20120916 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report 2017_20180206

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Fifth Monitoring Measurement
Fourth Year of Credit Release - Final
Onslow County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID Number — 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW -2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
Project Info: Credit Release Year: 4 of 7 (Fifth site measurement since construction)
Year of Data Collection: 2017
Year of Completed Construction: 2013
Submission Date: January 2018
Submitted To: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Innovation Done Right ...We Make o Difference
ference
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
February 12, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
Eastern Supervisor, Project Management
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 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (#95019)
White Oak River Basin — CU#03030001, Onslow County, North Carolina
DEQ Contract No. 003992, Baker No. 124578
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 UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project located in Onslow
County, NC. We have also provided the final digital files and required documentation in response to the
referenced review comments below:
1. During the April 3, 2017 Credit Release meeting, the IRT decided that the assets for this project
were to revert to those contained in the approved Mitigation Plan for stream and wetland credits. The
approved stream credit is a total of 3,909 based on using headwater valley length for UTIb. The wetland
credit reverted to 4.0 acres at a 1:1 ratio. Throughout this report, Baker is using assets and credits from
both the approved mitigation plan and the as -built baseline report. Please change all references to linear
footages, acres and credits in the report narrative to reflect the approved numbers.
Response: All references to the assets and credits were revised in the applicable report tables and
narrative as requested.
2. Digital drawings:
a. 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).
b. In addition, during the review, DMS received a pop up warning that the spatial reference is
missing for the As-Built_Streams_UTMillSwamp, Crossings_UTMillSwamp,
F1owGauges_UTMillSwamp, TopOfBank_UTMillSwamp, UTMillSwamp_CrestGauge and
XSections_UTMillSwamp layers.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
oma=L�Ji 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
Response: All of the GIS shapefiles were reformatted and reassigned their correct spatial
reference as requested.
3. Cover Page: Change the word "Permits:" to USACE Action ID.
Response: Cover page was revised as requested.
4. Executive Summary, page 3: In the fifth paragraph, the report states that only 2 gauges are meeting in
the wetland restoration area on the north side of UT 1 c and the estimated restored area associated with
these 2 gauges is 0.90 acres. Based on this, describe whether Baker will further refine these assets and
remove the proposed wetland credits/area where gauges have consistently not met hydrologic success.
Please note that the final credit release ledger submitted to the IRT for approval in 2017 requested on
4.00 WMUs per comment #1 above.
Response: Baker does not wish to modify the wetland restoration asset area at this time. As
elaborated in the report, the start of the growing season was very dry in 2017, usually a wetter
period of the year when wells often meet their success criteria. Despite this, several of the wells
located in the north side of the UT1c that did not pass were very close (1-3 days) to meeting their
29 -day requirement. Baker wishes to continue monitoring this area through at least one additional
monitoring year in which it has received normal rainfall conditions, especially through the late
winter/early spring time period.
5. Section 2: Even though the groundwater gauges are discussed in Section 2.2.2, explain why there is no
section to specifically discuss the wetland assessment. Section 2.2.2 appears to be more associated with
the stream portion of this project.
Response: A new wetlands -specific section was added to the report to provide a more detailed
assessment and discussion of the wetland restoration areas.
6. Appendix A, Table 1: Update Table 1 as follows:
a. Total stream credits in Mitigation Credit section — 3,909
b. Total wetland credits in Mitigation Credit section — 4.0 per the approved mitigation plan.
c. Reach UTIb in project components — change SMUs and LF to 1,996 (this HW valley length)
d. Wetland Area #1 — change WMUs and AC to 4.0
e. Stream Restoration LF in Component Summation section — 3,909 (3,509)
f. Wetland Restoration AC in Component Summation section — 4.0
g. Add the following footnote:
* Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated
along stream centerlines and valley length for Monitoring Year 4 after discussions with NC IRT
stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
Response: Table 1 was revised as requested.
7. Appendix E, Table 12: Add a footnote to describe whether Baker will further refine wetland
assets and remove the proposed wetland credits/area where gauges 2, 6, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have
consistently not met hydrologic success.

Innovotion Done Right ...We Moke o Difference
Response: Baker does not wish to refine wetland assets at this time and will continue to monitor
all of the groundwater wells on the project.
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 -
Scott King, LSS

UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
Fifth Monitoring Measurement
Fourth Year of Credit Release - Final
Onslow County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID Number — 95019, DEQ Contract No. 003992
USACE Action ID: SAW -2011-02193, DWR# 20120916
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Professional Engineering License # F-1084
INTERNATIONAL
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. I
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................4
2.1 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI a & UTI b................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................4
2.2 Stream Assessment —Reach UTI c............................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability........................................................................................5
2.2.2 Hydrology..................................................................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation....................................................................................................................5
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment..................................................................................5
2.3 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................5
2.4 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map
Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5b Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6b Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
Stream Station Photos
Crest Gauge and Flow Camera Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data*
Table 7* Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment (Planted Stems)
Table 8* CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a* CVS Stem Count of Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9b* Vegetation Stem Count Densities
Table 9c* CVS Density Per Plot
Table 9d* Vegetation Summary and Totals
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. II
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Figure
3*
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Table
10
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table
I]*
Cross-section Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure
4
Wetland Gauge Graphs
Figure
5
Flow Gauge Graphs
Figure
6
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
Table
12
Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
Table
13
Flow Gauge Success
Table
14
Verification of Bankfull Events
* Note: The figures and tables marked above with an asterisk are not included as part of this Year 4
Monitoring Report, but were left listed in the Table of Contents to explain the otherwise out -of -sequence
figure/table numbering and appendix designations. For clarity, Michael Baker wishes to preserve the
continuity of the labeling for these features between monitoring years to avoid confusion (e.g. to allow
Appendix C to always contain vegetation data, and Table 13 to always be the flow gauge success table,
etc. in each monitoring report). These figures and tables had been included in past reports and will be
included again as part of the Year 5 monitoring report for 2018.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. III
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering (Baker) restored 3,509 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream, 4.0 acres (AC) of
riparian wetlands, and enhanced 600 LF of stream along an unnamed tributary (UT) to Mill Swamp in Onslow
County, North Carolina (NC), (Appendix A). The total planted acreage was approximately 15.2 acres, and the
permanent conservation easement is 19.6 acres. The UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project (Site) is located in
Onslow County, approximately three miles northwest of the Town of Richlands. The Site is located in the NC
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-05-02 and the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030001-010020 of the White Oak River Basin. The project
involved the restoration and enhancement 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, cattle grazing, and draining of floodplain wetlands by ditching activities.
The project goals directly addressed stressors identified in the White Oak River Basin Restoration Priority Plan
(RBRP) such as degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs.
The primary restoration goals, as outlined in the approved mitigation plan, are described below:
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the Site,
• Implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source inputs to
receiving waters,
• Protect and improve water quality by reducing bank erosion, 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 incised, eroding, and channelized streams by providing access to their historic
floodplains,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the riparian buffer, reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Increase aquatic habitat value by providing more bedform diversity, creating natural scour pools and
reducing sediment from accelerated bank erosion,
• Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation along stream bank and floodplain areas, protected by a
permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, 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.
The project as -built condition closely mimics that proposed by the design. Differences are outlined below:
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

