20130865 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190122

M1092tion Project Name seat site
DMS ID 95353
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030007
County Duplin USACE Action ID 201201384
Data Project Instituted 811/2012 NCDWR Permit No 20134865
Date Prepared 6122/2010
Cmdt Release Milestone
Potential Credits Moi ation Plan
PeteMbl Credits(ASAuRt Survey)
Scheduled
Releases
IStreaml
Warm Cool
10,213.000
10,177.667
Cold Andclpm.d
Release Year
(sm.)
Actual
Release date
(Stream)
scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Rip
Rivedne
5'090
5.250
Welland Credits
kpeden Non Nontlpatlan
tivedne Scheduled
Releases
(Coastal
Coastal ed
ear
)
Actual
Release Date
(Wetlaptlli
SM Establishment
WA
1.905.000
WA
N/A
NIA
NIA
N/A2
ear 0l ASBu9t
30%
3,D59.380
2016
2/192016
30%
1.575
30%
V1920163(Year
l Menlrodn
10%
1.017.7672016
>o°b
4252016
10%
0.525
10%
42520164(Year2
a
Monitorin)
10%
1417.787
2017
101202017
10%
0.525
15%
102020175
ear 3 Monitorin
10%
1,017.787
2018
425/2018
15%
0.788
20%
42520186
ear4 Monitorin
S%
2018
5%
1by.
] Year 5 Monitorin
10%
169200
2020
4.595.000
1SA
1YA
e year 6 Monkgrin
5A
20215%
NIA
rl MonhoHn
10%
2022
10%
WA
stream Bankfuh Standard
10%
1,017.787
2017
10202017
WA
N/A
Total Credits Released to Date
],120.50]
3.413
DEBITS (released credits only)
Rectos 1 1.5 2.5 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5
il
le
1 - 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 thefollming cmena
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 porJects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event perfornance Standard has been met
o
Z6
n
U p
nU
fJ
n{
l] d
ASAulltAmounts(feet and acres)
5,02$.000
1.905.000
612000
19,807.000
5.250
AsBuift AmounmhniNgationcredits)
S,Ori.000
868.66]
J20.800
3,961400
5.250
Peromm, Released
]0°6
]0%
>o°b
70%
65%
Released Amounts (tam l acres)
J,516.100
913.100
S68A00
13,860.900
3.413
Released Amountz(credim)
J,Si8.100
608.06]
2TT.J60
2,]]2980
3.413
NCOWRPeonit USACEAmcn10 Project Name
NCDOT TIP U4751 -Whey
Cutoff Fxtenslan, New
2016-1268 200741386 Hanover County
2,009200
169200
1
4.595.000
Remaining Amounts (feet l acres)
1,506.900
742900
568.400
9,269.901
3.4131 1
Remaining Amounts(credds)
1.506.900
495.267
22].360
1,853.9801
3.4131 1
il
le
1 - 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 thefollming cmena
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 porJects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event perfornance Standard has been met

BEST STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
MONITORING REPORT
MONITORING YEAR 4
FINAL
DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT No. 004631 -PROJECT No. 95353
USACE Action ID No. 2012-01384 -NCDWR Project No. 13-0865
Prepared for:
Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
January 2019

fires
January 22, 2019
Jeff Schaffer
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID
95353)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 14, 2018 regarding the Best Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
Digital drawings:
Ensure stream length attributes and wetland acre attributes in the respective shapefiles
reflect assets/credits in Table 1 as required by contract and stated in DMS's Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP version 1.0
(03/27/08).
The design stream alignment shapefile and the Mitigation Plan wetland restoration shapefile
is included in the Support Files.
Table 5, UT4 shows an area of scour/erosion. Please provide GIS shapefile.
Done.
Tables 7 and 8 show stream problem areas and vegetation problem areas but there is no
corresponding GIS shapefile. Please provide necessary shapefiles.
The stream problem areas were repaired in December 2018. The GIS shapefile for the
vegetation problem areas is included and labeled "Best_CCPV_Veg_Conditions_MY4".
2. Based on discussions from the 2016 IRT credit release, RES had the choice of submitting a
credit modification request to the IRT to use credits based on As -Built or revert to approved
mitigation plan credits. During the MY3 review, RES stated that they would not be submitting
an asset revision request and would revert to the approved mitigation plan assets.
Unfortunately, this was not done when the MY3 report was approved. Based on this, please
revise all asset tables in Section 1.3, page 5 and Appendix A Table 1 to approved mitigation
plan assets/credits.
Done.
3. Section 1.3, page 5: Revise the first paragraph of this section to reflect that project
assets/credits have now been reverted to approved mitigation plan assets/credits. What is in
the report now is a regurgitation of what was written last year.
Done.
res.us

0
4. Section 5.1.5, page 17: The report states that "Rainfall data reported by CRONOS station
Albert Ellis Airport (KOAJ) indicated rainfall was below average during the months of
February, March, June, and September." Please verify data for September given that
Hurricane Florence hit this area in mid- September 2018.
The Albert Ellis Airport rain gauge malfunctioned during Hurricane Florence. More accurate
rain data from the Williamsdale Field Lab was used to supplement the Albert Ellis Airport rain
data.
5. Appendix A: Please submit Tables 1 through 4 as Excel files per the monitoring guidance.
Done.
6. Appendix B, Table 5 (all): Provide description of red asterisk as footnote or remove if not
necessary in both hardcopy and digital files.
The red asterisk has been removed.
7. Appendix D: Make notation on appendix cover sheet and in Table of Contents that Stream
Geomorphology Data/monitoring was not required for MY4.
Done.
8. Appendix E:
2018 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs: In reviewing these hydrographs, it
appears that the entire growing season was not observed for the wetland assessment/gauge
data collection. Please explain why not.
The wetland assessment/gauge data only represents 91 % of the growing season because
the last monitoring site visit for 2018 was October 24. Despite missing data from the last 22
days of the growing season, all wetland gauges met the success criteria.
Verify rainfall data for September. Looks low based on impacts from Hurricane Florence.
The Albert Ellis Airport rain gauge malfunctioned during Hurricane Florence. More accurate
rain data from the Williamsdale Field Lab was used to supplement the Albert Ellis Airport rain
data.
9. Please print this report double -sided.

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
Best
Duplin County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95353
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030007060010
Prepared by:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................ 3
1.1 Location and Setting...............................................................................................................
3
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................
3
1.3 Project Structure.....................................................................................................................
5
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach..................................................................................... 5
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data.......................................................................11
1.4.1 Project History..............................................................................................................
11
1.4.2 Project Watersheds.......................................................................................................
11
2 Success Criteria............................................................................................................................
11
2.1 Stream Restoration...............................................................................................................
11
2.1.1 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
11
2.1.2 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................
12
2.1.3 Bank Pin Arrays...........................................................................................................
12
2.1.4 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
12
2.2 Wetland Restoration.............................................................................................................
12
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria..................................................................................................
13
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting...........................................................................................................13
3 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................................
13
3.1 Stream Restoration...............................................................................................................
13
3.1.1 As -Built Survey............................................................................................................
13
3.1.2 Bankfull Events............................................................................................................
13
3.1.3 Cross Sections..............................................................................................................
14
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations..................................................................................................
14
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays...........................................................................................................
14
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring.....................................................................................
14
3.1.7 Surface Flow.................................................................................................................
14
3.2 Wetland Hydrology..............................................................................................................
15
3.3 Vegetation............................................................................................................................
15
4 Maintenance and Contingency plan.............................................................................................
15
4.1 Stream...................................................................................................................................15
4.2 Wetlands...............................................................................................................................
15
4.3 Vegetation............................................................................................................................
16
5 Year 4 Monitoring Conditions (MY4).........................................................................................
16
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection......................................................................................
16
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel.............................................................................
16
5.1.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................16
5.1.3 Photo Documentation...................................................................................................
16
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology........................................................................................................
16
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology......................................................................................................
17
6 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................17
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC ii

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
Appendices
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information Summary
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project USGS Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Figure 4. Vegetation Plot Photos
Figure 5. Stream Problem Photos
Figure 6. Vegetation Problem Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
(Not required for MY4)
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Summary
2018 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 8. Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Figure 9. Headwater Valley Restoration Flow Chart
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC iii

