chinese lantern (Physalis spp.), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and morning glory
(Ipomoea sp.). The native invasive cattail (Typha latifolia) has colonized into Vegetation Plot 5, which
may impact planted woody stem survival, along with the dense herbaceous coverage of rice cutgrass
(Leersia oryzoides). Invasive maintenance will need to continue to enable the planted stems to grow
within the site.
Most of the floodplain still contains dense, native herbaceous cover that is suffocating the planted stems
and out competing for water and sunlight. Several of the oak species exhibited mildew due to lack of air
circulation. The treated areas of Chinese privet on Crooked Creek Reach A and Reach B have re -sprouted
and are showing increasing dominance. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment
table, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV), and reference photographs.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
MY2 Morphological surveys were conducted in April 2017. Results indicate that the channel dimensions
are stable and functioning as designed. In general, the cross-sections on UT1 show little to no change in
the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio compared to baseline. Surveyed riffle
cross-sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type
(Rosgen, 1996). Due to drier conditions, the stream, especially the riffles, are inundated with vegetation.
In general, the restoration reaches show little to no changes with substrate materials. The particle size
distribution for MY2 riffle cross-section 4 are similar or slightly larger than the as -built conditions,
however pebble count data for riffle cross-section 2 continues to reflect increased deposition of fine
sediment. This area will be watched in future monitoring years for embeddedness. Refer to Appendix 2
for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for
the morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Dense herbaceous ground cover has entered the UT1 streambed which hinders the movement of
sediment during bankfull events. The streambed is difficult to locate due to this herbaceous coverage,
especially when the stream is dry.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY2 data collection. This event was
recorded on the UT1 stream gage that was installed late April, along with crest gages and visual
indicators for UT2 and Crooked Creek. Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration
reaches within the seven-year monitoring period and the two bankfull events must occur in separate
years. There was a bankfull event recorded during MY1 and MY2; therefore, the performance criteria
has been met in MY2. The stream gage indicates there were 22 consecutive days of stream flow;
however, the stream gage was not installed until late April; therefore, missing the rainfall during the
winter months. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater monitoring gages (GWG 1-10) were installed during the baseline monitoring so that
the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland areas. The
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

target performance criteria for wetland hydrology success consists of groundwater surface within 12
inches of the ground surface for 17 consecutive days (7.5 percent) of the defined 227 day growing
season for Union County (March 23 through November 4) under typical precipitation conditions. Only
three of the ten gages (GWG 6, GWG 7 and GWG 8) met the performance criteria for MY2. GWG 6 met
criteria for 75 consecutive days (33.2%), GWG 7 recorded 47 consecutive days (20.8%) and GWG 8
recorded 31 consecutive days (13.7%). Although the remaining gages did not meet criteria, they do
reflect improvement between MY1 and MY2. According to onsite rain gage data and climate data from a
nearby USGS station, the site received less than typical amount of rain during January through March
2017. It is anticipated that these wetland areas will continue to recharge and meet hydrologic success
criteria in the upcoming monitoring years as precipitation normalizes. Refer to Appendix 5 for the
groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.7 Wetland Areas of Concern
The headcut located in the Wetland Creation Zone B area, between GWG 8 and vegetation plot 7, has
increased in size. On August 29, 2017, the headcut measured approximately 1.7 feet deep, 2 feet wide,
and 7 feet long, before entering the Wetland Enhancement Zone B. The tall herbaceous material
covered the scoured area and was not visible; therefore, surrounding vegetation was cleared and made
easier to locate for repair purposes. The placement of coir logs is suggested to re -direct the water flow
around the headcut.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
The restored streams within the Site appear stable and functioning as designed. The average stem
density (283 stems per acre) for the Site is currently not on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria;
therefore, the Site will receive supplemental planting with 1 -gallon or larger containerized trees in
January 2018 in response to not meeting success criteria. In addition, the Site will be treated site wide
for invasives in 2018 in response to persistent invasives which have recolonized the Site. Three of the 10
groundwater gages met the performance criteria in MY2. The bankfull performance criteria has been
met in MY2; however, continuous flow has not been shown in UT1. UT1 contains vegetation over-
growth and the concern that the jurisdictional nature of this restoration tributary remains to be
determined.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