• The Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) specified the planting of riparian live stakes
during construction; however, due to construction being completed during the growing season in May
2013 no live stakes were installed. During construction, it was determined that live stakes would be
installed during the dormant season. It is noted that as of March 27, 2014, approximately 300 live
stakes were installed along the stream banks in the restored single thread channel of the UT 1 c area.
• Permanent fencing along Reach UT3 was originally proposed 50 feet from both of the streambanks
outside of the conservation easement; however, the landowner decided to use the northern pasture for
hay production only, so fencing was installed only on the southern side of the reach to exclude cattle.
Special Notes:
In consideration of this report, the following timeline should be noted:
Completion of construction — 5/31/13
Completion of installation of tree and shrub bare roots — 6/13/13
Year 1 (2013) vegetation monitoring — 10/16/13
Live stake installation - 3/27/14
Year 1 (2013) supplemental vegetation monitoring — 5/18/14
Year 2* (2014) vegetation monitoring — 12/19/14
Year 2 (2015) vegetation monitoring — 11/13/15
Year 3 (2016) vegetation monitoring — November, 2016
Supplemental 3 -foot bare roots installed in the area around Vegetation Plot 3 only — March 20, 2017
Year 4 (2017) vegetation assessment was conducted in October of 2017, but no formal monitoring plot
data is required to be collected as part of Year 4 monitoring effort.
Supplemental Year 1 (5/18/14) vegetation monitoring was conducted in order to provide additional
mortality data. This additional monitoring effort was done since the time that had elapsed between the
installation of the tree and shrub bare roots (6/13/13) and Year 1 vegetation monitoring (10/16/13) was
only 125 days of the growing season (March 18th through November 16th). Trees and shrubs grew for an
additional 61 days of growing season from 3/18/14 through 5/18/14 in early 2014 and were
supplementally monitored. A total of 186 days of growing season had elapsed since the trees were planted
and the supplemental Year 1 vegetation monitoring was conducted. An additional 181 days within the
growing season (5/19/14 through 11/16/14) had elapsed prior to Year 2 (2014) vegetation monitoring,
providing the required minimum of 180 days of growing season growth as stated in the approved
Mitigation Plan. As such, Baker considered the data collected on 12/19/14 to be Year 2 data and the data
collected on 11/13/15 to be Year 3 data. However, the US Army Corps of Engineers has declined to
release the credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation
and monitoring. As such, the 2015 monitoring report was considered Year 2. All references to Year 2
henceforth will indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2015. Data collected during 2014 that
was previously considered monitoring Year 2 will be labeled as Year 2*.
In accordance with the Mitigation Plan and the DMS guidance document "Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation" dated 11/7/2011, no formal vegetation plot
monitoring was performed, nor were any stream cross-sectional surveys conducted as part of this Year 4
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

