20120064 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181217

Mitigation Project Name Crooked Creek 11 Stream and Wetland Restoration Site County Union USACE Action ID 20114)2201
DMS ID 94687 Date Project instituted 12110/2010 NCDWR Permit No 20124064
River Seem Yadkin Date Prepared 8/1012616
Cataloging Unit 03040105
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Cracks(Mitigation Plan
PotentialCretlila(AaeulIt Survey)
_
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Warts
3'89.600
3,469.600
dream Croddi=
Cool Cold anticipated
Release Year
(Stream)
Actual
Release Date
(Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Faresled)
Riperlan
Werra
8'400
8.500
Wetland Credits
Rlichaw Non Nand n
tiverine Peaa Scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coastal AnGnpated
Release Year
(We0and)
Actual
Release Date
(Wetland)
1 iat Establishment)
NIA
As-aulk AmOuntancetandacres)
NIA
NIA
MIA
6.]00
NIA
NIA
WA
2 ear 01 ASSullt
30%
1.046.880
2016
51182016
30%
2.550
30%
2016
5/182018
9 earl Monitoring)
10%
348.960
2017
810201]
10%
0.650
10%
2017
8/81201]
4 ear 2 Monitorin
WA
1]4.480
2018
4252018
S%
0.425
15%
2018
4252018
Unpleased cracks from (Year 2 Monitorin 1'
S%
1]4,480
2018
Not released
S/.
CA25
201B
Not released
5 ear 3 Monitoring)10%
1,030.800
1,063.960
2019
9.015
10%
0135
20%
2019
B ear 4 Monitodn
10%
NCDWR Permit USACE Aden ID Project Name
2020
10%
10%
2020
T ear S Monitorin
15%
2021
20150]19 2015-01]26 NCOOTTP B-5243
10%
15%
2021
B Monitodn
NIA
2022
Ift
NCDDT TP R-2559' Rd329-
Monroe Bypess and
2002-06]2 200940876 Connector, Union County
WA
229
222
I Narbonne)
WA
i
20023
Skeam BanMullSbndard
15%
523.440
2018
41252018
NIA
WA
need Ceske Released to Date
2,093460
0240
3.825
'NOTE: IRT concerned about hydrology and vegeWdon success concerns decided W hold 112 of the stream and vretland credits for Year 2 screening. S/. of Ne stream antl wetland cleats was released.
DEBITS (released credits only)
Rod. 1 1.5 2.5 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5
(if any): None
q b I
Date
or or
2K 2
as a
p,
As-aulk AmOuntancetandacres)
1,]18.000
4429.000
6.]00
3.900
1000
ASAuill Amounts(m6igation seeks)
1,]18.000
1,]]1600
6.]00
1.300
0.500
Percentage Released
60%
60%
45%
45%
45°/.
Released Amounts (feet l acres)
1010.800
2,65)400
Y015
1455
0.450
Released Amounts (credits)
1,030.800
1,063.960
9.015
0.585
0135
NCDWR Permit USACE Aden ID Project Name
20150]19 2015-01]26 NCOOTTP B-5243
306.000
NCDDT TP R-2559' Rd329-
Monroe Bypess and
2002-06]2 200940876 Connector, Union County
1.190
NODOT TP U-1440- NL 3
2016-0805 2012.00417 Wtlening, Cabance CountyM3.0.
NCDOT TIP 04508 -Division
201141460 9
0240
2017-1250 2016-00248 NCOOT TP P-5704
0.190
NCOOT TP R-2123CE-
2011-0431 2011-0123] Chadotte Outer Loop
0.790
NCOOT R-2248E-Chadoda
2011-0431 2011-0123] Outer Loop
1171.600
0.605
1]55
0.450
Remaining AmOunLs (feet'acres)
885.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
Remaining Amounme(ere.)
345.600
364,3201
1 0.0001
0.0001
0.000
(if any): None
q b I
Date

I -For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
2'- For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for podects where. DA permit Issuance is not required
3- A 15% reserve of credits is to be held back unfil the bankfull event performance standard has been met

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Union County, NC
DEQ Contract 6617
DMS Project Number 94687
Data Collection Period: April — November 2018
Submission Date: December 17, 2018
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]