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
1 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Location and Setting
The Best Stream and Wetland Site is located in Duplin County approximately two miles east of
Beulaville, NC (Figure 1). To access the downstream end of the site from the town of Beulaville,
travel 0.6 miles east on NC HWY 24, take a right onto Lyman Road (SR 1801), and continue 1.6
miles southeast to the crossing with Muddy Creek. Reaches UT7, UT8, UT9, UT 10 and the lower end
of Muddy Creek may all be accessed from Lyman Road. Reaches UT5 and UT6 are located just south
of NC HWY 24, approximately 1.9 miles east of Beulaville. The upstream portion of the site may be
accessed from two locations. Reaches UTI, UT2 and Muddy Creek are located to the south of NC
HWY 24, opposite of the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Penny Road (SR 1720), approximately 2.8
miles east of Beulaville. To access reaches UT3, UT4 and Muddy Creek, travel 3.2 miles east on NC
HWY 24 from Beulaville to Edwards Road (SR 1835), continue south for approximately 1.0 mile,
turn right onto Put Lane, and follow the road down to Reaches UT3 and UT4.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Best stream and wetland mitigation project will provide numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project
area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-
reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined below.
Design Goals and Objectives
Benefits Related to Water Quality
Benefit will be achieved through filtering of runoff from adjacent CAFOs through buffer areas, the
Nutrient removal
conversion of active farm fields to forested buffers, improved denitrification and nutrient uptake
through buffer zones, and installation of BMPs at the headwaters of selected reaches and ditch outlets.
Benefit will be achieved through the stabilization of eroding stream banks and reduction of sediment
Sediment removal
loss from field areas due to lack of vegetative cover. Channel velocities will also be decreased through
a reduction in slope, therefore decreasing erosive forces.
Increase dissolved oxygen
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures to increase turbulence and
concentration
dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower water temperature to increase dissolved oxygen capacity.
Runoff filtration
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff,
thereby reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream.
Benefits to Flood Attenuation
Water storage
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of buffer areas which will infiltrate more water during
precipitation events than under current site conditions.
Improved groundwater
Benefit will be achieved through the increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
recharge
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of water will lead to improved
infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Improved/restored
Benefit will be achieved by restoring the stream to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately
hydrologic connections
sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more frequently at flows greater than
the bankfull stage.
Benefits Related to Ecological Processes
Restoration of habitats
Benefit will be achieved by restoring riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland hardwood
ecosystem.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
Improved substrate and
Benefit will be achieved through the construction of instream structures designed to improve bedform
instream cover
diversity and to trap detritus. Substrate will become coarser as a result of the stabilization of stream
banks and an overall decrease in the amount of fine materials deposited in the stream.
Addition of large woody
Benefit will be achieved through the addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design.
debris
Such structures may include log vanes, root wads, and log weirs.
Reduced temperature of
water due to shading
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas.
Restoration of terrestrial
habitat
Benefit will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats.
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 cataloging units.
RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream
and riparian buffer restoration. These TLWs receive priority for DMS planning and restoration
project funds. Currently, no Local Watershed Plan (LWT) is available for the project area.
The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin River Basin Restoration Priorities (RPRP) identified HUC
03030007060010 as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The watershed is characterized by 52
percent agricultural land use area with Muddy Creek identified as Impaired for aquatic life because of
a Fair benthic community rating. The Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project was identified as
a stream and wetland opportunity to improve water quality, habitat, and hydrology within the TLW.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Reducing runoff from animal operations,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Establishing riparian buffer areas adjacent to CAFOs,
• Converting active farm field to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Improving and protecting portions of headwater systems that discharge to a 303d listed
stream,
• Reduction in stream bank slope,
• Restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Construction of in -stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity and trap detritus.
The Best stream and wetland mitigation project is located within the northern (upstream) portion of
the TLW and includes sections of Muddy Creek (303d listed) and headwater streams that discharge
into Muddy Creek. Due to its location and improvements, the project provides numerous ecological
and water quality benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited
to the project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat,
have more far-reaching effects. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration
of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and
construction of in -stream structures to improve habitat diversity, addresses the degraded water quality
and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Cape
Fear RBRP.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
1.3 Project Structure
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. RES does not plan on submitting an asset revision
and will revert to the Approved Mitigation Plan assets. The assets under the "Proposed SMUs" and
"Proposed WMUs" are the Approved Mitigation Plan assets.
Total 5.12 5.12 5.25
*The contracted amount of credits for this Site is 4.40 WMUs
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
UTI
Priority Level 1 restoration was completed for UT1 to address all existing impairments, particularly
the greatly oversized channel and lack of bedform diversity. The design approach included
meandering the channel within the natural valley and backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 50
foot buffer was established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because the pre-existing
buffer was devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris was installed along the bed to
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 5
Proposed Length
Mitigation
Wetland
Reach
Mitigation Type*
proposed WMUs Baseline WMUs
ProposedSMUs
Baseline SMUs
(ac)
Ratio
(LN)
Ratio
Restoration
3.66
Uri
P1 Restoration
1,723
1:1
1,723
1,757
Uri
SP & BE
303
1:5
61
56
UT2
P1 Restoration
2,770
1:1
2,770
2,772
Ur2
SP & BE
309
1:5
62
66
UT3
Enhancement H
812
1:2.5
325
325
UT3
SP & BE
64
1:5
13
13
UT4
HVRestoration
510
1:1
510
494
UT4
SP & BE
655
1:5
131
129
UT5
SP & BE
4,043
1:5
809
809
UT6
Enhancement I
538
1:1.5
359
359
UT7
SP & BE
3,183
1:5
637
637
U1r8
Enhancement I
825
1:1.5
550
510
UT8
SP & BE
313
1:5
63
63
UT9
SP & BE
1,171
1:5
234
221
UTI 0
SP & BE
768
1:5
154
154
Muddy Creek
SP & BE
9,073
1:5
1,815
1,815
Total
27,060
10,213
10,178
*P 1=Priority 1, SP & BE= Steram Preservation
and Buffer Enhancement, HV= Headwater Valley
**The contracted
amount of credits for this
Site is 10,133 SMUs
Total 5.12 5.12 5.25
*The contracted amount of credits for this Site is 4.40 WMUs
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
UTI
Priority Level 1 restoration was completed for UT1 to address all existing impairments, particularly
the greatly oversized channel and lack of bedform diversity. The design approach included
meandering the channel within the natural valley and backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 50
foot buffer was established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because the pre-existing
buffer was devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris was installed along the bed to
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 5
Mitigation Area
Mitigation
Wetland
Mitigation Type
proposed WMUs Baseline WMUs
(ac)
Ratio
W1
Restoration
3.66
1:1
3.66 3.77
W2
Restoration
0.29
1:1
0.29 0.31
W3A
Restoration
0.58
1:1
0.58 0.58
W3B
Restoration
0.59
1:1
0.59 0.59
Total 5.12 5.12 5.25
*The contracted amount of credits for this Site is 4.40 WMUs
1.3.1 Restoration Type and Approach
UTI
Priority Level 1 restoration was completed for UT1 to address all existing impairments, particularly
the greatly oversized channel and lack of bedform diversity. The design approach included
meandering the channel within the natural valley and backfilling the existing stream. A minimum 50
foot buffer was established and planted with native riparian vegetation. Because the pre-existing
buffer was devoid of significant woody vegetation, woody debris was installed along the bed to
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 5