monitoring effort. A visual assessment of these project features is emphasized this year, with the full vegetation
plot and cross-section survey work to resume for the Year 5 monitoring in 2018.
During Year 4 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no
bare areas to report, no current low stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. Vegetation plot data
monitoring will again be conducted for the MY5 report.
Previously during Year 3 monitoring, it was reported that one vegetation plot (Plot 3) did not meet the Year 3
success criteria of 320 stems per acre, having only 243 planted stems per acre (though with an additional 6
natural volunteer stems within the plot). A closer evaluation of this spot confirmed that the observed thin
densities were confined to a fairly small area and likely the result of shading from the surrounding mature forest.
As such, the area around Veg Plot 3 totaling —0.20 acres was subsequently planted in March of 2017 with
additional stems of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) from bare root, and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
planted from tubelings. This area was inspected again in November of 2017 and appeared to be doing well.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented during Year 4 monitoring. One area of
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) re -sprouts totaling 0.58 acres was discovered along the left floodplain of
the lower section of Reach UTIc. This is an area that had previously been treated for privet in November of
2016, and will again be treated in the upcoming monitoring year.
During Year 4 monitoring, six of the sixteen groundwater monitoring wells located along Reach UT1c met the
wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success criteria (MSAW1,
MSAW4, MSAW5, MSAW8, MSAW 19, and MSAW24) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent
or greater, and ranged from 12.8 to 46.1 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success
criteria (See Table 12) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 0.4
percent to 11.5 percent of the growing season. It should be noted that while MSAW7 is not meeting the success
criteria, it is located outside of the wetland restoration and hydric soils boundary in the adjacent upland area,
while MSAW3 is located on the wetland/upland boundary itself.
All of the wells located in the restored wetland area south of UTlc are meeting success criteria, and total 3.26
acres. The restored wetland area north of UT 1 c is 3.36 acres, but only had two wells meet success criteria for
an estimated restored area of —0.90 acres (see CCPV in Appendix B). Thus, the total wetland restoration acreage
currently equals —4.16 acres (or 4.16 WMUs) in MY4, which is in excess of the wetland mitigation credits
stated in the approved Mitigation Plan.
Year 4 flow monitoring demonstrated that both flow gauges (MSFL1 and MSFL2) met the stated success
criteria of 30 days or more of consecutive flow through reaches UTIs and UTlb. Both gauges demonstrated
consecutive days of flow that ranged from 139 days (MSFL1, on UTla) to 164 days (MSFL2, on UTlb). The
gauges demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site.
The Site was also found to have had at least two above-bankfull events based on the crest gauge readings during
Year 4 monitoring.
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 is available from NCDMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 3
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
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: vegetation plots,
permanent cross-sections, monitoring wells, flow gauges, and the crest gauge, are shown on the CCPV sheets
found in Appendix B.
The final Year 4 monitoring gauge data were collected in November 2017. All visual site assessment data
located in Appendix B were collected in October and November 2017.
2.1 Stream Assessment — Reach UTla & UTlb
The UTla and UTlb mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding
functions in a multi -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations to
document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document groundwater and flooding
functions.
2.1.1 Hydrology
Two automated groundwater gauges (pressure transducers) are installed along well transects, with a
total of four well transects installed in the UTla and UTlb areas. The automated loggers are
programmed to collect data at 6 -hour intervals to record groundwater levels in UTla and UTlb areas.
Graphs of the groundwater data collected for these gauges during Year 4 monitoring are located in
Appendix E.
Additionally, two flow gauges (pressure transducers) were installed to document the occurrence of
extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. The gauges attempt to document
flooding connectivity between the restored UTla and UTlb reaches for at least 30 consecutive days
under normal climatic conditions. Both gauges met this success criteria with consecutive days of flow
that ranged from 139 days (MSFL1, on UTla) to 164 days (MSFL2, on UTlb). The gauges
demonstrated similar patterns relative to rainfall events observed in the vicinity of the Site. Flow data
collected during Year 4 monitoring are located in Appendix E.
2.1.2 Photographic Documentation
The headwater stream reaches were photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream portion
of the Site and moving towards the upstream end of the Site. Photographs were taken looking upstream
at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. The photograph points were established
close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The
angle of the photo depends on what angle provides the best view and was noted and continued in future
photos. Selected UTla and UTlb site photographs taken at established reference stations are found in
Appendix B.
2.2 Stream Assessment — Reach UTlc
The UTlc mitigation approach involved the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a
single -thread headwater stream system. Monitoring efforts focus on visual observations, the use of groundwater
level monitoring gauges, a crest gauge to document bankfull flooding events and established stream cross-
sections to monitor channel stabilitv.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Stream survey data is 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.
2.2.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to
document as -built baseline monitoring conditions (Year 0) only. The survey was tied to a permanent
benchmark and measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of
these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool
depth. Yearly longitudinal profiles will not be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless
channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the USACE or
DMS.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, no cross-section survey data
were collected for this Year 4 Monitoring assessment. Consequently, none of the cross-sectional survey
graphs (Figure 5) or morphology data (Table 11) are presented in Appendix D as in previous monitoring
reports. This data will again be included as part of the Year 5 report.
2.2.2 Hydrology
One crest gauge was installed on the floodplain at the bankfull elevation along the left top of bank on
UTlc approximately at Station 45+50. In MY4, two above-bankfull events associated with storm
events were documented by the crest gauge. The highest recorded reading was measured to be 1.20
feet and was estimated to have occurred on April 25, 2017. Crest gauge reading data are presented in
Appendix E and gauge photographs are presented in Appendix B.
2.2.3 Photographic Documentation
Representative project photographs for MY4 were taken at the previously established photograph
reference stations located along the enhanced and restored stream sections and are presented in
Appendix B.
2.2.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment
The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and
vertical channel stability, and the integrity and overall performance of in -stream structures throughout
the Project reach as a whole. Habitat parameters, and pool depth maintenance, are also measured and
scored. During Year 4 monitoring, the entire project reach was walked, noting geomorphic conditions
of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets); both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures.
All stream reaches appear stable and functioning. All stream beds are vertically stable, the pools are
maintaining depth, stream banks are stable and vegetating, and in -stream structures are physically intact
and performing as designed. No Stream Problem Areas (SPAS) were documented during Year 4
monitoring. A more detailed summary of the methodology and results for the visual stream stability
assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, ten automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the UTIc wetland
restoration areas following USACE protocols (USACE 1997). An additional six monitoring wells were
installed in the spring of 2016 in the left floodplain of UT 1 c for a more detailed evaluation in that location.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

Graphs of the groundwater data collected from each well during the Year 4 monitoring can be found in
Appendix E.
During the Year 4 monitoring, six of the sixteen groundwater monitoring wells located along Reach UTIc met
the wetland success criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. The gauges that met success criteria (MSAW 1,
MSAW4, MSAW5, MSAW8, MSAW 19, and MSAW24) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent
or greater, and ranged from 12.8 to 46.1 percent of the growing season. The gauges that did not meet success
criteria (See Table 12) demonstrated consecutive hydroperiods of 12 percent or less which ranged from 0.4
percent to 11.5 percent of the growing season. It should be noted that while MSAW7 is not meeting the success
criteria, it is located outside of the wetland restoration and hydric soils boundary in the adjacent upland area,
while MSAW3 is located on the wetland/upland boundary itself.
All of the wells located in the restored wetland area south of UT 1 c are meeting success criteria, and total 3.26
acres. The restored wetland area north of UTIc is 3.36 acres, but only had two wells meet success criteria for
an estimated restored area of —0.90 acres (see CCPV in Appendix B). Thus, the total wetland restoration acreage
currently equals —4.16 acres (or 4.16 WMUs) in MY4, which is in excess of the wetland mitigation credits
stated in the approved Mitigation Plan.
The total observed rainfall at the Albert Ellis airport (KOAJ) weather station located close to the site in
Richlands, NC for the previous 12 -month period from December 2016 through November 2017 was 46.2
inches, substantially less that the 30 -year historic annual average of 56.5 inches, for a deficit of just over 10"
of rainfall. Of particular note for the project this monitoring year, January, February, and March of 2017 were
especially dry, with the latter two months recording rainfalls totals below their historic 30% probable
averages. Using the NRCS method (Sprecher and Warne, 2000), drier -than -average antecedent conditions
were confirmed as being present on site during the early portion of the growing season in the spring of 2017.
The noted lack of rainfall observed in the early part of the year was significant in that it negatively affects the
hydrology present at the start of the growing season, typically the wettest time of year on the project when the
hydrology success criteria is most likely to be met. A closer investigation into the groundwater well results
reveals that many of the wells that did not meet the success criteria only missed by a few days out of the 29
days required to make the 12% threshold. In particular, wells MSAW-6 (1 -day), MSAW-20 (3 -days), and
MSAW-21 (3 -days) very each very close.
2.4 Vegetation Assessment
In order to determine if success criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are
monitored annually across the Site in accordance with the CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of
the Site, with six plots established randomly within the planted UTIa, UTIb and UTIc riparian buffer areas per
Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. No monitoring quadrants were established within the undisturbed wooded areas of
UTIa and UT1b. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species.
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS monitoring guidance for this project, there was no vegetation plot
monitoring conducted for the Year 4 monitoring effort, and thus no vegetation data summary tables are included
in Appendix C as in previous monitoring reports. However, as reported in Table 6a (Appendix B), the planted
acreage performance categories were functioning at 100 percent with no bare areas to report, no current low
stem density areas, and no areas of poor growth rates. Vegetation plot data monitoring will again be conducted
for the MY5 report.
Previously during Year 3 monitoring, it was reported that one vegetation plot (Plot 3) did not meet the Year 3
success criteria of 320 stems per acre, having only 243 planted stems per acre (though with an additional 6
natural volunteer stems within the plot). A closer evaluation of this spot confirmed that the observed thin
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
MONITORING YEAR 4 OF 7 (2017)