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

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from: http://deq.nc.gov/document/yadkin-pee-dee-rbrp-2009-final
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), Tetra Tech, CCoG, 2012. Goose Creek and
Crooked Creek Local Watershed Plan. Retrieved from:
http://www.gooseandcrooked.org/documents/GooseandCrookedLWP-WMP—Final-7-2012.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/coastalp.htm
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Real Time Water Data for North Carolina. Retrieved from:
http://nc.water.usgs.gov/realtime/real_time_yadkin_peedee.html
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2013). Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan. NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC.
110- Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

i1
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Aeedr ` NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
reek Nature \ ; Project Location
Preserve
030401' 5010051 , -4
'�c��e�RR�S 03040105010070
-
G
f\
'%Vrs Golf
nurse
00
03040105030010 X
03050103020050�i ��♦ s / i
♦
i
833 ft tr�+►��-�� ��� `, e\, t� �
''I ♦♦, �� rot-,
��r� 030401)505001
N,i��1 r■� 7' ` Ck Ct
r k4
Greek fyfnt Hill e
ns
'O
N� r i I �►
♦ pop03050103020060 ��
03040105030020
r .#
Emerald
ZID
Lake GaM Club
�F;�rvie
ttlie %squuner
• Hgh J �71%� w
l.
� Cie He by114ri
001-0 e�
�o'k vt
03040103020070
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (L
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompasses
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 nc
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved i
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restorat
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of thei
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
WILDLANDS Mk0 0.5 1 Mile
ENGINEERING I I I I J
� f
03040105040020:
s �
Ow
n
M
Unionvillle
10
Directions to Site:
From Charlotte,NC take US -74 East, take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on
Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485.
Take Interstate 485 South (Inner Loop) for approximately 3
miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill.
Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.
The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on the
right hand side of the road.
0304010507002
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Union County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
WCrooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
W I L D L A N D S 1 0 200 400 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
ENGINEERING 1 I i I i
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Stream
ITot
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer (sgft) Nitrogen
Nutrient
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
e R RE
R RE R RE
alss 3,489.6 N/A
7.9 0.5 N/A N/A 54,135.33 N/A
Restoration
ReachlD
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing Footage/ Restoration or Restoration
Approach
Acreage Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
(SMU/ WMU)
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A
200+00-228+29
1,555 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
1,555
2.5:1
622.0
Crooked Creek Reach B
2,404 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
2,404
2.5:1
961.6
UT1
100+00-117+18
1,762 LF
P1
Restoration
1,718
1:1
1,718.0
UT2
300+00-305+60
470 LF
N/A
Enhancement 11
470
2.5:1
188.0
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
0.7 AC
Enhancement
0.7
2:1
0.35
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
N/A
Restoration
6.6
1:1
6.6
Zone B
N/A
0.3 AC
Enhancement
0.3
2:1
0.15
Zone B
N/A
N/A
Creation
3.9
3:1
1.3
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
25,201 sgft
Enhancement
25,201 sgft
3:1
8,400.33 sqft
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
N/A
Restoration
45,735 sqft
1:1
45,735 sqft
• .•
_E_
- 14
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -Riparian Buffer Upland
(acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,718 6.6
45,735
Enhancement
1.0
25,201
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
4,429
Creation
3.9