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
improve in -stream habitat. Livestock was excluded with fencing installed along the easement
boundary. An existing CMP culvert located along the middle of the reach was removed and replaced
downstream at station 13+75 to allow the landowner access to both sides of the property. Stream
Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed for the downstream section of the channel
where it flows through a forested buffer down to the confluence with Muddy Creek. Buffer
enhancement activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide applications
and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES
will continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will
be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments will be timed
in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective control.
Considering such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not
feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does expect to
achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan. The goal of
the treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural communities
are present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT2
Similar to UTI, Priority 1 restoration was completed for UT2 to address historic straightening and
channel enlargement. The existing channel was backfilled, and the restored channel was relocated
such that it meanders within the existing valley. A diffuse flow structure was installed at the ditch
adjacent to the proposed crossing. The structure was placed such that flows from the existing ditch
will be attenuated to establish sheet flow as the water enters the restored channel. All areas within the
minimum 50 foot buffer were planted with native riparian vegetation. An existing 60" CMP culvert
located at station 20+25 of the reach was removed and replaced with a 48" HDPE culvert to allow the
landowner access to the entire property. Additionally, the existing culvert at the upstream end of UT2
was upgraded to a 48" HDPE culvert and reset to more effectively transition the existing channel
upstream into the project stream. Priority Level I restoration was appropriate for this channel because
it was the only mitigation approach that would address bed and bank instability, establish a forested
riparian buffer, and significantly enhance aquatic habitat. Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement was completed for the most downstream section, where the channel enters the existing
forested buffer, down to its confluence with Muddy Creek. Buffer enhancement activities included
the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide applications and/or mechanical control as well as
planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive
species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will be dependent on monitoring
results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments will be timed in accordance with specific
invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective control. Considering such factors as the
influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not feasible to expect complete
eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does expect to achieve significant
reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan. The goal of the treatment
program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural communities are present and
on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT3
Enhancement Level II was completed on Reach UT3 due to the channel's stability and appropriate
size. The design approach on this reach focused on improving the riparian buffer. The existing hog
lagoon located within buffer on the west side of the reach has remained in place, preventing the
generation of stream credits for approximately 600 linear feet. Through this section, the left buffer
was extended out to a minimum of 75 feet along the left bank, and the right buffer was extended just
past top of bank. The existing crossing located at station 8+50 was replaced and upgraded with a 30"
HDPE pipe, allowing the landowner continued access across his property. Additional bank grading
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
and stabilization was included in the culvert replacement. The grading of pools and the installation of
woody debris structures was performed along the reach to improve aquatic habitat. Upstream of the
crossing, a 75 -foot buffer was restored along the east bank where the channel currently flowed
through an active pasture. A 100 -foot buffer was implemented for the headwater origin point to
further protect water quality from cattle access. Cattle have been excluded with fencing. All areas
within the buffer were planted with native riparian vegetation. Stream Preservation and Buffer
Enhancement was implemented along the downstream end where the channel enters the Muddy Creek
floodplain. Buffer enhancement activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by
herbicide applications and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely
vegetated areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis.
Additional treatments will be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These
treatments will be timed in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most
effective control. Considering such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent
land, it is not feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES
does expect to achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control
plan. The goal of the treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target
natural communities are present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT4
Headwater valley restoration was completed for the upper section of UT4. The existing channel was
backfilled, and flow was directed from its current position east back to the historic valley location. A
minor amount of earthwork was completed in the headwater valley restoration apart from ditch
plugging to tie the existing ditch back to the natural valley. Areas within the 100 foot buffer that were
disturbed or lacked riparian vegetation were planted. Cattle were excluded from the buffer through
the installation of fencing. An existing 15" CPP culvert crossing located at station 8+50 of the reach
was removed and replaced with triple 18" HDPE culverts. This crossing was relocated to the low
spot in the valley to allow the landowner continued access to an agricultural field west of the channel.
Downstream of the crossing, a smaller low flow channel was constructed within the natural valley.
This segment now connects the upstream headwater valley section to the existing channel
approximately 230 feet below the crossing. Due to the stable nature of the buffer along the
downstream reach of UT4, Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was implemented from just
downstream of the crossing to the confluence with Muddy Creek. Buffer enhancement activities
included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide applications and/or mechanical control
as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES will continue to conduct
invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will be dependent on
monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments will be timed in accordance
with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective control. Considering such factors
as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not feasible to expect complete
eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does expect to achieve significant
reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan. The goal of the treatment
program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural communities are present and
on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT5
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed on UT5. The channel is stable
throughout the easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The easement boundary extends a
minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or the limit of adjacent riparian wetlands,
whichever is wider. The riparian buffer is an intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet.
Buffer enhancement activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide
applications and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated
areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
treatments will be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments
will be timed in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective
control. Considering such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it
is not feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does
expect to achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan.
The goal of the treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural
communities are present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT6
Enhancement Level I was completed on UT6. The mitigation approach on this reach focused on bank
stabilization, bedform diversity, and improving the riparian buffer. The existing channel was impaired
by channelization, vertical un -vegetated banks, and a dense privet understory within the buffer. The
grading of pools, grade control structures, and the installation of woody debris structures were
implemented along the reach to improve aquatic habitat. All disturbed areas within the riparian buffer
were planted with native riparian vegetation.
UT7
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed on UT7. The channel is stable
throughout the easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The easement boundary extends a
minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or the limit of adjacent riparian wetlands,
whichever is wider. The riparian buffer is an intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet.
Buffer enhancement activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide
applications and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated
areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional
treatments will be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments
will be timed in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective
control. Considering such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it
is not feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does
expect to achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan.
The goal of the treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural
communities are present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
UT8
Enhancement Level I was completed on UT8. The mitigation approach on this reach focused on bank
stabilization, bedform diversity, and riparian buffer restoration. The existing channel was impaired by
channelization, localized bank instability, and cleared agricultural land in the buffer. Stabilization
activities included grading a floodplain bench, installing grade control structures, and installing
woody debris structures to improve hydraulic efficiency and aquatic habitat. All disturbed areas
within the riparian buffer were planted with native riparian vegetation. Stream Preservation and
Buffer Enhancement was completed on 313 linear feet where the channel enters the existing forested
buffer, down to its confluence with Muddy Creek. Buffer enhancement activities included the
treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide applications and/or mechanical control as well as
planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive
species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will be dependent on monitoring
results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments will be timed in accordance with specific
invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective control. Considering such factors as the
influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not feasible to expect complete
eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does expect to achieve significant
reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan. The goal of the treatment
program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural communities are present and
on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
UT9
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed on UT9. The stream is channelized, but
stable throughout the easement. The active channel is meandering within the larger excavated channel
bottom. The riparian buffer is intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet. The easement
boundary extends a minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or to the limit of adjacent
riparian wetlands, whichever is wider. Buffer enhancement activities included the treatment of
invasive exotic species by herbicide applications and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare
root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive species treatments
on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory
agency guidance. These treatments will be timed in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant
phenology for the most effective control. Considering such factors as the influence of established
invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted
invasive species. However, RES does expect to achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive
exotic species through this control plan. The goal of the treatment program is control of invasive
exotic species such that the target natural communities are present and on a positive trajectory at
project closeout.
UT10
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed on UT10. The channel is stable
throughout the easement and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. The easement boundary extends a
minimum of 50 feet outward from the stream channel, or the limit of adjacent riparian wetlands,
whichever is wider. The riparian buffer is an intact hardwood forest with localized areas of privet.
Buffer enhancement activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide
applications and/or mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated
areas. RES will continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional
treatments will be dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments
will be timed in accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective
control. Considering such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it
is not feasible to expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does
expect to achieve significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan.
The goal of the treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural
communities are present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
Muddy Creek
Stream Preservation and Buffer Enhancement was completed for the majority of Muddy Creek. The
buffer was restored and increased to a width of 75 feet along the south side. Buffer enhancement
activities included the treatment of invasive exotic species by herbicide applications and/or
mechanical control as well as planting bare root seedlings in sparsely vegetated areas. RES will
continue to conduct invasive species treatments on an as needed basis. Additional treatments will be
dependent on monitoring results and regulatory agency guidance. These treatments will be timed in
accordance with specific invasive exotic plant phenology for the most effective control. Considering
such factors as the influence of established invasive exotics on adjacent land, it is not feasible to
expect complete eradication of the targeted invasive species. However, RES does expect to achieve
significant reduction of targeted invasive exotic species through this control plan. The goal of the
treatment program is control of invasive exotic species such that the target natural communities are
present and on a positive trajectory at project closeout.
Wetland W1
Wetland W 1 is located at the headwater of UT 1 and has a natural constriction at the outlet. The soil is
a sandy loam/loamy sandy underlain by clayey textured subsoil that forms an effective restrictive
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
layer to groundwater loss. This area receives runoff from NC HWY 24. Based upon soil and
landscape position, it is likely this area has a seasonal seepage along the upper boundary.
Site modifications included removal of dredged and excavated materials, plugging the ditch, and
raising the streambed elevation to bring the water table closer to the ground surface. Additional
temporal habitat was constructed to eliminate surface leveling and smoothing for agricultural use. The
temporal habitat is variable to mimic sloughs, oxbows, root -tips and other shallow natural features.
During monitoring, beaver activity will be controlled to allow the site to stabilize and vegetative
community to establish. After the monitoring period, the site is designed to promote and tolerate
beaver activity. No hydrologic trespass is anticipated due to beaver activity in this wetland. These
modifications will increase storage and eliminate the rapid loss of surface water. This area may
receive limited overbank flows due to location in the headwater of UT 1. Subsoil ripping and roughing
of the soil surface were performed to ameliorate soil compaction and create an uneven surface more
conducive for surface water retention, infiltration, and increase storage that would be present in
natural wetland systems.
Wetland W2
Wetland W2 is located at the toe slope along Muddy Creek and UT2. The soil is a sandy loam/loamy
sandy underlain by sandy clay loam and sandy clay. This site is at a low elevation and is influenced
by the water table on the floodplain of Muddy Creek. It is unlikely that groundwater loss is significant
during most of the year. This area has a small watershed, but flooding from UT2 and Muddy Creek
will increase hydrologic storage.
Hydrology was restored by removing dredge material along the channel and raising the streambed
elevation, bringing the water table closer to the ground surface. Site modifications included subsoil
ripping, crown removal, and surface roughing of the area. Additional temporal habitat was
constructed to eliminate the surface leveling and smoothing for agricultural use. The temporal habitat
is variable to mimic sloughs, root -tips and other shallow natural features. This ameliorates past soil
leveling and compaction and creates an uneven surface more conducive of infiltration and storage that
would be present in natural wetland systems.
Wetland W3
Wetland W3 is composed of two similar area (W3a and W3b) located at the toe slope along Muddy
Creek. A low finger of soil separates them. The soil in these areas is a loamy sand/sandy loam. The
surrounding upland is underlain by clayey subsoil that forms an effective restrictive layer that lateral
flow rides provide additional hydrological input. A ditch is located upslope of these areas and
alongside W3a that drains to Muddy Creek.
The soil is a sandy loam/loamy sand. The surrounding upland has a sandy clay loam and sandy clay
that form an effective restrictive layer that lateral flow rides provide additional hydrological input.
Both areas have small watersheds, but W3b receives groundwater seepage along the toe of slope
diverted by the upslope ditch.
Hydrology was restored by filling ditches and enhancing the concave topography by removing soil
material where cultivation had filled low features and leveled the surface to facilitate cultivation.
Additional groundwater seepage diverted by the ditch was restored to these wetlands. Temporal
habitat was constructed to eliminate the surface leveling and smoothing for agricultural use. Subsoil
ripping and surface roughing of the area was performed to ameliorate soil compaction and create an
uneven surface more conducive of infiltration and storage that would be present in natural wetland
systems.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 10