densities were confined to a fairly small area and likely the result of shading from the surrounding mature forest.
As such, the area around Veg Plot 3 totaling -0.20 acres was subsequently planted in March of 2017 with
additional stems of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) from bare root, and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)
planted from tubelings. This area was inspected again in November of 2017 and appeared to be doing well.
Invasive species areas of concern were observed and documented during Year 4 monitoring. One area of
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) re -sprouts totaling 0.58 acres was discovered along the left floodplain of
the lower section of Reach UT 1 c. This is an area that had previously been treated for privet in November of
2016, and will again be treated in Monitoring Year 5.
At this time, no other areas of concern regarding the existing vegetation was observed along UTla, UTlb or
UTlc. Year 4 vegetation assessment information and photographs are provided in Appendix B.
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,
NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Sprecher, Steven W., and Warne, Andrew G. 2000. "Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate
wetland hydrology," ERDC/EL TR -WRAP -00-01, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS.
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.
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NUMBER - 95019
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 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the 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.
�
Site Directions
To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40
southeast and take the NC Highway 24 Exit East/NC
Highway 903 North, Exit 373 toward Kenansville and
Magnolia. From Exit 373, continue on the Kenansville
Bypass for 6 miles before turning right onto NC
Highway 24 East. After turning right onto NC Highway
24 (Beulaville Highway), continue for 23 miles before
turning left onto US Highway 258 (Kinston Highway).
Once on US Highway 258, travel for approximately 1.2
miles before turning right onto Warren Taylor Road.
Then proceed 0.5 miles and turn left while heading
north through a large field. The site is located where
the farm road intersects UT to Mill Swamp at a
downstream culvert crossing.
DMS Project # 95019
rte.
Onslow County
i
ONSL
,c. O v n
Project Location
-)warren Taylor Rd
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03030001010020.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
UT to Mill Swamp Site
DEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non-riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type R, El R E
Totals 3,909 SMU 4.0 WMU 0
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID Stationing/ Existing Footage/ Acreage
Location
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
Reach UTIa 10+00 —16+00
600 LF
Enhancement Level I
400 SMU
600 LF
1.5:1
Reach UTIb 16+00 —36+93
2,131 LF
Headwater Restoration
1,996 SMU
1,996 LF
1:1
Reach UTI c 37+24 —52+37
1,350 LF
Single thread Restoration
1,513 SMU
1,513 LF
1:1
Reach UT3 10+00 —23+69
1,060 LF
Cattle Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Area #1 1 See plan sheets 1
0.0 AC
I Restoration
4.0 WMU
4.0 AC
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland (AC) Non-riparian Wetland (AC)
Buffer (SF)
Upland (AC)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,509 4.0
Enhancement 600
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter; SW= Stonnwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention
Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI=Natural Infiltration
Area
*Note: Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg but have been updated to be calculated along stream centerlines and valley length for Monitoring Year 4 after discussions with NC
IRT stemming from the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan Prepared
N/A
N/A
Aug -13
Mitigation Plan Amended
N/A
N/A
Sep -13
Mitigation Plan Approved
N/A
N/A
Nov -13
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
N/A
Mar -13
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Apr -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
Jun -13
Planting of live stakes
Fall/Winter 2013
N/A
Mar -14
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Jun -13
End of Construction
N/A
N/A
May -13
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
N/A
Aug -13
Aug -13
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -13
Dec -13
Jun -14
'Year 2* Monitoring
Dec -14
Dec -14
Jan -15
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -15
Nov -15
Dec -15
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec -16
Nov -16
Dec -16
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec -17
Nov -17
Jan -18
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -18
Nov -18
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring
Dec -19
Nov -19
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Dec -20
Nov -20
N/A
' As stated in the Special Notes section of the Excutive Summary: the US Army Corps of Engineers declined to release the
credits generated from Year 2 (2014) citing too short of a period between plant installation and monitoring following
construction. As such, this report (2017) will be considered Year 4. All references to Year 4 included in this report will
indicate monitoring activities conducted during 2017. Data collected during 2014 that was previously considered monitoring
Year 2 is labeled as Year 2*
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 3. Project Contacts
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Jake Byers, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact:
Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
6105 Chapel Hill Road
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 Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
Wetland Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott King, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 4. Project Attributes
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project
County
Onslow
Project Area (acres)
19.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34.9377 N, -77.5897 W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Inner Coastal Plain
River Basin
White Oak
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit
03030001 / 03030001010020
DWQ Sub-basin
03-05-02
Project Drainage Area AC
421 (d/s main stem UT 1)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Im ervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03.99, Other Hay, Rotation, or Pasture; 413
NCEEP Land Use Classification for UT to Mill Swamp
Watershed (White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities,
2010)
Forest (52%)
Agriculture (44%)
1 Impervious Cover (0.6%)
Stream Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach UT1
Reach UT3
Length of Reach (LF)
4,091
1,060
Valley Classification Ros en
X
X
Drainage Area AC
421
23
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
40.5
21
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
(Channelized Headwater System)
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Evolutionary Trend
Gc4F
Intermittent Ditch (N/A)
Underlying Mapped Soils
Mk, St, Ly, FoA
Mk, St
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Average Channel Slope ft/ft
0.0041
0.0058
FEMA Classification
N/A
N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
—10%
<5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1 (Non-Jurisdictional W1)
Size of Wetland (AC)
6.62 (3.36 north of UT 1 c, 3.26 south of UT 1 c)
Wetland T e
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Mk (Muckalee), St (Stallings), Ly (Lynchburg)
Drainage Class
Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Im airment
Partially (disconnected floodplain from ditches and channel incision)
Native Vegetation Community
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp, Successional
Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation
19.7% (Before fall 2016 treatment event)
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes Yes
See Mitigation Plan
Endangered Species Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA)
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No N/A
See Mitigation Plan
Source: White Oak River Basin Restoration Priorities, 2010(htlp://www.hq://portal.ncdenr.ora/c/document
dfD 17873496b&grououpid=60329)
librgy/get file?uuid=lcOb7e5a-9617-4a44-a5f8-
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