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

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Project Information
Project Name
1CLook2d Creek #2 Restoration Project
County
Union County
Project Area (acres)
154.94
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project
34° 58' 54.78"N, 080° 31' 25.79"W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
0304010504001C
DW R Sub -basin
03-07-12
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
24,619
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
28%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Agriculture 38%, Forested 29%, Developed 28%, Wetlands 3%, and Herbaceous Upland 2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Crooked Creek Crooked Creek
Reach A Reach B
UTI
UTZ
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,555 2,404
1,718
195 275
Drainage area (acres)
24,619
153
51
NCDWR stream identification score
52
34.5
24.5 38
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
I P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
N/A
N/A
Stage III
Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Chewacala silt loam 0-
2% slopes (ChA)
Badin channery silt loam 8-15% slopes (BaC)
Drainage class
Somewhat poorly
drained
Somewhat poorly
drained
Somewhat poorly
drained
Well drained
Soil hydric status
Type B (inclusions)
I Type B (inclusions)
Type B (inclusions)
N/A
Slope
0.0022
0.0047
0.0050
FEMA classification
Zone AE
Zone AE
no regulated
floodplain
no regulated floodplain
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Resto ratio
5% 5%
60%
5%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ
4 Water Quality Certification No. 3885.
Action ID # 2011-02201
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
X
X
NPDES Construction Stormwater General
Permit NCGO10000
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Crooked Creek #2 Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect" on Union
County listed endangered species. June 21,
2011 email correspondence from USFWS
indicating no listed species occur on site.
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be
impacted (letter from SHPO dated
6/23/2011).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Crooked Creek is a mapped Zone AE
floodplain with defined base flood
elevations. Base flood elevations have been
defined and the floodway has been
delineated; (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel
5540).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table S. Monitoring Component Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94657
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity / Length by Reach
Frequency
Crooked Creek
Reach A
Crooked Creek
Reach B
UTl
UT2
Wetlands
Riffle Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Dimension
Pool Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Year
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW)/ Riffle
100 Pebble Count (RF)
N/A
N/A
1 RW / 2 RF
N/A
N/A
Annual
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
1
N/A
Quarterly
Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
Quarterly
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
12
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
y
y
y
Y
y
Semi -Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Photo Points
34
Annual

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
�0 125 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
\ Wv, I i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
WILDLANDS
ENG, NEE R, NG Union County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 I i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Union County, IV n1I./

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 I i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Union County, IV n1I./

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 I i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Union County, IV n1I./

Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
0 25 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 94687
1 I i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING Union County, IV n1I./

PP 26
1 ase Privet —
JL JL JL ' JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
r�JL JL �� JL
Japanese Honeysuckle JL JL I
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
� �' JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
t� Chinese Privet
i JL JL JL JL JL Jd JL JL JL JL' J�, JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
CG 3 JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
�v •
Chinese privet JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL Jk JL JL JL JL JL JL -4 JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL I JL JL JL JL JL JL JL' t JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL ,JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL `JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL 1 .1 JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL 1' JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JLJL�J� JL JL
-L JL JL JAL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JAL JL JL JL JL JAL JL JL JAL 4 JL JL � I
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL ' JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JAL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JAL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL 4 JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL J L - JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL, JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL 101 JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL'JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL, J� -4L JL JL JL I JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL PI JL JL JL JL JL JL •
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL J� JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL J� JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL JL
JL JL JL JL JL JL JL '
•
2014 Aerial Photography 1 PP 27
PP 31
LL JL JL