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 17, 2018
Mr. Harry Tsomides
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site -Year 3 Monitoring Report
Final Submittal for DMS
DMS ID 94687
DEQ Contract Number D09126S
Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin — CU# 03040105; Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments and observations from the Crooked Creek II Mitigation Site Draft Year 3 Monitoring Report.
The following are Wildlands responses to your comments and observations from the report noted in
italics lettering.
DMS Comment; Cover Page - Please add the DEQ Contract Number for post -construction site
monitoring (6617). The contract number listed (D091326S) is for the construction and not necessary to
list.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated the cover page to reflect the DEQ contract number (6617).
DMS Comment; Section 1.2.1 — Discussion includes warranty plots as meeting interim success
criteria; however warranty plots are performed for DMS to evaluate planting contract work
separately, not subject to performance monitoring, and therefore should not be included. As a
reminder, warranty counts for 2019 (MY04) are not part of Wildlands' monitoring contract.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands omitted the last sentence regarding the warranty plots.
DMS Comment; Section 1.2.2 — Please indicate that Carolina Silvics has performed additional invasive
removal work since Wildlands' MY03 assessment.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands included the requested verbiage.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
DMS Comment; Section 1.3 — Please summarize that the MY03 asset reductions were the result of
one-sided easement sections at the upper and lower ends of crooked Creek, and a powerline ROW at
the upper end of UTI, which had not been adjusted at the as -built stage.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands included the requested verbiage in Section 1.3.
DMS Comment; Table 1 (assets) Crooked Creek Reaches A and a "Restoration Footage/Acres" should
reflect the assets now being generated (1335 and 2123, respectively).
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated Table 1 to reflect the correct assets.
DMS Comment; Stream Credits should be reported to the nearest tenth, not thousandth.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated the stream credits to the nearest tenth.
DMS Comment; Credits column for Crooked Reach B should be 849.2, not 849.000.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated the credits with the correct amount.
DMS Comment; I am calculating Credits summation to be 3,242.2, not 3,442.600. Please verify and
correct if necessary.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands corrected the Crooked Creek stationing which corrected the credit
summation as 3,242.20.
DMS Comment; Please add footnote to indicate UT1 crediting starts at the outer edge of the
powerline ROW along Highway 218; Crooked Creek assets have been reduced to account for one-
sided easement sections at upstream and downstream ends.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands added a footnote to Table 1 with the requested verbiage.
DMS Comment; CCPVs — If possible, please improve the report format/readability as follows:
Use a stream centerline for Crooked Creek and UT2; the widened orange colors do not accurately
represent the stream width; for example, sections of UT appear to be 50 feet wide.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated the CCPV maps by inserting a stream centerline for Crooked
Creek and UT2.
DMS Comment Add station numbering for Crooked Creek and UT2.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands added station numbers for Crooked Creek and UT2.
DMS Comment Combine Sheets 1 and 2; and sheets 3,4,5; typically a project this size should not have
6 CCPVs to clearly depict monitoring features.
Wildlands Response; Wildlands combined the CCPV maps as requested.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS Comment; Table 15 — GW gauge #3 for 2018 indicates 29 consecutive days, above the success
criteria of 17 days, however, is noted as "No" (not meeting). Also, if possible, please add a row at the
bottom of this table to indicate how many gauges are meeting each year (2/10, 3/10, 4/10, etc.).
Wildlands Response; Wildlands updated the typo in Table 15 to reflect GWG 3 as "Yes" to meeting
criteria. Wildlands also included a footnote as requested with the number of GWGs meeting criteria
each monitoring year.
DMS Comment; please include a copy of your response letter.
Wildlands Response, Wildlands has included this response letter as part of the final report deliverable.
Enclosed please find four (4) hard copies of the Year 4 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with the
final corrected electronic files for DMS distribution. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

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
5,599 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 3,242.600 stream mitigation units (SMUs), 8.400 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 (MY) 3 assessments were completed
between April and November 2018, to assess the conditions of the site. The average stem density for
the Site is 567 stems per acre and is therefore on track to meet the interim Year 5 requirement of 260
stems per acres. A supplemental planting of 1800 containerized 1 -to 3 -gallon stems were installed
January 10,2018 by Carolina Silvics throughout 7.3 acres. Cross-section dimensions appear stable and
functioning as designed. Groundwater hydrologic success criteria was achieved in four of the 10
groundwater monitoring gages. At least one bankfull event occurred on all monitored reaches;
however, the success criteria for the project had been met in MY2.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL

CROOKED CREEK #2 RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 3 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 3 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 3 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
Vegetation Photographs
Stream and 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 Stream Gage Plot
Rainfall Plot
1 kr Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 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 3 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 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between April and October 2018 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
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 MY3 vegetation survey was completed in August 2018 which included supplemental stems. Due to
poor stem density and stem mortality from the MY2 vegetation assessment, it was determined that a
supplemental planting was warranted for the Site. On January 10, 2018, Carolina Silvics installed 1800
containerized, 1- to 3- gallon stems throughout 7.3 acres of the Site, which yields 247 stems/acre. The
additional supplemental plantings also included the 12 permanent vegetation plots, which is 0.3 acres of
the total planted 7.3 acres. A total of 88 supplemental stems were planted within the 0.3 acres; yielding
293 stems/acre or 7 new stems/plot. The MY3 vegetation plot survey resulted in an average stem
density of 567 stems/acre. All 12 individual vegetation plots meet the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre for MY3, with an average of 14 stems per plot. The MY3 average stem height is 5.9 feet.
Dense herbaceous coverage continues to impact the planted stem health. The poor vigor is mainly
caused by suffocation and vine strangulation, which are affecting the stem growth in several plots.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment
table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The presence of invasive plant species continues to be prevalent throughout the Site, particularly along
the conservation easement fence line and along Crooked Creek Reach A and B. Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) has re -sprouted. The invasive vine species, such as Chinese lantern (Physalis spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), continue to impact the
stem growth within the Site, especially near vegetation plots 10 and 11. The vine species are hindering
the growth rate of the oak (Quercus sp.) trees in vegetation plot 11 by not allowing the stems to grow
upright. Other invasive species noted throughout the Site include Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) and
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense). The native invasive species, cattail (Typha latifolia) is established in
UT1 and continues to colonize in Vegetation Plot 5. This may also be impacting planted woody stem
survival in vegetation plot 5, along with the dense herbaceous coverage of rice cutgrass (Leersia
oryzoides). Invasive herbicide treatments have been conducted and will need to continue through
closeout to enable the planted stems to grow within the Site. Carolina Silvics is now under contract for
ongoing removal work and treatment of invasive species. Carolina Silvics has performed additional
invasive removal work since Wildlands' MY3 assessment. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation
condition assessment table and Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV).
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
MY3 Morphological surveys were conducted in April 2018. 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 continue to fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen
stream type (Rosgen, 1996). Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map,
and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
As mentioned in prior monitoring reports, the UT1 streambed continues to be inundated with dense
herbaceous vegetation and now contains sections of cattail. This instream vegetation has created large
debris jams of urban litter, which is hindering normal baseflow conditions and sediment transport
process. The MY3 pebble count data indicates that UT1 has illustrated an increase in fine sediment
deposition from base line. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual assessment.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY3 data collection, with the UT1 stream
gage documenting multiple bankfull events. Following the hurricane events, the crest gage on Crooked
Creek is missing; however, wrack lines were observed. A bankfull event was documented by
photographs on November 5, 2018 during a Site visit. The success criteria of two bankfull events in
separate years within the seven-year monitoring period was met during MY2. The stream gage located
on UT1 recorded 103 consecutive days of baseflow. The stream gage is not part of the requirement for
project success. 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
target performance criteria for wetland hydrology success consists of groundwater surface within 12
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