■
I
UT 3
UT 1a
Conservation Easement
Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauges (Both Met Success Criteria in MY4)
z�, Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 4 Success
O Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
• Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
O Headwater Research Wells
- - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Required for MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
No Mitigation Credit
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel
— Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
- Vegetation Plots (Not Required for MY4)
® Restored Wetland Area
Supplemental Planting (-0.2 acres in March 2017)
Privet Resprout Location (0.58 ac)
INTERNATIONAL
0 250 500 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Figure 2 Index Map
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Mill Swamp Site

Sta. 10+00.00
UT 1a
PP.18
17
Veg Plot 1
Conservation Easement
0 Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauges (Both Met Success Criteria in MY4)
A. Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 4 Success
Q Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
0 Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
Q Headwater Research Wells (non-credit areas)
- - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Required for MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
Sta. 16+00.00 Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
No Mitigation Credit
- Vegetation Plots (Not Required for MY4)
Supplemental Planting (-0.2 acres in March 2017)
PP14
Monitoring Date: Dec 2017
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
PP12 MSAW14
• PP11 •
PP13 R=.
Veg Plot 2
Sta. 10+00.00
UT 1b
INTERNATIONAL
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
UT 1 b: Sta. 26+07.40
UT3 (end): Sta. 23+69.36
Veg Plot 3
Figure 2A
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Mill Swamp Site
Stream
Crossing
UT 3
17
Veg Plot 1
Conservation Easement
0 Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauges (Both Met Success Criteria in MY4)
A. Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 4 Success
Q Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
0 Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
Q Headwater Research Wells (non-credit areas)
- - - - Cattle Exclusion Fencing
Cross Sections (Not Required for MY4)
Stream Crossings
In -Stream Structures
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
Sta. 16+00.00 Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
No Mitigation Credit
- Vegetation Plots (Not Required for MY4)
Supplemental Planting (-0.2 acres in March 2017)
PP14
Monitoring Date: Dec 2017
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
PP12 MSAW14
• PP11 •
PP13 R=.
Veg Plot 2
Sta. 10+00.00
UT 1b
INTERNATIONAL
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
UT 1 b: Sta. 26+07.40
UT3 (end): Sta. 23+69.36
Veg Plot 3
Figure 2A
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Mill Swamp Site

Veg Plot 3
Supplemental Planted
Area (-0.2 acres)
UT 1b
Wetland Area Meeting
Criteria (0.24 ac)
Sta. 36+93.00
;;. Veg Plot 4
Stream
Crossing
All Wetlands South
of Stream (3.26 ac)
UT 1c
Monitoring Date: Dec 2017
Aerial Photo Date: 2016
INTERNATIONAL
XS-
MSAW4
VegfPlot 5
XS -6! maravv/
MSAW19 Wetland Area Meeting
Criteria (0.66 ac)
MSAW1 ' k
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Veg Plot 6
Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Mill Swamp Site
Conservation Easement
Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauges (Both Met Success Criteria in MY4)
z�\ Photo Points
Monitoring Well Year 4 Success
0 Groundwater Wells Meeting Criteria
0 Groundwater Wells NOT Meeting Criteria
0 Headwater Research Wells
Cross Sections (Not Required for MY4)
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type (All Stable)
Enhancement I
Restoration: Multi -Thread Channel (No Top of Bank)
Restoration: Single -Thread Channel
All Wetlands North
No Mitigation Credit
of Stream (3.36 ac)
- Vegetation Plots (Not Required for MY4)
(in upland)
® Wetland Success Areas on Left Bank (0.90 ac)
MSAW7 Privet Resprouts
® Restored Wetland Area
(0.58 ac)
Supplemental Planting (March 2017)
MSAW22
Privet Resprout Location (0.58 ac)
XS -6! maravv/
MSAW19 Wetland Area Meeting
Criteria (0.66 ac)
MSAW1 ' k
0 100 200 N
Feet
DMS Project # 95019
Veg Plot 6
Sta. 52+37.58
Figure 2B
Current Condition Plan View
Monitoring Year 4
UT to Mill Swamp Site

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Reach ID: UT1c
Assessed Length (LF): 1,513
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub-
Metric
Category
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing Woody
Ve .
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody Ve
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody Veg.
1. Aggradation
0
0
100%
1.Ver[ical Stability 2 Degradation
0
0%
100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate
3. Meander Pool 1. Depth
3
22
3
22
100%
100%
Condition 2. Length
22
22
100%
1. Bed
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
19
19
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
19
19
100%
AL
141111porr- 1W
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Bank 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wasting appears likely
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse
0
0
too %
0
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or los
8
fotals
8
0
0
t00%
100%
0
0
100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sill or arms
8
8
100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
8
8
100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth
8
8
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 5b. Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Feature Issue
Station Number
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6a. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: EEP Project ID No. 95019
Total Planted Acreage:
15.2
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Defintions
% of Planted Acreage
Threshold (acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4 or 5
0.1
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
stem count criteria.
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Vigor
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage:
19.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Defintions
% of Easement Acreage
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
5. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 ft2
Yes
1
0.58
3.0%
6. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

Table 6b. Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Vegetation Problem Area (as
Feature Issue
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
shown on CCPV)
Invasive/Exotic Populations
#1 See CCPV
Res routs of Li ustrum sinense
Photos 1-3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Photographs
Photo Point 1 — Upstream at Culvert
Photo Point 3 — Log Jam
Photo Point 5 — Log Weir
� s i
Photo Point 2 — Log Jam
Photo Point 4 — Log Weir/Log Jam
Photo Point 6 — Log Weir

UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Photographs
Photo Point 7 — Log Weir
Photo Point 9 — UTIb at Flow Gauge #2
Photo Point 8 — UTIb Upstream
Photo Point 10 — UT3 above confluence
Photo Point 11 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 12 — UT3 Log Weir