/J
I1
't1hinese Privet /
J,::,A-Conservation Easement
Chinese Privet
71
Chinese Privet, Japanese HoneysuckleNon-Project
I �I I
Ditch (former UT1 Channel)
Chinese Privet
Existing Overflow
Overflow
Chinese Privet
--- Bankfull
Restoration
ReachB�Stream
Enhancement
1 1 IL 1 I
n I I
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Dr;
1 1 1 IL
• •
Wetland Enhancement
`L
SIL SIL �L SIL
PP 31
ee
'1* '
Wetland Restoration Zone 1 rair
Wetland Creation Zone B
G� IL
I
I I I I I I I if I
1 111- 1
d
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IL -1
1
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Enhar
0 1 1 1 1 1 L -L z I
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
.. Riparian
onitoring Plot - MY2
,.
, t Met
Criteria Met
Chinese Privet
Groundwater Gage - MY2
Criteria Not Met
Chinese Privet
Criteria Met
SpeciesInvasive
—Cross -Section (XS)
Barotroll
Chinese Privet
Rain Gage
Crest Gage Gage
(CG)/Stream (SG)
..�.
Chinese Privet
:1t.s
�`111I1I11
X11,
• t v
' � i _ �
1 1
�L � �II'L 'I�'L �II'L �L �III'L SIL �III'L �IIL
�II'L ��II�L �I'L
- I y _ -11.
IFIL
I�'L I�'L
I'
tl � �IIIL �III'L � �L � �L � �L � � I SIL �YL �IIIL
• _
II''
Chinese Privet
2014 Aerial Photography
�`
�`

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1 (1,718 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0 100%
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 20 20
100%
1. Bed
Condition
100%
Length Appropriate 20 20
100%
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of 20 20
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 20 20
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
Piping 2a. Pi
p g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
9
9
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth> 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
20
20
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Planted Acreage 15.0
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
1000 SF
27
6.3
11%
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1 ac
0
0.0
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 ac
17
0.41
2.7%
count criteria.
Total
17
0.41
2.7%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
17
0.41
2.7%
year.
Cumulative Total
17
0.4
2.7%a
Easement Acreage 54.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
27
6.3
11%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%
lAcreage calculated from annual vegetation monitoring plots and plant warranty inspection plots.
Acreage of each polygon modified by estimated percent cover of invasive population
3Low Stem Density Areas are the same as Areas of Poor Growth Rate

Vegetation Photographs

Al
Ak
�T
a AJ c
r �
F' •Fh _ � d 3 Off
'^� .�{ •� � G fa �� `u'�i' tf g _ .�
22
_nt$,
jar
YJ
fill
v
o-
.� AZI
71�-
a 14 �.
Vegetation Plot 3 — (08/29/2017) Vegetation Plot 4 — (08/28/2017)
rp -,
r
} a 3
/� � Vrl � is `j p@
i ./ I a Wr

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 1— UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 2 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 2 — UTI looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) Photo Point 3 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)

.a, C F + I
�a y"4 f v q
F.
PZt°
1
c
rm
f'�1rj
4 1
.a, C F + I
�a y"4 f v q
to*4L
a
r' rr a i"`Ta w �Y-� �iF_ E,c vS Y''p�1..... . . . . . .
� r
t
.'. MPW
4,
PZt°
1
f'�1rj
4 1
to*4L
a
r' rr a i"`Ta w �Y-� �iF_ E,c vS Y''p�1..... . . . . . .
� r
t
.'. MPW
4,

Photo Point 7 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 7 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 8 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 8 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 9 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 9 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)

Photo Point 10 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 10 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 11— UTI looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 11— UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 12 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 12 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)

Photo Point 13 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 13 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 14 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 14 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)

Photo Point 16 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 16 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 17 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 17 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 18 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) Photo Point 18 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)

Photo Point 22 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 22 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1
Photo Point 23 — UT1 looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 23 — UT1 looking downstream (06/28/2017)
Photo Point 24 — Crooked Creek looking upstream (06/28/2017) 1 Photo Point 24 — Crooked Creek looking downstream (06/28/2017) 1

14k�
S
i
T
f
q
h Jf
1/ x
�
}A
j
S
i
q
1/ x
�
j
S

e�r 'Nt elz
x o.
m 40
s
W se
TA

Wetland Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Plot MY2 Success Criteria Met
Tract Mean
1 N
33%
2 N
3 N
4 N
5 Y
6 N
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 N
11 Y
12 N