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
1.4.1 Project History
The Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Site was restored by Resource Environmental Solutions,
LLC (RES) through a full -delivery contract awarded by NCDMS in 2012. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix A provide a time sequence and information pertaining to the project activities, history,
contacts, and baseline information.
1.4.2 Project Watersheds
The easement totals 142.7 acres and the project streams include ten unnamed tributaries to Muddy
Creek and a portion of Muddy Creek extending from approximately 0.3 miles west of Edwards Road
to 0.4 miles past Lyman Road. The total drainage area at the downstream limits of the project is 2,928
acres (4.58 mi2). The land use in the project watershed is approximately 47 percent cultivated
cropland, 21 percent evergreen and deciduous forest, 13 percent shrub/scrub, ten percent bottomland
forest/hardwood swamp, three percent developed, and six percent managed herbaceous cover and
pasture.
UT1 has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (41 acres), and flows in a southerly direction to the
confluence with Muddy Creek. UT2 flows south to its confluence with Muddy Creek and has a
drainage area of 0.23 square miles (146 acres). UT3 is located to the south of Muddy Creek, opposite
of UT2, and flows to the north and into Muddy Creek. This reach has a drainage area of 0.09 square
miles (56 acres). UT4 is located to the west of UT3 and discharges to Muddy Creek. This reach has a
drainage area of 0.13 square miles (82 acres). UT5 flows in a southerly direction from NC HWY 24
to Muddy Creek and has a drainage area of 0.59 square miles (380 acres). UT6 flows southeast to its
confluence with UT5 and has a drainage area of 0.12 square miles (79 acres). UT7 flows in a
southerly direction east of Lyman Road down to its confluence with UT5 before discharging to
Muddy Creek. UT7 has a drainage area of 0.60 square miles (387 acres). UT8 has a drainage area of
0.09 square miles (56 acres), and flows in an easterly direction through a cultivated field east of
Lyman Road down to the confluence with UT7. UT9 flows southeast to its confluence with Muddy
Creek and has a drainage area of 0.06 square miles (36 acres). UT 10 is the downstream -most tributary
within the Best Site and flows in a westerly direction from a farm crossing west of Lyman Road down
to Muddy Creek. UT10 has a drainage area of 0.48 square miles (306 acres). Muddy Creek is a stable
swamp stream system with intact hardwood forest floodplain, extending from approximately 0.3
miles west of Edwards Road to 0.5 miles south of Lyman Road. Muddy Creek has a drainage area of
4.6 square miles (2,930 acres) at the downstream limits and has an existing length of 9,214 linear feet.
2 Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Best Site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in
the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency guidance. Specific
success criteria components are presented below.
2.1 Stream Restoration
2.1.1 Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 11

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will be documented
using crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments for evidence of
debris rack lines.
2.1.2 Cross Sections
There should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Starting in
MY3, BHR was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used
because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation. None
of the restoration riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR. Two cross sections on Enhancement I
reaches did exceed 1.2 but both have baseline bankfull elevations below top of bank. Cross-sections
are classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
2.1.3 Bank Pin Arrays
Bank pin arrays will be used as a supplemental method to monitor erosion on selected meander bends
where there is not a cross section. Bank pin arrays will be installed along the outer bend of the
meander. Bank pins will be installed just above the water surface and every two feet above the lowest
pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the exposed pin will be driven
flush with the bank, there should be little change in as -built cross-sections. If changes do take place,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition
(for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for
example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored
cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type.
2.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images
should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in
channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
2.2 Wetland Restoration
Success criteria and monitoring for wetland hydrology within the wetland restoration areas on the site
follows NCDMS Guidance dated 7 November 2011. The target minimum wetland hydroperiod is 9
percent of the growing season. Stream hydrology and water balance calculations indicate the wetland
area will meet jurisdictional criteria (5 percent hydroperiod). However, due to immature vegetation
and reduced PET, a longer success criterion is appropriate. Auto recording gauges are used to
measure daily groundwater elevations throughout the Sampson County growing season in all 7 years
of monitoring.
If a hydrology gauge location fails to meet these success criteria in the seven year monitoring period
then monitoring may be extended, remedial actions may be undertaken, or groundwater modeling
may be used to demonstrate the limits of wetland restoration.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 12

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
2.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the wetland restoration and riparian
buffers on the site will follow NCDMS Guidance dated 7 November 2011. Vegetation monitoring
plots are a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area.
The following data is recorded for all trees in the plots: species, height, planting date (or volunteer),
and grid location. Monitoring occurs in the fall of Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The interim measures of
vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320 three-year old planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 3, and 260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5. The final vegetative success
criteria is the survival of 210 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 7 of the monitoring period.
Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant or alter
the desired community structure of the site. If necessary, RES will develop a species-specific control
plan.
2.4 Scheduling/Reporting
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward
achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology is assessed to determine the success of
the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success
criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCDMS.
The monitoring reports will include all information, and be in the format required by NCDMS in
Version 2.0 of the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template (Oct. 2010).
3 MONITORING PLAN
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the DMS monitoring template. Annual monitoring
shall be conducted for stream, wetland, and vegetation monitoring parameters as noted below.
3.1 Stream Restoration
3.1.1 As -Built Survey
An as -built survey was conducted following construction to document channel size, condition, and
location. The survey includes a complete profile of thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank
to compare with future geomorphic data. Longitudinal profiles will not be required in annual
monitoring reports unless requested by NCDMS or USACE.
3.1.2 Bankfull Events
Six sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UTI, UT2,
UT3, UT4, UT6, and one along UT8. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel
and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Manual crest gauges were installed
on the bank at bankfull elevation. Crest gauges will be checked during each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred since the last site visit. Crest gauge readings and debris rack lines will be
photographed to document evidence of bankfull events. Flow days will be reported on headwater
valley restoration reaches.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 13

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
3.1.3 Cross Sections
A total of 31 permanent cross sections were installed to monitor channel dimensions and stability.
Twelve cross sections were installed along UTI where Priority 1 restoration was performed. Twelve
cross sections (six pools and six shallows) were installed along UT2 also. UT4 has a total of two
cross sections installed throughout its length. Stream segment UT6 has two cross sections installed
along its length where enhancement activities were performed. On the UT8 side of the project, a total
of three cross sections were installed. Cross sections were typically located at representative riffle
and pool sections along each stream reach. Each cross section was permanently marked with 3/8 rebar
pin to establish a monument location at each end. A marker pole was also installed at both ends of
each cross section to allow ease locating during monitoring activities. Cross section surveys will be
performed once a year during annual monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and will include all breaks in
slope including top of bank, bottom of bank, streambed, edge of water, and thalweg.
3.1.4 Digital Image Stations
Digital photographs will be taken at least once a year to visually document stream and vegetation
conditions. This monitoring practice will continue for seven years following construction and
planting. Permanent photo point locations at cross sections and vegetation plots have been established
so that the same directional view and location may be repeated each monitoring year. Monitoring
photographs will also be used to document any stream and vegetation problematic areas such as
erosion, stream and bank instability, easement encroachment and vegetation damage.
3.1.5 Bank Pin Arrays
Eight bank pin array sets have been installed at pool cross sections located along UTI and UT2.
These bank pin arrays were installed along the upstream and downstream third of the meander. Bank
pins are a minimum of three feet long, and have been installed just above the water surface and every
two feet above the lowest pin. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event, and the
exposed pin will be driven flush with the bank.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment Monitoring
Visual monitoring of all mitigation areas is conducted a minimum of twice per monitoring year by
qualified individuals. The visual assessments include vegetation density, vigor, invasive species, and
easement encroachments. Visual assessments of stream stability include a complete stream walk and
structure inspection. Digital images are taken at fixed representative locations to record each
monitoring event as well as any noted problem areas or areas of concern. Results of visual monitoring
are presented in a plan view exhibit with a brief description of problem areas and digital images.
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel
depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks
over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
3.1.7 Surface Flow
The headwater valley restoration area on UT4 will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal
surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation, photo documentation of dye tests,
and continuous flow monitoring devices (pressure transducers). An auto logging crest gauge has been
installed within the headwater valley channel and will continuously record flow conditions at an
hourly interval. This gauge will be downloaded during each site visit to determine if intermittent or
seasonal flows conditions are present.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 14

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
3.2 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored to document hydric conditions in the wetland restoration areas.
This will be accomplished with automatic recording pressure transducer gauges installed in
representative locations across the restoration areas and reference wetland areas. A total of twelve
automatic recording pressure transducers (Auto -Wells) have been installed on the site. Nine auto -
wells have been installed within the wetland restoration area and three within reference areas. The
gauges will be downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods will be calculated during the growing
season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory and DMS guidance. Visual observations of
primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators will also be recorded during quarterly site visits.
3.3 Vegetation
A total of 23 vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer
easement. Vegetation plots measure 10 meters by 10 meters or 5 meters by 20 meters (0.02 acres) and
have all four corners marked with metal posts. Planted woody vegetation was assessed within each
plot to establish a baseline dataset. Within each vegetation plot, each planted stem was identified for
species, "X" and "Y" origin located, and measured for height. Reference digital photographs were
also captured to document baseline conditions. Species composition, density, growth patterns,
damaged stems, and survival ratios will be measured and reported on an annual basis. Vegetation plot
data will be reported for each plot as well as an overall site average.
4 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
All identified problematic areas or areas of concern such as stream bank erosion/instability,
aggradation/degradation, lack of targeted vegetation, and invasive/exotic species which prevent the
site from meeting performance success criteria will be evaluated on a case by case basis. These areas
will be documented and remedial actions will be discussed amongst NCDMS staff to determine a plan
of action. If it is determined remedial action is required, a plan will be provided.
4.1 Stream
Three stream problems were identified during the Year 4 monitoring period and have been mapped on
the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) (Figure 3). The fence problem area reported in MY3 was
repaired in January 2018. Stream problem area 1 (SPA1) consists of minor bank erosion on UT4 at
station 10+20. This area appears stable and RES plans to continue to monitor these areas to see if
they worsen. If conditions continue to worsen, livestakes and additional bank matting will be
installed along the banks. Stream problem area 2 (SPA2) is located on UT4 from station 8+47 to
8+67. This area consists of ponding on the road, due to downstream issue at SPA3. The area
involves adding fill material to eliminate the ponding on the road. SPA3 is located on UT4 from
station 8+75 to 11+03 and is attributed to the subsidence of the plug that had been installed at
construction. This problem is associated with the relic stream channel. Fill material needs to be
added to raise the plug elevation in the relic channel. All stream problem areas are localized and the
overall condition of the project streams on site are stable. Remedial action repair work was completed
in December 2018.
4.2 Wetlands
No wetland problems areas were noted during the Year 4 monitoring period. Wetland hydrology and
vegetation represent typical conditions of a site in Year 4 post construction monitoring. If any
wetland problem areas are identified in the future, they will be documented and mapped on the CCPV
(Figure 3) as part of the annual monitoring report. The Best Site wetland restoration areas are
performing as designed and are on track to meeting wetland success criteria.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 15