UT to Mill Swamp: Stream Photographs
Photo Point 13 — UT3 Log Weir
Photo Point 15 — UTIb view upstream
Photo Point 17 — Log Weir
Photo Point 14 — UTIb view upstream
Photo Point 16 — Log Weir
Photo Point 18 — Log Weir

UT to Mill Swamp: Crest Gauge and Flow Cameras
Crest gauge reading, 1.18 ft from 1/2/17 storm
i an ►J P", . fit i�Ti
Crest gauge reading, 1.20 ft from 4/25/17 storm
Flow Camera #1 — 1/2/17 (storm event)
Flow Camera #1 — 3/18/17 (storm event)
low Camera #1 — 4/25/17 (storm event
low Camera #2 — 2/16/17 (storm event

UT to Mill Swamp: Crest Gauge and Flow Cameras
Flow Camera #2 — 3/19/17 (storm event)
,E
':1.%MSFL2 71T21 0 04-26-201710:01:01
Flow Camera #2 — 4/26/17 (storm event)

UT to Mill Swamp: Vegetation Problem Areas (VPAs)
VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 11/21/2017
VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 11/21/2017
VPA (Ligustrum sinense resprouts) 11/21/2017 Ligustrum sinense (previously treated in Nov 2016)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data*
*No vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data*
*No cross-section stream survey monitoring was required for Year 4

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Wetland Restoration Area Well Success
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
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 (2013)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 4 (2017)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 4 (2017)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 4 (2017)
Year 1 (2013)
Year 2* (2014)
Year 2 (2015)
Year 3 (2016)
Year 4 (2017)
UTlc Cross -Sectional Well Arrays (Installed July 2013)
MSAWI
4.4 29.1 20.8
24.6
14.8
10.8
70.8 50.5
59.8
36.0
53.5
56.8
52.1
66.5
37.4
130.0
138.0
126.5
161.5
91.0
MSAW2
0.7 3.3 6.5
4.0
2.5
1.8
8.0 15.8
9.8
6.0
3.5
20.2
26.3
19.8
22.2
8.5
49.0
64.0
48.0
54.0
MSAW3 (on boundary)
0.0 0.3 0.6
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.8 1.5
1.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
2.5
5.0
2.0
1.0
MSAW4
10.3 27.8 36.4
31.2
46.1
25.0
67.5 88.5
75.8
112.0
97.0
74.2
61.0
83.4
80.2
235.7
180.3
148.3
202.8
195.0
MSAW5
3.3 21.2 19.7
31.1
25.1
8.0
51.5 47.8
75.5
61.0
40.5
51.9
51.6
58.3
52.7
98.4
126.0
125.5
141.8
128.0
MSAW6
1.1 3.8 1 7.0
4.2
11.5
2.8
9.3 17.0
10.3
28.0
9.5 1
23.3
28.3
19.7
25.1
23.1
56.5
68.8
1 47.8
61.0
MSAW7 (in upland)
0.2 3.7 2.7
2.1
1.6
0.5
9.0 6.5
5.0
4.0
0.3
10.9
14.6
7.1
6.6
0.7
26.5
35.5
17.3
16.0
MSAW8
14.1 47.3 37.7
31.1
36.2
34.3
115.0 91.5
75.5
88.0
96.8
73.9
66.3
83.0
79.4
235.2
179.6
161.0
201.8
193.0
MSAW9
2.5 4.5 8.6
5.7
9.5
6.0
11.0 21.0
13.8
23.0
44.5
33.0
28.6
41.7
39.9
108.1
80.3
69.5
101.3
97.0
MSAW10
0.0 0.6 5.3
2.1
4.9
0.0
1.5 13.0
5.0
12.0
0.0
1.1
13.1
16.8
30.5
0.0
2.8
31.8
40.8
74.0
Supplemental UTlc Monitoring Wells (Installed February/March 2016)
**MSAW19
8.7
12.8
21.3
31.0
43.8
42.4
106.5
103.0
**MSAW20
3.7
6.6
9.0
16.0
10.1
20.2
24.5
49.0
**MSAW21
3.7
10.7
9.0
26.0
12.7
17.7
30.8
43.0
**MSAW22
2.8
5.8
6.8
14.0
14.0
23.5
34.0
57.0
**MSAW23
3.1
9.9
7.5
24.0
23.7
32.9
57.5
80.0
**MSAW24
31.2 1
26.3
1
1 75.8
1 64.0
1
72.1
1 83.1
1
175.3
202.0
Headwater Research Cross -Sectional Well Arrays on UTla and UTlb (Installed July 2013)
MSAWll 4.7 21.2 32.3
40.1
36.0
11.5
51.5 78.5
97.5
87.5
38.5
72.4
76.7
84.9
68.3
93.6
176.0
186.5
206.3
166.0
MSAW12 0.7 15.4 10.1
7.6
14.5
1.8
37.5 24.5
18.5
35.3
7.0
19.1
24.9
27.4
15.1
17.0
46.5
60.5
66.5
36.8
MSAW13 6.5 46.5 40.0
40.0
36.0
15.8
113.0 97.3
97.3
87.5
81.5
80.0
82.2
84.8
66.0
198.0
194.5
199.8
206.0
160.5
MSAW14 0.6 39.1 18.3
17.9
25.6
1.5
95.0 44.5
43.5
62.3
4.0
31.0
46.7
61.6
32.7
9.7
75.3
113.5
149.8
79.5
MSAW15 0.8 0.9 2.4
1.6
1.1
2.0
2.3 5.8
4.0
2.8
4.0
3.9
5.1
6.7
2.0
9.7
9.5
12.5
16.3
4.8
MSAW16 2.4 1 2.8 1 2.3
1 2.1 1
1.2
1 5.8
1 6.8 1 5.5
1 5.0
1 3.0
1 14.5 1
13.0
1 11.5
1 7.1
2.2
1 35.2
1 31.5
1 28.0
17.3
1 5.3
MSAW17 0.0 0.1 0.7
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.3 1.8
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
3.3
1.3
0.5
MSAW18 3.8 10.2 7.4
2.2
1.2
9.3
24.8 18.0
5.3
3.0
18.5
15.3
20.8
10.7
3.6
45.0
37.3
50.5
26.0
8.8
Notes:
'Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive or cumulative 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 cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Onslow County is from March 18 to November 16 and is 243 days long.
12% of the growing season is 29 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.
These wells will be observed closely throughout monitoring Year 5.
Following Year 4 wetland monitoring, six of sixteen wells exhibited hyrdroperiods greater than 12% during the 2017 growing season.
**To gather additional well data in the UTlc restoration area, In -Situ groundwater monitoring dataloggers AW 19 -AW23 were installed on 2/26/2016, AW24 was installed on 3/10/2016. The installation of the additional dataloggers was completed during the 2016 spring wet season when groundwater levels were normally closer to the ground
surface.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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 -
I
r v 11P
Season
1.0
f
(3/18 - 11/16)
2.0
JT
3.0
�
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW1)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I I
I I
-12 inches
F
-5
a
-10
MSAW1
16
-15
I I
3
-20
r 41114 IV
—Begin
0
Growing
w
-25
Season
t
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
— —End
-30
CRITERIA MET - 36.0 (14.8%) I
Growing
O
3/18/2017
-35
-40
-45
-50
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
Season
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)