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.
Four of the 10 gages (GWG 3, and GWGs 6-8) met the performance criteria for MY3, which is one more
gage from MY2. GWG 3 met criteria with 29 consecutive days (13%), GWG 6 met criteria for 88
consecutive days (39%), GWGs 7 and 8 recorded 45 consecutive days (20%). The rain data obtained
from a nearby USGS station indicates an average of three inches of rainfall per month from January to
August; however, June and July averaged one inch each. During the hurricane events, there was
average of 7.7 inches of rainfall in September and October. With normal precipitation during the
upcoming winter, in addition to the recent large rain events, the wetlands may continue recharging and
meet hydrologic success criteria in the upcoming monitoring years. 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
decreased in size since the repair work completed in February 15, 2018. The repair consisted of straw
waddles, juncus plugs and placement of live stakes. Straw bales were also placed in the eroded ditch
that had developed and backfilled with dirt and herbaceous material. Since the repair, the herbaceous
groundcover has become established and the trees have increased in size, especially the bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum). This area will continue to be monitored.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
The MY3 asset reductions were the result of one-sided easement sections at the upper and lower ends
of Crooked Creek, and a powerline right-of-way at the upper end of UT1, which had not been adjusted
at the as -built stage. The restored streams within the Site appear stable and functioning as designed.
The average stem density of 567 stems/acre is on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria. Four of the
10 groundwater gages met the performance criteria in MY3. The bankfull performance criteria was met
in MY2. The UT1 stream gage documented 103 consecutive days of baseflow; however, UT1 contains
vegetation over -growth and the jurisdictional nature of this restoration tributary may become a
concern. In addition, the Site will continue to be treated for invasive species.
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.
110- Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 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 3 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 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Email 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter.
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.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Reedy' 1
reek Nature
a
Pm se rye
03040 501005 P4,9
&SRC
t'♦♦ C. T.
gklrem Golf !
■vutm
�w�%*`_■ ■
7---
03050103020050'i ►►►
f . 833 ft
0 `s
■`���
NO f
1 cietk NMI Hill
s
1 — --
j ; Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
1
■
I
t
03040105010070
�4ddy -
Cr.
[.?I -ll IJ n,
� r
03040105030010
r
r
! � a`
►'■i f �� Ouck C e r�
' r
i
l2 tt 7
• 5
r,
r +�
r �
i r
J �
r �
r■
�030401�505001 G
'r,
■
03050103020060
1
��+
03040105030020
r
r
! Jr • f. _ �
li�yl� .
■� 4rr /The
1
Divide
FIR; H
I / Golf
Club
o5B C ^ f
r.
�tthews dutler
f..ljgh �'•�
CO
, ry�y
�, +�" *� ♦ it -
I •
#�10
e,
. a ��
je
0100
+��• 030401050400201
cj(oQ
ti`r
'0300 3020070
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
rr/~r ; i ■ � / 1
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
f
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
Unionville
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
y
10 I
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
Directions to Site:
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
From Charlotte,NC take US -74 East, take 27 East/Albemarle Road.Travel on
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
Albemarle Road approxim ately 8 miles to Interstate 485.
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
Take Interstate 485 South (Inner Loop) for approximately 3
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
miles to exit 44 for NC Highwaw 218 toward Mint Hill.
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
Turn Left off ramp on to NC218 and follow for approximately 7 miles.
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
The project site is located 0.85 miles after US 601/Concord Highway on the
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
r right hand side of the road.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
030401050700
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
W I L D L A N D 5 ° 0 0.5 1 Mile DMS Project No. 94687
l Monitoring Year 3- 2018
Union County, NC

M
.,
to
let
W I L D L A N D S 0 200 400 Feet
lNGiVCk¢iNC• , i � I � I
%■■■p
;..;Conservation Easement
- - - Powerline Easement
Non -Project Streams
Ditch (former UTI channel)
Overflow Connector
Crooked Creek Reach Break
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
77� Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
Wetland Creation Zone B
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Enhancement
Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
14 •k . z i - I N -:.
V
��_Ilw 100W ---
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Crooked Creek rig Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Mitigation Credits
Type
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer (sqft) Nitrogen
Nutrient
R RE R RE R IRE
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Totals
3,242.2
1 N/A 7.900 0.500 N/A I N/A 54,135.33 N/A
ReachlD
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing Footage/
Approach
Acreage
Restoration or Restoration Restoration Footage/
Equivalent Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits'
(SMU/ WMU)
STREAMS
Crooked Creek Reach A
202+20-215+55
1,555 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
1,335
2.5:1
534.000
Crooked Creek Reach B
215+55-236+78
2,404 LF
N/A
Enhancement II
2,123
2.5:1
849.200
UT1
100+47-117+18
1,762 LF
P1
Restoration
1,671
1:1
1,671.000
UT2
300+00-305+60
470 LF
N/A
Enhancement 11
470
2.5:1
188.000
WETLANDS
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
0.7 AC
Enhancement
0.7
2:1
0.350
Zone A (Drained Hydric
Soils)
N/A
N/A
Restoration
6.6
1:1
6.600
Zone B
N/A
0.3 AC
Enhancement
0.3
2:1
0.150
Zone B
N/A
N/A
Creation
3.9
3:1
1.300
BUFFER
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
25,201 sqft
Enhancement
25,201 sqft
3:1
8,400.33 sqft
Goose Creek Buffer
N/A
N/A
Restoration
45,735 sqft
1:1
45,735 sqft
1 No credit generated where only one side of stream is buffered per email from Harry Tsomides dated October 15, 2018.
2 UTI red iting starts at the outer edge of the powerline right-of-way along Hwy 218; Crooked Creek assets have been reduced to account for one -side easement sections at upstream and downstream ends.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Activity or RepW Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled 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 areal 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
Invasive Treatment
January 2018
Supplemental Planting
November 2018
Stream Survey April 2018
Vegetation Survey August 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 3 - 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Earley, 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
Carolina Silvics
Supplemental Planting Contractor & Invasive Species Maintenance
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
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 3 - 2018
Project
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
UT2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,555 2,404
1,671
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 DW Q
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. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
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
125 250 500 Feet Project No. 94687
k
tvvDMS0
rk�
I i I i I Monitoring Year 3- 2018
WILDLANDS
ENG, NEE R, NG Union County, NC