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
8/31/201710:54
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Crooked Creek MY2.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02156 Crooked Creek Mon itoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
RUBY
File Size
74317824
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
lexcluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94687
Project Name
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Description
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
94687-WEI-0001
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Box elder
Tree
2
2
6
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
1 1 1
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1 1
1
3 3 3
1
1
1
Corpinuscaroliniona
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
Celtis loevigato
Southern Hackberry, Sugarberr Shrub Tree
Cornusflorida
Flowering dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
8
1
6
luglans nigra
Black walnut
Tree
Liquidomborstyraciflua
Sweet gum
Tree
1
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1 1
1
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree 5
5
5
3 3
3
2 2 33
2
2
2
Quercus sp.
Oak
Shrub Tree
1 1 1
Quercuslyroto
Overcup oak
Tree
2 2
2
Quercus nigra
Wateroak
Tree
3 3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
3 3
3
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
3 3 3
9 9
Ulmus alata
Winged elm
Tree
S
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem count 5
5
12
7 7
7 3 3 11
1 1 2
9 9
j3649
6 6 37
7 7
24
11
11
17
size (ares)
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
Species count 1
1
4
4 4
4 1 1
2
1
1
2
1 1
3 3 3
3 3
7
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
202
486
283 283
283
121
445
40
40
81
364 364
243 11497
M
283 1 9711
445
1 445
1 688
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
,Fails to meet requirements by more than 1
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017) 1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
94687-WEI-0009
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MYl (2016)
PnoLS P -all IT
MYO (2016)
PnoLSIP-all T
Acernegundo
Box elder
Tree
4
2
4
23
43
18
17
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
7 7
7
11 11
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
2 2
2
5
5 5
2
12 12
14
14
14
15
18
18
18
Corpinuscaroliniona
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
2
Celtis loevigato
Southern Hackberry, Sugarberr Shrub Tree
1
3
4
1
Cornusflorida
Flowering dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
American persimmon
Tree
3 3
3
7 7
7
10
10
13
27
27
27
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
1
4
1
25
26
45
luglans nigra
Black walnut
Tree
4
4
1
Liquidomborstyracifluo
Sweet gum
Tree
1
1
7
7
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
1
1
1
2
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1
1 1
2 2
2
3
3
3
7
7
7
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
12 12
44
13
13
26
15
15
16
Quercus sp.
Oak
Shrub Tree
11 1
1
16
16
16
53
531
53
Quercus lyroto
Overcup oak
Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1
3
3 3
2
2 2
9 9
9
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
Wateroak
Tree
6
6 6
1
1 1
11 11
11
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
5 5
5
2
2
2
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
12 12
12
13
13
13
16
16
16
Ulmus alata
IWinged elm
Tree
5
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
I
1
7
Stem count
121 121
19
3 3
9
141
14 20
61
61 40
84 84
207
95
95
172
156
156
229
size (ares)l
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
size (ACRES) 1
0.02
0.02
0.02
1
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.30
Species count 1
41
41
8
2 2
4
31
31 61
4F
4 1011
11
18
111
111
171
8
8
15
Stems per ACRFI
486
1 486
1 769
121
364
567
1 567 1 809
243 11619
283 1 698
320 1
320 1
580
1 526
1 526 772
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 1091
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: NotApplicable
N/A': The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A': Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied
': Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg
Gage
UTI Reach 1
UTI Reach 2
UT to Lyle Creek
Spencer Creek 1
Design
LIT.
As-Built/Baseline
UT1
7and
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
hallowankfull
Width (ft)
N/A
17.7
10.9
7.0
8.6
8.7
12.0
11.7
12.6
dprone Width (ft)
500
539
45 49229
44+
200+
kfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.2
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.3
1.0
1.0 1.1
1.9
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ft'
8.6
7.8
3.5 4.1
10.6
8.7
7.3
7.5
Width/Depth Ratio
36.4
15.3
14.9 18.3
7.3
16.6
18.9
21.1
Entrenchment Ratio
28.2
49.36.4
26.3
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
2.9
05.7 .6 0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
3.1
0.3
1
35.9
Riffle Length (ft)
0.0055
---
0.0597
---
0.0100 0.0670
0.0045
---
0.0080
12
0.0004
50
0.0193
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
--
---
-
17.8
65.4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.76
1.27
0.76
1.27
1.3
2.5
1.5
2.1
1.1
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
74
20
74
15
28
13
47
42
84
36
99
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
115
343
21
24
52
30
72
30
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
61.2 170.6
61.2 170.6
19 32 5 22 22 48 22
48
Rc:Baokfull Width (ft/ft)
3.5 9.6
3.5 9.6
2.7 3.7 0.6 2.5 1.8 4.0 1.8
4.0
Meander Length (ft)
163 400
39 44 54 196 72 132 102
135
Meander Width Ratio
10.5 49.7
2.4 3 2.8 6.0 2.5 6.0 2.5
6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
-/-/3.1/8.6/11.0/16A
-
-/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0
0.1/3.0/8.8/77/180/-
0.012
9/90/25E
0.110.12
SC/S;0.24
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft'
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power -_i- _/_2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.24
N/A
0.25
0.50
0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<S% <S%
<3% <3%
Rosgen Classification
N/A' N/A'
CS/6 E4/C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5 4.1
4.7 3.4 2.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
30 N/A'
50 N A'
17 1 40 NA'
24 N A'
--- ---
18 30 16
--- --- 1,353 1,353
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,789
1,718 1,718
Sinuosity
1.0
i1.5
1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slo e ft ft'
0.0071
0.0034
0.004 0.0132 0.0032 0.0034
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft)
0.0066
0.0058
0.009 0.0139 0.0041 0.0036
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: NotApplicable
N/A': The rosgen classification system is for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore the Rosgen classification system is not applicable
N/A': Donstream of the confluence with overflow channel, hydraulic regime not applied
': Channel was dry during survey, slope was calculated using channel thalweg