I
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
�\�I'�711�II�IIIII�iI� I1111�11111�\�II
_� .
SI1��111
2.0
l
�
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW2)
20
15
Ground
Surface
10
_
5
0
d
3
-5
-10
-15
o
-20
s
L�II�II111����11111�1�
a
-25
LAW <1\IYsImEMEME
-30
SWIM
-35
--,k
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-40
GROWING SEASON
CRITERIA MET - 6 0 (2 5%)
-45
-50 ,
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
I
I
I
�
�\�I'�711�II�IIIII�iI� I1111�11111�\�II
_� .
SI1��111
-..
l
�

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW3 - located on wetland/upland boundary)
10
5
a
c -5
L
-10
to
-15
3
-20
-25
s
CL -30
35
-40
-45
-50
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
GROWING SEASON
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
(3/18 - 11/16)
MSAW3
I
— Begin
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET - 1.0 (0.4%) I
4/25/2017
Growing
Season
— — End
Growing
Season
IV1
I
A
I
-50
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
2.0
GROWING SEASON
I
3.0
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
I
w
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW4)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
I
I
-12 inches
-5
I
1A IV
a`)
-10
MSAW4
-15
I
o
-20
—Begin
C7
Growing
o
-25
Season
Y
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CL
-30
I CRITERIA MET- 112 (46.1%)
I
— —End
I
d
I 3/8/2017 - 7/7/2017
Growing
D
Season
-35
111
-40
-45
-50
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
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
2.0
3.0
GROWING SEASON
I
w
4.0
I
I
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW5)
10
Ground
5
face
Sur711
0
I
I
I
I
-12 inches
c
-5
a`)
Y
-10
MSAW5
Vill 111
-15
o
—Begin
C7
-20
Growing
Season
o
Y
-25
CL
-30
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
I — —End
d
D
CRITERIA MET - 61.0 (25.1%)
I Growing
Season
-35
3/8/2017
-40
-45
-50
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
GROWING SEASON
I
(3/18 - 11/16)
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
`m -10
Y
R
-15
'o -20
t7
o -25
Y
CL -30
d
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW6)
I I
I I
V Is
A AN V1
I I
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 28.0 (11.5%)
3/18/2017 - 4/14/2017
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
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
MSAW6
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
m -10
.r
16
-15
'o -20
L
o -25
a -30
d
O
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW7 - located in upland area)
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 4.0 (1.6%)
4/24/2017 - 4/27/2017
I I
Ak
I a RA not
I I
I I
I I
GROWING SEASON Wk— 19
(3/18 - 11/16)
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
MSAW7
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growina

I
I
Ground
Surface
UT to Mill Swamp Rain
-12 inches
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
MSAW8
5
1.0
I
I
Growing
Season
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
2.0
End
Growing
Season
I
I
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW8)
10
5
0
16
_
-5
d
r
-10
-15
o
-20
o
-25
t
Q.
-30
d
-35
-40
-45
-50
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
I
I
Ground
Surface
-12 inches
I I
I
I
MSAW8
—Begin
I
I
Growing
Season
I
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS I
CRITERIA MET - 88.0 (36.2%) I
3/18/2017 - 6/13/2017
End
Growing
Season
I
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
S1.0
2.0
3.0
w 4.0
5.0
20
15
10
5
= 0
-5
-10
c
o -15
-20
O
s -25
o -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW9)
11_ I
WN, ■aIIUNIIIIIMIIIII=NM�IIIIIn L�1 IIIIL
ulIsiPisam �� IL11l►
�LU ME
MOST • DAYS
GROWING SEASON I
l
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
MSAW9
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
�■ ■��■II I �1■
������I�I�I�IV�I�IIi I■11111�1�1�
���'I,�I■■11llu,lllll■I1I.II■,III.11_III
1 � �'1
■1�1■I�
1I'll■III,�■
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
5
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW10)
10
Ground
Surface
5
-12 inches
-5
�I11I
�MSAW10
-10
��1.II1■I.I
�I��I■
1j,11111IN
1�.II��IIIIII
lilll—I�
-15
a
3
-20
— — Begin
Growing
�
25
Season
O
ORM
End
-30
Growing
t
Season
M
-35%
-40
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
GROWING SEASM
CRITERIA MET - 12.0 (4.9%)
-45
-50
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
�■ ■��■II I �1■
������I�I�I�IV�I�IIi I■11111�1�1�
���'I,�I■■11llu,lllll■I1I.II■,III.11_III
1 � �'1
■1�1■I�
1I'll■III,�■
II�� Illlll 11■� �I
II��I!llvl�� 11
, _III

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 11,
12)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
--12 inches
-5
IL
c
MSAW11
-10
w'
-15
MSAW12
R
3
-20
M
0
-25
0
-30
0
s
0
-35
a0i
D
-40
-45
-50
-55
-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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5 1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 13,14)
15
Ground
10
Surface
5
--12 inches
O -L
[,A,
= 574"
W
MSAW13
i
3 d
-10
11
MSAW14
Is
-15
WIR ILc
-20
°
0
-25
s
S
-30
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
2.0
JT
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 15,16)
10
Ground
Surface
5
0
--12 inches
-5
MSAW 15
C
10
i
MSAW16
d
-15
3
C
-20
3
-25
w
-30
t
CL
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
-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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
_
5
1.0
JT
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Well cross-sections 17,18)
10
Ground
5
Surface
0
--12 inches
MSAW17
`)
-10
%It
It
.r
R
"k
11 IRI 1111
_MSA 18
-15
ITc
C
-20
'L^
V
c
w
-25
t
cL
-30
d
-35
-40
-45
PW
-50
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
—Begin
0.0
5
1.0
Growing
Season
2.0
End
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 31.0 (12.8%)
3/18/2017 - 4/17/2017
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
Growing
Season
I
c
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW19)
20
I
Ground
Surface
15
I
10
I
I
-12 inches
=
5
I
I
I
o
I
MSAW19
3
-5
- 10
0
a
-15
o
s
-20
..
-25
Vill
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
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
I
—Begin
I
Growing
Season
End
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 31.0 (12.8%)
3/18/2017 - 4/17/2017
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
Growing
Season
I