0 50 100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS
eN�iNeeuiH�
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Union County, NC

%�Wv
WILDLANDS ,'
ENGINEERING
0 50 100 200 Feet
I i I i I
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Union County, NC

■■n��■n■�■�■•■■•■•■••+A•■■■gun••
.�
A - S •••''•fir
_ rr
r
Ir
•1
1r
Ir ,
r•
%�Wv
WILDLANDS ,'
ENGINEERING
0 50 100 200 Feet
I i I i I
F41i
ti
J... Conservation Easement
- - Powerline Easement 1
Non -Project Streams
Ditch (former UT1 Channel)
Existing Overflow
x
■ Overflow Connector
- - • Bankfull
i
—Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement J
i
Wetland Enhancement Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils) j
Wetland Enhancement Zone B
Wetland Restoration Zone A (Drained Hydric Soils)
u 1111110 Wetland Creation Zone B
• Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Enhancement
1111110 Goose Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY3
=Criteria Not Met
Ok
0 Criteria Met
Groundwater Gage - MY3
♦ Criteria Not Met
• 'ems Criteria Met
Cross -Section (XS)
+ Barotroll
Crest Gage (CG)/Stream Gage (SG)
git Irl ♦ Photo Point (PP)
Invasive Species
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Union County, NC

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1 (1,671 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 3 - 2018
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
10
0.25
1.6%
count criteria.
Total
30
0.25
1.6%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25
0
0.00
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
10
0.25
1.6%
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

Vegetation Photographs

• � � fat' � ` y�"! �
k�
4ryKr� L
Al.
F _
• � � fat' � ` y�"! �
k�
4ryKr� L
Al.

Stream Photographs

lo
u ��--dr-
IP
1
r
08.15 2018
r,
lo
u ��--dr-
IP
1
r
08.15 2018

Photo Point 4 — UTI looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 4 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018) 1
Photo Point 5 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 5 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)
Photo Point 6 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 6 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)

Photo Point 7 — UTI looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 7 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018) 1
Photo Point 8 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 8 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)
Photo Point 9 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) Photo Point 9 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)

Photo Point 13 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 13 — UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018) 1
Photo Point 14— UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 14— UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018)
Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) Photo Point 15 — UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)

Y l'
F y
c
� f
gj

Photo Point 19 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 19 — UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018) 1
Photo Point 20 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 20 — UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018)
Photo Point 21— UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) Photo Point 21— UT1 looking downstream (8/15/2018)

Photo Point 22 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 22 — UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018) 1
Photo Point 23 — UT1 looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 23 — UTI looking downstream (8/15/2018)
Photo Point 24 — Crooked Creek looking upstream (8/15/2018) 1 Photo Point 24 — Crooked Creek looking downstream (8/15/2018)