Table 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross -Section
MYl
1, UT��M
MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 Base
Cross -Section
MY1
2, UT1
MY2 MY3
(��
MY4 MY5 Base
Cross -Section
MY1
3, UT,��
MY2 MY3
MY4 MYS Base
Cross -Section
MY1
4, UT1 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
541.8
541.9 541.8
542.1
542.0 542.1
539.7
539.7 539.7
539.8
539.8 539.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.3
12.7
13.6
11.7
11.1
11.4
12.6
12.3
12.2
12.6
11.9
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.0
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.1
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
8.7
8.5
8.3
7.3
5.9
6.5
12.6
11.4
12.3
7.5
7.8
7.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.4
18.9
22.4
18.9
20.8
20.1
12.7
13.4
12.1
21.1
18.0
18.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 13. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Crooked Creek k2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1
Far meter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
Max
MY -1
Min
Max
Min
MY -2
Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.7
12.6
11.1
11.9
11.4
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.3
7.5
5.9
7.8
6.5
7.6
Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
21.1
18.0
20.8
18.9
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
2.0
D50 (mm)
0.3
35.9
SC
65.6
SC
66.2

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 1-UT3
107+88 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
544
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.4
width -depth ratio
543
542
c
°
541
v
w
540
539
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (01/2016) tMY1 (08/2016) tMY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 2-UT3
108+32 Riffle
6.5
544
11.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.1
width -depth ratio
150.0
543
13.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
542
c
°
541
v
w
540
539
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO(01/2016) tMYl(08/2016) 4 MY2(04/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.1
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 3-UT3
114+01 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
541
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
540
12.1
width -depth ratio
539
c
°
538
v
w
537
536
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (01/2016) tMY1 (08/2016) tMY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.2
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 4-UT3
114+34 Riffle
7.6
542
12.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
541
12.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
540
C
°
539
v
w
538
537
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (01/2016) s MYl (08/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
12.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT3, Reachwide
UT1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
5.6
D�4 =
Class
Percent
113.8
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
40
48
48
48
Very fine
0.062
0.125
a ro
70
48
Fine
0.125
0.250
48
Medium
0.25
0.50
48
Coarse
0.5
1.0
48
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
E
? 40
48
Very Fine
®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
48
®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
49
"•�ass.�•o�•o�•o;•o; Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
50
u 20
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
3
1
4
4
54
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4 1
58
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
62
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0-- MYO-01/2016 � MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017
s®zs%s%asseses®zs Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
6
68
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
6
6
74
�"`"""°'°'•°' Ver Coarse
Y
32
45
8
8
8
82
s z�'%assssss z? Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
90
Small
64
90
3
3
3
93
Small
90
128
3
3
3
96
Large
128
180
2
2
2
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
I`•ii Small
362
512
100