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
S -5
L
-10
to
c
-15
3
-20
° -25
0
w
CL -30
G
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW20)
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
CRITERIA MET- 16.0 (6.6%)
3/28/2017 - 4/12/2017
I
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
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
MSAW20
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
E 1.0
2.0
c 3.0
M 4.0
ALI
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW21)
10
5
A
F -5
L
a -10
a -15
-20
° -25
0
t
-30
D
99
-40
-45
-50
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
I I
-12 inches
MSAW21
I I
— Begin
Growing
Season
1
— — End
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Growing
CRITERIA MET - 26.0 (10.7%)
Season
3/18/2017 - 4/12/2017
I GROWING SEASON
1 (3/18 - 11/16)
-50
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

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
S1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
10
5
0
c -5
L
a? -10
R
-15
C
0
-20
t7
C -25
s
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
1/1/2017
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW22)
2/15/2017 4/1/2017 5/16/2017 6/30/2017
Date
8/14/2017 9/28/2017 11/12/2017 12/27/2017
Ground
Surface
12 inches
MSAW22
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
S1.0
2.0
3.0
ix 4.0
5.0
10
5
0
c -5
a -10
m
-15
° -20
° -25
s
-30
D
-35
-40
-45
-50
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW23)
1, 1 , T I I I 1
IF
RNO
�'L�.'w►�I►�'1 ii �� 1111 I � I � � I� I JII II
����iaw��ll'i�1■I■1�\■I�_ ■11111'llll■�_ ■I
� MIMI11111111111iYilE11,11Pill� i
'4 MOST CONSECUTIVEDAYS1
CRITERIA I .
1 I 1
GROWING• '
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
MSAW23
— Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season

UT to Mill Swamp Rain
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
5
1.0
2.0
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)
3.0
4.0
5.0
UT to Mill Swamp Wetland Restoration Well
(MSAW24)
25
20
Ground
Surface
15
10
-12 inches
=
5
m
0
I
MSAW24
3
-5
I
W 1W
c
0
L
-10
—Begin
(D
Growing
-15
O
I I
Season
s
-20
—End
-25
I I
Growing
D
-30
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
Season
-35
I I
CRITERIA MET - 64.0 (26.3%)
3/18/2017
-40
-45
-50
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
GROWING SEASON
(3/18 - 11/16)

Table 13. Flow Gauge Success
UT to Mill Swam Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 95019
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 6
(2019)
Year 7
(2020)
Year 1
(2013)
Year 2*
(2014)
Year 2
(2015)
Year 3
(2016)
Year 4
(2017)
Year 5
(2018)
Year 6
(2019)
Year 7
(2020)
Flow Gauges (Installed July 17, 2015)
MSFL1
8.9
30.8
51.0
59.0
139.0
-
-
-
34.3
242.3
137.3
187.0
213.0
-
-
-
MSFL2
35.2
131.4
151.6
105.0
164.0
-
-
-
79.1
326.6
186.1
231.0
243.0
-
-
-
Notes:
'Indicates the single greatest number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
2Indicates the total number of days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success Criteria per UT to Mill Swamp Mitigation Plan: A surface water flow event will have been considered to have occurred when flow duration is recorded for aminimum of 30 consecutive days
during the monitoring year. 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.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
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
a5.0
.E
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 1 - MSFL1)
1.5
UT1 B - Upstream
1.4
1.3
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-Ground Surface
1.2
CRITERIA MET - 139
-MSFL1
(1/1/2017 - 5/19/2017)
1.1
:r
1
t
a
0.9
p
0.8
ar
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
c'n
0.2
0.1
0
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
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.
UT to Mill Swamp Daily Rain
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
S
5
2.0
-
3.0
�a
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
UT to Mill Swamp
(Flow Gauge 2 - MSFL2)
1.5
UTI B - Downstream
1.4
1.3
-Ground Surface
1.2
-MSFL2
1.1
1.0
s
0.9
Q,
0
0.8
L
0.7
0.6WV
0.5
0.4
3
CO
0.3
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
0.2
CRITERIA MET = 164
0.1
(1/1/2017-6/13/2017)
0.0
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
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.1 feet in depth.

Figure 6. Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average
UT to Mill Swamp
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Average: MY4 (2017)
10.0
U
8.0
U
i7 eat
JL
6.0
0
4.0
U
U
a" 2.0
0.0
—*--Historic Average (56.5 in) t Historic 30% probable
—Historic 70% probable Onslow County Observed 2017 (46.2 in)
Note: Data from nearest NC-CRONOS station KOAJ
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Mill Swamp Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 95019
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence of
Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
Gauge Reading
(feet)
Year 1 (2013)
10/16/2013
10/11/2013
Crest Gauge
0.17
12/24/2013
12/15/2013
Crest Gauge
0.19
Year 2* (2014)
3/27/2014
3/7/2014
Crest Gauge
0.32
10/14/2014
8/4/2014
Crest Gauge
0.56
12/19/2014
11/26/2014
Crest Gauge
0.27
Year 2 (2015)
1/24/2015
1/24/2015
Crest Gauge
0.59
4/27/2015
2/26/2015
Crest Gauge
1.07
6/23/2015
5/11/2015
Crest Gauge
1.61
11/12/2015
10/3/2015
Crest Gauge
1.54
Year 3 (2016)
3/10/2016
2/5/2016
Crest Gau e
1.44
11/22/2016
10/8/2016 Hurricane Matthew
Crest Gauge
2.32
Year 4 2017
3/20/2017
1/2/2017
Crest Gauge
1.18
6/2/2017
4/25/2017
Crest Gauge
1.20
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
UT TO MILL SWAMP RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 95019)