v
i"I
4 �l
� u
.. .i
4
Xy
Am
t
v
i"I
4 �l
� u
.. .i
4
y
A .
-, -;
Am
08.15 201

14!� Y .. ��i,�l � f ,• fFi
IAI
e .
wa
y
�
� K
_
If
nye
y

w

Wetland Photographs

44
,Y.
ZVI
4
fud
fr
- np,.i5.2018
44
,Y.
4
fud
1
,Y.
'nom'
08,15 2013

-F
'�
k
j
- f
�

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
MY2 Success Criteria Met
Plot
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
11/15/2018 15:37
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.0_Crooked Creek_MY3.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02156 Crooked Creek Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3 (2018)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
RUBY
File Size
45125632
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
excluded.
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 3 - 2018
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94687-WEI-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
3
5
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
20
9
1
5
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
25
2
2
2
Quercus
Oak sp.
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
9
9
9
2
2
2
1
1 1
1
Ulmus alata
lWinged Elm
Tree
2
2
4
4
4
6
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
Tree
Stem count
16
16
46
13
13
13
11
11
20
12
12
13
11
11
11
18
18
41
14
14
29
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
6
6
11
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
6
7
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
7
10
Stems per ACRE
647
647
1862
526
526
526
445
445
809
486
486
526
445
445
445
728
728
1659
567
567
1174
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: 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 3 - 2018
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94687-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
94687-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94687-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (8/2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (8/2017)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY1 (9/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2/2016)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
8
7
7
19
49
43
18
17
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
3
3
4
7
7
7
1 13
13
14
11
11
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
26
26
26
12
12
14
14
14
15
18
18
18
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
1
1 2
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
9
9
14
4
1
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 1
2
6
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
11
1
1
1
13
13
16
7
7
7
10
10
13
27
27
27
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
3
1
41
25
26
45
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
3
3
4
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
1
1
1
6
1 7
1
7
1
1 4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
7
7
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
28
50
12
12
44
13
13
26
15
15
16
Quercus
Oak sp.
Shrub Tree
1
2
2
1 2
1
1 1
1
1 13
13
13
53
53
53
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
12
12
12
11
11
11
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
2
Taxodium distichum
Bald -cypress
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
4
1 4
4
1
4
1 4
4
41
41
41
12
12
12
13
1 13
13
16
16
16
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
12
5
1
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
7
Stem count
16
16
25
16
16
28
13
13
19
13
13
22
1515
40
168
168
307
84
84
207
95
95
172
156
156
229
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.02
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Species count
7
7
8
1 5
5
1 8
8
8
10
3
3
1 6
7
1 7
12
13
13
18
11
11
18_=
11
17
8
8
15
Stems per ACRE
647
647
1012
1 647
1 647
1 1133
526
1 526
769
526
526
1 890
607
1 607
1619
567
1 567
1035
283
283
698
320
1 320
580
526
526
772
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: 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 3 - 2018
UTI
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
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 3 - 2018
L_ IMI
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
Cross -Section
MYl
MY2
1, LIT1
MY3
(Pool) ==
MY4 MY5 Base
Cross-section
MYl
MY2
2, LIT1 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4
M�ross-Section
MYS Base
MYl
MY2
3, LIT1 (Pool)
MY3 MY4
ME
MYS Base
Cross -Section
MYl
MY2
4, LIT1 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MYS
Bankfull elevation 541.8
541.9 541.8
541.8
542.1
542.0 542.1
542.1
539.7
539.7 539.7
539.6
539.8
539.8 539.8
539.7
Low Bank Elevation
541.8
541.9
541.8
541.8
542.1
542.0
542.1
542.1
539.7
539.7
539.7
539.6
539.8
539.8
539.8
539.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.3
12.7
13.6
13.3
11.7
11.1
11.4
14.6
12.6
12.3
12.2
15.4
12.6
11.9
12.0
13.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
200+
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.1
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)1
8.7 1
8.5 1
8.3
1 8.7 1
1 1 7.3 1
5.9 1
6.5
1 7.3 1 1
1 12.6 1
11.4
1 12.3 1
12.6 1
1 1 7.5
1 7.8 1
7.6
1 7.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.4
18.9
22.4
20.4
18.9
20.8
20.1
29.1
12.7
13.4
12.1
18.9
21.1
18.0
18.9
22.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
2.2+
2.2+2.2+
2.2+
---
---
---
---
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
1.0 1
1.0 1
1.0
1 1.0
---
---
---
---
1.0
1 1.0 1
1.0
1.0
' Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7, bankfull elevation is calculating using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter documented provided by NCIRT and NCDMS
(9/2018).

Table 13. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
LIT]
As-Built/Basellne
MY
MY
MY
MY MY
Parameter
Min
Max
Min
-1
Max
Min
-2
Max
I Min
-3 -4 -5
Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.7
12.6
11.1
11.9
11.4
12.0
13.0
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.3
7.5
5.9
7.8
6.5
7.6
7.3
7.5
Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
21.1
18.0
20.8
18.9
20.1
22.6
29.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
0.3
35.9
SC
65.6
SC
66.2
SC
E.
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)L36
50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0193
Pool Length (ft)
65
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
99
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
30
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8
4.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
102
135
Meander Width Ratio
2.5
6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,718
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0034
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.1/19/90/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks