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
4.3 Vegetation
Two vegetation problems were identified during the Year 4 monitoring period. These vegetation
problem areas are documented and mapped on the CCPV (Figure 3) as part of the annual monitoring
report. The poor growth and low stem density areas reported in MY3 along UTI and UT3 were
replanted in January 2018. Vegetation problem area 1 (VPA1) is an area where the invasive species
mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) are present along UTI and
Wetland 1. This area is approximately a tenth of an acre in size, and is well vegetated with native
trees and native herbaceous cover. RES plans to continue treat the invasive species in this area.
Vegetation problem area 2 (VPA2) is a low stem density area at the top of UT8. This area was
replanted in December 2018.
5 YEAR 4 MONITORING CONDITIONS (MY4)
The Best Site Year 4 Monitoring activities were completed October 2018. All Year 4 monitoring data
is present below and in the appendices. Morphological stream data was not collected in MY4 per the
Approved Mitigation Plan.
5.1 Year 4 Monitoring Data Collection
5.1.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological stream data was not collected in MY4 per the Approved Mitigation Plan. It will be
collected and reported again in MY5 and MY7.
5.1.2 Vegetation
The Year 4 monitoring (MY4) vegetation survey was completed in October 2018 and resulted in an
average of 753 planted stems per acre, well above the interim survival density of 260 stems per acre
at the end of Year 5 monitoring. The average stems per vegetation plot was 19 planted stems. The
minimum planted stem per acre was 243 and the maximum was 1,255. Vegetation Plot 2 fell one tree
below the interim success criteria. This area is dominated by blackberry bushes and was replanted in
January 2018 but not all the replanted stems in the plot survived. Volunteers were noted in a few
vegetation plots on the site and were recorded within the CVS-EEP Data entry tool. The average
planted stem height was 7 feet. Vegetation summary data tables can be found in Tables 9a -c and
vegetation plot photos in Figure 4.
5.1.3 Photo Documentation
Permanent photo point locations have been established at cross sections, vegetation plots, stream
crossings, and stream structures by RES staff. Any additional problem areas or areas of concern will
also be documented with a digital photograph during monitoring activities. Stream digital
photographs can be found in Figure 5 and 7 and Figures 4 and 6 for vegetation photos.
5.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Six sets of manual and auto -logging crest gauges were installed on the site, one along UT1, UT2,
UT3, UT4, UT6, and one along UT8. The auto logging crest gauges were installed within the channel
and will continuously record flow conditions at an hourly interval. Five of five crest gauges recorded
bankfull events during the Year 4 monitoring period (Table 13; Figure 8). All crest gauges with a
bankfull standard have met the success criteria. Crest Gauge 4 is located on a headwater valley
restoration reach and it's success criteria is 30 days of continuous flow. This year's correction factor
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 16

Best Stream and Wetland Restoration • USGS HUC 03030007
Year 4 Monitoring Report • Duplin County, North Carolina • January 2019
was used to calculate the flow days in the monitoring years it was not reported. MY1 recorded 190
days of consecutive flow, MY2 had 288 days of consecutive flow, MY3 had 200 days of consecutive
flow and MY4 recorded 282 consecutive days of flow.
5.1.5 Wetland Hydrology
A total of twelve wetland hydrology gauges are installed at the Best Site, nine in areas of wetland
restoration and three as reference gauges in existing on-site wetland. Nine of the nine wetland
restoration gauges achieved the success criteria by remaining continuously within the 12 inches of the
soil surface for at least nine percent of the growing season. Groundwater gauge data indicate the
hydroperiods being responsive to rainfall events. Rainfall data reported by CRONOS station
Williamsdale Field Lab indicated rainfall was below average during the months of February, March,
August, and October. All three reference gauges met the nine percent success criteria with. Wetland
gauge and rainfall data is presented in Appendix E.
6 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open -Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
DDMSwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological
Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange (2013). The Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Final
Mitigation Plan. North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh, NC.
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina Geological
Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.
Johnson PA. 2006. Assessing stream channel stability at bridges in physiographic regions.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Report Number
FHWA-HRT-05-072.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.S. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Stream Restoration Design Handbook (NEH
654), USDA
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water Quality
Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome/html (June 2005).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and F.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
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.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 17

Appendix A
Project Background History and Maps
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project/DMS Project # 95353
Mitigation Credits
Strewn
RiparianWetland Non-riparianWetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type R
KF R
RE R RE
Totals 6,237 3.976 5.12
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach ID
Approved Mitigation Plan
StationingLocation (LF)
Approach
Existing (PI, PII etc.)
Footage/Acreage
Restoration
or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Mitigation Plan Restoration Footage
or Acreage
Mitigation Ratio SMUs/
gWMUs
UTI
0+47 to 18+00
1,551 PI
R
1,723
1:1.0
1,723
UTI
18+00 to 21+03
303 Preservation & BE
RE
303
l :5.0
61
UT2
2+30 to 30+30
2,552 PI
It
2,770
1 : 1.0
2,770
UT2
30+30 to 33+39
309 Preservation & BE
RE 1
309
1 :5.0
62
UT3
0+00 to 8+42
1,458 EII
RE
812
1 :2.5
325
UT3
14+58 to 15+22
64 Preservation & BE
RE
64
1 :5.0
13
UT4
5+63 to 11+03
534 HV Restoration
R
510
1 : 1.0
510
UT4
11+03 to 17+58
655 Preservation & BE
RE
655
l :5.0
131
UT5
0+00 to 40+86
4,086 Preservation & BE
RE
4,043
l :5.0
809
UT6
0+62 to 6+00
538 EI
RE
538
1 :1.5
359
UT7
0+44 to 32+27
3,183 Preservation & BE
RE
3,183
1 :5.0
637
UT8
0+75 to 9+00
825 EI
RE
825
1 :1.5
550
UT8
9+00 to 12+13
313 Preservation & BE
RE
313
1 :5.0
63
UT9
0+64 to 11+71
1,171 Preservation & BE
RE
1,171
1 : 5.0
234
UT 10
3+37 to 11+05
768 Preservation & BE
RE
768
1 :5.0
154
Muddy Creek
0+35 to 92+49
9,214 Preservation & BE
RE
9,073
l :5.0
1,815
Wetland 1
---
3.66 Restoration
RE
3.66
1 : 1.0
3.66
Wetland 2
---
0.29 Restoration
RE
0.29
1 : 1.0
0.29
Wetland 3A
---
0.58 Restoration
RE
0.58
1 :1.0
0.58
Wetland 3B
---
0.59 Restoration
RE
0.59
1:1.0
0.59
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
(acres) (acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
4,493
5.12
Headwater Valley
510
Enhancement I
1,363
Enhancement II
812
Creation
Preservation
19,882
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Dements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR= Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed, Swale; LS= Level Spreader; NI =Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Note: Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalw g. For Monitoring Year 3 forward, credits were updated to match the Approved Mitgation Plan stream centerlines per the April 3, 2017 Credit Release Meeting.

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Activity and Repotting History
Best Stream and Wettand Restoration Project 1 DMS Project 995353
Activity or Repots
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
'Mitigation Plan
NA
Oct -13
Final Design -- Construction Plans
NA
Noy -14
Construction Completed
S ep-13
Niav-15
Site Planting Completed
May -15
Mav-15
Baseline -Monitoring Docwnent (Year O'ionitoring — baseline)
Jul -15
Oct -15
Year l Monitoring
Dec -15
Mar -16
Year 2 Supplemental Replant Repair Work
Apr -16
Year 2 `Monitoring
Nov -16
Jan -1"
fear 3 Monitoring
Nor -1'
Feb -IS
Year 4 Supplemental Planting
Jan -1S
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -IS
Jan -19
Year 4 Supplemental Planting and Repair Work
-
Dec -1S
Year 5 Monitoring
fear 6 Monitoring
Year 7 'Monitoring

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 3. Proiect Contacts
Project Contacts Table
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project /DMS
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
O Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
ose h Wri ht
Planting Contractor
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
David Godley
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
O Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wri ht
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
Full Delivery Provider
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Manager:
Brad Breslow
Monitoring Performers
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
[Project Manager:
Prian Hockett, PLS

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 4. Project Information Summary
Project Information
Project Name
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
County
Duplin
Project Area acres
142.7
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
34054'44.011"N 77044'57.344"W
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Outer Coastal Plain
7Uroject
River Basin
Cape Fear
SGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030007
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030007060010
DWQ Sub -basin
03-06-22
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,928 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
Impervious Area
6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Woody wetlands, emergent herbaceous wetlands, cultivated crops,
evergreen forest
Reach Summary Information (As -Built Conditions)
Parameters
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT5
UT6
Length of reach (linear feet)
2,036
3,103
876
1,140
4,043
538
Valley Classification
X
X
X
X
X
X
Drainage area (acres)
41
146
56
82
380
79
NCDWQ stream identification score
32.50
31.50
33.00
33.75
36.75
30.50
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
N/A
C Sw
N/A
N/A
C Sw
N/A
Morphological Description (stream type)
G5c
G5c
E5
G5c/E5
C5
E5
Evolutionary trend
Stage II
Stage II
Stage VI
Stage II/VI
Stage I
Stage II
GoA
AuB
MkA
MCC
MCC
MCC
MkA
NbA
Underlying mapped soils
NbB
MkA
MkA
MkA
NbB
NbB
RaA
NbA
NbB
NbB
NbB
well; mod.
well;
well;
well;
Drainage class
well;
well; poorly
poorly
poorly
poorly
well
poorly
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Not hydric
Slope
0.66%
0.44%
0.93%
0.42%
0.40%
0.12%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AE (high
N/A
risk
pasture,
mixed
mixed
mixed
Native vegetation community
cultivated
cultivated
pasture
hardwood
hardwoo
hardwood
forest
d forest
forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive
vegetation
0
0
5
5
<40
<25