'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'• Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100 1
100
100
UT1, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
5.6
D�4 =
49.1
D95 =
113.8
D100 =
256.0
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SilticlaY
Sand avel
bble
r
gp
a ro
70
60
1 IIT
3 50
E
? 40
y 30
u 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0-- MYO-01/2016 � MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI, Cross Section 2
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o— MYO-01/2016 t MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16=
Summary
Particle Class
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
Class
Percent
D95 =
20.1
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
53
53
53
Very fine
0.062
0.125
53
Fine
0.125
0.250
53
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
53
Coarse
0.5
1.0
v
53
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
1
1
54
+ ®® Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
54
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
56
aaw.o•.,o•.,o•.,o;;s..a..aw Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
62
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
12
12
74
Medium
scce; 'ssce
$1%s Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
9
8
9
8
83
91
•;,s%,Q1%s
Coarse
16.0 1
22.6
6
6
97
e®c®®®®®®®®®®®a c®
'e•:gec��aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
99
<a?a`<>`<>`a>`•o•'<><><><><><pa¢<s: Very Coarse
32
45
99
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128 1
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Him:Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o— MYO-01/2016 t MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017
Cross Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D84 =
11.5
D95 =
20.1
D100 =
64.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o— MYO-01/2016 t MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017
UTI, Cross Section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
iu
60
a
H
50
12
u
40
m
30
v
20
J IL
10
0
6'L .y5 by h 1 ti
00 oti o. o• v
b 0 1ti 1�O 0 .6'L I" 6P -o -,% �o 0
h tiv ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2016
■ MYl-08/2016 0 MY2-04/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI, Cross Section 4
UT1, Cross Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
41.32
D50 =
66.2
Class
Percent
D95 =
190.9
D100 =
Count
90
'MH
min
max
90
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
u
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
30
er11
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
5
+ ®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
ro
5
aaw.o•.,o•.,o•.,o;;s..a..aw Fine
a
4.0
5.6
5
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
5
Medium
scce; 'ssce
$1%s Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
4
9
13
•;,s%,Q1%s
■ MYl-08/2016 0 MY2-04/2017
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
18
'e•:gec��aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
26
<a?a`<>`<>`a>`•o•'<><><><><><pa¢<s: Vpry Coarse
32
45
12
12
38
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
47
Small
64
90
30
30
77
Small
90
128
9
9
86
Large
128
180
8
8
94
Large
180
256
6
6
100
Small
256
362
100
II Small
362
512
100
HH Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
a 20
Totall
100
100
100
UT1, Cross Section 4
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.68
D35 =
41.32
D50 =
66.2
D84 =
118.4
D95 =
190.9
D100 =
256.0
UT1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
'MH
90
SiIII
C
a
avel
47
a
H
50
M 40
u
ble
30
er11
m
80e
v
20
ro
� 70
10
0
6'L .y5 by h 1 ti
00 oti o. o v
b 6 W titi yo 0 '3ti b5 6P �O ,LW �o y6 6'L ,y'L 0ti
h tiv ti ti ti 3 h do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
60
■ MYl-08/2016 0 MY2-04/2017
50
E
U3 40
y 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o— MYO-01/2016 t MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017
UTI, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
iu
60
a
H
50
M 40
u
30
m
v
20
10
0
6'L .y5 by h 1 ti
00 oti o. o v
b 6 W titi yo 0 '3ti b5 6P �O ,LW �o y6 6'L ,y'L 0ti
h tiv ti ti ti 3 h do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-01/2016
■ MYl-08/2016 0 MY2-04/2017