Cross -Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 1-UT3
107+88 Pool
543
x
13.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
14.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.4
width -depth ratio
c
0
m
541
v
w
539
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (01/2016) tMY1 (08/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) +MY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
14.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 2 -UTI
108+32 Riffle
7.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
543
14.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
29.1
xT
c
0
m
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
541
v
w
539
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
--o.—MYO (01/2016) $ MY1 (08/2016) +MY2 (04/2017) +MY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
14.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
29.1
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 3-UT1
114+01 Pool
540
15.4
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
16.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
c
0
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
v 538
v
w
536
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (01/2016) MY1 (08/2016) s MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.4
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
16.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 4-UT3
114+34 Riffle
7.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
13.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
541
22.6
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
0
m
539
>
v
w
537
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO(01/2016) tMY1(08/2016) +MY2(04/2017) +MY3(04/2018) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
7.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
13.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.6
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
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 3 - 2018.
UTI, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
? 40
y 30
u 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO-01/2016 MYl-08/2016 --*-- MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50=
Silt/Clay
Class
Percent
D95 =
min
max
Riffle Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
30 40
70
70
70
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
Fine
0.125
0.250
70
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
70
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
2
2
2
72
Very Fine
®®®®®®
2.0 1
2.8
72
®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
72
Fine
4.0
5.6
72
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
72
Medium
;, �sss e•oss,
8.0
11.0
2
2 1
2
74
Medium
11.0
16.0
74
s®zs%s%asseses®zs Coarse
16.0
22.6
74
•s.o• Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
76
;.;s.s,o, c.x s,
a..e..os.o•.o.o.
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
78
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
88
Small
64
90
10 1
10
10
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
I`•€rii Small
362
512
100
''•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'11 Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
60 40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
? 40
y 30
u 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO-01/2016 MYl-08/2016 --*-- MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50=
Silt/Clay
D�4 =
55.6
D95 =
81.3
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
? 40
y 30
u 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
f MYO-01/2016 MYl-08/2016 --*-- MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018.
UT1, Cross -Section 2
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
u 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)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
Class
Percent
D95 =
9.4
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
88
88
88
Very fine
0.062
0.125
88
Fine
0.125
0.250
M
u
88
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
90
Coarse
0.5
1.0
20
90
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
90
+ ®® Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
90
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
92
aaw.o•.,o•.,o•.,o;;s..a..aw Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
94
Fine
5.6
8.0
■ MYO-01/2016
94
Medium
scce; 'ssce
%s Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
2
96
98
•;,s-'Q%s
Coarse
16.0 1
22.6
2
2
100
e®c®®®®®®®®®®®a c®
e•:gec�4,-aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
1
100
<a?a`<>`<>`a>`•o•'<><><><><><pa¢<s: Very Coarse
32
45
100
Very Coarse
45
64
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128 1
180
100
Large
180
256
100
111111 Small
256
362
100
HHHHHHH:II Small
362
512
100
Medium
i
512
1024
100
HHHHll
: Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
u 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)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
Cross -Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D84 =
#N/A
D95 =
9.4
D100 =
22.6
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
u 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)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
UT1, Cross -Section 2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
iu
60
a
H
50
M
u
40
m
30
v
20
10
0
p by h 1
by
00 oti o. o•
'L b 0 1ti ,y0 0 .�'L by 6P �O ,LW �O y6 6'L ,y'L ,tiQ a0 A�
v h tiv ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2016
0 MYl-08/2016 ■ MY2-04/2017 ■ MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018.
UT1, Cross -Section 4
100
90
80
70
60
,S 50
E
u 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
39.04
D50 =
Class
Percent
85.4
D95 =
110.5
Count
128.0
90
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
u
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
30
4
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
4
4
8
+ ®® Very Fine
2.0 1
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1 2
10
Medium
scce; 'ssce
8.0
11.0
2
2
12
$1%s •;,s%,Q1%s Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
16
Coarse
16.0 1
22.6
6
6
22
4,,eco®ooeepq� Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
28
s, ceo;•oo;,o; s:o:p::;w
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
40
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
62
Small
64
90
26
26
88
Small
90
128
12
12
100
Large
128 1
180
100
Large
180
256
100
111111 Small
256
362
100
Il Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
,S 50
E
u 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
16.00
D35 =
39.04
D50 =
52.8
D84 =
85.4
D95 =
110.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
,S 50
E
u 40
y 30
a 20
10
UT1, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-01/2016 tMYl-08/2016 �MY2-04/2017 --o—MY3-04/2018
UT1, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
d
�
iu
60
a
H
50
2
40
u
30
m
v
20
10
0
p by by h 1
o
- � b 6 W
v h ti ti ti 3 h
00 oti o,
tiv do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2016
■ MY1-08/2016 MY2-04/2017 ■ MY3-04/2018