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Reach Summary Information continued
Parameters
UT7
UT8
UT9
UT10
Muddy Creek
Length of reach linear feet
3,183
1,078
1,107
768
9,214
Valley Classification
X
X
X
X
X
Drainage area acres
387
56
36
306
2930
NCDWQ stream identification score
38.50
30.50
32.00
34.00
43.25
NCDWQ Water Quality
Hydric with Hydric
Inclusions
Source of Hydrology
Runoff/Groundwater
Discharge
Runoff/Groundwater
Dischar e
Runoff, Flooding,
Groundwater Dischar e
Runoff, Flooding,
Groundwater Discharge
C Sw
N/A
N/A
C Sw
C Sw
Classification
Forested
Cultivated
Cultivated
Cultivated
Percent composition of
exotic invasive
Morphological Description (stream
0
0
0
C5
F5
E5
C5
E5
type)
Evolutionary trend
Stage I
Stage 11
Stage VI
Stage VI
Stage VI
MCC
MCC
MCC
MCC
MCC
Underlying mapped soils
MkA
NbA
MkA
MkA
MkA
NbB
NbB
Drainage class
well; poorly
well
well; poorly
well; poorly
well; poorly
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Hydric
Sloe
0.40%
0.29%
0.80%
0.40%
0.11%
FEMA classification
AE (high
N/A
AE (high risk)
AE (high risk)
AE (high risk)
risk
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
Native vegetation community
hardwood
cultivated
hardwood
hardwood
hardwood
forest
forest
forest
forest
Percent composition of exotic
<40
<5
<15
<20
<45
invasive vegetation
Wetland Summary Information (As -Built Conditions)
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3A
Wetland 3B
Size of Wetland (acres)
3.77
0.31
0.58
0.59
Wetland Type (non-
in
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Rains, Goldston
Noboco, Autyville, Marvyn,
Gritney
Marvyn, Gritney, Muckalee
loam
Marvyn, Gritney, Muckalee
loam
Drainage class
Poorly
Mod. Well, Poorly
Poorly, Well
Poorly, Well
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Hydric with Hydric
Inclusions
Hydric with Hydric
Inclusions
Hydric with Hydric
Inclusions
Source of Hydrology
Runoff/Groundwater
Discharge
Runoff/Groundwater
Dischar e
Runoff, Flooding,
Groundwater Dischar e
Runoff, Flooding,
Groundwater Discharge
Hydrologic Impairment
Grazing Cattle and Incised
Channel
Incised Channel
Ditched
Ditched
Native vegetation
community
Forested
Cultivated
Cultivated
Cultivated
Percent composition of
exotic invasive
0
0
0
0

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Resolved
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2012-01384
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 13-0865
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr. Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal
Area Management Act (LAMA)
No
NA
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
EEP Floodplain Requirements
Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
NA
N/A

a0
d
Cry
FLYING W 3
0
/mac Y
B�ueberrY Z a
Ch rch en �
Best Stream and
A Wetland Mitigation Site
,Oei\
E
mlm
Figure 1 Date: 9/15/2015
wE Project Vicinity Map Drawn by: BSH rQ
0.75 1.5 Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ■ `._..':___- S
iiW!!Siia Duplin County, North Carolina
Miles
© Airports
CO gem
NC Highway
9 y
a'i
The Best Stream and Wetland Site is located in Duplin County approximately two miles east of
= w
Beulaville, NC (Figure 1). To access the downstream end of the Site from the town of Beulaville, travel
State Roads
0.6 miles east on NC HWY 24, take a right onto Lyman Road (SR 1801), and continue 1.6 miles
- Streams
southeast to the crossing with Muddy Creek. Reaches UT7, UT8, UT9, UT10 and the lower end of
Muddy Creek may all be accessed from Lyman Road. Reaches UT5 and UT6 are located just south of
OL Waterbody
NC HWY 24, approximately 1.9 miles east of Beulaville. The upstream portion of the site may be
Best Site Easement
accessed from two locations. Reaches UT1, UT2 and Muddy Creek are located to the south of NC
Q5 Aviation Zone
HWY 24, opposite of the intersection of NC HWY 24 and Penny Road (SR 1720), approximately 2.8
-Mile
—,o
miles east of Beulaville. To access reaches UT3, UT4 and Muddy Creek, travel 3.2 miles east on NC
H U C 03030007060010
`6
HWY 24 from Beulaville to Edwards Road (SR 1835), continue south for approximately 1.0 mile, turn
right onto Put Lane, and follow the road down to Reaches UT3 and UT4.
Figure 1 Date: 9/15/2015
wE Project Vicinity Map Drawn by: BSH rQ
0.75 1.5 Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Site ■ `._..':___- S
iiW!!Siia Duplin County, North Carolina
Miles

S
-135
r J ;� - 7 o•,. `.�•�,�• t :� `fig r, 'f: �� � ��.
J
1 •�
Legend
Muddy Creek Drainage Area
Q Drainage Areas i
Proposed Easement �� `k '•�
Proposed Streams
Beulavill'e'and- Potters. Hill USGSTopographic Quadrangles
Figure 2.
USGS Map
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site r s
0 1,500 3.000 6.000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
17
09
0-6sq mj ; :
r Muddy Creek Drainage Area
4.58 square miles
MI
*
'r
� .` ifs
r Tti_ ^- _ _ � ,
�1.i
��'•,._'
S
-135
r J ;� - 7 o•,. `.�•�,�• t :� `fig r, 'f: �� � ��.
J
1 •�
Legend
Muddy Creek Drainage Area
Q Drainage Areas i
Proposed Easement �� `k '•�
Proposed Streams
Beulavill'e'and- Potters. Hill USGSTopographic Quadrangles
Figure 2.
USGS Map
Best Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site r s
0 1,500 3.000 6.000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
Figure 4. Vegetation Problem Photos
Figure 5. Stream Problem Photos
Figure 6. Vegetation Problem Photos

,. � R� •Az_----_ - ` _ - - .- tip
UT5
ul
: .s UT5•.
UT8
W2
Y1' iT
yyry �•� r ��... i .
. or
AT
a,
v
W3B
UT3
1�• ® �adCEJ
W3A UT1 & W1
Muddy Creek
fires
N
W E
i
0 350 700
Feet
1 inch = 700 feet
Figure 3
Best Stream and Wetland
Restoration Project
Current Conditions
Overview Map
MY4 2018
Date: 1/22/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Review by: xxxxx
Legend
O Conservation Easement
® Wetland Restoration Area
Vegetation Plots
BE & Preservation
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Headwater Valley Rest.
P1 Restoration
-- No Credit
— Stream Structures
Wetland Hydroperiod
® >9%
Vegetation Condition Assessment
w Target Community
d Present Mar inal Absent
v
p, Absent No Fill
N
d
> Present
N
W
C

res
a
d _=.e.•T _ - 1 :T� - 0 75 150
:.•- . ..-• .1 �' `':.- Feet
1 inch = 150 feet
- �.:' Figure 3b
^�, Best Stream and Wetland
s Restoration Project
Current Conditions
= Plan View
MY4 2018
SPA1 Minor Bank Date: 1/22/2019 Drawn by: RTM
Erosion Left Bank
>< Review by: xxxxx
4.
�.
19
17 :•� '; .^.. Legend
O Conservation Easement
Y,. Vegetation Plot
UT4 ,�
>260 stems/acre
Crossing
UT3 = <260 stems/acre
and Ditch Repair
December 2018 S_" _. .. :: - ® Wetland Restoration Areas
Crest Gauge/RG Locations
`;. Cross Sections
— BE & Preservation
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
..�:k .�,,.....7 ;. : y . Nom• '
,s eadwater Valley Rest.
P1 Restoration
No Credit
4- 4 '.:,' ' — MY4 SPA
Vegetation Condition Assessment
.. i" L' � a;� . � �;. . �'- '' •, w ' �s• y Target Community
Present Mar final Absent
.'r �,.a u , 1 �. •k.. q r.. 1A,� i': .;�.�,. `fit � ;� - _ '�
,��. ;'�. oy.: �:.�•-.. r:�'� •.a ?i[ -'_. nw?.:,. w- p, Absent No Fill
`W � - d , � . : �i, •'��'.•.''�; 'r. =,r;,� �,.�, , �P ' � �' Present

res .20.E
_ r 'uu UT6;• UT5 „
s;
Mil,,.r
k f~ .t W E
0 200 400
�'' • +rte .I •• moi}" Feet
- d 1 inch = 400 feet
Figure 3c
;, Best Stream and Wetland
Restoration Project
_ Current Conditions
Plan View
AlL
MY4 2018
Date: 1/22/2019 Drawn by: RTM
l yo' 22'. _ Review by: xxxxx
Yv UT5
::.,.. Legend
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
= >260 stems/acre
= <260 stems/acre
Cross Sections
BE & Preservation
— Enhancement
r�.v. .z.` = „ ti..
Enhancement II
UT7 Headwater Valley Rest.
P1 Restoration
Crest Gauge/RG Locations
�4 Muddy Creek
23
UT4
Vegetation Condition Assessment
w Target Community
d Present Mar inal Absent
v
p, Absent No Fill
rn
0) Present