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1, UT2, Crooked Creek
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Summary
MY of Date of Data Date of
Occurrence CollectionOccurrence
1 8/18/2016 7/11/2016
MethodOreac%p
Crest
UT1
N/A 11/9/2016 N/A
2 6/28/2017 6/20/2017
Crest/Stream
UT2
1 8/18/2016 7/11/2016
Crest
1 11/9/2016 10/8/2016
2 6/28/2017 6/20/2017
Crest/Stream
Crooked Creek
1 8/18/2016 7/11/2016
Crest
1 11/9/2016 10/8/2016
2 6/28/2017 6/20/2017
Crest/Stream
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Summary
of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Y .•
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Gage
No/0 Days
No/7 Days
1
(0%)
(3%)
No/2 Days
No/8 Days
2
(0.9%)
(4%)
No/1 Days
No/9 Days
3
(0.4%)
(4%)
No/0 Days
No/6 Days
4
(0%)
(3%)
No/1 Days
No/7 Days
5
(0.4%)
(3%)
Yes/26 Days
Yes/75 Days
6
(11.5%)
(33%)
yes/18 Days
Yes/47 Days
7
(8%)
(21%)
No/14 Days
Yes/31 Days
8
(6.2%)
(14%)
No/1 Days
No/7 Days
9
(0.4%)
(3%)
No/2 Days
No/11 Days
10
(0.9%)
(5%)

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>� c -5 on Q > u
i Q ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
i
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>, c -5 on Q > u
i Q 6 ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
E_
3.0
c
m
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>� c -5 on Q > u
i Q ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>, c -5 on Q > u
i Q ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
m
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #5
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
0
v
no ti 6.0
N
O �
C o
3 ^'
O M
C7 2 N
M N
w
O O
O C
N W
-0 "m >C 5 on 0-
�i Q Q vO O
Rainfall Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
o v
Z
5.0
- 4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
m
Crooked creek Groundwater Gage #6
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
0
v
no ti 6.0
N
O �
0 C o
'3
N
O M
C7 N
V`
M N
w
O O
O C
N W-
A P \A R"\
- - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
- - - - - - -
> c on Q
�i Q Q vO O
Rainfall Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
o v
Z
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>� c -5 on Q > u
i Q ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
.R
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
S-10
v
a
-20
v
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
c>, c -5 on Q > u
i Q ' v° O o
� g ¢ z
Rainfall Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 m
r-
2.0 2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
`w
Y
19
-30
-40
-50
-60
o Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #10
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
0
v
no ti 6.0
N
O �
> c on 0.
�i Q Q vii O
Rainfall Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
o v
z o
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
3 ^'
O M
C7
C o
N
m
0
�
NHI,
V`
w N
0 w
v
U
> c on 0.
�i Q Q vii O
Rainfall Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
o v
z o
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000). (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)
2 On Site rain Gauge (HOBO) installed on 2/5/2016
Crooked Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Union County, NC
9
8
7
6
c
0 5
m
a4
v
a`
3
2
1
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17
Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17 Nov -17 Dec -17
Date
On -Site Gage Data USGS Station 351218080331345
30% Rainfall Total 70% Rainfall
1 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000). (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)
2 On Site rain Gauge (HOBO) installed on 2/5/2016