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Reach
Occurrence
MY of
Occurrence
Date of
Method
UT1
MY1
7/11/2016
Crest Gage
MY2
6/20/2017
Crest Gage/Stream Gage
MY3
9/17/2018
Stream Gage
10/12/2018
10/27/2018
11/5/2018
UT2
MY1
7/11/2016
Crest Gage
10/8/2016
MY2
6/20/2017
MY3
11/5/2018
Wrack Line
Crooked Creek
MY1
7/11/2016
Crest Gage
10/8/2016
MY2
6/20/2017
Crest Gage
MY3
11/5/2018
Wrack Line

Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 964687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Summary
of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During
through 7
Growing
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4
Year 5 (2020)
Gage
(2017)
(2019)
No/0 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
1
(0%)
(3%)
(5%)
No/2 Days
No/8 Days
No/13 Days
2
(0.9%)
(4%)
(6%)
No/1 Days
No/9 Days
Yes/29 Days
3
(0.4%)
(4%)
(13%)
No/0 Days
No/6 Days
No/10 Days
4
(0%)
(3%)
(4%)
No/1 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
5
(0.4%)
(3%)
(5%)
Yes/26 Days
Yes/75 Days
Yes/88 Days
6
(11.5°/x)
(33%)
(39%)
yes/18 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/45 Days
7
(8%)
(21%)
(20%)
No/14 Days
Yes/31 Days
Yes/45 Days
8
(6.2%)
(14%)
(20%)
No/1 Days
No/7 Days
No/13 Days
9
(0.4%)
(3%)
(6%)
No/2 Days
No/11 Days
No/10 Days
10
(0.9%)
(5%)
(4%)
Growing season 3/23/2018-11/4/2018
Success Criteria is 17 consecutive days
Gages meeting criteria: MY1 = 2/10, MY2 = 3/10, MY3 = 4/10.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #1
V oo
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
00
20
Som
oZN
6.0
m
0
0
0
10
r
m
w
5.0
0
4.0
10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
a
—
-20
3.0 w
c
mm
oc0e
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
LL Q
— nn a
Q V)
> u
O z
Rainfall Gage #1 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
-20
v
Y
(6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
a> C — nn a
ii Q Q Vii
Rainfall Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
L
3.0 w
L
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
a> C — nn a
ii Q Q Vii
Rainfall Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
L
3.0 w
L
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
a> C 75 nn a
ii Q Q Vii
Rainfall Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
L
3.0 w
L
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
-20
v
ca
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
a> C — nn a
ii Q Q Vii
Rainfall Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
L
3.0 w
L
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-� -10
c
w
-20
A
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
L T C
LaL Q Q t4j
Rainfall Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
o \
6.0
0
5.0
4.0
3.0 w
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
u > N
Z

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
a
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
TCC — mo fl_
i g ¢ Q in
Rainfall Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 ,m
c
z
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
0 O N
z o

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
Crooked Creek Groundwater Gage #8
00
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
00
��
ons
200�
o
6.0
m
w
10
o
a
f6
)
c:
u
5.0
0
4.0
10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a
-
-20
hi
3.0 w
c
v
m
'm
oe
3
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
LL QQ
— nn a
V)
> u
O z
Rainfall Gage #8 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
-20
v
Y
(6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
a> C — nn a
ii Q Q Vii
Rainfall Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
L
3.0 w
L
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0
u
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Restoration
20
10
0
-10
Gl
>
-20
v
Y
(6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
— nn a > u
Rainfall Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
r-
3.0
3.0 w
c
.m
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Stream Gage Events
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project (DMS Project No. 94687)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Crooked Creek: Stream Gage for UT1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
545 5.0
4.5
544 4.0
3.5
543 3.0
a �
2.5
LL i Lk c
3 542 — — — _ — — 2.0rF
z
1.5
541 1.0
0.5
540 0.0
C T C 75 OD CL > V
LL
Q 5 Q in O Z p
Rainfall UT1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation —• -eankfull

Monthly Rainfall Data
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94687
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
`30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000). (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)
Crooked Creek 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Union County, NC
10
9
8
7
c
r
6
0
m
5
'a
v
4
a
3
2
1
0
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18 Nov -18 Dec -18
Date
USGS Station 351218080331345 CRN -29 at Belk Scout Camp —30% Rainfall —70% Rainfall
`30th and 70th percentile rainfall data generated from WETS Table: Monroe, NC5771 (1971-2000). (USDA Field Office Climate Data, 2016)