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT1
Assessed Lenath 2036
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
oured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
[2Ucnder.u'
likelyDoes NOTinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
19
19
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 19 19
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
19
19
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT2
Assessed Lenath 3103
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
ored/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
[2Ucnduer.u'
likelyDoes NOTinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
23
23
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 23 23
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
23
23
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
23
23
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT3
Assessed Length 876
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
ured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
dercut
[3a
likely. Does 40Tinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ss Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill-
1
1
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 1 1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT4
Assessed Length 1140
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
1
20
99%
0
20
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
[Ucnder.u,ured/Eroding
likelyDoes 140Tinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ss wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
20
99 %
0
0
99%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill-
6
6
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 6 6
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
6
6
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT6
Assessed Length 538
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
ured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
dercut
[3a
likely. Does 40Tinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ss Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill-
3
3
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 3 3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
ReachlD UT8
Assessed Length 765
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
[Ucnder.u,ured/Eroding
likelyDoes 140Tinclude undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovdin habitat.
ss wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill-
3
3
100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 3 3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 24.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Red Lines
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels.
0.1 acres
Orange Lines
1
0.24
1.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Total
1
0.24
1.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
Orange Lines
0
0.00
0.0°%
Cumulative Total
1
0.24
1.0%
Easement Acreage 37.6
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Cross Hatch
1
0.13
0.3%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Red Lines
0
7000
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

Table 7. Stream Problem Areas
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95353
Feature Issue
Station # / Range
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Minor Bank Erosion
UT 4 - Sta. 10+20
Rain events and high flows; seems
SPA 1
Invasives present
UT1 - Sta. 0+00 (0.13
stable, continue to monitor
VPA 1
ac)
Rain events and high flow; added
Ponding on Road
UT 4 - Sta. 8+47 to 8+67
fill to road to reduce ponding in
SPA 2
Dec 2018
Low Stem Density
UT8
Rain events and high flows; added
N/A
Relic Channel and Plug
UT4- Sta. 8+75 to 11+03
fill material to raise plugs in relic
SPA 3
Subsidence
channel in Dec 2018
Table 8. Vegetation Problem Areas
71M
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Project # 95353
Feature Category
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause; Repair
Photo Number
Invasives present in easement due
Invasives present
UT1 - Sta. 0+00 (0.13
to offsite seed source; remove
VPA 1
ac)
invasive by cutting down and
applying herbicide
Low Soil Fertility, compaction,
Low Stem Density
UT8
and competition with native
N/A
weeds; Re -plant area with gallon
containerized trees in Dec 2018

a
� t

7
~
:Id!�a�

Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 14
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 18

2018E

Figure 5. MY4 Stream Problem Area Photos
SPA — Minor Bank Erosion UT 4 @ Sta.
10+10 to 10+30
SPA3 — Relic Channel Floodplain Plug
Subsidence UT4 @ Sta. 8+75 to 11+03*
*Repair work completed in December 2018
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
SPA2 — Ponding on Road UT 4 @ Sta. 8+47 to
8+67*

Figure 6. Vegetation Problem Area Photos
VPA 1 — Invasives Present UTI @ Sta. 0+00
(0.13ac)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Planted Stem Count Summary
Table 9b. Planted Species Totals
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Stem
Height (ft)
1
445
81
526
Yes
10.1
2
243
364
607
No
7.2
3
405
0
405
Yes
7.5
4
1133
0
1133
Yes
10.0
5
567
0
567
Yes
6.2
6
1174
121
1295
Yes
6.5
7
647
0
647
Yes
5.5
8
688
0
688
Yes
9.5
9
1174
0
1174
Yes
7.5
10
809
0
809
Yes
8.4
11
1255
0
1255
Yes
3.8
12
1133
81
1214
Yes
7.6
13
1012
0
1012
Yes
3.6
14
1012
0
1012
Yes
10.2
15
607
0
607
Yes
7.4
16
647
2428
3076
Yes
7.8
17
486
0
486
Yes
3.9
18
364
0
364
Yes
2.3
19
405
0
445
Yes
2.4
20
850
0
850
Yes
12.6
21
931
0
931
Yes
9.2
22
647
202
850
Yes
4.2
23
688
0
688
Yes
3.1
Project Avg
753
143
897
Yes
7.0

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9b. CVS Vegetation Plot Data
Best Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Ran Medric
Date Prepared
10/25/2018 0:00
database name
Best MY4 CVS Entrytool.mdb
database location
C.\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES Projects\North
Carolina\Best Site\Monitoring\Monitoring
Data\MY4 2018\Ve etation Data
computer name
ID4VOKGH2
file s ize
175464704
ESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a
summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each
year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
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 lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species
(planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and
ALL Stems by Plot and spp missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMAR
Project Code 95353
project Name Best Stream/Wetland Restoration Site
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
le ngth(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Re quire d Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 23

Annendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Best
Current Plot Data (MY42018)
Current Plot Data (MY42018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
95353-01-0015
Common Name Species TypePnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0016
PnoLS P -all T
95353-01-0017
Pnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0018
Pnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0001
95353-01-0002
95353-01-0003
95353-01-0004
95353-01-0005
95353-01-0006
95353-01-0007
95353-01-0008
95353-01-0009
95353-01-0010
95353-01-0011
95353-01-0012
95353-01-0013
Acer rubrum
95353-01-0014
Scientific Name
Common Name Species Type Pnol-S P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
410
1
Baccharis
baccharis Shrub
Baccharis
baccharis Shrub
6
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
20
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
15
15
18
15
15
15
20
20
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3 2
2
2
1
1 1
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon Tree
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
1
21
21
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
9
91
6
6
81
3
31
3
11
1
11
21
2
2
35
1
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum Tree
1
1
9
72
1
4
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
2
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
5
5
6
6
6
15
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
Nyssa sylvatica
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
5
5
5
5
5
8
3
3
3
5
5
5
61
6
6
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine Tree
1
19
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
12 12
12
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
103
98
98
13
13
13
1
1
1
5
5
5
8 8
8
3 3
3
14
14
14
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
6
6 10
10
10
6
6 6
Prunus serotina
black cherry Tree
1
3
Quercus
oak Tree
Quercus
oak Tree
1
1
1
2
21
2
7
7
7
11
11
11
1 1
1
48
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak Tree
9
9
9
4
41
4
21
2
2
1
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak Tree
4
41
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
31
3
3
6
6
6
15
15
15
31 3
3
1 1
11
3
3
31
7
71
7
1
1
1
8
8
8 7
7
7
10
10 10
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
37
39
45
45
49
59
59
59
72
1 1
1
7 7
7
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5 1
1
1
1
1
Quercus myrtifolia
myrtle oak Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
2
2
2
3
3
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
8
8
1
1
1
17
19
19
25
16
16
16
12
12
14
15
15
15
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
11
2
21
2
3
3
3
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
8
8
81
31
3
31
71
7
7
3 3
3
5 5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
11
11
1 11
11
1
1
1 1
Rhus copallinum
Iflameleaf sumac shrub
7
Salix
willow Shrub or Tree
Salix
willow Shrub or Tree
5
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress Tree
15 15 15
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
76
76
76
75
75
77
1 1
1
5
5
5
51
5
5
25
25
25
3
3
3 4
4
4
7
71 7
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
g23253
2
2
2
4
4
4
Stem count
15 15 15
16
16
76
12
12
12
Stem count
11
11
13
6
6
15
10
10
10
28
28
28
14
141
14
29
291
32
16 161
16
17 17
17
291
29
29
201
20
20
31
31
31
28
28
30 25
25
25
2SI
251 25
1
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1
0.02
1
1
0.02
1
1
0.02
1
1
0.02
1
1
1
0.02L1741
1
1
02
1
0.02
1
0.02
23
1
0.02
23
1
0.02
23
1
0.02
23
1
0.02
size (ACRES)
1
0.02
0.02
1
0.02
1
Species count
5
5
7
4
4
5
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
64
0.02
6
5 5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
6
6
8
8
8 6
6
6
5
5 S
41
Stems per ACRE
445
445
526
243
243
607
405
405
405
1133
1133
1133
567
567
56712951
51
71
6471 6471
6471
6881 6881
6881
11741
11741
11741
8091
8091
8091
12551
12551
1255
11331
11331 1214
10121
10121 10121
10121
1012 1012
Best
Current Plot Data (MY42018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
95353-01-0015
Common Name Species TypePnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0016
PnoLS P -all T
95353-01-0017
Pnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0018
Pnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0019
Pnol-S P -all T
95353-01-0020
PnoLS P -all T
95353-01-0021
PnoLS P -all T
95353-01-0022
PnoLS P -all T
95353-01-0023
PnoLS P -all IT
MY4(2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3(2017)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY2(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
25
26
410
Baccharis
baccharis Shrub
6
Betula nigra
river birch Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
20
20
20
15
15
18
15
15
15
20
20
20
26
26
26
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon Tree
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
1
21
21
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
21
9
9
91
6
6
81
3
31
3
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum Tree
35
1
4
1
51
1
111
72
1
4
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree Tree
5
5
6
6
6
15
6
6
23
81
81
16
25
25
25
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
8
3
3
3
5
5
5
61
6
6
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine Tree
1
1
19
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
12 12
12
6
6
6
5
5
5
103
103
103
98
98
100
97
97
97
84
84
84
113
113
113
Prunus serotina
black cherry Tree
1
3
Quercus
oak Tree
1
1
1
2
21
2
7
7
7
11
11
11
48
48
48
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak Tree
9
9
9
4
41
4
21
2
2
1
5
5
51
6
6
6
1
1
1
103
103
103
108
108
108
97
97
971
88
88
88
119
119
119
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
5
5
5
8 8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
37
37
39
45
45
49
59
59
59
72
721
72
86
86
86
Quercus myrtifolia
myrtle oak Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
8
8
8
17
17
17
19
19
25
16
16
16
12
12
14
15
15
15
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
11
2
21
2
3
3
3
2
21
2
2
2
2
1
8
8
8
52
521
521
56
56
56
661
66
66
66
66
68
90
90
90
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac shrub
7
Salix
willow Shrub or Tree
5
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress Tree
15 15 15
1
1
1
5
76
76
76
75
75
77
78
78
78
79
79
79
98
98
98
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
g23253
2
2
2
4
4
4
Stem count
15 15 15
16
16
76
12
12
12
9
9
9;11
11
11;2;1
21
21
23
161
16
21
17
17
17
429
429
510
436
436
1025
448
448
543
448
448
464
630
630
630
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23
23
23
23
23
size (ACRES)
0.02 1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
0.57
0.57
0.57
1
0.57
0.57
Species countl
11 11
11
41
41
61
41
41
41
31
31
31
61
61
61
31 31
31
71
71
71
51
51
71
31
31
31
1211
121
121
191
121
121
141
121
121
131
11
11
11
Stemsp--ACRFI
6071 6071
6071
6471
6471
30761
4861
4861
4861
3641
3641
3641
4451
4451
4451
8501 8501
8501
9311
9311
9311
6471
6471
8501
6881
6881
6881
7551
7551
8971
7671
7671
18031
7881
7881
9551
7881
7881
8161
11081
11081 1108

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
(Not required for MY4)

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. Rainfall Summary
Table 15a. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Summary
2018 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Figure 8. Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Figure 9. Headwater Valley Restoration Flow Chart

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Crest Gauge
Stream Reach
Number of Bankfull
Events
Date of Highest
Bankfull+Dent
Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft.)
Photo
Number
Crest Gauge 1
UT -1
7
9/15/2018
0.95
1
Crest Gauge 2
UT -2
21
9/15/2018
2.91
2
Crest Gauge 3
UT -3
12
9/15/2018
3.03
3
Crest Gauge 5
UT -6
1
1/12/2018
1.25
4
Crest Gauge 6
UT -8
16
9/15/2018
3
5
Crest Gauge
Stream Reach
Number of Consecutive Flow Days
Total Number of FlowDays
Crest Gauge 4
1 UT -4 (HWV)
282
2.54
282
5.00
Table 14. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
30 Percent 70 Percent
Williamsdale Station
Precipitation
January
4.33
3.32
5.03
4.24
February
3.23
2.14
3.87
1.16
March
4.50
3.23
5.32
4.00
April
3.16
1.70
3.85
6.26
May
3.68
2.69
4.34
9.40
June
4.49
3.11
5.34
5.44
July
6.06
4.16
7.22
6.46
August
5.40
3.12
6.56
2.54
September
5.00
2.04
6.07
18.29
October
3.21
1.62
3.92
1.06
November
2.89
1.83
3.49
3.19
December
3.24
2.14
3.88
6.83
Total
49.19
31.10
58.89
68.87

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 15a. 2018 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2018 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 17 -Mar through 14 -Nov, 242 days)
Success Criterion 9% = 22 Consecutive Days
Gauge
Consecutive
Cumulative
Occurrences
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Percent of
Days growing
Season
AW1
57
23
145 60
4
AW2
46
19
120 50
8
AW3
105
43
189 78
4
AW4
106
44
188 78
5
AW5
58
24
190 79
6
AW6
47
19
139 57
7
AW7
31
13
99 41
10
AW8
46
19
133 55
10
AW9
36
15
125 51
11
RAW1
57
23
166 69
4
RAW2
34
14
94 39
11
RAW3
48
20
146 60
8
Table 15b. Wetland Hydrology Gauge Summary
<5%
5-8%
>9%
MYl - 2015
MY2 - 2016
MY3 - 2017
MY4 - 2018
Consecutive
Consecutive
Consecutive
Consecutive
Gauge
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
Days
Percent of
growing
Season
AWl
49
20
53
22
53
22
57
23
AW2
18
7
18
7
49
20
46
19
AW3
88
36
99
41
118
49
105
43
AW4
88
36
97
40
117
48
106
44
AW5
51
21
103
43
120
49
58
24
AW6
28
12
42
17
55
23
47
19
AW7
22
9
17
7
13
5
31
13
AW8
24
10
32
13
16
7
46
19
AW9
24
10
18
7
14
6
36
15
RAW]
52
21
34
14
71
29
57
23
RAW2
46
19
10
4
24
10
34
14
RAW3
29
12
32
13
45
19
48
20
<5%
5-8%
>9%

2018 Best Site Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW1
20
10
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
-30
-40
J
F M A M J J A 5 0
Months
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAIbert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall - AW1
C
5.0 p
ro
w
CL
4.00
m
L-
0-
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
N 0

0
10
-30
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW2
Growing season
II ��
JA I
-40
J
F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
Months
Albert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall AW2
10.0
m
8.0
7-0
A
4.0
L
3.0
2.0
1.0
W

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW3
20
10.0
Growing Season
9.0
10
8.0
CD
7.0
0
V
�
=
N
6.0m
C
0
v
ca
=—
>
_
0
-1❑
&0
W+r
---------
-------------- —
----- ---
-- ------
_
ca
CL
4.0
-20
11
11
11
q
3.0
11
11
II
11
2.0
-30
11
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
1.0
-44
1
1
1
0.0
J
F M A M J J A 5 0
N D
Months
Albert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall AW3

Appendix E. Hydrology Data

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
20
10
Vl
0
V
G
C
0
eC
7
d -10
w
L
cc
3
�a
7 -20
0
0
-30
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW5
Growing Season
-40
J F M A M J J A 5 0 N D
Months
�Alhert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall AW 5 Ground Elevation
us]
9
8
7
3
2
1
0

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW6
20
—T 10
Growing Season
� g
10
8
��,
�� r"1
7
v
0
C
O
6
C
[]
d
-10
5
p
---------
-------------- -- ---- - -1--_-_- ------
CL
C
�
-20
O
C7
3
2
-30
1
-40A
0
J
F M A M J J A 5 O N
D
Months
t A Bert Ellis Airport daily Rainfall AWS

Appendix E. Hydrology Data

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW8
20
1❑
Growing Season
�9
10
S
0!
7
0
V
U
=
6
v
=
c
-10
5
p
CIL
3
a
a
V
d
-20
0
3
C7
2
-30
1
-400
F ren A M J J A 5 Q
N Q
Months
Albert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall -AW8

20
10
N
41
0
U
G
:.r
0
-10
W
c�
V
e
m -20
0
rL^
V
-30
-40
J
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge AW9
10
E
s
`i
F m A m i J A 5 0 N D
Months
�Nbert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall AW9
3
V-
I 1
X

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge REFAW1
20 10.0
Growing Season
9.0
10
&0
d
7.0
U 0
=
=
(n
6.0 CD
A
5.0 p
-10
W+�
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
L
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — —
m
.r
ate+
3
[
i[i
CL
4. Q 'G7i
C
a
= -20
0
{
3.0
i
z.o
-3Q
i 1.0
-400.0
J F M A M J J A S D N ❑
Months
Albert Ellis Airport Daily Rainfall -REF AW1

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018 Best Groundwater Gauge REFAW2
20 10.0
Growing Season
9.0
10
8.0
►�
0
7.0
U
c
�
6.0
c
°
tp
a
5.0 p
-10
L_ _ _ - -- -
.--. — _ _ — — — _ _
r�.r
aa+
f3
3
4.0Z
m
C
d
= -20
°
r0n
V
3.0
2.0
-30
1.0
-40 O.o
F M J A S ❑ N D
J M
Months
�Abert 0lis Airport Daily Rainfall REF AW2

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
2018
Best Groundwater Gauge REFAW3
20
10.0
Growing Season
9.0
10
8.0
+�
7.0
s
ti
0
=
f!
6.0
G
a
5.0 p
-10
W
----------4
€�
---
— — — —
--- — — -- ------
1CL
3
4,0 j
!r
€s
i f
-20
3.0
0
2.0
`
-30
€i
[f
€_
1.0
-40
,_
:
0.0
J
F M A
h4 J J A 5 Q N
D
Months
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAlbert His Airport Daily Rainfall REF AWL]

Appendix E — Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Figure 8. Crest Gauge Verification Photos
Crest Gauge 1 Reading 0.95'
Crest Gauge 2 Reading 2.91 '
Crest Gauge 3 Reading 3.03'
Crest Gauge 6 Reading 3.0'
Crest Gauge 5 Reading 1.25' (3/28/2018)

Figure 9. Headwater Valley Restoration Flow Chart
6
.-.
4
42
r.
2
0
Zw-
cv
0
w
-2
�
co
~
-4
o�
a
d
-6
� U
-8
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
MY4 2018 Best Crest Gauge ACG4
iii, Fii ii 1 11111 1
-10
J
F M A M J J A S Q
Months
Rainfall — ACG4
10.0
9.0
8.0
To
6.0
5.0
a
4.0 p
CL
3.0
L
a
2.0
1.0
0.0